Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1For a conscious being only is capable of being I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 7. 3OI hurt, and hence the word * breath ' here denotes such a being only. Moreover, as it is observed that also in the case of such living beings as have no vital breath (viz. plants), suffering results, or does not result, according as injury is inflicted or not, we must for this reason also decide that the breath spoken of in the text as something susceptible of injury is the individual soul. It conse- quently would be an error to suppose, on the ground of the comparison of Pra;/a to the nave of a wheel in which the spokes are set, that Pra?/a here denotes the highest Self; for the highest Self is incapable of being injured. That comparison, on the other hand, is quite in its place, if we understand by Fr&na the individual soul, for the whole aggregate of non-sentient matter which stands to the individual soul in the relation of object or instrument of enjoyment, has an existence dependent on the individual soul. And this soul, there called Pra/za, is what the text later on calls Bhuman ; for as there is no question and reply as to something greater than Pra^a, Pra;^a continues, without break, to be the subject-matter up to the mention of bhuman. The paragraphs intervening between the section on Pra^a (VII, 15) and the section on the Bhuman (VII, 23 ff.) are to be understood as follows. The Pra^a section closes with the remark that he who fully knows Pra^a is an ativadin, i. e. one who makes a final supreme declaration. In the next sentence then, ' But this one in truth is an ativadin who makes a supreme statement by means of the True/ the clause * But this one is an ativadin ' refers back to the previously mentioned person who knows the Pra/^a, and the relative clause * who makes,' &c., enjoins on him the speaking of the truth as an auxiliary element in the meditation on Pra;^a. The next paragraph, 6 When one understands the truth then one declares the truth/ intimates that speaking the truth stands in a supplemen- tary relation towards the cognition of the true nature of the Pra/za as described before. For the accomplishment of such cognition the subsequent four paragraphs enjoin reflection, faith, attendance on a spiritual guide, and the due performance of sacred duties. In order that such 302 vedanta-sAtras.
2For the accomplishment of such cognition the subsequent four paragraphs enjoin reflection, faith, attendance on a spiritual guide, and the due performance of sacred duties. In order that such 302 vedanta-sAtras. duties may be undertaken, the next paragraphs then teach that bliss constitutes the nature of the individual soul, previously called Pra^a, and finally that the Bhuman, i. e. the supreme fulness of such bliss, is the proper object of inquiry. The final purport of the teaching, therefore, is that the true nature of the individual soul, freed from Nescience, is abundant bliss — a conclusion which perfectly agrees with the initial statement that he who knows the Self passes beyond sorrow. That being, therefore, which has the attribute of being c bhuman,' is the individual Self. This being so, it is also intelligible why, further on, when the text describes the glory and power of the individual Self, it uses the term ( I ' ; for * I ' denotes just the indi- vidual Self : ' I am below, I am above, &c, I am all this ' (VII, 25, 1). This conclusion having been settled, all re- maining clauses must be explained so as to agree with it. This prima facie view is set aside by the Sutra. The being characterised in the text as 'bhuman' is not the indi- vidual Self, but the highest Self, since instruction is given about the bhuman in addition to ' serenity' (sa;/zprasada). ' Sa^prasada ' denotes the individual soul, as we know from the following text, ' Now that " serenity," having risen from out this body, and having reached the highest light, appears in its true form ' (K/i. Up. VIII, 3, 4). Now in the text under discussion instruction is given about a being called ' the True/ and possessing the attribute of ' bhuman,' as being something additional to the individual soul; and this being called ' the True' is none other than the highest Brahman. Just as in the series of beings beginning with name and ending with breath, each successive being is mentioned in addition to the preceding one — wherefrom we conclude that it is something really different from what precedes ; so that being also which is called ' the True,' and which is mentioned in addition to the individual Self called Pra/za, is something different from the individual Self, and this being called ' the True ' is the same as the Bhuman ; in other words, the text teaches that the Bhuman is the highest Brahman called ' the True.' This the Vrz't- tikara also declares : ' But the Bhuman only. The Bhuman I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 7. 303 is Brahman, because in the series beginning with name instruction is given about it subsequently to the individual Self/
3The Bhuman I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 7. 303 is Brahman, because in the series beginning with name instruction is given about it subsequently to the individual Self/ But how do we know that the instruction as to 'the True ' is in addition to, and refers to something different from, the being called Pra/za ? — The text, after having declared that he who knows the Pra/za is an ativadin, goes on, ' But really that one is an ativadin who makes a supreme declaration by means of the True.' The * but ' here clearly separates him who is an ativadin by means of the True from the previous ativadin, and the clause thus does not cause us to recognise him who is ativadin by means of Prcbza ; hence ' the True' which is the cause of the latter ativadin being what he is must be something different from the Pra/za which is the cause of the former ativadin's quality. — But we have maintained above that the text enjoins the speaking of ' the True ' merely as an auxiliary duty for him who knows Pra;/a ; and that hence the Pra/za continues to be the general subject-matter! — This contention is untenable, we reply. The conjunction ' but ' shows that the section gives instruction about a new ativadin, and does not merely declare that the ativadin previously mentioned has to speak the truth. It is dif- ferent with texts such as ' But that one indeed is an Agni- hotrin who speaks the truth ' ; there we have no knowledge of any further Agnihotrin, and therefore must interpret the text as enjoining truthfulness as an obligation incumbent on the ordinary Agnihotrin. In the text under discussion, on the other hand, we have the term ' the True/ which makes us apprehend that there is a further ativadin different from the preceding one ; and we know that that term is used to denote the highest Brahman, as e. g. in the text, 'The True, knowledge, the Infinite is Brahman.' The ativadin who takes his stand on this Brahman, therefore, must be viewed as different from the preceding ativadin ; and a difference thus established on the basis of the mean- ing and connexion of the different sentences cannot be set aside. An ativadin (' one who in his declaration goes beyond ') is one who maintains, as object of his devotion, 304 vedAnta-s^tras.
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.
1For a conscious being only is capable of being I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 7. 3OI hurt, and hence the word * breath ' here denotes such a being only. Moreover, as it is observed that also in the case of such living beings as have no vital breath (viz. plants), suffering results, or does not result, according as injury is inflicted or not, we must for this reason also decide that the breath spoken of in the text as something susceptible of injury is the individual soul. It conse- quently would be an error to suppose, on the ground of the comparison of Pra;/a to the nave of a wheel in which the spokes are set, that Pra?/a here denotes the highest Self; for the highest Self is incapable of being injured. That comparison, on the other hand, is quite in its place, if we understand by Fr&na the individual soul, for the whole aggregate of non-sentient matter which stands to the individual soul in the relation of object or instrument of enjoyment, has an existence dependent on the individual soul. And this soul, there called Pra/za, is what the text later on calls Bhuman ; for as there is no question and reply as to something greater than Pra^a, Pra;^a continues, without break, to be the subject-matter up to the mention of bhuman. The paragraphs intervening between the section on Pra^a (VII, 15) and the section on the Bhuman (VII, 23 ff.) are to be understood as follows. The Pra^a section closes with the remark that he who fully knows Pra^a is an ativadin, i. e. one who makes a final supreme declaration. In the next sentence then, ' But this one in truth is an ativadin who makes a supreme statement by means of the True/ the clause * But this one is an ativadin ' refers back to the previously mentioned person who knows the Pra/^a, and the relative clause * who makes,' &c., enjoins on him the speaking of the truth as an auxiliary element in the meditation on Pra;^a. The next paragraph, 6 When one understands the truth then one declares the truth/ intimates that speaking the truth stands in a supplemen- tary relation towards the cognition of the true nature of the Pra/za as described before. For the accomplishment of such cognition the subsequent four paragraphs enjoin reflection, faith, attendance on a spiritual guide, and the due performance of sacred duties. In order that such 302 vedanta-sAtras.
2For the accomplishment of such cognition the subsequent four paragraphs enjoin reflection, faith, attendance on a spiritual guide, and the due performance of sacred duties. In order that such 302 vedanta-sAtras. duties may be undertaken, the next paragraphs then teach that bliss constitutes the nature of the individual soul, previously called Pra^a, and finally that the Bhuman, i. e. the supreme fulness of such bliss, is the proper object of inquiry. The final purport of the teaching, therefore, is that the true nature of the individual soul, freed from Nescience, is abundant bliss — a conclusion which perfectly agrees with the initial statement that he who knows the Self passes beyond sorrow. That being, therefore, which has the attribute of being c bhuman,' is the individual Self. This being so, it is also intelligible why, further on, when the text describes the glory and power of the individual Self, it uses the term ( I ' ; for * I ' denotes just the indi- vidual Self : ' I am below, I am above, &c, I am all this ' (VII, 25, 1). This conclusion having been settled, all re- maining clauses must be explained so as to agree with it. This prima facie view is set aside by the Sutra. The being characterised in the text as 'bhuman' is not the indi- vidual Self, but the highest Self, since instruction is given about the bhuman in addition to ' serenity' (sa;/zprasada). ' Sa^prasada ' denotes the individual soul, as we know from the following text, ' Now that " serenity," having risen from out this body, and having reached the highest light, appears in its true form ' (K/i. Up. VIII, 3, 4). Now in the text under discussion instruction is given about a being called ' the True/ and possessing the attribute of ' bhuman,' as being something additional to the individual soul; and this being called ' the True' is none other than the highest Brahman. Just as in the series of beings beginning with name and ending with breath, each successive being is mentioned in addition to the preceding one — wherefrom we conclude that it is something really different from what precedes ; so that being also which is called ' the True,' and which is mentioned in addition to the individual Self called Pra/za, is something different from the individual Self, and this being called ' the True ' is the same as the Bhuman ; in other words, the text teaches that the Bhuman is the highest Brahman called ' the True.' This the Vrz't- tikara also declares : ' But the Bhuman only. The Bhuman I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 7. 303 is Brahman, because in the series beginning with name instruction is given about it subsequently to the individual Self/
3The Bhuman I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 7. 303 is Brahman, because in the series beginning with name instruction is given about it subsequently to the individual Self/ But how do we know that the instruction as to 'the True ' is in addition to, and refers to something different from, the being called Pra/za ? — The text, after having declared that he who knows the Pra/za is an ativadin, goes on, ' But really that one is an ativadin who makes a supreme declaration by means of the True.' The * but ' here clearly separates him who is an ativadin by means of the True from the previous ativadin, and the clause thus does not cause us to recognise him who is ativadin by means of Prcbza ; hence ' the True' which is the cause of the latter ativadin being what he is must be something different from the Pra/za which is the cause of the former ativadin's quality. — But we have maintained above that the text enjoins the speaking of ' the True ' merely as an auxiliary duty for him who knows Pra;/a ; and that hence the Pra/za continues to be the general subject-matter! — This contention is untenable, we reply. The conjunction ' but ' shows that the section gives instruction about a new ativadin, and does not merely declare that the ativadin previously mentioned has to speak the truth. It is dif- ferent with texts such as ' But that one indeed is an Agni- hotrin who speaks the truth ' ; there we have no knowledge of any further Agnihotrin, and therefore must interpret the text as enjoining truthfulness as an obligation incumbent on the ordinary Agnihotrin. In the text under discussion, on the other hand, we have the term ' the True/ which makes us apprehend that there is a further ativadin different from the preceding one ; and we know that that term is used to denote the highest Brahman, as e. g. in the text, 'The True, knowledge, the Infinite is Brahman.' The ativadin who takes his stand on this Brahman, therefore, must be viewed as different from the preceding ativadin ; and a difference thus established on the basis of the mean- ing and connexion of the different sentences cannot be set aside. An ativadin (' one who in his declaration goes beyond ') is one who maintains, as object of his devotion, 304 vedAnta-s^tras.
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.