Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1To this we reply as follows. — At any rate the highest Brahman cannot, by itself, possess double characteristics ; for on account of the contradiction implied therein, it is impossible to admit that one and the same thing should by itself possess certain qualities, such as colour, &c.,and should not possess them. — Nor is it possible that Brahman should possess double characteristics 'on account of place,' i.e. on account of its conjunction with its limiting adjuncts, such as earth, &c. For the connexion with limiting adjuncts is unavailing to impart to a thing of a certain nature an altogether different nature. The crystal, e.g. which is in itself clear, does not become dim through its conjunction with a limiting adjunct in the form of red colour ; for that it is pervaded by the quality of dimness is an altogether erroneous notion. In the case of Brahman the limiting adjuncts are, moreover, presented by Nescience merely^. Hence (as the upadhis are the product of Nescience) if we embrace either of the two alternatives, we must decide in favour of that according to which Brahma is absolutely devoid of all difference, not in favour of the opposite one. For all passages whose aim it is to represent the nature of Brahman (such as, 'It is without sound, without touch, without form, without decay,' Ka. Up. I, 3, 15) teach that it is free from all difference.
212. If it be objected that it is not so, on account of the difference (taught by the Veda) ; we reply that it is not so on account of the declaration of (Brahman) ^ The limiting adjunct of the crystal, i.e. the red colour of a thing, e.g. a flower with which the crystal is in contact, is as real as the crystal itself; only the effect is an illusion. — But the limiting adjuncts of Brahman are in themselves illusion. 154 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. being not such, with reference to each (declaration of difference). Let this be, but nevertheless it cannot be maintained that Brahman is devoid of difference and attributes, and does not possess double attributes either in itseff or on account of difference of station. — Why not? — ' On account of difference.' The various vidyas teach different forms of Brahman ; it is said to have four feet {Kh. Up. Ill, i8, i) ; to consist of sixteen parts (Pr. Up. VI, i) ; to be characterised by dwarfishness (Ka. Up. V, 3) ; to have the three worlds for its body (Br/. Up. I, 3, 22) ; to be named Vai- .fvanara {Kh. Up. V, 11, 2), &c. Hence we must admit that Brahman is qualified by differences also. — But above it has been shown that Brahman cannot possess twofold characteristics! — That also does not contradict our doctrine; for the difference of Brahman's forms is due to its limiting adjuncts. Otherwise all those scriptural passages which refer to those differences would be objectless.
3All this reasoning, we say, is without force 'on account of the declaration of its being not such, with reference to each,' i.e. because scripture declares, with reference to all the differences produced by the limiting adjuncts, that there is no difference in Brahman. Cp. such passages as the following: 'This bright immortal person in this earth, and that bright immortal person incorporated in the body; he indeed is the same as that Self (Br/. Up. II, 5, i). It, therefore, cannot be maintained that the connexion of Brahman with various forms is taught by the Veda. 1 3. Some also (teach) thus. The members of one j-akha also make a statement about the cognition of non-difference which is preceded by a censure of the perception of difference, ' By the mind alone it is to be perceived, there is in it no diversity. He who perceives therein any diversity goes from death to death' (Br/. Up. IV, 4, 19). Others also ('By knowing the enjoyer, the enjoyed, and the ruler, everything has been declared to be threefold, and this is Brahman,' 5vet. Up. I, 12) Ill ADHYAyA, 2 PADA, 1 4. 155
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.
1To this we reply as follows. — At any rate the highest Brahman cannot, by itself, possess double characteristics ; for on account of the contradiction implied therein, it is impossible to admit that one and the same thing should by itself possess certain qualities, such as colour, &c.,and should not possess them. — Nor is it possible that Brahman should possess double characteristics 'on account of place,' i.e. on account of its conjunction with its limiting adjuncts, such as earth, &c. For the connexion with limiting adjuncts is unavailing to impart to a thing of a certain nature an altogether different nature. The crystal, e.g. which is in itself clear, does not become dim through its conjunction with a limiting adjunct in the form of red colour ; for that it is pervaded by the quality of dimness is an altogether erroneous notion. In the case of Brahman the limiting adjuncts are, moreover, presented by Nescience merely^. Hence (as the upadhis are the product of Nescience) if we embrace either of the two alternatives, we must decide in favour of that according to which Brahma is absolutely devoid of all difference, not in favour of the opposite one. For all passages whose aim it is to represent the nature of Brahman (such as, 'It is without sound, without touch, without form, without decay,' Ka. Up. I, 3, 15) teach that it is free from all difference.
212. If it be objected that it is not so, on account of the difference (taught by the Veda) ; we reply that it is not so on account of the declaration of (Brahman) ^ The limiting adjunct of the crystal, i.e. the red colour of a thing, e.g. a flower with which the crystal is in contact, is as real as the crystal itself; only the effect is an illusion. — But the limiting adjuncts of Brahman are in themselves illusion. 154 VEDANTA-SUTRAS. being not such, with reference to each (declaration of difference). Let this be, but nevertheless it cannot be maintained that Brahman is devoid of difference and attributes, and does not possess double attributes either in itseff or on account of difference of station. — Why not? — ' On account of difference.' The various vidyas teach different forms of Brahman ; it is said to have four feet {Kh. Up. Ill, i8, i) ; to consist of sixteen parts (Pr. Up. VI, i) ; to be characterised by dwarfishness (Ka. Up. V, 3) ; to have the three worlds for its body (Br/. Up. I, 3, 22) ; to be named Vai- .fvanara {Kh. Up. V, 11, 2), &c. Hence we must admit that Brahman is qualified by differences also. — But above it has been shown that Brahman cannot possess twofold characteristics! — That also does not contradict our doctrine; for the difference of Brahman's forms is due to its limiting adjuncts. Otherwise all those scriptural passages which refer to those differences would be objectless.
3All this reasoning, we say, is without force 'on account of the declaration of its being not such, with reference to each,' i.e. because scripture declares, with reference to all the differences produced by the limiting adjuncts, that there is no difference in Brahman. Cp. such passages as the following: 'This bright immortal person in this earth, and that bright immortal person incorporated in the body; he indeed is the same as that Self (Br/. Up. II, 5, i). It, therefore, cannot be maintained that the connexion of Brahman with various forms is taught by the Veda. 1 3. Some also (teach) thus. The members of one j-akha also make a statement about the cognition of non-difference which is preceded by a censure of the perception of difference, ' By the mind alone it is to be perceived, there is in it no diversity. He who perceives therein any diversity goes from death to death' (Br/. Up. IV, 4, 19). Others also ('By knowing the enjoyer, the enjoyed, and the ruler, everything has been declared to be threefold, and this is Brahman,' 5vet. Up. I, 12) Ill ADHYAyA, 2 PADA, 1 4. 155
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.