United States or Montenegro ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
To a different category belong those meditations which have a special object such as Prana, and a special result. The doubt here arises whether the meditations of the former class are all to be considered as identical, or as separate The Purvapakshin holds that they are all one; for, he says, they all have one and the same object of meditation, viz. Brahman.
A doubt here arises whether all these texts mean to give instruction as to one and the same road the first stage of which is light having to be followed by the soul of the wise man; or whether they describe different roads on any of which the soul may proceed. The Purvapakshin holds the latter view; for he says the roads described differ in nature and are independent one of the other.
The definitions given by the Purvapakshin 'a body is that which causes the enjoyment of the fruit of actions' &c. do not fulfil this requirement; for they do not take in such things as earth and the like which the texts declare to be the body of the Lord.
The doubt here presents itself whether the highest Person in this text be the so-called four-faced Brahma, the Lord of the mundane egg who represents the individual souls in their collective aspect, or the supreme Person who is the Lord of all. The Purvapakshin maintains the former view.
Is it possible, or not, to gain a knowledge of Brahman from the characteristic marks stated in this passage? It is not possible, the Purvapakshin contends.
The Purvapakshin maintains that it is not produced, since there is no scriptural statement to that effect. A scriptural statement may be expected with regard to what is possible; but what is impossible as e.g. the origination of a sky-flower or of Ether cannot possibly be taught by Scripture.
With regard to the latter meaning, however, a doubt arises, viz. whether the text means to say that he who aims at perfect knowledge is to assume all the ways of a child, as e.g. its wilful behaviour, or only its freedom from pride and the like. The former, the Purvapakshin maintains. This view the Sutra disposes of.
Up. The cases are not analogous, the Purvapakshin replies. For the king and the spy are fundamentally separate, and hence the king is agent by implication only. But in the case under discussion the soul is a part, and hence contributes to constitute the essential nature of, the highest Self; hence that highest Self itself enters and differentiates in the form of the soul.
Another Purvapakshin holds that this very concluding passage enjoins a further meditation on Vaisvanara in his collective aspect, in addition to the previously enjoined meditations on his limbs; for that passage states a separate result, 'he eats food in all worlds, &c. Nor does this destroy the unity of the whole section. Up.
The Purvapakshin maintains that as the text' they tell the stories' declares the special connexion of those stories with the so- called pariplava performance, they cannot be assumed to be mainly concerned with knowledge. This view the Sutra negatives, on the ground that not all stories of that kind are specially connected with the pariplava.
Word Of The Day