Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1ali- fication, 'absolutely changeless' (ku/astha), precludes this. For the changeless Brahman cannot be the substratum of varying attributes. And that, on account of the negation of all attributes, Brahman really is eternal and changeless has already been demonstrated. — Moreover, while the cognition of the unity of Brahman is the instrument of final release, there is nothing to show that any independent result is connected with the view of Brahman, by undergoing a modification, passing over into the form of this world. Scripture expressly declares that the knowledge of the changeless Brahman being the universal Self leads to a result ; for in the passage which begins, ' That Self is to be described by No, no,' we read later on, ' O kanaka, you have indeed reached fearlessness ' (Br/. Up. IV, 2, 4). We have then 1 to accept the following conclusion that, in the sections treating of Brahman, an independent result belongs only to the knowledge of Brahman as devoid of all attributes and distinctions, and that hence whatever is stated as having no special fruit of its own — as, for instance, the passages about Brahman modifying itself into the form of this 1 Tatreti, sr/sh/yadijrutina/rc svarthe phalavaikalye satiti yavat. An. Gi. 328 VED ANTA-Sti TR AS. world — is merely to be applied as a means for the cogni- tion of the absolute Brahman, but does not bring about an independent result ; according to the principle that whatever has no result of its own, but is mentioned in con- nexion with something else which has such a result, is subordinate to the latter 1. For to maintain that the result of the knowledge of Brahman undergoing modifications would be that the Self (of him who knows that) would undergo corresponding modifications2 would be inappro- priate, as the state of final release (which the soul obtains through the knowledge of Brahman) is eternally unchanging. But, it is objected, he who maintains the nature of Brah- man to be changeless thereby contradicts the fundamental tenet according to which the Lord is the cause of the world, since the doctrine of absolute unity leaves no room for the distinction of a Ruler and something ruled. — This objection we ward off by remarking that omniscience, &c. (i. e. those qualities which belong to Brahman only in so far as it is related to a world) depend on the evolution of the germinal principles called name and form, whose essence is Nescience. The fundamental tenet which we maintain (in accordance with such scriptural passages as, ' From that Self sprang ether,' &c. ; Taitt. Up.
2is related to a world) depend on the evolution of the germinal principles called name and form, whose essence is Nescience. The fundamental tenet which we maintain (in accordance with such scriptural passages as, ' From that Self sprang ether,' &c. ; Taitt. Up. II, 1) is that the creation, sustentation, and reabsorption of the world proceed from an omniscient, omnipotent Lord, not from a non-intelligent pradhana or any other principle. That tenet we have stated in I, i, 4, and here we do not teach anything contrary to it. — But how, the question may be asked, can you make this last assertion while all the while you maintain the absolute unity and non-duality of the Self? — Listen how. Belonging to the Self, as it were, of the omniscient Lord, there are name and form, the figments of Nescience, not to be defined either 1 A Mimawsa principle. A sacrificial act, for instance, is inde- pendent when a special result is assigned to it by the sacred texts ; an act which is enjoined without such a specification is merely auxiliary to another act. 2 According to the *$ruti 'in whatever mode he worships him into that mode he passes himself/ II ADHYAYA, I PADA, 1 4. 329 as being (i. e. Brahman), nor as different from it 1, the germs of the entire expanse of the phenomenal world, called in 5ruti and Smrtti the illusion (maya), power (^akti), or nature (prakrzti) of the omniscient Lord. Different from them is the omniscient Lord himself, as we learn from scrip- tural passages such as the following, ' He who is called ether is the revealer of all forms and names ; that within which these forms and names are contained is Brahman' (Kh. Up. VIII, 14, 1); cLet me evolve names and forms' (Kk. Up. VI, 3, 2) ; ' He, the wise one, who having divided all forms and given all names, sits speaking (with those names)' (Taitt. Ar. Ill, 12, 7) ; ' He who makes the one seed manifold ' (6Ve. Up. VI, 12). — Thus the Lord depends (as Lord) upon the limiting adjuncts of name and form, the products of Nes- cience; just as the universal ether depends (as limited ether, such as the ether of a jar, &c.) upon the limiting ad- juncts in the shape of jars, pots, &c. He (the Lord) stands in the realm of the phenomenal in the relation of a ruler to the so-called ^ivas (individual souls) or cognitional Selfs (vi^Tzancitman), which indeed are one with his own Self — just as the portions of ether enclosed in jars and the like are one with the universal ether — but are limited by aggregates of instruments of action (i. e.
3d ^ivas (individual souls) or cognitional Selfs (vi^Tzancitman), which indeed are one with his own Self — just as the portions of ether enclosed in jars and the like are one with the universal ether — but are limited by aggregates of instruments of action (i. e. bodies) produced from name and form, the presentations of Nescience. Hence the Lord's being a Lord, his omniscience, his omnipotence, &c. all depend on the limitation due to the adjuncts whose Self is Nescience ; while in reality none of these qualities belong to the Self whose true nature is cleared, by right knowledge, from all adjuncts whatever. Thus Scripture also says, ' Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is the Infinite' (Kh. Up. VII, 24, 1) ; ' But when the Self only has become all this, how should he see another?' (Bri* Up. II, 4, 13.) In this manner the Vedanta-texts declare that for him who has reached the 1 Tattvanyatvabhyam iti, na huvaratvena te niru^yete ^adagWayor abhedayogat napi tato^nyatvena niruktim arhataA svatantryewa sattasphurtyasambhavdt na hi g-a^/am a§-a</anapekshya#z sattasphur- timad upalakshyate ^adatvabhahgaprasangat tasmad avidyatmake naroarupe ity artha^. An. Gi. 3 30 vedanta-s6tras. state of truth and reality the whole apparent world does not exist. The Bhagavadgita also (' The Lord is not the cause of actions, or of the capacity of performing actions, or of the connexion of action and fruit; all that proceeds according to its own nature. The Lord receives no one's sin or merit. Knowledge is enveloped by Ignorance ; hence all creatures are deluded;' Bha. Gi. V, 14; 15) declares that in reality the relation of Ruler and ruled does not exist. That, on the other hand, all those distinctions are valid, as far as the phenomenal world is concerned, Scripture as well as the Bhagavadgita states; compare Bri. Up. IV, 4, 22, ( He is the Lord of all, the king of all things, the protector of all things ; he is a bank and boundary, so that these worlds may not be confounded;' and Bha. Gi. XVIII, 61, ( The Lord, O Ar^una, is seated in the region of the heart of all beings, turning round all beings, (as though) mounted on a machine, by his delusion/ The Sutrakara also asserts the non-difference of cause and effect only with regard to the state of Reality ; while he had, in the pre- ceding Sutra, where he looked to the phenomenal world, compared Brahman to the ocean, &c, that comparison resting on the assumption of the world of effects not yet having been refuted (i. e. seen to be unreal).
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.
1ali- fication, 'absolutely changeless' (ku/astha), precludes this. For the changeless Brahman cannot be the substratum of varying attributes. And that, on account of the negation of all attributes, Brahman really is eternal and changeless has already been demonstrated. — Moreover, while the cognition of the unity of Brahman is the instrument of final release, there is nothing to show that any independent result is connected with the view of Brahman, by undergoing a modification, passing over into the form of this world. Scripture expressly declares that the knowledge of the changeless Brahman being the universal Self leads to a result ; for in the passage which begins, ' That Self is to be described by No, no,' we read later on, ' O kanaka, you have indeed reached fearlessness ' (Br/. Up. IV, 2, 4). We have then 1 to accept the following conclusion that, in the sections treating of Brahman, an independent result belongs only to the knowledge of Brahman as devoid of all attributes and distinctions, and that hence whatever is stated as having no special fruit of its own — as, for instance, the passages about Brahman modifying itself into the form of this 1 Tatreti, sr/sh/yadijrutina/rc svarthe phalavaikalye satiti yavat. An. Gi. 328 VED ANTA-Sti TR AS. world — is merely to be applied as a means for the cogni- tion of the absolute Brahman, but does not bring about an independent result ; according to the principle that whatever has no result of its own, but is mentioned in con- nexion with something else which has such a result, is subordinate to the latter 1. For to maintain that the result of the knowledge of Brahman undergoing modifications would be that the Self (of him who knows that) would undergo corresponding modifications2 would be inappro- priate, as the state of final release (which the soul obtains through the knowledge of Brahman) is eternally unchanging. But, it is objected, he who maintains the nature of Brah- man to be changeless thereby contradicts the fundamental tenet according to which the Lord is the cause of the world, since the doctrine of absolute unity leaves no room for the distinction of a Ruler and something ruled. — This objection we ward off by remarking that omniscience, &c. (i. e. those qualities which belong to Brahman only in so far as it is related to a world) depend on the evolution of the germinal principles called name and form, whose essence is Nescience. The fundamental tenet which we maintain (in accordance with such scriptural passages as, ' From that Self sprang ether,' &c. ; Taitt. Up.
2is related to a world) depend on the evolution of the germinal principles called name and form, whose essence is Nescience. The fundamental tenet which we maintain (in accordance with such scriptural passages as, ' From that Self sprang ether,' &c. ; Taitt. Up. II, 1) is that the creation, sustentation, and reabsorption of the world proceed from an omniscient, omnipotent Lord, not from a non-intelligent pradhana or any other principle. That tenet we have stated in I, i, 4, and here we do not teach anything contrary to it. — But how, the question may be asked, can you make this last assertion while all the while you maintain the absolute unity and non-duality of the Self? — Listen how. Belonging to the Self, as it were, of the omniscient Lord, there are name and form, the figments of Nescience, not to be defined either 1 A Mimawsa principle. A sacrificial act, for instance, is inde- pendent when a special result is assigned to it by the sacred texts ; an act which is enjoined without such a specification is merely auxiliary to another act. 2 According to the *$ruti 'in whatever mode he worships him into that mode he passes himself/ II ADHYAYA, I PADA, 1 4. 329 as being (i. e. Brahman), nor as different from it 1, the germs of the entire expanse of the phenomenal world, called in 5ruti and Smrtti the illusion (maya), power (^akti), or nature (prakrzti) of the omniscient Lord. Different from them is the omniscient Lord himself, as we learn from scrip- tural passages such as the following, ' He who is called ether is the revealer of all forms and names ; that within which these forms and names are contained is Brahman' (Kh. Up. VIII, 14, 1); cLet me evolve names and forms' (Kk. Up. VI, 3, 2) ; ' He, the wise one, who having divided all forms and given all names, sits speaking (with those names)' (Taitt. Ar. Ill, 12, 7) ; ' He who makes the one seed manifold ' (6Ve. Up. VI, 12). — Thus the Lord depends (as Lord) upon the limiting adjuncts of name and form, the products of Nes- cience; just as the universal ether depends (as limited ether, such as the ether of a jar, &c.) upon the limiting ad- juncts in the shape of jars, pots, &c. He (the Lord) stands in the realm of the phenomenal in the relation of a ruler to the so-called ^ivas (individual souls) or cognitional Selfs (vi^Tzancitman), which indeed are one with his own Self — just as the portions of ether enclosed in jars and the like are one with the universal ether — but are limited by aggregates of instruments of action (i. e.
3d ^ivas (individual souls) or cognitional Selfs (vi^Tzancitman), which indeed are one with his own Self — just as the portions of ether enclosed in jars and the like are one with the universal ether — but are limited by aggregates of instruments of action (i. e. bodies) produced from name and form, the presentations of Nescience. Hence the Lord's being a Lord, his omniscience, his omnipotence, &c. all depend on the limitation due to the adjuncts whose Self is Nescience ; while in reality none of these qualities belong to the Self whose true nature is cleared, by right knowledge, from all adjuncts whatever. Thus Scripture also says, ' Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is the Infinite' (Kh. Up. VII, 24, 1) ; ' But when the Self only has become all this, how should he see another?' (Bri* Up. II, 4, 13.) In this manner the Vedanta-texts declare that for him who has reached the 1 Tattvanyatvabhyam iti, na huvaratvena te niru^yete ^adagWayor abhedayogat napi tato^nyatvena niruktim arhataA svatantryewa sattasphurtyasambhavdt na hi g-a^/am a§-a</anapekshya#z sattasphur- timad upalakshyate ^adatvabhahgaprasangat tasmad avidyatmake naroarupe ity artha^. An. Gi. 3 30 vedanta-s6tras. state of truth and reality the whole apparent world does not exist. The Bhagavadgita also (' The Lord is not the cause of actions, or of the capacity of performing actions, or of the connexion of action and fruit; all that proceeds according to its own nature. The Lord receives no one's sin or merit. Knowledge is enveloped by Ignorance ; hence all creatures are deluded;' Bha. Gi. V, 14; 15) declares that in reality the relation of Ruler and ruled does not exist. That, on the other hand, all those distinctions are valid, as far as the phenomenal world is concerned, Scripture as well as the Bhagavadgita states; compare Bri. Up. IV, 4, 22, ( He is the Lord of all, the king of all things, the protector of all things ; he is a bank and boundary, so that these worlds may not be confounded;' and Bha. Gi. XVIII, 61, ( The Lord, O Ar^una, is seated in the region of the heart of all beings, turning round all beings, (as though) mounted on a machine, by his delusion/ The Sutrakara also asserts the non-difference of cause and effect only with regard to the state of Reality ; while he had, in the pre- ceding Sutra, where he looked to the phenomenal world, compared Brahman to the ocean, &c, that comparison resting on the assumption of the world of effects not yet having been refuted (i. e. seen to be unreal).
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.