If it be said that there may be some one between Prana and the Akshara (Brahman) as between the previous members (elements), it is to be denied; for that is declared (by Shruti).

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 667 из 723Следующая ⇒

36. If it be said that there may be some one between Prana and the Akshara (Brahman) as between the previous members (elements), it is to be denied; for that is declared (by Shruti).

Just as in the series from Nama to Prana, there is one above another, so there may be one above Prana too, besides the Supreme Being; but this supposition is groundless; for authority has been furnished as to the absence of one (of the same order) above Prana, while no authority exists to show the absence likewise of one above the other members; on the other hand the existence of one above another is seen in the case of every other member of the series.

37. If it be objected that otherwise (i.e., there being none higher than Prana), he cannot be different from the Supreme Being, we reply the objection ii not valid; for (it is fit to narrow the denotation of ‘all’ in the Shruti) at taught by Scripture.

When it is stated that Prana is the foremost of all, it may seem that the separateness of Prana from the Supreme is not possible to maintain; but this is no difficulty; for the statement will be seen consistent if things are admitted as postulated by Scripture; and the Scriptural teaching here is that Prana is superior, (not absolutely to all, but) to all other souls and the Supreme Being is superior to Prana.

If it be said that there is none higher than Prana, it is to be denied; for,

38. (If it proper to hold that Satya, the Lord, it superior to Prana, (at it may be seen from) supplying the ellipsis, for they (Chandogas) have added to Satya a distinguishing element (particle) at in every other case.

That the superiority of the Lord is declared in the passage would become evident on supplying the question and answer as in the previous cases; for the Sakhins distinguish Satya from Prana thus: “But he indeed speaks of the Supreme Thing, who speaks of Satya”; (i.e., by using the adversative conjunction But they draw the distinction that he who speaks of Satya is really speaking of the Supreme Thing with greater truth than he who speaks of Prana) (Ch. VII. 16). Just as there is the use of distinguishing attributes and statements in other cases, (so also distinction is drawn in the Case of Satya by saying, “But he”, etc.). And this is said also in the Brihat Tantra: “The superiority over man of the gods remains the same even in heaven; and over them, of Prana, and over Prana, certainly that of Hari, the eternally blessed.”

Then an objection may be raised thus; not only Vishnu called Satya is above Prana, there are many others too; for after Satya, Kriti, Nishtha, Vignana and others are mentioned as different from one another. But this objection is not valid.

Познавательные статьи:



Алгоритмические операторы Matlab

Конструирование и порядок расчёта дорожной одежды

Исследования учёных: почему помогают молитвы?

Почему терпят неудачу многие предприниматели?