Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1^ Hence the phrase, ' there is no more knowledge,' — which seems to contradict the term ' a mass of knowledge,' — only means that, on the limiting adjuncts being dissolved, there is no longer any knowledge of distinctions. II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 1 8. 33 tion (' Here, Sir, thou hast landed me in utter bewilderment. Indeed I do not understand him, that when he has departed there is no more knowledge'), in the words, ' I say nothing that is bewildering. Verily, beloved, that Self is imperishable and of an indestructible nature. But it enters into contact with the sense organs.' — Non-contradiction moreover of the general assertion (about everything being known through one) results only from the acknowledgment that Brahman is the individual soul. The difference of the attributes of both is also owing to the limiting adjuncts only. Moreover the words ' Speak on for the sake of final deliverance ' (uttered by kanaka with reference to the instruction he receives from Ya^wavalkya about the vi^;7anamaya atman) implicitly deny that the Self consisting of knowledge (i.e. the individual soul) possesses any of the attributes of transitory existence, and thus show it to be one with the highest Self. — From all this it follows that the individual soul does not either originate or undergo destruction. 18. For this very reason (the individual soul is) intellicrent. o
2Owing to the conflicting views of the philosophical schools there arises a doubt whether, as the followers of Kawada think, the soul is in itself non-intelligent, so that its intelligence is merely adventitious ; or if, as the Sahkhyas think, eternal intelligence constitutes its very nature. The purvapakshin maintains that the intelligence of the Self is adventitious, and is produced by the conjunction of the Self with the mind (manas),just as, for instance, the quality of redness is produced in a jar by the conjunction of the jar with fire. For if the soul were of eternal (essential) intelligence, it would remain intelligent in the states of deep sleep, swoon, and possession, while as a matter of fact, men when waking from sleep and so on declare in reply to questions addressed to them that they were not conscious of anything. Men in their ordinary state, on the other hand, are seen to be (actively) intelligent. Hence, as intelli- [38] D 34 VEDANTA-StjTRAS. gence is clearly intermittent, we conclude that the Self's intelligence is adventitious only.
3To this we reply that the soul is of eternal intelligence, for that very reason that it is not a product but nothing else but the unmodified highest Brahman which, owing to the contact with its limiting adjuncts, appears as individual soul. That intelligence constitutes the essential nature of the highest Brahman, we know from scriptural passages such as 'Brahman is knowledge and bliss' (Brz. Up. Ill, 9, 28, 7); 'Brahman is true, knowledge, infinite' (Taitt. Up. II, i); 'Having neither inside nor outside, but being altogether a mass of knowledge' (Brt. Up. IV, 5, 13). Now, if the individual soul is nothing but that highest Brahman, then eternal intelligence constitutes the soul's essential nature also, just as light and heat constitute the nature of fire. In the chapter treating of that which consists of knowledge, there are, moreover, passages (directly declaring that the individual soul is of the nature of selfluminous intelligence), ' He not asleep himself looks down upon the sleeping (senses)' (Br/. Up. IV, 3, 11); 'That person is self-illuminated ' (Brt. Up. IV, 3, 14) ; ' For there is no intermission. of the knowing of the knower' (Br/. Up. IV, 3, 30). That the soul's nature is intelligence, follows moreover from the passage [K/i. Up. VIII, 12, 4) where it is represented as connected with knowledge through all sense-organs, ' He who knows, let me smell this, he is the Self,' &c. &c. — From the soul's essential nature being intelligence it does not follow that the senses are useless ; for they serve the purpose of determining the special object of each sense, such as smell and so on. This is expressly declared by scripture, 'Smell is for the purpose of perceiving odour' (K/i. Up. VIII, 12, 4). — The objection that sleeping persons are not conscious of anything is refuted by scripture, where we read concerning a man lying in deep sleep, 'And when there he does not see, yet he is seeing though he does not see. For there is no intermission of the seeing of the seer, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could see' (Br/. Up. IV, 3, 23). That means:
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^ Hence the phrase, ' there is no more knowledge,' — which seems to contradict the term ' a mass of knowledge,' — only means that, on the limiting adjuncts being dissolved, there is no longer any knowledge of distinctions. II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 1 8. 33 tion (' Here, Sir, thou hast landed me in utter bewilderment. Indeed I do not understand him, that when he has departed there is no more knowledge'), in the words, ' I say nothing that is bewildering. Verily, beloved, that Self is imperishable and of an indestructible nature. But it enters into contact with the sense organs.' — Non-contradiction moreover of the general assertion (about everything being known through one) results only from the acknowledgment that Brahman is the individual soul. The difference of the attributes of both is also owing to the limiting adjuncts only. Moreover the words ' Speak on for the sake of final deliverance ' (uttered by kanaka with reference to the instruction he receives from Ya^wavalkya about the vi^;7anamaya atman) implicitly deny that the Self consisting of knowledge (i.e. the individual soul) possesses any of the attributes of transitory existence, and thus show it to be one with the highest Self. — From all this it follows that the individual soul does not either originate or undergo destruction. 18. For this very reason (the individual soul is) intellicrent. o
2Owing to the conflicting views of the philosophical schools there arises a doubt whether, as the followers of Kawada think, the soul is in itself non-intelligent, so that its intelligence is merely adventitious ; or if, as the Sahkhyas think, eternal intelligence constitutes its very nature. The purvapakshin maintains that the intelligence of the Self is adventitious, and is produced by the conjunction of the Self with the mind (manas),just as, for instance, the quality of redness is produced in a jar by the conjunction of the jar with fire. For if the soul were of eternal (essential) intelligence, it would remain intelligent in the states of deep sleep, swoon, and possession, while as a matter of fact, men when waking from sleep and so on declare in reply to questions addressed to them that they were not conscious of anything. Men in their ordinary state, on the other hand, are seen to be (actively) intelligent. Hence, as intelli- [38] D 34 VEDANTA-StjTRAS. gence is clearly intermittent, we conclude that the Self's intelligence is adventitious only.
3To this we reply that the soul is of eternal intelligence, for that very reason that it is not a product but nothing else but the unmodified highest Brahman which, owing to the contact with its limiting adjuncts, appears as individual soul. That intelligence constitutes the essential nature of the highest Brahman, we know from scriptural passages such as 'Brahman is knowledge and bliss' (Brz. Up. Ill, 9, 28, 7); 'Brahman is true, knowledge, infinite' (Taitt. Up. II, i); 'Having neither inside nor outside, but being altogether a mass of knowledge' (Brt. Up. IV, 5, 13). Now, if the individual soul is nothing but that highest Brahman, then eternal intelligence constitutes the soul's essential nature also, just as light and heat constitute the nature of fire. In the chapter treating of that which consists of knowledge, there are, moreover, passages (directly declaring that the individual soul is of the nature of selfluminous intelligence), ' He not asleep himself looks down upon the sleeping (senses)' (Br/. Up. IV, 3, 11); 'That person is self-illuminated ' (Brt. Up. IV, 3, 14) ; ' For there is no intermission. of the knowing of the knower' (Br/. Up. IV, 3, 30). That the soul's nature is intelligence, follows moreover from the passage [K/i. Up. VIII, 12, 4) where it is represented as connected with knowledge through all sense-organs, ' He who knows, let me smell this, he is the Self,' &c. &c. — From the soul's essential nature being intelligence it does not follow that the senses are useless ; for they serve the purpose of determining the special object of each sense, such as smell and so on. This is expressly declared by scripture, 'Smell is for the purpose of perceiving odour' (K/i. Up. VIII, 12, 4). — The objection that sleeping persons are not conscious of anything is refuted by scripture, where we read concerning a man lying in deep sleep, 'And when there he does not see, yet he is seeing though he does not see. For there is no intermission of the seeing of the seer, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could see' (Br/. Up. IV, 3, 23). That means:
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.