Mahabharata Santi Parva Chapter 239

Prev.png
Mahabharata Santi Parva (Mokshadharma Parva) Chapter 239

"'Bhishma said, "Thus addressed (by his sire), Suka, highly applauding these instructions of the great Rishi, set himself about asking the following question relating to the import of duties that lead to Emancipation. Suka said, 'By what means doth one possessed of wisdom, conversant with the Vedas, observant of sacrifices, endued with wisdom, and free from malice, succeed in attaining to Brahma which is incapable of being apprehended by either direct evidence or inference, and unsusceptible of being indicated by the Vedas? Asked by me, tell me by what means is Brahma to be apprehended? Is it by penance, by Brahmacharya, by renunciation of everything, by intelligence, by the aid of the Sankhya philosophy, or by Yoga? By what means may what kind of singleness of purpose be attained by men, with respect to both, viz., the mind and the senses? It behoveth thee to expound all this to me.'[1] Vyasa said, 'No man ever attains to success by means other than the acquisition of knowledge, the practice of penances, the subjugation of the senses, and renunciation of everything.[2]The great entities (five in number) represent the first (or initial) creation of the Self-born. They have been very largely placed in embodied creatures included in the world of life[3] The bodies of all embodied creatures are derived from earth. The humours are from water. Their eyes are said to be derived from light. Prana, Apana (and the three other vital breaths) have the wind for their refuge. And, lastly, all unoccupied apertures within them (such as the nostrils, the cavities of the ear, etc.) are of Space. In the feet (of living creatures) is Vishnu. In their arms is Indra. Within the stomach is Agni desirous of eating. In the ears are the points of the horizon (or the compass) representing the sense of hearing. In the tongue is speech which is Saraswati.[4] The ears, skin, eyes, tongue and nose forming the fifth, are said to be the sense of knowledge.
These exist for the purposes of apprehension of their respective objects. Sound, touch, form, taste and scent forming the fifth, are the objects of the (five) senses. These should always be regarded as separate from (or independent of) the senses. Like the charioteer setting his well-broken steeds along the paths he pleases, the mind sets the senses (along directions it pleases). The mind, in its turn, is employed by the knowledge sitting in the heart.[5]The mind is the lord of all these senses in respect of employing them in their functions and guiding or restraining them. Similarly, the knowledge is the lord of the mind (in employing, and guiding or restraining it).[6] The senses, the objects of the senses, the attributes of those objects represented by the word nature, knowledge, mind, the vital breaths, and Jiva dwell in the bodies of all embodied creatures[7]
The body within which the knowledge dwells has no real existence. The body, therefore, is not the refuge of the knowledge. Primordial Nature (Prakriti) having the three attributes (of Goodness and Passion and Darkness) is the refuge of the knowledge which exists only in the form of a sound. The Soul also is not the refuge of the knowledge. It is Desire that creates the knowledge. Desire, however, never creates the three attributes.[8]The man of wisdom, capable of subduing his senses, beholds the seventeenth, viz., the Soul, as surrounded by six and ten attributes, in his own knowledge by the aid of the mind. The Soul cannot be beheld with the aid of the eye or with that of all the senses.

Next.png


References

  1. ↑ [Yatha in the first line of verse means, as the commentator explains, yat prakarakam.]
  2. ↑ [The commentator points out that by these four words the four modes of life are indicated.]
  3. ↑ .[The commentator explains that this means that amongst embodied creatures they that are ignorant take those great entities which are really non-ego for either the ego or its Possessions.]
  4. ↑ [The commentator explains that the object of this verse is to show that the Yoga view of the Soul being only the enjoyer but not the actor, is not correct. On the other hand, the Sankhya view of the Soul being neither the enjoyer nor the actor, is true. The deities, remaining in the several senses, act and enjoy. It is through ignorance that the Soul ascribes to itself their enjoyments and their actions.]
  5. ↑ [I render Bhutatma by knowledge, following the commentator who uses the words buddhyupadhirjivah for explaining it.]
  6. ↑ [Niyama and Visarga are explained by the commentator as 'destruction' and 'creation.' I prefer to take them as meaning 'guiding or restraining,' and 'employing.' Practically, the explanations are identical.]
  7. ↑ .[What is meant by the objects of the senses residing within the bodies of living creatures is that (as the commentator explains) their concepts exist in 'the cavity of the heart' (probably, mind) so that when necessary or called for, they appear (before the mind's eye). Swabhava is explained as 'attributes' like heat and cold, etc.]
  8. ↑ [This is a very difficult verse. I have rendered it, following Nilakantha's gloss. In verse the speaker lays down what entities dwell in the body. In the rest he expounds the nature of Sattwa which the commentator takes to mean buddhi or knowledge. He begins with the statement that Sattwasya asrayah nasti. This does not mean that the knowledge has no refuge, for that would be absurd, but it means that the asraya of the knowledge, i.e., that in which the knowledge dwells, viz., the body, does not exist, the true doctrine being that the body has no real existence but that it exists like to its image in a dream. The body being non-existent, what then is the real refuge of the knowledge? The speaker answers it by saying Gunah, implying that primeval Prakriti characterised by the three attributes is that real refuge. Then it is said that Chetana (by which is implied the Soul here) is not the refuge of the knowledge for the Soul is dissociated from everything and incapable of transformation of any kind. The question is then mentally stated,—May not the Gunas be the qualities of the knowledge (instead of being, as said above, its refuge)? For dispelling this doubt, it is stated that Sattwa is the product of Tejas (Desire). The Gunas are not the product of Tejas. Hence the Gunas, which have a different origin cannot be the properties of Sattwa. The Gunas exist independently of Desire. Thus the knowledge, which has Desire for its originating cause, rests on the Gunas or has them for its refuge. In this verse, therefore, the nature of the body, the knowledge, and the Gunas, is expounded. The grammatical construction of the first line is exceedingly terse.]