utkramiṣyata evaṃ bhāvādityauḍulomiḥ ..1.4.21..

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 120 из 723Следующая ⇒

SUTRA I. 4. 21.

उत्क्रमिष्यत एवं भावादित्यौडुलोमिः॥१.४.२१॥

utkramiṣyata evaṃ bhāvādityauḍulomiḥ ..1.4.21..

… Utkramishyatah, of the person about to depart, or about to approach the Supreme at the time of Mukti. … Evam, thus, http Bhavat, condition; ‘Evam-bhavat’ means «on account of this condition» namely, «becoming beloved of all, etc». Iti, thus, … Audulomih, the sage Audulomi.

21. In the opinion of Audulomi, the human soul at the moment of entering into Release acquires all these conditions of the Purusha. — 129.

COMMENTARY

The word Utkramishyatah means «of a person who has become perfect in his practice and is about to attain the Supreme Self». Such a wise man acquires this state (Evam-bhava) namely, becoming dear to all, etc. Therefore, the word Atman used in the initial clause of this passage also means the Supreme Self, and not the Jiva-self. This is the opinion of the sage Audulomi. The moaning of the initial passage is this: «Verily, a husband is not dear that you may love the husband, but that you may love the Self, therefore the husband is dear». This means, if one thinks that for the sake of the husband or for one’s own sake one should become dear to him, this will not make the husband dear to her, but when you love the Self, namely the Supreme Self, then your husband will love you, for through the Supreme Self flows all the love of the other selfs, and the grace of the Supreme Self on his devotee makes every other inferior self love that being.

Note: The Lord blesses his devotees by saying, «Let every object be pleasant to my devotees and useful to them. Let my devotees having me in their heart, as their ruler and guide, be pleasant to all objects useful to them». This blessing of the Lord is the object which the devotees always desire to attain. Husband, etc., appear dear to the devotees not because they are husband, etc., but because they are the abode of the Supreme beloved, the Lord. And thus thinking, every object becomes helpful to the devotees, and becomes pleasant to them.

The word ‘Kama’ in the above sentences means «wish or will» and the phrase «Atmanastu Kamaya» means «to fulfil the will of the Supreme Self, to carry out the will of the Supreme Self». The force of the Dative case in the word Kamaya is that indicated in the Panini Sutra, 2. 3. 14 S. 581. When the Lord is worshipped with perfect devotion, He causes every object to become pleasant and dear to His devotee. As we read in the Bhagavata: «One who is humble, calm, quiet in mind, and controlled in conduct, and who is content in his heart, finds the whole universe full of joy, for such have I made it for him».

Or, the passage may mean, to please the husband or to carry out the will of the husband, it, does not make the husband dear, but to carry out the will of the Supreme Self, the husband is made dear. As we read in the Bhagavata: «Who is a greater object of endearment than He by relation to whom everything else becomes dear, whether it be Prana or Buddhi, Manas, or body, wife or children, riches or wealth, etc?» In this interpretation, the word Kama must be taken to mean ‘happiness’. That is to say, it is the joy of the Supreme Self that makes the husband dear, etc., not the husband by his own power. Therefore, by connection with whom, by the mere will of whom, or by relation with whom, oven an unpleasant thing becomes pleasant, that Hari alone should be searched, he alone should be questioned, He alone should be seen, for he is the Most Sweet Moreover, the word Atman used here cannot mean the Jiva, for this reason also, that the primary significance of this word is the Supreme Lord. It is only in a secondary sense, that Atman means Jivatman. Therefore, in the initial clause «Atmanastu Kamaya», in the middle clause «Atmava are Drashtavyah», the word Atman means the Supreme Self in both places. we cannot take the word Atman to mean Jiva in the initial clause, and to mean the Supreme Atman in this middle clause. For if you wore to do so, we should be going against the well-known maxim of interpretation by which one and the same word, occurring in a single passage, must be interpreted in the same way. Otherwise, there would arise the fallacy called Vakya-bheda or splitting of the sentence. Even if we were to split the sentence, and interpret the word Atman in the initial clause as meaning the Jivatman, and in this middle clause as meaning the Paramatman, we do not gain anything thereby. For the Atman is taught as the object to be seen, and as the means to lead to immortality, which the Atman of the initial passage could not evidently be, and the command that Atman must be seen would be useless with regard to the Jivatman. Audulomi is evidently a Nirguna Atmavadin and his opinion is that the sole nature of Atman is intelligence only. As we find from Sutra, IV., 4. 6. How can, then, we ascribe to this Audulomi the view that in the state of Release, the soul manifests divine powers? For, according to him, in the state of Release, the soul is pure intelligence only, and has no other powers. Moreover, Audulomi is not against Bhakti and in order to remove Avidya» and to manifest the true nature of the Self, namely, the pure intelligence, Audulomi does countenance the view that Hari must be worshipped. For in a subsequent Sutra, his view has been set forth, that Bhakti is necessary in order to get Brahma-knowledge. That Sutra is ‘Arttvijyam iti Audulomih tasmai hi parikriyate’ (III., 4. 45). Thus Bhakti alone is the accomplishes of all desires and nothing else.

Let it be so. But the explanation is open to another objection.

In the same passage we find in verse 12:

«As a lump of salt, when thrown into the water, becomes dissolved into water and cannot be taken out again, but whenever we taste water it is salt, thus verily, O Maitreyi, does this Great Being, endless, unlimited, consisting of nothing but knowledge, rise out from these elements, and vanish again into them. When he has departed there is no more consciousness, I say, O Maitreyi».

How do you reconcile this statement with your theory that the whole passage of this dialogue between Yajnavalkya and Maitreyi refers to the Supreme Self and not the Jiva? Evidently, the above extract can refer only to the Jiva, for it states that when a man dies, there is no consciousness left. Therefore, it is more appropriate to explain the whole of this dialogue as having reference to the Jivatman of the Sankhya philosophy, than to the Paramatman of the Vedanta.

The doubt thus raised is answered in the next Sutra.

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Организация работы процедурного кабинета

Области применения синхронных машин

Оптимизация по Винеру и Калману