Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1We see from a complementary passage, viz. ' They who know the breath of breath, the eye of the eye, the ear of the ear, the food of food, the mind of mind/ that the * five- people ' are the breath, and eye, and so on, all of which have their abode in Brahman. But, an objection is raised, while the mantra fin whom the five five-people/ &c, is common to the Ka/zvas and the Madhyandinas, the complementary passage ' they who know the breath of breath/ &c, in the text of the former makes no mention of food, and hence we have no reason to say that the ' five-people ' in their text are the breath, eye, and so on. To this objection the next Sutra replies. 13. By light, food not being (mentioned in the text) of some. In the text of some, viz. the Ka/zvas, where food is not mentioned, the five-people are recognised to be the five senses, owing to the phrase * of lights ' which is met with in another complementary passage. In the mantra, ' him the gods worship as the light of lights/ which precedes the mantra about the * five-people/ Brahman is spoken of as the light of lights, and this suggests the idea of certain lights the activity of which depends on Brahman. The mantra leaves it undetermined what these lights are ; but from what follows about the 'five-people/ &c, we learn that what is meant are the senses which light up as it were their respective objects. In 'the breath of breath' the second c breath ' (in the genitive case) denotes the sense- organ of touch, as that organ is connected with air, and as the vital breath (which would otherwise suggest itself as the most obvious explanation of pr&na) does not har- monise with the metaphorical term ' light.' ' Of the eye ' refers to the organ of sight ; ' of the ear ' to the organ of hearing. ' Of food ' comprises the senses of smell and taste together : it denotes the sense of smell on the ground that that sense is connected with earth, which may be ' food/ 3 74 VEDANTA-stjTRAS. and the sense of taste in so far as ' anna ' may be also explained as that by means of which eating goes on (adyate). ' Of mind ' denotes mind, i. e. the so-called internal organ. Taste and smell thus being taken in com- bination, we have the required number of five, and we thus explain the * five-people ' as the sense-organs which throw light on their objects, together with the internal organ, i. e. mind. The meaning of the clause about the ' five-people' therefore is that the senses — called ' five-people ' — and the elements, represented by the Ether, have their basis in Brahman ; and as thus all beings are declared to abide in Brahman, the five * five-people ' can in no way be the twenty-five categories assumed by the Sankhyas. — The general conclusion is that the Vedanta-texts, whether refer- ring to numbers or not* nowhere set forth the categories established in Kapila's system. 14. And on account of (Brahman) as described being declared to be the cause with regard to Ether, and so on.
2— The general conclusion is that the Vedanta-texts, whether refer- ring to numbers or not* nowhere set forth the categories established in Kapila's system. 14. And on account of (Brahman) as described being declared to be the cause with regard to Ether, and so on. Here the philosopher who holds the Pradhana to be the general cause comes forward with another objection. The Vedanta-texts, he says, do not teach that creation pro- ceeds from one and the same agent only, and you therefore have no right to hold that "Brahman is the sole cause of the world. In one place it is said that our world proceeded from * Being/ 'Being only this was in the beginning' (Kh. Up. VI, 2, 1). In other places the world is said to have sprung from ' Non-being,' ' Non-being indeed this was in the beginning' (Taitt. Up. II, 7, 1); and 'Non-being only was this in the beginning; it became Being' (Kk. Up. Ill, 19, 1 ). As the Vedanta-texts are thus not con- sequent in their statements regarding the creator, we cannot conclude from them that Brahman is the sole cause of the world. On the other hand, those texts do enable us to conclude that the Pradhana only is the uni- versal cause. For the text < Now all this was then un- developed ' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 7) teaches that the world was merged in the undeveloped Pradhana, and the subsequent i adhyAya, 4 pAda, 14. 375 clause, 'That developed itself by form and name/ that from that Undeveloped there resulted the creation of the world. For the Undeveloped is that which is not distin- guished by names and forms, and this is none other than the Pradh&na. And as this Pradhana is at the same time eternal, as far as its essential nature is concerned, and the substrate of all change, there is nothing contradictory in the different accounts of creation calling it sometimes ' Being* and sometimes ' Non-being'; while, on the other hand, these terms cannot, without contradiction, both be applied to Brahman. The causality of the Undeveloped having thus been ascertained, such expressions as ' it thought^ may I be many/ must be interpreted as meaning its being about to proceed to creation. The terms ' Self ' and * Brahman ' also may be applied to the Pradh&na in so far as it is all-pervading (at man from apnoti), and pre- eminently great (brz'hat). We therefore conclude that the only cause of the world about which the Vedanta-texts give information is the Pradhana.
3The terms ' Self ' and * Brahman ' also may be applied to the Pradh&na in so far as it is all-pervading (at man from apnoti), and pre- eminently great (brz'hat). We therefore conclude that the only cause of the world about which the Vedanta-texts give information is the Pradhana. This view is set aside by the Sutra. The word and is used in the sense of but. It is possible to ascertain from the Vedanta-texts that the world springs from none other than the highest Brahman, which is all-knowing, lord of all, free from all shadow of imperfection, capable of absolutely realising its purposes, and so on; since scripture declares Brahman as described to be the cause of Ether, and so on. By s Brahman as described ' is meant ' Brahman distin- guished by omniscience and other qualities, as described in the Sutra " that from which the origination, and so on, of the world proceed/' and in other places/ That Brahman only is declared by scripture to be the cause of Ether, and so on, i. e. the being which is declared to be the cause in passages such as ' From that Self sprang Ether ' (Taitt. Up* II, 1) ; ' that sent forth fire ' (Kh. Up. VI, 2, 3), is none other than Brahman possessing omniscience and similar quali- ties. For the former of these texts follows on the passage ' The True, intelligence, infinite is Brahman ; he reaches all desires together with the intelligent Brahman/ which introduces Brahman as the general subject-matter — that 3 76 VEDANTA-S^TRAS. Brahman being then referred to by means of the connect- ing words ' from that/ In the same way the ' that ' (in * that sent forth fire ') refers back to the omniscient Brah- man introduced in the clause ' that thought, may I be many/ This view is confirmed by a consideration of all the accounts of creation, and we hence conclude that Brah- man is the sole cause of the world. — But the text ' Non- being indeed this was in the beginning ' calls the general cause ' something that is not ' ; how then can you say that we infer from the Vedanta-texts as the general cause of the world a Brahman that is all-knowing, absolutely realises its purposes, and so on ? — To this question the next Sutra replies. 15. From connexion.
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.
1We see from a complementary passage, viz. ' They who know the breath of breath, the eye of the eye, the ear of the ear, the food of food, the mind of mind/ that the * five- people ' are the breath, and eye, and so on, all of which have their abode in Brahman. But, an objection is raised, while the mantra fin whom the five five-people/ &c, is common to the Ka/zvas and the Madhyandinas, the complementary passage ' they who know the breath of breath/ &c, in the text of the former makes no mention of food, and hence we have no reason to say that the ' five-people ' in their text are the breath, eye, and so on. To this objection the next Sutra replies. 13. By light, food not being (mentioned in the text) of some. In the text of some, viz. the Ka/zvas, where food is not mentioned, the five-people are recognised to be the five senses, owing to the phrase * of lights ' which is met with in another complementary passage. In the mantra, ' him the gods worship as the light of lights/ which precedes the mantra about the * five-people/ Brahman is spoken of as the light of lights, and this suggests the idea of certain lights the activity of which depends on Brahman. The mantra leaves it undetermined what these lights are ; but from what follows about the 'five-people/ &c, we learn that what is meant are the senses which light up as it were their respective objects. In 'the breath of breath' the second c breath ' (in the genitive case) denotes the sense- organ of touch, as that organ is connected with air, and as the vital breath (which would otherwise suggest itself as the most obvious explanation of pr&na) does not har- monise with the metaphorical term ' light.' ' Of the eye ' refers to the organ of sight ; ' of the ear ' to the organ of hearing. ' Of food ' comprises the senses of smell and taste together : it denotes the sense of smell on the ground that that sense is connected with earth, which may be ' food/ 3 74 VEDANTA-stjTRAS. and the sense of taste in so far as ' anna ' may be also explained as that by means of which eating goes on (adyate). ' Of mind ' denotes mind, i. e. the so-called internal organ. Taste and smell thus being taken in com- bination, we have the required number of five, and we thus explain the * five-people ' as the sense-organs which throw light on their objects, together with the internal organ, i. e. mind. The meaning of the clause about the ' five-people' therefore is that the senses — called ' five-people ' — and the elements, represented by the Ether, have their basis in Brahman ; and as thus all beings are declared to abide in Brahman, the five * five-people ' can in no way be the twenty-five categories assumed by the Sankhyas. — The general conclusion is that the Vedanta-texts, whether refer- ring to numbers or not* nowhere set forth the categories established in Kapila's system. 14. And on account of (Brahman) as described being declared to be the cause with regard to Ether, and so on.
2— The general conclusion is that the Vedanta-texts, whether refer- ring to numbers or not* nowhere set forth the categories established in Kapila's system. 14. And on account of (Brahman) as described being declared to be the cause with regard to Ether, and so on. Here the philosopher who holds the Pradhana to be the general cause comes forward with another objection. The Vedanta-texts, he says, do not teach that creation pro- ceeds from one and the same agent only, and you therefore have no right to hold that "Brahman is the sole cause of the world. In one place it is said that our world proceeded from * Being/ 'Being only this was in the beginning' (Kh. Up. VI, 2, 1). In other places the world is said to have sprung from ' Non-being,' ' Non-being indeed this was in the beginning' (Taitt. Up. II, 7, 1); and 'Non-being only was this in the beginning; it became Being' (Kk. Up. Ill, 19, 1 ). As the Vedanta-texts are thus not con- sequent in their statements regarding the creator, we cannot conclude from them that Brahman is the sole cause of the world. On the other hand, those texts do enable us to conclude that the Pradhana only is the uni- versal cause. For the text < Now all this was then un- developed ' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 7) teaches that the world was merged in the undeveloped Pradhana, and the subsequent i adhyAya, 4 pAda, 14. 375 clause, 'That developed itself by form and name/ that from that Undeveloped there resulted the creation of the world. For the Undeveloped is that which is not distin- guished by names and forms, and this is none other than the Pradh&na. And as this Pradhana is at the same time eternal, as far as its essential nature is concerned, and the substrate of all change, there is nothing contradictory in the different accounts of creation calling it sometimes ' Being* and sometimes ' Non-being'; while, on the other hand, these terms cannot, without contradiction, both be applied to Brahman. The causality of the Undeveloped having thus been ascertained, such expressions as ' it thought^ may I be many/ must be interpreted as meaning its being about to proceed to creation. The terms ' Self ' and * Brahman ' also may be applied to the Pradh&na in so far as it is all-pervading (at man from apnoti), and pre- eminently great (brz'hat). We therefore conclude that the only cause of the world about which the Vedanta-texts give information is the Pradhana.
3The terms ' Self ' and * Brahman ' also may be applied to the Pradh&na in so far as it is all-pervading (at man from apnoti), and pre- eminently great (brz'hat). We therefore conclude that the only cause of the world about which the Vedanta-texts give information is the Pradhana. This view is set aside by the Sutra. The word and is used in the sense of but. It is possible to ascertain from the Vedanta-texts that the world springs from none other than the highest Brahman, which is all-knowing, lord of all, free from all shadow of imperfection, capable of absolutely realising its purposes, and so on; since scripture declares Brahman as described to be the cause of Ether, and so on. By s Brahman as described ' is meant ' Brahman distin- guished by omniscience and other qualities, as described in the Sutra " that from which the origination, and so on, of the world proceed/' and in other places/ That Brahman only is declared by scripture to be the cause of Ether, and so on, i. e. the being which is declared to be the cause in passages such as ' From that Self sprang Ether ' (Taitt. Up* II, 1) ; ' that sent forth fire ' (Kh. Up. VI, 2, 3), is none other than Brahman possessing omniscience and similar quali- ties. For the former of these texts follows on the passage ' The True, intelligence, infinite is Brahman ; he reaches all desires together with the intelligent Brahman/ which introduces Brahman as the general subject-matter — that 3 76 VEDANTA-S^TRAS. Brahman being then referred to by means of the connect- ing words ' from that/ In the same way the ' that ' (in * that sent forth fire ') refers back to the omniscient Brah- man introduced in the clause ' that thought, may I be many/ This view is confirmed by a consideration of all the accounts of creation, and we hence conclude that Brah- man is the sole cause of the world. — But the text ' Non- being indeed this was in the beginning ' calls the general cause ' something that is not ' ; how then can you say that we infer from the Vedanta-texts as the general cause of the world a Brahman that is all-knowing, absolutely realises its purposes, and so on ? — To this question the next Sutra replies. 15. From connexion.
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.