The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary by Sankaracarya eBook

The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary by Sankaracarya

The following sections of this BookRags Literature Study Guide is offprint from Gale's For Students Series: Presenting Analysis, Context, and Criticism on Commonly Studied Works: Introduction, Author Biography, Plot Summary, Characters, Themes, Style, Historical Context, Critical Overview, Criticism and Critical Essays, Media Adaptations, Topics for Further Study, Compare & Contrast, What Do I Read Next?, For Further Study, and Sources.

(c)1998-2002; (c)2002 by Gale. Gale is an imprint of The Gale Group, Inc., a division of Thomson Learning, Inc. Gale and Design and Thomson Learning are trademarks used herein under license.

The following sections, if they exist, are offprint from Beacham's Encyclopedia of Popular Fiction: "Social Concerns", "Thematic Overview", "Techniques", "Literary Precedents", "Key Questions", "Related Titles", "Adaptations", "Related Web Sites". (c)1994-2005, by Walton Beacham.

The following sections, if they exist, are offprint from Beacham's Guide to Literature for Young Adults: "About the Author", "Overview", "Setting", "Literary Qualities", "Social Sensitivity", "Topics for Discussion", "Ideas for Reports and Papers". (c)1994-2005, by Walton Beacham.

All other sections in this Literature Study Guide are owned and copyrighted by BookRags, Inc.

Table of Contents

Page 1

INTRODUCTION

Vedanta-sutras with the commentary by sa@NKARACHARYA.

Adhyaya I.

  Pada I.

  Pada ii.

  Pada III.

  Pada IV.

Adhyaya ii.

  Pada I.

  Pada ii.

* * * * *

Transliteration of Oriental Alphabets adopted for the Translations of the Sacred Books of the East.

[Transcriber’s Note:  This book contains many words with one or two letters in the word printed in italics; those letters are transcribed by enclosing them in slashes, e.g. “karmaka/nd/a” has the letters “nd” in italics.  Also, the symbol “@” is used before the letter “n” to indicate a horizontal bar across the top.]

INTRODUCTION.

To the sacred literature of the Brahmans, in the strict sense of the term, i.e. to the Veda, there belongs a certain number of complementary works without whose assistance the student is, according to Hindu notions, unable to do more than commit the sacred texts to memory.  In the first place all Vedic texts must, in order to be understood, be read together with running commentaries such as Saya/n/a’s commentaries on the Sa/m/hitas and Brahma/n/as, and the Bhashyas ascribed to Sa@nkara on the chief Upanishads.  But these commentaries do not by themselves conduce to a full comprehension of the contents of the sacred texts, since they confine themselves to explaining the meaning of each detached passage without investigating its relation to other passages, and the whole of which they form part; considerations of the latter kind are at any rate introduced occasionally only.  The task of taking a comprehensive view of the contents of the Vedic writings as a whole, of systematising what they present in an unsystematical form, of showing the mutual co-ordination or subordination of single passages and sections, and of reconciling contradictions—­which, according to the view of the orthodox commentators, can be apparent only—­is allotted to a separate sastra or body of doctrine which is termed Mima/m/sa, i.e. the investigation or enquiry [Greek:  kat ezochaen], viz. the enquiry into the connected meaning of the sacred texts.

Of this Mima/m/sa two branches have to be distinguished, the so-called earlier (purva) Mima/m/sa, and the later (uttara) Mima/m/sa.  The former undertakes to systematise the karmaka/nd/a, i.e. that entire portion of the Veda which is concerned with action, pre-eminently sacrificial action, and which comprises the Sa/m/hitas and the Brahma/n/as exclusive of the Ara/n/yaka portions; the latter performs the same service with regard to the so-called j/n/anaka/nd/a, i.e. that part of the Vedic writings which includes the Ara/n/yaka portions of the Brahma/n/as, and a number of detached treatises called Upanishads.  Its subject is not action but knowledge, viz. the knowledge of Brahman.

Page 2

At what period these two sastras first assumed a definite form, we are unable to ascertain.  Discussions of the nature of those which constitute the subject-matter of the Purva Mima/m/sa must have arisen at a very early period, and the word Mima/m/sa itself together with its derivatives is already employed in the Brahma/n/as to denote the doubts and discussions connected with certain contested points of ritual.  The want of a body of definite rules prescribing how to act, i.e. how to perform the various sacrifices in full accordance with the teaching of the Veda, was indeed an urgent one, because it was an altogether practical want, continually pressing itself on the adhvaryus engaged in ritualistic duties.  And the task of establishing such rules was moreover a comparatively limited and feasible one; for the members of a certain Vedic sakha or school had to do no more than to digest thoroughly their own brahma/n/a and sa/m/hita, without being under any obligation of reconciling with the teaching of their own books the occasionally conflicting rules implied in the texts of other sakhas.  It was assumed that action, as being something which depends on the will and choice of man, admits of alternatives, so that a certain sacrifice may be performed in different ways by members of different Vedic schools, or even by the followers of one and the same sakha.

The Uttara Mima/m/sa-sastra may be supposed to have originated considerably later than the Purva Mima/m/sa.  In the first place, the texts with which it is concerned doubtless constitute the latest branch of Vedic literature.  And in the second place, the subject-matter of those texts did not call for a systematical treatment with equal urgency, as it was in no way connected with practice; the mental attitude of the authors of the Upanishads, who in their lucubrations on Brahman and the soul aim at nothing less than at definiteness and coherence, may have perpetuated itself through many generations without any great inconvenience resulting therefrom.

But in the long run two causes must have acted with ever-increasing force, to give an impulse to the systematic working up of the teaching of the Upanishads also.  The followers of the different Vedic sakhas no doubt recognised already at an early period the truth that, while conflicting statements regarding the details of a sacrifice can be got over by the assumption of a vikalpa, i.e. an optional proceeding, it is not so with regard to such topics as the nature of Brahman, the relation to it of the human soul, the origin of the physical universe, and the like.  Concerning them, one opinion only can be the true one, and it therefore becomes absolutely incumbent on those, who look on the whole body of the Upanishads as revealed truth, to demonstrate that their teaching forms a consistent whole free from all contradictions.  In addition there supervened the external motive that, while the karmaka/nd/a of the Veda concerned only

Page 3

At present there exists a vast literature connected with the two branches of the Mima/m/sa.  We have, on the one hand, all those works which constitute the Purva Mima/m/sa-sastra—­or as it is often, shortly but not accurately, termed, the Mima/m/sa-sastra—­and, on the other hand, all those works which are commonly comprised under the name Vedanta-sastra.  At the head of this extensive literature there stand two collections of Sutras (i.e. short aphorisms constituting in their totality a complete body of doctrine upon some subject), whose reputed authors are Jainini and Badaraya/n/a.  There can, however, be no doubt that the composition of those two collections of Sutras was preceded by a long series of preparatory literary efforts of which they merely represent the highly condensed outcome.  This is rendered probable by the analogy of other sastras, as well as by the exhaustive thoroughness with which the Sutras perform their task of systematizing the teaching of the Veda, and is further proved by the frequent references which the Sutras make to the views of earlier teachers.  If we consider merely the preserved monuments of Indian literature, the Sutras (of the two Mima/m/sas as well as of other sastras) mark the beginning; if we, however, take into account what once existed, although it is at present irretrievably lost, we observe that they occupy a strictly central position, summarising, on the one hand, a series of early literary essays extending over many generations, and forming, on the other hand, the head spring of an ever broadening activity of commentators as well as virtually independent writers, which reaches down to our days, and may yet have some future before itself.

The general scope of the two Mima/m/sa-sutras and their relation to the Veda have been indicated in what precedes.  A difference of some importance between the two has, however, to be noted in this connexion.  The systematisation of the karmaka/nd/a of the Veda led to the elaboration of two classes of works, viz. the Kalpa-sutras on the one hand, and the Purva Mima/m/sa-sutras on the other hand.  The former give nothing but a description as concise as possible of the sacrifices enjoined in the Brahma/n/as; while the latter discuss and establish the general principles which the author of a Kalpa-sutra has to follow, if he wishes to render his rules strictly conformable to the teaching of the Veda.  The j/n/anaka/nd/a of the Veda, on the

Page 4

The time at which the two Mima/m/sa-sutras were composed we are at present unable to fix with any certainty; a few remarks on the subject will, however, be made later on.  Their outward form is that common to all the so-called Sutras which aims at condensing a given body of doctrine in a number of concise aphoristic sentences, and often even mere detached words in lieu of sentences.  Besides the Mima/m/sa-sutras this literary form is common to the fundamental works on the other philosophic systems, on the Vedic sacrifices, on domestic ceremonies, on sacred law, on grammar, and on metres.  The two Mima/m/sa-sutras occupy, however, an altogether exceptional position in point of style.  All Sutras aim at conciseness; that is clearly the reason to which this whole species of literary composition owes its existence.  This their aim they reach by the rigid exclusion of all words which can possibly be spared, by the careful avoidance of all unnecessary repetitions, and, as in the case of the grammatical Sutras, by the employment of an arbitrarily coined terminology which substitutes single syllables for entire words or combination of words.  At the same time the manifest intention of the Sutra writers is to express themselves with as much clearness as the conciseness affected by them admits of.  The aphorisms are indeed often concise to excess, but not otherwise intrinsically obscure, the manifest care of the writers being to retain what is essential in a given phrase, and to sacrifice only what can be supplied, although perhaps not without difficulty, and an irksome strain of memory and reflection.  Hence the possibility of understanding without a commentary a very considerable portion at any rate of the ordinary Sutras.  Altogether different is the case of the two Mima/m/sa-sutras.  There scarcely one single Sutra is intelligible without a commentary.  The most essential words are habitually dispensed with; nothing is, for instance, more common than the simple ommission of the subject or predicate of a sentence.  And when here and there a Sutra occurs whose words construe without anything having to be supplied, the phraseology is so eminently vague and obscure that without the help derived from a commentary we should be unable to make out to what subject the Sutra refers.  When undertaking to translate either of the Mima/m/sa-sutras we therefore depend altogether on commentaries; and hence the question arises which of the numerous commentaries extant is to be accepted as a guide to their right understanding.

Page 5

The commentary here selected for translation, together with Badaraya/n/a’s Sutras (to which we shall henceforth confine our attention to the exclusion of Jaimini’s Purva Mima/m/sa-sutras), is the one composed by the celebrated theologian Sa@nkara or, as he is commonly called, Sa@nkara/k/arya.  There are obvious reasons for this selection.  In the first place, the Sa@nkara-bhashya represents the so-called orthodox side of Brahminical theology which strictly upholds the Brahman or highest Self of the Upanishads as something different from, and in fact immensely superior to, the divine beings such as Vish/n/u or Siva, which, for many centuries, have been the chief objects of popular worship in India.  In the second place, the doctrine advocated by Sa@nkara is, from a purely philosophical point of view and apart from all theological considerations, the most important and interesting one which has arisen on Indian soil; neither those forms of the Vedanta which diverge from the view represented by Sa@nkara nor any of the non-Vedantic systems can be compared with the so-called orthodox Vedanta in boldness, depth, and subtlety of speculation.  In the third place, Sa@nkara’s bhaashya is, as far as we know, the oldest of the extant commentaries, and relative antiquity is at any rate one of the circumstances which have to be taken into account, although, it must be admitted, too much weight may easily be attached to it.  The Sa@nkara-bhashya further is the authority most generally deferred to in India as to the right understanding of the Vedanta-sutras, and ever since Sa@nkara’s time the majority of the best thinkers of India have been men belonging to his school.  If in addition to all this we take into consideration the intrinsic merits of Sa@nkara’s work which, as a piece of philosophical argumentation and theological apologetics, undoubtedly occupies a high rank, the preference here given to it will be easily understood.

But to the European—­or, generally, modern—­translator of the Vedanta-sutras with Sa@nkara’s commentary another question will of course suggest itself at once, viz. whether or not Sa@nkara’s explanations faithfully render the intended meaning of the author of the Sutras.  To the Indian Pandit of Sa@nkara’s school this question has become an indifferent one, or, to state the case more accurately, he objects to it being raised, as he looks on Sa@nkara’s authority as standing above doubt and dispute.  When pressed to make good his position he will, moreover, most probably not enter into any detailed comparison of Sa@nkara’s comments with the text of Badaraya/n/a’s Sutras, but will rather endeavour to show on speculative grounds that Sa@nkara’s philosophical view is the only true one, whence it of course follows that it accurately represents the meaning of Badaraya/n/a, who himself must necessarily be assured to have taught

Page 6

This is a task which would have to be undertaken even if Sa@nkara’s views as to the true meaning of the Sutras and Upanishads had never been called into doubt on Indian soil, although in that case it could perhaps hardly be entered upon with much hope of success; but it becomes much more urgent, and at the same time more feasible, when we meet in India itself with systems claiming to be Vedantic and based on interpretations of the Sutras and Upanishads more or less differing from those of Sa@nkara.  The claims of those systems to be in the possession of the right understanding of the fundamental authorities of the Vedanta must at any rate be examined, even if we should finally be compelled to reject them.

It appears that already at a very early period the Vedanta-sutras had come to be looked upon as an authoritative work, not to be neglected by any who wished to affiliate their own doctrines to the Veda.  At present, at any rate, there are very few Hindu sects not interested in showing that their distinctive tenets are countenanced by Badaraya/n/a’s teaching.  Owing to this the commentaries on the Sutras have in the course of time become very numerous, and it is at present impossible to give a full and accurate enumeration even of those actually existing, much less of those referred to and quoted.  Mr. Fitz-Edward Hall, in his Bibliographical Index, mentions fourteen commentaries, copies of which had been inspected by himself.  Some among these (as, for instance, Ramanuja’s Vedanta-sara, No.  XXXV) are indeed not commentaries in the strict sense of the word, but rather systematic expositions of the doctrine supposed to be propounded in the Sutras; but, on the other hand, there are in existence several true commentaries which had not been accessible to Fitz-Edward Hall.  It would hardly be practical—­and certainly not feasible in this place—­to submit all the existing bhashyas to a critical enquiry at once.  All we can do here is to single out one or a few of the more important ones, and to compare their interpretations with those given by Sa@nkara, and with the text of the Sutras themselves.

Page 7

The bhashya, which in this connexion is the first to press itself upon our attention, is the one composed by the famous Vaish@nava theologian and philosopher Ramanuja, who is supposed to have lived in the twelfth century.  The Ramanuja or, as it is often called, the Sri-bhashya appears to be the oldest commentary extant next to Sa@nkara’s.  It is further to be noted that the sect of the Ramanujas occupies a pre-eminent position among the Vaishnava, sects which themselves, in their totality, may claim to be considered the most important among all Hindu sects.  The intrinsic value of the Sri-bhashya moreover is—­as every student acquainted with it will be ready to acknowledge—­a very high one; it strikes one throughout as a very solid performance due to a writer of extensive learning and great power of argumentation, and in its polemic parts, directed chiefly against the school of Sa@nkara, it not unfrequently deserves to be called brilliant even.  And in addition to all this it shows evident traces of being not the mere outcome of Ramanuja’s individual views, but of resting on an old and weighty tradition.

This latter point is clearly of the greatest importance.  If it could be demonstrated or even rendered probable only that the oldest bhashya which we possess, i.e. the Sa@nkara-bhashya, represents an uninterrupted and uniform tradition bridging over the interval between Badaraya/n/a, the reputed author of the Sutras, and Sa@nkara; and if, on the other hand, it could be shown that the more modern bhashyas are not supported by old tradition, but are nothing more than bold attempts of clever sectarians to force an old work of generally recognised authority into the service of their individual tenets; there would certainly be no reason for us to raise the question whether the later bhashyas can help us in making out the true meaning of the Sutras.  All we should have to do in that case would be to accept Sa@nkara’s interpretations as they stand, or at the utmost to attempt to make out, if at all possible, by a careful comparison of Sa@nkara’s bhashya with the text of the Sutras, whether the former in all cases faithfully represents the purport of the latter.

In the most recent book of note which at all enters into the question as to how far we have to accept Sa@nkara as a guide to the right understanding of the Sutras (Mr. A. Gough’s Philosophy of the Upanishads) the view is maintained (pp. 239 ff.) that Sa@nkara is the generally recognised expositor of true Vedanta doctrine, that that doctrine was handed down by an unbroken series of teachers intervening between him and the Sutrakara, and that there existed from the beginning only one Vedanta doctrine, agreeing in all essential points with the doctrine known to us from Sa@nkara’s writings.  Mr. Gough undertakes to prove this view, firstly, by a comparison of Sa@nkara’s system with the teaching of the Upanishads themselves; and, secondly,

Page 8

Beginning with the Sutras, we find that they supply ample evidence to the effect that already at a very early time, viz. the period antecedent to the final composition of the Vedanta-sutras in their present shape, there had arisen among the chief doctors of the Vedanta differences of opinion, bearing not only upon minor points of doctrine, but affecting the most essential parts of the system.  In addition to Badaraya/n/a himself, the reputed author of the Sutras, the latter quote opinions ascribed to the following teachers:  Atreya, A/s/marathya, Au/d/ulomi, Karsh/n/agini, Ka/s/ak/ri/tsna, Jaimini, Badari.  Among the passages where diverging views of those teachers are recorded and contrasted three are of particular importance.  Firstly, a passage in the fourth pada of the fourth adhyaya (Sutras 5-7), where the opinions of various teachers concerning the characteristics of the released soul are given, and where the important discrepancy is noted that, according to Au/d/ulomi, its only characteristic is thought (kaitanya), while Jaimini maintains that it possesses a number of exalted qualities, and Badaraya/n/a declares himself in favour of a combination of those two views.—­The second passage occurs in the third pada of the fourth adhyaya (Sutras 7-14), where Jaimini maintains that the soul of him who possesses the lower knowledge of Brahman goes after death to the highest Brahman, while Badari—­whose opinion is endorsed by Sa@nkara—­teaches that it repairs to the lower Brahman only—­Finally, the third and most important passage is met with in the fourth pada of the first adhyaya (Sutras 20-22), where the question is discussed why in a certain passage

Page 9

That the ancient teachers, the ripest outcome of whose speculations and discussions is embodied in the Vedanta-sutras, disagreed among themselves on points of vital importance is sufficiently proved by the three passages quoted.  The one quoted last is specially significant as showing that recognised authorities—­deemed worthy of being quoted in the Sutras—­denied that doctrine on which the whole system of Sa@nkara hinges, viz. the doctrine of the absolute identity of the individual soul with Brahman.

Turning next to the Sa@nkara-bhashya itself, we there also meet with indications that the Vedantins were divided among themselves on important points of dogma.  These indications are indeed not numerous:  Sa@nkara, does not on the whole impress one as an author particularly anxious to strengthen his own case by appeals to ancient authorities, a peculiarity of his which later writers of hostile tendencies have not failed to remark and criticise.  But yet more than once Sa@nkara also refers to the opinion of ‘another,’ viz., commentator of the Sutras, and in several places Sa@nkara’s commentators explain that the ‘other’ meant is the V/ri/ttikara (about whom more will be said shortly).  Those references as a rule concern minor points of exegesis, and hence throw little or no light on important differences of dogma; but there are two remarks of Sa@nkara’s at any rate which are of interest in this connexion.  The one is made with reference to Sutras 7-14 of the third pada of the fourth adhyaya; ‘some,’ he says there, ’declare those Sutras, which I look upon as setting forth the siddhanta view, to state merely the purvapaksha;’ a difference of opinion which, as we have seen above, affects the important question as to the ultimate fate of those who have not reached the knowledge of the highest Brahman.—­And under I, 3, 19 Sa@nkara, after having explained at length that the individual soul as such cannot claim any reality, but is real only in so far as it is identical with Brahman, adds the following words,

Page 10

From what precedes it follows that the Vedantins of the school to which Sa@nkara himself belonged acknowledged the existence of Vedantic teaching of a type essentially different from their own.  We must now proceed to enquire whether the Ramanuja system, which likewise claims to be Vedanta, and to be founded on the Vedanta-sutras, has any title to be considered an ancient system and the heir of a respectable tradition.

It appears that Ramanuja claims—­and by Hindu writers is generally admitted—­to follow in his bhashya the authority of Bodhayana, who had composed a v/ri/tti on the Sutras.  Thus we read in the beginning of the Sri-bhashya (Pandit, New Series, VII, p. 163), ’Bhagavad-bodhayanak/ri/ta/m/ vistirna/m/ brahmasutra-v/ri/tti/m/ purva/k/arya/h/ sa/m/kikshipus tanmatanusare/n/a sutrakshara/n/i vyakhyasyante.’  Whether the Bodhayana to whom that v/ri/tti is ascribed is to be identified with the author of the Kalpa-sutra, and other works, cannot at present be decided.  But that an ancient v/ri/tti on the Sutras connected with Bodhayana’s name actually existed, there is not any reason to doubt.  Short quotations from it are met with in a few places of the Sri-bhashya, and, as we have seen above, Sa@nkara’s commentators state that their author’s polemical remarks are directed against the V/ri/ttikara.  In addition to Bodhayana, Ramanuja appeals to quite a series of ancient teachers—­purva/k/aryas—­who carried on the true tradition as to the teaching of the Vedanta and the meaning of the Sutras.  In the Vedarthasa@ngraha—­a work composed by Ramanuja himself—­we meet in one place with the enumeration of the following authorities:  Bodhayana, Ta@nka, Drami/d/a, Guhadeva, Kapardin, Bharu/k/i, and quotations from the writings of some of these are not unfrequent in the Vedarthasa@ngraha, as well as the Sri-bhashya.  The author most frequently quoted is Drami/d/a, who composed the Drami/d/a-bhashya; he is sometimes referred to as the bhashyakara.  Another writer repeatedly quoted as the vakyakara is, I am told, to be identified with the Ta@nka mentioned above.  I refrain from inserting in this place the information concerning the relative age of these writers which may be derived from the oral tradition of the Ramanuja sect.  From another source, however, we receive an intimation that Drami/d/a/k/arya or Dravi/d/a/k/arya preceded Sa@nkara in point of time.  In his tika on Sa@nkara’s bhashya to the Chandogya Upanishad III, 10, 4, Anandagiri remarks that the attempt made by his author to reconcile the cosmological views of the Upanishad with the teaching of Sm/ri/ti on the same point is a reproduction of the analogous attempt made by the Dravi/d/a/k/arya.

Page 11

It thus appears that that special interpretation of the Vedanta-sutras with which the Sri-bhashya makes us acquainted is not due to innovating views on the part of Ramanuja, but had authoritative representatives already at a period anterior to that of Sa@nkara.  This latter point, moreover, receives additional confirmation from the relation in which the so-called Ramanuja sect stands to earlier sects.  What the exact position of Ramanuja was, and of what nature were the reforms that rendered him so prominent as to give his name to a new sect, is not exactly known at present; at the same time it is generally acknowledged that the Ramanujas are closely connected with the so-called Bhagavatas or Pa/nk/aratras, who are known to have existed already at a very early time.  This latter point is proved by evidence of various kinds; for our present purpose it suffices to point to the fact that, according to the interpretation of the most authoritative commentators, the last Sutras of the second pada of the second adhyaya (Vedanta-sutras) refer to a distinctive tenet of the Bhagavatas—­which tenet forms part of the Ramanuja system also—­viz. that the highest being manifests itself in a fourfold form (vyuha) as Vasudeva, Sa@nkarsha/n/a, Pradyumna, Aniruddha, those four forms being identical with the highest Self, the individual soul, the internal organ (manas), and the principle of egoity (aha@nkara).  Whether those Sutras embody an approval of the tenet referred to, as Ramanuja maintains, or are meant to impugn it, as Sa@nkara thinks; so much is certain that in the opinion of the best commentators the Bhagavatas, the direct forerunners of the Ramanujas, are mentioned in the Sutras themselves, and hence must not only have existed, but even reached a considerable degree of importance at the time when the Sutras were composed.  And considering the general agreement of the systems of the earlier Bhagavatas and the later Ramanujas, we have a full right to suppose that the two sects were at one also in their mode of interpreting the Vedanta-sutras.

The preceding considerations suffice, I am inclined to think, to show that it will by no means be wasted labour to enquire how Ramanuja interprets the Sutras, and wherein he differs from Sa@nkara.  This in fact seems clearly to be the first step we have to take, if we wish to make an attempt at least of advancing beyond the interpretations of scholiasts to the meaning of the Sutras themselves.  A full and exhaustive comparison of the views of the two commentators would indeed far exceed the limits of the space which can here he devoted to that task, and will, moreover, be made with greater ease and advantage when the complete Sanskrit text of the Sri-bhashya has been printed, and thus made available for general reference.  But meanwhile it is possible, and—­as said before—­even urged upon a translator of the Sutras to compare the interpretations, given by the two bhashyakaras, of those Sutras, which, more

Page 12

What in Sa@nkara’s opinion the Upanishads teach, is shortly as follows.—­Whatever is, is in reality one; there truly exists only one universal being called Brahman or Paramatman, the highest Self.  This being is of an absolutely homogeneous nature; it is pure ‘Being,’ or, which comes to the same, pure intelligence or thought (kaitanya, j/n/ana).  Intelligence or thought is not to be predicated of Brahman as its attribute, but constitutes its substance, Brahman is not a thinking being, but thought itself.  It is absolutely destitute of qualities; whatever qualities or attributes are conceivable, can only be denied of it.—­But, if nothing exists but one absolutely simple being, whence the appearance of the world by which we see ourselves surrounded, and, in which we ourselves exist as individual beings?—­Brahman, the answer runs, is associated with a certain power called Maya or avidya to which the appearance of this entire world is due.  This power cannot be called ‘being’ (sat), for ‘being’ is only Brahman; nor can it be called ‘non-being’ (asat) in the strict sense, for it at any rate produces the appearance of this world.  It is in fact a principle of illusion; the undefinable cause owing to which there seems to exist a material world comprehending distinct individual existences.  Being associated with this principle of illusion, Brahman is enabled to project the appearance of the world, in the same way as a magician is enabled by his incomprehensible magical power to produce illusory appearances of animate and inanimate beings.  Maya thus constitutes the upadana, the material cause of the world; or—­if we wish to call attention to the circumstance that Maya belongs to Brahman as a sakti—­we may say that the material cause of the world is Brahman in so far as it is associated with Maya.  In this latter quality Brahman is more properly called I/s/vara, the Lord.

Page 13

Maya, under the guidance of the Lord, modifies itself by a progressive evolution into all the individual existences (bheda), distinguished by special names and forms, of which the world consists; from it there spring in due succession the different material elements and the whole bodily apparatus belonging to sentient Beings.  In all those apparently, individual forms of existence the one indivisible Brahman is present, but, owing to the particular adjuncts into which Maya has specialised itself, it appears to be broken up—­it is broken up, as it were—­into a multiplicity, of intellectual or sentient principles, the so-called jivas (individual or personal souls).  What is real in each jiva is only the universal Brahman itself; the whole aggregate of individualising bodily organs and mental functions, which in our ordinary experience separate and distinguish one jiva from another, is the offspring of Maya and as such unreal.

The phenomenal world or world of ordinary experience (vyavahara) thus consists of a number of individual souls engaged in specific cognitions, volitions, and so on, and of the external material objects with which those cognitions and volitions are concerned.  Neither the specific cognitions nor their objects are real in the true sense of the word, for both are altogether due to Maya.  But at the same time we have to reject the idealistic doctrine of certain Bauddha schools according to which nothing whatever truly exists, but certain trains of cognitional acts or ideas to which no external objects correspond; for external things, although not real in the strict sense of the word, enjoy at any rate as much reality as the specific cognitional acts whose objects they are.

The non-enlightened soul is unable to look through and beyond Maya, which, like a veil, hides from it its true nature.  Instead of recognising itself to be Brahman, it blindly identifies itself with its adjuncts (upadhi), the fictitious offspring of Maya, and thus looks for its true Self in the body, the sense organs, and the internal organ (manas), i.e. the organ of specific cognition.  The soul, which in reality is pure intelligence, non-active, infinite, thus becomes limited in extent, as it were, limited in knowledge and power, an agent and enjoyer.  Through its actions it burdens itself with merit and demerit, the consequences of which it has to bear or enjoy in series of future embodied existences, the Lord—­as a retributor and dispenser—­allotting to each soul that form of embodiment to which it is entitled by its previous actions.  At the end of each of the great world periods called kalpas the Lord retracts the whole world, i.e. the whole material world is dissolved and merged into non-distinct Maya, while the individual souls, free for the time from actual connexion with upadhis, lie in deep slumber as it were.  But as the consequences of their former deeds are not yet exhausted, they have again to enter on embodied existence as soon as the Lord sends forth a new material world, and the old round of birth, action, death begins anew to last to all eternity as it has lasted from all eternity.

Page 14

The means of escaping from this endless sa/ms/ara, the way out of which can never be found by the non-enlightened soul, are furnished by the Veda.  The karmaka/nd/a indeed, whose purport it is to enjoin certain actions, cannot lead to final release; for even the most meritorious works necessarily lead to new forms of embodied existence.  And in the j/n/anaka/nd/a of the Veda also two different parts have to be distinguished, viz., firstly, those chapters and passages which treat of Brahman in so far as related to the world, and hence characterised by various attributes, i.e. of I/s/vara or the lower Brahman; and, secondly, those texts which set forth the nature of the highest Brahman transcending all qualities, and the fundamental identity of the individual soul with that highest Brahman.  Devout meditation on Brahman as suggested by passages of the former kind does not directly lead to final emancipation; the pious worshipper passes on his death into the world of the lower Brahman only, where he continues to exist as a distinct individual soul—­although in the enjoyment of great power and knowledge—­until at last he reaches the highest knowledge, and, through it, final release.—­That student of the Veda, on the other hand, whose soul has been enlightened by the texts embodying the higher knowledge of Brahman, whom passages such as the great saying, ‘That art thou,’ have taught that there is no difference between his true Self and the highest Self, obtains at the moment of death immediate final release, i.e. he withdraws altogether from the influence of Maya, and asserts himself in his true nature, which is nothing else but the absolute highest Brahman.

Thus Sa@nkara.—­According to Ramanuja, on the other hand, the teaching of the Upanishads has to be summarised as follows.—­There exists only one all-embracing being called Brahman or the highest Self of the Lord.  This being is not destitute of attributes, but rather endowed with all imaginable auspicious qualities.  It is not ’intelligence,’—­as Sa@nkara maintains,—­but intelligence is its chief attribute.  The Lord is all-pervading, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-merciful; his nature is fundamentally antagonistic to all evil.  He contains within himself whatever exists.  While, according to Sa@nkara, the only reality is to be found in the non-qualified homogeneous highest Brahman which can only be defined as pure ‘Being’ or pure thought, all plurality being a mere illusion; Brahman—­according to Ramanuja’s view—­comprises within itself distinct elements of plurality which all of them lay claim to absolute reality of one and the same kind.  Whatever is presented to us by ordinary experience, viz. matter in all its various modifications and the individual souls of different classes and degrees, are essential real constituents of Brahman’s nature.  Matter and souls (a/k/it and kit) constitute, according to Ramanuja’s terminology, the body of the Lord; they stand to him

Page 15

Page 16

Owing to the effects of their former actions the individual souls are implicated in the sa/m/sara, the endless cycle of birth, action, and death, final escape from which is to be obtained only through the study of the j/n/anaka/nd/a of the Veda.  Compliance with the injunctions of the karmaka/nd/a does not lead outside the sa/m/sara; but he who, assisted by the grace of the Lord, cognizes—­and meditates on—­him in the way prescribed by the Upanishads reaches at his death final emancipation, i.e. he passes through the different stages of the path of the gods up to the world of Brahman and there enjoys an everlasting blissful existence from which there is no return into the sphere of transmigration.  The characteristics of the released soul are similar to those of Brahman; it participates in all the latter’s glorious qualities and powers, excepting only Brahman’s power to emit, rule, and retract the entire world.

The chief points in which the two systems sketched above agree on the one hand and diverge on the other may be shortly stated as follows.—­Both systems teach advaita, i.e. non-duality or monism.  There exist not several fundamentally distinct principles, such as the prak/r/iti and the purushas of the Sa@nkhyas, but there exists only one all-embracing being.  While, however, the advaita taught by Sa@nkara is a rigorous, absolute one, Ramanuja’s doctrine has to be characterised as visish/t/a advaita, i.e. qualified non-duality, non-duality with a difference.  According to Sankara, whatever is, is Brahman, and Brahman itself is absolutely homogeneous, so that all difference and plurality must be illusory.  According to Ramanuja also, whatever is, is Brahman; but Brahman is not of a homogeneous nature, but contains within itself elements of plurality owing to which it truly manifests itself in a diversified world.  The world with its variety of material forms of existence and individual souls is not unreal Maya, but a real part of Brahman’s nature, the body investing the universal Self.  The Brahman of Sa@nkara is in itself impersonal, a homogeneous mass of objectless thought, transcending all attributes; a personal God it becomes only through its association with the unreal principle of Maya, so that—­strictly speaking—­Sa@nkara’s personal God, his I/s/vara, is himself something unreal.  Ramanuja’s Brahman, on the other hand, is essentially a personal God, the all-powerful and all-wise ruler of a real world permeated and animated by his spirit.  There is thus no room for the distinction between a param nirgu/n/am and an apara/m/ sagu/n/am brahma, between Brahman and I/s/vara.—­Sa@nkara’s individual soul is Brahman in so far as limited by the unreal upadhis due to Maya.  The individual soul of Ramanuja, on the other hand, is really individual; it has indeed sprung from Brahman and is never outside Brahman, but nevertheless it enjoys a separate personal existence and will remain a personality for ever—­The

Page 17

I now proceed to give a conspectus of the contents of the Vedanta-sutras according to Sa@nkara in which at the same time all the more important points concerning which Ramanuja disagrees will be noted.  We shall here have to enter into details which to many may appear tedious.  But it is only on a broad substratum of accurately stated details that we can hope to establish any definite conclusions regarding the comparative value of the different modes of interpretation which have been applied to the Sutras.  The line of investigation is an entirely new one, and for the present nothing can be taken for granted or known.—­In stating the different heads of discussion (the so-called adhikara/n/as), each of which comprises one or more Sutras, I shall follow the subdivision into adhikara/n/as adopted in the Vyasadhika-ra/n/amala, the text of which is printed in the second volume of the Bibliotheca Indica edition of the Sutras.

FIRST ADHYAYA.  PADA I.

The first five adhikara/n/as lay down the fundamental positions with regard to Brahman.  Adhik.  I (1) [2] treats of what the study of the Vedanta presupposes.  Adhik.  II (2) defines Brahman as that whence the world originates, and so on.  Adhik.  III (3) declares that Brahman is the source of the Veda.  Adhik.  IV (4) proves Brahman to be the uniform topic of all Vedanta-texts.  Adhik.  V (5-11) is engaged in proving by various arguments that the Brahman, which the Vedanta-texts represent as the cause of the world, is an intelligent principle, and cannot be identified with the non-intelligent pradhana from which the world springs according to the Sa@nkhyas.

With the next adhikara/n/a there begins a series of discussions of essentially similar character, extending up to the end of the first adhyaya.  The question is throughout whether certain terms met with in the Upanishads denote Brahman or some other being, in most cases the jiva, the individual soul. Sa@nkara remarks at the outset that, as the preceding ten Sutras had settled the all-important point that all the Vedanta-texts refer to Brahman, the question now arises why the enquiry should be continued any further, and thereupon proceeds to explain that the acknowledged distinction of a higher Brahman devoid of all qualities and a lower

Page 18

Adhik.  VI (12-19) raises the question whether the anandamaya, mentioned in Taittiriya Upanishad II, 5, is merely a transmigrating individual soul or the highest Self. Sa@nkara begins by explaining the Sutras on the latter supposition—­and the text of the Sutras is certainly in favour of that interpretation—­gives, however, finally the preference to a different and exceedingly forced explanation according to which the Sutras teach that the anandamaya is not Brahman, since the Upanishad expressly says that Brahman is the tail or support of the anandamaya[3].—­Ramanuja’s interpretation of Adhikara/n/a VI, although not agreeing in all particulars with the former explanation of Sa@nkara, yet is at one with it in the chief point, viz. that the anandamaya is Brahman.  It further deserves notice that, while Sa@nkara looks on Adhik.  VI as the first of a series of interpretatory discussions, all of which treat the question whether certain Vedic passages refer to Brahman or not, Ramanuja separates the adhikara/n/a from the subsequent part of the pada and connects it with what had preceded.  In Adhik.  V it had been shown that Brahman cannot be identified with the pradhana; Adhik.  VI shows that it is different from the individual soul, and the proof of the fundamental position of the system is thereby completed[4].—­Adhik.  VII (20, 21) demonstrates that the golden person seen within the sun and the person seen within the eye, mentioned in Ch.  Up.  I, 6, are not some individual soul of high eminence, but the supreme Brahman.—­Adhik.  VIII (22) teaches that by the ether from which, according to Ch.  Up.  I, 9, all beings originate, not the elemental ether has to be understood but the highest Brahman.—­Adhik.  IX (23).  The pra/n/a also mentioned in Ch.  Up.  I, ii, 5 denotes the highest Brahman[5]—­Adhik.  X (24-27) teaches that the light spoken of in Ch.  Up.  III, 13, 7 is not the ordinary physical light but the highest Brahman[6].—­Adhik.  XI (28-31) decides that the pra/n/a mentioned in Kau.  Up.  III, 2 is Brahman.

Page 19

PADA II.

Adhik.  I (1-8) shows that the being which consists of mind, whose body is breath, &c., mentioned in Ch.  Up.  III, 14, is not the individual soul, but Brahman.  The Sutras of this adhikara/n/a emphatically dwell on the difference of the individual soul and the highest Self, whence Sa@nkara is obliged to add an explanation—­in his comment on Sutra 6—­to the effect that that difference is to be understood as not real, but as due to the false limiting adjuncts of the highest Self.—­The comment of Ramanuja throughout closely follows the words of the Sutras; on Sutra 6 it simply remarks that the difference of the highest Self from the individual soul rests thereon that the former as free from all evil is not subject to the effects of works in the same way as the soul is [7].—­Adhik.  II (9, 10) decides that he to whom the Brahmans and Kshattriyas are but food (Ka/th/a.  Up.  I, 2, 25) is the highest Self.—­Adhik.  III (11, 12) shows that the two entered into the cave (Ka/th/a Up.  I, 3, 1) are Brahman and the individual soul[8].—­Adhik.  IV (13-17) shows that the person within the eye mentioned in Ch.  Up.  IV, 15, 1 is Brahman.—­Adhik.  V (18-20) shows that the ruler within (antaraymin) described in B/ri/.  Up.  III, 7, 3 is Brahman.  Sutra 20 clearly enounces the difference of the individual soul and the Lord; hence Sa@nkara is obliged to remark that that difference is not real.—­Adhik.  VI (21-23) proves that that which cannot be seen, &c, mentioned in Mu/nd/aka Up.  I, 1, 3 is Brahman.—­Adhik.  VII (24-32) shows that the atman vai/s/vanara of Ch.  Up.  V, 11, 6 is Brahman.

PADA III.

Adhik.  I (1-7) proves that that within which the heaven, the earth, &c. are woven (Mu/nd/.  Up.  II, 2, 5) is Brahman.—­Adhik.  II (8, 9) shows that the bhuman referred to in Ch.  Up.  VII, 23 is Brahman.—­Adhik.  III (10-12) teaches that the Imperishable in which, according to B/ri/.  Up.  III, 8, 8, the ether is woven is Brahman.—­Adhik.  IV (13) decides that the highest person who is to be meditated upon with the syllable Om, according to Pra/s/na Up.  V, 5, is not the lower but the higher Brahman.—­According to Ramanuja the two alternatives are Brahman and Brahma (jivasamash/t/irupoz/nd/adhipatis katurmukha/h/).—­Adhik.  V and VI (comprising, according to Sa@nkara, Sutras l4-2l) discuss the question whether the small ether within the lotus of the heart mentioned in Ch.  Up.  VIII, 1 is the elemental ether or the individual soul or Brahman; the last alternative being finally adopted.  In favour of the second alternative the purvapakshin pleads the two passages Ch.  Up.  VIII, 3, 4 and VIII, 12, 3, about the serene being (samprasada); for by the latter the individual soul only can be understood, and in the chapter, of which the latter passage forms part, there are ascribed to it the same qualities (viz. freeness from sin, old

Page 20

The two next Sutras (22, 23) constitute, according to Sa@nkara, a new adhikara/n/a (VII), proving that he ’after whom everything shines, by whose light all this is lighted’ (Ka/th/a Up.  II, 5, 15) is not some material luminous body, but Brahman itself.—­According to Ramanuja the two Sutras do not start a new topic, but merely furnish some further arguments strengthening the conclusion arrived at in the preceding Sutras.[9]

Adhik.  VIII (24, 25) decides that the person of the size of a thumb mentioned in Ka/th/a Up.  II, 4, 12 is not the individual soul but Brahman.

The two next adhikara/n/as are of the nature of a digression.  The passage about the a@ngush/th/amatra was explained on the ground that the human heart is of the size of a span; the question may then be asked whether also such individuals as belong to other classes than mankind, more particularly the Gods, are capable of the knowledge of Brahman:  a question finally answered in the affirmative.—­This discussion leads in its turn to several other digressions, among which the most important one refers to the problem in what relation the different species of beings stand to the words denoting them (Sutra 28).  In connexion herewith Sa@nkara treats of the nature of words (sabda), opposing the opinion of the Mima/m/saka Upavarsha, according to whom the word is nothing but the aggregate of its constitutive letters, to the view of the grammarians who teach that over and above the aggregate of the letters there exists a super-sensuous entity called ‘spho/t/a,’ which is the direct cause of the apprehension of the sense of a word (Adhik.  IX; Sutras 26-33).

Adhik.  X (34-38) explains that Sudras are altogether disqualified for Brahmavidya.

Sutra 39 constitutes, according to Sa@nkara, a new adhikara/n/a (XI), proving that the pra/n/a in which everything trembles, according to Ka/th/a Up.  II, 6, 2, is Brahman.—­According to Ramanuja the Sutra does not introduce a new topic but merely furnishes an additional reason for the decision arrived at under Sutras 24, 25, viz. that the a@ngus/th/amatra is Brahman.  On this supposition, Sutras 24-39 form one adhikara/n/a in which 26-38 constitute a mere digression led up to

Page 21

The next Sutra (40) gives rise to a similar difference of opinion.  According to Sa@nkara it constitutes by itself a new adhikara/n/a (XII), proving that the ‘light’ (jyotis) mentioned in Ch.  Up.  VIII, 12, 3 is the highest Brahman.—­According to Ramanuja the Sutra continues the preceding adhikara/n/a, and strengthens the conclusion arrived at by a further argument, referring to Ka/th/a Up.  II, 5, 15—­a passage intermediate between the two passages about the a@ngush/th/amatra—­which speaks of a primary light that cannot mean anything but Brahman.  The Sutra has in that case to be translated as follows:  ’(The a@ngush/th/amatra is Brahman) because (in a passage intervening between the two) a light is seen to be mentioned (which can be Brahman only).’

The three last Sutras of the pada are, according to Sa@nkara, to be divided into two adhikara/n/as (XIII and XIV), Sutra 41 deciding that the ether which reveals names and forms (Ch.  Up.  VIII, 14) is not the elemental ether but Brahman; and 42, 43 teaching that the vij/n/anamaya, ‘he who consists of knowledge,’ of B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 3, 7 is not the individual soul but Brahman.—­According to Ramanuja the three Sutras make up one single adhikara/n/a discussing whether the Chandogya Upanishad passage about the ether refers to Brahman or to the individual soul in the state of release; the latter of these two alternatives being suggested by the circumstance that the released soul is the subject of the passage immediately preceding (’Shaking off all evil as a horse shakes off his hair,’ &c.).  Sutra 41 decides that ’the ether (is Brahman) because the passage designates the nature of something else,’ &c. (i.e. of something other than the individual soul; other because to the soul the revealing of names and forms cannot be ascribed, &c.)—­But, an objection is raised, does not more than one scriptural passage show that the released soul and Brahman are identical, and is not therefore the ether which reveals names and forms the soul as well as Brahman?—­(The two, Sutra 42 replies, are different) ’because in the states of deep sleep and departing (the highest Self) is designated as different’ (from the soul)—­which point is proved by the same scriptural passages which Sa@nkara adduces;—­and ’because such terms as Lord and the like’ cannot be applied to the individual soul (43).  Reference is made to IV, 4, 14, where all jagadvyapara is said to belong to the Lord only, not to the soul even when in the state of release.

Page 22

PADA IV.

The last pada of the first adhyaya is specially directed against the Sa@nkhyas.

The first adhikara/n/a (1-7) discusses the passage Ka/th/a Up.  I, 3, 10; 11, where mention is made of the Great and the Undeveloped—­both of them terms used with a special technical sense in the Sa@nkhya-sastra, avyakta being a synonym for pradhana.—­Sa@nkara shows by an exhaustive review of the topics of the Ka/th/a Upanishad that the term avyakta has not the special meaning which the Sa@nkhyas attribute to it, but denotes the body, more strictly the subtle body (sukshma sarira), but at the same time the gross body also, in so far as it is viewed as an effect of the subtle one.

Adhik.  II (8-10) demonstrates, according to Sa@nkara, that the tricoloured aja spoken of in Sve.  Up.  IV, 5 is not the pradhana of the Sankhyas, but either that power of the Lord from which the world springs, or else the primary causal matter first produced by that power.—­What Ramanuja in contradistinction from Sa@nkara understands by the primary causal matter, follows from the short sketch given above of the two systems.

Adhik.  III (11-13) shows that the pa/nk/a pa/nk/ajana/h/ mentioned in B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 4, 17 are not the twenty-five principles of the Sa@nkhyas.—­Adhik.  IV (14, 15) proves that Scripture does not contradict itself on the all-important point of Brahman, i.e. a being whose essence is intelligence, being the cause of the world.

Adhik.  V (16-18) is, according to Sa@nkara, meant to prove that ’he who is the maker of those persons, of whom this is the work,’ mentioned in Kau.  Up.  IV, 19, is not either the vital air or the individual soul, but Brahman.—­The subject of the adhikara/n/a is essentially the same in Ramanuja’s view; greater stress is, however, laid on the adhikara/n/a being polemical against the Sa@nkhyas, who wish to turn the passage into an argument for the pradhana doctrine.

The same partial difference of view is observable with regard to the next adhikara/n/a (VI; Sutras 19-22) which decides that the ’Self to be seen, to be heard,’ &c. (B/ri/.  Up.  II, 4, 5) is the highest Self, not the individual soul.  This latter passage also is, according to Ramanuja, made the subject of discussion in order to rebut the Sa@nkhya who is anxious to prove that what is there inculcated as the object of knowledge is not a universal Self but merely the Sa@nkhya purusha.

Adhik.  VII (23-27) teaches that Brahman is not only the efficient or operative cause (nimitta) of the world, but its material cause as well.  The world springs from Brahman by way of modification (pari/n/ama; Sutra 26).—­Ramanuja views this adhikara/n/a as specially directed against the Se/s/vara-sa@nkhyas who indeed admit the existence of a highest Lord, but postulate in addition an independent pradhana on which the Lord acts as an operative cause merely.

Page 23

Adhik.  VIII (28) remarks that the refutation of the Sa@nkhya views is applicable to other theories also, such as the doctrine of the world having originated from atoms.

After this rapid survey of the contents of the first adhyaya and the succinct indication of the most important points in which the views of Sa@nkara and Ramanuja diverge, we turn to a short consideration of two questions which here naturally present themselves, viz., firstly, which is the principle on which the Vedic passages referred to in the Sutras have been selected and arranged; and, secondly, if, where Sa@nkara and Ramanuja disagree as to the subdivision of the Sutras into Adhikara/n/as, and the determination of the Vedic passages discussed in the Sutras, there are to be met with any indications enabling us to determine which of the two commentators is right. (The more general question as to how far the Sutras favour either Sa@nkara’s or Ramanuja’s general views cannot be considered at present.)

The Hindu commentators here and there attempt to point out the reason why the discussion of a certain Vedic passage is immediately followed by the consideration of a certain other one.  Their explanations—­which have occasionally been referred to in the notes to the translation—­rest on the assumption that the Sutrakara in arranging the texts to be commented upon was guided by technicalities of the Mima/m/sa-system, especially by a regard for the various so-called means of proof which the Mima/m/saka employs for the purpose of determining the proper meaning and position of scriptural passages.  But that this was the guiding principle, is rendered altogether improbable by a simple tabular statement of the Vedic passages referred to in the first adhyaya, such as given by Deussen on page 130; for from the latter it appears that the order in which the Sutras exhibit the scriptural passages follows the order in which those passages themselves occur in the Upanishads, and it would certainly be a most strange coincidence if that order enabled us at the same time to exemplify the various prama/n/as of the Mima/m/sa in their due systematic succession.

As Deussen’s statement shows, most of the passages discussed are taken from the Chandogya Upanishad, so many indeed that the whole first adhyaya may be said to consist of a discussion of all those Chandogya passages of which it is doubtful whether they are concerned with Brahman or not, passages from the other Upanishads being brought in wherever an opportunity offers.  Considering the prominent position assigned to the Upanishad mentioned, I think it likely that the Sutrakara meant to begin the series of doubtful texts with the first doubtful passage from the Chandogya, and that hence the sixth adhikara/n/a which treats of the anandamaya mentioned in the Taittiriya Upanishad has, in agreement with Ramanuja’s views, to be separated from the subsequent adhikara/n/as, and to be combined with

Page 24

Page 25

From all this we seem entitled to draw the following conclusions.  The Vedic passages discussed in the three first padas of the Vedanta-sutras comprise all the doubtful—­or at any rate all the more important doubtful—­passages from the Chandogya Upanishad.  These passages are arranged in the order in which the text of the Upanishad exhibits them.  Passages from other Upanishads are discussed as opportunities offer, there being always a special reason why a certain Chandogya passage is followed by a certain passage from some other Upanishad.  Those reasons can be assigned with sufficient certainty in a number of cases although not in all, and from among those passages whose introduction cannot be satisfactorily accounted for some are eliminated by our following the subdivision of the Sutras into adhikara/n/as adopted by Ramanuja, a subdivision countenanced by the external form of the Sutras.

Page 26

The fourth pada of the first adhyaya has to be taken by itself.  It is directed specially and avowedly against Sa@nkhya-interpretations of Scripture, not only in its earlier part which discusses isolated passages, but also—­as is brought out much more clearly in the Sri-bhashya than by Sa@nkara—­in its latter part which takes a general survey of the entire scriptural evidence for Brahman being the material as well as the operative cause of the world.

Deussen (p. 221) thinks that the selection made by the Sutrakara of Vedic passages setting forth the nature of Brahman is not in all cases an altogether happy one.  But this reproach rests on the assumption that the passages referred to in the first adhyaya were chosen for the purpose of throwing light on what Brahman is, and this assumption can hardly be upheld.  The Vedanta-sutras as well as the Purva Mima/m/sa-sutras are throughout Mima/m/sa i.e. critical discussions of such scriptural passages as on a prima facie view admit of different interpretations and therefore necessitate a careful enquiry into their meaning.  Here and there we meet with Sutras which do not directly involve a discussion of the sense of some particular Vedic passage, but rather make a mere statement on some important point.  But those cases are rare, and it would be altogether contrary to the general spirit of the Sutras to assume that a whole adhyaya should be devoted to the task of showing what Brahman is.  The latter point is sufficiently determined in the first five (or six) adhikara/n/as; but after we once know what Brahman is we are at once confronted by a number of Upanishad passages concerning which it is doubtful whether they refer to Brahman or not.  With their discussion all the remaining adhikara/n/as of the first adhyaya are occupied.  That the Vedanta-sutras view it as a particularly important task to controvert the doctrine of the Sa@nkhyas is patent (and has also been fully pointed out by Deussen, p. 23).  The fifth adhikara/n/a already declares itself against the doctrine that the world has sprung from a non-intelligent principle, the pradhana, and the fourth pada of the first adhyaya returns to an express polemic against Sa@nkhya interpretations of certain Vedic statements.  It is therefore perhaps not saying too much if we maintain that the entire first adhyaya is due to the wish, on the part of the Sutrakara, to guard his own doctrine against Sa@nkhya attacks.  Whatever the attitude of the other so-called orthodox systems may be towards the Veda, the Sa@nkhya system is the only one whose adherents were anxious—­and actually attempted—­to prove that their views are warranted by scriptural passages.  The Sa@nkhya tendency thus would be to show that all those Vedic texts which the Vedantin claims as teaching the existence of Brahman, the intelligent and sole cause of the world, refer either to the pradhana or some product of the pradhana, or else to the purusha in the Sankhya

Page 27

Notes: 

[Footnote 1:  The only ‘sectarian’ feature of the Sri-bhashya is, that identifies Brahman with Vish/n/u or Naraya/n/a; but this in no way affects the interpretations put on the Sutras and Upanishads.  Naraya/n/a is in fact nothing but another name of Brahman.]

[Footnote 2:  The Roman numerals indicate the number of the adhikara/n/a; the figures in parentheses state the Sutras comprised in each adhikara/n/a.]

[Footnote 3:  Deussen’s supposition (pp. 30, 150) that the passage conveying the second interpretation is an interpolation is liable to two objections.  In the first place, the passage is accepted and explained by all commentators; in the second place, Sa@nkara in the passage immediately preceding Sutra 12 quotes the adhikara/n/a ’anandamayo s bhyasat’ as giving rise to a discussion whether the param or the aparam brahman is meant.  Now this latter point is not touched upon at all in that part of the bhashya which sets forth the former explanation, but only in the subsequent passage, which refutes the former and advocates the latter interpretation.]

[Footnote 4:  Eva/m/ jij/n/anasya brahma/nas/ kotanabhogvabhutaga/d/arupsattvara, istamomayapradhanad vyav/ri/ttir ukta, idani/m/ karmava/s/vat trigu/n/atmakaprik/ri/u sa/m/sangammittanamavidhan intadukhasagaranimajjaoni/s/addha/h/. ki pratya gaumano nyan nikhilaheyapratauika/m/ miatimyanandam brahmeti pratipadyate, anandamayo bhyasat.]

[Footnote 5:  There is no reason to consider the passage ‘atra ke/k/it’ in Sa@nkara’s bhashya on Sutra 23 an interpolation as Deussen does (p. 30).  It simply contains a criticism passed by Sa@nkara on other commentators.]

[Footnote 6:  To the passages on pp. 150 and 153 of the Sanskrit text, which Deussen thinks to be interpolations, there likewise applies the remark made in the preceding note.]

[Footnote 7:  Givaysa iva parasyapi brahma/n/a/h/ sarirantarvaititvam abhyupagata/m/ ket tadvad eva sarirasainbandhaprayuktasukhadukhopabhogapraptir hi ken na, hetuvai/s/eshyat, na hi sarirantarvartitvam eva sukhadukhopabhogahetu/h/ api tu pu/n/yapaparnpakarmaparavasatva/m/ ta/k/ Kapahatapapmana/h/ parahatmano na sambhavati.]

Page 28

[Footnote 8:  The second interpretation given on pp. 184-5 of the Sanskrit text (beginning with apara aha) Deussen considers to be an interpolation, caused by the reference to the Paingi upanishad in Sa@nkara’s comment on I, 3, 7 (p. 232).  But there is no reason whatsoever for such an assumption.  The passage on p. 232 shows that Sa@nkara considered the explanation of the mantra given in the Paingi-upanishad worth quoting, and is in fact fully intelligible only in case of its having been quoted before by Sa@nkara himself.—­That the ‘apara’ quotes the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka not according to the Ka/n/va text—­to quote from which is Sa@nkara’s habit—­but from the Madhyandina text, is due just to the circumstance of his being an ‘apara,’ i.e. not Sa@nkara.]

[Footnote 9:  Ita/s/ kaitad evam.  Anuk/ri/tes tasya ka.  Tasya daharakasasya parabrahma/n/o snukarad ayam apahatapapmatvadigu/n/ako vimuktabandha/h/ pratyagatma na daharaka/s/a/h/ tadanukaras tatsamya/m/ tatha hi pratyagalmanozpi vimuktasya parabrahmanukara/h/ sruyate yada pa/s/ya/h/ pa/s/yate rukmavar/n/a/m/ kartaram i/s/a/m/ purusha/m/ brahmayoni/m/ tada vidvan pu/n/yapape vidhuya nira/ng/ana/h/ parama/m/ samyam upaitity atos’nukarta prajapativakyanirdish/t/a/h/ anukarya/m/ para/m/ brahma na daharaka/s/a/h/.  Api ka smaryate.  Sa/m/sari/n/oszpi muktavasthaya/m/ paramasamyapattilaksha/n/a/h/ parabrahmanukara/h/ smaryate ida/m/ j/n/anam upasritya, &c.—­Ke/k/id anuk/ri/tes tasya kapi smaryate iti ka sutradvayam adhikara/n/antara/m/ tam eva bhantam anubhati sarva/m/ tasya bhasa sarvam ida/m/ vibhatity asya/h/ srute/h/ parabrahmaparatvanir/n/ayaya prav/ri/tta/m/ vadanti.  Tat tv ad/ris/yatvadigu/n/ako dharmokte/h/ dyubhvadyayatana/m/ sva/s/abdad ity adhi kara/n/advayena tasya prakara/n/asya brahmavishayatvapratipadanat jyoti/sk/ara/n/abhidhanat ity adishu parasya brahma/n/o bharupatvavagates ka purvapakshanutthanad ayukta/m/ sutraksharavairupya/k/ ka.]

[Footnote 10:  Yadi paramatma na bhokta eva/m/ taihi bhokt itaya pratiyamano jiva eva syad ity asankyaha atta.]

[Footnote 11:  Sthanadivyapade/s/a/k/ ka ity atra ya/h/ kakshushi tish/th/ann ity adina pratipadyamana/m/ kakshushi sthitiniyamanadika/m/ paramatmana eveti siddha/m/ k/ri/tva akshipurushasya paramatmatva/m/ sadhitam idani/m/ tad eva samarthayate antaryau.]

[Footnote 12:  Anandamaya/h/ I, 1, 12; anta/h/ I, i, 20; aka/s/a/h/ I, 1, 22; prana/h/ I, 1, 23; jyoti/h/ I, 1, 24; prana/h/ I, 1, 28; atta I, 2, 9; guha/m/ pravish/t/au I, 2, 11; antara I, 2,13; antaryami I, 2, 18; ad/ris/yatvadigu/n/aka/h/ I, 2, 21; vai/s/vanara/h/ I, 2, 24; dyubhvadyayatanam I, 3, 1; bhuma I, 3, 8; aksheram I, 3, 10; sa/h/ I, 3, 13; dahara/h/ I, 3, 14; pramita/h/ I, 3, 24; (jyoti/h/ 40;) aka/s/a/h/ I, 3,41.]

SECOND ADHYAYA.

Page 29

The first adhyaya has proved that all the Vedanta-texts unanimously teach that there is only one cause of the world, viz.  Brahman, whose nature is intelligence, and that there exists no scriptural passage which can be used to establish systems opposed to the Vedanta, more especially the Sa@nkhya system.  The task of the two first padas of the second adhyaya is to rebut any objections which may be raised against the Vedanta doctrine on purely speculative grounds, apart from scriptural authority, and to show, again on purely speculative grounds, that none of the systems irreconcilable with the Vedanta can be satisfactorily established.

PADA I.

Adhikara/n/a I refutes the Sa@nkhya objection that the acceptation of the Vedanta system involves the rejection of the Sa@nkhya doctrine which after all constitutes a part of Sm/ri/ti, and as such has claims on consideration.—­To accept the Sa@nkhya-sm/ri/ti, the Vedantin replies, would compel us to reject other Sm/ri/tis, such as the Manu-sm/ri/ti, which are opposed to the Sa@nkhya doctrine.  The conflicting claims of Sm/ri/tis can be settled only on the ground of the Veda, and there can be no doubt that the Veda does not confirm the Sa@nkhya-sm/ri/ti, but rather those Sm/ri/tis which teach the origination of the world from an intelligent primary cause.

Adhik.  II (3) extends the same line of argumentation to the Yoga-sm/ri/ti.

Adhik.  III (4-11) shows that Brahman, although of the nature of intelligence, yet may be the cause of the non-intelligent material world, and that it is not contaminated by the qualities of the world when the latter is refunded into Brahman.  For ordinary experience teaches us that like does not always spring from like, and that the qualities of effected things when the latter are refunded into their causes—­as when golden ornaments, for instance, are melted and thereby become simple gold again—­do not continue to exist in those causes.—­Here also the argumentation is specially directed against the Sa@nkhyas, who, in order to account for the materiality and the various imperfections of the world, think it necessary to assume a causal substance participating in the same characteristics.

Adhik.  IV (12) points out that the line of reasoning followed in the preceding adhikara/n/a is valid also against other theories, such as the atomistic doctrine.

The one Sutra (13) constituting Adhik.  V teaches, according to Sa@nkara, that although the enjoying souls as well as the objects of fruition are in reality nothing but Brahman, and on that account identical, yet the two sets may practically be held apart, just as in ordinary life we hold apart, and distinguish as separate individual things, the waves, ripples, and foam of the sea, although at the bottom waves, ripples, and foam are all of them identical as being neither more nor less than sea-water.—­The Sri-bhashya gives a totally different interpretation

Page 30

Adhik.  VI (14-20) treats of the non-difference of the effect from the cause; a Vedanta doctrine which is defended by its adherents against the Vai/s/eshikas according to whom the effect is something different from the cause.—­The divergent views of Sa@nkara and Ramanuja on this important point have been sufficiently illustrated in the general sketch of the two systems.

Adhik.  VII (21-23) refutes the objection that, from the Vedic passages insisting on the identity of the Lord and the individual soul, it follows that the Lord must be like the individual soul the cause of evil, and that hence the entire doctrine of an all-powerful and all-wise Lord being the cause of the world has to be rejected.  For, the Sutrakira remarks, the creative principle of the world is additional to, i.e. other than, the individual soul, the difference of the two being distinctly declared by Scripture.—­The way in which the three Sutras constituting this adhikara/n/a are treated by Sa@nkara on the one hand and Ramanuja on the other is characteristic.  Ramanuja throughout simply follows the words of the Sutras, of which Sutra 21 formulates the objection based on such texts as ‘Thou art that,’ while Sutra 22 replies that Brahman is different from the soul, since that is expressly declared by Scripture. Sa@nkara, on the other hand, sees himself obliged to add that the difference of the two, plainly maintained in Sutra 22, is not real, but due to the soul’s fictitious limiting adjuncts.

Adhik.  VIII (24, 25) shows that Brahman, although destitute of material and instruments of action, may yet produce the world, just as gods by their mere power create palaces, animals, and the like, and as milk by itself turns into curds.

Page 31

Adhik.  IX (26-29) explains that, according to the express doctrine of Scripture, Brahman does not in its entirety pass over into the world, and, although emitting the world from itself, yet remains one and undivided.  This is possible, according to Sa@nkara, because the world is unreal; according to Ramanuja, because the creation is merely the visible and tangible manifestation of what previously existed in Brahman in a subtle imperceptible condition.

Adhik.  X (30, 31) teaches that Brahman, although destitute of instruments of action, is enabled to create the world by means of the manifold powers which it possesses.

Adhik.  XI (32, 33) assigns the motive of the creation, or, more properly expressed, teaches that Brahman, in creating the world, has no motive in the strict sense of the word, but follows a mere sportive impulse.

Adhik.  XII (34-36) justifies Brahman from the charges of partiality and cruelty which might be brought against it owing to the inequality of position and fate of the various animate beings, and the universal suffering of the world.  Brahman, as a creator and dispenser, acts with a view to the merit and demerit of the individual souls, and has so acted from all eternity.

Adhik.  XIII (37) sums up the preceding argumentation by declaring that all the qualities of Brahman—­omniscience and so on—­are such as to capacitate it for the creation of the world.

PADA II.

The task of the second pada is to refute, by arguments independent of Vedic passages, the more important philosophical theories concerning the origin of the world which are opposed to the Vedanta view.—­The first adhikara/n/a (1-10) is directed against the Sa@nkhyas, whose doctrine had already been touched upon incidentally in several previous places, and aims at proving that a non-intelligent first cause, such as the pradhana of the Sa@nkhyas, is unable to create and dispose.—­The second adhikara/n/a (11-17) refutes the Vai/s/eshika tenet that the world originates from atoms set in motion by the ad/ri/sh/t/a.—­The third and fourth adhikara/n/as are directed against various schools of Bauddha philosophers.  Adhik.  III (18-27) impugns the view of the so-called sarvastitvavadins, or bahyarthavadins, who maintain the reality of an external as well as an internal world; Adhik.  IV (28-32) is directed against the vij/n/anavadins, according to whom ideas are the only reality.—­The last Sutra of this adhikara/n/a is treated by Ramanuja as a separate adhikara/n/a refuting the view of the Madhyamikas, who teach that everything is void, i.e. that nothing whatever is real.—­Adhik.  V (33-36) is directed against the doctrine of the Jainas; Adhik.  VI (37-41) against those philosophical schools which teach that a highest Lord is not the material but only the operative cause of the world.

Page 32

The last adhikara/n/a of the pada (42-45) refers, according to the unanimous statement of the commentators, to the doctrine of the Bhagavatas or Pa/nk/aratras.  But Sa@nkara and Ramanuja totally disagree as to the drift of the Sutrakara’s opinion regarding that system.  According to the former it is condemned like the systems previously referred to; according to the latter it is approved of.—­Sutras 42 and 43, according to both commentators, raise objections against the system; Sutra 42 being directed against the doctrine that from the highest being, called Vasudeva, there is originated Sa@nkarsha/n/a, i.e. the jiva, on the ground that thereby those scriptural passages would be contradicted which teach the soul’s eternity; and Sutra 43 impugning the doctrine that from Sa@nkarsha/n/a there springs Pradyumna, i.e. the manas.—­The Sutra on which the difference of interpretation turns is 44.  Literally translated it runs, ‘Or, on account of there being’ (or, ‘their being’) ’knowledge and so on, there is non-contradiction of that.’—­This means, according to Sa@nkara, ’Or, if in consequence of the existence of knowledge and so on (on the part of Sa@nkarsha/n/a, &c. they be taken not as soul, mind, &c. but as Lords of pre-eminent knowledge, &c.), yet there is non-contradiction of that (viz. of the objection raised in Sutra 42 against the Bhagavata doctrine).’—­According to Ramanuja, on the other hand, the Sutra has to be explained as follows:  ’Or, rather there is noncontradiction of that (i.e. the Pa/nk/aratra doctrine) on account of their being knowledge and so on (i.e. on account of their being Brahman).’  Which means:  Since Sa@nkarsha/n/a and so on are merely forms of manifestation of Brahman, the Pa/nk/aratra doctrine, according to which they spring from Brahman, is not contradicted.—­The form of the Sutra makes it difficult for us to decide which of the two interpretations is the right one; it, however, appears to me that the explanations of the ‘va’ and of the ‘tat,’ implied in Ramanuja’s comment, are more natural than those resulting from Sa@nkara’s interpretation.  Nor would it be an unnatural proceeding to close the polemical pada with a defence of that doctrine which—­in spite of objections—­has to be viewed as the true one.

PADA III.

The third pada discusses the question whether the different forms of existence which, in their totality, constitute the world have an origin or not, i.e. whether they are co-eternal with Brahman, or issue from it and are refunded into it at stated intervals.

The first seven adhikara/n/as treat of the five elementary substances.—­Adhik.  I (1-7) teaches that the ether is not co-eternal with Brahman, but springs from it as its first effect.—­Adhik.  II (8) shows that air springs from ether; Adhik.  IV, V, VI (10; 11; 12) that fire springs from air, water from fire, earth from water.—­Adhik.  III (9) explains by way of digression that Brahman, which is not some special entity, but quite generally ‘that which is,’ cannot have originated from anything else.

Page 33

Adhik.  VII (13) demonstrates that the origination of one element from another is due, not to the latter in itself, but to Brahman acting in it.

Adhik.  VIII (14) teaches that the reabsorption of the elements into Brahman takes place in the inverse order of their emission.

Adhik.  IX (15) remarks that the indicated order in which the emission and the reabsorption of the elementary substances take place is not interfered with by the creation and reabsorption of the organs of the soul, i.e. the sense organs and the internal organ (manas); for they also are of elemental nature, and as such created and retracted together with the elements of which they consist.

The remainder of the pada is taken up by a discussion of the nature of the individual soul, the jiva.—­Adhik.  X (16) teaches that expressions such as ‘Devadatta is born,’ ‘Devadatta has died,’ strictly apply to the body only, and are transferred to the soul in so far only as it is connected with a body.

Adhik.  XI (17) teaches that the individual soul is, according to Scripture, permanent, eternal, and therefore not, like the ether and the other elements, produced from Brahman at the time of creation.—­This Sutra is of course commented on in a very different manner by Sa@nkara on the one hand and Ramanuja on the other.  According to the former, the jiva is in reality identical—­and as such co-eternal—­with Brahman; what originates is merely the soul’s connexion with its limiting adjuncts, and that connexion is moreover illusory.—­According to Ramanuja, the jiva is indeed an effect of Brahman, but has existed in Brahman from all eternity as an individual being and as a mode (prakara) of Brahman.  So indeed have also the material elements; yet there is an important distinction owing to which the elements may be said to originate at the time of creation, while the same cannot be said of the soul.  Previously to creation the material elements exist in a subtle condition in which they possess none of the qualities that later on render them the objects of ordinary experience; hence, when passing over into the gross state at the time of creation, they may be said to originate.  The souls, on the other hand, possess at all times the same essential qualities, i.e. they are cognizing agents; only, whenever a new creation takes place, they associate themselves with bodies, and their intelligence therewith undergoes a certain expansion or development (vikasa); contrasting with the unevolved or contracted state (sanko/k/a) which characterised it during the preceding pralaya.  But this change is not a change of essential nature (svarupanyathabhava) and hence we have to distinguish the souls as permanent entities from the material elements which at the time of each creation and reabsorption change their essential characteristics.

Page 34

Adhik.  XII (18) defines the nature of the individual soul.  The Sutra declares that the soul is ‘j/n/a.’  This means, according to Sa@nkara, that intelligence or knowledge does not, as the Vai/s/eshikas teach, constitute a mere attribute of the soul which in itself is essentially non-intelligent, but is the very essence of the soul.  The soul is not a knower, but knowledge; not intelligent, but intelligence.—­Ramanuja, on the other hand, explains ‘j/n/a’ by ‘j/n/at/ri/,’ i.e. knower, knowing agent, and considers the Sutra to be directed not only against the Vai/s/eshikas, but also against those philosophers who—­like the Sa@nkhyas and the Vedantins of Sa@nkara’s school—­maintain that the soul is not a knowing agent, but pure kaitanya.—­The wording of the Sutra certainly seems to favour Ramanuja’s interpretation; we can hardly imagine that an author definitely holding the views of Sa@nkara should, when propounding the important dogma of the soul’s nature, use the term j/n/a of which the most obvious interpretation j/n/at/ri/, not j/n/anam.

Adhik.  XIII (19-32) treats the question whether the individual soul is a/n/u, i.e. of very minute size, or omnipresent, all-pervading (sarvagata, vyapin).  Here, again, we meet with diametrically opposite views.—­In Sa@nkara’s opinion the Sutras 19-38 represent the purvapaksha view, according to which the jiva is a/n/u, while Sutra 29 formulates the siddhanta, viz. that the jiva, which in reality is all-pervading, is spoken of as a/n/u in some scriptural passages, because the qualities of the internal organ—­which itself is a/n/u—­constitute the essence of the individual soul as long as the latter is implicated in the sa/m/sara.—­According to Ramanuja, on the other hand, the first Sutra of the adhikara/n/a gives utterance to the siddhanta view, according to which the soul is of minute size; the Sutras 20-25 confirm this view and refute objections raised against it; while the Sutras 26-29 resume the question already mooted under Sutra 18, viz. in what relation the soul as knowing agent (j/n/at/ri/) stands to knowledge (j/n/ana).—­In order to decide between the conflicting claims of these two interpretations we must enter into some details.—­Sa@nkara maintains that Sutras 19-28 state and enforce a purvapaksha view, which is finally refuted in 29.  What here strikes us at the outset, is the unusual length to which the defence of a mere prima facie view is carried; in no other place the Sutras take so much trouble to render plausible what is meant to be rejected in the end, and an unbiassed reader will certainly feel inclined to think that in 19-28 we have to do, not with the preliminary statement of a view finally to be abandoned, but with an elaborate bona fide attempt to establish and vindicate an essential dogma of the system.  Still it is not altogether impossible that the purvapaksha should here be treated at greater length than usual, and the decisive point is therefore

Page 35

There are no similar difficulties in the way of Ramanuja’s interpretation of the adhikara/n/a.  He agrees with Sa@nkara in the explanation of Sutras 19-35, with this difference that he views them as setting forth, not the purvapaksha, but the siddhanta.  Sutras 26-28 also are interpreted in a manner not very different from Sa@nkara’s, special stress being laid on the distinction made by Scripture between knowledge as a mere quality and the soul as a knowing agent, the substratum of knowledge.  This discussion naturally gives rise to the question how it is that Scripture in some places makes use of the term vij/n/ana when meaning the individual soul.  The answer is given in Sutra 29, ’The soul is designated as knowledge because it has that quality for its essence,’ i.e. because knowledge is the essential characteristic quality of the soul, therefore the term ‘knowledge’ is employed here and there to denote the soul itself.  This latter interpretation gives rise to no doubt whatever.  It closely follows the wording of the text and does not necessitate any forced supplementation.  The ‘tu’ of the Sutra which, according to Sa@nkara, is meant to discard the purvapaksha, serves on Ramanuja’s view to set aside a previously-raised objection; an altogether legitimate assumption.

Page 36

Of the three remaining Sutras of the adhikara/n/a (30-32), 30 explains, according to Sa@nkara, that the soul may be called a/n/u, since, as long as it exists in the sa/m/sara condition, it is connected with the buddhi.  According to Ramanuja the Sutra teaches that the soul may be called vij/n/ana because the latter constitutes its essential quality as long as it exists.—­Sutra 31 intimates, according to Sa@nkara, that in the states of deep sleep, and so on, the soul is potentially connected with the buddhi, while in the waking state that connexion becomes actually manifest.  The same Sutra, according to Ramanuja, teaches that j/n/at/ri/tva is properly said to constitute the soul’s essential nature, although it is actually manifested in some states of the soul only.—­In Sutra 32, finally, Sa@nkara sees a statement of the doctrine that, unless the soul had the buddhi for its limiting adjunct, it would either be permanently cognizing or permanently non-cognizing; while, according to Ramanuja, the Sutra means that the soul would either be permanently cognizing or permanently non-cognizing, if it were pure knowledge and all-pervading (instead of being jnat/ri/ and a/n/u, as it is in reality).—­The three Sutras can be made to fit in with either interpretation, although it must be noted that none of them explicitly refers to the soul’s connexion with the buddhi.

Adhik.  XIV and XV (33-39; 40) refer to the kart/ri/tva of the jiva, i.e. the question whether the soul is an agent.  Sutras 33-39 clearly say that it is such.  But as, according to Sa@nkara’s system, this cannot be the final view,—­the soul being essentially non-active, and all action belonging to the world of upadhis,—­he looks upon the next following Sutra (40) as constituting an adhikara/n/a by itself, and teaching that the soul is an agent when connected with the instruments of action, buddhi, &c., while it ceases to be so when dissociated from them, ’just as the carpenter acts in both ways,’ i.e. just as the carpenter works as long as he wields his instruments, and rests after having laid them aside.—­Ramanuja, perhaps more naturally, does not separate Sutra 40 from the preceding Sutras, but interprets it as follows:  Activity is indeed an essential attribute of the soul; but therefrom it does not follow that the soul is always actually active, just as the carpenter, even when furnished with the requisite instruments, may either work or not work, just as he pleases.

Adhik.  XVI (41, 42) teaches that the soul in its activity is dependent on the Lord who impels it with a view to its former actions.

Page 37

Adhik.  XVII (43-53) treats of the relation of the individual soul to Brahman.  Sutra 43 declares that the individual soul is a part (a/ms/a) of Brahman, and the following Sutras show how that relation does not involve either that Brahman is affected by the imperfections, sufferings, &c. of the souls, or that one soul has to participate in the experiences of other souls.  The two commentators of course take entirely different views of the doctrine that the soul is a part of Brahman.  According to Ramanuja the souls are in reality parts of Brahman[14]; according to Sa@nkara the ‘a/ms/a’ of the Sutra must be understood to mean ‘a/ms/a iva,’ ‘a part as it were;’ the one universal indivisible Brahman having no real parts, but appearing to be divided owing to its limiting adjuncts.—­One Sutra (50) in this adhikara/n/a calls for special notice.  According to Sa@nkara the words ‘abhasa eva ka’ mean ‘(the soul is) a mere reflection,’ which, as the commentators remark, is a statement of the so-called pratibimbavada, i.e. the doctrine that the so-called individual soul is nothing but the reflection of the Self in the buddhi; while Sutra 43 had propounded the so-called ava/kkh/edavada, i.e. the doctrine that the soul is the highest Self in so far as limited by its adjuncts.—­According to Ramanuja the abhasa of the Sutra has to be taken in the sense of hetvabhasa, a fallacious argument, and the Sutra is explained as being directed against the reasoning of those Vedantins according to whom the soul is Brahman in so far as limited by non-real adjuncts[15].

PADA IV.

Adhik.  I, II, III (1-4; 5-6; 7) teach that the pra/n/as (by which generic name are denoted the buddhindriyas, karmen-driyas, and the manas) spring from Brahman; are eleven in number; and are of minute size (a/n/u).

Adhik.  IV, V, VI (8; 9-12; 13) inform us also that the mukhya pra/n/a, i.e. the vital air, is produced from Brahman; that it is a principle distinct from air in general and from the pra/n/as discussed above; and that it is minute (a/n/u).

Adhik.  VII and VIII (14-16; 17-19) teach that the pra/n/as are superintended and guided in their activity by special divinities, and that they are independent principles, not mere modifications of the mukhya pra/n/a.

Adhik.  IX (20-22) declares that the evolution of names and forms (the namarupavyakara/n/a) is the work, not of the individual soul, but of the Lord.

Notes: 

[Footnote 13:  Lokavat, Yatha loke raja/s/asananuvartina/m/ ka rajanugrahanigrahak/ri/takhadukhayoges’pi na sa/s/ariraivamatre/n/a sasake rajany api sasananuv/ri/ttyauv/ri/ttinimittasukhadukhayor bhokt/ri/vaprasa@nga/h/.  Yathaha Drami/d/abhashyakara/h/ yatha loke raja pra/k/uradanda/s/uke ghores’narthasa/m/ka/t/es’pi prade/s/e vartamanoszpi vyajanadyavadhutadeho doshair na sprisyate abhipreta/ms/ ka lokan paripipalayishati bhoga/ms/ ka gandhadin avi/s/vajanopabhogyan dharayati tathasau loke/s/varo bhramatsvasamait/h/ya/k/amato doshair na sp/ris/yate rakshati ka lokan brahmalokadi/ms/ kavi/s/vajanopabhogyan dharayatiti.]

Page 38

[Footnote 14:  Givasya kart/ri/tva/m/ paramapurushayattam ity uktam.  Idanim kim aya/m/ giva/h/ parasmad atyantabhinna/h/ uta param eva brahma bhrantam uta brahmaivopadhyava/kkh/innam atha brahma/ms/a iti sa/m/sayyate srutivipraticpatte/h/ sa/m/saya/h/.  Nanu tadananyam arambha/n/a/s/abdadibhya/h/ adhika/m/ tu bhedanirdesad ity atraivayam aitho nir/n/ita/h/ Satya/m/ sa eva nanatvaikatva/s/rutivipratipattya skshipya jivasya brahma/ms/atvopapadanena vi/s/eshato nir/n/iyate.  Yavad dhi jivasya brahma/m/satva/m/ na nir/n/itam tavaj jivasya brahmanosnanyatva/m/ brahma/n/as tasmad adhikatva/m/ ka na pratitish/th/ati.  Ki/m/ tavat praptam.  Atyanta/m/ bhinna iti.  Kuta/h/.  J/n/aj/n/nau dvav ityadibhedanirde/s/at.  J/n/aj/n/ayor abheda/s/rutayas tv agnina si/nk/ed itivad viruddharthapratipadanad aupa/k/arikya/h/, Brahma/n/os/ms/o jiva ity api na sadhiya/h/, ekavastvekade/s/ava/k/i hy a/ms/a/s/sabda/h/, jivasya brahmaikade/s/atve tadgata dosha brahma/n/i bhaveyu/h/.  Na ka brahmakha/nd/o jiva ity a/ms/atvopapatti/h/ kha/nd/ananarhatvad brahma/n/a/h/ praguktadoshaprasa@nga/k/ ka, tasmad atyantabhinnasya tada/ms/atva/m/ durupapadam.  Yadva bhranta/m/ brahmaiva jiva/h/.  Kuta/h/.  Tat tvam asi ayam atma brahmetyadibrahmatmabhavopade/s/at, nanatmatvavadinyas tu pratyakshadisiddharthanuvaditvad ananyathasiddhadvaitopade/s/aparabhi/h/ srutibhi/h/ pratyakshadaya/s/ ka avidyantargata/h/ khyapyante.—­Athava brahmaivanadyupadhyava/kkh/inna/m/ jiva/h/.  Kuta/h/.  Tata eva brahmatmabhavopade/s/at.  Na kayam upadhir bhrantiparikalpita ita vaktu/m/ sakya/m/ bandhamokshadivyavasthanupapatter.  Ity eva/m/ pratptesbhidhiyate.  Brahma/ms/a iti.  Kuta/h/.  Nanavyapade/s/ad anyatha kaikatvena vyapade/s/ad ubhayatha hi vyapade/s/o d/ris/yate.  Navavyapade/s/as tavat srash/tri/tva/rig/yatva—­ni
yant/ri/tvaniyamyatva—­sarvaj/n/atvaj/n/atva—­ svadhinatvaparadhinatva—­suddhatva/s/uddhatva—­ kalya/n/agu/n/akaratvaviparitatva—­patitva/s/eshatvadibhir d/ris/yate.  Anyatha kabhedena vyapade/s/os pi tat tvam asi ayam atma brahmetyadibhir d/ris/yate.  Api da/s/akitavaditvam apy adhiyate eke, brahma dasa brahma dasa brahmeme kitava ity atharva/n/ika brahma/n/o da/s/akitavaditvam apy adhiyate, tata/s/ ka sarvajivavyapitvena abhedo vyapadi/s/yata it artha/h/.  Evam ubhayavyapade/s/amukhyatvasiddhaye jivosya/m/ brahma/n/os/ms/a ity abhyupagantavya/h/.]

[Footnote 15:  Nanu bhrantabrahmajivavadeszpy avidyak/ri/topadhibhedad bhogavyavasthadaya upapadyanta ata aha, abhasa eva ka.  Akha/nd/aikarasapraka/s/amatratvarupasya svarupatirodhanapurvakopadhibhedopapadanahetur abhasa eva.  Praka/s/aikasvarupasya praka/s/atirodhana/m/ praka/s/ana/s/a eveti prag evopapaditam.  Abhasa eveti va pa/th/a/h/, tatha sati hetava abhasa/h/.]

THIRD ADHYAYA.  PADA I.

Adhik.  I (1-7) teaches that the soul, when passing out of the body at the time of death, remains invested with the subtle material elements (bhutasukshma) which serve as an abode to the pra/n/as attached to the soul.

Page 39

Adhik.  II (8-11) shows that, when the souls of those who had enjoyed the reward of their good works in the moon descend to the earth in order to undergo a new embodiment, there cleaves to them a remainder (anu/s/aya) of their former deeds which determines the nature of the new embodiment.

Adhik.  III (12-21) discusses the fate after death of those whom their good works do not entitle to pass up to the moon.

Adhik.  IV, V, VI (22; 23; 24-27) teach that the subtle bodies of the souls descending from the moon through the ether, air, &c., do not become identical with ether, air, &c., but only like them; that the entire descent occupies a short time only; and that, when the souls finally enter into plants and so on, they do not participate in the life of the latter, but are merely in external contact with them.

PADA II.

Adhik.  I (1-6) treats of the soul in the dreaming state.  According to Sa@nkara the three first Sutras discuss the question whether the creative activity ascribed to the soul in some scriptural passages produces things as real as those by which the waking soul is surrounded, or not; Sutra 3 settles the point by declaring that the creations of the dreaming soul are mere ‘Maya,’ since they do not fully manifest the character of real objects.  Sutra 4 adds that dreams, although mere Maya, yet have a prophetic quality.  Sutras 5 and 6 finally reply to the question why the soul, which after all is a part of the Lord and as such participates in his excellencies, should not be able to produce in its dreams a real creation, by the remark that the soul’s knowledge and power are obscured by its connexion with the gross body.

The considerably diverging interpretation given of this adhikara/n/a by Ramanuja has the advantage of more closely connecting the Sutras with each other.  According to him the question is not whether the creations of a dream are real or not, but whether they are the work of the individual soul or of the Lord acting within the soul.  Sutras 1 and 2 set forth the purvapaksha.  The creations of dreams (are the work of the individual soul); for thus Scripture declares:  ’And the followers of some sakas declare (the soul to be) a creator,’ &c.  The third Sutra states the siddhanta view:  ’But the creations of dreams are Maya, i.e. are of a wonderful nature (and as such cannot be effected by the individual soul), since (in this life) the nature (of the soul) is not fully manifested.’  Concerning the word ‘maya,’ Ramanuja remarks, ’maya/s/abdo hy a/sk/aryava/k/i janaka/s/ya kule jata devamayeva nirmita ityadishu tatha dar/s/anat.’  The three remaining Sutras are exhibited in the Sri-bhashya in a different order, the fourth Sutra, according to Sa@nkara, being the sixth according to Ramanuja.  Sutras 4 and 5 (according to Ramanuja’s numeration) are explained by Ramanuja very much in the same way

Page 40

Adhik.  II teaches that in the state of deep dreamless sleep the soul abides within Brahman in the heart.

Adhik.  III (9) expounds the reasons entitling us to assume that the soul awakening from sleep is the same that went to sleep.—­Adhik.  IV (9) explains the nature of a swoon.

Adhik.  V (11-21) is, according to Sa@nkara, taken up with the question as to the nature of the highest Brahman in which the individual soul is merged in the state of deep sleep.  Sutra 11 declares that twofold characteristics (viz. absence and presence of distinctive attributes, nirvi/s/eshatva and savi/s/eshatva) cannot belong to the highest Brahman even through its stations, i.e. its limiting adjuncts; since all passages which aim at setting forth Brahman’s nature declare it to be destitute of all distinctive attributes.—­The fact, Sutra 12 continues, that in many passages Brahman is spoken of as possessing distinctive attributes is of no relevancy, since wherever there are mentioned limiting adjuncts, on which all distinction depends, it is specially stated that Brahman in itself is free from all diversity; and—­Sutra 13 adds—­in some places the assumption of diversity is specially objected to.—­That Brahman is devoid of all form (Sutra 14), is the pre-eminent meaning of all Vedanta-texts setting forth Brahman’s nature.—­That Brahman is represented as having different forms, as it were, is due to its connexion with its (unreal) limiting adjuncts; just as the light of the sun appears straight or crooked, as it were, according to the nature of the things he illuminates (15).—­The B/ri/hadara/n/yaka expressly declares that Brahman is one uniform mass of intelligence (16); and the same is taught in other scriptural passages and in Sm/ri/ti (l7).—­At the unreality of the apparent manifoldness of the Self, caused by the limiting adjuncts, aim those scriptural passages in which the Self is compared to the sun, which remains one although his reflections on the surface of the water are many (18).—­Nor must the objection be raised that that comparison is unsuitable, because the Self is not material like the sun, and there are no real upadhis separate from it as the water is from the sun; for the comparison merely means to indicate that, as the reflected image of the sun participates in the changes, increase, decrease, &c., which the water undergoes while the sun himself remains unaffected thereby, so the true Self is not affected by the attributes of the upadhis, while, in so far as it is limited by the latter, it is affected by them as it were (19, 20).—­That the Self is within the upadhis, Scripture declares (21).

Page 41

From the above explanation of this important adhikara/n/a the one given in the Sri-bhashya differs totally.  According to Ramanuja the adhikara/n/a raises the question whether the imperfections clinging to the individual soul (the discussion of which has now come to an end) affect also the highest Lord who, according to Scripture, abides within the soul as antaryamin.  ’Notwithstanding the abode (of the highest Self within the soul) (it is) not (affected by the soul’s imperfections) because everywhere (the highest Self is represented) as having twofold characteristics (viz. being, on one hand, free from all evil, apahatapapman, vijara, vim/ri/tyu, &c., and, on the other hand, endowed with all auspicious qualities, satyakama, satyasa/m/kalpa, &c.) (11).—­Should it be objected that, just as the soul although essentially free from evil—­according to the Prajapativakya in the Chandogya—­yet is liable to imperfections owing to its connexion with a variety of bodies, so the antaryamin also is affected by abiding within bodies; we deny this because in every section of the chapter referring to the antaryamin (in the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka) he is expressly called the Immortal, the ruler within; which shows him to be free from the shortcomings of the jiva (12).—­Some, moreover, expressly assert that, although the Lord and the soul are within one body, the soul only is imperfect, not the Lord (dva supar/n/a sayuja sakhaya) (13).—­Should it be said that, according to the Chandogya, Brahman entered together with the souls into the elements previously to the evolution of names and forms, and hence participates in the latter, thus becoming implicated in the sa/m/sara; we reply that Brahman, although connected with such and such forms, is in itself devoid of form, since it is the principal element (agent; pradhana) in the bringing about of names and forms (according to ‘aka/s/o ha vai namarupayor nirvahita’) (14).—­But does not the passage ‘satya/m/ j/n/anam anantam brahma’ teach that Brahman is nothing but light (intelligence) without any difference, and does not the passage ‘neti neti’ deny of it all qualities?—­As in order, we reply, not to deprive passages as the one quoted from the Taittiriya of their purport, we admit that Brahman’s nature is light, so we must also admit that Brahman is satyasa/m/kalpa, and so on; for if not, the passages in which those qualities are asserted would become purportless (15).—­Moreover the Taittiriya passage only asserts so much, viz. the praka/s/arupata of Brahman, and does not deny other qualities (l6).—­And the passage ’neti neti’ will be discussed later on.—­The ubhayali@ngatva of Brahman in the sense assigned above is asserted in many places Sruti and Sm/ri/ti (17).—­Because Brahman although abiding in many places is not touched by their imperfections, the similes of the reflected sun, of the ether limited by jars, &c., are applicable to it (18).—­Should it be said that the illustration is not an appropriate

Page 42

Sutras 22-30 constitute, according to Sa@nkara, a new adhikara/n/a (VI), whose object it is to show that the clause ‘not so, not so’ (neti neti; B/ri/hadar) negatives, not Brahman itself, but only the two forms of Brahman described in the preceding part of the chapter.  Sutras 23-26 further dwell on Brahman being in reality devoid of all distinctive attributes which are altogether due to the upadhis.  The last four Sutras return to the question how, Brahman being one only, the souls are in so many places spoken of as different from it, and, two explanatory hypotheses having been rejected, the conclusion is arrived at that all difference is unreal, due to fictitious limiting adjuncts.

According to Ramanuja, Sutras 22 ff. continue the discussion started in Sutra 11.  How, the question is asked, can the ubhayali@ngatva of Brahman be maintained considering that the ‘not so, not so’ of the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka denies of Brahman all the previously mentioned modes (prakara), so that it can only be called that which is (sanmatra)?—­The reply given in Sutra 22 is that ‘not so, not so’ does not deny of Brahman the distinctive qualities or modes declared previously (for it would be senseless at first to teach them, and finally to deny them again[16]), but merely denies the prak/ri/taitavattva, the previously stated limited nature of Brahman, i.e. it denies that Brahman possesses only the previously mentioned qualifications.  With this agrees, that subsequently to ‘neti neti’ Scripture itself enunciates further qualifications of Brahman.  That Brahman as stated above is not the object of any other means of proof but Scripture is confirmed in Sutra 23, ’Scripture declares Brahman to be the non-manifest.’—­And the intuition (sakshatkkara) of Brahman ensues only upon its sa/m/radhana, i.e. upon its being perfectly pleased by the worshipper’s devotion, as Scripture and Sm/ri/ti declare (24).—­That this interpretation of ‘neti’ is the right one, is likewise shown by the fact that in the same way as praka/s/a, luminousness, j/n/ana, intelligence, &c., so also the quality of being differentiated by the world (prapa/nk/avsish/t/ata) is intuited as non-different, i.e. as likewise qualifying Brahman; and that praka/s/a, and so on, characterise Brahman, is known through repeated practice (on the part of rishis like Vamadeva) in the work of sa/m/radhana mentioned before (25).—­For all these reasons Brahman is connected with the infinite,

Page 43

Adhik.  VII (31-37) explains how some metaphorical expressions, seemingly implying that there is something different from Brahman, have to be truly understood.

Adhik.  VIII (38-41) teaches that the reward of works is not, as Jaimini opines, the independent result of the works acting through the so-called apurva, but is allotted by the Lord.

PADA III.

With the third pada of the second adhyaya a new section of the work begins, whose task it is to describe how the individual soul is enabled by meditation on Brahman to obtain final release.  The first point to be determined here is what constitutes a meditation on Brahman, and, more particularly, in what relation those parts of the Upanishads stand to each other which enjoin identical or partly identical meditations.  The reader of the Upanishads cannot fail to observe that the texts of the different sakhas contain many chapters of similar, often nearly identical, contents, and that in some cases the text of even one and the same sakha exhibits the same matter in more or less varied forms.  The reason of this clearly is that the common stock of religious and philosophical ideas which were in circulation at the time of the composition of the Upanishads found separate expression in the different priestly communities; hence the same speculations, legends, &c. reappear in various places of the sacred Scriptures in more or less differing dress.  Originally, when we may suppose the members of each Vedic school to have confined themselves to the study of their own sacred texts, the fact that the texts of other schools contained chapters of similar contents would hardly appear to call for special note or comment; not any more than the circumstance that the sacrificial performances enjoined on the followers of some particular sakha were found described with greater or smaller modifications

Page 44

Adhik.  I and II (1-4; 5) are concerned with the question whether those vidyas, which are met with in identical or similar form in more than one sacred text, are to be considered as constituting several vidyas, or one vidya only. Sa@nkara remarks that the question affects only those vidyas whose object is the qualified Brahman; for the knowledge of the non-qualified Brahman, which is of an absolutely uniform nature, can of course be one only wherever it is set forth.  But things lie differently in those cases where the object of knowledge is the sagu/n/am brahma or some outward manifestation of Brahman; for the qualities as well as manifestations of Brahman are many.  Anticipating the subject of a later adhikara/n/a, we may take for an example the so-called Sa/nd/ilyavidya which is met with in Ch.  Up.  III, 14, again—­in an abridged form—­in B/ri/.  Up.  V, 6, and, moreover, in the tenth book of the Satapathabrahma/n/a (X, 6, 3).  The three passages enjoin a meditation on Brahman as possessing certain attributes, some of which are specified in all the three texts (as, for instance, manomayatva, bharupatva), while others are peculiar to each separate passage (pra/n/a/s/ariratva and satyasa/m/kalpatva, for instance, being mentioned in the Chandogya Upanishad and Satapatha-brahma/n/a, but not in the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka Upanishad, which, on its part, specifies sarvava/s/itva, not referred to in the two other texts).  Here, then, there is room for a doubt whether the three passages refer to one object of knowledge or not.  To the devout Vedantin the question is not a purely theoretical one, but of immediate practical interest.  For if the three texts are to be held apart, there are three different meditations to be gone through;

Page 45

Adhik.  III (6-8) discusses the case of vidyas being really separate, although apparently identical.  The examples selected are the udgithavidyas of the Chandogya Upanishad (I, 1-3) and the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka Upanishad (I, 3), which, although showing certain similarities—­such as bearing the same name and the udgitha being in both identified with pra/n/a—­yet are to be held apart, because the subject of the Chandogya vidya is not the whole udgitha but only the sacred syllabic Om, while the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka Upanishad represents the whole udgitha as the object of meditation.

Sutra 9 constitutes in Sa@nkara’s view a new adhikara/n/a (IV), proving that in the passage, ‘Let a man meditate’ (Ch.  Up.  I, 1, 1), the O/m/kara and the udgitha stand in the relation of one specifying the other, the meaning being, ‘Let a man meditate on that O/m/kara which,’ &c.—­According to Ramanuja’s interpretation, which seems to fall in more satisfactorily with the form and the wording of the Sutra, the latter merely furnishes an additional argument for the conclusion arrived at in the preceding adhikara/n/a.—­Adhik.  V (10) determines the unity of the so-called pra/n/a-vidyas and the consequent comprehension of the different qualities of the pra/n/a, which are mentioned in the different texts, within one meditation.

Adhik.  VI comprises, according to Sa@nkara, the Sutras 11-13.  The point to be settled is whether in all the meditations on Brahman all its qualities are to be included or only those mentioned in the special vidya.  The decision is that the essential and unalterable attributes of Brahman, such as bliss and knowledge, are to be taken into account everywhere, while those which admit of a more or less (as, for instance, the attribute of having joy for its head, mentioned in the Taitt.  Up.) are confined to special meditations.—­Adhik.  VII (14, 15), according to Sa@nkara, aims at proving that the object of Ka/th/a.  Up.  III, 10, 11 is one only, viz. to show that the highest Self is higher than everything, so that the passage constitutes one vidya only.—­Adhik.  VIII (16, 17) determines, according to Sa@nkara, that the Self spoken of in Ait.  Ar.  II, 4, 1, 1 is not a lower form of the Self (the so-called sutratman), but the highest Self; the discussion of that point in this place being due to the wish to prove that the attributes of the highest Self have to be comprehended in the Aitarcyaka meditation.

Page 46

According to Ramanuja the Sutras 11-17 constitute a single adhikara/n/a whose subject is the same as that of Sa@nkara’s sixth adhikar/n/a.  Sutras 11-13 are, on the whole, explained as by Sa@nkara; Sutra 12, however, is said to mean, ’Such attributes as having joy for its head, &c. are not to be viewed as qualities of Brahman, and therefore not to be included in every meditation; for if they were admitted as qualities, difference would be introduced into Brahman’s nature, and that would involve a more or less on Brahman’s part.’  Sutras 14-17 continue the discussion of the passage about the priya/s/irastva.—­If priya/s/irastva, &c. are not to be viewed as real qualities of Brahman, for what purpose does the text mention them?—­’Because,’ Sutra 14 replies, ’there is no other purpose, Scripture mentions them for the purpose of pious meditation.’—­But how is it known that the Self of delight is the highest Self? (owing to which you maintain that having limbs, head, &c. cannot belong to it as attributes.)—­’Because,’ Sutra 15 replies, ’the term “Self” (atma anandamaya) is applied to it.’—­But in the previous parts of the chapter the term Self (in atma pra/n/amaya, &c.) is applied to non-Selfs also; how then do you know that in atma anandamaya it denotes the real Self?—­’The term Self,’ Sutra 16 replies, ’is employed here to denote the highest Self as in many other passages (atmaa va idam eka, &c.), as we conclude from the subsequent passage, viz. he wished, May I be many.’—­But, an objection is raised, does not the context show that the term ‘Self,’ which in all the preceding clauses about the pra/n/amaya, &c. denoted something other than the Self, does the same in anandamaya atman, and is not the context of greater weight than a subsequent passage?—­To this question asked in the former half of 17 (anvayad iti ket) the latter half replies, ’Still it denotes the Self, owing to the affirmatory statement,’ i.e. the fact of the highest Self having been affirmed in a previous passage also, viz.  II, 1, ‘From that Self sprang ether.’

Adhik.  IX (18) discusses a minor point connected with the pra/n/asa/m/vada.—­The subject of Adhik.  X (19) has been indicated already above under Adhik.  I.—­Adhik.  XI (20-22) treats of a case of a contrary nature; in B/ri/.  Up.  V, 5, Brahman is represented first as abiding in the sphere of the sun, and then as abiding within the eye; we therefore, in spite of certain counter-indications, have to do with two separate vidyas.—­Adhik.  XII (23) refers to a similar case; certain attributes of Brahman mentioned in the Ra/n/ayaniya-khila have not to be introduced into the corresponding Chandogya vidya, because the stated difference of Brahman’s abode involves difference of vidya.—­Adhik.  XIII (24) treats of another instance of two vidyas having to be held apart.

Adhik.  XIV (25) decides that certain detached mantras and brahma/n/a passages met with in the beginning of some Upanishads—­as, for instance, a brahma/n/a about the mahavrata ceremony at the beginning of the Aitareya-ara/n/yaka—­do, notwithstanding their position which seems to connect them with the brahmavidya, not belong to the latter, since they show unmistakable signs of being connected with sacrificial acts.

Page 47

Adhik.  XV (26) treats of the passages stating that the man dying in the possession of true knowledge shakes off all his good and evil deeds, and affirms that a statement, made in some of those passages only, to the effect that the good and evil deeds pass over to the friends and enemies of the deceased, is valid for all the passages.

Sutras 27-30 constitute, according to Sa@nkara, two adhikara/n/as of which the former (XVI; 27, 28) decides that the shaking off of the good and evil deeds takes place—­not, as the Kaush.  Up. states, on the road to Brahman’s world—­but at the moment of the soul’s departure from the body; the Kaushitaki statement is therefore not to be taken literally.—­The latter adhikara/n/a (XVII; 29, 30) treats of the cognate question whether the soul that has freed itself from its deeds proceeds in all cases on the road of the gods (as said in the Kaush.  Up.), or not.  The decision is that he only whose knowledge does not pass beyond the sagu/n/am brahma proceeds on that road, while the soul of him who knows the nirgu/n/am brahma becomes one with it without moving to any other place.

The Sri-bhashya treats the four Sutras as one adhikara/n/a whose two first Sutras are explained as by Sa@nkara, while Sutra 29 raises an objection to the conclusion arrived at, ’the going (of the soul on the path of the gods) has a sense only if the soul’s freeing itself from its works takes place in both ways, i.e. partly at the moment of death, partly on the road to Brahman; for otherwise there would be a contradiction’ (the contradiction being that, if the soul’s works were all shaken off at the moment of death, the subtle body would likewise perish at that moment, and then the bodiless soul would be unable to proceed on the path of the gods).  To this Sutra 30 replies, ’The complete shaking off of the works at the moment of death is possible, since matters of that kind are observed in Scripture,’ i.e. since scriptural passages show that even he whose works are entirely annihilated, and who has manifested himself in his true shape, is yet connected with some kind of body; compare the passage, ’para/m/ jyotir upasampadya svena rupe/n/abhinishpadyate sa tatra paryeti kri/d/an ramamana/h/ sa svara/d/ bhavati tasya sarveshu lokeshu kama/k/aro bhavati.’  That subtle body is not due to karman, but to the soul’s vidyamahatmya.—­That the explanation of the Sri-bhashya agrees with the text as well as Sa@nkara’s, a comparison of the two will show; especially forced is Sa@nkara’s explanation of ’arthavattvam ubhayatha,’ which is said to mean that there is arthavattva in one case, and non-arthavattva in the other case.

The next Sutra (31) constitutes an adhikara/n/a (XVIII) deciding that the road of the gods is followed not only by those knowing the vidyas which specially mention the going on that road, but by all who are acquainted with the sagu/n/a-vidyas of Brahman.—­The explanation given in the Sri-bhashya (in which Sutras 31 and 32 have exchanged places) is similar, with the difference however that all who meditate on Brahman—­without any reference to the distinction of nirgu/n/a and sagu/n/a—­proceed after death on the road of the gods. (The Sri-bhashya reads ‘sarvesham,’ i.e. all worshippers, not ‘sarvasam,’ all sagu/n/a-vidyas.)

Page 48

Adhik.  XIX (32) decides that, although the general effect of true knowledge is release from all forms of body, yet even such beings as have reached perfect knowledge may retain a body for the purpose of discharging certain offices.—­In the Sri-bhashya, where the Sutra follows immediately on Sutra 30, the adhikara/n/a determines, in close connexion with 30, that, although those who know Brahman as a rule divest themselves of the gross body—­there remaining only a subtle body which enables them to move—­and no longer experience pleasure and pain, yet certain beings, although having reached the cognition of Brahman, remain invested with a gross body, and hence liable to pleasure and pain until they have fully performed certain duties.

Adhik.  XX (33) teaches that the negative attributes of Brahman mentioned in some vidyas—­such as its being not gross, not subtle, &c.—­are to be included in all meditations on Brahman.—­Adhik.  XXI (34) determines that Ka/th/a Up.  III, 1, and Mu.  Up.  III, 1, constitute one vidya only, because both passages refer to the highest Brahman.  According to Ramanuja the Sutra contains a reply to an objection raised against the conclusion arrived at in the preceding Sutra.—­Adhik.  XXII (35, 36) maintains that the two passages, B/ri/.  Up.  III, 4 and III, 5, constitute one vidya only, the object of knowledge being in both cases Brahman viewed as the inner Self of all.—­Adhik.  XXIII (37) on the contrary decides that the passage Ait.  Ar.  II, 2, 4, 6 constitutes not one but two meditations.—­Adhik.  XXIV (38) again determines that the vidya of the True contained in B/ri/.  Up.  V, 4, 5, is one only—­According to Ramanuja, Sutras 35-38 constitute one adhikara/n/a only whose subject is the same as that of XXII according to Sa@nkara.

Adhik.  XXV (39) proves that the passages Ch.  Up.  VIII, 1 and B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 4, 22 cannot constitute one vidya, since the former refers to Brahman as possessing qualities, while the latter is concerned with Brahman as destitute of qualities.—­Adhik.  XXVI (40, 41) treats, according to Sa@nkara, of a minor question connected with Ch.  Up.  V, 11 ff.—­According to the Sri-bhashya, Sutras 39-41 form one adhikara/n/a whose first Sutra reaches essentially the same conclusion as Sa@nkara under 39.  Sutras 40, 41 thereupon discuss a general question concerning the meditations on Brahman.  The qualities, an opponent is supposed to remark, which in the two passages discussed are predicated of Brahman—­such as va/s/itva, satyakamatva, &c.—­cannot be considered real (paramarthika), since other passages (sa esha neti neti, and the like) declare Brahman to be devoid of all qualities.  Hence those qualities cannot be admitted into meditations whose purpose is final release.—­To this objection Sutra 40 replies, ’(Those qualities) are not to be left off (from the meditations on Brahman), since (in the passage under discussion as well as in other passages) they are stated with emphasis[17].’—­But,

Page 49

Adhik.  XXVII (42) decides that those meditations which are connected with certain matters forming constituent parts of sacrificial actions, are not to be considered as permanently requisite parts of the latter.—­Adhik.  XXVIII (43) teaches that, in a B/ri/.  Up. passage and a similar Ch.  Up. passage, Vayu and Pra/n/a are not to be identified, but to be held apart.—­Adhik.  XXIX (44-52) decides that the firealtars made of mind, &c., which are mentioned in the Agnirahasya, do not constitute parts of the sacrificial action (so that the mental, &c. construction of the altar could optionally be substituted for the actual one), but merely subjects of meditations.

Adhik.  XXX (53, 54) treats, according to Sa@nkara, in the way of digression, of the question whether to the Self an existence independent of the body can be assigned, or not (as the Materialists maintain).—­According to the Sri-bhashya the adhikara/n/a does not refer to this wide question, but is concerned with a point more immediately connected with the meditations on Brahman, viz. the question as to the form under which, in those meditations, the Self of the meditating devotee has to be viewed.  The two Sutras then have to be translated as follows:  ’Some (maintain that the soul of the devotee has, in meditations, to be viewed as possessing those attributes only which belong to it in its embodied state, such as j/n/at/ri/tva and the like), because the Self is (at the time of meditation) in the body.’—­The next Sutra rejects this view, ’This is not so, but the separatedness (i.e. the pure isolated state in which the Self is at the time of final release when it is freed from all evil, &c.) (is to be transferred to the meditating Self), because that will be[18] the state (of the Self in the condition of final release).’

Adhik.  XXXI (55, 56) decides that meditations connected with constituent elements of the sacrifice, such as the udgitha, are, in spite of difference of svara in the udgitha, &c., valid, not only for that sakha in which the meditation actually is met with, but for all sakhas.—­Adhik.  XXXII (57) decides that the Vai/s/vanara Agni of Ch.  Up.  V, 11 ff. is to be meditated upon as a whole, not in his single parts.—­Adhik.  XXXIII (58) teaches that those meditations which refer to one subject, but as distinguished by different qualities, have to be held apart as different meditations.  Thus the daharavidya, Sa/nd/ilyavidya, &c. remain separate.

Page 50

Adhik.  XXXIV (59) teaches that those meditations on Brahman for which the texts assign one and the same fruit are optional, there being no reason for their being cumulated.—­Adhik.  XXXV (60) decides that those meditations, on the other hand, which refer to special wishes may be cumulated or optionally employed according to choice.—­Adhik.  XXXVI (61-66) extends this conclusion to the meditations connected with constituent elements of action, such as the udgitha.

PADA IV.

Adhik.  I (1-17) proves that the knowledge of Brahman is not kratvartha, i.e. subordinate to action, but independent.—­Adhik.  II (18-20) confirms this conclusion by showing that the state of the pravrajins is enjoined by the sacred law, and that for them vidya only is prescribed, not action.—­Adhik.  III (21, 22) decides that certain clauses forming part of vidyas are not mere stutis (arthavadas), but themselves enjoin the meditation.—­The legends recorded in the Vedanta-texts are not to be used as subordinate members of acts, but have the purpose of glorifying—­as arthavadas—­the injunctions with which they are connected (Adhik.  IV, 23, 24).—­For all these reasons the urdhvaretasa/h/ require no actions but only knowledge (Adhik.  V, 25).—­Nevertheless the actions enjoined by Scripture, such as sacrifices, conduct of certain kinds, &c., are required as conducive to the rise of vidya in the mind (Adhik.  VI, 26, 27).—­Certain relaxations, allowed by Scripture, of the laws regarding food, are meant only for cases of extreme need (Adhik.  VII, 28-3l).—­The a/s/ramakarma/n/i are obligatory on him also who does not strive after mukti (Adhik.  VIII, 32-35).—­Those also who, owing to poverty and so on, are ana/s/rama have claims to vidya (Adhik.  IX, 36-39).—­An urdhvaretas cannot revoke his vow (Adhik.  X, 40).—­Expiation of the fall of an urdhvaretas (Adhik.  XI, 41, 42).—­Exclusion of the fallen urdhvaretas in certain cases (Adhik.  XII, 43).—­Those meditations, which are connected with subordinate members of the sacrifice, are the business of the priest, not of the yajamana (Adhik.  XIII, 44-46).—­B/ri/.  Up.  III, 5, 1 enjoins mauna as a third in addition to balya and pa/nd/itya (Adhik.  XIV, 47-49).—­By balya is to be understood a childlike innocent state of mind (Adhik.  XV, 50).

Sutras 51 and 52 discuss, according to Ramanuja, the question when the vidya, which is the result of the means described in III, 4, arises.  Sutra 51 treats of that vidya whose result is mere exaltation (abhyudaya), and states that ’it takes place in the present life, if there is not present an obstacle in the form of a prabalakarmantara (in which latter case the vidya arises later only), on account of Scripture declaring this (in various passages).’—­Sutra 52, ’Thus there is also absence of a definite rule as to (the time of origination of) that knowledge whose fruit is release, it being averred concerning that one also that it is in the same condition (i.e. of sometimes having an obstacle, sometimes not).’—­Sa@nkara, who treats the two Sutras as two adhikara/n/as, agrees as to the explanation of 51, while, putting a somewhat forced interpretation on 52, he makes it out to mean that a more or less is possible only in the case of the sagu/n/a-vidyas.

Page 51

Notes: 

[Footnote 16:  All the mentioned modes of Brahman are known from Scripture only, not from ordinary experience.  If the latter were the case, then, and then only, Scripture might at first refer to them ‘anuvadena,’ and finally negative them.]

[Footnote 17:  Ramanuja has here some strong remarks on the improbability of qualities emphatically attributed to Brahman, in more than one passage, having to be set aside in any meditation:  ’Na ka matapit/ri/sahasrebhyo-pi vatsalatara/m/ sastra/m/ pratarakavad aparamarthikau nirasaniyau gu/n/au prama/n/antarapratipannau adare/n/opadi/s/ya sa/m/sara/k/akraparivartanena purvam eva bambhramyamanan mumukshun bhuyo-pi bhramayitum alam.’]

[Footnote 18:  The Sri-bh-ashya as well as several other commentaries reads tadbhavabhavitvat for San@kara’s tadbhavabhavitvat.]

FOURTH ADHYAYA.  PADA I.

Adhikara/n/a I (1, 2).—­The meditation on the Atman enjoined by Scripture is not an act to be accomplished once only, but is to be repeated again and again.

Adhik.  II (3).—­The devotee engaged in meditation on Brahman is to view it as constituting his own Self.

Adhik.  III (4).—­To the rule laid down in the preceding adhikara/n/a the so-called pratikopasanas, i.e. those meditations in which Brahman is viewed under a symbol or outward manifestation (as, for instance, mano brahmety upasita) constitute an exception, i.e. the devotee is not to consider the pratika as constituting his own Self.

Adhik.  IV (5).—­In the pratikopasanas the pratika is to be meditatively viewed as being one with Brahman, not Brahman as being one with the pratika.—­Ramanuja takes Sutra 5 as simply giving a reason for the decision arrived at under Sutra 4, and therefore as not constituting a new adhikara/n/a.

Adhik.  V (6).—­In meditations connected with constitutives of sacrificial works (as, for instance, ya evasau tapati tam udgitham upasita) the idea of the divinity, &c. is to be transferred to the sacrificial item, not vice versa.  In the example quoted, for instance, the udgitha is to be viewed as Aditya, not Aditya as the udgitha.

Adhik.  VI (7-10).—­The devotee is to carry on his meditations in a sitting posture.—­Sa@nkara maintains that this rule does not apply to those meditations whose result is sa/m/yagdar/s/ana; but the Sutra gives no hint to that effect.

Adhik.  VII (11).—­The meditations may be carried on at any time, and in any place, favourable to concentration of mind.

Adhik.  VIII (12).—­The meditations are to be continued until death.—­Sa@nkara again maintains that those meditations which lead to sa/m/yagdar/s/ana are excepted.

Adhik.  IX (13).—­When through those meditations the knowledge of Brahman has been reached, the vidvan is no longer affected by the consequences of either past or future evil deeds.

Page 52

Adhik.  X (14).—­Good deeds likewise lose their efficiency.—­The literal translation of the Sutra is, ’There is likewise non-attachment (to the vidvan) of the other (i.e. of the deeds other than the evil ones, i.e. of good deeds), but on the fall (of the body, i.e. when death takes place).’  The last words of the Sutra, ‘but on the fall,’ are separated by Sa@nkara from the preceding part of the Sutra and interpreted to mean, ’when death takes place (there results mukti of the vidvan, who through his knowledge has freed himself from the bonds of works).’—­According to Ramanuja the whole Sutra simply means, ’There is likewise non-attachment of good deeds (not at once when knowledge is reached), but on the death of the vidvan[19].’

Adhik.  XI (15).—­The non-operation of works stated in the two preceding adhikara/n/as holds good only in the case of anarabdhakarya works, i.e. those works which have not yet begun to produce their effects, while it does not extend to the arabdhakarya works on which the present existence of the devotee depends.

Adhik.  XII (16, 17).—­From the rule enunciated in Adhik.  X are excepted such sacrificial performances as are enjoined permanently (nitya):  so, for instance, the agnihotra, for they promote the origination of knowledge.

Adhik.  XIII (18).—­The origination of knowledge is promoted also by such sacrificial works as are not accompanied with the knowledge of the upasanas referring to the different members of those works.

Adhik.  XIV (19).—­The arabdhakarya works have to be worked out fully by the fruition of their effects; whereupon the vidvan becomes united with Brahman.—­The ‘bhoga’ of the Sutra is, according to Sa@nkara, restricted to the present existence of the devotee, since the complete knowledge obtained by him destroys the nescience which otherwise would lead to future embodiments.  According to Ramanuja a number of embodied existences may have to be gone through before the effects of the arabdhakarya works are exhausted.

PADA II.

This and the two remaining padas of the fourth adhyaya describe the fate of the vidvan after death.  According to Sa@nkara we have to distinguish the vidvan who possesses the highest knowledge, viz. that he is one with the highest Brahman, and the vidvan who knows only the lower Brahman, and have to refer certain Sutras to the former and others to the latter.  According to Ramanuja the vidvan is one only.

Adhik.  I, II, III (1-6).—­On the death of the vidvan (i.e. of him who possesses the lower knowledge, according to Sa@nkara) his senses are merged in the manas, the manas in the chief vital air (pra/n/a), the vital air in the individual soul (jiva), the soul in the subtle elements.—­According to Ramanuja the combination (sampatti) of the senses with the manas, &c. is a mere conjunction (sa/m/yoga), not a merging (laya).

Page 53

Adhik.  IV (7).—­The vidvan (i.e. according to Sa@nkara, he who possesses the lower knowledge) and the avidvan, i.e. he who does not possess any knowledge of Brahman, pass through the same stages (i.e. those described hitherto) up to the entrance of the soul, together with the subtle elements, and so on into the na/d/is.—­The vidvan also remains connected with the subtle elements because he has not yet completely destroyed avidya, so that the immortality which Scripture ascribes to him (am/ri/tatva/m/ hi vidvan abhya/s/nute) is only a relative one.—­Ramanuja quotes the following text regarding the immortality of the vidvan: 

    ’Yada sarve pramu/k/yante kama yessya h/ri/di sthita/h/ atha
    martyosm/ri/to bhavaty atra brahma sama/s/nute,’

and explains that the immortality which is here ascribed to the vidvan as soon as he abandons all desires can only mean the destruction—­mentioned in the preceding pada—­of all the effects of good and evil works, while the ‘reaching of Brahman’ can only refer to the intuition of Brahman vouchsafed to the meditating devotee.

Adhik.  V (8-11) raises; according to Sa@nkara, the question whether the subtle elements of which Scripture says that they are combined with the highest deity (teja/h/ parasya/m/ devatayam) are completely merged in the latter or not.  The answer is that a complete absorption of the elements takes place only when final emancipation is reached; that, on the other hand, as long as the sa/m/sara state lasts, the elements, although somehow combined with Brahman, remain distinct so as to be able to form new bodies for the soul.

According to Ramanuja the Sutras 8-11 do not constitute a new adhikara/n/a, but continue the discussion of the point mooted in 7.  The immortality there spoken of does not imply the separation of the soul from the body, ’because Scripture declares sa/m/sara, i.e. embodiedness up to the reaching of Brahman’ (tasya tavad eva kira/m/ yavan na vimokshye atha sampatsye) (8).—­That the soul after having departed from the gross body is not disconnected from the subtle elements, is also proved hereby, that the subtle body accompanies it, as is observed from authority[20] (9).—­Hence the immortality referred to in the scriptural passage quoted is not effected by means of the total destruction of the body (10).

Adhik.  VI (12-14) is of special importance.—­According to Sa@nkara the Sutras now turn from the discussion of the departure of him who possesses the lower knowledge only to the consideration of what becomes of him who has reached the higher knowledge.  So far it has been taught that in the case of relative immortality (ensuing on the apara vidya) the subtle elements, together with the senses and so on, depart from the body of the dying devotee; this implies at the same time that they do not depart from the body of the dying sage who knows himself to be one with Brahman.—­Against

Page 54

According to Ramanuja the three Sutras forming Sa@nkara’s sixth adhikara/n/a do not constitute a new adhikara/n/a at all, and, moreover, have to be combined into two Sutras.  The topic continuing to be discussed is the utkranti of the vidvan.  If, Sutra 12 says, the utkranti of the pra/n/as is not admitted, on the ground of the denial supposed to be contained in B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 4, 5; the reply is that the sense of the tasya there is ‘sarirat’ (so that the passage means, ’from him, i.e. the jiva, the pra/n/as do not depart’); for this is clearly shown by the reading of some, viz. the Madhyandinas, who, in their text of the passage, do not read ‘tasya’ but ’tasmat.’—­With reference to the instruction given by Yaj/n/avalkya to Artabhaga, it is to be remarked that nothing there shows the ‘ayam purusha’ to be the sage who knows Brahman.—­And, finally, there are Sm/ri/ti passages declaring that the sage also when dying departs from the body.

Adhik.  VII and VIII (15, 16) teach, according to Sa@nkara, that, on the death of him who possesses the higher knowledge, his pra/n/as, elements, &c. are merged in Brahman, so as to be no longer distinct from it in any way.

According to Ramanuja the two Sutras continue the teaching about the pra/n/as, bhutas, &c. of the vidvan in general, and declare that they are finally merged in Brahman, not merely in the way of conjunction (sa/m/yoga), but completely.[21]

Adhik.  IX (17).—­Sa@nkara here returns to the owner of the apara vidya, while Ramanuja continues the description of the utkranti of his vidvan.—­The jiva of the dying man passes into the heart, and thence departs out of the body by means of the na/d/is; the vidvan by means of the na/d/i called sushum/n/a, the avidvan by means of some other na/d/i.

Adhik.  X (18, 19).—­The departing soul passes up to the sun by means of a ray of light which exists at night as well as during day.

Page 55

Adhik.  XI (20, 21).—­Also that vidvan who dies during the dakshi/n/ayana reaches Brahman.

PADA III.

Adhik.  I, II, III (1-3) reconcile the different accounts given in the Upanishads as to the stations of the way which leads the vidvan up to Brahman.

Adhik.  IV (4-6)—­By the ‘stations’ we have, however, to understand not only the subdivisions of the way but also the divine beings which lead the soul on.

The remaining part of the pada is by Sa@nkara divided into two adhikara/n/as.  Of these the former one (7-14) teaches that the Brahman to which the departed soul is led by the guardians of the path of the gods is not the highest Brahman, but the effected (karya) or qualified (sagu/n/a) Brahman.  This is the opinion propounded in Sutras 7-11 by Badari, and, finally, accepted by Sa@nkara in his commentary on Sutra 14.  In Sutras 12-14 Jaimini defends the opposite view, according to which the soul of the vidvan goes to the highest Brahman, not to the karyam brahma.  But Jaimini’s view, although set forth in the latter part of the adhikara/n/a, is, according to Sa@nkara, a mere purvapaksha, while Badari’s opinion represents the siddhanta.—­The latter of the two adhikara/n/as (VI of the whole pada; 15, 16) records the opinion of Badaraya/n/a on a collateral question, viz. whether, or not, all those who worship the effected Brahman are led to it.  The decision is that those only are guided to Brahman who have not worshipped it under a pratika form.

According to Ramanuja, Sutras 7-16 form one adhikara/n/a only, in which the views of Badari and of Jaimini represent two purvapakshas, while Badaraya/n/a’s opinion is adopted as the siddhanta.  The question is whether the guardians of the path lead to Brahman only those who worship the effected Brahman, i.e.  Hira/n/yagarbha, or those who worship the highest Brahman, or those who worship the individual soul as free from Prak/ri/ti, and having Brahman for its Self (ye pratyagatmana/m/ prak/ri/tiviyukta/m/ brahmatmakam upasate).—­The first view is maintained by Badari in Sutra 7, ’The guardians lead to Brahman those who worship the effected Brahman, because going is possible towards the latter only;’ for no movement can take place towards the highest and as such omnipresent Brahman.—­The explanation of Sutra 9 is similar to that of Sa@nkara; but more clearly replies to the objection (that, if Hira/n/yagarbha were meant in the passage, ’purusho sa manava/h/ sa etan brahma gamayati,’ the text would read ’sa etan brahma/n/am gamayati’) that Hira/n/yagarbha is called Brahman on account of his nearness to Brahman, i.e. on account of his prathamajatva.—­The explanation of 10, 11 is essentially the same as in Sa@nkara; so also of l2-l4.—­The siddhanta view is established in Sutra 13, ’It is the opinion of Badaraya/n/a that it, i.e. the ga/n/a of the guardians, leads

Page 56

PADA IV.

Adhik.  I (1-3) returns, according to Sa@nkara, to the owner of the para vidya, and teaches that, when on his death his soul obtains final release, it does not acquire any new characteristics, but merely manifests itself in its true nature.—­The explanation given by Ramanuja is essentially the same, but of course refers to that vidvan whose going to Brahman had been described in the preceding pada.

Adhik.  II (4) determines that the relation in which the released soul stands to Brahman is that of avibhaga, non-separation.  This, on Sa@nkara’s view, means absolute non-separation, identity.—­According to Ramanuja the question to be considered is whether the released soul views itself as separate (p/ri/thagbhuta) from Brahman, or as non-separate because being a mode of Brahman.  The former view is favoured by those Sruti and Sm/ri/ti passages which speak of the soul as being with, or equal to, Brahman; the latter by, such passages as tat tvam asi and the like.[22]

Adhik.  III (5-7) discusses the characteristics of the released soul (i.e. of the truly released soul, according to Sa@nkara).  According to Jaimini the released soul, when manifesting itself in its true nature, possesses all those qualities which in Ch.  Up.  VIII, 7, 1 and other places are ascribed to Brahman, such as apahatapapmatva, satyasa/m/kalpatva, &c., ai/s/varya.—­According to Au/d/ulomi the only characteristic of the released soul is kaitanya.—­According to Badarayana the two views can be combined (Sa@nkara remarking that satyasa/m/kalpatva, &c. are ascribed to the released soul vyavaharapekshaya).

Adhik.  IV (8-9) returns, according to Sa@nkara, to the apara vidya, and discusses the question whether the soul of the pious effects its desires by its mere determination, or uses some other means.  The former alternative is accepted—­According to Ramanuja the adhikara/n/a simply continues the consideration of the state of the released, begun in the preceding adhikara/n/a.  Of the released soul it is said in Ch.  Up.  VIII, 12, 3 that after it has manifested itself in its true nature it moves about playing and rejoicing with women, carriages, and so on.  The question then arises whether it effects all this by its mere sa/m/kalpa (it having been shown in the preceding adhikara/n/a that the released soul is, like the Lord, satyasa/m/kalpa), or not.  The answer is in favour of the former alternative, on account of the explicit declaration made in Ch.  Up.  VIII, 2, ’By his mere will the fathers come to receive him.’

Page 57

Adhik.  V (10-14) decides that the released are embodied or disembodied according to their wish and will.

Adhik.  VI (11, 12) explains how the soul of the released can animate several bodies at the same time.—­Sutra 12 gives, according to Sa@nkara, the additional explanation that those passages which declare the absence of all specific cognition on the part of the released soul do not refer to the partly released soul of the devotee, but either to the soul in the state of deep sleep (svapyaya = sushupti), or to the fully released soul of the sage (sampatti = kaivalya).—­Ramanuja explains that the passages speaking of absence of consciousness refer either to the state of deep sleep, or to the time of dying (sampatti = mata/n/am according to ‘van manasi sampadyate,’ &c.).

Adhik.  VII (17-21).—­The released jivas participate in all the perfections and powers of the Lord, with the exception of the power of creating and sustaining the world.  They do not return to new forms of embodied existence.

After having, in this way, rendered ourselves acquainted with the contents of the Brahma-sutras according to the views of Sa@nkara as well as Ramanuja, we have now to consider the question which of the two modes of interpretation represents—­or at any rate more closely approximates to the true meaning of the Sutras.  That few of the Sutras are intelligible if taken by themselves, we have already remarked above; but this does not exclude the possibility of our deciding with a fair degree of certainty which of the two interpretations proposed agrees better with the text, at least in a certain number of cases.

We have to note in the first place that, in spite of very numerous discrepancies,—­of which only the more important ones have been singled out in the conspectus of contents,—­the two commentators are at one as to the general drift of the Sutras and the arrangement of topics.  As a rule, the adhikara/n/as discuss one or several Vedic passages bearing upon a certain point of the system, and in the vast majority of cases the two commentators agree as to which are the special texts referred to.  And, moreover, in a very large number of cases the agreement extends to the interpretation to be put on those passages and on the Sutras.  This far-reaching agreement certainly tends to inspire us with a certain confidence as to the existence of an old tradition concerning the meaning of the Sutras on which the bulk of the interpretations of Sa@nkara as well as of Ramanuja are based.

But at the same time we have seen that, in a not inconsiderable number of cases, the interpretations of Sa@nkara and Ramanuja diverge more or less widely, and that the Sutras affected thereby are, most of them, especially important because bearing on fundamental points of the Vedanta system.  The question then remains which of the two interpretations is entitled to preference.

Page 58

Regarding a small number of Sutras I have already (in the conspectus of contents) given it as my opinion that Ramanuja’s explanation appears to be more worthy of consideration.  We meet, in the first place, with a number of cases in which the two commentators agree as to the literal meaning of a Sutra, but where Sa@nkara sees himself reduced to the necessity of supplementing his interpretation by certain additions and reservations of his own for which the text gives no occasion, while Ramanuja is able to take the Sutra as it stands.  To exemplify this remark, I again direct attention to all those Sutras which in clear terms represent the individual soul as something different from the highest soul, and concerning which Sa@nkara is each time obliged to have recourse to the plea of the Sutra referring, not to what is true in the strict sense of the word, but only to what is conventionally looked upon as true.  It is, I admit, not altogether impossible that Sa@nkara’s interpretation should represent the real meaning of the Sutras; that the latter, indeed, to use the terms employed by Dr. Deussen, should for the nonce set forth an exoteric doctrine adapted to the common notions of mankind, which, however, can be rightly understood by him only to whose mind the esoteric doctrine is all the while present.  This is not impossible, I say; but it is a point which requires convincing proofs before it can be allowed.—­We have had, in the second place, to note a certain number of adhikara/n/as and Sutras concerning whose interpretation Sa@nkara and Ramanuja disagree altogether; and we have seen that not unfrequently the explanations given by the latter commentator appear to be preferable because falling in more easily with the words of the text.  The most striking instance of this is afforded by the 13th adhikara/n/a of II, 3, which treats of the size of the jiva, and where Ramanuja’s explanation seems to be decidedly superior to Sa@nkara’s, both if we look to the arrangement of the whole adhikara/n/a and to the wording of the single Sutras.  The adhikara/n/a is, moreover, a specially important one, because the nature of the view held as to the size of the individual soul goes far to settle the question what kind of Vedanta is embodied in Badaraya/n/a’s work.

But it will be requisite not only to dwell on the interpretations of a few detached Sutras, but to make the attempt at least of forming some opinion as to the relation of the Vedanta-sutras as a whole to the chief distinguishing doctrines of Sa@nkara as well as Ramanuja.  Such an attempt may possibly lead to very slender positive results; but in the present state of the enquiry even a merely negative result, viz. the conclusion that the Sutras do not teach particular doctrines found in them by certain commentators, will not be without its value.

Page 59

The first question we wish to consider in some detail is whether the Sutras in any way favour Sa@nkara’s doctrine that we have to distinguish a twofold knowledge of Brahman, a higher knowledge which leads to the immediate absorption, on death, of the individual soul in Brahman, and a lower knowledge which raises its owner merely to an exalted form of individual existence.  The adhyaya first to be considered in this connexion is the fourth one.  According to Sa@nkara the three latter padas of that adhyaya are chiefly engaged in describing the fate of him who dies in the possession of the lower knowledge, while two sections (IV, 2, 12-14; IV, 4, 1-7) tell us what happens to him who, before his death, had risen to the knowledge of the highest Brahman.  According to Ramanuja, on the other hand, the three padas, referring throughout to one subject only, give an uninterrupted account of the successive steps by which the soul of him who knows the Lord through the Upanishads passes, at the time of death, out of the gross body which it had tenanted, ascends to the world of Brahman, and lives there for ever without returning into the sa/m/sara.

On an a priori view of the matter it certainly appears somewhat strange that the concluding section of the Sutras should be almost entirely taken up with describing the fate of him who has after all acquired an altogether inferior knowledge only, and has remained shut out from the true sanctuary of Vedantic knowledge, while the fate of the fully initiated is disposed of in a few occasional Sutras.  It is, I think, not too much to say that no unbiassed student of the Sutras would—­before having allowed himself to be influenced by Sa@nkara’s interpretations—­imagine for a moment that the solemn words, ’From thence is no return, from thence is no return,’ with which the Sutras conclude, are meant to describe, not the lasting condition of him who has reached final release, the highest aim of man, but merely a stage on the way of that soul which is engaged in the slow progress of gradual release, a stage which is indeed greatly superior to any earthly form of existence, but yet itself belongs to the essentially fictitious sa/m/sara, and as such remains infinitely below the bliss of true mukti.  And this a priori impression—­which, although no doubt significant, could hardly be appealed to as decisive—­is confirmed by a detailed consideration of the two sets of Sutras which Sa@nkara connects with the knowledge of the higher Brahman.  How these Sutras are interpreted by Sa@nkara and Ramanuja has been stated above in the conspectus of contents; the points which render the interpretation given by Ramanuja more probable are as follows.  With regard to IV, 2, 12-14, we have to note, in the first place, the circumstance—­relevant although not decisive in itself—­that Sutra 12 does not contain any indication of a new topic being introduced.  In the second place, it can hardly be doubted that

Page 60

The result of this closer consideration of the first set of Sutras, alleged by Sa@nkara to concern the owner of the higher knowledge of Brahman, entitles us to view with some distrust Sa@nkara’s assertion that another set also—­IV, 4, 1-7—­has to be detached from the general topic of the fourth adhyaya, and to be understood as depicting the condition of those who have obtained final absolute release.  And the Sutras themselves do not tend to weaken this preliminary want of confidence.  In the first place their wording also gives no indication whatever of their having to be separated from what precedes as well as what follows.  And, in the second place, the last Sutra of the set (7) obliges Sa@nkara to ascribe to his truly released souls qualities which clearly cannot belong to them; so that he finally is obliged to make the extraordinary statement that those qualities belong to them ‘vyavaharapekshaya,’ while yet the purport of the whole adhikara/n/a is said to be the description of the truly released soul for which no vyavahara exists!  Very truly Sa@nkara’s commentator here remarks, ’atra ke/k/in muhyanti akha/n/da/k/inmatrajanan muktasyajnanabhavat kuta aj/n/anika-dharmayoga/h/,’ and the way in which thereupon he himself attempts to get over the difficulty certainly does not improve matters.

Page 61

In connexion with the two passages discussed, we meet in the fourth adhyaya with another passage, which indeed has no direct bearing on the distinction of apara and para vidya, but may yet be shortly referred to in this place as another and altogether undoubted instance of Sa@nkara’s interpretations not always agreeing with the text of the Sutras.  The Sutras 7-16 of the third pada state the opinions of three different teachers on the question to which Brahman the soul of the vidvan repairs on death, or—­according to Ramanuja—­the worshippers of which Brahman repair to (the highest) Brahman.  Ramanuja treats the views of Badari and Jaimini as two purvapakshas, and the opinion of Badaraya/n/a—­which is stated last—­as the siddhanta. Sa@nkara, on the other hand, detaching the Sutras in which Badaraya/n/a’s view is set forth from the preceding part of the adhikara/n/a (a proceeding which, although not plausible, yet cannot be said to be altogether illegitimate), maintains that Badari’s view, which is expounded first, represents the siddhanta, while Jaimini’s view, set forth subsequently, is to be considered a mere purvapaksha.  This, of course, is altogether inadmissible, it being the invariable practice of the Vedanta-sutras as well as the Purva Mima/m/sa-sutras to conclude the discussion of contested points with the statement of that view which is to be accepted as the authoritative one.  This is so patent that Sa@nkara feels himself called upon to defend his deviation from the general rule (Commentary on IV, 4, 13), without, however, bringing forward any arguments but such as are valid only if Sa@nkara’s system itself is already accepted.

The previous considerations leave us, I am inclined to think, no choice but to side with Ramanuja as to the general subject-matter of the fourth adhyaya of the Sutras.  We need not accept him as our guide in all particular interpretations, but we must acknowledge with him that the Sutras of the fourth adhyaya describe the ultimate fate of one and the same vidvan, and do not afford any basis for the distinction of a higher and lower knowledge of Brahman in Sa@nkara’s sense.

If we have not to discriminate between a lower and a higher knowledge of Brahman, it follows that the distinction of a lower and a higher Brahman is likewise not valid.  But this is not a point to be decided at once on the negative evidence of the fourth adhyaya, but regarding which the entire body of the Vedanta-sutras has to be consulted.  And intimately connected with this investigation—­in fact, one with it from a certain point of view—­is the question whether the Sutras afford any evidence of their author having held the doctrine of Maya, the principle of illusion, by the association with which the highest Brahman, in itself transcending all qualities, appears as the lower Brahman or I/s/vara.  That Ramanuja denies the distinction of the two Brahmans and the doctrine of Maya we have seen above; we shall, however, in the subsequent investigation, pay less attention to his views and interpretations than to the indications furnished by the Sutras themselves.

Page 62

Placing myself at the point of view of a Sa@nkara, I am startled at the outset by the second Sutra of the first adhyaya, which undertakes to give a definition of Brahman.  ’Brahman is that whence the origination and so on (i.e. the sustentation and reabsorption) of this world proceed.’  What, we must ask, is this Sutra meant to define?—­That Brahman, we are inclined to answer, whose cognition the first Sutra declares to constitute the task of the entire Vedanta; that Brahman whose cognition is the only road to final release; that Brahman in fact which Sa@nkara calls the highest.—­But, here we must object to ourselves, the highest Brahman is not properly defined as that from which the world originates.  In later Vedantic writings, whose authors were clearly conscious of the distinction of the higher absolute Brahman and the lower Brahman related to Maya or the world, we meet with definitions of Brahman of an altogether different type.  I need only remind the reader of the current definition of Brahman as sa/k/-kid-ananda, or, to mention one individual instance, refer to the introductory slokas of the Pa/nk/ada/s/i dilating on the sa/m/vid svayam-prabha, the self-luminous principle of thought which in all time, past or future, neither starts into being nor perishes (P.D.  I, 7).  ‘That from which the world proceeds’ can by a Sa@nkara be accepted only as a definition of I/s/vara, of Brahman which by its association with Maya is enabled to project the false appearance of this world, and it certainly is as improbable that the Sutras should open with a definition of that inferior principle, from whose cognition there can accrue no permanent benefit, as, according to a remark made above, it is unlikely that they should conclude with a description of the state of those who know the lower Brahman only, and thus are debarred from obtaining true release.  As soon, on the other hand, as we discard the idea of a twofold Brahman and conceive Brahman as one only, as the all-enfolding being which sometimes emits the world from its own substance and sometimes again retracts it into itself, ever remaining one in all its various manifestations—­a conception which need not by any means be modelled in all its details on the views of the Ramanujas—­the definition of Brahman given in the second Sutra becomes altogether unobjectionable.

We next enquire whether the impression left on the mind by the manner in which Badaraya/n/a defines Brahman, viz. that he does not distinguish between an absolute Brahman and a Brahman associated with Maya, is confirmed or weakened by any other parts of his work.  The Sutras being throughout far from direct in their enunciations, we shall have to look less to particular terms and turns of expression than to general lines of reasoning.  What in this connexion seems specially worthy of being taken into account, is the style of argumentation employed by the Sutrakara against the Sa@nkhya doctrine, which maintains that

Page 63

Page 64

That the Maya doctrine was not present to the mind of the Sutrakara, further appears from the latter part of the fourth pada of the first adhyaya, where it is shown that Brahman is not only the operative but also the material cause of the world.  If anywhere, there would have been the place to indicate, had such been the author’s view, that Brahman is the material cause of the world through Maya only, and that the world is unreal; but the Sutras do not contain a single word to that effect.  Sutra 26, on the other hand, exhibits the significant term ‘pari/n/amat;’ Brahman produces the world by means of a modification of itself.  It is well known that later on, when the terminology of the Vedanta became definitely settled, the term ‘pari/n/avada’ was used to denote that very theory to which the followers of Sa@nkara are most violently opposed, viz. the doctrine according to which the world is not a mere vivarta, i.e. an illusory manifestation of Brahman, but the effect of Brahman undergoing a real change, may that change be conceived to take place in the way taught by Ramanuja or in some other manner.—­With regard to the last-quoted Sutra, as well as to those touched upon above, the commentators indeed maintain that whatever terms and modes of expression are apparently opposed to the vivartavada are in reality reconcilable with it; to Sutra 26, for instance, Govindananda remarks that the term ‘pari/n/ama’ only denotes an effect in general (karyamatra), without implying that the effect is real.  But in cases of this nature we are fully entitled to use our own judgment, even if we were not compelled to do so by the fact that other commentators, such as Ramanuja, are satisfied to take ‘pari/n/ama’ and similar terms in their generally received sense.

A further section treating of the nature of Brahman is met with in III, 2, 11 ff.  It is, according to Sa@nkara’s view, of special importance, as it is alleged to set forth that Brahman is in itself destitute of all qualities, and is affected with qualities only through its limiting adjuncts (upadhis), the offspring of Maya.  I have above (in the conspectus of contents) given a somewhat detailed abstract of the whole section as interpreted by Sa@nkara on the one hand, and Ramanuja on the other hand, from which it appears that the latter’s opinion as to the purport of the group of Sutras widely diverges from that of Sa@nkara.  The wording of the Sutras is so eminently concise and vague that I find it impossible to decide which of the two commentators—­if indeed either—­is to be accepted as a trustworthy guide; regarding the sense of some Sutras Sa@nkara’s explanation seems to deserve preference, in the case of others Ramanuja seems to keep closer to the text.  I decidedly prefer, for instance, Ramanuja’s interpretation of Sutra 22, as far as the sense of the entire Sutra is concerned, and more especially with regard to the term ‘prak/ri/taitavattvam,’

Page 65

With special reference to the Maya doctrine one important Sutra has yet to be considered, the only one in which the term ‘maya’ itself occurs, viz.  III, 2, 3.  According to Sa@nkara the Sutra signifies that the environments of the dreaming soul are not real but mere Maya, i.e. unsubstantial illusion, because they do not fully manifest the character of real objects.  Ramanuja (as we have seen in the conspectus) gives a different explanation of the term ‘maya,’ but in judging of Sa@nkara’s views we may for the time accept Sa@nkara’s own interpretation.  Now, from the latter it clearly follows that if the objects seen in dreams are to be called Maya, i.e. illusion, because not evincing the characteristics of reality, the objective world surrounding the waking soul must not be called Maya.  But that the world perceived by waking men is Maya, even in a higher sense than the world presented to the dreaming consciousness, is an undoubted tenet of the Sa@nkara Vedanta; and the Sutra therefore proves either that Badaraya/n/a did not hold the doctrine of the illusory character of the world, or else that, if after all he did hold that doctrine, he used the term ‘maya’ in a sense altogether different from that in which Sa@nkara employs it.—­If, on the other hand, we, with Ramanuja, understand the word ‘maya’ to denote a wonderful thing, the Sutra of course has no bearing whatever on the doctrine of Maya in its later technical sense.

We now turn to the question as to the relation of the individual soul to Brahman.  Do the Sutras indicate anywhere that their author held Sa@nkara’s doctrine, according to which the jiva is in reality identical with Brahman, and separated from it, as it were, only by a false surmise due to avidya, or do they rather favour the view that the souls, although they have sprung from Brahman, and constitute elements of its nature, yet enjoy a kind of individual existence apart from it?  This question is in fact only another aspect of the Maya question, but yet requires a short separate treatment.

Page 66

In the conspectus I have given it as my opinion that the Sutras in which the size of the individual soul is discussed can hardly be understood in Sa@nkara’s sense, and rather seem to favour the opinion, held among others by Ramanuja, that the soul is of minute size.  We have further seen that Sutra 18 of the third pada of the second adhyaya, which describes the soul as ‘j/n/a,’ is more appropriately understood in the sense assigned to it by Ramanuja; and, again, that the Sutras which treat of the soul being an agent, can be reconciled with Sa@nkara’s views only if supplemented in a way which their text does not appear to authorise.—­We next have the important Sutra II, 3, 43 in which the soul is distinctly said to be a part (a/ms/a) of Brahman, and which, as we have already noticed, can be made to fall in with Sa@nkara’s views only if a/ms/a is explained, altogether arbitrarily, by ‘a/ms/a iva,’ while Ramanuja is able to take the Sutra as it stands.—­We also have already referred to Sutra 50, ‘abhasa eva ka,’ which Sa@nkara interprets as setting forth the so-called pratibimbavada according to which the individual Self is merely a reflection of the highest Self.  But almost every Sutra—­and Sutra 50 forms no exception—­being so obscurely expressed, that viewed by itself it admits of various, often totally opposed, interpretations, the only safe method is to keep in view, in the case of each ambiguous aphorism, the general drift and spirit of the whole work, and that, as we have seen hitherto, is by no means favourable to the pratibimba doctrine.  How indeed could Sutra 50, if setting forth that latter doctrine, be reconciled with Sutra 43, which says distinctly that the soul is a part of Brahman?  For that 43 contains, as Sa@nkara and his commentators aver, a statement of the ava/kkh/edavada, can itself be accepted only if we interpret a/ms/a by a/ms/a iva, and to do so there is really no valid reason whatever.  I confess that Ramanuja’s interpretation of the Sutra (which however is accepted by several other commentators also) does not appear to me particularly convincing; and the Sutras unfortunately offer us no other passages on the ground of which we might settle the meaning to be ascribed to the term abhasa, which may mean ‘reflection,’ but may mean hetvabhasa, i.e. fallacious argument, as well.  But as things stand, this one Sutra cannot, at any rate, be appealed to as proving that the pratibimbavada which, in its turn, presupposes the mayavada, is the teaching of the Sutras.

To the conclusion that the Sutrakara did not hold the doctrine of the absolute identity of the highest and the individual soul in the sense of Sa@nkara, we are further led by some other indications to be met with here and there in the Sutras.  In the conspectus of contents we have had occasion to direct attention to the important Sutra II, 1, 22, which distinctly enunciates that the Lord is adhika, i.e.

Page 67

There remains one more important passage concerning the relation of the individual soul to the highest Self, a passage which attracted our attention above, when we were reviewing the evidence for early divergence of opinion among the teachers of the Vedanta.  I mean I, 4, 20-22, which three Sutras state the views of A/s/marathya, Au/d/ulomi, and Ka/s/akr/ri/tsna as to the reason why, in a certain passage of the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka, characteristics of the individual soul are ascribed to the highest Self.  The siddhanta view is enounced in Sutra 22, ‘avasthiter iti Ka/s/ak/ri/tsna/h/’ i.e.  Ka/s/ak/ri/tsna (accounts for the circumstance mentioned) on the ground of the ’permanent abiding or abode.’  By this ‘permanent abiding’ Sa@nkara understands the Lord’s abiding as, i.e.

Page 68

If, now, I am shortly to sum up the results of the preceding enquiry as to the teaching of the Sutras, I must give it as my opinion that they do not set forth the distinction of a higher and lower knowledge of Brahman; that they do not acknowledge the distinction of Brahman and I/s/vara in Sa@nkara’s sense; that they do not hold the doctrine of the unreality of the world; and that they do not, with Sa@nkara, proclaim the absolute identity of the individual and the highest Self.  I do not wish to advance for the present beyond these negative results.  Upon Ramanuja’s mode of interpretation—­although I accept it without reserve in some important details—­I look on the whole as more useful in providing us with a powerful means of criticising Sa@nkara’s explanations than in guiding us throughout to the right understanding of the text.  The author of the Sutras may have held views about the nature of Brahman, the world, and the soul differing from those of Sa@nkara, and yet not agreeing in all points with those of Ramanuja.  If, however, the negative conclusions stated above should be well founded, it would follow even from them that the system of Badaraya/n/a had greater affinities with that of the Bhagavatas and Ramanuja than with the one of which the Sa@nkara-bhashya is the classical exponent.

It appears from the above review of the teaching of the Sutras that only a comparatively very small proportion of them contribute matter enabling us to form a judgment as to the nature of the philosophical doctrine advocated by Badaraya/n/a.  The reason of this is that the greater part of the work is taken up with matters which, according to Sa@nkara’s terminology, form part of the so-called lower knowledge, and throw no light upon philosophical questions in the stricter sense of the word.  This circumstance is not without significance.  In later works belonging to Sa@nkara’s school in which the distinction of a higher and lower vidya is clearly recognised, the topics constituting the latter are treated with great shortness; and rightly so, for they are unable to accomplish the highest

Page 69

The question as to what kind of system is represented by the Vedanta-sutras may be approached in another way also.  While hitherto we have attempted to penetrate to the meaning of the Sutras by means of the different commentaries, we might try the opposite road, and, in the first place, attempt to ascertain independently of the Sutras what doctrine is set forth in the Upanishads, whose teaching the Sutras doubtless aim at systematising.  If, it might be urged, the Upanishads can be convincingly shown to embody a certain settled doctrine, we must consider it at the least highly probable that that very same doctrine—­of whatever special nature it may be—­is hidden in the enigmatical aphorisms of Badaraya/n/a.[24]

I do not, however, consider this line of argumentation a safe one.  Even if it could be shown that the teaching of all the chief Upanishads agrees in all essential points (a subject to which some attention will be paid later on), we should not on that account be entitled unhesitatingly to assume that the Sutras set forth the same doctrine.  Whatever the true philosophy of the Upanishads may be, there remains the undeniable fact that there exist and have existed since very ancient times not one but several essentially differing systems, all of which lay claim to the distinction of being the true representatives of the teaching of the Upanishads as well as of the Sutras.  Let us suppose, for argument’s sake, that, for instance, the doctrine of Maya is distinctly enunciated in the Upanishads; nevertheless Ramanuja and, for all we know to the contrary, the whole series of more ancient commentators on whom he looked as authorities in the interpretation of the Sutras, denied that the Upanishads teach Maya, and it is hence by no means impossible that Badaraya/n/a should have done the same.  The a priori style of reasoning as to the teaching of the Sutras is therefore without much force.

Page 70

But apart from any intention of arriving thereby at the meaning of the Sutras there, of course, remains for us the all-important question as to the true teaching of the Upanishads, a question which a translator of the Sutras and Sa@nkara cannot afford to pass over in silence, especially after reason has been shown for the conclusion that the Sutras and the Sa@nkara-bhashya do not agree concerning most important points of Vedantic doctrine.  The Sutras as well as the later commentaries claim, in the first place, to be nothing more than systematisations of the Upanishads, and for us a considerable part at least of their value and interest lies in this their nature.  Hence the further question presents itself by whom the teaching of the Upanishads has been most adequately systematised, whether by Badaraya/n/a, or Sa@nkara, or Ramanuja, or some other commentator.  This question requires to be kept altogether separate from the enquiry as to which commentator most faithfully renders the contents of the Sutras, and it is by no means impossible that Sa@nkara, for instance, should in the end have to be declared a more trustworthy guide with regard to the teaching of the Upanishads than concerning the meaning of the Sutras.

We must remark here at once that, whatever commentator may be found to deserve preference on the whole, it appears fairly certain already at the outset that none of the systems which Indian ingenuity has succeeded in erecting on the basis of the Upanishads can be accepted in its entirety.  The reason for this lies in the nature of the Upanishads themselves.  To the Hindu commentator and philosopher the Upanishads came down as a body of revealed truth whose teaching had, somehow or other, to be shown to be thoroughly consistent and free from contradictions; a system had to be devised in which a suitable place could be allotted to every one of the multitudinous statements which they make on the various points of Vedantic doctrine.  But to the European scholar, or in fact to any one whose mind is not bound by the doctrine of Sruti, it will certainly appear that all such attempts stand self-condemned.  If anything is evident even on a cursory review of the Upanishads—­and the impression so created is only strengthened by a more careful investigation—­it is that they do not constitute a systematic whole.  They themselves, especially the older ones, give the most unmistakable indications on that point.  Not only are the doctrines expounded in the different Upanishads ascribed to different teachers, but even the separate sections of one and the same Upanishad are assigned to different authorities.  It would be superfluous to quote examples of what a mere look at the Chandogya Upanishad, for instance, suffices to prove.  It is of course not impossible that even a multitude of teachers should agree in imparting precisely the same doctrine; but in the case of the Upanishads that is certainly not antecedently probable.  For, in the first place,

Page 71

Page 72

And a closer investigation of the contents of the Upanishads amply confirms this preliminary impression.  If we avail ourselves, for instance, of M. Paul Regnaud’s Materiaux pour servir a l’Histoire de la Philosophie de l’Inde, in which the philosophical lucubrations of the different Upanishads are arranged systematically according to topics, we can see with ease how, together with a certain uniformity of general leading conceptions, there runs throughout divergence in details, and very often not unimportant details.  A look, for instance, at the collection of passages relative to the origination of the world from the primitive being, suffices to show that the task of demonstrating that whatever the Upanishads teach on that point can be made to fit into a homogeneous system is an altogether hopeless one.  The accounts there given of the creation belong, beyond all doubt to different stages of philosophic and theological development or else to different sections of priestly society.  None but an Indian commentator would, I suppose, be inclined and sufficiently courageous to attempt the proof that, for instance, the legend of the atman purushavidha, the Self in the shape of a person which is as large as man and woman together, and then splits itself into two halves from which cows, horses, asses, goats, &c. are produced in succession (B/ri/.  Up.  I, 1, 4), can be reconciled with the account given of the creation in the Chandogya Upanishad, where it is said that in the beginning there existed nothing but the sat, ’that which is,’ and that feeling a desire of being many it emitted out of itself ether, and then all the other elements in due succession.  The former is a primitive cosmogonic myth, which in its details shows striking analogies with the cosmogonic myths of other nations; the latter account is fairly developed Vedanta (although not Vedanta implying the Maya doctrine).  We may admit that both accounts show a certain fundamental similarity in so far as they derive the manifold world from one original being; but to go beyond this and to maintain, as Sa@nkara does, that the atman purushavidha of the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka is the so-called Virag of the latter Vedanta—­implying thereby that that section consciously aims at describing only the activity of one special form of I/s/vara, and not simply the whole process of creation—­is the ingenious shift of an orthodox commentator in difficulties, but nothing more.

How all those more or less conflicting texts came to be preserved and handed down to posterity, is not difficult to understand.  As mentioned above, each of the great sections of Brahminical priesthood had its own sacred texts, and again in each of those sections there existed more ancient texts which it was impossible to discard when deeper and more advanced speculations began in their turn to be embodied in literary compositions, which in the course of time likewise came to be looked upon as sacred.  When the creative period had reached its termination, and

Page 73

For a comprehensive criticism of the methods which the different commentators employ in systematizing the contents of the Upanishads there is no room in this place.  In order, however, to illustrate what is meant by the ‘impossibility,’ above alluded to, of combining the various doctrines of the Upanishads into a whole without doing violence to a certain number of texts, it will be as well to analyse in detail some few at least of Sa@nkara’s interpretations, and to render clear the considerations by which he is guided.

We begin with a case which has already engaged our attention when discussing the meaning of the Sutras, viz. the question concerning the ultimate fate of those who have attained the knowledge of Brahman.  As we have seen, Sa@nkara teaches that the soul of him who has risen to an insight into the nature of the higher Brahman does not, at the moment of death, pass out of the body, but is directly merged in Brahman by a process from which all departing and moving, in fact all considerations of space, are altogether excluded.  The soul of him, on the other hand, who has not risen above the knowledge of the lower qualified Brahman departs from the body by means of the artery called sushum/n/a, and following the so-called devayana, the path of the gods, mounts up to the world of Brahman.  A review of the chief Upanishad texts on which Sa@nkara founds this distinction will show how far it is justified.

In a considerable number of passages the Upanishads contrast the fate of two classes of men, viz. of those who perform sacrifices and meritorious works only, and of those who in addition possess a certain kind of knowledge.  Men of the former kind ascend after death to the moon, where they live for a certain time, and then return to the earth into new forms of embodiment; persons of the latter kind proceed on the path of the gods—­on which the sun forms one stage—­up to the world of Brahman, from which there is no return.  The chief passages to that effect are Ch.  Up.  V, 10; Kaush.  Up.  I, 2 ff.; Mu/nd/.  Up.  I, 2, 9 ff.; B/ri/.  Up.  VI, 2, 15 ff.; Pra/s/na Up.  I, 9 ff.—­In other passages only the latter of the two paths is referred to, cp.  Ch.  Up.  IV, 15; VIII 6, 5; Taitt.  Up.  I, 6; B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 4, 8, 9; V, 10; Maitr.  Up.  VI, 30, to mention only the more important ones.

Page 74

Now an impartial consideration of those passages shows I think, beyond any doubt, that what is meant there by the knowledge which leads through the sun to the world of Brahman is the highest knowledge of which the devotee is capable, and that the world of Brahman to which his knowledge enables him to proceed denotes the highest state which he can ever reach, the state of final release, if we choose to call it by that name.—­Ch.  Up.  V, 10 says, ’Those who know this (viz. the doctrine of the five fires), and those who in the forest follow faith and austerities go to light,’ &c.—­Ch.  Up.  IV, 15 is manifestly intended to convey the true knowledge of Brahman; Upako/s/ala’s teacher himself represents the instruction given by him as superior to the teaching of the sacred fires.—­Ch.  Up.  VIII, 6, 5 quotes the old sloka which says that the man moving upwards by the artery penetrating the crown of the head reaches the Immortal.—­Kaush.  Up.  I, 2—­which gives the most detailed account of the ascent of the soul—­contains no intimation whatever of the knowledge of Brahman, which leads up to the Brahman world, being of an inferior nature.—­Mu/nd/.  Up.  I, 2, 9 agrees with the Chandogya in saying that ’Those who practise penance and faith in the forest, tranquil, wise, and living on alms, depart free from passion, through the sun, to where that immortal Person dwells whose nature is imperishable,’ and nothing whatever in the context countenances the assumption that not the highest knowledge and the highest Person are there referred to.—­B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 4, 8 quotes old slokas clearly referring to the road of the gods (’the small old path’), on which ’sages who know Brahman move on to the svargaloka and thence higher on as entirely free.—­That path was found by Brahman, and on it goes whoever knows Brahman.’—­B/ri/.  Up.  VI, 2, 15 is another version of the Pa/nk/agnividya, with the variation, ’Those who know this, and those who in the forest worship faith and the True, go to light,’ &c.—­Pra/s/na Up. 1, 10 says, ’Those who have sought the Self by penance, abstinence, faith, and knowledge gain by the northern path Aditya, the sun.  There is the home of the spirits, the immortal free from danger, the highest.  From thence they do not return, for it is the end.’—­Maitr.  Up.  VI, 30 quotes slokas, ’One of them (the arteries) leads upwards, piercing the solar orb:  by it, having stepped beyond the world of Brahman, they go to the highest path.’

All these passages are as clear as can be desired.  The soul of the sage who knows Brahman passes out by the sushum/n/a, and ascends by the path of the gods to the world of Brahman, there to remain for ever in some blissful state.  But, according to Sa@nkara, all these texts are meant to set forth the result of a certain inferior knowledge only, of the knowledge of the conditioned Brahman.  Even in a passage apparently so entirely incapable of more than one interpretation as B/ri/.  Up.  VI, 2, 15,

Page 75

We have seen above (p. lxxx) that this passage is referred to in the important Sutras on whose right interpretation it, in the first place, depends whether or not we must admit the Sutrakara to have acknowledged the distinction of a para and an apara vidya.  Here the passage interests us as throwing light on the way in which Sa@nkara systematises.  He looks on the preceding part of the chapter as describing what happens to the souls of all those who do not know the highest Brahman, inclusive of those who know the lower Brahman only.  They pass out of the old bodies followed by all pra/n/as and enter new bodies.  He, on the other hand, section 6 continues, who knows the true Brahman, does not pass out of the body, but becomes one with Brahman then and there.  This interpretation of the purport of the entire chapter is not impossibly right, although I am rather inclined to think that the chapter aims at setting forth in its earlier part the future of him who does not know Brahman at all, while the latter part of section 6 passes on to him who does know Brahman (i.e.  Brahman pure and simple, the text knowing of no distinction of the so-called lower and higher Brahman).  In explaining section 6 Sa@nkara lays stress upon the clause ’na tasya pra/n/a utkramanti,’ ‘his vital spirits do not pass out,’ taking this to signify that the soul with the vital spirits does not move at all, and thus does not ascend to the world of Brahman; while the purport of the clause may simply be that the soul and vital spirits do not go anywhere else, i.e. do not enter a new body, but are united, somehow or other, with Brahman.  On Sa@nkara’s interpretation there immediately arises a new difficulty.  In the slokas, quoted under sections 8 and 9, the description of the small old path which leads to the svargaloka and higher on clearly refers—­as noticed already above—­to the path through the veins, primarily the sushum/n/a, on which, according to so many other passages, the soul of the wise mounts upwards.  But that path is, according to Sa@nkara, followed by him only who has not risen above the lower knowledge, and yet the slokas have manifestly to be connected with what is said in the latter half of 6 about the owner of the para vidya.  Hence Sa@nkara sees himself driven to explain the slokas in 8 and 9 (of which a faithful translation is given in Professor Max Mueller’s version) as follows: 

Page 76

8.  ’The subtle old path (i.e. the path of knowledge on which final release is reached; which path is subtle, i.e. difficult to know, and old, i.e. to be known from the eternal Veda) has been obtained and fully reached by me.  On it the sages who know Brahman reach final release (svargaloka/s/abda/h/ samnihitaprakara/n/at mokshabhidhayaka/h/).

9.  ’On that path they say that there is white or blue or yellow or green or red (i.e. others maintain that the path to final release is, in accordance with the colour of the arteries, either white or blue, &c.; but that is false, for the paths through the arteries lead at the best to the world of Brahman, which itself forms part of the sa/m/sara); that path (i.e. the only path to release, viz. the path of true knowledge) is found by Brahman, i.e. by such Brahma/n/as as through true knowledge have become like Brahman,’ &c.

A significant instance in truth of the straits to which thorough-going systematisers of the Upanishads see themselves reduced occasionally!

But we return to the point which just now chiefly interests us.  Whether Sa@nkara’s interpretation of the chapter, and especially of section 6, be right or wrong, so much is certain that we are not entitled to view all those texts which speak of the soul going to the world of Brahman as belonging to the so-called lower knowledge, because a few other passages declare that the sage does not go to Brahman.  The text which declares the sage free from desires to become one with Brahman could not, without due discrimination, be used to define and limit the meaning of other passages met with in the same Upanishad even—­for as we have remarked above the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka contains pieces manifestly belonging to different stages of development;—­much less does it entitle us to put arbitrary constructions on passages forming part of other Upanishads.  Historically the disagreement of the various accounts is easy to understand.  The older notion was that the soul of the wise man proceeds along the path of the gods to Brahman’s abode.  A later—­and, if we like, more philosophic—­conception is that, as Brahman already is a man’s Self, there is no need of any motion on man’s part to reach Brahman.  We may even apply to those two views the terms apara and para—­lower and higher—­knowledge.  But we must not allow any commentator to induce us to believe that what he from his advanced standpoint looks upon as an inferior kind of cognition, was viewed in the same light by the authors of the Upanishads.

We turn to another Upanishad text likewise touching upon the point considered in what precedes, viz. the second Brahma/n/a of the third adhyaya of the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka.  The discussion there first turns upon the grahas and atigrahas, i.e. the senses and organs and their objects, and Yajnavalkya thereupon explains that death, by which everything is overcome, is itself overcome by water; for death

Page 77

Page 78

The whole third adhyaya indeed of the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka affords ample proof of the artificial character of Sa@nkara’s attempts to show that the teaching of the Upanishads follows a definite system.  The eighth brahma/n/a, for instance, is said to convey the doctrine of the highest non-related Brahman, while the preceding brahma/n/as had treated only of I/s/vara in his various aspects.  But, as a matter of fact, brahma/n/a 8, after having, in section 8, represented Brahman as destitute of all qualities, proceeds, in the next section, to describe that very same Brahman as the ruler of the world, ’By the command of that Imperishable sun and moon stand apart,’ &c.; a clear indication that the author of the Upanishad does not distinguish a higher and lower Brahman in—­Sa@nkara’s sense.—­The preceding brahma/n/a (7) treats of the antaryamin, i.e.  Brahman viewed as the internal ruler of everything.  This, according to Sa@nkara, is the lower form of Brahman called I/s/vara; but we observe that the antaryamin as well as the so-called highest Brahman described in section 8 is, at the termination of the two sections, characterised by means of the very same terms (7, 23:  Unseen but seeing, unheard but hearing, &c.  There is no other seer but he, there is no other hearer but he, &c.; and 8, 11:  That Brahman is unseen but seeing, unheard but hearing, &c.  There is nothing that sees but it, nothing that hears but it, &c.).—­Nothing can be clearer than that all these sections aim at describing one and the same being, and know nothing of the distinctions made by the developed Vedanta, however valid the latter may be from a purely philosophic point of view.

We may refer to one more similar instance from the Chandogya Upanishad.  We there meet in III, 14 with one of the most famous vidyas describing the nature of Brahman, called after its reputed author the Sa/nd/ilya-vidya.  This small vidya is decidedly one of the finest and most characteristic texts; it would be difficult to point out another passage setting forth with greater force and eloquence and in an equally short compass the central doctrine of the Upanishads.  Yet this text, which, beyond doubt, gives utterance to the highest conception of Brahman’s nature that Sa/nd/ilya’s thought was able to reach, is by Sa@nkara and his school again declared to form part of the lower vidya only, because it represents Brahman as possessing qualities.  It is, according to their terminology, not j/n/ana, i.e. knowledge, but the injunction of a mere upasana, a devout meditation on Brahman in so far as possessing certain definite attributes such as having light for its form, having true thoughts, and so on.  The Ramanujas, on the other hand, quote this text with preference as clearly describing the nature of their highest, i.e. their one Brahman.  We again allow that Sa@nkara is free to deny that any text which ascribes qualities to Brahman embodies absolute truth; but we also again remark that there is no reason whatever for supposing that Sa/nd/ilya, or whoever may have been the author of that vidya, looked upon it as anything else but a statement of the highest truth accessible to man.

Page 79

We return to the question as to the true philosophy of the Upanishads, apart from the systems of the commentators.—­From what precedes it will appear with sufficient distinctness that, if we understand by philosophy a philosophical system coherent in all its parts, free from all contradictions and allowing room for all the different statements made in all the chief Upanishads, a philosophy of the Upanishads cannot even be spoken of.  The various lucubrations on Brahman, the world, and the human soul of which the Upanishads consist do not allow themselves to be systematised simply because they were never meant to form a system. Sa/nd/ilya’s views as to the nature of Brahman did not in all details agree with those of Yaj/n/avalkya, and Uddalaka differed from both.  In this there is nothing to wonder at, and the burden of proof rests altogether with those who maintain that a large number of detached philosophic and theological dissertations, ascribed to different authors, doubtless belonging to different periods, and not seldom manifestly contradicting each other, admit of being combined into a perfectly consistent whole.

The question, however, assumes a different aspect, if we take the terms ‘philosophy’ and ‘philosophical system,’ not in the strict sense in which Sa@nkara and other commentators are not afraid of taking them, but as implying merely an agreement in certain fundamental features.  In this latter sense we may indeed undertake to indicate the outlines of a philosophy of the Upanishads, only keeping in view that precision in details is not to be aimed at.  And here we finally see ourselves driven back altogether on the texts themselves, and have to acknowledge that the help we receive from commentators, to whatever school they may belong, is very inconsiderable.  Fortunately it cannot be asserted that the texts on the whole oppose very serious difficulties to a right understanding, however obscure the details often are.  Concerning the latter we occasionally depend entirely on the explanations vouchsafed by the scholiasts, but as far as the general drift and spirit of the texts are concerned, we are quite able to judge by ourselves, and are even specially qualified to do so by having no particular system to advocate.

The point we will first touch upon is the same from which we started when examining the doctrine of the Sutras, viz. the question whether the Upanishads acknowledge a higher and lower knowledge in Sa@nkara’s sense, i.e. a knowledge of a higher and a lower Brahman.  Now this we find not to be the case.  Knowledge is in the Upanishads frequently opposed to avidya, by which latter term we have to understand ignorance as to Brahman, absence of philosophic knowledge; and, again, in several places we find the knowledge of the sacrificial part of the Veda with its supplementary disciplines contrasted as inferior with the knowledge of the Self; to which latter distinction the Mu/nd/aka

Page 80

Closely connected with the question as to the double nature of the Brahman of the Upanishads is the question as to their teaching Maya.—­From Colebrooke downwards the majority of European writers have inclined towards the opinion that the doctrine of Maya, i.e. of the unreal illusory character of the sensible world, does not constitute a feature of the primitive philosophy of the Upanishads, but was introduced into the system at some later period, whether by Badaraya/n/a or Sa@nkara or somebody else.  The opposite view, viz. that the doctrine of Maya forms an integral element of the teaching of the Upanishads, is implied in them everywhere, and enunciated more or less distinctly in more than one place, has in recent times been advocated with much force by Mr. Gough in the ninth chapter of his Philosophy of the Upanishads.

In his Materiaux, &c.  M. Paul Regnaud remarks that ’the doctrine of Maya, although implied in the teaching of the Upanishads, could hardly become clear and explicit before the system had reached a stage of development necessitating a choice between admitting two co-existent eternal principles (which became the basis of the Sa@nkhya philosophy), and accepting the predominance of the intellectual principle, which in the end necessarily led to the negation of the opposite principle.’—­To the two alternatives here referred to as possible we, however, have to add a third one, viz. that form of the Vedanta of which the theory of the Bhagavatas or Ramanujas

Page 81

In enquiring whether the Upanishads maintain the Maya doctrine or not, we must proceed with the same caution as regards other parts of the system, i.e. we must refrain from using unhesitatingly, and without careful consideration of the merits of each individual case, the teaching—­direct or inferred—­of any one passage to the end of determining the drift of the teaching of other passages.  We may admit that some passages, notably of the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka, contain at any rate the germ of the later developed Maya doctrine[25], and thus render it quite intelligible that a system like Sa@nkara’s should evolve itself, among others, out of the Upanishads; but that affords no valid reason for interpreting Maya into other texts which give a very satisfactory sense without that doctrine, or are even clearly repugnant to it.  This remark applies in the very first place to all the accounts of the creation of the physical universe.  There, if anywhere, the illusional character of the world should have been hinted at, at least, had that theory been held by the authors of those accounts; but not a word to that effect is met with anywhere.  The most important of those accounts—­the one given in the sixth chapter of the Chandogya Upanishad—­forms no exception.  There is absolutely no reason to assume that the ‘sending forth’ of the elements from the primitive Sat, which is there described at length, was by the writer of that passage meant to represent a vivarta rather than a pari/n/ama that the process of the origination of the physical universe has to be conceived as anything else but a real manifestation of real powers hidden in the primeval Self.  The introductory words, addressed to Svetaketu by Uddalaka, which are generally appealed to as intimating the unreal character of the evolution about to be described, do not, if viewed impartially, intimate any such thing[26].  For what is capable of being proved, and manifestly meant to be proved, by the illustrative instances of the lump of clay and the nugget of gold, through which there are known all things made of clay and gold?  Merely that this whole world has Brahman for its causal substance, just as clay is the causal matter of every earthen pot, and gold of every golden ornament, but not that the process through which any causal substance becomes an effect is an unreal one.  We—­including Uddalaka—­may surely say that all earthen pots are in reality nothing but earth—­the earthen pot being merely a special modification (vikara) of clay which has a name of its own—­without thereby committing ourselves to the doctrine that the change of form, which a lump of clay undergoes when being fashioned into a pot, is not real but a mere baseless illusion.

Page 82

In the same light we have to view numerous other passages which set forth the successive emanations proceeding from the first principle.  When, for instance, we meet in the Ka/th/a Up.  I, 3, 10, in the serial enumeration of the forms of existence intervening between the gross material world and the highest Self (the Person), with the ‘avyak/ri/ta,’ the Undeveloped, immediately below the purusha; and when again the Mu/nd/aka Up.  II, 1, 2, speaks of the ‘high Imperishable’ higher than which is the heavenly Person; there is no reason whatever to see in that ‘Undeveloped’ and that ‘high Imperishable’ anything but that real element in Brahman from which, as in the Ramanuja system, the material universe springs by a process of real development.  We must of course render it quite clear to ourselves in what sense the terms ‘real’ and ‘unreal’ have to be understood.  The Upanishads no doubt teach emphatically that the material world does not owe its existence to any principle independent from the Lord like the pradhana of the Sa@nkhyas; the world is nothing but a manifestation of the Lord’s wonderful power, and hence is unsubstantial, if we take the term ‘substance’ in its strict sense.  And, again, everything material is immeasurably inferior in nature to the highest spiritual principle from which it has emanated, and which it now hides from the individual soul.  But neither unsubstantiality nor inferiority of the kind mentioned constitutes unreality in the sense in which the Maya of Sa@nkara is unreal.  According to the latter the whole world is nothing but an erroneous appearance, as unreal as the snake, for which a piece of rope is mistaken by the belated traveller, and disappearing just as the imagined snake does as soon as the light of true knowledge has risen.  But this is certainly not the impression left on the mind by a comprehensive review of the Upanishads which dwells on their general scope, and does not confine itself to the undue urging of what may be implied in some detached passages.  The Upanishads do not call upon us to look upon the whole world as a baseless illusion to be destroyed by knowledge; the great error which they admonish us to relinquish is rather that things have a separate individual existence, and are not tied together by the bond of being all of them effects of Brahman, or Brahman itself.  They do not say that true knowledge sublates this false world, as Sa@nkara says, but that it enables the sage to extricate himself from the world—­the inferior murta rupa of Brahman, to use an expression of the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka—­and to become one with Brahman in its highest form.  ‘We are to see everything in Brahman, and Brahman in everything;’ the natural meaning of this is, ’we are to look upon this whole world as a true manifestation of Brahman, as sprung from it and animated by it.’  The mayavadin has indeed appropriated the above saying also, and interpreted it so as to fall in with his theory; but he is able to do so only by perverting its manifest sense.  For him it would be appropriate to say, not that everything we see is in Brahman, but rather that everything we see is out of Brahman, viz. as a false appearance spread over it and hiding it from us.

Page 83

Stress has been laid[27] upon certain passages of the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka which seem to hint at the unreality of this world by qualifying terms, indicative of duality or plurality of existence, by means of an added ‘iva,’ i.e. ‘as it were’ (yatranyad iva syat; yatra dvaitam iva bhavati; atma dhyayativa lelayativa).  Those passages no doubt readily lend themselves to Maya interpretations, and it is by no means impossible that in their author’s mind there was something like an undeveloped Maya doctrine.  I must, however, remark that they, on the other hand, also admit of easy interpretations not in any way presupposing the theory of the unreality of the world.  If Yaj/n/avalkya refers to the latter as that ’where there is something else as it were, where there is duality as it were,’ he may simply mean to indicate that the ordinary opinion, according to which the individual forms of existence of the world are opposed to each other as altogether separate, is a mistaken one, all things being one in so far as they spring from—­and are parts of—­Brahman.  This would in no way involve duality or plurality being unreal in Sa@nkara’s sense, not any more than, for instance, the modes of Spinoza are unreal because, according to that philosopher, there is only one universal substance.  And with regard to the clause ’the Self thinks as it were’ it has to be noted that according to the commentators the ‘as it were’ is meant to indicate that truly not the Self is thinking, but the upadhis, i.e. especially the manas with which the Self is connected.  But whether these upadhis are the mere offspring of Maya, as Sa@nkara thinks, or real forms of existence, as Ramanuja teaches, is an altogether different question.

I do not wish, however, to urge these last observations, and am ready to admit that not impossibly those iva’s indicate that the thought of the writer who employed them was darkly labouring with a conception akin to—­although much less explicit than—­the Maya of Sa@nkara.  But what I object to is, that conclusions drawn from a few passages of, after all, doubtful import should be employed for introducing the Maya doctrine into other passages which do not even hint at it, and are fully intelligible without it.[28]

The last important point in the teaching of the Upanishads we have to touch upon is the relation of the jivas, the individual souls to the highest Self.  The special views regarding that point held by Sa@nkara and Ramanuja, as have been stated before.  Confronting their theories with the texts of the Upanishads we must, I think, admit without hesitation, that Sa@nkara’s doctrine faithfully represents the prevailing teaching of the Upanishads in one important point at least, viz. therein that the soul or Self of the sage—­whatever its original relation to Brahman may be—­is in the end completely merged and indistinguishably lost in the universal Self.  A distinction, repeatedly

Page 84

It is much more difficult to indicate the precise teaching of the Upanishads concerning the original relation of the individual soul to the highest Self, although there can be no doubt that it has to be viewed as proceeding from the latter, and somehow forming a part of it.  Negatively we are entitled to say that the doctrine, according to which the soul is merely brahma bhrantam or brahma mayopadhikam, is in no way countenanced by the majority of the passages bearing on the question.  If the emission of the elements, described in the Chandogya and referred to above, is a real process—­of which we saw no reason to doubt—­the jiva atman with which the highest Self enters into the emitted elements is equally real, a true part or emanation of Brahman itself.

After having in this way shortly reviewed the chief elements of Vedantic doctrine according to the Upanishads, we may briefly consider Sa@nkara’s system and mode of interpretation—­with whose details we had frequent opportunities of finding fault—­as a whole.  It has been said before that the task of reducing the teaching of the whole of the Upanishads to a system consistent and free from contradictions is an intrinsically impossible one.  But the task once being given, we are quite ready to admit that Sa@nkara’s system is most probably the best which can be devised.  While unable to allow that the Upanishads recognise a lower and higher knowledge of Brahman, in fact the distinction of a lower and higher Brahman, we yet acknowledge that the adoption of that distinction furnishes the interpreter with an instrument of extraordinary power for reducing to an orderly whole the heterogeneous material presented by the old theosophic treatises.  This becomes

Page 85

Sa@nkara’s method thus enables him in a certain way to do justice to different stages of historical development, to recognise clearly existing differences which other systematisers are intent on obliterating.  And there has yet to be made a further and even more important admission in favour of his system.  It is not only more pliable, more capable of amalgamating heterogeneous material than other systems, but its fundamental doctrines are manifestly in greater harmony with the essential teaching of the Upanishads than those of other Vedantic systems.  Above we were unable to allow that the distinction made by Sa@nkara between Brahman and I/s/vara is known to the Upanishads; but we must now admit that if, for the purpose of determining the nature of the highest being, a choice has to be made between those texts which represent Brahman as nirgu/n/a, and

Page 86

Page 87

We have above been obliged to leave it an open question what kind of Vedanta is represented by the Vedanta-sutras, although reason was shown for the supposition that in some important points their teaching is more closely related to the system of Ramanuja than to that of Sa@nkara.  If so, the philosophy of Sa@nkara would on the whole stand nearer to the teaching of the Upanishads than the Sutras of Badaraya/n/a.  This would indeed be a somewhat unexpected conclusion—­for, judging a priori, we should be more inclined to assume a direct propagation of the true doctrine of the Upanishads through Badaraya/n/a to Sa@nkara—­but a priori considerations have of course no weight against positive evidence to the contrary.  There are, moreover, other facts in the history of Indian philosophy and theology which help us better to appreciate the possibility of Badaraya/n/a’s Sutras already setting forth a doctrine that lays greater stress on the personal character of the highest being than is in agreement with the prevailing tendency of the Upanishads.  That the pure doctrine of those ancient Brahminical treatises underwent at a rather early period amalgamations with beliefs which most probably had sprung up in altogether different—­priestly or non-priestly—­communities is a well-known circumstance; it suffices for our purposes to refer to the most eminent of the early literary monuments in which an amalgamation of the kind mentioned is observable, viz. the Bhagavadgita.  The doctrine of the Bhagavadgita represents a fusion of the Brahman theory of the Upanishads with the belief in a personal highest being—­K/ri/sh/n/a or Vish/n/u—­which in many respects approximates very closely to the system of the Bhagavatas; the attempts of a certain set of Indian commentators to explain it as setting forth pure Vedanta, i.e. the pure doctrine of the Upanishads, may simply be set aside.  But this same Bhagavadgita is quoted in Badaraya/n/a’s Sutras (at least according to the unanimous explanations of the most eminent scholiasts of different schools) as inferior to Sruti only in authority.  The Sutras, moreover, refer in different places to certain Vedantic portions of the Mahabharata, especially the twelfth book, several of which represent forms of Vedanta distinctly differing from Sa@nkara’s teaching, and closely related to the system of the Bhagavatas.

Facts of this nature—­from entering into the details of which we are prevented by want of space—­tend to mitigate the prima facie strangeness of the assumption that the Vedanta-sutras, which occupy an intermediate position between the Upanishads and Sa@nkara, should yet diverge in their teaching from both.  The Vedanta of Gau/d/apada and Sa@nkara would in that case mark a strictly orthodox reaction against all combinations of non-Vedic elements of belief and doctrine with the teaching of the Upanishads.  But although this form of doctrine has ever since

Page 88

* * * * *

The present translation of the Vedanta-sutras does not aim at rendering that sense which their author may have aimed at conveying, but strictly follows Sa@nkara’s interpretation.  The question as to how far the latter agrees with the views held by Badaraya/n/a has been discussed above, with the result that for the present it must, on the whole, be left an open one.  In any case it would not be feasible to combine a translation of Sa@nkara’s commentary with an independent version of the Sutras which it explains.  Similar considerations have determined the method followed in rendering the passages of the Upanishads referred to in the Sutras and discussed at length by Sa@nkara.  There also the views of the commentator have to be followed closely; otherwise much of the comment would appear devoid of meaning.  Hence, while of course following on the whole the critical translation published by Professor Max Mueller in the earlier volumes of this Series, I had, in a not inconsiderable number of cases, to modify it so as to render intelligible Sa@nkara’s explanations and reasonings.  I hope to find space in the introduction to the second volume of this translation for making some general remarks on the method to be followed in translating the Upanishads.

I regret that want of space has prevented me from extracting fuller notes from later scholiasts.  The notes given are based, most of them, on the tikas composed by Anandagiri and Govindananda (the former of which is unpublished as yet, so far as I know), and on the Bhamati.

Page 89

My best thanks are due to Pa/nd/its Rama Mi/s/ra Sastrin and Ga@ngadhara Sastrin of the Benares Sanskrit College, whom I have consulted on several difficult passages.  Greater still are my obligations to Pa/nd/it Ke/s/ava Sastrin, of the same institution, who most kindly undertook to read a proof of the whole of the present volume, and whose advice has enabled me to render my version of more than one passage more definite or correct.

Notes: 

[Footnote 19:  Nanu vidusho z pi setikartavyatakopasananirv/ri/ttaye v/ri/shyannadiphalanish/t/any eva katha/m/ tesha/m/ virodhad vina/s/a u/k/yate.  Tatraha pate tv iti. Sarirapate tu tesha/m/ vina/s/a/h/ sarirapatad urdhv/m/ tu vidyanugu/n/ad/ri/sh/t/aphalani suk/ri/tani na/s/yantity artha/h/.]

[Footnote 20:  Upalabhyate hi devayanena pantha ga/kkh/ato vidushas tam pratibruuyat satyam bruyad iti kandramasa sa/m/vadava/k/anena sarirasadbhava/h/, ata/h/ sukshma/s/ariram anuvartate.]

[Footnote 21:  When the jiva has passed out of the body and ascends to the world of Brahman, it remains enveloped by the subtle body until it reaches the river Vijara.  There it divests itself of the subtle body, and the latter is merged in Brahman.].

[Footnote 22:  Kim aya/m/ para/m/, yotir upasampanna/h/ saivabandhavinirmukta/h/ pratyagatma svatmana/m/ paramatmana/h/ p/rit/hagbhutam anubhavati uta tatpraharataya tadavibhaktam iti visnye so, snate sarvan kaman saha brahma/n/a vipas/k/ita pasya/h/ pasyate rukmavar/n/a/m/ kartaram isa/m/ purusha/m/ brahmayoni/m/ tada vidvin pu/n/yapape vidhuya nirangana/h/ parama/m/ samyam upaiti ida/m/ jnanam upasritya mama sadharinyam agata/h/ sarve, punopajayante pralayena vyathanti ketyadysruysm/nt/ibhyo muktasta pare/n/a sahityasamyasadharmyavagamat p/ri/thagbhutam anubhavatiu prapte u/k/yate.  Avibhageneti.  Parasmad brahmana/h/ svatmanam avibhagenanubhavati mukta/h/.  Kuta/h/.  D/ri/shtatvat.  Para/m/ brahmopasampadya niv/ri/ttavidyanrodhanasya yathatathyena svatamano d/ri/sh/ta/tvat.  Svatmana/h/ ssvarupa/m/ hi tat tvam asy ayam atma brahma aitadatmyam ida/m/ sarva/m/ sarva/m/ khalv ida/m/ brahnetyadisamanadhikara/n/yanirdesai/h/ ya atmani tishtan atmano ntaro yam atma na veda yastatma sarira/m/ ya atmanam antaro yamayati atmantaryamy am/ri/tah anta/h/ pravishta/h/ sasta ananam ityadibhis ka paramatmatmaka/m/ ta/kk/haritataya tatprakatabhutam iti pratipaditam avashitei iti kasak/ri/stnety atrato vibhagenaha/m/ brahmasmity cvanubhavati.]

[Footnote 23:  Sa@nkara’s favourite illustrative instance of the magician producing illusive sights is—­significantly enough—­not known to the Sutras.]

[Footnote 24:  Cp.  Gough’s Philosophy of the Upanishads, pp. 240 ff.]

[Footnote 25:  It is well known that, with the exception of the Svitasvatara and Maitrayaniya, none of the chief Upanishads exhibits the word ‘maya.’  The term indeed occurs in one place in the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka; but that passage is a quotation from the Rik Sa/m/bita in which maya means ‘creative power.’  Cp.  P. Regnaud, La Maya, in the Revue de l’Histoire des Religions, tome xii, No. 3, 1885.]

Page 90

[Footnote 26:  As is demonstrated very satisfactorily by Ramanuja.]

[Footnote 27:  Gough, Philosophy of the Upanishads pp. 213 ff.]

[Footnote 28:  I cannot discuss in this place the Maya passages of the Svetasvatara and the Maitrayaniya Upanishads.  Reasons which want of space prevents me from setting forth in detail induce me to believe that neither of those two treatises deserves to be considered by us when wishing to ascertain the true immixed doctrine of the Upanishads.]

[Footnote 29:  The I/s/vara who allots to the individual souls their new forms of embodiment in strict accordance with their merit or demerit cannot be called anything else but a personal God.  That this personal conscious being is at the same time identified with the totality of the individual souls in the unconscious state of deep dreamless sleep, is one of those extraordinary contradictions which thorough-going systematisers of Vedantic doctrine are apparently unable to avoid altogether.]

[Footnote 30:  That section of the introduction in which the point referred to in the text is touched upon will I hope form part of the second volume of the translation.  The same remark applies to a point concerning which further information had been promised above on page v.]

[Footnote 31: 

  Cosi tra questa
  Immensita s’annega il pensier mio,
  E il naufrago m’ e dolce in qnesto mare. 
  LEOPARDI.
]

VEDANTA-SUTRAS

WITH

SA@NKARA BHASHYA.

SA@NKARA’S INTRODUCTION

FIRST ADHYAYA.

FIRST PADA.

REVERENCE TO THE AUGUST VASUDEVA!

It is a matter not requiring any proof that the object and the subject[32] whose respective spheres are the notion of the ‘Thou’ (the Non-Ego[33]) and the ‘Ego,’ and which are opposed to each other as much as darkness and light are, cannot be identified.  All the less can their respective attributes be identified.  Hence it follows that it is wrong to superimpose[34] upon the subject—­whose Self is intelligence, and which has for its sphere the notion of the Ego—­the object whose sphere is the notion of the Non-Ego, and the attributes of the object, and vice versa to superimpose the subject and the attributes of the subject on the object.  In spite of this it is on the part of man a natural[35] procedure—­which which has its cause in wrong knowledge—­not to distinguish the two entities (object and subject) and their respective attributes, although they are absolutely distinct, but to superimpose upon each the characteristic nature and the attributes of the other, and thus, coupling the Real and the Unreal[36], to make use of expressions such as ‘That am I,’ ’That is mine.[37]’—­But what have we to understand by the term ’superimposition?’—­The apparent presentation, in the form of remembrance, to consciousness of something previously observed, in some other thing.[38]

Page 91

Some indeed define the term ‘superimposition’ as the superimposition of the attributes of one thing on another thing.[39] Others, again, define superimposition as the error founded on the non-apprehension of the difference of that which is superimposed from that on which it is superimposed.[40] Others[41], again, define it as the fictitious assumption of attributes contrary to the nature of that thing on which something else is superimposed.  But all these definitions agree in so far as they represent superimposition as the apparent presentation of the attributes of one thing in another thing.  And therewith agrees also the popular view which is exemplified by expressions such as the following:  ‘Mother-of-pearl appears like silver,’ ’The moon although one only appears as if she were double.’  But how is it possible that on the interior Self which itself is not an object there should be superimposed objects and their attributes?  For every one superimposes an object only on such other objects as are placed before him (i.e. in contact with his sense-organs), and you have said before that the interior Self which is entirely disconnected from the idea of the Thou (the Non-Ego) is never an object.  It is not, we reply, non-object in the absolute sense.  For it is the object of the notion of the Ego[42], and the interior Self is well known to exist on account of its immediate (intuitive) presentation.[43] Nor is it an exceptionless rule that objects can be superimposed only on such other objects as are before us, i.e. in contact with our sense-organs; for non-discerning men superimpose on the ether, which is not the object of sensuous perception, dark-blue colour.

Hence it follows that the assumption of the Non-Self being superimposed on the interior Self is not unreasonable.

This superimposition thus defined, learned men consider to be Nescience (avidya), and the ascertainment of the true nature of that which is (the Self) by means of the discrimination of that (which is superimposed on the Self), they call knowledge (vidya).  There being such knowledge (neither the Self nor the Non-Self) are affected in the least by any blemish or (good) quality produced by their mutual superimposition[44].  The mutual superimposition of the Self and the Non-Self, which is termed Nescience, is the presupposition on which there base all the practical distinctions—­those made in ordinary life as well as those laid down by the Veda—­between means of knowledge, objects of knowledge (and knowing persons), and all scriptural texts, whether they are concerned with injunctions and prohibitions (of meritorious and non-meritorious actions), or with final release[45].—­But how can the means of right knowledge such as perception, inference, &c., and scriptural texts have for their object that which is dependent on Nescience[46]?—­Because, we reply, the means of right knowledge cannot operate unless there be a knowing personality, and because the existence of the latter depends on the erroneous

Page 92

Page 93

With a view to freeing one’s self from that wrong notion which is the cause of all evil and attaining thereby the knowledge of the absolute unity of the Self the study of the Vedanta-texts is begun.  That all the Vedanta-texts have the mentioned purport we shall show in this so-called Sariraka-mima/m/sa.[50]

Of this Vedanta-mima/m/sa about to be explained by us the first Sutra is as follows.

1.  Then therefore the enquiry into Brahman.

The word ‘then’ is here to be taken as denoting immediate consecution; not as indicating the introduction of a new subject to be entered upon; for the enquiry into Brahman (more literally, the desire of knowing Brahman) is not of that nature[51].  Nor has the word ‘then’ the sense of auspiciousness (or blessing); for a word of that meaning could not be properly construed as a part of the sentence.  The word ‘then’ rather acts as an auspicious term by being pronounced and heard merely, while it denotes at the same time something else, viz. immediate consecution as said above.  That the latter is its meaning follows moreover from the circumstance that the relation in which the result stands to the previous topic (viewed as the cause of the result) is non-separate from the relation of immediate consecution.[52]

Page 94

If, then, the word ‘then’ intimates immediate consecution it must be explained on what antecedent the enquiry into Brahman specially depends; just as the enquiry into active religious duty (which forms the subject of the Purva Mima/m/sa) specially depends on the antecedent reading of the Veda.  The reading of the Veda indeed is the common antecedent (for those who wish to enter on an enquiry into religious duty as well as for those desirous of knowing Brahman).  The special question with regard to the enquiry into Brahman is whether it presupposes as its antecedent the understanding of the acts of religious duty (which is acquired by means of the Purva Mima/m/sa).  To this question we reply in the negative, because for a man who has read the Vedanta-parts of the Veda it is possible to enter on the enquiry into Brahman even before engaging in the enquiry into religious duty.  Nor is it the purport of the word ‘then’ to indicate order of succession; a purport which it serves in other passages, as, for instance, in the one enjoining the cutting off of pieces from the heart and other parts of the sacrificial animal.[53] (For the intimation of order of succession could be intended only if the agent in both cases were the same; but this is not the case), because there is no proof for assuming the enquiry into religious duty and the enquiry into Brahman to stand in the relation of principal and subordinate matter or the relation of qualification (for a certain act) on the part of the person qualified[54]; and because the result as well as the object of the enquiry differs in the two cases.  The knowledge of active religious duty has for its fruit transitory felicity, and that again depends on the performance of religious acts.  The enquiry into Brahman, on the other hand, has for its fruit eternal bliss, and does not depend on the performance of any acts.  Acts of religious duty do not yet exist at the time when they are enquired into, but are something to be accomplished (in the future); for they depend on the activity of man.  In the Brahma-mima/m/sa, on the other hand, the object of enquiry, i.e.  Brahman, is something already accomplished (existent),—­for it is eternal,—­and does not depend on human energy.  The two enquiries differ moreover in so far as the operation of their respective fundamental texts is concerned.  For the fundamental texts on which active religious duty depends convey information to man in so far only as they enjoin on him their own particular subjects (sacrifices, &c.); while the fundamental texts about Brahman merely instruct man, without laying on him the injunction of being instructed, instruction being their immediate result.  The case is analogous to that of the information regarding objects of sense which ensues as soon as the objects are approximated to the senses.  It therefore is requisite that something should be stated subsequent to which the enquiry into Brahman is proposed.—­Well, then, we maintain that the antecedent conditions are

Page 95

The word ‘therefore’ intimates a reason.  Because the Veda, while declaring that the fruit of the agnihotra and similar performances which are means of happiness is non-eternal (as, for instance.  Ch.  Up.  VIII, 1, 6, ’As here on earth whatever has been acquired by action perishes so perishes in the next world whatever is acquired by acts of religious duty’), teaches at the same time that the highest aim of man is realised by the knowledge of Brahman (as, for instance, Taitt.  Up.  II, 1, ’He who knows Brahman attains the highest’); therefore the enquiry into Brahman is to be undertaken subsequently to the acquirement of the mentioned means.

By Brahman is to be understood that the definition of which will be given in the next Sutra (I, 1, 2); it is therefore not to be supposed that the word Brahman may here denote something else, as, for instance, the brahminical caste.  In the Sutra the genitive case (’of Brahman;’ the literal translation of the Sutra being ’then therefore the desire of knowledge of Brahman’) denotes the object, not something generally supplementary (sesha[56]); for the desire of knowledge demands an object of desire and no other such object is stated.—­But why should not the genitive case be taken as expressing the general complementary relation (to express which is its proper office)?  Even in that case it might constitute the object of the desire of knowledge, since the general relation may base itself on the more particular one.—­This assumption, we reply, would mean that we refuse to take Brahman as the direct object, and then again indirectly introduce it as the object; an altogether needless procedure.—­Not needless; for if we explain the words of the Sutra to mean ’the desire of knowledge connected with Brahman’ we thereby virtually promise that also all the heads of discussion which bear on Brahman will be treated.—­This reason also, we reply, is not strong enough to uphold your interpretation.  For the statement of some principal matter already implies all the secondary matters connected therewith.  Hence if Brahman, the most eminent of all objects of knowledge, is mentioned, this implies already all those objects of enquiry which the enquiry into Brahman presupposes, and those objects need therefore not be mentioned, especially in the Sutra.  Analogously the sentence ‘there the king is going’ implicitly means that the

Page 96

But, it may be asked, is Brahman known or not known (previously to the enquiry into its nature)?  If it is known we need not enter on an enquiry concerning it; if it is not known we can not enter on such an enquiry.

We reply that Brahman is known.  Brahman, which is all-knowing and endowed with all powers, whose essential nature is eternal purity, intelligence, and freedom, exists.  For if we consider the derivation of the word ‘Brahman,’ from the root b/ri/h, ‘to be great,’ we at once understand that eternal purity, and so on, belong to Brahman[58].  Moreover the existence of Brahman is known on the ground of its being the Self of every one.  For every one is conscious of the existence of (his) Self, and never thinks ‘I am not.’  If the existence of the Self were not known, every one would think ‘I am not.’  And this Self (of whose existence all are conscious) is Brahman.  But if Brahman is generally known as the Self, there is no room for an enquiry into it!  Not so, we reply; for there is a conflict of opinions as to its special nature.  Unlearned people and the Lokayatikas are of opinion that the mere body endowed with the quality of intelligence is the Self; others that the organs endowed with intelligence are the Self; others maintain that the internal organ is the Self; others, again, that the Self is a mere momentary idea; others, again, that it is the Void.  Others, again (to proceed to the opinion of such as acknowledge the authority of the Veda), maintain that there is a transmigrating being different from the body, and so on, which is both agent and enjoyer (of the fruits of action); others teach that that being is enjoying only, not acting; others believe that in addition to the individual souls, there is an all-knowing, all-powerful Lord[59].  Others, finally, (i.e. the Vedantins) maintain that the Lord is the Self of the enjoyer (i.e. of the individual soul whose individual existence is apparent only, the product of Nescience).

Page 97

Thus there are many various opinions, basing part of them on sound arguments and scriptural texts, part of them on fallacious arguments and scriptural texts misunderstood[60].  If therefore a man would embrace some one of these opinions without previous consideration, he would bar himself from the highest beatitude and incur grievous loss.  For this reason the first Sutra proposes, under the designation of an enquiry into Brahman, a disquisition of the Vedanta-texts, to be carried on with the help of conformable arguments, and having for its aim the highest beatitude.

So far it has been said that Brahman is to be enquired into.  The question now arises what the characteristics of that Brahman are, and the reverend author of the Sutras therefore propounds the following aphorism.

2. (Brahman is that) from which the origin, &c. (i.e. the origin, subsistence, and dissolution) of this (world proceed).

The term, &c. implies subsistence and re-absorption.  That the origin is mentioned first (of the three) depends on the declaration of Scripture as well as on the natural development of a substance.  Scripture declares the order of succession of origin, subsistence, and dissolution in the passage, Taitt.  Up.  III, 1, ‘From whence these beings are born,’ &c.  And with regard to the second reason stated, it is known that a substrate of qualities can subsist and be dissolved only after it has entered, through origination, on the state of existence.  The words ‘of this’ denote that substrate of qualities which is presented to us by perception and the other means of right knowledge; the genitive case indicates it to be connected with origin, &c.  The words ‘from which’ denote the cause.  The full sense of the Sutra therefore is:  That omniscient omnipotent cause from which proceed the origin, subsistence, and dissolution of this world—­which world is differentiated by names and forms, contains many agents and enjoyers, is the abode of the fruits of actions, these fruits having their definite places, times, and causes[61], and the nature of whose arrangement cannot even be conceived by the mind,—­that cause, we say, is Brahman.  Since the other forms of existence (such as increase, decline, &c.) are included in origination, subsistence, and dissolution, only the three latter are referred to in the Sutra.  As the six stages of existence enumerated by Yaska[62] are possible only during the period of the world’s subsistence, it might—­were they referred to in the Sutra—­be suspected that what is meant are not the origin, subsistence, and dissolution (of the world) as dependent on the first cause.  To preclude this suspicion the Sutra is to be taken as referring, in addition to the world’s origination from Brahman, only to its subsistence in Brahman, and final dissolution into Brahman.

The origin, &c. of a world possessing the attributes stated above cannot possibly proceed from anything else but a Lord possessing the stated qualities; not either from a non-intelligent pradhana[63], or from atoms, or from non-being, or from a being subject to transmigration[64]; nor, again, can it proceed from its own nature (i.e. spontaneously, without a cause), since we observe that (for the production of effects) special places, times, and causes have invariably to be employed.

Page 98

(Some of) those who maintain a Lord to be the cause of the world[65], think that the existence of a Lord different from mere transmigrating beings can be inferred by means of the argument stated just now (without recourse being had to Scripture at all).—­But, it might be said, you yourself in the Sutra under discussion have merely brought forward the same argument!—­By no means, we reply.  The Sutras (i.e. literally ’the strings’) have merely the purpose of stringing together the flowers of the Vedanta-passages.  In reality the Vedanta-passages referred to by the Sutras are discussed here.  For the comprehension of Brahman is effected by the ascertainment, consequent on discussion, of the sense of the Vedanta-texts, not either by inference or by the other means of right knowledge.  While, however, the Vedanta-passages primarily declare the cause of the origin, &c., of the world, inference also, being an instrument of right knowledge in so far as it does not contradict the Vedanta-texts, is not to be excluded as a means of confirming the meaning ascertained.  Scripture itself, moreover, allows argumentation; for the passages, B/ri/.  Up.  II, 4, 5 (’the Self is to be heard, to be considered’), and Ch.  Up.  VI, 14, 2 (’as the man, &c., having been informed, and being able to judge for himself, would arrive at Gandhara, in the same way a man who meets with a teacher obtains knowledge’), declare that human understanding assists Scripture[66].

Scriptural text, &c.[67], are not, in the enquiry into Brahman, the only means of knowledge, as they are in the enquiry into active duty (i.e. in the Purva Mima/m/sa), but scriptural texts on the one hand, and intuition[68], &c., on the other hand, are to be had recourse to according to the occasion:  firstly, because intuition is the final result of the enquiry into Brahman; secondly, because the object of the enquiry is an existing (accomplished) substance.  If the object of the knowledge of Brahman were something to be accomplished, there would be no reference to intuition, and text, &c., would be the only means of knowledge.  The origination of something to be accomplished depends, moreover, on man since any action either of ordinary life, or dependent on the Veda may either be done or not be done, or be done in a different way.  A man, for instance, may move on either by means of a horse, or by means of his feet, or by some other means, or not at all.  And again (to quote examples of actions dependent on the Veda), we meet in Scripture with sentences such as the following:  ’At the atiratra he takes the sho/d/asin cup,’ and ’at the atiratra he does not take the sho/d/asin cup;’ or, ‘he makes the oblation after the sun has risen,’ and, ’he makes the oblation when the sun has not yet risen.’  Just as in the quoted instances, injunctions and prohibitions, allowances of optional procedure, general rules and exceptions have their place, so they would have their place with regard to Brahman also (if the latter were a thing to be

Page 99

That Brahman is omniscient we have been made to infer from it being shown that it is the cause of the world.  To confirm this conclusion, the Sutrakara continues as follows: 

3. (The omniscience of Brahman follows) from its being the source of Scripture.

Page 100

Brahman is the source, i.e. the cause of the great body of Scripture, consisting of the Rig-veda and other branches, which is supported by various disciplines (such as grammar, nyaya, pura/n/a, &c.); which lamp-like illuminates all things; which is itself all-knowing as it were.  For the origin of a body of Scripture possessing the quality of omniscience cannot be sought elsewhere but in omniscience itself.  It is generally understood that the man from whom some special body of doctrine referring to one province of knowledge only originates, as, for instance, grammar from Pa/n/ini possesses a more extensive knowledge than his work, comprehensive though it be; what idea, then, shall we have to form of the supreme omniscience and omnipotence of that great Being, which in sport as it were, easily as a man sends forth his breath, has produced the vast mass of holy texts known as the Rig-veda, &c., the mine of all knowledge, consisting of manifold branches, the cause of the distinction of all the different classes and conditions of gods, animals, and men!  See what Scripture says about him, ‘The Rig-veda, &c., have been breathed forth from that great Being’ (B/ri/.  Up.  II, 4, 10).

Or else we may interpret the Sutra to mean that Scripture consisting of the Rig-veda, &c., as described above, is the source or cause, i.e. the means of right knowledge through which we understand the nature of Brahman.  So that the sense would be:  through Scripture only as a means of knowledge Brahman is known to be the cause of the origin, &c., of the world.  The special scriptural passage meant has been quoted under the preceding Sutra ‘from which these beings are born,’ &c.—­But as the preceding Sutra already has pointed out a text showing that Scripture is the source of Brahman, of what use then is the present Sutra?—­The words of the preceding Sutra, we reply, did not clearly indicate the scriptural passage, and room was thus left for the suspicion that the origin, &c., of the world were adduced merely as determining an inference (independent of Scripture).  To obviate this suspicion the Sutra under discussion has been propounded.

But, again, how can it be said that Scripture is the means of knowing Brahman?  Since it has been declared that Scripture aims at action (according to the Purva Mima/m/sa Sutra I, 2, 1, ’As the purport of Scripture is action, those scriptural passages whose purport is not action are purportless’), the Vedanta-passages whose purport is not action are purportless.  Or else if they are to have some sense, they must either, by manifesting the agent, the divinity or the fruit of the action, form supplements to the passages enjoining actions, or serve the purpose of themselves enjoining a new class of actions, such as devout meditation and the like.  For the Veda cannot possibly aim at conveying information regarding the nature of accomplished substances, since the latter are the objects of perception

Page 101

To this argumentation the Sutrakara replies as follows: 

4.  But that (Brahman is to be known from Scripture), because it is connected (with the Vedanta-texts) as their purport.

The word ‘but’ is meant to rebut the purva-paksha (the prima facie view as urged above).  That all-knowing, all-powerful Brahman, which is the cause of the origin, subsistence, and dissolution of the world, is known from the Vedanta-part of Scripture.  How?  Because in all the Vedanta-texts the sentences construe in so far as they have for their purport, as they intimate that matter (viz.  Brahman).  Compare, for instance, ‘Being only this was in the beginning, one, without a second’ (Ch.  Up.  VI, 2, 1); ‘In the beginning all this was Self, one only’ (Ait.  Ar.  II, 4, 1, 1); ’This is the Brahman without cause and without effect, without anything inside or outside; this Self is Brahman perceiving everything’ (B/ri/.  Up.  II, 5, 19); ‘That immortal Brahman is before’ (Mu.  Up.  II, 2, 11); and similar passages.  If the words contained in these passages have once been determined to refer to Brahman, and their purport

Page 102

Here others raise the following objection:—­Although the Veda is the means of gaining a right knowledge of Brahman, yet it intimates Brahman only as the object of certain injunctions, just as the information which the Veda gives about the sacrificial post, the ahavaniya-fire and other objects not known from the practice of common life is merely supplementary to certain injunctions[69].  Why so?  Because the Veda has the purport of either instigating to action or restraining from it. 

Page 103

Page 104

To all this, we, the Vedantins, make the following reply:—­The preceding reasoning is not valid, on account of the different nature of the fruits of actions on the one side, and of the knowledge of Brahman on the other side.  The enquiry into those actions, whether of body, speech, or mind, which are known from Sruti and Sm/ri/ti, and are comprised under the name ‘religious duty’ (dharma), is carried on in the Jaimini Sutra, which begins with the words ‘then therefore the enquiry into duty;’ the opposite of duty also (adharma), such as doing harm, &c., which is defined in the prohibitory injunctions, forms an object of enquiry to the end that it may be avoided.  The fruits of duty, which is good, and its opposite, which is evil, both of which are defined by original Vedic statements, are generally known to be sensible pleasure and pain, which make themselves felt to body, speech, and mind only, are produced by the contact of the organs of sense with the objects, and affect all animate beings from Brahman down to a tuft of grass.  Scripture, agreeing with observation, states that there are differences in the degree of pleasure of all embodied creatures from men upward to Brahman.  From those differences it is inferred that there are differences in the degrees of the merit acquired by actions in accordance with religious duty; therefrom again are inferred differences

Page 105

Page 106

There are, moreover, a number of scriptural passages which declare release to follow immediately on the cognition of Brahman, and which thus preclude the possibility of an effect intervening between the two; for instance, ‘He who knows Brahman becomes Brahman’ (Mu.  Up.  III, 2, 9); ’All his works perish when He has been beheld, who is the higher and the lower’ (Mu.  Up.  II, 2, 8); ’He who knows the bliss of Brahman fears nothing’ (Taitt.  Up.  II, 9); ’O Janaka, you have indeed reached fearlessness’ (B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 2, 4); ’That Brahman knew its Self only, saying, I am Brahman.  From it all this sprang’ (B/ri/.  Up.  I, 4, 10); ‘What sorrow, what trouble can there be to him who beholds that unity?’ (Is.  Up. 7.) We must likewise quote the passage,—­B/ri/.  Up.  I, 4, 10, (’Seeing this the Rishi Vamadeva understood:  I was Manu, I was the sun,’) in order to exclude the idea of any action taking place between one’s seeing Brahman and becoming one with the universal Self; for that passage is analogous to the following one, ‘standing he sings,’ from which we understand that no action due to the same agent intervenes between the standing and the singing.  Other scriptural passages show that the removal of the obstacles which lie in the way of release is the only fruit of the knowledge of Brahman; so, for instance, ’You indeed are our father, you who carry us from our ignorance to the other shore’ (Pr.  Up.  VI, 8); ’I have heard from men like you that he who knows the Self overcomes

Page 107

Nor is this knowledge of the Self being one with Brahman a mere (fanciful) combination[73], as is made use of, for instance, in the following passage, ’For the mind is endless, and the Vi/s/vedevas are endless, and he thereby gains the endless world’ (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 1, 9)[74]; nor is it an (in reality unfounded) ascription (superimposition)[75], as in the passages, ’Let him meditate on mind as Brahman,’ and ‘Aditya is Brahman, this is the doctrine’ (Ch.  Up.  III, 18, 1; 19, 1), where the contemplation as Brahman is superimposed on the mind, Aditya and so on; nor, again, is it (a figurative conception of identity) founded on the connection (of the things viewed as identical) with some special activity, as in the passage, ’Air is indeed the absorber; breath is indeed the absorber[76]’ (Ch.  Up.  IV, 3, 1; 3); nor is it a mere (ceremonial) purification of (the Self constituting a subordinate member) of an action (viz. the action of seeing, &c., Brahman), in the same way as, for instance, the act of looking at the sacrificial butter[77].  For if the knowledge of the identity of the Self and Brahman were understood in the way of combination and the like, violence would be done thereby to the connection of the words whose object, in certain passages, it clearly is to intimate the fact of Brahman and the Self being really identical; so, for instance, in the following passages, ‘That art thou’ (Ch.  Up.  VI, 8, 7); ‘I am Brahman’ (B/ri/.  Up.  I, 4, 10); ‘This Self is Brahman’ (B/ri/.  Up.  II, 5, 19).  And other texts which declare that the fruit of the cognition of Brahman is the cessation of Ignorance would be contradicted thereby; so, for instance, ‘The fetter of the heart is broken, all doubts are solved’ (Mu.  Up.  II, 2, 8).  Nor, finally, would it be possible, in that case, satisfactorily to explain the passages which speak of the individual Self becoming Brahman:  such as ‘He who knows Brahman becomes Brahman’ (Mu.  Up.  III, 2, 9).  Hence the knowledge of the unity of Brahman and the Self cannot be of the nature of figurative combination and the like.  The knowledge of Brahman does, therefore, not depend on the active energy of man, but is analogous to the knowledge of those things which are the objects of perception, inference, and so on, and thus depends on the object of knowledge only.  Of such a Brahman or its knowledge it is impossible to establish, by reasoning, any connection with actions.

Page 108

Nor, again, can we connect Brahman with acts by representing it as the object of the action of knowing.  For that it is not such is expressly declared in two passages, viz.  ’It is different from the known and again above (i.e. different from) the unknown’ (Ken.  Up.  I, 3); and ’How should he know him by whom he knows all this?’ (B/ri/.  Up.  II, 4, 13.) In the same way Brahman is expressly declared not to be the object of the act of devout meditation, viz. in the second half of the verse, Ken.  Up.  I, 5, whose first half declares it not to be an object (of speech, mind, and so on), ’That which is not proclaimed by speech, by which speech is proclaimed, that only know to be Brahman, not that on which people devoutly meditate as this.’  If it should be objected that if Brahman is not an object (of speech, mind, &c.) the sastra can impossibly be its source, we refute this objection by the remark that the aim of the sastra is to discard all distinctions fictitiously created by Nescience.  The sastra’s purport is not to represent Brahman definitely as this or that object, its purpose is rather to show that Brahman as the eternal subject (pratyagatman, the inward Self) is never an object, and thereby to remove the distinction of objects known, knowers, acts of knowledge, &c., which is fictitiously created by Nescience.  Accordingly the sastra says, ’By whom it is not thought by him it is thought, by whom it is thought he does not know it; unknown by those who know it, it is known by those who do not know it’ (Ken.  Up.  II, 3); and ’Thou couldst not see the seer of sight, thou couldst not hear the hearer of hearing, nor perceive the perceiver of perception, nor know the knower of knowledge’ (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 4, 2).  As thereby (i.e. by the knowledge derived from the sastra) the imagination of the transitoriness of Release which is due to Nescience is discarded, and Release is shown to be of the nature of the eternally free Self, it cannot be charged with the imperfection of non-eternality.  Those, on the other hand, who consider Release to be something to be effected properly maintain that it depends on the action of mind, speech, or body.  So, likewise, those who consider it to be a mere modification.  Non-eternality of Release is the certain consequence of these two opinions; for we observe in common life that things which are modifications, such as sour milk and the like, and things which are effects, such as jars, &c., are non-eternal.  Nor, again, can it be said that there is a dependance on action in consequence of (Brahman or Release) being something which is to be obtained[78]; for as Brahman constitutes a person’s Self it is not something to be attained by that person.  And even if Brahman were altogether different from a person’s Self still it would not be something to be obtained; for as it is omnipresent it is part of its nature that it is ever present to every one, just as the (all-pervading) ether is.  Nor, again, can it be maintained that Release is something

Page 109

Page 110

But, it will be said here, knowledge itself is an activity of the mind.  By no means, we reply; since the two are of different nature.  An action is that which is enjoined as being independent of the nature of existing things and dependent on the energy of some person’s mind; compare, for instance, the following passages, ’To whichever divinity the offering is made on that one let him meditate when about to say vasha/t/’ (Ait.  Brahm.  III, 8, 1); and ‘Let him meditate in his mind on the sandhya.’  Meditation and reflection are indeed mental, but as they depend on the (meditating, &c.) person they may either be performed or not be performed or modified.  Knowledge, on the other hand, is the result of the different means of (right) knowledge, and those have for their objects existing things; knowledge can therefore not be either made or not made or modified, but depends entirely on existing things, and not either on Vedic statements or on the mind of man.  Although mental it thus widely differs from meditation and the like.

The meditation, for instance, on man and woman as fire, which is founded on Ch.  Up.  V, 7, 1; 8, 1, ’The fire is man, O Gautama; the fire is woman, O Gautama,’ is on account of its being the result of a Vedic statement, merely an action and dependent on man; that conception of fire, on the other hand, which refers to the well-known (real) fire, is neither dependent on Vedic statements nor on man, but only on a real thing which is an object of perception; it is therefore knowledge and not an action.  The same remark applies to all things which are the objects of the different means of right knowledge.  This being thus that knowledge also which has the existent Brahman for its object is not dependent on Vedic injunction.  Hence, although imperative and similar forms referring to the knowledge of Brahman are found in the Vedic texts, yet they are ineffective because they refer to something which cannot be enjoined, just as the edge of a razor becomes blunt when it is applied to a stone.  For they have for their object something which can neither be endeavoured after nor avoided.—­But what then, it will be asked, is the purport of those sentences which, at any rate, have the appearance of injunctions; such as, ’The Self is to be seen, to be heard about?’—­They have the purport, we

Page 111

We now proceed to consider the doctrine of those who maintain that there is no part of the Veda which has the purport of making statements about mere existent things, and is not either an injunction or a prohibition, or supplementary to either.  This opinion is erroneous, because the soul (purusha), which is the subject of the Upanishads, does not constitute a complement to anything else.  Of that soul which is to be comprehended from the Upanishads only, which is non-transmigratory, Brahman, different in nature from the four classes of substances[79], which forms a topic of its own and is not a complement to anything else; of that soul it is impossible to say that it is not or is not apprehended; for the passage, ‘That Self is to be described by No, no!’ (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 9, 26) designates it as the Self, and that the Self is cannot be denied.  The possible objection that there is no reason to maintain that the soul is known from the Upanishads only, since it is the object of self-consciousness, is refuted by the fact that the soul of which the Upanishads treat is merely the witness of that (i.e. of the object of self-consciousness, viz. the jivatman).  For neither from that part of the Veda which enjoins works nor from reasoning, anybody apprehends that soul which, different from the agent that is the object of self-consciousness, merely witnesses it; which is permanent in all (transitory)

Page 112

With regard to the quotations made of the views of men acquainted with the purport of the Sastra (who alone were stated to have declared that the Veda treats of actions) it is to be understood that they, having to do with the enquiry into duty, refer to that part of the Sastra which consists of injunctions and prohibitions.  With regard to the other passage quoted (’as action is the purport of the Veda, whatever does not refer to action is purportless’) we remark that if that passage were taken in an absolutely strict sense (when it would mean that only those words which denote action have a meaning), it would follow that all information about existent things is meaningless[81].  If, on the other hand, the Veda—­in addition to the injunctions of activity and cessation of activity—­does give information about existent things as being subservient to some action to be accomplished, why then should it not give information also about the existent eternally unchangeable Self?  For an existent thing, about which information is given, does not become an act (through being stated to be subservient to an act).—­But, it will be said, although existent things are not acts, yet, as they are instrumental to action, the information given about such things is merely subservient to action.—­This, we reply, does not matter; for although the information may be subservient to action, the things themselves about which information is given are already intimated thereby as things which have the power of bringing about certain actions.  Their final end (prayojana) indeed may be subserviency to some action, but thereby they do not cease to be, in the information given about them, intimated in themselves.—­Well, and if they are thus intimated, what is gained thereby for your purpose[82]?  We reply that the information about the Self, which is an existing thing not comprehended from other sources, is of the same nature (as the information about other

Page 113

The allegation that a mere statement about an actually existent thing not connected with an injunction of something to be done, is purposeless (as, for instance, the statement that the earth contains seven dvipas) has already been refuted on the ground that a purpose is seen to exist in some such statements, as, for instance, ’this is not a snake, but a rope.’—­But how about the objection raised above that the information about Brahman cannot be held to have a purpose in the same way as the statement about a rope has one, because a man even after having heard about Brahman continues to belong to this transmigratory world?—­We reply as follows:  It is impossible to show that a man who has once understood Brahman to be the Self,

Page 114

Page 115

As therefore the application of the conception of the Ego to the body on the part of those who affirm the existence of a Self different from the body is simply false, not figurative, it follows that the embodiedness of the Self is (not real but) caused by wrong conception, and hence that the person who has reached true knowledge is free from his body even while still alive.  The same is declared in the Sruti passages concerning him who knows Brahman:  ’And as the slough of a snake lies on an ant-hill, dead and cast away, thus lies this body; but that disembodied immortal spirit is Brahman only, is only light’ (B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 4, 7); and ’With eyes he is without eyes as it were, with ears without ears as it were, with speech without speech as it were, with a mind without mind as it were, with vital airs without vital airs as it were.’  Sm/ri/ti also, in the passage where the characteristic marks are enumerated of one whose mind is steady (Bha.  Gita II, 54), declares that he who knows is no longer connected with action of any kind.  Therefore the man who has once comprehended Brahman to be the Self, does not belong to this transmigratory world as he did before.  He, on the other hand, who still belongs to this transmigratory world as before, has not comprehended Brahman to be the Self.  Thus there remain no unsolved contradictions.

Page 116

With reference again to the assertion that Brahman is not fully determined in its own nature, but stands in a complementary relation to injunctions, because the hearing about Brahman is to be followed by consideration and reflection, we remark that consideration and reflection are themselves merely subservient to the comprehension of Brahman.  If Brahman, after having been comprehended, stood in a subordinate relation to some injunctions, it might be said to be merely supplementary.  But this is not the case, since consideration and reflection no less than hearing are subservient to comprehension.  It follows that the Sastra cannot be the means of knowing Brahman only in so far as it is connected with injunctions, and the doctrine that on account of the uniform meaning of the Vedanta-texts, an independent Brahman is to be admitted, is thereby fully established.  Hence there is room for beginning the new Sastra indicated in the first Sutra, ’Then therefore the enquiry into Brahman.’  If, on the other hand, the Vedanta-texts were connected with injunctions, a new Sastra would either not be begun at all, since the Sastra concerned with injunctions has already been introduced by means of the first Sutra of the Purva Mima/m/sa, ‘Then therefore the enquiry into duty;’ or if it were begun it would be introduced as follows:  ’Then therefore the enquiry into the remaining duties;’ just as a new portion of the Purva Mima/m/sa Sutras is introduced with the words, ’Then therefore the enquiry into what subserves the purpose of the sacrifice, and what subserves the purpose of man’ (Pu.  Mi.  Su.  IV, 1, 1).  But as the comprehension of the unity of Brahman and the Self has not been propounded (in the previous Sastra), it is quite appropriate that a new Sastra, whose subject is Brahman, should be entered upon.  Hence all injunctions and all other means of knowledge end with the cognition expressed in the words, ‘I am Brahman;’ for as soon as there supervenes the comprehension of the non-dual Self, which is not either something to be eschewed or something to be appropriated, all objects and knowing agents vanish, and hence there can no longer be means of proof.  In accordance with this, they (i.e. men knowing Brahman) have made the following declaration:—­’When there has arisen (in a man’s mind) the knowledge, “I am that which is, Brahman is my Self,” and when, owing to the sublation of the conceptions of body, relatives, and the like, the (imagination of) the figurative and the false Self has come to an end[87]; how should then the effect[88] (of that wrong imagination) exist any longer?  As long as the knowledge of the Self, which Scripture tells us to search after, has not arisen, so long the Self is knowing subject; but that same subject is that which is searched after, viz. (the highest Self) free from all evil and blemish.  Just as the idea of the Self being the body is assumed as valid (in ordinary life), so all the ordinary sources of knowledge (perception and the like) are valid only until the one Self is ascertained.’

Page 117

(Herewith the section comprising the four Sutras is finished[89].)

So far it has been declared that the Vedanta-passages, whose purport is the comprehension of Brahman being the Self, and which have their object therein, refer exclusively to Brahman without any reference to actions.  And it has further been shown that Brahman is the omniscient omnipotent cause of the origin, subsistence, and dissolution of the world.  But now the Sa@nkhyas and others being of opinion that an existent substance is to be known through other means of proof (not through the Veda) infer different causes, such as the pradhana and the like, and thereupon interpret the Vedanta-passages as referring to the latter.  All the Vedanta-passages, they maintain, which treat of the creation of the world distinctly point out that the cause (of the world) has to be concluded from the effect by inference; and the cause which is to be inferred is the connexion of the pradhana with the souls (purusha).  The followers of Ka/n/ada again infer from the very same passages that the Lord is the efficient cause of the world while the atoms are its material cause.  And thus other argumentators also taking their stand on passages apparently favouring their views and on fallacious arguments raise various objections.  For this reason the teacher (Vyasa)—­thoroughly acquainted as he is with words, passages, and means of proof—­proceeds to state as prima facie views, and afterwards to refute, all those opinions founded on deceptive passages and fallacious arguments.  Thereby he at the same time proves indirectly that what the Vedanta-texts aim at is the comprehension of Brahman.

The Sa@nkhyas who opine that the non-intelligent pradhana consisting of three constituent elements (gu/n/a) is the cause of the world argue as follows.  The Vedanta-passages which you have declared to intimate that the all-knowing all-powerful Brahman is the cause of the world can be consistently interpreted also on the doctrine of the pradhana being the general cause.  Omnipotence (more literally:  the possession of all powers) can be ascribed to the pradhana in so far as it has all its effects for its objects.  All-knowingness also can be ascribed to it, viz. in the following manner.  What you think to be knowledge is in reality an attribute of the gu/n/a of Goodness[90], according to the Sm/ri/ti passage ‘from Goodness springs knowledge’ (Bha.  Gita XIV, 17).  By means of this attribute of Goodness, viz. knowledge, certain men endowed with organs which are effects (of the pradhana) are known as all-knowing Yogins; for omniscience is acknowledged to be connected with the very highest degree of ‘Goodness.’  Now to the soul (purusha) which is isolated, destitute of effected organs, consisting of pure (undifferenced) intelligence it is quite impossible to ascribe either all-knowingness or limited knowledge; the pradhana, on the other hand, because consisting of the three gu/n/as, comprises also in its pradhana state the

Page 118

To these conclusions he (Vyasa) replies in the following Sutra.

5.  On account of seeing (i.e. thinking being attributed in the Upanishads to the cause of the world; the pradhana) is not (to be identified with the cause indicated by the Upanishads; for) it is not founded on Scripture.

It is impossible to find room in the Vedanta-texts for the non-intelligent pradhana, the fiction of the Sa@nkhyas; because it is not founded on Scripture.  How so?  Because the quality of seeing, i.e. thinking, is in Scripture ascribed to the cause.  For the passage, Ch.  Up.  VI, 2, (which begins:  ’Being only, my dear, this was in the beginning, one only, without a second,’ and goes on, ’It thought (saw), may I be many, may I grow forth.  It sent forth fire,’) declares that this world differentiated by name and form, which is there denoted by the word ‘this,’ was before its origination identical with the Self of that which is and that the principle denoted by the term ‘the being’ (or ‘that which is’) sent forth fire and the other elements after having thought.  The following passage also (’Verily in the beginning all this was Self, one only; there was nothing else blinking whatsoever.  He thought, shall I send forth worlds?  He sent forth these worlds,’ Ait.  Ar.  II, 4, 1, 2) declares the creation to have had thought for its antecedent.  In another passage also (Pr.  Up.  VI, 3) it is said of the person of sixteen parts, ‘He thought, &c.  He sent forth Pra/n/a.’  By ‘seeing’ (i.e. the verb ‘seeing’ exhibited in the Sutra) is not meant that particular verb only, but any verbs which have a cognate sense; just as the verb ‘to sacrifice’ is used to denote any kind of offering.  Therefore other passages also whose purport it is to intimate that an all-knowing Lord is the cause of the world are to be quoted here, as, for instance, Mu.  Up.  I, 1, 9, ’From him who perceives all and who knows all, whose brooding consists of knowledge, from him is born that Brahman, name and form and food.’

Page 119

The argumentation of the Sa@nkhyas that the pradhana may be called all-knowing on account of knowledge constituting an attribute of the gu/n/a Goodness is inadmissible.  For as in the pradhana-condition the three gu/n/as are in a state of equipoise, knowledge which is a quality of Goodness only is not possible[91].  Nor can we admit the explanation that the pradhana is all-knowing because endowed with the capacity for all knowledge.  For if, in the condition of equipoise of the gu/n/as, we term the pradhana all-knowing with reference to the power of knowledge residing in Goodness, we must likewise term it little-knowing, with reference to the power impeding knowledge which resides in Passion and Darkness.

Moreover a modification of Goodness which is not connected with a witnessing (observing) principle (sakshin) is not called knowledge, and the non-intelligent pradhana is destitute of such a principle.  It is therefore impossible to ascribe to the pradhana all-knowingness.  The case of the Yogins finally does not apply to the point under consideration; for as they possess intelligence, they may, owing to an excess of Goodness in their nature, rise to omniscience[92].—­Well then (say those Sa@nkhyas who believe in the existence of a Lord) let us assume that the pradhana possesses the quality of knowledge owing to the witnessing principle (the Lord), just as the quality of burning is imparted to an iron ball by fire.—­No, we reply; for if this were so, it would be more reasonable to assume that that which is the cause of the pradhana having the quality of thought i.e. the all-knowing primary Brahman itself is the cause of the world.

The objection that to Brahman also all-knowingness in its primary sense cannot be ascribed because, if the activity of cognition were permanent, Brahman could not be considered as independent with regard to it, we refute as follows.  In what way, we ask the Sa@nkhya, is Brahman’s all-knowingness interfered with by a permanent cognitional activity?  To maintain that he, who possesses eternal knowledge capable to throw light on all objects, is not all-knowing, is contradictory.  If his knowledge were considered non-permanent, he would know sometimes, and sometimes he would not know; from which it would follow indeed that he is not all-knowing.  This fault is however avoided if we admit Brahman’s knowledge to be permanent.—­But, it may be objected, on this latter alternative the knower cannot be designated as independent with reference to the act of knowing.—­Why not? we reply; the sun also, although his heat and light are permanent, is nevertheless designated as independent when we say, ’he burns, he gives light[93].’—­But, it will again be objected, we say that the sun burns or gives light when he stands in relation to some object to be heated or illuminated; Brahman, on the other hand, stands, before the creation of the world, in no relation to any object of knowledge.  The cases are therefore

Page 120

But, to raise a new objection, there exists no transmigrating soul different from the Lord and obstructed by impediments of knowledge; for Sruti expressly declares that ’there is no other seer but he; there is no other knower but he’ (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 7, 23).  How then can it be said that the origination of knowledge in the transmigrating soul depends on a body, while it does not do so in the case of the Lord?—­True, we reply.  There is in reality no transmigrating soul different from the Lord.  Still the connexion (of the Lord) with limiting adjuncts, consisting of bodies and so on, is assumed, just as we assume the ether to enter into connexion with divers limiting adjuncts such as jars, pots, caves, and the like.  And just as in consequence of connexion of the latter kind such conceptions and terms as ’the hollow (space)

Page 121

The averment that the pradhana, because consisting of several elements, can, like clay and similar substances, occupy the place of a cause while the uncompounded Brahman cannot do so, is refuted by the fact of the pradhana not basing on Scripture.  That, moreover, it is possible to establish by argumentation the causality of Brahman, but not of the pradhana and similar principles, the Sutrakara will set forth in the second Adhyaya (II, 1, 4, &c.).

Here the Sa@nkhya comes forward with a new objection.  The difficulty stated by you, he says, viz. that the non-intelligent pradhana cannot be the cause of the world, because thought is ascribed to the latter in the sacred texts, can be got over in another way also, viz. on the ground that non-intelligent things are sometimes figuratively spoken of as intelligent beings.  We observe, for instance, that people say of a river-bank about to fall, ‘the bank is inclined to fall (pipatishati),’ and thus speak of a non-intelligent bank as if it possessed intelligence.  So the pradhana also, although non-intelligent, may, when about to create, be figuratively spoken of as thinking.  Just as in ordinary life some intelligent person after having bathed, and dined, and formed the purpose of driving in the afternoon to his village, necessarily acts according to his purpose, so the pradhana also acts by the necessity of its own nature, when transforming itself into the so-called great principle and the subsequent forms of evolution; it may therefore figuratively be spoken of as intelligent.—­But what reason have you for setting aside the primary meaning of the word ‘thought’ and for taking it in a figurative sense?—­The observation, the Sa@nkhya replies, that fire and water also are figuratively spoken of as intelligent beings in the two following scriptural passages, ’That fire thought; that water thought’ (Ch.  Up.  VI, 2, 3; 4).  We therefrom conclude that thought is to be taken in a figurative sense there also where Being (Sat) is the agent, because it is mentioned in a chapter where (thought) is generally taken in a figurative sense[94].

Page 122

To this argumentation of the Sadkhya the next Sutra replies: 

6.  If it is said that (the word ‘seeing’) has a figurative meaning, we deny that, on account of the word Self (being applied to the cause of the world).

Your assertion that the term ‘Being’ denotes the non-intelligent pradhana, and that thought is ascribed to it in a figurative sense only, as it is to fire and water, is untenable.  Why so?  On account of the term ‘Self.’  For the passage Ch.  Up.  VI, 2, which begins ’Being only, my dear, this was in the beginning,’ after having related the creation of fire, water, and earth (’it thought,’ &c.; ‘it sent forth fire,’ &c.), goes on—­denoting the thinking principle of which the whole chapter treats, and likewise fire, water, and earth, by the term—­’divinities’—­as follows, ’That divinity thought:  Let me now enter those three divinities with this living Self (jiva. atman) and evolve names and forms.’  If we assumed that in this passage the non-intelligent pradhana is figuratively spoken of as thinking, we should also have to assume that the same pradhana—­as once constituting the subject-matter of the chapter—­is referred to by the term ‘that divinity.’  But in that case the divinity would not speak of the jiva as ‘Self.’  For by the term ‘Jiva’ we must understand, according to the received meaning and the etymology of the word, the intelligent (principle) which rules over the body and sustains the vital airs.  How could such a principle be the Self of the non-intelligent pradhana?  By ‘Self’ we understand (a being’s) own nature, and it is clear that the intelligent Jiva cannot constitute the nature of the non-intelligent pradhana.  If, on the other hand, we refer the whole chapter to the intelligent Brahman, to which thought in its primary sense belongs, the use of the word ‘Self’ with reference to the Jiva is quite adequate.  Then again there is the other passage, ’That which is that subtle essence, in it all that exists has its self.  It is the true.  It is the Self.  That art thou, O Svetaketu’ (Ch.  Up.  VI, 8, 7, &c.).  Here the clause ‘It is the Self’ designates the Being of which the entire chapter treats, viz. the subtle Self, by the word ‘Self,’ and the concluding clause, ‘that art thou, O Svetaketu,’ declares the intelligent Svetaketu to be of the nature of the Self.  Fire and water, on the other hand, are non-intelligent, since they are objects (of the mind), and since they are declared to be implicated in the evolution of names and forms.  And as at the same time there is no reason for ascribing to them thought in its primary sense—­while the employment of the word ‘Self’ furnishes such a reason with reference to the Sat—­the thought attributed to them must be explained in a figurative sense, like the inclination of the river-bank.  Moreover, the thinking on the part of fire and water is to be understood as dependent on their being ruled over by the Sat.  On the other hand, the thought of the Sat is, on account of the word ‘Self,’ not to be understood in a figurative sense.[95]

Page 123

Here the Sa@nkhya comes forward with a new objection.  The word ‘Self,’ he says, may be applied to the pradhana, although unintelligent, because it is sometimes figuratively used in the sense of ’that which effects all purposes of another;’ as, for instance, a king applies the word ‘Self’ to some servant who carries out all the king’s intentions, ‘Bhadrasena is my (other) Self.’  For the pradhana, which effects the enjoyment and the emancipation of the soul, serves the latter in the same way as a minister serves his king in the affairs of peace and war.  Or else, it may be said, the one word ‘Self’ may refer to non-intelligent things as well as to intelligent beings, as we see that such expressions as ‘the Self of the elements,’ ’the Self of the senses,’ are made use of, and as the one word ‘light’ (jyotis) denotes a certain sacrifice (the jyotish/t/oma) as well as a flame.  How then does it follow from the word ‘Self’ that the thinking (ascribed to the cause of the world) is not to be taken in a figurative sense?

To this last argumentation the Sutrakara replies: 

7. (The pradhana cannot be designated by the term ‘Self’) because release is taught of him who takes his stand on that (the Sat).

The non-intelligent pradhana cannot be the object of the term ‘Self’ because in the passage Ch.  Up.  VI, 2 ff., where the subtle Sat which is under discussion is at first referred to in the sentence, ’That is the Self,’ and where the subsequent clause, ‘That art thou, O Svetaketu,’ declares the intelligent Svetaketu to have his abode in the Self, a passage subsequent to the two quoted (viz. ’a man who has a teacher obtains true knowledge; for him there is only delay as long as he is not delivered, then he will be perfect’) declares final release.  For if the non-intelligent pradhana were denoted by the term ‘Sat’ and did comprehend—­by means of the phrase ’That art thou’—­persons desirous of final release who as such are intelligent, the meaning could only be ‘Thou art non-intelligent;’ so that Scripture would virtually make contradictory statements to the disadvantage of man, and would thus cease to be a means of right knowledge.  But to assume that the faultless sastra is not a means of right knowledge, would be contrary to reason.  And if the sastra, considered as a means of right knowledge, should point out to a man desirous of release, but ignorant of the way to it, a non-intelligent Self as the real Self, he would—­comparable to the blind man who had caught hold of the ox’s tail[96]—­cling to the view of that being the Self, and thus never be able to reach the real Self different from the false Self pointed out to him; hence he would be debarred from what constitutes man’s good, and would incur evil.  We must therefore conclude that, just as the sastra teaches the agnihotra and similar performances in their true nature as means for those who are desirous of the heavenly world, so the passage ’that

Page 124

Page 125

A different explanation of the Sutra is also possible.  The preceding Sutra may be taken completely to refute all doubts as to the word ‘Self’ having a figurative or double sense, and then the present Sutra is to be explained as containing an independent reason, proving that the doctrine of the pradhana being the general cause is untenable.

Hence the non-intelligent pradhana is not denoted by the word ‘Self.’  This the teacher now proceeds to prove by an additional reason.

8.  And (the pradhana cannot be denoted by the word ‘Self’) because there is no statement of its having to be set aside.

If the pradhana which is the Not-Self were denoted by the term ‘Being’ (Sat), and if the passage ’That is the Self, that art thou, O Svetaketu,’ referred to the pradhana; the teacher whose wish it is to impart instruction about the true Brahman would subsequently declare that the pradhana is to be set aside (and the true Brahman to be considered); for otherwise his pupil, having received the instruction about the pradhana, might take his stand on the latter, looking upon it as the Non-Self.  In ordinary life a man who wishes to point out to a friend the (small) star Arundhati at first directs his attention to a big neighbouring star, saying ‘that is Arundhati,’ although it is really not so; and thereupon he withdraws his first statement and points out the real Arundhati.  Analogously the teacher (if he intended to make his pupil understand the Self through the Non-Self) would in the end definitely state that the Self is not of the nature of the pradhana.  But no such statement is made; for the sixth Prapa/th/aka arrives at a conclusion based on the view that the Self is nothing but that which is (the Sat).

The word ‘and’ (in the Sutra) is meant to notify that the contradiction of a previous statement (which would be implied in the rejected interpretation) is an additional reason for the rejection.  Such a contradiction would result even if it were stated that the pradhana is to be set aside.  For in the beginning of the Prapa/th/aka it is intimated that through the knowledge of the cause everything becomes known.  Compare the following consecutive sentences, ’Have you ever asked for that instruction by which we hear what cannot be heard, by which we perceive what cannot be perceived, by which we know what cannot be known?  What is that instruction?  As, my dear, by one clod of clay all that is made of clay is known, the modification (i.e. the effect) being a name merely which has its origin in speech, while the truth is that it is clay merely,’ &c.  Now if the term ‘Sat’ denoted the pradhana, which is merely the cause of the aggregate of the objects of enjoyment, its knowledge, whether to be set aside or not to be set aside, could never lead to the knowledge of the aggregate of enjoyers (souls), because the latter is not an effect of the pradhana.  Therefore the pradhana is not denoted by the term ’Sat.’—­For this the Sutrakara gives a further reason.

Page 126

9.  On account of (the individual Soul) going to the Self (the Self cannot be the pradhana).

With reference to the cause denoted by the word ‘Sat,’ Scripture says, ’When a man sleeps here, then, my dear, he becomes united with the Sat, he is gone to his own (Self).  Therefore they say of him, “he sleeps” (svapiti), because he is gone to his own (svam apita).’ (Ch.  Up.  VI, 8, 1.) This passage explains the well-known verb ‘to sleep,’ with reference to the soul.  The word, ‘his own,’ denotes the Self which had before been denoted by the word Sat; to the Self he (the individual soul) goes, i.e. into it it is resolved, according to the acknowledged sense of api-i, which means ‘to be resolved into.’  The individual soul (jiva) is called awake as long as being connected with the various external objects by means of the modifications of the mind—­which thus constitute limiting adjuncts of the soul—­it apprehends those external objects, and identifies itself with the gross body, which is one of those external objects[98].  When, modified by the impressions which the external objects have left, it sees dreams, it is denoted by the term ‘mind[99].’  When, on the cessation of the two limiting adjuncts (i.e. the subtle and the gross bodies), and the consequent absence of the modifications due to the adjuncts, it is, in the state of deep sleep, merged in the Self as it were, then it is said to be asleep (resolved into the Self).  A similar etymology of the word ‘h/ri/daya’ is given by sruti, ’That Self abides in the heart.  And this is the etymological explanation:  he is in the heart (h/ri/di ayam).’ (Ch.  Up.  VIII, 3, 3.) The words a/s/anaya and udanya are similarly etymologised:  ’water is carrying away what has been eaten by him;’ ’fire carries away what has been drunk by him’ (Ch.  Up.  VI, 8, 3; 5).  Thus the passage quoted above explains the resolution (of the soul) into the Self, denoted by the term ‘Sat,’ by means of the etymology of the word ‘sleep.’  But the intelligent Self can clearly not resolve itself into the non-intelligent pradhana.  If, again, it were said that the pradhana is denoted by the word ‘own,’ because belonging to the Self (as being the Self’s own), there would remain the same absurd statement as to an intelligent entity being resolved into a non-intelligent one.  Moreover another scriptural passage (viz. ’embraced by the intelligent—­praj/n/a—­Self he knows nothing that is without, nothing that is within,’ B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 3, 21) declares that the soul in the condition of dreamless sleep is resolved into an intelligent entity.  Hence that into which all intelligent souls are resolved is an intelligent cause of the world, denoted by the word ‘Sat,’ and not the pradhana.—­A further reason for the pradhana not being the cause is subjoined.

10.  On account of the uniformity of view (of the Vedanta-texts, Brahman is to be considered the cause).

Page 127

If, as in the argumentations of the logicians, so in the Vedanta-texts also, there were set forth different views concerning the nature of the cause, some of them favouring the theory of an intelligent Brahman being the cause of the world, others inclining towards the pradhana doctrine, and others again tending in a different direction; then it might perhaps be possible to interpret such passages as those, which speak of the cause of the world as thinking, in such a manner as to make them fall in with the pradhana theory.  But the stated condition is absent since all the Vedanta-texts uniformly teach that the cause of the world is the intelligent Brahman.  Compare, for instance, ’As from a burning fire sparks proceed in all directions, thus from that Self the pra/n/as proceed each towards its place; from the pra/n/as the gods, from the gods the worlds’ (Kau.  Up.  III, 3).  And ‘from that Self sprang ether’ (Taitt.  Up.  II, 1).  And ‘all this springs from the Self’ (Ch.  Up.  VII, 26, 1).  And ‘this pra/n/a is born from the Self’ (Pr.  Up.  III, 3); all which passages declare the Self to be the cause.  That the word ‘Self’ denotes an intelligent being, we have already shown.

And that all the Vedanta-texts advocate the same view as to an intelligent cause of the world, greatly strengthens their claim to be considered a means of right knowledge, just as the corresponding claims of the senses are strengthened by their giving us information of a uniform character regarding colour and the like.  The all-knowing Brahman is therefore to be considered the cause of the world, ’on account of the uniformity of view (of the Vedanta-texts).’—­A further reason for this conclusion is advanced.

11.  And because it is directly stated in Scripture (therefore the all-knowing Brahman is the cause of the world).

That the all-knowing Lord is the cause of the world, is also declared in a text directly referring to him (viz. the all-knowing one), viz. in the following passage of the mantropanishad of the Sveta/s/vataras (VI, 9) where the word ‘he’ refers to the previously mentioned all-knowing Lord, ’He is the cause, the lord of the lords of the organs, and there is of him neither parent nor lord.’  It is therefore finally settled that the all-knowing Brahman is the general cause, not the non-intelligent pradhana or anything else.

In what precedes we have shown, availing ourselves of appropriate arguments, that the Vedanta-texts exhibited under Sutras I, 1-11, are capable of proving that the all-knowing, all-powerful Lord is the cause of the origin, subsistence, and dissolution of the world.  And we have explained, by pointing to the prevailing uniformity of view (I, 10), that all Vedanta-texts whatever maintain an intelligent cause.  The question might therefore be asked, ’What reason is there for the subsequent part of the Vedanta-sutras?’ (as the chief point is settled already.)

Page 128

To this question we reply as follows:  Brahman is apprehended under two forms; in the first place as qualified by limiting conditions owing to the multiformity of the evolutions of name and form (i.e. the multiformity of the created world); in the second place as being the opposite of this, i.e. free from all limiting conditions whatever.  Compare the following passages:  B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 5, 15, ’For where there is duality as it were, then one sees the other; but when the Self only is all this, how should he see another?’ Ch.  Up.  VII, 24, 1, ’Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is the greatest.  Where one sees something else, hears something else, understands something else, that is the little.  The greatest is immortal; the little is mortal;’ Taitt.  Up.  III, 12, 7, ’The wise one, who having produced all forms and made all names, sits calling (the things by their names[100]);’ Sv.  Up.  VI, 19, ’Who is without parts, without actions, tranquil, without faults, without taint, the highest bridge of immortality, like a fire that has consumed its fuel;’ B/ri/.  Up.  II, 3, 6, ‘Not so, not so;’ B/ri/.  Up.  III, 8, 8, ’It is neither coarse nor fine, neither short nor long;’ and ’defective is one place, perfect the other.’  All these passages, with many others, declare Brahman to possess a double nature, according as it is the object either of Knowledge or of Nescience.  As long as it is the object of Nescience, there are applied to it the categories of devotee, object of devotion, and the like[101].  The different modes of devotion lead to different results, some to exaltation, some to gradual emancipation, some to success in works; those modes are distinct on account of the distinction of the different qualities and limiting conditions[102].  And although the one highest Self only, i.e. the Lord distinguished by those different qualities constitutes the object of devotion, still the fruits (of devotion) are distinct, according as the devotion refers to different qualities.  Thus Scripture says, ’According as man worships him, that he becomes;’ and, ’According to what his thought is in this world, so will he be when he has departed this life’ (Ch.  Up.  III, 14, 1).  Sm/ri/ti also makes an analogous statement, ’Remembering whatever form of being he leaves this body in the end, into that form he enters, being impressed with it through his constant meditation’ (Bha.  Gita VIII, 6).

Although one and the same Self is hidden in all beings movable as well as immovable, yet owing to the gradual rise of excellence of the minds which form the limiting conditions (of the Self), Scripture declares that the Self, although eternally unchanging and uniform, reveals itself[103] in a graduated series of beings, and so appears in forms of various dignity and power; compare, for instance (Ait.  Ar.  II, 3, 2, 1), ‘He who knows the higher manifestation of the Self in him[104],’ &c.  Similarly Sm/ri/ti

Page 129

12. (The Self) consisting of bliss (is the highest Self) on account of the repetition (of the word ‘bliss,’ as denoting the highest Self).

The Taittiriya-upanishad (II, 1-5), after having enumerated the Self consisting of food, the Self consisting of the vital airs, the Self consisting of mind, and the Self consisting of understanding, says, ’Different from this which consists of understanding is the other inner Self which consists of bliss.’  Here the doubt arises whether the phrase, ‘that which consists of bliss,’ denotes the highest Brahman of which it had been said previously, that ’It is true Being, Knowledge, without end,’ or something different from Brahman, just as the Self consisting of food, &c., is different from it.—­The purvapakshin maintains that the Self consisting of bliss is a secondary (not the principal) Self, and something different from Brahman; as it forms a link in a series of Selfs, beginning with the Self consisting of food, which all are not the principal Self.  To the objection that even thus the Self consisting of bliss may be considered as the primary Self, since it is stated to be the innermost of all, he replies

Page 130

To this reasoning we make the following reply:—­By the Self consisting of bliss we have to understand the highest Self, ’on account of repetition.’  For the word ‘bliss’ is repeatedly applied to the highest Self.  So Taitt.  Up.  II, 7, where, after the clause ’That is flavour’—­which refers back to the Self consisting of bliss, and declares it to be of the nature of flavour—­we read, ’For only after having perceived flavour can any one perceive delight.  Who could breathe, who could breathe forth if that Bliss existed not in the ether (of the heart)?  For he alone causes blessedness;’ and again, II, 8, ’Now this is an examination of Bliss;’ ’He reaches that Self consisting of Bliss;’ and again, II, 9, ’He who knows the Bliss of Brahman fears nothing;’ and in addition, ‘He understood that Bliss is Brahman’ (III, 6).  And in another scriptural passage also (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 9, 28), ‘Knowledge and bliss is Brahman,’ we see the word ‘bliss’ applied just to Brahman.  As, therefore, the word ‘bliss’ is repeatedly used with reference to Brahman, we conclude that the Self consisting of bliss is Brahman also.  The objection that the Self consisting of bliss can only denote the secondary Self (the Sa/m/sarin), because it forms a link in a series of secondary Selfs, beginning with the one consisting of food, is of no force, for the reason that the Self consisting of bliss is the innermost of all.  The Sastra, wishing to convey information about the primary Self, adapts itself to common notions, in so far as it at first refers to the body consisting of food, which, although not the Self, is by very obtuse people identified with it; it then proceeds from the body to another Self, which has the same shape with the preceding one, just as the statue possesses the form of the mould into which the molten brass had been poured; then, again, to another one, always at first representing the Non-Self as the Self, for the purpose of easier comprehension; and it finally teaches that the innermost Self[106], which consists of bliss, is the real Self.  Just as when a man, desirous of pointing out the star Arundhati to another man, at first points to several stars which are not Arundhati as being Arundhati, while only the star pointed out in the end is the real Arundhati; so here also the Self consisting of bliss is the real Self on account of its being the innermost (i.e. the

Page 131

13.  If (it be objected that the term anandamaya, consisting of bliss, can) not (denote the highest Self) on account of its being a word denoting a modification (or product); (we declare the objection to be) not (valid) on account of abundance, (the idea of which may be expressed by the affix maya.)

Here the purvapakshin raises the objection that the word anandamaya (consisting of bliss) cannot denote the highest Self.—­Why?—­Because the word anandamaya is understood to denote something different from the original word (i.e. the word ananda without the derivative affix maya), viz. a modification; according to the received sense of the affix maya.  ‘Anandamaya’ therefore denotes a modification, just as annamaya (consisting of food) and similar words do.

This objection is, however, not valid, because ‘maya’ is also used in the sense of abundance, i.e. denotes that where there is abundance of what the original word expresses.  So, for instance, the phrase ’the sacrifice is annamaya’ means ‘the sacrifice is abounding in food’ (not ’is some modification or product of food’).  Thus here Brahman also, as abounding in bliss, is called anandamaya.  That Brahman does abound in bliss follows from the passage (Taitt.  Up.  II, 8), where, after the bliss of each of the different classes of beings, beginning with man, has been declared to be a hundred times greater than the bliss of the immediately preceding class, the bliss of Brahman is finally proclaimed to be absolutely supreme.  Maya therefore denotes abundance.

14.  And because he is declared to be the cause of it, (i.e. of bliss; therefore maya is to be taken as denoting abundance.)

Maya must be understood to denote abundance, for that reason also that Scripture declares Brahman to be the cause of bliss, ’For he alone causes bliss’ (Taitt.  Up.  II, 7).  For he who causes bliss must himself abound in bliss; just as we infer in ordinary life, that a man who enriches others must himself possess abundant wealth.  As, therefore, maya may be taken to mean ‘abundant,’ the Self consisting of bliss is the highest Self.

15.  Moreover (the anandamaya is Brahman because) the same (Brahman) which had been referred to in the mantra is sung, (i.e. proclaimed in the Brahma/n/a passage as the anandamaya.)

Page 132

The Self, consisting of joy, is the highest Brahman for the following reason also[107].  On the introductory words ’he who knows Brahman attains the highest’ (Taitt.  Up.  II, 1), there follows a mantra proclaiming that Brahman, which forms the general topic of the chapter, possesses the qualities of true existence, intelligence, infinity; after that it is said that from Brahman there sprang at first the ether and then all other moving and non-moving things, and that, entering into the beings which it had emitted, Brahman stays in the recess, inmost of all; thereupon, for its better comprehension, the series of the different Selfs (’different from this is the inner Self,’ &c.) are enumerated, and then finally the same Brahman which the mantra had proclaimed, is again proclaimed in the passage under discussion, ’different from this is the other inner Self, which consists of bliss.’  To assume that a mantra and the Brahma/n/a passage belonging to it have the same sense is only proper, on account of the absence of contradiction (which results therefrom); for otherwise we should be driven to the unwelcome inference that the text drops the topic once started, and turns to an altogether new subject.

Nor is there mentioned a further inner Self different from the Self consisting of bliss, as in the case of the Self consisting of food, &c.[108] On the same (i.e. the Self consisting of bliss) is founded, ’This same knowledge of Bh/ri/gu and Varu/n/a; he understood that bliss is Brahman’ (Taitt.  Up.  III, 6).  Therefore the Self consisting of bliss is the highest Self.

16. (The Self consisting of bliss is the highest Self,) not the other (i.e. the individual Soul), on account of the impossibility (of the latter assumption).

And for the following reason also the Self consisting of bliss is the highest Self only, not the other, i.e. the one which is other than the Lord, i.e. the transmigrating individual soul.  The personal soul cannot be denoted by the term ‘the one consisting of bliss.’  Why?  On account of the impossibility.  For Scripture says, with reference to the Self consisting of bliss, ’He wished, may I be many, may I grow forth.  He brooded over himself.  After he had thus brooded, he sent forth whatever there is.’  Here, the desire arising before the origination of a body, &c., the non-separation of the effects created from the creator, and the creation of all effects whatever, cannot possibly belong to any Self different from the highest Self.

17.  And on account of the declaration of the difference (of the two, the anandamaya cannot be the transmigrating soul).

Page 133

The Self consisting of bliss cannot be identical with the transmigrating soul, for that reason also that in the section treating of the Self of bliss, the individual soul and the Self of bliss are distinctly represented as different; Taitt.  Up.  II, 7, ’It (i.e. the Self consisting of bliss) is a flavour; for only after perceiving a flavour can this (soul) perceive bliss.’  For he who perceives cannot be that which is perceived.—­But, it may be asked, if he who perceives or attains cannot be that which is perceived or attained, how about the following Sruti- and Smr/ri/ti-passages, ‘The Self is to be sought;’ ’Nothing higher is known than the attainment of the Self[109]?’—­This objection, we reply, is legitimate (from the point of view of absolute truth).  Yet we see that in ordinary life, the Self, which in reality is never anything but the Self, is, owing to non-comprehension of the truth, identified with the Non-Self, i.e. the body and so on; whereby it becomes possible to speak of the Self in so far as it is identified with the body, and so on, as something not searched for but to be searched for, not heard but to be heard, not seized but to be seized, not perceived but to be perceived, not known but to be known, and the like.  Scripture, on the other hand, denies, in such passages as ’there is no other seer but he’ (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 7, 23), that there is in reality any seer or hearer different from the all-knowing highest Lord. (Nor can it be said that the Lord is unreal because he is identical with the unreal individual soul; for)[110] the Lord differs from the soul (vij/n/anatman) which is embodied, acts and enjoys, and is the product of Nescience, in the same way as the real juggler who stands on the ground differs from the illusive juggler, who, holding in his hand a shield and a sword, climbs up to the sky by means of a rope; or as the free unlimited ether differs from the ether of a jar, which is determined by its limiting adjunct, (viz. the jar.) With reference to this fictitious difference of the highest Self and the individual Self, the two last Sutras have been propounded.

18.  And on account of desire (being mentioned as belonging to the anandamaya) no regard is to be had to what is inferred, (i.e. to the pradhana inferred by the Sa@nkhyas.)

Since in the passage ‘he desired, may I be many, may I grow forth,’ which occurs in the chapter treating of the anandamaya (Taitt.  Up.  II, 6), the quality of feeling desire is mentioned, that which is inferred, i.e. the non-intelligent pradhana assumed by the Sa@nkhyas, cannot be regarded as being the Self consisting of bliss and the cause of the world.  Although the opinion that the pradhana is the cause of the world, has already been refuted in the Sutra I, 1, 5, it is here, where a favourable opportunity presents itself, refuted for a second time on the basis of the scriptural passage about the cause of the world feeling desire, for the purpose of showing the uniformity of view (of all scriptural passages).

Page 134

19.  And, moreover, it (i.e.  Scripture) teaches the joining of this (i.e. the individual soul) with that, (i.e. the Self consisting of bliss), on that (being fully known).

And for the following reason also the term, ’the Self consisting of bliss,’ cannot denote either the pradhana or the individual soul.  Scripture teaches that the individual soul when it has reached knowledge is joined, i.e. identified, with the Self of bliss under discussion, i.e. obtains final release.  Compare the following passage (Taitt.  Up.  II, 7), ’When he finds freedom from fear, and rest in that which is invisible, incorporeal, undefined, unsupported, then he has obtained the fearless.  For if he makes but the smallest distinction in it there is fear for him.’  That means, if he sees in that Self consisting of bliss even a small difference in the form of non-identity, then he finds no release from the fear of transmigratory existence.  But when he, by means of the cognition of absolute identity, finds absolute rest in the Self consisting of bliss, then he is freed from the fear of transmigratory existence.  But this (finding absolute rest) is possible only when we understand by the Self consisting of bliss, the highest Self, and not either the pradhana or the individual soul.  Hence it is proved that the Self consisting of bliss is the highest Self.

But, in reality, the following remarks have to be made concerning the true meaning of the word ‘anandamaya[111].’  On what grounds, we ask, can it be maintained that the affix ‘maya’ after having, in the series of compounds beginning with annamaya and ending with vij/n/anamaya, denoted mere modifications, should all at once, in the word anandamaya, which belongs to the same series, denote abundance, so that anandamaya would refer to Brahman?  If it should be said that the assumption is made on account of the governing influence of the Brahman proclaimed in the mantra (which forms the beginning of the chapter, Taitt.  Up.  II), we reply that therefrom it would follow that also the Selfs consisting of food, breath, &c., denote Brahman (because the governing influence of the mantra extends to them also).—­The advocate of the former interpretation will here, perhaps, restate an argument already made use of above, viz. as follows:  To assume that the Selfs consisting of food, and so on, are not Brahman is quite proper, because after each of them an inner Self is mentioned.  After the Self of bliss, on the other hand, no further inner Self is mentioned, and hence it must be considered to be Brahman itself; otherwise we should commit the mistake of dropping the subject-matter in hand (as which Brahman is pointed out by the mantra), and taking up a new topic.—­But to this we reply that, although unlike the case of the Selfs consisting of food, &c., no inner Self is mentioned after the Self consisting of bliss, still the latter cannot be considered as Brahman, because with reference to the Self consisting

Page 135

Page 136

Page 137

Page 138

The Sutras are therefore to be explained as follows.  There arises the question whether the passage, ‘Brahman is the tail, the support,’ is to be understood as intimating that Brahman is a mere member of the Self consisting of bliss, or that it is the principal matter.  If it is said that it must be considered as a mere member, the reply is, ’The Self consisting of bliss on account of the repetition.’  That means:  Brahman, which in the passage ‘the Self consisting of bliss,’ &c., is spoken of as the tail, the support, is designated as the principal matter (not as something subordinate).  On account of the repetition; for in the memorial sloka, ‘he becomes himself non-existing,’ Brahman alone is reiterated.  ’If not, on account of the word denoting a modification; not so, on account of abundance.’  In this Sutra the word ‘modification’ is meant to convey the sense of member.  The objection that on account of the word ‘tail,’ which denotes a mere member, Brahman cannot be taken as the principal matter must be refuted.  This we do by remarking that there is no difficulty, since a word denoting a member may be introduced into the passage on account of pra/k/urya[113].  Pra/k/urya here means a phraseology abounding in terms denoting members.  After the different members, beginning with the head and ending with the tail, of the Selfs, consisting of food, &c. have been enumerated, there are also mentioned the head and the other limbs of the Self of bliss, and then it is added, ‘Brahman is the tail, the support;’ the intention being merely to introduce some more terms denoting members, not to convey the meaning of ‘member,’ (an explanation which is impossible) because the preceding Sutra already has proved Brahman (not to be a member, but) to be the principal matter.  ‘And because he is declared to be the cause of it.’  That means:  Brahman is declared to be the cause of the entire aggregate of effects, inclusive of the Self, consisting of bliss, in the following passage, ‘He created all whatever there is’ (Taitt.  Up.  II, 6).  And as Brahman is the cause, it cannot at the same time be called the member, in the literal sense of the word, of the Self of bliss, which is nothing but one of Brahman’s effects.  The other Sutras also (which refer to the Self of bliss[114]) are to be considered, as well as they may, as conveying a knowledge of Brahman, which (Brahman) is referred to in the passage about the tail.

20.  The one within (the sun and the eye) (is the highest Lord), on account of his qualities being declared[115].

The following passage is found in Scripture (Ch.  Up.  I, 6, 6 ff.), ’Now that person bright as gold who is seen within the sun, with beard bright as gold and hair bright as gold, bright as gold altogether to the very tips of his nails, whose eyes are like blue lotus; his name is Ut, for he has risen (udita) above all evil.  He also who knows this rises above all evil.  So much with reference to the devas.’ 

Page 139

The purvapakshin takes the former view.  An individual soul, he says, is referred to, since Scripture speaks of a definite shape.  To the person in the sun special features are ascribed, such as the possession of a beard as bright as gold and so on, and the same features manifestly belong to the person in the eye also, since they are expressly transferred to it in the passage, ’The shape of this person is the same as the shape of that person.’  That, on the other hand, no shape can be ascribed to the highest Lord, follows from the passage (Kau.  Up.  I, 3, 15), ’That which is without sound, without touch, without form, without decay.’  That an individual soul is meant follows moreover from the fact that a definite abode is mentioned, ’He who is in the sun; he who is in the eye.’  About the highest Lord, who has no special abode, but abides in his own glory, no similar statement can be made; compare, for instance, the two following passages, ’Where does he rest?  In his own glory?’ (Ch.  Up.  VII, 24, 1); and ’like the ether he is omnipresent, eternal.’  A further argument for our view is supplied by the fact that the might (of the being in question) is said to be limited; for the passage, ’He is lord of the worlds beyond that, and of the wishes of the devas,’ indicates the limitation of the might of the person in the sun; and the passage, ’He is lord of the worlds beneath that and of the wishes of men,’ indicates the limitation of the might of the person in the eye.  No limit, on the other hand, can be admitted of the might of the highest Lord, as appears from the passage (B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 4, 22), ’He is the Lord of all, the king of all things, the protector of all things.  He is a bank and a boundary so that these worlds may not be confounded;’ which passage intimates that the Lord is free from all limiting distinctions.  For all these reasons the person in the eye and the sun cannot be the highest Lord.

To this reasoning the Sutra replies, ’The one within, on account of his qualities being declared.’  The person referred to in the passages concerning the person within the sun and the person within the eye is not a transmigrating being, but the highest Lord.  Why?  Because his qualities are declared.  For the qualities of the highest Lord are indicated in the text as follows.  At first the name of the person within the sun is mentioned—­’his name is Ut’—­and then this name is explained on the ground of that person being free from all evil, ’He has risen above all evil.’  The same name thus explained is then transferred to

Page 140

Page 141

21.  And there is another one (i.e. the Lord who is different from the individual souls animating the sun, &c.), on account of the declaration of distinction.

There is, moreover, one distinct from the individual souls which animate the sun and other bodies, viz. the Lord who rules within; whose distinction (from all individual souls) is proclaimed in the following scriptural passage, ’He who dwells in the sun and within the sun, whom the sun does not know, whose body the sun is, and who rules the sun within; he is thy Self, the ruler within, the immortal’ (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 7, 9).  Here the expression, ’He within the sun whom the sun does not know,’ clearly indicates that the Ruler within is distinct from that cognising individual soul whose body is the sun.  With that Ruler within we have to identify the person within the sun, according to the tenet of the sameness of purport of all Vedanta-texts.  It thus remains a settled conclusion that the passage under discussion conveys instruction about the highest Lord.

22.  The aka/s/a, i.e. ether (is Brahman) on account of characteristic marks (of the latter being mentioned).

In the Chandogya (I, 9) the following passage is met with, ’What is the origin of this world?’ ‘Ether,’ he replied.  ’For all these beings take their rise from the ether only, and return into the ether.  Ether is greater than these, ether is their rest.’—­Here the following doubt arises.  Does the word ‘ether’ denote the highest Brahman or the elemental ether?—­Whence the doubt?—­Because the word is seen to be used in both senses.  Its use in the sense of ‘elemental ether’ is well established in ordinary as well as in Vedic speech; and, on the other hand, we see that it is sometimes used to denote Brahman, viz. in cases where we ascertain, either from some complementary sentence or from the fact of special qualities being mentioned, that Brahman is meant.  So, for instance, Taitt.  Up.  II, 7, ’If that bliss existed not in the ether;’ and Ch.  Up.  VIII, 14, ’That which is called ether is the revealer of all forms and names; that within which forms and names are[117] that is Brahman.’  Hence the doubt.—­Which sense is then to be adopted in our case?—­The sense of elemental ether, the purvapakshin replies; because this sense belongs to the word more commonly, and therefore presents itself to the mind more readily.  The word ‘ether’ cannot be taken in both senses equally, because that would involve a (faulty) attribution of several meanings to one and the same word.  Hence the term ‘ether’ applies to Brahman in a secondary (metaphorical) sense only; on account of Brahman being in many of its attributes, such as all pervadingness and the like, similar to ether.  The rule is, that when the primary sense of a word is possible, the word must not be taken in a secondary sense.  And in the passage under discussion only the primary sense of the word ‘ether’ is admissible.  Should it be objected that, if

Page 142

To this we reply as follows:—­The word ether must here be taken to denote Brahman, on account of characteristic marks of the latter being mentioned.  For the sentence, ’All these beings take their rise from the ether only,’ clearly indicates the highest Brahman, since all Vedanta-texts agree in definitely declaring that all beings spring from the highest Brahman.—­But, the opponent may say, we have shown that the elemental ether also may be represented as the cause, viz. of air, fire, and the other elements in due succession.—­We admit this.  But still there remains the difficulty, that, unless we understand the word to apply to the fundamental cause of all, viz.  Brahman, the affirmation contained in the word ‘only’ and the qualification expressed by the word ‘all’ (in ‘all beings’) would be out of place.  Moreover, the clause, ‘They return into the ether,’ again points to Brahman, and so likewise the phrase, ‘Ether is greater than these, ether is their rest;’ for absolute superiority in point of greatness Scripture attributes to the highest Self only; cp.  Ch.  Up.  III, 14, 3, ’Greater than the earth, greater than the sky, greater than heaven, greater than all these worlds.’  The quality of being a place of rest likewise agrees best with the highest Brahman, on account of its being the highest cause.  This is confirmed by the following scriptural passage:  ’Knowledge and bliss is Brahman, it is the rest of him who gives gifts’ (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 9, 28).  Moreover, Jaivali finding fault with the doctrine of Salavatya, on account of (his saman) having an end (Ch.  Up.  I, 8, 8), and wishing to proclaim something that has no end chooses the ether, and then, having identified the ether with the Udgitha, concludes, ’He is the Udgitha greater than great; he is without end.’  Now this endlessness is a characteristic mark of Brahman.  To the remark that the sense of ‘elemental ether’ presents itself to the mind more readily, because it is the better established sense of the word aka/s/a, we reply, that, although it may present itself to the mind first, yet it is not to be accepted, because we see that qualities of Brahman are mentioned in the complementary sentences.  That the word aka/s/a is also used to denote Brahman has been shown already; cp. such passages as, ’Ether is the revealer

Page 143

23.  For the same reason breath (is Brahman).

Concerning the udgitha it is said (Ch.  Up.  I, 10, 9), ’Prastot/ri/, that deity which belongs to the prastava, &c.,’ and, further on (I, 11, 4; 5), ’Which then is that deity?  He said:  Breath.  For all these beings merge into breath alone, and from breath they arise.  This is the deity belonging to the prastava.’  With reference to this passage doubt and decision are to be considered as analogous to those stated under the preceding Sutra.  For while in some passages—­as, for instance, ’For indeed, my son, mind is fastened to pra/n/a,’ Ch.  Up.  VI, 8, 2; and, ‘the pra/n/a of pra/n/a,’ B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 4, 18—­the word ‘breath’ is seen to denote Brahman, its use in the sense of a certain modification of air is better established in common as well as in Vedic language.  Hence there arises a doubt whether in the passage under discussion the word pra/n/a denotes Brahman or (ordinary) breath.  In favour of which meaning have we then to decide?

Here the purvapakshin maintains that the word must be held to denote the fivefold vital breath, which is a peculiar modification of wind (or air); because, as has been remarked already, that sense of the word pra/n/a is the better established one.—­But no, an objector will say, just as in the case of the preceding Sutra, so here also Brahman is meant, on account of characteristic marks being mentioned; for here also a complementary passage gives us to understand that all beings spring from and merge into pra/n/a; a process which can take place in connexion with the highest Lord only.—­This objection, the purvapakshin replies, is futile, since we see that the beings enter into and proceed from the principal vital air also.  For Scripture makes the following statement (Sat.  Br.  X, 3, 3, 6), ’When man sleeps, then into breath indeed speech merges, into breath the eye, into breath the ear, into breath the mind; when he awakes then they spring again from breath alone.’ 

Page 144

To this argumentation the author of the Sutras replies:  For the same reason pra/n/a—­that means:  on account of the presence of characteristic marks—­which constituted the reason stated in the preceding Sutra—­the word pra/n/a also must be held to denote Brahman.  For Scripture says of pra/n/a also, that it is connected with marks characteristic of Brahman.  The sentence, ’All these beings merge into breath alone, and from breath they arise,’ which declares that the origination and retractation of all beings depend on pra/n/a, clearly shows pra/n/a to be Brahman.  In reply to the assertion that the origination and retractation of all beings can be reconciled equally well with the assumption of pra/n/a denoting the chief vital air, because origination and retractation take place in the state of waking and of sleep also, we remark that in those two states only the senses are merged into, and emerge from, the chief vital air, while, according to the scriptural passage, ‘For all these beings, &c.,’ all beings whatever into which a living Self has entered, together with their senses and bodies, merge and emerge by turns.  And even if the word ‘beings’ were taken (not in the sense of animated beings, but) in the sense of material elements in general, there would be nothing in the way of interpreting the passage as referring to Brahman.—­But, it may be said, that the senses together with their objects do, during sleep, enter into pra/n/a, and again issue from it at the time of waking, we distinctly learn from another scriptural passage, viz.  Kau.  Up.  III, 3, ’When a man being thus asleep sees no dream whatever, he becomes one with that pra/n/a alone.  Then speech goes to him with all names,’ &c.—­True, we reply, but there also the word pra/n/a denotes (not the vital air) but Brahman, as we conclude from characteristic marks of Brahman being mentioned.  The objection, again, that the word pra/n/a cannot denote Brahman because it occurs in proximity to the words ‘food’ and ‘sun’ (which do not refer to Brahman), is altogether baseless; for proximity is of no avail against the force of the complementary passage which intimates that pra/n/a is Brahman.  That argument, finally, which rests on the fact that the word pra/n/a commonly denotes the vital air with its five modifications, is to be refuted in the same way as the parallel argument which the purvapakshin brought forward with reference to the word ‘ether.’  From all this it follows that the pra/n/a, which is the deity of the prastava, is Brahman.

Page 145

Some (commentators)[121] quote under the present Sutra the following passages, ‘the pra/n/a of pra/n/a’ (B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 4, 18), and ’for to pra/n/a mind is fastened’ (Ch.  Up.  VI, 8, 2).  But that is wrong since these two passages offer no opportunity for any discussion, the former on account of the separation of the words, the latter on account of the general topic.  When we meet with a phrase such as ’the father of the father’ we understand at once that the genitive denotes a father different from the father denoted by the nominative.  Analogously we infer from the separation of words contained in the phrase, ’the breath of breath,’ that the ‘breath of breath’ is different from the ordinary breath (denoted by the genitive ’of breath’).  For one and the same thing cannot, by means of a genitive, be predicated of—­and thus distinguished from—­itself.  Concerning the second passage we remark that, if the matter constituting the general topic of some chapter is referred to in that chapter under a different name, we yet conclude, from the general topic, that that special matter is meant.  For instance, when we meet in the section which treats of the jyotish/t/oma sacrifice with the passage, ‘in every spring he is to offer the jyotis sacrifice,’ we at once understand that the word denotes the jyotish/t/oma.  If we therefore meet with the clause ‘to pra/n/a mind is fastened’ in a section of which the highest Brahman is the topic, we do not for a moment suppose that the word pra/n/a should there denote the ordinary breath which is a mere modification of air.  The two passages thus do not offer any matter for discussion, and hence do not furnish appropriate instances for the Sutra.  We have shown, on the other hand, that the passage about the pra/n/a, which is the deity of the prastava, allows room for doubt, purvapaksha and final decision.

24.  The ‘light’ (is Brahman), on account of the mention of feet (in a passage which is connected with the passage about the light).

Scripture says (Ch.  Up.  III, 13, 7), ’Now that light which shines above this heaven, higher than all, higher than everything, in the highest worlds beyond which there are no other worlds that is the same light which is within man.’  Here the doubt presents itself whether the word ‘light’ denotes the light of the sun and the like, or the highest Self.  Under the preceding Sutras we had shown that some words which ordinarily have different meanings yet in certain passages denote Brahman, since characteristic marks of the latter are mentioned.  Here the question has to be discussed whether, in connexion with the passage quoted, characteristic marks of Brahman are mentioned or not.

Page 146

The purvapakshin maintains that the word ‘light’ denotes nothing else but the light of the sun and the like, since that is the ordinary well-established meaning of the term.  The common use of language, he says, teaches us that the two words ‘light’ and ‘darkness’ denote mutually opposite things, darkness being the term for whatever interferes with the function of the sense of sight, as, for instance, the gloom of the night, while sunshine and whatever else favours the action of the eye is called light.  The word ‘shines’ also, which the text exhibits, is known ordinarily to refer to the sun and similar sources of light; while of Brahman, which is devoid of colour, it cannot be said, in the primary sense of the word, that it ‘shines.’  Further, the word jyotis must here denote light because it is said to be bounded by the sky (’that light which shines above this heaven’).  For while it is impossible to consider the sky as being the boundary of Brahman, which is the Self of all and the source of all things movable or immovable, the sky may be looked upon as forming the boundary of light, which is a mere product and as such limited; accordingly the text says, ’the light beyond heaven.’—­But light, although a mere product, is perceived everywhere; it would therefore be wrong to declare that it is bounded by the sky!—­Well, then, the purvapakshin replies, let us assume that the light meant is the first-born (original) light which has not yet become tripartite[122].  This explanation again cannot be admitted, because the non-tripartite light does not serve any purpose.—­But, the purvapakshin resumes, Why should its purpose not be found therein that it is the object of devout meditation?—­That cannot be, we reply; for we see that only such things are represented as objects of devotion as have some other independent use of their own; so, for instance, the sun (which dispels darkness and so on).  Moreover the scriptural passage, ‘Let me make each of these three (fire, water, and earth) tripartite,’ does not indicate any difference[123].  And even of the non-tripartite light it is not known that the sky constitutes its boundary.—­Well, then (the purvapakshin resumes, dropping the idea of the non-tripartite light), let us assume that the light of which the text speaks is the tripartite (ordinary) light.  The objection that light is seen to exist also beneath the sky, viz. in the form of fire and the like, we invalidate by the remark that there is nothing contrary to reason in assigning a special locality to fire, although the latter is observed everywhere; while to assume a special place for Brahman, to which the idea of place does not apply at all, would be most unsuitable.  Moreover, the clause ’higher than everything, in the highest worlds beyond which there are no other worlds,’ which indicates a multiplicity of abodes, agrees much better with light, which is a mere product (than with Brahman).  There is moreover that other clause, also, ’That

Page 147

To this we make the following reply.  The word jyotis must be held to denote Brahman.  Why?  On account of the feet (quarters) being mentioned.  In a preceding passage Brahman had been spoken of as having four feet (quarters).  ’Such is the greatness of it; greater than it is the Person (purusha).  One foot of it are all the beings, three feet of it are the Immortal in heaven.’  That which in this passage is said to constitute the three-quarter part, immortal and connected with heaven, of Brahman, which altogether comprises four quarters; this very same entity we recognise as again referred to in the passage under discussion, because there also it is said to be connected with heaven.  If therefore we should set it aside in our interpretation of the passage and assume the latter to refer to the ordinary light, we should commit the mistake of dropping, without need, the topic started and introducing a new subject.  Brahman, in fact, continues to form the subject-matter, not only of the passage about the light, but likewise of the subsequent section, the so-called Sa/nd/ilya-vidya (Ch.  Up.  III, 14).  Hence we conclude that in our passage the word ‘light’ must

Page 148

Page 149

25.  If it be objected that (Brahman is) not (denoted) on account of the metre being denoted; (we reply) not so, because thus (i.e. by means of the metre) the direction of the mind (on Brahman) is declared; for thus it is seen (in other passages also).

We now address ourselves to the refutation of the assertion (made in the purvapaksha of the preceding Sutra) that in the previous passage also Brahman is not referred to, because in the sentence, ’Gayatri is everything whatsoever here exists,’ the metre called Gayatri is spoken of.—­How (we ask the purvapakshin) can it be maintained that, on account of the metre being spoken of, Brahman is not denoted, while yet the mantra ‘such is the greatness of it,’ &c., clearly sets forth Brahman with its four quarters?—­You are mistaken (the purvapakshin replies).  The sentence, ‘Gayatri is everything,’ starts the discussion of Gayatri.  The same Gayatri is thereupon described under the various forms of all beings, earth, body, heart, speech, breath; to which there refers also the verse, ‘that Gayatri has four feet and is sixfold.’  After that we meet with the mantra, ‘Such is the greatness

Page 150

This argumentation, we reply, proves nothing against our position.  ‘Because thus direction of the mind is declared,’ i.e. because the Brahma/n/a passage, ‘Gayatri indeed is all this,’ intimates that by means of the metre Gayatri the mind is to be directed on Brahman which is connected with that metre.  Of the metre Gayatri, which is nothing but a certain special combination of syllables, it could not possibly be said that it is the Self of everything.  We therefore have to understand the passage as declaring that Brahman, which, as the cause of the world, is connected with that product also whose name is Gayatri, is ’all this;’ in accordance with that other passage which directly says, ’All this indeed is Brahman’ (Kh.  Up.  III, 14, 1).  That the effect is in reality not different from the cause, we shall prove later on, under Sutra II, 1, 14.  Devout meditation on Brahman under the form of certain effects (of Brahman) is seen to be mentioned in other passages also, so, for instance, Ait.  Ar.  III, 2, 3, 12, ’For the Bahv/rik/as consider him in the great hymn, the Adhvaryus in the sacrificial fire, the Chandogas in the Mahavrata ceremony.’  Although, therefore, the previous passage speaks of the metre, Brahman is what is meant, and the same Brahman is again referred to in the passage about the light, whose purport it is to enjoin another form of devout meditation.

Another commentator[127] is of opinion that the term Gayatri (does not denote Brahman in so far as viewed under the form of Gayatri, but) directly denotes Brahman, on account of the equality of number; for just as the Gayatri metre has four feet consisting of six syllables each, so Brahman also has four feet, (i.e. quarters.) Similarly we see that in other passages also the names of metres are used to denote other things which resemble those metres in certain numerical relations; cp. for instance, Ch.  Up.  IV, 3, 8, where it is said at first, ’Now these five and the other five make ten and that is the K/ri/ta,’ and after that ‘these are again the Viraj which eats the food.’  If we adopt this interpretation, Brahman only is spoken of, and the metre is not referred to at all.  In any case Brahman is the subject with which the previous passage is concerned.

Page 151

26.  And thus also (we must conclude, viz. that Brahman is the subject of the previous passage), because (thus only) the declaration as to the beings, &c. being the feet is possible.

That the previous passage has Brahman for its topic, we must assume for that reason also that the text designates the beings and so on as the feet of Gayatri.  For the text at first speaks of the beings, the earth, the body, and the heart[128], and then goes on ’that Gayatri has four feet and is sixfold.’  For of the mere metre, without any reference to Brahman, it would be impossible to say that the beings and so on are its feet.  Moreover, if Brahman were not meant, there would be no room for the verse, ‘Such is the greatness,’ &c.  For that verse clearly describes Brahman in its own nature; otherwise it would be impossible to represent the Gayatri as the Self of everything as is done in the words, ’One foot of it are all the beings; three feet of it are what is immortal in heaven.’  The purusha-sukta also (Rik Sa/m/h.  X, 90) exhibits the verse with sole reference to Brahman.  Sm/ri/ti likewise ascribes to Brahman a like nature, ’I stand supporting all this world by a single portion of myself’ (Bha.  Gita X, 42).  Our interpretation moreover enables us to take the passage, ‘that Brahman indeed which,’ &c. (III, 12, 7), in its primary sense, (i.e. to understand the word Brahman to denote nothing but Brahman.) And, moreover, the passage, ’these are the five men of Brahman’ (III, 13, 6), is appropriate only if the former passage about the Gayatri is taken as referring to Brahman (for otherwise the ‘Brahman’ in ‘men of Brahman’ would not be connected with the previous topic).  Hence Brahman is to be considered as the subject-matter of the previous passage also.  And the decision that the same Brahman is referred to in the passage about the light where it is recognised (to be the same) from its connexion with heaven, remains unshaken.

27.  The objection that (the Brahman of the former passage cannot be recognised in the latter) on account of the difference of designation, is not valid because in either (designation) there is nothing contrary (to the recognition).

The objection that in the former passage (’three feet of it are what is immortal in heaven’), heaven is designated as the abode, while in the latter passage (’that light which shines above this heaven’), heaven is designated as the boundary, and that, on account of this difference of designation, the subject-matter of the former passage cannot be recognised in the latter, must likewise be refuted.  This we do by remarking that in either designation nothing is contrary to the recognition.  Just as in ordinary language a falcon, although in contact with the top of a tree, is not only said to be on the tree but also above the tree, so Brahman also, although being in heaven, is here referred to as being beyond heaven as well.

Page 152

Another (commentator) explains:  just as in ordinary language a falcon, although not in contact with the top of a tree, is not only said to be above the top of the tree but also on the top of the tree, so Brahman also, which is in reality beyond heaven, is (in the former of the two passages) said to be in heaven.  Therefore the Brahman spoken of in the former passage can be recognised in the latter also, and it remains therefore a settled conclusion that the word ‘light’ denotes Brahman.

28.  Pra/n/a (breath) is Brahman, that being understood from a connected consideration (of the passages referring to pra/n/a).

In the Kaushitaki-brahma/n/a-upanishad there is recorded a legend of Indra and Pratardana which begins with the words, ’Pratardana, forsooth, the son of Divodasa came by means of fighting and strength to the beloved abode of Indra’ (Kau.  Up.  III, 1).  In this legend we read:  ’He said:  I am pra/n/a, the intelligent Self (praj/n/atman), meditate on me as Life, as Immortality’ (III, 2).  And later on (III, 3), ’Pra/n/a alone, the intelligent Self, having laid hold of this body, makes it rise up.’  Then, again (III, 8), ’Let no man try to find out what speech is, let him know the speaker.’  And in the end (III, 8), ’That breath indeed is the intelligent Self, bliss, imperishable, immortal.’—­Here the doubt presents itself whether the word pra/n/a denotes merely breath, the modification of air, or the Self of some divinity, or the individual soul, or the highest Brahman.—­But, it will be said at the outset, the Sutra I, 1, 21 already has shown that the word pra/n/a refers to Brahman, and as here also we meet with characteristic marks of Brahman, viz. the words ‘bliss, imperishable, immortal,’ what reason is there for again raising the same doubt?—­We reply:  Because there are observed here characteristic marks of different kinds.  For in the legend we meet not only with marks indicating Brahman, but also with marks pointing to other beings Thus Indra’s words, ‘Know me only’ (III, 1) point to the Self of a divinity; the words, ’Having laid hold of this body it makes it rise up,’ point to the breath; the words, ’Let no man try to find out what speech is, let him know the speaker,’ point to the individual soul.  There is thus room for doubt.

If, now, the purvapakshin maintains that the term pra/n/a here denotes the well-known modification of air, i.e. breath, we, on our side, assert that the word pra/n/a must be understood to denote Brahman.—­For what reason?—­On account of such being the consecutive meaning of the passages.  For if we examine the connexion of the entire section which treats of the pra/n/a, we observe that all the single passages can be construed into a whole only if they are viewed as referring to Brahman.  At the beginning of the legend Pratardana, having been allowed by Indra to choose a boon, mentions the highest good of man, which he selects for his boon, in the following words,

Page 153

29.  If it be said that (Brahman is) not (denoted) on account of the speaker denoting himself; (we reply that this objection is not valid) because there is in that (chapter) a multitude of references to the interior Self.

An objection is raised against the assertion that pra/n/a denotes Brahman.  The word pra/n/a, it is said, does not denote the highest Brahman, because the speaker designates himself.  The speaker, who is a certain powerful god called Indra, at first says, in order to reveal himself to Pratardana, ‘Know me only,’ and later on, ’I am pra/n/a, the intelligent Self.’  How, it is asked, can the pra/n/a, which this latter passage, expressive of personality as it is, represents as the Self of the speaker, be Brahman to which, as we know from Scripture, the attribute of being a speaker cannot be ascribed; compare, for instance, B/ri/.  Up.  III, 8, 8, ‘It is without speech, without mind.’  Further on, also, the speaker, i.e.  Indra, glorifies himself by enumerating a number of attributes,

Page 154

This objection we refute by the remark that in that chapter there are found a multitude of references to the interior Self.  For the passage, ‘As long as pra/n/a dwells in this body so long surely there is life,’ declares that that pra/n/a only which is the intelligent interior Self—­and not some particular outward deity—­has power to bestow and to take back life.  And where the text speaks of the eminence of the pra/n/as as founded on the existence of the pra/n/a, it shows that that pra/n/a is meant which has reference to the Self and is the abode of the sense-organs.[129]

Of the same tendency is the passage, ’Pra/n/a, the intelligent Self, alone having laid hold of this body makes it rise up;’ and the passage (which occurs in the passus, ’Let no man try to find out what speech is,’ &c.), ’For as in a car the circumference of the wheel is set on the spokes and the spokes on the nave, thus are these objects set on the subjects (the senses) and the subjects on the pra/n/a.  And that pra/n/a indeed is the Self of pra/n/a, blessed, imperishable, immortal.’  So also the following passage which, referring to this interior Self, forming as it were the centre of the peripherical interaction of the objects and senses, sums up as follows, ‘He is my Self, thus let it be known;’ a summing up which is appropriate only if pra/n/a is meant to denote not some outward existence, but the interior Self.  And another scriptural passage declares ’this Self is Brahman, omniscient’[130] (B/ri/.  Up.  II, 5, 19).  We therefore arrive at the conclusion that, on account of the multitude of references to the interior Self, the chapter contains information regarding Brahman, not regarding the Self of some deity.—­How then can the circumstance of the speaker (Indra) referring to himself be explained?

30.  The declaration (made by Indra about himself, viz. that he is one with Brahman) (is possible) through intuition vouched for by Scripture, as in the case of Vamadeva.

The individual divine Self called Indra perceiving by means of rishi-like intuition[131]—­the existence of which is vouched for by Scripture—­its own Self to be identical with the supreme Self, instructs Pratardana (about the highest Self) by means of the words ’Know me only.’

Page 155

By intuition of the same kind the rishi Vamadeva reached the knowledge expressed in the words, ‘I was Manu and Surya;’ in accordance with the passage, ’Whatever deva was awakened (so as to know Brahman) he indeed became that’ (B/ri/.  Up.  I, 4, 10).  The assertion made above (in the purvapaksha of the preceding Sutra) that Indra after saying, ’Know me only,’ glorifies himself by enumerating the slaying of Tvash/tri/’s son and other deeds of strength, we refute as follows.  The death of Tvash/tri/’s son and similar deeds are referred to, not to the end of glorifying Indra as the object of knowledge—­in which case the sense of the passage would be, ’Because I accomplished such and such deeds, therefore know me’—­but to the end of glorifying the cognition of the highest Self.  For this reason the text, after having referred to the slaying of Tvash/tri/’s son and the like, goes on in the clause next following to exalt knowledge, ’And not one hair of me is harmed there.  He who knows me thus by no deed of his is his life harmed.’—­(But how does this passage convey praise of knowledge?)—­Because, we reply, its meaning is as follows:  ’Although I do such cruel deeds, yet not even a hair of mine is harmed because I am one with Brahman; therefore the life of any other person also who knows me thus is not harmed by any deed of his.’  And the object of the knowledge (praised by Indra) is nothing else but Brahman which is set forth in a subsequent passage, ’I am pra/n/a, the intelligent Self.’  Therefore the entire chapter refers to Brahman.

31.  If it be said (that Brahman is) not (meant), on account of characteristic marks of the individual soul and the chief vital air (being mentioned); we say no, on account of the threefoldness of devout meditation (which would result from your interpretation); on account of (the meaning advocated by us) being accepted (elsewhere); and on account of (characteristic marks of Brahman) being connected (with the passage under discussion).

Although we admit, the purvapakshin resumes, that the chapter about the pra/n/a does not furnish any instruction regarding some outward deity, since it contains a multitude of references to the interior Self; still we deny that it is concerned with Brahman.—­For what reason?—­Because it mentions characteristic marks of the individual soul on the one hand, and of the chief vital air on the other hand.  The passage, ’Let no man try to find out what speech is, let him know the speaker,’ mentions a characteristic mark of the individual soul, and must therefore be held to point out as the object of knowledge the individual soul which rules and employs the different organs of action such as speech and so on.  On the other hand, we have the passage, ’But pra/n/a alone, the intelligent Self, having laid hold of this body makes it rise up,’ which points to the chief vital air; for the chief attribute of the vital air is that it sustains the body.  Similarly, we read

Page 156

All this argumentation, we reply, is wrong, ’on account of the threefoldness of devout meditation.’  Your interpretation would involve the assumption of devout meditation of three different kinds, viz. on the individual soul, on the chief vital air, and on Brahman.  But it is inappropriate to assume that a single sentence should enjoin three kinds of devout meditation; and that all the passages about the pra/n/a really constitute one single sentence (one syntactical whole) appears from the beginning and the concluding part.  In the beginning we have the clause ‘Know me only,’ followed by ’I am pra/n/a, the intelligent Self, meditate on me as Life, as Immortality;’ and in the end we read, ’And that pra/n/a indeed is the intelligent Self, blessed, imperishable, immortal.’  The beginning and the concluding part are thus seen to be similar, and we therefore must conclude that they refer to one and the same matter.  Nor can the characteristic mark of Brahman be so turned as to be applied to something else; for the ten objects and the ten subjects (subjective powers)[133] cannot rest on anything but Brahman.  Moreover, pra/n/a must denote Brahman ’on account of (that meaning) being accepted,’ i.e. because in the case of other passages where characteristic marks of Brahman are mentioned the word pra/n/a is taken in the sense of ‘Brahman.’  And another reason for assuming the passage to refer to Brahman is that here

Page 157

The second part of the Sutra is explained in a different manner also[134], as follows:  Characteristic marks of the individual soul as well as of the chief vital air are not out of place even in a chapter whose topic is Brahman.  How so?  ’On account of the threefoldness of devout meditation.’  The chapter aims at enjoining three kinds of devout meditation on Brahman, according as Brahman is viewed under the aspect of pra/n/a, under the aspect of praj/n/a, and in itself.  The passages, ‘Meditate (on me) as life, as immortality.  Life is pra/n/a,’ and ’Having laid hold of this body it makes

Page 158

Notes: 

[Footnote 32:  The subject is the universal Self whose nature is intelligence (ku); the object comprises whatever is of a non-intelligent nature, viz. bodies with their sense organs, internal organs, and the objects of the senses, i.e. the external material world.]

[Footnote 33:  The object is said to have for its sphere the notion of the ‘thou’ (yushmat), not the notion of the ‘this’ or ‘that’ (idam), in order better to mark its absolute opposition to the subject or Ego.  Language allows of the co-ordination of the pronouns of the first and the third person (’It is I,’ ‘I am he who,’ &c.; ete vayam, ame vayam asmahe), but not of the co-ordination of the pronouns of the first and second person.]

[Footnote 34:  Adhyasa, literally ‘superimposition’ in the sense of (mistaken) ascription or imputation, to something, of an essential nature or attributes not belonging to it.  See later on.]

[Footnote 35:  Natural, i.e. original, beginningless; for the modes of speech and action which characterise transmigratory existence have existed, with the latter, from all eternity.]

[Footnote 36:  I.e. the intelligent Self which is the only reality and the non-real objects, viz. body and so on, which are the product of wrong knowledge.]

Page 159

[Footnote 37:  ‘The body, &c. is my Self;’ ’sickness, death, children, wealth, &c., belong to my Self.’]

[Footnote 38:  Literally ‘in some other place.’  The clause ’in the form of remembrance’ is added, the Bhamati remarks, in order to exclude those cases where something previously observed is recognised in some other thing or place; as when, for instance, the generic character of a cow which was previously observed in a black cow again presents itself to consciousness in a grey cow, or when Devadatta whom we first saw in Pa/t/aliputra again appears before us in Mahishmati.  These are cases of recognition where the object previously observed again presents itself to our senses; while in mere remembrance the object previously perceived is not in renewed contact with the senses.  Mere remembrance operates in the case of adhyasa, as when we mistake mother-of-pearl for silver which is at the time not present but remembered only.]

[Footnote 39:  The so-called anyathakhyativadins maintain that in the act of adhyasa the attributes of one thing, silver for instance, are superimposed on a different thing existing in a different place, mother-of-pearl for instance (if we take for our example of adhyasa the case of some man mistaking a piece of mother-of-pearl before him for a piece of silver).  The atmakhyativadins maintain that in adhyasa the modification, in the form of silver, of the internal organ and action which characterise transmigratory existence have existed, with the latter, from all eternity.]

[Footnote 40:  This is the definition of the akhyativadins.]

[Footnote 41:  Some anyathakhyativadins and the Madhyamikas according to Ananda Giri.]

[Footnote 42:  The pratyagatman is in reality non-object, for it is svayampraka/s/a, self-luminous, i.e. the subjective factor in all cognition.  But it becomes the object of the idea of the Ego in so far as it is limited, conditioned by its adjuncts which are the product of Nescience, viz. the internal organ, the senses and the subtle and gross bodies, i.e. in so far as it is jiva, individual or personal soul.  Cp.  Bhamati, pp. 22, 23:  ’kidatmaiva svayampraka/s/oszpi buddhyadivishayavi/kkh/ura/n/at katha/mk/id asm upratyayavishayoszha/m/karaspada/m/ jiva iti ka jantur iti ka ksheuajna iti kakhyayate.’]

[Footnote 43:  Translated according to the Bhamati.  We deny, the objector says, the possibility of adhyasa in the case of the Self, not on the ground that it is not an object because self-luminous (for that it may be an object although it is self-luminous you have shown), but on the ground that it is not an object because it is not manifested either by itself or by anything else.—­It is known or manifest, the Vedantin replies, on account of its immediate presentation (aparokshatvat), i.e. on account of the intuitional knowledge we have of it.  Ananda Giri construes the above clause in a different way:  asmatpratyayavishayatveszpy aparokshatvad ekantenavishayatvabbavat tasminn aha@nkaradyadhyasa ity artha/h/.  Aparokshatvam api kai/sk/id atmano nesh/t/am ity asa@nkyaha pratyagatmeti.]

Page 160

[Footnote 44:  Tatraiva/m/ sati evambhutavastutattvavadhara/n/e sati.  Bha.  Tasminn adhyase uktarityazvidyavmake sati.  Go.  Yatratmani buddhyadau va yasya buddhyader atmano vadhyasa/h/ tena buddhyadi-nasztmana va k/ri/tenasz/s/anayadidoshe/n/a kaitanyagu/n/ena katmanatma va vastuto na svalpenapi yujyate.  Ananda Giri.]

[Footnote 45:  Whether they belong to the karmaka/nd/a, i.e. that part of the Veda which enjoins active religious duty or the j/n/anaka/nd/a, i.e. that part of the Veda which treats of Brahman.]

[Footnote 46:  It being of course the function of the means of right knowledge to determine Truth and Reality.]

[Footnote 47:  The Bhamati takes adhish/th/anam in the sense of superintendence, guidance.  The senses cannot act unless guided by a superintending principle, i.e. the individual soul.]

[Footnote 48:  If activity could proceed from the body itself, non-identified with the Self, it would take place in deep sleep also.]

[Footnote 49:  I.e. in the absence of the mutual superimposition of the Self and the Non-Self and their attributes.]

[Footnote 50:  The Mima/m/sa, i.e. the enquiry whose aim it is to show that the embodied Self, i.e. the individual or personal soul is one with Brahman.  This Mima/m/sa being an enquiry into the meaning of the Vedanta-portions of the Veda, it is also called Vedanta mima/m/sa.]

[Footnote 51:  Nadhikarartha iti.  Tatra hetur brahmeti.  Asyartha/h/, kam ayam atha/s/abdo brahmaj/n/ane/kkh/ya/h/ kim vantar/n/itavi/k/arasya athave/kkh/avi/s/esha/n/aj/n/anasyarambhartha/h/.  Nadya/h/ tasya mima/m/sapravartikayas tadapravartyatvad anarabhyatvat tasya/s/ kottaratra pratyadhikara/n/am apratipadanat.  Na dvitiyoztha/s/abdenanantaryoktidvara vi/s/ish/t/adhikaryasamarpa/n/e sadhana/k/atush/t/ayasampannana/m/ brahmadhitadvi/k/arayor anarthitvad vi/k/aranarambhan na ka vi/k/aravidhiva/s/ad adhikari kalpya/h/ prarambhasyapi tulyatvad adhikari/n/a/s/ ka vidhyapekshitopadhitvan na t/ri/tiya/h/ brahmaj/n/anasyanandasakshatkaratvenadhikaryatve z pyapradhanyad atha/s/abdasambandhat tasman narambharthateti.  Ananda Giri.]

[Footnote 52:  Any relation in which the result, i.e. here the enquiry into Brahman may stand to some antecedent of which it is the effect may be comprised under the relation of anantarya.]

[Footnote 53:  He cuts off from the heart, then from the tongue, then from the breast.]

[Footnote 54:  Where one action is subordinate to another as, for instance, the offering of the prayajas is to the dar/s/apur/n/amasa-sacrifice, or where one action qualifies a person for another as, for instance, the offering of the dar/s/apur/n/amasa qualifies a man for the performance of the Soma-sacrifice, there is unity of the agent, and consequently an intimation of the order of succession of the actions is in its right place.]

Page 161

[Footnote 55:  The ‘means’ in addition to sama and dama are discontinuance of religious ceremonies (uparati), patience in suffering (titiksha), attention and concentration of the mind (samadhana), and faith (sraddha).]

[Footnote 56:  According to Pa/n/ini II, 3, 50 the sixth (genitive) case expresses the relation of one thing being generally supplementary to, or connected with, some other thing.]

[Footnote 57:  In the case of other transitive verbs, object and result may be separate; so, for instance, when it is said ’grama/m/ ga/kkh/ati,’ the village is the object of the action of going, and the arrival at the village its result.  But in the case of verbs of desiring object and result coincide.]

[Footnote 58:  That Brahman exists we know, even before entering on the Brahma-mima/m/sa, from the occurrence of the word in the Veda, &c., and from the etymology of the word we at once infer Brahman’s chief attributes.]

[Footnote 59:  The three last opinions are those of the followers of the Nyaya, the Sa@nkhya, and the Yoga-philosophy respectively.  The three opinions mentioned first belong to various materialistic schools; the two subsequent ones to two sects of Bauddha philosophers.]

[Footnote 60:  As, for instance, the passages ’this person consists of the essence of food;’ ‘the eye, &c. spoke;’ ’non-existing this was in the beginning,’ &c.]

[Footnote 61:  So the compound is to be divided according to An.  Gi. and Go.; the Bha. proposes another less plausible division.]

[Footnote 62:  According to Nirukta I, 2 the six bhavavikara/h/ are:  origination, existence, modification, increase, decrease, destruction.]

[Footnote 63:  The pradhana, called also prak/ri/ti, is the primal causal matter of the world in the Sa@nkhya-system.  It will be fully discussed in later parts of this work.  To avoid ambiguities, the term pradhana has been left untranslated.  Cp.  Sa@nkhya Karika 3.]

[Footnote 64:  Ke/k/it tu hira/n/yagaroha/m/ sa/m/sari/n/am evagamaj jagaddhetum a/k/akshate.  Ananada Giri.]

[Footnote 65:  Viz. the Vai/s/eshikas.]

[Footnote 66:  Atmana/h/ sruter ity artha/h/.  Ananda Giri.]

[Footnote 67:  Text (or direct statement), suggestive power (linga), syntactical connection (vakya), &c., being the means of proof made use of in the Purva Mima/m/sa.]

[Footnote 68:  The so-called sakshatkara of Brahman.  The &c. comprises inference and so on.]

[Footnote 69:  So, for instance, the passage ’he carves the sacrificial post and makes it eight-cornered,’ has a purpose only as being supplementary to the injunction ’he ties the victim to the sacrificial post.’]

[Footnote 70:  If the fruits of the two sastras were not of a different nature, there would be no reason for the distinction of two sastras; if they are of a different nature, it cannot be said that the knowledge of Brahman is enjoined for the purpose of final release, in the same way as sacrifices are enjoined for the purpose of obtaining the heavenly world and the like.]

Page 162

[Footnote 71:  The first passage shows that the Self is not joined to the gross body; the second that it is not joined to the subtle body; the third that is independent of either.]

[Footnote 72:  Ananda Giri omits ‘ata/h/.’  His comment is:  p/ri/thagjij/n/asavishayatva/k/ ka dharmadyasp/ri/sh/t/atva/m/ brahma/n/o yuktam ityaha; tad iti; ata/h/ sabdapa/th/e dharmadyasparse karmaphalavailaksba/n/ya/m/ hetuk/ri/tam.—­The above translation follows Govindananda’s first explanation.  Tat kaivalyam brahmaiva karmaphalavilaksha/n/atvad ity artha/h/.]

[Footnote 73:  Sampat.  Sampan namalpe vastuny alambane samanyena kena/k/in mahato vastuna/h/ sampadanam.  Ananda Giri.]

[Footnote 74:  In which passage the mind, which may be called endless on account of the infinite number of modifications it undergoes, is identified with the Vi/s/vedevas, which thereby constitute the chief object of the meditation; the fruit of the meditation being immortality.  The identity of the Self with Brahman, on the other hand, is real, not only meditatively imagined, on account of the attribute of intelligence being common to both.]

[Footnote 75:  Adhyasa/h/ sastratoitasmi/m/s taddhi/h/.  Sampadi sampadyamanasya pradhanyenanudhyanam, adhyase tu alambanasyeti vi/s/esha/h/.  Ananda Giri.]

[Footnote 76:  Air and breath each absorb certain things, and are, therefore, designated by the same term ‘absorber.’  Seya/m/ sa/m/vargad/ri/sh/t/ir vayau pra/n/e ka da/s/a/s/agata/m/ jagad dar/s/ayati yatha jivatmani b/rim/ha/n/akriyaya brahmad/ri/sh/t/iram/ri/tatvayaphalayakalpata iti.  Bhamati.]

[Footnote 77:  The butter used in the upa/ms/uyaja is ceremonially purified by the wife of the sacrificer looking at it; so, it might be said, the Self of him who meditates on Brahman (and who as kart/ri/—­agent—­stands in a subordinate anga-relation to the karman of meditation) is merely purified by the cognition of its being one with Brahman.]

[Footnote 78:  An hypothesis which might be proposed for the purpose of obviating the imputation to moksha of non-eternality which results from the two preceding hypotheses.]

[Footnote 79:  Viz. things to be originated (for instance, gha/t/a/m/ karoti), things to be obtained (grama/m/ ga/kkh/ati), things to be modified (suvar/n/a/m/ ku/nd/ala/m/ karoti), and things to be ceremonially purified (vrihin prokshati).]

[Footnote 80:  Whence it follows that it is not something to be avoided like transitory things.]

[Footnote 81:  That, for instance, in the passage ’he is to sacrifice with Soma,’ the word ‘soma,’ which does not denote an action, is devoid of sense.]

[Footnote 82:  I.e. for the purpose of showing that the passages conveying information about Brahman as such are justified.  You have (the objector maintains) proved hitherto only that passages containing information about existent things are admissible, if those things have a purpose; but how does all this apply to the information about Brahman of which no purpose has been established?]

Page 163

[Footnote 83:  It is ‘naturally established’ because it has natural motives—­not dependent on the injunctions of the Veda, viz. passion and the like.]

[Footnote 84:  Elsewhere, i.e. outside the Veda.]

[Footnote 85:  The above discussion of the prohibitory passages of the Veda is of a very scholastic nature, and various clauses in it are differently interpreted by the different commentators. Sa@nkara endeavours to fortify his doctrine, that not all parts of the Veda refer to action by an appeal to prohibitory passages which do not enjoin action but abstinence from action.  The legitimacy of this appeal might be contested on the ground that a prohibitory passage also, (as, for instance, ‘a Brahma/n/a is not to be killed,’) can be explained as enjoining a positive action, viz. some action opposed in nature to the one forbidden, so that the quoted passage might be interpreted to mean ‘a determination, &c. of not killing a Brahma/n/a is to be formed;’ just as we understand something positive by the expression ’a non-Brahma/n/a,’ viz. some man who is a kshattriya or something else.  To this the answer is that, wherever we can, we must attribute to the word ‘not’ its primary sense which is the absolute negation of the word to which it is joined; so that passages where it is joined to words denoting action must be considered to have for their purport the entire absence of action.  Special cases only are excepted, as the one alluded to in the text where certain prohibited actions are enumerated under the heading of vows; for as a vow is considered as something positive, the non-doing of some particular action must there be understood as intimating the performance of some action of an opposite nature.  The question as to the various meanings of the particle ‘not’ is discussed in all treatises on the Purva Mima/m/sa; see, for instance, Arthasamgraha, translation, p. 39 ff.]

[Footnote 86:  The Self is the agent in a sacrifice, &c. only in so far as it imagines itself to be joined to a body; which imagination is finally removed by the cognition of Brahman.]

[Footnote 87:  The figurative Self, i.e. the imagination that wife, children, possessions, and the like are a man’s Self; the false Self, i.e. the imagination that the Self acts, suffers, enjoys, &c.]

[Footnote 88:  I.e. the apparent world with all its distinctions.]

[Footnote 89:  The words in parentheses are not found in the best manuscripts.]

[Footnote 90:  The most exalted of the three constituent elements whose state of equipoise constitutes the pradhana.]

[Footnote 91:  Knowledge can arise only where Goodness is predominant, not where the three qualities mutually counterbalance one another.]

[Footnote 92:  The excess of Sattva in the Yogin would not enable him to rise to omniscience if he did not possess an intelligent principle independent of Sattva.]

Page 164

[Footnote 93:  Ananda Giri comments as follows:  paroktanupapatlim nirasitum p/rikkh/ati idam iti.  Prak/ri/tyarthabhavat pratyayarthabhavad va brahma/n/o sarvaj/n/ateti pra/s/nam eva praka/t/ayati katham iti.  Prathama/m/ pratyaha yasyeti.  Ukta/m/ vyatirckadvara viyz/rin/oti anityatve hiti.  Dvitiya/m/ sa@nkate j/n/aneti.  Svato nityasyapi j/n/anasya tattadarthava/kkh/innasya karyatvat tatra svatantryam pratyayartho brahma/n/a/h/ sidhyatity aha.—­The knowledge of Brahman is eternal, and in so far Brahman is not independent with regard to it, but it is independent with regard to each particular act of knowledge; the verbal affix in ‘janati’ indicating the particularity of the act.]

[Footnote 94:  In the second Kha/nd/a of the sixth Prapa/th/aka of the Ch.  Up. ‘aikshata’ is twice used in a figurative sense (with regard to fire and water); it is therefore to be understood figuratively in the third passage also where it occurs.]

[Footnote 95:  So that, on this latter explanation, it is unnecessary to assume a figurative sense of the word ‘thinking’ in any of the three passages.]

[Footnote 96:  A wicked man meets in a forest a blind person who has lost his way, and implores him to lead him to his village; instead of doing so the wicked man persuades the blind one to catch hold of the tail of an ox, which he promises would lead him to his place.  The consequence is that the blind man is, owing to his trustfulness, led even farther astray, and injured by the bushes, &c., through which the ox drags him.]

[Footnote 97:  Cp. above, p. 30.]

[Footnote 98:  So according to the commentators, not to accept whose guidance in the translation of scholastic definitions is rather hazardous.  A simpler translation of the clause might however be given.]

[Footnote 99:  With reference to Ch.  Up.  VI, 8, 2.]

[Footnote 100:  The wise one, i.e. the highest Self; which as jivatman is conversant with the names and forms of individual things.]

[Footnote 101:  I.e. it is looked upon as the object of the devotion of the individual souls; while in reality all those souls and Brahman are one.]

[Footnote 102:  Qualities, i.e. the attributes under which the Self is meditated on; limiting conditions, i.e. the localities—­such as the heart and the like—­which in pious meditation are ascribed to the Self.]

[Footnote 103:  Ananda Giri reads avish/t/asya for avishk/ri/tasya.]

[Footnote 104:  Cp. the entire passage.  All things are manifestations of the highest Self under certain limiting conditions, but occupying different places in an ascending scale.  In unsentient things, stones, &c. only the satta, the quality of being manifests itself; in plants, animals, and men the Self manifests itself through the vital sap; in animals and men there is understanding; higher thought in man alone.]

Page 165

[Footnote 105:  Ananda Giri on the preceding passage beginning from ’thus here also:’  na kevala/m/ dvaividhyam brahma/n/a/h/ srutism/ri/tyor eva siddha/m/ ki/m/ tu sutrak/ri/to api matam ity aha, evam iti, srutism/ri/tyor iva prak/ri/te pi sastre dvairupyam brahma/n/o bhavati; tatra sopadhikabrahmavishayam antastaddharmadhikara/n/am udaharati adityeti; uktanyaya/m/ tulyade/s/eshu prasarayati evam iti; sopadhikopade/s/avan nirupadhikopade/s/a/m/ dar/s/ayati evam ityadina, atmaj/n/@ana/m/ nir/n/etavyam iti sambandha/h/; ayaprasa@ngam aha pareti; annamayadyupadhidvarokasya katham paravidyavishayatva/m/ tatraha upadhiti; nir/n/ayakramam aha vakyeti, uktartham adhikara/n/a/m/ kvastity asa@nkyokta/m/ yatheti.]

[Footnote 106:  After which no other Self is mentioned.]

[Footnote 107:  The previous proofs were founded on li@nga; the argument which is now propounded is founded on prakara/n/a.]

[Footnote 108:  While, in the case of the Selfs consisting of food and so on, a further inner Self is duly mentioned each time.  It cannot, therefore, be concluded that the Selfs consisting of food, &c., are likewise identical with the highest Self referred to in the mantra.]

[Footnote 109:  Yadi labdha na labdhavya/h/ katha/m/ tarhi paramatmano vastutobhinnena jivatmana paramatma labhyata ity artha/h/.  Bhamati.]

[Footnote 110:  Yatha paramesvarad bhinno jivatma drash/t/a na bhavaty evam givatmanozpi drash/t/ur na bhinna/h/ parame/s/vara iti, jivasyanirva/k/yarve parame/s/varozpy anirva/k/ya/h/ syad ity ata aha parame/s/varas tv avidyakalpitad iti.  Ananda Giri.]

[Footnote 111:  The explanation of the anandamaya given hitherto is here recalled, and a different one given.  The previous explanation is attributed by Go.  An. to the v/ri/ttikara.]

[Footnote 112:  In which sense, as shown above, the word anandamaya must be taken if understood to denote Brahman.]

[Footnote 113:  I.e. the word translated hitherto by abundance.]

[Footnote 114:  See I, 1, 15-19. ]

[Footnote 115:  The preceding adhikara/n/a had shown that the five Selfs (consisting of food, mind, and so on), which the Taitt.  Up. enumerates, are introduced merely for the purpose of facilitating the cognition of Brahman considered as devoid of all qualities; while that Brahman itself is the real object of knowledge.  The present adhikara/n/a undertakes to show that the passage about the golden person represents the savi/s/esha Brahman as the object of devout meditation.]

[Footnote 116:  So that the real giver of the gifts bestowed by princes on poets and singers is Brahman.]

[Footnote 117:  Or else ‘that which is within forms and names.’]

[Footnote 118:  Viz. as intimating it.  Thus An.  Gi. and Go.  An. against the accent of rika/h/.  Saya/n/a explains rika/h/ as genitive.]

[Footnote 119:  O/m/karasya pratikatvena va/k/akatvena lakshakatvena va brahmatvam uktam, om iti, ka/m/ sukha/m/ tasyarthendriyayogajatva/m/ varayitu/m/ kham iti, tasya bhutaka/s/atva/m/ vyaseddhum pura/n/am ity uktam.  An.  Gi.]

Page 166

[Footnote 120:  The doubt about the meaning of a word is preferably to be decided by means of a reference to preceding passages; where that is not possible (the doubtful word occurring at the beginning of some new chapter) complementary, i.e. subsequent passages have to be taken into consideration.]

[Footnote 121:  The v/ri/ttikara, the commentators say.]

[Footnote 122:  I.e. which has not been mixed with water and earth, according to Ch.  Up.  VI, 3, 3.  Before that mixture took place light was entriely separated from the other elements, and therefore bounded by the latter.]

[Footnote 123:  So as to justify the assumption that such a thing as non-tripartite light exists at all.]

[Footnote 124:  Brahma/n/o vyava/kkh/idya teja/h/samarpakatva/m/ vi/s/eshakatvam, tadabhavozvi/s/eshakatvam.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 125:  If we strictly follow the order of words in the original.]

[Footnote 126:  Svasamarthyena sarvanamna/h/ sannihitaparamar/s/itvava/s/ena.]

[Footnote 127:  The v/ri/ttikara according to Go.  An. in his tika on the bhashya to the next Sutra.]

[Footnote 128:  Concerning the difficulty involved in this interpretation, cp.  Deussen, p. 183, note.]

[Footnote 129:  The text runs, ‘astitve ka pra/n/ana/m/ ni/hs/reyasam,’ and Go.  An. explains ’astitve pra/n/asthitau pra/n/ana/m/ indriya/n/am sthitir ity arthata/h/ srutim aha.’  He as well as An.  Gi. quotes as the text of the scriptural passage referred to ’athato ni/hs/reyasadanam ity adi.’  But if instead of ‘astitve ka’ we read ‘asti tv eva,’ we get the concluding clause of Kau.  Up.  III, 2, as given in Cowell’s edition.].

[Footnote 130:  Whence we know that the interior Self referred to in the Kau.  Up. is Brahman.]

[Footnote 131:  I.e. spontaneous intuition of supersensible truth, rendered possible through the knowledge acquired in former existences.]

[Footnote 132:  Ima/m/ sariram instead of ida/m/ sariram.]

[Footnote 133:  Pa/nk/a sabdadaya/h/ pa/nk/a p/ri/thivyadaya/s/ ka da/s/a bhutamatra/h/ pa/nk/a buddhindriya/n/i pa/nk/a buddhaya iti da/s/a praj/n/amatra/h/.  Yadva j/n/anendriyartha/h/ pa/nk/a karzmendriyartha/s/ ka pa/nk/eti da/s/a bhutamatra/h/ dvividhanindriya/n/i praj/n/amatra da/s/eti bhava/h/.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 134:  Viz. by the v/ri/ttikara.]

[Footnote 135:  Ihapi tad yujyate explaining the ‘iha tadyogat’ of the Sutra.]

SECOND PADA.

REVERENCE TO THE HIGHEST SELF!

Page 167

In the first pada Brahman has been shown to be the cause of the origin, subsistence, and reabsorption of the entire world, comprising the ether and the other elements.  Moreover, of this Brahman, which is the cause of the entire world, certain qualities have (implicitly) been declared, such as all-pervadingness, eternity, omniscience, its being the Self of all, and so on.  Further, by producing reasons showing that some words which are generally used in a different sense denote Brahman also, we have been able to determine that some passages about whose sense doubts are entertained refer to Brahman.  Now certain other passages present themselves which because containing only obscure indications of Brahman give rise to the doubt whether they refer to the highest Self or to something else.  We therefore begin the second and third padas in order to settle those doubtful points.

1. (That which consists of mind is Brahman) because there is taught what is known from everywhere.

Scripture says, ’All this indeed is Brahman, beginning, ending, and breathing in it; thus knowing let a man meditate with calm mind.  Now man is made of determination (kratu); according to what his determination is in this world so will he be when he has departed this life.  Let him therefore form this determination:  he who consists of mind, whose body is breath (the subtle body),’ &c. (Ch.  Up.  III, 14).  Concerning this passage the doubt presents itself whether what is pointed out as the object of meditation, by means of attributes such as consisting of mind, &c., is the embodied (individual) soul or the highest Brahman.

The embodied Self, the purvapakshin says.—­Why?—­Because the embodied Self as the ruler of the organs of action is well known to be connected with the mind and so on, while the highest Brahman is not, as is declared in several scriptural passages, so, for instance (Mu.  Up.  II, 1, 2), ’He is without breath, without mind, pure.’—­But, it may be objected, the passage, ‘All this indeed is Brahman,’ mentions Brahman directly; how then can you suppose that the embodied Self forms the object of meditation?—­This objection does not apply, the purvapakshin rejoins, because the passage does not aim at enjoining meditation on Brahman, but rather at enjoining calmness of mind, the sense being:  because Brahman is all this, tajjalan, let a man meditate with a calm mind.  That is to say:  because all this aggregate of effects is Brahman only, springing from it, ending in it, and breathing in it; and because, as everything constitutes one Self only, there is no room for passion; therefore a man is to meditate with a calm mind.  And since the sentence aims at enjoining calmness of mind, it cannot at the same time enjoin meditation on Brahman[136]; but meditation is separately enjoined in the clause, ‘Let him form the determination, i.e. reflection.’  And thereupon the subsequent passage, ‘He who consists of mind, whose body is breath,’ &c. states the object

Page 168

To all this we reply:  The highest Brahman only is what is to be meditated upon as distinguished by the attributes of consisting of mind and so on.—­Why?—­’On account of there being taught here what is known from everywhere.’  What is known from all Vedanta-passages to be the sense of the word Brahman, viz. the cause of the world, and what is mentioned here in the beginning words of the passage, (’all this indeed is Brahman,’) the same we must assume to be taught here as distinguished by certain qualities, viz. consisting of mind and so on.  Thus we avoid the fault of dropping the subject-matter under discussion and needlessly introducing a new topic.—­But, it may be said, it has been shown that Brahman is, in the beginning of the passage, introduced merely for the purpose of intimating the injunction of calmness of mind, not for the purpose of intimating Brahman itself.—­True, we reply; but the fact nevertheless remains that, where the qualities of consisting of mind, &c. are spoken of, Brahman only is proximate (i.e. mentioned not far off so that it may be concluded to be the thing referred to), while the individual soul is neither proximate nor intimated by any word directly pointing to it.  The cases of Brahman and the individual soul are therefore not equal.

2.  And because the qualities desired to be expressed are possible (in Brahman; therefore the passage refers to Brahman).

Page 169

Although in the Veda which is not the work of man no wish in the strict sense can be expressed[138], there being no speaker, still such phrases as ‘desired to be expressed,’ may be figuratively used on account of the result, viz. (mental) comprehension.  For just as in ordinary language we speak of something which is intimated by a word and is to be received (by the hearer as the meaning of the word), as ’desired to be expressed;’ so in the Veda also whatever is denoted as that which is to be received is ‘desired to be expressed,’ everything else ’not desired to be expressed.’  What is to be received as the meaning of a Vedic sentence, and what not, is inferred from the general purport of the passage.  Those qualities which are here desired to be expressed, i.e. intimated as qualities to be dwelt on in meditation, viz. the qualities of having true purposes, &c. are possible in the highest Brahman; for the quality of having true purposes may be ascribed to the highest Self which possesses unimpeded power over the creation, subsistence, and reabsorption of this world.  Similarly the qualities of having true desires and true purposes are attributed to the highest Self in another passage, viz. the one beginning, ‘The Self which is free from sin’ (Ch.  Up.  VIII, 7, 1).  The clause, ‘He whose Self is the ether,’ means ’he whose Self is like the ether;’ for Brahman may be said to be like the ether on account of its omnipresence and other qualities.  This is also expressed by the clause, ‘Greater than the earth.’  And the other explanation also, according to which the passage means ’he whose Self is the ether’ is possible, since Brahman which as the cause of the whole world is the Self of everything is also the Self of the ether.  For the same reasons he is called ‘he to whom all works belong, and so on.’  Thus the qualities here intimated as topics of meditation agree with the nature of Brahman.  We further maintain that the terms ’consisting of mind,’ and ‘having breath for its body,’ which the purvapakshin asserts cannot refer to Brahman, may refer to it.  For as Brahman is the Self of everything, qualities such as consisting of mind and the like, which belong to the individual soul, belong to Brahman also.  Accordingly Sruti and Sm/ri/ti say of Brahman, ’Thou art woman, thou art man; thou art youth, thou art maiden; thou as an old man totterest along on thy staff; thou art born with thy face turned everywhere’ (Sve.  Up.  IV, 3), and ’its hands and feet are everywhere, its eyes and head are everywhere, its ears are everywhere, it stands encompassing all in the world’ (Bha.  Gita III, 13).

The passage (quoted above against our view), ’Without breath, without mind, pure,’ refers to the pure (unrelated) Brahman.  The terms ‘consisting of mind; having breath for its body,’ on the other hand, refer to Brahman as distinguished by qualities.  Hence, as the qualities mentioned are possible in Brahman, we conclude that the highest Brahman only is represented as the object of meditation.

Page 170

3.  On the other hand, as (those qualities) are not possible (in it), the embodied (soul is) not (denoted by manomaya, &c.).

The preceding Sutra has declared that the qualities mentioned are possible in Brahman; the present Sutra states that they are not possible in the embodied Self.  Brahman only possesses, in the manner explained, the qualities of consisting of mind, and so on; not the embodied individual soul.  For qualities such as expressed in the words, ’He whose purposes are true, whose Self is the ether, who has no speech, who is not disturbed, who is greater than the earth,’ cannot easily be attributed to the embodied Self.  By the term ‘embodied’ (sarira) we have to understand ‘residing’ in a body.  If it be objected that the Lord also resides in the body[139], we reply, True, he does reside in the body, but not in the body only; for sruti declares him to be all-pervading; compare, ’He is greater than the earth; greater than the atmosphere, omnipresent like the ether, eternal.’  The individual soul, on the other hand, is in the body only, apart from which as the abode of fruition it does not exist.

4.  And because there is a (separate) denotation of the object of activity and of the agent.

The attributes of consisting of mind, and so on, cannot belong to the embodied Self for that reason also, that there is a (separate) denotation of the object of activity and of the agent.  In the passage, ‘When I shall have departed from hence I shall obtain him’ (Ch.  Up.  III, 14, 4), the word ‘him’ refers to that which is the topic of discussion, viz. the Self which is to be meditated upon as possessing the attributes of consisting of mind, &c., as the object of an activity, viz. as something to be obtained; while the words, ‘I shall obtain,’ represent the meditating individual Self as the agent, i.e. the obtainer.  Now, wherever it can be helped, we must not assume that one and the same being is spoken of as the agent and the object of the activity at the same time.  The relation existing between a person meditating and the thing meditated upon requires, moreover, different abodes.—­And thus for the above reason, also, that which is characterised by the attributes of consisting of mind, and so on, cannot be the individual soul.

5.  On account of the difference of words.

That which possesses the attributes of consisting of mind, and so on, cannot be the individual soul, for that reason also that there is a difference of words.

That is to say, we meet with another scriptural passage of kindred subject-matter (Sat.  Bra.  X, 6, 3, 2), ’Like a rice grain, or a barley grain, or a canary seed or the kernel of a canary seed, thus that golden person is in the Self.’  There one word, i.e. the locative ‘in the Self,’ denotes the embodied Self, and a different word, viz. the nominative ‘person,’ denotes the Self distinguished by the qualities of consisting of mind, &c.  We therefrom conclude that the two are different.

Page 171

6.  And on account of Sm/ri/ti.

Sm/ri/ti also declares the difference of the embodied Self and the highest Self, viz.  Bha.  Gita XVIII, 61, ’The Lord, O Arjuna, is seated in the heart of all beings, driving round by his magical power all beings (as if they were) mounted on a machine.’

But what, it may be asked, is that so-called embodied Self different from the highest Self which is to be set aside according to the preceding Sutras? Sruti passages, as well as Sm/ri/ti, expressly deny that there is any Self apart from the highest Self; compare, for instance, B/ri/.  Up.  III, 7, 23, ’There is no other seer but he; there is no other hearer but he;’ and Bha.  Gita XIII, 2, ’And know me also, O Bharata, to be the kshetiaj/n/a in all kshetras.’

True, we reply, (there is in reality one universal Self only.) But the highest Self in so far as it is limited by its adjuncts, viz. the body, the senses, and the mind (mano-buddhi), is, by the ignorant, spoken of as if it were embodied.  Similarly the ether, although in reality unlimited, appears limited owing to certain adjuncts, such as jars and other vessels.  With regard to this (unreal limitation of the one Self) the distinction of objects of activity and of agents may be practically assumed, as long as we have not learned—­from the passage, ’That art thou’—­that the Self is one only.  As soon, however, as we grasp the truth that there is only one universal Self, there is an end to the whole practical view of the world with its distinction of bondage, final release, and the like.

7.  If it be said that (the passage does) not (refer to Brahman) on account of the smallness of the abode (mentioned), and on account of the denotations of that (i.e. of minuteness); we say, no; because (Brahman) has thus to be contemplated, and because the case is analogous to that of ether.

On account of the limitation of its abode, which is mentioned in the clause, ‘He is my Self within the heart,’ and on account of the declaration as to its minuteness contained in the direct statement, ’He is smaller than a grain of rice,’ &c.; the embodied soul only, which is of the size of an awl’s point, is spoken of in the passage under discussion, and not the highest Self.  This assertion made above (in the purvapaksha of Sutra I, and restated in the purvapaksha of the present Sutra) has to be refuted.  We therefore maintain that the objection raised does not invalidate our view of the passage.  It is true that a thing occupying a limited space only cannot in any way be spoken of as omnipresent; but, on the other hand, that which is omnipresent, and therefore in all places may, from a certain point of view, be said to occupy a limited space.  Similarly, a prince may be called the ruler of Ayodhya although he is at the same time the ruler of the whole earth.—­But from what point of view can the omnipresent Lord be said to occupy a limited space and to be minute?—­He

Page 172

8.  If it is said that (from the circumstance of Brahman and the individual soul being one) there follows fruition (on the part of Brahman); we say, no; on account of the difference of nature (of the two).

But, it may be said, as Brahman is omnipresent like ether, and therefore connected with the hearts of all living beings, and as it is of the nature of intelligence and therefore not different from the individual soul, it follows that Brahman also has the same fruition of pleasure, pain, and so on (as the individual soul).  The same result follows from its unity.  For in reality there exists no transmigratory Self different from the highest Self; as appears from the text, ’There is no other knower but he’ (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 7, 23), and similar passages.  Hence the highest Self is subject to the fruition connected with transmigratory existence.

This is not so, we reply; because there is a difference of nature.  From the circumstance that Brahman is connected with the hearts of all living beings it does not follow that it is, like the embodied Self, subject to fruition.  For, between the embodied Self and the highest Self, there is the difference that the former acts and enjoys, acquires merit and demerit, and is affected by pleasure, pain, and so on; while the latter is of the opposite nature, i.e. characterised by being free from all evil and the like.  On account of this difference of the two, the fruition of the one does not extend to the other.  To assume merely on the ground of the mutual proximity of the two, without considering their essentially different powers, that a connexion with effects exists (in Brahman’s case also), would be no better than to suppose that space is on fire (when something

Page 173

Scriptural texts, such as ‘that art thou,’ teach that Brahman which is free from all evil is the Self of the embodied soul, and thus dispel even the opinion that the embodied soul is subject to fruition; how then should fruition on the part of the embodied soul involve fruition on the part of Brahman?—­Let, then, the unity of the individual soul and Brahman not be apprehended on the ground of Scripture.—­In that case, we reply, the fruition on the part of the individual soul has wrong knowledge for its cause, and Brahman as it truly exists is not touched thereby, not any more than the ether becomes really dark-blue in consequence of ignorant people presuming it to be so.  For this reason the Sutrakara says[140] ‘no, on account of the difference.’  In spite of their unity, fruition on the part of the soul does not involve fruition on the part of Brahman; because there is a difference.  For there is a difference between false knowledge and perfect knowledge, fruition being the figment of false knowledge while the unity (of the Self) is revealed by perfect knowledge.  Now, as the substance revealed by perfect knowledge cannot be affected by fruition which is nothing but the figment of false knowledge, it is impossible to assume even a shadow of fruition on Brahman’s part.

9.  The eater (is the highest Self) since what is movable and what is immovable is mentioned (as his food).

We read in the Ka/th/avalli (I, 2, 25), ’Who then knows where He is, He to whom the Brahmans and Kshattriyas are but food, and death itself a condiment?’ This passage intimates, by means of the words ‘food’ and ‘condiment,’ that there is some eater.  A doubt then arises whether the eater be Agni or the individual soul or the highest Self; for no distinguishing characteristic is stated, and Agni as well as the individual soul and the highest Self is observed to form, in that Upanishad, the subjects of questions[141].

The purvapakshin maintains that the eater is Agni, fire being known from Scripture as well (cp.  B/ri/.  Up.  I, 4, 6) as from ordinary life to be the eater of food.  Or else the individual soul may be the eater, according to the passage, ‘One of them eats the sweet fruit’ (Mu.  Up.  III, 1, 1).  On the other hand, the eater cannot be Brahman on account of the passage (which forms the continuation of the one quoted from the Mu.  Up.), ‘The other looks on without eating.’

Page 174

The eater, we reply, must be the highest Self ’because there is mentioned what is movable and what is immovable.’  For all things movable and immovable are here to be taken as constituting the food, while death is the condiment.  But nothing beside the highest Self can be the consumer of all these things in their totality; the highest Self, however, when reabsorbing the entire aggregate of effects may be said to eat everything.  If it is objected that here no express mention is made of things movable and things immovable, and that hence we have no right to use the (alleged) mention made of them as a reason, we reply that this objection is unfounded; firstly, because the aggregate of all living beings is seen to be meant from the circumstance of death being the condiment; and, secondly, because the Brahmans and Kshattriyas may here, on account of their pre-eminent position, be viewed as instances only (of all beings).  Concerning the objection that the highest Self cannot be an eater on account of the passage quoted (’the other looks on without eating’), we remark that that passage aims at denying the fruition (on the part of the highest Self) of the results of works, such fruition being mentioned in immediate proximity, but is not meant to negative the reabsorption of the world of effects (into Brahman); for it is well established by all the Vedanta-texts that Brahman is the cause of the creation, subsistence, and reabsorption of the world.  Therefore the eater can here be Brahman only.

10.  And on account of the topic under discussion.  That the highest Self only can be the eater referred to is moreover evident from the passage (Ka.  Up.  I, 2, 18), (’The knowing Self is not born, it dies not’), which shows that the highest Self is the general topic.  And to adhere to the general topic is the proper proceeding.  Further, the clause, ’Who then knows where he is,’ shows that the cognition is connected with difficulties; which circumstance again points to the highest Self.

11.  The ‘two entered into the cave’ (are the individual soul and the highest Self), for the two are (intelligent) Selfs (and therefore of the same nature), as it is seen (that numerals denote beings of the same nature).

In the same Ka/th/avalli we read (I, 3, 1), ’There are the two drinking the reward of their works in the world, (i.e. the body,) entered into the cave, dwelling on the highest summit.  Those who know Brahman call them shade and light; likewise those householders who perform the Tri/n/a/k/iketa sacrifice.’

Here the doubt arises whether the mind (buddhi) and the individual soul are referred to, or the individual soul and the highest Self.  If the mind and the individual soul, then the individual soul is here spoken of as different from the aggregate of the organs of action, (i.e. the body,) among which the mind occupies the first place.  And a statement on this point is to be expected, as a question concerning it is asked

Page 175

The doubt to which the passage gives rise having thus been stated, a caviller starts the following objection:  neither of the stated views can be maintained.—­Why?—­On account of the characteristic mark implied in the circumstance that the two are said to drink, i.e. to enjoy, the fruit of their works in the world.  For this can apply to the intelligent individual soul only, not to the non-intelligent buddhi.  And as the dual form ‘drinking’ (pibantau) shows that both are drinking, the view of the two being the buddhi and the individual soul is not tenable.  For the same reason the other opinion also, viz. of the two being the individual soul and the highest Self, cannot be maintained; for drinking (i.e. the fruition of reward) cannot be predicated of the highest Self, on account of the mantra (Mu.  Up.  III, 1, 1), ‘The other looks on without eating.’

These objections, we reply, are without any force.  Just as we see that in phrases such as ’the men with the umbrella (lit. the umbrella-men) are walking,’ the attribute of being furnished with an umbrella which properly speaking belongs to one man only is secondarily ascribed to many, so here two agents are spoken of as drinking because one of them is really drinking.  Or else we may explain the passage by saying that, while the individual soul only drinks, the Lord also is said to drink because he makes the soul drink.  On the other hand, we may also assume that the two are the buddhi and the individual soul, the instrument being figuratively spoken of as the agent—­a figure of speech exemplified by phrases such as ‘the fuel cooks (the food).’  And in a chapter whose topic is the soul no two other beings can well be represented as enjoying rewards.  Hence there is room for the doubt whether the two are the buddhi and the individual soul, or the individual soul and the highest Self.

Here the purvapakshin maintains that the former of the two stated views is the right one, because the two beings are qualified as ’entered into the cave.’  Whether we understand by the cave the body or the heart, in either case the buddhi and the individual soul may be spoken of as ‘entered into the cave.’  Nor would it be appropriate, as long as another interpretation is possible, to assume that a special place is here ascribed to the omnipresent Brahman.  Moreover, the words ’in

Page 176

To this we make the following reply:—­In the passage under discussion the individual soul (vij/n/anatman) and the highest Self are spoken of, because these two, being both intelligent Selfs, are of the same nature.  For we see that in ordinary life also, whenever a number is mentioned, beings of the same class are understood to be meant; when, for instance, the order is given, ’Look out for a second (i.e. a fellow) for this bull,’ people look out for a second bull, not for a horse or a man.  So here also, where the mention of the fruition of rewards enables us to determine that the individual soul is meant, we understand at once, when a second is required, that the highest Self has to be understood; for the highest Self is intelligent, and therefore of the same nature as the soul.—­But has it not been said above that the highest Self cannot be meant here, on account of the text stating that it is placed in the cave?—­Well, we reply, sruti as well as sm/ri/ti speaks of the highest Self as placed in the cave.  Compare, for instance (Ka.  Up.  I, 2, 12), ‘The Ancient who is hidden in the cave, who dwells in the abyss;’ Taitt.  Up.  II, 1, ‘He who knows him hidden in the cave, in the highest ether;’ and, ‘Search for the Self entered into the cave.’  That it is not contrary to reason to assign to the omnipresent Brahman a special locality, for the purpose of clearer perception, we have already demonstrated.  The attribute of existing in the world of its good works, which properly belongs to one of the two only, viz. to the individual soul, may be assigned to both, analogously to the case of the men, one of whom carries an umbrella.  Their being compared to light and shade also is unobjectionable, because the qualities of belonging and not belonging to this transmigratory world are opposed to each other, like light and shade; the quality of belonging to it being due to Nescience, and the quality of not belonging to it being real.  We therefore understand by the two ‘entered into the cave,’ the individual soul and the highest Self.—­Another reason for this interpretation follows.

12.  And on account of the distinctive qualities (mentioned).

Page 177

Moreover, the distinctive qualities mentioned in the text agree only with the individual Self and the highest Self.  For in a subsequent passage (I, 3, 3), ’Know the Self to be the charioteer, the body to be the chariot,’ which contains the simile of the chariot, the individual soul is represented as a charioteer driving on through transmigratory existence and final release, while the passage (9), ’He reaches the end of his journey, and that is the highest place of Vish/n/u,’ represents the highest Self as the goal of the driver’s course.  And in a preceding passage also, (I, 2, 12, ’The wise, who by means of meditation on his Self, recognises the Ancient who is difficult to be seen, who has entered into the dark, who is hidden in the cave, who dwells in the abyss, as God, he indeed leaves joy and sorrow far behind,’) the same two beings are distinguished as thinker and as object of thought.  The highest Self is, moreover, the general topic.  And further, the clause, ‘Those who know Brahman call them,’ &c., which brings forward a special class of speakers, is in its place only if the highest Self is accepted (as one of the two beings spoken of).  It is therefore evident that the passage under discussion refers to the individual soul and the highest Self.

The same reasoning applies to the passage (Mu.  Up.  III, 1, 1), ’Two birds, inseparable friends,’ &c.  There also the Self is the general topic, and hence no two ordinary birds can be meant; we therefore conclude from the characteristic mark of eating, mentioned in the passage, ‘One of them eats the sweet fruit,’ that the individual soul is meant, and from the characteristic marks of abstinence from eating and of intelligence, implied in the words, ’The other looks on without eating,’ that the highest Self is meant.  In a subsequent mantra again the two are distinguished as the seer and the object of sight.  ’Merged into the same tree (as it were into water) man grieves at his own impotence (ani/s/a), bewildered; but when he sees the other Lord (i/s/a.) contented and knows his glory, then his grief passes away.’

Another (commentator) gives a different interpretation of the mantra, ‘Two birds inseparable,’ &c.  To that mantra, he says, the final decision of the present head of discussion does not apply, because it is differently interpreted in the Pai@ngi-rahasya Brahma/n/a.  According to the latter the being which eats the sweet fruit is the sattva; the other being which looks on without eating, the individual soul (j/n/a); so that the two are the sattva and the individual soul (kshetraj/n/a).  The objection that the word sattva might denote the individual soul, and the word kshetraj/n/a, the highest Self, is to be met by the remark that, in the first place, the words sattva and kshetraj/n/a have the settled meaning of internal organ and individual soul, and are in the second place, expressly so interpreted there, (viz. in the Pai@ngi-rahasya,) ’The sattva is that by means of which man sees dreams; the embodied one,

Page 178

13.  The person within (the eye) (is Brahman) on account of the agreement (of the attributes of that person with the nature of Brahman).

Scripture says, ’He spoke:  The person that is seen in the eye that is the Self.  This is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman.  Even though they drop melted butter or water on it (the eye) it runs away on both sides,’ &c. (Ch.  Up.  IV, 15, 1).

Page 179

The doubt here arises whether this passage refers to the reflected Self which resides in the eye, or to the individual Self, or to the Self of some deity which presides over the sense of sight, or to the Lord.

With reference to this doubt the purvapakshin argues as follows:  What is meant (by the person in the eye) is the reflected Self, i.e. the image of a person (reflected in the eye of another):  for of that it is well known that it is seen, and the clause, ’The person that is seen in the eye,’ refers to it as something well known.  Or else we may appropriately take the passage as referring to the individual Self.  For the individual Self (cognitional Self, vij/n/anatman) which perceives the colours by means of the eye is, on that account, in proximity to the eye; and, moreover, the word ‘Self’ (which occurs in the passage) favours this interpretation.  Or else the passage is to be understood as referring to the soul animating the sun which assists the sense of sight; compare the passage (B/ri/.  Up.  V, 5, 2), ’He (the person in the sun) rests with his rays in him (the person in the right eye).’  Moreover, qualities such as immortality and the like (which are ascribed to the subject of the scriptural passage) may somehow belong to individual deities.  The Lord, on the other hand[144], cannot be meant, because a particular locality is spoken of.

Against this we remark that the highest Lord only can be meant here by the person within the eye.—­Why?—­’On account of the agreement.’  For the qualities mentioned in the passage accord with the nature of the highest Lord.  The quality of being the Self, in the first place, belongs to the highest Lord in its primary (non-figurative or non-derived) sense, as we know from such texts as ‘That is the Self,’ ‘That art thou.’  Immortality and fearlessness again are often ascribed to him in Scripture.  The location in the eye also is in consonance with the nature of the highest Lord.  For just as the highest Lord whom Scripture declares to be free from all evil is not stained by any imperfections, so the station of the eye also is declared to be free from all stain, as we see from the passage, ’Even though they drop melted butter or water on it it runs away on both sides.’  The statement, moreover, that he possesses the qualities of sa/m/yadvama, &c. can be reconciled with the highest Lord only (Ch.  Up.  IV, 15, 2, ’They call him Sa/m/yadvama, for all blessings (vama) go towards him (sa/m/yanti).  He is also vamani, for he leads (nayati) all blessings (vama).  He is also Bhamani, for he shines (bhati) in all worlds’).  Therefore, on account of agreement, the person within the eye is the highest Lord.

14.  And on account of the statement of place, and so on.

Page 180

But how does the confined locality of the eye agree with Brahman which is omnipresent like the ether?—­To this question we reply that there would indeed be a want of agreement if that one locality only were assigned to the Lord.  For other localities also, viz. the earth and so on, are attributed to him in the passage, ‘He who dwells in the earth,’ &c. (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 7, 3).  And among those the eye also is mentioned, viz. in the clause, ‘He who dwells in the eye,’ &c.  The phrase ’and so on,’ which forms part of the Sutra, intimates that not only locality is assigned to Brahman, although not (really) appropriate to it, but that also such things as name and form, although not appropriate to Brahman which is devoid of name and form, are yet seen to be attributed to it.  That, in such passages as ‘His name is ut, he with the golden beard’ (Ch.  Up.  I, 6, 7, 6), Brahman although devoid of qualities is spoken of, for the purposes of devotion, as possessing qualities depending on name and form, we have already shown.  And we have, moreover, shown that to attribute to Brahman a definite locality, in spite of his omnipresence, subserves the purposes of contemplation, and is therefore not contrary to reason[145]; no more than to contemplate Vish/n/u in the sacred salagram.

15.  And on account of the passage referring to that which is distinguished by pleasure (i.e.  Brahman).

There is, moreover, really no room for dispute whether Brahman be meant in the passage under discussion or not, because the fact of Brahman being meant is established ’by the reference to that which is distinguished by pleasure.’  For the same Brahman which is spoken of as characterised by pleasure in the beginning of the chapter[146], viz. in the clauses, ‘Breath is Brahman, Ka is Brahman, Kha is Brahman,’ that same Brahman we must suppose to be referred to in the present passage also, it being proper to adhere to the subject-matter under discussion; the clause, ‘The teacher will tell you the way[147],’ merely announcing that the way will be proclaimed [by the teacher; not that a new subject will be started].—­How then, it may be asked, is it known that Brahman, as distinguished by pleasure, is spoken of in the beginning of the passage?—­We reply:  On hearing the speech of the fires, viz.  ’Breath is Brahman, Ka is Brahman, Kha is Brahman,’ Upako/s/ala says, ’I understand that breath is Brahman, but I do not understand that Ka or Kha is Brahman.’  Thereupon the fires reply, ’What is Ka is Kha, what is Kha is Ka.’  Now the word Kha denotes in ordinary language the elemental ether.  If therefore the word Ka which means pleasure were not applied to qualify the sense of ‘Kha,’ we should conclude that the name Brahman is here symbolically[148] given to the mere elemental ether as it is (in other places) given to mere names and the like.  Thus also with regard to the word Ka, which, in ordinary language, denotes the imperfect pleasure springing

Page 181

16.  And on account of the statement of the way of him who has heard the Upanishads.

The person placed in the eye is the highest lord for the following reason also.  From sruti as well as sm/ri/ti we are acquainted with the way of him who has heard the Upanishads or the secret knowledge, i.e. who knows Brahman.  That way, called the path of the gods, is described (Pra.  Up.  I, 10), ’Those who have sought the Self by penance, abstinence, faith, and knowledge gain by the northern path the sun.  This is the home of the spirits, the immortal, free from fear, the highest.  From thence they do not return;’ and also (Bha.  Gita VIII, 24), ’Fire, light, the bright fortnight,

Page 182

17. (The person within the eye is the highest), not any other Self; on account of the non-permanency (of the other Selfs) and on account of the impossibility (of the qualities of the person in the eye being ascribed to the other Selfs).

To the assertion made in the purvapaksha that the person in the eye is either the reflected Self or the cognitional Self (the individual soul) or the Self of some deity the following answer is given.—­No other Self such as, for instance, the reflected Self can be assumed here, on account of non-permanency.—­The reflected Self, in the first place, does not permanently abide in the eye.  For when some person approaches the eye the reflection of that person is seen in the eye, but when the person moves away the reflection is seen no longer.  The passage ’That person within the eye’ must, moreover, be held, on the ground of proximity, to intimate that the person seen in a man’s own eye is the object of (that man’s) devout meditation (and not the reflected image of his own person which he may see in the eye of another man). [Let, then, another man approach the devout man, and let the latter meditate on the image reflected in his own eye, but seen by the other man only.  No, we reply, for] we have no right to make the (complicated) assumption that the devout man is, at the time of devotion, to bring close to his eye another man in order to produce a reflected image in his own eye.  Scripture, moreover, (viz.  Ch.  Up.  VIII, 9, 1, ’It (the reflected Self) perishes as soon as the body perishes,’) declares the non-permanency of the reflected Self.—­And, further, ‘on account of impossibility’ (the person in the eye cannot be the reflected Self).  For immortality and the other qualities ascribed to the person in the eye are not to be perceived in the reflected Self.—­Of the cognitional Self, in the second place, which is in general connexion with the whole body and all the senses, it can likewise not be said that it has its permanent station in the eye only.  That, on the other hand, Brahman although all-pervading may, for the purpose of contemplation, be spoken of as connected with particular places such as the heart and the like, we have seen already.  The cognitional Self shares

Page 183

18.  The internal ruler over the devas and so on (is Brahman), because the attributes of that (Brahman) are designated.

In B/ri/.  Up.  III, 7, 1 ff. we read, ’He who within rules this world and the other world and all beings,’ and later on, ’He who dwells in the earth and within the earth, whom the earth does not know, whose body the earth is, who rules the earth within, he is thy Self, the ruler within, the immortal,’ &c.  The entire chapter (to sum up its contents) speaks of a being, called the antaryamin (the internal ruler), who, dwelling within, rules with reference to the gods, the world, the Veda, the sacrifice, the beings, the Self.—­Here now, owing to the unusualness of the term (antaryamin), there arises a doubt whether it denotes the Self of some deity which presides over the gods and so on, or some Yogin who has acquired extraordinary powers, such as, for instance, the capability of making his body subtle, or the highest Self, or some other being.  What alternative then does recommend itself?

Page 184

As the term is an unknown one, the purvapakshin says, we must assume that the being denoted by it is also an unknown one, different from all those mentioned above.—­Or else it may be said that, on the one hand, we have no right to assume something of an altogether indefinite character, and that, on the other hand, the term antaryamin—­which is derived from antaryamana (ruling within)—­cannot be called altogether unknown, that therefore antaryamin may be assumed to denote some god presiding over the earth, and so on.  Similarly, we read (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 9, 16), ’He whose dwelling is the earth, whose sight is fire, whose mind is light,’ &c.  A god of that kind is capable of ruling the earth, and so on, dwelling within them, because he is endowed with the organs of action; rulership is therefore rightly ascribed to him.—­Or else the rulership spoken of may belong to some Yogin whom his extraordinary powers enable to enter within all things.—­The highest Self, on the other hand, cannot be meant, as it does not possess the organs of action (which are required for ruling).

To this we make the following reply.—­The internal ruler, of whom Scripture speaks with reference to the gods, must be the highest Self, cannot be anything else.—­Why so?—­Because its qualities are designated in the passage under discussion.  The universal rulership implied in the statement that, dwelling within, it rules the entire aggregate of created beings, inclusive of the gods, and so on, is an appropriate attribute of the highest Self, since omnipotence depends on (the omnipotent ruler) being the cause of all created things.—­The qualities of Selfhood and immortality also, which are mentioned in the passage, ‘He is thy Self, the ruler within, the immortal,’ belong in their primary sense to the highest Self.—­Further, the passage, ’He whom the earth does not know,’ which declares that the internal ruler is not known by the earth-deity, shows him to be different from that deity; for the deity of the earth knows itself to be the earth.—­The attributes ‘unseen,’ ‘unheard,’ also point to the highest Self, which is devoid of shape and other sensible qualities.—­The objection that the highest Self is destitute of the organs of action, and hence cannot be a ruler, is without force, because organs of action may be ascribed to him owing to the organs of action of those whom he rules.—­If it should be objected that [if we once admit an internal ruler in addition to the individual soul] we are driven to assume again another and another ruler ad infinitum; we reply that this is not the case, as actually there is no other ruler (but the highest Self[150]).  The objection would be valid only in the case of a difference of rulers actually existing.—­For all these reasons, the internal ruler is no other but the highest Self.

19.  And (the internal ruler is) not that which the Sm/ri/ti assumes, (viz. the pradhana,) on account of the statement of qualities not belonging to it.

Page 185

Good so far, a Sa@nkhya opponent resumes.  The attributes, however, of not being seen, &c., belong also to the pradhana assumed by the Sa@nkhya-sm/ri/ti, which is acknowledged to be devoid of form and other sensible qualities.  For their Sm/ri/ti says, ’Undiscoverable, unknowable, as if wholly in sleep’ (Manu I, 5).  To this pradhana also the attribute of rulership belongs, as it is the cause of all effects.  Therefore the internal ruler may be understood to denote the pradhana.  The pradhana has, indeed, been set aside already by the Sutra I, 1, 5, but we bring it forward again, because we find that attributes belonging to it, such as not being seen and the like, are mentioned in Scripture.

To this argumentation the Sutrakara replies that the word ’internal ruler’ cannot denote the pradhana, because qualities not belonging to the latter are stated.  For, although the pradhana may be spoken of as not being seen, &c, it cannot be spoken of as seeing, since the Sa@nkhyas admit it to be non-intelligent.  But the scriptural passage which forms the complement to the passage about the internal ruler (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 7, 23) says expressly, ’Unseen but seeing, unheard but hearing, unperceived but perceiving, unknown but knowing.’—­And Selfhood also cannot belong to the pradhana.

Well, then, if the term ‘internal ruler’ cannot be admitted to denote the pradhana, because the latter is neither a Self nor seeing; let us suppose it to denote the embodied (individual) soul, which is intelligent, and therefore hears, sees, perceives, knows; which is internal (pratya/nk/), and therefore of the nature of Self; and which is immortal, because it is able to enjoy the fruits of its good and evil actions.  It is, moreover, a settled matter that the attributes of not being seen, &c., belong to the embodied soul, because the agent of an action, such as seeing, cannot at the same time be the object of the action.  This is declared in scriptural passages also, as, for instance (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 4, 2), ‘Thou couldst not see the seer of sight.’  The individual soul is, moreover, capable of inwardly ruling the complex of the organs of action, as it is the enjoyer.  Therefore the internal ruler is the embodied soul.—­To this reasoning the following Sutra replies.

20.  And the embodied soul (also cannot be understood by the internal ruler), for both also (i.e. both recensions of the B/ri/had Ara/n/yaka) speak of it as different (from the internal ruler).

The word ‘not’ (in the Sutra) has to be supplied from the preceding Sutra.  Although the attributes of seeing, &c., belong to the individual soul, still as the soul is limited by its adjuncts, as the ether is by a jar, it is not capable of dwelling completely within the earth and the other beings mentioned, and to rule them.  Moreover, the followers of both sakhas, i.e. the Ka/n/vas as well as the Madhyandinas, speak in their texts of the individual soul as different from the internal ruler, viz.

Page 186

We therefore advance the following final refutation of the opponent’s objection.—­The declaration of the difference of the embodied Self and the internal ruler has its reason in the limiting adjunct, consisting of the organs of action, presented by Nescience, and is not absolutely true.  For the Self within is one only; two internal Selfs are not possible.  But owing to its limiting adjunct the one Self is practically treated as if it were two; just as we make a distinction between the ether of the jar and the universal ether.  Hence there is room for those scriptural passages which set forth the distinction of knower and object of knowledge, for perception and the other means of proof, for the intuitive knowledge of the apparent world, and for that part of Scripture which contains injunctions and prohibitions.  In accordance with this, the scriptural passage, ’Where there is duality, as it were, there one sees another,’ declares that the whole practical world exists only in the sphere of Nescience; while the subsequent passage, ’But when the Self only is all this, how should he see another?’ declares that the practical world vanishes in the sphere of true knowledge.

21.  That which possesses the attributes of invisibility and so on (is Brahman), on account of the declaration of attributes.

Scripture says, ’The higher knowledge is this by which the Indestructible is apprehended.  That which cannot be seen nor seized, which is without origin and qualities, without eyes and ears, without hands and feet, the eternal, all-pervading, omnipresent, infinitesimal, that which is imperishable, that it is which the wise regard as the source of all beings’ (Mu.  Up.  I, 1, 5; 6).—­Here the doubt arises whether the source of all beings which is spoken of as characterised by invisibility, &c. be the pradhana or the embodied soul, or the highest Lord.

Page 187

We must, the purvapakshin says, understand by the source of all beings the non-intelligent pradhana because (in the passage immediately subsequent to the one quoted) only non-intelligent beings are mentioned as parallel instances.  ’As the spider sends forth and draws in its thread, as plants grow on the earth, as from the living man hairs spring forth on the head and the body, thus everything arises here from the Indestructible.’—­But, it may be objected, men and spiders which are here quoted as parallel instances are of intelligent nature.—­No, the purvapakshin replies; for the intelligent being as such is not the source of the threads and the hair, but everybody knows that the non-intelligent body of the spider ruled by intelligence is the source of the threads; and so in the case of man also.—­While, moreover, in the case of the preceding Sutra, the pradhana hypothesis could not be accepted, because, although some qualities mentioned, such as invisibility and so on, agreed with it, others such as being the seer and the like did not; we have here to do only with attributes such as invisibility which agree with the pradhana, no attribute of a contrary nature being mentioned.—­But the qualities mentioned in the complementary passage (Mu.  Up.  I, 1, 9), ’He who knows all and perceives all,’ do not agree with the non-intelligent pradhana; how, then, can the source of all beings be interpreted to mean the pradhana?—­To this the purvapakshin replies:  The passage, ’The higher knowledge is that by which the Indestructible is apprehended, that which cannot be seen,’ &c., points, by means of the term ‘the Indestructible,’ to the source of all beings characterised by invisibility and similar attributes.  This same ‘Indestructible’ is again mentioned later on in the passage, ’It is higher than the high Imperishable.’  Now that which in this latter passage is spoken of as higher than the Imperishable may possess the qualities of knowing and perceiving everything, while the pradhana denoted by the term ‘the Imperishable’ is the source of all beings.—­If, however, the word ‘source’ (yoni) be taken in the sense of operative cause, we may by ‘the source of the beings’ understand the embodied Self also, which, by means of merit and demerit, is the cause of the origin of the complex of things.

To this we make the following reply.—­That which here is spoken of as the source of all beings, distinguished by such qualities as invisibility and so on, can be the highest Lord only, nothing else.—­Whereupon is this conclusion founded?—­On the statement of attributes.  For the clause, ‘He who is all-knowing, all-perceiving,’ clearly states an attribute belonging to the highest Lord only, since the attributes of knowing all and perceiving all cannot be predicated either of the non-intelligent pradhana or the embodied soul whose power of sight is narrowed by its limiting conditions.  To the objection that the qualities of knowing and perceiving all are, in

Page 188

Page 189

22.  The two others (i.e. the individual soul and the pradhana) are not (the source of all beings) because there are stated distinctive attributes and difference.

Page 190

The source of all beings is the highest Lord, not either of the two others, viz. the pradhana and the individual soul, on account of the following reason also.  In the first place, the text distinguishes the source of all beings from the embodied soul, as something of a different nature; compare the passage (II, 1, 2), ’That heavenly person is without body, he is both without and within, not produced, without breath and without mind, pure.’  The distinctive attributes mentioned here, such as being of a heavenly nature, and so on, can in no way belong to the individual soul, which erroneously considers itself to be limited by name and form as presented by Nescience, and erroneously imputes their attributes to itself.  Therefore the passage manifestly refers to the Person which is the subject of all the Upanishads.—­In the second place, the source of all beings which forms the general topic is represented in the text as something different from the pradhana, viz. in the passage, ‘Higher than the high Imperishable.’  Here the term ‘Imperishable’ means that undeveloped entity which represents the seminal potentiality of names and forms, contains the fine parts of the material elements, abides in the Lord, forms his limiting adjunct, and being itself no effect is high in comparison to all effects; the whole phrase, ’Higher than the high Imperishable,’ which expresses a difference then clearly shows that the highest Self is meant here.—­We do not on that account assume an independent entity called pradhana and say that the source of all beings is stated separately therefrom; but if a pradhana is to be assumed at all (in agreement with the common opinion) and if being assumed it is assumed of such a nature as not to be opposed to the statements of Scripture, viz. as the subtle cause of all beings denoted by the terms ‘the Undeveloped’ and so on, we have no objection to such an assumption, and declare that, on account of the separate statement therefrom, i.e. from that pradhana, ‘the source of all beings’ must mean the highest Lord.—­A further argument in favour of the same conclusion is supplied by the next Sutra.

23.  And on account of its form being mentioned.

Subsequently to the passage, ‘Higher than the high Imperishable,’ we meet (in the passage, ‘From him is born breath,’ &c.) with a description of the creation of all things, from breath down to earth, and then with a statement of the form of this same source of beings as consisting of all created beings, ’Fire is his head, his eyes the sun and the moon, the quarters his ears, his speech the Vedas disclosed, the wind his breath, his heart the universe; from his feet came the earth; he is indeed the inner Self of all things.’  This statement of form can refer only to the highest Lord, and not either to the embodied soul, which, on account of its small power, cannot be the cause of all effects, or to the pradhana, which cannot be the inner Self

Page 191

Page 192

24.  Vai/s/vanara (is the highest Lord) on account of the distinction qualifying the common terms (Vai/s/vanara and Self).

(In Ch.  Up.  V, 11 ff.) a discussion begins with the words, ’What is our Self, what is Brahman?’ and is carried on in the passage, ’You know at present that Vai/s/vanara Self, tell us that;’ after that it is declared with reference to Heaven, sun, air, ether, water, and earth, that they are connected with the qualities of having good light, &c., and, in order to disparage devout meditation on them singly, that they stand to the Vai/s/vanara in the relation of being his head, &c., merely; and then finally (V, 18) it is said, ’But he who meditates on the Vai/s/vanara Self as measured by a span, as abhivimana[153], he eats food in all worlds, in all beings, in all Selfs.  Of that Vai/s/vanara Self the head is Sutejas (having good light), the eye Vi/s/varupa (multiform), the breath P/ri/thagvartman (moving in various courses), the trunk Bahula (full), the bladder Rayi (wealth), the feet the earth, the chest the altar, the hairs the grass on the altar, the heart the Garhapatya fire, the mind the Anvaharya fire, the mouth the Ahavaniya fire.’—­Here the doubt arises whether by the term ‘Vai/s/vanara’ we have to understand the gastric fire, or the elemental fire, or the divinity presiding over the latter, or the embodied soul, or the highest Lord.—­But what, it may be asked, gives rise to this doubt?—­The circumstance, we reply, of ‘Vai/s/vanara’ being employed as a common term for the gastric fire, the elemental fire, and the divinity of the latter, while ‘Self’ is a term applying to the embodied soul as well as to the highest Lord.  Hence the doubt arises which meaning of the term is to be accepted and which to be set aside.

Which, then, is the alternative to be embraced?—­Vai/s/vanara, the purvapakshin maintains, is the gastric fire, because we meet, in some passages, with the term used in that special sense; so, for instance (B/ri/.  Up.  V, 9), ’Agni Vai/s/vanara is the fire within man by which the food that is eaten is cooked.’—­Or else the term may denote fire in general, as we see it used in that sense also; so, for instance (Rig-veda Sa/m/h.  X, 88, 12), ’For the whole world the gods have made the Agni Vai/s/vanara a sign of the days.’  Or, in the third place, the word may denote that divinity whose body is fire.  For passages in which the term has that sense are

Page 193

To this we make the following reply.—­The word Vai/s/vanara denotes the highest Self, on account of the distinction qualifying the two general terms.—­Although the term ‘Self,’ as well as the term ‘Vai/s/vanara,’ has various meanings—­the latter term denoting three beings while the former denotes two—­yet we observe a distinction from which we conclude that both terms can here denote the highest Lord only; viz. in the passage, ‘Of that Vai/s/vanara Self the head is Sutejas,’ &c.  For it is clear that that passage refers to the highest Lord in so far as he is distinguished by having heaven, and so on, for his head and limbs, and in so far as he has entered into a different state (viz. into the state of being the Self of the threefold world); represents him, in fact, for the purpose of meditation, as the internal Self of everything.  As such the absolute Self may be represented, because it is the cause of everything; for as the cause virtually contains all the states belonging to its effects, the heavenly world, and so on, may be spoken of as the members of the highest Self.—­Moreover, the result which Scripture declares to abide in all worlds—­viz. in the passage, ’He eats food in all worlds, in all beings, in all Selfs’—­is possible only if we take the term Vai/s/vanara to denote the highest Self.—­The same remark applies to the declaration that all the sins are burned of him who has that knowledge, ‘Thus all his sins are burned,’ &c. (Ch.  Up.  V, 24, 3).—­Moreover, we meet at the beginning of the chapter with the words ‘Self’ and ‘Brahman;’ viz. in the passage, ’What is our Self, what is Brahman?’ Now these are marks of Brahman, and indicate the highest Lord only.  Hence he only can be meant by the term Vai/s/vanara.

25. (And) because that which is stated by Sm/ri/ti (i.e. the shape of the highest Lord as described by Sm/ri/ti) is an inference (i.e. an indicatory mark from which we infer the meaning of Sruti).

Page 194

The highest Lord only is Vai/s/vanara, for that reason also that Sm/ri/ti ascribes to the highest Lord only a shape consisting of the threefold world, the fire constituting his mouth, the heavenly world his head, &c.  So, for instance, in the following passage, ’He whose mouth is fire, whose head the heavenly world, whose navel the ether, whose feet the earth, whose eye the sun, whose ears the regions, reverence to him the Self of the world.’  The shape described here in Sm/ri/ti allows us to infer a Sruti passage on which the Sm/ri/ti rests, and thus constitutes an inference, i.e. a sign indicatory of the word ‘Vai/s/vanara’ denoting the highest Lord.  For, although the quoted Sm/ri/ti passage contains a glorification[155], still even a glorification in the form in which it there appears is not possible, unless it has a Vedic passage to rest on.—­Other Sm/ri/ti passages also may be quoted in connexion with this Sutra, so, for instance, the following one, ’He whose head the wise declare to be the heavenly world, whose navel the ether, whose eyes sun and moon, whose ears the regions, and whose feet the earth, he is the inscrutable leader of all beings.’

26.  If it be maintained that (Vai/s/vanara is) not (the highest Lord) on account of the term (viz.  Vai/s/vanara, having a settled different meaning), &c., and on account of his abiding within (which is a characteristic of the gastric fire); (we say) no, on account of the perception (of the highest Lord), being taught thus (viz. in the gastric fire), and on account of the impossibility (of the heavenly world, &c. being the head, &c. of the gastric fire), and because they (the Vajasaneyins) read of him (viz. the Vai/s/vanara) as man (which term cannot apply to the gastric fire).

Here the following objection is raised.—­Vai/s/vanara cannot be the highest Lord, on account of the term, &c., and on account of the abiding within.  The term, viz. the term Vai/s/vanara, cannot be applied to the highest Lord, because the settled use of language assigns to it a different sense.  Thus, also, with regard to the term Agni (fire) in the passage (Sat.  Bra.  X, 6, 1, 11), ‘He is the Agni Vai/s/vanara.’  The word ‘&c.’ (in the Sutra) hints at the fiction concerning the three sacred fires, the garhapatya being represented as the heart, and so on, of the Vai/s/vanara Self (Ch.  Up.  V, 18, 2[156]).—­Moreover, the passage, ’Therefore the first food which a man may take is in the place of homa’ (Ch.  Up.  V, 19, 1), contains a glorification of (Vai/s/vanara) being the abode of the oblation to Pra/n/a[157].  For these reasons we have to understand by Vai/s/vanara the gastric fire.—­Moreover, Scripture speaks of the Vai/s/vanara as abiding within.  ’He knows him abiding within man;’ which again applies to the gastric fire only.—­With reference to the averment that on account of the specifications contained in the passage, ‘His head is Sutejas,’ &c., Vai/s/vanara is to be explained as the highest

Page 195

To all this we reply as follows.—­Your assertions are unfounded, ‘because there is taught the perception in this manner.’  The reasons (adduced in the former part of the Sutra), viz. the term, and so on, are not sufficient to make us abandon the interpretation according to which Vai/s/vanara is the highest Lord.—­Why?—­On account of perception being taught in this manner, i.e. without the gastric fire being set aside.  For the passages quoted teach the perception of the highest Lord in the gastric fire, analogously to such passages as ’Let a man meditate on the mind as Brahman’ (Ch.  Up.  III, 18, 1).—­Or else they teach that the object of perception is the highest Lord, in so far as he has the gastric fire called Vai/s/vanara for his limiting condition; analogously to such passages as ’He who consists of mind, whose body is breath, whose form is light’ (Ch.  Up.  III, 14, 2[158]).  If it were the aim of the passages about the Vai/s/vanara to make statements not concerning the highest Lord, but merely concerning the gastric fire, there would be no possibility of specifications such as contained in the passage ’His head is Sutejas,’ &c.  That also on the assumption of Vai/s/vanara being either the divinity of fire or the elemental fire no room is to be found for the said specifications, we shall show under the following Sutra.—­Moreover, if the mere gastric fire were meant, there would be room only for a declaration that it abides within man, not that it is man.  But, as a matter of fact, the Vajasaneyins speak of him—­in their sacred text—­as man, ’This Agni Vai/s/vanara is man; he who knows this Agni Vai/s/vanara as man-like, as abiding within man,’ &c. (Sat.  Bra.  X, 6, 1, 11).  The highest Lord, on the other hand, who is the Self of everything, may be spoken of as well as man, as abiding within man.—­Those who, in the latter part of the Sutra, read ‘man-like’ (puru-shavidham) instead of ‘man’ (purusham), wish to express the following meaning:  If Vai/s/vanara were assumed to be the gastric fire only, he might be spoken of as abiding within man indeed, but not as man-like.  But the Vajasaneyins do speak of him as man-like, ’He who knows him as man-like, as abiding within man.’—­The meaning of the term man-like is to be concluded from the context, whence it will be seen that, with reference to nature, it means that the highest Lord has the heaven for his head, &c., and is based on the earth; and with reference to man, that he forms the head, &c., and is based on the chin (of the devout worshipper[159]).

Page 196

27.  For the same reasons (the Vai/s/vanara) cannot be the divinity (of fire), or the element (of fire).

The averment that the fanciful attribution of members contained in the passage ‘His head is Sutejas,’ &c. may apply to the elemental fire also which from the mantras is seen to be connected with the heavenly world, &c., or else to the divinity whose body is fire, on account of its power, is refuted by the following remark:  For the reasons already stated Vai/s/vanara is neither the divinity nor the element.  For to the elemental fire which is mere heat and light the heavenly world and so on cannot properly be ascribed as head and so on, because an effect cannot be the Self of another effect.—­Again, the heavenly world cannot be ascribed as head, &c. to the divinity of fire, in spite of the power of the latter; for, on the one hand, it is not a cause (but a mere effect), and on the other hand its power depends on the highest Lord.  Against all these interpretations there lies moreover the objection founded on the inapplicability of the term ‘Self.’

28.  Jaimini (declares that there is) no contradiction even on the assumption of a direct (worship of the highest Lord as Vai/s/vanara).

Above (Sutra 26) it has been said that Vai/s/vanara is the highest Lord, to be meditated upon as having the gastric fire either for his outward manifestation or for his limiting condition; which interpretation was accepted in deference to the circumstance that he is spoken of as abiding within—­and so on.—­The teacher Jaimini however is of opinion that it is not necessary to have recourse to the assumption of an outward manifestation or limiting condition, and that there is no objection to refer the passage about Vai/s/vanara to the direct worship of the highest Lord.—­But, if you reject the interpretation based on the gastric fire, you place yourself in opposition to the statement that Vai/s/vanara abides within, and to the reasons founded on the term, &c.  (Su. 26).—­To this we reply that we in no way place ourselves in opposition to the statement that Vai/s/vanara abides within.  For the passage, ‘He knows him as man-like, as abiding within man,’ does not by any means refer to the gastric fire, the latter being neither the general topic of discussion nor having been mentioned by name before.—­What then does it refer to?—­It refers to that which forms the subject of discussion, viz. that similarity to man (of the highest Self) which is fancifully found in the members of man from the upper part of the head down to the chin; the text therefore says, ’He knows him as man-like, as abiding within man,’ just as we say of a branch that it abides within the tree[160].—­Or else we may adopt another interpretation and say that after the highest Self has been represented as having the likeness to man as a limiting condition, with regard to nature as well as to man, the passage last quoted (’He knows him as abiding within man’) speaks of

Page 197

But, if it is assumed that Vai/s/vanara denotes the highest Self, how can Scripture declare that he is measured by a span?—­On the explanation of this difficulty we now enter.

29.  On account of the manifestation, so A/s/marathya opines.

The circumstance of the highest Lord who transcends all measure being spoken of as measured by a span has for its reason ‘manifestation.’  The highest Lord manifests himself as measured by a span, i.e. he specially manifests himself for the benefit of his worshippers in some special places, such as the heart and the like, where he may be perceived.  Hence, according to the opinion of the teacher A/s/marathya, the scriptural passage which speaks of him who is measured by a span may refer to the highest Lord.

30.  On account of remembrance; so Badari opines.

Or else the highest Lord may be called ‘measured by a span’ because he is remembered by means of the mind which is seated in the heart which is measured by a span.  Similarly, barley-corns which are measured by means of prasthas are themselves called prasthas.  It must be admitted that barley-grains themselves have a certain size which is merely rendered manifest through their being connected with a prastha measure; while the highest Lord himself does not possess a size to be rendered manifest by his connexion with the heart.  Still the remembrance (of the Lord by means of the mind) may be accepted as offering a certain foundation for the Sruti passage concerning him who is measured by a span.—­Or else[161] the Sutra may be interpreted to mean that the Lord, although not really measured by a span, is to be remembered (meditated upon) as being of the measure of a span; whereby the passage is furnished with an appropriate sense.—­Thus the passage about him who is measured by a span may, according to the opinion of the teacher Badari, be referred to the highest Lord, on account of remembrance.

Page 198

31.  On the ground of imaginative identification (the highest Lord may be called prade/s/amatra), Jaimini thinks; for thus (Scripture) declares.

Or else the passage about him who is measured by a span may be considered to rest on imaginative combination.—­Why?—­Because the passage of the Vajasaneyibrahma/n/a which treats of the same topic identifies heaven, earth, and so on—­which are the members of Vai/s/vanara viewed as the Self of the threefold world—­with certain parts of the human frame, viz. the parts comprised between the upper part of the head and the chin, and thus declares the imaginative identity of Vai/s/vanara with something whose measure is a span.  There we read, ’The Gods indeed reached him, knowing him as measured by a span as it were.  Now I will declare them (his members) to you so as to identify him (the Vai/s/vanara) with that whose measure is a span; thus he said.  Pointing to the upper part of the head he said:  This is what stands above (i.e. the heavenly world) as Vai/s/vanara (i.e. the head of Vai/s/vanara[162]).  Pointing to the eyes he said:  This is he with good light (i.e. the sun) as Vai/s/vanara (i.e. the eye of V.).  Pointing to the nose he said:  This is he who moves on manifold paths (i.e. the air) as Vai/s/vanara (i.e. the breath of V.).  Pointing to the space (ether) within his mouth he said:  This is the full one (i.e. the ether) as Vai/s/vanara.  Pointing to the saliva within his mouth he said:  This is wealth as Vai/s/vanara (i.e. the water in the bladder of V.).  Pointing to the chin he said:  This is the base as Vai/s/vanara (i.e. the feet of V.).’—­Although in the Vajasaneyi-brahma/n/a the heaven is denoted as that which has the attribute of standing above and the sun as that which has the attribute of good light, while in the Chandogya the heaven is spoken of as having good light and the sun as being multiform; still this difference does not interfere (with the unity of the vidya)[163], because both texts equally use the term ‘measured by a span,’ and because all sakhas intimate the same.—­The above explanation of the term ‘measured by a span,’ which rests on imaginative identification, the teacher Jaimini considers the most appropriate one.

32.  Moreover they (the Jabalas) speak of him (the highest Lord) in that (i.e. the interstice between the top of the head and the chin which is measured by a span).

Moreover the Jabalas speak in their text of the highest Lord as being in the interstice between the top of the head and the chin.  ’The unevolved infinite Self abides in the avimukta (i.e. the non-released soul).  Where does that avimukta abide?  It abides in the Vara/n/a and the Nasi, in the middle.  What is that Vara/n/a, what is that Nasi?’ The text thereupon etymologises the term Vara/n/a as that which wards off (varayati) all evil done by the senses, and the term Nasi as that which destroys (na/s/ayati) all evil done by the senses; and then continues, ’And

Page 199

Notes: 

[Footnote 136:  The clause ‘he is to meditate with a calm mind’ if taken as a gu/n/avidhi, i.e. as enjoining some secondary matter, viz. calmness of mind of the meditating person, cannot at the same time enjoin meditation; for that would involve a so-called split of the sentence (vakyabheda).]

[Footnote 137:  Jivezpi dehadib/rim/hanaj jyastvanyayad va brahmatety artha/h/.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 138:  The discussion is brought on by the term ‘vivakshita’ in the Sutra whose meaning is ‘expressed, aimed at,’ but more literally ‘desired to be expressed.’]

[Footnote 139:  Because he is vyapin.]

[Footnote 140:  Another interpretation of the later part of Sutra.]

[Footnote 141:  Cp.  Ka/th/a Up, I, 1, 13; 20; I, 2, 14.]

[Footnote 142:  Freedom from impurity can result only from the knowledge that the individual soul is in reality Brahman.  The commentators explain rajas by avidya.]

[Footnote 143:  Tadartham iti, jivasya brahmasiddhyartham iti yavat, kaitanya/kh/ayapanna dhi/h/sukhadina pari/n/amata iti, tatra purushozpi bhakt/ri/tvam ivanubhavati na tattvata iti vaktum adhyaropayati.  Ananda Giri.]

[Footnote 144:  Who, somebody might say, is to be understood here, because immortality and similar qualities belong to him not somehow only, but in their true sense.]

[Footnote 145:  The tikas say that the contents of this last sentence are hinted at by the word ‘and’ in the Sutra.]

[Footnote 146:  I.e. at the beginning of the instruction which the sacred fires give to Upako/s/ala, Ch.  Up.  IV, 10 ff.]

[Footnote 147:  Which words conclude the instruction given by the fires, and introduce the instruction given by the teacher, of which the passage ‘the person that is seen in the eye,’ &c. forms a part.]

[Footnote 148:  A/s/rayantarapratyayasya/s/rayantare kshepa/h/ pratika/h/, yatha brahma/s/abda/h/ paramatmavishayo namadishu kshipyate.  Bha.]

[Footnote 149:  The following sentences give the reason why, although there is only one Brahman, the word Brahman is repeated.]

Page 200

[Footnote 150:  According to Scripture, Nira@nku/s/a/m/ sarvaniyantritva/m/ srauta/m/ na ka tadri/s/e sarvaniyantari bhedo na kanumana/m/ srutibhaditam uttish/th/ati.  Ananda Giri.  Or else, as Go.  An. remarks, we may explain:  as the highest Self is not really different from the individual soul.  So also Bhamati:  Na hanavastha, na hi niyantrantara/m/ tena niyamyate ki/m/ tu yo jivo niyanta lokasiddha/h/ sa paramatmevopadhyava/kkh/edakalpitabheda/h/.]

[Footnote 151:  V/ri/ttik/ri/dvyakhyam dushayati, Go.  An.; ekade/s/ina/m/ dushayati, Ananda Giri; tad etat paramatenakshepasamadhanabhya/m/ vyakhyaya svamatena vya/k/ash/t/e, puna/h/ sabdozpi purvasmad vi/s/esha/m/ dyotayann asyesh/t/ata/m/ su/k/ayati, Bhamati.—­The statement of the two former commentators must be understood to mean—­in agreement with the Bhamati—­that Sa@nkara is now going to refute the preceding explanation by the statement of his own view.  Thus Go.  An. later on explains ‘asmin pakshe’ by ‘svapakshe.’]

[Footnote 152:  The question is to what passage the ‘rupopanyasat’ of the Sutra refers.—­According to the opinion set forth first it refers to Mu.  Up.  II, 1, 4 ff.—­But, according to the second view, II, 1, 4 to II, 1, 9, cannot refer to the source of all beings, i.e. the highest Self, because that entire passage describes the creation, the inner Self of which is not the highest Self but Prajapati, i.e. the Hira/n/yagarbha or Sutratman of the later Vedanta, who is himself an ‘effect,’ and who is called the inner Self, because he is the breath of life (pra/n/a) in everything.—­Hence the Sutra must be connected with another passage, and that passage is found in II, 1, 10, where it is said that the Person (i.e. the highest Self) is all this, &c.]

[Footnote 153:  About which term see later on.]

[Footnote 154:  Sarire laksha/n/aya vai/s/vanara/s/abdopapattim aha tasyeti.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 155:  And as such might be said not to require a basis for its statements.]

[Footnote 156:  Na ka garhapatyadih/ri/dayadita brahma/n/a/h/ sambhavini.  Bhamati.]

[Footnote 157:  Na ka pra/n/ahutyadhikara/n/ata z nyatra ja/th/aragner yujyate.  Bhamati.]

[Footnote 158:  According to the former explanation the gastric fire is to be looked on as the outward manifestation (pratika) of the highest Lord; according to the latter as his limiting condition.]

[Footnote 159:  I.e. that he may be fancifully identified with the head and so on of the devout worshipper.]

[Footnote 160:  Whereby we mean not that it is inside the tree, but that it forms a part of the tree.—­The Vai/s/vanara Self is identified with the different members of the body, and these members abide within, i.e. form parts of the body.]

[Footnote 161:  Parima/n/asya h/ri/da/y/advararopitasya smaryama/n/e katham aropo vishayavishayitvena bhedad ity a/s/a@nkya vyakhyantaram aha prade/s/eti.  Ananda Giri.]

Page 201

[Footnote 162:  Atra sarvatra vai/s/vanara/s/abdas tada@ngapara/h/.  Go.  An.]

[Footnote 163:  Which unity entitles us to use the passage from the Sat.  Bra. for the explanation of the passage from the Ch.  Up.]

THIRD PADA.

REVERENCE TO THE HIGHEST SELF!

1.  The abode of heaven, earth, and so on (is Brahman), on account of the term ‘own,’ i.e.  Self.

We read (Mu.  Up.  II, 2, 5), ’He in whom the heaven, the earth, and the sky are woven, the mind also with all the vital airs, know him alone as the Self, and leave off other words!  He is the bridge of the Immortal.’—­Here the doubt arises whether the abode which is intimated by the statement of the heaven and so on being woven in it is the highest Brahman or something else.

The purvapakshin maintains that the abode is something else, on account of the expression, ‘It is the bridge of the Immortal.’  For, he says, it is known from every-day experience that a bridge presupposes some further bank to which it leads, while it is impossible to assume something further beyond the highest Brahman, which in Scripture is called ‘endless, without a further shore’ (B/ri/.  Up.  II, 4, 12).  Now if the abode is supposed to be something different from Brahman, it must be supposed to be either the pradhana known from Sm/ri/ti, which, as being the (general) cause, may be called the (general) abode; or the air known from Sruti, of which it is said (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 7, 2, ’Air is that thread, O Gautama.  By air as by a thread, O Gautama, this world and the other world and all beings are strung together’), that it supports all things; or else the embodied soul which, as being the enjoyer, may be considered as an abode with reference to the objects of its fruition.

Against this view we argue with the sutrakara as follows:—­’Of the world consisting of heaven, earth, and so on, which in the quoted passage is spoken of as woven (upon something), the highest Brahman must be the abode.’—­Why?—­On account of the word ‘own,’ i.e. on account of the word ‘Self.’  For we meet with the word ‘Self’ in the passage, ’Know him alone as the Self.’  This term ‘Self’ is thoroughly appropriate only if we understand the highest Self and not anything else.—­(To propound another interpretation of the phrase ‘sva/s/abdat’ employed in the Sutra.) Sometimes also Brahman is spoken of in Sruti as the general abode by its own terms (i.e. by terms properly designating Brahman), as, for instance (Ch.  Up.  VI. 8, 4), ’All these creatures, my dear, have their root in the being, their abode in the being, their rest in the being[164].’—­(Or else we have to explain ‘sva/s/abdena’ as follows), In the passages preceding and following the passage under discussion Brahman is glorified with its own names[165]; cp.  Mu.  Up.  II, 1, 10, ’The Person is all this, sacrifice, penance, Brahman, the highest Immortal,’ and

Page 202

According to the opinion of another (commentator) the word ‘bridge’ does not glorify the abode of heaven, earth, &c., but rather the knowledge of the Self which is glorified in the preceding clause, ’Know him alone as the Self,’ and the abandonment of speech advised in the clause, ’leave off other words;’ to them, as being the means of obtaining immortality, the expression ‘the bridge of the immortal’ applies[167].  On that account we have to set aside the assertion that, on account of the word ‘bridge,’ something different from Brahman is to be understood by the abode of heaven, earth, and so on.

Page 203

2.  And on account of its being designated as that to which the Released have to resort.

By the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, we have to understand the highest Brahman for that reason also that we find it denoted as that to which the Released have to resort.—­The conception that the body and other things contained in the sphere of the Not-self are our Self, constitutes Nescience; from it there spring desires with regard to whatever promotes the well-being of the body and so on, and aversions with regard to whatever tends to injure it; there further arise fear and confusion when we observe anything threatening to destroy it.  All this constitutes an endless series of the most manifold evils with which we all are acquainted.  Regarding those on the other hand who have freed themselves from the stains of Nescience desire aversion and so on, it is said that they have to resort to that, viz. the abode of heaven, earth, &c. which forms the topic of discussion.  For the text, after having said, ’The fetter of the heart is broken, all doubts are solved, all his works perish when He has been beheld who is the higher and the lower’ (Mu.  Up.  II, 2, 8), later on remarks, ’The wise man freed from name and form goes to the divine Person who is greater than the great’ (Mu.  Up.  III, 2, 8).  That Brahman is that which is to be resorted to by the released, is known from other scriptural passages, such as ’When all desires which once entered his heart are undone then does the mortal become immortal, then he obtains Brahman’ (B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 4, 7).  Of the pradhana and similar entities, on the other hand, it is not known from any source that they are to be resorted to by the released.  Moreover, the text (in the passage, ’Know him alone as the Self and leave off other words’) declares that the knowledge of the abode of heaven and earth, &c. is connected with the leaving off of all speech; a condition which, according to another scriptural passage, attaches to (the knowledge of) Brahman; cp.  B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 4, 21, ’Let a wise Brahma/n/a, after he has discovered him, practise wisdom.  Let him not seek after many words, for that is mere weariness of the tongue.’—­For that reason also the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, is the highest Brahman.

3.  Not (i.e. the abode of heaven, earth, &c. cannot be) that which is inferred, (i.e. the pradhana), on account of the terms not denoting it.

While there has been shown a special reason in favour of Brahman (being the abode), there is no such special reason in favour of anything else.  Hence he (the sutrakara) says that that which is inferred, i.e. the pradhana assumed by the Sa@nkhya-sm/ri/ti, is not to be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c.—­Why?—­On account of the terms not denoting it.  For the sacred text does not contain any term intimating the non-intelligent pradhana, on the ground of which we might understand the latter to be the general cause or abode; while such terms as ’he who perceives all and knows all’ (Mu.  Up.  I, 1, 9) intimate an intelligent being opposed to the pradhana in nature.—­For the same reason the air also cannot be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, and so on.

Page 204

4. (Nor) also the individual soul (pra/n/abh/ri/t).

Although to the cognitional (individual) Self the qualities of Selfhood and intelligence do belong, still omniscience and similar qualities do not belong to it as its knowledge is limited by its adjuncts; thus the individual soul also cannot be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c., for the same reason, i.e. on account of the terms not denoting it.—­Moreover, the attribute of forming the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, cannot properly be given to the individual soul because the latter is limited by certain adjuncts and therefore non-pervading (not omnipresent)[168].—­The special enunciation (of the individual soul) is caused by what follows[169].—­The individual soul is not to be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c. for the following reason also.

5.  On account of the declaration of difference.

The passage ‘Know him alone as the Self’ moreover implies a declaration of difference, viz. of the difference of the object of knowledge and the knower.  Here the individual soul as being that which is desirous of release is the knower, and consequently Brahman, which is denoted by the word ‘self’ and represented as the object of knowledge, is understood to be the abode of heaven, earth, and so on.—­For the following reason also the individual soul cannot be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c.

6.  On account of the subject-matter.

The highest Self constitutes the subject-matter (of the entire chapter), as we see from the passage, ’Sir, what is that through which, when it is known, everything else becomes known?’ (Mu.  Up.  I, 1, 3) in which the knowledge of everything is declared to be dependent on the knowledge of one thing.  For all this (i.e. the entire world) becomes known if Brahman the Self of all is known, not if only the individual soul is known.—­Another reason against the individual soul follows.

7.  And on account of the two conditions of standing and eating (of which the former is characteristic of the highest Lord, the latter of the individual soul).

With reference to that which is the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, the text says, ‘Two birds, inseparable friends,’ &c. (Mu.  Up.  III, 1, 1).  This passage describes the two states of mere standing, i.e. mere presence, and of eating, the clause, ‘One of them eats the sweet fruit,’ referring to the eating, i.e. the fruition of the results of works, and the clause, ‘The other one looks on without eating,’ describing the condition of mere inactive presence.  The two states described, viz. of mere presence on the one hand and of enjoyment on the other hand, show that the Lord and the individual soul are referred to.  Now there is room for this statement which represents the Lord as separate from the individual soul, only if the passage about the abode of heaven and earth likewise refers to the Lord; for in that

Page 205

Page 206

8.  The bhuman (is Brahman), as the instruction about it is additional to that about the state of deep sleep (i.e. the vital air which remains awake even in the state of deep sleep).

We read (Ch.  Up.  VII, 23; 24), ’That which is much (bhuman) we must desire to understand.—­Sir, I desire to understand it.—­Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is what is much (bhuman).  Where one sees something else, hears something else, understands something else, that is the Little.’—­Here the doubt arises whether that which is much is the vital air (pra/n/a) or the highest Self.—­Whence the doubt?—­The word ‘bhuman,’ taken by itself, means the state of being much, according to its derivation as taught by Pa/n/ani, VI, 4, 158.  Hence there is felt the want of a specification showing what constitutes the Self of that muchness.  Here there presents itself at first the approximate passage, ‘The vital air is more than hope’ (Ch.  Up.  VII, 15, 1), from which we may conclude that the vital air is bhuman.—­On the other hand, we meet at the beginning of the chapter, where the general topic is stated, with the following passage, ’I have heard from men like you that he who knows the Self overcomes grief.  I am in grief.  Do, Sir, help me over this grief of mine;’ from which passage it would appear that the bhuman is the highest Self.—­Hence there arises a doubt as to which of the two alternatives is to be embraced, and which is to be set aside.

The purvapakshin maintains that the bhuman is the vital air, since there is found no further series of questions and answers as to what is more.  For while we meet with a series of questions and answers (such as, ’Sir, is there something which is more than a name?’—­’Speech is more than name.’—­’Is there something which is more than speech?’—­’Mind is more than speech’), which extends from name up to vital air, we do not meet with a similar question and answer as to what might be more than vital air (such as, ’Is there something which is more than vital air?’—­’Such and such a thing is more than vital air’).  The text rather at first declares at length (in the passage, ‘The vital air is more than hope,’ &c.) that the vital air is more than all the members of the series from name up to hope; it then acknowledges him who knows the vital air to be an ativadin, i.e. one who makes a statement surpassing the preceding statements (in the passage, ’Thou art an ativadin.  He may say I am an ativadin; he need not deny it’); and it thereupon (in the passage, ’But he in reality is an ativadin who declares something beyond by means of the True’[171]),—­not leaving off, but rather continuing to refer to the quality of an ativadin which is founded on the vital air,—­proceeds, by means of the series beginning with the True, to lead over to the bhuman; so that we conclude the meaning to be that the vital air is the bhuman.—­But, if the bhuman is interpreted to mean the vital air, how have we to explain the

Page 207

To this we make the following reply.—­Bhuman can mean the highest Self only, not the vital air.—­Why?—­’On account of information being given about it, subsequent to bliss.’  The word ‘bliss’ (samprasada) means the state of deep sleep, as may be concluded, firstly, from the etymology of the word (’In it he, i.e. man, is altogether pleased—­samprasidati’)—­and, secondly, from the fact of samprasada being mentioned in the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka together with the state of dream and the waking state.  And as in the state of deep sleep the vital air remains awake, the word ‘samprasada’ is employed in the Sutra to denote the vital air; so that the Sutra means, ’on account of information being given about the bhuman, subsequently to (the information given about) the

Page 208

Page 209

Page 210

9.  And on account of the agreement of the attributes (mentioned in the text).

The attributes, moreover, which the sacred text ascribes to the bhuman agree well with the highest Self.  The passage, ’Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is the bhuman,’ gives us to understand that in the bhuman the ordinary activities of seeing and so on are absent; and that this is characteristic of the highest Self, we know from another scriptural passage, viz.  ’But when the Self only is all this, how should he see another?’ &c. (B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 5, 15).  What is said about the absence of the activities of seeing and so on in the state of deep sleep (Pra.  Up.  IV, 2) is said with the intention of declaring the non-attachedness of the Self, not of describing the nature of the pra/n/a; for the highest Self (not the vital air) is the topic of that passage.  The bliss also of which Scripture speaks as connected with that state is mentioned only in order to show that bliss constitutes the nature of the Self.  For Scripture says (B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 3, 32), ’This is his highest bliss.  All other creatures live on a small portion of that bliss.’—­The passage under discussion also (’The bhuman is bliss.  There is no bliss in that which is little (limited).  The bhuman only is bliss’) by denying the reality of bliss on the part of whatever is perishable shows that Brahman only is bliss as bhuman, i.e. in its plenitude,—­Again, the passage, ’The bhuman is immortality,’ shows that the highest cause is meant; for the immortality of all effected

Page 211

10.  The Imperishable (is Brahman) on account of (its) supporting (all things) up to ether.

We read (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 8, 7; 8).  ’In what then is the ether woven, like warp and woof?—­He said:  O Gargi, the Brahma/n/as call this the akshara (the Imperishable).  It is neither coarse nor fine,’ and so on.—­Here the doubt arises whether the word ‘akshara’ means ‘syllable’ or ‘the highest Lord.’

The purvapakshin maintains that the word ‘akshara’ means ‘syllable’ merely, because it has, in such terms as akshara-samamnaya, the meaning of ‘syllable;’ because we have no right to disregard the settled meaning of a word; and because another scriptural passage also (’The syllable Om is all this,’ Ch.  Up.  II, 23, 4) declares a syllable, represented as the object of devotion, to be the Self of all.

To this we reply that the highest Self only is denoted by the word ’akshara.’—­Why?—­Because it (the akshara) is said to support the entire aggregate of effects, from earth up to ether.  For the sacred text declares at first that the entire aggregate of effects beginning with earth and differentiated by threefold time is based on ether, in which it is ‘woven like warp and woof;’ leads then (by means of the question, ‘In what then is the ether woven, like warp and woof?’) over to the akshara, and, finally, concludes with the words, ’In that akshara then, O Gargi, the ether is woven, like warp and woof.’—­Now the attribute of supporting everything up to ether cannot be ascribed to any being but Brahman.  The text (quoted from the Ch.  Up.) says indeed that the syllable Om is all this, but that statement is to be understood as a mere glorification of the syllable Om considered as a means to obtain Brahman.—­Therefore we take akshara to mean either ‘the Imperishable’ or ‘that which pervades;’ on the ground of either of which explanations it must be identified with the highest Brahman.

But—­our opponent resumes—­while we must admit that the above reasoning holds good so far that the circumstance of the akshara supporting all things up to ether is to be accepted as a proof of all effects depending on a cause, we point out that it may be employed by those also who declare the pradhana to be the general cause.  How then does the previous argumentation specially establish Brahman (to the exclusion of the pradhana)?—­The reply to this is given in the next Sutra.

11.  This (supporting can), on account of the command (attributed to the Imperishable, be the work of the highest Lord only).

Page 212

The supporting of all things up to ether is the work of the highest Lord only.—­Why?—­On account of the command.—­For the sacred text speaks of a command (’By the command of that akshara, O Gargi, sun and moon stand apart!’ III, 8, 9), and command can be the work of the highest Lord only, not of the non-intelligent pradhana.  For non-intelligent causes such as clay and the like are not capable of command, with reference to their effects, such as jars and the like.

12.  And on account of (Scripture) separating (the akshara) from that whose nature is different (from Brahman).

Also on account of the reason stated in this Sutra Brahman only is to be considered as the Imperishable, and the supporting of all things up to ether is to be looked upon as the work of Brahman only, not of anything else.  The meaning of the Sutra is as follows.  Whatever things other than Brahman might possibly be thought to be denoted by the term ‘akshara,’ from the nature of all those things Scripture separates the akshara spoken of as the support of all things up to ether.  The scriptural passage alluded to is III, 8, 11, ’That akshara, O Gargi, is unseen but seeing, unheard but hearing, unperceived but perceiving, unknown but knowing.’  Here the designation of being unseen, &c. agrees indeed with the pradhana also, but not so the designation of seeing, &c., as the pradhana is non-intelligent.—­Nor can the word akshara denote the embodied soul with its limiting conditions, for the passage following on the one quoted declares that there is nothing different from the Self (’there is nothing that sees but it, nothing that hears but it, nothing that perceives but it, nothing that knows but it’); and, moreover, limiting conditions are expressly denied (of the akshara) in the passage, ’It is without eyes, without ears, without speech, without mind,’ &c. (III, 8, 8).  An embodied soul without limiting conditions does not exist[174].—­It is therefore certain beyond doubt that the Imperishable is nothing else but the highest Brahman.

13.  On account of his being designated as the object of sight (the highest Self is meant, and) the same (is meant in the passage speaking of the meditation on the highest person by means of the syllable Om).

(In Pra.  Up.  V, 2) the general topic of discussion is set forth in the words, ’O Satyakama, the syllable Om is the highest and also the other Brahman; therefore he who knows it arrives by the same means at one of the two.’  The text then goes on, ’Again, he who meditates with this syllable Om of three matras on the highest Person,’ &c.—­Here the doubt presents itself, whether the object of meditation referred to in the latter passage is the highest Brahman or the other Brahman; a doubt based on the former passage, according to which both are under discussion.

Page 213

The purvapakshin maintains that the other, i.e. the lower Brahman, is referred to, because the text promises only a reward limited by a certain locality for him who knows it.  For, as the highest Brahman is omnipresent, it would be inappropriate to assume that he who knows it obtains a fruit limited by a certain locality.  The objection that, if the lower Brahman were understood, there would be no room for the qualification, ‘the highest person,’ is not valid, because the vital principal (pra/n/a) may be called ‘higher’ with reference to the body[175].

To this we make the following reply:  What is here taught as the object of meditation is the highest Brahman only.—­Why?—­On account of its being spoken of as the object of sight.  For the person to be meditated upon is, in a complementary passage, spoken of as the object of the act of seeing, ’He sees the person dwelling in the castle (of the body; purusham puri/s/ayam), higher than that one who is of the shape of the individual soul, and who is himself higher (than the senses and their objects).’  Now, of an act of meditation an unreal thing also can be the object, as, for instance, the merely imaginary object of a wish.  But of the act of seeing, real things only are the objects, as we know from experience; we therefore conclude, that in the passage last quoted, the highest (only real) Self which corresponds to the mental act of complete intuition[176] is spoken of as the object of sight.  This same highest Self we recognise in the passage under discussion as the object of meditation, in consequence of the term, ’the highest person.’—­But—­an objection will be raised—­as the object of meditation we have the highest person, and as the object of sight the person higher than that one who is himself higher, &c.; how, then, are we to know that those two are identical?—­The two passages, we reply, have in common the terms ‘highest’ (or ‘higher,’ para) and ‘person.’  And it must not by any means be supposed that the term jivaghana[177] refers to that highest person which, considered as the object of meditation, had previously been introduced as the general topic.  For the consequence of that supposition would be that that highest person which is the object of sight would be different from that highest person which is represented as the object of meditation.  We rather have to explain the word jivaghana as ’He whose shape[178] is characterised by the jivas;’ so that what is really meant by that term is that limited condition of the highest Self which is owing to its adjuncts, and manifests itself in the form of jivas, i.e. individual souls; a condition analogous to the limitation of salt (in general) by means of the mass of a particular lump of salt.  That limited condition of the Self may itself be called ‘higher,’ if viewed with regard to the senses and their objects.

Page 214

Another (commentator) says that we have to understand by the word ‘jivaghana’ the world of Brahman spoken of in the preceding sentence (’by the Saman verses he is led up to the world of Brahman’), and again in the following sentence (v. 7), which may be called ‘higher,’ because it is higher than the other worlds.  That world of Brahman may be called jivaghana because all individual souls (jiva) with their organs of action may be viewed as comprised (sa@nghata = ghana) within Hira/n/yagarbha, who is the Self of all organs, and dwells in the Brahma-world.  We thus understand that he who is higher than that jivaghana, i.e. the highest Self, which constitutes the object of sight, also constitutes the object of meditation.  The qualification, moreover, expressed in the term ‘the highest person’ is in its place only if we understand the highest Self to be meant.  For the name, ’the highest person,’ can be given only to the highest Self, higher than which there is nothing.  So another scriptural passage also says, ’Higher than the person there is nothing—­this is the goal, the highest road.’  Hence the sacred text, which at first distinguishes between the higher and the lower Brahman (’the syllable Om is the higher and the lower Brahman’), and afterwards speaks of the highest Person to be meditated upon by means of the syllable Om, gives us to understand that the highest Person is nothing else but the highest Brahman.  That the highest Self constitutes the object of meditation, is moreover intimated by the passage declaring that release from evil is the fruit (of meditation), ’As a snake is freed from its skin, so is he freed from evil.’—­With reference to the objection that a fruit confined to a certain place is not an appropriate reward for him who meditates on the highest Self, we finally remark that the objection is removed, if we understand the passage to refer to emancipation by degrees.  He who meditates on the highest Self by means of the syllable Om, as consisting of three matras, obtains for his (first) reward the world of Brahman, and after that, gradually, complete intuition.

14.  The small (ether) (is Brahman) on account of the subsequent (arguments).

We read (Ch.  Up.  VIII, 1, 1), ’There is this city of Brahman, and in it the palace, the small lotus, and in it that small ether.  Now what exists within that small ether that is to be sought for, that is to be understood,’ &c.—­Here the doubt arises whether the small ether within the small lotus of the heart of which Scripture speaks, is the elemental ether, or the individual soul (vij/n/anatman), or the highest Self.  This doubt is caused by the words ‘ether’ and ‘city of Brahman.’  For the word ‘ether,’ in the first place, is known to be used in the sense of elemental ether as well as of highest Brahman.  Hence the doubt whether the small ether of the text be the elemental ether or the highest ether, i.e.  Brahman.  In explanation of the expression ‘city of Brahman,’ in the second place, it might be said either that the individual soul is here called Brahman and the body Brahman’s city, or else that the city of Brahman means the city of the highest Brahman.  Here (i.e. in consequence of this latter doubt) a further doubt arises as to the nature of the small ether, according as the individual soul or the highest Self is understood by the Lord of the city.

Page 215

The purvapakshin maintains that by the small ether we have to understand the elemental ether, since the latter meaning is the conventional one of the word aka/s/a.  The elemental ether is here called small with reference to its small abode (the heart).—­In the passage, ’As large as this ether is, so large is that ether within the heart,’ it is represented as constituting at the same time the two terms of a comparison, because it is possible to make a distinction between the outer and the inner ether[179]; and it is said that ’heaven and earth are contained within it,’ because the whole ether, in so far as it is space, is one[180].—­Or else, the purvapakshin continues, the ’small one’ may be taken to mean the individual soul, on account of the term, ‘the city of Brahman.’  The body is here called the city of Brahman because it is the abode of the individual soul; for it is acquired by means of the actions of the soul.  On this interpretation we must assume that the individual soul is here called Brahman metaphorically.  The highest Brahman cannot be meant, because it is not connected with the body as its lord.  The lord of the city, i.e. the soul, is represented as dwelling in one spot of the city (viz. the heart), just as a real king resides in one spot of his residence.  Moreover, the mind (manas) constitutes the limiting adjunct of the individual soul, and the mind chiefly abides in the heart; hence the individual soul only can be spoken of as dwelling in the heart.  Further, the individual soul only can be spoken of as small, since it is (elsewhere; Svet.  Up.  V, 8) compared in size to the point of a goad.  That it is compared (in the passage under discussion) to the ether must be understood to intimate its non difference from Brahman.—­Nor does the scriptural passage say that the ‘small’ one is to be sought for and to be understood, since in the clause, ‘That which is within that,’ &c., it is represented as a mere distinguishing attribute of something else[181].

To all this we make the following reply:—­The small ether can mean the highest Lord only, not either the elemental ether or the individual soul.—­Why?—­On account of the subsequent reasons, i.e. on account of the reasons implied in the complementary passage.  For there, the text declares at first, with reference to the small ether, which is enjoined as the object of sight, ‘If they should say to him,’ &c.; thereupon follows an objection, ’What is there that deserves to be sought for or that is to be understood?’ and thereon a final decisive statement, ’Then he should say:  As large as this ether is, so large is that ether within the heart.  Both heaven and earth are contained within it.’  Here the teacher, availing himself of the comparison of the ether within the heart with the known (universal) ether, precludes the conception that the ether within the heart is small—­which conception is based on the statement as to the smallness of the lotus, i.e. the heart—­and thereby

Page 216

Page 217

Page 218

15. (The small ether is Brahman) on account of the action of going (into Brahman) and of the word (brahmaloka); for thus it is seen (i.e. that the individual souls go into Brahman is seen elsewhere in Scripture); and (this going of the souls into Brahman constitutes) an inferential sign (by means of which we may properly interpret the word ’brahmaloka’).

It has been declared (in the preceding Sutra) that the small (ether) is the highest Lord, on account of the reasons contained in the subsequent passages.  These subsequent reasons are now set forth.—­For this reason also the small (ether) can be the highest Lord only, because the passage complementary to the passage concerning the small (ether) contains a mention of going and a word, both of which intimate the highest Lord.  In the first place, we read (Ch.  Up.  VIII, 3, 2), ’All these creatures, day after day going into that Brahma-world, do not discover it.’  This passage which refers back, by means of the word ‘Brahma-world,’ to the small ether which forms the general subject-matter, speaks of the going to it of the creatures, i.e. the individual souls, wherefrom we conclude that the small (ether) is Brahman.  For this going of the individual souls into Brahman, which takes place day after day in the state of deep sleep, is seen, i.e. is met with in another scriptural passage, viz.  Ch.  Up.  VI, 8, 1, ‘He becomes united with the True,’ &c.  In ordinary life also we say of a man who lies in deep sleep, ‘he has become Brahman,’ ’he is gone into the state of Brahman.’—­In the second place, the word ‘Brahma-world,’ which is here applied to the small (ether) under discussion, excludes all thought of the individual soul or the elemental ether, and thus gives us to understand that the small (ether) is Brahman.—­But could not the word ‘Brahma-world’ convey as well the idea of the world of him whose throne is the lotus[185]?—­It might do so indeed, if we explained the compound ‘Brahma-world’ as ’the world of Brahman.’  But if we explain it on the ground of the coordination of both members of the compound—­so that ‘Brahma-world’ denotes that world which is Brahman—­then it conveys the idea of the highest Brahman only.—­And that daily going (of the souls) into Brahman (mentioned above) is, moreover, an inferential sign for explaining the compound ‘Brahma-world,’ on the ground of the co-ordination of its two constituent members.  For it would be impossible to assume that all those creatures daily go into the world of the effected (lower) Brahman; which world is commonly called the Satyaloka, i.e. the world of the True.

Page 219

16.  And on account of the supporting also (attributed to it), (the small ether must be the Lord) because that greatness is observed in him (according to other scriptural passages).

And also on account of the ‘supporting’ the small ether can be the highest Lord only.—­How?—­The text at first introduces the general subject of discussion in the passage, ‘In it is that small ether;’ declares thereupon that the small one is to be compared with the universal ether, and that everything is contained in it; subsequently applies to it the term ‘Self,’ and states it to possess the qualities of being free from sin, &c.; and, finally, declares with reference to the same general subject of discussion, ’That Self is a bank, a limitary support (vidh/ri/ti), that these worlds may not be confounded.’  As ‘support’ is here predicated of the Self, we have to understand by it a supporting agent.  Just as a dam stems the spreading water so that the boundaries of the fields are not confounded, so that Self acts like a limitary dam in order that these outer and inner worlds, and all the different castes and a/s/ramas may not be confounded.  In accordance with this our text declares that greatness, which is shown in the act of holding asunder, to belong to the small (ether) which forms the subject of discussion; and that such greatness is found in the highest Lord only, is seen from other scriptural passages, such as ’By the command of that Imperishable, O Gargi, sun and moon; are held apart’ (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 8, 9).  Similarly, we read in another passage also, about whose referring to the highest Lord there is no doubt, ’He is the Lord of all, the king of all things, the protector of all things.  He is a bank and a limitary support, so that these worlds may not be confounded’ (B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 4, 22)—­Hence, on account of the ‘supporting,’ also the small (ether) is nothing else but the highest Lord.

17.  And on account of the settled meaning.

The small ether within cannot denote anything but the highest Lord for this reason also, that the word ‘ether’ has (among other meanings) the settled meaning of ‘highest Lord.’  Compare, for instance, the sense in which the word ‘ether’ is used in Ch.  Up.  VIII, 14, ’He who is called ether is the revealer of all forms and names;’ and Ch.  Up.  I, 9, 1, ’All these beings take their rise from the ether,’ &c.  On the other hand, we do not meet with any passage in which the word ‘ether’ is used in the sense of ’individual soul.’—­We have already shown that the word cannot, in our passage, denote the elemental ether; for, although the word certainly has that settled meaning, it cannot have it here, because the elemental ether cannot possibly be compared to itself, &c. &c.

18.  If it be said that the other one (i.e. the individual soul) (is meant) on account of a reference to it (made in a complementary passage), (we say) no, on account of the impossibility.

Page 220

If the small (ether) is to be explained as the highest Lord on account of a complementary passage, then, the purvapakshin resumes, we point out that another complementary passage contains a reference to the other one, i.e. to the individual soul:  ’Now that serene being (literally:  serenity, complete satisfaction), which after having risen out from this earthly body and having reached the highest light, appears in its true form, that is, the Self; thus he spoke’ (Ch.  Up.  VIII, 3, 4).  For there the word ‘serenity,’ which is known to denote, in another scriptural passage, the state of deep sleep, can convey the idea of the individual soul only when it is in that state, not of anything else.  The ’rising from the body’ also can be predicated of the individual soul only whose abode the body is; just as air, &c., whose abode is the ether, are said to arise from the ether.  And just as the word ‘ether,’ although in ordinary language not denoting the highest Lord, yet is admitted to denote him in such passages as, ’The ether is the revealer of forms and names,’ because it there occurs in conjunction with qualities of the highest Lord, so it may likewise denote the individual soul Hence the term ‘the small ether’ denotes in the passage under discussion the individual soul, ‘on account of the reference to the other.’

Not so, we reply, ‘on account of the impossibility.’  In the first place, the individual soul, which imagines itself to be limited by the internal organ and its other adjuncts, cannot be compared with the ether.  And, in the second place, attributes such as freedom from evil, and the like, cannot be ascribed to a being which erroneously transfers to itself the attributes of its limiting adjuncts.  This has already been set forth in the first Sutra of the present adhikara/n/a, and is again mentioned here in order to remove all doubt as to the soul being different from the highest Self.  That the reference pointed out by the purvapakshin is not to the individual soul will, moreover, be shown in one of the next Sutras (I, 3, 21).

19.  If it be said that from the subsequent (chapter it appears that the individual soul is meant), (we point out that what is there referred to is) rather (the individual soul in so far) as its true nature has become manifest (i.e. as it is non-different from Brahman).

The doubt whether, ‘on account of the reference to the other,’ the individual soul might not possibly be meant, has been discarded on the ground of ‘impossibility.’  But, like a dead man on whom am/ri/ta has been sprinkled, that doubt rises again, drawing new strength from the subsequent chapter which treats of Prajapati.  For there he (Prajapati) at the outset declares that the Self, which is free from sin and the like, is that which is to be searched out, that which we must try to understand (Ch.  Up.  VIII, 7, 1); after that he points out that the seer within the eye, i.e. the individual soul, is the Self (’that person that is seen

Page 221

This position we counter-argue as follows.  ’But in so far as its nature has become manifest.’  The particle ‘but’ (in the Sutra) is meant to set aside the view of the purvapakshin, so that the sense of the Sutra is, ’Not even on account of the subsequent chapter a doubt as to the small ether being the individual soul is possible, because there also that which is meant to be intimated is the individual soul, in so far only as its (true) nature has become manifest.’  The Sutra uses the expression ‘he whose nature has become manifest,’ which qualifies jiva., the individual soul, with reference to its previous condition[186].—­The meaning is as follows.  Prajapati speaks at first of the seer characterised by the eye (’That person which is within the eye,’ &c.); shows thereupon, in the passage treating of (the reflection in) the waterpan, that he (viz. the seer) has not his true Self in the body; refers to him repeatedly as the subject to be explained (in the clauses ’I shall explain him further to you’); and having then spoken of him as subject to the states of dreaming and deep sleep, finally explains the individual soul in its real nature, i.e. in so far as it is the highest Brahman, not in so far as it is individual soul (’As soon as it has approached the highest light it appears in its own form’).  The highest light mentioned, in the passage last quoted, as what is to be approached, is nothing else but the highest Brahman, which is distinguished by such attributes

Page 222

Here an objection may be raised.  How, it is asked, can we speak of the true nature (svarupa) of that which is unchanging and eternal, and then say that ‘it appears in its own form (true nature)?’ Of gold and similar substances, whose true nature becomes hidden, and whose specific qualities are rendered non-apparent by their contact with some other substance, it may be said that their true nature is rendered manifest when they are cleaned by the application of some acid substance; so it may be said, likewise, that the stars, whose light is during daytime overpowered (by the superior brilliancy of the sun), become manifest in their true nature at night when the overpowering (sun) has departed.  But it is impossible to speak of an analogous overpowering of the eternal light of intelligence by whatever agency, since, like ether, it is free from all contact, and since, moreover, such an assumption would be contradicted by what we actually observe.  For the (energies of) seeing, hearing, noticing, cognising constitute the character of the individual soul, and that character is observed to exist in full perfection, even in the case of that individual soul which has not yet risen beyond the body.  Every individual soul carries on the course of its practical existence by means of the activities of seeing, hearing, cognising; otherwise no practical existence at all would be possible.  If, on the other hand, that character would realise itself in the case of that soul only which has risen above the body, the entire aggregate of practical existence, as it actually presents itself prior to the soul’s rising, would thereby be contradicted.  We therefore ask:  Wherein consists that (alleged) rising from the body?  Wherein consists that appearing (of the soul) in its own form?

Page 223

To this we make the following reply.—­Before the rise of discriminative knowledge the nature of the individual soul, which is (in reality) pure light, is non-discriminated as it were from its limiting adjuncts consisting of body, senses, mind, sense-objects and feelings, and appears as consisting of the energies of seeing and so on.  Similarly—­to quote an analogous case from ordinary experience—­the true nature of a pure crystal, i.e. its transparency and whiteness, is, before the rise of discriminative knowledge (on the part of the observer), non-discriminated as it were from any limiting adjuncts of red or blue colour; while, as soon as through some means of true cognition discriminative knowledge has arisen, it is said to have now accomplished its true nature, i.e. transparency and whiteness, although in reality it had already done so before.  Thus the discriminative knowledge, effected by Sruti, on the part of the individual soul which previously is non-discriminated as it were from its limiting adjuncts, is (according to the scriptural passage under discussion) the soul’s rising from the body, and the fruit of that discriminative knowledge is its accomplishment in its true nature, i.e. the comprehension that its nature is the pure Self.  Thus the embodiedness and the non-embodiedness of the Self are due merely to discrimination and non-discrimination, in agreement with the mantra, ‘Bodiless within the bodies,’ &c. (Ka.  Up.  I, 2, 22), and the statement of Sm/ri/ti as to the non-difference between embodiedness and non-embodiedness ’Though dwelling in the body, O Kaunteya, it does not act and is not tainted’ (Bha.  Gi.  XIII, 31).  The individual soul is therefore called ’That whose true nature is non-manifest’ merely on account of the absence of discriminative knowledge, and it is called ‘That whose nature has become manifest’ on account of the presence of such knowledge.  Manifestation and non-manifestation of its nature of a different kind are not possible, since its nature is nothing but its nature (i.e. in reality is always the same).  Thus the difference between the individual soul and the highest Lord is owing to wrong knowledge only, not to any reality, since, like ether, the highest Self is not in real contact with anything.

And wherefrom is all this to be known?—­From the instruction given by Prajapati who, after having referred to the jiva (’the person that is seen in the eye,’ &c.), continues ’This is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman.’  If the well-known seer within the eye were different from Brahman which is characterised as the immortal and fearless, it would not be co-ordinated (as it actually is) with the immortal, the fearless, and Brahman.  The reflected Self, on the other hand, is not spoken of as he who is characterised by the eye (the seer within the eye), for that would render Prajapati obnoxious to the reproach of saying deceitful things.—­So also, in the second section,

Page 224

Some (teachers) however are of opinion that if the highest Self is meant (in the fourth section) it would be inappropriate to understand the words ‘This (him) I will explain further,’ &c., as referring to the individual soul, and therefore suppose that the reference is (not to the individual soul forming the topic of the three preceding sections, but) to the Self possessing the qualities of freeness from sin, &c., which Self is pointed out at the beginning of the entire chapter (VII, 1).—­Against this interpretation we remark that, in the first place, it disregards the direct enunciation of the pronoun (i.e. the ‘this’ in ‘this I will explain’) which rests on something approximate (i.e. refers to something mentioned not far off), and, in the second place, is opposed to the word ‘further’ (or ‘again’) met with in the text, since from that interpretation it would follow that what had been discussed in the preceding sections is not again discussed in the subsequent section.  Moreover, if Prajapati, after having made a promise in the clause, ’This I shall explain’ (where that clause occurs for the first time), did previously to the fourth section explain a different topic in each section, we should have to conclude that he acted deceitfully.—­Hence (our opinion about the purport of the whole chapter

Page 225

Others again, and among them some of ours (asmadiya/s/ ka. ke/k/it), are of opinion that the individual soul as such is real.  To the end of refuting all these speculators who obstruct the way to the complete intuition of the unity of the Self this sariraka-sastra has been set forth, whose aim it is to show that there is only one highest Lord ever unchanging, whose substance is cognition[188], and who, by means of Nescience, manifests himself in various ways, just as a thaumaturg appears in different shapes by means of his magical power.  Besides that Lord there is no other substance of cognition.—­If, now, the Sutrakara raises and refutes the doubt whether a certain passage which (in reality) refers to the Lord does refer to the individual soul, as he does in this and the preceding Sutras[189], he does so for the following purpose.  To the highest Self which is eternally pure, intelligent and free, which is never changing, one only, not in contact with anything, devoid of form, the opposite characteristics of the individual soul are erroneously ascribed; just as ignorant men ascribe blue colour to the colourless ether.  In order to remove this erroneous opinion by means of Vedic passages tending either to prove the unity of the Self or to disprove the doctrine of duality—­which passages he strengthens by arguments—­he insists on the difference of the highest Self from the individual soul, does however not mean to prove thereby that the soul is different from the highest Self, but, whenever speaking of the soul, refers to its distinction (from the Self) as forming an item of ordinary thought, due to the power of Nescience.  For thus, he thinks, the Vedic injunctions of works which are given with a view to the states of acting and enjoying, natural (to the non-enlightened soul), are not stultified.—­That, however, the absolute unity of the Self is the real purport of the sastra’s teaching, the Sutrakara declares, for instance, in I, 1, 30[190].  The refutation of the reproach of futility raised against the injunctions of works has already been set forth by us, on the ground of the distinction between such persons as possess full knowledge, and such as do not.

20.  And the reference (to the individual soul) has a different meaning.

Page 226

The alleged reference to the individual soul which has been pointed out (by the purvapakshin) in the passage complementary to the passage about the small ether (’Now that serene being,’ &c., VIII, 3, 4) teaches, if the small ether is interpreted to mean the highest Lord, neither the worship of the individual soul nor any qualification of the subject under discussion (viz. the small ether), and is therefore devoid of meaning.—­On that account the Sutra declares that the reference has another meaning, i.e. that the reference to the individual soul is not meant to determine the nature of the individual soul, but rather the nature of the highest Lord.  In the following manner.  The individual soul which, in the passage referred to, is called the serene being, acts in the waking state as the ruler of the aggregate comprising the body and the sense-organs; permeates in sleep the na/d/is of the body, and enjoys the dream visions resulting from the impressions of the waking state; and, finally, desirous of reaching an inner refuge, rises in the state of deep sleep beyond its imagined connexion with the gross and the subtle body, reaches the highest light, i.e. the highest Brahman previously called ether, and thus divesting itself of the state of specific cognition appears in its own (true) nature.  The highest light which the soul is to reach and through which it is manifested in its true nature is the Self, free from sin and so on, which is there represented as the object of worship.—­In this sense the reference to the individual soul can be admitted by those also who maintain that in reality the highest Lord is meant.

21.  If it be said that on account of the scriptural declaration of the smallness (of the ether) (the Lord cannot be meant; we reply that) that has been explained (before).

The purvapakshin has remarked that the smallness of the ether stated by Scripture (’In it is that small ether’) does not agree with the highest Lord, that it may however be predicated of the individual soul which (in another passage) is compared to the point of a goad.  As that remark calls for a refutation we point out that it has been refuted already, it having been shown—­under I, 2, 7—­that a relative smallness may be attributed to the Lord.  The same refutation is—­as the Sutra points out—­to be applied here also.—­That smallness is, moreover, contradicted by that scriptural passage which compares (the ether within the heart) with the known (universal) ether. (’As large as is this ether so large is the ether within the heart.’)

22.  On account of the acting after (i.e. the shining after), (that after which sun, moon, &c. are said to shine is the highest Self), and (because by the light) of him (all this is said to be lighted).

We read (Mu.  Up.  II, 2, 10, and Ka.  Up.  V, 15), ’The sun does not shine there, nor the moon and the stars, nor these lightnings, much less this fire.  After him when he shines everything shines; by the light of him all this is lighted.’  The question here arises whether he ’after whom when he shines everything shines, and by whose light all this is lighted,’ is some luminous substance, or the highest Self (praj/n/a atman).

Page 227

A luminous substance, the purvapakshin maintains.—­Why?—­Because the passage denies the shining only of such luminous bodies as the sun and the like.  It is known (from every-day experience) that luminous bodies such as the moon and the stars do not shine at daytime when the sun, which is itself a luminous body, is shining.  Hence we infer that that thing on account of which all this, including the moon, the stars, and the sun himself, does not shine is likewise a thing of light.  The ‘shining after’ also is possible only if there is a luminous body already, for we know from experience that ‘acting after’ (imitation) of any kind takes place only when there are more than one agent of similar nature; one man, for instance, walks after another man who walks himself.  Therefore we consider it settled that the passage refers to some luminous body.

To this we reply that the highest Self only can be meant.—­Why?—­On account of the acting after.  The shining after mentioned in the passage, ‘After him when he shines everything shines,’ is possible only if the praj/n/a Self, i.e. the highest Self, is understood.  Of that praj/n/a Self another scriptural passage says, ’His form is light, his thoughts are true’ (Ch.  Up.  III, 14, 2).  On the other hand, it is not by any means known that the sun, &c. shines after some other luminous body.  Moreover, on account of the equality of nature of all luminous bodies such as the sun and the like, there is no need for them of any other luminous body after which they should shine; for we see that a lamp, for instance, does not ‘shine after’ another lamp.  Nor is there any such absolute rule (as the purvapakshin asserted) that acting after is observed only among things of similar nature.  It is rather observed among things of dissimilar nature also; for a red-hot iron ball acts after, i.e. burns after the burning fire, and the dust of the ground blows (is blown) after the blowing wind.—­The clause ’on account of the acting after’ (which forms part of the Sutra) points to the shining after (mentioned in the scriptural sloka under discussion); the clause ‘and of him’ points to the fourth pada of the same sloka.  The meaning of this latter clause is that the cause assigned for the light of the sun, &c. (in the passage ‘by the light of him everything is lighted’) intimates the praj/n/a Self.  For of that Self Scripture says, ’Him the gods worship as the light of lights, as immortal time’ (B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 4, 16).  That, on the other hand, the light of the sun, the moon, &c, should shine by some other (physical) light is, in the first place, not known; and, in the second place, absurd as one (physical) light is counteracted by another.—­Or else the cause assigned for the shining does not apply only to the sun and the other bodies mentioned in the sloka; but the meaning (of the last pada) rather is—­as we may conclude from the comprehensive statement ’all this’—­that the manifestation of this entire world consisting of names

Page 228

23.  Moreover Sm/ri/ti also speaks of him (i.e. of the praj/n/a Self as being the universal light).

Moreover that aspect of the praj/n/a Self is spoken of in Sm/ri/ti also, viz. in the Bhagavad Gita (XV, 6, 12), ’Neither the sun, nor the moon, nor the fire illumines that; having gone into which men do not return, that is my highest seat.’  And ’The light which abiding in the sun illumines the whole world, and that which is in the moon and that which is in the fire, all that light know to be mine.’

24.  On account of the term, (viz. the term ‘lord’ applied to it) the (person) measured (by a thumb) (is the highest Lord).

We read (Ka.  Up.  II, 4, 12), ’The person of the size of a thumb stands in the middle of the Self,’ &c., and (II, 4, 13), ’That person, of the size of a thumb, is like a light without smoke, lord of the past and of the future, he is the same to-day and to-morrow.  This is that.’—­The question here arises whether the person of the size of a thumb mentioned in the text is the cognitional (individual) Self or the highest Self.

Page 229

The purvapakshin maintains that on account of the declaration of the person’s size the cognitional Self is meant.  For to the highest Self which is of infinite length and breadth Scripture would not ascribe the measure of a span; of the cognitional Self, on the other hand, which is connected with limiting adjuncts, extension of the size of a span may, by means of some fictitious assumption, be predicated.  Sm/ri/ti also confirms this, ’Then Yama drew forth, by force, from the body of Satyavat the person of the size of a thumb tied to Yama’s noose and helpless’ (Mahabh.  III, 16763).  For as Yama could not pull out by force the highest Self, the passage is clearly seen to refer to the transmigrating (individual soul) of the size of a thumb, and we thence infer that the same Self is meant in the Vedic passage under discussion.

To this we reply that the person a thumb long can only be the highest Lord.—­Why?—­On account of the term ’lord of the past and of the future.’  For none but the highest Lord is the absolute ruler of the past and the future.—­Moreover, the clause ‘this is that’ connects the passage with that which had been enquired about, and therefore forms the topic of discussion.  And what had been enquired about is Brahman, ’That which thou seest as neither this nor that, as neither effect nor cause, as neither past nor future, tell me that’ (I, 2, 14).—­’On account of the term,’ i.e. on account of the direct statement, in the text, of a designation, viz. the term ‘Lord,’ we understand that the highest Lord is meant[191].—­But still the question remains how a certain extension can be attributed to the omnipresent highest Self.—­The reply to this is given, in the next Sutra.

25.  But with reference to the heart (the highest Self is said to be of the size of a span), as men are entitled (to the study of the Veda).

The measure of a span is ascribed to the highest Lord, although omnipresent with reference to his abiding within the heart; just as to ether (space) the measure of a cubit is ascribed with reference to the joint of a bamboo.  For, on the one hand, the measure of a span cannot be ascribed directly to the highest Self which exceeds all measure, and, on the other hand, it has been shown that none but the highest Lord can be meant here, on account of the term ‘Lord,’ and so on.—­But—­an objection may be raised—­as the size of the heart varies in the different classes of living beings it cannot be maintained that the declaration of the highest Self being of the size of a thumb can be explained with reference to the heart.—­To this objection the second half of the Sutra replies:  On account of men (only) being entitled.  For the sastra, although propounded without distinction (i.e. although not itself specifying what class of beings is to proceed according to its precepts), does in reality entitle men[192] only (to act according to its precepts); for men only (of the three higher castes) are, firstly,

Page 230

26.  Also (beings) above them, (viz. men) (are qualified for the study and practice of the Veda), on account of the possibility (of it), according to Badaraya/n/a.

It has been said above that the passage about him who is of the size of a thumb has reference to the human heart, because men are entitled to study and act according to the sastra.  This gives us an occasion for the following discussion.—­It is true that the sastra entitles men, but, at the same time, there is no exclusive rule entitling men only to the knowledge of Brahman; the teacher, Badaraya/n/a, rather thinks that the sastra entitles those (classes of beings) also which are above men, viz. gods, and so on.—­On what account?—­On the account of possibility.—­For in their cases also the different causes on which the qualification depends, such as having certain desires, and so on, may exist.  In the first place, the gods also may have the desire of final release, caused by the reflection that all effects, objects, and powers are non-permanent.  In the second place, they may be capable of it as their corporeality appears from mantras, arthavadas, itihasas, pura/n/as, and ordinary experience.  In the third place, there is no prohibition (excluding them like Sudras).  Nor does,

Page 231

27.  If it be said that (the corporeal individuality of the gods involves) a contradiction to (sacrificial) works; we deny that, on account of the observation of the assumption (on the part of the gods) of several (forms).

If the right of the gods, and other beings superior to men, to the acquisition of knowledge is founded on the assumption of their corporeality, &c., we shall have to admit, in consequence of that corporeality, that Indra and the other gods stand in the relation of subordinate members (a@nga) to sacrificial acts, by means of their being present in person just as the priests are.  But this admission will lead to ‘a contradiction in the sacrificial acts,’ because the circumstance of the gods forming the members of sacrificial acts by means of their personal presence, is neither actually observed nor possible.  For it is not possible that one and the same Indra should, at the same time, be present in person at many sacrifices.

To this we reply, that there is no such contradiction.—­Why?—­On account of the assumption of several (forms).  For it is possible for one and the same divine Self to assume several forms at the same time.—­How is that known?—­From observation.—­For a scriptural passage at first replies to the question how many gods there are, by the declaration that there are ‘Three and three hundred, three and three thousand,’ and subsequently, on the question

Page 232

The latter part of the Sutra may be explained in a different manner also, viz. as meaning that even beings enjoying corporeal individuality are seen to enter into mere subordinate relation to more than one action.  Sometimes, indeed, one individual does not at the same time enter into subordinate relation to different actions; one Brahma/n/a, for instance, is not at the same time entertained by many entertainers.  But in other cases one individual stands in subordinate relation to many actions at the same time; one Brahma/n/a, for instance, may constitute the object of the reverence done to him by many persons at the same time.  Similarly, it is possible that, as the sacrifice consists in the parting (on the part of the sacrificer with some offering) with a view (to some divinity), many persons may at the same time part with their respective offerings, all of them having in view one and the same individual divinity.  The individuality of the gods does not, therefore, involve any contradiction in sacrificial works.

28.  If it be said (that a contradiction will result) in respect of the word; we refute this objection on the ground that (the world) originates from the word, as is shown by perception and inference.

Page 233

Let it then be granted that, from the admission of the corporeal individuality of the gods, no contradiction will result in the case of sacrificial works.  Still a contradiction will result in respect of the ‘word’ (sabda).—­How?—­The authoritativeness of the Veda has been proved ‘from its independence,’ basing on the original (eternal) connection of the word with its sense (’the thing signified’)[194].  But now, although a divinity possessing corporeal individuality, such as admitted above, may, by means of its supernatural powers, be able to enjoy at the same time the oblations which form part of several sacrifices yet it will, on account of its very individuality, be subject to birth and death just as we men are, and hence, the eternal connexion of the eternal word with a non-eternal thing being destroyed, a contradiction will arise with regard to the authoritativeness proved to belong to the word of the Veda.

To this we reply that no such contradiction exists.—­Why?—­’On account of their origin from it.’  For from that very same word of the Veda the world, with the gods and other beings, originates.—­But—­an objection will be raised—­in Sutra I, 1, 2 (’That whence there is the origin, &c. of this world’) it has been proved that the world originates from Brahman; how then can it be said here that it originates from the word?  And, moreover, even if the origin of the world from the word of the Veda be admitted, how is the contradiction in regard to the word removed thereby, inasmuch as the Vasus, the Rudras, the Adityas, the Vi/s/vedevas, and the Maruts[195] are non-eternal beings, because produced; and if they are non-eternal, what is there to preclude the non-eternality of the Vedic words Vasu, &c. designating them?  For it is known from every-day life that only when the son of Devadatta is born, the name Yaj/n/adatta is given to him (lit. made for him)[196].  Hence we adhere to our opinion that a contradiction does arise with regard to the ‘word.’

This objection we negative, on the ground that we observe the eternity of the connexion between such words as cow, and so on, and the things denoted by them.  For, although the individuals of the (species denoted by the word) cow have an origin, their species[197] does not have an origin, since of (the three categories) substances, qualities, and actions the individuals only originate, not the species.  Now it is with the species that the words are connected, not with the individuals, which, as being infinite in number, are not capable of entering into that connexion.  Hence, although the individuals do not originate, no contradiction arises in the case of words such as cow, and the like, since the species are eternal.  Similarly, although individual gods are admitted to originate, there arises no contradiction in the case of such words as Vasu, and the like, since the species denoted by them are eternal.  And that the gods, and so on, belong to different species, is to be concluded

Page 234

How then is it known that the world originates from the word?—­’From perception and inference.’  Perception here denotes Scripture which, in order to be authoritative, is independent (of anything else).  ‘Inference’ denotes Sm/r/iti which, in order to be authoritative, depends on something else (viz.  Scripture).  These two declare that creation is preceded by the word.  Thus a scriptural passage says, ’At the word these Prajapati created the gods; at the words were poured out he created men; at the word drops he created the fathers; at the words through the filter he created the Soma cups; at the words the swift ones he created the stotra; at the words to all he created the sastra; at the word blessings he created the other beings.’  And another passage says, ’He with his mind united himself with speech (i.e. the word of the Veda.—­B/ri/.  Up.  I, 2, 4).  Thus Scripture declares in different places that the word precedes the creation.—­Sm/r/ti also delivers itself as follows, ’In the beginning a divine voice, eternal, without beginning or end, formed of the Vedas was uttered by Svayambhu, from which all activities proceeded.’  By the ‘uttering’ of the voice we have here to understand the starting of the oral tradition (of the Veda), because of a voice without beginning or end ‘uttering’ in any other sense cannot be predicated.—­Again, we read, ’In the beginning Mahe/s/vara shaped from the words of the Veda the names and forms of all beings and the procedure of all actions.’  And again, ’The several names, actions, and conditions of all things he shaped in the beginning from the words of the Veda’ (Manu I, 21).  Moreover, we all know from observation that any one when setting about some thing which he wishes to accomplish first remembers the word denoting the thing, and after that sets to work.  We therefore conclude that before the creation the Vedic words became manifest in the mind of Prajapati the creator, and that after that he created the things conesponding to those words.  Scripture also, where it says (Taitt.  Bra.  II, 2, 4, 2) ‘uttering bhur he created the earth,’ &c., shows that the worlds such as the earth, &c. became manifest, i.e. were created from the words bhur, &c. which had become manifest in the mind (of Prajapati).

Page 235

Of what nature then is the ‘word’ with a view to which it is said that the world originates from the ’word?’—­It is the spho/t/a, the purvapakshin says.[198] For on the assumption that the letters are the word, the doctrine that the individual gods, and so on, originates from the eternal words of the Veda could not in any way be proved, since the letters perish as soon as they are produced (i.e. pronounced).  These perishable letters are moreover apprehended as differing according to the pronunciation of the individual speaker.  For this reason we are able to determine, merely from the sound of the voice of some unseen person whom we hear reading, who is reading, whether Devadatta or Yaj/n/adatta or some other man.  And it cannot be maintained that this apprehension of difference regarding the letters is an erroneous one; for we do not apprehend anything else whereby it is refuted.  Nor is it reasonable to maintain that the apprehension of the sense of a word results from the letters.  For it can neither be maintained that each letter by itself intimates the sense, since that would be too wide an assumption;[199] nor that there takes place a simultaneous apprehension of the whole aggregate of letters; since the letters succeed one another in time.  Nor can we admit the explanation that the last letter of the word together with the impressions produced by the perception of the preceding letters is that which makes us apprehend the sense.  For the word makes us apprehend the sense only if it is itself apprehended in so far as having reference to the mental grasp of the constant connexion (of the word and the sense), just as smoke makes us infer the existence of fire only when it is itself apprehended; but an apprehension of the last letter combined with the impressions produced by the preceding letters does not actually take place, because those impressions are not objects of perception.[200] Nor, again, can it be maintained that (although those impressions are not objects of perception, yet they may be inferred from their effects, and that thus) the actual perception of the last letter combined with the impressions left by the preceding letters—­which impressions are apprehended from their effects—­is that which intimates the sense of the word; for that effect of the impressions, viz. the remembrance of the entire word, is itself something consisting of parts which succeed each other in time.—­From all this it follows that the spho/t/a is the word.  After the apprehending agent, i.e. the buddhi, has, through the apprehension of the several letters of the word, received rudimentary impressions, and after those impressions have been matured through the apprehension of the last letter, the spho/t/a presents itself in the buddhi all at once as the object of one mental act of apprehension.—­And it must not be maintained that that one act of apprehension is merely an act of remembrance having for its object the letters of the word; for the letters which are

Page 236

Against this doctrine the reverend Upavarsha maintains that the letters only are the word.—­But—­an objection is raised—­it has been said above that the letters no sooner produced pass away!—­That assertion is not true, we reply; for they are recognised as the same letters (each time they are produced anew).—­Nor can it be maintained that the recognition is due to similarity only, as in the case of hairs, for instance; for the fact of the recognition being a recognition in the strict sense of the word is not contradicted by any other means of proof.—­Nor, again, can it be said that the recognition has its cause in the species (so that not the same individual letter would be recognised, but only a letter belonging to the same species as other letters heard before); for, as a matter of fact, the same individual letters are recognised.  That the recognition of the letters rests on the species could be maintained only if whenever the letters are pronounced different individual letters were apprehended, just as several cows are apprehended as different individuals belonging to the same species.  But this is actually not the case; for the (same) individual letters are recognised as often as they are pronounced.  If, for instance, the word cow is pronounced twice, we think not that two different words have been pronounced, but that the same individual word has been repeated.—­But, our opponent reminds us, it has been shown above, that the letters are apprehended as different owing to differences of pronunciation, as appears from the fact that we apprehend a difference when merely hearing the sound of Devadatta or Yaj/n/adatta reading.—­Although, we reply, it is a settled matter that the letters are recognised as the same, yet we admit that there are differences in the apprehension of the letters; but as the letters are articulated by means of the conjunction and disjunction (of the breath with the palate, the teeth, &c.), those differences are rightly ascribed to the various character of the articulating agents and not to the intrinsic nature of the letters themselves.  Those, moreover, who maintain that the individual letters are different have, in order to account for the fact of recognition, to assume species of letters, and further to admit that the apprehension of difference is conditioned by external factors.  Is it then not much simpler to assume, as we do, that the apprehension of difference is conditioned by external factors while the recognition is due to the intrinsic nature of the letters?  And this very fact of recognition

Page 237

The assumption of the spho/t/a is further gratuitous, because the sense of the word may be apprehended from the letters.—­But—­our opponent here objects—­I do not assume the existence of the spho/t/a.  I, on the contrary, actually perceive it; for after the buddhi has been impressed by the successive apprehension of the letters of the word, the spho/t/a all at once presents itself as the object of cognition.—­You are mistaken, we reply.  The object of the cognitional act of which you speak is simply the letters of the word.  That one comprehensive cognition which follows upon the apprehension of the successive letters of the word has for its object the entire aggregate of the letters constituting the word, and not anything else.  We conclude this from the circumstance that in that final comprehensive cognition there are included those letters only of which a definite given word consists,

Page 238

The hypothesis of him who maintains that the letters are the word may therefore be finally formulated as follows.  The letters of which a word consists—­assisted by a certain order and number—­have, through traditional use, entered into a connexion with a definite sense.  At the time when they are employed they present themselves as such (i.e. in their definite order and number) to the buddhi, which, after having apprehended the several letters in succession, finally comprehends the entire aggregate, and they thus unerringly intimate to the buddhi their definite sense.  This hypothesis is certainly simpler than the complicated hypothesis of the grammarians who teach that the spho/t/a is the word.  For they have to disregard what is given by perception, and to assume something which is never perceived; the letters apprehended in a definite order are said to manifest the spho/t/a, and the spho/t/a in its turn is said to manifest the sense.

Or let it even be admitted that the letters are different ones each time they are pronounced; yet, as in that case we necessarily must assume species of letters as the basis of the recognition of the individual letters, the function of conveying the sense which we have demonstrated in the case of the (individual) letters has then to be attributed to the species.

Page 239

From all this it follows that the theory according to which the individual gods and so on originate from the eternal words is unobjectionable.

29.  And from this very reason there follows the eternity of the Veda.

As the eternity of the Veda is founded on the absence of the remembrance of an agent only, a doubt with regard to it had been raised owing to the doctrine that the gods and other individuals have sprung from it.  That doubt has been refuted in the preceding Sutra.—­The present Sutra now confirms the, already established, eternity of the Veda.  The eternity of the word of the Veda has to be assumed for this very reason, that the world with its definite (eternal) species, such as gods and so on, originates from it.—­A mantra also (’By means of the sacrifice they followed the trace of speech; they found it dwelling in the rishis,’ Rig-veda Sa/m/h.  X, 71, 3) shows that the speech found (by the rishis) was permanent.—­On this point Vedavyasa also speaks as follows:  ’Formerly the great rishis, being allowed to do so by Svayambhu, obtained, through their penance, the Vedas together with the itihasas, which had been hidden at the end of the yuga.’

30.  And on account of the equality of names and forms there is no contradiction (to the eternity of the word of the Veda) in the renovation (of the world); as is seen from Sruti and Sm/ri/ti.

If—­the purvapakshin resumes—­the individual gods and so on did, like the individual animals, originate and pass away in an unbroken succession so that there would be no break of the course of practical existence including denominations, things denominated and agents denominating; the connexion (between word and thing) would be eternal, and the objection as to a contradiction with reference to the word (raised in Sutra 27) would thereby be refuted.  But if, as Sruti and Sm/ri/ti declare, the whole threefold world periodically divests itself of name and form, and is entirely dissolved (at the end of a kalpa), and is after that produced anew; how can the contradiction be considered to have been removed?

To this we reply:  ’On account of the sameness of name and form.’—­Even then the beginninglessness of the world will have to be admitted (a point which the teacher will prove later on:  II, 1, 36).  And in the beginningless sa/m/sara we have to look on the (relative) beginning, and the dissolution connected with a new kalpa in the same light in which we look on the sleeping and waking states, which, although in them according to Scripture (a kind of) dissolution and origination take place, do not give rise to any contradiction, since in the later waking state (subsequent to the state of sleep) the practical existence is carried on just as in the former one.  That in the sleeping and the waking states dissolution and origination take place is stated Kaush.  Up.  III, 3, ’When a man being asleep sees no dream whatever he becomes one with that pra/n/a alone.  Then speech goes to him with all names, the eye with all forms, the ear with all sounds, the mind with all thoughts.  And when he awakes then, as from a burning fire, sparks proceed in all directions, thus from that Self the pra/n/as proceed, each towards its place; from the pra/n/as the gods, from the gods the worlds.’

Page 240

Well, the purvapakshin resumes, it may be that no contradiction arises in the case of sleep, as during the sleep of one person the practical existence of other persons suffers no interruption, and as the sleeping person himself when waking from sleep may resume the very same form of practical existence which was his previously to his sleep.  The case of a mahapralaya (i.e. a general annihilation of the world) is however a different one, as then the entire current of practical existence is interrupted, and the form of existence of a previous kalpa can be resumed in a subsequent kalpa no more than an individual can resume that form of existence which it enjoyed in a former birth.

This objection, we reply, is not valid.  For although a mahapralaya does cut short the entire current of practical existence, yet, by the favour of the highest Lord, the Lords (i/s/vara), such as Hira/n/yagarbha and so on, may continue the same form of existence which belonged to them in the preceding kalpa.  Although ordinary animated beings do not, as we see, resume that form of existence which belonged to them in a former birth; still we cannot judge of the Lords as we do of ordinary beings.  For as in the series of beings which descends from man to blades of grass a successive diminution of knowledge, power, and so on, is observed—­although they all have the common attribute of being animated—­so in the ascending series extending from man up to Hira/n/yagarbha, a gradually increasing manifestation of knowledge, power, &c. takes place; a circumstance which Sruti and Sm/ri/ti mention in many places, and which it is impossible to deny.  On that account it may very well be the case that the Lords, such as Hira/n/yagarbha and so on, who in a past kalpa were distinguished by superior knowledge and power of action, and who again appear in the present kalpa, do, if favoured by the highest Lord, continue (in the present kalpa) the same kind of existence which they enjoyed in the preceding kalpa; just as a man who rises from sleep continues the same form of existence which he enjoyed previously to his sleep.  Thus Scripture also declares, ’He who first creates Brahman (Hira/n/yagarbha) and delivers the Vedas to him, to that God who is the light of his own thoughts, I, seeking for release, go for refuge’ (Svet.  Up.  VI, 18). Saunaka and others moreover declare (in the Anukrama/n/is of the Veda) that the ten books (of the Rig-veda) were seen by Madhu/kkh/andas and other rishis.[204] And, similarly, Sm/ri/ti tells us, for every Veda, of men of exalted mental vision (rishis) who ‘saw’ the subdivisions of their respective Vedas, such as ka/nd/as and so on.  Scripture also declares that the performance of the sacrificial action by means of the mantra is to be preceded by the knowledge of the rishi and so on, ’He who makes another person sacrifice or read by means of a mantra of which he does not know the rishi, the metre,

Page 241

Page 242

Sm/ri/ti also contains similar statements to be quoted here; so, for instance, ’Whatever were the names of the rishis and their powers to see the Vedas, the same the Unborn one again gives to them when they are produced afresh at the end of the night (the mahapralaya).  As the various signs of the seasons return in succession in their due time, thus the same beings again appear in the different yugas.  And of whatever individuality the gods of the past ages were, equal to them are the present gods in name and form.’

31.  On account of the impossibility of (the gods being qualified) for the madhu-vidya, &c., Jaimini (maintains) the non-qualification (of the gods for the Brahma-vidya).

A new objection is raised against the averment that the gods, &c. also are entitled to the knowledge of Brahman.  The teacher, Jaimini, considers the gods and similar beings not to have any claim.—­Why?—­On account of the impossibility, in the case of the so-called Madhu-vidya, &c.  If their claim to the knowledge of Brahman were admitted, we should have to admit their claim to the madhu-vidya (’the knowledge of the honey’) also, because that also is a kind of knowledge not different (from the knowledge of Brahman).  But to admit this latter claim is not possible; for, according to the passage, ’The Sun is indeed the honey of the devas’ (Ch.  Up.  III, 1, 1), men are to meditate on the sun (the god Aditya) under the form of honey, and how, if the gods themselves are admitted as meditating worshippers, can Aditya meditate upon another Aditya?—­Again, the text, after having enumerated five kinds of nectar, the red one, &c. residing in the sun, and after having stated that the five classes of gods, viz. the Vasus, Rudras, Adityas, Maruts, and Sadhyas, live on one of these nectars each, declares that ’he who thus knows this nectar becomes one of the Vasus, with Agni at their head, he sees the nectar and rejoices, &c., and indicates thereby that those who know the nectars enjoyed by the Vasus, &c., attain the greatness of the Vasus, &c.’  But how should the Vasus themselves know other Vasus enjoying the nectar, and what other Vasu-greatness should they desire to attain?—­We have also to compare the passages ’Agni is one foot, Aditya is one foot, the quarters are one foot’ (Ch.  Up.  III, 18, 2); ’Air is indeed the absorber’ (Ch.  Up.  IV, 3, 1); ’Aditya is Brahman, this is the doctrine.’  All

Page 243

32.  And (the devas, &c. are not qualified) on account of (the words denoting the devas, &c.) being (used) in the sense of (sphere of) light.

To that sphere of light, the purvapakshin resumes, which is stationed in the sky, and during its diurnal revolutions illumines the world, terms such as Aditya, i.e. the names of devas, are applied, as we know from the use of ordinary language, and from Vedic complementary passages[207].  But of a mere sphere of light we cannot understand how it should be endowed with either a bodily form, consisting of the heart and the like, or intelligence, or the capability of forming wishes[208].  For mere light we know to be, like earth, entirely devoid of intelligence.  The same observation applies to Agni (fire), and so on.  It will perhaps be said that our objection is not valid, because the personality of the devas is known from the mantras, arthavadas, itihasas, pura/n/as, and from the conceptions of ordinary life[209]; but we contest the relevancy of this remark.  For the conceptions of ordinary life do not constitute an independent means of knowledge; we rather say that a thing is known from ordinary life if it is known by the (acknowledged) means of knowledge, perception, &c.  But none of the recognised means of knowledge, such as perception and the like, apply to the matter under discussion.  Itihasas and pura/n/as again being of human origin, stand themselves in need of other means of knowledge on which to base.  The arthavada passages also, which, as forming syntactical wholes with the injunctory passages, have merely the purpose of glorifying (what is enjoined in the latter), cannot be considered to constitute by themselves reasons for the existence of the personality, &c. of the devas.  The mantras again, which, on the ground of direct enunciation, &c., are to be employed (at the different stages of the sacrificial action), have merely the purpose of denoting things connected with the sacrificial performance, and do not constitute an independent means of authoritative knowledge for anything[210].—­For these reasons the devas, and similar beings, are not qualified for the knowledge of Brahman.

33.  Badaraya/n/a, on the other hand, (maintains) the existence (of qualification for Brahma-vidya on the part of the gods); for there are (passages indicatory of that).

Page 244

The expression ‘on the other hand’ is meant to rebut the purvapaksha.  The teacher, Badaraya/n/a, maintains the existence of the qualification on the part of the gods, &c.  For, although the qualification of the gods cannot be admitted with reference to the madhu-vidya, and similar topics of knowledge, in which the gods themselves are implicated, still they may be qualified for the pure knowledge of Brahman, qualification in general depending on the presence of desire, capability, &c.[211] Nor does the impossibility of qualification in certain cases interfere with the presence of qualification in those other cases where it is not impossible.  To the case of the gods the same reasoning applies as to the case of men; for among men also, all are not qualified for everything, Brahma/n/as, for instance, not for the rajasuya-sacrifice[212].

And, with reference to the knowledge of Brahman, Scripture, moreover, contains express hints notifying that the devas are qualified; compare, for instance, Bri.  Up.  I, 4, 10, ’Whatever Deva was awakened (so as to know Brahman) he indeed became that; and the same with rishis;’ Ch.  Up.  VIII, 7, 2, ’They said:  Well, let us search for that Self by which, if one has searched it out, all worlds and all desires are obtained.  Thus saying, Indra went forth from the Devas, Viro/k/ana from the Asuras.’  Similar statements are met with in Sm/ri/ti, so, for instance, in the colloquy of the Gandharva and Yaj/n/avalkya[213].—­Against the objection raised in the preceding Sutra (32) we argue as follows.  Words like aditya, and so on, which denote devas, although having reference to light and the like, yet convey the idea of certain divine Selfs (persons) endowed with intelligence and pre-eminent power; for they are used in that sense in mantras and arthavada passages.  For the devas possess, in consequence of their pre-eminent power, the capability of residing within the light, and so on, and to assume any form they like.  Thus we read in Scripture, in the arthavada passage explaining the words ‘ram of Medhatithi,’ which form part of the Subrahma/n/ya-formula, that ’Indra, having assumed the shape of a ram, carried off Medhatithi, the descendant of Ka/n/va’ (Sha/d/v.  Br.  I, 1).  And thus Sm/ri/ti says that ‘Aditya, having assumed the shape of a man, came to Kunti.’  Moreover, even in such substances as earth, intelligent ruling beings must be admitted to reside, for that appears from such scriptural passages as ‘the earth spoke,’ ‘the waters spoke,’ &c.  The non-intelligence of light and the like, in so far as they are mere material elements, is admitted in the case of the sun (aditya), &c. also; but—­as already remarked—­from the use of the words in mantras and arthavadas it appears that there are intelligent beings of divine nature (which animate those material elements).

Page 245

We now turn to the objection (raised above by the purvapakshin) that mantras and arthavadas, as merely subserving other purposes, have no power of setting forth the personality of the devas, and remark that not the circumstance of subordination or non-subordination to some other purpose, but rather the presence or absence of a certain idea furnishes a reason for (our assuming) the existence of something.  This is exemplified by the case of a person who, having set out for some other purpose, (nevertheless) forms the conviction of the existence of leaves, grass, and the like, which he sees lying on the road.—­But, the purvapakshin may here object, the instance quoted by you is not strictly analogous.  In the case of the wanderer, perception, whose objects the grass and leaves are, is active, and through it he forms the conception of their existence.  In the case of an arthavada, on the other hand, which, as forming a syntactical unity with the corresponding injunctory passage, merely subserves the purpose of glorifying (the latter), it is impossible to determine any energy having a special object of its own.  For in general any minor syntactical unity, which is included in a more comprehensive syntactical unity conveying a certain meaning, does not possess the power of expressing a separate meaning of its own.  Thus, for instance, we derive, from the combination of the three words constituting the negative sentence, ‘(Do) not drink wine,’ one meaning only, i.e. a prohibition of drinking wine, and do not derive an additional meaning, viz. an order to drink wine, from the combination of the last two words, ’drink wine.’—­To this objection we reply, that the instance last quoted is not analogous (to the matter under discussion).  The words of the sentence prohibiting the drinking of wine form only one whole, and on that account the separate sense which any minor syntactical unity included in the bigger sentence may possess cannot be accepted.  In the case of injunction and arthavada, on the other hand, the words constituting the arthavada form a separate group of their own which refers to some accomplished thing[214], and only subsequently to that, when it comes to be considered what purpose they subserve, they enter on the function of glorifying the injunction.  Let us examine, as an illustrative example, the injunctive passage, ’He who is desirous of prosperity is to offer to Vayu a white animal.’  All the words contained in this passage are directly connected with the injunction.  This is, however, not the case with the words constituting the corresponding arthavada passage, ’For Vayu is the swiftest deity; Vayu he approaches with his own share; he leads him to prosperity.’  The single words of this arthavada are not grammatically connected with the single words of the injunction, but form a subordinate unity of their own, which contains the praise of Vayu, and glorify the injunction, only in so far as they give us to understand that the action enjoined is connected

Page 246

There is a further reason for assuming the personality of the gods.  The Vedic injunctions, as enjoining sacrificial offerings to Indra and the other gods, presuppose certain characteristic shapes of the individual divinities, because without such the sacrificer could not represent Indra and the other gods to his mind.  And if the divinity were not represented to the mind it would not be possible to make an offering to it.  So Scripture also says, ’Of that divinity for which the offering is taken he is to think when about to say vausha/t/’ (Ai.  Br.  III, 8, 1).  Nor is it possible to consider the essential form (or character) of a thing to consist in the word only[217]; for word (denoting) and thing (denoted) are different.  He therefore who admits the authoritativeness of the scriptural word has no right to deny that the shape of Indra, and the other gods, is such as we understand it to be from the mantras and arthavadas.—­Moreover, itihasas and pura/n/as also—­because based on mantra and arthavada which possess authoritative power in the manner described—­are capable of setting forth the personality, &c. of the devas.  Itihasa and pura/n/a can, besides, be considered as based on perception also.  For what is not accessible to our perception may have been within the sphere of perception of people in ancient times.  Sm/ri/ti also declares that Vyasa and others conversed with the gods face to face.  A person maintaining that the people of ancient times were no more able to converse with the gods than people are at present, would thereby deny the (incontestable) variety of the world.  He might as well maintain that because there is at present no prince ruling over the whole earth, there were no such princes in former times; a position by which the scriptural injunction of the rajasuya-sacrifice[218] would be stultified.  Or he might maintain that in former times the spheres of duty of the different castes and a/s/ramas were as generally unsettled as they are now, and, on that account, declare those parts of Scripture which define those different duties to be purposeless.  It is therefore altogether unobjectionable to assume that the men of ancient times, in consequence

Page 247

The general result is that we have the right to conceive the gods as possessing personal existence, on the ground of mantras, arthavadas, itihasas, pura/n/as, and ordinarily prevailing ideas.  And as the gods may thus be in the condition of having desires and so on, they must be considered as qualified for the knowledge of Brahman.  Moreover, the declarations which Scripture makes concerning gradual emancipation[219] agree with this latter supposition only.

34.  Grief of him (i.e. of Jana/s/ruti) (arose) on account of his hearing a disrespectful speech about himself; on account of the rushing on of that (grief) (Raikva called him Sudra); for it (the grief) is pointed at (by Raikva).

(In the preceding adhikara/n/a) the exclusiveness of the claim of men to knowledge has been refuted, and it has been declared that the gods, &c. also possess such a claim.  The present adhikara/n/a is entered on for the purpose of removing the doubt whether, as the exclusiveness of the claim of twice-born men is capable of refutation, the Sudras also possess such a claim.

The purvapakshin maintains that the Sudras also have such a claim, because they may be in the position of desiring that knowledge, and because they are capable of it; and because there is no scriptural prohibition (excluding them from knowledge) analogous to the text, ‘Therefore[220] the Sudra is unfit for sacrificing’ (Taitt.  Sa/m/h.  VII, 1, 1, 6).  The reason, moreover, which disqualifies the Sudras for sacrificial works, viz. their being without the sacred fires, does not invalidate their qualification for knowledge, as knowledge can be apprehended by those also who are without the fires.  There is besides an inferential mark supporting the claim of the Sudras; for in the so-called sa/m/varga-knowledge he (Raikva) refers to Jana/s/ruti Pautraya/n/a, who wishes to learn from him, by the name of Sudra ’Fie, necklace and carnage be thine, O Sudra, together with the cows’ (Ch.  Up.  IV, 2, 3).  Sm/ri/ti moreover speaks of Vidura and others who were born from Sudra mothers as possessing eminent knowledge.—­Hence the Sudra has a claim to the knowledge of Brahman.

Page 248

To this we reply that the Sudras have no such claim, on account of their not studying the Veda.  A person who has studied the Veda and understood its sense is indeed qualified for Vedic matters; but a Sudra does not study the Veda, for such study demands as its antecedent the upanayana-ceremony, and that ceremony belongs to the three (higher) castes only.  The mere circumstance of being in a condition of desire does not furnish a reason for qualification, if capability is absent.  Mere temporal capability again does not constitute a reason for qualification, spiritual capability being required in spiritual matters.  And spiritual capability is (in the case of the Sudras) excluded by their being excluded from the study of the Veda.—­The Vedic statement, moreover, that the Sudra is unfit for sacrifices intimates, because founded on reasoning, that he is unfit for knowledge also; for the argumentation is the same in both cases[221].—­With reference to the purvapakshin’s opinion that the fact of the word ‘Sudra’ being enounced in the sa/m/varga-knowledge constitutes an inferential mark (of the Sudra’s qualification for knowledge), we remark that that inferential mark has no force, on account of the absence of arguments.  For the statement of an inferential mark possesses the power of intimation only in consequence of arguments being adduced; but no such arguments are brought forward in the passage quoted.[222] Besides, the word ‘Sudra’ which occurs in the sa/m/varga-vidya would establish a claim on the part of the Sudras to that one vidya only, not to all vidyas.  In reality, however, it is powerless, because occurring in an arthavada, to establish the Sudras’ claim to anything.—­The word ‘Sudra’ can moreover be made to agree with the context in which it occurs in the following manner.  When Jana/s/ruti Pautraya/n/a heard himself spoken of with disrespect by the flamingo (’How can you speak of him, being what he is, as if he were like Raikva with the car?’ IV, 1, 3), grief (su/k/) arose in his mind, and to that grief the rishi Raikva alludes with the word Sudra, in order to show thereby his knowledge of what is remote.  This explanation must be accepted because a (real) born Sudra is not qualified (for the sa/m/varga-vidya).  If it be asked how the grief (su/k/) which had arisen in Janasruti’s mind can be referred to by means of the word Sudra, we reply:  On account of the rushing on (adrava/n/a) of the grief.  For we may etymologise the word Sudra by dividing it into its parts, either as ’he rushed into grief (Su/k/am abhidudrava) or as ’grief rushed on him,’ or as ‘he in his grief rushed to Raikva;’ while on the other hand it is impossible to accept the word in its ordinary conventional sense.  The circumstance (of the king actually being grieved) is moreover expressly touched upon in the legend[223].

35.  And because the kshattriyahood (of Jana/s/ruti) is understood from the inferential mark (supplied by his being mentioned) later on with Kaitraratha (who was a kshattriya himself).

Page 249

Jana/s/ruti cannot have been a Sudra by birth for that reason also that his being a kshattriya is understood from an inferential sign, viz. his being mentioned together (in one chapter) with the kshattriya Kaitraratha Abhipratarin.  For, later on, i.e. in the passage complementary to the sa/m/varga-vidya, a kshattriya Kaitrarathi Abhipratarin is glorified, ’Once while Saunaka Kapeya and Abhipratarin Kakshaseni were being waited on at their meal a religious student begged of them’ (Ch.  Up.  IV, 3, 5).  That this Abhipratarin was a Kaitrarathi (i.e. a descendant of Kitraratha) we have to infer from his connexion with a Kapeya.  For we know (from Sruti) about the connexion of Kitraratha himself with the Kapeyas (’the Kapeyas made Kitraratha perform that sacrifice;’ Ta/nd/ya.  Br.  XX, 12, 5), and as a rule sacrificers of one and the same family employ officiating priests of one and the same family.  Moreover, as we understand from Scripture (’from him a Kaitrarathi descended who was a prince[224]’) that he (Kaitraratha) was a prince, we must understand him to have been a kshattriya.  The fact now of Jana/s/ruti being praised in the same vidya with the kshattriya Abhipratarin intimates that the former also was a kshattriya.  For as a rule equals are mentioned together with equals.  That Jana/s/ruti was a kshattriya we moreover conclude from his sending his door-keeper and from other similar signs of power (mentioned in the text).—­Hence the Sudras are not qualified (for the knowledge of Brahman).

36.  On account of the reference to ceremonial purifications (in the case of the higher castes) and on account of their absence being declared (in the case of the Sudras).

That the Sudras are not qualified, follows from that circumstance also that in different places of the vidyas such ceremonies as the upanayana and the like are referred to.  Compare, for instance, Sat.  Br.  XI, 5, 3, 13, ‘He initiated him as a pupil;’ Ch.  Up.  VII, 1, 1, ’Teach me, Sir! thus he approached him;’ Pra.  Up.  I, 1, ’Devoted to Brahman, firm in Brahman, seeking for the highest Brahman they, carrying fuel in their hands, approached the venerable Pippalada, thinking that he would teach them all that.’—­Thus the following passage also, ’He without having made them undergo the upanayana (said) to them’ (Ch.  Up.  V, 11, 7), shows that the upanayana is a well-established ceremony[225].—­With reference to the Sudras, on the other hand, the absence of ceremonies is frequently mentioned; so, for instance, Manu X, 4, where they are spoken of as ‘once born’ only (’the Sudra is the fourth caste, once-born’), and Manu X, 126, ’In the Sudra there is not any sin, and he is not fit for any ceremony.’

37.  And on account of (Gautama) proceeding (to initiate Jabala) on the ascertainment of (his) not being that (i.e. a Sudra).

Page 250

The Sudras are not qualified for that reason also that Gautama, having ascertained Jabala not to be a Sudra from his speaking the truth, proceeded to initiate and instruct him.  ’None who is not a Brahma/n/a would thus speak out.  Go and fetch fuel, friend, I shall initiate you.  You have not swerved from the truth’ (Ch.  Up.  IV, 4, 5); which scriptural passage furnishes an inferential sign (of the Sudras not being capable of initiation).

38.  And on account of the prohibition, in Sm/ri/ti, of (the Sudras’) hearing and studying (the Veda) and (knowing and performing) (Vedic) matters.

The Sudras are not qualified for that reason also that Sm/ri/ti prohibits their hearing the Veda, their studying the Veda, and their understanding and performing Vedic matters.  The prohibition of hearing the Veda is conveyed by the following passages:  ’The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with (molten) lead and lac,’ and ’For a Sudra is (like) a cemetery, therefore (the Veda) is not to be read in the vicinity of a Sudra.’  From this latter passage the prohibition of studying the Veda results at once; for how should he study Scripture in whose vicinity it is not even to be read?  There is, moreover, an express prohibition (of the Sudras studying the Veda).  ’His tongue is to be slit if he pronounces it; his body is to be cut through if he preserves it.’  The prohibitions of hearing and studying the Veda already imply the prohibition of the knowledge and performance of Vedic matters; there are, however, express prohibitions also, such as ’he is not to impart knowledge to the Sudra,’ and ’to the twice-born belong study, sacrifice, and the bestowal of gifts.’—­From those Sudras, however, who, like Vidura and ‘the religious hunter,’ acquire knowledge in consequence of the after effects of former deeds, the fruit of their knowledge cannot be withheld, since knowledge in all cases brings about its fruit.  Sm/ri/ti, moreover, declares that all the four castes are qualified for acquiring the knowledge of the itihasas and pura/n/as; compare the passage, ‘He is to teach the four castes’ (Mahabh.).—­It remains, however, a settled point that they do not possess any such qualification with regard to the Veda.

39. (The pra/n/a is Brahman), on account of the trembling (predicated of the whole world).

The discussion of qualification for Brahma-knowledge—­on which we entered as an opportunity offered—­being finished we return to our chief topic, i.e. the enquiry into the purport of the Vedanta-texts.—­We read (Ka.  Up.  II, 6, 2), ’Whatever there is, the whole world when gone forth trembles in the pra/n/a.  It (the pra/n/a) is a great terror, a raised thunderbolt.  Those who know it become immortal[226].’—­This passage declares that this whole world trembles, abiding in pra/n/a, and that there is raised something very terrible, called a thunderbolt, and that through its knowledge immortality is obtained.  But as it is not immediately clear what the pra/n/a is, and what that terrible thunderbolt, a discussion arises.

Page 251

The purvapakshin maintains that, in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the term, pra/n/a denotes the air with its five modifications, that the word ‘thunderbolt’ also is to be taken in its ordinary sense, and that thus the whole passage contains a glorification of air.  For, he says, this whole world trembles, abiding within air with its five forms—­which is here called pra/n/a—­and the terrible thunderbolts also spring from air (or wind) as their cause.  For in the air, people say, when it manifests itself in the form of Parjanya, lightning, thunder, rain, and thunderbolts manifest themselves.—­Through the knowledge of that air immortality also can be obtained; for another scriptural passage says, ’Air is everything by itself, and air is all things together.  He who knows this conquers death.’—­We therefore conclude that the same air is to be understood in the passage under discussion.

To this we make the following reply.—­Brahman only can be meant, on account of what precedes as well as what follows.  In the preceding as well as the subsequent part of the chapter Brahman only is spoken of; how then can it be supposed that in the intermediate part all at once the air should be referred to?  The immediately preceding passage runs as follows, ’That only is called the Bright, that is called Brahman, that alone is called the Immortal.  All worlds are contained in it, and no one goes beyond it.’  That the Brahman there spoken of forms the topic of our passage also, we conclude, firstly, from proximity; and, secondly, from the circumstance that in the clause, ’The whole world trembles in pra/n/a’ we recognise a quality of Brahman, viz. its constituting the abode of the whole world.  That the word pra/n/a can denote the highest Self also, appears from such passages as ‘the pra/n/a of pra/n/a’ (B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 4, 18).  Being the cause of trembling, moreover, is a quality which properly appertains to the highest Self only, not to mere air.  Thus Scripture says, ’No mortal lives by the pra/n/a and the breath that goes down.  We live by another in whom these two repose’ (Ka.  Up.  II, 5 5).  And also in the passage subsequent to the one under discussion, (’From terror of it fire burns, from terror the sun burns, from terror Indra and Vayu, and Death as the fifth run away,’) Brahman, and not the air, must be supposed to be spoken of, since the subject of that passage is represented as the cause of fear on the part of the whole world inclusive of the air itself.  Thence we again conclude that the passage under discussion also refers to Brahman, firstly, on the ground of proximity; and, secondly, because we recognise a quality of Brahman, viz. its being the cause of fear, in the words, ’A great terror, a raised thunderbolt.’  The word ‘thunderbolt’ is here used to denote a cause of fear in general.  Thus in ordinary life also a man strictly carries out a king’s command because he fearfully considers in his mind, ’A thunderbolt (i.e. the king’s wrath, or threatened

Page 252

40.  The light (is Brahman), on account of that (Brahman) being seen (in the scriptural passage).

We read in Scripture, ’Thus does that serene being, arising from this body, appear in its own form as soon as it has approached the highest light’ (Ch.  Up.  VIII, 12, 3).  Here the doubt arises whether the word ‘light’ denotes the (physical) light, which is the object of sight and dispels darkness, or the highest Brahman.

The purvapakshin maintains that the word ‘light’ denotes the well-known (physical) light, because that is the conventional sense of the word.  For while it is to be admitted that in another passage, discussed under I, 1, 24, the word ‘light’ does, owing to the general topic of the chapter, divest itself of its ordinary meaning and denote Brahman, there is in our passage no similar reason for setting the ordinary meaning aside.  Moreover, it is stated in the chapter treating of the na/d/is of the body, that a man going to final release reaches the sun (’When he departs from this body then he departs upwards by those very rays;’ Ch.  Up.  VIII, 6, 5).  Hence we conclude that the word ‘light’ denotes, in our passage, the ordinary light.

Page 253

To this we make the following reply.—­The word ‘light’ can denote the highest Brahman only, on account of that being seen.  We see that in the whole chapter Brahman is carried on as the topic of discussion.  For the Self, which is free from sin, &c. is introduced as the general subject-matter in VIII, 7, 1 (’the Self which is free from sin’); it is thereupon set forth as that which is to be searched out and to be understood (VIII, 7, 1); it is carried on by means of the clauses, ’I shall explain that further to you’ (VIII, 9, 3 ff.); after that freedom from body is said to belong to it, because it is one with light (’when he is free from the body then neither pleasure nor pain touches him,’ VIII, 12, 1)—­and freedom from body is not possible outside Brahman—­and it is finally qualified as ‘the highest light, the highest person’ (VIII, 12, 3).—­Against the statement, made by the purvapakshin, that Scripture speaks of a man going to release as reaching the sun, we remark, that the release there referred to is not the ultimate one, since it is said to be connected with going and departing upwards.  That the ultimate release has nothing to do with going and departing upwards we shall show later on.

41.  The ether is (Brahman), as it is designated as something different, &c. (from name and form).

Scripture says, ’He who is called ether, (aka/s/a) is the revealer of all forms and names.  That within which these forms and names are contained is the Brahman, the Immortal, the Self (Ch.  Up.  VIII, 14, 1).

There arising a doubt whether that which here is called ether is the highest Brahman or the ordinary elemental ether, the purvapakshin declares that the latter alternative is to be embraced, firstly, because it is founded on the conventional meaning of the word ‘ether;’ and, secondly, because the circumstance of revealing names and forms can very well be reconciled with the elemental ether, as that which affords room (for all things).  Moreover, the passage contains no clear indicatory mark of Brahman, such as creative power, and the like.

To this we reply, that the word ‘ether’ can here denote the highest Brahman only, because it is designated as a different thing, &c.  For the clause, ‘That within which these two are contained is Brahman,’ designates the ether as something different from names and forms.  But, excepting Brahman, there is nothing whatever different from name and form, since the entire world of effects is evolved exclusively by names and forms.  Moreover, the complete revealing of names and forms cannot be accomplished by anything else but Brahman, according to the text which declares Brahman’s creative agency, ’Let me enter (into those beings) with this living Self (jiva atman), and evolve names and forms’ (Ch.  Up.  VI, 3, 2).  But—­it may be said—­from this very passage it is apparent that the living Self also (i.e. the individual soul) possesses revealing power with regard to names and forms.—­True, we reply, but what the passage really wishes to intimate, is the non-difference (of the individual soul from the highest Self).  And the very statement concerning the revealing of names and forms implies the statement of signs indicatory of Brahman, viz. creative power and the like.—­Moreover, the terms ‘the Brahman, the Immortal, the Self’ (VIII, 14) indicate that Brahman is spoken of.

Page 254

42.  And (on account of the designation) (of the highest Self) as different (from the individual soul) in the states of deep sleep and departing.

In the sixth prapa/th/aka of the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka there is given, in reply to the question, ‘Who is that Self?’ a lengthy exposition of the nature of the Self, ’He who is within the heart, among the pra/n/as, the person of light, consisting of knowledge’ (B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 3, 7).  Here the doubt arises, whether the passage merely aims at making an additional statement about the nature of the transmigrating soul (known already from other sources), or at establishing the nature of the non-transmigrating Self.

The purvapakshin maintains that the passage is concerned with the nature of the transmigrating soul, on account of the introductory and concluding statements.  For the introductory statement, ’He among the pra/n/as who consists of knowledge,’ contains marks indicatory of the embodied soul, and so likewise the concluding passage, ’And that great unborn Self is he who consists of cognition,’ &c. (IV, 4, 22).  We must therefore adhere to the same subject-matter in the intermediate passages also, and look on them as setting forth the same embodied Self, represented in its different states, viz. the waking state, and so on.

In reply to this, we maintain that the passage aims only at giving information about the highest Lord, not at making additional statements about the embodied soul.—­Why?—­On account of the highest Lord being designated as different from the embodied soul, in the states of deep sleep and of departing from the body.  His difference from the embodied soul in the state of deep sleep is declared in the following passage, ’This person embraced by the intelligent (praj/n/a) Self knows nothing that is without, nothing that is within.’  Here the term, ‘the person,’ must mean the embodied soul; for of him it is possible to deny that he knows, because he, as being the knower, may know what is within and without.  The ‘intelligent Self,’ on the other hand, is the highest Lord, because he is never dissociated from intelligence, i.e.—­in his case—­all-embracing knowledge.—­Similarly, the passage treating of departure, i.e. death (’this bodily Self mounted by the intelligent Self moves along groaning’), refers to the highest Lord as different from the individual Self.  There also we have to understand by the ‘embodied one’ the individual soul which is the Lord of the body, while the ‘intelligent one’ is again the Lord.  We thus understand that ’on account of his being designated as something different, in the states of deep sleep and departure,’ the highest Lord forms the subject of the passage.—­With reference to the purvapakshin’s assertion that the entire chapter refers to the embodied Self, because indicatory marks of the latter are found in its beginning, middle, and end, we remark that in the first place the introductory passage (’He

Page 255

43.  And on account of such words as Lord, &c.

That the chapter aims at setting forth the nature of the non-transmigrating Self, we have to conclude from that circumstance also that there occur in it terms such as Lord and so on, intimating the nature of the non-transmigrating Self, and others excluding the nature of the transmigrating Self.  To the first class belongs, for instance, ’He is the lord of all, the king of all things, the protector of all things.’  To the latter class belongs the passage, ’He does not become greater by good works, nor smaller by evil works.’—­From all which we conclude that the chapter refers to the non-transmigrating highest Lord.

Notes: 

[Footnote 164:  From passages of which nature we may infer that in the passage under discussion also the ‘abode’ is Brahman.]

[Footnote 165:  From which circumstance we may conclude that the passage under discussion also refers to Brahman.]

[Footnote 166:  Yat sarvam avidyaropita/m/ tat sarva/m/ paramarthato brahma na tu yad brahma tat sarvam ity artha/h/.  Bhamati.]

[Footnote 167:  So that the passage would have to be translated, ’That, viz. knowledge, &c. is the bridge of the Immortal.’]

Page 256

[Footnote 168:  Bhogyasya bhokt/ris/eshatvat tasyayatanatvam uktam a/s/a@nkyaha na keti, jivasyad/ri/sh/t/advara dyubhvadinimittatvezpi na sakshat tadayatanatvam aupadhikatvenavibhutvad ity artha/h/.  Ananda Giri.]

[Footnote 169:  It would not have been requisite to introduce a special Sutra for the individual soul—­which, like the air, is already excluded by the preceding Sutra—­if it were not for the new argument brought forward in the following Sutra which applies to the individual soul only.]

[Footnote 170:  If the individual soul were meant by the abode of heaven, earth, &c., the statement regarding I/s/vara made in the passage about the two birds would be altogether abrupt, and on that ground objectionable.  The same difficulty does not present itself with regard to the abrupt mention of the individual soul which is well known to everybody, and to which therefore casual allusions may be made.—­I subjoin Ananda Giri’s commentary on the entire passage:  Jivasyopadhyaikyenavivakshitatvat tadj/n/anezpi sarvaj/n/anasiddhes tasyayatanatvadyabhave hetvantara/m/ va/k/yam ity a/s/a@nkya sutre/n/a pariharati kuta/sk/etyadina.  Tad vya/k/ash/t/e dyubhvaditi.  Nirde/s/am eva dar/s/ayati tayor iti.  Vibhaktyartham aha tabhya/m/ keti.  Sthitye/s/varasyadanaj jivasa/m/grahezpi katham i/s/varasyaiva vi/s/vayatanatva/m/ tadaha yaditi.  I/s/varasyayanatvenaprak/ri/tatve jivap/ri/thakkathananupapattir ity uktam eva vyatirekadvaraha anyatheti.  Jivasyayatanatvenaprak/ri/tatve tulyanupapattir iti sa@nkate nanviti.  Tasyaikyartha/m/ lokasiddhasyanuvadatvan naivam ity aha neti.  Jivasyapurvatvabhavenapratipadyatvam eva praka/t/ayati kshetraj/n/o hiti.  I/s/varasyapi lokavadisiddhatvad apratipadyatety a/s/a@nkyaha i/s/varas tv iti.]

[Footnote 171:  As might be the prima facie conclusion from the particle ‘but’ introducing the sentence ‘but he in reality,’ &c.]

[Footnote 172:  It being maintained that the passage referred to is to be viewed in connexion with the general subject-matter of the preceding past of the chapter.]

[Footnote 173:  And would thus involve a violation of a fundamental principle of the Mima/m/sa.]

[Footnote 174:  A remark directed against the possible attempt to explain the passage last quoted as referring to the embodied soul.]

[Footnote 175:  Pi/nd/a/h/ sthulo deha/h/, pra/n/a/h/ sutratma.  Ananda Giri.-The lower Brahman (hira/n/yagarbha on sutratman) is the vital principle (pra/n/a) in all creatures.]

[Footnote 176:  Sa/m/yagdar/s/ana, i.e. complete seeing or intuition; the same term which in other places—­where it is not requisite to insist on the idea of ‘seeing’ in contradistinction from ‘reflecting’ or ’meditating’—­is rendered by perfect knowledge.]

[Footnote 177:  Translated above by ’of the shape of the individual soul.’]

[Footnote 178:  Pa/n/ini III, 3, 77, ‘murtta/m/ ghana/h/.’]

Page 257

[Footnote 179:  So that the interpretation of the purvapakshin cannot be objected to on the ground of its involving the comparison of a thing to itself.]

[Footnote 180:  So that no objection can be raised on the ground that heaven and earth cannot be contained in the small ether of the heart.]

[Footnote 181:  Viz. of that which is within it.  Ananda Giri proposes two explanations:  na keti, paravi/s/esha/n/atvenety atra paro daharaka/s/a upadanat tasminn iti saptamyanta-ta/kkh/abdasyeti sesha/h/.  Yadva para/s/abdo s nta/h/sthavastuvishayas tadvi/s/esha/n/alvena tasminn iti daharaka/s/asyokter ity artha/h/.  Ta/kkh/abdasya samnik/ri/sh/t/anvayayoge viprak/ri/sh/t/anvayasya jaghanyatvad aka/s/antargata/m/ dhyeyam iti bhava/h/.]

[Footnote 182:  A vakyabheda—­split of the sentence—­takes place according to the Mimam/s/a when one and the same sentence contains two new statements which are different.]

[Footnote 183:  While the explanation of Brahman by jiva would compel us to assume that the word Brahman secondarily denotes the individual soul.]

[Footnote 184:  Upalabdher adhish/th/anam brahma/n/a deha ishyate.  Tenasadhara/n/atvena deho brahmapuram bhavet.  Bhamati.]

[Footnote 185:  I.e.  Brahma, the lower Brahman.]

[Footnote 186:  The masculine ‘avirbhutasvarupa/h/’ qualifies the substantive jiva/h/ which has to be supplied.  Properly speaking the jiva whose true nature has become manifest, i.e. which has become Brahman, is no longer jiva; hence the explanatory statement that the term jiva is used with reference to what the jiva was before it became Brahman.]

[Footnote 187:  To state another reason showing that the first and second chapters of Prajapati’s instruction refer to the same subject.]

[Footnote 188:  I.e. of whom cognition is not a mere attribute.]

[Footnote 189:  Although in reality there is no such thing as an individual soul.]

[Footnote 190:  Nanu jivabrahma/n/or aikyam na kvapi sutrakaro mukhato vadati kim tu sarvatra bhedam eva, ato naikyam ish/t/am tatraha pratipadyam tv iti.]

[Footnote 191:  This last sentence is directed against the possible objection that ‘sabda,’ which the Sutra brings forward as an argument in favour of the highest Lord being meant, has the sense of ‘sentence’ (vakya), and is therefore of less force than li@nga, i.e. indicatory or inferential mark which is represented in our passage by the a@ngush/th/amatrata of the purusha, and favours the jiva interpretation. Sabda, the text remarks, here means sruti, i.e. direct enunciation, and sruti ranks, as a means of proof, higher than li@nga.]

[Footnote 192:  I.e. men belonging to the three upper castes.]

Page 258

[Footnote 193:  The first reason excludes animals, gods, and rishis.  Gods cannot themselves perform sacrifices, the essential feature of which is the parting, on the part of the sacrificer, with an offering meant for the gods. Rishis cannot perform sacrifices in the course of whose performance the ancestral rishis of the sacrificer are invoked.—­The second reason excludes those men whose only desire is emancipation and who therefore do not care for the perishable fruits of sacrifices.—­The third and fourth reasons exclude the Sudras who are indirectly disqualified for sastric works because the Veda in different places gives rules for the three higher castes only, and for whom the ceremony of the upanayana—­indispensable for all who wish to study the Veda—­is not prescribed.—­Cp.  Purva Mima/m/sa Sutras VI, 1.]

[Footnote 194:  The reference is to Purva Mima/m/sa Sutras I, 1, 5 (not to I, 2, 21, as stated in Muir’s Sanskrit Texts, III, p. 69).]

[Footnote 195:  In which classes of beings all the gods are comprised.]

[Footnote 196:  Which shows that together with the non-eternality of the thing denoted there goes the non-eternality of the denoting word.]

[Footnote 197:  Ak/ri/ti, best translated by [Greek:  eidos].]

[Footnote 198:  The purvapakshin, i.e. here the grammarian maintains, for the reasons specified further on, that there exists in the case of words a supersensuous entity called spho/t/a which is manifested by the letters of the word, and, if apprehended by the mind, itself manifests the sense of the word.  The term spho/t/a may, according as it is viewed in either of these lights, be explained as the manifestor or that which is manifested.—­The spho/t/a is a grammatical fiction, the word in so far as it is apprehended by us as a whole.  That we cannot identify it with the ‘notion’ (as Deussen seems inclined to do, p. 80) follows from its being distinctly called va/k/aka or abhidhayaka, and its being represented as that which causes the conception of the sense of a word (arthadhihetu).]

[Footnote 199:  For that each letter by itself expresses the sense is not observed; and if it did so, the other letters of the word would have to be declared useless.]

[Footnote 200:  In order to enable us to apprehend the sense from the word, there is required the actual consciousness of the last letter plus the impressions of the preceding letters; just as smoke enables us to infer the existence of fire only if we are actually conscious of the smoke.  But that actual consciousness does not take place because the impressions are not objects of perceptive consciousness.]

[Footnote 201:  ‘How should it be so?’ i.e. it cannot be so; and on that account the differences apprehended do not belong to the letters themselves, but to the external conditions mentioned above.]

[Footnote 202:  With ‘or else’ begins the exposition of the finally accepted theory as to the cause why the same letters are apprehended as different.  Hitherto the cause had been found in the variety of the upadhis of the letters.  Now a new distinction is made between articulated letters and non-articulated tone.]

Page 259

[Footnote 203:  I.e. it is not directly one idea, for it has for its object more than one letter; but it may be called one in a secondary sense because it is based on the determinative knowledge that the letters, although more than one, express one sense only.]

[Footnote 204:  Which circumstance proves that exalted knowledge appertains not only to Hira/n/yagarbha, but to many beings.]

[Footnote 205:  Viz. naraka, the commentaries say.]

[Footnote 206:  Asmin kalpe sarvesham pra/n/inam dahapakapraka/s/akari yozyam agnir d/ris/yate sozyam agni/h/ purvasmin kalpe manushya/h/ san devatvapadaprapaka/m/ karmanush/th/ayasmin kalpa etaj janma labdhavan ata/h/ purvasmin kalpe sa manushyo bhavini/m/ sa/m/j/n/am a/sri/tyagnir iti vyapadi/s/yate.—­Saya/n/a on the quoted passage.]

[Footnote 207:  As, for instance, ’So long as Aditya rises in the east and sets in the west’ (Ch.  Up.  III, 6, 4).]

[Footnote 208:  Whence it follows that the devas are not personal beings, and therefore not qualified for the knowledge of Brahman.]

[Footnote 209:  Yama, for instance, being ordinarily represented as a person with a staff in his hand, Varu/n/a with a noose, Indra with a thunderbolt, &c. &c.]

[Footnote 210:  On the proper function of arthavada and mantra according to the Mima/m/sa, cp.  Arthasa/m/graha, Introduction.]

[Footnote 211:  See above, p. 197.]

[Footnote 212:  Which can be offered by kshattriyas only.]

[Footnote 213:  Srautali@ngenanumanabadha/m/ dar/s/ayitva smartenapi tadbadha/m/ dar/s/ayati smartam iti.  Ki/m/ atra brahma am/ri/tam ki/m/ svid vedyam anuttamam, kintayet tatra vai gatva gandharvo mam ap/rikkh/ata, Vi/s/vavasus tato rajan vedantaj/n/anakovida iti mokshadharme janakayaj/n/avalkyasa/m/vadat prahladajagarasa/m/vada/k/ koktanumanasiddhir ity artha/h/.]

[Footnote 214:  As opposed to an action to be accomplished.]

[Footnote 215:  Of this nature is, for instance, the arthavada, ’Fire is a remedy for cold.’]

[Footnote 216:  Of this nature is, for instance, the passage ’the sacrificial post is the sun’ (i.e. possesses the qualities of the sun, luminousness, &c.; a statement contradicted by perception).]

[Footnote 217:  And therefore to suppose that a divinity is nothing but a certain word forming part of a mantra.]

[Footnote 218:  The rajasuya-sacrifice is to be offered by a prince who wishes to become the ruler of the whole earth.]

[Footnote 219:  In one of whose stages the being desirous of final emancipation becomes a deva.]

[Footnote 220:  The commentaries explain ‘therefore’ by ’on account of his being devoid of the three sacred fires.’  This explanation does not, however, agree with the context of the Taitt.  Sa/m/h.]

[Footnote 221:  The Sudra not having acquired a knowledge of Vedic matters in the legitimate way, i.e. through the study of the Veda under the guidance of a guru, is unfit for sacrifices as well as for vidya.]

Page 260

[Footnote 222:  The li@nga contained in the word ‘Sudra’ has no proving power as it occurs in an arthavada-passage which has no authority if not connected with a corresponding injunctive passage.  In our case the li@nga in the arthavada-passage is even directly contradicted by those injunctions which militate against the Sudras’ qualification for Vedic matters.]

[Footnote 223:  Ha/m/savakyad atmanoznadara/m/ srutva jana/s/rute/h/ sug utpannety etad eva katha/m/ gamyate yenasau sudra/s/abdena sa/k/yate tatraha sp/ris/yate keti.  Ananda Giri.]

[Footnote 224:  I translate this passage as I find it in all MSS. of Sa@nkara consulted by me (noting, however, that some MSS. read kaitrarathinamaika/h/).  Ananda Giri expressly explains tasmad by kaitrarathad ity artha/h/.—­The text of the Ta/nd/ya Br. runs:  tasma/k/ kaitrarathinam eka/h/ kshatrapatir gayate, and the commentary explains:  tasmat kara/n/ad adyapi kitrava/ms/otpannana/m/ madhye eka eva raja kshatrapatir baladhipatir bhavati.—­Grammar does not authorise the form kahraratha used in the Sutra.]

[Footnote 225:  The king A/s/vapati receives some Brahma/n/as as his pupils without insisting on the upanayana.  This express statement of the upanayana having been omitted in a certain case shows it to be the general rule.]

[Footnote 226:  As the words stand in the original they might be translated as follows (and are so translated by the purvapakshin), ’Whatever there is, the whole world trembles in the pra/n/a, there goes forth (from it) a great terror, viz. the raised thunderbolt.’]

[Footnote 227:  The stress lies here on the ‘as if.’ which intimate that the Self does not really think or move.]

FOURTH PADA.

REVERENCE TO THE HIGHEST SELF!

1.  If it be said that some (mention) that which is based on inference (i.e. the pradhana); we deny this, because (the term alluded to) refers to what is contained in the simile of the body (i.e. the body itself); and (that the text) shows.

In the preceding part of this work—­as whose topic there has been set forth an enquiry into Brahman—­we have at first defined Brahman (I, 1, 2); we have thereupon refuted the objection that that definition applies to the pradhana also, by showing that there is no scriptural authority for the latter (I, 1, 5), and we have shown in detail that the common purport of all Vedanta-texts is to set forth the doctrine that Brahman, and not the pradha/n/a, is the cause of the world.  Here, however, the Sa@nkhya again raises an objection which he considers not to have been finally disposed of.

Page 261

It has not, he says, been satisfactorily proved that there is no scriptural authority for the pradhana; for some sakhas contain expressions which seem to convey the idea of the pradhana.  From this it follows that Kapila and other supreme rishis maintain the doctrine of the pradhana being the general cause only because it is based on the Veda.—­As long therefore as it has not been proved that those passages to which the Sa@nkhyas refer have a different meaning (i.e. do not allude to the pradhana), all our previous argumentation as to the omniscient Brahman being the cause of the world must be considered as unsettled.  We therefore now begin a new chapter which aims at proving that those passages actually have a different meaning.

The Sa@nkhyas maintain that that also which is based on inference, i.e. the pradhana, is perceived in the text of some sakhas.  We read, for instance, they say, in the Ka/th/aka (I, 3, 11), ’Beyond the Great there is the Undeveloped, beyond the Undeveloped there is the Person.’  There we recognise, named by the same names and enumerated in the same order, the three entities with which we are acquainted from the Sa@nkhya-sm/ri/ti, viz. the great principle, the Undeveloped (the pradhana), and the soul[228].  That by the Undeveloped is meant the pradhana is to be concluded from the common use of Sm/ri/ti and from the etymological interpretation of which the word admits, the pradhana being called undeveloped because it is devoid of sound and other qualities.  It cannot therefore be asserted that there is no scriptural authority for the pradhana.  And this pradhana vouched for by Scripture we declare to be the cause of the world, on the ground of Scripture, Sm/ri/ti, and ratiocination.

Your reasoning, we reply, is not valid.  The passage from the Ka/th/aka quoted by you intimates by no means the existence of that great principle and that Undeveloped which are known from the Sa@nkhya-sm/ri/ti.  We do not recognise there the pradhana of the Sa@nkhyas, i.e. an independent general cause consisting of three constituting elements; we merely recognise the word ‘Undeveloped,’ which does not denote any particular determined thing, but may—­owing to its etymological meaning, ’that which is not developed, not manifest’—­denote anything subtle and difficult to distinguish.  The Sa@nkhyas indeed give to the word a settled meaning, as they apply it to the pradhana; but then that meaning is valid for their system only, and has no force in the determination of the sense of the Veda.  Nor does mere equality of position prove equality of being, unless the latter be recognised independently.  None but a fool would think a cow to be a horse because he sees it tied in the usual place of a horse.  We, moreover, conclude, on the strength of the general subject-matter, that the passage does not refer to the pradhana the fiction of the Sa@nkhyas, ’on account of there being referred to that which is contained

Page 262

Page 263

2.  But the subtle (body is meant by the term avyakta) on account of its capability (of being so designated).

Page 264

It has been asserted, under the preceding Sutra, that the term ’the Undeveloped’ signifies, on account of the general subject-matter and because the body only remains, the body and not the pradhana of the Sa@nkhyas.—­But here the following doubt arises:  How can the word ‘undeveloped’ appropriately denote the body which, as a gross and clearly appearing thing, should rather be called vyakta, i.e. that which is developed or manifested?

To this doubt the Sutra replies that what the term avyakta denotes is the subtle causal body.  Anything subtle may be spoken of as Undeveloped.  The gross body indeed cannot directly be termed ‘undeveloped,’ but the subtle parts of the elements from which the gross body originates may be called so, and that the term denoting the causal substance is applied to the effect also is a matter of common occurrence; compare, for instance, the phrase ‘mix the Soma with cows, i.e. milk’ (Rig-veda.  S. IX, 46, 4).  Another scriptural passage also—­’now all this was then undeveloped’ (B/ri/.  Up.  I, 4, 7)—­shows that this, i.e. this developed world with its distinction of names and forms, is capable of being termed undeveloped in so far as in a former condition it was in a merely seminal or potential state, devoid of the later evolved distinctions of name and form.

3. (Such a previous seminal condition of the world may be admitted) on account of its dependency on him (the Lord); (for such an admission is) according to reason.

Here a new objection is raised.—­If, the opponent says, in order to prove the possibility of the body being called undeveloped you admit that this world in its antecedent seminal condition before either names or forms are evolved can be called undeveloped, you virtually concede the doctrine that the pradhana is the cause of the world.  For we Sa@nkhyas understand by the term pradhana nothing but that antecedent condition of the world.

Things lie differently, we rejoin.  If we admitted some antecedent state of the world as the independent cause of the actual world, we should indeed implicitly, admit the pradhana doctrine.  What we admit is, however, only a previous state dependent on the highest Lord, not an independent state.  A previous stage of the world such as the one assumed by us must necessarily be admitted, since it is according to sense and reason.  For without it the highest Lord could not be conceived as creator, as he could not become active if he were destitute of the potentiality of action.  The existence of such a causal potentiality renders it moreover possible that the released souls should not enter on new courses of existence, as it is destroyed by perfect knowledge.  For that causal potentiality is of the nature of Nescience; it is rightly denoted by the term ‘undeveloped;’ it has the highest Lord for its substratum; it is of the nature of an illusion; it is a universal sleep in which are lying the transmigrating souls destitute for the time of

Page 265

Page 266

4.  And (the pradhana cannot be meant) because there is no statement as to (the avyakta) being something to be cognised.

The Sa@nkhyas, moreover, represent the pradhana as something to be cognised in so far as they say that from the knowledge of the difference of the constitutive elements of the pradhana and of the soul there results the desired isolation of the soul.  For without a knowledge of the nature of those constitutive elements it is impossible to cognise the difference of the soul from them.  And somewhere they teach that the pradhana is to be cognised by him who wishes to attain special powers.—­Now in the passage under discussion the avyakta is not mentioned as an object of knowledge; we there meet with the mere word avyakta, and there is no sentence intimating that the avyakta is to be known or meditated upon.  And it is impossible to maintain that a knowledge of things which (knowledge) is not taught in the text is of any advantage to man.—­For this reason also we maintain that the word avyakta cannot denote the pradhana.—­Our interpretation, on the other hand, is unobjectionable, since according to it the passage mentions the body (not as an object of knowledge, but merely) for the purpose of throwing light on the highest place of Vish/n/u, in continuation of the simile in which the body had been compared to a chariot.

Page 267

5.  And if you maintain that the text does speak (of the pradhana as an object of knowledge) we deny that; for the intelligent (highest) Self is meant, on account of the general subject-matter.

Here the Sa@nkhya raises a new objection, and maintains that the averment made in the last Sutra is not proved, since the text later on speaks of the pradhana—­which had been referred to as the Undeveloped—­as an object of knowledge.  ’He who has perceived that which is without sound, without touch, without form, without decay, without taste, eternal, without smell, without beginning, without end, beyond the great and unchangeable, is freed from the jaws of death’ (Ka.  Up.  II, 3, 15).  For here the text speaks of the pradhana, which is beyond the great, describing it as possessing the same qualities which the Sa@nkhya-sm/ri/ti ascribes to it, and designating it as the object of perception.  Hence we conclude that the pradhana is denoted by the term avyakta.

To this we reply that the passage last quoted does represent as the object of perception not the pradhana but the intelligent, i.e. the highest Self.  We conclude this from the general subject-matter.  For that the highest Self continues to form the subject-matter is clear from the following reasons.  In the first place, it is referred to in the passage, ’Beyond the person there is nothing, this is the goal, the highest Road;’ it has further to be supplied as the object of knowledge in the passage, ‘The Self is hidden in all beings and does not shine forth,’ because it is there spoken of as difficult to know; after that the restraint of passion, &c. is enjoined as conducive to its cognition, in the passage, ‘A wise man should keep down speech within the mind;’ and, finally, release from the jaws of death is declared to be the fruit of its knowledge.  The Sa@nkhyas, on the other hand, do not suppose that a man is freed from the jaws of death merely by perceiving the pradhana, but connect that result rather with the cognition of the intelligent Self.—­The highest Self is, moreover, spoken of in all Vedanta-texts as possessing just those qualities which are mentioned in the passage quoted above, viz. absence of sound, and the like.  Hence it follows, that the pradhana is in the text neither spoken of as the object of knowledge nor denoted by the term avyakta.

6.  And there is question and explanation relative to three things only (not to the pradhana).

To the same conclusion we are led by the consideration of the circumstance that the Ka/th/avalli-upanishad brings forward, as subjects of discussion, only three things, viz. the fire sacrifice, the individual soul, and the highest Self.  These three things only Yama explains, bestowing thereby the boons he had granted, and to them only the questions of Na/k/iketas refer.  Nothing else is mentioned or enquired about.  The question relative to the fire sacrifice is contained in the passage (Ka.  Up.  I,

Page 268

Here the Sa@nkhya advances a new objection.  Is, he asks, the question relative to the Self which is asked in the passage, ’There is that doubt when a man is dead,’ &c., again resumed in the passage, ’That which thou seest as neither this nor that,’ &c, or does the latter passage raise a distinct new question?  If the former, the two questions about the Self coalesce into one, and there are therefore altogether two questions only, one relative to the fire sacrifice, the other relative to the Self.  In that case the Sutra has no right to speak of questions and explanations relating to three subjects.—­If the latter, you do not consider it a mistake to assume a question in excess of the number of boons granted, and can therefore not object to us if we assume an explanation about the pradhana in excess of the number of questions asked.

To this we make the following reply.—­We by no means assume a question in excess of the number of boons granted, being prevented from doing so by the influence of the opening part of that syntactical whole which constitutes the Ka/th/avalli-upanishad.  The Upanishad starts with the topic of the boons granted by Yama, and all the following part of the Upanishad—­which is thrown into the form of a colloquy of Yama and Na/k/iketas—­carries on that topic up to the very end.  Yama grants to Na/k/iketas, who had been sent by his father, three boons.  For his first boon Na/k/iketas chooses kindness on the part of his father towards him, for his second boon the knowledge of the fire sacrifice, for his third boon the knowledge of the Self.  That the knowledge of the Self is the third boon appears from the indication contained in the passage (I, 1, 20), ’There

Page 269

Page 270

Page 271

7.  And (the case of the term avyakta) is like that of the term mahat.

While the Sa@nkhyas employ the term ‘the Great one,’ to denote the first-born entity, which is mere existence[232] (? viz. the intellect), the term has a different meaning in Vedic use.  This we see from its being connected with the Self, &c. in such passages as the following, ‘The great Self is beyond the Intellect’ (Ka.  Up.  I, 3, 10); ’The great omnipresent Self’ (Ka.  Up.  I, 2, 23); ‘I know that great person’ (Sve.  Up.  III, 8).  We thence conclude that the word avyakta also, where it occurs in the Veda, cannot denote the pradhana.—­The pradhana is therefore a mere thing of inference, and not vouched for by Scripture.

8. (It cannot be maintained that aja means the pradhana) because no special characteristic is stated; as in the case of the cup.

Here the advocate of the pradhana comes again forward and maintains that the absence of scriptural authority for the pradhana is not yet proved.  For, he says, we have the following mantra (Sve.  Up.  IV, 5), ’There is one aja[233], red, white, and black, producing manifold offspring of the same nature.  There is one aja who loves her and lies by her; there is another who leaves her after having enjoyed her.’—­In this mantra the words ‘red,’ ‘white,’ and ‘black’ denote the three constituent elements of the pradhana.  Passion is called red on account of its colouring, i.e. influencing property; Goodness is called white, because it is of the nature of Light; Darkness is called black on account of its covering and obscuring property.  The state of equipoise of the three constituent elements, i.e. the pradhana, is denoted by the attributes of its parts, and is therefore called red-white-black.  It is further called aja, i.e. unborn, because it is acknowledged to be the fundamental matter out of which everything springs, not a mere effect.—­But has not the word aja the settled

Page 272

To this argumentation we reply, that the quoted mantra by no means proves the Sa@nkhya doctrine to be based on Scripture.  That mantra, taken by itself, is not able to give additional strength to any doctrine.  For, by means of some supposition or other, the terms aja, &c. can be reconciled with any doctrine, and there is no reason for the special assertion that the Sa@nkhya doctrine only is meant.  The case is analogous to that of the cup mentioned in the mantra, ’There is a cup having its mouth below and its bottom above’ (B/ri/.  Up.  II, 2, 3).  Just as it is impossible to decide on the ground of this mantra taken by itself what special cup is meant—­it being possible to ascribe, somehow or other, the quality of the mouth being turned downward to any cup—­so here also there is no special quality stated, so that it is not possible to decide from the mantra itself whether the pradhana is meant by the term aja, or something else.—­But in connexion with the mantra about the cup we have a supplementary passage from which we learn what kind of cup is meant, ’What is called the cup having its mouth below and its bottom above is this head.’—­Whence, however, can we learn what special being is meant by the aja of the Sveta/s/vatara-upanishad?—­To this question the next Sutra replies.

9.  But the (elements) beginning with light (are meant by the term aja); for some read so in their text.

By the term aja we have to understand the causal matter of the four classes of beings, which matter has sprung from the highest Lord and begins with light, i.e. comprises fire, water, and earth.—­The word ‘but’ (in the Sutra) gives emphasis to the assertion.—­This aja is to be considered as comprising three elementary substances, not as consisting of three gu/n/as in the Sa@nkhya sense.  We draw this conclusion from the fact that one sakha, after having related how fire, water, and earth sprang from the highest Lord, assigns to them red colour, and so on.  ’The red colour of burning fire (agni) is the colour of the elementary fire (tejas), its white colour is the colour of water, its black

Page 273

10.  And on account of the statement of the assumption (of a metaphor) there is nothing contrary to reason (in aja denoting the causal matter); just as in the case of honey (denoting the sun) and similar cases.

The word aja neither expresses that fire, water, and earth belong to the goat species, nor is it to be explained as meaning ‘unborn;’ it rather expresses an assumption, i.e. it intimates the assumption of the source of all beings (which source comprises fire, water, and earth), being compared to a she-goat.  For as accidentally some she-goat might be partly red, partly white, partly black, and might have many young goats resembling her in colour, and as some he-goat might love her and lie by her, while some other he-goat might leave her after having enjoyed her; so the universal causal matter which

Page 274

11. (The assertion that there is scriptural authority for the pradhana, &c. can) also not (be based) on the mention of the number (of the Sankhya categories), on account of the diversity (of the categories) and on account of the excess (over the number of those categories).

The attempt to base the Sa@nkhya doctrine on the mantra speaking of the aja having failed, the Sa@nkhya again comes forward and points to another mantra:  ’He in whom the five “five-people” and the ether rest, him alone I believe to be the Self; I who know believe him to be Brahman’ (B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 4, 17).  In this mantra we have one word which expresses the number five, viz. the five-people, and then another word, viz. five, which qualifies the former; these two words together therefore convey the idea of five pentads, i.e. twenty-five.  Now as many beings as the number twenty-five presupposes, just so many categories the Sankhya system counts.  Cp.  Sa@nkhya Karika, 3:  ’The fundamental causal substance (i.e. the pradhana) is not an effect.  Seven (substances), viz. the Great one (Intellect), and so on, are causal substances as well as effects.  Sixteen are effects.  The soul is neither a causal substance nor an effect.’  As therefore the number twenty-five, which occurs in the scriptural passage quoted, clearly refers to the twenty-five categories taught in the Sa@nkhya-sm/ri/ti, it follows that the doctrine of the pradhana, &c. rests on a scriptural basis.

Page 275

To this reasoning we make the following reply.—­It is impossible to base the assertion that the pradhana, &c. have Scripture in their favour on the reference to their number which you pretend to find in the text, ’on account of the diversity of the Sa@nkhya categories.’  The Sa@nkhya categories have each their individual difference, and there are no attributes belonging in common to each pentad on account of which the number twenty-five could be divided into five times five.  For a number of individually separate things can, in general, not be combined into smaller groups of two or three, &c. unless there be a special reason for such combination.—­Here the Sa@nkhya will perhaps rejoin that the expression five (times) five is used only to denote the number twenty-five which has five pentads for its constituent parts; just as the poem says, ‘five years and seven Indra did not rain,’ meaning only that there was no rain for twelve years.—­But this explanation also is not tenable.  In the first place, it is liable to the objection that it has recourse to indirect indication.[235] In the second place, the second ‘five’ constitutes a compound with the word ‘people,’ the Brahma/n/a-accent showing that the two form one word only.[236] To the same conclusion we are led by another passage also (Taitt.  Sa/m/h.  I, 6, 2, 2, pa/nk/ana/m/ tva pa/nk/ajananam, &c.) where the two terms constitute one word, have one accent and one case-termination.  The word thus being a compound there is neither a repetition of the word ‘five,’ involving two pentads, nor does the one five qualify the other, as the mere secondary member of a compound cannot be qualified by another word.—­But as the people are already denoted to be five by the compound ‘five-people,’ the effect of the other ‘five’ qualifying the compound will be that we understand twenty-five people to be meant; just as the expression ‘five five-bundles’ (pa/nk/a pa/nk/apulya/h/) conveys the idea of twenty-five bundles.—­The instance is not an analogous one, we reply.  The word ‘pa/nk/apuli’ denotes a unity (i.e. one bundle made up of five bundles) and hence when the question arises, ’How many such bundles are there?’ it can be qualified by the word ‘five,’ indicating that there are five such bundles.  The word pa/nk/ajana/h/, on the other hand, conveys at once the idea of distinction (i.e. of five distinct things), so that there is no room at all for a further desire to know how many people there are, and hence no room for a further qualification.  And if the word ‘five’ be taken as a qualifying word it can only qualify the numeral five (in five-people); the objection against which assumption has already been stated.—­For all these reasons the expression the five five-people cannot denote the twenty-five categories of the Sa@nkhyas.—­This is further not possible ’on account of the excess.’  For on the Sa@nkhya interpretation there would be an excess over the number twenty-five, owing to the circumstance of the ether and the Self being mentioned separately. 

Page 276

How, then, the Sa@nkhya will ask, do you interpret the phrase ’the five five-people?’—­On the ground, we reply, of the rule Pa/n/ini II, 1, 50, according to which certain compounds formed with numerals are mere names.  The word pa/nk/ajana/h/ thus is not meant to convey the idea of the number five, but merely to denote certain classes of beings.  Hence the question may present itself, How many such classes are there? and to this question an answer is given by the added numeral ‘five.’  There are certain classes of beings called five-people, and these classes are five.  Analogously we may speak of the seven seven-rishis, where again the compound denotes a class of beings merely, not their number.—­Who then are those five-people?—­To this question the next Sutra replies.

12. (The pa/nk/ajana/h/ are) the breath and so on, (as is seen) from the complementary passage.

The mantra in which the pa/nk/ajana/h/ are mentioned is followed by another one in which breath and four other things are mentioned for the purpose of describing the nature of Brahman.  ’They who know the breath of breath, the eye of the eye, the ear of the ear, the food of food, the mind of mind[237].’  Hence we conclude, on the ground of proximity, that the five-people are the beings mentioned in this latter mantra.—­But how, the Sa@nkhya asks, can the word ‘people’ be applied to the breath, the eye, the ear, and so on?—­How, we ask in return, can it be applied to your categories?  In both cases the common meaning of the word ‘people’ has to be disregarded; but in favour of our explanation is the fact that the breath, the eye, and so on, are mentioned in a complementary passage.  The breath, the eye, &c. may be denoted by the word ‘people’ because they are connected with people.  Moreover, we find the word ‘person,’ which means as much as ‘people,’ applied to the pra/n/as

Page 277

Well, let it then be granted that the five-people mentioned in the Madhyandina-text are breath, &c. since that text mentions food also (and so makes up the number five).  But how shall we interpret the Ka/n/va-text which does not mention food (and thus altogether speaks of four things only)?—­To this question the next Sutra replies.

13.  In the case of (the text of) some (the Ka/n/vas) where food is not mentioned, (the number five is made full) by the light (mentioned in the preceding mantra).

The Ka/n/va-text, although not mentioning food, makes up the full number five, by the light mentioned in the mantra preceding that in which the five-people are spoken of.  That mantra describes the nature of Brahman by saying, ’Him the gods worship as the light of lights.’—­If it be asked how it is accounted for that the light mentioned in both texts equally is in one text to be employed for the explanation of the five-people, and not in the other text; we reply that the reason lies in the difference of the requirements.  As the Madhyandinas meet in one and the same mantra with breath and four other entities enabling them to interpret the term, ‘the five-people,’ they are in no need of the light mentioned in another mantra.  The Ka/n/vas, on the other hand, cannot do without the light.  The case is analogous to that of the Sho/d/a/s/in-cup, which, according to different passages, is either to be offered or not to be offered at the atiratra-sacrifice.

Page 278

We have proved herewith that Scripture offers no basis for the doctrine of the pradhana.  That this doctrine cannot be proved either by Sm/ri/ti or by ratiocination will be shown later on.

14. (Although there is a conflict of the Vedanta-passages with regard to the things created, such as) ether and so on; (there is no such conflict with regard to the Lord) on account of his being represented (in one passage) as described (in other passages), viz. as the cause (of the world).

In the preceding part of the work the right definition of Brahman has been established; it has been shown that all the Vedanta-texts have Brahman for their common topic; and it has been proved that there is no scriptural authority for the doctrine of the pradhana.—­But now a new objection presents itself.

It is not possible—­our opponent says—­to prove either that Brahman is the cause of the origin, &c. of the world, or that all Vedanta-texts refer to Brahman; because we observe that the Vedanta-texts contradict one another.  All the Vedanta-passages which treat of the creation enumerate its successive steps in different order, and so in reality speak of different creations.  In one place it is said that from the Self there sprang the ether (Taitt.  Up.  II, 1); in another place that the creation began with fire (Ch.  Up.  VI, 2, 3); in another place, again, that the Person created breath and from breath faith (Pr.  Up.  VI, 4); in another place, again, that the Self created these worlds, the water (above the heaven), light, the mortal (earth), and the water (below the earth) (Ait.  Ar.  II, 4, 1, 2; 3).  There no order is stated at all.  Somewhere else it is said that the creation originated from the Non-existent.  ’In the beginning this was non-existent; from it was born what exists’ (Taitt.  Up.  II, 7); and, ’In the beginning this was non-existent; it became existent; it grew’ (Ch.  Up.  III, 19, 1).  In another place, again, the doctrine of the Non-existent being the antecedent of the creation is impugned, and the Existent mentioned in its stead.  ’Others say, in the beginning there was that only which is not; but how could it be thus, my dear?  How could that which is be born of that which is not?’ (Ch.  Up.  VI, 2, 1; 2.) And in another place, again, the development of the world is spoken of as having taken place spontaneously, ’Now all this was then undeveloped.  It became developed by form and name’ (B/ri/.  Up.  I, 4, 7).—­As therefore manifold discrepancies are observed, and as no option is possible in the case of an accomplished matter[240], the Vedanta-passages cannot be accepted as authorities for determining the cause of the world, but we must rather accept some other cause of the world resting on the authority of Sm/ri/ti and Reasoning.

Page 279

To this we make the following reply.—­Although the Vedanta-passages may be conflicting with regard to the order of the things created, such as ether and so on, they do not conflict with regard to the creator, ’on account of his being represented as described.’  That means:  such as the creator is described in any one Vedanta-passage, viz. as all-knowing, the Lord of all, the Self of all, without a second, so he is represented in all other Vedanta-passages also.  Let us consider, for instance, the description of Brahman (given in Taitt.  Up.  II, 1 ff.).  There it is said at first, ‘Truth, knowledge, infinite is Brahman.’  Here the word ‘knowledge,’ and so likewise the statement, made later on, that Brahman desired (II, 6), intimate that Brahman is of the nature of intelligence.  Further, the text declares[241] that the cause of the world is the general Lord, by representing it as not dependent on anything else.  It further applies to the cause of the world the term ‘Self’ (II, 1), and it represents it as abiding within the series of sheaths beginning with the gross body; whereby it affirms it to be the internal Self within all beings.  Again—­in the passage, ’May I be many, may I grow forth’—­it tells how the Self became many, and thereby declares that the creator is non-different from the created effects.  And—­in the passage, ’He created all this whatever there is’—­it represents the creator as the Cause of the entire world, and thereby declares him to have been without a second previously to the creation.  The same characteristics which in the above passages are predicated of Brahman, viewed as the Cause of the world, we find to be predicated of it in other passages also, so, for instance, ’Being only, my dear, was this in the beginning, one only, without a second.  It thought, may I be many, may I grow forth.  It sent forth fire’ (Ch.  Up.  VI, 2, 1; 3), and ’In the beginning all this was Self, one only; there was nothing else blinking whatsoever.  He thought, shall I send forth worlds?’ (Ait.  Ar.  II, 4, 1, 1; 2.) The Vedanta-passages which are concerned with setting forth the cause of the world are thus in harmony throughout.—­On the other hand, there are found conflicting statements concerning the world, the creation being in some places said to begin with ether, in other places with fire, and so on.  But, in the first place, it cannot be said that the conflict of statements concerning the world affects the statements concerning the cause, i.e.  Brahman, in which all the Vedanta-texts are seen to agree—­for that would be an altogether unfounded generalization;—­and, in the second place, the teacher will reconcile later on (II, 3) those conflicting passages also which refer to the world.  And, to consider the matter more thoroughly, a conflict of statements regarding the world would not even matter greatly, since the creation of the world and similar topics are not at all what Scripture wishes to teach.  For we neither observe

Page 280

It remains to dispose of the assertion that passages such as ’Non-being this was in the beginning’ contain conflicting statements about the nature of the cause.  This is done in the next Sutra.

15.  On account of the connexion (with passages treating of Brahman, the passages speaking of the Non-being do not intimate absolute Non-existence).

The passage ‘Non-being indeed was this in the beginning’ (Taitt.  Up.  II, 7) does not declare that the cause of the world is the absolutely Non-existent which is devoid of all Selfhood.  For in the preceding sections of the Upanishad Brahman is distinctly denied to be the Non-existing, and is defined to be that which is (’He who knows the Brahman as non-existing becomes himself non-existing.  He who knows the Brahman as existing him we know himself as existing’); it is further, by means of the series of sheaths, viz. the sheath of food, &c., represented as the inner Self of everything.  This same Brahman is again referred to in the clause, ‘He wished, may I be many;’ is declared to have originated the entire creation; and is finally referred to in the clause, ‘Therefore the wise call it the true.’  Thereupon the text goes on to say, with reference to what has all along been the

Page 281

Page 282

16. (He whose work is this is Brahman), because (the ‘work’) denotes the world.

In the Kaushitaki-brahma/n/a, in the dialogue of Balaki and Ajata/s/atru, we read, ’O Balaki, he who is the maker of those persons, he of whom this is the work, he alone is to be known’ (Kau.  Up.  IV, 19).  The question here arises whether what is here inculcated as the object of knowledge is the individual soul or the chief vital air or the highest Self.

The purvapakshin maintains that the vital air is meant.  For, in the first place, he says, the clause ‘of whom this is the work’ points to the activity of motion, and that activity rests on the vital air.  In the second place, we meet with the word ‘pra/n/a’ in a complementary passage (’Then he becomes one with that pra/n/a alone’), and that word is well known to denote the vital air.  In the third place, pra/n/a is the maker of all the persons, the person in the sun, the person in the moon, &c., who in the preceding part of the dialogue had been enumerated by Balaki; for that the sun and the other divinities are mere differentiations of pra/n/a we know from another scriptural passage, viz.  ’Who is that one god (in whom all the other gods are contained)?  Pra/n/a and he is Brahman, and they call him That’ (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 9, 9).—­Or else, the purvapakshin continues, the passage under discussion represents the individual soul as the object of knowledge.  For of the soul also it can be said that ‘this is the work,’ if we understand by ‘this’ all meritorious and non-meritorious actions; and the soul also, in so far as it is the enjoyer, can be viewed as the maker of the persons enumerated in so far as they are instrumental to the soul’s fruition.  The complementary passage, moreover, contains an inferential mark of the individual soul.  For Ajata/s/atru, in order to instruct Balaki about the ‘maker of the persons’ who had been proposed as the object of knowledge, calls a sleeping man by various names and convinces Balaki, by the circumstance that the sleeper does not hear his shouts, that the pra/n/a and so on are not the enjoyers; he thereupon wakes the sleeping man by pushing him with his stick, and so makes Balaki comprehend that the being capable of fruition is the individual soul which is distinct

Page 283

To this we make the following reply.—­The Lord only can be the maker of the persons enumerated, on account of the force of the introductory part of the section.  Balaki begins his colloquy with Ajata/s/atru with the offer, ‘Shall I tell you Brahman?’ Thereupon he enumerates some individual souls residing in the sun, the moon, and so on, which participate in the sight of the secondary Brahman, and in the end becomes silent.  Ajata/s/atru then sets aside Balaki’s doctrine as not referring to the chief Brahman—­with the words, ’Vainly did you challenge me, saying, Shall I tell you Brahman,’ &c.—­and proposes the maker of all those individual souls as a new object of knowledge.  If now that maker also were merely a soul participating in the sight of the secondary Brahman, the introductory statement which speaks of Brahman would be futile.  Hence it follows that the highest Lord himself is meant.—­None, moreover, but the highest Lord is capable of being the maker of all those persons as he only is absolutely independent.—­Further, the clause ‘of whom this is the work’ does not refer either to the activity of motion nor to meritorious and non-meritorious actions; for neither of those two is the topic of discussion or has been mentioned previously.  Nor can the term ‘work’ denote the enumerated persons, since the latter are mentioned separately—­in the clause, ’He who is the maker of those persons’—­and as inferential marks (viz. the neuter gender and the singular number of the word karman, work) contradict that assumption.  Nor, again, can the term ‘work’ denote either the activity whose object the persons are, or the result of that activity, since those two are already implied in the mention of the agent (in the clause, ’He who is the maker’).  Thus there remains no other alternative than to take the pronoun ‘this’ (in ’He of whom this is the work’) as denoting the perceptible world and to understand the same world—­as that which is made—­by the term ’work.’—­We may indeed admit that the world also is not the previous topic of discussion and has not been mentioned before; still, as no specification is mentioned, we conclude that the term ‘work’ has to be understood in a general sense, and thus denotes what first presents itself to the mind, viz. everything which exists in general.  It is, moreover, not true that the world is not the previous topic of discussion; we

Page 284

17.  If it be said that this is not so, on account of the inferential marks of the individual soul and the chief vital air; we reply that that has already been explained.

It remains for us to refute the objection that on account of the inferential marks of the individual soul and the chief vital air, which are met with in the complementary passage, either the one or the other must be meant in the passage under discussion, and not the highest Lord.—­We therefore remark that that objection has already been disposed of under I, 1, 31.  There it was shown that from an interpretation similar to the one here proposed by the purvapakshin there would result a threefold meditation one having Brahman for its object, a second one directed on the individual soul, and a third one connected with the chief vital air.  Now the same result would present itself in our case, and that would be unacceptable as we must infer from the introductory as well as the concluding clauses, that the passage under discussion refers to Brahman.  With reference to the introductory clause this has been already proved; that the concluding passage also refers to Brahman, we infer from the fact of there being stated in it a pre-eminently high reward, ’Warding off all evil he who knows this obtains pre-eminence among all beings, sovereignty, supremacy.’—­But if this is so, the sense of the passage under discussion is already settled by the discussion of the passage about Pratarda/n/a (I, 1, 31); why, then, the present Sutra?—­No, we reply; the sense of our passage is not yet settled, since under I, 1, 31 it has not been proved that the clause, ’Or he whose work is this,’ refers to Brahman.  Hence there arises again, in connexion with the present passage, a doubt whether the individual soul and the chief vital air may not be meant, and that doubt has again to be refuted.—­The word pra/n/a occurs, moreover, in the sense of Brahman, so in the passage, ‘The mind settles down on pra/n/a’ (Ch.  Up.  VI, 8, 2).—­The inferential marks of the individual soul also have, on account of the introductory and concluding clauses referring to Brahman, to be explained so as not to give rise to any discrepancy.

Page 285

18.  But Jaimini thinks that (the reference to the individual soul) has another purport, on account of the question and answer; and thus some also (read in their text).

Whether the passage under discussion is concerned with the individual soul or with Brahman, is, in the opinion of the teacher Jaimini, no matter for dispute, since the reference to the individual soul has a different purport, i.e. aims at intimating Brahman.  He founds this his opinion on a question and a reply met with in the text.  After Ajata/s/atru has taught Balaki, by waking the sleeping man, that the soul is different from the vital air, he asks the following question, ’Balaki, where did this person here sleep?  Where was he?  Whence came he thus back?’ This question clearly refers to something different from the individual soul.  And so likewise does the reply, ’When sleeping he sees no dream, then he becomes one with that pra/n/a alone;’ and, ’From that Self all pra/n/as proceed, each towards its place, from the pra/n/as the gods, from the gods the worlds.’—­Now it is the general Vedanta doctrine that at the time of deep sleep the soul becomes one with the highest Brahman, and that from the highest Brahman the whole world proceeds, inclusive of pra/n/a, and so on.  When Scripture therefore represents as the object of knowledge that in which there takes place the deep sleep of the soul, characterised by absence of consciousness and utter tranquillity, i.e. a state devoid of all those specific cognitions which are produced by the limiting adjuncts of the soul, and from which the soul returns when the sleep is broken; we understand that the highest Self is meant.—­Moreover, the Vajasaneyi/s/akha, which likewise contains the colloquy of Balaki and Ajata/s/atru, clearly refers to the individual soul by means of the term, ’the person consisting of cognition’ (vij/n/anamaya), and distinguishes from it the highest Self (’Where was then the person consisting of cognition? and from whence did he thus come back?’ B/ri/.  Up.  II, 1, 16); and later on, in the reply to the above question, declares that ’the person consisting of cognition lies in the ether within the heart.’  Now we know that the word ‘ether’ may be used to denote the highest Self, as, for instance, in the passage about the small ether within the lotus of the heart (Ch.  Up.  VIII, 1, 1).  Further on the B/ri/.  Up. says, ’All the Selfs came forth from that Self;’ by which statement of the coming forth of all the conditioned Selfs it intimates that the highest Self is the one general cause.—­The doctrine conveyed by the rousing of the sleeping person, viz. that the individual soul is different from the vital air, furnishes at the same time a further argument against the opinion that the passage under discussion refers to the vital air.

19. (The Self to be seen, to be heard, &c. is the highest Self) on account of the connected meaning of the sentences.

Page 286

We read in the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka, in the Maitreyi-brahma/n/a the following passage, ’Verily, a husband is not dear that you may love the husband, &c. &c.; verily, everything is not dear that you may love everything; but that you may love the Self therefore everything is dear.  Verily, the Self is to be seen, to be heard, to be perceived, to be marked, O Maitreyi!  When the Self has been seen, heard, perceived, and known, then all this is known’ (B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 5, 6).—­Here the doubt arises whether that which is represented as the object to be seen, to be heard, and so on, is the cognitional Self (the individual soul) or the highest Self.—­But whence the doubt?—­Because, we reply, the Self is, on the one hand, by the mention of dear things such as husband and so on, indicated as the enjoyer whence it appears that the passage refers to the individual soul; and because, on the other hand, the declaration that through the knowledge of the Self everything becomes known points to the highest Self.

The purvapakshin maintains that the passage refers to the individual soul, on account of the strength of the initial statement.  The text declares at the outset that all the objects of enjoyment found in this world, such as husband, wife, riches, and so on, are dear on account of the Self, and thereby gives us to understand that the enjoying (i.e. the individual) Self is meant; if thereupon it refers to the Self as the object of sight and so on, what other Self should it mean than the same individual Self?—­A subsequent passage also (viz.  ’Thus does this great Being, endless, unlimited, consisting of nothing but knowledge, rise from out of these elements, and vanish again after them.  When he has departed there is no more knowledge’), which describes how the great Being under discussion rises, as the Self of knowledge, from the elements, shows that the object of sight is no other than the cognitional Self, i.e. the individual soul.  The concluding clause finally, ‘How, O beloved, should he know the knower?’ shows, by means of the term ‘knower,’ which denotes an agent, that the individual soul is meant.  The declaration that through the cognition of the Self everything becomes known must therefore not be interpreted in the literal sense, but must be taken to mean that the world of objects of enjoyment is known through its relation to the enjoying soul.

To this we make the following reply.—­The passage makes a statement about the highest Self, on account of the connected meaning of the entire section.  If we consider the different passages in their mutual connexion, we find that they all refer to the highest Self.  After Maitreyi has heard from Yaj/n/avalkya that there is no hope of immortality by wealth, she expresses her desire of immortality in the words, ’What should I do with that by which I do not become immortal?  What my Lord knoweth tell that to me;’ and thereupon Yaj/n/avalkya expounds to her the knowledge of the Self.  Now

Page 287

We now turn to the remark made by the purvapakshin that the passage teaches the individual soul to be the object of sight, because it is, in the early part of the chapter denoted as something dear.

20. (The circumstance of the soul being represented as the object of sight) indicates the fulfilment of the promissory statement; so A/s/marathya thinks.

The fact that the text proclaims as the object of sight that Self which is denoted as something, dear indicates the fulfilment of the promise made in the passages, ‘When the Self is known all this is known,’ ’All this is that Self.’  For if the individual soul were different from the highest Self, the knowledge of the latter would not imply the knowledge of the former, and thus the promise that through the knowledge of one thing everything is to be known would not be fulfilled.  Hence the initial statement aims at representing the individual Self and the highest Self as non-different for the purpose of fulfilling the promise made.—­This is the opinion of the teacher A/s/marathya[243].

21. (The initial statement identifies the individual soul and the highest Self) because the soul when it will depart (from the body) is such (i.e. one with the highest Self); thus Au/d/ulomi thinks.

Page 288

The individual soul which is inquinated by the contact with its different limiting adjuncts, viz. body, senses, and mind (mano-buddhi), attains through the instrumentality of knowledge, meditation, and so on, a state of complete serenity, and thus enables itself, when passing at some future time out of the body, to become one with the highest Self; hence the initial statement in which it is represented as non-different from the highest Self.  This is the opinion of the teacher Au/d/ulomi.—­Thus Scripture says, ’That serene being arising from this body appears in its own form as soon as it has approached the highest light’ (Ch.  Up.  VIII, 12, 3).—­In another place Scripture intimates, by means of the simile of the rivers, that name and form abide in the individual soul, ’As the flowing rivers disappear in the sea, having lost their name and their form, thus a wise man freed from name and form goes to the divine Person who is greater than the great’ (Mu.  Up.  III, 2, 8).  I.e. as the rivers losing the names and forms abiding in them disappear in the sea, so the individual soul also losing the name and form abiding in it becomes united with the highest person.  That the latter half of the passage has the meaning here assigned to it, follows from the parallelism which we must assume to exist between the two members of the comparison[244].

22. (The initial statement is made) because (the highest Self) exists in the condition (of the individual soul); so Ka/s/ak/ri/tsna thinks.

Because the highest Self exists also in the condition of the individual soul, therefore, the teacher Ka/s/ak/ri/tsna thinks, the initial statement which aims at intimating the non-difference of the two is possible.  That the highest Self only is that which appears as the individual soul, is evident from the Brahma/n/a-passage, ’Let me enter into them with this living Self and evolve names and forms,’ and similar passages.  We have also mantras to the same effect, for instance, ’The wise one who, having produced all forms and made all names, sits calling the things by their names’ (Taitt.  Ar.  III, 12, 7)[245].  And where Scripture relates the creation of fire and the other elements, it does not at the same time relate a separate creation of the individual soul; we have therefore no right to look on the soul as a product of the highest Self, different from the latter.—­In the opinion of the teacher Ka/s/ak/ri/tsna the non-modified highest Lord himself is the individual soul, not anything else.  A/s/marathya, although meaning to say that the soul is not (absolutely) different from the highest Self, yet intimates by the expression, ’On account of the fulfilment of the promise’—­which declares a certain mutual dependence—­that there does exist a certain relation of cause and effect between the highest Self and the individual soul[246].  The opinion of Au/d/ulomi again clearly implies that the difference and non-difference of the two depend

Page 289

The last three Sutras have further to be interpreted so as to furnish replies to the second of the purvapakshin’s arguments, viz. that the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka passage represents as the object of sight the individual soul, because it declares that the great Being which is to be seen arises from out of these elements.  ’There is an indication of the fulfilment of the promise; so A/s/marathya thinks.’  The promise is made in the two passages, ‘When the Self is known, all this is known,’ and ‘All this is that Self.’  That the Self is everything, is proved by the declaration that the whole world of names, forms, and works springs from one being, and is merged in one being[248]; and by its being demonstrated, with the help of the similes of the drum, and so on, that effect and cause are non-different.  The fulfilment of the promise is, then, finally indicated by the text declaring that that great Being rises, in the form of the individual soul, from out of these elements; thus the teacher A/s/marathya thinks.  For if the soul and the highest Self are non-different, the promise that through the knowledge of one everything becomes known is capable of fulfilment.—­’Because the soul when it will depart is such; thus Au/d/ulomi thinks.’  The statement as to the non-difference of the soul and the Self (implied in the declaration that the great Being rises, &c.) is possible, because the soul when—­after having purified itself by knowledge, and so on—­it will depart from the body, is capable of becoming one with the highest Self.  This is Au/d/ulomi’s opinion.—­’Because it exists in the condition of the soul; thus Ka/s/ak/ri/tsna opines.’  Because the highest Self itself is that which appears as the individual soul, the statement as to the non-difference of the two is well-founded.  This is the view of the teacher Ka/s/ak/ri/tsna.

Page 290

But, an objection may be raised, the passage, ’Rising from out of these elements he vanishes again after them.  When he has departed there is no more knowledge,’ intimates the final destruction of the soul, not its identity with the highest Self!—­By no means, we reply.  The passage means to say only that on the soul departing from the body all specific cognition vanishes, not that the Self is destroyed.  For an objection being raised—­in the passage, ’Here thou hast bewildered me, Sir, when thou sayest that having departed there is no more knowledge’.  Scripture itself explains that what is meant is not the annihilation of the Self, ’I say nothing that is bewildering.  Verily, beloved, that Self is imperishable, and of an indestructible nature.  But there takes place non-connexion with the matras.’  That means:  The eternally unchanging Self, which is one mass of knowledge, cannot possibly perish; but by means of true knowledge there is effected its dissociation from the matras, i.e. the elements and the sense organs, which are the product of Nescience.  When the connexion has been solved, specific cognition, which depended on it, no longer takes place, and thus it can be said, that ‘When he has departed there is no more knowledge.’

The third argument also of the purvapakshin, viz. that the word ’knower’—­which occurs in the concluding passage, ’How should he know the knower?’—­denotes an agent, and therefore refers to the individual soul as the object of sight, is to be refuted according to the view of Ka/s/ak/ri/tsna.—­Moreover, the text after having enumerated—­in the passage, ’For where there is duality as it were, there one sees the other,’ &c.—­all the kinds of specific cognition which belong to the sphere of Nescience declares—­in the subsequent passage, ’But when the Self only is all this, how should he see another?’—­that in the sphere of true knowledge all specific cognition such as seeing, and so on, is absent.  And, again, in order to obviate the doubt whether in the absence of objects the knower might not know himself, Yaj/n/avalkya goes on, ‘How, O beloved, should he know himself, the knower?’ As thus the latter passage evidently aims at proving the absence of specific cognition, we have to conclude that the word ‘knower’ is here used to denote that being which is knowledge, i.e. the Self.—­That the view of Ka/s/ak/ri/tsna is scriptural, we have already shown above.  And as it is so, all the adherents of the Vedanta must admit that the difference of the soul and the highest Self is not real, but due to the limiting adjuncts, viz. the body, and so on, which are the product of name and form as presented by Nescience.  That view receives ample confirmation from Scripture; compare, for instance, ’Being only, my dear, this was in the beginning, one, without a second’ (Ch.  Up.  VI, 2, 1); ’The Self is all this’ (Ch.  Up.  VII, 25, 2); ‘Brahman alone is all this’ (Mu.  Up.  II, 2, 11); ‘This everything is that Self’ (B/ri/. 

Page 291

As therefore the individual soul and the highest Self differ in name only, it being a settled matter that perfect knowledge has for its object the absolute oneness of the two; it is senseless to insist (as some do) on a plurality of Selfs, and to maintain that the individual soul is different from the highest Self, and the highest Self from the individual soul.  For the Self is indeed called by many different names, but it is one only.  Nor does the passage, ’He who knows Brahman which is real, knowledge, infinite, as hidden in the cave’ (Taitt.  Up.  II, 1), refer to some one cave (different from the abode of the individual soul)[249].  And that nobody else but Brahman is hidden in the cave we know from a subsequent passage, viz.  ’Having sent forth he entered into it’ (Taitt.  Up.  II, 6), according to which the creator only entered into the created beings.—­Those who insist on the distinction of the individual and the highest Self oppose themselves to the true sense of the Vedanta-texts, stand thereby in the way of perfect knowledge, which is the door to perfect beatitude, and groundlessly assume release to be something effected, and therefore non-eternal[250]. (And if they attempt to show that moksha, although effected, is eternal) they involve themselves in a conflict with sound logic.

23. (Brahman is) the material cause also, on account of (this view) not being in conflict with the promissory statements and the illustrative instances.

Page 292

It has been said that, as practical religious duty has to be enquired into because it is the cause of an increase of happiness, so Brahman has to be enquired into because it is the cause of absolute beatitude.  And Brahman has been defined as that from which there proceed the origination, sustentation, and retractation of this world.  Now as this definition comprises alike the relation of substantial causality in which clay and gold, for instance, stand to golden ornaments and earthen pots, and the relation of operative causality in which the potter and the goldsmith stand to the things mentioned; a doubt arises to which of these two kinds the causality of Brahman belongs.

The purvapakshin maintains that Brahman evidently is the operative cause of the world only, because Scripture declares his creative energy to be preceded by reflection.  Compare, for instance, Pra.  Up.  VI, 3; 4:  ’He reflected, he created pra/n/a.’  For observation shows that the action of operative causes only, such as potters and the like, is preceded by reflection, and moreover that the result of some activity is brought about by the concurrence of several factors[251].  It is therefore appropriate that we should view the prime creator in the same light.  The circumstance of his being known as ‘the Lord’ furnishes another argument.  For lords such as kings and the son of Vivasvat are known only as operative causes, and the highest Lord also must on that account be viewed as an operative cause only.—­Further, the effect of the creator’s activity, viz. this world, is seen to consist of parts, to be non-intelligent and impure; we therefore must assume that its cause also is of the same nature; for it is a matter of general observation that cause and effect are alike in kind.  But that Brahman does not resemble the world in nature, we know from many scriptural passages, such as ’It is without parts, without actions, tranquil, without fault, without taint’ (Sve.  Up.  VI, 19).  Hence there remains no other alternative but to admit that in addition to Brahman there exists a material cause of the world of impure nature, such as is known from Sm/ri/ti[252], and to limit the causality of Brahman, as declared by Scripture, to operative causality.

To this we make the following reply.—­Brahman is to be acknowledged as the material cause as well as the operative cause; because this latter view does not conflict with the promissory statements and the illustrative instances.  The promissory statement chiefly meant is the following one, ’Have you ever asked for that instruction by which that which is not heard becomes heard; that which is not perceived, perceived; that which is not known, known?’ (Ch.  Up.  VI, 1, 3.) This passage intimates that through the cognition of one thing everything else, even if (previously) unknown, becomes known.  Now the knowledge of everything is possible through the cognition of the material cause, since the effect is non-different

Page 293

24.  And on account of the statement of reflection (on the part of the Self).

Page 294

The fact of the sacred texts declaring that the Self reflected likewise shows that it is the operative as well as the material cause.  Passages like ‘He wished, may I be many, may I grow forth,’ and ’He thought, may I be many, may I grow forth,’ show, in the first place, that the Self is the agent in the independent activity which is preceded by the Self’s reflection; and, in the second place, that it is the material cause also, since the words ‘May I be many’ intimate that the reflective desire of multiplying itself has the inward Self for its object.

25.  And on account of both (i.e. the origin and the dissolution of the world) being directly declared (to have Brahman for their material cause).

This Sutra supplies a further argument for Brahman’s being the general material cause.—­Brahman is the material cause of the world for that reason also that the origination as well as the dissolution of the world is directly spoken of in the sacred texts as having Brahman for their material cause, ’All these beings take their rise from the ether and return into the ether’ (Ch.  Up.  I, 9, 1).  That that from which some other thing springs and into which it returns is the material cause of that other thing is well known.  Thus the earth, for instance, is the material cause of rice, barley, and the like.—­The word ‘directly’ (in the Sutra) notifies that there is no other material cause, but that all this sprang from the ether only.—­Observation further teaches that effects are not re-absorbed into anything else but their material causes.

26. (Brahman is the material cause) on account of (the Self) making itself; (which is possible) owing to modification.

Brahman is the material cause for that reason also that Scripture—­in the passage, ‘That made itself its Self’ (Taitt.  Up.  II, 7)—­represents the Self as the object of action as well as the agent.—­But how can the Self which as agent was in full existence previously to the action be made out to be at the same time that which is effected by the action?—­Owing to modification, we reply.  The Self, although in full existence previously to the action, modifies itself into something special, viz. the Self of the effect.  Thus we see that causal substances, such as clay and the like, are, by undergoing the process of modification, changed into their products.—­The word ‘itself’ in the passage quoted intimates the absence of any other operative cause but the Self.

The word ‘pari/n/amat’ (in the Sutra) may also be taken as constituting a separate Sutra by itself, the sense of which would be:  Brahman is the material cause of the world for that reason also, that the sacred text speaks of Brahman and its modification into the Self of its effect as co-ordinated, viz. in the passage, ’It became sat and tyat, defined and undefined’ (Taitt.  Up.  II, 6).

27.  And because Brahman is called the source.

Page 295

Brahman is the material cause for that reason also that it is spoken of in the sacred texts as the source (yoni); compare, for instance, ’The maker, the Lord, the person who has his source in Brahman’ (Mu.  Up.  III, 1, 3); and ‘That which the wise regard as the source of all beings’ (Mu.  Up.  I, 1, 6).  For that the word ‘source’ denotes the material cause is well known from the use of ordinary language; the earth, for instance, is called the yoni of trees and herbs.  In some places indeed the word yoni means not source, but merely place; so, for instance, in the mantra, ‘A yoni, O Indra, was made for you to sit down upon’ (Rik.  Sa/m/h.  I, 104, 1).  But that in the passage quoted it means ‘source’ follows from a complementary passage, ’As the spider sends forth and draws in its threads,’ &c.—­It is thus proved that Brahman is the material cause of the world.—­Of the objection, finally, that in ordinary life the activity of operative causal agents only, such as potters and the like, is preceded by reflection, we dispose by the remark that, as the matter in hand is not one which can be known through inferential reasoning, ordinary experience cannot be used to settle it.  For the knowledge of that matter we rather depend on Scripture altogether, and hence Scripture only has to be appealed to.  And that Scripture teaches that the Lord who reflects before creation is at the same time the material cause, we have already explained.  The subject will, moreover, be discussed more fully later on.

28.  Hereby all (the doctrines concerning the origin of the world which are opposed to the Vedanta) are explained, are explained.

The doctrine according to which the pradhana is the cause of the world has, in the Sutras beginning with I, 1, 5, been again and again brought forward and refuted.  The chief reason for the special attention given to that doctrine is that the Vedanta-texts contain some passages which, to people deficient in mental penetration, may appear to contain inferential marks pointing to it.  The doctrine, moreover, stands somewhat near to the Vedanta doctrine since, like the latter, it admits the non-difference of cause and effect, and it, moreover, has been accepted by some of the authors of the Dharma-sutras, such as Devala, and so on.  For all these reasons we have taken special trouble to refute the pradhana doctrine, without paying much attention to the atomic and other theories.  These latter theories, however, must likewise be refuted, as they also are opposed to the doctrine of Brahman being the general cause, and as slow-minded people might think that they also are referred to in some Vedic passages.  Hence the Sutrakara formally extends, in the above Sutra, the refutation already accomplished of the pradhana doctrine to all similar doctrines which need not be demolished in detail after their great protagonist, the pradhana doctrine, has been so completely disposed of.  They also are, firstly, not founded on any scriptural authority; and are, secondly, directly contradicted by various Vedic passages.—­The repetition of the phrase ‘are explained’ is meant to intimate that the end of the adhyaya has been reached.

Page 296

Notes: 

[Footnote 228:  The Great one is the technical Sa@nkhya-term for buddhi, avyakta is a common designation of pradhana or prak/ri/ti, and purusha is the technical name of the soul.  Compare, for instance, Sa@nkhya Kar. 2, 3.]

[Footnote 229:  Sa/m/kalpavikalparupamanana/s/aktya haira/n/yagarbhi buddhir manas tasya/h/ vyash/t/imana/h/su samash/t/itaya vyaptim aha mahan iti.  Sa/m/kalpadi/s/ktitaya tarhi sa/m/dehatmatva/m/ tatraha matir iti.  Mahatvam upapadayati brahmeti.  Bhogyajatadharatvam aha pur iti.  Ni/sk/ayatmakatvam aha buddhir iti.  Kirti/s/aktimattvam aha khyatir iti.  Niyamana/s/aktimatvam aha i/s/vara iti.  Loke yat prak/ri/sh/t/a/m/ j/n/anam tatosnatirekam aha praj/n/eti.  Tatphalam api tato narthantaravishayam ity aha sa/m/vid iti. Kitpradhanatvam aha kitir iti.  J/n/atasarvartbanusa/m/dhana/s/aktim aha sm/ri/tis keti.  Ananda Giri.]

[Footnote 230:  Nanu na bija/s/aktir vidyaya dahyate vastutvad atmavan nety aha avidyeti.  Ke/k/it tu pratijivam avidya/s/aktibhedam i/kkh/anti tan na avyaktavyak/ri/tadi/s/abdayas tasya bhedakabhavad ekatvexpi sva/s/aktya vi/k/itrakaryakaratvad ity aha avyakteti.  Na ka tasya jiva/s/rayatva/m/ jiva/s/abdava/k/yasya kalpitatvad avidyarupatvat ta/kkh/abdalakshyasya brahmavyatirekad ity aha parame/s/vareti.  Mayavidyayor bhedad i/s/varasya maya/s/rayatva/m/ jivanam avidya/s/rayateti vadanta/m/ pratyaha mayamayiti.  Yatha mayavino maya paratantra tathaishapity artha/h/.  Pratitau tasya/s/ ketanapeksham aha mahasuptir iti.  Ananda Giri.]

[Footnote 231:  Sutradvayasya v/ri/ttik/ri/dvyakhyanam utthapayati.  Go.  An.  A/k/aryade/s/iyamatam utthapayati.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 232:  The commentators give different explanations of the Sattamatra of the text.—­Sattamatre sattvapradhanaprak/ri/ter adyapari/n/ame.  Go.  An.—­Bhogapavargapurusharthasya maha/kkh/abditabuddhikaryatvat purushapekshitaphalakara/n/a/m/ sad u/k/yate tatra bhavapratyayos’pi svarupartho na samanyava/k/i karyanumeya/m/ mahan na pratyaksham iti matra/s/abda/h/.  Ananda Giri.]

[Footnote 233:  As the meaning of the word aja is going to be discussed, and as the author of the Sutras and Sa@nkara seem to disagree as to its meaning (see later on), I prefer to leave the word untranslated in this place.—­Sa@nkara reads—­and explains,—­in the mantra, sarupa/h/ (not sarupam) and bhuktabhogam, not bhuktabhogyam.]

[Footnote 234:  Here there seems to be a certain discrepancy between the views of the Sutra writer and Sa@nkara.  Govindananda notes that according to the Bhashyak/ri/t aja means simply maya—­which interpretation is based on prakara/n/a—­while, according to the Sutra-k/ri/t, who explains aja on the ground of the Chandogya-passage treating of the three primary elements, aja denotes the aggregate of those three elements constituting an avantaraprak/ri/ti.—­On Sa@nkara’s explanation the term aja presents no difficulties, for maya is aja, i.e. unborn, not produced.  On the explanation of the Sutra writer, however, aja cannot mean unborn, since the three primary elements are products.  Hence we are thrown back on the ru/dh/i signification of aja, according to which it means she-goat.  But how can the avantara-prak/ri/ti be called a she-goat?  To this question the next Sutra replies.]

Page 297

[Footnote 235:  Indication (laksha/n/a, which consists in this case in five times five being used instead of twenty-five) is considered as an objectionable mode of expression, and therefore to be assumed in interpretation only where a term can in no way be shown to have a direct meaning.]

[Footnote 236:  That pa/nk/ajana/h/ is only one word appears from its having only one accent, viz. the udatta on the last syllable, which udatta becomes anudatta according to the rules laid down in the Bhashika Sutra for the accentuation of the Satapatha-brahma/n/a.]

[Footnote 237:  So in the Madhyandina recension of the Upanishad; the Ka/n/va recension has not the clause ‘the food of food.’]

[Footnote 238:  This in answer to the Sankhya who objects to jana when applied to the prana, &c. being interpreted with the help of laksha/n/a; while if referred to the pradhana, &c. it may be explained to have a direct meaning, on the ground of yaugika interpretation (the pradhana being jana because it produces, the mahat &c. being jana because they are produced).  The Vedantin points out that the compound pa/nk/ajana/h/ has its own ru/dh/i-meaning, just as a/s/vakar/n/a, literally horse-ear, which conventionally denotes a certain plant.]

[Footnote 239:  We infer that udbhid is the name of a sacrifice because it is mentioned in connexion with the act of sacrificing; we infer that the yupa is a wooden post because it is said to be cut, and so on.]

[Footnote 240:  Option being possible only in the case of things to be accomplished, i.e. actions.]

[Footnote 241:  According to Go.  An. in the passage, ’That made itself its Self’ (II, 7); according to An.  Giri in the passage, ’He created all’ (II, 6).]

[Footnote 242:  By the Brahma/n/as being meant all those Brahma/n/as who are not at the same time wandering mendicants.]

[Footnote 243:  The comment of the Bhamati on the Sutra runs as follows:  As the sparks issuing from a fire are not absolutely different from the fire, because they participate in the nature of the fire; and, on the other hand, are not absolutely non-different from the fire, because in that case they could be distinguished neither from the fire nor from each other; so the individual souls also—­which are effects of Brahman—­are neither absolutely different from Brahman, for that would mean that they are not of the nature of intelligence; nor absolutely non-different from Brahman, because in that case they could not be distinguished from each other, and because, if they were identical with Brahman and therefore omniscient, it would be useless to give them any instruction.  Hence the individual souls are somehow different from Brahman and somehow non-different.—­The technical name of the doctrine here represented by A/s/marathya is bhedabhedavada.]

Page 298

[Footnote 244:  Bhamati:  The individual soul is absolutely different from the highest Self; it is inquinated by the contact with its different limiting adjuncts.  But it is spoken of, in the Upanishad, as non-different from the highest Self because after having purified itself by means of knowledge and meditation it may pass out of the body and become one with the highest Self.  The text of the Upanishad thus transfers a future state of non-difference to that time when difference actually exists.  Compare the saying of the Pa/nk/aratrikas:  ’Up to the moment of emancipation being reached the soul and the highest Self are different.  But the emancipated soul is no longer different from the highest Self, since there is no further cause of difference.’—­The technical name of the doctrine advocated by Au/d/ulomi is satyabhedavada.]

[Footnote 245:  Compare the note to the same mantra as quoted above under I, 1, 11.]

[Footnote 246:  And not the relation of absolute identity.]

[Footnote 247:  I.e. upon the state of emancipation and its absence.]

[Footnote 248:  Upapadita/m/ keti, sarvasyatmamatratvam iti sesha/h/.  Upapadanaprakara/m/ su/k/ayati eketi.  Sa yathardrendhanagner ityadinaikaprasavatvam, yatha sarvasam apam ityadina kaikapralayatva/m/ sarvasyoktam.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 249:  So according to Go.  An. and An.  Gi., although their interpretations seem not to account sufficiently for the ekam of the text.—­Ka/mk/id evaikam iti jivasthanad anyam ity artha/h/.  Go.  An.—­Jivabhavena pratibimbadharatiriktam ity artha/h/.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 250:  While release, as often remarked, is eternal, it being in fact not different from the eternally unchanging Brahman.]

[Footnote 251:  I.e. that the operative cause and the substantial cause are separate things.]

[Footnote 252:  Viz. the Sa@nkhya-sm/ri/ti.]

SECOND ADHYAYA.

FIRST PADA.

REVERENCE TO THE HIGHEST SELF!

1.  If it be objected that (from the doctrine expounded hitherto) there would result the fault of there being no room for (certain) Sm/ri/tis; we do not admit that objection, because (from the rejection of our doctrine) there would result the fault of want of room for other Sm/ri/tis.

It has been shown in the first adhyaya that the omniscient Lord of all is the cause of the origin of this world in the same way as clay is the material cause of jars and gold of golden ornaments; that by his rulership he is the cause of the subsistence of this world once originated, just as the magician is the cause of the subsistence of the magical illusion; and that he, lastly, is the cause of this emitted world being finally reabsorbed into his essence, just as the four classes of creatures are reabsorbed into the earth.  It has further been proved, by a demonstration of the

Page 299

Your doctrine (the purvapakshin says) that the omniscient Brahman only is the cause of this world cannot be maintained, ’because there results from it the fault of there being no room for (certain) Sm/ri/tis.’  Such Sm/ri/tis are the one called Tantra which was composed by a rishi and is accepted by authoritative persons, and other Sm/ri/tis based on it[253]; for all of which there would be no room if your interpretation of the Veda were the true one.  For they all teach that the non-intelligent pradhana is the independent cause of the world.  There is indeed room (a raison d’etre) for Sm/ri/tis like the Manu-sm/ri/ti, which give information about matters connected with the whole body of religious duty, characterised by injunction[254] and comprising the agnihotra and similar performances.  They tell us at what time and with what rites the members of the different castes are to be initiated; how the Veda has to be studied; in what way the cessation of study has to take place; how marriage has to be performed, and so on.  They further lay down the manifold religious duties, beneficial to man, of the four castes and a/s/ramas[255].  The Kapila Sm/ri/ti, on the other hand, and similar books are not concerned with things to be done, but were composed with exclusive reference to perfect knowledge as the means of final release.  If then no room were left for them in that connexion also, they would be altogether purposeless; and hence we must explain the Vedanta-texts in such a manner as not to bring them into conflict with the Sm/ri/tis mentioned[256].—­But how, somebody may ask the purvapakshin, can the eventual fault of there being left no room for certain Sm/ri/tis be used as an objection against that sense of Sruti which—­from various reasons as detailed under I, 1 and ff.—­has been ascertained by us to be the true one, viz. that the omniscient Brahman alone is the cause of the world?—­Our objection, the purvapakshin replies, will perhaps not appear valid to persons of independent thought; but as most men depend in their reasonings on others, and are unable to ascertain by themselves the sense of Sruti, they naturally rely on Sm/ri/tis, composed by celebrated authorities, and try to arrive at the sense of Sruti with their assistance; while, owing to their esteem for

Page 300

This objection we dispose of by the remark, ’It is not so because therefrom would result the fault of want of room for other Sm/ri/tis.’—­If you object to the doctrine of the Lord being the cause of the world on the ground that it would render certain Sm/ri/tis purposeless, you thereby render purposeless other Sm/ri/tis which declare themselves in favour of the said doctrine.  These latter Sm/ri/ti-texts we will quote in what follows.  In one passage the highest Brahman is introduced as the subject of discussion, ’That which is subtle and not to be known;’ the text then goes on, ’That is the internal Self of the creatures, their soul,’ and after that remarks ’From that sprang the Unevolved, consisting of the three gu/n/as, O best of Brahma/n/as.’  And in another place it is said that ’the Unevolved is dissolved in the Person devoid of qualities, O Brahma/n/a.’—­Thus we read also in the Pura/n/a, ’Hear thence this short statement:  The ancient Naraya/n/a is all this; he produces the creation at the due time, and at the time of reabsorption he consumes it again.’  And so in the Bhagavadgita also (VII, 6), ’I am the origin and the place of reabsorption of the whole world.’  And Apastamba too says with reference to the highest Self, ’From him spring all bodies; he is the primary cause, he is eternal, he is unchangeable’ (Dharma Sutra I, 8, 23, 2).  In this way Sm/ri/ti, in many places, declares the Lord to be the efficient as well as the material cause of the world.  As the purvapakshin opposes us on the ground of Sm/ri/ti, we reply to him on the ground of Sm/ri/ti only; hence the line of defence taken up in the Sutra.  Now it has been shown already that the Sruti-texts aim at conveying the doctrine that the Lord is the universal cause, and as wherever different Sm/ri/tis conflict those maintaining one view must be accepted, while those which maintain the opposite view must be set aside, those Sm/ri/tis which follow Sruti are to be considered as authoritative, while all others are to be disregarded; according to the Sutra met with in the chapter treating of the means of proof (Mim.  Sutra I, 3, 3), ’Where there is contradiction (between Sruti and Sm/ri/ti) (Sm/ri/ti) is to be disregarded; in case of there being no (contradiction) (Sm/ri/ti is to be recognised) as there is inference (of Sm/ri/ti being founded on

Page 301

Page 302

Hence the circumstance that the result (of our doctrine) is want of room for certain Sm/ri/tis, with regard to matters contradicted by the Veda, furnishes no valid objection.—­An additional reason for this our opinion is supplied by the following Sutra.

2.  And on account of the non-perception of the others (i.e. the effects of the pradhana, according to the Sa@nkhya system).

The principles different from the pradhana, but to be viewed as its modifications which the (Sa@nkhya) Sm/ri/ti assumes, as, for instance, the great principle, are perceived neither in the Veda nor in ordinary experience.  Now things of the nature of the elements and the sense organs, which are well known from the Veda, as well as from experience, may be referred to in Sm/ri/ti; but with regard to things which, like Kapila’s great principle, are known neither from the Veda nor from experience—­no more than, for instance, the objects of a sixth sense—­Sm/ri/ti is altogether impossible.  That some scriptural passages which apparently refer to such things as the great principle have in reality quite a different meaning has already been shown under I, 4, 1.  But if that part of Sm/ri/ti which is concerned with the effects (i.e. the great principle, and so on) is without authority, the part which refers to the cause (the pradhana) will be so likewise.  This is what the Sutra means to say.—­We have thus established a second reason, proving that the circumstance of there being no room left for certain Sm/ri/tis does not constitute a valid objection to our doctrine.—­The weakness of the trust in reasoning (apparently favouring the Sa@nkhya doctrine) will be shown later on under II, 1, 4 ff.

Page 303

3.  Thereby the Yoga (Sm/ri/ti) is refuted.

This Sutra extends the application of the preceding argumentation, and remarks that by the refutation of the Sa@nkhya-sm/ri/ti the Yoga-sm/ri/ti also is to be considered as refuted; for the latter also assumes, in opposition to Scripture, a pradhana as the independent cause of the world, and the ‘great principle,’ &c. as its effects, although neither the Veda nor common experience favour these views.—­But, if the same reasoning applies to the Yoga also, the latter system is already disposed of by the previous arguments; of what use then is it formally to extend them to the Yoga? (as the Sutra does.)—­We reply that here an additional cause of doubt presents itself, the practice of Yoga being enjoined in the Veda as a means of obtaining perfect knowledge; so, for instance, B/ri/.  Up.  II, 4, 5, ’(The Self) is to be heard, to be thought, to be meditated upon[260].’  In the Sveta/s/vatara Upanishad, moreover, we find various injunctions of Yoga-practice connected with the assumption of different positions of the body; &c.; so, for instance, ‘Holding his body with its three erect parts even,’ &c. (II, 8).

Further, we find very many passages in the Veda which (without expressly enjoining it) point to the Yoga, as, for instance, Ka.  Up.  II, 6, 11, ‘This, the firm holding back of the senses, is what is called Yoga;’ ‘Having received this knowledge and the whole rule of Yoga’ (Ka.  Up.  II, 6, 18); and so on.  And in the Yoga-sastra itself the passage, ’Now then Yoga, the means of the knowledge of truth,’ &c. defines the Yoga as a means of reaching perfect knowledge.  As thus one topic of the sastra at least (viz. the practice of Yoga) is shown to be authoritative, the entire Yoga-sm/ri/ti will have to be accepted as unobjectionable, just as the Sm/ri/ti referring to the ash/t/akas[261].—­To this we reply that the formal extension (to the Yoga, of the arguments primarily directed against the Sa@nkhya) has the purpose of removing the additional doubt stated in the above lines; for in spite of a part of the Yoga-sm/ri/ti being authoritative, the disagreement (between Sm/ri/ti and Sruti) on other topics remains as shown above.—­Although[262] there are many Sm/ri/tis treating of the soul, we have singled out for refutation the Sa@nkhya and Yoga because they are widely known as offering the means for accomplishing the highest end of man and have found favour with many competent persons.  Moreover, their position is strengthened by a Vedic passage referring to them, ’He who has known that cause which is to be apprehended by Sa@nkhya and Yoga he is freed from all fetters’ (Sve.  Up.  VI, 13). (The claims which on the ground of this last passage might be set up for the Sa@nkhya and Yoga-sm/ri/tis in their entirety) we refute by the remark that the highest beatitude (the highest aim of man) is not to be attained by the knowledge of the Sa@nkhya-sm/ri/ti irrespective

Page 304

The above remarks will serve as a reply to the claims of all argumentative Sm/ri/tis.  If it be said that those Sm/ri/tis also assist, by argumentation and proof, the cognition of truth, we do not object to so much, but we maintain all the same that the truth can be known from the Vedanta-texts only; as is stated by scriptural passages such as ‘None who does not know the Veda perceives that great one’ (Taitt.  Br.  III, 12, 9, 7); ‘I now ask thee that person taught in the Upanishads’ (B/ri/.  Up, III, 9, 26); and others.

4. (Brahman can) not (be the cause of the world) on account of the difference of character of that, (viz. the world); and its being such, (i.e. different from Brahman) (we learn) from Scripture.

The objections, founded on Sm/ri/ti, against the doctrine of Brahman being the efficient and the material cause of this world have been refuted; we now proceed to refute those founded on Reasoning.—­But (to raise an objection at the outset) how is there room for objections founded on Reasoning after the sense of the sacred texts has once been settled?  The sacred texts are certainly to be considered absolutely authoritative with regard to Brahman as well as with regard to religious duty (dharma).—­(To this the purvapakshin replies), The analogy between Brahman and dharma would hold good if the matter in hand were to be known through the holy texts only, and could not be approached by the other means of right knowledge also.  In the case of religious duties, i.e. things to be done, we indeed entirely depend on Scripture.  But now we are concerned with Brahman which is an accomplished existing thing, and in the case of accomplished things there is room

Page 305

Page 306

Page 307

5.  But (there takes place) denotation of the superintending (deities), on account of the difference and the connexion.

The word ‘but’ discards the doubt raised.  We are not entitled to base the assumption of the elements and the sense organs being of an intellectual nature on such passages as ‘the earth spoke,’ &c. because ‘there takes place denotation of that which presides.’  In the case of actions like speaking, disputing, and so on, which require intelligence, the scriptural passages denote not the mere material elements and organs, but rather the intelligent divinities which preside over earth, &c., on the one hand, and Speech, &c., on the other hand.  And why so?  ‘On account of the difference and the connexion.’  The difference is the one previously referred to between the enjoying souls, on the one hand, and the material elements and organs, on the other hand, which is founded on the distinction between intelligent and non-intelligent beings; that difference would not be possible if all beings were intelligent.  Moreover, the Kaushitakins in their account of the dispute of the pra/n/as make express use of the word ‘divinities’ in order to preclude the idea of the mere material organs being meant, and in order to include the superintending

Page 308

To this objection raised by the purvapakshin the next Sutra replies.

6.  But it is seen.

The word ‘but’ discards the purvapaksha.

Your assertion that this world cannot have originated from Brahman on account of the difference of its character is not founded on an absolutely true tenet.  For we see that from man, who is acknowledged to be intelligent, non-intelligent things such as hair and nails originate, and that, on the other hand, from avowedly non-intelligent matter, such as cow-dung, scorpions and similar animals are produced.—­But—­to state an objection—­the real cause of the non-intelligent hair and nails is the human body which is itself non-intelligent, and the non-intelligent bodies only of scorpions are the effects of non-intelligent dung.—­Even thus, we reply, there remains a difference in character (between the cause, for instance, the dung, and the effect, for instance, the body of the scorpion), in so far as some non-intelligent matter (the body) is the abode of an intelligent principle (the scorpion’s soul), while other non-intelligent matter (the dung) is not.  Moreover, the difference of nature—­due to the cause passing over into the effect—­between the bodies of men on the one side and hair and nails on the other side, is, on account of the divergence of colour, form, &c., very considerable after all.  The same remark holds good with regard to cow-dung and the bodies of scorpions, &c.  If absolute equality were insisted on (in the case of one thing

Page 309

Page 310

There are also the following Sm/ri/ti passages to the same effect:  ’Do not apply reasoning to those things which are uncognisable[269];’ ‘Unevolved he is called, uncognisable, unchangeable;’ ’Not the legions of the gods know my origin, not the great rishis.  For I myself am in every way the origin of the gods and great rishis’ (Bha.  Gi.  X, 2).—­And if it has been maintained above that the scriptural passage enjoining thought (on Brahman) in addition to mere hearing (of the sacred texts treating of Brahman) shows that reasoning also is to be allowed its place, we reply that the passage must not deceitfully be taken as enjoining bare independent ratiocination, but must be understood to represent reasoning as a subordinate auxiliary of intuitional knowledge.  By reasoning of the latter type we may, for instance, arrive at the following conclusions; that because the state of dream and the waking state exclude each other the Self is not connected with those states; that, as the soul in the state of deep sleep leaves the phenomenal world behind and becomes one with that whose Self is pure Being, it has for its Self pure Being apart from the phenomenal world; that as the world springs from Brahman it cannot be separate from Brahman, according to the principle of the non-difference of cause and effect, &c.[270] The fallaciousness of mere reasoning will moreover be demonstrated later on (II, 1, 11).—­He[271], moreover, who merely on the ground of the sacred tradition about an intelligent cause of the world would assume this entire world to be of an intellectual nature would find room for the other scriptural passage quoted above (’He became knowledge and what is devoid of knowledge’) which teaches a distinction of intellect and non-intellect; for he could avail himself of the doctrine of intellect being sometimes manifested and sometimes non-manifested.  His antagonist, on the other hand (i.e. the Sa@nkhya), would not be able to make anything of the passage, for it distinctly teaches that the highest cause constitutes the Self of the entire world.

If, then, on account of difference of character that which is intelligent cannot pass over into what is non-intelligent, that also which is non-intelligent (i.e. in our case, the non-intelligent pradhana of the Sa@nkhyas) cannot pass over into what is intelligent.—­(So much for argument’s sake,) but apart from that, as the argument resting on difference of character has already been refuted, we must assume an intelligent cause of the world in agreement with Scripture.

7.  If (it is said that the effect is) non-existent (before its origination); we do not allow that because it is a mere negation (without an object).

If Brahman, which is intelligent, pure, and devoid of qualities such as sound, and so on, is supposed to be the cause of an effect which is of an opposite nature, i.e. non-intelligent, impure, possessing the qualities of sound, &c., it follows that the effect has to be considered as non-existing before its actual origination.  But this consequence cannot be acceptable to you—­the Vedantin—­who maintain the doctrine of the effect existing in the cause already.

Page 311

This objection of yours, we reply, is without any force, on account of its being a mere negation.  If you negative the existence of the effect previous to its actual origination, your negation is a mere negation without an object to be negatived.  The negation (implied in ‘non-existent’) can certainly not have for its object the existence of the effect previous to its origination, since the effect must be viewed as ‘existent,’ through and in the Self of the cause, before its origination as well as after it; for at the present moment also this effect does not exist independently, apart from the cause; according to such scriptural passages as, ’Whosoever looks for anything elsewhere than in the Self is abandoned by everything’ (B/ri/.  Up.  II, 4, 6).  In so far, on the other hand, as the effect exists through the Self of the cause, its existence is the same before the actual beginning of the effect (as after it).—­But Brahman, which is devoid of qualities such as sound, &c., is the cause of this world (possessing all those qualities)!—­True, but the effect with all its qualities does not exist without the Self of the cause either now or before the actual beginning (of the effect); hence it cannot be said that (according to our doctrine) the effect is non-existing before its actual beginning.—­This point will be elucidated in detail in the section treating of the non-difference of cause and effect.

8.  On account of such consequences at the time of reabsorption (the doctrine maintained hitherto) is objectionable.

The purvapakshin raises further objections.—­If an effect which is distinguished by the qualities of grossness, consisting of parts, absence of intelligence, limitation, impurity, &c., is admitted to have Brahman for its cause, it follows that at the time of reabsorption (of the world into Brahman), the effect, by entering into the state of non-division from its cause, inquinates the latter with its properties.  As therefore—­on your doctrine—­the cause (i.e.  Brahman) as well as the effect is, at the time of reabsorption, characterised by impurity and similar qualities, the doctrine of the Upanishads, according to which an omniscient Brahman is the cause of the world, cannot be upheld.—­Another objection to that doctrine is that in consequence of all distinctions passing at the time of reabsorption into the state of non-distinction there would be no special causes left at the time of a new beginning of the world, and consequently the new world could not arise with all the distinctions of enjoying souls, objects to be enjoyed and so on (which are actually observed to exist).—­A third objection is that, if we assume the origin of a new world even after the annihilation of all works, &c. (which are the causes of a new world arising) of the enjoying souls which enter into the state of non-difference from the highest Brahman, we are led to the conclusion that also those (souls) which have obtained final release again appear in the new world.—­If you finally say, ’Well, let this world remain distinct from the highest Brahman even at the time of reabsorption,’ we reply that in that case a reabsorption will not take place at all, and that, moreover, the effect’s existing separate from the cause is not possible.—­For all these reasons the Vedanta doctrine is objectionable.

Page 312

To this the next Sutra replies.

9.  Not so; as there are parallel instances.

There is nothing objectionable in our system.—­The objection that the effect when being reabsorbed into its cause would inquinate the latter with its qualities does not damage our position ’because there are parallel instances,’ i.e. because there are instances of effects not inquinating with their qualities the causes into which they are reabsorbed.  Things, for instance, made of clay, such as pots, &c., which in their state of separate existence are of various descriptions, do not, when they are reabsorbed into their original matter (i.e. clay), impart to the latter their individual qualities; nor do golden ornaments impart their individual qualities to their elementary material, i.e. gold, into which they may finally be reabsorbed.  Nor does the fourfold complex of organic beings which springs from earth impart its qualities to the latter at the time of reabsorption.  You (i.e. the purvapakshin), on the other hand, have not any instances to quote in your favour.  For reabsorption could not take place at all if the effect when passing back into its causal substance continued to subsist there with all its individual properties.  And[272] that in spite of the non-difference of cause and effect the effect has its Self in the cause, but not the cause in the effect, is a point which we shall render clear later on, under II, 1, 14.

Moreover, the objection that the effect would impart its qualities to the cause at the time of reabsorption is formulated too narrowly because, the identity of cause and effect being admitted, the same would take place during the time of the subsistence (of the effect, previous to its reabsorption).  That the identity of cause and effect (of Brahman and the world) holds good indiscriminately with regard to all time (not only the time of reabsorption), is declared in many scriptural passages, as, for instance, ‘This everything is that Self’ (B/ri/.  Up.  II, 4, 6); ‘The Self is all this’ (Ch.  Up.  VII, 25, 2); ’The immortal Brahman is this before’ (Mu.  Up.  II, 2, 11); ‘All this is Brahman’ (Ch.  Up.  III, 14, 1).

With regard to the case referred to in the Sruti-passages we refute the assertion of the cause being affected by the effect and its qualities by showing that the latter are the mere fallacious superimpositions of nescience, and the very same argument holds good with reference to reabsorption also.—­We can quote other examples in favour of our doctrine.  As the magician is not at any time affected by the magical illusion produced by himself, because it is unreal, so the highest Self is not affected by the world-illusion.  And as one dreaming person is not affected by the illusory visions of his dream because they do not accompany the waking state and the state of dreamless sleep; so the one permanent witness of the three states (viz. the highest Self which is the one unchanging

Page 313

So far we have shown that—­on our doctrine—­there is no danger of the cause being affected at the time of reabsorption by the qualities of the effect, such as grossness and the like.—­With regard to the second objection, viz. that if we assume all distinctions to pass (at the time of reabsorption) into the state of non-distinction there would be no special reason for the origin of a new world affected with distinctions, we likewise refer to the ‘existence of parallel instances.’  For the case is parallel to that of deep sleep and trance.  In those states also the soul enters into an essential condition of non-distinction; nevertheless, wrong knowledge being not yet finally overcome, the old state of distinction re-establishes itself as soon as the soul awakes from its sleep or trance.  Compare the scriptural passage, ’All these creatures when they have become merged in the True, know not that they are merged in the True.  Whatever these creatures are here, whether a lion, or a wolf, or a boar, or a worm, or a midge, or a gnat, or a mosquito, that they become again’ (Ch.  Up.  VI, 9, 2; 3) For just as during the subsistence of the world the phenomenon of multifarious distinct existence, based on wrong knowledge, proceeds unimpeded like the vision of a dream, although there is only one highest Self devoid of all distinction; so, we conclude, there remains, even after reabsorption, the power of distinction (potential distinction) founded on wrong knowledge.—­Herewith the objection that—­according to our doctrine—­even the finally released souls would be born again is already disposed of.  They will not be born again because in their case wrong knowledge has been entirely discarded by perfect knowledge.—­The last alternative finally (which the purvapakshin had represented as open to the Vedantin), viz. that even at the time of reabsorption the world should remain distinct from Brahman, precludes itself because it is not admitted by the Vedantins themselves.—­Hence the system founded on the Upanishads is in every way unobjectionable.

10.  And because the objections (raised by the Sa@nkhya against the Vedanta doctrine) apply to his view also.

Page 314

The doctrine of our opponent is liable to the very same objections which he urges against us, viz. in the following manner.—­The objection that this world cannot have sprung from Brahman on account of its difference of character applies no less to the doctrine of the pradhana being the cause of the world; for that doctrine also assumes that from a pradhana devoid of sound and other qualities a world is produced which possesses those very qualities.  The beginning of an effect different in character being thus admitted, the Sa@nkhya is equally driven to the doctrine that before the actual beginning the effect was non-existent.  And, moreover, it being admitted (by the Sa@nkhya also) that at the time of reabsorption the effect passes back into the state of non-distinction from the cause, the case of the Sa@nkhya here also is the same as ours.—­And, further, if (as the Sa@nkhya also must admit) at the time of reabsorption the differences of all the special effects are obliterated and pass into a state of general non-distinction, the special fixed conditions, which previous to reabsorption were the causes of the different worldly existence of each soul, can, at the time of a new creation, no longer be determined, there being no cause for them; and if you assume them to be determined without a cause, you are driven to the admission that even the released souls have to re-enter a state of bondage, there being equal absence of a cause (in the case of the released and the non-released souls).  And if you try to avoid this conclusion by assuming that at the time of reabsorption some individual differences pass into the state of non-distinction, others not, we reply that in that case the latter could not be considered as effects of the pradhana[273].—­It thus appears that all those difficulties (raised by the Sa@nkhya) apply to both views, and cannot therefore be urged against either only.  But as either of the two doctrines must necessarily be accepted, we are strengthened—­by the outcome of the above discussion—­in the opinion that the alleged difficulties are no real difficulties[274].

11.  If it be said that, in consequence of the ill-foundedness of reasoning, we must frame our conclusions otherwise; (we reply that) thus also there would result non-release.

In matters to be known from Scripture mere reasoning is not to be relied on for the following reason also.  As the thoughts of man are altogether unfettered, reasoning which disregards the holy texts and rests on individual opinion only has no proper foundation.  We see how arguments, which some clever men had excogitated with great pains, are shown, by people still more ingenious, to be fallacious, and how the arguments of the latter again are refuted in their turn by other men; so that, on account of the diversity of men’s opinions, it is impossible to accept mere reasoning as having a sure foundation.  Nor can we get over this difficulty by accepting as well-founded the reasoning of some person of recognised mental eminence, may he now be Kapila or anybody else; since we observe that even men of the most undoubted mental eminence, such as Kapila, Ka/n/ada, and other founders of philosophical schools, have contradicted one another.

Page 315

But (our adversary may here be supposed to say), we will fashion our reasoning otherwise, i.e. in such a manner as not to lay it open to the charge of having no proper foundation.  You cannot, after all, maintain that no reasoning whatever is well-founded; for you yourself can found your assertion that reasoning has no foundation on reasoning only; your assumption being that because some arguments are seen to be devoid of foundation other arguments as belonging to the same class are likewise devoid of foundation.  Moreover, if all reasoning were unfounded, the whole course of practical human life would have to come to an end.  For we see that men act, with a view to obtaining pleasure and avoiding pain in the future time, on the assumption that the past, the present, and the future are uniform.—­Further, in the case of passages of Scripture (apparently) contradicting each other, the ascertainment of the real sense, which depends on a preliminary refutation of the apparent sense, can be effected only by an accurate definition of the meaning of sentences, and that involves a process of reasoning.  Thus Manu also expresses himself:  ’Perception, inference, and the sastra according to the various traditions, this triad is to be known well by one desiring clearness in regard to right.—­He who applies reasoning not contradicted by the Veda to the Veda and the (Sm/ri/ti) doctrine of law, he, and no other, knows the law’ (Manu Sm/ri/ti XII, 105, 106).  And that ’want of foundation’, to which you object, really constitutes the beauty of reasoning, because it enables us to arrive at unobjectionable arguments by means of the previous refutation of objectionable arguments[275]. (No fear that because the purvapaksha is ill-founded the siddhanta should be ill-founded too;) for there is no valid reason to maintain that a man must be stupid because his elder brother was stupid.—­For all these reasons the want of foundation cannot be used as an argument against reasoning.

Against this argumentation we remark that thus also there results ’want of release.’  For although with regard to some things reasoning is observed to be well founded, with regard to the matter in hand there will result ‘want of release,’ viz. of the reasoning from this very fault of ill-foundedness.  The true nature of the cause of the world on which final emancipation depends cannot, on account of its excessive abstruseness, even be thought of without the help of the holy texts; for, as already remarked, it cannot become the object of perception, because it does not possess qualities such as form and the like, and as it is devoid of characteristic signs, it does not lend itself to inference and the other means of right knowledge.—­Or else (if we adopt another explanation of the word ‘avimoksha’) all those who teach the final release of the soul are agreed that it results from perfect knowledge.  Perfect knowledge has the characteristic mark of uniformity, because it depends

Page 316

12.  Thereby those (theories) also which are not accepted by competent persons are explained.

Hitherto we have refuted those objections against the Vedanta-texts which, based on reasoning, take their stand on the doctrine of the pradhana being the cause of the world; (which doctrine deserves to be refuted first), because it stands near to our Vedic system, is supported by somewhat weighty arguments, and has, to a certain extent, been adopted by some authorities who follow the Veda.—­But now some dull-witted persons might think that another objection founded on reasoning might be raised against the Vedanta, viz. on the ground of the atomic doctrine.  The Sutrakara, therefore, extends to the latter objection the refutation of the former, considering that by the conquest of the most dangerous adversary the conquest of the minor enemies is already virtually accomplished.  Other doctrines, as, for instance, the atomic doctrine of which no part has been accepted by either Manu or Vyasa or other authorities,

Page 317

13.  If it be said that from the circumstance of (the objects of enjoyment) passing over into the enjoyer (and vice versa) there would result non-distinction (of the two); we reply that (such distinction) may exist (nevertheless), as ordinary experience shows.

Another objection, based on reasoning, is raised against the doctrine of Brahman being the cause of the world.—­Although Scripture is authoritative with regard to its own special subject-matter (as, for instance, the causality of Brahman), still it may have to be taken in a secondary sense in those cases where the subject-matter is taken out of its grasp by other means of right knowledge; just as mantras and arthavadas have occasionally to be explained in a secondary sense (when the primary, literal sense is rendered impossible by other means of right knowledge[276]).  Analogously reasoning is to be considered invalid outside its legitimate sphere; so, for instance, in the case of religious duty and its opposite[277].—­Hence Scripture cannot be acknowledged to refute what is settled by other means of right knowledge.  And if you ask, ’Where does Scripture oppose itself to what is thus established?’ we give you the following instance.  The distinction of enjoyers and objects of enjoyment is well known from ordinary experience, the enjoyers being intelligent, embodied souls, while sound and the like are the objects of enjoyment.  Devadatta, for instance, is an enjoyer, the dish (which he eats) an object of enjoyment.  The distinction of the two would be reduced to non-existence if the enjoyer passed over into the object of enjoyment, and vice versa.  Now this passing over of one thing into another would actually result from the doctrine of the world being non-different from Brahman.  But the sublation of a well-established distinction is objectionable, not only with regard to the present time when that distinction is observed to exist, but also with regard to the past and the future, for which it is inferred.  The doctrine of Brahman’s causality must therefore be abandoned, as it would lead to the sublation of the well-established distinction of enjoyers and objects of enjoyment.

Page 318

To the preceding objection we reply, ’It may exist as in ordinary experience.’  Even on our philosophic view the distinction may exist, as ordinary experience furnishes us with analogous instances.  We see, for instance, that waves, foam, bubbles, and other modifications of the sea, although they really are not different from the sea-water, exist, sometimes in the state of mutual separation, sometimes in the state of conjunction, &c.  From the fact of their being non-different from the sea-water, it does not follow that they pass over into each other; and, again, although they do not pass over into each other, still they are not different from the sea.  So it is in the case under discussion also.  The enjoyers and the objects of enjoyment do not pass over into each other, and yet they are not different from the highest Brahman.  And although the enjoyer is not really an effect of Brahman, since the unmodified creator himself, in so far as he enters into the effect, is called the enjoyer (according to the passage, ’Having created he entered into it,’ Taitt.  Up.  II, 6), still after Brahman has entered into its effects it passes into a state of distinction, in consequence of the effect acting as a limiting adjunct; just as the universal ether is divided by its contact with jars and other limiting adjuncts.  The conclusion is, that the distinction of enjoyers and objects of enjoyment is possible, although both are non-different from Brahman, their highest cause, as the analogous instance of the sea and its waves demonstrates.

14.  The non-difference of them (i.e. of cause and effect) results from such terms as ‘origin’ and the like.

The[278] refutation contained in the preceding Sutra was set forth on the condition of the practical distinction of enjoyers and objects of enjoyment being acknowledged.  In reality, however, that distinction does not exist because there is understood to be non-difference (identity) of cause and effect.  The effect is this manifold world consisting of ether and so on; the cause is the highest Brahman.  Of the effect it is understood that in reality it is non-different from the cause, i.e. has no existence apart from the cause.—­How so?—­’On account of the scriptural word “origin” and others.’  The word ‘origin’ is used in connexion with a simile, in a passage undertaking to show how through the knowledge of one thing everthing is known; viz.  Ch.  Up.  VI, 1, 4, ’As, my dear, by one clod of clay all that is made of clay is known, the modification (i.e. the effect; the thing made of clay) being a name merely which has its origin in speech, while the truth is that it is clay merely; thus,’ &c.—­The meaning of this passage is that, if there is known a lump of clay which really and truly is nothing but clay[279], there are known thereby likewise all things made of clay, such as jars, dishes, pails, and so on, all of which agree in having clay for their true nature.  For these modifications

Page 319

Page 320

This theory, we reply, is untenable because in the instance (quoted in the Upanishad) the phrase ‘as clay they are true’ asserts the cause only to be true while the phrase ‘having its origin in speech’ declares the unreality of all effects.  And with reference to the matter illustrated by the instance given (viz. the highest cause, Brahman) we read, ’In that all this has its Self;’ and, again, ‘That is true;’ whereby it is asserted that only the one highest cause is true.  The following passage again, ‘That is the Self; thou art that, O Svetaketu!’ teaches that the embodied soul (the individual soul) also is Brahman. (And we must note that) the passage distinctly teaches that the fact of the embodied soul having its Self in Brahman is self-established, not to be accomplished by endeavour.  This doctrine of the individual soul having its Self in Brahman, if once accepted as the doctrine of the Veda, does away with the independent existence of the individual soul, just as the idea of the rope does away with the idea of the snake (for which the rope had been mistaken).  And if the doctrine of the independent existence of the individual soul has to be set aside, then the opinion of the entire phenomenal world—­which is based on the individual soul—­having an independent existence is likewise to be set aside.  But only for the establishment of the latter an element of manifoldness would have to be assumed in Brahman, in addition to the element of unity.—­Scriptural passages also (such as, ’When the Self only is all this, how should he see another?’ B/ri/.  Up.  II, 4, 13) declare that for him who sees that everything has its Self in Brahman the whole phenomenal world with its actions, agents, and results of actions is non-existent.  Nor can it be said that this non-existence of the phenomenal world is declared (by Scripture) to be limited to certain states; for the passage ‘Thou art that’ shows that the general fact of Brahman being the Self of all is not limited by any particular state.  Moreover, Scripture, showing by the instance of the thief (Ch.  VI, 16) that the false-minded is bound while the true-minded is released, declares thereby that unity is the one true existence while manifoldness is evolved out of wrong knowledge.  For if both were true how could the man who acquiesces in the reality of this phenomenal world be called false-minded[281]?  Another scriptural passage (’from death to death goes he who perceives therein any diversity,’ B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 4, 19) declares the same, by blaming those who perceive any distinction.—­Moreover, on the doctrine, which we are at present impugning, release cannot result from knowledge, because the doctrine does not acknowledge that some kind of wrong knowledge, to be removed by perfect knowledge, is the cause of the phenomenal world.  For how can the cognition of unity remove the cognition of manifoldness if both are true?

Page 321

Other objections are started.—­If we acquiesce in the doctrine of absolute unity, the ordinary means of right knowledge, perception, &c., become invalid because the absence of manifoldness deprives them of their objects; just as the idea of a man becomes invalid after the right idea of the post (which at first had been mistaken for a man) has presented itself.  Moreover, all the texts embodying injunctions and prohibitions will lose their purport if the distinction on which their validity depends does not really exist.  And further, the entire body of doctrine which refers to final release will collapse, if the distinction of teacher and pupil on which it depends is not real.  And if the doctrine of release is untrue, how can we maintain the truth of the absolute unity of the Self, which forms an item of that doctrine?

These objections, we reply, do not damage our position because the entire complex of phenomenal existence is considered as true as long as the knowledge of Brahman being the Self of all has not arisen; just as the phantoms of a dream are considered to be true until the sleeper wakes.  For as long as a person has not reached the true knowledge of the unity of the Self, so long it does not enter his mind that the world of effects with its means and objects of right knowledge and its results of actions is untrue; he rather, in consequence of his ignorance, looks on mere effects (such as body, offspring, wealth, &c.) as forming part of and belonging to his Self, forgetful of Brahman being in reality the Self of all.  Hence, as long as true knowledge does not present itself, there is no reason why the ordinary course of secular and religious activity should not hold on undisturbed.  The case is analogous to that of a dreaming man who in his dream sees manifold things, and, up to the moment of waking, is convinced that his ideas are produced by real perception without suspecting the perception to be a merely apparent one.—­But how (to restate an objection raised above) can the Vedanta-texts if untrue convey information about the true being of Brahman?  We certainly do not observe that a man bitten by a rope-snake (i.e. a snake falsely imagined in a rope) dies, nor is the water appearing in a mirage used for drinking or bathing[282].—­This objection, we reply, is without force (because as a matter of fact we do see real effects to result from unreal causes), for we observe that death sometimes takes place from imaginary venom, (when a man imagines himself to have been bitten by a venomous snake,) and effects (of what is perceived in a dream) such as the bite of a snake or bathing in a river take place with regard to a dreaming person.—­But, it will be said, these effects themselves are unreal!—­These effects themselves, we reply, are unreal indeed; but not so the consciousness which the dreaming person has of them.  This consciousness is a real result; for it is not sublated by the waking consciousness.  The man who has risen from sleep does indeed consider

Page 322

Page 323

But—­it may be said—­(that would not be a mere assumption, but) Scripture itself, by quoting the parallel instances of clay and so on, declares itself in favour of a Brahman capable of modification; for we know from experience that clay and similar things do undergo modifications.—­This objection—­we reply—­is without force, because a number of scriptural passages, by denying all modification of Brahman, teach it to be absolutely changeless (ku/t/astha).  Such passages are, ’This great unborn Self; undecaying, undying, immortal, fearless, is indeed Brahman’ (B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 4, 25); ’That Self is to be described by No, no’ (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 9, 26); ‘It is neither coarse nor fine’ (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 8, 8).  For to the one Brahman the two qualities of being subject to modification and of being free from it cannot both be ascribed.  And if you say, ’Why should they not be both predicated of Brahman (the former during the time of the subsistence of the world, the latter during the period of reabsorption) just as rest and motion may be predicated (of one body at different times)?’ we remark that the qualification, ‘absolutely changeless’ (ku/t/astha), precludes this.  For the changeless Brahman cannot be the substratum of varying attributes.  And that, on account of the negation of all attributes, Brahman really is eternal and changeless has already been demonstrated.—­Moreover, while the cognition of the unity of Brahman is the instrument of final release, there is nothing to show that any independent result is connected with the view of Brahman, by undergoing a modification, passing over into the form of this world.  Scripture expressly declares that the knowledge of the changeless Brahman being the universal Self leads to a result; for in the passage which begins, ’That Self is to be described by No, no,’ we read later on, ’O Janaka, you have indeed reached fearlessness’ (B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 2, 4).  We have then[285] to accept the following conclusion that, in the sections treating of Brahman, an independent result belongs only to the knowledge of Brahman as devoid of all attributes and distinctions, and that hence whatever is stated as having no special fruit of its own—­as, for instance, the passages about Brahman modifying itself into the form of this world—­is merely to be applied as a means for the cognition of the absolute Brahman, but does not bring about an independent result; according to the principle that whatever has no result of its own, but is mentioned in connexion with something else which has such a result, is subordinate to the latter[286].  For to maintain that the result of the knowledge of Brahman undergoing modifications would be that the Self (of him who knows that) would undergo corresponding modifications[287] would be inappropriate, as the state of filial release (which the soul obtains through the knowledge of Brahman) is eternally unchanging.

Page 324

But, it is objected, he who maintains the nature of Brahman to be changeless thereby contradicts the fundamental tenet according to which the Lord is the cause of the world, since the doctrine of absolute unity leaves no room for the distinction of a Ruler and something ruled.—­This objection we ward off by remarking that omniscience, &c. (i.e. those qualities which belong to Brahman only in so far as it is related to a world) depend on the evolution of the germinal principles called name and form, whose essence is Nescience.  The fundamental tenet which we maintain (in accordance with such scriptural passages as, ’From that Self sprang ether,’ &c.; Taitt.  Up.  II, 1) is that the creation, sustentation, and reabsorption of the world proceed from an omniscient, omnipotent Lord, not from a non-intelligent pradhana or any other principle.  That tenet we have stated in I, 1, 4, and here we do not teach anything contrary to it.—­But how, the question may be asked, can you make this last assertion while all the while you maintain the absolute unity and non-duality of the Self?—­Listen how.  Belonging to the Self, as it were, of the omniscient Lord, there are name and form, the figments of Nescience, not to be defined either as being (i.e.  Brahman), nor as different from it[288], the germs of the entire expanse of the phenomenal world, called in Sruti and Sm/ri/ti the illusion (maya), power (sakti), or nature (prak/ri/ti) of the omniscient Lord.  Different from them is the omniscient Lord himself, as we learn from scriptural passages such as the following, ’He who is called ether is the revealer of all forms and names; that within which these forms and names are contained is Brahman’ (Ch.  Up.  VIII, 14, 1); ’Let me evolve names and forms’ (Ch.  Up.  VI, 3, 2); ’He, the wise one, who having divided all forms and given all names, sits speaking (with those names)’ (Taitt.  Ar.  III, 12, 7); ‘He who makes the one seed manifold’ (Sve.  Up.  VI, l2).—­Thus the Lord depends (as Lord) upon the limiting adjuncts of name and form, the products of Nescience; just as the universal ether depends (as limited ether, such as the ether of a jar, &c.) upon the limiting adjuncts in the shape of jars, pots, &c.  He (the Lord) stands in the realm of the phenomenal in the relation of a ruler to the so-called jivas (individual souls) or cognitional Selfs (vij/n/anatman), which indeed are one with his own Self—­just as the portions of ether enclosed in jars and the like are one with the universal ether—­but are limited by aggregates of instruments of action (i.e. bodies) produced from name and form, the presentations of Nescience.  Hence the Lord’s being a Lord, his omniscience, his omnipotence, &c. all depend on the limitation due to the adjuncts whose Self is Nescience; while in reality none of these qualities belong to the Self whose true nature is cleared, by right knowledge, from all adjuncts whatever.  Thus Scripture also says, ’Where one sees nothing

Page 325

15.  And because only on the existence (of the cause) (the effect) is observed.

For the following reason also the effect is non-different from the cause, because only when the cause exists the effect is observed to exist, not when it does not exist.  For instance, only when the clay exists the jar is observed to exist, and the cloth only when the threads exist.  That it is not a general rule that when one thing exists another is also observed to exist, appears, for instance, from the fact, that a horse which is other (different) from a cow is not observed to exist only when a cow exists.  Nor is the jar observed to exist only when the potter exists; for in that case non-difference does not exist, although the relation between the two is that of an operative cause and its effect[289].—­But—­it may be objected—­even in the case of things other (i.e. non-identical) we find that the observation of one thing regularly depends on the existence of another; smoke, for instance, is observed only when fire exists.—­We reply that this is untrue, because sometimes smoke is observed even after the fire has been extinguished; as, for instance, in the case of smoke being kept by herdsmen in jars.—­Well, then—­the objector will say—­let us add to smoke a certain qualification enabling us

Page 326

16.  And on account of that which is posterior (i.e. the effect) being that which is.

For the following reason also the effect is to be considered as non-different (from the cause).  That which is posterior in time, i.e. the effect, is declared by Scripture to have, previous to its actual beginning, its Being in the cause, by the Self of the cause merely.  For in passages like, ’In the beginning, my dear, this was that only which is’ (Ch.  Up.  VI, 2, 3); and, ’Verily, in the beginning this was Self, one only’ (Ait.  Ar.  II, 4, 1, 1), the effect which is denoted by the word ‘this’ appears in grammatical co-ordination with (the word denoting) the cause (from which it appears that both inhere in the same substratum).  A thing, on the other hand, which does not exist in another thing by the Self of the latter is not produced from that other thing; for instance, oil is not produced from sand.  Hence as there is non-difference before the production (of the effect), we understand that the effect even after having been produced continues to be non-different from the cause.  As the cause, i.e.  Brahman, is in all time neither more nor less than that which is, so the effect also, viz. the world, is in all time only that which is.  But that which is is one only; therefore the effect is non-different from the cause.

17.  If it be said that on account of being denoted as that which is not (the effect does) not (exist before it is actually produced); (we reply) not so, (because the term ‘that which is not’ denotes) another quality (merely); (as appears) from the complementary sentence.

Page 327

But, an objection will be raised, in some places Scripture speaks of the effect before its production as that which is not; so, for instance, ’In the beginning this was that only which is not’ (Ch.  Up.  III, 19, 1); and ‘Non-existent[292] indeed this was in the beginning’ (Taitt.  Up.  II, 7).  Hence Being (sattvam) cannot be ascribed to the effect before its production.

This we deny.  For by the Non-existence of the effect previous to its production is not meant absolute Non-existence, but only a different quality or state, viz. the state of name and form being unevolved, which state is different from the state of name and form being evolved.  With reference to the latter state the effect is called, previous to its production, non-existent although then also it existed identical with its cause.  We conclude this from the complementary passage, according to the rule that the sense of a passage whose earlier part is of doubtful meaning is determined by its complementary part.  With reference to the passage.  ‘In the beginning this was non-existent only,’ we remark that what is there denoted by the word ‘Non-existing’ is—­in the complementary passage, ’That became existent’—­referred to by the word ‘that,’ and qualified as ‘Existent.’

The word ‘was’ would, moreover, not apply to the (absolutely) Non-existing, which cannot be conceived as connected with prior or posterior time.—­Hence with reference to the other passage also, ‘Non-existing indeed,’ &c., the complementary part, ’That made itself its Self,’ shows, by the qualification which it contains, that absolute Non-existence is not meant.—­It follows from all this that the designation of ‘Non-existence’ applied to the effect before its production has reference to a different state of being merely.  And as those things which are distinguished by name and form are in ordinary language called ‘existent,’ the term ‘non-existent’ is figuratively applied to them to denote the state in which they were previously to their differentiation.

18.  From reasoning and from another Vedic passage.

That the effect exists before its origination and is non-different from the cause, follows from reasoning as well as from a further scriptural passage.

We at first set forth the argumentation.—­Ordinary experience teaches us that those who wish to produce certain effects, such as curds, or earthen jars, or golden ornaments, employ for their purpose certain determined causal substances such as milk, clay, and gold; those who wish to produce sour milk do not employ clay, nor do those who intend to make jars employ milk and so on.  But, according to that doctrine which teaches that the effect is non-existent (before its actual production), all this should be possible.  For if before their actual origination all effects are equally non-existent in any causal substance, why then should curds be produced from milk only and not from clay also, and jars from clay only and not from

Page 328

Page 329

In what manner again do you—­who maintain that the cause and the effect are joined by the samavaya relation—­assume a substance consisting of parts which is an effect to abide in its causes, i.e. in the material parts of which it consists?  Does it abide in all the parts taken together or in each particular part?—­If you say that it abides in all parts together, it follows that the whole as such cannot be perceived, as it is impossible that all the parts should be in contact with the organs of perception. (And let it not be objected that the whole may be apprehended through some of the parts only), for manyness which abides in all its substrates together (i.e. in all the many things), is not apprehended so long as only some of those substrates are apprehended.—­Let it then be assumed that the whole abides in all the parts by the mediation of intervening aggregates of parts[296].—­In that case, we reply, we should have to assume other parts in addition to the primary originative parts of the whole, in order that by means of those other parts the whole could abide in the primary parts in the manner indicated by you.  For we see (that one thing which abides in another abides there by means of parts different from those of that other thing), that the sword, for instance, pervades the sheath by means of parts different from the parts of the sheath.  But an assumption of that kind would lead us into a regressus in infinitum, because in order to explain how the whole abides in certain given parts we should always have to assume further parts[297].—­Well, then, let us maintain the second alternative, viz. that the whole abides in each particular part.—­That also cannot be admitted; for if the whole is present in one part it cannot be present in other parts also; not any more than Devadatta can be present in Srughna and in Pa/t/aliputra on one and the same day.  If the whole were present in more than one part, several wholes would result, comparable to Devadatta and Yaj/n/adatta, who, as being two different persons, may live one of them at Srughna and the other at Pa/t/aliputra.—­If the opponent should rejoin that the whole may be fully present in each part, just as the generic character of the cow is fully present in each individual cow; we point out that the generic attributes of the cow are visibly perceived in each individual cow, but that the whole is not thus perceived in each particular part.  If the whole were fully present in each part, the consequence would be that the whole would produce its effects indifferently with any of its parts; a cow, for instance, would give milk from her horns or her tail.  But such things are not seen to take place.

Page 330

We proceed to consider some further arguments opposed to the doctrine that the effect does not exist in the cause.—­That doctrine involves the conclusion that the actual origination of an effect is without an agent and thus devoid of substantial being.  For origination is an action, and as such requires an agent[298], just as the action of walking does.  To speak of an action without an agent would be a contradiction.  But if you deny the pre-existence of the effect in the cause, it would have to be assumed that whenever the origination of a jar, for instance, is spoken of the agent is not the jar (which before its origination did not exist) but something else, and again that when the origination of the two halves of the jar is spoken of the agent is not the two halves but something else.  From this it would follow that the sentence, ’the jar is originated’ means as much as ’the potter and the other (operative) causes are originated[299].’  But as a matter of fact the former sentence is never understood to mean the latter; and it is, moreover, known that at the time when the jar originates, the potter, &c. are already in existence.—­Let us then say, the opponent resumes, that origination is the connexion of the effect with the existence of its cause and its obtaining existence as a Self.—­How, we ask in reply, can something which has not yet obtained existence enter into connexion with something else?  A connexion is possible of two existing things only, not of one existing and one non-existing thing or of two non-existing things.  To something non-existing which on that account is indefinable, it is moreover not possible to assign a limit as the opponent does when maintaining that the effect is non-existing before its origination; for experience teaches us that existing things only such as fields and houses have limits, but not non-existing things.  If somebody should use, for instance, a phrase such as the following one, ’The son of a barren woman was king previously to the coronation of Pur/n/avarman’ the declaration of a limit in time implied in that phrase does not in reality determine that the son of the barren woman, i.e. a mere non-entity, either was or is or will be king.  If the son of a barren woman could become an existing thing subsequently to the activity of some causal agent, in that case it would be possible also that the non-existing effect should be something existing, subsequently to the activity of some causal agent.  But we know that the one thing can take place no more than the other thing; the non-existing effect and the son of the barren woman are both equally non-entities and can never be.—­But, the asatkaryavadin here objects, from your doctrine there follows the result that the activity of causal agents is altogether purposeless.  For if the effect were lying already fully accomplished in the cause and were non-different from it, nobody would endeavour to bring it about, no more than anybody endeavours to bring about the cause which is already fully accomplished

Page 331

It would further follow that a man is not the same person in childhood, manhood, and old age, and that terms such as father and the like are illegitimately used.—­The preceding arguments may also be used to refute the (Bauddha doctrine) of all existence being momentary only[300].

Page 332

The doctrine that the effect is non-existent previously to its actual origination, moreover, leads to the conclusion that the activity of the causal agent has no object; for what does not exist cannot possibly be an object; not any more than the ether can be cleft by swords and other weapons for striking or cutting.  The object can certainly not be the inherent cause; for that would lead to the erroneous conclusion that from the activity of the causal agent, which has for its object the inherent cause, there results something else (viz. the effect).  And if (in order to preclude this erroneous conclusion) the opponent should say that the effect is (not something different from the cause, but) a certain relative power (ati/s/aya) of the inherent cause; he thereby would simply concede our doctrine, according to which the effect exists in the cause already.

We maintain, therefore, as our final conclusion, that milk and other substances are called effects when they are in the state of curds and so on, and that it is impossible, even within hundreds of years, ever to bring about an effect which is different from its cause.  The fundamental cause of all appears in the form of this and that effect, up to the last effect of all, just as an actor appears in various robes and costumes, and thereby becomes the basis for all the current notions and terms concerning the phenomenal world.

The conclusion here established, on the ground of reasoning, viz. that the effect exists already before its origination, and is non-different from its cause, results also from a different scriptural passage.  As under the preceding Sutra a Vedic passage was instanced which speaks of the non-existing, the different passage referred to in the present Sutra is the one (Ch.  Up.  VI, 2, 1) which refers to that which is.  That passage begins, ’Being only was this in the beginning, one without a second,’ refers, thereupon, to the doctrine of the Non-existent being the cause of the world (’Others say, Non-being was this in the beginning’), raises an objection against that doctrine (’How could that which is be born of that which is not?’), and, finally, reaffirms the view first set forth, ‘Only Being was this in the beginning.’  The circumstance that in this passage the effect, which is denoted by the word ‘this,’ is by Scripture, with reference to the time previous to its origination, coordinated with the cause denoted by the term ‘Being,’ proves that the effect exists in—­and is non-different from—­the cause.  If it were before its origination non-existing and after it inhered in its cause by samavaya, it would be something different from the cause, and that would virtually imply an abandonment of the promise made in the passage, ‘That instruction by which we hear what is not heard,’ &c. (VI, 1, 3).  The latter assertion is ratified, on the other hand, through the comprehension that the effect exists in—­and is not different from-the cause.

Page 333

19.  And like a piece of cloth.

As of a folded piece of cloth we do not know clearly whether it is a piece of cloth or some other thing, while on its being unfolded it becomes manifest that the folded thing was a piece of cloth; and as, so long as it is folded, we perhaps know that it is a piece of cloth but not of what definite length and width it is, while on its being unfolded we know these particulars, and at the same time that the cloth is not different from the folded object; in the same way an effect, such as a piece of cloth, is non-manifest as long as it exists in its causes, i.e. the threads, &c. merely, while it becomes manifest and is clearly apprehended in consequence of the operations of shuttle, loom, weaver, and so on.—­Applying this instance of the piece of cloth, first folded and then unfolded, to the general case of cause and effect, we conclude that the latter is non-different from the former.

20.  And as in the case of the different vital airs.

It is a matter of observation that when the operations of the different kinds of vital air—­such as pra/n/a the ascending vital air, apana the descending vital air, &c.—­are suspended, in consequence of the breath being held so that they exist in their causes merely, the only effect which continues to be accomplished is life, while all other effects, such as the bending and stretching of the limbs and so on, are stopped.  When, thereupon, the vital airs again begin to act, those other effects also are brought about, in addition to mere life.—­Nor must the vital airs, on account of their being divided into classes, be considered as something else than vital air; for wind (air) constitutes their common character.  Thus (i.e. in the manner illustrated by the instance of the vital airs) the non-difference of the effect from the cause is to be conceived.—­As, therefore, the whole world is an effect of Brahman and non-different from it, the promise held out in the scriptural passage that ’What is not heard is heard, what is not perceived is perceived, what is not known is known’ (Ch.  Up.  VI, 1, 3) is fulfilled[301].

21.  On account of the other (i.e. the individual soul) being designated (as non-different from Brahman) there would attach (to Brahman) various faults, as, for instance, not doing what is beneficial.

Another objection is raised against the doctrine of an intelligent cause of the world.—­If that doctrine is accepted, certain faults, as, for instance, doing what is not beneficial, will attach (to the intelligent cause, i.e.  Brahman), ‘on account of the other being designated.’  For Scripture declares the other, i.e. the embodied soul, to be one with Brahman, as is shown by the passage, ’That is the Self; that art thou, O Svetaketu!’ (Ch.  Up.  VI, 8, 7.)—­Or else (if we interpret ‘the other’ of the Sutra in a different way) Scripture declares the other, i.e.  Brahman, to be the Self of the embodied soul. 

Page 334

22.  But the separate (Brahman, i.e. the Brahman separate from the individual souls) (is the creator); (the existence of which separate Brahman we learn) from the declaration of difference.

The word ‘but’ discards the purvapaksha.—­We rather declare that that omniscient, omnipotent Brahman, whose essence is eternal pure cognition and freedom, and which is additional to, i.e. different from the embodied Self, is the creative principle of the world.  The faults specified above, such as doing what is not beneficial, and the like, do not attach to that Brahman; for as eternal freedom is its characteristic nature, there is nothing either beneficial to be done by it or non-beneficial to be avoided by it.  Nor is there any impediment to its knowledge and power; for it is omniscient and omnipotent.  The embodied Self, on the other hand, is of a different nature, and to it the mentioned faults adhere.  But then we do not declare it to be the creator of the world, on account of ‘the declaration of difference.’  For scriptural passages (such as, ’Verily, the Self is to be seen, to be heard, to be perceived, to be marked,’ B/ri/.  Up.  II, 4, 5;

Page 335

23.  And because the case is analogous to that of stones, &c. (the objections raised) cannot be established.

As among minerals, which are all mere modifications of earth, nevertheless great variety is observed, some being precious gems, such as diamonds, lapis lazuli, &c., others, such as crystals and the like, being of medium value, and others again stones only fit to be flung at dogs or crows; and as from seeds which are placed in one and the same ground various plants are seen to spring, such as sandalwood and cucumbers, which show the greatest difference in their leaves, blossoms, fruits, fragrancy, juice, &c.; and as one and the same food produces various effects, such as blood and hair; so the one Brahman also may contain in itself the distinction of the individual Selfs and the highest Self, and may produce various effects.  Hence the objections imagined by others (against the doctrine of Brahman being the cause of the world) cannot be maintained.—­Further[302] arguments are furnished by the fact of all effect having, as Scripture declares, their origin in speech only, and by the analogous instance of the variety of dream phantoms (while the dreaming person remains one).

Page 336

24.  If you object on the ground of the observation of the employment (of instruments); (we say), No; because as milk (transforms itself, so Brahman does).

Your assertion that the intelligent Brahman alone, without a second, is the cause of the world cannot be maintained, on account of the observation of employment (of instruments).  For in ordinary life we see that potters, weavers, and other handicraftsmen produce jars, cloth, and the like, after having put themselves in possession of the means thereto by providing themselves with various implements, such as clay, staffs, wheels, string, &c.; Brahman, on the other hand, you conceive to be without any help; how then can it act as a creator without providing itself with instruments to work with?  We therefore maintain that Brahman is not the cause of the world.

This objection is not valid, because causation is possible in consequence of a peculiar constitution of the causal substance, as in the case of milk.  Just as milk and water turn into curds and ice respectively, without any extraneous means, so it is in the case of Brahman also.  And if you object to this analogy for the reason that milk, in order to turn into curds, does require an extraneous agent, viz. heat, we reply that milk by itself also undergoes a certain amount of definite change, and that its turning is merely accelerated by heat.  If milk did not possess that capability of itself, heat could not compel it to turn; for we see that air or ether, for instance, is not compelled by the action of heat to turn into sour milk.  By the co-operation of auxiliary means the milk’s capability of turning into sour milk is merely completed.  The absolutely complete power of Brahman, on the other hand, does not require to be supplemented by any extraneous help.  Thus Scripture also declares, ’There is no effect and no instrument known of him, no one is seen like unto him or better; his high power is revealed as manifold, as inherent, acting as force and knowledge’ (Sve.  Up.  VI, 8).  Therefore Brahman, although one only, is, owing to its manifold powers, able to transform itself into manifold effects; just as milk is.

25.  And (the case of Brahman is) like that of gods and other beings in ordinary experience.

Well, let it be admitted that milk and other non-intelligent things have the power of turning themselves into sour milk, &c. without any extraneous means, since it is thus observed.  But we observe, on the other hand, that intelligent agents, as, for instance, potters, proceed to their several work only after having provided themselves with a complete set of instruments.  How then can it be supposed that Brahman, which is likewise of an intelligent nature, should proceed without any auxiliary?

Page 337

We reply, ‘Like gods and others.’  As gods, fathers, rishis, and other beings of great power, who are all of intelligent nature, are seen to create many and various objects, such as palaces, chariots, &c., without availing themselves of any extraneous means, by their mere intention, which is effective in consequence of those beings’ peculiar power—­a fact vouchsafed by mantras, arthavadas, itihasas, and pura/n/as;—­and as the spider emits out of itself the threads of its web; and as the female crane conceives without a male; and as the lotus wanders from one pond to another without any means of conveyance; so the intelligent Brahman also may be assumed to create the world by itself without extraneous means.

Perhaps our opponent will argue against all this in the following style.—­The gods and other beings, whom you have quoted as parallel instances, are really of a nature different from that of Brahman.  For the material causes operative in the production of palaces and other material things are the bodies of the gods, and not their intelligent Selfs.  And the web of the spider is produced from its saliva which, owing to the spider’s devouring small insects, acquires a certain degree of consistency.  And the female crane conceives from hearing the sound of thunder.  And the lotus flower indeed derives from its indwelling intelligent principle the impulse of movement, but is not able actually to move in so far as it is a merely intelligent being[303]; it rather wanders from pond to pond by means of its non-intelligent body, just as the creeper climbs up the tree.—­Hence all these illustrative examples cannot be applied to the case of Brahman.

To this we reply, that we meant to show merely that the case of Brahman is different from that of potters and similar agents.  For while potters, &c., on the one side, and gods, &c., on the other side, possess the common attribute of intelligence, potters require for their work extraneous means (i.e. means lying outside their bodies) and gods do not.  Hence Brahman also, although intelligent, is assumed to require no extraneous means.  So much only we wanted to show by the parallel instance of the gods, &c.  Our intention is to point out that a peculiarly conditioned capability which is observed in some one case (as in that of the potter) is not necessarily to be assumed in all other cases also.

26.  Either the consequence of the entire (Brahman undergoing change) has to be accepted, or else a violation of the texts declaring Brahman to be without parts.

Hitherto we have established so much that Brahman, intelligent, one, without a second, modifying itself without the employment of any extraneous means, is the cause of the world.—­Now, another objection is raised for the purpose of throwing additional light on the point under discussion.—­The consequence of the Vedanta doctrine, it is said, will be that we must assume the entire Brahman to undergo the change

Page 338

27.  But (this is not so), on account of scriptural passages, and on account of (Brahman) resting on Scripture (only).

The word ‘but’ discards the objection.—­We deny this and maintain that our view is not open to any objections.—­That the entire Brahman undergoes change, by no means follows from our doctrine, ’on account of sacred texts.’  For in the same way as Scripture speaks of the origin of the world from Brahman, it also speaks of Brahman subsisting apart from its effects.  This appears from the passages indicating the difference of cause and effect ’(That divinity thought) let me enter into these three divinities with this living Self and evolve names and forms;’ and, ’Such is the greatness of it, greater than it is the Person; one foot of him are all things, three feet are what is immortal in heaven’ (Ch.  Up.  III, 12, 6); further, from the passages declaring the unmodified Brahman to have its abode in the heart, and from those teaching that (in dreamless sleep) the individual soul is united with the True.  For if the entire Brahman had passed into its effects, the limitation (of the soul’s union with Brahman) to the state of dreamless sleep which is declared in the passage, ‘then it is united with the True, my dear,’ would be out of place; since the individual soul is always united with the effects of Brahman, and since an unmodified

Page 339

But—­our opponent will say—­even the holy texts cannot make us understand what is contradictory.  Brahman, you say, which is without parts undergoes a change, but not the entire Brahman.  If Brahman is without parts, it does either not change at all or it changes in its entirety.  If, on the other hand, it be said that it changes partly and persists partly, a break is effected in its nature, and from that it follows that it consists of parts.  It is true that in matters connected with action (as, for instance, in the case of the two Vedic injunctions ‘at the atiratra he is to take the sho/d/a/s/in-cup,’ and ’at the atiratra he is not to take the sho/d/a/s/in-cup’) any contradiction which may present itself to the understanding is removed by the optional adoption of one of the two alternatives presented as action is dependent on man; but in the case under discussion the adoption of one of the alternatives does not remove the contradiction because an existent thing (like Brahman) does not (like an action which is to be accomplished) depend on man.  We are therefore met here by a real difficulty.

Page 340

No, we reply, the difficulty is merely an apparent one; as we maintain that the (alleged) break in Brahman’s nature is a mere figment of Nescience.  By a break of that nature a thing is not really broken up into parts, not any more than the moon is really multiplied by appearing double to a person of defective vision.  By that element of plurality which is the fiction of Nescience, which is characterised by name and form, which is evolved as well as non-evolved, which is not to be defined either as the Existing or the Non-existing, Brahman becomes the basis of this entire apparent world with its changes, and so on, while in its true and real nature it at the same time remains unchanged, lifted above the phenomenal universe.  And as the distinction of names and forms, the fiction of Nescience, originates entirely from speech only, it does not militate against the fact of Brahman being without parts.—­Nor have the scriptural passages which speak of Brahman as undergoing change the purpose of teaching the fact of change; for such instruction would have no fruit.  They rather aim at imparting instruction about Brahman’s Self as raised above this apparent world; that being an instruction which we know to have a result of its own.  For in the scriptural passage beginning ‘He can only be described by No, no’ (which passage conveys instruction about the absolute Brahman) a result is stated at the end, in the words ’O Janaka, you have indeed reached fearlessness’ (B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 2, 4).—­Hence our view does not involve any real difficulties.

28.  For thus it is in the (individual) Self also, and various (creations exist in gods[305], &c.).

Nor is there any reason to find fault with the doctrine that there can be a manifold creation in the one Self, without destroying its character.  For Scripture teaches us that there exists a multiform creation in the one Self of a dreaming person, ’There are no chariots in that state, no horses, no roads, but he himself creates chariots, horses, and roads’ (B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 3, 10).  In ordinary life too multiform creations, elephants, horses, and the like are seen to exist in gods, &c., and magicians without interfering with the unity of their being.  Thus a multiform creation may exist in Brahman also, one as it is, without divesting it of its character of unity.

29.  And because the objection (raised against our view) lies against his (the opponent’s) view likewise.

Those also who maintain that the world has sprung from the pradhana implicitly teach that something not made up of parts, unlimited, devoid of sound and other qualities—­viz. the pradhana—­is the cause of an effect—­viz. the world—­which is made up of parts, is limited and is characterised by the named qualities.  Hence it follows from that doctrine also either that the pradhana as not consisting of parts has to undergo a change in its entirety, or else that the view of its not consisting of parts has to be abandoned.—­But—­it

Page 341

The same objections lie against the doctrine of the world having originated from atoms.  For on that doctrine one atom when combining with another must, as it is not made up of parts, enter into the combination with its whole extent, and as thus no increase of bulk takes place we do not get beyond the first atom.[308] If, on the other hand, you maintain that the atom enters into the combination with a part only, you offend against the assumption of the atoms having no parts.

As therefore all views are equally obnoxious to the objections raised, the latter cannot be urged against any one view in particular, and the advocate of Brahman has consequently cleared his doctrine.

30.  And (the highest divinity is) endowed with all (powers) because that is seen (from Scripture).

We have stated that this multiform world of effects is possible to Brahman, because, although one only, it is endowed with various powers.—­How then—­it may be asked—­do you know that the highest Brahman is endowed with various powers?—­He is, we reply, endowed with all powers, ‘because that is seen.’  For various scriptural passages declare that the highest divinity possesses all powers, ’He to whom all actions, all desires, all odours, all tastes belong, he who embraces all this, who never speaks, and is never surprised’ (Ch.  Up.  III, 14, 4); ’He who desires what is true and imagines what is true’ (Ch.  Up.  VIII, 7, 1); ‘He who knows all (in its totality), and cognizes all (in its detail’) (Mu.  Up.  I, 1, 9); ’By the command of that Imperishable, O Gargi, sun and moon stand apart’ (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 8, 9); and other similar passages.

31.  If it be said that (Brahman is devoid of powers) on account of the absence of organs; (we reply that) this has been explained (before).

Page 342

Let this be granted.—­Scripture, however, declares the highest divinity to be without (bodily) organs of action[309]; so, for instance, in the passage, ’It is without eyes, without ears, without speech, without mind’ (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 8, 8).  Being such, how should it be able to produce effects, although it may be endowed with all powers?  For we know (from mantras, arthavadas, &c.) that the gods and other intelligent beings, though endowed with all powers, are capable of producing certain effects only because they are furnished with bodily instruments of action.  And, moreover, how can the divinity, to whom the scriptural passage, ‘No, no,’ denies all attributes, be endowed with all powers?

The appropriate reply to this question has been already given above.  The transcendent highest Brahman can be fathomed by means of Scripture only, not by mere reasoning.  Nor are we obliged to assume that the capacity of one being is exactly like that which is observed in another.  It has likewise been explained above that although all qualities are denied of Brahman we nevertheless may consider it to be endowed with powers, if we assume in its nature an element of plurality, which is the mere figment of Nescience.  Moreover, a scriptural passage (’Grasping without hands, hastening without feet, he sees without eyes, he hears without ears’ Sve.  Up.  III, 19) declares that Brahman although devoid of bodily organs, possesses all possible capacities.

32. (Brahman is) not (the creator of the world), on account of (beings engaging in any action) having a motive.

Another objection is raised against the doctrine of an intelligent cause of the world.—­The intelligent highest Self cannot be the creator of the sphere of this world, ’on account of actions having a purpose.’—­We know from ordinary experience that man, who is an intelligent being, begins to act after due consideration only, and does not engage even in an unimportant undertaking unless it serves some purpose of his own; much less so in important business.  There is also a scriptural passage confirming this result of common experience, ’Verily everything is not dear that you may have everything; but that you may love the Self therefore everything is dear’ (B/ri/.  Up.  II, 4, 5).  Now the undertaking of creating the sphere of this world, with all its various contents, is certainly a weighty one.  If, then, on the one hand, you assume it to serve some purpose of the intelligent highest Self, you thereby sublate its self-sufficiency vouched for by Scripture; if, on the other hand, you affirm absence of motive on its part, you must affirm absence of activity also.—­Let us then assume that just as sometimes an intelligent person when in a state of frenzy proceeds, owing to his mental aberration, to action without a motive, so the highest Self also created this world without any motive.—­That, we reply, would contradict the omniscience of the highest Self, which is vouched for by Scripture.—­Hence the doctrine of the creation proceeding from an intelligent Being is untenable.

Page 343

33.  But (Brahman’s creative activity) is mere sport, such as we see in ordinary life.

The word ‘but’ discards the objection raised.—­We see in every-day life that certain doings of princes or other men of high position who have no unfulfilled desires left have no reference to any extraneous purpose; but proceed from mere sportfulness, as, for instance, their recreations in places of amusement.  We further see that the process of inhalation and exhalation is going on without reference to any extraneous purpose, merely following the law of its own nature.  Analogously, the activity of the Lord also may be supposed to be mere sport, proceeding from his own nature[310], without reference to any purpose.  For on the ground neither of reason nor of Scripture can we construe any other purpose of the Lord.  Nor can his nature be questioned.[311]—­Although the creation of this world appears to us a weighty and difficult undertaking, it is mere play to the Lord, whose power is unlimited.  And if in ordinary life we might possibly, by close scrutiny, detect some subtle motive, even for sportful action, we cannot do so with regard to the actions of the Lord, all whose wishes are fulfilled, as Scripture says.—­Nor can it be said that he either does not act or acts like a senseless person; for Scripture affirms the fact of the creation on the one hand, and the Lord’s omniscience on the other hand.  And, finally, we must remember that the scriptural doctrine of creation does not refer to the highest reality; it refers to the apparent world only, which is characterised by name and form, the figments of Nescience, and it, moreover, aims at intimating that Brahman is the Self of everything.

34.  Inequality (of dispensation) and cruelty (the Lord can) not (be reproached with), on account of his regarding (merit and demerit); for so (Scripture) declares.

In order to strengthen the tenet which we are at present defending, we follow the procedure of him who shakes a pole planted in the ground (in order to test whether it is firmly planted), and raise another objection against the doctrine of the Lord being the cause of the world.—­The Lord, it is said, cannot be the cause of the world, because, on that hypothesis, the reproach of inequality of dispensation and cruelty would attach to him.  Some beings, viz. the gods and others, he renders eminently happy; others, as for instance the animals, eminently unhappy; to some again, as for instance men, he allots an intermediate position.  To a Lord bringing about such an unequal condition of things, passion and malice would have to be ascribed, just as to any common person acting similarly; which attributes would be contrary to the essential goodness of the Lord affirmed by Sruti and Sm/ri/ti.  Moreover, as the infliction of pain and the final destruction of all creatures would form part of his dispensation, he would have to be taxed with great cruelty, a quality abhorred by low people even.  For these two reasons Brahman cannot be the cause of the world.

Page 344

The Lord, we reply, cannot be reproached with inequality of dispensation and cruelty, “because he is bound by regards.”  If the Lord on his own account, without any extraneous regards, produced this unequal creation, he would expose himself to blame; but the fact is, that in creating he is bound by certain regards, i.e. he has to look to merit and demerit.  Hence the circumstance of the creation being unequal is due to the merit and demerit of the living creatures created, and is not a fault for which the Lord is to blame.  The position of the Lord is to be looked on as analogous to that of Parjanya, the Giver of rain.  For as Parjanya is the common cause of the production of rice, barley, and other plants, while the difference between the various species is due to the various potentialities lying hidden in the respective seeds, so the Lord is the common cause of the creation of gods, men, &c., while the differences between these classes of beings are due to the different merit belonging to the individual souls.  Hence the Lord, being bound by regards, cannot be reproached with inequality of dispensation and cruelty.—­And if we are asked how we come to know that the Lord, in creating this world with its various conditions, is bound by regards, we reply that Scripture declares that; compare, for instance, the two following passages, ’For he (the Lord) makes him, whom he wishes to lead up from these worlds, do a good deed; and the same makes him, whom he wishes to lead down from these worlds, do a bad deed’ (Kaush.  Up.  III, 8)[312]; and, ’A man becomes good by good work, bad by bad work’ (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 2, 13).  Sm/ri/ti passages also declare the favour of the Lord and its opposite to depend on the different quality of the works of living beings; so, for instance, ‘I serve men in the way in which they approach me’ (Bha.  Gi.  IV, 11).

35.  If it be objected that it (viz. the Lord’s having regard to merit and demerit) is impossible on account of the non-distinction (of merit and demerit, previous to the first creation); we refute the objection on the ground of (the world) being without a beginning.

But—­an objection is raised—­the passage, ’Being only this was in the beginning, one, without a second,’ affirms that before the creation there was no distinction and consequently no merit on account of which the creation might have become unequal.  And if we assume the Lord to have been guided in his dispensations by the actions of living beings subsequent to the creation, we involve ourselves in the circular reasoning that work depends on diversity of condition of life, and diversity of condition again on work.  The Lord may be considered as acting with regard to religious merit after distinction had once arisen; but as before that the cause of inequality, viz. merit, did not exist, it follows that the first creation must have been free, from inequalities.

This objection we meet by the remark, that the transmigratory world is without beginning.—­The objection would be valid if the world had a beginning; but as it is without beginning, merit and inequality are, like seed and sprout, caused as well as causes, and there is therefore no logical objection to their operation.—­To the question how we know that the world is without a beginning, the next Sutra replies.

Page 345

36. (The beginninglessness of the world) recommends itself to reason and is seen (from Scripture).

The beginninglessness of the world recommends itself to reason.  For if it had a beginning it would follow that, the world springing into existence without a cause, the released souls also would again enter into the circle of transmigratory existence; and further, as then there would exist no determining cause of the unequal dispensation of pleasure and pain, we should have to acquire in the doctrine of rewards and punishments being allotted, without reference to previous good or bad action.  That the Lord is not the cause of the inequality, has already been remarked.  Nor can Nescience by itself be the cause, and it is of a uniform nature.  On the other hand, Nescience may be the cause of inequality, if it be considered as having regard to merit accruing from action produced by the mental impressions or wrath, hatred, and other afflicting passions[313].  Without merit and demerit nobody can enter into existence, and again, without a body merit and demerit cannot be formed; so that—­on the doctrine of the world having a beginning—­we are led into a logical see-saw.  The opposite doctrine, on the other hand, explains all matters in a manner analogous to the case of the seed and sprout, so that no difficulty remains.—­Moreover, the fact of the world being without a beginning, is seen in Sruti and Sm/ri/ti.  In the first place, we have the scriptural passage, ’Let me enter with this living Self (jiva)’, &c. (Ch.  Up.  VI, 3, 2).  Here the circumstance of the embodied Self (the individual soul) being called, previously to creation, ’the living Self’—­a name applying to it in so far as it is the sustaining principle of the pra/n/as—­shows that this phenomenal world is without a beginning.  For if it had a beginning, the pra/n/as would not exist before that beginning, and how then could the embodied Self be denoted, with reference to the time of the world’s beginning, by a name which depends on the existence of those pra/n/as.  Nor can it be said that it is so designated with a view to its future relation to the pra/n/as; it being a settled principle that a past relation, as being already existing, is of greater force than a mere future relation.—­Moreover, we have the mantra, ’As the creator formerly devised (akalpaya) sun and moon (Ri.  Sa/m/h.  X, 190, 3), which intimates the existence of former Kalpas.  Sm/ri/ti also declares the world to be without a beginning, ’Neither its form is known here, nor its end, nor its beginning, nor its support’ (Bha.  Gi.  XV, 3).  And the Pura/n/a also declares that there is no measure of the past and the future Kalpas.

37.  And because all the qualities (required in the cause of the world) are present (in Brahman).

The teacher has now refuted all the objections, such as difference of character, and the like, which other teachers have brought forward against what he had established as the real sense of the Veda, viz. that the intelligent Brahman is the cause and matter of this world.

Page 346

Now, before entering on a new chapter, whose chief aim it will be to refute the (positive) opinions held by other teachers, he sums up the foregoing chapter, the purport of which it was to show why his view should be accepted.—­Because, if that Brahman is acknowledged as the cause of the world, all attributes required in the cause (of the world) are seen to be present—­Brahman being all-knowing, all-powerful, and possessing the great power of Maya,—­on that account this our system, founded on the Upanishads, is not open to any objections.

Notes: 

[Footnote 253:  The Sm/ri/ti called Tantra is the Sa@nkhya/s/astra as taught by Kapila; the Sm/ri/ti-writers depending on him are Asuri, Pa/nk/a/s/ikha, and others.]

[Footnote 254:  Mima/m/sa Su.  I, 1, 2:  kodanalaksha/n/osxrtho dharma/h/.  Commentary:  kodana iti kriyaya/h/ pravartaka/m/ va/k/anam ahu/h/.]

[Footnote 255:  Purushartha; in opposition to the rules referred to in the preceding sentence which are kratvartha, i.e. the acting according to which secures the proper performance of certain rites.]

[Footnote 256:  It having been decided by the Purva Mima/m/sa already that Sm/ri/tis contradicted by Sruti are to be disregarded.]

[Footnote 257:  On the meaning of ‘kapila’ in the above passage, compare the Introduction to the Upanishads, translated by Max Mueller, vol. ii, p. xxxviii ff.—­As will be seen later on, Sa@nkara, in this bhashya, takes the Kapila referred to to be some rishi.]

[Footnote 258:  I.e. religious duty is known only from the injunctive passages of the Veda.]

[Footnote 259:  After it has been shown that Kapila the dvaitavadin is not mentioned in Sruti, it is now shown that Manu the sarvatmavadin is mentioned there.]

[Footnote 260:  In which passage the phrase ‘to be meditated upon’ (nididhyasa) indicates the act of mental concentration characteristic of the Yoga.]

[Footnote 261:  The ash/t/akas (certain oblations to be made on the eighth days after the full moons of the seasons hemanta and si/s/ira) furnish the stock illustration for the doctrine of the Purva Mim. that Sm/ri/ti is authoritative in so far as it is based on Sruti.]

[Footnote 262:  But why—­it will be asked—­do you apply yourself to the refutation of the Sa@nkhya and Yoga only, and not also to that of other Sm/ri/tis conflicting with the Vedanta views?]

[Footnote 263:  I.e. from the fact of these terms being employed in a passage standing close to other passages which refer to Vedic knowledge.]

Page 347

[Footnote 264:  The cognition of Brahman terminates in an act of anubhava; hence as it has been shown that reasoning is more closely connected with anubhava than Sruti is, we have the right to apply reasoning to Sruti.—­Ananda Giri comments on the passage from anubhavavasanam as follows:  brahmasakshatkarasya mokshopayataya pradhanyat tatra sabdad api parokshago/k/arad aparoksharthasadharmyago/k/aras tarkosxntara@ngam iti tasyaiva balavatvam ity artha/h/.  Aitihyamatre/n/a pravadaparamparyamatre/n/a parokshatayeti yavat.  Anubhavasya pradhanye tarkasyoktanyayena tasminn antara@ngatvad agamasya ka bahira@ngatvad antara@ngabahira@ngayor antara@nga/m/ balavad ity nyayad ukta/m/ tarkasya balavattvam.  Anubhavapradhanya/m/ tu nadyapi siddham ity a/s/a@nkyahanubhaveti.  Nanu Brahmaj/n/adna/m/ vaidikatvad dharmavad ad/ri/sh/t/aphalam esh/t/avya/m/ tat kutosxsyanubhavavasanavidyanivartakatva/m/ tatraha moksheti.  Adhish/th/anasakshatkarasya suktyadj/n/ane tadavidyatatkaryanivartakatvad/ri/sh/t/e/h/, brahmaj/n/anasyapi tarkava/s/ad asambhavanadinirasadvara sakshatkaravasayinas tadavidyadinivartakatvenaiva muktihetuteti nad/ri/sh/t/aphalatety artha/h/.]

[Footnote 265:  Nirati/s/aya/h/, upajanapayadharma/s/unyatva/m/ nirati/s/ayatvam.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 266:  A sentence replying to the possible objection that the world, as being the effect of the intelligent Brahman, might itself be intelligent.]

[Footnote 267:  In the case of things commonly considered non-intelligent, intelligence is not influenced by an internal organ, and on that account remains unperceived; samaste jagati satoszpi kaitanyasya tatra tatranta/h/kara/n/apari/n/amanuparagad anupalabdhir aviruddha.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 268:  On i/s/vara in the above meaning, compare Deussen, p. 69, note 41.]

[Footnote 269:  The line ‘prak/ri/tibhya/h/ param,’ &c. is wanting in all MSS.  I have consulted.]

[Footnote 270:  Ananda Giri on the above passage:  srutyaka@nkshita/m/ tarkam eva mananavidhivishayam udaharati svapnanteti.  Svapnajagaritayor mithovyabhi/k/arad atmana/h/ svabhavatas tadvattvabhavad avastha dvayena tasya svatosxsa/m/p/ri/ktatvam ato jivasyavasthavatvena nabrahmatvam ity artha/h/.  Tathapi dehaditadatmyenatmano bhavan na ni/h/prapa/nk/abrahmatety a/s/a@nkyaha sa/m/prasade keti.  Sata somya tada sa/m/panno bhavatiti srute/h/ sushupte ni/h/prapa/nk/asadatmatvavagamad atmanas tathavidhabrahmatvasiddhir ity artha/h/.  Dvaitagrahipratyakshadivirodhat katham atmanosxdvitiyabrahmatvam ity a/s/a@nkya tajjatvadihetuna brahmatiriktavastvabhavasiddher adhyakshadinam atatvavedakaprama/n/yad avirodhad yuktam atmano xsvitiyabrahmatvam ity aha prapa/nk/asyeti.]

[Footnote 271:  Let us finally assume, merely for argument’s sake, that a vailaksha/n/ya of cause and effect is not admissible, and enquire whether that assumption can be reconciled more easily with an intelligent or a non-intelligent cause of the world.]

Page 348

[Footnote 272:  Nanu pralayakale karyadharma/s/ ken navatish/th/eran na tarhi kara/n/adharma api tish/th/eyus tayor abhedat tatrahananyatveszpiti.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 273:  For if they are effects of the pradhana they must as such be reabsorbed into it at the time of general reabsorption.]

[Footnote 274:  And that the Vedanta view is preferable because the nullity of the objections has already been demonstrated in its case.]

[Footnote 275:  The whole style of argumentation of the Mima/m/sa would be impossible, if all reasoning were sound; for then no purvapaksha view could be maintained.]

[Footnote 276:  The following arthavada-passage, for instance, ’the sacrificial post is the sun,’ is to be taken in a metaphorical sense; because perception renders it impossible for us to take it in its literal meaning.]

[Footnote 277:  Which are to be known from the Veda only.]

[Footnote 278:  Pari/n/amavadam avalambyapatato virodha/m/ samadhaya vivartavadam a/s/ritya paramasamadhanam aha.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 279:  Ananda Giri construes differently:  etad uktam iti, paramarthato vij/n/atam iti sambandha/h/.]

[Footnote 280:  D/ri/sh/t/eti kada/k/id dr/ri/sh/t/a/m/ punar nash/t/am anityam iti yavat.—­D/ri/sh/t/agraha/n/asu/k/ita/m/ pratitikalesxpi sattarahitya/m/ tatraiva hetvantaram aha svarupe/n/eti.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 281:  In the passage alluded to he is called so by implication, being compared to the ‘false-minded’ thief who, knowing himself to be guilty, undergoes the ordeal of the heated hatchet.]

[Footnote 282:  I.e. ordinary experience does not teach us that real effects spring from unreal causes.]

[Footnote 283:  Svapnajagraddehayor vyabhi/k/arezpi pratyabhij/n/anat tadanugatatmaikyasiddhe/s/ kaitanyasya ka dehadharmatve rutmano dehadvayatiredkasiddher dehatratmavado na yukta ity artha/h/.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 284:  As long as the ‘vyavahara’ presents itself to our mind, we might feel inclined to assume in Brahman an element of manifoldness whereby to account for the vyavahara; but as soon as we arrive at true knowledge, the vyavahara vanishes, and there remains no longer any reason for qualifying in any way the absolute unity of Brahman.]

[Footnote 285:  Tatreti, s/ri/sh/t/yadi/s/rutina/m/ svarthe phatavaikalye satiti yavat.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 286:  A Mima/m/sa principle.  A sacrificial act, for instance, is independent when a special result is assigned to it by the sacred texts; an act which is enjoined without such a specification is merely auxiliary to another act.]

[Footnote 287:  According to the Sruti ’in whatever mode he worships him into that mode he passes himself.’]

[Footnote 288:  Tattvanyatvabhyam iti, na hisvaratvena te niru/k/yete ja/d/ajadayor abhedayogat napi tatoxnyatvenax niruktim arhata/h/ svatantrye/n/a sattasphurtyasambhavat na hi j/ad/am aga/d/anapekshya/m/ sattasphurtimad upalakshyate ja/d/atvabha@ngaprasa@ngat tasmad avidyatmake namarupe ity artha/h/.  An.  Gi.]

Page 349

[Footnote 289:  So that from the instance of the potter and the jar we cannot conclude that the relation of clay and the jar is only that of nimitta and naimittika, not that of non-difference.]

[Footnote 290:  For instance, smoke extending in a long line whose base is connected with some object on the surface of the earth.]

[Footnote 291:  I.e. (as An.  Gi. explains) because we assume the relation of cause and effect not merely on the ground of the actual existence of one thing depending on that upon another, but on the additional ground of the mental existence, the consciousness of the one not being possible without the consciousness of the other.—­Tadbhavanuvidhayibhavatvam tadbhananuvidhayibhanatva/m/ ka karyasya kara/n/ananyatve hetur dhumavi/s/eshasya kagnibhavanuvidhayibhavatvesxpi na tadbhananuvidhayibhanatvam agnibhanasya dhumabhanadhinatvat.]

[Footnote 292:  For simplicity’s sake, asat will be translated henceforth by non-existing.]

[Footnote 293:  Samavaya, commonly translated by inherence or intimate relation, is, according to the Nyaya, the relation connecting a whole and its parts, substances, and qualities, &c.]

[Footnote 294:  Samavayasya svatantryapaksha/m/ dushayati anabhyupagamyamane/k/eti.  Samavayasya samavayibhi/h/ sambandho neshyate ki/m/ tu svatantryam evety atravayavavayavinor dravyagu/n/adina/m/ ka. viprakarsha/h/ syat sa/m/nidhayakabhavad ity artha/h/.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 295:  A conclusion which is in conflict with the Nyaya tenet that sa/m/yoga, conjunction, as, for instance, of the jar and the ground on which it stands, is a quality (gu/n/a) inherent in the two conjoined substances by means of the samavaya relation.]

[Footnote 296:  So that the whole can be apprehended by us as such if we apprehend a certain part only; analogously to our apprehending the whole thread on which a garland of flowers is strung as soon as we apprehend some few of the flowers.]

[Footnote 297:  Kalpantaram utthapayati atheti, tatha ka yathavayavai/h/ sutra/m/ kusumani vyapnuvat katipayakusumagraha/n/expi g/r/ihyate tatha katipayavayavagraha/n/expi bhavaty avayavino graha/n/am ity artha/h/.  Tatra kim arambhakavayavair eva teshv avayavi vartteta ki/m/ va tadatiriklavayavair iti vikalpyadyam pratyaha tadapiti.  Yatra yad varttate tat tadatiriktavayavair eva tatra vartamana/m/ drish/l/am iti d/ri/sh/t/antagarbha/m/ hetum a/k/ash/l/e ko/s/eti.  Dvitiyam dushayati anavastheti.  Kalpitanantavayavavyavahitataya prak/ri/tavayavino duraviprakarshat tantunish/th/atvam pa/t/asya na syad iti bhava/h/.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 298:  I.e. a something in which the action inheres; not a causal agent.]

[Footnote 299:  Every action, Sa@nkara says, requires an agent, i.e. a substrate in which the action takes place.  If we deny that the jar exists in the clay even before it is actually originated, we lose the substrate for the action of origination, i.e. entering into existence (for the non-existing jar cannot be the substratum of any action), and have to assume, for that action, other substrates, such as the operative causes of the jar.]

Page 350

[Footnote 300:  Which doctrine will be fully discussed in the second pada of this adhyaya.]

[Footnote 301:  Because it has been shown that cause and effect are identical; hence if the cause is known, the effect is known also.]

[Footnote 302:  Which arguments, the commentators say, are hinted at by the ‘and’ of the Sutra.]

[Footnote 303:  The right reading appears to be ‘svayam eva ketana’ as found in some MSS.  Other MSS. read ketana/h/.]

[Footnote 304:  Prak/ri/tibhya iti, pratyakshad/ri/sh/t/apadarthasvabhavebhyo yat para/m/ vilaksha/n/am a/k/aryadyupade/s/agamya/m/ tad a/k/intyam ity arta/h/ An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 305:  This is the way in which Sa@nkara divides the Sutra; An.  Gi. remarks to ’lokezspo, &c.:  atmani keti vyakhyaya vi/k/itra/s/ ka hiti vya/k/ash/t/e.’]

[Footnote 306:  So that if it undergoes modifications it must either change in its entirety, or else—­against the assumption—­consist of parts.]

[Footnote 307:  The last clause precludes the justificatory remark that the stated difficulties can be avoided if we assume the three gu/n/as in combination only to undergo modification; if this were so the inequality of the different effects could not be accounted for.]

[Footnote 308:  As an atom has no parts it cannot enter into partial contact with another, and the only way in which the two can combine is entire interpenetration; in consequence of which the compound of two atoms would not occupy more space than one atom.]

[Footnote 309:  The Sutra is concerned with the body only as far as it is an instrument; the case of extraneous instruments having already been disposed of in Sutra 24.]

[Footnote 310:  The nature (svabhava) of the Lord is, the commentators say, Maya joined with time and karman.]

[Footnote 311:  This clause is an answer to the objection that the Lord might remain at rest instead of creating a world useless to himself and the cause of pain to others.  For in consequence of his conjunction with Maya the creation is unavoidable.  Go.  An.  Avidya naturally tends towards effects, without any purpose.  Bha.

An.  Gi. remarks:  Nanu liladav asmadadinam akasmad eva niv/ri/tter api darsanad i/s/varasyapi mayamayyam lilayam tatha-bhave vinapi sa/my/agj/n/ana/m/ sa/m/sarasamu/kkh/ittir ili tatraha na keti.  Anirva/ky/a khalv avidya paras/yes/varasya ka. svabhavo lileti kokyate tatra na pratitikasvabhavayam anupapattir avataratity artha/h/.]

[Footnote 312:  From this passage we must not—­the commentators say—­infer injustice on the part of the Lord; for the previous merit or demerit of a being determines the specific quality of the actions which he performs in his present existence, the Lord acting as the common cause only (as Parjanya does).]

[Footnote 313:  Ragadveshamoha ragadayas le ka purusha/m/ dukhadibhi/h/ kli/s/yantita kle/s/as tesb/am/ kartneapia/vi/uyanugu/rr/as tabhir aksbipta/m/ dharmadilaksbilaksha/n/a/m/ kurma tadapekshavidya.  An.  Gi.]

Page 351

SECOND PADA.

REVERENCE TO THE HIGHEST SELF!

1.  That which is inferred (by the Sa@nkhyas, viz. the pradhana) cannot be the cause (of the world), on account of the orderly arrangement (of the world) being impossible (on that hypothesis).

Although it is the object of this system to define the true meaning of the Vedanta-texts and not, like the science of Logic, to establish or refute some tenet by mere ratiocination, still it is incumbent on thorough students of the Vedanta to refute the Sa@nkhya and other systems which are obstacles in the way of perfect knowledge.  For this purpose a new chapter is begun. (Nor must it be said that the refutation of the other systems ought to have preceded the establishment of the Vedanta position; for) as the determination of the sense of the Vedanta-passages directly subserves perfect knowledge, we have at first, by means of such a determination, established our own position, since this is a task more important than the refutation of the views entertained by others.

Here an opponent might come forward and say that we are indeed entitled to establish our own position, so as to define perfect knowledge which is the means of release to those desirous of it, but that no use is apparent of a refutation of other opinions, a proceeding productive of nothing but hate and anger.—­There is a use, we reply.  For there is some danger of men of inferior intelligence looking upon the Sa@nkhya and similar systems as requisite for perfect knowledge, because those systems have a weighty appearance, have been adopted by authoritative persons, and profess to lead to perfect knowledge.  Such people might therefore think that those systems with their abstruse arguments were propounded by omniscient sages, and might on that account have faith in them.  For this reason we must endeavour to demonstrate their intrinsic worthlessness.

But, it might be said, the Sa@nkhya and similar systems have already been impugned in several Sutras of the first adhyaya (I, 1, 5, 18; I, 4, 28); why, then, controvert them again?—­The task—­we reply—­which we are now about to undertake differs from what we have already accomplished.  As the Sa@nkhyas and other philosophers also quote, in order to establish their own positions, the Vedanta-passages and interpret them in such a manner as to make them agree with their own systems, we have hitherto endeavoured to show that their interpretations are altogether fallacious.  Now, however, we are going to refute their arguments in an independent manner, without any reference to the Vedanta-texts.

Page 352

The Sa@nkhyas, to make a beginning with them, argue as follows.—­Just as jars, dishes, and other products which possess the common quality of consisting of clay are seen to have for their cause clay in general; so we must suppose that all the outward and inward (i.e. inanimate and animate) effects which are endowed with the characteristics of pleasure, pain, and dulness[314] have for their causes pleasure, pain, and dulness in general.  Pleasure, pain, and dulness in their generality together constitute the threefold pradhana.  This pradhana which is non-intelligent evolves itself spontaneously into multiform modifications[315], in order thus to effect the purposes (i.e. enjoyment, release, and so on) of the intelligent soul.—­The existence of the pradhana is to be inferred from other circumstances also, such as the limitation of all effects and the like[316].

Against this doctrine we argue as follows.—­If you Sankhyas base your theory on parallel instances merely, we point out that a non-intelligent thing which, without being guided by an intelligent being, spontaneously produces effects capable of subserving the purposes of some particular person is nowhere observed in the world.  We rather observe that houses, palaces, couches, pleasure-grounds, and the like—­things which according to circumstances are conducive to the obtainment of pleasure or the avoidance of pain—­are made by workmen endowed with intelligence.  Now look at this entire world which appears, on the one hand, as external (i.e. inanimate) in the form of earth and the other elements enabling (the souls) to enjoy the fruits of their various actions, and, on the other hand, as animate, in the form of bodies which belong to the different classes of beings, possess a definite arrangement of organs, and are therefore capable of constituting the abodes of fruition; look, we say, at this world, of which the most ingenious workmen cannot even form a conception in their minds, and then say if a non-intelligent principle like the pradhana is able to fashion it!  Other non-intelligent things such as stones and clods of earth are certainly not seen to possess analogous powers.  We rather must assume that just as clay and similar substances are seen to fashion themselves into various forms, if worked upon by potters and the like, so the pradhana also (when modifying itself into its effects) is ruled by some intelligent principle.  When endeavouring to determine the nature of the primal cause (of the world), there is no need for us to take our stand on those attributes only which form part of the nature of material causes such as clay, &c., and not on those also which belong to extraneous agents such as potters, &c.[317] Nor (if remembering this latter point) do we enter into conflict with any means of right knowledge; we, on the contrary, are in direct agreement with Scripture which teaches that an intelligent cause exists.—­For the reason detailed in the above, i.e. on account of the impossibility

Page 353

2.  And on account of (the impossibility of) activity.

Leaving the arrangement of the world, we now pass on to the activity by which it is produced.—­The three gu/n/as, passing out of the state of equipoise and entering into the condition of mutual subordination and superordination, originate activities tending towards the production of particular effects.—­Now these activities also cannot be ascribed to a non-intelligent pradhana left to itself, as no such activity is seen in clay and similar substances, or in chariots and the like.  For we observe that clay and the like, and chariots—­which are in their own nature non-intelligent—­enter on activities tending towards particular effects only when they are acted upon by intelligent beings such as potters, &c. in the one case, and horses and the like in the other case.  From what is seen we determine what is not seen.  Hence a non-intelligent cause of the world is not to be inferred because, on that hypothesis, the activity without which the world cannot be produced would be impossible.

Page 354

But, the Sa@nkhya rejoins, we do likewise not observe activity on the part of mere intelligent beings.—­True; we however see activity on the part of non-intelligent things such as chariots and the like when they are in conjunction with intelligent beings.—­But, the Sa@nkhya again objects, we never actually observe activity on the part of an intelligent being even when in conjunction with a non-intelligent thing.—­Very well; the question then arises:  Does the activity belong to that in which it is actually observed (as the Sa@nkhya says), or to that on account of the conjunction with which it is observed (as the Vedantin avers)?—­We must, the Sa@nkhya replies, attribute activity to that in which it is actually seen, since both (i.e. the activity and its abode) are matter of observation.  A mere intelligent being, on the other hand, is never observed as the abode of activity while a chariot is.  The[324] existence of an intelligent Self joined to a body and so on which are the abode of activity can be established (by inference) only; the inference being based on the difference observed between living bodies and mere non-intelligent things, such as chariots and the like.  For this very reason, viz. that intelligence is observed only where a body is observed while it is never seen without a body, the Materialists consider intelligence to be a mere attribute of the body.—­Hence activity belongs only to what is non-intelligent.

To all this we—­the Vedantins—­make the following reply.—­We do not mean to say that activity does not belong to those non-intelligent things in which it is observed; it does indeed belong to them; but it results from an intelligent principle, because it exists when the latter is present and does not exist when the latter is absent.  Just as the effects of burning and shining, which have their abode in wood and similar material, are indeed not observed when there is mere fire (i.e. are not due to mere fire; as mere fire, i.e. fire without wood, &c., does not exist), but at the same time result from fire only as they are seen when fire is present and are not seen when fire is absent; so, as the Materialists also admit, only intelligent bodies are observed to be the movers of chariots and other non-intelligent things.  The motive power of intelligence is therefore incontrovertible.—­But—­an objection will be raised—­your Self even if joined to a body is incapable of exercising moving power, for motion cannot be effected by that the nature of which is pure intelligence.—­A thing, we reply, which is itself devoid of motion may nevertheless move other things.  The magnet is itself devoid of motion, and yet it moves iron; and colours and the other objects of sense, although themselves devoid of motion, produce movements in the eyes and the other organs of sense.  So the Lord also who is all-present, the Self of all, all-knowing and all-powerful may, although himself unmoving, move the universe.—­If it finally be objected that (on the Vedanta doctrine)

Page 355

3.  If it be said (that the pradhana moves) like milk or water, (we reply that) there also (the motion is due to intelligence).

Well, the Sa@nkhya resumes, listen then to the following instances.—­As non-sentient milk flows forth from its own nature merely for the nourishment of the young animal, and as non-sentient water, from its own nature, flows along for the benefit of mankind, so the pradhana also, although non-intelligent, may be supposed to move from its own nature merely for the purpose of effecting the highest end of man.

This argumentation, we reply, is unsound again; for as the adherents of both doctrines admit that motion is not observed in the case of merely non-intelligent things such as chariots, &c., we infer that water and milk also move only because they are directed by intelligent powers.  Scriptural passages, moreover (such as ’He who dwells in the water and within the water, who rules the water within,’ B/ri/.  Up.  III, 7, 4; and, ’By the command of that Akshara, O Gargi, some rivers flow to the East,’ &c., B/ri/.  Up.  III, 8, 9), declare that everything in this world which flows is directed by the Lord.  Hence the instances of milk and water as belonging themselves to that class of cases which prove our general principle[325] cannot be used to show that the latter is too wide.—­Moreover, the cow, which is an intelligent being and loves her calf, makes her milk flow by her wish to do so, and the milk is in addition drawn forth by the sucking of the calf.  Nor does water move either with absolute independence—­for its flow depends on the declivity of the soil and similar circumstances—­or independently of an intelligent principle, for we have shown that the latter is present in all cases.—­If, finally, our opponent should point to Sutra II, 1, 24 as contradicting the present Sutra, we remark that there we have merely shown on the ground of ordinary experience that an effect may take place in itself independently of any external instrumental cause; a conclusion which does not contradict the doctrine, based on Scripture, that all effects depend on the Lord.

4.  And because (the pradhana), on account of there existing nothing beyond it, stands in no relation; (it cannot be active.)

Page 356

The three gu/n/as of the Sa@nkhyas when in a state of equipoise form the pradhana.  Beyond the pradhana there exists no external principle which could either impel the pradhana to activity or restrain it from activity.  The soul (purusha), as we know, is indifferent, neither moves to—­nor restrains from—­action.  As therefore the pradhana stands in no relation, it is impossible to see why it should sometimes modify itself into the great principle (mahat) and sometimes not.  The activity and non-activity (by turns) of the Lord, on the other hand, are not contrary to reason, on account of his omniscience and omnipotence, and his being connected with the power of illusion (maya).

5.  Nor (can it be said that the pradhana modifies itself spontaneously) like grass, &c. (which turn into milk); for (milk) does not exist elsewhere (but in the female animal).

Let this be (the Sa@nkhya resumes).  Just as grass, herbs, water, &c. independently of any other instrumental cause transform themselves, by their own nature, into milk; so, we assume, the pradhana also transforms itself into the great principle, and so on.  And, if you ask how we know that grass transforms itself independently of any instrumental cause; we reply, ‘Because no such cause is observed.’  For if we did perceive some such cause, we certainly should apply it to grass, &c. according to our liking, and thereby produce milk.  But as a matter of fact we do no such thing.  Hence the transformation of grass and the like must be considered to be due to its own nature merely; and we may infer therefrom that the transformation of the pradhana is of the same kind.

To this we make the following reply.—­The transformation of the pradhana might be ascribed to its own nature merely if we really could admit that grass modifies itself in the manner stated by you; but we are unable to admit that, since another instrumental cause is observed.  How?  ’Because it does not exist elsewhere.’  For grass becomes milk only when it is eaten by a cow or some other female animal, not if it is left either uneaten or is eaten by a bull.  If the transformation had no special cause, grass would become milk even on other conditions than that of entering a cow’s body.  Nor would the circumstance of men not being able to produce milk according to their liking prove that there is no instrumental cause; for while some effects can be produced by men, others result from divine action only[326].  The fact, however, is that men also are able, by applying a means in their power, to produce milk from grass and herbs; for when they wish to procure a more abundant supply of milk they feed the cow more plentifully and thus obtain more milk from her.—­For these reasons the spontaneous modification of the pradhana cannot be proved from the instance of grass and the like.

6.  Even if we admit (the Sa@nkhya position refuted in what precedes, it is invalidated by other objections) on account of the absence of a purpose (on the part of the pradhana).

Page 357

Even if we, accommodating ourselves to your (the Sa@nkhya’s) belief, should admit what has been disproved in the preceding Sutra, viz. that the pradhana is spontaneously active, still your opinion would lie open to an objection ‘on account of the absence of a purpose.’  For if the spontaneous activity of the pradhana has, as you say, no reference to anything else, it will have no reference not only to any aiding principle, but also to any purpose or motive, and consequently your doctrine that the pradhana is active in order to effect the purpose of man will become untenable.  If you reply that the pradhana does not indeed regard any aiding principle, but does regard a purpose, we remark that in that case we must distinguish between the different possible purposes, viz. either enjoyment (on the part of the soul), or final release, or both.  If enjoyment, what enjoyment, we ask, can belong to the soul which is naturally incapable of any accretion (of pleasure or pain)[327]?  Moreover, there would in that case be no opportunity for release[328].—­If release, then the activity of the pradhana would be purposeless, as even antecedently to it the soul is in the state of release; moreover, there would then be no occasion for the perception of sounds, &c.[329]—­If both, then, on account of the infinite number of the objects of pradhana to be enjoyed (by the soul)[330], there would be no opportunity for final release.  Nor can the satisfaction of a desire be considered as the purpose of the activity of the pradhana; for neither the non-intelligent pradhana nor the essentially pure soul can feel any desire.—­If, finally, you should assume the pradhana to be active, because otherwise the power of sight (belonging to the soul on account of its intelligent nature) and the creative power (belonging to the pradhana) would be purposeless; it would follow that, as the creative power of the pradhana does not cease at any time any more than the soul’s power of sight does, the apparent world would never come to an end, so that no final release of the soul could take place[331].—­It is, therefore, impossible to maintain that the pradhana enters on its activity for the purposes of the soul.

7.  And if you say (that the soul may move the pradhana) as the (lame) man (moves the blind one) or as the magnet (moves the iron); thus also (the difficulty is not overcome).

Well then—­the Sa@nkhya resumes, endeavouring to defend his position by parallel instances—­let us say that, as some lame man devoid of the power of motion, but possessing the power of sight, having mounted the back of a blind man who is able to move but not to see, makes the latter move; or as the magnet not moving itself, moves the iron, so the soul moves the pradhana.—­Thus also, we reply, you do not free your doctrine from all shortcomings; for this your new position involves an abandonment of your old position, according to which the pradhana is moving of itself, and the (indifferent, inactive)

Page 358

8.  And, again, (the pradhana cannot be active) because the relation of principal (and subordinate matter) is impossible (between the three gu/n/as).

For the following reason also activity on the part of the pradhana is not possible.—­The condition of the pradhana consists in the three gu/n/as, viz. goodness, passion, and darkness, abiding in themselves in a state of equipoise without standing to one another in the relation of mutual superiority or inferiority.  In that state the gu/n/as cannot possibly enter into the relation of mutual subserviency because thereby they would forfeit their essential characteristic, viz. absolute independence.  And as there exists no extraneous principle to stir up the gu/n/as, the production of the great principle and the other effects—­which would acquire for its operative cause a non-balanced state of the gu/n/as—­is impossible.

9.  And although another inference be made, (the objections remain in force) on account of the (pradhana) being devoid of the power of intelligence.

But—­the Sa@nkhya resumes—­we draw another inference, so as to leave no room for the objection just stated.  We do not acknowledge the gu/n/as to be characterised by absolute irrelativity and unchangeableness, since there is no proof for such an assumption.  We rather infer the characteristics of the gu/n/as from those of their effects, presuming that their nature must be such as to render the production of the effects possible.  Now the gu/n/as are admitted to be of an unsteady nature; hence the gu/n/as themselves are able to enter into the relation of mutual inequality, even while they are in a state of equipoise.

Page 359

Even in that case, we reply, the objections stated above which were founded on the impossibility of an orderly arrangement of the world, &c., remain in force on account of the pradhana being devoid of the power of intelligence.  And if (to escape those objections) the Sa@nkhya should infer (from the orderly arrangement of the world, &c.), that the primal cause is intelligent, he would cease to be an antagonist, since the doctrine that there is one intelligent cause of this multiform world would be nothing else but the Vedantic doctrine of Brahman.—­Moreover, if the gu/n/as were capable of entering into the relation of mutual inequality even while in the state of equipoise, one of two things would happen; they would either not be in the condition of inequality on account of the absence of an operative cause; or else, if they were in that condition, they would always remain in it; the absence of an operative cause being a non-changing circumstance.  And thus the doctrine would again be open to the objection stated before[333].

10.  And moreover (the Sa@nkhya doctrine) is objectionable on account of its contradictions.

The doctrine of the Sa@nkhyas, moreover, is full of contradictions.  Sometimes they enumerate seven senses, sometimes eleven[334].  In some places they teach that the subtle elements of material things proceed from the great principle, in other places again that they proceed from self-consciousness.  Sometimes they speak of three internal organs, sometimes of one only[335].  That their doctrine, moreover, contradicts Sruti, which teaches that the Lord is the cause of the world, and Sm/ri/ti, based on Sruti, is well known.—­For these reasons also the Sa@nkhya system is objectionable.

Here the Sa@nkhya again brings a countercharge—­The system of the Vedantins also, he says, must be declared to be objectionable; for it does not admit that that which suffers and that which causes suffering[336] are different classes of things (and thereby renders futile the well-established distinction of causes of suffering and suffering beings).  For those who admit the one Brahman to be the Self of everything and the cause of the whole world, have to admit also that the two attributes of being that which causes suffering and that which suffers belong to the one supreme Self (not to different classes of beings).  If, then, these two attributes belong to one and the same Self, it never can divest itself of them, and thus Scripture, which teaches perfect knowledge for the purpose of the cessation of all suffering, loses all its meaning.  For—­to adduce a parallel case—­a lamp as long as it subsists as such is never divested of the two qualities of giving heat and light.  And if the Vedantin should adduce the case of water with its waves, ripples, foam, &c.[337], we remark that there also the waves, &c. constitute attributes of the water which remain permanently, although they by turns manifest themselves, and again

Page 360

(And just as there could be no desiring person, if the object of desire and the desiring person were not essentially separate), so the object of desire also would cease to be an object for the desiring person, and would be an object for itself only.  As a matter of fact, however, this is not the case; for the two ideas (and terms), ‘object of desire’ and ‘desiring person,’ imply a relation (are correlative), and a relation exists in two things, not in one only.  Hence the desiring person and the object of desire are separate.—­The same holds good with regard to what is not desired (object of aversion; anartha) and the non-desiring person (anarthin).

An object of desire is whatever is of advantage to the desiring person, an object of aversion whatever is of disadvantage; with both one person enters into relation by turns.  On account of the comparative paucity of the objects of desire, and the comparative multitude of the objects of aversion, both may be comprised under the general term, ’object of aversion.’  Now, these objects of aversion we mean when we use the term ‘causes of suffering,’ while by the term ‘sufferer’ we understand the soul which, being one, enters into successive relations with both (i.e. the objects of desire and the objects of aversion).  If, then, the causes of suffering and the sufferer constitute one Self (as the Vedanta teaches), it follows that final release is impossible.—­But if, on the other hand, the two are assumed to constitute separate classes, the possibility of release is not excluded, since the cause of the connexion of the two (viz. wrong knowledge) may be removed.

Page 361

All this reasoning—­we, the Vedantins, reply—­is futile, because on account of the unity of the Self the relation, whose two terms are the causes of suffering, and the sufferer cannot exist (in the Self).—­Our doctrine would be liable to your objection if that which causes suffering and that which suffers did, while belonging to one and the same Self, stand to each other in the relation of object and subject.  But they do not stand in that relation just because they are one.  If fire, although it possesses different attributes, such as heat and light, and is capable of change, does neither burn nor illumine itself since it is one only; how can the one unchangeable Brahman enter with reference to itself into the relation of cause of suffering and sufferer?—­Where then, it may be asked, does the relation discussed (which after all cannot be denied altogether) exist?—­That, we reply, is not difficult to see[339].  The living body which is the object of the action of burning is the sufferer; the sun, for instance, is a cause of suffering (burning).—­But, the opponent rejoins, burning is a pain, and as such can affect an intelligent being only, not the non-intelligent body; for if it were an affection of the mere body, it would, on the destruction of the body, cease of itself, so that it would be needless to seek for means to make it cease.—­But it is likewise not observed, we reply, that a mere intelligent being destitute of a body is burned and suffers pain.—­Nor would you (the Sa@nkhya) also assume that the affection called burning belongs to a mere intelligent being.  Nor can you admit[340] a real connexion of the soul and the body, because through such a connexion impurity and similar imperfections would attach to the soul[341].  Nor can suffering itself be said to suffer.  And how then, we ask, can you explain the relation existing between a sufferer and the causes of suffering?  If (as a last refuge) you should maintain that the sattva-gu/n/a is that which suffers, and the gu/n/a called passion that which causes suffering, we again object, because the intelligent principle (the soul) cannot be really connected with these two[342].  And if you should say that the soul suffers as it were because it leans towards[343] the sattva-gu/n/a, we point out that the employment of the phrase, ‘as it were,’ shows that the soul does not really suffer.

If it is understood that its suffering is not real, we do not object to the phrase ‘as it were[344].’  For the amphisbena also does not become venomous because it is ‘a serpent as it were’ (’like a serpent’), nor does the serpent lose its venom because it is ‘like an amphisbena.’  You must therefore admit that the relation of causes of suffering and of sufferers is not real, but the effect of Nescience.  And if you admit, that, then my (the Vedantic) doctrine also is free from objections[345].

Page 362

But perhaps you (the Sa@nkhya) will say that, after all, suffering (on the part of the soul) is real[346].  In that case, however, the impossibility of release is all the more undeniable[347], especially as the cause of suffering (viz. the pradhana) is admitted to be eternal.—­And if (to get out of this difficulty) you maintain that, although the potentialities of suffering (on the part of the soul) and of causing suffering (on the part of the pradhana) are eternal, yet suffering, in order to become actual, requires the conjunction of the two—­which conjunction in its turn depends on a special reason, viz. the non-discrimination of the pradhana by the soul—­and that hence, when that reason no longer exists, the conjunction of the two comes to an absolute termination, whereby the absolute release of the soul becomes possible; we are again unable to accept your explanation, because that on which the non-discrimination depends, viz. the gu/n/a, called Darkness, is acknowledged by you to be eternal.

And as[348] there is no fixed rule for the (successive) rising and sinking of the influence of the particular gu/n/as, there is also no fixed rule for the termination of the cause which effects the conjunction of soul and pradhana (i.e. non-discrimination); hence the disjunction of the two is uncertain, and so the Sa@nkhyas cannot escape the reproach of absence of final release resulting from their doctrine.  To the Vedantin, on the other hand, the idea of final release being impossible cannot occur in his dreams even; for the Self he acknowledges to be one only, and one thing cannot enter into the relation of subject and object, and Scripture, moreover, declares that the plurality of effects originates from speech only.  For the phenomenal world, on the other hand, we may admit the relation of sufferer and suffering just as it is observed, and need neither object to it nor refute it.

Herewith we have refuted the doctrine which holds the pradhana to be the cause of the world.  We have now to dispose of the atomic theory.

We begin by refuting an objection raised by the atomists against the upholders of Brahman.—­The Vai/s/eshikas argue as follows:  The qualities which inhere in the substance constituting the cause originate qualities of the same kind in the substance constituting the effect; we see, for instance, that from white threads white cloth is produced, but do not observe what is contrary (viz. white threads resulting in a piece of cloth of a different colour).  Hence, if the intelligent Brahman is assumed as the cause of the world, we should expect to find intelligence inherent in the effect also, viz. the world.  But this is not the case, and consequently the intelligent Brahman cannot be the cause of the world.—­This reasoning the Sutrakara shows to be fallacious, on the ground of the system of the Vai/s/eshikas themselves.

II.  Or (the world may originate from Brahman) as the great and the long originate from the short and the atomic.

Page 363

The system of the Vai/s/eshikas is the following:—­The atoms which possess, according to their special kind[349], the qualities of colour, &c., and which are of spherical form[350], subsist during a certain period[351] without producing any effects[352].  After that, the unseen principle (ad/ri/sh/ta/), &c.[353], acting as operative causes and conjunction constituting the non-inherent cause[354], they produce the entire aggregate of effected things, beginning with binary atomic compounds.  At the same time the qualities of the causes (i.e. of the simple atoms) produce corresponding qualities in the effects.  Thus, when two atoms produce a binary atomic compound, the special qualities belonging to the simple atoms, such as white colour, &c., produce a corresponding white colour in the binary compound.  One special quality, however, of the simple atoms, viz. atomic sphericity, does not produce corresponding sphericity in the binary compound; for the forms of extension belonging to the latter are said to be minuteness (a/n/utva) and shortness.  And, again, when two binary compounds combining produce a quaternary atomic compound, the qualities, such as whiteness, &c., inherent in the binary compounds produce corresponding qualities in the quaternary compounds; with the exception, however, of the two qualities of minuteness and shortness.  For it is admitted that the forms of extension belonging to quaternary compounds are not minuteness and shortness, but bigness (mahattva) and length.  The same happens[355] when many simple atoms or many binary compounds or a simple atom and a binary compound combine to produce new effects.

Well, then, we say, just as from spherical atoms binary compounds are produced, which are minute and short, and ternary compounds which are big and long, but not anything spherical; or as from binary compounds, which are minute and short, ternary compounds, &c., are produced which are big and long, not minute and short; so this non-intelligent world may spring from the intelligent Brahman.  This is a doctrine to which you—­the Vai/s/eshika—­cannot, on your own principles, object.

Here the Vai/s/eshika will perhaps come forward with the following argumentation[356].  As effected substances, such as binary compounds and so on, are engrossed by forms of extension contrary to that of the causal substances, the forms of extension belonging to the latter, viz. sphericity and so on, cannot produce similar qualities in the effects.  The world, on the other hand, is not engrossed by any quality contrary to intelligence owing to which the intelligence inherent in the cause should not be able to originate a new intelligence in the effect.  For non-intelligence is not a quality contrary to intelligence, but merely its negation.  As thus the case of sphericity is not an exactly parallel one, intelligence may very well produce an effect similar to itself.

Page 364

This argumentation, we rejoin, is not sound.  Just as the qualities of sphericity and so on, although existing in the cause, do not produce corresponding effects, so it is with intelligence also; so that the two cases are parallel so far.  Nor can the circumstance of the effects being engrossed by a different form of extension be alleged as the reason of sphericity, &c. not originating qualities similar to themselves; for the power of originating effects belongs to sphericity, &c. before another form of extension begins to exist.  For it is admitted that the substance produced remains for a moment devoid of qualities, and that thereupon only (i.e. after that moment) its qualities begin to exist.  Nor, again, can it be said that sphericity, &c. concentrate their activity on originating other forms of extension[357], and therefore do not originate forms of extension belonging to the same class as their own; for it is admitted that the origin of other forms is due to other causes; as the Sutras of Ka/n/abhuj (Ka/n/ada) themselves declare (Vai/s/.  Sut.  VII, 1, 9, ’Bigness is produced from plurality inherent in the causes, from bigness of the cause and from a kind of accumulation;’ VII, 1, 10, ‘The contrary of this (the big) is the minute;’ VII, 1, 17, ’Thereby length and shortness are explained[358]’).—­Nor, again, can it be said that plurality, &c. inherent in the cause originate (like effects) in consequence of some peculiar proximity (in which they are supposed to stand to the effected substance), while sphericity, &c. (not standing in a like proximity) do not; for when a new substance or a new quality is originated, all the qualities of the cause stand in the same relation of inherence to their abode (i.e. the causal substance in which they inhere).  For these reasons the fact of sphericity, &c. not originating like effects can be explained from the essential nature of sphericity, &c. only, and the same may therefore be maintained with regard to intelligence[359].

Moreover, from that observed fact also, that from conjunction (sa/m/yoga) there originate substances, &c. belonging to a class different (from that to which conjunction itself belongs), it follows that the doctrine of effects belonging to the same class as the causes from which they spring is too wide.  If you remark against this last argument that, as we have to do at present with a substance (viz.  Brahman), it is inappropriate to instance a quality (viz. conjunction) as a parallel case; we point out that at present we only wish to explain the origination of effects belonging to a different class in general.  Nor is there any reason for the restriction that substances only are to be adduced as examples for substances, and qualities only for qualities.  Your own Sutrakara adduces a quality as furnishing a parallel case for a substance (Vai/s/.  Sut.  IV, 2, 2, ’On account of the conjunction of things perceptible and things imperceptible being imperceptible the body is not composed of five elements’).  Just

Page 365

12.  In both cases also (in the cases of the ad/ri/sh/t/a inhering either in the atoms or the soul) action (of the atoms) is not (possible); hence absence of that (viz. creation and pralaya).

The Sutrakara now proceeds to refute the doctrine of atoms being the cause of the world.—­This doctrine arises in the following manner.  We see that all ordinary substances which consist of parts as, for instance, pieces of cloth originate from the substances connected with them by the relation of inherence, as for instance threads, conjunction co-operating (with the parts to form the whole).  We thence draw the general conclusion that whatever consists of parts has originated from those substances with which it is connected by the relation of inherence, conjunction cooperating.  That thing now at which the distinction of whole and parts stops and which marks the limit of division into minuter parts is the atom.—­This whole world, with its mountains, oceans, and so on, is composed of parts; because it is composed of parts it has a beginning and an end[360]; an effect may not be assumed without a cause; therefore the atoms are the cause of the world.  Such is Ka/n/ada’s doctrine.—­As we observe four elementary substances consisting of parts, viz. earth, water, fire, and air (wind), we have to assume four different kinds of atoms.  These atoms marking the limit of subdivision into minuter parts cannot be divided themselves; hence when the elements are destroyed they can be divided down to atoms only; this state of atomic division of the elements constitutes the pralaya (the periodical destruction of the world).  After that when the time for creation comes, motion (karman) springs up in the aerial atoms.  This motion which is due to the unseen principle[361] joins

Page 366

This doctrine we controvert in the following manner.—­It must be admitted that the atoms when they are in a state of isolation require action (motion) to bring about their conjunction; for we observe that the conjunction of threads and the like is effected by action.  Action again, which is itself an effect, requires some operative cause by which it is brought about; for unless some such cause exists, no original motion can take place in the atoms.  If, then, some operative cause is assumed, we may, in the first place, assume some cause analogous to seen causes, such as endeavour or impact.  But in that case original motion could not occur at all in the atoms, since causes of that kind are, at the time, impossible.  For in the pralaya state endeavour, which is a quality of the soul, cannot take place because no body exists then.  For the quality of the soul called endeavour originates when the soul is connected with the internal organ which abides in the body.  The same reason precludes the assumption of other seen causes such as impact and the like.  For they all are possible only after the creation of the world has taken place, and cannot therefore be the causes of the original action (by which the world is produced).—­If, in the second place, the unseen principle is assumed as the cause of the original motion of the atoms, we ask:  Is this unseen principle to be considered as inhering in the soul or in the atom?  In both cases it cannot be the cause of motion in the atoms, because it is non-intelligent.  For, as we have shown above in our examination of the Sa@nkhya system, a non-intelligent thing which is not directed by an intelligent principle cannot of itself either act or be the cause of action, and the soul cannot be the guiding principle of the ad/ri/sh/t/a because at the time of pralaya its intelligence has not yet arisen[362].  If, on the other hand, the unseen principle is supposed to inhere in the soul, it cannot be the cause of motion in the atoms, because there exists no connexion of it with the latter.  If you say that the soul in which the unseen principle inheres is connected with the atoms, then there would result, from the continuity of connexion[363], continuity of action, as there is no other restricting principle.—­Hence, there being no definite cause of action, original action cannot take place in the atoms; there being no action, conjunction of the atoms which depends on action cannot take place; there being no conjunction, all the effects depending on it, viz. the formation of binary atomic compounds, &c., cannot originate.

Page 367

How, moreover, is the conjunction of one atom with another to be imagined?  Is it to be total interpenetration of the two or partial conjunction?  If the former, then no increase of bulk could take place, and consequently atomic size only would exist; moreover, it would be contrary to what is observed, as we see that conjunction takes place between substances having parts (prade/s/a).  If the latter, it would follow that the atoms are composed of parts.—­Let then the atoms be imagined to consist of parts.—­If so, imagined things being unreal, the conjunction also of the atoms would be unreal and thus could not be the non-inherent cause of real things.  And without non-inherent causes effected substances such as binary compounds, &c. could not originate.  And just as at the time of the first creation motion of the atoms leading to their conjunction could not take place, there being no cause of such motion; thus at the time of a general pralaya also no action could take place leading to their separation, since for that occurrence also no definite seen cause could be alleged.  Nor could the unseen principle be adduced as the cause, since its purport is to effect enjoyment (of reward and punishment on the part of the soul), not to bring about the pralaya.  There being then no possibility of action to effect either the conjunction or the separation of the atoms, neither conjunction nor separation would actually take place, and hence neither creation nor pralaya of the world.—­For these reasons the doctrine of the atoms being the cause of the world must be rejected.

13.  And because in consequence of samavaya being admitted a regressus in infinitum results from parity of reasoning.

You (the Vai/s/eshika) admit that a binary compound which originates from two atoms, while absolutely different from them, is connected with them by the relation of inherence; but on that assumption the doctrine of the atoms being the general cause cannot be established, ’because parity involves here a retrogressus ad infinitum.’  For just as a binary compound which is absolutely different from the two constituent atoms is connected with them by means of the relation of inherence (samavaya), so the relation of inherence itself being absolutely different from the two things which it connects, requires another relation of inherence to connect it with them, there being absolute difference in both cases.  For this second relation of inherence again, a third relation of inherence would have to be assumed and so on ad infinitum.—­But—­the Vai/s/eshika is supposed to reply—­we are conscious of the so-called samavaya relation as eternally connected with the things between which it exists, not as either non-connected with them or as depending on another connexion; we are therefore not obliged to assume another connexion, and again another, and so on, and thus to allow ourselves to be driven into a regressus in infinitum.—­Your defence is unavailing, we reply, for it would involve the admission

Page 368

14.  And on account of the permanent existence (of activity or non-activity).

Moreover, the atoms would have to be assumed as either essentially active (moving) or essentially non-active, or both or neither; there being no fifth alternative.  But none of the four alternatives stated is possible.  If they were essentially active, their activity would be permanent so that no pralaya could take place.  If they were essentially non-active, their non-activity would be permanent, and no creation could take place.  Their being both is impossible because self-contradictory.  If they were neither, their activity and non-activity would have to depend on an operative cause, and then the operative causes such as the ad/ri/sh/t/a being in permanent proximity to the atoms, permanent activity would result; or else the ad/ri/sh/t/a and so on not being taken as operative causes, the consequence would be permanent non-activity on the part of the atoms.—­For this reason also the atomic doctrine is untenable.

15.  And on account of the atoms having colour, &c., the reverse (of the Vai/s/eshika tenet would take place); as thus it is observed.

Let us suppose, the Vai/s/eshikas say, all substances composed of parts to be disintegrated into their parts; a limit will finally be reached beyond which the process of disintegration cannot be continued.  What constitutes that limit are the atoms, which are eternal (permanent), belong to four different classes, possess the qualities of colour, &c., and are the originating principles of this whole material world with its colour, form, and other qualities.

Page 369

This fundamental assumption of the Vai/s/eshikas we declare to be groundless because from the circumstance of the atoms having colour and other qualities there would follow the contrary of atomic minuteness and permanency, i.e. it would follow that, compared to the ultimate cause, they are gross and non-permanent.  For ordinary experience teaches that whatever things possess colour and other qualities are, compared to their cause, gross and non-permanent.  A piece of cloth, for instance, is gross compared to the threads of which it consists, and non permanent; and the threads again are non-permanent and gross compared to the filaments of which they are made up.  Therefore the atoms also which the Vai/s/eshikas admit to have colour, &c. must have causes compared to which they are gross and non-permanent.  Hence that reason also which Ka/n/ada gives for the permanence of the atoms (IV, 1, 1, ’that which exists without having a cause is permanent’) does not apply at all to the atoms because, as we have shown just now, the atoms are to be considered as having a cause.—­The second reason also which Ka/n/ada brings forward for the permanency of the atoms, viz. in IV, 1, 4, ’the special negation implied in the term non-eternal would not be possible[368]’ (if there did not exist something eternal, viz. the atoms), does not necessarily prove the permanency of the atoms; for supposing that there exists not any permanent thing, the formation of a negative compound such as ‘non-eternal’ is impossible.  Nor does the existence of the word ‘non-permanent’ absolutely presuppose the permanency of atoms; for there exists (as we Vedantins maintain) another permanent ultimate Cause, viz.  Brahman.  Nor can the existence of anything be established merely on the ground of a word commonly being used in that sense, since there is room for common use only if word and matter are well-established by some other means of right knowledge.—­The third reason also given in the Vai/s/.  Sutras (IV, 1, 5) for the permanency of the atoms (’and Nescience’) is unavailing.  For if we explain that Sutra to mean ’the non-perception of those actually existing causes whose effects are seen is Nescience,’ it would follow that the binary atomic compounds also are permanent[369].  And if we tried to escape from that difficulty by including (in the explanation of the Sutra as given above) the qualification ’there being absence of (originating) substances,’ then nothing else but the absence of a cause would furnish the reason for the permanency of the atoms, and as that reason had already been mentioned before (in IV, 1, 1) the Sutra IV, 1, 5 would be a useless restatement.—­Well, then (the Vai/s/eshika might say), let us understand by ‘Nescience’ (in the Sutra) the impossibility of conceiving a third reason of the destruction (of effects), in addition to the division of the causal substance into its parts, and the destruction of the causal substance; which impossibility involves the permanency of the atoms[370].—­There

Page 370

16.  And as there are difficulties in both cases.

Earth has the qualities of smell, taste, colour, and touch, and is gross; water has colour, taste, and touch, and is fine; fire has colour and touch, and is finer yet; air is finest of all, and has the quality of touch only.  The question now arises whether the atoms constituting the four elements are to be assumed to possess the same greater or smaller number of qualities as the respective elements.—­Either assumption leads to unacceptable consequences.  For if we assume that some kinds of atoms have more numerous qualities, it follows that their solid size (murti) will be increased thereby, and that implies their being atoms no longer.  That an increase of qualities cannot take place without a simultaneous increase of size we infer from our observations concerning effected material bodies.—­If, on the other hand, we assume, in order to save the equality of atoms of all kinds, that there is no difference in the number of their qualities, we must either suppose that they have all one quality only; but in that case we should not perceive touch in fire nor colour and touch in water, nor taste, colour, and touch in earth, since the qualities of the effects have for their antecedents the qualities of the causes.  Or else we must suppose all atoms to have all the four qualities; but in that case we should necessarily perceive what we actually do not perceive, viz. smell in water, smell and taste in fire, smell, taste, and colour in air.—­Hence on this account also the atomic doctrine shows itself to be unacceptable.

17.  And as the (atomic theory) is not accepted (by any authoritative persons) it is to be disregarded altogether.

While the theory of the pradhana being the cause of the world has been accepted by some adherents of the Veda—­as, for instance, Manu—­with a view to the doctrines of the effect existing in the cause already, and so on, the atomic doctrine has not been accepted by any persons of authority in any of its parts, and therefore is to be disregarded entirely by all those who take their stand on the Veda.

Page 371

There are, moreover, other objections to the Vai/s/eshika doctrine.—­The Vai/s/eshikas assume six categories, which constitute the subject-matter of their system, viz. substance, quality, action, generality, particularity, and inherence.  These six categories they maintain to be absolutely different from each other, and to have different characteristics; just as a man, a horse, a hare differ from one another.  Side by side with this assumption they make another which contradicts the former one, viz. that quality, action, &c. have the attribute of depending on substance.  But that is altogether inappropriate; for just as ordinary things, such as animals, grass, trees, and the like, being absolutely different from each other do not depend on each other, so the qualities, &c. also being absolutely different from substance, cannot depend on the latter.  Or else let the qualities, &c. depend on substance; then it follows that, as they are present where substance is present, and absent where it is absent, substance only exists, and, according to its various forms, becomes the object of different terms and conceptions (such as quality, action, &c.); just as Devadatta, for instance, according to the conditions in which he finds himself is the object of various conceptions and names.  But this latter alternative would involve the acceptation of the Sa@nkhya doctrine[372] and the abandonment of the Vai/s/eshika standpoint.—­But (the Vai/s/eshika may say) smoke also is different from fire and yet it is dependent on it.—­True, we reply; but we ascertain the difference of smoke and fire from the fact of their being apperceived in separation.  Substance and quality, on the other hand, are not so apperceived; for when we are conscious of a white blanket, or a red cow, or a blue lotus, the substance is in each case cognised by means of the quality; the latter therefore has its Self in the substance.  The same reasoning applies to action, generality, particularity, and inherence.

If you (the Vai/s/eshika) say that qualities, actions, &c. (although not non-different from substances) may yet depend on the latter because substances and qualities stand in the relation of one not being able to exist without the other (ayutasiddhi[373]); we point out that things which are ayutasiddha must either be non-separate in place, or non-separate in time, or non-separate in nature, and that none of these alternatives agrees with Vai/s/eshika principles.  For the first alternative contradicts your own assumptions according to which the cloth originating from the threads occupies the place of the threads only, not that of the cloth, while the qualities of the cloth, such as its white colour, occupy the place of the cloth only, not that of the threads.  So the Vai/s/eshika-sutras say (I, 1, 10), ’Substances originate another substance and qualities another quality.’  The threads which constitute the causal substance originate the effected substance, viz. the cloth, and the qualities

Page 372

Moreover, the distinction which the Vai/s/eshikas make between conjunction (sa/m/yoga) as being the connexion of things which can exist separately, and inherence (samavaya) as being the connexion of things which are incapable of separate existence is futile, since the cause which exists before the effect[374] cannot be said to be incapable of separate existence.  Perhaps the Vai/s/eshika will say that his definition refers to one of the two terms only, so that samavaya is the connexion, with the cause, of the effect which is incapable of separate existence.  But this also is of no avail; for as a connexion requires two terms, the effect as long as it has not yet entered into being cannot be connected with the cause.  And it would be equally unavailing to say that the effect enters into the connexion after it has begun to exist; for if the Vai/s/eshika admits that the effect may exist previous to its connexion with the cause, it is no longer ayutasiddha (incapable of separate existence), and thereby the principle that between effect and cause conjunction and disjunction do not take place is violated.[375] And[376] just as conjunction, and not samavaya, is the connexion in which every effected substance as soon as it has been produced stands with the all-pervading substances as ether, &c.—­although no motion has taken place on the part of the effected substance—­so also the connexion of the effect with the cause will be conjunction merely, not samavaya.

Nor is there any proof for the existence of any connexion, samavaya or sa/m/yoga, apart from the things which it connects.  If it should be maintained that sa/m/yoga and samavaya have such an existence because we observe that there are names and ideas of them in addition to the names and ideas of the things connected, we point out that one and the same thing may be the subject of several names and ideas if it is considered in its relations to what lies without it.  Devadatta although being one only forms the object of many different names and notions according as he is considered in himself or in his relations to others; thus he is thought and spoken of as man, Brahma/n/a learned in the Veda, generous, boy, young man, father, grandson, brother, son-in-law, &c.  So, again, one and the same stroke is, according to the place it is connected with, spoken of and conceived as meaning either ten,

Page 373

Further[378], conjunction cannot take place between the atoms, the soul, and the internal organ, because they have no parts; for we observe that conjunction takes place only of such substances as consist of parts.  If the Vai/s/eshika should say that parts of the atoms, soul and mind may be assumed (in order to explain their alleged conjunction), we remark that the assumption of actually non-existing things would involve the result that anything might be established; for there is no restrictive rule that only such and such non-existing things—­whether contradictory to reason or not—­should be assumed and not any other, and assumptions depend on one’s choice only and may be carried to any extent.  If we once allow assumptions, there is no reason why there should not be assumed a further hundred or thousand things, in addition to the six categories assumed by the Vai/s/eshikas.  Anybody might then assume anything, and we could neither stop a compassionate man from assuming that this transmigratory world which is the cause of so much misery to living beings is not to be, nor a malicious man from assuming that even the released souls are to enter on a new cycle of existences.

Further, it is not possible that a binary atomic compound, which consists of parts, should be connected with the simple indivisible atoms by an intimate connexion (sa/ms/lesha) any more than they can thus be connected with ether; for between ether and earth, &c. there does not exist that kind of intimate connexion which exists, for instance, between wood and varnish[379].

Let it then be said (the Vai/s/eshika resumes) that the samavaya relation must be assumed, because otherwise the relation of that which abides and that which forms the abode—­which relation actually exists between the effected substance and the causal substance—­is not possible.—­That would, we reply, involve the vice of mutual dependence; for only when the separateness of cause and effect is established, the relation of the abode and that which abides can be established; and only when the latter relation is established, the relation of separateness can be established.  For the Vedantins acknowledge neither the separateness

Page 374

It thus appears that the atomic doctrine is supported by very weak arguments only, is opposed to those scriptural passages which declare the Lord to be the general cause, and is not accepted by any of the authorities taking their stand on Scripture, such as Manu and others.  Hence it is to be altogether disregarded by highminded men who have a regard for their own spiritual welfare.

18. (If there be assumed) the (dyad of) aggregates with its two causes, (there takes place) non-establishment of those (two aggregates).

The reasons on account of which the doctrine of the Vai/s/eshikas cannot be accepted have been stated above.  That doctrine may be called semi-destructive (or semi-nihilistic[383]).  That the more thorough doctrine which teaches universal non-permanency is even less worthy of being taken into consideration, we now proceed to show.

Page 375

That doctrine is presented in a variety of forms, due either to the difference of the views (maintained by Buddha at different times), or else to the difference of capacity on the part of the disciples (of Buddha).  Three principal opinions may, however, be distinguished; the opinion of those who maintain the reality of everything (Realists, sarvastitvavadin); the opinion of those who maintain that thought only is real (Idealists, vij/n/anavadin); and the opinion of those who maintain that everything is void (unreal; Nihilists, sunyavadin[384]).—­We first controvert those who maintain that everything, external as well as internal, is real.  What is external is either element (bhuta) or elementary (bhautika); what is internal is either mind (kitta) or mental (kaitta).  The elements are earth, water, and so on; elemental are colour, &c. on the one hand, and the eye and the other sense-organs on the other hand.  Earth and the other three elements arise from the aggregation of the four different kinds of atoms; the atoms of earth being hard, those of water viscid, those of fire hot, those of air mobile.:—­The inward world consists of the five so-called ‘groups’ (skandha), the group of sensation (rupaskandha), the group of knowledge (vij/n/anaskandha), the group of feeling (vedanaskandha), the group of verbal knowledge (samj/n/askandha), and the group of impressions (sa/m/skaraskandha)[385]; which taken together constitute the basis of all personal existence[386].

With reference to this doctrine we make the following remarks.—­Those two aggregates, constituting two different classes, and having two different causes which the Bauddhas assume, viz. the aggregate of the elements and elementary things whose cause the atoms are, and the aggregate of the five skandhas whose cause the skandhas are, cannot, on Bauddha principles, be established, i.e. it cannot be explained how the aggregates are brought about.  For the parts constituting the (material) aggregates are devoid of intelligence, and the kindling (abhijvalana) of intelligence depends on an aggregate of atoms having been brought about previously[387].  And the Bauddhas do not admit any other permanent intelligent being, such as either an enjoying soul or a ruling Lord, which could effect the aggregation of the atoms.  Nor can the atoms and skandhas be assumed to enter on activity on their own account; for that would imply their never ceasing to be active[388].  Nor can the cause of aggregation be looked for in the so-called abode (i.e. the alayavij/n/ana-pravaha, the train of self-cognitions); for the latter must be described either as different from the single cognitions or as not different from them. (In the former case it is either permanent, and then it is nothing else but the permanent soul of the Vedantins; or non-permanent;) then being admitted to be momentary merely, it cannot exercise any influence and cannot therefore be the cause of the motion of the atoms[389]. (And in the latter case we are not further advanced than before.)—­For all these reasons the formation of aggregates cannot be accounted for.  But without aggregates there would be an end of the stream of mundane existence which presupposes those aggregates.

Page 376

19.  If it be said that (the formation of aggregates may be explained) through (Nescience, &c.) standing in the relation of mutual causality; we say ‘No,’ because they merely are the efficient causes of the origin (of the immediately subsequent links).

Although there exists no permanent intelligent principle of the nature either of a ruling Lord or an enjoying soul, under whose influence the formation of aggregates could take place, yet the course of mundane existence is rendered possible through the mutual causality[390] of Nescience and so on, so that we need not look for any other combining principle.

The series beginning with Nescience comprises the following members:  Nescience, impression, knowledge, name and form, the abode of the six, touch, feeling, desire, activity, birth, species, decay, death, grief, lamentation, pain, mental affliction, and the like[391].  All these terms constitute a chain of causes and are as such spoken of in the Bauddha system, sometimes cursorily, sometimes at length.  They are, moreover, all acknowledged as existing, not by the Bauddhas only, but by the followers of all systems.  And as the cycles of Nescience, &c. forming uninterrupted chains of causes and effects revolve unceasingly like water-wheels, the existence of the aggregates (which constitute bodies and minds) must needs be assumed, as without such Nescience and so on could not take place.

This argumentation of the Bauddha we are unable to accept, because it merely assigns efficient causes for the origination of the members of the series, but does not intimate an efficient cause for the formation of the aggregates.  If the Bauddha reminds us of the statement made above that the existence of aggregates must needs be inferred from the existence of Nescience and so on, we point out that, if he means thereby that Nescience and so on cannot exist without aggregates and hence require the existence of such, it remains to assign an efficient cause for the formation of the aggregates.  But, as we have already shown—­when examining the Vaijeshika doctrine—­that the formation of aggregates cannot be accounted for even on the assumption of permanent atoms and individual souls in which the ad/ri/sh/t/a abides[392]; how much less then are aggregates possible if there exist only momentary atoms not connected with enjoying souls and devoid of abodes (i.e. souls), and that which abides in them (the ad/ri/sh/t/a).—­Let us then assume (the Bauddha says) that Nescience, &c. themselves are the efficient cause of the aggregate.—­But how—­we ask—­can they be the cause of that without which—­as their abode—­they themselves are not capable of existence?  Perhaps you will say that in the eternal sa/m/sara the aggregates succeed one another in an unbroken chain, and hence also Nescience, and so on, which abide in those aggregates.  But in that case you will have to assume either that each aggregate necessarily produces another aggregate of the same kind, or that, without any settled rule,

Page 377

20. (Nor can there be a causal relation between Nescience, &c.), because on the origination of the subsequent (moment) the preceding one ceases to be.

We have hitherto argued that Nescience, and so on, stand in a causal relation to each other merely, so that they cannot be made to account for the existence of aggregates; we are now going to prove that they cannot even be considered as efficient causes of the subsequent members of the series to which they belong.

Those who maintain that everything has a momentary existence only admit that when the thing existing in the second moment[393] enters into being the thing existing in the first moment ceases to be.  On this admission it is impossible to establish between the two things the relation of cause and effect, since the former momentary existence which ceases or has ceased to be, and so has entered into the state of non-existence, cannot be the cause of the later momentary existence.—­Let it then be said that the former momentary existence when it has reached its full development becomes the cause of the later momentary existence.—­That also is impossible; for the assumption that a fully developed existence exerts a further energy, involves the conclusion that it is connected with a second moment (which contradicts the doctrine of universal momentariness).—­Then let the mere existence of the antecedent entity constitute its causal energy.—­That assumption also is fruitless, because we cannot conceive the origination of an effect which is not imbued with the nature of the cause (i.e. in which the nature of the cause does not continue to exist).  And to assume that the nature of the cause does continue to exist in the effect is impossible (on the Bauddha doctrine), as that would involve the permanency of the cause, and thus necessitate the abandonment of the doctrine of

Page 378

21.  On the supposition of there being no (cause:  while yet the effect takes place), there results contradiction of the admitted principle; otherwise simultaneousness (of cause and effect).

It has been shown that on the doctrine of general non-permanency, the former momentary existence, as having already been merged in non-existence, cannot be the cause of the later one.—­Perhaps now the Bauddha will say that an effect may arise even when there is no cause.—­That, we reply, implies the abandonment of a principle admitted by yourself, viz. that the mind and the mental modifications originate when in conjunction with four kinds of causes[395].  Moreover, if anything could originate without a cause, there would be nothing to prevent that anything might originate at any time.—­If, on the other hand, you should say that we may assume the antecedent momentary existence to last until the succeeding one has been produced, we point out that that would imply the simultaneousness of cause and effect, and so run counter to an accepted Bauddha tenet, viz. that all things[396] are momentary merely.

22.  Cessation dependent on a sublative act of the mind, and cessation not so dependent cannot be established, there being no (complete) interruption.

Page 379

The Bauddhas who maintain that universal destruction is going on constantly, assume that ’whatever forms an object of knowledge and is different from the triad is produced (sa/m/sk/ri/ta) and momentary.’  To the triad there mentioned they give the names ’cessation dependent on a sublative act of the mind,’ ‘cessation not dependent on such an act,’ and ‘space.’  This triad they hold to be non-substantial, of a merely negative character (abhavamatra), devoid of all positive characteristics.  By ’cessation dependent on a sublative act of the mind,’ we have to understand such destruction of entities as is preceded by an act of thought[397]; by ‘cessation not so dependent’ is meant destruction of the opposite kind[398]; by ‘space’ is meant absence in general of something covering (or occupying space).  Out of these three non-existences ‘space’ will be refuted later on (Sutra 24), the two other ones are refuted in the present Sutra.

Cessation which is dependent on a sublative act of the mind, and cessation which is not so dependent are both impossible, ’on account of the absence of interruption.’  For both kinds of cessation must have reference either to the series (of momentary existences) or to the single members constituting the series.—­The former alternative is impossible, because in all series (of momentary existences) the members of the series stand in an unbroken relation of cause and effect so that the series cannot be interrupted[399].—­The latter alternative is likewise inadmissible, for it is impossible to maintain that any momentary existence should undergo complete annihilation entirely undefinable and disconnected (with the previous state of existence), since we observe that a thing is recognised in the various states through which it may pass and thus has a connected existence[400].  And in those cases also where a thing is not clearly recognised (after having undergone a change) we yet infer, on the ground of actual observations made in other cases, that one and the same thing continues to exist without any interruption.—­For these reasons the two kinds of cessation which the Bauddhas assume cannot be proved.

23.  And on account of the objections presenting themselves in either case.

The cessation of Nescience, &c. which, on the assumption of the Bauddhas, is included in the two kinds of cessation discussed hitherto, must take place either in consequence of perfect knowledge together with its auxiliaries, or else of its own accord.  But the former alternative would imply the abandonment of the Bauddha doctrine that destruction takes place without a cause, and the latter alternative would involve the uselessness of the Bauddha instruction as to the ’path’[401].  As therefore both alternatives are open to objections, the Bauddha doctrine must be declared unsatisfactory.

24.  And in the case of space also (the doctrine of its being a non-entity is untenable) on account of its not differing (from the two other kinds of non-entity).

Page 380

We have shown so far that of the triad declared by the Bauddhas to be devoid of all positive characteristics, and therefore non-definable, two (viz. prati-sa/m/khyavirodha and aprati) cannot be shown to be such; we now proceed to show the same with regard to space (ether, aka/s/a).

With regard to space also it cannot be maintained that it is non-definable, since substantiality can be established in the case of space no less than in the case of the two so-called non-entities treated of in the preceding Sutras.  That space is a real thing follows in the first place from certain scriptural passages, such as ’space sprang from the Self.’—­To those, again, who (like the Bauddhas) disagree with us as to the authoritativeness of Scripture we point out that the real existence of space is to be inferred from the quality of sound, since we observe that earth and other real things are the abodes of smell and the other qualities.—­Moreover, if you declare that space is nothing but the absence in general of any covering (occupying) body, it would follow that while one bird is flying—­whereby space is occupied—­there would be no room for a second bird wanting to fly at the same time.  And if you should reply that the second bird may fly there where there is absence of a covering body, we point out that that something by which the absence of covering bodies is distinguished must be a positive entity, viz. space in our sense, and not the mere non-existence of covering bodies[402].—­Moreover, the Bauddha places himself, by his view of space, in opposition to other parts of his system.  For we find, in the Bauddha Scriptures, a series of questions and answers (beginning, ’On what, O reverend Sir, is the earth founded?’), in which the following question occurs, ‘On what is the air founded?’ to which it is replied that the air is founded on space (ether).  Now it is clear that this statement is appropriate only on the supposition of space being a positive entity, not a mere negation.—­Further, there is a self-contradiction in the Bauddha statements regarding all the three kinds of negative entities, it being said, on the one hand, that they are not positively definable, and, on the other hand, that they are eternal.  Of what is not real neither eternity nor non-eternity can be predicated, since the distinction of subjects and predicates of attribution is founded entirely on real things.  Anything with regard to which that distinction holds good we conclude to be a real thing, such as jars and the like are, not a mere undefinable negation.

25.  And on account of remembrance.

Page 381

The philosopher who maintains that all things are momentary only would have to extend that doctrine to the perceiving person (upalabdh/ri/) also; that is, however, not possible, on account of the remembrance which is consequent on the original perception.  That remembrance can take place only if it belongs to the same person who previously made the perception; for we observe that what one man has experienced is not remembered by another man.  How, indeed, could there arise the conscious state expressed in the sentences, ’I saw that thing, and now I see this thing,’ if the seeing person were not in both cases the same?  That the consciousness of recognition takes place only in the case of the observing and remembering subject being one, is a matter known to every one; for if there were, in the two cases, different subjects, the state of consciousness arising in the mind of the remembering person would be, ‘I remember; another person made the observation.’  But no such state of consciousness does arise.—­When, on the other hand, such a state of consciousness does arise, then everybody knows that the person who made the original observation, and the person who remembers, are different persons, and then the state of consciousness is expressed as follows, ’I remember that that other person saw that and that.’—­In the case under discussion, however, the Vaina/s/ika himself—­whose state of consciousness is, ’I saw that and that’—­knows that there is one thinking subject only to which the original perception as well as the remembrance belongs, and does not think of denying that the past perception belonged to himself, not any more than he denies that fire is hot and gives light.

As thus one agent is connected with the two moments of perception and subsequent remembrance, the Vaina/s/ika has necessarily to abandon the doctrine of universal momentariness.  And if he further recognises all his subsequent successive cognitions, up to his last breath, to belong to one and the same subject, and in addition cannot but attribute all his past cognitions, from the moment of his birth, to the same Self, how can he maintain, without being ashamed of himself, that everything has a momentary existence only?  Should he maintain that the recognition (of the subject as one and the same) takes place on account of the similarity (of the different self-cognitions; each, however, being momentary only), we reply that the cognition of similarity is based on two things, and that for that reason the advocate of universal momentariness who denies the existence of one (permanent) subject able mentally to grasp the two similar things simply talks deceitful nonsense when asserting that recognition is founded on similarity.  Should he admit, on the other hand, that there is one mind grasping the similarity of two successive momentary existences, he would thereby admit that one entity endures for two moments and thus contradict the tenet of universal momentariness.—­Should it be said that the

Page 382

26. (Entity) does not spring from non-entity on account of that not being observed.

The system of the Vaina/s/ikas is objectionable for this reason also that those who deny the existence of permanent stable causes are driven to maintain that entity springs from non-entity.  This latter tenet is expressly enunciated by the Bauddhas where they say, ’On account of the manifestation (of effects) not without previous destruction (of the cause).’  For, they say, from the decomposed seed only the young plant springs, spoilt milk only turns into curds, and the lump of clay has ceased to be a lump when it becomes a jar.  If effects did spring from the unchanged causes, all effects would originate from all causes at once, as then no specification would be required[403].  Hence, as we see that young plants, &c. spring from seeds, &c. only after the latter have been merged in non-existence, we hold that entity springs from non-entity.

Page 383

To this Bauddha tenet we reply, ’(Entity does) not (spring) from non-entity, on account of that not being observed.’  If entity did spring from non-entity, the assumption of special causes would be purportless, since non-entity is in all cases one and the same.  For the non-existence of seeds and the like after they have been destroyed is of the same kind as the non-existence of horns of hares and the like, i.e. non-existence is in all cases nothing else but the absence of all character of reality, and hence there would be no sense (on the doctrine of origination from non-existence) in assuming that sprouts are produced from seeds only, curds from milk only, and so on.  And if non-distinguished non-existence were admitted to have causal efficiency, we should also have to assume that sprouts, &c. originate from the horns of hares, &c.—­a thing certainly not actually observed.—­If, again, it should be assumed that there are different kinds of non-existence having special distinctions—­just as, for instance, blueness and the like are special qualities of lotuses and so on—­we point out that in that case the fact of there being such special distinctions would turn the non-entities into entities no less real than lotuses and the like.  In no case non-existence would possess causal efficiency, simply because, like the horn of a hare, it is non-existence merely.—­Further, if existence sprang from non-existence, all effects would be affected with non-existence; while as a matter of fact they are observed to be merely positive entities distinguished by their various special characteristics.  Nor[404] does any one think that things of the nature of clay, such as pots and the like, are the effects of threads and the like; but everybody knows that things of the nature of clay are the effects of clay only.—­The Bauddha’s tenet that nothing can become a cause as long as it remains unchanged, but has to that end to undergo destruction, and that thus existence springs from non-existence only is false; for it is observed that only things of permanent nature which are always recognised as what they are, such as gold, &c., are the causes of effects such as golden ornaments, and so on.  In those cases where a destruction of the peculiar nature of the cause is observed to take place, as in the case of seeds, for instance, we have to acknowledge as the cause of the subsequent condition (i.e. the sprout) not the earlier condition in so far as it is destroyed, but rather those permanent particles of the seed which are not destroyed (when the seed as a whole undergoes decomposition).—­Hence as we see on the one hand that no entities ever originate from nonentities such as the horns of a hare, and on the other hand that entities do originate from entities such as gold and the like the whole Bauddha doctrine of existence springing from non-existence has to be rejected.—­We finally point out that, according to the Bauddhas, all mind and all mental modifications spring from the four skandhas discussed above and all material aggregates from the atoms; why then do they stultify this their own doctrine by the fanciful assumption of entity springing from non-entity and thus needlessly perplex the mind of every one?

Page 384

27.  And thus (on that doctrine) there would be an accomplishment (of ends) in the case of non-active people also.

If it were admitted that entity issues from non-entity, lazy inactive people also would obtain their purposes, since ‘non-existence’ is a thing to be had without much trouble.  Rice would grow for the husbandman even if he did not cultivate his field; vessels would shape themselves even if the potter did not fashion the clay; and the weaver too lazy to weave the threads into a whole, would nevertheless have in the end finished pieces of cloth just as if he had been weaving.  And nobody would have to exert himself in the least either for going to the heavenly world or for obtaining final release.  All which of course is absurd and not maintained by anybody.—­Thus the doctrine of the origination of entity from non-entity again shows itself to be futile.

28.  The non-existence (of external things) cannot be maintained, on account of (our) consciousness (of them).

There having been brought forward, in what precedes, the various objections which lie against the doctrine of the reality of the external world (in the Bauddha sense), such as the impossibility of accounting for the existence of aggregates, &c., we are now confronted by those Bauddhas who maintain that only cognitions (or ideas, vij/n/ana) exist.—­The doctrine of the reality of the external world was indeed propounded by Buddha conforming himself to the mental state of some of his disciples whom he perceived to be attached to external things; but it does not represent his own true view according to which cognitions alone are real.

According to this latter doctrine the process, whose constituting members are the act of knowledge, the object of knowledge, and the result of knowledge[405], is an altogether internal one, existing in so far only as it is connected with the mind (buddhi).  Even if external things existed, that process could not take place but in connexion with the mind.  If, the Bauddhas say, you ask how it is known that that entire process is internal and that no outward things exist apart from consciousness, we reply that we base our doctrine on the impossibility of external things.  For if external things are admitted, they must be either atoms or aggregates of atoms such as posts and the like.  But atoms cannot be comprehended under the ideas of posts and the like, it being impossible for cognition to represent (things as minute as) atoms.  Nor, again, can the outward things be aggregates of atoms such as pillars and the like, because those aggregates can neither be defined as different nor as non-different from the atoms[406].—­In the same way we can show that the external things are not universals and so on[407].

Page 385

Moreover, the cognitions—­which are of a uniform nature only in so far as they are states of consciousness—­undergo, according to their objects, successive modifications, so that there is presented to the mind now the idea of a post, now the idea of a wall, now the idea of a jar, and so on.  Now this is not possible without some distinction on the part of the ideas themselves, and hence we must necessarily admit that the ideas have the same forms as their objects.  But if we make this admission, from which it follows that the form of the objects is determined by the ideas, the hypothesis of the existence of external things becomes altogether gratuitous.  From the fact, moreover, of our always being conscious of the act of knowledge and the object of knowledge simultaneously it follows that the two are in reality identical.  When we are conscious of the one we are conscious of the other also; and that would not happen if the two were essentially distinct, as in that case there would be nothing to prevent our being conscious of one apart from the other.  For this reason also we maintain that there are no outward things.—­

Perception is to be considered as similar to a dream and the like.  The ideas present to our minds during a dream, a magical illusion, a mirage and so on, appear in the twofold form of subject and object, although there is all the while no external object; hence we conclude that the ideas of posts and the like which occur in our waking state are likewise independent of external objects; for they also are simply ideas.—­If we be asked how, in the absence of external things, we account for the actual variety of ideas, we reply that that variety is to be explained from the impressions left by previous ideas[408].  In the beginningless sa/m/sara ideas and mental impressions succeed each other as causes and effects, just as the plant springs from the seed and seeds are again produced from the plant, and there exists therefore a sufficient reason for the variety of ideas actually experienced.  That the variety of ideas is solely due to the impressions left on the mind by past ideas follows, moreover, from the following affirmative and negative judgments:  we both (the Vedantins as well as the Bauddhas) admit that in dreams, &c. there presents itself a variety of ideas which arise from mental impressions, without any external object; we (the Bauddhas) do not admit that any variety of ideas can arise from external objects, without mental impressions.—­Thus we are again led to conclude that no outward things exist.

To all this we (the Vedantins) make the following reply.—­The non-existence of external things cannot be maintained because we are conscious of external things.  In every act of perception we are conscious of some external thing corresponding to the idea, whether it be a post or a wall or a piece of cloth or a jar, and that of which we are conscious cannot but exist.  Why should we pay attention to the words of a man

Page 386

Page 387

Further, two ideas which occupy different moments of time and pass away as soon as they have become objects of consciousness cannot apprehend—­or be apprehended by—­each other.  From this it follows that certain doctrines forming part of the Bauddha system cannot be upheld; so the doctrine that ideas are different from each other; the doctrine that everything is momentary, void, &c.; the doctrine of the distinction of individuals and classes; the doctrine that a former idea leaves an impression giving rise to a later idea; the doctrine of the distinction, owing to the influence of Nescience, of the attributes of existence and non-existence; the doctrine of bondage and release (depending on absence and presence of right knowledge)[409].

Further, if you say that we are conscious of the idea, you must admit that we are also conscious of the external thing.  And if you rejoin that we are conscious of the idea on its own account because it is of a luminous nature like a lamp, while the external thing is not so; we reply that by maintaining the idea to be illuminated by itself you make yourself guilty of an absurdity no less than if you said that fire burns itself.  And at the same time you refuse to accept the common and altogether rational opinion that we are conscious of the external thing by means of the idea different from the thing!  Indeed a proof of extraordinary philosophic insight!—­It cannot, moreover, be asserted in any way that the idea apart from the thing is the object of our consciousness; for it is absurd to speak of a thing as the object of its own activity.  Possibly you (the Bauddha) will rejoin that, if the idea is to be apprehended by something different from it, that something also must be apprehended by something different and so on

Page 388

29.  And on account of their difference of nature (the ideas of the waking state) are not like those of a dream.

We now apply ourselves to the refutation of the averment made by the Bauddha, that the ideas of posts, and so on, of which we are conscious in the waking state, may arise in the absence of external objects, just as the ideas of a dream, both being ideas alike.—­The two sets of ideas, we maintain, cannot be treated on the same footing, on account of the difference of their character.  They differ as follows.—­The things of which we are conscious in a dream are negated by our waking consciousness.  ’I wrongly thought that I had a meeting with a great man; no such meeting took place, but my mind was dulled by slumber, and so the false idea arose.’  In an analogous manner the things of which we are conscious when under the influence of a magic illusion, and the like, are negated by our ordinary consciousness. 

Page 389

30.  The existence (of mental impressions) is not possible on the Bauddha view, on account of the absence of perception (of external things).

We now proceed to that theory of yours, according to which the variety of ideas can be explained from the variety of mental impressions, without any reference to external things, and remark that on your doctrine the existence of mental impressions is impossible, as you do not admit the perception of external things.  For the variety of mental impressions is caused altogether by the variety of the things perceived.  How, indeed, could various impressions originate if no external things were perceived?  The hypothesis of a beginningless series of mental impressions would lead only to a baseless regressus ad infinitum, sublative of the entire phenomenal world, and would in no way establish your position.—­The same argument, i.e. the one founded on the impossibility of mental impressions which are not caused by external things, refutes also the positive and negative judgments, on the ground of which the denier of an external world above attempted to show that ideas are caused by mental impressions, not by external things.  We rather have on our side a positive and a negative judgment whereby to establish our doctrine of the existence of external things, viz. ’the perception of external

Page 390

31.  And on account of the momentariness (of the alayavij/n/ana, it cannot be the abode of mental impressions).

If you maintain that the so-called internal cognition (alayavij/n/ana[410]) assumed by you may constitute the abode of the mental impressions, we deny that, because that cognition also being admittedly momentary, and hence non-permanent, cannot be the abode of impressions any more than the quasi-external cognitions (prav/ri/ttivij/n/ana).  For unless there exists one continuous principle equally connected with the past, the present, and the future[411], or an absolutely unchangeable (Self) which cognises everything, we are unable to account for remembrance, recognition, and so on, which are subject to mental impressions dependent on place, time, and cause.  If, on the other hand, you declare your alayavij/n/ana to be something permanent, you thereby abandon your tenet of the alayavij/n/ana as well as everything else being momentary.—­Or (to explain the Sutra in a different way) as the tenet of general momentariness is characteristic of the systems of the idealistic as well as the realistic Bauddhas, we may bring forward against the doctrines of the former all those arguments dependent on the principle of general momentariness which we have above urged against the latter.

We have thus refuted both nihilistic doctrines, viz. the doctrine which maintains the (momentary) reality of the external world, and the doctrine which asserts that ideas only exist.  The third variety of Bauddha doctrine, viz. that everything is empty (i.e. that absolutely nothing exists), is contradicted by all means of right knowledge, and therefore requires no special refutation.  For this apparent world, whose existence is guaranteed by all the means of knowledge, cannot be denied, unless some one should find out some new truth (based on which he could impugn its existence)—­for a general principle is proved by the absence of contrary instances.

32.  And on account of its general deficiency in probability.

No further special discussion is in fact required.  From whatever new points of view the Bauddha system is tested with reference to its probability, it gives way on all sides, like the walls of a well dug in sandy soil.  It has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon, and hence the attempts to use it as a guide in the practical concerns of life are mere folly.—­Moreover, Buddha by propounding the three mutually contradictory systems, teaching respectively

Page 391

33.  On account of the impossibility (of contradictory attributes) in one thing, (the Jaina doctrine is) not (to be accepted).

Having disposed of the Bauddha doctrine we now turn to the system of the Gymnosophists (Jainas).

The Jainas acknowledge seven categories (tattvas), viz. soul (jiva), non-soul (ajiva), the issuing outward (asrava), restraint (sa/m/vara), destruction (nirjara), bondage (bandha), and release (moksha)[412].  Shortly it may be said that they acknowledge two categories, viz. soul and non-soul, since the five other categories may be subsumed under these two.—­They also set forth a set of categories different from the two mentioned.  They teach that there are five so-called astikayas (’existing bodies,’ i.e. categories), viz. the categories of soul (jiva), body (pudgala), merit (dharma), demerit (adharma), and space (aka/s/a).  All these categories they again subdivide in various fanciful ways[413].—­To all things they apply the following method of reasoning, which they call the saptabha@nginaya:  somehow it is; somehow it is not; somehow it is and is not; somehow it is indescribable; somehow it is and is indescribable; somehow it is not and is indescribable; somehow it is and is not and is indescribable.

To this unsettling style of reasoning they submit even such conceptions as that of unity and eternity[414].

This doctrine we meet as follows.—­Your reasoning, we say, is inadmissible ‘on account of the impossibility in one thing.’  That is to say, it is impossible that contradictory attributes such as being and non-being should at the same time belong to one and the same thing; just as observation teaches us that a thing cannot be hot and cold at the same moment.  The seven categories asserted by you must either be so many and such or not be so many and such; the third alternative expressed in the words ‘they either are such or not such’ results in a cognition of indefinite nature which is no more a source of true knowledge than doubt is.  If you should plead that the cognition that a thing is of more than one nature is definite and therefore a source of true knowledge, we deny this.  For the unlimited assertion that all things are of a non-exclusive nature is itself something, falls as such under the alternative predications ‘somehow it is,’ ‘somehow it is not,’ and so ceases to be a definite assertion.  The same happens to the person making the assertion and to the result of the assertion; partly they are, partly they are not. 

Page 392

34.  And likewise (there results from the Jaina, doctrine) non-universality of the Self.

Page 393

We have hitherto urged against the Jaina doctrine an objection resulting from the syadvada, viz. that one thing cannot have contradictory attributes.  We now turn to the objection that from their doctrine it would follow that the individual Self is not universal, i.e. not omnipresent.—­The Jainas are of opinion that the soul has the same size as the body.  From this it would follow that the soul is not of infinite extension, but limited, and hence non-eternal like jars and similar things.  Further, as the bodies of different classes of creatures are of different size, it might happen that the soul of a man—­which is of the size of the human body—­when entering, in consequence of its former deeds, on a new state of existence in the body of an elephant would not be able to fill the whole of it; or else that a human soul being relegated to the body of an ant would not be able to find sufficient room in it.  The same difficulty would, moreover, arise with regard to the successive stages of one state of existence, infancy, youth, and old age.—­But why, the Jaina may ask, should we not look upon the soul as consisting of an infinite number of parts capable of undergoing compression in a small body and dilatation in a big one?—­Do you, we ask in return, admit or not admit that those countless particles of the soul may occupy the same place or not?—­If you do not admit it, it follows that the infinite number of particles cannot be contained in a body of limited dimensions.—­If you do admit it, it follows that, as then the space occupied by all the particles may be the space of one particle only, the extension of all the particles together will remain inconsiderable, and hence the soul be of minute size (not of the size of the body).  You have, moreover, no right to assume that a body of limited size contains an infinite number of soul particles.

Well the, the Jaina may reply, let us assume that by turns whenever the soul enters a big body some particles accede to it while some withdraw from it whenever it enters a small body.—­To this hypothesis the next Sutra furnishes a reply.

35.  Nor is non-contradiction to be derived from the succession (of parts acceding to and departing from the soul), on account of the change, &c. (of the soul).

Nor can the doctrine of the soul having the same size as the body be satisfactorily established by means of the hypothesis of the successive accession and withdrawal of particles.  For this hypothesis would involve the soul’s undergoing changes and the like.  If the soul is continually being repleted and depleted by the successive addition and withdrawal of parts, it of course follows that it undergoes change, and if it is liable to change it follows that it is non-permanent, like the skin and similar substances.  From that, again, it follows that the Jaina doctrine of bondage and release is untenable; according to which doctrine ’the soul, which in the state of bondage

Page 394

The Sutra may be taken in a different sense also.  The preceding Sutra has proved that the soul if of the same size as the body cannot be permanent, as its entering into bigger and smaller bodies involves its limitation.  To this the Gymnosophist may be supposed to rejoin that although the soul’s size successively changes it may yet be permanent, just as the stream of water is permanent (although the water continually changes).  An analogous instance would be supplied by the permanency of the stream of ideas while the individual ideas, as that of a red cloth and so on, are non-permanent.—­To this rejoinder our Sutra replies that if the stream is not real we are led back to the doctrine of a general void, and that, if it is something real, the difficulties connected with the soul’s changing, &c. present themselves and render the Jaina view impossible.

36.  And on account of the permanency of the final (size of the soul) and the resulting permanency of the two (preceding sizes) there is no difference (of size, at any time).

Moreover, the Jainas themselves admit the permanency of the final size of the soul which it has in the state of release.  From this it follows also that its initial size and its intervening sizes must be permanent[416], and that hence there is no difference between the three sizes.  But this would involve the conclusion that the different bodies of the soul have one and the same size, and that the soul cannot enter into bigger and smaller bodies.—­Or else (to explain the Sutra in a somewhat different way) from the fact that the final size of the soul is permanent, it follows that its size in the two previous conditions also is permanent.  Hence the soul must be considered as being always of the same size—­whether minute or infinite—­and not of the varying size of its bodies.—­For this reason also the doctrine of the Arhat has to be set aside as not in any way more rational than the doctrine of Buddha.

Page 395

37.  The Lord (cannot be the cause of the world), on account of the inappropriateness (of that doctrine).

The Sutrakara now applies himself to the refutation of that doctrine, according to which the Lord is the cause of the world only in so far as he is the general ruler.—­But how do you know that that is the purport of the Sutra (which speaks of the Lord ’without any qualification’)?—­From the circumstance, we reply, that the teacher himself has proved, in the previous sections of the work, that the Lord is the material cause as well as the ruler of the world.  Hence, if the present Sutra were meant to impugn the doctrine of the Lord in general, the earlier and later parts of the work would be mutually contradictory, and the Sutrakara would thus be in conflict with himself.  We therefore must assume that the purport of the present Sutra is to make an energetic attack on the doctrine of those who maintain that the Lord is not the material cause, but merely the ruler, i.e. the operative cause of the world; a doctrine entirely opposed to the Vedantic tenet of the unity of Brahman.

The theories about the Lord which are independent of the Vedanta are of various nature.  Some taking their stand on the Sa@nkhya and Yoga systems assume that the Lord acts as a mere operative cause, as the ruler of the pradhana and of the souls, and that pradhana, soul, and Lord are of mutually different nature.—­The Mahe/s/varas (Saivas) maintain that the five categories, viz. effect, cause, union, ritual, the end of pain, were taught by the Lord Pa/s/upati (Siva) to the end of breaking the bonds of the animal (i.e. the soul); Pa/s/upati is, according to them, the Lord, the operative cause.—­Similarly, the Vai/s/eshikas and others also teach, according to their various systems, that the Lord is somehow the operative cause of the world.

Against all these opinions the Sutra remarks ’the Lord, on account of the inappropriateness.’  I.e. it is not possible that the Lord as the ruler of the pradhana and the soul should be the cause of the world, on account of the inappropriateness of that doctrine.  For if the Lord is supposed to assign to the various classes of animate creatures low, intermediate, and high positions, according to his liking, it follows that he is animated by hatred, passion, and so on, is hence like one of us, and is no real Lord.  Nor can we get over this difficulty by assuming that he makes his dispositions with a view to the merit and demerit of the living beings; for that assumption would lead us to a logical see-saw, the Lord as well as the works of living beings having to be considered in turns both as acting and as acted upon.  This difficulty is not removed by the consideration that the works of living beings and the resulting dispositions made by the Lord form a chain which has no beginning; for in past time as well as in the present mutual interdependence of the two took place, so that

Page 396

38.  And on account of the impossibility of the connexion (of the Lord with the souls and the pradhana).

Against the doctrine which we are at present discussing there lies the further objection that a Lord distinct from the pradhana and the souls cannot be the ruler of the latter without being connected with them in a certain way.  But of what nature is that connexion to be?  It cannot be conjunction (sa/m/yoga), because the Lord, as well as the pradhana and the souls, is of infinite extent and devoid of parts.  Nor can it be inherence, since it would be impossible to define who should be the abode and who the abiding thing.  Nor is it possible to assume some other connexion, the special nature of which would have to be inferred from the effect, because the relation of cause and effect is just what is not settled as yet[417].—­How, then, it may be asked, do you—­the Vedantins—­establish the relation of cause and effect (between the Lord and the world)?—­There is, we reply, no difficulty in our case, as the connexion we assume is that of identity (tadatmya).  The adherent of Brahman, moreover, defines the nature of the cause, and so on, on the basis of Scripture, and is therefore not obliged to render his tenets throughout conformable to observation.  Our adversary, on the other hand, who defines the nature of the cause and the like according to instances furnished by experience, may be expected to maintain only such doctrines as agree with experience.  Nor can he put forward the claim that Scripture, because it is the production of the omniscient Lord, may be used to confirm his doctrine as well as that of the Vedantin; for that would involve him in a logical see-saw, the omniscience of the Lord being established on the doctrine of Scripture, and the authority of Scripture again being established on the omniscience of the Lord.—­For all these reasons the Sa@nkhya-yoga hypothesis about the Lord is devoid of foundation.  Other similar hypotheses which likewise are not based on the Veda are to be refuted by corresponding arguments.

Page 397

39.  And on account of the impossibility of rulership (on the part of the Lord).

The Lord of the argumentative philosophers is an untenable hypothesis, for the following reason also.—­Those philosophers are obliged to assume that by his influence the Lord produces action in the pradhana, &c. just as the potter produces motion in the clay, &c.  But this cannot be admitted; for the pradhana, which is devoid of colour and other qualities, and therefore not an object of perception, is on that account of an altogether different nature from clay and the like, and hence cannot be looked upon as the object of the Lord’s action.

40.  If you say that as the organs (are ruled by the soul so the pradhana is ruled by the Lord), we deny that on account of the enjoyment, &c.

Well, the opponent might reply, let us suppose that the Lord rules the pradhana in the same way as the soul rules the organ of sight and the other organs which are devoid of colour, and so on, and hence not objects of perception.

This analogy also, we reply, proves nothing.  For we infer that the organs are ruled by the soul, from the observed fact that the soul feels pleasure, pain, and the like (which affect the soul through the organs).  But we do not observe that the Lord experiences pleasure, pain, &c. caused by the pradhana.  If the analogy between the pradhana and the bodily organs were a complete one, it would follow that the Lord is affected by pleasure and pain no less than the transmigrating souls are.

Or else the two preceding Sutras may be explained in a different way.  Ordinary experience teaches us that kings, who are the rulers of countries, are never without some material abode, i.e. a body; hence, if we wish to infer the existence of a general Lord from the analogy of earthly rulers, we must ascribe to him also some kind of body to serve as the substratum of his organs.  But such a body cannot be ascribed to the Lord, since all bodies exist only subsequently to the creation, not previously to it.  The Lord, therefore, is not able to act because devoid of a material substratum; for experience teaches us that action requires a material substrate.—­Let us then arbitrarily assume that the Lord possesses some kind of body serving as a substratum for his organs (even previously to creation).—­This assumption also will not do; for if the Lord has a body he is subject to the sensations of ordinary transmigratory souls, and thus no longer is the Lord.

41.  And (there would follow from that doctrine) either finite duration or absence of omniscience (on the Lord’s part).

Page 398

The hypothesis of the argumentative philosophers is invalid, for the following reason also.—­They teach that the Lord is omniscient and of infinite duration, and likewise that the pradhana, as well as the individual souls, is of infinite duration.  Now, the omniscient Lord either defines the measure of the pradhana, the souls, and himself, or does not define it.  Both alternatives subvert the doctrine under discussion.  For, on the former alternative, the pradhana, the souls, and the Lord, being all of them of definite measure, must necessarily be of finite duration; since ordinary experience teaches that all things of definite extent, such as jars and the like, at some time cease to exist.  The numerical measure of pradhana, souls, and Lord is defined by their constituting a triad, and the individual measure of each of them must likewise be considered as defined by the Lord (because he is omniscient).  The number of the souls is a high one[418].  From among this limited number of souls some obtain release from the sa/m/sara, that means their sa/m/sara comes to an end, and their subjection to the samsara comes to an end.  Gradually all souls obtain release, and so there will finally be an end of the entire sa/m/sara and the sa/m/sara state of all souls.  But the pradhana which is ruled by the Lord and which modifies itself for the purposes of the soul is what is meant by sa/m/sara.  Hence, when the latter no longer exists, nothing is left for the Lord to rule, and his omniscience and ruling power have no longer any objects.  But if the pradhana, the souls, and the Lord, all have an end, it follows that they also have a beginning, and if they have a beginning as well as an end, we are driven to the doctrine of a general void.—­Let us then, in order to avoid these untoward conclusions, maintain the second alternative, i.e. that the measure of the Lord himself, the pradhana, and the souls, is not defined by the Lord.—­But that also is impossible, because it would compel us to abandon a tenet granted at the outset, viz. that the Lord is omniscient.

For all these reasons the doctrine of the argumentative philosophers, according to which the Lord is the operative cause of the world, appears unacceptable.

42.  On account of the impossibility of the origination (of the individual soul from the highest Lord, the doctrine of the Bhagavatas cannot be accepted).

We have, in what precedes, refuted the opinion of those who think that the Lord is not the material cause but only the ruler, the operative cause of the world.  We are now going to refute the doctrine of those according to whom he is the material as well as the operative cause.—­But, it may be objected, in the previous portions of the present work a Lord of exactly the same nature, i.e. a Lord who is the material, as well as the operative, cause of the world, has been ascertained on the basis of Scripture, and it is a recognised principle that Sm/ri/ti, in so far as it agrees with Scripture, is authoritative; why then should we aim at controverting the doctrine stated?—­It is true, we reply, that a part of the system which we are going to discuss agrees with the Vedanta system, and hence affords no matter for controversy; another part of the system, however, is open to objection, and that part we intend to attack.

Page 399

The so-called Bhagavatas are of opinion that the one holy (bhagavat) Vasudeva, whose nature is pure knowledge, is what really exists, and that he, dividing himself fourfold, appears in four forms (vyuha), as Vasudeva, Sa@nkarsha/n/a, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha.  Vasudeva denotes the highest Self, Sa@nkarsha/n/a the individual soul, Pradyumna the mind (manas), Aniruddha the principle of egoity (aha@nkara).  Of these four Vasudeva constitutes the ultimate causal essence, of which the three others are the effects.—­The believer after having worshipped Vasudeva for a hundred years by means of approach to the temple (abhigamana), procuring of things to be offered (upadana), oblation (ijya), recitation of prayers, &c. (svadhyaya), and devout meditation (yoga), passes beyond all affliction and reaches the highest Being.

Concerning this system we remark that we do not intend to controvert the doctrine that Naraya/n/a, who is higher than the Undeveloped, who is the highest Self, and the Self of all, reveals himself by dividing himself in multiple ways; for various scriptural passages, such as ’He is onefold, he is threefold’ (Ch.  Up.  VII, 26, 2), teach us that the highest Self appears in manifold forms.  Nor do we mean to object to the inculcation of unceasing concentration of mind on the highest Being which appears in the Bhagavata doctrine under the forms of reverential approach, &c.; for that we are to meditate on the Lord we know full well from Sm/ri/ti and Scripture.  We, however, must take exception to the doctrine that Sa@nkarsha/n/a springs from Vasudeva, Pradyumna from Sa@nkarsha/n/a, Aniruddha from Pradyumna.  It is not possible that from Vasudeva, i.e. the highest Self, there should originate Sa@nkarsha/n/a, i.e. the individual soul; for if such were the case, there would attach to the soul non-permanency, and all the other imperfections which belong to things originated.  And thence release, which consists in reaching the highest Being, could not take place; for the effect is absorbed only by entering into its cause.—­That the soul is not an originated thing, the teacher will prove later on (II, 3, 17).  For this reason the Bhagavata hypothesis is unacceptable.

43.  And (it is) not (observed that) the instrument is produced from the agent.

The Bhagavata hypothesis is to be rejected for that reason also, that observation never shows us an instrument, such as a hatchet and the like, to spring from an agent such as Devadatta, or any other workman.  But the Bhagavatas teach that from an agent, viz. the individual soul termed Sa@nkarsha/n/a, there springs its instrument, viz. the internal organ termed Pradyumna, and again from this offspring of the agent another instrument, viz. the aha@nkara termed Aniruddha.  Such doctrines cannot be settled without observed instances.  And we do not meet with any scriptural passage in their favour.

44.  Or (if) in consequence of the existence of knowledge, &c. (Vasudeva, &c. be taken as Lords), yet there is non-exclusion of that (i.e. the objection raised in Sutra 42).

Page 400

Let us then—­the Bhagavatas may say—­understand by Sa@nkarsha/n/a, and so on, not the individual soul, the mind, &c., but rather Lords, i.e. powerful beings distinguished by all the qualities characteristic of rulers, such as pre-eminence of knowledge and ruling capacity, strength, valour, glory.  All these are Vasudevas free from faults, without a substratum (not sprung from pradhana), without any imperfections.  Hence the objection urged in Sutra 42 does not apply.

Even on this interpretation of your doctrine, we reply, the ‘non-exclusion of that,’ i.e. the non-exclusion of the impossibility of origination, can be established.—­Do you, in the first place, mean to say that the four individual Lords, Vasudeva, and so on, have the same attributes, but do not constitute one and the same Self?—­If so, you commit the fault of uselessly assuming more than one Lord, while all the work of the Lord can be done by one.  Moreover, you offend thereby against your own principle, according to which there is only one real essence, viz. the holy Vasudeva.—­Or do you perhaps mean to say that from the one highest Being there spring those four forms possessing equal attributes?—­In that case the objection urged in Sutra 42 remains valid.  For Sa@nkarsha/n/a cannot be produced from Vasudeva, nor Pradyumna from Sa@nkarsha/n/a, nor Aniruddha from Pradyumna, since (the attributes of all of them being the same) there is no supereminence of any one of them.  Observation shows that the relation of cause and effect requires some superiority on the part of the cause—­as, for instance, in the case of the clay and the jar (where the cause is more extensive than the effect)—­and that without such superiority the relation is simply impossible.  But the followers of the Pa/nk/aratra do not acknowledge any difference founded on superiority of knowledge, power, &c. between Vasudeva and the other Lords, but simply say that they all are forms of Vasudeva, without any special distinctions.  The forms of Vasudeva cannot properly be limited to four, as the whole world, from Brahman down to a blade of grass, is understood to be a manifestation of the supreme Being.

45.  And on account of contradictions.

Moreover, manifold contradictions are met with in the Bhagavata system, with reference to the assumption of qualities and their bearers.  Eminence of knowledge and ruling capacity, strength, valour, and glory are enumerated as qualities, and then they are in some other place spoken of as Selfs, holy Vasudevas, and so on.—­Moreover, we meet with passages contradictory of the Veda.  The following passage, for instance, blames the Veda, ’Not having found the highest bliss in the Vedas Sa/nd/ilya studied this sastra.’—­For this reason also the Bhagavata doctrine cannot be accepted.

Notes: 

[Footnote 314:  The characteristics of Goodness, Passion, and Darkness, the three constituent elements (gu/n/a) of the pradhana.  Sa.  Ka. 12, 13.]

Page 401

[Footnote 315:  Viz. the great principle (mahat). ahanka a, &c.  Sa.  Ka. 3.]

[Footnote 316:  The arguments here referred to are enumerated in the Sa.  Ka. 15:  Sa.  Sutras I, 189 ff.]

[Footnote 317:  If we attempt to infer the nature of the universal cause from its effects on the ground of parallel instances, as, for instance, that of an earthen jar whose material cause is clay, we must remember that the jar has sprung from clay not without the co-operation of an intelligent being, viz. the potter.]

[Footnote 318:  As had been asserted above for the purpose of inferring therefrom, according to the principle of the equality of cause and effect, the existence of the three constituents of the pradhana.]

[Footnote 319:  And a thing cannot consist of that of which it is the cause.]

[Footnote 320:  Which differences cannot be reconciled with the Sa@nkhya hypothesis of the object itself consisting of either pleasure or pain, &c.—­’If things consisted in themselves of pleasure, pain, &c., then sandal ointment (which is cooling, and on that account pleasant in summer) would be pleasant in winter also; for sandal never is anything but sandal.—­And as thistles never are anything but thistles they ought, on the Sa@nkhya hypothesis, to be eaten with enjoyment not only by camels but by men also.’  Bha.]

[Footnote 321:  Sa/m/sargapurvakatvaprasa@nga iti gu/n/ana/m/ sa/m/s/ri/sh/t/anekavastuprak/ri/tikatvaprasaktir ity artha/h/.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 322:  For they limit one another.]

[Footnote 323:  To proceed to the argument ’from the separateness of cause and effect’ (Sa.  Ka. 15).]

[Footnote 324:  The next sentences furnish the answer to the question how the intelligent Self is known at all if it is not the object of perception.—­Pratyakshatvabhave katham atmasiddhir ity asa@nkya anumanad ity aha, prav/ri/ttiti.  Anumanasiddhasya ketanasya na pravr/i/ttya/s/rayateti dar/s/ayitum evakara/h/.  Katham anumanam ity apekshaya/m/ tatprakara/m/; su/k/ayati kevaleti.  Vailaksha/n/ya/m/ pra/n/adimattvam.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 325:  Viz. that whatever moves or acts does so under the influence of intelligence.—­Sadhyapakshanikshiptatva/m/ sadhyavati pakshe pravish/t/atvam eva ta/k/ ka sapakshanizkshiptatvasyapy upalaksha/n/am, anpanyaso na vyabhi/k/arabhumin ity artha/h/.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 326:  It might be held that for the transformation of grass into milk no other cause is required than the digestive heat of the cow’s body; but a reflecting person will acknowledge that there also the omniscient Lord is active.  Bha.]

[Footnote 327:  Anadheyati/s/ayasya sukhadukhapraptiparihararupati/s/aya/s/unyasyety artha/h/.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 328:  For the soul as being of an entirely inactive nature cannot of itself aim at release, and the pradhana aims—­ex hypothesi—­only at the soul’s undergoing varied experience.]

Page 402

[Footnote 329:  I.e. for the various items constituting enjoyment or experience.]

[Footnote 330:  T/ri/tiyes’pi katipaya/s/abdadyupalabdhir va samastatadupalabdhir va bhoga iti vikalpyadye sarvesham ekadaiva mukti/h/ syad iti manvano dvitiya/m/ pratyaha ubhayarthateti.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 331:  The MSS. of Ananda Giri omit sa/m/saranu/kkh/edat; the Bhamati’s reading is:  Sarga/s/aktyanu/kkh/edavad d/ri/k/s/aktyanu/kkh/edat.]

[Footnote 332:  On the theory that the soul is the cause of the pradhana’s activity we again have to ask whether the pradhana acts for the soul’s enjoyment or for its release, &c.]

[Footnote 333:  Anantaro dosho mahadadikaryotpadayoga/h/.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 334:  In the former case the five intellectual senses are looked upon as mere modifications of the sense of touch.]

[Footnote 335:  Buddhi in the latter case being the generic name for buddhi, aha@nkara, and manas.]

[Footnote 336:  Lit. that which burns and that which is burned, which literal rendering would perhaps be preferable throughout.  As it is, the context has necessitated its retention in some places.—­The sufferers are the individual souls, the cause of suffering the world in which the souls live.]

[Footnote 337:  In the case of the lamp, light and heat are admittedly essential; hence the Vedantin is supposed to bring forward the sea with its waves, and so on, as furnishing a case where attributes pass away while the substance remains.]

[Footnote 338:  ‘Artha,’ a useful or beneficial thing, an object of desire.]

[Footnote 339:  In reality neither suffering nor sufferers exist, as the Vedantin had pointed out in the first sentences of his reply; but there can of course be no doubt as to who suffers and what causes suffering in the vyavaharika-state, i.e. the phenomenal world.]

[Footnote 340:  In order to explain thereby how the soul can experience pain.]

[Footnote 341:  And that would be against the Sa@nkhya dogma of the soul’s essential purity.]

[Footnote 342:  So that the fact of suffering which cannot take place apart from an intelligent principle again remains unexplained.]

[Footnote 343:  Atmanas tapte sattve pratibimitatvad yukta taptir iti sa@nkate sattveti.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 344:  For it then indicates no more than a fictitious resemblance.]

[Footnote 345:  The Sa@nkhya Purvapakshin had objected to the Vedanta doctrine that, on the latter, we cannot account for the fact known from ordinary experience that there are beings suffering pain and things causing suffering.—­The Vedantin in his turn endeavours to show that on the Sa@nkhya doctrine also the fact of suffering remains inexplicable, and is therefore to be considered not real, but fictitious merely, the product of Nescience.]

[Footnote 346:  Not only ‘suffering as it were,’ as it had been called above.]

Page 403

[Footnote 347:  For real suffering cannot be removed by mere distinctive knowledge on which—­according to the Sa@nkhya also—­release depends.]

[Footnote 348:  This in answer to the remark that possibly the conjunction of soul and pradhana may come to an end when the influence of Darkness declines, it being overpowered by the knowledge of Truth.]

[Footnote 349:  I.e. according as they are atoms of earth, water, fire, or air.]

[Footnote 350:  Parima/nd/ala, spherical is the technical term for the specific form of extension of the atoms, and, secondarily, for the atoms themselves.  The latter must apparently be imagined as infinitely small spheres.  Cp.  Vi/s/.  Sut.  VII, 1, 20.]

[Footnote 351:  Viz. during the period of each pralaya.  At that time all the atoms are isolated and motionless.]

[Footnote 352:  When the time for a new creation has come.]

[Footnote 353:  The &c. implies the activity of the Lord.]

[Footnote 354:  The inherent (material) cause of an atomic compound are the constituent atoms, the non-inheient cause the conjunction of those atoms, the operative causes the ad/ri/sh/ta/ and the Lord’s activity which make them enter into conjunction.]

[Footnote 355:  I.e. in all cases the special form of extension of the effect depends not on the special extension of the cause, but on the number of atoms composing the cause (and thereby the effect).]

[Footnote 356:  In order to escape the conclusion that the non-acceptance of the doctrine of Brahman involves the abandonment of a fundamental Vai/s/eshika principle.]

[Footnote 357:  I.e. forms of extension different from sphericity, &c.]

[Footnote 358:  The first of the three Sutras quoted comprises, in the present text of the Vai/s/eshika-sutras, only the following words, ‘Kara/n/abahutva/k/ ka;’ the ka of the Sutra implying, according to the commentators, mahattva and pra/k/aya.—­According to the Vai/s/eshikas the form of extension called a/n/u, minute, has for its cause the dvitva inherent in the material causes, i.e. the two atoms from which the minute binary atomic compound originates.—­The form of extension called mahat, big, has different causes, among them bahutva, i.e. the plurality residing in the material causes of the resulting ‘big’ thing; the cause of the mahattva of a ternary atomic compound, for instance, is the tritva inherent in the three constituent atoms.  In other cases mahattva is due to antecedent mahattva, in others to pra/k/aya, i.e. accumulation.  See the Upaskara on Vai/s/.  Sut.  VII, 1, 9; 10.]

[Footnote 359:  I.e. if the Vai/s/eshikas have to admit that it is the nature of sphericity, &c. not to produce like effects, the Vedantin also may maintain that Brahman produces an unlike effect, viz. the non-intelligent world.]

[Footnote 360:  Like other things, let us say a piece of cloth, which consists of parts.]

Page 404

[Footnote 361:  Or, more particularly, to the conjunction of the atoms with the souls to which merit and demerit belong.—­Ad/ri/sh/t/apeksham ad/ri/sh/t/avatkshetraj/n/asa/my/ogapeksham iti yavat.  An.  Gi.]

[Footnote 362:  According to the Vai/s/eshikas intelligence is not essential to the soul, but a mere adventitious quality arising only when the soul is joined to an internal organ.]

[Footnote 363:  The soul being all-pervading.]

[Footnote 364:  Which is inadmissible on Vai/s/eshika principles, because sa/m/yoga as being a quality is connected with the things it joins by samavaya.]

[Footnote 365:  Viz. from those things which are united by conjunction.  The argument is that conjunction as an independent third entity requires another connexion to connect it with the two things related to each other in the way of conjunction.]

[Footnote 366:  Viz. the absolute difference of samavaya and sa/m/yoga from the terms which they connect.]

[Footnote 367:  Action (karman), &c. also standing in the samavaya relation to their substrates.]

[Footnote 368:  Our Vai/s/eshika-sutras read ‘pratishedhabhava/h/;’ but as all MSS. of Sa@nkara have ‘pratishedhabhava/h/’ I have kept the latter reading and translated according to Anandagiri’s explanation:  Karyam anityam iti karye vireshato nityatvanishedho na syad yadi kara/n/eszpy anityatvam atozs/n/una/m/ kara/n/ana/m/ nityateti sutrartha/h/.]

[Footnote 369:  Because they also are not perceptible; the ternary aggregates, the so-called trasare/n/us, constituting the minima perceptibilia.]

[Footnote 370:  As they have no cause which could either be disintegrated or destroyed.]

[Footnote 371:  This according to the Vedanta view.  If atoms existed they might have originated from avidya by a mere pari/n/ama and might again be dissolved into avidya, without either disintegration or destruction of their cause taking place.]

[Footnote 372:  The Sa@nkhyas looking on everything (except the soul) as being the pradhana in various forms.—­There is no need of assuming with Govindananda that by the Sa@nkhya of the text we have to understand the Vedanta.]

[Footnote 373:  Yayor dvayor madhya ekam avina/s/yad apara/s/ritam evavatish/th/ate tav ayutasiddhau yathavayavavayavinau.]

[Footnote 374:  The connexion of cause and effect is of course samavaya.]

[Footnote 375:  If the effect can exist before having entered into connexion with the cause, the subsequent connexion of the two is no longer samavaya but sa/m/yoga; and that contradicts a fundamental Vai/s/eshika principle.]

[Footnote 376:  This clause replies to the objection that only those connexions which have been produced by previous motion are to be considered conjunctions.]

[Footnote 377:  A clause meant to preclude the assumption that the permanent existence of the things connected involves the permanent existence of the connexion.]

Page 405

[Footnote 378:  It having been shown above that atoms cannot enter into sa/m/yoga with each other, it is shown now that sa/m/yoga of the soul with the atoms cannot be the cause of the motion of the latter, and that sa/m/yoga of soul and manas cannot be the cause of cognition.]

[Footnote 379:  Ekasambandhyakarsha/n/e yatra sambandhyantarakarsha/n/a/m/ tatra sa/m/slesha/h/, sa tu savayavana/m/ jatukash/th/adina/m/ d/ri/sh/t/o na tu niravayavai/h/ savayavanam, ato dvya/n/ukasya savayavasya niravayavena parama/n/una sa nopapadyate.  Brahmavidyabh.]

[Footnote 380:  In answer to the question how, in that case, the practically recognised relation of abode, &c. existing between the cause and the effect is accounted for.]

[Footnote 381:  For they must in that case have a northern end, an eastern end, &c.]

[Footnote 382:  And that on that account the atoms which he considers as the ultimate simple constituents of matter cannot be decomposed.]

[Footnote 383:  Because according to their opinion difference of size constitutes difference of substance, so that the continuous change of size in animal bodies, for instance, involves the continual perishing of old and the continual origination of new substances.]

[Footnote 384:  The following notes on Bauddha doctrines are taken exclusively from the commentaries on the Sa@nkarabhashya, and no attempt has been made to contrast or reconcile the Brahminical accounts of Bauddha psychology with the teaching of genuine Bauddha books.  Cp. on the chief sects of the Buddhistic philosophers the Bauddha chapter of the Sarvadar/s/a/n/asa/m/graha.—­The Nihilists are the Madhyamikas; the Idealists are the Yoga/k/aras; the Sautrantikas and the Vaibhashikas together constitute the class of the Realists.—­I subjoin the account given of those sects in the Brahmavidyabhara/n/a.—­Buddhasya hi madhyamika-yoga/k/ara-sautrantika-vaibhashikasamj/n/akas katvara/h/ sishya/h/.  Tatra buddhena prathama/m/ yan prati sarva/m/ sunyam ity upadish/t/a/m/ te madhyamikas te hi guru/n/a yathokta/m/ tathaiva sraddhaya g/ri/hitavanta iti k/ri/tva napak/ri/sh/t/a/h/ puna/s/ ka taduktasyarthasya buddhyanusare/n/akshepasyak/ri/tatvan notk/ri/sh/t/abuddhaya iti madhyamika/h/.  Anyais tu sishyair guru/n/a sarva/s/unyatva upadish/t/e j/n/anatiriktasya sarvasya sunyatvam astu nameti guruktir yoga iti bauddai/h/ paribhashitopeta/h/ tad upari ka j/n/anasya tu sunyatva/m/ na sa/m/bhavati tathatve jagadandhyaprasa@ngat sunyasiddher apy asa/m/bhava/k/ keti buddhamate a/k/aratvena paribhashita akshepos’pi k/ri/ta iti yoga/k/ara/h/ vij/n/anamatrastitvavadina/h/.  Tadanataram anyai/h/ sishyai/h/ pratitisiddhasya katha/m/ sunyatva/m/ vaktu/m/ sakyam ato j/n/anavad vahyarthos’pi satya ity ukte tarhi tathaiva sos’stu, para/m/ tu so s’numeyo na tu pratyaksha ity ukte tatha@ngik/ri/tyaiva/m/ sishyamatim anus/ri/tya kiyatparyanta/m/ sutra/m/ bhavishyatiti tai/h/ p/ri/sh/t/am atas te sautrantika/h/.  Anye punar yady aya/m/ gha/t/a iti pratitibalad vahyos’rtha upeyate tarhi tasya eva pratiter aparokshatvat sa katha/m/ parokshos’to vahyos’rtho na pratyaksha iti bhasha viruddhety akshipann atas te vaibhashika/h/.]

Page 406

[Footnote 385:  The rupaskandha comprises the senses and their objects, colour, &c.; the sense-organs were above called bhautika, they here re-appear as kaittika on account of their connexion with thought.  Their objects likewise are classed as kaittika in so far as they are perceived by the senses.—­The vij/n/anaskandha comprises the series of self-cognitions (ahamaham ity alayavj/n/anapravaha/h/), according to all commentators; and in addition, according to the Brahmavidyabhara/n/a, the knowledge, determinate and indeterminate, of external things (savikalpaka/m/ nirvikalpaka/m/ ka prav/ri/ttivij/n/anasamj/n/itam).—­ The vedanaskandha comprises pleasure, pain, &c.—­The samj/n/askandha comprises the cognition of things by their names (gaur a/s/va ityadi/s/abdasamjalpitapratyaya/h/, An.  Gi.; gaur a/s/va ityeva/m/ namavi/s/ish/t/asavikalpaka/h/ pratyaya/h/, Go.  An.; sa/m/j/n/a yaj/n/adattadipadatadullekhi savikalpapratyayo va, dvitiyapakshe vij/n/anapadena savikalpapratyayo na grahy/h/, Brahmavidyabh.).  The sa/m/skaraskandha comprises passion, aversion, &c., dharma and adharma.—­Compare also the Bhamati.—­The vij/n/anaskandha is kitta, the other skandhas kaitta.]

[Footnote 386:  It has to be kept in view that the sarvastitvavadins as well as the other Bauddha sects teach the momentariness (ksha/n/ikatva), the eternal flux of everything that exists, and are on that ground controverted by the upholders of the permanent Brahman.]

[Footnote 387:  Mind, on the Bauddha doctrine, presupposes the existence of an aggregate of atoms, viz. the body.]

[Footnote 388:  In consequence of which no release could take place.]

[Footnote 389:  The Brahmavidyabhara/n/a explains the last clause—­from ksha/n/ikatva/k/ ka—­somewhat differently:  Api ka parama/n/unam api ksha/n/ikatvabhyupagaman melana/m/ na sambhavati, parama/n/una/m/ melana/m/ parama/n/ukriyadhinam, tatha ka svakriya/m/ prati parama/n/una/m/ kara/n/atvat kriyapuraksha/n/e parama/n/ubhir bhavyam kriya srayataya kriyaksha/n/eszpi tesham avasthanam apekshitam eva/m/ melanakshaneszpi, nahi melana/s/rayasyabhave melanarupa prav/ri/ttir upapadyate, tatha ka sthiraparama/n/usadhya melanarupa prav/ri/tti/h/ katha/m/ tesham ksha/n/ikatve bhavet.—­Ananda Giri also divides and translates differently from the translation in the text.]

[Footnote 390:  The kara/n/atvat of Sa@nkara explains the pratyayatvat of the Sutra; karya/m/ praty ayate janakatvena ga/kkh/ati.]

[Footnote 391:  The commentators agree on the whole in their explanations of the terms of this series.—­The following is the substance of the comment of the Brahmavidyabhara/n/a:  Nescience is the error of considering that which is momentary, impure, &c. to be permanent, pure, &c.—­Impression (affection, sa/m/skara) comprises desire, aversion, &c., and the activity caused by them.—­Knowledge (vij/n/ana) is the self-consciousness (aham ity alayavij/n/anasya

Page 407

[Footnote 392:  Ananda Giri and Go.  Ananda explain:  A/s/raya/s/rayibhuteshv iti bhokt/ri/vi/s/esha/n/am ad/ri/sh/t/a/s/rayeshv ity artha/h/.—­The Brahrma-vidyabhara/n/a says:  Nityeshv a/s/raya/s/rayibhuteshv a/n/ushv abhyupagamyamaneshu bhokt/ri/shu ka satsv ity anvaya/h/.  A/s/raya/s/rayibhuteshv ity asyopakaryopakarakabhavaprapteshv ity artha/h/.—­And with regard to the subsequent a/s/raya/s/rayi/s/unyeshu:  a/s/raya/s/rayitva/s/unyeshu, aya/m/ bhava/h/, sthireshu parama/n/ushu yadanvaye parama/n/una/m/ sa/m/ghatapatti/h/ yadvyatireke ka na tad upakarakam upakarya/h/ parama/n/ava/h/ yena tatk/ri/to bhoga/h/ prarthyate sa tatra karteti grahitu/m/ sakyate, ksha/n/ikeshu tu param/n/ushu anvayavyatirekagrahasyanekaksha/n/asadhyasyasa/m/bhavan nopakaryopakarakabhavo nirdharayitu/m/ sakya/h/.—­Ananda Giri remarks on the latter:  Ad/ri/sh/t/a/s/rayakart/ri/rahityam aha/s/rayeti.  Another reading appears to be a/s/aya/s/raya/s/unyeshu.]

[Footnote 393:  Bauddhana/m/ ksha/n/apadena gha/t/adir eva padartho vyavahriyate na tu tadatinkta/h/ ka/sk/it ksha/n/o nama halosti.  Brahmavidyabh.]

[Footnote 394:  And whereupon then could be established the difference of mere efficient causes such as the potter’s staff, &c., and material causes such as clay, &c.?]

[Footnote 395:  These four causes are the so-called defining cause (adhipati-pratyaya), the auxiliary cause (sahakaripratyaya), the immediate cause (samanantarapratyaya), and the substantial cause (alambanapratyaya).—­I extract the explanation from the Brahmavidyabhara/n/a:  Adhipatir indriya/m/ tad dhi kakshuradirupam utpannasya j/n/anasya rupadivishayata/m/ niya/kkh/ati niyamaka/s/ ka lokedhipatir ity u/k/yate.  Sahakari aloka/h/.  Samanantarapratyaya/h/purvaj/n/anam, bauddhamate hi ksha/n/ikaj/n/anasa/m/tatau purvaj/n/anam uttaraj/n/asya karana/m/ tad eva ka mana ity u/k/yate.  Alambana/m/ gha/t/adi/h/.  Etan hetun pratiya prapya kakshuradijanyam ity adi.]

Page 408

[Footnote 396:  Sa/m/skara iti, tanmate purvaksha/n/a eva hetubhuta/h/ sa/m/skaro vasaneti ka vyavahriyate karya/m/ tu tadvishayataya karmavyutpattya sa/m/skara/h/, tatha ka karyakara/n/atmaka/m/ sarva/m/ bhavarupa/m/ ksha/n/ikam iti pratij/n/artha/h/.  Brahmavidyabhara/n/a.]

[Footnote 397:  As when a man smashes a jar having previously formed the intention of doing so.]

[Footnote 398:  I.e. the insensible continual decay of things.—­Viparita iti pratiksha/n/a/m/ gha/t/adina/m/ yuktya sadhyamanoku/s/alair avagantum a/s/akya/h/ sukshmo vina/s/opratisa/m/khyanirodha/h/.  Brahmav.]

[Footnote 399:  A series of momentary existences constituting a chain of causes and effects can never be entirely stopped; for the last momentary existence must be supposed either to produce its effect or not to produce it.  In the former case the series is continued; the latter alternative would imply that the last link does not really exist, since the Bauddhas define the satta of a thing as its causal efficiency (cp.  Sarvadar/s/a/n/asa/m/graha).  And the non-existence of the last link would retrogressively lead to the non-existence of the whole series.]

[Footnote 400:  Thus clay is recognised as such whether it appears in the form of a jar, or of the potsherds into which the jar is broken, or of the powder into which the potsherds are ground.—­Analogously we infer that even things which seem to vanish altogether, such as a drop of water which has fallen on heated iron, yet continue to exist in some form.]

[Footnote 401:  The knowledge that everything is transitory, pain, &c.]

[Footnote 402:  What does enable us to declare that there is avara/n/abhava in one place and not in another?  Space; which therefore is something real.]

[Footnote 403:  If the cause were able, without having undergone any change, to produce effects, it would at the same moment produce all the effects of which it is capable.—­Cp. on this point the Sarvadar/s/a/n/asa/m/graha.]

[Footnote 404:  This is added to obviate the remark that it is not a general rule that effects are of the same nature as their causes, and that therefore, after all, existent things may spring from non-existence.]

[Footnote 405:  According to the vij/n/anavadin the cognition specialised by its various contents, such as, for instance, the idea of blue colour is the object of knowledge; the cognition in so far as it is consciousness (avabhasa) is the result of knowledge; the cognition in so far as it is power is mana, knowledge; in so far as it is the abode of that power it is pramat/ri/, knowing subject.]

[Footnote 406:  If they are said to be different from the atoms they can no longer be considered as composed of atoms; if they are non-different from atoms they cannot be the cause of the mental representations of gross non-atomic bodies.]

[Footnote 407:  Avayavavayavirupo vahyosrtho nasti ken ma bhud jativyaktyadirupas tu syad ity a/s/rankyaha evam iti.  Jatyadina/m/ vyaktyadinam katyantabhinnatve svatantryaprasa@ngad atyantabhinnatve tadvadevatadbhavad bhinnabhinnatvasya viruddhatvad avayavavayavibhedavaj gativyaktyadibhedosxpi nastity artha/h/.]

Page 409

[Footnote 408:  Vasana, above translated by mental impression, strictly means any member of the infinite series of ideas which precedes the present actual idea.]

[Footnote 409:  For all these doctrines depend on the comparison of ideas which is not possible unless there be a permanent knowing subject in addition to the transitory ideas.]

[Footnote 410:  The vij/n/anaskandha comprises vij/n/anas of two different kinds, the alayavij/n/ana and the prav/ri/ttivij/n/ana.  The alayavij/n/ana comprises the series of cognitions or ideas which refer to the ego; the prav/ri/ttivij/n/ana comprises those ideas which refer to apparently external objects, such as colour and the like.  The ideas of the latter class are due to the mental impressions left by the antecedent ideas of the former class.]

[Footnote 411:  Viz. in the present case the principle that what presents itself to consciousness is not non-existent.]

[Footnote 412:  Soul and non-soul are the enjoying souls and the objects of their enjoyment; asrava is the forward movement of the senses towards their objects; sa/m/vara is the restraint of the activity of the senses; nirjara is self-mortification by which sin is destroyed; the works constitute bondage; and release is the ascending of the soul, after bondage has ceased, to the highest regions.—­For the details, see Professor Cowell’s translation of the Arhata chapter of the Sarvadar/s/a/n/asa/m/graha.]

[Footnote 413:  Cp. translation of Sarvadar/s/a/n/asa/m/graha, p. 59.]

[Footnote 414:  And so impugn the doctrine of the one eternal Brahman.]

[Footnote 415:  Cp.  Sarvadar/s/a/n/asa/m/graha translation, p. 58.]

[Footnote 416:  The inference being that the initial and intervening sizes of the soul must be permanent because they are sizes of the soul, like its final size.]

[Footnote 417:  The special nature of the connexion between the Lord and the pradhana and the souls cannot be ascertained from the world considered as the effect of the pradhana acted upon by the Lord; for that the world is the effect of the pradhana is a point which the Vedantins do not accept as proved.]

[Footnote 418:  I.e. a high one, but not an indefinite one; since the omniscient Lord knows its measure.]