Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1— The Sankhya explains the twenty-five principles, the Yoga teaches certain practices and means of mental concentra- tion, and the Ara/zyakas teach that all the subordinate II ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 43. 53 1 principles have their true Self in Brahman, that the mental concentration enjoined in the Yoga is a mode of meditation on Brahman, and that the rites and works which are set forth in the Veda are means to win the favour of Brahman — thus giving instruction as to Brahman's nature. Now all these elements, in their inward connexion, are clearly set forth in the Pa^aratra by the highest Brahman, i.e. Naraya^a, himself. The 5ariraka Sastra (i.e. the Vedanta) does not disprove the principles assumed by the Sankhyas, but merely the view of their not having Brahman for their Self; and similarly in its criticism on the Yoga and Pa^u- pata systems, it merely refutes the view of the Lord being a mere instrumental cause, the erroneous assumptions as to the relative position of higher and lower entities, and certain practices not warranted by the Veda; but it does not reject the Yoga itself, nor again the lord Pa^upati. Hence Smrz'ti says, ' The Sankhya, the Yoga, the Pa?X£ara- tra, the Vedas, and the Pa^upata doctrine — all these having their proof in the Self may not be destroyed by arguments/ The essential points in all these doctrines are to be adopted, not to be rejected absolutely as the teaching of £ina or Sugata is to be rejected. For, as said in the Smriti text quoted above, cin all those doctrines it is seen, according to tradition and reasoning, that the lord Naraya/za is the only basis.' — Here terminates the adhikara;za of ' the im- possibility of origination.' M m 2 5 3 2 vedanta-s^tras. THIRD PADA. i. Not Ether; on account of the absence of scriptural statement. We have demonstrated that the Sankhya-system and other systems standing outside the Veda are untenable since they rest on fallacious reasoning and are self-contra- dictory. In order to prove that our own view is altogether free from all objections of this kind, we shall now explain in detail the mode in which this world, with all its sentient and non-sentient beings, is produced by Brahman, whom we hold to be the general creator.
2In order to prove that our own view is altogether free from all objections of this kind, we shall now explain in detail the mode in which this world, with all its sentient and non-sentient beings, is produced by Brahman, whom we hold to be the general creator. The first doubt here presenting itself is whether Ether be something produced or not. — The Purvapakshin main- tains that it is not produced, since there is no scriptural statement to that effect. A scriptural statement may be expected with regard to what is possible ; but what is im- possible— as e. g. the origination of a sky-flower or of Ether — cannot possibly be taught by Scripture. For the origination of Ether, which is not made up of parts and is all pervasive, cannot be imagined in any way. For this very reason, i. e. the impossibility of the thing, the ATMn- dogya, in its account of creation, mentions the origination of fire, water, &c. only (but not of Ether) — ' It thought, may I be many, may I grow forth/ ' It sent forth fire/ and so on. When therefore the Taittiriya, the Atharva/za, and other texts tell us that Ether did originate — 'From that Self sprang Ether ' (Taitt. Up. II, i) ; ' From him is born breath, mind, and all organs of sense, Ether, air, light, water/ &c. (Mu. Up. II, I, 4) — such statements are con- trary to sense, and hence refute themselves. — To this the Sutra replies. 2. But there is. But there is origination of Ether. For Scripture, which is concerned with matters transcending sense perception, is able to establish the truth even of the origination of Ether, although this be not proved by other means of knowledge. II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 4. 533 And in a matter known from Scripture a contradictory inference, such as that Ether cannot originate because it is without parts, is not of sufficient force. That the non- originatedness of the Self also does not rest on its being without parts will be shown further on. — Here the Purva- pakshin raises an objection. 3. It has a secondary sense, on account of impos- sibility and of the text. It is reasonable to assume that in passages such as ' From that Self there sprang Ether/ the origination of Ether is not to be taken in its literal sense ; for according to the iTMndogya-text ' it sent forth fire.' Brahman engaged in creation first produces fire, and fire thus having the first place, the text cannot possibly mean to say that Ether also was produced. Moreover, there is another text, viz. ' Vayu and antariksha (i. e. Ether), this is the Immortal,' according to which Ether is immortal, i. e. non-produced. — But how can one and the same word, viz. it ' sprang ' (i. e. originated), be taken in a metaphorical sense with reference to Ether, and in its literal sense with reference to fire, and so on ? — To this the next Sutra replies. 4. There may be (a double sense) of the one (word), as in the case of the word ' Brahman/
3it ' sprang ' (i. e. originated), be taken in a metaphorical sense with reference to Ether, and in its literal sense with reference to fire, and so on ? — To this the next Sutra replies. 4. There may be (a double sense) of the one (word), as in the case of the word ' Brahman/ Since in the clause 'from that Self there sprang Brah- man/ the word ' sprang ' cannot be taken in its literal sense, it may be used there in a secondary sense ; while the same word as connected with the subsequent clauses ' from Vayu Agni/ &c., may have its primary sense. This would be analogous to the use of the word Brahman in Mu. Up. I, 1. There in the clause 'From him is born that Brahman, name, form, and matter ' (9), the word Brahman is used in a secondary sense, i. e. denotes the Pradhana ; while in the same chapter, in the clause c Brahman swells by means of brooding ' (8), the same word denotes Brahman in its pri- mary sense. It is true indeed that in this latter case the word ' Brahman ' occurs twice ; while in the Taitt. text the word ' sambhuta ' occurs once only, and has to be carried 5 34 vedanta-sOtras. over from the first clause into the subsequent ones ; but this makes no difference, for, in the case of such carrying over of a word, no less than in the case of actual repetition, the general denotation of the word is repeated. — The next Sutra refutes this objection. 5. The non-abandonment of the promissory state- ment (results) from non-difference. It is not appropriate to assume, from deference to the .Oandogya-text, a secondary meaning for those other texts also which declare Ether to have originated. For the .O&ndogya itself virtually admits the origination of Ether ; in so far, namely, as the clause ' that by which the non-heard is heard/ &c, declares that through the know- ledge of Brahman everything is known. This declaration is not abandoned, i. e. is adhered to, only if the Ether also is an effect of Brahman and thus non-different from it. 6. (As follows also) from (other) texts. That Ether is an originated thing follows from other clauses also in the ATMndogya : ' Being only this was in the beginning, one without a second ' affirms the oneness of everything before creation, and ' In that all this has its Self ' implies that everything is an effect of, and hence non- different from, Brahman. — Nor does the statement as to the creation of fire, * it sent forth fire/ exclude the creation of Ether. For the first place which there is assigned to fire rests only thereon that no mention is made of the creation of Ether, and this has no force to negative the creation of Ether as positively stated in other texts. 7. But the division (origination) extends over all effects ; as in ordinary life.
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— The Sankhya explains the twenty-five principles, the Yoga teaches certain practices and means of mental concentra- tion, and the Ara/zyakas teach that all the subordinate II ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 43. 53 1 principles have their true Self in Brahman, that the mental concentration enjoined in the Yoga is a mode of meditation on Brahman, and that the rites and works which are set forth in the Veda are means to win the favour of Brahman — thus giving instruction as to Brahman's nature. Now all these elements, in their inward connexion, are clearly set forth in the Pa^aratra by the highest Brahman, i.e. Naraya^a, himself. The 5ariraka Sastra (i.e. the Vedanta) does not disprove the principles assumed by the Sankhyas, but merely the view of their not having Brahman for their Self; and similarly in its criticism on the Yoga and Pa^u- pata systems, it merely refutes the view of the Lord being a mere instrumental cause, the erroneous assumptions as to the relative position of higher and lower entities, and certain practices not warranted by the Veda; but it does not reject the Yoga itself, nor again the lord Pa^upati. Hence Smrz'ti says, ' The Sankhya, the Yoga, the Pa?X£ara- tra, the Vedas, and the Pa^upata doctrine — all these having their proof in the Self may not be destroyed by arguments/ The essential points in all these doctrines are to be adopted, not to be rejected absolutely as the teaching of £ina or Sugata is to be rejected. For, as said in the Smriti text quoted above, cin all those doctrines it is seen, according to tradition and reasoning, that the lord Naraya/za is the only basis.' — Here terminates the adhikara;za of ' the im- possibility of origination.' M m 2 5 3 2 vedanta-s^tras. THIRD PADA. i. Not Ether; on account of the absence of scriptural statement. We have demonstrated that the Sankhya-system and other systems standing outside the Veda are untenable since they rest on fallacious reasoning and are self-contra- dictory. In order to prove that our own view is altogether free from all objections of this kind, we shall now explain in detail the mode in which this world, with all its sentient and non-sentient beings, is produced by Brahman, whom we hold to be the general creator.
2In order to prove that our own view is altogether free from all objections of this kind, we shall now explain in detail the mode in which this world, with all its sentient and non-sentient beings, is produced by Brahman, whom we hold to be the general creator. The first doubt here presenting itself is whether Ether be something produced or not. — The Purvapakshin main- tains that it is not produced, since there is no scriptural statement to that effect. A scriptural statement may be expected with regard to what is possible ; but what is im- possible— as e. g. the origination of a sky-flower or of Ether — cannot possibly be taught by Scripture. For the origination of Ether, which is not made up of parts and is all pervasive, cannot be imagined in any way. For this very reason, i. e. the impossibility of the thing, the ATMn- dogya, in its account of creation, mentions the origination of fire, water, &c. only (but not of Ether) — ' It thought, may I be many, may I grow forth/ ' It sent forth fire/ and so on. When therefore the Taittiriya, the Atharva/za, and other texts tell us that Ether did originate — 'From that Self sprang Ether ' (Taitt. Up. II, i) ; ' From him is born breath, mind, and all organs of sense, Ether, air, light, water/ &c. (Mu. Up. II, I, 4) — such statements are con- trary to sense, and hence refute themselves. — To this the Sutra replies. 2. But there is. But there is origination of Ether. For Scripture, which is concerned with matters transcending sense perception, is able to establish the truth even of the origination of Ether, although this be not proved by other means of knowledge. II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 4. 533 And in a matter known from Scripture a contradictory inference, such as that Ether cannot originate because it is without parts, is not of sufficient force. That the non- originatedness of the Self also does not rest on its being without parts will be shown further on. — Here the Purva- pakshin raises an objection. 3. It has a secondary sense, on account of impos- sibility and of the text. It is reasonable to assume that in passages such as ' From that Self there sprang Ether/ the origination of Ether is not to be taken in its literal sense ; for according to the iTMndogya-text ' it sent forth fire.' Brahman engaged in creation first produces fire, and fire thus having the first place, the text cannot possibly mean to say that Ether also was produced. Moreover, there is another text, viz. ' Vayu and antariksha (i. e. Ether), this is the Immortal,' according to which Ether is immortal, i. e. non-produced. — But how can one and the same word, viz. it ' sprang ' (i. e. originated), be taken in a metaphorical sense with reference to Ether, and in its literal sense with reference to fire, and so on ? — To this the next Sutra replies. 4. There may be (a double sense) of the one (word), as in the case of the word ' Brahman/
3it ' sprang ' (i. e. originated), be taken in a metaphorical sense with reference to Ether, and in its literal sense with reference to fire, and so on ? — To this the next Sutra replies. 4. There may be (a double sense) of the one (word), as in the case of the word ' Brahman/ Since in the clause 'from that Self there sprang Brah- man/ the word ' sprang ' cannot be taken in its literal sense, it may be used there in a secondary sense ; while the same word as connected with the subsequent clauses ' from Vayu Agni/ &c., may have its primary sense. This would be analogous to the use of the word Brahman in Mu. Up. I, 1. There in the clause 'From him is born that Brahman, name, form, and matter ' (9), the word Brahman is used in a secondary sense, i. e. denotes the Pradhana ; while in the same chapter, in the clause c Brahman swells by means of brooding ' (8), the same word denotes Brahman in its pri- mary sense. It is true indeed that in this latter case the word ' Brahman ' occurs twice ; while in the Taitt. text the word ' sambhuta ' occurs once only, and has to be carried 5 34 vedanta-sOtras. over from the first clause into the subsequent ones ; but this makes no difference, for, in the case of such carrying over of a word, no less than in the case of actual repetition, the general denotation of the word is repeated. — The next Sutra refutes this objection. 5. The non-abandonment of the promissory state- ment (results) from non-difference. It is not appropriate to assume, from deference to the .Oandogya-text, a secondary meaning for those other texts also which declare Ether to have originated. For the .O&ndogya itself virtually admits the origination of Ether ; in so far, namely, as the clause ' that by which the non-heard is heard/ &c, declares that through the know- ledge of Brahman everything is known. This declaration is not abandoned, i. e. is adhered to, only if the Ether also is an effect of Brahman and thus non-different from it. 6. (As follows also) from (other) texts. That Ether is an originated thing follows from other clauses also in the ATMndogya : ' Being only this was in the beginning, one without a second ' affirms the oneness of everything before creation, and ' In that all this has its Self ' implies that everything is an effect of, and hence non- different from, Brahman. — Nor does the statement as to the creation of fire, * it sent forth fire/ exclude the creation of Ether. For the first place which there is assigned to fire rests only thereon that no mention is made of the creation of Ether, and this has no force to negative the creation of Ether as positively stated in other texts. 7. But the division (origination) extends over all effects ; as in ordinary life.
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.