United States or Malta ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
This view is rejected by the Sutra, on the ground that there is no intimation of a special circumstance determining the acceptance of the Prakriti as assumed by the Sankhyas, i.e. independent of Brahman; for that she is aja, i. e. not born, is not a sufficiently special characteristic. Up.
So far from teaching this, the text, however, directly inculcates that notion in the words 'Thou art that. The next Sutra adds a further reason. And on account of the contradiction of the initial statement. The Pradhana's being the cause of the world would imply a contradiction of the initial statement, viz. that through the knowledge of one thing all things are to be known.
That means as the soul is not produced, thus the organs also are not produced For the latter point no less than the former is directly stated in Scripture; the wording of the Sutra 'thus the pranas' being meant to extend to the case of the pranas also, the authority of Scripture to which recourse was had in the case of the soul. But what is the scriptural text you mean?
The latter view is the right one; for the text says, 'they are born as rice, grain, and so on, and this expression is of the same kind as when we say 'he is born as a man, as a deva, and so on. The text therefore means that the souls are embodied in the different plants. This view the Sutra rejects.
The precise share that Burton had in them will never be known. It is sufficient to say that he had a share in both, and the second, according to the title page, was "translated from the Sanskrit and annotated by A. F. F. and B. F. R.," that is F. F. Arbuthnot and Richard Francis Bacon the initials being purposely reversed. The Kama Sutra.
But if it is the true nature of the soul to be free from all imperfections, and so on, why then does this not manifest itself? To this the next Sutra replies. But owing to the wish of the highest it is hidden; for from that are its bondage and the opposite state. The but sets the objection aside.
But it is also written: 'He who shall joyfully accept but a single word from this Sutra, incalculably greater shall be his merit than the merit of one who should supply all beings in the four hundred thousand Asankhyeyas of worlds with all the necessaries for happiness. 'Ho ke-kyo!
On this interpretation we explain the last part of the Sutra as follows. Even if other texts did not refer to it, this daily moving about on the part of ignorant creatures, on the ether within the heart which the comparison with the treasure of gold shows to be the supreme good of man , is in itself a sufficient proof for the small ether being Brahman.
A great number of Hinayanist sutras were translated before 300 A.D. but very few after 450. On the other hand portions of the sutra about Amîda's Paradise, of the Prajñâ-pâramitâ, and of the Avataṃsaka were translated about 150 A.D. and translations of the Lotus and Lalita-vistara appeared about 300.
The doubt here arises whether those structures of mind, and so on, which metaphorically are called fire-altars, should be considered as being of the nature of action, on account of their connexion with a performance which itself is of the nature of action; or merely of the nature of meditation, as being connected with an activity of the nature of meditation. The Sutra maintains the former view.
Word Of The Day