|| ōm̐ śrī gurubhyō namaḥ hariḥ ōm̐ ||
Mantra #18
The previous mantra opened up in two ways
(1) The Purusha that is established by mantra #17, He is eternally present
(2) The Purusha that is established by mantra #17 who is the Inner-Controller in every entity, is the same Inner-Controller that is in me.
How can the same mantra have two meanings? That is the first question. When death and separation occur to this body, what happerns to the Inner-Controller? That is the second question.
The next mantra answers both the questions, with what is known as ‘kaimutya’.
What is kaimutya nyAya ? An example may help.
When we say a tree fell down, is there a need to specifically say that all its fruits also fell down? Such obvious implication in logic is called, “kim-uta” or kaimutya nyAya. If I don’t even have ten dollars, then do I have to seperately mention that I don’t have one hundred dollars? It is automatically implied.
This logic is used when one is “contained” in the other, and therefore, when one is mentioned, the other one is automatically implied. It works above because, “ten dollars” is contained in “hundred dollars” and fruits are contained in the tree.
If A is contained in B, and B is contained in C, by kaimutya we can conclude that A is contained in C.
If A is dependent on B and B is dependent on C, by kaimutya we can conclude that A is dependent on C.
Veda teaches that jIva is dependent on prANa and prANa is dependent on Parabrahman. Since, prANa himself is taught to be dependent on Parabrahman, by kaimutya nyAya, it is automatically implied that jIva is dependent on Parabrahman. Similarly, when prANa is established as nitya, then, is there a need to seperately establish that Parabrahman is Nitya? That Truth is automatically established by kaimutya nyAya.
उपनिषत् upaniṣat
वायुरनिलम् अमृतम् अथेदं भस्मान्तँ शरीरम् ॥ १८ ॥
vāyuranilam amr̥tam athēdaṁ bhasmāntam̐ śarīram || 18 ||
Although this body has ashes as its end, even then for Parabrahman who is its antaryAmin there is no case of defect such as death. How come? is answered as “anilam”.
अः ब्रह्मैव निलं निलयनं आश्रयो यस्य सः अनिलः is the etymological meaning of anila. Parabrahman Himself is the only support for who, he is is ‘anila’. Dependent on Parabrahman vAyu ‘anila’ himself, is nitya eternal, then do we need to separately mention that Parabrahman Himself is अमृत amr̥ta?
एतेन मातरिश्वा व्याख्यातः (ब्र. सू. २.३.८) ētēna mātariśvā vyākhyātaḥ (bra. sū. 2.3.8). In the context of this brahma-sootra, we learn that, because he possesses knowledge that neither diminishes with time nor vanishes at any time, vAyu is also established as ‘nitya’. (This nityatva of vAyu is because vAyu is ‘anilam’ or has only Parabrahman as his AdhAra) Even though vAyu has a body that gets destroyed during the final dissolution, but his knowledge never diminishes just as the knowledge of mukta-jIvAtmans does not diminish, hence vAyu is stated to be without death).
With this background in mind, we may now study this mantra #18.
उपनिषत् upaniṣat
वायुरनिलम् अमृतम् अथेदं भस्मान्तँ शरीरम् ॥ १८ ॥
vāyuranilam amr̥tam athēdaṁ bhasmāntam̐ śarīram || 18 ||
This body which has jeeva in it (शरीरम् śarīram) has ashes as its end i.e., has death (भस्मान्तँ bhasmāntam̐). For the prANa who is the instigator for that jeeva and shareera, because he is “anilam” i.e, because he has only Parabrahman as his Ashraya, (वायुरनिलम् vāyuranilam) He (vAyu) is nitya because of his nitya-jnyAna-svaroopa. (अमृतम् amr̥tam). This being the case, if the dependence on Parabrahman itself is going to give such nityatva (अथ atha) then, it is self established that Parabrahman is nitya (इदं idaṁ).
Leave a Reply