Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1at the best to the world of Brahman, which itself forms part of the sa^sara); that path (i. e. the only path to release, viz. the path of true knowledge) is found by Brahman, i. e. by such Brahma^as as through true knowledge have become like Brahman,5 &c. A significant instance in truth of the straits to which thorough-going systematisers of the Upanishads see them- selves reduced occasionally! But we return to the point which just now chiefly interests us. Whether Sankara's interpretation of the chapter, and especially of section 6, be right or wrong, so much is certain that we are not entitled to view all those texts which speak of the soul going to the world of Brah- man as belonging to the so-called lower knowledge, be- cause a few other passages declare that the sage does not go to Brahman. The text which declares the sage free from desires to become one with Brahman could not, without due discrimination, be used to define and limit the meaning of other passages met with in the same Upanishad even — for as we have remarked above the Brzhadara?zyaka contains pieces manifestly belonging to different stages of development ; — much less does it entitle us to put arbitrary constructions on passages forming part of other Upanishads. Historically the disagreement of the various accounts is easy to understand. The older notion was that the soul of the wise man proceeds along the path of the gods to Brah- man's abode. A later — and, if we like, more philosophic — conception is that, as Brahman already is a man's Self, there is no need of any motion on man's part to reach Brahman. We may even apply to those two views the terms apara and para — lower and higher — knowledge. But we must not allow any commentator to induce us to believe that what he from his advanced standpoint looks upon as an inferior kind of cognition, was viewed in the same light by the authors of the Upanishads. We turn to another Upanishad text likewise touching upon the point considered in what precedes, viz. the second Brahma^a of the third adhyaya of the Brzhadara/^yaka. The discussion there first turns upon the grahas and ati- cxii vedanta-s6tras. grahas, i.e. the senses and organs and their objects, and Ya^avalkya thereupon explains that death, by which everything is overcome, is itself overcome by water; for death is fire.
2. The discussion there first turns upon the grahas and ati- cxii vedanta-s6tras. grahas, i.e. the senses and organs and their objects, and Ya^avalkya thereupon explains that death, by which everything is overcome, is itself overcome by water; for death is fire. The colloquy then turns to what we must consider an altogether new topic, Artabhaga asking, * When this man (ayam purusha) dies, do the vital spirits depart from him or not ? ' and Ya^avalkya answering, ' No, they are gathered up in him ; he swells, he is inflated ; inflated the dead (body) is lying/ — Now this is for vSankara an important passage, as we have already seen above (p. lxxxi) ; for he employs it, in his comment on Ved.-sutra IV, 2, 13, for the purpose of proving that the passage Br/. Up. IV, 4, 6 really means that the vital spirits do not, at the moment of death, depart from the true sage. Hence the present passage also must refer to him who possesses the highest knowledge ; hence the ' ayam purusha ' must be ' that man,' i. e. the man who possesses the highest knowledge, and the highest knowledge then must be found in the preceding clause which says that death itself may be conquered by water. But, as Ramanu^a also remarks, neither does the context favour the assumption that the highest knowledge is referred to, nor do the words of section 11 contain any indication that what is meant is the merging of the Self of the true Sage in Brahman. With the interpretation given by Ramanu^*a himself, viz. that the pra/zas do not depart from the giva. of the dying man, but accompany it into a new body, I can agree as little (although he no doubt rightly explains the ' ayam purusha ' by ' man ' in general), and am unable to see in the passage anything more than a crude attempt to account for the fact that a dead body appears swollen and inflated. — A little further on (section 13) Artabhaga asks what becomes of this man (ayam purusha) when his speech has entered into the fire, his breath into the air, his eye into the sun, &c. So much here is clear that we have no right to understand by the 'ayam purusha' of section 13 anybody different from the ' ayam purusha ' of the two preceding sections ; in spite of this 5ankara — according to whose system the organs of the true sage do not enter into the elements, but are directly INTRODUCTION. CX111 merged in Brahman — explains the ' ayam purusha ' of sec- tion 13 to be the ' asa/^yagdamn,' i. e. the person who has not risen to the cognition of the highest Brahman. And still a further limiting interpretation is required by the system.
3INTRODUCTION. CX111 merged in Brahman — explains the ' ayam purusha ' of sec- tion 13 to be the ' asa/^yagdamn,' i. e. the person who has not risen to the cognition of the highest Brahman. And still a further limiting interpretation is required by the system. The asa/^yagdamn also — who as such has to remain in the sa^sara — cannot do without the organs, since his £lva when passing out of the old body into a new one is invested with the subtle body ; hence section 13 cannot be taken as saying what it clearly does say, viz. that at death the different organs pass into the different elements, but as merely indicating that the organs are abandoned by the divinities which, during lifetime, presided over them ! The whole third adhyaya indeed of the Brzhadara/zyaka affords ample proof of the artificial character of vSankara's attempts to show that the teaching of the Upanishads follows a definite system. The eighth brahma;^a, for in- stance, is said to convey the doctrine of the highest non- related Brahman, while the preceding brahma/zas had treated only of l^vara in his various aspects. But, as a matter of fact, brahma^a 8, after having, in section 8, represented Brahman as destitute of all qualities, proceeds, in the next section, to describe that very same Brahman as the ruler of the world, * By the command of that Imperishable sun and moon stand apart/ &c. ; a clear indication that the author of the Upanishad does not distinguish a higher and lower Brahman in wSankara's sense. — The preceding brahma;za (7) treats of the antaryamin, i. e. Brahman viewed as the internal ruler of everything. This, according to vSankara, is the lower form of Brahman called l^vara ; but we observe that the antaryamin as well as the so-called highest Brahman described in section 8 is, at the termination of the two sections, characterised by means of the very same terms (7, 23 : Unseen but seeing, unheard but hearing, &c. There is no other seer but he, there is no other hearer but he, &c. ; and 8, 11 : That Brahman is unseen but seeing, unheard but hearing, &c. There is nothing that sees but it, nothing that hears but it, &c). — Nothing can be clearer than that all these sections aim at describing one and the same being, and know nothing of the distinctions made by the developed [34] h CX1V VEDANTA-SUTRAS. Vedanta, however valid the latter may be from a purely philosophic point of view. We may refer to one more similar instance from the KMndogya. Upanishad.
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.
1at the best to the world of Brahman, which itself forms part of the sa^sara); that path (i. e. the only path to release, viz. the path of true knowledge) is found by Brahman, i. e. by such Brahma^as as through true knowledge have become like Brahman,5 &c. A significant instance in truth of the straits to which thorough-going systematisers of the Upanishads see them- selves reduced occasionally! But we return to the point which just now chiefly interests us. Whether Sankara's interpretation of the chapter, and especially of section 6, be right or wrong, so much is certain that we are not entitled to view all those texts which speak of the soul going to the world of Brah- man as belonging to the so-called lower knowledge, be- cause a few other passages declare that the sage does not go to Brahman. The text which declares the sage free from desires to become one with Brahman could not, without due discrimination, be used to define and limit the meaning of other passages met with in the same Upanishad even — for as we have remarked above the Brzhadara?zyaka contains pieces manifestly belonging to different stages of development ; — much less does it entitle us to put arbitrary constructions on passages forming part of other Upanishads. Historically the disagreement of the various accounts is easy to understand. The older notion was that the soul of the wise man proceeds along the path of the gods to Brah- man's abode. A later — and, if we like, more philosophic — conception is that, as Brahman already is a man's Self, there is no need of any motion on man's part to reach Brahman. We may even apply to those two views the terms apara and para — lower and higher — knowledge. But we must not allow any commentator to induce us to believe that what he from his advanced standpoint looks upon as an inferior kind of cognition, was viewed in the same light by the authors of the Upanishads. We turn to another Upanishad text likewise touching upon the point considered in what precedes, viz. the second Brahma^a of the third adhyaya of the Brzhadara/^yaka. The discussion there first turns upon the grahas and ati- cxii vedanta-s6tras. grahas, i.e. the senses and organs and their objects, and Ya^avalkya thereupon explains that death, by which everything is overcome, is itself overcome by water; for death is fire.
2. The discussion there first turns upon the grahas and ati- cxii vedanta-s6tras. grahas, i.e. the senses and organs and their objects, and Ya^avalkya thereupon explains that death, by which everything is overcome, is itself overcome by water; for death is fire. The colloquy then turns to what we must consider an altogether new topic, Artabhaga asking, * When this man (ayam purusha) dies, do the vital spirits depart from him or not ? ' and Ya^avalkya answering, ' No, they are gathered up in him ; he swells, he is inflated ; inflated the dead (body) is lying/ — Now this is for vSankara an important passage, as we have already seen above (p. lxxxi) ; for he employs it, in his comment on Ved.-sutra IV, 2, 13, for the purpose of proving that the passage Br/. Up. IV, 4, 6 really means that the vital spirits do not, at the moment of death, depart from the true sage. Hence the present passage also must refer to him who possesses the highest knowledge ; hence the ' ayam purusha ' must be ' that man,' i. e. the man who possesses the highest knowledge, and the highest knowledge then must be found in the preceding clause which says that death itself may be conquered by water. But, as Ramanu^a also remarks, neither does the context favour the assumption that the highest knowledge is referred to, nor do the words of section 11 contain any indication that what is meant is the merging of the Self of the true Sage in Brahman. With the interpretation given by Ramanu^*a himself, viz. that the pra/zas do not depart from the giva. of the dying man, but accompany it into a new body, I can agree as little (although he no doubt rightly explains the ' ayam purusha ' by ' man ' in general), and am unable to see in the passage anything more than a crude attempt to account for the fact that a dead body appears swollen and inflated. — A little further on (section 13) Artabhaga asks what becomes of this man (ayam purusha) when his speech has entered into the fire, his breath into the air, his eye into the sun, &c. So much here is clear that we have no right to understand by the 'ayam purusha' of section 13 anybody different from the ' ayam purusha ' of the two preceding sections ; in spite of this 5ankara — according to whose system the organs of the true sage do not enter into the elements, but are directly INTRODUCTION. CX111 merged in Brahman — explains the ' ayam purusha ' of sec- tion 13 to be the ' asa/^yagdamn,' i. e. the person who has not risen to the cognition of the highest Brahman. And still a further limiting interpretation is required by the system.
3INTRODUCTION. CX111 merged in Brahman — explains the ' ayam purusha ' of sec- tion 13 to be the ' asa/^yagdamn,' i. e. the person who has not risen to the cognition of the highest Brahman. And still a further limiting interpretation is required by the system. The asa/^yagdamn also — who as such has to remain in the sa^sara — cannot do without the organs, since his £lva when passing out of the old body into a new one is invested with the subtle body ; hence section 13 cannot be taken as saying what it clearly does say, viz. that at death the different organs pass into the different elements, but as merely indicating that the organs are abandoned by the divinities which, during lifetime, presided over them ! The whole third adhyaya indeed of the Brzhadara/zyaka affords ample proof of the artificial character of vSankara's attempts to show that the teaching of the Upanishads follows a definite system. The eighth brahma;^a, for in- stance, is said to convey the doctrine of the highest non- related Brahman, while the preceding brahma/zas had treated only of l^vara in his various aspects. But, as a matter of fact, brahma^a 8, after having, in section 8, represented Brahman as destitute of all qualities, proceeds, in the next section, to describe that very same Brahman as the ruler of the world, * By the command of that Imperishable sun and moon stand apart/ &c. ; a clear indication that the author of the Upanishad does not distinguish a higher and lower Brahman in wSankara's sense. — The preceding brahma;za (7) treats of the antaryamin, i. e. Brahman viewed as the internal ruler of everything. This, according to vSankara, is the lower form of Brahman called l^vara ; but we observe that the antaryamin as well as the so-called highest Brahman described in section 8 is, at the termination of the two sections, characterised by means of the very same terms (7, 23 : Unseen but seeing, unheard but hearing, &c. There is no other seer but he, there is no other hearer but he, &c. ; and 8, 11 : That Brahman is unseen but seeing, unheard but hearing, &c. There is nothing that sees but it, nothing that hears but it, &c). — Nothing can be clearer than that all these sections aim at describing one and the same being, and know nothing of the distinctions made by the developed [34] h CX1V VEDANTA-SUTRAS. Vedanta, however valid the latter may be from a purely philosophic point of view. We may refer to one more similar instance from the KMndogya. Upanishad.
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.