365bet娱乐

English of translation of Brahmasutra 1.4.8 by Roma Bose:

鈥�(the word 鈥榰nborn鈥� does not denote the 蝉腻峁僰丑测补 辫谤补办峁泃颈) on account of non-specification, as in the case of the cup.鈥�

Nimb膩rka鈥檚 commentary (Ved膩nta-p膩rij膩ta-saurabha):

On the prima facie view, viz. Let 辫谤补办峁泃颈, mentioned in the sacred text: 鈥極ne unborn female (补箩腻)鈥� (艢惫别迟腻艣惫补迟补谤补-耻辫补苍颈峁�a诲 4.5^[1]), be the one established in (the S膩峁僰hya) 厂尘峁泃颈, the author indicates the right conclusion. The unborn one, mentioned in the sacred text, must have Brahman for its soul^[2], because there is no specification guaranteeing the prima facie view^[3], as in the case of the cup, mentioned in the sacred text: 鈥楾here is a cup with its mouth below鈥� (B峁沨ad膩ra峁噛aka-耻辫补苍颈峁�a诲 2.2.3^[4]).

艢r墨niv膩sa鈥檚 commentary (Ved膩nta-kaustubha)

Thus, it has been shown that in the 碍补峁环补-惫补濒濒墨 辫谤补诲丑腻苍补, which is not mentioned in the Veda, is not denoted by the term 鈥榰nmanifest鈥�, as it, through denoting the cause, viz. 辫谤补诲丑腻苍补 which is mentioned in the Veda, denotes its effect, viz. the body. It has also been shown that as 辫谤补诲丑腻苍补 has Brahman for its soul, the text, thereby, refers to Brahman. In a like manner, it is being shown now that the text about the unborn one, too, refers to Brahman alone.

In the 惭补苍迟谤辞辫补苍颈峁�a诲 of the 艢惫别迟腻艣惫补迟补谤补s, we find the following: 鈥楤y an unborn female (补箩腻),^[5] red, black and white, bringing forth manifold offspring of a like nature, there lies an unborn male (aja)^[6], enjoying. Another unborn male (aja) leaves her who has been enjoyed鈥� (艢惫别迟腻艣惫补迟补谤补-耻辫补苍颈峁�a诲 4.5). A doubt arises, viz. whether in this sacred text 辫谤补办峁泃颈, established by the S膩峁僰hya-sm峁泃i, is recognized by the term 鈥榰nborn one鈥� (补箩腻), or whether the meaning of the sacred text is 辫谤补办峁泃颈, having Brahman for its soul. On the prima facie view, viz. The 鈥榰nborn one鈥�, etymologically derived as 鈥榦ne who is not born鈥�; self-supporting; independently bringing forth, by nature, offspring of a like nature; consisting in the three 驳耻峁嘺蝉; the cause of the distinction between bondage and release; and admitted by the 厂腻峁僰丑测补蝉, should be understood to be mentioned by the sacred text as well.

We reply: The 鈥榰nborn one鈥�, which has Brahman for its soul, is mentioned by the sacred text. Why? 鈥淥n account of nonspecification鈥�, i.e. because there is no special circumstance for understanding 辫谤补诲丑腻苍补 which is derived from inference. Our (i.e. Upani峁�adic) (辫谤补办峁泃颈), too, is unborn. Since a scriptural text is authoritative only in reference to its own explicit meaning, i.e. only in reference to what it actually states, a self-supporting one is not recognized here, because the word 鈥榮elf-supporting鈥� is found nowhere, and also because it is impossible for a non-sentient object to have an independent existence. An example illustrating the absence of any specification, such as: 鈥楾his is so鈥�, with regard to a common term, is given in the words: 鈥淎s in the case of a cup鈥�. In the text: 鈥楾here is a cup with its mouth below, and bottom above鈥� (B峁沨ad膩ra峁噛aka-耻辫补苍颈峁�a诲 2.2.3), the word 鈥榗up鈥� (camasa) conveys only the idea of an implement used in eating, in accordance with the etymology: (A 鈥榗amasa鈥� is that) whereby one drinks (camyate anena); and so no accurate specific determination, that a cup (camasa) is such, is possible, on account of non-specification,鈥�(the marks of) having the mouth below and the rest being possible elsewhere too.^[7] Similarly, in the sacred text under discussion also, there can be no specifying out that this 辫谤补办峁泃颈, simply because it is unborn, is the one established by the S膩峁僰hya-sm峁泃i.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Quoted by 艢a峁卥ara, R膩m膩nuja, Bh膩skara, 艢r墨ka峁囜弓ha and Baladeva.

[2]:

I.e. be dependent on Brahman.

[3]:

I.e. There is nothing here to guarantee us in selecting 辫谤补诲丑腻苍补 of the opponents as the unborn one.

[4]:

Quoted by 艢a峁卥ara, R膩m膩nuja, Bh膩skara, 艢r墨ka峁囜弓ha and Baladeva.

[5]:

鈥�础箩腻鈥� means a she-goat, too, of. 叠谤补丑尘补-蝉奴迟谤补蝉 (艢a峁卥ara鈥檚 commentary) 1.4.10, p. 404.

[6]:

鈥�Aja鈥� means a he-goat also.

[7]:

I.e. in the above text about the 鈥�补箩腻鈥�, there are no special marks which justify us in selecting out the S膩峁僰hya 辫谤补办峁泃颈 here out of other possible meanings of the term 鈥�补箩腻鈥�, just as in the text about the 鈥榗amasa鈥�, there are no special marks for fixing what exactly a camasa denotes here, until we are told specifically in the complementary passage that it denotes the head.