Vietnam or Thailand ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
Updated: May 1, 2025
Ushasta thereupon, being not fully enlightened, since causality with regard to breathing may in a sense be attributed to the individual soul also, again asks a question, in reply to which Yajnavalkya clearly indicates Brahman, 'Thou mayest not see the seer of sight, &c., i.e. thou must not think that my previous speech has named as the causal agent of breathing the individual soul, which is the causal agent with regard to those activities which depend on the sense-organs, viz. seeing, hearing, thinking, and knowing; for in the state of deep sleep, swoon, and so on, the soul possesses no such power.
The idea of the injunction of the entire meditation again is suggested in the second section only, 'Therefore a Brahmana, after he has done with learning, is to wish to stand by real strength. The object of meditation being thus ascertained to be one, there must be effected a mutual interchange of the ideas of Ushasta and Kahola, i.e.
And further there is a difference of interrogators; the first question being asked by Ushasta, the second by Kahola. There is no difference of vidya because both questions and answers have one subject-matter, and because the one word that possesses enjoining power proves the connexion of the two sections. Both answers again refer to the one Brahman, viewed as the Self of all.
The text alluded to is the one telling how Ushasta Kakrayana, who was well versed in the knowledge of Brahman, once, when in great distress, ate unlawful food. We therefore conclude that what the text says as to all food being lawful for him who knows prana, can refer only to occasions when food of any kind must be eaten in order to preserve life. And on account of non-sublation.
Brahman having, on the ground of being the cause of all life, been ascertained by Ushasta as the inner Self of all, and different from the individual soul, Kahola renews the question, thinking that the inner Self of all must be viewed as different from the soul, on the ground of some special attribute which cannot possibly belong to the soul; and Yajnavalkya divining his thought thereon declares that the inner Self possesses an attribute which cannot possibly belong to the soul, viz. being in essential opposition to all imperfection.
Ushasta's conception of Brahman being the cause of all life must be entertained by the interrogating Kahola also; and vice versa the conception of Kahola as to Brahman being beyond hunger, thirst, and so on, must be entertained by Ushasta also. This interchange being made, the difference of Brahman, the inner Self of all, from the individual soul is determined by both sections.
Word Of The Day
Others Looking