Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Smritl. So, e.g. Ka. Up. IV, i, 'The Self-existent pierced the openings of the senses so that they turn outward ; therefore man looks without, not within himself. Some wise man, however, with his eyes closed and wishing for immortality, saw the Self within.' And Mu. Up. III. i, 8, ' When a man's mind has become purified by the serene light of knowledge then he sees him, meditating on him as without parts.' Smrz'ti-passages of the same tendency are the following ones, ' He who is seen as light by the Yogins meditating on him sleepless, with suspended breath, with contented minds, with subdued senses ; reverence be to him^l' and 'The Yogins see him, the august, eternal one.' But if in the state of perfect conciliation there is a being to be conciliated and a being conciliating, does not this involve the distinction of a higher and a lower Self? — No, the next Siitra replies. 25. And as in the case of (physical) light and the like, there is non-distinction (of the two Selfs), the light (i.e. the intelligent Self) (being divided) by its activity ; according to the repeated declarations of scripture.
2As light, ether, the sun and so on appear differentiated as it were through their objects such as fingers, vessels, water and so on which constitute limiting adjuncts^, while in reality they preserve their essential non-differentiatedness ; so the distinction of different Selfs is due to limiting adjuncts only, while the unity of all Selfs is natural and original. For on the doctrine of the non-difference of the individual soul and the highest Self the Ved^nta-texts insist again and again ^ ^ Whose Self is Yoga. ^ Light is differentiated as it were by the various objects on which it shines ; the all-pervading ether is divided into parts as it were by hollow bodies ; the sun is multiplied as it were by its reflections in the water. ^ It certainly looks here as if the Bhashyakara did not know what to do with the words of the Sutra. The ' karmawi,' which is Ill ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 27. 1 73 26. Hence (the soul enters Into unity) with the infinite (i.e. the highest Self) ; for this scripture indicates. Hence i. e. because the non-difference of all Selfs is essential and their difference due to Nescience only, the individual soul after having dispelled Nescience by true knowledge passes over into unity with the highest Self. For this is indicated by scripture, cp. e.g. Mu. Up. Ill, 2, 9, ' He who knows that highest Brahman becomes even Brahman ; ' Bri. Up. IV, 4, 6, ' Being Brahman he goes to Brahman.'
327. But on account of twofold designation, (the relation of the highest Self to the individual soul has to be viewed) like that of the snake to its coils. In order to justify his own view as to the relation of the conciliating individual soul and the conciliated highest Self, the Sutrakara mentions a different view of the same matter. — Some scriptural passages refer to the highest Self and the individual soul as distinct entities, cp. e.g. Mu. Up. Ill, 1,8,' Then he sees him meditating on him as without parts,' where the highest Self appears as the object of the soul's vision and meditation ; Mu. Up. Ill, 2, 8, ' He goes to the divine Person who is greater than the great ; ' and Bri. Up. Ill, 7, 15, ' Who rules all beings within ;' in which passages the highest Self is represented as the object of approach and as the ruler of the individual soul. In other places again the two are spoken of as non-different, so e.g. K/t. Up. VI, 8, 7, 'Thou art that;' Bri. Up. I, 4, 10, ' I am Brahman;' Bri. Up. Ill, 4, i, 'This is thy Self who is within all;' Bri. Up. Ill, 7, 15, 'He is thy Self, the ruler within, the immortal.' — As thus difference and non-difference are equally vouched for by scripture, the acceptation of absolute non-difference would render futile all those as good as passed over by him, is explained by Go. An. as ' dhyanadikarmawy upadhau.' An. Gi. says, ' atmapraka.yai'abditOx^«anatatkarye karmawy upadhau savijeshas ' &c. I 74 VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
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.
1Smritl. So, e.g. Ka. Up. IV, i, 'The Self-existent pierced the openings of the senses so that they turn outward ; therefore man looks without, not within himself. Some wise man, however, with his eyes closed and wishing for immortality, saw the Self within.' And Mu. Up. III. i, 8, ' When a man's mind has become purified by the serene light of knowledge then he sees him, meditating on him as without parts.' Smrz'ti-passages of the same tendency are the following ones, ' He who is seen as light by the Yogins meditating on him sleepless, with suspended breath, with contented minds, with subdued senses ; reverence be to him^l' and 'The Yogins see him, the august, eternal one.' But if in the state of perfect conciliation there is a being to be conciliated and a being conciliating, does not this involve the distinction of a higher and a lower Self? — No, the next Siitra replies. 25. And as in the case of (physical) light and the like, there is non-distinction (of the two Selfs), the light (i.e. the intelligent Self) (being divided) by its activity ; according to the repeated declarations of scripture.
2As light, ether, the sun and so on appear differentiated as it were through their objects such as fingers, vessels, water and so on which constitute limiting adjuncts^, while in reality they preserve their essential non-differentiatedness ; so the distinction of different Selfs is due to limiting adjuncts only, while the unity of all Selfs is natural and original. For on the doctrine of the non-difference of the individual soul and the highest Self the Ved^nta-texts insist again and again ^ ^ Whose Self is Yoga. ^ Light is differentiated as it were by the various objects on which it shines ; the all-pervading ether is divided into parts as it were by hollow bodies ; the sun is multiplied as it were by its reflections in the water. ^ It certainly looks here as if the Bhashyakara did not know what to do with the words of the Sutra. The ' karmawi,' which is Ill ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 27. 1 73 26. Hence (the soul enters Into unity) with the infinite (i.e. the highest Self) ; for this scripture indicates. Hence i. e. because the non-difference of all Selfs is essential and their difference due to Nescience only, the individual soul after having dispelled Nescience by true knowledge passes over into unity with the highest Self. For this is indicated by scripture, cp. e.g. Mu. Up. Ill, 2, 9, ' He who knows that highest Brahman becomes even Brahman ; ' Bri. Up. IV, 4, 6, ' Being Brahman he goes to Brahman.'
327. But on account of twofold designation, (the relation of the highest Self to the individual soul has to be viewed) like that of the snake to its coils. In order to justify his own view as to the relation of the conciliating individual soul and the conciliated highest Self, the Sutrakara mentions a different view of the same matter. — Some scriptural passages refer to the highest Self and the individual soul as distinct entities, cp. e.g. Mu. Up. Ill, 1,8,' Then he sees him meditating on him as without parts,' where the highest Self appears as the object of the soul's vision and meditation ; Mu. Up. Ill, 2, 8, ' He goes to the divine Person who is greater than the great ; ' and Bri. Up. Ill, 7, 15, ' Who rules all beings within ;' in which passages the highest Self is represented as the object of approach and as the ruler of the individual soul. In other places again the two are spoken of as non-different, so e.g. K/t. Up. VI, 8, 7, 'Thou art that;' Bri. Up. I, 4, 10, ' I am Brahman;' Bri. Up. Ill, 4, i, 'This is thy Self who is within all;' Bri. Up. Ill, 7, 15, 'He is thy Self, the ruler within, the immortal.' — As thus difference and non-difference are equally vouched for by scripture, the acceptation of absolute non-difference would render futile all those as good as passed over by him, is explained by Go. An. as ' dhyanadikarmawy upadhau.' An. Gi. says, ' atmapraka.yai'abditOx^«anatatkarye karmawy upadhau savijeshas ' &c. I 74 VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
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.