Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1— To this question the next Sutra replies. 15. From connexion. The fact is that Brahman intelligent, consisting of bliss, &c, connects itself also with the passage ' Non-being was this in the beginning' (Taitt. Up. II, 7}. For the section of the text which precedes that passage (viz. ' Different from this Self consisting of understanding is the Self consisting of Bliss ; — he wished, may I be many ; — he created all whatever there is. Having created he entered into it ; having entered it he became sat and tyat ') clearly refers to Brahman consisting of Bliss, which realises its purposes, creates all beings, and entering into them is the Self of all. When, therefore, after this we meet with the ^loka (' Non- being this was in the beginning ') introduced by the words 'On this there is also this sloka' — which shows that the .yloka is meant to throw light on what precedes ; and when further on we have the passage * From fear of it the wind blows/ &c, which, referring to the same Brahman, predi- cates of it universal rulership, bliss of nature, and so on ; we conclude with certainty that the jloka about 'Non- being* also refers to Brahman. As during a pralaya th^ distinction of names and forms does not exist, and Brahman also then does not exist in so far as connected with names and forms, the text applies to Brahman the term ' Non- being.' The text * Non-being only this was in the begin- ning ' explains itself in the same way. — Nor can we admit I ADHYAYA, 4 PAD A, 1 6. 377
2— Nor can we admit I ADHYAYA, 4 PAD A, 1 6. 377 the contention that the text c Now all this was then unde- veloped ' refers to the Pradhana as the cause of the world ; for the Undeveloped there spoken of is nothing else but Brahman in so far as its body is not yet evolved. For the text continues 'That same being entered thither to the very tips of the finger-nails ; ' ' When seeing, eye by name ; when hearing, ear by name ; when thinking, mind by name;' 'Let men meditate upon him as Self;'. where the introductory words { that same being ' refer back to the Undeveloped — which thus is said to enter into all things and thereby to become their ruler. And it is known from another text also {Kh. Up. VI, 3, %) that it is the all-creative highest Brahman which enters into its creation and evolves names and forms. The text ' Having entered within, the ruler of creatures, the Self of all ' moreover shows that the creative principle enters into its creatures for the purpose of ruling them, and such entering again cannot be attributed to the non-sentient Pradhana. The Undeveloped therefore is Brahman in that state where its body is not yet developed ; and when the text continues * it developed itself by names and forms' the meaning is that Brahman developed itself in so far as names and forms were distin- guished in the world that constitutes Brahman's body. On this explanation of the texts relating to creation we further are enabled to take the thought, purpose, &c, attributed to the creative principle, in their primary literal sense. And, we finally remark, neither the term 'Brahman' nor the term * Self' in any way suits the Pradhana, which is 'neither absolutely great nor pervading in the sense of entering into things created with a view to ruling them. It thus remains a settled conclusion that Brahman is the sole cause of the world. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of '(Brahman's) causality.' 16. Because it denotes the world. The Sankhya comes forward with a further objection. Although the Vedanta-texts teach an intelligent principle to be the cause of the world, they do not present to us as objects of knowledge anything that could be the cause of 3 78 vedanta-s6tras.
3Because it denotes the world. The Sankhya comes forward with a further objection. Although the Vedanta-texts teach an intelligent principle to be the cause of the world, they do not present to us as objects of knowledge anything that could be the cause of 3 78 vedanta-s6tras. the world, apart from the Pradhina and the soul as estab- lished by the Sankhya-system. For the Kaushitakins declare in their text, in the dialogue of Balaki and A^ata^atru, that none but the enjoying (individual) soul is to be known as the cause of the world, l Shall I tell you Brahman ? He who is the maker of those persons and of whom this is the work (or " to whom this work belongs ") he indeed is to be known' (Kau. Up. IV, 19). Balaki at the outset proposes Brahman as the object of instruction, and when he is found himself not to know Brahman, A^ta^atru instructs him about it, * he indeed is to be known.' But from the relative clause 'to whom this work belongs/ which connects the being to be known with work, we infer that by Brahman we have here to understand the enjoying soul which is the ruler of Prakreti, not any other being. For no other being is connected with work ; work, whether meritorious or the contrary, belongs to the individual soul only. Nor must you contest this conclusion on the ground that ' work ' is here to be explained as meaning the object of activity, so that the sense of the clause would be ' he of whom this entire world, as presented by perception and the other means of knowledge, is the work.' For in that case the separate statements made in the two clauses, ' who is the maker of those persons ' and ' of whom this is the work/ would be devoid of purport (the latter implying the former). More- over, the generally accepted meaning of the word ' karman/ both in Vedic and worldly speech, is work in the sense of good and evil actions. And as the origination of the world is caused by actions of the various individual souls, the designation of ' maker of those persons ' also suits only the individual soul. The meaning of the whole passage there- fore is ' He who is the cause of the different persons that have their abode in the disc of the sun, and so on, and are instrumental towards the retributive experiences of the individual souls ; and to whom there belongs karman, good and evil, to which there is due his becoming such a cause ; he indeed is to be known, his essential nature is to be cognised in distinction from Prakrzti.' And also in what follows, * The two came to a person who was asleep. He I ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 1 6. 379
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— To this question the next Sutra replies. 15. From connexion. The fact is that Brahman intelligent, consisting of bliss, &c, connects itself also with the passage ' Non-being was this in the beginning' (Taitt. Up. II, 7}. For the section of the text which precedes that passage (viz. ' Different from this Self consisting of understanding is the Self consisting of Bliss ; — he wished, may I be many ; — he created all whatever there is. Having created he entered into it ; having entered it he became sat and tyat ') clearly refers to Brahman consisting of Bliss, which realises its purposes, creates all beings, and entering into them is the Self of all. When, therefore, after this we meet with the ^loka (' Non- being this was in the beginning ') introduced by the words 'On this there is also this sloka' — which shows that the .yloka is meant to throw light on what precedes ; and when further on we have the passage * From fear of it the wind blows/ &c, which, referring to the same Brahman, predi- cates of it universal rulership, bliss of nature, and so on ; we conclude with certainty that the jloka about 'Non- being* also refers to Brahman. As during a pralaya th^ distinction of names and forms does not exist, and Brahman also then does not exist in so far as connected with names and forms, the text applies to Brahman the term ' Non- being.' The text * Non-being only this was in the begin- ning ' explains itself in the same way. — Nor can we admit I ADHYAYA, 4 PAD A, 1 6. 377
2— Nor can we admit I ADHYAYA, 4 PAD A, 1 6. 377 the contention that the text c Now all this was then unde- veloped ' refers to the Pradhana as the cause of the world ; for the Undeveloped there spoken of is nothing else but Brahman in so far as its body is not yet evolved. For the text continues 'That same being entered thither to the very tips of the finger-nails ; ' ' When seeing, eye by name ; when hearing, ear by name ; when thinking, mind by name;' 'Let men meditate upon him as Self;'. where the introductory words { that same being ' refer back to the Undeveloped — which thus is said to enter into all things and thereby to become their ruler. And it is known from another text also {Kh. Up. VI, 3, %) that it is the all-creative highest Brahman which enters into its creation and evolves names and forms. The text ' Having entered within, the ruler of creatures, the Self of all ' moreover shows that the creative principle enters into its creatures for the purpose of ruling them, and such entering again cannot be attributed to the non-sentient Pradhana. The Undeveloped therefore is Brahman in that state where its body is not yet developed ; and when the text continues * it developed itself by names and forms' the meaning is that Brahman developed itself in so far as names and forms were distin- guished in the world that constitutes Brahman's body. On this explanation of the texts relating to creation we further are enabled to take the thought, purpose, &c, attributed to the creative principle, in their primary literal sense. And, we finally remark, neither the term 'Brahman' nor the term * Self' in any way suits the Pradhana, which is 'neither absolutely great nor pervading in the sense of entering into things created with a view to ruling them. It thus remains a settled conclusion that Brahman is the sole cause of the world. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of '(Brahman's) causality.' 16. Because it denotes the world. The Sankhya comes forward with a further objection. Although the Vedanta-texts teach an intelligent principle to be the cause of the world, they do not present to us as objects of knowledge anything that could be the cause of 3 78 vedanta-s6tras.
3Because it denotes the world. The Sankhya comes forward with a further objection. Although the Vedanta-texts teach an intelligent principle to be the cause of the world, they do not present to us as objects of knowledge anything that could be the cause of 3 78 vedanta-s6tras. the world, apart from the Pradhina and the soul as estab- lished by the Sankhya-system. For the Kaushitakins declare in their text, in the dialogue of Balaki and A^ata^atru, that none but the enjoying (individual) soul is to be known as the cause of the world, l Shall I tell you Brahman ? He who is the maker of those persons and of whom this is the work (or " to whom this work belongs ") he indeed is to be known' (Kau. Up. IV, 19). Balaki at the outset proposes Brahman as the object of instruction, and when he is found himself not to know Brahman, A^ta^atru instructs him about it, * he indeed is to be known.' But from the relative clause 'to whom this work belongs/ which connects the being to be known with work, we infer that by Brahman we have here to understand the enjoying soul which is the ruler of Prakreti, not any other being. For no other being is connected with work ; work, whether meritorious or the contrary, belongs to the individual soul only. Nor must you contest this conclusion on the ground that ' work ' is here to be explained as meaning the object of activity, so that the sense of the clause would be ' he of whom this entire world, as presented by perception and the other means of knowledge, is the work.' For in that case the separate statements made in the two clauses, ' who is the maker of those persons ' and ' of whom this is the work/ would be devoid of purport (the latter implying the former). More- over, the generally accepted meaning of the word ' karman/ both in Vedic and worldly speech, is work in the sense of good and evil actions. And as the origination of the world is caused by actions of the various individual souls, the designation of ' maker of those persons ' also suits only the individual soul. The meaning of the whole passage there- fore is ' He who is the cause of the different persons that have their abode in the disc of the sun, and so on, and are instrumental towards the retributive experiences of the individual souls ; and to whom there belongs karman, good and evil, to which there is due his becoming such a cause ; he indeed is to be known, his essential nature is to be cognised in distinction from Prakrzti.' And also in what follows, * The two came to a person who was asleep. He I ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 1 6. 379
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.