{"collection":"Hinduism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/hin/sbe38/sbe38153.htm","path":"hin/sbe38/sbe38153.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe38/sbe38153.htm","text":"The Vedanta Sutras of Badarayana, Commentary by Sankara (SBE38), tr. by George Thibaut [1896]\n10. Those (qualities which are attributed to the subject of a vidy\u00e2 in one S\u00e2kh\u00e2 only) (are to be inserted) in other places (also), since (the vidy\u00e2s) are non-different on the whole.\nIn the colloquy of the pr\u00e2nas recorded by the V\u00e2gasaneyins and the Khandogas the pr\u00e2na, endowed with various qualities such as being the best and so on, is represented as the object of meditation, and various qualities such as being the richest and the like are ascribed to speech and the other organs. And these latter qualities are in the end attributed to the pr\u00e2na also, 'If I am the richest thou art the richest,' &c. Now in other S\u00e2kh\u00e2s also, as e.g. that of the Kaush\u00eetakins, the former set of qualities such as being the best and so on is ascribed to the pr\u00e2na (cp. Kau. Up. II, 14, 'Now follows the Nihsreyas\u00e2d\u00e2na,' &c.), but at the same time the latter set of attributes, viz. being the richest and so on, is not mentioned.--The question then is whether those qualities which are mentioned in some places only are, for the purposes of meditation, to be inserted there also where nothing is said about them.\nThey are not so to be inserted, the p\u00fbrvapakshin maintains, on account of the employment of the word 'thus.' In the Kaush\u00eetakin-text we meet with the clause, 'He who knows thus, having recognised the pre-eminence in pr\u00e2na.' Now the word 'thus' which here indicates the object of knowledge always refers to something mentioned not far off, and cannot therefore denote a set of qualities mentioned in other S\u00e2kh\u00e2s only. We therefore maintain that each of the colloquies of the pr\u00e2nas must be considered complete with the qualities stated in itself.\nTo this we make the following reply. The qualities mentioned in one text are to be inserted in the other corresponding texts also, 'Since on the whole they are non-different,' i.e. because the pr\u00e2na-vidy\u00e2s are recognised to be the same in all essential points. And if they are the same,\nwhy should the qualities stated in one not be inserted in the others also?--But how about the objection founded by the p\u00fbrvapakshin on the employment of the word 'thus?'--Although it is true, we reply, that the word 'thus' in the Kausht\u00eeakin-br\u00e2hmana does not denote the set of qualities mentioned in the V\u00e2gasaneyin-br\u00e2hmana, yet that set of qualities is denoted by the 'thus' met within the V\u00e2gasaneyin-br\u00e2hmana, while the vidy\u00e2 is, as proved by us, one and the same; hence no difference has to be made between qualities mentioned in one's own S\u00e2kh\u00e2 and qualities mentioned in another S\u00e2kh\u00e2, as long as the vidy\u00e2 is one and the same. Nor does this by any means imply a disregard of the text of scripture, and the assumption of things not warranted by the text. The qualities declared in one S\u00e2kh\u00e2 are valid for all scripture as long as the thing to which the qualities belong is the same. Devadatta, who in his own country is known to possess valour and certain other qualities, does not lose those qualities by going to a foreign land, although the inhabitants of that land may know nothing about them. And through better acquaintance his qualities will become manifest to the people of the foreign country also. Similarly the qualities stated in one S\u00e2kh\u00e2 may, through special application, be inserted in another S\u00e2kh\u00e2.--Hence the attributes belonging to one and the same subject have to be combined wherever that subject is referred to, although they may be expressly stated in one place only.","title":"The Vedanta Sutras of Badarayana: Third Adhy\u00e2ya. Third P\u00e2da.: III, 3, 10","type":"page"}