Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
12 1 6 vedanta-sOtr AS. mention only those points which are not mentioned in the Agnirahasya, as e.g. ' he is the Lord of all ; ' while it ought not to mention what is already mentioned in the Agnirahasya, as e. g. the Self's consisting of mind ! — Not so, we reply. Only the repetition, in one passage, of what is already mentioned in the other passage enables us to recognise the vidya. The Brzliad-araz/yaka-passage, by mentioning some common qualities, first enables us to recognise the 5a;z^ilya-vidya, and then teaches certain particulars with reference to the latter ; how otherwise should we know that the Brz.-passage is meant to enjoin particulars for the vSa;/('/ilya-vidya ? Moreover, as in a passage which has a purpose of its own in so far as it teaches something not yet established, a reference to something already established is justified on the ground of its being a (so-called) nityanuvada, we cannot overlook the recognition (of the identity of the passage with another one) which is rendered possible through that anuvada. Hence, although the two passages belong to one and the same 5akha, they yet constitute one vidya only, and their particulars have to be combined into one whole. 20. Thus in other cases also, on account of the connexion (of particulars with one and the same vid} a).
2We read in the Brzliad-ara/^yaka (V, 5), 'The true is Brahman,' and, further on, 'Now what is the true, that is the Aditya, the person that dwells in yonder orb, and the person in the right eye.' Having thus declared the different abodes of that true Brahman with reference to the gods and with reference to the body, and having, in what follows, identified its body with the sacred syllables {hhCi/i, &c.), the text teaches its two secret names (upanishad), ' Its secret name is ahar ' with reference to the gods ; and ' its secret name is aham ' with reference to the body. — A doubt here arises whether these two secret names are both to be applied to the deva-abode of Brahman as well as to its bodily abode, or only one name to each. The above Sutra maintains the purvapaksha view. Just as certain particulars though recorded elsewhere are yet Ill ADHYAVA, 3 PADA, 2 1. 217
3to be combined with the vSaw^ilya-vidya, so we have to proceed in other cases also, as e. g. the one under discussion, because the particulars mentioned are all connected with one vidya. The vidya of the True with its double reference to the Devas and to the body is one only, as we infer from the fact of its having one exordium only (' The true is Brahm.an'), and from the way in which the text interconnects Aditya and the person in the eye. Why then should an attribute belonging to one of the latter not belong to the other also ? For, to quote an analogous case, certain rules of life which are prescribed for a teacher — as e. g. having a following of pupils — remain equally valid whether the teacher be in a village or in a wood. For these reasons both secret names equally belong to the Aditya as well as to the person within the eye. This view the next Sutra refutes. 21. Or this is not so, on account of the difference (of place).
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.
12 1 6 vedanta-sOtr AS. mention only those points which are not mentioned in the Agnirahasya, as e.g. ' he is the Lord of all ; ' while it ought not to mention what is already mentioned in the Agnirahasya, as e. g. the Self's consisting of mind ! — Not so, we reply. Only the repetition, in one passage, of what is already mentioned in the other passage enables us to recognise the vidya. The Brzliad-araz/yaka-passage, by mentioning some common qualities, first enables us to recognise the 5a;z^ilya-vidya, and then teaches certain particulars with reference to the latter ; how otherwise should we know that the Brz.-passage is meant to enjoin particulars for the vSa;/('/ilya-vidya ? Moreover, as in a passage which has a purpose of its own in so far as it teaches something not yet established, a reference to something already established is justified on the ground of its being a (so-called) nityanuvada, we cannot overlook the recognition (of the identity of the passage with another one) which is rendered possible through that anuvada. Hence, although the two passages belong to one and the same 5akha, they yet constitute one vidya only, and their particulars have to be combined into one whole. 20. Thus in other cases also, on account of the connexion (of particulars with one and the same vid} a).
2We read in the Brzliad-ara/^yaka (V, 5), 'The true is Brahman,' and, further on, 'Now what is the true, that is the Aditya, the person that dwells in yonder orb, and the person in the right eye.' Having thus declared the different abodes of that true Brahman with reference to the gods and with reference to the body, and having, in what follows, identified its body with the sacred syllables {hhCi/i, &c.), the text teaches its two secret names (upanishad), ' Its secret name is ahar ' with reference to the gods ; and ' its secret name is aham ' with reference to the body. — A doubt here arises whether these two secret names are both to be applied to the deva-abode of Brahman as well as to its bodily abode, or only one name to each. The above Sutra maintains the purvapaksha view. Just as certain particulars though recorded elsewhere are yet Ill ADHYAVA, 3 PADA, 2 1. 217
3to be combined with the vSaw^ilya-vidya, so we have to proceed in other cases also, as e. g. the one under discussion, because the particulars mentioned are all connected with one vidya. The vidya of the True with its double reference to the Devas and to the body is one only, as we infer from the fact of its having one exordium only (' The true is Brahm.an'), and from the way in which the text interconnects Aditya and the person in the eye. Why then should an attribute belonging to one of the latter not belong to the other also ? For, to quote an analogous case, certain rules of life which are prescribed for a teacher — as e. g. having a following of pupils — remain equally valid whether the teacher be in a village or in a wood. For these reasons both secret names equally belong to the Aditya as well as to the person within the eye. This view the next Sutra refutes. 21. Or this is not so, on account of the difference (of place).
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.