THE
VEDÂNTÂ-SÛTRAS
WITH THE COMMENTARY BY
RÂMÂNUJA
TRANSLATED BY
GEORGE THIBAUT
PART III
Sacred Books of the East, Volume 48
[1904]
[Scanned in by Srinivasan Sriram (as part of the sripedia.org initiative).
OCRed and proofed at Distributed Proofing by other volunteers; Juliet
Sutherland, project manager. Formatting and additional proofreading at
Sacred-texts.com by J.B. Hare. This text is in the public domain worldwide.
This file may be used for any non-commercial purpose provided this notice
is left intact.]
CONTENTS.
VEDÂNTA-SÛTRAS WITH THE COMMENTARY OF RÂMÂNUJA.
INTRODUCTION
ADHYÂYA I
Pâda I
Pâda II
Pâda III
Pâda IV
ADHYÂYA II
Pâda I
Pâda II
Pâda III
Pâda IV
ADHYÂYA III
Pâda I
Pâda II
Pâda III
Pâda IV
ADHYÂYA IV
Pâda I
Pâda II
Pâda III
Pâda IV
INDEXES BY DR. M. WINTERNITZ:—
Index of Quotations
Index of Sanskrit Words
Index of Names and Subjects
Corrigenda
Transliteration of Oriental Alphabets adopted for the Translations of the
Sacred Books of the East
INTRODUCTION.
In the Introduction to the first volume of the translation of the'Vedânta-Sûtras with Sankara's Commentary' (vol. xxxiv of this Series) Ihave dwelt at some length on the interest which Râmânuja's Commentarymay claim—as being, on the one hand, the fullest exposition of what maybe called the Theistic Vedânta, and as supplying us, on the other, withmeans of penetrating to the true meaning of Bâdarâyana's Aphorisms. I donot wish to enter here into a fuller discussion of Râmânuja's work ineither of these aspects; an adequate treatment of them would, moreover,require considerably more space than is at my disposal. Some very usefulmaterial for the right understanding of Râmânuju's work is to be foundin the 'Analytical Outline of Contents' which Messrs. M. Rangâkârya andM. B. Varadarâja Aiyangâr have prefixed to the first volume of theirscholarly translation of the Srîbhâshya (Madras, 1899).
The question as to what the Stûras really teach is a critical, not aphilosophical one. This distinction seems to have been imperfectlyrealised by several of those critics, writing in India, who haveexamined the views expressed in my Introduction to the translation ofSankara's Commentary. A writer should not be taxed with 'philosophicincompetency,' 'hopeless theistic bias due to early training,' and thelike, simply because he, on the basis of a purely critical investigation,considers himself entitled to maintain that a certain ancient documentsets forth one philosophical view rather than another. I have nowhereexpressed an opinion as to the comparative philosophical value of thesystems of Sankara and Râmânuja; not because I have no definite opinionson this point, but because to