Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
125. Should it be said (that this is not so) on account of specialisation of abode ; we say no, on account of the acknowledgment (of a place of the Self), viz. in the heart. There is a difference. The drop of ointment can produce its effect as at any rate it is in contact with a definite part of the body. But we know of no such part in the case of the soul ! — Not so, we reply. Scripture informs us that the/Self abides in a definite part of the body, viz. the heart. .. ' For that Self is in the heart, there are a hundred and one veins.' And in reply to the question 'What is that Self?' the text has ' He who is within the heart, surrounded by the Pra?zas, the Person of light, consisting of knowledge ' (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 7). — The parallel case of the sandal-oint- ment is referred to in order to point out that the Self abides in some particular part of the body ; while the ointment is not bound to any special place. — In the next Sutra the Sutrakara proceeds to state how, according to his own view, the Self, although abiding in one spot only, gives rise to effects extending over the whole body. II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 29. 549 26. Or on account of its quality as light. The ; or ' is meant to set aside the view previously stated. The Self extends through the whole body by means of its quality, viz. knowledge or consciousness. 'As light.' As the light of things abiding in one place— such as gems, the sun, and so on — is seen to extend to many places, so the consciousness of the Self dwelling in the heart pervades the entire body. That the knowledge of the knowing subject may extend beyond its substrate, as the light of a luminous body does, we have already explained under the first Sutra. — But it has been said that the Self is mere knowledge ; how then can knowledge be said to be a quality — which is something different from the essential nature of a thing ? — This the next Sutra explains. 27. There is distinction as in the case of smell; and thus Scripture declares. Just as smell, which is perceived as a quality of earth, is distinct from earth ; thus knowledge of which we are conscious as the quality of a knowing subject — which relation expresses itself in judgments such as ' I know ' — is different from the knowing subject. Scriptural texts also prove this relation, as e.g. 'This Person knows.' 28. On account of the separate statement. Scripture even states quite directly that knowledge is something distinct from the knowing subject, viz. in the passage ' For there is not known any intermission of the knowing of the knower ' (Br/. Up. IV, 3, 30). — It has been said that in passages such as * he who abiding in knowledge ' (Br/. Up. Ill, 7, 22); { Knowledge performs the sacrifice ' (Taitt. Up. II, 5, 1) ; * having knowledge for its nature, absolutely free from stain/ Scripture speaks of the Self as being mere knowledge (not a knower). This point the next Sutra elucidates.
2Up. Ill, 7, 22); { Knowledge performs the sacrifice ' (Taitt. Up. II, 5, 1) ; * having knowledge for its nature, absolutely free from stain/ Scripture speaks of the Self as being mere knowledge (not a knower). This point the next Sutra elucidates. 2 9. But (the Self) is designated as that because it has that quality (viz. knowledge) for its essential quality ; as in the case of the intelligent (pra^/za) Self. 5 50 VEDANTA-stiTRAS. The ' but ' discards the objection. Because that quality, viz. the quality of knowledge, is the essential quality, there- fore the Self is, in the passages quoted, designated as know- ledge. For knowledge constitutes the essential quality of the Self. Similarly, the intelligent highest Self is occa- sionally called c Bliss,' because bliss is its essential quality. Compare * If that bliss existed not in the ether ' (Taitt. Up. II, 7, i) ; c He perceived that bliss is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. Ill, 6, l). That bliss is the essential attribute of Brahman is proved by texts such as 'That is one bliss of Brahman ' ; ' He who knows the bliss of Brahman is afraid of nothing' (Taitt. Up. II, 4, 1). — Or else the analo- gous case to which the Sutra refers may be that of the intelligent Brahman being designated by the term ' know- ledge,' in texts such as ' Truth, knowledge, the Infinite is Brahman ' (Taitt. Up. II, 1). That knowledge is the essential quality of Brahman is known from passages such as ' together with the intelligent Brahman ' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1) ; ' He who is all-knowing' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 9). 30. And there is no objection, since (the quality of knowledge) exists wherever the Self is ; this being observed. Since knowledge is an attribute which is met with wherever a Self is, there is no objection to the Self being designated by that attribute. Similarly we observe that special kinds of cows, as e. g. hornless ones, are designated by the term 'cow,' since the quality of possessing the generic character of cows is met with everywhere in con- nexion with the essential character of such animals with mutilated horns ; since in fact that quality contributes to define their essential character. The ' and ' of the Sutra is meant to suggest a further argument, viz. that to apply to the Self the term ' knowledge ' is suitable for that reason also that like knowledge the Self is self-illuminated. The objection that knowledge or consciousness cannot be an attribute inseparably connected with the essential nature of the Self as there is no consciousness in deep sleep and similar states is taken up in the next Sutra. II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 3 1. 55 I 31. Since there may be manifestation of that which exists ; as in the case of virile power and so on.
3II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 3 1. 55 I 31. Since there may be manifestation of that which exists ; as in the case of virile power and so on. The 'but' is meant to set the raised objection aside. The case may be that while consciousness is present also in deep sleep, and so on, it is manifested in the waking state only ; whence there would be no objection to viewing consciousness as an essential attribute of the Self. ' As in the case of virile power and the like.' Special substances such as the virile element are indeed present in the male child already, but then are not manifest, while later on they manifest themselves with advancing youth ; but all the same the possession of those substances is essential to the male being, not merely adventitious. For to be made up of seven elementary substances (viz. blood, humour, flesh, fat, marrow, bone, and semen) is an essential property of the body. That even in deep sleep and similar states the c I ' shines forth we have explained above. Consciousness is always there, but only in the waking state and in dreams it is observed to relate itself to objects. And that to be a subject of cognition, and so on, are essential attributes of the Self, we have also proved before. The conclusion, therefore, is that to be a knowing subject is the essential character of the Self. And that Self is of atomic size. The text ' when he has departed there is no consciousness ' (s^mgnk ; Brz. Up. II, 4, 12) does not declare that the released Self has no consciousness ; but only that in the case of that Self there is absent that knowledge (experi- ence) of birth, death, and so on, which in the Sa#/sara state is caused by the connexion of the Self with the elements — as described in the preceding passage, ' that great being having risen from out these elements again perishes after them/ For the text as to the absence of samgna after death must be interpreted in harmony with other texts describing the condition of the released soul, such as ' the seeing one does not see death nor illness nor pain ; the seeing one sees everything and obtains everything every- where ' (Kk. Up. VII, 2,5, 2) ; 'not remembering that body 552 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. into which he was born — seeing these pleasures with the mind he rejoices ' (VIII, 12, 3 ; 5). The Sutras now proceed to refute the doctrine of the Self being (not a knower) but mere knowledge, and being omnipresent. 32. There would result permanent consciousness or non-consciousness, or else limitative restriction to either.
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.
125. Should it be said (that this is not so) on account of specialisation of abode ; we say no, on account of the acknowledgment (of a place of the Self), viz. in the heart. There is a difference. The drop of ointment can produce its effect as at any rate it is in contact with a definite part of the body. But we know of no such part in the case of the soul ! — Not so, we reply. Scripture informs us that the/Self abides in a definite part of the body, viz. the heart. .. ' For that Self is in the heart, there are a hundred and one veins.' And in reply to the question 'What is that Self?' the text has ' He who is within the heart, surrounded by the Pra?zas, the Person of light, consisting of knowledge ' (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 7). — The parallel case of the sandal-oint- ment is referred to in order to point out that the Self abides in some particular part of the body ; while the ointment is not bound to any special place. — In the next Sutra the Sutrakara proceeds to state how, according to his own view, the Self, although abiding in one spot only, gives rise to effects extending over the whole body. II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 29. 549 26. Or on account of its quality as light. The ; or ' is meant to set aside the view previously stated. The Self extends through the whole body by means of its quality, viz. knowledge or consciousness. 'As light.' As the light of things abiding in one place— such as gems, the sun, and so on — is seen to extend to many places, so the consciousness of the Self dwelling in the heart pervades the entire body. That the knowledge of the knowing subject may extend beyond its substrate, as the light of a luminous body does, we have already explained under the first Sutra. — But it has been said that the Self is mere knowledge ; how then can knowledge be said to be a quality — which is something different from the essential nature of a thing ? — This the next Sutra explains. 27. There is distinction as in the case of smell; and thus Scripture declares. Just as smell, which is perceived as a quality of earth, is distinct from earth ; thus knowledge of which we are conscious as the quality of a knowing subject — which relation expresses itself in judgments such as ' I know ' — is different from the knowing subject. Scriptural texts also prove this relation, as e.g. 'This Person knows.' 28. On account of the separate statement. Scripture even states quite directly that knowledge is something distinct from the knowing subject, viz. in the passage ' For there is not known any intermission of the knowing of the knower ' (Br/. Up. IV, 3, 30). — It has been said that in passages such as * he who abiding in knowledge ' (Br/. Up. Ill, 7, 22); { Knowledge performs the sacrifice ' (Taitt. Up. II, 5, 1) ; * having knowledge for its nature, absolutely free from stain/ Scripture speaks of the Self as being mere knowledge (not a knower). This point the next Sutra elucidates.
2Up. Ill, 7, 22); { Knowledge performs the sacrifice ' (Taitt. Up. II, 5, 1) ; * having knowledge for its nature, absolutely free from stain/ Scripture speaks of the Self as being mere knowledge (not a knower). This point the next Sutra elucidates. 2 9. But (the Self) is designated as that because it has that quality (viz. knowledge) for its essential quality ; as in the case of the intelligent (pra^/za) Self. 5 50 VEDANTA-stiTRAS. The ' but ' discards the objection. Because that quality, viz. the quality of knowledge, is the essential quality, there- fore the Self is, in the passages quoted, designated as know- ledge. For knowledge constitutes the essential quality of the Self. Similarly, the intelligent highest Self is occa- sionally called c Bliss,' because bliss is its essential quality. Compare * If that bliss existed not in the ether ' (Taitt. Up. II, 7, i) ; c He perceived that bliss is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. Ill, 6, l). That bliss is the essential attribute of Brahman is proved by texts such as 'That is one bliss of Brahman ' ; ' He who knows the bliss of Brahman is afraid of nothing' (Taitt. Up. II, 4, 1). — Or else the analo- gous case to which the Sutra refers may be that of the intelligent Brahman being designated by the term ' know- ledge,' in texts such as ' Truth, knowledge, the Infinite is Brahman ' (Taitt. Up. II, 1). That knowledge is the essential quality of Brahman is known from passages such as ' together with the intelligent Brahman ' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1) ; ' He who is all-knowing' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 9). 30. And there is no objection, since (the quality of knowledge) exists wherever the Self is ; this being observed. Since knowledge is an attribute which is met with wherever a Self is, there is no objection to the Self being designated by that attribute. Similarly we observe that special kinds of cows, as e. g. hornless ones, are designated by the term 'cow,' since the quality of possessing the generic character of cows is met with everywhere in con- nexion with the essential character of such animals with mutilated horns ; since in fact that quality contributes to define their essential character. The ' and ' of the Sutra is meant to suggest a further argument, viz. that to apply to the Self the term ' knowledge ' is suitable for that reason also that like knowledge the Self is self-illuminated. The objection that knowledge or consciousness cannot be an attribute inseparably connected with the essential nature of the Self as there is no consciousness in deep sleep and similar states is taken up in the next Sutra. II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 3 1. 55 I 31. Since there may be manifestation of that which exists ; as in the case of virile power and so on.
3II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 3 1. 55 I 31. Since there may be manifestation of that which exists ; as in the case of virile power and so on. The 'but' is meant to set the raised objection aside. The case may be that while consciousness is present also in deep sleep, and so on, it is manifested in the waking state only ; whence there would be no objection to viewing consciousness as an essential attribute of the Self. ' As in the case of virile power and the like.' Special substances such as the virile element are indeed present in the male child already, but then are not manifest, while later on they manifest themselves with advancing youth ; but all the same the possession of those substances is essential to the male being, not merely adventitious. For to be made up of seven elementary substances (viz. blood, humour, flesh, fat, marrow, bone, and semen) is an essential property of the body. That even in deep sleep and similar states the c I ' shines forth we have explained above. Consciousness is always there, but only in the waking state and in dreams it is observed to relate itself to objects. And that to be a subject of cognition, and so on, are essential attributes of the Self, we have also proved before. The conclusion, therefore, is that to be a knowing subject is the essential character of the Self. And that Self is of atomic size. The text ' when he has departed there is no consciousness ' (s^mgnk ; Brz. Up. II, 4, 12) does not declare that the released Self has no consciousness ; but only that in the case of that Self there is absent that knowledge (experi- ence) of birth, death, and so on, which in the Sa#/sara state is caused by the connexion of the Self with the elements — as described in the preceding passage, ' that great being having risen from out these elements again perishes after them/ For the text as to the absence of samgna after death must be interpreted in harmony with other texts describing the condition of the released soul, such as ' the seeing one does not see death nor illness nor pain ; the seeing one sees everything and obtains everything every- where ' (Kk. Up. VII, 2,5, 2) ; 'not remembering that body 552 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. into which he was born — seeing these pleasures with the mind he rejoices ' (VIII, 12, 3 ; 5). The Sutras now proceed to refute the doctrine of the Self being (not a knower) but mere knowledge, and being omnipresent. 32. There would result permanent consciousness or non-consciousness, or else limitative restriction to either.
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.