Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The present Sutra refutes the allegation that something different from Brahman exists, firstly, because things are said to be connected with Brahman, and secondly, because things are said to be separate from it. The fact is, that all those statements regarding connexion and difference are made with a view to difference of place. When the cognition of difference which is produced by the Selfs connexion with different places, i.e. with the buddhi and the other limiting adjuncts, ceases on account of the cessation of those limiting adjuncts themselves, connexion with the highest Self is metaphorically said to take place ; but that is done with a view to the limiting adjuncts only, not with a view to any limitation on the part of the Self. — In the same way, all statements regarding difference have reference to the difference of Brahman's limiting adjuncts only, not to any difference affecting Brahman's own nature. — All this Ill ADHVAYA, 2 PADA, 2)^. I 79 is analogous to the case of light and the like. For the light of the sun or the moon also is differentiated by its connexion with limiting adjuncts, and is, on account of these adjuncts, spoken of as divided, and, when the adjuncts are removed, it is said to enter into connexion (union). Other instances of the effect of limiting adjuncts are furnished by the ether entering into connexion with the eyes of needles and the like. 35. And because (only such a connexion) is possible.
2Moreover, only such a connexion as described above is possible. For scriptural passages, such as ' He is gone to his Self (K/i. Up. VI, 8, i), declare that the connexion of the soul with the highest Self is one of essential nature. But as the essential nature of a thing is imperishable, the connexion cannot be analogous to that of the inhabitants with the town, but can only be explained with reference to an obscuration, owing to Nescience, of the soul's true nature. — Similarly the difference spoken of by scripture cannot be real, but only such as is due to Nescience ; for many texts declare that there exists only one Lord. Analogously, scripture teaches that the one ether is made manifold as it were by its connexion with different places ' The ether which is outside man is the ether which is inside man, and the ether within the heart' (K/i. Up. Ill, 12, 7 ff.). 36. (The same thing follows) from the express denial of other (existences). Having thus refuted the arguments of the purvapakshin, the Sutrakara in conclusion strengthens his view by a further reason. A great number of Vedic passages — which, considering the context in which they stand, cannot be explained otherwise — distinctly deny that there exists anything apart from Brahman ; ' He indeed is below ; I am below; the Self is below' {K/i. Up. VII, 25, i ; 2}; 'Whosoever looks for anything elsewhere than in the Self was abandoned by everything' (Brz. Up. II, 4, 6); 'Brahman N 2
3l8o VEDANTA-S^TRAS. alone is all this' (Mu. Up. II, 2, ii) ; 'The Self is all this' {Kh. Up. VII, 25, 2) : 'In it there is no diversity' (Br/. Up. IV, 4, 19) ; 'He to whom there is nothing superior, from whom there is nothing different' (^'vet. Up. Ill, 9); 'This is the Brahman without cause and without effect, without anything inside or outside' (Brz. Up. II, 5, 19). — And that there is no other Self within the highest Self, follows from that scriptural passage which teaches Brahman to be within everything (Bn. Up. II, 5, 19). "^"j. Thereby the omnipresence (of Brahman is established), in accordance with the statements about (Brahman's) extent.
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 present Sutra refutes the allegation that something different from Brahman exists, firstly, because things are said to be connected with Brahman, and secondly, because things are said to be separate from it. The fact is, that all those statements regarding connexion and difference are made with a view to difference of place. When the cognition of difference which is produced by the Selfs connexion with different places, i.e. with the buddhi and the other limiting adjuncts, ceases on account of the cessation of those limiting adjuncts themselves, connexion with the highest Self is metaphorically said to take place ; but that is done with a view to the limiting adjuncts only, not with a view to any limitation on the part of the Self. — In the same way, all statements regarding difference have reference to the difference of Brahman's limiting adjuncts only, not to any difference affecting Brahman's own nature. — All this Ill ADHVAYA, 2 PADA, 2)^. I 79 is analogous to the case of light and the like. For the light of the sun or the moon also is differentiated by its connexion with limiting adjuncts, and is, on account of these adjuncts, spoken of as divided, and, when the adjuncts are removed, it is said to enter into connexion (union). Other instances of the effect of limiting adjuncts are furnished by the ether entering into connexion with the eyes of needles and the like. 35. And because (only such a connexion) is possible.
2Moreover, only such a connexion as described above is possible. For scriptural passages, such as ' He is gone to his Self (K/i. Up. VI, 8, i), declare that the connexion of the soul with the highest Self is one of essential nature. But as the essential nature of a thing is imperishable, the connexion cannot be analogous to that of the inhabitants with the town, but can only be explained with reference to an obscuration, owing to Nescience, of the soul's true nature. — Similarly the difference spoken of by scripture cannot be real, but only such as is due to Nescience ; for many texts declare that there exists only one Lord. Analogously, scripture teaches that the one ether is made manifold as it were by its connexion with different places ' The ether which is outside man is the ether which is inside man, and the ether within the heart' (K/i. Up. Ill, 12, 7 ff.). 36. (The same thing follows) from the express denial of other (existences). Having thus refuted the arguments of the purvapakshin, the Sutrakara in conclusion strengthens his view by a further reason. A great number of Vedic passages — which, considering the context in which they stand, cannot be explained otherwise — distinctly deny that there exists anything apart from Brahman ; ' He indeed is below ; I am below; the Self is below' {K/i. Up. VII, 25, i ; 2}; 'Whosoever looks for anything elsewhere than in the Self was abandoned by everything' (Brz. Up. II, 4, 6); 'Brahman N 2
3l8o VEDANTA-S^TRAS. alone is all this' (Mu. Up. II, 2, ii) ; 'The Self is all this' {Kh. Up. VII, 25, 2) : 'In it there is no diversity' (Br/. Up. IV, 4, 19) ; 'He to whom there is nothing superior, from whom there is nothing different' (^'vet. Up. Ill, 9); 'This is the Brahman without cause and without effect, without anything inside or outside' (Brz. Up. II, 5, 19). — And that there is no other Self within the highest Self, follows from that scriptural passage which teaches Brahman to be within everything (Bn. Up. II, 5, 19). "^"j. Thereby the omnipresence (of Brahman is established), in accordance with the statements about (Brahman's) extent.
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.