Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1— The Purvapakshin affirms this, on the ground that as the mantras and works are mentioned in the immediate neigh- bourhood of the meditations the idea of their forming parts of the latter naturally presents itself. Such mantras as * pierce the heart ' and works such as the pravargya may indeed — on the basis of direct statement (jruti), inferential mark (lifiga), and syntactical connexion (vakya), which are stronger than mere proximity — be understood to be con- nected with certain actions ; but, on the other hand, mantras such as ' May Varu/za be propitious ' have no application elsewhere, and are suitable introductions to meditations. We therefore take them to be parts of the meditations, and hence hold that those mantras are to be included in all meditations. — This view the Sutra sets aside * on account of the difference of sense of piercing, and so on.' The inferential marks contained in texts such as * pierce the joikra, pierce the heart ' ; 'I shall speak the right, I shall speak the true/ show that the mantras have an application in connexion with certain magical practices, or else the study of the Veda, and the like, and do not there- fore form part of meditations. That is to say — in the same way as the mantra ' pierce the heart ' enables us to infer that also the mantra l pierce the ^ukra ' belongs to some magical rite, so we infer from the special meaning of mantras such as ' I shall speak the right/ &c, that also mantras such as ' May Mitra be propitious' are connected with the study of the Veda, and do not therefore form part of meditations. That mantras of this kind and Brahma^a passages relative to the Pravargya and the like are placed at the beginning of Upanishads is owing to their having, like the latter, to be studied in the forest. — Herewith terminates the adhikara^a of ' piercing and the like/ 26. But in the case of the getting rid of (it has to be combined with the obtaining), as it is supple- 646 vedanta-sOtras. mentary to statements of obtaining ; as in the case of the ku^as, the metres, the praise, and the singing. This has been explained.
2But in the case of the getting rid of (it has to be combined with the obtaining), as it is supple- 646 vedanta-sOtras. mentary to statements of obtaining ; as in the case of the ku^as, the metres, the praise, and the singing. This has been explained. The .Oandogas read in their text ' Shaking off all evil as a horse shakes his hair, and shaking off the body as the moon frees herself from the mouth of Rahu, I obtain the world of Brahman' {Kh. Up. VIII, 13). The Atharva;/ikas have * He who knows, shaking off good and evil, free from passion, reaches the highest oneness.' The vSa/yayanins have ' His sons obtain his inheritance, his friends the good, his enemies the evil he has done/ The Kaushitakins ' He shakes off his good and his evil deeds. His beloved relatives obtain the good, his unbeloved relatives the evil he has done/ Two of these texts mention only the shaking off, on the part of him who knows, of his good and evil works ; one mentions only the obtainment of these works, on the part of friends and enemies ; and one mentions both these occurrences. — Now both the occurrences, although mentioned in several meditations, must be considered elements of all medita- tions : for whoever, on the basis of a knowledge of Brahman, reaches Brahman, necessarily leaves behind all his good and evil works, and those works unless thus left behind cannot be obtained by others. Meditation on those two matters therefore enters as an element into all meditations. The doubtful point, however, is whether there is option between the meditation on the abandonment of works, and that on the obtainment of works by others, and that on both these events ; or whether in each case all these meditations are to be combined. — There is option, the Purvapakshin holds; for the reason that the texts make different declarations on this point. For, if the meditations had to be combined, there would be in each case meditation on both the matters mentioned ; and as such double meditation is established by the Kaushitakin text, it would follow that the state- ments of the other texts are without meaning. Thus the only motive for the declarations made in different places can be to allow option. Nor must this conclusion be controverted on the ground that declarations of the same Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 26. 647
3Thus the only motive for the declarations made in different places can be to allow option. Nor must this conclusion be controverted on the ground that declarations of the same Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 26. 647 matter, made in different places, are made with reference to the difference of students severally reading the several texts ; for this holds good in those cases only where identi- cal statements are made in different texts ; while in the case under discussion two j-akhas mention the abandon- ment of works, and one their passing over to other persons. Nor can you account for the difference of statement on the ground of difference of vidyas ; for you yourself main- tain that the meditations in question form part of all meditations. — This view the Sutra impugns, ' but where the getting rid of is mentioned,' &c. Where a text mentions either the abandonment only of works or only their being obtained by others, both these matters must necessarily be combined, since the statement as to the works being ob- tained forms a supplement to the statement of their being abandoned. For the former statement declares the place to which the good and evil works, got rid of by him who knows Brahman, are transferred. — This supplementary rela- tion of two statements the Sutra illustrates by some parallel cases. A clause in the text of the vSa/yayanins, ' the ku^as are the children of the udumbara tree/ forms a denning supplement to a more general statement in the text of the Kaushitakins, ' the ku^as are the children of the tree.' The clause, ' the metres of the gods are prior/ defines the order of the metres which in other texts mentioning ' the metres of the gods and Asuras' had been left undefined, and therefore forms a supplement to those texts. Analogous is the relation of the clause, i he assists the stotra of the shodas'm when the sun has half risen/ to the less definite statement * he assists with gold the stotra of the sho^a^in ; ' and the relation of the clause, ' the adhvaryu is not to sing/ to the general injunction c all the priests join in the singing.' Unless we admit that one statement, which defines some other more general statement, may stand to the latter in a supplementary relation, we are driven to assume an optional proceeding, and this is objectionable as long as there is any other way open ; according to a principle laid down in the Purva Mimawsl (X, 8, 15). As the clauses referring to the abandonment of the works, and 648 VEDANTA-stiTRAS. those referring to their being taken up by others, thus form one connected whole, there is no such thing as mere abandonment and mere taking up, and hence there can be no option between the two. That the text of the Kaushitakins mentions both thus explains itself, on the ground that the several declarations of what is really only one and the same matter are directed to different hearers. — Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' getting rid of/
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— The Purvapakshin affirms this, on the ground that as the mantras and works are mentioned in the immediate neigh- bourhood of the meditations the idea of their forming parts of the latter naturally presents itself. Such mantras as * pierce the heart ' and works such as the pravargya may indeed — on the basis of direct statement (jruti), inferential mark (lifiga), and syntactical connexion (vakya), which are stronger than mere proximity — be understood to be con- nected with certain actions ; but, on the other hand, mantras such as ' May Varu/za be propitious ' have no application elsewhere, and are suitable introductions to meditations. We therefore take them to be parts of the meditations, and hence hold that those mantras are to be included in all meditations. — This view the Sutra sets aside * on account of the difference of sense of piercing, and so on.' The inferential marks contained in texts such as * pierce the joikra, pierce the heart ' ; 'I shall speak the right, I shall speak the true/ show that the mantras have an application in connexion with certain magical practices, or else the study of the Veda, and the like, and do not there- fore form part of meditations. That is to say — in the same way as the mantra ' pierce the heart ' enables us to infer that also the mantra l pierce the ^ukra ' belongs to some magical rite, so we infer from the special meaning of mantras such as ' I shall speak the right/ &c, that also mantras such as ' May Mitra be propitious' are connected with the study of the Veda, and do not therefore form part of meditations. That mantras of this kind and Brahma^a passages relative to the Pravargya and the like are placed at the beginning of Upanishads is owing to their having, like the latter, to be studied in the forest. — Herewith terminates the adhikara^a of ' piercing and the like/ 26. But in the case of the getting rid of (it has to be combined with the obtaining), as it is supple- 646 vedanta-sOtras. mentary to statements of obtaining ; as in the case of the ku^as, the metres, the praise, and the singing. This has been explained.
2But in the case of the getting rid of (it has to be combined with the obtaining), as it is supple- 646 vedanta-sOtras. mentary to statements of obtaining ; as in the case of the ku^as, the metres, the praise, and the singing. This has been explained. The .Oandogas read in their text ' Shaking off all evil as a horse shakes his hair, and shaking off the body as the moon frees herself from the mouth of Rahu, I obtain the world of Brahman' {Kh. Up. VIII, 13). The Atharva;/ikas have * He who knows, shaking off good and evil, free from passion, reaches the highest oneness.' The vSa/yayanins have ' His sons obtain his inheritance, his friends the good, his enemies the evil he has done/ The Kaushitakins ' He shakes off his good and his evil deeds. His beloved relatives obtain the good, his unbeloved relatives the evil he has done/ Two of these texts mention only the shaking off, on the part of him who knows, of his good and evil works ; one mentions only the obtainment of these works, on the part of friends and enemies ; and one mentions both these occurrences. — Now both the occurrences, although mentioned in several meditations, must be considered elements of all medita- tions : for whoever, on the basis of a knowledge of Brahman, reaches Brahman, necessarily leaves behind all his good and evil works, and those works unless thus left behind cannot be obtained by others. Meditation on those two matters therefore enters as an element into all meditations. The doubtful point, however, is whether there is option between the meditation on the abandonment of works, and that on the obtainment of works by others, and that on both these events ; or whether in each case all these meditations are to be combined. — There is option, the Purvapakshin holds; for the reason that the texts make different declarations on this point. For, if the meditations had to be combined, there would be in each case meditation on both the matters mentioned ; and as such double meditation is established by the Kaushitakin text, it would follow that the state- ments of the other texts are without meaning. Thus the only motive for the declarations made in different places can be to allow option. Nor must this conclusion be controverted on the ground that declarations of the same Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 26. 647
3Thus the only motive for the declarations made in different places can be to allow option. Nor must this conclusion be controverted on the ground that declarations of the same Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 26. 647 matter, made in different places, are made with reference to the difference of students severally reading the several texts ; for this holds good in those cases only where identi- cal statements are made in different texts ; while in the case under discussion two j-akhas mention the abandon- ment of works, and one their passing over to other persons. Nor can you account for the difference of statement on the ground of difference of vidyas ; for you yourself main- tain that the meditations in question form part of all meditations. — This view the Sutra impugns, ' but where the getting rid of is mentioned,' &c. Where a text mentions either the abandonment only of works or only their being obtained by others, both these matters must necessarily be combined, since the statement as to the works being ob- tained forms a supplement to the statement of their being abandoned. For the former statement declares the place to which the good and evil works, got rid of by him who knows Brahman, are transferred. — This supplementary rela- tion of two statements the Sutra illustrates by some parallel cases. A clause in the text of the vSa/yayanins, ' the ku^as are the children of the udumbara tree/ forms a denning supplement to a more general statement in the text of the Kaushitakins, ' the ku^as are the children of the tree.' The clause, ' the metres of the gods are prior/ defines the order of the metres which in other texts mentioning ' the metres of the gods and Asuras' had been left undefined, and therefore forms a supplement to those texts. Analogous is the relation of the clause, i he assists the stotra of the shodas'm when the sun has half risen/ to the less definite statement * he assists with gold the stotra of the sho^a^in ; ' and the relation of the clause, ' the adhvaryu is not to sing/ to the general injunction c all the priests join in the singing.' Unless we admit that one statement, which defines some other more general statement, may stand to the latter in a supplementary relation, we are driven to assume an optional proceeding, and this is objectionable as long as there is any other way open ; according to a principle laid down in the Purva Mimawsl (X, 8, 15). As the clauses referring to the abandonment of the works, and 648 VEDANTA-stiTRAS. those referring to their being taken up by others, thus form one connected whole, there is no such thing as mere abandonment and mere taking up, and hence there can be no option between the two. That the text of the Kaushitakins mentions both thus explains itself, on the ground that the several declarations of what is really only one and the same matter are directed to different hearers. — Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' getting rid of/
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.