The whole of the above text of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad refers to the Supreme Self only); for (thus alone a satisfactory) connection of its sentences (can be made out). — 127.

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 119 из 723Следующая ⇒

SUTRA I. 4. 19.

वाक्यान्वयात्॥१.४.१९॥

vākyānvayāt ..1.4.19..

Vakya, (of the) sentence. …, Anvayat, because of the connection or the connected meaning.

19. (The whole of the above text of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad refers to the Supreme Self only); for (thus alone a satisfactory) connection of its sentences (can be made out). — 127.

COMMENTARY

In this portion of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad the Supreme Self alone has been taught and not the Jiva of the Shandilya system. Why do we say so? Because by studying all that has gone before that passage, we find that it is related to Brahman, which is the subject-matter of the whole text In fact, the whole sentence «the Self must be seen, etc»., can give a proper meaning, when so considered, in connection with all that precedes or follows it.

This construction of the sentence is further strengthened by the opinion of the three sages Ashmarathya, Audulomi, and Kasakritsna.

SUTRA I. 4. 20.

प्रतिज्ञासिद्धेर्लिङ्गमाश्मरथ्यः॥१.४.२०॥

pratijñāsiddherliṅgamāśmarathyaḥ ..1.4.20..

… Pratijna, promise, enunciation, .. Siddheh, of fulfilment … Lingam, mark. … Ashmarathyah, the sago Ashmarathya.

20. (The word Atman in the sentence ‘Atman must be seen, etc.’, must mean the Supreme Self), because thus alone the promise made (that by the knowledge of the Self everything is known) can be fulfilled. This fulfilment of the Pratijna is the mark that the word Atman here refers to the Supreme Self. This is the opinion of Ashmarathya. — 128.

COMMENTARY

Yajnavalkya laid down the proposition «by the knowledge of the Self everything is known». This proposition itself shows that the Self means the Supreme Self, and cannot mean the Jiva-self. Therefore, when he says in a subsequent passage «the Atman must be seen, heard, etc»., he could not have meant the Jivatman, but the Paramatman, for the knowledge of the Jivatman cannot lead to the knowledge of all; while, on the other hand, the knowledge of the Supreme Atman, who is the supreme cause, leads to the knowledge of everything else, because it is its effect Nor can you say, the knowledge of every effect is merely a figurative speech, and the knowledge of the human soul may figuratively be said to lead to the knowledge of the universe. For had it been a figurative speech merely, and having promised that by the knowledge of the Self everything is known, then Yajnavalkya could not have said, «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, etc». for this shows that he meant by the word Self, the Supreme Self, the abode of the Brahman, Kshatriya and other classes, and support of the whole universe, and who is in every form. This is impossible in the case of any self other than the Supreme, for He alone is the support of the universe. Moreover, in verse 11, he says, «As clouds of smoke proceed by themselves, out of lighted fire kindled with damp fuel; thus verily, O Maitreya, has been breathed forth from this Great Being what we have as Rig Veda, Yajur Vedas, Sama Veda, Atharvangirasas, etc». This also shows that the Self about which Yajnavalkya is speaking is the Supreme Self, and not the Jiva-self, because he is represented as the Creator of the whole universe, and all that it contains; and it is not possible in the case of the Jiva-self, who is in the bondage of Karma. Nor a compassionate and true teacher like Yajnavalkya would teach his wife Maitreyi the truth about the Jiva-self and not about Brahman, when she had proved her worthiness for it, by discarding all wealth and desiring only release. The knowledge of the Jiva-self never leads to immortality, while there are numerous texts which declare that the knowledge of the Supreme Self alone is the cause of Mukti. Therefore, the Atman of the passage under discussion is the Supreme Self.

Now an objection is raised again: The Atman of this passage must be the Jiva because dearness, etc., is attributed to it, in the shape of husband, wife, etc., and that it is the transmigrating self and therefore, Jiva. Nor is it proper to explain Atman as Paramatman, merely because thereby the promise (of knowing everything by knowing one) is fulfilled. Nor is it right to say that the worshipper of God becomes the creator of all and the support of all: and gives satisfaction to all Nor is it right to quote the following verse of the Padma Purana in support of your position: «He who has worshipped Hari has given satisfaction to the whole universe. All animals feel delighted there, all plants and living things get satisfaction thereby». This is merely a poetical exaggeration, for the worshipper of Hari does not show forth the power of satisfying the whole universe. We do not find it as a fact.

To this objection the author replies:

Познавательные статьи:



Организация работы процедурного кабинета

Статус республик в составе РФ

Понятие финансов, их функции и особенности

Сущность демографической политии