The Bhagavadgîtâ, with the Sanatsugâtîya and the Anugîtâ — SBE Vol. 8 (trans. K. T. Telang, 1882)
The translator’s English as printed (K. T. Telang). The original-language text is not held; names are romanised as the translator printed them.
The preceptor said:
Then those Brâhmaṇas, who were the best of sages, having again felt doubts, interrogated the grandsire of the people who spoke to them thus.
! Here, says Nîlakaṇṭha, the author indicates an objection to the proposition stated just before. But the passage is not clear.
* This, says Nîlakaṇṭha, is a reply to the Sankhyas, who hold the two to be distinct. Nîlakaṇṭha adds, that if the two are distinct, nature will, conceivably, adhere even to an emancipated creature ; and if they are one, then the being or self would be really engaging in action and so forth, and that activity being really a property of the self, could not be destroyed save by the destruction of the self. Hence that view is also wrong.
* Like that of sea and wave, Nîlakaṇṭha.
* Unity of Brahman and diversity of manifestation of nature, Arguna Misra, who adds—by reason of the association they are spoken of as one, by reason of the unity and diversity they are distinct. The next sentence contains three parallel cases.
* Cf. as to all this, Santi Parvan, chap. 194, st. 38 seq. (Moksha Dharma); chap. 249,.st. 20 seq.; chap. 285, st. 33 seq,
The preceptor said:
Then those Brâhmaṇas, the best of sages, felt doubt again and questioned the grandsire of the people, who had spoken to them in this way.
Here, says Nîlakaṇṭha, the author indicates an objection to the proposition stated just before. But the passage is not clear.
This, says Nîlakaṇṭha, is a reply to the Sānkhyas, who hold the two to be distinct. Nîlakaṇṭha adds that if the two are distinct, nature could conceivably cling even to an emancipated creature; and if they are one, then the self would be genuinely engaged in action and so forth, and since that activity would then be a real property of the self, it could not be destroyed without destroying the self. So that view is wrong as well.
* Like that of sea and wave, Nîlakaṇṭha.
Unity of Brahman and diversity of manifestation of nature, Arjuna Misra, who adds—because of their association they are spoken of as one, and because of that unity and diversity they are distinct. The next sentence contains three parallel cases.
* Cf. as to all this, Santi Parvan, chap. 194, st. 38 seq. (Moksha Dharma); chap. 249, st. 20 seq.; chap. 285, st. 33 seq.