Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1character of its own and a result of its own (' he conquers these worlds '). Nor can it be said that the declaration of a fruit in * he destroys evil and leaves it ' refers merely to the fruit (not of the entire meditation but) of a subordinate part of the meditation; for there is nothing to prove this. The proof certainly cannot be said to lie in the fact of the vidyas being one ; for this would imply reasoning in a circle, viz. as follows — it being settled that the vidyas are one, it follows that the fruit of the former meditation only is the main one, while the fruits of the two later medita- tions are subordinate ones ; and — it being settled that those two later fruits are subordinate ones, it follows that, as thus there is no difference depending on connexion with fruits, the two later meditations are one with the pre- ceding one.— All this proves that the two Sutras can be interpreted only in the way maintained by us. — Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' being within/ 38. Wishes and the rest, here and there; (as is known from the abode, and so on). We read in the .Oandogya (VIII, 1, 1), 'There is that city of Brahman, and in it the palace, the small lotus, and in it that small ether/ &c. ; and in the Va^asaneyaka, ' He is that great unborn Self who consists of knowledge/ and so on. A doubt here arises whether the two texts con- stitute one meditation or not. — The two meditations are separate, the Purvapakshin maintains ; for they have different characters. The .Oandogya represents as the object of meditation the ether as distinguished by eight different attributes, viz. freedom from all evil and the rest; while, according to the Va^asaneyaka, the being to be meditated on is he who dwells within that ether, and is distinguished by attributes such as lordship, and so on. — To this we reply that the meditations are not distinct, since there is no difference of character. For desires and so on constitute that character ' here and there/ i. e. in both texts nothing else but Brahman distinguished by attributes, such as having true wishes, and so on, forms the subject of meditation. This is known 'from the abode and so on/ in adhyAya, 3 pAda, 38. 661
2For desires and so on constitute that character ' here and there/ i. e. in both texts nothing else but Brahman distinguished by attributes, such as having true wishes, and so on, forms the subject of meditation. This is known 'from the abode and so on/ in adhyAya, 3 pAda, 38. 661 i. e. the meditation is recognised as the same because in both texts Brahman is referred to as abiding in the heart, being a bridge, and so on. Lordship and the rest, which are stated in the Va^asaneyaka, are special aspects of the quality of being capable to realise all one's purposes, which is one of the eight qualities declared in the iSTAandogya, and as such prove that all the attributes going together with that quality in the .Oandogya are valid for the Va^asaneyaka also. The character of the two vidyas there- fore does not differ. The connexion with a reward also does not differ, for it consists in both cases in attaining to Brahman; cp. Kk. Up. VIII, 12,3 'Having approached the highest light he is manifested in his own form/ and Brt. Up. V, 4, 34 ' He becomes indeed the fearless Brahman/ That, in the jOandogya-text, the term ether denotes the highest Brahman, has already been determined under I, 3, 14. As in the Va^asaneyaka, on the other hand, he who abides in the ether is recognised as the highest Self, we infer that by the ether in which he abides must be under- stood the ether within the heart, which in the text ' within there is a little hollow space (sushira)' (Mahanar. Up. XI, 9) is called sushira. The two meditations are therefore one. Here an objection is raised. It cannot be maintained that the attributes mentioned in the .A^andogya have to be combined with those stated in the Va^asaneyaka (lordship, rulership, &c), since even the latter are not truly valid for the meditation. For the immediately preceding passage, * By the mind it is to be perceived that there is here no plurality : from death to death goes he who sees here any plurality ; as one only is to be seen that eternal being, not to be proved by any means- of proof,' as well as the subse- quent text, ' that Self is to be described by No, no,' shows that the Brahman to be meditated upon is to be viewed as devoid of attributes ; and from this we infer that the attributes of lordship and so on, no less than the qualities of grossness and the like, have to be denied of Brahman. From this again we infer that in the .Oandogya also the attributes of satyakamatva and so on are not meant to be declared as Brahman's true qualities. All such qualities— 662 vedanta-sOtras. as not being real qualities of Brahman — have therefore to be omitted in meditations aiming at final release. — This objection the next Sutra disposes of. 39. On account of emphasis there is non-omission.
3All such qualities— 662 vedanta-sOtras. as not being real qualities of Brahman — have therefore to be omitted in meditations aiming at final release. — This objection the next Sutra disposes of. 39. On account of emphasis there is non-omission. Attributes, such as having the power of immediately realising one's purposes, and so on, which are not by other means known to constitute attributes of Brahman, and are in the two texts under discussion, as well as in other texts, emphatically declared to be attributes of Brahman, as con- stituting the object of meditations undertaken with a view to final release, cannot be omitted from those meditations, but must be comprised within them. In the .Oandogya the passage, ' Those who depart from hence, after having cognised the Self and those self-realising desires, move about at will in all those worlds,' enjoins the knowledge of Brahman as distinguished by the power of realising its desires and similar qualities, while the text, 'Those who depart from here not having cognised the Self, &c, do not move about at will/ &c, finds fault with the absence of such knowledge, and in this way emphasises the importance of the possession of it. In the same way the repeated declarations as to Brahman's ruling power (' the lord of all, the king of all beings/ &c.) show that stress is to be laid upon the quality indicated. It truly cannot be held that Scripture, which in tender regard to man's welfare is superior to a thousand of parents, should, deceitfully, give emphatic instruction as to certain qualities — not known through any other means of knowledge — which fundamen- tally would be unreal and hence utterly to be disregarded, and thus throw men desirous of release, who as it is are utterly confused by the revolutions of the wheel of Sawsara, into even deeper confusion and distress. That the text, ' there is not any diversity here ; as one only is to be seen that eternal being/ teaches a unitary view of the world in so far as everything is an effect of Brahman and thus has Brahman for its Self, and negatives the view of plurality — established antecedently to Vedic teaching — as excluding Brahman's being the universal Self, we have explained Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 40. 66$
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.
1character of its own and a result of its own (' he conquers these worlds '). Nor can it be said that the declaration of a fruit in * he destroys evil and leaves it ' refers merely to the fruit (not of the entire meditation but) of a subordinate part of the meditation; for there is nothing to prove this. The proof certainly cannot be said to lie in the fact of the vidyas being one ; for this would imply reasoning in a circle, viz. as follows — it being settled that the vidyas are one, it follows that the fruit of the former meditation only is the main one, while the fruits of the two later medita- tions are subordinate ones ; and — it being settled that those two later fruits are subordinate ones, it follows that, as thus there is no difference depending on connexion with fruits, the two later meditations are one with the pre- ceding one.— All this proves that the two Sutras can be interpreted only in the way maintained by us. — Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' being within/ 38. Wishes and the rest, here and there; (as is known from the abode, and so on). We read in the .Oandogya (VIII, 1, 1), 'There is that city of Brahman, and in it the palace, the small lotus, and in it that small ether/ &c. ; and in the Va^asaneyaka, ' He is that great unborn Self who consists of knowledge/ and so on. A doubt here arises whether the two texts con- stitute one meditation or not. — The two meditations are separate, the Purvapakshin maintains ; for they have different characters. The .Oandogya represents as the object of meditation the ether as distinguished by eight different attributes, viz. freedom from all evil and the rest; while, according to the Va^asaneyaka, the being to be meditated on is he who dwells within that ether, and is distinguished by attributes such as lordship, and so on. — To this we reply that the meditations are not distinct, since there is no difference of character. For desires and so on constitute that character ' here and there/ i. e. in both texts nothing else but Brahman distinguished by attributes, such as having true wishes, and so on, forms the subject of meditation. This is known 'from the abode and so on/ in adhyAya, 3 pAda, 38. 661
2For desires and so on constitute that character ' here and there/ i. e. in both texts nothing else but Brahman distinguished by attributes, such as having true wishes, and so on, forms the subject of meditation. This is known 'from the abode and so on/ in adhyAya, 3 pAda, 38. 661 i. e. the meditation is recognised as the same because in both texts Brahman is referred to as abiding in the heart, being a bridge, and so on. Lordship and the rest, which are stated in the Va^asaneyaka, are special aspects of the quality of being capable to realise all one's purposes, which is one of the eight qualities declared in the iSTAandogya, and as such prove that all the attributes going together with that quality in the .Oandogya are valid for the Va^asaneyaka also. The character of the two vidyas there- fore does not differ. The connexion with a reward also does not differ, for it consists in both cases in attaining to Brahman; cp. Kk. Up. VIII, 12,3 'Having approached the highest light he is manifested in his own form/ and Brt. Up. V, 4, 34 ' He becomes indeed the fearless Brahman/ That, in the jOandogya-text, the term ether denotes the highest Brahman, has already been determined under I, 3, 14. As in the Va^asaneyaka, on the other hand, he who abides in the ether is recognised as the highest Self, we infer that by the ether in which he abides must be under- stood the ether within the heart, which in the text ' within there is a little hollow space (sushira)' (Mahanar. Up. XI, 9) is called sushira. The two meditations are therefore one. Here an objection is raised. It cannot be maintained that the attributes mentioned in the .A^andogya have to be combined with those stated in the Va^asaneyaka (lordship, rulership, &c), since even the latter are not truly valid for the meditation. For the immediately preceding passage, * By the mind it is to be perceived that there is here no plurality : from death to death goes he who sees here any plurality ; as one only is to be seen that eternal being, not to be proved by any means- of proof,' as well as the subse- quent text, ' that Self is to be described by No, no,' shows that the Brahman to be meditated upon is to be viewed as devoid of attributes ; and from this we infer that the attributes of lordship and so on, no less than the qualities of grossness and the like, have to be denied of Brahman. From this again we infer that in the .Oandogya also the attributes of satyakamatva and so on are not meant to be declared as Brahman's true qualities. All such qualities— 662 vedanta-sOtras. as not being real qualities of Brahman — have therefore to be omitted in meditations aiming at final release. — This objection the next Sutra disposes of. 39. On account of emphasis there is non-omission.
3All such qualities— 662 vedanta-sOtras. as not being real qualities of Brahman — have therefore to be omitted in meditations aiming at final release. — This objection the next Sutra disposes of. 39. On account of emphasis there is non-omission. Attributes, such as having the power of immediately realising one's purposes, and so on, which are not by other means known to constitute attributes of Brahman, and are in the two texts under discussion, as well as in other texts, emphatically declared to be attributes of Brahman, as con- stituting the object of meditations undertaken with a view to final release, cannot be omitted from those meditations, but must be comprised within them. In the .Oandogya the passage, ' Those who depart from hence, after having cognised the Self and those self-realising desires, move about at will in all those worlds,' enjoins the knowledge of Brahman as distinguished by the power of realising its desires and similar qualities, while the text, 'Those who depart from here not having cognised the Self, &c, do not move about at will/ &c, finds fault with the absence of such knowledge, and in this way emphasises the importance of the possession of it. In the same way the repeated declarations as to Brahman's ruling power (' the lord of all, the king of all beings/ &c.) show that stress is to be laid upon the quality indicated. It truly cannot be held that Scripture, which in tender regard to man's welfare is superior to a thousand of parents, should, deceitfully, give emphatic instruction as to certain qualities — not known through any other means of knowledge — which fundamen- tally would be unreal and hence utterly to be disregarded, and thus throw men desirous of release, who as it is are utterly confused by the revolutions of the wheel of Sawsara, into even deeper confusion and distress. That the text, ' there is not any diversity here ; as one only is to be seen that eternal being/ teaches a unitary view of the world in so far as everything is an effect of Brahman and thus has Brahman for its Self, and negatives the view of plurality — established antecedently to Vedic teaching — as excluding Brahman's being the universal Self, we have explained Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 40. 66$
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.