This is the opening chapters of a 500 page book:
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Vedanta Sutra - Here is a translation to read:
The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary by
Ramanuja, by Trans. George Thibaut
This header should be the first thing seen when viewing this Project
Gutenberg file. Please do not remove it. Do not change or edit the
header without written permission.
**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts**
**eBooks Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971**
*****These eBooks Were Prepared By Thousands of Volunteers!*****
Title: The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary by Ramanuja
Sacred Books of the East, Volume 48
Author: Trans. George Thibaut
Release Date: January, 2005 [EBook #7297]
[Yes, we are more than one year ahead of schedule]
[This file was first posted on April 9, 2003]
Edition: 10
Language: English
Character set encoding: ISO-Latin-1
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE VEDANTA-SUTRAS ***
THE
VEDĀNTĀ-SŪTRAS
WITH THE COMMENTARY BY
RĀMĀNUJA
TRANSLATED BY
GEORGE THIBAUT
PART III
Sacred Books of the East, Volume 48
[1904]
[Scanned in by Srinivasan Sriram (as part of the sripedia.org initiative).
OCRed and proofed at Distributed Proofing by other volunteers; Juliet
Sutherland, project manager. Formatting and additional proofreading at
Sacred-texts.com by J.B. Hare. This text is in the public domain worldwide.
This file may be used for any non-commercial purpose provided this notice
is left intact.]
CONTENTS.
VEDĀNTA-SŪTRAS WITH THE COMMENTARY OF RĀMĀNUJA.
INTRODUCTION
ADHYĀYA I
Pāda I
Pāda II
Pāda III
Pāda IV
ADHYĀYA II
Pāda I
Pāda II
Pāda III
Pāda IV
ADHYĀYA III
Pāda I
Pāda II
Pāda III
Pāda IV
ADHYĀYA IV
Pāda I
Pāda II
Pāda III
Pāda IV
INDEXES BY DR. M. WINTERNITZ:--
Index of Quotations
Index of Sanskrit Words
Index of Names and Subjects
Corrigenda
Transliteration of Oriental Alphabets adopted for the Translations of the
Sacred Books of the East
INTRODUCTION.
In the Introduction to the first volume of the translation of the
'Vedānta-Sūtras with Sankara's Commentary' (vol. xxxiv of this Series) I
have dwelt at some length on the interest which Rāmānuja's Commentary
may claim--as being, on the one hand, the fullest exposition of what may
be called the Theistic Vedānta, and as supplying us, on the other, with
means of penetrating to the true meaning of Bādarāyana's Aphorisms. I do
not wish to enter here into a fuller discussion of Rāmānuja's work in
either of these aspects; an adequate treatment of them would, moreover,
require considerably more space than is at my disposal. Some very useful
material for the right understanding of Rāmānuju's work is to be found
in the 'Analytical Outline of Contents' which Messrs. M. Rangākārya and
M. B. Varadarāja Aiyangār have prefixed to the first volume of their
scholarly translation of the Srībhāshya (Madras, 1899).
The question as to what the Stūras really teach is a critical, not a
philosophical one. This distinction seems to have been imperfectly
realised by several of those critics, writing in India, who have
examined the views expressed in my Introduction to the translation of
Sankara's Commentary. A writer should not be taxed with 'philosophic
incompetency,' 'hopeless theistic bias due to early training,' and the
like, simply because he, on the basis of a purely critical investigation,
considers himself entitled to maintain that a certain ancient document
sets forth one philosophical view rather than another. I have nowhere
expressed an opinion as to the comparative philosophical value of the
systems of Sankara and Rāmānuja; not because I have no definite opinions
on this point, but because to introduce them into a critical enquiry
would be purposeless if not objectionable.
The question as to the true meaning of the Sūtras is no doubt of some
interest; although the interest of problems of this kind may easily be
over-estimated. Among the remarks of critics on my treatment of this
problem I have found little of solid value. The main arguments which I
have set forth, not so much in favour of the adequacy of Rāmānuja's
interpretation, as against the validity of Sankarākārya's understanding
of the Sūtras, appear to me not to have been touched. I do not by any
means consider the problem a hopeless one; but its solution will not be
advanced, in any direction, but by those who will be at the trouble of
submitting the entire body of the Sūtras to a new and detailed
investigation, availing themselves to the full of the help that is to be
derived from the study of all the existing Commentaries.
The present translation of the Srībhāshya claims to be faithful on the
whole, although I must acknowledge that I have aimed rather at making it
intelligible and, in a certain sense, readable than scrupulously
accurate. If I had to rewrite it, I should feel inclined to go even
further in the same direction. Indian Philosophy would, in my opinion,
be more readily and widely appreciated than it is at present, if the
translators of philosophical works had been somewhat more concerned to
throw their versions into a form less strange and repellent to the
western reader than literal renderings from technical Sanskrit must
needs be in many passages. I am not unaware of the peculiar dangers of
the plan now advocated--among which the most obvious is the temptation
it offers to the translator of deviating from the text more widely than
regard for clearness would absolutely require. And I am conscious of
having failed in this respect in more than one instance. In other cases
I have no doubt gone astray through an imperfect understanding of the
author's meaning. The fact is, that as yet the time has hardly come for
fully adequate translations of comprehensive works of the type of the
Srībhāshya, the authors of which wrote with reference--in many cases
tacit--to an immense and highly technical philosophical literature which
is only just beginning to be studied, and comprehended in part, by
European scholars.
It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge the help which I have received
from various quarters in preparing this translation. Pandit Gangādhara
Sāstrin, C. I. E., of the Benares Sanskrit College, has, with unwearying
kindness and patience, supplied me throughout with comments of his own
on difficult sections of the text. Pandit Svāmin Rāma Misra Sāstrin has
rendered me frequent assistance in the earlier portion of my task. And
to Mr. A. Venis, the learned Principal of the Benares Sanskrit College,
I am indebted for most instructive notes on some passages of a
peculiarly technical and abstruse character. Nor can I conclude without
expressing my sense of obligation to Colonel G. A. Jacob, whose
invaluable 'Concordance to the Principal Upanishads' lightens to an
incalculable degree the task of any scholar who is engaged in work
bearing on the Vedānta.
VEDĀNTA-SŪTRAS
WITH
RĀMĀNUJA'S SRĪBHĀSHYA
FIRST ADHYĀYA.
FIRST PĀDA.
MAY my mind be filled with devotion towards the highest Brahman, the
abode of Lakshmi who is luminously revealed in the Upanishads; who in
sport produces, sustains, and reabsorbs the entire Universe; whose only
aim is to foster the manifold classes of beings that humbly worship him.
The nectar of the teaching of Parāsara's son (Vyāsa),--which was brought
up from the middle of the milk-ocean of the Upanishads--which restores
to life the souls whose vital strength had departed owing to the heat of
the fire of transmigratory existence--which was well guarded by the
teachers of old--which was obscured by the mutual conflict of manifold
opinions,--may intelligent men daily enjoy that as it is now presented
to them in my words.
The lengthy explanation (vritti) of the Brahma-sūtras which was composed
by the Reverend Bodhāyana has been abridged by former teachers;
according to their views the words of the Sūtras will be explained in
this present work.
1. Then therefore the enquiry into Brahman.
In this Sūtra the word 'then' expresses immediate sequence; the word
'therefore' intimates that what has taken place (viz. the study of the
karmakānda of the Veda) constitutes the reason (of the enquiry into
Brahman). For the fact is that the enquiry into (lit.'the desire to
know') Brahman--the fruit of which enquiry is infinite in nature and
permanent--follows immediately in the case of him who, having read the
Veda together with its auxiliary disciplines, has reached the knowledge
that the fruit of mere works is limited and non-permanent, and hence has
conceived the desire of final release.
The compound 'brahmajijńāsā' is to be explained as 'the enquiry of
Brahman,' the genitive case 'of Brahman' being understood to denote the
object; in agreement with the special rule as to the meaning of the
genitive case, Pānini II, 3, 65. It might be said that even if we
accepted the general meaning of the genitive case--which is that of
connexion in general--Brahman's position (in the above compound) as an
object would be established by the circumstance that the 'enquiry'
demands an object; but in agreement with the principle that the direct
denotation of a word is to be preferred to a meaning inferred we take
the genitive case 'of Brahman' as denoting the object.
The word 'Brahman' denotes the hightest Person (purushottama), who is
essentially free from all imperfections and possesses numberless classes
of auspicious qualities of unsurpassable excellence. The term 'Brahman'
is applied to any things which possess the quality of greatness
(brihattva, from the root 'brih'); but primarily denotes that which
possesses greatness, of essential nature as well as of qualities, in
unlimited fulness; and such is only the Lord of all. Hence the word
'Brahman' primarily denotes him alone, and in a secondary derivative
sense only those things which possess some small part of the Lord's
qualities; for it would be improper to assume several meanings for the
word (so that it would denote primarily or directly more than one thing).
The case is analogous to that of the term 'bhagavat [FOOTNOTE 4:1].' The
Lord only is enquired into, for the sake of immortality, by all those
who are afflicted with the triad of pain. Hence the Lord of all is that
Brahman which, according to the Sūtra, constitutes the object of enquiry.
The word 'jijńāsā' is a desiderative formation meaning 'desire to know.'
And as in the case of any desire the desired object is the chief thing,
the Sūtra means to enjoin knowledge--which is the object of the desire
of knowledge. The purport of the entire Sūtra then is as follows: 'Since
the fruit of works known through the earlier part of the Mīmāmsā is
limited and non-permanent, and since the fruit of the knowledge of
Brahman--which knowledge is to be reached through the latter part of the
Mīmāmsā--is unlimited and permanent; for this reason Brahman is to be
known, after the knowledge of works has previously taken place.'--The
same meaning is expressed by the Vrittikāra when saying 'after the
comprehension of works has taken place there follows the enquiry into
Brahman.' And that the enquiry into works and that into Brahman
constitute one body of doctrine, he (the Vrittikāra) will declare later
on 'this Sārīraka-doctrine is connected with Jaimini's doctrine as
contained in sixteen adhyāyas; this proves the two to constitute one
body of doctrine.' Hence the earlier and the later Mīmāmsā are separate
only in so far as there is a difference of matter to be taught by each;
in the same way as the two halves of the Pūrva Mīmāmsā-sūtras,
consisting of six adhyāyas each, are separate [FOOTNOTE 5:1]; and as each
adhyāya is separate. The entire Mīmāmsā-sātra--which begins with the
Sūtra 'Now therefore the enquiry into religious duty' and concludes with
the Sūtra '(From there is) no return on account of scriptural statement'--
has, owing to the special character of the contents, a definite order of
internal succession. This is as follows. At first the precept 'one is to
learn one's own text (svādhyāya)' enjoins the apprehension of that
aggregate of syllables which is called 'Veda,' and is here referred to
as 'svādhyāya.' Next there arises the desire to know of what nature the
'Learning' enjoined is to be, and how it is to be done. Here there come
in certain injunctions such as 'Let a Brahnmana be initiated in his
eighth year' and 'The teacher is to make him recite the Veda'; and
certain rules about special observances and restrictions--such as
'having performed the upākarman on the full moon of Sravana or
Praushthapada according to prescription, he is to study the sacred
verses for four months and a half--which enjoin all the required details.
From all these it is understood that the study enjoined has for its
result the apprehension of the aggregate of syllables called Veda, on
the part of a pupil who has been initiated by a teacher sprung from a
good family, leading a virtuous life, and possessing purity of soul; who
practises certain special observances and restrictions; and who learns
by repeating what is recited by the teacher.
And this study of the Veda is of the nature of a samskāra of the text,
since the form of the injunction 'the Veda is to be studied' shows that
the Veda is the object (of the action of studying). By a samskāra is
understood an action whereby something is fitted to produce some other
effect; and that the Veda should be the object of such a samskaāra is
quite appropriate, since it gives rise to the knowledge of the four
chief ends of human action--viz. religious duty, wealth, pleasure, and
final release--and of the means to effect them; and since it helps to
effect those ends by itself also, viz. by mere mechanical repetition
(apart from any knowledge to which it may give rise).
The injunction as to the study of the Veda thus aims only at the
apprehension of the aggregate of syllables (constituting the Veda)
according to certain rules; it is in this way analogous to the recital
of mantras.
It is further observed that the Veda thus apprehended through reading
spontaneously gives rise to the ideas of certain things subserving
certain purposes. A person, therefore, who has formed notions of those
things immediately, i.e. on the mere apprehension of the text of the
Veda through reading, thereupon naturally applies himself to the study
of the Mimāmsa, which consists in a methodical discussion of the
sentences constituting the text of the Veda, and has for its result the
accurate determination of the nature of those things and their different
modes. Through this study the student ascertains the character of the
injunctions of work which form part of the Veda, and observes that all
work leads only to non-permanent results; and as, on the other hand, he
immediately becomes aware that the Upanishad sections--which form part
of the Veda which he has apprehended through reading--refer to an
infinite and permanent result, viz. immortality, he applies himself to
the study of the Sārīraka-Mīmāmsā, which consists in a systematic
discussion of the Vedānta-texts, and has for its result the accurate
determination of their sense. That the fruit of mere works is transitory,
while the result of the knowledge of Brahman is something permanent, the
Vedanta-texts declare in many places--'And as here the world acquired by
work perishes, so there the world acquired by merit perishes' (Ch. Up.
VIII, 1,6); 'That work of his has an end' (Bri. Up. III, 8, 10); 'By
non-permanent works the Permanent is not obtained' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 10);
'Frail indeed are those boats, the sacrifices' (Mu. Up. I, 2, 7); 'Let a
Brāhmana, after he has examined all these worlds that are gained by
works, acquire freedom from all desires. What is not made cannot be
gained by what is made. To understand this, let the pupil, with fuel in
his hand, go to a teacher who is learned and dwells entirely in Brahman.
To that pupil who has approached him respectfully, whose mind is
altogether calm, the wise teacher truly told that knowledge of Brahman
through which he knows the imperishable true Person' (Mu. Up. I, 2, 12,
13). 'Told' here means 'he is to tell.'--On the other hand, 'He who
knows Brahman attains the Highest' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1); 'He who sees
this does not see death' (Ch. Up. VII, 26, 2); 'He becomes a self-ruler'
(Ch. Up. VII, 25, 2); 'Knowing him he becomes immortal here' (Taitt. Ār.
III, 12, 7); 'Having known him he passes over death; there is no other
path to go' (Svet. Up. VI, 15); 'Having known as separate his Self and
the Mover, pleased thereby he goes to immortality' (Svet. Up. I, 6).
But--an objection here is raised--the mere learning of the Veda with its
auxiliary disciplines gives rise to the knowledge that the heavenly
world and the like are the results of works, and that all such results
are transitory, while immortality is the fruit of meditation on Brahman.
Possessing such knowledge, a person desirous of final release may at
once proceed to the enquiry into Brahman; and what need is there of a
systematic consideration of religious duty (i.e. of the study of the
Purva Mimāmsā)?--If this reasoning were valid, we reply, the person
desirous of release need not even apply himself to the study of the
Sārīraka Mīmāmsā, since Brahman is known from the mere reading of the
Veda with its auxiliary disciplines.--True. Such knowledge arises indeed
immediately (without deeper enquiry). But a matter apprehended in this
immediate way is not raised above doubt and mistake. Hence a systematic
discussion of the Vedānta-texts must he undertaken in order that their
sense may be fully ascertained--We agree. But you will have to admit
that for the very same reason we must undertake a systematic enquiry
into religious duty!
[FOOTNOTE 4:1. 'Bhagavat' denotes primarily the Lord, the divinity;
secondarily any holy person.]
[FOOTNOTE 5:1. The first six books of the Pūrva Mīmāmsā-sūtras give
rules for the fundamental forms of the sacrifice; while the last six
books teach how these rules are to be applied to the so-called modified
forms.]
THE SMALL PŪRVAPAKSHA.
But--a further objection is urged--as that which has to precede the
systematic enquiry into Brahman we should assign something which that
enquiry necessarily presupposes. The enquiry into the nature of duty,
however, does not form such a prerequisite, since a consideration of the
Vedanta-texts may be undertaken by any one who has read those texts,
even if he is not acquainted with works.--But in the Vedanta-texts there
are enjoined meditations on the Udgītha and the like which are matters
auxiliary to works; and such meditations are not possible for him who is
not acquainted with those works!--You who raise this objection clearly
are ignorant of what kind of knowledge the Sārīraka Mīmāmsā is concerned
with! What that sāstra aims at is to destroy completely that wrong
knowledge which is the root of all pain, for man, liable to birth, old
age, and death, and all the numberless other evils connected with
transmigratory existence--evils that spring from the view, due to
beginningless Nescience, that there is plurality of existence; and to
that end the sāstra endeavours to establish the knowledge of the unity
of the Self. Now to this knowledge, the knowledge of works--which is
based on the assumption of plurality of existence--is not only useless
but even opposed. The consideration of the Udgītha and the like, which
is supplementary to works only, finds a place in the Vedānta-texts, only
because like them it is of the nature of knowledge; but it has no direct
connexion with the true topic of those texts. Hence some prerequisite
must be indicated which has reference to the principal topic of the
sāstra.--Quite so; and this prerequisite is just the knowledge of works;
for scripture declares that final release results from knowledge with
works added. The Sūtra-writer himself says further on 'And there is need
of all works, on account of the scriptural statement of sacrifices and
the like' (Ve. Sū. III, 4, 26). And if the required works were not known,
one could not determine which works have to be combined with knowledge
and which not. Hence the knowledge of works is just the necessary
prerequisite.--Not so, we reply. That which puts an end to Nescience is
exclusively the knowledge of Brahman, which is pure intelligence and
antagonistic to all plurality. For final release consists just in the
cessation of Nescience; how then can works--to which there attach
endless differences connected with caste, āsrama, object to be
accomplished, means and mode of accomplishment, &c.--ever supply a means
for the cessation of ignorance, which is essentially the cessation of
the view that difference exists? That works, the results of which are
transitory, are contrary to final release, and that such release can be
effected through knowledge only, scripture declares in many places;
compare all the passages quoted above (p. 7).
As to the assertion that knowledge requires sacrifices and other works,
we remark that--as follows from the essential contrariety of knowledge
and works, and as further appears from an accurate consideration of the
words of scripture--pious works can contribute only towards the rise of
the desire of knowledge, in so far namely as they clear the internal
organ (of knowledge), but can have no influence on the production of the
fruit, i.e. knowledge itself. For the scriptural passage concerned runs
as follows Brāhmanas desire to know him by the study of the Veda, by
sacrifice, by gifts,' &c. (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 22).
According to this passage, the desire only of knowledge springs up
through works; while another text teaches that calmness, self-restraint,
and so on, are the direct means for the origination of knowledge itself.
(Having become tranquil, calm, subdued, satisfied, patient, and
collected, he is to see the Self within the Self (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 23).)
The process thus is as follows. After the mind of a man has been cleaned
of all impurities through works performed in many preceding states of
existence, without a view to special forms of reward, there arises in
him the desire of knowledge, and thereupon--through knowledge itself
originated by certain scriptural texts--'Being only, this was in the
beginning, one only without a second' (Ch. Up. VI, I, 2); 'Truth,
Knowledge, the Infinite, is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1); 'Without parts,
without actions, calm, without fault, without taint' (Svet. Up. VI, 19);
'This Self is Brahman' (Bri. Up. II, 5, 19); 'Thou art that' (Ch. Up. VI,
9, 7), Nescience comes to an end. Now, 'Hearing,' 'reflection,' and
'meditation,' are helpful towards cognising the sense of these Vedic
texts. 'Hearing' (sravana) means the apprehension of the sense of
scripture, together with collateral arguments, from a teacher who
possesses the true insight, viz. that the Vedānta-texts establish the
doctrine of the unity of the Self. 'Reflection' (mananam) means the
confirmation within oneself of the sense taught by the teacher, by means
of arguments showing it alone to be suitable. 'Meditation'
(nididhyāsanam) finally means the constant holding of thai sense before
one's mind, so as to dispel thereby the antagonistic beginningless
imagination of plurality. In the case of him who through 'hearing,'
'reflection,' and meditation,' has dis-dispelled the entire imagination
of plurality, the knowledge of the sense of Vedānta-texts puts an end to
Nescience; and what we therefore require is a statement of the
indispensable prerequisites of such 'hearing,' 'reflection,' and so on.
Now of such prerequisites there are four, viz. discrimination of what is
permanent and what is non-permanent; the full possession of calmness of
mind, self-restraint and similar means; the renunciation of all
enjoyment of fruits here below as well as in the next world; and the
desire of final release.
Without these the desire of knowledge cannot arise; and they are
therefore known, from the very nature of the matter, to be necessary
prerequisites. To sum up: The root of bondage is the unreal view of
plurality which itself has its root in Nescience that conceals the true
being of Brahman. Bondage itself thus is unreal, and is on that account
cut short, together with its root, by mere knowledge. Such knowledge is
originated by texts such as 'That art thou'; and work is of no help
either towards its nature, or its origination, or its fruit (i.e.
release). It is on the other hand helpful towards the desire of
knowledge, which arises owing to an increase of the element of goodness
(sattva) in the soul, due to the destruction of the elements of passion
(rajas) and darkness (tamas) which are the root of all moral evil. This
use is referred to in the text quoted above, 'Brāhmanas wish to know him,'
&c. As, therefore, the knowledge of works is of no use towards the
knowledge of Brahman, we must acknowledge as the prerequisite of the
latter knowledge the four means mentioned above.
Bookmarks