Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1While the highest Self thus 406 vedanta-sOtras. undergoes a change — in the form of a world comprising the whole aggregate of sentient and non-sentient beings — all imperfection and suffering are limited to the sentient beings constituting part of its body, and all change is restricted to the non-sentient things which constitute another part. The highest Self is effected in that sense only that it is the ruling principle, and hence the Self, of matter and souls in their gross or evolved state ■ but just on account of being this, viz. their inner Ruler and Self, it is in no way touched by their imperfections and changes. Consisting of unlimited knowledge and bliss he for ever abides in his uniform nature, engaged in the sport of making this world go round. This is the purport of the clause ' it became the real and the unreal ' : although undergoing a change into the multiplicity of actual sentient and non-sentient things, Brahman at the same time was the Real, i, e. that which is free from all shadow of imperfection, consisting of nothing but pure knowledge and bliss. That all beings, sentient and non-sentient, and whether in their non-evolved or evolved states, are mere playthings of Brahman, and that the creation and reabsorption of the world are only his sport, this has been expressly declared by Dvaipayana, PanLrara and other i?zshis, ' Know that all transitory beings, from the Unevolved down to individual things, are a mere play of Hari ' ; * View his action like that of a playful child/ &c. The Sutrak&ra will distinctly enounce the same view in II, i, 33. With a similar view the text ' from that the Lord of M£ya sends forth all this ; and in that the other is bound by May&' (Svet. Up. IV, 9), refers to Prakrzti and soul, which together constitute the body of Brahman, as things different from Brahman, although then, i. e. at the time of a pralaya, they are one with Brahman in so far as their extreme subtlety does not admit of their being conceived as separate ; this it does to the end of suggesting that even when Brahman undergoes the change into the shape of this world, all changes ex- clusively belong to non-sentient matter which is a mode of Brahman, and all imperfections and sufferings to the individual souls which also are modes of Brahman. The I ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 29. 407 text has to be viewed as agreeing in meaning with ' that Self made itself/ Of a similar purport is the account given in Manu, ' He being desirous to send forth from his body- beings of many kinds, first with a thought created the waters and placed his seed in them ' (I, 8). It is in this way that room is found for those texts also which proclaim Brahman to be free from all imperfection and all change. It thus remains a settled conclusion that Brahman by itself constitutes the material as well as the operative cause of the world. 28. And because it is called the womb. Brahman is the material as well as the operative cause
2It thus remains a settled conclusion that Brahman by itself constitutes the material as well as the operative cause of the world. 28. And because it is called the womb. Brahman is the material as well as the operative cause of the world for that reason also that certain texts call it the womb, 'the maker, the Lord, the Person, Brahman, the womb ' (Mu. Up. Ill, 1,3);' that which the wise regard as the womb of all beings' (I, 1, 6). And that 'womb' means as much as material cause, appears from the complementary passage ' As a spider sends forth and draws in its threads ' (I, 1, 7). 29. Herewith all (texts) are explained, explained. Hereby, i. e. by the whole array of arguments set forth in the four padas of the first adhyaya ; all those particular passages of the Vedanta-texts which give instruction as to the cause of the world, are explained as meaning to set forth a Brahman all-wise, all-powerful, different in nature from all beings intelligent and non-intelligent. The repeti- tion of the word ' explained ' is meant to indicate the termination of the adhyaya. SECOND ADHYAYA. FIRST PADA. i. If it be said that there would result the fault of there being no room for (certain) Smmis : (we reply) ' no/ because there would result the fault of want of room for other Smrztis. The first adhyaya has established the truth that what the Vedanta-texts teach is a Supreme Brahman, which is something different as well from non-sentient matter known through the ordinary means of proof, viz. Perception and so on, as from the intelligent souls whether connected with or separated from matter ; which is free from even a shadow of imperfection of any kind ; which is an ocean as it were of auspicious qualities and so on ; which is the sole cause of the entire Universe ; which constitutes the inner Self of all things. The second adhyaya is now begun for the purpose of proving that the view thus set forth cannot be impugned by whatever arguments may possibly be brought forward. The Sutrakara at first turns against those who maintain that the Ved&nta-texts do not establish the view indicated above, on the ground of that view being contra- dicted by the Smrz'ti of Kapila, i. e. the Sankhya-system. But how can it be maintained at all that Scripture does not set forth a certain view because thereby it would enter into conflict with Smrzti? For that Smrzti if con- tradicted by Scripture is to be held of no account, is already settled in the Purva Mima;^sa (' But where there is contradiction Smrzti is not to be regarded,' I, 3, 3). — Where, we reply, a matter can be definitely settled on the basis of Scripture — as e. g. in the case of the Vedic in- junction, * he is to sing, after having touched the U^/umbara branch ' (which clearly contradicts the Smrz'ti injunction that the whole branch is to be covered up) — Smriti indeed II ADHYAYA, I PADA, I. 409
3g. in the case of the Vedic in- junction, * he is to sing, after having touched the U^/umbara branch ' (which clearly contradicts the Smrz'ti injunction that the whole branch is to be covered up) — Smriti indeed II ADHYAYA, I PADA, I. 409 need not be regarded. But the topic with which the Vedanta- texts are concerned is hard to understand, and hence, when a conflict arises between those texts and a Smrz'ti pro- pounded by some great Rish\y the matter does not admit of immediate decisive settlement : it is not therefore un- reasonable to undertake to prove by Smrzti that Scripture does not set forth a certain doctrine. That is to say — we possess a Smrzti composed with a view to teach men the nature and means of supreme happiness, by the great Rtshi Kapila to whom Scripture, Smrz'ti, Itihasa and Pura/za alike refer as a person worthy of all respect (compare e. g. ' the Rtshi Kapila/ 5vet. Up. V, 2), and who moreover (unlike Brzhaspati and other Smrzti-writers) fully acknowledges the validity of all the means of earthly happiness which are set forth in the karmakanda of the Veda, such as the daily oblations to the sacred fires, the New and Full Moon offerings and the great Soma sacrifices. Now, as men having only an imperfect knowledge of the Veda, and moreover naturally slow- minded, can hardly ascertain the sense of the Vedanta- texts without the assistance of such a Smrz'ti, and as to be satisfied with that sense of the Vedanta which discloses itself on a mere superficial study of the text would imply the admission that the whole Sankhya Smrz'ti, although composed by an able and trustworthy person, really is useless ; we see ourselves driven to acknowledge that the doctrine of the Vedanta-texts cannot differ from the one established by the Sankhyas. Nor must you object that to do so would force on us another unacceptable con- clusion, viz. that those Smrztis, that of Manu e. g., which maintain Brahman to be the universal cause, are destitute of authority; for Manu and similar works inculcate practical religious duty and thus have at any rate the uncontested function of supporting the teaching of the karmaka^a of the Veda, The Sankhya Smrzti, on the other hand, is entirely devoted to the setting forth of theoretical truth (not of practical duty), and if it is not accepted in that quality, it is of no use whatsoever. — On this ground the Sutra sets forth the primS, facie view, 4 1 0 VEDANTA-S<JTRAS. * If it be said that there results the fault of there being no room for certain Smrz'tis.'
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.
1While the highest Self thus 406 vedanta-sOtras. undergoes a change — in the form of a world comprising the whole aggregate of sentient and non-sentient beings — all imperfection and suffering are limited to the sentient beings constituting part of its body, and all change is restricted to the non-sentient things which constitute another part. The highest Self is effected in that sense only that it is the ruling principle, and hence the Self, of matter and souls in their gross or evolved state ■ but just on account of being this, viz. their inner Ruler and Self, it is in no way touched by their imperfections and changes. Consisting of unlimited knowledge and bliss he for ever abides in his uniform nature, engaged in the sport of making this world go round. This is the purport of the clause ' it became the real and the unreal ' : although undergoing a change into the multiplicity of actual sentient and non-sentient things, Brahman at the same time was the Real, i, e. that which is free from all shadow of imperfection, consisting of nothing but pure knowledge and bliss. That all beings, sentient and non-sentient, and whether in their non-evolved or evolved states, are mere playthings of Brahman, and that the creation and reabsorption of the world are only his sport, this has been expressly declared by Dvaipayana, PanLrara and other i?zshis, ' Know that all transitory beings, from the Unevolved down to individual things, are a mere play of Hari ' ; * View his action like that of a playful child/ &c. The Sutrak&ra will distinctly enounce the same view in II, i, 33. With a similar view the text ' from that the Lord of M£ya sends forth all this ; and in that the other is bound by May&' (Svet. Up. IV, 9), refers to Prakrzti and soul, which together constitute the body of Brahman, as things different from Brahman, although then, i. e. at the time of a pralaya, they are one with Brahman in so far as their extreme subtlety does not admit of their being conceived as separate ; this it does to the end of suggesting that even when Brahman undergoes the change into the shape of this world, all changes ex- clusively belong to non-sentient matter which is a mode of Brahman, and all imperfections and sufferings to the individual souls which also are modes of Brahman. The I ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 29. 407 text has to be viewed as agreeing in meaning with ' that Self made itself/ Of a similar purport is the account given in Manu, ' He being desirous to send forth from his body- beings of many kinds, first with a thought created the waters and placed his seed in them ' (I, 8). It is in this way that room is found for those texts also which proclaim Brahman to be free from all imperfection and all change. It thus remains a settled conclusion that Brahman by itself constitutes the material as well as the operative cause of the world. 28. And because it is called the womb. Brahman is the material as well as the operative cause
2It thus remains a settled conclusion that Brahman by itself constitutes the material as well as the operative cause of the world. 28. And because it is called the womb. Brahman is the material as well as the operative cause of the world for that reason also that certain texts call it the womb, 'the maker, the Lord, the Person, Brahman, the womb ' (Mu. Up. Ill, 1,3);' that which the wise regard as the womb of all beings' (I, 1, 6). And that 'womb' means as much as material cause, appears from the complementary passage ' As a spider sends forth and draws in its threads ' (I, 1, 7). 29. Herewith all (texts) are explained, explained. Hereby, i. e. by the whole array of arguments set forth in the four padas of the first adhyaya ; all those particular passages of the Vedanta-texts which give instruction as to the cause of the world, are explained as meaning to set forth a Brahman all-wise, all-powerful, different in nature from all beings intelligent and non-intelligent. The repeti- tion of the word ' explained ' is meant to indicate the termination of the adhyaya. SECOND ADHYAYA. FIRST PADA. i. If it be said that there would result the fault of there being no room for (certain) Smmis : (we reply) ' no/ because there would result the fault of want of room for other Smrztis. The first adhyaya has established the truth that what the Vedanta-texts teach is a Supreme Brahman, which is something different as well from non-sentient matter known through the ordinary means of proof, viz. Perception and so on, as from the intelligent souls whether connected with or separated from matter ; which is free from even a shadow of imperfection of any kind ; which is an ocean as it were of auspicious qualities and so on ; which is the sole cause of the entire Universe ; which constitutes the inner Self of all things. The second adhyaya is now begun for the purpose of proving that the view thus set forth cannot be impugned by whatever arguments may possibly be brought forward. The Sutrakara at first turns against those who maintain that the Ved&nta-texts do not establish the view indicated above, on the ground of that view being contra- dicted by the Smrz'ti of Kapila, i. e. the Sankhya-system. But how can it be maintained at all that Scripture does not set forth a certain view because thereby it would enter into conflict with Smrzti? For that Smrzti if con- tradicted by Scripture is to be held of no account, is already settled in the Purva Mima;^sa (' But where there is contradiction Smrzti is not to be regarded,' I, 3, 3). — Where, we reply, a matter can be definitely settled on the basis of Scripture — as e. g. in the case of the Vedic in- junction, * he is to sing, after having touched the U^/umbara branch ' (which clearly contradicts the Smrz'ti injunction that the whole branch is to be covered up) — Smriti indeed II ADHYAYA, I PADA, I. 409
3g. in the case of the Vedic in- junction, * he is to sing, after having touched the U^/umbara branch ' (which clearly contradicts the Smrz'ti injunction that the whole branch is to be covered up) — Smriti indeed II ADHYAYA, I PADA, I. 409 need not be regarded. But the topic with which the Vedanta- texts are concerned is hard to understand, and hence, when a conflict arises between those texts and a Smrz'ti pro- pounded by some great Rish\y the matter does not admit of immediate decisive settlement : it is not therefore un- reasonable to undertake to prove by Smrzti that Scripture does not set forth a certain doctrine. That is to say — we possess a Smrzti composed with a view to teach men the nature and means of supreme happiness, by the great Rtshi Kapila to whom Scripture, Smrz'ti, Itihasa and Pura/za alike refer as a person worthy of all respect (compare e. g. ' the Rtshi Kapila/ 5vet. Up. V, 2), and who moreover (unlike Brzhaspati and other Smrzti-writers) fully acknowledges the validity of all the means of earthly happiness which are set forth in the karmakanda of the Veda, such as the daily oblations to the sacred fires, the New and Full Moon offerings and the great Soma sacrifices. Now, as men having only an imperfect knowledge of the Veda, and moreover naturally slow- minded, can hardly ascertain the sense of the Vedanta- texts without the assistance of such a Smrz'ti, and as to be satisfied with that sense of the Vedanta which discloses itself on a mere superficial study of the text would imply the admission that the whole Sankhya Smrz'ti, although composed by an able and trustworthy person, really is useless ; we see ourselves driven to acknowledge that the doctrine of the Vedanta-texts cannot differ from the one established by the Sankhyas. Nor must you object that to do so would force on us another unacceptable con- clusion, viz. that those Smrztis, that of Manu e. g., which maintain Brahman to be the universal cause, are destitute of authority; for Manu and similar works inculcate practical religious duty and thus have at any rate the uncontested function of supporting the teaching of the karmaka^a of the Veda, The Sankhya Smrzti, on the other hand, is entirely devoted to the setting forth of theoretical truth (not of practical duty), and if it is not accepted in that quality, it is of no use whatsoever. — On this ground the Sutra sets forth the primS, facie view, 4 1 0 VEDANTA-S<JTRAS. * If it be said that there results the fault of there being no room for certain Smrz'tis.'
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.