Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1complete what has been begun by another and about which he himself does not know anything. 25. Not from non-entity, this not being observed. So far we have set forth the arguments refuting the views of the Vaibhashikas as well as the Sautrantikas — both which schools maintain the reality of external things. — Now the Sautrintika comes forward and opposes one of the arguments set forth by us above, viz. that, on the view of general momentariness, nothing can ever become an object of cognition, since the thing which enters into connexion with the sense-organ is no longer in existence when the cognition originates. — It is not, he says, the persistence of the thing up to the time of cognition which is the cause of its becoming an object of cognition. To be an object of cognition means nothing more than to be the cause of the origination of cognition. Nor does this definition imply that the sense-organs also are the objects of cognition. For a cause of cognition is held to be an object of cognition only in so far as it imparts to the cognition its own form (and this the sense-organs do not). Now even a thing that has perished may have imparted its form to the cognition, and on the basis of that form, blue colour, and so on, the thing itself is inferred. Nor can it be said (as the Yoga£&ras do) that the form of subsequent cognitions is due to the action of previous cognitions (and not to the external thing) ; for on this hypothesis it could not be explained how in the midst of a series of cognitions of blue colour there all at once arises the cognition of yellow colour. The manifold character of cognitions must therefore be held to be due to the manifold character of real things. — To this we reply c not from non-entity ; this not being observed/ The special forms of cognition, such as blue colour, and so on, cannot be the forms of things that have perished, and therefore are not in Being, since this is not observed. For it is not observed that when a substrate of attributes has perished, its attributes pass over into another thing. (Nor can it be said that the thing that perished leaves in cog- nition a reflection of itself, for) reflections also are only of II ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 2J. 5 I I persisting things, not of mere attributes. We therefore conclude that the manifoldness of cognitions can result from the manifoldness of things only on the condition of the thing persisting at the time of cognition. — The Sutras now set forth a further objection which applies to both schools. 26. And thus there would be accomplishment on the part of non-active people also.
2— The Sutras now set forth a further objection which applies to both schools. 26. And thus there would be accomplishment on the part of non-active people also. Thus, i.e. on the theory of universal momentariness, origination from the non-existent, causeless cognition, and so on, it would follow that persons also not making any efforts may accomplish all their ends. It is a fact that the attainment of things desired and the warding off of things not desired is effected through effort, and so on. But if all existences momentarily perish, a previously existing thing, or special attributes of it, such as after-effects (through which Svarga and the like are effected) or knowledge (through which Release is effected) do not persist, and hence nothing whatever can be accomplished by effort. And as thus all effects would be accomplished without a cause, even perfectly inert men would accomplish all the ends to be reached in this and in the next life, including final re- lease.— Here terminates the adhikara/za of * the aggregates.' 27. Not non-existence, on account of conscious- ness. Here now come forward the YogaMras, who hold that cognitions (ideas) only are real. There is no reasonable ground, they say, for the view that the manifoldness of ideas is due to the manifoldness of things, since ideas them- selves— no less than the things assumed by others — have their distinct forms, and hence are manifold. And this manifold nature of ideas is sufficiently explained by so- called vasana. \&4s5i34_H]£^ns a flow of ideas (states of consciousness — pratyayaj of diffefehTThal^ct^T^^Ve ob- serve, e.g., that a cognition which has the form of a jar (i.e. the idea of a jar) gives rise to the cognition of the two halves of a jar, and is itself preceded and produced by the cognition of a jar, and this again by a similar cognition, 5 I 2 VEDANTA-sftTRAS. and so on ; this is what we call a stream or flow of ideas. — But how, then, is it that internal cognitions have the forms of external things, mustard-grains, mountains, and so on ? — Even if real things are admitted, the Yoga^ara replies, their becoming objects of thought and speech depends altogether on the light of knowledge, for otherwise it would follow that there is no difference between the ob- jects known by oneself and those known by others. And that cognitions thus shining forth to consciousness have forms (distinctive characteristics) must needs be admitted ; for if they were without form they could not shine forth. Now we are conscious only of one such form, viz. that of the cognition ; that this form at the same time appears to us as something external (i.e. as the form of an out- ward thing) is due to error. From the general law that we are conscious of ideas and things together only, it follows that the thing is not something different from the idea.
3that of the cognition ; that this form at the same time appears to us as something external (i.e. as the form of an out- ward thing) is due to error. From the general law that we are conscious of ideas and things together only, it follows that the thing is not something different from the idea. As, moreover, the fact of one idea specially representing one particular thing only, whether it be a jar or a piece of cloth or anything else, requires for its explanation an equality in character of the idea and the thing, those also who hold the existence of external things must needs assume that the idea has a form similar to that of the thing ; and as this suffices for rendering possible practical thought and intercourse, there is nothing authorising us to assume the existence of things in addition to the ideas. Hence cognitions only constitute reality ; external things do not exist. To this the Sutra replies, ' Not non-existence, on account of consciousness.' The non-existence of things, apart from ideas, cannot be maintained, because we are conscious of cognitions as what renders the knowing subject capable of thought and intercourse with regard to particular things. For the consciousness of all men taking part in worldly life expresses itself in forms such as ' I know the jar.5 Knowledge of this kind, as everybody's consciousness will testify, presents itself directly as belonging to a knowing subject and referring to an object ; those therefore who II ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 27. 513
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.
1complete what has been begun by another and about which he himself does not know anything. 25. Not from non-entity, this not being observed. So far we have set forth the arguments refuting the views of the Vaibhashikas as well as the Sautrantikas — both which schools maintain the reality of external things. — Now the Sautrintika comes forward and opposes one of the arguments set forth by us above, viz. that, on the view of general momentariness, nothing can ever become an object of cognition, since the thing which enters into connexion with the sense-organ is no longer in existence when the cognition originates. — It is not, he says, the persistence of the thing up to the time of cognition which is the cause of its becoming an object of cognition. To be an object of cognition means nothing more than to be the cause of the origination of cognition. Nor does this definition imply that the sense-organs also are the objects of cognition. For a cause of cognition is held to be an object of cognition only in so far as it imparts to the cognition its own form (and this the sense-organs do not). Now even a thing that has perished may have imparted its form to the cognition, and on the basis of that form, blue colour, and so on, the thing itself is inferred. Nor can it be said (as the Yoga£&ras do) that the form of subsequent cognitions is due to the action of previous cognitions (and not to the external thing) ; for on this hypothesis it could not be explained how in the midst of a series of cognitions of blue colour there all at once arises the cognition of yellow colour. The manifold character of cognitions must therefore be held to be due to the manifold character of real things. — To this we reply c not from non-entity ; this not being observed/ The special forms of cognition, such as blue colour, and so on, cannot be the forms of things that have perished, and therefore are not in Being, since this is not observed. For it is not observed that when a substrate of attributes has perished, its attributes pass over into another thing. (Nor can it be said that the thing that perished leaves in cog- nition a reflection of itself, for) reflections also are only of II ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 2J. 5 I I persisting things, not of mere attributes. We therefore conclude that the manifoldness of cognitions can result from the manifoldness of things only on the condition of the thing persisting at the time of cognition. — The Sutras now set forth a further objection which applies to both schools. 26. And thus there would be accomplishment on the part of non-active people also.
2— The Sutras now set forth a further objection which applies to both schools. 26. And thus there would be accomplishment on the part of non-active people also. Thus, i.e. on the theory of universal momentariness, origination from the non-existent, causeless cognition, and so on, it would follow that persons also not making any efforts may accomplish all their ends. It is a fact that the attainment of things desired and the warding off of things not desired is effected through effort, and so on. But if all existences momentarily perish, a previously existing thing, or special attributes of it, such as after-effects (through which Svarga and the like are effected) or knowledge (through which Release is effected) do not persist, and hence nothing whatever can be accomplished by effort. And as thus all effects would be accomplished without a cause, even perfectly inert men would accomplish all the ends to be reached in this and in the next life, including final re- lease.— Here terminates the adhikara/za of * the aggregates.' 27. Not non-existence, on account of conscious- ness. Here now come forward the YogaMras, who hold that cognitions (ideas) only are real. There is no reasonable ground, they say, for the view that the manifoldness of ideas is due to the manifoldness of things, since ideas them- selves— no less than the things assumed by others — have their distinct forms, and hence are manifold. And this manifold nature of ideas is sufficiently explained by so- called vasana. \&4s5i34_H]£^ns a flow of ideas (states of consciousness — pratyayaj of diffefehTThal^ct^T^^Ve ob- serve, e.g., that a cognition which has the form of a jar (i.e. the idea of a jar) gives rise to the cognition of the two halves of a jar, and is itself preceded and produced by the cognition of a jar, and this again by a similar cognition, 5 I 2 VEDANTA-sftTRAS. and so on ; this is what we call a stream or flow of ideas. — But how, then, is it that internal cognitions have the forms of external things, mustard-grains, mountains, and so on ? — Even if real things are admitted, the Yoga^ara replies, their becoming objects of thought and speech depends altogether on the light of knowledge, for otherwise it would follow that there is no difference between the ob- jects known by oneself and those known by others. And that cognitions thus shining forth to consciousness have forms (distinctive characteristics) must needs be admitted ; for if they were without form they could not shine forth. Now we are conscious only of one such form, viz. that of the cognition ; that this form at the same time appears to us as something external (i.e. as the form of an out- ward thing) is due to error. From the general law that we are conscious of ideas and things together only, it follows that the thing is not something different from the idea.
3that of the cognition ; that this form at the same time appears to us as something external (i.e. as the form of an out- ward thing) is due to error. From the general law that we are conscious of ideas and things together only, it follows that the thing is not something different from the idea. As, moreover, the fact of one idea specially representing one particular thing only, whether it be a jar or a piece of cloth or anything else, requires for its explanation an equality in character of the idea and the thing, those also who hold the existence of external things must needs assume that the idea has a form similar to that of the thing ; and as this suffices for rendering possible practical thought and intercourse, there is nothing authorising us to assume the existence of things in addition to the ideas. Hence cognitions only constitute reality ; external things do not exist. To this the Sutra replies, ' Not non-existence, on account of consciousness.' The non-existence of things, apart from ideas, cannot be maintained, because we are conscious of cognitions as what renders the knowing subject capable of thought and intercourse with regard to particular things. For the consciousness of all men taking part in worldly life expresses itself in forms such as ' I know the jar.5 Knowledge of this kind, as everybody's consciousness will testify, presents itself directly as belonging to a knowing subject and referring to an object ; those therefore who II ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 27. 513
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.