Vietnam or Thailand ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
Updated: May 25, 2025
What the Purvapakshin said as to everything being known through the cognition of the one individual soul, since all individual souls are of the same type this also cannot be upheld; for as long as there is a knowledge of the soul only and not also of the world of non-sentient things, there is no knowledge of everything.
Once suffices, the Purvapakshin maintains; for as the text enjoins nothing more than knowing there is no authority for a repetition of the act.
The Purvapakshin maintains the former view; for, he says, the Vajasaneyaka uses the injunctive form 'he is to rinse, while there is no injunctive form referring to the meditation; and what the text says in praise of the breath thus not being allowed to remain naked may be taken as a mere glorification of the act of rinsing.
The Purvapakshin maintains the former view, on the ground that the word 'five-people, qualified by the word 'five, intimates the twenty-five categories of the Sankhyas.
Here finishes the adhikarana of 'what is known everywhere. Well then, if the highest Self is not an enjoyer, we must conclude that wherever fruition is referred to, the embodied soul only is meant! Of this view the next adhikarana disposes. The individual soul, the Purvapakshin maintains; for all enjoyment presupposes works, and works belong to the individual soul only.
The individual Self, the Purvapakshin maintains. This view is set aside by the Sutra. The Ruler within, who is spoken of in the clauses marked in the text by the terms 'with respect of the gods, 'with respect of the worlds, &c., is the highest Self free from all evil, Narayana.
How then can it be said that the Vedanta-texts merely mean to give instruction as to the true nature of the active individual soul, and that hence all meditation is merely subservient to sacrificial works? There is a difference, the Purvapakshin rejoins.
With regard to the former the question arises whether it springs up only immediately subsequent to the good works which are the means to bring it about; or, indefinitely, either subsequent to such works or at some later time. The Purvapakshin holds the former view. Gi. This view the Sutra disposes of.
We here understand that of the meditation enjoined by the clause 'let him form this thought' the object is the being said to consist of mind, to have breath for its body, &c. A doubt, however, arises whether the being possessing these attributes be the individual soul or the highest Self. The Purvapakshin maintains the former alternative.
And Smriti texts convey the same view, as e.g. 'it in reality is of the nature of absolutely spotless intelligence. A second Purvapakshin denies the truth of this view. If, he says, we assume that the Self's essential nature consists either in mere knowledge or in its being a knowing subject, it follows that as the Self is omnipresent there must be consciousness at all places and at all times.
Word Of The Day
Others Looking