the following passages: 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? ’ Kh. 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, under¬ stands something else, that is the little. The greatest is immortal; the little is mortal;’ Taitt. Ar. Ill, 12, 7, ‘The wise one, who having produced all forms and made all names, sits calling (the things by their names 1 ); 5 Sv. Up. VI, 19,‘Who is without parts, without actions, tranquil, without faults, without taint, the highest bridge of immor¬ tality, like a fire that has consumed its fuel; 5 B ri. Up. II, 3, 6, ‘Not so, not so; 5 B ri. Up. Ill, 8, 8, ‘It is neither coarse nor fine, neither short nor long; 5 and ‘ defective is one place, perfect the other.’ All these passages, with many others, declare Brahman to possess a double nature, accord¬ ing 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 2. The different modes of devotion lead to different results, some to exaltation, some to gradual emancipation, some to success in works; those modes are distinct on accouht of the distinction of the different qualities and limiting conditions 3 *. And although the one highest Self only, i. e. the Lord distinguished by those different qualities constitutes 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 wor¬ ships him, that he becomes; 5 and, ‘ According to what his thought is in this world, so will he be when he has departed 1 The wise one, i. e. the highest Self; which as givatman is con¬ versant with the names and forms of individual things.
2 I. e. it is looked upon as the object of the devotion of the individual souls; while in reality all those souls and Brahman are one.
3 Qualities, i. e. the attributes under which the Self is meditated on; limiting conditions, i. e. the localities—such as the heart and the like—which in pious meditation are ascribed to the Self.
I ADHYAYA, I PADA, II.
63 this life’ ( Kh. Up. Ill, 14, 1). Smrzti also makes an analo¬ gous 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 1 2 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 V &c. Similarly Smrzti 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 passage 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 ac¬ count of an indicating sign, viz. the circumstance of his being unconnected with any evil (Ved. Su. 1,1,20); the same is to be observed with regard to 1,1, 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 instan¬ taneous release; for although that knowledge is conveyed by means of various limiting conditions, yet no special con¬ nexion with limiting conditions is intended to be intimated, in consequence of which there arises a doubt whether it (the 1 Ananda Giri reads avish/asya for avishkrftasya.
2 Cp. the entire passage. All things are manifestations of the highest Self under certain limiting conditions, but occupying differ¬ ent places in an ascending scale. In unsentient things, stones, &c. only the satt&, the quality of being manifests itself; in plants, animals, and men the Self manifests itself through the vital sap; in animals and men there is understanding; higher thought in man alone.
6 4 vedanta-s6tras.
knowledge) has the higher or the lower Brahman for its object; so, for instance, in the case of Sutra I, r, 12 1. From all this it appears that the following part of the Sastra 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 constituting 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 passages 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 repetition (of the word * bliss/ as denoting the highest Self).
The Taittiriya-upanishad (II, 1-5), after having enume¬ rated 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 con¬ sists of bliss, 5 denotes the highest Brahman of which it had been said previously, that £ It is true Being, Knowledge, with¬ out end/ or something different from Brahman, just as the 1 Ananda Giri on the preceding passage beginning from ‘thus here also:* na kevalazra dvaividhyam brahmawa^ jrutismntyor eva siddha/rc ki m tu sfitrakrzto^pi matam ity dha, evam iti,.mitismrz’tyor iva prakrzte*pi.rastre dvairftpyam brahmawo bhavati; tatra sopa- dhikabrahmavishayam antastaddharmadhikara/zam udaharati adi- tyeti; uktanyayazrc tulyade^eshu prasarayati evam iti; sopadhikopa- dejavan nirupadhikopade^a^ dawayati evam ityadina, atma^anaw nimetavyam iti sambandha^; nirwayaprasangam aha pareti; an- namayddyupadhidvdroktasya katham paravidyavishayatva/ra tatraha tfpddhiti; ninzayakramam dha vakyeti, uktartham adhikarazzaw kvd- stity asahkyoktazrc yatheti.
65 Self consisting of food, &c., is different from it.—The purvapakshin maintains that the Self consisting of bliss is a Secondary (not the principal) 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 principal 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; 5 and about its being em¬ bodied we read, ‘ Of that former one this one is the em¬ bodied Self 5 (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 repetition. 5 For the word ‘bliss 5 is repeatedly applied to the highest Self. So Taitt. Up. II, 7, where, after the clause ‘ That is flavour 5 —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; 5 ‘ He reaches that Self consisting of Bliss; 5 and again, II, 9, ‘ He who knows the Bliss of Brahman fears nothing; 5 and in addition, ‘ He understood that Bliss is Brahman 5 (III, 6). And in another scriptural passage also (Bn. Up. Ill, 9, 28), ‘ Knowledge and bliss is Brahman, 5 we see the word ‘ bliss 5 applied just to Brahman. As, therefore, the word ‘bliss 5 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 [34] F 66 VEDANTA-stjTRAS.
the secondary Self (the SaMsarin), 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 .Sastra, 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 brass 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 1, 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 vi^anako^a), 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 modifica- 1 After which no other Self is mentioned.
67 tion (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 pftrvapakshin 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 4 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 4 the sacrifice is annamaya ’ means ‘ the sacrifice is abounding in food 5 (not 4 is some modifica¬ tion or product of food ’). Thus here Brahman also, as abounding in bliss, is called anandamaya. That Brahman does abound in bliss follows from the passage (Taitt. Up. II, 8), where, after the bliss of each of the different classes of beings, beginning with man, has been declared to be a hundred times greater than the bliss of the immediately preceding class, 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, 4 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, there¬ fore, maya may be taken to mean 4 abundant, 5 the Self consisting of bliss is the highest Self.
15. Moreover (the Anandamaya is Brahman be- 68 VEDANTA-sftTRAS.
cause) the same (Brahman) which had been referred to in the mantra is sung, (i. e. proclaimed in the Brahmazza passage as the anandamaya.)
The Self, consisting of joy, is the highest Brahman for the following reason also h On the introductory words 4 he who knows Brahman attains the highest 5 (Taitt. Up. II, i), there follows a mantra proclaiming that Brahman, which forms the general topic of the chapter, possesses the quali¬ ties 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, 5 &c.) are enumerated, and then finally the same Brahman which the mantra had proclaimed, is again proclaimed in the passage under discussion, ‘different from this is the other inner Self, which consists of bliss. 5 To assume that a mantra and the Brahma/za passage be¬ longing 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 in¬ ference 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 con¬ sisting of food, &c. 1 2 On the same (i. e. the Self consisting of bliss) is founded, 4 This same knowledge of Bhrzgu and Varu/za; he understood that bliss is Brahman 5 (Taitt. Up. Ill, 6). Therefore the Self consisting of bliss is the highest Self.
1 The previous proofs were founded on linga; the argument which is now propounded is founded on prakara/za.
2 While, in the case of the Selfs consisting of food and so on, a further inner Self is duly mentioned each time. It cannot, there¬ fore, be concluded that the Selfs consisting of food, &c., are likewise identical with the highest Self referred to in the mantra.
69 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 assump¬ tion).
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 in¬ dividual 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 per¬ ceived.—But, it may be asked, if he who perceives or attains cannot be that which is perceived or attained, how about the following Sruti- and Smnti-passages, ‘ The Self is to be sought‘ Nothing higher is known than the attain¬ ment of the Self 1?*—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 1 Yadi labdM na labdhavyaA katha m tarhi paramatmano vastuto Abhinnena ^ivatmana paramatm^ labhyata ity artha^. Bha,mati.
70 VEDANTA-s(jTRAS.
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 passages as ' there is no other seer but he 5 (B ru Up. Ill, 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) 1 the Lord differs from the soul(vi^a- natman) 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 fictitious 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 pradh&na inferred by the Sankhyas.)
Since in the passage ‘ 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 assumed by the Sankhyas, cannot be regarded as being the Self consisting of bliss and the cause of the world. Although the opinion that the pradhana is the 1 Yatha parame^varad bhinno ^ivatma drash/a na bhavaty evam £-ivatmano*pi drash/ur na bhinna^ paramewara iti ^ivasydnirva^- yatve parame^varo^py anirva^ya^ syad ity ata aha parame^varas tv avidyakalpitad iti. Ananda Giri.
71 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 scrip¬ tural passage about the cause of the world feeling desire, for the purpose of showing the uniformity of view (of all scriptural passages).
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 passage (Taitt. Up. II, 7),^ 4 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-identity, then he finds no release from the fear of transmigratory existence. But when he, by means of the cognition of absolute identity, 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 con¬ sisting of bliss, the highest Self, and not either the pra¬ dhana 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 ‘ dnandamaya h On what grounds, we ask, can it be maintained that the 1 The explanation of the anandamaya given hitherto is here re¬ called, and a different one given. The previous explanation is attributed by Go. An. to the vrfttikara.
72 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
affix ‘ maya ’ after having, in the series of compounds begin¬ ning with annamaya and ending with vi^anamaya, denoted mere modifications, should all at once, in the word ananda- maya, which belongs to the same series, denote abun¬ dance, so that anandamaya would refer to Brahman? If it should be said that the assumption 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 assume 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 con¬ sisting 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 involiicrum 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; analogously to those passages in which a tail and 73 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 ananda¬ maya 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 appro¬ priate to refer to Brahman the clause ‘ Brahman is the tail 5 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.doka: 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.doka, without any refer¬ ence to the Self of bliss, states the advantage and disadvan¬ tage connected with the knowledge of the being and nonbeing of Brahman only, we conclude that the clause, ‘ Brahman is the tail, the support, 5 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 principal matter, how can it be designated as the mere tail of the Self of bliss (‘ Brahman is the tail, the support 5 )?—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. Analogously another 74 VEDANTA-s(jTRAS.
scriptural passage declares, c All other creatures live on a small portion of that bliss 5 (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 32). Further, if by the Self consisting of bliss we were to understand Brahman, we should have to assume that the Brahman meant is the Brahman distinguished by qualities (savi^esha), because it is said to have joy and the like for its members. But this assumption is contradicted by a complementary passage (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 1,’ we thereby imply the co-existence of pain; for the word c 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 passage so understood would be in conflict with another passage ( Kh. Up. VII, 24), c 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 be¬ ginning of the chapter declares it to be true Being, knowledge, infinite, and another passage says, c He is the one God, hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the Self within all beings ’ (Sv. Up. VI, 11). Nor, again, does Scripture exhibit a frequent repetition of the word ‘ anandamaya; ’ for merely the radical part of the compound (i. e. the word ananda without the affix maya) is repeated in all the following passages: e It is a flavour, far only after seizing flavour can any one seize bliss. Who could breathe, who could breathe forth, if that bliss existed not in the ether? For he alone causes blessed¬ ness;’ ‘Now this is an examination of bliss; 5 ‘ He who 1 In which sense, as shown above, the word anandamaya must be taken if understood to denote Brahman.
75