Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1so far as having the individual souls for its body, and that thus the two sets of words denote fundamentally one and the same thing, has been explained previously. 46. And Smrzti texts declare this. That the world and Brahman stand to each other in the relation of part and whole, the former being like the light and the latter like the luminous body, or the former being like the power and the latter like that in which the power inheres, or the former being like the body and the latter like the soul; this ParaUara also and other Smrzti writers declare, 'As the light of a fire which abides in one place only spreads all around, thus this whole world is the power (j-akti) of the highest Brahman/ The ' and ' in the Sutra implies that scriptural texts also (' of whom the Self is the body ' and others) declare that the individual Self is a part of Brahman in so far as it is its body. But if all individual souls are equal in so far as being alike parts of Brahman, alike actuated by Brahman, and alike knowing subjects, what is the reason that, as Scripture teaches, some of them are allowed to read the Veda and act according to its injunctions, while others are excluded therefrom ; and again that some are to see, feel, and so on, while others are excluded from these privileges? — This question is answered by the next Sutra. 47. Permission and exclusion (result) from con- nexion with a body ; as in the case of light and so on. Although all souls are essentially of the same nature in so far as they are parts of Brahman, knowing subjects and so on, the permissions and exclusions referred to are possible for the reason that each individual soul is joined to some II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 49. 565 particular body, pure or impure, whether of a Brahma/za or Kshattriya or VaLsya or vSudra, and so on. ' As in the case of fire and so on.5 All fire is of the same kind, and yet one willingly fetches fire from the house of a Brahma/za, while one shuns fire from a place where dead bodies are burnt. And from a Brahma/za one accepts food without any objection, while one refuses food from a low person. 48. And on account of non-connectedness there is no confusion. Although the souls, as being parts of Brahman and so on, are of essentially the same character, they are actually separate, for each of them is of atomic size and resides in a separate body. For this reason there is no confusion or mix- ing up of the individual spheres of enjoyment and experience. The Sutrakara introduces this reference to an advantage of his own view of things, in order to intimate that the views of the soul being Brahman deluded or else Brahman affected by a limiting adjunct are on their part incapable of explain- ing how it is that the experiences of the individual Self and the highest Self, and of the several individual Selfs, are not mixed up.
2But may not, on the view of the soul being Brahman deluded, the distinction of the several spheres of experience be explained by means of the difference of the limiting adjuncts presented by Nescience? — This the next Sutra negatives. 49. And it is a mere apparent argument. The argumentation by which it is sought to prove that that being whose nature is constituted by absolutely uniform light, i. e. intelligence, is differentiated by limiting adjuncts which presuppose an obscuration of that essential nature, is a mere apparent (fallacious) one. For, as we have shown before, obscuration of the light of that which is nothing but light means destruction of that light. — If we accept as the reading of the Sutra ' abha^a/z ' (in plural) the meaning is that the various reasons set forth by the adherents of that doctrine are all of them fallacious. The ' and ' of 566 vedanta-s6tras. the Sutra is meant to point out that that doctrine, moreover, is in conflict with texts such as i thinking himself to be different from the Mover ' (Svet. Up. I, 6) ; * there are two unborn ones, one a ruler, the other not a ruler ' (I, 9) ; 'of those two one eats the sweet fruit ' (V, 6) ; and others. P^or even if difference is due to upadhis which are the figment of Nescience, there is no escaping the conclusion that the spheres of experience must be mixed up, since the theory admits that the thing itself with which all the limiting adjuncts connect themselves is one only. But this cannot be urged against the theory of the individual soul being Brahman in so far as determined by real limiting adjuncts ; for on that view we may explain the difference of spheres of experience as due to the begin- ningiess adrzsh/as which are the cause of the difference of the limiting adjuncts ! — To this the next Sutra replies. 50. On account of the non-determination of the adrzsh/as. As the adWsh/as also which are the causes of the series of upadhis have for their substrate Brahman itself, there is no reason for their definite allotment (to definite individual souls), and hence again there is no definite separation of the spheres of experience. For the limiting adjuncts as well as the adrzsh/as cannot by their connexion with Brahman split up Brahman itself which is essentially one. 51. And it is thus also in the case of purposes and so on. For the same reason there can be no definite restriction in the case of purposes and so on which are the causes of the different adrzsh/as. (For they also cannot introduce plurality into Brahman that is fundamentally one.) 52. Should it be said (that that is possible) owing to the difference of place ; we deny this, on account of (all upadhis) being within (all places). Although Brahman is one only and not to be split by the several limiting adjuncts with which it is connected, II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 52. 567
3Should it be said (that that is possible) owing to the difference of place ; we deny this, on account of (all upadhis) being within (all places). Although Brahman is one only and not to be split by the several limiting adjuncts with which it is connected, II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 52. 567 yet the separation of the spheres of enjoyment is not impossible since the places of Brahman which are connected with the upadhis are distinct. — This the Sutra negatives on the ground that, as the upadhis move here and there and hence all places enter into connexion with all upadhis, the mixing up of spheres of enjoyment cannot be avoided. And even if the up&dhis were connected with different places, the pain connected with some particular place would affect the whole of Brahman which is one only. — The two Sutras II, 3, 32 and 37 have stated an objection against those who, without taking their stand on the Veda, held the view of an all-pervading soul. The Sutras II, 3, 50 and ff., on the other hand, combat the view of those who, while basing their doctrine on the Veda, teach the absolute unity of the Self. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' the part.' 568 vedanta-sAtras. FOURTH PADA. i. Thus the pra/zas. After having taught that Ether and all the other ele- ments are effects, and hence have originated, the Sutras had shown that the individual soul, although likewise an effect, does not originate in the sense of undergoing a change of essential nature ; and had in connexion therewith clearly- set forth wherein the essential nature of the soul consists. They now proceed to elucidate the question as to the origination of the instruments of the individual soul, viz. the organs and the vital breath. The point here to be decided is whether the organs are effects as the individual soul is an effect, or as ether and the other elements are. As the soul is, thus the pra/zas are, the Purvapakshin maintains. That means — as the soul is not produced, thus the organs also are not produced* For the latter point no less than the former is directly- stated in Scripture ; the wording of the Sutra ' thus the pra/zas ' being meant to extend to the case of the pra/zas also, the authority of Scripture to which recourse was had in the case of the soul.— But what is the scriptural text you mean?
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.
1so far as having the individual souls for its body, and that thus the two sets of words denote fundamentally one and the same thing, has been explained previously. 46. And Smrzti texts declare this. That the world and Brahman stand to each other in the relation of part and whole, the former being like the light and the latter like the luminous body, or the former being like the power and the latter like that in which the power inheres, or the former being like the body and the latter like the soul; this ParaUara also and other Smrzti writers declare, 'As the light of a fire which abides in one place only spreads all around, thus this whole world is the power (j-akti) of the highest Brahman/ The ' and ' in the Sutra implies that scriptural texts also (' of whom the Self is the body ' and others) declare that the individual Self is a part of Brahman in so far as it is its body. But if all individual souls are equal in so far as being alike parts of Brahman, alike actuated by Brahman, and alike knowing subjects, what is the reason that, as Scripture teaches, some of them are allowed to read the Veda and act according to its injunctions, while others are excluded therefrom ; and again that some are to see, feel, and so on, while others are excluded from these privileges? — This question is answered by the next Sutra. 47. Permission and exclusion (result) from con- nexion with a body ; as in the case of light and so on. Although all souls are essentially of the same nature in so far as they are parts of Brahman, knowing subjects and so on, the permissions and exclusions referred to are possible for the reason that each individual soul is joined to some II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 49. 565 particular body, pure or impure, whether of a Brahma/za or Kshattriya or VaLsya or vSudra, and so on. ' As in the case of fire and so on.5 All fire is of the same kind, and yet one willingly fetches fire from the house of a Brahma/za, while one shuns fire from a place where dead bodies are burnt. And from a Brahma/za one accepts food without any objection, while one refuses food from a low person. 48. And on account of non-connectedness there is no confusion. Although the souls, as being parts of Brahman and so on, are of essentially the same character, they are actually separate, for each of them is of atomic size and resides in a separate body. For this reason there is no confusion or mix- ing up of the individual spheres of enjoyment and experience. The Sutrakara introduces this reference to an advantage of his own view of things, in order to intimate that the views of the soul being Brahman deluded or else Brahman affected by a limiting adjunct are on their part incapable of explain- ing how it is that the experiences of the individual Self and the highest Self, and of the several individual Selfs, are not mixed up.
2But may not, on the view of the soul being Brahman deluded, the distinction of the several spheres of experience be explained by means of the difference of the limiting adjuncts presented by Nescience? — This the next Sutra negatives. 49. And it is a mere apparent argument. The argumentation by which it is sought to prove that that being whose nature is constituted by absolutely uniform light, i. e. intelligence, is differentiated by limiting adjuncts which presuppose an obscuration of that essential nature, is a mere apparent (fallacious) one. For, as we have shown before, obscuration of the light of that which is nothing but light means destruction of that light. — If we accept as the reading of the Sutra ' abha^a/z ' (in plural) the meaning is that the various reasons set forth by the adherents of that doctrine are all of them fallacious. The ' and ' of 566 vedanta-s6tras. the Sutra is meant to point out that that doctrine, moreover, is in conflict with texts such as i thinking himself to be different from the Mover ' (Svet. Up. I, 6) ; * there are two unborn ones, one a ruler, the other not a ruler ' (I, 9) ; 'of those two one eats the sweet fruit ' (V, 6) ; and others. P^or even if difference is due to upadhis which are the figment of Nescience, there is no escaping the conclusion that the spheres of experience must be mixed up, since the theory admits that the thing itself with which all the limiting adjuncts connect themselves is one only. But this cannot be urged against the theory of the individual soul being Brahman in so far as determined by real limiting adjuncts ; for on that view we may explain the difference of spheres of experience as due to the begin- ningiess adrzsh/as which are the cause of the difference of the limiting adjuncts ! — To this the next Sutra replies. 50. On account of the non-determination of the adrzsh/as. As the adWsh/as also which are the causes of the series of upadhis have for their substrate Brahman itself, there is no reason for their definite allotment (to definite individual souls), and hence again there is no definite separation of the spheres of experience. For the limiting adjuncts as well as the adrzsh/as cannot by their connexion with Brahman split up Brahman itself which is essentially one. 51. And it is thus also in the case of purposes and so on. For the same reason there can be no definite restriction in the case of purposes and so on which are the causes of the different adrzsh/as. (For they also cannot introduce plurality into Brahman that is fundamentally one.) 52. Should it be said (that that is possible) owing to the difference of place ; we deny this, on account of (all upadhis) being within (all places). Although Brahman is one only and not to be split by the several limiting adjuncts with which it is connected, II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 52. 567
3Should it be said (that that is possible) owing to the difference of place ; we deny this, on account of (all upadhis) being within (all places). Although Brahman is one only and not to be split by the several limiting adjuncts with which it is connected, II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 52. 567 yet the separation of the spheres of enjoyment is not impossible since the places of Brahman which are connected with the upadhis are distinct. — This the Sutra negatives on the ground that, as the upadhis move here and there and hence all places enter into connexion with all upadhis, the mixing up of spheres of enjoyment cannot be avoided. And even if the up&dhis were connected with different places, the pain connected with some particular place would affect the whole of Brahman which is one only. — The two Sutras II, 3, 32 and 37 have stated an objection against those who, without taking their stand on the Veda, held the view of an all-pervading soul. The Sutras II, 3, 50 and ff., on the other hand, combat the view of those who, while basing their doctrine on the Veda, teach the absolute unity of the Self. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' the part.' 568 vedanta-sAtras. FOURTH PADA. i. Thus the pra/zas. After having taught that Ether and all the other ele- ments are effects, and hence have originated, the Sutras had shown that the individual soul, although likewise an effect, does not originate in the sense of undergoing a change of essential nature ; and had in connexion therewith clearly- set forth wherein the essential nature of the soul consists. They now proceed to elucidate the question as to the origination of the instruments of the individual soul, viz. the organs and the vital breath. The point here to be decided is whether the organs are effects as the individual soul is an effect, or as ether and the other elements are. As the soul is, thus the pra/zas are, the Purvapakshin maintains. That means — as the soul is not produced, thus the organs also are not produced* For the latter point no less than the former is directly- stated in Scripture ; the wording of the Sutra ' thus the pra/zas ' being meant to extend to the case of the pra/zas also, the authority of Scripture to which recourse was had in the case of the soul.— But what is the scriptural text you mean?
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.