The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary by Sankaracarya Part 10

Nor, again, does Scripture exhibit a frequent repet.i.tion of the word 'anandamaya;' for merely the radical part of the compound (i.e. the word ananda without the affix maya) is repeated in all the following pa.s.sages; 'It is a flavour, for only after seizing flavour can any one seize bliss. Who could breathe, who could breathe forth, if that bliss existed not in the ether? For he alone causes blessedness;' 'Now this is an examination of bliss;' 'He who knows the bliss of that Brahman fears nothing;' 'He understood that bliss is Brahman.' If it were a settled matter that Brahman is denoted by the term, 'the Self consisting of bliss,' then we could a.s.sume that in the subsequent pa.s.sages, where merely the word 'bliss' is employed, the term 'consisting of bliss' is meant to be repeated; but that the Self consisting of bliss is not Brahman, we have already proved by means of the reason of joy being its head, and so on. Hence, as in another scriptural pa.s.sage, viz. 'Brahman is knowledge and bliss' (B/ri/. Up. III, 9, 28), the mere word 'bliss'

denotes Brahman, we must conclude that also in such pa.s.sages as, 'If that bliss existed not in the ether,' the word bliss is used with reference to Brahman, and is not meant to repeat the term 'consisting of bliss.' The repet.i.tion of the full compound, 'consisting of bliss,'

which occurs in the pa.s.sage, 'He reaches that Self consisting of bliss'

(Taitt. Up. II, 8), does not refer to Brahman, as it is contained in the enumeration of Non-Selfs, comprising the Self of food, &c., all of which are mere effects, and all of which are represented as things to be reached.--But, it may be said, if the Self consisting of bliss, which is said to have to be reached, were not Brahman--just as the Selfs consisting of food, &c. are not Brahman--then it would not be declared (in the pa.s.sage immediately following) that he who knows obtains for his reward Brahman.--This objection we invalidate by the remark that the text makes its declaration as to Brahman--which is the tail, the support--being reached by him who knows, by the very means of the declaration as to the attainment of the Self of bliss; as appears from the pa.s.sage, 'On this there is also this /s/loka, from which all speech returns,' &c. With reference, again, to the pa.s.sage, 'He desired: may I be many, may I grow forth,' which is found in proximity to the mention of the Self consisting of bliss, we remark that it is in reality connected (not with the Self of bliss but with) Brahman, which is mentioned in the still nearer pa.s.sage, 'Brahman is the tail, the support,' and does therefore not intimate that the Self of bliss is Brahman. And, on account of its referring to the pa.s.sage last quoted ('it desired,' &c.), the later pa.s.sage also, 'That is flavour,' &c., has not the Self of bliss for its subject.--But, it may be objected, the (neuter word) Brahman cannot possibly be designated by a masculine word as you maintain is done in the pa.s.sage, 'He desired,' &c.--In reply to this objection we point to the pa.s.sage (Taitt. Up. II, 1), 'From that Self sprang ether,' where, likewise, the masculine word 'Self' can refer to Brahman only, since the latter is the general topic of the chapter.

In the knowledge of Bh/ri/gu and Varu/n/a finally ('he knew that bliss is Brahman'), the word 'bliss' is rightly understood to denote Brahman, since we there meet neither with the affix 'maya,' nor with any statement as to joy being its head, and the like. To ascribe to Brahman in itself joy, and so on, as its members, is impossible, unless we have recourse to certain, however minute, distinctions qualifying Brahman; and that the whole chapter is not meant to convey a knowledge of the qualified (savi/s/esha) Brahman is proved by the pa.s.sage (quoted above), which declares that Brahman transcends speech and mind. We therefore must conclude that the affix maya, in the word anandamaya, does not denote abundance, but expresses a mere effect, just as it does in the words annamaya and the subsequent similar compounds.

The Sutras are therefore to be explained as follows. There arises the question whether the pa.s.sage, '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 princ.i.p.al 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 repet.i.tion.' That means: Brahman, which in the pa.s.sage 'the Self consisting of bliss,' &c., is spoken of as the tail, the support, is designated as the princ.i.p.al matter (not as something subordinate). On account of the repet.i.tion; for in the memorial /s/loka, '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 princ.i.p.al 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 pa.s.sage 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 princ.i.p.al 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 pa.s.sage, '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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage 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.' And further on, with reference to the body, 'Now the person who is seen in the eye,' &c. Here the following doubt presents itself. Do these pa.s.sages point out, as the object of devotion directed on the sphere of the sun and the eye, merely some special individual soul, which, by means of a large measure of knowledge and pious works, has raised itself to a position of eminence; or do they refer to the eternally perfect highest Lord?

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 pa.s.sage, '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 pa.s.sage (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 pa.s.sages, '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 pa.s.sage, '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 pa.s.sage, '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 pa.s.sage (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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sages 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 the person in the eye, in the clause, 'the name of the one is the name of the other.' Now, entire freedom from sin is attributed in Scripture to the highest Self only; so, for instance (Ch. Up. VIII, 7, 1), 'The Self which is free from sin,' &c. Then, again, there is the pa.s.sage, 'He is /Ri/k, he is Saman, Uktha, Yajus, Brahman,' which declares the person in the eye to be the Self of the /Ri/k, Saman, and so on; which is possible only if that person is the Lord who, as being the cause of all, is to be considered as the Self of all. Moreover, the text, after having stated in succession /Ri/k and Saman to have earth and fire for their Self with reference to the Devas, and, again, speech and breath with reference to the body, continues, '/Ri/k and Saman are his joints,' with reference to the Devas, and 'the joints of the one are the joints of the other,' with reference to the body. Now this statement also can be made only with regard to that which is the Self of all. Further, the pa.s.sage, 'Therefore all who sing to the Vina sing him, and from him also they obtain wealth,' shows that the being spoken of is the sole topic of all worldly songs; which again holds true of the highest Lord only. That absolute command over the objects of worldly desires (as displayed, for instance, in the bestowal of wealth) ent.i.tles us to infer that the Lord is meant, appears also from the following pa.s.sage of the Bhagavad-gita (X, 41), 'Whatever being there is possessing power, glory, or strength, know it to be produced from a portion of my energy[116].' To the objection that the statements about bodily shape contained in the clauses, 'With a beard bright as gold,' &c., cannot refer to the highest Lord, we reply that the highest Lord also may, when he pleases, a.s.sume a bodily shape formed of Maya, in order to gratify thereby his devout worshippers. Thus Sm/ri/ti also says, 'That thou seest me, O Narada, is the Maya emitted by me; do not then look on me as endowed with the qualities of all beings.' We have further to note that expressions such as, 'That which is without sound, without touch, without form, without decay,' are made use of where instruction is given about the nature of the highest Lord in so far as he is devoid of all qualities; while pa.s.sages such as the following one, 'He to whom belong all works, all desires, all sweet odours and tastes' (Ch. Up. III, 14, 2), which represent the highest Lord as the object of devotion, speak of him, who is the cause of everything, as possessing some of the qualities of his effects. a.n.a.logously he may be spoken of, in the pa.s.sage under discussion, as having a beard bright as gold and so on. With reference to the objection that the highest Lord cannot be meant because an abode is spoken of, we remark that, for the purposes of devout meditation, a special abode may be a.s.signed to Brahman, although it abides in its own glory only; for as Brahman is, like ether, all-pervading, it may be viewed as being within the Self of all beings. The statement, finally, about the limitation of Brahman's might, which depends on the distinction of what belongs to the G.o.ds and what to the body, has likewise reference to devout meditation only. From all this it follows that the being which Scripture states to be within the eye and the sun is the highest Lord.

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 pa.s.sage, '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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage under discussion only the primary sense of the word 'ether' is admissible. Should it be objected that, if we refer the pa.s.sage under discussion to the elemental ether, a complementary pa.s.sage ('for all these beings take their rise from the ether only, &c.') cannot be satisfactorily accounted for; we reply that the elemental ether also may be represented as a cause, viz. of air, fire, &c. in due succession. For we read in Scripture (Taitt. Up. II, 1), 'From that Self sprang ether, from ether air, from air fire, and so on.' The qualities also of being greater and of being a place of rest may be ascribed to the elemental ether, if we consider its relations to all other beings. Therefore we conclude that the word 'ether' here denotes the elemental ether.

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 pa.s.sage: '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 /S/alavatya, 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 pa.s.sages as, 'Ether is the revealer of all names and forms.' We see, moreover, that various synonyma of aka/s/a are employed to denote Brahman. So, for instance, /Ri/k Sa/m/h. I, 164, 39, 'In which the Vedas are[118], in the Imperishable one (i.e. Brahman), the highest, the ether (vyoman), on which all G.o.ds have their seat.' And Taitt. Up. III, 6, 'This is the knowledge of Bh/ri/gu and Varu/n/a, founded on the highest ether (vyoman).' And again, 'Om, ka is Brahman, ether (kha) is Brahman' (Ch.

Up. IV, 10, 5), and 'the old ether' (B/ri/. Up. V, 1)[119]. And other similar pa.s.sages. On account of the force of the complementary pa.s.sage we are justified in deciding that the word 'ether,' although occurring in the beginning of the pa.s.sage, refers to Brahman. The case is a.n.a.logous to that of the sentence, 'Agni (lit. the fire) studies a chapter,' where the word agni, although occurring in the beginning, is at once seen to denote a boy[120]. It is therefore settled that the word 'ether' denotes Brahman.

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 pa.s.sage doubt and decision are to be considered as a.n.a.logous to those stated under the preceding Sutra. For while in some pa.s.sages--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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage 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 princ.i.p.al 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.' What the Veda here states is, moreover, a matter of observation, for during sleep, while the process of breathing goes on uninterruptedly, the activity of the sense organs is interrupted and again becomes manifest at the time of awaking only. And as the sense organs are the essence of all material beings, the complementary pa.s.sage which speaks of the merging and emerging of the beings can be reconciled with the princ.i.p.al vital air also. Moreover, subsequently to pra/n/a being mentioned as the divinity of the prastava the sun and food are designated as the divinities of the udgitha and the pratibara. Now as they are not Brahman, the pra/n/a also, by parity of reasoning, cannot be Brahman.

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 const.i.tuted 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 a.s.sertion that the origination and retractation of all beings can be reconciled equally well with the a.s.sumption 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 pa.s.sage, '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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage, 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 pa.s.sage 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.

Some (commentators)[121] quote under the present Sutra the following pa.s.sages, '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 pa.s.sages 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. a.n.a.logously 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 pa.s.sage we remark that, if the matter const.i.tuting 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 pa.s.sage, '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 pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage which is connected with the pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sages denote Brahman, since characteristic marks of the latter are mentioned. Here the question has to be discussed whether, in connexion with the pa.s.sage quoted, characteristic marks of Brahman are mentioned or not.

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 a.s.sume that the light meant is the first-born (original) light which has not yet become tripart.i.te[122]. This explanation again cannot be admitted, because the non-tripart.i.te 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 pa.s.sage, 'Let me make each of these three (fire, water, and earth) tripart.i.te,'

does not indicate any difference[123]. And even of the non-tripart.i.te light it is not known that the sky const.i.tutes its boundary.--Well, then (the purvapakshin resumes, dropping the idea of the non-tripart.i.te light), let us a.s.sume that the light of which the text speaks is the tripart.i.te (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 a.s.signing a special locality to fire, although the latter is observed everywhere; while to a.s.sume 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 is the same light which is within man,' in which the highest light is identified with the gastric fire (the fire within man). Now such identifications can be made only where there is a certain similarity of nature; as is seen, for instance, in the pa.s.sage, 'Of that person Bhu/h/ is the head, for the head is one and that syllable is one' (B/ri/. Up. V, 5, 3). But that the fire within the human body is not Brahman clearly appears from the pa.s.sage, 'Of this we have visible and audible proof' (Ch. Up. III, 13, 7; 8), which declares that the fire is characterised by the noise it makes, and by heat; and likewise from the following pa.s.sage, 'Let a man meditate on this as that which is seen and heard.' The same conclusion may be drawn from the pa.s.sage, 'He who knows this becomes conspicuous and celebrated,' which proclaims an inconsiderable reward only, while to the devout meditation on Brahman a high reward would have to be allotted. Nor is there mentioned in the entire pa.s.sage about the light any other characteristic mark of Brahman, while such marks are set forth in the pa.s.sages (discussed above) which refer to pra/n/a and the ether.

Nor, again, is Brahman indicated in the preceding section, 'the Gayatri is everything whatsoever exists,' &c. (III, 12); for that pa.s.sage makes a statement about the Gayatri metre only. And even if that section did refer to Brahman, still Brahman would not be recognised in the pa.s.sage at present under discussion; for there (in the section referred to) it is declared in the clause, 'Three feet of it are the Immortal in heaven'--that heaven const.i.tutes the abode; while in our pa.s.sage the words 'the light above heaven' declare heaven to be a boundary. For all these reasons the word jyotis is here to be taken in its ordinary meaning, viz. light.

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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage is said to const.i.tute the three-quarter part, immortal and connected with heaven, of Brahman, which altogether comprises four quarters; this very same ent.i.ty we recognise as again referred to in the pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage and a.s.sume 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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage the word 'light' must be held to denote Brahman. The objection (raised above) that from common use the words 'light' and 'to shine' are known to denote effected (physical) light is without force; for as it is known from the general topic of the chapter that Brahman is meant, those two words do not necessarily denote physical light only to the exclusion of Brahman[124], but may also denote Brahman itself, in so far as it is characterised by the physical shining light which is its effect. a.n.a.logously another mantra declares, 'that by which the sun shines kindled with heat' (Taitt. Br. III, 12, 9, 7). Or else we may suppose that the word jyotis here does not denote at all that light on which the function of the eye depends. For we see that in other pa.s.sages it has altogether different meanings; so, for instance, B/ri/. Up. IV, 3, 5, 'With speech only as light man sits,' and Taitt. Sa. I, 6, 3, 3, 'May the mind, the light, accept,' &c. It thus appears that whatever illuminates (in the different senses of the word) something else may be spoken of as 'light.' Hence to Brahman also, whose nature is intelligence, the term 'light' may be applied; for it gives light to the entire world. Similarly, other scriptural pa.s.sages say, 'Him the shining one, everything shines after; by his light all this is lighted' (Kau.

Up. II, 5, 15); and 'Him the G.o.ds worship as the light of lights, as the immortal' (B/ri/. Up. IV, 4, 16). Against the further objection that the omnipresent Brahman cannot be viewed as bounded by heaven we remark that the a.s.signment, to Brahman, of a special locality is not contrary to reason because it subserves the purpose of devout meditation. Nor does it avail anything to say that it is impossible to a.s.sign any place to Brahman because Brahman is out of connexion with all place. For it is possible to make such an a.s.sumption, because Brahman is connected with certain limiting adjuncts. Accordingly Scripture speaks of different kinds of devout meditation on Brahman as specially connected with certain localities, such as the sun, the eye, the heart. For the same reason it is also possible to attribute to Brahman a multiplicity of abodes, as is done in the clause (quoted above) 'higher than all.' The further objection that the light beyond heaven is the mere physical light because it is identified with the gastric fire, which itself is a mere effect and is inferred from perceptible marks such as the heat of the body and a certain sound, is equally devoid of force; for the gastric fire may be viewed as the outward appearance (or symbol) of Brahman, just as Brahman's name is a mere outward symbol. Similarly in the pa.s.sage, 'Let a man meditate on it (the gastric light) as seen and heard,' the visibility and audibility (here implicitly ascribed to Brahman) must be considered as rendered possible through the gastric fire being the outward appearance of Brahman. Nor is there any force in the objection that Brahman cannot be meant because the text mentions an inconsiderable reward only; for there is no reason compelling us to have recourse to Brahman for the purpose of such and such a reward only, and not for the purpose of such and such another reward. Wherever the text represents the highest Brahman--which is free from all connexion with distinguishing attributes--as the universal Self, it is understood that the result of that instruction is one only, viz. final release.

Wherever, on the other hand, Brahman is taught to be connected with distinguishing attributes or outward symbols, there, we see, all the various rewards which this world can offer are spoken of; cp. for instance, B/ri/. Up. IV, 4, 24, 'This is he who eats all food, the giver of wealth. He who knows this obtains wealth.' Although in the pa.s.sage itself which treats of the light no characteristic mark of Brahman is mentioned, yet, as the Sutra intimates, the mark stated in a preceding pa.s.sage (viz. the mantra, 'Such is the greatness of it,' &c.) has to be taken in connexion with the pa.s.sage about the light as well. The question how the mere circ.u.mstance of Brahman being mentioned in a not distant pa.s.sage can have the power of divorcing from its natural object and transferring to another object the direct statement about light implied in the word 'light,' may be answered without difficulty. The pa.s.sage under discussion runs[125], 'which above this heaven, the light.' The relative p.r.o.noun with which this clause begins intimates, according to its grammatical force[126], the same Brahman which was mentioned in the previous pa.s.sage, and which is here recognised (as being the same which was mentioned before) through its connexion with heaven; hence the word jyotis also--which stands in grammatical co-ordination to 'which'--must have Brahman for its object. From all this it follows that the word 'light' here denotes Brahman.

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 pa.s.sages also).

We now address ourselves to the refutation of the a.s.sertion (made in the purvapaksha of the preceding Sutra) that in the previous pa.s.sage 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 of it.' &c. How then, we ask, should this mantra, which evidently is quoted with reference to the Gayatri (metre) as described in the preceding clauses, all at once denote Brahman with its four quarters? Since therefore the metre Gayatri is the subject-matter of the entire chapter, the term 'Brahman' which occurs in a subsequent pa.s.sage ('the Brahman which has thus been described') must also denote the metre. This is a.n.a.logous to a previous pa.s.sage (Ch. Up. III, 11, 3, 'He who thus knows this Brahma-upanishad'), where the word Brahma-upanishad is explained to mean Veda-upanishad. As therefore the preceding pa.s.sage refers (not to Brahman, but) to the Gayatri metre, Brahman does not const.i.tute the topic of the entire section.

This argumentation, we reply, proves nothing against our position.

'Because thus direction of the mind is declared,' i.e. because the Brahma/n/a pa.s.sage, '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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.sage speaks of the metre, Brahman is what is meant, and the same Brahman is again referred to in the pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.sage is concerned.

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

That the previous pa.s.sage has Brahman for its topic, we must a.s.sume 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 (/Ri/k 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 pa.s.sage, '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 pa.s.sage, 'these are the five men of Brahman' (III, 13, 6), is appropriate only if the former pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage also. And the decision that the same Brahman is referred to in the pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage ('three feet of it are what is immortal in heaven'), heaven is designated as the abode, while in the latter pa.s.sage ('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 pa.s.sage 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.

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 pa.s.sages) said to be in heaven. Therefore the Brahman spoken of in the former pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sages referring to pra/n/a).

In the Kaus.h.i.taki-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, a.s.sert 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 pa.s.sages. For if we examine the connexion of the entire section which treats of the pra/n/a, we observe that all the single pa.s.sages 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, 'Do you yourself choose that boon for me which you deem most beneficial for a man.' Now, as later on pra/n/a is declared to be what is most beneficial for man, what should pra/n/a denote but the highest Self? For apart from the cognition of that Self a man cannot possibly attain what is most beneficial for him, as many scriptural pa.s.sages declare. Compare, for instance, /S/ve. Up. III, 8, 'A man who knows him pa.s.ses over death; there is no other path to go.'

Again, the further pa.s.sage, 'He who knows me thus by no deed of his is his life harmed, not by theft, not by bhru/n/ahatya' (III, 1), has a meaning only if Brahman is supposed to be the object of knowledge. For, that subsequently to the cognition of Brahman all works and their effects entirely cease, is well known from scriptural pa.s.sages, such as the following, 'All works perish when he has been beheld who is the higher and the lower' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 8). Moreover, pra/n/a can be identified with the intelligent Self only if it is Brahman. For the air which is non-intelligent can clearly not be the intelligent Self. Those characteristic marks, again, which are mentioned in the concluding pa.s.sage (viz. those intimated by the words 'bliss,' 'imperishable,'

'immortal') can, if taken in their full sense, not be reconciled with any being except Brahman. There are, moreover, the following pa.s.sages, 'He does not increase by a good action, nor decrease by a bad action.

For he 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;' and, 'He is the guardian of the world, he is the king of the world, he is the Lord of the world' (Kau. Up. III, 8). All this can be properly understood only if the highest Brahman is acknowledged to be the subject-matter of the whole chapter, not if the vital air is subst.i.tuted in its place. Hence the word pra/n/a denotes Brahman.

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 mult.i.tude of references to the interior Self.

An objection is raised against the a.s.sertion 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 G.o.d 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 pa.s.sage, 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, all of which depend on personal existence and can in no way belong to Brahman, 'I slew the three-headed son of Tvash/tri/; I delivered the Arunmukhas, the devotees, to the wolves,' and so on. Indra may be called pra/n/a on account of his strength. Scripture says, 'Strength indeed is pra/n/a,' and Indra is known as the G.o.d of strength; and of any deed of strength people say, 'It is Indra's work.' The personal Self of a deity may, moreover, be called an intelligent Self; for the G.o.ds, people say, possess un.o.bstructed knowledge. It thus being a settled matter that some pa.s.sages convey information about the personal Self of some deity, the other pa.s.sages also--as, for instance, the one about what is most beneficial for man--must be interpreted as well as they may with reference to the same deity. Hence pra/n/a does not denote Brahman.

This objection we refute by the remark that in that chapter there are found a mult.i.tude of references to the interior Self. For the pa.s.sage, '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 pa.s.sage, 'Pra/n/a, the intelligent Self, alone having laid hold of this body makes it rise up;' and the pa.s.sage (which occurs in the pa.s.sus, 'Let no man try to find out what speech is,' &c.), 'For as in a car the circ.u.mference 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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage declares 'this Self is Brahman, omniscient'[130] (B/ri/. Up. II, 5, 19). We therefore arrive at the conclusion that, on account of the mult.i.tude of references to the interior Self, the chapter contains information regarding Brahman, not regarding the Self of some deity.--How then can the circ.u.mstance of the speaker (Indra) referring to himself be explained?