Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1For all these reasons we maintain that those who possess true knowledge reach in all cases final release. 33. But the (denials of) conceptions concerning the ^ Api X'a nadhikaravata/« sarvesham n'shma.m aimatatLva^«ana?« tenavyapako^py ayam purvapaksha ity aha^;7anantareshu /{'eti. Bha. Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, ^2- ^39 akshara are to be comprehended (In all meditations on the akshara), on account of the equality and of the object being the same, as in the case of the upasad; this has been explained (in the Purva Mima#2sa). We read in the Va^asaneyaka, 'O Girgi, the Brahma/?as call this the Akshara. It is neither coarse, nor fine, nor short, nor long,' &c. (Br/. Up. Ill, 8, 8). Similarly the Atharvawa says, ' The higher knowledge is that by which the Indestructible is apprehended. That which cannot be seen nor seized, which has no family and no caste,' &c. (Mu. Up. I, I, 5 ; 6). In other places also the highest Brahman, under the name of Akshara, is described as that of which all quaHties are to be denied. Now in some places qualities are denied of Brahman which are not denied in other places, and hence a doubt arises whether the mental conception of these particular denials is to form part of all those passages or not.
2To the assertion of the purvapakshin that each denial is valid only for that passage in which the text actually exhibits it, we make the following reply. — The conceptions of the akshara, i.e. the conceptions of the particular denials concerning the akshara, are to be included in all those passages, ' on account of the equality and on account of the same object being referred to.' The equality consists therein that all the texts alluded to convey an idea of Brahman in the same way, viz. by denying of it all attributes ; and we recognise in all of them the same object of instruction, viz. the one undivided Brahman. Why then should the conceptions stated in one passage not be valid for all others also ? To the present case the same argumentation applies which had been made use of under III, 3, II. There positive attributes were discussed ; here we are concerned with negative ones. The division of the discussion into two (instead of disposing of positive and negative attributes in one adhikara;^a) is due to the wish of explaining the differences in detail — The clause, ' as in the case of the upasads/ introduces a parallel case. For 240 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
3the Camadagnya-ahina-sacrifice -^ the text enjoins that the upasad offerings are to consist of puro^a^as. Now although the mantras accompanying the offering of the puro^aj-as are originally enjoined in the Veda of the Udgatr/s [Ta^idys. Bra. XXI, 10. u, ' Agni, promote the hotra,' &c.), yet they are to be enounced by the adhvaryu ; for the offering of the puro^aj-as is the work of the adhvaryu, and subordinate matters (i.e. here, the mantras) are governed by the principal matter (i.e. the offering of the purodisa). Similarly, in the case under discussion, the attributes of the akshara have, because they are subordinate to the akshara itself, to be connected with the latter everywhere, in whatever places the text may originally state them. — The principle of decision employed is explained in the Purva Mimawsasutras III, 3, 9. 34. On account of (the same) number being recorded.
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 all these reasons we maintain that those who possess true knowledge reach in all cases final release. 33. But the (denials of) conceptions concerning the ^ Api X'a nadhikaravata/« sarvesham n'shma.m aimatatLva^«ana?« tenavyapako^py ayam purvapaksha ity aha^;7anantareshu /{'eti. Bha. Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, ^2- ^39 akshara are to be comprehended (In all meditations on the akshara), on account of the equality and of the object being the same, as in the case of the upasad; this has been explained (in the Purva Mima#2sa). We read in the Va^asaneyaka, 'O Girgi, the Brahma/?as call this the Akshara. It is neither coarse, nor fine, nor short, nor long,' &c. (Br/. Up. Ill, 8, 8). Similarly the Atharvawa says, ' The higher knowledge is that by which the Indestructible is apprehended. That which cannot be seen nor seized, which has no family and no caste,' &c. (Mu. Up. I, I, 5 ; 6). In other places also the highest Brahman, under the name of Akshara, is described as that of which all quaHties are to be denied. Now in some places qualities are denied of Brahman which are not denied in other places, and hence a doubt arises whether the mental conception of these particular denials is to form part of all those passages or not.
2To the assertion of the purvapakshin that each denial is valid only for that passage in which the text actually exhibits it, we make the following reply. — The conceptions of the akshara, i.e. the conceptions of the particular denials concerning the akshara, are to be included in all those passages, ' on account of the equality and on account of the same object being referred to.' The equality consists therein that all the texts alluded to convey an idea of Brahman in the same way, viz. by denying of it all attributes ; and we recognise in all of them the same object of instruction, viz. the one undivided Brahman. Why then should the conceptions stated in one passage not be valid for all others also ? To the present case the same argumentation applies which had been made use of under III, 3, II. There positive attributes were discussed ; here we are concerned with negative ones. The division of the discussion into two (instead of disposing of positive and negative attributes in one adhikara;^a) is due to the wish of explaining the differences in detail — The clause, ' as in the case of the upasads/ introduces a parallel case. For 240 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
3the Camadagnya-ahina-sacrifice -^ the text enjoins that the upasad offerings are to consist of puro^a^as. Now although the mantras accompanying the offering of the puro^aj-as are originally enjoined in the Veda of the Udgatr/s [Ta^idys. Bra. XXI, 10. u, ' Agni, promote the hotra,' &c.), yet they are to be enounced by the adhvaryu ; for the offering of the puro^aj-as is the work of the adhvaryu, and subordinate matters (i.e. here, the mantras) are governed by the principal matter (i.e. the offering of the purodisa). Similarly, in the case under discussion, the attributes of the akshara have, because they are subordinate to the akshara itself, to be connected with the latter everywhere, in whatever places the text may originally state them. — The principle of decision employed is explained in the Purva Mimawsasutras III, 3, 9. 34. On account of (the same) number being recorded.
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.