Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1word Ka, which, in ordinary language, denotes the imperfect pleasure springing from the contact of the sense-organs with their objects. If the word Kha were not applied to qualify the sense of Ka we should conclude that ordinary pleasure is here called Brahman. But as the two words Ka and Kha (occur together and therefore) qualify each other, they intimate Brahman whose Self is pleasure, If2 in the passage referred to (viz. ' Breath is Brahman, Ka is Brahman, Kha is Brahman') the second Brahman (i. e. the word Brahman in the clause ' Ka is Brahman ') were not added, and if the sentence would run ' Ka, Kha is Brahman/ the word Ka would be employed as a mere qualifying word, and thus pleasure as being a mere quality would not be represented as a subject of meditation. To prevent this, both words — Ka as well as Kha — are joined with the word Brahman (' Ka (is) Brahman, Kha (is) Brah- man'). For the passage wishes to intimate that pleasure also, although a quality, should be meditated upon as some- thing in which qualities inhere. It thus appears that at the beginning of the chapter Brahman, as characterised by pleasure, is spoken of. After that the Garhapatya and the other sacred fires proclaim in turns their own glory, and finally conclude with the words, ' This is our knowledge, O friend, and the knowledge of the Self; ' wherein they point back to the Brahman spoken of before. The words, ' The teacher will tell you the way ' (which form the last clause of the concluding passage), merely promise an explanation of the way, and thus preclude the idea of another topic being started. The teacher thereupon saying, 'As water does not cling to a lotus leaf, so no evil deed clings to one who knows it ' (which words intervene between the concluding 1 A^rayantarapratyayasya^rayantare kshepaA pratika^, yatha brahma^abda^ paramatmavishayo namadishu kshipyate. Bha. 2 The following sentences give the reason why, although there is only one Brahman, the word Brahman is repeated. 128 vedanta-s6tras. speech of the fires and the information given by the teacher about the person within the eye) declares that no evil attacks him who knows the person within the eye, and thereby shows the latter to be Brahman. It thus appears that the teacher's intention is to speak about that Brahman which had formed the topic of the instruction of the fires ; to represent it at first as located in the eye and possessing the qualities of Sa^eyadvama and the like, and to point out afterwards that he who thus knows passes on to light and so on.
2at Brahman which had formed the topic of the instruction of the fires ; to represent it at first as located in the eye and possessing the qualities of Sa^eyadvama and the like, and to point out afterwards that he who thus knows passes on to light and so on. He therefore begins by saying, ' That person that is seen in the eye that is the Self.' 1 6. And on account of the statement of the way of him who has heard the Upanishads. The person placed in the eye is the highest lord for the following reason also. From sruti as well as smrzti we are acquainted with the way of him who has heard the Upanishads or the secret knowledge, i. e. who knows Brahman. That way, called the path of the gods, is described (Pra. Up. I, 10), ' Those who have sought the Self by penance, abstinence, faith, and knowledge gain by the northern path the sun. This is the home of the spirits, the immortal, free from fear, the highest. From thence they do not return;' and also (Bha. Gita VIII, 2,4), ' Fire, light, the bright fortnight, the six months of the northern progress of the sun, on that way those who know Brahman go, when they have died, to Brahman.' Now that very same way is seen to be stated, in our text, for him who knows the person within the eye. For we read (Kk. Up. IV, 15, 5), 'Now whether people perform obsequies for him or no he goes to light;5 and later on, 'From the sun (he goes) to the moon, from the moon to lightning. There is a person not human, he leads them to Brahman. This is the path of the gods, the path that leads to Brah- man. Those who proceed on that path do not return to the life of man.' From this description of the way which is known to be the way of him who knows Brahman we ascertain that the person within the eye is Brahman. I ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 1 7. 1 29 17. (The person within the eye is the highest), not any other Self ; on account of the non-perma- nency (of the other Selfs) and on account of the im- possibility (of the qualities of the person in the eye being ascribed to the other Selfs). To the assertion made in the purvapaksha that the person in the eye is either the reflected Self or the cog- nitional Self (the individual soul) or the Self of some deity the following answer is given. — No other Self such as, for instance, the reflected Self can be assumed here, on account of non-permanency. — The reflected Self, in the first place, does not permanently abide in the eye.
3ndividual soul) or the Self of some deity the following answer is given. — No other Self such as, for instance, the reflected Self can be assumed here, on account of non-permanency. — The reflected Self, in the first place, does not permanently abide in the eye. For when some person approaches the eye the reflection of that person is seen in the eye, but when the person moves away the reflection is seen no longer. The passage 'That person within the eye ' must, moreover, be held, on the ground of proximity, to intimate that the person seen in a man's own eye is the object of (that man's) devout medi- tation (and not the reflected image of his own person which he may see in the eye of another man). [Let, then, another tnan approach the devout man, and let the latter meditate on the image reflected in his own eye, but seen by the other man only. No, we reply, for] we have no right to make the (complicated) assumption that the devout man is, at the time of devotion, to bring close to his eye another man in order to produce a reflected image in his own eye. Scripture, moreover, (viz. Kh. Up. VIII, 9, 1, ' It (the reflected Self) perishes as soon as the body perishes/) declares the non-permanency of the reflected Self. — And, further, «on account of impossibility' (the person in the eye cannot be the reflected Self). For immortality and the other qualities ascribed to the person in the eye are not to be perceived in the reflected Self. — Of the cogni- tional Self, in the second place, which is in general con- nexion with the whole body and all the senses, it can likewise not be said that it has its permanent station in the eye only. That, on the other hand, Brahman although all-pervading may, for the purpose of contemplation, be [34] K 1 30 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. spoken of as connected with particular places such as the heart and the like, we have seen already. The cognitional Self shares (with the reflected Self) the impossibility of having the qualities of immortality and so on attributed to it. Although the cognitional Self is in reality not different from the highest Self, still there are fictitiously ascribed to it (adhyclropita) the effects of nescience, desire and works, viz. mortality and fear ; so that neither immortality nor fearlessness belongs to it. The qualities of being the sa^yadvama, &c. also cannot properly be ascribed to the cognitional Self, which is not distinguished by lordly power (aLrvarya). — In the third place, although the Self of a deity (viz.
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.
1word Ka, which, in ordinary language, denotes the imperfect pleasure springing from the contact of the sense-organs with their objects. If the word Kha were not applied to qualify the sense of Ka we should conclude that ordinary pleasure is here called Brahman. But as the two words Ka and Kha (occur together and therefore) qualify each other, they intimate Brahman whose Self is pleasure, If2 in the passage referred to (viz. ' Breath is Brahman, Ka is Brahman, Kha is Brahman') the second Brahman (i. e. the word Brahman in the clause ' Ka is Brahman ') were not added, and if the sentence would run ' Ka, Kha is Brahman/ the word Ka would be employed as a mere qualifying word, and thus pleasure as being a mere quality would not be represented as a subject of meditation. To prevent this, both words — Ka as well as Kha — are joined with the word Brahman (' Ka (is) Brahman, Kha (is) Brah- man'). For the passage wishes to intimate that pleasure also, although a quality, should be meditated upon as some- thing in which qualities inhere. It thus appears that at the beginning of the chapter Brahman, as characterised by pleasure, is spoken of. After that the Garhapatya and the other sacred fires proclaim in turns their own glory, and finally conclude with the words, ' This is our knowledge, O friend, and the knowledge of the Self; ' wherein they point back to the Brahman spoken of before. The words, ' The teacher will tell you the way ' (which form the last clause of the concluding passage), merely promise an explanation of the way, and thus preclude the idea of another topic being started. The teacher thereupon saying, 'As water does not cling to a lotus leaf, so no evil deed clings to one who knows it ' (which words intervene between the concluding 1 A^rayantarapratyayasya^rayantare kshepaA pratika^, yatha brahma^abda^ paramatmavishayo namadishu kshipyate. Bha. 2 The following sentences give the reason why, although there is only one Brahman, the word Brahman is repeated. 128 vedanta-s6tras. speech of the fires and the information given by the teacher about the person within the eye) declares that no evil attacks him who knows the person within the eye, and thereby shows the latter to be Brahman. It thus appears that the teacher's intention is to speak about that Brahman which had formed the topic of the instruction of the fires ; to represent it at first as located in the eye and possessing the qualities of Sa^eyadvama and the like, and to point out afterwards that he who thus knows passes on to light and so on.
2at Brahman which had formed the topic of the instruction of the fires ; to represent it at first as located in the eye and possessing the qualities of Sa^eyadvama and the like, and to point out afterwards that he who thus knows passes on to light and so on. He therefore begins by saying, ' That person that is seen in the eye that is the Self.' 1 6. And on account of the statement of the way of him who has heard the Upanishads. The person placed in the eye is the highest lord for the following reason also. From sruti as well as smrzti we are acquainted with the way of him who has heard the Upanishads or the secret knowledge, i. e. who knows Brahman. That way, called the path of the gods, is described (Pra. Up. I, 10), ' Those who have sought the Self by penance, abstinence, faith, and knowledge gain by the northern path the sun. This is the home of the spirits, the immortal, free from fear, the highest. From thence they do not return;' and also (Bha. Gita VIII, 2,4), ' Fire, light, the bright fortnight, the six months of the northern progress of the sun, on that way those who know Brahman go, when they have died, to Brahman.' Now that very same way is seen to be stated, in our text, for him who knows the person within the eye. For we read (Kk. Up. IV, 15, 5), 'Now whether people perform obsequies for him or no he goes to light;5 and later on, 'From the sun (he goes) to the moon, from the moon to lightning. There is a person not human, he leads them to Brahman. This is the path of the gods, the path that leads to Brah- man. Those who proceed on that path do not return to the life of man.' From this description of the way which is known to be the way of him who knows Brahman we ascertain that the person within the eye is Brahman. I ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 1 7. 1 29 17. (The person within the eye is the highest), not any other Self ; on account of the non-perma- nency (of the other Selfs) and on account of the im- possibility (of the qualities of the person in the eye being ascribed to the other Selfs). To the assertion made in the purvapaksha that the person in the eye is either the reflected Self or the cog- nitional Self (the individual soul) or the Self of some deity the following answer is given. — No other Self such as, for instance, the reflected Self can be assumed here, on account of non-permanency. — The reflected Self, in the first place, does not permanently abide in the eye.
3ndividual soul) or the Self of some deity the following answer is given. — No other Self such as, for instance, the reflected Self can be assumed here, on account of non-permanency. — The reflected Self, in the first place, does not permanently abide in the eye. For when some person approaches the eye the reflection of that person is seen in the eye, but when the person moves away the reflection is seen no longer. The passage 'That person within the eye ' must, moreover, be held, on the ground of proximity, to intimate that the person seen in a man's own eye is the object of (that man's) devout medi- tation (and not the reflected image of his own person which he may see in the eye of another man). [Let, then, another tnan approach the devout man, and let the latter meditate on the image reflected in his own eye, but seen by the other man only. No, we reply, for] we have no right to make the (complicated) assumption that the devout man is, at the time of devotion, to bring close to his eye another man in order to produce a reflected image in his own eye. Scripture, moreover, (viz. Kh. Up. VIII, 9, 1, ' It (the reflected Self) perishes as soon as the body perishes/) declares the non-permanency of the reflected Self. — And, further, «on account of impossibility' (the person in the eye cannot be the reflected Self). For immortality and the other qualities ascribed to the person in the eye are not to be perceived in the reflected Self. — Of the cogni- tional Self, in the second place, which is in general con- nexion with the whole body and all the senses, it can likewise not be said that it has its permanent station in the eye only. That, on the other hand, Brahman although all-pervading may, for the purpose of contemplation, be [34] K 1 30 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. spoken of as connected with particular places such as the heart and the like, we have seen already. The cognitional Self shares (with the reflected Self) the impossibility of having the qualities of immortality and so on attributed to it. Although the cognitional Self is in reality not different from the highest Self, still there are fictitiously ascribed to it (adhyclropita) the effects of nescience, desire and works, viz. mortality and fear ; so that neither immortality nor fearlessness belongs to it. The qualities of being the sa^yadvama, &c. also cannot properly be ascribed to the cognitional Self, which is not distinguished by lordly power (aLrvarya). — In the third place, although the Self of a deity (viz.
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.