Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The same consideration teaches us that also the I ADHYAYA, I PADA, I. 8 1 text 'True, knowledge/ &c, teaches Brahman to possess attributes ; for this passage has to be interpreted in agree- ment with the texts referring to Brahman as a cause. Nor does this imply a conflict with the texts which declare Brahman to be without qualities ; for those texts are meant to negative the evil qualities depending on Prakrzti. — Those texts again which refer to mere knowledge declare indeed that knowledge is the essential nature of Brahman, but this does not mean that mere knowledge constitutes the fundamental reality. For knowledge constitutes the essential nature of a knowing subject only which is the substrate of knowledge, in the same way as the sun, lamps, and gems are the substrate of Light. That Brahman is a knowing subject all scriptural texts declare ; cp. ' He who is all knowing' (Mu. Up. I, i, 9); ' It thought' (Kh. Up. VI, 2, 3); 'This divine being thought' (Kh. Up. VI, 3, 2) ; ' He thought, let me send forth the worlds ' (Ait. Ar. II, 4, 1, 2) ; ' He who arranges the wishes — as eternal of those who are not eternal, as thinker of (other) thinkers, as one of many' (Ka. Up. II, 5, 13); ' There are two unborn ones — one who knows, one who does not know — one strong, the other weak ' (6Vet. Up. I, 9) ; c Let us know Him, the highest of Lords, the great Lord, the highest deity of deities, the master of masters, the highest above the god, the lord of the world, the adorable one' (Svet Up. VI, 7) ; f Of him there is known no effect (body) or instru- ment ; no one is seen like unto him or better ; his high power is revealed as manifold, forming his essential nature, as knowledge, strength, and action ' (Svet. Up. VI, 8) ; ' That is the Self, free from sin, ageless, deathless, griefless, free from hunger and thirst, whose wishes are true, whose purposes are true ' (Kh. Up. VIII, 1. 5). These and other texts declare that to Brahman, whose essential nature is knowledge, there belong many excellent qualities — among which that of being a knowing subject stands first, and that Brahman is free from all evil qualities. That the texts referring to Brahman as free from qualities, and those which speak of it as possessing qualities, have really one and the same object may be inferred from the last of the [48] G 8 2 vedanta-s6tr as.
2That the texts referring to Brahman as free from qualities, and those which speak of it as possessing qualities, have really one and the same object may be inferred from the last of the [48] G 8 2 vedanta-s6tr as. passages quoted above ; the earlier part of which — ' free from sin/ up to ' free from thirst ' — denies of Brahman all evil qualities, while its latter part — ' whose wishes are true/ and so on — asserts of its certain excellent qualities. As thus there is no contradiction between the two classes of texts, there is no reason whatever to assume that either of them has for its object something that is false. — With regard to the concluding passage of the Taittiriya-text, 'from whence all speech, together with the mind, turns away, unable to reach it Y we point out that with the passage ' From terror of it the wind blows/ there begins a declaration of the qualities of Brahman, and that the next section ' one hundred times that human bliss,' &c, makes statements as to the relative bliss enjoyed by the different classes of embodied souls ; the concluding passage ' He who knows the bliss of that Brahman from whence all speech, together with the mind, turns away unable to reach it/ hence must be taken as proclaiming with emphasis the infinite nature of Brahman's auspicious qualities. More- over, a clause in the chapter under discussion — viz. ' he obtains all desires, together with Brahman the all-wise' (II, i) — which gives information as to the fruit of the know- ledge of Brahman clearly declares the infinite nature of the qualities of the highest all-wise Brahman. The desires are the auspicious qualities of Brahman which are the objects of desire ; the man who knows Brahman obtains, together with Brahman, all qualities of it. The expression ' together with ' is meant to bring out the primary importance of the qualities ; as also described in the so-called dahara-vidycl (Kh. Up. VIII, i). And that fruit and meditation are of the same character (i. e. that in meditations on Brahman its qualities are the chief matter of meditation, just as these qualities are the principal point in Brahman reached by the Devotee) is proved by the text ' According to wThat a man's thought is in this world, so will he be after he has 1 Which passage appears to refer to a nirguwa brahman, whence it might be inferred that the connected initial passage — * Satvam £72anam/ &c. — has a similar purport. I ADHYAYA, I PADA, I. 83
3— has a similar purport. I ADHYAYA, I PADA, I. 83 departed this life' (Kk. Up. Ill, 14, 1). If it be said that the passage ' By whom it is not thought by him it is thought/ ' not understood by those who understand ' (Ke. Up. II, 3), declares Brahman not to be an object of know- ledge ; we deny this, because were it so, certain other texts would not teach that final Release results from knowledge ; cp. ' He who knows Brahman obtains the Highest' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1) ; 'He knows Brahman, he becomes Brahman/ And, moreover, the text ' He who knows Brahman as non-existing becomes himself non- existing ; he who knows Brahman as existing, him we know himself as existing ' (Taitt. Up. II, 6, 1), makes the existence and non-existence of the Self dependent on the existence and non-existence of knowledge which has Brah- man for its object. We thus conclude that all scriptural texts enjoin just the knowledge of Brahman for the sake of final Release. This knowledge is, as we already know, of the nature of meditation, and what is to be meditated on is Brahman as possessing qualities. (The text from the Ke. Up. then explains itself as follows: — ) We are informed by the passage 'from whence speech together with mind turns away, being unable to reach it,' that the infinite Brahman with its unlimited excellences cannot be defined either by mind or speech as being so or so much, and from this we conclude the Kena text to mean that Brahman is not thought and not understood by those who understand it to be of a definitely limited nature ; Brahman in truth being unlimited. If the text did not mean this, it would be self-contradictory, parts of it saying that Brah- man is not thought and not understood, and other parts, that it is thought and is understood. Now as regards the assertion that the text * Thou mayest not see the seer of seeing ; thou mayest not think the thinker of thinking' (Bri. Up. Ill, 5, 2), denies the exis- tence of a seeing and thinking subject different from mere seeing and thinking. — This view is refuted by the following interpretation. The text addresses itself to a person who has formed the erroneous opinion that the quality of con- sciousness or knowledge does not constitute the essential G 2 84 vedanta-sOtras. nature of the knower, but belongs to it only as an adventi- tious attribute, and tells him ' Do not view or think the Self to be such, but consider the seeing and thinking Self to have seeing and thinking for its essential nature/ — Or else this text may mean that the embodied Self which is the seer of seeing and the thinker of thinking should be set aside, and that only the highest Self-— the inner Self of all beings — should be meditated upon. — Otherwise a conflict would arise with texts declaring the knowership of the Self, such as ' whereby should he know the knower ? ' (Brz. Up. IV, 5, 15).
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.
1The same consideration teaches us that also the I ADHYAYA, I PADA, I. 8 1 text 'True, knowledge/ &c, teaches Brahman to possess attributes ; for this passage has to be interpreted in agree- ment with the texts referring to Brahman as a cause. Nor does this imply a conflict with the texts which declare Brahman to be without qualities ; for those texts are meant to negative the evil qualities depending on Prakrzti. — Those texts again which refer to mere knowledge declare indeed that knowledge is the essential nature of Brahman, but this does not mean that mere knowledge constitutes the fundamental reality. For knowledge constitutes the essential nature of a knowing subject only which is the substrate of knowledge, in the same way as the sun, lamps, and gems are the substrate of Light. That Brahman is a knowing subject all scriptural texts declare ; cp. ' He who is all knowing' (Mu. Up. I, i, 9); ' It thought' (Kh. Up. VI, 2, 3); 'This divine being thought' (Kh. Up. VI, 3, 2) ; ' He thought, let me send forth the worlds ' (Ait. Ar. II, 4, 1, 2) ; ' He who arranges the wishes — as eternal of those who are not eternal, as thinker of (other) thinkers, as one of many' (Ka. Up. II, 5, 13); ' There are two unborn ones — one who knows, one who does not know — one strong, the other weak ' (6Vet. Up. I, 9) ; c Let us know Him, the highest of Lords, the great Lord, the highest deity of deities, the master of masters, the highest above the god, the lord of the world, the adorable one' (Svet Up. VI, 7) ; f Of him there is known no effect (body) or instru- ment ; no one is seen like unto him or better ; his high power is revealed as manifold, forming his essential nature, as knowledge, strength, and action ' (Svet. Up. VI, 8) ; ' That is the Self, free from sin, ageless, deathless, griefless, free from hunger and thirst, whose wishes are true, whose purposes are true ' (Kh. Up. VIII, 1. 5). These and other texts declare that to Brahman, whose essential nature is knowledge, there belong many excellent qualities — among which that of being a knowing subject stands first, and that Brahman is free from all evil qualities. That the texts referring to Brahman as free from qualities, and those which speak of it as possessing qualities, have really one and the same object may be inferred from the last of the [48] G 8 2 vedanta-s6tr as.
2That the texts referring to Brahman as free from qualities, and those which speak of it as possessing qualities, have really one and the same object may be inferred from the last of the [48] G 8 2 vedanta-s6tr as. passages quoted above ; the earlier part of which — ' free from sin/ up to ' free from thirst ' — denies of Brahman all evil qualities, while its latter part — ' whose wishes are true/ and so on — asserts of its certain excellent qualities. As thus there is no contradiction between the two classes of texts, there is no reason whatever to assume that either of them has for its object something that is false. — With regard to the concluding passage of the Taittiriya-text, 'from whence all speech, together with the mind, turns away, unable to reach it Y we point out that with the passage ' From terror of it the wind blows/ there begins a declaration of the qualities of Brahman, and that the next section ' one hundred times that human bliss,' &c, makes statements as to the relative bliss enjoyed by the different classes of embodied souls ; the concluding passage ' He who knows the bliss of that Brahman from whence all speech, together with the mind, turns away unable to reach it/ hence must be taken as proclaiming with emphasis the infinite nature of Brahman's auspicious qualities. More- over, a clause in the chapter under discussion — viz. ' he obtains all desires, together with Brahman the all-wise' (II, i) — which gives information as to the fruit of the know- ledge of Brahman clearly declares the infinite nature of the qualities of the highest all-wise Brahman. The desires are the auspicious qualities of Brahman which are the objects of desire ; the man who knows Brahman obtains, together with Brahman, all qualities of it. The expression ' together with ' is meant to bring out the primary importance of the qualities ; as also described in the so-called dahara-vidycl (Kh. Up. VIII, i). And that fruit and meditation are of the same character (i. e. that in meditations on Brahman its qualities are the chief matter of meditation, just as these qualities are the principal point in Brahman reached by the Devotee) is proved by the text ' According to wThat a man's thought is in this world, so will he be after he has 1 Which passage appears to refer to a nirguwa brahman, whence it might be inferred that the connected initial passage — * Satvam £72anam/ &c. — has a similar purport. I ADHYAYA, I PADA, I. 83
3— has a similar purport. I ADHYAYA, I PADA, I. 83 departed this life' (Kk. Up. Ill, 14, 1). If it be said that the passage ' By whom it is not thought by him it is thought/ ' not understood by those who understand ' (Ke. Up. II, 3), declares Brahman not to be an object of know- ledge ; we deny this, because were it so, certain other texts would not teach that final Release results from knowledge ; cp. ' He who knows Brahman obtains the Highest' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1) ; 'He knows Brahman, he becomes Brahman/ And, moreover, the text ' He who knows Brahman as non-existing becomes himself non- existing ; he who knows Brahman as existing, him we know himself as existing ' (Taitt. Up. II, 6, 1), makes the existence and non-existence of the Self dependent on the existence and non-existence of knowledge which has Brah- man for its object. We thus conclude that all scriptural texts enjoin just the knowledge of Brahman for the sake of final Release. This knowledge is, as we already know, of the nature of meditation, and what is to be meditated on is Brahman as possessing qualities. (The text from the Ke. Up. then explains itself as follows: — ) We are informed by the passage 'from whence speech together with mind turns away, being unable to reach it,' that the infinite Brahman with its unlimited excellences cannot be defined either by mind or speech as being so or so much, and from this we conclude the Kena text to mean that Brahman is not thought and not understood by those who understand it to be of a definitely limited nature ; Brahman in truth being unlimited. If the text did not mean this, it would be self-contradictory, parts of it saying that Brah- man is not thought and not understood, and other parts, that it is thought and is understood. Now as regards the assertion that the text * Thou mayest not see the seer of seeing ; thou mayest not think the thinker of thinking' (Bri. Up. Ill, 5, 2), denies the exis- tence of a seeing and thinking subject different from mere seeing and thinking. — This view is refuted by the following interpretation. The text addresses itself to a person who has formed the erroneous opinion that the quality of con- sciousness or knowledge does not constitute the essential G 2 84 vedanta-sOtras. nature of the knower, but belongs to it only as an adventi- tious attribute, and tells him ' Do not view or think the Self to be such, but consider the seeing and thinking Self to have seeing and thinking for its essential nature/ — Or else this text may mean that the embodied Self which is the seer of seeing and the thinker of thinking should be set aside, and that only the highest Self-— the inner Self of all beings — should be meditated upon. — Otherwise a conflict would arise with texts declaring the knowership of the Self, such as ' whereby should he know the knower ? ' (Brz. Up. IV, 5, 15).
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.