Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Veda, the vedi, the sacrificial grass, the post, the butter, the sacrificial animal, the priest, &c., are mentioned in succession ; none of which particulars are mentioned in the K/iandogya.. The use also to which the Taittiriyaka turns the three libations is different from the ^Mndogya. And the few points in which the two texts agree, such as the identification of the Avabrztha-ceremony with death, lose their significance side by side with the greater number of dissimilarities, and are therefore not able to effect the recognition of the vidya. — Moreover the Taittiriyaka does not represent man as the sacrifice (as the K/isLndogya. does) ; for the two genitives (' of him who thus knows ' and ' of the sacrifice ') are not co-ordinate, and the passage therefore cannot be construed to mean, ' The knowing one who is the sacrifice, of him the Self is,' &c. For it cannot be said that man is the sacrifice, in the literal sense of the word ^ The two genitives are rather to be taken in that way, that one qualifi.es the other, ' The sacrifice of him who thus knows, of that sacrifice,' &c. For the connexion of the sacrifice with man (which is expressed by the genitive, ' the sacrifice of him ') is really and literally true ; and to take a passage in its literal meaning, if possible at all, is always preferable to having recourse to a secondary metaphorical meaning ^ Moreover the words next following in the Taittiriyaka-passage, 'the Self is the sacrificer,' declare that man (man's Self) is the sacrificer, and this again shows that man's relation to the sacrifice is not that of co-ordination ^. Moreover as the section beginning with ' Of him who thus knows ' forms an anuvada of something previously established (and as such forms one vakya to which one sense only must be ascribed), we must not bring about ' a split of the sentence ' by interpreting it as
2^ And therefore we are not warranted in taking the two genitives as co-ordinate, as otherwise they might be taken. ^ Which latter would be the _ case if we should take the two genitives as co-ordinate and therefore expressing an imaginative identification of the man and the sacrifice. ^ If man is the sacrificer he cannot be identified with the sacrifice ; he is rather the Lord of the sacrifice. 2 22 VEDANTA-stjTRAS.
3teaching in the first place that man is the sacrifice, and in the second place that the Self and the other beings enumerated are the sacrificer and so on. And as we see that the passage, ' Of him who thus knows,' &c., follows upon some instruction about the knowledge of the Self coupled with sawnyasa, we apprehend that the Taittiriyaka-chapter is not an independent vidya but merely supplementary to the instruction previously given. In agreement with this conclusion we observe that the Taittiriyaka promises only one result for both chapters, viz. the one stated in the passage, ' He obtains the greatness of Brahman.' — On the other hand the text embodying the purusha-vidya in the K/ia.ndogya. is an independent text ; for we see that an independent result is attached to it, viz. an increase of length of life, ' He who knows this lives on to a hundred and sixteen years.' — Hence the particulars mentioned in the purusha-vidya of another 6"akha, such as formulas of prayer, mantras and so on, are not to be combined with the Taittiriya-text of the vidya. 25. Because the matter (of certain mantras) such as piercing and so on is different (from the matter of the approximate vidyas) (the former have not to be combined with the latter).
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.
1Veda, the vedi, the sacrificial grass, the post, the butter, the sacrificial animal, the priest, &c., are mentioned in succession ; none of which particulars are mentioned in the K/iandogya.. The use also to which the Taittiriyaka turns the three libations is different from the ^Mndogya. And the few points in which the two texts agree, such as the identification of the Avabrztha-ceremony with death, lose their significance side by side with the greater number of dissimilarities, and are therefore not able to effect the recognition of the vidya. — Moreover the Taittiriyaka does not represent man as the sacrifice (as the K/isLndogya. does) ; for the two genitives (' of him who thus knows ' and ' of the sacrifice ') are not co-ordinate, and the passage therefore cannot be construed to mean, ' The knowing one who is the sacrifice, of him the Self is,' &c. For it cannot be said that man is the sacrifice, in the literal sense of the word ^ The two genitives are rather to be taken in that way, that one qualifi.es the other, ' The sacrifice of him who thus knows, of that sacrifice,' &c. For the connexion of the sacrifice with man (which is expressed by the genitive, ' the sacrifice of him ') is really and literally true ; and to take a passage in its literal meaning, if possible at all, is always preferable to having recourse to a secondary metaphorical meaning ^ Moreover the words next following in the Taittiriyaka-passage, 'the Self is the sacrificer,' declare that man (man's Self) is the sacrificer, and this again shows that man's relation to the sacrifice is not that of co-ordination ^. Moreover as the section beginning with ' Of him who thus knows ' forms an anuvada of something previously established (and as such forms one vakya to which one sense only must be ascribed), we must not bring about ' a split of the sentence ' by interpreting it as
2^ And therefore we are not warranted in taking the two genitives as co-ordinate, as otherwise they might be taken. ^ Which latter would be the _ case if we should take the two genitives as co-ordinate and therefore expressing an imaginative identification of the man and the sacrifice. ^ If man is the sacrificer he cannot be identified with the sacrifice ; he is rather the Lord of the sacrifice. 2 22 VEDANTA-stjTRAS.
3teaching in the first place that man is the sacrifice, and in the second place that the Self and the other beings enumerated are the sacrificer and so on. And as we see that the passage, ' Of him who thus knows,' &c., follows upon some instruction about the knowledge of the Self coupled with sawnyasa, we apprehend that the Taittiriyaka-chapter is not an independent vidya but merely supplementary to the instruction previously given. In agreement with this conclusion we observe that the Taittiriyaka promises only one result for both chapters, viz. the one stated in the passage, ' He obtains the greatness of Brahman.' — On the other hand the text embodying the purusha-vidya in the K/ia.ndogya. is an independent text ; for we see that an independent result is attached to it, viz. an increase of length of life, ' He who knows this lives on to a hundred and sixteen years.' — Hence the particulars mentioned in the purusha-vidya of another 6"akha, such as formulas of prayer, mantras and so on, are not to be combined with the Taittiriya-text of the vidya. 25. Because the matter (of certain mantras) such as piercing and so on is different (from the matter of the approximate vidyas) (the former have not to be combined with the latter).
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.