Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
115. (It is not so) (because the pra//as are connected) with that to which the pra;^as belong (i.e. the individual soul), (a thing we know) from scripture. Although there are divinities guiding the prawas, yet we learn from scripture that those pra^/as are connected with the embodied soul which is the Lord of the aggregate of ^ Viz. that something should act by itself, and that it should act under guidance only. II ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 1 7. 93 instruments of action. The following passage, e.g. 'where the sight has entered into the void there is the person of the eye ; the eye itself is the instrument of seeing. He who knows, let me smell this, he is the Self; the nose is the instrument of smelling,' declares that the pra;^as are connected with the embodied soul only. Moreover the plurality of the divinities guiding the organs renders it impossible that they should be the enjoyers in this body. For that there is in this body only one embodied enjoyer is understood from the possibility of the recognition of identity and so on ^. 16. And on account of the permanence of this (viz. the embodied soul).
2This embodied soul abides permanently in this body as the enjoyer, since it can be affected by good and evil and can experience pleasure and pain. Not so the gods ; for they exist in the state of highest power and glory and cannot possibly enter, in this wretched body, into the condition of enjoyers. So scripture also says, ' Only what is good approaches him ; verily evil does not approach the devas ' (Br/. Up. I, 5, 20). — And only with the embodied soul the pra;/as are permanently connected, as it is seen that when the soul passes out &c. the pr^/zas follow it. This we see from passages such as the following : 'When it passes out the pra;za passes out after it, and when the prawa thus passes out all the other pra;/as pass after it' {B?'i. Up. IV, 4, 2). Hence although there are ruling divinities of the organs, the embodied soul does not cease to be the enjoyer ; for the divinities are connected with the organs only, not with the state of the soul as enjoyer. 17. They (the pra/zas) are senses, on account of being so designated, with the exception of the best (the mukhya pra;^a). We have treated of the mukhya pra«a and the other ^ Yoiha/« rfipam adraksha;;/ so^ham jr/«omity ekasyaiva pratyabhi^wanam pratisamdhanam. Go. An. 94 VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
3eleven pra;/as in due order. — Now there arises another doubt, viz. whether the other pra//as are functions of the mukhya prawa or different beings. — The purvapakshin maintains that they are mere functions, on account of scriptural statement. For scripture, after having spoken of the chief pra;/a and the other pra;/as in proximity, declares that those other prawas have their Self in the chief prawa, ' Well, let us all assume his form. Thereupon they all assumed his form ' (Br/. Up. I, 5, 2i). — Their unity is moreover ascertained from the unity of the term applied to them, viz. pri«a. Otherwise there either would result the objectionable circumstance of one word having different senses, or else the word \vould in some places have to be taken in its primary sense, in others in a derived sense. Hence, as pra;/a, apana, &c. are the five functions of the one chief pra;/a, so the eleven prawas also which begin with speech are mere functions of the chief pra;/a. — To this we reply as follows. Speech and so on are beings different from the chief pra;/a, on account of the difference of designation. — Which is that difference of designation ? — The eleven pra;/as remaining if we abstract from the best one, i.e. the chief pra;/a, are called the senseorgans (indriya), as \ve see them designated in 6"ruti, ' from him is born breath, mind, and all organs of sense ' (Mu. Up. II, I, 3). In this and other passages pra/za and the sense-organs are mentioned separately. — But in that case the mind also would have to be excluded from the class of sense-organs, like the pra«a ; as we see that like the latter it is separately mentioned in the passage, ' The mind and all organs of sense.' True ; but in Smr/ti eleven sense-organs are mentioned, and on that account the mind must, like the ear, and so on, be comprised in the sense-organs. That the pra?/a on the other hand is a sense-organ is known neither from Smrz'ti nor 6"ruti. — Now this difference of designation is appropriate only if there is difference of being. If there were unity of being it would be contradictory that the prawa although one should sometimes be designated as senseorgan and sometimes not. Consequently the other prawas are different in being from the chief pra;/a. — For this conclusion the following Sutra states an additional reason.
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.
115. (It is not so) (because the pra//as are connected) with that to which the pra;^as belong (i.e. the individual soul), (a thing we know) from scripture. Although there are divinities guiding the prawas, yet we learn from scripture that those pra^/as are connected with the embodied soul which is the Lord of the aggregate of ^ Viz. that something should act by itself, and that it should act under guidance only. II ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 1 7. 93 instruments of action. The following passage, e.g. 'where the sight has entered into the void there is the person of the eye ; the eye itself is the instrument of seeing. He who knows, let me smell this, he is the Self; the nose is the instrument of smelling,' declares that the pra;^as are connected with the embodied soul only. Moreover the plurality of the divinities guiding the organs renders it impossible that they should be the enjoyers in this body. For that there is in this body only one embodied enjoyer is understood from the possibility of the recognition of identity and so on ^. 16. And on account of the permanence of this (viz. the embodied soul).
2This embodied soul abides permanently in this body as the enjoyer, since it can be affected by good and evil and can experience pleasure and pain. Not so the gods ; for they exist in the state of highest power and glory and cannot possibly enter, in this wretched body, into the condition of enjoyers. So scripture also says, ' Only what is good approaches him ; verily evil does not approach the devas ' (Br/. Up. I, 5, 20). — And only with the embodied soul the pra;/as are permanently connected, as it is seen that when the soul passes out &c. the pr^/zas follow it. This we see from passages such as the following : 'When it passes out the pra;za passes out after it, and when the prawa thus passes out all the other pra;/as pass after it' {B?'i. Up. IV, 4, 2). Hence although there are ruling divinities of the organs, the embodied soul does not cease to be the enjoyer ; for the divinities are connected with the organs only, not with the state of the soul as enjoyer. 17. They (the pra/zas) are senses, on account of being so designated, with the exception of the best (the mukhya pra;^a). We have treated of the mukhya pra«a and the other ^ Yoiha/« rfipam adraksha;;/ so^ham jr/«omity ekasyaiva pratyabhi^wanam pratisamdhanam. Go. An. 94 VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
3eleven pra;/as in due order. — Now there arises another doubt, viz. whether the other pra//as are functions of the mukhya prawa or different beings. — The purvapakshin maintains that they are mere functions, on account of scriptural statement. For scripture, after having spoken of the chief pra;/a and the other pra;/as in proximity, declares that those other prawas have their Self in the chief prawa, ' Well, let us all assume his form. Thereupon they all assumed his form ' (Br/. Up. I, 5, 2i). — Their unity is moreover ascertained from the unity of the term applied to them, viz. pri«a. Otherwise there either would result the objectionable circumstance of one word having different senses, or else the word \vould in some places have to be taken in its primary sense, in others in a derived sense. Hence, as pra;/a, apana, &c. are the five functions of the one chief pra;/a, so the eleven prawas also which begin with speech are mere functions of the chief pra;/a. — To this we reply as follows. Speech and so on are beings different from the chief pra;/a, on account of the difference of designation. — Which is that difference of designation ? — The eleven pra;/as remaining if we abstract from the best one, i.e. the chief pra;/a, are called the senseorgans (indriya), as \ve see them designated in 6"ruti, ' from him is born breath, mind, and all organs of sense ' (Mu. Up. II, I, 3). In this and other passages pra/za and the sense-organs are mentioned separately. — But in that case the mind also would have to be excluded from the class of sense-organs, like the pra«a ; as we see that like the latter it is separately mentioned in the passage, ' The mind and all organs of sense.' True ; but in Smr/ti eleven sense-organs are mentioned, and on that account the mind must, like the ear, and so on, be comprised in the sense-organs. That the pra?/a on the other hand is a sense-organ is known neither from Smrz'ti nor 6"ruti. — Now this difference of designation is appropriate only if there is difference of being. If there were unity of being it would be contradictory that the prawa although one should sometimes be designated as senseorgan and sometimes not. Consequently the other prawas are different in being from the chief pra;/a. — For this conclusion the following Sutra states an additional reason.
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.