Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1nd 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. 5an- kara begins by explaining the Sutras on the latter suppo- sition— and the text of the Sutras is certainly in favour of that interpretation — gives, however, finally the preference to a different and exceedingly forced explanation according to which the Sutras teach that the anandamaya is not Brah- man, since the Upanishad expressly says that Brahman is the tail or support of the anandamaya1. — Ramanu^a's in- terpretation of Adhikara/za VI, although not agreeing in all particulars with the former explanation of vSankara, yet is at one with it in the chief point, viz. that the ananda- maya is Brahman. It further deserves notice that, while vSankara looks on Adhik. VI as the first of a series of interpretatory discussions, all of which treat the question whether certain Vedic passages refer to Brahman or not, Ramanii^a separates the adhikara/za from the subsequent part of the pada and connects it with what had preceded. In Adhik. V it had been shown that Brahman cannot be 1 Deussen's supposition (pp. 30, 150) that the passage conveying the second, interpretation is an interpolation is liable to two objections. In the first place, the passage is accepted and explained by all commentators ; in the second place, Sankara in the passage immediately preceding Sutra 12 quotes the adhikarawa ' anandamayo*bhyasat ' as giving rise to a discussion whether the param or the aparam brahman is meant. Now this latter point is not touched upon at all in that part of the bhashya which sets forth the former explanation, but only in the subsequent passage, which refutes the former and advocates the latter interpretation. [34] c XXXIV VEDANTA-stlTRAS. identified with the pradhana ; Adhik. VI shows that it is different from the individual soul, and the proof of the fundamental position of the system is thereby completed \ — Adhik. VII (20, 21) demonstrates that the golden person seen within the sun and the person seen within the eye, mentioned in Kh. Up. I, 6, are not some individual soul of high eminence, but the supreme Brahman. — Adhik. VIII (22) teaches that by the ether from which, according to Kh. Up. I, 9, all beings originate, not the elemental ether has to be understood but the highest Brahman. — Adhik. IX (23). The pra/za also mentioned in Kh. Up. I, 11, 5 denotes the highest Brahman 2. — Adhik.
2teaches that by the ether from which, according to Kh. Up. I, 9, all beings originate, not the elemental ether has to be understood but the highest Brahman. — Adhik. IX (23). The pra/za also mentioned in Kh. Up. I, 11, 5 denotes the highest Brahman 2. — Adhik. X (24-27) teaches that the light spoken of in Kh. Up. Ill, 13, 7 is not the ordinary physical light but the highest Brahman 3. — Adhik. XI (28-31) decides that the pra/za mentioned in Kau. Up. Ill, 2 is Brahman. PAda II. Adhik. I (1-8) shows that the being which consists of mind, whose body is breath, &c, mentioned in Kh. Up. Ill, 14, is not the individual soul, but Brahman. The Sutras of this adhikara/za emphatically dwell on the dif- ference of the individual soul and the highest Self, whence vSankara is obliged to add an explanation — in his comment on Sutra 6 — to the effect that that difference is to be under- stood as not real, but as due to the false limiting adjuncts of the highest Self. — The comment of Ramanu^a through- out closely follows the words of the Sutras ; on Sutra 6 it simply remarks that the difference of the highest Self 1 Evaw ^i^asitasya brahma^aj Manabhogyabhuta^a^arupasattvara^astamo- mayapradhanad vyavrzttir ukta, idaniw karmavajyat trigu^atmakaprakr/ti- sawsarganimittananavidhanantadiikhasagaranima^anenajuddha/§ ka. pratya- gatmano^nyan nikhilaheyapratyanikaw niratirayanandam brahmeti pratipa- dyate, anandamayo * bhyasat. 2 There is no reason to consider the passage ' atra ke£it' in Ankara's bhashya on Sutra 23 an interpolation as Deussen does (p. 30). It simply contains a criticism passed by Ankara on other commentators. 3 To the passages on pp. 150 and 153 of the Sanskrit text, which Deussen thinks to be interpolations, there likewise applies the remark made in the preceding note. INTRODUCTION. XXXV from the individual soul rests thereon that the former as free from all evil is not subject to the effects of works in the same way as the soul is1. — Adhik. II (9, 10) decides that he to whom the Brahmans and Kshattriyas are but food (Ka/yfca Up. I, 2, 25) is the highest Self.— Adhik. Ill (11, 12) shows that the two entered into the cave (Ka/^a Up. I, 3, 1) are Brahman and the individual soul2. — Adhik. IV (13-17) shows that the person within the eye mentioned in Kh. Up. IV, 15, 1 is Brahman. — Adhik. V (18-20) shows that the ruler within (antaryamin) described in Brz. Up. Ill, 7, 3 is Brahman. Sutra 20 clearly enounces the difference of the individual soul and the Lord ; hence 6ankara is obliged to remark that that difference is not real. — Adhik.
3. — Adhik. V (18-20) shows that the ruler within (antaryamin) described in Brz. Up. Ill, 7, 3 is Brahman. Sutra 20 clearly enounces the difference of the individual soul and the Lord ; hence 6ankara is obliged to remark that that difference is not real. — Adhik. VI (21-23) proves that that which cannot be seen, &c, mentioned in Mundaka, Up. I, 1, 3 is Brahman. — Adhik. VII (24-32) shows that the atman vaLsvanara of Kh. Up. V, 11, 6 is Brahman. PAda III. Adhik. I (1-7) proves that that within which the heaven, the earth, &c. are woven (Mu^. Up. II, 2, 5) is Brahman. — Adhik. II (8, 9) shows that the bhuman referred to in Kh. Up. VII, 23 is Brahman. — Adhik. Ill (10-12) teaches that the Imperishable in which, according to Brz. Up. Ill, 8, 8, the ether is woven is Brahman. — Adhik. IV (13) decides that the highest person who is to be meditated upon with the syllable Om, according to Pra^na Up. V, 5, is not the 1 £ivasya iva parasyapi brahma^a^ jarirantarvartitvam abhyupagata?7z ket tadvad eva ^arirasambandhaprayuktasukhadukhopabhogapraptir iti ken na, hetuvaireshyat, na hi jarirantarvartitvam eva sukhadukhopabhogahetu& api tu pu^yapaparupakarmaparavajatvaw tak Hpahatapapmana^ paramatmano na sambhavati. 2 The second interpretation given on pp. 184-5 °f ^e Sanskrit text (beginning with apara aha) Deussen considers to be an interpolation, caused by the reference to the Paingi-upanishad in -5ankara's comment on I, 3, 7 (p. 232). But there is no reason whatever for such an assumption. The passage on p. 232 shows that *Sankara considered the explanation of the mantra given in the Paingi-upanishad worth quoting, and is in fact fully intelligible only in case of its having been quoted before by 6ahkara himself. — That the ' apara ' quotes the Brzhadara^yaka not according to the Ka^va text — to quote from which is Ankara's habit— but from the Madhyandina text, is due just to the circum- stance of his being an ' apara,' i.e. not 6ankara. C 2 XXXVI VEDANTA-S^TRAS. lower but the higher Brahman. — According to Ramanu^a the two alternatives are Brahman and Brahmd (^ivasa- mashrirupo^^adhipatu ^aturmukha^). — Adhik. V and VI (comprising, according to 5ankara, Sutras 14-21) 1 discuss the question whether the small ether within the lotus of the heart mentioned in Kh. Up. VIII, 1 is the elemental ether or the individual soul or Brahman ; the last alternative being finally adopted. In favour of the second alternative the purvapakshin pleads the two passages Kh. Up.
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.
1nd 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. 5an- kara begins by explaining the Sutras on the latter suppo- sition— and the text of the Sutras is certainly in favour of that interpretation — gives, however, finally the preference to a different and exceedingly forced explanation according to which the Sutras teach that the anandamaya is not Brah- man, since the Upanishad expressly says that Brahman is the tail or support of the anandamaya1. — Ramanu^a's in- terpretation of Adhikara/za VI, although not agreeing in all particulars with the former explanation of vSankara, yet is at one with it in the chief point, viz. that the ananda- maya is Brahman. It further deserves notice that, while vSankara looks on Adhik. VI as the first of a series of interpretatory discussions, all of which treat the question whether certain Vedic passages refer to Brahman or not, Ramanii^a separates the adhikara/za from the subsequent part of the pada and connects it with what had preceded. In Adhik. V it had been shown that Brahman cannot be 1 Deussen's supposition (pp. 30, 150) that the passage conveying the second, interpretation is an interpolation is liable to two objections. In the first place, the passage is accepted and explained by all commentators ; in the second place, Sankara in the passage immediately preceding Sutra 12 quotes the adhikarawa ' anandamayo*bhyasat ' as giving rise to a discussion whether the param or the aparam brahman is meant. Now this latter point is not touched upon at all in that part of the bhashya which sets forth the former explanation, but only in the subsequent passage, which refutes the former and advocates the latter interpretation. [34] c XXXIV VEDANTA-stlTRAS. identified with the pradhana ; Adhik. VI shows that it is different from the individual soul, and the proof of the fundamental position of the system is thereby completed \ — Adhik. VII (20, 21) demonstrates that the golden person seen within the sun and the person seen within the eye, mentioned in Kh. Up. I, 6, are not some individual soul of high eminence, but the supreme Brahman. — Adhik. VIII (22) teaches that by the ether from which, according to Kh. Up. I, 9, all beings originate, not the elemental ether has to be understood but the highest Brahman. — Adhik. IX (23). The pra/za also mentioned in Kh. Up. I, 11, 5 denotes the highest Brahman 2. — Adhik.
2teaches that by the ether from which, according to Kh. Up. I, 9, all beings originate, not the elemental ether has to be understood but the highest Brahman. — Adhik. IX (23). The pra/za also mentioned in Kh. Up. I, 11, 5 denotes the highest Brahman 2. — Adhik. X (24-27) teaches that the light spoken of in Kh. Up. Ill, 13, 7 is not the ordinary physical light but the highest Brahman 3. — Adhik. XI (28-31) decides that the pra/za mentioned in Kau. Up. Ill, 2 is Brahman. PAda II. Adhik. I (1-8) shows that the being which consists of mind, whose body is breath, &c, mentioned in Kh. Up. Ill, 14, is not the individual soul, but Brahman. The Sutras of this adhikara/za emphatically dwell on the dif- ference of the individual soul and the highest Self, whence vSankara is obliged to add an explanation — in his comment on Sutra 6 — to the effect that that difference is to be under- stood as not real, but as due to the false limiting adjuncts of the highest Self. — The comment of Ramanu^a through- out closely follows the words of the Sutras ; on Sutra 6 it simply remarks that the difference of the highest Self 1 Evaw ^i^asitasya brahma^aj Manabhogyabhuta^a^arupasattvara^astamo- mayapradhanad vyavrzttir ukta, idaniw karmavajyat trigu^atmakaprakr/ti- sawsarganimittananavidhanantadiikhasagaranima^anenajuddha/§ ka. pratya- gatmano^nyan nikhilaheyapratyanikaw niratirayanandam brahmeti pratipa- dyate, anandamayo * bhyasat. 2 There is no reason to consider the passage ' atra ke£it' in Ankara's bhashya on Sutra 23 an interpolation as Deussen does (p. 30). It simply contains a criticism passed by Ankara on other commentators. 3 To the passages on pp. 150 and 153 of the Sanskrit text, which Deussen thinks to be interpolations, there likewise applies the remark made in the preceding note. INTRODUCTION. XXXV from the individual soul rests thereon that the former as free from all evil is not subject to the effects of works in the same way as the soul is1. — Adhik. II (9, 10) decides that he to whom the Brahmans and Kshattriyas are but food (Ka/yfca Up. I, 2, 25) is the highest Self.— Adhik. Ill (11, 12) shows that the two entered into the cave (Ka/^a Up. I, 3, 1) are Brahman and the individual soul2. — Adhik. IV (13-17) shows that the person within the eye mentioned in Kh. Up. IV, 15, 1 is Brahman. — Adhik. V (18-20) shows that the ruler within (antaryamin) described in Brz. Up. Ill, 7, 3 is Brahman. Sutra 20 clearly enounces the difference of the individual soul and the Lord ; hence 6ankara is obliged to remark that that difference is not real. — Adhik.
3. — Adhik. V (18-20) shows that the ruler within (antaryamin) described in Brz. Up. Ill, 7, 3 is Brahman. Sutra 20 clearly enounces the difference of the individual soul and the Lord ; hence 6ankara is obliged to remark that that difference is not real. — Adhik. VI (21-23) proves that that which cannot be seen, &c, mentioned in Mundaka, Up. I, 1, 3 is Brahman. — Adhik. VII (24-32) shows that the atman vaLsvanara of Kh. Up. V, 11, 6 is Brahman. PAda III. Adhik. I (1-7) proves that that within which the heaven, the earth, &c. are woven (Mu^. Up. II, 2, 5) is Brahman. — Adhik. II (8, 9) shows that the bhuman referred to in Kh. Up. VII, 23 is Brahman. — Adhik. Ill (10-12) teaches that the Imperishable in which, according to Brz. Up. Ill, 8, 8, the ether is woven is Brahman. — Adhik. IV (13) decides that the highest person who is to be meditated upon with the syllable Om, according to Pra^na Up. V, 5, is not the 1 £ivasya iva parasyapi brahma^a^ jarirantarvartitvam abhyupagata?7z ket tadvad eva ^arirasambandhaprayuktasukhadukhopabhogapraptir iti ken na, hetuvaireshyat, na hi jarirantarvartitvam eva sukhadukhopabhogahetu& api tu pu^yapaparupakarmaparavajatvaw tak Hpahatapapmana^ paramatmano na sambhavati. 2 The second interpretation given on pp. 184-5 °f ^e Sanskrit text (beginning with apara aha) Deussen considers to be an interpolation, caused by the reference to the Paingi-upanishad in -5ankara's comment on I, 3, 7 (p. 232). But there is no reason whatever for such an assumption. The passage on p. 232 shows that *Sankara considered the explanation of the mantra given in the Paingi-upanishad worth quoting, and is in fact fully intelligible only in case of its having been quoted before by 6ahkara himself. — That the ' apara ' quotes the Brzhadara^yaka not according to the Ka^va text — to quote from which is Ankara's habit— but from the Madhyandina text, is due just to the circum- stance of his being an ' apara,' i.e. not 6ankara. C 2 XXXVI VEDANTA-S^TRAS. lower but the higher Brahman. — According to Ramanu^a the two alternatives are Brahman and Brahmd (^ivasa- mashrirupo^^adhipatu ^aturmukha^). — Adhik. V and VI (comprising, according to 5ankara, Sutras 14-21) 1 discuss the question whether the small ether within the lotus of the heart mentioned in Kh. Up. VIII, 1 is the elemental ether or the individual soul or Brahman ; the last alternative being finally adopted. In favour of the second alternative the purvapakshin pleads the two passages Kh. Up.
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.