Satapatha Bramhana Part 05

SR No.: 007680
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Julius Eggeling
Publisher: Oxford
Publication Year: 1900
Total Pages: 2017
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 44 MB

Page 1786

578
VEDÂNTA-SOTRAS.
its form' means they became its body, their activity de. pended on it.-Here terminates the adhikarana of the organs.'
17. But the making of names and forms (belongs) to him who renders tripartite, on account of scrip tural teaching.
The Satras have shown that the creation of the elements and organs in their collective aspect (samashti) and the activity of the individual souls proceed from the highest Self; and they have also further confirmed the view that the rule which the souls exercise over their organs depends on the highest Self. A question now arises with regard to the creation of the world in its discrete aspect (vyashti), which consists in the differentiation of names and forms (i. e. of individual beings). Is this latter creation the work of Hiranyagarbha only, who represents the collective aggregate of all individual souls; or, fundamentally, the work of the highest Brahman having Hiranyagarbha for its bodyjust as the creation of water e. g. is the work of the highest Brahman having fire for its body – The Purvapakshin maintains the former alternative. For, he says, the text 'Having entered with this living-soul-self (anena givenât. mana), let me differentiate names and forms' (Kh. Up. VI, 3, 2), declares the giva-soul to be the agent in differentiation. For the resolve of the highest deity is expressed, not in the form 'let me differentiate names and forms by myself' (svena rūpena), but by this soul-self,' i.e. by a part of the highest Self, in the form of the individual soul.But on this interpretation the first person in vyåkaravani' (let me enter), and the grammatical form of having entered,' which indicates the agent, could not be taken in their literal, but only in an implied, sense-as is the case in a sentence such as Having entered the hostile army by means of a spy, I will estimate its strength' (where the real agent is not the king, who is the speaker, but the spy). --The cases are not analogous, the Parvapakshin replies. For the king and the spy are fundamentally separate, and hence the king is agent by implication only. But in the
Digitized by Google
Digitized by