Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1An analogous conclusion was arrived at under Sutra 20. — Smr/tis also such as the Bhagavadgita explain that sacrifices and the like if undertaken without a view to their special results become for him who is desirous of final release a means of knowledge. Hence sacrifices and the like, on the one hand, and calmness of mind and so on, on the other hand, according to the ajramas, i.e. all works enjoined on the aj-ramas must be had regard to with a view to the springing up of knowledge. Calmness of mind, &c., are, on account of the expression ' he who knows this ' connecting them with knowledge, to be viewed as approximate— direct — means of knowledge, while sacrifices and so on which scripture connects with the search of knowledge are to be looked upon as remote — indirect — means. 28. And there is permission of all food, (only) in the case of danger of life ; on account of this being shown (by scripture). In the colloquy of the pra^zas the K/iandogas record, ' To him who knows this there is nothing which is not food ' [K/i. Up. V, I, 2) ; and the Va^asaneyins, ' By him nothing is eaten that is not food, nothing is received that is not food' (Brt. Up. VI, I, 14). The sense of the two passages is that anything may be eaten by him. — A doubt here arises whether the texts enjoin the permission of eating anything
2^ The passage quoted occurs in the Veda under the heading of the dar^apurwamasa. But as Pushan has no share in the fundamental forna of that sacrifice, we conclude that the injunction implied in the passage is valid for those vikmis of the darj-apurwamasa in which offerings are made to Pfishan. ; I O VE D AN TA- SU T R A S.
3as an auxiliary to knowledge — as calmness of mind, &c., are— or mention them for the purpose of glorification. — The purvapakshin maintains that the passages are injunctions because thus we gain an instruction which causes a special kind of activity. What, therefore, the text teaches is the non-operation of a definite rule, in so far as auxiliary to the knowledge of the pra;/as in proximity to which it is taught. — But this interpretation implies the sublation of the scriptural rules as to the distinction of lawful and unlawful food ! — Such sublation, we reply, is possible, because the present case is one of general rule and special exception. The prohibition of doing harm to any living creature is sublated by the injunction of the killing of the sacrificial animal ; the general rule which distinguishes between such women as may be approached and such as may not, is sublated by the text prescribing, with reference to the knowledge of the Vamadevya. that no woman is to be avoided (' Let him avoid no woman, that is the vow,' Kh. Up. II, 13, 2) ; analogously the passage which enjoins, with reference to the knowledge of the pra/^as, the eating of all food may sublate the general rule as to the distinction of lawful and unlawful food.
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.
1An analogous conclusion was arrived at under Sutra 20. — Smr/tis also such as the Bhagavadgita explain that sacrifices and the like if undertaken without a view to their special results become for him who is desirous of final release a means of knowledge. Hence sacrifices and the like, on the one hand, and calmness of mind and so on, on the other hand, according to the ajramas, i.e. all works enjoined on the aj-ramas must be had regard to with a view to the springing up of knowledge. Calmness of mind, &c., are, on account of the expression ' he who knows this ' connecting them with knowledge, to be viewed as approximate— direct — means of knowledge, while sacrifices and so on which scripture connects with the search of knowledge are to be looked upon as remote — indirect — means. 28. And there is permission of all food, (only) in the case of danger of life ; on account of this being shown (by scripture). In the colloquy of the pra^zas the K/iandogas record, ' To him who knows this there is nothing which is not food ' [K/i. Up. V, I, 2) ; and the Va^asaneyins, ' By him nothing is eaten that is not food, nothing is received that is not food' (Brt. Up. VI, I, 14). The sense of the two passages is that anything may be eaten by him. — A doubt here arises whether the texts enjoin the permission of eating anything
2^ The passage quoted occurs in the Veda under the heading of the dar^apurwamasa. But as Pushan has no share in the fundamental forna of that sacrifice, we conclude that the injunction implied in the passage is valid for those vikmis of the darj-apurwamasa in which offerings are made to Pfishan. ; I O VE D AN TA- SU T R A S.
3as an auxiliary to knowledge — as calmness of mind, &c., are— or mention them for the purpose of glorification. — The purvapakshin maintains that the passages are injunctions because thus we gain an instruction which causes a special kind of activity. What, therefore, the text teaches is the non-operation of a definite rule, in so far as auxiliary to the knowledge of the pra;/as in proximity to which it is taught. — But this interpretation implies the sublation of the scriptural rules as to the distinction of lawful and unlawful food ! — Such sublation, we reply, is possible, because the present case is one of general rule and special exception. The prohibition of doing harm to any living creature is sublated by the injunction of the killing of the sacrificial animal ; the general rule which distinguishes between such women as may be approached and such as may not, is sublated by the text prescribing, with reference to the knowledge of the Vamadevya. that no woman is to be avoided (' Let him avoid no woman, that is the vow,' Kh. Up. II, 13, 2) ; analogously the passage which enjoins, with reference to the knowledge of the pra/^as, the eating of all food may sublate the general rule as to the distinction of lawful and unlawful food.
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.