Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1^ I.e. in the present case we should have to assume that the word udgitha means, by implication, the omkara. — Recourse may be had to implied meanings only when the direct meaning is clearly impossible. "^ For a special adhyasa-meditation must be attended with a special result. Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PAD A, 9. 1 99
2nature of something, but at enjoining a meditation of a certain kind. — The hypothesis of unity again is precluded by the consideration that as in that case one term would suffice to convey the intended meaning, the employment of two terms would be purposeless. And moreover the term ' udgitha ' is never used to denote the omkara in its connexion with the Rtg-veda. and Ya^ur-veda ; nor is the word 'omkara' used to denote that entire second subdivision of a saman which is denoted by the word ' udgitha.' Hence it cannot be said that we have to do with different words only denoting one and the same thing. — There thus remains the fourth alternative, 'On account of its comprising all the Vedas.' That means : In order that the omkara may not be understood here as that one which comprises all the Vedas, it is specified by means of the word ' udgitha,' in order that that omkara which constitutes a part of the udgitha may be apprehended. — But does not this interpretation also involve the admission of implication, as according to it the word ' udgitha ' denotes not the whole udgitha but only a part of it, viz. the omkara ? — True, but we have to distinguish those cases in which the implied meaning is not far remote from the direct meaning and those in which it is remote. If, in the present case, we embrace the alternative of adhyasa, we have to assume an altogether remote implication, the idea of one matter being superimposed on the idea of an altogether different matter. If, on the other hand, we adopt the alternative of specification, the implication connected therewith is an easy one, the word which in its direct sense denotes the whole being understood to denote the part. And that words denoting the whole do duty for words denoting the part is a matter of common occurrence ; the words ' cloth,' ' village,' and many others are used in this fashion ^ — For all these reasons we declare that the appropriate view of the ^//andogya-passage is to take the word ' udgitha ' as specialising the term ' omkara ''^.'
3^ We say, e.g. ' the cloth is burned,' even if only a part of the cloth is burned. 2 We therefore, according to .Safikara, have to render the passage 200 VEDANTA-StjTRAS. lo. Those (qualities which are attributed to the subject of a vidya in one .Sakha only) (are to be inserted) in other places (also), since (the vidyas) are non-different on the whole. In the colloquy of the pra;/as recorded by the Va^asaneyins and the K/iandogas the pra;?a, endowed with various qualities such as being the best and so on, is represented as the object of meditation, and various qualities such as being the richest and the like are ascribed to speech and the other organs. And these latter qualities are in the end attributed to the pra«a also, ' If I am the richest thou art the richest,' &c. Now in other 5akhas also, as e.g. that of the Kaushitakins, the former set of qualities such as being the best and so on is ascribed to the pra^^a (cp. Kau. Up. II, 14, 'Now follows the Ni/«reyasadana,' &c.), but at the same time the latter set of attributes, viz. being the richest and so on, is not mentioned. — The question then is whether those qualities which are mentioned in some places only are, for the purposes of meditation, to be inserted there also where nothing is said about them.
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.
1^ I.e. in the present case we should have to assume that the word udgitha means, by implication, the omkara. — Recourse may be had to implied meanings only when the direct meaning is clearly impossible. "^ For a special adhyasa-meditation must be attended with a special result. Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PAD A, 9. 1 99
2nature of something, but at enjoining a meditation of a certain kind. — The hypothesis of unity again is precluded by the consideration that as in that case one term would suffice to convey the intended meaning, the employment of two terms would be purposeless. And moreover the term ' udgitha ' is never used to denote the omkara in its connexion with the Rtg-veda. and Ya^ur-veda ; nor is the word 'omkara' used to denote that entire second subdivision of a saman which is denoted by the word ' udgitha.' Hence it cannot be said that we have to do with different words only denoting one and the same thing. — There thus remains the fourth alternative, 'On account of its comprising all the Vedas.' That means : In order that the omkara may not be understood here as that one which comprises all the Vedas, it is specified by means of the word ' udgitha,' in order that that omkara which constitutes a part of the udgitha may be apprehended. — But does not this interpretation also involve the admission of implication, as according to it the word ' udgitha ' denotes not the whole udgitha but only a part of it, viz. the omkara ? — True, but we have to distinguish those cases in which the implied meaning is not far remote from the direct meaning and those in which it is remote. If, in the present case, we embrace the alternative of adhyasa, we have to assume an altogether remote implication, the idea of one matter being superimposed on the idea of an altogether different matter. If, on the other hand, we adopt the alternative of specification, the implication connected therewith is an easy one, the word which in its direct sense denotes the whole being understood to denote the part. And that words denoting the whole do duty for words denoting the part is a matter of common occurrence ; the words ' cloth,' ' village,' and many others are used in this fashion ^ — For all these reasons we declare that the appropriate view of the ^//andogya-passage is to take the word ' udgitha ' as specialising the term ' omkara ''^.'
3^ We say, e.g. ' the cloth is burned,' even if only a part of the cloth is burned. 2 We therefore, according to .Safikara, have to render the passage 200 VEDANTA-StjTRAS. lo. Those (qualities which are attributed to the subject of a vidya in one .Sakha only) (are to be inserted) in other places (also), since (the vidyas) are non-different on the whole. In the colloquy of the pra;/as recorded by the Va^asaneyins and the K/iandogas the pra;?a, endowed with various qualities such as being the best and so on, is represented as the object of meditation, and various qualities such as being the richest and the like are ascribed to speech and the other organs. And these latter qualities are in the end attributed to the pra«a also, ' If I am the richest thou art the richest,' &c. Now in other 5akhas also, as e.g. that of the Kaushitakins, the former set of qualities such as being the best and so on is ascribed to the pra^^a (cp. Kau. Up. II, 14, 'Now follows the Ni/«reyasadana,' &c.), but at the same time the latter set of attributes, viz. being the richest and so on, is not mentioned. — The question then is whether those qualities which are mentioned in some places only are, for the purposes of meditation, to be inserted there also where nothing is said about them.
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.