The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary by Ramanuja Part 58

('He who meditates on name as Brahman,' Ch. Up. VII, 1 ff.), the meditation is not proved by texts of the two kinds previously mentioned to lead to Brahman; it rather is contaminated by an element not of the nature of intelligence, and hence--according to the principle that the result of a meditation is the same in nature as the meditation itself-- the soul of the inferior devotee practising such meditation does not proceed by the path of light and does not reach Brahman.--That this distinction is declared by Scripture itself, the next Sutra shows.

15. And Scripture declares the difference.

The text, 'He who meditates on name as Brahman, for him there is movement as he wishes as far as name extends,' &c. (Ch. Up. VII, 1 ff.), declares that those who meditate on the series of symbols beginning with name and ending with prana attain to a result of limited nature and not depending on any particular path. Those therefore who meditate on the Intelligent either as mixed with the Non-intelligent or by itself, viewing it either under the aspect of Brahman or as separated from Brahman, are not led on by the conducting deities. On the other hand, it remains a settled conclusion that the deities speed on their way those who meditate on the highest Brahman and on the soul as separated from Prakriti and having Brahman for its true Self.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the effected.'

FOURTH PADA.

1. (On the soul's) having approached (the highest light) there is manifestation; (as we infer) from the word 'own.'

The Suras now proceed to consider the _kind_ of superior existence (aisvarya) which the released souls enjoy.--The text says, 'Thus does that serene being, having risen from the body and having approached the highest light, manifest itself in its own form' (Ch. Up. VIII, 12, 3).

Does this pa.s.sage mean that the soul having approached the highest light a.s.sumes a new body, to be brought about then, as e.g. the body of a deva; or that it only manifests its own natural character?--The text must be understood in the former sense, the Purvapakshin holds. For otherwise the scriptural texts referring to Release would declare what is of no advantage to man. We do not observe that its own nature is of any advantage to the soul. In the state of dreamless sleep the body and the sense-organs cease to act, and you may say the pure soul then abides by itself, but in what way does this benefit man? Nor can it be said that mere cessation of pain const.i.tutes the well-being of the soul which has approached the highest light, and that in this sense manifestation of its own nature may be called Release; for Scripture clearly teaches that the released soul enjoys an infinity of positive bliss, 'One hundred times the bliss of Praj.a.pati is one bliss of Brahman and of a sage free from desires'; 'for having tasted a flavour he experiences bliss' (Taitt.

Up. II, 7). Nor can it be said that the true nature of the soul is consciousness of the nature of unlimited bliss which, in the Samsara condition, is hidden by Nescience and manifests itself only when the soul reaches Brahman. For, as explained previously, intelligence which is of the nature of light cannot be hidden; hiding in that case would be neither more nor less than destruction. Nor can that which is mere light be of the nature of bliss; for bliss is pleasure, and to be of the nature of pleasure is to be such as to agree with the Self. But, if the Self is mere light, where is the being by which light is to be apprehended as agreeable to its own nature? (i.e. where is the knowing subject conscious of bliss?) He, therefore, who holds the Self to be mere light, can in no way prove that it is of the nature of bliss. If, moreover, that which the soul effects on approaching the highest light is merely to attain to its own true nature, we point out that that nature is something eternally accomplished, and that hence the declaration that 'it manifests (accomplishes) itself in its own nature'

would be purportless. We hence conclude that on approaching the highest light the soul connects itself with a new form only then brought about.

On this view the term 'accomplishes itself is taken in its direct sense, and the expression 'in its own shape' also is suitable in so far as the soul accomplishes itself in a nature specially belonging to it and characterised by absolute bliss.--This view the Sutra rejects. That special condition into which the soul pa.s.ses on having, on the path of the G.o.ds, approached the highest light is a manifestation of its own true nature, not an origination of a new character. For this is proved-- by the specification implied in the term 'own,' in the phrase 'in its own nature.' If the soul a.s.sumed a new body, this specification would be without meaning; for, even without that, it would be clear that the new body belongs to the soul.--Against the a.s.sertion that the soul's own true nature is something eternally accomplished, and that hence a declaration of that nature 'accomplishing itself would be unmeaning, the next Sutra declares itself.

2. The released one; on account of the promise.

What the text says about the soul accomplishing itself in its own form refers to the released soul which, freed from its connexion with works and what depends thereon, i.e. the body and the rest, abides in its true essential nature.--That essential nature no doubt is something eternally accomplished, but as in the Samsara state it is obscured by Nescience in the form of Karman; the text refers to the cessation of such obscuration as 'accomplishment.'--How is this known?--'From the promise,'i.e. from the fact that the text promises to set forth such cessation. For Praj.a.pati when saying again and again, 'I will explain that further to you,' does so with a view to throw light on the individual soul--first introduced in the clause 'that Self which is free from sin, &c.' (VIII, 7, 1)--in so far as freed from all connexion with the three empirical conditions of waking, dreaming and dreamless sleep, and released from the body which is due to Karman and the cause of joy and sorrow. When, therefore, he concludes 'that serene being, i.e. the soul, having risen from this body and having approached the highest light accomplishes itself in its true form,' we understand that such 'accomplishment' means the final release, i.e. the cessation of all bondage, which is gained by the soul, previously connected with Karman, as soon as it approaches the highest light.--The Purvapakshin had said that as in the state of deep sleep the manifestation of the true nature of the soul is seen in no way to benefit man, Scripture, if declaring that Release consists in a manifestation of the true nature of the soul, would clearly teach something likewise not beneficial to man; and that hence the 'accomplishment in its own form' must mean the soul's entering on such a new condition of existence as would be a cause of pleasure, viz. the condition of a deva or the like. To this the next Sutra replies.

3. The Self, on account of subject-matter.

The subject-matter of the whole section shows that by the Self manifesting itself in its own form there is meant the Self as possessing the attributes of freedom from all evil and sin and so on. For the teaching of Praj.a.pati begins as follows: 'the Self which is free from sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, whose desires and thoughts spontaneously realise themselves.' And that this Self which forms the subject-matter of the entire section is the individual Self we have shown under I, 3, 19. The manifestation of the true nature of the soul when reaching the highest light therefore means the manifestation of that Self which has freedom from sin and so on for its essential attributes-that nature being in the Samsara state obscured through Nescience. When therefore at the moment of Release those essential qualities a.s.sert themselves, the case is one of manifestation of what already exists, not one of origination. Thus the reverend Saunaka says, 'As the l.u.s.tre of the gem is not created by the act of polishing, so the essential intelligence of the Self is not created by the putting off of imperfections. As the well is not the cause of the production of rain water, but only serves to manifest water which already exists--for whence should that originate which is not?--thus knowledge and the other attributes of the Self are only manifested through the putting off of evil qualities; they are not produced, for they are eternal.' Intelligence, therefore, bliss, and the other essential qualities of the soul which were obscured and contracted by Karman, expand and thus manifest themselves when the bondage due to Karman pa.s.ses away and the soul approaches the highest light. On this view of 'manifestation' there remains no difficulty.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'on approaching manifestation.'

4. In non-division; because that is seen.

Is the soul, when it has reached the highest light and freed itself from all bondage, conscious of itself as separate from the highest Self or as non-separate in so far as being a mere 'mode' (prakara) of that Self?-- The former view is the right one. For Scriptural and Smriti texts alike declare that the released soul stands to the highest Self in the relation of fellowship, equality, equality of attributes, and all this implies consciousness of separation. Compare 'He attains all desires together with the all-knowing Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1); 'When the seer sees the shining maker, the Lord, the Person who has his source in Brahman; then, possessing perfect knowledge, and shaking off good and evil, free from all pa.s.sions he reaches the highest equality' (Mu. Up.

III, 1, 3); 'Taking their stand upon this knowledge they, attaining to an equality of attributes with me, are neither born at the time of a creation nor are they agitated when a pralaya takes place' (Bha. Gi. XIV, 2).--Against this view the Sutra declares itself 'in non-division.' The released soul is conscious of itself as non-divided from the highest Brahman. 'For this is seen,' i.e. for the soul having reached Brahman and freed itself from the investment of Nescience sees itself in its true nature. And this _true nature_ consists herein that the souls have for their inner Self the highest Self while they const.i.tute the body of that Self and hence are _modes_ (prakara) of it. This is proved by all those texts which exhibit the soul and Brahman in co-ordination--'Thou art that' 'this Self is Brahman'; 'In that all this has its Self'; 'All this in truth is Brahman'; and by other texts, such as 'He who dwells within the Self, whom the Self does not know, of whom the Self is the body,' &c.; and 'He who abides within, the ruler of creatures, he is thy Self; as explained by us under Sutra I, 4, 22. The consciousness of the released soul therefore expresses itself in the following form: 'I am Brahman, without any division.' Where the texts speak of the soul's becoming equal to, or having equal attributes with, Brahman, the meaning is that the nature of the individual soul--which is a mere mode of Brahman--is equal to that of Brahman, i.e. that on putting off its body it becomes equal to Brahman in purity. The text declaring that the soul 'attains all its desires together with Brahman' intimates that the soul, together with Brahman of which it is a mode, is conscious of the attributes of Brahman. The different texts are thus in no conflict. Nor, on this view of the soul being non-divided from Brahman in so far as being its mode, is there any difficulty on account of what is said about the soul under Su. IV, 4, 8; or on account of the doctrines conveyed in II, 1, 22; III, 4, 8.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'non-division, on account of its being seen.'

5. In (a nature like) that of Brahman, thus Jaimini thinks; on account of suggestion and the rest.

Owing to the fact that different texts give different accounts, the question now arises of what character that essential nature of the Self is in which it manifests itself on reaching Brahman. Is that nature const.i.tuted by freedom from evil and sin and the rest (i.e. the attributes enumerated Ch. Up. VIII, 7, 1); or by mere intelligence (vijnana); or by both, there being no opposition between intelligence and those other attributes?--The teacher Jaimini holds that the soul manifests itself in its Brahman character, i.e. in a character const.i.tuted by freedom from sin, and so on. These latter attributes are, in the text of the 'small lotus,' mentioned as belonging to Brahman (Ch.

Up. VIII, 1, 5), and may hence be referred to as the 'Brahman' character.

And that this Brahman character is the character of the released soul also follows from 'suggestion and the rest.' For freedom from all evil and the rest are, in the teaching of Praj.a.pati, referred to as attributes of the soul (VIII, 7, 1). The 'and the rest' of the Sutra refers to the activities of the released soul--laughing, playing, rejoicing, and so on (mentioned in VIII, 12, 3)--which depend on the power belonging to the soul in that state to realise all its ideas and wishes. It is for these reasons that Jaimini holds that mere intelligence does not const.i.tute the true nature of the released soul.

6. In the sole nature of intelligence; as that is its Self. Thus Audulomi thinks.

Intelligence (consciousness; kaitanya) alone is the true nature of the soul, and hence it is in that character only that the released soul manifests itself; this is the view of the teacher Audulomi. That intelligence only const.i.tutes the true being of the soul, we learn from the express statement 'As a lump of salt has neither inside nor outside, but is altogether a ma.s.s of taste; so this Self has neither inside nor outside, but is altogether a ma.s.s of knowledge' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 13).

When, therefore, the text attributes to the soul freedom from evil and the rest, it does not mean to predicate of it further positive qualities, but only to exclude all the qualities depending on avidya--change, pleasure, pain, and so on--For these reasons Audulomi holds that the released soul manifests itself as mere intelligence.--Next the teacher Badarayana determines the question by propounding his own view.

7. Thus also, on account of existence of the former qualities (as proved) by suggestion, Badarayana holds absence of contradiction.

The teacher Badarayana is of opinion that even thus, i.e. although the text declares the soul to have mere intelligence for its essential nature, all the same the previously stated attributes, viz. freedom from all sin, and so on, are not to be excluded. For the authority of a definite statement in the Upanishads proves them to exist ('That Self which is free from sin,' &c.); and of authorities of equal strength one cannot refute the other. Nor must you say that the case is one of essential contradiction, and that hence we necessarily must conclude that freedom from sin, and so on (do not belong to the true nature of the soul, but) are the mere figments of Nescience (from which the released soul is free). For as there is equal authority for both sides, why should the contrary view not be held? (viz. that the soul is essentially free from sin, &c., and that the kaitanya is non-essential.) For the principle is that where two statements rest on equal authority, that only which suffers from an intrinsic impossibility is to be interpreted in a different way (i.e. different from what it means on the face of it), so as not to conflict with the other. But while admitting this we deny that the text which describes the Self as a ma.s.s of mere knowledge implies that the nature of the Self comprises nothing whatever but knowledge.--But what then is the purport of that text?--The meaning is clear, we reply; the text teaches that the entire Self, different from all that is non-sentient, is self-illumined, i.e. not even a small part of it depends for its illumination on something else. The fact, vouched for in this text, of the soul in its entirety being a mere ma.s.s of knowledge in no way conflicts with the fact, vouched for by other texts, of its possessing qualities such as freedom from sin and so on, which inhere in it as the subject of those qualities; not any more than the fact of the lump of salt being taste through and through--which fact is known through the sense of taste--conflicts with the fact of its possessing such other qualities as colour, hardness, and so on, which are known through the eye and the other sense-organs. The meaning of the entire text is as follows--just as the lump of salt has throughout one and the same taste, while other sapid things such as mangoes and other fruit have different tastes in their different parts, rind and so on; so the soul is throughout of the nature of knowledge or self-illuminedness.-- Here terminates the adhikarana of 'that which is like Brahman.'

8. By the mere will; Scripture stating that.

Concerning the released soul Scripture states, 'He moves about there, laughing, playing, rejoicing, be it with women, or chariots, or relatives' (Ch. Up. VIII, 12, 3). The doubt here arises whether the soul's meeting with relatives and the rest presupposes an effort on its part or follows on its mere will--as things spring from the mere will of the highest Person.--An effort is required; for we observe in ordinary life that even such persons as kings and the like who are capable of realising all their wishes do not accomplish the effects desired without some effort.--Against this view the Sutra says 'by the mere will.' For, in a previous pa.s.sage, Scripture expressly says, 'He who desires the world of the Fathers, by his mere will the Fathers rise to receive him,'

&c. (VIII, 2, 1). And there is no other text declaring the need of effort which would oblige us to define and limit the meaning of the text last quoted.

9. And for this very reason without another ruler.

Since the released soul realises all its wishes, it does not stand under another ruler. For to be under a ruler means to be subject to injunction and prohibition, and to be such is opposed to being free in the realisation of all one's wishes. Hence Scripture says, 'he is a Self- ruler' (Ch. Up. VII, 25).--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'wishes.'

10. The absence, Badari holds; for thus Scripture says.

A doubt arises whether the Released has a body and sense-organs, or not; or whether he has them or not just as he pleases. The teacher Badari holds that body and sense-organs are absent; since the text declares this. The text--'as long as he is embodied there is no freedom from pleasure and pain; but when he is free from the body then neither pleasure nor pain touches him' (Ch. Up. VIII, 12, 1)--declares that pleasure and pain are necessarily connected with embodiedness; and the text--'having risen from this body and reached the highest light he manifests himself in his own shape' (VIII, 12, 3)--declares that the Released one is without a body.

11. The presence, Jaimini holds; because the text declares manifoldness.

The teacher Jaimini holds that the Released one has a body and senses; because the text declares manifoldness--'He is onefold, he is threefold, he is fivefold, he is sevenfold' (Ch. Up. VII, 26, 2). The Self which is one and indivisible cannot be manifold, and the various forms of manifoldness of which the text speaks therefore must depend on the body.

The text which speaks of the absence of a body refers to the absence of that body only which is due to Karman; for this latter body only is the cause of pleasure and pain. Next the Reverend Badarayana decides this point by the declaration of his own view.