Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The purvapakshin maintains that their aim is glorification, because the text exhibits them with reference to subordinate members of sacrificial actions, such as the udgitha and so on. They are, he says, analogous to passages such as ' This earth is the ladle ; ' ' the sun is the tortoise ; ' ' the heavenly world is the Ahavaniya,' whose ^ Which has to be acquired in the regular prescribed way of Brahmanical studentship. 304 vedanta-sOtras. aim it is to glorify the ladle and so on. To this the Sutrakara replies as follows. We have no right to consider the purpose of those passages to be mere glorification, on account of the newness. If they aim at injunction, a new matter is enjoined by them ; if, on the other hand, they aimed at glorification they Avould be devoid of meaning. For, as explained in the Pu. Mim. Su., glorificatory passages are of use in so far as entering into a complementary relation to injunctive passages; but the passages under discussion are incapable of entering into such a relation to the udgitha and so on which are enjoined in altogether different places of the Veda, and would therefore be purposeless as far as glorification is concerned. Passages such as ' This earth is the ladle ' are not analogous because they stand in proximity to injunctive passages. — Therefore texts such as those under discussion have an injunctive purpose. 22. And on account of the words expressive of becoming.
2Moreover the text exhibits words of clearly injunctive meaning, in connexion with the passages quoted above, viz. 'Let him meditate on the udgitha' {Kh. Up. I, 1, i) ; 'Let him meditate on the S^man ' {Kh. Up. II, 2, i) ; 'Let him think: I am the hymn' (Ait. Ar. II, I, 6). Now these injunctive forms would be rendered futile by the assumption of the texts under discussion aiming at glorification only. Compare the following saying of those who know Ny^ya, ' Let him do, let it be done, it is to be done, let it become, let it be ; these forms are in all Vedas the settled signs of injunction.' What they mean thereby is that injunction is the sense of all potential, imperative, &c., verbal forms. — Moreover in each of the sections to which the passages under discussion belong the text states special fruits, 'He becomes indeed a fulfiller of desires ' [KJi. Up. I, 1,7);' He is able to obtain wishes through his song ' {Kh. Up. I, 7, 9) ; ' The worlds in an ascending and a descending line belong to him ' {KJi. Up. II, 2, 3). For this reason also the texts Ill ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 24. 305 about the udgitha and so on are meant to enjoin devout meditations. 23. (The stories told in the Upanishads) are for the purpose of the pariplava ; we deny this on account of (certain stories only) being specified.
3' Ya^^/avalkya had two wives, Maitreyi and Katyayani ' (Bn. Up. IV, 5, i) ; ' Pratardana, forsooth, the son of Divodasa came to the beloved abode of Indra ' (Kau. Up. Ill, i) ; 'There Hved once upon a time G^anaj-ruti Pautraya;/a, who was a pious giver, giving much and keeping open house' [Kh. Up. IV, i, i); with regard to these and similar stories met with in the Vedanta portions of scripture there arises a doubt whether they are meant to subserve the performance of the pariplava^ or to introduce the vidyas standing in proximity to them. The purvapakshin maintains that those scriptural stories subserve the pariplava because they are stories like others, and because the telling of stories is enjoined for the pariplava. And from this it follows that the Vedanta-texts do not chiefly aim at knowledge, because like mantras they stand in a complementary relation to sacrificial performances. This conclusion we deny ' on account of the specification.' Under the heading ' he is to recite the pariplava,' scripture specifies certain definite stories such as that of ' Manu Vivasvat's son the king.' If, now, for the reason that all tales as such are alike, all tales were admitted for the piriplav^a, the mentioned specification would be devoid of meaning. We therefore conclude that those scriptural stories are not meant to be told at the pariplava. 24. This follows also from the connexion (of the stories with the vidyas) in one coherent whole.
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.
1The purvapakshin maintains that their aim is glorification, because the text exhibits them with reference to subordinate members of sacrificial actions, such as the udgitha and so on. They are, he says, analogous to passages such as ' This earth is the ladle ; ' ' the sun is the tortoise ; ' ' the heavenly world is the Ahavaniya,' whose ^ Which has to be acquired in the regular prescribed way of Brahmanical studentship. 304 vedanta-sOtras. aim it is to glorify the ladle and so on. To this the Sutrakara replies as follows. We have no right to consider the purpose of those passages to be mere glorification, on account of the newness. If they aim at injunction, a new matter is enjoined by them ; if, on the other hand, they aimed at glorification they Avould be devoid of meaning. For, as explained in the Pu. Mim. Su., glorificatory passages are of use in so far as entering into a complementary relation to injunctive passages; but the passages under discussion are incapable of entering into such a relation to the udgitha and so on which are enjoined in altogether different places of the Veda, and would therefore be purposeless as far as glorification is concerned. Passages such as ' This earth is the ladle ' are not analogous because they stand in proximity to injunctive passages. — Therefore texts such as those under discussion have an injunctive purpose. 22. And on account of the words expressive of becoming.
2Moreover the text exhibits words of clearly injunctive meaning, in connexion with the passages quoted above, viz. 'Let him meditate on the udgitha' {Kh. Up. I, 1, i) ; 'Let him meditate on the S^man ' {Kh. Up. II, 2, i) ; 'Let him think: I am the hymn' (Ait. Ar. II, I, 6). Now these injunctive forms would be rendered futile by the assumption of the texts under discussion aiming at glorification only. Compare the following saying of those who know Ny^ya, ' Let him do, let it be done, it is to be done, let it become, let it be ; these forms are in all Vedas the settled signs of injunction.' What they mean thereby is that injunction is the sense of all potential, imperative, &c., verbal forms. — Moreover in each of the sections to which the passages under discussion belong the text states special fruits, 'He becomes indeed a fulfiller of desires ' [KJi. Up. I, 1,7);' He is able to obtain wishes through his song ' {Kh. Up. I, 7, 9) ; ' The worlds in an ascending and a descending line belong to him ' {KJi. Up. II, 2, 3). For this reason also the texts Ill ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 24. 305 about the udgitha and so on are meant to enjoin devout meditations. 23. (The stories told in the Upanishads) are for the purpose of the pariplava ; we deny this on account of (certain stories only) being specified.
3' Ya^^/avalkya had two wives, Maitreyi and Katyayani ' (Bn. Up. IV, 5, i) ; ' Pratardana, forsooth, the son of Divodasa came to the beloved abode of Indra ' (Kau. Up. Ill, i) ; 'There Hved once upon a time G^anaj-ruti Pautraya;/a, who was a pious giver, giving much and keeping open house' [Kh. Up. IV, i, i); with regard to these and similar stories met with in the Vedanta portions of scripture there arises a doubt whether they are meant to subserve the performance of the pariplava^ or to introduce the vidyas standing in proximity to them. The purvapakshin maintains that those scriptural stories subserve the pariplava because they are stories like others, and because the telling of stories is enjoined for the pariplava. And from this it follows that the Vedanta-texts do not chiefly aim at knowledge, because like mantras they stand in a complementary relation to sacrificial performances. This conclusion we deny ' on account of the specification.' Under the heading ' he is to recite the pariplava,' scripture specifies certain definite stories such as that of ' Manu Vivasvat's son the king.' If, now, for the reason that all tales as such are alike, all tales were admitted for the piriplav^a, the mentioned specification would be devoid of meaning. We therefore conclude that those scriptural stories are not meant to be told at the pariplava. 24. This follows also from the connexion (of the stories with the vidyas) in one coherent whole.
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.