Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1is the cause of all evil, and having also shown that death is destroyed by true knowledge, and having shown further that heaven &c. are really not man’s highest goal; the author has also implied the unity of the supreme and individual self. On that arises a doubt. which is stated in this passage.’ * All this=all the developments of the Brahman, ie. space, wind, fire, water, earth, vegetation, food, living creatures; see Taittittyopanishad, p. 68. CHAPTER II, 2]. 157 has it to do, or what is its unhappiness'? Tell me all that accurately, O learned person ! Sanatsugata said : There is great danger? in attributing distinctions to it. The everlasting * (principles) exist by connexion with the beginningless‘ (principle). So that his greatness is not lost at all*, and beings exist by connexion with the beginningless‘ (principle). That which is the real—the supreme Being *—is eternal. He creates the universe by means of changes’, for such is his power held to be; and for such connexions of things the Vedas are (authority) °. ' What is the purpose of its existence, and what misery does it undergo on entering the course of worldly life? * «The danger,’ says Sankara, ‘is that of contravening Vedic texts such as “I am the Brahman,” “ Thou art that,” &c.’ May it not rather be that pointed out at Kashopanishad, p. 129, viz. never attaining final emancipation? Cf. also Nrisimha Tapini, p. 223. ® The individual selfs, Sankara. * Nature or maya. * The appearance of degradation to an inferior state being delusive. * The original word implies the possession of aisvarya, dharma, yasas, srt, vairagya, moksha. See Svetdsvatara, p. 329 (where the list is slightly different). For another definition, see Maitri, p. 6 (gloss). * See note 9, p. 156. * Sankara says: ‘The question of Dhritarashéra having suggested a difference between two principles, one of which constrains, and the other of which is constrained, the answer is—Such a difference ought not to be alleged, as it involves “danger.” Then the question arises, How is the difference, which does appear, to be explained? The reply is, It is due to the beginningless principle—delusion or ignorance. The next sentence shows that the universe as it appears is also a result of delusion.’ Nilakaw/ha says expressly, changes= delusion. He renders the original which we have translated by ‘ beginningless’ first, to mean ‘collection of objecis of enjoyments.’ Sankara’s explanation seems tautological as regards the words ‘connexion with the beginningless,’ which occur twice in the above. Nila- 158 SANATSUGATIYA. Dhrrtardshéra said: Since some practise piety! in this world, and some likewise practise impiety in this world; is the piety destroyed by the sin, or else does the piety destroy sin? Sanatsugata said :
2Nila- 158 SANATSUGATIYA. Dhrrtardshéra said: Since some practise piety! in this world, and some likewise practise impiety in this world; is the piety destroyed by the sin, or else does the piety destroy sin? Sanatsugata said : Whichever* he adheres to, the man of understanding always destroys both by means of knowledge ; (that is) settled *. Likewise, in the other case ‘, the embodied (self) obtains merit; and to such a one sin (also) accrues; (that too is) settled*. Departing (from this world), he enjoys by his actions both (kinds of) fruit, which are not enduring *—of actions (which are) pure, and of (those which are) sinful. The man of understanding casts aside sin by piety in this (world), for know that his piety is more powerful *. Those Brahmazas, in whom there is emulation? about (their) piety, as there is in strong men about (their) strength, after departing from this world, become glorious in heaven *. And kantha’s is not quite clear. May the expression on the second occasion mean, that the connexion by which beings are stated before to exist has had no beginning—has existed from eternity? The translation should then run thus: ‘And beings exist by a connexion which had no beginning ;’ (see Sdriraka Bhashya, p. 494.) Connexions of things=creation of universe by his power. 1 E.g. Agnishfoma, &c., Sankara. * T.e. impiety or piety, sin or merit. * In Srutis and Smritis, which Sankara quotes. A’hAndogya, p.622; Mundaka, p. 309; Brrhadiranyaka, p. 911. See, too, Maitri, p.131. * Of the man devoid of knowledge. * Cf. Gitd, p. 76, and Brrhadiranyaka, p. 636. * See p. 164, note g infra. 7 The feeling of one’s own superiority over others in piety. ® ‘In the shape of Nakshatras,’ says Sankara, which is not quite intelligible. See AAindogya, p. 258, and Anugité infra, p. 240. CHAPTER II, 31. 159 to those in whom there is no emulation about (their) piety, that (piety) is a means of (acquiring) knowledge ?. Such Brahmasas released from this (world), go to the heaven which is free from the threefold source of pain*. People who understand the Vedas call his conduct good. (But) people closely connected *, as well as strangers, do not pay much regard to him. Wherever he may believe food and drink for a Brahmama to exist in abundance, like water on grass in the autumn, there would he live and not be vexed‘. (To him) only that person is good, and no other (as a companion), who does nothing in excess, and who occasions fear and injury to a taciturn man®. And his food is acceptable to the good, who does not vex the self of a taciturn man, and who does not destroy the property of a Brahmana*. A Brdhmaaa should hold, that living in the midst of kinsmen, his actions should be always unknown’; and he should not * According tothe Vedintic theory, the acts of piety purify the inner man, and are thus a stepping-stone to knowledge. See Introduction, p.147 supra. Cf. Gita, p. 122; and Brshadaranyaka, p. 899.
3See Introduction, p.147 supra. Cf. Gita, p. 122; and Brshadaranyaka, p. 899. * Le. physical, mental, and such as is caused by superhuman agency. This is Sankara’s explanation. It is somewhat farfetched, but I can find none better. Cf. Git4, p. 49. And see also Brihadiranyaka, p. 876, and the commentary of Sankara there with Anandagiri’s gloss. * Eg. wife, children, &c. * T.e. vexed as to how his livelihood is to be earned, &c. * Excess, e.g. too much obsequiousness towards a ‘taciturn man, owing to his holiness, &c. Taciturn man = ascetic. Injury = disrespect, &c. Perhaps the protest against worldliness is here carried to an extreme. Sankara cites Manu as a parallel, ‘A Brahmawa should be afraid of (worldly) respect as of poison.’ * E.g. the Kusa grass, deerskin, &c., mentioned at Gfta, p. 68. * Te. he should not parade his actions.) Sankara compares Vasish/ka and aVedic text. See, too, the quotation at Taitt. Aran. p.go2. 160 SANATSUGATIYA. think' (about them). What Brahmaza ought to think of the inner self, which is void of symbols 2, immovable, pure, and free from all pairs of opposites, in this way? ? What sin is not committed by that thief, who steals away his own self‘, who regards his self as one thing, when it is a different thing. The far-seeing Brahmaza, who knows the Brahman, is not wearied 5, he receives nothing *; he is honoured, free from trouble’, and wise, but acts as if he was not wise*. As dogs eat what is vomited, so do they, enjoying their own bravery’, eat what is vomited, always with disaster (to themselves). Those twice-born persons, who are not ' Cf. Gita, p. 103. Sankara suggests an alternative explanation of this stanza, which will make it mean that one performing the operations of the senses, should devote oneself nevertheless to the unknown principle, and not consider the senses to be the self. * Te. beyond the reach of inference ; ‘subtle,’ says Sankara. Cf. Svetasvatara, p. 364; Brrhadaranyaka, p. 855; Maitri, p. 182; and Katha, p. 149, where Sankara suggests a somewhat different meaning. As to immovable, cf. fsa, p. 10, and Gita, p. 104. Sankara renders it by ‘ void of activity ;’ and pure he paraphrases by ‘free from ignorance and other taints.’ > It is difficult to say what ‘in this way’ refers to. Sankara renders it by ‘as possessing qualities appertaining to the two kinds of body.’ On Sankara’s suggested meaning of the stanza preceding (see note 1), it would refer to the confusion of the senses with the self. * Such a person is called a destroyer of his own self at Lsopanishad, p. 9. * Te. by the troubles of worldly life. * Cf. ‘without belongings’ at Gita, p. 128. 7 Anger and other obstacles to concentration of mind. * Le. unintelligent. The text of Vasishéha referred to in note 7, p. 159, says he should act like an unintelligent man. Cf. also Gaudupida-kirikAs, p. 443, and Sirfraka Bhishya, p. 1041.
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.
1is the cause of all evil, and having also shown that death is destroyed by true knowledge, and having shown further that heaven &c. are really not man’s highest goal; the author has also implied the unity of the supreme and individual self. On that arises a doubt. which is stated in this passage.’ * All this=all the developments of the Brahman, ie. space, wind, fire, water, earth, vegetation, food, living creatures; see Taittittyopanishad, p. 68. CHAPTER II, 2]. 157 has it to do, or what is its unhappiness'? Tell me all that accurately, O learned person ! Sanatsugata said : There is great danger? in attributing distinctions to it. The everlasting * (principles) exist by connexion with the beginningless‘ (principle). So that his greatness is not lost at all*, and beings exist by connexion with the beginningless‘ (principle). That which is the real—the supreme Being *—is eternal. He creates the universe by means of changes’, for such is his power held to be; and for such connexions of things the Vedas are (authority) °. ' What is the purpose of its existence, and what misery does it undergo on entering the course of worldly life? * «The danger,’ says Sankara, ‘is that of contravening Vedic texts such as “I am the Brahman,” “ Thou art that,” &c.’ May it not rather be that pointed out at Kashopanishad, p. 129, viz. never attaining final emancipation? Cf. also Nrisimha Tapini, p. 223. ® The individual selfs, Sankara. * Nature or maya. * The appearance of degradation to an inferior state being delusive. * The original word implies the possession of aisvarya, dharma, yasas, srt, vairagya, moksha. See Svetdsvatara, p. 329 (where the list is slightly different). For another definition, see Maitri, p. 6 (gloss). * See note 9, p. 156. * Sankara says: ‘The question of Dhritarashéra having suggested a difference between two principles, one of which constrains, and the other of which is constrained, the answer is—Such a difference ought not to be alleged, as it involves “danger.” Then the question arises, How is the difference, which does appear, to be explained? The reply is, It is due to the beginningless principle—delusion or ignorance. The next sentence shows that the universe as it appears is also a result of delusion.’ Nilakaw/ha says expressly, changes= delusion. He renders the original which we have translated by ‘ beginningless’ first, to mean ‘collection of objecis of enjoyments.’ Sankara’s explanation seems tautological as regards the words ‘connexion with the beginningless,’ which occur twice in the above. Nila- 158 SANATSUGATIYA. Dhrrtardshéra said: Since some practise piety! in this world, and some likewise practise impiety in this world; is the piety destroyed by the sin, or else does the piety destroy sin? Sanatsugata said :
2Nila- 158 SANATSUGATIYA. Dhrrtardshéra said: Since some practise piety! in this world, and some likewise practise impiety in this world; is the piety destroyed by the sin, or else does the piety destroy sin? Sanatsugata said : Whichever* he adheres to, the man of understanding always destroys both by means of knowledge ; (that is) settled *. Likewise, in the other case ‘, the embodied (self) obtains merit; and to such a one sin (also) accrues; (that too is) settled*. Departing (from this world), he enjoys by his actions both (kinds of) fruit, which are not enduring *—of actions (which are) pure, and of (those which are) sinful. The man of understanding casts aside sin by piety in this (world), for know that his piety is more powerful *. Those Brahmazas, in whom there is emulation? about (their) piety, as there is in strong men about (their) strength, after departing from this world, become glorious in heaven *. And kantha’s is not quite clear. May the expression on the second occasion mean, that the connexion by which beings are stated before to exist has had no beginning—has existed from eternity? The translation should then run thus: ‘And beings exist by a connexion which had no beginning ;’ (see Sdriraka Bhashya, p. 494.) Connexions of things=creation of universe by his power. 1 E.g. Agnishfoma, &c., Sankara. * T.e. impiety or piety, sin or merit. * In Srutis and Smritis, which Sankara quotes. A’hAndogya, p.622; Mundaka, p. 309; Brrhadiranyaka, p. 911. See, too, Maitri, p.131. * Of the man devoid of knowledge. * Cf. Gitd, p. 76, and Brrhadiranyaka, p. 636. * See p. 164, note g infra. 7 The feeling of one’s own superiority over others in piety. ® ‘In the shape of Nakshatras,’ says Sankara, which is not quite intelligible. See AAindogya, p. 258, and Anugité infra, p. 240. CHAPTER II, 31. 159 to those in whom there is no emulation about (their) piety, that (piety) is a means of (acquiring) knowledge ?. Such Brahmasas released from this (world), go to the heaven which is free from the threefold source of pain*. People who understand the Vedas call his conduct good. (But) people closely connected *, as well as strangers, do not pay much regard to him. Wherever he may believe food and drink for a Brahmama to exist in abundance, like water on grass in the autumn, there would he live and not be vexed‘. (To him) only that person is good, and no other (as a companion), who does nothing in excess, and who occasions fear and injury to a taciturn man®. And his food is acceptable to the good, who does not vex the self of a taciturn man, and who does not destroy the property of a Brahmana*. A Brdhmaaa should hold, that living in the midst of kinsmen, his actions should be always unknown’; and he should not * According tothe Vedintic theory, the acts of piety purify the inner man, and are thus a stepping-stone to knowledge. See Introduction, p.147 supra. Cf. Gita, p. 122; and Brshadaranyaka, p. 899.
3See Introduction, p.147 supra. Cf. Gita, p. 122; and Brshadaranyaka, p. 899. * Le. physical, mental, and such as is caused by superhuman agency. This is Sankara’s explanation. It is somewhat farfetched, but I can find none better. Cf. Git4, p. 49. And see also Brihadiranyaka, p. 876, and the commentary of Sankara there with Anandagiri’s gloss. * Eg. wife, children, &c. * T.e. vexed as to how his livelihood is to be earned, &c. * Excess, e.g. too much obsequiousness towards a ‘taciturn man, owing to his holiness, &c. Taciturn man = ascetic. Injury = disrespect, &c. Perhaps the protest against worldliness is here carried to an extreme. Sankara cites Manu as a parallel, ‘A Brahmawa should be afraid of (worldly) respect as of poison.’ * E.g. the Kusa grass, deerskin, &c., mentioned at Gfta, p. 68. * Te. he should not parade his actions.) Sankara compares Vasish/ka and aVedic text. See, too, the quotation at Taitt. Aran. p.go2. 160 SANATSUGATIYA. think' (about them). What Brahmaza ought to think of the inner self, which is void of symbols 2, immovable, pure, and free from all pairs of opposites, in this way? ? What sin is not committed by that thief, who steals away his own self‘, who regards his self as one thing, when it is a different thing. The far-seeing Brahmaza, who knows the Brahman, is not wearied 5, he receives nothing *; he is honoured, free from trouble’, and wise, but acts as if he was not wise*. As dogs eat what is vomited, so do they, enjoying their own bravery’, eat what is vomited, always with disaster (to themselves). Those twice-born persons, who are not ' Cf. Gita, p. 103. Sankara suggests an alternative explanation of this stanza, which will make it mean that one performing the operations of the senses, should devote oneself nevertheless to the unknown principle, and not consider the senses to be the self. * Te. beyond the reach of inference ; ‘subtle,’ says Sankara. Cf. Svetasvatara, p. 364; Brrhadaranyaka, p. 855; Maitri, p. 182; and Katha, p. 149, where Sankara suggests a somewhat different meaning. As to immovable, cf. fsa, p. 10, and Gita, p. 104. Sankara renders it by ‘ void of activity ;’ and pure he paraphrases by ‘free from ignorance and other taints.’ > It is difficult to say what ‘in this way’ refers to. Sankara renders it by ‘as possessing qualities appertaining to the two kinds of body.’ On Sankara’s suggested meaning of the stanza preceding (see note 1), it would refer to the confusion of the senses with the self. * Such a person is called a destroyer of his own self at Lsopanishad, p. 9. * Te. by the troubles of worldly life. * Cf. ‘without belongings’ at Gita, p. 128. 7 Anger and other obstacles to concentration of mind. * Le. unintelligent. The text of Vasishéha referred to in note 7, p. 159, says he should act like an unintelligent man. Cf. also Gaudupida-kirikAs, p. 443, and Sirfraka Bhishya, p. 1041.
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.