Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Hence it remains a settled conclusion that the highest Person, Naraya^a, free from all shadow of imperfection, &c., is the single cause of the whole Universe, and is that Brahman which these Sutras point out as the object of enquiry. For the same reasons the theory of a Brahman, which is nothing but non-differenced intelligence, must also be considered as refuted by the Sutrakara, with the help of the scriptural texts quoted ; for those texts prove that the Brahman, which forms the object of enquiry, possesses attributes such as thinking, and so on, in their real literal sense. On the theory, on the other hand, of a Brahman that is nothing but distinctionless intelligence even the witnessing function of consciousness would be unreal. The Sutras propose as the object of enquiry Brahman as known from the Vedanta-texts, and thereupon teach that Brahman is intelligent (Su. I, 1, 5 ff.) To be intelligent means to possess the quality of intelligence : a being devoid of the quality of thought would not differ in nature from the 2 08 VED ANTA-sOTR AS.
2I, 1, 5 ff.) To be intelligent means to possess the quality of intelligence : a being devoid of the quality of thought would not differ in nature from the 2 08 VED ANTA-sOTR AS. Pradhana. Further, on the theory of Brahman being mere non-differenced light it would be difficult to prove that Brahman is self-luminous. For by light we understand that particular thing which renders itself, as well as other things, capable of becoming the object of ordinary thought and speech ; but as a thing devoid of all difference does not, of course, possess these two characteristics it follows that it is as devoid of intelligence as a pot may be. — Let it then be assumed that although a thing devoid of all distinction does not actually possess these characteristics, yet it has the potentiality of possessing them ! — But if it possesses the attribute of potentiality, it is clear that you abandon your entire theory of a substance devoid of all distinction ! — Let us then admit, on the authority of Scrip- ture, that the universal substance possesses this one dis- tinguishing attribute of self-luminousness. — Well, in that case you must of course admit, on the same authority, all those other qualities also which Scripture vouches for, such as all-knowingness, the possession of all powers, and so on. — Moreover, potentiality means capability to produce certain special effects, and hence can be determined on the ground of those special effects only. But if there are no means of knowing these particular effects, there are also no means of cognising potentiality. — And those who hold the theory of a substance devoid of all difference, have not even means of proof for their substance ; for as we have shown before, Perception, Inference, Scripture, and one's own consciousness, are all alike in so far as having for their objects things marked by difference. — It therefore remains a settled conclusion that the Brahman to be known is nothing else but the highest Person capable of the thought * of becoming many ' by manifesting himself in a world comprising manifold sentient and non-sentient creatures. — Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' seeing.' So far the Sutras have declared that the Brahman which forms the object of enquiry is different from the non- intelligent Pradhana, which is merely an object of fruition for intelligent beings. They now proceed to show that Brahman — which is antagonistic to all evil and constituted I ADHYAYA, I PADA, I 3. 209 by supreme bliss — is different from the individual soul, which is subject to karman, whether that soul be in its purified state or in the impure state that is due to its immersion in the ocean of manifold and endless sufferings, springing from the soul's contact with Frakriti (Pradhana). 13. The Self consisting of Bliss (is the highest Self) on account of multiplication.
313. The Self consisting of Bliss (is the highest Self) on account of multiplication. We read in the text of the Taittiriyas, ' Different from this Self, which consists of Understanding, is the other inner Self which consists of bliss* (Taitt. Up, II, 5). — Here the doubt arises whether the Self consisting of bliss be the highest Self, which is different from the inner Self subject to bondage and release, and termed ^iva ' (i. e. living self or individual soul), or whether it be that very inner Self, i. e. the ^iva. — It is that inner Self, the Purvapakshin contends. For the text says ' of that this, i. e. the Self consisting of bliss, is the .rarira Self; and .rarira means that which is joined to a body, in other words, the so-called £"iva. — But, an objection is raised, the text enumerates the different Selfs, beginning with the Self consisting of bliss, to the end that man may obtain the bliss of Brahman, which was, at the outset, stated to be the cause of the world (II, 1), and in the end teaches that the Self con- sisting of bliss is the cause of the world (II, 6). And that the cause of the world is the all-knowing Lord, since Scripture says of him that ' he thought/ we have already explained. — That cause of the world, the Purvapakshin re- joins, is not different from the ^iva ; for in the text of the A^andogyas that Being which first is described as the creator of the world is exhibited, in two passages, in co-ordination with the £iva (' having entered into them with that living Self' and ' Thou art that, O 5vetaketu '). And the purport of co-ordination is to express oneness of being, as when we say, c This person here is that Devadatta we knew before/ And creation preceded by thought can very well be ascribed to an intelligent ^iva. The connexion of the whole Taittiriya-text then is as follows. In the intro- ductory clause, ' He who knows Brahman attains the [48] p 2 io 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.
1Hence it remains a settled conclusion that the highest Person, Naraya^a, free from all shadow of imperfection, &c., is the single cause of the whole Universe, and is that Brahman which these Sutras point out as the object of enquiry. For the same reasons the theory of a Brahman, which is nothing but non-differenced intelligence, must also be considered as refuted by the Sutrakara, with the help of the scriptural texts quoted ; for those texts prove that the Brahman, which forms the object of enquiry, possesses attributes such as thinking, and so on, in their real literal sense. On the theory, on the other hand, of a Brahman that is nothing but distinctionless intelligence even the witnessing function of consciousness would be unreal. The Sutras propose as the object of enquiry Brahman as known from the Vedanta-texts, and thereupon teach that Brahman is intelligent (Su. I, 1, 5 ff.) To be intelligent means to possess the quality of intelligence : a being devoid of the quality of thought would not differ in nature from the 2 08 VED ANTA-sOTR AS.
2I, 1, 5 ff.) To be intelligent means to possess the quality of intelligence : a being devoid of the quality of thought would not differ in nature from the 2 08 VED ANTA-sOTR AS. Pradhana. Further, on the theory of Brahman being mere non-differenced light it would be difficult to prove that Brahman is self-luminous. For by light we understand that particular thing which renders itself, as well as other things, capable of becoming the object of ordinary thought and speech ; but as a thing devoid of all difference does not, of course, possess these two characteristics it follows that it is as devoid of intelligence as a pot may be. — Let it then be assumed that although a thing devoid of all distinction does not actually possess these characteristics, yet it has the potentiality of possessing them ! — But if it possesses the attribute of potentiality, it is clear that you abandon your entire theory of a substance devoid of all distinction ! — Let us then admit, on the authority of Scrip- ture, that the universal substance possesses this one dis- tinguishing attribute of self-luminousness. — Well, in that case you must of course admit, on the same authority, all those other qualities also which Scripture vouches for, such as all-knowingness, the possession of all powers, and so on. — Moreover, potentiality means capability to produce certain special effects, and hence can be determined on the ground of those special effects only. But if there are no means of knowing these particular effects, there are also no means of cognising potentiality. — And those who hold the theory of a substance devoid of all difference, have not even means of proof for their substance ; for as we have shown before, Perception, Inference, Scripture, and one's own consciousness, are all alike in so far as having for their objects things marked by difference. — It therefore remains a settled conclusion that the Brahman to be known is nothing else but the highest Person capable of the thought * of becoming many ' by manifesting himself in a world comprising manifold sentient and non-sentient creatures. — Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' seeing.' So far the Sutras have declared that the Brahman which forms the object of enquiry is different from the non- intelligent Pradhana, which is merely an object of fruition for intelligent beings. They now proceed to show that Brahman — which is antagonistic to all evil and constituted I ADHYAYA, I PADA, I 3. 209 by supreme bliss — is different from the individual soul, which is subject to karman, whether that soul be in its purified state or in the impure state that is due to its immersion in the ocean of manifold and endless sufferings, springing from the soul's contact with Frakriti (Pradhana). 13. The Self consisting of Bliss (is the highest Self) on account of multiplication.
313. The Self consisting of Bliss (is the highest Self) on account of multiplication. We read in the text of the Taittiriyas, ' Different from this Self, which consists of Understanding, is the other inner Self which consists of bliss* (Taitt. Up, II, 5). — Here the doubt arises whether the Self consisting of bliss be the highest Self, which is different from the inner Self subject to bondage and release, and termed ^iva ' (i. e. living self or individual soul), or whether it be that very inner Self, i. e. the ^iva. — It is that inner Self, the Purvapakshin contends. For the text says ' of that this, i. e. the Self consisting of bliss, is the .rarira Self; and .rarira means that which is joined to a body, in other words, the so-called £"iva. — But, an objection is raised, the text enumerates the different Selfs, beginning with the Self consisting of bliss, to the end that man may obtain the bliss of Brahman, which was, at the outset, stated to be the cause of the world (II, 1), and in the end teaches that the Self con- sisting of bliss is the cause of the world (II, 6). And that the cause of the world is the all-knowing Lord, since Scripture says of him that ' he thought/ we have already explained. — That cause of the world, the Purvapakshin re- joins, is not different from the ^iva ; for in the text of the A^andogyas that Being which first is described as the creator of the world is exhibited, in two passages, in co-ordination with the £iva (' having entered into them with that living Self' and ' Thou art that, O 5vetaketu '). And the purport of co-ordination is to express oneness of being, as when we say, c This person here is that Devadatta we knew before/ And creation preceded by thought can very well be ascribed to an intelligent ^iva. The connexion of the whole Taittiriya-text then is as follows. In the intro- ductory clause, ' He who knows Brahman attains the [48] p 2 io 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.