Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1318. This, too, you should know, that since any existing thing, which is acting, is prouzded with a will, but z¢s nature Aas not become unrestricted, (319) that 1 Reading agas instead of the similarly-written afas, ‘and by it.’ 198 SIKAND-GOMANIK vIGAR. shows that, if the original existence of the creator de divinity, and his nature de light azd beauty, fragrance and purity, goodness and sagacity, then such ¢hengs as darkness and ugliness, stench and pollution, vileness avd ignorance—the demoniacal nature itself— ought to be far from him. 320. Ifhis original existence be anything demoniacal, and his nature de darkness or stench, ugliness or pollution, vileness ov ignorance, then the nature of divinity remains strange to him. 321. If there be azy one by whom indecision about all this is insinuated into his own self, that amples that, owing to his indecision about it, there is no discrimination zz him as to goodness, amid his own evil. 322. Now, moreover, the hope of the hopeful is absorbed, (323) for even he who goes to heaven through doing good works is, even there, in evil and misery, (324) because there is no distinct discrimination of good from evil, even there, (325) if there be the goodness which is devoid of evil, and there be also the evil which is devoid of goodness, represented as really of the same origin. 326. This is known, that the difference of good and evil is owing to difference of nature. 327. When the two origins of their difference and distinction from the other of different nature are manifest, that hope of the hopeful is just, (328) and sagacity is their passport (parvanak). 329. This, too, you should know, that every statement which is not unconfused by its own limits is unenquiring (apad-khv4h)'. 330. Likewise this, that the limit of divinity is specially sagacity. 331. And also this, that? the limit of sagacity is only? 1 Sans. has ‘undesirable.’ ® JJ and Sans. omit these four words. 5 Literally ‘one.’ CHAPTER XI, 320-350. 199
2330. Likewise this, that the limit of divinity is specially sagacity. 331. And also this, that? the limit of sagacity is only? 1 Sans. has ‘undesirable.’ ® JJ and Sans. omit these four words. 5 Literally ‘one.’ CHAPTER XI, 320-350. 199 advantageous action. 332. Advantageous action is not doing injury; (333) azd the modes of doing injury are three. 334. One is that which, dezxg no advantage to oneself, is the injury of another also. 335. [One is that which, dezng no advantage to another '], is the injury of oneself also. 336. Amd one is that which is the injury of oneself and the injury of another also. 337. And from the creation of Aharman and the demons ¢heve is no advantage Zo a wisely-acting sacred being himself, and there zs injury of others also; (338) the non-advancement of even his own will, owing to his own work, is always manifested thereby. . 339. This, too, you should know, that if the will of the sacred being de goodness, (340) his will is also eternal. 341. And he should be capable of a suitable will, (342) so that, from the beginning even to the end, all the goodness azd virtue of the will of the sacred being would have proceeded in the world. 343. Now z¢ is manifest that vileness and vice always proceed much more. 344. Therefore the cause is one of these, either they always proceed through the will of the sacred being, or without Azs will. 345. If they always proceed through some will of the sacred being, 2¢ is evident. that his will is also for vileness as well as for goodness, (346) or Ae is inefficient and changeable in will. 347. Since a will does not change, unless owing to a cause, or unless owing to a changer, (348) that zmples one of these two, either z¢ is through some cause, or there exists some other being with him as a changer of his will. 349. If they always proceed not through the will of the sacred being, (350) from that z¢ is evident that the 1 The words in brackets are omitted, both in Paz. and Sans., by JE and JJ, the only two MSS. available. 200 SIKAND-GOMANIK VIGAR. sacred being is suffering in his own will, and his will is not perfect, (351) or there exists some diminisher of it who is a possessor of will. 352. As ¢o this, too, which they assert, that the sacred being commanded Adam thus: ‘ Thou shalt not eat of this one tree which is in paradise (vahist)},’ (353) you should ask of them (354) thus: ‘Was the command which the sacred being gave to Adam, thus : “You shall not eat of this tree,” good or evil?’ 355. If the command were good z¢ is evident that the tree was evil, (356) and it is not befitting the sacred being to create anything that is evil. 357. If the tree were good the command was evil, azd it is not befitting the sacred being to give an evil command. 358. If the tree were good, and the command as to not eating were given by him, it is not? adapted to the goodness and mercifulness of the sacred being to allot a benefit away from his own innocent servants.
3358. If the tree were good, and the command as to not eating were given by him, it is not? adapted to the goodness and mercifulness of the sacred being to allot a benefit away from his own innocent servants. 359. As ¢o this, too, which they assert, that the sacred being brings every one whom he wills unto faith and the true way, and, as the recompense, he makes him proceed to the happy progress which is eternal; (360) azd him whom he does not will he leaves in irreligion and ignorance of the sacred being, and, for that reason, he casts him into hell and eternal misery ®; (361) you should ask of them (362) thus: ‘Is he good whose desire and will are for the religion and faith of the sacred being and the true way, or he whose desire and will are for going astray, irreligion, and ignorance of the sacred being ?’ 363. If one says that he is good whose desire and will 1 See § 64. ? Reading Paz. ne instead of Paz. be, ‘quite, as the Sanskrit has a negative participle. 5 See § 271. CHAPTER XI, 351-371. 201 are for the religion of the sacred being and the true way, (364) now as ¢o that man about whom this is the will of the sacred being, that he sha// leave him in irreligion, going astray, and ignorance of the sacred being, and to whom an apostle, or some other person who is a friend, recites the revelation (dtn6) of the sacred being and the true way, (365) does that show that the sacred being is thereby better and more beneficial to him, or are that apostle and that person so? 366. If ome says that the will of the sacred being about him! is good, it is thereby asserted by him, that not understanding the sacred being, not accepting the religion, and going astray are good; dz¢ this is not acceptable [and not to be taught], on account of error. 367. If one says that his coming to the true religion and understanding the sacred being are thereby better and more beneficial, (368) it is thereby obviously asserted by one that the apostle and person are thereby better to him than the sacred being. 369. Because a person through whom the true way and an understanding of the sacred being are wanted among mankind, and his will is den¢ upon it, is much better than he who is a sacred being (370) 6y whose will backsliding (av4zrasth), misunderstanding, and irreligion ex¢s¢ among them ; avd the sacred being is much worse than that person. 371. Observe this, too, that if the criminal thought and criminal action of man are by the will of the sacred being, that already zmpies that the sacred being produced criminal thought, and sowed crime 1 The man mentioned in § 364. 2 The words in brackets have no equivalent in the Pazand text, but are indicated by 4svadyav&a in Sans. 202 SIKAND-GOMAN!IK VIGAR.
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.
1318. This, too, you should know, that since any existing thing, which is acting, is prouzded with a will, but z¢s nature Aas not become unrestricted, (319) that 1 Reading agas instead of the similarly-written afas, ‘and by it.’ 198 SIKAND-GOMANIK vIGAR. shows that, if the original existence of the creator de divinity, and his nature de light azd beauty, fragrance and purity, goodness and sagacity, then such ¢hengs as darkness and ugliness, stench and pollution, vileness avd ignorance—the demoniacal nature itself— ought to be far from him. 320. Ifhis original existence be anything demoniacal, and his nature de darkness or stench, ugliness or pollution, vileness ov ignorance, then the nature of divinity remains strange to him. 321. If there be azy one by whom indecision about all this is insinuated into his own self, that amples that, owing to his indecision about it, there is no discrimination zz him as to goodness, amid his own evil. 322. Now, moreover, the hope of the hopeful is absorbed, (323) for even he who goes to heaven through doing good works is, even there, in evil and misery, (324) because there is no distinct discrimination of good from evil, even there, (325) if there be the goodness which is devoid of evil, and there be also the evil which is devoid of goodness, represented as really of the same origin. 326. This is known, that the difference of good and evil is owing to difference of nature. 327. When the two origins of their difference and distinction from the other of different nature are manifest, that hope of the hopeful is just, (328) and sagacity is their passport (parvanak). 329. This, too, you should know, that every statement which is not unconfused by its own limits is unenquiring (apad-khv4h)'. 330. Likewise this, that the limit of divinity is specially sagacity. 331. And also this, that? the limit of sagacity is only? 1 Sans. has ‘undesirable.’ ® JJ and Sans. omit these four words. 5 Literally ‘one.’ CHAPTER XI, 320-350. 199
2330. Likewise this, that the limit of divinity is specially sagacity. 331. And also this, that? the limit of sagacity is only? 1 Sans. has ‘undesirable.’ ® JJ and Sans. omit these four words. 5 Literally ‘one.’ CHAPTER XI, 320-350. 199 advantageous action. 332. Advantageous action is not doing injury; (333) azd the modes of doing injury are three. 334. One is that which, dezxg no advantage to oneself, is the injury of another also. 335. [One is that which, dezng no advantage to another '], is the injury of oneself also. 336. Amd one is that which is the injury of oneself and the injury of another also. 337. And from the creation of Aharman and the demons ¢heve is no advantage Zo a wisely-acting sacred being himself, and there zs injury of others also; (338) the non-advancement of even his own will, owing to his own work, is always manifested thereby. . 339. This, too, you should know, that if the will of the sacred being de goodness, (340) his will is also eternal. 341. And he should be capable of a suitable will, (342) so that, from the beginning even to the end, all the goodness azd virtue of the will of the sacred being would have proceeded in the world. 343. Now z¢ is manifest that vileness and vice always proceed much more. 344. Therefore the cause is one of these, either they always proceed through the will of the sacred being, or without Azs will. 345. If they always proceed through some will of the sacred being, 2¢ is evident. that his will is also for vileness as well as for goodness, (346) or Ae is inefficient and changeable in will. 347. Since a will does not change, unless owing to a cause, or unless owing to a changer, (348) that zmples one of these two, either z¢ is through some cause, or there exists some other being with him as a changer of his will. 349. If they always proceed not through the will of the sacred being, (350) from that z¢ is evident that the 1 The words in brackets are omitted, both in Paz. and Sans., by JE and JJ, the only two MSS. available. 200 SIKAND-GOMANIK VIGAR. sacred being is suffering in his own will, and his will is not perfect, (351) or there exists some diminisher of it who is a possessor of will. 352. As ¢o this, too, which they assert, that the sacred being commanded Adam thus: ‘ Thou shalt not eat of this one tree which is in paradise (vahist)},’ (353) you should ask of them (354) thus: ‘Was the command which the sacred being gave to Adam, thus : “You shall not eat of this tree,” good or evil?’ 355. If the command were good z¢ is evident that the tree was evil, (356) and it is not befitting the sacred being to create anything that is evil. 357. If the tree were good the command was evil, azd it is not befitting the sacred being to give an evil command. 358. If the tree were good, and the command as to not eating were given by him, it is not? adapted to the goodness and mercifulness of the sacred being to allot a benefit away from his own innocent servants.
3358. If the tree were good, and the command as to not eating were given by him, it is not? adapted to the goodness and mercifulness of the sacred being to allot a benefit away from his own innocent servants. 359. As ¢o this, too, which they assert, that the sacred being brings every one whom he wills unto faith and the true way, and, as the recompense, he makes him proceed to the happy progress which is eternal; (360) azd him whom he does not will he leaves in irreligion and ignorance of the sacred being, and, for that reason, he casts him into hell and eternal misery ®; (361) you should ask of them (362) thus: ‘Is he good whose desire and will are for the religion and faith of the sacred being and the true way, or he whose desire and will are for going astray, irreligion, and ignorance of the sacred being ?’ 363. If one says that he is good whose desire and will 1 See § 64. ? Reading Paz. ne instead of Paz. be, ‘quite, as the Sanskrit has a negative participle. 5 See § 271. CHAPTER XI, 351-371. 201 are for the religion of the sacred being and the true way, (364) now as ¢o that man about whom this is the will of the sacred being, that he sha// leave him in irreligion, going astray, and ignorance of the sacred being, and to whom an apostle, or some other person who is a friend, recites the revelation (dtn6) of the sacred being and the true way, (365) does that show that the sacred being is thereby better and more beneficial to him, or are that apostle and that person so? 366. If ome says that the will of the sacred being about him! is good, it is thereby asserted by him, that not understanding the sacred being, not accepting the religion, and going astray are good; dz¢ this is not acceptable [and not to be taught], on account of error. 367. If one says that his coming to the true religion and understanding the sacred being are thereby better and more beneficial, (368) it is thereby obviously asserted by one that the apostle and person are thereby better to him than the sacred being. 369. Because a person through whom the true way and an understanding of the sacred being are wanted among mankind, and his will is den¢ upon it, is much better than he who is a sacred being (370) 6y whose will backsliding (av4zrasth), misunderstanding, and irreligion ex¢s¢ among them ; avd the sacred being is much worse than that person. 371. Observe this, too, that if the criminal thought and criminal action of man are by the will of the sacred being, that already zmpies that the sacred being produced criminal thought, and sowed crime 1 The man mentioned in § 364. 2 The words in brackets have no equivalent in the Pazand text, but are indicated by 4svadyav&a in Sans. 202 SIKAND-GOMAN!IK VIGAR.
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.