Vietnam or Thailand ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
Updated: May 25, 2025
Up. Up. Up. Against this view the Purvapakshin raises an objection. What has been said as to Scripture intimating that a beneficial result is realised through the meditations by themselves is untenable.
The Purvapakshin says he must not, since the performance of works implies the activity of the outer and inner organs of action, and since calmness and so on are of an exactly opposite nature. This view the Sutra sets aside. Up.
The next Sutra refers to the reasons set forth for his view by the Purvapakshin and refutes them. Where the cognising person is one only, repetition of the same matter under a new heading can only be explained as meaning difference of object enjoined, and hence separation of the two vidyas. The next Sutra refutes the argument founded on a rite enjoined in the Mundaka.
But, as the Purvapakshin has pointed out, even if the highest Self voluntarily enters into bodies, it cannot escape connexion with the imperfections which depend on the essential nature of those bodies. Not so, we reply.
The question here arises whether those organs are seven only, or eleven the doubt on this point being due to the conflicting nature of scriptural texts. The Purvapakshin maintains the former alternative. On what grounds? Up. Up. The 'highest going' here means the moving towards Release, all movement within the body having come to an end.
All this being thus, your interpretation would involve that the proper meaning of the two words 'that' and 'thou' which refer to one thing would have to be abandoned, and both words would have to be taken in an implied sense only. Against this the Purvapakshin now may argue as follows.
Here terminates the adhikarana of 'what is equal. On account of connexion, thus elsewhere also. Here the Purvapakshin holds that both these names are to be comprehended in each of the two meditations 'On account of connexion, i.e. on account of the object of meditation, i.e.
They now proceed to elucidate the question as to the origination of the instruments of the individual soul, viz. the organs and the vital breath. The point here to be decided is whether the organs are effects as the individual soul is an effect, or as ether and the other elements are. As the soul is, thus the pranas are, the Purvapakshin maintains.
The Purvapakshin holds that these two meditations are different since the latter text mentions qualities such as Brahman being the lord of all which are not mentioned in the former; the objects of meditation thus being different, the meditations themselves are different. This the Sutra negatives.
The Purvapakshin affirms this, on the ground that as the mantras and works are mentioned in the immediate neighbourhood of the meditations the idea of their forming parts of the latter naturally presents itself. We therefore take them to be parts of the meditations, and hence hold that those mantras are to be included in all meditations.
Word Of The Day
Others Looking