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...
Verse 2.674
Sanskrit text and transliteration:
नियोगानुप्रवेशे वा होतोर्व्याप्तिः प्रदर्श्यताम् ।
गमकत्वमृते व्याप्तिं नैव हेतोः प्रसिध्यति ॥ ६७४ ॥
niyogānupraveśe vā hotorvyāptiḥ pradarśyatām |
gamakatvamṛte vyāptiṃ naiva hetoḥ prasidhyati || 674 ||
English translation of verse 2.674:
If it be argued that the Upanisadic text is connected with an injunction, the invariable relation of the hetu with the major term must be shown. A hetu which does not have invariable relation with the major term cannot establish what is sought to be proved.
Notes:
The Niyogavādin may resort to inference as stated below to vindicate his view that the Upanishadic text is connected with an injunction: the Upanisadic text is connected with an injunction, because it is a sentence, and all sentences are connected with injunction, e.g., a karma-vākya.
The invariable relation (vyāpti) between the middle term (hetu) and the major term (sādhya) given in the above argument is not acceptable. Citing the case of karma-vākya, i.e., a sentence which occurs in the ritual-section of the Veda, as an example, the Niyogavādin argues that all sentences are connected with injunction. This argument is wrong. There are corroborative statements (arthavādas) in the ritual section of the Veda which do convey their sense on their own independently of injunction. It means that the vyāpti, mentioned in the argument, does not hold good. And in the absence of vyāpti, the Niyogavādin cannot prove that the Vedānta text is connected with injunction.
The following inference is also not acceptable: the Upanisadic text is connected with an injunction, because it is a pramāṇa, and every. pramāṇa is connected with an injunction, e.g., a vidhi-vākya.
In this argument also, the vyāpti that is mentioned is not valid, as it does not hold good in the case of pratyakṣa. Though praṭyakṣa is a pramāṇa, it is not connected with an injunction; it does not, that is to say, discharge its work as a pramāṇa by being connected with an injunction. Hence the inference stated above is not valid.