Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1A further point has to be considered here. If we admitted that injunctions constitute the sole end and aim of the entire Veda, there would remain no authority for the, after all, generally acknowledged truth that Brahman — which is not subject to any injunction — is the Self of all. — Nor would it be of avail to maintain that the Veda may both proclaim the truth stated just now and enjoin on man the cognition of that truth ; for that would involve the conclusion that the one Brahma-.yastra has two — and moreover conflicting — meanings. — The theory combated by us gives moreover rise to a number of other objections which nobody can refute ; it compels us to set aside the text as it stands and to make assumptions not guaranteed by the text ; it implies the doctrine that final release is, like the results of sacrificial works, (not the direct result of true knowledge but) the mediate result of the so-called unseen ^ The purvapakshin might refer e.g. to the Vedic injunction, * he is to meditate upon woman as fire,' and maintain that the object of this injunction is to modify our knowledge of woman derived from perception &c., according to which a woman is not fire. 1 66 VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
2principle (adr/sh/a), and non-permanent &c. &c. — We therefore again assert that the texts concerning Brahman aim at cognition, not at injunction, and that hence the pretended reason of ' their being apprehended as parts of one injunction ' cannot induce us to look upon the entire Veda as one whole.
3And finally, even if we admitted that the texts concerning Brahman are of an injunctive character, we should be unable to prove that the texts denying plurality, and the texts setting forth plurality enjoin one and the same thing ; for this latter conclusion cannot be accepted in the face of the several means of proof such as difference of terms ^, and so on, which intimate that there is a plurality of injunctions. The passages respectively enjoining the darj-apur/^amasasacrifice and the offerings termed praya^as may indeed be considered to form one whole, as the qualification on the part of the sacrificer furnishes an element common to the two ". But the statements about the Brahman devoid of qualities and those about the qualified Brahman have not any element in com.mon ; for qualities such as 'having light for one's body' contribute in noway towards the dissolution of the world, nor again does the latter help in any way the former. For the dissolution of the entire phenomenal world on the one hand, and regard for a part of that world on the other hand do not allow themselves to be combined in one and the same subject. — The preferable theory, therefore, is to distinguish with us two classes of texts^ according as Brahman is represented as possessing form or as devoid of it. 2 2. For (the clause 'Not so, not so') denies (of Brahman) the suchness which forms the topic of
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.
1A further point has to be considered here. If we admitted that injunctions constitute the sole end and aim of the entire Veda, there would remain no authority for the, after all, generally acknowledged truth that Brahman — which is not subject to any injunction — is the Self of all. — Nor would it be of avail to maintain that the Veda may both proclaim the truth stated just now and enjoin on man the cognition of that truth ; for that would involve the conclusion that the one Brahma-.yastra has two — and moreover conflicting — meanings. — The theory combated by us gives moreover rise to a number of other objections which nobody can refute ; it compels us to set aside the text as it stands and to make assumptions not guaranteed by the text ; it implies the doctrine that final release is, like the results of sacrificial works, (not the direct result of true knowledge but) the mediate result of the so-called unseen ^ The purvapakshin might refer e.g. to the Vedic injunction, * he is to meditate upon woman as fire,' and maintain that the object of this injunction is to modify our knowledge of woman derived from perception &c., according to which a woman is not fire. 1 66 VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
2principle (adr/sh/a), and non-permanent &c. &c. — We therefore again assert that the texts concerning Brahman aim at cognition, not at injunction, and that hence the pretended reason of ' their being apprehended as parts of one injunction ' cannot induce us to look upon the entire Veda as one whole.
3And finally, even if we admitted that the texts concerning Brahman are of an injunctive character, we should be unable to prove that the texts denying plurality, and the texts setting forth plurality enjoin one and the same thing ; for this latter conclusion cannot be accepted in the face of the several means of proof such as difference of terms ^, and so on, which intimate that there is a plurality of injunctions. The passages respectively enjoining the darj-apur/^amasasacrifice and the offerings termed praya^as may indeed be considered to form one whole, as the qualification on the part of the sacrificer furnishes an element common to the two ". But the statements about the Brahman devoid of qualities and those about the qualified Brahman have not any element in com.mon ; for qualities such as 'having light for one's body' contribute in noway towards the dissolution of the world, nor again does the latter help in any way the former. For the dissolution of the entire phenomenal world on the one hand, and regard for a part of that world on the other hand do not allow themselves to be combined in one and the same subject. — The preferable theory, therefore, is to distinguish with us two classes of texts^ according as Brahman is represented as possessing form or as devoid of it. 2 2. For (the clause 'Not so, not so') denies (of Brahman) the suchness which forms the topic of
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.