Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Even if (to state an alternative conclusion ) the passage contains references only to the other ajramas, it must be viewed as enjoining at any rate the condition of being grounded in Brahman, owing to the glorification of that condition. The question here arises whether that state belongs to any one comprised within the four ajrramas, or only to the wandering mendicant. If now a reference to the mendicant also is contained within the references to the airamas up to the Brahma>^arin (i. e. the three ^j-ramas the text refers to before the passage about the brahmasa;;/stha) ; then, as all four ^j-ramas are referred to equally and as somebody not belonging to any aj-rama could not possibly be called brahmasawstha, it follows that the term ' brahmasa;;/stha ' denotes any one standing within one of the four a^-ramas. If. on the other hand, the mendicant is not comprised within the references to the three ajrramas. he alone remains, and this establishes the conclusion that the brahmasa;«stha is the mendicant only. (We therefore have to inquire which of the two alternatives stated has to be adopted.) — Here some maintain that the term ' austerity ' which denotes the hermit in the woods implies a reference to the mendicant also. But this is wrong. For as long as any other explanation is possible, we must not assume that a term which expresses a distinctive attribute of the hermits living in the forest comprises the wandering mendicants also. Both the Brahma/^arin and the householder are
2^ The ekavakyata is preserved if we take the clause from 'above' as an arthavada meant to give the reason why in sacrifices offered to the Fathers the firewood has to be carried below. Nevertheless the clause must be taken as a vidhi enjoining the carrying above in all sacrifices offered to the gods, because this particular is not enjoined elsewhere. Ill ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 20. 3OI
3referred to by distinctive terms applying to them only, and we therefore expect that the mendicant and the hermit also should be referred to by analogous terms. Now ' austerity ' is a distinctive attribute of the hermits living in the woods ; for the principal conventional meaning of the word ' austerity ' is mortification of the body. The distinctive attribute of the mendicant, on the other hand, viz. restraint of the senses and so on, cannot be denoted by the term ' austerity.' Moreover it would be an illegitimate assumption that the ^j-ramas which are known to be four should here be referred to as three. And further the text notifies a distinction, viz. by saying that those three reach the world of the blessed, while one enjoys immortality. Now there is room for such a distinction if the hermits and the mendicants are separate ; for we do not say ' Devadatta and Ya^;7adatta are stupid, but one of them is clever,' but we say ' Devadatta and Ya.gnadatta are stupid, but Vishwumitra is clever.' The passage therefore has to be understood in that sense, that those belonging to the three former ij-ramas obtain the world of the blessed, while the remaining one, i. e. the wandering mendicant, enjoys immortality. — But how can the term ' brahmasa;«stha,' which according to its etymological meaning may be applied to members of all ai'ramas, be restricted to the mendicant? and, if we agree to take it in its conventional meaning, it follows that immortality may be reached by merely belonging to an aj-rama, and hence that knowledge is useless ! — To these objections we make the following reply. The term ' brahmasa;«stha ' denotes fulfilment in Brahman, a state of being grounded in Brahman to the exclusion of all other activity. Now such a state is impossible for persons belonging to the three former djramas, as scripture declares that they suffer loss through the non-performance of the works enjoined on their aj-rama. The mendicant, on the other hand, who has discarded all works can suffer no loss owing to nonperformance. Such duties as are incumbent on him, viz. restraint of the senses and the like, are not opposed to the state of being grounded in Brahman, but rather helpful
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.
1Even if (to state an alternative conclusion ) the passage contains references only to the other ajramas, it must be viewed as enjoining at any rate the condition of being grounded in Brahman, owing to the glorification of that condition. The question here arises whether that state belongs to any one comprised within the four ajrramas, or only to the wandering mendicant. If now a reference to the mendicant also is contained within the references to the airamas up to the Brahma>^arin (i. e. the three ^j-ramas the text refers to before the passage about the brahmasa;;/stha) ; then, as all four ^j-ramas are referred to equally and as somebody not belonging to any aj-rama could not possibly be called brahmasawstha, it follows that the term ' brahmasa;;/stha ' denotes any one standing within one of the four a^-ramas. If. on the other hand, the mendicant is not comprised within the references to the three ajrramas. he alone remains, and this establishes the conclusion that the brahmasa;«stha is the mendicant only. (We therefore have to inquire which of the two alternatives stated has to be adopted.) — Here some maintain that the term ' austerity ' which denotes the hermit in the woods implies a reference to the mendicant also. But this is wrong. For as long as any other explanation is possible, we must not assume that a term which expresses a distinctive attribute of the hermits living in the forest comprises the wandering mendicants also. Both the Brahma/^arin and the householder are
2^ The ekavakyata is preserved if we take the clause from 'above' as an arthavada meant to give the reason why in sacrifices offered to the Fathers the firewood has to be carried below. Nevertheless the clause must be taken as a vidhi enjoining the carrying above in all sacrifices offered to the gods, because this particular is not enjoined elsewhere. Ill ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 20. 3OI
3referred to by distinctive terms applying to them only, and we therefore expect that the mendicant and the hermit also should be referred to by analogous terms. Now ' austerity ' is a distinctive attribute of the hermits living in the woods ; for the principal conventional meaning of the word ' austerity ' is mortification of the body. The distinctive attribute of the mendicant, on the other hand, viz. restraint of the senses and so on, cannot be denoted by the term ' austerity.' Moreover it would be an illegitimate assumption that the ^j-ramas which are known to be four should here be referred to as three. And further the text notifies a distinction, viz. by saying that those three reach the world of the blessed, while one enjoys immortality. Now there is room for such a distinction if the hermits and the mendicants are separate ; for we do not say ' Devadatta and Ya^;7adatta are stupid, but one of them is clever,' but we say ' Devadatta and Ya.gnadatta are stupid, but Vishwumitra is clever.' The passage therefore has to be understood in that sense, that those belonging to the three former ij-ramas obtain the world of the blessed, while the remaining one, i. e. the wandering mendicant, enjoys immortality. — But how can the term ' brahmasa;«stha,' which according to its etymological meaning may be applied to members of all ai'ramas, be restricted to the mendicant? and, if we agree to take it in its conventional meaning, it follows that immortality may be reached by merely belonging to an aj-rama, and hence that knowledge is useless ! — To these objections we make the following reply. The term ' brahmasa;«stha ' denotes fulfilment in Brahman, a state of being grounded in Brahman to the exclusion of all other activity. Now such a state is impossible for persons belonging to the three former djramas, as scripture declares that they suffer loss through the non-performance of the works enjoined on their aj-rama. The mendicant, on the other hand, who has discarded all works can suffer no loss owing to nonperformance. Such duties as are incumbent on him, viz. restraint of the senses and the like, are not opposed to the state of being grounded in Brahman, but rather helpful
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.