Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1— Nor can it be said that 1 86 vedanta-s^tras. that knowledge on which meditation is based is produced by one set of texts, while that knowledge which puts an end to the world is produced by such texts as 'thou art that/ and the like. For, we ask, has the former knowledge the same object as the latter, or a different one ? On the former alternative we are led to the same vicious reciprocal dependence which we noted above ; and on the latter alternative it cannot be shown that meditation gives rise to eagerness with regard to the latter kind of knowledge. Moreover, as meditation presupposes plurality comprising an object of meditation, a meditating subject and so on, it really cannot in any perceptible way be helpful towards the origination of the comprehension of the sense of texts, the object of which is the oneness of a Brahman free from all plurality : he, therefore, who maintains that Nescience comes to an end through the mere comprehension of the meaning of texts really implies that the injunctions of hearing, reflection, and meditation are purposeless. The conclusion that, since direct knowledge cannot spring from texts, Nescience is not terminated by the compre- hension of the meaning of texts, disposes at the same time of the hypothesis of the so-called ' Release in this life ' (givanmukti). For what definition, we ask, can be given of this ' Release in this life ' ? — >' Release of a soul while yet joined to a body ' ! — You might as well say, we reply, that your mother never had any children ! You have yourself proved by scriptural passages that ' bondage ' means the being joined to a body, and ' release ' being free from a body ! — Let us then define ^ivanmukti as the cessation of embodiedness, in that sense that a person, while the appear- ance of embodiedness persists, is conscious of the unreality of that appearance. — But, we rejoin, if the consciousness of the unreality of the body puts an end to embodiedness, how can you say that ^ivanmukti means release of a soul while joined to a body ? On this explanation there remains no difference whatsoever between ' Release in this life ' and Release after death ; for the latter also can only be defined as cessation of the false appearance of embodiedness. — Let us then say that a person is '^ivanmukta ' when the appear- I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 4. 1 87
2— Let us then say that a person is '^ivanmukta ' when the appear- I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 4. 1 87 ance of embodiedness, although sublated by true know- ledge, yet persists in the same way as the appearance of the moon being double persists (even after it has been recognised as false). — This too we cannot allow. As the sublating act of cognition on which Release depends extends to everything with the exception of Brahman, it sublates the general defect due to causal Nescience, inclusive of the particular erroneous appearance of embodiedness : the latter being sublated in this way cannot persist. In the case of the double moon, on the other hand, the defect of vision on which the erroneous appearance depends is not the object of the sublative art of cognition, i.e. the cognition of the oneness of the moon, and it therefore remains non-sublated ; hence the false appearance of a double moon may persist. — Moreover, the text ' For him there is delay only as long as he is not freed from the body; then he will be released > (Kh. Up. VI, 14, 2), teaches that he who takes his stand on the knowledge of the Real requires for his Release the putting off of the body only : the text thus negatives ^ivanmukti. Apastamba also rejects the view of ^fvanmukti, ' Abandoning the Vedas, this world and the next, he (the Sa^nyasin) is to seek the Self. (Some say that) he obtains salvation when he knows (the Self). This opinion is contradicted by the ^astras. (For) if Salvation were obtained when the Self is known, he should not feel any pain even in this world. Hereby that which follows is explained' (Dh. Su. II, 9, 13-17). — This refutes also the view that Release is obtained through mere knowledge. — The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that Release, which consists in the cessation of all Plurality, cannot take place as long as a man lives. And we therefore adhere to our view that Bondage is to be terminated only by means of the injunctions of meditation, the result of which is direct knowledge of Brahman. Nor must this be objected to on the ground that Release, if brought about by injunctions, must therefore be something non-eternal ; for what is effected is not Release itself, but only the cessation of what impedes it. Moreover, the injunction does not directly produce the cessation of 1 8 8 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
3Moreover, the injunction does not directly produce the cessation of 1 8 8 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. Bondage, but only through the mediation of the direct cognition of Brahman as consisting of pure knowledge, and not connected with a world. It is this knowledge only which the injunction produces. — But how can an injunction cause the origination of knowledge? — How, we ask in return, can, on your view, works not aiming at some imme- diate result cause the origination of knowledge ? — You will perhaps reply ' by means of purifying the mind ' (manas) ; but this reply may be given by me also. — But (the objector resumes) there is a difference. On my view Scripture pro- duces knowledge in the mind purified by works ; while on your view we must assume that in the purified mind the means of knowledge are produced by injunction. — The mind itself, we reply, purified by knowledge, constitutes this means. — How do you know this ? our opponent questions. — How, we ask in return, do you know that the mind is purified by works, and that, in the mind so purified of a person withdrawn from all other objects by hearing, re- flection and meditation, Scripture produces that knowledge which destroys bondage? — Through certain texts such as the following : * They seek to know him by sacrifice, by gifts, by penance, by fasting' (Brt. Up. IV, 4, 22) ; ' He is to be heard, to be reflected on, to be meditated on ' (Brt. Up. II, 4, 5) ; ' He knows Brahman, he becomes Brahman' (Mu. Up. Ill, 2, 9). — Well, we reply, in the same way our view — viz. that through the injunction of meditation the mind is cleared, and that a clear mind gives rise to direct knowledge of Brahman— is confirmed by scriptural texts such as ' He is to be heard, to be reflected on, to be meditated on ' {Brt. Up. II, 4, 5) ; * He who knows Brahman reaches the highest' (Taitt. Up. II, 1,1); ' He is not appre- hended by the eye nor by speech' (Mu. Up. Ill, 1, 8) ; 6 But by a pure mind ' (?) ; 'He is apprehended by the heart, by wisdom, by the mind' (Ka. Up. II, 6, 9). Nor can it be said that the text ' not that which they meditate upon as this ' (Ke. Up. IV) negatives meditation ; it does not forbid meditation on Brahman, but merely declares that Brahman is different from the world. The mantra is to be explained as follows : ' What men meditate upon as I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 4. 189 this world, that is not Brahman ; know Brahman to be that which is not uttered by speech, but through which speech is uttered/ On a different explanation the clause ' know that to be Brahman ' would be irrational, and the injunc- tions of meditation on the Self would be meaningless. — The outcome of all this is that unreal Bondage which appears in the form of a plurality of knowing subjects, objects of knowledge, &c, is put an end to by the injunc- tions of meditation, the fruit of which is direct intuitive knowledge of Brahman.
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— Nor can it be said that 1 86 vedanta-s^tras. that knowledge on which meditation is based is produced by one set of texts, while that knowledge which puts an end to the world is produced by such texts as 'thou art that/ and the like. For, we ask, has the former knowledge the same object as the latter, or a different one ? On the former alternative we are led to the same vicious reciprocal dependence which we noted above ; and on the latter alternative it cannot be shown that meditation gives rise to eagerness with regard to the latter kind of knowledge. Moreover, as meditation presupposes plurality comprising an object of meditation, a meditating subject and so on, it really cannot in any perceptible way be helpful towards the origination of the comprehension of the sense of texts, the object of which is the oneness of a Brahman free from all plurality : he, therefore, who maintains that Nescience comes to an end through the mere comprehension of the meaning of texts really implies that the injunctions of hearing, reflection, and meditation are purposeless. The conclusion that, since direct knowledge cannot spring from texts, Nescience is not terminated by the compre- hension of the meaning of texts, disposes at the same time of the hypothesis of the so-called ' Release in this life ' (givanmukti). For what definition, we ask, can be given of this ' Release in this life ' ? — >' Release of a soul while yet joined to a body ' ! — You might as well say, we reply, that your mother never had any children ! You have yourself proved by scriptural passages that ' bondage ' means the being joined to a body, and ' release ' being free from a body ! — Let us then define ^ivanmukti as the cessation of embodiedness, in that sense that a person, while the appear- ance of embodiedness persists, is conscious of the unreality of that appearance. — But, we rejoin, if the consciousness of the unreality of the body puts an end to embodiedness, how can you say that ^ivanmukti means release of a soul while joined to a body ? On this explanation there remains no difference whatsoever between ' Release in this life ' and Release after death ; for the latter also can only be defined as cessation of the false appearance of embodiedness. — Let us then say that a person is '^ivanmukta ' when the appear- I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 4. 1 87
2— Let us then say that a person is '^ivanmukta ' when the appear- I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 4. 1 87 ance of embodiedness, although sublated by true know- ledge, yet persists in the same way as the appearance of the moon being double persists (even after it has been recognised as false). — This too we cannot allow. As the sublating act of cognition on which Release depends extends to everything with the exception of Brahman, it sublates the general defect due to causal Nescience, inclusive of the particular erroneous appearance of embodiedness : the latter being sublated in this way cannot persist. In the case of the double moon, on the other hand, the defect of vision on which the erroneous appearance depends is not the object of the sublative art of cognition, i.e. the cognition of the oneness of the moon, and it therefore remains non-sublated ; hence the false appearance of a double moon may persist. — Moreover, the text ' For him there is delay only as long as he is not freed from the body; then he will be released > (Kh. Up. VI, 14, 2), teaches that he who takes his stand on the knowledge of the Real requires for his Release the putting off of the body only : the text thus negatives ^ivanmukti. Apastamba also rejects the view of ^fvanmukti, ' Abandoning the Vedas, this world and the next, he (the Sa^nyasin) is to seek the Self. (Some say that) he obtains salvation when he knows (the Self). This opinion is contradicted by the ^astras. (For) if Salvation were obtained when the Self is known, he should not feel any pain even in this world. Hereby that which follows is explained' (Dh. Su. II, 9, 13-17). — This refutes also the view that Release is obtained through mere knowledge. — The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that Release, which consists in the cessation of all Plurality, cannot take place as long as a man lives. And we therefore adhere to our view that Bondage is to be terminated only by means of the injunctions of meditation, the result of which is direct knowledge of Brahman. Nor must this be objected to on the ground that Release, if brought about by injunctions, must therefore be something non-eternal ; for what is effected is not Release itself, but only the cessation of what impedes it. Moreover, the injunction does not directly produce the cessation of 1 8 8 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
3Moreover, the injunction does not directly produce the cessation of 1 8 8 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. Bondage, but only through the mediation of the direct cognition of Brahman as consisting of pure knowledge, and not connected with a world. It is this knowledge only which the injunction produces. — But how can an injunction cause the origination of knowledge? — How, we ask in return, can, on your view, works not aiming at some imme- diate result cause the origination of knowledge ? — You will perhaps reply ' by means of purifying the mind ' (manas) ; but this reply may be given by me also. — But (the objector resumes) there is a difference. On my view Scripture pro- duces knowledge in the mind purified by works ; while on your view we must assume that in the purified mind the means of knowledge are produced by injunction. — The mind itself, we reply, purified by knowledge, constitutes this means. — How do you know this ? our opponent questions. — How, we ask in return, do you know that the mind is purified by works, and that, in the mind so purified of a person withdrawn from all other objects by hearing, re- flection and meditation, Scripture produces that knowledge which destroys bondage? — Through certain texts such as the following : * They seek to know him by sacrifice, by gifts, by penance, by fasting' (Brt. Up. IV, 4, 22) ; ' He is to be heard, to be reflected on, to be meditated on ' (Brt. Up. II, 4, 5) ; ' He knows Brahman, he becomes Brahman' (Mu. Up. Ill, 2, 9). — Well, we reply, in the same way our view — viz. that through the injunction of meditation the mind is cleared, and that a clear mind gives rise to direct knowledge of Brahman— is confirmed by scriptural texts such as ' He is to be heard, to be reflected on, to be meditated on ' {Brt. Up. II, 4, 5) ; * He who knows Brahman reaches the highest' (Taitt. Up. II, 1,1); ' He is not appre- hended by the eye nor by speech' (Mu. Up. Ill, 1, 8) ; 6 But by a pure mind ' (?) ; 'He is apprehended by the heart, by wisdom, by the mind' (Ka. Up. II, 6, 9). Nor can it be said that the text ' not that which they meditate upon as this ' (Ke. Up. IV) negatives meditation ; it does not forbid meditation on Brahman, but merely declares that Brahman is different from the world. The mantra is to be explained as follows : ' What men meditate upon as I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 4. 189 this world, that is not Brahman ; know Brahman to be that which is not uttered by speech, but through which speech is uttered/ On a different explanation the clause ' know that to be Brahman ' would be irrational, and the injunc- tions of meditation on the Self would be meaningless. — The outcome of all this is that unreal Bondage which appears in the form of a plurality of knowing subjects, objects of knowledge, &c, is put an end to by the injunc- tions of meditation, the fruit of which is direct intuitive knowledge of Brahman.
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.