Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Some commentators here establish the conclusion that the meditation on the aggregate Vaij"vanara is the preferable alternative, but assume, on the ground of the Sutra employing the term ' pre-eminence ' only, that the Sutrakara allows also the alternative of distributed meditation. But this is inadmissible, since it is improper to assume a 'split of the sentence' (i.e. to ascribe to a passage a double meaning), as long as the passage may be understood as having one meaning only. Their interpretation, moreover, contradicts those passages which expressly blame distributed meditations ; such as ' Thy head would have Ill ADHYAVA, 3 PADA, 58. 277 fallen.' And as the conclusion of the section clearly intimates a meditation on the aggregate Vaij'vanara, the negation of such meditation could not be maintained as purvapaksha ^. The term ' pre-eminence ' which the Sutra employs may moreover be explained as meaning (not mere preferability, but exclusive) authoritativeness. 58. (The vidyas are) separate, on account of the difference of words and the like.
2In the preceding adhikara;/a we have arrived at the conclusion that a meditation on Vai^-vanara as a whole is the pre-eminent meaning of the text, although special results are stated for meditations on Sute^as and so on. On the ground of this it may be presumed that other meditations also which are enjoined by separate scriptural texts have to be combined into more general meditations. Moreover, we cannot acknowledge a separation of vidyas (acts of cognition ; meditations) as long as the object of cognition is the same ; for the object constitutes the character of a cognition in the same way as the material offered and the divinity to which the offering is made constitute the character of a sacrifice. Now we understand that the Lord forms the only object of cognition in a number of scriptural passages, although the latter are separate in enunciation ; cp. e, g. ' He consisting of mind, whose body is pra;/a ' [KJi. Up. Ill, 14, 2); 'Brahman is Ka, Brahman is Kha' [KJi. Up. IV, to, 5); ' He whose wishes are true, whose purposes are true' i^KJi. Up. VIII, 7, 3). Analogously one and the same Prawa is referred to in different texts ; cp. ' Pra;^a indeed is the end of all ' {Kh. Up. IV, "^^^ '^)\ ' Pra«a indeed is the oldest and the best ' {Kh. Up. V, i , i ) ; ' Pra«a is father, Prawa is mother' [Kh. Up. VII, 15, 1). And from the unity of the object of cognition there follows unity of cognition. Nor
3^ Yadobhayatropastisiddhantas tada vyastopastir evatra samastopastir eva va purvapaksha,^ syan nadya ity aha, spash/e ^eti, dviiiyai- k-^ tatrayukto vakyopakramasthavyastopastidhivirodhat. An. Gi. 278 VEDANTA-StjTRAS. can it be said that, on this view, the separateness of the different scriptural statements would be purposeless, since each text serves to set forth other qualities (of the one pradhdna which is their common subject). Hence the different qualities which are enjoined in one's own and in other KSakhas, and which all belong to one object of knowledge, must be combined so that a totality of cognition may be effected.
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.
1Some commentators here establish the conclusion that the meditation on the aggregate Vaij"vanara is the preferable alternative, but assume, on the ground of the Sutra employing the term ' pre-eminence ' only, that the Sutrakara allows also the alternative of distributed meditation. But this is inadmissible, since it is improper to assume a 'split of the sentence' (i.e. to ascribe to a passage a double meaning), as long as the passage may be understood as having one meaning only. Their interpretation, moreover, contradicts those passages which expressly blame distributed meditations ; such as ' Thy head would have Ill ADHYAVA, 3 PADA, 58. 277 fallen.' And as the conclusion of the section clearly intimates a meditation on the aggregate Vaij'vanara, the negation of such meditation could not be maintained as purvapaksha ^. The term ' pre-eminence ' which the Sutra employs may moreover be explained as meaning (not mere preferability, but exclusive) authoritativeness. 58. (The vidyas are) separate, on account of the difference of words and the like.
2In the preceding adhikara;/a we have arrived at the conclusion that a meditation on Vai^-vanara as a whole is the pre-eminent meaning of the text, although special results are stated for meditations on Sute^as and so on. On the ground of this it may be presumed that other meditations also which are enjoined by separate scriptural texts have to be combined into more general meditations. Moreover, we cannot acknowledge a separation of vidyas (acts of cognition ; meditations) as long as the object of cognition is the same ; for the object constitutes the character of a cognition in the same way as the material offered and the divinity to which the offering is made constitute the character of a sacrifice. Now we understand that the Lord forms the only object of cognition in a number of scriptural passages, although the latter are separate in enunciation ; cp. e, g. ' He consisting of mind, whose body is pra;/a ' [KJi. Up. Ill, 14, 2); 'Brahman is Ka, Brahman is Kha' [KJi. Up. IV, to, 5); ' He whose wishes are true, whose purposes are true' i^KJi. Up. VIII, 7, 3). Analogously one and the same Prawa is referred to in different texts ; cp. ' Pra;^a indeed is the end of all ' {Kh. Up. IV, "^^^ '^)\ ' Pra«a indeed is the oldest and the best ' {Kh. Up. V, i , i ) ; ' Pra«a is father, Prawa is mother' [Kh. Up. VII, 15, 1). And from the unity of the object of cognition there follows unity of cognition. Nor
3^ Yadobhayatropastisiddhantas tada vyastopastir evatra samastopastir eva va purvapaksha,^ syan nadya ity aha, spash/e ^eti, dviiiyai- k-^ tatrayukto vakyopakramasthavyastopastidhivirodhat. An. Gi. 278 VEDANTA-StjTRAS. can it be said that, on this view, the separateness of the different scriptural statements would be purposeless, since each text serves to set forth other qualities (of the one pradhdna which is their common subject). Hence the different qualities which are enjoined in one's own and in other KSakhas, and which all belong to one object of knowledge, must be combined so that a totality of cognition may be effected.
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.