Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1with which the real agent, viz. the Lord, brought about that evolution. Analogously it is said, for instance, that 'the cornfield reaps itself (i.e. is reaped with the greatest ease), although there is the reaper sufficient (to account for the work being done). — Or else we may look on the form vyakriyata as having reference to a necessarily implied agent ; as is the case in such phrases as ' the village is being approached ' (where we necessarily have to supply ' by Devadatta or somebody else '). 16. (He whose work is this is Brahman), because (the * work ') denotes the world. In the Kaushitaki-brahma^a, in the dialogue of Balaki and A^ata^atru, we read, ' O Balaki, he who is the maker of I ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 1 6. 269 those persons, he of whom this is the work, he alone is to be known' (Kau. Up. IV, 19). The question here arises whether what is here inculcated as the object of knowledge is the individual soul or the chief vital air or the highest Self. The purvapakshin maintains that the vital air is meant. For, in the first place, he says, the clause ' of whom this is the work' points to the activity of motion, and that activity rests on the vital air. In the second place, we meet with the word ' pra/za ' in a complementary passage (' Then he becomes one with that pra/za alone '), and that word is well known to denote the vital air. In the third place, pra^a is the maker of all the persons, the person in the sun, the person in the moon, &c, who in the preceding part of the dialogue had been enumerated by Balaki ; for that the sun and the other divinities are mere differentiations of pra^a we know from another scriptural passage, viz. ' Who is that one god (in whom all the other gods are contained)? Pra/za and he is Brahman, and they call him That ' (Br/. Up. Ill, 9, 9). — Or else, the purvapakshin continues, the passage under discussion represents the individual soul as the object of knowledge. For of the soul also it can be said that ' this is the work,' if we understand by ' this ' all meritorious and non-meritorious actions ; and the soul also, in so far as it is the enjoyer, can be viewed as the maker of the persons enumerated in so far as they are instru- mental to the soul's fruition. The complementary passage, moreover, contains an inferential mark of the individual soul.
2ns ; and the soul also, in so far as it is the enjoyer, can be viewed as the maker of the persons enumerated in so far as they are instru- mental to the soul's fruition. The complementary passage, moreover, contains an inferential mark of the individual soul. For A^ata^atru, in order to instruct Balaki about the ' maker of the persons ' who had been proposed as the object of knowledge, calls a sleeping man by various names and convinces Balaki, by the circumstance that the sleeper does not hear his shouts, that the pra^a and so on are not the enjoyers ; he thereupon wakes the sleeping man by pushing him with his stick, and so makes Balaki compre- hend that the being capable of fruition is the individual soul which is distinct from the pra^a. A subsequent passage also contains an inferential mark of the individual soul, viz. ' And as the master feeds with his people, nay, as his people feed on the master, thus does this conscious Self feed with 2 70 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. the other Selfs, thus those Selfs feed on the conscious Self (Kau. Up. IV, 20). And as the individual soul is the support of the pra/za, it may itself be called pra^a. — We thus conclude that the passage under discussion refers either to the individual soul or to the chief vital air ; but not to the Lord, of whom it contains no inferential marks whatever. To this we make the following reply. — The Lord only can be the maker of the persons enumerated, on account of the force of the introductory part of the section. Balaki begins his colloquy with A^-ata^atru with the offer, ' Shall I tell you Brahman ? ' Thereupon he enumerates some individual souls residing in the sun, the moon, and so on, which participate in the sight of the secondary Brahman, and in the end becomes silent. A^ataj-atru then sets aside Balaki's doctrine as not referring to the chief Brahman — with the words, ' Vainly did you challenge me, saying, Shall I tell you Brahman,5 &c. — and proposes the maker of all those individual souls as a new object of knowledge. If now that maker also were merely a soul participating in the sight of the secondary Brahman, the introductory statement which speaks of Brahman would be futile. Hence it follows that the highest Lord himself is meant. — None, moreover, but the highest Lord is capable of being the maker of all those persons as he only is absolutely independent.
3Brahman, the introductory statement which speaks of Brahman would be futile. Hence it follows that the highest Lord himself is meant. — None, moreover, but the highest Lord is capable of being the maker of all those persons as he only is absolutely independent. — Further, the clause lof whom this is the work ' does not refer either to the activity of motion nor to meritorious and non-meritorious actions ; for neither of those two is the topic of discussion or has been men- tioned previously. Nor can the term ' work ' denote the enumerated persons, since the latter are mentioned separ- ately— in the clause, ' He who is the maker of those per- sons ' — and as inferential marks (viz. the neuter gender and the singular number of the word karman, work) contradict that assumption. Nor, again, can the term c work ' denote either the activity whose object the persons are, or the result of that activity, since those two are already implied in the mention of the agent (in the clause, * He who is the maker '). Thus there remains no other alternative than to I ADHYAYA, 4 PAD A, I 7. 271 take the pronoun ' this ' (in ' He of whom this is the work ') as denoting the perceptible world and to understand the same world — as that which is made — by the term ' work.' — We may indeed admit that the world also is not the previous topic of discussion and has not been mentioned before ; still, as no specification is mentioned, we conclude that the term 'work' has to be understood in a general sense, and thus denotes what first presents itself to the mind, viz. everything which exists in general. It is, more- over, not true that the world is not the previous topic of discussion ; we are rather entitled to conclude from the cir- cumstance that the various persons (in the sun, the moon, &c.) which constitute a part of the world had been specially mentioned before, that the passage in question is concerned with the whole world in general. The conjunction 'or' (in ' or he of whom,' &c) is meant to exclude the idea of limited makership ; so that the whole passage has to be inter- preted as follows, e He who is the maker of those persons forming a part of the world, or rather — to do away with this limitation — he of whom this entire world without any exception is the work.' The special mention made of the persons having been created has for its purpose to show that those persons whom B&laki had proclaimed to be Brahman are not Brahman.
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.
1with which the real agent, viz. the Lord, brought about that evolution. Analogously it is said, for instance, that 'the cornfield reaps itself (i.e. is reaped with the greatest ease), although there is the reaper sufficient (to account for the work being done). — Or else we may look on the form vyakriyata as having reference to a necessarily implied agent ; as is the case in such phrases as ' the village is being approached ' (where we necessarily have to supply ' by Devadatta or somebody else '). 16. (He whose work is this is Brahman), because (the * work ') denotes the world. In the Kaushitaki-brahma^a, in the dialogue of Balaki and A^ata^atru, we read, ' O Balaki, he who is the maker of I ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 1 6. 269 those persons, he of whom this is the work, he alone is to be known' (Kau. Up. IV, 19). The question here arises whether what is here inculcated as the object of knowledge is the individual soul or the chief vital air or the highest Self. The purvapakshin maintains that the vital air is meant. For, in the first place, he says, the clause ' of whom this is the work' points to the activity of motion, and that activity rests on the vital air. In the second place, we meet with the word ' pra/za ' in a complementary passage (' Then he becomes one with that pra/za alone '), and that word is well known to denote the vital air. In the third place, pra^a is the maker of all the persons, the person in the sun, the person in the moon, &c, who in the preceding part of the dialogue had been enumerated by Balaki ; for that the sun and the other divinities are mere differentiations of pra^a we know from another scriptural passage, viz. ' Who is that one god (in whom all the other gods are contained)? Pra/za and he is Brahman, and they call him That ' (Br/. Up. Ill, 9, 9). — Or else, the purvapakshin continues, the passage under discussion represents the individual soul as the object of knowledge. For of the soul also it can be said that ' this is the work,' if we understand by ' this ' all meritorious and non-meritorious actions ; and the soul also, in so far as it is the enjoyer, can be viewed as the maker of the persons enumerated in so far as they are instru- mental to the soul's fruition. The complementary passage, moreover, contains an inferential mark of the individual soul.
2ns ; and the soul also, in so far as it is the enjoyer, can be viewed as the maker of the persons enumerated in so far as they are instru- mental to the soul's fruition. The complementary passage, moreover, contains an inferential mark of the individual soul. For A^ata^atru, in order to instruct Balaki about the ' maker of the persons ' who had been proposed as the object of knowledge, calls a sleeping man by various names and convinces Balaki, by the circumstance that the sleeper does not hear his shouts, that the pra^a and so on are not the enjoyers ; he thereupon wakes the sleeping man by pushing him with his stick, and so makes Balaki compre- hend that the being capable of fruition is the individual soul which is distinct from the pra^a. A subsequent passage also contains an inferential mark of the individual soul, viz. ' And as the master feeds with his people, nay, as his people feed on the master, thus does this conscious Self feed with 2 70 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. the other Selfs, thus those Selfs feed on the conscious Self (Kau. Up. IV, 20). And as the individual soul is the support of the pra/za, it may itself be called pra^a. — We thus conclude that the passage under discussion refers either to the individual soul or to the chief vital air ; but not to the Lord, of whom it contains no inferential marks whatever. To this we make the following reply. — The Lord only can be the maker of the persons enumerated, on account of the force of the introductory part of the section. Balaki begins his colloquy with A^-ata^atru with the offer, ' Shall I tell you Brahman ? ' Thereupon he enumerates some individual souls residing in the sun, the moon, and so on, which participate in the sight of the secondary Brahman, and in the end becomes silent. A^ataj-atru then sets aside Balaki's doctrine as not referring to the chief Brahman — with the words, ' Vainly did you challenge me, saying, Shall I tell you Brahman,5 &c. — and proposes the maker of all those individual souls as a new object of knowledge. If now that maker also were merely a soul participating in the sight of the secondary Brahman, the introductory statement which speaks of Brahman would be futile. Hence it follows that the highest Lord himself is meant. — None, moreover, but the highest Lord is capable of being the maker of all those persons as he only is absolutely independent.
3Brahman, the introductory statement which speaks of Brahman would be futile. Hence it follows that the highest Lord himself is meant. — None, moreover, but the highest Lord is capable of being the maker of all those persons as he only is absolutely independent. — Further, the clause lof whom this is the work ' does not refer either to the activity of motion nor to meritorious and non-meritorious actions ; for neither of those two is the topic of discussion or has been men- tioned previously. Nor can the term ' work ' denote the enumerated persons, since the latter are mentioned separ- ately— in the clause, ' He who is the maker of those per- sons ' — and as inferential marks (viz. the neuter gender and the singular number of the word karman, work) contradict that assumption. Nor, again, can the term c work ' denote either the activity whose object the persons are, or the result of that activity, since those two are already implied in the mention of the agent (in the clause, * He who is the maker '). Thus there remains no other alternative than to I ADHYAYA, 4 PAD A, I 7. 271 take the pronoun ' this ' (in ' He of whom this is the work ') as denoting the perceptible world and to understand the same world — as that which is made — by the term ' work.' — We may indeed admit that the world also is not the previous topic of discussion and has not been mentioned before ; still, as no specification is mentioned, we conclude that the term 'work' has to be understood in a general sense, and thus denotes what first presents itself to the mind, viz. everything which exists in general. It is, more- over, not true that the world is not the previous topic of discussion ; we are rather entitled to conclude from the cir- cumstance that the various persons (in the sun, the moon, &c.) which constitute a part of the world had been specially mentioned before, that the passage in question is concerned with the whole world in general. The conjunction 'or' (in ' or he of whom,' &c) is meant to exclude the idea of limited makership ; so that the whole passage has to be inter- preted as follows, e He who is the maker of those persons forming a part of the world, or rather — to do away with this limitation — he of whom this entire world without any exception is the work.' The special mention made of the persons having been created has for its purpose to show that those persons whom B&laki had proclaimed to be Brahman are not Brahman.
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.