Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1(31) constitutes an adhikara/za (XVIII) lxxii vedanta-s6tras. deciding that the road of the gods is followed not only by those knowing the vidyas which specially mention the going on that road, but by all who are acquainted with the sagu/za-vidyas of Brahman. — The explanation given in the •Sri-bhashya (in which Sutras 31 and 32 have exchanged places) is similar, with the difference however that all who meditate on Brahman — without any reference to the dis- tinction of nirgu/za and sagu/za — proceed after death on the road of the gods. (The .Sri-bhashya reads 'sarvesh&m,' i. e. all worshippers, not ' sarvasam/ all sagu^a-vidyas.) Adhik. XIX (32) decides that, although the general effect of true knowledge is release from all forms of body, yet even such beings as have reached perfect knowledge may retain a body for the purpose of discharging certain offices. — In the Sri-bhashya, where the Sutra follows immediately on Sutra 30, the adhikara^a determines, in close connexion with 30, that, although those who know Brahman as a rule divest themselves of the gross body— there remaining only a subtle body which enables them to move — and no longer experience pleasure and pain, yet certain beings, although having reached the cognition of Brahman, remain invested with a gross body, and hence liable to pleasure and pain until they have fully performed certain duties. Adhik. XX (33) teaches that the negative attributes of Brahman mentioned in some vidyas — such as its being not gross, not subtle, &c. — are to be included in all meditations on Brahman.— Adhik. XXI (34) determines that Ka/^a Up. Ill, 1, and Mu. Up. Ill, t, constitute one vidya only, because both passages refer to the highest Brahman. According to Ramanu^-a the Sutra contains a reply to an objection raised against the conclusion arrived at in the preceding Sutra.— Adhik. XXII (35, 36) maintains that the two passages, Bri Up. Ill, 4 and III, 5, constitute one vidya only, the object of knowledge being in both cases Brahman viewed as the inner Self of all.— Adhik. XXIII (37) on the contrary decides that the passage Ait. Ar. II, 2, 4, 6 con- stitutes not one but two meditations.— Adhik. XXIV (38) again determines that the vidyd of the True contained in Bri. Up. V, 4, 5, is one only.— According to Rdmanu^a, INTRODUCTION/ 1 XX1U Sutras 35-38 constitute one adhikara^a only whose subject is the same as that of XXII according to Sankara. Adhik. XXV (39) proves that the passages Kh. Up. VIII, 1 and Bri. Up.
2n Bri. Up. V, 4, 5, is one only.— According to Rdmanu^a, INTRODUCTION/ 1 XX1U Sutras 35-38 constitute one adhikara^a only whose subject is the same as that of XXII according to Sankara. Adhik. XXV (39) proves that the passages Kh. Up. VIII, 1 and Bri. Up. IV, 4, %% cannot constitute one vidya, since the former refers to Brahman as possessing qualities, while the latter is concerned with Brahman as destitute of qualities. — Adhik. XXVI (40, 41) treats, according to 5ah- kara, of a minor question connected with Kh. Up. V, 1 1 ff. — According to the Sri-bhashya, Sutras 39-41 form one adhikara^a whose first Sutra reaches essentially the same conclusion as 5ankara under 39. Sutras 40, 41 thereupon discuss a general question concerning the meditations on Brahman. The qualities, an opponent is supposed to re- mark, which in the two passages discussed are predicated of Brahman — such as va.ritva, satyakamatva, &c. — cannot be considered real (paramarthika), since other passages (sa esha neti neti, and the like) declare Brahman to be devoid of all qualities. Hence those qualities cannot be admitted into meditations whose purpose is final release. — To this objec- tion Sutra 40 replies, '(Those qualities) are not to be left out (from the meditations on Brahman), since (in the passages under discussion as well as in other passages) they are stated with emphasis1/ — But, another objection is raised, Scrip- ture says that he who meditates on Brahman as satyakama, &c. obtains a mere perishable reward, viz. the world of the fathers, and similar results specified in Kh. Up. VIII, 1 ; hence, he who is desirous of final release, must not include those qualities of Brahman in his meditation. — To this ob- jection Sutra 41 replies, ' Because that (i.e. the free roaming in all the worlds, the world of the fathers, &c.) is stated as proceeding therefrom (i. e. the approach to Brahman which is final release) in the case of (the soul) which has approached Brahman;' (therefore a person desirous of release, may include satyakamatva, &c. in his meditations.) 1 Ramanu^u has here some strong remarks on the improbability of qualities emphatically attributed to Brahman, in more than one passage, having to be set aside in any meditation : ' Na ka, matapitWsahasrebhyo * pi vatsalataraw SB.stra.rn prat&rakavad aparamarthikau nirasaniyau guwau pramawantaraprati- pannau adarewopadijya sawsara^akraparivartanena pftrvam eva bambhramya- manan mumukshtin bhuyo*pi bhramayitum alam/ Ixxiv vedAnta-s^tras. Adhik.
3ion : ' Na ka, matapitWsahasrebhyo * pi vatsalataraw SB.stra.rn prat&rakavad aparamarthikau nirasaniyau guwau pramawantaraprati- pannau adarewopadijya sawsara^akraparivartanena pftrvam eva bambhramya- manan mumukshtin bhuyo*pi bhramayitum alam/ Ixxiv vedAnta-s^tras. Adhik. XXVII (42) decides that those meditations which are connected with certain matters forming constituent parts of sacrificial actions, are not to be considered as perma- nently requisite parts of the latter. — Adhik. XXVIII (43) teaches that, in a Bri.Up. passage and a similar Kh. Up. passage, Vayu and Pra;za are not to be identified, but to be held apart.— Adhik. XXIX (44-52) decides that the fire- altars made of mind, &c, which are mentioned in the Agni* rahasya, do not constitute parts of the sacrificial action (so that the mental, &c. construction of the altar could optionally be substituted for the actual one), but merely subjects of meditations. Adhik. XXX (53, 54) treats, according to 5ankara, in the way of digression, of the question whether to the Self an existence independent of the body can be assigned, or not (as the Materialists maintain).— According to the vSri-bha- shya the adhikara^a does not refer to this wide question, but is concerned with a point more immediately connected with the meditations on Brahman, viz. the question as to the form under which, in those meditations, the Self of the meditating devotee has to be viewed. The two Sutras then have to be translated as follows : ' Some (maintain that the soul of the devotee has, in meditations, to be viewed as possessing those attributes only which belong to it in its embodied state, such as gnatritva and the like), because the Self is (at the time of meditation) in the body.* « — The next Sutra rejects this view, ' This is not so, but the separatedness (i. e. the pure isolated state in which the Self is at the time of final release when it is freed from all evil, &c.) (is to be transferred to the meditating Self), because that will be * the state (of the Self in the condition of final release).' Adhik. XXXI (55, 56) decides that meditations connected with constituent elements of the sacrifice, such as the udgitha, are, in spite of difference of svara in the udgitha, &c, valid, not only for that sakha in which the medita- tion actually is met with, but for all rakhas. — Adhik. 1 The *Sri-bhashya as well as several other commentaries reads tadbhava* bhavitvat for iankara's tadbhavabhavitvat. INTRODUCTION. ' lxxV XXXII (57) decides that the VaLrvanara Agni of Kh. Up. V, 1 1 ff.
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(31) constitutes an adhikara/za (XVIII) lxxii vedanta-s6tras. deciding that the road of the gods is followed not only by those knowing the vidyas which specially mention the going on that road, but by all who are acquainted with the sagu/za-vidyas of Brahman. — The explanation given in the •Sri-bhashya (in which Sutras 31 and 32 have exchanged places) is similar, with the difference however that all who meditate on Brahman — without any reference to the dis- tinction of nirgu/za and sagu/za — proceed after death on the road of the gods. (The .Sri-bhashya reads 'sarvesh&m,' i. e. all worshippers, not ' sarvasam/ all sagu^a-vidyas.) Adhik. XIX (32) decides that, although the general effect of true knowledge is release from all forms of body, yet even such beings as have reached perfect knowledge may retain a body for the purpose of discharging certain offices. — In the Sri-bhashya, where the Sutra follows immediately on Sutra 30, the adhikara^a determines, in close connexion with 30, that, although those who know Brahman as a rule divest themselves of the gross body— there remaining only a subtle body which enables them to move — and no longer experience pleasure and pain, yet certain beings, although having reached the cognition of Brahman, remain invested with a gross body, and hence liable to pleasure and pain until they have fully performed certain duties. Adhik. XX (33) teaches that the negative attributes of Brahman mentioned in some vidyas — such as its being not gross, not subtle, &c. — are to be included in all meditations on Brahman.— Adhik. XXI (34) determines that Ka/^a Up. Ill, 1, and Mu. Up. Ill, t, constitute one vidya only, because both passages refer to the highest Brahman. According to Ramanu^-a the Sutra contains a reply to an objection raised against the conclusion arrived at in the preceding Sutra.— Adhik. XXII (35, 36) maintains that the two passages, Bri Up. Ill, 4 and III, 5, constitute one vidya only, the object of knowledge being in both cases Brahman viewed as the inner Self of all.— Adhik. XXIII (37) on the contrary decides that the passage Ait. Ar. II, 2, 4, 6 con- stitutes not one but two meditations.— Adhik. XXIV (38) again determines that the vidyd of the True contained in Bri. Up. V, 4, 5, is one only.— According to Rdmanu^a, INTRODUCTION/ 1 XX1U Sutras 35-38 constitute one adhikara^a only whose subject is the same as that of XXII according to Sankara. Adhik. XXV (39) proves that the passages Kh. Up. VIII, 1 and Bri. Up.
2n Bri. Up. V, 4, 5, is one only.— According to Rdmanu^a, INTRODUCTION/ 1 XX1U Sutras 35-38 constitute one adhikara^a only whose subject is the same as that of XXII according to Sankara. Adhik. XXV (39) proves that the passages Kh. Up. VIII, 1 and Bri. Up. IV, 4, %% cannot constitute one vidya, since the former refers to Brahman as possessing qualities, while the latter is concerned with Brahman as destitute of qualities. — Adhik. XXVI (40, 41) treats, according to 5ah- kara, of a minor question connected with Kh. Up. V, 1 1 ff. — According to the Sri-bhashya, Sutras 39-41 form one adhikara^a whose first Sutra reaches essentially the same conclusion as 5ankara under 39. Sutras 40, 41 thereupon discuss a general question concerning the meditations on Brahman. The qualities, an opponent is supposed to re- mark, which in the two passages discussed are predicated of Brahman — such as va.ritva, satyakamatva, &c. — cannot be considered real (paramarthika), since other passages (sa esha neti neti, and the like) declare Brahman to be devoid of all qualities. Hence those qualities cannot be admitted into meditations whose purpose is final release. — To this objec- tion Sutra 40 replies, '(Those qualities) are not to be left out (from the meditations on Brahman), since (in the passages under discussion as well as in other passages) they are stated with emphasis1/ — But, another objection is raised, Scrip- ture says that he who meditates on Brahman as satyakama, &c. obtains a mere perishable reward, viz. the world of the fathers, and similar results specified in Kh. Up. VIII, 1 ; hence, he who is desirous of final release, must not include those qualities of Brahman in his meditation. — To this ob- jection Sutra 41 replies, ' Because that (i.e. the free roaming in all the worlds, the world of the fathers, &c.) is stated as proceeding therefrom (i. e. the approach to Brahman which is final release) in the case of (the soul) which has approached Brahman;' (therefore a person desirous of release, may include satyakamatva, &c. in his meditations.) 1 Ramanu^u has here some strong remarks on the improbability of qualities emphatically attributed to Brahman, in more than one passage, having to be set aside in any meditation : ' Na ka, matapitWsahasrebhyo * pi vatsalataraw SB.stra.rn prat&rakavad aparamarthikau nirasaniyau guwau pramawantaraprati- pannau adarewopadijya sawsara^akraparivartanena pftrvam eva bambhramya- manan mumukshtin bhuyo*pi bhramayitum alam/ Ixxiv vedAnta-s^tras. Adhik.
3ion : ' Na ka, matapitWsahasrebhyo * pi vatsalataraw SB.stra.rn prat&rakavad aparamarthikau nirasaniyau guwau pramawantaraprati- pannau adarewopadijya sawsara^akraparivartanena pftrvam eva bambhramya- manan mumukshtin bhuyo*pi bhramayitum alam/ Ixxiv vedAnta-s^tras. Adhik. XXVII (42) decides that those meditations which are connected with certain matters forming constituent parts of sacrificial actions, are not to be considered as perma- nently requisite parts of the latter. — Adhik. XXVIII (43) teaches that, in a Bri.Up. passage and a similar Kh. Up. passage, Vayu and Pra;za are not to be identified, but to be held apart.— Adhik. XXIX (44-52) decides that the fire- altars made of mind, &c, which are mentioned in the Agni* rahasya, do not constitute parts of the sacrificial action (so that the mental, &c. construction of the altar could optionally be substituted for the actual one), but merely subjects of meditations. Adhik. XXX (53, 54) treats, according to 5ankara, in the way of digression, of the question whether to the Self an existence independent of the body can be assigned, or not (as the Materialists maintain).— According to the vSri-bha- shya the adhikara^a does not refer to this wide question, but is concerned with a point more immediately connected with the meditations on Brahman, viz. the question as to the form under which, in those meditations, the Self of the meditating devotee has to be viewed. The two Sutras then have to be translated as follows : ' Some (maintain that the soul of the devotee has, in meditations, to be viewed as possessing those attributes only which belong to it in its embodied state, such as gnatritva and the like), because the Self is (at the time of meditation) in the body.* « — The next Sutra rejects this view, ' This is not so, but the separatedness (i. e. the pure isolated state in which the Self is at the time of final release when it is freed from all evil, &c.) (is to be transferred to the meditating Self), because that will be * the state (of the Self in the condition of final release).' Adhik. XXXI (55, 56) decides that meditations connected with constituent elements of the sacrifice, such as the udgitha, are, in spite of difference of svara in the udgitha, &c, valid, not only for that sakha in which the medita- tion actually is met with, but for all rakhas. — Adhik. 1 The *Sri-bhashya as well as several other commentaries reads tadbhava* bhavitvat for iankara's tadbhavabhavitvat. INTRODUCTION. ' lxxV XXXII (57) decides that the VaLrvanara Agni of Kh. Up. V, 1 1 ff.
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.