Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1® That principle—viz. the Brahman. * This is the operation of the mind, see Gita, p. 57 note. ' The Brahman, Arguna Misra. Or it may be the ‘ sevenfold production.’ * The wholesale sacrifice of all sensuous perceptions. The CHAPTER VI, 6. 261 Cuarter VI. The Brahmanaa said : On this, too, they relate this ancient story. Learn now of what description is the institution of the ten sacrificial priests?. The ear ®%, the skin, the two eyes, the tongue, the nose, the two feet, the two hands, speech, the genital organ, and the anus, these, verily, are ten sacrificial priests, O beautiful one! Sound, touch, colour, and taste, smell, words, action, motion, and the discharge of semen, urine, and excrement, these are the ten oblations. The quarters, wind, sun, moon, earth and fire, and Vishzu also, Indra, PragApati, and Mitra, these, O beautiful one! are the ten fires*: The ten organs are the makers of the offering; the offerings are ten, O beautiful one! Objects of sense, verily, are the fuel; and they are offered up into the ten fires. The mind is the ladle‘; and the wealth is the pure, highest knowledge®. (Thus) we have heard, was the universe duly divided*. And the mind, which is the instru- root corresponding with perfect occurs three times in the original, hence the repetition of perfect above. 1 Cf. Taittirtya-brahmana, p. 411, and Aramyaka, p. 281. * Cf. Brishadfranyaka, p. 459. The reading in the printed edition of Bombay is defective here. ® See p. 337 seq., where all this is more fully explained. And cf. the analogous Buddhistic doctrine stated at Lalita Vistara (Translation by Dr. R. Mitra), p. 11. * See Taittirfya-Grasyaka loc. cit., and cf. Gité, p. 61. ‘The wealth’ probably means the Dakshin& to be given to the priests, which is mentioned at Gfta, p. 119. * The ‘priests’ here being the senses, the knowledge would accrue to them, as to which cf. Gfel, p. 108. ® See note 3. 262 aNnuciTA. ment of knowledge, requires everything knowable' (as its offering). The mind is within the body the upholder of the frame, and the knower is the upholder of the body*. That* upholder of the body is the G4rhapatya fire; from that another is produced, and the mind which is the Ahavantya ; and into this the offering is thrown. Then the lord of speech was produced‘; that (lord of speech) looks up to the mind. First, verily, are words produced; and the mind runs after them. 1 Each sense can only offer up its own perceptions—the mind offers up all knowledge whatever. * Arguna Misra says this is an implied simile, the mind is an upholder of the body as the ‘ knower’ or self is.
2First, verily, are words produced; and the mind runs after them. 1 Each sense can only offer up its own perceptions—the mind offers up all knowledge whatever. * Arguna Misra says this is an implied simile, the mind is an upholder of the body as the ‘ knower’ or self is. * Arguna Misra says this means ‘the mind.’ I think it better to take it here as the self (see p. 238 supra), to which the ‘ mind’ and the ‘other,’ mentioned further on, would be subordinate; the ‘other’ Arguna Misra renders by the ‘ group of the senses.’ The senses are compared to fires at Gita, p. 61. The passage at Taittiriya-Arazyaka above cited refers only to the Garhapatya and Ahavaniya fires. Nilakan/ha’s text and explanation of this passage are, to my mind, not nearly so satisfactory as Arguna Misra’s. * In the Taittirtya-brahmaza and Aranyaka loc. cit. the equivalent of the original word for ‘lord of speech’ here occurs, viz. Viakpati for Vasaspati here; but that is there described as the Hotr# priest, and speech itself as the Vedi or altar. The commentator there interprets ‘lord of speech’ to mean the wind which causes vocal activity, and resides in the throat, palate, &c. As to mind and speech, see also KAindogya, pp. 285-441, and comments of Sankara there. The meaning of this passage, however, is not by any means clear to my mind. The Dasahour mantras in the Taittiriya are stated to be the mantras of the IshA, or sacrifice, performed by Pragipati for creation. It is possible, then, that the meaning here is, that speech which is to be learnt by the pupil, as stated further on—namely, the Vcdas—was first produced from that Ishf (cf. KullQka on Manu I, 21). But to understand that speech, mind is necessary ; hence it is said to look up to the mind. The Bréhmana’s wife, however, seems to understand speech as ordinary speech, hence her question. CHAPTER VI, I5. 263 The Brahmaaa’s wife said : How did speech come into existence first, and how did the mind come into existence afterwards, seeing that words are uttered (after they have been) thought over by the mind? By means of what experience does intelligence come to the mind, and (though) developed, does not comprehend! ? What verily obstructs it? The Brahmaza said : The Ap4na becoming lord changes it into the state of the Apna in consequence. That is called the movement of the mind, and hence the mind is in need (of it)*. But since you ask me a question regarding speech and mind, I will relate to you a dialogue between themselves. Both speech and mind went to the self of all beings® and spoke (to him thus), ‘Say which of us is superior; destroy our doubts, O lord!’ Thereupon the lord positively said to speech, ‘Mind (is superior).’ But speech thereupon said to him,'‘I, verily, yield (you) your desires 4”
3Both speech and mind went to the self of all beings® and spoke (to him thus), ‘Say which of us is superior; destroy our doubts, O lord!’ Thereupon the lord positively said to speech, ‘Mind (is superior).’ But speech thereupon said to him,'‘I, verily, yield (you) your desires 4” 1 This, again, is to my mind very hard to understand. The original word for ‘intelligence’ is mati, which at AA4ndogya, p. 514, Sankara interprets thus: ‘intelligence is pondering, application to (literally, respect for) the subject of thought.’ The original for ‘developed,’ Arguna Misra renders by ‘ mixed or assimilated with ;’ and ‘does not comprehend,’ he takes to mean ‘ does not understand—speech or words.’ This question appears to be suggested by the last words of the previous speech. * These two sentences are again very obscure. Nilakas/ha, as usual, deserts his original, giving peculiar meanings to the words without producing any authority. Arguna Misra is very meagre, and besides the MS. is very incorrect. See p. 264, note 5 infra. * Le. Pragdpati, says Arguna Misra, which seems to be justified by the sequel. Nilakas/4a takes it to mean the individual self, which doubtless is its meaning elsewhere, e. g. Maitrf, p. 56. * I.e. speech conveys information on all matters, Arguna Mista; 264 anucftA. The Brahmaaa! said: Know, that (in) my (view), there are two minds ’, immovable and also movable. The immovable, verily, is with me; the movable is in your dominion. Whatever mantra, or letter, or tone goes to your dominion, that indeed is the movable mind*. To that you are superior. But inasmuch, O beautiful one! as you came personally to speak to me (in the way you did)‘, therefore, O Sarasvatt! you shall never speak after (hard) exhalations®. The goddess speech, verily, dwelt always between the Praza and Ap4na*. But, O noble one! going with the Apana as the means of acquiring desired fruit, visible or invisible, is learnt by speech, Nflakansha. Cf. as to all this, Brihad4ramyakaupanishad, pp. 50 seq. and 261. ' Le. Nilakantha says, ‘the Brahmasa named mind,’ alluding apparently to p. 310 infra. But the reading of some of the MSS., viz. Brahman for the Brahmana, seems preferable, having regard to what follows. Apparently, the Bréhmaza’s own speech should begin at ‘The goddess speech’ further on. * Nilakan/ha says, immovable=to be understood by the external senses; movable=not perceptible by senses, such as heaven, &c., which is not quite intelligible. Arguna Misra says, the immovable mind is that of the teacher, which is fixed, as it has not to learn or acquire anything, while that of the pupil is movable as acquiring new impressions and knowledge.
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.
1® That principle—viz. the Brahman. * This is the operation of the mind, see Gita, p. 57 note. ' The Brahman, Arguna Misra. Or it may be the ‘ sevenfold production.’ * The wholesale sacrifice of all sensuous perceptions. The CHAPTER VI, 6. 261 Cuarter VI. The Brahmanaa said : On this, too, they relate this ancient story. Learn now of what description is the institution of the ten sacrificial priests?. The ear ®%, the skin, the two eyes, the tongue, the nose, the two feet, the two hands, speech, the genital organ, and the anus, these, verily, are ten sacrificial priests, O beautiful one! Sound, touch, colour, and taste, smell, words, action, motion, and the discharge of semen, urine, and excrement, these are the ten oblations. The quarters, wind, sun, moon, earth and fire, and Vishzu also, Indra, PragApati, and Mitra, these, O beautiful one! are the ten fires*: The ten organs are the makers of the offering; the offerings are ten, O beautiful one! Objects of sense, verily, are the fuel; and they are offered up into the ten fires. The mind is the ladle‘; and the wealth is the pure, highest knowledge®. (Thus) we have heard, was the universe duly divided*. And the mind, which is the instru- root corresponding with perfect occurs three times in the original, hence the repetition of perfect above. 1 Cf. Taittirtya-brahmana, p. 411, and Aramyaka, p. 281. * Cf. Brishadfranyaka, p. 459. The reading in the printed edition of Bombay is defective here. ® See p. 337 seq., where all this is more fully explained. And cf. the analogous Buddhistic doctrine stated at Lalita Vistara (Translation by Dr. R. Mitra), p. 11. * See Taittirfya-Grasyaka loc. cit., and cf. Gité, p. 61. ‘The wealth’ probably means the Dakshin& to be given to the priests, which is mentioned at Gfta, p. 119. * The ‘priests’ here being the senses, the knowledge would accrue to them, as to which cf. Gfel, p. 108. ® See note 3. 262 aNnuciTA. ment of knowledge, requires everything knowable' (as its offering). The mind is within the body the upholder of the frame, and the knower is the upholder of the body*. That* upholder of the body is the G4rhapatya fire; from that another is produced, and the mind which is the Ahavantya ; and into this the offering is thrown. Then the lord of speech was produced‘; that (lord of speech) looks up to the mind. First, verily, are words produced; and the mind runs after them. 1 Each sense can only offer up its own perceptions—the mind offers up all knowledge whatever. * Arguna Misra says this is an implied simile, the mind is an upholder of the body as the ‘ knower’ or self is.
2First, verily, are words produced; and the mind runs after them. 1 Each sense can only offer up its own perceptions—the mind offers up all knowledge whatever. * Arguna Misra says this is an implied simile, the mind is an upholder of the body as the ‘ knower’ or self is. * Arguna Misra says this means ‘the mind.’ I think it better to take it here as the self (see p. 238 supra), to which the ‘ mind’ and the ‘other,’ mentioned further on, would be subordinate; the ‘other’ Arguna Misra renders by the ‘ group of the senses.’ The senses are compared to fires at Gita, p. 61. The passage at Taittiriya-Arazyaka above cited refers only to the Garhapatya and Ahavaniya fires. Nilakan/ha’s text and explanation of this passage are, to my mind, not nearly so satisfactory as Arguna Misra’s. * In the Taittirtya-brahmaza and Aranyaka loc. cit. the equivalent of the original word for ‘lord of speech’ here occurs, viz. Viakpati for Vasaspati here; but that is there described as the Hotr# priest, and speech itself as the Vedi or altar. The commentator there interprets ‘lord of speech’ to mean the wind which causes vocal activity, and resides in the throat, palate, &c. As to mind and speech, see also KAindogya, pp. 285-441, and comments of Sankara there. The meaning of this passage, however, is not by any means clear to my mind. The Dasahour mantras in the Taittiriya are stated to be the mantras of the IshA, or sacrifice, performed by Pragipati for creation. It is possible, then, that the meaning here is, that speech which is to be learnt by the pupil, as stated further on—namely, the Vcdas—was first produced from that Ishf (cf. KullQka on Manu I, 21). But to understand that speech, mind is necessary ; hence it is said to look up to the mind. The Bréhmana’s wife, however, seems to understand speech as ordinary speech, hence her question. CHAPTER VI, I5. 263 The Brahmaaa’s wife said : How did speech come into existence first, and how did the mind come into existence afterwards, seeing that words are uttered (after they have been) thought over by the mind? By means of what experience does intelligence come to the mind, and (though) developed, does not comprehend! ? What verily obstructs it? The Brahmaza said : The Ap4na becoming lord changes it into the state of the Apna in consequence. That is called the movement of the mind, and hence the mind is in need (of it)*. But since you ask me a question regarding speech and mind, I will relate to you a dialogue between themselves. Both speech and mind went to the self of all beings® and spoke (to him thus), ‘Say which of us is superior; destroy our doubts, O lord!’ Thereupon the lord positively said to speech, ‘Mind (is superior).’ But speech thereupon said to him,'‘I, verily, yield (you) your desires 4”
3Both speech and mind went to the self of all beings® and spoke (to him thus), ‘Say which of us is superior; destroy our doubts, O lord!’ Thereupon the lord positively said to speech, ‘Mind (is superior).’ But speech thereupon said to him,'‘I, verily, yield (you) your desires 4” 1 This, again, is to my mind very hard to understand. The original word for ‘intelligence’ is mati, which at AA4ndogya, p. 514, Sankara interprets thus: ‘intelligence is pondering, application to (literally, respect for) the subject of thought.’ The original for ‘developed,’ Arguna Misra renders by ‘ mixed or assimilated with ;’ and ‘does not comprehend,’ he takes to mean ‘ does not understand—speech or words.’ This question appears to be suggested by the last words of the previous speech. * These two sentences are again very obscure. Nilakas/ha, as usual, deserts his original, giving peculiar meanings to the words without producing any authority. Arguna Misra is very meagre, and besides the MS. is very incorrect. See p. 264, note 5 infra. * Le. Pragdpati, says Arguna Misra, which seems to be justified by the sequel. Nilakas/4a takes it to mean the individual self, which doubtless is its meaning elsewhere, e. g. Maitrf, p. 56. * I.e. speech conveys information on all matters, Arguna Mista; 264 anucftA. The Brahmaaa! said: Know, that (in) my (view), there are two minds ’, immovable and also movable. The immovable, verily, is with me; the movable is in your dominion. Whatever mantra, or letter, or tone goes to your dominion, that indeed is the movable mind*. To that you are superior. But inasmuch, O beautiful one! as you came personally to speak to me (in the way you did)‘, therefore, O Sarasvatt! you shall never speak after (hard) exhalations®. The goddess speech, verily, dwelt always between the Praza and Ap4na*. But, O noble one! going with the Apana as the means of acquiring desired fruit, visible or invisible, is learnt by speech, Nflakansha. Cf. as to all this, Brihad4ramyakaupanishad, pp. 50 seq. and 261. ' Le. Nilakantha says, ‘the Brahmasa named mind,’ alluding apparently to p. 310 infra. But the reading of some of the MSS., viz. Brahman for the Brahmana, seems preferable, having regard to what follows. Apparently, the Bréhmaza’s own speech should begin at ‘The goddess speech’ further on. * Nilakan/ha says, immovable=to be understood by the external senses; movable=not perceptible by senses, such as heaven, &c., which is not quite intelligible. Arguna Misra says, the immovable mind is that of the teacher, which is fixed, as it has not to learn or acquire anything, while that of the pupil is movable as acquiring new impressions and knowledge.
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.