Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1In the chapter treating of the Being (sat), subsequently to the account of the creation of fire, water, and food (earth), the following statement is made, ' That divinity thought, let me now enter those three beings with this living Self (^iva atma), and let nie then evolve names and forms ^ ; — let me make each of these three tripartite ' {^Kh. Up. VI, 3, 2 ; 3). — Here the doubt arises whether the agent in that evolution of names and forms is the^iva (the living, i.e. the individual Self or soul) or the highest Lord. — The purvapakshin maintains the former alternative, on account of the qualification contained in the words 'with this living Self ' The use of ordinary language does, in such phrases as ' Having entered the army of the enemy by means of a spy I count it,' attribute the counting of the army in which the spy is the real agent to the Self of the king who is the causal agent ; which attribution is effected by means of the use of the first person, ' I count.' So here the sacred text attributes the evolving of names and forms — in which the ^iva is the real agent — to the Self of the divinity which is the causal agent ; the attribution being effected by means ' Literally, with this living Self having entered let me evolve, &c. II ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 20. 97
2of the use of the first person, ' let me evolve.' — Moreover we see in the case of names such as Z^ittha, Z^avittha, &c., and in the case of forms such as jars, dishes and the like that the individual soul only is the evolving agent ^. Hence the evolution of names and forms is the work of the^iva.
3To this the Sutra replies : 'But the fashioning of names and forms belongs to him who renders tripartite.' The particle ' but ' discards the purvapaksha. Fashioning means evolving. The term ' he who renders tripartite ' denotes the highest Lord, his agency being designated as beyond contradiction in the case of the rendering tripartite (of fire, &c.). The entire evolution of names and forms which is seen, e.g. in fire, sun, moon, lightning, or in difTerent plants such as kuj-a-grass, kaj-a-grass, palaj-a-trees, or in various living beings such as cattle, deer, men, all this manifold evolution according to species and individuals can surely be the work of the highest Lord only, who fashioned fire, water, and earth. — Why ? — On account of the teaching of the sacred text. — For the text says at first ' that divinity,' &c., and then goes on in the first person ' let me evolve ; ' which implies the statement that the highest Brahman only is the evolving agent. — But we ascertain from the qualification contained in the words ' with this living Self,' that the agent in the evolution is the living Self! — No, we reply. The words 'with this living Self are connected with the words ' having entered,' in proximity to which they stand ; not with the clause ' let me evolve.' If they were connected with the former words, we should have to assume that the first person, which refers to the divinity — viz. ' let me evolve ' — is used in a metaphorical sense. And with regard to all the manifold names and forms such as mountains, rivers, oceans, &c., no soul, apart from the Lord, possesses the power of evolution ; and if any have such power, it is dependent on the highest Lord. Nor is the so-called ' living Self absolutely different from the highest Lord, as the spy is from the king ; as we see from its being qualified
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.
1In the chapter treating of the Being (sat), subsequently to the account of the creation of fire, water, and food (earth), the following statement is made, ' That divinity thought, let me now enter those three beings with this living Self (^iva atma), and let nie then evolve names and forms ^ ; — let me make each of these three tripartite ' {^Kh. Up. VI, 3, 2 ; 3). — Here the doubt arises whether the agent in that evolution of names and forms is the^iva (the living, i.e. the individual Self or soul) or the highest Lord. — The purvapakshin maintains the former alternative, on account of the qualification contained in the words 'with this living Self ' The use of ordinary language does, in such phrases as ' Having entered the army of the enemy by means of a spy I count it,' attribute the counting of the army in which the spy is the real agent to the Self of the king who is the causal agent ; which attribution is effected by means of the use of the first person, ' I count.' So here the sacred text attributes the evolving of names and forms — in which the ^iva is the real agent — to the Self of the divinity which is the causal agent ; the attribution being effected by means ' Literally, with this living Self having entered let me evolve, &c. II ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 20. 97
2of the use of the first person, ' let me evolve.' — Moreover we see in the case of names such as Z^ittha, Z^avittha, &c., and in the case of forms such as jars, dishes and the like that the individual soul only is the evolving agent ^. Hence the evolution of names and forms is the work of the^iva.
3To this the Sutra replies : 'But the fashioning of names and forms belongs to him who renders tripartite.' The particle ' but ' discards the purvapaksha. Fashioning means evolving. The term ' he who renders tripartite ' denotes the highest Lord, his agency being designated as beyond contradiction in the case of the rendering tripartite (of fire, &c.). The entire evolution of names and forms which is seen, e.g. in fire, sun, moon, lightning, or in difTerent plants such as kuj-a-grass, kaj-a-grass, palaj-a-trees, or in various living beings such as cattle, deer, men, all this manifold evolution according to species and individuals can surely be the work of the highest Lord only, who fashioned fire, water, and earth. — Why ? — On account of the teaching of the sacred text. — For the text says at first ' that divinity,' &c., and then goes on in the first person ' let me evolve ; ' which implies the statement that the highest Brahman only is the evolving agent. — But we ascertain from the qualification contained in the words ' with this living Self,' that the agent in the evolution is the living Self! — No, we reply. The words 'with this living Self are connected with the words ' having entered,' in proximity to which they stand ; not with the clause ' let me evolve.' If they were connected with the former words, we should have to assume that the first person, which refers to the divinity — viz. ' let me evolve ' — is used in a metaphorical sense. And with regard to all the manifold names and forms such as mountains, rivers, oceans, &c., no soul, apart from the Lord, possesses the power of evolution ; and if any have such power, it is dependent on the highest Lord. Nor is the so-called ' living Self absolutely different from the highest Lord, as the spy is from the king ; as we see from its being qualified
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.