The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary by Sankaracarya Part 17

To this we make the following reply.--Bhuman can mean the highest Self only, not the vital air.--Why?--'On account of information being given about it, subsequent to bliss.' The word 'bliss' (samprasada) means the state of deep sleep, as may be concluded, firstly, from the etymology of the word ('In it he, i.e. man, is altogether pleased--samprasidati')--and, secondly, from the fact of samprasada being mentioned in the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka together with the state of dream and the waking state. And as in the state of deep sleep the vital air remains awake, the word 'samprasada' is employed in the Sutra to denote the vital air; so that the Sutra means, 'on account of information being given about the bhuman, subsequently to (the information given about) the vital air.' If the bhuman were the vital air itself, it would be a strange proceeding to make statements about the bhuman in addition to the statements about the vital air. For in the preceding pa.s.sages also we do not meet, for instance, with a statement about name subsequent to the previous statement about name (i.e. the text does not say 'name is more than name'), but after something has been said about name, a new statement is made about speech, which is something different from name (i.e. the text says, 'Speech is more than name'), and so on up to the statement about vital air, each subsequent statement referring to something other than the topic of the preceding one. We therefore conclude that the bhuman also, the statement about which follows on the statement about the vital air, is something other than the vital air. But--it may be objected--we meet here neither with a question, such as, 'Is there something more than vital air?' nor with an answer, such as, 'That and that is more than vital air.' How, then, can it be said that the information about the bhuman is given subsequently to the information about the vital air?--Moreover, we see that the circ.u.mstance of being an ativadin, which is exclusively connected with the vital air, is referred to in the subsequent pa.s.sage (viz. 'But in reality he is an ativadin who makes a statement surpa.s.sing (the preceding statements) by means of the True'). There is thus no information additional to the information about the vital air.--To this objection we reply that it is impossible to maintain that the pa.s.sage last quoted merely continues the discussion of the quality of being an ativadin, as connected with the knowledge of the vital air; since the clause, 'He who makes a statement surpa.s.sing, &c. by means of the True,'

states a specification.--But, the objector resumes, this very statement of a specification may be explained as referring to the vital air. If you ask how, we refer you to an a.n.a.logous case. If somebody says, 'This Agnihotrin speaks the truth,' the meaning is not that the quality of being an Agnihotrin depends on speaking the truth; that quality rather depends on the (regular performance of the) agnihotra only, and speaking the truth is mentioned merely as a special attribute of that special Agnihotrin. So our pa.s.sage also ('But in reality he is an ativadin who makes a statement, &c. by means of the True') does not intimate that the quality of being an ativadin depends on speaking the truth, but merely expresses that speaking the truth is a special attribute of him who knows the vital air; while the quality of being an ativadin must be considered to depend on the knowledge of the vital air.--This objection we rebut by the remark that it involves an abandonment of the direct meaning of the sacred text. For from the text, as it stands, we understand that the quality of being an ativadin depends on speaking the truth; the sense being: An ativadin is he who is an ativadin by means of the True. The pa.s.sage does not in anyway contain a eulogisation of the knowledge of the vital air. It could be connected with the latter only on the ground of general subject-matter (prakara/n/a)[172]; which would involve an abandonment of the direct meaning of the text in favour of prakara/n/a[173].--Moreover, the particle but ('But in reality he is,'

&c.), whose purport is to separate (what follows) from the subject-matter of what precedes, would not agree (with the pra/n/a explanation). The following pa.s.sage also, 'But we must desire to know the True' (VII, 16), which presupposes a new effort, shows that a new topic is going to be entered upon.--For these reasons we have to consider the statement about the ativadin in the same light as we should consider the remark--made in a conversation which previously had turned on the praise of those who study one Veda--that he who studies the four Vedas is a great Brahma/n/a; a remark which we should understand to be laudatory of persons different from those who study one Veda, i.e. of those who study all the four Vedas. Nor is there any reason to a.s.sume that a new topic can be introduced in the form of question and answer only; for that the matter propounded forms a new topic is sufficiently clear from the circ.u.mstance that no connexion can be established between it and the preceding topic. The succession of topics in the chapter under discussion is as follows: Narada at first listens to the instruction which Sanatk.u.mara gives him about various matters, the last of which is Pra/n/a, and then becomes silent. Thereupon Sanatk.u.mara explains to him spontaneously (without being asked) that the quality of being an ativadin, if merely based on the knowledge of the vital air--which knowledge has for its object an unreal product,--is devoid of substance, and that he only is an ativadin who is such by means of the True. By the term 'the True' there is meant the highest Brahman; for Brahman is the Real, and it is called the 'True' in another scriptural pa.s.sage also, viz. Taitt. Up. II, 1, 'The True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman.' Narada, thus enlightened, starts a new line of enquiry ('Might I, Sir, become an ativadin by the True?') and Sanatk.u.mara then leads him, by a series of instrumental steps, beginning with understanding, up to the knowledge of bhuman. We therefrom conclude that the bhuman is that very True whose explanation had been promised in addition to the (knowledge of the) vital air. We thus see that the instruction about the bhuman is additional to the instruction about the vital air, and bhuman must therefore mean the highest Self, which is different from the vital air. With this interpretation the initial statement, according to which the enquiry into the Self forms the general subject-matter, agrees perfectly well. The a.s.sumption, on the other hand (made by the purvapakshin), that by the Self we have here to understand the vital air is indefensible. For, in the first place, Self-hood does not belong to the vital air in any non-figurative sense. In the second place, cessation of grief cannot take place apart from the knowledge of the highest Self; for, as another scriptural pa.s.sage declares, 'There is no other path to go' (/S/vet. Up. VI, 15). Moreover, after we have read at the outset, 'Do, Sir, lead me over to the other side of grief' (Ch. Up.

VII, 1, 3), we meet with the following concluding words (VII, 26, 2), 'To him, after his faults had been rubbed out, the venerable Sanatk.u.mara showed the other side of darkness.' The term 'darkness' here denotes Nescience, the cause of grief, and so on.--Moreover, if the instruction terminated with the vital air, it would not be said of the latter that it rests on something else. But the brahma/n/a (Ch. Up. VII, 26, 1) does say, 'The vital air springs from the Self.' Nor can it be objected against this last argument that the concluding part of the chapter may refer to the highest Self, while, all the same, the bhuman (mentioned in an earlier part of the chapter) may be the vital air. For, from the pa.s.sage (VII, 24, 1), ('Sir, in what does the bhuman rest? In its own greatness,' &c.), it appears that the bhuman forms the continuous topic up to the end of the chapter.--The quality of being the bhuman--which quality is plenitude--agrees, moreover, best with the highest Self, which is the cause of everything.

9. And on account of the agreement of the attributes (mentioned in the text).

The attributes, moreover, which the sacred text ascribes to the bhuman agree well with the highest Self. The pa.s.sage, 'Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is the bhuman,'

gives us to understand that in the bhuman the ordinary activities of seeing and so on are absent; and that this is characteristic of the highest Self, we know from another scriptural pa.s.sage, viz. 'But when the Self only is all this, how should he see another?' &c. (B/ri/. Up.

IV, 5, 15). What is said about the absence of the activities of seeing and so on in the state of deep sleep (Pra. Up. IV, 2) is said with the intention of declaring the non-attachedness of the Self, not of describing the nature of the pra/n/a; for the highest Self (not the vital air) is the topic of that pa.s.sage. The bliss also of which Scripture speaks as connected with that state is mentioned only in order to show that bliss const.i.tutes the nature of the Self. For Scripture says (B/ri/. Up. IV, 3, 32), 'This is his highest bliss. All other creatures live on a small portion of that bliss.'--The pa.s.sage under discussion also ('The bhuman is bliss. There is no bliss in that which is little (limited). The bhuman only is bliss') by denying the reality of bliss on the part of whatever is perishable shows that Brahman only is bliss as bhuman, i.e. in its plenitude,--Again, the pa.s.sage, 'The bhuman is immortality,' shows that the highest cause is meant; for the immortality of all effected things is a merely relative one, and another scriptural pa.s.sage says that 'whatever is different from that (Brahman) is perishable' (B/ri/. Up. III, 4, 2).--Similarly, the qualities of being the True, and of resting in its own greatness, and of being omnipresent, and of being the Self of everything which the text mentions (as belonging to the bhuman) can belong to the highest Self only, not to anything else.--By all this it is proved that the bhuman is the highest Self.

10. The Imperishable (is Brahman) on account of (its) supporting (all things) up to ether.

We read (B/ri/. Up. III, 8, 7; 8). 'In what then is the ether woven, like warp and woof?--He said: O Gargi, the Brahma/n/as call this the akshara (the Imperishable). It is neither coa.r.s.e nor fine,' and so on.--Here the doubt arises whether the word 'akshara' means 'syllable'

or 'the highest Lord.'

The purvapakshin maintains that the word 'akshara' means 'syllable'

merely, because it has, in such terms as akshara-samamnaya, the meaning of 'syllable;' because we have no right to disregard the settled meaning of a word; and because another scriptural pa.s.sage also ('The syllable Om is all this,' Ch. Up. II, 23, 4) declares a syllable, represented as the object of devotion, to be the Self of all.

To this we reply that the highest Self only is denoted by the word 'akshara.'--Why?--Because it (the akshara) is said to support the entire aggregate of effects, from earth up to ether. For the sacred text declares at first that the entire aggregate of effects beginning with earth and differentiated by threefold time is based on ether, in which it is 'woven like warp and woof;' leads then (by means of the question, 'In what then is the ether woven, like warp and woof?') over to the akshara, and, finally, concludes with the words, 'In that akshara then, O Gargi, the ether is woven, like warp and woof.'--Now the attribute of supporting everything up to ether cannot be ascribed to any being but Brahman. The text (quoted from the Ch. Up.) says indeed that the syllable Om is all this, but that statement is to be understood as a mere glorification of the syllable Om considered as a means to obtain Brahman.--Therefore we take akshara to mean either 'the Imperishable' or 'that which pervades;' on the ground of either of which explanations it must be identified with the highest Brahman.

But--our opponent resumes--while we must admit that the above reasoning holds good so far that the circ.u.mstance of the akshara supporting all things up to ether is to be accepted as a proof of all effects depending on a cause, we point out that it may be employed by those also who declare the pradhana to be the general cause. How then does the previous argumentation specially establish Brahman (to the exclusion of the pradhana)?--The reply to this is given in the next Sutra.

11. This (supporting can), on account of the command (attributed to the Imperishable, be the work of the highest Lord only).

The supporting of all things up to ether is the work of the highest Lord only.--Why?--On account of the command.--For the sacred text speaks of a command ('By the command of that akshara, O Gargi, sun and moon stand apart!' III, 8, 9), and command can be the work of the highest Lord only, not of the non-intelligent pradhana. For non-intelligent causes such as clay and the like are not capable of command, with reference to their effects, such as jars and the like.

12. And on account of (Scripture) separating (the akshara) from that whose nature is different (from Brahman).

Also on account of the reason stated in this Sutra Brahman only is to be considered as the Imperishable, and the supporting of all things up to ether is to be looked upon as the work of Brahman only, not of anything else. The meaning of the Sutra is as follows. Whatever things other than Brahman might possibly be thought to be denoted by the term 'akshara,'

from the nature of all those things Scripture separates the akshara spoken of as the support of all things up to ether. The scriptural pa.s.sage alluded to is III, 8, 11, 'That akshara, O Gargi, is unseen but seeing, unheard but hearing, unperceived but perceiving, unknown but knowing.' Here the designation of being unseen, &c. agrees indeed with the pradhana also, but not so the designation of seeing, &c., as the pradhana is non-intelligent.--Nor can the word akshara denote the embodied soul with its limiting conditions, for the pa.s.sage following on the one quoted declares that there is nothing different from the Self ('there is nothing that sees but it, nothing that hears but it, nothing that perceives but it, nothing that knows but it'); and, moreover, limiting conditions are expressly denied (of the akshara) in the pa.s.sage, 'It is without eyes, without ears, without speech, without mind,' &c. (III, 8, 8). An embodied soul without limiting conditions does not exist[174].--It is therefore certain beyond doubt that the Imperishable is nothing else but the highest Brahman.

13. On account of his being designated as the object of sight (the highest Self is meant, and) the same (is meant in the pa.s.sage speaking of the meditation on the highest person by means of the syllable Om).

(In Pra. Up. V, 2) the general topic of discussion is set forth in the words, 'O Satyakama, the syllable Om is the highest and also the other Brahman; therefore he who knows it arrives by the same means at one of the two.' The text then goes on, 'Again, he who meditates with this syllable Om of three matras on the highest Person,' &c.--Here the doubt presents itself, whether the object of meditation referred to in the latter pa.s.sage is the highest Brahman or the other Brahman; a doubt based on the former pa.s.sage, according to which both are under discussion.

The purvapakshin maintains that the other, i.e. the lower Brahman, is referred to, because the text promises only a reward limited by a certain locality for him who knows it. For, as the highest Brahman is omnipresent, it would be inappropriate to a.s.sume that he who knows it obtains a fruit limited by a certain locality. The objection that, if the lower Brahman were understood, there would be no room for the qualification, 'the highest person,' is not valid, because the vital princ.i.p.al (pra/n/a) may be called 'higher' with reference to the body[175].

To this we make the following reply: What is here taught as the object of meditation is the highest Brahman only.--Why?--On account of its being spoken of as the object of sight. For the person to be meditated upon is, in a complementary pa.s.sage, spoken of as the object of the act of seeing, 'He sees the person dwelling in the castle (of the body; purusham puri/s/ayam), higher than that one who is of the shape of the individual soul, and who is himself higher (than the senses and their objects).' Now, of an act of meditation an unreal thing also can be the object, as, for instance, the merely imaginary object of a wish. But of the act of seeing, real things only are the objects, as we know from experience; we therefore conclude, that in the pa.s.sage last quoted, the highest (only real) Self which corresponds to the mental act of complete intuition[176] is spoken of as the object of sight. This same highest Self we recognise in the pa.s.sage under discussion as the object of meditation, in consequence of the term, 'the highest person.'--But--an objection will be raised--as the object of meditation we have the highest person, and as the object of sight the person higher than that one who is himself higher, &c.; how, then, are we to know that those two are identical?--The two pa.s.sages, we reply, have in common the terms 'highest' (or 'higher,' para) and 'person.' And it must not by any means be supposed that the term jivaghana[177] refers to that highest person which, considered as the object of meditation, had previously been introduced as the general topic. For the consequence of that supposition would be that that highest person which is the object of sight would be different from that highest person which is represented as the object of meditation. We rather have to explain the word jivaghana as 'He whose shape[178] is characterised by the jivas;' so that what is really meant by that term is that limited condition of the highest Self which is owing to its adjuncts, and manifests itself in the form of jivas, i.e.

individual souls; a condition a.n.a.logous to the limitation of salt (in general) by means of the ma.s.s of a particular lump of salt. That limited condition of the Self may itself be called 'higher,' if viewed with regard to the senses and their objects.

Another (commentator) says that we have to understand by the word 'jivaghana' the world of Brahman spoken of in the preceding sentence ('by the Saman verses he is led up to the world of Brahman'), and again in the following sentence (v. 7), which may be called 'higher,' because it is higher than the other worlds. That world of Brahman may be called jivaghana because all individual souls (jiva) with their organs of action may be viewed as comprised ( = ghana) within Hira/n/yagarbha, who is the Self of all organs, and dwells in the Brahma-world. We thus understand that he who is higher than that jivaghana, i.e. the highest Self, which const.i.tutes the object of sight, also const.i.tutes the object of meditation. The qualification, moreover, expressed in the term 'the highest person' is in its place only if we understand the highest Self to be meant. For the name, 'the highest person,' can be given only to the highest Self, higher than which there is nothing. So another scriptural pa.s.sage also says, 'Higher than the person there is nothing--this is the goal, the highest road.' Hence the sacred text, which at first distinguishes between the higher and the lower Brahman ('the syllable Om is the higher and the lower Brahman'), and afterwards speaks of the highest Person to be meditated upon by means of the syllable Om, gives us to understand that the highest Person is nothing else but the highest Brahman. That the highest Self const.i.tutes the object of meditation, is moreover intimated by the pa.s.sage declaring that release from evil is the fruit (of meditation), 'As a snake is freed from its skin, so is he freed from evil.'--With reference to the objection that a fruit confined to a certain place is not an appropriate reward for him who meditates on the highest Self, we finally remark that the objection is removed, if we understand the pa.s.sage to refer to emanc.i.p.ation by degrees. He who meditates on the highest Self by means of the syllable Om, as consisting of three matras, obtains for his (first) reward the world of Brahman, and after that, gradually, complete intuition.

14. The small (ether) (is Brahman) on account of the subsequent (arguments).

We read (Ch. Up. VIII, 1, 1), 'There is this city of Brahman, and in it the palace, the small lotus, and in it that small ether. Now what exists within that small ether that is to be sought for, that is to be understood,' &c.--Here the doubt arises whether the small ether within the small lotus of the heart of which Scripture speaks, is the elemental ether, or the individual soul (vij/n/anatman), or the highest Self. This doubt is caused by the words 'ether' and 'city of Brahman.' For the word 'ether,' in the first place, is known to be used in the sense of elemental ether as well as of highest Brahman. Hence the doubt whether the small ether of the text be the elemental ether or the highest ether, i.e. Brahman. In explanation of the expression 'city of Brahman,' in the second place, it might be said either that the individual soul is here called Brahman and the body Brahman's city, or else that the city of Brahman means the city of the highest Brahman. Here (i.e. in consequence of this latter doubt) a further doubt arises as to the nature of the small ether, according as the individual soul or the highest Self is understood by the Lord of the city.

The purvapakshin maintains that by the small ether we have to understand the elemental ether, since the latter meaning is the conventional one of the word aka/s/a. The elemental ether is here called small with reference to its small abode (the heart).--In the pa.s.sage, 'As large as this ether is, so large is that ether within the heart,' it is represented as const.i.tuting at the same time the two terms of a comparison, because it is possible to make a distinction between the outer and the inner ether[179]; and it is said that 'heaven and earth are contained within it,' because the whole ether, in so far as it is s.p.a.ce, is one[180].--Or else, the purvapakshin continues, the 'small one' may be taken to mean the individual soul, on account of the term, 'the city of Brahman.' The body is here called the city of Brahman because it is the abode of the individual soul; for it is acquired by means of the actions of the soul. On this interpretation we must a.s.sume that the individual soul is here called Brahman metaphorically. The highest Brahman cannot be meant, because it is not connected with the body as its lord. The lord of the city, i.e. the soul, is represented as dwelling in one spot of the city (viz. the heart), just as a real king resides in one spot of his residence. Moreover, the mind (manas) const.i.tutes the limiting adjunct of the individual soul, and the mind chiefly abides in the heart; hence the individual soul only can be spoken of as dwelling in the heart. Further, the individual soul only can be spoken of as small, since it is (elsewhere; /S/vet. Up. V, 8) compared in size to the point of a goad. That it is compared (in the pa.s.sage under discussion) to the ether must be understood to intimate its non difference from Brahman.--Nor does the scriptural pa.s.sage say that the 'small' one is to be sought for and to be understood, since in the clause, 'That which is within that,' &c., it is represented as a mere distinguishing attribute of something else[181].

To all this we make the following reply:--The small ether can mean the highest Lord only, not either the elemental ether or the individual soul.--Why?--On account of the subsequent reasons, i.e. on account of the reasons implied in the complementary pa.s.sage. For there, the text declares at first, with reference to the small ether, which is enjoined as the object of sight, 'If they should say to him,' &c.; thereupon follows an objection, 'What is there that deserves to be sought for or that is to be understood?' and thereon a final decisive statement, 'Then he should say: As large as this ether is, so large is that ether within the heart. Both heaven and earth are contained within it.' Here the teacher, availing himself of the comparison of the ether within the heart with the known (universal) ether, precludes the conception that the ether within the heart is small--which conception is based on the statement as to the smallness of the lotus, i.e. the heart--and thereby precludes the possibility of our understanding by the term 'the small ether,' the elemental ether. For, although the ordinary use of language gives to the word 'ether' the sense of elemental ether, here the elemental ether cannot be thought of, because it cannot possibly be compared with itself.--But, has it not been stated above, that the ether, although one only, may be compared with itself, in consequence of an a.s.sumed difference between the outer and the inner ether?--That explanation, we reply, is impossible; for we cannot admit that a comparison of a thing with itself may be based upon a merely imaginary difference. And even if we admitted the possibility of such a comparison, the extent of the outer ether could never be ascribed to the limited inner ether. Should it be said that to the highest Lord also the extent of the (outer) ether cannot be ascribed, since another scriptural pa.s.sage declares that he is greater than ether (/S/a. Bra, X, 6, 3, 2), we invalidate this objection by the remark, that the pa.s.sage (comparing the inner ether with the outer ether) has the purport of discarding the idea of smallness (of the inner ether), which is prima facie established by the smallness of the lotus of the heart in which it is contained, and has not the purport of establishing a certain extent (of the inner ether). If the pa.s.sage aimed at both, a split of the sentence[182] would result.--Nor, if we allowed the a.s.sumptive difference of the inner and the outer ether, would it be possible to represent that limited portion of the ether which is enclosed in the lotus of the heart, as containing within itself heaven, earth, and so on. Nor can we reconcile with the nature of the elemental ether the qualities of Self-hood, freeness from sin, and so on, (which are ascribed to the 'small' ether) in the following pa.s.sage, 'It is the Self free from sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, of true desires, of true purposes.'--Although the term 'Self' (occurring in the pa.s.sage quoted) may apply to the individual soul, yet other reasons exclude all idea of the individual soul being meant (by the small ether). For it would be impossible to dissociate from the individual soul, which is restricted by limiting conditions and elsewhere compared to the point of a goad, the attribute of smallness attaching to it, on account of its being enclosed in the lotus of the heart.--Let it then be a.s.sumed--our opponent remarks--that the qualities of all-pervadingness, &c. are ascribed to the individual soul with the intention of intimating its non-difference from Brahman.--Well, we reply, if you suppose that the small ether is called all-pervading because it is one with Brahman, our own supposition, viz. that the all-pervadingness spoken of is directly predicated of Brahman itself, is the much more simple one.--Concerning the a.s.sertion that the term 'city of Brahman' can only be understood, on the a.s.sumption that the individual soul dwells, like a king, in one particular spot of the city of which it is the Lord, we remark that the term is more properly interpreted to mean 'the body in so far as it is the city of the highest Brahman;' which interpretation enables us to take the term 'Brahman' in its primary sense[183]. The highest Brahman also is connected with the body, for the latter const.i.tutes an abode for the perception of Brahman[184]. Other scriptural pa.s.sages also express the same meaning, so, for instance, Pra. Up. V, 5, 'He sees the highest person dwelling in the city' (purusha = puri/s/aya), &c., and B/ri/. Up.

II, 5, 18, 'This person (purusha) is in all cities (bodies) the dweller within the city (puri/s/aya).'--Or else (taking brahmapura to mean jivapura) we may understand the pa.s.sage to teach that Brahman is, in the city of the individual soul, near (to the devout worshipper), just as Vish/n/u is near to us in the Salagrama-stone.--Moreover, the text (VIII, 1, 6) at first declares the result of works to be perishable ('as here on earth whatever has been acquired by works perishes, so perishes whatever is acquired for the next world by good actions,' &c.), and afterwards declares the imperishableness of the results flowing from a knowledge of the small ether, which forms the general subject of discussion ('those who depart from hence after having discovered the Self and those true desires, for them there is freedom in all worlds').

From this again it is manifest that the small ether is the highest Self.--We now turn to the statement made by the purvapakshin,'that the sacred text does not represent the small ether as that which is to be sought for and to be understood, because it is mentioned as a distinguishing attribute of something else,' and reply as follows: If the (small) ether were not that which is to be sought for and to be understood, the description of the nature of that ether, which is given in the pa.s.sage ('as large as this ether is, so large is that ether within the heart'), would be devoid of purport.--But--the opponent might say--that descriptive statement also has the purport of setting forth the nature of the thing abiding within (the ether); for the text after having raised an objection (in the pa.s.sage, 'And if they should say to him: Now with regard to that city of Brahman and the palace in it, i.e.

the small lotus of the heart, and the small ether within the heart, what is there within it that deserves to be sought for or that is to be understood?') declares, when replying to that objection, that heaven, earth, and so on, are contained within it (the ether), a declaration to which the comparison with the ether forms a mere introduction.--Your reasoning, we reply, is faulty. If it were admitted, it would follow that heaven, earth, &c., which are contained within the small ether, const.i.tute the objects of search and enquiry. But in that case the complementary pa.s.sage would be out of place. For the text carrying on, as the subject of discussion, the ether that is the abode of heaven, earth, &c.--by means of the clauses, 'In it all desires are contained,'

'It is the Self free from sin,' &c., and the pa.s.sage, 'But those who depart from hence having discovered the Self, and the true desires' (in which pa.s.sage the conjunction 'and' has the purpose of joining the desires to the Self)--declares that the Self as well, which is the abode of the desires, as the desires which abide in the Self, are the objects of knowledge. From this we conclude that in the beginning of the pa.s.sage also, the small ether abiding within the lotus of the heart, together with whatever is contained within it as earth, true desires, and so on, is represented as the object of knowledge. And, for the reasons explained, that ether is the highest Lord.

15. (The small ether is Brahman) on account of the action of going (into Brahman) and of the word (brahmaloka); for thus it is seen (i.e. that the individual souls go into Brahman is seen elsewhere in Scripture); and (this going of the souls into Brahman const.i.tutes) an inferential sign (by means of which we may properly interpret the word 'brahmaloka').

It has been declared (in the preceding Sutra) that the small (ether) is the highest Lord, on account of the reasons contained in the subsequent pa.s.sages. These subsequent reasons are now set forth.--For this reason also the small (ether) can be the highest Lord only, because the pa.s.sage complementary to the pa.s.sage concerning the small (ether) contains a mention of going and a word, both of which intimate the highest Lord. In the first place, we read (Ch. Up. VIII, 3, 2), 'All these creatures, day after day going into that Brahma-world, do not discover it.' This pa.s.sage which refers back, by means of the word 'Brahma-world,' to the small ether which forms the general subject-matter, speaks of the going to it of the creatures, i.e. the individual souls, wherefrom we conclude that the small (ether) is Brahman. For this going of the individual souls into Brahman, which takes place day after day in the state of deep sleep, is seen, i.e. is met with in another scriptural pa.s.sage, viz. Ch.

Up. VI, 8, 1, 'He becomes united with the True,' &c. In ordinary life also we say of a man who lies in deep sleep, 'he has become Brahman,'

'he is gone into the state of Brahman.'--In the second place, the word 'Brahma-world,' which is here applied to the small (ether) under discussion, excludes all thought of the individual soul or the elemental ether, and thus gives us to understand that the small (ether) is Brahman.--But could not the word 'Brahma-world' convey as well the idea of the world of him whose throne is the lotus[185]?--It might do so indeed, if we explained the compound 'Brahma-world' as 'the world of Brahman.' But if we explain it on the ground of the coordination of both members of the compound--so that 'Brahma-world' denotes that world which is Brahman--then it conveys the idea of the highest Brahman only.--And that daily going (of the souls) into Brahman (mentioned above) is, moreover, an inferential sign for explaining the compound 'Brahma-world,' on the ground of the co-ordination of its two const.i.tuent members. For it would be impossible to a.s.sume that all those creatures daily go into the world of the effected (lower) Brahman; which world is commonly called the Satyaloka, i.e. the world of the True.

16. And on account of the supporting also (attributed to it), (the small ether must be the Lord) because that greatness is observed in him (according to other scriptural pa.s.sages).

And also on account of the 'supporting' the small ether can be the highest Lord only.--How?--The text at first introduces the general subject of discussion in the pa.s.sage, 'In it is that small ether;'

declares thereupon that the small one is to be compared with the universal ether, and that everything is contained in it; subsequently applies to it the term 'Self,' and states it to possess the qualities of being free from sin, &c.; and, finally, declares with reference to the same general subject of discussion, 'That Self is a bank, a limitary support (vidh/ri/ti), that these worlds may not be confounded.' As 'support' is here predicated of the Self, we have to understand by it a supporting agent. Just as a dam stems the spreading water so that the boundaries of the fields are not confounded, so that Self acts like a limitary dam in order that these outer and inner worlds, and all the different castes and a/s/ramas may not be confounded. In accordance with this our text declares that greatness, which is shown in the act of holding asunder, to belong to the small (ether) which forms the subject of discussion; and that such greatness is found in the highest Lord only, is seen from other scriptural pa.s.sages, such as 'By the command of that Imperishable, O Gargi, sun and moon; are held apart' (B/ri/. Up.

III, 8, 9). Similarly, we read in another pa.s.sage also, about whose referring to the highest Lord there is no doubt, 'He is the Lord of all, the king of all things, the protector of all things. He is a bank and a limitary support, so that these worlds may not be confounded' (B/ri/.

Up. IV, 4, 22)--Hence, on account of the 'supporting,' also the small (ether) is nothing else but the highest Lord.

17. And on account of the settled meaning.

The small ether within cannot denote anything but the highest Lord for this reason also, that the word 'ether' has (among other meanings) the settled meaning of 'highest Lord.' Compare, for instance, the sense in which the word 'ether' is used in Ch. Up. VIII, 14, 'He who is called ether is the revealer of all forms and names;' and Ch. Up. I, 9, 1, 'All these beings take their rise from the ether,' &c. On the other hand, we do not meet with any pa.s.sage in which the word 'ether' is used in the sense of 'individual soul.'--We have already shown that the word cannot, in our pa.s.sage, denote the elemental ether; for, although the word certainly has that settled meaning, it cannot have it here, because the elemental ether cannot possibly be compared to itself, &c. &c.

18. If it be said that the other one (i.e. the individual soul) (is meant) on account of a reference to it (made in a complementary pa.s.sage), (we say) no, on account of the impossibility.

If the small (ether) is to be explained as the highest Lord on account of a complementary pa.s.sage, then, the purvapakshin resumes, we point out that another complementary pa.s.sage contains a reference to the other one, i.e. to the individual soul: 'Now that serene being (literally: serenity, complete satisfaction), which after having risen out from this earthly body and having reached the highest light, appears in its true form, that is, the Self; thus he spoke' (Ch. Up. VIII, 3, 4). For there the word 'serenity,' which is known to denote, in another scriptural pa.s.sage, the state of deep sleep, can convey the idea of the individual soul only when it is in that state, not of anything else. The 'rising from the body' also can be predicated of the individual soul only whose abode the body is; just as air, &c., whose abode is the ether, are said to arise from the ether. And just as the word 'ether,' although in ordinary language not denoting the highest Lord, yet is admitted to denote him in such pa.s.sages as, 'The ether is the revealer of forms and names,' because it there occurs in conjunction with qualities of the highest Lord, so it may likewise denote the individual soul Hence the term 'the small ether' denotes in the pa.s.sage under discussion the individual soul, 'on account of the reference to the other.'

Not so, we reply, 'on account of the impossibility.' In the first place, the individual soul, which imagines itself to be limited by the internal organ and its other adjuncts, cannot be compared with the ether. And, in the second place, attributes such as freedom from evil, and the like, cannot be ascribed to a being which erroneously transfers to itself the attributes of its limiting adjuncts. This has already been set forth in the first Sutra of the present adhikara/n/a, and is again mentioned here in order to remove all doubt as to the soul being different from the highest Self. That the reference pointed out by the purvapakshin is not to the individual soul will, moreover, be shown in one of the next Sutras (I, 3, 21).

19. If it be said that from the subsequent (chapter it appears that the individual soul is meant), (we point out that what is there referred to is) rather (the individual soul in so far) as its true nature has become manifest (i.e. as it is non-different from Brahman).

The doubt whether, 'on account of the reference to the other,' the individual soul might not possibly be meant, has been discarded on the ground of 'impossibility.' But, like a dead man on whom am/ri/ta has been sprinkled, that doubt rises again, drawing new strength from the subsequent chapter which treats of Praj.a.pati. For there he (Praj.a.pati) at the outset declares that the Self, which is free from sin and the like, is that which is to be searched out, that which we must try to understand (Ch. Up. VIII, 7, 1); after that he points out that the seer within the eye, i.e. the individual soul, is the Self ('that person that is seen in the eye is the Self,' VIII, 7, 3); refers again and again to the same ent.i.ty (in the clauses 'I shall explain him further to you,'

VIII, 9, 3; VIII, 10, 4); and (in the explanations fulfilling the given promises) again explains the (nature of the) same individual soul in its different states ('He who moves about happy in dreams is the Self,'

VIII, 10, 1; 'When a man being asleep, reposing, and at perfect rest sees no dreams, that is the Self,' VIII, 11, 1). The clause attached to both these explanations (viz. 'That is the immortal, the fearless; that is Brahman') shows, at the same time, the individual soul to be free from sin, and the like. After that Praj.a.pati, having discovered a shortcoming in the condition of deep sleep (in consequence of the expostulation of Indra, 'In that way he does not know himself that he is I, nor does he know these beings,' VIII, 11, 2), enters on a further explanation ('I shall explain him further to you, and nothing more than this'), begins by blaming the (soul's) connexion with the body, and finally declares the individual soul, when it has risen from the body, to be the highest person. ('Thus does that serene being, arising from this body, appear in its own form as soon as it has approached the highest light. That is the highest person.')--From this it appears that there is a possibility of the qualities of the highest Lord belonging to the individual soul also, and on that account we maintain that the term, 'the small ether within it,' refers to the individual soul.

This position we counter-argue as follows. 'But in so far as its nature has become manifest.' The particle 'but' (in the Sutra) is meant to set aside the view of the purvapakshin, so that the sense of the Sutra is, 'Not even on account of the subsequent chapter a doubt as to the small ether being the individual soul is possible, because there also that which is meant to be intimated is the individual soul, in so far only as its (true) nature has become manifest.' The Sutra uses the expression 'he whose nature has become manifest,' which qualifies jiva., the individual soul, with reference to its previous condition[186].--The meaning is as follows. Praj.a.pati speaks at first of the seer characterised by the eye ('That person which is within the eye,' &c.); shows thereupon, in the pa.s.sage treating of (the reflection in) the waterpan, that he (viz. the seer) has not his true Self in the body; refers to him repeatedly as the subject to be explained (in the clauses 'I shall explain him further to you'); and having then spoken of him as subject to the states of dreaming and deep sleep, finally explains the individual soul in its real nature, i.e. in so far as it is the highest Brahman, not in so far as it is individual soul ('As soon as it has approached the highest light it appears in its own form'). The highest light mentioned, in the pa.s.sage last quoted, as what is to be approached, is nothing else but the highest Brahman, which is distinguished by such attributes as freeness from sin, and the like.

That same highest Brahman const.i.tutes--as we know from pa.s.sages such as 'that art thou'--the real nature of the individual soul, while its second nature, i.e. that aspect of it which depends on fict.i.tious limiting conditions, is not its real nature. For as long as the individual soul does not free itself from Nescience in the form of duality--which Nescience may be compared to the mistake of him who in the twilight mistakes a post for a man--and does not rise to the knowledge of the Self, whose nature is unchangeable, eternal Cognition--which expresses itself in the form 'I am Brahman'--so long it remains the individual soul. But when, discarding the aggregate of body, sense-organs and mind, it arrives, by means of Scripture, at the knowledge that it is not itself that aggregate, that it does not form part of transmigratory existence, but is the True, the Real, the Self, whose nature is pure intelligence; then knowing itseif to be of the nature of unchangeable, eternal Cognition, it lifts itself above the vain conceit of being one with this body, and itself becomes the Self, whose nature is unchanging, eternal Cognition. As is declared in such scriptural pa.s.sages as 'He who knows the highest Brahman becomes even Brahman' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 9). And this is the real nature of the individual soul by means of which it arises from the body and appears in its own form.

Here an objection may be raised. How, it is asked, can we speak of the true nature (svarupa) of that which is unchanging and eternal, and then say that 'it appears in its own form (true nature)?' Of gold and similar substances, whose true nature becomes hidden, and whose specific qualities are rendered non-apparent by their contact with some other substance, it may be said that their true nature is rendered manifest when they are cleaned by the application of some acid substance; so it may be said, likewise, that the stars, whose light is during daytime overpowered (by the superior brilliancy of the sun), become manifest in their true nature at night when the overpowering (sun) has departed. But it is impossible to speak of an a.n.a.logous overpowering of the eternal light of intelligence by whatever agency, since, like ether, it is free from all contact, and since, moreover, such an a.s.sumption would be contradicted by what we actually observe. For the (energies of) seeing, hearing, noticing, cognising const.i.tute the character of the individual soul, and that character is observed to exist in full perfection, even in the case of that individual soul which has not yet risen beyond the body. Every individual soul carries on the course of its practical existence by means of the activities of seeing, hearing, cognising; otherwise no practical existence at all would be possible. If, on the other hand, that character would realise itself in the case of that soul only which has risen above the body, the entire aggregate of practical existence, as it actually presents itself prior to the soul's rising, would thereby be contradicted. We therefore ask: Wherein consists that (alleged) rising from the body? Wherein consists that appearing (of the soul) in its own form?

To this we make the following reply.--Before the rise of discriminative knowledge the nature of the individual soul, which is (in reality) pure light, is non-discriminated as it were from its limiting adjuncts consisting of body, senses, mind, sense-objects and feelings, and appears as consisting of the energies of seeing and so on. Similarly--to quote an a.n.a.logous case from ordinary experience--the true nature of a pure crystal, i.e. its transparency and whiteness, is, before the rise of discriminative knowledge (on the part of the observer), non-discriminated as it were from any limiting adjuncts of red or blue colour; while, as soon as through some means of true cognition discriminative knowledge has arisen, it is said to have now accomplished its true nature, i.e. transparency and whiteness, although in reality it had already done so before. Thus the discriminative knowledge, effected by /S/ruti, on the part of the individual soul which previously is non-discriminated as it were from its limiting adjuncts, is (according to the scriptural pa.s.sage under discussion) the soul's rising from the body, and the fruit of that discriminative knowledge is its accomplishment in its true nature, i.e. the comprehension that its nature is the pure Self. Thus the embodiedness and the non-embodiedness of the Self are due merely to discrimination and non-discrimination, in agreement with the mantra, 'Bodiless within the bodies,' &c. (Ka. Up. I, 2, 22), and the statement of Sm/ri/ti as to the non-difference between embodiedness and non-embodiedness 'Though dwelling in the body, O Kaunteya, it does not act and is not tainted' (Bha. Gi. XIII, 31). The individual soul is therefore called 'That whose true nature is non-manifest' merely on account of the absence of discriminative knowledge, and it is called 'That whose nature has become manifest' on account of the presence of such knowledge. Manifestation and non-manifestation of its nature of a different kind are not possible, since its nature is nothing but its nature (i.e. in reality is always the same). Thus the difference between the individual soul and the highest Lord is owing to wrong knowledge only, not to any reality, since, like ether, the highest Self is not in real contact with anything.

And wherefrom is all this to be known?--From the instruction given by Praj.a.pati who, after having referred to the jiva ('the person that is seen in the eye,' &c.), continues 'This is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman.' If the well-known seer within the eye were different from Brahman which is characterised as the immortal and fearless, it would not be co-ordinated (as it actually is) with the immortal, the fearless, and Brahman. The reflected Self, on the other hand, is not spoken of as he who is characterised by the eye (the seer within the eye), for that would render Praj.a.pati obnoxious to the reproach of saying deceitful things.--So also, in the second section, the pa.s.sage, 'He who moves about happy in dreams,' &c. does not refer to a being different from the seeing person within the eye spoken of in the first chapter, (but treats of the same topic) as appears from the introductory clause, 'I shall explain him further to you.' Moreover[187], a person who is conscious of having seen an elephant in a dream and of no longer seeing it when awake discards in the waking state the object which he had seen (in his sleep), but recognises himself when awake to be the same person who saw something in the dream.--Thus in the third section also Praj.a.pati does indeed declare the absence of all particular cognition in the state of deep sleep, but does not contest the ident.i.ty of the cognising Self ('In that way he does not know himself that he is I, nor all these beings'). The following clause also, 'He is gone to utter annihilation,' is meant to intimate only the annihilation of all specific cognition, not the annihilation of the cogniser. For there is no destruction of the knowing of the knower as--according to another scriptural pa.s.sage (B/ri/. Up. IV, 3, 30)--that is imperishable.--Thus, again, in the fourth section the introductory phrase of Praj.a.pati is, 'I shall explain him further to you and nothing different from this;' he thereupon refutes the connexion (of the Self) with the body and other limiting conditions ('Maghavat, this body is mortal,' &c.), shows the individual soul--which is there called 'the serene being'--in the state when it has reached the nature of Brahman ('It appears in its own form'), and thus proves the soul to be non-different from the highest Brahman whose characteristics are immortality and fearlessness.

Some (teachers) however are of opinion that if the highest Self is meant (in the fourth section) it would be inappropriate to understand the words 'This (him) I will explain further,' &c., as referring to the individual soul, and therefore suppose that the reference is (not to the individual soul forming the topic of the three preceding sections, but) to the Self possessing the qualities of freeness from sin, &c., which Self is pointed out at the beginning of the entire chapter (VII, 1).--Against this interpretation we remark that, in the first place, it disregards the direct enunciation of the p.r.o.noun (i.e. the 'this' in 'this I will explain') which rests on something approximate (i.e. refers to something mentioned not far off), and, in the second place, is opposed to the word 'further' (or 'again') met with in the text, since from that interpretation it would follow that what had been discussed in the preceding sections is not again discussed in the subsequent section.

Moreover, if Praj.a.pati, after having made a promise in the clause, 'This I shall explain' (where that clause occurs for the first time), did previously to the fourth section explain a different topic in each section, we should have to conclude that he acted deceitfully.--Hence (our opinion about the purport of the whole chapter remains valid, viz.

that it sets forth how) the unreal aspect of the individual soul as such--which is a mere presentation of Nescience, is stained by all the desires and aversions attached to agents and enjoyers, and is connected with evils of various kinds--is dissolved by true knowledge, and how the soul is thus led over into the opposite state, i.e. into its true state in which it is one with the highest Lord and distinguished by freedom from sin and similar attributes. The whole process is similar to that by which an imagined snake pa.s.ses over into a rope as soon as the mind of the beholder has freed itself from its erroneous imagination.

Others again, and among them some of ours (asmadiya/s/ /k/a. ke/k/it), are of opinion that the individual soul as such is real. To the end of refuting all these speculators who obstruct the way to the complete intuition of the unity of the Self this /s/ariraka-/s/astra has been set forth, whose aim it is to show that there is only one highest Lord ever unchanging, whose substance is cognition[188], and who, by means of Nescience, manifests himself in various ways, just as a thaumaturg appears in different shapes by means of his magical power. Besides that Lord there is no other substance of cognition.--If, now, the Sutrakara raises and refutes the doubt whether a certain pa.s.sage which (in reality) refers to the Lord does refer to the individual soul, as he does in this and the preceding Sutras[189], he does so for the following purpose. To the highest Self which is eternally pure, intelligent and free, which is never changing, one only, not in contact with anything, devoid of form, the opposite characteristics of the individual soul are erroneously ascribed; just as ignorant men ascribe blue colour to the colourless ether. In order to remove this erroneous opinion by means of Vedic pa.s.sages tending either to prove the unity of the Self or to disprove the doctrine of duality--which pa.s.sages he strengthens by arguments--he insists on the difference of the highest Self from the individual soul, does however not mean to prove thereby that the soul is different from the highest Self, but, whenever speaking of the soul, refers to its distinction (from the Self) as forming an item of ordinary thought, due to the power of Nescience. For thus, he thinks, the Vedic injunctions of works which are given with a view to the states of acting and enjoying, natural (to the non-enlightened soul), are not stultified.--That, however, the absolute unity of the Self is the real purport of the /s/astra's teaching, the Sutrakara declares, for instance, in I, 1, 30[190]. The refutation of the reproach of futility raised against the injunctions of works has already been set forth by us, on the ground of the distinction between such persons as possess full knowledge, and such as do not.