Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1To this we make the following reply. ' Exchange ' is expressly recorded in the text for the purposes of meditation, just as other qualities (of the Self), such as its being the Self of all, &c., are recorded for the same purpose. For both texts make the distinctive double enunciation, ' I am thou,' and 'Thou art I.' Now this double enunciation has a sense only if a twofold meditation is to be based upon it ; otherwise it would be devoid of meaning, since one statement would be all that is required. — But has not the purvapakshin urged above that this your explanation involves a lowering of the Lord, who is thereby represented as having the transmigrating soul for his Self? — Never mind, we reply ; even in that way only the unity of the Self is meditated upon. — But does your explanation Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, T^S. 245
2then not come to that of the purvapakshin, viz. that the double statement is merely meant to confirm the oneness of the Self? — We do not, our reply is, deny that the text confirms the oneness of the Self; we only want to prove that, on the ground of the text as it stands, a twofold meditation has to be admitted, not a simple one. That this virtually confirms the unity of the Self we admit ; just as the instruction about (the Lord's) possessing such qualities as having only true wishes, and so on — which instruction is given for the purpose of meditation — at the same time proves the existence of a Lord endowed with such qualities. — Hence the double relation enounced in the text has to be meditated upon, and is to be transferred to other vidyas also which treat of the same subject. 38. For the True and so on are one and the same (vidya). The text of the Va^asaneyaka, after having enjoined the knowledge of the True, together with a meditation on the syllables of its name (' Whosoever knows this great glorious first-born as the true Brahman,^ &c., Bri. Up. V, 4, i), continues, ' Now what is the True, that is the Aditya, the person that dwells in yonder orb, and the person in the right eye ' (V, 5, 2). — The doubt here arises whether the text enjoins two vidyas of the True or one only.
3Two, the purvapakshin maintains. For the text declares two different results, one in the earlier passage, ' He conquers these worlds' (V, 4, i) ; the other one later on, 'He destroys evil and leaves it ' (V, 5, 3). And what our opponent may call a reference to the subject-matter under discussion^, is merely due to the circumstance of the object of meditation being the same (in the two vidyas). To this we make the following reply. — There is only one vidya of the True, because the clause, ' That which is the True,' &c., refers back to that True which is treated ^ Viz. the clause in V, 5, 2, 'That which is the true,' which apparently — or really — connects the vidya of V, 5 with that of V, 4. 246 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
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.
1To this we make the following reply. ' Exchange ' is expressly recorded in the text for the purposes of meditation, just as other qualities (of the Self), such as its being the Self of all, &c., are recorded for the same purpose. For both texts make the distinctive double enunciation, ' I am thou,' and 'Thou art I.' Now this double enunciation has a sense only if a twofold meditation is to be based upon it ; otherwise it would be devoid of meaning, since one statement would be all that is required. — But has not the purvapakshin urged above that this your explanation involves a lowering of the Lord, who is thereby represented as having the transmigrating soul for his Self? — Never mind, we reply ; even in that way only the unity of the Self is meditated upon. — But does your explanation Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, T^S. 245
2then not come to that of the purvapakshin, viz. that the double statement is merely meant to confirm the oneness of the Self? — We do not, our reply is, deny that the text confirms the oneness of the Self; we only want to prove that, on the ground of the text as it stands, a twofold meditation has to be admitted, not a simple one. That this virtually confirms the unity of the Self we admit ; just as the instruction about (the Lord's) possessing such qualities as having only true wishes, and so on — which instruction is given for the purpose of meditation — at the same time proves the existence of a Lord endowed with such qualities. — Hence the double relation enounced in the text has to be meditated upon, and is to be transferred to other vidyas also which treat of the same subject. 38. For the True and so on are one and the same (vidya). The text of the Va^asaneyaka, after having enjoined the knowledge of the True, together with a meditation on the syllables of its name (' Whosoever knows this great glorious first-born as the true Brahman,^ &c., Bri. Up. V, 4, i), continues, ' Now what is the True, that is the Aditya, the person that dwells in yonder orb, and the person in the right eye ' (V, 5, 2). — The doubt here arises whether the text enjoins two vidyas of the True or one only.
3Two, the purvapakshin maintains. For the text declares two different results, one in the earlier passage, ' He conquers these worlds' (V, 4, i) ; the other one later on, 'He destroys evil and leaves it ' (V, 5, 3). And what our opponent may call a reference to the subject-matter under discussion^, is merely due to the circumstance of the object of meditation being the same (in the two vidyas). To this we make the following reply. — There is only one vidya of the True, because the clause, ' That which is the True,' &c., refers back to that True which is treated ^ Viz. the clause in V, 5, 2, 'That which is the true,' which apparently — or really — connects the vidya of V, 5 with that of V, 4. 246 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
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.