The declaration is made only in reference to Shastra (the inner guide, by Indra) as by Vamadeva.

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 529 из 723Следующая ⇒

29. If it be said that Breath cannot be Vishnu, as the speaker declares himself to be breath, the objection is to be rejected as not valid, for in this context, the references to the Lord’s presence in the many embodied things are numerous.

According to the text “Breath indeed am I, O sage” (A. A. ii. 2.3), the speaker declaring himself to be breath it may be stated that Indra the speaker should be taken to be breath. But this view cannot be taken; for in the same passage, the text continues, “Breath thou art, Breath are all the beings,” and thus points to the relation with (pervasion of) the Lord in the plurality of bodies (things) for,

30. The declaration is made only in reference to Shastra (the inner guide, by Indra) as by Vamadeva.

‘Shastra’ means is the ruler within, the Lord Vishnu. The word Shastra is indeed so used in the Bhagavata passage, “The knowledge, the Shastra (guide), the final abode.”

The Padmapurana says, “Vishnu is declared by all the names of different things, for the reason that He rules all. There is no word whatever which names a thing without declaring Purushothama (the Lord of Lords). Like the declarations of Vamadeva “I was Manu and Surya, etc.,” Indra’s speech is to be understood.

31. If it be said that (by the word ‘Breath’ Brahman) is not meant, on account of the characteristic marls of the individual soul and the Chief of breaths (being apparently mentioned); we say ‘No’, on account of the three-foldness of devout meditation being taught, the same being taken up as the subject of this context; and an account of their fitness.

The characteristic marks of the individual soul are contained in the text, “so many thousands of days in the period of hundred years” (A. A. ii. 2. 4.); and those of the Chief of breaths are to be found in the passages describing the dispute between the breaths. Hence it may be argued that this breath cannot be identified with Vishnu. This argument is not valid, for (in the passage in question) the threefold form of devotion to Brahman within one’s self, out of self, and in everything, is meant to be taught and in the passage the same subject is distinctly taken up (for elucidation). He, having cut through the same limit, by this same route, has entered (Brahma’s heart) (A. A. ii. 2. 3.); He, (the four-faced saw the same perfect Brahman present everywhere’. (ib). ‘All this has been indeed said by Mahidasa of perfect wisdom, the son of Itara. (A. A. ii. 1. 8.)’

The Brahmanda Purana says, Vishnu who has produced the Pancharatra expounding the supremacy of Vishnu has himself appeared (in the world) under the name of Mahidasa, in consequence of the meritorious austerity practised by Itara. And the reason why persons vary in their eligibility for practising particular forms of meditation is detailed in the following smritis.

‘By some Hari is to be meditated upon as abiding everywhere; by some others as abiding in their heart; and by some others again (as an object) without themselves under the forms of Rama, Krishna, etc., (Brahma Purana).

Vishnu is to be sought in the (sacred) fire by those who are eligible to perform sacrifices, and other scriptural duties, and in their own heart by the sages given to meditation (by controlling their senses and vital airs), in the idols, by the unenlightened; and as all-pervading by those that have known the Lord (Brahma Purana).

End of the First Pada

***

Познавательные статьи:



Психологические особенности спортивного соревнования

Приготовление дезинфицирующих растворов различной концентрации

Занятость населения и рынок труда

Социальный статус семьи и её типология