Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1But, an objection may here be raised, so far we have determined that Brahman is free from all distinctions whatever, one, of absolutely uniform nature hke a lump of salt ; hence there appears to be no reason for even raising the question whether the cognitions of Brahman are separate cognitions or constitute only one cognition. For as Brahman is one and of uniform nature, it certainly cannot be maintained that the Vedanta-texts aim at establishing a plurality in Brahman comparable to the plurality of works (inculcated by the karmaka;/^a of the Veda). Nor can it be said that although Brahman is uniform, yet it may be the object of divers cognitions ; for any difference in nature between the cognition and the object known points to a mistake committed. If, on the other hand, it should be assumed that the different Vedanta-texts aim at teaching different cognitions of Brahman, it would follow that only one cognition can be the right one while all others are mistaken, and that would lead to a general distrust of all Vedanta. — Hence the question whether each individual Vedanta-text teaches a separate cognition of Brahman or not cannot even be raised. — Nor, supposing that question were raised after all, can the non-difference of the cognition of Brahman be demonstrated (as the Sutra attempts) on the ground that all Vedanta-texts are equally injunctions, since the cognition of Brahman is not of the nature of an injunction. For the teacher has proved at
2Ill ADHYAVA, 3 PADA, I. 1 85 length (I, I, 4) that the knowledge of Brahman is produced by passages which treat of Brahman as an existing accomplished thing and thus do not aim at enjoining anything.— Why then begin at all this discussion about the difference or non-difference of the cognitions of Brahman ? To all this we reply that no objection can be raised against a discussion of that kind, since the latter has for its object only the qualified Brahman and pra;^a and the like. For devout meditations on the qualified Brahman may, like acts, be either identical or different. Scripture moreover teaches that, like acts, they have various results ; some of them have visible results, others unseen results, and others again — as conducive to the springing up of perfect knowledge— have for their result release by successive steps. With a view to those meditations, therefore, we may raise the question whether the individual Vedanta-texts teach different cognitions of Brahman or not.
3The arguments which may here be set forth by the purvapakshin are as follows. In the first place it is known that difference may be proved by names, as e.g. in the case of the sacrificial performance called ' light ' (^yotis) ^. And the cognitions of Brahman which are enjoined in the different Ved^nta-texts are connected with different names such as the Taittiriyaka, the Va^asaneyaka, the Kauthumaka, the Kaushitaka, the 5a/yayanaka, &c. — In the second place the separateness of actions is proved by the difference of form (characteristics; rupa). So e.g. Avith reference to the passage, ' the milk is for the Vii-vedevas, the water for the va^ins ^.' ' See the sawz^Mkntakarmabhedadhikarawa, Pu. Mi. Su. II, 2, 22, where the decision is that the word ^yotis (in ' athaisha ^yotir ' &c.) denotes not the ^yotish/oma but a separate sacrificial performance. "^ See Pu. Mi. Su. II, 2, 23. The offering of water made to the divinities called va^in is separate from the offering of milk to the Vijvedevas ; for the material offered as well as the divinity to which the offering is 'made (i.e. the two rupa of the sacrifice) differs in the two cases. 1 86 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
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.
1But, an objection may here be raised, so far we have determined that Brahman is free from all distinctions whatever, one, of absolutely uniform nature hke a lump of salt ; hence there appears to be no reason for even raising the question whether the cognitions of Brahman are separate cognitions or constitute only one cognition. For as Brahman is one and of uniform nature, it certainly cannot be maintained that the Vedanta-texts aim at establishing a plurality in Brahman comparable to the plurality of works (inculcated by the karmaka;/^a of the Veda). Nor can it be said that although Brahman is uniform, yet it may be the object of divers cognitions ; for any difference in nature between the cognition and the object known points to a mistake committed. If, on the other hand, it should be assumed that the different Vedanta-texts aim at teaching different cognitions of Brahman, it would follow that only one cognition can be the right one while all others are mistaken, and that would lead to a general distrust of all Vedanta. — Hence the question whether each individual Vedanta-text teaches a separate cognition of Brahman or not cannot even be raised. — Nor, supposing that question were raised after all, can the non-difference of the cognition of Brahman be demonstrated (as the Sutra attempts) on the ground that all Vedanta-texts are equally injunctions, since the cognition of Brahman is not of the nature of an injunction. For the teacher has proved at
2Ill ADHYAVA, 3 PADA, I. 1 85 length (I, I, 4) that the knowledge of Brahman is produced by passages which treat of Brahman as an existing accomplished thing and thus do not aim at enjoining anything.— Why then begin at all this discussion about the difference or non-difference of the cognitions of Brahman ? To all this we reply that no objection can be raised against a discussion of that kind, since the latter has for its object only the qualified Brahman and pra;^a and the like. For devout meditations on the qualified Brahman may, like acts, be either identical or different. Scripture moreover teaches that, like acts, they have various results ; some of them have visible results, others unseen results, and others again — as conducive to the springing up of perfect knowledge— have for their result release by successive steps. With a view to those meditations, therefore, we may raise the question whether the individual Vedanta-texts teach different cognitions of Brahman or not.
3The arguments which may here be set forth by the purvapakshin are as follows. In the first place it is known that difference may be proved by names, as e.g. in the case of the sacrificial performance called ' light ' (^yotis) ^. And the cognitions of Brahman which are enjoined in the different Ved^nta-texts are connected with different names such as the Taittiriyaka, the Va^asaneyaka, the Kauthumaka, the Kaushitaka, the 5a/yayanaka, &c. — In the second place the separateness of actions is proved by the difference of form (characteristics; rupa). So e.g. Avith reference to the passage, ' the milk is for the Vii-vedevas, the water for the va^ins ^.' ' See the sawz^Mkntakarmabhedadhikarawa, Pu. Mi. Su. II, 2, 22, where the decision is that the word ^yotis (in ' athaisha ^yotir ' &c.) denotes not the ^yotish/oma but a separate sacrificial performance. "^ See Pu. Mi. Su. II, 2, 23. The offering of water made to the divinities called va^in is separate from the offering of milk to the Vijvedevas ; for the material offered as well as the divinity to which the offering is 'made (i.e. the two rupa of the sacrifice) differs in the two cases. 1 86 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
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.