Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1This latter text calls for no remark ; nor again that one which refers only to his friends and enemies obtaining his good and evil deeds ; for in order that they may obtain those he must necessarily first have got rid of them, and the act of getting rid of them has therefore to be supplied in the text. Those passages, however, which merely mention a man's shaking off his deeds, give rise to a discussion whether those deeds, when shaken off, are obtained by his friends and enemies, or not. Here the purvapakshin maintains that the latter circumstance is not to be supplied in the two passages mentioned — firstly because the text does not state it ; secondly because what other 5akhas say about it falls within the sphere of a different vidya ; and thirdly because the getting rid of the evil and good deeds is something done by the man himself, while the obtaining of them is the work of others. As thus there is no necessary connexion between the two, we have no right to supply the latter on the basis of the former. To this we make the following reply. Although the text mentions only the getting rid of the deeds, yet the obtaining of them by others must necessarily be added, because the staternent concerning the latter is merely supplementary to the statement about the former, as appears from the text of the Kaushitakins. — In reply to the arguments brought forward by the purvapakshin we offer the following remarks.
2The separation of the different passages would indeed have to be insisted upon, if anybody intended to introduce an injunction about something to be done, which is contained in one text only, into some other text also. But in the passages under discussion the act of getting rid of — and the act of obtaining — the good and evil deeds are not mentioned as something to be performed, but merely as implying a glorification of knowledge ; the intended sense being, ' Glorious indeed is that knowledge through whose power the good and evil deeds, the causes of the sawsara, are shaken off by him who knows, and are transferred to his friends and enemies.' The passage thus being glorificatory onh', the teacher is of opinion that, Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 26. 22/
3to the end of strengthening the glorification, the obtaining of the good and evil deeds by the friends and enemies — which in some passages is represented as the consequence of their being shaken off by the man who knows — must be suppHed in those passages also which mention only the shaking off. That one arthavada-passage often depends on another arthavada-passage is a well-known fact ; the following passage, e.g. 'The twenty-first indeed from this world is that sun,' would be unintelligible if no regard were paid to the other passage, ' Twelve are the months, five the seasons, three these worlds ; that sun is the twentyfirst.' Similarly the passage, ' The two Trish/ubh verses are for strengthening,' necessarily requires to be taken in connexion with the other passage, ' Strength of the senses indeed is Trish/ubh.' And as the statement about the obtaining of the good and evil deeds has only the purpose of glorifying knovv'ledge (and is not made on its own account), we need not insist too much on the question how the results of actions done by one man can be obtained by others. That the obtaining of the deeds by others is connected wath their being got rid of by the man who knows, merely for the purpose of glorifying knowledge, the Sutrakara moreover indicates by making use of the expression, 'because the statement about obtaining is supplementary to,' &c. ; for if he wished to intimate that the actual circumstance of other persons obtaining a man's good and evil deeds is to be inserted in those vidyas where it is not mentioned he would say, 'because the fact of obtaining.' &c. The Sutra therefore, availing itself of the opportunity offered by the discussion of the combination of particular qualities, shows how mere glorificatory passages have to be inserted in texts where they are wanting.
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.
1This latter text calls for no remark ; nor again that one which refers only to his friends and enemies obtaining his good and evil deeds ; for in order that they may obtain those he must necessarily first have got rid of them, and the act of getting rid of them has therefore to be supplied in the text. Those passages, however, which merely mention a man's shaking off his deeds, give rise to a discussion whether those deeds, when shaken off, are obtained by his friends and enemies, or not. Here the purvapakshin maintains that the latter circumstance is not to be supplied in the two passages mentioned — firstly because the text does not state it ; secondly because what other 5akhas say about it falls within the sphere of a different vidya ; and thirdly because the getting rid of the evil and good deeds is something done by the man himself, while the obtaining of them is the work of others. As thus there is no necessary connexion between the two, we have no right to supply the latter on the basis of the former. To this we make the following reply. Although the text mentions only the getting rid of the deeds, yet the obtaining of them by others must necessarily be added, because the staternent concerning the latter is merely supplementary to the statement about the former, as appears from the text of the Kaushitakins. — In reply to the arguments brought forward by the purvapakshin we offer the following remarks.
2The separation of the different passages would indeed have to be insisted upon, if anybody intended to introduce an injunction about something to be done, which is contained in one text only, into some other text also. But in the passages under discussion the act of getting rid of — and the act of obtaining — the good and evil deeds are not mentioned as something to be performed, but merely as implying a glorification of knowledge ; the intended sense being, ' Glorious indeed is that knowledge through whose power the good and evil deeds, the causes of the sawsara, are shaken off by him who knows, and are transferred to his friends and enemies.' The passage thus being glorificatory onh', the teacher is of opinion that, Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 26. 22/
3to the end of strengthening the glorification, the obtaining of the good and evil deeds by the friends and enemies — which in some passages is represented as the consequence of their being shaken off by the man who knows — must be suppHed in those passages also which mention only the shaking off. That one arthavada-passage often depends on another arthavada-passage is a well-known fact ; the following passage, e.g. 'The twenty-first indeed from this world is that sun,' would be unintelligible if no regard were paid to the other passage, ' Twelve are the months, five the seasons, three these worlds ; that sun is the twentyfirst.' Similarly the passage, ' The two Trish/ubh verses are for strengthening,' necessarily requires to be taken in connexion with the other passage, ' Strength of the senses indeed is Trish/ubh.' And as the statement about the obtaining of the good and evil deeds has only the purpose of glorifying knovv'ledge (and is not made on its own account), we need not insist too much on the question how the results of actions done by one man can be obtained by others. That the obtaining of the deeds by others is connected wath their being got rid of by the man who knows, merely for the purpose of glorifying knowledge, the Sutrakara moreover indicates by making use of the expression, 'because the statement about obtaining is supplementary to,' &c. ; for if he wished to intimate that the actual circumstance of other persons obtaining a man's good and evil deeds is to be inserted in those vidyas where it is not mentioned he would say, 'because the fact of obtaining.' &c. The Sutra therefore, availing itself of the opportunity offered by the discussion of the combination of particular qualities, shows how mere glorificatory passages have to be inserted in texts where they are wanting.
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.