of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, IV, 5,

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 118 из 723Следующая ⇒

Adhikarana VI — The Atman

of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, IV, 5,

is Brahman and not Jivatman

Vishaya: In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad there is a dialogue between Yajnavalkya and his wife Maitreya. In the course of his teaching, after premising, «verily a husband is not dear, that you may love the husband, but that you may love the Self, therefore the husband is dear, etc., etc»., he goes on to say, «Verily everything is not dear, that you may love everything, but that you may love the Self, therefore everything is dear. Verily, the Self is to be seen, to be heard, to be perceived, to be marked, O Maitreyi! When the Self has been seen, hoard, perceived and known, then all this is known».

Doubt: What is this Self which is to be seen, to be heard, etc.? Is this the Jivatman, taught by the Sankhyas, or is it the Supreme Self?

Purvapaksha: The Purvapakshin says it refers to the Sankhya Jivatman or Purusha, because the opening clause begins with the statement about husband, wife, etc., and love for thorn. In the middle also there is reference to Jivatman, when it is said, «When he has departed, there is no more consciousness». This also shows that the reference is to a transmigrating soul, subject to birth and death, love and hatred. So also the concluding statement «how should he know the knower’», also shows that the individual soul, who is the knower, is the topic of discussion. Of course, there is this statement also contained here, that by knowing the Self, everything else is known, and so one can say that the Self referred to here cannot be the individual soul, but the Supreme Self; for the knowledge of the individual soul does not lead to the knowledge of all. But this is no valid objection, for all created objects are for the sake of enjoyer, namely, the individual soul. Therefore, when the soul is known we can figuratively say, that all objects are known, for they exist for the sake of the soul. Similarly, the objection is raised that this passage teaches also that the knowledge of the Self leads to immortality, therefore, the Self should be the Supreme Self and not the individual soul or Jiva, for getting a knowledge of the Jiva is not a cause of immortality. This objection is also not valid, because according to Sankhya system also immortality is obtained through the cognition of the true nature of the Jiva viewed as free from all erroneous imputation to itself of the attributes of non-sentient matter. Thus all other characteristic marks, in the above passage of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, by which one may think that they refer to Brahman, should be explained away. Therefore, says the Purvapakshin, the discussion here is about the Jivatman, and not the Supreme Lord, and Prakriti, ruled and guided by the Jiva, is the cause of the universe.

Siddhanta: This objection the author removes by the following Sutra:

To understand this Adhikarana we give below the entire passage of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, fourth Adhyaya, fifth Brahmana.

1. Yajnavalkya had two wives, Maitreyi and Katyayani. Of these, Maitreyi was conversant with Brahman, but Katyayani possessed such knowledge only as women possess. And Yajnavalkya, when he wished to get ready for another state of life (when he wished to give up the state of a householder, and retire into the forest).

2. said, «Maitreyi, verily I am going away from this, my house (into the forest). Forsooth let me make a settlement between thee and that Katyayani».

3. Maitreyi said: «My Lord, if this whole earth, full of wealth, belonged to me, tell me should I be immortal by it, or not?»

«No», replied Yajnavalkya, «like the life of rich people will be thy life. But there is no hope of immortality by wealth».

4. And Maitreyi stud, «What should I do with that by which I do not become immortal? What my Lord knowest (of immortality), tell that clearly to me».

5. Yajnavalkya replied: ‘Thou who art truly dear to me, thou hast increased what is dear (to me in thee). Therefore, if you like. Lady, I will explain it to thee, and mark well what I say».

6. And he said: ‘Verily, a husband is not dear, that you may love the husband; but that you may love the Self, therefore a husband is dear’.

‘Verily, sons are not dear, that you may love the sons; but that you may love the Self, therefore sons are dear’.

‘Verily, a wife is not dear, that you may love the wife: but that you may love the Self, therefore a wife is dear’.

‘Verily, wealth is not dear, that you may love wealth; but that you may love the Self, therefore wealth is dear’.

‘Verily, cattle are not dear, that you may love the cattle; but that you may love the Self, therefore cattle are dear’.

‘Verily, the Brahman-class is not dear that you may love the Brahman-class; but that you may love the Self, therefore Brahman-class is dear’.

‘Verily, the Kshatriya-class is not dear, that you may love the Kshatriya-class; but that you may love the Self, therefore the Kshatriya-class is dear’.

‘Verily, the worlds are not dear, that you may love the worlds; but that you may love the Self, therefore the worlds are dear».

‘Verily, the Devas are not dear, that you may love the Devas; but that you may love the Self, therefore the Devas are dear’.

‘Verily, the Vedas are not dear, that you may love the Vedas; but that you may love the Self, therefore the Vedas are dear’.

‘Verily, creatures are not dear, that you may love the creatures; but that you may ove the Self, therefore the creatures are dear’.

‘Verily, everything is not dear, that you may love everything; bat that you may love everything, therefore everything is dear’.

‘Verily, the Self is to be Been, to be heard, to be perceived, to be marked, O Maitreya When the Self has been seen, heard, perceived, and known, then all this is known’.

7. ‘Whosoever looks for the Brahman-class elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by the Brahman-class. Whosoever looks for the Kshatriya-class elsewhere than in the Self was abandoned by the Kshatriya-class. Whosoever looks for the worlds elsewhere than in the Self was abandoned by the worlds. Whosoever looks for the Devas elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by the Devas. Whosoever looks for the Vedas elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by the Vedas. Whosoever looks for the creatures elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by the creatures. Whosoever looks for anything elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by anything’.

This Brahman-class, this Kshatriya-class, these worlds, these Devas, these Vedas, all these beings, this everything, all is that Self.

8. ‘Now as the sounds of a drum, when beaten, cannot be seized externally (by themselves), but the sound is seized, when the drum is seized, or the beater of the drum.

9. ‘And as the sounds of a conch-shell, when blown, cannot be seized externally (by themselves), but the sound is seized, when the shell is seized, or the blower of the shell’.

10. ‘And as the sounds of a flute, when played cannot be seized (externally by them-, selves), but the sound is seized, when the flute is seized, or the player of the flute’.

11. ‘As clouds of smoke proceed by themselves out of lighted fire kindled with damp-fuel, thus verily, O Maitreyi, has been breathed forth from this Great Being what we have as Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, Atharvangirasas, Itihasa, Purana, Vidya, the Upanishads, Shlokas, Sutras, Anuvyakhyanas, Vyakhyanas, what is sacrificed, what is poured out, food and drink, this world and the other worlds, and all creatures. From Him alone all these were breathed forth’.

12. ‘As all waters find their centre in the sea, all touches in the skin, all tastes in the tongue, all smells in the nose, all colours in the eye, all sounds in the ear, all percepts in the mind, all knowledge in the heart, all actions in the hand, all pleasures in the organ of generation, all evacuations in the arms, all movements in the feet, and all the Vedas in the speech’.

13. ‘As a mass of salt has neither inside nor outside, but is altogether a mass of taste, thus has indeed that Self neither inside nor outside, but is altogether a mass of knowledge; and having risen from out the elements, vanishes again in them. When he has departed, there is no more knowledge (name), I say, O Maitreyi’, thus spoke Yajnavalkya.

14. Then Maitreyi said: ‘Here, Sir, thou hast landed me in utter bewilderment. Indeed I do not understand him’.

But he replied: ‘Maitreyi, I say nothing that is bewildering. Verily, beloved, that (Self is imperishable, and of an indestructible nature’.

15. ‘For when there is as it were duality, then one sees the other, one smells the other, one tastes the other, one salutes the other, one hears the other, one perceives the other, one touches the other, one knows the other; but when Self is only all this, how should he see another, how should he smell another, how should he taste another, how should he salute another, how should he hear another, how should he touch another, how should he know another? That Self is to be described by No, no! He is incomprehensible, for he cannot be comprehended, he is imperishable, for he cannot perish, he is unattached, for he does not attach himself; unfettered, he does not suffer, he does not fail. How, O Beloved, should he know the knower? Thus O Maitreya! Thou hast been instructed. Thus far goes immortality’. Having said so, Yajnavalkya went away (into the forest).

Познавательные статьи:



Психологические особенности спортивного соревнования

Приготовление дезинфицирующих растворов различной концентрации

Занятость населения и рынок труда

Социальный статус семьи и её типология