Author Topic: CHAPTER 2 - SECTION 5  (Read 240 times)

Commentary

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 341
    • View Profile
CHAPTER 2 - SECTION 5
« on: April 09, 2019, 10:30:41 PM »
2.5.1 Vijnanam yajnam tanute, knowledge actualizes a sacrifice; for a man of knowledge executes it with faith etc. Hence knowledge is presented as the doer in (the expression) 'Knowledge actualizes the sacrifice'. Ca, and; karmani tanute, it executes the duties (as well).

Since everything is a accomplished by knowledge, it is reasonable to say that the cognitive self is Brahman. Moreover, sarve devah, all the gods, Indra and other; upasate, meditate on; vijnanam brahma, Brahman as conditioned by cognition; (which is) jyestham, the first born-since it was born before all or because all actions presuppose it. That is to say, they meditate on that knowledge Brahman, by identifying themselves with it. Hence, through the worship of the Mahat-Brahman (Hiranyagarbha), they become possessed of knowledge and glory. Cet, if; veda, one knows; that vijnanam brahma, Brahman as conditioned by cognition; and not only does one know, but also, cet, if; na pramadyati tasmat, one does not err about that Brahman-does not deviate from that Brahman-. Since one is prone to thinking the external non-Selves as the Self, there arises the possibility of swerving from the thought of the knowledge-Brahman as identified with one's Self; in order to bar out that possibility, the text says, 'If one does not err about that Brahman', that is to say, if one has eschewed all ideas of identity of the physical selves etc. with his own Self and goes on thinking of the knowledge-Brahman only as his Self-. What will happen thereby? The answer is: sarire papmanah hitva, abandoning all sins in the body-.

All sins are verily caused by the identification of oneself with the body. And on the analogy of the removal of the shade, on the removal of the umbrella, their eradication is possible when their cause is removed as a result of the indentification of oneself with the knowledge-Brahman. Therefore, having abandoned in the body itself, all the sins which arise from the body, which are caused by the indentification of oneself with the body, and becoming identified with the knoweldge-Brahman (i.e. Hiranyagarbha), one samasnute, fully attains, i.e. fully enjoys, through the cognitive self itself; sarvan kaman, all the desirable things that there are in the knowledge Brahman. Tasya purvasya, of that preceding one, of the mental self; esah eva atma, this is verily the self, that is lodged in the mental sarira, body, and is hence the sarirah, embodied. Which? Yah esah, that which is this; vijnanamayah, the cognitive one. Tasmat vai etasmat etc. is as already explained. From the context and form the use of the suffix, mayat (made of), it is to be understood that a conditioned self is implied by the word anandamayah (made of bliss). Indeed, the conditioned selves-made of food etc.- which are material, are dealt with here. And this self made of bliss also is included in that context. Besides, the suffix mayat is used here in the sense of transmutation (and not abundance) as in the case of annamaya. Hence the anandamaya is to be understood as a conditioned self. This also follows from the fact of samkramana (attaining). The text will say, 'He attains the self made of bliss' (II. viii. 5). And the conditioned selves that are not the Self are seen to be attained.

Moreover, the self made of bliss is mentioned in the text as the object of the act of attaining, just as it is in the text, annamayam atmanam upasamkramati, he attains the self made of food (II. viii. 5). Besides, the (unconditioned) Self Itself is not attainable, since such an attainment is repugnant to the trend of the passage and it is impossible. For the (unconditioned) Self cannot be attained by the Self Itself, inasmuch as there is no division within the Self, and Brahman (the goal) is the Self of the attainer. Moreover, (on the supposition that the unconditioned Self is spoken of), the fancying of head etc., becomes illogical. For such imagination of limbs, head, etc., is not possible in that (Self) which has the characteristics mentioned earlier, which is the cause of space etc., and which is not included in the category of effects. And this is borne out by such Vedic texts, denying distinctive attributes in the Self, as the following: '(Whenever an aspirant gets fearlessly established) in this unperceivable, bodiless, inexpressible, and unsupporting (Brahman)' (II. vii), 'it is neither gross nor minute' (Br. III. viii. 8), 'The Self is that which has been descried as "not this", "not this"' (Br. III. ix. 26). This also follows from the illogicality (otherwise) of quoting the (succeeding) mantra; surely, the quotation of the mantra, 'If anyone knows Brahman as non-existing, he himself becomes non-existent' (II. vi. 1), cannot be justified, since the doubt that 'Brahman does not exist)' cannot arise with regard to Brahman which is directly perceived as the self made of bliss and possessed of such limbs as joy for its head and so on. Besides, it is unjustifiable to refer separately to Brahman as the stabilizing tail in, 'Brahman is the stabilizing tail'. So the anandamaya (made of bliss, or blissful) (atma, self) belongs to the category of effects; it is not the supreme Self. Ananda (bliss) is an effect of meditation and rites, and anandamaya is constituted by that bliss. And this self is more internal than the cognitive self, since it has been shown by the Upanisad to be indwelling the cognitive self which is the cause of sacrifices etc. Inasmuch as the fruit of meditation and rites is meant for the enjoyer, it must be the inmost of all; and the blissful self is the inmost as compared with the earlier ones. Further, this follows from the fact that meditation and rites are meant for the acquisition of joy etc.; indeed, meditation and rites are promted by (the desire for) joy etc.

Thus since joy etc., which are the fruits ( of rites and meditation), are nearer to the Self, it is logical that they should be within the cognitive self; for the blissful self, revived by [I.e. associated with.] the impression of joy etc., is perceived in dream to be dependent on the cognitive self. ['The self possessed of joy etc. is not the primary self, since it is perceived by the witness-Self in dream'-A.G.] Tasya, of him, of the self made of bliss; the priyam, joy-arising from seeing such beloved objects as a son; is the sirah, head-comparable to a head, because of its preeminence. Modah, enjoyment, means the happiness that follows the acquisition of an object of desire. When that enjoyment reaches it acme it is pramodah, exhilaration. Anandah, Bliss-pleasure in general, is the soul (trunk) of the different limbs, (i.e. expressions) of happiness in the form of joy etc., for this ananda, (i.e. common Bliss) permeates them all. Ananda (Bliss) is supreme Brahman; for it is Brahman which manifests Itself in the various mental modifications, when such limiting adjuncts as the particular objects like a son, a friend, etc. are presented by the (past) good deeds and the mind, freed from tamas (gloom, darkness, etc.), becomes placid. And this is well known in the world as objective happiness. This happiness is momentary, since the result of past deeds that brings about those particular modifications of the mind is unstable. That being so, in proportion as that mind becomes purified through meditation, continence, and faith, so much do particular joys attain excellence and gain in volume in that calm and free mind.

And this Upanisad will say, 'That is verily the source of joy; for one becomes happy by coming in contact with that source of joy. This one, indeed, enlivens people' (II. vii). There is also this other Vedic text to the point, 'On a particle of this very Bliss other beings live' (Br. IV. iii. 32). Thus, too, it will be said that bliss increases a hundredfold in every successive stage, in proportion to the perfection of detachment from desires (II. viii). [If the increase of bliss were dependent on things alone, the Upanisad would not have spoken of bliss with reference to a man of detachment as it does in fact in II. viii. In reality, bliss becomes higher in proportion as the heart becomes purer, calm, and more freed from objects, whereby it becomes abler to reflect the Bliss that is Brahman.] Thus, speaking from the standpoint of the knowledge of the Supreme Brahman, Brahman is certainly the highest as compared with the blissful self that attains excellence gradually. The Brahman under discussion-which is difined as 'Truth, knowledge, infinite' (II. i), for whose realization have been introduced the five sheaths, commencing with the one made of food, which is the inmost of them all, and by which they become endowed with their selves (being)-that brahma, Brahman; is puccham pratistha, the tail that stabilizes. Again, that very nondual Brahman, which is the farthest limit of all negation of duality superimposed by ignorance, is the support (of the blissful self), for the blissful self culminates in unity. (It follows, therefore, that) there does exist that one, non-dual Brahman, as the farthest limit of the negation of duality called up by ignorance, and this Brahman supports (the duality) like a tail. Illustrative of this fact, too, here is a verse: