Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1tributed as well as his aggregate condition. References to him in his distributed state are made in the passage, ' Aupamanyava, whom do you meditate on as the Self? He replied : Heaven only, venerable king. He said : The Self which you meditate on is the Vai^vanara Self called Sute^as ; ' and in the following passages {Kh. Up. V, 12-17). A meditation on him in his aggregate state, on the other hand, is referred to in the passage (V, 18), 'Of that Vai.yvanara Self the head is Sute^as, the eye Vij'varupa, the breath Pr/thagvartman, the trunk Bahula, the bladder Rayi, the feet the earth/ &c. — A doubt here arises whether the text intimates a meditation on Vaij-vanara in both his forms or only in his aggregate form. The purvapakshin maintains that we have to do with meditations on Vaij-vanara in his distributed form, firstly because the text exhibits a special verb, viz. ' you meditate on,' with reference to each of the limbs, Sute^as and so on ; and secondly because the text states special fruits (connected with each special meditation) in the passage, ' Therefore every kind of Soma libation is seen in your house,' and the later similar passages.
2To this we make the following reply. We must suppose that the entire section aims at intimating ' the preeminence,' i. e. at intimating as its pre-eminent subject, a meditation on ' plenitude,' i. e. on Vaij-vanara in his aggregate state, who comprises within himself a plurality of things ; not a number of special meditations on the limbs of Vaij-vanara. ' As in the case of sacrifices.' In the same way as the Vedic texts referring to sacrifices such as the darj-apurwamasa aim at enjoining the performance of the entire sacrifice only, i. e. of the chief sacrificial action together with its members — and not in addition the performance of single subordinate members such as the praya^as, nor again the performance of the chief action together with some of its subordinate members ; so it is here also. — But whence do you know that ' plenitude ' is the preeminent topic of the passage ? — It is shown by scripture, we reply, since we apprehend that the entire section forms a connected whole. For on exan;ining the connexion of T 2 276 vedanta-sOtras.
3the parts we find that the entire section has for its subject the knowledge of Vaij'vanara. The text at first informs us that six 7?zshis — Pr^/l'inaj-ala, &c., up to Uddalaka — being unable to reach a firm foundation in the knowledge of Vaij-vanara, went to the king Ajvapati Kaikeya ; goes on to mention the object of each /i^zshi's meditation, viz. the sky and so on ; determines that the sky and so on are only the head and so on of Vaij-vdnara — in the passage ' he said : that is but the head of the Self,' and the later similar passages ; — and thereupon rejects all meditations on Vaij-vdnara in his distributed form, in the passage, ^Your head would have fallen if you had not come to me,' and so on. Finally having discarded all distributed meditation it turns to the meditation on the aggregate Vai^vanara and declares that all results rest on him only, ' he eats food in all worlds, in all beings, in all Selfs.' — That the text mentions special fruits for the special meditations on Sute^as and so on we have, in accordance with our view, to explain as meaning that the results of the subordinate meditations are to be connected in their aggregate with the principal meditation. And that the text exhibits a special verb — ' you do meditate ' — in connexion with each member is not meant to enjoin special meditations on those members, but merely to make additional remarks about something which has another purpose (i. e. about the meditation on the aggregate Vaij-vanara). — For all these reasons the view according to which the text enjoins a meditation on the aggregate Vaijvanara only is preferable.
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.
1tributed as well as his aggregate condition. References to him in his distributed state are made in the passage, ' Aupamanyava, whom do you meditate on as the Self? He replied : Heaven only, venerable king. He said : The Self which you meditate on is the Vai^vanara Self called Sute^as ; ' and in the following passages {Kh. Up. V, 12-17). A meditation on him in his aggregate state, on the other hand, is referred to in the passage (V, 18), 'Of that Vai.yvanara Self the head is Sute^as, the eye Vij'varupa, the breath Pr/thagvartman, the trunk Bahula, the bladder Rayi, the feet the earth/ &c. — A doubt here arises whether the text intimates a meditation on Vaij-vanara in both his forms or only in his aggregate form. The purvapakshin maintains that we have to do with meditations on Vaij-vanara in his distributed form, firstly because the text exhibits a special verb, viz. ' you meditate on,' with reference to each of the limbs, Sute^as and so on ; and secondly because the text states special fruits (connected with each special meditation) in the passage, ' Therefore every kind of Soma libation is seen in your house,' and the later similar passages.
2To this we make the following reply. We must suppose that the entire section aims at intimating ' the preeminence,' i. e. at intimating as its pre-eminent subject, a meditation on ' plenitude,' i. e. on Vaij-vanara in his aggregate state, who comprises within himself a plurality of things ; not a number of special meditations on the limbs of Vaij-vanara. ' As in the case of sacrifices.' In the same way as the Vedic texts referring to sacrifices such as the darj-apurwamasa aim at enjoining the performance of the entire sacrifice only, i. e. of the chief sacrificial action together with its members — and not in addition the performance of single subordinate members such as the praya^as, nor again the performance of the chief action together with some of its subordinate members ; so it is here also. — But whence do you know that ' plenitude ' is the preeminent topic of the passage ? — It is shown by scripture, we reply, since we apprehend that the entire section forms a connected whole. For on exan;ining the connexion of T 2 276 vedanta-sOtras.
3the parts we find that the entire section has for its subject the knowledge of Vaij'vanara. The text at first informs us that six 7?zshis — Pr^/l'inaj-ala, &c., up to Uddalaka — being unable to reach a firm foundation in the knowledge of Vaij-vanara, went to the king Ajvapati Kaikeya ; goes on to mention the object of each /i^zshi's meditation, viz. the sky and so on ; determines that the sky and so on are only the head and so on of Vaij-vdnara — in the passage ' he said : that is but the head of the Self,' and the later similar passages ; — and thereupon rejects all meditations on Vaij-vdnara in his distributed form, in the passage, ^Your head would have fallen if you had not come to me,' and so on. Finally having discarded all distributed meditation it turns to the meditation on the aggregate Vai^vanara and declares that all results rest on him only, ' he eats food in all worlds, in all beings, in all Selfs.' — That the text mentions special fruits for the special meditations on Sute^as and so on we have, in accordance with our view, to explain as meaning that the results of the subordinate meditations are to be connected in their aggregate with the principal meditation. And that the text exhibits a special verb — ' you do meditate ' — in connexion with each member is not meant to enjoin special meditations on those members, but merely to make additional remarks about something which has another purpose (i. e. about the meditation on the aggregate Vaij-vanara). — For all these reasons the view according to which the text enjoins a meditation on the aggregate Vaijvanara only is preferable.
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.