Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1h the same embodied Self, represented in its different states, viz. the waking state, and so on. In reply to this, we maintain that the passage aims only at giving information about the highest Lord, not at making additional statements about the embodied soul. — Why? — On account of the highest Lord being designated as different from the embodied soul, in the states of deep sleep and of departing from the body. His difference from the embodied soul in the state of deep sleep is declared in the following passage, ' This person embraced by the intelligent (pra^a) Self knows nothing that is without, nothing that is within.' Here the term, ' the person,' must mean the embodied soul ; for of him it is possible to deny that he knows, because he, as being the knower, may know what is within and without. The ' intelligent Self,' on the other hand, is the highest Lord, because he is never dissociated from intelligence, i. e. — in his case — all-embracing knowledge. — Similarly, the passage treating of departure, i. e. death (' this bodily Self mounted by the intelligent Self moves along groaning '), refers to the highest Lord as different from the individual Self. There also we have to understand by the ' embodied one ' the indi- I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 42. 235 vidual soul which is the Lord of the body, while the c intel- ligent one ' is again the Lord. We thus understand that ' on account of his being designated as something different, in the states of deep sleep and departure/ the highest Lord forms the subject of the passage. — With reference to the purvapakshin's assertion that the entire chapter refers to the embodied Self, because indicatory marks of the latter are found in its beginning, middle, and end, we remark that in the first place the introductory passage (' He among the pra«as who consists of cognition') does not aim at setting forth the character of the transmigrating Self, but rather, while merely referring to the nature of the transmigrating Self as something already known, aims at declaring its identity with the highest Brahman; for it is manifest that the immediately subsequent passage, 'as if thinking, as if moving1,' aims at discarding the attributes of the transmigrating Self. The concluding pas- sage again is analogous to the initial one ; for the words, ' And that great unborn Self is he who/ &c, mean : We have shown that that same cognitional Self, which is observed among the prd^as, is the great unborn Self, i. e. the highest Lord.
2concluding pas- sage again is analogous to the initial one ; for the words, ' And that great unborn Self is he who/ &c, mean : We have shown that that same cognitional Self, which is observed among the prd^as, is the great unborn Self, i. e. the highest Lord. — He, again, who imagines that the pas- sages intervening (between the two quoted) aim at setting forth the nature of the transmigrating Self by represent- ing it in the waking state, and so on, is like a man who, setting out towards the east, wants to set out at the same time towards the west. For in representing the states of waking, and so on, the passage does not aim at describing the soul as subject to different states or transmigration, but rather as free from all particular conditions and trans- migration. This is evident from the circumstance that on kanaka's question, which is repeated in every section, * Speak on for the sake of emancipation/ Ya^avalkya replies each time, ' By all that he is not affected, for that person is not attached to anything' (Br/. Up. IV, 3, 14-16). And later on he says (IV, 3, %%\ i He is not followed by 1 The stress lies here on the ' as if/ which intimate that the Self does not really think or move. 236 vedanta-sOtras. good, not followed by evil, for he has then overcome all the sorrows of the heart.' We have, therefore, to conclude that the chapter exclusively aims at setting forth the nature of the non-transmigrating Self. 43. And on account of such words as Lord, &c. That the chapter aims at setting forth the nature of the non-transmigrating Self, we have to conclude from that circumstance also that there occur in it terms such as Lord and so on, intimating the nature of the non-transmigrating Self, and others excluding the nature of the transmigrating Self. To the first class belongs, for instance, ' He is the lord of all, the king of all things, the protector of all things/ To the latter class belongs the passage, ' He does not be- come greater by good works, nor smaller by evil works.' — From all which we conclude that the chapter refers to the non-transmigrating highest Lord. I ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, I. 237 FOURTH PADA. Reverence to the highest Self! 1. If it be said that some (mention) that which is based on inference (i. e. the pradhana) ; we deny this, because (the term alluded to) refers to what is con- tained in the simile of the body (i.e. the body itself) ; and (that the text) shows.
3ighest Self! 1. If it be said that some (mention) that which is based on inference (i. e. the pradhana) ; we deny this, because (the term alluded to) refers to what is con- tained in the simile of the body (i.e. the body itself) ; and (that the text) shows. In the preceding part of this work — as whose topic there has been set forth an enquiry into Brahman — we have at first defined Brahman (I, 1, 2) ; we have thereupon refuted the objection that that definition applies to the pradhana also, by showing that there is no scriptural authority for the latter (1, 1, 5), and we have shown in detail that the common purport of all Vedanta-texts is to set forth the doctrine that Brahman, and not the pradhana, is the cause of the world. Here, however, the Sankhya again raises an objection which he considers not to have been finally disposed of. It has not, he says, been satisfactorily proved that there is no scriptural authority for the pradhana ; for some ^akhas contain expressions which seem to convey the idea of the pradhana. From this it follows that Kapila and other supreme rzshis maintain the doctrine of the pradhana being the general cause only because it is based on the Veda. — As long therefore as it has not been proved that those passages to which the Sankhyas refer have a different meaning (i. e. do not allude to the pradhana), all our previous argumentation as to the omniscient Brahman being the cause of the world must be considered as unsettled. We there- fore now begin a new chapter which aims at proving that those passages actually have a different meaning. The Sankhyas maintain that that also which is based on inference, i. e. the pradhana, is perceived in the text of some .sakhas. We read, for instance, they say, in the Kanaka (I, 3, 11), ' Beyond the Great there is the Undeveloped, 238 VEDANTA-sfiTRAS. beyond the Undeveloped there is the Person.' There we recognise, named by the same names and enumerated in the same order, the three entities with which we are acquainted from the Sankhya-smr/ti, viz. the great principle, the Un- developed (the pradhana), and the soul 1. That by the Un- developed is meant the pradhana is to be concluded from the common use of Smrzti and from the etymological inter- pretation of which the word admits, the pradhana being called undeveloped because it is devoid of sound and other qualities. It cannot therefore be asserted that there is no scriptural authority for the pradhana. And this pradhana vouched for by Scripture we declare to be the cause of the world, on the ground of Scripture, Smr/ti, and ratiocination.
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.
1h the same embodied Self, represented in its different states, viz. the waking state, and so on. In reply to this, we maintain that the passage aims only at giving information about the highest Lord, not at making additional statements about the embodied soul. — Why? — On account of the highest Lord being designated as different from the embodied soul, in the states of deep sleep and of departing from the body. His difference from the embodied soul in the state of deep sleep is declared in the following passage, ' This person embraced by the intelligent (pra^a) Self knows nothing that is without, nothing that is within.' Here the term, ' the person,' must mean the embodied soul ; for of him it is possible to deny that he knows, because he, as being the knower, may know what is within and without. The ' intelligent Self,' on the other hand, is the highest Lord, because he is never dissociated from intelligence, i. e. — in his case — all-embracing knowledge. — Similarly, the passage treating of departure, i. e. death (' this bodily Self mounted by the intelligent Self moves along groaning '), refers to the highest Lord as different from the individual Self. There also we have to understand by the ' embodied one ' the indi- I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 42. 235 vidual soul which is the Lord of the body, while the c intel- ligent one ' is again the Lord. We thus understand that ' on account of his being designated as something different, in the states of deep sleep and departure/ the highest Lord forms the subject of the passage. — With reference to the purvapakshin's assertion that the entire chapter refers to the embodied Self, because indicatory marks of the latter are found in its beginning, middle, and end, we remark that in the first place the introductory passage (' He among the pra«as who consists of cognition') does not aim at setting forth the character of the transmigrating Self, but rather, while merely referring to the nature of the transmigrating Self as something already known, aims at declaring its identity with the highest Brahman; for it is manifest that the immediately subsequent passage, 'as if thinking, as if moving1,' aims at discarding the attributes of the transmigrating Self. The concluding pas- sage again is analogous to the initial one ; for the words, ' And that great unborn Self is he who/ &c, mean : We have shown that that same cognitional Self, which is observed among the prd^as, is the great unborn Self, i. e. the highest Lord.
2concluding pas- sage again is analogous to the initial one ; for the words, ' And that great unborn Self is he who/ &c, mean : We have shown that that same cognitional Self, which is observed among the prd^as, is the great unborn Self, i. e. the highest Lord. — He, again, who imagines that the pas- sages intervening (between the two quoted) aim at setting forth the nature of the transmigrating Self by represent- ing it in the waking state, and so on, is like a man who, setting out towards the east, wants to set out at the same time towards the west. For in representing the states of waking, and so on, the passage does not aim at describing the soul as subject to different states or transmigration, but rather as free from all particular conditions and trans- migration. This is evident from the circumstance that on kanaka's question, which is repeated in every section, * Speak on for the sake of emancipation/ Ya^avalkya replies each time, ' By all that he is not affected, for that person is not attached to anything' (Br/. Up. IV, 3, 14-16). And later on he says (IV, 3, %%\ i He is not followed by 1 The stress lies here on the ' as if/ which intimate that the Self does not really think or move. 236 vedanta-sOtras. good, not followed by evil, for he has then overcome all the sorrows of the heart.' We have, therefore, to conclude that the chapter exclusively aims at setting forth the nature of the non-transmigrating Self. 43. And on account of such words as Lord, &c. That the chapter aims at setting forth the nature of the non-transmigrating Self, we have to conclude from that circumstance also that there occur in it terms such as Lord and so on, intimating the nature of the non-transmigrating Self, and others excluding the nature of the transmigrating Self. To the first class belongs, for instance, ' He is the lord of all, the king of all things, the protector of all things/ To the latter class belongs the passage, ' He does not be- come greater by good works, nor smaller by evil works.' — From all which we conclude that the chapter refers to the non-transmigrating highest Lord. I ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, I. 237 FOURTH PADA. Reverence to the highest Self! 1. If it be said that some (mention) that which is based on inference (i. e. the pradhana) ; we deny this, because (the term alluded to) refers to what is con- tained in the simile of the body (i.e. the body itself) ; and (that the text) shows.
3ighest Self! 1. If it be said that some (mention) that which is based on inference (i. e. the pradhana) ; we deny this, because (the term alluded to) refers to what is con- tained in the simile of the body (i.e. the body itself) ; and (that the text) shows. In the preceding part of this work — as whose topic there has been set forth an enquiry into Brahman — we have at first defined Brahman (I, 1, 2) ; we have thereupon refuted the objection that that definition applies to the pradhana also, by showing that there is no scriptural authority for the latter (1, 1, 5), and we have shown in detail that the common purport of all Vedanta-texts is to set forth the doctrine that Brahman, and not the pradhana, is the cause of the world. Here, however, the Sankhya again raises an objection which he considers not to have been finally disposed of. It has not, he says, been satisfactorily proved that there is no scriptural authority for the pradhana ; for some ^akhas contain expressions which seem to convey the idea of the pradhana. From this it follows that Kapila and other supreme rzshis maintain the doctrine of the pradhana being the general cause only because it is based on the Veda. — As long therefore as it has not been proved that those passages to which the Sankhyas refer have a different meaning (i. e. do not allude to the pradhana), all our previous argumentation as to the omniscient Brahman being the cause of the world must be considered as unsettled. We there- fore now begin a new chapter which aims at proving that those passages actually have a different meaning. The Sankhyas maintain that that also which is based on inference, i. e. the pradhana, is perceived in the text of some .sakhas. We read, for instance, they say, in the Kanaka (I, 3, 11), ' Beyond the Great there is the Undeveloped, 238 VEDANTA-sfiTRAS. beyond the Undeveloped there is the Person.' There we recognise, named by the same names and enumerated in the same order, the three entities with which we are acquainted from the Sankhya-smr/ti, viz. the great principle, the Un- developed (the pradhana), and the soul 1. That by the Un- developed is meant the pradhana is to be concluded from the common use of Smrzti and from the etymological inter- pretation of which the word admits, the pradhana being called undeveloped because it is devoid of sound and other qualities. It cannot therefore be asserted that there is no scriptural authority for the pradhana. And this pradhana vouched for by Scripture we declare to be the cause of the world, on the ground of Scripture, Smr/ti, and ratiocination.
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.