Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Hence words such as ' cow/ ' horse/ i man/ which Q 2 228 vedanta-sOtras. denote a mode, viz. a species, comprise in their meaning also that mass of matter which exhibits the characteristics of the species, and as that mass of matter constitutes the body and therefore is a mode of a soul, and as that soul again, so embodied, is a mode of the highest Self; it follows that all these words extend in their signification up to the highest Self. The meaning of all words then is the highest Self, and hence their co-ordination with words directly denoting that highest Self is a primary (not merely ' implied ') one. But, an objection is raised, we indeed observe that words denoting species or qualities stand in co-ordination to words denoting substances, ' the ox is short-horned/ * the sugar is white ' ; but where substances appear as the modes of other substances we find that formative affixes are used, ' the man is dand'm, kundal'm ' (bearing a stick ; wearing earrings). — This is not so, we reply. There is nothing to single out either species, or quality, or substance, as what determines co-ordination : co-ordination disregards such limitations. Whenever a thing (whether species, or quality, or substance) has existence as a mode only — owing to its proof, existence and conception being inseparably con- nected with something else — the words denoting it, as they designate a substance characterised by the attribute denoted by them, appropriately enter into co-ordination with other words denoting the same substance as charac- terised by other attributes. Where, on the other hand, a substance which is established in separation from other things and rests on itself, is assumed to stand occasionally in the relation of mode to another substance, this is appro- priately expressed by the use of derived forms such as ' dandin, kundalm.' Hence such words as ' 1/ ' thou/ &c, which are different forms of appellation of the individual soul, at bottom denote the highest Self only ; for the individual souls together with non-sentient matter are the body — and hence modes — of the highest Self. This entire view is condensed in the co-ordination ' Thou art that.' The individual soul being thus connected with the highest Self as its body, its attributes do not touch the highest I ADHYAYA, I PAD A, I 3. 229
2This entire view is condensed in the co-ordination ' Thou art that.' The individual soul being thus connected with the highest Self as its body, its attributes do not touch the highest I ADHYAYA, I PAD A, I 3. 229 Self, not any more than infancy, youth, and other attributes of the material body touch the individual soul. Hence, in the co-ordination ' Thou art that/ the word ' that ' denotes the highest Brahman which is the cause of the world, whose purposes come true, which comprises within itself all blessed qualities, which is free from all shadow of evil ; while the word ' thou ' denotes the same highest Self in so far as having for its body the individual souls together with their bodies. The terms co-ordinated may thus be taken in their primary senses ; there is no contradiction either with the subject-matter of the section, or with scripture in general ; and not a shadow of imper- fection such as Nescience, and so on, attaches to Brahman, the blameless* the absolutely blessed. The co-ordination with the individual soul thus proves only the difference of Brahman from the soul, which is a mere mode of Brah- man ; and hence we hold that different from the Self consisting of knowledge, i. e. the individual soul, is the Self consisting of bliss, i. e. the highest Self. Nor is there any force in the objection that as the Self of bliss is said to be ' ^arira/ i. e. embodied — viz. in the clause ' of him the embodied Self is the same ' (Taitt. Up. II, 5, 6)— it cannot be different from the individual soul. For throughout this section the recurring clause * of him the embodied Self is the same as of the preceding one/ refers to the highest Self, calling that the * embodied ' one. The clause 'From that same Self sprang ether' (II, 1) designates the highest Brahman — which is different from the individual soul and is introduced as the highest cause of all things created — as the ' Self ' ; whence we conclude that all things different from it — from ether up to the Self of food — constitute its body. The Subala-upanishad moreover states quite directly that all beings constitute the body of the highest Self: ' He of whom the earth is the body, of whom water is the body, of whom fire is the body, of whom wind is the body, of whom ether is the body, of whom the Imperishable is the body, of whom Death is the body, he the inner Self of all, the divine one, the one god N&r&ya/za.' From this it follows that what constitutes the 2 %Q VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
3embodied Self of the Self of food is nothing else but the highest Self referred to in the clause ' From that same Self sprang ether.' When, then, the text further on says with regard to the Self of breath, * of him the embodied Self is the same as of the preceding one ' (II, 3), the meaning can only be that what constitutes the embodied Self of the * preceding' Self of food, viz. the highest Self which is the uni- versal cause, is also the embodied Self of the Self consisting of breath. The same reasoning holds good with regard to the Self consisting of mind and the Self consisting of knowledge. In the case, finally, of the Self consisting of bliss, the expres- sion ' the same ' (esha eva) is meant to convey that that Self has its Self in nothing different from itself. For when, after having understood that the highest Self is the embodied Self of the vi^anamaya also, we are told that the embodied Self of that vi^;/anamaya is also the embodied Self of the anandamaya, we understand that of the anandamaya — which we know to be the highest Self on the ground of 6 multiplication ' — its own Self is the Self. The final pur- port of the whole section thus is that everything different from the highest Self, whether of intelligent or non-intel- ligent nature, constitutes its body, while that Self alone is the non-conditioned embodied Self. For this very reason competent persons designate this doctrine which has the highest Brahman for its subject-matter as the ' •Sctriraka/ i. e. the doctrine of the ' embodied ' Self. — We have thus arrived at the conclusion that the Self of bliss is something different from the individual Self, viz. the highest Self. Here the Purvapakshin raises the following objection. — The Self consisting of bliss (anandamaya) is not something different from the individual soul, because the formative element -maya denotes something made, a thing effected. That this is the meaning of -maya in anandamaya we know from Pa/zini IV, 3, 144. — But according to Pa. V, 4, 21, -maya has also the sense of ' abounding in ' ; as when we say ' the sacrifice is annamaya,' i. e. abounds in food. And this may be its sense in ' anandamaya ' also ! — Not so, the Purvapakshin replies. In * annamaya,' in an earlier part of the chapter, -maya has the sense of ' made of/ ' consisting I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 1 4. 23 1
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 words such as ' cow/ ' horse/ i man/ which Q 2 228 vedanta-sOtras. denote a mode, viz. a species, comprise in their meaning also that mass of matter which exhibits the characteristics of the species, and as that mass of matter constitutes the body and therefore is a mode of a soul, and as that soul again, so embodied, is a mode of the highest Self; it follows that all these words extend in their signification up to the highest Self. The meaning of all words then is the highest Self, and hence their co-ordination with words directly denoting that highest Self is a primary (not merely ' implied ') one. But, an objection is raised, we indeed observe that words denoting species or qualities stand in co-ordination to words denoting substances, ' the ox is short-horned/ * the sugar is white ' ; but where substances appear as the modes of other substances we find that formative affixes are used, ' the man is dand'm, kundal'm ' (bearing a stick ; wearing earrings). — This is not so, we reply. There is nothing to single out either species, or quality, or substance, as what determines co-ordination : co-ordination disregards such limitations. Whenever a thing (whether species, or quality, or substance) has existence as a mode only — owing to its proof, existence and conception being inseparably con- nected with something else — the words denoting it, as they designate a substance characterised by the attribute denoted by them, appropriately enter into co-ordination with other words denoting the same substance as charac- terised by other attributes. Where, on the other hand, a substance which is established in separation from other things and rests on itself, is assumed to stand occasionally in the relation of mode to another substance, this is appro- priately expressed by the use of derived forms such as ' dandin, kundalm.' Hence such words as ' 1/ ' thou/ &c, which are different forms of appellation of the individual soul, at bottom denote the highest Self only ; for the individual souls together with non-sentient matter are the body — and hence modes — of the highest Self. This entire view is condensed in the co-ordination ' Thou art that.' The individual soul being thus connected with the highest Self as its body, its attributes do not touch the highest I ADHYAYA, I PAD A, I 3. 229
2This entire view is condensed in the co-ordination ' Thou art that.' The individual soul being thus connected with the highest Self as its body, its attributes do not touch the highest I ADHYAYA, I PAD A, I 3. 229 Self, not any more than infancy, youth, and other attributes of the material body touch the individual soul. Hence, in the co-ordination ' Thou art that/ the word ' that ' denotes the highest Brahman which is the cause of the world, whose purposes come true, which comprises within itself all blessed qualities, which is free from all shadow of evil ; while the word ' thou ' denotes the same highest Self in so far as having for its body the individual souls together with their bodies. The terms co-ordinated may thus be taken in their primary senses ; there is no contradiction either with the subject-matter of the section, or with scripture in general ; and not a shadow of imper- fection such as Nescience, and so on, attaches to Brahman, the blameless* the absolutely blessed. The co-ordination with the individual soul thus proves only the difference of Brahman from the soul, which is a mere mode of Brah- man ; and hence we hold that different from the Self consisting of knowledge, i. e. the individual soul, is the Self consisting of bliss, i. e. the highest Self. Nor is there any force in the objection that as the Self of bliss is said to be ' ^arira/ i. e. embodied — viz. in the clause ' of him the embodied Self is the same ' (Taitt. Up. II, 5, 6)— it cannot be different from the individual soul. For throughout this section the recurring clause * of him the embodied Self is the same as of the preceding one/ refers to the highest Self, calling that the * embodied ' one. The clause 'From that same Self sprang ether' (II, 1) designates the highest Brahman — which is different from the individual soul and is introduced as the highest cause of all things created — as the ' Self ' ; whence we conclude that all things different from it — from ether up to the Self of food — constitute its body. The Subala-upanishad moreover states quite directly that all beings constitute the body of the highest Self: ' He of whom the earth is the body, of whom water is the body, of whom fire is the body, of whom wind is the body, of whom ether is the body, of whom the Imperishable is the body, of whom Death is the body, he the inner Self of all, the divine one, the one god N&r&ya/za.' From this it follows that what constitutes the 2 %Q VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
3embodied Self of the Self of food is nothing else but the highest Self referred to in the clause ' From that same Self sprang ether.' When, then, the text further on says with regard to the Self of breath, * of him the embodied Self is the same as of the preceding one ' (II, 3), the meaning can only be that what constitutes the embodied Self of the * preceding' Self of food, viz. the highest Self which is the uni- versal cause, is also the embodied Self of the Self consisting of breath. The same reasoning holds good with regard to the Self consisting of mind and the Self consisting of knowledge. In the case, finally, of the Self consisting of bliss, the expres- sion ' the same ' (esha eva) is meant to convey that that Self has its Self in nothing different from itself. For when, after having understood that the highest Self is the embodied Self of the vi^anamaya also, we are told that the embodied Self of that vi^;/anamaya is also the embodied Self of the anandamaya, we understand that of the anandamaya — which we know to be the highest Self on the ground of 6 multiplication ' — its own Self is the Self. The final pur- port of the whole section thus is that everything different from the highest Self, whether of intelligent or non-intel- ligent nature, constitutes its body, while that Self alone is the non-conditioned embodied Self. For this very reason competent persons designate this doctrine which has the highest Brahman for its subject-matter as the ' •Sctriraka/ i. e. the doctrine of the ' embodied ' Self. — We have thus arrived at the conclusion that the Self of bliss is something different from the individual Self, viz. the highest Self. Here the Purvapakshin raises the following objection. — The Self consisting of bliss (anandamaya) is not something different from the individual soul, because the formative element -maya denotes something made, a thing effected. That this is the meaning of -maya in anandamaya we know from Pa/zini IV, 3, 144. — But according to Pa. V, 4, 21, -maya has also the sense of ' abounding in ' ; as when we say ' the sacrifice is annamaya,' i. e. abounds in food. And this may be its sense in ' anandamaya ' also ! — Not so, the Purvapakshin replies. In * annamaya,' in an earlier part of the chapter, -maya has the sense of ' made of/ ' consisting I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 1 4. 23 1
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.