Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1whether ether has an origin or not. — The purvapakshin maintains that ether does not originate, since there is no scriptural statement to that effect. For in the chapter which treats of the origin (of the world) ether is not mentioned at all. In the passage ' In the beginning there was that only which is, one only, without a second ' the K/iandogya. at first introduces Brahman as the general subject-matter, by means of the clause *that which is,' and thereupon (in the passages ' It thought,' ' It sent forth fire,' &c.) records the origin of three elements, viz. fire, water, and earth ; giving the first place to fire which (ordinarily) occupies the middle place among the five elements ^. Now, as scriptural statement is our (only) authority in the origination of the knowledge of supersensuous things, and as there is no scriptural statement declaring the origin of ether, ether must be considered to have no origin. 2. But there is (a scriptural statement of the origination of ether).
2The conjunction ' but ' indicates the adoption of another alternative. — The origin of ether may not be stated in the K/iandogya ; but it is stated in other scriptural passages. For the text of the Taittiriyakas, after having introduced Brahman as the general subject-matter, — in the words, 'The true, knowledge, without end is Brahman,' — goes on to say, 'From that Self sprang ether' (Taitt. Up. II, i). — Hence there arises a conflict of scriptural passages, the creation sometimes being said to begin with fire, sometimes with ether.— But may we not appropriately assume the two scriptural passages to form one syntactical whole? — It would be well indeed if we could do so, but a unity of the kind desired cannot be admitted, because the creator who is mentioned only once— in the passage 'he sent forth fire' — cannot be connected with two things to be created, as if the construction were ' He sent forth fire, he sent forth ether.' — But — an objection may be raised — we see that sometimes an agent, although mentioned once only, is yet ^ The usual order being ether, air, fire, water, earth. II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 3.
3connected with two objects ; as when we say ' after having cooked broth he now cooks rice.' We therefore maycombine the two scriptural sentences into one, ' Brahman having created ether created fire.' — Such a combination of sentences, we reply, is not admissible here, because the KMndogya intimates that fire was created first, while the Taittiriyaka assigns the same position to ether, and because it is impossible that both should have been created first. — The same remarks apply to a further contradiction involved in the other scriptural passage, ' From that Self sprang ether,' &c. ; for there also the material cause and the fact of origination, being mentioned only once, cannot be connected with fire as well as ether, so as to effect a sentence of the following kind, 'from that there sprang ether, from that there sprang fire.' Moreover the Taittiriyaka states separately that ' fire (sprang) from air ^.' — With regard to this conflict of statements somebody now maintains the following view. 3. (The Vedic statement concerning the origination of ether) has a secondary sense, on account of the impossibility (of the origination of ether).
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.
1whether ether has an origin or not. — The purvapakshin maintains that ether does not originate, since there is no scriptural statement to that effect. For in the chapter which treats of the origin (of the world) ether is not mentioned at all. In the passage ' In the beginning there was that only which is, one only, without a second ' the K/iandogya. at first introduces Brahman as the general subject-matter, by means of the clause *that which is,' and thereupon (in the passages ' It thought,' ' It sent forth fire,' &c.) records the origin of three elements, viz. fire, water, and earth ; giving the first place to fire which (ordinarily) occupies the middle place among the five elements ^. Now, as scriptural statement is our (only) authority in the origination of the knowledge of supersensuous things, and as there is no scriptural statement declaring the origin of ether, ether must be considered to have no origin. 2. But there is (a scriptural statement of the origination of ether).
2The conjunction ' but ' indicates the adoption of another alternative. — The origin of ether may not be stated in the K/iandogya ; but it is stated in other scriptural passages. For the text of the Taittiriyakas, after having introduced Brahman as the general subject-matter, — in the words, 'The true, knowledge, without end is Brahman,' — goes on to say, 'From that Self sprang ether' (Taitt. Up. II, i). — Hence there arises a conflict of scriptural passages, the creation sometimes being said to begin with fire, sometimes with ether.— But may we not appropriately assume the two scriptural passages to form one syntactical whole? — It would be well indeed if we could do so, but a unity of the kind desired cannot be admitted, because the creator who is mentioned only once— in the passage 'he sent forth fire' — cannot be connected with two things to be created, as if the construction were ' He sent forth fire, he sent forth ether.' — But — an objection may be raised — we see that sometimes an agent, although mentioned once only, is yet ^ The usual order being ether, air, fire, water, earth. II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 3.
3connected with two objects ; as when we say ' after having cooked broth he now cooks rice.' We therefore maycombine the two scriptural sentences into one, ' Brahman having created ether created fire.' — Such a combination of sentences, we reply, is not admissible here, because the KMndogya intimates that fire was created first, while the Taittiriyaka assigns the same position to ether, and because it is impossible that both should have been created first. — The same remarks apply to a further contradiction involved in the other scriptural passage, ' From that Self sprang ether,' &c. ; for there also the material cause and the fact of origination, being mentioned only once, cannot be connected with fire as well as ether, so as to effect a sentence of the following kind, 'from that there sprang ether, from that there sprang fire.' Moreover the Taittiriyaka states separately that ' fire (sprang) from air ^.' — With regard to this conflict of statements somebody now maintains the following view. 3. (The Vedic statement concerning the origination of ether) has a secondary sense, on account of the impossibility (of the origination of ether).
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.