Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1the qualities of the buddhi and the other Hmiting adjuncts being wrongly superimposed upon the Self. That the non-transmigrating eternally free Self which neither acts nor enjoys is declared to be of the same size as the buddhi, is thus due only to its having the qualities of the buddhi for its essence (viz. as long as it is in fictitious connexion with the buddhi). Moreover we have the scriptural passage, * That living soul is to be known as part of the hundredth part of the point of a hair, divided a hundred times, and yet it is to be infinite ' (5ve. Up. V, 9), which at first states the soul to be atomic and then teaches it to be infinite. Now this is appropriate only in the case of the atomicity of the soul being metaphorical while its infinity is real ; for both statements cannot be taken in their primary sense at the same time. And the infinity certainly cannot be understood in a metaphorical sense, since all the Upanishads aim at showing that Brahman constitutes the Self of the soul. — The other passage also (Sve. Up. V, 8) which treats of the measure of the soul, ' The lower one, endowed with the quality of mind and the quality of body, is seen small even like the point of a goad,' teaches the soul's small size to depend on its connexion with the qualities of the buddhi, not upon its own Self. The following passage again, ' That small (a;/u) Self is to be knov/n by thought' (Mu. Up. Ill, I, 9), does not teach that the soul is of atomic size, since the subject of the chapter is Brahman in so far as not to be fathomed by the eye, &c., but to be apprehended by the serene light of knowledge, and since moreover the soul cannot be of atomic size in the primary sense of the word. Hence the statement about a;/utva (smallness, subtlety) has to be understood as referring either to the difficulty of knowing the soul, or else to its limiting adjuncts. Similarly such passages as ' Having by knowledge taken possession of the whole body ' (Kau. Up. HI, 6), which mention a difference (between the soul and knowledge), must be understood to mean that the soul takes possession of the whole body through the buddhi, its limiting adjunct ; or else they must be considered as mere modes of expression, as when we speak of the body of a stone statue. For we have
2already shown that the distinction of quality and thing qualified does not exist in the case of the soul. — The statements as to the soul abiding in the heart are likewise to be explained on the ground of the buddhi abiding there. — That also the soul's passing out and so on depend on the limiting adjuncts, is shown by the passage, 'What is it by whose passing out I shall pass out, and by whose staying I shall stay? He sent forth pra//a,' &c. (Pr. Up. VI, 3, 4). For where there is no passing out, no going and returning are known ; for what has not left the body cannot go and return ^. — As thus the soul (as long as involved in the sa;/zsara) has for its essence the qualities of its limiting adjuncts, it is spoken of as minute. The case is analogous to that of Brahman (pra^wa). Just as in those chapters whose topic is the meditation on the qualified Brahman, the highest Self is spoken of as possessing relative minuteness and so on, because it has the qualities of its limiting adjuncts for its essence (cp. ' Smaller than a grain of rice or barley ;' 'He who consists of mind, whose body is pra/za,' &c., Kh. Up. ni, 14, 2 ; 3) ; so it is also with the individual soul. — Very well, let us then assume that the transmigratory condition of the soul is due to the qualities of the buddhi forming its essence. From this, however, it will follow that, as the conjunction of buddhi and soul — which are different entities — must necessarily come to an end, the soul when disjoined from the buddhi will be altogether undefinable and thence non-existing or rather non-existing in the sa;//sira state -. — To this objection the next Sutra replies.
330. The objection (raised above) is not valid, since (the connexion of the soul with the buddhi) exists as long as the soul ; It being thus observed (in scripture). We need not fear that the objection formulated above can be proved. — Why ? — ' On account of the existence of the connexion of the soul with the buddhi, as long as the ^ So that the distinction insisted on in Sutra 20 is not valid. "- Katham asattva?;/ svarupena sattvad ity asahkhyaha sa;«saritvaw veti. An. Gi. 46 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
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.
1the qualities of the buddhi and the other Hmiting adjuncts being wrongly superimposed upon the Self. That the non-transmigrating eternally free Self which neither acts nor enjoys is declared to be of the same size as the buddhi, is thus due only to its having the qualities of the buddhi for its essence (viz. as long as it is in fictitious connexion with the buddhi). Moreover we have the scriptural passage, * That living soul is to be known as part of the hundredth part of the point of a hair, divided a hundred times, and yet it is to be infinite ' (5ve. Up. V, 9), which at first states the soul to be atomic and then teaches it to be infinite. Now this is appropriate only in the case of the atomicity of the soul being metaphorical while its infinity is real ; for both statements cannot be taken in their primary sense at the same time. And the infinity certainly cannot be understood in a metaphorical sense, since all the Upanishads aim at showing that Brahman constitutes the Self of the soul. — The other passage also (Sve. Up. V, 8) which treats of the measure of the soul, ' The lower one, endowed with the quality of mind and the quality of body, is seen small even like the point of a goad,' teaches the soul's small size to depend on its connexion with the qualities of the buddhi, not upon its own Self. The following passage again, ' That small (a;/u) Self is to be knov/n by thought' (Mu. Up. Ill, I, 9), does not teach that the soul is of atomic size, since the subject of the chapter is Brahman in so far as not to be fathomed by the eye, &c., but to be apprehended by the serene light of knowledge, and since moreover the soul cannot be of atomic size in the primary sense of the word. Hence the statement about a;/utva (smallness, subtlety) has to be understood as referring either to the difficulty of knowing the soul, or else to its limiting adjuncts. Similarly such passages as ' Having by knowledge taken possession of the whole body ' (Kau. Up. HI, 6), which mention a difference (between the soul and knowledge), must be understood to mean that the soul takes possession of the whole body through the buddhi, its limiting adjunct ; or else they must be considered as mere modes of expression, as when we speak of the body of a stone statue. For we have
2already shown that the distinction of quality and thing qualified does not exist in the case of the soul. — The statements as to the soul abiding in the heart are likewise to be explained on the ground of the buddhi abiding there. — That also the soul's passing out and so on depend on the limiting adjuncts, is shown by the passage, 'What is it by whose passing out I shall pass out, and by whose staying I shall stay? He sent forth pra//a,' &c. (Pr. Up. VI, 3, 4). For where there is no passing out, no going and returning are known ; for what has not left the body cannot go and return ^. — As thus the soul (as long as involved in the sa;/zsara) has for its essence the qualities of its limiting adjuncts, it is spoken of as minute. The case is analogous to that of Brahman (pra^wa). Just as in those chapters whose topic is the meditation on the qualified Brahman, the highest Self is spoken of as possessing relative minuteness and so on, because it has the qualities of its limiting adjuncts for its essence (cp. ' Smaller than a grain of rice or barley ;' 'He who consists of mind, whose body is pra/za,' &c., Kh. Up. ni, 14, 2 ; 3) ; so it is also with the individual soul. — Very well, let us then assume that the transmigratory condition of the soul is due to the qualities of the buddhi forming its essence. From this, however, it will follow that, as the conjunction of buddhi and soul — which are different entities — must necessarily come to an end, the soul when disjoined from the buddhi will be altogether undefinable and thence non-existing or rather non-existing in the sa;//sira state -. — To this objection the next Sutra replies.
330. The objection (raised above) is not valid, since (the connexion of the soul with the buddhi) exists as long as the soul ; It being thus observed (in scripture). We need not fear that the objection formulated above can be proved. — Why ? — ' On account of the existence of the connexion of the soul with the buddhi, as long as the ^ So that the distinction insisted on in Sutra 20 is not valid. "- Katham asattva?;/ svarupena sattvad ity asahkhyaha sa;«saritvaw veti. An. Gi. 46 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
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.