Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Under Sutra 26 it has been proved that the works enjoined on the ajramas are means of knowledge. Now we will consider whether those works have to be performed also by him who does not desire final release and therefore takes his stand on his aj-rama merely without wishing for knowledge. — Here the purvapakshin maintains that as the works incumbent on the a^ramas are enjoined as means of knowledge by the passage, ' Him the Br^hma;/as seek to know by the study of the Veda' &c., the works of permanent obligation are not to be performed by him who, not desirous of knowledge, wishes for some other fruit. Or else they are to be performed by him also ; but then they cannot be means of knowledge, since it would be contradictory to attribute to them a permanent and a nonpermanent connexion ^ Against this conclusion the Sutrakara remarks that the works of permanent obligation are to be performed by ^ I. e. we must not think that because they enjoin the ' nityata ' of certain works, other passages may not enjoin the same works as mere means of kno\vled":e. Ill ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, $^. 313 him only who, not desirous of release, takes his stand on the ajramas merely, because they are enjoined by texts such ' as long as his life lasts he is to offer the agnihotra.' For to such texts no excessive weight must be ascribed. — The next Sutra replies to the objection raised above in the words, ' but then they cannot be means of knowledge.'
2Those works are also co-operative with knowledge just because they are enjoined as such, viz. in passages such as ' Him the Brahma;/as seek to know by the study of the Veda,' &c. This has been explained under Sutra 26. Nor must you think that the texts stating the co-operation of the works of the aj-ramas towards knowledge refer to the fruit of knowledge, as e. g. the offerings called praya^as co-operate towards the fruit of the darj-apur;/amasa of which they are auxiliary members ; for knowledge is not characterised by injunction, and the fruit of knowledge is not to be effected by means. Means characterised by injunctions such as the dari-apur;/amasa-sacrifice which aim at bringing about certain fruits such as the heavenly world require other (subordinate) means co-operating towards the fruit (such as the praya^as). But not so knowledge. Compare on this point Sutra 25. Therefore texts stating the cooperation of works (with knowledge) have to be interpreted as stating that works are means for the origination of knowledge. — Nor need we fear that thus there arises a contradiction of permanent and non-permanent connexion. For there may be difference of connexion even where there is no difference of work. One connexion is permanent, resting on the texts about the life-long performance of the agnihotra and so on ; of this knowledge is not the result. The other connexion is non-permanent, resting on texts such as 'Him the Brahmawas seek to know,' &c. ; of this knowledge is the result. The case is analogous to that of the one khadira, which through a permanent connexion serves the purpose of the sacrifice, and through a nonpermanent connexion the purpose of man.
3In any case, i. e. whether viewed as duties incumbent on the a^ramas or as co-operating with knowledge, the very same agnihotra and other duties have to be performed. — What, it may be asked, does the teacher wish to preclude by the emphatic expression 'the very same?' — The suspicion, we reply, that those works might be separate works \ In the ayana of the Kwi dap-ay ins indeed the injunctive statement, ' They offer the agnihotra for a month V enjoins a sacrifice different from the permanent (ordinary) agnihotra ; but in our present case there is no analogous separation of works. — Why? — On account of the twofold indicatory mark ; i. e. on account of both scripture and Smr/ti supplying indicatory marks. In the first place, the scriptural passage, ' Him the Brahmawas seek to know through the study of the Veda,' &c., directs that sacrifices and the like — as things already established and the form of which is already in existence (viz. through previous injunctions)— are to be employed as means in the search for knowledge ; and does not originate a new form of those works, while the passage quoted above, ' They offer the agnihotra for a month,' does originate a new separate sacrifice. — In the second place the Smr/ti-passage, ' He who performs the work to be done without aiming at the fruit of the work,' shows that the very same work which is already known as something to be performed subserves the origination of knowledge. Moreover the Smr/ti-passage, ' He who is qualified by those forty-eight purifications,' &c., refers to the purifications required for Vedic works, with a view to the origination of knowledge in him who has undergone those purifications. — The Sutrak^ra therefore rightly emphasizes the non-difference of the works.
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.
1Under Sutra 26 it has been proved that the works enjoined on the ajramas are means of knowledge. Now we will consider whether those works have to be performed also by him who does not desire final release and therefore takes his stand on his aj-rama merely without wishing for knowledge. — Here the purvapakshin maintains that as the works incumbent on the a^ramas are enjoined as means of knowledge by the passage, ' Him the Br^hma;/as seek to know by the study of the Veda' &c., the works of permanent obligation are not to be performed by him who, not desirous of knowledge, wishes for some other fruit. Or else they are to be performed by him also ; but then they cannot be means of knowledge, since it would be contradictory to attribute to them a permanent and a nonpermanent connexion ^ Against this conclusion the Sutrakara remarks that the works of permanent obligation are to be performed by ^ I. e. we must not think that because they enjoin the ' nityata ' of certain works, other passages may not enjoin the same works as mere means of kno\vled":e. Ill ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, $^. 313 him only who, not desirous of release, takes his stand on the ajramas merely, because they are enjoined by texts such ' as long as his life lasts he is to offer the agnihotra.' For to such texts no excessive weight must be ascribed. — The next Sutra replies to the objection raised above in the words, ' but then they cannot be means of knowledge.'
2Those works are also co-operative with knowledge just because they are enjoined as such, viz. in passages such as ' Him the Brahma;/as seek to know by the study of the Veda,' &c. This has been explained under Sutra 26. Nor must you think that the texts stating the co-operation of the works of the aj-ramas towards knowledge refer to the fruit of knowledge, as e. g. the offerings called praya^as co-operate towards the fruit of the darj-apur;/amasa of which they are auxiliary members ; for knowledge is not characterised by injunction, and the fruit of knowledge is not to be effected by means. Means characterised by injunctions such as the dari-apur;/amasa-sacrifice which aim at bringing about certain fruits such as the heavenly world require other (subordinate) means co-operating towards the fruit (such as the praya^as). But not so knowledge. Compare on this point Sutra 25. Therefore texts stating the cooperation of works (with knowledge) have to be interpreted as stating that works are means for the origination of knowledge. — Nor need we fear that thus there arises a contradiction of permanent and non-permanent connexion. For there may be difference of connexion even where there is no difference of work. One connexion is permanent, resting on the texts about the life-long performance of the agnihotra and so on ; of this knowledge is not the result. The other connexion is non-permanent, resting on texts such as 'Him the Brahmawas seek to know,' &c. ; of this knowledge is the result. The case is analogous to that of the one khadira, which through a permanent connexion serves the purpose of the sacrifice, and through a nonpermanent connexion the purpose of man.
3In any case, i. e. whether viewed as duties incumbent on the a^ramas or as co-operating with knowledge, the very same agnihotra and other duties have to be performed. — What, it may be asked, does the teacher wish to preclude by the emphatic expression 'the very same?' — The suspicion, we reply, that those works might be separate works \ In the ayana of the Kwi dap-ay ins indeed the injunctive statement, ' They offer the agnihotra for a month V enjoins a sacrifice different from the permanent (ordinary) agnihotra ; but in our present case there is no analogous separation of works. — Why? — On account of the twofold indicatory mark ; i. e. on account of both scripture and Smr/ti supplying indicatory marks. In the first place, the scriptural passage, ' Him the Brahmawas seek to know through the study of the Veda,' &c., directs that sacrifices and the like — as things already established and the form of which is already in existence (viz. through previous injunctions)— are to be employed as means in the search for knowledge ; and does not originate a new form of those works, while the passage quoted above, ' They offer the agnihotra for a month,' does originate a new separate sacrifice. — In the second place the Smr/ti-passage, ' He who performs the work to be done without aiming at the fruit of the work,' shows that the very same work which is already known as something to be performed subserves the origination of knowledge. Moreover the Smr/ti-passage, ' He who is qualified by those forty-eight purifications,' &c., refers to the purifications required for Vedic works, with a view to the origination of knowledge in him who has undergone those purifications. — The Sutrak^ra therefore rightly emphasizes the non-difference of the works.
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.