Vietnam or Thailand ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
Updated: May 25, 2025
Does this passage mean that the soul having approached the highest light assumes a new body, to be brought about then, as e.g. the body of a deva; or that it only manifests its own natural character? The text must be understood in the former sense, the Purvapakshin holds. For otherwise the scriptural texts referring to Release would declare what is of no advantage to man.
The Purvapakshin holds the latter view on the ground that as 'Muni-hood' and 'learning' both connote knowledge, the word 'Muni' merely refers back to the knowledge already enjoined in the phrase 'after he has done with learning. For the text presents no word of injunctive force with regard to Muni-hood. This view the Sutra controverts.
The Purvapakshin had said that as in the state of deep sleep the manifestation of the true nature of the soul is seen in no way to benefit man, Scripture, if declaring that Release consists in a manifestation of the true nature of the soul, would clearly teach something likewise not beneficial to man; and that hence the 'accomplishment in its own form' must mean the soul's entering on such a new condition of existence as would be a cause of pleasure, viz. the condition of a deva or the like.
The doubt here arises whether he who knows departs by this hundred and first artery in the top of the head, while those who do not know depart by way of the other arteries; or whether there is no definite rule on this point. There is no definite rule, the Purvapakshin holds.
The vidyas are separate, the Purvapakshin maintains; for the fact that the same matter is, without difference, imparted for a second time, and moreover stands under a different heading both which circumstances necessarily attend the text's being met with in different sakhas proves the difference of the two meditations. Up.
The Purvapakshin advocates the latter view; for, he says, there is no authority for holding that the qualities which characterise one meditation are characteristic of other meditations also; and such negative attributes as are mentioned in those two texts do not as positive qualities such as bliss do contribute to the apprehension of the true nature of Brahman.
The Self should be seen, should be heard, should be reflected on, should be meditated upon. Up. Here the doubt arises whether the Self enjoined in this passage as the object of seeing, &c., be the soul as held by the Sankhyas, or the Supreme Lord, all-knowing, capable of realising all his purposes, and so on. The Purvapakshin upholds the former alternative.
There being no special restrictive rule, the Purvapakshin holds that the Devotee may carry it on either sitting or lying down or standing or walking. This view the Sutra sets aside. Meditation is to be carried on by the Devotee in a sitting posture, since in that posture only the needful concentration of mind can be reached. Standing and walking demand effort, and lying down is conducive to sleep.
The further question arises whether the putting off of all good and evil deeds takes place only at the time when the soul leaves the body, or also after it has departed and is on its journey to the world of Brahman. The Purvapakshin holds the latter view, for, he says, the texts declare both.
Here terminates the adhikarana of 'difference. On account of non-difference of everything, those elsewhere. Up. V, 1; Bri. Up. This, the Purvapakshin maintains, constitutes a difference between the objects of meditation, and hence between the meditations themselves. This view the Sutra sets aside 'on account of non- difference of everything, those elsewhere. There is no difference of meditation.
Word Of The Day
Others Looking