Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1n order to understand this take fuel in his hand and approach a guru who is learned and dwells entirely in Brahman.'— The remark that, because the earth and other non-intelligent things are adduced as parallel instances, that also which is compared to them, viz. the source of all beings must be non-intelligent, is without foundation, since it is not necessary that two things of which one is compared to the other should be of absolutely the same nature. The things, moreover, to which the source of all beings is compared, viz. the earth and the like, are material, while nobody would assume the source of all beings to be material. — For all these reasons the source of all beings, which possesses the attributes of invisibility and so on, is the highest Lord. 22. The two others (i. e. the individual soul and the pradhana) are not (the source of all beings) be- cause there are stated distinctive attributes and difference. The source of all beings is the highest Lord, not either of the two others, viz. the pradhana and the individual soul, on account of the following reason also. In the first place, the text distinguishes the source of all beings from the embodied soul, as something of a different nature ; compare the passage (II, 1, 2), 'That heavenly person is without body, he is both without and within, not produced, with- out breath and without mind, pure.' The distinctive attri- butes mentioned here, such as being of a heavenly nature, and so on, can in no way belong to the individual soul, I40 VEDANTA-StjTRAS. which erroneously considers itself to be limited by name and form as presented by Nescience, and erroneously imputes their attributes to itself. Therefore the passage manifestly refers to the Person which is the subject of all the Upanishads. — In the second place, the source of all beings which forms the general topic is represented in the text as something different from the pradhana, viz. in the passage, ' Higher than the high Imperishable.' Here the term fc Imperishable ? means that undeveloped entity which represents the seminal potentiality of names and forms, contains the fine parts of the material elements, abides in the Lord, forms his limiting adjunct, and being itself no effect is high in com- parison to all effects ; the whole phrase, ' Higher than the high Imperishable,' which expresses a difference then clearly shows that the highest Self is meant here.
2nts, abides in the Lord, forms his limiting adjunct, and being itself no effect is high in com- parison to all effects ; the whole phrase, ' Higher than the high Imperishable,' which expresses a difference then clearly shows that the highest Self is meant here. — We do not on that account assume an independent entity called pradhana and say that the source of all beings is stated separately therefrom ; but if a pradhana is to be assumed at all (in agreement with the common opinion) and if being assumed it is assumed of such a nature as not to be opposed to the statements of Scripture, viz. as the subtle cause of all beings denoted by the terms 'the Undeveloped' and so on, we have no objection to such an assumption, and declare that, on account of the separate statement therefrom, i. e. from that pradhana, * the source of all beings ' must mean the highest Lord. — A further argument in favour of the same conclusion is supplied by the next Sutra. 23. And on account of its form being mentioned. Subsequently to the passage, ' Higher than the high Imperishable/ we meet (in the passage, ' From him is born breath,' &c.) with a description of the creation of all things, from breath down to earth, and then with a statement of the form of this same source of beings as consisting of all created beings, ' Fire is his head, his eyes the sun and the moon, the quarters his ears, his speech the Vedas dis- closed, the wind his breath, his heart the universe ; from his feet came the earth ; he is indeed the inner Self of all things.' This statement of form can refer only to the I ADHYAYA, 2 PAD A, 23. 141 highest Lord, and not either to the embodied soul, which, on account of its small power, cannot be the cause of all effects, or to the pradhana, which cannot be the inner Self of all beings. We therefore conclude that the source of all beings is the highest Lord, not either of the other two. — But wherefrom do you conclude that the quoted declara- tion of form refers to the source of all beings ? — From the general topic, we reply. The word 'he ' (in the clause, * He is indeed the inner Self of all things ') connects the passage with the general topic. As the source of all beings consti- tutes the general topic, the whole passage, from ' From him is born breath,5 up to, ' He is the inner Self of all beings,' refers to that same source.
3ner Self of all things ') connects the passage with the general topic. As the source of all beings consti- tutes the general topic, the whole passage, from ' From him is born breath,5 up to, ' He is the inner Self of all beings,' refers to that same source. Similarly, when in ordinary conversation a certain teacher forms the general topic of the talk, the phrase, ' Study under him ; he knows the Veda and the Vedclngas thoroughly,' as a matter of course, refers to that same teacher. — But how can a bodily form be ascribed to the source of all beings which is characterised by invisi- bility and similar attributes? — The statement as to its nature, we reply, is made for the purpose of showing that the source of all beings is the Self of all beings, not of showing that it is of a bodily nature. The case is analogous to such passages as, ' I am food, I am food, I am the eater of food ' (Taitt. Up. Ill, io, 6). — Others, however, are of opinion l that the statement quoted does not refer to the source of all beings, because that to which it refers is spoken of as something produced. For, on the one hand, the immediately pre- ceding passage (' From him is born health, mind, and all organs of sense, ether, air, light, water, and the earth, the support of all ') speaks of the aggregate of beings from air down to earth as something produced, and, on the other 1 Vrz'ttikrz'dvyakhyam dushayati, Go. An. ; ekade^ina^z dushayati, Ananda Giri; tad etat paramatenakshepasamadhanabhyaw vya- khyaya svamatena vya^ash/e, puna^ ,rabdo*pi purvasmad vi^esha;^ dyotayann asyesh/ataw su^ayati, Bhamati. — The statement of the two former commentators must be understood to mean — in agree- ment with the Bhamati — that A^ahkara is now going to refute the preceding explanation by the statement of his own view. Thus Go. An. later on explains ' asmin pakshe ' by c svapakshe/ 1 4 2 VEDANTA-SfjTRAS. hand, a passage met with later on (' From him comes Agni, the sun being his fuel/ up to ' All herbs and juices ') ex- presses itself to the same purpose. How then should all at once, in the midst of these two passages (which refer to the creation), a statement be made about the nature of the source of all beings ? — The attribute of being the Self of all beings (which above was said to be mentioned in the passage about the creation, ' Fire is his head,' &c. is not mentioned there but) is stated only later on in a passage subsequent to that which refers to the creation, viz. ' The Person is all this, sacrifice/ &c. (II, i, 10).
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.
1n order to understand this take fuel in his hand and approach a guru who is learned and dwells entirely in Brahman.'— The remark that, because the earth and other non-intelligent things are adduced as parallel instances, that also which is compared to them, viz. the source of all beings must be non-intelligent, is without foundation, since it is not necessary that two things of which one is compared to the other should be of absolutely the same nature. The things, moreover, to which the source of all beings is compared, viz. the earth and the like, are material, while nobody would assume the source of all beings to be material. — For all these reasons the source of all beings, which possesses the attributes of invisibility and so on, is the highest Lord. 22. The two others (i. e. the individual soul and the pradhana) are not (the source of all beings) be- cause there are stated distinctive attributes and difference. The source of all beings is the highest Lord, not either of the two others, viz. the pradhana and the individual soul, on account of the following reason also. In the first place, the text distinguishes the source of all beings from the embodied soul, as something of a different nature ; compare the passage (II, 1, 2), 'That heavenly person is without body, he is both without and within, not produced, with- out breath and without mind, pure.' The distinctive attri- butes mentioned here, such as being of a heavenly nature, and so on, can in no way belong to the individual soul, I40 VEDANTA-StjTRAS. which erroneously considers itself to be limited by name and form as presented by Nescience, and erroneously imputes their attributes to itself. Therefore the passage manifestly refers to the Person which is the subject of all the Upanishads. — In the second place, the source of all beings which forms the general topic is represented in the text as something different from the pradhana, viz. in the passage, ' Higher than the high Imperishable.' Here the term fc Imperishable ? means that undeveloped entity which represents the seminal potentiality of names and forms, contains the fine parts of the material elements, abides in the Lord, forms his limiting adjunct, and being itself no effect is high in com- parison to all effects ; the whole phrase, ' Higher than the high Imperishable,' which expresses a difference then clearly shows that the highest Self is meant here.
2nts, abides in the Lord, forms his limiting adjunct, and being itself no effect is high in com- parison to all effects ; the whole phrase, ' Higher than the high Imperishable,' which expresses a difference then clearly shows that the highest Self is meant here. — We do not on that account assume an independent entity called pradhana and say that the source of all beings is stated separately therefrom ; but if a pradhana is to be assumed at all (in agreement with the common opinion) and if being assumed it is assumed of such a nature as not to be opposed to the statements of Scripture, viz. as the subtle cause of all beings denoted by the terms 'the Undeveloped' and so on, we have no objection to such an assumption, and declare that, on account of the separate statement therefrom, i. e. from that pradhana, * the source of all beings ' must mean the highest Lord. — A further argument in favour of the same conclusion is supplied by the next Sutra. 23. And on account of its form being mentioned. Subsequently to the passage, ' Higher than the high Imperishable/ we meet (in the passage, ' From him is born breath,' &c.) with a description of the creation of all things, from breath down to earth, and then with a statement of the form of this same source of beings as consisting of all created beings, ' Fire is his head, his eyes the sun and the moon, the quarters his ears, his speech the Vedas dis- closed, the wind his breath, his heart the universe ; from his feet came the earth ; he is indeed the inner Self of all things.' This statement of form can refer only to the I ADHYAYA, 2 PAD A, 23. 141 highest Lord, and not either to the embodied soul, which, on account of its small power, cannot be the cause of all effects, or to the pradhana, which cannot be the inner Self of all beings. We therefore conclude that the source of all beings is the highest Lord, not either of the other two. — But wherefrom do you conclude that the quoted declara- tion of form refers to the source of all beings ? — From the general topic, we reply. The word 'he ' (in the clause, * He is indeed the inner Self of all things ') connects the passage with the general topic. As the source of all beings consti- tutes the general topic, the whole passage, from ' From him is born breath,5 up to, ' He is the inner Self of all beings,' refers to that same source.
3ner Self of all things ') connects the passage with the general topic. As the source of all beings consti- tutes the general topic, the whole passage, from ' From him is born breath,5 up to, ' He is the inner Self of all beings,' refers to that same source. Similarly, when in ordinary conversation a certain teacher forms the general topic of the talk, the phrase, ' Study under him ; he knows the Veda and the Vedclngas thoroughly,' as a matter of course, refers to that same teacher. — But how can a bodily form be ascribed to the source of all beings which is characterised by invisi- bility and similar attributes? — The statement as to its nature, we reply, is made for the purpose of showing that the source of all beings is the Self of all beings, not of showing that it is of a bodily nature. The case is analogous to such passages as, ' I am food, I am food, I am the eater of food ' (Taitt. Up. Ill, io, 6). — Others, however, are of opinion l that the statement quoted does not refer to the source of all beings, because that to which it refers is spoken of as something produced. For, on the one hand, the immediately pre- ceding passage (' From him is born health, mind, and all organs of sense, ether, air, light, water, and the earth, the support of all ') speaks of the aggregate of beings from air down to earth as something produced, and, on the other 1 Vrz'ttikrz'dvyakhyam dushayati, Go. An. ; ekade^ina^z dushayati, Ananda Giri; tad etat paramatenakshepasamadhanabhyaw vya- khyaya svamatena vya^ash/e, puna^ ,rabdo*pi purvasmad vi^esha;^ dyotayann asyesh/ataw su^ayati, Bhamati. — The statement of the two former commentators must be understood to mean — in agree- ment with the Bhamati — that A^ahkara is now going to refute the preceding explanation by the statement of his own view. Thus Go. An. later on explains ' asmin pakshe ' by c svapakshe/ 1 4 2 VEDANTA-SfjTRAS. hand, a passage met with later on (' From him comes Agni, the sun being his fuel/ up to ' All herbs and juices ') ex- presses itself to the same purpose. How then should all at once, in the midst of these two passages (which refer to the creation), a statement be made about the nature of the source of all beings ? — The attribute of being the Self of all beings (which above was said to be mentioned in the passage about the creation, ' Fire is his head,' &c. is not mentioned there but) is stated only later on in a passage subsequent to that which refers to the creation, viz. ' The Person is all this, sacrifice/ &c. (II, i, 10).
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.