Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1— This view the Sutra sets aside. The meaning of Scripture is fulfilled only by repeated acts of knowledge ' on account of teach- ing/ i. e. because the teaching of Scripture is conveyed 7 1 6 vedanta-sOtras. by means of the term c knowing ' (vedana), which is synonymous with meditating (dhyana, upasana). That these terms are so synonymous appears from the fact that the verbs vid, upas, dhyai are in one and the same text used with reference to one and the same object of knowledge. A text begins, e. g. * Let him meditate (upa- sita) on mind as Brahman/ and concludes ' he who knows (veda) this shines, warms/ &c. (Kk. Up. Ill, 18). In the same way the knowledge of Raikva is at first referred to by means of vid, * He who knows (veda) what he knows is thus spoken of by me/ and further on by means of upas, 'teach me the deity on which you meditate' {Kh. Up. IV, 1, 2). Similarly texts which have the same meaning as the text * He who knows Brahman reaches the Highest ' — viz. c the Self should be seen, be heard, be reflected on, be meditated upon (nididhyasitavya) ' — i Then he sees him meditating (dhyayamana) on him as without parts' (Mu. Up. Ill, 1, 8), and others — use the verb dhyai to express the meaning of vid. Now dhy&i means to think of something not in the way of mere representation (smrzti), but in the way of continued representation. And upas has the same meaning ; for we see it used in the sense of thinking with uninterrupted concentration of the mind on one object. We therefore conclude that as the verb 'vid' is used interchangeably with dhyai and upas, the mental activity referred to in texts such as 'he knows Brahman ' and the like is an often-repeated con- tinuous representation. 2. And on account of an inferential mark. Inferential mark here means Smriti. Smriti also de- clares that that knowledge which effects Release is of the nature of continued representation. Meditation therefore has to be repeated. — Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' repetition.' 3. But as the Self; this (the ancient Devotees) acknowledge (since the texts) make (them) appre- hend (in that way). IV ADHYAYA, I PADA, 3. 717
2Meditation therefore has to be repeated. — Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' repetition.' 3. But as the Self; this (the ancient Devotees) acknowledge (since the texts) make (them) appre- hend (in that way). IV ADHYAYA, I PADA, 3. 717 The following point is now taken into consideration. Is Brahman to be meditated upon as something different from the meditating Devotee, or as the Self of the latter? — The Purvapakshin holds the former view. For, he says, the individual soul is something different from Brahman ; as has been proved under II, 1, 22 ; III, 4, 8 ; I, 1, 15. And Brahman must be meditated upon as it truly is ; for if it is meditated upon under an unreal aspect, the attaining to Brahman also will not be real, according to the principle expressed in the text, * According as a man's thought is in this world, so will he be when he has departed this life ' (Kk. Up. Ill, 14, 1). This view the Sutra sets aside. Brahman is rather to be meditated upon as being the Self of the meditating Devotee. As the meditating indivi- dual soul is the Self of its own body, so the highest Brahman is the Self of the individual soul — this is the proper form of meditation. — Why? — Because the great Devotees of olden times acknowledged this to be the true nature of meditation ; compare the text ' Then I am indeed thou, holy divinity, and thou art me.' — But how can the Devotees claim that Brahman which is a different being is their ' Ego ' ? — Because the texts enable them to apprehend this relation as one free from contradiction. 'He who dwelling within the Self is different from the Self, whom the Self does not know, of whom the Self is the body, who rules the Self from within ; he is thy Self, the inner ruler, the immortal one' (Br/. Up. 111,7,3); 'In the True all these beings have their root, they dwell in the True, they rest in the True ; — in that all that exists has its Self ' (Kk. Up. VI, 8); 'All this indeed is Brahman5 (Kk. Up. Ill, 14, 1) — all these texts teach that all sentient and non- sentient beings spring from Brahman, are merged in him, breathe through him, are ruled by him, constitute his body ; so that he is the Self of all of them. In the same way therefore as, on the basis of the fact that the individual soul occupies with regard to the body the position of a Self, we form such judgments of co-ordination as ' I am a god — I am a man' ; the fact of the individual Self being of the nature of Self justifies us in viewing our own Ego as belonging 7 1 8 vedanta-sAtras.
3to the highest Self. On the presupposition of all ideas being finally based on Brahman and hence all words also finally denoting Brahman, the texts therefore make such statements of mutual implication as * I am thou, O holy divinity, and thou art me.' On this view of the relation of individual soul and highest Self there is no real con- tradiction between two, apparently contradictory, sets of texts, viz. those on the one hand which negative the view of the soul being different from the highest Self, ' Now if a man meditates upon another divinity, thinking " the divinity is one and I another," he does not know* ; ' He is incomplete, let him meditate upon Him as the Self; ' Everything abandons him who views anything apart from the Self (Bri. Up. I, 4, 10 ; 7— II, 4, 6) ; and on the other hand those texts which set forth the view of the soul and the highest Self being different entities, ' Thinking of the (individual) Self and the Mover as different ' (Svet. Up. I, 6). For our view implies a denial of difference in so far as the individual ' I ' is of the nature of the Self; and it implies an acknowledgment of difference in so far as it allows the highest Self to differ from the individual soul in the same way as the latter differs from its body. The clause ' he is incomplete ' (in one of the texts quoted above) refers to the fact that Brahman which is different from the soul constitutes the Self of the soul, while the soul constitutes the body of Brahman. — It thus remains a settled conclusion that Brahman is to be meditated upon as constituting the Self of the meditating Devotee. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' meditation under the aspect of Self.' 4. Not in the symbol ; for (the symbol) is not that one (i. e. the Self of the Devotee). ' Let a man meditate on mind as Brahman ' (Kh. Up. Ill, 18, 1) ; ' He who meditates on name as Brahman' (Kk. Up. VII, 15) — with regard to these and similar medi- tations on outward symbols (pratika) of Brahman there arises a doubt, viz. whether in them the symbols are to be thought of as of the nature of Self or not. The Purva- IV ADHYAYA, I PADA, 6. 719
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— This view the Sutra sets aside. The meaning of Scripture is fulfilled only by repeated acts of knowledge ' on account of teach- ing/ i. e. because the teaching of Scripture is conveyed 7 1 6 vedanta-sOtras. by means of the term c knowing ' (vedana), which is synonymous with meditating (dhyana, upasana). That these terms are so synonymous appears from the fact that the verbs vid, upas, dhyai are in one and the same text used with reference to one and the same object of knowledge. A text begins, e. g. * Let him meditate (upa- sita) on mind as Brahman/ and concludes ' he who knows (veda) this shines, warms/ &c. (Kk. Up. Ill, 18). In the same way the knowledge of Raikva is at first referred to by means of vid, * He who knows (veda) what he knows is thus spoken of by me/ and further on by means of upas, 'teach me the deity on which you meditate' {Kh. Up. IV, 1, 2). Similarly texts which have the same meaning as the text * He who knows Brahman reaches the Highest ' — viz. c the Self should be seen, be heard, be reflected on, be meditated upon (nididhyasitavya) ' — i Then he sees him meditating (dhyayamana) on him as without parts' (Mu. Up. Ill, 1, 8), and others — use the verb dhyai to express the meaning of vid. Now dhy&i means to think of something not in the way of mere representation (smrzti), but in the way of continued representation. And upas has the same meaning ; for we see it used in the sense of thinking with uninterrupted concentration of the mind on one object. We therefore conclude that as the verb 'vid' is used interchangeably with dhyai and upas, the mental activity referred to in texts such as 'he knows Brahman ' and the like is an often-repeated con- tinuous representation. 2. And on account of an inferential mark. Inferential mark here means Smriti. Smriti also de- clares that that knowledge which effects Release is of the nature of continued representation. Meditation therefore has to be repeated. — Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' repetition.' 3. But as the Self; this (the ancient Devotees) acknowledge (since the texts) make (them) appre- hend (in that way). IV ADHYAYA, I PADA, 3. 717
2Meditation therefore has to be repeated. — Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' repetition.' 3. But as the Self; this (the ancient Devotees) acknowledge (since the texts) make (them) appre- hend (in that way). IV ADHYAYA, I PADA, 3. 717 The following point is now taken into consideration. Is Brahman to be meditated upon as something different from the meditating Devotee, or as the Self of the latter? — The Purvapakshin holds the former view. For, he says, the individual soul is something different from Brahman ; as has been proved under II, 1, 22 ; III, 4, 8 ; I, 1, 15. And Brahman must be meditated upon as it truly is ; for if it is meditated upon under an unreal aspect, the attaining to Brahman also will not be real, according to the principle expressed in the text, * According as a man's thought is in this world, so will he be when he has departed this life ' (Kk. Up. Ill, 14, 1). This view the Sutra sets aside. Brahman is rather to be meditated upon as being the Self of the meditating Devotee. As the meditating indivi- dual soul is the Self of its own body, so the highest Brahman is the Self of the individual soul — this is the proper form of meditation. — Why? — Because the great Devotees of olden times acknowledged this to be the true nature of meditation ; compare the text ' Then I am indeed thou, holy divinity, and thou art me.' — But how can the Devotees claim that Brahman which is a different being is their ' Ego ' ? — Because the texts enable them to apprehend this relation as one free from contradiction. 'He who dwelling within the Self is different from the Self, whom the Self does not know, of whom the Self is the body, who rules the Self from within ; he is thy Self, the inner ruler, the immortal one' (Br/. Up. 111,7,3); 'In the True all these beings have their root, they dwell in the True, they rest in the True ; — in that all that exists has its Self ' (Kk. Up. VI, 8); 'All this indeed is Brahman5 (Kk. Up. Ill, 14, 1) — all these texts teach that all sentient and non- sentient beings spring from Brahman, are merged in him, breathe through him, are ruled by him, constitute his body ; so that he is the Self of all of them. In the same way therefore as, on the basis of the fact that the individual soul occupies with regard to the body the position of a Self, we form such judgments of co-ordination as ' I am a god — I am a man' ; the fact of the individual Self being of the nature of Self justifies us in viewing our own Ego as belonging 7 1 8 vedanta-sAtras.
3to the highest Self. On the presupposition of all ideas being finally based on Brahman and hence all words also finally denoting Brahman, the texts therefore make such statements of mutual implication as * I am thou, O holy divinity, and thou art me.' On this view of the relation of individual soul and highest Self there is no real con- tradiction between two, apparently contradictory, sets of texts, viz. those on the one hand which negative the view of the soul being different from the highest Self, ' Now if a man meditates upon another divinity, thinking " the divinity is one and I another," he does not know* ; ' He is incomplete, let him meditate upon Him as the Self; ' Everything abandons him who views anything apart from the Self (Bri. Up. I, 4, 10 ; 7— II, 4, 6) ; and on the other hand those texts which set forth the view of the soul and the highest Self being different entities, ' Thinking of the (individual) Self and the Mover as different ' (Svet. Up. I, 6). For our view implies a denial of difference in so far as the individual ' I ' is of the nature of the Self; and it implies an acknowledgment of difference in so far as it allows the highest Self to differ from the individual soul in the same way as the latter differs from its body. The clause ' he is incomplete ' (in one of the texts quoted above) refers to the fact that Brahman which is different from the soul constitutes the Self of the soul, while the soul constitutes the body of Brahman. — It thus remains a settled conclusion that Brahman is to be meditated upon as constituting the Self of the meditating Devotee. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' meditation under the aspect of Self.' 4. Not in the symbol ; for (the symbol) is not that one (i. e. the Self of the Devotee). ' Let a man meditate on mind as Brahman ' (Kh. Up. Ill, 18, 1) ; ' He who meditates on name as Brahman' (Kk. Up. VII, 15) — with regard to these and similar medi- tations on outward symbols (pratika) of Brahman there arises a doubt, viz. whether in them the symbols are to be thought of as of the nature of Self or not. The Purva- IV ADHYAYA, I PADA, 6. 719
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.