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. Vayu and Pra;/a are to be conceived separately, because the text teaches them in separation. The separate instruction given by the text with reference to the organs and the Devas for the purposes of meditation would be meaningless if the meditations were not held apart. — But the purvapakshin maintains that owing to the essential non-difference of Vayu and Pra;/a the meditations are not to be separated ! — Although, we reply, there may be non-difference of true nature, yet there may be difference of condition giving rise to difference of instruction, and, through the latter, to difference of meditation. And although the introduction of the concluding j-loka may be accounted for on the ground of its [38J S 258 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
2showing the fundamental non-difference of the two, it yet has no power to sublate the previously declared difference of the objects of meditation. Moreover, the text institutes a comparison between Vayu and Pra/m, which again shows that the two are different, 'And as it was with the central breath among the breaths, so it was with Vayu, the wind among those deities ' (Br/. Up. I, 5, 22). — This explains also the mention made of the observance (I, 5, 33). The word ' only ' (in ' Let a man perform one observance only ') has the purpose of establishing the observance with regard to Pra;^a, by sublating the obsei-vances with regard to speech and so on, regarding which the text had remarked previously that they were disturbed by Death (' Death having become weariness took them '), and does not by any means aim at sublating the observance with regard to Vayu ; for the section beginning ' Next follows the consideration of the observances ' distinctly asserts that the observances of Vayu and Prawa were equally unbroken. — Moreover, the text, after having said, ' Let a man perform one observance only,' declares in the end that the fruit of that observance is the obtaining of (union with) Vayu (' Then he obtains through it union and oneness with that deity "), and thus shows that the observance with regard to Vayu is not to be considered as sublated. That by that ' deity ' we have to understand Vayu, we conclude from the circumstance that what the worshipper wishes to obtain is non-limitation of his Self^, and that previously the term ' deity ' had been applied to Vayu, ' Vayu is the deity that never sets.' — Analogously in the /sTZ-andogya-passage the text represents Vayu and Pri«a as different, ' These are the two absorbers, Vayu among the Devas, Pra^^a among the prawas,' and in the concluding paragraph also (IV, 3, 8) refers to them as distinct, 'These five and the other five make ten, and that is the Krz'ta.' — For these reasons Vayu and Pra;^a are to be conceived as different. The Sutra compares the case under discussion to a
3^ Agnyadin apekshyanava>^^^ino devo vayus te tu tenaivavaH'^inna ill sa^^vargaguwo vayur anavaX'X'^inna devata. An. Gi. Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 44. 259 parallel one from the karmakanddi, by means of the clause, 'as in the case of the offerings.' With regard to the ishri comprising three sacrificial cakes, which is enjoined in the passage, Taitt. Sa;«h. II, 3, 6, ' A purofl'aj'a on eleven potsherds to Indra the ruler, to Indra the over-ruler, to Indra the self-ruler,' it might be supposed that the three cakes are to be offered together because they are offered to one and the same Indra, and because the concluding sentence says, ' conveying to all (gods) he cuts off to preclude purposelessness.' But as the attributes (viz. 'ruler' and so on) differ, and as scripture enjoins that the ya^a and anuvakyamantras are to exchange places with regard to the different cakes ^, the divinity is each time a different one according to the address, and from this it follows that the three offerings also are separate. — Thus, in the case under discussion, Vayu and Pra;za, although fundamentally non-different, are to be held apart as objects of meditation, and we have therefore to do with two separate meditations.— This is explained in the Sankarsha-ka;/</a, ' The divinities are separate on account of their being cognized thus.'
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. Vayu and Pra;/a are to be conceived separately, because the text teaches them in separation. The separate instruction given by the text with reference to the organs and the Devas for the purposes of meditation would be meaningless if the meditations were not held apart. — But the purvapakshin maintains that owing to the essential non-difference of Vayu and Pra;/a the meditations are not to be separated ! — Although, we reply, there may be non-difference of true nature, yet there may be difference of condition giving rise to difference of instruction, and, through the latter, to difference of meditation. And although the introduction of the concluding j-loka may be accounted for on the ground of its [38J S 258 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
2showing the fundamental non-difference of the two, it yet has no power to sublate the previously declared difference of the objects of meditation. Moreover, the text institutes a comparison between Vayu and Pra/m, which again shows that the two are different, 'And as it was with the central breath among the breaths, so it was with Vayu, the wind among those deities ' (Br/. Up. I, 5, 22). — This explains also the mention made of the observance (I, 5, 33). The word ' only ' (in ' Let a man perform one observance only ') has the purpose of establishing the observance with regard to Pra;^a, by sublating the obsei-vances with regard to speech and so on, regarding which the text had remarked previously that they were disturbed by Death (' Death having become weariness took them '), and does not by any means aim at sublating the observance with regard to Vayu ; for the section beginning ' Next follows the consideration of the observances ' distinctly asserts that the observances of Vayu and Prawa were equally unbroken. — Moreover, the text, after having said, ' Let a man perform one observance only,' declares in the end that the fruit of that observance is the obtaining of (union with) Vayu (' Then he obtains through it union and oneness with that deity "), and thus shows that the observance with regard to Vayu is not to be considered as sublated. That by that ' deity ' we have to understand Vayu, we conclude from the circumstance that what the worshipper wishes to obtain is non-limitation of his Self^, and that previously the term ' deity ' had been applied to Vayu, ' Vayu is the deity that never sets.' — Analogously in the /sTZ-andogya-passage the text represents Vayu and Pri«a as different, ' These are the two absorbers, Vayu among the Devas, Pra^^a among the prawas,' and in the concluding paragraph also (IV, 3, 8) refers to them as distinct, 'These five and the other five make ten, and that is the Krz'ta.' — For these reasons Vayu and Pra;^a are to be conceived as different. The Sutra compares the case under discussion to a
3^ Agnyadin apekshyanava>^^^ino devo vayus te tu tenaivavaH'^inna ill sa^^vargaguwo vayur anavaX'X'^inna devata. An. Gi. Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 44. 259 parallel one from the karmakanddi, by means of the clause, 'as in the case of the offerings.' With regard to the ishri comprising three sacrificial cakes, which is enjoined in the passage, Taitt. Sa;«h. II, 3, 6, ' A purofl'aj'a on eleven potsherds to Indra the ruler, to Indra the over-ruler, to Indra the self-ruler,' it might be supposed that the three cakes are to be offered together because they are offered to one and the same Indra, and because the concluding sentence says, ' conveying to all (gods) he cuts off to preclude purposelessness.' But as the attributes (viz. 'ruler' and so on) differ, and as scripture enjoins that the ya^a and anuvakyamantras are to exchange places with regard to the different cakes ^, the divinity is each time a different one according to the address, and from this it follows that the three offerings also are separate. — Thus, in the case under discussion, Vayu and Pra;za, although fundamentally non-different, are to be held apart as objects of meditation, and we have therefore to do with two separate meditations.— This is explained in the Sankarsha-ka;/</a, ' The divinities are separate on account of their being cognized thus.'
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.