prakṛtaitāvattvaṃ hi pratiṣedhati tato bravīti ca bhūyaḥ ..3.2.22..

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 305 из 723Следующая ⇒

SUTRA III. 2. 22.

प्रकृतैतावत्त्वं हि प्रतिषेधति ततो ब्रवीति च भूयः॥३.२.२२॥

prakṛtaitāvattvaṃ hi pratiṣedhati tato bravīti ca bhūyaḥ ..3.2.22..

Prakrita, previously stated, the same. …. Etavattvam, so-muchness, or the limitation of power (to the extent spoken of at first … Hi, because, … Pratishedhati, denies, … Tatah, than, that. .. Braviti, declares. Cha, and. … Bhuyah, more.

22. (The Shruti, Neti Neti) denies the previously mentioned limitation (only with regard to Brahman), for it declares (I Tim to he) more than that. — 341.

COMMENTARY

This Shruti (Neti, Neti) does not teach that. Brahman alone exists, and nothing else exists Hum it; and that. It is without any attributes and qualities. It only denies the so-muchness of Brahman, as was described in the preceding verses. It says that the material and immaterial is not the whole of Brahman. It is something more than that. It does not deny the existence of those forms mentioned in the previous verse, but it says «do not fall into the error of thinking that Brahman is so much only Neti, Neti — it is not so much only, it is not so much only». For after the negation of Neti, Neti (which might have been liable to the nihilistic interpretation of the Advaitins, had there been no further statement), the Shruti goes on to describe in positive terms, the further attributes of this Brahman — His name being the True of the true. [This phrase «the True among the true ones» — not only sets aside the nihilistic theory, but the Advaita also — for it asserts the existence of other true ones — real entities, than Brahman. The Jivas are not unreal shadows but true: Brahman being the True.]

The sense of the above teaching is this. The Shruti at first enumerates all forms of Brahman, such as the material and the immaterial, etc. But since Brahman is limitless in His Form, it declares Neti, Neti, He is not so much only, He is not so much only. The word Iti (Na+Iti=Neti, means here «end» — Neti means «this is not the end». The Neti is, therefore, equal to Iti+Na, «end not’ — the previously mentioned forms are not the end or limit of Brahman. For he is more than them — His name is True, He is the True of the true. The text itself clearly says so much: …

It is not so that this is the end. There is a Higher Form than this, its name is ‘the True of the true’.

Moreover, it must not he said that higher than these material and immaterial forms is the Form of Brahman called the True, etc., and that is the end. For it is not thus — Neti. The «True of the true» is no doubt higher than all Murta and Amurta forms, but even that is not the limit to the forms of Brahman. These are merely illustrative. The proper thing to say is that His Forms are illimitable and infinite. As an illustration, the text gives one of those Higher Forms and Names, by saying, «His name is the True of the true». The name here declares the form of Brahman. The first Satyam means the souls, the Jims; the Pranas always accompany the Jivas; and so Satya which means Prana, is a name of jiva. The Shruti, hence, explains the phrase Satyasya Satyam, by ‘…’ «The Pranas are the True, and he is the True of them». The word Prana is used for Pranin — the life fur the living self. The word Rupa in (he above verse (II., 3. 6) means attributes. This text establishes Brahman to be material (Prakrita), as well as immaterial (Aprakrita), and possessing infinite number of attributes. It does not deny the existence of every substance other than Brahman (for that is not the purport of this text). All forms whether Mutra or Amutra, material or immaterial, are Prakritic. The forms shown in the illustrations of saffron-coloured raiment, like yellow wool, like cochineal, etc., are to be understood as non-Prakritic — not consisting of Prakritic matter (Brahman’s forms are thus of both Prakatic and non-Prakritic matter, and yet there are forms above them all — Neti, Neti — for this is not all, this is not all).

The Jivas are called in the above Shruti Pranas: and are also designated Satyam, the True. The Jivas are called True, because they do not, like the elements, ether, etc., undergo modifications causing an alteration in their essential nature. In tins respect they are similar to Brahman; and so both the divas and Brahman are called True. But Brahman is the True of the True, because the Jivas undergo, in accordance with their Karmas, contractions and expansions of intelligence, but there is no such modification in Brahman.

Therefore, the Jiva is an eternal conscious entity (subject to contraction and expansion of intelligence, according to his deeds). The Supreme Self is a mine of infinite auspicious qualities, (and liable to no modifications whatever). Thus love (Bhakti) for Brahman becomes still more natural when we contemplate on the greatness of his attributes, and the insignificance of the Jiva.

Nor does this Brihadaranyaka Shruti deny form to Brahman. For if that was what the Shruti intended to teach, then it would not have taught the transcendental forms of Brahman as in II., 3. 6 (He is of the colour of a saffron-coloured raiment, a yellow fine wool, etc); and then deliberately demolish this teaching by saying «Brahman has no form». For no one in his right senses would say at first «Brahman has such and such form» and then say «He has no form — all that f said before is wrong». Moreover, the author of the Sutra also would have employed different words, had that been teaching of the Shruti. For, then instead of saying Etavattva — «the Shruti denies so-muchness only» — he would have said «Etad Rupam Pratishedhati» — «the Shruti denies this form of Brahman». The wording of the Sutra, therefore, also shows that the interpretation of the Shruti above given is the right one and consistent throughout, and more reasonable.

Познавательные статьи:



Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления

Рынок недвижимости. Сущность недвижимости

Решение задач с использованием генеалогического метода

История происхождения и развития детской игры