Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1tva, &c, auvarya. — According to Audfalomi the only character- istic of the released soul is ^aitanya. — According to Badara- yana the two views can be combined (5afikara remarking that satyasa;/zkalpatva, &c. are ascribed to the released soul vyavaharapekshaya). Adhik. IV (8-9) returns, according to Sankara, to the apara vidya, and discusses the question whether the soul of 1 Kim ayam param ^yotir upasampanna/fc sarvabandhavinirmukta^ pratya- gatm& svatmanaw paramatmana^ przthagbhutam anubhavati uta tatprakarataya tadavibhaktam iti vkaye so* .mute sarvan kaman saha brahma^a vipa^ita pajya^ pajyate ivkmavarnam kartaram ham purushaw brahmayoniw tada vidvan purcyapape vidhilya mra.nga.nak paramaw samyam upaiti idam ^/zanam upamtya mama sadharmyam agata^ sarve* pi nopa^ayante pralayena vyathanti y&etyadijrutismrztibhyo muktasya parena sahityasamyasadharmyavagamat przthagbhutam anubhavatiti prapte u^yate. Avibhageneti. Parasmad brahma- nah svatmanam avibhagenanubhavati mukta^. Kuta^. Drzsh/atvat. Vavam brahmopasampadya nivrz'ttavidyatirodhanasya yathatathyena svatmano drzsh/a- tvat. Svatmana^ svarupaw hi tat tvam asy ayam atma brahma aitadatmyam idam sarvaw sarvaw khalv l&am brahmetyadisamanadhikara^yanirdej-ai^ ya atmani tish^an atmano * ntaro yam atma na veda yasyatma .rariraw ya atmanam antaro yamayati atmantaryamy amritah antah pravish/a/* jasta ^ananam ityadibhu ka paramatmatmakaw ta^Marirataya tatprakarabhutam iti pratipaditam avasthiter iti k&rakrztsnety atrato a vibhagenahaw brahmasmity evanubhavati. INTRODUCTION. lxxXV the pious effects its desires by its mere determination, or uses some other means. The former alternative is ac- cepted.— According to Ramanu^a the adhikara/za simply continues the consideration of the state of the released, begun in the preceding adhikara/za. Of the released soul it is said in Kk. Up. VIII, 12, 3 that after it has manifested itself in its true nature it moves about playing and rejoicing with women, carriages, and so on. The question then arises whether it effects all this by its mere sa^kalpa (it having been shown in the preceding adhikara^a that the released soul is, like the Lord, satyasawkalpa), or not. The answer is in favour of the former alternative, on account of the explicit declaration made in Kk. Up. VIII, 2, 'By his mere will the fathers come to receive him.' Adhik. V (10-14) decides that the released are embodied of disembodied according to their wish and will. Adhik. VI (11, 12) explains how the soul of the released can animate several bodies at the same time.
2'By his mere will the fathers come to receive him.' Adhik. V (10-14) decides that the released are embodied of disembodied according to their wish and will. Adhik. VI (11, 12) explains how the soul of the released can animate several bodies at the same time. — Sutra 12 gives, according to Sankara, the additional explanation that those passages which declare the absence of all specific cognition on the part of the released soul do not refer to the partly released soul of the devotee, but either to the soul in the state of deep sleep (svapyaya = sushupti), or to the fully released soul of the sage (sampatti = kaivalya).— Ramanu^a explains that the passages speaking of absence of conscious- ness refer either to the state of deep sleep, or to the time of dying (sampatti = mara;zam according to ' van manasi sampadyate/ &c). Adhik. VII (17-21). — The released ^ivas participate in all the perfections and powers of the Lord, with the exception of the power of creating and sustaining the world. They do not return to new forms of embodied existence. After having, in this way, rendered ourselves acquainted with the contents of the Brahma-sutras according to the views of Sankara as well as Ramanu^a, we have now to consider the question which of the two modes of interpretation represents— or at any rate more closely approximates to— the true meaning of the Sutras. That Ixxxvi vedanta-sOtras. few of the Sutras are intelligible if taken by themselves, we have already remarked above; but this does not exclude the possibility of our deciding with a fair degree of cer- tainty which of the two interpretations proposed agrees better with the text, at least in a certain number of cases. We have to note in the first place that, in spite of very numerous discrepancies, — of which only the more important ones have been singled out in the conspectus of contents, — the two commentators are at one as to the general drift of the Sutras and the arrangement of topics. As a rule, the adhikara/zas discuss one or several Vedic passages bearing upon a certain point of the system, and in the vast majority of cases the two commentators agree as to which are the special texts referred to. And, moreover, in a very large number of cases the agreement extends to the interpreta- tion to be put on those passages and on the Sutras. This far-reaching agreement certainly tends to inspire us with a certain confidence as to the existence of an old tradition concerning the meaning of the Sutras on which the bulk of the interpretations of 5ankara as well as of Ramanu^a are based.
3on the Sutras. This far-reaching agreement certainly tends to inspire us with a certain confidence as to the existence of an old tradition concerning the meaning of the Sutras on which the bulk of the interpretations of 5ankara as well as of Ramanu^a are based. But at the same time we have seen that, in a not incon- siderable number of cases, the interpretations of vSankara and Ramanu^a diverge more or less widely, and that the Sutras affected thereby are, most of them, especially important because bearing on fundamental points of the Vedanta system. The question then remains which of the two interpretations is entitled to preference. Regarding a small number of Sutras I have already (in the conspectus of contents) given it as my opinion that Ramanu^a's explanation appears to be more worthy of consideration. We meet, in the first place, with a number of cases in which the two commentators agree as to the literal meaning of a Sutra, but where Sankara sees him- self reduced to the necessity of supplementing his inter- pretation by certain additions and reservations of his own for which the text gives no occasion, while Ramanu^-a is able to take the Sutra as it stands. To exemplify this remark, I again direct attention to all those Sutras which in INTRODUCTION. lxXXvil clear terms represent the individual soul as something dif- ferent from the highest soul, and concerning which vSankara is each time obliged to have recourse to the plea of the Sutra referring, not to what is true in the strict sense of the word, but only to what is conventionally looked upon as true. It is, I admit, not altogether impossible that vSan- kara's interpretation should represent the real meaning of the Sutras ; that the latter, indeed, to use the terms em- ployed by Dr. Deussen, should for the nonce set forth an exoteric doctrine adapted to the common notions of man- kind, which, however, can be rightly understood by him only to whose mind the esoteric doctrine is all the while present. This is not impossible, I say; but it is a point which requires convincing proofs before it can be allowed. — We have had, in the second place, to note a certain number of adhikara^as and Sutras concerning whose interpretation vSankara and Ramanu^a disagree altogether; and we have seen that not unfrequently the explanations given by the latter commentator appear to be preferable because falling in more easily with the words of the text.
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.
1tva, &c, auvarya. — According to Audfalomi the only character- istic of the released soul is ^aitanya. — According to Badara- yana the two views can be combined (5afikara remarking that satyasa;/zkalpatva, &c. are ascribed to the released soul vyavaharapekshaya). Adhik. IV (8-9) returns, according to Sankara, to the apara vidya, and discusses the question whether the soul of 1 Kim ayam param ^yotir upasampanna/fc sarvabandhavinirmukta^ pratya- gatm& svatmanaw paramatmana^ przthagbhutam anubhavati uta tatprakarataya tadavibhaktam iti vkaye so* .mute sarvan kaman saha brahma^a vipa^ita pajya^ pajyate ivkmavarnam kartaram ham purushaw brahmayoniw tada vidvan purcyapape vidhilya mra.nga.nak paramaw samyam upaiti idam ^/zanam upamtya mama sadharmyam agata^ sarve* pi nopa^ayante pralayena vyathanti y&etyadijrutismrztibhyo muktasya parena sahityasamyasadharmyavagamat przthagbhutam anubhavatiti prapte u^yate. Avibhageneti. Parasmad brahma- nah svatmanam avibhagenanubhavati mukta^. Kuta^. Drzsh/atvat. Vavam brahmopasampadya nivrz'ttavidyatirodhanasya yathatathyena svatmano drzsh/a- tvat. Svatmana^ svarupaw hi tat tvam asy ayam atma brahma aitadatmyam idam sarvaw sarvaw khalv l&am brahmetyadisamanadhikara^yanirdej-ai^ ya atmani tish^an atmano * ntaro yam atma na veda yasyatma .rariraw ya atmanam antaro yamayati atmantaryamy amritah antah pravish/a/* jasta ^ananam ityadibhu ka paramatmatmakaw ta^Marirataya tatprakarabhutam iti pratipaditam avasthiter iti k&rakrztsnety atrato a vibhagenahaw brahmasmity evanubhavati. INTRODUCTION. lxxXV the pious effects its desires by its mere determination, or uses some other means. The former alternative is ac- cepted.— According to Ramanu^a the adhikara/za simply continues the consideration of the state of the released, begun in the preceding adhikara/za. Of the released soul it is said in Kk. Up. VIII, 12, 3 that after it has manifested itself in its true nature it moves about playing and rejoicing with women, carriages, and so on. The question then arises whether it effects all this by its mere sa^kalpa (it having been shown in the preceding adhikara^a that the released soul is, like the Lord, satyasawkalpa), or not. The answer is in favour of the former alternative, on account of the explicit declaration made in Kk. Up. VIII, 2, 'By his mere will the fathers come to receive him.' Adhik. V (10-14) decides that the released are embodied of disembodied according to their wish and will. Adhik. VI (11, 12) explains how the soul of the released can animate several bodies at the same time.
2'By his mere will the fathers come to receive him.' Adhik. V (10-14) decides that the released are embodied of disembodied according to their wish and will. Adhik. VI (11, 12) explains how the soul of the released can animate several bodies at the same time. — Sutra 12 gives, according to Sankara, the additional explanation that those passages which declare the absence of all specific cognition on the part of the released soul do not refer to the partly released soul of the devotee, but either to the soul in the state of deep sleep (svapyaya = sushupti), or to the fully released soul of the sage (sampatti = kaivalya).— Ramanu^a explains that the passages speaking of absence of conscious- ness refer either to the state of deep sleep, or to the time of dying (sampatti = mara;zam according to ' van manasi sampadyate/ &c). Adhik. VII (17-21). — The released ^ivas participate in all the perfections and powers of the Lord, with the exception of the power of creating and sustaining the world. They do not return to new forms of embodied existence. After having, in this way, rendered ourselves acquainted with the contents of the Brahma-sutras according to the views of Sankara as well as Ramanu^a, we have now to consider the question which of the two modes of interpretation represents— or at any rate more closely approximates to— the true meaning of the Sutras. That Ixxxvi vedanta-sOtras. few of the Sutras are intelligible if taken by themselves, we have already remarked above; but this does not exclude the possibility of our deciding with a fair degree of cer- tainty which of the two interpretations proposed agrees better with the text, at least in a certain number of cases. We have to note in the first place that, in spite of very numerous discrepancies, — of which only the more important ones have been singled out in the conspectus of contents, — the two commentators are at one as to the general drift of the Sutras and the arrangement of topics. As a rule, the adhikara/zas discuss one or several Vedic passages bearing upon a certain point of the system, and in the vast majority of cases the two commentators agree as to which are the special texts referred to. And, moreover, in a very large number of cases the agreement extends to the interpreta- tion to be put on those passages and on the Sutras. This far-reaching agreement certainly tends to inspire us with a certain confidence as to the existence of an old tradition concerning the meaning of the Sutras on which the bulk of the interpretations of 5ankara as well as of Ramanu^a are based.
3on the Sutras. This far-reaching agreement certainly tends to inspire us with a certain confidence as to the existence of an old tradition concerning the meaning of the Sutras on which the bulk of the interpretations of 5ankara as well as of Ramanu^a are based. But at the same time we have seen that, in a not incon- siderable number of cases, the interpretations of vSankara and Ramanu^a diverge more or less widely, and that the Sutras affected thereby are, most of them, especially important because bearing on fundamental points of the Vedanta system. The question then remains which of the two interpretations is entitled to preference. Regarding a small number of Sutras I have already (in the conspectus of contents) given it as my opinion that Ramanu^a's explanation appears to be more worthy of consideration. We meet, in the first place, with a number of cases in which the two commentators agree as to the literal meaning of a Sutra, but where Sankara sees him- self reduced to the necessity of supplementing his inter- pretation by certain additions and reservations of his own for which the text gives no occasion, while Ramanu^-a is able to take the Sutra as it stands. To exemplify this remark, I again direct attention to all those Sutras which in INTRODUCTION. lxXXvil clear terms represent the individual soul as something dif- ferent from the highest soul, and concerning which vSankara is each time obliged to have recourse to the plea of the Sutra referring, not to what is true in the strict sense of the word, but only to what is conventionally looked upon as true. It is, I admit, not altogether impossible that vSan- kara's interpretation should represent the real meaning of the Sutras ; that the latter, indeed, to use the terms em- ployed by Dr. Deussen, should for the nonce set forth an exoteric doctrine adapted to the common notions of man- kind, which, however, can be rightly understood by him only to whose mind the esoteric doctrine is all the while present. This is not impossible, I say; but it is a point which requires convincing proofs before it can be allowed. — We have had, in the second place, to note a certain number of adhikara^as and Sutras concerning whose interpretation vSankara and Ramanu^a disagree altogether; and we have seen that not unfrequently the explanations given by the latter commentator appear to be preferable because falling in more easily with the words of the text.
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.