Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1tal, 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). — Should it be said that, according to the -O&ndogya, Brahman entered together with the souls into the elements previously to the evolution of names and forms, and hence participates in the latter, thus becoming implicated in the sa;/zsara ; we reply that Brahman, although connected with such and such forms, is in itself devoid of form, since it is the principal element (agent ; pradhana) in the bringing about of names and forms (according to ' aka.ro ha vai namarupayor nirvahita') (14). — But does not the pas- sage ( satya^ ^anam anantam brahma ' teach that Brah- man is nothing but light (intelligence) without any difference, and does not the passage ' neti neti' deny of it all qualities ? — As in order, we reply, not to deprive passages as the one quoted from the Taittiriya of their purport, we admit that Brahman's nature is light, so we must also admit that Brahman is satyasa^kalpa, and so on ; for if not, the pas- sages in which those qualities are asserted would become purportless (15). — Moreover the Taittiriya passage only asserts so much, viz. the praka^arupata of Brahman, and does not deny other qualities (16). — And the passage 'neti neti' will be discussed later on. — The ubhayalihgatva of Brahman in the sense assigned above is asserted in many places of Sruti and Smr/ti (17). — Because Brahman although abiding in many places is not touched by their imperfec- tions, the similes of the reflected sun, of the ether limited by jars, &c, are applicable to it (18). — Should it be said that the illustration is not an appropriate one, because the IxiV VEDANTA-stjTRAS. sun is apprehended in the water erroneously only while the antaryamin really abides within all things, and therefore must be viewed as sharing their defects (19); we reply that what the simile means to negative is merely that Brahman should, owing to its inherence in many places, participate in the increase, decrease, and so on, of its abodes. On this view both similes are appropriate (20). — Analogous similes we observe to be employed in ordinary life, as when we compare a man to a lion (21).
2d, owing to its inherence in many places, participate in the increase, decrease, and so on, of its abodes. On this view both similes are appropriate (20). — Analogous similes we observe to be employed in ordinary life, as when we compare a man to a lion (21). Sutras 22-30 constitute, according to vSankara, a new adhikara^a (VI), whose object it is to show that the clause * not so, not so' (neti neti ; Brzhadar.) negatives, not Brah- man itself, but only the two forms of Brahman described in the preceding part of the chapter. Sutras 23-26 further dwell on Brahman being in reality devoid of all distinctive attributes which are altogether due to the upadhis. The last four Sutras return to the question how, Brahman being one only, the souls are in so many places spoken of as different from it, and, two explanatory hypotheses having been rejected, the conclusion is arrived at that all difference is unreal, due to fictitious limiting adjuncts. According to Ramanu^a, Sutras 22 ff. continue the dis- cussion started in Sutra 11. How, the question is asked, can the ubhayalingatva of Brahman be maintained considering that the ' not so, not so ' of the Brzhadara^yaka denies of Brahman all the previously mentioned modes (prakara), $0 that it can only be called that which is (sanmatra) ? — The reply given in Sutra 22 is that ' not so, not so ' does not deny of Brahman the distinctive qualities or modes declared previously (for it would be senseless at first to teach them, and finally to deny them again1), but merely denies the prakrztaitavattva, the previously stated limited nature of Brahman, i.e. it denies that Brahman possesses only the previously mentioned qualifications. With this agrees, that subsequently to ' neti neti ' Scripture itself enunciates further qualifications of Brahman. — That Brahman as stated 1 All the mentioned modes of Brahman are known from Scripture only, not from ordinary experience. If the latter were the case, then, and then only, Scripture might at first refer to them ' anuvadena,' and finally negative them. INTRODUCTION. IxV above is not the object of any other means of proof but Scrip- ture is confirmed in Sutra 23, ' Scripture declares Brahman to be the non-manifest/ — And the intuition (s&kshatkara) of Brahman ensues only upon its sa^radhana, i.e. upon its being perfectly pleased by the worshipper's devotion, as Scripture and Smrzti declare (24).
3ure is confirmed in Sutra 23, ' Scripture declares Brahman to be the non-manifest/ — And the intuition (s&kshatkara) of Brahman ensues only upon its sa^radhana, i.e. upon its being perfectly pleased by the worshipper's devotion, as Scripture and Smrzti declare (24). — That this interpretation of 'neti ' is the right one, is likewise shown by the fact that in the same way as prakcUa, luminousness, ^-/zana, intelligence, &c, so also the quality of being differentiated by the world (prapa^avuish/ata) is intuited as non-different, i. e. as like- wise qualifying Brahman ; and that praka^a, and so on, characterise Brahman, is known through repeated practice (on the part of rtshis like Vamadeva) in the work of sawridhana mentioned before (25). — For all these reasons Brahman is connected with the infinite, i.e. the infinite number of auspicious qualities ; for thus the twofold indica- tions (linga) met with in Scripture are fully justified (26). — In what relation, then, does the akid vastu, i.e. the non- sentient matter, which, according to the Brzhadara^yaka, is one of the forms of Brahman, stand to the latter ? — Non- sentient beings might, in the first place, be viewed as special arrangements (sa/^sthanavij-esha^) of Brahman, as the coils are of the body of the snake ; for Brahman is designated as both, i. e. sometimes as one with the world (Brahman is all this, &c), sometimes as different from it (Let me enter into those elements, &c.) (27). — Or, in the second place, the relation of the two might be viewed as analogous to that of light and the luminous object which are two and yet one, both being fire (28). — Or, in the third place, the relation is like that stated before, i.e. the material world is, like the individual souls (whose case was discussed in II, 3, 43), a part — a;/^a — of Brahman (29, 30). Adhik. VII (31-37) explains how some metaphorical expressions, seemingly implying that there is something different from Brahman, have to be truly understood. Adhik. VIII (38-41) teaches that the reward of works is not, as £aimini opines, the independent result of the works acting through the so-called apurva, but is allotted by the Lord. [34] e lxvi vedanta-s6tras. Pada III. With the third pada of the second adhyaya a new section of the work begins, whose task it is to describe how the individual soul is enabled by meditation on Brah- man to obtain final release.
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.
1tal, 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). — Should it be said that, according to the -O&ndogya, Brahman entered together with the souls into the elements previously to the evolution of names and forms, and hence participates in the latter, thus becoming implicated in the sa;/zsara ; we reply that Brahman, although connected with such and such forms, is in itself devoid of form, since it is the principal element (agent ; pradhana) in the bringing about of names and forms (according to ' aka.ro ha vai namarupayor nirvahita') (14). — But does not the pas- sage ( satya^ ^anam anantam brahma ' teach that Brah- man is nothing but light (intelligence) without any difference, and does not the passage ' neti neti' deny of it all qualities ? — As in order, we reply, not to deprive passages as the one quoted from the Taittiriya of their purport, we admit that Brahman's nature is light, so we must also admit that Brahman is satyasa^kalpa, and so on ; for if not, the pas- sages in which those qualities are asserted would become purportless (15). — Moreover the Taittiriya passage only asserts so much, viz. the praka^arupata of Brahman, and does not deny other qualities (16). — And the passage 'neti neti' will be discussed later on. — The ubhayalihgatva of Brahman in the sense assigned above is asserted in many places of Sruti and Smr/ti (17). — Because Brahman although abiding in many places is not touched by their imperfec- tions, the similes of the reflected sun, of the ether limited by jars, &c, are applicable to it (18). — Should it be said that the illustration is not an appropriate one, because the IxiV VEDANTA-stjTRAS. sun is apprehended in the water erroneously only while the antaryamin really abides within all things, and therefore must be viewed as sharing their defects (19); we reply that what the simile means to negative is merely that Brahman should, owing to its inherence in many places, participate in the increase, decrease, and so on, of its abodes. On this view both similes are appropriate (20). — Analogous similes we observe to be employed in ordinary life, as when we compare a man to a lion (21).
2d, owing to its inherence in many places, participate in the increase, decrease, and so on, of its abodes. On this view both similes are appropriate (20). — Analogous similes we observe to be employed in ordinary life, as when we compare a man to a lion (21). Sutras 22-30 constitute, according to vSankara, a new adhikara^a (VI), whose object it is to show that the clause * not so, not so' (neti neti ; Brzhadar.) negatives, not Brah- man itself, but only the two forms of Brahman described in the preceding part of the chapter. Sutras 23-26 further dwell on Brahman being in reality devoid of all distinctive attributes which are altogether due to the upadhis. The last four Sutras return to the question how, Brahman being one only, the souls are in so many places spoken of as different from it, and, two explanatory hypotheses having been rejected, the conclusion is arrived at that all difference is unreal, due to fictitious limiting adjuncts. According to Ramanu^a, Sutras 22 ff. continue the dis- cussion started in Sutra 11. How, the question is asked, can the ubhayalingatva of Brahman be maintained considering that the ' not so, not so ' of the Brzhadara^yaka denies of Brahman all the previously mentioned modes (prakara), $0 that it can only be called that which is (sanmatra) ? — The reply given in Sutra 22 is that ' not so, not so ' does not deny of Brahman the distinctive qualities or modes declared previously (for it would be senseless at first to teach them, and finally to deny them again1), but merely denies the prakrztaitavattva, the previously stated limited nature of Brahman, i.e. it denies that Brahman possesses only the previously mentioned qualifications. With this agrees, that subsequently to ' neti neti ' Scripture itself enunciates further qualifications of Brahman. — That Brahman as stated 1 All the mentioned modes of Brahman are known from Scripture only, not from ordinary experience. If the latter were the case, then, and then only, Scripture might at first refer to them ' anuvadena,' and finally negative them. INTRODUCTION. IxV above is not the object of any other means of proof but Scrip- ture is confirmed in Sutra 23, ' Scripture declares Brahman to be the non-manifest/ — And the intuition (s&kshatkara) of Brahman ensues only upon its sa^radhana, i.e. upon its being perfectly pleased by the worshipper's devotion, as Scripture and Smrzti declare (24).
3ure is confirmed in Sutra 23, ' Scripture declares Brahman to be the non-manifest/ — And the intuition (s&kshatkara) of Brahman ensues only upon its sa^radhana, i.e. upon its being perfectly pleased by the worshipper's devotion, as Scripture and Smrzti declare (24). — That this interpretation of 'neti ' is the right one, is likewise shown by the fact that in the same way as prakcUa, luminousness, ^-/zana, intelligence, &c, so also the quality of being differentiated by the world (prapa^avuish/ata) is intuited as non-different, i. e. as like- wise qualifying Brahman ; and that praka^a, and so on, characterise Brahman, is known through repeated practice (on the part of rtshis like Vamadeva) in the work of sawridhana mentioned before (25). — For all these reasons Brahman is connected with the infinite, i.e. the infinite number of auspicious qualities ; for thus the twofold indica- tions (linga) met with in Scripture are fully justified (26). — In what relation, then, does the akid vastu, i.e. the non- sentient matter, which, according to the Brzhadara^yaka, is one of the forms of Brahman, stand to the latter ? — Non- sentient beings might, in the first place, be viewed as special arrangements (sa/^sthanavij-esha^) of Brahman, as the coils are of the body of the snake ; for Brahman is designated as both, i. e. sometimes as one with the world (Brahman is all this, &c), sometimes as different from it (Let me enter into those elements, &c.) (27). — Or, in the second place, the relation of the two might be viewed as analogous to that of light and the luminous object which are two and yet one, both being fire (28). — Or, in the third place, the relation is like that stated before, i.e. the material world is, like the individual souls (whose case was discussed in II, 3, 43), a part — a;/^a — of Brahman (29, 30). Adhik. VII (31-37) explains how some metaphorical expressions, seemingly implying that there is something different from Brahman, have to be truly understood. Adhik. VIII (38-41) teaches that the reward of works is not, as £aimini opines, the independent result of the works acting through the so-called apurva, but is allotted by the Lord. [34] e lxvi vedanta-s6tras. Pada III. With the third pada of the second adhyaya a new section of the work begins, whose task it is to describe how the individual soul is enabled by meditation on Brah- man to obtain final release.
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.