Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1To this we make the following reply. — The rinsing of the mouth cannot possibly be enjoined by the quoted passages ' since they merely contain references to an act,' i.e. since they merely contain remarks concerning the purificatory act of rinsing the mouth which is known from and settled by Smr/ti. — But are not the very 6"ruti-passages under discussion to be looked upon as the fundamental texts on which the Smrzti-injunctions regarding the rinsing of the mouth are based ? — This is not possible, we reply, since the ^'ruti and Smrz'ti-passages refer to different matters. All the Smr/ti-passages enjoin the act of rinsing the mouth only in so far as it purifies man ; while the quoted Sruti texts which occur in pra;/a-vidy^s, if enjoining the rinsing of the mouth at all, enjoin it with reference to the knowledge of pra;/a. And a 6"ruti-passage cannot constitute the basis of a Smr/ti-passage referring to an altogether different matter. Nor can it be maintained that the ^ruti-passage enjoins some altogether new rinsing of the mouth connected with the prawa-vidya, as we recognise the rinsing mentioned in 6"ruti as the ordinary rinsing performed by men for the sake of purification. — The preceding argumentation already precludes the alternative of two matters being enjoined, which would moreover lead to a so-called split of the sentence.— We therefore conclude that the text — with reference to the rinsing of the mouth before and after eating which is enjoined by Smritl — enjoins (by means of the passage, 'thinking that thereby they make the breath dressed') a new mental resolve with regard to the water used for rinsing purposes, viz. that that water should act as a means for clothing the pra/za. The statement about the clothing of the pra;/a cannot (as suggested by the purvapakshin) be taken as a glorification of the act of rinsing the mouth ; for in the first place the act of rinsing is not enjoined in the Vedic passage ', and in the second place we apprehend that the passage itself conveys an injunction, viz. of the mental
2' A glorifying arthavada-passage would be in its place only if it were preceded by some injunction; for the glorification of certain acts is meant to induce men to comply with the injunctions concernino: those acts. Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 1 8. 213 resolve to provide clothing for the pra«a. Nor must the objection be raised that in that case two purposes are admitted for the one act of rinsing the mouth, viz. the purpose of purification and the purpose of providing the pra«a with clothing. For we have actually to do not with one action, but with two separate actions. For one action is the rinsing of the mouth which serves the purpose of purifying man, and another action is the mental resolve that that water should serve the purpose of clothing the pra;/a. Similarly the preceding passage, ' Whatever there is, even unto dogs, &c., that is thy food,' does not enjoin the promiscuous use of food of all kinds — for that would be contrary to scripture and impossible in itself — but merely enjoins the meditation on all food as food of the prawa. We therefore conclude that also the passage, ' Water is thy dress,' which forms the immediate continuation of the passage last quoted does not enjoin the act of rinsing the mouth but merely the act of meditating on the rinsing-water as constituting the dress of the prawa.
3Moreover the mere present-form, ' they rinse the mouth with water,' has no enjoining force. — But also in the passage, 'They think that thereby they make the breath dressed,' we have a mere present-form without injunctive power (and yet you maintain that that passage conveys an injunction}! — True ; but as necessarily one of the two must be enjoined^, we assume, on the ground of what the text says about the making of a dress, that what is enjoined is the meditation on water being the dress of prawa ; for this is something 'new,' i.e. not established by other means of knowledge^. The rinsing of the mouth with water, on the other hand, is already established by other means (i.e. Smrz'ti), and therefore need not be enjoined again. — The argument founded ■^ Because otherwise we should have only arlhavadas. But arthavadas have a meaning only in so far as connected with an injunction. ^ The above argumentation avails itself of the Sutra, putting a new construction on it. — Tarhi dvayor avidheyatvam ity a^ahkyanuvadamatrasya^ki?7/Jitkaratvad anyataravidher avajyakatve samkalpanam eva vidheyam iti vidhantarewa sutrafji yo^ayati. An. Gi. 2 I 4 VEDANTA-StjTRAS. by the purvapakshin on the circumstance that, in the Bri. Up., the verb 'to rinse' is found in the injunctive form (' therefore a man, &c., is to rinse '), is already refuted by our showing that the act of rinsing the mouth is not a new one (and therefore requires no Vedic injunction).
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.
1To this we make the following reply. — The rinsing of the mouth cannot possibly be enjoined by the quoted passages ' since they merely contain references to an act,' i.e. since they merely contain remarks concerning the purificatory act of rinsing the mouth which is known from and settled by Smr/ti. — But are not the very 6"ruti-passages under discussion to be looked upon as the fundamental texts on which the Smrzti-injunctions regarding the rinsing of the mouth are based ? — This is not possible, we reply, since the ^'ruti and Smrz'ti-passages refer to different matters. All the Smr/ti-passages enjoin the act of rinsing the mouth only in so far as it purifies man ; while the quoted Sruti texts which occur in pra;/a-vidy^s, if enjoining the rinsing of the mouth at all, enjoin it with reference to the knowledge of pra;/a. And a 6"ruti-passage cannot constitute the basis of a Smr/ti-passage referring to an altogether different matter. Nor can it be maintained that the ^ruti-passage enjoins some altogether new rinsing of the mouth connected with the prawa-vidya, as we recognise the rinsing mentioned in 6"ruti as the ordinary rinsing performed by men for the sake of purification. — The preceding argumentation already precludes the alternative of two matters being enjoined, which would moreover lead to a so-called split of the sentence.— We therefore conclude that the text — with reference to the rinsing of the mouth before and after eating which is enjoined by Smritl — enjoins (by means of the passage, 'thinking that thereby they make the breath dressed') a new mental resolve with regard to the water used for rinsing purposes, viz. that that water should act as a means for clothing the pra/za. The statement about the clothing of the pra;/a cannot (as suggested by the purvapakshin) be taken as a glorification of the act of rinsing the mouth ; for in the first place the act of rinsing is not enjoined in the Vedic passage ', and in the second place we apprehend that the passage itself conveys an injunction, viz. of the mental
2' A glorifying arthavada-passage would be in its place only if it were preceded by some injunction; for the glorification of certain acts is meant to induce men to comply with the injunctions concernino: those acts. Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 1 8. 213 resolve to provide clothing for the pra«a. Nor must the objection be raised that in that case two purposes are admitted for the one act of rinsing the mouth, viz. the purpose of purification and the purpose of providing the pra«a with clothing. For we have actually to do not with one action, but with two separate actions. For one action is the rinsing of the mouth which serves the purpose of purifying man, and another action is the mental resolve that that water should serve the purpose of clothing the pra;/a. Similarly the preceding passage, ' Whatever there is, even unto dogs, &c., that is thy food,' does not enjoin the promiscuous use of food of all kinds — for that would be contrary to scripture and impossible in itself — but merely enjoins the meditation on all food as food of the prawa. We therefore conclude that also the passage, ' Water is thy dress,' which forms the immediate continuation of the passage last quoted does not enjoin the act of rinsing the mouth but merely the act of meditating on the rinsing-water as constituting the dress of the prawa.
3Moreover the mere present-form, ' they rinse the mouth with water,' has no enjoining force. — But also in the passage, 'They think that thereby they make the breath dressed,' we have a mere present-form without injunctive power (and yet you maintain that that passage conveys an injunction}! — True ; but as necessarily one of the two must be enjoined^, we assume, on the ground of what the text says about the making of a dress, that what is enjoined is the meditation on water being the dress of prawa ; for this is something 'new,' i.e. not established by other means of knowledge^. The rinsing of the mouth with water, on the other hand, is already established by other means (i.e. Smrz'ti), and therefore need not be enjoined again. — The argument founded ■^ Because otherwise we should have only arlhavadas. But arthavadas have a meaning only in so far as connected with an injunction. ^ The above argumentation avails itself of the Sutra, putting a new construction on it. — Tarhi dvayor avidheyatvam ity a^ahkyanuvadamatrasya^ki?7/Jitkaratvad anyataravidher avajyakatve samkalpanam eva vidheyam iti vidhantarewa sutrafji yo^ayati. An. Gi. 2 I 4 VEDANTA-StjTRAS. by the purvapakshin on the circumstance that, in the Bri. Up., the verb 'to rinse' is found in the injunctive form (' therefore a man, &c., is to rinse '), is already refuted by our showing that the act of rinsing the mouth is not a new one (and therefore requires no Vedic injunction).
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.