Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1eveti va paY^a/6, tatha sati hetava abhasa^. lx VEDANTA-S<JTRAS. former deeds which determines the nature of the new embodiment. Adhik. Ill (12,-2,1) discusses the fate after death of those whom their good works do not entitle to pass up to the moon. Adhik. IV, V, VI (22; 23; 24-27) teach that the subtle bodies of the souls descending from the moon through the ether, air, &c, do not become identical with ether, air, &c, but only like them ; that the entire descent occupies a short time only; and that, when the souls finally enter into plants and so on, they do not participate in the life of the latter, but are merely in external contact with them. Pada II. Adhik. I (1-6) treats of the soul in the dreaming state. According to Sankara the three first Statras discuss the question whether the creative activity ascribed to the soul in some scriptural passages produces things as real as those by which the waking soul is surrounded, or not ; Stitra 3 settles the point by declaring that the creations of the dreaming soul are mere ' Mayi,5 since they do not fully manifest the character of real objects. Sutra 4 adds that dreams, although mere Maya, yet have a prophetic quality. Sutras 5 and 6 finally reply to the question why the soul, which after all is a part of the Lord and as such parti- cipates in his excellencies, should not be able to produce in its dreams a real creation, by the remark that the soul's knowledge and power are obscured by its connexion with the gross body. The considerably diverging interpretation given of this adhikara^a by Ramanu^a has the advantage of more closely connecting the Sutras with each other. According to him the question is not whether the creations of a dream are real or not, but whether they are the work of the indi- vidual soul or of the Lord acting within the soul. Sutras 1 and 2 set forth the purvapaksha. The creations of dreams (are the work of the individual soul) ; for thus Scripture declares : ' And the followers of some .yakhas declare (the INTRODUCTION. lxi soul to be) a creator/ &c. The third Sutra states the siddhanta view: 'But the creations of dreams are Maya, i.e. are of a wonderful nature (and as such cannot be effected by the individual soul), since (in this life) the nature (of the soul) is not fully manifested.' Concerning the word * maya,' Ramanu£*a remarks, ' mayd^abdo hy askaryzvaki ^"anaka^ya kule g&Xk devamayeva nirmita ityadishu tatha danyanat' The three remaining Sutras are exhibited in the Sri-bhashya in a different order, the fourth Sutra, according to vSankara, being the sixth
2word * maya,' Ramanu£*a remarks, ' mayd^abdo hy askaryzvaki ^"anaka^ya kule g&Xk devamayeva nirmita ityadishu tatha danyanat' The three remaining Sutras are exhibited in the Sri-bhashya in a different order, the fourth Sutra, according to vSankara, being the sixth according to R&ma- nu^a. Sutras 4 and 5 (according to Ramanii^a's numera- tion) are explained by Ramanu^-a very much in the same way as by vSaiikara ; but owing to the former's statement of the subject-matter of the whole adhikara^a they connect themselves more intimately with the preceding Sutras than is possible on vSankara's interpretation. In Sutra 6 (sukakas ka hi) Ramanu^a sees a deduction from the siddhanta of the adhikara^a, 'Because the images of a dream are pro- duced by the highest Lord himself, therefore they have prophetic significance/ Adhik. II teaches that in the state of deep dreamless sleep the soul abides within Brahman in the heart. Adhik. Ill (9) expounds the reasons entitling us to assume that the soul awakening from sleep is the same that went to sleep. — Adhik. IV (9) explains the nature of a swoon. Adhik. V(n-2i) is, according to 6ankara, taken up with the question as to the nature of the highest Brahman in which the individual soul is merged in the state of deep sleep. Sutra 11 declares that twofold characteristics (viz. absence and presence of distinctive attributes, nirvi.reshatva and savLreshatva) cannot belong to the highest Brahman even through its stations, i. e. its limiting adjuncts ; since all passages which aim at setting forth Brahman's nature declare it to be destitute of all distinctive attributes. — The fact, Sutra 12 continues, that in many passages Brahman is spoken of as possessing distinctive attributes is of no relevancy, since wherever there are mentioned limiting ad- juncts, on which all distinction depends, it is specially stated Ixil VEDANTA-sftTRAS. that Brahman in itself is free from all diversity ; and — Sutra 13 adds — in some places the assumption of diversity is spe- cially objected to. — That Brahman is devoid of all form (Sutra 14), is the pre-eminent meaning of all Ved&nta-texts setting forth Brahman's nature. — That Brahman is repre- sented as having different forms, as it were, is due to its connexion with its (unreal) limiting adjuncts ; just as the light of the sun appears straight or crooked, as it were, according to the nature of the things he illuminates (15). — The BWhad&ra/zyaka expressly declares that Brahman is one uniform mass of intelligence (16); and the same is taught in other scriptural passages and in Smrz'ti (17).
3rs straight or crooked, as it were, according to the nature of the things he illuminates (15). — The BWhad&ra/zyaka expressly declares that Brahman is one uniform mass of intelligence (16); and the same is taught in other scriptural passages and in Smrz'ti (17). — At the unreality of the apparent manifoldness of the Self, caused by the limiting adjuncts, aim those scriptural passages in which the Self is compared to the sun, which remains one although his reflections on the surface of the water are many (18), — Nor must the objection be raised that that comparison is unsuitable, because the Self is not material like the sun, and there are no real upaldhis separate from it as the water is from the sun ; for the comparison merely means to indicate that, as the reflected image of the sun participates in the changes, increase, decrease, &c, which the water undergoes while the sun himself remains unaffected thereby, so the true Self is not affected by the attributes of the upadhis, while, in so far as it is limited by the latter, it is affected by them as it were (19, 20). — That the Self is within the upadhis, Scripture declares (21). From the above explanation of this important adhikara^a the one given in the vSri-bhashya differs totally. According to Ram&nu^a the adhikara/za raises the question whether the imperfections clinging to the individual soul (the dis- cussion of which has now come to an end) affect also the highest Lord who, according to Scripture, abides within the soul as antaryamin. ' Notwithstanding the abode (of the highest Self within the soul) (it is) not (affected by the soul's imperfections) because everywhere (the highest Self is repre- sented) as having twofold characteristics (viz. being, on one hand, free from all evil, apahatapapman, vi^ara, vimrztyu, &c, and, on the other hand, endowed with all auspicious INTRODUCTION. Ixiii qualities, satyakdma, satyasa^kalpa, &c.) (n). — Should it be objected that, just as the soul although essentially free from evil — according to the Pra^&pativdkya in the Kkkn- dogya — yet is liable to imperfections owing to its connexion with a variety of bodies, so the antaryamin also is affected by abiding within bodies ; we deny this because in every section of the chapter referring to the antary&min (in the IWhad&ra^yaka) he is expressly called the Immortal, the ruler within ; which shows him to be free from the short- comings of the g\va. (12). — Some, moreover, expressly assert that, although the Lord and the soul are within one body, the soul only is imperfect, not the Lord (dv& suparaa sayu^a sakh&y&) (13).
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.
1eveti va paY^a/6, tatha sati hetava abhasa^. lx VEDANTA-S<JTRAS. former deeds which determines the nature of the new embodiment. Adhik. Ill (12,-2,1) discusses the fate after death of those whom their good works do not entitle to pass up to the moon. Adhik. IV, V, VI (22; 23; 24-27) teach that the subtle bodies of the souls descending from the moon through the ether, air, &c, do not become identical with ether, air, &c, but only like them ; that the entire descent occupies a short time only; and that, when the souls finally enter into plants and so on, they do not participate in the life of the latter, but are merely in external contact with them. Pada II. Adhik. I (1-6) treats of the soul in the dreaming state. According to Sankara the three first Statras discuss the question whether the creative activity ascribed to the soul in some scriptural passages produces things as real as those by which the waking soul is surrounded, or not ; Stitra 3 settles the point by declaring that the creations of the dreaming soul are mere ' Mayi,5 since they do not fully manifest the character of real objects. Sutra 4 adds that dreams, although mere Maya, yet have a prophetic quality. Sutras 5 and 6 finally reply to the question why the soul, which after all is a part of the Lord and as such parti- cipates in his excellencies, should not be able to produce in its dreams a real creation, by the remark that the soul's knowledge and power are obscured by its connexion with the gross body. The considerably diverging interpretation given of this adhikara^a by Ramanu^a has the advantage of more closely connecting the Sutras with each other. According to him the question is not whether the creations of a dream are real or not, but whether they are the work of the indi- vidual soul or of the Lord acting within the soul. Sutras 1 and 2 set forth the purvapaksha. The creations of dreams (are the work of the individual soul) ; for thus Scripture declares : ' And the followers of some .yakhas declare (the INTRODUCTION. lxi soul to be) a creator/ &c. The third Sutra states the siddhanta view: 'But the creations of dreams are Maya, i.e. are of a wonderful nature (and as such cannot be effected by the individual soul), since (in this life) the nature (of the soul) is not fully manifested.' Concerning the word * maya,' Ramanu£*a remarks, ' mayd^abdo hy askaryzvaki ^"anaka^ya kule g&Xk devamayeva nirmita ityadishu tatha danyanat' The three remaining Sutras are exhibited in the Sri-bhashya in a different order, the fourth Sutra, according to vSankara, being the sixth
2word * maya,' Ramanu£*a remarks, ' mayd^abdo hy askaryzvaki ^"anaka^ya kule g&Xk devamayeva nirmita ityadishu tatha danyanat' The three remaining Sutras are exhibited in the Sri-bhashya in a different order, the fourth Sutra, according to vSankara, being the sixth according to R&ma- nu^a. Sutras 4 and 5 (according to Ramanii^a's numera- tion) are explained by Ramanu^-a very much in the same way as by vSaiikara ; but owing to the former's statement of the subject-matter of the whole adhikara^a they connect themselves more intimately with the preceding Sutras than is possible on vSankara's interpretation. In Sutra 6 (sukakas ka hi) Ramanu^a sees a deduction from the siddhanta of the adhikara^a, 'Because the images of a dream are pro- duced by the highest Lord himself, therefore they have prophetic significance/ Adhik. II teaches that in the state of deep dreamless sleep the soul abides within Brahman in the heart. Adhik. Ill (9) expounds the reasons entitling us to assume that the soul awakening from sleep is the same that went to sleep. — Adhik. IV (9) explains the nature of a swoon. Adhik. V(n-2i) is, according to 6ankara, taken up with the question as to the nature of the highest Brahman in which the individual soul is merged in the state of deep sleep. Sutra 11 declares that twofold characteristics (viz. absence and presence of distinctive attributes, nirvi.reshatva and savLreshatva) cannot belong to the highest Brahman even through its stations, i. e. its limiting adjuncts ; since all passages which aim at setting forth Brahman's nature declare it to be destitute of all distinctive attributes. — The fact, Sutra 12 continues, that in many passages Brahman is spoken of as possessing distinctive attributes is of no relevancy, since wherever there are mentioned limiting ad- juncts, on which all distinction depends, it is specially stated Ixil VEDANTA-sftTRAS. that Brahman in itself is free from all diversity ; and — Sutra 13 adds — in some places the assumption of diversity is spe- cially objected to. — That Brahman is devoid of all form (Sutra 14), is the pre-eminent meaning of all Ved&nta-texts setting forth Brahman's nature. — That Brahman is repre- sented as having different forms, as it were, is due to its connexion with its (unreal) limiting adjuncts ; just as the light of the sun appears straight or crooked, as it were, according to the nature of the things he illuminates (15). — The BWhad&ra/zyaka expressly declares that Brahman is one uniform mass of intelligence (16); and the same is taught in other scriptural passages and in Smrz'ti (17).
3rs straight or crooked, as it were, according to the nature of the things he illuminates (15). — The BWhad&ra/zyaka expressly declares that Brahman is one uniform mass of intelligence (16); and the same is taught in other scriptural passages and in Smrz'ti (17). — At the unreality of the apparent manifoldness of the Self, caused by the limiting adjuncts, aim those scriptural passages in which the Self is compared to the sun, which remains one although his reflections on the surface of the water are many (18), — Nor must the objection be raised that that comparison is unsuitable, because the Self is not material like the sun, and there are no real upaldhis separate from it as the water is from the sun ; for the comparison merely means to indicate that, as the reflected image of the sun participates in the changes, increase, decrease, &c, which the water undergoes while the sun himself remains unaffected thereby, so the true Self is not affected by the attributes of the upadhis, while, in so far as it is limited by the latter, it is affected by them as it were (19, 20). — That the Self is within the upadhis, Scripture declares (21). From the above explanation of this important adhikara^a the one given in the vSri-bhashya differs totally. According to Ram&nu^a the adhikara/za raises the question whether the imperfections clinging to the individual soul (the dis- cussion of which has now come to an end) affect also the highest Lord who, according to Scripture, abides within the soul as antaryamin. ' Notwithstanding the abode (of the highest Self within the soul) (it is) not (affected by the soul's imperfections) because everywhere (the highest Self is repre- sented) as having twofold characteristics (viz. being, on one hand, free from all evil, apahatapapman, vi^ara, vimrztyu, &c, and, on the other hand, endowed with all auspicious INTRODUCTION. Ixiii qualities, satyakdma, satyasa^kalpa, &c.) (n). — Should it be objected that, just as the soul although essentially free from evil — according to the Pra^&pativdkya in the Kkkn- dogya — yet is liable to imperfections owing to its connexion with a variety of bodies, so the antaryamin also is affected by abiding within bodies ; we deny this because in every section of the chapter referring to the antary&min (in the IWhad&ra^yaka) he is expressly called the Immortal, the ruler within ; which shows him to be free from the short- comings of the g\va. (12). — Some, moreover, expressly assert that, although the Lord and the soul are within one body, the soul only is imperfect, not the Lord (dv& suparaa sayu^a sakh&y&) (13).
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.