Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1ble, because we have no right to attribute to words a plurality of meanings. Hence (we rather assume that) the word ' Self ' in its primary meaning refers to what is intelligent only and is then, by a figurative Cp. above, p. 30. I ADHYAYA, I pAdA, 8. 57 attribution of intelligence, applied to the elements and the like also ; whence such phrases as 'the Self of the elements/ 'the Self of the senses/ And even if we assume that the word ' Self ' primarily signifies both classes of beings, we are unable to settle in any special case which of the two meanings the word has, unless we are aided either by the general heading under which it stands, or some determina- tive attributive word. But in the passage under discussion there is nothing to determine that the word refers to something non-intelligent, while, on the other hand, the Sat distinguished by thought forms the general heading, and Svetaketu, i.e. a being endowed with intelligence, is mentioned in close proximity. That a non-intelligent Self does not agree with Svetaketu, who possesses intelligence, we have already shown. All these circumstances determine the object of the word ' Self here to be something intelli- gent. The word '^yotis' does moreover not furnish an appropriate example ; for according to common use it has the settled meaning of 'light' only, and is used in the sense of sacrifice only on account of the arthavada assuming a similarity (of the sacrifice) to light. A different explanation of the Sutra is also possible. The preceding Sfitra may be taken completely to refute all doubts as to the word c Self having a figurative or double sense, and then the present Sfttra is to be explained as con- taining an independent reason, proving that the doctrine of the pradhana being the general cause is untenable. Hence the non-intelligent pradhana is not denoted by the word ' Self.' This the teacher now proceeds to prove by an additional reason. 8. And (the pradh&na cannot be denoted by the word 'Self') because there is no statement of its having to be set aside. If the pradhana which is the Not-Self were denoted by the term * Being ' (Sat), and if the passage ' That is the Self, that art thou, O *Svetaketu,' referred to the pradhana ; the teacher whose wish it is to impart instruction about the 58 vedanta-s6tras. true Brahman would subsequently declare that the pradhana is to be set aside (and the true Brahman to be considered) ; for otherwise his pupil, having received the instruction about the pradhana, might take his stand on the latter, looking upon it as the Non-Self.
2e Brahman would subsequently declare that the pradhana is to be set aside (and the true Brahman to be considered) ; for otherwise his pupil, having received the instruction about the pradhana, might take his stand on the latter, looking upon it as the Non-Self. In ordinary life a man who wishes to point out to a friend the (small) star Arundhatf at first directs his attention to a big neighbouring star, saying ' that is Arundhati,' although it is really not so ; and thereupon he withdraws his first statement and points out the real Arundhati. Analogously the teacher (if he intended to make his pupil understand the Self through the Non-Self) would in the end definitely state that the Self is not of the nature of the pradhana. But no such statement is made; for the sixth Prapa/^aka arrives at a conclusion based on the view that the Self is nothing but that which is (the Sat). The word ' and ' (in the Sutra) is meant to notify that the contradiction of a previous statement (which would be implied in the rejected interpretation) is an additional reason for the rejection. Such a contradiction would result even if it were stated that the pradhana is to be set aside. For in the beginning of the Prapaz^aka it is intimated that through the knowledge of the cause everything becomes known. Compare the following consecutive sentences, 'Have you ever asked for that instruction by which we hear what cannot be heard, by which we perceive what cannot be perceived, by which we know what cannot be known? What is that instruction? As, my dear, by one clod of clay all that is made of clay is known, the modification (i.e. the effect) being a name merely which has its origin in speech, while the truth is that it is clay merely,' &c. Now if the term ' Sat ' denoted the pradhana, which is merely the cause of the aggregate of the objects of enjoyment, its knowledge, whether to be set aside or not to be set aside, could never lead to the knowledge of the aggregate of enjoy ers (souls), because the latter is not an effect of the pradhana. Therefore the pradhana is not denoted by the term ' Sat/ — For this the Sutrakara gives a further reason. I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 9. 59 9. On account of (the individual Soul) going to the Self (the Self cannot be the pradhana). With reference to the cause denoted by the word c Sat,' Scripture says, ' When a man sleeps here, then, my dear, he becomes united with the Sat, he is gone to his own (Self). Therefore they say of him, " he sleeps " (svapiti), because he is gone to his own (svam apita)/ \Kh. Up.
3se denoted by the word c Sat,' Scripture says, ' When a man sleeps here, then, my dear, he becomes united with the Sat, he is gone to his own (Self). Therefore they say of him, " he sleeps " (svapiti), because he is gone to his own (svam apita)/ \Kh. Up. VI, 8, 1.) This passage explains the well-known verb ' to sleep/ with refer- ence to the soul. The word, ' his own,' denotes the Self which had before been denoted by the word Sat ; to the Self he (the individual soul) goes, i.e. into it it is resolved, according to the acknowledged sense of api-i, which means ' to be resolved into.' The individual soul (givs) is called awake as long as being connected with the various external objects by means of the modifications of the mind — which thus constitute limiting adjuncts of the soul — it apprehends those external objects, and identifies itself with the gross body, which is one of those external objects1. When, modified by the impressions which the external objects have left, it sees dreams, it is denoted by the term 'mind2.5 When, on the cessation of the two limiting adjuncts (i. e. the subtle and the gross bodies), and the consequent absence of the modi- fications due to the adjuncts, it is, in the state of deep sleep, merged in the Self as it were, then it is said to be asleep (resolved into the Self). A similar etymology of the word ' hrzdaya ' is given by .sruti, ' That Self abides in the heart. And this is the etymological explanation : he is in the heart (hrtdi ayam)/ (Kh. Up. VIII, 3, 3.) The words a^anaya and udanya are similarly etymologised : ' water is carrying away what has been eaten by him ; ' ' fire carries away what has been drunk by him ' (Kh. Up. VI, 8, 3 ; 5). Thus the passage quoted above explains the resolution (of the soul) into the Self, denoted by the term ' Sat/ by means of the etymology of the word 'sleep/ But the intelligent 1 So according to the commentators, not to accept whose guidance in the translation of scholastic definitions is rather hazardous. A simpler translation of the clause might however be given. 2 With reference to Kh. Up. VI, 8, 2. 6o VEDANTA-S^JTRAS. Self can clearly not resolve itself into the non-intelligent pradhana. If, again, it were said that the pradhana is denoted by the word ' own/ because belonging to the Self (as being the Self's own), there would remain the same ab- surd statement as to an intelligent entity being resolved into a non-intelligent one. Moreover another scriptural passage (viz.
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.
1ble, because we have no right to attribute to words a plurality of meanings. Hence (we rather assume that) the word ' Self ' in its primary meaning refers to what is intelligent only and is then, by a figurative Cp. above, p. 30. I ADHYAYA, I pAdA, 8. 57 attribution of intelligence, applied to the elements and the like also ; whence such phrases as 'the Self of the elements/ 'the Self of the senses/ And even if we assume that the word ' Self ' primarily signifies both classes of beings, we are unable to settle in any special case which of the two meanings the word has, unless we are aided either by the general heading under which it stands, or some determina- tive attributive word. But in the passage under discussion there is nothing to determine that the word refers to something non-intelligent, while, on the other hand, the Sat distinguished by thought forms the general heading, and Svetaketu, i.e. a being endowed with intelligence, is mentioned in close proximity. That a non-intelligent Self does not agree with Svetaketu, who possesses intelligence, we have already shown. All these circumstances determine the object of the word ' Self here to be something intelli- gent. The word '^yotis' does moreover not furnish an appropriate example ; for according to common use it has the settled meaning of 'light' only, and is used in the sense of sacrifice only on account of the arthavada assuming a similarity (of the sacrifice) to light. A different explanation of the Sutra is also possible. The preceding Sfitra may be taken completely to refute all doubts as to the word c Self having a figurative or double sense, and then the present Sfttra is to be explained as con- taining an independent reason, proving that the doctrine of the pradhana being the general cause is untenable. Hence the non-intelligent pradhana is not denoted by the word ' Self.' This the teacher now proceeds to prove by an additional reason. 8. And (the pradh&na cannot be denoted by the word 'Self') because there is no statement of its having to be set aside. If the pradhana which is the Not-Self were denoted by the term * Being ' (Sat), and if the passage ' That is the Self, that art thou, O *Svetaketu,' referred to the pradhana ; the teacher whose wish it is to impart instruction about the 58 vedanta-s6tras. true Brahman would subsequently declare that the pradhana is to be set aside (and the true Brahman to be considered) ; for otherwise his pupil, having received the instruction about the pradhana, might take his stand on the latter, looking upon it as the Non-Self.
2e Brahman would subsequently declare that the pradhana is to be set aside (and the true Brahman to be considered) ; for otherwise his pupil, having received the instruction about the pradhana, might take his stand on the latter, looking upon it as the Non-Self. In ordinary life a man who wishes to point out to a friend the (small) star Arundhatf at first directs his attention to a big neighbouring star, saying ' that is Arundhati,' although it is really not so ; and thereupon he withdraws his first statement and points out the real Arundhati. Analogously the teacher (if he intended to make his pupil understand the Self through the Non-Self) would in the end definitely state that the Self is not of the nature of the pradhana. But no such statement is made; for the sixth Prapa/^aka arrives at a conclusion based on the view that the Self is nothing but that which is (the Sat). The word ' and ' (in the Sutra) is meant to notify that the contradiction of a previous statement (which would be implied in the rejected interpretation) is an additional reason for the rejection. Such a contradiction would result even if it were stated that the pradhana is to be set aside. For in the beginning of the Prapaz^aka it is intimated that through the knowledge of the cause everything becomes known. Compare the following consecutive sentences, 'Have you ever asked for that instruction by which we hear what cannot be heard, by which we perceive what cannot be perceived, by which we know what cannot be known? What is that instruction? As, my dear, by one clod of clay all that is made of clay is known, the modification (i.e. the effect) being a name merely which has its origin in speech, while the truth is that it is clay merely,' &c. Now if the term ' Sat ' denoted the pradhana, which is merely the cause of the aggregate of the objects of enjoyment, its knowledge, whether to be set aside or not to be set aside, could never lead to the knowledge of the aggregate of enjoy ers (souls), because the latter is not an effect of the pradhana. Therefore the pradhana is not denoted by the term ' Sat/ — For this the Sutrakara gives a further reason. I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 9. 59 9. On account of (the individual Soul) going to the Self (the Self cannot be the pradhana). With reference to the cause denoted by the word c Sat,' Scripture says, ' When a man sleeps here, then, my dear, he becomes united with the Sat, he is gone to his own (Self). Therefore they say of him, " he sleeps " (svapiti), because he is gone to his own (svam apita)/ \Kh. Up.
3se denoted by the word c Sat,' Scripture says, ' When a man sleeps here, then, my dear, he becomes united with the Sat, he is gone to his own (Self). Therefore they say of him, " he sleeps " (svapiti), because he is gone to his own (svam apita)/ \Kh. Up. VI, 8, 1.) This passage explains the well-known verb ' to sleep/ with refer- ence to the soul. The word, ' his own,' denotes the Self which had before been denoted by the word Sat ; to the Self he (the individual soul) goes, i.e. into it it is resolved, according to the acknowledged sense of api-i, which means ' to be resolved into.' The individual soul (givs) is called awake as long as being connected with the various external objects by means of the modifications of the mind — which thus constitute limiting adjuncts of the soul — it apprehends those external objects, and identifies itself with the gross body, which is one of those external objects1. When, modified by the impressions which the external objects have left, it sees dreams, it is denoted by the term 'mind2.5 When, on the cessation of the two limiting adjuncts (i. e. the subtle and the gross bodies), and the consequent absence of the modi- fications due to the adjuncts, it is, in the state of deep sleep, merged in the Self as it were, then it is said to be asleep (resolved into the Self). A similar etymology of the word ' hrzdaya ' is given by .sruti, ' That Self abides in the heart. And this is the etymological explanation : he is in the heart (hrtdi ayam)/ (Kh. Up. VIII, 3, 3.) The words a^anaya and udanya are similarly etymologised : ' water is carrying away what has been eaten by him ; ' ' fire carries away what has been drunk by him ' (Kh. Up. VI, 8, 3 ; 5). Thus the passage quoted above explains the resolution (of the soul) into the Self, denoted by the term ' Sat/ by means of the etymology of the word 'sleep/ But the intelligent 1 So according to the commentators, not to accept whose guidance in the translation of scholastic definitions is rather hazardous. A simpler translation of the clause might however be given. 2 With reference to Kh. Up. VI, 8, 2. 6o VEDANTA-S^JTRAS. Self can clearly not resolve itself into the non-intelligent pradhana. If, again, it were said that the pradhana is denoted by the word ' own/ because belonging to the Self (as being the Self's own), there would remain the same ab- surd statement as to an intelligent entity being resolved into a non-intelligent one. Moreover another scriptural passage (viz.
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.