Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1For he says, the .Oandogya text quoted expresses the causal state of what is denoted by the word ' this/ viz. the aggregate of things comprising manifold effects, such as ether, &C, consisting of the three elements of Goodness, I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 5. 201 Passion and Darkness, and forming the sphere of fruition of intelligent beings. By the ' effected ' state we understand the assuming, on the part of the causal substance, of a different condition ; whatever therefore constitutes the essential nature of a thing in its effected state the same constitutes its essential nature in the causal state also. Now the effect, in our case, is made up of the three elements Goodness, Passion and Darkness ; hence the cause is the Pradhana which consists in an equipoise of those three elements. And as in this Pradhana all distinctions are merged, so that it is pure Being, the K/iandogya. text refers to it as ' Being, one only, without a second/ This estab- lishes the non -difference of effect and cause, and in this way the promise that through the knowledge of one thing all things are to be known admits of being fulfilled. Other- wise, moreover, there would be no analogy between the instance of the lump of clay and the things made of it, and the matter to be illustrated thereby. The texts speaking of the origination of the world therefore intimate the Pradhana taught by the great Sage Kapila. And as the iTMndogya passage has, owing to the presence of an initial statement (pratigna) and a proving instance, the form of an inference, the term ' Being' means just that which rests on inference, viz. the Pradhana. This prima facie view is set aside by the words of the Sutra. That which does not rest on Scripture, i. e. the Pradhana, which rests on Inference only, is not what is intimated by the texts referring to the origination of the world ; for the text exhibits the root ' iksh ' — which means 'to think' — as denoting a special activity on the part of what is termed ' Being.' ' It thought, may I be many, may I grow forth/ ' Thinking ' cannot possibly belong to the non-sentient Pradhana: the term 'Being' can therefore denote only the all-knowing highest Person who is capable of thought. In agreement with this we find that, in all sections which refer to creation, the act of creation is stated to be preceded by thought. ' He thought, shall I send forth worlds. He sent forth these worlds' (Ait. Ar. II, 4, 1, 2) ; ' He thought he sent forth Pra^a' (Pr. Up. VI, 3) ; 202 vedanta-s6tras.
2' He thought, shall I send forth worlds. He sent forth these worlds' (Ait. Ar. II, 4, 1, 2) ; ' He thought he sent forth Pra^a' (Pr. Up. VI, 3) ; 202 vedanta-s6tras. and others. — But it is a rule that as a cause we must assume only what corresponds to the effect ! — Just so ; and what corresponds to the total aggregate of effects is the highest Person, all-knowing, all-powerful, whose pur- poses realise themselves, who has minds and matter in their subtle state for his body. Compare the texts ' His high power is revealed as manifold, as inherent, acting as force and knowledge' (Svet Up. VI, 8) ; ' He who is all-knowing, all-perceiving' (Mu. Up. I, i, 9); 'He of whom the Unevolved is the body, of whom the Imperishable is the body, of whom Death is the body, he is the inner Self of all things' (Subal.Up.VII). — This point (viz. as to the body of the highest Person) will be established under Su. II, 1, 4. The present Sutra declares that the texts treating of creation cannot refer to the Pradhana ; the Sutra just mentioned will dispose of objections. Nor is the Purva- pakshin right in maintaining that the .Oandogya passage is of the nature of an Inference ; for it does not state a reason (hetu — which is the essential thing in an Inference). The illustrative instance (of the lump of clay) is introduced merely in order to convince him who considers it impossible that all things should be known through one thing — as maintained in the passage ' through which that is heard which was not heard/ &c, — that this is possible after all. And the mention made in the text of 'seeing' clearly shows that there is absolutely no intention of setting forth an Inference. Let us assume, then, the Purvapakshin resumes, that the * seeing ' of the text denotes not ' seeing ' in its primary, direct sense — such as belongs to intelligent beings only ; but ' seeing ' in a secondary, figurative sense which there is ascribed to the Pradhana in the same way as in passages immediately following it is ascribed to fire and water — 'the fire saw'; 'the water saw' {Kh. Up. VI, 3, 3). The transference, to non-existent things, of attributes properly belonging to sentient beings is quite common ; as when we say c the rice-fields look out for rain ' ; ' the rain delighted the seeds.' — This view is set aside by the next Sutra.- I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 7. 203 6. If it be said that (the word ' seeing ') has a secondary (figurative) meaning ; we deny this, on account of the word 'Self (being applied to the cause of the world).
3203 6. If it be said that (the word ' seeing ') has a secondary (figurative) meaning ; we deny this, on account of the word 'Self (being applied to the cause of the world). The contention that, because, in passages standing close by, the word ' seeing ' is used in a secondary sense, the ' seeing ' predicated of the Sat (' Being ') is also to be taken in a secondary sense, viz. as denoting (not real thought but) a certain condition previous to creation, cannot be upheld ; for in other texts met with in the same section (viz. 'All this has that for its Self; that is the True, that is the Self/ Kh. Up. VI, 8, 7), that which first had been spoken of as Sat is called the ' Self/ The designation ' Self which in this passage is applied to the Sat in its relation to the entire world, sentient or non-sentient, is in no way appropriate to the Pradhana. We therefore conclude that, as the highest Self is the Self of fire, water, and earth also, the words fire, &c. (in the passages stating that fire, &c. thought) denote the highest Self only. This conclusion agrees with the text ' Let me enter into these three beings with this living Self, and evolve names and forms,' for this text implies that fire, water, &c. possess sub- stantial being and definite names only through the highest Self having entered into them. The thought ascribed in the text to fire, water, &c. hence is thought in the proper sense, and the hypothesis that, owing to its connexion with these latter texts, the thought predicated of ' Being ' (' it thought,' &c.) should be thought in a figurative sense only thus lapses altogether. The next following Sutra confirms the same view. 7. Because release is taught of him who takes his stand on it. 5Vetaketu, who is desirous of final release, is at first — • by means of the clause ' Thou art that' — instructed to meditate on himself as having his Self in that which truly is ; and thereupon the passage ' for him there is delay ' only as long as * I shall not be released, then I shall 204 vedanta-s6tras.
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.
1For he says, the .Oandogya text quoted expresses the causal state of what is denoted by the word ' this/ viz. the aggregate of things comprising manifold effects, such as ether, &C, consisting of the three elements of Goodness, I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 5. 201 Passion and Darkness, and forming the sphere of fruition of intelligent beings. By the ' effected ' state we understand the assuming, on the part of the causal substance, of a different condition ; whatever therefore constitutes the essential nature of a thing in its effected state the same constitutes its essential nature in the causal state also. Now the effect, in our case, is made up of the three elements Goodness, Passion and Darkness ; hence the cause is the Pradhana which consists in an equipoise of those three elements. And as in this Pradhana all distinctions are merged, so that it is pure Being, the K/iandogya. text refers to it as ' Being, one only, without a second/ This estab- lishes the non -difference of effect and cause, and in this way the promise that through the knowledge of one thing all things are to be known admits of being fulfilled. Other- wise, moreover, there would be no analogy between the instance of the lump of clay and the things made of it, and the matter to be illustrated thereby. The texts speaking of the origination of the world therefore intimate the Pradhana taught by the great Sage Kapila. And as the iTMndogya passage has, owing to the presence of an initial statement (pratigna) and a proving instance, the form of an inference, the term ' Being' means just that which rests on inference, viz. the Pradhana. This prima facie view is set aside by the words of the Sutra. That which does not rest on Scripture, i. e. the Pradhana, which rests on Inference only, is not what is intimated by the texts referring to the origination of the world ; for the text exhibits the root ' iksh ' — which means 'to think' — as denoting a special activity on the part of what is termed ' Being.' ' It thought, may I be many, may I grow forth/ ' Thinking ' cannot possibly belong to the non-sentient Pradhana: the term 'Being' can therefore denote only the all-knowing highest Person who is capable of thought. In agreement with this we find that, in all sections which refer to creation, the act of creation is stated to be preceded by thought. ' He thought, shall I send forth worlds. He sent forth these worlds' (Ait. Ar. II, 4, 1, 2) ; ' He thought he sent forth Pra^a' (Pr. Up. VI, 3) ; 202 vedanta-s6tras.
2' He thought, shall I send forth worlds. He sent forth these worlds' (Ait. Ar. II, 4, 1, 2) ; ' He thought he sent forth Pra^a' (Pr. Up. VI, 3) ; 202 vedanta-s6tras. and others. — But it is a rule that as a cause we must assume only what corresponds to the effect ! — Just so ; and what corresponds to the total aggregate of effects is the highest Person, all-knowing, all-powerful, whose pur- poses realise themselves, who has minds and matter in their subtle state for his body. Compare the texts ' His high power is revealed as manifold, as inherent, acting as force and knowledge' (Svet Up. VI, 8) ; ' He who is all-knowing, all-perceiving' (Mu. Up. I, i, 9); 'He of whom the Unevolved is the body, of whom the Imperishable is the body, of whom Death is the body, he is the inner Self of all things' (Subal.Up.VII). — This point (viz. as to the body of the highest Person) will be established under Su. II, 1, 4. The present Sutra declares that the texts treating of creation cannot refer to the Pradhana ; the Sutra just mentioned will dispose of objections. Nor is the Purva- pakshin right in maintaining that the .Oandogya passage is of the nature of an Inference ; for it does not state a reason (hetu — which is the essential thing in an Inference). The illustrative instance (of the lump of clay) is introduced merely in order to convince him who considers it impossible that all things should be known through one thing — as maintained in the passage ' through which that is heard which was not heard/ &c, — that this is possible after all. And the mention made in the text of 'seeing' clearly shows that there is absolutely no intention of setting forth an Inference. Let us assume, then, the Purvapakshin resumes, that the * seeing ' of the text denotes not ' seeing ' in its primary, direct sense — such as belongs to intelligent beings only ; but ' seeing ' in a secondary, figurative sense which there is ascribed to the Pradhana in the same way as in passages immediately following it is ascribed to fire and water — 'the fire saw'; 'the water saw' {Kh. Up. VI, 3, 3). The transference, to non-existent things, of attributes properly belonging to sentient beings is quite common ; as when we say c the rice-fields look out for rain ' ; ' the rain delighted the seeds.' — This view is set aside by the next Sutra.- I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 7. 203 6. If it be said that (the word ' seeing ') has a secondary (figurative) meaning ; we deny this, on account of the word 'Self (being applied to the cause of the world).
3203 6. If it be said that (the word ' seeing ') has a secondary (figurative) meaning ; we deny this, on account of the word 'Self (being applied to the cause of the world). The contention that, because, in passages standing close by, the word ' seeing ' is used in a secondary sense, the ' seeing ' predicated of the Sat (' Being ') is also to be taken in a secondary sense, viz. as denoting (not real thought but) a certain condition previous to creation, cannot be upheld ; for in other texts met with in the same section (viz. 'All this has that for its Self; that is the True, that is the Self/ Kh. Up. VI, 8, 7), that which first had been spoken of as Sat is called the ' Self/ The designation ' Self which in this passage is applied to the Sat in its relation to the entire world, sentient or non-sentient, is in no way appropriate to the Pradhana. We therefore conclude that, as the highest Self is the Self of fire, water, and earth also, the words fire, &c. (in the passages stating that fire, &c. thought) denote the highest Self only. This conclusion agrees with the text ' Let me enter into these three beings with this living Self, and evolve names and forms,' for this text implies that fire, water, &c. possess sub- stantial being and definite names only through the highest Self having entered into them. The thought ascribed in the text to fire, water, &c. hence is thought in the proper sense, and the hypothesis that, owing to its connexion with these latter texts, the thought predicated of ' Being ' (' it thought,' &c.) should be thought in a figurative sense only thus lapses altogether. The next following Sutra confirms the same view. 7. Because release is taught of him who takes his stand on it. 5Vetaketu, who is desirous of final release, is at first — • by means of the clause ' Thou art that' — instructed to meditate on himself as having his Self in that which truly is ; and thereupon the passage ' for him there is delay ' only as long as * I shall not be released, then I shall 204 vedanta-s6tras.
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.