Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1— That, in the case of eviL 558 vedanta-sOtras. actions, allowance of the action on the part of one able to stop it does not necessarily prove hardheartedness, we have shown above when explaining the Sankhya doctrine. — But there is a scriptural text. — ' He (the Lord) makes him whom he wishes to lead up from these worlds do a good deed, and the same makes him whom he wishes to lead down from these worlds do a bad deed ' (Kau. Up. Ill, 8) — which means that the Lord himself causes men to do good and evil actions, and this does not agree with the partial independence claimed above for the soul. — The text quoted, we reply, does not apply to all agents, but means that the Lord, wishing to do a favour to those who are resolved on acting so as fully to please the highest Person, engenders in their minds a tendency towards highly virtuous actions, such as are means to attain to him ; while on the other hand, in order to punish those who are re- solved on lines of action altogether displeasing to him, he engenders in their minds a delight in such actions as have a downward tendency and are obstacles in the way of the attainment of the Lord. Thus the Lord himself says, 'I am the origin of all, everything proceeds from me ; knowing this the wise worship me with love. To them ever devoted, worshipping me in love, I give that means of wisdom by which they attain to me. In mercy only to them, dwelling in their hearts, do I destroy the darkness born of ignorance, with the brilliant light of knowledge' (Bha. Gi. X, 8; 10-11). And further on the Lord — after having described ' de- moniac ' people, in the passus beginning ' they declare the world to be without a Truth, without a resting-place, with- out a Ruler/ and ending ' malignantly hating me who abides in their own bodies and those of others ' — declares, ' These evil and malign haters, most degraded of men, I hurl perpetually into transmigrations and into demoniac wombs ' (XVI, 8-19). Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' that which depends on the Highest.' 42. (The soul is) a part, on account of the decla- rations of difference and otherwise ; some also record II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 42. 559 (that Brahman is of) the nature of slaves, fishermen, and so on.
2Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' that which depends on the Highest.' 42. (The soul is) a part, on account of the decla- rations of difference and otherwise ; some also record II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 42. 559 (that Brahman is of) the nature of slaves, fishermen, and so on. The Sutras have declared that the individual soul is an agent, and as such dependent on the highest Person. The following question now arises — Is the individual soul absolutely different from Brahman? or is it nothing else than Brahman itself in so far as under the influence of error? or is it Brahman in so far as determined by a limiting adjunct (upadhi) ? or is it a part (amsa.) of Brahman ? — The doubt on this point is due to the disagreement of the scriptural texts.- — But this whole matter has already been decided under Su. II, 1, 22. — True. But as a difficulty presents itself on the ground of the conflicting nature of the texts — some asserting the difference and some the unity of the individual soul and Brahman — the matter is here more specially decided by its being proved that the soul is a part of Brahman. As long as this decision remains unsettled, the conclusions arrived at under the two Sutras referred to, viz. that the soul is non-different from Brahman and that Brahman is ' additional ' to the soul, are without a proper basis. Let it then first be said that the soul is absolutely different from Brahman, since texts such as 'There are two, the one knowing, the other not knowing, both unborn, the one strong, the other weak' (5vet. Up. I, 9) declare their difference. Texts which maintain the non-difference of a being which is knowing and another which is not know- ing, if taken literally, convey a contradiction — as if one were to say, * Water the ground with fire ' ! — and must therefore be understood in some secondary metaphorical sense. To hold that the individual soul is a part of Brahman does not explain matters ; for by a ' part ' we under- stand that which constitutes part of the extension of some- thing. If, then, the soul occupied part of the extension of Brahman, all its imperfections would belong to Brahman. Nor can the soul be a part of Brahman if we take ' part ' to mean a piece (kha^a) ; for Brahman does not admit of being divided into pieces, and moreover, the difficulties 5 6o vedanta-sOtras. connected with the former interpretation would present themselves here also. That something absolutely different from something else should yet be a part of the latter cannot in fact be proved.
3connected with the former interpretation would present themselves here also. That something absolutely different from something else should yet be a part of the latter cannot in fact be proved. Or else let it be said that the soul is Brahman affected by error (bhrama). For this is the teaching of texts such as ' Thou art that' ; ' this Self is Brahman.' Those texts, on the other hand, which declare the difference of the two merely restate what is already established by perception and the other means of knowledge, and therefore are shown, by those texts the purport of which it is to teach non-duality not established by other means, to lie — like perception and the other means of knowledge themselves — within the sphere of Nescience. Or let it be assumed, in the third place, that the individual soul is Brahman as determined by a beginningless limiting adjunct (upadhi). For it is on this ground that Scripture teaches the Self to be Brahman. And that upadhi must not be said to be a mere erroneous imagination, for on that view the distinction of bondage, release, and so on, would be impossible. Against all these views the Sutra declares that the soul is a part of Brahman ; since there are declara- tions of difference and also ' otherwise/ i. e. declarations of unity. To the former class belong all those texts which dwell on the distinction of the creator and the creature, the ruler and the ruled, the all-knowing and the ignorant, the independent and the dependent, the pure and the impure, that which is endowed with holy qualities and that which possesses qualities of an opposite kind, the lord and the dependent. To the latter class belong such texts as ' Thou art that ' and ' this Self is Brahman/ Some persons even record that Brahman is of the nature of slaves, fishermen, and so on. The Atharva/zikas, that is to say, have the following text, c Brahman are the slaves, Brahman are these fishers/ and so on ; and as Brahman there is said to comprise within itself all individual souls, the passage teaches general non-difference of the Self. In order, then, that texts of both these classes may be taken in their II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 42. 56 1
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— That, in the case of eviL 558 vedanta-sOtras. actions, allowance of the action on the part of one able to stop it does not necessarily prove hardheartedness, we have shown above when explaining the Sankhya doctrine. — But there is a scriptural text. — ' He (the Lord) makes him whom he wishes to lead up from these worlds do a good deed, and the same makes him whom he wishes to lead down from these worlds do a bad deed ' (Kau. Up. Ill, 8) — which means that the Lord himself causes men to do good and evil actions, and this does not agree with the partial independence claimed above for the soul. — The text quoted, we reply, does not apply to all agents, but means that the Lord, wishing to do a favour to those who are resolved on acting so as fully to please the highest Person, engenders in their minds a tendency towards highly virtuous actions, such as are means to attain to him ; while on the other hand, in order to punish those who are re- solved on lines of action altogether displeasing to him, he engenders in their minds a delight in such actions as have a downward tendency and are obstacles in the way of the attainment of the Lord. Thus the Lord himself says, 'I am the origin of all, everything proceeds from me ; knowing this the wise worship me with love. To them ever devoted, worshipping me in love, I give that means of wisdom by which they attain to me. In mercy only to them, dwelling in their hearts, do I destroy the darkness born of ignorance, with the brilliant light of knowledge' (Bha. Gi. X, 8; 10-11). And further on the Lord — after having described ' de- moniac ' people, in the passus beginning ' they declare the world to be without a Truth, without a resting-place, with- out a Ruler/ and ending ' malignantly hating me who abides in their own bodies and those of others ' — declares, ' These evil and malign haters, most degraded of men, I hurl perpetually into transmigrations and into demoniac wombs ' (XVI, 8-19). Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' that which depends on the Highest.' 42. (The soul is) a part, on account of the decla- rations of difference and otherwise ; some also record II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 42. 559 (that Brahman is of) the nature of slaves, fishermen, and so on.
2Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' that which depends on the Highest.' 42. (The soul is) a part, on account of the decla- rations of difference and otherwise ; some also record II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 42. 559 (that Brahman is of) the nature of slaves, fishermen, and so on. The Sutras have declared that the individual soul is an agent, and as such dependent on the highest Person. The following question now arises — Is the individual soul absolutely different from Brahman? or is it nothing else than Brahman itself in so far as under the influence of error? or is it Brahman in so far as determined by a limiting adjunct (upadhi) ? or is it a part (amsa.) of Brahman ? — The doubt on this point is due to the disagreement of the scriptural texts.- — But this whole matter has already been decided under Su. II, 1, 22. — True. But as a difficulty presents itself on the ground of the conflicting nature of the texts — some asserting the difference and some the unity of the individual soul and Brahman — the matter is here more specially decided by its being proved that the soul is a part of Brahman. As long as this decision remains unsettled, the conclusions arrived at under the two Sutras referred to, viz. that the soul is non-different from Brahman and that Brahman is ' additional ' to the soul, are without a proper basis. Let it then first be said that the soul is absolutely different from Brahman, since texts such as 'There are two, the one knowing, the other not knowing, both unborn, the one strong, the other weak' (5vet. Up. I, 9) declare their difference. Texts which maintain the non-difference of a being which is knowing and another which is not know- ing, if taken literally, convey a contradiction — as if one were to say, * Water the ground with fire ' ! — and must therefore be understood in some secondary metaphorical sense. To hold that the individual soul is a part of Brahman does not explain matters ; for by a ' part ' we under- stand that which constitutes part of the extension of some- thing. If, then, the soul occupied part of the extension of Brahman, all its imperfections would belong to Brahman. Nor can the soul be a part of Brahman if we take ' part ' to mean a piece (kha^a) ; for Brahman does not admit of being divided into pieces, and moreover, the difficulties 5 6o vedanta-sOtras. connected with the former interpretation would present themselves here also. That something absolutely different from something else should yet be a part of the latter cannot in fact be proved.
3connected with the former interpretation would present themselves here also. That something absolutely different from something else should yet be a part of the latter cannot in fact be proved. Or else let it be said that the soul is Brahman affected by error (bhrama). For this is the teaching of texts such as ' Thou art that' ; ' this Self is Brahman.' Those texts, on the other hand, which declare the difference of the two merely restate what is already established by perception and the other means of knowledge, and therefore are shown, by those texts the purport of which it is to teach non-duality not established by other means, to lie — like perception and the other means of knowledge themselves — within the sphere of Nescience. Or let it be assumed, in the third place, that the individual soul is Brahman as determined by a beginningless limiting adjunct (upadhi). For it is on this ground that Scripture teaches the Self to be Brahman. And that upadhi must not be said to be a mere erroneous imagination, for on that view the distinction of bondage, release, and so on, would be impossible. Against all these views the Sutra declares that the soul is a part of Brahman ; since there are declara- tions of difference and also ' otherwise/ i. e. declarations of unity. To the former class belong all those texts which dwell on the distinction of the creator and the creature, the ruler and the ruled, the all-knowing and the ignorant, the independent and the dependent, the pure and the impure, that which is endowed with holy qualities and that which possesses qualities of an opposite kind, the lord and the dependent. To the latter class belong such texts as ' Thou art that ' and ' this Self is Brahman/ Some persons even record that Brahman is of the nature of slaves, fishermen, and so on. The Atharva/zikas, that is to say, have the following text, c Brahman are the slaves, Brahman are these fishers/ and so on ; and as Brahman there is said to comprise within itself all individual souls, the passage teaches general non-difference of the Self. In order, then, that texts of both these classes may be taken in their II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 42. 56 1
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.