Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1To this we reply as follows. The permission to eat any food whatever is not enjoined, since the passages do not contain any word of injunctive power ; for the clause, ' To him who knows this there is nothing,' &c., expresses only something actually going on. And where the conception of an injunction does not naturally arise we may not assume one from the mere wish of something causing a special line of activity. ^Moreover the text says that ' for him who knows this there is nothing that is not food,' only after having said that ever\-thing even unto dogs and the like is food for the Pra;/a. Now food such as dogs and the like cannot be enjoyed by the human body; but all this can be thought of as food of the Pra«a. From this it follows that the passage is an arthavada meant to glorify the knowledge of the food of the Pra;/a, not an injunction of the permission of all food. — This the Sutra indicates in the words, ' and there is permission of all food Ill ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 3O. 3II
2in danger of life.' That means : Only in danger of life, in cases of highest need, food of any kind is permitted to be eaten. ' On account of scripture showing this.' For scripture shows that the r/shi A'akrayawa when in evil plight proceeded to eat unlawful food. In the brahma/za beginning, 'when the Kurus had been destroyed by hailstones,' it is told how the r?shi Arakraya;/a having fallen into great wretchedness ate the beans half eaten by a chief, but refused to drink what had been offered on the ground of its being a mere leaving ; and explained his proceeding as follows : ' I should not have lived if I had not eaten them ; but water I can drink wherever I like.' And again on the following day he ate the stale beans left by himself and another person. Scripture, in thus showing how the stale leaving of a leaving was eaten, intimates as its principle that in order to preserve one's life when in danger one may eat even unlawful food. That, on the other hand, in normal circumstances not even a man possessing knowledge must do this, appears from Kcikraya;/a's refusing to drink. — From this it follows that the passage, ' For to him who knows this,' &c., is an arthavada. 29. And on account of the non-sublation. And thus those scriptural passages which distinguish lawful and unlawful food, — such as K/i. Up. VII, 26, 3, ' When the food is pure the whole nature becomes pure,' — are non-sublated. 30. And this is said in Smmi also.
3That in cases of need both he who knows and he who does not know may eat any food Smrz'ti also states ; compare e.g. 'He who being in danger of his life eats food from anywhere is stained by sin no more than the lotus leaf by water.' — On the other hand, many passages teach that unlawful food is to be avoided. ' Intoxicating liquor the Brahma;/a must permanently forego ; ' ' Let them pour boiling spirits down the throat of the Brahmawa who drinks spirits ; ' ' Spirit-drinking worms grow in the 3 I 2 VEDANTA-st^TRAS. mouth of the spirit-drinking man, because he enjoys what is unlawful,' 31. And hence also a scriptural passage as to non-proceeding according to liking. There is also a scriptural passage prohibiting unlawful food, the purpose of which it is to stop procedure therein according to one's liking, viz. in the Sa?;^hita of the Ka///as, ' Therefore a Brahma;/a is not to drink spirits.' This text also is more appropriate if we take the passage, ' To him who knows this,' as an arthavada. — Hence passages of that kind are arthavadas, not injunctions. ^2. The works of the ai'ramas (are incumbent on him) also (who does not desire release) ; because they are enjoined.
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.
1To this we reply as follows. The permission to eat any food whatever is not enjoined, since the passages do not contain any word of injunctive power ; for the clause, ' To him who knows this there is nothing,' &c., expresses only something actually going on. And where the conception of an injunction does not naturally arise we may not assume one from the mere wish of something causing a special line of activity. ^Moreover the text says that ' for him who knows this there is nothing that is not food,' only after having said that ever\-thing even unto dogs and the like is food for the Pra;/a. Now food such as dogs and the like cannot be enjoyed by the human body; but all this can be thought of as food of the Pra«a. From this it follows that the passage is an arthavada meant to glorify the knowledge of the food of the Pra;/a, not an injunction of the permission of all food. — This the Sutra indicates in the words, ' and there is permission of all food Ill ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 3O. 3II
2in danger of life.' That means : Only in danger of life, in cases of highest need, food of any kind is permitted to be eaten. ' On account of scripture showing this.' For scripture shows that the r/shi A'akrayawa when in evil plight proceeded to eat unlawful food. In the brahma/za beginning, 'when the Kurus had been destroyed by hailstones,' it is told how the r?shi Arakraya;/a having fallen into great wretchedness ate the beans half eaten by a chief, but refused to drink what had been offered on the ground of its being a mere leaving ; and explained his proceeding as follows : ' I should not have lived if I had not eaten them ; but water I can drink wherever I like.' And again on the following day he ate the stale beans left by himself and another person. Scripture, in thus showing how the stale leaving of a leaving was eaten, intimates as its principle that in order to preserve one's life when in danger one may eat even unlawful food. That, on the other hand, in normal circumstances not even a man possessing knowledge must do this, appears from Kcikraya;/a's refusing to drink. — From this it follows that the passage, ' For to him who knows this,' &c., is an arthavada. 29. And on account of the non-sublation. And thus those scriptural passages which distinguish lawful and unlawful food, — such as K/i. Up. VII, 26, 3, ' When the food is pure the whole nature becomes pure,' — are non-sublated. 30. And this is said in Smmi also.
3That in cases of need both he who knows and he who does not know may eat any food Smrz'ti also states ; compare e.g. 'He who being in danger of his life eats food from anywhere is stained by sin no more than the lotus leaf by water.' — On the other hand, many passages teach that unlawful food is to be avoided. ' Intoxicating liquor the Brahma;/a must permanently forego ; ' ' Let them pour boiling spirits down the throat of the Brahmawa who drinks spirits ; ' ' Spirit-drinking worms grow in the 3 I 2 VEDANTA-st^TRAS. mouth of the spirit-drinking man, because he enjoys what is unlawful,' 31. And hence also a scriptural passage as to non-proceeding according to liking. There is also a scriptural passage prohibiting unlawful food, the purpose of which it is to stop procedure therein according to one's liking, viz. in the Sa?;^hita of the Ka///as, ' Therefore a Brahma;/a is not to drink spirits.' This text also is more appropriate if we take the passage, ' To him who knows this,' as an arthavada. — Hence passages of that kind are arthavadas, not injunctions. ^2. The works of the ai'ramas (are incumbent on him) also (who does not desire release) ; because they are enjoined.
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.