Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1c Non-being, truly this was in the beginning. Here they say, what was that ? Those Rtshis indeed were that Non- being, thus they say. And who were those Rishis ? The pra/zas indeed were those Rishis.' This is the passage which declares that before the origination of the world the i^zshis existed. As ' pra/zM ' is in the plural, we conclude that what is meant is the organs and the vital air. Nor can this text be interpreted to mean only that the pra/zas exist for a very long time (but are not uncreated) ; as we may interpret the texts declaring Vayu and the atmosphere (antariksha) to be immortal : * Vayu and the atmosphere are immortal'; ' Vayu is the deity that never sets' (Brz. Up. II, 3> 3; I, 5, zi). For the clause ' Non-being indeed was II ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 2. 569 this in the beginning ' declares that the pra?zas existed even at the time when the entire world was in the pralaya state. Those texts, then, which speak of an origination of the pr&Tzas must be explained somehow, just as we did with the texts referring to the origination of the individual soul. To this the Siddhantin replies, ' the pra^as also originate in the same way as ether, and so on.' — Why ? — Because we have scriptural texts directly stating that before creation everything was one, ' Being only this was in the beginning/ ' The Self only was this in the beginning/ And moreover, the text 'from that there is produced the pra^a and the mind and all organs' (Mu. Up. II, 3, 1) declares that the organs originated ; they therefore cannot have existed before creation. Nor is it permissible to ascribe a different meaning to the texts which declare the origination of the sense-organs — as we may do in the case of the texts de- claring the origination of the soul. For we have no texts directly denying the origination of the sense-organs, or affirming their eternity, while we have such texts in the case of the individual soul. In the text quoted by the Purvapakshin, ' Non-being indeed was this in the begin- ning,' &c, the word pra/za can denote the highest Self only ; for from texts such as ' All these beings indeed enter into breath alone, and from breath they arise ' {Kh. Up. I, 11, 5), the word pra^a is known to be one of the designa- tions of the highest Self. And as to the clause ' the pra^/as indeed are those Rzshis,' we remark that the term Ri shi may properly be applied to the all-seeing highest Self, but not to the non-intelligent organs. But how then is the plural form i the Rishis are the pra/ms ' to be accounted for ? This the next Sutra explains. 2. (The scriptural statement of the plural) is secondary, on account of impossibility; and since (the highest Self) is declared before that. The plural form exhibited by the text must be taken (not in its literal, but) in a secondary figurative sense, since there is no room there for a plurality of things. For Scrip- 5 7° VEDANTA-S^TRAS. ture declares that previous to creation the highest Self only exists.
2The plural form exhibited by the text must be taken (not in its literal, but) in a secondary figurative sense, since there is no room there for a plurality of things. For Scrip- 5 7° VEDANTA-S^TRAS. ture declares that previous to creation the highest Self only exists. 3. On account of speech having for its antecedent that. For the following reason also the word c pr&na.,' in the text quoted, can denote Brahman only. Speech, i. e. the names which have for their object all things apart from Brahman, presupposes the existence of the entire universe of things — ether, and so on — which is the object of speech. But, as according to the text 'this was then n on- differenti- ated ; it was thereupon differentiated by names and forms,' then (i. e. before the differentiation of individual things), no things having name and form existed, there existed also no effects of speech and the other organs of action and sensation, and hence it cannot be inferred that those organs themselves existed. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' the origination of the pra/zas.' 4. (They are seven) on account of the going of the seven and of specification. The question here arises whether those organs are seven only, or eleven — the doubt on this point being due to the conflicting nature of scriptural texts. — The Purvapakshin maintains the former alternative. — On what grounds ? — ' On account of going, and of specification., For the text refers to the ' going/ i. e. to the moving about in the different worlds, together with the soul when being born or dying, of seven pra/zas only, ' seven are these worlds in which the pra/zas move which rest in the cave, being placed there as seven and seven' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 8) — where the repetition ' seven and seven' intimates the plurality of souls to which the pra/zas are attached. Moreover those moving pra/zas are distinctly specified in the following text, c when the five instruments of knowledge stand still, together with the mind (manas), and when the buddhi does not move, that they call the highest " going " ' (gati — Ka. Up. II, 6, 10). The ' highest going ' here means the moving towards Release, all movement within the body having II ADHYAYA, \ PADA, 5. 571
3Up. II, 6, 10). The ' highest going ' here means the moving towards Release, all movement within the body having II ADHYAYA, \ PADA, 5. 571 come to an end. As thus the text declares that at the time of birth and death seven pra/zas only accompany the soul, and as, with regard to the condition of final concen- tration, those pra;/as are distinctly specified as forms of knowledge (^7/anani), we conclude that the pra;/as are the seven following instruments of the soul — the organs of hearing, feeling, seeing, tasting and smelling, the buddhi and the manas. In various other passages indeed, which refer to the pra^as, higher numbers are mentioned, viz. up to fourteen, speech, the hands, the feet, the anus, the organ of generation, the ahankara and the £itta being added to those mentioned above ; cp. e. g. ' there are eight grahas ' (Br/. Up. Ill, 2, 1) ; * Seven are the pra;zas of the head, two the lower ones' (Taitt. Sa;#h. V, 3, 2, 5). But as the text says nothing about those additional organs accompany- ing the soul, we assume that they are called pra//as in a metaphorical sense only, since they all, more or less, assist the soul. — This view the next Sutra sets aside. 5. But the hands and so on also ; (since they assist the soul) abiding (in the body). Hence (it is) not so. The organs are not seven only, but eleven, since the hands and the rest also contribute towards the experience and fruition of that which abides in the body, i. e. the soul, and have their separate offices, such as seizing, and so on. Hence it is not so, i. e. it must not be thought that the hands and the rest are not organs. Buddhi, ahankara and £itta, on the other hand, are (not independent organs but) mere designations of the manas, according as the latter is engaged in the functions of deciding (adhyavasaya), or misconception (abhimana), or thinking (£inta). The organs therefore are eleven. From this it follows that in the passage ' Ten are these pra/zas in man, and Atman is the eleventh' (Br/. Up. II, 4, 11), the word Atman denotes the manas. The number eleven is confirmed by scriptural and Smrzti passages, cp. ' the ten organs and the one' (Bha. Gi. XIII, 5) ; 'ten are the vaikarika beings, the manas is the eleventh,5 and others. Where more organs 572 VEDANTA-SUTR AS. are mentioned, the different functions of the manas are meant ; and references to smaller numbers are connected with special effects of the organs, such as accompanying the soul, and the like. — Here terminates the adhikarazza of ' the going of the seven/ 6. And (they are) minute.
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.
1c Non-being, truly this was in the beginning. Here they say, what was that ? Those Rtshis indeed were that Non- being, thus they say. And who were those Rishis ? The pra/zas indeed were those Rishis.' This is the passage which declares that before the origination of the world the i^zshis existed. As ' pra/zM ' is in the plural, we conclude that what is meant is the organs and the vital air. Nor can this text be interpreted to mean only that the pra/zas exist for a very long time (but are not uncreated) ; as we may interpret the texts declaring Vayu and the atmosphere (antariksha) to be immortal : * Vayu and the atmosphere are immortal'; ' Vayu is the deity that never sets' (Brz. Up. II, 3> 3; I, 5, zi). For the clause ' Non-being indeed was II ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 2. 569 this in the beginning ' declares that the pra?zas existed even at the time when the entire world was in the pralaya state. Those texts, then, which speak of an origination of the pr&Tzas must be explained somehow, just as we did with the texts referring to the origination of the individual soul. To this the Siddhantin replies, ' the pra^as also originate in the same way as ether, and so on.' — Why ? — Because we have scriptural texts directly stating that before creation everything was one, ' Being only this was in the beginning/ ' The Self only was this in the beginning/ And moreover, the text 'from that there is produced the pra^a and the mind and all organs' (Mu. Up. II, 3, 1) declares that the organs originated ; they therefore cannot have existed before creation. Nor is it permissible to ascribe a different meaning to the texts which declare the origination of the sense-organs — as we may do in the case of the texts de- claring the origination of the soul. For we have no texts directly denying the origination of the sense-organs, or affirming their eternity, while we have such texts in the case of the individual soul. In the text quoted by the Purvapakshin, ' Non-being indeed was this in the begin- ning,' &c, the word pra/za can denote the highest Self only ; for from texts such as ' All these beings indeed enter into breath alone, and from breath they arise ' {Kh. Up. I, 11, 5), the word pra^a is known to be one of the designa- tions of the highest Self. And as to the clause ' the pra^/as indeed are those Rzshis,' we remark that the term Ri shi may properly be applied to the all-seeing highest Self, but not to the non-intelligent organs. But how then is the plural form i the Rishis are the pra/ms ' to be accounted for ? This the next Sutra explains. 2. (The scriptural statement of the plural) is secondary, on account of impossibility; and since (the highest Self) is declared before that. The plural form exhibited by the text must be taken (not in its literal, but) in a secondary figurative sense, since there is no room there for a plurality of things. For Scrip- 5 7° VEDANTA-S^TRAS. ture declares that previous to creation the highest Self only exists.
2The plural form exhibited by the text must be taken (not in its literal, but) in a secondary figurative sense, since there is no room there for a plurality of things. For Scrip- 5 7° VEDANTA-S^TRAS. ture declares that previous to creation the highest Self only exists. 3. On account of speech having for its antecedent that. For the following reason also the word c pr&na.,' in the text quoted, can denote Brahman only. Speech, i. e. the names which have for their object all things apart from Brahman, presupposes the existence of the entire universe of things — ether, and so on — which is the object of speech. But, as according to the text 'this was then n on- differenti- ated ; it was thereupon differentiated by names and forms,' then (i. e. before the differentiation of individual things), no things having name and form existed, there existed also no effects of speech and the other organs of action and sensation, and hence it cannot be inferred that those organs themselves existed. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' the origination of the pra/zas.' 4. (They are seven) on account of the going of the seven and of specification. The question here arises whether those organs are seven only, or eleven — the doubt on this point being due to the conflicting nature of scriptural texts. — The Purvapakshin maintains the former alternative. — On what grounds ? — ' On account of going, and of specification., For the text refers to the ' going/ i. e. to the moving about in the different worlds, together with the soul when being born or dying, of seven pra/zas only, ' seven are these worlds in which the pra/zas move which rest in the cave, being placed there as seven and seven' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 8) — where the repetition ' seven and seven' intimates the plurality of souls to which the pra/zas are attached. Moreover those moving pra/zas are distinctly specified in the following text, c when the five instruments of knowledge stand still, together with the mind (manas), and when the buddhi does not move, that they call the highest " going " ' (gati — Ka. Up. II, 6, 10). The ' highest going ' here means the moving towards Release, all movement within the body having II ADHYAYA, \ PADA, 5. 571
3Up. II, 6, 10). The ' highest going ' here means the moving towards Release, all movement within the body having II ADHYAYA, \ PADA, 5. 571 come to an end. As thus the text declares that at the time of birth and death seven pra/zas only accompany the soul, and as, with regard to the condition of final concen- tration, those pra;/as are distinctly specified as forms of knowledge (^7/anani), we conclude that the pra;/as are the seven following instruments of the soul — the organs of hearing, feeling, seeing, tasting and smelling, the buddhi and the manas. In various other passages indeed, which refer to the pra^as, higher numbers are mentioned, viz. up to fourteen, speech, the hands, the feet, the anus, the organ of generation, the ahankara and the £itta being added to those mentioned above ; cp. e. g. ' there are eight grahas ' (Br/. Up. Ill, 2, 1) ; * Seven are the pra;zas of the head, two the lower ones' (Taitt. Sa;#h. V, 3, 2, 5). But as the text says nothing about those additional organs accompany- ing the soul, we assume that they are called pra//as in a metaphorical sense only, since they all, more or less, assist the soul. — This view the next Sutra sets aside. 5. But the hands and so on also ; (since they assist the soul) abiding (in the body). Hence (it is) not so. The organs are not seven only, but eleven, since the hands and the rest also contribute towards the experience and fruition of that which abides in the body, i. e. the soul, and have their separate offices, such as seizing, and so on. Hence it is not so, i. e. it must not be thought that the hands and the rest are not organs. Buddhi, ahankara and £itta, on the other hand, are (not independent organs but) mere designations of the manas, according as the latter is engaged in the functions of deciding (adhyavasaya), or misconception (abhimana), or thinking (£inta). The organs therefore are eleven. From this it follows that in the passage ' Ten are these pra/zas in man, and Atman is the eleventh' (Br/. Up. II, 4, 11), the word Atman denotes the manas. The number eleven is confirmed by scriptural and Smrzti passages, cp. ' the ten organs and the one' (Bha. Gi. XIII, 5) ; 'ten are the vaikarika beings, the manas is the eleventh,5 and others. Where more organs 572 VEDANTA-SUTR AS. are mentioned, the different functions of the manas are meant ; and references to smaller numbers are connected with special effects of the organs, such as accompanying the soul, and the like. — Here terminates the adhikarazza of ' the going of the seven/ 6. And (they are) minute.
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.