The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary by Sankaracarya Part 20

The purvapakshin maintains that the pa.s.sage is concerned with the nature of the transmigrating soul, on account of the introductory and concluding statements. For the introductory statement, 'He among the pra/n/as who consists of knowledge,' contains marks indicatory of the embodied soul, and so likewise the concluding pa.s.sage, 'And that great unborn Self is he who consists of cognition,' &c. (IV, 4, 22). We must therefore adhere to the same subject-matter in the intermediate pa.s.sages also, and look on them as setting forth the same embodied Self, represented in its different states, viz. the waking state, and so on.

In reply to this, we maintain that the pa.s.sage aims only at giving information about the highest Lord, not at making additional statements about the embodied soul.--Why?--On account of the highest Lord being designated as different from the embodied soul, in the states of deep sleep and of departing from the body. His difference from the embodied soul in the state of deep sleep is declared in the following pa.s.sage, 'This person embraced by the intelligent (praj/n/a) Self knows nothing that is without, nothing that is within.' Here the term, 'the person,'

must mean the embodied soul; for of him it is possible to deny that he knows, because he, as being the knower, may know what is within and without. The 'intelligent Self,' on the other hand, is the highest Lord, because he is never dissociated from intelligence, i.e.--in his case--all-embracing knowledge.--Similarly, the pa.s.sage treating of departure, i.e. death ('this bodily Self mounted by the intelligent Self moves along groaning'), refers to the highest Lord as different from the individual Self. There also we have to understand by the 'embodied one'

the individual soul which is the Lord of the body, while the 'intelligent one' is again the Lord. We thus understand that 'on account of his being designated as something different, in the states of deep sleep and departure,' the highest Lord forms the subject of the pa.s.sage.--With reference to the purvapakshin's a.s.sertion that the entire chapter refers to the embodied Self, because indicatory marks of the latter are found in its beginning, middle, and end, we remark that in the first place the introductory pa.s.sage ('He among the pra/n/as who consists of cognition') does not aim at setting forth the character of the transmigrating Self, but rather, while merely referring to the nature of the transmigrating Self as something already known, aims at declaring its ident.i.ty with the highest Brahman; for it is manifest that the immediately subsequent pa.s.sage, 'as if thinking, as if moving'[227], aims at discarding the attributes of the transmigrating Self. The concluding pa.s.sage again is a.n.a.logous to the initial one; for the words, 'And that great unborn Self is he who,' &c., mean: We have shown that that same cognitional Self, which is observed among the pra/n/as, is the great unborn Self, i.e. the highest Lord--He, again, who imagines that the pa.s.sages intervening (between the two quoted) aim at setting forth the nature of the transmigrating Self by representing it in the waking state, and so on, is like a man who setting out towards the east, wants to set out at the same time towards the west. For in representing the states of waking, and so on, the pa.s.sage does not aim at describing the soul as subject to different states or transmigration, but rather as free from all particular conditions and transmigration. This is evident from the circ.u.mstance that on Janaka's question, which is repeated in every section, 'Speak on for the sake of emanc.i.p.ation,' Yaj/n/avalkya replies each time, 'By all that he is not affected, for that person is not attached to anything' (B/ri/. Up. IV, 3, 14-16). And later on he says (IV, 3, 22), 'He is not followed by good, not followed by evil, for he has then overcome all the sorrows of the heart.' We have, therefore, to conclude that the chapter exclusively aims at setting forth the nature of the non-transmigrating Self.

43. And on account of such words as Lord, &c.

That the chapter aims at setting forth the nature of the non-transmigrating Self, we have to conclude from that circ.u.mstance also that there occur in it terms such as Lord and so on, intimating the nature of the non-transmigrating Self, and others excluding the nature of the transmigrating Self. To the first cla.s.s belongs, for instance, 'He is the lord of all, the king of all things, the protector of all things.' To the latter cla.s.s belongs the pa.s.sage, 'He does not become greater by good works, nor smaller by evil works.'--From all which we conclude that the chapter refers to the non-transmigrating highest Lord.

Notes:

[Footnote 164: From pa.s.sages of which nature we may infer that in the pa.s.sage under discussion also the 'abode' is Brahman.]

[Footnote 165: From which circ.u.mstance we may conclude that the pa.s.sage under discussion also refers to Brahman.]

[Footnote 166: Yat sarvam avidyaropita/m/ tat sarva/m/ paramarthato brahma na tu yad brahma tat sarvam ity artha/h/. Bhamati.]

[Footnote 167: So that the pa.s.sage would have to be translated, 'That, viz. knowledge, &c. is the bridge of the Immortal.']

[Footnote 168: Bhogyasya bhokt/ris/eshatvat tasyayatanatvam uktam a/s/[email protected] na /k/eti, jivasyad/ri/sh/t/advara dyubhvadinimittatvezpi na sakshat tadayatanatvam aupadhikatvenavibhutvad ity artha/h/. ananda Giri.]

[Footnote 169: It would not have been requisite to introduce a special Sutra for the individual soul--which, like the air, is already excluded by the preceding Sutra--if it were not for the new argument brought forward in the following Sutra which applies to the individual soul only.]

[Footnote 170: If the individual soul were meant by the abode of heaven, earth, &c., the statement regarding i/s/vara made in the pa.s.sage about the two birds would be altogether abrupt, and on that ground objectionable. The same difficulty does not present itself with regard to the abrupt mention of the individual soul which is well known to everybody, and to which therefore casual allusions may be made.--I subjoin ananda Giri's commentary on the entire pa.s.sage: Jivasyopadhyaikyenavivaks.h.i.tatvat tadj/n/anezpi sarvaj/n/anasiddhes tasyayatanatvadyabhave hetvantara/m/ va/k/yam ity a/s/[email protected] sutre/n/a pariharati kuta/sk/etyadina. Tad vya/k/ash/t/e dyubhvaditi. Nirde/s/am eva dar/s/ayati tayor iti. Vibhaktyartham aha tabhya/m/ /k/eti.

Sthitye/s/varasyadanaj jivasa/m/grahezpi katham i/s/varasyaiva vi/s/vayatanatva/m/ tadaha yaditi. i/s/varasyayanatvenaprak/ri/tatve jivap/ri/thakkathananupapattir ity uktam eva vyatirekadvaraha anyatheti.

Jivasyayatanatvenaprak/ri/tatve tulyanupapattir iti /s/[email protected] nanviti.

Tasyaikyartha/m/ lokasiddhasyanuvadatvan naivam ity aha neti.

Jivasyapurvatvabhavenapratipadyatvam eva praka/t/ayati kshetraj/n/o hiti. i/s/varasyapi lokavadisiddhatvad apratipadyatety a/s/[email protected] i/s/varas tv iti.]

[Footnote 171: As might be the prima facie conclusion from the particle 'but' introducing the sentence 'but he in reality,' &c.]

[Footnote 172: It being maintained that the pa.s.sage referred to is to be viewed in connexion with the general subject-matter of the preceding past of the chapter.]

[Footnote 173: And would thus involve a violation of a fundamental principle of the Mima/m/sa.]

[Footnote 174: A remark directed against the possible attempt to explain the pa.s.sage last quoted as referring to the embodied soul.]

[Footnote 175: Pi/nd/a/h/ sthulo deha/h/, pra/n/a/h/ sutratma. ananda Giri.-The lower Brahman (hira/n/yagarbha on sutratman) is the vital principle (pra/n/a) in all creatures.]

[Footnote 176: Sa/m/yagdar/s/ana, i.e. complete seeing or intuition; the same term which in other places--where it is not requisite to insist on the idea of 'seeing' in contradistinction from 'reflecting' or 'meditating'--is rendered by perfect knowledge.]

[Footnote 177: Translated above by 'of the shape of the individual soul.']

[Footnote 178: Pa/n/ini III, 3, 77, 'murtta/m/ ghana/h/.']

[Footnote 179: So that the interpretation of the purvapakshin cannot be objected to on the ground of its involving the comparison of a thing to itself.]

[Footnote 180: So that no objection can be raised on the ground that heaven and earth cannot be contained in the small ether of the heart.]

[Footnote 181: Viz. of that which is within it. ananda Giri proposes two explanations: na /k/eti, paravi/s/esha/n/atvenety atra paro daharaka/s/a upadanat tasminn iti saptamyanta-ta/kkh/abdasyeti /s/esha/h/. Yadva para/s/abdo s nta/h/sthavastuvishayas tadvi/s/esha/n/alvena tasminn iti daharaka/s/asyokter ity artha/h/. Ta/kkh/abdasya samnik/ri/sh/t/anvayayoge viprak/ri/sh/t/anvayasya jaghanyatvad aka/s/antargata/m/ dhyeyam iti bhava/h/.]

[Footnote 182: A vakyabheda--split of the sentence--takes place according to the Mimam/s/a when one and the same sentence contains two new statements which are different.]

[Footnote 183: While the explanation of Brahman by jiva would compel us to a.s.sume that the word Brahman secondarily denotes the individual soul.]

[Footnote 184: Upalabdher adhish/th/anam brahma/n/a deha ishyate.

Tenasadhara/n/atvena deho brahmapuram bhavet. Bhamati.]

[Footnote 185: I.e. Brahma, the lower Brahman.]

[Footnote 186: The masculine 'avirbhutasvarupa/h/' qualifies the substantive jiva/h/ which has to be supplied. Properly speaking the jiva whose true nature has become manifest, i.e. which has become Brahman, is no longer jiva; hence the explanatory statement that the term jiva is used with reference to what the jiva was before it became Brahman.]

[Footnote 187: To state another reason showing that the first and second chapters of Praj.a.pati's instruction refer to the same subject.]

[Footnote 188: I.e. of whom cognition is not a mere attribute.]

[Footnote 189: Although in reality there is no such thing as an individual soul.]

[Footnote 190: Nanu jivabrahma/n/or aikyam na kvapi sutrakaro mukhato vadati kim tu sarvatra bhedam eva, ato naikyam ish/t/am tatraha pratipadyam tv iti.]

[Footnote 191: This last sentence is directed against the possible objection that '/s/abda,' which the Sutra brings forward as an argument in favour of the highest Lord being meant, has the sense of 'sentence'

(vakya), and is therefore of less force than [email protected], i.e. indicatory or inferential mark which is represented in our pa.s.sage by the [email protected]/th/amatrata of the purusha, and favours the jiva interpretation.

/S/abda, the text remarks, here means /s/ruti, i.e. direct enunciation, and /s/ruti ranks, as a means of proof, higher than ]

[Footnote 192: I.e. men belonging to the three upper castes.]

[Footnote 193: The first reason excludes animals, G.o.ds, and /ri/shis.

G.o.ds cannot themselves perform sacrifices, the essential feature of which is the parting, on the part of the sacrificer, with an offering meant for the G.o.ds. /Ri/shis cannot perform sacrifices in the course of whose performance the ancestral /ri/shis of the sacrificer are invoked.--The second reason excludes those men whose only desire is emanc.i.p.ation and who therefore do not care for the perishable fruits of sacrifices.--The third and fourth reasons exclude the /S/udras who are indirectly disqualified for /s/astric works because the Veda in different places gives rules for the three higher castes only, and for whom the ceremony of the upanayana--indispensable for all who wish to study the Veda--is not prescribed.--Cp. Purva Mima/m/sa Sutras VI, 1.]

[Footnote 194: The reference is to Purva Mima/m/sa Sutras I, 1, 5 (not to I, 2, 21, as stated in Muir's Sanskrit Texts, III, p. 69).]

[Footnote 195: In which cla.s.ses of beings all the G.o.ds are comprised.]

[Footnote 196: Which shows that together with the non-eternality of the thing denoted there goes the non-eternality of the denoting word.]

[Footnote 197: ak/ri/ti, best translated by [Greek: eidos].]

[Footnote 198: The purvapakshin, i.e. here the grammarian maintains, for the reasons specified further on, that there exists in the case of words a supersensuous ent.i.ty called spho/t/a which is manifested by the letters of the word, and, if apprehended by the mind, itself manifests the sense of the word. The term spho/t/a may, according as it is viewed in either of these lights, be explained as the manifestor or that which is manifested.--The spho/t/a is a grammatical fiction, the word in so far as it is apprehended by us as a whole. That we cannot identify it with the 'notion' (as Deussen seems inclined to do, p. 80) follows from its being distinctly called va/k/aka or abhidhayaka, and its being represented as that which causes the conception of the sense of a word (arthadhihetu).]

[Footnote 199: For that each letter by itself expresses the sense is not observed; and if it did so, the other letters of the word would have to be declared useless.]

[Footnote 200: In order to enable us to apprehend the sense from the word, there is required the actual consciousness of the last letter plus the impressions of the preceding letters; just as smoke enables us to infer the existence of fire only if we are actually conscious of the smoke. But that actual consciousness does not take place because the impressions are not objects of perceptive consciousness.]

[Footnote 201: 'How should it be so?' i.e. it cannot be so; and on that account the differences apprehended do not belong to the letters themselves, but to the external conditions mentioned above.]

[Footnote 202: With 'or else' begins the exposition of the finally accepted theory as to the cause why the same letters are apprehended as different. Hitherto the cause had been found in the variety of the upadhis of the letters. Now a new distinction is made between articulated letters and non-articulated tone.]

[Footnote 203: I.e. it is not directly one idea, for it has for its object more than one letter; but it may be called one in a secondary sense because it is based on the determinative knowledge that the letters, although more than one, express one sense only.]