Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1With regard to these opinions we remark that, as far as the Sahkhyas are concerned, their doctrine that all Selfs are of the nature of intelligence, and that there is no difference between them in the point of proximity (to the pradhana), &c.^, implies that, if one Self is connected with pleasure and pain, all Selfs will be so connected. — Well but, the Sankhya might reply, a difference (in the connexion of the individual Selfs with pleasure and pain) may result from the circumstance that the activity of the pradhana aims at the isolation (emancipation) of the Selfs ^. Other- ^ Cognition, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, endeavour, merit, demerit, and bhavana. ^ The &c. implies the non-activity (audasinya) of the Selfs. ^ And therefore proceeds in a special definite direction capable of effecting in the end the emancipation of some particular Self 70 vedanta-sOtras.
2wise the activity of the pradhana would serve no other end but to manifest the pradhana's power, in consequence whereof no final release would ever take place. — This argumentation, we reply, is not sound. For we have no right to assume a difference which has for its only motive the accomplishment of an end desirable (to us, viz. the emancipation of the Selfs), but we must rather bring forward some proof for that difference. If no such proof can be brought forward, the desired end, i. e. the emancipation of the soul, must be supposed not to take place ; while at the same time the absence of any cause of difference establishes the confusion of actions and their results. — Against the Kawadas we urge that if, on their theory, the internal organ is connected with one soul, it must in the same way be connected with all other souls as well, as there is no difference in the point of proximity, &c.^ Hence, there being no difference of cause and consequently no difference of effect, it follows that, when one soul is connected with pleasure and pain, all souls are thus connected.— But may not the limitation (of actions and their results) be caused by the unseen principle (adn'sh/a) ? By no means, the following Sutra replies. 51. On account of the unseen principle being nonlimitative.
3While there are many souls, all-pervading like ether, and in equal proximity to all bodies from within as well as without, the so-called unseen principle (adr/sh/a), which is of the nature of religious merit or demerit, is acquired through mind, speech, and body (i. e. thoughts, words, and actions). — Now, according to the Sahkhyas, that principle inheres not in the Self, but abides in the pradhana and cannot, on account of the pradhana being the same (for all souls), be the limitative cause of the enjoyment of pleasure and pain for each individual Self. — And according to the Ka;/adas also the unseen principle is due to the non-particular conjunction of the Selfs with the internal ' The ' &c.' implies substantiality and so on. II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 53. 7 1 organs, and as thus there is no h'mitative reason for any particular adr/sh/a belonging to any particular soul, the doctrine is open to the same objection. — Well, but there are at work in every particular Self resolutions, &c., such as, ' I wish to obtain that result,' ' I wish to avoid that other result,' ' I am striving for that purpose,' ' I wish to act in that way,' &c. &c., and these may, we assume, define the relation of ownership in which particular Selfs stand to particular adrz'sh/as. — This objection is negatived in the following Sutra. 52. And this is also the case in resolutions, &c.
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.
1With regard to these opinions we remark that, as far as the Sahkhyas are concerned, their doctrine that all Selfs are of the nature of intelligence, and that there is no difference between them in the point of proximity (to the pradhana), &c.^, implies that, if one Self is connected with pleasure and pain, all Selfs will be so connected. — Well but, the Sankhya might reply, a difference (in the connexion of the individual Selfs with pleasure and pain) may result from the circumstance that the activity of the pradhana aims at the isolation (emancipation) of the Selfs ^. Other- ^ Cognition, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, endeavour, merit, demerit, and bhavana. ^ The &c. implies the non-activity (audasinya) of the Selfs. ^ And therefore proceeds in a special definite direction capable of effecting in the end the emancipation of some particular Self 70 vedanta-sOtras.
2wise the activity of the pradhana would serve no other end but to manifest the pradhana's power, in consequence whereof no final release would ever take place. — This argumentation, we reply, is not sound. For we have no right to assume a difference which has for its only motive the accomplishment of an end desirable (to us, viz. the emancipation of the Selfs), but we must rather bring forward some proof for that difference. If no such proof can be brought forward, the desired end, i. e. the emancipation of the soul, must be supposed not to take place ; while at the same time the absence of any cause of difference establishes the confusion of actions and their results. — Against the Kawadas we urge that if, on their theory, the internal organ is connected with one soul, it must in the same way be connected with all other souls as well, as there is no difference in the point of proximity, &c.^ Hence, there being no difference of cause and consequently no difference of effect, it follows that, when one soul is connected with pleasure and pain, all souls are thus connected.— But may not the limitation (of actions and their results) be caused by the unseen principle (adn'sh/a) ? By no means, the following Sutra replies. 51. On account of the unseen principle being nonlimitative.
3While there are many souls, all-pervading like ether, and in equal proximity to all bodies from within as well as without, the so-called unseen principle (adr/sh/a), which is of the nature of religious merit or demerit, is acquired through mind, speech, and body (i. e. thoughts, words, and actions). — Now, according to the Sahkhyas, that principle inheres not in the Self, but abides in the pradhana and cannot, on account of the pradhana being the same (for all souls), be the limitative cause of the enjoyment of pleasure and pain for each individual Self. — And according to the Ka;/adas also the unseen principle is due to the non-particular conjunction of the Selfs with the internal ' The ' &c.' implies substantiality and so on. II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 53. 7 1 organs, and as thus there is no h'mitative reason for any particular adr/sh/a belonging to any particular soul, the doctrine is open to the same objection. — Well, but there are at work in every particular Self resolutions, &c., such as, ' I wish to obtain that result,' ' I wish to avoid that other result,' ' I am striving for that purpose,' ' I wish to act in that way,' &c. &c., and these may, we assume, define the relation of ownership in which particular Selfs stand to particular adrz'sh/as. — This objection is negatived in the following Sutra. 52. And this is also the case in resolutions, &c.
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.