The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary by Ramanuja Part 43

III, 1, 9). Smriti: 'Neither by the Vedas, nor austerities, nor gifts, nor by sacrifice, but only by exclusive devotion, may I in this form be known and beheld in truth and also entered into' (Bha. Gi. XI, 53,54).

The scriptural text beginning 'Two are the forms of Brahman,' which declares the nature of Brahman for the purposes of devout meditation, cannot therefore refer to Brahman's being characterised by two forms, a material and an immaterial, as something already known; for apart from Scripture nothing is known about Brahman.

24. And there is non-difference (of the intention of Brahman's distinguishing attributes), as in the case of light; and the light (is) intuited as const.i.tuting Brahman's essential nature by repet.i.tion of the practice (of meditation).

That the clause 'not so' negatives not Brahman's possessing two forms, a material and an immaterial one, but only Brahman's nature being restricted to those determinations, follows therefrom also that in the vision of Vamadeva and others who had attained to intuition into Brahman's nature, the fact of Brahman having all material and immaterial beings for its attributes is apprehended in non-difference, i.e. in the same way as the fact of light (i.e. knowledge) and bliss const.i.tuting Brahman's essential nature. Compare the text 'Seeing this the Rishi Vamadeva understood, I am Manu and the sun' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 10). And that light and bliss const.i.tute Brahman's nature was perceived by Vamadeva and the rest through repeated performance of the practice of devout meditation. In the same way then, i.e. by repeated meditation, they also became aware that Brahman has all material and immaterial things for its distinguishing modes.--The next Sutra sums up the proof of Brahman's possessing twofold characteristics.

25. Hence (Brahman is distinguished) by what is infinite; for thus the characteristics (hold good).

By the arguments stated it is proved that Brahman is distinguished by the infinite mult.i.tude of blessed qualities. And this being so, it follows that Brahman possesses the twofold characteristics.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'that which has twofold characteristics.'

26. But on account of twofold designation, as the snake and its coils.

It has been shown in the preceding adhikarana that the entire non- sentient universe is the outward form of Brahman. For the purpose of proving Brahman's freedom from all imperfection, an enquiry is now begun into the particular mode in which the world may be conceived to const.i.tute the form of Brahman. Is the relation of the two like that of the snake and its coils; or like that of light and the luminous body, both of which fall under the same genus; or like that of the individual soul and Brahman, the soul being a distinguishing attribute and for that reason a part (amsa) of Brahman?--On the a.s.sumption of this last alternative, which is about to be established here, it has been already shown under two preceding Sutras (I, 4, 23; II, 1, 14), that from Brahman, as distinguished by sentient and non-sentient beings in their subtle form, there originates Brahman as distinguished by all those beings in their gross form.

Which then of the alternatives stated above is the true one?--The material world is related to Brahman as the coils to the snake, 'on account of twofold designation.' For some texts declare the ident.i.ty of the two: 'Brahman only is all this'; 'The Self only is all this.' Other texts again refer to the difference of the two: 'Having entered into these three deities with this jiva-self, let me differentiate names and forms.' We therefore consider all non-sentient things to be special forms or arrangements of Brahman, as the coils are of a coiled-up snake or a coiled-up rope.

27. Or else like light and its abode, both being fire.

The _or_ sets aside the other two alternatives. If Brahman itself only appeared in the form of non-sentient things--as the snake itself only const.i.tutes the coils--both sets of texts, those which declare difference as well as those which declare the unchangeableness of Brahman, would be contrary to sense. We therefore, adopting the second alternative, hold that the case under discussion is a.n.a.logous to that of light and that in which it abides, i.e. the luminous body. The two are different, but at the same time they are identical in so far as they both are fire (tejas). In the same way the non-sentient world const.i.tutes the form of Brahman.

28. Or else in the manner stated above.

The _but_ sets aside the two preceding alternatives. One substance may indeed connect itself with several states, but the former of the two alternatives implies that Brahman itself const.i.tutes the essential nature of non-sentient matter, and thus there is no escape from the objections already stated under Sutra 27. Let then the second alternative be adopted according to which Brahma-hood (brahmatva) const.i.tutes a genus inhering in Brahman as well as in non-sentient matter, just as fire const.i.tutes the common genus for light and luminous bodies. But on this view Brahman becomes a mere abstract generic character inhering in the Lord (isvara), sentient souls and non-sentient matter, just as the generic character of horses (asvatva) inheres in concrete individual horses; and this contradicts all the teaching of Sruti and Smriti (according to which Brahman is the highest concrete ent.i.ty). We therefore hold that non-sentient matter stands to Brahman in the same relation as the one previously proved for the individual soul in Sutra II, 3, 43; 46; viz. that it is an attribute incapable of being realised apart from Brahman and hence is a part (amsa) of the latter.

The texts referring to the two as non-different may thus be taken in their primary sense; for the part is only a limited place of that of which it is a part. And the texts referring to the two as different may also be taken in their primary sense; for the distinguishing attribute and that to which the attribute belongs are essentially different. Thus Brahman's freedom from all imperfection is preserved.--l.u.s.tre is an attribute not to be realised apart from the gem, and therefore is a part of the gem; the same relation also holds good between generic character and individuals having that character, between qualities and things having qualities, between bodies and souls. In the same way souls as well as non-sentient matter stand to Brahman in the relation of parts.

29. And on account of denial.

Texts such as 'This is that great unborn Self, undecaying, undying' (Bri.

Up. IV, 4, 25), 'By the old age of the body that does not age' (Ch. Up.

VIII, 1, 5), deny of Brahman the properties of non-sentient matter. From this it follows that the relation of the two can only be that of distinguishing attribute and thing distinguished, and hence of part and whole. Brahman distinguished by sentient and non-sentient beings in their subtle state is the cause; distinguished by the same beings in their gross state is the effect: the effect thus is non-different from the cause, and by the knowledge of the causal Brahman the effect is likewise known. All these tenets are in full mutual agreement. Brahman's freedom from defects also is preserved; and this and Brahman's being the abode of all blessed qualities prove that Brahman possesses the 'twofold characteristics.'--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the coils of the snake.'

30. (There is something) higher than that; on account of the designations of bridge, measure, connexion, and difference.

The Sutras now proceed to refute an erroneous view based on some fallacious arguments, viz. that there is a being higher even than the highest Brahman, the supreme cause, material as well as operative, of the entire world--a refutation which will confirm the view of Brahman being free from all imperfections and a treasure as it were of countless transcendentally exalted qualities.--There is some ent.i.ty higher than the Brahman described so far as being the cause of the world and possessing the twofold characteristics. For the text 'That Self is a bank (or bridge), a boundary' (Ch. Up. VIII, 4, 1) designates the Self as a bank or bridge (setu). And the term 'setu' means in ordinary language that which enables one to reach the other bank of a river; and from this we conclude that in the Vedic text also there must be meant something to be reached. The text further says that that bridge is to be crossed: 'He who has crossed that bridge, if blind,' &c.; this also indicates that there must be something to be reached by crossing. Other texts, again, speak of the highest Brahman as something measured, i.e.

limited. 'Brahman has four feet (quarters), sixteen parts.' Such declarations of Brahman being something limited suggest the existence of something unlimited to be reached by that bridge. Further there are texts which declare a connexion of the bridge as that which is a means towards reaching, and a thing connected with the bridge as that to be reached: 'the highest bridge of the Immortal' (Svet. Up. VI, 19); 'he is the bridge of the Immortal' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 5). For this reason also there is something higher than the Highest.--And other texts again expressly state that being beyond the Highest to be something different: 'he goes to the divine Person who is higher than the Highest' (Mu. Up.

III, 2, 8); 'by this Person this whole universe is filled; what is higher than that is without form and without suffering' (Svet. Up. III, 9-10). All this combined shows that there is something higher than the highest Brahman.--The next Sutra disposes of this view.

31. But on account of resemblance.

The 'but' sets aside the purvapaksha. There is no truth in the a.s.sertion that from the designation of the Highest as a bridge (or bank) it follows that there is something beyond the Highest. For Brahman in that text is not called a bank with regard to something to be reached thereby; since the additional clause 'for the non-confounding of these worlds'

declares that it is compared to a bridge or bank in so far as it binds to itself (setu being derived from _si_, to bind) the whole aggregate of sentient and non-sentient things without any confusion. And in the clause 'having pa.s.sed beyond that bridge' the _pa.s.sing beyond_ means _reaching_; as we say, 'he pa.s.ses beyond the Vedanta,' meaning 'he has fully mastered it.'

32. It subserves the purpose of thought; as in the case of the feet.

Where the texts speak of Brahman as having four quarters, and sixteen parts, or say that 'one quarter of him are all these beings' (Ch. Up.

III, 12, 6), they do so for the purpose of thought, i.e. meditation, only. For as texts such as 'the Truth, knowledge, infinite is Brahman'

teach Brahman, the cause of the world, to be unlimited, it cannot in itself be subject to measure. The texts referring to measure therefore aim at meditation only, in the same way as texts such as 'Speech is one foot (quarter) of him, breath another, the eye another, the mind another' (Ch. Up. III, 18, 2).--But how can something that in itself is beyond all measure, for the purpose of meditation, be spoken of as measured? To this the next Sutra replies.

33. Owing to difference of place, as in the case of light, and so on.

Owing to the difference of limiting adjuncts const.i.tuted by special places, such as speech, and so on, Brahman in so far as connected with these adjuncts may be viewed as having measure; just as light and the like although spread everywhere may be viewed as limited, owing to its connexion with different places--windows, jars, and so on.

34. And on account of possibility.

Nor is there any truth in the a.s.sertion that, because texts such as 'he is the bridge of the Immortal' intimate a distinction between that which causes to reach and the object reached, there must be something to be reached different from that which causes to reach; for the highest Self may be viewed as being itself a means towards itself being reached; cp.

'The Self cannot be reached by the Veda, and so on; he whom the Self chooses by him the Self can be gained' (Ch. Up. I, 2, 23).

35. Thus, from the denial of anything else.

Nor can we allow the a.s.sertion that there is something higher than the highest because certain texts ('the Person which is higher than the highest'; 'beyond the Imperishable there is the highest,' &c.) refer to such a difference. For the same texts expressly deny that there is anything else higher than the highest--'than whom there is nothing else higher, than whom there is nothing smaller or larger' (Svet. Up. III, 9).

So also other texts: 'For there is nothing else higher than this "not so"' (i.e. than this Brahman designated by the phrase 'not so'; Bri. Up.

II, 3, 6); 'Of him none is the Lord, his name is great glory' (Mahanar.

Up. I, 10).