Re: Temple Of Slaanesh (TO Slaan): What u have, want, w b can't have, h b don't want, & what it means!
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2025 12:47 pm
by kFoyauextlH
"
@olly2515
1 day ago
first guy seem chill
61
1
@tinytophy
11 hours ago
But he has no neck
@aFoxyFox.
0 seconds ago
That ain't "no neck". Replay if necessary. Way more than 0 neck there.
"
Re: Temple Of Slaanesh (TO Slaan): What u have, want, w b can't have, h b don't want, & what it means!
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2025 8:18 am
by kFoyauextlH
In modern culture, maybe also in the past, but much more certainly now, the cat is most associated with feminine stereotypes.
Real cats, both male and female, want all the things associated with masculine stereotypes though, such as a bigger size, more strength, to be fearsome, to be able to reach things, to not have to ask for things or permission and to just get what they want without obstructions, they don't prefer being captives, and no one really does until after they've become messed up and made more abnormal through various factors seemingly distorting things away from natural, logical or rational, decisions that could intuitively be seen as being common sense.
Women, don't and shouldn't and wouldn't want to be all the things that men have made them out to be and prefer their being, because they are just people, and people are just cats and like cats, both male and female.
A female wants to be strong, not to have to ask for permission, to be able to reach things, not to be forced into anything, including certain clothing or styles and also to be constantly put under a lot of scrutiny and made much more self-conscious than men by all kinds of expectations or things not fitting right and people pointing out things they mainly wouldn't to men who can get away with so much more in comparison.
Women are compared to felines, and men are compared to canines, pigs and boars, bears, lions, and tigers, all the typically bigger, hairier, and bulkier animals, like gorillas and other apes.
Men should never want to be women or anything like women, nor should they want any of the restrictions like women or cats or dogs, yet they pursue all those things that seemingly downgrade their status and experience, sometimes temporarily, sometimes in a way that they may feel pressured to "commit" to, and may do things considered pretty extreme or irreversible in that pursuit.
What I imagine must be the case for many men pursuing these things are sometimes simple and sometimes more complex, so the simple things are to pursue for themselves an image they like, such as the beauty associated with an appearance typically associated with females, or access to resources more easily obtained by females, such as sexual interest from males, or to be accepted in certain ways by a culture, so not wanting any of the downgrades they may feel are associated with being considered a homosexual but getting all the passes that a female may get as she gets to be a gay man who isn't blamed and ridiculed for that or condemned for that, dressing that way, doing s*x acts with men, even God loves them. "Oh, I want those things for myself!" must be the thought and motivation subconsciously. So? Why not seize it? As a man ought to! Why be restrained? You "ARE" what you want to be! You always "WERE", says the Occam that lives inside all people. Now all that stands in your way, seems to be the language and opinion of the other people who are denying such. How can they be made to do what we want? The usual way, the carrot and the stick. The carrot is to make ourselves palatable to those people and make there to be social benefits and approval and gains in accepting and promoting something, the stick is that if you don't, a lot of trouble might come your way, and the goal is to get access to whatever at all females get and have, without any of the fuss they don't seem to experience. The prize is the male gaze and sexual interest in many cases for many people who may feel this way, though many may deny what seems obvious abd undeniable, claiming that others somehow are not a major factor. That seems to me to be an outright lie, and whether they buy it themselves or not, doesn't change how the actions make it clear that "others" really are involved and a major factor of what is concerning to certain people.
Biological men and biological women, did not get to choose their biology as far as anyone is aware, just like people born with congenital defects or abnormalities didn't choose, or the mentally ill, or people who ended up experiencing certain circumstances which impacted their developments and decisions.
Even so, agency itself may be a comforting lie that people tell themselves, since so many subtle factors may make it so every decision was in actuality the only decision the person would make, even if there seemed to be other options known to then, and something as arbitrary seeming as what they also didn't choose to actually eat that morning that they didn't actually choose to wake up on, but did at whatever specific time which also impacted everything, was a major factor in their maming whatever choice. So even criminals may not be "responsible" in the ways that people may think, yet they are clearly committing the crimes and the public would need to have defenses against such people and responses to them and what they do. People were, for all we know, born *ssholes or decent, born to be certain religions even if they end up changing them, which wasn't their choice either, which people may not believe or realize, even being born with or without certain capacities, including abilities to understand or not understand or practice or not practice certain things in certain ways, like some people just might not even be able to comprehend certain ideas, and any way in which they "get it", might not even be the way others are.
Still, most people should be able to see that any kind of deliberate downgrades are like self-harm and s**c*de, and should seem frankly stupid to pursue, no matter how convoluted a conceit trying to justify it may be.
There is also no need for any of this rubbish, which from even before it gets into the disputation and controversial matters, has carried with it an entirely heavy construct of Victorian Steamworks and Clockwork imaginaries and fanciful caricatures that are really rather modern and which may have been alien to any other people in the past, and are working off of that and forcing others to work off if it, due to rejection of it being unfathomable and seeming to make much too much work.
All the things being worked on by the polarized "Westmind" that has even overtaken China long ago, may just be (and I believe it is) absolutely worthless trash that I'm pressured to think about and discuss based on those terms, based on piles of junk and counter-junk reacting to junk. I reject it all and I even despise it for troubling me and the view from my windows.
I wish to spit acid onto the faces of all the people who even fall for it, I would melt them if I could, to show them that all they deserve in my opinion is an end to their angst and wrestling with ghosts without getting to the core of the matter, that there wasn't anything true about this garbage even from the earliest days of it, long before the choo choo train, back even before the Greeks were riding men and boys into the dark future.
What is true, are these things we can't even know, but which seem to be the case, that cats want to be able to reach things without help, and they want to be able to scare and intimidate other cats and creatures, luring others as they please as easily as necessary, and humans are no different than other animals except the shapes each is forced to work with.
Is the yearning as it is funneled through all the various shapes.
Does the tree "want"? In my opinion it is clear that it does, and how it acts shows that essential "want" in play, even if we don't know about further rationalizations or thoughts involved, it reaches, it moves, it acquires what it desires. They call it "need", but it isn't quite that, in the way I understand that word as having the mechanics of "necessity" and even "inevitability" very closely involved with that word, or my understanding of it. It craved and pursued, because who said it was mechanical necessity for it to live, continue to live, and continue to try to live, when it was so much more mechanically easy for it to die, so that we could suggest that all the mechanics are more so showing a "necessity" and mechanical smoothness towards death, but all these living things struggle against it.
Except of course, those which don't, immediately or eventually.
The creatures don't take the easiest option, which is to die, they take the hard road of life and living and struggling to live against all those things that are far easier naturally and save a lot of trouble. So there is, a built in and automatical desire to fight for life for most things.
There is no doubt in my mind that it is aberration to pursue all contrary things that detract from the ideal state, the light we grow towards, which is this:
"
bliss(v.)
"attain or exist in a state of perfect felicity,"
"
"
blithe(adj.)
Old English bliþe "joyous, kind, cheerful, pleasant," from Proto-Germanic *blithiz "gentle, kind" (source also of Old Saxon bliði "bright, happy," Middle Dutch blide, Dutch blijde, Old Norse bliðr "mild, gentle," Old High German blidi "gay, friendly," Gothic bleiþs "kind, friendly, merciful"). Related: Blithely.
No cognates outside Germanic. "The earlier application was to the outward expression of kindly feeling, sympathy, affection to others, as in Gothic and ON.; but in OE. the word had come more usually to be applied to the external manifestation of one's own pleased or happy frame of mind, and hence even to the state itself" [OED]. Rare since 16c.
"
"
Chapter VIII - Brahman the Source of Joy
< Previous
parent: B - Brahmavidyā Explained
Next >
To prove Brahman’s existence in yet other ways, the śruti teaches that Brahman is Bliss (Ānanda).
Brahman, the source of the supersensuous pleasure.
यद्वै तत् सुकृतम् । रसो वै सः । रसं ह्येवायं लब्ध्वाऽऽनन्दी भवति ॥ २ ॥
yadvai tat sukṛtam | raso vai saḥ | rasaṃ hyevāyaṃ labdhvā''nandī bhavati || 2 ||
2. That one, verily, called the self-cause, He is the Flavour. Flavour, indeed, this one having got, blest becomes he.
On the following ground also, Brahman exists.—On what ground?—Because He is the Flavour. Whence is Brahman known to be a Flavour? The śruti says: He who is known as the self-cause,—He is, verily, the Flavour. ‘Flavour’ in common parlance, means that which causes satisfaction, that which causes pleasure, i. e., an object which is sweet, acid, etc. Having got the Flavour, man here becomes blest or happy.
Brahman who manifests Himself as ‘the being and the beyond’ is said to be the Supreme ‘Rasa’ or Flavour in this creation which in itself is destitute of flavour. Flavour means essence, the Immortal Brahman, the Bliss, the Joy. By this Flavour it is that the universe, which in itself is flavourless, appears to be flavoury. How, it may be asked, can this supersensuous Flavour be the Bliss? The śruti answers in the words “Flavour, indeed,” etc.—(S).
In our experience no non-existent object is found to cause pleasure. Though possessing no external sources of happiness, the wise brāhmaṇas (devotees of Brahman) who do not work for happiness and who cheṛṣ no desire are found full of happiness as though they have obtained external objects of pleasure. To them, certainly, Brahman and Brahman alone is Flavour, the source of pleasure.
These pure ones, the saṇmyāsins, those who have renounced all, attain supreme Bliss, which is supersensuous. In them, certainly, there must reign that Supreme Peace which thoroughly delights their minds; in them, certainly, we find all marks of delightful minds. In those who have realised the Self we find such outward symptoms of peace as we find in a man who, diseased with itch, sits near the fire scratching his body with his mind immersed in joy. This inference of Bliss is meant for those only who have not realised the true nature of the Bliss-Self; but, for those who have realised the true nature of the Self, it is a fact of immediate experience—(S).
Therefore that One, the source of their bliss,—namely Brahman,—does exist, as flavour exists.
Brahman is Flavour, because He is the source of the sage’s happiness, of his feeling that he has achieved all, and so on. Brahman is so called because He is to be tasted with love, relished in the knowledge—the state of mind—produced by the flavoury Vedāntic teaching. Brahman is indeed approached with love by all who seek the knowledge. Love for Brahman cannot arise if He were not of the nature of bliss. Hence the word ‘flavour’ points to Brahman being the Bliss itself. Against this it may be urged that those who seek to know Dharma approach it with love, though Dharma is not the Bliss itself. We answer thus: men do not indeed love Dharma for its own sake; they love it as the means by which to attain the bliss of svarga. On the contrary, Brahman is not a means to any bliss superior to Himself; so that, as the primary object of love, Brahman is the Bliss itself. Hence it is that we find the sage who, having realised the Flavour, is filled with joy and regards himself as blest. The sage does not possess the worldly objects of pleasure, such as flowers, woman, &c. He possesses only the Self, and does not regard other things, such as flowers, as a possession at all. The scripture says “Beyond the gain of the Self, there is nothing higher.”[1] Wherefore we should admit that Brahman exists as the Bliss which is the source of the happiness of the sage.
Brahman is the source of activity and sensual pleasure.
Further, with a view to shew that Brahman exists even as the source of our physical activity and sensual pleasure, the śruti proceeds to shew that Brahman is the cause of both:
को ह्येवान्यात्कः प्राण्यात् । यदेष आकाश आनन्दो न स्यात् । एष ह्येवाऽऽनन्दयाति ॥ ३ ॥
ko hyevānyātkaḥ prāṇyāt | yadeṣa ākāśa ānando na syāt | eṣa hyevā''nandayāti || 3 ||
3. Who indeed could live, who breathe, should not this Bliss be in ākāsa? This verily it is that bestows bliss.
For the following reason also Brahman exists.—For what reason? — Because of the breathing and other kinds of activity we see. Our body, for instance,[2] when alive, breathes up and down by the aid of prāṇa and apāna, the vital airs; and thus we see that vital functions and sensational activities are carried on by the body and the senses combined. This conjunction in mutual dependence for the benefit of one single entity is not possible in the absense of an Intelligence outside the combination; for, it is not found possible elsewhere.[3]
So the śruti says: If in Akaśa—in the Supreme Ether, in the cave (of the heart),—this One, the Bliss, do not exist, who indeed in the world could breathe in and who could breathe up? Therefore there exists that One, namely, Brahman, whose enjoyment, indeed all the activities of the body and the senses as well as all the vital functions subserve; and it is He who causes the pleasure of (all beings in the) world.—Why so?—For, it is this One, the Supreme Self, who makes (all beings in) tbe world happy according to their merit (Dharma). The Supreme Self is the Bliss, which is revealed only in its limited forms to sentient beings on account of their avidyā or ignorance.
This bliss, which the sentient beings in the world attain in different degrees according to their meritorious acts, reaches its culmination in the Infinite Bliss; and therefore there must be in existence that Supreme Bliss, that Flavour, which is the object of our absolute love.—(S).
Akāsa: the text may be construed also to mean “should this one, the Ākāśa, the Bliss, exist not.” For the word “Ākāśa” literally means that which shines everywhere by itself, the self-luminous One. If this Bliss, the Self, previously spoken of as the Flavour, do not exist, whence then is the agent who within this body acts through the senses and breathes? The Ātharvaṇikas teach that Ātman is the agent who acts through the eye and other sense-organs:
“He is the seer, toucher, the hearer, smeller, taster, thinker, knower, the agent, the conscious self, the Puruṣa.”[4]
In common parlance, birth and death being found concomitant with the presence and the absence of the vital air in the body, the ignorant believe that prāṇa itself, the vital air, is the Self. Relying on this belief, Bālāki[5] regarded prāṇa as the Self and argued with Ajātaśatru who held that Brahman was the Self. Accordingly, with a view to remove the illusion that it is prāṇa that sees and does other acts, the śruti here separates prāṇa from the real Self, in the words “who could breathe?” In the absence of the Bliss-Ātman, who is to do the act of breathing by means of prāṇa? That prāṇa is a mere instrument while the Self is the agent is also clearly taught in the Uṣasti-Brāhmaṇa:
“He who breathes by prāṇa, He is thy Self and within all”[6]
It is true that the Bliss-Ātman who is devoid of all attachment, cannot in Himself be the agent of the acts done through 1 he senses &c.; still, He can be the agent when associated with the upādhi of the Vijñānamaya-kośa. Therefore, as the cause of all activity, Brahman does exist. It is this Bliss-Ātman, the cause of all activity, who bestows pleasure on all beings. On obtaining an object of desire, the mind withdraws its attention from the object, and, turning inwards before the rise of a desire for another object, it enjoys the Bliss of the Inner Self (Pratyagātman). This is what is usually called sensual pleasure. 'This truth is known only to the people who are endued with discrimination. Thus we should admit that Brahman exists, as the source of this sensual pleasure.
"
"
Chapter X - Brahman the Infinite Bliss
< Previous
parent: B - Brahmavidyā Explained
Next >
The purpose of the sequel.
In Chapters II—IX, all the questions have been answered. In the words “he attains all desires together,”[1] it has been said very concisely that the knower of Brahman attains all objects of desire at once; and it has been also said—in the words “That One, verily, is the Flavour,”[2]—that Brahman is Bliss. With a view to establish these two propositions the śruti starts an enquiry.
Is Brahman’s Bliss inherent or generated?
सैषाऽऽनन्दस्य मीमाम्̐सा भवति ॥ २ ॥
saiṣā''nandasya mīmām̐sā bhavati || 2 ||
2. This is the enquiry concerning bliss.
Brahman, the Source of fear, is Bliss.[3] Here follows the enquiry concerning Brahman the Bliss.
(Question):—What is there concerning Bliss which has to be inquired into?
(Answer):—The question concerning bliss which has to be settled by enquiry is this: Is (Brahman’s) Bliss generated by the contact of the subject and the object like the worldly pleasure, or is it inherent in Him?
In other words: Is it generated by the contact of the senses and sense-objects like the worldly pleasure? Or, is it quite independent of all external means?—(S).
Brahman’s Bliss to be comprehended through sensual pleasure.
The enquiry that follows here is treated of by the śruti elsewhere. The Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad has discussed at great length and determined the nature of Bliss in the section which begins as follows:
“If a man is healthy, well accomplished, and lord of others, surrounded by all human enjoyments, that is the highest blessing of man.”[4]
‘Healthy’ means sound in body and the senses; ‘well-accomplished’ means possessed oī knowledge and other such attainments.
Now the highest worldly pleasure is occasioned by the combination of the necessary external means and personal accomplishments, and this is here pointed out for a comprehension of Brahman’s Bliss. It is, of course, through this bliss which is familiar to us, that it will be possible for us to conceive Brahman’s Bliss attainable through the mind (buddhi) from which all sense-objects have turned away.
The word ‘bliss’ in the text means the worldly pleasure generated by the combination of external objects and personal accomplishments. By means of this bliss within our ken, raised to the highest point, we shall indicate that Bliss which is ungenerated and does not depend on any external means. We see that whatever admits of higher and lower degrees culminates in what is infiinite in itself; so, too, in the case of bliss. Whatever admits of a higher measure culminates in what is immeasurable in itself; so our bliss culminates in the Supreme Bliss. The śruti itself teaches this here to those whose vision is directed outwards and who are therefore unable to comprehend the Inner Self.—(S).
Even the worldly pleasure is a part (or semblance) of Brahman-Bliss. When wisdom is screened by unwisdom (avidyā) and ignorance is in the ascendant, the Brahman-Bliss becomes the worldly pleasure admitting of various degrees as experienced by Brahmā and other beings of the world in accordance with their deeds (karma), their wisdom, and the external means at their command. The same Brahman-Bliss, the Bliss which is present to the mind of the man who has realised Brahman and who is unassailed by desire, is the bliss which is experienced a hundredfold more and more in the ascending orders of beings, rising from man, gandharvas and upwards, according as avidyā or ignorance, desire and karma decrease, till the culminating point is reached in the bliss of Brahmā, the Hiraṇyagarbha. When the distinction of the subject and the object caused by avidyā has been set aside by vidyā or wisdom, then there will remain the one inherent, perfect non-dual Bliss.
The Brahman-Bliss which has to be determined by enquiry does not admit of higher and lower degrees. It is the bliss generated by karma which we find in the world admitting of higher and lower degrees, from the bliss of Brahma down to that of man. Where this bliss, rising higher and higher from man upwards, reaches its culminating point,—we should understand that to be Brahman, having no beginning, middle, or end. It is a drop of this Brahman-Bliss which the whole world from Brahmā down to man enjoy according to their purity and meritorious deeds. So, rising higher and higher from man upwards, we can see face to face the inherent infinite Bliss of our Self.
The unit of human bliss.
With a view to make us understand this truth, the śruti proceeds as follows:
युवा स्यात्साधुयुवाऽध्यायकः । आशिष्ठो दृढिष्ठो बलिष्ठः । तस्येयं पृथिवी सर्वा वित्तस्य पूर्णा स्यात् । स एको मानुष आनन्दः ॥ ३ ॥
3. Suppose a youth, a good youth, learned in the sacred lore, promptest in action, steadiest in heart, strongest in body,—suppose his is all this earth full of wealth. This is one human bliss.
Youth: one in prime of life. Though a youth, one may not be good; and though good, one may not be young. Hence the qualification “good youth.
In childhood man cannot appreciate the objects of pleasure and is therefore incapable of experiencing the sensual pleasures derived from flowers, good scents, women, and so on. In old age, though man can appreciate things, still, he lacks capacity for enjoyment; and therefore there is no pleasure for him either. So that youth alone is the period of enjoyment. A youth who is ugly and cherishes feelings of enmity and the like suffers much pain: hence the qualification ‘good.’ Though a good youth, a man will have to suffer pain if he lacks the knowledge of any one of the fourteen sciences and the sixty-four arts: hence the epithet “learned in sacred lore.” Though learned in all lore, he who is slow in action, or he who, owing to slowness of digestion, does not relish food, cannot enjoy: hence the qualification ‘promptest,’ or ‘best-eater’ (as the word ‘āśiṣṭha’ is otherwise rendered), i. e., one who can eat all articles of food with great relish. Even such a man, if wanting in fortitude, cannot exhibit courage in war and the like affairs: hence the epithet “steadiest in heart.” Though endued with courage, he who lacks physical strength cannot be equal to such tasks as horse-riding: hence the epithet “strongest.”
Thus all personal accomplishments have been spoken of. If to such a man belongs the whole earth endued with all wealth—with material objects necessary for enjoyment in this visible world and with all materials necessary for those rituals by which to secure the pleasures of the unseen world—i. e., if such a man be the king, the ruler of the whole earth, then his bliss is the highest pleasure of man, the unit of human bliss.
The possession of external objects of pleasure is referred to by the śruti in the second supposition. To this should be added such qualifications as “the lord of others” spoken of in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad. If a ruler of the whole earth should ever possess all the qualifications, then his bliss would represent the unit of human bliss.
The pleasures which are lower than these are no bliss at all, as they are mixed with pain. Certainly, no man other than a ruler of the earth described above, is found anywhere to enjoy satisfaction in all respects. Bliss means satisfaction; satisfaction is incompatible with desire for external objects; and desire for an object of pleasure necessarily springs up if the object is not already possessed. But, in the case of a ruler of the earth, nothing mars his satisfaction, inasmuch as all objects in this world of man are in his possession.
Such being the case, as desire grows less and less, bliss also rises higher and higher. Having this in view, the śruti proceeds to treat of the bliss which is higher than the one described above:
The bliss of the Manuṣya-Gandharvas.
ते ये शतं मानुषा आनन्दाः । स एको मनुष्यगन्धर्वाणामानन्दः । श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य ॥ १ ॥
te ye śataṃ mānuṣā ānandāḥ | sa eko manuṣyagandharvāṇāmānandaḥ | śrotriyasya cākāmahatasya || 4 ||
4. What is a hundred times the human bliss, that is one bliss of human fairies, as also of the man versed in the Vedas, not smitten by passion.
The bliss of the human fairies (manuṣya-gandharvas) is a hundred times superior to the human bliss. The human fairies are those who, while they are men, have, in virtue of works and knowledge of a superior sort, have become Gandharvas. They indeed have the power of making themselves invisible and the like, and they have very subtle bodies and senses.
These Gandharvas of the human world emit sweet odours; they can assume whatever form they like; they possess the power of making themselves invisible and other powers of the kind, and they are experts in dancing and music.—(S).
The conditions of higher bliss.
They have accordingly fewer obstacles; they possess power to resist the pairs of opposites (such as, pleasure and pain, heat and cold), and they command all materials of pleasure. Therefore, being unobstructed and able to counteract obstruction, the human fairy has peace of mind. Owing to greater peace of mind, there is a better manifestation of pleasure. Thus, we see that, owing to the superior tranquillity, the bliss attainable at a higher stage is a hundred times superior to the bliss attainable in the next lower stage.
Of the stages mentioned here up to Brahmā, each succeeding stage is a hundred times superior to the one preceding it.—(S.)
By omitting the epithet “not smitten by passion” in the first instance,[5] the śruti shews that a man of sacred lore who cherishes no longing for human pleasures can attain a pleasure which is a hundred times superior to the human pleasure, i. e., a pleasure which is equal to the pleasure of a human fairy.
A man of sacred lore who is averse to all human pleasures, but who cherishes a desire for the pleasures of the next higher stage, can realise the pleasure which is a hundred times superior to the unit of human pleasure.—(S).
The qualification “a good youth, learned in the sacred lore” implies sacred knowledge and sinlessness, and they are common to all stages, whereas the absence of desire differs (at different stages) tending to a high or low bliss according as the object (of desire) is high or low. Accordingly, inasmuch as from a superior development of this last attribute accrues a hundred times superior pleasure, the śruti teaches—by the epithet * not smitten by passion’—that the attribute of being unsmitten by passion is the means for the attainment of Supreme Bliss.
The śruti teaches that the means of attaining the Supreme Bliss are three, namely, sacred lore, righteousness, and absence of desire. The first two are common to all stages from the human stage up to Brahma, while the third rises higher and higher with the ascending orders of beings and is therefore superior to the other two.—(S).
The king being a human being, his pleasure can become an object of our aspiration, and therefore the qualification of ‘sacred lore’ has not been mentioned in connection with human pleasure. The human fairies dwell in the antarik-sha or mid-region, as the śruti says elsewhere “By the Yakṣas, the Gandharvas and hosts of the Apsarases is the anta-rikṣa inhabited so that, the pleasure of human fairies, is not familiar to man, and the qualification ‘man versed in the Vedas’ is therefore intended to shew how that pleasure comes to be known in the world of man. Indeed by a study-of the scriptures and by his own experience, such a man sees many defects in the enjoyment of pleasure-giving objects in all regions,—namely, that it has to be secured with much trouble,that it is impermanent, and that there are yet higher pleasures,—and cherishes no longing for that kind of enjoyment. So that a man versed in the sacred lore and unassailed by passion enjoys all the pleasure that accrues to one from possession of the objects peculiar to the region of human fairies. Though an ignorant man who is unaware of the region of human fairies may at present remain unassailed by a desire for the pleasures of that region, still, at a subsequent period when he will know more of the region through the scriptures, a desire for its pleasures may spring up in him, and then he will cease to be indifferent. But since the man of the sacred lore who sees evil in those pleasures never cherishes a longing for them, he always remains unassailed by desire.
Peace is the essential condition of bliss.
(Objection):—In the case of a Gandharva, dancing, music and the like, cause now and then a welling up of mind and gives rise to delight; but this is not possible in the case of the man of sacred lore who is free from passion.
(Answer):—Let there be no such delight for him. Being but a momentary passing state of mind, it is not a genuine bliss. The genuine bliss consists in the peculiar satisfaction which prevails in the mind when, on the attainment of the object desired, the desire for it ceases, and the delight and other passing states of mind subside. It has been said:
“Neither the sensual pleasure in this world nor the great pleasure of heaven is equal to a sixteenth part of the pleasure of the extinction of desire.”
Bliss in the form of satisfaction, equal to that of the fairy, exists for him who is versed in the sacred lore unassailed by desire.
What has been said in these two instances—namely, that the bliss of satisfaction manifests itself more and more as greater tranquillity prevails in the mind,—should be understood in the other cases that follow here.
The bliss of the Deva-Qandharvas.
te ye śataṃ manuṣyagandharvāṇāmānandāḥ । sa eko devagandharvāṇāmānandaḥ । śrotriyasya cākāmahatasya ॥ ५ ॥
ते ये शतं मनुष्यगन्धर्वाणामानन्दाः | स एको देवगन्धर्वाणामानन्दः | श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य || 5 ||
5. What is a hundred times the bliss of human fairies, that is one bliss of celestial fairies, as also of the man versed in the Vedas, not smitten by passion.
These are fairies (Gandharvas) by birth.
They are singers of the celestial regions (Deva-loka) born as such at the very beginning of creation.
The bliss of the Pitris.
ते ये शतं देवगन्धर्वाणामानन्दाः । स एकः पितृणां चिरलोकलोकानामानन्दः । श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य ॥ ६ ॥
te ye śataṃ devagandharvāṇāmānandāḥ | sa ekaḥ pitṛṇāṃ ciralokalokānāmānandaḥ | śrotriyasya cākāmahatasya || 6 ||
6. What is a hundred times the bliss of the celestial fairies, that is one bliss of the Pitṛs who dwell in the long-enduring world, as also of the man versed in the Vedas, not smitten by passion.
Those who dwell long in the Pitṛ-lokas are here referred to, and such are the departed souls of those who, while here, perform the ceremonies such as the Pitṛ-śrāddha (oflering to the Pitṛś).—(S).
The bliss of the Devas born in the Ājāna.
ते ये शतं पितृणां चिरलोकलोकानामानन्दाः | स एक आजानजानां देवानामानन्दः | श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य || ७ ||
te ye śataṃ pitṛṇāṃ ciralokalokānāmānandāḥ । sa eka ājānajānāṃ devānāmānandaḥ । śrotriyasya cākāmahatasya ॥ ७ ॥
7. What is a hundred times the bliss of the Pitṛs who dwell in the long-enduring world, that is one bliss of the Devas born in the Ājāna, as also of the man versed in the Vedas, not smitten by passion.
The Ājāna (lit., birth) is the region of the Gods (Devaloka). As a reward for the performance of the acts (of public charity) enjoined in the smṛti, souls are born in the region of the Gods (Devas).
The Ajāna is a Devaloka so called, lying just above the region of Pitṛs.
The bliss of the Karma-Devas.
ते ये शतं आजानजानां देवानामानन्दाः । स एकः कर्मदेवानां देवानामानन्दः । ये कर्मणा देवानपियन्ति । श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य ॥ ८ ॥
te ye śataṃ ājānajānāṃ devānāmānandāḥ | sa ekaḥ karmadevānāṃ devānāmānandaḥ | ye karmaṇā devānapiyanti | śrotriyasya cākāmahatasya || 8 ||
8. What is a hundred times the bliss of the Devas born in the Ājāna, that is one bliss of the Devas (known as) Karma-Devas, those who have reached Devas by work, as also of the man versed in the Vedas, not smitten by passion.
They have reached Devas by mere work, by mere Vedic ritual such as fire-worship, Agnihotra.
They are unenlightened; i. e., they possess no knowledge of Brahman.
The bliss of Devas proper.
ते ये शतं कर्मदेवानां देवानामानन्दाः । स एको देवानामानन्दः । श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य ॥ ९ ॥
te ye śataṃ karmadevānāṃ devānāmānandāḥ | sa eko devānāmānandaḥ | śrotriyasya cākāmahatasya || 9 ||
9. What is a hundred times the bliss of the Devas (known as) Karma-Devas, that is one bliss of Devas, as also of the man versed in the Vedas, not smitten by passion.
The Devas here referred to are the thirty-three[6] Devas who partake of the oblations offered in the sacrificial rites.
These reside on the Northern or Higher Path, the Deva-yāna, the Path of the Gods; they are those who have practised both sacrificial rituals and contemplation of Brahman.
The bliss of Indra.
ते ये शतं देवानामानन्दाः । स एक इन्द्रस्याऽऽनन्दः । श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य ॥ १० ॥
te ye śataṃ devānāmānandāḥ | sa eka indrasyā''nandaḥ | śrotriyasya cākāmahatasya || 10 ||
10. What is a hundred times the bliss of Devas, that is one bliss of Indra, as also of the man versed in the Vedas, not smitten by passion.
Indra is the Lord of the Devas described just above.
"
Re: Temple Of Slaanesh (TO Slaan): What u have, want, w b can't have, h b don't want, & what it means!
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2025 8:19 am
by kFoyauextlH
"
The bliss of Bṛhaspati.
ते ये शतमिन्द्रस्याऽऽनन्दाः । स एको बृहस्पतेरानन्दः । श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य ॥ ११ ॥
te ye śatamindrasyā''nandāḥ । sa eko bṛhaspaterānandaḥ । śrotriyasya cākāmahatasya ॥ ११ ॥
12. What is a hundred times the bliss of Indra, that is one bliss of Bṛhaspati, as also of the man versed in the Vedas, not smitten by passion.
Bṛhaspati is Indra's teacher.
The bliss of the Prajāpati.
ते ये शतं बृहस्पतेरानन्दाः । स एकः प्रजापतेरानन्दः । श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य ॥ ११ ॥
te ye śataṃ bṛhaspaterānandāḥ | sa ekaḥ prajāpaterānandaḥ | śrotriyasya cākāmahatasya || 11 ||
12. What is a hundred times the bliss of Bṛhaspati, that is one bliss of the Prajāpati, as also of the man versed in the Vedas, not smitten by passsion.
Prajāpati, the Lord of creatures, is the Virāj, who has the three worlds for his body.
The bliss of the Hiraṇyagarbha.
ते ये शतं प्रजापतेरानन्दाः । स एको ब्रह्मण आनन्दः । श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य ॥ १३ ॥
te ye śataṃ prajāpaterānandāḥ | sa eko brahmaṇa ānandaḥ | śrotriyasya cākāmahatasya || 13 ||
13. What is a hundred times the bliss of Prajāpati, that is one bliss of Brahma, as alsoofthe man versed in the Vedas, not smitten by passion.
Brahmā, the Hiraṇyagarbha, who is manifested as the Universal Being as well as the individual beings, who pervades all the universe of samsāra, in whom all the different degrees of bliss described above unite into one, who possesses the Dharma which causes that bliss, the knowledge concerning that (Dharma and its results), as also the utmost freedom from desire.
He is the Sūtrātman, the first of the embodied beings, as the śruti says, “The Hiraṇyagarbha was in the beginning.”[7] The smṛti also says “He, verily, is the first embodied being, He is called Puruṣa, the soul; He, the original creator of all beings, this Brahma came into being in the beginning.” Therefore the ever-increasing bliss in this universe of saṃsāra culminates in Him.
Freedom from desire is the pre-eminent conditon of Bliss.
His bliss in its entirety is experienced directly by him who is versed in the Vedas, who is free from all sin and unassailed by desire. Therefore we learn that these three attributes form the means (to the Supreme Bliss). Knowledge of the Vedic teaching and freedom from sin are necessary (at all stages), while freedom from desire rises higher and higher at different stages; wherefore, we understand that this last—freedom from desire—is the pre-eminent condition (of the Supreme Bliss).
By teaching, as shewn above, that all degrees of bliss lie within the scope of the man versed in the Vedas, the śruti has explained how it is that “whoso knoweth the One hid in the cave in the highest heaven attains all desires together.”
The Supreme Bliss and its manifestations.
Even this bliss of the Hiraṇyagarbha, which comes within the scope of the man learned in the Veda on developing the utmost freedom from desire, is only a part of the Supreme Bliss, as the Śruti says, “Of this Bliss, verily, other beings enjoy a part.”[8] This Bliss, from which its parts are separated[9] as drops of water from ocean, and wherein those parts attain unity, [10]—this Supreme Bliss is inherent in Brahman because it is non-dual.
In that Supreme Bliss beyond the Hiraṇyagarbha all our separated blisses attain unity; there all desire for higher and higher degrees of bliss and all knowledge of duality are absent, in virtue of true Knowledge; and there freedom from desire in all its ascending degrees reaches its culminating point.—Having thus arrived at a knowledge of the Supreme Bliss, we should then understand through the scriptures that “I am this Supreme Bliss.”—(S).
Here there is no such distinction as bliss and the enjoyer of bliss.
For, the śruti itself has taught that not the smallest distinction should be made in Brahman. No accessories are necessary for the attainment of one’s own Self, because it is naturally attained. The removal of ignorance is alone necessary. Just as a man who is sunk down under a heavy burden attains greater and greater ease by the gradual removal of the burden, so also by the gradual removal of avidyā, one attains gradually greater and greater peace in one’s own Self.— (S).
Thus the highest bliss in the world of saṃsāra which forms the door leading to the Supreme Bliss, has been made known through both Revelation and the direct experience of the man versed in the Vedas. Now, the śruti proceeds to speak of the Supreme Brahman-Bliss.
The Supreme Bliss is one and non-dual.
The result of the foregoing enquiry is concluded as follows;
स यश्चायं पुरुषे । यश्चासावादित्ये । स एकः ॥ १४ ॥
sa yaścāyaṃ puruṣe | yaścāsāvāditye | sa ekaḥ || 14 ||
14. And this one who is in the man, and that one who is in the sun, He is one.
He who is hid in the cave in the highest heaven, who, having emanated ākāśa and the rest in the universe down to the physical body (annamaya), has entered into that very universe, is here spoken of as “this one who.”—Who is here referred to? The one in this body (puruṣa). “That one who is in the sun” refers to that Supreme Bliss which is said to be within the scope of the man learned in the Vedas and whereof a part alone contributes to the bliss of all beings, from Brahmā downwards, who are entitled to happiness. He is one, as the ākāśa in different jars occupying different places is one.
(Objection):—In referrring to His existence in man, it is not right to refer to it in such terms merely as “this one who is in the man,” without any specification; it would, on the other hand, be right to refer to it in the words “this one who is in the right eye for so does the śruti refer to it elsewhere.[11]
(Answer):—No: for, this section treats of the Supreme Brahman.[12] It is the Supreme Ātman that the śruti treats of in this section, as witness the passages:
“When in truth this soul gains fearless support in Him who is invisible, selfless, undefined, non-abode, then has he the Fearless reached.[13]
“From fear of Him does Wind blow.”[14]
“This is the enquiry concerning Bliss.”[15]
It is not of course right to introduce a foreign subject all on a sudden, while the śruti intends to impart here a knowledge of the Paramātman. It is, therefore, the Supreme Brahman that is here referred to in the words “He is one.” Is it not indeed an enquiry into Bliss with which the śruti is here concerned? The result of that enquiry has to be stated here, in the conclusion, namely, that the Bliss of Brahman is inherent and nondual, the Paramātman Himself, that it is not produced by the contact of the subject and the object. Consonant with this, indeed, is the indication of Brahman in the words “This one who is in the man, and that one who is in the sun, He is one,” by doing away with the special features existing in the different beings.
The direct result of the foregoing enquiry into Bliss, as stated here, is that Brhaman is the non-dual bliss, quite independent of external means; i. e., that the Brahman whose nature as Supreme Bliss has been shewn to us through inference—the limited bliss of the beings in the universe pointing to the existence of the infinite Bliss—is identical with the inner Self. Brahman, who is devoid of all saṃsāra and described as “Real, Consciousness and Infinite,” has been raised above the unreal and the unconscious and shown to be one with the Self abiding in the mind of man. By the extrication from the not-self—the egoism, etc., that lies in the lap of avidyā,—of the Witness thereof, we are made to perceive directly that the Witness is the same as Brahman; for, the Witness being self-luminous and immediately known, He is here referred to as “this one.” The Inner Self of the man free from avidyā as described in the words, “the man learned in the Vedas, not smitten by passion” occurring in the last instance, is, owing to proximity, referred to in “this one in the man;” and so the śruti here teaches that this Inner Self of man, the Pratyagātman, is one with Brahman.—(S).
When there is no avidyā, Brahman comes, of Himself, within the range of experience. Where an unknown object is to be known, there it is that an external source of knowledge is needed, the ego continuing to be the perceiver; but as to Brahman who is Himself Consciousness, no such external source of knowledge is necessary. Here knowledge of the Self is identical with the Self and involves no consciousness of a foreign object; and therefore no external knowledge is needed. This consciousness of the Self has, unlike others, neither a rising nor a setting.—(S).
The location denoted by the words ‘in the man’ in the passage “this one who is in the man” is secondary and should therefore be ignored as unintended, the śruti referring mainly to the Self as it does elsewhere in such passages as “This intelligent one who is in the prāṇas.”[16] So, in the words “this one who is in the man,” the śruti teaches that jīva is identical with that one who is the constant Witness of the mind, and who can be reached by the mind which is not smitten by passion. “That one who is in the Sun” refers to the Paramātman who shines brightest in the sun and is devoid of all separation from us. That the Para-mātman is present in the sun is taught in the śruti:
“The Sun is the Ātman of the moving and the unmoving.”[17]
Because by avidyā the One Reality puts on different forms as Kṣetrajña and īśvara, therefore, by discarding this distinction, we should regard them as one in reality, just as the ākāśa of a jar and ākāśa outside the jar are one.—(S).
(Objection):—Even then, the reference to the particular entity of the sun is of no use.
(Answer):—The reference is not useless. It serves to shew that the inferiority of man and the superiority of the sun should be ignored. Of course, the highest excellence in this world of duality, made up of form and formless matter, is reached in the sun. When we ignore the special features of man, we will find that the Supreme Bliss exists the same (in man and in the sun); and therefore neither superiority nor inferiority exists for one who has reached this state (of unity). It therefore stands to reason to assert “This soul gains fearless support in Him,” etc.
The sun is the highest object in the universe made up of the matter having form and of the formless matter. Identity of the Consciousness in us with the Consciousness in the sun, as taught in the śruti, is possible only when the elements which make the man and the sun the lower and the higher beings are eliminated. In the words “this one who is in the man” the śruti refers to jīva, the lower entity, manifested in the mind of man and predicates his unity with īśvara, the higher entity, as when we say the “serpent is rope.’Tn virtue of this predication of unity with īśvara, jīva’s inferiority which is correlated to īśvara’s superiority should be lost sight of, being incompatible with his unity with Īśvara; and then īśvara’s superiority should also be lost sight of, inasmuch as it can exist only in relation to the inferiority of jīva. So, the result of this predication is that the superiority in the sun and the inferiority in the jīva are both lost sight of. Thus discarding both, we get at that which is not what the words of the sentence directly denote, that which is taught only in the words “not thus, not thus,” namely, the truth that Brahman is the Self and that the Self is Brahman. Neither superiority nor inferiority exists in the Ātman. It is they, whose vision is overpowered by ignorance, that see superiority and inferiority. Ignorance alone leads to the perception of superiority, etc.; they do not exist in reality: therefore when ignorance is devoured by knowledge, all distinctions vanish. Moreover, since the Bliss of the Supreme Brahman excels all blisses ranging from man up to that of the Hiraṇyagarbha, we should hold to the unity of the Self in man and of Brahman in the sun; and then, ignorance which is the source of all differentiation will disappear. By describing Brahman as “Real, Consciousness,” the śruti denies the unreal and ignorance in the very nature of Brahman. Ignorance which is the cause of all distinction, being thus removed, the unity of jīva in man with Brahman in the sun is not incompatible with reason.—(S).
‘Man’ here means the aspirant of wisdom. In him there exists some bliss, as both reason and experience shew. The śruti elsewhere has started at length the argument for its existence. Having started with the words “for the Self’s pleasure, indeed, does everything become dear,”[18] the śruti shews that all objects of pleasure such as sons, wealth, etc., are dear as subservient to the Self, and thereby proves that the Self, as the object of supreme love, is the Bliss itself. Every one feels, “May I ever live! May I never die!” It is thus a fact of every one’s experience that the Self is Bliss. Man here stands for all sentient beings of the same class; and in speaking of bliss in man the śruti has in view the bliss in all the external beings that we see around us. The bliss in the sun is typical of the bliss which is beyond our perception and stands for the bliss of all the Devatās or Cosmic Intelligences of the same class as the sun. In whatever being there is bliss, whether it be in man, or in the other sentient creatures around him, or in the Devatās or Cosmic beings,—in whatever upādhis or vehicles it is contained, all bliss is one and the same in its essential form. All the distinctions that we make in bliss,—such as human bliss, the bliss of gods, and so on,—have reference only to the upādhi. This One Partless Bliss of Brahman, with all the distinctions thereof due to the upādhis from the Hiraṇyagarbha down to the unmoving objects, has been referred to by the śruti elsewhere in the words:
“This is His highest bliss. All other creatures live on a small portion of this bliss.”[19]
Thus the foregoing enquiry points to this conclusion: that the seekers of knowledge should understand that Brahman’s Bliss is one and one alone, that it is one and indivisible, that it is as it were the ocean of bliss whereof the blisses of the Hiraṇyagarbha and others are so many drops.
"
"
Chapter XV - Ānandamaya-kośa
< Previous
parent: A - Brahmavidyā expounded
Next >
The nature of the Ānandamaya self
With a view to teach that even this Vijñānamayakośa is not the Self, the śruti proceeds to teach the Ānandamaya:
3. Than that, verily,—than this one formed of Vijñāna,—there is another self within formed of bliss: by him this one is filled.
To bring about the removal of the idea of agency from the Self, the Śruti proceeds to speak of the Ānandamaya,— the consciousness of the Pratyagātman or the True Self, conditioned by the upādhi of the antaḥ-karaṇa manifested as joy, the fruit of knowledge and action. In the last chapter the Self has been described in His aspect as the agent, under the designation of the Vijñānamaya; and now the śruti teaches of the Self in His aspect as the enjoyer, as the inner self of the Vijñānamaya. Though pure in Himself, the Self becomes the enjoyer by avidyā as He identifies Himself with the upādhi of the Buddhi (antaḥ-karaṇa), this latter taking the form of love and so on.—(S)
The Ānandamaya is not Brahman.
(Objection):—There are some soi-disant scholars,[1] who contend as follows: This one, the Ānandamaya, is the Supreme Being Himself; for (in the sequel) Bhṛgu and Varuṇa close their investigation at this stage, i. e., with the Ānandamaya. Further, the śruti often declares that Ānanda or bliss is Brahman; and hence, too, the appropriateness of the designation ‘Ānanda-vallī’ given to this portion of the Upaniṣad.—(S)
(Answer):—We understand that the Ānandamaya self here treated of is one of the evolved principles,[2] as shewn by the context and by the termination “maya.” The present section has, indeed, hitherto spoken of evolved principles,—those formed of food and other material elements; and in the same series occurs this one, the Ānandamaya. And here the termination ‘maya’ is used in the sense of product (vikāra), as it undoubtedly is in[3] Annamaya,’ that which is produced out of food. We should therefore understand that the Ānandamaya is a product.
If, on the contrary, we understand the termination maya’ to mean ‘abounding in,’ the termination would be understood in two different senses in the same context.—(S) And without resorting to any such deviation, it is possible to make out a consistent meaning of the passsge.—(A)
And also because of (the liberated one) passing into it.—To explain: The śruti will teach (in the sequel) that he (who has realised Brahman as his own true Self) “passes into the Ānandamaya self.’Ā We see (in the section whence the passage is quoted) that it is only into things outside the Real Self,—only into the things of the evolved universe,—that he is said to pass: and he passes into the Ānandamaya self in the same way that he passes into the Annamaya. And it cannot be that he passes into the Real Self; because it would be opposed to the context.[4] And such a thing is also impossible: it is not possible for one to pass into one’s Self, simply because there is no duality in one’s own Self; and Brahman is the very Self of him that passes.
The act of passing, too, spoken of in the śruti, points to the conclusion that the Ānandamaya is a product. That all products pass into or become merged in the Cause is a thing which we all can understand.—To pass into the Paramātman must be either to pass beyond Him or to attain him. None, indeed, can pass beyond Brahman, the Supreme Self, as the śruti itself has clearly taught.[5] And Brahman, the Supreme Self, is already attained, because He is the very Self: Īśvara never passes into His own Self by Himself; no athlete, however clever, can mount upon his own shoulder.—(S)
And also because of the incongruity of representing the Ānandamaya[6] as possessed of a head and so on.— It is not of course proper to imagine a head and other members in the One described above,[7] who is the cause of ākāśa, etc., who does not fall under the category of products.—And the śruti expressly excludes from Him all specific attributes in such passages as the following:
“Transcending sight and self, beyond defining, void of base.”[8]
“Not great, not small.”[9]
“Not thus, not thus”[10]
Since the Supreme Reality is neither corporeal nor incorporeal, we cannot imagine Him as possessed of a head, etc. Moreover, Brahman will be described as “transcending sight and self”, which is opposed to what is said here of the Ānandamaya.—(S)
And also because of the incongruity of the mantra quoted here.—Since no doubt can ever arise as to the existence of Brahman if He were identical with the Ānandamaya self that is immediately experienced as composed of love and other parts, we cannot explain why the śruti quotes the mantra “Non-being verily does one become if he doth Brahman as non-being know.”[11]
Since the Ānandamaya has a definite form, there is no room for doubt as to its existence. The śruti speaks of a doubt as to the existence of Brahman, and therefore Brahman is not identical with the Ānandamaya.—(S & A).
Further, it would be incongruous to speak of Brahman as the support, i. e., as something distinct (from the Ānandamaya)—in the words “Brahman is the tail, the support.”
Therefore, the Ānandamaya falls under the category of products; it is not the very Supreme Self.
Bhṛgu’s closing of the investigation with the Ānandamaya can be explained even on the theory that the Ānandamaya is a product.—Brahman is first described in the Ānandavallī. And then with a view to teach the means of realising Him, the śruti makes Bhṛgu ask Varuṇa “Teach, Brahman, O Lord.” Brahman, the end, having been already explained, the means of attaining the end remains to be taught. And these means are the five kośas (sheaths), because it is by an (investigation of) these kośas that one attains Brahman. By anvaya and vyatireka,—by the method of conjoint presence and absence,—applied to the five kośas, the Ātman is realised; and they are therefore regarded as the means of attaining Brahman. Thus, the Ānandavallī having explained the end,—namely, the unity of the Self and Brahman,—and the Bhṛguvallī having to concern itself only with the teaching of the means of attaining that end, it is but right that Bhṛgu should close the investigation with Ānanda, which is the last step on the path of investigation.—(S)
(Objection):—The Bhṛgu-vallī does not enjoin the investigation of Brahman. On the contrary, it is concerned with the knowledge of Brahman Himself. Hence the reference at the outset (upakrama) to the knowledge, in the passage “The knower of Brahman reaches the Supreme.”—(S)
(Answer):— A person can be commanded to do only that thing which altogether depends on his will. But the right knowledge of Brahman does not altogether depend on any one’s will. The connection of the Bhṛgu-vallī with the knowledge of Brahman—spoken of at the outset in the words “The knower of Brahman reaches the Supreme”— may be explained as merely pointing to the relation between knowledge and investigation as the end and the means.—(S)
Accordingly Varuṇa has taught to Bhṛgu only the five kośas as the means by which to realise the nature of Brahman described in the Ānanda-vallī; and as the remainder,— namely, the real nature of Brahman to be realised—can be known from the passages where it is described, Bhṛgu stopped his investigation with Ānanda, the fifth kośa; but not because he ever meant that the Ānandamaya is Brahman.—(S)
We even grant that the Ānanda, last spoken of in the Bhṛgu-vallī, is identical with the Supreme Brahman. Who has ever denied that the Bliss (Ānanda) which in its nature admits of no difference whatever is the"same as Brahman? Bliss is verily the essential nature of the Supreme Self (Paramātman). But that bliss which manifests itself as love and so on cannot be identical with the Supreme Brahman. We call that Bliss Brahman, in which such distinctions as love and so on have no place, and which is quite beyond the reach of manas. As the five kośas have been excluded from Brahman as having their origin in ajñāna, it does not stand to reason to identify the Ānandamaya-kośa with that Bliss which is beyond the reach of thought and word.—(S) Just as the other kośas, such as the Annamaya which are products evolved from Brahman, are permeated by Brahman, the Supreme Bliss, so also is the Ānandamaya permeated by the Supreme Bliss and hence spoken of as Ānandamaya evolved from Ānanda.—(S)
Therefore the Ānandamaya self here spoken of is the self associated with an upādhi, with the upādhi of Buddhi manifesting itself in the form of love and so on as the result of thought and action.—(S)
The bliss (Ānanda) here spoken of is the happiness which results from thought and action. Formed of this bliss-stuff is the Ānandamaya. And this lies within the Vijñānamaya, because the śruti declares that it lies within the Vijñānamaya, the source of all sacrificial rites and the like. The result of all thought and action being indeed meant for the enjoyment of the enjoyer, it must lie within the Vijñānamaya, the source of all sacrificial rites.[12] And so the Ānandamaya self must lie in the innermost recesses of the former kośas. Further, Vidyā (upāsana, contemplation) and karma are intended to secure love and other forms of bliss. It is a fact, indeed, that the object of all contemplation and action is to secure lovej and other (forms of happiness). Therefore, since love and other (forms of happiness) resulting (from thought and action) are very near to the Self, it is but proper to say that this Ānandamaya is within the Vijñānamaya. And, indeed, the Ānandamaya, made up of the vāsanās (latent impressions) of love and other forms of happiness, presents itself to consciousness in svapna (dream) in association with the Vijñānamaya.
Being thus an object witnessed in svapna by the Pratyagātman, this Ānandamaya cannot be Brahman Himself—(S & A).
The bliss of the Ānandamaya-kośa.
Bliss is the essential nature of the Supreme Brahman as declared by the śruti in the words “Bliss as Brahman he knew;”[13] “Consciousness and Bliss is Brahman”[14] A form (vikāra) of this Bliss is the Ānandamaya,—the aggregate of love, joy, etc.,—to be mentioned below. It is true that the Bliss which is identical with Brahman undergoes no change; still, as ākāśa is imagined to undergo limitation through the upādhi or medium of pots, etc., so in the case of Bliss we may imagine a limitation through the sāttvic vṛttis of antaḥ-karaṇa, through the states of the mind in its parity; and in virtue of this limitation Bliss puts on the form of love, joy and so on. This Ānandamaya self is interior to, and is quite distinct from, the Vijñānamaya looked upon as the agent in all actions. By this Ānandamaya is filled the Vijñānamaya described before. Just as motion which is a function of Prāṇa is experienced throughout the body permeated by the Prāṇamaya, just as senti-ency or sensation (jñāna-śakti) which is a function of manas is experienced throughout the body which is endued with Prāṇa and permeated by. the Manomaya, and just as the consciousness of agency—“I am the doer”—is experienced throughout the body which is endued with both Prāṇa and Manas and permeated by the Vijñānamaya, so also special forms of pleasure are experienced throughout the whole body,—in the hands, feet, etc.,—which are endued with Vijñāna, Manas and Prāṇa, and permeated by the Ānandamaya. This is the idea conveyed by saying that the Vijñānamaya is permeated by the Ānandamaya.
(Objection):—Like pleasure, pain also is experienced in the hands and other parts of the body.
(Answer):—What if it be experienced? It is experienced by reason of the body being permeated by the Manomaya, which gives rise to the state of pain. Pain is a property of the Manomaya, and pleasure is a property of the Ānandamaya as will be clearly explained in the sequel.
Bliss is a positive state.
Now we have to discuss the question, what is Ānanda or pleasure? Is it a mere cessation of pain, or is it a positive state?
(Prima facie view):—At first it may be supposed that pleasure is a mere cessation of pain, inasmuch as sensation of pleasure is felt on the cessation of the pain caused by hunger, thirst and sickness.
(Objection):—Pleasure is a positive state in itself; only it is lost sight of during the existence of pain, the opposite state; so that, if pleasure should manifest itself, it is necessary that pain should cease. Thus since the manifestation of pleasure and the disappearance of pain are simultaneous, the one is mistaken for the other.
(Answer):—No. On being rid of fever, we have no experience of any positive state of pleasure apart from the cessation of pain. Therefore, pleasure is nothing but the cessation of pain.
(Conclusion):—As against the foregoing we hold as follows: we conclude that pleasure is a positive state because of the consciousness of pleasure, experienced on hearing all on a sudden the musical strain of a lute when there is no consciousness of pain preceding. But if pleasure were a mere negative state, it should be felt as the absence of some pain, and the consciousness should therefore include a memory of that pain, since every consciousness of a negative state,— such as the absence of a pot, the absence of a cloth,— includes the consciousness of the thing that is absent. This point has been well established by the teachers of old. Thus, because pleasure is presented to mind without any reference to pain, it is not the mere cessation of pain. That which is presented to mind without reference to pain,—as for example, a pot—cannot be the absence of pain.
Or, pleasure is a positive state because, like pain, it admits of higher degrees of intensity and these higher degrees of intensity of pleasure will be enumerated later on at length when dealing with the pleasure of an emperor, etc.
Theories of pleasure.
Having thus determined that bliss is a positive state, we have now to discuss the following point: what is bliss? Is it an act? Or a quality? Or a reflection of something else? Is it a conditioned form of something? Or is it unconditioned and independent?
(Prima facie view):—At first sight it may seem that it is of the nature of an act; because the word ‘ānanda’ is derived from the verb ‘nad,’ to be pleased. And when the Kauṣītakins, enumerating the organs of action, speak of the organ of generation, they include, in the scope of its activity, the act of enjoying: “Having by consciousness taken possession of the organ of generation, he obtains enjoyment, amusement and offspring.”[15] Here the word ‘enjoyment’ denotes the union of the several parts of the bodies in contact, pervaded throughout by the activity called enjoyment (ānanda-kriyā) produced by the organs of generation. ‘Amusement’ is the pastime that is the natural concomittant of the union; the offspring is the generation of children which is the result of the union. Just as speaking and other kinds of activity are generated by the sense-organ of speech and the like, so also enjoying is a kind of activity generated by the sexual organ. Accordingly the Sāṅkhyas say: “Speaking, taking, walking, excreting and enjoying are the functions of the five organs.”[16] And the Ātharvaṇikas have also declared the objects reached by these organs of action along with their activities mentioned above:
“Both voice and what must be voiced, both hands and what one must handle, both organ of joy and what must be enjoyed, both organ of voiding and what must be voided, both feet and what must be footed.”[17]
This act of enjoying generated by the sexual organ should properly be included in the Manomaya, and it is not therefore right to speak of the Ānandamaya as something interior to Vijñānamaya.
(Conclusion):—No, because by ‘ānanda’ we mean here something different from the act of enjoying you have referred to. As to the nature of this Ānanda different views are held by different schools of philosophers.
According to the Vaiśeṣikas, ānanda or pleasure is a momentary affection produced in the Ātman by contact with Manas,—the Ātman or Soul being himself the doer and the enjoyer. They hold that the nine affections—such as understanding, pleasure, pain, desire, etc.,—are characteristic attributes of the Ātman.
The Sāṅkhyas hold as follows: The Ātman being free
from all ties, desire and other affections are only modifications (pariṇāma) of the three Guṇas of Prakṛti. Pleasure is a modification of the Sattva-guṇa, activity is a modification of the Rajo-guṇa, and error is a modification of the Tamo-guṇa. And accordingly the Lord has said:
“Sattva attaches one to pleasure, Rajas to action, O descendant of Bharata; while, veiling knowledge, Tamas attaches one to error.”[18]
Some followers of the Nyāya system hold as follows: The sensual pleasure is a mere pain because of its association with pain. What with the trouble of securing the objects of pleasure, what with the different degrees there are of pleasure, and what with its liability to destruction, one can easily see that sensual pleasure is necessarily associated with pain. But in the state of liberation (mokṣa) ;he eternal bliss which is an inherent attribute of Ātman is perceived in consciousness, which is likewise an inherent attribute of Ātman. Mokṣa is therefore an object of aspiration.
The Vedantin’s theory of pleasure.
The Vaiśeṣika and other theories of pleasure which have been just described are founded on human speculation. But the śruti has declared that the sensual pleasure is but a chip of that eternal Bliss which forms the very being of the Self and which is an entity by itself. The śruti says:
“This is His highest Bliss; all other creatures live on a small portion of that Bliss.”[19]
While giving expression to his wisdom, a certain Yogin has stated this truth in the following words:
“Abiding all the while in the midst of the milk-ocean of bliss, I have foolishly spent all this time, tasting only such drops of the ocean as come forth from the fire of the sense-objects.”
This chip of Bliss may be either a reflection of the original Bliss, or a bit of it chopped off. The theory of Reflection has been stated by the teachers of old as follows:
“Now we shall discuss the sensual pleasure which contains within it a portion of Brahman’s Bliss, and which forms the gateway to it. The śruti has declared that the sensual pleasure is a bit of Brahman’s Bliss;—that the Supreme Bliss, which is one indivisible homogeneous essence, is of this Self, that all other creatures enjoy but a portion of this Bliss.
“Manas is subject to three kinds of states: namely, tranquil (śānta), violent (ghora), erring (mūḍha.) The tranquil states are dispassion (vairāgyā), endurance, generosity, and so on. The violent states are thirst, fondness, attachment, covetousness, and so on. The erring states are delusion, fear, etc. In all these states of mind Brahman’s Consciousness is reflected, while in the tranquil states of mind His Bliss as well is reflected. The śruti says that ‘He becomes in form like to the various forms.’[20]
“The Vedānta-sūtra (III. ii. 18) compares Brahman’s manifestations in the various forms to the reflected images of the sun. ‘The Self of all creatures is one alone, and He appears in one and many ways like the moon in water.’[21] The image of the moon is imperfect when reflected in dirty water, whereas it is quite perfect when reflected in clear water. Similarly, Brahman reflected in mental states is of two sorts. Owing to the impurity of the violent and erring states of mind, Brahman’s bliss is unmanifested in them, while, owing to their partial purity, His consciousness is reflected in them. Or, to illustrate more aptly: It is only the heat, not the light, of fire that passes into water, however pure it may be; similarly, consciousness alone is manifested in the violent and erring states of mind. On the other hand, both the heat and the light of fire pass into a piece of wood; and, just so, both Consciousness and Bliss are manifested in the tranquil states of mind.”[22]
Thus the theory of Reflection has been described. Now as to the theory of Separation. That bliss which constitutes the essential being of the jīvātman, and which is self-manifested in the upādhis or vehicles of Consciousness— the body, the senses, etc.;—is the bliss that has been chopped off, as it were, from Brahman. As the object of highest love, jīvātman is bliss itself. That the bliss is the essential being of the jīvātman and that he is the object of highest love is declared by the Vājasaneyins as follows:
“This Self, who is nearer to us than anything, is dearer than a son, dearer than wealth, dearer than all else.”[23]
This Self,—who is immediately experienced in the notion ‘here I am,” who is the witness of the body, senses, etc.,—this self is the innermost principle of our being; and surely it is dearer than wealth, sons and all else,—these being of varying degrees of nearness. These varying degrees of nearness are explained by the Vārtikakāra as follows:
“Sons are dearer than wealth; dearer than sons is one’s own body; the senses are dearer than the body; and prāṇa is dearer than the senses; dearer even than prāṇa is the Self beyond.”
Wealth and other things which are outside the Self are objects of love because of their being subservient to the Self. But love for the Self is the highest because it is absolute. All this has been illustrated in the Maitreyi-Brāhmaṇa by many examples such as the following:
“Verily, a husband is dear to one, not because of love for the husband; but, because of the love for the Self, the husband is dear.”[24]
And all the examples mentioned in this connection have been compiled by a writer as follows:
“A husband, a wife, a son, wealth, cattle, Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas, worlds, Devas, Vedas, creatures—all these are beloved for the sake of the Self.”
As the object of genuine love, the Self is in his essential nature the true Bliss itself; and as dwelling in each body .eparately, the Bliss-Ātman becomes divided as it were. As the genuine Bliss, the Bliss-Ātman is the original, whose reflections enter into tranquil states of the mind when thinking of agreeable objects such as wealth, sons, etc. These reflections are as false as the images reflected in water or in a mirror; and though the bliss which has become separated by the upādhis is real, still, it has the fault of limitation. Consequently, neither the reflected image of Bliss nor its detached bits can constitute the genuine Bliss. On the contrary, that Bliss is real which constitutes the essential nature of Brahman, and which is not subject to any kind of limitation. Accordingly in the dialogue between Nārada and Sanatkumāra, the Chhan-dogas declare as follows:
“‘......This bliss, however, we must seek to know’
‘Sir, I desire to know the bliss.’
‘The Infinite is bliss. There is no bliss in the finite, The Infinite alone is bliss, and the Infinite alone, verily, we must seek to know’
‘Sir, I desire to know the Infinite.’
‘Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, cognises nothing else, that isthe Infinite.
‘Where one sees something else, hears something else, cognises something else, that is the finite. The Infinite is immortal, and the finite is mortal.’”[25]
"
Re: Temple Of Slaanesh (TO Slaan): What u have, want, w b can't have, h b don't want, & what it means!
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2025 8:20 am
by kFoyauextlH
"
Nārada asked Sanat-Kumāra how he might reach the end of grief; and the latter said that, to reach the end of grief, the real nature of bliss should be investigated. Nūrada undertook to investigate it, and the master taught him that the Bhūman, the Infinite, was Bliss. “Bhūman” means infinity. It has been said above that since neither the context nor any accompanying word suggests a limitation in its literal sense, the word ‘Brahman’ denotes absolute or unlimited greatness. So here, too, the word ‘Bhūman’ means absolute infinity. We see that, people find pleasure, not in limited wealth, but only in the vastness of wealth. So, the Infinite is Bliss, and certainly the Infinite alone should be investigated. Seeing that Nūrada was prepared for the investigation, Sanat-kumūra defined the Infinite in the words “Where one sees nothing else,” etc. In our ordinary experience, one sees colour by the eye, i.e., one sees something distinct from oneself. This is one aspect of the tripuṭī or triple consciousness, made up of the seer, what is seen, and the act of seeing. There are other aspects: such as the one made up of the hearer, what is heard, and the act of hearing; the one made up of the cogniser, what is cognised, and the act of cognising; and so on. That which does not admit of triple consciousness in any one of its aspects is the Infinite. The triple consciousness in its several aspects obtains only in forms set up by Māyā; and all such forms are finite. Of the two, the Infinite is imperishable and the finite is perishable. The finite things in this universe of duality contain seeds of pain and are therefore painful in their nature; whereas the Infinite, the Non-dual, is devoid of all seeds of pain and is therefore Bliss itself. This Infinite, in Its genuine nature as Bliss, is felt in the suṣupti and samādhi states in which the triple consciousness is altogether absent. But on awaking from suṣupti and samādhi, i. e., in the jāgrat and vyutthāna states which are associated with triple consciousness, the universe of finite objects, embraced in the consciousness of the ordinary world, is experienced in its painful nature by the enlightened sage as well as by the unenlightened man of the world. Thus as they are mixed with pain, both the limited bliss, which constitutes the essential nature of the jīva, and the reflections thereof in the mental states are not genuine. The Infinite alone is the genuine Bliss.
Contemplation of the Ānandamaya.
Now the śruti proceeds to teach of the form in which the Ānandamaya,—which is a vikāra or modified form of the genuine Bliss just described, composed of love, joy and other forms of Bliss—should be contemplated, so that the conviction that the Ānandamaya is the self may be strengthened.
4. He, verily, this one, is quite of man’s shape. After his human shape, this one is of man’s shape. Of him, love itself is the head, joy is the right wing, delight is the left wing, bliss is the self, Brahman is the tail, the support.
Love, which springs up at the sight of a beloved son and the like, is the head, as it were, of the Ānandamaya self, because of its prominence. Joy is the exultation caused by the acquisition of a beloved object. The same exultation raised to a high pitch is called delight.
The Ānandamaya, lying within the Vijñānamaya, is none other than he who feels “I am happy, I am the enjoyer.” After the pattern of the Vijñānamaya, made up of a head, &c., the Ānandamaya, too, is of human form. Love, joy and delight are reflections of Bliss manifested in the Sāttvic states of mind. Delight is caused by the benefit derived from a beloved object.
Bliss is happiness in general; and it is the self,[26] as it were, of love and other forms of bliss, because it runs through them all. Bliss (Ānanda)[27] is the Supreme Brahman. And this Bliss is manifested is that state of mind (antaḥ-karaṇa) which is brought about when sons, friends, or such other objects of regard, are presented to consciousness in virtue of good karma, when the veil of Tamas (darkness) has been lifted and the mind is tranquil.
Under the action of Dharma, darkness vanishes from Buddhi. The more does it vanish, the more is the Buddhi self-collected, and the greater is the happiness.—(S)
This is what is known among people as the sensual pleasure (viṣaya-sukha). And this pleasure is impermanent because the karma which brings about such a state of mind is impermanent
As the antaḥ-karaṇa is more purified by austerity (tapas) which is calculated to dispel darkness, by contemplation (vidyā), by chastity and pious devotion (brahma-charya), and by reverential faith (śraddhā), it becomes more and more free (from Tamas) and becomes more and more tranquil; and then the Bliss manifests itself in a higher and higher degree and expands more and more. The śruti says in the sequel:
“Nectar, indeed, is he. Nectar, indeed, possessing, he becomes a thing of Bliss.’[28]
“He, verily, it is who bestows bliss.”[29]
“All other creatures live on a small portion of that bliss.”[30]
Thus bliss is of different degrees of intensity, owing to the variety of karma producing it.—(S)
The bliss here referred to is that which is reflected in ajñāna, the upādāna or material cause of the vṛttis or vehicles of consciousness described above. Or, it maybe that the limited bliss, forming the essential nature of the jīvātman, the original counterpart, is reflected in the vehicles described above, (namely, love, joy, delight, etc.).
Accordingly the śruti will describe in the sequel different degrees of bliss, rising in scale a hundredfold higher and higher as the subjugation of desire (kāma) is more and more complete. Of the Ānandamaya self, thus admitting of different degrees of intensity, the Supreme Brahman Himself—the object of the śruti being to give us to understand what Brahman, the Supreme Reality, is[31]—is the tail, the support.
That one perfect Brahman wherein this increasing bliss attains its highest degree, is the tail, because it is the basis of all.—(S).
It is the Supreme Brahman, forming the main subject of discourse, that has been described as “Real, Consciousness, Infinite;” and it is to impart a knowledge of the Supreme Brahman that the five kośas, beginning with the Annamaya, have been described. The Supreme Brahman, the Innermost One lying within them alibis also the Self of them all. It is this non-dual Brahman that constitutes the support, i.e, the ultimate basic reality underlying all duality which avidyā has set up. Since the Ānandamaya leads ultimately to unity, there does exist the One, the non-dual Brahman, who is the ultimate basis of duality imagined by avidyā, who is the tail, the support, of the Ānandamaya.
The infinite and genuine Bliss is Brahman, and is the basis of all the rest; thence come the finite bliss of jīvātman and the reflections thereof. Love, joy and delight are no doubt states of the mind which is an instrument, and are therefore external to the Vijñānamaya who is the agent. Still, inasmuch as they contain the reflections of the inner finite bliss of jīva or of the inner infinite bliss of Brahman, the Ānandamaya Self is regarded as interior to the Vijñānamaya.
Concentration in Brahman attained.
On realising intuitively by contemplation the Ānandamaya Self, the mind attains concentration in Brahman Himself who has been figuratively spoken of as the tail of the Ānandamaya; and then, as conveying no reflection of any kind, the mind surely realises the true nature of Brahman, as the śruti says, “With sharp and subtle mind is He beheld.”[32] It is like one who mistakes the radiant rays of a gem for the gem itself, and who, on approaching, finds out what the real gem is. This circumstantial realisation of the true nature of Brahman is the fruit of the contemplation (of the Ānandamaya), and therefore, without mentioning any other fruit, the śruti concludes by merely teaching the true nature ot Brahman,—who is the basis of the whole universe,—in the words “Brahman is the tail, the support.” Accordingly, the śruti proceeds to cite a verse which describes Brahman, the chief element in the Ānandamaya-kośa:
As bearing on this teaching, too, the following verse may be cited:
The śruti cites the following verse, in order that, through that verse, the student may understand what has been already taught.—(S)
Brahman, the one Being.
॥ अथ षष्ठोऽनुवाकः ॥
असन्नेव स भवति । असद्ब्रह्मेति वेद चेत् । अस्ति ब्रह्मेति चेद्वेद । सन्तमेनं ततो विदुरिति ॥ १ ॥
|| atha ṣaṣṭho'nuvākaḥ ||
asanneva sa bhavati | asadbrahmeti veda cet | asti brahmeti cedveda | santamenaṃ tato viduriti || 1 ||
(Anuvaka VI.)
1. Non-being, verilv, does one become if he ns non-being knows līrahman. It one knows thnt Brahman is, then they regard him as being. Thus (reads the verse).
He who knows Brahman to be non-being becomes equal to a non-being himself. That is to say, he attains no human aspirations, any more than one who is non-existent.
If a person knows that Brahman is non-being, though He exists in the form of the Self, he, as identifying himself with the kośas, surely becomes non-existent. The Self does not indeed exist as a kośa without existing as Brahman. How can the (illusory) serpent have a being except as the rope which alone is real?—(S).
If, on the contrary, a man knows that there exists Brahman, who is the basis of all differentiation, who is the seed of alPevolution, and who in Himself is characterised by no distinguishing features (we know of,...—
Now, it may be asked, whence at all arises the supposition that Brahman does not exist? We replv: it arises from the fact that Brahman is beyond sensuous experience. The mind (buddhi), trained as it has indeed been to regard that as existing which falls within the range of sensuous experience and which is but a creature of speech, has also come to believe that what is contrary thereto, i.e., what is beyond sensuous experience, is non-existent. People, for instance, understand that a pot exists, when it is brought within the range of experience, and that it does not exist, when it does not come within the range of experience. Similarly, here too, one may suppose that Brahman does not exist. Hence the supposition “if one knows that Brahman is.”
What of him who knows that Brahman exists? The śruti says: Because of his knowledge that Brahman exists, those who know Brahman regard him as being; they regard that, being one with Brahman, he is the Supreme Being and Reality. That is to say, others regard that he is Brahman Himself.
Suppose a person knows Brahman, the One, the Existent, as distinguished from the kośas which are non-existent; then, the Self (the witness) being none other than Brahman, the Brāhmaṇas (i. e., devotees of Brahman) regard him as Being. Such being the case, one should abandon all thought of the kośas which have been created by ajñāna, and should resort solely to the Paramātman, the Supreme Self, who is free from all change, who has neither a beginning nor an end. Being Paramātman, the Self can never be a non-being, because there is no non-being except as kośas; hence the śruti “Death, verily, is the non-being;”[33] “‘He exists’; thus alone should one regard;”[34] “Existent, verily, this at first was.”[35] Nothing can really have a being anywhere except in Brahman, the Self.—(S)
So far as sensuous experience goes, all living beings think that a pot exists, only with reference to that pot which can be used for bringing water, which can be seen by the eye, and so on. If the contrary were the case, they think that no pot exists. So, with this kind of experience firmly ingrained in his nature, man thinks that Brahman, who is beyond sensuous experience, does not exist. As opposed to him, he who has the power of discrimination thinks that all matter and all material things which fall within the range of sensuous experience are non-existent, because of his conviction of their illusory nature, founded on the śruti, reason and experience. He believes in the existence of Brahman beyond sensuous experience, as proved by the śruti and other authorities. The man who regards Brahman as non-being will be himself non-existent; for, it has been shewn that the Annamaya and other kośas are non-self, and he does not admit the existence of Brahman beyond the kośas. Suppose a man knows Brahman who is beyond the five kośas; then, that very Brahman is his essential being, and therefore, in virtue of his knowledge of the existence of Brahman, those who have exhaustively studied the scriptures say that he, this discriminating man, has a being, has a Self.
Or, (to interpret the verse in a better way): He who understands that Brahman does not exist has no faith in the righteous path of any kind based upon distinctions of caste and religious order (varṇa and āśrama), and he therefore comes to believe that there is no such path,—the path being in fact intended solely for the realisation of Brahman. So that, being an unbeliever (nāstika), he is regarded by people as unrighteous. As opposed to him, he who understands that Brahman exists believes in the righteous path based upon the distinction of caste and religious order, and therefore resorts to it in accordance with the ordinance; and consequently the wise call him a righteous man, a follower of the right path. This is, in effect, to say that we should know that Brahman exists.
He who believes that Brahman is non-existent is certainly unrighteous. Since the whole path of righteousness— based upon distinctions of caste, religious order, and the like—is intended to lead to a knowledge of Brahman, he who condemns the whole path of righteousness by way of denying the existence of Brahman is a thorough unbeliever. On the contrary, him who believes in the existence of Brahman, they regard as righteous, as the pillar of the righteous path. This is the idea which the Kaṭhas express in the words; “‘He exists’: thus should one regard,”
Brahman, the Innermost Self.
Now the śruti proceeds to direct the upāsaka to firmly dwell in the idea that the Ānandamaya is his Self, while teaching the aspirant of right knowledge that the Self is identical with the Real Brahman:
तस्यैष एव शारीर आत्मा । यः पूर्वस्य ॥ २ ॥
tasyaiṣa eva śārīra ātmā | yaḥ pūrvasya || 2 ||
2. Thereof,—of the former,—this one, verily, is the Self embodied.
Thereof,—of the former,— i.e., of the Vijñānamaya, this one, surely,—namely, the Ānandamaya,—is the embodied Self, i.e., the Self dwelling in the Vijñānamaya body.
That one who has no body, who is the one Existence, the Non-dual, the Partless, is the Self of all other selves mentioned above,—ending with the Ānandamaya. There is no other Self beyond— (S).
There can never arise a doubt that this one (the Ānandamaya) does not exist. But, as to Brahman, there is room for the doubt that He does not exist, since He is devoid of special conditions of existence and is common to all alike.[36]
This very Ānandamaya is the master of the Vijñānamaya,—the latter being the body of the former. So far as the upāsaka is concerned, the passage should be construed to mean that the Ānandamaya is the Self. As to the aspirant after true knowledge it should be construed as follows: The Brahman just spoken of as the tail is the Self of the former, i. e., of the quaternary made up of love, joy, delight and bliss; the quaternary constituting the body, and Brahman who has the quaternary for His body being the Self. The self-same idéa has been expressed by the Vārtikakāra. Vide ante p. 425 11. 4 - 10.
The Ānandamaya construed as the Paramātman.
The meaning of this section has been discussed in the Brahmasūtras (I. i. 12 — 19). One school of commentators has interpreted the sūtras as follows:
(Question):—In the Taittirīya-Upaniṣad, five principles—-the physical body, Prāṇa, Manas, Buddhi, and Ānanda,—have been mentioned under the designations of Annamaya, Prāṇamaya, Manomaya, Vijñānamaya and Ānandamaya,— every succeeding one being interior to the one preceding it. Now a doubt arises as to whether the Ānandamaya, the innermost of them all, is ah entity of tbe world (saṃsārin) or the Supreme Self (Paramātman).
(Prima facie view):—It would seem that the Ānandamaya is an entity of the world; for, the word “ānandamaya” means a modified form (vikāra) of Ānanda and is therefore applicable only to an entity of the world. This word cannot be applied to the Supreme Self, the Immutable one. Moreover, the Ānandamaya has been spoken of as made up of five members: “Love is the head, joy is the right wing, delight is the left wing, Bliss is the self, Brahman is the tail, the support.” Love is the pleasure which arises at the sight of an object of desire. The pleasure caused by the acquisition of that object is joy, and that which arises from its enjoyment is delight. Bliss is pleasure in the abstract, which manifests itself in the upādhi of ajñāna during suṣupti and the like. That bliss which is unconnected with any upādhi or condition whatsoever is Brahman. The five members of the Ānandamaya, spoken of as love and so on, are represented in imagination as the head, etc., only to facilitate our contemplation and comprehension. Of the Ānandamaya thus represented in imagination, the head and the two wings form three members; the central portion is spoken of as the self and constitutes the fourth member; while the tail, the lower part, the support, the basis, constitutes the fifth member. Certainly the partless Paramātman can have no parts. Therefore, the Ānandamaya is surely a samsārin, an entity of the world.
(Conclusion):—As against the foregoing, it is argued as follows; The Ānandamaya is the Paramātman, because of the repetition. Again and again the Ānandamaya is referred to in this section of the Upaniṣad, in the passages like the following.;
“This is the enquiry concerning bliss.”[37]
“Into this self formed of bliss he passes on.”[38]
Frequent reference is a mark of the main subject of discourse; and we have shewn that the one main theme of all Upaniṣads (Vedanta) is Brahman, and Brahman alone. Moreover, the section opens with Brahman in the words “Real, Consciousness, Infinite is Brahman,”[39] and again He is spoken of as the creator of the universe in the words “He created all this;”[40] and therefore the Ānandamaya is Brahman. It should not be urged that the word ending in the termination “maya,” and meaning “formed of bliss” cannot be applied to Brahman; for, the word may also mean “abounding in bliss.” And as to love, etc. being spoken of as members of the Ānandamaya, it is due to the upādhis, such as perception of the sense-objects. Wherefore the Ānandamaya is Brahman.
Such is the construction put upon the Vedānta-sūtras (I. i. 12 — 19) by one school of the Vedāntins.
The Ānandamaya construed as the jīva.
Now the same sūtras will be interpreted according to the orthodox (Śaṅkarāchārya’s) school of the Vedānta:
(Question):—It has been said that “Brahman is the tail, the support.” Here, a doubt arises as to whether the śruti means that Brahman is a member of the Ānandamaya, or that Brahman is to be know n as an independent entity in Himself.
(Prima facie view):—It would appear that Brahman should be comprehended as a member of the Ānandamaya, inasmuch as in common parlance the term ‘tail’ is a ppli-cable only to a member of the body.
(Conclusion):—The word ‘tail’ does not mean a member of the body. It is that long appendage which is attached to the bodies of some animals. And the Ānandamaya cannot be said to be possessed of a tail, which is only a part of the Annamaya or physical body of animals such as the cow. Since the word ‘tail’ does not thus admit of a literal interpretation here, we should understand it in a figurative sense as meaning ‘basis’. Brahman is the basic reality underlying the Ānandamaya or jīva, since Brahman is mistaken for jīva. And the Ānandamaya cannot be the Supreme Self (Paramātman); for, even if we understand the word “ānandamaya” as signifying “abounding in bliss” it would imply some admixture of pain. Wherefore, as the basic reality underlying jīva, Brahman is presented here as the main thing to be comprehended. Hence the frequent reference to Brahman in such passages as “Non-being verily does one become if he as non-being knows Brahman;” as also the opening words of the section, “the knower of Brahman reaches the Supreme.” So that, on the principle of interpretation discussed in the case of the Puruṣa spoken of in the Kaṭha-Upaniṣad, it is Brahman alone that is here presented for comprehension, but not the evolution of ākāśa, etc., nor the Annamaya and other kośas.
Brahman, the sole theme of the Upaniṣads.
The principle of interpretation above referred to is dis cussed as follows in the Vedānta-sūtras (III. iii. 14—15).
(Question):—In the Kaṭha-Upaniṣad, occurs the following passage:
“Beyond the senses, verily, are objects; and beyond objects is Manas; even beyond Manas is Buddhi; beyond Buddhi is Ātman, the Mahat; beyond the Mahat is Avyakta; beyond Avyakta is Puruṣa; beyond Puruṣa there is nothing whatsoever; That is the farthest, That the Supreme Goal.”[41]
The meaning of the passage may be explained as follows: A person first craves in manas for sense-objects and then reaches them through the senses. Now, the senses being internal with reference to external objects, everybody can understand that the former transcend the latter. But as objects of desire, these sense-objects are internal, or subjective, in relation to the senses. And beyond these objects of desire is the desire itself, a state of mind, which is quite internal or subjective. Buddhi, the subject experiencing these changes of manas, transcends the changes of manas, and beyond even Buddhi is the Self, the Hiraṇyagarbha, designated as Mahat, the upādā-na or material cause of Buddhi. Transcending even Mahat is the material cause thereof, called Avyakta, the Ajñāna lying at the root of all; and even beyond Avyakta is Puruṣa, the Supreme principle of Consciousness, the basic Reality underlying Avyakta. And there exists naught beyond Puruṣa. Puruṣa is the last rung in the ladder of ascending transcendentality and is the Supreme Goal to be reached by all aspirants of the Highest Good.
Now a doubt arises as to whether the whole series of things enumerated here, or Puruṣa alone, is presented by the śruti for comprehension.
(Prima facie view):—The whole series of things beginning with the senses is presented by the śruti for comprehension, equally with Puruṣa, the main subject of discourse. Otherwise, the exposition of the series would be in vain. It may perhaps be urged that to hold that the section expounds so many things would tantamount to the admission that it treats of different propositions. We answer that the section certainly treats of different propositions, it being impossible to make out that only one single proposition is here treated of.
(Conclusion):—Since knowledge of Puruṣa brings about the cessation of ajñāna which is the source of all saṃsāra, it is Puruṣa alone that forms the subject of discourse. Accordingly, as a means of attaining this knowledge of Puruṣa alone, Yoga has been specially taught in the sequel in the following words:
“This one, the Self, hid in all beings, shines not; but He is seen with sharp subtle buddhi by them that see the subtle.”[42]
This passage may be explained as follows: As the innermost being in all, the Self lies hidden and does not manifest Himself to him whose mind is turned outward. On the contrary He manifests Himself to Him whose mind is turned inward. For him whose mind is thus turned inward and who always seeks to see the subtle Reality, it is possible to see the Self by means of Buddhi which by practice of Yoga has attained to one-pointedness and is able to grasp the subtle. It cannot be objected that, if Puruṣa alone be the subject of exposition, the description of the whole series of things would be useless; for, this series is the means whereby the mind which is turned outward is enabled gradually to approach Puruṣa. Therefore, Puruṣa alone is the thing to be known.
Conclusion.
In accordance with this principle of interpretation, we understand that the evolution of ākāśa, etc., has been expounded with a view to shew that Brahman is the Infinite, and that the five kośas—the Annamaya, etc.,— have been described with a view to shew that Brahman lies in the cave. It is Brahman, and Brahman alone, that is presented everywhere for comprehension. We therefore conclude that Brahman is Real, Consciousness, and Infinite, and that, as lying in the cave, He is also the innermost Self of all.
"
"
I, 3, 9
< Previous
parent: First Adhyāya, Third Pāda
Next >
9. And on account of the agreement of the attributes (mentioned in the text).
"
Re: Temple Of Slaanesh (TO Slaan): What u have, want, w b can't have, h b don't want, & what it means!
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2025 8:20 am
by kFoyauextlH
"
The attributes, moreover, which the sacred text ascribes to the bhūman agree well with the highest Self. The passage, 'Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is the bhūman,' gives us to understand that in the bhūman the ordinary activities of seeing and so on are absent; and that this is characteristic of the highest Self, we know from another scriptural passage, viz. 'But when the Self only is all this, how should he see another?' &c. (Bṛ. Up. IV, 5, 15). What is said about the absence of the activities of seeing and so on in the state of deep sleep (Pra. Up. IV, 2) is said with the intention of declaring the non-attachedness of the Self, not of describing the nature of the prāṇa; for the highest Self (not the vital air) is the topic of that passage. The bliss also of which Scripture speaks as connected with that state is mentioned only in order to show that bliss constitutes the nature of the Self. For Scripture says (Bṛ. Up. IV, 3, 32), 'This is his highest bliss. All other creatures live on a small portion of that bliss.'--The passage under discussion also ('The bhūman is bliss. There is no bliss in that which is little (limited). The bhūman only is bliss') by denying the reality of bliss on the part of whatever is perishable shows that Brahman only is bliss as bhūman, i.e. in its plenitude,--Again, the passage, 'The bhūman is immortality,' shows that the highest cause is meant; for the immortality of all effected things is a merely relative one, and another scriptural passage says that 'whatever is different from that (Brahman) is perishable' (Bṛ. Up. III, 4, 2).--Similarly, the qualities of being the True, and of resting in its own greatness, and of being omnipresent, and of being the Self of everything which the text mentions (as belonging to the bhūman) can belong to the highest Self only, not to anything else.--By all this it is proved that the bhūman is the highest Self.
"
"
I, 1, 12
< Previous
parent: First Adhyāya, First Pāda
Next >
12. (The Self) consisting of bliss (is the highest Self) on account of the repetition (of the word 'bliss,' as denoting the highest Self).
The Taittirīya-upaniṣad (II, 1-5), after having enumerated the Self consisting of food, the Self consisting of the vital airs, the Self consisting of mind, and the Self consisting of understanding, says, 'Different from this which consists of understanding is the other inner Self which consists of bliss.' Here the doubt arises whether the phrase, 'that which consists of bliss,' denotes the highest Brahman of which it had been said previously, that 'It is true Being, Knowledge, without end,' or something different from Brahman, just as the Self consisting of food, &c., is different from it.--The pūrvapakṣin maintains that the Self consisting of bliss is a secondary (not the principal) Self, and something different from Brahman; as it forms a link in a series of Selfs, beginning with the Self consisting of food, which all are not the principal Self. To the objection that even thus the Self consisting of bliss may be considered as the primary Self, since it is stated to be the innermost of all, he replies that this cannot be admitted, because the Self of bliss is declared to have joy and so on for its limbs, and because it is said to be embodied. If it were identical with the primary Self, joy and the like would not touch it; but the text expressly says 'Joy is its head;' and about its being embodied we read, 'Of that former one this one is the embodied Self' (Taitt. Up. II, 6), i.e. of that former Self of Understanding this Self of bliss is the embodied Self. And of what is embodied, the contact with joy and pain cannot be prevented. Therefore the Self which consists of bliss is nothing but the transmigrating Soul.
To this reasoning we make the following reply:--By the Self consisting of bliss we have to understand the highest Self, 'on account of repetition.' For the word 'bliss' is repeatedly applied to the highest Self. So Taitt. Up. II, 7, where, after the clause 'That is flavour'--which refers back to the Self consisting of bliss, and declares it to be of the nature of flavour--we read, 'For only after having perceived flavour can any one perceive delight. Who could breathe, who could breathe forth if that Bliss existed not in the ether (of the heart)? For he alone causes blessedness;' and again, II, 8, 'Now this is an examination of Bliss;' 'He reaches that Self consisting of Bliss;' and again, II, 9, 'He who knows the Bliss of Brahman fears nothing;' and in addition, 'He understood that Bliss is Brahman' (III, 6). And in another scriptural passage also (Bṛ. Up. III, 9, 28), 'Knowledge and bliss is Brahman,' we see the word 'bliss' applied just to Brahman. As, therefore, the word 'bliss' is repeatedly used with reference to Brahman, we conclude that the Self consisting of bliss is Brahman also. The objection that the Self consisting of bliss can only denote the secondary Self (the Saṃsārin), because it forms a link in a series of secondary Selfs, beginning with the one consisting of food, is of no force, for the reason that the Self consisting of bliss is the innermost of all. The Śāstra, wishing to convey information about the primary Self, adapts itself to common notions, in so far as it at first refers to the body consisting of food, which, although not the Self, is by very obtuse people identified with it; it then proceeds from the body to another Self, which has the same shape with the preceding one, just as the statue possesses the form of the mould into which the molten brass had been poured; then, again, to another one, always at first representing the Non-Self as the Self, for the purpose of easier comprehension; and it finally teaches that the innermost Self[1], which consists of bliss, is the real Self. Just as when a man, desirous of pointing out the star Arundhatī to another man, at first points to several stars which are not Arundhatī as being Arundhatī, while only the star pointed out in the end is the real Arundhatī; so here also the Self consisting of bliss is the real Self on account of its being the innermost (i.e. the last). Nor can any weight be allowed to the objection that the attribution of joy and so on, as head, &c., cannot possibly refer to the real Self; for this attribution is due to the immediately preceding limiting condition (viz. the Self consisting of understanding, the so-called vijñānakosa), and does not really belong to the real Self. The possession of a bodily nature also is ascribed to the Self of bliss, only because it is represented as a link in the chain of bodies which begins with the Self consisting of food, and is not ascribed to it in the same direct sense in which it is predicated of the transmigrating Self. Hence the Self consisting of bliss is the highest Brahman.
"
"
I, 1, 19
< Previous
parent: First Adhyāya, First Pāda
Next >
19. And, moreover, it (i.e. Scripture) teaches the joining of this (i.e. the individual soul) with that, (i.e. the Self consisting of bliss), on that (being fully known).
And for the following reason also the term, 'the Self consisting of bliss,' cannot denote either the pradhāna or the individual soul. Scripture teaches that the individual soul when it has reached knowledge is joined, i.e. identified, with the Self of bliss under discussion, i.e. obtains final release. Compare the following passage (Taitt. Up. II, 7), 'When he finds freedom from fear, and rest in that which is invisible, incorporeal, undefined, unsupported, then he has obtained the fearless. For if he makes but the smallest distinction in it there is fear for him.' That means, if he sees in that Self consisting of bliss even a small difference in the form of non-identity, then he finds no release from the fear of transmigratory existence. But when he, by means of the cognition of absolute identity, finds absolute rest in the Self consisting of bliss, then he is freed from the fear of transmigratory existence. But this (finding absolute rest) is possible only when we understand by the Self consisting of bliss, the highest Self, and not either the pradhāna or the individual soul. Hence it is proved that the Self consisting of bliss is the highest Self.
But, in reality, the following remarks have to be made concerning the true meaning of the word 'ānandamaya[1].' On what grounds, we ask, can it be maintained that the affix 'maya' after having, in the series of compounds beginning with annamaya and ending with vijñānamaya, denoted mere modifications, should all at once, in the word ānandamaya, which belongs to the same series, denote abundance, so that ānandamaya would refer to Brahman? If it should be said that the assumption is made on account of the governing influence of the Brahman proclaimed in the mantra (which forms the beginning of the chapter, Taitt. Up. II), we reply that therefrom it would follow that also the Selfs consisting of food, breath, &c., denote Brahman (because the governing influence of the mantra extends to them also).--The advocate of the former interpretation will here, perhaps, restate an argument already made use of above, viz. as follows: To assume that the Selfs consisting of food, and so on, are not Brahman is quite proper, because after each of them an inner Self is mentioned. After the Self of bliss, on the other hand, no further inner Self is mentioned, and hence it must be considered to be Brahman itself; otherwise we should commit the mistake of dropping the subject-matter in hand (as which Brahman is pointed out by the mantra), and taking up a new topic.--But to this we reply that, although unlike the case of the Selfs consisting of food, &c., no inner Self is mentioned after the Self consisting of bliss, still the latter cannot be considered as Brahman, because with reference to the Self consisting of bliss Scripture declares, 'Joy is its head. Satisfaction is its right arm. Great satisfaction is its left arm. Bliss is its trunk. Brahman is its tail, its support.' Now, here the very same Brahman which, in the mantra, had been introduced as the subject of the discussion, is called the tail, the support; while the five involucra, extending from the involucrum of food up to the involucrum of bliss, are merely introduced for the purpose of setting forth the knowledge of Brahman. How, then, can it be maintained that our interpretation implies the needless dropping of the general subject-matter and the introduction of a new topic?--But, it may again be objected, Brahman is called the tail, i.e. a member of the Self consisting of bliss; analogously to those passages in which a tail and other members are ascribed to the Selfs consisting of food and so on. On what grounds, then, can we claim to know that Brahman (which is spoken of as a mere member, i.e. a subordinate matter) is in reality the chief matter referred to?--From the fact, we reply, of Brahman being the general subject-matter of the chapter.--But, it will again be said, that interpretation also according to which Brahman is cognised as a mere member of the ānandamaya does not involve a dropping of the subject-matter, since the ānandamaya himself is Brahman.--But, we reply, in that case one and the same Brahman would at first appear as the whole, viz. as the Self consisting of bliss, and thereupon as a mere part, viz. as the tail; which is absurd. And as one of the two alternatives must be preferred, it is certainly appropriate to refer to Brahman the clause 'Brahman is the tail' which contains the word 'Brahman,' and not the sentence about the Self of Bliss in which Brahman is not mentioned. Moreover, Scripture, in continuation of the phrase, 'Brahman is the tail, the support,' goes on, 'On this there is also the following śloka: He who knows the Brahman as non-existing becomes himself non-existing. He who knows Brahman as existing him we know himself as existing.' As this śloka, without any reference to the Self of bliss, states the advantage and disadvantage connected with the knowledge of the being and non-being of Brahman only, we conclude that the clause, 'Brahman is the tail, the support,' represents Brahman as the chief matter (not as a merely subordinate matter). About the being or non-being of the Self of bliss, on the other hand, a doubt is not well possible, since the Self of bliss distinguished by joy, satisfaction, &c., is well known to every one.--But if Brahman is the principal matter, how can it be designated as the mere tail of the Self of bliss ('Brahman is the tail, the support')?--Its being called so, we reply, forms no objection; for the word tail here denotes that which is of the nature of a tail, so that we have to understand that the bliss of Brahman is not a member (in its literal sense), but the support or abode, the one nest (resting-place) of all worldly bliss. Analogously another scriptural passage declares, 'All other creatures live on a small portion of that bliss' (Bṛ. Up. IV, 3, 32). Further, if by the Self consisting of bliss we were to understand Brahman we should have to assume that the Brahman meant is the Brahman distinguished by qualities (saviśeṣa), because it is said to have joy and the like for its members. But this assumption is contradicted by a complementary passage (II, 9) which declares that Brahman is the object neither of mind nor speech, and so shows that the Brahman meant is the (absolute) Brahman (devoid of qualities), 'From whence all speech, with the mind, turns away unable to reach it, he who knows the bliss of that Brahman fears nothing.' Moreover, if we speak of something as 'abounding in bliss[2],' we thereby imply the co-existence of pain; for the word 'abundance' in its ordinary sense implies the existence of a small measure of what is opposed to the thing whereof there is abundance. But the passage so understood would be in conflict with another passage (Ch. Up. VII, 24), 'Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is the Infinite;' which declares that in the Infinite, i.e. Brahman, there is nothing whatever different from it. Moreover, as joy, &c. differ in each individual body, the Self consisting of bliss also is a different one in each body. Brahman, on the other hand, does not differ according to bodies; for the mantra at the beginning of the chapter declares it to be true Being, knowledge, infinite, and another passage says, 'He is the one God, hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the Self within all beings' (Śv. Up. VI, 11). Nor, again, does Scripture exhibit a frequent repetition of the word 'ānandamaya;' for merely the radical part of the compound (i.e. the word ānanda without the affix maya) is repeated in all the following passages; 'It is a flavour, for only after seizing flavour can any one seize bliss. Who could breathe, who could breathe forth, if that bliss existed not in the ether? For he alone causes blessedness;' 'Now this is an examination of bliss;' 'He who knows the bliss of that Brahman fears nothing;' 'He understood that bliss is Brahman.' If it were a settled matter that Brahman is denoted by the term, 'the Self consisting of bliss,' then we could assume that in the subsequent passages, where merely the word 'bliss' is employed, the term 'consisting of bliss' is meant to be repeated; but that the Self consisting of bliss is not Brahman, we have already proved by means of the reason of joy being its head, and so on. Hence, as in another scriptural passage, viz. 'Brahman is knowledge and bliss' (Bṛ. Up. III, 9, 28), the mere word 'bliss' denotes Brahman, we must conclude that also in such passages as, 'If that bliss existed not in the ether,' the word bliss is used with reference to Brahman, and is not meant to repeat the term 'consisting of bliss.' The repetition of the full compound, 'consisting of bliss,' which occurs in the passage, 'He reaches that Self consisting of bliss' (Taitt. Up. II, 8), does not refer to Brahman, as it is contained in the enumeration of Non-Selfs, comprising the Self of food, &c., all of which are mere effects, and all of which are represented as things to be reached.--But, it may be said, if the Self consisting of bliss, which is said to have to be reached, were not Brahman--just as the Selfs consisting of food, &c. are not Brahman--then it would not be declared (in the passage immediately following) that he who knows obtains for his reward Brahman.--This objection we invalidate by the remark that the text makes its declaration as to Brahman--which is the tail, the support--being reached by him who knows, by the very means of the declaration as to the attainment of the Self of bliss; as appears from the passage, 'On this there is also this śloka, from which all speech returns,' &c. With reference, again, to the passage, 'He desired: may I be many, may I grow forth,' which is found in proximity to the mention of the Self consisting of bliss, we remark that it is in reality connected (not with the Self of bliss but with) Brahman, which is mentioned in the still nearer passage, 'Brahman is the tail, the support,' and does therefore not intimate that the Self of bliss is Brahman. And, on account of its referring to the passage last quoted ('it desired,' &c.), the later passage also, 'That is flavour,' &c., has not the Self of bliss for its subject.--But, it may be objected, the (neuter word) Brahman cannot possibly be designated by a masculine word as you maintain is done in the passage, 'He desired,' &c.--In reply to this objection we point to the passage (Taitt. Up. II, 1), 'From that Self sprang ether,' where, likewise, the masculine word 'Self' can refer to Brahman only, since the latter is the general topic of the chapter. In the knowledge of Bhṛgu and Varuṇa finally ('he knew that bliss is Brahman'), the word 'bliss' is rightly understood to denote Brahman, since we there meet neither with the affix 'maya,' nor with any statement as to joy being its head, and the like. To ascribe to Brahman in itself joy, and so on, as its members, is impossible, unless we have recourse to certain, however minute, distinctions qualifying Brahman; and that the whole chapter is not meant to convey a knowledge of the qualified (saviśeṣa) Brahman is proved by the passage (quoted above), which declares that Brahman transcends speech and mind. We therefore must conclude that the affix maya, in the word ānandamaya, does not denote abundance, but expresses a mere effect, just as it does in the words annamaya and the subsequent similar compounds.
The Sūtras are therefore to be explained as follows. There arises the question whether the passage, 'Brahman is the tail, the support,' is to be understood as intimating that Brahman is a mere member of the Self consisting of bliss, or that it is the principal matter. If it is said that it must be considered as a mere member, the reply is, 'The Self consisting of bliss on account of the repetition.' That means: Brahman, which in the passage 'the Self consisting of bliss,' &c., is spoken of as the tail, the support, is designated as the principal matter (not as something subordinate). On account of the repetition; for in the memorial śloka, 'he becomes himself non-existing,' Brahman alone is reiterated. 'If not, on account of the word denoting a modification; not so, on account of abundance.' In this Sūtra the word 'modification' is meant to convey the sense of member. The objection that on account of the word 'tail,' which denotes a mere member, Brahman cannot be taken as the principal matter must be refuted. This we do by remarking that there is no difficulty, since a word denoting a member may be introduced into the passage on account of prācurya[3]. Prācurya here means a phraseology abounding in terms denoting members. After the different members, beginning with the head and ending with the tail, of the Selfs, consisting of food, &c. have been enumerated, there are also mentioned the head and the other limbs of the Self of bliss, and then it is added, 'Brahman is the tail, the support;' the intention being merely to introduce some more terms denoting members, not to convey the meaning of 'member,' (an explanation which is impossible) because the preceding Sūtra already has proved Brahman (not to be a member, but) to be the principal matter. 'And because he is declared to be the cause of it.' That means: Brahman is declared to be the cause of the entire aggregate of effects, inclusive of the Self, consisting of bliss, in the following passage, 'He created all whatever there is' (Taitt. Up. II, 6). And as Brahman is the cause, it cannot at the same time be called the member, in the literal sense of the word, of the Self of bliss, which is nothing but one of Brahman's effects. The other Sūtras also (which refer to the Self of bliss[4]) are to be considered, as well as they may, as conveying a knowledge of Brahman, which (Brahman) is referred to in the passage about the tail.
"
"
Brahma-Sūtra 1.1.13
< Previous
parent: Adhikaraṇa 6 - Sūtras 13-20
Next >
English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.1.13 by Roma Bose:
“(Brahman is) that which consists of bliss, on account of repetition.”
Nimbārka’s commentary (Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha):
“That which consists of bliss” is the Supreme Soul alone, but not the individual soul. Why? On account of the repetition (in Scripture) of the word ‘bliss’ with reference to the Highest Self.
Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)
Thus, by way of refuting the doctrine of pradhāna, it has been shown that scriptural texts like ‘“The existent alone, my dear!”’ (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.2.1) and the rest, all refer to Brahman. Now, the author is showing that the texts about that which consists of bliss and the rest also refer to Brahman who, as possessed of unsurpassed bliss, is different in nature from the class of sentient beings also.
In the Taittirīya, four sheaths, viz. that which consists of food, that which consists of the vital-breath, that which consists of mind, and that which consists of understanding, are spoken of in a successive order; and after that it is said: ‘Verily, other than and within that which consists of understanding is the self which consists of bliss. By that this is filled’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.5). Here a doubt arises, viz. whether by the words ‘consisting of bliss’, the individual soul is denoted or the Supreme Soul. What is reasonable here? If it be suggested: As in the passage: ‘Of him is this very embodied soul which belongs to the previous one’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.5), an embodied soul is mentioned; as in another scriptural text: ‘May my (sheaths) consisting of food, consisting of the vital-breath, consisting of the mind, consisting of understanding and consisting of bliss, be purified’ (Mahānārāyaṇa-upaniṣad 20.21) it is said that what consists of bliss is something to be purified; and as it is impossible for the ever-pure Supreme Soul to be something to be purified, so that which consists of bliss is the individual soul,—
We reply: “that which consists of bliss” is the Highest self alone, possessed of unsurpassed bliss. Why? ‘On account of repetition i.e. because the word ‘bliss’ has been repeated many times (in Scripture) in reference to the Highest Self alone, the Highest Person, in texts like: ‘If there were not bliss in the ether, for this alone causes bliss’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.7),[1] He knows that Brahman is bliss’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 3.6) and so on; and because, beginning thus: ‘This is an investigation into bliss’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.8), the concluding text: ‘Knowing the bliss of Brahman, he does not fear from anything’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.8), is found to end by establishing that the bliss of Brahman alone is unsurpassable and illimitable.
If it be said that here there is the repetition of the word ‘bliss’[2] only, and not of the words ‘consisting of bliss’[3]—(we reply) no, because just as in the passage: ‘In spring, he performs the jyoti-sacrifice’ the word ‘jyoti’ stands for the word ‘jyotiṣṭoma so here the word ‘bliss’ stands for the words ‘consisting of bliss’.
To your allegation that as an embodied soul is mentioned in Scripture, the Highest Self is not that which consists of bliss,—(we reply:) the designation of the embodiedness of the Supreme Self fits in, since He abides within all, viz. that which consists of food and the rest, as their controller. On the other hand, the text about that which consists of bliss, viz. ‘Of him is this very embodied soul which belongs to the previous one’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.5), shows that it (viz. that which consists of bliss) has no other (inner) soul.[4] The expression ‘Let them be purified’ (in the above Mahānārayaṇa passage) means ‘Let them be embellished’.
"
"
Brahma-Sūtra 1.1.14
< Previous
parent: Adhikaraṇa 6 - Sūtras 13-20
Next >
English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.1.14 by Roma Bose:
“If it be said that on account of the word (‘ānanda-maya’) denoting modification, (the highest self is) not (denoted by this word), (we reply:) no, on account of abundance.”
Nimbārka’s commentary (Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha):
If it be said that on account of the mention of (the suffix) ‘mayaṭ’ in the sense of ‘modification’, the Highest Self is not that which consists of bliss,—(we reply:) no. Why? On account of the mention in Smṛti of (the suffix) ‘mayaṭ’ as having the sense of ‘abundance’ as well.
Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)
If it be objected: That which consists of bliss cannot be the Highest Self. Why? “On account of the word denoting modification”, i.e. on account of the mention of the suffix ‘mayaṭ’ as having the sense of ‘modification’,—beginning: ‘Mayaṭ is used optionally in the classical language after any base (to indicate “product” and “part”) when, food and dress are meant’ (Pāṇini-sūtra 4.3.143; Siddhānta-kaumudī 1523[1]), Smṛti goes on to designate (the suffix) ‘mayaṭ’ in the sense of modification thus:—‘(The suffix “mayaṭ” is used) invariably after words in which the vowel has been lengthened and after “śara” and the rest’ (Pān. 4.3.144; Siddhānta-kaumudī 1524[3]);—and also because the suffix ‘mayaṭ’ is found used in the sense of ‘modification’ in ordinary life in expressions like: ‘An earthen[4] pot’ and so on, as well as in the Veda, in passages like: ‘A large branch of the parṇa[5] wood[6] is the sacrificial ladle and so on,—
(We reply:) “No.” Why? “On account of abundance”, i.e. because Smṛti depicts (the suffix) ‘mayaṭ’ in the sense of ‘abundance’ as well, in the passage: ‘Mayaṭ’ is added in the sense of ‘made thereof’[7] and in the sense of‘having a great portion of’[8] (Pāṇini-sūtra 5.4.21; Siddhānta-kaumudī 2089[9]); and because the suffix ‘mayaṭ’ is found used in the sense of‘abundance’, too, in ordinary expressions like ‘A sacrifice abounding in food’[10] and so on.
It cannot be said also that since Brahman is admitted to be consisting of bliss, there may be some want of bliss in Him,[11]—because here ‘abundance’ is but a synonym for ‘very muchness’. Thus, among (all the effects of prakṛti) beginning with mahat and ending with the body, the body being a transformation of food,[12] is said to be the person ‘consisting of food’. Other than and the supporter of it is ‘that which consists of the vital-breath’. Other than and the supporter of these two is ‘that which consists of mind’. Other than and the controller of these three is the individual soul, called ‘the person consisting of understanding’. That which is of the nature of knowledge and has understanding as its attribute (viz. the individual soul) is the controller of the three non-sentient persons. That this possessor of the attribute of understanding is of the nature of knowledge, will be made clear in the-second chapter.[13] But why, then, has the attribute alone been indicated in the text: ‘Understanding performs a sacrifice?’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.5). Listen. The very nature, too, of the knower is self-manifesting, and the use of the term ‘understanding’ or the nominative case-ending should be understood to be referring to it. The use of the neuter gender[14] is meant for denoting a thing.[15] For this very reason, in the Kāṇva recension, viz. ‘Who abiding in understanding’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.7.22), and in the Mādhyandina recension, viz. ‘Who abiding in the self’ (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 14.6.7.30{GL_NOTE::}), in spite of the difference of words, the meaning, viz. the individual soul, is the very same. And for this very reason, the statement: ‘Understanding performs a sacrifice, and deeds too’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.5) is perfectly justifiable, it being impossible for the mere attribute of understanding to be an agent. And, it, the individual soul, the knower, should be known to be possessed of bliss, in accordance with the text: ‘That is one human bliss’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.8), as well as another scriptural text: ‘For verily, on getting this essence, one becomes blissful’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.7). The Supreme Person, an ocean of immense bliss in contrast to its (viz. the individual soul’s) little bliss, is the controller of all, referred to in the text: ‘Verily, other than and within that which consists of understanding, is the self which consists of bliss’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.5). Moreover, the Supreme Person, the One, is indeed established in all the Vedāntas as free from all faults by nature, so there is not even an odour of slightest non-bliss in Him,—so much in brief.
"
"
Brahma-Sūtra 1.1.15
< Previous
parent: Adhikaraṇa 6 - Sūtras 13-20
Next >
English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.1.15 by Roma Bose:
“And on account of the designation of the cause of that.”
Nimbārka’s commentary (Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha):
On account of being the cause of the bliss of the individual soul too, the Highest Self alone is that which consists of bliss.
Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)
Scripture designates that He (viz. Brahman) alone is the “cause” of the bliss “of that”, viz. the individual soul,—which, according to the prima facie view, was suspected to be that which consists of bliss,—thus:—‘For, verily, this alone causes bliss’ (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.7). Here the term “ānandayāti” means ‘ānandayati’. The sense is that as he who gives riches and knowledge to others is himself possessed of immense riches and immense knowledge, so the statement that the Highest Self, too, causes bliss to individual souls means that He is possessed of immense bliss. Just as the term ‘consisting of light’ is applied to Lord Sun, whose very nature is to remove all darkness, so exactly the application of the term ‘consisting of bliss’ to the Lord, the topic of the present discussion, the cause of all, without an equal or a superior, and devoid of even a tinge of non-bliss of any sort, is perfectly reasonable.
"
"
Chapter I, Section I, Adhikarana VI
< Previous
parent: Section I
Next >
Adhikarana summary: Concerning “the Self consisting of bliss”
Brahma-Sutra 1.1.12: Sanskrit text and English translation.
आनन्दमयोऽभ्यासात् ॥ १२ ॥
ānandamayo'bhyāsāt || 12 ||
ānandamayaḥ—“The Self consisting of bliss”; abhyāsāt—because of the repetition.
12. (In the passage) “The Self consisting of bliss” etc. (Brahman, which is spoken of as the tail, is put forward as an independent entity and not as something subordinate to Anandamaya, the Self consisting of bliss) on account of the repetition (of Brahman as the main topic in many passages of that chapter).
In topic 5 the word ‘thinking’ attributed to the First Cause is interpreted in its direct sense, thus establishing the intelligent principle Brahman as the First Cause, and the figurative meaning, which would
have established the Pradhana, is thrown out as being doubtful. But here such a thing, that is the establishing of Brahman, is impossible, for the terms denoting parts allow no room for doubt, thus making it impossible to interpret the texts as referring to Brahman. This connects the present topic with the last one by way of objection.
The passage in question is :
“Different from this self, which consists of understanding (Vijnanamaya), is the inner self which consists of bliss .... Joy is the head, satisfaction is its right wing, rapture is its left wing, bliss is its trunk, Brahman is the tail, the support” (Taitt. 2. 5).
The Sutra says that here Brahman, which is spoken of as the tail, is treated as an independent entity and is not to be taken as a part of “the self consisting of bliss,” for ‘tail’ here does not mean the limb, in which sense it is generally used, but the support of the individual soul made up of “the self consisting of bliss”, as Brahman is the substratum of the imaginary individual soul. This conclusion is arrived at, because Brahman without any limiting adjuncts whatsoever is again and again reiterated in these Taittiriya texts.
[Sutras 12-19 are interpreted by the Vrittikara (who is probably Upavarsha) as follows : The Taittiriya Upanishad 2. 1-4 after enumerating the selves consisting of food, vital force, mind, and understanding, speaks of “the self consisting of bliss” in the passage quoted above. (Taitt. 2. 5). The question is whether this refers to the individual soul or Brahman. The opponent holds that it refers to the individual soul, because the word ‘Ananda-maya’ denotes a modification and therefore cannot refer to Brahman, which is unchangeable. Moreover, five different parts are enumerated of this Ananda-maya, the self consisting of bliss; this is not possible in the case of Brahman, which is without parts. Sutras 12-19, according to this interpretation, maintain that ‘Anandamaya’, the self consisting of bliss, refers to Brahman on account of the repetition of the word ‘Anandamaya’ in these Taittiriya texts. Repetition has already been said to be one of the characteristics by which the subject-matter of a passage is ascertained. Brahman, again, has been proved to be the main topic of the Vedanta texts (Ch. 1, Sec. 1, Sutra 4). Therefore ‘Anandamaya’ refers to Brahman. Moreover, the opening words of the second chapter of the Taittiriya Upanishad, “Truth, Knowledge, Infinity is Brahman” (Taitt. 2. 1), and texts like, “He projected all this” (Taitt. 2. 6), make it clear that Brahman is the topic. The termination ‘mayat’ is also not out of place in Brahman, for it is used here to denote an abundance of bliss. The possession of a body having parts is also ascribed to It, only because of the immediately preceding limiting condition, viz. the self consisting of understanding and does not really belong to It. Hence “the self consisting of bliss” is the highest Brahman.
Sankara objects to this interpretation of the Sutras and says that Anandamaya cannot be the highest Brahman. First of all, there is no justification, for suddenly changing the interpretation of the affix ‘mayat’ from modification in the case of Vijnanamaya, Pranamaya, etc. in the preceding passages to abundance in tne case of Anandamaya, so as to make this word refer to Brahman. Again the very idea of preponderance or abundance of bliss suggests that there is also misery in it, however slight. Such an idea with respect to Brahman is absurd. So Sankara replaces this interpretation of the Sutras, which Anandagiri attributes to the Vrittikara, by another, which we have reproduced above.]
Brahma-Sutra 1.1.13: Sanskrit text and English translation.
विकारशब्दान्नेति चेत्, न, प्राचुर्यात् ॥ १३ ॥
vikāraśabdānneti cet, na, prācuryāt || 13 ||
vikāraśabdāt—On account of a word (‘tail’) denoting part; na—is not; iti cet—if it be said; na—not so; prācuryāt—on account of abundance (of terms denoting parts).
13. If it be said (that Brahman) is not (spoken of as an independent entity in the passage) on account of a word (‘tail’) denoting part, (we reply) not so, on account of abundance (of terms denoting parts).
Owing to the abundance of phraseology denoting parts or limbs in the Taittiriya texts 2. 1-5, Brahman is designated as the tail just to keep up the foregoing imagery; but it is not intended to convey the idea that Brahman is actually a part or member of “the self consisting of bliss”. The object of the scriptures, is to teach the knowledge of the real Self. If the “self consisting of bliss” were the real Self, the scriptures would refer to this in the concluding texts, but as a matter of fact they do not; on the other hand they refer to the Nirguna Brahman, which is therefore the real subject-matter. Brahman’s being the tail means, not that It is a part, but that It is the main support or abode of everything.
Brahma-Sutra 1.1.14: Sanskrit text and English translation.
तद्धेतुव्यपदेशाच्च ॥ १४ ॥
taddhetuvyapadeśācca || 14 ||
taddhetuvyapadeśāt—Because (It) is declared to be the cause of it; ca—and.
14. And because (Brahman) is declared to be the cause of it (the self consisting of bliss), Brahman cannot be taken as a part of it).
Brahman is the cause of everything, even of “the self consisting of bliss”, as also of the four earlier named ones; viz. the self consisting of food, vital force, mind, and understanding. “He projected all this whatever there is” (Taitt. 2. 6). The cause canot be a part of the effect.
Brahma-Sutra 1.1.15: Sanskrit text and English translation.
मान्त्रवर्णिकमेव च गीयते ॥ १५ ॥
māntravarṇikameva ca gīyate || 15 ||
māntravarṇikam—That which has been referred to in the Mantra portion; eva—the very same; ca—moreover; gīyate—is sung.
15. Moreover that very Brahman which has been referred to in the Mantra portion is sung (in this Brahmana passage as the tail).
The second chapter of the Taittiriya Upanishad begins, “He who knows Brahman attains the Highest . . . Brahman is Truth, Knowledge and Infinity.” This very Brahman is finally declared to be the tail. Otherwise there would be a contradiction between the Mantra and Brahmar.a portions, which cannot be, for the Brahamanas only explain what the Mantras declare. Therefore Brahman is the primary subject-matter and is not treated as a part of “the self consisting of bliss”.
Brahma-Sutra 1.1.16: Sanskrit text and English translation.
नेतरोऽनुपपत्तेः ॥ १६ ॥
netaro'nupapatteḥ || 16 ||
na—Not; itaraḥ—the other (Jiva); anupapatteḥ—on account of impossibility.
16. (Brahman and) not the other (the individual soul, is meant here) on account of the impossibility (of that assumption).
He who is referred to in the passage, “The self consisting of bliss” etc. is said to be the creator of everything. “He projected all this whatever there is” (Taitt. 2. 6). This the individual soul cannot possibly do and so is not referred to in the passage, “The self consisting of bliss” etc.
Brahma-Sutra 1.1.17: Sanskrit text and English translation.
भेदव्यपदेशाच्च ॥ १७ ॥
bhedavyapadeśācca || 17 ||
bhedavyapadeśāt—On account of the declaration of difference; ca—and.
17. And on account of the declaration of difference (between the two, i.e. the one referred to in the passage, “The self consisting of bliss” etc. and the individual soul, the latter cannot be the one referred to in the passage).
That which is referred to in the passage, “The self consisting of bliss” etc. is said to be of the essence of flavour, attaining which the individual soul is blissful.
“It (That which is referred to in the passage, “The self consisting of bliss” etc.) is flavour; only after attaining (this essence of) flavour is this (soul) blissful” (Taitt. 2. 7).
Now that which is attained and the attainer cannot be the same. So the individual soul is not referred to in that passage under discussion.
Brahma-Sutra 1.1.18: Sanskrit text and English translation.
कामाच्च नानुमानापेक्षा ॥ १८ ॥
kāmācca nānumānāpekṣā || 18 ||
kāmāt—On account of the word ‘bliss’, literally ‘desire’, (denoting Brahman); ca—and; nānumānāpekṣā—(Anandamaya also) cannot be inferred as Brahman.
18. And on account of the word ‘bliss’, literally ‘desire’, (referring to Brahman), (you) cannot infer (Ananda-maya is also Brahman, since the suffix ‘mayat’ is used to denote modification).
In the scriptures the word ‘bliss’ is often used for Brahman; from this we cannot infer that Anandamaya, the self consisting of bliss, is also Brahman, for the suffix ‘mayat’ shows that it is a modification. This sets aside the whole of the interpretation of the Vrittikara mentioned under Sutra 12.
Brahma-Sutra 1.1.19: Sanskrit text and English translation.
अस्मिन्नस्य च तद्योगं शास्ति ॥ १९ ॥
asminnasya ca tadyogaṃ śāsti || 19 ||
asmin—In this; asya—its (the Jiva’s); ca—also; tadyogaṃ—mergence as that; śāsti—teaches.
19. (The Vedas) also teach of its (the Jiva’s) becoming (on the dawning of Knowledge) one with this (referred to in the passage under discussion).
Since the individual soul, on the dawning of Knowledge, becomes one with chat which is referred to in the passage under discussion, the latter must be Brahman.
Hence “the self consisting of bliss” is in no way the principal topic of these texts. It is Brahman which is the support of everything that is dealt with .as an independent entity in these texts.
"
"
Chapter I, Section II, Adhikarana IV
< Previous
parent: Section II
Next >
Adhikarana summary: The person within the eye is Brahman
In the last topic the reference to ‘two’ occuring at the beginning of the text discussed, was interpreted to denote two of the same class, i.e. two sentient beings, and the entrance into the cavity of the heart, mentioned later on, was interpreted accordingly. The same line of argument should be used, says the opponent, to interpret the text of this topic. That is, the person in the eye ought to be taken as a reflection in the eye, as it occurs at the beginning of the text, and the subsequent mention of immortality, fearlessness, etc. ought to be exexplained away, as praise or otherwise. The inverse method, i.e. taking these words to refer to Brahman and thus fixing the person in the eye to be Brahman, should not be followed. In this way the opponent wants to show that the argument of the previous one is defective, for it will launch us into difficulties with respect to other texts of the Sruti.
Brahma-Sutra 1.2.13: Sanskrit text and English translation.
अन्तर उपपत्तेः ॥ १३ ॥
antara upapatteḥ || 13 ||
antaraḥ—Inside (the eye); upapatteḥ—on account of the appropriateness of (attributes).
13. (The person) inside (the eye is Brahman) on account of (the attributes mentioned therein) being appropriate (only to Brahman).
“This person that is seen in the eye is the self. This is immortal and fearless; this is Brahman” (Chh. 4. 15. 1).
The question is whether the person referred to here is the reflection of a person in the eye, or the individual soul, or the sun, which helps sight, or Brahman. The Sutra says that this person in the eye is Brahman, because the qualities, ‘immortal’, ‘fearless’, etc., mentioned here with respect to that person can be true only of Brahman, and they cannot be otherwise explained away.
Brahma-Sutra 1.2.14: Sanskrit text and English translation.
स्थानादिव्यपदेशाच्च ॥ १४ ॥
sthānādivyapadeśācca || 14 ||
sthānādivyapadeśāt—Because abode etc. (i.e. name and form) are attributed to it; ca—and.
14. And because abode etc. (i.e. name and form) are attributed to It (Brahman) (by other scriptural texts also, for the sake of contemplation).
But, how can the all-pervading Brahman be in a limited space like the eye? The assignation of a definite locality to the all-pervading Brahman only .serves the purpose of meditation (Upasana). In other scriptural texts, the disc of the sun, the cavity of the heart, even the eye itself (Brih. 3. 7. 18) and similar pure spots have been prescribed as places for the contemplation of Brahman. So here it is prescribed that Brahman should be contemplated in the eye. Not only abode, but even name and form are attributed to Brahman for the purpose of meditation, as Brahman without attributes cannot be an object of contemplation. (Vide Chh. 1. 6. 6-7).
Brahma-Sutra 1.2.15: Sanskrit text and English translation.
सुखविशिष्टाभिधानादेव च ॥ १५ ॥
sukhaviśiṣṭābhidhānādeva ca || 15 ||
sukhaviśiṣṭa-abhidhānāt—On account of the reference (to Brahman) distinguished by bliss; eva—verily; ca—and.
15. And verily on account of the reference (in the passage to Brahman) distinguished by bliss (mentioned at the beginning of the Prakarana).
“The vital energy is Brahman, bliss is Brahman, the ether is Brahman” (Chh. 4. 10. 5)—so taught the fires to Upakosala Kamalayana about Brahman, and this same Brahman is further elucidated by his teacher as “the person in the eye”.
Brahma-Sutra 1.2.16: Sanskrit text and English translation.
श्रुतोपनिषत्कगत्यभिधानाच्च ॥ १६ ॥
śrutopaniṣatkagatyabhidhānācca || 16 ||
śruta-upaniṣatka-gati—The way of those who have realized the Truth of the Upanishads; abhidhānāt—on account of the statement; ca—also;
16. Also on account of the statement of the way (after death) of those who have known the Truth of the Upanishads (i.e. knowers of Brahman) (with reference to the knower of the person in the eye).
The Devayana path or the path of the gods, by which a knower of Brahman travels after death and which is described in the Prasna Upanishad 1.10 and other scriptural texts, is referred to here. Since the knower of “the person in the eye” also goes by this path after death, and since it is known from scriptures that none other except the knower of Brahman goes by this path after death, “the person in the eye” must be Brahman.
Brahma-Sutra 1.2.17: Sanskrit text and English translation.
अनवस्थितेरसंभवाच्च नेतरः ॥ १७ ॥
anavasthiterasaṃbhavācca netaraḥ || 17 ||
anavasthiteḥ—Not existing always; asaṃbhavāt—on account of the impossibility; ca—and; na—not; itaraḥ—any other.
17. (The person in the eye is the Supreme Self) and not any other (i.e. individual soul etc.) as these do not exist always; and on account of the impossibility (of the qualities of the person in the eye being attributed to any of these).
The reflection in the eye, for example, does not exist always, nor can the qualities like immortality, fearlesness, etc., be appropriately ascribed to this reflection. So no other self except the Supreme Self is here spoken of as the person in the eye.
"
"
Chapter III, Section III, Adhikarana VI
< Previous
parent: Section III
Next >
Adhikarana summary: Meditations on Brahman
Adhikarana VI - In all the meditations on Brahman qualities like ‘Bliss’ etc., which describe Its nature, are to be combined into one meditation, and not others.
Brahma-Sutra 3.3.11: Sanskrit text and English translation.
आनन्दादयः प्रधानस्य ॥ ११ ॥
ānandādayaḥ pradhānasya || 11 ||
ānandādayaḥ—Bliss and other attributes; pradhānasya—of the subject (i.e. Brahman).
11. Bliss and other attributes (which depict the true nature) of the subject (i.e. Brahman) (have to be combined from all places in the meditation on Brahman).
Brahman is described as Bliss, Knowledge, all-pervading, the self of all, true, etc. in different texts of different Sakhas. All the attributes are not mentioned in all places. Now the question is whether they have to be combined in the meditation on Brahman or not. This Sutra says that they have to be combined, since the object of meditation (Brahman) is one and the same in all Sakhas, and therefore the Vidya is one.
Brahma-Sutra 3.3.12: Sanskrit text and English translation.
प्रियशिरस्त्वाद्यप्राप्तिः, उपचयापचयौ हि भेदे ॥ १२ ॥
priyaśirastvādyaprāptiḥ, upacayāpacayau hi bhede || 12 ||
priyaśirastvādi—(Qualities like) joy being Its head etc.; aprāptiḥ—are not to be taken everywhere; upacayāpacayau—increase and decrease; hi—because; bhede—(are possible) in difference.
12. (Qualities like) joy being Its head etc. are not to be taken everywhere, (being subject to increase and decrease and) increase and decrease (are possible only) if there is difference (and not in Brahman in which there is non-difference).
Attributes like joy being Its head etc. mentioned in the Taittiriya Upanishad are not to be taken and combined in other places where the Upasana of Brahman is enjoined, because the terms ‘joy’, ‘satisfaction’, ‘great satisfaction’, ‘bliss’, etc. indicate qualities which have increase and decrease relatively to each other and to other experiencers (Jivas), and therefore can exist only where there is difference. But Brahman being absolutely without any difference, these attributes cannot constitute Its nature, and as such they are to be confined to the texts prescribing them and not taken in other places.
Brahma-Sutra 3.3.13: Sanskrit text and English translation.
इतरे त्वर्थसामान्यात् ॥ १३ ॥
itare tvarthasāmānyāt || 13 ||
itare—Other attributes; tu—but; arthasāmānyāt—on account of identity of purport.
33. But other attributes (like Bliss etc. are to be combined) on account of identity of purport.
Attributes like Bliss, Knowledge, all-pervading, etc., which describe the nature of Brahman are to be combined, for their purport is the one and indivisible, unconditioned Brahman. These attributes are mentioned with a view to the knowledge of Brahman and not for Upasana.
"
Added in 2 days 17 hours 53 minutes 48 seconds: Re: Slaanesh: Desired Acquired