Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The passage of the B;x Up. under discussion has, therefore, to be understood as follows. Brahman is that whose nature is permanent purity, intelligence, and freedom ; it transcends speech and mind, does not fiill within the category of 'object,' and constitutes the inward Self of all. Of this Brahman our text denies all plurality of forms ; but Ill ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 2 2. 1 69
2Brahman itself it leaves untouched. This the Sutra expresses in the words, 'for it denies the suchness which forms the topic of discussion.' That means : The passage ' Not so,' &c., denies of Brahman the limited form, material as well as immaterial, which in the preceding part of the chapter is described at length with reference to the gods as well as the body, and also the second form which is produced by the first, is characterised by mental impressions, forms the essence of that which is immaterial, is denoted by the term purusha, rests on the subtle Self (lihgatman) and is described by means of comparisons with saffron-colour, &c., since the purusha, which is the essence of what is immaterial, does not itself possess colour perceivable by the eye. Now these forms of Brahman are by means of the word ' so ' (iti), which always refers to something approximate brought into connexion with the negative particle ' not.' Brahman itself, on the other hand (apart from its forms), is, in the previous part of the chapter, mentioned not as in itself constituting the chief topic, but only in so far as it is qualified by its forms ; this appears from the circumstance of Brahman being exhibited in the genitive case only ('These are two forms of Bralunaji '). Now, after the two forms have been set forth, there arises the desire of knowing that to which the two forms belong, and hence the text continues. ' Now then the teaching by means of "Not so, not so."' This passage, we conclude, conveys information regarding the nature of Brahman by denying the reality of the forms fictitiously attributed to it ; for the phrase, ' Not so, not so ! ' negatives the whole aggregate of effects superimposed on Brahman. Effects we know to have no real existence, and they can therefore be negatived ; not so, however, Brahman, which constitutes the necessary basis for all fictitious superimposition. — Nor must the question be asked here, how the sacred text, after having itself set forth the two forms of Brahman, can negative them in the end, contrary to the principle that not to touch dirt is better than bathing after having done so. For the text does not set forth the two forms of Brahman as something the truth of which is to be established, but merely mentions those two forms, which in
31 70 vedanta-sOtras. the sphere of ordinary thought are fictitiously attributed to Brahman, in order finally to neg^ative them and establish thereby the true nature of the formless Brahman. The double repetition of the negation may either serve the purpose of furnishing a special denial of the material as well as the immaterial form of Brahman ; or the first ' Not so ' may negative the aggregate of material elements, while the second denies the aggregate of mental impressions. Or else the repetition may be an emphatic one, intimating that whatever can be thought is not Brahman. This is, perhaps, the better explanation. For if a limited number of things are denied each individually, there still remains the desire to know whether something else may not be Brahman ; an emphatic repetition of the denial on the other hand shows that the entire aggregate of objects is denied and that Brahman is the inward Self; whereby all further enquiry is checked. — The final conclusion, therefore, is, that the text negatives only the cosmic plurality fictitiously superimposed on Brahman, but leaves Brahman itself untouched.
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 passage of the B;x Up. under discussion has, therefore, to be understood as follows. Brahman is that whose nature is permanent purity, intelligence, and freedom ; it transcends speech and mind, does not fiill within the category of 'object,' and constitutes the inward Self of all. Of this Brahman our text denies all plurality of forms ; but Ill ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 2 2. 1 69
2Brahman itself it leaves untouched. This the Sutra expresses in the words, 'for it denies the suchness which forms the topic of discussion.' That means : The passage ' Not so,' &c., denies of Brahman the limited form, material as well as immaterial, which in the preceding part of the chapter is described at length with reference to the gods as well as the body, and also the second form which is produced by the first, is characterised by mental impressions, forms the essence of that which is immaterial, is denoted by the term purusha, rests on the subtle Self (lihgatman) and is described by means of comparisons with saffron-colour, &c., since the purusha, which is the essence of what is immaterial, does not itself possess colour perceivable by the eye. Now these forms of Brahman are by means of the word ' so ' (iti), which always refers to something approximate brought into connexion with the negative particle ' not.' Brahman itself, on the other hand (apart from its forms), is, in the previous part of the chapter, mentioned not as in itself constituting the chief topic, but only in so far as it is qualified by its forms ; this appears from the circumstance of Brahman being exhibited in the genitive case only ('These are two forms of Bralunaji '). Now, after the two forms have been set forth, there arises the desire of knowing that to which the two forms belong, and hence the text continues. ' Now then the teaching by means of "Not so, not so."' This passage, we conclude, conveys information regarding the nature of Brahman by denying the reality of the forms fictitiously attributed to it ; for the phrase, ' Not so, not so ! ' negatives the whole aggregate of effects superimposed on Brahman. Effects we know to have no real existence, and they can therefore be negatived ; not so, however, Brahman, which constitutes the necessary basis for all fictitious superimposition. — Nor must the question be asked here, how the sacred text, after having itself set forth the two forms of Brahman, can negative them in the end, contrary to the principle that not to touch dirt is better than bathing after having done so. For the text does not set forth the two forms of Brahman as something the truth of which is to be established, but merely mentions those two forms, which in
31 70 vedanta-sOtras. the sphere of ordinary thought are fictitiously attributed to Brahman, in order finally to neg^ative them and establish thereby the true nature of the formless Brahman. The double repetition of the negation may either serve the purpose of furnishing a special denial of the material as well as the immaterial form of Brahman ; or the first ' Not so ' may negative the aggregate of material elements, while the second denies the aggregate of mental impressions. Or else the repetition may be an emphatic one, intimating that whatever can be thought is not Brahman. This is, perhaps, the better explanation. For if a limited number of things are denied each individually, there still remains the desire to know whether something else may not be Brahman ; an emphatic repetition of the denial on the other hand shows that the entire aggregate of objects is denied and that Brahman is the inward Self; whereby all further enquiry is checked. — The final conclusion, therefore, is, that the text negatives only the cosmic plurality fictitiously superimposed on Brahman, but leaves Brahman itself untouched.
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.