Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1With regard to meditations on subordinate members of sacrificial actions there arises a doubt whether they are to be carried out by the sacrificer (i.e. him for whom the sacrifice is performed) or by the ofiiciating priests. — By the sacrificer, the purvapakshin maintains, because scripture declares fruits. For a fruit is declared in such texts as the following one, ' There is rain for him, and he brings rain for others who thus knowing meditates on the fivefold Saman as rain' {Kk. Up. II, 3, 2); and we must conclude that that fruit goes to the Lord of the sacrifice, because it is he who is entitled to the sacrificial performance together with its subordinate members, and because such meditations fall within the sphere of that to which he is entitled. And that the fruit belongs to him who carries out the meditations scripture states when saying, ' There is rain for him who meditates.' — But scripture declares a fruit for the priest also, viz. in the passage, 'Whatever desire he may desire either for himself or for the sacrificer he obtains by his singing.' — That passage, we reply, is of no force because it expressly declares the fruit (as belonging to the priest in a special case only). Hence the lord of the sacrifice only Ill ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 46. 32 I is the agent in those meditations which have a fruit ; this is the opinion of the teacher Atreya.
245. (They are) the work of the priest, this is the view of Aurt'ulomi ; since for that (i.e. the entire sacrificial work) he is feed. The assertion that the meditations on subordinate members of the sacrifice are the work of the sacrificer is unfounded. They rather are the work of the priest, as the teacher Aui^ulomi thinks. For the priest is rewarded for the work together with its subordinate members ; and the meditations on the udgitha and so on fall within the performance of the work since they belong to the sphere of that to which the person entitled (viz. the lord of the sacrifice) is entitled. Hence they are to be carried out by the priests only, the case being analogous to that of the restrictive rule as to the work to be performed by means of the godohana vessel. In agreement herewith scripture declares the udgatrz to be the agent in knowledge, in the following passage, 'Him Vaka Dalbhya knew. He was the udgatrz of the Naimishiya-sacrificers ' {Kh. Up. I, 2, 13). With reference to the circumstance noted by the purvapakshin that scripture states the fruit to belong to the agent, we remark that this makes no difference ; for with the exception of cases expressly stated the priest cannot be connected with the sacrifice since he subserves the purposes (acts for) another (viz. the lord of the sacrifice). 46. And on account of scriptural statement.
3' Whatever blessing the priests pray for at the sacrifice, they pray for the good of the sacrificer ; thus he said ' (vSat. Bra. I, 3, i, 26); 'Therefore an udgatrz who knows this may say : what wish shall I obtain for you by my singing ? ' {Kh. Up. I, 7, 8). These scriptural passages also declare that the fruit of meditations in which the priest is the agent goes to the sacrificer. — All this establishes the conclusion that the meditations on subordinate parts of the sacrifice are the work of the priest. [38] Y 32 2 VEDANTA-StjTRAS. 47. There is the Injunction of something else cooperating (towards knowledge) (which is) a third thing (with regard to balya and pa^^^itya), (which injunction is given) for the case (of perfect knowledge not yet having arisen) to him who is such (i. e. the Sa^/^nyasin possessing knowledge) ; as in the case of injunctions and the like.
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.
1With regard to meditations on subordinate members of sacrificial actions there arises a doubt whether they are to be carried out by the sacrificer (i.e. him for whom the sacrifice is performed) or by the ofiiciating priests. — By the sacrificer, the purvapakshin maintains, because scripture declares fruits. For a fruit is declared in such texts as the following one, ' There is rain for him, and he brings rain for others who thus knowing meditates on the fivefold Saman as rain' {Kk. Up. II, 3, 2); and we must conclude that that fruit goes to the Lord of the sacrifice, because it is he who is entitled to the sacrificial performance together with its subordinate members, and because such meditations fall within the sphere of that to which he is entitled. And that the fruit belongs to him who carries out the meditations scripture states when saying, ' There is rain for him who meditates.' — But scripture declares a fruit for the priest also, viz. in the passage, 'Whatever desire he may desire either for himself or for the sacrificer he obtains by his singing.' — That passage, we reply, is of no force because it expressly declares the fruit (as belonging to the priest in a special case only). Hence the lord of the sacrifice only Ill ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 46. 32 I is the agent in those meditations which have a fruit ; this is the opinion of the teacher Atreya.
245. (They are) the work of the priest, this is the view of Aurt'ulomi ; since for that (i.e. the entire sacrificial work) he is feed. The assertion that the meditations on subordinate members of the sacrifice are the work of the sacrificer is unfounded. They rather are the work of the priest, as the teacher Aui^ulomi thinks. For the priest is rewarded for the work together with its subordinate members ; and the meditations on the udgitha and so on fall within the performance of the work since they belong to the sphere of that to which the person entitled (viz. the lord of the sacrifice) is entitled. Hence they are to be carried out by the priests only, the case being analogous to that of the restrictive rule as to the work to be performed by means of the godohana vessel. In agreement herewith scripture declares the udgatrz to be the agent in knowledge, in the following passage, 'Him Vaka Dalbhya knew. He was the udgatrz of the Naimishiya-sacrificers ' {Kh. Up. I, 2, 13). With reference to the circumstance noted by the purvapakshin that scripture states the fruit to belong to the agent, we remark that this makes no difference ; for with the exception of cases expressly stated the priest cannot be connected with the sacrifice since he subserves the purposes (acts for) another (viz. the lord of the sacrifice). 46. And on account of scriptural statement.
3' Whatever blessing the priests pray for at the sacrifice, they pray for the good of the sacrificer ; thus he said ' (vSat. Bra. I, 3, i, 26); 'Therefore an udgatrz who knows this may say : what wish shall I obtain for you by my singing ? ' {Kh. Up. I, 7, 8). These scriptural passages also declare that the fruit of meditations in which the priest is the agent goes to the sacrificer. — All this establishes the conclusion that the meditations on subordinate parts of the sacrifice are the work of the priest. [38] Y 32 2 VEDANTA-StjTRAS. 47. There is the Injunction of something else cooperating (towards knowledge) (which is) a third thing (with regard to balya and pa^^^itya), (which injunction is given) for the case (of perfect knowledge not yet having arisen) to him who is such (i. e. the Sa^/^nyasin possessing knowledge) ; as in the case of injunctions and the like.
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.