Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1mentioned, (the number five is made full) by the light (mentioned in the preceding mantra). The Ka;2va-text, although not mentioning food, makes up the full number five, by the light mentioned in the mantra preceding that in which the five-people are spoken of. That mantra describes the nature of Brahman by saying, ' Him the gods worship as the light of lights.'— If it be asked how it is accounted for that the light mentioned in both texts equally is in one text to be employed for the expla- nation of the five-people, and not in the other text ; we reply that the reason lies in the difference of the requirements. As the Madhyandinas meet in one and the same mantra with breath and four other entities enabling them to interpret the term, 'the five-people,' they are in no need of the light mentioned in another mantra. The Ka/zvas, on the other hand, cannot do without the light. The case is analogous to that of the Sho^arin-cup, which, according to different I ADHYAYA, \ PADA, 1 4. 263 passages, is either to be offered or not to be offered at the atiratra-sacrifice. We have proved herewith that Scripture offers no basis for the doctrine of the pradhana. That this doctrine can- not be proved either by Smrzti or by ratiocination will be shown later on. 14. (Although there is a conflict of the Vedanta- passages with regard to the things created, such as) ether and so on ; (there is no such conflict with regard to the Lord) on account of his being re- presented (in one passage) as described (in other passages), viz. as the cause (of the world). In the preceding part of the work the right definition of Brahman has been established ; it has been shown that all the Vedanta-texts have Brahman for their common topic ; and it has been proved that there is no scriptural authority for the doctrine of the pradhana. — But now a new objection presents itself It is not possible — our opponent says — to prove either that Brahman is the cause of the origin, &c. of the world, or that all Vedanta-texts refer to Brahman; because we observe that the Vedanta-texts contradict one another. All the Vedanta-passages which treat of the creation enumerate its successive steps in different order, and so in reality speak of different creations. In one place it is said that from the Self there sprang the ether (Taitt. Up. II, 1); in another place that the creation began with fire (K/i. Up. VI, 2, 3) ; in another place, again, that the Person created breath and from breath faith (Pr.
2rent creations. In one place it is said that from the Self there sprang the ether (Taitt. Up. II, 1); in another place that the creation began with fire (K/i. Up. VI, 2, 3) ; in another place, again, that the Person created breath and from breath faith (Pr. Up.VI, 4) ; in another place, again, that the Self created these worlds, the water (above the heaven), light, the mortal (earth), and the water (below the earth) (Ait. Ar. II, 4, 1, 3; 3). There no order is stated at all. Somewhere else it is said that the creation origi- nated from the Non-existent. ' In the beginning this was non-existent ; from it was born what exists' (Taitt. Up. II, 7) ; and, ' In the beginning this was non-existent ; it became existent; it grew' (Kh. Up. Ill, 19, 1). In another place, 264 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. again, the doctrine of the Non-existent being the ante- cedent of the creation is impugned, and the Existent men- tioned in its stead. ' Others say, in the beginning there was that only which is not ; but how could it be thus, my dear ? How could that which is be born of that which is not?' (Kk. Up. VI, 2, 1; 2.) And in another place, again, the development of the world is spoken of as having taken place spontaneously, ' Now all this was then undeveloped. It became developed by form and name ' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 7)* — As therefore manifold discrepancies are observed, and as no option is possible in the case of an accomplished matter 1, the Vedanta-passages cannot be accepted as authorities for determining the cause of the world, but we must rather accept some other cause of the world resting on the authority of Smrzti and Reasoning. To this we make the following reply. — Although the Vedanta-passages may be conflicting with regard to the order of the things created, such as ether and so on, they do not conflict with regard to the creator, 'on account of his being represented as described.' That means : such as the creator is described in any one Vedanta-passage, viz. as all-knowing, the Lord of all, the Self of all, without a second, so he is represented in all other Vedanta-passages also. Let us consider, for instance, the description of Brahman (given in Taitt. Up. II, 1 fT.). There it is said at first, 'Truth, knowledge, infinite is Brahman.' Here the word 'knowledge,' and so likewise the statement, made later on, that Brahman desired (II, 6), intimate that Brah- man is of the nature of intelligence. Further, the text declares 2 that the cause of the world is the general Lord, by representing it as not dependent on anything else.
3so likewise the statement, made later on, that Brahman desired (II, 6), intimate that Brah- man is of the nature of intelligence. Further, the text declares 2 that the cause of the world is the general Lord, by representing it as not dependent on anything else. It further applies to the cause of the world the term ' Self (II, 1), and it represents it as abiding within the series of sheaths begin- 1 Option being possible only in the case of things to be accom- plished, i.e. actions. 2 According to Go. An. in the passage, 'That made itself its Self (II, 7); according to An. Giri in the passage, 'He created air (II, 6). I ADHYAYA, 4 PAD A, 1 4. 265 ning with the gross body ; whereby it affirms it to be the internal Self within all beings. Again — in the passage, ' May I be many, may I grow forth ' — it tells how the Self became many, and thereby declares that the creator is non- different from the created effects. And — in the passage, 'He created all this whatever there is' — it represents the creator as the Cause of the entire world, and thereby declares him to have been without a second previously to the creation. The same characteristics which in the above passages are predicated of Brahman, viewed as the Cause of the world, we find to be predicated of it in other passages also, so, for instance, ' Being only, my dear, was this in the beginning, one only, without a second. It thought, may I be man)', may I grow forth. It sent forth fire 3 (Kh. Up. VI, 3, 1 ; 3), and ' In the beginning all this was Self, one only; there was nothing else blinking whatsoever. He thought, shall I send forth worlds? ' (Ait. Ar. II, 4, 1, 1 ; 2.) The Vedanta-passages which are concerned with setting forth the cause of the world are thus in harmony through- out.— On the other hand, there are found conflicting state- ments concerning the world, the creation being in some places said to begin with ether, in other places with fire, and so on. But, in the first place, it cannot be said that the conflict of statements concerning the world affects the statements concerning the cause, i. e. Brahman, in which all the Vedanta-texts are seen to agree — for that would be an altogether unfounded generalization; — and, in the second place, the teacher will reconcile later on (II, 3) those con- flicting passages also which refer to the world. And, to consider the matter more thoroughly, a conflict of state- ments regarding the world would not even matter greatly, since the creation of the world and similar topics are not at all what Scripture wishes to teach.
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.
1mentioned, (the number five is made full) by the light (mentioned in the preceding mantra). The Ka;2va-text, although not mentioning food, makes up the full number five, by the light mentioned in the mantra preceding that in which the five-people are spoken of. That mantra describes the nature of Brahman by saying, ' Him the gods worship as the light of lights.'— If it be asked how it is accounted for that the light mentioned in both texts equally is in one text to be employed for the expla- nation of the five-people, and not in the other text ; we reply that the reason lies in the difference of the requirements. As the Madhyandinas meet in one and the same mantra with breath and four other entities enabling them to interpret the term, 'the five-people,' they are in no need of the light mentioned in another mantra. The Ka/zvas, on the other hand, cannot do without the light. The case is analogous to that of the Sho^arin-cup, which, according to different I ADHYAYA, \ PADA, 1 4. 263 passages, is either to be offered or not to be offered at the atiratra-sacrifice. We have proved herewith that Scripture offers no basis for the doctrine of the pradhana. That this doctrine can- not be proved either by Smrzti or by ratiocination will be shown later on. 14. (Although there is a conflict of the Vedanta- passages with regard to the things created, such as) ether and so on ; (there is no such conflict with regard to the Lord) on account of his being re- presented (in one passage) as described (in other passages), viz. as the cause (of the world). In the preceding part of the work the right definition of Brahman has been established ; it has been shown that all the Vedanta-texts have Brahman for their common topic ; and it has been proved that there is no scriptural authority for the doctrine of the pradhana. — But now a new objection presents itself It is not possible — our opponent says — to prove either that Brahman is the cause of the origin, &c. of the world, or that all Vedanta-texts refer to Brahman; because we observe that the Vedanta-texts contradict one another. All the Vedanta-passages which treat of the creation enumerate its successive steps in different order, and so in reality speak of different creations. In one place it is said that from the Self there sprang the ether (Taitt. Up. II, 1); in another place that the creation began with fire (K/i. Up. VI, 2, 3) ; in another place, again, that the Person created breath and from breath faith (Pr.
2rent creations. In one place it is said that from the Self there sprang the ether (Taitt. Up. II, 1); in another place that the creation began with fire (K/i. Up. VI, 2, 3) ; in another place, again, that the Person created breath and from breath faith (Pr. Up.VI, 4) ; in another place, again, that the Self created these worlds, the water (above the heaven), light, the mortal (earth), and the water (below the earth) (Ait. Ar. II, 4, 1, 3; 3). There no order is stated at all. Somewhere else it is said that the creation origi- nated from the Non-existent. ' In the beginning this was non-existent ; from it was born what exists' (Taitt. Up. II, 7) ; and, ' In the beginning this was non-existent ; it became existent; it grew' (Kh. Up. Ill, 19, 1). In another place, 264 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. again, the doctrine of the Non-existent being the ante- cedent of the creation is impugned, and the Existent men- tioned in its stead. ' Others say, in the beginning there was that only which is not ; but how could it be thus, my dear ? How could that which is be born of that which is not?' (Kk. Up. VI, 2, 1; 2.) And in another place, again, the development of the world is spoken of as having taken place spontaneously, ' Now all this was then undeveloped. It became developed by form and name ' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 7)* — As therefore manifold discrepancies are observed, and as no option is possible in the case of an accomplished matter 1, the Vedanta-passages cannot be accepted as authorities for determining the cause of the world, but we must rather accept some other cause of the world resting on the authority of Smrzti and Reasoning. To this we make the following reply. — Although the Vedanta-passages may be conflicting with regard to the order of the things created, such as ether and so on, they do not conflict with regard to the creator, 'on account of his being represented as described.' That means : such as the creator is described in any one Vedanta-passage, viz. as all-knowing, the Lord of all, the Self of all, without a second, so he is represented in all other Vedanta-passages also. Let us consider, for instance, the description of Brahman (given in Taitt. Up. II, 1 fT.). There it is said at first, 'Truth, knowledge, infinite is Brahman.' Here the word 'knowledge,' and so likewise the statement, made later on, that Brahman desired (II, 6), intimate that Brah- man is of the nature of intelligence. Further, the text declares 2 that the cause of the world is the general Lord, by representing it as not dependent on anything else.
3so likewise the statement, made later on, that Brahman desired (II, 6), intimate that Brah- man is of the nature of intelligence. Further, the text declares 2 that the cause of the world is the general Lord, by representing it as not dependent on anything else. It further applies to the cause of the world the term ' Self (II, 1), and it represents it as abiding within the series of sheaths begin- 1 Option being possible only in the case of things to be accom- plished, i.e. actions. 2 According to Go. An. in the passage, 'That made itself its Self (II, 7); according to An. Giri in the passage, 'He created air (II, 6). I ADHYAYA, 4 PAD A, 1 4. 265 ning with the gross body ; whereby it affirms it to be the internal Self within all beings. Again — in the passage, ' May I be many, may I grow forth ' — it tells how the Self became many, and thereby declares that the creator is non- different from the created effects. And — in the passage, 'He created all this whatever there is' — it represents the creator as the Cause of the entire world, and thereby declares him to have been without a second previously to the creation. The same characteristics which in the above passages are predicated of Brahman, viewed as the Cause of the world, we find to be predicated of it in other passages also, so, for instance, ' Being only, my dear, was this in the beginning, one only, without a second. It thought, may I be man)', may I grow forth. It sent forth fire 3 (Kh. Up. VI, 3, 1 ; 3), and ' In the beginning all this was Self, one only; there was nothing else blinking whatsoever. He thought, shall I send forth worlds? ' (Ait. Ar. II, 4, 1, 1 ; 2.) The Vedanta-passages which are concerned with setting forth the cause of the world are thus in harmony through- out.— On the other hand, there are found conflicting state- ments concerning the world, the creation being in some places said to begin with ether, in other places with fire, and so on. But, in the first place, it cannot be said that the conflict of statements concerning the world affects the statements concerning the cause, i. e. Brahman, in which all the Vedanta-texts are seen to agree — for that would be an altogether unfounded generalization; — and, in the second place, the teacher will reconcile later on (II, 3) those con- flicting passages also which refer to the world. And, to consider the matter more thoroughly, a conflict of state- ments regarding the world would not even matter greatly, since the creation of the world and similar topics are not at all what Scripture wishes to teach.
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.