Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The personal soul cannot be denoted by the term ' the one consisting of bliss/ Why ? On account of the impossibility. For Scripture says, with reference to the Self consisting of bliss, ' He wished, may I be many, may I grow forth. He brooded over himself. After he had thus brooded, he sent forth whatever there is/ Here, the desire arising before the origination of a body, &c, the non- separation of the effects created from the creator, and the creation of all effects whatever, cannot possibly belong to any Self different from the highest Self. 17. And on account of the declaration of the difference (of the two, the anandamaya cannot be the transmigrating soul). The Self consisting of bliss cannot be identical with the transmigrating soul, for that reason also that in the section treating of the Self of bliss, the individual soul and the Self of bliss are distinctly represented as different ; Taitt. Up. II, 7, 'It (i.e. the Self consisting of bliss) is a flavour; for only after perceiving a flavour can this (soul) perceive bliss/ For he who perceives cannot be that which is per- ceived.— But, it may be asked, if he who perceives or attains cannot be that which is perceived or attained, how about the following Sruti- and Smr zti-passages, ' The Self is to be sought ;' ' Nothing higher is known than the attain- ment of the Self 1?'— This objection, we reply, is legitimate (from the point of view of absolute truth). Yet we see that in ordinary life, the Self, which in reality is never anything 1 Yadi labdM na labdhavyaA kathaw tarhi paramatmano vastuto Abhinnena ^ivatmana paramatm& labhyata ity artha^. Bhamati. 70 VEDANTA-stfTRAS. but the Self, is, owing to non-comprehension of the truth, identified with the Non-Self, i. e. the body and so on ; whereby it becomes possible to speak of the Self in so far as it is identified with the body, and so on, as something not searched for but to be searched for, not heard but to be heard, not seized but to be seized, not perceived but to be perceived, not known but to be known, and the like. Scripture, on the other hand, denies, in such passages as 'there is no other seer but he' (Br/. Up. Ill, 7, 23), that there is in reality any seer or hearer different from the all-knowing highest Lord.
2be perceived, not known but to be known, and the like. Scripture, on the other hand, denies, in such passages as 'there is no other seer but he' (Br/. Up. Ill, 7, 23), that there is in reality any seer or hearer different from the all-knowing highest Lord. (Nor can it be said that the Lord is unreal because he is identical with the unreal individual soul ; for)1 the Lord differs from the soul (vignk- natman) which is embodied, acts and enjoys, and is the product of Nescience, in the same way as the real juggler who stands on the ground differs from the illusive juggler, who, holding in his hand a shield and a sword, climbs up to the sky by means of a rope ; or as the free unlimited ether differs from the ether of a jar, which is determined by its limiting adjunct, (viz, the jar.) With reference to this fictitious difference of the highest Self and the individual Self, the two last Sutras have been propounded. 18. And on account of desire (being mentioned as belonging to the anandamaya) no regard is to be had to what is inferred, (i. e. to the pradhina inferred by the Sankhyas.) Since in the passage ' he desired, may I be many, may I grow forth,' which occurs in the chapter treating of the anandamaya (Taitt. Up. II, 6), the quality of feeling desire is mentioned, that which is inferred, i. e. the non- intelligent pradhana assumed by the Sankhyas, cannot be regarded as being the Self consisting of bliss and the cause of the world. Although the opinion that the pradhana is the 1 Yatha parame^varad bhinno ^ivatma drash/a na bhavaty evam £-ivatmano*pi drash/ur na bhinna^ parame^vara iti ^ivasydnirva^- yatve parame^varo^py anirva^yaA syad ity ata aha paramcrvaras tv avidyakalpitad iti. Ananda Giri. I ADHYAYA, T PADA, 1 9. 7 1 cause of the world, has already been refuted in the Sutra I, 1, 5, it is here, where a favourable opportunity presents itself, refuted for a second time on the basis of the scrip- tural passage about the cause of the world feeling desire, for the purpose of showing the uniformity of view (of all scriptural passages). 1 9. And, moreover, it (i. e. Scripture) teaches the joining of this (i.e. the individual soul) with that, (i.e. the Self consisting of bliss), on that (being fully known). And for the following reason also the term, 'the Self consisting of bliss,' cannot denote either the pradhana or the individual soul. Scripture teaches that the individual soul when it has reached knowledge is joined, i. e. identified, with the Self of bliss under discussion, i.e. obtains final release.
3rm, 'the Self consisting of bliss,' cannot denote either the pradhana or the individual soul. Scripture teaches that the individual soul when it has reached knowledge is joined, i. e. identified, with the Self of bliss under discussion, i.e. obtains final release. Compare the following passage (Taitt. Up. II, 7),! ' When he finds freedom from fear, and rest in that which ' is invisible, incorporeal, undefined, unsupported, then he has obtained the fearless. For if he makes but the smallest distinction in it there is fear for him.' That means, if he sees in that Self consisting of bliss even a small difference in the form of non-identity, then he finds no release from the fear of transmigratory existence. But when he, by means of the cognition of absolute identity, finds absolute rest in the Self consisting of bliss, then he is freed from the fear of transmigratory existence. But this (finding absolute rest) is possible only when we understand by the Self con- sisting of bliss, the highest Self, and not either the pra- dhana or the individual soul. Hence it is proved that the Self consisting of bliss is the highest Self. But, in reality, the following remarks have to be made concerning the true meaning of the word ' dnandamaya V On what grounds, we ask, can it be maintained that the 1 The explanation of the anandamaya given hitherto is here re- called, and a different one given. The previous explanation is attributed by Go. An. to the vrzttikara. 72 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. affix ' maya ' after having, in the series of compounds begin- ning with annamaya and ending with vi^Tzanamaya, denoted mere modifications, should all at once, in the word ananda- maya, which belongs to the same series, denote abun- dance, so that anandamaya would refer to Brahman ? If it should be said that the assumption is made on account of the governing influence of the Brahman proclaimed in the mantra (which forms the beginning of the chapter, Taitt. Up. II), we reply that therefrom it would follow that also the Selfs consisting of food, breath, &c, denote Brahman (because the governing influence of the mantra extends to them also). — The advocate of the former interpretation will here, perhaps, restate an argument already made use of above, viz. as follows : To assume that the Selfs consisting of food., and so on, are not Brahman is quite proper, because after each of them an inner Self is mentioned.
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.
1The personal soul cannot be denoted by the term ' the one consisting of bliss/ Why ? On account of the impossibility. For Scripture says, with reference to the Self consisting of bliss, ' He wished, may I be many, may I grow forth. He brooded over himself. After he had thus brooded, he sent forth whatever there is/ Here, the desire arising before the origination of a body, &c, the non- separation of the effects created from the creator, and the creation of all effects whatever, cannot possibly belong to any Self different from the highest Self. 17. And on account of the declaration of the difference (of the two, the anandamaya cannot be the transmigrating soul). The Self consisting of bliss cannot be identical with the transmigrating soul, for that reason also that in the section treating of the Self of bliss, the individual soul and the Self of bliss are distinctly represented as different ; Taitt. Up. II, 7, 'It (i.e. the Self consisting of bliss) is a flavour; for only after perceiving a flavour can this (soul) perceive bliss/ For he who perceives cannot be that which is per- ceived.— But, it may be asked, if he who perceives or attains cannot be that which is perceived or attained, how about the following Sruti- and Smr zti-passages, ' The Self is to be sought ;' ' Nothing higher is known than the attain- ment of the Self 1?'— This objection, we reply, is legitimate (from the point of view of absolute truth). Yet we see that in ordinary life, the Self, which in reality is never anything 1 Yadi labdM na labdhavyaA kathaw tarhi paramatmano vastuto Abhinnena ^ivatmana paramatm& labhyata ity artha^. Bhamati. 70 VEDANTA-stfTRAS. but the Self, is, owing to non-comprehension of the truth, identified with the Non-Self, i. e. the body and so on ; whereby it becomes possible to speak of the Self in so far as it is identified with the body, and so on, as something not searched for but to be searched for, not heard but to be heard, not seized but to be seized, not perceived but to be perceived, not known but to be known, and the like. Scripture, on the other hand, denies, in such passages as 'there is no other seer but he' (Br/. Up. Ill, 7, 23), that there is in reality any seer or hearer different from the all-knowing highest Lord.
2be perceived, not known but to be known, and the like. Scripture, on the other hand, denies, in such passages as 'there is no other seer but he' (Br/. Up. Ill, 7, 23), that there is in reality any seer or hearer different from the all-knowing highest Lord. (Nor can it be said that the Lord is unreal because he is identical with the unreal individual soul ; for)1 the Lord differs from the soul (vignk- natman) which is embodied, acts and enjoys, and is the product of Nescience, in the same way as the real juggler who stands on the ground differs from the illusive juggler, who, holding in his hand a shield and a sword, climbs up to the sky by means of a rope ; or as the free unlimited ether differs from the ether of a jar, which is determined by its limiting adjunct, (viz, the jar.) With reference to this fictitious difference of the highest Self and the individual Self, the two last Sutras have been propounded. 18. And on account of desire (being mentioned as belonging to the anandamaya) no regard is to be had to what is inferred, (i. e. to the pradhina inferred by the Sankhyas.) Since in the passage ' he desired, may I be many, may I grow forth,' which occurs in the chapter treating of the anandamaya (Taitt. Up. II, 6), the quality of feeling desire is mentioned, that which is inferred, i. e. the non- intelligent pradhana assumed by the Sankhyas, cannot be regarded as being the Self consisting of bliss and the cause of the world. Although the opinion that the pradhana is the 1 Yatha parame^varad bhinno ^ivatma drash/a na bhavaty evam £-ivatmano*pi drash/ur na bhinna^ parame^vara iti ^ivasydnirva^- yatve parame^varo^py anirva^yaA syad ity ata aha paramcrvaras tv avidyakalpitad iti. Ananda Giri. I ADHYAYA, T PADA, 1 9. 7 1 cause of the world, has already been refuted in the Sutra I, 1, 5, it is here, where a favourable opportunity presents itself, refuted for a second time on the basis of the scrip- tural passage about the cause of the world feeling desire, for the purpose of showing the uniformity of view (of all scriptural passages). 1 9. And, moreover, it (i. e. Scripture) teaches the joining of this (i.e. the individual soul) with that, (i.e. the Self consisting of bliss), on that (being fully known). And for the following reason also the term, 'the Self consisting of bliss,' cannot denote either the pradhana or the individual soul. Scripture teaches that the individual soul when it has reached knowledge is joined, i. e. identified, with the Self of bliss under discussion, i.e. obtains final release.
3rm, 'the Self consisting of bliss,' cannot denote either the pradhana or the individual soul. Scripture teaches that the individual soul when it has reached knowledge is joined, i. e. identified, with the Self of bliss under discussion, i.e. obtains final release. Compare the following passage (Taitt. Up. II, 7),! ' When he finds freedom from fear, and rest in that which ' is invisible, incorporeal, undefined, unsupported, then he has obtained the fearless. For if he makes but the smallest distinction in it there is fear for him.' That means, if he sees in that Self consisting of bliss even a small difference in the form of non-identity, then he finds no release from the fear of transmigratory existence. But when he, by means of the cognition of absolute identity, finds absolute rest in the Self consisting of bliss, then he is freed from the fear of transmigratory existence. But this (finding absolute rest) is possible only when we understand by the Self con- sisting of bliss, the highest Self, and not either the pra- dhana or the individual soul. Hence it is proved that the Self consisting of bliss is the highest Self. But, in reality, the following remarks have to be made concerning the true meaning of the word ' dnandamaya V On what grounds, we ask, can it be maintained that the 1 The explanation of the anandamaya given hitherto is here re- called, and a different one given. The previous explanation is attributed by Go. An. to the vrzttikara. 72 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. affix ' maya ' after having, in the series of compounds begin- ning with annamaya and ending with vi^Tzanamaya, denoted mere modifications, should all at once, in the word ananda- maya, which belongs to the same series, denote abun- dance, so that anandamaya would refer to Brahman ? If it should be said that the assumption is made on account of the governing influence of the Brahman proclaimed in the mantra (which forms the beginning of the chapter, Taitt. Up. II), we reply that therefrom it would follow that also the Selfs consisting of food, breath, &c, denote Brahman (because the governing influence of the mantra extends to them also). — The advocate of the former interpretation will here, perhaps, restate an argument already made use of above, viz. as follows : To assume that the Selfs consisting of food., and so on, are not Brahman is quite proper, because after each of them an inner Self is mentioned.
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.