Vietnam or Thailand ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
Updated: June 22, 2025
Hence there is no contradiction between the individual and the highest Self the former of which is a viseshana of the latter standing to each other in the relation of part and whole, and their being at the same time of essentially different nature. This the Sutra declares 'not so is the highest, i.e. the highest Self is not of the same nature as the individual soul.
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 objection that knowledge or consciousness cannot be an attribute inseparably connected with the essential nature of the Self as there is no consciousness in deep sleep and similar states is taken up in the next Sutra. Since there may be manifestation of that which exists; as in the case of virile power and so on. The 'but' is meant to set the raised objection aside.
But if the Pradhana were the cause, the aggregate of sentient beings could not be known through it for sentient beings are not the effect of a non-sentient principle, and there would thus arise a contradiction. The next Sutra supplies a further reason. With reference to the 'Sat' the text says, 'Learn from me the true nature of sleep. Up.
Against this view the Sutra now declares itself as follows. The non- difference of the world from Brahman, the highest cause, follows from 'what begins with the word arambhana' which proves such non-difference; 'what begins with the word arambhana' means those clauses at the head of which that word is met with, viz. Up.
But if the powers of the released soul altogether depend on the Lord, it may happen that He, being independent in all his doings, may will the released soul to return into the Sawsara. Of this doubt the next Sutra disposes. Non-return, according to Scripture; non-return, according to Scripture.
One substance may indeed connect itself with several states, but the former of the two alternatives implies that Brahman itself constitutes the essential nature of non-sentient matter, and thus there is no escape from the objections already stated under Sutra 27.
The two Sutras II, 1, 8; 9 really form a complementary statement to what is proved in the present adhikarana; for their purport is to show also that things of different nature can stand to each other in the relation of cause and effect. And the Sutra II, 1, 7 has reference to what is contained in the previous adhikarana. Here terminates the adhikarana of 'designation of the other.
Herewith terminates the adhikarana of 'holding together. This view the Sutra negatives. Although both meditations are meditations on man, yet they are separate 'on account of the others not being recorded, i.e. on account of the qualities recorded in one sakha not being recorded in the other. For the Taittiriyaka mentions the three libations, while the Chandogya does not, and so on.
This Brahman may also be represented as the abode of the arteries; as proved e.g. by Mahanar. Up. Gi. Of the mind also and the other organs of the individual soul the highest Self is strictly the abode; for it is the abode of everything. The next Sutra supplies a further reason. And on account of its being declared that to which the released have to resort.
Word Of The Day
Others Looking