Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1for its Self, the concluding statement being, ' This great unborn Self undecaying, undying, immortal, fearless is indeed Brahman ' (IV, 4, 25). — In the K/ikndogya. again we have a chapter in which the introductory statement does not use the term ' Self'' (' Being only this was in the beginning, one, without a second '), while at the conclusion the term 'Self"" is used in the declaration of identity ('That is the Self. Thou art that'). — A doubt here arises whether these two scriptural texts treat of the same matter or not. • They do not, the purvapakshin maintains, since they are not equal. Since the determination of the sense depends on the letter of the text, we have no right to maintain equality of sense where the texts differ. In the Va^asaneyaka the initial statement about the Self shows that the whole passage conveys instruction about the true nature of the Self. In the K/iandogya., on the other hand, the initial clause is of a different kind, and we therefore must assume that the whole passage imparts instruction differing in nature from that of the Va^asaneyaka. — But has it not been said that the iT/^andogya-passage also teaches in the end the doctrine of universal identity with the Self? — That has been said indeed (but wrongly) ; for as the concluding passage must be made to agree with the initial passage (which latter does not say anything about the identity of the Self and Brahman), we assume that the concluding passage merely enjoins an imaginative combination (sampatti) of the Self and Brahman.
2To this we reply that also the passage, ' Being only this was in the beginning,' has to be understood as referring to the Self; 'as other places,' i.e. in the same way as the passage quoted from the Va^asaneyaka. For what reason? — 'On account of the subsequent (statement),' viz. the statement as to identity. And if it be said that ' on account of the connected meaning ' of the initial passage in which no mention is made of the Self, the chapter cannot be understood to refer to the Self; we reply 'that it may be so understood on account of the assertion ' made in the passage about that ' by which we hear what is not heard, perceive what is not perceived, know what is not [38] P 2IO VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
3known.' For this passage asserts that through the knowledge of one thing all things become known, and to make good this assertion the text later on declares that ' Being onh^ this was,' &c. Now this knowledge of all things through one thing is possible only if we understand the passage last quoted to refer to the Self; for if the principal Self were not known, how could all things be known? Moreover the assertion that, before creation, there existed one thing only, and the reference to the individual soul by means of the word ' Self,' and the statement that in deep sleep the soul becomes united with the True, and the repeated inquiries on the part of 5vetaketu, and the repeated assertions, ' Thou art that.'^all this is appropriate only if the aim of the whole section is not to enjoin an imaginative meditation on all things as identical with the Self, but to teach that the Self really is everything. — Nor must it be said that, in the section under discussion, the concluding passage must be interpreted so as to agree with the introductory clause (and cannot on that account teach anything about the Self) ; for the introductory passage declares neither that the Self is everything, nor that the Non-self is everything (but merely makes a statement regarding what is in general), and such an altogether general statement cannot be in conflict with any particular statement made in a supplementary passage, but rather is in want of some such particular statement whereby to define itself^. — And moreover (to view the matter from a different point of view), the word ' Being ' if looked into closely can denote nothing else but the principal Self, since we have proved, under II, i, 14, the unrealit}' of the whole aggregate of being different from the Self. — Nor, finally, does a difference of expression necessarily imply a difierence of sense ; not any more than in ordinary language the two phrases, ' Bring that vessel
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.
1for its Self, the concluding statement being, ' This great unborn Self undecaying, undying, immortal, fearless is indeed Brahman ' (IV, 4, 25). — In the K/ikndogya. again we have a chapter in which the introductory statement does not use the term ' Self'' (' Being only this was in the beginning, one, without a second '), while at the conclusion the term 'Self"" is used in the declaration of identity ('That is the Self. Thou art that'). — A doubt here arises whether these two scriptural texts treat of the same matter or not. • They do not, the purvapakshin maintains, since they are not equal. Since the determination of the sense depends on the letter of the text, we have no right to maintain equality of sense where the texts differ. In the Va^asaneyaka the initial statement about the Self shows that the whole passage conveys instruction about the true nature of the Self. In the K/iandogya., on the other hand, the initial clause is of a different kind, and we therefore must assume that the whole passage imparts instruction differing in nature from that of the Va^asaneyaka. — But has it not been said that the iT/^andogya-passage also teaches in the end the doctrine of universal identity with the Self? — That has been said indeed (but wrongly) ; for as the concluding passage must be made to agree with the initial passage (which latter does not say anything about the identity of the Self and Brahman), we assume that the concluding passage merely enjoins an imaginative combination (sampatti) of the Self and Brahman.
2To this we reply that also the passage, ' Being only this was in the beginning,' has to be understood as referring to the Self; 'as other places,' i.e. in the same way as the passage quoted from the Va^asaneyaka. For what reason? — 'On account of the subsequent (statement),' viz. the statement as to identity. And if it be said that ' on account of the connected meaning ' of the initial passage in which no mention is made of the Self, the chapter cannot be understood to refer to the Self; we reply 'that it may be so understood on account of the assertion ' made in the passage about that ' by which we hear what is not heard, perceive what is not perceived, know what is not [38] P 2IO VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
3known.' For this passage asserts that through the knowledge of one thing all things become known, and to make good this assertion the text later on declares that ' Being onh^ this was,' &c. Now this knowledge of all things through one thing is possible only if we understand the passage last quoted to refer to the Self; for if the principal Self were not known, how could all things be known? Moreover the assertion that, before creation, there existed one thing only, and the reference to the individual soul by means of the word ' Self,' and the statement that in deep sleep the soul becomes united with the True, and the repeated inquiries on the part of 5vetaketu, and the repeated assertions, ' Thou art that.'^all this is appropriate only if the aim of the whole section is not to enjoin an imaginative meditation on all things as identical with the Self, but to teach that the Self really is everything. — Nor must it be said that, in the section under discussion, the concluding passage must be interpreted so as to agree with the introductory clause (and cannot on that account teach anything about the Self) ; for the introductory passage declares neither that the Self is everything, nor that the Non-self is everything (but merely makes a statement regarding what is in general), and such an altogether general statement cannot be in conflict with any particular statement made in a supplementary passage, but rather is in want of some such particular statement whereby to define itself^. — And moreover (to view the matter from a different point of view), the word ' Being ' if looked into closely can denote nothing else but the principal Self, since we have proved, under II, i, 14, the unrealit}' of the whole aggregate of being different from the Self. — Nor, finally, does a difference of expression necessarily imply a difierence of sense ; not any more than in ordinary language the two phrases, ' Bring that vessel
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.