Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1may conclude from the comprehensive statement ' all this ' — that the manifestation of this entire world consisting of names and forms, acts, agents and fruits (of action) has for its cause the existence of the light of Brahman ; just as the existence of the light of the sun is the cause of the manifestation of all form and colour. — Moreover, the text shows by means of the word ' there ' (' the sun does not shine there/ &c.) that the passage is to be connected with the general topic, and that topic is Brahman as appears from Mu. Up. II, 2, 5, ' In whom the heaven, the earth, and the sky are woven/ &c. The same appears from a passage subsequent (on the one just quoted and immediately pre- ceding the passage under discussion). 'In the highest golden sheath there is the Brahman without passion and without parts ; that is pure, that is the light of lights, that is it which they know who know the Self.' This passage giving rise to the question, ' How is it the light of lights ? ' there is occasion for the reply given in 'The sun does not shine there/ &c. — In refutation of the assertion that the shining of luminous bodies such as the sun and the moon can be denied only in case of there being another luminous body — as, for instance, the light of the moon and the stars is denied only when the sun is shining— we point out that it has been shown that he (the Self) only can be the luminous being referred to, nothing else. And it is quite possible to deny the shining of sun, moon, and so on with regard to Brahman ; for whatever is perceived is perceived by the light of Brahman only so that sun, moon, &c. can be said to shine in it; while Brahman as self- luminous is not perceived by means of any other light. Brahman manifests everything else, but is not manifested by anything else ; according to such scriptural passages as, 'By the Self alone as his light man sits/ &c. (Br/. Up. IV, 3, 6), and ' He is incomprehensible, for he cannot be comprehended ' (Br/. Up. IV, 2, 4). I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 24. 1 95 23. Moreover Smrzti also speaks of him (i. e. of the pr&g-na Self as being the universal light). Moreover that aspect of the pr&gna. Self is spoken of in Smrz'ti also, viz. in the Bhagavad Gita (XV, 6, 13), ' Neither the sun, nor the moon, nor the fire illumines that ; having gone into which men do not return, that is ray- highest seat.5 And ' The light which abiding in the sun illumines the whole world, and that which is in the moon and that which is in the fire, all that light know to be mine.' 24.
2re illumines that ; having gone into which men do not return, that is ray- highest seat.5 And ' The light which abiding in the sun illumines the whole world, and that which is in the moon and that which is in the fire, all that light know to be mine.' 24. On account of the term, (viz. the term ' lord ' applied to it) the (person) measured (by a thumb) (is the highest Lord). We read (Ka. Up, II, 4, 12), 'The person of the size of a thumb stands in the middle of the Self,' &c, and (II, 4, 13), 'That person, of the size of a thumb, is like a light without smoke, lord of the past and of the future, he is the same to-day and to-morrow. This is that.' — The question here arises whether the person of the size of a thumb mentioned in the text is the cognitional (individual) Self or the highest Self. The purvapakshin maintains that on account of the declaration of the person's size the cognitional Self is meant. For to the highest Self which is of infinite length and breadth Scripture would not ascribe the measure of a span ; of the cognitional Self, on the other hand, which is connected with limiting adjuncts, extension of the size of a span may, by means of some fictitious assumption, be predicated. Smrzti also confirms this, ' Then Yama drew forth, by force, from the body of Satyavat the person of the size of a thumb tied to Yama's noose and helpless' (Mahabh. Ill, 16763). For as Yama could not pull out by force the highest Self, the passage is clearly seen to refer to the transmigrating (individual soul) of the size of a thumb, and we thence infer that the same Self is meant in the Vedic passage under discussion. To this we reply that the person a thumb long can only O 2 1 96 vedanta-s6tra$. be the highest Lord. — Why? — On account of the term ' lord of the past and of the future.' For none but the highest Lord is the absolute ruler of the past and the future. — Moreover, the clause ' this is that ' connects the passage with that which had been enquired about, and therefore forms the topic of discussion. And wThat had been enquired about is Brahman, ' That which thou seest as neither this nor that, as neither effect nor cause, as neither past nor future, tell me that ' (I, 2, 14). — ' On ac- count of the term,' i. e. on account of the direct statement, in the text, of a designation, viz. the term ' Lord/ we under- stand that the highest Lord is meant1. — But still the question remains how a certain extension can be attributed to the omnipresent highest Self. — The reply to this is given in the next Sutra. 25.
3n the text, of a designation, viz. the term ' Lord/ we under- stand that the highest Lord is meant1. — But still the question remains how a certain extension can be attributed to the omnipresent highest Self. — The reply to this is given in the next Sutra. 25. But with reference to the heart (the highest Self is said to be of the size of a span), as men are entitled (to the study of the Veda). The measure of a span is ascribed to the highest Lord, although omnipresent with reference to his abiding within the heart ; just as to ether (space) the measure of a cubit is ascribed with reference to the joint of a bamboo. For, on the one hand, the measure of a span cannot be ascribed directly to the highest Self which exceeds all measure, and, on the other hand, it has been shown that none but the highest Lord can be meant here, on account of the term ' Lord,' and so on. — But — an objection may be raised— as the size of the heart varies in the different classes of living beings it cannot be maintained that the declaration 1 This last sentence is directed against the possible objection that 'jabda/ which the Sutra brings forward as an argument in favour of the highest Lord being meant, has the sense of ' sentence ' (vakya), and is therefore of less force than linga, i. e. indicatory or inferential mark which is represented in our passage by the angush/Zzamatrata of the purusha, and favours the ^iva-interpreta- tion. *Sabda, the text remarks, here means jruti, i. e. direct enun- ciation, and jruti ranks, as a means of proof, higher than liriga. I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 25. I97 of the highest Self being of the size of a thumb can be explained with reference to the heart. — To this objection the second half of the Sutra replies : On account of men (only) being entitled. For the ^astra, although propounded without distinction (i. e. although not itself specifying what class of beings is to proceed according to its pre- cepts), does in reality entitle men * only (to act according to its precepts) ; for men only (of the three higher castes) are, firstly, capable (of complying with the precepts of the jastra) ; are, secondly, desirous (of the results of actions enjoined by the ^astra) ; are, thirdly, not excluded by pro- hibitions ; and are, fourthly, subject to the precepts about the upanayana ceremony and so on2. This point has been explained in the section treating of the definition of adhi- kara (Purva Mim. S. VI, 1). — Now the human body has ordinarily a fixed size, and hence the heart also has a fixed size, viz. the size of a thumb.
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.
1may conclude from the comprehensive statement ' all this ' — that the manifestation of this entire world consisting of names and forms, acts, agents and fruits (of action) has for its cause the existence of the light of Brahman ; just as the existence of the light of the sun is the cause of the manifestation of all form and colour. — Moreover, the text shows by means of the word ' there ' (' the sun does not shine there/ &c.) that the passage is to be connected with the general topic, and that topic is Brahman as appears from Mu. Up. II, 2, 5, ' In whom the heaven, the earth, and the sky are woven/ &c. The same appears from a passage subsequent (on the one just quoted and immediately pre- ceding the passage under discussion). 'In the highest golden sheath there is the Brahman without passion and without parts ; that is pure, that is the light of lights, that is it which they know who know the Self.' This passage giving rise to the question, ' How is it the light of lights ? ' there is occasion for the reply given in 'The sun does not shine there/ &c. — In refutation of the assertion that the shining of luminous bodies such as the sun and the moon can be denied only in case of there being another luminous body — as, for instance, the light of the moon and the stars is denied only when the sun is shining— we point out that it has been shown that he (the Self) only can be the luminous being referred to, nothing else. And it is quite possible to deny the shining of sun, moon, and so on with regard to Brahman ; for whatever is perceived is perceived by the light of Brahman only so that sun, moon, &c. can be said to shine in it; while Brahman as self- luminous is not perceived by means of any other light. Brahman manifests everything else, but is not manifested by anything else ; according to such scriptural passages as, 'By the Self alone as his light man sits/ &c. (Br/. Up. IV, 3, 6), and ' He is incomprehensible, for he cannot be comprehended ' (Br/. Up. IV, 2, 4). I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 24. 1 95 23. Moreover Smrzti also speaks of him (i. e. of the pr&g-na Self as being the universal light). Moreover that aspect of the pr&gna. Self is spoken of in Smrz'ti also, viz. in the Bhagavad Gita (XV, 6, 13), ' Neither the sun, nor the moon, nor the fire illumines that ; having gone into which men do not return, that is ray- highest seat.5 And ' The light which abiding in the sun illumines the whole world, and that which is in the moon and that which is in the fire, all that light know to be mine.' 24.
2re illumines that ; having gone into which men do not return, that is ray- highest seat.5 And ' The light which abiding in the sun illumines the whole world, and that which is in the moon and that which is in the fire, all that light know to be mine.' 24. On account of the term, (viz. the term ' lord ' applied to it) the (person) measured (by a thumb) (is the highest Lord). We read (Ka. Up, II, 4, 12), 'The person of the size of a thumb stands in the middle of the Self,' &c, and (II, 4, 13), 'That person, of the size of a thumb, is like a light without smoke, lord of the past and of the future, he is the same to-day and to-morrow. This is that.' — The question here arises whether the person of the size of a thumb mentioned in the text is the cognitional (individual) Self or the highest Self. The purvapakshin maintains that on account of the declaration of the person's size the cognitional Self is meant. For to the highest Self which is of infinite length and breadth Scripture would not ascribe the measure of a span ; of the cognitional Self, on the other hand, which is connected with limiting adjuncts, extension of the size of a span may, by means of some fictitious assumption, be predicated. Smrzti also confirms this, ' Then Yama drew forth, by force, from the body of Satyavat the person of the size of a thumb tied to Yama's noose and helpless' (Mahabh. Ill, 16763). For as Yama could not pull out by force the highest Self, the passage is clearly seen to refer to the transmigrating (individual soul) of the size of a thumb, and we thence infer that the same Self is meant in the Vedic passage under discussion. To this we reply that the person a thumb long can only O 2 1 96 vedanta-s6tra$. be the highest Lord. — Why? — On account of the term ' lord of the past and of the future.' For none but the highest Lord is the absolute ruler of the past and the future. — Moreover, the clause ' this is that ' connects the passage with that which had been enquired about, and therefore forms the topic of discussion. And wThat had been enquired about is Brahman, ' That which thou seest as neither this nor that, as neither effect nor cause, as neither past nor future, tell me that ' (I, 2, 14). — ' On ac- count of the term,' i. e. on account of the direct statement, in the text, of a designation, viz. the term ' Lord/ we under- stand that the highest Lord is meant1. — But still the question remains how a certain extension can be attributed to the omnipresent highest Self. — The reply to this is given in the next Sutra. 25.
3n the text, of a designation, viz. the term ' Lord/ we under- stand that the highest Lord is meant1. — But still the question remains how a certain extension can be attributed to the omnipresent highest Self. — The reply to this is given in the next Sutra. 25. But with reference to the heart (the highest Self is said to be of the size of a span), as men are entitled (to the study of the Veda). The measure of a span is ascribed to the highest Lord, although omnipresent with reference to his abiding within the heart ; just as to ether (space) the measure of a cubit is ascribed with reference to the joint of a bamboo. For, on the one hand, the measure of a span cannot be ascribed directly to the highest Self which exceeds all measure, and, on the other hand, it has been shown that none but the highest Lord can be meant here, on account of the term ' Lord,' and so on. — But — an objection may be raised— as the size of the heart varies in the different classes of living beings it cannot be maintained that the declaration 1 This last sentence is directed against the possible objection that 'jabda/ which the Sutra brings forward as an argument in favour of the highest Lord being meant, has the sense of ' sentence ' (vakya), and is therefore of less force than linga, i. e. indicatory or inferential mark which is represented in our passage by the angush/Zzamatrata of the purusha, and favours the ^iva-interpreta- tion. *Sabda, the text remarks, here means jruti, i. e. direct enun- ciation, and jruti ranks, as a means of proof, higher than liriga. I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 25. I97 of the highest Self being of the size of a thumb can be explained with reference to the heart. — To this objection the second half of the Sutra replies : On account of men (only) being entitled. For the ^astra, although propounded without distinction (i. e. although not itself specifying what class of beings is to proceed according to its pre- cepts), does in reality entitle men * only (to act according to its precepts) ; for men only (of the three higher castes) are, firstly, capable (of complying with the precepts of the jastra) ; are, secondly, desirous (of the results of actions enjoined by the ^astra) ; are, thirdly, not excluded by pro- hibitions ; and are, fourthly, subject to the precepts about the upanayana ceremony and so on2. This point has been explained in the section treating of the definition of adhi- kara (Purva Mim. S. VI, 1). — Now the human body has ordinarily a fixed size, and hence the heart also has a fixed size, viz. the size of a thumb.
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.