Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1h final emancipation, i.e. he passes through the different stages of the path of the gods up to the world of Brahman and there enjoys an XXX VED ANTA-SU TR AS. everlasting blissful existence from which there is no re- turn into the sphere of transmigration. The character- istics of the released soul are similar to those of Brahman ; it participates in all the latter's glorious qualities and powers, excepting only Brahman's power to emit, rule, and retract the entire world. The chief points in which the two systems sketched above agree on the one hand and diverge on the other may be shortly stated as follows. — Both systems teach advaita, i.e. non-duality or monism. There exist not several fundamentally distinct principles, such as the pra- krzti and the purushas of the Sankhyas, but there exists only one all-embracing being. While, however, the advaita taught by Sankara is a rigorous, absolute one, Ramanii^as doctrine has to be characterised as vlsish/a advaita, i.e. qualified non-duality, non-duality with a difference. Ac- cording to 5ankara, whatever is, is Brahman, and Brahman itself is absolutely homogeneous, so that all difference and plurality must be illusory. According to Ramanu^a also, whatever is, is Brahman ; but Brahman is not of a homo- geneous nature, but contains within itself elements of plurality owing to which it truly manifests itself in a diversified world. The world with its variety of material forms of existence and individual souls is not unreal Maya, but a real part of Brahman's nature, the body investing the universal Self. The Brahman of vSankara is in itself impersonal, a homogeneous mass of objectless thought, transcending all attributes; a personal God it becomes only through its association with the unreal principle of Mayd, so that — strictly speaking — Sankara's personal God, his f ^vara, is himself something unreal. Ramanu^a's Brah- man, on the other hand, is essentially a personal God, the all-powerful and all-wise ruler of a real world permeated and animated by his spirit. There is thus no room for the distinction between a param nirgu^am and an apara^ saguTzam brahma, between Brahman and Lrvara. — vSah- kara's individual soul is Brahman in so far as limited by the unreal upadhis due to Maya. The individual soul of Ramanu^a, on the other hand, is really individual ; it has INTRODUCTION. XXXI indeed sprung from Brahman and is never outside Brah- man, but nevertheless it enjoys a separate personal exist- ence and will remain a personality for ever.
2a. The individual soul of Ramanu^a, on the other hand, is really individual ; it has INTRODUCTION. XXXI indeed sprung from Brahman and is never outside Brah- man, but nevertheless it enjoys a separate personal exist- ence and will remain a personality for ever. — The release from sawsara means, according to wSankara, the absolute merging of the individual soul in Brahman, due to the dis- missal of the erroneous notion that the soul is distinct from Brahman ; according to R&manu^a it only means the soul's passing from the troubles of earthly life into a kind of heaven or paradise where it will remain for ever in undisturbed personal bliss. — As Ramanu^a does not distinguish a higher and lower Brahman, the distinction of a higher and lower knowledge is likewise not valid for him ; the teaching of the Upanishads is not twofold but essentially one, and leads the enlightened devotee to one result only1. I now proceed to give a conspectus of the contents of the Vedanta-sutras according to 6ankara in which at the same time all the more important points concerning which Ramanu^a disagrees will be noted. We shall here have to enter into details which to many may appear tedious. But it is only on a broad substratum of accurately stated details that we can hope to establish any definite conclusions regarding the comparative value of the different modes of interpreta- tion which have been applied to the Sutras. The line of investigation is an entirely new one, and for the present nothing can be taken for granted or known. — In stating the different heads of discussion (the so-called adhikara/zas), each of which comprises one or more Sutras, I shall follow the subdivision into adhikara/zas adopted in the Vyasadhika- ra/zamala, the text of which is printed in the second volume of the Bibliotheca Indica edition of the Sutras. 1 The only • sectarian ' feature of the -Sri-bhashya is, that it identifies Brahman with Vish#u or Narayarca ; but this in no way affects the interpretations put on the Sutras and Upanishads. Narayawa is in fact nothing but another name of Brahman. XXXI i VEDANTA-S^TRAS. FIRST ADHYAYA. PAda I. The first five adhikara^as lay down the fundamental positions with regard to Brahman. Adhik, I (i)1 treats of what the study of the Vedanta presupposes. Adhik. II (2) defines Brahman as that whence the world originates, and so on. Adhik. Ill (3) declares that Brahman is the source of the Veda. Adhik. IV (4) proves Brahman to be the uniform topic of all Vedanta-texts. Adhik.
3e study of the Vedanta presupposes. Adhik. II (2) defines Brahman as that whence the world originates, and so on. Adhik. Ill (3) declares that Brahman is the source of the Veda. Adhik. IV (4) proves Brahman to be the uniform topic of all Vedanta-texts. Adhik. V (5-1 1) is engaged in proving by various arguments that the Brah- man, which the Vedanta-texts represent as the cause of the world, is an intelligent principle, and cannot be iden- tified with the non-intelligent pradhana from which the world springs according to the Sankhyas. With the next adhikara/za there begins a series of dis- cussions of essentially similar character, extending up to the end of the first adhyaya. The question is throughout whether certain terms met with in the Upanishads denote Brahman or some other being, in most cases the ^iva, the individual soul. 6ankara remarks at the outset that, as the preceding ten Sutras had settled the all-important point that all the Vedanta-texts refer to Brahman, the question now arises why the enquiry should be continued any fur- ther, and thereupon proceeds to explain that the acknow- ledged distinction of a higher Brahman devoid of all qualities and a lower Brahman characterised by qualities necessitates an investigation whether certain Vedic texts of prima facie doubtful import set forth the lower Brah- man as the object of devout meditation, or the higher Brahman as the object of true knowledge. But that such an investigation is actually carried on in the remaining portion of the first adhyaya, appears neither from the wording of the Sutras nor even from 5ankara's own treatment of the Vedic 1 The Roman numerals indicate the number of the adhikarawa ; the figures in parentheses state the Sutras comprised in each adhikara^a. INTRODUCTION. XXXU1 texts referred to in the Sutras. In I, I, so, for instance, the question is raised whether the golden man within the sphere of the sun, with golden hair and beard and lotus-coloured eyes — of whom the ^Oandogya Upanishad speaks in I, 6, 6 — is an individual soul abiding within the sun or the highest Lord. .Sankara's answer is that the passage refers to the Lord, who, for the gratification of his worshippers, manifests himself in a bodily shape made of Maya. So that according to 6ankara himself the alternative lies between the sagu^a Brahman and some particular individual soul, not between the sagu?za Brahman and the nirgu/za Brahman. Adhik. VI (r 2-19) raises the question whether the ananda- maya, mentioned in Taittiriya Upanishad II, 5, is merely a transmigrating individual soul or the highest Self.
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.
1h final emancipation, i.e. he passes through the different stages of the path of the gods up to the world of Brahman and there enjoys an XXX VED ANTA-SU TR AS. everlasting blissful existence from which there is no re- turn into the sphere of transmigration. The character- istics of the released soul are similar to those of Brahman ; it participates in all the latter's glorious qualities and powers, excepting only Brahman's power to emit, rule, and retract the entire world. The chief points in which the two systems sketched above agree on the one hand and diverge on the other may be shortly stated as follows. — Both systems teach advaita, i.e. non-duality or monism. There exist not several fundamentally distinct principles, such as the pra- krzti and the purushas of the Sankhyas, but there exists only one all-embracing being. While, however, the advaita taught by Sankara is a rigorous, absolute one, Ramanii^as doctrine has to be characterised as vlsish/a advaita, i.e. qualified non-duality, non-duality with a difference. Ac- cording to 5ankara, whatever is, is Brahman, and Brahman itself is absolutely homogeneous, so that all difference and plurality must be illusory. According to Ramanu^a also, whatever is, is Brahman ; but Brahman is not of a homo- geneous nature, but contains within itself elements of plurality owing to which it truly manifests itself in a diversified world. The world with its variety of material forms of existence and individual souls is not unreal Maya, but a real part of Brahman's nature, the body investing the universal Self. The Brahman of vSankara is in itself impersonal, a homogeneous mass of objectless thought, transcending all attributes; a personal God it becomes only through its association with the unreal principle of Mayd, so that — strictly speaking — Sankara's personal God, his f ^vara, is himself something unreal. Ramanu^a's Brah- man, on the other hand, is essentially a personal God, the all-powerful and all-wise ruler of a real world permeated and animated by his spirit. There is thus no room for the distinction between a param nirgu^am and an apara^ saguTzam brahma, between Brahman and Lrvara. — vSah- kara's individual soul is Brahman in so far as limited by the unreal upadhis due to Maya. The individual soul of Ramanu^a, on the other hand, is really individual ; it has INTRODUCTION. XXXI indeed sprung from Brahman and is never outside Brah- man, but nevertheless it enjoys a separate personal exist- ence and will remain a personality for ever.
2a. The individual soul of Ramanu^a, on the other hand, is really individual ; it has INTRODUCTION. XXXI indeed sprung from Brahman and is never outside Brah- man, but nevertheless it enjoys a separate personal exist- ence and will remain a personality for ever. — The release from sawsara means, according to wSankara, the absolute merging of the individual soul in Brahman, due to the dis- missal of the erroneous notion that the soul is distinct from Brahman ; according to R&manu^a it only means the soul's passing from the troubles of earthly life into a kind of heaven or paradise where it will remain for ever in undisturbed personal bliss. — As Ramanu^a does not distinguish a higher and lower Brahman, the distinction of a higher and lower knowledge is likewise not valid for him ; the teaching of the Upanishads is not twofold but essentially one, and leads the enlightened devotee to one result only1. I now proceed to give a conspectus of the contents of the Vedanta-sutras according to 6ankara in which at the same time all the more important points concerning which Ramanu^a disagrees will be noted. We shall here have to enter into details which to many may appear tedious. But it is only on a broad substratum of accurately stated details that we can hope to establish any definite conclusions regarding the comparative value of the different modes of interpreta- tion which have been applied to the Sutras. The line of investigation is an entirely new one, and for the present nothing can be taken for granted or known. — In stating the different heads of discussion (the so-called adhikara/zas), each of which comprises one or more Sutras, I shall follow the subdivision into adhikara/zas adopted in the Vyasadhika- ra/zamala, the text of which is printed in the second volume of the Bibliotheca Indica edition of the Sutras. 1 The only • sectarian ' feature of the -Sri-bhashya is, that it identifies Brahman with Vish#u or Narayarca ; but this in no way affects the interpretations put on the Sutras and Upanishads. Narayawa is in fact nothing but another name of Brahman. XXXI i VEDANTA-S^TRAS. FIRST ADHYAYA. PAda I. The first five adhikara^as lay down the fundamental positions with regard to Brahman. Adhik, I (i)1 treats of what the study of the Vedanta presupposes. Adhik. II (2) defines Brahman as that whence the world originates, and so on. Adhik. Ill (3) declares that Brahman is the source of the Veda. Adhik. IV (4) proves Brahman to be the uniform topic of all Vedanta-texts. Adhik.
3e study of the Vedanta presupposes. Adhik. II (2) defines Brahman as that whence the world originates, and so on. Adhik. Ill (3) declares that Brahman is the source of the Veda. Adhik. IV (4) proves Brahman to be the uniform topic of all Vedanta-texts. Adhik. V (5-1 1) is engaged in proving by various arguments that the Brah- man, which the Vedanta-texts represent as the cause of the world, is an intelligent principle, and cannot be iden- tified with the non-intelligent pradhana from which the world springs according to the Sankhyas. With the next adhikara/za there begins a series of dis- cussions of essentially similar character, extending up to the end of the first adhyaya. The question is throughout whether certain terms met with in the Upanishads denote Brahman or some other being, in most cases the ^iva, the individual soul. 6ankara remarks at the outset that, as the preceding ten Sutras had settled the all-important point that all the Vedanta-texts refer to Brahman, the question now arises why the enquiry should be continued any fur- ther, and thereupon proceeds to explain that the acknow- ledged distinction of a higher Brahman devoid of all qualities and a lower Brahman characterised by qualities necessitates an investigation whether certain Vedic texts of prima facie doubtful import set forth the lower Brah- man as the object of devout meditation, or the higher Brahman as the object of true knowledge. But that such an investigation is actually carried on in the remaining portion of the first adhyaya, appears neither from the wording of the Sutras nor even from 5ankara's own treatment of the Vedic 1 The Roman numerals indicate the number of the adhikarawa ; the figures in parentheses state the Sutras comprised in each adhikara^a. INTRODUCTION. XXXU1 texts referred to in the Sutras. In I, I, so, for instance, the question is raised whether the golden man within the sphere of the sun, with golden hair and beard and lotus-coloured eyes — of whom the ^Oandogya Upanishad speaks in I, 6, 6 — is an individual soul abiding within the sun or the highest Lord. .Sankara's answer is that the passage refers to the Lord, who, for the gratification of his worshippers, manifests himself in a bodily shape made of Maya. So that according to 6ankara himself the alternative lies between the sagu^a Brahman and some particular individual soul, not between the sagu?za Brahman and the nirgu/za Brahman. Adhik. VI (r 2-19) raises the question whether the ananda- maya, mentioned in Taittiriya Upanishad II, 5, is merely a transmigrating individual soul or the highest Self.
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.