Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
162. Observe also this, that if his origin and abode were darkness, how was it possible for him to remain opposite the light? 63. Because this is known, that z¢ is not possible for darkness to remain opposite the light, since ¢he /atter puts it aside harmless. 64. Again, J as& this, that is, was that earth, which 1 See § 6n. ® See § 7n. 8 See § x0. The scripture merely says that ‘God saw the light, that 74 was good;’ but this difference does not really affect the author’s argument as to the previous non-existence of light. * Assuming that P4z. frai is a misreading of Pahl. paras. 214 SIKAND-GOMANIK VIGAR. - was without form and void, limited or unlimited ? 65. If it were limited, what was there outside of it ? 66. If it were unlimited, whither did that unlimitedness of it go, (67) when, as we see, this earth and worldly existence are not those of the first existence? 68. As to that which the Lord spoke, (69) that is: ‘ Let ¢here be light,’ and it was so, (70) it is thereupon appropriate to understand that the Lord existed before the ¢¢me that the light arose; (71) azd when he was wishing to make the light, and he gave the command for it to arise, he then considered mentally zz what way the light is of good appearance or evil appearance. 72. And if the light, through its own nature, reached into the knowledge and consideration of the Lord, it is evident that the light was existing alike within the knowledge and mind of the Lord, (73) and alike outside of him. 74. For it is not possible to know and obtain anything, unless z¢ de a manifestation of an existence. 75. If the light was existing is it’, on that account, a creation of the Lord? 76. And if they say that the light was not, through its own nature, within 4zs knowledge, that light was demanded by him, who. did not know of what nature tt was, very unwisely. 77. Or how is it possible to consider in the mind that which one Aas never even thought of ov known ? 78. And odserve this, too, that that command for the arising of light was given ezther to something or to nothing, (79) because this is certain, that it is necessary to give a command to a performer of commands. 80. If z¢ were given by him to something existing, which was light, that zmpies that the light 1 Or, perhaps, ‘it is.’ CHAPTER XIII, 65-89. 215
280. If z¢ were given by him to something existing, which was light, that zmpies that the light 1 Or, perhaps, ‘it is.’ CHAPTER XIII, 65-89. 215 itself existed. 81. And if the command were given by him to something not existing, then how did the something not existing hear the command of the Lord? 82. Or how did it know that the will of the Lord was thus, that ‘I should become light ?’ 83. Because the command of the Lord is not heard by what does not exist, in the same manner as though z¢ were not given by him. 84. Since it is not possible for the non-existent even to think in any way, (85) z¢ was that which is appointed nonexistent, so that it does not exist, but yet exists!, that was really before the sight of the sage?; by . which z¢ was known zz what manner the Lord is demanding that it skal? arise®, and in the manner which was demanded by him it arose. 86. If they say that the light arose from the word of the Lord, which was spoken by him thus: ‘Thou shalt arise,’ and it was so—(87) that de¢ng when the Lord and his belongings (khfdth) were dark, and light had really never deen seen by him—zz what way is it possible far that light to arise from hzs word? 88. Because this is known, that speaking is the progeny of thinking. 89. If they say that his word became light, that is very marvellous, because then light is the fruit of darkness, and the source of darkness is thereby the essence of light; 1 That is something produced as a nonentity which, being produced as nothing, is considered to be something different from nothing at all, which is not produced. Something analogous to the prototypes of the creatures, which ‘remained three thousand years in a spiritual s/aé, so that they were unthinking and unmoving, with intangible bodies’ (Bd. I, 8). % Who wrote the account of the creation in the book of Genesis. 5 Literally ‘that I shail arise.’ 216 SIKAND-GOMANIK VIGAR. or else z¢ zs this, that the light was concealed in the darkness. go. As I have said}, it is evident that it is of no use to give a command, except ¢o a performer of commands, (91) so that it should be ¢hat the light existed, avd then the command was expedient and given.
3or else z¢ zs this, that the light was concealed in the darkness. go. As I have said}, it is evident that it is of no use to give a command, except ¢o a performer of commands, (91) so that it should be ¢hat the light existed, avd then the command was expedient and given. 92. Again, J ask this, as ¢o these creatures and creations, sky and earth of his, since ¢hey were prepared and produced by him in six days, (93) and the seventh he reposed (khaspia) therefrom’, (94) then, when this world was not produced by him from anything, but merely arose by his command, ‘thou shalt arise, and it was so, (95) to what was that delay of his of six days owing? 96. For when his trouble is merely as much as to say ‘thou shalt arise, the existence of that delay of six days is very ill-seeming. 97. It is also not suitable for trouble to arise for him therefrom. 98. If it be possible to make the non-existent exist, and he de capable of z¢, it is possible to produce z¢ even a long time back. 99. And if he de incapable of pro- . ducing except in the period of a day, it is not fitting to speak of his producing it from nothing. 100. And, again, J ask this, that is, when the number of the days should be known from the sun, whence then is the number of the day, besides the names of the days, known before the creation of the sun? tor. For they say that the sun was produced by him om the fourth day, which is itself Wednesday. 1 In § 79. ® See §§ 12, 13. 5 Paz, kihar sumbad, Sans, datuksanaiskartya. ‘And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the CHAPTER XIII, 9O-T12. 217 102. J also ask this, to what was ¢¢ owing that it was necessary for him to make Azmself comfortable and reposing au the seventh day? 103. When the delay and trouble in his creation and production of the world was merely so much as ¢hat he spoke -thus: ‘ Thou shalt arise,’ (104) how are those days accounted for by ‘him, so that it was necessary to make him reposing whose trouble is recounted ? 105. For if ‘thou shalt arise’ were spoken by him at once, that is his trouble, and he ought to become comfortable immediately. .
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.
162. Observe also this, that if his origin and abode were darkness, how was it possible for him to remain opposite the light? 63. Because this is known, that z¢ is not possible for darkness to remain opposite the light, since ¢he /atter puts it aside harmless. 64. Again, J as& this, that is, was that earth, which 1 See § 6n. ® See § 7n. 8 See § x0. The scripture merely says that ‘God saw the light, that 74 was good;’ but this difference does not really affect the author’s argument as to the previous non-existence of light. * Assuming that P4z. frai is a misreading of Pahl. paras. 214 SIKAND-GOMANIK VIGAR. - was without form and void, limited or unlimited ? 65. If it were limited, what was there outside of it ? 66. If it were unlimited, whither did that unlimitedness of it go, (67) when, as we see, this earth and worldly existence are not those of the first existence? 68. As to that which the Lord spoke, (69) that is: ‘ Let ¢here be light,’ and it was so, (70) it is thereupon appropriate to understand that the Lord existed before the ¢¢me that the light arose; (71) azd when he was wishing to make the light, and he gave the command for it to arise, he then considered mentally zz what way the light is of good appearance or evil appearance. 72. And if the light, through its own nature, reached into the knowledge and consideration of the Lord, it is evident that the light was existing alike within the knowledge and mind of the Lord, (73) and alike outside of him. 74. For it is not possible to know and obtain anything, unless z¢ de a manifestation of an existence. 75. If the light was existing is it’, on that account, a creation of the Lord? 76. And if they say that the light was not, through its own nature, within 4zs knowledge, that light was demanded by him, who. did not know of what nature tt was, very unwisely. 77. Or how is it possible to consider in the mind that which one Aas never even thought of ov known ? 78. And odserve this, too, that that command for the arising of light was given ezther to something or to nothing, (79) because this is certain, that it is necessary to give a command to a performer of commands. 80. If z¢ were given by him to something existing, which was light, that zmpies that the light 1 Or, perhaps, ‘it is.’ CHAPTER XIII, 65-89. 215
280. If z¢ were given by him to something existing, which was light, that zmpies that the light 1 Or, perhaps, ‘it is.’ CHAPTER XIII, 65-89. 215 itself existed. 81. And if the command were given by him to something not existing, then how did the something not existing hear the command of the Lord? 82. Or how did it know that the will of the Lord was thus, that ‘I should become light ?’ 83. Because the command of the Lord is not heard by what does not exist, in the same manner as though z¢ were not given by him. 84. Since it is not possible for the non-existent even to think in any way, (85) z¢ was that which is appointed nonexistent, so that it does not exist, but yet exists!, that was really before the sight of the sage?; by . which z¢ was known zz what manner the Lord is demanding that it skal? arise®, and in the manner which was demanded by him it arose. 86. If they say that the light arose from the word of the Lord, which was spoken by him thus: ‘Thou shalt arise,’ and it was so—(87) that de¢ng when the Lord and his belongings (khfdth) were dark, and light had really never deen seen by him—zz what way is it possible far that light to arise from hzs word? 88. Because this is known, that speaking is the progeny of thinking. 89. If they say that his word became light, that is very marvellous, because then light is the fruit of darkness, and the source of darkness is thereby the essence of light; 1 That is something produced as a nonentity which, being produced as nothing, is considered to be something different from nothing at all, which is not produced. Something analogous to the prototypes of the creatures, which ‘remained three thousand years in a spiritual s/aé, so that they were unthinking and unmoving, with intangible bodies’ (Bd. I, 8). % Who wrote the account of the creation in the book of Genesis. 5 Literally ‘that I shail arise.’ 216 SIKAND-GOMANIK VIGAR. or else z¢ zs this, that the light was concealed in the darkness. go. As I have said}, it is evident that it is of no use to give a command, except ¢o a performer of commands, (91) so that it should be ¢hat the light existed, avd then the command was expedient and given.
3or else z¢ zs this, that the light was concealed in the darkness. go. As I have said}, it is evident that it is of no use to give a command, except ¢o a performer of commands, (91) so that it should be ¢hat the light existed, avd then the command was expedient and given. 92. Again, J ask this, as ¢o these creatures and creations, sky and earth of his, since ¢hey were prepared and produced by him in six days, (93) and the seventh he reposed (khaspia) therefrom’, (94) then, when this world was not produced by him from anything, but merely arose by his command, ‘thou shalt arise, and it was so, (95) to what was that delay of his of six days owing? 96. For when his trouble is merely as much as to say ‘thou shalt arise, the existence of that delay of six days is very ill-seeming. 97. It is also not suitable for trouble to arise for him therefrom. 98. If it be possible to make the non-existent exist, and he de capable of z¢, it is possible to produce z¢ even a long time back. 99. And if he de incapable of pro- . ducing except in the period of a day, it is not fitting to speak of his producing it from nothing. 100. And, again, J ask this, that is, when the number of the days should be known from the sun, whence then is the number of the day, besides the names of the days, known before the creation of the sun? tor. For they say that the sun was produced by him om the fourth day, which is itself Wednesday. 1 In § 79. ® See §§ 12, 13. 5 Paz, kihar sumbad, Sans, datuksanaiskartya. ‘And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the CHAPTER XIII, 9O-T12. 217 102. J also ask this, to what was ¢¢ owing that it was necessary for him to make Azmself comfortable and reposing au the seventh day? 103. When the delay and trouble in his creation and production of the world was merely so much as ¢hat he spoke -thus: ‘ Thou shalt arise,’ (104) how are those days accounted for by ‘him, so that it was necessary to make him reposing whose trouble is recounted ? 105. For if ‘thou shalt arise’ were spoken by him at once, that is his trouble, and he ought to become comfortable immediately. .
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.