हिन्दी
(The soul) goes (out of the body) enveloped (with subtle parts of the elements) with a view to obtaining a fresh body; (so it is known) from the question and answer (in the scripture).
On account of (water) consisting of three elements (the soul goes enveloped by all these elements and not merely water); but (water alone is mentioned in the text) on account of its preponderance (in the human body).
And because of the going of the organs (with the soul, the elements also accompany the soul).
If it be said (that the organs do not follow the soul), for the scriptures declare their entering into fire etc., (we say) not so, on account of its being so said in a secondary sense.
If it be objected on account of (water) not being mentioned in the first of the oblations, (we say) not so, because that (viz. water) only (is meant by the word ‘Sraddha’) on account of the appropriateness (of such an interpretation).
If it be said that on account of (the soul) not being mentioned in the text (the soul does not depart enveloped with water etc.), (we say) not so, for it is understood (from the scriptures) that the Jivas who perform sacrifices etc. (alone go to heaven).
But (the souls being the food of the gods in heaven is used) in a secondary sense, on account of their not knowing the Self, because (the Sruti) declares like that.
On the exhaustion of (good) work (the soul) with the residual Karma (descends to this earth), as is known from the Sruti and Smriti, along the path (it) went by (from here) and differently too.
If it be said that on account of conduct (the assumption of residual Karma is not necessary for a rebirth on earth), (we say) not so, (for the word ‘conduct’ is used) to denote indirectly (the remaining Karma). So (thinks) Karshnajini.
If it be said (by such interpretation of the word ‘conduct’ good conduct would become) purposeless, (we say) not so, on account of (Karma) being dependent on that (good conduct).
But (conduct) is merely good and evil work; thus (the sage) Badari (thinks).
The Sruti declares (the going to the lunar world etc.) also of even those who do not perform sacrifices etc.
But of others (i.e., those who have not performed sacrifices etc.) the ascent is to the abode of Yama, and after having experienced (the result of their evil works) the descent (to the earth again takes place). On account of such a passage (for the evil doer) being declared by the Sruti.
The Smritis also declare (thus).
Moreover, there are seven (hells).
And on account of his (Yama’s) control even there (in those hells), there is no contradiction.
But (the reference is to the two roads) of knowledge and work; thus (we have to understand) on account of their being the subject under discussion.
(The specification about five oblations does) not (apply) to the third (place), for so it is seen (from the scriptures).
And moreover (cases of birth without the completion of the five oblations) are recorded in the world.
Also, on account of observation.
The third term (i.e., plant life) includes those which springs from moisture.
(The soul when descending from Chandraloka) attains similarity of nature with them (i.e., with ether, air, etc.), (that alone) being reasonable.
(The soul’s descent from the moon through the various stages up to the earth takes) not very long time, on account of a special declaration (of the Srutis with respect to the stages after that as taking time).
(The descending soul enters) into what is ruled by another (Jiva or soul) as in the previous cases (viz. becoming ether etc.), for so the Sruti states.
If it be said (that sacrifices, which entail the killing of animals etc.) are unholy, (we say) not so, on account of scriptural authority.
Then (the soul gets) connected with him who performs the act of generation.
From the womb a (new) body (results) (for the descending soul).
In the intermediate stage (between waking and deep sleep, there is a real) creation, because (the Sruti) says so.
And some (Sakhas or recensions) (state the Self or the Supreme Lord to be) the creator (of objects of desires while we are asleep) and (objects of desires there stand for) sons etc.
But (the dream world is) mere illusion, on account of its nature not being manifest with the totality (of attributes of the waking state).
A dream is also an omen, for so it is known from the Upanishads and experts say so.
But by meditation on the Supreme Lord, that which is covered (by ignorance, viz. the similarity of the Lord and soul, becomes manifest); for from Him (the Lord) are its (the soul’s) bondage and freedom.
And that (the covering of the soul’s rulership) also (results) from its connection with the body.
The absence of that (dreaming, i.e., dreamless sleep takes place) in the nerves and in the Self, as it is known from the Sruti.
Hence the awakening from this (i.e., Brahman).
But the self-same soul (returns from Brahman after Sushupti/Deep Sleep) on account of work, memory, scriptural authority, and precept.
In the case of one in swoon, there is only partial attainment (of the state of sleep), that being the last alternative.
Even from (difference of) place a twofold characteristic cannot (be predicated) of Brahman, because throughout (the scriptures teach It to be otherwise i.e., without any qualities).
If it be said (that it is) not so on account of difference (being taught in the scriptures), (we reply) not so, because with respect to each (such form) the Sruti declares the opposite of that.
Moreover some (teach) thus.
Verily Brahman is only formless on account of that being the main purport (of all texts about Brahman).
And like light (taking form in connection with bodies having form, Brahman takes form in connection with Upadhis), because (texts ascribing form to Brahman) are not purportless.
And (the scripture) declares (that Brahman is) that (i.e., intelligence) only.
(The scripture) also shows (this, and) thus also (is it) stated by the Smritis.
Therefore also (with respect to Brahman we have) comparisons like the images of the sun etc.
But (there is) no similarity (in the case of Brahman, any second thing) not being experienced like water.
On account of Brahman being inside (Its adjuncts) (It appears) to participate in their increase and decrease. On account of this similarity in the two cases (mentioned in Sutra 18) it is thus (i.e., the comparison is not defective).
And on account of scriptural instruction.
What has been mentioned up to this is denied (by the words ‘Not this, not this’), and (the Sruti) says something more than that (afterwards).
That (Brahman) is not manifest, for (so the scripture) says.
And moreover (Brahman is experienced) in perfect meditation, (as we know) from the Sruti and Smriti.
And as in the case of light etc. there is no difference, (so) also between Brahman (and its manifestation) in activity; on account of the repeated instruction (of the Sruti to that effect).
Therefore (the individual soul becomes one) with the Infinite; for thus (the scripture) indicates.
But on account of both (i.e., difference and non-difference) being taught (by the Sruti) (the relation of the Jiva and Brahman is to be taken) like that between a serpent and its coils.
Or like (the relation of) light and its substratum, on account of both being luminous.
Or (the relation between the two, i.e., Jiva and Brahman) is as given before.
And on account of the denial.
(There is something) superior to this (Brahman), on account of terms denoting a bank, measure, connection, and difference (used with respect to It).
But (Brahman is called a bank) on account of similarity.
(Brahman is depicted as having size) for the sake of easy comprehension (i.e., Upasana); just like four feet.
(The statements about connection and difference with respect to Brahman) are on account of special places, as in the case of light etc.
And it is reasonable.
Similarly on account of the express denial of all other things (there is nothing but Brahman).
By this (is established) the all-pervadingness (of Brahman), as is known from scriptural statements etc. regarding (Brahman’s) extent.
From Him (the Lord) are the fruits of actions; for that is reasonable.
And because the scripture so teaches.
Jaimini (thinks) for the same reasons (viz. scriptural authority and reasoning) that religious merit (is what brings about the fruits of actions).
But Badarayana (thinks) the former (the Lord, as the bestower of the fruits of actions) on account of His being declared to be the cause (of the actions even).
(The Upasanas) described in the various Vedanta texts (are not different), on account of the non-difference as regards injunction etc. (i.e., connection, form, and name).
If it be said (that the Vidyas are) not (one) on account of difference (in minor points), (we reply) not so, since even in the same Vidya (there might be such minor differences).
(The rite of carrying fire on the head is connected) with the study of the Vedas, because in the Samachara (it is described) as being such. And (this also follows) from its being a qualification (for the students of the Atharva Veda), as is the case with seven oblations (viz. Saurya etc.).
(The scripture) also instructs thus.
And in the Upasanas of the same class (mentioned in different Sakhas) a combination (of all the particulars mentioned in all Sakhas is to be made), since there is no difference in the object of meditation, just as (a combination of) all subsidiary rites of a main sacrifice (mentioned in different Sakhas is made).
If it be said (that the Udgitha Vidya of the Brihadaranyaka and that of the Chhandogya) are different on account of (difference in) texts; (we say) not so, on account of the non-difference (as regards essentials).
Rather (there is) no (unity of Vidyas), on account of the difference in subject-matter, even as (the meditation on the Udgitha) as the highest and greatest (i.e., Brahman) (is different from the meditation on the Udgitha as abiding in the eye etc.).
If on account of the name (of both Vidyas being the same, it be said that they are one), it has already been answered. But even that (identity of name in Vidyas admitted being different) exists.
And because (Om) extends (over the whole of the Vedas), (to specialize it by the term ‘Udgitha’) is appropriate.
On account of the non-difference (of the Vidya) everywhere (i.e., in all the texts of the different Sakhas where the Prana Vidya occurs) these qualities (mentioned in two of them are to be inserted) in the other places (e.g., the Kaushitaki Upanishad).
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).
(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).
But other attributes (like Bliss etc. are to be combined) on account of identity of purport.
(Kathaka 1. 3. 10-11 tells about the Self only as the highest) for the sake of meditation, (and not about the relative position of the objects etc.) as there is no use of it. And on account of the word ‘Self.
(In the Aitareva Upanishad 1.1) the Supreme Self is meant, as in other texts (dealing with creation), on account of the subsequent qualification.
If it be said that because of the context (the Supreme Self is not meant, but Hiranyagarbha), (we reply that) it is so (i.e., the Supreme Self is meant) on account of the definite statement (that the Atman alone existed at the beginning).
On account of (the rinsing of the mouth with water referred to in the Prana Vidya) being a restatement of an act (already enjoined by the Smriti), what has not been so enjoined elsewhere (is here enjoined by the Sruti).
In the same Sakha also (it is) like this (i.e., there is unity of Vidya), on account of the non-difference (of the object of meditation).
In other eases also (e.g., in the Vidya of the Satya Brahman) on account of the connection (i.e., the object of the meditation being the Satya Brahman) (we have to combine particulars) like this (i.e., as in the Sandilya Vidya).
Rather not (so) on account of the difference (of abode).
(The scripture) also declares (that).
For the same reason (as in the previous Sutra) the supporting (of the universe) and pervading of the sky (attributed to Brahman in the Ranayaniya-khila) also (are not to be included in other Upasanas of Brahman).
And (since the qualities) as (mentioned) in the Purusha Vidya (of the Chhandogya) are not mentioned (in that) of the others (i.e., in the Taittiriya) (the two Purusha Vidyas are not one).
(Certain Mantras relating to) piercing etc. (are not part of the Vidyas though mentioned nearby) because they have a different meaning.
But where (only) the discarding (of good and evil) is mentioned, (the receiving of this good and evil by others has to be included), on account of this word ‘receiving’ being supplementary (to the word ‘discarding’), as in the case of Kusas, metres, praise, and recitation. That (viz. that it should be so done) has been stated (by Jaimini in Purva Mimamsa).
(He who attains Knowledge gets rid of his good and evil works) at the time of death, there being nothing to be obtained (by him on the way to Brahmaloka through works); for other texts also say so.
(The interpretation that the individual soul practising Sadhana) according to his liking (gets rid of good and evil while living, is reasonable) on account of there being harmony (in that case) between the two (viz. cause and effect as well as between the Chhandogya and another Sruti).
(The soul’s) journey along the path of the gods is applicable in two ways (i.e., differently), for otherwise (there would result) a contradiction.
(The differentiation mentioned above) is reasonable, for the characteristics which render such a journey possible are seen (in the case of Saguna Upasana but not in that of Nirguna Upasana); as (is seen) in the world.
(The passage of the soul by the path of the gods) is not restricted (only to certain Vidyas of the Saguna Brahman); (it applies equally) to all (Vidyas of the Saguna Brahman). There is no contradiction, as is seen from the Sruti and Smriti.
Of those who have a mission to fulfil (there is corporeal) existence, so long as the mission is not fulfilled.
But the conceptions of the (negative) attributes of the Immutable (Brahman) are to be combined (from different texts where the Immutable Brahman is treated, in all meditations on the Immutable Brahman, as they form one Vidya), on account of the similarity (of defining the Immutable Brahman through denials) and the object (the Immutable Brahman) being the same, as in the case of the Upasad (offerings). It has been said (by Jaimini in Purva Mimamsa).
Because (the same thing) is described as such and such.
The conceptions (in the Mundaka and Svetasvatara on the one hand and Katha on the other) are the same, on account of the mention of a particular limit.
The same Self (is taught) as being the innermost of all, as in the case of the elements.
If it be said (that the two Vidyas are separate, for) otherwise the repetition cannot be accounted for, (we say) not so; (it is) like (the repetition) in another instruction (in the Chhandogya).
(There is) reciprocity (of meditation), for the; scriptures prescribe this, as in other cases.
The same (Satya-Vidya is taught in both places), because (attributes like) Satya etc. (are seen in both places).
(Qualities like true) desire etc. (mentioned in the Chhandogya are to be inserted) in the other (i.e., in the Brihadaranyaka) and (those mentioned) in the other (i.e., in the Brihadaranyaka are also to be inserted in the Chhandogya), on account of the abode etc. (being the same in both).
On account of the respect shown (to the Pranagnihotra by the Sruti) there can be no omission (of this act).
When food is served, from that (the Pranagnihotra is to be performed), for so (the Sruti) declares.
There is no rule about the inviolability of that (i.e., Upasanas connected with certain sacrifices); that is seen (from the Sruti itself); for a separate effect (belongs to the Upasanas), viz. non-obstruction (of the results of the sacrifice).
(The meditations on Vayu/Air and Prana are different owing to their different functions, though the two are essentially one); (it is) exactly as in the case of the offerings (of cakes to Indra the ruler, the monarch, and the sovereign separately). This has been stated (by Jaimini in Purva Mimamsa-Sutras).
On account of the abundance of indicatory marks (the fires of the mind, speech, etc. in the Agnirahasya of the Vajasaneyins do not form part of the sacrifice), for it (an indicatory mark) is stronger (than the context). That also (has been stated by Jaimini).
(The fires spoken of in the previous Sutra are) alternative forms of the one mentioned first (i.e., the actual sacrificial fire) on account of the context; (they) ought to be part of the sacrifice like the imaginary drink.
And on account of the extension (of the attributes of the actual fire to these imaginary fires).
But (the fires) rather form a Vidya, because (the Sruti) asserts it.
And because (of the indicatory marks) seen.
And because of the greater force of the Sruti etc. (i.e., indicatory mark and syntactical connection), (the view that the fires constitute a Vidya) cannot be refuted.
From the connection and so on (extension etc.) (the fires constitute a separate Vidya), even as other Vidyas (like the Sandilya Vidya) are separate. And (it is) seen (that in spite of the context a sacrifice is treated as independent). This has been said (by Jaimini in Purva Mimamsa-Sutras).
In spite of the resemblance (of the fires to the imaginary drink, they do) not (form part of the sacrificial act), for it is seen (from the reasons adduced that they constitute an independent Vidya); (the mental affair here is) as in the case of death, for the world does not become (fire because of certain resemblances).
And from the subsequent (Brahmana) the fact of the text (under discussion) being such (i.e., enjoining a separate Vidya) (is known). But the connection (of the imaginary fires with the actual fire is) on account of the abundance (of the attributes of the latter that are imagined in these fires).
Some (deny) (the existence) of an Atman (separate from the body), (for It) exists (only) when there is a body.
But not (so); (a Self) separate (from the body does exist), for (consciousness) does not exist even when there is the body (after death); as in the case of cognition.
But (the Upasanas) connected with parts (of sacrificial acts are) not (restricted) to (particular) Sakhas only of each Veda (but to all its Sakhas), because (the same Upasana is described in all).
Or else like Mantras etc. there is no contradiction (here).
Importance (is given to the meditation) on the entire form (of Vaisvanara) as in the case of sacrifice; for so (the Sruti) shows.
(Various Vidyas like the Sandilya, Dahara, etc. are) different owing to difference of words etc.
There is option (with respect to the several Vidyas), because the result (of all the Vidyas) is the same.
But Vidyas for particular desires may be combined or not according to one’s desire on account of the absence of the reason (mentioned in the) previous (Sutra).
With regard (to meditations) connected with members (of sacrificial acts) it is as with (the members) with which they are connected.
And from the injunction of the Sruti.
On account of the rectification.
And from the Sruti declaring the syllable ‘Om’ which is a common feature (of the Udgitha Vidya), to be common to all the Vedas.
(The meditations connected with members of sacrificial acts are) rather not (to be combined), as the Sruti does not say that they are so correlated.
And because the Sruti says so.
From this (results) the purpose of man, because of the scriptures; thus (says) Badarayana.
Because (the Self) is supplementary (to sacrificial acts), (the fruits of the knowledge of the Self) are mere praise of the agent, even as in other cases; thus says Jaimini.
Because we find (from the scriptures such) conduct (of men of realization).
That (viz. that knowledge of the Self stands in a subordinate relation to sacrificial acts) the scriptures directly declare.
Because the two (knowledge and work) go together (with the departing soul to produce the results).
Because (the scriptures) enjoin (work) for such (as know the purport of the Vedas).
And on account of prescribed rules.
But because (the scriptures) teach (the Supreme Self to be) other (than the agent), Badarayana’s (view is) correct; for that is seen (from the scriptures).
But the declarations of the Sruti equally support both views.
(The declaration of the scripture referred to in Sutra 4) is not universally true.
(There is) division of knowledge and work, as in the case of a hundred (divided between two persons).
(The scriptures enjoin work) only on those who have read the Vedas.
Because there is no special mention (of the Jnani, it does) not (apply to him).
Or rather the permission (to do work) is for praising (Knowledge).
And some according to their choice (have refrained from all work).
And (the scriptures say that the) destruction (of all qualifications for work results from Knowledge).
And (Knowledge belongs) to those who observe continence (i.e., to Sannyasins); because (this fourth Asrama is mentioned) in the scriptures.
Jaimini (thinks that in the texts referred to in the last Sutra there is) a mere reference (to Sannyasa), and not injunction, because (other texts) condemn (Sannyasa).
Badarayana (thinks that Sannyasa or monastic life) also must be gone through, for the scriptural text (cited) refers equally; to all the four Asramas (stages of life).
Or rather (there is an) injunction (in this text), as in the case of the carrying (of the sacrificial fuel).
If it be said (that references as in Chh. 1.1.3) are mere praise because of their reference (to parts of sacrificial acts), (we say) not ho. because here it is mentioned for the first time.
And there being words expressive of injunction.
If it be argued that they (the Upanishadic stories) are meant for the (ritualistic application called) Pariplava, (we say) that this not so, on account of the stories for the Pariplava having been specified.
And so (they are meant to illustrate the nearest Vidyas), being connected as one whole.
And, therefore, there is no necessity of lighting fires, and so on.
And there is the necessity of all works, for the scriptures prescribe sacrifices etc. (as means to the attainment of Knowledge, though they are unnecessary for the attainment of its results, viz. Liberation), even as the horse (is used to draw a chariot and not for ploughing).
But even if it be so (i.e., even though there is no injunction to do work to attain Knowledge in the text [Brih. 4. 4. 22]) one must possess calmness, self-control, and the like, since these are enjoined as helps to Knowledge, and therefore have necessarily to be observed.
(Only) when life is jeopardized (there is) permission to take food indiscriminately, because the Sruti declares that.
And because (thus) (the scriptural statements with respect to food) are not contradicted.
Moreover, the Smritis support this view.
And hence the scriptural text prohibiting license.
And the duties of the Asrama (are to be performed) also (by him who does not desire Liberation), because they are enjoined (on him by the scriptures).
And (the duties are to be performed also) as a means to Knowledge.
In all cases the same duties (have to be performed), because of the twofold indicatory mark.
And the scripture shows (that one endowed with Brahmacharya) is not overpowered (by anger etc.).
And (persons standing) in between (two Asramas) are also (entitled to Knowledge), because such cases are seen.
The Smriti also records such cases.
And special works favour (Knowledge).
But better than this is the other (state of being in some Asrama or other), (being maintained by the Sruti and the Smriti) and because of the indicatory marks (in the Sruti and the Smriti).
But for one who has risen to the highest Asrama (i.e., Sannyasa) there is no reverting (to the preceding ones), on account of restrictions prohibiting such reversion. Jaimini also (is of this opinion).
And (the expiation), although mentioned in the chapter dealing with qualifications (in Purva Mimamsa), is not (with reference to one who has taken the vow of lifelong celibacy), because a fall (in his case) is inferred from the Smriti, and because of its (of the expiatory ceremony) inefficacy (in his case).
But some (consider this transgression on the part of the Naishthika) a minor sin (and therefore claim) the existence (of expiation for it), as in the case of eating (prohibited food by ordinary Brahmacharins). This is explained in Purva Mimamsa.
But in either case (they are to be kept) outside the society, on account of the Smriti and custom.
To the sacrificer (belongs the agentship in meditations), because the Sruti declares a fruit (for it); thus Atreya (thinks).
(They are) the duty of the Ritvik (priest), thus thinks Audolomi, because he is paid for that (i.e., the performance of the whole sacrifice).
And because the Sruti so declares.
(The meditative state is) the in-junction of another auxiliary (to Knowledge), which is a third one (besides the two expressly enjoined), as an alternative (where the knowledge of diversity is persistent) for one who possesses Knowledge, as in the case of injunctions and the like.
Verily, on account of the householder’s life including (duties from) all (the other stages of life), the chapter ends with the (enumeration of the duties of the) householder.
Because the scripture enjoins the other (stages of life, viz. Brahmacharya and Vanaprastha) even as it enjoins the state of a Muni (Sannyasa).
(The childlike state means) without manifesting himself, on account of the context.
(The fruition of Knowledge may take place) even in this life if there be no obstruction to it (the means adopted), because it is so seen from the scriptures.
With respect to Liberation, the fruit (of Knowledge) there is no rule like this, because the Sruti asserts that state (to be immutable).
