The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary by Ramanuja Part 49

55. There is pre-eminence of plenitude, as in the case of the sacrifice; for thus Scripture shows.

The sacred text (Ch. Up. V, 12 ff.) enjoins a meditation on Vaisvanara, the object of which is the highest Self, as having for its body the entire threefold world, and for its limbs the heavenly world, the sun, the wind, and so on. The doubt here arises whether separate meditations have to be performed on the highest Being in its separate aspects, or in its aggregate as well as in its distributed aspect, or in its aggregate aspect only.--In its separate aspects, the Purvapakshin maintains; since at the outset a meditation of that kind is declared. For on the Rishis in succession telling Asvapati the objects of their meditation, viz. the sky, the sun, and so on, Asvapati explains to them that these meditations refer to the head, eye, and so on, of the highest Being, and mentions for each of these meditations a special fruit. And the concluding explanation 'he who worships Vaisvanara as a span long, &c.,'

is merely meant to gather up into one, as it were, the preceding meditations on the parts of Vaisvanara.--Another Purvapakshin holds that this very concluding pa.s.sage enjoins a further meditation on Vaisvanara in his collective aspect, in addition to the previously enjoined meditations on his limbs; for that pa.s.sage states a separate result, 'he eats food in all worlds,' &c. Nor does this destroy the unity of the whole section. The case is a.n.a.logous to that of the meditation on 'plenitude' (bhuman; Ch. Up. VII, 23). There, in the beginning, separate meditations are enjoined on name, and so on, with special results of their own; and after that a meditation is enjoined on bhuman, with a result of its own, 'He becomes a Self-ruler,' &c. The entire section really refers to the meditation on bhuman; but all the same there are admitted subordinate meditations on name, and so on, and a special result for each.--These views are set aside by the Sutra, 'There is pre-eminence of plenitude,' i.e. there is reason to a.s.sume that Vaisvanara in his fulness, i.e. in his collective aspect, is meant; since we apprehend unity of the entire section. From the beginning of the section it is manifest that what the Rishis desire to know is the Vaisanara Self; it is that Self which Asvapati expounds to them as having the Universe for his body, and in agreement therewith the last clause of his teaching intimates that the intuition of Brahman (which is none other than the Vaisvanara Self)--which is there characterised as the food of all worlds, all beings, all Selfs--is the fruit of the meditation on Vaisvanara. This summing up proves the whole section to deal with the same subject. And on the basis of this knowledge we determine that what the text says as to meditations on the separate members of the Vaisanara Self and their special results is merely of the nature of explanatory comment (anuvada) on parts of the meditation on the collective Self.--This decision is arrived at as in the case of the sacrifice. For to the injunction of certain sacrifices--such as 'Let a man, on the birth of a son, offer a cake on twelve potsherds to Vaisvanara'--the text similarly adds remarks on parts of the oblation, 'there is an oblation on eight potsherds,' and so on.--The meditation therefore has to be performed on the entire Vaisvanara Self only, not on its parts. This, moreover, Scripture itself intimates, in so far, namely, as declaring the evil consequences of meditation on parts of the Self only, 'your head would have fallen off if you had not come to me'; 'you would have become blind,' and so on. This also shows that the reference to the text enjoining meditations on name, &c., proves nothing as to our pa.s.sage. For there the text says nothing as to disadvantages connected with those special meditations; it only says that the meditation on plenitude (bhuman) has a more excellent result. The section, therefore, although really concerned with enjoining the meditation on the bhuman, at the same time means to declare that the special meditations also are fruitful; otherwise the meditation on the bhuman could not be recommended, for the reason that it has a more excellent result than the preceding meditations.--The conclusion, therefore, is that the text enjoins a meditation on the collective Vaisvanara Self only.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the pre-eminence of plenitude.'

56. (The meditations are) separate, on account of the difference of words, and so on.

The instances coming under this head of discussion are all those meditations on Brahman which have for their only result final Release, which consists in attaining to Brahman--such as the meditation on that which is, the meditation on the bhuman, the meditation on the small s.p.a.ce within the heart, the Upakosala meditation, the Sandilya meditation, the meditation on Vaisvanara, the meditation on the Self of bliss, the meditation on the Imperishable, and others--whether they be recorded in one sakha only or in several sakhas. To a different category belong those meditations which have a special object such as Prana, and a special result.--The doubt here arises whether the meditations of the former cla.s.s are all to be considered as identical, or as separate--The Purvapakshin holds that they are all one; for, he says, they all have one and the same object of meditation, viz. Brahman. For the nature of all cognition depends on the object cognised; and the nature of the meditations thus being one, the meditations themselves are one.--This view the Sutra controverts. The meditations are different, on account of the difference of terms and the rest. The 'and the rest' comprises repet.i.tion (abhyasa), number (samkhya), quality (guna), subject-matter (prakriya), and name (namadheya; cp. Pu. Mi. Su. II, 2, 1 ff.). We meet in those meditations with difference of connexion, expressing itself in difference of words, and so on; which causes difference on the part of the meditations enjoined. The terms enjoining meditation, 'he knows,'

'he is to meditate' (veda; upasita), and so on, do indeed all of them denote a certain continuity of cognition, and all these cognitions have for their object Brahman only, but all the same those cognitions differ in so far as they have for their object Brahman, as variously qualified by special characteristics mentioned in the meditation; in one meditation he is spoken of as the sole cause of the world, in another as free from all evil, and so on. We therefore arrive at the decision that clauses which describe special forms of meditation having for their result the attainment to Brahman, and are complete in themselves, convey the idea of separate independent meditations, and thus effect separation of the vidyas. This entire question was indeed already decided in the Purva Mimamsa-sutras (II, 2, 1), but it is here argued again to the end of dispelling the mistaken notion that the Vedanta-texts aim at knowledge only, and not at the injunction of activities such as meditation. The meditations, therefore, are separate ones.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'difference of words and the rest.'

57. Option, on account of the non-difference of result.

It has been proved that the meditation on that which truly is, the meditation on the small ether within the heart, and so on--all of which have for their result the attainment to Brahman--are separate meditations. The question now arises whether all these meditations should be combined by each meditating devotee, on account of such combination being useful to him; or whether, in the absence of any use of such combination, they should be undertaken optionally.--They may be combined, the Purvapakshin holds; since it is observed that different scriptural matters are combined even when having one and the same result.

The Agnihotra, the Daisapurnamasa oblation, and other sacrifices, all of them have one and the same result, viz. the possession of the heavenly world; nevertheless, one and the same agent performs them all, with a view to the greater fulness of the heavenly bliss aimed at. So the different meditations on Brahman also may be c.u.mulated with a view to greater fulness of intuition of Brahman.--This view the Sutra rejects.

Option only between the several meditations is possible, on account of the non-difference of result. For to all meditations on Brahman alike Scripture a.s.signs one and the same result, viz. intuitive knowledge of Brahman, which is of the nature of supreme, unsurpa.s.sable bliss. 'He who knows Brahman attains the Highest' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1), &c. The intuitive knowledge of Brahman const.i.tutes supreme, unsurpa.s.sable bliss; and if such intuition may be reached through one meditation, of what use could other meditations be? The heavenly world is something limited in respect of place, time, and essential nature, and hence a person desirous of attaining to it may c.u.mulate works in order to take possession of it to a greater extent, and so on. But an a.n.a.logous proceeding cannot be resorted to with regard to Brahman, which is unlimited in every sense. All meditations on Brahman tend to dispel Nescience, which stands in the way of the intuition of Brahman, and thus equally have for their result the attaining to Brahman; and hence there is option between them. In the case, on the other hand, of those meditations which aim at other results than Brahman, there may either be choice between the several meditations, or they may be c.u.mulated--as one may also do in the case of sacrifices aiming at the attainment of the heavenly world;--for as those results are not of an infinite nature one may aim at realising them in a higher degree. This the next Sutra declares.

58. But meditations aiming at objects of desire may, according to one's liking, be c.u.mulated or not; on account of the absence of the former reason.

The last clause means--on account of their results not being of an infinite nature.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'option.'

59. They belong to the const.i.tuent members, as the bases.

A doubt arises whether meditations such as the one enjoined in the text, 'Let him meditate on the syllable Om as the Udgitha,' which are connected with const.i.tuent elements of the sacrifice such as the Udgitha, contribute towards the accomplishment of the sacrifice, and hence must be performed at the sacrifice as part of it; or whether they, like the G.o.dohana vessel, benefit the agent apart from the sacrifice, and therefore may be undertaken according to desire.--But has it not been already decided under III, 3, 42 that those meditations are generally beneficial to man, and not therefore restricted to the sacrifices?--True; it is just for the purpose of further confirming that conclusion that objections are now raised against it on the ground of some inferential marks (linga) and reasoning. For there it was maintained on the strength of the text 'therefore he does both' that those meditations have results independent of the sacrifice. But there are several reasons favouring the view that those meditations must be connected with the sacrifices as subordinate members, just as the Udgitha and the rest to which the meditations refer.

Their case is by no means a.n.a.logous to that of the G.o.dohana vessel, for, while in the case of the latter, the text expressly declares the existence of a special result, 'For him who is desirous of cattle he is to bring water in a G.o.dohana,' the texts enjoining those meditations do not state special results for them. For clauses such as 'he is to meditate on the Udgitha' intimate only that the Udgitha is connected with the meditation; while their connexion with certain results is known from other clauses, such as 'whatever he does with knowledge, with faith, with the Upanishad, that is more vigorous' (according to which the result of such meditations is only to strengthen the result of the sacrifices). And when a meditation of this kind has, on the ground of its connexion with the Udgitha or the like--which themselves are invariably connected with sacrifices--been cognised to form an element of a sacrifice, some other pa.s.sage which may declare a fruit for that meditation can only be taken as an arthavada; just as the pa.s.sage which declares that he whose sacrificial ladle is made of parna wood does not hear an evil sound. In the same way, therefore, as the Udgitha and so on, which are the bases of those meditations, are to be employed only as const.i.tuent parts of the sacrifices, so the meditations also connected with those const.i.tuent parts are themselves to be employed as const.i.tuent parts of the sacrifices only.

60. And on account of injunction.

The above conclusion is further confirmed by the fact of injunction, i.e.

thereby that clauses such as 'he is to meditate on the Udgitha' enjoin the meditation as standing to the Udgitha in the relation of a subordinate member. Injunctions of this kind differ from injunctions such as 'he is to bring water in the G.o.dohana vessel for him who desires cattle'; for the latter state a special qualification on the part of him who performs the action, while the former do not, and hence cannot claim independence.

61. On account of rectification.

The text 'from the seat of the Hotri he sets right the wrong Udgiha'

shows that the meditation is necessarily required for the purpose of correcting whatever mistake may be made in the Udgitha. This also proves that the meditation is an integral part of the sacrificial performance.

62. And on account of the declaration of a quality being common (to all the Vedas).

The text 'By means of that syllable the threefold knowledge proceeds.

With _Om_ the Adhvaryu gives orders, with _Om_ the Hotri recites, with _Om_ the Udgatri sings,' which declares the pranava--which is a 'quality' of the meditation, in so far as it is its basis--to be common to the three Vedas, further shows that the meditation has to be employed in connexion with the sacrifice. For the meditation is connected with the Udgitha, and the Udgitha is an integral part of all sacrificial performances whatever.

Of the prima facie view thus far set forth the next Sutra disposes.

63. Rather not, as the text does not declare their going together.

It is not true that the meditations on the Udgitha and the rest are bound to the sacrifices in the same way as the Udgitha, and so on, themselves are; for Scripture does not declare that they go together with, i.e. are subordinate const.i.tuents of the Udgitha, and so on. The clause 'Let him meditate on the Udgitha' does not indeed itself state another qualification on the part of the agent (i.e. does not state that the agent in entering on the meditation is prompted by a motive other than the one prompting the sacrifice); but the subsequent clause, 'whatever he does with knowledge, with faith, with the Upanishad, that becomes more vigorous,' intimates that knowledge is the means to render the sacrificial work more efficacious, and from this it follows that the meditation is enjoined as a means towards effecting a result other than the result of the sacrifice. And hence the meditation cannot be viewed as a subordinate member of the Udgitha, which itself is a subordinate member of the sacrifice. It rather has the Udgitha for its basis only.

He only indeed who is qualified for the sacrifice is qualified for the meditation, since the latter aims at greater efficaciousness of the sacrifice; but this does not imply that the meditation necessarily goes with the sacrifice. By the greater vigour of the sacrifice is meant its non-obstruction by some other sacrificial work of greater strength, its producing its effect without any delay.--The case of a statement such as 'he whose ladle is of parna wood hears no evil sound' is different.

There the text does not declare that the quality of consisting of parna wood is the direct means of bringing about the result of no evil sound being heard; hence there is no valid reason why that quality should not be subordinate to the ladle, which itself is subordinate to the sacrifice; and as it is not legitimate to a.s.sume for the mere subordinate const.i.tuents of a sacrifice special fruits (other than the general fruit of the sacrifice), the declaration as to no evil sound being heard is to be viewed as a mere arthavada (i.e. a mere additional statement meant further to glorify the result of the sacrifice--of which the ladle made of parna wood is a subordinate instrument).

64. And because (Scripture) shows it.

A scriptural text, moreover, shows that the meditation is necessary for, and restricted to, the sacrificial performance. For the text 'A Brahman priest who knows this saves the sacrifice, the sacrificer, and all the officiating priests'--which declares that all priests are saved through the knowledge of the Brahman--has sense only on the understanding that that knowledge is not restricted to the Udjatri, and so on (i.e. not to those priests who are engaged in carrying out the details of the sacrifices which are the 'bases' of the meditations).--The conclusion, therefore, is that those meditations are not restricted to the sacrifices, subordinate members of which serve as their 'bases.'--This terminates the adhikarana of 'like the bases.'

FOURTH PADA.

1. The benefit to man results from thence, on account of scriptural statement; thus Badarayana thinks.

We have concluded the investigation into the oneness or diverseness of meditations--the result of which is to indicate in which cases the special points mentioned in several meditations have to be combined, and in which not. A further point now to be investigated is whether that advantage to the meditating devotee, which is held to accrue to him from the meditation, results from the meditation directly, or from works of which the meditations are subordinate members.--The Reverend Badarayana holds the former view. The benefit to man results from thence, i.e. from the meditation, because Scripture declares this to be so. 'He who knows Brahman reaches the Highest' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1); 'I know that great Person of sun-like l.u.s.tre beyond the darkness. A man who knows him truly pa.s.ses over death; there is no other path to go' (Svet. Up. III, 8); 'As the flowing rivers disappear in the sea, losing their name and their form, thus a man who possesses knowledge, freed from name and form, goes to the divine Person who is greater than the great' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 8).-- Against this view the Purvapakshin raises an objection.

2. On account of (the Self) standing in a complementary relation, they are arthavadas, as in other cases; thus Jaimini opines.

What has been said as to Scripture intimating that a beneficial result is realised through the meditations by themselves is untenable. For texts such as 'he who knows Brahman reaches the Highest' do not teach that the highest aim of man is attained through knowledge; their purport rather is to inculcate knowledge of Truth on the part of a Self which is the agent in works prescribed. Knowledge, therefore, stands in a complementary relation to sacrificial works, in so far as it imparts to the acting Self a certain mystic purification; and the texts which declare special results of knowledge, therefore, must be taken as mere arthavadas. 'As in the case of other things; so Jaimini thinks,' i.e. as Jaimini holds that in the case of substances, qualities, and so on, the scriptural declaration of results is of the nature of arthavada.--But it has been shown before that the Vedanta-texts represent as the object to be attained, by those desirous of Release, on the basis of the knowledge imparted by them, something different from the individual Self engaged in action; cp. on this point Su. I, 1, 15; I, 3, 5; I, 2, 3; I, 3, 18.

And Su. II, 1, 22 and others have refuted the view that Brahman is to be considered as non-different from the personal soul, because in texts such as 'thou art that' it is exhibited in co-ordination with the latter.

And other Sutras have proved that Brahman must, on the basis of numerous scriptural texts, be recognised as the inner Self of all things material and immaterial. How then can it be said that the Vedanta-texts merely mean to give instruction as to the true nature of the active individual soul, and that hence all meditation is merely subservient to sacrificial works?--On the strength of numerous inferential marks, the Purvapakshin replies, which prove that in the Vedanta-texts all meditation is really viewed as subordinate to knowledge, and of the declarations of co- ordination of Brahman and the individual soul (which must be taken to imply that the two are essentially of the same nature), we cannot help forming the conclusion that the real purport of the Vedanta-texts is to tell us of the true nature of the individual soul in so far as different from its body.--But, again it is objected, the agent is connected no less with ordinary worldly works than with works enjoined by the Veda, and hence is not invariably connected with sacrifices (i.e. works of the latter type); it cannot, therefore, be maintained that meditations on the part of the agent necessarily connect themselves with sacrifices in so far as they effect a purification of the sacrificer's mind!--There is a difference, the Purvapakshin rejoins. Worldly works can proceed also if the agent is non-different from the body; while an agent is qualified for sacred works only in so far as he is different from the body, and of an eternal non-changing nature. Meditations, therefore, properly connect themselves with sacrifices, in so far as they teach that the agent really is of that latter nature. We thus adhere to the conclusion that meditations are const.i.tuents of sacrificial actions, and hence are of no advantage by themselves.--But what then are those inferential marks which, as you say, fully prove that the Vedanta-texts aim at setting forth the nature of the individual soul?--To this the next Sutra replies.