Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The Sutra gives another argument establishing the same conclusion, ' and the text enounces something more than that,' i.e. more than "the preceding negation. The words of the text meant are ' (not) is there anything beyond.' — If the negation, ' Not so, not so ! ' were meant to negative all things whatever, and this terminated in absolute nonexistence, the text could not even allude to ' anything beyond.' — The words of the text are to be connected as follows. After the clause, ' Not so, not so ! ' has given information about Brahman, the clause next following illustrates this teaching by saying : There is nothing beyond or separate from this Brahman ; therefore Brahman is expressed by ' Not so, not so ! ' which latter words do not mean that Brahman itself does not exist. The implied meaning rather is that different from everything else there exists the ' nonnegatived ' Brahman. — The w^ords of the text admit, however, of another interpretation also ; for they may mean that there is no teaching of Brahman higher than that teaching which is implied in the negation of plurality expressed by ' Not so, not so ! ' On this latter interpretation Ill ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 24. 17I
2the words of the Sutra, ' and the text enounces something more than that,' must be taken to refer to the name mentioned in the text, ' Then comes the name, the True of the True ; the senses being the True and he the True of them.' — This again has a sense only if the previous negative clause denies everything but Brahman, not everything but absolute non-existence. For, if the latter were the case, what then could be called the True of the True ? — We therefore decide that the clause, ' Not so, not so ! ' negatives not absolutely everything, but only everything but Brahman. 23. That (Brahman) is unevolved ; for (thus scripture) says.
3If that highest Brahman which is different from the world that is negatived in the passage discussed above really exists, why then is it not apprehended? — Because, the Sutrakara replies, it is unevolved, not to be apprehended by the senses ; for it is the witness of whatever is apprehended (i.e. the subject in all apprehension). Thus 5ruti says, ' He is not apprehended by the eye, nor by speech, nor by the other senses^ not by penance or good works' (Mu. Up. Ill, I, 8) ; 'That Self is to be described by No, no ! He is incomprehensible, for he cannot be comprehended ' (Brz. Up. HI, 9, 26); 'That which cannot be seen nor apprehended' (Mu. Up. I, I, 6); 'When in that which is invisible, incorporeal, undefined, unsupported ' &c. (Taitt. Up. II, 7). Similar statements are made in Smrz'ti-passages; so e. g. ' He is called unevolved, not to be fathomed by thought, unchangeable.' 24. And in the state of perfect conciliation also (the Yogins apprehend the highest Brahman), according to ^'ruti and Smritl. At the time of perfect conciliation the Yogins see the unevolved Self free from all plurality. By 'perfect conciliation ' we understand the presentation before the mind (of the highest Self), which is effected through meditation and devotion. — This is vouched for by 6^ruti as well as 172 VEDANTA-StjTRAS.
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 Sutra gives another argument establishing the same conclusion, ' and the text enounces something more than that,' i.e. more than "the preceding negation. The words of the text meant are ' (not) is there anything beyond.' — If the negation, ' Not so, not so ! ' were meant to negative all things whatever, and this terminated in absolute nonexistence, the text could not even allude to ' anything beyond.' — The words of the text are to be connected as follows. After the clause, ' Not so, not so ! ' has given information about Brahman, the clause next following illustrates this teaching by saying : There is nothing beyond or separate from this Brahman ; therefore Brahman is expressed by ' Not so, not so ! ' which latter words do not mean that Brahman itself does not exist. The implied meaning rather is that different from everything else there exists the ' nonnegatived ' Brahman. — The w^ords of the text admit, however, of another interpretation also ; for they may mean that there is no teaching of Brahman higher than that teaching which is implied in the negation of plurality expressed by ' Not so, not so ! ' On this latter interpretation Ill ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 24. 17I
2the words of the Sutra, ' and the text enounces something more than that,' must be taken to refer to the name mentioned in the text, ' Then comes the name, the True of the True ; the senses being the True and he the True of them.' — This again has a sense only if the previous negative clause denies everything but Brahman, not everything but absolute non-existence. For, if the latter were the case, what then could be called the True of the True ? — We therefore decide that the clause, ' Not so, not so ! ' negatives not absolutely everything, but only everything but Brahman. 23. That (Brahman) is unevolved ; for (thus scripture) says.
3If that highest Brahman which is different from the world that is negatived in the passage discussed above really exists, why then is it not apprehended? — Because, the Sutrakara replies, it is unevolved, not to be apprehended by the senses ; for it is the witness of whatever is apprehended (i.e. the subject in all apprehension). Thus 5ruti says, ' He is not apprehended by the eye, nor by speech, nor by the other senses^ not by penance or good works' (Mu. Up. Ill, I, 8) ; 'That Self is to be described by No, no ! He is incomprehensible, for he cannot be comprehended ' (Brz. Up. HI, 9, 26); 'That which cannot be seen nor apprehended' (Mu. Up. I, I, 6); 'When in that which is invisible, incorporeal, undefined, unsupported ' &c. (Taitt. Up. II, 7). Similar statements are made in Smrz'ti-passages; so e. g. ' He is called unevolved, not to be fathomed by thought, unchangeable.' 24. And in the state of perfect conciliation also (the Yogins apprehend the highest Brahman), according to ^'ruti and Smritl. At the time of perfect conciliation the Yogins see the unevolved Self free from all plurality. By 'perfect conciliation ' we understand the presentation before the mind (of the highest Self), which is effected through meditation and devotion. — This is vouched for by 6^ruti as well as 172 VEDANTA-StjTRAS.
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.