The Sarva-Darsana-Samgraha Part 31

The essential unity of the word and its meaning is maintained in order to preserve inviolate the non-duality of all things which is a cardinal doctrine of our philosophy.

"This [Supreme Nature] is the thing denoted by all words, and it is identical with the word; but the relation of the two, while they are thus ultimately identical, varies as does the relation of the two souls."[344]

The meaning of this Karika is that Brahman is the one object denoted by all words; and this one object has various differences imposed upon it according to each particular form; but the conventional variety of the differences produced by these illusory conditions is only the result of ignorance. Non-duality is the true state; but through the power of "concealment"[345] [exercised by illusion] at the time of the conventional use of words a manifold expansion takes place, just as is the case during sleep. Thus those skilled in Vedanta lore tell us--

"As all the extended world of dreams is only the development of illusion in me, so all this extended waking world is a development of illusion likewise."

When the unchangeable Supreme Brahman is thus known as the existent joy-thought and identical with the individual soul, and when primeval ignorance is abolished, final bliss is accomplished, which is best defined as the abiding in ident.i.ty with this Brahman, according to the text, "He who is well versed in the Word-Brahman attains to the Supreme Brahman."[346] And thus we establish the fact that the "exposition of words" is the means to final bliss.

Thus it has been said--

"They call it the door of emanc.i.p.ation, the medicine of the diseases of speech, the purifier of all sciences, the science of sciences."[347]

And so again--

"This is the first foot-round of the stages of the ladder of final bliss, this is the straight royal road of the travellers to emanc.i.p.ation."

Therefore our final conclusion is that the Sastra of grammar should be studied as being the means for attaining the chief end of man.

E. B. C.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 307: Madhava uses this peculiar term because the grammarians adopted and fully developed the idea of the Purva-Mima?sa school that sound is eternal. He therefore treats of _spho?a_ here, and not in his Jaimini chapter.]

[Footnote 308: Rig-Veda, x. 9, 4.]

[Footnote 309: _Sabda.n.u.sasana_, if judged by the apparent sense of Pa?ini, ii. 2, 14, would be a wrong compound; but it is not so, because ii. 2, 14 must be interpreted in the sense of ii. 3, 66, whence it follows that the compound would only be wrong if there were an agent expressed _as well as_ an object, _i.e._, if such a word as _acharye?a_ followed. In the example given, we cannot say _ascharyo G.o.doho siks.h.i.+tena gopalena_ (as it would violate ii. 2, 14), neither can we say _ascharyo gava? doho' siks.h.i.+tasya gopalasya_ (as it would violate ii. 3, 66).]

[Footnote 310: That is, the _ubhayaprapti_ of ii. 3, 66, is a _bahuvrihi_ agreeing with _k?iti_ in ii. 3, 65. These points are all discussed at some length in the Commentaries on Pa?ini.]

[Footnote 311: These actually occur in the Commentaries to Pa?ini, ii.

2, 8; iii. 3, 117, &c.]

[Footnote 312: This takes in all cases of relation, _sambandha_ (_i.e._, _shash?hi-sambandha_).]

[Footnote 313: As in such rules as vi. 2, 139.]

[Footnote 314: These compounds occur in Pa?ini's own sutras (i. 4, 30, and i. 4, 55), and would violate his own rule in ii. 2, 15, if we were to interpret the latter without some such saving modification as _shash?hi seshe_.]

[Footnote 315: The very word _sabda_ in _sabda.n.u.sasanam_ implies the Veda, since this is pre-eminently _sabda_.]

[Footnote 316: Compare Max Muller, _Sansk. Liter._, p. 113. It is quoted as from the Veda in the Mahabhashya.]

[Footnote 317: In the Calcutta text, p. 138, dele _da??a_ in line 3 after _bhavet_, and insert it in line 4 after _sabdanam_.]

[Footnote 318: As in the so-called _pada_ text.]

[Footnote 319: See Ballantyne's _Mahabhashya_, pp. 12, 64.]

[Footnote 320: _Achikramata_ seems put here as a purposely false form of the frequentative of _kram_ for _acha?kramyata_.]

[Footnote 321: Or it may mean "the developed universe." Compare the lines of Bhart?ihari which immediately follow.]

[Footnote 322: One would naturally supply _sabdasya_ after _samyam_, but the Mahabhashya has _na? samyam_ (see Ballantyne's ed., p. 27).]

[Footnote 323: _I.e._, prepositions used separately as governing cases of their own, and not (as usually in Sanskrit) in composition.]

[Footnote 324: The _karmapravachaniyas_ imply a verb other than the one expressed, and they are said to determine the relation which is produced by this understood verb. Thus in the example, _Sakalyasa?hitam anu pravarshat_, "he rained after the Sakalya hymns," _anu_ implies an understood verb _nisamya_, "having heard," and this verb shows that there is a relation of cause and effect between the hymns and the rain. This _anu_ is said to determine this relation.]

[Footnote 325: See Ballantyne's ed., p. 10.]

[Footnote 326: This is not very clear, the _anu_ in _anugraha_ might mean _krame?a_, and so imply the successive order of the letters.]

[Footnote 327: In the Calcutta edition, p. 142, line 11, I read _kalpam_ for _kalpanam_.]

[Footnote 328: In p. 142, line 3, I add _vina_ after _nimittam_.]

[Footnote 329: The gha??a is the place where dues and taxes are collected. Some one anxious to evade payment is going by a private way by night, but he arrives at the tax-collector's house just as day dawns and is thus caught. Hence the proverb means _uddesyasiddhi_.]

[Footnote 330: In p. 143, line 13, I read _spho?akabhavam_ for _spho?abhavam_.]

[Footnote 331: Cf. Ballantyne's Transl. of the Mahabhashya, pp. 9, 32.]

[Footnote 332: The Mima?sa holds that a word means the genus (_jati_) and not the individual (_vyakti_); the Nyaya holds that a word means an individual as distinguished by such and such a genus (or species).]

[Footnote 333: Cf. Rig-Veda Pratis. xii. 5.]

[Footnote 334: He here is trying to show that his view is confirmed by the commonly received definitions of some grammatical terms.]

[Footnote 335: Since Devadatta is only its transient owner.]

[Footnote 336: So by the words "horse," "cow," &c., Brahman is really meant, the one abiding existence.]

[Footnote 337: Cf. Ballantyne's Mahabhashya, pp. 44, 50.]

[Footnote 338: In p. 145, line 8, read _asatya_ for _asvattha_.]

[Footnote 339: We have here the well-known four grammatical categories, _jati_, _guna_, _dravya_ or _sa?jna_, and _kriya_.]

[Footnote 340: But cf. Siddh. Muktav., p. 6, line 12.]

[Footnote 341: Thus we read in the Siddhanta Muktavali, p. 82, that the Mima?sa holds that a word means the genus and not the individual, since otherwise there would be _vyabhichara_ and _anantya_ (cf. also Mahesachandra Nyayaratna's note, Kavya-prakasa, p. 10). If a word is held to mean only _one_ individual, there will be the first fault, as it will "wander away" and equally express others which it should not include; if it is held to mean _many_ individuals, it will have an endless variety of meanings and be "indefinite."]

[Footnote 342: This seems the meaning of the text as printed _tasmat dvaya? satyam_, but I should prefer to read conjecturally _tasmad advaya? satyam_, "therefore non-duality is the truth."]

[Footnote 343: _Scil._ they can only be the absolute Brahman who alone exists.]

[Footnote 344: _Scil._ the individual soul (_jiva_) and Brahman.]