Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1^4- VEDANTA-SUTRAS. enjoined), we have explained above. — For these reasons the Self is not contemplated in symbols. 5. A contemplation of Brahman (is to be superinduced on symbols of Brahman), on account of the exaltation (thereby bestowed on the symbols).
2With regard to the texts quoted above there arises another doubt, viz. whether the contemplation of Aditya and so on is to be superimposed on Brahman, or the contemplation of Brahman on Aditya and so on ^. — But whence does this doubt arise? — From the absence of a decisive reason, owing to the grammatical co-ordination. For we observe in the sentences quoted a co-ordination of the term ' Brahman ' with the terms 'Aditya,' &c. 'Aditya is Brahman,' ' Pra;/a is Brahman,' ' Lightning is Brahman ; ' the text exhibiting the two members of each clause in the same case. And here there is no obvious occasion for co-ordination because the words ' Brahman ' on the one hand, and 'Aditya' and so on on the other hand, denote different things ; not any more than there exists a relation of co-ordination which could be expressed by the sentence ' The ox is a horse.' — But cannot Brahman and Aditya and so on be viewed as co-ordinated on the basis of the relation connecting a causal substance and its effects, analogously to the case of clay and earthen vessels ? — By no means, we reply. For in that case dissolution of the effect would result from its co-ordination with the causal substance, and that — as we have already explained — would imply non-existence of the symbol. Moreover, the scriptural passages would then be statements about the highest Self, and thereby the qualification for meditations would be sublated - ; and further the mention of a limited effect would be purposeless ^. It follows herefrom that we have
3^ I. e. whether Brahman is to be meditated upon as Aditya, or Aditya as Brahman. ^ While, as a matter of fact, scripture enjoins the meditations. ^ It would serve no purpose to refer to limited things, such as IV ADHYAYA, I PADA, 5. 343 to do here with the superimposition of the contemplation of one thing on another thing — just as in the case of the text, ' The Brahmawa is Agni Vaij-vanara,' — and the doubt therefore arises the contemplation of which of the two things is to be superimposed on the other. The piirvapakshin maintains that there exists no fixed rule for this case, because we have no scriptural text establishing such a rule. — Or else, he says, contemplations on Aditya and so on are exclusively to be superimposed on Brahman. For in this way Brahman is meditated upon by means of contemplations on Aditya, and scripture decides that meditations on Brahman are what is productive of fruits. Hence contemplations on Brahman are not to be superimposed on Aditya and so on.
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.
1^4- VEDANTA-SUTRAS. enjoined), we have explained above. — For these reasons the Self is not contemplated in symbols. 5. A contemplation of Brahman (is to be superinduced on symbols of Brahman), on account of the exaltation (thereby bestowed on the symbols).
2With regard to the texts quoted above there arises another doubt, viz. whether the contemplation of Aditya and so on is to be superimposed on Brahman, or the contemplation of Brahman on Aditya and so on ^. — But whence does this doubt arise? — From the absence of a decisive reason, owing to the grammatical co-ordination. For we observe in the sentences quoted a co-ordination of the term ' Brahman ' with the terms 'Aditya,' &c. 'Aditya is Brahman,' ' Pra;/a is Brahman,' ' Lightning is Brahman ; ' the text exhibiting the two members of each clause in the same case. And here there is no obvious occasion for co-ordination because the words ' Brahman ' on the one hand, and 'Aditya' and so on on the other hand, denote different things ; not any more than there exists a relation of co-ordination which could be expressed by the sentence ' The ox is a horse.' — But cannot Brahman and Aditya and so on be viewed as co-ordinated on the basis of the relation connecting a causal substance and its effects, analogously to the case of clay and earthen vessels ? — By no means, we reply. For in that case dissolution of the effect would result from its co-ordination with the causal substance, and that — as we have already explained — would imply non-existence of the symbol. Moreover, the scriptural passages would then be statements about the highest Self, and thereby the qualification for meditations would be sublated - ; and further the mention of a limited effect would be purposeless ^. It follows herefrom that we have
3^ I. e. whether Brahman is to be meditated upon as Aditya, or Aditya as Brahman. ^ While, as a matter of fact, scripture enjoins the meditations. ^ It would serve no purpose to refer to limited things, such as IV ADHYAYA, I PADA, 5. 343 to do here with the superimposition of the contemplation of one thing on another thing — just as in the case of the text, ' The Brahmawa is Agni Vaij-vanara,' — and the doubt therefore arises the contemplation of which of the two things is to be superimposed on the other. The piirvapakshin maintains that there exists no fixed rule for this case, because we have no scriptural text establishing such a rule. — Or else, he says, contemplations on Aditya and so on are exclusively to be superimposed on Brahman. For in this way Brahman is meditated upon by means of contemplations on Aditya, and scripture decides that meditations on Brahman are what is productive of fruits. Hence contemplations on Brahman are not to be superimposed on Aditya and so on.
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.