Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1' Being only this was in the beginning, one only without a second — it desired, may I ADHYAYA, I PAD A, I. 141 I be many, may I grow forth — it sent forth fire/ &c, up to ' all these creatures have their root in that which is,' &c, up to 'that art thou, 0 6Vetaketu' (Kh. Up. VI, 2-8) ; * He wished, may I be many/ &c, up to ' it became the true and the untrue ' (Taitt. Up. II, 6). These sections also refer to the essential distinction of nature between non-intelligent matter, intelligent beings, and the highest Self which is established by other scriptural texts ; so in the iOandogya passage, ' Let me enter those three divine beings with this living Self, and let me then evolve names and forms ' ; and in the Taitt. passage, ' Having sent forth that he entered into it; having entered it he became sat and tyat, knowledge and (what is) without knowledge, the true and the untrue/ &c. These two passages evidently have the same purport, and hence the soul's having its Self in Brahman — which view is implied in the Kk. passage — • must be understood as resting thereon that the souls (together with matter) constitute the body of Brahman as asserted in the Taitt. passage (' it became knowledge and that which is without knowledge/ i. e. souls and matter), The same process of evolution of names and forms is described elsewhere also, ' All this was then unevolved ; it became evolved by form and name5 (Br/. Up. I, 4, 7). The fact is that the highest Self is in its causal or in its ' effected ' condition, according as it has for its body intelligent and non-intelligent beings either in their subtle or their gross state ; the effect, then, being non-different from the cause, and hence being cognised through the cognition of the cause, the result is that the desired ' cognition of all things through one ' can on our view be well established. In the clause ' I will enter into these three divine beings with this living Self/ &c, the term 'the three divine beings ' denotes the entire aggregate of non- sentient matter, and as the text declares that the highest Self evolved names and forms by entering into matter by means of the living souls of which he is the Self, it follows that all terms whatsoever denote the highest Self as qualified by individual Selfs, the latter again being qualified by non-sentient matter. A term which denotes 142 vedanta-s6tras.
2A term which denotes 142 vedanta-s6tras. the highest Self in its causal condition may therefore be exhibited in co-ordination with another term denoting the highest Self in its ' effected ' state, both terms being used in their primary senses. Brahman, having for its modes intelligent and non-intelligent things in their gross and subtle states, thus constitutes effect and cause, and the world thus has Brahman for its material cause (upadana). Nor does this give rise to any confusion of the essential constituent elements of the great aggregate of things. Of some parti-coloured piece of cloth the material cause is threads white, red, black, &c. ; all the same, each definite spot of the cloth is connected with one colour only white e.g., and thus there is no confusion of colours even in the ' effected ' condition of the cloth. Analogously the combination of non-sentient matter, sentient beings, and the Lord constitutes the material cause of the world, but this does not imply any confusion of the essential charac- teristics of enjoying souls, objects of enjoyment, and the universal ruler, even in the world's ' effected ' state. There is indeed a difference between the two cases, in so far as the threads are capable of existing apart from one another, and are only occasionally combined according to the volition of men, so that the web sometimes exists in its causal, sometimes in its effected state ; while non-sentient matter and sentient beings in all their states form the body of the highest Self, and thus have a being only as the modes of that — on which account the highest Self may, in all cases, be denoted by any term whatsoever. But the two cases are analogous, in so far as there persists a dis- tinction and absence of all confusion, on the part of the constituent elements of the aggregate. This being thus, it follows that the highest Brahman, although entering into the ' effected' condition, remains unchanged — for its essential nature does not become different — and we also understand what constitutes its ' effected ' condition, viz. its abiding as the Self of non-intelligent and intelligent beings in their gross condition, distinguished by name and form. For becoming an effect means entering into another state of being. Those texts, again, which speak of Brahman as devoid of I ADHYAYA, I PADA, I. 1 43
3its abiding as the Self of non-intelligent and intelligent beings in their gross condition, distinguished by name and form. For becoming an effect means entering into another state of being. Those texts, again, which speak of Brahman as devoid of I ADHYAYA, I PADA, I. 1 43 qualities, explain themselves on the ground of Brahman being free from all touch of evil. For the passage, Kh. Up. VIII, 1, 5 — which at first negatives all evil qualities ' free from sin, from old age, from death, from grief, from hunger and thirst/ and after that affirms auspicious qualities 'whose wishes and purposes come true' — enables us to decide that in other places also the general denial of qualities really refers to evil qualities only. — Passages which declare knowledge to constitute the essential nature of Brahman explain themselves on the ground that of Brahman — which is all-knowing, all-powerful, antagonistic to all evil, a mass of auspicious qualities — the essential nature can be defined as knowledge (intelligence) only — which also follows from the ' self-luminousness ' predicated of it. Texts, on the other hand, such as ' He who is all- knowing' (Ma. Up. 1, 1, 9) ; ' His high power is revealed as manifold, as essential, acting as force and knowledge ' (5Vet. Up. VI, 11, 8); 'Whereby should he know the knower' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 14), teach the highest Self to be a knowing subject. Other texts, again, such as ' The True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1,1), declare knowledge to constitute its nature, as it can be defined through knowledge only, and is self-luminous. And texts such as ' He desired, may I be many' (Taitt. Up. II, 6) ; 'It thought, may I be many ; it evolved itself through name and form ' (Kh. Up. VI, 2), teach that Brahman, through its mere wish, appears in manifold modes. Other texts, again, negative the opposite view, viz. that there is a plurality of things not having their Self in Brahman. ' From death to death goes he who sees here any plurality'; 'There is here not any plurality ' (Br/. Up. IV, 4, 19) ; ' For where there is duality as it were' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 14). But these texts in no way negative that plurality of modes — declared in passages such as ' May I be many, may I grow forth' — which springs from Brahman's will, and appears in the distinction of names and forms. This is proved by clauses in those ' negativing' texts themselves, ' Whosoever looks for anything elsewhere than in the Self,' 'from that great Being there has been breathed forth the ^zg-veda,' &c. {Bri. Up. II, 4> 6, 10). — 1 44 vedanta-sCtras.
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' Being only this was in the beginning, one only without a second — it desired, may I ADHYAYA, I PAD A, I. 141 I be many, may I grow forth — it sent forth fire/ &c, up to ' all these creatures have their root in that which is,' &c, up to 'that art thou, 0 6Vetaketu' (Kh. Up. VI, 2-8) ; * He wished, may I be many/ &c, up to ' it became the true and the untrue ' (Taitt. Up. II, 6). These sections also refer to the essential distinction of nature between non-intelligent matter, intelligent beings, and the highest Self which is established by other scriptural texts ; so in the iOandogya passage, ' Let me enter those three divine beings with this living Self, and let me then evolve names and forms ' ; and in the Taitt. passage, ' Having sent forth that he entered into it; having entered it he became sat and tyat, knowledge and (what is) without knowledge, the true and the untrue/ &c. These two passages evidently have the same purport, and hence the soul's having its Self in Brahman — which view is implied in the Kk. passage — • must be understood as resting thereon that the souls (together with matter) constitute the body of Brahman as asserted in the Taitt. passage (' it became knowledge and that which is without knowledge/ i. e. souls and matter), The same process of evolution of names and forms is described elsewhere also, ' All this was then unevolved ; it became evolved by form and name5 (Br/. Up. I, 4, 7). The fact is that the highest Self is in its causal or in its ' effected ' condition, according as it has for its body intelligent and non-intelligent beings either in their subtle or their gross state ; the effect, then, being non-different from the cause, and hence being cognised through the cognition of the cause, the result is that the desired ' cognition of all things through one ' can on our view be well established. In the clause ' I will enter into these three divine beings with this living Self/ &c, the term 'the three divine beings ' denotes the entire aggregate of non- sentient matter, and as the text declares that the highest Self evolved names and forms by entering into matter by means of the living souls of which he is the Self, it follows that all terms whatsoever denote the highest Self as qualified by individual Selfs, the latter again being qualified by non-sentient matter. A term which denotes 142 vedanta-s6tras.
2A term which denotes 142 vedanta-s6tras. the highest Self in its causal condition may therefore be exhibited in co-ordination with another term denoting the highest Self in its ' effected ' state, both terms being used in their primary senses. Brahman, having for its modes intelligent and non-intelligent things in their gross and subtle states, thus constitutes effect and cause, and the world thus has Brahman for its material cause (upadana). Nor does this give rise to any confusion of the essential constituent elements of the great aggregate of things. Of some parti-coloured piece of cloth the material cause is threads white, red, black, &c. ; all the same, each definite spot of the cloth is connected with one colour only white e.g., and thus there is no confusion of colours even in the ' effected ' condition of the cloth. Analogously the combination of non-sentient matter, sentient beings, and the Lord constitutes the material cause of the world, but this does not imply any confusion of the essential charac- teristics of enjoying souls, objects of enjoyment, and the universal ruler, even in the world's ' effected ' state. There is indeed a difference between the two cases, in so far as the threads are capable of existing apart from one another, and are only occasionally combined according to the volition of men, so that the web sometimes exists in its causal, sometimes in its effected state ; while non-sentient matter and sentient beings in all their states form the body of the highest Self, and thus have a being only as the modes of that — on which account the highest Self may, in all cases, be denoted by any term whatsoever. But the two cases are analogous, in so far as there persists a dis- tinction and absence of all confusion, on the part of the constituent elements of the aggregate. This being thus, it follows that the highest Brahman, although entering into the ' effected' condition, remains unchanged — for its essential nature does not become different — and we also understand what constitutes its ' effected ' condition, viz. its abiding as the Self of non-intelligent and intelligent beings in their gross condition, distinguished by name and form. For becoming an effect means entering into another state of being. Those texts, again, which speak of Brahman as devoid of I ADHYAYA, I PADA, I. 1 43
3its abiding as the Self of non-intelligent and intelligent beings in their gross condition, distinguished by name and form. For becoming an effect means entering into another state of being. Those texts, again, which speak of Brahman as devoid of I ADHYAYA, I PADA, I. 1 43 qualities, explain themselves on the ground of Brahman being free from all touch of evil. For the passage, Kh. Up. VIII, 1, 5 — which at first negatives all evil qualities ' free from sin, from old age, from death, from grief, from hunger and thirst/ and after that affirms auspicious qualities 'whose wishes and purposes come true' — enables us to decide that in other places also the general denial of qualities really refers to evil qualities only. — Passages which declare knowledge to constitute the essential nature of Brahman explain themselves on the ground that of Brahman — which is all-knowing, all-powerful, antagonistic to all evil, a mass of auspicious qualities — the essential nature can be defined as knowledge (intelligence) only — which also follows from the ' self-luminousness ' predicated of it. Texts, on the other hand, such as ' He who is all- knowing' (Ma. Up. 1, 1, 9) ; ' His high power is revealed as manifold, as essential, acting as force and knowledge ' (5Vet. Up. VI, 11, 8); 'Whereby should he know the knower' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 14), teach the highest Self to be a knowing subject. Other texts, again, such as ' The True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1,1), declare knowledge to constitute its nature, as it can be defined through knowledge only, and is self-luminous. And texts such as ' He desired, may I be many' (Taitt. Up. II, 6) ; 'It thought, may I be many ; it evolved itself through name and form ' (Kh. Up. VI, 2), teach that Brahman, through its mere wish, appears in manifold modes. Other texts, again, negative the opposite view, viz. that there is a plurality of things not having their Self in Brahman. ' From death to death goes he who sees here any plurality'; 'There is here not any plurality ' (Br/. Up. IV, 4, 19) ; ' For where there is duality as it were' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 14). But these texts in no way negative that plurality of modes — declared in passages such as ' May I be many, may I grow forth' — which springs from Brahman's will, and appears in the distinction of names and forms. This is proved by clauses in those ' negativing' texts themselves, ' Whosoever looks for anything elsewhere than in the Self,' 'from that great Being there has been breathed forth the ^zg-veda,' &c. {Bri. Up. II, 4> 6, 10). — 1 44 vedanta-sCtras.
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.