Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The fact is that neither in ordinary nor in Vedic language we ever meet with a word which — denoting a quality and at the same time standing in co-ordination I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 1 3. 225 with a word denoting a substance — denotes a mere quality. Nor is it correct to say that a quality-word occurring in a sentence which has already mentioned a substance denotes a mere quality: for in a sentence such as 'the cloth (is) white,' where a substance is mentioned in the first place, the quality-word clearly denotes (not mere whiteness but) something which possesses the quality of whiteness. When, on the other hand, we have a collocation of words such as ' pa/asya juklaA ' (' of the cloth ' — gen. ; ' white ' nom.), the idea of a cloth distinguished by whiteness does not arise ; but this is due not to the fact of the substance being mentioned first, but to the fact of the two words exhibiting different case-terminations. As soon as we add to those two words an appropriate third one, e. g. ' bhaga^ * (so that the whole means ' The white part of a cloth'), the co-ordination of two words with the same case-termination gives rise to the idea of a thing distinguished by the attribute of whiteness. — Nor can we agree to the contention that, as the buying of the Soma is exclusively concluded by the cow one year old (as instrumental in the purchase), the quality of tawniness (denoted by the word ' aru^aya') cannot connect itself with the action expressed by the verb ; for a word that denotes a quality and stands in co-ordination with a word denoting a substance which has no qualities opposed in nature to that quality, denotes a quality abiding in that substance, and thus naturally connects itself with the action expressed by the verb. And since, as shown, the quality of tawniness connects itself with its substance (the cow) on the mere basis of the form of the words, it is wrong (on the part of the Purvapakshin to abandon this natural connexion and) to establish their connexion on the ground of their being otherwise incapable of serving as means of the purchase. All this confirms our contention, viz. that the co-ordi- nation of ' thou ' and * that ' must be understood to express oneness, without, at the same time, there being given up the different attributes denoted by the two words. This however is not feasible for those who do not admit a highest Self free from all imperfection and endowed with all perfections, and different from that intelligent soul which [48] Q 2 26 VEDANTA-sCtR AS.
2This however is not feasible for those who do not admit a highest Self free from all imperfection and endowed with all perfections, and different from that intelligent soul which [48] Q 2 26 VEDANTA-sCtR AS. is conditioned by Nescience, involved in endless suffering and undergoing alternate states of purity and impurity. — But, an objection is raised, even if such a highest Self be acknowledged, it would have to be admitted that the sen- tence aims at conveying the oneness of that which is distinguished by the different attributes denoted by the words co-ordinated, and from this it follows that the highest Self participates in all the suffering expressed by the word * thou ' ! — This is not so, we reply ; since the word ' thou ' also denotes the highest Self, viz. in so far as it is the inner Ruler (antary&min) of all souls. — The connected meaning of the text is as follows. That which is denoted as ' Being/ i. e. the highest Brahman which is the cause of all, free from all shadow of imperfection, &c, resolved ' to be many ' ; it thereupon sent forth the entire world, consisting of fire, water, &c. ; introduced, in this world so sent forth, the whole mass of individual souls into different bodies divine, human, &c, corresponding to the desert of each soul — the souls thus constituting the Self of the bodies ; and finally, itself entering according to its wish into these souls- — so as to constitute their inner Self — evolved in all these aggregates, names and forms, i. e. rendered each aggregate something substantial (vastu) and capable of being denoted by a word. ' Let me enter into these beings with this living Self (^ivena atmana) means ' with this living me' and this shows the living Self, i. e. the individual soul to have Brahman for its Self. And that this having Brahman for its Self means Brahman's being the inner Self of the soul (i. e. the Self inside the soul, but not identical with it), Scripture declares by saying that Brahman entered into it. This is clearly stated in the passage Taitt. Up. II, 6, c He sent forth all this, whatever there is. Having sent forth he entered into it. Having entered it he became sat and tyat' For here * all this' comprises beings intelligent as well as non-intelligent, which afterwards are distinguished as sat and tyat, as knowledge (yignkna) and non-knowledge. Brahman is thus said to enter into intelligent beings also. Hence, owing to this evolution of names and forms, all words denote the highest Self dis- I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 1 3. 227
3Brahman is thus said to enter into intelligent beings also. Hence, owing to this evolution of names and forms, all words denote the highest Self dis- I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 1 3. 227 tinguished by non-intelligent matter and intelligent souls. — • Another text, viz. Kh. Up. VI, 8, 7, < All this has its Self in that/ denotes by ' all this ' the entire world inclusive of in- telligent souls, and says that of this world that (i.e. Brahman) is the Self. Brahman thus being the Self with regard to the whole universe of matter and souls, the universe inclusive of intelligent souls is the body of Brahman. — Other scriptural texts teach the same doctrine ; cp. ' Entered within, the ruler of beings, the Self of all' (Taitt. Ar.III,24) ; ' He who dwelling in the earth is within the earth — whose body is the earth/ &c., up to * he who dwelling within the Self is within the Self, whom the Self does not know, of whom the Self is the body, who rules the Self from within, he is thy Self, the Ruler within, the Immortal ' (Br/. Up. Ill, 7, 3-22 ; Madhyand. 5a.) ; ' He who moves within the earth, of whom the earth is the body, &c. — who moves within the Imperishable, of whom the Imperishable is the body, whom the Imperishable does not know ; he the inward ruler of all beings, free from evil, the divine, the one god, Naraya^a' (Sub&. Up. VII). All these texts declare that the world inclusive of intelligent souls is the body of the highest Self, and the latter the Self of everything. Hence those words also that denote intelligent souls designate the highest Self as having intel- ligent souls for his body and constituting the Self of them ; in the same way as words denoting non-sentient masses of matter, such as the bodies of gods, men, &c, designate the individual souls to which those bodies belong. For the body stands towards the embodied soul in the relation of a mode (prakara) ; and as words denoting a mode ac- complish their full function only in denoting the thing to which the mode belongs, we must admit an analogous comprehensiveness of meaning for those words which denote a body. For, when a thing is apprehended under the form * this is such/ the element apprehended as ' such ' is what constitutes a mode ; now as this element is relative to the thing, the idea of it is also relative to the thing, and finds its accomplishment in the thing only ; hence the word also which expresses the mode finds its accomplishment in the thing. Hence words such as ' cow/ ' horse/ i man/ which Q 2 228 vedanta-sOtras.
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.
1The fact is that neither in ordinary nor in Vedic language we ever meet with a word which — denoting a quality and at the same time standing in co-ordination I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 1 3. 225 with a word denoting a substance — denotes a mere quality. Nor is it correct to say that a quality-word occurring in a sentence which has already mentioned a substance denotes a mere quality: for in a sentence such as 'the cloth (is) white,' where a substance is mentioned in the first place, the quality-word clearly denotes (not mere whiteness but) something which possesses the quality of whiteness. When, on the other hand, we have a collocation of words such as ' pa/asya juklaA ' (' of the cloth ' — gen. ; ' white ' nom.), the idea of a cloth distinguished by whiteness does not arise ; but this is due not to the fact of the substance being mentioned first, but to the fact of the two words exhibiting different case-terminations. As soon as we add to those two words an appropriate third one, e. g. ' bhaga^ * (so that the whole means ' The white part of a cloth'), the co-ordination of two words with the same case-termination gives rise to the idea of a thing distinguished by the attribute of whiteness. — Nor can we agree to the contention that, as the buying of the Soma is exclusively concluded by the cow one year old (as instrumental in the purchase), the quality of tawniness (denoted by the word ' aru^aya') cannot connect itself with the action expressed by the verb ; for a word that denotes a quality and stands in co-ordination with a word denoting a substance which has no qualities opposed in nature to that quality, denotes a quality abiding in that substance, and thus naturally connects itself with the action expressed by the verb. And since, as shown, the quality of tawniness connects itself with its substance (the cow) on the mere basis of the form of the words, it is wrong (on the part of the Purvapakshin to abandon this natural connexion and) to establish their connexion on the ground of their being otherwise incapable of serving as means of the purchase. All this confirms our contention, viz. that the co-ordi- nation of ' thou ' and * that ' must be understood to express oneness, without, at the same time, there being given up the different attributes denoted by the two words. This however is not feasible for those who do not admit a highest Self free from all imperfection and endowed with all perfections, and different from that intelligent soul which [48] Q 2 26 VEDANTA-sCtR AS.
2This however is not feasible for those who do not admit a highest Self free from all imperfection and endowed with all perfections, and different from that intelligent soul which [48] Q 2 26 VEDANTA-sCtR AS. is conditioned by Nescience, involved in endless suffering and undergoing alternate states of purity and impurity. — But, an objection is raised, even if such a highest Self be acknowledged, it would have to be admitted that the sen- tence aims at conveying the oneness of that which is distinguished by the different attributes denoted by the words co-ordinated, and from this it follows that the highest Self participates in all the suffering expressed by the word * thou ' ! — This is not so, we reply ; since the word ' thou ' also denotes the highest Self, viz. in so far as it is the inner Ruler (antary&min) of all souls. — The connected meaning of the text is as follows. That which is denoted as ' Being/ i. e. the highest Brahman which is the cause of all, free from all shadow of imperfection, &c, resolved ' to be many ' ; it thereupon sent forth the entire world, consisting of fire, water, &c. ; introduced, in this world so sent forth, the whole mass of individual souls into different bodies divine, human, &c, corresponding to the desert of each soul — the souls thus constituting the Self of the bodies ; and finally, itself entering according to its wish into these souls- — so as to constitute their inner Self — evolved in all these aggregates, names and forms, i. e. rendered each aggregate something substantial (vastu) and capable of being denoted by a word. ' Let me enter into these beings with this living Self (^ivena atmana) means ' with this living me' and this shows the living Self, i. e. the individual soul to have Brahman for its Self. And that this having Brahman for its Self means Brahman's being the inner Self of the soul (i. e. the Self inside the soul, but not identical with it), Scripture declares by saying that Brahman entered into it. This is clearly stated in the passage Taitt. Up. II, 6, c He sent forth all this, whatever there is. Having sent forth he entered into it. Having entered it he became sat and tyat' For here * all this' comprises beings intelligent as well as non-intelligent, which afterwards are distinguished as sat and tyat, as knowledge (yignkna) and non-knowledge. Brahman is thus said to enter into intelligent beings also. Hence, owing to this evolution of names and forms, all words denote the highest Self dis- I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 1 3. 227
3Brahman is thus said to enter into intelligent beings also. Hence, owing to this evolution of names and forms, all words denote the highest Self dis- I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 1 3. 227 tinguished by non-intelligent matter and intelligent souls. — • Another text, viz. Kh. Up. VI, 8, 7, < All this has its Self in that/ denotes by ' all this ' the entire world inclusive of in- telligent souls, and says that of this world that (i.e. Brahman) is the Self. Brahman thus being the Self with regard to the whole universe of matter and souls, the universe inclusive of intelligent souls is the body of Brahman. — Other scriptural texts teach the same doctrine ; cp. ' Entered within, the ruler of beings, the Self of all' (Taitt. Ar.III,24) ; ' He who dwelling in the earth is within the earth — whose body is the earth/ &c., up to * he who dwelling within the Self is within the Self, whom the Self does not know, of whom the Self is the body, who rules the Self from within, he is thy Self, the Ruler within, the Immortal ' (Br/. Up. Ill, 7, 3-22 ; Madhyand. 5a.) ; ' He who moves within the earth, of whom the earth is the body, &c. — who moves within the Imperishable, of whom the Imperishable is the body, whom the Imperishable does not know ; he the inward ruler of all beings, free from evil, the divine, the one god, Naraya^a' (Sub&. Up. VII). All these texts declare that the world inclusive of intelligent souls is the body of the highest Self, and the latter the Self of everything. Hence those words also that denote intelligent souls designate the highest Self as having intel- ligent souls for his body and constituting the Self of them ; in the same way as words denoting non-sentient masses of matter, such as the bodies of gods, men, &c, designate the individual souls to which those bodies belong. For the body stands towards the embodied soul in the relation of a mode (prakara) ; and as words denoting a mode ac- complish their full function only in denoting the thing to which the mode belongs, we must admit an analogous comprehensiveness of meaning for those words which denote a body. For, when a thing is apprehended under the form * this is such/ the element apprehended as ' such ' is what constitutes a mode ; now as this element is relative to the thing, the idea of it is also relative to the thing, and finds its accomplishment in the thing only ; hence the word also which expresses the mode finds its accomplishment in the thing. Hence words such as ' cow/ ' horse/ i man/ which Q 2 228 vedanta-sOtras.
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.