Adhyaya 1 – Pada 1 - AdhikaraNa 11
The Word "PrANa" Refers to Brahman
1. ViShaya (Statement): In the KauShItakI BrAhmaNa, Pratardana, the son of MahArAja Divodasa, was able, by virtue of His chivalry and heroism, to enter the favorite residence of MahArAja Indra. When Indra granted Pratardana a benediction, and Pratardana requested Indra choose the benediction he was to give, Indra instructed Pratardana in the following words:
prANo .asmi praj~nAtmA taM mAm Ayur-amR^itam upasasva
"I am prANa. An intelligent person will worship me as the great immortal person."
2. SaMshaya (doubt): Who is this person named prANa? Is he an individual spirit soul, or is He the Supreme Personality of Godhead who resides in everyone.as heart as the Supersoul?
3. PUrvapakSha (the opposing argument): The words "indra" and prANa here refer to a specific individual spirit soul. When pratardana inquired, Indra replied by saying the worship of Indra was the most beneficial activity for the living entities.
4. SiddhAnta (conclusion): shrIla VyAsadeva responds to this argument in the following sUtra.
SUtra 28
prANas tathAnugamAt
prANaH - the word prANa; tathA - in the same way; anugamAt - because of the context.
The word "prANa" (should be understood to refer to Brahman) because of the context of it.as use.
Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa
The prANa here must refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is present in everyone.as heart as the Supersoul. PrANa here cannot refer to the individual spirit soul. Why? shrIla VyAsadeva explains: tathAnugamAt (because of the context). The prANa described here is intelligence, the self, and transcendental bliss. He is free from old-age and death. These attributes clearly indicate that the word prANa here refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not true that to interpret the word prANa here is mean Brahman is very inappropriate? MahArAja Indra is speaking, and he says prANo .asmi (I am prANa). The speaker is MahArAja Indra, and he clearly refers to himself. He then proceeds to further identify himself, saying: tri-shirShANaM tvaShTram ahanam aruNmukhAn R^iShIn shalavR^ikebhyaH prayacchan (I killed VR^itrAsura, the three-headed son of TvaShTA, and I gave the AruNmukha sages to the shalavR^ikas). All this shows that the Indra described here is an individual spirit soul who advises the living entities to worship him. Even though at the end of this passage prANa is described as Ananda (transcendental bliss), this also is not inconsistent, because the transcendental glories of the individual spirit souls are also described in the Vedic literatures. In fact, when Indra says he is prANa and everyone should worship him, he refers to himself, the individual spirit soul Indra. Indra.as statement may be compared to the advice of the Vedic literature: vAcaM dhenum upAsIta (One should worship the goddess of speech just as one worships the cow). Because MahArAja Indra is the strongest of living entities, and because strength is identified with the living-force (prANa), he identifies himself with that prANa. This is perfectly in accord with the statement of Vedic literature: prANo vai balam (the living-force is strength). In this way it should be understood that the words prANa and indra here refer to a specific individual spirit soul.
shrIla VyAsadeva refutes this argument in the next sUtra.
SUtra 29
na vaktur AtmopadeshAd iti ced adhyAtma-sambandha-bhUma hy asmin
na - not; vaktuH - of the speaker; Atma - of the self; upadeshAt - because of the instruction; iti - thus; cet - if; adhyAtma - to the Supreme Personality of Godhead; sambandha.a references; bhUma - abundance; hi - indeed; asmin - in this UpaniShad.
If it is said that the speaker here refers to himself, I say that is not true. In this passage there are many references to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa
In this sUtra the word adhyAtma-sambandha means "with reference to the Supreme Personality of Godhead", and the word bhuma means "abundance". In this chapter of KauShItakI UpaniShad the word prANa repeatedly appears in various contexts where it must unavoidably be interpreted to mean "the Supreme Personality of Godhead."
For example:
1. When Pratardana asked for the most beneficial gift, or in other words liberation, Indra replied replied by saying "Worship me as prANa." In this context prANa must mean "the Supreme Personality of Godhead", for only He can grant liberation.
2. The UpaniShad explains:
eSha eva sAdhu karma kArayati
"PrANa bestows upon the living entity the power to act wonderfully."
This must refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the supreme controller, and not to the tiny demigod Indra.
3. The UpaniShad also explains:
tad yathA rathasyAreShu nemir arpitA nAbhavara arpita evam evaita bhUta-mAtraH. praj~nA-mAtrAsv arpitaH. praj~nA-mAtrAH prANe .arpitaH.
"Just as in a chariot wheel the rim rests on the spokes, and the spokes on the hub, in the same way the material elements rest on praj~nA (intelligence), and praj~nA rests on prANa."
This quote states that everything sentient and insentient is maintained by prANa.
4. The UpaniShad also explains:
sa eSha prANa eva praj~nAtmAnando .ajaro .amR^itaH. eSha lokAdhipatir eSha sarveshvaraH
"PrANa is the Supersoul present in all living entites. PrANa is the transcendental bliss. PrANa remains eternally untouched by old-age and death. PrANa is the master of all living entities and all planets. PrANa is the Supreme Controller."
Because prANa is transcendental bliss and has the various qualitites described here, the word prANa in this context can refer only to the Supreme Brahman, the Personality of Godhead, who is present in the hearts of all living entities as the Supersoul. The word prANa here cannot possibly refer to anyone else.
At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not so that Indra directly describes himself as prANa. Why does he do this if your interpretation that prANa means "Supreme Brahman" is correct?
shrIla VyAsadeva answers this objection in the following sUtra.
SUtra 30
shAstra-dR^iShTyA tUpadesho vAmadevavat
shAstra - of scripture; dR^iShTyA - from the viewpoint; tu - but; upadeshaH - instruction; vAmadeva - VAmadeva; vat - like.
Indra speaks in this way (identifying himself with Brahman) in accordance with the teaching of Vedic literature. He does this just as the sage VAmadeva also did.
Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa
The word tu (but) is used here to remove doubt. Even though Indra was perfectly aware that he was an individual spirit soul and not the Supreme Brahman, he still said, "Worship me, knowing me to be Brahman", and this statement is actually perfectly correct according to the philosophy of Vedic literature. It is not untrue. For example, the ChAndogya UpaniShad states:
na vai vAco na cakShUmsi na shrotrANi na manAMsIty AcakShate prANa ity evAcakShate prANo hy evaitAni sarvANi bhavanti
"The senses are not properly called .avoices.a, .aeyes.a, .aears.a, and .aminds.a. The proper name for them all is prANa. Everything that is exists is prANa."
Because prANa maintains their activities, the senses are identified as prANa. The learned, self-realized speaker, Indra, wishing to teach his humble, well-behaved student, instructed him: "I am that prANa." This means that Indra is dependent on prANa, or Brahman, not that he is identical with Brahman in all respects.
The example of VAmadeva is found in the following passage of BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad (1.4.10):
tad vaitat pashyan nR^iShir vAmadevaH pratipade ahaM manur abhavaM sUryash ca
"Seeing this, the sage VAmadeva repeated at every moment: I was Manu. I was the sun-god."
Here VAmadeva identifies himself with Manu and the sun-god because the Supreme Brahman is the controller who grants powers to VAmadeva, Manu, and the sun-god. Because they all obtain their powers from the Supreme Brahman, in one sense, they are all one. The Supreme Brahman is all-pervading. He is, in one sense, one with everything that is pervaded by Him. This confirmed by the following statements of smR^iti-shAstra:
yo .ayaM tavAgato deva-samIpaM devatA-gaNaH sa tvam eva jagat-sraShTA yataH sarva-gato bhavAn
"Whoever comes before You, be he a demigod, is created by You, O Supreme Personality of Godhead."
- ViShNu PurANa 1.9.69
sarvaM samApnoShi tato .asi sarvam
"You are all-pervading, and thus you are everything."
- Bhagavad-gItA 11.40
In ordinary usage also, when there is a great assembly in a certain place, people call that oneness, because there is unity of place, and also when there is agreement of opinion, that is also called oneness. For example, it is said: "In the evening the scattered cows assemble in one place and thus attain oneness," and "The disputing monarchs finally agreed and became one in their opinion."
At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not so that although there are many passages indicating that the word prANa in this passage refers to Brahman, still there are many other passages that demonstrate that it is not possible for the word prANa to refer Brahman. Some examples are:
na vAcaM vijij~nAsitA vaktAraM vidyAt
"Do not try to understand the meaning of a statement without first understanding who has spoken it."
- KauShItakI UpaniShad (3.8)
tri-shirShANaM tvaShTram ahanam
"I am the Indra who killed VR^itrAsura, the three-headed son of TvaShTA."
These two quotations clearly identify that the speaker of the passage in question was the demigod Indra, who is an individual spirit soul.
That the word prANa refers to the life-force, or breath within the body, is confirmed by the following scriptural statements:
yAvad asmin sharIre prANo vasati tAvad Ayur atha khalu prANa eva praj~nAtma idaM sharIraM parigR^ihyotthApayati
"As long as prANa remains within it, the body is alive. PrANa is the conscious spirit soul. PrANa grasps this material body, and makes it rise up and move about."
- KauShItakI UpaniShad (2.2-3)
yo vai prANaH sa praj~nA yA praj~nA sa prANaH. sa hA hy etAv asmin sharIre vasataH. sahotkramate.
"PrANa is the same as praj~nA (consciousness). Praj~nA is the same as prANa. Together they reside in the material body. At the last moment they both leave the body together."
- KauShItakI UpaniShad
These quotations clearly show that it is not impossible to interpret the word prANa in this context to mean "the individual spirit soul" or "living force". The scriptures teach us that both are actually identical, the living force being the active expression of the inactive spirit-soul.
In this way it is valid to interpret the word prANa in three ways: 1. the individual spirit soul; 2. the living-force; and 3. the Supreme Brahman. The word prANa here refers to all three. All three are worshipable for the living entities.
shrIla VyAsadeva refutes this argument in the following sUtra.
SUtra 31
jIva-mukhya-prANa-li~NgAn neti cen nopAsya-traividhyAd AshritatvAd iha tad-yogAt
jIva - of the individual spirit soul; mukhya - the primary; prANa - living force; li~NgAt - the signs; na - not; iti - thus; cet.a if; na - not; upAsya - worshipable; taividhyAt - because of being there; AshritatvAt - because of taking shelter; iha - here; tat-yogAt - because of appropriateness.
If someone says the word "prANa" also refers to the individual spirit soul and the primary living-force in addition to referring to Brahman, then I reply that such an interpretation is not correct. If the word "prANa" referred to all three, then all three would be worshipable. This view is not correct, because neither logic nor the authority of scripture support it.
Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa
Someone may say that the natural features of the individual spirit soul and the living-force are such that they are proper objects of worship. To this I reply: This is not true. Why? For then there would be three objects of worship. When Indra says, "Worship me as prANa," he uses only one sentence. The rules of rhetoric demand that a sentence have only one correct interpretation, and therefore if we say that the word prANa here refers to three different objects, we shall break that rule. This is the true meaning: There are three possible ways to interpret the meaning of prANa in this context: 1. Take all these passages, including what directly mentions Brahman, as referring to the individual spirit soul and living-force; 2. Take these passages as referring some to the individual soul and living-force, and some to Brahman. and 3. Take these passages as all referring to Brahman. The first possibility has already been clearly refuted, The second possiblity is not very acceptable, for it recommends that there are three distinct objects of worship. shrIla VyAsadeva says the third possibility is actually logical because AshritatvAt (this view is supported by the statements of Vedic literature).
We may see that many passages in Vedic literature that seem to refer to the individual spirit soul or the living force, in fact refer to Brahman.
If at this point someone were to object: Is it not true that in this passage the natural sense of the words supports the interpretations of the individual spirit soul and the living force?" I would reply by saying: In this passage the worship of prANa is described as the most beneficial activity for the living entities. For this reason the interpretation of the Supreme Brahman is logical. For this reason shrIla VyAsadeva states in the sUtra, tad-yogAt (because this is logical).
Someone may then object: Is it not true that the scriptures explain that the prANa and praj~nA both reside within the body of the individual spirit soul, and also leave that body together at the time of death? How is this possible if you say that prANa means "Brahman"?
To this objection I reply: Brahman is present in the body of the individual spirit soul in two ways: as kriyA-shakti (the potency of action), which is also known as prANa, and as j~nAna-sakti (the potency of knowledge), which is also known as praj~nA. Both are manifested from Brahman. These two potencies remain within the body of the individual spirit soul, and also leave it together at the time of death.
Another objection may be raised in the following words: Is it not true that prANa and the other words you claim are names of the Supreme Brahman are all actually adjectives, and therefore cannot function as names?
To this objection I reply: This not true. These words are simultaneously adjectives and nouns. When Indra says prANo .asmi praj~nAtmA (I am prANa, praj~nA, and AtmA), he uses these words as nouns. For these reasons prANa, praj~nA, and other words used by Indra should be understood to refer to Brahman.
At this point a further objection may be raised: Is it not true that in the beginning you adequately demonstrated that the word prANa refers to Brahman? Most of your arguments are redundant.
To this objection I reply: This is not true. In the beginning I dispelled the doubts that may have arisen in regard to the single word prANa taken by itself. After that I discussed the word prANa in relation to a specific quotation, where it was related with other words, such as Ananda, and in this discussion I demonstrated that the word prANa was used there in such a way that it could only be understood to mean Brahman, and not the individual spirit soul, or anything else. For this reason I have discussed this specific passage of KauShItakI UpaniShad separately.
No comments:
Post a Comment