Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Somebody, who has learned from scripture that ether and air, although not in themselves likely to have originated, yet actually are things with a beginning, might feel inclined to suspect that Brahman itself has sprung from something else. — And further somebody, who has learned from scripture that from ether and the other elements which are themselves mere eff"ects further effects are produced, might think that also Brahman, from which ether has sprung, is a mere effect. — In order to remove this doubt the Sutra declares that Brahman, whose Self is Being, must not be suspected to have sprung from anything else 'on account of the impossibility.' Brahman which is mere Being cannot spring from mere ^ In which Brahman is spoken of as to be meditated upon under the form of Vayu. - iS'abdanurodhiny eva .rahka na vastvanurodhiniti. An. Gi. C 2 20 vedanta-sOtras.
2being, since the relation of cause and effect cannot exist without a certain superiority (on the part of the cause). Nor again can Brahman spring from that which is something particular, since this would be contrary to experience. For we observe that particular forms of existence are produced from what is general, as, for instance, jars and pots from clay, but not that what is general is produced from particulars. Nor again can Brahman spring from that which is not (asat), for that which is. not is without a Self^ and moreover scripture expressly rejects that view, in the passage ' How could that which is spring from that which is not ? ' i^Kh. Up. VI, 2, 2). Another passage, moreover, expressly denies that Brahman has any progenitor, ' He is the cause, the lord of the lords of the organs, and there is of him neither progenitor nor lord' (5ve. Up. VI, 9). — With regard to ether and air the possibility of an origin has been shown ; but in Brahman's case there is no such possibility ; hence the cases are not parallel. Nor does the fact of other effects springing from effects imply that Brahman also must be an effect ; for the non-admission of a fundamental causal substance w^ould drive us to a retrogressus in infinitum. And that fundamental causal substance which as a matter of fact is generally -acknowledged to exist, just that is our Brahman. — Thus there is not any contradiction.
310. Fire (is produced) thence (i.e. from air); for thus (the text) declares. In the K/ikndogydi it is said that fire has for its source that which is (Brahman), in the Taittiriyaka that it has the air for its source. There being thus a conflict of scriptural passages with regard to the origin of fire, the purvapakshin maintains that fire has Brahman for its source. — Why? — Because the text^ after having stated at the outset that there existed only that which is, teaches that it sent forth fire ; and because the assertion of everything being known through Brahman is possible only in case of every- ^ And cannot therefore constitute a cause ; for a cause is the Self of its effects. II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, lO. 21 thing being produced from Brahman ; and because the scriptural statement as to the ' Ta^^alan ' {Kh. Up. Ill, 14, i) specifies no difference^; and because another scriptural passage (Mu. Up. II, i, 3) teaches that everything without exception is born from Brahman. The Taittiriyaka also makes a statement about the entire world without any exception, 'after having brooded he sent forth all whatever there is' (Taitt. Up. II, 6). Hence the statement that 'fire was produced from air' (Taitt. Up. II, 1) must be considered to teach the order of succession only ' fire was produced subsequently to air.'
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.
1Somebody, who has learned from scripture that ether and air, although not in themselves likely to have originated, yet actually are things with a beginning, might feel inclined to suspect that Brahman itself has sprung from something else. — And further somebody, who has learned from scripture that from ether and the other elements which are themselves mere eff"ects further effects are produced, might think that also Brahman, from which ether has sprung, is a mere effect. — In order to remove this doubt the Sutra declares that Brahman, whose Self is Being, must not be suspected to have sprung from anything else 'on account of the impossibility.' Brahman which is mere Being cannot spring from mere ^ In which Brahman is spoken of as to be meditated upon under the form of Vayu. - iS'abdanurodhiny eva .rahka na vastvanurodhiniti. An. Gi. C 2 20 vedanta-sOtras.
2being, since the relation of cause and effect cannot exist without a certain superiority (on the part of the cause). Nor again can Brahman spring from that which is something particular, since this would be contrary to experience. For we observe that particular forms of existence are produced from what is general, as, for instance, jars and pots from clay, but not that what is general is produced from particulars. Nor again can Brahman spring from that which is not (asat), for that which is. not is without a Self^ and moreover scripture expressly rejects that view, in the passage ' How could that which is spring from that which is not ? ' i^Kh. Up. VI, 2, 2). Another passage, moreover, expressly denies that Brahman has any progenitor, ' He is the cause, the lord of the lords of the organs, and there is of him neither progenitor nor lord' (5ve. Up. VI, 9). — With regard to ether and air the possibility of an origin has been shown ; but in Brahman's case there is no such possibility ; hence the cases are not parallel. Nor does the fact of other effects springing from effects imply that Brahman also must be an effect ; for the non-admission of a fundamental causal substance w^ould drive us to a retrogressus in infinitum. And that fundamental causal substance which as a matter of fact is generally -acknowledged to exist, just that is our Brahman. — Thus there is not any contradiction.
310. Fire (is produced) thence (i.e. from air); for thus (the text) declares. In the K/ikndogydi it is said that fire has for its source that which is (Brahman), in the Taittiriyaka that it has the air for its source. There being thus a conflict of scriptural passages with regard to the origin of fire, the purvapakshin maintains that fire has Brahman for its source. — Why? — Because the text^ after having stated at the outset that there existed only that which is, teaches that it sent forth fire ; and because the assertion of everything being known through Brahman is possible only in case of every- ^ And cannot therefore constitute a cause ; for a cause is the Self of its effects. II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, lO. 21 thing being produced from Brahman ; and because the scriptural statement as to the ' Ta^^alan ' {Kh. Up. Ill, 14, i) specifies no difference^; and because another scriptural passage (Mu. Up. II, i, 3) teaches that everything without exception is born from Brahman. The Taittiriyaka also makes a statement about the entire world without any exception, 'after having brooded he sent forth all whatever there is' (Taitt. Up. II, 6). Hence the statement that 'fire was produced from air' (Taitt. Up. II, 1) must be considered to teach the order of succession only ' fire was produced subsequently to air.'
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.