The Vedânta-Sûtras, Part II, with the Commentary by Sankarâkârya — SBE Vol. 38
The text is shown on its own: no facing layer is held for this issue.
The translator’s English as printed (George Thibaut). The original-language text is not held; names are romanised as the translator printed them.
' Cp. Ka. Up. II, 5, 8 ; Bn. Up. I, 5, 2 1 ; A7i. Up. IV, 3, 3 ; Pr.
Up. II, 13.
VEDANTA-S^JTRAS.
10. But (the pra;za is subordinate to the soul) Hke the eye, &c., on account of being taught with them (the eye, &c.), and for other reasons.
The word ' but ' sets aside the independence of the prana. As the eye and so on stand, like the subjects of a king, in mere subordinate relation to the acting and enjoying of the soul and are not independent, so the chief vital air also, occupying a position analogous to that of a king's minister, stands in an entirely subordinate relation to the soul and is not independent. — Why? — Because it is taught (spoken of) together with them, i. e. the eye and the other organs, in such passages as the colloquy of the prA;^as, &c. For to be mentioned together is appropriate only in the case of things with the same attributes, as e. g. the Brzliatsaman and the Rathantara-saman ^. The words 'and so on ' (in the Sutra) indicate other reasons refuting the independence of the praz/a, such as its being composed of parts, its being of a non-intelligent nature and the like. — Well, but if it be admitted that the pri;/a stands to the soul in the relation of an instrument as the eye and so on, it will follow that we must assume another sense-object analogous to colour and so on. For the eyes, &c., occupy their specific subordinate position with regard to the soul through their functions which consist in the seeing of colour and so on. Now we can enumerate only eleven classes of functions, viz. the seeing of colour and so on, on whose account we assume eleven different pra^as, and there is no twelfth class of effects on account of which a twelfth pra;^a could be assumed. — To this objection the following Sutra replies.
11. And on account of (its) not being an instrument the objection is not (vaHd); for thus (scripture) declares.
The objection urged, viz. that there would result another sense-object, is not valid ; because the pra;/a is not an
^ Wliich go together because they are both samans.
p. 89
No commentary for this page under the selected tracks.
There is commentary on page 1.