Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
12. And on account of an indicatory mark. An indicatory mark also gives to understand that repetition is required. For, in the section treating of meditation IV ADHYAYA, I PAD A, 2. 33 on the udgitha, the text rejects the meditation on the udgitha viewed as the sun. because its result is one sun only, and (in the clause ' Do thou resolve his rays,' &c.) enjoins a meditation on his manifold rays as leading to the possession of many suns {Kh. Up. I^ 5, t ; 2) ; which shows that the repetition of meditations is something well known. Now as other meditations are meditations no less than the one referred to, it follows that repetition holds good for all of them.
2Here the following objection may be raised. With regard to those meditations whose fruit is something to be effected repetition may hold good, because thereby superior strength may be imparted to them. But of what use can repetition be with regard to the meditations having for their object the highest Brahman, which present to us Brahman as the uni\-ersal Self characterised by eternal purity, thought, and freedom ? Should it be said that repetition has to be allowed because the knowledge of Brahman being the Self cannot spring up on hearing a text once only, we reply that in that case it wall not spring up even when it is heard repeatedly. For if a text such as ' Thou art that ' does not originate the true notion of Brahman if heard once, what hope is there that the desired effect should be produced by its repetition ? — Perhaps it will be said that a sentence alone is not able to lead to the intuition of a thing; but that a sentence assisted by reasoning may enable us to intuite Brahman as the universal Self. But even in that case repetition would be useless ; for the reasoning will lead to the desired intuition even if gone through once only. — Again it will perhaps be said that the sentence and reasoning together effect only a cognition of the generic nature of the object known, not of its specific individual character. When, to exemplify this, a man says that he feels a pain in his heart another person can infer from this statement — and certain accompanying symptoms such as trembling of the limbs — only that there exists a pain in general but is unable to intuite its specific character ; all he knows is ' This man suffers a pain.' But what removes ignorance is (not
3334 vedanta-sOtras. a general knowledge but) the intuitive knowledge of the specific character of something. And repetition serves to produce such knowledge. — This also is not so. For if so much only is done repeatedly even, no specific knowledge can spring up. When a specific character is not cognized through scripture and reasoning being applied once, it will not be cognized through them if applied a hundred times even. Hence whether scripture and reasoning produce specific knowledge or general knowledge, in either case they will do so even if acting once only ; and repetition therefore is of no use. Nor can it be laid down as a binding rule that scripture and reasoning, applied once, in no case produce intuitive knowledge ; for their effect will after all depend on the various degrees of intelligence of those who wish to learn. Moreover a certain use of repetition may be admitted in the case of worldly things which consist of several parts and possess generic character as well as individual difference ; for there the student may grasp by one act of attention one part of the object, and by another act another part ; so e. g. in the case of long chapters to be studied. But in order to reach a true knowledge of Brahmian whose Self is mere intelligence and which therefore is destitute of generic character as well as specific difference there clearly is no need of repetition.
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.
12. And on account of an indicatory mark. An indicatory mark also gives to understand that repetition is required. For, in the section treating of meditation IV ADHYAYA, I PAD A, 2. 33 on the udgitha, the text rejects the meditation on the udgitha viewed as the sun. because its result is one sun only, and (in the clause ' Do thou resolve his rays,' &c.) enjoins a meditation on his manifold rays as leading to the possession of many suns {Kh. Up. I^ 5, t ; 2) ; which shows that the repetition of meditations is something well known. Now as other meditations are meditations no less than the one referred to, it follows that repetition holds good for all of them.
2Here the following objection may be raised. With regard to those meditations whose fruit is something to be effected repetition may hold good, because thereby superior strength may be imparted to them. But of what use can repetition be with regard to the meditations having for their object the highest Brahman, which present to us Brahman as the uni\-ersal Self characterised by eternal purity, thought, and freedom ? Should it be said that repetition has to be allowed because the knowledge of Brahman being the Self cannot spring up on hearing a text once only, we reply that in that case it wall not spring up even when it is heard repeatedly. For if a text such as ' Thou art that ' does not originate the true notion of Brahman if heard once, what hope is there that the desired effect should be produced by its repetition ? — Perhaps it will be said that a sentence alone is not able to lead to the intuition of a thing; but that a sentence assisted by reasoning may enable us to intuite Brahman as the universal Self. But even in that case repetition would be useless ; for the reasoning will lead to the desired intuition even if gone through once only. — Again it will perhaps be said that the sentence and reasoning together effect only a cognition of the generic nature of the object known, not of its specific individual character. When, to exemplify this, a man says that he feels a pain in his heart another person can infer from this statement — and certain accompanying symptoms such as trembling of the limbs — only that there exists a pain in general but is unable to intuite its specific character ; all he knows is ' This man suffers a pain.' But what removes ignorance is (not
3334 vedanta-sOtras. a general knowledge but) the intuitive knowledge of the specific character of something. And repetition serves to produce such knowledge. — This also is not so. For if so much only is done repeatedly even, no specific knowledge can spring up. When a specific character is not cognized through scripture and reasoning being applied once, it will not be cognized through them if applied a hundred times even. Hence whether scripture and reasoning produce specific knowledge or general knowledge, in either case they will do so even if acting once only ; and repetition therefore is of no use. Nor can it be laid down as a binding rule that scripture and reasoning, applied once, in no case produce intuitive knowledge ; for their effect will after all depend on the various degrees of intelligence of those who wish to learn. Moreover a certain use of repetition may be admitted in the case of worldly things which consist of several parts and possess generic character as well as individual difference ; for there the student may grasp by one act of attention one part of the object, and by another act another part ; so e. g. in the case of long chapters to be studied. But in order to reach a true knowledge of Brahmian whose Self is mere intelligence and which therefore is destitute of generic character as well as specific difference there clearly is no need of repetition.
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.