Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1there is no room for the objections raised. Having regard to the inequality of the virtuous and vicious actions of the souls, the Lord, acting as a mere occasional cause, allots to them corresponding unequal results. An analogous case is furnished by rain. As rain constitutes the common occasional cause for shrubs, bushes, corn, and so on, which belong to different species and spring each from its particular seed — for the inequality of their sap. flowers, fruits, and leaves results neither when rain is absent nor when the special seeds are absent — ; so we also must assume that the Lord arranges favourable or unfavourable circumstances for the souls with a view to their former efforts. — But if the activity of the soul is dependent on something else, this having regard (on the part of the Lord) to former effort is inappropriate. — By no means, we reply ; for although the activity of the soul is not independent, yet the soul does act. The Lord indeed causes it to act, but it acts itself. Moreover, the Lord in causing it to act now has regard to its former efforts, and he caused it to act in a former existence, having regard to its efforts previous to that existence ; a regressus against which, considering the eternity of the sawsara, no objections can be raised. — But how is it known that the Lord has regard to the efforts made (in former existences) ? — The Sutra replies : from the purportlessness. &c.. of injunctions and prohibitions. For thus (i. e. if the Lord has regard to former actions) injunctions such as ' he who is desirous of the heavenly world is to sacrifice,' and prohibitions such as ' a Brahma«a must not be killed,' are not devoid of purport. On the other alternative they would be without purport, and the Lord would in fact be enjoined in the place of injunctions and prohibitions ^, since the soul would be absolutely dependent. And then the Lord might requite with good those who act according to the injunctions, and with evil men doing what is forbidden ; which would
2^ Ijvara eva vidhinishedhayo/z sthane ni)'u^3-eta }'ad vidhinishedhayo^ \)hz\a.m tad uvarewa tatpratipaditadharmadharmanirapekshewa kr/tam iii. Bha. II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 43. 6 1 subvert the authoritativeness of the Veda. Moreover, if the Lord were absolutely without any regard, it would follow that also the ordinary efforts of men are without any purport ; and so likewise the special conditions of place, time, and cause. And also the difficulty mentioned above ^ would present itself. — All these latter difficulties the Sutrakara comprises in his ' &c.' 43. {The soul is) a part of the Lord, on account of the declarations of difference, and (because) in a different way also some record that (Brahman) is of the nature of slaves, fishers, and so on. We have shown that the individual soul and the Lord stand to each other in the relation of what is being acted upon and what is acting upon. This relation is observed in ordinary life to exist only between things connected, such as a master and a servant, or a fire and its sparks. Now as the soul and the Lord also are acknowledged to stand in the relation of what is acted upon and what is acting, a doubt arises whether their connexion is analogous to that of a master and a servant, or to that of a fire and its sparks.
3The purvapakshin maintains that either the matter is to be considered as undetermined, or that the connexion is like that of master and servant, because that connexion only is well known to be the relation of ruler (Lord) and subject ruled. To this the Sutra replies that the soul must be considered a part of the Lord, just as a spark is a part of the fire. By 'part' we mean 'a part as it were,' since a being not composed of parts cannot have parts in the literal sense. — Why, then, do we not view the Lord, who is not composed of parts, as identical with the soul ? — ' On account of the declarations of difference.' For such scriptural passages as ' That (self) it is which we must search out, that it is which we must try to understand ' {Kh. Up. ^ I.e. the objectionable assumption that men have to undergo consequences not resulting from their own former actions. 62 vedanta-sCtras.
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.
1there is no room for the objections raised. Having regard to the inequality of the virtuous and vicious actions of the souls, the Lord, acting as a mere occasional cause, allots to them corresponding unequal results. An analogous case is furnished by rain. As rain constitutes the common occasional cause for shrubs, bushes, corn, and so on, which belong to different species and spring each from its particular seed — for the inequality of their sap. flowers, fruits, and leaves results neither when rain is absent nor when the special seeds are absent — ; so we also must assume that the Lord arranges favourable or unfavourable circumstances for the souls with a view to their former efforts. — But if the activity of the soul is dependent on something else, this having regard (on the part of the Lord) to former effort is inappropriate. — By no means, we reply ; for although the activity of the soul is not independent, yet the soul does act. The Lord indeed causes it to act, but it acts itself. Moreover, the Lord in causing it to act now has regard to its former efforts, and he caused it to act in a former existence, having regard to its efforts previous to that existence ; a regressus against which, considering the eternity of the sawsara, no objections can be raised. — But how is it known that the Lord has regard to the efforts made (in former existences) ? — The Sutra replies : from the purportlessness. &c.. of injunctions and prohibitions. For thus (i. e. if the Lord has regard to former actions) injunctions such as ' he who is desirous of the heavenly world is to sacrifice,' and prohibitions such as ' a Brahma«a must not be killed,' are not devoid of purport. On the other alternative they would be without purport, and the Lord would in fact be enjoined in the place of injunctions and prohibitions ^, since the soul would be absolutely dependent. And then the Lord might requite with good those who act according to the injunctions, and with evil men doing what is forbidden ; which would
2^ Ijvara eva vidhinishedhayo/z sthane ni)'u^3-eta }'ad vidhinishedhayo^ \)hz\a.m tad uvarewa tatpratipaditadharmadharmanirapekshewa kr/tam iii. Bha. II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 43. 6 1 subvert the authoritativeness of the Veda. Moreover, if the Lord were absolutely without any regard, it would follow that also the ordinary efforts of men are without any purport ; and so likewise the special conditions of place, time, and cause. And also the difficulty mentioned above ^ would present itself. — All these latter difficulties the Sutrakara comprises in his ' &c.' 43. {The soul is) a part of the Lord, on account of the declarations of difference, and (because) in a different way also some record that (Brahman) is of the nature of slaves, fishers, and so on. We have shown that the individual soul and the Lord stand to each other in the relation of what is being acted upon and what is acting upon. This relation is observed in ordinary life to exist only between things connected, such as a master and a servant, or a fire and its sparks. Now as the soul and the Lord also are acknowledged to stand in the relation of what is acted upon and what is acting, a doubt arises whether their connexion is analogous to that of a master and a servant, or to that of a fire and its sparks.
3The purvapakshin maintains that either the matter is to be considered as undetermined, or that the connexion is like that of master and servant, because that connexion only is well known to be the relation of ruler (Lord) and subject ruled. To this the Sutra replies that the soul must be considered a part of the Lord, just as a spark is a part of the fire. By 'part' we mean 'a part as it were,' since a being not composed of parts cannot have parts in the literal sense. — Why, then, do we not view the Lord, who is not composed of parts, as identical with the soul ? — ' On account of the declarations of difference.' For such scriptural passages as ' That (self) it is which we must search out, that it is which we must try to understand ' {Kh. Up. ^ I.e. the objectionable assumption that men have to undergo consequences not resulting from their own former actions. 62 vedanta-sCtras.
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.