Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1— To this point the next Sutra refers. 41. Nor the (expiatory performance) described in the chapter treating of qualification ; that being impossible on account of the Smnti referring to such lapse. Those expiatory performances which are described in the chapter treating of qualification (Pu. Mi. Su. VI) are not possible in the case of him who has lapsed from the condition of a Naish/^ika ; since such expiations do not apply to him, as is shown by a Smnti text referring to such lapse, viz. * He who having once entered on the duties of a NaishMika lapses from them, for such a slayer of the Self I do not see any expiatory work by which he might become clean.' The expiatory ceremony referred to in the Purva Mimawsa therefore applies to the case of other BrahmaHrins only. 42. A minor one, thus some; (and hence they hold) the existence (of expiation), as in the case of eating. This has been explained. Some teachers are of opinion that even on the part of NaishMikas and the rest the lapse from chastity constitutes only a minor offence which can be atoned for by expiatory observances ; in the same way as in the case of the eating of forbidden food the same praya^itta may be used by the ordinary Brahma&irin and by NaishMikas and the rest. This has been stated by the Smnti writer, ' For the others also (i. e. the Naish//*ikas and so on) the same (rules and Ill ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 44. 707 practices as those for the Upakurvana) hold good, in so far as not opposed to their ayrama.' 43. But in either case (such men) stand outside ; on account of Smrzti and custom. Whether the point under discussion constitutes a minor or a major offence, in any case those who have lapsed stand outside the category of those qualified for the know- ledge of Brahman. For Smrtti, i. e. the text quoted above, * I see no expiatory performance by which he, a slayer of Brahman as he is, could become pure again/ declares that expiations are powerless to restore purity. And custom confirms the same conclusion ; for good men shun those Naish/^ikas who have lapsed, even after they have per- formed praya^ittas, and do not impart to them the know- ledge of Brahman. The conclusion, therefore, is that such men are not qualified for knowing Brahman. — Here termi- nates the adhikara^a of ' him who has become that/ 44. By the Lord (of the sacrifice), since Scripture declares a fruit — thus Atreya thinks.
2The conclusion, therefore, is that such men are not qualified for knowing Brahman. — Here termi- nates the adhikara^a of ' him who has become that/ 44. By the Lord (of the sacrifice), since Scripture declares a fruit — thus Atreya thinks. A doubt arises whether the meditations on such con- stituent elements of the sacrifice as the Udgitha, and so on, are to be performed by the sacrificer (for whose benefit the sacrifice is offered), or by the officiating priests. Atreya advocates the former view ; on the ground of Scripture showing that in the case of such meditations as the one on the small ether within the heart, fruit and rneditation belong to the same person, and that in the case of such meditations as the one on the Udgitha the fruit belongs to the sacrificer (whence we conclude that the meditation also is his). Nor can it be said that the sacrificer is not com- petent for such meditation, for the reason that like the godohana vessel it is connected with an element of the sacrifice (which latter the priests only can perform). For the godohana vessel serves to bring water, and this of course none else can do but the Adhvaryu ; while a medi- tation on the Udgitha as being the essence of all essences can very well be performed by the Sacrificer — true though Z z 2 708 vedanta-sGtras. it be that the Udgitha itself can be performed by the Udgatrz priest only. — Against this view the next Sutra declares itself. 45. (They are) the priest's work, Auahlomi thinks ; since for that he is engaged.
3it be that the Udgitha itself can be performed by the Udgatrz priest only. — Against this view the next Sutra declares itself. 45. (They are) the priest's work, Auahlomi thinks ; since for that he is engaged. The teacher Audfalomi is of opinion that the meditation on the Udgitha and the like is the work of the priest, since it is he who is engaged for the purpose of performing that which gives rise to the fruit, i. e. of the entire sacrifice with all its subordinate parts. Injunctions referring to the per- formance of the sacrifices such as ' he chooses the priests ; he gives to the priests their fee ' indicate that the entire sacrificial performance is the work of the priests, and that hence all activities comprised within it — mental as well as bodily — belong to the priests. Capability or non-capa- bility does not constitute the criterion in this case. For although the meditations in question aim directly at the benefit of man (not at the greater perfection of the sacri- fice), yet since they fall within the sphere of qualifica- tion of those who are qualified for the sacrifice, and since the sacrifice with all its subordinate elements has to be performed by the priests, and since the text ' whatever he does with knowledge that becomes more vigorous ' declares knowledge to belong to the same agent as the works which are benefited by such knowledge, we conclude that those meditations also are the exclusive duty of the priests. In the case of the meditations on the small ether, &c, on the other hand, the text says nothing as to their having to be performed by priests, and we therefore assume in accord- ance with the general principle that c the fruit belongs to the performer,' that the agent there is the person to whom Scripture assigns the fruit. — Here terminates the adhika- ra«a of * the lord (of the sacrifice).' 46. There is injunction of other auxiliary means for him who is such, as in the case of injunction and so on ; (the term mauna denoting) according to an alternative meaning a third something. Ill ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 46. 709 ' Therefore let a Brahma^a after he has done with learn- ing wish to stand by a childlike state ; and after having done with the childlike state and learning (he is) a Muni ' (Bri. Up. Ill, 5). A doubt arises whether this text enjoins Muni-hood in the same way as it enjoins learning and the childlike state, or merely refers to it as something already established- — The Purvapakshin holds the latter view on the ground that as ' Muni-hood ' and * learning ' both connote knowledge, the word ' Muni ' merely refers back to the knowledge already enjoined in the phrase
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— To this point the next Sutra refers. 41. Nor the (expiatory performance) described in the chapter treating of qualification ; that being impossible on account of the Smnti referring to such lapse. Those expiatory performances which are described in the chapter treating of qualification (Pu. Mi. Su. VI) are not possible in the case of him who has lapsed from the condition of a Naish/^ika ; since such expiations do not apply to him, as is shown by a Smnti text referring to such lapse, viz. * He who having once entered on the duties of a NaishMika lapses from them, for such a slayer of the Self I do not see any expiatory work by which he might become clean.' The expiatory ceremony referred to in the Purva Mimawsa therefore applies to the case of other BrahmaHrins only. 42. A minor one, thus some; (and hence they hold) the existence (of expiation), as in the case of eating. This has been explained. Some teachers are of opinion that even on the part of NaishMikas and the rest the lapse from chastity constitutes only a minor offence which can be atoned for by expiatory observances ; in the same way as in the case of the eating of forbidden food the same praya^itta may be used by the ordinary Brahma&irin and by NaishMikas and the rest. This has been stated by the Smnti writer, ' For the others also (i. e. the Naish//*ikas and so on) the same (rules and Ill ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 44. 707 practices as those for the Upakurvana) hold good, in so far as not opposed to their ayrama.' 43. But in either case (such men) stand outside ; on account of Smrzti and custom. Whether the point under discussion constitutes a minor or a major offence, in any case those who have lapsed stand outside the category of those qualified for the know- ledge of Brahman. For Smrtti, i. e. the text quoted above, * I see no expiatory performance by which he, a slayer of Brahman as he is, could become pure again/ declares that expiations are powerless to restore purity. And custom confirms the same conclusion ; for good men shun those Naish/^ikas who have lapsed, even after they have per- formed praya^ittas, and do not impart to them the know- ledge of Brahman. The conclusion, therefore, is that such men are not qualified for knowing Brahman. — Here termi- nates the adhikara^a of ' him who has become that/ 44. By the Lord (of the sacrifice), since Scripture declares a fruit — thus Atreya thinks.
2The conclusion, therefore, is that such men are not qualified for knowing Brahman. — Here termi- nates the adhikara^a of ' him who has become that/ 44. By the Lord (of the sacrifice), since Scripture declares a fruit — thus Atreya thinks. A doubt arises whether the meditations on such con- stituent elements of the sacrifice as the Udgitha, and so on, are to be performed by the sacrificer (for whose benefit the sacrifice is offered), or by the officiating priests. Atreya advocates the former view ; on the ground of Scripture showing that in the case of such meditations as the one on the small ether within the heart, fruit and rneditation belong to the same person, and that in the case of such meditations as the one on the Udgitha the fruit belongs to the sacrificer (whence we conclude that the meditation also is his). Nor can it be said that the sacrificer is not com- petent for such meditation, for the reason that like the godohana vessel it is connected with an element of the sacrifice (which latter the priests only can perform). For the godohana vessel serves to bring water, and this of course none else can do but the Adhvaryu ; while a medi- tation on the Udgitha as being the essence of all essences can very well be performed by the Sacrificer — true though Z z 2 708 vedanta-sGtras. it be that the Udgitha itself can be performed by the Udgatrz priest only. — Against this view the next Sutra declares itself. 45. (They are) the priest's work, Auahlomi thinks ; since for that he is engaged.
3it be that the Udgitha itself can be performed by the Udgatrz priest only. — Against this view the next Sutra declares itself. 45. (They are) the priest's work, Auahlomi thinks ; since for that he is engaged. The teacher Audfalomi is of opinion that the meditation on the Udgitha and the like is the work of the priest, since it is he who is engaged for the purpose of performing that which gives rise to the fruit, i. e. of the entire sacrifice with all its subordinate parts. Injunctions referring to the per- formance of the sacrifices such as ' he chooses the priests ; he gives to the priests their fee ' indicate that the entire sacrificial performance is the work of the priests, and that hence all activities comprised within it — mental as well as bodily — belong to the priests. Capability or non-capa- bility does not constitute the criterion in this case. For although the meditations in question aim directly at the benefit of man (not at the greater perfection of the sacri- fice), yet since they fall within the sphere of qualifica- tion of those who are qualified for the sacrifice, and since the sacrifice with all its subordinate elements has to be performed by the priests, and since the text ' whatever he does with knowledge that becomes more vigorous ' declares knowledge to belong to the same agent as the works which are benefited by such knowledge, we conclude that those meditations also are the exclusive duty of the priests. In the case of the meditations on the small ether, &c, on the other hand, the text says nothing as to their having to be performed by priests, and we therefore assume in accord- ance with the general principle that c the fruit belongs to the performer,' that the agent there is the person to whom Scripture assigns the fruit. — Here terminates the adhika- ra«a of * the lord (of the sacrifice).' 46. There is injunction of other auxiliary means for him who is such, as in the case of injunction and so on ; (the term mauna denoting) according to an alternative meaning a third something. Ill ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 46. 709 ' Therefore let a Brahma^a after he has done with learn- ing wish to stand by a childlike state ; and after having done with the childlike state and learning (he is) a Muni ' (Bri. Up. Ill, 5). A doubt arises whether this text enjoins Muni-hood in the same way as it enjoins learning and the childlike state, or merely refers to it as something already established- — The Purvapakshin holds the latter view on the ground that as ' Muni-hood ' and * learning ' both connote knowledge, the word ' Muni ' merely refers back to the knowledge already enjoined in the phrase
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.