{"collection":"Hinduism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/hin/sbe34/sbe34120.htm","path":"hin/sbe34/sbe34120.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/sbe34120.htm","text":"The Vedanta Sutras, commentary by Sankaracharya (SBE34), tr. by George Thibaut [1890]\n9. But the (elements) beginning with light (are meant by the term ag\u00e2); for some read so in their text.\nBy the term ag\u00e2 we have to understand the causal matter of the four classes of beings, which matter has sprung from the highest Lord and begins with light, i.e. comprises fire, water, and earth.--The word 'but' (in the S\u00fbtra) gives emphasis to the assertion.--This ag\u00e2 is to be considered as comprising three elementary substances, not as consisting of three gunas in the S\u00e2nkhya sense. We draw this conclusion from the fact that one s\u00e2kh\u00e2, after having related how fire, water, and earth sprang from the highest Lord, assigns to them red colour, and so on. 'The red colour of burning fire\n[paragraph continues] (agni) is the colour of the elementary fire (tegas), its white colour is the colour of water, its black colour the colour of earth,' &c. Now those three elements--fire, water, and earth--we recognise in the Svet\u00e2svatara passage, as the words red, white, and black are common to both passages, and as these words primarily denote special colours and can be applied to the S\u00e2nkhya gunas in a secondary sense only. That passages whose sense is beyond doubt are to be used for the interpretation of doubtful passages, is a generally acknowledged rule. As we therefore find that in the Svet\u00e2svatara--after the general topic has been started in I, 1, 'The Brahman-students say, Is Brahman the cause?'--the text, previous to the passage under discussion, speaks of a power of the highest Lord which arranges the whole world ('the Sages devoted to meditation and concentration have seen the power belonging to God himself, hidden in its own qualities'); and as further that same power is referred to in two subsequent complementary passages ('Know then, Prakriti is M\u00e2y\u00e2, and the great Lord he who is affected with M\u00e2y\u00e2;' 'who being one only rules over every germ;' IV, 10, 11); it cannot possibly be asserted that the mantra treating of the ag\u00e2 refers to some independent causal matter called pradh\u00e2na. We rather assert, on the ground of the general subject-matter, that the mantra describes the same divine power referred to in the other passages, in which names and forms lie unevolved, and which we assume as the antecedent condition of that state of the world in which names and forms are evolved. And that divine power is represented as three-coloured, because its products, viz. fire, water, and earth, have three distinct colours.--But how can we maintain, on the ground of fire, water, and earth having three colours, that the causal matter is appropriately called a three-coloured ag\u00e2? if we consider, on the one hand, that the exterior form of the genus ag\u00e2 (i.e. goat) does not inhere in fire, water, and earth; and, on the other hand, that Scripture teaches fire, water, and earth to have been produced, so that the word ag\u00e2 cannot be taken in the sense 'non-produced 1.'--To this question the next S\u00fbtra replies.\n255:1 Here there seems to be a certain discrepancy between the p. 256 views of the S\u00fbtra writer and Sankara. Govind\u00e2nanda notes that according to the Bh\u00e2shyakrit ag\u00e2 means simply m\u00e2y\u00e2--which interpretation is based on prakarana--while, according to the S\u00fbtra-krit, who explains ag\u00e2 on the ground of the Kh\u00e2ndogya-passage treating of the three primary elements, ag\u00e2 denotes the aggregate of those three elements constituting an av\u00e2ntaraprakriti.--On Sankara's explanation the term ag\u00e2 presents no difficulties, for m\u00e2y\u00e2 is ag\u00e2, i.e. unborn, not produced. On the explanation of the S\u00fbtra writer, however, ag\u00e2 cannot mean unborn, since the three primary elements are products. Hence we are thrown back on the r\u00fbdhi signification of ag\u00e2, according to which it means she-goat. But how can the av\u00e2ntara-prakriti be called a she-goat? To this question the next S\u00fbtra replies.","title":"The Vedanta Sutras, Sankaracharya, comm.: First Adhy&acir...","type":"page"}