Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1rd of the world ' (Kau. Up. Ill, 8). All this can be properly understood only if the highest Brahman is acknowledged to be the subject-matter of the whole chapter, not if the vital air is substituted in its place. Hence the word pra^a denotes Brahman. 29. If it be said that (Brahman is) not (denoted) on account of the speaker denoting himself; (we reply that this objection is not valid) because there is in that (chapter) a multitude of references to the interior Self. An objection is raised against the assertion that pra^a de- notes Brahman. The word pra/za, it is said, does not denote the highest Brahman, because the speaker designates him- self. The speaker, who is a certain powerful god called Indra, at first says, in order to reveal himself to Pratardana, ' Know me only,' and later on, ' I am pra^a, the intelligent Self/ How, it is asked, can the pra/za, which this latter passage, expressive of personality as it is, represents as the Self of the speaker, be Brahman to which, as we know from Scripture, the attribute of being a speaker cannot be ascribed ; compare, for instance, Brz. Up. Ill, 8, 8, ' It is without speech, without mind.5 Further on, also, the speaker, i. e. Indra, glorifies himself by enumerating a number of attri- butes, all of which depend on personal existence and can in no way belong to Brahman, ' I slew the three-headed son of Tvash/r/ ; I delivered the Arunmukhas, the devotees, to the wolves,' and so on. Indra may be called prazza on account of his strength. Scripture says, ' Strength indeed is pra/za,' and Indra is known as the god of strength ; and of any deed of strength people say, i It is Indra's work.' The personal Self of a deity may, moreover, be called an intelligent Self; for the gods, people say, possess unob- structed knowledge. It thus being a settled matter that some passages convey information about the personal Self H 2 IOO VEDANTA-S^TRAS. of some deity, the other passages also — as, for instance, the one about what is most beneficial for man — must be inter- preted as well as they may with reference to the same deity. Hence pra/za does not denote Brahman. This objection we refute by the remark that in that chapter there are found a multitude of references to the in- terior Self. For the passage, ' As long as pra/za dwells in this body so long surely there is life/ declares that that pra^a only which is the intelligent interior Self — and not some particular outward deity — has power to bestow and to take back life.
2the in- terior Self. For the passage, ' As long as pra/za dwells in this body so long surely there is life/ declares that that pra^a only which is the intelligent interior Self — and not some particular outward deity — has power to bestow and to take back life. And where the text speaks of the eminence of the pra^as as founded on the existence of the pra;za, it shows that that pra/za is meant which has reference to the Self and is the abode of the sense-organs 1. Of the same tendency is the passage, ' Pra^a, the intel- ligent Self, alone having laid hold of this body makes it rise up ; ' and the passage (which occurs in the passus, ( Let no man try to find out what speech is/ &c), ' For as in a car the circumference of the wheel is set on the spokes and the spokes on the nave, thus are these objects set on the subjects (the senses) and the subjects on the pra^a. And that pra^a indeed is the Self of pra^/la, blessed, imperishable, immortal.5 So also the following passage which, referring to this interior Self, forming as it were the centre of the peripherical interaction of the objects and senses, sums up as follows, ' He is my Self, thus let it be known ;' a summing up which is appropriate only if pra/m is meant to denote not some outward existence, but the interior Self. And another scriptural passage declares 'this Self is Brahman, omniscient2' (Brz. Up. II, 5, 19). We therefore arrive at 1 The text runs, l astitve ka. pra#ana/# niAsreyasam/ and Go. An. explains 'astitve pra/zasthitau praraanazrc indriya^am sthitir ity arthata^ jrutrm aha.' He as well as An. Gi. quotes as the text of the scriptural passage referred to ' athato ni/breyasadanam ity adi.' But if instead of ' astitve ka, ' we read ' asti tv eva/ we get the con- cluding clause of Kau. Up. Ill, 2, as given in Cowell's edition. 2 Whence we know that the interior Self referred to in the Kau. Up. is Brahman. I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 30. IOI the conclusion that, on account of the multitude of references to the interior Self, the chapter contains information regard- ing Brahman, not regarding the Self of some deity. — How then can the circumstance of the speaker (Indra) referring to himself be explained ? 30. The declaration (made by Indra about himself, viz. that he is one with Brahman) (is possible) through intuition vouched for by Scripture, as in the case of Vamadeva.
3. — How then can the circumstance of the speaker (Indra) referring to himself be explained ? 30. The declaration (made by Indra about himself, viz. that he is one with Brahman) (is possible) through intuition vouched for by Scripture, as in the case of Vamadeva. The individual divine Self called Indra perceiving by means of rzshi-like intuition1 — the existence of which i& vouched for by Scripture — its own Self to be identical with the supreme Self, instructs Pratardana (about the highest Self) by means of the words c Know me only.' By intuition of the same kind the rzshi Vamadeva reached the knowledge expressed in the words, c I was Manu and Surya ; ' in accordance with the passage, ' Whatever deva was awakened (so as to know Brahman) he indeed became that ' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 10). The assertion made above (in the purvapaksha of the preceding Sutra) that Indra after saying, ' Know me only/ glorifies himself by enumerating the slaying of Tvash/rz's son and other deeds of strength, we refute as follows. The death of Tvash/rz's son and similar deeds are referred to, not to the end of glorifying Indra as the object of knowledge— in which case the sense of the passage would be, ' Because I accomplished such and such deeds, therefore know me ' — but to the end of glorifying the cognition of the highest Self. For this reason the text, after having referred to the slaying of Tvash/rz's son and the like, goes on in the clause next following to exalt knowledge, ' And not one hair of me is harmed there. He who knows me thus by no* deed of his is his life harmed.'— (But how does this passage convey praise of knowledge?) — Because, we reply, its meaning is as follows : ' Although I do such cruel deeds, 1 I.e. spontaneous intuition of supersensible truth, rendered possible through the knowledge acquired in former existences. 102 vedanta-s6tras. yet not even a hair of mine is harmed because I am one with Brahman ; therefore the life of any other person also who knows me thus is not harmed by any deed of his.' And the object of the knowledge (praised by Indra) is nothing else but Brahman which is set forth in a subsequent passage, ' I am pra^a, the intelligent Self.' Therefore the entire chapter refers to Brahman. 31. If it be said (that Brahman is) not (meant), on account of characteristic marks of the individual soul and the chief vital air (being mentioned) ; we say no, on account of the threefoldness of devout meditation (which would result from your interpretation) ; on account of (the meaning advocated by us) being ac- cepted (elsewhere) ; and on account
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.
1rd of the world ' (Kau. Up. Ill, 8). All this can be properly understood only if the highest Brahman is acknowledged to be the subject-matter of the whole chapter, not if the vital air is substituted in its place. Hence the word pra^a denotes Brahman. 29. If it be said that (Brahman is) not (denoted) on account of the speaker denoting himself; (we reply that this objection is not valid) because there is in that (chapter) a multitude of references to the interior Self. An objection is raised against the assertion that pra^a de- notes Brahman. The word pra/za, it is said, does not denote the highest Brahman, because the speaker designates him- self. The speaker, who is a certain powerful god called Indra, at first says, in order to reveal himself to Pratardana, ' Know me only,' and later on, ' I am pra^a, the intelligent Self/ How, it is asked, can the pra/za, which this latter passage, expressive of personality as it is, represents as the Self of the speaker, be Brahman to which, as we know from Scripture, the attribute of being a speaker cannot be ascribed ; compare, for instance, Brz. Up. Ill, 8, 8, ' It is without speech, without mind.5 Further on, also, the speaker, i. e. Indra, glorifies himself by enumerating a number of attri- butes, all of which depend on personal existence and can in no way belong to Brahman, ' I slew the three-headed son of Tvash/r/ ; I delivered the Arunmukhas, the devotees, to the wolves,' and so on. Indra may be called prazza on account of his strength. Scripture says, ' Strength indeed is pra/za,' and Indra is known as the god of strength ; and of any deed of strength people say, i It is Indra's work.' The personal Self of a deity may, moreover, be called an intelligent Self; for the gods, people say, possess unob- structed knowledge. It thus being a settled matter that some passages convey information about the personal Self H 2 IOO VEDANTA-S^TRAS. of some deity, the other passages also — as, for instance, the one about what is most beneficial for man — must be inter- preted as well as they may with reference to the same deity. Hence pra/za does not denote Brahman. This objection we refute by the remark that in that chapter there are found a multitude of references to the in- terior Self. For the passage, ' As long as pra/za dwells in this body so long surely there is life/ declares that that pra^a only which is the intelligent interior Self — and not some particular outward deity — has power to bestow and to take back life.
2the in- terior Self. For the passage, ' As long as pra/za dwells in this body so long surely there is life/ declares that that pra^a only which is the intelligent interior Self — and not some particular outward deity — has power to bestow and to take back life. And where the text speaks of the eminence of the pra^as as founded on the existence of the pra;za, it shows that that pra/za is meant which has reference to the Self and is the abode of the sense-organs 1. Of the same tendency is the passage, ' Pra^a, the intel- ligent Self, alone having laid hold of this body makes it rise up ; ' and the passage (which occurs in the passus, ( Let no man try to find out what speech is/ &c), ' For as in a car the circumference of the wheel is set on the spokes and the spokes on the nave, thus are these objects set on the subjects (the senses) and the subjects on the pra^a. And that pra^a indeed is the Self of pra^/la, blessed, imperishable, immortal.5 So also the following passage which, referring to this interior Self, forming as it were the centre of the peripherical interaction of the objects and senses, sums up as follows, ' He is my Self, thus let it be known ;' a summing up which is appropriate only if pra/m is meant to denote not some outward existence, but the interior Self. And another scriptural passage declares 'this Self is Brahman, omniscient2' (Brz. Up. II, 5, 19). We therefore arrive at 1 The text runs, l astitve ka. pra#ana/# niAsreyasam/ and Go. An. explains 'astitve pra/zasthitau praraanazrc indriya^am sthitir ity arthata^ jrutrm aha.' He as well as An. Gi. quotes as the text of the scriptural passage referred to ' athato ni/breyasadanam ity adi.' But if instead of ' astitve ka, ' we read ' asti tv eva/ we get the con- cluding clause of Kau. Up. Ill, 2, as given in Cowell's edition. 2 Whence we know that the interior Self referred to in the Kau. Up. is Brahman. I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 30. IOI the conclusion that, on account of the multitude of references to the interior Self, the chapter contains information regard- ing Brahman, not regarding the Self of some deity. — How then can the circumstance of the speaker (Indra) referring to himself be explained ? 30. The declaration (made by Indra about himself, viz. that he is one with Brahman) (is possible) through intuition vouched for by Scripture, as in the case of Vamadeva.
3. — How then can the circumstance of the speaker (Indra) referring to himself be explained ? 30. The declaration (made by Indra about himself, viz. that he is one with Brahman) (is possible) through intuition vouched for by Scripture, as in the case of Vamadeva. The individual divine Self called Indra perceiving by means of rzshi-like intuition1 — the existence of which i& vouched for by Scripture — its own Self to be identical with the supreme Self, instructs Pratardana (about the highest Self) by means of the words c Know me only.' By intuition of the same kind the rzshi Vamadeva reached the knowledge expressed in the words, c I was Manu and Surya ; ' in accordance with the passage, ' Whatever deva was awakened (so as to know Brahman) he indeed became that ' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 10). The assertion made above (in the purvapaksha of the preceding Sutra) that Indra after saying, ' Know me only/ glorifies himself by enumerating the slaying of Tvash/rz's son and other deeds of strength, we refute as follows. The death of Tvash/rz's son and similar deeds are referred to, not to the end of glorifying Indra as the object of knowledge— in which case the sense of the passage would be, ' Because I accomplished such and such deeds, therefore know me ' — but to the end of glorifying the cognition of the highest Self. For this reason the text, after having referred to the slaying of Tvash/rz's son and the like, goes on in the clause next following to exalt knowledge, ' And not one hair of me is harmed there. He who knows me thus by no* deed of his is his life harmed.'— (But how does this passage convey praise of knowledge?) — Because, we reply, its meaning is as follows : ' Although I do such cruel deeds, 1 I.e. spontaneous intuition of supersensible truth, rendered possible through the knowledge acquired in former existences. 102 vedanta-s6tras. yet not even a hair of mine is harmed because I am one with Brahman ; therefore the life of any other person also who knows me thus is not harmed by any deed of his.' And the object of the knowledge (praised by Indra) is nothing else but Brahman which is set forth in a subsequent passage, ' I am pra^a, the intelligent Self.' Therefore the entire chapter refers to Brahman. 31. If it be said (that Brahman is) not (meant), on account of characteristic marks of the individual soul and the chief vital air (being mentioned) ; we say no, on account of the threefoldness of devout meditation (which would result from your interpretation) ; on account of (the meaning advocated by us) being ac- cepted (elsewhere) ; and on account
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.