Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Against the objection that the origin of the prawas must be understood in a secondary sense because the text states that they existed before the origin of the world, the Sutrakara declares ' on account of the impossibility of a secondary origin.' The statement as to the origin of the pra^as cannot be taken in a secondary sense because therefrom would result the abandonment of a general assertion. For after the text has asserted that the knowledge of everything depends on the knowledge of one (' What is that through which when it is known everything else becomes known? ' Mu. Up. I, i, 3), it goes on to say, in order to prove that assertion, that ' From him is born prawa,' &c. (Mu. Up. II, i, 3). Now the assertion is made good only if the whole world including the pra;/as is an effect of Brahman, because then there is no effect independent of the material cause ; if on the other hand the statement as to the origin of the pra;/as were taken in a secondary sense, the assertion would thereby be stultified. The text, moreover, makes some concluding statements about the matter asserted, ' The Person is all this, sacrifice, penance, Brahman, the highest Immortal' (II, i, 10), and ' Brahman alone is all this ; it is the Best.' — That same II ADIIYAYA, 4 PADA, 3. 77
2assertion is to be connected with such passages as the following, ' When we see, hear, perceive, and know the Self, then all this is known ' (Br/. Up. II, 4, 5). — How then have we to account for the statement that the prawas existed before the creation ? — That statement, we reply, does not refer to the fundamental causal substance ; for we ascertain from scriptural passages, such as Mu. Up. II, i, 2 (' That heavenly Person is without breath and without mind, pure, higher than the high Imperishable'), that the fundamental causal substance is devoid of all distinctions such as breath and the like. We must rather view the statement about the existence of the pra/^as before the creation as having for its object a subordinate causal substance ^, and being made with reference to the effects of the latter only. For it is known from ^ruti and Smrz'ti that even in the universe of evolved things many states of being may stand to each other in the relation of causal substance and effect. — In the adhikarawa treating of the ether there occurred a Sutra (composed of the same syllables) ' gau/zyasambhavat,' which as being the purvapaksha-sutra had to be explained as ' gauwi asambhavat,' ' the statement about the origin of ether must be taken in a secondary sense on account of the impossibility (of the primary sense).' There the final conclusion was established by means of the abandonment of the general assertion. Here on the other hand the Sutra is the Siddhanta Sutra and we have therefore explained it as meaning ' on account of the impossibility of a secondary meaning.' — Those who explain the present Sutra in the same way as the previous Sutra overlook the fact of the general assertion being abandoned (viz. if the passages referring to the origin of the pra;/as were taken in a secondary sense).
33. On account of that (word which indicates origin) being enunciated at first (in connexion with the pra/^as). That the scriptural statement about the origin of the ^ Such as Hirawyagarbha. 78 VEDANTA-StjTRAS.
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.
1Against the objection that the origin of the prawas must be understood in a secondary sense because the text states that they existed before the origin of the world, the Sutrakara declares ' on account of the impossibility of a secondary origin.' The statement as to the origin of the pra^as cannot be taken in a secondary sense because therefrom would result the abandonment of a general assertion. For after the text has asserted that the knowledge of everything depends on the knowledge of one (' What is that through which when it is known everything else becomes known? ' Mu. Up. I, i, 3), it goes on to say, in order to prove that assertion, that ' From him is born prawa,' &c. (Mu. Up. II, i, 3). Now the assertion is made good only if the whole world including the pra;/as is an effect of Brahman, because then there is no effect independent of the material cause ; if on the other hand the statement as to the origin of the pra;/as were taken in a secondary sense, the assertion would thereby be stultified. The text, moreover, makes some concluding statements about the matter asserted, ' The Person is all this, sacrifice, penance, Brahman, the highest Immortal' (II, i, 10), and ' Brahman alone is all this ; it is the Best.' — That same II ADIIYAYA, 4 PADA, 3. 77
2assertion is to be connected with such passages as the following, ' When we see, hear, perceive, and know the Self, then all this is known ' (Br/. Up. II, 4, 5). — How then have we to account for the statement that the prawas existed before the creation ? — That statement, we reply, does not refer to the fundamental causal substance ; for we ascertain from scriptural passages, such as Mu. Up. II, i, 2 (' That heavenly Person is without breath and without mind, pure, higher than the high Imperishable'), that the fundamental causal substance is devoid of all distinctions such as breath and the like. We must rather view the statement about the existence of the pra/^as before the creation as having for its object a subordinate causal substance ^, and being made with reference to the effects of the latter only. For it is known from ^ruti and Smrz'ti that even in the universe of evolved things many states of being may stand to each other in the relation of causal substance and effect. — In the adhikarawa treating of the ether there occurred a Sutra (composed of the same syllables) ' gau/zyasambhavat,' which as being the purvapaksha-sutra had to be explained as ' gauwi asambhavat,' ' the statement about the origin of ether must be taken in a secondary sense on account of the impossibility (of the primary sense).' There the final conclusion was established by means of the abandonment of the general assertion. Here on the other hand the Sutra is the Siddhanta Sutra and we have therefore explained it as meaning ' on account of the impossibility of a secondary meaning.' — Those who explain the present Sutra in the same way as the previous Sutra overlook the fact of the general assertion being abandoned (viz. if the passages referring to the origin of the pra;/as were taken in a secondary sense).
33. On account of that (word which indicates origin) being enunciated at first (in connexion with the pra/^as). That the scriptural statement about the origin of the ^ Such as Hirawyagarbha. 78 VEDANTA-StjTRAS.
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.