The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary by Ramanuja Part 21

He is the lord of all, the king of beings, the protector of beings. He is a bank and a boundary so that these worlds may not be confounded.

Brahmanas seek to know him by the study of the Veda. He who knows him becomes a Muni. Wishing for that world only, mendicants leave their homes' (IV, 4, 22). 'This indeed is the great unborn Self, the strong, the giver of wealth,--undecaying, undying, immortal, fearless is Brahman' (IV, 4, 24; 25). Now all the qualities here declared, viz.

being the lord of all, and so on, cannot possibly belong to the individual Self even in the state of Release; and we thus again arrive at the conclusion that the ether evolving forms and names is something different from the released individual soul. The declarations of general Unity which we meet with in the texts rest thereon, that all sentient and non-sentient beings are effects of Brahman, and hence have Brahman for their inner Self. That this is the meaning of texts such as 'All this is Brahman,' &c., we have explained before. And the texts denying plurality are to be understood in the same way.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the designation of something different, and so on.'

FOURTH PADA.

1. If it be said that some (mention) that which rests on Inference; we deny this because (the form) refers to what is contained in the simile of the body; and (this the text) shows.

So far the Sutras have given instruction about a Brahman, the enquiry into which serves as a means to obtain what is the highest good of man, viz. final release; which is the cause of the origination, and so on, of the world; which differs in nature from all non-sentient things such as the Pradhana, and from all intelligent beings whether in the state of bondage or of release; which is free from all shadow of imperfection; which is all knowing, all powerful, has the power of realising all its purposes, comprises within itself all blessed qualities, is the inner Self of all, and possesses unbounded power and might. But here a new special objection presents itself. In order to establish the theory maintained by Kapila, viz. of there being a Pradhana and individual souls which do _not_ have their Self in Brahman, it is pointed out by some that in certain branches of the Veda there are met with certain pa.s.sages which appear to adumbrate the doctrine of the Pradhana being the universal cause. The Sutras now apply themselves to the refutation of this view, in order thereby to confirm the theory of Brahman being the only cause of all.

We read in the Katha-Upanishad, 'Beyond the senses there are the objects, beyond the objects there is the mind, beyond the mind there is the intellect, the great Self is beyond the intellect. Beyond the Great there is the Unevolved, beyond the Unevolved there is the Person. Beyond the Person there is nothing--this is the goal, the highest road' (Ka. Up.

I, 3, 11). The question here arises whether by the 'Unevolved' be or be not meant the Pradhana, as established by Kapila's theory, of which Brahman is not the Self.--The Purvapakshin maintains the former alternative. For, he says, in the clause 'beyond the Great is the Unevolved, beyond the Unevolved is the Person,' we recognise the arrangement of ent.i.ties as established by the Sankhya-system, and hence must take the 'Unevolved' to be the Pradhana. This is further confirmed by the additional clause 'beyond the Person there is nothing,' which (in agreement with Sankhya principles) denies that there is any being beyond the soul, which itself is the twenty-fifth and last of the principles recognised by the Sankhyas. This prima facie view is expressed in the former part of the Sutra, 'If it be said that in the sakhas of some that which rests on Inference, i.e. the Pradhana, is stated as the universal cause.'

The latter part of the Sutra refutes this view. The word 'Unevolved'

does not denote a Pradhana independent of Brahman; it rather denotes the body represented as a chariot in the simile of the body, i.e. in the pa.s.sage inst.i.tuting a comparison between the Self, body, intellect, and so on, on the one side, and the charioteer, chariot, &c. on the other side.--The details are as follows. The text at first--in the section beginning 'Know the Self to be the person driving,' &c., and ending 'he reaches the end of the journey, and that is the highest place of Vishnu'

(I, 3, 3-9)--compares the devotee desirous of reaching the goal of his journey through the samsara, i.e. the abode of Vishnu, to a man driving in a chariot; and his body, senses, and so on, to the chariot and parts of the chariot; the meaning of the whole comparison being that he only reaches the goal who has the chariot, &c. in his control. It thereupon proceeds to declare which of the different beings enumerated and compared to a chariot, and so on, occupy a superior position to the others in so far, namely, as they are that which requires to be controlled--'higher than the senses are the objects,' and so on. Higher than the senses compared to the horses--are the objects--compared to roads,--because even a man who generally controls his senses finds it difficult to master them when they are in contact with their objects; higher than the objects is the mind-compared to the reins--because when the mind inclines towards the objects even the non-proximity of the latter does not make much difference; higher than the mind (manas) is the intellect (buddhi)--compared to the charioteer--because in the absence of decision (which is the characteristic quality of buddhi) the mind also has little power; higher than the intellect again is the (individual) Self, for that Self is the agent whom the intellect serves.

And as all this is subject to the wishes of the Self, the text characterises it as the 'great Self.' Superior to that Self again is the body, compared to the chariot, for all activity whereby the individual Self strives to bring about what is of advantage to itself depends on the body. And higher finally than the body is the highest Person, the inner Ruler and Self of all, the term and goal of the journey of the individual soul; for the activities of all the beings enumerated depend on the wishes of that highest Self. As the universal inner Ruler that Self brings about the meditation of the Devotee also; for the Sutra (II, 3, 41) expressly declares that the activity of the individual soul depends on the Supreme Person. Being the means for bringing about the meditation and the goal of meditation, that same Self is the highest object to be attained; hence the text says 'Higher than the Person there is nothing--that is the goal, the highest road.' a.n.a.logously scripture, in the antaryamin-Brahmana, at first declares that the highest Self within witnesses and rules everything, and thereupon negatives the existence of any further ruling principle 'There is no other seer but he,'

&c. Similarly, in the Bhagavad-gita, 'The abode, the agent, the various senses, the different and manifold functions, and fifth the Divinity (i.e. the highest Person)' (XVIII, 14); and 'I dwell within the heart of all; memory and perception, as well as their loss, come from me' (XV, 15). And if, as in the explanation of the text under discussion, we speak of that highest Self being 'controlled,' we must understand thereby the soul's taking refuge with it; compare the pa.s.sage Bha. Gi.

XVIII, 61-62, 'The Lord dwells in the heart of all creatures, whirling them round as if mounted on a machine; to Him go for refuge.'

Now all the beings, senses, and so on, which had been mentioned in the simile, are recognised in the pa.s.sage 'higher than the senses are the objects,' &c., being designated there by their proper names; but there is no mention made of the body which previously had been compared to the chariot; we therefore conclude that it is the body which is denoted by the term 'the Unevolved.' Hence there is no reason to see here a reference to the Pradhana as established in the theory of Kapila. Nor do we recognise, in the text under discussion, the general system of Kapila.

The text declares the objects, i.e. sounds and so on, to be superior to the senses; but in Kapila's system the objects are not viewed as the causes of the senses. For the same reason the statement that the manas is higher than the objects does not agree with Kapila's doctrine. Nor is this the case with regard to the clause 'higher than the buddhi is the great one, the Self; for with Kapila the 'great one' (mahat) is the buddhi, and it would not do to say 'higher than the great one is the great one.' And finally the 'great one,' according to Kapila, cannot be called the 'Self.' The text under discussion thus refers only to those ent.i.ties which had previously appeared in the simile. The text itself further on proves this, when saying 'That Self is hidden in all beings and does not shine forth, but it is seen by subtle seers through their sharp and subtle intellect. A wise man should keep down speech in the mind, he should keep that within knowledge (which is) within the Self; he should keep knowledge within the great Self, and that he should keep within the quiet Self.' For this pa.s.sage, after having stated that the highest Self is difficult to see with the inner and outer organs of knowledge, describes the mode in which the sense-organs, and so on, are to be held in control. The wise man should restrain the sense-organs and the organs of activity within the mind; he should restrain that (i.e.

the mind) within knowledge, i.e. within the intellect (buddhi), which abides within the Self; he should further restrain the intellect within the great Self, i.e. the active individual Self; and that Self finally he should restrain within the quiet Self, i.e. the highest Brahman, which is the inner ruler of all; i.e. he should reach, with his individual Self so qualified, the place of Vishnu, i.e. Brahman.--But how can the term 'the Unevolved' denote the evolved body?--To this question the next Sutra furnishes a reply.

2. But the subtle (body), on account of its capability.

The elements in their fine state are what is called the 'Unevolved,' and this entering into a particular condition becomes the body. It is the 'Unevolved' in the particular condition of the body, which in the text under discussion is called the 'Unevolved.' 'On account of its capability,' i.e. because Unevolved non-sentient matter, when a.s.suming certain states and forms, is capable of entering on activities promoting the interest of man. But, an objection is raised, if the 'Unevolved' is taken to be matter in its subtle state, what objection is there to our accepting for the explanation of our text that which is established in the Sankhya-system? for there also the 'Unevolved' means nothing else but matter in its subtle state.

To this the next Sutra replies--

3. (Matter in its subtle state) subserves an end, on account of its dependence on him (viz. the Supreme Person).

Matter in its subtle state subserves ends, in so far only as it is dependent on the Supreme Person who is the cause of all. We by no means wish to deny unevolved matter and all its effects in themselves, but in so far only as they are maintained not to have their Self in the Supreme Person. For the fact is that they const.i.tute his body and He thus const.i.tutes their Self; and it is only through this their relation to him that the Pradhana, and so on, are capable of accomplishing their several ends. Otherwise the different essential natures of them all could never exist,--nor persist, nor act. It is just on the ground of this dependence on the Lord not being acknowledged by the Sankhyas that their system is disproved by us. In Scripture and Smriti alike, wherever the origination and destruction of the world are described, or the greatness of the Supreme Person is glorified, the Pradhana and all its effects, no less than the individual souls, are declared to have their Self in that Supreme Person. Compare, e.g. the text which first says that the earth is merged in water, and further on 'the elements are merged in the Mahat, the Mahat in the Unevolved, the Unevolved in the Imperishable, the Imperishable in Darkness; Darkness becomes one with the highest divinity.' And 'He of whom the earth is the body,' &c. up to 'he of whom the Unevolved is the body; of whom the Imperishable is the body; of whom death is the body; he the inner Self of all beings, free from all evil, the divine one, the one G.o.d Narayana.' And Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intellect, egoity--thus eightfold is my nature divided. Lower is this nature; other than this and higher know that nature of mine which has become the individual soul by which this world is supported. Remember that all beings spring from this; I am the origin and the dissolution of the whole Universe. Higher than I there is none else; all this is strung on me as pearls on a thread' (Bha. Gi VII, 4-7).

And 'the Evolved is Vishnu, and the Unevolved, he is the Person and time.-- The nature (prakriti) declared by me, having the double form of the Evolved and the Unevolved, and the soul-both these are merged in the highest Self. That Self is the support of all, the Supreme Person who under the name of Vishnu is glorified in the Vedas and the Vedanta books.'

4. And on account of there being no statement of its being an object of knowledge.

If the text meant the Non-evolved as understood by the Sankhyas it would refer to it as something to be known; for the Sankhyas, who hold the theory of Release resulting from the discriminative knowledge of the Evolved, the Non-evolved, and the soul, admit that all these are objects of knowledge. Now our text does not refer to the Un-evolved as an object of knowledge, and it cannot therefore be the Pradhana a.s.sumed by the Sankhyas.

5. Should it be said that (the text) declares (it); we say, not so; for the intelligent Self (is meant), on account of subject-matter.

'He who has meditated on that which is without sound, without touch, without form, without decay, without taste, eternal, without smell, without beginning, without end, beyond the Great, unchangeable; is freed from the jaws of death' (Ka. Up. II, 3,15), this scriptural text, closely following on the text under discussion, represents the 'Unevolved' as the object of knowledge!--Not so, we reply. What that sloka represents as the object of meditation is (not the Unevolved but) the intelligent Self, i.e. the Supreme Person. For it is the latter who forms the general subject-matter, as we infer from two preceding pa.s.sages, viz. 'He who has knowledge for his charioteer, and who holds the reins of the mind, he reaches the end of his journey, the highest place of Vishnu'; and 'That Self is hidden in all beings and does not shine forth, but it is seen by subtle seers through their sharp and subtle intellect.' For this reason, also, the clause 'Higher than the person there is nothing' cannot be taken as meant to deny the existence of an ent.i.ty beyond the 'purusha' in the Sankhya sense. That the highest Self possesses the qualities of being without sound, &c., we moreover know from other scriptural texts, such as Mu. Up. I, 1, 6 'That which is not to be seen, not to be grasped,' &c. And the qualification 'beyond the Great, unchangeable' is meant to declare that the highest Self is beyond the individual Self which had been called 'the Great' in a previous pa.s.sage 'beyond the intellect is the Great Self.'

6. And of three only there is this mention and question.

In the Upanishad under discussion there is mention made of three things only as objects of knowledge--the three standing to one another in the relation of means, end to be realised by those means, and persons realising,--and questions are asked as to those three only. There is no mention of, nor question referring to, the Unevolved.--Nakiketas desirous of Release having been allowed by Death to choose three boons, chooses for his first boon that his father should be well disposed towards him--without which he could not hope for spiritual welfare. For his second boon he chooses the knowledge of the Nakiketa-fire, which is a means towards final Release. 'Thou knowest, O Death, the fire- sacrifice which leads to heaven; tell it to me, full of faith. Those who live in the heaven-world reach Immortality--this I ask as my second boon.'

The term 'heaven-world' here denotes the highest aim of man, i.e.

Release, as appears from the declaration that those who live there enjoy freedom from old age and death; from the fact that further on (I, 1, 26) works leading to perishable results are disparaged; and from what Yama says in reply to the second demand 'He who thrice performs this Nakiketa- rite overcomes birth and death.' As his third boon he, in the form of a question referring to final release, actually enquires about three things, viz. 'the nature of the end to be reached, i.e. Release; the nature of him who wishes to reach that end; and the nature of the means to reach it, i.e. of meditation a.s.sisted by certain works. Yama, having tested Nakiketas' fitness to receive the desired instruction, thereupon begins to teach him. '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; having known him as G.o.d, by means of meditation on his Self, the wise one leaves joy and sorrow behind.' Here the clause 'having known the G.o.d,' points to the divine Being that is to be meditated upon; the clause 'by means of meditation on his Self points to the attaining agent, i.e. the individual soul as an object of knowledge; and the clause 'having known him the wise ones leave joy and sorrow behind' points to the meditation through which Brahman is to be reached. Nakiketas, pleased with the general instruction received, questions again in order to receive clearer information on those three matters, 'What thou seest as different from dharma and different from adharma, as different from that, from that which is done and not done, as different from what is past or future, tell me that'; a question referring to three things, viz.

an object to be effected, a means to effect it, and an effecting agent-- each of which is to be different from anything else past, present, or future [FOOTNOTE 362:1]. Yama thereupon at first instructs him as to the Pranava, 'That word which all the Vedas record, which all penances proclaim, desiring which men become religious students; that word I tell thee briefly--it is Om'--an instruction which implies praise of the Pranava, and in a general way sets forth that which the Pranava expresses, e.g. the nature of the object to be reached, the nature of the person reaching it, and the means for reaching it, such means here consisting in the word 'Om,' which denotes the object to be reached [FOOTNOTE 362:2]. He then continues to glorify the Pranava (I, a, 16-17), and thereupon gives special information in the first place about the nature of the attaining subject, i.e., the individual soul, 'The knowing Self is not born, it dies not,' &c. Next he teaches Nakiketas as to the true nature of the object to be attained, viz. the highest Brahman or Vishnu, in the section beginning 'The Self smaller than small,' and ending 'Who then knows where he is?' (I, 2, 20-25). Part of this section, viz. 'That Self cannot be gained by the Veda,' &c., at the same time teaches that the meditation through which Brahman is attained is of the nature of devotion (bhakti). Next the sloka I, 3, 1 'There are the two drinking their reward' shows that, as the object of devout meditation and the devotee abide together, meditation is easily performed. Then the section beginning 'Know the Self to be him who drives in the chariot,' and ending 'the wise say the path is hard' (I, 3, 3-14), teaches the true mode of meditation, and how the devotee reaches the highest abode of Vishnu; and then there is a final reference to the object to be reached in I, 3,15, 'That which is without sound, without touch,' &c. It thus appears that there are references and questions regarding those three matters only; and hence the 'Un-evolved'

cannot mean the Pradhana of the Sankhyas.

[FOOTNOTE 362:1. The commentary proposes different ways of finding those three objects of enquiry in the words of Nakiketas. According to the first explanation, 'that which is different from dharma' is a means differing from all ordinary means; 'adharma' 'not-dharma' is what is not a means, but the result to be reached: hence 'that which is different from adharma' is a result differing from all ordinary results. 'What is different from that' is an agent different from 'that'; i.e. an ordinary agent, and so on. (Sru. Prakas. p. 1226.)]

[FOOTNOTE 362:2. The syllable 'Om,' which denotes Brahman, is a means towards meditation (Brahman being meditated upon under this form), and thus indirectly a means towards reaching Brahman.]

7. And as in the case of the 'Great.'

In the case of the pa.s.sage 'Higher than the intellect is the Great Self,'

we conclude from the co-ordination of 'the Great' with the Self that what the text means is not the 'Great' principle of the Sankhyas; a.n.a.logously we conclude that the 'Unevolved,' which is said to be higher than the Self, cannot be the Pradhana of Kapila's system.

8. On account of there being no special characteristic; as in the case of the cup.

In the discussion of the following pa.s.sages also we aim only at refuting the system of the Sankhyas; not at disproving the existence and nature of Prakriti, the 'great' principle, the ahamara, and so on, viewed as dependent on Brahman. For that they exist in this latter relation is proved by Scripture as well as Smriti.--A text of the followers of the Atharvan runs as follows: 'Her who produces all effects, the non-knowing one, the unborn one, wearing eight forms, the firm one--she is known (by the Lord) and ruled by him, she is spread out and incited and ruled by him, gives birth to the world for the benefit of the souls. A cow she is without beginning and end, a mother producing all beings; white, black, and red, milking all wishes for the Lord. Many babes unknown drink her.

the impartial one; but one G.o.d only, following his own will, drinks her submitting to him. By his own thought and work the mighty G.o.d strongly enjoys her, who is common to all, the milkgiver, who is pressed by the sacrifices. The Non-evolved when being counted by twenty-four is called the Evolved.' This pa.s.sage evidently describes the nature of Prakriti, and so on, and the same Upanishad also teaches the Supreme Person who const.i.tutes the Self of Prakriti, and so on. 'Him they call the twenty- sixth or also the twenty-seventh; as the Person devoid of all qualities of the Sankhyas he is known by the followers of the Atharvan [FOOTNOTE 364:1].'--Other followers of the Atharvan read in their text that there are sixteen originating principles (prakriti) and eight effected things (vikara; Garbha Up. 3).--The Svetasvataras again set forth the nature of Prakriti, the soul and the Lord as follows. 'The Lord supports all this together, the Perishable and the Imperishable, the Evolved and the Unevolved; the other one is in bondage, since he is an enjoyer; but having known the G.o.d he is free from all fetters. There are two unborn ones, the one knowing and a Lord, the other without knowledge and lordly power; there is the one unborn female on whom the enjoyment of all enjoyers depends; and there is the infinite Self appearing in all shapes, but itself inactive. When a man finds out these three, that is Brahman.

The Perishable is the Pradhana, the Immortal and Imperishable is Hara; the one G.o.d rules the Perishable and the Self. From meditation on him, from union with him, from becoming one with him there is in the end cessation of all Maya' (Svet. Up. I, 8-10). And 'The sacred verses, the offerings, the sacrifices, the vows, the past, the future, and all that the Vcdas declare--from that the Ruler of Maya creates all this; and in this the other one is bound up through Maya. Know then Prakriti to be Maya and the great Lord the ruler of Maya; with his members this whole world is filled' (Svet. Up. V, 9-10). And, further on, 'The master of Pradhana and the soul, the lord of the gunas, the cause of the bondage, existence, and release of worldly existence' (VI, 16). Thus likewise in Smriti, 'Do thou know both Nature and the soul to be without beginning, and know all effects and qualities to have sprung from Nature. Nature is declared to be the cause of the activity of causes and effects, whilst the soul is the cause of there being enjoyment of pleasure and pain. For the soul abiding in Nature experiences the qualities derived from Nature, the reason being its connexion with the qualities, in its births in good and evil wombs' (Bha. Gi. XIII, 19-21). And 'Goodness, Pa.s.sion, and Darkness--these are the qualities which, issuing from nature, bind in the body the embodied soul, the undecaying one' (XIV, 5). And 'All beings at the end of a kalpa return into my Nature, and again, at the beginning of a kalpa, do I send them forth. Presiding over my own nature again and again do I send forth this vast body of beings which has no freedom of its own, being subject to Nature.--With me as ruler Nature brings forth all moving and non-moving things, and for this reason the world does ever go round' (Bha. Gi. IX, 7, 8, 10). What we therefore refuse to accept are a Prakriti, and so on, of the kind a.s.sumed by Kapila, i.e. not having their Self in Brahman.--We now proceed to explain the Sutra.

We read in the Svetasvatara-Upanishad 'There is one aja, red, white, and black, producing manifold offspring of the same nature. One aja loves her and lies by her; another leaves her after having enjoyed her.' A doubt arises here whether this mantra declares a mere Prakriti as a.s.sumed in Kapila's system, or a Prakriti having its Self in Brahman.

The Purvapakshin maintains the former alternative. For, he points out, the text refers to the non-originatedness of Prakriti, calling her aja, i.e. unborn, and further says that she by herself independently produces manifold offspring resembling herself. This view is rejected by the Sutra, on the ground that there is no intimation of a special circ.u.mstance determining the acceptance of the Prakriti as a.s.sumed by the Sankhyas, i.e. independent of Brahman; for that she is aja, i. e.

not born, is not a sufficiently special characteristic. The case is a.n.a.logous to that of the 'cup.' In the mantra 'There is a cup having its mouth below and its bottom above' (Bri. Up. II, 2, 3), the word kamasa conveys to us only the idea of some implement used in eating, but we are unable to see what special kind of kamasa is meant; for in the case of words the meaning of which is ascertained on the ground of their derivation (as 'kamasa' from 'kam,' to eat or drink), the special sense of the word in any place cannot be ascertained without the help of considerations of general possibility, general subject-matter, and so on.

Now in the case of the cup we are able to ascertain that the cup meant is the head, because there is a complementary pa.s.sage 'What is called the cup with its mouth below and its bottom above is the head'; but if we look out for a similar help to determine the special meaning of aja, we find nothing to convince us that the aja, i. e. the 'unborn'

principle, is the Prakriti of the Sankhyas. Nor is there anything in the text to convey the idea of that aja having the power of independent creation; for the clause 'giving birth to manifold offspring' declares only that she creates, not that she creates unaided. The mantra does not therefore tell us about an 'unborn' principle independent of Brahman.-- There moreover is a special reason for understanding by the aja something that depends on Brahman. This the following Sutra states.

[FOOTNOTE 364:1. These quotations are from the Kulika-Upanishad (transl.

by Deussen, Seventy Upanishads, p. 638 ff.) The translation as given above follows the readings adopted by Ramanuja and explained in the-- Sruta-Prakasika.]