The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary by Ramanuja — Sacred Books of the East, Volume 48 by Thibaut, George, 1848-1914

THE

VEDANTA-SUTRAS

WITH THE COMMENTARY BY

RAMANUJA

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.

VEDANTA-SUTRAS WITH THE COMMENTARY OF RAMANUJA.

INTRODUCTION

ADHYAYA I

Pada I

Pada II

Pada III

Pada IV

ADHYAYA II

Pada I

Pada II

Pada III

Pada IV

ADHYAYA III

Pada I

Pada II

Pada III

Pada IV

ADHYAYA IV

Pada I

Pada II

Pada III

Pada 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 'Vedanta-Sutras with Sankara's Commentary' (vol. xxxiv of this Series) I have dwelt at some length on the interest which Ramanuja's Commentary may claim--as being, on the one hand, the fullest exposition of what may be called the Theistic Vedanta, and as supplying us, on the other, with means of penetrating to the true meaning of Badarayana's Aphorisms. I do not wish to enter here into a fuller discussion of Ramanuja's work in either of these aspects; an adequate treatment of them would, moreover, require considerably more space than is at my disposal. Some very useful material for the right understanding of Ramanuju's work is to be found in the 'Analytical Outline of Contents' which Messrs. M. Rangakarya and M. B. Varadaraja Aiyangar have prefixed to the first volume of their scholarly translation of the Sribhashya (Madras, 1899).

The question as to what the Sturas really teach is a critical, not a philosophical one. This distinction seems to have been imperfectly realised by several of those critics, writing in India, who have examined the views expressed in my Introduction to the translation of Sankara's Commentary. A writer should not be taxed with 'philosophic incompetency,' 'hopeless theistic bias due to early training,' and the like, simply because he, on the basis of a purely critical investigation, considers himself entitled to maintain that a certain ancient document sets forth one philosophical view rather than another. I have nowhere expressed an opinion as to the comparative philosophical value of the systems of Sankara and Ramanuja; not because I have no definite opinions on this point, but because to introduce them into a critical enquiry would be purposeless if not objectionable.