Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman.' If the well-known seer within the eye were different from Brahman which is characterised as the immortal and fear- less, it would not be co-ordinated (as it actually is) with the immortal, the fearless, and Brahman. The reflected Self, on the other hand, is' not spoken of as he who is characterised by the eye (the seer within the eye), for that would render Pra^&pati obnoxious to the reproach of saying deceitful things. — So also, in the second section, the passage, ' He who moves about happy in dreams,' &c. does not refer to a being different from the seeing person within the eye spoken of in the first chapter, (but treats of the same topic) as appears from the introductory clause, ' I shall explain him further to you.' Moreover1, a person who is conscious of having seen an elephant in a dream and of no longer seeing it when awake discards in the waking state the object which he had seen (in his sleep), but recognises himself when awake to be the same person who saw something in the dream. — Thus in the third section also Pra^apati does indeed declare the absence of all particular cognition in the state of deep sleep, but does not contest the identity of the cognising Self (' In that way he does not know himself that he is I, nor all these beings '). The following clause also, ' He is gone to utter annihilation/ is meant to intimate only the annihilation of all specific cognition, not the annihilation of the cogniser. For there is no destruction of the knowing of the knower as — according to another scriptural pas- sage (Br/. Up. IV, 3, 30) — that is imperishable. — Thus, again, in the fourth section the introductory phrase of Pra^apati is, ' I shall explain him further to you and nothing different from this ; ' he thereupon refutes the con- nexion (of the Self) with the body and other limiting conditions (' Maghavat, this body is mortal,5 &c), shows the individual soul — which is there called ' the serene being ' — 1 To state another reason showing that the first and second chapters of Pra^apati's instruction refer to the same subject. I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 1 9. 1 89 in the state when it has reached the nature of Brahman ('It appears in its own form'), and thus proves the soul to be non-different from the highest Brahman whose charac- teristics are immortality and fearlessness.
2same subject. I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 1 9. 1 89 in the state when it has reached the nature of Brahman ('It appears in its own form'), and thus proves the soul to be non-different from the highest Brahman whose charac- teristics are immortality and fearlessness. Some (teachers) however are of opinion that if the highest Self is meant (in the fourth section) it would be inappropriate to understand the words ' This (him) I will explain further/ &c, as referring to the individual soul, and therefore suppose that the reference is (not to the individual soul forming the topic of the three preceding sections, but) to the Self possessing the qualities of freeness from sin, &c, which Self is pointed out at the beginning of the entire chapter (VII, 1). — Against this interpretation we remark that, in the first place, it disregards the direct enunciation of the pronoun (i. e. the ' this' in 'this I will explain') which rests on something approximate (i.e. refers to something mentioned not far off), and, in the second place, is opposed to the word ' further' (or ' again ') met with in the text, since from that interpretation it would follow that what had been discussed in the preceding sections is not again discussed in the subsequent section. Moreover, if Pra^-apati, after having made a promise in the clause, ' This I shall explain ' (where that clause occurs for the first time), did previously to the fourth section explain a different topic in each section, we should have to conclude that he acted deceitfully . — Hence (our opinion about the purport of the whole chapter remains valid, viz. that it sets forth how) the unreal aspect of the individual soul as such — which is a mere presentation of Nescience, is stained by all the desires and aversions attached to agents and enjoy ers, and is con- nected with evils of various kinds — is dissolved by true knowledge, and how the soul is thus led over into the opposite state, i. e. into its true state in which it is one with the highest Lord and distinguished by freedom from sin and similar attributes. The whole process is similar to that by which an imagined snake passes over into a rope as soon as the mind of the beholder has freed itself from its erroneous imagination. Others again, and among them some of ours (asmadiya^ £a ke^it), are of opinion that the individual soul as such 1 90 VEDANTA-SfjTRAS. is real.
3snake passes over into a rope as soon as the mind of the beholder has freed itself from its erroneous imagination. Others again, and among them some of ours (asmadiya^ £a ke^it), are of opinion that the individual soul as such 1 90 VEDANTA-SfjTRAS. is real. To the end of refuting all these speculators who obstruct the way to the complete intuition of the unity of the Self this ^ariraka-^astra has been set forth, whose aim it is to show that there is only one highest Lord ever unchanging, whose substance is cognition \ and who, by means of Nescience, manifests himself in various ways, just as a thaumaturg appears in different shapes by means of his magical power. Besides that Lord there is no other sub- stance of cognition. — If, now, the Sutrakara raises and refutes the doubt whether a certain passage which (in reality) refers to the Lord does refer to the individual soul, as he does in this and the preceding Sutras 2, he does so for the following purpose. To the highest Self which is eternally pure, intelligent and free, which is never changing, one only, not in contact with anything, devoid of form, the opposite characteristics of the individual soul are errone- ously ascribed ; just as ignorant men ascribe blue colour to the colourless ether. In order to remove this erroneous opinion by means of Vedic passages tending either to prove the unity of the Self or to disprove the doctrine of duality — which passages he strengthens by arguments — he insists on the difference of the highest Self from the individual soul, does however not mean to prove thereby that the soul is different from the highest Self, but, whenever speaking of the soul, refers to its distinction (from the Self) as forming an item of ordinary thought, due to the power of Nescience. For thus, he thinks, the Vedic injunctions of works which are given with a view to the states of acting and enjoying, natural (to the non-enlightened soul), are not stultified.— That, however, the absolute unity of the Self is the real purport of the Astra's teaching, the Sutrakara declares, for instance, in I, 1, 30 3. The refutation of the reproach of 1 I. e. of whom cognition is not a mere attribute. 2 Although in reality there is no such thing as an individual soul. 3 Nanu £-ivabrahma«or aikyam na kvapi sutrakaro mukhato vadati kim tu sarvatra bhedam eva, ato naikyam ish/am tatr&ha pratipadyam tv iti. I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 21.
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.
1the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman.' If the well-known seer within the eye were different from Brahman which is characterised as the immortal and fear- less, it would not be co-ordinated (as it actually is) with the immortal, the fearless, and Brahman. The reflected Self, on the other hand, is' not spoken of as he who is characterised by the eye (the seer within the eye), for that would render Pra^&pati obnoxious to the reproach of saying deceitful things. — So also, in the second section, the passage, ' He who moves about happy in dreams,' &c. does not refer to a being different from the seeing person within the eye spoken of in the first chapter, (but treats of the same topic) as appears from the introductory clause, ' I shall explain him further to you.' Moreover1, a person who is conscious of having seen an elephant in a dream and of no longer seeing it when awake discards in the waking state the object which he had seen (in his sleep), but recognises himself when awake to be the same person who saw something in the dream. — Thus in the third section also Pra^apati does indeed declare the absence of all particular cognition in the state of deep sleep, but does not contest the identity of the cognising Self (' In that way he does not know himself that he is I, nor all these beings '). The following clause also, ' He is gone to utter annihilation/ is meant to intimate only the annihilation of all specific cognition, not the annihilation of the cogniser. For there is no destruction of the knowing of the knower as — according to another scriptural pas- sage (Br/. Up. IV, 3, 30) — that is imperishable. — Thus, again, in the fourth section the introductory phrase of Pra^apati is, ' I shall explain him further to you and nothing different from this ; ' he thereupon refutes the con- nexion (of the Self) with the body and other limiting conditions (' Maghavat, this body is mortal,5 &c), shows the individual soul — which is there called ' the serene being ' — 1 To state another reason showing that the first and second chapters of Pra^apati's instruction refer to the same subject. I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 1 9. 1 89 in the state when it has reached the nature of Brahman ('It appears in its own form'), and thus proves the soul to be non-different from the highest Brahman whose charac- teristics are immortality and fearlessness.
2same subject. I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 1 9. 1 89 in the state when it has reached the nature of Brahman ('It appears in its own form'), and thus proves the soul to be non-different from the highest Brahman whose charac- teristics are immortality and fearlessness. Some (teachers) however are of opinion that if the highest Self is meant (in the fourth section) it would be inappropriate to understand the words ' This (him) I will explain further/ &c, as referring to the individual soul, and therefore suppose that the reference is (not to the individual soul forming the topic of the three preceding sections, but) to the Self possessing the qualities of freeness from sin, &c, which Self is pointed out at the beginning of the entire chapter (VII, 1). — Against this interpretation we remark that, in the first place, it disregards the direct enunciation of the pronoun (i. e. the ' this' in 'this I will explain') which rests on something approximate (i.e. refers to something mentioned not far off), and, in the second place, is opposed to the word ' further' (or ' again ') met with in the text, since from that interpretation it would follow that what had been discussed in the preceding sections is not again discussed in the subsequent section. Moreover, if Pra^-apati, after having made a promise in the clause, ' This I shall explain ' (where that clause occurs for the first time), did previously to the fourth section explain a different topic in each section, we should have to conclude that he acted deceitfully . — Hence (our opinion about the purport of the whole chapter remains valid, viz. that it sets forth how) the unreal aspect of the individual soul as such — which is a mere presentation of Nescience, is stained by all the desires and aversions attached to agents and enjoy ers, and is con- nected with evils of various kinds — is dissolved by true knowledge, and how the soul is thus led over into the opposite state, i. e. into its true state in which it is one with the highest Lord and distinguished by freedom from sin and similar attributes. The whole process is similar to that by which an imagined snake passes over into a rope as soon as the mind of the beholder has freed itself from its erroneous imagination. Others again, and among them some of ours (asmadiya^ £a ke^it), are of opinion that the individual soul as such 1 90 VEDANTA-SfjTRAS. is real.
3snake passes over into a rope as soon as the mind of the beholder has freed itself from its erroneous imagination. Others again, and among them some of ours (asmadiya^ £a ke^it), are of opinion that the individual soul as such 1 90 VEDANTA-SfjTRAS. is real. To the end of refuting all these speculators who obstruct the way to the complete intuition of the unity of the Self this ^ariraka-^astra has been set forth, whose aim it is to show that there is only one highest Lord ever unchanging, whose substance is cognition \ and who, by means of Nescience, manifests himself in various ways, just as a thaumaturg appears in different shapes by means of his magical power. Besides that Lord there is no other sub- stance of cognition. — If, now, the Sutrakara raises and refutes the doubt whether a certain passage which (in reality) refers to the Lord does refer to the individual soul, as he does in this and the preceding Sutras 2, he does so for the following purpose. To the highest Self which is eternally pure, intelligent and free, which is never changing, one only, not in contact with anything, devoid of form, the opposite characteristics of the individual soul are errone- ously ascribed ; just as ignorant men ascribe blue colour to the colourless ether. In order to remove this erroneous opinion by means of Vedic passages tending either to prove the unity of the Self or to disprove the doctrine of duality — which passages he strengthens by arguments — he insists on the difference of the highest Self from the individual soul, does however not mean to prove thereby that the soul is different from the highest Self, but, whenever speaking of the soul, refers to its distinction (from the Self) as forming an item of ordinary thought, due to the power of Nescience. For thus, he thinks, the Vedic injunctions of works which are given with a view to the states of acting and enjoying, natural (to the non-enlightened soul), are not stultified.— That, however, the absolute unity of the Self is the real purport of the Astra's teaching, the Sutrakara declares, for instance, in I, 1, 30 3. The refutation of the reproach of 1 I. e. of whom cognition is not a mere attribute. 2 Although in reality there is no such thing as an individual soul. 3 Nanu £-ivabrahma«or aikyam na kvapi sutrakaro mukhato vadati kim tu sarvatra bhedam eva, ato naikyam ish/am tatr&ha pratipadyam tv iti. I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 21.
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.