Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Work thus done, merely as a preparation for salvation, does not cling to man, i.e. it produces a pure heart, but does not 316 VAGASANEYI-SAMHITA-UPANISHAD. entail any further consequences.’ So far he agrees with Uvasa’s explanation’. He allows, however, another explanation also, so that the second line would convey the meaning: ‘ Ifa man lives thus (performing good works), then there is no other way by which an evil deed should not be engrained; i.e. in order to escape the power of sin, he must all his life perform sacred acts.’ Next follows a description of the lot of those who, immersed in works, have not arrived at the highest knowledge, and have not recovered their true self in the Highest Self, or Brahman. That Brahman, though the name is not used here, is then described, and salvation is promised to the man who beholds all things in the Self and the Self in all things. The verses 9-14 are again full of difficulty, not so much in themselves as in their relation to the general system of thought which prevails in the Upanishads, and forms the foundation of the Vedanta philosophy. The commentators vary considerably in their interpretations. Sankara explains avidy4, not-knowledge, by good works, particularly sacrifice, performed with a hope of reward ; vidya, or knowledge, by a knowledge of the gods, but not, as yet, of the highest Brahman. The former is generally supposed to lead the sacrificer to the pitr:loka, the world of the fathers, from whence he returns to a series of new births; the latter to the devaloka, the world of the gods, from whence he may either proceed to Brahman, or enter upon a new round of existences. The question then arises, how in our passage the former could be said to lead to blind darkness, the latter to still greater darkness. But for that statement, I have no doubt that all the commentators would, as usual, have taken vidy4 for the knowledge of the Highest Brahman, and avidy4 for orthodox belief in the gods and good works, the former securing immortality in the sense of freedom from new births, while the reward of the latter is blessedness in heaven for a limited period, but without freedom from new births. This antithesis between vidya and avidy4 seems to me so firmly established that I cannot bring myself to surrender it here. Though this Upanishad has its own very peculiar character, yet its object is, after all, to impart a knowledge of the Highest Self, and not to inculcate merely a difference between faith in the ordinary gods and good works. It was distinctly said before (ver. 3), that those who have destroyed their self, i.e. who perform works only, ’ Uvata explains gigtshivisheA for gigivishet as a purushavyatayak, VA@ASANEYI-SAMHiTA-UPANISHAD, 347
2It was distinctly said before (ver. 3), that those who have destroyed their self, i.e. who perform works only, ’ Uvata explains gigtshivisheA for gigivishet as a purushavyatayak, VA@ASANEYI-SAMHiTA-UPANISHAD, 347 and have not arrived at a knowledge of the true Self, go to the worlds of the Asuras, which are covered with blind darkness. If then the same blind darkness is said in verse g to be the lot of those who worship not-knowledge, this can only mean those who have not discovered the true Self, but are satisfied with the performance of good works. And if those who perform good works are opposed to others who delight in true knowledge, that knowledge can be the knowledge of the true Self only. The difficulty therefore which has perplexed Sankara is this, how, while the orthodox believer is said to enter into blind darkness, the true disciple, who has acquired a knowledge of the true Self, could be said to enter into still greater darkness. While Sankara in this case seems hardly to have caught the drift of the Upanishad, Uvasa and Mahfdhara propose an explanation which is far more satisfactory. They perceive that the chief stress must be laid on the words ubhayam saha, ‘both together,’ in verses 11 and 14. The doctrine of certain Vedanta philosophers was that works, though they cannot by themselves lead to salvation, are useful as a preparation for the highest knowledge, and that those who imagine that they can attain the highest knowledge without such previous preparation, are utterly mistaken. From this point of view therefore the author of the Upanishad might well say that those who give themselves to what is not knowledge, i.e. to sacrificial and other good works, enter into darkness, but that those who delight altogether in knowledge, despising the previous discipline of works, deceive themselves and enter into still greater darkness. Then follows the next verse, simply stating that, according to the teaching of wise people, the reward of knowledge is one thing, the reward of ignorance, i,e. trust in sacrifice, another. Here Mahfdhara is right again by assigning the pitr7loka, the world of the fathers, as the reward of the ignorant; the devaloka, the world of the gods, as the reward of the enlightened, provided that from the world of the gods they pass on to the knowledge of the Highest Self or Brahman. The third verse contains the strongest confirmation of Mahfdhara’s view. Here it is laid down distinctly that he only who knows both together, both what is called ignorance and what is called knowledge, can be saved, because by good works he overcomes death, here explained by natural works, and by knowledge he obtains the Immortal, here explained by oneness with the gods, the last step that leads on to oneness with Brahman. Uvasa, who takes the same view of these verses, explains at once, 318 VAGASANEYI-SAMHITA-UPANISHAD,
3Uvasa, who takes the same view of these verses, explains at once, 318 VAGASANEYI-SAMHITA-UPANISHAD, and even more boldly than Mahidhara’, vidya, or knowledge, by brahmavigfiana, knowledge of Brahman, which by itself, and if not preceded by works, leads to even greater darkness than what is called ignorance, i.e. sacrifice and orthodoxy without knowledge. The three corresponding verses, treating of sambhfiti and asambhfiti instead of vidya and avidy4, stand first in the V4gasaneyisamhita. They must necessarily be explained in accordance with our explanation of the former verses, i.e. sambhfiti must correspond - to vidya, it must be meant for the true cause, i.e. for Brahman, while asambhfiti must correspond with avidy4, as a name of what is not real, but phenomenal only and perishable. Mahidhara thinks that these verses refer to the Bauddhas, which can hardly be admitted, unless we take Buddhist in a very general sense. Uvasa puts the Lok4yatas in their place*. It is curious also to observe that Mahfdhara, following Uvasa, explains asambhiti at first by the denial of the resurrection of the body, while he takes sambhfti rightly for Brahman. I have chiefly followed Uvasa’s commentary, except in his first explanation of asambhiti, resurrection *®. In what follows Uvasa explains sambhfiti rightly by the only cause of the origin of the whole world, i.e. Brahman‘, while he takes vindsa, destruction, as a name of the perishable body °. Sankara sees much more in these three verses than Uvasa. He takes asambhfti as a name of Prakriti, the undeveloped cause, sambhfiti as a name of the phenomenal Brahman or Hiramyagarbha. From a worship of the latter a man obtains supernatural powers, from devotion to the former, absorption in Prakriti. Mahfdhara also takes a similar view, and he allows, like Sankara, another reading, viz. sambhfitim avinasam a, and avindsena mrttyum tirtva. In this case the sense would be: ‘He who knows the worship both of the developed and the undeveloped, overcomes 1 Mahidhara decides in the end that vidya and amrttam must here be taken in a limited or relative sense, tasmA4d vidyopdsanamritam kipekshikam iti dik, and so agrees on the whole with Sankara, pp. 25-27. 2 Shad anushfubhaf, lokayatika# prasthyante yesham etad darsanam. * Mritasya satak puna# sambhavo nésti, ata# sariragrahan4d asmakam muktir eva. * Samastasya gagatat sambhavaikahetu brahma. ® Vinasam vindsi 4a vapu’ sariram. VAGASANEYI-SAMHITA-UPANISHAD. 319 death, i.e. such evil as sin, passion, &c., through worship of the undeveloped, while he obtains through worship of the developed, i.e. of Hiranyagarbha, immortality, absorption in Prakriti.’
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Work thus done, merely as a preparation for salvation, does not cling to man, i.e. it produces a pure heart, but does not 316 VAGASANEYI-SAMHITA-UPANISHAD. entail any further consequences.’ So far he agrees with Uvasa’s explanation’. He allows, however, another explanation also, so that the second line would convey the meaning: ‘ Ifa man lives thus (performing good works), then there is no other way by which an evil deed should not be engrained; i.e. in order to escape the power of sin, he must all his life perform sacred acts.’ Next follows a description of the lot of those who, immersed in works, have not arrived at the highest knowledge, and have not recovered their true self in the Highest Self, or Brahman. That Brahman, though the name is not used here, is then described, and salvation is promised to the man who beholds all things in the Self and the Self in all things. The verses 9-14 are again full of difficulty, not so much in themselves as in their relation to the general system of thought which prevails in the Upanishads, and forms the foundation of the Vedanta philosophy. The commentators vary considerably in their interpretations. Sankara explains avidy4, not-knowledge, by good works, particularly sacrifice, performed with a hope of reward ; vidya, or knowledge, by a knowledge of the gods, but not, as yet, of the highest Brahman. The former is generally supposed to lead the sacrificer to the pitr:loka, the world of the fathers, from whence he returns to a series of new births; the latter to the devaloka, the world of the gods, from whence he may either proceed to Brahman, or enter upon a new round of existences. The question then arises, how in our passage the former could be said to lead to blind darkness, the latter to still greater darkness. But for that statement, I have no doubt that all the commentators would, as usual, have taken vidy4 for the knowledge of the Highest Brahman, and avidy4 for orthodox belief in the gods and good works, the former securing immortality in the sense of freedom from new births, while the reward of the latter is blessedness in heaven for a limited period, but without freedom from new births. This antithesis between vidya and avidy4 seems to me so firmly established that I cannot bring myself to surrender it here. Though this Upanishad has its own very peculiar character, yet its object is, after all, to impart a knowledge of the Highest Self, and not to inculcate merely a difference between faith in the ordinary gods and good works. It was distinctly said before (ver. 3), that those who have destroyed their self, i.e. who perform works only, ’ Uvata explains gigtshivisheA for gigivishet as a purushavyatayak, VA@ASANEYI-SAMHiTA-UPANISHAD, 347
2It was distinctly said before (ver. 3), that those who have destroyed their self, i.e. who perform works only, ’ Uvata explains gigtshivisheA for gigivishet as a purushavyatayak, VA@ASANEYI-SAMHiTA-UPANISHAD, 347 and have not arrived at a knowledge of the true Self, go to the worlds of the Asuras, which are covered with blind darkness. If then the same blind darkness is said in verse g to be the lot of those who worship not-knowledge, this can only mean those who have not discovered the true Self, but are satisfied with the performance of good works. And if those who perform good works are opposed to others who delight in true knowledge, that knowledge can be the knowledge of the true Self only. The difficulty therefore which has perplexed Sankara is this, how, while the orthodox believer is said to enter into blind darkness, the true disciple, who has acquired a knowledge of the true Self, could be said to enter into still greater darkness. While Sankara in this case seems hardly to have caught the drift of the Upanishad, Uvasa and Mahfdhara propose an explanation which is far more satisfactory. They perceive that the chief stress must be laid on the words ubhayam saha, ‘both together,’ in verses 11 and 14. The doctrine of certain Vedanta philosophers was that works, though they cannot by themselves lead to salvation, are useful as a preparation for the highest knowledge, and that those who imagine that they can attain the highest knowledge without such previous preparation, are utterly mistaken. From this point of view therefore the author of the Upanishad might well say that those who give themselves to what is not knowledge, i.e. to sacrificial and other good works, enter into darkness, but that those who delight altogether in knowledge, despising the previous discipline of works, deceive themselves and enter into still greater darkness. Then follows the next verse, simply stating that, according to the teaching of wise people, the reward of knowledge is one thing, the reward of ignorance, i,e. trust in sacrifice, another. Here Mahfdhara is right again by assigning the pitr7loka, the world of the fathers, as the reward of the ignorant; the devaloka, the world of the gods, as the reward of the enlightened, provided that from the world of the gods they pass on to the knowledge of the Highest Self or Brahman. The third verse contains the strongest confirmation of Mahfdhara’s view. Here it is laid down distinctly that he only who knows both together, both what is called ignorance and what is called knowledge, can be saved, because by good works he overcomes death, here explained by natural works, and by knowledge he obtains the Immortal, here explained by oneness with the gods, the last step that leads on to oneness with Brahman. Uvasa, who takes the same view of these verses, explains at once, 318 VAGASANEYI-SAMHITA-UPANISHAD,
3Uvasa, who takes the same view of these verses, explains at once, 318 VAGASANEYI-SAMHITA-UPANISHAD, and even more boldly than Mahidhara’, vidya, or knowledge, by brahmavigfiana, knowledge of Brahman, which by itself, and if not preceded by works, leads to even greater darkness than what is called ignorance, i.e. sacrifice and orthodoxy without knowledge. The three corresponding verses, treating of sambhfiti and asambhfiti instead of vidya and avidy4, stand first in the V4gasaneyisamhita. They must necessarily be explained in accordance with our explanation of the former verses, i.e. sambhfiti must correspond - to vidya, it must be meant for the true cause, i.e. for Brahman, while asambhfiti must correspond with avidy4, as a name of what is not real, but phenomenal only and perishable. Mahidhara thinks that these verses refer to the Bauddhas, which can hardly be admitted, unless we take Buddhist in a very general sense. Uvasa puts the Lok4yatas in their place*. It is curious also to observe that Mahfdhara, following Uvasa, explains asambhiti at first by the denial of the resurrection of the body, while he takes sambhfti rightly for Brahman. I have chiefly followed Uvasa’s commentary, except in his first explanation of asambhiti, resurrection *®. In what follows Uvasa explains sambhfiti rightly by the only cause of the origin of the whole world, i.e. Brahman‘, while he takes vindsa, destruction, as a name of the perishable body °. Sankara sees much more in these three verses than Uvasa. He takes asambhfti as a name of Prakriti, the undeveloped cause, sambhfiti as a name of the phenomenal Brahman or Hiramyagarbha. From a worship of the latter a man obtains supernatural powers, from devotion to the former, absorption in Prakriti. Mahfdhara also takes a similar view, and he allows, like Sankara, another reading, viz. sambhfitim avinasam a, and avindsena mrttyum tirtva. In this case the sense would be: ‘He who knows the worship both of the developed and the undeveloped, overcomes 1 Mahidhara decides in the end that vidya and amrttam must here be taken in a limited or relative sense, tasmA4d vidyopdsanamritam kipekshikam iti dik, and so agrees on the whole with Sankara, pp. 25-27. 2 Shad anushfubhaf, lokayatika# prasthyante yesham etad darsanam. * Mritasya satak puna# sambhavo nésti, ata# sariragrahan4d asmakam muktir eva. * Samastasya gagatat sambhavaikahetu brahma. ® Vinasam vindsi 4a vapu’ sariram. VAGASANEYI-SAMHITA-UPANISHAD. 319 death, i.e. such evil as sin, passion, &c., through worship of the undeveloped, while he obtains through worship of the developed, i.e. of Hiranyagarbha, immortality, absorption in Prakriti.’
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.