Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1grating soul, but maintain that by denying the transmigrating character of the soul it aims at teaching that the soul is the Self of the Lord. From this it follows that the non-dual Lord is free from all evil qualities, and that to ascribe to him contrary qualities is an error. — Nor is it true that the doctrine of identity would imply that nobody is entitled to works, &c., and is contrary to perception and so on. For we admit that before true knowledge springs up, the soul is implicated in the transmigratory state, and that this state constitutes the sphere of the operation of perception and so on. On the other hand texts such as ' But when the Self only has become all this, how should he see another? ' &c., teach that as soon as true knowledge springs up, perception, &c., are no longer valid. — Nor do we mind your objecting that if perception, &c., cease to be valid, scripture itself ceases to be so ; for this conclusion is just what we assume. For on the ground of the text, ' Then a father is not a father ' up to ' Then the Vedas are not Vedas ' (Br/. Up. IV, 3, 22), we ourselves assume that when knowledge springs up scripture ceases to be valid. — And should you ask who then is characterised by the absence of true knowledge, we reply : You yourself who ask this question ! — And if you retort, ' But I am the Lord as declared by scripture,' we reply, ' Very w^ell, if you have arrived at that knowledge, then there is nobody who does not possess such knowledge.' — This also disposes of the objection, urged by some, that a system of non-duality cannot be established because the Self is affected with duality by Nescience.
2Hence we must fix our minds on the Lord as being the Self. 4. Not in the symbol (is the Self to be contemplated) ; for he (the meditating person) (may) not (view symbols as being the Self). ' Let a man meditate on mind as Brahman ; this is said with reference to the body. Let a man meditate on ether as Brahman ; this is said with reference to the Devas ' [Kh. Up. III. t8, i) ; ' Aditya is Brahman, this is the doctrine' IV ADHYAYA, I PADA, 4. 34 1 {Kh. Up. Ill, ly, 1); 'He who meditates on name as Brahman' {Kh. Up. VII, i, 5). With regard to these and similar meditations on symbols a doubt arises whether the Self is to be apprehended in them also, or not. The purvapakshin maintains that it is right to apprehend the Self in them also because Brahman is known from scriptural passages as the (universal) Self. For those symbols also are of the nature of Brahman in so far as they are effects of it, and therefore are of the nature of the Self as well.
3We must not, our reply runs, attach to symbols the idea of Brahman. P^or he, i.e. the meditating person, cannot comprehend the heterogeneous symbols as being of the nature of the Self. — Nor is it true that the symbols are of the nature of the Self, because as being effects of Brahman they are of the nature of Brahman ; for (from their being of the nature of Brahman) there results the non-existence of (them as) symbols. For the aggregate of names and so on can be viewed as of the nature of Brahman only in so far as the individual character of those effects of Brahman is sublated ; and when that character is sublated how then can they be viewed as symbols, and how can the Self be apprehended in them ? Nor does it follow from the fact of Brahman being the Self that a contemplation of the Self can be established on the ground of texts teaching a contemplation on Brahman (in certain symbols), since a contemplation of the latter kind does not do away with agentship and the like. For the instruction that Brahman is the Self depends on' the doing away with agentship and all other characteristics of transmigratory existence; the injunction of meditations, on the other hand, depends on the non-removal of those characteristics. Hence we cannot establish the apprehension of the Self (in the symbols) on the ground of the meditating person being the same as the symbols. For golden ornaments and figures made of gold are not identical with each other, but only in so far as gold constitutes the Self of both. And that from that oneness (of symbol and meditating person) which depends on Brahman being the Self of all there results non-existence of the symbols (and hence impossibility of the meditations
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.
1grating soul, but maintain that by denying the transmigrating character of the soul it aims at teaching that the soul is the Self of the Lord. From this it follows that the non-dual Lord is free from all evil qualities, and that to ascribe to him contrary qualities is an error. — Nor is it true that the doctrine of identity would imply that nobody is entitled to works, &c., and is contrary to perception and so on. For we admit that before true knowledge springs up, the soul is implicated in the transmigratory state, and that this state constitutes the sphere of the operation of perception and so on. On the other hand texts such as ' But when the Self only has become all this, how should he see another? ' &c., teach that as soon as true knowledge springs up, perception, &c., are no longer valid. — Nor do we mind your objecting that if perception, &c., cease to be valid, scripture itself ceases to be so ; for this conclusion is just what we assume. For on the ground of the text, ' Then a father is not a father ' up to ' Then the Vedas are not Vedas ' (Br/. Up. IV, 3, 22), we ourselves assume that when knowledge springs up scripture ceases to be valid. — And should you ask who then is characterised by the absence of true knowledge, we reply : You yourself who ask this question ! — And if you retort, ' But I am the Lord as declared by scripture,' we reply, ' Very w^ell, if you have arrived at that knowledge, then there is nobody who does not possess such knowledge.' — This also disposes of the objection, urged by some, that a system of non-duality cannot be established because the Self is affected with duality by Nescience.
2Hence we must fix our minds on the Lord as being the Self. 4. Not in the symbol (is the Self to be contemplated) ; for he (the meditating person) (may) not (view symbols as being the Self). ' Let a man meditate on mind as Brahman ; this is said with reference to the body. Let a man meditate on ether as Brahman ; this is said with reference to the Devas ' [Kh. Up. III. t8, i) ; ' Aditya is Brahman, this is the doctrine' IV ADHYAYA, I PADA, 4. 34 1 {Kh. Up. Ill, ly, 1); 'He who meditates on name as Brahman' {Kh. Up. VII, i, 5). With regard to these and similar meditations on symbols a doubt arises whether the Self is to be apprehended in them also, or not. The purvapakshin maintains that it is right to apprehend the Self in them also because Brahman is known from scriptural passages as the (universal) Self. For those symbols also are of the nature of Brahman in so far as they are effects of it, and therefore are of the nature of the Self as well.
3We must not, our reply runs, attach to symbols the idea of Brahman. P^or he, i.e. the meditating person, cannot comprehend the heterogeneous symbols as being of the nature of the Self. — Nor is it true that the symbols are of the nature of the Self, because as being effects of Brahman they are of the nature of Brahman ; for (from their being of the nature of Brahman) there results the non-existence of (them as) symbols. For the aggregate of names and so on can be viewed as of the nature of Brahman only in so far as the individual character of those effects of Brahman is sublated ; and when that character is sublated how then can they be viewed as symbols, and how can the Self be apprehended in them ? Nor does it follow from the fact of Brahman being the Self that a contemplation of the Self can be established on the ground of texts teaching a contemplation on Brahman (in certain symbols), since a contemplation of the latter kind does not do away with agentship and the like. For the instruction that Brahman is the Self depends on' the doing away with agentship and all other characteristics of transmigratory existence; the injunction of meditations, on the other hand, depends on the non-removal of those characteristics. Hence we cannot establish the apprehension of the Self (in the symbols) on the ground of the meditating person being the same as the symbols. For golden ornaments and figures made of gold are not identical with each other, but only in so far as gold constitutes the Self of both. And that from that oneness (of symbol and meditating person) which depends on Brahman being the Self of all there results non-existence of the symbols (and hence impossibility of the meditations
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.