Both of them are without form.
Both of them are undecaying. Both of them, again, incomprehensible. How
then, O foremost of Rishis, can it be said that one of them is inanimate
and unintelligent? How, again, is the other said to be animate and
intelligent? And why is the latter called Kshetrajna? Thou, O foremost of
Brahmanas, art fully conversant with the entire religion of Emancipation.
I desire to hear in detail of the religion of Emancipation in its
entirety. Do thou discourse to me then of the existence and Oneness of
Purusha, of his separateness from Prakriti, of the deities which attach
to the body of the place to which embodied creatures repair when they
die, and that place to which they may ultimately, in course of time, be
able to go. Tell me also of the Knowledge described in the Sankhya
system, and of the Yoga system separately. It behoveth thee also to speak
of the premonitory symptoms of death, O best of men. All these topics are
well known to thee even as an (emblic) myrobalan in thy hand!'"
SECTION CCCXVI
"'Yajnavalkya said, That which is without attributes, O son, can never be
explained by ascribing attributes to it. Listen, however, to me as I
expound to thee what is possessed of attributes and what is devoid of
them. High-souled Munis conversant with the truth regarding all the
topics or principles say that when Purusha seizes attributes like a
crystal catching the reflection of a red flower, he comes to be called as
possessed of attributes; but when freed from attributes like the crystal
freed from reflection, he comes to be viewed in his real nature, that is,
as beyond all attributes.
Pages:
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420