Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1These two views have been embodied by the teacher in the Sutras ; one in the Sutras 7-1 1, the other in the Sutras 12-14. Now the arguments contained in the former set are capable of proving the fallaciousness of the arguments in the latter set, but not vice versa ; from which it follows that the former set states the final view and the latter set the prima facie view only. — For nobody can compel us to accept the primary sense of a word (such as Brahman) even where it is impossible to do so. — And although met with in a chapter that treats of the highest knowledge, the reference to the going to Brahman — which belongs to another kind of knowledge — may be explained as aiming merely at the glorification of the highest knowledge (not at teaching that the going to Brahman is the result of higher ^ I am not quite sure which passage in the daharavidya is supposed to prove that the entering of Brahman's house is preceded by going. Probably VIII, 6, 5, ' He departs upwards ; he is going to the sun.' ;94 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
2knowledge). — And with reference to the passage, ' I enter the hall of Pra^apati, the house,' there is no reason why we should not separate that passage from what precedes and refer the intention of entering to the effected Brahman. And the qualified Brahman also may be spoken of as being the Self of all, as shown by other passages such as ' He to whom all works, all desires belong,' &c. {Kh. Up. Ill, 14, 2). The texts about the going therefore all belong to the lower knowledge. — Others again, in accordance with the general principle that the earlier Sutras set forth the prima facie view, while the later ones contain the siddhanta view, maintain that the passages about the soul's going fall within the sphere of the higher knowledge. But this is impossible, because nothing may go to the highest Brahman. ■ Omnipresent and eternal like the ether;' 'The Brahman which is visible, not invisible, the Self that is within all ' (BW. Up. Ill, 4, i); 'Self only is all this' {Kh. Up. VII, 25, 2) ; ' Brahman only is all this, it is the best ' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 11): from all these passages we ascertain that the highest Brahman is present everywhere, within everything, the Self of everything, and of such a Brahman it is altogether impossible that it ever should be the goal of going. For we do not go to what is already reached ; ordinary experience rather tells us that a person goes to something different from him. — But we observ^e in ordinary experience also that something already reached may become an object of going, in so far as qualified by a different place ; a man living on the earth, e. g. goes to the earth, in so far as he goes to another place on the earth. In the same way we see that a child reaches the adult state which in reality belongs to the child's identical Self, but is qualified by a difference of time. Analogously Brahman also may be an object of going in so far as it is possessed of all kinds of powers. — This may not be, we reply, because scripture expressly negatives Brahman's possessing any distinctive qualities. — ' Without parts, without actions, tranquil, without fault, without taint' (wSvet. Up. VI, 19); 'Neither coarse nor fincj neither short nor long' (Br/. Up. Ill, 8, 8) ; ' He who is without and within, unproduced ' (Mu. Up. II, 1,2);
3' This great, unborn Self, undecaying, undying, immortal, fearless^ is indeed Brahman' (Br/. Up. IV, 4, 25) ; 'He is to be described by No, no!' (Brz. Up. Ill, 9, 26); from all these scriptural texts, as well as from Smr/ti and reasoning, it follows that the highest Self cannot be assumed to possess any differences depending on time or space or anything else, and cannot therefore become the object of going. The cases of places on the earth and of the different ages of man are by no means analogous ; for they are affected by differences of locality and so on, and therefore can be gone to or reached. — Nor will it avail our opponent to say that Brahman possesses manifold powers, because scripture declares it to be the cause of the world's origination, sustentation, and final retractation ; for those passages which deny difference have no other sense (but just the absolute denial of all difference). — But in the same way also those passages which state the origination and so on of the world have no other sense ! (i. e. cannot be understood to teach anything but just the origination and so on of the world). — This is not so, we reply ; for what they aim at teaching is the absolute oneness of Brahman. For texts which by means of the simile of the lump of clay, &c., teach that only that which is, viz. Brahman, is true, while everything effected is untrue, cannot aim at teaching the origination, &c. of the world. — But why should the passages about the origination, &c. of the world be subordinate to those which deny all difference, and not vice versa ? — Because, we reply, the texts which negative all difference effect the cessation of all desire. For when the absolute oneness, permanence, and purity of the Self have once been apprehended, w^e cognize that the highest aim of man has been attained, and therefore conceive no further desires. Compare the following texts : ' What trouble, what sorrow can there be to him who beholds that unity ?' (Ij-a-up. 7); 'Thou hast reached fearlessness, O 6'anaka ' (Brz. Up.IV, 2, 4) ; ' He who knows does not fear anything; he does not distress himself with the thought. Why did I not do what is good ? Why did I do what is bad ? ' (Taitt. Up. II, 9.) This also follows from our observing- that those who know realise
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.
1These two views have been embodied by the teacher in the Sutras ; one in the Sutras 7-1 1, the other in the Sutras 12-14. Now the arguments contained in the former set are capable of proving the fallaciousness of the arguments in the latter set, but not vice versa ; from which it follows that the former set states the final view and the latter set the prima facie view only. — For nobody can compel us to accept the primary sense of a word (such as Brahman) even where it is impossible to do so. — And although met with in a chapter that treats of the highest knowledge, the reference to the going to Brahman — which belongs to another kind of knowledge — may be explained as aiming merely at the glorification of the highest knowledge (not at teaching that the going to Brahman is the result of higher ^ I am not quite sure which passage in the daharavidya is supposed to prove that the entering of Brahman's house is preceded by going. Probably VIII, 6, 5, ' He departs upwards ; he is going to the sun.' ;94 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
2knowledge). — And with reference to the passage, ' I enter the hall of Pra^apati, the house,' there is no reason why we should not separate that passage from what precedes and refer the intention of entering to the effected Brahman. And the qualified Brahman also may be spoken of as being the Self of all, as shown by other passages such as ' He to whom all works, all desires belong,' &c. {Kh. Up. Ill, 14, 2). The texts about the going therefore all belong to the lower knowledge. — Others again, in accordance with the general principle that the earlier Sutras set forth the prima facie view, while the later ones contain the siddhanta view, maintain that the passages about the soul's going fall within the sphere of the higher knowledge. But this is impossible, because nothing may go to the highest Brahman. ■ Omnipresent and eternal like the ether;' 'The Brahman which is visible, not invisible, the Self that is within all ' (BW. Up. Ill, 4, i); 'Self only is all this' {Kh. Up. VII, 25, 2) ; ' Brahman only is all this, it is the best ' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 11): from all these passages we ascertain that the highest Brahman is present everywhere, within everything, the Self of everything, and of such a Brahman it is altogether impossible that it ever should be the goal of going. For we do not go to what is already reached ; ordinary experience rather tells us that a person goes to something different from him. — But we observ^e in ordinary experience also that something already reached may become an object of going, in so far as qualified by a different place ; a man living on the earth, e. g. goes to the earth, in so far as he goes to another place on the earth. In the same way we see that a child reaches the adult state which in reality belongs to the child's identical Self, but is qualified by a difference of time. Analogously Brahman also may be an object of going in so far as it is possessed of all kinds of powers. — This may not be, we reply, because scripture expressly negatives Brahman's possessing any distinctive qualities. — ' Without parts, without actions, tranquil, without fault, without taint' (wSvet. Up. VI, 19); 'Neither coarse nor fincj neither short nor long' (Br/. Up. Ill, 8, 8) ; ' He who is without and within, unproduced ' (Mu. Up. II, 1,2);
3' This great, unborn Self, undecaying, undying, immortal, fearless^ is indeed Brahman' (Br/. Up. IV, 4, 25) ; 'He is to be described by No, no!' (Brz. Up. Ill, 9, 26); from all these scriptural texts, as well as from Smr/ti and reasoning, it follows that the highest Self cannot be assumed to possess any differences depending on time or space or anything else, and cannot therefore become the object of going. The cases of places on the earth and of the different ages of man are by no means analogous ; for they are affected by differences of locality and so on, and therefore can be gone to or reached. — Nor will it avail our opponent to say that Brahman possesses manifold powers, because scripture declares it to be the cause of the world's origination, sustentation, and final retractation ; for those passages which deny difference have no other sense (but just the absolute denial of all difference). — But in the same way also those passages which state the origination and so on of the world have no other sense ! (i. e. cannot be understood to teach anything but just the origination and so on of the world). — This is not so, we reply ; for what they aim at teaching is the absolute oneness of Brahman. For texts which by means of the simile of the lump of clay, &c., teach that only that which is, viz. Brahman, is true, while everything effected is untrue, cannot aim at teaching the origination, &c. of the world. — But why should the passages about the origination, &c. of the world be subordinate to those which deny all difference, and not vice versa ? — Because, we reply, the texts which negative all difference effect the cessation of all desire. For when the absolute oneness, permanence, and purity of the Self have once been apprehended, w^e cognize that the highest aim of man has been attained, and therefore conceive no further desires. Compare the following texts : ' What trouble, what sorrow can there be to him who beholds that unity ?' (Ij-a-up. 7); 'Thou hast reached fearlessness, O 6'anaka ' (Brz. Up.IV, 2, 4) ; ' He who knows does not fear anything; he does not distress himself with the thought. Why did I not do what is good ? Why did I do what is bad ? ' (Taitt. Up. II, 9.) This also follows from our observing- that those who know realise
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.