Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1do 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 passage therefore sets forth the maker of the world in a double aspect, at first as the creator of a special part of the world and thereupon as the creator of the whole remaining part of the world ; a way of speaking analogous to such every-day forms of ex- pression as, ' The wandering mendicants are to be fed, and then the Brahma/zas V And that the maker of the world is the highest Lord is affirmed in all Vedanta-texts. 17. If it be said that this is not so, on account of the inferential marks of the individual soul and the chief vital air ; we reply that that has already been explained. 1 By the Brahma^as being meant all those Brahmarcas who are not at the same time wandering mendicants. 272 VEDANTA-stjTRAS. It remains for us to refute the objection that on account of the inferential marks of the individual soul and the chief vital air, which are met with in the complementary- passage, either the one or the other must be meant in the passage under discussion, and not the highest Lord. — We therefore remark that that objection has already been disposed of under I, 1, 31. There it was shown that from an interpretation similar to the one here proposed by the purvapakshin there would result a threefold meditation, one having Brahman for its object, a second one directed on the individual soul, and a third one connected with the chief vital air. Now the same result would present itself in our case, and that would be unacceptable as we must infer from the introductory as well as the concluding clauses, that the passage under discussion refers to Brah- man. With reference to the introductory clause this has been already proved ; that the concluding passage also refers to Brahman, we infer from the fact of there being stated in it a pre-eminently high reward, ' Warding off all evil he who knows this obtains pre-eminence among all beings, sovereignty, supremacy.' — But if this is so, the sense of the passage under discussion is already settled by the discussion of the passage about Pratarda^a (I, [, 31); why, then, the present Sutra ? — No, we reply ; the sense of our passage is not yet settled, since under I, 1, 31 it has not been proved that the clause, ' Or he whose work is this/ refers to Brahman.
2discussion of the passage about Pratarda^a (I, [, 31); why, then, the present Sutra ? — No, we reply ; the sense of our passage is not yet settled, since under I, 1, 31 it has not been proved that the clause, ' Or he whose work is this/ refers to Brahman. Hence there arises again, in con- nexion with the present passage, a doubt whether the individual soul and the chief vital air may not be meant, and that doubt has again to be refuted. — The word pra^a occurs, moreover, in the sense of Brahman, so in the passage, 'The mind settles down on pra^a' (Kh. Up. VI, 8, 2). — The inferential marks of the individual soul also have, on account of the introductory and concluding clauses referring to Brahman, to be explained so as not to give rise to any discrepancy. 18. But Caimini thinks that (the reference to the individual soul) has another purport, on account of I ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, l8. 273 the question and answer ; and thus some also (read in their text). Whether the passage under discussion is concerned with the individual soul or with Brahman, is, in the opinion of the teacher £aimini, no matter for dispute, since the reference to the individual soul has a different purport, i. e. aims at intimating Brahman. He founds this his opinion on a question and a reply met with in the text. After A^dta^atru has taught Balaki, by waking the sleeping man, that the soul is different from the vital air, he asks the following question, ' Balaki, where did this person here sleep? Where was he? Whence came he thus back?' This question clearly refers to something different from the individual soul. And so likewise does the reply, 'When sleeping he sees no dream, then he becomes one with that pra^a alone ;' and, ' From that Self all pra^as proceed, each towards its place, from the pra^as the gods, from the gods the worlds.' — Now it is the general Vedanta doctrine that at the time of deep sleep the soul becomes one with the highest Brahman, and that from the highest Brahman the whole world proceeds, inclusive of pra«a, and so on. When Scripture therefore represents as the object of knowledge that in which there takes place the deep sleep of the soul, characterised by absence of consciousness and utter tran- quillity, i. e. a state devoid of all those specific cognitions which are produced by the limiting adjuncts of the soul, and from which the soul returns when the sleep is broken ; we understand that the highest Self is meant.
3e of consciousness and utter tran- quillity, i. e. a state devoid of all those specific cognitions which are produced by the limiting adjuncts of the soul, and from which the soul returns when the sleep is broken ; we understand that the highest Self is meant. — Moreover, the Va^asaneyuakha, which likewise contains the colloquy of Balaki and A^ata^atru, clearly refers to the individual soul by means of the term, ' the person consisting of cog- nition ' (vi^Tzanamaya), and distinguishes from it the highest Self (' Where was then the person consisting of cognition ? and from whence did he thus come back?'B;^'. Up. II, 1, 16) ; and later on, in the reply to the above question, declares that ' the person consisting of cognition lies in the ether within the heart.' Now we know that the word ' ether ' may be used to denote the highest Self, as, for instance, in [34] T 2 74 VEDANTA-StJTRAS. the passage about the small ether within the lotus of the heart (Kk. Up. VIII, i, 1). Further on the Br/. Up. says, 'All the Selfs came forth from that Self;' by which state- ment of the coming forth of all the conditioned Selfs it intimates that the highest Self is the one general cause. — The doctrine conveyed by the rousing of the sleeping person, viz. that the individual soul is different from the vital air, furnishes at the same time a further argument against the opinion that the passage under discussion refers to the vital air. 19. (The Self to be seen, to be heard, &c. is the highest Self) on account of the connected meaning of the sentences. We read in the Br/hadara/zyaka, in the Maitreyi-brah- ma/za the following passage, ' Verily, a husband is not dear that you may love the husband, &c. &c. ; verily, everything is not dear that you may love everything; but that you may love the Self therefore everything is dear. Verily, the Self is to be seen, to be heard, to be perceived, to be marked, O Maitreyt ! When the Self has been seen, heard, perceived, and known, then all this is known ' (Br/. Up. IV, 5, 6).— Here the doubt arises whether that which is repre- sented as the object to be seen, to be heard, and so on, is the cognitional Self (the individual soul) or the highest Self. — But whence the doubt ?— Because, we reply, the Self is, on the one hand, by the mention of dear things such as husband and so on, indicated as the enjoyer whence it appears that the passage refers to the individual soul ; and because, on the other hand, the declaration that through the knowledge of the Self everything becomes known points to the highest Self.
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.
1do 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 passage therefore sets forth the maker of the world in a double aspect, at first as the creator of a special part of the world and thereupon as the creator of the whole remaining part of the world ; a way of speaking analogous to such every-day forms of ex- pression as, ' The wandering mendicants are to be fed, and then the Brahma/zas V And that the maker of the world is the highest Lord is affirmed in all Vedanta-texts. 17. If it be said that this is not so, on account of the inferential marks of the individual soul and the chief vital air ; we reply that that has already been explained. 1 By the Brahma^as being meant all those Brahmarcas who are not at the same time wandering mendicants. 272 VEDANTA-stjTRAS. It remains for us to refute the objection that on account of the inferential marks of the individual soul and the chief vital air, which are met with in the complementary- passage, either the one or the other must be meant in the passage under discussion, and not the highest Lord. — We therefore remark that that objection has already been disposed of under I, 1, 31. There it was shown that from an interpretation similar to the one here proposed by the purvapakshin there would result a threefold meditation, one having Brahman for its object, a second one directed on the individual soul, and a third one connected with the chief vital air. Now the same result would present itself in our case, and that would be unacceptable as we must infer from the introductory as well as the concluding clauses, that the passage under discussion refers to Brah- man. With reference to the introductory clause this has been already proved ; that the concluding passage also refers to Brahman, we infer from the fact of there being stated in it a pre-eminently high reward, ' Warding off all evil he who knows this obtains pre-eminence among all beings, sovereignty, supremacy.' — But if this is so, the sense of the passage under discussion is already settled by the discussion of the passage about Pratarda^a (I, [, 31); why, then, the present Sutra ? — No, we reply ; the sense of our passage is not yet settled, since under I, 1, 31 it has not been proved that the clause, ' Or he whose work is this/ refers to Brahman.
2discussion of the passage about Pratarda^a (I, [, 31); why, then, the present Sutra ? — No, we reply ; the sense of our passage is not yet settled, since under I, 1, 31 it has not been proved that the clause, ' Or he whose work is this/ refers to Brahman. Hence there arises again, in con- nexion with the present passage, a doubt whether the individual soul and the chief vital air may not be meant, and that doubt has again to be refuted. — The word pra^a occurs, moreover, in the sense of Brahman, so in the passage, 'The mind settles down on pra^a' (Kh. Up. VI, 8, 2). — The inferential marks of the individual soul also have, on account of the introductory and concluding clauses referring to Brahman, to be explained so as not to give rise to any discrepancy. 18. But Caimini thinks that (the reference to the individual soul) has another purport, on account of I ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, l8. 273 the question and answer ; and thus some also (read in their text). Whether the passage under discussion is concerned with the individual soul or with Brahman, is, in the opinion of the teacher £aimini, no matter for dispute, since the reference to the individual soul has a different purport, i. e. aims at intimating Brahman. He founds this his opinion on a question and a reply met with in the text. After A^dta^atru has taught Balaki, by waking the sleeping man, that the soul is different from the vital air, he asks the following question, ' Balaki, where did this person here sleep? Where was he? Whence came he thus back?' This question clearly refers to something different from the individual soul. And so likewise does the reply, 'When sleeping he sees no dream, then he becomes one with that pra^a alone ;' and, ' From that Self all pra^as proceed, each towards its place, from the pra^as the gods, from the gods the worlds.' — Now it is the general Vedanta doctrine that at the time of deep sleep the soul becomes one with the highest Brahman, and that from the highest Brahman the whole world proceeds, inclusive of pra«a, and so on. When Scripture therefore represents as the object of knowledge that in which there takes place the deep sleep of the soul, characterised by absence of consciousness and utter tran- quillity, i. e. a state devoid of all those specific cognitions which are produced by the limiting adjuncts of the soul, and from which the soul returns when the sleep is broken ; we understand that the highest Self is meant.
3e of consciousness and utter tran- quillity, i. e. a state devoid of all those specific cognitions which are produced by the limiting adjuncts of the soul, and from which the soul returns when the sleep is broken ; we understand that the highest Self is meant. — Moreover, the Va^asaneyuakha, which likewise contains the colloquy of Balaki and A^ata^atru, clearly refers to the individual soul by means of the term, ' the person consisting of cog- nition ' (vi^Tzanamaya), and distinguishes from it the highest Self (' Where was then the person consisting of cognition ? and from whence did he thus come back?'B;^'. Up. II, 1, 16) ; and later on, in the reply to the above question, declares that ' the person consisting of cognition lies in the ether within the heart.' Now we know that the word ' ether ' may be used to denote the highest Self, as, for instance, in [34] T 2 74 VEDANTA-StJTRAS. the passage about the small ether within the lotus of the heart (Kk. Up. VIII, i, 1). Further on the Br/. Up. says, 'All the Selfs came forth from that Self;' by which state- ment of the coming forth of all the conditioned Selfs it intimates that the highest Self is the one general cause. — The doctrine conveyed by the rousing of the sleeping person, viz. that the individual soul is different from the vital air, furnishes at the same time a further argument against the opinion that the passage under discussion refers to the vital air. 19. (The Self to be seen, to be heard, &c. is the highest Self) on account of the connected meaning of the sentences. We read in the Br/hadara/zyaka, in the Maitreyi-brah- ma/za the following passage, ' Verily, a husband is not dear that you may love the husband, &c. &c. ; verily, everything is not dear that you may love everything; but that you may love the Self therefore everything is dear. Verily, the Self is to be seen, to be heard, to be perceived, to be marked, O Maitreyt ! When the Self has been seen, heard, perceived, and known, then all this is known ' (Br/. Up. IV, 5, 6).— Here the doubt arises whether that which is repre- sented as the object to be seen, to be heard, and so on, is the cognitional Self (the individual soul) or the highest Self. — But whence the doubt ?— Because, we reply, the Self is, on the one hand, by the mention of dear things such as husband and so on, indicated as the enjoyer whence it appears that the passage refers to the individual soul ; and because, on the other hand, the declaration that through the knowledge of the Self everything becomes known points to the highest Self.
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.