Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1AS eA Se ee man! comes forth blood, as from a tree that is struck. 3. ‘The lumps of his flesh are (in the tree) the layers of wood, the fibre is strong like the tendons. The bones are the (hard) wood within, the marrow is made like the marrow of the tree. 4. ‘But, while the tree, when felled, grows up again more young from the root, from what root, tell me, does a mortal grow up, after he has been felled by cleath ? 5. ‘Do not say, “from seed,” for seed is produced from the living*; but a tree, springing from a grain, clearly‘ rises again after death’. 6. ‘Ifa tree is pulled up with the root, it will not grow again; from what root then, tell me, does a mortal grow up, after he has been felled by death ? 7. ‘Once born, he is not born (again); for who should create him again® ?’
21 In the Madhyandina-sikha, p. 1ro8o, tasmat tadatunnit, instead of tasmat tadatrznnat. 2 Sankara seems to have read sndvavat, instead of snadva tat sthiram, as we read in both Sakhis. * Here the Madhyandinas (p. 1080) add, gata eva na giyate, ko nv enam ganayet puna, which the Kazvas place later. * Instead of afigasa, the Madhyandinas have anyata. 5 The Madhyandinas have dhanaruha u vai, which is better than iva vai, the iva being, according to Sankara’s own confession, useless. The thread of the argument does not seem to have been clearly perceived by the commentators. What the poet wants to say is, that a man, struck down by death, does not come to life again from seed, because human seed comes from the living only, while trees, springing from grain, are seen to come to life after the tree (which yielded the grain or the seed) is dead. Pretya-sambhava, like pretya-bhava, means life after death, and pretyasambhava, as an adjective, means coming to life after death. * This line too is taken in a different sense by the commentator. According to him, it would mean: ‘If you say, He has been born III ADHYAYA, 9 BRAHMANA, 28. I51 ‘Brahman, who is knowledge and bliss, he is the principle, both to him who gives gifts’, and also to him who stands firm, and knows.’
3(and there is an end of all questioning), I say, No; he is born again, and the question is, How?’ This is much too artificial. The order of the verses in the Madhyandina-sdkha is better on the whole, leading up more naturally to the question, ‘ From what root then does a mortal grow up, after he has been felled by death?’ When the Brahmans cannot answer, Yagéavalkya answers, or the Sruti declares, that the root from whence a mortal springs again, after death, is Brahman. 1 Sankara explains ratir datu/ as rater datuA, a reading adopted by the Madhyandinas. He then arrives at the statement that Brahman is the principle or the last source, also the root of a new life, both for those who practise works and for those who, having relinquished works, stand firm in knowledge: Regnaud (II, p. 138) translates: ‘C’est Brahma (qui est) l’intelligence, le bonheur, la richesse, le but supréme de celui qui offre (des sacrifices), et de celui qui réside (en lui), de celui qui connait.’ 152 BRIHADARANYAKA-UPANISHAD. SS FOURTH ADHYAYA. First BRAHMANA.
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.
1AS eA Se ee man! comes forth blood, as from a tree that is struck. 3. ‘The lumps of his flesh are (in the tree) the layers of wood, the fibre is strong like the tendons. The bones are the (hard) wood within, the marrow is made like the marrow of the tree. 4. ‘But, while the tree, when felled, grows up again more young from the root, from what root, tell me, does a mortal grow up, after he has been felled by cleath ? 5. ‘Do not say, “from seed,” for seed is produced from the living*; but a tree, springing from a grain, clearly‘ rises again after death’. 6. ‘Ifa tree is pulled up with the root, it will not grow again; from what root then, tell me, does a mortal grow up, after he has been felled by death ? 7. ‘Once born, he is not born (again); for who should create him again® ?’
21 In the Madhyandina-sikha, p. 1ro8o, tasmat tadatunnit, instead of tasmat tadatrznnat. 2 Sankara seems to have read sndvavat, instead of snadva tat sthiram, as we read in both Sakhis. * Here the Madhyandinas (p. 1080) add, gata eva na giyate, ko nv enam ganayet puna, which the Kazvas place later. * Instead of afigasa, the Madhyandinas have anyata. 5 The Madhyandinas have dhanaruha u vai, which is better than iva vai, the iva being, according to Sankara’s own confession, useless. The thread of the argument does not seem to have been clearly perceived by the commentators. What the poet wants to say is, that a man, struck down by death, does not come to life again from seed, because human seed comes from the living only, while trees, springing from grain, are seen to come to life after the tree (which yielded the grain or the seed) is dead. Pretya-sambhava, like pretya-bhava, means life after death, and pretyasambhava, as an adjective, means coming to life after death. * This line too is taken in a different sense by the commentator. According to him, it would mean: ‘If you say, He has been born III ADHYAYA, 9 BRAHMANA, 28. I51 ‘Brahman, who is knowledge and bliss, he is the principle, both to him who gives gifts’, and also to him who stands firm, and knows.’
3(and there is an end of all questioning), I say, No; he is born again, and the question is, How?’ This is much too artificial. The order of the verses in the Madhyandina-sdkha is better on the whole, leading up more naturally to the question, ‘ From what root then does a mortal grow up, after he has been felled by death?’ When the Brahmans cannot answer, Yagéavalkya answers, or the Sruti declares, that the root from whence a mortal springs again, after death, is Brahman. 1 Sankara explains ratir datu/ as rater datuA, a reading adopted by the Madhyandinas. He then arrives at the statement that Brahman is the principle or the last source, also the root of a new life, both for those who practise works and for those who, having relinquished works, stand firm in knowledge: Regnaud (II, p. 138) translates: ‘C’est Brahma (qui est) l’intelligence, le bonheur, la richesse, le but supréme de celui qui offre (des sacrifices), et de celui qui réside (en lui), de celui qui connait.’ 152 BRIHADARANYAKA-UPANISHAD. SS FOURTH ADHYAYA. First BRAHMANA.
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.