Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1manency, 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. II5 But, it may be said, as Brahman is omnipresent like ether, and therefore connected with the hearts of all living beings, and as it is of the nature of intelligence and therefore not dif- ferent from the individual soul, it follows that Brahman also has the same fruition of pleasure, pain, and so on (as the indi- vidual soul). The same result follows from its unity. For in reality there exists no transmigratory Self different from the highest Self; as appears from the text, 'There is no other knower but he' (Br/. Up. Ill, 7, 23), and similar pas- sages. Hence the highest Self is subject to the fruition connected with transmigratory existence. This is not so, we reply ; because there is a difference of nature. From the circumstance that Brahman is connected with the hearts of all living beings it does not follow that it is, like the embodied Self, subject to fruition. For, between the embodied Self and the highest Self, there is the dif- ference that the former acts and enjoys, acquires merit and demerit, and is affected by pleasure, pain, and so on ; while the latter is of the opposite nature, i.e. characterised by being free from all evil and the like. On account of this difference of the two, the fruition of the one does not extend to the other. To assume merely on the ground of the mutual proximity of the two, without considering their essentially different powers, that a connexion with effects exists (in Brahman's case also), would be no better than to suppose that space is on fire (when something in space is on fire). The same objection and refutation apply to the case of those also who teach the existence of more than one omni- present Self. In reply to the assertion, that because Brahman is one and there are no other Selfs outside it, Brahman must be subject to fruition since the individual soul is so, we ask the question: How have you, our wise opponent, ascertained that there is no other Self? You will reply, we suppose, from scriptural texts such as, ' That art thou,' { I am Brahman/ ' There is no other knower but he,' and so on. Very well, then, it appears that the truth about scriptural matters is to be ascertained from Scripture, and that Scripture is not sometimes to be appealed to, and on other occasions to be disregarded. I 2 1 1 6 VEDANTA-S#TRAS.
2ther knower but he,' and so on. Very well, then, it appears that the truth about scriptural matters is to be ascertained from Scripture, and that Scripture is not sometimes to be appealed to, and on other occasions to be disregarded. I 2 1 1 6 VEDANTA-S#TRAS. Scriptural texts, such as fthat art thou/ teach that Brahman which is free from all evil is the Self of the embodied soul, and thus dispel even the opinion that the em- bodied soul is subject to fruition ; how then should fruition on the part of the embodied soul involve fruition on the part of Brahman ? — Let, then, the unity of the individual soul and Brahman not be apprehended on the ground of Scripture.— In that case, we reply, the fruition on the part of the individual soul has wrong knowledge for its cause, and Brahman as it truly exists is not touched thereby, not any more than the ether becomes really dark-blue in con- sequence of ignorant people presuming it to be so. For this reason the Sutrakara says1 'no, on account of the difference.' In spite of their unity, fruition on the part of the soul does not involve fruition on the part of Brahman ; because there is a difference. For there is a difference between false knowledge and perfect knowledge, fruition being the figment of false knowledge while the unity (of the Self) is revealed by perfect knowledge. Now, as the substance revealed by perfect knowledge cannot be affected by fruition which is nothing but the figment of false knowledge, it is impossible to assume even a shadow of fruition on Brahman's part. 9. The eater (is the highest Self) since what is movable and what is immovable is mentioned (as his food). We read in the Ka/^avallf (I, 3, 25), ' Who then knows where He is, He to whom the Brahmans and Kshattriyas are but food, and death itself a condiment ? ' This passage intimates, by means of the words ' food ' and ' condiment,' that there is some eater. A doubt then arises whether the eater be Agni or the individual soul or the highest Self; for no distinguishing characteristic is stated, and Agni as well as the individual soul and the highest Self is observed to form, in that Upanished, the subjects of questions2. 1 Another interpretation of the later part of Sutra. 2 Cp. Ka/^a Up. I, 1, 13; 20; I, 2, 14. I ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, IO. I 1 7 The purvapakshin maintains that the eater is Agni, fire being known from Scripture as well (cp. Bri. Up. I, 4, 6) as from ordinary life to be the eater of food.
3rt of Sutra. 2 Cp. Ka/^a Up. I, 1, 13; 20; I, 2, 14. I ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, IO. I 1 7 The purvapakshin maintains that the eater is Agni, fire being known from Scripture as well (cp. Bri. Up. I, 4, 6) as from ordinary life to be the eater of food. Or else the individual soul may be the eater, according to the passage, ' One of them eats the sweet fruit' (Mu. Up. Ill, 1, 1). On the other hand, the eater cannot be Brahman on account of the passage (which forms the continuation of the one quoted from the Mu. Up.), 'The other looks on without eating.' The eater, we reply, must be the highest Self ' because there is mentioned what is movable and what is immov- able.' For all things movable and immovable are here to be taken as constituting the food, while death is the condiment. But nothing beside the highest Self can be the consumer of all these things in their totality; the highest Self, however, when reabsorbing the entire aggre- gate of effects may be said to eat everything. If it is objected that here no express mention is made of things movable and things immovable, and that hence we have no right to use the (alleged) mention made of them as a reason, we reply that this objection is unfounded; firstly, because the aggregate of all living beings is seen to be meant from the circumstance of death being the condiment ; and, secondly, because the Brahmans and Kshattriyas may here, on account of their pre-eminent position, be viewed as instances only (of all beings). Concerning the objection that the highest Self cannot be an eater on account of the passage quoted ('the other looks on without eating'), we remark that that passage aims at denying the fruition (on the part of the highest Self) of the results of works, such fruition being mentioned in immediate proximity, but is not meant to negative the reabsorption of the world of effects (into Brahman) ; for it is well established by all the Vedanta-texts that Brahman is the cause of the creation, subsistence, and reabsorption of the world. There- fore the eater can here be Brahman only. 10. And on account of the topic under discussion. That the highest Self only can be the eater referred to 1 1 8 vedanta-s6tras. is moreover evident from the passage (Ka. Up. I, 3, 18), (' The knowing Self is not born, it dies not '), which shows that the highest Self is the general topic. And to adhere to the general topic is the proper proceeding.
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.
1manency, 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. II5 But, it may be said, as Brahman is omnipresent like ether, and therefore connected with the hearts of all living beings, and as it is of the nature of intelligence and therefore not dif- ferent from the individual soul, it follows that Brahman also has the same fruition of pleasure, pain, and so on (as the indi- vidual soul). The same result follows from its unity. For in reality there exists no transmigratory Self different from the highest Self; as appears from the text, 'There is no other knower but he' (Br/. Up. Ill, 7, 23), and similar pas- sages. Hence the highest Self is subject to the fruition connected with transmigratory existence. This is not so, we reply ; because there is a difference of nature. From the circumstance that Brahman is connected with the hearts of all living beings it does not follow that it is, like the embodied Self, subject to fruition. For, between the embodied Self and the highest Self, there is the dif- ference that the former acts and enjoys, acquires merit and demerit, and is affected by pleasure, pain, and so on ; while the latter is of the opposite nature, i.e. characterised by being free from all evil and the like. On account of this difference of the two, the fruition of the one does not extend to the other. To assume merely on the ground of the mutual proximity of the two, without considering their essentially different powers, that a connexion with effects exists (in Brahman's case also), would be no better than to suppose that space is on fire (when something in space is on fire). The same objection and refutation apply to the case of those also who teach the existence of more than one omni- present Self. In reply to the assertion, that because Brahman is one and there are no other Selfs outside it, Brahman must be subject to fruition since the individual soul is so, we ask the question: How have you, our wise opponent, ascertained that there is no other Self? You will reply, we suppose, from scriptural texts such as, ' That art thou,' { I am Brahman/ ' There is no other knower but he,' and so on. Very well, then, it appears that the truth about scriptural matters is to be ascertained from Scripture, and that Scripture is not sometimes to be appealed to, and on other occasions to be disregarded. I 2 1 1 6 VEDANTA-S#TRAS.
2ther knower but he,' and so on. Very well, then, it appears that the truth about scriptural matters is to be ascertained from Scripture, and that Scripture is not sometimes to be appealed to, and on other occasions to be disregarded. I 2 1 1 6 VEDANTA-S#TRAS. Scriptural texts, such as fthat art thou/ teach that Brahman which is free from all evil is the Self of the embodied soul, and thus dispel even the opinion that the em- bodied soul is subject to fruition ; how then should fruition on the part of the embodied soul involve fruition on the part of Brahman ? — Let, then, the unity of the individual soul and Brahman not be apprehended on the ground of Scripture.— In that case, we reply, the fruition on the part of the individual soul has wrong knowledge for its cause, and Brahman as it truly exists is not touched thereby, not any more than the ether becomes really dark-blue in con- sequence of ignorant people presuming it to be so. For this reason the Sutrakara says1 'no, on account of the difference.' In spite of their unity, fruition on the part of the soul does not involve fruition on the part of Brahman ; because there is a difference. For there is a difference between false knowledge and perfect knowledge, fruition being the figment of false knowledge while the unity (of the Self) is revealed by perfect knowledge. Now, as the substance revealed by perfect knowledge cannot be affected by fruition which is nothing but the figment of false knowledge, it is impossible to assume even a shadow of fruition on Brahman's part. 9. The eater (is the highest Self) since what is movable and what is immovable is mentioned (as his food). We read in the Ka/^avallf (I, 3, 25), ' Who then knows where He is, He to whom the Brahmans and Kshattriyas are but food, and death itself a condiment ? ' This passage intimates, by means of the words ' food ' and ' condiment,' that there is some eater. A doubt then arises whether the eater be Agni or the individual soul or the highest Self; for no distinguishing characteristic is stated, and Agni as well as the individual soul and the highest Self is observed to form, in that Upanished, the subjects of questions2. 1 Another interpretation of the later part of Sutra. 2 Cp. Ka/^a Up. I, 1, 13; 20; I, 2, 14. I ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, IO. I 1 7 The purvapakshin maintains that the eater is Agni, fire being known from Scripture as well (cp. Bri. Up. I, 4, 6) as from ordinary life to be the eater of food.
3rt of Sutra. 2 Cp. Ka/^a Up. I, 1, 13; 20; I, 2, 14. I ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, IO. I 1 7 The purvapakshin maintains that the eater is Agni, fire being known from Scripture as well (cp. Bri. Up. I, 4, 6) as from ordinary life to be the eater of food. Or else the individual soul may be the eater, according to the passage, ' One of them eats the sweet fruit' (Mu. Up. Ill, 1, 1). On the other hand, the eater cannot be Brahman on account of the passage (which forms the continuation of the one quoted from the Mu. Up.), 'The other looks on without eating.' The eater, we reply, must be the highest Self ' because there is mentioned what is movable and what is immov- able.' For all things movable and immovable are here to be taken as constituting the food, while death is the condiment. But nothing beside the highest Self can be the consumer of all these things in their totality; the highest Self, however, when reabsorbing the entire aggre- gate of effects may be said to eat everything. If it is objected that here no express mention is made of things movable and things immovable, and that hence we have no right to use the (alleged) mention made of them as a reason, we reply that this objection is unfounded; firstly, because the aggregate of all living beings is seen to be meant from the circumstance of death being the condiment ; and, secondly, because the Brahmans and Kshattriyas may here, on account of their pre-eminent position, be viewed as instances only (of all beings). Concerning the objection that the highest Self cannot be an eater on account of the passage quoted ('the other looks on without eating'), we remark that that passage aims at denying the fruition (on the part of the highest Self) of the results of works, such fruition being mentioned in immediate proximity, but is not meant to negative the reabsorption of the world of effects (into Brahman) ; for it is well established by all the Vedanta-texts that Brahman is the cause of the creation, subsistence, and reabsorption of the world. There- fore the eater can here be Brahman only. 10. And on account of the topic under discussion. That the highest Self only can be the eater referred to 1 1 8 vedanta-s6tras. is moreover evident from the passage (Ka. Up. I, 3, 18), (' The knowing Self is not born, it dies not '), which shows that the highest Self is the general topic. And to adhere to the general topic is the proper proceeding.
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.