Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1r many words, for that is mere weariness of the tongue/ — For that I 58 VEDANTA-Stf TRAS. reason also the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, is the highest Brahman. 3. Not (i. e. the abode of heaven, earth, &c. can- not be) that which is inferred, (i. e. the pradhana), on account of the terms not denoting it. While there has been shown a special reason in favour of Brahman (being the abode), there is no such special reason in favour of anything else. Hence he (the sutrak&ra) says that that which is inferred, i.e. the pradhana assumed by the Sclnkhya-smrz'ti, is not to be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c. — Why? — On account of the terms not denoting it. For the sacred text does not contain any term intimating the non-intelligent pradhana, on the ground of which we might understand the latter to be the general cause or abode ; while such terms as l he who perceives all and knows all' (Mu. Up. 1, 1, 9) intimate an intelligent being opposed to the pradhana in nature. — For the same reason the air also cannot be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, and so on. 4. (Nor) also the individual soul (pra^abhrzt). Although to the cognitional (individual) Self the qualities of Selfhood and intelligence do belong, still omniscience and similar qualities do not belong to it as its knowledge is limited by its adjuncts ; thus the individual soul also cannot be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c, for the same reason, i.e. on account of the terms not denoting it. — Moreover, the attribute of forming the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, cannot properly be given to the individual soul because the latter is limited by certain adjuncts and therefore non-pervading (not omnipresent)1. — The special enunciation (of the individual soul) is caused by what follows2. — The individual soul is not to be 1 Bhogyasya bhoktrz'seshatvat tasyayatanatvam uktam a^ankyaha na >£eti, ^ivasyadrzsh/advara dyubhvadinimittatve*pi na sakshat tadayatanatvam aupadhikatvenavibhutvad ity artha^. Ananda Giri. 2 It would not have been requisite to introduce a special Sutra I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 7. J 59 accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c. for the follow- ing reason also. 5. On account of the declaration of difference. The passage 'Know him alone as the Self moreover implies a declaration of difference, viz. of the difference of the object of knowledge and the knower.
2abode of heaven, earth, &c. for the follow- ing reason also. 5. On account of the declaration of difference. The passage 'Know him alone as the Self moreover implies a declaration of difference, viz. of the difference of the object of knowledge and the knower. Here the indi- vidual soul as being that which is desirous of release is the knower, and consequently Brahman, which is denoted by the word ' self and represented as the object of knowledge, is understood to be the abode of heaven, earth, and so on. — For the following reason also the individual soul cannot be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c. 6. On account of the subject-matter. The highest Self constitutes the subject-matter (of the entire chapter), as we see from the passage, ' Sir, what is that through which, when it is known, everything else becomes known ? ' (Mu. Up. 1, 1, 3), in which the knowledge of everything is declared to be dependent on the knowledge of one thing. For all this (i. e. the entire world) becomes known if Brahman the Self of all is known, not if only the individual soul is known. — Another reason against the individual soul follows. 7. And on account of the two conditions of stand- ing and eating (of which the former is characteristic of the highest Lord, the latter of the individual soul). With reference to that which is the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, the text says, 'Two birds, inseparable friends,' &c. (Mu. Up. Ill, 1, 1). This passage describes the two states of mere standing, i. e. mere presence, and of eating, the clause, 'One of them eats the sweet fruit,5 refer- ring to the eating, i.e. the fruition of the results of works, for the individual soul — which, like the air, is already excluded by the preceding Sutra — if it were not for the new argument brought forward in the following Sutra which applies to the individual soul only. l60 VEDANTA-S^TRAS. and the clause, ' The other one looks on without eating/ describing the condition of mere inactive presence. The two states described, viz. of mere presence on the one hand and of enjoyment on the other hand, show that the Lord and the individual soul are referred to. Now there is room for this statement which represents the Lord as separate from the individual soul, only if the passage about the abode of heaven and earth likewise refers to the Lord ; for in that case only there exists a continuity of topic. On any other supposition the second passage would contain a statement about something not connected with the general topic, and would therefore be entirely uncalled for.
3arth likewise refers to the Lord ; for in that case only there exists a continuity of topic. On any other supposition the second passage would contain a statement about something not connected with the general topic, and would therefore be entirely uncalled for. — But, it may be objected, on your interpretation also the second passage makes an uncalled-for statement, viz. in so far as it represents the individual soul as separate from the Lord. — Not so, we reply. It is nowhere the purpose of Scripture to make statements regarding the individual soul. From ordinary experience the individual soul, which in the different individual bodies is joined to the internal organs and other limiting adjuncts, is known to every one as agent and enjoyer, and we therefore must not assume that it is that which Scripture aims at setting forth. The Lord, on the other hand, about whom ordinary experience tells us nothing, is to be considered as the special topic of all scriptural passages, and we therefore cannot assume that any passage should refer to him merely casually \ — 1 If the individual soul were meant by the abode of heaven, earth, &c, the statement regarding Irvara made in the passage about the two birds would be altogether abrupt, and on that ground objectionable. The same difficulty does not present itself with regard to the abrupt mention of the individual soul which is well known to everybody, and to which therefore casual allusions may be made. — I subjoin Ananda Giri's commentary on the entire pas- sage: (rivasyopadhyaikyenavivakshitatvat tad^ane^pi sarva^ana- siddhes tasyayatanatvadyabhave hetvantaraw va/fcyam ity a^ahkya sutreraa pariharati kuta^etyadina. Tad vya/£ash/e dyubhvaditi. Nirde^am eva darcayati tayor iti. Vibhaktyartham aha tabhyazrc £eti. Sthitye.fvarasyadanag' £tvasa#zgrahe*pi katham fovarasyaiva virva- yatanatva#z tadaha yaditi. Lrvarasyayanatvenaprakr/tatve ^ivapr/- I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 7. l6l That the mantra ' two birds,' &c. speaks of the Lord and the individual soul we have already shown under I, 2, 11, —And if, according to the interpretation given in the Paingi- upanishad (and quoted under I, 2, 11), the verse is under- stood to refer to the internal organ (sattva) and the individual soul (not to the individual soul and the Lord), even then there is no contradiction (between that interpre- tation and our present averment that the individual soul is not the abode of heaven and earth). — How so? — Here (i. e.
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.
1r many words, for that is mere weariness of the tongue/ — For that I 58 VEDANTA-Stf TRAS. reason also the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, is the highest Brahman. 3. Not (i. e. the abode of heaven, earth, &c. can- not be) that which is inferred, (i. e. the pradhana), on account of the terms not denoting it. While there has been shown a special reason in favour of Brahman (being the abode), there is no such special reason in favour of anything else. Hence he (the sutrak&ra) says that that which is inferred, i.e. the pradhana assumed by the Sclnkhya-smrz'ti, is not to be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c. — Why? — On account of the terms not denoting it. For the sacred text does not contain any term intimating the non-intelligent pradhana, on the ground of which we might understand the latter to be the general cause or abode ; while such terms as l he who perceives all and knows all' (Mu. Up. 1, 1, 9) intimate an intelligent being opposed to the pradhana in nature. — For the same reason the air also cannot be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, and so on. 4. (Nor) also the individual soul (pra^abhrzt). Although to the cognitional (individual) Self the qualities of Selfhood and intelligence do belong, still omniscience and similar qualities do not belong to it as its knowledge is limited by its adjuncts ; thus the individual soul also cannot be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c, for the same reason, i.e. on account of the terms not denoting it. — Moreover, the attribute of forming the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, cannot properly be given to the individual soul because the latter is limited by certain adjuncts and therefore non-pervading (not omnipresent)1. — The special enunciation (of the individual soul) is caused by what follows2. — The individual soul is not to be 1 Bhogyasya bhoktrz'seshatvat tasyayatanatvam uktam a^ankyaha na >£eti, ^ivasyadrzsh/advara dyubhvadinimittatve*pi na sakshat tadayatanatvam aupadhikatvenavibhutvad ity artha^. Ananda Giri. 2 It would not have been requisite to introduce a special Sutra I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 7. J 59 accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c. for the follow- ing reason also. 5. On account of the declaration of difference. The passage 'Know him alone as the Self moreover implies a declaration of difference, viz. of the difference of the object of knowledge and the knower.
2abode of heaven, earth, &c. for the follow- ing reason also. 5. On account of the declaration of difference. The passage 'Know him alone as the Self moreover implies a declaration of difference, viz. of the difference of the object of knowledge and the knower. Here the indi- vidual soul as being that which is desirous of release is the knower, and consequently Brahman, which is denoted by the word ' self and represented as the object of knowledge, is understood to be the abode of heaven, earth, and so on. — For the following reason also the individual soul cannot be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c. 6. On account of the subject-matter. The highest Self constitutes the subject-matter (of the entire chapter), as we see from the passage, ' Sir, what is that through which, when it is known, everything else becomes known ? ' (Mu. Up. 1, 1, 3), in which the knowledge of everything is declared to be dependent on the knowledge of one thing. For all this (i. e. the entire world) becomes known if Brahman the Self of all is known, not if only the individual soul is known. — Another reason against the individual soul follows. 7. And on account of the two conditions of stand- ing and eating (of which the former is characteristic of the highest Lord, the latter of the individual soul). With reference to that which is the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, the text says, 'Two birds, inseparable friends,' &c. (Mu. Up. Ill, 1, 1). This passage describes the two states of mere standing, i. e. mere presence, and of eating, the clause, 'One of them eats the sweet fruit,5 refer- ring to the eating, i.e. the fruition of the results of works, for the individual soul — which, like the air, is already excluded by the preceding Sutra — if it were not for the new argument brought forward in the following Sutra which applies to the individual soul only. l60 VEDANTA-S^TRAS. and the clause, ' The other one looks on without eating/ describing the condition of mere inactive presence. The two states described, viz. of mere presence on the one hand and of enjoyment on the other hand, show that the Lord and the individual soul are referred to. Now there is room for this statement which represents the Lord as separate from the individual soul, only if the passage about the abode of heaven and earth likewise refers to the Lord ; for in that case only there exists a continuity of topic. On any other supposition the second passage would contain a statement about something not connected with the general topic, and would therefore be entirely uncalled for.
3arth likewise refers to the Lord ; for in that case only there exists a continuity of topic. On any other supposition the second passage would contain a statement about something not connected with the general topic, and would therefore be entirely uncalled for. — But, it may be objected, on your interpretation also the second passage makes an uncalled-for statement, viz. in so far as it represents the individual soul as separate from the Lord. — Not so, we reply. It is nowhere the purpose of Scripture to make statements regarding the individual soul. From ordinary experience the individual soul, which in the different individual bodies is joined to the internal organs and other limiting adjuncts, is known to every one as agent and enjoyer, and we therefore must not assume that it is that which Scripture aims at setting forth. The Lord, on the other hand, about whom ordinary experience tells us nothing, is to be considered as the special topic of all scriptural passages, and we therefore cannot assume that any passage should refer to him merely casually \ — 1 If the individual soul were meant by the abode of heaven, earth, &c, the statement regarding Irvara made in the passage about the two birds would be altogether abrupt, and on that ground objectionable. The same difficulty does not present itself with regard to the abrupt mention of the individual soul which is well known to everybody, and to which therefore casual allusions may be made. — I subjoin Ananda Giri's commentary on the entire pas- sage: (rivasyopadhyaikyenavivakshitatvat tad^ane^pi sarva^ana- siddhes tasyayatanatvadyabhave hetvantaraw va/fcyam ity a^ahkya sutreraa pariharati kuta^etyadina. Tad vya/£ash/e dyubhvaditi. Nirde^am eva darcayati tayor iti. Vibhaktyartham aha tabhyazrc £eti. Sthitye.fvarasyadanag' £tvasa#zgrahe*pi katham fovarasyaiva virva- yatanatva#z tadaha yaditi. Lrvarasyayanatvenaprakr/tatve ^ivapr/- I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 7. l6l That the mantra ' two birds,' &c. speaks of the Lord and the individual soul we have already shown under I, 2, 11, —And if, according to the interpretation given in the Paingi- upanishad (and quoted under I, 2, 11), the verse is under- stood to refer to the internal organ (sattva) and the individual soul (not to the individual soul and the Lord), even then there is no contradiction (between that interpre- tation and our present averment that the individual soul is not the abode of heaven and earth). — How so? — Here (i. e.
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.