Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1— Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' the minuteness of the best.* 13. But the rule (over the pra^as) on the part of Fire and the rest, together with him to whom the pra^as belong (i.e. the soul), is owing to the think- ing of that (viz. the highest Self) ; on account of scriptural statement. 5 76 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. It has been shown that the pra/zas, together with the main pra/za, originate from Brahman, and have a limited size. That the pra/zas are guided by Agni and other divine beings has also been explained on a previous occasion, viz. under Su. II, I, 5. And it is known from ordinary ex- perience that the organs are ruled by the individual soul, which uses them as means of experience and fruition. And this is also established by scriptural texts, such as ' Having taken these pra/zas he (i.e. the soul) moves about in his own body, according to his pleasure' (Br/. Up. II, 1, 18). The question now arises whether the rule of the soul and of the presiding divine beings over the pra/zas depends on them (i.e. the soul and the divinities) only, or on some other being. — On them only, since they depend on no one else ! — Not so, the Sutra declares. The rule which light, and so on, i. e. Agni and the other divinities, together with him to whom the pra/zas belong, i. e. the soul, exercise over the pra/zas, proceeds from the thinking of that, i. e. from the will of the highest Self. — How is this known? — 'From scriptural statement.' For Scripture teaches that the organs, together with their guiding divinities and the indi- vidual soul, depend in all their doings on the thought of the highest Person. ' He, who abiding within Fire, rules Fire from within. — He, who abiding within air — within the Self — within the eye, and so on ' (Br/. Up. Ill, 7) ; ' From fear of it the wind blows, from fear of it the sun rises, from fear of it Agni and Indra, yea Death runs as the fifth' (Taitt. Up. II, 8, 1) ; ' By the command of that Imperishable one, sun and moon stand, held apart ' (Br/. Up. II, 8, 9). 1 4. And on account of the eternity of this. As the quality, inhering in all things, of being ruled by the highest Self, is eternal and definitely fixed by being connected with his essential nature, it is an unavoidable conclusion that the rule of the soul and of the divinities over the organs depends on the will of the highest Self. The text, ' Having sent forth this he entered into it, having entered into it he became sat and tyat ' (Taitt. Up. II, 6), shows that the entering on the part of the highest Person II ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 1 6. 577 into all things, so as to be their ruler, is connected with his essential nature. Similarly Smr/ti says, 'Pervading this entire Universe by a portion of mine I do abide ' (Bha. Gi. X, 42). — Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' the rule of Fire and the rest.' 15. They, with the exception of the best, are organs, on account of being so designated.
2Similarly Smr/ti says, 'Pervading this entire Universe by a portion of mine I do abide ' (Bha. Gi. X, 42). — Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' the rule of Fire and the rest.' 15. They, with the exception of the best, are organs, on account of being so designated. Are all principles called pra^as to be considered as 1 organs ' (indriyam), or is the ' best,' i. e. the chief pra/za, to be excepted ? — All of them, without exception, are organs ; for they all are called pra/zas equally, and they all are instruments of the soul. — Not so, the Sutra replies. The ' best ' one is to be excepted, since only the pra/zas other than the best are designated as organs. Texts such as ' the organs are ten and one ' (Bha. Gi. XIII, 5) apply the term ' organ ' only to the senses of sight and the rest, and the internal organ. 16. On account of scriptural statement of differ- ence, and on account of difference of characteristics. Texts such as ' from him is born pra^a, and the internal organ, and all organs' (Mu. Up. II, 1,3) mention the vital breath separately from the organs, and this shows that the breath is not one of the organs. The passage indeed mentions the internal organ (manas) also as something separate ; but in other passages the manas is formally in- cluded in the organs, ' the (five) organs with mind as the sixth' (Bha. Gi. XV, 7). That the vital breath differs in nature from the organ of sight and the rest, is a matter of observation. For in the state of deep sleep the function of breath is seen to continue, while those of the eye, and so on, are not perceived. The work of the organs, inclusive of the manas, is to act as instruments of cognition and action, while the work of breath is to maintain the body and the organs. It is for the reason that the subsistence of the organs depends on breath, that the organs them- selves are called pra/zas. Thus Scripture says, * they all became the form of that (breath), and therefore they are called after him pra/zas ' (Br/. Up. I, 5, 21). * They became [48] P p 578 VEDANTA-stiTR AS. its form ' means — they became its body, their activity de- pended on it. — Here terminates the adhikara^a of 'the organs! 1 7. But the making of names and forms (belongs) to him who renders tripartite, on account of scrip- tural teaching.
3I, 5, 21). * They became [48] P p 578 VEDANTA-stiTR AS. its form ' means — they became its body, their activity de- pended on it. — Here terminates the adhikara^a of 'the organs! 1 7. But the making of names and forms (belongs) to him who renders tripartite, on account of scrip- tural teaching. The Sutras have shown that the creation of the elements and organs in their collective aspect (samash/i) and the activity of the individual souls proceed from the highest Self; and they have also further confirmed the view that the rule which the souls exercise over their organs depends on the highest Self. A question now arises with regard to the creation of the world in its discrete aspect (vyashri), which consists in the differentiation of names and forms (i. e. of individual beings). Is this latter creation the work of Hira^yagarbha only, who represents the collective aggre- gate of all individual souls ; or, fundamentally, the work of the highest Brahman having Hira^yagarbha for its body — just as the creation of water e. g. is the work of the highest Brahman having fire for its body? — The Purvapakshin maintains the former alternative. For, he says, the text ' Having entered with this living-soul-self (anena ^ivenat- mana), let me differentiate names and forms' (Kk. Up. VI, 3, z), declares the ^-iva-soul to be the agent in differentia- tion. For the resolve of the highest deity is expressed, not in the form Met me differentiate names and forms by myself (svena rupe«a), but 'by this soul-self,5 i.e. by a part of the highest Self, in the form of the individual soul. — But on this interpretation the first person in ' vyakarava^i ' (let me enter), and the grammatical form of ' having entered/ which indicates the agent, could not be taken in their literal, but only in an implied, sense — as is the case in a sentence such as 'Having entered the hostile army by means of a spy, I will estimate its strength ' (where the real agent is not the king, who is the speaker, but the spy). ■ — The cases are not analogous, the Purvapakshin replies. For the king and the spy are fundamentally separate, and hence the king is agent by implication only. But in the II ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, I 7. 579
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— Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' the minuteness of the best.* 13. But the rule (over the pra^as) on the part of Fire and the rest, together with him to whom the pra^as belong (i.e. the soul), is owing to the think- ing of that (viz. the highest Self) ; on account of scriptural statement. 5 76 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. It has been shown that the pra/zas, together with the main pra/za, originate from Brahman, and have a limited size. That the pra/zas are guided by Agni and other divine beings has also been explained on a previous occasion, viz. under Su. II, I, 5. And it is known from ordinary ex- perience that the organs are ruled by the individual soul, which uses them as means of experience and fruition. And this is also established by scriptural texts, such as ' Having taken these pra/zas he (i.e. the soul) moves about in his own body, according to his pleasure' (Br/. Up. II, 1, 18). The question now arises whether the rule of the soul and of the presiding divine beings over the pra/zas depends on them (i.e. the soul and the divinities) only, or on some other being. — On them only, since they depend on no one else ! — Not so, the Sutra declares. The rule which light, and so on, i. e. Agni and the other divinities, together with him to whom the pra/zas belong, i. e. the soul, exercise over the pra/zas, proceeds from the thinking of that, i. e. from the will of the highest Self. — How is this known? — 'From scriptural statement.' For Scripture teaches that the organs, together with their guiding divinities and the indi- vidual soul, depend in all their doings on the thought of the highest Person. ' He, who abiding within Fire, rules Fire from within. — He, who abiding within air — within the Self — within the eye, and so on ' (Br/. Up. Ill, 7) ; ' From fear of it the wind blows, from fear of it the sun rises, from fear of it Agni and Indra, yea Death runs as the fifth' (Taitt. Up. II, 8, 1) ; ' By the command of that Imperishable one, sun and moon stand, held apart ' (Br/. Up. II, 8, 9). 1 4. And on account of the eternity of this. As the quality, inhering in all things, of being ruled by the highest Self, is eternal and definitely fixed by being connected with his essential nature, it is an unavoidable conclusion that the rule of the soul and of the divinities over the organs depends on the will of the highest Self. The text, ' Having sent forth this he entered into it, having entered into it he became sat and tyat ' (Taitt. Up. II, 6), shows that the entering on the part of the highest Person II ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 1 6. 577 into all things, so as to be their ruler, is connected with his essential nature. Similarly Smr/ti says, 'Pervading this entire Universe by a portion of mine I do abide ' (Bha. Gi. X, 42). — Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' the rule of Fire and the rest.' 15. They, with the exception of the best, are organs, on account of being so designated.
2Similarly Smr/ti says, 'Pervading this entire Universe by a portion of mine I do abide ' (Bha. Gi. X, 42). — Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' the rule of Fire and the rest.' 15. They, with the exception of the best, are organs, on account of being so designated. Are all principles called pra^as to be considered as 1 organs ' (indriyam), or is the ' best,' i. e. the chief pra/za, to be excepted ? — All of them, without exception, are organs ; for they all are called pra/zas equally, and they all are instruments of the soul. — Not so, the Sutra replies. The ' best ' one is to be excepted, since only the pra/zas other than the best are designated as organs. Texts such as ' the organs are ten and one ' (Bha. Gi. XIII, 5) apply the term ' organ ' only to the senses of sight and the rest, and the internal organ. 16. On account of scriptural statement of differ- ence, and on account of difference of characteristics. Texts such as ' from him is born pra^a, and the internal organ, and all organs' (Mu. Up. II, 1,3) mention the vital breath separately from the organs, and this shows that the breath is not one of the organs. The passage indeed mentions the internal organ (manas) also as something separate ; but in other passages the manas is formally in- cluded in the organs, ' the (five) organs with mind as the sixth' (Bha. Gi. XV, 7). That the vital breath differs in nature from the organ of sight and the rest, is a matter of observation. For in the state of deep sleep the function of breath is seen to continue, while those of the eye, and so on, are not perceived. The work of the organs, inclusive of the manas, is to act as instruments of cognition and action, while the work of breath is to maintain the body and the organs. It is for the reason that the subsistence of the organs depends on breath, that the organs them- selves are called pra/zas. Thus Scripture says, * they all became the form of that (breath), and therefore they are called after him pra/zas ' (Br/. Up. I, 5, 21). * They became [48] P p 578 VEDANTA-stiTR AS. its form ' means — they became its body, their activity de- pended on it. — Here terminates the adhikara^a of 'the organs! 1 7. But the making of names and forms (belongs) to him who renders tripartite, on account of scrip- tural teaching.
3I, 5, 21). * They became [48] P p 578 VEDANTA-stiTR AS. its form ' means — they became its body, their activity de- pended on it. — Here terminates the adhikara^a of 'the organs! 1 7. But the making of names and forms (belongs) to him who renders tripartite, on account of scrip- tural teaching. The Sutras have shown that the creation of the elements and organs in their collective aspect (samash/i) and the activity of the individual souls proceed from the highest Self; and they have also further confirmed the view that the rule which the souls exercise over their organs depends on the highest Self. A question now arises with regard to the creation of the world in its discrete aspect (vyashri), which consists in the differentiation of names and forms (i. e. of individual beings). Is this latter creation the work of Hira^yagarbha only, who represents the collective aggre- gate of all individual souls ; or, fundamentally, the work of the highest Brahman having Hira^yagarbha for its body — just as the creation of water e. g. is the work of the highest Brahman having fire for its body? — The Purvapakshin maintains the former alternative. For, he says, the text ' Having entered with this living-soul-self (anena ^ivenat- mana), let me differentiate names and forms' (Kk. Up. VI, 3, z), declares the ^-iva-soul to be the agent in differentia- tion. For the resolve of the highest deity is expressed, not in the form Met me differentiate names and forms by myself (svena rupe«a), but 'by this soul-self,5 i.e. by a part of the highest Self, in the form of the individual soul. — But on this interpretation the first person in ' vyakarava^i ' (let me enter), and the grammatical form of ' having entered/ which indicates the agent, could not be taken in their literal, but only in an implied, sense — as is the case in a sentence such as 'Having entered the hostile army by means of a spy, I will estimate its strength ' (where the real agent is not the king, who is the speaker, but the spy). ■ — The cases are not analogous, the Purvapakshin replies. For the king and the spy are fundamentally separate, and hence the king is agent by implication only. But in the II ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, I 7. 579
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.