Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1— But why? — As follows. The section beginning ' Once a Brahma^arin 3 4 2 VEDA NT A-S<JTR AS. begged of 5aunaka Kapeya and Abhipratarin Kakshaseni while being waited on at their meal/ and ending * thus do we, O Brahma/£arin, meditate on that being/ shows Kapeya, Abhipratarin, and the BrahmaMrin to be connected with the Sawvarga-vidya. Now Abhipratarin is a Kshattriya, the other two are Brahma/zas. This shows that there are connected with the vidya, Brahma^as, and from among non-Brahma/zas, a Kshattriya only, but not a vSudra. It therefore appears appropriate to infer that the person, other than the Brahma^a Raikva, who is likewise connected with this vidyd, viz. Gana^ruti, is likewise a Kshattriya, not a 5udra. — But how do we know that Abhipratarin is a Afattraratha and a Kshattriya ? Neither of these cir- cumstances is stated in the legend in the Sa//zvarga-vidya ! To this question the Sutra replies, 'on account of the inferential mark.' From the inferential mark that 6aunaka Kapeya and Abhipratarin Kakshaseni are said to have been sitting together at a meal we understand that there is some connexion between Abhipratarin and the Kapeyas. Now another scriptural passage runs as follows : c The Kapeyas made .ATaitraratha perform that sacrifice ' (Tatid. BnL XX, 12, 5), and this shows that one connected with the Kapeyas was a AT aitraratha ; and a further text shows that a ATaitraratha is a Kshattriya. ' from him there was descended a ATaitraratha who was a prince/ All this favours the inference that Abhipratarin was a ATaitraratha and a Kshattriya. So far the Sutras have shown that there is no inferential mark to prove what is contradicted by reasoning, viz. the qualification of the 5udras. The next Sutra declares that the non-qualification of the .Sudra proved by reasoning is confirmed by Scripture and Smr/ti. 36. On account of the reference to ceremonial purifications, and on account of the declaration of their absence. In sections the purport of which is to give instruction about Brahman the ceremony of initiation is referred to, 'I will initiate you; he initiated him ' (KL Up. IV, 4). I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 39. 343 And at the same time the absence of such ceremonies in the case of 6udras is stated : l In the 6udra there is not any sin, and he is not fit for any ceremony ' (Manu X, 126) ; and 'The fourth caste is once born, and not fit for any ceremony ' (Manu X, 4). 3 J. And on account of the procedure, on the ascertainment of the non-being of that. That a Sudra is not qualified for knowledge of Brahman appears from that fact also that as soon as Gautama has convinced himself that Cabala, who wishes to become his pupil, is not a Sudra, he proceeds to teach him the knowledge of Brahman. 38. And on account of the prohibition of hearing, studying, and performance of (Vedic) matter.
238. And on account of the prohibition of hearing, studying, and performance of (Vedic) matter. The Sudra is specially forbidden to hear and study the Veda and to perform the things enjoined in it. ' For a 5udra is like a cemetery, therefore the Veda must not be read in the vicinity of a Sudra ; ' ' Therefore the Sudra is like a beast, unfit for sacrifices.' And he who does not hear the Veda recited cannot learn it so as to understand and perform what the Veda enjoins. The prohibition of hearing thus implies the prohibition of understanding and whatever depends on it. 39. And on account of Smnti. Smrzti also declares this prohibition of hearing, and so on. ' The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with molten lead and lac ; if he pronounces it his tongue is to be slit ; if he preserves it his body is to be cut through/ And ' He is not to teach him sacred duties or vows.' — It is thus a settled matter that the Sudras are not qualified for meditations on Brahman. We must here point out that the non-qualification of 5udras for the cognition of Brahman can in no way be asserted by those who hold that a Brahman consisting of pure non-differenced intelligence constitutes the sole reality ; that everything else is false; that all bondage is unreal; 344 VEDANTA-S^JTRAS.
3that such bondage may be put an end to by the mere cognition of the true nature of Reality — such cognition resulting from the hearing of certain texts ; and that the cessation of bondage thus effected constitutes final Release. For knowledge of the true nature of Reality, in the sense indicated, and the release resulting from it, may be secured by any one who learns from another person that Brahman alone is real and that everything else is falsely super- imposed on Brahman. That the cognition of such truth can be arrived at only on the basis of certain Vedic texts, such as ' Thou art that/ is a restriction which does not admit of proof ; for knowledge of the truth does not depend on man's choice, and at once springs up in the mind even of an unwilling man as soon as the conditions for such origination are present. Nor can it be proved in any way that bondage can be put an end to only through such knowledge of the truth as springs from Vedic texts ; for error comes to an end through the knowledge of the true nature of things, whatever agency may give rise to such knowledge. True knowledge, of the kind described, will spring up in the mind of a man as soon as he hears the non-scriptural declaration, 'Brahman, consisting of non- differenced intelligence, is the sole Reality ; everything else is false/ and this will suffice to free him from error. When a competent and trustworthy person asserts that what was mistaken for silver is merely a sparkling shell, the error of a wSudra no less than of a Brahma/za comes to an end ; in the same way a Sudra also will free himself from the great cosmic error as soon as the knowledge of the true nature of things has arisen in his mind through a statement resting on the traditional lore of men knowing the Veda. Nor must you object to this on the ground that men knowing the Veda do not instruct vSudras, and so on, because the text, ' he is not to teach him sacred things/ forbids them to do so ; for men who have once learned — from texts such as ' Thou art that ' — that Brahman is their Self, and thus are standing on the very top of the Veda as it were, move no longer in the sphere of those to whom injunctions and prohibitions apply, and the prohibition quoted does not I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 39. 345
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.
1— But why? — As follows. The section beginning ' Once a Brahma^arin 3 4 2 VEDA NT A-S<JTR AS. begged of 5aunaka Kapeya and Abhipratarin Kakshaseni while being waited on at their meal/ and ending * thus do we, O Brahma/£arin, meditate on that being/ shows Kapeya, Abhipratarin, and the BrahmaMrin to be connected with the Sawvarga-vidya. Now Abhipratarin is a Kshattriya, the other two are Brahma/zas. This shows that there are connected with the vidya, Brahma^as, and from among non-Brahma/zas, a Kshattriya only, but not a vSudra. It therefore appears appropriate to infer that the person, other than the Brahma^a Raikva, who is likewise connected with this vidyd, viz. Gana^ruti, is likewise a Kshattriya, not a 5udra. — But how do we know that Abhipratarin is a Afattraratha and a Kshattriya ? Neither of these cir- cumstances is stated in the legend in the Sa//zvarga-vidya ! To this question the Sutra replies, 'on account of the inferential mark.' From the inferential mark that 6aunaka Kapeya and Abhipratarin Kakshaseni are said to have been sitting together at a meal we understand that there is some connexion between Abhipratarin and the Kapeyas. Now another scriptural passage runs as follows : c The Kapeyas made .ATaitraratha perform that sacrifice ' (Tatid. BnL XX, 12, 5), and this shows that one connected with the Kapeyas was a AT aitraratha ; and a further text shows that a ATaitraratha is a Kshattriya. ' from him there was descended a ATaitraratha who was a prince/ All this favours the inference that Abhipratarin was a ATaitraratha and a Kshattriya. So far the Sutras have shown that there is no inferential mark to prove what is contradicted by reasoning, viz. the qualification of the 5udras. The next Sutra declares that the non-qualification of the .Sudra proved by reasoning is confirmed by Scripture and Smr/ti. 36. On account of the reference to ceremonial purifications, and on account of the declaration of their absence. In sections the purport of which is to give instruction about Brahman the ceremony of initiation is referred to, 'I will initiate you; he initiated him ' (KL Up. IV, 4). I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 39. 343 And at the same time the absence of such ceremonies in the case of 6udras is stated : l In the 6udra there is not any sin, and he is not fit for any ceremony ' (Manu X, 126) ; and 'The fourth caste is once born, and not fit for any ceremony ' (Manu X, 4). 3 J. And on account of the procedure, on the ascertainment of the non-being of that. That a Sudra is not qualified for knowledge of Brahman appears from that fact also that as soon as Gautama has convinced himself that Cabala, who wishes to become his pupil, is not a Sudra, he proceeds to teach him the knowledge of Brahman. 38. And on account of the prohibition of hearing, studying, and performance of (Vedic) matter.
238. And on account of the prohibition of hearing, studying, and performance of (Vedic) matter. The Sudra is specially forbidden to hear and study the Veda and to perform the things enjoined in it. ' For a 5udra is like a cemetery, therefore the Veda must not be read in the vicinity of a Sudra ; ' ' Therefore the Sudra is like a beast, unfit for sacrifices.' And he who does not hear the Veda recited cannot learn it so as to understand and perform what the Veda enjoins. The prohibition of hearing thus implies the prohibition of understanding and whatever depends on it. 39. And on account of Smnti. Smrzti also declares this prohibition of hearing, and so on. ' The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with molten lead and lac ; if he pronounces it his tongue is to be slit ; if he preserves it his body is to be cut through/ And ' He is not to teach him sacred duties or vows.' — It is thus a settled matter that the Sudras are not qualified for meditations on Brahman. We must here point out that the non-qualification of 5udras for the cognition of Brahman can in no way be asserted by those who hold that a Brahman consisting of pure non-differenced intelligence constitutes the sole reality ; that everything else is false; that all bondage is unreal; 344 VEDANTA-S^JTRAS.
3that such bondage may be put an end to by the mere cognition of the true nature of Reality — such cognition resulting from the hearing of certain texts ; and that the cessation of bondage thus effected constitutes final Release. For knowledge of the true nature of Reality, in the sense indicated, and the release resulting from it, may be secured by any one who learns from another person that Brahman alone is real and that everything else is falsely super- imposed on Brahman. That the cognition of such truth can be arrived at only on the basis of certain Vedic texts, such as ' Thou art that/ is a restriction which does not admit of proof ; for knowledge of the truth does not depend on man's choice, and at once springs up in the mind even of an unwilling man as soon as the conditions for such origination are present. Nor can it be proved in any way that bondage can be put an end to only through such knowledge of the truth as springs from Vedic texts ; for error comes to an end through the knowledge of the true nature of things, whatever agency may give rise to such knowledge. True knowledge, of the kind described, will spring up in the mind of a man as soon as he hears the non-scriptural declaration, 'Brahman, consisting of non- differenced intelligence, is the sole Reality ; everything else is false/ and this will suffice to free him from error. When a competent and trustworthy person asserts that what was mistaken for silver is merely a sparkling shell, the error of a wSudra no less than of a Brahma/za comes to an end ; in the same way a Sudra also will free himself from the great cosmic error as soon as the knowledge of the true nature of things has arisen in his mind through a statement resting on the traditional lore of men knowing the Veda. Nor must you object to this on the ground that men knowing the Veda do not instruct vSudras, and so on, because the text, ' he is not to teach him sacred things/ forbids them to do so ; for men who have once learned — from texts such as ' Thou art that ' — that Brahman is their Self, and thus are standing on the very top of the Veda as it were, move no longer in the sphere of those to whom injunctions and prohibitions apply, and the prohibition quoted does not I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 39. 345
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.