Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Adhik. IV (28-32) is directed against the vi^anavddins, according to whom ideas are the only reality. — The last Sutra of this adhikara^a is treated by R&m&nu^a as a separate adhikara^a refuting the view of the Madhyamikas, who teach that everything is void, i.e. that nothing what- ever is real. — Adhik. V (33-36) is directed against the doc- trine of the Gainas ; Adhik. VI (37-41) against those philo- sophical schools which teach that a highest Lord is not the material but only the operative cause of the world. The last adhikara/za of the pada (42-45) refers, according to the unanimous statement of the commentators, to the doctrine of the Bhagavatas or Pa/zz&aratras. But 6ankara and Ramanu^a totally disagree as to the drift of the Sutrakara's opinion regarding that system. According to the former it is condemned like the systems previously referred to ; according to the latter it is approved of. — Sutras 42 and 43, according to both commentators, raise objections against the system; Sutra 42 being directed against the doctrine that from the highest being, called Vasudeva, there is originated Sankarsha^a, i.e. the ^iva, on the ground that thereby those scriptural passages would be contradicted which teach the soul's eternity ; and Sutra 43 impugning the doctrine that from Sankarsha^a there springs Pradyumna, i.e. the manas. — The Sutra on which the difference of interpretation turns is 44. Literally trans- lated it runs, 'Or, on account of there being' (or, 'their being') 'knowledge and so on, there is non-contradiction of that.' — This means, according to Safikara, ' Or, if in consequence of the existence of knowledge and so on (on the part of Sankarsha^a, &c. they be taken not as soul, mind, &c. but as Lords of pre-eminent knowledge, &c), yet there is non-contradiction of that (viz. of the objection raised in Sutra 42 against the Bhagavata doctrine).' — d2 Hi vedAnta-sOtras. According to Raminu^a, on the other hand, the Sutra has to be explained as follows : ' Or, rather there is non- contradiction of that (i. e. the Pa^aratra doctrine) on ac- count of their being knowledge and so on (i. e. on account of their being Brahman)/ Which means : Since San- karsha^a and so on are merely forms of manifestation of Brahman, the Pa^aratra doctrine, according to which they spring from Brahman, is not contradicted.
2ount of their being knowledge and so on (i. e. on account of their being Brahman)/ Which means : Since San- karsha^a and so on are merely forms of manifestation of Brahman, the Pa^aratra doctrine, according to which they spring from Brahman, is not contradicted. — The form of the Sutra makes it difficult for us to decide which of the two interpretations is the right one ; it, however, appears to me that the explanations of the 'v&' and of the 'tat,' implied in Rdmanu^a's comment, are more natural than those resulting from ^ankara's interpretation. Nor would it be an unnatural proceeding to close the polemical pada with a defence of that doctrine which — in spite of objec- tions— has to be viewed as the true one. PAda III. The third p&da discusses the question whether the dif- ferent forms of existence which, in their totality, constitute the world have an origin or not, i.e. whether they are co- eternal with Brahman, or issue from it and are refunded into it at stated intervals. The first seven adhikara^as treat of the five elementary substances. — Adhik. I (1-7) teaches that the ether is not co-eternal with Brahman, but springs from it as its first effect. — Adhik. II (8) shows that air springs from ether ; Adhik. IV, V, VI (10; 11 ; 13) that fire springs from air, water from tire, earth from water. — Adhik. Ill (9) explains by way of digression that Brahman, which is not some special entity, but quite generally 'that which is,' cannot have originated from anything else. Adhik. VII (13) demonstrates that the origination of one element from another is due, not to the latter in itself, but to Brahman acting in it. Adhik. VIII (14) teaches that the reabsorption of the elements into Brahman takes place in the inverse order of their emission. Adhik. IX (15) remarks that the indicated order in which INTRODUCTION. Kli the emission and the reabsorption of the elementary sub- stances take place is not interfered with by the creation and reabsorption of the organs of the soul, i.e. the sense organs and the internal organ (manas); for they also are of elemental nature, and as such created and retracted to- gether with the elements of which they consist. The remainder of the p&da is taken up by a discussion of the nature of the individual soul, the £*iva. — Adhik. X (16) teaches that expressions such as ' Devadatta is born,' * De- vadatta has died,' strictly apply to the body only, and are transferred to the soul in so far only as it is connected with a body. Adhik.
3nature of the individual soul, the £*iva. — Adhik. X (16) teaches that expressions such as ' Devadatta is born,' * De- vadatta has died,' strictly apply to the body only, and are transferred to the soul in so far only as it is connected with a body. Adhik. XI (17) teaches that the individual soul is, accord- ing to Scripture, permanent, eternal, and therefore not, like the ether and the other elements, produced from Brahman at the time of creation. — This Sutra is of course com- mented on in a very different manner by 5ankara on the one hand and Ramanu^a on the other. According to the former, the ^*iva is in reality identical — and as such co- eternal — with Brahman ; what originates is merely the soul's connexion with its limiting adjuncts, and that con- nexion is moreover illusory. — According to R&manu^a, the ^-iva is indeed an effect of Brahman, but has existed in Brahman from all eternity as an individual being and as a mode (prak&ra) of Brahman. So indeed have also the material elements ; yet there is an important distinction owing to which the elements may be said to originate at the time of creation, while the same cannot be said of the soul. Previously to creation the material elements exist in a subtle condition in which they possess none of the qualities that later on render them the objects of ordinary experience ; hence, when passing over into the gross state at the time of creation, they may be said to originate. The souls, on the other hand, possess at all times the same essential qualities, i.e. they are cognizing agents; only, whenever a new creation takes place, they associate themselves with bodies, and their intelligence therewith undergoes a certain expansion or development (viklra), contrasting with the unevolved or contracted state (san- liv vedAnta-s6tras. ko£a) which characterised it during the preceding pralaya. But this change is not a change of essential nature (svaru- pdnyathabhava), and hence we have to distinguish the souls as permanent entities from the material elements which at the time of each creation and reabsorption change their essential characteristics. Adhik. XII (18) defines the nature of the individual soul. The Sutra declares that the soul is ' gn&? This means, according to .Safikara, that intelligence or knowledge does not, as the Vai^eshikas teach, constitute a mere attribute of the soul which in itself is essentially non-intelligent, but is the very essence of the soul. The soul is not a knower, but knowledge ; not intelligent, but intelligence. — Ramanu^*a, on the other hand, explains ' gna.' by 'gn&tri,9 i.e.
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.
1Adhik. IV (28-32) is directed against the vi^anavddins, according to whom ideas are the only reality. — The last Sutra of this adhikara^a is treated by R&m&nu^a as a separate adhikara^a refuting the view of the Madhyamikas, who teach that everything is void, i.e. that nothing what- ever is real. — Adhik. V (33-36) is directed against the doc- trine of the Gainas ; Adhik. VI (37-41) against those philo- sophical schools which teach that a highest Lord is not the material but only the operative cause of the world. The last adhikara/za of the pada (42-45) refers, according to the unanimous statement of the commentators, to the doctrine of the Bhagavatas or Pa/zz&aratras. But 6ankara and Ramanu^a totally disagree as to the drift of the Sutrakara's opinion regarding that system. According to the former it is condemned like the systems previously referred to ; according to the latter it is approved of. — Sutras 42 and 43, according to both commentators, raise objections against the system; Sutra 42 being directed against the doctrine that from the highest being, called Vasudeva, there is originated Sankarsha^a, i.e. the ^iva, on the ground that thereby those scriptural passages would be contradicted which teach the soul's eternity ; and Sutra 43 impugning the doctrine that from Sankarsha^a there springs Pradyumna, i.e. the manas. — The Sutra on which the difference of interpretation turns is 44. Literally trans- lated it runs, 'Or, on account of there being' (or, 'their being') 'knowledge and so on, there is non-contradiction of that.' — This means, according to Safikara, ' Or, if in consequence of the existence of knowledge and so on (on the part of Sankarsha^a, &c. they be taken not as soul, mind, &c. but as Lords of pre-eminent knowledge, &c), yet there is non-contradiction of that (viz. of the objection raised in Sutra 42 against the Bhagavata doctrine).' — d2 Hi vedAnta-sOtras. According to Raminu^a, on the other hand, the Sutra has to be explained as follows : ' Or, rather there is non- contradiction of that (i. e. the Pa^aratra doctrine) on ac- count of their being knowledge and so on (i. e. on account of their being Brahman)/ Which means : Since San- karsha^a and so on are merely forms of manifestation of Brahman, the Pa^aratra doctrine, according to which they spring from Brahman, is not contradicted.
2ount of their being knowledge and so on (i. e. on account of their being Brahman)/ Which means : Since San- karsha^a and so on are merely forms of manifestation of Brahman, the Pa^aratra doctrine, according to which they spring from Brahman, is not contradicted. — The form of the Sutra makes it difficult for us to decide which of the two interpretations is the right one ; it, however, appears to me that the explanations of the 'v&' and of the 'tat,' implied in Rdmanu^a's comment, are more natural than those resulting from ^ankara's interpretation. Nor would it be an unnatural proceeding to close the polemical pada with a defence of that doctrine which — in spite of objec- tions— has to be viewed as the true one. PAda III. The third p&da discusses the question whether the dif- ferent forms of existence which, in their totality, constitute the world have an origin or not, i.e. whether they are co- eternal with Brahman, or issue from it and are refunded into it at stated intervals. The first seven adhikara^as treat of the five elementary substances. — Adhik. I (1-7) teaches that the ether is not co-eternal with Brahman, but springs from it as its first effect. — Adhik. II (8) shows that air springs from ether ; Adhik. IV, V, VI (10; 11 ; 13) that fire springs from air, water from tire, earth from water. — Adhik. Ill (9) explains by way of digression that Brahman, which is not some special entity, but quite generally 'that which is,' cannot have originated from anything else. Adhik. VII (13) demonstrates that the origination of one element from another is due, not to the latter in itself, but to Brahman acting in it. Adhik. VIII (14) teaches that the reabsorption of the elements into Brahman takes place in the inverse order of their emission. Adhik. IX (15) remarks that the indicated order in which INTRODUCTION. Kli the emission and the reabsorption of the elementary sub- stances take place is not interfered with by the creation and reabsorption of the organs of the soul, i.e. the sense organs and the internal organ (manas); for they also are of elemental nature, and as such created and retracted to- gether with the elements of which they consist. The remainder of the p&da is taken up by a discussion of the nature of the individual soul, the £*iva. — Adhik. X (16) teaches that expressions such as ' Devadatta is born,' * De- vadatta has died,' strictly apply to the body only, and are transferred to the soul in so far only as it is connected with a body. Adhik.
3nature of the individual soul, the £*iva. — Adhik. X (16) teaches that expressions such as ' Devadatta is born,' * De- vadatta has died,' strictly apply to the body only, and are transferred to the soul in so far only as it is connected with a body. Adhik. XI (17) teaches that the individual soul is, accord- ing to Scripture, permanent, eternal, and therefore not, like the ether and the other elements, produced from Brahman at the time of creation. — This Sutra is of course com- mented on in a very different manner by 5ankara on the one hand and Ramanu^a on the other. According to the former, the ^*iva is in reality identical — and as such co- eternal — with Brahman ; what originates is merely the soul's connexion with its limiting adjuncts, and that con- nexion is moreover illusory. — According to R&manu^a, the ^-iva is indeed an effect of Brahman, but has existed in Brahman from all eternity as an individual being and as a mode (prak&ra) of Brahman. So indeed have also the material elements ; yet there is an important distinction owing to which the elements may be said to originate at the time of creation, while the same cannot be said of the soul. Previously to creation the material elements exist in a subtle condition in which they possess none of the qualities that later on render them the objects of ordinary experience ; hence, when passing over into the gross state at the time of creation, they may be said to originate. The souls, on the other hand, possess at all times the same essential qualities, i.e. they are cognizing agents; only, whenever a new creation takes place, they associate themselves with bodies, and their intelligence therewith undergoes a certain expansion or development (viklra), contrasting with the unevolved or contracted state (san- liv vedAnta-s6tras. ko£a) which characterised it during the preceding pralaya. But this change is not a change of essential nature (svaru- pdnyathabhava), and hence we have to distinguish the souls as permanent entities from the material elements which at the time of each creation and reabsorption change their essential characteristics. Adhik. XII (18) defines the nature of the individual soul. The Sutra declares that the soul is ' gn&? This means, according to .Safikara, that intelligence or knowledge does not, as the Vai^eshikas teach, constitute a mere attribute of the soul which in itself is essentially non-intelligent, but is the very essence of the soul. The soul is not a knower, but knowledge ; not intelligent, but intelligence. — Ramanu^*a, on the other hand, explains ' gna.' by 'gn&tri,9 i.e.
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.