Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The objection pointed out before applies also to resolutions, &c., for they also are made through the nonparticular conjunction of the internal organ and the Self, in proximity to all Selfs. Hence they also cannot furnish a reason for limitation. 53. (Should it be said that distinction of pleasure, pain, &c., results) from (difference of) place ; we say no, on account of the (Self's) being v^ithln (all things). Here it might be objected that, although all Selfs are all-pervading, yet their conjunction with the internal organ which is seated in the body must take place in that part of each Self which is limited by the body ; and that thus there may result from difference of locality a limitative distinction of resolutions, &c., of the adrz'sh/a, and of pleasure and pain. — This also, we reply, is not possible ' on account of the being within.' For, as being equally infinite, all Selfs are within all bodies. Thus the Vaij'eshikas have no right whatever to assume any part of the Self to be limited by the body. And if they do assume such a part of the Self which in reality is without any parts, that part because merely assumptive will be incapable of limiting a real effect. Moreover, it is impossible to limit the body which originates in proximity to all (omnipresent) Selfs to one particular Self to the exclusion of all others. Moreover, on the doctrine of limitation due -^l VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
2to difference of place, it would follow that sometimes two Selfs enjoying the same pleasure or pain might effect their fruition by one and the same body, since it may happen that the unseen principle of two Selfs occupies the same place. For we may observe, e. g. that after Devadatta's body has moved away from a certain spot in which Devadatta had enjoyed a certain amount of pleasure or pain, and the body of Ya^wadatta has moved into that very same place, Ya^;7adatta enjoys an equal amount of pleasure or pain ; a thing which (on the theory discussed) could not happen if the unseen principles of the two men did not occupy the same place. From the doctrine that the unseen principles occupy fixed places it would, moreover, follow that no enjoyment of the heavenly world, &c. can take place ; for the adr/sh/a is effected in definite places such as e. g. the body of a Brahma«a, and the enjoyment of the heavenly world is bound to a definite different place. — It further^ is impossible to maintain that there exist many all-pervading Selfs ^, as there are no parallel instances. Mention if you can a plurality of other things occupying the same place ! — You will perhaps bring forward colour and so on^. But we refuse to accept that instance as parallel, because colour, &c., although non-different in so far as they are attributes of one substance, yet differ through their essential characteristics. On the other hand there is no difference of characteristics between your (alleged) many Selfs. If you say that a difference of characteristics can be established on the ground of the ultimate special differences (of all substances), we point out that you implicate yourself in a logical circle as the assumption of difference of characteristics and the assumption of ultimate differences presuppose each other.
3^ And this is an attack on the basis of the position of the Sahkhyas as well as of the Vaijeshikas. - Which being equally omnipresent would all occupy the same space. ^ Many attributes such as colour, smell, touch, &c. reside in one place as belonging to one material object. II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 53. "] ^ Should you adduce as parallel instances the all-pervadingness of ether, &c, (the ' &c.' implying place and time), we reply that their all-pervadingness is not proved for him who holds the doctrine of Brahman and looks upon ether and so on as mere effects. All which establishes the conclusion that the only doctrine not open to any objections is the doctrine cf the unity of the Self. 74 vedanta-sOtras. FOURTH PADA. Reverence to the highest Self ! I, Thus the vital airs.
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 objection pointed out before applies also to resolutions, &c., for they also are made through the nonparticular conjunction of the internal organ and the Self, in proximity to all Selfs. Hence they also cannot furnish a reason for limitation. 53. (Should it be said that distinction of pleasure, pain, &c., results) from (difference of) place ; we say no, on account of the (Self's) being v^ithln (all things). Here it might be objected that, although all Selfs are all-pervading, yet their conjunction with the internal organ which is seated in the body must take place in that part of each Self which is limited by the body ; and that thus there may result from difference of locality a limitative distinction of resolutions, &c., of the adrz'sh/a, and of pleasure and pain. — This also, we reply, is not possible ' on account of the being within.' For, as being equally infinite, all Selfs are within all bodies. Thus the Vaij'eshikas have no right whatever to assume any part of the Self to be limited by the body. And if they do assume such a part of the Self which in reality is without any parts, that part because merely assumptive will be incapable of limiting a real effect. Moreover, it is impossible to limit the body which originates in proximity to all (omnipresent) Selfs to one particular Self to the exclusion of all others. Moreover, on the doctrine of limitation due -^l VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
2to difference of place, it would follow that sometimes two Selfs enjoying the same pleasure or pain might effect their fruition by one and the same body, since it may happen that the unseen principle of two Selfs occupies the same place. For we may observe, e. g. that after Devadatta's body has moved away from a certain spot in which Devadatta had enjoyed a certain amount of pleasure or pain, and the body of Ya^wadatta has moved into that very same place, Ya^;7adatta enjoys an equal amount of pleasure or pain ; a thing which (on the theory discussed) could not happen if the unseen principles of the two men did not occupy the same place. From the doctrine that the unseen principles occupy fixed places it would, moreover, follow that no enjoyment of the heavenly world, &c. can take place ; for the adr/sh/a is effected in definite places such as e. g. the body of a Brahma«a, and the enjoyment of the heavenly world is bound to a definite different place. — It further^ is impossible to maintain that there exist many all-pervading Selfs ^, as there are no parallel instances. Mention if you can a plurality of other things occupying the same place ! — You will perhaps bring forward colour and so on^. But we refuse to accept that instance as parallel, because colour, &c., although non-different in so far as they are attributes of one substance, yet differ through their essential characteristics. On the other hand there is no difference of characteristics between your (alleged) many Selfs. If you say that a difference of characteristics can be established on the ground of the ultimate special differences (of all substances), we point out that you implicate yourself in a logical circle as the assumption of difference of characteristics and the assumption of ultimate differences presuppose each other.
3^ And this is an attack on the basis of the position of the Sahkhyas as well as of the Vaijeshikas. - Which being equally omnipresent would all occupy the same space. ^ Many attributes such as colour, smell, touch, &c. reside in one place as belonging to one material object. II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 53. "] ^ Should you adduce as parallel instances the all-pervadingness of ether, &c, (the ' &c.' implying place and time), we reply that their all-pervadingness is not proved for him who holds the doctrine of Brahman and looks upon ether and so on as mere effects. All which establishes the conclusion that the only doctrine not open to any objections is the doctrine cf the unity of the Self. 74 vedanta-sOtras. FOURTH PADA. Reverence to the highest Self ! I, Thus the vital airs.
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.