Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1But in the present case no such purpose is to be discerned, and hence it must needs be admitted that having joy for its head, and so on, are real qualities of Brahman. — The next Sutra disposes of this difficulty. 14. For meditation, owing to the absence of purpose. As no other purpose can be assigned, the text must be supposed to represent Brahman as having joy for its head, and so on, for the purpose of meditation. In order to accomplish the meditation on Brahman v/hich is enjoined in the text 'he who knows (i.e. meditates on) Brahman reaches the Highest/ the text represents the Brahman consisting of bliss as made up of joy, satisfaction, &c, and compares these to the head, the wings, and so on. The Self of bliss, which is the inmost of all the Selfs mentioned in the text, is by this means represented to the mind in a definite shape ; just as in the preceding sections the Self of food, the Self of breath, and the rest had similarly been represented in definite shapes, consisting of head, wings, and so on. As thus the qualities of having joy for its head, &c. are merely secondary marks of the Self of bliss, they are not necessarily included in each meditation that involves the idea of that Self. 15. And on account of the term i Self/ That this is so further follows from the fact that in the clause ' different from this is the inner Self consisting of bliss* the term 'Self* is used. For as the Self cannot really possess a head, wings, and tail, its having joy for its head, and so on, can only be meant in a metaphorical sense, for the sake of easier comprehension. — But, in the preceding sections, the term Self had been applied to what is not of the nature of Self — the text speaking of the Self of breath, the Self of mind, and so on ; how then are we able to determine that in the phrase ' the Self of bliss ' the term 64O VEDANTA-SUTRAS. Self denotes a true Self} — To this the next Sutra replies. 16. There is reference to the Self, as in other places ; on account of the subsequent passage. In the clause, ' different from that is the Self of bliss,' the term Self can refer to the highest Self only ; ' as in other cases,5 i. e. as in other passages — ' the Self only was this in the beginning ; it thought, let me send forth the worlds/ and similar ones — the term ' Self denotes the highest Self only. — But whereby is this proved ? — ' By the subsequent passage', i. e. by the passage, ' he desired, may I be many, may I grow forth/ which refers to the Self of bliss. 17. If it be said 'on account of connexion'; it may be so, on account of ascertainment.
2— But whereby is this proved ? — ' By the subsequent passage', i. e. by the passage, ' he desired, may I be many, may I grow forth/ which refers to the Self of bliss. 17. If it be said 'on account of connexion'; it may be so, on account of ascertainment. But as in the preceding sections the term Self is seen to be connected with what is not of the nature of the Self, such as the Self of breath, and so on, it is not possible to draw a valid conclusion from the subsequent passage ! — It is possible, the Sutra replies, ' on account of ascertainment.' For the previous clause, ' from that Self there originated the Ether/ settles in the mind the idea of the highest Self, and that idea then is transferred in succession to the (so- called) Self of breath, the Self of mind, and so on, until it finally finds rest in the Self of bliss, beyond which there is no other Self ; while at the same time the subsequent clause ' he desired ' confirms the idea of the highest Self. The term Self thus connects itself from the beginning with things which are not true Selfs, because the highest Self is as it were viewed in them. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' bliss and the rest/ 18. The new (thing is enjoined); on account of the statement of what has to be done. The Sutra discusses an additional question connected with the meditation on breath. Both texts — the K/iandogya. as well as the Va^asaneyaka — declare that water constitutes a dress for pra^a, and refer to the rinsing of the mouth 19- 641
3The Sutra discusses an additional question connected with the meditation on breath. Both texts — the K/iandogya. as well as the Va^asaneyaka — declare that water constitutes a dress for pra^a, and refer to the rinsing of the mouth 19- 641 with water. The doubt here arises whether what the texts mean to enjoin is the rinsing of the mouth, or a meditation on pra«a as having water for its dress. — The Purvapakshin maintains the former view ; for, he says, the Va^asaneyaka uses the injunctive form * he is to rinse,5 while there is no injunctive form referring to the meditation ; and what the text says in praise of the breath thus not being allowed to remain naked may be taken as a mere glorification of the act of rinsing. And as ordinary rinsing of the mouth, sub- sequent to eating, is already established by Smrzti and custom, we must conclude that the text means to enjoin rinsing of the mouth of a different kind, viz. as auxiliary to the meditation on pra^a. — To this the Sutra replies that what the text enjoins is the ' new ' thing, i. e. the previously non-established meditation on water as forming the dress of pra^a. ' On account of the statement of what has to be done/ i.e. on account of the statement of what is not established — for only on the latter condition Scripture has a meaning. The beginning as well as the end of the Va^asaneyaka-text clearly refers to a meditation on the water used for rinsing as forming a dress for pra^a ; and as rinsing is already established by Snmti and custom, we naturally infer that what the text enjoins is a meditation on breath as having the water used in rinsing for its dress. This also explains why the TTMndogya-text does not mention the rinsing at all, but merely the clothing of breath with water. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' the state- ment of what has to be done.' 19. And (the qualities) thus being equal, on account of non-difference. In the book of the Va^asaneyaka, called Agnirahasya, we meet with a meditation on Brahman called Sandilya- vidya ; and there is also a .Sa^ilya-vidya in the Brzhad- ara;/yaka. The Purvapakshin holds that these two meditations are different since the latter text mentions qualities — such as Brahman being the lord of all — which are not mentioned in the former ; the objects of meditation thus being different, the meditations themselves are different. [48] T t 642 vedanta-sOtras. — This the Sutra negatives. The object of meditation is * equal/ for both texts state the same qualities, such as ' consisting of mind,' and so on ; and the additional qualities stated in the Brz'had-ara^yaka, such as the rulership of Brahman, ' do not differ ' from those equally stated by both texts, such as Brahman realising all its purposes, and so on. Thus the objects of meditation do not differ in character. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of 'what is equal/ 20. On account of connexion, thus elsewhere also.
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.
1But in the present case no such purpose is to be discerned, and hence it must needs be admitted that having joy for its head, and so on, are real qualities of Brahman. — The next Sutra disposes of this difficulty. 14. For meditation, owing to the absence of purpose. As no other purpose can be assigned, the text must be supposed to represent Brahman as having joy for its head, and so on, for the purpose of meditation. In order to accomplish the meditation on Brahman v/hich is enjoined in the text 'he who knows (i.e. meditates on) Brahman reaches the Highest/ the text represents the Brahman consisting of bliss as made up of joy, satisfaction, &c, and compares these to the head, the wings, and so on. The Self of bliss, which is the inmost of all the Selfs mentioned in the text, is by this means represented to the mind in a definite shape ; just as in the preceding sections the Self of food, the Self of breath, and the rest had similarly been represented in definite shapes, consisting of head, wings, and so on. As thus the qualities of having joy for its head, &c. are merely secondary marks of the Self of bliss, they are not necessarily included in each meditation that involves the idea of that Self. 15. And on account of the term i Self/ That this is so further follows from the fact that in the clause ' different from this is the inner Self consisting of bliss* the term 'Self* is used. For as the Self cannot really possess a head, wings, and tail, its having joy for its head, and so on, can only be meant in a metaphorical sense, for the sake of easier comprehension. — But, in the preceding sections, the term Self had been applied to what is not of the nature of Self — the text speaking of the Self of breath, the Self of mind, and so on ; how then are we able to determine that in the phrase ' the Self of bliss ' the term 64O VEDANTA-SUTRAS. Self denotes a true Self} — To this the next Sutra replies. 16. There is reference to the Self, as in other places ; on account of the subsequent passage. In the clause, ' different from that is the Self of bliss,' the term Self can refer to the highest Self only ; ' as in other cases,5 i. e. as in other passages — ' the Self only was this in the beginning ; it thought, let me send forth the worlds/ and similar ones — the term ' Self denotes the highest Self only. — But whereby is this proved ? — ' By the subsequent passage', i. e. by the passage, ' he desired, may I be many, may I grow forth/ which refers to the Self of bliss. 17. If it be said 'on account of connexion'; it may be so, on account of ascertainment.
2— But whereby is this proved ? — ' By the subsequent passage', i. e. by the passage, ' he desired, may I be many, may I grow forth/ which refers to the Self of bliss. 17. If it be said 'on account of connexion'; it may be so, on account of ascertainment. But as in the preceding sections the term Self is seen to be connected with what is not of the nature of the Self, such as the Self of breath, and so on, it is not possible to draw a valid conclusion from the subsequent passage ! — It is possible, the Sutra replies, ' on account of ascertainment.' For the previous clause, ' from that Self there originated the Ether/ settles in the mind the idea of the highest Self, and that idea then is transferred in succession to the (so- called) Self of breath, the Self of mind, and so on, until it finally finds rest in the Self of bliss, beyond which there is no other Self ; while at the same time the subsequent clause ' he desired ' confirms the idea of the highest Self. The term Self thus connects itself from the beginning with things which are not true Selfs, because the highest Self is as it were viewed in them. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' bliss and the rest/ 18. The new (thing is enjoined); on account of the statement of what has to be done. The Sutra discusses an additional question connected with the meditation on breath. Both texts — the K/iandogya. as well as the Va^asaneyaka — declare that water constitutes a dress for pra^a, and refer to the rinsing of the mouth 19- 641
3The Sutra discusses an additional question connected with the meditation on breath. Both texts — the K/iandogya. as well as the Va^asaneyaka — declare that water constitutes a dress for pra^a, and refer to the rinsing of the mouth 19- 641 with water. The doubt here arises whether what the texts mean to enjoin is the rinsing of the mouth, or a meditation on pra«a as having water for its dress. — The Purvapakshin maintains the former view ; for, he says, the Va^asaneyaka uses the injunctive form * he is to rinse,5 while there is no injunctive form referring to the meditation ; and what the text says in praise of the breath thus not being allowed to remain naked may be taken as a mere glorification of the act of rinsing. And as ordinary rinsing of the mouth, sub- sequent to eating, is already established by Smrzti and custom, we must conclude that the text means to enjoin rinsing of the mouth of a different kind, viz. as auxiliary to the meditation on pra^a. — To this the Sutra replies that what the text enjoins is the ' new ' thing, i. e. the previously non-established meditation on water as forming the dress of pra^a. ' On account of the statement of what has to be done/ i.e. on account of the statement of what is not established — for only on the latter condition Scripture has a meaning. The beginning as well as the end of the Va^asaneyaka-text clearly refers to a meditation on the water used for rinsing as forming a dress for pra^a ; and as rinsing is already established by Snmti and custom, we naturally infer that what the text enjoins is a meditation on breath as having the water used in rinsing for its dress. This also explains why the TTMndogya-text does not mention the rinsing at all, but merely the clothing of breath with water. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' the state- ment of what has to be done.' 19. And (the qualities) thus being equal, on account of non-difference. In the book of the Va^asaneyaka, called Agnirahasya, we meet with a meditation on Brahman called Sandilya- vidya ; and there is also a .Sa^ilya-vidya in the Brzhad- ara;/yaka. The Purvapakshin holds that these two meditations are different since the latter text mentions qualities — such as Brahman being the lord of all — which are not mentioned in the former ; the objects of meditation thus being different, the meditations themselves are different. [48] T t 642 vedanta-sOtras. — This the Sutra negatives. The object of meditation is * equal/ for both texts state the same qualities, such as ' consisting of mind,' and so on ; and the additional qualities stated in the Brz'had-ara^yaka, such as the rulership of Brahman, ' do not differ ' from those equally stated by both texts, such as Brahman realising all its purposes, and so on. Thus the objects of meditation do not differ in character. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of 'what is equal/ 20. On account of connexion, thus elsewhere also.
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.