Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1In spite of the preceding argumentation we cannot admit that the different cognitions of Brahman are equally intimated by all Vedanta-texts, because we meet with differences in secondary matters (gu7/a). Thus the Va- ^asaneyins mention in their text of the knowledge of the five fires a sixth fire ('And then the fire is indeed fire,' Bri Up. VI, 2, 14), while the AV^andogas mention no sixth fire but conclude their text of the pawMgnividya with the express mention of five fires (' But he who thus knows the five fires,' K/i. Up. V, 10, 10). Now it is impossible to admit that the cognition of those who admit that particular qualification (i. e. the sixth fire) and of those who do not should be one and the same. Nor may we attempt to evade the difficulty by saying that the sixth fire may be tacitly included in the vidyi of the AT/zandogas ; for that \yould contradict the number ' five ' expressly stated by them. — In the colloquy of the pra/zas 1 88 VEDANTA-StjTRAS.
2again the iT/zandogas mention, in addition to the most important pra«a, four other pranas, viz. speech, the eye, the ear, and the mind ; while the Va^asaneyins mention a fifth one alsOj ' Seed indeed is generation. He who knows that becomes rich in offspring and cattle' [Bri. Up. VI, i, 6). — Now a difference of procedure in the point of addition and omission effects a difference in the object known, and the latter again effects a difference in the vidya, just as a difference in the point of material and divinity distinguishes one sacrifice from another.
3To this we make the following reply. — Your objection is without force, since such differences of qualification as are met with in the above instances are possible even in one and the same vidya. In the AT/zandogyatext a sixth fire is indeed not included ; yet, as five fires, beginning with the heavenly world, are recognised as the same in both texts the mentioned difference cannot effect a split of the vidya ; not any more than the atiratra-sacrifice is differentiated by the sho<^ai'in-rite being either used or not-used. Moreover, the K/iandogyatext also actually mentions a sixth fire, viz. in the passage, V, 9, 2, ' When he has departed, his friends carry him, as appointed, to the fire.' — The Va^asaneyins, on the other hand, mention their sixth fire (' and then the fire is indeed fire, the fuel fuel,' &c.) for the purpose of cutting short the fanciful assumption regarding fuel, smoke, and so on, which runs through the description of the five fires with which the heavenly world and so on are imaginatively identified. Their statement regarding the sixth fire (has therefore not the purpose of enjoining it as an object of meditation but) is merely a remark about something already established (known) ^. And even if we assume that the statement about the sixth fire has the purpose of repres&nting that fire as an object of devout meditation, yet the fire may be inserted in the vidya of the KMndogas without any fear of its being in conflict with the number five mentioned there ;
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.
1In spite of the preceding argumentation we cannot admit that the different cognitions of Brahman are equally intimated by all Vedanta-texts, because we meet with differences in secondary matters (gu7/a). Thus the Va- ^asaneyins mention in their text of the knowledge of the five fires a sixth fire ('And then the fire is indeed fire,' Bri Up. VI, 2, 14), while the AV^andogas mention no sixth fire but conclude their text of the pawMgnividya with the express mention of five fires (' But he who thus knows the five fires,' K/i. Up. V, 10, 10). Now it is impossible to admit that the cognition of those who admit that particular qualification (i. e. the sixth fire) and of those who do not should be one and the same. Nor may we attempt to evade the difficulty by saying that the sixth fire may be tacitly included in the vidyi of the AT/zandogas ; for that \yould contradict the number ' five ' expressly stated by them. — In the colloquy of the pra/zas 1 88 VEDANTA-StjTRAS.
2again the iT/zandogas mention, in addition to the most important pra«a, four other pranas, viz. speech, the eye, the ear, and the mind ; while the Va^asaneyins mention a fifth one alsOj ' Seed indeed is generation. He who knows that becomes rich in offspring and cattle' [Bri. Up. VI, i, 6). — Now a difference of procedure in the point of addition and omission effects a difference in the object known, and the latter again effects a difference in the vidya, just as a difference in the point of material and divinity distinguishes one sacrifice from another.
3To this we make the following reply. — Your objection is without force, since such differences of qualification as are met with in the above instances are possible even in one and the same vidya. In the AT/zandogyatext a sixth fire is indeed not included ; yet, as five fires, beginning with the heavenly world, are recognised as the same in both texts the mentioned difference cannot effect a split of the vidya ; not any more than the atiratra-sacrifice is differentiated by the sho<^ai'in-rite being either used or not-used. Moreover, the K/iandogyatext also actually mentions a sixth fire, viz. in the passage, V, 9, 2, ' When he has departed, his friends carry him, as appointed, to the fire.' — The Va^asaneyins, on the other hand, mention their sixth fire (' and then the fire is indeed fire, the fuel fuel,' &c.) for the purpose of cutting short the fanciful assumption regarding fuel, smoke, and so on, which runs through the description of the five fires with which the heavenly world and so on are imaginatively identified. Their statement regarding the sixth fire (has therefore not the purpose of enjoining it as an object of meditation but) is merely a remark about something already established (known) ^. And even if we assume that the statement about the sixth fire has the purpose of repres&nting that fire as an object of devout meditation, yet the fire may be inserted in the vidya of the KMndogas without any fear of its being in conflict with the number five mentioned there ;
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.