The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary by Sankaracarya Part 9

because in the pa.s.sage Ch. Up. VI, 2 ff., where the subtle Sat which is under discussion is at first referred to in the sentence, 'That is the Self,' and where the subsequent clause, 'That art thou, O /S/vetaketu,'

declares the intelligent /S/vetaketu to have his abode in the Self, a pa.s.sage subsequent to the two quoted (viz. 'a man who has a teacher obtains true knowledge; for him there is only delay as long as he is not delivered, then he will be perfect') declares final release. For if the non-intelligent pradhana were denoted by the term 'Sat' and did comprehend--by means of the phrase 'That art thou'--persons desirous of final release who as such are intelligent, the meaning could only be 'Thou art non-intelligent;' so that Scripture would virtually make contradictory statements to the disadvantage of man, and would thus cease to be a means of right knowledge. But to a.s.sume that the faultless /s/astra is not a means of right knowledge, would be contrary to reason.

And if the /s/astra, considered as a means of right knowledge, should point out to a man desirous of release, but ignorant of the way to it, a non-intelligent Self as the real Self, he would--comparable to the blind man who had caught hold of the ox's tail[96]--cling to the view of that being the Self, and thus never be able to reach the real Self different from the false Self pointed out to him; hence he would be debarred from what const.i.tutes man's good, and would incur evil. We must therefore conclude that, just as the /s/astra teaches the agnihotra and similar performances in their true nature as means for those who are desirous of the heavenly world, so the pa.s.sage 'that is the Self, that art thou, O /S/vetaketu,' teaches the Self in its true nature also. Only on that condition release for him whose thoughts are true can be taught by means of the simile in which the person to be released is compared to the man grasping the heated axe (Ch. Up. VI, 16). For in the other case, if the doctrine of the Sat const.i.tuting the Self had a secondary meaning only, the cognition founded on the pa.s.sage 'that art thou' would be of the nature of a fanciful combination only[97], like the knowledge derived from the pa.s.sage, 'I am the hymn' (Ait. ar. II, 1, 2, 6), and would lead to a mere transitory reward; so that the simile quoted could not convey the doctrine of release. Therefore the word 'Self' is applied to the subtle Sat not in a merely figurative sense. In the case of the faithful servant, on the other hand, the word 'Self' can--in such phrases as 'Bhadrasena is my Self'--be taken in a figurative sense, because the difference between master and servant is well established by perception.

Moreover, to a.s.sume that, because words are sometimes seen to be used in figurative senses, a figurative sense may be resorted to in the case of those things also for which words (i.e. Vedic words) are the only means of knowledge, is altogether indefensible; for an a.s.sumption of that nature would lead to a general want of confidence. The a.s.sertion that the word 'Self' may (primarily) signify what is non-intelligent as well as what is intelligent, just as the word 'jyotis' signifies a certain sacrifice as well as light, is inadmissible, because we have no right to attribute to words a plurality of meanings. Hence (we rather a.s.sume that) the word 'Self' in its primary meaning refers to what is intelligent only and is then, by a figurative attribution of intelligence, applied to the elements and the like also; whence such phrases as 'the Self of the elements,' 'the Self of the senses.' And even if we a.s.sume that the word 'Self' primarily signifies both cla.s.ses of beings, we are unable to settle in any special case which of the two meanings the word has, unless we are aided either by the general heading under which it stands, or some determinative attributive word. But in the pa.s.sage under discussion there is nothing to determine that the word refers to something non-intelligent, while, on the other hand, the Sat distinguished by thought forms the general heading, and /S/vetaketu, i.e. a being endowed with intelligence, is mentioned in close proximity.

That a non-intelligent Self does not agree with /S/vetaketu, who possesses intelligence, we have already shown. All these circ.u.mstances determine the object of the word 'Self' here to be something intelligent. The word 'jyotis' does moreover not furnish an appropriate example; for according to common use it has the settled meaning of 'light' only, and is used in the sense of sacrifice only on account of the arthavada a.s.suming a similarity (of the sacrifice) to light.

A different explanation of the Sutra is also possible. The preceding Sutra may be taken completely to refute all doubts as to the word 'Self'

having a figurative or double sense, and then the present Sutra is to be explained as containing an independent reason, proving that the doctrine of the pradhana being the general cause is untenable.

Hence the non-intelligent pradhana is not denoted by the word 'Self.'

This the teacher now proceeds to prove by an additional reason.

8. And (the pradhana cannot be denoted by the word 'Self') because there is no statement of its having to be set aside.

If the pradhana which is the Not-Self were denoted by the term 'Being'

(Sat), and if the pa.s.sage 'That is the Self, that art thou, O /S/vetaketu,' referred to the pradhana; the teacher whose wish it is to impart instruction about the true Brahman would subsequently declare that the pradhana is to be set aside (and the true Brahman to be considered); for otherwise his pupil, having received the instruction about the pradhana, might take his stand on the latter, looking upon it as the Non-Self. In ordinary life a man who wishes to point out to a friend the (small) star Arundhati at first directs his attention to a big neighbouring star, saying 'that is Arundhati,' although it is really not so; and thereupon he withdraws his first statement and points out the real Arundhati. a.n.a.logously the teacher (if he intended to make his pupil understand the Self through the Non-Self) would in the end definitely state that the Self is not of the nature of the pradhana. But no such statement is made; for the sixth Prapa/th/aka arrives at a conclusion based on the view that the Self is nothing but that which is (the Sat).

The word 'and' (in the Sutra) is meant to notify that the contradiction of a previous statement (which would be implied in the rejected interpretation) is an additional reason for the rejection. Such a contradiction would result even if it were stated that the pradhana is to be set aside. For in the beginning of the Prapa/th/aka it is intimated that through the knowledge of the cause everything becomes known. Compare the following consecutive sentences, 'Have you ever asked for that instruction by which we hear what cannot be heard, by which we perceive what cannot be perceived, by which we know what cannot be known? What is that instruction? As, my dear, by one clod of clay all that is made of clay is known, the modification (i.e. the effect) being a name merely which has its origin in speech, while the truth is that it is clay merely,' &c. Now if the term 'Sat' denoted the pradhana, which is merely the cause of the aggregate of the objects of enjoyment, its knowledge, whether to be set aside or not to be set aside, could never lead to the knowledge of the aggregate of enjoyers (souls), because the latter is not an effect of the pradhana. Therefore the pradhana is not denoted by the term 'Sat.'--For this the Sutrakara gives a further reason.

9. On account of (the individual Soul) going to the Self (the Self cannot be the pradhana).

With reference to the cause denoted by the word 'Sat,' Scripture says, 'When a man sleeps here, then, my dear, he becomes united with the Sat, he is gone to his own (Self). Therefore they say of him, "he sleeps"

(svapiti), because he is gone to his own (svam apita).' (Ch. Up. VI, 8, 1.) This pa.s.sage explains the well-known verb 'to sleep,' with reference to the soul. The word, 'his own,' denotes the Self which had before been denoted by the word Sat; to the Self he (the individual soul) goes, i.e.

into it it is resolved, according to the acknowledged sense of api-i, which means 'to be resolved into.' The individual soul (jiva) is called awake as long as being connected with the various external objects by means of the modifications of the mind--which thus const.i.tute limiting adjuncts of the soul--it apprehends those external objects, and identifies itself with the gross body, which is one of those external objects[98]. When, modified by the impressions which the external objects have left, it sees dreams, it is denoted by the term 'mind[99].'

When, on the cessation of the two limiting adjuncts (i.e. the subtle and the gross bodies), and the consequent absence of the modifications due to the adjuncts, it is, in the state of deep sleep, merged in the Self as it were, then it is said to be asleep (resolved into the Self). A similar etymology of the word 'h/ri/daya' is given by /s/ruti, 'That Self abides in the heart. And this is the etymological explanation: he is in the heart (h/ri/di ayam).' (Ch. Up. VIII, 3, 3.) The words a/s/anaya and udanya are similarly etymologised: 'water is carrying away what has been eaten by him;' 'fire carries away what has been drunk by him' (Ch. Up. VI, 8, 3; 5). Thus the pa.s.sage quoted above explains the resolution (of the soul) into the Self, denoted by the term 'Sat,' by means of the etymology of the word 'sleep.' But the intelligent Self can clearly not resolve itself into the non-intelligent pradhana. If, again, it were said that the pradhana is denoted by the word 'own,' because belonging to the Self (as being the Self's own), there would remain the same absurd statement as to an intelligent ent.i.ty being resolved into a non-intelligent one. Moreover another scriptural pa.s.sage (viz. 'embraced by the intelligent--praj/n/a--Self he knows nothing that is without, nothing that is within,' B/ri/. Up. IV, 3, 21) declares that the soul in the condition of dreamless sleep is resolved into an intelligent ent.i.ty.

Hence that into which all intelligent souls are resolved is an intelligent cause of the world, denoted by the word 'Sat,' and not the pradhana.--A further reason for the pradhana not being the cause is subjoined.

10. On account of the uniformity of view (of the Vedanta-texts, Brahman is to be considered the cause).

If, as in the argumentations of the logicians, so in the Vedanta-texts also, there were set forth different views concerning the nature of the cause, some of them favouring the theory of an intelligent Brahman being the cause of the world, others inclining towards the pradhana doctrine, and others again tending in a different direction; then it might perhaps be possible to interpret such pa.s.sages as those, which speak of the cause of the world as thinking, in such a manner as to make them fall in with the pradhana theory. But the stated condition is absent since all the Vedanta-texts uniformly teach that the cause of the world is the intelligent Brahman. Compare, for instance, 'As from a burning fire sparks proceed in all directions, thus from that Self the pra/n/as proceed each towards its place; from the pra/n/as the G.o.ds, from the G.o.ds the worlds' (Kau. Up. III, 3). And 'from that Self sprang ether'

(Taitt. Up. II, 1). And 'all this springs from the Self' (Ch. Up. VII, 26, 1). And 'this pra/n/a is born from the Self' (Pr. Up. III, 3); all which pa.s.sages declare the Self to be the cause. That the word 'Self'

denotes an intelligent being, we have already shown.

And that all the Vedanta-texts advocate the same view as to an intelligent cause of the world, greatly strengthens their claim to be considered a means of right knowledge, just as the corresponding claims of the senses are strengthened by their giving us information of a uniform character regarding colour and the like. The all-knowing Brahman is therefore to be considered the cause of the world, 'on account of the uniformity of view (of the Vedanta-texts).'--A further reason for this conclusion is advanced.

11. And because it is directly stated in Scripture (therefore the all-knowing Brahman is the cause of the world).

That the all-knowing Lord is the cause of the world, is also declared in a text directly referring to him (viz. the all-knowing one), viz. in the following pa.s.sage of the mantropanishad of the /S/veta/s/vataras (VI, 9) where the word 'he' refers to the previously mentioned all-knowing Lord, 'He is the cause, the lord of the lords of the organs, and there is of him neither parent nor lord.' It is therefore finally settled that the all-knowing Brahman is the general cause, not the non-intelligent pradhana or anything else.

In what precedes we have shown, availing ourselves of appropriate arguments, that the Vedanta-texts exhibited under Sutras I, 1-11, are capable of proving that the all-knowing, all-powerful Lord is the cause of the origin, subsistence, and dissolution of the world. And we have explained, by pointing to the prevailing uniformity of view (I, 10), that all Vedanta-texts whatever maintain an intelligent cause. The question might therefore be asked, 'What reason is there for the subsequent part of the Vedanta-sutras?' (as the chief point is settled already.)

To this question we reply as follows: Brahman is apprehended under two forms; in the first place as qualified by limiting conditions owing to the multiformity of the evolutions of name and form (i.e. the multiformity of the created world); in the second place as being the opposite of this, i.e. free from all limiting conditions whatever.

Compare the following pa.s.sages: B/ri/. Up. IV, 5, 15, 'For where there is duality as it were, then one sees the other; but when the Self only is all this, how should he see another?' Ch. Up. VII, 24, 1, 'Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is the greatest. Where one sees something else, hears something else, understands something else, that is the little. The greatest is immortal; the little is mortal;' Taitt. Up. III, 12, 7, 'The wise one, who having produced all forms and made all names, sits calling (the things by their names[100]);' /S/v. Up. VI, 19, 'Who is without parts, without actions, tranquil, without faults, without taint, the highest bridge of immortality, like a fire that has consumed its fuel;' B/ri/.

Up. II, 3, 6, 'Not so, not so;' B/ri/. Up. III, 8, 8, 'It is neither coa.r.s.e nor fine, neither short nor long;' and 'defective is one place, perfect the other.' All these pa.s.sages, with many others, declare Brahman to possess a double nature, according as it is the object either of Knowledge or of Nescience. As long as it is the object of Nescience, there are applied to it the categories of devotee, object of devotion, and the like[101]. The different modes of devotion lead to different results, some to exaltation, some to gradual emanc.i.p.ation, some to success in works; those modes are distinct on account of the distinction of the different qualities and limiting conditions[102]. And although the one highest Self only, i.e. the Lord distinguished by those different qualities const.i.tutes the object of devotion, still the fruits (of devotion) are distinct, according as the devotion refers to different qualities. Thus Scripture says, 'According as man worships him, that he becomes;' and, 'According to what his thought is in this world, so will he be when he has departed this life' (Ch. Up. III, 14, 1). Sm/ri/ti also makes an a.n.a.logous statement, 'Remembering whatever form of being he leaves this body in the end, into that form he enters, being impressed with it through his constant meditation' (Bha. Gita VIII, 6).

Although one and the same Self is hidden in all beings movable as well as immovable, yet owing to the gradual rise of excellence of the minds which form the limiting conditions (of the Self), Scripture declares that the Self, although eternally unchanging and uniform, reveals itself[103] in a graduated series of beings, and so appears in forms of various dignity and power; compare, for instance (Ait. ar. II, 3, 2, 1), 'He who knows the higher manifestation of the Self in him[104],' &c.

Similarly Sm/ri/ti remarks, 'Whatever being there is of power, splendour or might, know it to have sprung from portions of my glory' (Bha. Gita, X, 41); a pa.s.sage declaring that wherever there is an excess of power and so on, there the Lord is to be worshipped. Accordingly here (i.e. in the Sutras) also the teacher will show that the golden person in the disc of the Sun is the highest Self, on account of an indicating sign, viz. the circ.u.mstance of his being unconnected with any evil (Ved. Su.

I, 1, 20); the same is to be observed with regard to I, 1, 22 and other Sutras. And, again, an enquiry will have to be undertaken into the meaning of the texts, in order that a settled conclusion may be reached concerning that knowledge of the Self which leads to instantaneous release; for although that knowledge is conveyed by means of various limiting conditions, yet no special connexion with limiting conditions is intended to be intimated, in consequence of which there arises a doubt whether it (the knowledge) has the higher or the lower Brahman for its object; so, for instance, in the case of Sutra I, 1, 12[105]. From all this it appears that the following part of the /S/astra has a special object of its own, viz. to show that the Vedanta-texts teach, on the one hand, Brahman as connected with limiting conditions and forming an object of devotion, and on the other hand, as being free from the connexion with such conditions and const.i.tuting an object of knowledge.

The refutation, moreover, of non-intelligent causes different from Brahman, which in I, 1, 10 was based on the uniformity of the meaning of the Vedanta-texts, will be further detailed by the Sutrakara, who, while explaining additional pa.s.sages relating to Brahman, will preclude all causes of a nature opposite to that of Brahman.

12. (The Self) consisting of bliss (is the highest Self) on account of the repet.i.tion (of the word 'bliss,' as denoting the highest Self).

The Taittiriya-upanishad (II, 1-5), after having enumerated the Self consisting of food, the Self consisting of the vital airs, the Self consisting of mind, and the Self consisting of understanding, says, 'Different from this which consists of understanding is the other inner Self which consists of bliss.' Here the doubt arises whether the phrase, 'that which consists of bliss,' denotes the highest Brahman of which it had been said previously, that 'It is true Being, Knowledge, without end,' or something different from Brahman, just as the Self consisting of food, &c., is different from it.--The purvapakshin maintains that the Self consisting of bliss is a secondary (not the princ.i.p.al) Self, and something different from Brahman; as it forms a link in a series of Selfs, beginning with the Self consisting of food, which all are not the princ.i.p.al Self. To the objection that even thus the Self consisting of bliss may be considered as the primary Self, since it is stated to be the innermost of all, he replies that this cannot be admitted, because the Self of bliss is declared to have joy and so on for its limbs, and because it is said to be embodied. If it were identical with the primary Self, joy and the like would not touch it; but the text expressly says 'Joy is its head;' and about its being embodied we read, 'Of that former one this one is the embodied Self' (Taitt. Up. II, 6), i.e. of that former Self of Understanding this Self of bliss is the embodied Self.

And of what is embodied, the contact with joy and pain cannot be prevented. Therefore the Self which consists of bliss is nothing but the transmigrating Soul.

To this reasoning we make the following reply:--By the Self consisting of bliss we have to understand the highest Self, 'on account of repet.i.tion.' For the word 'bliss' is repeatedly applied to the highest Self. So Taitt. Up. II, 7, where, after the clause 'That is flavour'--which refers back to the Self consisting of bliss, and declares it to be of the nature of flavour--we read, 'For only after having perceived flavour can any one perceive delight. Who could breathe, who could breathe forth if that Bliss existed not in the ether (of the heart)? For he alone causes blessedness;' and again, II, 8, 'Now this is an examination of Bliss;' 'He reaches that Self consisting of Bliss;' and again, II, 9, 'He who knows the Bliss of Brahman fears nothing;' and in addition, 'He understood that Bliss is Brahman' (III, 6). And in another scriptural pa.s.sage also (B/ri/. Up. III, 9, 28), 'Knowledge and bliss is Brahman,' we see the word 'bliss' applied just to Brahman. As, therefore, the word 'bliss' is repeatedly used with reference to Brahman, we conclude that the Self consisting of bliss is Brahman also. The objection that the Self consisting of bliss can only denote the secondary Self (the Sa/m/sarin), because it forms a link in a series of secondary Selfs, beginning with the one consisting of food, is of no force, for the reason that the Self consisting of bliss is the innermost of all. The /S/astra, wishing to convey information about the primary Self, adapts itself to common notions, in so far as it at first refers to the body consisting of food, which, although not the Self, is by very obtuse people identified with it; it then proceeds from the body to another Self, which has the same shape with the preceding one, just as the statue possesses the form of the mould into which the molten bra.s.s had been poured; then, again, to another one, always at first representing the Non-Self as the Self, for the purpose of easier comprehension; and it finally teaches that the innermost Self[106], which consists of bliss, is the real Self. Just as when a man, desirous of pointing out the star Arundhati to another man, at first points to several stars which are not Arundhati as being Arundhati, while only the star pointed out in the end is the real Arundhati; so here also the Self consisting of bliss is the real Self on account of its being the innermost (i.e. the last). Nor can any weight be allowed to the objection that the attribution of joy and so on, as head, &c., cannot possibly refer to the real Self; for this attribution is due to the immediately preceding limiting condition (viz. the Self consisting of understanding, the so-called vij/n/anakosa), and does not really belong to the real Self. The possession of a bodily nature also is ascribed to the Self of bliss, only because it is represented as a link in the chain of bodies which begins with the Self consisting of food, and is not ascribed to it in the same direct sense in which it is predicated of the transmigrating Self. Hence the Self consisting of bliss is the highest Brahman.

13. If (it be objected that the term anandamaya, consisting of bliss, can) not (denote the highest Self) on account of its being a word denoting a modification (or product); (we declare the objection to be) not (valid) on account of abundance, (the idea of which may be expressed by the affix maya.)

Here the purvapakshin raises the objection that the word anandamaya (consisting of bliss) cannot denote the highest Self.--Why?--Because the word anandamaya is understood to denote something different from the original word (i.e. the word ananda without the derivative affix maya), viz. a modification; according to the received sense of the affix maya.

'anandamaya' therefore denotes a modification, just as annamaya (consisting of food) and similar words do.

This objection is, however, not valid, because 'maya' is also used in the sense of abundance, i.e. denotes that where there is abundance of what the original word expresses. So, for instance, the phrase 'the sacrifice is annamaya' means 'the sacrifice is abounding in food' (not 'is some modification or product of food'). Thus here Brahman also, as abounding in bliss, is called anandamaya. That Brahman does abound in bliss follows from the pa.s.sage (Taitt. Up. II, 8), where, after the bliss of each of the different cla.s.ses of beings, beginning with man, has been declared to be a hundred times greater than the bliss of the immediately preceding cla.s.s, the bliss of Brahman is finally proclaimed to be absolutely supreme. Maya therefore denotes abundance.

14. And because he is declared to be the cause of it, (i.e. of bliss; therefore maya is to be taken as denoting abundance.)

Maya must be understood to denote abundance, for that reason also that Scripture declares Brahman to be the cause of bliss, 'For he alone causes bliss' (Taitt. Up. II, 7). For he who causes bliss must himself abound in bliss; just as we infer in ordinary life, that a man who enriches others must himself possess abundant wealth. As, therefore, maya may be taken to mean 'abundant,' the Self consisting of bliss is the highest Self.

15. Moreover (the anandamaya is Brahman because) the same (Brahman) which had been referred to in the mantra is sung, (i.e. proclaimed in the Brahma/n/a pa.s.sage as the anandamaya.)

The Self, consisting of joy, is the highest Brahman for the following reason also[107]. On the introductory words 'he who knows Brahman attains the highest' (Taitt. Up. II, 1), there follows a mantra proclaiming that Brahman, which forms the general topic of the chapter, possesses the qualities of true existence, intelligence, infinity; after that it is said that from Brahman there sprang at first the ether and then all other moving and non-moving things, and that, entering into the beings which it had emitted, Brahman stays in the recess, inmost of all; thereupon, for its better comprehension, the series of the different Selfs ('different from this is the inner Self,' &c.) are enumerated, and then finally the same Brahman which the mantra had proclaimed, is again proclaimed in the pa.s.sage under discussion, 'different from this is the other inner Self, which consists of bliss.' To a.s.sume that a mantra and the Brahma/n/a pa.s.sage belonging to it have the same sense is only proper, on account of the absence of contradiction (which results therefrom); for otherwise we should be driven to the unwelcome inference that the text drops the topic once started, and turns to an altogether new subject.

Nor is there mentioned a further inner Self different from the Self consisting of bliss, as in the case of the Self consisting of food, &c.[108] On the same (i.e. the Self consisting of bliss) is founded, 'This same knowledge of Bh/ri/gu and Varu/n/a; he understood that bliss is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. III, 6). Therefore the Self consisting of bliss is the highest Self.

16. (The Self consisting of bliss is the highest Self,) not the other (i.e. the individual Soul), on account of the impossibility (of the latter a.s.sumption).

And for the following reason also the Self consisting of bliss is the highest Self only, not the other, i.e. the one which is other than the Lord, i.e. the transmigrating individual soul. The personal soul cannot be denoted by the term 'the one consisting of bliss.' Why? On account of the impossibility. For Scripture says, with reference to the Self consisting of bliss, 'He wished, may I be many, may I grow forth. He brooded over himself. After he had thus brooded, he sent forth whatever there is.' Here, the desire arising before the origination of a body, &c., the non-separation of the effects created from the creator, and the creation of all effects whatever, cannot possibly belong to any Self different from the highest Self.

17. And on account of the declaration of the difference (of the two, the anandamaya cannot be the transmigrating soul).

The Self consisting of bliss cannot be identical with the transmigrating soul, for that reason also that in the section treating of the Self of bliss, the individual soul and the Self of bliss are distinctly represented as different; Taitt. Up. II, 7, 'It (i.e. the Self consisting of bliss) is a flavour; for only after perceiving a flavour can this (soul) perceive bliss.' For he who perceives cannot be that which is perceived.--But, it may be asked, if he who perceives or attains cannot be that which is perceived or attained, how about the following /S/ruti- and Smr/ri/ti-pa.s.sages, 'The Self is to be sought;'

'Nothing higher is known than the attainment of the Self[109]?'--This objection, we reply, is legitimate (from the point of view of absolute truth). Yet we see that in ordinary life, the Self, which in reality is never anything but the Self, is, owing to non-comprehension of the truth, identified with the Non-Self, i.e. the body and so on; whereby it becomes possible to speak of the Self in so far as it is identified with the body, and so on, as something not searched for but to be searched for, not heard but to be heard, not seized but to be seized, not perceived but to be perceived, not known but to be known, and the like.

Scripture, on the other hand, denies, in such pa.s.sages as 'there is no other seer but he' (B/ri/. Up. III, 7, 23), that there is in reality any seer or hearer different from the all-knowing highest Lord. (Nor can it be said that the Lord is unreal because he is identical with the unreal individual soul; for)[110] the Lord differs from the soul (vij/n/anatman) which is embodied, acts and enjoys, and is the product of Nescience, in the same way as the real juggler who stands on the ground differs from the illusive juggler, who, holding in his hand a shield and a sword, climbs up to the sky by means of a rope; or as the free unlimited ether differs from the ether of a jar, which is determined by its limiting adjunct, (viz. the jar.) With reference to this fict.i.tious difference of the highest Self and the individual Self, the two last Sutras have been propounded.

18. And on account of desire (being mentioned as belonging to the anandamaya) no regard is to be had to what is inferred, (i.e. to the pradhana inferred by the [email protected])

Since in the pa.s.sage 'he desired, may I be many, may I grow forth,'

which occurs in the chapter treating of the anandamaya (Taitt. Up. II, 6), the quality of feeling desire is mentioned, that which is inferred, i.e. the non-intelligent pradhana a.s.sumed by the , cannot be regarded as being the Self consisting of bliss and the cause of the world. Although the opinion that the pradhana is the cause of the world, has already been refuted in the Sutra I, 1, 5, it is here, where a favourable opportunity presents itself, refuted for a second time on the basis of the scriptural pa.s.sage about the cause of the world feeling desire, for the purpose of showing the uniformity of view (of all scriptural pa.s.sages).

19. And, moreover, it (i.e. Scripture) teaches the joining of this (i.e.

the individual soul) with that, (i.e. the Self consisting of bliss), on that (being fully known).

And for the following reason also the term, 'the Self consisting of bliss,' cannot denote either the pradhana or the individual soul.

Scripture teaches that the individual soul when it has reached knowledge is joined, i.e. identified, with the Self of bliss under discussion, i.e. obtains final release. Compare the following pa.s.sage (Taitt. Up.

II, 7), 'When he finds freedom from fear, and rest in that which is invisible, incorporeal, undefined, unsupported, then he has obtained the fearless. For if he makes but the smallest distinction in it there is fear for him.' That means, if he sees in that Self consisting of bliss even a small difference in the form of non-ident.i.ty, then he finds no release from the fear of transmigratory existence. But when he, by means of the cognition of absolute ident.i.ty, finds absolute rest in the Self consisting of bliss, then he is freed from the fear of transmigratory existence. But this (finding absolute rest) is possible only when we understand by the Self consisting of bliss, the highest Self, and not either the pradhana or the individual soul. Hence it is proved that the Self consisting of bliss is the highest Self.

But, in reality, the following remarks have to be made concerning the true meaning of the word 'anandamaya[111].' On what grounds, we ask, can it be maintained that the affix 'maya' after having, in the series of compounds beginning with annamaya and ending with vij/n/anamaya, denoted mere modifications, should all at once, in the word anandamaya, which belongs to the same series, denote abundance, so that anandamaya would refer to Brahman? If it should be said that the a.s.sumption is made on account of the governing influence of the Brahman proclaimed in the mantra (which forms the beginning of the chapter, Taitt. Up. II), we reply that therefrom it would follow that also the Selfs consisting of food, breath, &c., denote Brahman (because the governing influence of the mantra extends to them also).--The advocate of the former interpretation will here, perhaps, restate an argument already made use of above, viz. as follows: To a.s.sume that the Selfs consisting of food, and so on, are not Brahman is quite proper, because after each of them an inner Self is mentioned. After the Self of bliss, on the other hand, no further inner Self is mentioned, and hence it must be considered to be Brahman itself; otherwise we should commit the mistake of dropping the subject-matter in hand (as which Brahman is pointed out by the mantra), and taking up a new topic.--But to this we reply that, although unlike the case of the Selfs consisting of food, &c., no inner Self is mentioned after the Self consisting of bliss, still the latter cannot be considered as Brahman, because with reference to the Self consisting of bliss Scripture declares, 'Joy is its head. Satisfaction is its right arm. Great satisfaction is its left arm. Bliss is its trunk. Brahman is its tail, its support.' Now, here the very same Brahman which, in the mantra, had been introduced as the subject of the discussion, is called the tail, the support; while the five involucra, extending from the involucrum of food up to the involucrum of bliss, are merely introduced for the purpose of setting forth the knowledge of Brahman. How, then, can it be maintained that our interpretation implies the needless dropping of the general subject-matter and the introduction of a new topic?--But, it may again be objected, Brahman is called the tail, i.e.

a member of the Self consisting of bliss; a.n.a.logously to those pa.s.sages in which a tail and other members are ascribed to the Selfs consisting of food and so on. On what grounds, then, can we claim to know that Brahman (which is spoken of as a mere member, i.e. a subordinate matter) is in reality the chief matter referred to?--From the fact, we reply, of Brahman being the general subject-matter of the chapter.--But, it will again be said, that interpretation also according to which Brahman is cognised as a mere member of the anandamaya does not involve a dropping of the subject-matter, since the anandamaya himself is Brahman.--But, we reply, in that case one and the same Brahman would at first appear as the whole, viz. as the Self consisting of bliss, and thereupon as a mere part, viz. as the tail; which is absurd. And as one of the two alternatives must be preferred, it is certainly appropriate to refer to Brahman the clause 'Brahman is the tail' which contains the word 'Brahman,' and not the sentence about the Self of Bliss in which Brahman is not mentioned. Moreover, Scripture, in continuation of the phrase, 'Brahman is the tail, the support,' goes on, 'On this there is also the following /s/loka: He who knows the Brahman as non-existing becomes himself non-existing. He who knows Brahman as existing him we know himself as existing.' As this /s/loka, without any reference to the Self of bliss, states the advantage and disadvantage connected with the knowledge of the being and non-being of Brahman only, we conclude that the clause, 'Brahman is the tail, the support,' represents Brahman as the chief matter (not as a merely subordinate matter). About the being or non-being of the Self of bliss, on the other hand, a doubt is not well possible, since the Self of bliss distinguished by joy, satisfaction, &c., is well known to every one.--But if Brahman is the princ.i.p.al matter, how can it be designated as the mere tail of the Self of bliss ('Brahman is the tail, the support')?--Its being called so, we reply, forms no objection; for the word tail here denotes that which is of the nature of a tail, so that we have to understand that the bliss of Brahman is not a member (in its literal sense), but the support or abode, the one nest (resting-place) of all worldly bliss. a.n.a.logously another scriptural pa.s.sage declares, 'All other creatures live on a small portion of that bliss' (B/ri/. Up. IV, 3, 32). Further, if by the Self consisting of bliss we were to understand Brahman we should have to a.s.sume that the Brahman meant is the Brahman distinguished by qualities (savi/s/esha), because it is said to have joy and the like for its members. But this a.s.sumption is contradicted by a complementary pa.s.sage (II, 9) which declares that Brahman is the object neither of mind nor speech, and so shows that the Brahman meant is the (absolute) Brahman (devoid of qualities), 'From whence all speech, with the mind, turns away unable to reach it, he who knows the bliss of that Brahman fears nothing.' Moreover, if we speak of something as 'abounding in bliss[112],' we thereby imply the co-existence of pain; for the word 'abundance' in its ordinary sense implies the existence of a small measure of what is opposed to the thing whereof there is abundance. But the pa.s.sage so understood would be in conflict with another pa.s.sage (Ch.

Up. VII, 24), 'Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is the Infinite;' which declares that in the Infinite, i.e. Brahman, there is nothing whatever different from it.

Moreover, as joy, &c. differ in each individual body, the Self consisting of bliss also is a different one in each body. Brahman, on the other hand, does not differ according to bodies; for the mantra at the beginning of the chapter declares it to be true Being, knowledge, infinite, and another pa.s.sage says, 'He is the one G.o.d, hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the Self within all beings' (/S/v. Up. VI, 11).