Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1erely that the case of Brahman is different from that of potters and similar agents. For while potters, &c, on the one side, and gods, &c, on the other side, possess the common attribute of intelli- gence, potters require for their work extraneous means (i. e. means lying outside their bodies) and gods do not. Hence Brahman also, although intelligent, is assumed to require no extraneous means. So much only we wanted to show by the parallel instance of the gods, &c. Our intention is to point out that a peculiarly conditioned capability which 1 The right reading appears to be ' svayam eva ^etana ' as found in some MSS. Other MSS. read Mana^. II ADHYAYA, 1 PADA, 26. 349 is observed in some one case (as in that of the potter) is not necessarily to be assumed in all other cases also. 26. Either the consequence of the entire (Brah- man undergoing change) has to be accepted, or else a violation of the texts declaring Brahman to be without parts. Hitherto we have established so much that Brahman, intelligent, one, without a second, modifying itself without the employment of any extraneous means, is the cause of the world. — Now, another objection is raised for the purpose of throwing additional light on the point under discussion. — The consequence of the Vedanta doctrine, it is said, will be that we must assume the entire Brahman to undergo the change into its effects, because it is not composed of parts. If Brahman, like earth and other matter, consisted of parts, we might assume that a part of it undergoes the change, while the other part remains as it is. But Scripture distinctly declares Brahman to be devoid of parts. Com- pare, ' He who is without parts, without actions, tranquil, without fault, without taint' (Sve. Up. VI, 19); 'That heavenly person is without body, he is both without and within, not produced ' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 2); 'That great Being is endless, unlimited, consisting of nothing but knowledge ' (Br/. Up. II, 4, 13); 'He is to be described by No, no* (Br/. Up. Ill, 9, 26); 'It is neither coarse nor fine' (Br/. Up. Ill, 8, 8) ; all which passages deny the existence of any distinctions in Brahman. — As, therefore, a partial modi- fication is impossible, a modification of the entire Brahman has to be assumed. But that involves a cutting off of Brahman from its very basis. — Another consequence of the Vedantic view is that the texts exhorting us to strive ' to see' Brahman become purposeless ; for the effects of Brahman may be seen without any endeavour, and apart from them no Brahman exists.
2g off of Brahman from its very basis. — Another consequence of the Vedantic view is that the texts exhorting us to strive ' to see' Brahman become purposeless ; for the effects of Brahman may be seen without any endeavour, and apart from them no Brahman exists. — And, finally, the texts declaring Brah- man to be unborn are contradicted thereby. — If, on the other hand — in order to escape from these difficulties — we assume Brahman to consist of parts, we thereby do violence to those texts which declare Brahman not to be made up of parts. 3 5° VEDANTA-SUTRAS. Moreover, if Brahman is made up of parts, it follows that it is non-eternal. — Hence the Vedantic point of view cannot be maintained in any way. 27. But (this is not so), on account of scriptural passages, and on account of (Brahman) resting on Scripture (only). The word 'but' discards the objection. — We deny this and maintain that our view is not open to any objections. — That the entire Brahman undergoes change, by no means follows from our doctrine, ' on account of sacred texts/ For in the same way as Scripture speaks of the origin of the world from Brahman, it also speaks of Brahman subsisting apart from its effects. This appears from the passages indicating the difference of cause and effect (' That divinity thought) let me enter into these three divinities with this living Self and evolve names and forms;' and, 'Such is the greatness of it, greater than it is the Person ; one foot of him are all things, three feet are what is immortal in heaven5 (Kh. Up. Ill, 13, 6); further, from the passages declaring the unmodified Brahman to have its abode in the heart, and from those teaching that (in dreamless sleep) the individual soul is united with the True. For if the entire Brahman had passed into its effects, the limitation (of the soul's union with Brahman) to the state of dreamless sleep which is declared in the passage, ' then it is united with the True, my dear,' would be out of place ; since the individual soul is always united with the effects of Brah- man, and since an unmodified Brahman does not exist (on that hypothesis). Moreover, the possibility of Brahman becoming the object of perception by means of the senses is denied while its effects may thus be perceived. For these reasons the existence of an unmodified Brahman has to be admitted. — Nor do we violate those texts which declare Brahman to be without parts ; we rather admit Brahman to be without parts just because Scripture reveals it.
3effects may thus be perceived. For these reasons the existence of an unmodified Brahman has to be admitted. — Nor do we violate those texts which declare Brahman to be without parts ; we rather admit Brahman to be without parts just because Scripture reveals it. For Brahman which rests exclusively on the holy texts, and regarding which the holy texts alone are authori- II ADHYAYA, I PADA, 2J. 35 I tative — not the senses, and so on — must be accepted such as the texts proclaim it to be. Now those texts declare, on the one hand, that not the entire Brahman passes over into its effects, and, on the other hand, that Brahman is without parts. Even certain ordinary things such as gems, spells, herbs, and the like possess powers which, owing to difference of time, place, occasion, and so on, produce various opposite effects, and nobody unaided by instruc- tion is able to find out by mere reflection the number of these powers, their favouring conditions, their objects, their purposes, &c. ; how much more impossible is it to conceive without the aid of Scripture the true nature of Brahman with its powers unfathomable by thought! As the Pura^a says: 'Do not apply reasoning to what is unthinkable! The mark of the unthinkable is that it is above all material causes1.' Therefore the cognition of what is supersensuous is based on the holy texts only. But — our opponent will say — even the holy texts can- not make us understand what is contradictory. Brahman, you say, which is without parts undergoes a change, but not the entire Brahman. If Brahman is without parts, it does either not change at all or it changes in its entirety. If, on the other hand, it be said that it changes partly and persists partly, a break is effected in its nature, and from that it follows that it consists of parts. It is true that in matters connected with action (as, for instance, in the case of the two Vedic injunctions ' at the atiratra he is to take the sho^a^in- cup,' and ' at the atiratra he is not to take the sho^a^in-cup ') any contradiction which may present itself to the under- standing is removed by the optional adoption of one of the two alternatives presented as action is dependent on man ; but in the case under discussion the adoption of one of the alternatives does not remove the contradiction because an existent thing (like Brahman) does not (like an action which is to be accomplished) depend on man. We are therefore met here by a real difficulty. 1 Prakn'tibhya iti, pratyakshadr/sh/apadarthasvabhavebhyo yat parazrc vilaksha^am a^dryadyupade^agamyaw tad a&ntyam ity artha^.
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.
1erely that the case of Brahman is different from that of potters and similar agents. For while potters, &c, on the one side, and gods, &c, on the other side, possess the common attribute of intelli- gence, potters require for their work extraneous means (i. e. means lying outside their bodies) and gods do not. Hence Brahman also, although intelligent, is assumed to require no extraneous means. So much only we wanted to show by the parallel instance of the gods, &c. Our intention is to point out that a peculiarly conditioned capability which 1 The right reading appears to be ' svayam eva ^etana ' as found in some MSS. Other MSS. read Mana^. II ADHYAYA, 1 PADA, 26. 349 is observed in some one case (as in that of the potter) is not necessarily to be assumed in all other cases also. 26. Either the consequence of the entire (Brah- man undergoing change) has to be accepted, or else a violation of the texts declaring Brahman to be without parts. Hitherto we have established so much that Brahman, intelligent, one, without a second, modifying itself without the employment of any extraneous means, is the cause of the world. — Now, another objection is raised for the purpose of throwing additional light on the point under discussion. — The consequence of the Vedanta doctrine, it is said, will be that we must assume the entire Brahman to undergo the change into its effects, because it is not composed of parts. If Brahman, like earth and other matter, consisted of parts, we might assume that a part of it undergoes the change, while the other part remains as it is. But Scripture distinctly declares Brahman to be devoid of parts. Com- pare, ' He who is without parts, without actions, tranquil, without fault, without taint' (Sve. Up. VI, 19); 'That heavenly person is without body, he is both without and within, not produced ' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 2); 'That great Being is endless, unlimited, consisting of nothing but knowledge ' (Br/. Up. II, 4, 13); 'He is to be described by No, no* (Br/. Up. Ill, 9, 26); 'It is neither coarse nor fine' (Br/. Up. Ill, 8, 8) ; all which passages deny the existence of any distinctions in Brahman. — As, therefore, a partial modi- fication is impossible, a modification of the entire Brahman has to be assumed. But that involves a cutting off of Brahman from its very basis. — Another consequence of the Vedantic view is that the texts exhorting us to strive ' to see' Brahman become purposeless ; for the effects of Brahman may be seen without any endeavour, and apart from them no Brahman exists.
2g off of Brahman from its very basis. — Another consequence of the Vedantic view is that the texts exhorting us to strive ' to see' Brahman become purposeless ; for the effects of Brahman may be seen without any endeavour, and apart from them no Brahman exists. — And, finally, the texts declaring Brah- man to be unborn are contradicted thereby. — If, on the other hand — in order to escape from these difficulties — we assume Brahman to consist of parts, we thereby do violence to those texts which declare Brahman not to be made up of parts. 3 5° VEDANTA-SUTRAS. Moreover, if Brahman is made up of parts, it follows that it is non-eternal. — Hence the Vedantic point of view cannot be maintained in any way. 27. But (this is not so), on account of scriptural passages, and on account of (Brahman) resting on Scripture (only). The word 'but' discards the objection. — We deny this and maintain that our view is not open to any objections. — That the entire Brahman undergoes change, by no means follows from our doctrine, ' on account of sacred texts/ For in the same way as Scripture speaks of the origin of the world from Brahman, it also speaks of Brahman subsisting apart from its effects. This appears from the passages indicating the difference of cause and effect (' That divinity thought) let me enter into these three divinities with this living Self and evolve names and forms;' and, 'Such is the greatness of it, greater than it is the Person ; one foot of him are all things, three feet are what is immortal in heaven5 (Kh. Up. Ill, 13, 6); further, from the passages declaring the unmodified Brahman to have its abode in the heart, and from those teaching that (in dreamless sleep) the individual soul is united with the True. For if the entire Brahman had passed into its effects, the limitation (of the soul's union with Brahman) to the state of dreamless sleep which is declared in the passage, ' then it is united with the True, my dear,' would be out of place ; since the individual soul is always united with the effects of Brah- man, and since an unmodified Brahman does not exist (on that hypothesis). Moreover, the possibility of Brahman becoming the object of perception by means of the senses is denied while its effects may thus be perceived. For these reasons the existence of an unmodified Brahman has to be admitted. — Nor do we violate those texts which declare Brahman to be without parts ; we rather admit Brahman to be without parts just because Scripture reveals it.
3effects may thus be perceived. For these reasons the existence of an unmodified Brahman has to be admitted. — Nor do we violate those texts which declare Brahman to be without parts ; we rather admit Brahman to be without parts just because Scripture reveals it. For Brahman which rests exclusively on the holy texts, and regarding which the holy texts alone are authori- II ADHYAYA, I PADA, 2J. 35 I tative — not the senses, and so on — must be accepted such as the texts proclaim it to be. Now those texts declare, on the one hand, that not the entire Brahman passes over into its effects, and, on the other hand, that Brahman is without parts. Even certain ordinary things such as gems, spells, herbs, and the like possess powers which, owing to difference of time, place, occasion, and so on, produce various opposite effects, and nobody unaided by instruc- tion is able to find out by mere reflection the number of these powers, their favouring conditions, their objects, their purposes, &c. ; how much more impossible is it to conceive without the aid of Scripture the true nature of Brahman with its powers unfathomable by thought! As the Pura^a says: 'Do not apply reasoning to what is unthinkable! The mark of the unthinkable is that it is above all material causes1.' Therefore the cognition of what is supersensuous is based on the holy texts only. But — our opponent will say — even the holy texts can- not make us understand what is contradictory. Brahman, you say, which is without parts undergoes a change, but not the entire Brahman. If Brahman is without parts, it does either not change at all or it changes in its entirety. If, on the other hand, it be said that it changes partly and persists partly, a break is effected in its nature, and from that it follows that it consists of parts. It is true that in matters connected with action (as, for instance, in the case of the two Vedic injunctions ' at the atiratra he is to take the sho^a^in- cup,' and ' at the atiratra he is not to take the sho^a^in-cup ') any contradiction which may present itself to the under- standing is removed by the optional adoption of one of the two alternatives presented as action is dependent on man ; but in the case under discussion the adoption of one of the alternatives does not remove the contradiction because an existent thing (like Brahman) does not (like an action which is to be accomplished) depend on man. We are therefore met here by a real difficulty. 1 Prakn'tibhya iti, pratyakshadr/sh/apadarthasvabhavebhyo yat parazrc vilaksha^am a^dryadyupade^agamyaw tad a&ntyam ity artha^.
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.