/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13145283]

4. It is unmoving, one, and faster than the mind. The senses could not overtake It, since It ran ahead. Remaining stationary, It outruns all other runners. It being there, Matarisva allots (or supports) all activities.

Anejat, unmoving. The root ejr implies shaking. Shaking is motion, deviation from one's own condition. It is devoid of this, i.e. It is ever of the same form. And It is ekam, one, in all beings. It is javiyah, faster, manasah, than the mind, characterised by volition etc.
Objection: How can there be such contradictory statements that It is constant and motionless, and yet faster than the mind?
Answer: There is no inconsistency, for this is possible from the standpoint of the conditioned and the unconditioned. As such, It is spoken of as "unmoving, one", in respect of Its own unconditioned aspect. And by reason of Its following the limiting adjunct, the mind, the internal organ characterized by volition and doubt, (It appears to be subject to modifications). The mind though encased in the body in this world, is able to reach such distances as the world of Brahma in a single moment, at one volition; and hence the mind is well known as the fastest thing in the world. When that (speedy) mind travels fast to the world of Brahma etc., the reflection of the conscious Self is perceived to have reached there, as it were, even earlier; and hence It is said to be (manaso javiyah) faster than the mind. Devah, the gods-the senses, the organs of knowledge such as eyes etc., are the devas because of illuminating (dyotana) their objects, na apnuvan, could not overtake; enat, It, the reality of the Self that is under discussion. The mind is faster than these (senses). Because of the interposition of the activity of the mind, (between the Self and the senses), even a semblance of the Self does not become an object of perception to the senses; since, being all-pervasive like space, It purvam arsat, ran ahead--reached the goal even before the swift mind. Though the all-pervasive entity of the Self, in Its real unconditioned state, is devoid of all worldly attributes and is subject to no mutation, yet (by reason of following the limiting adjunct, the mind), it appears, in the eyes of the non-discriminating people, to experience all empirical modifications brought about by the limiting adjuncts, and It also appears to be diverse in relation to the individual bodies. Hence the verse said so. Tat, That; atyeti, outruns--as it were dhavatah anyan, all other fast moveing ones (runners), viz the mind, speech the senses, etc., which are distinct from the Self.

[Anonymous No.13145284]

>>13145283
The sense "as it were" is suggested by the verse itself by the use of (the expression) tisthat, remaining stationary, which itself implies, "Itself remaining unchanged". Tasmin, It being there--while the entity of the Self endures, which by Its nature is everlasting consiousness; matarisva, Air--so called because it moves (svayati) in space (matari)--which sustains all life, which is of the nature of activity, on which depend all bodies and senses, in which all inhere, which is called Sutra (thread) and which holds together the whole world. That Matarisva, dadhati, allots; apah, the activities--consisting in the efforts of creatures, as well as flaming, burning, shining, raining, etc. in the case of fire, sun, cloud, etc. Or dadhati many mean supports, in accordance with such Vedic texts as "From His fear the wind blows" (Tai. II. viii. 1). The meaning is that all these modifications of causes and effects occur so long as the eternally conscious reality of the Self, the source of everything, endures.
Since the Vedic mantras are untiring in their emphasis, the idea imparted by the previous verse is being stated again:

5. That moves, That does not move; That is far off, That is very near; That is inside all, and That is outside all

Tat, That, the entity of the Self that is under consideration. That ejati moves: and That again, by Itself, na ejati, does not move. The meaning is that, though in Itself It is motionless, It seems to move. Moreover, tat dure. That is far off--That seems to be far away, since It is unattainable by the ignorant even in hundreds of millions of years; tadvantike is split into tat u antike, That is very near indeed--to the men of knowledge--It being their Self, that is not only far off, but is near too; tat antar, That is inside; asya sarvasya, of all--in accordance with the Vedic text: "The Self that is within all" (Br. III. iv. 1)--of all this world, consisting of name, form and activity; tat, That; u, also; sarvasya asya bahyatah, is outside all, because It is all-pervasive like space; and It is inside because It is extremely subtle. Besides, It is without interstices, (It is continuous), in accordance with the Vedic text: "Pure intelligence along" (Br. IV. v. 13).

[Anonymous No.13145289]

>>13145284
6. He who sees all beings in the very Self, and the Self in all beings, feels no hatred by virtue of that (realisation).

Yah, he who--the mendicant who wants to be freed; anupasyati, sees; sarvani bhutani, all beings--beginning from the Unmanifested and ending with the immobile; (as existing) atmani eva, in the very Self--i.e. he does not see them as different from the Self, sarvabhutesu ca, and in all those beings; sees atmanam, the Self--sees the Self of those beings as his own Self thus: "Just as I, the soul of the body which is an aggregate of causes and effects, am the witness of all perceptions, and as such I am the source of its consiousness, and am pure and unconditioned, similarly in that very aspect of mine am I the soul of all, beginning from the Unmanifested and ending with the immobile"; he (who realises the unconditioned Self in all beings thus), tatah, by virtue of that vision; na vijugupsate, feels no hatred, does not hate. This is only a restatement of a known fact. For this is a matter of experience that all revulsion comes to one who sees something as bad and different from oneself, but for one who sees only the absolutely pure Self as a continuous entity, there is no object that can be the cause of revulsion. Therefore he does not hate.
Another verse also expresses the same purport:

[Anonymous No.13145295]

>>13145289
7. When to the man of realisation all beings become the very Self, then what delusion and what sorrow can there be for that seer of oneness? (Or--In the Self, of the man of realisation, in which all beings become the Self, what delusion and what sorrow can remain for that seer of oneness?)

Yasmin vijanatah, when to the man who has realised, (Or--in the aforesaid Self of the man of realisation in which); sarvani bhutani, all those beings; atma eva abhut, have become the Self alone--as a result of the realisation of the supreme Self; tatra, at that time (or to that Self); kah mohah, kah sokah, what delusion and what sorrow can there be? Sorrow and delusion happen to the ignorant man who does not perceive the seed of desire and actions, but not anupasyatah ekatvam, to the man who realises the oneness, of the Self which is pure like space. The impossiblity of grief and delusion, the effects of ignorance, having been indicated through the question "what delusion and what sorrow can there be?", the total eradication of worldly existence, with its cause, has been shown ipso facto.
This verse indicates what the Self, that was spoken of in the previous verses, really is in Its own nature:

[Anonymous No.13145299]

>>13145295
8. He is all-pervasive, pure, bodiless, without wound, without sinews, taintless, untouched by sin, omniscient, ruler of mind, transcendent, and self-existent; he has duly alloted the (respective) duties to the eternal years (i.e. to the eternal creators called by that name).

Sah, He the aforesaid Self; paryagat, is all-pervasive, like space--(the word) being derived from pari, on all sides, and agat, went. He is sukram, pure, bright, resplendent, akayam, bodiless, i.e. without the subtle body; avranam, without sinews--one in whom there is no sinew. By the two expressions, "without wound" and "without sinews", the gross body is negated. Suddham, taintless, devoid of the dirt of ignorance; thereby is negated the causal body. Apapaviddham, untouched by sin in the form of merit and demerit etc. The expressions beginning with sukram are to be converted into masculine because the introduction is made with sah paryagat and the conclusion with kavih manisi in the masculine form. Kavih (omniscient) means the seer of the kranta, past, i.e. seer of all, as the Vedic text says "There is no other seer but this" (BR. III. viii. 11). Manisi means the ruler of the mind, i.e. omniscient God. Paribhuh is one who exists above all (transcendent). Svayambhuh means he who exists by himself. He, the all, becomes by Himself all, viz all that is transcended as well as all that is transcendental; and hence He is self-existent. He, the ever-free (all-powerful) Lord, because of His omniscience, yathatathyatah, duly, as it should be, in consonance with actual result and endeavour; arthan, the duties; vyadadhat, has allotted, i.e. distributed in the proper way (according to individual competence); sasvatibhyah samabhyah, to the eternal years, to the Prajapatis (creators) called the year.

[Anonymous No.13145303]

>>13145299
Here the first purport of the Vedas is devotedness to knowledge after renouncing all desires; and this idea has been expressed by the first verse thus: "All this should be covered by the Lord... do not covet anybody's wealth". And the second purport of the Vedas is that, in case this devotedness to knowledge is impossible for the man of ignorance, there should be continuance in the path of duty, which fact is stated in the second verse thus: "By doing karmas, indeed, should one wish to live." this division of paths of life, as shown in these verses, has also been indicated in the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad. Thus from the text, "He desired, 'Let me have a wife'," etc. (Br. I. iv. 17), it can be clearly understood that works are meant for a man who is ignorant and hankers after results. And from the sentence, "The mind is his soul, and speech his wife," etc. (ibid. I. iv. 17), it can be clearly understood that ignorance and desires are the characteristics of a man devoted to work. So the result of this work is the creation of seven kinds of fruit and continuance in a state of identification with them under the idea that they are the Self. And by the text, "What shall we achieve through children, we to whom the Self which we have attained is the goal?" etc. (Br. IV. iv. 22), it has been shown that for those who have realised the Self by renouncing the threefold desire for wife etc. (i.e. for son, wealth and heavens), there can only be continuance in the Self Itself, as opposed to the continuance in the path of karma. After the condemnation of the ignorant man by the verse "Those world of the devils" etc. (Is. 3) the true nature of the Self has been revealed by the verses ending with, "He is all-pervasive" etc. (Is. 8) to those men of renunciation who are steadfast in knowledge, so as to show that they alone are qualified for this and not those who have desires. So also in the Svetasvatara Upanishad (VI. 21) this has been separately spoken of thus: "To those (men of complete renunciation) who had gone beyond all (the four) stages of life, he spoke this holiest of things which is fully adored by the seers as a class.". But the present verse is meant for those men of activity who have desires and want to live by doing karma.

[Anonymous No.13145309]

>>13145303
Objection: How is it, again, known that it is not meant for all?
The answer is: None but a fool will wish to combine with any work, or with any other knowledge (i.e. meditation), that knowledge of the oneness of the Self that has been imparted to the passionless man after the eradication of the distinction of all ends and means, by the text, "When to the man of realisation all beings become the very Self, then what delusion and what sorrow can there be for such a seer of oneness?" (Is. 7). But the condemnation of the ignorant etc. is done here with a view to achieving a combination (of vidya, i.e. worship or meditation, and karma). And as to that, not the knowledge of the supreme Self, but the thing--viz the divine possesion (i.e. the meditation on the gods)--that can possibly be combined with the other factor (viz karma) has been spoken of here as the associate of karma, since for this vidya (meditation or worship) a result, different from the knowledge of Brahman has been declared thus: "Through vidya is attained the world of the gods" (Br. I. v. 16). The denunciation of the separate pursuit of either of these two--vidya and karma-- is not merely for the sake of denunciation, but for the sake of bringing them togather, for a distinct result is declared for each by the Vedic texts: "They ascend to this through vidya"; "The world of gods (is attained) through vidya" (Br. I. v. 16); "The people following the Southern Path do not reach there"; "The world of the Manes through rites" (Br. I. v. 16); and this is so because nothing enjoined by the scriptures can be unworthy of performance.

[Anonymous No.13146412]

bump