Taittiriya Upanishad Bhashya Vartika

by R. Balasubramanian | 151,292 words | ISBN-10: 8185208115 | ISBN-13: 9788185208114

The English translation of Sureshvara’s Taittiriya Vartika, which is a commentary on Shankara’s Bhashya on the Taittiriya Upanishad. Taittiriya Vartika contains a further explanation of the words of Shankara-Acharya, the famous commentator who wrote many texts belonging to Advaita-Vedanta. Sureshvaracharya was his direct disciple and lived in the 9...

Sanskrit text and transliteration:

प्रमातैव प्रमेयं चेत्प्रमाणं प्रमितिस्तथा ।
स्वरूपाच्चैकरूपत्वान्न तदेभिर्निरुच्यते ॥ ६८६ ॥

pramātaiva prameyaṃ cetpramāṇaṃ pramitistathā |
svarūpāccaikarūpatvānna tadebhirnirucyate || 686 ||

English translation of verse 2.686:

If the knower (i.e., the Witness-consciousness) is also the object known, in that case the source of knowledge and the resulting knowledge (would also be the Witness-consciouness). Since all of them thus would be one having identical nature, (what is ordinarily denoted) by these terms (like prameya, etc.) would not be so denoted.

Notes:

This verse brings out in yet another way that the Witness-consciousness which is the knower is different from the object known. If the object known (prameya) is also the knower, one may as well argue that the source of knowledge (pramāṇa) and the resulting knowledge (pramiti) are identical with the Witness-consciousness, which is the knower. In that case all of them must be treated as one, because all of them are said to be identical with the Witness-consciousness. This is not acceptable. Each of these words—prameya, pramāṇa, pramiti—expresses its own meaning which is different from the meanings of the other words. These words are not synonyms. If prameya, pramāṇa, and pramiti are treated as identical with the Witness-consciousness, then what is ordinarily denoted by these terms would not be so denoted.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: