Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
11 This translation seems the one which Sankara himself prefers, for on p. 277, when recapitulating, he says, kim brahma karazam ahosvit kaladi. In comparing former translations, whether by Weber, Roer, Gough, and others, it will be seen that my own differs considerably from every one of them, and differs equally from Sankara’s interpretation. It would occupy too much space to criticise former translations, nor would it seem fair, considering how long ago they were made, and how imperfect were the materials which were then accessible. All I wish my readers to understand is that, if I differ from my predecessors, I do so after having carefully examined their renderings. Unfortunately, Rocr’s edition of both the text and the commentary is often far from correct. Thus in the very first verse of the Svetasvatara-upanishad, I think we ought to read sampratish/haf, instead of sampratish/Aitahk. In the commentary the reading is right. Vyavasyam is a misprint for vyavastham. In the second verse we must separate kala and svabhavak. Yadrzkkhd, no very unusual word, meaning chance, was formerly taken for a name of the moon! Instead of na tvatmabhavat, both sense and metre require that we should read andtmabhavat, though the cémmentators take a different view. They say, because there is a self, and then go on to say that even that would not suffice. Such matters, however, belong to a critical commentary on the Upanishads rather than to a translation, and I can refer to them in cases of absolute necessity only, and where the readings of the two MSS., A. and B, seem to offer some help. en9 SVETASVATARA-UPANISHAD.
22. Should time, or nature’, or necessity, or chance, or the elements be considered as the cause, or he who is called the person (purusha, vig#4natma)? It cannot be their union either, because that is not selfdependent?, and the self also is powerless, because there is (independent of him) a cause of good and evil’, 3. The sages, devoted to meditation and concentration, have seen the power belonging to God himself‘, hidden in its own qualities (guza). He, being one, superintends all those causes, time, self, and the rest®. 4°. We meditate on him who (like a wheel) has one felly with three tires, sixteen ends, fifty spokes, with twenty counter-spokes, and six sets of eight;
31 Svabhava, their own nature or independent character. * Union presupposes a uniter. * Atmé is explained by Sankara as the givah, the living self, and as that living self is in his present state determined by karman, work belonging to a former existence, it cannot be thought of as an independent cause. * Devatmasakti is a very important term, differently explained by the commentators, but meaning a power belonging to the Deva, the Isvara, the Lord, not independent of him, as the Sankhyas represent Prakrzti or nature. Herein lies the important distinction between Vedanta and Sankhya. * Kalatmabhyam yuktani, kalapurushasamyuktani svabhavAdini. Atman is here taken as synonymous with purusha in verse 2. * It is difficult to say whether this verse was written as a summing up of certain technicalities recognised in systems of philosophy existing at the time, or whether it is a mere play of fancy. I prefer the former view, and subjoin the explanation given by Sankara, though it is quite possible that on certain points he may be mistaken. The isvara or deva is represented as a wheel with one felly, which would seem to be the phenomenal world. It is called trivrit, threefold, or rather having three tires, three bands or hoops to bind the felly, these tires being intended for the three guzas of the prakriti, the Sativa, Ragas, and Tamas. In the Brahmopanishad (Bibl. Ind. I ADHYAYA, 4. 232 whose one rope is manifold, who proceeds on three different roads, and whose illusion arises from two causes,
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.
11 This translation seems the one which Sankara himself prefers, for on p. 277, when recapitulating, he says, kim brahma karazam ahosvit kaladi. In comparing former translations, whether by Weber, Roer, Gough, and others, it will be seen that my own differs considerably from every one of them, and differs equally from Sankara’s interpretation. It would occupy too much space to criticise former translations, nor would it seem fair, considering how long ago they were made, and how imperfect were the materials which were then accessible. All I wish my readers to understand is that, if I differ from my predecessors, I do so after having carefully examined their renderings. Unfortunately, Rocr’s edition of both the text and the commentary is often far from correct. Thus in the very first verse of the Svetasvatara-upanishad, I think we ought to read sampratish/haf, instead of sampratish/Aitahk. In the commentary the reading is right. Vyavasyam is a misprint for vyavastham. In the second verse we must separate kala and svabhavak. Yadrzkkhd, no very unusual word, meaning chance, was formerly taken for a name of the moon! Instead of na tvatmabhavat, both sense and metre require that we should read andtmabhavat, though the cémmentators take a different view. They say, because there is a self, and then go on to say that even that would not suffice. Such matters, however, belong to a critical commentary on the Upanishads rather than to a translation, and I can refer to them in cases of absolute necessity only, and where the readings of the two MSS., A. and B, seem to offer some help. en9 SVETASVATARA-UPANISHAD.
22. Should time, or nature’, or necessity, or chance, or the elements be considered as the cause, or he who is called the person (purusha, vig#4natma)? It cannot be their union either, because that is not selfdependent?, and the self also is powerless, because there is (independent of him) a cause of good and evil’, 3. The sages, devoted to meditation and concentration, have seen the power belonging to God himself‘, hidden in its own qualities (guza). He, being one, superintends all those causes, time, self, and the rest®. 4°. We meditate on him who (like a wheel) has one felly with three tires, sixteen ends, fifty spokes, with twenty counter-spokes, and six sets of eight;
31 Svabhava, their own nature or independent character. * Union presupposes a uniter. * Atmé is explained by Sankara as the givah, the living self, and as that living self is in his present state determined by karman, work belonging to a former existence, it cannot be thought of as an independent cause. * Devatmasakti is a very important term, differently explained by the commentators, but meaning a power belonging to the Deva, the Isvara, the Lord, not independent of him, as the Sankhyas represent Prakrzti or nature. Herein lies the important distinction between Vedanta and Sankhya. * Kalatmabhyam yuktani, kalapurushasamyuktani svabhavAdini. Atman is here taken as synonymous with purusha in verse 2. * It is difficult to say whether this verse was written as a summing up of certain technicalities recognised in systems of philosophy existing at the time, or whether it is a mere play of fancy. I prefer the former view, and subjoin the explanation given by Sankara, though it is quite possible that on certain points he may be mistaken. The isvara or deva is represented as a wheel with one felly, which would seem to be the phenomenal world. It is called trivrit, threefold, or rather having three tires, three bands or hoops to bind the felly, these tires being intended for the three guzas of the prakriti, the Sativa, Ragas, and Tamas. In the Brahmopanishad (Bibl. Ind. I ADHYAYA, 4. 232 whose one rope is manifold, who proceeds on three different roads, and whose illusion arises from two causes,
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.