Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The Atharva;nkas exhibit, with reference to the Self, the following mantra, ' Two birds, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit, the other looks on without eating' (Mu. Up. Ill, i, i). The same mantra is found in the text of the ^vetajvataras (IV, 6). The Ka/Z/as again read, ' There are the two drinking their reward in the world of their own works, entered into the cave, dwelling on the highest summit. Those who know Brahman call them shade and light, likewise those householders who perform the Tri;/a/^iketa-sacrifice.' — The doubt here arises whether the two sections introduced by these mantras constitute one vidya or two vidyas. Here the purvapakshin maintains that we have to do with two separate vidyas, because the texts exhibit certain differences. For the mantra of the Mwidaka. and vSVeta- .yvatara Upanishads represents one bird as enjoying and the other as not enjoying ; while in the mantra of the Ka///as ^ I.e. a sacrifice lasting four days, called Gamadagnya, because first off"ered by Camadagni. Cp. Taitt. Sawh. VII, i, 9. Ill ADHVAYA, 3 PADA, 34. 24I both are said to enjoy. — As thus the objects of knowledge differ in character, the vidyas themselves must be looked upon as separate.
2To this we make the following reply. The vidyi is one only because both mantras exhibit the character of the objects of knowledge as one and the same, viz. as defined by the number two. — But has not the purvapakshin shown that there exists a certain difference of character ? — By no means, we reply. Both texts intimate one and the same matter, viz. the Lord together with the individual soul. In the Mu;z^aka-text the clause, ' The other looks on without eating,' intimates the highest Self which is raised above all desire ; the same highest Self forms also the subject of the complementary passage, ' But when he sees the other Lord contented.' And the Ka//^a-text intimates the same highest Self which is raised above all desire ; only, as it is mentioned together with the enjoying individual soul, it is itself metaphorically spoken of as enjoying ; just as we speak of the ' men with the umbrella,' although only one out of several carries an umbrella. For that in the Ka//^a-text also the highest Self forms the general subject-matter we have to conclude from the preceding passage, ' That which thou seest as neither this nor that ' (I, 2, 14), and from the complementary passage referring to the same Self, 'Which is a bridge for sacrificers, which is the highest imperishable Brahman' (I, 3, 2). All this has been explained at length under I, 2, 11. As therefore there is one object of knowledge only, the vidya also is one. — Moreover, if we carefully examine the context of the three mantras quoted, we observe that they are concerned merely with the knowledge of the highest Self, and that they mention the individual soul not as a new object of instruction but merely to show its identity with the highest Self. And that, as far as the knowledge of the highest Self is concerned, the question as to the oneness or separateness of vidyas cannot be even raised, we have already shown above. The present Sutra therefore merely aims at a fuller discussion of the matter, the practical outcome of which is that any particulars stated in one of the texts only have to be supplied in the others also.
3[38] R VEDANTA-StjTRAS. 35. As the Self is within all, as in the case of the aggregate of the elements, (there is oneness of vicl}a). The Va^asaneyins record, in the questions asked by UshastaandbyKahola, the same passage twice in succession, ' Tell me the Brahman which is present to intuition, not hidden j the Self who is within all ' (Bri. Up. Ill, 4, i ; 5, i). — The question here presents itself whether the two sections introduced by the questions constitute one vidya only or two separate vidyas. Two separate vidyas, the purvapakshin maintains ; owing to the force of repetition. For if the second passage added nothing to — or took nothing away from — the contents of the first, the repetition would be altogether meaningless. We therefore conclude that the repetition intimates the separateness of the two vidyas, just as in the Purva Mimawsa repetition shows two sacrificial actions to be separate.
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.
1The Atharva;nkas exhibit, with reference to the Self, the following mantra, ' Two birds, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit, the other looks on without eating' (Mu. Up. Ill, i, i). The same mantra is found in the text of the ^vetajvataras (IV, 6). The Ka/Z/as again read, ' There are the two drinking their reward in the world of their own works, entered into the cave, dwelling on the highest summit. Those who know Brahman call them shade and light, likewise those householders who perform the Tri;/a/^iketa-sacrifice.' — The doubt here arises whether the two sections introduced by these mantras constitute one vidya or two vidyas. Here the purvapakshin maintains that we have to do with two separate vidyas, because the texts exhibit certain differences. For the mantra of the Mwidaka. and vSVeta- .yvatara Upanishads represents one bird as enjoying and the other as not enjoying ; while in the mantra of the Ka///as ^ I.e. a sacrifice lasting four days, called Gamadagnya, because first off"ered by Camadagni. Cp. Taitt. Sawh. VII, i, 9. Ill ADHVAYA, 3 PADA, 34. 24I both are said to enjoy. — As thus the objects of knowledge differ in character, the vidyas themselves must be looked upon as separate.
2To this we make the following reply. The vidyi is one only because both mantras exhibit the character of the objects of knowledge as one and the same, viz. as defined by the number two. — But has not the purvapakshin shown that there exists a certain difference of character ? — By no means, we reply. Both texts intimate one and the same matter, viz. the Lord together with the individual soul. In the Mu;z^aka-text the clause, ' The other looks on without eating,' intimates the highest Self which is raised above all desire ; the same highest Self forms also the subject of the complementary passage, ' But when he sees the other Lord contented.' And the Ka//^a-text intimates the same highest Self which is raised above all desire ; only, as it is mentioned together with the enjoying individual soul, it is itself metaphorically spoken of as enjoying ; just as we speak of the ' men with the umbrella,' although only one out of several carries an umbrella. For that in the Ka//^a-text also the highest Self forms the general subject-matter we have to conclude from the preceding passage, ' That which thou seest as neither this nor that ' (I, 2, 14), and from the complementary passage referring to the same Self, 'Which is a bridge for sacrificers, which is the highest imperishable Brahman' (I, 3, 2). All this has been explained at length under I, 2, 11. As therefore there is one object of knowledge only, the vidya also is one. — Moreover, if we carefully examine the context of the three mantras quoted, we observe that they are concerned merely with the knowledge of the highest Self, and that they mention the individual soul not as a new object of instruction but merely to show its identity with the highest Self. And that, as far as the knowledge of the highest Self is concerned, the question as to the oneness or separateness of vidyas cannot be even raised, we have already shown above. The present Sutra therefore merely aims at a fuller discussion of the matter, the practical outcome of which is that any particulars stated in one of the texts only have to be supplied in the others also.
3[38] R VEDANTA-StjTRAS. 35. As the Self is within all, as in the case of the aggregate of the elements, (there is oneness of vicl}a). The Va^asaneyins record, in the questions asked by UshastaandbyKahola, the same passage twice in succession, ' Tell me the Brahman which is present to intuition, not hidden j the Self who is within all ' (Bri. Up. Ill, 4, i ; 5, i). — The question here presents itself whether the two sections introduced by the questions constitute one vidya only or two separate vidyas. Two separate vidyas, the purvapakshin maintains ; owing to the force of repetition. For if the second passage added nothing to — or took nothing away from — the contents of the first, the repetition would be altogether meaningless. We therefore conclude that the repetition intimates the separateness of the two vidyas, just as in the Purva Mimawsa repetition shows two sacrificial actions to be separate.
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.