Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1uls 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. For the purport of the passage is to intimate, not the multiplicity of souls, but the distinction of views of the Sutra writer and -Sahkara. GovincMnanda notes that according to the Bhashyakr/'t ag& means simply maya — which interpretation is based on prakarawa— while, according to the Sutra- krz't, who explains a^a on the ground of the iTMndogya-passage treating of the three primary elements, a^a denotes the aggregate of those three elements constituting an avantaraprakrzti. — On *Sah- kara's explanation the term a^a presents no difficulties, for mayd is a^-a, i.e. unborn, not produced. On the explanation of the Sutra writer, however, a^u cannot mean unborn, since the three primary elements are products. Hence we are thrown back on the r&d/ii signification of a^a, according to which it means she-goat. But how can the avantara-prakrz'ti be called a she-goat? To this question the next Sutra replies. I ADHYAYA, \ PADA, II. 257 the states of bondage and release. This latter distinction is explained with reference to the multiplicity of souls as ordinarily conceived ; that multiplicity, however, depends altogether on limiting adjuncts, and is the unreal product of wrong knowledge merely ; as we know from scriptural passages such as, ' He is the one God hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the Self in all beings,5 &c. — The words ' like the honey ' (in the Sutra) mean that just as the sun, although not being honey, is represented as honey (Kh. Up. Ill, 1), and speech as a cow (Br/. Up. V, 8), and the heavenly world, &c. as the fires (Br/. Up. VI, 2, 9), so here the causal matter, although not being a she-goat, is metaphori- cally represented as one. There is therefore nothing con- trary to reason in the circumstance of the term a^a being used to denote the aggregate of fire, water, and earth. 11. (The assertion that there is scriptural autho- rity for the pradhana, &c. can) also not (be based) on the mention of the number (of the Sankhya categories), on account of the diversity (of the categories) and on account of the excess (over the number of those categories).
2ion that there is scriptural autho- rity for the pradhana, &c. can) also not (be based) on the mention of the number (of the Sankhya categories), on account of the diversity (of the categories) and on account of the excess (over the number of those categories). The attempt to base the Sankhya doctrine on the mantra speaking of the a^*a having failed, the Sankhya again comes forward and points to another mantra : ' He in whom the five "five-people" and the ether rest, him alone I believe to be the Self; I who know believe him to be Brahman' (Br/. Up. IV, 4, 17). In this mantra we have one word which expresses the number ftvz, viz. the five-people, and then another word, viz. five, which qualifies the former ; these two words together therefore convey the idea of five pentads, i.e. twenty-five. Now as many beings as the number twenty- five presupposes, just so many categories the Sankhya system counts. Cp. Sankhya Karika, 3 : ' The funda- mental causal substance (i.e. the pradhana) is not an effect. Seven (substances), viz. the Great one (Intellect), and so on, are causal substances as well as effects. Sixteen are effects. The soul is neither a causal substance nor an effect.' [34] S 258 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. As therefore the number twenty-five, which occurs in the scriptural passage quoted, clearly refers to the twenty-five categories taught in the Sankhya-smrzti, it follows that the doctrine of the pradhana, &c. rests on a scriptural basis. To this reasoning we make the following reply. — It is impossible to base the assertion that the pradhana, &c. have Scripture in their favour on the reference to their number which you pretend to find in the text, ' on account of the diversity of the Sankhya categories.' The Sankhya categories have each their individual difference, and there are no attributes belonging in common to each pentad on account of which the number twenty-five could be divided into five times five. For a number of individually separate things can, in general, not be combined into smaller groups of two or three, &c. unless there be a special reason for such combination. — Here the Sankhya will perhaps rejoin that the expression five (times) five is used only to denote the number twenty-five which has five pentads for its constituent parts; just as the poem says, 'five years and seven Indra did not rain,' meaning only that there was no rain for twelve years. — But this explanation also is not tenable. In the first place, it is liable to the objection that it has recourse to indirect indication 1.
3ust as the poem says, 'five years and seven Indra did not rain,' meaning only that there was no rain for twelve years. — But this explanation also is not tenable. In the first place, it is liable to the objection that it has recourse to indirect indication 1. — In the second place, the second ' five ' constitutes a compound with the word 'people,' the Brahma/za-accent showing that the two form one word only2. To the same conclusion we are led by another passage also (Taitt. Samh. I, 6, 3, 2, pankkniitn tva pa^a^ananam, &c.) where the two terms constitute one word, have one accent and one case- 1 Indication (laksha#a, which consists in this case in five times five being used instead of twenty-five) is considered as an objectionable mode of expression, and therefore to be assumed in interpretation only where a term can in no way be shown to have a direct meaning. 2 That ^nk&gzx&h is only one word appears from its having only one accent, viz. the udatta on the last syllable, which udatta becomes anudatta according to the rules laid down in the Bhashika Sutra for the accentuation of the ^atapatha-brahmawa. I ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, II. 259 termination. The word thus being a compound there is neither a repetition of the word 'five,' involving two pentads, nor does the one five qualify the other, as the mere secondary member of a compound cannot be qualified by another word. — But as the people are already denoted to be five by the compound ' five-people,' the effect of the other 'five' qualifying the compound will be that we understand twenty-five people to be meant; just as the expression 'five five-bundles' (panka, pankapvXyah) conveys the idea of twenty-five bundles. — The instance is not an analogous one, we reply. The word ' pa#/£apuli ' denotes a unity (i. e. one bundle made up of five bundles), and hence when the question arises, ' How many such bundles are there ? ' it can be qualified by the word ' five,' indicating that there are five such bundles. The word pa^a^ana//, on the other hand, conveys at once the idea of distinction (i.e. of five distinct things), so that there is no room at all for a further desire to know how many people there are, and hence no room for a further qualification. And if the word 'five' be taken as a qualifying word it can only qualify the numeral five (in five-people); the objection against which assumption has already been stated. — For all these reasons the expression the five five-people cannot denote the twenty-five categories of the Sankhyas.
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.
1uls 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. For the purport of the passage is to intimate, not the multiplicity of souls, but the distinction of views of the Sutra writer and -Sahkara. GovincMnanda notes that according to the Bhashyakr/'t ag& means simply maya — which interpretation is based on prakarawa— while, according to the Sutra- krz't, who explains a^a on the ground of the iTMndogya-passage treating of the three primary elements, a^a denotes the aggregate of those three elements constituting an avantaraprakrzti. — On *Sah- kara's explanation the term a^a presents no difficulties, for mayd is a^-a, i.e. unborn, not produced. On the explanation of the Sutra writer, however, a^u cannot mean unborn, since the three primary elements are products. Hence we are thrown back on the r&d/ii signification of a^a, according to which it means she-goat. But how can the avantara-prakrz'ti be called a she-goat? To this question the next Sutra replies. I ADHYAYA, \ PADA, II. 257 the states of bondage and release. This latter distinction is explained with reference to the multiplicity of souls as ordinarily conceived ; that multiplicity, however, depends altogether on limiting adjuncts, and is the unreal product of wrong knowledge merely ; as we know from scriptural passages such as, ' He is the one God hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the Self in all beings,5 &c. — The words ' like the honey ' (in the Sutra) mean that just as the sun, although not being honey, is represented as honey (Kh. Up. Ill, 1), and speech as a cow (Br/. Up. V, 8), and the heavenly world, &c. as the fires (Br/. Up. VI, 2, 9), so here the causal matter, although not being a she-goat, is metaphori- cally represented as one. There is therefore nothing con- trary to reason in the circumstance of the term a^a being used to denote the aggregate of fire, water, and earth. 11. (The assertion that there is scriptural autho- rity for the pradhana, &c. can) also not (be based) on the mention of the number (of the Sankhya categories), on account of the diversity (of the categories) and on account of the excess (over the number of those categories).
2ion that there is scriptural autho- rity for the pradhana, &c. can) also not (be based) on the mention of the number (of the Sankhya categories), on account of the diversity (of the categories) and on account of the excess (over the number of those categories). The attempt to base the Sankhya doctrine on the mantra speaking of the a^*a having failed, the Sankhya again comes forward and points to another mantra : ' He in whom the five "five-people" and the ether rest, him alone I believe to be the Self; I who know believe him to be Brahman' (Br/. Up. IV, 4, 17). In this mantra we have one word which expresses the number ftvz, viz. the five-people, and then another word, viz. five, which qualifies the former ; these two words together therefore convey the idea of five pentads, i.e. twenty-five. Now as many beings as the number twenty- five presupposes, just so many categories the Sankhya system counts. Cp. Sankhya Karika, 3 : ' The funda- mental causal substance (i.e. the pradhana) is not an effect. Seven (substances), viz. the Great one (Intellect), and so on, are causal substances as well as effects. Sixteen are effects. The soul is neither a causal substance nor an effect.' [34] S 258 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. As therefore the number twenty-five, which occurs in the scriptural passage quoted, clearly refers to the twenty-five categories taught in the Sankhya-smrzti, it follows that the doctrine of the pradhana, &c. rests on a scriptural basis. To this reasoning we make the following reply. — It is impossible to base the assertion that the pradhana, &c. have Scripture in their favour on the reference to their number which you pretend to find in the text, ' on account of the diversity of the Sankhya categories.' The Sankhya categories have each their individual difference, and there are no attributes belonging in common to each pentad on account of which the number twenty-five could be divided into five times five. For a number of individually separate things can, in general, not be combined into smaller groups of two or three, &c. unless there be a special reason for such combination. — Here the Sankhya will perhaps rejoin that the expression five (times) five is used only to denote the number twenty-five which has five pentads for its constituent parts; just as the poem says, 'five years and seven Indra did not rain,' meaning only that there was no rain for twelve years. — But this explanation also is not tenable. In the first place, it is liable to the objection that it has recourse to indirect indication 1.
3ust as the poem says, 'five years and seven Indra did not rain,' meaning only that there was no rain for twelve years. — But this explanation also is not tenable. In the first place, it is liable to the objection that it has recourse to indirect indication 1. — In the second place, the second ' five ' constitutes a compound with the word 'people,' the Brahma/za-accent showing that the two form one word only2. To the same conclusion we are led by another passage also (Taitt. Samh. I, 6, 3, 2, pankkniitn tva pa^a^ananam, &c.) where the two terms constitute one word, have one accent and one case- 1 Indication (laksha#a, which consists in this case in five times five being used instead of twenty-five) is considered as an objectionable mode of expression, and therefore to be assumed in interpretation only where a term can in no way be shown to have a direct meaning. 2 That ^nk&gzx&h is only one word appears from its having only one accent, viz. the udatta on the last syllable, which udatta becomes anudatta according to the rules laid down in the Bhashika Sutra for the accentuation of the ^atapatha-brahmawa. I ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, II. 259 termination. The word thus being a compound there is neither a repetition of the word 'five,' involving two pentads, nor does the one five qualify the other, as the mere secondary member of a compound cannot be qualified by another word. — But as the people are already denoted to be five by the compound ' five-people,' the effect of the other 'five' qualifying the compound will be that we understand twenty-five people to be meant; just as the expression 'five five-bundles' (panka, pankapvXyah) conveys the idea of twenty-five bundles. — The instance is not an analogous one, we reply. The word ' pa#/£apuli ' denotes a unity (i. e. one bundle made up of five bundles), and hence when the question arises, ' How many such bundles are there ? ' it can be qualified by the word ' five,' indicating that there are five such bundles. The word pa^a^ana//, on the other hand, conveys at once the idea of distinction (i.e. of five distinct things), so that there is no room at all for a further desire to know how many people there are, and hence no room for a further qualification. And if the word 'five' be taken as a qualifying word it can only qualify the numeral five (in five-people); the objection against which assumption has already been stated. — For all these reasons the expression the five five-people cannot denote the twenty-five categories of the Sankhyas.
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.