Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Up. II, 6, 1), and so on. In the same way the texts declare meditation on the Supreme Person, who is the highest Brahman, to be the only meditation which effects final release ; cp. 'I know that great Person of sunlike lustre beyond the 522 ved£nta-s6tras. darkness. A man who knows him passes over death ; there is no other path to go ' (6Vet. Up. Ill, 8). And in the same way all texts agree in declaring that the works subserving the knowledge of Brahman are only those sacrificial and other works which the Veda enjoins on men in the different castes and stages of life : c Him Brahma^as seek to know by the study of the Veda, by sacrifice, by gifts, by penance, by fasting. Wishing for that world only, mendicants wander forth from their homes ' (Br/. Up. XI, 4, 22). In some texts enjoining devout meditation, and so on, we indeed meet with terms such as Pra^apati, 5iva, Indra, Aklra, Frkna, &c, but that these all refer to the supreme Reality established by the texts concerning Nar&ya/za — the aim of which texts it is to set forth the highest Reality in its purity — , we have already proved under I, 1, 30. In the same way we have proved under Su. I, 1, 2 that in texts treating of the creation of the world, such as * Being only this was in the beginning/ and the like, the words Beings Brahman, and so on, denote nobody else but Naraya^a, who is set forth .as the universal creator in the account of creation given in the text, * Alone indeed there was Nar&ya/za, not Brahma, not Lana — he being alone did not rejoice' (Mahopanishad I). — As the Pasupati theory thus teaches principles, meditations and acts conflicting with the Veda, it must be disregarded. 37. And on account of the impossibility of ruler- ship. Those who stand outside the Veda arrive through infer- ence at the conclusion that the Lord is a mere operative cause. This being so, they must prove the Lord's being the ruler (of the material cause) on the basis of observation. But it is impossible to prove that the Lord is the ruler of the Pradhana in the same way as the potter e.g. is the ruler of the clay. For the Lord is without a body, while the power of ruling material causes is observed only in the case of embodied beings such as potters. Nor may you have recourse to the hypothesis of the Lord being em- bodied ; for — as we have shown under I, i, 3 — there arise II ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 40. 523 difficulties whether that body, which as body must consist of parts, be viewed as eternal or as non-eternal. 38. If you say, as in the case of the organs ; we deny this, on account of enjoyment and so on.
2523 difficulties whether that body, which as body must consist of parts, be viewed as eternal or as non-eternal. 38. If you say, as in the case of the organs ; we deny this, on account of enjoyment and so on. It may possibly be said that, in the same way as the enjoying (individual) soul, although in itself without a body, is seen to rule the sense-organs, the body, and so on, the great Lord also, although without a body, may rule the Pradhana. But this analogy cannot be allowed * on account of enjoyment/ and so on. The body's being ruled by the soul is due to the unseen principle in the form of good and evil works, and has for its end the requital of those works. Your analogy would thus imply that the Lord also is under the influence of an unseen principle, and is requited for his good and evil works. — The Lord cannot therefore be a ruler. 39. Finiteness or absence of omniscience. s Or' here has the sense of ' and.' If the Lord is under the influence of the adrzsh/a, it follows that, like the indi- vidual soul, he is subject to creation, dissolution, and so on, and that he is not omniscient. The Pa^upati theory cannot therefore be accepted. — It is true that the Sutra, ' but in case of conflict (with Scripture) it is not to be regarded ' (Pu. Ml. Su. I, 3, 3), has already established the non- acceptability of all views contrary to the Veda ; the present adhikara/za, however, raises this question again in order specially to declare that the Pa^upati theory is contrary to the Veda. Although the Plrupata and the 5aiva systems exhibit some features which are not altogether contrary to the Veda, yet they are unacceptable because they rest on an assumption contrary to the Veda, viz. of the difference of the general, instrumental and material causes, and imply an erroneous interchange of higher and lower entities. — .Here terminates the adhikara^a of * Paj-u- pati.' 40. On account of the impossibility of origination. The Sutras now proceed to refute a further doubt, viz. 5 24 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. that the Pa«£arcitra tantra — which sets forth the means of attaining supreme beatitude, as declared by the Lord (Bhagavat) — may also be destitute of authority, in so far, namely, as belonging to the same class as the tantras of Kapila and others. The above Sutra raises the doubt. The theory of the Bhagavatas is that from Vasudeva, who is the highest Brahman and the highest cause, there originates the individual soul called Sahkarsha^a ; from Sankarsha^a the internal organ called Pradyumna; and from Pradyumna the principle of egoity called Aniruddha. Now this theory implies the origination of the individual soul, and this is contrary to Scripture. For scriptural texts declare the soul to be without a beginning — cp. * the intel- ligent one is not born and does not die' (Ka. Up. II, 18), and other texts. 41. And there is not (origination) of the instru- ment from the agent.
3For scriptural texts declare the soul to be without a beginning — cp. * the intel- ligent one is not born and does not die' (Ka. Up. II, 18), and other texts. 41. And there is not (origination) of the instru- ment from the agent. 'The internal organ called Pradyumna originates from Sankarsha^a,' i.e. the internal organ originates from the individual soul which is the agent. But this is inadmis- sible, since the text 'from him there is produced breath, mind, and all sense-organs' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 3) declares that the mind also springs from none else but the highest Brahman. As the Bhagavata doctrine thus teaches things opposed to Scripture, its authoritativeness cannot be ad- mitted.— Against these objections the next Sutra declares itself. 42. Or, if they are of the nature of that which is knowledge and so on, there is no contradiction to that (i.e. the Bh&gavata doctrine). The c or ' sets aside the view previously maintained. By c that which is knowledge and so on ' 1 we have to under- stand the highest Brahman. If Sankarsha/za, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha are of the nature of the highest Brahman, then truly there can be no objection to a body of doctrine 1 Or ' by that which is knowledge and cause.' II ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 42. 525
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.
1Up. II, 6, 1), and so on. In the same way the texts declare meditation on the Supreme Person, who is the highest Brahman, to be the only meditation which effects final release ; cp. 'I know that great Person of sunlike lustre beyond the 522 ved£nta-s6tras. darkness. A man who knows him passes over death ; there is no other path to go ' (6Vet. Up. Ill, 8). And in the same way all texts agree in declaring that the works subserving the knowledge of Brahman are only those sacrificial and other works which the Veda enjoins on men in the different castes and stages of life : c Him Brahma^as seek to know by the study of the Veda, by sacrifice, by gifts, by penance, by fasting. Wishing for that world only, mendicants wander forth from their homes ' (Br/. Up. XI, 4, 22). In some texts enjoining devout meditation, and so on, we indeed meet with terms such as Pra^apati, 5iva, Indra, Aklra, Frkna, &c, but that these all refer to the supreme Reality established by the texts concerning Nar&ya/za — the aim of which texts it is to set forth the highest Reality in its purity — , we have already proved under I, 1, 30. In the same way we have proved under Su. I, 1, 2 that in texts treating of the creation of the world, such as * Being only this was in the beginning/ and the like, the words Beings Brahman, and so on, denote nobody else but Naraya^a, who is set forth .as the universal creator in the account of creation given in the text, * Alone indeed there was Nar&ya/za, not Brahma, not Lana — he being alone did not rejoice' (Mahopanishad I). — As the Pasupati theory thus teaches principles, meditations and acts conflicting with the Veda, it must be disregarded. 37. And on account of the impossibility of ruler- ship. Those who stand outside the Veda arrive through infer- ence at the conclusion that the Lord is a mere operative cause. This being so, they must prove the Lord's being the ruler (of the material cause) on the basis of observation. But it is impossible to prove that the Lord is the ruler of the Pradhana in the same way as the potter e.g. is the ruler of the clay. For the Lord is without a body, while the power of ruling material causes is observed only in the case of embodied beings such as potters. Nor may you have recourse to the hypothesis of the Lord being em- bodied ; for — as we have shown under I, i, 3 — there arise II ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 40. 523 difficulties whether that body, which as body must consist of parts, be viewed as eternal or as non-eternal. 38. If you say, as in the case of the organs ; we deny this, on account of enjoyment and so on.
2523 difficulties whether that body, which as body must consist of parts, be viewed as eternal or as non-eternal. 38. If you say, as in the case of the organs ; we deny this, on account of enjoyment and so on. It may possibly be said that, in the same way as the enjoying (individual) soul, although in itself without a body, is seen to rule the sense-organs, the body, and so on, the great Lord also, although without a body, may rule the Pradhana. But this analogy cannot be allowed * on account of enjoyment/ and so on. The body's being ruled by the soul is due to the unseen principle in the form of good and evil works, and has for its end the requital of those works. Your analogy would thus imply that the Lord also is under the influence of an unseen principle, and is requited for his good and evil works. — The Lord cannot therefore be a ruler. 39. Finiteness or absence of omniscience. s Or' here has the sense of ' and.' If the Lord is under the influence of the adrzsh/a, it follows that, like the indi- vidual soul, he is subject to creation, dissolution, and so on, and that he is not omniscient. The Pa^upati theory cannot therefore be accepted. — It is true that the Sutra, ' but in case of conflict (with Scripture) it is not to be regarded ' (Pu. Ml. Su. I, 3, 3), has already established the non- acceptability of all views contrary to the Veda ; the present adhikara/za, however, raises this question again in order specially to declare that the Pa^upati theory is contrary to the Veda. Although the Plrupata and the 5aiva systems exhibit some features which are not altogether contrary to the Veda, yet they are unacceptable because they rest on an assumption contrary to the Veda, viz. of the difference of the general, instrumental and material causes, and imply an erroneous interchange of higher and lower entities. — .Here terminates the adhikara^a of * Paj-u- pati.' 40. On account of the impossibility of origination. The Sutras now proceed to refute a further doubt, viz. 5 24 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. that the Pa«£arcitra tantra — which sets forth the means of attaining supreme beatitude, as declared by the Lord (Bhagavat) — may also be destitute of authority, in so far, namely, as belonging to the same class as the tantras of Kapila and others. The above Sutra raises the doubt. The theory of the Bhagavatas is that from Vasudeva, who is the highest Brahman and the highest cause, there originates the individual soul called Sahkarsha^a ; from Sankarsha^a the internal organ called Pradyumna; and from Pradyumna the principle of egoity called Aniruddha. Now this theory implies the origination of the individual soul, and this is contrary to Scripture. For scriptural texts declare the soul to be without a beginning — cp. * the intel- ligent one is not born and does not die' (Ka. Up. II, 18), and other texts. 41. And there is not (origination) of the instru- ment from the agent.
3For scriptural texts declare the soul to be without a beginning — cp. * the intel- ligent one is not born and does not die' (Ka. Up. II, 18), and other texts. 41. And there is not (origination) of the instru- ment from the agent. 'The internal organ called Pradyumna originates from Sankarsha^a,' i.e. the internal organ originates from the individual soul which is the agent. But this is inadmis- sible, since the text 'from him there is produced breath, mind, and all sense-organs' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 3) declares that the mind also springs from none else but the highest Brahman. As the Bhagavata doctrine thus teaches things opposed to Scripture, its authoritativeness cannot be ad- mitted.— Against these objections the next Sutra declares itself. 42. Or, if they are of the nature of that which is knowledge and so on, there is no contradiction to that (i.e. the Bh&gavata doctrine). The c or ' sets aside the view previously maintained. By c that which is knowledge and so on ' 1 we have to under- stand the highest Brahman. If Sankarsha/za, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha are of the nature of the highest Brahman, then truly there can be no objection to a body of doctrine 1 Or ' by that which is knowledge and cause.' II ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 42. 525
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.