Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1XXXVI UPANISHADS. eee is intended by Pradhana, is not an independent power, but a power (sakti) forming the very self of the Deva. ‘Sages,’ we read, ‘devoted to meditation and concentration, have seen the power belonging to God himself, hidden in its own qualities.’ What is really peculiar in the Svet4svatara-upanishad is the strong stress which it lays on the personality of the Lord, the fsvara. Deva, in the passage quoted, is perhaps the nearest approach to our own idea of a personal God, though without the background which the Vedanta always retains for it. It is God as creator and ruler of the world, as isvara, lord, but not as Paramatman, or the Highest Self. The Paramatman constitutes, no doubt, his real essence, but creation and creator have a phenomenal character only’. The creation is may4, in its original sense of work, then of phenomenal work, then of illusion. The creator is mayin, in its original sense of worker or maker, but again, in that character, phenomenal only*. The Gumas or qualities arise, according to the Vedanta, from prakrtti or maya, within, not beside, the Highest Self, and this is the very idea which is here expressed by ‘the Self-power of God, hidden in the guzas or determining qualities.’ How easily that sakti or power may become an independent being, as May4, we see in such verses as: Sarvabhiteshu sarvatman ya saktir aparabhava Guvasraya namas tasyai sasvatayai paresvara 3.
2But the important point is this, that in the SvetAsvataraupanishad this change has not taken place. Throughout the whole of it we have one Being only, as the cause of everything, never two. Whatever Sankhya philosophers of a later date may have imagined that they could discover in that Upanishad in support of their theories 4, there is not one passage in it which, if rightly interpreted, not by itself, but in connection with the whole text, could be quoted in ’ Prathamam fsvaratmana m4yirfipesdvatish¢iate brahma 3; see p. 280, 1. 5. May? srégate sarvam etat. Sce p. 279, 1. 5. Sarvatman seems a vocative, like paresvara, See Sarvadarsanasapgraha, p. 152. 2 3 INTRODUCTION. XXXVil
3support of a dualistic philosophy such as the Sankhya, as a system, decidedly is. If we want to understand, what seems at first sight contradictory, the existence of a God, a Lord, a Creator, a Ruler, and at the same time the existence of the super-personal Brahman, we must remember that the orthodox view of the Vedanta! is not what we should call Evolution, but Illusion. Evolution of the Brahman, or Pariz4ma, is heterodox, illusion or Vivarta is orthodox Vedanta. Brahman is a concept involving such complete perfection that with it evolution, or a tendency towards higher perfection, is impossible. If therefore there is change, that change can only be illusion, and can never claim the same reality as Brahman. To put it metaphorically, the world, according to the orthodox VedAntin, does not proceed from Brahman as a tree from a germ, but as a mirage from the rays of the sun. The world is, as we express it, phenomenal only, but whatever objective reality there is in it, is Brahman, ‘das Ding an sich,’ as Kant might call it. Then what is fsvara or Deva, the Lord or God? The answers given to this question are not very explicit. Historically, no doubt, the idea of the {svara, the personal God, the creator and ruler, the omniscient and omnipotent, existed before the idea of the absolute Brahman, and after the idea of the Brahman had been elaborated, the difficulty of effecting a compromise between the two ideas, had to be overcome. fsvara, the Lord, is Brahman, for what else could he be? But he is Brahman under a semblance, the semblance, namely, of a personal creating and governing God. He is not created, but is the creator, an office too low, it was supposed, for Brahman. The power which enabled fsvara to create, was a power within him, not independent of him, whether ‘we call it Devatmasakti, M4ya, or Prakriti. That power is really inconceivable, and it has assumed such different forms in the mind of different Vedantists, that in the end Maya herself is represented as the creating power, nay, as having created Isvara himself. wt iis. e
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.
1XXXVI UPANISHADS. eee is intended by Pradhana, is not an independent power, but a power (sakti) forming the very self of the Deva. ‘Sages,’ we read, ‘devoted to meditation and concentration, have seen the power belonging to God himself, hidden in its own qualities.’ What is really peculiar in the Svet4svatara-upanishad is the strong stress which it lays on the personality of the Lord, the fsvara. Deva, in the passage quoted, is perhaps the nearest approach to our own idea of a personal God, though without the background which the Vedanta always retains for it. It is God as creator and ruler of the world, as isvara, lord, but not as Paramatman, or the Highest Self. The Paramatman constitutes, no doubt, his real essence, but creation and creator have a phenomenal character only’. The creation is may4, in its original sense of work, then of phenomenal work, then of illusion. The creator is mayin, in its original sense of worker or maker, but again, in that character, phenomenal only*. The Gumas or qualities arise, according to the Vedanta, from prakrtti or maya, within, not beside, the Highest Self, and this is the very idea which is here expressed by ‘the Self-power of God, hidden in the guzas or determining qualities.’ How easily that sakti or power may become an independent being, as May4, we see in such verses as: Sarvabhiteshu sarvatman ya saktir aparabhava Guvasraya namas tasyai sasvatayai paresvara 3.
2But the important point is this, that in the SvetAsvataraupanishad this change has not taken place. Throughout the whole of it we have one Being only, as the cause of everything, never two. Whatever Sankhya philosophers of a later date may have imagined that they could discover in that Upanishad in support of their theories 4, there is not one passage in it which, if rightly interpreted, not by itself, but in connection with the whole text, could be quoted in ’ Prathamam fsvaratmana m4yirfipesdvatish¢iate brahma 3; see p. 280, 1. 5. May? srégate sarvam etat. Sce p. 279, 1. 5. Sarvatman seems a vocative, like paresvara, See Sarvadarsanasapgraha, p. 152. 2 3 INTRODUCTION. XXXVil
3support of a dualistic philosophy such as the Sankhya, as a system, decidedly is. If we want to understand, what seems at first sight contradictory, the existence of a God, a Lord, a Creator, a Ruler, and at the same time the existence of the super-personal Brahman, we must remember that the orthodox view of the Vedanta! is not what we should call Evolution, but Illusion. Evolution of the Brahman, or Pariz4ma, is heterodox, illusion or Vivarta is orthodox Vedanta. Brahman is a concept involving such complete perfection that with it evolution, or a tendency towards higher perfection, is impossible. If therefore there is change, that change can only be illusion, and can never claim the same reality as Brahman. To put it metaphorically, the world, according to the orthodox VedAntin, does not proceed from Brahman as a tree from a germ, but as a mirage from the rays of the sun. The world is, as we express it, phenomenal only, but whatever objective reality there is in it, is Brahman, ‘das Ding an sich,’ as Kant might call it. Then what is fsvara or Deva, the Lord or God? The answers given to this question are not very explicit. Historically, no doubt, the idea of the {svara, the personal God, the creator and ruler, the omniscient and omnipotent, existed before the idea of the absolute Brahman, and after the idea of the Brahman had been elaborated, the difficulty of effecting a compromise between the two ideas, had to be overcome. fsvara, the Lord, is Brahman, for what else could he be? But he is Brahman under a semblance, the semblance, namely, of a personal creating and governing God. He is not created, but is the creator, an office too low, it was supposed, for Brahman. The power which enabled fsvara to create, was a power within him, not independent of him, whether ‘we call it Devatmasakti, M4ya, or Prakriti. That power is really inconceivable, and it has assumed such different forms in the mind of different Vedantists, that in the end Maya herself is represented as the creating power, nay, as having created Isvara himself. wt iis. e
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.