Thibaut states at the outset that the dominant commentary is not the text, and that the question is open on Indian ground rather than only on European. The enquiry into what the Sûtras mean "would have to be undertaken even if Sankara's views as to the true meaning of the Sûtras and Upanishads had never been called into doubt on Indian soil ... but it becomes much more urgent, and at the same time more feasible, when we meet in India itself with systems claiming to be Vedântic and based on interpretations ... more or less differing from those of Sankara." Their claims "must at any rate be examined, EVEN IF WE SHOULD FINALLY BE COMPELLED TO REJECT THEM." The examination is owed before the verdict, not after it.
Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 34 — The Vedanta-Sutras, Part I (Sankara/Thibaut, page scans)
Open to all
The text is shown on its own: no facing layer is held for this issue.
page 1
The translator’s English as printed. The original-language text is not held; names are romanised as the translator printed them.
T5U \o\6
THE
SACRED BOOKS OF THE EAST
[34]
HENRY FROWDE
Oxford University Press Warehouse
Amen Corner, E.C.
THE
SACRED BOOKS OF THE EAST
TRANSLATED
BY VARIOUS ORIENTAL SCHOLARS
AND EDITED BY
F. MAX MULLER
vol. xxxiv
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1890
[All rights reserved]
(r$0Lr0LâM,as\ asp
CA^,
THE
VEDANTA-SOTRAS
WITH THE COMMENTARY BY
5ANKARArARYA
TRANSLATED BY
GEORGE THIBAUT
PART I
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1890
[All rights reserved ]
CONTENTS.
PAGE
Introduction ix
VEDANTA-SUTRAS WITH THE COMMENTARY ^ BY SANKARAZArYA.
i Adhyaya I.
* Pada I 3 vi Pada II ioy
^ Pada III 154
« Pada IV 237
$L AdhyAya II.
Pada I , . . 290
Pada II 363
Transliteration of Oriental Alphabets adopted for the Translations of the Sacred Books of the East . . . . 445 vV
INTRODUCTION.
To the sacred literature of the Brahmans, in the strict sense of the term, i.e. to the Veda, there belongs a certain number of complementary works without whose assistance the student is, according to Hindu notions, unable to do more than commit the sacred texts to memory. In the first place all Vedic texts must, in order to be understood, be read together with running commentaries such as Saya;za\s commentaries on the Sa;^hitas and Brahma^as, and the Bhashyas ascribed to vSarikara on the chief Upanishads. But these commentaries do not by themselves conduce to a full comprehension of the contents of the sacred texts, since they confine themselves to explaining the meaning of each detached passage without investigating its relation to other passages, and the whole of which they form part ; considerations of the latter kind are at any rate introduced occasionally only. The task of taking a comprehensive view of the contents of the Vedic writings as a whole, of systematising what they present in an unsystematical form, of showing the mutual co-ordination or subordination of single passages and sections, and of reconciling contradictions — which, according to the view of the orthodox commentators, can be apparent only — is allotted to a separate jastra or body of doctrine which is termed Mtmawsa, i. e. the investigation or enquiry kclt efox^, viz. the enquiry into the connected meaning of the sacred texts.
Of this Mimosa two branches have to be distinguished, the so-called earlier (purva) Mima^sa, and the later (uttara) Mima^sa. The former undertakes to systematise the karmaka^a, i. e.
iry kclt efox^, viz. the enquiry into the connected meaning of the sacred texts.
Of this Mimosa two branches have to be distinguished, the so-called earlier (purva) Mima^sa, and the later (uttara) Mima^sa. The former undertakes to systematise the karmaka^a, i. e. that entire portion of the Veda which is concerned with action, pre-eminently sacrificial action, and which comprises the Sawhitas and the Brahma^as exclusive of the Ara/zyaka portions ; the latter performs the same
VEDANTA-stjTRAS.
service with regard to the so-called gnânakanda, i. e. that part of the Vedic writings which includes the Ara^yaka portions of the Brahma/zas, and a number of detached treatises called Upanishads. Its subject is not action but knowledge, viz. the knowledge of Brahman.
At what period these two ^astras first assumed a definite form, we are unable to ascertain. Discussions of the nature of those which constitute the subject-matter of the Purva Mima^sa must have arisen at a very early period, and the word Mima^sa itself together with its derivatives is already employed in the Brahma^as to denote the doubts and discussions connected with certain contested points of ritual. The want of a body of definite rules prescribing how to act, i. e. how to perform the various sacrifices in full accordance with the teaching of the Veda, was indeed an urgent one, because it was an altogether practical want, continually pressing itself on the adhvaryus engaged in ritualistic duties. And the task of establishing such rules was moreover a comparatively limited and feasible one ; for the members of a certain Vedic .rakha or school had to do no more than to digest thoroughly their own brahma/za and sa/^hita, without being under any obligation of reconciling with the teaching of their own books the occasionally conflicting rules implied in the texts of other jakhas. It was assumed that action, as being something which depends on the will and choice of man, admits of alternatives, so that a certain sacrifice may be performed in different ways by members of different Vedic schools, or even by the followers of one and the same sakhL
The Uttara Mima^sa-^astra may be supposed to have originated considerably later than the Purva Mima/^sa. In the first place, the texts with which it is concerned doubtless constitute the latest branch of Vedic literature.
the followers of one and the same sakhL
The Uttara Mima^sa-^astra may be supposed to have originated considerably later than the Purva Mima/^sa. In the first place, the texts with which it is concerned doubtless constitute the latest branch of Vedic literature. And in the second place, the subject-matter of those texts did not call for a systematical treatment with equal urgency, as it was in no way connected with practice ; the mental attitude of the authors of the Upanishads, who in their lucubrations on Brahman and the soul aim at nothing less than at definiteness and coherence, may have perpetuated itself through
INTRODUCTION. XI
many generations without any great inconvenience resulting therefrom.
But in the long run two causes must have acted with ever-increasing force, to give an impulse to the systematic working up of the teaching of the Upanishads also. The followers of the different Vedic ^akhas no doubt recognised already at an early period the truth that, while conflicting statements regarding the details of a sacrifice can be got over by the assumption of a vikalpa, i. e. an optional proceeding, it is not so with regard to such topics as the nature of Brahman, the relation to it of the human soul, the origin of the physical universe, and the like. Concerning them, one opinion only can be the true one, and it therefore becomes absolutely incumbent on those, who look on the whole body of the Upanishads as revealed truth, to demonstrate that their teaching forms a consistent whole free from all contradictions. In addition there supervened the external motive that, while the karmakanda. of the Veda concerned only the higher castes of brahmanically constituted society, on which it enjoins certain sacrificial performances connected with certain rewards, the ^Tzanaka/^a, as propounding a certain theory of the world, towards which any reflecting person inside or outside the pale of the orthodox community could not but take up a definite position, must soon have become the object of criticism on the part of those who held different views on religious and philosophic things, and hence stood in need of systematic defence.
At present there exists a vast literature connected with the two branches of the Mima^sa. We have, on the one hand, all those works which constitute the Purva Mima/^sa-.yastra — or as it is often, shortly but not accurately, termed, the Mima^sai-astra — and, on the other hand, all those works which are commonly comprised under the name Vedanta-^astra. At the head of this extensive literature there stand two collections of Sutras (i.
He explains why the commentaries are so numerous, and the explanation is institutional rather than intellectual. The Sûtras became "an authoritative work, not to be neglected by any who wished to affiliate their own doctrines to the Veda", so that "at present, at any rate, there are very few Hindu sects not interested in showing that their distinctive tenets are countenanced by Bâdarâyana's teaching. Owing to this the commentaries on the Sûtras have in the course of time become very numerous." A literary form proliferating because affiliation to it confers legitimacy — the same shape Eggeling finds in the elaboration of Vedic ritual, in a different literature and by a different route.
shares a method with The Satapatha-Brâhmana, Part I — SBE Vol. 12 (trans. Julius Eggeling, 1882)
He gives the rival its due before weighing it, in terms warmer than the case required. The Sri-bhâshya "strikes one throughout as a very solid performance due to a writer of extensive learning and great power of argumentation, and in its polemic parts, directed chiefly against the school of Sankara, IT NOT UNFREQUENTLY DESERVES TO BE CALLED BRILLIANT EVEN." He then states the thing that will actually decide the question: it "shows evident traces of being not the mere outcome of Râmânuja's individual views, but of resting on an old and weighty tradition."
THE DECISIVE EVIDENCE IS SANKARA'S OWN ADMISSION, which is the strongest kind of evidence there is. Sankara writes that "other theorisers again, AND AMONG THEM SOME OF OURS, are of opinion that the individual soul as such is real" — and "ours" can only mean the Vedântins. So Sankara himself classed with himself philosophers who held the individual soul to be real in itself rather than an artefact of Mâyâ. Thibaut's conclusion follows without strain: "the Vedântins of the school to which Sankara himself belonged acknowledged the existence of Vedântic teaching of a type essentially different from their own." The rival position is attested inside the winning school's own text.
Then he dates the later commentary's tradition earlier than the earlier commentator, and the chain is worth following because every link is checkable. Râmânuja claims to follow Bodhâyana; the Sri-bhâshya repeatedly quotes Dramida, the Dravidâchârya; and Ânandagiri, glossing SANKARA'S OWN commentary on Chândogya III, 10, 4, remarks that Sankara's reconciliation there "is a reproduction of the analogous attempt made by the Dravidâchârya." So Sankara was reproducing a predecessor whom Râmânuja also cites. The interpretation the Sri-bhâshya represents "is not due to innovating views on the part of Râmânuja, but had authoritative representatives already at a period anterior to that of Sankara." The witness is the winning side's own commentator.
Two habits in this introduction are worth naming because they are what makes the rest trustworthy. He marks hearsay — a writer quoted as the vâkyakâra "is, I AM TOLD, to be identified with the Tanka mentioned above" — and he refuses the interested party's own chronology: "I refrain from inserting in this place the information concerning the relative age of these writers which may be derived from the oral tradition of the Râmânuja sect. FROM ANOTHER SOURCE, however, we receive an intimation..." He declines the evidence that would have suited him and goes looking for a disinterested one.