Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1ted ? — It is true, we reply, that a part of the system which we are going to discuss agrees with the Vedanta system, and hence affords no matter for controversy ; another part of the system, how- ever, is open to objection, and that part we intend to attack. The so-called Bhagavatas are of opinion that the one holy (bhagavat) Vasudeva, whose nature is pure knowledge, is what really exists, and that he, dividing himself fourfold, appears in four forms (vyuha), as V&sudeva, Sankarsha^a, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha. Vasudeva denotes the highest Self, Sankarsha^a the individual soul, Pradyumna the mind (manas), Aniruddha the principle of egoity (ahankara). Of these four Vasudeva constitutes the ultimate causal essence, of which the three others are the effects. — The believer after having worshipped Vasudeva for a hundred years by means of approach to the temple (abhigamana), procuring of things to be offered (upadana), oblation (i^ya), recitation of prayers, &c. (svadhyaya), and devout meditation (yoga), passes beyond all affliction and reaches the highest Being. Concerning this system we remark that we do not intend to controvert the doctrine that Naraya/za, who is higher than the Undeveloped, who is the highest Self, and the Self of all, reveals himself by dividing himself in multiple ways ; for various scriptural passages, such as ' He is one- fold, he is threefold' (Kh. Up. VII, 26, 2), teach us that the highest Self appears in manifold forms. Nor do we mean to object to the inculcation of unceasing concentra- tion of mind on the highest Being which appears in the Bhagavata doctrine under the forms of reverential approach, II ADHYAYA, 2 pAdA, 44. 44! &c. ; for that we are to meditate on the Lord we know full well from Smrzti and Scripture. We, however, must take exception to the doctrine that Sahkarsha^a springs from Vasudeva, Pradyumna from Sankarsha^a, Aniruddha from Pradyumna. It is not possible that from Vasudeva, i. e. the highest Self, there should originate Sahkarsha^a, i. e. the individual soul ; for if such were the case, there would attach to the soul non-permanency, and all the other imper- fections which belong to things originated. And thence release, which consists in reaching the highest Being, could not take place; for the effect is absorbed only by entering into its cause. — That the soul is not an originated thing, the teacher will prove later on (II, 3, 17). For this reason the Bhagavata hypothesis is unacceptable. 43. And (it is) not (observed that) the instrument is produced from the agent.
2d only by entering into its cause. — That the soul is not an originated thing, the teacher will prove later on (II, 3, 17). For this reason the Bhagavata hypothesis is unacceptable. 43. And (it is) not (observed that) the instrument is produced from the agent. The Bh&gavata hypothesis is to be rejected for that reason also, that observation never shows us an instrument, such as a hatchet and the like, to spring from an agent such as Devadatta, or any other workman. But the Bhagavatas teach that from an agent, viz. the individual soul termed Sankarsha/za, there springs its instrument, viz. the internal organ termed Pradyumna, and again from this offspring of the agent another instrument, viz. the ahankara termed Aniruddha. Such doctrines cannot be settled without observed instances. And we do not meet with any scriptural passage in their favour. 44. Or (if) in consequence of the existence of knowledge, &c. (V&sudeva, &c. be taken as Lords), yet there is non-exclusion of that (i. e. the objection raised in Siitra 42). Let us then — the Bhagavatas may say — understand by Sankarsha/za, and so on, not the individual soul, the mind, &c, but rather Lords, i. e. powerful beings distinguished by all the qualities characteristic of rulers, such as pre-eminence of knowledge and ruling capacity, strength, valour, glory. 44 2 VEDANTA-stfTRAS. All these are Vasudevas free from faults, without a sub- stratum (not sprung from pradhana), without any imper- fections. Hence the objection urged in Sutra 42 does not apply. Even on this interpretation of your doctrine, we reply, the ' non-exclusion of that/ i.e. the non-exclusion of the impossibility of origination, can be established. — Do you, in the first place, mean to say that the four individual Lords, Vasudeva, and so on, have the same attributes, but do not constitute one and the same Self? — If so, you commit the fault of uselessly assuming more than one Lord, while all the work of the Lord can be done by one. Moreover, you offend thereby against your own principle, according to which there is only one real essence, viz. the holy Vasu- deva.— Or do you perhaps mean to say that from the one highest Being there spring those four forms possessing equal attributes ? — In that case the objection urged in Sutra 4a remains valid. For Sankarsha/za cannot be produced from V&sudeva, nor Pradyumna from Sankarsha^a, nor Aniruddha from Pradyumna, since (the attributes of all of them being the same) there is no supereminence of any one of them.
3case the objection urged in Sutra 4a remains valid. For Sankarsha/za cannot be produced from V&sudeva, nor Pradyumna from Sankarsha^a, nor Aniruddha from Pradyumna, since (the attributes of all of them being the same) there is no supereminence of any one of them. Observation shows that the relation of cause and effect requires some superiority on the part of the cause — as, for instance, in the case of the clay and the jar (where the cause is more extensive than the effect) — and that without such superiority the relation is simply impossible. But the followers of the Pa^aratra do not acknowledge any difference founded on superiority of knowledge, power, &c. between Vasudeva and the other Lords, but simply say that they all are forms of Vasudeva, without any special distinc- tions. The forms of Vasudeva cannot properly be limited to four, as the whole world, from Brahman down to a blade of grass, is understood to be a manifestation of the supreme Being. 45. And on account of contradictions. Moreover, manifold contradictions are met with in the Bhagavata system, with reference to the assumption of qualities and their bearers. Eminence of knowledge and II ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 45. 443 ruling capacity, strength, valour, and glory are enumerated as qualities, and then they are in some other place spoken of as Selfs, holy Vasudevas, and so on. — Moreover, we meet with passages contradictory of the Veda. The follow- ing passage, for instance, blames the Veda, ' Not having found the highest bliss in the Vedas Sa^ilya studied this jastra.' — For this reason also the Bhagavata doctrine can- not be accepted. TRANSLITERATION OF ORIENTAL ALPHABETS. 445 •» 3 n n ^ n a n * t: ^n D •0 - - UoJU ls)-«J d :h> '0 - - UoJ-U fc) W-oJ ^N 3 OOs/ <^^3 QJOs] 3: Qs £ K P |& r^ p p p i* pr ^"g, -* s »-a -§>*< jC ^d ■a I Oh CO 03 *8 c3 « S3 O 03 55 «— <M CO TH »0 CO .2 2 1 n o» w O) oo <u to si si sj u r ; r ~ ^ N 00 ft O h pi CO a. 03 ^ 03 -i 00 Ph 03 CO »y e3 ^ CO T* O CD N. 446 TRANSLITERATION OF ORIENTAL ALPHABETS £ q . n t~ • nJN .9 D - M *b .•> 7)-} ">«b ••> Vi ¥ <j t- mit. aW ? -e 2.^ *) <^r ^ |c|y . \cr p -iritis .
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.
1ted ? — It is true, we reply, that a part of the system which we are going to discuss agrees with the Vedanta system, and hence affords no matter for controversy ; another part of the system, how- ever, is open to objection, and that part we intend to attack. The so-called Bhagavatas are of opinion that the one holy (bhagavat) Vasudeva, whose nature is pure knowledge, is what really exists, and that he, dividing himself fourfold, appears in four forms (vyuha), as V&sudeva, Sankarsha^a, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha. Vasudeva denotes the highest Self, Sankarsha^a the individual soul, Pradyumna the mind (manas), Aniruddha the principle of egoity (ahankara). Of these four Vasudeva constitutes the ultimate causal essence, of which the three others are the effects. — The believer after having worshipped Vasudeva for a hundred years by means of approach to the temple (abhigamana), procuring of things to be offered (upadana), oblation (i^ya), recitation of prayers, &c. (svadhyaya), and devout meditation (yoga), passes beyond all affliction and reaches the highest Being. Concerning this system we remark that we do not intend to controvert the doctrine that Naraya/za, who is higher than the Undeveloped, who is the highest Self, and the Self of all, reveals himself by dividing himself in multiple ways ; for various scriptural passages, such as ' He is one- fold, he is threefold' (Kh. Up. VII, 26, 2), teach us that the highest Self appears in manifold forms. Nor do we mean to object to the inculcation of unceasing concentra- tion of mind on the highest Being which appears in the Bhagavata doctrine under the forms of reverential approach, II ADHYAYA, 2 pAdA, 44. 44! &c. ; for that we are to meditate on the Lord we know full well from Smrzti and Scripture. We, however, must take exception to the doctrine that Sahkarsha^a springs from Vasudeva, Pradyumna from Sankarsha^a, Aniruddha from Pradyumna. It is not possible that from Vasudeva, i. e. the highest Self, there should originate Sahkarsha^a, i. e. the individual soul ; for if such were the case, there would attach to the soul non-permanency, and all the other imper- fections which belong to things originated. And thence release, which consists in reaching the highest Being, could not take place; for the effect is absorbed only by entering into its cause. — That the soul is not an originated thing, the teacher will prove later on (II, 3, 17). For this reason the Bhagavata hypothesis is unacceptable. 43. And (it is) not (observed that) the instrument is produced from the agent.
2d only by entering into its cause. — That the soul is not an originated thing, the teacher will prove later on (II, 3, 17). For this reason the Bhagavata hypothesis is unacceptable. 43. And (it is) not (observed that) the instrument is produced from the agent. The Bh&gavata hypothesis is to be rejected for that reason also, that observation never shows us an instrument, such as a hatchet and the like, to spring from an agent such as Devadatta, or any other workman. But the Bhagavatas teach that from an agent, viz. the individual soul termed Sankarsha/za, there springs its instrument, viz. the internal organ termed Pradyumna, and again from this offspring of the agent another instrument, viz. the ahankara termed Aniruddha. Such doctrines cannot be settled without observed instances. And we do not meet with any scriptural passage in their favour. 44. Or (if) in consequence of the existence of knowledge, &c. (V&sudeva, &c. be taken as Lords), yet there is non-exclusion of that (i. e. the objection raised in Siitra 42). Let us then — the Bhagavatas may say — understand by Sankarsha/za, and so on, not the individual soul, the mind, &c, but rather Lords, i. e. powerful beings distinguished by all the qualities characteristic of rulers, such as pre-eminence of knowledge and ruling capacity, strength, valour, glory. 44 2 VEDANTA-stfTRAS. All these are Vasudevas free from faults, without a sub- stratum (not sprung from pradhana), without any imper- fections. Hence the objection urged in Sutra 42 does not apply. Even on this interpretation of your doctrine, we reply, the ' non-exclusion of that/ i.e. the non-exclusion of the impossibility of origination, can be established. — Do you, in the first place, mean to say that the four individual Lords, Vasudeva, and so on, have the same attributes, but do not constitute one and the same Self? — If so, you commit the fault of uselessly assuming more than one Lord, while all the work of the Lord can be done by one. Moreover, you offend thereby against your own principle, according to which there is only one real essence, viz. the holy Vasu- deva.— Or do you perhaps mean to say that from the one highest Being there spring those four forms possessing equal attributes ? — In that case the objection urged in Sutra 4a remains valid. For Sankarsha/za cannot be produced from V&sudeva, nor Pradyumna from Sankarsha^a, nor Aniruddha from Pradyumna, since (the attributes of all of them being the same) there is no supereminence of any one of them.
3case the objection urged in Sutra 4a remains valid. For Sankarsha/za cannot be produced from V&sudeva, nor Pradyumna from Sankarsha^a, nor Aniruddha from Pradyumna, since (the attributes of all of them being the same) there is no supereminence of any one of them. Observation shows that the relation of cause and effect requires some superiority on the part of the cause — as, for instance, in the case of the clay and the jar (where the cause is more extensive than the effect) — and that without such superiority the relation is simply impossible. But the followers of the Pa^aratra do not acknowledge any difference founded on superiority of knowledge, power, &c. between Vasudeva and the other Lords, but simply say that they all are forms of Vasudeva, without any special distinc- tions. The forms of Vasudeva cannot properly be limited to four, as the whole world, from Brahman down to a blade of grass, is understood to be a manifestation of the supreme Being. 45. And on account of contradictions. Moreover, manifold contradictions are met with in the Bhagavata system, with reference to the assumption of qualities and their bearers. Eminence of knowledge and II ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 45. 443 ruling capacity, strength, valour, and glory are enumerated as qualities, and then they are in some other place spoken of as Selfs, holy Vasudevas, and so on. — Moreover, we meet with passages contradictory of the Veda. The follow- ing passage, for instance, blames the Veda, ' Not having found the highest bliss in the Vedas Sa^ilya studied this jastra.' — For this reason also the Bhagavata doctrine can- not be accepted. TRANSLITERATION OF ORIENTAL ALPHABETS. 445 •» 3 n n ^ n a n * t: ^n D •0 - - UoJU ls)-«J d :h> '0 - - UoJ-U fc) W-oJ ^N 3 OOs/ <^^3 QJOs] 3: Qs £ K P |& r^ p p p i* pr ^"g, -* s »-a -§>*< jC ^d ■a I Oh CO 03 *8 c3 « S3 O 03 55 «— <M CO TH »0 CO .2 2 1 n o» w O) oo <u to si si sj u r ; r ~ ^ N 00 ft O h pi CO a. 03 ^ 03 -i 00 Ph 03 CO »y e3 ^ CO T* O CD N. 446 TRANSLITERATION OF ORIENTAL ALPHABETS £ q . n t~ • nJN .9 D - M *b .•> 7)-} ">«b ••> Vi ¥ <j t- mit. aW ? -e 2.^ *) <^r ^ |c|y . \cr p -iritis .
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.