VEDANTA-SUTRAS WITH RAMANUJA'S SRÎBHASHYA 37 страница

33. And likewise non-entireness of the Self.

On your view there would likewise follow non-entireness of the Self. For your opinion is that souls abide in numberless places, each soul having the same size as the body which it animates. When, therefore, the soul previously abiding in the body of an elephant or the like has to enter into a body of smaller size, e. g. that of an ant, it would follow that as the soul then occupies less space, it would not remain entire, but would become incomplete. -- Let us then avoid this difficulty by assuming that the soul passes over into a different state -- which process is called paryaya, -- which it may manage because it is capable of contraction and dilatation. -- To this the next Sutra replies.

34. Nor also is there non-contradiction from paryaya; on account of change, and so on.

Nor is the difficulty to be evaded by the assumption of the soul assuming a different condition through contraction or dilatation. For this would imply that the soul is subject to change, and all the imperfections springing from it, viz. non-permanence, and so on, and hence would not be superior to non-sentient things such as jars and the like.

35. And on account of the endurance of the final (size), and the (resulting) permanency of both; there is no difference.

The final size of the soul, i.e. the size it has in the state of Release, is enduring since the soul does not subsequently pass into another body; and both, i.e. the soul in the state of Release and the size of that soul, are permanent (nitya). From this it follows that that ultimate size is the true essential size of the soul and also belongs to it previously to Release. Hence there is no difference of sizes, and the soul cannot therefore have the size of its temporary bodies. The Arhata theory is therefore untenable. -- Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the impossibility in one.'

36. (The system) of the Lord (must be disregarded), on account of inappropriateness.

So far it has been shown that the doctrines of Kapila, Kanada, Sugata, and the Arhat must be disregarded by men desirous of final beatitude; for those doctrines are all alike untenable and foreign to the Veda. The Sutras now declare that, for the same reasons, the doctrine of Pasupati also has to be disregarded. The adherents of this view belong to four different classes -- Kapalas, Kalamukhas, Pasupatas, and Saivas. All of them hold fanciful theories of Reality which are in conflict with the Veda, and invent various means for attaining happiness in this life and the next. They maintain the general material cause and the operative cause to be distinct, and the latter cause to be constituted by Pasupati. They further hold the wearing of the six so-called 'mudra' badges and the like to be means to accomplish the highest end of man.

Thus the Kapalas say, 'He who knows the true nature of the six mudras, who understands the highest mudra, meditating on himself as in the position called bhagasana, reaches Nirvana. The necklace, the golden ornament, the earring, the head-jewel, ashes, and the sacred thread are called the six mudras. He whose body is marked with these is not born here again.' -- Similarly the Kalamukhas teach that the means for obtaining all desired results in this world as well as the next are constituted by certain practices -- such as using a skull as a drinking vessel, smearing oneself with the ashes of a dead body, eating the flesh of such a body, carrying a heavy stick, setting up a liquor-jar and using it as a platform for making offerings to the gods, and the like. 'A bracelet made of Rudraksha-seeds on the arm, matted hair on the head, a skull, smearing oneself with ashes, &c.' -- all this is well known from the sacred writings of the Saivas. They also hold that by some special ceremonial performance men of different castes may become Brahmanas and reach the highest asrama: 'by merely entering on the initiatory ceremony (dîksha) a man becomes a Brahmana at once; by undertaking the kapala rite a man becomes at once an ascetic.'

With regard to these views the Sutra says 'of pati, on account of inappropriateness.' A 'not' has here to be supplied from Sutra 32. The system of Pasupati has to be disregarded because it is inappropriate, i. e. because the different views and practices referred to are opposed to one another and in conflict with the Veda. The different practices enumerated above, the wearing of the six mudras and so on, are opposed to each other; and moreover the theoretical assumptions of those people, their forms of devotion and their practices, are in conflict with the Veda. For the Veda declares that Narayana who is the highest Brahman is alone the operative and the substantial cause of the world, 'Narayana is the highest Brahman, Narayana is the highest Reality, Narayana is the highest light, Narayana is the highest Self'; 'That thought, may I be many, may I grow forth' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 3); 'He desired, may I be many, may I grow forth' (Taitt. Up. II, 6, 1), and so on. In the same way the texts declare meditation on the Supreme Person, who is the highest Brahman, to be the only meditation which effects final release; cp. 'I know that great Person of sunlike lustre beyond the darkness. A man who knows him passes over death; there is no other path to go' (Svet. Up. III, 8). And in the same way all texts agree in declaring that the works subserving the knowledge of Brahman are only those sacrificial and other works which the Veda enjoins on men in the different castes and stages of life: 'Him Brahmanas seek to know by the study of the Veda, by sacrifice, by gifts, by penance, by fasting. Wishing for that world only, mendicants wander forth from their homes' (Bri. Up. XI, 4, 22). In some texts enjoining devout meditation, and so on, we indeed meet with terms such as Prajapati, Siva, Indra, Akasa, Prana, &c., but that these all refer to the supreme Reality established by the texts concerning Narayana -- the aim of which texts it is to set forth the highest Reality in its purity -- , we have already proved under I, 1, 30. In the same way we have proved under Su. I, 1, 2 that in texts treating of the creation of the world, such as 'Being only this was in the beginning,' and the like, the words _Being_, _Brahman_, and so on, denote nobody else but Narayana, who is set forth as the universal creator in the account of creation given in the text, 'Alone indeed there was Narayana, not Brahma, not Isana -- he being alone did not rejoice' (Mahopanishad I). -- As the Pasupati theory thus teaches principles, meditations and acts conflicting with the Veda, it must be disregarded.

37. And on account of the impossibility of rulership.

Those who stand outside the Veda arrive through inference at the conclusion that the Lord is a mere operative cause. This being so, they must prove the Lord's being the ruler (of the material cause) on the basis of observation. But it is impossible to prove that the Lord is the ruler of the Pradhana in the same way as the potter e.g. is the ruler of the clay. For the Lord is without a body, while the power of ruling material causes is observed only in the case of embodied beings such as potters. Nor may you have recourse to the hypothesis of the Lord being embodied; for -- as we have shown under I, 1, 3 -- there arise difficulties whether that body, which as body must consist of parts, be viewed as eternal or as non-eternal.

38. If you say, as in the case of the organs; we deny this, on account of enjoyment and so on.

It may possibly be said that, in the same way as the enjoying (individual) soul, although in itself without a body, is seen to rule the sense-organs, the body, and so on, the great Lord also, although without a body, may rule the Pradhana. But this analogy cannot be allowed 'on account of enjoyment,' and so on. The body's being ruled by the soul is due to the unseen principle in the form of good and evil works, and has for its end the requital of those works. Your analogy would thus imply that the Lord also is under the influence of an unseen principle, and is requited for his good and evil works. -- The Lord cannot therefore be a ruler.

39. Finiteness or absence of omniscience.

'Or' here has the sense of 'and.' If the Lord is under the influence of the adrishta, it follows that, like the individual soul, he is subject to creation, dissolution, and so on, and that he is not omniscient. The Pasupati theory cannot therefore be accepted. -- It is true that the Sutra, 'but in case of conflict (with Scripture) it is not to be regarded' (Pu. Mî. Su. I, 3, 3), has already established the non-acceptability of all views contrary to the Veda; the present adhikarana, however, raises this question again in order specially to declare that the Pasupati theory _is_ contrary to the Veda. Although the Pasupata and the Saiva systems exhibit some features which are not altogether contrary to the Veda, yet they are unacceptable because they rest on an assumption contrary to the Veda, viz. of the difference of the general, instrumental and material causes, and imply an erroneous interchange of higher and lower entities. -- Here terminates the adhikarana of 'Pasupati.'

40. On account of the impossibility of origination.

The Sutras now proceed to refute a further doubt, viz. that the Pañkaratra tantra -- which sets forth the means of attaining supreme beatitude, as declared by the Lord (Bhagavat) -- may also be destitute of authority, in so far, namely, as belonging to the same class as the tantras of Kapila and others. The above Sutra raises the doubt.

The theory of the Bhagavatas is that from Vasudeva, who is the highest Brahman and the highest cause, there originates the individual soul called Sankarshana; from Sankarshana the internal organ called Pradyumna; and from Pradyumna the principle of egoity called Aniruddha. Now this theory implies the origination of the individual soul, and this is contrary to Scripture. For scriptural texts declare the soul to be without a beginning -- cp. 'the intelligent one is not born and does not die' (Ka. Up. II, 18), and other texts.

41. And there is not (origination) of the instrument from the agent.

'The internal organ called Pradyumna originates from Sankarshana,' i. e. the internal organ originates from the individual soul which is the agent. But this is inadmissible, since the text 'from him there is produced breath, mind, and all sense-organs' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 3) declares that the mind also springs from none else but the highest Brahman. As the Bhagavata doctrine thus teaches things opposed to Scripture, its authoritativeness cannot be admitted. -- Against these objections the next Sutra declares itself.

42. Or, if they are of the nature of that which is knowledge and so on, there is no contradiction to that (i.e. the Bhagavata doctrine).

The 'or' sets aside the view previously maintained. By 'that which is knowledge and so on' [FOOTNOTE 524:1] we have to understand the highest Brahman. If Sankarshana, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha are of the nature of the highest Brahman, then truly there can be no objection to a body of doctrine which sets forth this relation. The criticism that the Bhagavatas teach an inadmissible origination of the individual soul, is made by people who do not understand that system. What it teaches is that the highest Brahman, there called Vasudeva, from kindness to those devoted to it, voluntarily abides in a fourfold form, so as to render itself accessible to its devotees. Thus it is said in the Paushkara- samhita, 'That which enjoins that Brahmanas have to worship, under its proper names, the fourfold nature of the Self; that is the authoritative doctrine.' That this worship of that which is of a fourfold nature means worship of the highest Brahman, called Vasudeva, is declared in the Satvata-samhita, 'This is the supreme sastra, the great Brahmopanishad, which imparts true discrimination to Brahmawas worshipping the real Brahman under the name of Vasudeva.' That highest Brahman, called Vasudeva, having for its body the complete aggregate of the six qualities, divides itself in so far as it is either the 'Subtle' (sukshma), or 'division' (vyuha), or 'manifestation' (vibhava), and is attained in its fulness by the devotees who, according to their qualifications, do worship to it by means of works guided by knowledge. 'From the worship of the vibhava-aspect one attains to the vyuha, and from the worship of the vyuha one attains to the "Subtile" called Vasudeva, i.e. the highest Brahman' -- such is their doctrine. By the 'vibhava' we have to understand the aggregate of beings, such as Rama, Krishna, &c., in whom the highest Being becomes manifest; by the 'vyuha' the fourfold arrangement or division of the highest Reality, as Vasudeva, Sankarshana, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha; by the 'Subtle' the highest Brahman itself, in so far as it has for its body the mere aggregate of the six qualities -- as which it is called 'Vasudeva.' Compare on this point the Paushkara, 'That body of doctrine through which, by means of works based on knowledge, one fully attains to the imperishable highest Brahman, called Vasudeva,' and so on, Sankarshana, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha are thus mere bodily forms which the highest Brahman voluntarily assumes. Scripture already declares, 'Not born he is born in many ways,' and it is this birth -- consisting in the voluntary assumption of bodily form, due to tenderness towards its devotees -- which the Bhagavata system teaches; hence there lies no valid objection to the authoritativeness of that system. And as Sankarshana. Pradyumna, and Aniruddha are the beings ruling over the individual souls, internal organs and organs of egoity, there can be no objection to their being themselves denoted by those latter terms, viz. individual soul, and so on. The case is analogous to that of Brahman being designated, in some texts, by terms such as ether, breath, and the like.

[FOOTNOTE 524:1. Or 'by that which is knowledge and cause.']

43. And on account of contradiction.

The origination of the jîva is, moreover, distinctly controverted in the books of the Bhagavatas also. Thus in the Parama-samhita 'The nature of Prakriti consists therein that she is non-sentient, for the sake of another, eternal, ever-changing, comprising within herself the three gunas and constituting the sphere of action and experience for all agents. With her the soul (purusha) is connected in the way of inseparable association; that soul is known to be truly without beginning and without end.' And as all Samhitas make similar statements as to the eternity of the soul, the Pañkaratra doctrine manifestly controverts the view of the essential nature of the jiva being something that originates. How it is possible that in the Veda as well as in common life the soul is spoken of as being born, dying, &c., will be explained under Su. II, 3, 17. The conclusion, therefore, is that the Bhagavata system also denies the origination of the soul, and that hence the objections raised on this ground against its authoritativeness are without any force. Another objection is raised by some. Sandilya, they argue, is said to have promulgated the Pañkaratra doctrine because he did not find a sure basis for the highest welfare of man in the Veda and its auxiliary disciplines, and this implies that the Pañkaratra is opposed to the Veda. -- his objection, we reply, springs from nothing else but the mere unreasoning faith of men who do not possess the faintest knowledge of the teachings of the Veda, and have never considered the hosts of arguments which confirm that teaching. When the Veda says, 'Morning after morning those speak untruth who make the Agnihotra offering before sunrise,' it is understood that the censure there passed on the offering before sunrise is really meant to glorify the offering after sunrise. We meet with a similar case in the 'bhuma-vidya' (Ch. Up. VII, 2). There at the beginning Narada says, 'I know the Rig-veda, the Yajur-veda, the Sama-veda, the Atharvana as the fourth, the Itihasa- purana as the fifth,' and so on, enumerating all the various branches of knowledge, and finally summing up 'with all this I know the mantras only, I do not know the Self.' Now this declaration of the knowledge of the Self not being attainable through any branch of knowledge except the knowledge of the Bhuman evidently has no other purpose but to glorify this latter knowledge, which is about to be expounded. Or else Narada's words refer to the fact that from the Veda and its auxiliary disciplines he had not obtained the knowledge of the highest Reality. Analogous to this is the case of Sandilya's alleged objection to the Veda. That the Bhagavata doctrine is meant to facilitate the understanding of the sense of the Veda which by itself is difficult of comprehension, is declared in the Paramasamhita,'I have read the Vedas at length, together with all the various auxiliary branches of knowledge. But in all these I cannot see a clear indication, raised above all doubt, of the way to blessedness, whereby I might reach perfection'; and 'The wise Lord Hari, animated by kindness for those devoted to him, extracted the essential meaning of all the Vedanta-texts and condensed it in an easy form.' The incontrovertible fact then is as follows. The Lord who is known from the Vedanta-texts, i.e. Vasudeva, called there the highest Brahman -- who is antagonistic to all evil, whose nature is of uniform excellence, who is an ocean, as it were, of unlimited exalted qualities, such as infinite intelligence, bliss, and so on, all whose purposes come true -- perceiving that those devoted to him, according as they are differently placed in the four castes and the four stages of life, are intent on the different ends of life, viz. religious observances, wealth, pleasure, and final release; and recognising that the Vedas -- which teach the truth about his own nature, his glorious manifestations, the means of rendering him propitious and the fruits of such endeavour -- are difficult to fathom by all beings other than himself, whether gods or men, since those Vedas are divided into Rik, Yajus, Saman, and Atharvan; and being animated by infinite pity, tenderness, and magnanimity; with a view to enable his devotees to grasp the true meaning of the Vedas, himself composed the

Pañkaratra-sastra. The author of the Sutras (Vyasa) -- who first composed the Sutras, the purport of which it is to set forth the arguments establishing the Vedanta doctrine, and then the Bharata-samhita (i.e. the Mahabharata) in a hundred thousand slokas in order to support thereby the teaching of the Veda -- himself says in the chapter called Mokshadharma, which treats of knowledge, 'If a householder, or a Brahmakarin, or a hermit, or a mendicant wishes to achieve success, what deity should he worship?' and so on; explains then at great length the Pañkaratra system, and then says, 'From the lengthy Bharata story, comprising one hundred thousand slokas, this body of doctrine has been extracted, with the churning-staff of mind, as butter is churned from curds -- as butter from milk, as the Brahmana from men, as the Aranyaka from the Vedas, as Amrita from medicinal herbs. -- This great Upanishad, consistent with the four Vedas, in harmony with Sankhya and Yoga, was called by him by the name of Pañkaratra. This is excellent, this is Brahman, this is supremely beneficial. Fully agreeing with the Rik, the Yajus, the Saman, and the Atharvan-giras, this doctrine will be truly authoritative.' The terms Sankhya and Yoga here denote the concentrated application of knowledge and of works. As has been said, 'By the application of knowledge on the part of the Sankhya, and of works on the part of the Yogins.' And in the Bhîshmaparvan we read, 'By Brahmanas, Kshattriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras, Madhava is to be honoured, served and worshipped -- he who was proclaimed by Sankarshana in agreement with the Satvata law.' -- How then could these utterances of Badarayana, the foremost among all those who understand the teaching of the Veda, be reconciled with the view that in the Sutras he maintains the non- authoritativeness of the Satvata doctrine, the purport of which is to teach the worship of, and meditation on, Vasudeva, who is none other than the highest Brahman known from the Vedanta-texts?

But other passages in the Mahabharata, such as 'There is the Sankhya, the Yoga, the Pañkaratra, the Vedas, and the Pasupata doctrine; do all these rest on one and the same basis, or on different ones?' and so on, declare that the Sankhya and other doctrines also are worthy of regard, while yet in the Sarîraka Sutras those very same doctrines are formally refuted. Why, therefore, should not the same hold good in the case of the Bhagavata doctrine? -- Not so, we reply. In the Mahabharata also Badarayana applies to the Sankhya and other doctrines the same style of reasoning as in the Sutras. The question, asked in the passage quoted, means 'Do the Sankhya, the Yoga, the Pasupata, and the Pañkaratra set forth one and the same reality, or different ones? If the former, what is that reality? If the latter, they convey contradictory doctrines, and, as reality is not something which may be optionally assumed to be either such or such, one of those doctrines only can be acknowledged as authoritative, and the question then arises which is to be so acknowledged?' -- The answer to the question is given in the passage beginning, 'Know, O royal Sage, all those different views. The promulgator of the Sankhya is Kapila,' &c. Here the human origin of the Sankhya, Yoga, and Pasupata is established on the ground of their having been produced by Kapila, Hiranyagarbha, and Pasupati. Next the clause 'Aparantatamas is said to be the teacher of the Vedas' intimates the non- human character of the Vedas; and finally the clause 'Of the whole Pañkaratra, Narayana himself is the promulgator' declares that Narayana himself revealed the Pañkaratra doctrine. The connected purport of these different clauses is as follows. As the systems of human origin set forth doctrines mutually contradictory, and, moreover, teach what is in conflict with the matter known from the Veda -- which, on account of its non-human character, is raised above all suspicion of error and other imperfections -- they cannot be accepted as authoritative with regard to anything not depending on human action and choice. Now the matter to be known from the Veda is Narayana, who is none other than the highest Brahman. It hence follows that the entities set forth in those different systems -- the pradhana, the soul (purusha), Pasupati, and so on -- have to be viewed as real only in so far as Narayana, i.e. the highest Brahman, as known from the Vedanta-texts, constitutes their Self. This the text directly declares in the passage, 'In all those doctrines it is seen, in accordance with tradition and reasoning, that the lord Narayawa is the only basis.' This means -- 'To him who considers the entities set forth in those systems with the help of argumentation, it is evident that Narayana alone is the basis of all those entities.' In other words, as the entities set forth in those systems are not Brahman, any one who remembers the teaching of texts such as 'all this indeed is Brahman,' 'Narayana is all,' which declare Brahman to be the Self of all, comes to the conclusion that Narayana alone is the basis of those entities. As thus it is settled that the highest Brahman, as known from the Vedanta- texts, or Narayana, himself is the promulgator of the entire Pañkaratra, and that this system teaches the nature of Narayana and the proper way of worshipping him, none can disestablish the view that in the Pañkaratra all the other doctrines are comprised. For this reason the Mahabharata says, 'Thus the Sankhya-yoga and the Veda and the Aranyaka, being members of one another, are called the Pañkaratra,' i.e. the Sankhya, the Yoga, the Vedas, and the Aranyakas, which are members of one another because they are one in so far as aiming at setting forth one Truth, together are called the Pañkaratra. -- The Sankhya explains the twenty-five principles, the Yoga teaches certain practices and means of mental concentration, and the Aranyakas teach that all the subordinate principles have their true Self in Brahman, that the mental concentration enjoined in the Yoga is a mode of meditation on Brahman, and that the rites and works which are set forth in the Veda are means to win the favour of Brahman -- thus giving instruction as to Brahman's nature. Now all these elements, in their inward connexion, are clearly set forth in the Pañkaratra by the highest Brahman, i.e. Narayana, himself. The Sarîraka Sastra (i.e. the Vedanta) does not disprove the principles assumed by the Sankhyas, but merely the view of their not having Brahman for their Self; and similarly in its criticism on the Yoga and Pasupata systems, it merely refutes the view of the Lord being a mere instrumental cause, the erroneous assumptions as to the relative position of higher and lower entities, and certain practices not warranted by the Veda; but it does not reject the Yoga itself, nor again the lord Pasupati. Hence Smriti says,' The Sankhya, the Yoga, the Pañkaratra, the Vedas, and the Psupata doctrine -- all these having their proof in the Self may not be destroyed by arguments.' The essential points in all these doctrines are to be adopted, not to be rejected absolutely as the teaching of Jina. or Sugata is to be rejected. For, as said in the Smriti text quoted above, in all those doctrines it is seen, according to tradition and reasoning, that the lord Narayana is the only basis.' -- Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the impossibility of origination.'

THIRD PADA.

1. Not Ether; on account of the absence of scriptural statement.

We have demonstrated that the Sankhya-system and other systems standing outside the Veda are untenable since they rest on fallacious reasoning and are self-contradictory. In order to prove that our own view is altogether free from all objections of this kind, we shall now explain in detail the mode in which this world, with all its sentient and non- sentient beings, is produced by Brahman, whom we hold to be the general creator.

The first doubt here presenting itself is whether Ether be something produced or not. -- The Purvapakshin maintains that it is not produced, since there is no scriptural statement to that effect. A scriptural statement may be expected with regard to what is possible; but what is impossible -- as e.g. the origination of a sky-flower or of Ether -- cannot possibly be taught by Scripture. For the origination of Ether, which is not made up of parts and is all pervasive, cannot be imagined in any way. For this very reason, i.e. the impossibility of the thing, the Chandogya, in its account of creation, mentions the origination of fire, water, &c. only (but not of Ether) -- 'It thought, may I be many, may I grow forth,' 'It sent forth fire,' and so on. When therefore the Taittirîya, the Atharvana, and other texts tell us that Ether did originate -- 'From that Self sprang Ether' (Taitt. Up. II, 1); 'From him is born breath, mind, and all organs of sense, Ether, air, light, water,' &c. (Mu. Up. II, 1, 4) -- such statements are contrary to sense, and hence refute themselves. -- To this the Sutra replies.

2. But there is.

But there is origination of Ether. For Scripture, which is concerned with matters transcending sense perception, is able to establish the truth even of the origination of Ether, although this be not proved by other means of knowledge. And in a matter known from Scripture a contradictory inference, such as that Ether cannot originate because it is without parts, is not of sufficient force. That the non- originatedness of the Self also does not rest on its being without parts will be shown further on. -- Here the Purvapakshin raises an objection.

3. It has a secondary sense, on account of impossibility and of the text.

It is reasonable to assume that in passages such as 'From that Self there sprang Ether.' the origination of Ether is not to be taken in its literal sense; for according to the Chandogya-text 'it sent forth fire.' Brahman engaged in creation first produces fire, and fire thus having the first place, the text cannot possibly mean to say that Ether also was produced. Moreover, there is another text, viz.'Vayu and antariksha (i.e. Ether), this is the Immortal,' according to which Ether is immortal, i. e. non-produced. -- But how can one and the same word viz. it 'sprang' (i.e. originated), be taken in a metaphorical sense with reference to Ether, and in its literal sense with reference to fire, and so on? -- To this the next Sutra replies.

4. There may be (a double sense) of the one (word), as in the case of the word 'Brahman.'

Since in the clause 'from that Self there sprang Brahman,' the word 'sprang' cannot be taken in its literal senbe, it may be used there in a secondary sense; while the same word as connected with the subsequent clauses 'from Vayu Agni,' &c., may have its primary sense. This would be analogous to the use of the word Brahman in Mu. Up. I, 1. There in the clause 'From him is born that Brahman, name, form, and matter' (9). the word _Brahman_ is used in a secondary sense, i.e. denotes the Pradhana; while in the same chapter, in the clause 'Brahman swells by means of brooding' (8), the same word denotes Brahman in its primary sense. It is true indeed that in this latter case the word 'Brahman' occurs twice; while in the Taitt. text the word 'sambhuta' occurs once only, and has to be carried over from the first clause into the subsequent ones; but this makes no difference, for, in the case of such carrying over of a word, no less than in the case of actual repetition, the general denotation of the word is repeated. -- The next Sutra refutes this objection.

⇐ Предыдущая 38 39 40 41 424344 45 46 47 Следующая ⇒