Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1^ 'Difference of terms' (i-abdantaram) is according to the Purva Mima7«sa the first of the six means of proof showing karmabheda or niyogabheda. Cp. ^S'abara bhashya on II, i, i. ^ For the sacrifice as well as its subordinate part — the offering of the praya^as — has to be performed by a sacrificer acting for one end, viz. the obtainment of the heavenly world. Ill ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 2 2. 1 67 discussion ; and (the text) enounces something more than that.
2We read, Bri. Up. II, 3, ' Two forms of Brahman there are indeed, the material and the immaterial, the mortal and the immortal, the solid and the fluid, sat and tya.' The text thereupon divides the five elements into two classes, predicates of the essence of that which is immaterial — which it calls purusha — saffron-colour, and so on, and then goes on to say, ' Now then the teaching by Not so, not so ! For there is nothing else higher than this (if one says) : It is not so.' Here we have to enquire what the object of the negative statement is. We do not observe any definite thing indicated by M^ords such as ' this ' or ' that ; ' we merely have the word ' so ' in ' Not so, not so ! ' to which the word ' not ' refers, and which on that account indicates something meant to be denied. Now we know that the word 'so' (iti) is used with reference to approximate things, in the same way as the particle ' evam ' is used ; compare, e.g. the sentence ' so (iti) indeed the teacher said ' (where the 'so' refers to his immediately preceding speech). And, in our passage, the context points out what has to be considered as proximate, viz. the two cosmic forms of Brahman, and that Brahman itself to which the two forms belong. Hence there arises a doubt whether the phrase, ' Not so, not so ! ' negatives both Brahman and its two forms, or only either ; and if the latter, whether it negatives Brahman and leaves its two forms, or if it negatives the two forms and leaves Brahman. — We suppose, the purvapakshin says, that the negative statement negatives Brahman as well as its two forms; both being suggested by the context. As the word ' not ' is repeated twice, there are really two negative statements, of which the one negatives the cosmic form of Brahman, the other that which has form, i.e. Brahman itself Or else we may suppose that Brahman alone is negatived. For as Brahman transcends all speech and thought, its existence is doubtful, and admits of being negatived ; the plurality of cosmic forms on the other hand falls within the sphere of perception and the other means of right
3To this we make the following reply. It is impossible that the phrase, ' Not so, not so ! ' should negative both, since that would imply the doctrine of a general Void. Whenever we deny something unreal, we do so with reference to something real; the unreal snake, e.g. is negatived with reference to the real rope. But this (denial of something unreal with reference to something real) is possible only if some entity is left. If everything is denied, no entity is left, and if no entity is left, the denial of some other entity which we may wish to undertake, becomes impossible, i.e. that latter entity becomes real and as such cannot be negatived. — Nor, in the second place, can Brahman be denied ; for that would contradict the introductory phrase of the chapter, ' Shall I tell you Brahman ? ' (Brz. Up. II, i, i) ; would show disregard of the threat conveyed in Taitt. Up. II, 6, 'He who knows the Brahman as non-existing becomes himself nonexisting ; ' would be opposed to definitive assertions such as ' By the words " He is "' is he to be apprehended ' (Ka. Up. II, 6, 13); and would involve a stultification of the entire Vedanta. — The phrase that Brahman transcends all speech and thought does certainly not mean to say that Brahman does not exist ; for after the Vedanta-part of scripture has established at length the existence of Brahman — in such passages as ' He who knows Brahman obtains the highest ;' 'Truth, knowledge, infinite is Brahman ' — it cannot be supposed all at once to teach its non-existence. For, as the common saying is, ' Better than bathing it is not to touch dirt at all.' The passage, ' from whence all speech with the mind turns away unable to reach it ' (Taitt. Up. II, 4), must, therefore, rather be viewed as intimating Brahman.
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.
1^ 'Difference of terms' (i-abdantaram) is according to the Purva Mima7«sa the first of the six means of proof showing karmabheda or niyogabheda. Cp. ^S'abara bhashya on II, i, i. ^ For the sacrifice as well as its subordinate part — the offering of the praya^as — has to be performed by a sacrificer acting for one end, viz. the obtainment of the heavenly world. Ill ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 2 2. 1 67 discussion ; and (the text) enounces something more than that.
2We read, Bri. Up. II, 3, ' Two forms of Brahman there are indeed, the material and the immaterial, the mortal and the immortal, the solid and the fluid, sat and tya.' The text thereupon divides the five elements into two classes, predicates of the essence of that which is immaterial — which it calls purusha — saffron-colour, and so on, and then goes on to say, ' Now then the teaching by Not so, not so ! For there is nothing else higher than this (if one says) : It is not so.' Here we have to enquire what the object of the negative statement is. We do not observe any definite thing indicated by M^ords such as ' this ' or ' that ; ' we merely have the word ' so ' in ' Not so, not so ! ' to which the word ' not ' refers, and which on that account indicates something meant to be denied. Now we know that the word 'so' (iti) is used with reference to approximate things, in the same way as the particle ' evam ' is used ; compare, e.g. the sentence ' so (iti) indeed the teacher said ' (where the 'so' refers to his immediately preceding speech). And, in our passage, the context points out what has to be considered as proximate, viz. the two cosmic forms of Brahman, and that Brahman itself to which the two forms belong. Hence there arises a doubt whether the phrase, ' Not so, not so ! ' negatives both Brahman and its two forms, or only either ; and if the latter, whether it negatives Brahman and leaves its two forms, or if it negatives the two forms and leaves Brahman. — We suppose, the purvapakshin says, that the negative statement negatives Brahman as well as its two forms; both being suggested by the context. As the word ' not ' is repeated twice, there are really two negative statements, of which the one negatives the cosmic form of Brahman, the other that which has form, i.e. Brahman itself Or else we may suppose that Brahman alone is negatived. For as Brahman transcends all speech and thought, its existence is doubtful, and admits of being negatived ; the plurality of cosmic forms on the other hand falls within the sphere of perception and the other means of right
3To this we make the following reply. It is impossible that the phrase, ' Not so, not so ! ' should negative both, since that would imply the doctrine of a general Void. Whenever we deny something unreal, we do so with reference to something real; the unreal snake, e.g. is negatived with reference to the real rope. But this (denial of something unreal with reference to something real) is possible only if some entity is left. If everything is denied, no entity is left, and if no entity is left, the denial of some other entity which we may wish to undertake, becomes impossible, i.e. that latter entity becomes real and as such cannot be negatived. — Nor, in the second place, can Brahman be denied ; for that would contradict the introductory phrase of the chapter, ' Shall I tell you Brahman ? ' (Brz. Up. II, i, i) ; would show disregard of the threat conveyed in Taitt. Up. II, 6, 'He who knows the Brahman as non-existing becomes himself nonexisting ; ' would be opposed to definitive assertions such as ' By the words " He is "' is he to be apprehended ' (Ka. Up. II, 6, 13); and would involve a stultification of the entire Vedanta. — The phrase that Brahman transcends all speech and thought does certainly not mean to say that Brahman does not exist ; for after the Vedanta-part of scripture has established at length the existence of Brahman — in such passages as ' He who knows Brahman obtains the highest ;' 'Truth, knowledge, infinite is Brahman ' — it cannot be supposed all at once to teach its non-existence. For, as the common saying is, ' Better than bathing it is not to touch dirt at all.' The passage, ' from whence all speech with the mind turns away unable to reach it ' (Taitt. Up. II, 4), must, therefore, rather be viewed as intimating Brahman.
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.