Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1They are not so -to be inserted, the purvapakshin maintains, on account of the employment of the word ' thus.' In the Kaushitakin-text we meet with the clause, ' He who knows thus, having recognised the pre-eminence in prawa.' Now the word 'thus' which here indicates the object of knowledge always refers to something mentioned not far off, and cannot therefore denote a set of qualities mentioned in other ^akhas only. We therefore maintain that each of the colloquies of the pra;/as must be considered complete with the qualities stated in itself. To this we make the following reply. The qualities mentioned in one text are to be inserted in the other corresponding texts also, ' Since on the whole they are nondifferent,' i.e. because the prana-vidyas are recognised to be the same in all essential points. And if they are the same, under discussion as follows, ' Let a man meditate on the syllable Om which is (i. e. which is a part of) the udgitha.' HI ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, II. 20I
2why should the quahties stated in one not be inserted in the others also? — But how about the objection founded by the purvapakshin on the employment of the word ' thus ? ' — Although it is true, we reply, that the word ' thus ' in the Kaushitakin-brahmawa does not denote the set of qualities mentioned in the Va^asaneyin-brahmawa, yet that set of qualities is denoted by the 'thus' met with in the Va^asaneyin-brahmawa, while the vidya is, as proved by us, one and the same ; hence no difference has to be made between qualities mentioned in one's own ^Sakha and qualities mentioned in another Sakha, as long as the vidya is one and the same. Nor does this by any means imply a disregard of the text of scripture, and the assumption of things not warranted by the text. The qualities declared in one vS^kha are valid for all scripture as long as the thing to which the qualities belong is the same. Devadatta, who in his own country is known to possess valour and certain other qualities, does not lose those qualities by going to a foreign land, although the inhabitants of that land may know nothing about them. And through better acquaintance his qualities will become manifest to the people of the foreign country also. Similarly the qualities stated in one ^Sakha may, through special application, be inserted in another 5akha. — Hence the attributes belonging to one and the same subject have to be combined wherever that subject is referred to, although they may be expres.sly stated in one place only.
3II. Bliss and other (qualities) as belonging to the subject of the qualities (have to be attributed to Brahman everywhere). Those scriptural texts which aim at intimating the characteristics of Brahman separately ascribe to it various qualities, such as having bliss for its nature, being one mass of knowledge, being omnipresent, being the Self of all and so on. Now the doubt here presents itself whether in each place where Brahman is spoken of we have to understand only those qualities which actually are mentioned there, or whether we have to combine all qualities of Brahman mentioned anywhere. / 202 VEDANTA-sC'TRAS. The purvapakshin maintains that only the attributes actually stated are to be understood as referred to in each particular scriptural text. — But this view the Sutrakara discards by declaring that delight and all the other qualities which belong to the subject, i.e. Brahman, are all of them to be understood in each place. The reason for this conclusion is the one given in Sutra lo. In all the passages treating of Brahman the subject to which the qualities belong is one, non-different ; hence, as explained at length under the preceding Sutra, the qualities attributed to Brahman in any one place have to be combined wherever Brahman is spoken of.
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.
1They are not so -to be inserted, the purvapakshin maintains, on account of the employment of the word ' thus.' In the Kaushitakin-text we meet with the clause, ' He who knows thus, having recognised the pre-eminence in prawa.' Now the word 'thus' which here indicates the object of knowledge always refers to something mentioned not far off, and cannot therefore denote a set of qualities mentioned in other ^akhas only. We therefore maintain that each of the colloquies of the pra;/as must be considered complete with the qualities stated in itself. To this we make the following reply. The qualities mentioned in one text are to be inserted in the other corresponding texts also, ' Since on the whole they are nondifferent,' i.e. because the prana-vidyas are recognised to be the same in all essential points. And if they are the same, under discussion as follows, ' Let a man meditate on the syllable Om which is (i. e. which is a part of) the udgitha.' HI ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, II. 20I
2why should the quahties stated in one not be inserted in the others also? — But how about the objection founded by the purvapakshin on the employment of the word ' thus ? ' — Although it is true, we reply, that the word ' thus ' in the Kaushitakin-brahmawa does not denote the set of qualities mentioned in the Va^asaneyin-brahmawa, yet that set of qualities is denoted by the 'thus' met with in the Va^asaneyin-brahmawa, while the vidya is, as proved by us, one and the same ; hence no difference has to be made between qualities mentioned in one's own ^Sakha and qualities mentioned in another Sakha, as long as the vidya is one and the same. Nor does this by any means imply a disregard of the text of scripture, and the assumption of things not warranted by the text. The qualities declared in one vS^kha are valid for all scripture as long as the thing to which the qualities belong is the same. Devadatta, who in his own country is known to possess valour and certain other qualities, does not lose those qualities by going to a foreign land, although the inhabitants of that land may know nothing about them. And through better acquaintance his qualities will become manifest to the people of the foreign country also. Similarly the qualities stated in one ^Sakha may, through special application, be inserted in another 5akha. — Hence the attributes belonging to one and the same subject have to be combined wherever that subject is referred to, although they may be expres.sly stated in one place only.
3II. Bliss and other (qualities) as belonging to the subject of the qualities (have to be attributed to Brahman everywhere). Those scriptural texts which aim at intimating the characteristics of Brahman separately ascribe to it various qualities, such as having bliss for its nature, being one mass of knowledge, being omnipresent, being the Self of all and so on. Now the doubt here presents itself whether in each place where Brahman is spoken of we have to understand only those qualities which actually are mentioned there, or whether we have to combine all qualities of Brahman mentioned anywhere. / 202 VEDANTA-sC'TRAS. The purvapakshin maintains that only the attributes actually stated are to be understood as referred to in each particular scriptural text. — But this view the Sutrakara discards by declaring that delight and all the other qualities which belong to the subject, i.e. Brahman, are all of them to be understood in each place. The reason for this conclusion is the one given in Sutra lo. In all the passages treating of Brahman the subject to which the qualities belong is one, non-different ; hence, as explained at length under the preceding Sutra, the qualities attributed to Brahman in any one place have to be combined wherever Brahman is spoken of.
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.