The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary by Sankaracarya Part 15

21. That which possesses the attributes of invisibility and so on (is Brahman), on account of the declaration of attributes.

Scripture says, 'The higher knowledge is this by which the Indestructible is apprehended. That which cannot be seen nor seized, which is without origin and qualities, without eyes and ears, without hands and feet, the eternal, all-pervading, omnipresent, infinitesimal, that which is imperishable, that it is which the wise regard as the source of all beings' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 5; 6).--Here the doubt arises whether the source of all beings which is spoken of as characterised by invisibility, &c. be the pradhana or the embodied soul, or the highest Lord.

We must, the purvapakshin says, understand by the source of all beings the non-intelligent pradhana because (in the pa.s.sage immediately subsequent to the one quoted) only non-intelligent beings are mentioned as parallel instances. 'As the spider sends forth and draws in its thread, as plants grow on the earth, as from the living man hairs spring forth on the head and the body, thus everything arises here from the Indestructible.'--But, it may be objected, men and spiders which are here quoted as parallel instances are of intelligent nature.--No, the purvapakshin replies; for the intelligent being as such is not the source of the threads and the hair, but everybody knows that the non-intelligent body of the spider ruled by intelligence is the source of the threads; and so in the case of man also.--While, moreover, in the case of the preceding Sutra, the pradhana hypothesis could not be accepted, because, although some qualities mentioned, such as invisibility and so on, agreed with it, others such as being the seer and the like did not; we have here to do only with attributes such as invisibility which agree with the pradhana, no attribute of a contrary nature being mentioned.--But the qualities mentioned in the complementary pa.s.sage (Mu. Up. I, 1, 9), 'He who knows all and perceives all,' do not agree with the non-intelligent pradhana; how, then, can the source of all beings be interpreted to mean the pradhana?--To this the purvapakshin replies: The pa.s.sage, 'The higher knowledge is that by which the Indestructible is apprehended, that which cannot be seen,'

&c., points, by means of the term 'the Indestructible,' to the source of all beings characterised by invisibility and similar attributes. This same 'Indestructible' is again mentioned later on in the pa.s.sage, 'It is higher than the high Imperishable.' Now that which in this latter pa.s.sage is spoken of as higher than the Imperishable may possess the qualities of knowing and perceiving everything, while the pradhana denoted by the term 'the Imperishable' is the source of all beings.--If, however, the word 'source' (yoni) be taken in the sense of operative cause, we may by 'the source of the beings' understand the embodied Self also, which, by means of merit and demerit, is the cause of the origin of the complex of things.

To this we make the following reply.--That which here is spoken of as the source of all beings, distinguished by such qualities as invisibility and so on, can be the highest Lord only, nothing else.--Whereupon is this conclusion founded?--On the statement of attributes. For the clause, 'He who is all-knowing, all-perceiving,'

clearly states an attribute belonging to the highest Lord only, since the attributes of knowing all and perceiving all cannot be predicated either of the non-intelligent pradhana or the embodied soul whose power of sight is narrowed by its limiting conditions. To the objection that the qualities of knowing and perceiving all are, in the pa.s.sage under discussion, attributed to that which is higher than the source of all beings--which latter is denoted by the term 'the Imperishable'--not to the source itself, we reply that this explanation is inadmissible because the source of all beings, which--in the clause, 'From the Indestructible everything here arises'--is designated as the material cause of all created beings, is later on spoken of as all-knowing, and again as the cause of all created beings, viz. in the pa.s.sage (I, 1, 9), 'From him who knows all and perceives all, whose brooding consists of knowledge, from him is born that Brahman, name, form, and food.' As therefore the Indestructible which forms the general topic of discussion is, owing to the ident.i.ty of designation, recognised (as being referred to in the later pa.s.sage also), we understand that it is the same Indestructible to which the attributes of knowing and perceiving all are ascribed.--We further maintain that also the pa.s.sage, 'Higher than the high Imperishable,' does not refer to any being different from the imperishable source of all beings which is the general topic of discussion. We conclude this from the circ.u.mstance that the pa.s.sage, 'He truly told that knowledge of Brahman through which he knows the imperishable true person,' (I, 2, 13; which pa.s.sage leads on to the pa.s.sage about that which is higher than the Imperishable,) merely declares that the imperishable source of all beings, distinguished by invisibility and the like--which formed the subject of the preceding chapter--will be discussed. The reason why that imperishable source is called higher than the high Imperishable, we shall explain under the next Sutra.--Moreover, two kinds of knowledge are enjoined there (in the Upanishad), a lower and a higher one. Of the lower one it is said that it comprises the /Ri/g-veda and so on, and then the text continues, 'The higher knowledge is that by which the Indestructible is apprehended.'

Here the Indestructible is declared to be the subject of the higher knowledge. If we now were to a.s.sume that the Indestructible distinguished by invisibility and like qualities is something different from the highest Lord, the knowledge referring to it would not be the higher one. For the distinction of lower and higher knowledge is made on account of the diversity of their results, the former leading to mere worldly exaltation, the latter to absolute bliss; and n.o.body would a.s.sume absolute bliss to result from the knowledge of the pradhana.--Moreover, as on the view we are controverting the highest Self would be a.s.sumed to be something higher than the imperishable source of all beings, three kinds of knowledge would have to be acknowledged, while the text expressly speaks of two kinds only.--Further, the reference to the knowledge of everything being implied in the knowledge of one thing--which is contained in the pa.s.sage (I, 1, 3), 'Sir, what is that through which if it is known everything else becomes known?'--is possible only if the allusion is to Brahman the Self of all, and not either to the pradhana which comprises only what is non-intelligent or to the enjoyer viewed apart from the objects of enjoyment.--The text, moreover, by introducing the knowledge of Brahman as the chief subject--which it does in the pa.s.sage (I, 1, 1), 'He told the knowledge of Brahman, the foundation of all knowledge, to his eldest son Atharvan'--and by afterwards declaring that out of the two kinds of knowledge, viz. the lower one and the higher one, the higher one leads to the comprehension of the Imperishable, shows that the knowledge of the Imperishable is the knowledge of Brahman. On the other hand, the term 'knowledge of Brahman' would become meaningless if that Imperishable which is to be comprehended by means of it were not Brahman. The lower knowledge of works which comprises the /Ri/g-veda, and so on, is mentioned preliminarily to the knowledge of Brahman for the mere purpose of glorifying the latter; as appears from the pa.s.sages in which it (the lower knowledge) is spoken of slightingly, such as (I, 2, 7), 'But frail indeed are those boats, the sacrifices, the eighteen in which this lower ceremonial has been told. Fools who praise this as the highest good are subject again and again to old age and death.'

After these slighting remarks the text declares that he who turns away from the lower knowledge is prepared for the highest one (I, 2, 12), 'Let a Brahama/n/a after he has examined all these worlds which are gained by works acquire freedom from all desires. Nothing that is eternal (not made) can be gained by what is not eternal (made). Let him in order to understand this take fuel in his hand and approach a guru who is learned and dwells entirely in Brahman.'--The remark that, because the earth and other non-intelligent things are adduced as parallel instances, that also which is compared to them, viz. the source of all beings must be non-intelligent, is without foundation, since it is not necessary that two things of which one is compared to the other should be of absolutely the same nature. The things, moreover, to which the source of all beings is compared, viz. the earth and the like, are material, while n.o.body would a.s.sume the source of all beings to be material.--For all these reasons the source of all beings, which possesses the attributes of invisibility and so on, is the highest Lord.

22. The two others (i.e. the individual soul and the pradhana) are not (the source of all beings) because there are stated distinctive attributes and difference.

The source of all beings is the highest Lord, not either of the two others, viz. the pradhana and the individual soul, on account of the following reason also. In the first place, the text distinguishes the source of all beings from the embodied soul, as something of a different nature; compare the pa.s.sage (II, 1, 2), 'That heavenly person is without body, he is both without and within, not produced, without breath and without mind, pure.' The distinctive attributes mentioned here, such as being of a heavenly nature, and so on, can in no way belong to the individual soul, which erroneously considers itself to be limited by name and form as presented by Nescience, and erroneously imputes their attributes to itself. Therefore the pa.s.sage manifestly refers to the Person which is the subject of all the Upanishads.--In the second place, the source of all beings which forms the general topic is represented in the text as something different from the pradhana, viz. in the pa.s.sage, 'Higher than the high Imperishable.' Here the term 'Imperishable' means that undeveloped ent.i.ty which represents the seminal potentiality of names and forms, contains the fine parts of the material elements, abides in the Lord, forms his limiting adjunct, and being itself no effect is high in comparison to all effects; the whole phrase, 'Higher than the high Imperishable,' which expresses a difference then clearly shows that the highest Self is meant here.--We do not on that account a.s.sume an independent ent.i.ty called pradhana and say that the source of all beings is stated separately therefrom; but if a pradhana is to be a.s.sumed at all (in agreement with the common opinion) and if being a.s.sumed it is a.s.sumed of such a nature as not to be opposed to the statements of Scripture, viz. as the subtle cause of all beings denoted by the terms 'the Undeveloped' and so on, we have no objection to such an a.s.sumption, and declare that, on account of the separate statement therefrom, i.e. from that pradhana, 'the source of all beings' must mean the highest Lord.--A further argument in favour of the same conclusion is supplied by the next Sutra.

23. And on account of its form being mentioned.

Subsequently to the pa.s.sage, 'Higher than the high Imperishable,' we meet (in the pa.s.sage, 'From him is born breath,' &c.) with a description of the creation of all things, from breath down to earth, and then with a statement of the form of this same source of beings as consisting of all created beings, 'Fire is his head, his eyes the sun and the moon, the quarters his ears, his speech the Vedas disclosed, the wind his breath, his heart the universe; from his feet came the earth; he is indeed the inner Self of all things.' This statement of form can refer only to the highest Lord, and not either to the embodied soul, which, on account of its small power, cannot be the cause of all effects, or to the pradhana, which cannot be the inner Self of all beings. We therefore conclude that the source of all beings is the highest Lord, not either of the other two.--But wherefrom do you conclude that the quoted declaration of form refers to the source of all beings?--From the general topic, we reply. The word 'he' (in the clause, 'He is indeed the inner Self of all things') connects the pa.s.sage with the general topic.

As the source of all beings const.i.tutes the general topic, the whole pa.s.sage, from 'From him is born breath,' up to, 'He is the inner Self of all beings,' refers to that same source. Similarly, when in ordinary conversation a certain teacher forms the general topic of the talk, the phrase, 'Study under him; he knows the Veda and the thoroughly,' as a matter of course, refers to that same teacher.--But how can a bodily form be ascribed to the source of all beings which is characterised by invisibility and similar attributes?--The statement as to its nature, we reply, is made for the purpose of showing that the source of all beings is the Self of all beings, not of showing that it is of a bodily nature. The case is a.n.a.logous to such pa.s.sages as, 'I am food, I am food, I am the eater of food' (Taitt. Up. III, 10, 6).--Others, however, are of opinion[151] that the statement quoted does not refer to the source of all beings, because that to which it refers is spoken of as something produced. For, on the one hand, the immediately preceding pa.s.sage ('From him is born health, mind, and all organs of sense, ether, air, light, water, and the earth, the support of all') speaks of the aggregate of beings from air down to earth as something produced, and, on the other hand, a pa.s.sage met with later on ('From him comes Agni, the sun being his fuel,' up to 'All herbs and juices') expresses itself to the same purpose. How then should all at once, in the midst of these two pa.s.sages (which refer to the creation), a statement be made about the nature of the source of all beings?--The attribute of being the Self of all beings, (which above was said to be mentioned in the pa.s.sage about the creation, 'Fire is his head,' &c., is not mentioned there but) is stated only later on in a pa.s.sage subsequent to that which refers to the creation, viz. 'The Person is all this, sacrifice,' &c. (II, 1, 10).--Now, we see that /s/ruti as well as sm/ri/ti speaks of the birth of Praj.a.pati, whose body is this threefold world; compare /Ri/g-veda Sa/m/h. X, 121, 1, 'Hira/n/ya-garbha arose in the beginning; he was the one born Lord of things existing. He established the earth and this sky; to what G.o.d shall we offer our oblation?' where the expression 'arose' means 'he was born.' And in sm/ri/ti we read, 'He is the first embodied one, he is called the Person; as the primal creator of the beings Brahman was evolved in the beginning.' This Person which is (not the original Brahman but) an effect (like other created beings) may be called the internal Self of all beings (as it is called in II, 1, 4), because in the form of the Self of breath it abides in the Selfs of all beings.--On this latter explanation (according to which the pa.s.sage, 'Fire is his head,' &c., does not describe the nature of the highest Lord, and can therefore not be referred to in the Sutra) the declaration as to the Lord being the 'nature' of all which is contained in the pa.s.sage, 'The Person is all this, sacrifice,' &c., must be taken as the reason for establishing the highest Lord, (i.e. as the pa.s.sage which, according to the Sutra, proves that the source of all beings is the highest Lord[152].)

24. Vai/s/vanara (is the highest Lord) on account of the distinction qualifying the common terms (Vai/s/vanara and Self).

(In Ch. Up. V, 11 ff.) a discussion begins with the words, 'What is our Self, what is Brahman?' and is carried on in the pa.s.sage, 'You know at present that Vai/s/vanara Self, tell us that;' after that it is declared with reference to Heaven, sun, air, ether, water, and earth, that they are connected with the qualities of having good light, &c., and, in order to disparage devout meditation on them singly, that they stand to the Vai/s/vanara in the relation of being his head, &c., merely; and then finally (V, 18) it is said, 'But he who meditates on the Vai/s/vanara Self as measured by a span, as abhivimana[153], he eats food in all worlds, in all beings, in all Selfs. Of that Vai/s/vanara Self the head is Sutejas (having good light), the eye Vi/s/varupa (multiform), the breath P/ri/thagvartman (moving in various courses), the trunk Bahula (full), the bladder Rayi (wealth), the feet the earth, the chest the altar, the hairs the gra.s.s on the altar, the heart the Garhapatya fire, the mind the Anvaharya fire, the mouth the ahavaniya fire.'--Here the doubt arises whether by the term 'Vai/s/vanara' we have to understand the gastric fire, or the elemental fire, or the divinity presiding over the latter, or the embodied soul, or the highest Lord.--But what, it may be asked, gives rise to this doubt?--The circ.u.mstance, we reply, of 'Vai/s/vanara' being employed as a common term for the gastric fire, the elemental fire, and the divinity of the latter, while 'Self' is a term applying to the embodied soul as well as to the highest Lord. Hence the doubt arises which meaning of the term is to be accepted and which to be set aside.

Which, then, is the alternative to be embraced?--Vai/s/vanara, the purvapakshin maintains, is the gastric fire, because we meet, in some pa.s.sages, with the term used in that special sense; so, for instance (B/ri/. Up. V, 9), 'Agni Vai/s/vanara is the fire within man by which the food that is eaten is cooked.'--Or else the term may denote fire in general, as we see it used in that sense also; so, for instance (/Ri/g-veda Sa/m/h. X, 88, 12), 'For the whole world the G.o.ds have made the Agni Vai/s/vanara a sign of the days.' Or, in the third place, the word may denote that divinity whose body is fire. For pa.s.sages in which the term has that sense are likewise met with; compare, for instance, /Ri/g-veda Sa/m/h. I, 98, 1, 'May we be in the favour of Vai/s/vanara; for he is the king of the beings, giving pleasure, of ready grace;' this and similar pa.s.sages properly applying to a divinity endowed with power and similar qualities. Perhaps it will be urged against the preceding explanations, that, as the word Vai/s/vanara is used in co-ordination with the term 'Self,' and as the term 'Self' alone is used in the introductory pa.s.sage ('What is our Self, what is Brahman?'), Vai/s/vanara has to be understood in a modified sense, so as to be in harmony with the term Self. Well, then, the purvapakshin rejoins, let us suppose that Vai/s/vanara is the embodied Self which, as being an enjoyer, is in close vicinity to the Vai/s/vanara fire,[154] (i.e. the fire within the body,) and with which the qualification expressed by the term, 'Measured by a span,' well agrees, since it is restricted by its limiting condition (viz. the body and so on).--In any case it is evident that the term Vai/s/vanara does not denote the highest Lord.

To this we make the following reply.--The word Vai/s/vanara denotes the highest Self, on account of the distinction qualifying the two general terms.--Although the term 'Self,' as well as the term 'Vai/s/vanara,'

has various meanings--the latter term denoting three beings while the former denotes two--yet we observe a distinction from which we conclude that both terms can here denote the highest Lord only; viz. in the pa.s.sage, 'Of that Vai/s/vanara Self the head is Sutejas,' &c. For it is clear that that pa.s.sage refers to the highest Lord in so far as he is distinguished by having heaven, and so on, for his head and limbs, and in so far as he has entered into a different state (viz. into the state of being the Self of the threefold world); represents him, in fact, for the purpose of meditation, as the internal Self of everything. As such the absolute Self may be represented, because it is the cause of everything; for as the cause virtually contains all the states belonging to its effects, the heavenly world, and so on, may be spoken of as the members of the highest Self.--Moreover, the result which Scripture declares to abide in all worlds--viz. in the pa.s.sage, 'He eats food in all worlds, in all beings, in all Selfs'--is possible only if we take the term Vai/s/vanara to denote the highest Self.--The same remark applies to the declaration that all the sins are burned of him who has that knowledge, 'Thus all his sins are burned,' &c. (Ch. Up. V, 24, 3).--Moreover, we meet at the beginning of the chapter with the words 'Self' and 'Brahman;' viz. in the pa.s.sage, 'What is our Self, what is Brahman?' Now these are marks of Brahman, and indicate the highest Lord only. Hence he only can be meant by the term Vai/s/vanara.

25. (And) because that which is stated by Sm/ri/ti (i.e. the shape of the highest Lord as described by Sm/ri/ti) is an inference (i.e. an indicatory mark from which we infer the meaning of /S/ruti).

The highest Lord only is Vai/s/vanara, for that reason also that Sm/ri/ti ascribes to the highest Lord only a shape consisting of the threefold world, the fire const.i.tuting his mouth, the heavenly world his head, &c. So, for instance, in the following pa.s.sage, 'He whose mouth is fire, whose head the heavenly world, whose navel the ether, whose feet the earth, whose eye the sun, whose ears the regions, reverence to him the Self of the world.' The shape described here in Sm/ri/ti allows us to infer a /S/ruti pa.s.sage on which the Sm/ri/ti rests, and thus const.i.tutes an inference, i.e. a sign indicatory of the word 'Vai/s/vanara' denoting the highest Lord. For, although the quoted Sm/ri/ti pa.s.sage contains a glorification[155], still even a glorification in the form in which it there appears is not possible, unless it has a Vedic pa.s.sage to rest on.--Other Sm/ri/ti pa.s.sages also may be quoted in connexion with this Sutra, so, for instance, the following one, 'He whose head the wise declare to be the heavenly world, whose navel the ether, whose eyes sun and moon, whose ears the regions, and whose feet the earth, he is the inscrutable leader of all beings.'

26. If it be maintained that (Vai/s/vanara is) not (the highest Lord) on account of the term (viz. Vai/s/vanara, having a settled different meaning), &c., and on account of his abiding within (which is a characteristic of the gastric fire); (we say) no, on account of the perception (of the highest Lord), being taught thus (viz. in the gastric fire), and on account of the impossibility (of the heavenly world, &c.

being the head, &c. of the gastric fire), and because they (the Vajasaneyins) read of him (viz. the Vai/s/vanara) as man (which term cannot apply to the gastric fire).

Here the following objection is raised.--Vai/s/vanara cannot be the highest Lord, on account of the term, &c., and on account of the abiding within. The term, viz. the term Vai/s/vanara, cannot be applied to the highest Lord, because the settled use of language a.s.signs to it a different sense. Thus, also, with regard to the term Agni (fire) in the pa.s.sage (/S/at. Bra. X, 6, 1, 11), 'He is the Agni Vai/s/vanara.' The word '&c.' (in the Sutra) hints at the fiction concerning the three sacred fires, the garhapatya being represented as the heart, and so on, of the Vai/s/vanara Self (Ch. Up. V, 18, 2[156]).--Moreover, the pa.s.sage, 'Therefore the first food which a man may take is in the place of homa' (Ch. Up. V, 19, 1), contains a glorification of (Vai/s/vanara) being the abode of the oblation to Pra/n/a[157]. For these reasons we have to understand by Vai/s/vanara the gastric fire.--Moreover, Scripture speaks of the Vai/s/vanara as abiding within. 'He knows him abiding within man;' which again applies to the gastric fire only.--With reference to the averment that on account of the specifications contained in the pa.s.sage, 'His head is Sutejas,' &c., Vai/s/vanara is to be explained as the highest Self, we (the purvapakshin) ask: How do you reach the decision that those specifications, although agreeing with both interpretations, must be a.s.sumed to refer to the highest Lord only, and not to the gastric fire?--Or else we may a.s.sume that the pa.s.sage speaks of the elemental fire which abides within and without; for that that fire is also connected with the heavenly world, and so on, we understand from the mantra, 'He who with his light has extended himself over earth and heaven, the two halves of the world, and the atmosphere'

(/Ri/g-veda Sa/m/h. X, 88, 3).--Or else the attribute of having the heavenly world, and so on, for its members may, on account of its power, be attributed to that divinity which has the elemental fire for its body.--Therefore Vai/s/vanara is not the highest Lord.

To all this we reply as follows.--Your a.s.sertions are unfounded, 'because there is taught the perception in this manner.' The reasons (adduced in the former part of the Sutra), viz. the term, and so on, are not sufficient to make us abandon the interpretation according to which Vai/s/vanara is the highest Lord.--Why?--On account of perception being taught in this manner, i.e. without the gastric fire being set aside.

For the pa.s.sages quoted teach the perception of the highest Lord in the gastric fire, a.n.a.logously to such pa.s.sages as 'Let a man meditate on the mind as Brahman' (Ch. Up. III, 18, 1).--Or else they teach that the object of perception is the highest Lord, in so far as he has the gastric fire called Vai/s/vanara for his limiting condition; a.n.a.logously to such pa.s.sages as 'He who consists of mind, whose body is breath, whose form is light' (Ch. Up. III, 14, 2[158]). If it were the aim of the pa.s.sages about the Vai/s/vanara to make statements not concerning the highest Lord, but merely concerning the gastric fire, there would be no possibility of specifications such as contained in the pa.s.sage 'His head is Sutejas,' &c. That also on the a.s.sumption of Vai/s/vanara being either the divinity of fire or the elemental fire no room is to be found for the said specifications, we shall show under the following Sutra.--Moreover, if the mere gastric fire were meant, there would be room only for a declaration that it abides within man, not that it is man. But, as a matter of fact, the Vajasaneyins speak of him--in their sacred text--as man, 'This Agni Vai/s/vanara is man; he who knows this Agni Vai/s/vanara as man-like, as abiding within man,' &c. (/S/at. Bra.

X, 6, 1, 11). The highest Lord, on the other hand, who is the Self of everything, may be spoken of as well as man, as abiding within man.--Those who, in the latter part of the Sutra, read 'man-like'

(puru-shavidham) instead of 'man' (purusham), wish to express the following meaning: If Vai/s/vanara were a.s.sumed to be the gastric fire only, he might be spoken of as abiding within man indeed, but not as man-like. But the Vajasaneyins do speak of him as man-like, 'He who knows him as man-like, as abiding within man.'--The meaning of the term man-like is to be concluded from the context, whence it will be seen that, with reference to nature, it means that the highest Lord has the heaven for his head, &c., and is based on the earth; and with reference to man, that he forms the head, &c., and is based on the chin (of the devout worshipper[159]).

27. For the same reasons (the Vai/s/vanara) cannot be the divinity (of fire), or the element (of fire).

The averment that the fanciful attribution of members contained in the pa.s.sage 'His head is Sutejas,' &c. may apply to the elemental fire also which from the mantras is seen to be connected with the heavenly world, &c., or else to the divinity whose body is fire, on account of its power, is refuted by the following remark: For the reasons already stated Vai/s/vanara is neither the divinity nor the element. For to the elemental fire which is mere heat and light the heavenly world and so on cannot properly be ascribed as head and so on, because an effect cannot be the Self of another effect.--Again, the heavenly world cannot be ascribed as head, &c. to the divinity of fire, in spite of the power of the latter; for, on the one hand, it is not a cause (but a mere effect), and on the other hand its power depends on the highest Lord. Against all these interpretations there lies moreover the objection founded on the inapplicability of the term 'Self.'

28. Jaimini (declares that there is) no contradiction even on the a.s.sumption of a direct (worship of the highest Lord as Vai/s/vanara).

Above (Sutra 26) it has been said that Vai/s/vanara is the highest Lord, to be meditated upon as having the gastric fire either for his outward manifestation or for his limiting condition; which interpretation was accepted in deference to the circ.u.mstance that he is spoken of as abiding within--and so on.--The teacher Jaimini however is of opinion that it is not necessary to have recourse to the a.s.sumption of an outward manifestation or limiting condition, and that there is no objection to refer the pa.s.sage about Vai/s/vanara to the direct worship of the highest Lord.--But, if you reject the interpretation based on the gastric fire, you place yourself in opposition to the statement that Vai/s/vanara abides within, and to the reasons founded on the term, &c.

(Su. 26).--To this we reply that we in no way place ourselves in opposition to the statement that Vai/s/vanara abides within. For the pa.s.sage, 'He knows him as man-like, as abiding within man,' does not by any means refer to the gastric fire, the latter being neither the general topic of discussion nor having been mentioned by name before.--What then does it refer to?--It refers to that which forms the subject of discussion, viz. that similarity to man (of the highest Self) which is fancifully found in the members of man from the upper part of the head down to the chin; the text therefore says, 'He knows him as man-like, as abiding within man,' just as we say of a branch that it abides within the tree[160].--Or else we may adopt another interpretation and say that after the highest Self has been represented as having the likeness to man as a limiting condition, with regard to nature as well as to man, the pa.s.sage last quoted ('He knows him as abiding within man') speaks of the same highest Self as the mere witness (sakshin; i.e. as the pure Self, non-related to the limiting conditions).--The consideration of the context having thus shown that the highest Self has to be resorted to for the interpretation of the pa.s.sage, the term 'Vai/s/vanara' must denote the highest Self in some way or other. The word 'Vi/s/vanara' is to be explained either as 'he who is all and man (i.e. the individual soul),' or 'he to whom souls belong' (in so far as he is their maker or ruler), and thus denotes the highest Self which is the Self of all. And the form 'Vai/s/vanara' has the same meaning as 'Vi/s/vanara,' the taddhita-suffix, by which the former word is derived from the latter, not changing the meaning; just as in the case of rakshasa (derived from rakshas), and vayasa (derived from vayas).--The word 'Agni' also may denote the highest Self if we adopt the etymology agni=agra/n/i, i.e. he who leads in front.--As the Garhapatya-fire finally, and as the abode of the oblation to breath the highest Self may be represented because it is the Self of all.

But, if it is a.s.sumed that Vai/s/vanara denotes the highest Self, how can Scripture declare that he is measured by a span?--On the explanation of this difficulty we now enter.

29. On account of the manifestation, so a/s/marathya opines.

The circ.u.mstance of the highest Lord who transcends all measure being spoken of as measured by a span has for its reason 'manifestation.' The highest Lord manifests himself as measured by a span, i.e. he specially manifests himself for the benefit of his worshippers in some special places, such as the heart and the like, where he may be perceived.

Hence, according to the opinion of the teacher a/s/marathya, the scriptural pa.s.sage which speaks of him who is measured by a span may refer to the highest Lord.

30. On account of remembrance; so Badari opines.

Or else the highest Lord may be called 'measured by a span' because he is remembered by means of the mind which is seated in the heart which is measured by a span. Similarly, barley-corns which are measured by means of prasthas are themselves called prasthas. It must be admitted that barley-grains themselves have a certain size which is merely rendered manifest through their being connected with a prastha measure; while the highest Lord himself does not possess a size to be rendered manifest by his connexion with the heart. Still the remembrance (of the Lord by means of the mind) may be accepted as offering a certain foundation for the /S/ruti pa.s.sage concerning him who is measured by a span.--Or else[161] the Sutra may be interpreted to mean that the Lord, although not really measured by a span, is to be remembered (meditated upon) as being of the measure of a span; whereby the pa.s.sage is furnished with an appropriate sense.--Thus the pa.s.sage about him who is measured by a span may, according to the opinion of the teacher Badari, be referred to the highest Lord, on account of remembrance.

31. On the ground of imaginative identification (the highest Lord may be called prade/s/amatra), Jaimini thinks; for thus (Scripture) declares.

Or else the pa.s.sage about him who is measured by a span may be considered to rest on imaginative combination.--Why?--Because the pa.s.sage of the Vajasaneyibrahma/n/a which treats of the same topic identifies heaven, earth, and so on--which are the members of Vai/s/vanara viewed as the Self of the threefold world--with certain parts of the human frame, viz. the parts comprised between the upper part of the head and the chin, and thus declares the imaginative ident.i.ty of Vai/s/vanara with something whose measure is a span. There we read, 'The G.o.ds indeed reached him, knowing him as measured by a span as it were. Now I will declare them (his members) to you so as to identify him (the Vai/s/vanara) with that whose measure is a span; thus he said. Pointing to the upper part of the head he said: This is what stands above (i.e. the heavenly world) as Vai/s/vanara (i.e. the head of Vai/s/vanara[162]). Pointing to the eyes he said: This is he with good light (i.e. the sun) as Vai/s/vanara (i.e. the eye of V.). Pointing to the nose he said: This is he who moves on manifold paths (i.e. the air) as Vai/s/vanara (i.e. the breath of V.). Pointing to the s.p.a.ce (ether) within his mouth he said: This is the full one (i.e. the ether) as Vai/s/vanara. Pointing to the saliva within his mouth he said: This is wealth as Vai/s/vanara (i.e. the water in the bladder of V.). Pointing to the chin he said: This is the base as Vai/s/vanara (i.e. the feet of V.).'--Although in the Vajasaneyi-brahma/n/a the heaven is denoted as that which has the attribute of standing above and the sun as that which has the attribute of good light, while in the Chandogya the heaven is spoken of as having good light and the sun as being multiform; still this difference does not interfere (with the unity of the vidya)[163], because both texts equally use the term 'measured by a span,' and because all /s/akhas intimate the same.--The above explanation of the term 'measured by a span,' which rests on imaginative identification, the teacher Jaimini considers the most appropriate one.

32. Moreover they (the Jabalas) speak of him (the highest Lord) in that (i.e. the interstice between the top of the head and the chin which is measured by a span).

Moreover the Jabalas speak in their text of the highest Lord as being in the interstice between the top of the head and the chin. 'The unevolved infinite Self abides in the avimukta (i.e. the non-released soul). Where does that avimukta abide? It abides in the Vara/n/a and the Nasi, in the middle. What is that Vara/n/a, what is that Nasi?' The text thereupon etymologises the term Vara/n/a as that which wards off (varayati) all evil done by the senses, and the term Nasi as that which destroys (na/s/ayati) all evil done by the senses; and then continues, 'And what is its place?--The place where the eyebrows and the nose join. That is the joining place of the heavenly world (represented by the upper part of the head) and of the other (i.e. the earthly world represented by the chin).' (Jabala Up. I.)--Thus it appears that the scriptural statement which ascribes to the highest Lord the measure of a span is appropriate.

That the highest Lord is called abhivimana refers to his being the inward Self of all. As such he is directly measured, i.e. known by all animate beings. Or else the word may be explained as 'he who is near everywhere--as the inward Self--and who at the same time is measureless'

(as being infinite). Or else it may denote the highest Lord as him who, as the cause of the world, measures it out, i.e. creates it. By all this it is proved that Vai/s/vanara is the highest Lord.

Notes:

[Footnote 136: The clause 'he is to meditate with a calm mind' if taken as a gu/n/avidhi, i.e. as enjoining some secondary matter, viz. calmness of mind of the meditating person, cannot at the same time enjoin meditation; for that would involve a so-called split of the sentence (vakyabheda).]

[Footnote 137: Jivezpi dehadib/rim/hanaj jyastvanyayad va brahmatety artha/h/. an. Gi.]

[Footnote 138: The discussion is brought on by the term 'vivaks.h.i.ta' in the Sutra whose meaning is 'expressed, aimed at,' but more literally 'desired to be expressed.']

[Footnote 139: Because he is vyapin.]

[Footnote 140: Another interpretation of the later part of Sutra.]

[Footnote 141: Cp. Ka/th/a Up, I, 1, 13; 20; I, 2, 14.]

[Footnote 142: Freedom from impurity can result only from the knowledge that the individual soul is in reality Brahman. The commentators explain rajas by avidya.]

[Footnote 143: Tadartham iti, jivasya brahmasiddhyartham iti yavat, /k/aitanya/kh/ayapanna dhi/h/sukhadina pari/n/amata iti, tatra purushozpi bhakt/ri/tvam ivanubhavati na tattvata iti vaktum adhyaropayati. ananda Giri.]

[Footnote 144: Who, somebody might say, is to be understood here, because immortality and similar qualities belong to him not somehow only, but in their true sense.]

[Footnote 145: The /t/ikas say that the contents of this last sentence are hinted at by the word 'and' in the Sutra.]

[Footnote 146: I.e. at the beginning of the instruction which the sacred fires give to Upako/s/ala, Ch. Up. IV, 10 ff.]