Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1con- sumed.' Analogously it is understood that the different degrees of pleasure which are enjoyed by the embodied creatures, from man downward to the inmates of hell and to immovable things, are the mere effects of religious merit as defined in Vedic injunctions. On the other hand, from the different degrees of pain endured by higher and lower embodied creatures, there is inferred difference of degree in its cause, viz. religious demerit as defined in the pro- hibitory injunctions, and in its agents. This difference in the degree of pain and pleasure, which has for its antecedent embodied existence, and for its cause the difference of de- gree of merit and demerit of animated beings, liable to faults such as ignorance and the like, is well known — from vSruti, Smrz'ti, and reasoning — to be non-eternal, of a fleeting, changing nature (sa^sara). The following text, for instance, 'As long as he is in the body he cannot get free from pleasure and pain ' (Kk. Up. VIII, 12, 1), refers to the sa//z- sara-state as described above. From the following passage, on the other hand, ' When he is free from the body then neither pleasure nor pain touches him/ which denies the touch of pain or pleasure, we learn that the unembodied state called ' final release ' (moksha) is declared not to be the effect of religious merit as defined by Vedic injunctions. For if it were the effect of merit it would not be denied that it is subject to pain and pleasure. Should it be said 2 8 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. that the very circumstance of its being an unembodied state is the effect of merit, we reply that that cannot be, since Scripture declares that state to be naturally and originally an unembodied one. 'The wise who knows the Self as bodiless within the bodies, as unchanging among changing things, as great and omnipresent does never grieve ' (Ka. Up. II, %%)\ 'He is without breath, without mind, pure'(Mu. Up, II, i, 2); 'That person is not attached to anything' (Br/. Up. IV, 3, 15)1. All which passages establish the fact that so-called release differs from all the fruits of action, and is an eternally and essentially disembodied state. Among eternal things, some indeed may be 'eternal, al- though changing' (pari/zaminitya), viz. those, the idea of whose identity is not destroyed, although they may undergo changes; such, for instance, are earth and the other ele- ments in the opinion of those who maintain the eternity of the world, or the three gu^as in the opinion of the Sankhyas. But this (moksha) is eternal in the true sense, i. e.
2although they may undergo changes; such, for instance, are earth and the other ele- ments in the opinion of those who maintain the eternity of the world, or the three gu^as in the opinion of the Sankhyas. But this (moksha) is eternal in the true sense, i. e. eternal without undergoing any changes (ku^astha- nitya), omnipresent as ether, free from all modifications, absolutely self-sufficient, not composed of parts, of self- luminous nature. That bodiless entity in fact, to which merit and demerit with their consequences and threefold time do not apply, is called release ; a definition agreeing with scriptural passages, such as the following : ' Different from merit and demerit, different from effect and cause, different from past and future ' (Ka. Up. I, %, 14). It2 (i. e. moksha) is, therefore, the same as Brahman in the enquiry into which we are at present engaged. If Brahman were represented as supplementary to certain actions, and re- 1 The first passage shows that the Self is not joined to the gross body ; the second that it is not joined to the subtle body ; the third that is independent of either. 2 Ananda Giri omits ' 2X2J1! His comment is : prnhaggi^asa- vishayatva^ k& dharmadyasprzsh/atvaztt brahma/zo yuktam ityaha I tad iti 1 ata^ jabdapaZ/fe dharmadyaspar^e karmaphalavailakshawyaw hetukr/'tam. — The above translation follows Govindananda's first explanation. Tat kaivalyam brahmaiva karmaphalavilaksha^atvad ity artha^. I ADHYAYA, I PAD A, 4. 2 9 lease were assumed to be the effect of those actions, it would be non-eternal, and would have to be considered merely as something holding a pre-eminent position among the described non-eternal fruits of actions with their various degrees. But that release is something eternal is acknow- ledged by whoever admits it at all, and the teaching con- cerning Brahman can therefore not be merely supplemen- tary to actions. There are, moreover, a number of scriptural passages which declare release to follow immediately on the cognition of Brahman, and which thus preclude the possibility of an effect intervening between the two ; for instance, ' He who knows Brahman becomes Brahman' (Mu. Up. Ill, 3, 9) ; 'All his works perish when He has been beheld, who is the higher and the lower' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 8); ' He who knows the bliss of Brahman fears nothing ' (Taitt. Up. II, 9) ; ' O Ganaka, you have indeed reached fearlessness ' (Br/. Up. IV, 2,4); ' That Brahman knew its Self only, saying, I am Brahman. From it all this sprang' (Br/. Up.
3(Mu. Up. II, 2, 8); ' He who knows the bliss of Brahman fears nothing ' (Taitt. Up. II, 9) ; ' O Ganaka, you have indeed reached fearlessness ' (Br/. Up. IV, 2,4); ' That Brahman knew its Self only, saying, I am Brahman. From it all this sprang' (Br/. Up. I, 4, 10); 4 What sorrow, what trouble can there be to him who beholds that unity ? ' (f s. Up, 7.) We must likewise quote the passage, Br/. Up. I, 4, 10, (' Seeing this the Rishi V&madeva understood : I was Manu, I was the sun,') in order to exclude the idea of any action taking place between one's seeing Brahman and becoming one with the universal Self; for that passage is analogous to the following one, ' standing he sings,' from which we understand that no action due to the same agent inter- venes between the standing and the singing. Other scrip- tural passages show that the removal of the obstacles which lie in the way of release is the only fruit of the knowledge of Brahman ; so, for instance, ' You indeed are our father, you who carry us from our ignorance to the other shore ' (Pr. Up. VI, 8) ; ' I have heard from men like you that he who knows the Self overcomes grief. I am in grief. Do, Sir, help me over this grief of mine ' (Kh. Up. VII, 1, 3) ; ' To him after his faults had been rubbed out, the vener- able Sanatkumara showed the other side of darkness' {Kk* Up. VII, 26, 2). The same is the purport of the Sutra, sup- ported by arguments, of (Gautama) A^arya, ' Final release 30 VEDANTA-SIJTRAS. results from the successive removal of wrong knowledge, faults, activity, birth, pain, the removal of each later mem- ber of the series depending on the removal of the preceding member' (Nyay. Su. I, i, %) ; and wrong knowledge itself is removed by the knowledge of one's Self being one with the Self of Brahman. Nor is this knowledge of the Self being one with Brahman a mere (fanciful) combination \ as is made use of, for instance, in the following passage, ' For the mind is endless, and the VIrvedevas are endless, and he thereby gains the endless world ' (Br/. Up. Ill, i, g)2 ; nor is it an (in reality unfounded) ascription (superimposition) 3, as in the passages, 'Let him meditate on mind as Brahman,' and ' Aditya is Brahman, this is the doctrine' (Kk. Up.
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.
1con- sumed.' Analogously it is understood that the different degrees of pleasure which are enjoyed by the embodied creatures, from man downward to the inmates of hell and to immovable things, are the mere effects of religious merit as defined in Vedic injunctions. On the other hand, from the different degrees of pain endured by higher and lower embodied creatures, there is inferred difference of degree in its cause, viz. religious demerit as defined in the pro- hibitory injunctions, and in its agents. This difference in the degree of pain and pleasure, which has for its antecedent embodied existence, and for its cause the difference of de- gree of merit and demerit of animated beings, liable to faults such as ignorance and the like, is well known — from vSruti, Smrz'ti, and reasoning — to be non-eternal, of a fleeting, changing nature (sa^sara). The following text, for instance, 'As long as he is in the body he cannot get free from pleasure and pain ' (Kk. Up. VIII, 12, 1), refers to the sa//z- sara-state as described above. From the following passage, on the other hand, ' When he is free from the body then neither pleasure nor pain touches him/ which denies the touch of pain or pleasure, we learn that the unembodied state called ' final release ' (moksha) is declared not to be the effect of religious merit as defined by Vedic injunctions. For if it were the effect of merit it would not be denied that it is subject to pain and pleasure. Should it be said 2 8 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. that the very circumstance of its being an unembodied state is the effect of merit, we reply that that cannot be, since Scripture declares that state to be naturally and originally an unembodied one. 'The wise who knows the Self as bodiless within the bodies, as unchanging among changing things, as great and omnipresent does never grieve ' (Ka. Up. II, %%)\ 'He is without breath, without mind, pure'(Mu. Up, II, i, 2); 'That person is not attached to anything' (Br/. Up. IV, 3, 15)1. All which passages establish the fact that so-called release differs from all the fruits of action, and is an eternally and essentially disembodied state. Among eternal things, some indeed may be 'eternal, al- though changing' (pari/zaminitya), viz. those, the idea of whose identity is not destroyed, although they may undergo changes; such, for instance, are earth and the other ele- ments in the opinion of those who maintain the eternity of the world, or the three gu^as in the opinion of the Sankhyas. But this (moksha) is eternal in the true sense, i. e.
2although they may undergo changes; such, for instance, are earth and the other ele- ments in the opinion of those who maintain the eternity of the world, or the three gu^as in the opinion of the Sankhyas. But this (moksha) is eternal in the true sense, i. e. eternal without undergoing any changes (ku^astha- nitya), omnipresent as ether, free from all modifications, absolutely self-sufficient, not composed of parts, of self- luminous nature. That bodiless entity in fact, to which merit and demerit with their consequences and threefold time do not apply, is called release ; a definition agreeing with scriptural passages, such as the following : ' Different from merit and demerit, different from effect and cause, different from past and future ' (Ka. Up. I, %, 14). It2 (i. e. moksha) is, therefore, the same as Brahman in the enquiry into which we are at present engaged. If Brahman were represented as supplementary to certain actions, and re- 1 The first passage shows that the Self is not joined to the gross body ; the second that it is not joined to the subtle body ; the third that is independent of either. 2 Ananda Giri omits ' 2X2J1! His comment is : prnhaggi^asa- vishayatva^ k& dharmadyasprzsh/atvaztt brahma/zo yuktam ityaha I tad iti 1 ata^ jabdapaZ/fe dharmadyaspar^e karmaphalavailakshawyaw hetukr/'tam. — The above translation follows Govindananda's first explanation. Tat kaivalyam brahmaiva karmaphalavilaksha^atvad ity artha^. I ADHYAYA, I PAD A, 4. 2 9 lease were assumed to be the effect of those actions, it would be non-eternal, and would have to be considered merely as something holding a pre-eminent position among the described non-eternal fruits of actions with their various degrees. But that release is something eternal is acknow- ledged by whoever admits it at all, and the teaching con- cerning Brahman can therefore not be merely supplemen- tary to actions. There are, moreover, a number of scriptural passages which declare release to follow immediately on the cognition of Brahman, and which thus preclude the possibility of an effect intervening between the two ; for instance, ' He who knows Brahman becomes Brahman' (Mu. Up. Ill, 3, 9) ; 'All his works perish when He has been beheld, who is the higher and the lower' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 8); ' He who knows the bliss of Brahman fears nothing ' (Taitt. Up. II, 9) ; ' O Ganaka, you have indeed reached fearlessness ' (Br/. Up. IV, 2,4); ' That Brahman knew its Self only, saying, I am Brahman. From it all this sprang' (Br/. Up.
3(Mu. Up. II, 2, 8); ' He who knows the bliss of Brahman fears nothing ' (Taitt. Up. II, 9) ; ' O Ganaka, you have indeed reached fearlessness ' (Br/. Up. IV, 2,4); ' That Brahman knew its Self only, saying, I am Brahman. From it all this sprang' (Br/. Up. I, 4, 10); 4 What sorrow, what trouble can there be to him who beholds that unity ? ' (f s. Up, 7.) We must likewise quote the passage, Br/. Up. I, 4, 10, (' Seeing this the Rishi V&madeva understood : I was Manu, I was the sun,') in order to exclude the idea of any action taking place between one's seeing Brahman and becoming one with the universal Self; for that passage is analogous to the following one, ' standing he sings,' from which we understand that no action due to the same agent inter- venes between the standing and the singing. Other scrip- tural passages show that the removal of the obstacles which lie in the way of release is the only fruit of the knowledge of Brahman ; so, for instance, ' You indeed are our father, you who carry us from our ignorance to the other shore ' (Pr. Up. VI, 8) ; ' I have heard from men like you that he who knows the Self overcomes grief. I am in grief. Do, Sir, help me over this grief of mine ' (Kh. Up. VII, 1, 3) ; ' To him after his faults had been rubbed out, the vener- able Sanatkumara showed the other side of darkness' {Kk* Up. VII, 26, 2). The same is the purport of the Sutra, sup- ported by arguments, of (Gautama) A^arya, ' Final release 30 VEDANTA-SIJTRAS. results from the successive removal of wrong knowledge, faults, activity, birth, pain, the removal of each later mem- ber of the series depending on the removal of the preceding member' (Nyay. Su. I, i, %) ; and wrong knowledge itself is removed by the knowledge of one's Self being one with the Self of Brahman. Nor is this knowledge of the Self being one with Brahman a mere (fanciful) combination \ as is made use of, for instance, in the following passage, ' For the mind is endless, and the VIrvedevas are endless, and he thereby gains the endless world ' (Br/. Up. Ill, i, g)2 ; nor is it an (in reality unfounded) ascription (superimposition) 3, as in the passages, 'Let him meditate on mind as Brahman,' and ' Aditya is Brahman, this is the doctrine' (Kk. Up.
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.