Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1mental matter out of which everything springs, not a mere effect. — But has not the word a^u the settled meaning of she-goat ? — True ; but the ordinary meaning of the word cannot be accepted in this place, because true knowledge forms the general subject-matter. — That pradhana produces many creatures participating in its three constituent elements. One unborn being loves her and lies by her, i. e. some souls, deluded by ignorance, approach her, and falsely imagining that they experience pleasure or pain, or are in a state of dulness, pass through the course oftransmigratory existence. Other souls, again, which have attained to discriminative knowledge, lose their attachment to prakrzti, and leave her after having enjoyed her, i. e. after she has afforded to them enjoyment and release. — On the ground of this passage, as interpreted above, the 1 As the meaning of the word a^a is going to be discussed, and as the author of the Sutras and *Sarikara seem to disagree as to its meaning (see later on), I prefer to leave the word untranslated in this place. — Sankara reads — and explains, — in the mantra, sarupa^ (not sarupam) and bhuktabhog&m, not bhuktabhogyam. 254 vedanta-s6tr as. followers of Kapila claim the authority of Scripture for their pradhana hypothesis. To this argumentation we reply, that the quoted mantra by no means proves the Sankhya doctrine to be based on Scripture. That mantra, taken by itself, is not able to give additional strength to any doctrine. For, by means of some supposition or other, the terms a^*a, &c. can be reconciled with any doctrine, and there is no reason for the special assertion that the Sankhya doctrine only is meant. The case is analogous to that of the cup mentioned in the mantra, * There is a cup having its mouth below and its bottom above' (Br/. Up. II, 2, 3). Just as it is impossible to decide on the ground of this mantra taken by itself what special cup is meant — it being possible to ascribe, somehow or other, the quality of the mouth being turned downward to any cup — ; so here also there is no special quality stated, so that it is not possible to decide from the mantra itself whether the pradhana is meant by the term a^-a, or some- thing else. — But in connexion with the mantra about the cup we have a supplementary passage from which we learn what kind of cup is meant, ' What is called the cup having its mouth below and its bottom above is this head/ — Whence, however, can we learn what special being is meant by the a^-a of the vSveta^vatara-upanishad ? — To this question the next Sutra replies. 9.
2hat kind of cup is meant, ' What is called the cup having its mouth below and its bottom above is this head/ — Whence, however, can we learn what special being is meant by the a^-a of the vSveta^vatara-upanishad ? — To this question the next Sutra replies. 9. But the (elements) beginning with light (are meant by the term a^i) ; for some read so in their text. By the term a^a we have to understand the causal matter of the four classes of beings, which matter has sprung from the highest Lord and begins with light, i. e. comprises fire, water, and earth. — The word ' but ' (in the Sutra) gives emphasis to the assertion. — This a^a. is to be considered as comprising three elementary substances, not as consisting of three gu^as in the Sankhya sense. We draw this conclusion from the fact that one ^akha, after having related how fire, water, and earth sprang from the highest Lord, assigns to them red colour, and so on. ' The red colour of burning fire I ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 9. 255 (agni) is the colour of the elementary fire (te^as), its white colour is the colour of water, its black colour the colour of earth/ &c. Now those three elements — fire, water, and earth — we recognise in the vSVetcLrvatara passage, as the words red, white, and black are common to both passages, and as these words primarily denote special colours and can be applied to the Sankhya gu/zas in a secondary sense only. That passages whose sense is beyond doubt are to be used for the interpretation of doubtful passages, is a generally acknow- ledged rule. As we therefore find that in the 5veta^vatara — after the general topic has been started in 1, 1, ' The Brahman- students say, Is Brahman the cause?' — the text, previous to the passage under discussion, speaks of a power of the highest Lord which arranges the whole world (' the Sages devoted to meditation and concentration have seen the power belonging to God himself, hidden in its own qualities ') ; and as further that same power is referred to in two subsequent complementary passages (' Know then, Prakrzti is Maya, and the great Lord he who is affected with Maya ; ' ' who being one only rules over every germ ;' IV, 10, 11) ; it cannot possibly be asserted that the mantra treating of the a^*a refers to some independent causal matter called pradhana.
3hen, Prakrzti is Maya, and the great Lord he who is affected with Maya ; ' ' who being one only rules over every germ ;' IV, 10, 11) ; it cannot possibly be asserted that the mantra treating of the a^*a refers to some independent causal matter called pradhana. We rather assert, on the ground of the general subject-matter, that the mantra describes the same divine power referred to in the other passages, in which names and forms lie unevolved, and which we assume as the antecedent condition of that state of the world in which names and forms are evolved. And that divine power is represented as three-coloured, because its products, viz. fire, water, and earth, have three distinct colours. — But how can we maintain, on the ground of fire, water, and earth having three colours, that the causal matter is appropriately called a three-coloured a£*a? if we consider, on the one hand, that the exterior form of the genus a^a (i. e. goat) does not inhere in fire, water, and earth ; and, on the other hand, that Scripture teaches fire, water, and earth to have been pro- duced, so that the word a^a cannot be taken in the sense 'non-produced1/ — To this question the next Sutra replies. 1 Here there seems to be a certain discrepancy between the 256 VEDANTA-S^TRAS. 10. And on account of the statement of the assumption (of a metaphor) there is nothing con- trary to reason (in a^a denoting the causal matter) ; just as in the case of honey (denoting the sun) and similar cases. The word a£*a neither expresses that fire, water, and earth belong to the goat species, nor is it to be explained as meaning 'unborn;' it rather expresses an assumption, i.e. it intimates the assumption of the source of all beings (which source comprises fire, water, and earth), being compared to a she-goat. For as accidentally some she-goat might be partly red, partly white, partly black, and might have many young goats resembling her in colour, and as some he-goat might love her and lie by her, while some other he-goat might leave her after having enjoyed her ; so the universal causal matter which is tri-coloured, because comprising fire, water, and earth, produces many inanimate and animate beings similar to itself, and is enjoyed by the souls fettered by Nescience, while it is abandoned by those souls which have attained true knowlege. — Nor must we imagine that the distinction of individual souls, which is implied in the preceding explanation, involves that reality of the multi- plicity of souls which forms one of the tenets of other philo- sophical schools.
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.
1mental matter out of which everything springs, not a mere effect. — But has not the word a^u the settled meaning of she-goat ? — True ; but the ordinary meaning of the word cannot be accepted in this place, because true knowledge forms the general subject-matter. — That pradhana produces many creatures participating in its three constituent elements. One unborn being loves her and lies by her, i. e. some souls, deluded by ignorance, approach her, and falsely imagining that they experience pleasure or pain, or are in a state of dulness, pass through the course oftransmigratory existence. Other souls, again, which have attained to discriminative knowledge, lose their attachment to prakrzti, and leave her after having enjoyed her, i. e. after she has afforded to them enjoyment and release. — On the ground of this passage, as interpreted above, the 1 As the meaning of the word a^a is going to be discussed, and as the author of the Sutras and *Sarikara seem to disagree as to its meaning (see later on), I prefer to leave the word untranslated in this place. — Sankara reads — and explains, — in the mantra, sarupa^ (not sarupam) and bhuktabhog&m, not bhuktabhogyam. 254 vedanta-s6tr as. followers of Kapila claim the authority of Scripture for their pradhana hypothesis. To this argumentation we reply, that the quoted mantra by no means proves the Sankhya doctrine to be based on Scripture. That mantra, taken by itself, is not able to give additional strength to any doctrine. For, by means of some supposition or other, the terms a^*a, &c. can be reconciled with any doctrine, and there is no reason for the special assertion that the Sankhya doctrine only is meant. The case is analogous to that of the cup mentioned in the mantra, * There is a cup having its mouth below and its bottom above' (Br/. Up. II, 2, 3). Just as it is impossible to decide on the ground of this mantra taken by itself what special cup is meant — it being possible to ascribe, somehow or other, the quality of the mouth being turned downward to any cup — ; so here also there is no special quality stated, so that it is not possible to decide from the mantra itself whether the pradhana is meant by the term a^-a, or some- thing else. — But in connexion with the mantra about the cup we have a supplementary passage from which we learn what kind of cup is meant, ' What is called the cup having its mouth below and its bottom above is this head/ — Whence, however, can we learn what special being is meant by the a^-a of the vSveta^vatara-upanishad ? — To this question the next Sutra replies. 9.
2hat kind of cup is meant, ' What is called the cup having its mouth below and its bottom above is this head/ — Whence, however, can we learn what special being is meant by the a^-a of the vSveta^vatara-upanishad ? — To this question the next Sutra replies. 9. But the (elements) beginning with light (are meant by the term a^i) ; for some read so in their text. By the term a^a we have to understand the causal matter of the four classes of beings, which matter has sprung from the highest Lord and begins with light, i. e. comprises fire, water, and earth. — The word ' but ' (in the Sutra) gives emphasis to the assertion. — This a^a. is to be considered as comprising three elementary substances, not as consisting of three gu^as in the Sankhya sense. We draw this conclusion from the fact that one ^akha, after having related how fire, water, and earth sprang from the highest Lord, assigns to them red colour, and so on. ' The red colour of burning fire I ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 9. 255 (agni) is the colour of the elementary fire (te^as), its white colour is the colour of water, its black colour the colour of earth/ &c. Now those three elements — fire, water, and earth — we recognise in the vSVetcLrvatara passage, as the words red, white, and black are common to both passages, and as these words primarily denote special colours and can be applied to the Sankhya gu/zas in a secondary sense only. That passages whose sense is beyond doubt are to be used for the interpretation of doubtful passages, is a generally acknow- ledged rule. As we therefore find that in the 5veta^vatara — after the general topic has been started in 1, 1, ' The Brahman- students say, Is Brahman the cause?' — the text, previous to the passage under discussion, speaks of a power of the highest Lord which arranges the whole world (' the Sages devoted to meditation and concentration have seen the power belonging to God himself, hidden in its own qualities ') ; and as further that same power is referred to in two subsequent complementary passages (' Know then, Prakrzti is Maya, and the great Lord he who is affected with Maya ; ' ' who being one only rules over every germ ;' IV, 10, 11) ; it cannot possibly be asserted that the mantra treating of the a^*a refers to some independent causal matter called pradhana.
3hen, Prakrzti is Maya, and the great Lord he who is affected with Maya ; ' ' who being one only rules over every germ ;' IV, 10, 11) ; it cannot possibly be asserted that the mantra treating of the a^*a refers to some independent causal matter called pradhana. We rather assert, on the ground of the general subject-matter, that the mantra describes the same divine power referred to in the other passages, in which names and forms lie unevolved, and which we assume as the antecedent condition of that state of the world in which names and forms are evolved. And that divine power is represented as three-coloured, because its products, viz. fire, water, and earth, have three distinct colours. — But how can we maintain, on the ground of fire, water, and earth having three colours, that the causal matter is appropriately called a three-coloured a£*a? if we consider, on the one hand, that the exterior form of the genus a^a (i. e. goat) does not inhere in fire, water, and earth ; and, on the other hand, that Scripture teaches fire, water, and earth to have been pro- duced, so that the word a^a cannot be taken in the sense 'non-produced1/ — To this question the next Sutra replies. 1 Here there seems to be a certain discrepancy between the 256 VEDANTA-S^TRAS. 10. And on account of the statement of the assumption (of a metaphor) there is nothing con- trary to reason (in a^a denoting the causal matter) ; just as in the case of honey (denoting the sun) and similar cases. The word a£*a neither expresses that fire, water, and earth belong to the goat species, nor is it to be explained as meaning 'unborn;' it rather expresses an assumption, i.e. it intimates the assumption of the source of all beings (which source comprises fire, water, and earth), being compared to a she-goat. For as accidentally some she-goat might be partly red, partly white, partly black, and might have many young goats resembling her in colour, and as some he-goat might love her and lie by her, while some other he-goat might leave her after having enjoyed her ; so the universal causal matter which is tri-coloured, because comprising fire, water, and earth, produces many inanimate and animate beings similar to itself, and is enjoyed by the souls fettered by Nescience, while it is abandoned by those souls which have attained true knowlege. — Nor must we imagine that the distinction of individual souls, which is implied in the preceding explanation, involves that reality of the multi- plicity of souls which forms one of the tenets of other philo- sophical schools.
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.