Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1But, it may be objected, the passage ' Let a man meditate with calm mind,' &c. has the purpose of enjoining calmness, and does not state anything with regard to creation ; it need not therefore adapt itself to the order (of creation) established by another passage^. On the other hand, the passage ' It sent forth fire ' refers to the creation, and we must therefore accept the order exactly as stated there. — This objection we refute by the remark that it is not legitimate to abandon, from deference to the circumstance of fire occupying the first place (in the Kh. Up.), the thing, viz. the ether which is known (to have been created) from another passage ; for order of succession is a mere attribute of things (and therefore subordinate to the latter). Moreover, in the passage ' It sent forth fire ' we meet with no word directly indicating the order of succession ; but we merely infer the latter from the sense, and this (merely inferred) order is impugned by the order established by another direct scriptural state- ^ Yatpara^ j'abda^ sa j'abdarlho na Myaw jabda^ srz'sh/iparo ^ to na prasiddhaw kramam badhilum alam iti. An. Gi. 12 vedanta-sOtras.
2ment, viz. ' From air there sprang fire.' Now with regard to the question whether ether or fire were created first, neither option nor addition are permissible, because the former is impossible in itself, and the latter non-admitted by the texts ^ Hence the two scriptural passages are not contradictory. — Moreover, in order to justify the promise made in the K/iSLtidogya. in the beginning of the chapter (' That instruction by which we hear what is not heard '), we have to count the ether, although ' not heard ' (i. e. not mentioned in the text) among the things produced ; how much more impossible then is it for us not to accept the statement actually made about the ether in the Taittiriyaka! — To the assertion, made above by the purvapakshin, that the ether as occupying the same space with everything is known together with Brahman and its effects, and that thus the assertion (of everything being known through Brahman) is not contradicted ; and that moreover the scriptural passage ' one only, without a second ' is not contradicted, because Brahman and the ether may be considered as non-separate, like milk and water, we make the following reply. That knowledge of everything through the knowledge of one thing (of which scripture speaks) cannot be explained through the analogy of milk mixed with water, because we understand from the parallel instance of a piece of clay being brought forward (K/i. Up. VI, I, 4) that the knowledge of everything has to be explained through the relation of the material cause and the material effect (the knowledge of the cause implying the knowledge of the effect). Moreover, the knowledge of everything, if assumed to be analogous to the case of the knowledge of milk and water, could not be called a perfect knowledge (samyag-vi^^/ana), because the water which is
3^ An optional proceeding, i.e. the doctrine that either ether or fire was the first product is impossible because only actions to be done, not existing things, fall within the sphere of option ; addition, i.e. the fact of fire and ether together being the first creation is not admitted by scripture, which teaches a successive creation of the elements. II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 7. 1 3
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.
1But, it may be objected, the passage ' Let a man meditate with calm mind,' &c. has the purpose of enjoining calmness, and does not state anything with regard to creation ; it need not therefore adapt itself to the order (of creation) established by another passage^. On the other hand, the passage ' It sent forth fire ' refers to the creation, and we must therefore accept the order exactly as stated there. — This objection we refute by the remark that it is not legitimate to abandon, from deference to the circumstance of fire occupying the first place (in the Kh. Up.), the thing, viz. the ether which is known (to have been created) from another passage ; for order of succession is a mere attribute of things (and therefore subordinate to the latter). Moreover, in the passage ' It sent forth fire ' we meet with no word directly indicating the order of succession ; but we merely infer the latter from the sense, and this (merely inferred) order is impugned by the order established by another direct scriptural state- ^ Yatpara^ j'abda^ sa j'abdarlho na Myaw jabda^ srz'sh/iparo ^ to na prasiddhaw kramam badhilum alam iti. An. Gi. 12 vedanta-sOtras.
2ment, viz. ' From air there sprang fire.' Now with regard to the question whether ether or fire were created first, neither option nor addition are permissible, because the former is impossible in itself, and the latter non-admitted by the texts ^ Hence the two scriptural passages are not contradictory. — Moreover, in order to justify the promise made in the K/iSLtidogya. in the beginning of the chapter (' That instruction by which we hear what is not heard '), we have to count the ether, although ' not heard ' (i. e. not mentioned in the text) among the things produced ; how much more impossible then is it for us not to accept the statement actually made about the ether in the Taittiriyaka! — To the assertion, made above by the purvapakshin, that the ether as occupying the same space with everything is known together with Brahman and its effects, and that thus the assertion (of everything being known through Brahman) is not contradicted ; and that moreover the scriptural passage ' one only, without a second ' is not contradicted, because Brahman and the ether may be considered as non-separate, like milk and water, we make the following reply. That knowledge of everything through the knowledge of one thing (of which scripture speaks) cannot be explained through the analogy of milk mixed with water, because we understand from the parallel instance of a piece of clay being brought forward (K/i. Up. VI, I, 4) that the knowledge of everything has to be explained through the relation of the material cause and the material effect (the knowledge of the cause implying the knowledge of the effect). Moreover, the knowledge of everything, if assumed to be analogous to the case of the knowledge of milk and water, could not be called a perfect knowledge (samyag-vi^^/ana), because the water which is
3^ An optional proceeding, i.e. the doctrine that either ether or fire was the first product is impossible because only actions to be done, not existing things, fall within the sphere of option ; addition, i.e. the fact of fire and ether together being the first creation is not admitted by scripture, which teaches a successive creation of the elements. II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 7. 1 3
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.