Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The further assertion made by the purvapakshin, that on the assumption of ether having had an origin it is impossible to conceive a difference between the former and later periods (the time before and after the origination of ether) is likewise unfounded ; for we have to understand that that very specialising difference \ from which we ascertain at present that there is a thing such as ether, different from earth and the other elements, did not exist before the always falls under the notion of essentiality (satta), which constitutes the summum genus for substances, qualities, and actions. ^ Viz. the quality of sound. II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, "] . I J origination of ether. And just as Brahman's nature does not participate in the nature of earth and the other elements characterised by grossness and similar qualities, — according to such scriptural passages as ' It is not gross, it is not subtle,' — so also it does not participate in the nature of ether, as we understand from the passage ' it is without ether' (B;-z. Up. Ill, 8, 8). It therefore remains a settled conclusion that, before ether was produced, Brahman existed without ether.
2The inference, drawn by the purvapakshin, that ether has no beginning, because it differs in nature from those substances which avowedly have a beginning, such as earth and so on, is without any value ; for, as it is contradicted by scripture, it must be considered fallacious. We, on our part, have brought forward arguments showing that ether is an originated thing; and we may moreover reason as follows : Ether is non-eternal, because it is the substratum of a non-eternal quality, viz. sound, just as jars and other things, which are the substrata of non-eternal qualities, are themselves non-eternal. — Nor is there any danger of this latter reasoning being extended to the Self also, for the philosopher who takes his stand on the Upanishads does not admit that the Self is the substratum of non-eternal qualities. Moreover, those who teach ether to have an origin do not consider it proved that it is all-pervading and so on.
3In reply to the remarks made under II, 3, 4 we point out that those scriptural passages which speak of the 'immortality of ether' are to be understood in the same way as the analogous statements about the immortality of the gods ^, since the origin and destruction of the ether have been shown to be possible. And if it is said of Brahman that ' it is omnipresent and eternal like ether,' Brahman is there compared to ether, whose greatness is well known, merely in order to indicate its supereminent greatness, not in order to maintain its being equal to ether. Similarly, when we say that the sun moves with the speed of an ^ I.e. as referring to a relative immortality only. [38J C 1 8 vedanta-sOtras.
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.
1The further assertion made by the purvapakshin, that on the assumption of ether having had an origin it is impossible to conceive a difference between the former and later periods (the time before and after the origination of ether) is likewise unfounded ; for we have to understand that that very specialising difference \ from which we ascertain at present that there is a thing such as ether, different from earth and the other elements, did not exist before the always falls under the notion of essentiality (satta), which constitutes the summum genus for substances, qualities, and actions. ^ Viz. the quality of sound. II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, "] . I J origination of ether. And just as Brahman's nature does not participate in the nature of earth and the other elements characterised by grossness and similar qualities, — according to such scriptural passages as ' It is not gross, it is not subtle,' — so also it does not participate in the nature of ether, as we understand from the passage ' it is without ether' (B;-z. Up. Ill, 8, 8). It therefore remains a settled conclusion that, before ether was produced, Brahman existed without ether.
2The inference, drawn by the purvapakshin, that ether has no beginning, because it differs in nature from those substances which avowedly have a beginning, such as earth and so on, is without any value ; for, as it is contradicted by scripture, it must be considered fallacious. We, on our part, have brought forward arguments showing that ether is an originated thing; and we may moreover reason as follows : Ether is non-eternal, because it is the substratum of a non-eternal quality, viz. sound, just as jars and other things, which are the substrata of non-eternal qualities, are themselves non-eternal. — Nor is there any danger of this latter reasoning being extended to the Self also, for the philosopher who takes his stand on the Upanishads does not admit that the Self is the substratum of non-eternal qualities. Moreover, those who teach ether to have an origin do not consider it proved that it is all-pervading and so on.
3In reply to the remarks made under II, 3, 4 we point out that those scriptural passages which speak of the 'immortality of ether' are to be understood in the same way as the analogous statements about the immortality of the gods ^, since the origin and destruction of the ether have been shown to be possible. And if it is said of Brahman that ' it is omnipresent and eternal like ether,' Brahman is there compared to ether, whose greatness is well known, merely in order to indicate its supereminent greatness, not in order to maintain its being equal to ether. Similarly, when we say that the sun moves with the speed of an ^ I.e. as referring to a relative immortality only. [38J C 1 8 vedanta-sOtras.
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.