Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1? The Kazvas read sokantaram, the Madhyandinas asokantaram, but the commentators arrive at the same result, namely, that it means sokasfinyam, free from grief. Sankara says: sokantaram sokakkhidram sokasfinyam ityetas, shokamadhyaman iti va; sarvathapy asokam. Dvivedagahga says: na vidyate soko ‘ntare madhye yasya tad asokantaram (ra, Weber) sokasinyam. ? Bhrfiahan, varish/habrahmahanta. * The son of a Sfidra father and a Brahmamva mother. ‘ The son of a Sfidra father and a Kshatriya mother. > A mendicant. 6 A Vanaprastha, who performs penances. 7 I have translated as if the text were ananvagatak pusyena ananvagatah papena. We find anvagata used in a similar way in §§ 15, 16, &c. But the Kanvas read ananvagatam puvyena ananvagatam papena, and Sankara explains the neuter by referring it to riipam (rfipaparatvin napumsakalingam). The Madhyandinas, if we may trust Weber’s edition, read ananvagatah punyenanvagatak papena. The second anvagatah may be a mere misprint, but Dvivedaganga seems to have read ananvagatam, like the Kanvas, for he says: ananvagatam iti rapavishayo napumsakanirdesaf. ® This is the old Upanishad argument that the true sense is the Self, and not the eye. Although therefore in the state of profound sleep, where the eye and the other senses rest, it might be said that the purusha does not see, yet he is a seer all the time, though he does not see with the eye. The seer cannot lose his character 170 BRIHADARANYAKA-UPANISHAD. See ee
2seer, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could see. 24. ‘And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not smell, yet he is smelling, though he does not smell. For smelling is inseparable from the smeller, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could smell. 25. ‘And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not taste, yet he is tasting, though he does not taste. For tasting is inseparable from the taster, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could taste. 26. ‘And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not speak, yet he is speaking, though he does not speak. For speaking is inseparable from the speaker, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could speak. 27. ‘And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not hear, yet he is hearing, though he does not hear. For hearing is inseparable from the hearer, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could hear. 28. ‘And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not think, yet he is thinking, though he does not think. For thinking is inseparable from the thinker, because it cannot perish. of seeing, as little as the fire can lose its character of burning, so long as it is fire. The Self sees by its own light, like the sun, even where there is no second, no object but the Self, that could be seen. IV ADHYAYA, 3 BRAHMANA, 33. I7I
3But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could think. 29. ‘And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not touch, yet he is touching, though he does not touch. For touching is inseparable from the toucher, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could think. 30. ‘And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not know, yet he is knowing, though he does not know. For knowing is inseparable from the knower, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could know. 31. ‘When (in waking and dreaming) there is, as it were, another, then can one see the other, then can one smell the other, then can one speak to the other, then can one hear the other, then can one think the other, then can one touch the other, then can one know the other. 32. ‘An ocean! is that one seer, without any duality; this is the Brahma-world?, O King.’ Thus did YAg#avalkya teach him. This is his highest goal, this is his highest success, this is his highest world, this is his highest bliss. All other creatures live on a small portion of that bliss. 33. ‘If a man is healthy, wealthy, and lord of others, surrounded by all human enjoyments, that 1 Salila is explained as salilavat, like the ocean, the seer being one like the ocean, which is one only. Dr. Deussen takes salila as a locative, and translates it ‘In dem Gewoge,’ referring to Svetasvatara-upanishad VI, 15. * Or this seer is the Brahma-world, dwells in Brahman, or is Brahman. 172 BRIHADARANYAKA-UPANISHAD.
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? The Kazvas read sokantaram, the Madhyandinas asokantaram, but the commentators arrive at the same result, namely, that it means sokasfinyam, free from grief. Sankara says: sokantaram sokakkhidram sokasfinyam ityetas, shokamadhyaman iti va; sarvathapy asokam. Dvivedagahga says: na vidyate soko ‘ntare madhye yasya tad asokantaram (ra, Weber) sokasinyam. ? Bhrfiahan, varish/habrahmahanta. * The son of a Sfidra father and a Brahmamva mother. ‘ The son of a Sfidra father and a Kshatriya mother. > A mendicant. 6 A Vanaprastha, who performs penances. 7 I have translated as if the text were ananvagatak pusyena ananvagatah papena. We find anvagata used in a similar way in §§ 15, 16, &c. But the Kanvas read ananvagatam puvyena ananvagatam papena, and Sankara explains the neuter by referring it to riipam (rfipaparatvin napumsakalingam). The Madhyandinas, if we may trust Weber’s edition, read ananvagatah punyenanvagatak papena. The second anvagatah may be a mere misprint, but Dvivedaganga seems to have read ananvagatam, like the Kanvas, for he says: ananvagatam iti rapavishayo napumsakanirdesaf. ® This is the old Upanishad argument that the true sense is the Self, and not the eye. Although therefore in the state of profound sleep, where the eye and the other senses rest, it might be said that the purusha does not see, yet he is a seer all the time, though he does not see with the eye. The seer cannot lose his character 170 BRIHADARANYAKA-UPANISHAD. See ee
2seer, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could see. 24. ‘And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not smell, yet he is smelling, though he does not smell. For smelling is inseparable from the smeller, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could smell. 25. ‘And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not taste, yet he is tasting, though he does not taste. For tasting is inseparable from the taster, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could taste. 26. ‘And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not speak, yet he is speaking, though he does not speak. For speaking is inseparable from the speaker, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could speak. 27. ‘And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not hear, yet he is hearing, though he does not hear. For hearing is inseparable from the hearer, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could hear. 28. ‘And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not think, yet he is thinking, though he does not think. For thinking is inseparable from the thinker, because it cannot perish. of seeing, as little as the fire can lose its character of burning, so long as it is fire. The Self sees by its own light, like the sun, even where there is no second, no object but the Self, that could be seen. IV ADHYAYA, 3 BRAHMANA, 33. I7I
3But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could think. 29. ‘And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not touch, yet he is touching, though he does not touch. For touching is inseparable from the toucher, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could think. 30. ‘And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not know, yet he is knowing, though he does not know. For knowing is inseparable from the knower, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could know. 31. ‘When (in waking and dreaming) there is, as it were, another, then can one see the other, then can one smell the other, then can one speak to the other, then can one hear the other, then can one think the other, then can one touch the other, then can one know the other. 32. ‘An ocean! is that one seer, without any duality; this is the Brahma-world?, O King.’ Thus did YAg#avalkya teach him. This is his highest goal, this is his highest success, this is his highest world, this is his highest bliss. All other creatures live on a small portion of that bliss. 33. ‘If a man is healthy, wealthy, and lord of others, surrounded by all human enjoyments, that 1 Salila is explained as salilavat, like the ocean, the seer being one like the ocean, which is one only. Dr. Deussen takes salila as a locative, and translates it ‘In dem Gewoge,’ referring to Svetasvatara-upanishad VI, 15. * Or this seer is the Brahma-world, dwells in Brahman, or is Brahman. 172 BRIHADARANYAKA-UPANISHAD.
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.