Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1' Therefore let a Brahma;/a after he has done with learning wish to stand by a childlike state ; and after he has done with the childlike state and learning (he is, or, may be) a Muni ; and after he has done with what constitutes Muniship and non-Muniship (he is, or, may be) a Brahmawa' (Br/. Up. Ill, 5). With reference to this passage a doubt arises whether it enjoins the state of a Muni or not. — The purvapakshin maintains that it does not enjoin it, since the injunction is completed with the clause, ' Let him wish to stand by a childlike state.' The following clause 'then a Muni' contains no verbal form of injunctive force and therefore must be viewed as a mere anuvada (making a remark concerning the state of a Muni which is already established). Should it be asked how this conclusion is reached, we reply that Muniship is established by the clause 'having done with learning ' (which forms part of the injunctive portion of the passage), as ' Muni ' and ' learned man ' both denote knowledge ^ It is, moreover, clear also that the last clause, ' and after he has done with what constitutes Muniship and nonMuniship (he is) a Brahma;/a,' does not enjoin the condition of a Brahmawa, as that state is previously established (independently of that clause) ; but the words ' then a Brahmawa' are a mere glorificatory anuvada. Now as the words ' then a Muni ' show an analogous form of enunciation (to the clause 'then a Br^hma;/a'), they also can embody a glorificatory anuvada only.
2^ The state of a Muni is already enjoined by the clause ' pa«</ityara nirvidya;' the clause ' atha muni/^,' therefore, may be viewed as an anuvada (as which it could not be viewed, if there were no previous injunction of mauna). Ill ADHYAVA, 4 PADA, 47. 323
3To all this we reply as follows. ' There is an injunction of something else which co-operates.' The passage must be understood as enjoining the state of a Muni — which co-operates towards knowledge — in the same way as it enjoins learning and a childlike state, because that state is something new (not enjoined before). — But it has been said above that the word ' learning ' already intimates Muniship ! — This, we reply, does not invalidate our case since the word ' muni ' denotes (not only knowledge as the term ' learned man ' does, but) pre-eminence of knowledge, on the ground as well of its etymology from ' manana,' i.e. thinking, as of common use, shown in such phrases as 'I am the Vyasa of Munis also.' — But the term ' Muni' is also seen to denote the last order of life ; cp. passages such as ' Householdership, studentship, the order of Munis,, the order of hermits in the woods.' — Yes, but it has not that meaning exclusively, as w^e see that it does not apply to phrases such as ' Valmiki is the foremost among Munis.' In the passage quoted (about the four orders) the last order is referred to, by the term ' Muni,' because there it stands in proximity to the other orders of life, and, as the state of the Ascetic is the only one which remains (after we have assigned the three other terms to the stages of life clearly denoted by them), the last order may be denoted ' mauna ' because knowledge is its principal requirement. — We therefore conclude that in the passage under discussion the state of the Muni — whose characteristic mark is pre-eminence of knowledge — is enjoined as something third — -with regard to the childlike state and learning. — Against the objection that the injunction terminates with the childlike state, we remark that all the same we must view the Muniship also as something enjoined, as it is something new, so that we have to supplement the clause as follows : ' then Jie is to be a Muni.' That the state of a Muni is something to be enjoined, in the same way as the childlike state and learning, also follows from its being referred to as something to be done with (like balya and pa;/^itya). It is enjoined ' on him who is such,' i. e. on the Sawnyasin possessing knowledge. — How do we know this latter point ? — Because
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.
1' Therefore let a Brahma;/a after he has done with learning wish to stand by a childlike state ; and after he has done with the childlike state and learning (he is, or, may be) a Muni ; and after he has done with what constitutes Muniship and non-Muniship (he is, or, may be) a Brahmawa' (Br/. Up. Ill, 5). With reference to this passage a doubt arises whether it enjoins the state of a Muni or not. — The purvapakshin maintains that it does not enjoin it, since the injunction is completed with the clause, ' Let him wish to stand by a childlike state.' The following clause 'then a Muni' contains no verbal form of injunctive force and therefore must be viewed as a mere anuvada (making a remark concerning the state of a Muni which is already established). Should it be asked how this conclusion is reached, we reply that Muniship is established by the clause 'having done with learning ' (which forms part of the injunctive portion of the passage), as ' Muni ' and ' learned man ' both denote knowledge ^ It is, moreover, clear also that the last clause, ' and after he has done with what constitutes Muniship and nonMuniship (he is) a Brahma;/a,' does not enjoin the condition of a Brahmawa, as that state is previously established (independently of that clause) ; but the words ' then a Brahmawa' are a mere glorificatory anuvada. Now as the words ' then a Muni ' show an analogous form of enunciation (to the clause 'then a Br^hma;/a'), they also can embody a glorificatory anuvada only.
2^ The state of a Muni is already enjoined by the clause ' pa«</ityara nirvidya;' the clause ' atha muni/^,' therefore, may be viewed as an anuvada (as which it could not be viewed, if there were no previous injunction of mauna). Ill ADHYAVA, 4 PADA, 47. 323
3To all this we reply as follows. ' There is an injunction of something else which co-operates.' The passage must be understood as enjoining the state of a Muni — which co-operates towards knowledge — in the same way as it enjoins learning and a childlike state, because that state is something new (not enjoined before). — But it has been said above that the word ' learning ' already intimates Muniship ! — This, we reply, does not invalidate our case since the word ' muni ' denotes (not only knowledge as the term ' learned man ' does, but) pre-eminence of knowledge, on the ground as well of its etymology from ' manana,' i.e. thinking, as of common use, shown in such phrases as 'I am the Vyasa of Munis also.' — But the term ' Muni' is also seen to denote the last order of life ; cp. passages such as ' Householdership, studentship, the order of Munis,, the order of hermits in the woods.' — Yes, but it has not that meaning exclusively, as w^e see that it does not apply to phrases such as ' Valmiki is the foremost among Munis.' In the passage quoted (about the four orders) the last order is referred to, by the term ' Muni,' because there it stands in proximity to the other orders of life, and, as the state of the Ascetic is the only one which remains (after we have assigned the three other terms to the stages of life clearly denoted by them), the last order may be denoted ' mauna ' because knowledge is its principal requirement. — We therefore conclude that in the passage under discussion the state of the Muni — whose characteristic mark is pre-eminence of knowledge — is enjoined as something third — -with regard to the childlike state and learning. — Against the objection that the injunction terminates with the childlike state, we remark that all the same we must view the Muniship also as something enjoined, as it is something new, so that we have to supplement the clause as follows : ' then Jie is to be a Muni.' That the state of a Muni is something to be enjoined, in the same way as the childlike state and learning, also follows from its being referred to as something to be done with (like balya and pa;/^itya). It is enjoined ' on him who is such,' i. e. on the Sawnyasin possessing knowledge. — How do we know this latter point ? — Because
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.