Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1edge only, not unnaturally led to the conclusion that what separates us in our unenlightened state from Brahman is such as to allow itself to be completely sublated by an act of knowledge ; is, in other words, nothing else but an erroneous notion, an illusion. — A further circumstance which may not impossibly have co-operated to further the de- velopment of the theory of the world's unreality will be referred to later on1. 1 That section of the introduction in which the point referred to in the text CXXvi VEDANTA-S<JTRAS. We have above been obliged to leave it an open question what kind of Vedanta is represented by the Vedanta-sutras, although reason was shown for the supposition that in some important points their teaching is more closely related to the system of Ramanu^a than to that of Sarikara. If so, the philosophy of vSaiikara would on the whole stand nearer to the teaching of the Upanishads than the Sutras of Badaraya^a. This would indeed be a somewhat un- expected conclusion — for, judging a priori, we should be more inclined to assume a direct propagation of the true doctrine of the Upanishads through Badaraya^a to 6an- kara — but a priori considerations have of course no weight against positive evidence to the contrary. There are, more- over, other facts in the history of Indian philosophy and theology which help us better to appreciate the possibility of B^daraya^a's Sutras already setting forth a doctrine that lays greater stress on the personal character of the highest being than is in agreement with the prevailing tendency of the Upanishads. That the pure doctrine of those ancient Brahminical treatises underwent at a rather early period amalgamations with beliefs which most pro- bably had sprung up in altogether different — priestly or non-priestly — communities is a well-known circumstance ; it suffices for our purposes to refer to the most eminent of the early literary monuments in which an amalgamation of the kind mentioned is observable, viz. the Bhagavadgita. The doctrine of the Bhagavadgita represents a fusion of the Brahman theory of the Upanishads with the belief in a personal highest being — Krishna, or Vishnu — which in many respects approximates very closely to the system of the Bhagavatas ; the attempts of a certain set of Indian commentators to explain it as setting forth pure Vedanta, i. e. the pure doctrine of the Upanishads, may simply be set aside.
2or Vishnu — which in many respects approximates very closely to the system of the Bhagavatas ; the attempts of a certain set of Indian commentators to explain it as setting forth pure Vedanta, i. e. the pure doctrine of the Upanishads, may simply be set aside. But this same Bhagavadgita is quoted in Badaraya;za's Sutras (at least according to the unanimous explanations of the most eminent scholiasts of different schools) as inferior to 5ruti only in authority. The Sutras, is touched upon will I hope form part of the second volume of the translation. The same remark applies to a point concerning which further information had been promised above on page v. INTRODUCTION. CXXV11 moreover, refer in different places to certain Ved antic por- tions of the Mahabharata, especially the twelfth book, several of which represent forms of Vedanta distinctly dif- fering from ^Sankara's teaching, and closely related to the system of the Bhagavatas. Facts of this nature — from entering into the details of which we are prevented by want of space — tend to mitigate the prima facie strangeness of the assumption that the Vedanta-sutras, which occupy an intermediate position between the Upanishads and .Sankara, should yet diverge in their teaching from both. The Vedanta of Gaiu/apada and Sankara would in that case mark a strictly orthodox reaction against all combinations of non-Vedic elements of belief and doctrine with the teaching of the Upanishads. But although this form of doctrine has ever since Sankara's time been the one most generally accepted by Brahminic students of philosophy, it has never had any wide-reaching influence on the masses of India. It is too little in sym- pathy with the wants of the human heart, which, after all, are not so very different in India from what they are elsewhere. Comparatively few, even in India, are those who rejoice in the idea of a universal non-personal essence in which their own individuality is to be merged and lost for ever, who think it sweet ' to be wrecked on the ocean of the InfiniteV The only forms of Vedantic philosophy which are — and can at any time have been — really popular, are those in which the Brahman of the Upanishads has somehow transformed itself into a being, between which and the devotee there can exist a personal relation, love and faith on the part of man, justice tempered by mercy on the part of the divinity.
3popular, are those in which the Brahman of the Upanishads has somehow transformed itself into a being, between which and the devotee there can exist a personal relation, love and faith on the part of man, justice tempered by mercy on the part of the divinity. The only religious books of widespread influence are such as the Ramayan of Tulsidas, which lay no stress on the distinction between an absolute Brahman inac- cessible to all human wants and sympathies, and a shadowy Lord whose very conception depends on the illusory prin- ciple of Maya, but love to dwell on the delights of devotion 1 Cosi tra questa Immensita s9 annega il pensier mio, E il naufrago m' e dolce in questo mare. Leopardi. cxxviii vedanta-s6tras. to one all-wise and merciful ruler, who is able and willing to lend a gracious ear to the supplication of the worshipper. The present translation of the Vedanta-sutras does not aim at rendering that sense which their] author may have aimed at conveying, but strictly follows vSankara's inter- pretation. The question as to how far the latter agrees with the views held by Badar&ya/za has been discussed above, with the result that for the present it must, on the whole, be left an open one. In any case it would not be feasible to combine a translation of vSankara's commentary with an independent version of the Sutras which it ex- plains. Similar considerations have determined the method followed in rendering the passages of the Upanishads re- ferred to in the Sutras and discussed at length by 5ankara. There also the views of the commentator have to be followed closely ; otherwise much of the comment would appear de- void of meaning. Hence, while of course following on the whole the critical translation published by Professor Max Miiller in the earlier volumes of this Series, I had, in a not inconsiderable number of cases, to modify it so as to render intelligible vSankara's explanations and reasonings. I hope to find space in the introduction to the second volume of this translation for making some general remarks on the method to be followed in translating the Upanishads. I regret that want of space has prevented me from extracting fuller notes from later scholiasts. The notes given are based, most of them, on the rikas composed by Anandagiri and Govindananda (the former of which is unpublished as yet, so far as I know), and on the Bhamati. My best thanks are due to Vandits Rama Misra vS&strin and Gangadhara Gastrin of the Benares Sanskrit College, whom I have consulted on several difficult passages.
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.
1edge only, not unnaturally led to the conclusion that what separates us in our unenlightened state from Brahman is such as to allow itself to be completely sublated by an act of knowledge ; is, in other words, nothing else but an erroneous notion, an illusion. — A further circumstance which may not impossibly have co-operated to further the de- velopment of the theory of the world's unreality will be referred to later on1. 1 That section of the introduction in which the point referred to in the text CXXvi VEDANTA-S<JTRAS. We have above been obliged to leave it an open question what kind of Vedanta is represented by the Vedanta-sutras, although reason was shown for the supposition that in some important points their teaching is more closely related to the system of Ramanu^a than to that of Sarikara. If so, the philosophy of vSaiikara would on the whole stand nearer to the teaching of the Upanishads than the Sutras of Badaraya^a. This would indeed be a somewhat un- expected conclusion — for, judging a priori, we should be more inclined to assume a direct propagation of the true doctrine of the Upanishads through Badaraya^a to 6an- kara — but a priori considerations have of course no weight against positive evidence to the contrary. There are, more- over, other facts in the history of Indian philosophy and theology which help us better to appreciate the possibility of B^daraya^a's Sutras already setting forth a doctrine that lays greater stress on the personal character of the highest being than is in agreement with the prevailing tendency of the Upanishads. That the pure doctrine of those ancient Brahminical treatises underwent at a rather early period amalgamations with beliefs which most pro- bably had sprung up in altogether different — priestly or non-priestly — communities is a well-known circumstance ; it suffices for our purposes to refer to the most eminent of the early literary monuments in which an amalgamation of the kind mentioned is observable, viz. the Bhagavadgita. The doctrine of the Bhagavadgita represents a fusion of the Brahman theory of the Upanishads with the belief in a personal highest being — Krishna, or Vishnu — which in many respects approximates very closely to the system of the Bhagavatas ; the attempts of a certain set of Indian commentators to explain it as setting forth pure Vedanta, i. e. the pure doctrine of the Upanishads, may simply be set aside.
2or Vishnu — which in many respects approximates very closely to the system of the Bhagavatas ; the attempts of a certain set of Indian commentators to explain it as setting forth pure Vedanta, i. e. the pure doctrine of the Upanishads, may simply be set aside. But this same Bhagavadgita is quoted in Badaraya;za's Sutras (at least according to the unanimous explanations of the most eminent scholiasts of different schools) as inferior to 5ruti only in authority. The Sutras, is touched upon will I hope form part of the second volume of the translation. The same remark applies to a point concerning which further information had been promised above on page v. INTRODUCTION. CXXV11 moreover, refer in different places to certain Ved antic por- tions of the Mahabharata, especially the twelfth book, several of which represent forms of Vedanta distinctly dif- fering from ^Sankara's teaching, and closely related to the system of the Bhagavatas. Facts of this nature — from entering into the details of which we are prevented by want of space — tend to mitigate the prima facie strangeness of the assumption that the Vedanta-sutras, which occupy an intermediate position between the Upanishads and .Sankara, should yet diverge in their teaching from both. The Vedanta of Gaiu/apada and Sankara would in that case mark a strictly orthodox reaction against all combinations of non-Vedic elements of belief and doctrine with the teaching of the Upanishads. But although this form of doctrine has ever since Sankara's time been the one most generally accepted by Brahminic students of philosophy, it has never had any wide-reaching influence on the masses of India. It is too little in sym- pathy with the wants of the human heart, which, after all, are not so very different in India from what they are elsewhere. Comparatively few, even in India, are those who rejoice in the idea of a universal non-personal essence in which their own individuality is to be merged and lost for ever, who think it sweet ' to be wrecked on the ocean of the InfiniteV The only forms of Vedantic philosophy which are — and can at any time have been — really popular, are those in which the Brahman of the Upanishads has somehow transformed itself into a being, between which and the devotee there can exist a personal relation, love and faith on the part of man, justice tempered by mercy on the part of the divinity.
3popular, are those in which the Brahman of the Upanishads has somehow transformed itself into a being, between which and the devotee there can exist a personal relation, love and faith on the part of man, justice tempered by mercy on the part of the divinity. The only religious books of widespread influence are such as the Ramayan of Tulsidas, which lay no stress on the distinction between an absolute Brahman inac- cessible to all human wants and sympathies, and a shadowy Lord whose very conception depends on the illusory prin- ciple of Maya, but love to dwell on the delights of devotion 1 Cosi tra questa Immensita s9 annega il pensier mio, E il naufrago m' e dolce in questo mare. Leopardi. cxxviii vedanta-s6tras. to one all-wise and merciful ruler, who is able and willing to lend a gracious ear to the supplication of the worshipper. The present translation of the Vedanta-sutras does not aim at rendering that sense which their] author may have aimed at conveying, but strictly follows vSankara's inter- pretation. The question as to how far the latter agrees with the views held by Badar&ya/za has been discussed above, with the result that for the present it must, on the whole, be left an open one. In any case it would not be feasible to combine a translation of vSankara's commentary with an independent version of the Sutras which it ex- plains. Similar considerations have determined the method followed in rendering the passages of the Upanishads re- ferred to in the Sutras and discussed at length by 5ankara. There also the views of the commentator have to be followed closely ; otherwise much of the comment would appear de- void of meaning. Hence, while of course following on the whole the critical translation published by Professor Max Miiller in the earlier volumes of this Series, I had, in a not inconsiderable number of cases, to modify it so as to render intelligible vSankara's explanations and reasonings. I hope to find space in the introduction to the second volume of this translation for making some general remarks on the method to be followed in translating the Upanishads. I regret that want of space has prevented me from extracting fuller notes from later scholiasts. The notes given are based, most of them, on the rikas composed by Anandagiri and Govindananda (the former of which is unpublished as yet, so far as I know), and on the Bhamati. My best thanks are due to Vandits Rama Misra vS&strin and Gangadhara Gastrin of the Benares Sanskrit College, whom I have consulted on several difficult passages.
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.