1.4.17
Brahma Sūtra / Adhyāya 1 / 1.4.17
जीवमुख्यप्राणलिङ्गान् नेति चेत् तद्व्याख्यातम्
jīvamukhyaprāṇaliṅgān neti cet tadvyākhyātam
The line
If you say it is not Brahman (ब्रह्मन्) because of the marks of the soul and the chief breath, that has been explained.
नेपालीमा
यदि आत्मा र मुख्य प्राणका चिह्नका कारण यो ब्रह्म होइन भन्छौ भने, त्यो व्याख्या भइसकेको छ।
Where it sits
The objection's wording is the wording of 1.1.32. tat points there. The passage now in hand is still Bālāki (बालाकि)'s, 1.4.16. The reply is not a new reply.
Split: jīva-mukhya-prāṇa-liṅgāt (जीव-मुख्य-प्राण-लिङ्गात्) + na (न) + iti (इति) + cet (चेत्) + tad-vyākhyātam (तद्-व्याख्यातम्)
Sanskrit, in depth
The words
| Word | Grammar | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| jīva-mukhya-prāṇa-liṅgāt (जीव-मुख्य-प्राण-लिङ्गात्) | ablative singular, neuter | because of the mark of the soul and of the chief breath |
| na (न) | indeclinable | not |
| iti (इति) | indeclinable | thus |
| cet (चेत्) | indeclinable | if |
| tad-vyākhyātam (तद्-व्याख्यातम्) | nominative singular, neuter | that has been explained |
The phrases
The objection is the one already met when Indra said 'I am breath'. Bālāki (बालाकि)'s persons, and the king's sleeper from whom breath goes out, carry marks of a soul and of the chief prāṇa (प्राण). So, it is said, the maker is not brahman (ब्रह्मन्).
tad vyākhyātam (व्याख्यातम्): that objection has been explained. The explanation is the threefold meditation, the marks as a support one takes up, and the joining of those marks to brahman (ब्रह्मन्). The sūtra (सूत्र) does not repeat the explanation. It points.
Sanskrit in this line
Same sandhi as before: liṅgāt (लिङ्गात्) before na is liṅgān (लिङ्गान्). vyākhyātam (व्याख्यातम्) is the past participle of vi plus ā (आ) plus khyā (ख्या), neuter, agreeing with tat.
Say it back
Do not rebuild the answer. Point to 1.1.32 and say the three reasons.