Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1— In order to prove the tenet that words denoting the individual soul at the same time denote the highest Self, by means of arguments made use of by other teachers also, the Sutrakara sets forth the two following Sutras. 20. (It is) a mark indicating that the promissory statement is proved ; thus Asmarathya thinks. According to the teacher A^marathya the circumstance that terms denoting the individual soul are used to denote Brahman is a mark enabling us to infer that the promissory declaration according to which through the knowledge of one thing everything is known is well established. If the individual soul were not identical with Brahman in so far as it is the effect of Brahman, then the knowledge of the soul — being something distinct from Brahman — would not follow from the knowledge of the highest Self. There are the texts declaring the oneness of Brahman previous to creation, such as ' the Self only was this in the beginning' (Ait. Ar. II, 4, i, 1), and on the other hand those texts which declare that the souls spring from and again are merged in Brahman ; such as ' As from a blazing fire sparks being like unto fire fly forth a thousandfold, thus are various beings brought forth from the Imperish- able, and return thither also' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 1). These two sets of texts together make us apprehend that the souls are one with Brahman in so far as they are its effects. On this ground a word denoting the individual soul denotes the highest Self as well. 1 If it be insisted upon that the Self in ' for the desire of the Self is the individual Self, we point out that terms denoting the individual Self at the same time denote the highest Self also. This tenet of his R&manu^a considers to be set forth and legitimately proved in Sutra 23, while Sutras 21 and 22 although advocating the right principle fail to assign valid arguments. 392 vedanta-sOtras. 21. Because (the soul) when it will depart is such; thus Au^ulomi thinks.
2This tenet of his R&manu^a considers to be set forth and legitimately proved in Sutra 23, while Sutras 21 and 22 although advocating the right principle fail to assign valid arguments. 392 vedanta-sOtras. 21. Because (the soul) when it will depart is such; thus Au^ulomi thinks. It is wrong to maintain that the designation of Brahman by means of terms denoting the individual soul is intended to prove the truth of the declaration that through the knowledge of one thing everything is known, in so far namely as the soul is an effect of Brahman and hence one with it. For scriptural texts such as 'the knowing Self is not born, it dies not' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 18), declare the soul not to have originated, and it moreover is admitted that the world is each time created to the end of the souls undergoing experiences retributive of their former deeds ; otherwise the inequalities of the different parts of the creation would be inexplicable. If moreover the soul were a mere effect of Brahman, its Release would consist in a mere return into the substance of Brahman, — analogous to the refunding into Brahman of the material elements, and that would mean that the injunction and performance of acts leading to such Release would be purportless. Release, understood in that sense, moreover would not be anything beneficial to man; for to be refunded into Brahman as an earthen vessel is refunded into its own causal substance, i. e. clay, means nothing else but complete annihilation. How, under these circumstances, certain texts can speak of the origination and reabsorption of the individual soul will be set forth later on. — According to the opinion of the teacher Auafalomi, the highest Self's being denoted by terms directly denoting the individual soul is due to the soul's becoming Brahman when departing from the body. This is in agreement with texts such as the following, ' This serene being having risen from this body and approached the highest light appears in its true form' (Kk. Up. VIII, 3, 4); 'As the flowing rivers disappear in the sea, losing their name and form, thus a wise man freed from name and form goes to the divine Person w7ho is higher than the high ' (Mu. Up. Ill, z, 8). 22. On account of (Brahman's) abiding (within the individual soul); thus Kasakrztsna (holds). I ADHYAYA, \ PAD A, 2 2. 393
3Up. Ill, z, 8). 22. On account of (Brahman's) abiding (within the individual soul); thus Kasakrztsna (holds). I ADHYAYA, \ PAD A, 2 2. 393 We must object likewise to the view set forth in the preceding Sutra, viz. that Brahman is denoted by terms denoting the individual soul because that soul when departing becomes one with Brahman. For that view cannot stand the test of being submitted to definite alternatives. — Is the soul's not being such, i. e. not being Brahman, previously to its departure from the body, due to its own essential nature or to a limiting adjunct, and is it in the latter case real or unreal ? In the first case the soul can never become one with Brahman, for if its separation from Brahman is due to its own essential nature, that separation can never vanish as long as the essential nature persists. And should it be said that its essential nature comes to an end together with its distinction from Brahman, we reply that in that case it perishes utterly and does not therefore become Brahman. The latter view, moreover, precludes itself as in no way beneficial to man, and so on. — If, in the next place, the difference of the soul from Brahman depends on the presence of real limiting adjuncts, the soul is Brahman even before its departure from the body, and we therefore cannot reasonably accept the distinction implied in saying that the soul becomes Brahman only when it departs. For on this view there exists nothing but Brahman and its limiting adjuncts, and as those adjuncts cannot introduce difference into Brahman which is without parts and hence incapable of difference, the difference resides altogether in the adjuncts, and hence the soul is Brahman even before its departure from the body. — If, on the other hand, the difference due to the adjuncts is not real, we ask — what is it then that becomes Brahman on the departure of the soul? — Brahman itself whose true nature had previously been obscured by Nescience, its limiting adjunct ! — Not so, we reply. Of Brahman whose true nature consists in eternal, free, self- luminous intelligence, the true nature cannot possibly be hidden by Nescience. For by ' hiding ' or ' obscuring ' we understand the cessation of the light that belongs to the essential nature of a thing. Where, therefore, light itself and alone constitutes the essential nature of a thing, there 394 VEDANTA-sfrTRAS.
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— In order to prove the tenet that words denoting the individual soul at the same time denote the highest Self, by means of arguments made use of by other teachers also, the Sutrakara sets forth the two following Sutras. 20. (It is) a mark indicating that the promissory statement is proved ; thus Asmarathya thinks. According to the teacher A^marathya the circumstance that terms denoting the individual soul are used to denote Brahman is a mark enabling us to infer that the promissory declaration according to which through the knowledge of one thing everything is known is well established. If the individual soul were not identical with Brahman in so far as it is the effect of Brahman, then the knowledge of the soul — being something distinct from Brahman — would not follow from the knowledge of the highest Self. There are the texts declaring the oneness of Brahman previous to creation, such as ' the Self only was this in the beginning' (Ait. Ar. II, 4, i, 1), and on the other hand those texts which declare that the souls spring from and again are merged in Brahman ; such as ' As from a blazing fire sparks being like unto fire fly forth a thousandfold, thus are various beings brought forth from the Imperish- able, and return thither also' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 1). These two sets of texts together make us apprehend that the souls are one with Brahman in so far as they are its effects. On this ground a word denoting the individual soul denotes the highest Self as well. 1 If it be insisted upon that the Self in ' for the desire of the Self is the individual Self, we point out that terms denoting the individual Self at the same time denote the highest Self also. This tenet of his R&manu^a considers to be set forth and legitimately proved in Sutra 23, while Sutras 21 and 22 although advocating the right principle fail to assign valid arguments. 392 vedanta-sOtras. 21. Because (the soul) when it will depart is such; thus Au^ulomi thinks.
2This tenet of his R&manu^a considers to be set forth and legitimately proved in Sutra 23, while Sutras 21 and 22 although advocating the right principle fail to assign valid arguments. 392 vedanta-sOtras. 21. Because (the soul) when it will depart is such; thus Au^ulomi thinks. It is wrong to maintain that the designation of Brahman by means of terms denoting the individual soul is intended to prove the truth of the declaration that through the knowledge of one thing everything is known, in so far namely as the soul is an effect of Brahman and hence one with it. For scriptural texts such as 'the knowing Self is not born, it dies not' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 18), declare the soul not to have originated, and it moreover is admitted that the world is each time created to the end of the souls undergoing experiences retributive of their former deeds ; otherwise the inequalities of the different parts of the creation would be inexplicable. If moreover the soul were a mere effect of Brahman, its Release would consist in a mere return into the substance of Brahman, — analogous to the refunding into Brahman of the material elements, and that would mean that the injunction and performance of acts leading to such Release would be purportless. Release, understood in that sense, moreover would not be anything beneficial to man; for to be refunded into Brahman as an earthen vessel is refunded into its own causal substance, i. e. clay, means nothing else but complete annihilation. How, under these circumstances, certain texts can speak of the origination and reabsorption of the individual soul will be set forth later on. — According to the opinion of the teacher Auafalomi, the highest Self's being denoted by terms directly denoting the individual soul is due to the soul's becoming Brahman when departing from the body. This is in agreement with texts such as the following, ' This serene being having risen from this body and approached the highest light appears in its true form' (Kk. Up. VIII, 3, 4); 'As the flowing rivers disappear in the sea, losing their name and form, thus a wise man freed from name and form goes to the divine Person w7ho is higher than the high ' (Mu. Up. Ill, z, 8). 22. On account of (Brahman's) abiding (within the individual soul); thus Kasakrztsna (holds). I ADHYAYA, \ PAD A, 2 2. 393
3Up. Ill, z, 8). 22. On account of (Brahman's) abiding (within the individual soul); thus Kasakrztsna (holds). I ADHYAYA, \ PAD A, 2 2. 393 We must object likewise to the view set forth in the preceding Sutra, viz. that Brahman is denoted by terms denoting the individual soul because that soul when departing becomes one with Brahman. For that view cannot stand the test of being submitted to definite alternatives. — Is the soul's not being such, i. e. not being Brahman, previously to its departure from the body, due to its own essential nature or to a limiting adjunct, and is it in the latter case real or unreal ? In the first case the soul can never become one with Brahman, for if its separation from Brahman is due to its own essential nature, that separation can never vanish as long as the essential nature persists. And should it be said that its essential nature comes to an end together with its distinction from Brahman, we reply that in that case it perishes utterly and does not therefore become Brahman. The latter view, moreover, precludes itself as in no way beneficial to man, and so on. — If, in the next place, the difference of the soul from Brahman depends on the presence of real limiting adjuncts, the soul is Brahman even before its departure from the body, and we therefore cannot reasonably accept the distinction implied in saying that the soul becomes Brahman only when it departs. For on this view there exists nothing but Brahman and its limiting adjuncts, and as those adjuncts cannot introduce difference into Brahman which is without parts and hence incapable of difference, the difference resides altogether in the adjuncts, and hence the soul is Brahman even before its departure from the body. — If, on the other hand, the difference due to the adjuncts is not real, we ask — what is it then that becomes Brahman on the departure of the soul? — Brahman itself whose true nature had previously been obscured by Nescience, its limiting adjunct ! — Not so, we reply. Of Brahman whose true nature consists in eternal, free, self- luminous intelligence, the true nature cannot possibly be hidden by Nescience. For by ' hiding ' or ' obscuring ' we understand the cessation of the light that belongs to the essential nature of a thing. Where, therefore, light itself and alone constitutes the essential nature of a thing, there 394 VEDANTA-sfrTRAS.
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.