Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1which is the deity of the prastava, is Brahman. I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 24. 87 Some (commentators)1 quote under the present Sutra the following passages, ' the pra/za of pra/za ' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 18), and ' for to pra^a mind is fastened ' (Kk. Up. VI, 8, 2). But that is wrong since these two passages offer no opportunity for any discussion, the former on account of the separation of the words, the latter on account of the general topic. When we meet with a phrase such as 'the father of the father ' we understand at once that the genitive denotes a father different from the father denoted by the nominative. Analogously we infer from the separation of words con- tained in the phrase, ' the breath of breath,' that the c breath of breath ' is different from the ordinary breath (denoted by the genitive ' of breath '). For one and the same thing cannot, by means of a genitive, be predicated of — and thus distinguished from — itself. Concerning the second passage we remark that, if the matter constituting the general topic of some chapter is referred to in that chapter under a different name, we yet conclude, from the general topic, that that special matter is meant. For instance, when we meet in the section which treats of the ^yotish/oma sacrifice with the passage, ' in every spring he is to offer the ^yotis sacrifice,' we at once understand that the word ^yotis denotes the ^yotish/oma. If we therefore meet with the clause ' to pra/za mind is fastened ' in a section of which the highest Brahman is the topic, we do not for a moment suppose that the word pra^a should there denote the ordinary breath which is a mere modification of air. The two passages thus do not offer any matter for discussion, and hence do not furnish appropriate instances for the Sutra. We have shown, on the other hand, that the passage about the pra/za, which is the deity of the prastava, allows room for doubt, purvapaksha and final decision. 24. The ' light ' (is Brahman), on account of the mention of feet (in a passage which is connected with the passage about the light). Scripture says {Kk. Up. Ill, 13, 7), ' Now that light which shines above this heaven, higher than all, higher than every- 1 The vmtikara, the commentators say. 88 vedanta-sOtras. thing, in the highest worlds beyond which there are no other worlds, that is the same light which is within man.' Here the doubt presents itself whether the word ' light ' denotes the light of the sun and the like, or the highest Self.
2. 88 vedanta-sOtras. thing, in the highest worlds beyond which there are no other worlds, that is the same light which is within man.' Here the doubt presents itself whether the word ' light ' denotes the light of the sun and the like, or the highest Self. Under the preceding Sutras we had shown that some words which ordinarily have different meanings yet in certain passages denote Brahman, since characteristic marks of the latter are mentioned. Here the question has to be discussed whether, in connexion with the passage quoted, characteristic marks of Brahman are mentioned or not. The purvapakshin maintains that the word ' light ' de- notes nothing else but the light of the sun and the like, since that is the ordinary well-established meaning of the term. The common use of language, he says, teaches us that the two words ' light ' and ' darkness ' denote mutually opposite things, darkness being the term for whatever interferes with the function of the sense of sight, as, for instance, the gloom of the night, while sunshine and whatever else favours the action of the eye is called light. The word ' shines ' also, which the text exhibits, is known ordinarily to refer to the sun and similar sources of light ; while of Brahman, which is devoid of colour, it cannot be said, in the primary sense of the word, that it ' shines.' Further, the word ^yotis must here denote light because it is said to be bounded by the sky ('that light which shines above this heaven'). For while it is impossible to consider the sky as being the boundary of Brahman, which is the Self of all and the source of all things movable or immovable, the sky may be looked upon as forming the boundary of light, which is a mere product and as such limited ; accordingly the text says, ' the light beyond heaven.' — But light, although a mere product, is perceived everywhere ; it would therefore be wrong to declare that it is bounded by the sky ! — Well, then, the purvapakshin replies, let us assume that the light meant is the first-born (original) light which has not yet become tripartite1. This explanation again cannot be 1 I. e. which has not been mixed with water and earth, according to Kh. Up. VI, 3, 3. Before that mixture took place light was I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 24. 89 admitted, because the non-tripartite light does not serve any purpose.
3nation again cannot be 1 I. e. which has not been mixed with water and earth, according to Kh. Up. VI, 3, 3. Before that mixture took place light was I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 24. 89 admitted, because the non-tripartite light does not serve any purpose. — But, the purvapakshin resumes, Why should its purpose not be found therein that it is the object of devout meditation ?— That cannot be, we reply ; for we see that only such things are represented as objects of devotion as have some other independent use of their own ; so, for instance, the sun (which dispels darkness and so on). More- over the scriptural passage, 'Let me make each of these three (fire, water, and earth) tripartite,' does not indicate any difference1. And even of the non-tripartite light it is not known that the sky constitutes its boundary. — Well, then (the purvapakshin resumes, dropping the idea of the non- tripartite light), let us assume that the light of which the text speaks is the tripartite (ordinary) light. The objection that light is seen to exist also beneath the sky, viz. in the form of fire and the like, we invalidate by the remark that there is nothing contrary to reason in assigning a special locality to fire, although the latter is observed everywhere ; while to assume a special place for Brahman, to which the idea of place does not apply at all, would be most un- suitable. Moreover, the clause ' higher than everything, in the highest worlds beyond which there are no other worlds,' which indicates a multiplicity of abodes, agrees much better with light, which is a mere product (than with Brahman). There is moreover that other clause also, ' That is the same light which is within man/ in which the highest light is identified with the gastric fire (the fire within man). Now such identifications can be made only where there is a certain similarity of nature ; as is seen, for instance, in the passage, ' Of that person BhM is the head, for the head is one and that syllable is one ' (Br/. Up. V, 5, 3). But that the fire within the human body is not Brahman clearly appears from the passage, ' Of this we have visible and audible proof (Kh. Up. Ill, 13, 7; 8), which declares that entirely separated from the other elements, and therefore bounded by the latter. 1 So as to justify the assumption that such a thing as non-tri- partite light exists at all. 90 VEDANTA-stjTRAS.
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.
1which is the deity of the prastava, is Brahman. I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 24. 87 Some (commentators)1 quote under the present Sutra the following passages, ' the pra/za of pra/za ' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 18), and ' for to pra^a mind is fastened ' (Kk. Up. VI, 8, 2). But that is wrong since these two passages offer no opportunity for any discussion, the former on account of the separation of the words, the latter on account of the general topic. When we meet with a phrase such as 'the father of the father ' we understand at once that the genitive denotes a father different from the father denoted by the nominative. Analogously we infer from the separation of words con- tained in the phrase, ' the breath of breath,' that the c breath of breath ' is different from the ordinary breath (denoted by the genitive ' of breath '). For one and the same thing cannot, by means of a genitive, be predicated of — and thus distinguished from — itself. Concerning the second passage we remark that, if the matter constituting the general topic of some chapter is referred to in that chapter under a different name, we yet conclude, from the general topic, that that special matter is meant. For instance, when we meet in the section which treats of the ^yotish/oma sacrifice with the passage, ' in every spring he is to offer the ^yotis sacrifice,' we at once understand that the word ^yotis denotes the ^yotish/oma. If we therefore meet with the clause ' to pra/za mind is fastened ' in a section of which the highest Brahman is the topic, we do not for a moment suppose that the word pra^a should there denote the ordinary breath which is a mere modification of air. The two passages thus do not offer any matter for discussion, and hence do not furnish appropriate instances for the Sutra. We have shown, on the other hand, that the passage about the pra/za, which is the deity of the prastava, allows room for doubt, purvapaksha and final decision. 24. The ' light ' (is Brahman), on account of the mention of feet (in a passage which is connected with the passage about the light). Scripture says {Kk. Up. Ill, 13, 7), ' Now that light which shines above this heaven, higher than all, higher than every- 1 The vmtikara, the commentators say. 88 vedanta-sOtras. thing, in the highest worlds beyond which there are no other worlds, that is the same light which is within man.' Here the doubt presents itself whether the word ' light ' denotes the light of the sun and the like, or the highest Self.
2. 88 vedanta-sOtras. thing, in the highest worlds beyond which there are no other worlds, that is the same light which is within man.' Here the doubt presents itself whether the word ' light ' denotes the light of the sun and the like, or the highest Self. Under the preceding Sutras we had shown that some words which ordinarily have different meanings yet in certain passages denote Brahman, since characteristic marks of the latter are mentioned. Here the question has to be discussed whether, in connexion with the passage quoted, characteristic marks of Brahman are mentioned or not. The purvapakshin maintains that the word ' light ' de- notes nothing else but the light of the sun and the like, since that is the ordinary well-established meaning of the term. The common use of language, he says, teaches us that the two words ' light ' and ' darkness ' denote mutually opposite things, darkness being the term for whatever interferes with the function of the sense of sight, as, for instance, the gloom of the night, while sunshine and whatever else favours the action of the eye is called light. The word ' shines ' also, which the text exhibits, is known ordinarily to refer to the sun and similar sources of light ; while of Brahman, which is devoid of colour, it cannot be said, in the primary sense of the word, that it ' shines.' Further, the word ^yotis must here denote light because it is said to be bounded by the sky ('that light which shines above this heaven'). For while it is impossible to consider the sky as being the boundary of Brahman, which is the Self of all and the source of all things movable or immovable, the sky may be looked upon as forming the boundary of light, which is a mere product and as such limited ; accordingly the text says, ' the light beyond heaven.' — But light, although a mere product, is perceived everywhere ; it would therefore be wrong to declare that it is bounded by the sky ! — Well, then, the purvapakshin replies, let us assume that the light meant is the first-born (original) light which has not yet become tripartite1. This explanation again cannot be 1 I. e. which has not been mixed with water and earth, according to Kh. Up. VI, 3, 3. Before that mixture took place light was I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 24. 89 admitted, because the non-tripartite light does not serve any purpose.
3nation again cannot be 1 I. e. which has not been mixed with water and earth, according to Kh. Up. VI, 3, 3. Before that mixture took place light was I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 24. 89 admitted, because the non-tripartite light does not serve any purpose. — But, the purvapakshin resumes, Why should its purpose not be found therein that it is the object of devout meditation ?— That cannot be, we reply ; for we see that only such things are represented as objects of devotion as have some other independent use of their own ; so, for instance, the sun (which dispels darkness and so on). More- over the scriptural passage, 'Let me make each of these three (fire, water, and earth) tripartite,' does not indicate any difference1. And even of the non-tripartite light it is not known that the sky constitutes its boundary. — Well, then (the purvapakshin resumes, dropping the idea of the non- tripartite light), let us assume that the light of which the text speaks is the tripartite (ordinary) light. The objection that light is seen to exist also beneath the sky, viz. in the form of fire and the like, we invalidate by the remark that there is nothing contrary to reason in assigning a special locality to fire, although the latter is observed everywhere ; while to assume a special place for Brahman, to which the idea of place does not apply at all, would be most un- suitable. Moreover, the clause ' higher than everything, in the highest worlds beyond which there are no other worlds,' which indicates a multiplicity of abodes, agrees much better with light, which is a mere product (than with Brahman). There is moreover that other clause also, ' That is the same light which is within man/ in which the highest light is identified with the gastric fire (the fire within man). Now such identifications can be made only where there is a certain similarity of nature ; as is seen, for instance, in the passage, ' Of that person BhM is the head, for the head is one and that syllable is one ' (Br/. Up. V, 5, 3). But that the fire within the human body is not Brahman clearly appears from the passage, ' Of this we have visible and audible proof (Kh. Up. Ill, 13, 7; 8), which declares that entirely separated from the other elements, and therefore bounded by the latter. 1 So as to justify the assumption that such a thing as non-tri- partite light exists at all. 90 VEDANTA-stjTRAS.
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.