Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1{ He whose purposes are true, whose Self is the ether, who has no speech, who is not disturbed, who is greater than the earth,' cannot easily be attributed to the embodied Self. By the term ' embodied ' (^arira) we have to understand ' residing5 in a body. If it be objected that the Lord also resides in the body1, we reply, True, he does reside in the body, but not in the body only ; for jruti declares him to be all-pervading ; compare, ' He is greater than the earth ; greater than the atmosphere, omnipresent like the ether, eternal.' The individual soul, on the other 1 Because he is vyapin. 112 VEDANTA-sflTRAS. hand, is in the body only, apart from which as the abode of fruition it does not exist. 4. And because there is a (separate) denotation of the object of activity and of the agent. The attributes of consisting of mind, and so on, cannot belong to the embodied Self for that reason also, that there is a (separate) denotation of the object of activity and of the agent. In the passage, ' When I shall have departed from hence I shall obtain him ' {Kh. Up. Ill, 14, 4), the word ' him ' refers to that which is the topic of discussion, viz. the Self which is to be meditated upon as possessing the attributes of consisting of mind, &c, as the object of an activity, viz. as something to be obtained ; while the words, 4 1 shall obtain,' represent the meditating individual Self as the agent, i. e. the obtainer. Now, wherever it can be helped, we must not assume that one and the same being is spoken of as the agent and the object of the activity at the same time. The relation existing between a person medi- tating and the thing meditated upon requires, moreover, different abodes. — And thus for the above reason, also, that which is characterised by the attributes of consisting of mind, and so on, cannot be the individual soul. 5. On account of the difference of words. That which possesses the attributes of consisting of mind, and so on, cannot be the individual soul, for that reason also that there is a difference of words. That is to say, we meet with another scriptural passage of kindred subject-matter (5at. Bra. X, 6, 3, 2), 'Like a rice grain, or a barley grain, or a canary seed or the kernel of a canary seed, thus that golden person is in the Self.5 There one word, i. e. the locative ' in the Self,' denotes the embodied Self, and a different word, viz. the nominative 'person/ denotes the Self distinguished by the qualities of con- sisting of mind, &c. We therefrom conclude that the two are different. 6.
2.5 There one word, i. e. the locative ' in the Self,' denotes the embodied Self, and a different word, viz. the nominative 'person/ denotes the Self distinguished by the qualities of con- sisting of mind, &c. We therefrom conclude that the two are different. 6. And on account of Smrzti. Smrzti also declares the difference of the embodied Self I ADHYAVA, 2 PADA, 7. II3 and the highest Self, viz. Bha. Gita XVIII, 6r5'The Lord, O Ar^una, is seated in the heart of all beings, driving round by his magical power all beings (as if they were) mounted on a machine.' But what, it may be asked, is that so-called embodied Self different from the highest Self which is to be set aside according to the preceding Sutras ? vSruti passages, as well as Smriti, expressly deny that there is any Self apart from the highest Self ; compare, for instance, Bri. Up. Ill, 7, 33, * There is no other seer but he ; there is no other hearer but he;' and Bha. GitA XIII, 2, 'And know me also, O Bh&rata, to be the kshetra^a in all kshetras.' True, we reply, (there is in reality one universal Self only.) But the highest Self in so far as it is limited by its adjuncts, viz. the body, the senses, and the mind (mano-buddhi), is, by the ignorant, spoken of as if it were embodied. Simi- larly the ether, although in reality unlimited, appears limited owing to certain adjuncts, such as jars and other vessels. With regard to this (unreal limitation of the one Self) the distinction of objects of activity and of agents may be practically assumed, as long as we have not learned — from the passage, 'That art thou' — that the Self is one only. As soon, however, as we grasp the truth that there is only one universal Self, there is an end to the whole practical view of the world with its distinction of bondage, final release, and the like. 7. If it be said that (the passage does) not (refer to Brahman) on account of the smallness of the abode (mentioned), and on account of the denotations of that (i. e. of minuteness) ; we say, no ; because (Brahman) has thus to be contemplated, and be- cause the case is analogous to that of ether. On account of the limitation of its abode, which is men- tioned in the clause, ' He is my Self within the heart,' and on account of the declaration as to its minuteness contained in the direct statement, ' He is smaller than a grain of rice/ &c. ; the embodied soul only, which is of the size of an awl's point, is spoken of in the passage under discussion, and not [34] I 1 1 4 vedanta-s6tras. the highest Self.
3ts minuteness contained in the direct statement, ' He is smaller than a grain of rice/ &c. ; the embodied soul only, which is of the size of an awl's point, is spoken of in the passage under discussion, and not [34] I 1 1 4 vedanta-s6tras. the highest Self. This assertion made above (in the purva- paksha of Sutra I, and restated in the purvapaksha of the present Sutra) has to be refuted. We therefore maintain that the objection raised does not invalidate our view of the passage. It is true that a thing occupying a limited space only cannot in any way be spoken of as omnipresent ; but, on the other hand, that which is omnipresent, and therefore in all places may, from a certain point of view, be said to occupy a limited space. Similarly, a prince may be called the ruler of Ayodhya although he is at the same time the ruler of the whole earth. — But from what point of view can the omnipresent Lord be said to occupy a limited space and to be minute? — He may, we reply, be spoken of thus, ' because he is to be contemplated thus.' The passage under discus- sion teaches us to contemplate the Lord as abiding within the lotus of the heart, characterised by minuteness and similar qualities — which apprehension of the Lord is ren- dered possible through a modification of the mind — just as Hari is contemplated in the sacred stone called 5alagram. Although present everywhere, the Lord is pleased when meditated upon as dwelling in the heart. The case is, moreover, to be viewed as analogous to that of the ether. The ether, although all-pervading, is spoken of as limited and minute, if considered in its connexion with the eye of a needle ; so Brahman also. But it is an understood matter that the attributes of limitation of abode and of minuteness depend, in Brahman's case, entirely on special forms of con- templation, and are not real. The latter consideration dis- poses also of the objection, that if Brahman has its abode in the heart, which heart-abode is a different one in each body, it would follow that it is affected by all the imper- fections which attach to beings having different abodes, such as parrots shut up in different cages, viz. want of unity, being made up of parts, non-permanency, and so on. 8. If it is said that (from the circumstance of Brahman and the individual soul being one) there follows fruition (on the part of Brahman) ; we say, no ; on account of the difference of nature (of the two). I ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 8.
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.
1{ He whose purposes are true, whose Self is the ether, who has no speech, who is not disturbed, who is greater than the earth,' cannot easily be attributed to the embodied Self. By the term ' embodied ' (^arira) we have to understand ' residing5 in a body. If it be objected that the Lord also resides in the body1, we reply, True, he does reside in the body, but not in the body only ; for jruti declares him to be all-pervading ; compare, ' He is greater than the earth ; greater than the atmosphere, omnipresent like the ether, eternal.' The individual soul, on the other 1 Because he is vyapin. 112 VEDANTA-sflTRAS. hand, is in the body only, apart from which as the abode of fruition it does not exist. 4. And because there is a (separate) denotation of the object of activity and of the agent. The attributes of consisting of mind, and so on, cannot belong to the embodied Self for that reason also, that there is a (separate) denotation of the object of activity and of the agent. In the passage, ' When I shall have departed from hence I shall obtain him ' {Kh. Up. Ill, 14, 4), the word ' him ' refers to that which is the topic of discussion, viz. the Self which is to be meditated upon as possessing the attributes of consisting of mind, &c, as the object of an activity, viz. as something to be obtained ; while the words, 4 1 shall obtain,' represent the meditating individual Self as the agent, i. e. the obtainer. Now, wherever it can be helped, we must not assume that one and the same being is spoken of as the agent and the object of the activity at the same time. The relation existing between a person medi- tating and the thing meditated upon requires, moreover, different abodes. — And thus for the above reason, also, that which is characterised by the attributes of consisting of mind, and so on, cannot be the individual soul. 5. On account of the difference of words. That which possesses the attributes of consisting of mind, and so on, cannot be the individual soul, for that reason also that there is a difference of words. That is to say, we meet with another scriptural passage of kindred subject-matter (5at. Bra. X, 6, 3, 2), 'Like a rice grain, or a barley grain, or a canary seed or the kernel of a canary seed, thus that golden person is in the Self.5 There one word, i. e. the locative ' in the Self,' denotes the embodied Self, and a different word, viz. the nominative 'person/ denotes the Self distinguished by the qualities of con- sisting of mind, &c. We therefrom conclude that the two are different. 6.
2.5 There one word, i. e. the locative ' in the Self,' denotes the embodied Self, and a different word, viz. the nominative 'person/ denotes the Self distinguished by the qualities of con- sisting of mind, &c. We therefrom conclude that the two are different. 6. And on account of Smrzti. Smrzti also declares the difference of the embodied Self I ADHYAVA, 2 PADA, 7. II3 and the highest Self, viz. Bha. Gita XVIII, 6r5'The Lord, O Ar^una, is seated in the heart of all beings, driving round by his magical power all beings (as if they were) mounted on a machine.' But what, it may be asked, is that so-called embodied Self different from the highest Self which is to be set aside according to the preceding Sutras ? vSruti passages, as well as Smriti, expressly deny that there is any Self apart from the highest Self ; compare, for instance, Bri. Up. Ill, 7, 33, * There is no other seer but he ; there is no other hearer but he;' and Bha. GitA XIII, 2, 'And know me also, O Bh&rata, to be the kshetra^a in all kshetras.' True, we reply, (there is in reality one universal Self only.) But the highest Self in so far as it is limited by its adjuncts, viz. the body, the senses, and the mind (mano-buddhi), is, by the ignorant, spoken of as if it were embodied. Simi- larly the ether, although in reality unlimited, appears limited owing to certain adjuncts, such as jars and other vessels. With regard to this (unreal limitation of the one Self) the distinction of objects of activity and of agents may be practically assumed, as long as we have not learned — from the passage, 'That art thou' — that the Self is one only. As soon, however, as we grasp the truth that there is only one universal Self, there is an end to the whole practical view of the world with its distinction of bondage, final release, and the like. 7. If it be said that (the passage does) not (refer to Brahman) on account of the smallness of the abode (mentioned), and on account of the denotations of that (i. e. of minuteness) ; we say, no ; because (Brahman) has thus to be contemplated, and be- cause the case is analogous to that of ether. On account of the limitation of its abode, which is men- tioned in the clause, ' He is my Self within the heart,' and on account of the declaration as to its minuteness contained in the direct statement, ' He is smaller than a grain of rice/ &c. ; the embodied soul only, which is of the size of an awl's point, is spoken of in the passage under discussion, and not [34] I 1 1 4 vedanta-s6tras. the highest Self.
3ts minuteness contained in the direct statement, ' He is smaller than a grain of rice/ &c. ; the embodied soul only, which is of the size of an awl's point, is spoken of in the passage under discussion, and not [34] I 1 1 4 vedanta-s6tras. the highest Self. This assertion made above (in the purva- paksha of Sutra I, and restated in the purvapaksha of the present Sutra) has to be refuted. We therefore maintain that the objection raised does not invalidate our view of the passage. It is true that a thing occupying a limited space only cannot in any way be spoken of as omnipresent ; but, on the other hand, that which is omnipresent, and therefore in all places may, from a certain point of view, be said to occupy a limited space. Similarly, a prince may be called the ruler of Ayodhya although he is at the same time the ruler of the whole earth. — But from what point of view can the omnipresent Lord be said to occupy a limited space and to be minute? — He may, we reply, be spoken of thus, ' because he is to be contemplated thus.' The passage under discus- sion teaches us to contemplate the Lord as abiding within the lotus of the heart, characterised by minuteness and similar qualities — which apprehension of the Lord is ren- dered possible through a modification of the mind — just as Hari is contemplated in the sacred stone called 5alagram. Although present everywhere, the Lord is pleased when meditated upon as dwelling in the heart. The case is, moreover, to be viewed as analogous to that of the ether. The ether, although all-pervading, is spoken of as limited and minute, if considered in its connexion with the eye of a needle ; so Brahman also. But it is an understood matter that the attributes of limitation of abode and of minuteness depend, in Brahman's case, entirely on special forms of con- templation, and are not real. The latter consideration dis- poses also of the objection, that if Brahman has its abode in the heart, which heart-abode is a different one in each body, it would follow that it is affected by all the imper- fections which attach to beings having different abodes, such as parrots shut up in different cages, viz. want of unity, being made up of parts, non-permanency, and so on. 8. If it is said that (from the circumstance of Brahman and the individual soul being one) there follows fruition (on the part of Brahman) ; we say, no ; on account of the difference of nature (of the two). I ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 8.
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.