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) I have dwelt at some length on the interest which Râmânuja's Commentary may claim--as being, on the one hand, the fullest exposition of what may be called the Theistic Vedânta, and as supplying us, on the other, with means of penetrating to the true meaning of Bâdarâyana's Aphorisms. I do not wish to enter here into a fuller discussion of Râmânuja'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 Râmânuju's work is to be found in the 'Analytical Outline of Contents' which Messrs. M. Rangâkârya and M. B. Varadarâja Aiyangâr have prefixed to the first volume of their scholarly translation of the Srîbhâshya (Madras, 1899). The question as to what the Stûras 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 Râmânuja; 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.