Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1antiquity 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. INTRODUCTION. XV taken into account, although, it must be admitted, too much weight may easily be attached to it. The .Sankara-briashya further is the authority most generally deferred to in India as to the right understanding of the Vedanta-sutras, and ever since 5ankara's time the majority of the best thinkers of India have been men belonging to his school. If in addition to all this we take into consideration the intrinsic merits of wSankara's work which, as a piece of philo- sophical argumentation and theological apologetics, un- doubtedly occupies a high rank, the preference here given to it will be easily understood. But to the European — or, generally, modern — translator of the Vedanta-sutras with wSankara's commentary another question will of course suggest itself at once, viz. whether or not wSankara's explanations faithfully render the intended meaning of the author of the Sutras. To the Indian PaWit of Ankara's school this question has become an indifferent one, or, to state the case more accurately, he objects to its being raised, as he looks on wSankara's authority as standing above doubt and dispute. When pressed to make good his position he will, moreover, most probably not enter into any detailed comparison of wSankara's com- ments with the text of Badar^ya^a's Sutras, but will rather endeavour to show on speculative grounds that wSankara's philosophical view is the only true one, whence it of course follows that it accurately represents the meaning of Bada- raya/za, who himself must necessarily be assumed to have taught the true doctrine. But on the modern investigator, who neither can consider himself bound by the authority of a name however great, nor is likely to look to any Indian system of thought for the satisfaction of his speculative wants, it is clearly incumbent not to acquiesce from the out- set in the interpretations given of the Vedanta-sutras — and the Upanishads — by wSankara and his school, but to submit them, as far as that can be done, to a critical investigation. This is a task which would have to be undertaken even if wSankara's views as to the true meaning of the Sutras and Upanishads had never been called into doubt on Indian soil, although in that case it could perhaps hardly be entered Xvi VEDANTA-stiTRAS.
2ion. This is a task which would have to be undertaken even if wSankara's views as to the true meaning of the Sutras and Upanishads had never been called into doubt on Indian soil, although in that case it could perhaps hardly be entered Xvi VEDANTA-stiTRAS. upon with much hope of success ; but it becomes much more urgent, and at the same time more feasible, when we meet in India itself with systems claiming to be Vedantic and based on interpretations of the Sutras and Upanishads more or less differing from those of 6ankara. The claims of those systems to be in the possession of the right under- standing of the fundamental authorities of the Vedanta must at any rate be examined, even if we should finally be compelled to reject them. It appears that already at a very early period the Vedanta-sutras had come to be looked upon as an authori- tative work, not to be neglected by any who wished to affiliate their own doctrines to the Veda. At present, at any rate, there are very few Hindu sects not interested in showing that their distinctive tenets are countenanced by Badarayazza's teaching. Owing to this the commentaries on the Sutras have in the course of time become very numerous, and it is at present impossible to give a full and accurate enumeration even of those actually existing, much less of those referred to and quoted. Mr. Fitz-Edward Hall, in his Bibliographical Index, mentions fourteen com- mentaries, copies of which had been inspected by himself. Some among these (as, for instance, Ramanu^a's Vedanta- sara, No. XXXV) are indeed not commentaries in the strict sense of the word, but rather systematic expositions of the doctrine supposed to be propounded in the Sutras; but, on the other hand, there are in existence several true commen- taries which had not been accessible to Fitz-Edward Hall. It would hardly be practical — and certainly not feasible in this place — to submit all the existing bMshyas to a critical enquiry at once. All we can do here is to single out one or a few of the more important ones, and to compare their interpretations with those given by 5ankara, and with the text of the Sutras themselves. The bhashya, which in this connexion is the first to press itself upon our attention, is the one composed by the famous Vaish^ava theologian and philosopher Ramanu^-a, who is supposed to have lived in the twelfth century. The Rama- nu^a or, as it is often called, the Sri-bh­a appears to be INTRODUCTION. XV11 the oldest commentary extant next to .Sankara's.
3osed by the famous Vaish^ava theologian and philosopher Ramanu^-a, who is supposed to have lived in the twelfth century. The Rama- nu^a or, as it is often called, the Sri-bh­a appears to be INTRODUCTION. XV11 the oldest commentary extant next to .Sankara's. It is further to be noted that the sect of the Rdmanu^-as occupies a pre-eminent position among the Vaish^ava sects which themselves, in their totality, may claim to be considered the most important among all Hindu sects. The intrinsic value of the 6ri- bhashya moreover is — as every student ac- quainted with it will be ready to acknowledge — a very high one ; it strikes one throughout as a very solid performance due to a writer of extensive learning and great power of argu- mentation, and in its polemic parts, directed chiefly against the school of Sankara, it not unfrequently deserves to be called brilliant even. And in addition to all this it shows evident traces of being not the mere outcome of Ramanu^a's individual views, but of resting on an old and weighty tradition. This latter point is clearly of the greatest importance. If it could be demonstrated or even rendered probable only that the oldest bhashya which we possess, i.e. the vSan- kara-bhashya, represents an uninterrupted and uniform tradition bridging over the interval between Badaraya^a, the reputed author of the Sutras, and Sankara ; and if, on the other hand, it could be shown that the more modern bhcishyas are not supported by old tradition, but are nothing more than bold attempts of clever sectarians to force an old work of generally recognised authority into the service of their individual tenets ; there would certainly be no reason for us to raise the question whether the later bhashyas can help us in making out the true meaning of the Sutras. All we should have to do in that case would be to accept Sankara's interpretations as they stand, or at the utmost to attempt to make out, if at all possible, by a careful comparison of Ankara's bhashya with the text of the Sutras, whether the former in all cases faithfully repre- sents the purport of the latter. In the most recent book of note which at all enters into the question as to how far we have to accept 5ankara as a guide to the right understanding of the Sutras (Mr. A. Gough's Philosophy of the Upanishads) the view is maintained (pp. 239 ff.) that Sankara is the generally recognised expositor [34] b Xvili VEDANTA-St)TRAS.
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.
1antiquity 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. INTRODUCTION. XV taken into account, although, it must be admitted, too much weight may easily be attached to it. The .Sankara-briashya further is the authority most generally deferred to in India as to the right understanding of the Vedanta-sutras, and ever since 5ankara's time the majority of the best thinkers of India have been men belonging to his school. If in addition to all this we take into consideration the intrinsic merits of wSankara's work which, as a piece of philo- sophical argumentation and theological apologetics, un- doubtedly occupies a high rank, the preference here given to it will be easily understood. But to the European — or, generally, modern — translator of the Vedanta-sutras with wSankara's commentary another question will of course suggest itself at once, viz. whether or not wSankara's explanations faithfully render the intended meaning of the author of the Sutras. To the Indian PaWit of Ankara's school this question has become an indifferent one, or, to state the case more accurately, he objects to its being raised, as he looks on wSankara's authority as standing above doubt and dispute. When pressed to make good his position he will, moreover, most probably not enter into any detailed comparison of wSankara's com- ments with the text of Badar^ya^a's Sutras, but will rather endeavour to show on speculative grounds that wSankara's philosophical view is the only true one, whence it of course follows that it accurately represents the meaning of Bada- raya/za, who himself must necessarily be assumed to have taught the true doctrine. But on the modern investigator, who neither can consider himself bound by the authority of a name however great, nor is likely to look to any Indian system of thought for the satisfaction of his speculative wants, it is clearly incumbent not to acquiesce from the out- set in the interpretations given of the Vedanta-sutras — and the Upanishads — by wSankara and his school, but to submit them, as far as that can be done, to a critical investigation. This is a task which would have to be undertaken even if wSankara's views as to the true meaning of the Sutras and Upanishads had never been called into doubt on Indian soil, although in that case it could perhaps hardly be entered Xvi VEDANTA-stiTRAS.
2ion. This is a task which would have to be undertaken even if wSankara's views as to the true meaning of the Sutras and Upanishads had never been called into doubt on Indian soil, although in that case it could perhaps hardly be entered Xvi VEDANTA-stiTRAS. upon with much hope of success ; but it becomes much more urgent, and at the same time more feasible, when we meet in India itself with systems claiming to be Vedantic and based on interpretations of the Sutras and Upanishads more or less differing from those of 6ankara. The claims of those systems to be in the possession of the right under- standing of the fundamental authorities of the Vedanta must at any rate be examined, even if we should finally be compelled to reject them. It appears that already at a very early period the Vedanta-sutras had come to be looked upon as an authori- tative work, not to be neglected by any who wished to affiliate their own doctrines to the Veda. At present, at any rate, there are very few Hindu sects not interested in showing that their distinctive tenets are countenanced by Badarayazza's teaching. Owing to this the commentaries on the Sutras have in the course of time become very numerous, and it is at present impossible to give a full and accurate enumeration even of those actually existing, much less of those referred to and quoted. Mr. Fitz-Edward Hall, in his Bibliographical Index, mentions fourteen com- mentaries, copies of which had been inspected by himself. Some among these (as, for instance, Ramanu^a's Vedanta- sara, No. XXXV) are indeed not commentaries in the strict sense of the word, but rather systematic expositions of the doctrine supposed to be propounded in the Sutras; but, on the other hand, there are in existence several true commen- taries which had not been accessible to Fitz-Edward Hall. It would hardly be practical — and certainly not feasible in this place — to submit all the existing bMshyas to a critical enquiry at once. All we can do here is to single out one or a few of the more important ones, and to compare their interpretations with those given by 5ankara, and with the text of the Sutras themselves. The bhashya, which in this connexion is the first to press itself upon our attention, is the one composed by the famous Vaish^ava theologian and philosopher Ramanu^-a, who is supposed to have lived in the twelfth century. The Rama- nu^a or, as it is often called, the Sri-bh­a appears to be INTRODUCTION. XV11 the oldest commentary extant next to .Sankara's.
3osed by the famous Vaish^ava theologian and philosopher Ramanu^-a, who is supposed to have lived in the twelfth century. The Rama- nu^a or, as it is often called, the Sri-bh­a appears to be INTRODUCTION. XV11 the oldest commentary extant next to .Sankara's. It is further to be noted that the sect of the Rdmanu^-as occupies a pre-eminent position among the Vaish^ava sects which themselves, in their totality, may claim to be considered the most important among all Hindu sects. The intrinsic value of the 6ri- bhashya moreover is — as every student ac- quainted with it will be ready to acknowledge — a very high one ; it strikes one throughout as a very solid performance due to a writer of extensive learning and great power of argu- mentation, and in its polemic parts, directed chiefly against the school of Sankara, it not unfrequently deserves to be called brilliant even. And in addition to all this it shows evident traces of being not the mere outcome of Ramanu^a's individual views, but of resting on an old and weighty tradition. This latter point is clearly of the greatest importance. If it could be demonstrated or even rendered probable only that the oldest bhashya which we possess, i.e. the vSan- kara-bhashya, represents an uninterrupted and uniform tradition bridging over the interval between Badaraya^a, the reputed author of the Sutras, and Sankara ; and if, on the other hand, it could be shown that the more modern bhcishyas are not supported by old tradition, but are nothing more than bold attempts of clever sectarians to force an old work of generally recognised authority into the service of their individual tenets ; there would certainly be no reason for us to raise the question whether the later bhashyas can help us in making out the true meaning of the Sutras. All we should have to do in that case would be to accept Sankara's interpretations as they stand, or at the utmost to attempt to make out, if at all possible, by a careful comparison of Ankara's bhashya with the text of the Sutras, whether the former in all cases faithfully repre- sents the purport of the latter. In the most recent book of note which at all enters into the question as to how far we have to accept 5ankara as a guide to the right understanding of the Sutras (Mr. A. Gough's Philosophy of the Upanishads) the view is maintained (pp. 239 ff.) that Sankara is the generally recognised expositor [34] b Xvili VEDANTA-St)TRAS.
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.