Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1purport of the entire 4-astra. The passage, further, ' Of that Self although it exists in one's own and in other bodies, the knowledge is of one kind ' (Vi. Pu. II, 14, 31 ff), refers to that view of duality according to which the different Selfs — although equal in so far as they are all of the essence of knowledge — are constituted into separate beings, gods, men, &c, by their connexion with different portions of matter all of which are modifications of primary matter, and declares that view to be false. But this does not imply a denial of the duality which holds good between matter on the one hand and Self on the other : what the passage means is that the Self which dwells in the different material bodies of gods, men, and so on, is of one and the same kind. So the Holy one himself has said, ' In the dog and the low man eating dog's flesh the wise see the same ' ; ( Brahman, without any imperfection, is the same ' (Bha. Gi. V, 18, 19). And, moreover, the clause 'Of the Self although existing in one's own and in other bodies ' directly declares that a thing different from the body is distributed among one's own and other bodies. Nor does the passage ' If there is some other (para) different (anya) from me,' &c. (Vi. Pu. II, 13, 86) intimate the oneness of the Self ; for in that case the two words * para ' and c anya ' would express one meaning only (viz. ' other' in the sense of ' distinct from'). The word ' para' there denotes a Self distinct from that of one's own Self, and the word ' anya ' is introduced to negative a character different from that of pure intelligence : the sense of the passage thus is ' If there is some Self distinct from mine, and of a character different from mine which is pure know- ledge, then it can be said that I am of such a character and he of a different character5; but this is not the case, because all Selfs are equal in as far as their nature consists of pure knowledge. — Also the j-loka beginning 'Owing to the difference of the holes of the flute ' (Vi. Pu. II, 14, 32) only declares that the inequality of the different Selfs is owing not to their essential nature, but to their dwelling in different material bodies ; and does not teach the oneness of all Selfs. The different portions of air, again, passing I ADHYAYA, I PADA, I. 97
2Pu. II, 14, 32) only declares that the inequality of the different Selfs is owing not to their essential nature, but to their dwelling in different material bodies ; and does not teach the oneness of all Selfs. The different portions of air, again, passing I ADHYAYA, I PADA, I. 97 through the different holes of the flute — to which the many Selfs are compared — are not said to be one but only to be equal in character ; they are one in character in so far as all of them are of the nature of air, while the different names of the successive notes of the musical scale are applied to them because they pass out by the different holes of the instrument. For an analogous reason the several Selfs are denominated by different names, viz. gods and so on. Those material things also which are parts of the substance fire, or water, or earth, are one in so far only as they consist of one kind of substance ; but are not absolutely one ; those different portions of air, therefore, which constitute the notes of the scale are likewise not absolutely one. Where the Pura/za further says 'He (or " that ") I am and thou art He (or " that ") ; all this universe that has Self for its true nature is He (or " that ") ; abandon the error of distinction ' (Vi. Pu. II, 1.6, 23) ; the word ' that ' refers to the intelligent character mentioned pre- viously which is common to all Selfs, and the co-ordination stated in the two clauses therefore intimates that intelli- gence is the character of the beings denoted ' I ' and ' Thou ' ; ' abandon therefore/ the text goes on to say, ' the illusion that the difference of outward form, divine and so on, causes a corresponding difference in the Selfs.' If this explanation were not accepted (but absolute non-difference insisted upon) there would be no room for the references to difference which the passages quoted manifestly contain. Accordingly the text goes on to say that the king acted on the instruction he had received, ' he abandoned the view of difference, having recognised the Real.' — But on what ground do we arrive at this decision (viz. that the passage under discussion is not meant to teach absolute non- duality) ? — On the ground, we reply, that the proper topic of the whole section is to teach the distinction of the Self and the body — for this is evident from what is said in an early part of the section, ' as the body of man, characterised by hands, feet, and the like/ &c. (Vi. Pu. II, 13, 85). — For analogous reasons the ^loka ' When that knowledge which gives rise to distinction' &c. (Vi. Pu. VI, 7, 94) teaches [48] H 98 vedanta-s6tras.
3(Vi. Pu. II, 13, 85). — For analogous reasons the ^loka ' When that knowledge which gives rise to distinction' &c. (Vi. Pu. VI, 7, 94) teaches [48] H 98 vedanta-s6tras. neither the essential unity of all Selfs nor the oneness of the individual Self and the highest Self. And that the embodied soul and the highest Self should be essentially one, is no more possible than that the body and the Self should be one. In agreement herewith Scripture says, 'Two birds, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit, the other looks on without eating' (Mu. Up. Ill, i, i). 'There are two drinking their reward in the world of their own works, entered into the cave, dwelling on the highest summit. Those who know Brahman call them shade and light/ &c. (Ka. Up. I, 3, 1). And in this ^astra also (i. e. the Vish;zu Pura^a) there are passages of analogous import ; cp. the stanzas quoted above, ' He transcends the causal matter, all effects, all imperfec- tions such as the gu;zas ' &c. The Sutras also maintain the same doctrine, cp. I, 1, 17; I, 2, 21 ; II, 1, 2^ ; and others. They therein follow Scrip- ture, which in several places refers to the highest and the individual soul as standing over against each other, cp. e. g. 6 He who dwells in the Self and within the Self, whom the Self does not know, whose body the Self is, who rules the Self from within ' (Br/. Up. Ill, 7, 22) ; ' Embraced by the intelligent Self' (Br/. Up. IV, 3, 21); ' Mounted by the intelligent Self (IV, 3, 35). Nor can the individual Self become one with the highest Self by freeing itself from Nescience, with the help of the means of final Release; for that which admits of being the abode of Nescience can never become quite incapable of it. So the Pura/za says, ' It is false to maintain that the individual Self and the highest Self enter into real union ; for one substance can- not pass over into the nature of another substance.' Accordingly the Bhagavad Gita declares that the released soul attains only the same attributes as the highest Self. ' Abiding by this knowledge, they, attaining to an equality of attributes with me, do neither come forth at the time of creation, nor are troubled at the time of general destruc- tion' (XIV, 2). Similarly our Pura/^a says, ' That Brahman leads him who meditates on it, and who is capable of change, towards its own being (atmabhava), in the same I ADHYAYA, 1 PADA, 1 . 99 way as the magnet attracts the iron ' (Vi. Pu. VI, 7, 30). Here the phrase ' leads him towards his own being ' means * imparts to him a nature like his own ' (not ' completely identifies him with itself ') ; for the attracted body does not become essentially one with the body attracting.
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.
1purport of the entire 4-astra. The passage, further, ' Of that Self although it exists in one's own and in other bodies, the knowledge is of one kind ' (Vi. Pu. II, 14, 31 ff), refers to that view of duality according to which the different Selfs — although equal in so far as they are all of the essence of knowledge — are constituted into separate beings, gods, men, &c, by their connexion with different portions of matter all of which are modifications of primary matter, and declares that view to be false. But this does not imply a denial of the duality which holds good between matter on the one hand and Self on the other : what the passage means is that the Self which dwells in the different material bodies of gods, men, and so on, is of one and the same kind. So the Holy one himself has said, ' In the dog and the low man eating dog's flesh the wise see the same ' ; ( Brahman, without any imperfection, is the same ' (Bha. Gi. V, 18, 19). And, moreover, the clause 'Of the Self although existing in one's own and in other bodies ' directly declares that a thing different from the body is distributed among one's own and other bodies. Nor does the passage ' If there is some other (para) different (anya) from me,' &c. (Vi. Pu. II, 13, 86) intimate the oneness of the Self ; for in that case the two words * para ' and c anya ' would express one meaning only (viz. ' other' in the sense of ' distinct from'). The word ' para' there denotes a Self distinct from that of one's own Self, and the word ' anya ' is introduced to negative a character different from that of pure intelligence : the sense of the passage thus is ' If there is some Self distinct from mine, and of a character different from mine which is pure know- ledge, then it can be said that I am of such a character and he of a different character5; but this is not the case, because all Selfs are equal in as far as their nature consists of pure knowledge. — Also the j-loka beginning 'Owing to the difference of the holes of the flute ' (Vi. Pu. II, 14, 32) only declares that the inequality of the different Selfs is owing not to their essential nature, but to their dwelling in different material bodies ; and does not teach the oneness of all Selfs. The different portions of air, again, passing I ADHYAYA, I PADA, I. 97
2Pu. II, 14, 32) only declares that the inequality of the different Selfs is owing not to their essential nature, but to their dwelling in different material bodies ; and does not teach the oneness of all Selfs. The different portions of air, again, passing I ADHYAYA, I PADA, I. 97 through the different holes of the flute — to which the many Selfs are compared — are not said to be one but only to be equal in character ; they are one in character in so far as all of them are of the nature of air, while the different names of the successive notes of the musical scale are applied to them because they pass out by the different holes of the instrument. For an analogous reason the several Selfs are denominated by different names, viz. gods and so on. Those material things also which are parts of the substance fire, or water, or earth, are one in so far only as they consist of one kind of substance ; but are not absolutely one ; those different portions of air, therefore, which constitute the notes of the scale are likewise not absolutely one. Where the Pura/za further says 'He (or " that ") I am and thou art He (or " that ") ; all this universe that has Self for its true nature is He (or " that ") ; abandon the error of distinction ' (Vi. Pu. II, 1.6, 23) ; the word ' that ' refers to the intelligent character mentioned pre- viously which is common to all Selfs, and the co-ordination stated in the two clauses therefore intimates that intelli- gence is the character of the beings denoted ' I ' and ' Thou ' ; ' abandon therefore/ the text goes on to say, ' the illusion that the difference of outward form, divine and so on, causes a corresponding difference in the Selfs.' If this explanation were not accepted (but absolute non-difference insisted upon) there would be no room for the references to difference which the passages quoted manifestly contain. Accordingly the text goes on to say that the king acted on the instruction he had received, ' he abandoned the view of difference, having recognised the Real.' — But on what ground do we arrive at this decision (viz. that the passage under discussion is not meant to teach absolute non- duality) ? — On the ground, we reply, that the proper topic of the whole section is to teach the distinction of the Self and the body — for this is evident from what is said in an early part of the section, ' as the body of man, characterised by hands, feet, and the like/ &c. (Vi. Pu. II, 13, 85). — For analogous reasons the ^loka ' When that knowledge which gives rise to distinction' &c. (Vi. Pu. VI, 7, 94) teaches [48] H 98 vedanta-s6tras.
3(Vi. Pu. II, 13, 85). — For analogous reasons the ^loka ' When that knowledge which gives rise to distinction' &c. (Vi. Pu. VI, 7, 94) teaches [48] H 98 vedanta-s6tras. neither the essential unity of all Selfs nor the oneness of the individual Self and the highest Self. And that the embodied soul and the highest Self should be essentially one, is no more possible than that the body and the Self should be one. In agreement herewith Scripture says, 'Two birds, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit, the other looks on without eating' (Mu. Up. Ill, i, i). 'There are two drinking their reward in the world of their own works, entered into the cave, dwelling on the highest summit. Those who know Brahman call them shade and light/ &c. (Ka. Up. I, 3, 1). And in this ^astra also (i. e. the Vish;zu Pura^a) there are passages of analogous import ; cp. the stanzas quoted above, ' He transcends the causal matter, all effects, all imperfec- tions such as the gu;zas ' &c. The Sutras also maintain the same doctrine, cp. I, 1, 17; I, 2, 21 ; II, 1, 2^ ; and others. They therein follow Scrip- ture, which in several places refers to the highest and the individual soul as standing over against each other, cp. e. g. 6 He who dwells in the Self and within the Self, whom the Self does not know, whose body the Self is, who rules the Self from within ' (Br/. Up. Ill, 7, 22) ; ' Embraced by the intelligent Self' (Br/. Up. IV, 3, 21); ' Mounted by the intelligent Self (IV, 3, 35). Nor can the individual Self become one with the highest Self by freeing itself from Nescience, with the help of the means of final Release; for that which admits of being the abode of Nescience can never become quite incapable of it. So the Pura/za says, ' It is false to maintain that the individual Self and the highest Self enter into real union ; for one substance can- not pass over into the nature of another substance.' Accordingly the Bhagavad Gita declares that the released soul attains only the same attributes as the highest Self. ' Abiding by this knowledge, they, attaining to an equality of attributes with me, do neither come forth at the time of creation, nor are troubled at the time of general destruc- tion' (XIV, 2). Similarly our Pura/^a says, ' That Brahman leads him who meditates on it, and who is capable of change, towards its own being (atmabhava), in the same I ADHYAYA, 1 PADA, 1 . 99 way as the magnet attracts the iron ' (Vi. Pu. VI, 7, 30). Here the phrase ' leads him towards his own being ' means * imparts to him a nature like his own ' (not ' completely identifies him with itself ') ; for the attracted body does not become essentially one with the body attracting.
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.