The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary by Sankaracarya Part 16

[Footnote 147: Which words conclude the instruction given by the fires, and introduce the instruction given by the teacher, of which the pa.s.sage 'the person that is seen in the eye,' &c. forms a part.]

[Footnote 148: a/s/rayantarapratyayasya/s/rayantare kshepa/h/ pratika/h/, yatha brahma/s/abda/h/ paramatmavishayo namadishu kshipyate.

Bha.]

[Footnote 149: The following sentences give the reason why, although there is only one Brahman, the word Brahman is repeated.]

[Footnote 150: According to Scripture, [email protected]/s/a/m/ sarvaniyantritva/m/ /s/rauta/m/ na /k/a tadri/s/e sarvaniyantari bhedo na /k/anumana/m/ /s/rutibhaditam uttish/th/ati. ananda Giri. Or else, as Go. an. remarks, we may explain: as the highest Self is not really different from the individual soul. So also Bhamati: Na /h/anavastha, na hi niyantrantara/m/ tena niyamyate ki/m/ tu yo jivo niyanta lokasiddha/h/ sa paramatmevopadhyava/kkh/edakalpitabheda/h/.]

[Footnote 151: V/ri/ttik/ri/dvyakhyam dushayati, Go. an.; ekade/s/ina/m/ dushayati, ananda Giri; tad etat paramatenakshepasamadhanabhya/m/ vyakhyaya svamatena vya/k/ash/t/e, puna/h/ /s/abdozpi purvasmad vi/s/esha/m/ dyotayann asyesh/t/ata/m/ su/k/ayati, Bhamati.--The statement of the two former commentators must be understood to mean--in agreement with the Bhamati--that /S/[email protected] is now going to refute the preceding explanation by the statement of his own view. Thus Go. an.

later on explains 'asmin pakshe' by 'svapakshe.']

[Footnote 152: The question is to what pa.s.sage the 'rupopanyasat' of the Sutra refers.--According to the opinion set forth first it refers to Mu.

Up. II, 1, 4 ff.--But, according to the second view, II, 1, 4 to II, 1, 9, cannot refer to the source of all beings, i.e. the highest Self, because that entire pa.s.sage describes the creation, the inner Self of which is not the highest Self but Praj.a.pati, i.e. the Hira/n/yagarbha or Sutratman of the later Vedanta, who is himself an 'effect,' and who is called the inner Self, because he is the breath of life (pra/n/a) in everything.--Hence the Sutra must be connected with another pa.s.sage, and that pa.s.sage is found in II, 1, 10, where it is said that the Person (i.e. the highest Self) is all this, &c.]

[Footnote 153: About which term see later on.]

[Footnote 154: Sarire laksha/n/aya vai/s/vanara/s/abdopapattim aha tasyeti. an. Gi.]

[Footnote 155: And as such might be said not to require a basis for its statements.]

[Footnote 156: Na /k/a garhapatyadih/ri/dayadita brahma/n/a/h/ sambhavini. Bhamati.]

[Footnote 157: Na /k/a pra/n/ahutyadhikara/n/ata z nyatra ja/th/aragner yujyate. Bhamati.]

[Footnote 158: According to the former explanation the gastric fire is to be looked on as the outward manifestation (pratika) of the highest Lord; according to the latter as his limiting condition.]

[Footnote 159: I.e. that he may be fancifully identified with the head and so on of the devout worshipper.]

[Footnote 160: Whereby we mean not that it is inside the tree, but that it forms a part of the tree.--The Vai/s/vanara Self is identified with the different members of the body, and these members abide within, i.e.

form parts of the body.]

[Footnote 161: Parima/n/asya h/ri/da/y/advararopitasya smaryama/n/e katham aropo vishayavishayitvena bhedad ity a/s/[email protected] vyakhyantaram aha prade/s/eti. ananda Giri.]

[Footnote 162: Atra sarvatra vai/s/vanara/s/abdas [email protected]/h/. Go.

an.]

[Footnote 163: Which unity ent.i.tles us to use the pa.s.sage from the /S/at. Bra. for the explanation of the pa.s.sage from the Ch. Up.]

THIRD PaDA.

REVERENCE TO THE HIGHEST SELF!

1. The abode of heaven, earth, and so on (is Brahman), on account of the term 'own,' i.e. Self.

We read (Mu. Up. II, 2, 5), 'He in whom the heaven, the earth, and the sky are woven, the mind also with all the vital airs, know him alone as the Self, and leave off other words! He is the bridge of the Immortal.'--Here the doubt arises whether the abode which is intimated by the statement of the heaven and so on being woven in it is the highest Brahman or something else.

The purvapakshin maintains that the abode is something else, on account of the expression, 'It is the bridge of the Immortal.' For, he says, it is known from every-day experience that a bridge presupposes some further bank to which it leads, while it is impossible to a.s.sume something further beyond the highest Brahman, which in Scripture is called 'endless, without a further sh.o.r.e' (B/ri/. Up. II, 4, 12). Now if the abode is supposed to be something different from Brahman, it must be supposed to be either the pradhana known from Sm/ri/ti, which, as being the (general) cause, may be called the (general) abode; or the air known from /S/ruti, of which it is said (B/ri/. Up. III, 7, 2, 'Air is that thread, O Gautama. By air as by a thread, O Gautama, this world and the other world and all beings are strung together'), that it supports all things; or else the embodied soul which, as being the enjoyer, may be considered as an abode with reference to the objects of its fruition.

Against this view we argue with the sutrakara as follows:--'Of the world consisting of heaven, earth, and so on, which in the quoted pa.s.sage is spoken of as woven (upon something), the highest Brahman must be the abode.'--Why?--On account of the word 'own,' i.e. on account of the word 'Self.' For we meet with the word 'Self' in the pa.s.sage, 'Know him alone as the Self.' This term 'Self' is thoroughly appropriate only if we understand the highest Self and not anything else.--(To propound another interpretation of the phrase 'sva/s/abdat' employed in the Sutra.) Sometimes also Brahman is spoken of in /S/ruti as the general abode by its own terms (i.e. by terms properly designating Brahman), as, for instance (Ch. Up. VI. 8, 4), 'All these creatures, my dear, have their root in the being, their abode in the being, their rest in the being[164].'--(Or else we have to explain 'sva/s/abdena' as follows), In the pa.s.sages preceding and following the pa.s.sage under discussion Brahman is glorified with its own names[165]; cp. Mu. Up. II, 1, 10, 'The Person is all this, sacrifice, penance, Brahman, the highest Immortal,' and II, 2, 11, 'That immortal Brahman is before, is behind, Brahman is to the right and left.' Here, on account of mention being made of an abode and that which abides, and on account of the co-ordination expressed in the pa.s.sage, 'Brahman is all' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 11), a suspicion might arise that Brahman is of a manifold variegated nature, just as in the case of a tree consisting of different parts we distinguish branches, stem, and root. In order to remove this suspicion the text declares (in the pa.s.sage under discussion), 'Know him alone as the Self.' The sense of which is: The Self is not to be known as manifold, qualified by the universe of effects; you are rather to dissolve by true knowledge the universe of effects, which is the mere product of Nescience, and to know that one Self, which is the general abode, as uniform. Just as when somebody says, 'Bring that on which Devadatta sits,' the person addressed brings the chair only (the abode of Devadatta), not Devadatta himself; so the pa.s.sage, 'Know him alone as the Self,' teaches that the object to be known is the one uniform Self which const.i.tutes the general abode. Similarly another scriptural pa.s.sage reproves him who believes in the unreal world of effects, 'From death to death goes he who sees any difference here' (Ka. Up. II, 4, 11). The statement of co-ordination made in the clause 'All is Brahman'

aims at dissolving (the wrong conception of the reality of) the world, and not in any way at intimating that Brahman is multiform in nature[166]; for the uniformity (of Brahman's nature) is expressly stated in other pa.s.sages such as the following one, 'As a ma.s.s of salt has neither inside nor outside, but is altogether a ma.s.s of taste, thus indeed has that Self neither inside nor outside, but is altogether a ma.s.s of knowledge' (B/ri/. Up. IV, 5, 13).--For all these reasons the abode of heaven, earth, &c. is the highest Brahman.--Against the objection that on account of the text speaking of a 'bridge,' and a bridge requiring a further bank, we have to understand by the abode of heaven and earth something different from Brahman, we remark that the word 'bridge' is meant to intimate only that that which is called a bridge supports, not that it has a further bank. We need not a.s.sume by any means that the bridge meant is like an ordinary bridge made of clay and wood. For as the word setu (bridge) is derived from the root si, which means 'to bind,' the idea of holding together, supporting is rather implied in it than the idea of being connected with something beyond (a further bank).

According to the opinion of another (commentator) the word 'bridge' does not glorify the abode of heaven, earth, &c., but rather the knowledge of the Self which is glorified in the preceding clause, 'Know him alone as the Self,' and the abandonment of speech advised in the clause, 'leave off other words;' to them, as being the means of obtaining immortality, the expression 'the bridge of the immortal' applies[167]. On that account we have to set aside the a.s.sertion that, on account of the word 'bridge,' something different from Brahman is to be understood by the abode of heaven, earth, and so on.

2. And on account of its being designated as that to which the Released have to resort.

By the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, we have to understand the highest Brahman for that reason also that we find it denoted as that to which the Released have to resort.--The conception that the body and other things contained in the sphere of the Not-self are our Self, const.i.tutes Nescience; from it there spring desires with regard to whatever promotes the well-being of the body and so on, and aversions with regard to whatever tends to injure it; there further arise fear and confusion when we observe anything threatening to destroy it. All this const.i.tutes an endless series of the most manifold evils with which we all are acquainted. Regarding those on the other hand who have freed themselves from the stains of Nescience desire aversion and so on, it is said that they have to resort to that, viz. the abode of heaven, earth, &c. which forms the topic of discussion. For the text, after having said, 'The fetter of the heart is broken, all doubts are solved, all his works perish when He has been beheld who is the higher and the lower'

(Mu. Up. II, 2, 8), later on remarks, 'The wise man freed from name and form goes to the divine Person who is greater than the great' (Mu. Up.

III, 2, 8). That Brahman is that which is to be resorted to by the released, is known from other scriptural pa.s.sages, such as 'When all desires which once entered his heart are undone then does the mortal become immortal, then he obtains Brahman' (B/ri/. Up. IV, 4, 7). Of the pradhana and similar ent.i.ties, on the other hand, it is not known from any source that they are to be resorted to by the released. Moreover, the text (in the pa.s.sage, 'Know him alone as the Self and leave off other words') declares that the knowledge of the abode of heaven and earth, &c. is connected with the leaving off of all speech; a condition which, according to another scriptural pa.s.sage, attaches to (the knowledge of) Brahman; cp. B/ri/. Up. IV, 4, 21, 'Let a wise Brahma/n/a, after he has discovered him, practise wisdom. Let him not seek after many words, for that is mere weariness of the tongue.'--For that reason also the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, is the highest Brahman.

3. Not (i.e. the abode of heaven, earth, &c. cannot be) that which is inferred, (i.e. the pradhana), on account of the terms not denoting it.

While there has been shown a special reason in favour of Brahman (being the abode), there is no such special reason in favour of anything else.

Hence he (the sutrakara) says that that which is inferred, i.e. the pradhana a.s.sumed by the [email protected]/ri/ti, is not to be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c.--Why?--On account of the terms not denoting it. For the sacred text does not contain any term intimating the non-intelligent pradhana, on the ground of which we might understand the latter to be the general cause or abode; while such terms as 'he who perceives all and knows all' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 9) intimate an intelligent being opposed to the pradhana in nature.--For the same reason the air also cannot be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, and so on.

4. (Nor) also the individual soul (pra/n/abh/ri/t).

Although to the cognitional (individual) Self the qualities of Selfhood and intelligence do belong, still omniscience and similar qualities do not belong to it as its knowledge is limited by its adjuncts; thus the individual soul also cannot be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c., for the same reason, i.e. on account of the terms not denoting it.--Moreover, the attribute of forming the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, cannot properly be given to the individual soul because the latter is limited by certain adjuncts and therefore non-pervading (not omnipresent)[168].--The special enunciation (of the individual soul) is caused by what follows[169].--The individual soul is not to be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c. for the following reason also.

5. On account of the declaration of difference.

The pa.s.sage 'Know him alone as the Self' moreover implies a declaration of difference, viz. of the difference of the object of knowledge and the knower. Here the individual soul as being that which is desirous of release is the knower, and consequently Brahman, which is denoted by the word 'self' and represented as the object of knowledge, is understood to be the abode of heaven, earth, and so on.--For the following reason also the individual soul cannot be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c.

6. On account of the subject-matter.

The highest Self const.i.tutes the subject-matter (of the entire chapter), as we see from the pa.s.sage, 'Sir, what is that through which, when it is known, everything else becomes known?' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 3) in which the knowledge of everything is declared to be dependent on the knowledge of one thing. For all this (i.e. the entire world) becomes known if Brahman the Self of all is known, not if only the individual soul is known.--Another reason against the individual soul follows.

7. And on account of the two conditions of standing and eating (of which the former is characteristic of the highest Lord, the latter of the individual soul).

With reference to that which is the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, the text says, 'Two birds, inseparable friends,' &c. (Mu. Up. III, 1, 1). This pa.s.sage describes the two states of mere standing, i.e. mere presence, and of eating, the clause, 'One of them eats the sweet fruit,'

referring to the eating, i.e. the fruition of the results of works, and the clause, 'The other one looks on without eating,' describing the condition of mere inactive presence. The two states described, viz. of mere presence on the one hand and of enjoyment on the other hand, show that the Lord and the individual soul are referred to. Now there is room for this statement which represents the Lord as separate from the individual soul, only if the pa.s.sage about the abode of heaven and earth likewise refers to the Lord; for in that case only there exists a continuity of topic. On any other supposition the second pa.s.sage would contain a statement about something not connected with the general topic, and would therefore be entirely uncalled for.--But, it may be objected, on your interpretation also the second pa.s.sage makes an uncalled-for statement, viz. in so far as it represents the individual soul as separate from the Lord.--Not so, we reply. It is nowhere the purpose of Scripture to make statements regarding the individual soul.

From ordinary experience the individual soul, which in the different individual bodies is joined to the internal organs and other limiting adjuncts, is known to every one as agent and enjoyer, and we therefore must not a.s.sume that it is that which Scripture aims at setting forth.

The Lord, on the other hand, about whom ordinary experience tells us nothing, is to be considered as the special topic of all scriptural pa.s.sages, and we therefore cannot a.s.sume that any pa.s.sage should refer to him merely casually[170].--That the mantra 'two birds,' &c. speaks of the Lord--and the individual soul we have already shown under I, 2, 11.--And if, according to the interpretation given in the (and quoted under I, 2, 11), the verse is understood to refer to the internal organ (sattva) and the individual soul (not to the individual soul and the Lord), even then there is no contradiction (between that interpretation and our present averment that the individual soul is not the abode of heaven and earth).--How so?--Here (i.e. in the present Sutra and the Sutras immediately preceding) it is denied that the individual soul which, owing to its imagined connexion with the internal organ and other limiting adjuncts, has a separate existence in separate bodies--its division being a.n.a.logous to the division of universal s.p.a.ce into limited s.p.a.ces such as the s.p.a.ces within jars and the like--is that which is called the abode of heaven and earth. That same soul, on the other hand, which exists in all bodies, if considered apart from the limiting adjuncts, is nothing else but the highest Self. Just as the s.p.a.ces within jars, if considered apart from their limiting conditions, are merged in universal s.p.a.ce, so the individual soul also is incontestably that which is denoted as the abode of heaven and earth, since it (the soul) cannot really be separate from the highest Self. That it is not the abode of heaven and earth, is therefore said of the individual soul in so far only as it imagines itself to be connected with the internal organ and so on. Hence it follows that the highest Self is the abode of heaven, earth, and so on.--The same conclusion has already been arrived at under I, 2, 21; for in the pa.s.sage concerning the source of all beings (which pa.s.sage is discussed under the Sutra quoted) we meet with the clause, 'In which heaven and earth and the sky are woven.' In the present adhikara/n/a the subject is resumed for the sake of further elucidation.

8. The bhuman (is Brahman), as the instruction about it is additional to that about the state of deep sleep (i.e. the vital air which remains awake even in the state of deep sleep).

We read (Ch. Up. VII, 23; 24), 'That which is much (bhuman) we must desire to understand.--Sir, I desire to understand it.--Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is what is much (bhuman). Where one sees something else, hears something else, understands something else, that is the Little.'--Here the doubt arises whether that which is much is the vital air (pra/n/a) or the highest Self.--Whence the doubt?--The word 'bhuman,' taken by itself, means the state of being much, according to its derivation as taught by Pa/n/ani, VI, 4, 158. Hence there is felt the want of a specification showing what const.i.tutes the Self of that muchness. Here there presents itself at first the approximate pa.s.sage, 'The vital air is more than hope' (Ch.

Up. VII, 15, 1), from which we may conclude that the vital air is bhuman.--On the other hand, we meet at the beginning of the chapter, where the general topic is stated, with the following pa.s.sage, 'I have heard from men like you that he who knows the Self overcomes grief. I am in grief. Do, Sir, help me over this grief of mine;' from which pa.s.sage it would appear that the bhuman is the highest Self.--Hence there arises a doubt as to which of the two alternatives is to be embraced, and which is to be set aside.

The purvapakshin maintains that the bhuman is the vital air, since there is found no further series of questions and answers as to what is more.

For while we meet with a series of questions and answers (such as, 'Sir, is there something which is more than a name?'--'Speech is more than name.'--'Is there something which is more than speech?'--'Mind is more than speech'), which extends from name up to vital air, we do not meet with a similar question and answer as to what might be more than vital air (such as, 'Is there something which is more than vital air?'--'Such and such a thing is more than vital air'). The text rather at first declares at length (in the pa.s.sage, 'The vital air is more than hope,'

&c.) that the vital air is more than all the members of the series from name up to hope; it then acknowledges him who knows the vital air to be an ativadin, i.e. one who makes a statement surpa.s.sing the preceding statements (in the pa.s.sage, 'Thou art an ativadin. He may say I am an ativadin; he need not deny it'); and it thereupon (in the pa.s.sage, 'But he in reality is an ativadin who declares something beyond by means of the True'[171]),--not leaving off, but rather continuing to refer to the quality of an ativadin which is founded on the vital air,--proceeds, by means of the series beginning with the True, to lead over to the bhuman; so that we conclude the meaning to be that the vital air is the bhuman.--But, if the bhuman is interpreted to mean the vital air, how have we to explain the pa.s.sage in which the bhuman is characterised.

'Where one sees nothing else?' &c.--As, the purvapakshin replies, in the state of deep sleep we observe a cessation of all activity, such as seeing, &c., on the part of the organs merged in the vital air, the vital air itself may be characterised by a pa.s.sage such as, 'Where one sees nothing else.' Similarly, another scriptural pa.s.sage (Pra. Up. IV, 2; 3) describes at first (in the words, 'He does not hear, he does not see,' &c.) the state of deep sleep as characterised by the cessation of the activity of all bodily organs, and then by declaring that in that state the vital air, with its five modifications, remains awake ('The fires of the pra/n/as are awake in that town'), shows the vital air to occupy the princ.i.p.al position in the state of deep sleep.--That pa.s.sage also, which speaks of the bliss of the bhuman ('The bhuman is bliss,'

Ch. Up. VII, 23), can be reconciled with our explanation, because Pra.

Up. IV, 6 declares bliss to attach to the state of deep sleep ('Then that G.o.d sees no dreams and at that time that happiness arises in his body').--Again, the statement, 'The bhuman is immortality' (Ch. Up. VII, 24, 1), may likewise refer to the vital air; for another scriptural pa.s.sage says, 'Pra/n/a is immortality' (Kau. Up. III, 2).--But how can the view according to which the bhuman is the vital air be reconciled with the fact that in the beginning of the chapter the knowledge of the Self is represented as the general topic ('He who knows the Self overcomes grief,' &c.)?--By the Self there referred to, the purvapakshin replies, nothing else is meant but the vital air. For the pa.s.sage, 'The vital air is father, the vital air is mother, the vital air is brother, the vital air is sister, the vital air is teacher, the vital air is Brahma/n/a' (Ch. Up. VII, 15, 1), represents the vital air as the Self of everything. As, moreover, the pa.s.sage, 'As the spokes of a wheel rest in the nave, so all this rests in pra/n/a,' declares the pra/n/a to be the Self of all--by means of a comparison with the spokes and the nave of a wheel--the pra/n/a may be conceived under the form of bhuman, i.e.

plenitude.--Bhuman, therefore, means the vital air.