Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Arguna 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. * Le. it is the movable mind which takes cognisance of the significations of all mantras (sacred texts), letters, tones, in which, I presume, sacred instruction is conveyed. To this mind, speech is superior, as that mind only works on what speech places before it; but the mind which is ‘with’ PragApati, is superior to speech as it is not dependent on speech like the other. * Ie. proudly, about her being the giver of desires to Brahman. * I.e., says Arguna Misra, the words will not come out with the Prama life-wind and convey any sense to the hearer, but will be absorbed down into the Ap4na life-wind, and not be articulated as speech at all. Cf. Kaushitaki, p. 41; Kasha, p. 184 (with glosses) ; and KAAndogya, p. 42. ‘ Ie, I presume, was dependent on the two life-winds named. CHAPTER VI, 25. 265 wind?, though impelled, (in consequence of) being without the Prdaa, she ran up to Pragdpati, saying, ‘Be pleased *, O venerable sir!’ Then* the Praza appeared again nourishing speech. And therefore speech never speaks after (hard) exhalation. It is always noisy or noiseless. Of those two, the noiseless is superior to the noisy * (speech). This excellent (speech), like a cow, yields milk *, and speaking of the Brahman it always produces the eternal (emancipation). This cow-like speech, O you of a bright smile! is divine, with divine * power. Observe the difference of (its) two subtle, flowing (forms)’. The Brahmaza’s wife said : What did the goddess of speech say on that occasion in days of old, when, though (she was) impelled with a desire to speak, words could not be uttered ? The Brahmana said : The (speech) which is produced in the body by Cf. p. 353 infra. For this sense of the word ‘ between,’ see p. 258 supra, and XAdndogya-upanishad, p. 623. And not with the Prasa, so as to be articulated. Cf. p. 264. * I.e. to withdraw the ‘curse’ pronounced, as above stated. * After the curse was withdrawn, says Arguna Misra. Cf. Brthadaranyaka, p. 317. * Since, says Arguna Misra, noiseless speech is the source of all words—V4nhmaya. Perhaps we may compare Aitareya-brihmasa (Haug), p. 47. * Viz. Vanmaya ; milk, as a source of pleasure. * Le. enlightening, Arguna Misra. But, perhaps, the translation should be, ‘has powers divine and not divine.’ As to this, cf. Saakhya Bh4shya on III, 41, and Sankhyatattvakaumudf, p. 118, and Wilson’s Sénkhya K4rika, p. 37 (Sanskrit), and Svetisvatara, p. 284 (gloss). * Arguna Misra refers to a ‘ Satapatha text’ in praise of the subtle speech. I cannot trace the text. But see Nirukta (Roth), pp. 167-187. 266 ANUGITA.
2Saakhya Bh4shya on III, 41, and Sankhyatattvakaumudf, p. 118, and Wilson’s Sénkhya K4rika, p. 37 (Sanskrit), and Svetisvatara, p. 284 (gloss). * Arguna Misra refers to a ‘ Satapatha text’ in praise of the subtle speech. I cannot trace the text. But see Nirukta (Roth), pp. 167-187. 266 ANUGITA. means of the Praza', and which then goes into the Apana, and then becoming assimilated with the Udana leaves the body’, and with the Vyana envelopes all the quarters *, then (finally) dwells in the Sam4na‘*. So speech formerly spoke. Hence the mind is distinguished by reason of its being immovable, and the goddess distinguished by reason of her being movable °. Cuapter VII. The Brahmaza said: On this, too, O beautiful one! they relate this ancient story, (which shows) of what description Is the institution of the seven sacrificial priests*. The * Cf. Khandogya, p. 285, and the passage there quoted by Sankara as well as Anandagiri’s gloss. And see, too, P. 353 infra. * Viz. the part of it which specially appertains to speech—the throat, &c. * All the nAdis or passages of the body, Arguna Misra. * I.e. at the navel in the form of sound, as the material cause of all words. There and in that condition speech dwells, after going through the body, as above stated. There, adds Arguna Misra, devotees are to meditate on speech. * This is not quite clear, but the meaning seems to be, that the merit of the immovable mind consists in its unchangeability, and that of speech in being the cause of variations in the movable mind by conveying new knowledge and new impressions. Cf. on this result, AZandogya-upanishad, p. 482. * Arguna Misra says, the last chapter explained Prixdy4ma, and this explains Pratyahara. Pras4ydma is the restraint of the lifewinds, Pratyahara that of the senses, according to the Yoga philosophy (see the quotation in the commentary at Yoga-s(tra LI, 1, and see also pp. 141-145). Cf. also Gita, p. 61. The Saptahowr-vidhana as taught in the Taittiriya-brahmana and Aramyaka is to be found a few pages after the pages referred to for the Dasahovs-vidbina at p. 263 supra. And the other Vidhinas also are to be found in the same parts of those books. CHAPTER VII, 12. 267 nose, and the eye, and the tongue, and the skin, and the ear as the fifth, mind and understanding, these are the seven sacrificial priests separately stationed. Dwelling in a minute space, they do not perceive each other. Do you, verily, O beautiful one! learn about these sacrificial priests, (which are) seven according to (their several) natures. The Braéhmana’s wife said: How (is it) these do not perceive each other, dwelling (as they do) in a minute space? What are their natures, O venerable sir? Tell me this, O lord! . The Brahmaza said:
3learn about these sacrificial priests, (which are) seven according to (their several) natures. The Braéhmana’s wife said: How (is it) these do not perceive each other, dwelling (as they do) in a minute space? What are their natures, O venerable sir? Tell me this, O lord! . The Brahmaza said: Not knowing the qualities (of anything) is ignorance (of it). Knowledge of the qualities is knowledge. And these never know the qualities of each other. The tongue, the eye, the ear likewise, the skin, the mind, and the understanding also, do not apprehend smells, the nose apprehends them. The nose, the eye, the ear likewise, the skin, the mind, and the understanding also, do not apprehend tastes, the tongue apprehends them. The nose, the tongue, the ear likewise, the skin, the mind, and the understanding also, do not apprehend colours, the eye apprehends them. The nose, the tongue, and next the eye, the ear, the understanding, the mind likewise, do not apprehend (objects of) touch, the skin apprehends them. The nose, the tongue, and the eye, the skin, the mind, and the understanding also, do not apprehend sounds, the ear apprehends them. The nose, the tongue, and the eye, the skin, the ear, and the understanding also, do not apprehend doubt, the mind apprehends it. The nose, the tongue, and the eye, the skin, the ear, and the mind 268 ANuGITA. also, do not apprehend final determination, the understanding apprehends it. On this, too, they relate this ancient story,—a dialogue, O beautiful one! between the senses and the mind. The mind said: The nose smells not without me, the tongue does not perceive taste, the eye does not take in colour, the skin does not become aware of any (object of) touch. Without me, the ear does not in any way hear sound. I am the eternal chief among all elements'. Without me, the senses never shine, like an empty dwelling, or like fires the flames of which are extinct. Without me, all beings, like fuel half dried and half moist, fail to apprehend qualities or objects, even with the senses exerting themselves’. The senses said: This would be true as you believe, if you, without us, enjoyed the enjoyments (derived from) our objects *. If when we are extinct, (there is) pleasure and support of life, and if you enjoy enjoyments, then what you believe is true; or if when we are absorbed‘, and objects are standing, you enjoy objects according to their natures by the mere operation of the mind. * Cf. Kaushftaki-upanishad, p. 93; KA&ndogya, p. 297; Maitrf, p. 158; and Brshadaranyaka, p. 284. The passages in the last two works seem to be identical ones. * T.e. in their respective operations.
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.
1Arguna 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. * Le. it is the movable mind which takes cognisance of the significations of all mantras (sacred texts), letters, tones, in which, I presume, sacred instruction is conveyed. To this mind, speech is superior, as that mind only works on what speech places before it; but the mind which is ‘with’ PragApati, is superior to speech as it is not dependent on speech like the other. * Ie. proudly, about her being the giver of desires to Brahman. * I.e., says Arguna Misra, the words will not come out with the Prama life-wind and convey any sense to the hearer, but will be absorbed down into the Ap4na life-wind, and not be articulated as speech at all. Cf. Kaushitaki, p. 41; Kasha, p. 184 (with glosses) ; and KAAndogya, p. 42. ‘ Ie, I presume, was dependent on the two life-winds named. CHAPTER VI, 25. 265 wind?, though impelled, (in consequence of) being without the Prdaa, she ran up to Pragdpati, saying, ‘Be pleased *, O venerable sir!’ Then* the Praza appeared again nourishing speech. And therefore speech never speaks after (hard) exhalation. It is always noisy or noiseless. Of those two, the noiseless is superior to the noisy * (speech). This excellent (speech), like a cow, yields milk *, and speaking of the Brahman it always produces the eternal (emancipation). This cow-like speech, O you of a bright smile! is divine, with divine * power. Observe the difference of (its) two subtle, flowing (forms)’. The Brahmaza’s wife said : What did the goddess of speech say on that occasion in days of old, when, though (she was) impelled with a desire to speak, words could not be uttered ? The Brahmana said : The (speech) which is produced in the body by Cf. p. 353 infra. For this sense of the word ‘ between,’ see p. 258 supra, and XAdndogya-upanishad, p. 623. And not with the Prasa, so as to be articulated. Cf. p. 264. * I.e. to withdraw the ‘curse’ pronounced, as above stated. * After the curse was withdrawn, says Arguna Misra. Cf. Brthadaranyaka, p. 317. * Since, says Arguna Misra, noiseless speech is the source of all words—V4nhmaya. Perhaps we may compare Aitareya-brihmasa (Haug), p. 47. * Viz. Vanmaya ; milk, as a source of pleasure. * Le. enlightening, Arguna Misra. But, perhaps, the translation should be, ‘has powers divine and not divine.’ As to this, cf. Saakhya Bh4shya on III, 41, and Sankhyatattvakaumudf, p. 118, and Wilson’s Sénkhya K4rika, p. 37 (Sanskrit), and Svetisvatara, p. 284 (gloss). * Arguna Misra refers to a ‘ Satapatha text’ in praise of the subtle speech. I cannot trace the text. But see Nirukta (Roth), pp. 167-187. 266 ANUGITA.
2Saakhya Bh4shya on III, 41, and Sankhyatattvakaumudf, p. 118, and Wilson’s Sénkhya K4rika, p. 37 (Sanskrit), and Svetisvatara, p. 284 (gloss). * Arguna Misra refers to a ‘ Satapatha text’ in praise of the subtle speech. I cannot trace the text. But see Nirukta (Roth), pp. 167-187. 266 ANUGITA. means of the Praza', and which then goes into the Apana, and then becoming assimilated with the Udana leaves the body’, and with the Vyana envelopes all the quarters *, then (finally) dwells in the Sam4na‘*. So speech formerly spoke. Hence the mind is distinguished by reason of its being immovable, and the goddess distinguished by reason of her being movable °. Cuapter VII. The Brahmaza said: On this, too, O beautiful one! they relate this ancient story, (which shows) of what description Is the institution of the seven sacrificial priests*. The * Cf. Khandogya, p. 285, and the passage there quoted by Sankara as well as Anandagiri’s gloss. And see, too, P. 353 infra. * Viz. the part of it which specially appertains to speech—the throat, &c. * All the nAdis or passages of the body, Arguna Misra. * I.e. at the navel in the form of sound, as the material cause of all words. There and in that condition speech dwells, after going through the body, as above stated. There, adds Arguna Misra, devotees are to meditate on speech. * This is not quite clear, but the meaning seems to be, that the merit of the immovable mind consists in its unchangeability, and that of speech in being the cause of variations in the movable mind by conveying new knowledge and new impressions. Cf. on this result, AZandogya-upanishad, p. 482. * Arguna Misra says, the last chapter explained Prixdy4ma, and this explains Pratyahara. Pras4ydma is the restraint of the lifewinds, Pratyahara that of the senses, according to the Yoga philosophy (see the quotation in the commentary at Yoga-s(tra LI, 1, and see also pp. 141-145). Cf. also Gita, p. 61. The Saptahowr-vidhana as taught in the Taittiriya-brahmana and Aramyaka is to be found a few pages after the pages referred to for the Dasahovs-vidbina at p. 263 supra. And the other Vidhinas also are to be found in the same parts of those books. CHAPTER VII, 12. 267 nose, and the eye, and the tongue, and the skin, and the ear as the fifth, mind and understanding, these are the seven sacrificial priests separately stationed. Dwelling in a minute space, they do not perceive each other. Do you, verily, O beautiful one! learn about these sacrificial priests, (which are) seven according to (their several) natures. The Braéhmana’s wife said: How (is it) these do not perceive each other, dwelling (as they do) in a minute space? What are their natures, O venerable sir? Tell me this, O lord! . The Brahmaza said:
3learn about these sacrificial priests, (which are) seven according to (their several) natures. The Braéhmana’s wife said: How (is it) these do not perceive each other, dwelling (as they do) in a minute space? What are their natures, O venerable sir? Tell me this, O lord! . The Brahmaza said: Not knowing the qualities (of anything) is ignorance (of it). Knowledge of the qualities is knowledge. And these never know the qualities of each other. The tongue, the eye, the ear likewise, the skin, the mind, and the understanding also, do not apprehend smells, the nose apprehends them. The nose, the eye, the ear likewise, the skin, the mind, and the understanding also, do not apprehend tastes, the tongue apprehends them. The nose, the tongue, the ear likewise, the skin, the mind, and the understanding also, do not apprehend colours, the eye apprehends them. The nose, the tongue, and next the eye, the ear, the understanding, the mind likewise, do not apprehend (objects of) touch, the skin apprehends them. The nose, the tongue, and the eye, the skin, the mind, and the understanding also, do not apprehend sounds, the ear apprehends them. The nose, the tongue, and the eye, the skin, the ear, and the understanding also, do not apprehend doubt, the mind apprehends it. The nose, the tongue, and the eye, the skin, the ear, and the mind 268 ANuGITA. also, do not apprehend final determination, the understanding apprehends it. On this, too, they relate this ancient story,—a dialogue, O beautiful one! between the senses and the mind. The mind said: The nose smells not without me, the tongue does not perceive taste, the eye does not take in colour, the skin does not become aware of any (object of) touch. Without me, the ear does not in any way hear sound. I am the eternal chief among all elements'. Without me, the senses never shine, like an empty dwelling, or like fires the flames of which are extinct. Without me, all beings, like fuel half dried and half moist, fail to apprehend qualities or objects, even with the senses exerting themselves’. The senses said: This would be true as you believe, if you, without us, enjoyed the enjoyments (derived from) our objects *. If when we are extinct, (there is) pleasure and support of life, and if you enjoy enjoyments, then what you believe is true; or if when we are absorbed‘, and objects are standing, you enjoy objects according to their natures by the mere operation of the mind. * Cf. Kaushftaki-upanishad, p. 93; KA&ndogya, p. 297; Maitrf, p. 158; and Brshadaranyaka, p. 284. The passages in the last two works seem to be identical ones. * T.e. in their respective operations.
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.