pratiṣedhāditi cenna śārīrāt ..4.2.12..

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 463 из 723Следующая ⇒

SUTRA IV. 2. 12.

प्रतिषेधादिति चेन्न शारीरात्॥४.२.१२॥

pratiṣedhāditi cenna śārīrāt ..4.2.12..

… Pratishedhat, on account of the denial…. Iti, so. Chet, if. … Na, not. … Sharirat, because departure from the embodied soul (is prohibited).

12. If it be said that he who knows does not go out of the body, on account of the prohibition, then we reply, that if is not so; because the prohibition refers to the going out of the Pranas from the embodied soul. — 512.

COMMENTARY

It is objected that the Vidvan does not go out of the body, because there is a prohibition to that effect in Brihadaranyaka (IV., 4. 6):

But as to the man who does not desire, who. not desiring, free from desires, is satisfied in his desires, or desires the Self only, his vital spirits do not depart elsewhere, being like Brahman, he goes to Brahman.

The above verse shows, by using the word Tasya Pranah, that the life-breath of him, who knows, does not go out. To this objection we reply that the above sentence does not say, «Na tasya Prana dehat utkramanti», (his life-breaths do not go out of the body (Dehat), but it really means, «Na tasya Prana sharirat utkramanti» (his life-breaths do not go out from the soul). (Sharirat means soul, or that which has a body). Therefore, the prohibition is to the going out from the soul, and not from the body. For, as a matter of fact, it is observed, that the life-breaths of the Vidvan even go out of the body.

SUTRA IV. 2. 13.

स्पष्टो ह्येकेषाम्॥४.२.१३॥

spaṣṭo hyekeṣām ..4.2.13..

…. Spashtah, clear, .. Hi, because. … Ekesham, of some (Sakhas).

13. And because it is clear according to some recensions. — 513.

COMMENTARY

There is no scope for controversy in this matter. Because «Na tasya Prana utkramanti» is the reading in the Kanva recension of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad; but in another recension, namely, those of the Madhyandinas, the reading is «Na tasmat Prana utkramanti», «from him the life-breaths do not go out» The word Tasmat, meaning «from him», is a very clear term, and leaves no room for doubt that the prohibition applies to the going out of the Prana from the soul. The Brihadaranyaka text means that the Pranas of the wise man never leave the soul. It does not mean that they never leave the body. The next sentence «Atraiva samavaliyante» means «these Pranas merge indeed in that». The word Atra, «in that», means in Brahman, the object of attainment.

Objection: In the previous section of the Brihadaranyaka in the dialogue between Artabhaga and Yajnavalkya, there is also a statement that the Pranas do not pass out of the body. The objector says: How do you explain that statement? We give the passage here below (Br., Up., IIL 2, 10 and 11):

«Yajnavalkya», he said, «everything is the food of death. What then is the deity to whom death is food?»

«Fire (Agni) is death, and that is the food of water. Death is conquered again by water».

«Yajnavalkya», he said, «when such a person (a sage) dies, do the vital breaths (Pranas) move out of him or not?» «No», replied Yajnavalkya, «they are gathered up in him, he swells, he is inflated, and thus inflated, the dead lies at rest».

The above is the Kanva reading. The sense of the question is this. Artabhaga asked Yajnavalkya, «When this Clod-knowing man dies, then do his life-breaths (Pranas) go out from this (Asmat), namely, from this body». In other words, does he go out along with the Pranas from the coronal artery, from the crown of the head, or does he remain in the body so long as it does not fall off and then goes away?» To this question, Yajnavalkya replies, that the Pranas of such a sage remain in the body, so long as the body does not fall off. Such a sage remains in the body, and the body swells up, being inflated with the external air. Thus inflated, the dead man lies at rest. Thus experiencing the Prarabdha fruit in the shape of the swollen, inflated body, the sage leaves such body to his sons and kinsmen and gets Mukti at once. This is the difficult text propounded for solution to those who maintain the view that the Pranas of the sage always leave the body.

The reply to this is that the above text mentions a very exceptional case, the case of those ardent, impatient, lovers of God. Such persons do not pass through the above process of death, the Lord Hari himself stands near them at the time of death, and freeing them from the body, takes them at once with him to his home. The Pranas, of course, in such a case do not follow the soul. They remain behind in the body.

The followers of Advaitam explain the above text in the following way: This non-departure of the Prana from the body refers to the case of those who worship the unqualified Brahman.

But that explanation is wrong. Because there are no such words in the above text to indicate that it applies to those who meditate on unqualified Brahman. Secondly, we have already demonstrated that unqualified Brahman is a fiction.

The whole argument of the Advaitins is thus given by Shankaracharya in his commentary (IV., 2. 3):

«The assertion that also the soul of him who knows Brahman departs from the body, because the denial states the soul (not the body) to be the point of departure, cannot be upheld. For, we observe that in the sacred text of some there is a clear denial of a departure, the starting-point of which is the body. The text meant at first records the question asked by Artabhaga; When this man dies, do the vital spirits depart from him or not?» then embraces the alternative of non-departure, in the words, ‘No’, replied Yajnavalkya; thereupon anticipating the objection that a man cannot be dead as long as his vital spirits have not departed, teaches the resolution of the Pranas in the body «in that very same place they are merged; and finally, in confirmation thereof, remarks, «he swells, he is inflated, inflated the dead man lies. This last clause states that swelling, etc., affect the subject under discussion, viz., that from which the departure takes place (the Tasmat of the former clause) which subject is, in this last clause, referred to by means of the word, ‘He’. Now swelling and so on can belong to the body only, not to the embodied soul. And owing to its equality thereto also the passages ‘from him the vital spirits do not depart; in that very same place they are resolved’ have to be taken as decking a departure starting from the body, although the chief subject of the passage is the embodied soul. This may be done by the embodied soul and the body being viewed as non-different. In this way we have to explain the passage if read with the fifth case».

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Тактические действия в защите

История Олимпийских игр

История развития права интеллектуальной собственности