Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1e. 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 but sets aside the two preceding alternatives. One substance may indeed connect itself with several states, but the former of the two alternatives implies that Brahman itself constitutes the essential nature of non-sentient matter, and thus there is no escape from the objections already stated under Sutra 27. Let then the second alternative be adopted according to which Brahma-hood (brahmatva) constitutes a genus inhering in Brahman as well as in non-sentient matter, just as fire constitutes the common genus for light and luminous bodies. But on this view Brahman becomes a mere abstract generic character inhering in the Lord (fovara), sentient souls and non- sentient matter, just as the generic character of horses (a^vatva) inheres in concrete individual horses ; and this contradicts all the teaching of Sruti and Smrz'ti (according to which Brahman is the highest concrete entity). We therefore hold that non-sentient matter stands to Brahman in the same relation as the one previously proved for the individual soul in Sutra II, 3, 43 ; 46 ; viz. that it is an attri- bute incapable of being realised apart from Brahman and hence is a part (amsa) of the latter. The texts referring to the two as non-different may thus be taken in their primary sense ; for the part is only a limited place of that of which it is a part. And the texts referring to the two as different may also be taken in their primary sense ; for the distin- guishing attribute and that to which the attribute belongs are essentially different. Thus Brahman's freedom from all imperfection is preserved. — Lustre is an attribute not to be realised apart from the gem, and therefore is a part of the gem ; the same relation also holds good between generic character and individuals having that character, between qualities and things having qualities, between bodies and souls. In the same way souls as well as non-sentient matter stand to Brahman in the relation of parts. Ill ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 30. 62 I 29. And on account of denial.
2In the same way souls as well as non-sentient matter stand to Brahman in the relation of parts. Ill ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 30. 62 I 29. And on account of denial. Texts such as 'This is that great unborn Self, unde- caying, undying ' (Br/. Up. IV, 4, 25), * By the old age of the body that does not age' (Kk. Up. VIII, 1, 5), deny of Brahman the properties of non-sentient matter. From this it follows that the relation of the two can only be that of distinguishing attribute and thing distinguished, and hence of part and whole. Brahman distinguished by sentient and non-sentient beings in their subtle state is the cause ; distinguished by the same beings in their gross state is the effect : the effect thus is non-different from the cause, and by the knowledge of the causal Brahman the effect is likewise known. All these tenets are in full mutual agree- ment. Brahman's freedom from defects also is preserved ; and this and Brahman's being the abode of all blessed qualities prove that Brahman possesses the 'twofold characteristics.' — Here terminates the adhikara^a of 'the coils of the snake.' 30. (There is something) higher than that ; on account of the designations of bridge, measure, connexion, and difference. The Sutras now proceed to refute an erroneous view based on some fallacious arguments, viz. that there is a being higher even than the highest Brahman, the supreme cause, material as well as operative, of the entire world — a refuta- tion which will confirm the view of Brahman being free from all imperfections and a treasure as it were of countless transcendentally exalted qualities. — There is some entity higher than the Brahman described so far as being the cause of the world and possessing the twofold character- istics. For the text 'That Self is a bank (or bridge), a boundary ' (Kh, Up. VIII, 4,1) designates the Self as a bank or bridge (setu). And the term ' setu ' means in ordinary language that which enables one to reach the other bank of a river ; and from this we conclude that in the Vedic text also there must be meant something to be reached. The text further says that that bridge is to be crossed : 622 vedanta-sOtr as.
3And the term ' setu ' means in ordinary language that which enables one to reach the other bank of a river ; and from this we conclude that in the Vedic text also there must be meant something to be reached. The text further says that that bridge is to be crossed : 622 vedanta-sOtr as. ' He who has crossed that bridge, if blind/ &c. ; this also indicates that there must be something to be reached by crossing. Other texts, again, speak of the highest Brahman as something measured, i. e. limited. i Brahman has four feet (quarters), sixteen parts.' Such declarations of Brahman being something limited suggest the existence of something unlimited to be reached by that bridge. Further there are texts which declare a connexion of the bridge as that which is a means towards reaching, and a thing connected with the bridge as that to be reached : 'the highest bridge of the Immortal' (*SVet. Up. VI, 19); 'he is the bridge of the Immortal' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 5). For this reason also there is something higher than the Highest. — And other texts again expressly state that being beyond the Highest to be something different : ' he goes to the divine Person who is higher than the Highest' (Mu. Up. Ill, 2, 8) ; ' by this Person this whole universe is filled ; what is higher than that is without form and without suffering ' (Svet. Up. Ill, 9-10). All this combined shows that there is something higher than the highest Brahman. — The next Sutra disposes of this view. 31. But on account of resemblance. The ' but ' sets aside the purvapaksha. There is no truth in the assertion that from the designation of the Highest as a bridge (or bank) it follows that there is something beyond the Highest. For Brahman in that text is not called a bank with regard to something to be reached thereby ; since the additional clause ' for the non-confounding of these worlds ' declares that it is compared to a bridge or bank in so far as it binds to itself (setu being derived from si, to bind) the whole aggregate of sentient and non-sentient things without any confusion. And in the clause ' having passed beyond that bridge ' the passing beyond means reaching ; as we say, ' he passes beyond the Vedanta,' meaning ' he has fully mastered it/ 32. It subserves the purpose of thought; as in the case of the feet. Ill ADHYAYA, 2 PAD A, 35. 623
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.
1e. 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 but sets aside the two preceding alternatives. One substance may indeed connect itself with several states, but the former of the two alternatives implies that Brahman itself constitutes the essential nature of non-sentient matter, and thus there is no escape from the objections already stated under Sutra 27. Let then the second alternative be adopted according to which Brahma-hood (brahmatva) constitutes a genus inhering in Brahman as well as in non-sentient matter, just as fire constitutes the common genus for light and luminous bodies. But on this view Brahman becomes a mere abstract generic character inhering in the Lord (fovara), sentient souls and non- sentient matter, just as the generic character of horses (a^vatva) inheres in concrete individual horses ; and this contradicts all the teaching of Sruti and Smrz'ti (according to which Brahman is the highest concrete entity). We therefore hold that non-sentient matter stands to Brahman in the same relation as the one previously proved for the individual soul in Sutra II, 3, 43 ; 46 ; viz. that it is an attri- bute incapable of being realised apart from Brahman and hence is a part (amsa) of the latter. The texts referring to the two as non-different may thus be taken in their primary sense ; for the part is only a limited place of that of which it is a part. And the texts referring to the two as different may also be taken in their primary sense ; for the distin- guishing attribute and that to which the attribute belongs are essentially different. Thus Brahman's freedom from all imperfection is preserved. — Lustre is an attribute not to be realised apart from the gem, and therefore is a part of the gem ; the same relation also holds good between generic character and individuals having that character, between qualities and things having qualities, between bodies and souls. In the same way souls as well as non-sentient matter stand to Brahman in the relation of parts. Ill ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 30. 62 I 29. And on account of denial.
2In the same way souls as well as non-sentient matter stand to Brahman in the relation of parts. Ill ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 30. 62 I 29. And on account of denial. Texts such as 'This is that great unborn Self, unde- caying, undying ' (Br/. Up. IV, 4, 25), * By the old age of the body that does not age' (Kk. Up. VIII, 1, 5), deny of Brahman the properties of non-sentient matter. From this it follows that the relation of the two can only be that of distinguishing attribute and thing distinguished, and hence of part and whole. Brahman distinguished by sentient and non-sentient beings in their subtle state is the cause ; distinguished by the same beings in their gross state is the effect : the effect thus is non-different from the cause, and by the knowledge of the causal Brahman the effect is likewise known. All these tenets are in full mutual agree- ment. Brahman's freedom from defects also is preserved ; and this and Brahman's being the abode of all blessed qualities prove that Brahman possesses the 'twofold characteristics.' — Here terminates the adhikara^a of 'the coils of the snake.' 30. (There is something) higher than that ; on account of the designations of bridge, measure, connexion, and difference. The Sutras now proceed to refute an erroneous view based on some fallacious arguments, viz. that there is a being higher even than the highest Brahman, the supreme cause, material as well as operative, of the entire world — a refuta- tion which will confirm the view of Brahman being free from all imperfections and a treasure as it were of countless transcendentally exalted qualities. — There is some entity higher than the Brahman described so far as being the cause of the world and possessing the twofold character- istics. For the text 'That Self is a bank (or bridge), a boundary ' (Kh, Up. VIII, 4,1) designates the Self as a bank or bridge (setu). And the term ' setu ' means in ordinary language that which enables one to reach the other bank of a river ; and from this we conclude that in the Vedic text also there must be meant something to be reached. The text further says that that bridge is to be crossed : 622 vedanta-sOtr as.
3And the term ' setu ' means in ordinary language that which enables one to reach the other bank of a river ; and from this we conclude that in the Vedic text also there must be meant something to be reached. The text further says that that bridge is to be crossed : 622 vedanta-sOtr as. ' He who has crossed that bridge, if blind/ &c. ; this also indicates that there must be something to be reached by crossing. Other texts, again, speak of the highest Brahman as something measured, i. e. limited. i Brahman has four feet (quarters), sixteen parts.' Such declarations of Brahman being something limited suggest the existence of something unlimited to be reached by that bridge. Further there are texts which declare a connexion of the bridge as that which is a means towards reaching, and a thing connected with the bridge as that to be reached : 'the highest bridge of the Immortal' (*SVet. Up. VI, 19); 'he is the bridge of the Immortal' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 5). For this reason also there is something higher than the Highest. — And other texts again expressly state that being beyond the Highest to be something different : ' he goes to the divine Person who is higher than the Highest' (Mu. Up. Ill, 2, 8) ; ' by this Person this whole universe is filled ; what is higher than that is without form and without suffering ' (Svet. Up. Ill, 9-10). All this combined shows that there is something higher than the highest Brahman. — The next Sutra disposes of this view. 31. But on account of resemblance. The ' but ' sets aside the purvapaksha. There is no truth in the assertion that from the designation of the Highest as a bridge (or bank) it follows that there is something beyond the Highest. For Brahman in that text is not called a bank with regard to something to be reached thereby ; since the additional clause ' for the non-confounding of these worlds ' declares that it is compared to a bridge or bank in so far as it binds to itself (setu being derived from si, to bind) the whole aggregate of sentient and non-sentient things without any confusion. And in the clause ' having passed beyond that bridge ' the passing beyond means reaching ; as we say, ' he passes beyond the Vedanta,' meaning ' he has fully mastered it/ 32. It subserves the purpose of thought; as in the case of the feet. Ill ADHYAYA, 2 PAD A, 35. 623
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.