Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1c. ; a statement contradicted by perception). 22 2 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. without such the sacrificer could not represent Indra and the other gods to his mind. And if the divinity were not represented to the mind it would not be possible to make an offering to it. So Scripture also says, ' Of that divinity for which the offering is taken he is to think when about to say vausha/' (Ai. Br. Ill, 8, i). Nor is it possible to con- sider the essential form (or character) of a thing to consist in the word only1; for word (denoting) and thing (denoted) are different. He therefore who admits the authorita- tiveness of the scriptural word has no right to deny that the shape of Indra, and the other gods, is such as we understand it to be from the mantras and arthavadas. — Moreover, itihasas and pura;zas also — because based on mantra and arthavada which possess authoritative power in the manner described — are capable or setting forth the per- sonality, &c. of the devas. Itihasa and pura^a can, besides, be considered as based on perception also. For what is not accessible to our perception may have been within the sphere of perception of people in ancient times. Smriti also declares that Vyasa and others conversed with the gods face to face. A person maintaining that the people of ancient times were no more able to converse with the gods than people are at present, would thereby deny the (incon- testable) variety of the world. He might as well maintain that because there is at present no prince ruling over the whole earth, there were no such princes in former times ; a position by which the scriptural injunction of the ra^asuya- sacrifice2 would be stultified. Or he might maintain that in former times the spheres of duty of the different castes and Isramas were as generally unsettled as they are now, and, on that account, declare those parts of Scripture which define those different duties to be purposeless. It is there- fore altogether unobjectionable to assume that the men of ancient times, in consequence of their eminent religious 1 And therefore to suppose that a divinity is nothing but a certain word forming part of a mantra. 2 The ra^asiry a- sacrifice is to be offered by a prince who wishes to become the ruler of the whole earth. I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 34. 223 merit, conversed with the gods face to face. Smrzti also declares that * from the reading of the Veda there results intercourse with the favourite divinity ' (Yoga Sutra II, 44).
2ho wishes to become the ruler of the whole earth. I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 34. 223 merit, conversed with the gods face to face. Smrzti also declares that * from the reading of the Veda there results intercourse with the favourite divinity ' (Yoga Sutra II, 44). And that Yoga does, as Smr/ti declares, lead to the acquirement of extraordinary powers, such as subtlety of body, and so on, is a fact which cannot be set aside by a mere arbitrary denial. Scripture also proclaims the great- ness of Yoga, ' When, as earth, water, light, heat, and ether arise, the fivefold quality of Yoga takes place, then there is no longer illness, old age, or pain for him who has obtained a body produced by the fire of Yoga' (vSVet. Up. II, 13). Nor have we the right to measure by our capabilities the capability of the rishis who see the mantras and brahma^a passages (i. e. the Veda). — From all this it appears that the itihasas and pura^as have an adequate basis. — And the conceptions of ordinary life also must not be declared to be unfounded, if it is at all possible to accept them. The general result is that we have the right to conceive the gods as possessing personal existence, on the ground of mantras, arthavadas, itihasas, pura^as, and ordinarily prevailing ideas. And as the gods may thus be in the con- dition of having desires and so on, they must be considered as qualified for the knowledge of Brahman. Moreover, the declarations which Scripture makes concerning gradual emancipation 1 agree with this latter supposition only. 34. Grief of him (i. e. of Ganasruti) (arose) on account of his hearing a disrespectful speech about himself; on account of the rushing on of that (grief) (Raikva called him .Sudra) ; for it (the grief) is pointed at (by Raikva). (In the preceding adhikara^a) the exclusiveness of the claim of men to knowledge has been refuted, and it has been declared that the gods, &c. also possess such a claim. The present adhikara^a is entered on for the purpose of removing the doubt whether, as the exclusiveness of the 1 In one of whose stages the being desirous of final emancipation becomes a deva. 2 24 VEDANTA-S^TRAS. claim of twice-born men is capable of refutation, the .Sudras also possess such a claim. The purvapakshin maintains that the vSudras also have such a claim, because they may be in the position of desiring that knowledge, and because they are capable of it ; and because there is no scriptural prohibition (ex- cluding them from knowledge) analogous to the text, ' Therefore * the 5udra is unfit for sacrificing ' (Taitt. Sa/^h. VII, i, i, 6).
3the position of desiring that knowledge, and because they are capable of it ; and because there is no scriptural prohibition (ex- cluding them from knowledge) analogous to the text, ' Therefore * the 5udra is unfit for sacrificing ' (Taitt. Sa/^h. VII, i, i, 6). The reason, moreover, which disqualifies the vSudras for sacrificial works, viz. their being without the sacred fires, does not invalidate their qualification for know- ledge, as knowledge can be apprehended by those also who are without the fires. There is besides an inferential mark supporting the claim of the 5udras ; for in the so-called sa^/varga-knowledge he (Raikva) refers to Gana.yruti Pautraya^a, who wishes to learn from him, by the name of 5udra 'Fie, necklace and carriage be thine, O Sudra, together with the cows ' {Kh. Up. IV, 2, 3). Smrz'ti moreover speaks of Vidura and others who were born from vSudra mothers as possessing eminent knowledge. — Hence the vSudra has a claim to the knowledge of Brahman. To this we reply that the 6udras have no such claim, on account of their not studying the Veda. A person who has studied the Veda and understood its sense is indeed qualified for Vedic matters ; but a Sudra does not study the Veda, for such study demands as its antecedent the upanayana-ceremony, and that ceremony belongs to the three (higher) castes only. The mere circumstance of being in a condition of desire does not furnish a reason for qualification, if capability is absent. Mere temporal capability again does not constitute a reason for qualification, spiritual capability being required in spiritual matters. And spiritual capability is (in the case of the vSudras) excluded by their being excluded from the study of the Veda. — The Vedic statement, moreover, that the vSudra is unfit for sacrifices intimates, because 1 The commentaries explain ' therefore ' by l on account of his being devoid of the three sacred fires/ This explanation does not, however, agree with the context of the Taitt. Sawh. I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 34. 225 founded on reasoning, that he is unfit for knowledge also ; for the argumentation is the same in both cases1. — With reference to the purvapakshin's opinion that the fact of the word ' 6udra ' being enounced in the sa//zvarga-knowledge constitutes an inferential mark (of the Sudra's qualifica- tion for knowledge), we remark that that inferential mark has no force, on account of the absence of arguments.
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.
1c. ; a statement contradicted by perception). 22 2 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. without such the sacrificer could not represent Indra and the other gods to his mind. And if the divinity were not represented to the mind it would not be possible to make an offering to it. So Scripture also says, ' Of that divinity for which the offering is taken he is to think when about to say vausha/' (Ai. Br. Ill, 8, i). Nor is it possible to con- sider the essential form (or character) of a thing to consist in the word only1; for word (denoting) and thing (denoted) are different. He therefore who admits the authorita- tiveness of the scriptural word has no right to deny that the shape of Indra, and the other gods, is such as we understand it to be from the mantras and arthavadas. — Moreover, itihasas and pura;zas also — because based on mantra and arthavada which possess authoritative power in the manner described — are capable or setting forth the per- sonality, &c. of the devas. Itihasa and pura^a can, besides, be considered as based on perception also. For what is not accessible to our perception may have been within the sphere of perception of people in ancient times. Smriti also declares that Vyasa and others conversed with the gods face to face. A person maintaining that the people of ancient times were no more able to converse with the gods than people are at present, would thereby deny the (incon- testable) variety of the world. He might as well maintain that because there is at present no prince ruling over the whole earth, there were no such princes in former times ; a position by which the scriptural injunction of the ra^asuya- sacrifice2 would be stultified. Or he might maintain that in former times the spheres of duty of the different castes and Isramas were as generally unsettled as they are now, and, on that account, declare those parts of Scripture which define those different duties to be purposeless. It is there- fore altogether unobjectionable to assume that the men of ancient times, in consequence of their eminent religious 1 And therefore to suppose that a divinity is nothing but a certain word forming part of a mantra. 2 The ra^asiry a- sacrifice is to be offered by a prince who wishes to become the ruler of the whole earth. I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 34. 223 merit, conversed with the gods face to face. Smrzti also declares that * from the reading of the Veda there results intercourse with the favourite divinity ' (Yoga Sutra II, 44).
2ho wishes to become the ruler of the whole earth. I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 34. 223 merit, conversed with the gods face to face. Smrzti also declares that * from the reading of the Veda there results intercourse with the favourite divinity ' (Yoga Sutra II, 44). And that Yoga does, as Smr/ti declares, lead to the acquirement of extraordinary powers, such as subtlety of body, and so on, is a fact which cannot be set aside by a mere arbitrary denial. Scripture also proclaims the great- ness of Yoga, ' When, as earth, water, light, heat, and ether arise, the fivefold quality of Yoga takes place, then there is no longer illness, old age, or pain for him who has obtained a body produced by the fire of Yoga' (vSVet. Up. II, 13). Nor have we the right to measure by our capabilities the capability of the rishis who see the mantras and brahma^a passages (i. e. the Veda). — From all this it appears that the itihasas and pura^as have an adequate basis. — And the conceptions of ordinary life also must not be declared to be unfounded, if it is at all possible to accept them. The general result is that we have the right to conceive the gods as possessing personal existence, on the ground of mantras, arthavadas, itihasas, pura^as, and ordinarily prevailing ideas. And as the gods may thus be in the con- dition of having desires and so on, they must be considered as qualified for the knowledge of Brahman. Moreover, the declarations which Scripture makes concerning gradual emancipation 1 agree with this latter supposition only. 34. Grief of him (i. e. of Ganasruti) (arose) on account of his hearing a disrespectful speech about himself; on account of the rushing on of that (grief) (Raikva called him .Sudra) ; for it (the grief) is pointed at (by Raikva). (In the preceding adhikara^a) the exclusiveness of the claim of men to knowledge has been refuted, and it has been declared that the gods, &c. also possess such a claim. The present adhikara^a is entered on for the purpose of removing the doubt whether, as the exclusiveness of the 1 In one of whose stages the being desirous of final emancipation becomes a deva. 2 24 VEDANTA-S^TRAS. claim of twice-born men is capable of refutation, the .Sudras also possess such a claim. The purvapakshin maintains that the vSudras also have such a claim, because they may be in the position of desiring that knowledge, and because they are capable of it ; and because there is no scriptural prohibition (ex- cluding them from knowledge) analogous to the text, ' Therefore * the 5udra is unfit for sacrificing ' (Taitt. Sa/^h. VII, i, i, 6).
3the position of desiring that knowledge, and because they are capable of it ; and because there is no scriptural prohibition (ex- cluding them from knowledge) analogous to the text, ' Therefore * the 5udra is unfit for sacrificing ' (Taitt. Sa/^h. VII, i, i, 6). The reason, moreover, which disqualifies the vSudras for sacrificial works, viz. their being without the sacred fires, does not invalidate their qualification for know- ledge, as knowledge can be apprehended by those also who are without the fires. There is besides an inferential mark supporting the claim of the 5udras ; for in the so-called sa^/varga-knowledge he (Raikva) refers to Gana.yruti Pautraya^a, who wishes to learn from him, by the name of 5udra 'Fie, necklace and carriage be thine, O Sudra, together with the cows ' {Kh. Up. IV, 2, 3). Smrz'ti moreover speaks of Vidura and others who were born from vSudra mothers as possessing eminent knowledge. — Hence the vSudra has a claim to the knowledge of Brahman. To this we reply that the 6udras have no such claim, on account of their not studying the Veda. A person who has studied the Veda and understood its sense is indeed qualified for Vedic matters ; but a Sudra does not study the Veda, for such study demands as its antecedent the upanayana-ceremony, and that ceremony belongs to the three (higher) castes only. The mere circumstance of being in a condition of desire does not furnish a reason for qualification, if capability is absent. Mere temporal capability again does not constitute a reason for qualification, spiritual capability being required in spiritual matters. And spiritual capability is (in the case of the vSudras) excluded by their being excluded from the study of the Veda. — The Vedic statement, moreover, that the vSudra is unfit for sacrifices intimates, because 1 The commentaries explain ' therefore ' by l on account of his being devoid of the three sacred fires/ This explanation does not, however, agree with the context of the Taitt. Sawh. I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 34. 225 founded on reasoning, that he is unfit for knowledge also ; for the argumentation is the same in both cases1. — With reference to the purvapakshin's opinion that the fact of the word ' 6udra ' being enounced in the sa//zvarga-knowledge constitutes an inferential mark (of the Sudra's qualifica- tion for knowledge), we remark that that inferential mark has no force, on account of the absence of arguments.
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.