Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1— or as it is often, shortly but not accurately, termed, the Mima^sa- i-astra — and, on the other hand, all those works which are commonly comprised under the name Vedanta-^astra. At the head of this extensive literature there stand two collec- tions of Sutras (i. e. short aphorisms constituting in their totality a complete body of doctrine upon some subject), whose reputed authors are Gaimini and Badaraya^a. There can, however, be no doubt that the composition of those two Xli VEDANTA-StjTRAS. collections of Sutras was preceded by a long series of pre- paratory literary efforts of which they merely represent the highly condensed outcome. This is rendered probable by the analogy of other ^astras, as well as by the exhaustive thoroughness with which the Sutras perform their task of systematising the teaching of the Veda, and is further proved by the frequent references which the Sutras make to the views of earlier teachers. If we consider merely the preserved monuments of Indian literature, the Sutras (of the two Mimosas as well as of other ^stras) mark the begin- ning ; if we, however, take into account what once existed, although it is at present irretrievably lost, we observe that they occupy a strictly central position, summarising, on the one hand, a series of early literary essays extending over many generations, and forming, on the other hand, the head spring of an ever broadening activity of commentators as well as virtually independent writers, which reaches down to our days, and may yet have some future before itself. The general scope of the two Mima/^sd-sutras and their relation to the Veda have been indicated in what precedes. A difference of some importance between the two has, how- ever, to be noted in this connexion. The systematisation of the karmaka^a of the Veda led to the elaboration of two classes of works, viz. the Kalpa-sutras on the one hand, and the Purva Mim&^sa-sutras on the other hand. The former give nothing but a description as concise as possible of the sacrifices enjoined in the Brahma/zas; while the latter discuss and establish the general principles which the author of a Kalpa-sutra has to follow, if he wishes to render his rules strictly conformable to the teaching of the Veda. The ^Tzanak&^a of the Veda, on the other hand, is system- atised in a single work, viz. the Uttara Mim&^sa or Ved&nta- sutras, which combine the two tasks of concisely stating the teaching of the Veda, and of argumentatively establishing the special interpretation of the Veda adopted in the Sutras. This difference may be accounted for by two reasons.
2he Uttara Mim&^sa or Ved&nta- sutras, which combine the two tasks of concisely stating the teaching of the Veda, and of argumentatively establishing the special interpretation of the Veda adopted in the Sutras. This difference may be accounted for by two reasons. In the first place, the contents of the karmaki^rfa, as being of an entirely practical nature, called for summaries such as the Kalpa-sutras, from which all burdensome discussions of INTRODUCTION. Xlll method are excluded ; while there was no similar reason for the separation of the two topics in the case of the purely- theoretical science of Brahman. And, in the second place, the Vedanta-sutras throughout presuppose the Purva Mima/^sa-sutras, and may therefore dispense with the discussion of general principles and methods already esta- blished in the latter. The time at which the two Mima^sa-sutras were com- posed we are at present unable to fix with any certainty ; a few remarks on the subject will, however, be made later on. Their outward form is that common to all the so- called Sutras which aims at condensing a given body of doctrine in a number of concise aphoristic sentences, and often even mere detached words in lieu of sentences. Besides the Mima/^sa-sutras this literary form is common to the fundamental works on the other philosophic systems, on the Vedic sacrifices, on domestic ceremonies, on sacred law, on grammar, and on metres. The two Mima//zsa- sutras occupy, however, an altogether exceptional position in point of style. All Sutras aim at conciseness ; that is clearly the reason to which this whole species of literary composition owes its existence. This their aim they reach by the rigid exclusion of all words which can possibly be spared, by the careful avoidance of all unnecessary repeti- tions, and, as in the case of the grammatical Sutras, by the employment of an arbitrarily coined terminology which substitutes single syllables for entire words or combination of words. At the same time the manifest intention of the Sutra writers is to express themselves with as much clear- ness as the conciseness affected by them admits of. The aphorisms are indeed often concise to excess, but not otherwise intrinsically obscure, the manifest care of the writers being to retain what is essential in a given phrase, and to sacrifice only what can be supplied, although perhaps not without difficulty, and an irksome strain of memory and reflection. Hence the possibility of understanding without a commentary a very considerable portion at any rate of the ordinary Sutras.
3phrase, and to sacrifice only what can be supplied, although perhaps not without difficulty, and an irksome strain of memory and reflection. Hence the possibility of understanding without a commentary a very considerable portion at any rate of the ordinary Sutras. Altogether different is the case of the two Mima/^sa-sutras. There scarcely one single Sutra is xiv VEDANTA-stiTRAS. intelligible without a commentary. The most essential words are habitually dispensed with ; nothing is, for instance, more common than the simple omission of the subject or predicate of a sentence. And when here and there a Sutra occurs whose words construe without anything having to be supplied, the phraseology is so eminently vague and obscure that without the help derived from a commentary we should be unable to make out to what subject the Sutra refers. When undertaking to translate either of the MimaMsa- sutras we therefore depend altogether on commentaries ; and hence the question arises which of the numerous com- mentaries extant is to be accepted as a guide to their right understanding. The commentary here selected for translation, together with Badaraya;za's Sutras 5 (to which we shall henceforth confine our attention to the exclusion of Gaimini's Purva Mima;^sa-sutras), is the one composed by the celebrated theologian Sankara or, as he is commonly called, Sankara- >£arya. There are obvious reasons for this selection. In the first place, the .Sankara-bhashya represents the so- called orthodox side of Brahmanical theology which strictly upholds the Brahman or highest Self of the Upanishads as something different from, and in fact immensely superior to, the divine beings such as Vishnu or Siva, which, for many centuries, have been the chief objects of popular worship in India. In the second place, the doctrine advocated by Sankara is, from a purely philosophical point of view and apart from all theological considerations, the most im- portant and interesting one which has arisen on Indian soil ; neither those forms of the Vedanta which diverge from the view represented by Sankara nor any of the non-Vedantic systems can be compared with the so-called orthodox Vedanta in boldness, depth, and subtlety of speculation. In the third place, Sankara's bhashya is, as far as we know, the oldest of the extant commentaries, and relative antiquity is at any rate one of the circumstances which have to be 1 The Sutras in which the £7zanakaWa of the Veda is systematised go by- various names, being called either Vedanta-sutras, or Uttara Mimawsa-sutras, or Brahma-sutras, or .Sariraka Mimawsa-sutras.
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.
1— or as it is often, shortly but not accurately, termed, the Mima^sa- i-astra — and, on the other hand, all those works which are commonly comprised under the name Vedanta-^astra. At the head of this extensive literature there stand two collec- tions of Sutras (i. e. short aphorisms constituting in their totality a complete body of doctrine upon some subject), whose reputed authors are Gaimini and Badaraya^a. There can, however, be no doubt that the composition of those two Xli VEDANTA-StjTRAS. collections of Sutras was preceded by a long series of pre- paratory literary efforts of which they merely represent the highly condensed outcome. This is rendered probable by the analogy of other ^astras, as well as by the exhaustive thoroughness with which the Sutras perform their task of systematising the teaching of the Veda, and is further proved by the frequent references which the Sutras make to the views of earlier teachers. If we consider merely the preserved monuments of Indian literature, the Sutras (of the two Mimosas as well as of other ^stras) mark the begin- ning ; if we, however, take into account what once existed, although it is at present irretrievably lost, we observe that they occupy a strictly central position, summarising, on the one hand, a series of early literary essays extending over many generations, and forming, on the other hand, the head spring of an ever broadening activity of commentators as well as virtually independent writers, which reaches down to our days, and may yet have some future before itself. The general scope of the two Mima/^sd-sutras and their relation to the Veda have been indicated in what precedes. A difference of some importance between the two has, how- ever, to be noted in this connexion. The systematisation of the karmaka^a of the Veda led to the elaboration of two classes of works, viz. the Kalpa-sutras on the one hand, and the Purva Mim&^sa-sutras on the other hand. The former give nothing but a description as concise as possible of the sacrifices enjoined in the Brahma/zas; while the latter discuss and establish the general principles which the author of a Kalpa-sutra has to follow, if he wishes to render his rules strictly conformable to the teaching of the Veda. The ^Tzanak&^a of the Veda, on the other hand, is system- atised in a single work, viz. the Uttara Mim&^sa or Ved&nta- sutras, which combine the two tasks of concisely stating the teaching of the Veda, and of argumentatively establishing the special interpretation of the Veda adopted in the Sutras. This difference may be accounted for by two reasons.
2he Uttara Mim&^sa or Ved&nta- sutras, which combine the two tasks of concisely stating the teaching of the Veda, and of argumentatively establishing the special interpretation of the Veda adopted in the Sutras. This difference may be accounted for by two reasons. In the first place, the contents of the karmaki^rfa, as being of an entirely practical nature, called for summaries such as the Kalpa-sutras, from which all burdensome discussions of INTRODUCTION. Xlll method are excluded ; while there was no similar reason for the separation of the two topics in the case of the purely- theoretical science of Brahman. And, in the second place, the Vedanta-sutras throughout presuppose the Purva Mima/^sa-sutras, and may therefore dispense with the discussion of general principles and methods already esta- blished in the latter. The time at which the two Mima^sa-sutras were com- posed we are at present unable to fix with any certainty ; a few remarks on the subject will, however, be made later on. Their outward form is that common to all the so- called Sutras which aims at condensing a given body of doctrine in a number of concise aphoristic sentences, and often even mere detached words in lieu of sentences. Besides the Mima/^sa-sutras this literary form is common to the fundamental works on the other philosophic systems, on the Vedic sacrifices, on domestic ceremonies, on sacred law, on grammar, and on metres. The two Mima//zsa- sutras occupy, however, an altogether exceptional position in point of style. All Sutras aim at conciseness ; that is clearly the reason to which this whole species of literary composition owes its existence. This their aim they reach by the rigid exclusion of all words which can possibly be spared, by the careful avoidance of all unnecessary repeti- tions, and, as in the case of the grammatical Sutras, by the employment of an arbitrarily coined terminology which substitutes single syllables for entire words or combination of words. At the same time the manifest intention of the Sutra writers is to express themselves with as much clear- ness as the conciseness affected by them admits of. The aphorisms are indeed often concise to excess, but not otherwise intrinsically obscure, the manifest care of the writers being to retain what is essential in a given phrase, and to sacrifice only what can be supplied, although perhaps not without difficulty, and an irksome strain of memory and reflection. Hence the possibility of understanding without a commentary a very considerable portion at any rate of the ordinary Sutras.
3phrase, and to sacrifice only what can be supplied, although perhaps not without difficulty, and an irksome strain of memory and reflection. Hence the possibility of understanding without a commentary a very considerable portion at any rate of the ordinary Sutras. Altogether different is the case of the two Mima/^sa-sutras. There scarcely one single Sutra is xiv VEDANTA-stiTRAS. intelligible without a commentary. The most essential words are habitually dispensed with ; nothing is, for instance, more common than the simple omission of the subject or predicate of a sentence. And when here and there a Sutra occurs whose words construe without anything having to be supplied, the phraseology is so eminently vague and obscure that without the help derived from a commentary we should be unable to make out to what subject the Sutra refers. When undertaking to translate either of the MimaMsa- sutras we therefore depend altogether on commentaries ; and hence the question arises which of the numerous com- mentaries extant is to be accepted as a guide to their right understanding. The commentary here selected for translation, together with Badaraya;za's Sutras 5 (to which we shall henceforth confine our attention to the exclusion of Gaimini's Purva Mima;^sa-sutras), is the one composed by the celebrated theologian Sankara or, as he is commonly called, Sankara- >£arya. There are obvious reasons for this selection. In the first place, the .Sankara-bhashya represents the so- called orthodox side of Brahmanical theology which strictly upholds the Brahman or highest Self of the Upanishads as something different from, and in fact immensely superior to, the divine beings such as Vishnu or Siva, which, for many centuries, have been the chief objects of popular worship in India. In the second place, the doctrine advocated by Sankara is, from a purely philosophical point of view and apart from all theological considerations, the most im- portant and interesting one which has arisen on Indian soil ; neither those forms of the Vedanta which diverge from the view represented by Sankara nor any of the non-Vedantic systems can be compared with the so-called orthodox Vedanta in boldness, depth, and subtlety of speculation. In the third place, Sankara's bhashya is, as far as we know, the oldest of the extant commentaries, and relative antiquity is at any rate one of the circumstances which have to be 1 The Sutras in which the £7zanakaWa of the Veda is systematised go by- various names, being called either Vedanta-sutras, or Uttara Mimawsa-sutras, or Brahma-sutras, or .Sariraka Mimawsa-sutras.
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.