Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Gi. XIV, 4) ; ' I know the things past ' (Bha. Gi. VII, 26).— But if the ' I ' (aham) constitutes the essen- tial nature of the Self, how is it that the Holy One teaches the principle of egoity (aha//zkara) to belong to the sphere 7 2 VEDANTA-stjTRAS. of objects, ( The great elements, the aha^kara, the under- standing (buddhi), and the Unevolved ' (Bha. Gi. XIII, 5)? — As in all passages, we reply, which give information about the true nature of the Self it is spoken of as the ' 1/ we con- clude that the ' I ' constitutes the essential nature of the in- ward Self. Where, on the other hand, the Holy One declares the aha^kara — a special effect of the Unevolved — to be comprised within the sphere of the Objective, he means that principle which is called aha/^kara, because it causes the assumption of Egoity on the part of the body which belongs to the Not-self. Such egoity constitutes the aha^- kara also designated as pride or arrogance, which causes men to slight persons superior to themselves, and is referred to by scripture in many places as something evil. Such consciousness of the ' I ' therefore as is not sublated by anything else has the Self for its object; while, on the other hand, such consciousness of the * I ' as has the body for its object is mere Nescience. In agreement with this the Reverend Parasara has said, ' Hear from me the essen- tial nature of Nescience ; it is the attribution of Selfhood to what is not the Self.' If the Self were pure consciousness then pure consciousness only, and not the quality of being a knowing subject, would present itself in the body also, which is a Not-self wrongly imagined to be a Self. The conclusion therefore remains that the Self is nothing but the knowing * I.' Thus it has been said, ' As is proved by perception, and as also results from reasoning and tradition, and from its connexion with ignorance, the Self presents itself as a knowing * 1/ And again, 'That which is different from body, senses, mind, and vital airs ; which does not depend on other means ; which is permanent, pervading, divided according to bodies — that is the Self blessed in itself.' Here 'not dependent on other means' means ' self-luminous ' ; and ' pervading ' means ( being of such a nature as to enter, owing to excessive minuteness, into all non-sentient things.' I ADHYAYA, I PADA, I. 73 In cases of Scripture conflicting with Perception, Scrip- ture is not stronger. The True cannot be known through the Untrue.
273 In cases of Scripture conflicting with Perception, Scrip- ture is not stronger. The True cannot be known through the Untrue. With reference to the assertion (p. 24 ff.) that Perception, which depends on the view of plurality, is based on some defect and hence admits of being otherwise accounted for — whence it follows that it is sublated by Scripture ; we ask you to point out what defect it is on which Perception is based and may hence be accounted for otherwise. — * The beginningless imagination of difference' we expect you to reply. — But, we ask in return, have you then come to know by some other means that this beginningless imagination of difference, acting in a manner analogous to that of certain defects of vision, is really the cause of an altogether perverse view of things ? — If you reply that this is known just from the fact that Perception is in conflict with Scripture, we point out that you are reasoning in a circle : you prove the defectiveness of the imagination of plurality through the fact that Scripture tells us about a substance devoid of all difference ; and at the same time you prove the latter point through the former. Moreover, if Perception gives rise to perverse cognition because it is based on the imagination of plurality, Scripture also is in no better case — for it is based on the very same view. — If against this you urge that Scripture, although based on a defect, yet sublates Perception in so far as it is the cause of a cognition which dispels all plurality apprehended through Perception, and thus is later in order than Perception ; we rejoin that the defectiveness of the foundation of Scripture having once been recognised, the circumstance of its being later is of no avail. For if a man is afraid of a rope which he mistakes for a snake his fear does not come to an end because another man, whom he considers to be in error himself, tells him ' This is no snake, do not be afraid.' And that Scripture is founded on something defective is known at the very time of hearing Scripture, for the reflection (which follows on hearing) con- sists in repeated attempts to cognise the oneness of Brahman — a cognition which is destructive of all the plurality appre- 74 VEDANTA-stfTRAS.
3hended through the first hearing of the Veda. — We further ask, ' By what means do you arrive at the conclusion that Scripture cannot possibly be assumed to be defective in any way, while defects may be ascribed to Perception ' ? It is certainly not Consciousness — self-proved and absolutely devoid of all difference — which enlightens you on this point ; for such Consciousness is unrelated to any objects whatever, and incapable of partiality to Scripture. Nor can sense- perception be the source of your conviction ; for as it is founded on what is defective it gives perverse information. Nor again the other sources of knowledge ; for they are all based on sense-perception. As thus there are no acknow- ledged means of knowledge to prove your view, you must give it up. — But, you will perhaps say, we proceed by means of the ordinary empirical means and objects of knowledge! — What, we ask in reply, do you understand by ' empirical ' ? — What rests on immediate unreflective knowledge, but is found not to hold good when tested by logical reasoning ! — But what is the use, we ask, of knowledge of this kind ? If logical reasoning refutes something known through some means of knowledge, that means of knowledge is no longer authoritative ! — Now you will possibly argue as follows : * Scripture as well as Perception is founded on Nescience ; but all the same Perception is sublated by Scripture. For as the object of Scripture, i.e. Brahman, which is one and without a second, is not seen to be sublated by any ulterior cognition, Brahman, i.e. pure non-differenced Consciousness, remains as the sole Reality/ — But here too you are wrong, since we must decide that something which rests on a defect is unreal, although it may remain unrefuted. We will illus- trate this point by an analogous instance. Let us imagine a race of men afflicted with a certain special defect of vision, without being aware of this their defect, dwelling in some remote mountain caves inaccessible to all other men pro- vided with sound eyes. As we assume all of these cave dwellers to be afflicted with the same defect of vision, they, all of them, will equally see and judge bright things, e.g. the moon, to be double. Now in the case of these people there never arises a subsequent cognition sublating their primitive I ADHYAYA, I PADA, I. 75
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.
1Gi. XIV, 4) ; ' I know the things past ' (Bha. Gi. VII, 26).— But if the ' I ' (aham) constitutes the essen- tial nature of the Self, how is it that the Holy One teaches the principle of egoity (aha//zkara) to belong to the sphere 7 2 VEDANTA-stjTRAS. of objects, ( The great elements, the aha^kara, the under- standing (buddhi), and the Unevolved ' (Bha. Gi. XIII, 5)? — As in all passages, we reply, which give information about the true nature of the Self it is spoken of as the ' 1/ we con- clude that the ' I ' constitutes the essential nature of the in- ward Self. Where, on the other hand, the Holy One declares the aha^kara — a special effect of the Unevolved — to be comprised within the sphere of the Objective, he means that principle which is called aha/^kara, because it causes the assumption of Egoity on the part of the body which belongs to the Not-self. Such egoity constitutes the aha^- kara also designated as pride or arrogance, which causes men to slight persons superior to themselves, and is referred to by scripture in many places as something evil. Such consciousness of the ' I ' therefore as is not sublated by anything else has the Self for its object; while, on the other hand, such consciousness of the * I ' as has the body for its object is mere Nescience. In agreement with this the Reverend Parasara has said, ' Hear from me the essen- tial nature of Nescience ; it is the attribution of Selfhood to what is not the Self.' If the Self were pure consciousness then pure consciousness only, and not the quality of being a knowing subject, would present itself in the body also, which is a Not-self wrongly imagined to be a Self. The conclusion therefore remains that the Self is nothing but the knowing * I.' Thus it has been said, ' As is proved by perception, and as also results from reasoning and tradition, and from its connexion with ignorance, the Self presents itself as a knowing * 1/ And again, 'That which is different from body, senses, mind, and vital airs ; which does not depend on other means ; which is permanent, pervading, divided according to bodies — that is the Self blessed in itself.' Here 'not dependent on other means' means ' self-luminous ' ; and ' pervading ' means ( being of such a nature as to enter, owing to excessive minuteness, into all non-sentient things.' I ADHYAYA, I PADA, I. 73 In cases of Scripture conflicting with Perception, Scrip- ture is not stronger. The True cannot be known through the Untrue.
273 In cases of Scripture conflicting with Perception, Scrip- ture is not stronger. The True cannot be known through the Untrue. With reference to the assertion (p. 24 ff.) that Perception, which depends on the view of plurality, is based on some defect and hence admits of being otherwise accounted for — whence it follows that it is sublated by Scripture ; we ask you to point out what defect it is on which Perception is based and may hence be accounted for otherwise. — * The beginningless imagination of difference' we expect you to reply. — But, we ask in return, have you then come to know by some other means that this beginningless imagination of difference, acting in a manner analogous to that of certain defects of vision, is really the cause of an altogether perverse view of things ? — If you reply that this is known just from the fact that Perception is in conflict with Scripture, we point out that you are reasoning in a circle : you prove the defectiveness of the imagination of plurality through the fact that Scripture tells us about a substance devoid of all difference ; and at the same time you prove the latter point through the former. Moreover, if Perception gives rise to perverse cognition because it is based on the imagination of plurality, Scripture also is in no better case — for it is based on the very same view. — If against this you urge that Scripture, although based on a defect, yet sublates Perception in so far as it is the cause of a cognition which dispels all plurality apprehended through Perception, and thus is later in order than Perception ; we rejoin that the defectiveness of the foundation of Scripture having once been recognised, the circumstance of its being later is of no avail. For if a man is afraid of a rope which he mistakes for a snake his fear does not come to an end because another man, whom he considers to be in error himself, tells him ' This is no snake, do not be afraid.' And that Scripture is founded on something defective is known at the very time of hearing Scripture, for the reflection (which follows on hearing) con- sists in repeated attempts to cognise the oneness of Brahman — a cognition which is destructive of all the plurality appre- 74 VEDANTA-stfTRAS.
3hended through the first hearing of the Veda. — We further ask, ' By what means do you arrive at the conclusion that Scripture cannot possibly be assumed to be defective in any way, while defects may be ascribed to Perception ' ? It is certainly not Consciousness — self-proved and absolutely devoid of all difference — which enlightens you on this point ; for such Consciousness is unrelated to any objects whatever, and incapable of partiality to Scripture. Nor can sense- perception be the source of your conviction ; for as it is founded on what is defective it gives perverse information. Nor again the other sources of knowledge ; for they are all based on sense-perception. As thus there are no acknow- ledged means of knowledge to prove your view, you must give it up. — But, you will perhaps say, we proceed by means of the ordinary empirical means and objects of knowledge! — What, we ask in reply, do you understand by ' empirical ' ? — What rests on immediate unreflective knowledge, but is found not to hold good when tested by logical reasoning ! — But what is the use, we ask, of knowledge of this kind ? If logical reasoning refutes something known through some means of knowledge, that means of knowledge is no longer authoritative ! — Now you will possibly argue as follows : * Scripture as well as Perception is founded on Nescience ; but all the same Perception is sublated by Scripture. For as the object of Scripture, i.e. Brahman, which is one and without a second, is not seen to be sublated by any ulterior cognition, Brahman, i.e. pure non-differenced Consciousness, remains as the sole Reality/ — But here too you are wrong, since we must decide that something which rests on a defect is unreal, although it may remain unrefuted. We will illus- trate this point by an analogous instance. Let us imagine a race of men afflicted with a certain special defect of vision, without being aware of this their defect, dwelling in some remote mountain caves inaccessible to all other men pro- vided with sound eyes. As we assume all of these cave dwellers to be afflicted with the same defect of vision, they, all of them, will equally see and judge bright things, e.g. the moon, to be double. Now in the case of these people there never arises a subsequent cognition sublating their primitive I ADHYAYA, I PADA, I. 75
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.