Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1He is therefore more eminently true than they are. As thus the complementary passage declares Brahman to be connected with certain qualities, the clause ' not so, not so ' (to which that passage is complementary) cannot deny that Brahman possesses Ill ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 23. 617 distinctive attributes, but only that Brahman's nature is confined to the attributes previously stated. — Brahman therefore possesses the twofold characteristics. That the clause s not so ' negatives Brahman's being fully described by the attributes previously mentioned, was above proved on the ground that since Brahman is not the object of any other means of proof, those previous statements cannot refer to what is already proved, and that the final clause cannot therefore be meant to deny what the previous clauses expressly teach. The next Sutra now confirms this circumstance of Brahman not lying within the sphere of the other means of proof. 22. That (is) unmanifested ; for (this Scripture) declares. Brahman is not manifested by other means of proof ; for Scripture says, ' His form is not to be seen, no one beholds him with the eye' (Ka. Up. II, 6, 9) ; ' He is not appre- hended by the eye nor by speech' (Mu. Up. Ill, 1, 8). 23. Also in perfect conciliation, according to Scripture and Smnti. Moreover, it is only in the state of perfect conciliation or endearment, i.e. in meditation bearing the character of devotion, that an intuition of Brahman takes place, not in any other state. This Scripture and Smrzti alike teach. 4 That Self cannot be gained by the Veda, nor by under- standing, nor by much learning. He whom the Self chooses by him the Self can be gained. The Self chooses him as his own ' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 23) ; * When a man's nature has become purified by the serene light of knowledge, then he sees him, meditating on him as without parts ' (Mu. Up. Ill, 1, 9). Smrzti : ' Neither by the Vedas, nor austerities, nor gifts, nor by sacrifice, but only by exclusive devotion, may I in this form be known and beheld in truth and also entered into' (Bha. Gi. XI, 53,54). The scriptural text beginning * Two are the forms of Brahman,' which declares the nature of Brahman for the purposes of devout medita- tion, cannot therefore refer to Brahman's being characterised by two forms, a material and an immaterial, as something 6 1 8 vedanta-s^tras. already known ; for apart from Scripture nothing is known about Brahman. 24. And there is non-difference (of the intention of Brahman's distinguishing attributes), as in the case of light ; and the light (is) intuited as consti- tuting Brahman's essential nature by repetition of the practice (of meditation).
224. And there is non-difference (of the intention of Brahman's distinguishing attributes), as in the case of light ; and the light (is) intuited as consti- tuting Brahman's essential nature by repetition of the practice (of meditation). That the clause ' not so ' negatives not Brahman's pos- sessing two forms, a material and an immaterial one, but only Brahman's nature being restricted to those determinations, follows therefrom also that in the vision of Vamadeva and others who had attained to intui- tion into Brahman's nature, the fact of Brahman having all material and immaterial beings for its attributes is apprehended in non-difference, i. e. in the same way as the fact of light (i. e. knowledge) and bliss constituting Brahman's essential nature. Compare the text c Seeing this the Rzshi Vamadeva understood, I am Manu and the sun ' (Br/. Up. I, 4, 10). And that light and bliss constitute Brahman's nature was perceived by V&madeva and the rest through repeated performance of the practice of devout meditation. In the same way then, i. e. by repeated meditation, they also became aware that Brahman has all material and immaterial things for its distinguishing modes. — The next Sutra sums up the proof of Brahman's possessing twofold characteristics. 25. Hence (Brahman is distinguished) by what is infinite ; for thus the characteristics (hold good). By the arguments stated it is proved that Brahman is distinguished by the infinite multitude of blessed qualities. And this being so, it follows that Brahman possesses the twofold characteristics. — Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' that which has twofold characteristics/ 26. But on account of twofold designation, as the snake and its coils. It has been shown in the preceding adhikara/za that Ill ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 2J. 6ig the entire non-sentient universe is the outward form of Brahman. For the purpose of proving Brahman's freedom from all imperfection, an enquiry is now begun into the particular mode in which the world may be conceived to constitute the form of Brahman. Is the relation of the two like that of the snake and its coils ; or like that of light and the luminous body, both of which fall under the same genus ; or like that of the individual soul and Brahman, the soul being a distinguishing attribute and for that reason a part (slmss.) of Brahman? — On the assumption of this last alternative, which is about to be established here, it has been already shown under two preceding Sutras (I, 4, 23 ; II, 1, 14), that from Brahman, as distinguished by sentient and non-sentient beings in their subtle form, there originates Brahman as distinguished by all those beings in their gross form.
3Which then of the alternatives stated above is the true one? — The material world is related to Brahman as the coils to the snake, 'on account of twofold designation.' For some texts declare the identity of the two : ' Brahman only is all this ' ; ' The Self only is all this.' Other texts again refer to the difference of the two : ' Having entered into these three deities with this ^iva-self, let me differen- tiate names and forms.' We therefore consider all non- sentient things to be special forms or arrangements of Brahman, as the coils are of a coiled-up snake or a coiled- up rope. 27. Or else like light and its abode, both being fire. The or sets aside the other two alternatives. If Brahman itself only appeared in the form of non-sentient things — as the snake itself only constitutes the coils — both sets of texts, those which declare difference as well as those which declare the unchangeableness of Brahman, would be contrary to sense. We therefore, adopting the second alternative, hold that the case under discussion is analogous to that of light and that in which it abides, i. e. the luminous body. The two are different, but at the same time they are 6 2 O VEDANTA-SUTR AS. identical in so far as they both are fire (te^as). In the same way the non-sentient world constitutes the form of Brahman. 28. Or else in the manner stated above.
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.
1He is therefore more eminently true than they are. As thus the complementary passage declares Brahman to be connected with certain qualities, the clause ' not so, not so ' (to which that passage is complementary) cannot deny that Brahman possesses Ill ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 23. 617 distinctive attributes, but only that Brahman's nature is confined to the attributes previously stated. — Brahman therefore possesses the twofold characteristics. That the clause s not so ' negatives Brahman's being fully described by the attributes previously mentioned, was above proved on the ground that since Brahman is not the object of any other means of proof, those previous statements cannot refer to what is already proved, and that the final clause cannot therefore be meant to deny what the previous clauses expressly teach. The next Sutra now confirms this circumstance of Brahman not lying within the sphere of the other means of proof. 22. That (is) unmanifested ; for (this Scripture) declares. Brahman is not manifested by other means of proof ; for Scripture says, ' His form is not to be seen, no one beholds him with the eye' (Ka. Up. II, 6, 9) ; ' He is not appre- hended by the eye nor by speech' (Mu. Up. Ill, 1, 8). 23. Also in perfect conciliation, according to Scripture and Smnti. Moreover, it is only in the state of perfect conciliation or endearment, i.e. in meditation bearing the character of devotion, that an intuition of Brahman takes place, not in any other state. This Scripture and Smrzti alike teach. 4 That Self cannot be gained by the Veda, nor by under- standing, nor by much learning. He whom the Self chooses by him the Self can be gained. The Self chooses him as his own ' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 23) ; * When a man's nature has become purified by the serene light of knowledge, then he sees him, meditating on him as without parts ' (Mu. Up. Ill, 1, 9). Smrzti : ' Neither by the Vedas, nor austerities, nor gifts, nor by sacrifice, but only by exclusive devotion, may I in this form be known and beheld in truth and also entered into' (Bha. Gi. XI, 53,54). The scriptural text beginning * Two are the forms of Brahman,' which declares the nature of Brahman for the purposes of devout medita- tion, cannot therefore refer to Brahman's being characterised by two forms, a material and an immaterial, as something 6 1 8 vedanta-s^tras. already known ; for apart from Scripture nothing is known about Brahman. 24. And there is non-difference (of the intention of Brahman's distinguishing attributes), as in the case of light ; and the light (is) intuited as consti- tuting Brahman's essential nature by repetition of the practice (of meditation).
224. And there is non-difference (of the intention of Brahman's distinguishing attributes), as in the case of light ; and the light (is) intuited as consti- tuting Brahman's essential nature by repetition of the practice (of meditation). That the clause ' not so ' negatives not Brahman's pos- sessing two forms, a material and an immaterial one, but only Brahman's nature being restricted to those determinations, follows therefrom also that in the vision of Vamadeva and others who had attained to intui- tion into Brahman's nature, the fact of Brahman having all material and immaterial beings for its attributes is apprehended in non-difference, i. e. in the same way as the fact of light (i. e. knowledge) and bliss constituting Brahman's essential nature. Compare the text c Seeing this the Rzshi Vamadeva understood, I am Manu and the sun ' (Br/. Up. I, 4, 10). And that light and bliss constitute Brahman's nature was perceived by V&madeva and the rest through repeated performance of the practice of devout meditation. In the same way then, i. e. by repeated meditation, they also became aware that Brahman has all material and immaterial things for its distinguishing modes. — The next Sutra sums up the proof of Brahman's possessing twofold characteristics. 25. Hence (Brahman is distinguished) by what is infinite ; for thus the characteristics (hold good). By the arguments stated it is proved that Brahman is distinguished by the infinite multitude of blessed qualities. And this being so, it follows that Brahman possesses the twofold characteristics. — Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' that which has twofold characteristics/ 26. But on account of twofold designation, as the snake and its coils. It has been shown in the preceding adhikara/za that Ill ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 2J. 6ig the entire non-sentient universe is the outward form of Brahman. For the purpose of proving Brahman's freedom from all imperfection, an enquiry is now begun into the particular mode in which the world may be conceived to constitute the form of Brahman. Is the relation of the two like that of the snake and its coils ; or like that of light and the luminous body, both of which fall under the same genus ; or like that of the individual soul and Brahman, the soul being a distinguishing attribute and for that reason a part (slmss.) of Brahman? — On the assumption of this last alternative, which is about to be established here, it has been already shown under two preceding Sutras (I, 4, 23 ; II, 1, 14), that from Brahman, as distinguished by sentient and non-sentient beings in their subtle form, there originates Brahman as distinguished by all those beings in their gross form.
3Which then of the alternatives stated above is the true one? — The material world is related to Brahman as the coils to the snake, 'on account of twofold designation.' For some texts declare the identity of the two : ' Brahman only is all this ' ; ' The Self only is all this.' Other texts again refer to the difference of the two : ' Having entered into these three deities with this ^iva-self, let me differen- tiate names and forms.' We therefore consider all non- sentient things to be special forms or arrangements of Brahman, as the coils are of a coiled-up snake or a coiled- up rope. 27. Or else like light and its abode, both being fire. The or sets aside the other two alternatives. If Brahman itself only appeared in the form of non-sentient things — as the snake itself only constitutes the coils — both sets of texts, those which declare difference as well as those which declare the unchangeableness of Brahman, would be contrary to sense. We therefore, adopting the second alternative, hold that the case under discussion is analogous to that of light and that in which it abides, i. e. the luminous body. The two are different, but at the same time they are 6 2 O VEDANTA-SUTR AS. identical in so far as they both are fire (te^as). In the same way the non-sentient world constitutes the form of Brahman. 28. Or else in the manner stated above.
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.