Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1f accomplished substances, since the latter are the objects of perception and the other means of proof (which give sufficient information about them ; while it is the recognised object of the Veda to give information about what is not known from other sources). And if it did give such information, it would not be connected with things to be desired or shunned, and thus be of no use to man. For this very reason Vedic passages, such as c he howled, &c.,' which at first sight appear purposeless, are shown to have a purpose in so far as they glorify certain actions (cp. Pu. Mt. Su. I, 2, 7, ' Because they stand in syntac- tical connection with the injunctions, therefore their purport is to glorify the injunctions '). In the same way mantras are shown to stand in a certain relation to actions, in so far as they notify the actions themselves and the means by which they are accomplished. So, for instance, the mantra, ' For strength thee (I cut ; ' which accompanies the cutting of a branch employed in the darcapunzamasa-sacrifice). In short, no Vedic passage is seen or can be proved to have a meaning but in so far as it is related to an action. And injunctions which are defined as having actions for their objects cannot refer to accomplished existent things. Hence we maintain that the Vedanta-texts are mere supplements to those passages which enjoin actions; noti- fying the agents, divinities, and results connected with those actions. Or else, if this be not admitted, on the ground of its involving the introduction of a subject-matter foreign to the Vedanta-texts (viz. the subject-matter of the Karmaka^a of the Veda), we must admit (the second of the two alternatives proposed above, viz.) that the 2 2 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. Vedanta-texts refer to devout meditation (upasana) and similar actions which are mentioned in those very (Vedanta) texts. The result of all of which is that Scripture is not the source of Brahman. To this argumentation the Sutrakara replies as follows : 4. But that (Brahman is to be known from Scrip- ture), because it is connected (with the Vedanta-texts) as their purport The word ' but ' is meant to rebut the purva-paksha (the prima facie view as urged above). That all-knowing, all- I powerful Brahman, which is the cause of the origin, sub- jsistence, and dissolution of the world, is known from the Vedanta-part of Scripture. How? Because in all the Vedanta-texts the sentences construe in so far as they have for their purport, as they intimate that matter (viz. Brahman).
2he cause of the origin, sub- jsistence, and dissolution of the world, is known from the Vedanta-part of Scripture. How? Because in all the Vedanta-texts the sentences construe in so far as they have for their purport, as they intimate that matter (viz. Brahman). Compare, for instance, ' Being only this was in the beginning, one, without a second' {Kh. Up. VI, 2, 1) ; ' In the beginning all this was Self, one only ' (Ait. Ar. II, 4, 1, 1); c This is the Brahman without cause and without effect, without anything inside or outside ; this Self is Brahman perceiving everything ' {Bri. Up. II, 5, 19) ; ' That immortal Brahman is before' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 11); and similar passages. If the words contained in these passages have once been determined to refer to Brahman, and their purport is understood thereby, it would be improper to assume them to have a different sense; for that would involve the fault of abandoning the direct statements of the text in favour of mere assumptions. Nor can we con- clude the purport of these passages to be the intimation of the nature of agents, divinities, &c. (connected with acts of religious duty) ; for there are certain scriptural passages which preclude all actions, actors, and fruits, as, for instance, Bri. Up. II, 4, 13, 'Then by what should he see whom?' (which passage intimates that there is neither an agent, nor an object of action, nor an instrument.) Nor again can Brahman, though it is of the nature of an accomplished thing, be the object of perception and the other means of I ADHYAYA, I pAdA, 4. knowledge ; for the fact of everything having its Self in Brahman cannot be grasped without the aid of the scriptural passage ' That art thou ' {Kh. Up. VI, 8, 7). Nor can it rightly be objected that instruction is purportless if not connected with something either to be striven after or shunned ; for from the mere comprehension of Brahman's Self, which is not something either to be avoided or endeavoured after, there results cessation of all pain, and thereby the attainment of man's highest aim. That passages notifying certain divinities, and so on, stand in subordinate relation to acts of devout meditation mentioned in the same chapters may readily be admitted. But it is impossible that Brahman should stand in an analogous relation to injunctions of devout meditation, for if the know- ledge of absolute unity has once arisen there exists no longer anything to be desired or avoided, and thereby the conception of duality, according to which we distinguish actions, agents, and the like, is destroyed.
3unctions of devout meditation, for if the know- ledge of absolute unity has once arisen there exists no longer anything to be desired or avoided, and thereby the conception of duality, according to which we distinguish actions, agents, and the like, is destroyed. If the conception of duality is once uprooted by the conception of absolute unity, it cannot arise again, and so no longer be the cause of Brahman being looked upon as the complementary object of injunctions of devotion. Other parts of the Veda may have no authority except in so far as they are con- nected with injunctions ; still it is impossible to impugn on that ground the authoritativeness of passages conveying the knowledge of the Self; for such passages have their own result. Nor, finally, can the authoritativeness of the Veda be proved by inferential reasoning so that it would be dependent on instances observed elsewhere. From all which it follows that the Veda possesses authority as a means of right knowledge of Brahman. Here others raise the following objection : — Although the Veda is the means of gaining a right knowledge of Brah- man, yet it intimates Brahman only as the object of certain injunctions, just as the information which the Veda gives about the sacrificial post, the ahavaniya-fire and other objects not known from the practice of common life is merely supplementary to certain injunctions1. Why so? 1 So, for instance, the passage * he carves the sacrificial post and 24 VEDANTA-S^TRAS. Because the Veda has the purport of either instigating to action or restraining from it. For men fully acquainted with the object of the Veda have made the following declaration, ' The purpose of the Veda is seen to be the injunction of actions' (Bhashya on Caimini Sutra I, i, 1) ; c Injunction means passages impelling to action ' (Bh. on Cairn. Su. I, i, 2) ; ' Of this (viz. active religious duty) the knowledge comes from injunction ' (part of Cairn. Su. I, i, 5) ; ' The (words) denoting those (things) are to be connected with (the injunctive verb of the vidhi-passage) whose pur- port is action ' (Cairn. Su. 1, 1, 25) ; 'As action is the purport of the Veda, whatever does not refer to action is purport- less ' (Cairn. Su. I, 2, 1). Therefore the Veda has a purport in so far only as it rouses the activity of man with regard to some actions and restrains it with regard to others ; other passages (i. e. all those passages which are not directly injunctive) have a purport only in so far as they supplement injunctions and prohibitions.
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.
1f accomplished substances, since the latter are the objects of perception and the other means of proof (which give sufficient information about them ; while it is the recognised object of the Veda to give information about what is not known from other sources). And if it did give such information, it would not be connected with things to be desired or shunned, and thus be of no use to man. For this very reason Vedic passages, such as c he howled, &c.,' which at first sight appear purposeless, are shown to have a purpose in so far as they glorify certain actions (cp. Pu. Mt. Su. I, 2, 7, ' Because they stand in syntac- tical connection with the injunctions, therefore their purport is to glorify the injunctions '). In the same way mantras are shown to stand in a certain relation to actions, in so far as they notify the actions themselves and the means by which they are accomplished. So, for instance, the mantra, ' For strength thee (I cut ; ' which accompanies the cutting of a branch employed in the darcapunzamasa-sacrifice). In short, no Vedic passage is seen or can be proved to have a meaning but in so far as it is related to an action. And injunctions which are defined as having actions for their objects cannot refer to accomplished existent things. Hence we maintain that the Vedanta-texts are mere supplements to those passages which enjoin actions; noti- fying the agents, divinities, and results connected with those actions. Or else, if this be not admitted, on the ground of its involving the introduction of a subject-matter foreign to the Vedanta-texts (viz. the subject-matter of the Karmaka^a of the Veda), we must admit (the second of the two alternatives proposed above, viz.) that the 2 2 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. Vedanta-texts refer to devout meditation (upasana) and similar actions which are mentioned in those very (Vedanta) texts. The result of all of which is that Scripture is not the source of Brahman. To this argumentation the Sutrakara replies as follows : 4. But that (Brahman is to be known from Scrip- ture), because it is connected (with the Vedanta-texts) as their purport The word ' but ' is meant to rebut the purva-paksha (the prima facie view as urged above). That all-knowing, all- I powerful Brahman, which is the cause of the origin, sub- jsistence, and dissolution of the world, is known from the Vedanta-part of Scripture. How? Because in all the Vedanta-texts the sentences construe in so far as they have for their purport, as they intimate that matter (viz. Brahman).
2he cause of the origin, sub- jsistence, and dissolution of the world, is known from the Vedanta-part of Scripture. How? Because in all the Vedanta-texts the sentences construe in so far as they have for their purport, as they intimate that matter (viz. Brahman). Compare, for instance, ' Being only this was in the beginning, one, without a second' {Kh. Up. VI, 2, 1) ; ' In the beginning all this was Self, one only ' (Ait. Ar. II, 4, 1, 1); c This is the Brahman without cause and without effect, without anything inside or outside ; this Self is Brahman perceiving everything ' {Bri. Up. II, 5, 19) ; ' That immortal Brahman is before' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 11); and similar passages. If the words contained in these passages have once been determined to refer to Brahman, and their purport is understood thereby, it would be improper to assume them to have a different sense; for that would involve the fault of abandoning the direct statements of the text in favour of mere assumptions. Nor can we con- clude the purport of these passages to be the intimation of the nature of agents, divinities, &c. (connected with acts of religious duty) ; for there are certain scriptural passages which preclude all actions, actors, and fruits, as, for instance, Bri. Up. II, 4, 13, 'Then by what should he see whom?' (which passage intimates that there is neither an agent, nor an object of action, nor an instrument.) Nor again can Brahman, though it is of the nature of an accomplished thing, be the object of perception and the other means of I ADHYAYA, I pAdA, 4. knowledge ; for the fact of everything having its Self in Brahman cannot be grasped without the aid of the scriptural passage ' That art thou ' {Kh. Up. VI, 8, 7). Nor can it rightly be objected that instruction is purportless if not connected with something either to be striven after or shunned ; for from the mere comprehension of Brahman's Self, which is not something either to be avoided or endeavoured after, there results cessation of all pain, and thereby the attainment of man's highest aim. That passages notifying certain divinities, and so on, stand in subordinate relation to acts of devout meditation mentioned in the same chapters may readily be admitted. But it is impossible that Brahman should stand in an analogous relation to injunctions of devout meditation, for if the know- ledge of absolute unity has once arisen there exists no longer anything to be desired or avoided, and thereby the conception of duality, according to which we distinguish actions, agents, and the like, is destroyed.
3unctions of devout meditation, for if the know- ledge of absolute unity has once arisen there exists no longer anything to be desired or avoided, and thereby the conception of duality, according to which we distinguish actions, agents, and the like, is destroyed. If the conception of duality is once uprooted by the conception of absolute unity, it cannot arise again, and so no longer be the cause of Brahman being looked upon as the complementary object of injunctions of devotion. Other parts of the Veda may have no authority except in so far as they are con- nected with injunctions ; still it is impossible to impugn on that ground the authoritativeness of passages conveying the knowledge of the Self; for such passages have their own result. Nor, finally, can the authoritativeness of the Veda be proved by inferential reasoning so that it would be dependent on instances observed elsewhere. From all which it follows that the Veda possesses authority as a means of right knowledge of Brahman. Here others raise the following objection : — Although the Veda is the means of gaining a right knowledge of Brah- man, yet it intimates Brahman only as the object of certain injunctions, just as the information which the Veda gives about the sacrificial post, the ahavaniya-fire and other objects not known from the practice of common life is merely supplementary to certain injunctions1. Why so? 1 So, for instance, the passage * he carves the sacrificial post and 24 VEDANTA-S^TRAS. Because the Veda has the purport of either instigating to action or restraining from it. For men fully acquainted with the object of the Veda have made the following declaration, ' The purpose of the Veda is seen to be the injunction of actions' (Bhashya on Caimini Sutra I, i, 1) ; c Injunction means passages impelling to action ' (Bh. on Cairn. Su. I, i, 2) ; ' Of this (viz. active religious duty) the knowledge comes from injunction ' (part of Cairn. Su. I, i, 5) ; ' The (words) denoting those (things) are to be connected with (the injunctive verb of the vidhi-passage) whose pur- port is action ' (Cairn. Su. 1, 1, 25) ; 'As action is the purport of the Veda, whatever does not refer to action is purport- less ' (Cairn. Su. I, 2, 1). Therefore the Veda has a purport in so far only as it rouses the activity of man with regard to some actions and restrains it with regard to others ; other passages (i. e. all those passages which are not directly injunctive) have a purport only in so far as they supplement injunctions and prohibitions.
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.