Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1of in V, 4. — But has not the purvapakshin shown that the clause alluded to can be accounted for even on the supposition of there being two vidyas ? — The reasoning of the purvapakshin, we reply, w^ould be admissible only if the separateness of the two vidyas were established by some other clear and undoubted reason ; in our case, however, there is a general possibility of both (viz. of the vidyas being separate or not), and the very circumstance that the mentioned clause contains a back reference to the True spoken of in V, 4, determines us to conclude that there is only one vidya of the True. — To the remark that there must be two vidyas because the text states two different results, we reply that the statement of a second result merely has the purpose of glorifying the new instruction given about the True, viz. that its secret names are ahar and aham. Moreover, as in the case under discussion, the fruit of the vidya has really to be supplied from its arthavada part ^, and as there is unity of vidya, all those fruits which the text states in connexion with the single parts of the. vidya are to be combined and put in connexion with the vidya taken as a whole. — The conclusion therefore is that the text records only one vidya of the True, distinguished by such and such details, and that hence all the qualities mentioned, such as Truth and so on, are to be comprehended in one act of meditation.
2Some commentators are of opinion that the above Sutra refers (not to the question whether Br/. Up. V, 4 and V, 5 constitute one vidya but) to the question whether the Va^asaneyaka-passage about the persons in the sun and in the eye, and the similar AV/andogya-passage (I, 6, 6, 'Now that golden person who is seen within the sun,' &c.) form one vidya or not. They conclude that they do so, and that hence truth and the other qualities mentioned in ^ For the vidya contains no explicit statement that a man desirous of such and such a fruit is to meditate on the True in such and such a way. — That in cases where the fruit is not stated in a vidhi-passage it must be supplied from the arthavada-passages, is taught in the Pu. I\Ii. Su. IV, 3, eighth adhikara7/a. Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 39. 247
3the V^^asaneyaka are to be combined with the K/iandogya-text also. — But this interpretation of the Sutra appears objectionable. For the iT/zandogya-vidyi refers to the udgitha and is thus connected with sacrificial acts, marks of which connexion are exhibited in the beginning, the middle, and the end of the vidya. Thus we read at the beginning, ' The Rik is the earth, the Saman is fire ; ' in the middle, ' Rik and Saman are his joints and therefore he is udgitha ; ' and in the end, ' He who knowing this sings a S^man ' {K/i. Up. I, 6, i ; 8 ; 1,7, 7). In the Va^''asaneyaka, on the other hand, there is nothing to connect the vidya with sacrificial acts. As therefore the subject-matter is different, the vidyas are separate and the details of the two are to be held apart. 39. (Having true) wishes and other (qualities) (have to be combined) there and here, on account of the abode and so on. In the chapter of the K/iandogya which begins with the passage, ' There is this city of Brahman and in it the palace, the small lotus, and in it that small ether' (VIII, i, i), we read, ' That is the Self free from sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, whose desires are true, whose imaginations are true.' A similar passage is found in the text of the Va^asaneyins, ' He is that great unborn Self who consists of knowledge, is surrounded by the Pra//as, the ether within the heart. In it there reposes the ruler of all ' (Brz. Up. IV, 4, 22).
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.
1of in V, 4. — But has not the purvapakshin shown that the clause alluded to can be accounted for even on the supposition of there being two vidyas ? — The reasoning of the purvapakshin, we reply, w^ould be admissible only if the separateness of the two vidyas were established by some other clear and undoubted reason ; in our case, however, there is a general possibility of both (viz. of the vidyas being separate or not), and the very circumstance that the mentioned clause contains a back reference to the True spoken of in V, 4, determines us to conclude that there is only one vidya of the True. — To the remark that there must be two vidyas because the text states two different results, we reply that the statement of a second result merely has the purpose of glorifying the new instruction given about the True, viz. that its secret names are ahar and aham. Moreover, as in the case under discussion, the fruit of the vidya has really to be supplied from its arthavada part ^, and as there is unity of vidya, all those fruits which the text states in connexion with the single parts of the. vidya are to be combined and put in connexion with the vidya taken as a whole. — The conclusion therefore is that the text records only one vidya of the True, distinguished by such and such details, and that hence all the qualities mentioned, such as Truth and so on, are to be comprehended in one act of meditation.
2Some commentators are of opinion that the above Sutra refers (not to the question whether Br/. Up. V, 4 and V, 5 constitute one vidya but) to the question whether the Va^asaneyaka-passage about the persons in the sun and in the eye, and the similar AV/andogya-passage (I, 6, 6, 'Now that golden person who is seen within the sun,' &c.) form one vidya or not. They conclude that they do so, and that hence truth and the other qualities mentioned in ^ For the vidya contains no explicit statement that a man desirous of such and such a fruit is to meditate on the True in such and such a way. — That in cases where the fruit is not stated in a vidhi-passage it must be supplied from the arthavada-passages, is taught in the Pu. I\Ii. Su. IV, 3, eighth adhikara7/a. Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 39. 247
3the V^^asaneyaka are to be combined with the K/iandogya-text also. — But this interpretation of the Sutra appears objectionable. For the iT/zandogya-vidyi refers to the udgitha and is thus connected with sacrificial acts, marks of which connexion are exhibited in the beginning, the middle, and the end of the vidya. Thus we read at the beginning, ' The Rik is the earth, the Saman is fire ; ' in the middle, ' Rik and Saman are his joints and therefore he is udgitha ; ' and in the end, ' He who knowing this sings a S^man ' {K/i. Up. I, 6, i ; 8 ; 1,7, 7). In the Va^''asaneyaka, on the other hand, there is nothing to connect the vidya with sacrificial acts. As therefore the subject-matter is different, the vidyas are separate and the details of the two are to be held apart. 39. (Having true) wishes and other (qualities) (have to be combined) there and here, on account of the abode and so on. In the chapter of the K/iandogya which begins with the passage, ' There is this city of Brahman and in it the palace, the small lotus, and in it that small ether' (VIII, i, i), we read, ' That is the Self free from sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, whose desires are true, whose imaginations are true.' A similar passage is found in the text of the Va^asaneyins, ' He is that great unborn Self who consists of knowledge, is surrounded by the Pra//as, the ether within the heart. In it there reposes the ruler of all ' (Brz. Up. IV, 4, 22).
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.