Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1same state of non-differentiation, describing it as lying beyond mind and speech. It is this therefore to which the mantra refers, and the Self of bliss is identical with it. — To this view the next Sutra replies, 17. Not the other, on account of impossibility. The other than the highest Self, i. e. the one called ^iva, even in the state of release, is not that Self which the mantra describes ; for this is not possible. For to a Self of that kind unconditioned intelligence (such as is* in the mantra, ascribed to Brahman ; cp. the term ' vipa.y/£it& ') cannot belong. Unconditioned intelligence is illustrated by the power of all one's purposes realising themselves ; as expressed in the text c He desired, may I be many, may I grow forth/ Intelligence (vipa^ittvam, i.e. power of insight into various things) does indeed belong to the soul in the state of release ; but as in the Sa^sara state the same soul is devoid of such insight, we cannot ascribe to it non-conditioned intelligence. And if the released soul is viewed as being mere non -differenced intelligence, it does not possess the capacity of seeing different things, and hence cannot of course possess vipa^ittva in the sense stated above. That, however, the existence of a substance devoid of all difference cannot be proved by any means of knowledge, we have already shown before. Again, if the clause ' from whence speech returns,' &c, were meant to express that speech and mind return from Brahman, this could not mean that the Real is devoid of all difference, but only that mind and speech are not means for the knowledge of Brahman. And from this it would follow that Brahman is something altogether empty, futile. Let us examine the context. The whole section, begin- ning with < He who knows Brahman reaches Brahman/ declares that Brahman is all-knowing, the cause of the world, consisting of pure bliss, the cause of bliss in others ; that through its mere wish it creates the whole universe comprising matter and souls; that entering into the uni- verse of created things it constitutes their Self ; that it is the cause of fear and fearlessness ; that it rules Vayu I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 1 8. 235
2235 Aditya and other divine beings ; that its bliss is ever so much superior to all other bliss; and many other points. Now, all at once, the clause ' from whence speech returns ' is said to mean that neither speech nor mind applies to Brahman, and that thus there are no means whatever of knowing Brahman ! This is idle talk indeed ! In the clause ' (that) from which . speech returns/ the relative pro- noun ' from which ' denotes bliss ; this bliss is again ex- plicitly referred to in the clause c knowing the bliss of Brahman ' — the genitive ' of Brahman ' intimating that the bliss belongs to Brahman ; what then could be the meaning of this clause which distinctly speaks of a know- ledge of Brahman, if Brahman had at the same time to be conceived as transcending all thought and speech ? What the clause really means rather is that if one undertakes to state the definite amount of the bliss of Brahman — the superabundance of which is illustrated by the successive multiplications with hundred — mind and speech have to turn back powerless, since no such definite amount can be assigned. He who knows the bliss of Brahman as not to be defined by any definite amount, does not fear anything. — That, moreover, the all-wise being referred to in the mantra is other than the individual soul in the state of re- lease, is rendered perfectly clear by what — in passages such as ' it desired/ &c. — is said about its effecting, through its mere volition, the origination and subsistence of the world, its being the inner Self of the world, and so on. 18. And on account of the declaration of differ- ence. The part of the chapter — beginning with the words ' From that same Self there sprang ether ' — which sets forth the nature of the Brahman referred to in the mantra, declares its difference from the individual soul, no less than from the Selfs consisting of food, breath, and mind, viz. in the clause ' different from this which consists of knowledge, is the other inner Self which consists of bliss/ — Through this declaration of difference from the individual soul we 236 vedanta-s6tras. know that the Self of bliss referred to in the mantra is other than the individual soul. 19. And on account of desire, there is no regard to what is inferred (i. e. matter).
3know that the Self of bliss referred to in the mantra is other than the individual soul. 19. And on account of desire, there is no regard to what is inferred (i. e. matter). In order that the individual soul which is enthralled by Nescience may operate as the cause of the world, it must needs be connected with non-sentient matter, called by such names as pradhana, or anum&nika (that which is inferred). For such is the condition for the creative energy of Brahma and similar beings. Our text, on the other hand, teaches that the creation of the aggregate of sentient and non- sentient things results from the mere wish of a being free from all connexion with non-sentient matter, ' He desired, may I be many, may I grow forth ; ' ' He sent forth all, whatever there is' (Taitt. Up. II, 6). We thus understand that that Self of bliss which sends forth the world does not require connexion with non-sentient matter called cinum&nika, and hence conclude that it is other than the individual soul. — A further reason is stated in the next Sutra. 20. And Scripture teaches the joining of this (i. e. the individual soul) with that (i. e. bliss) in that (i. e. the anandamaya). * A flavour he is indeed ; having obtained a flavour this one enjoys bliss ' (Taitt. Up. II, 7). This text declares that this one, i.e. the so-called individual soul, enjoys bliss through obtaining the anandamaya, here called 'flavour.' Now to say that any one is identical with that by obtain- ing which he enjoys bliss, would be madness indeed. — It being thus ascertained that the Self of bliss is the highest Brahman, we conclude that in passages such as i if that bliss were not in the ether ' (Taitt. Up. II, 7), and ' knowledge, bliss is Brahman' (Brt. Up. Ill, 9, 28), the word 'ananda' denotes the 'anandamaya'; just as vi^ana means the vi^anamaya. It is for the same reason (viz. of dnanda mean- ing the same as anandamaya) that the clause ' he who knows the bliss of Brahman' exhibits Brahman as being connected I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 21. 237
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.
1same state of non-differentiation, describing it as lying beyond mind and speech. It is this therefore to which the mantra refers, and the Self of bliss is identical with it. — To this view the next Sutra replies, 17. Not the other, on account of impossibility. The other than the highest Self, i. e. the one called ^iva, even in the state of release, is not that Self which the mantra describes ; for this is not possible. For to a Self of that kind unconditioned intelligence (such as is* in the mantra, ascribed to Brahman ; cp. the term ' vipa.y/£it& ') cannot belong. Unconditioned intelligence is illustrated by the power of all one's purposes realising themselves ; as expressed in the text c He desired, may I be many, may I grow forth/ Intelligence (vipa^ittvam, i.e. power of insight into various things) does indeed belong to the soul in the state of release ; but as in the Sa^sara state the same soul is devoid of such insight, we cannot ascribe to it non-conditioned intelligence. And if the released soul is viewed as being mere non -differenced intelligence, it does not possess the capacity of seeing different things, and hence cannot of course possess vipa^ittva in the sense stated above. That, however, the existence of a substance devoid of all difference cannot be proved by any means of knowledge, we have already shown before. Again, if the clause ' from whence speech returns,' &c, were meant to express that speech and mind return from Brahman, this could not mean that the Real is devoid of all difference, but only that mind and speech are not means for the knowledge of Brahman. And from this it would follow that Brahman is something altogether empty, futile. Let us examine the context. The whole section, begin- ning with < He who knows Brahman reaches Brahman/ declares that Brahman is all-knowing, the cause of the world, consisting of pure bliss, the cause of bliss in others ; that through its mere wish it creates the whole universe comprising matter and souls; that entering into the uni- verse of created things it constitutes their Self ; that it is the cause of fear and fearlessness ; that it rules Vayu I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 1 8. 235
2235 Aditya and other divine beings ; that its bliss is ever so much superior to all other bliss; and many other points. Now, all at once, the clause ' from whence speech returns ' is said to mean that neither speech nor mind applies to Brahman, and that thus there are no means whatever of knowing Brahman ! This is idle talk indeed ! In the clause ' (that) from which . speech returns/ the relative pro- noun ' from which ' denotes bliss ; this bliss is again ex- plicitly referred to in the clause c knowing the bliss of Brahman ' — the genitive ' of Brahman ' intimating that the bliss belongs to Brahman ; what then could be the meaning of this clause which distinctly speaks of a know- ledge of Brahman, if Brahman had at the same time to be conceived as transcending all thought and speech ? What the clause really means rather is that if one undertakes to state the definite amount of the bliss of Brahman — the superabundance of which is illustrated by the successive multiplications with hundred — mind and speech have to turn back powerless, since no such definite amount can be assigned. He who knows the bliss of Brahman as not to be defined by any definite amount, does not fear anything. — That, moreover, the all-wise being referred to in the mantra is other than the individual soul in the state of re- lease, is rendered perfectly clear by what — in passages such as ' it desired/ &c. — is said about its effecting, through its mere volition, the origination and subsistence of the world, its being the inner Self of the world, and so on. 18. And on account of the declaration of differ- ence. The part of the chapter — beginning with the words ' From that same Self there sprang ether ' — which sets forth the nature of the Brahman referred to in the mantra, declares its difference from the individual soul, no less than from the Selfs consisting of food, breath, and mind, viz. in the clause ' different from this which consists of knowledge, is the other inner Self which consists of bliss/ — Through this declaration of difference from the individual soul we 236 vedanta-s6tras. know that the Self of bliss referred to in the mantra is other than the individual soul. 19. And on account of desire, there is no regard to what is inferred (i. e. matter).
3know that the Self of bliss referred to in the mantra is other than the individual soul. 19. And on account of desire, there is no regard to what is inferred (i. e. matter). In order that the individual soul which is enthralled by Nescience may operate as the cause of the world, it must needs be connected with non-sentient matter, called by such names as pradhana, or anum&nika (that which is inferred). For such is the condition for the creative energy of Brahma and similar beings. Our text, on the other hand, teaches that the creation of the aggregate of sentient and non- sentient things results from the mere wish of a being free from all connexion with non-sentient matter, ' He desired, may I be many, may I grow forth ; ' ' He sent forth all, whatever there is' (Taitt. Up. II, 6). We thus understand that that Self of bliss which sends forth the world does not require connexion with non-sentient matter called cinum&nika, and hence conclude that it is other than the individual soul. — A further reason is stated in the next Sutra. 20. And Scripture teaches the joining of this (i. e. the individual soul) with that (i. e. bliss) in that (i. e. the anandamaya). * A flavour he is indeed ; having obtained a flavour this one enjoys bliss ' (Taitt. Up. II, 7). This text declares that this one, i.e. the so-called individual soul, enjoys bliss through obtaining the anandamaya, here called 'flavour.' Now to say that any one is identical with that by obtain- ing which he enjoys bliss, would be madness indeed. — It being thus ascertained that the Self of bliss is the highest Brahman, we conclude that in passages such as i if that bliss were not in the ether ' (Taitt. Up. II, 7), and ' knowledge, bliss is Brahman' (Brt. Up. Ill, 9, 28), the word 'ananda' denotes the 'anandamaya'; just as vi^ana means the vi^anamaya. It is for the same reason (viz. of dnanda mean- ing the same as anandamaya) that the clause ' he who knows the bliss of Brahman' exhibits Brahman as being connected I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 21. 237
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.