knows the bliss of that Brahman fears nothing ‘He understood that bliss is Brahman/ If it were a settled matter that Brahman is denoted by the term, ‘ the Self consisting of bliss, 5 then we could assume that in the subse¬ quent passages, where merely the word ‘ bliss 5 is employed, the term ‘ consisting of bliss 5 is meant to be repeated; but that the Self consisting of bliss is not Brahman, we have already proved by means of the reason of joy being its head, and so on. Hence, as in another scriptural passage, viz. ‘ Brahman is knowledge and bliss 5 (B ri. Up. Ill, 9, 28), the mere word ‘ bliss 5 denotes Brahman, we must conclude that also in such passages as, ‘ If that bliss existed not in the ether, 5 the word bliss is used with reference to Brahman, and is not meant to repeat the term ‘ consisting of bliss. 5 The repetition of the full compound, ‘ consisting of bliss, 5 which occurs in the passage, ‘ He reaches that Self consisting of bliss 5 (Taitt. Up. II, 8), does not refer to Brahman, as it is contained in the enumeration of Non-Selfs, comprising the Self of food, &c., all of which are mere effects, and all of which are represented as things to be reached.—But, it may be said, if the Self consisting of bliss, which is said to have to be reached, were not Brahman—just as the Selfs con¬ sisting of food, &c. are not Brahman—then it would not be declared (in the passage immediately following) that he who knows obtains for his reward Brahman.—This objection we invalidate by the remark that the text makes its declaration as to Brahman—which is the tail, the support— being reached by him who knows, by the very means of the declaration as to the attainment of the Self of bliss; as appears from the passage, ‘ On this there is also this ^loka, from which all speech returns, 5 &c. With reference, again, to the passage, ‘ He desired: may I be many, may I grow forth/ which is found in proximity to the mention of the Self consisting of bliss, we remark that it is in reality con¬ nected (not with the Self of bliss but with) Brahman, which is mentioned in the still nearer passage, ‘ Brahman is the tail, the support, 5 and does therefore not intimate that the Self of bliss is Brahman. And, on account of its referring to the passage last quoted (‘ it desired/ &c.), the later passage vedanta-s(jtras.
76 also, ‘ That is flavour/ &c., has not the Self of bliss for its subject.—But, it may be objected, the (neuter word) Brah¬ man cannot possibly be designated by a masculine word as you maintain is done in the passage, c He desired/ &c.—In reply to this objection we point to the passage (Taitt. Up. II, 1), c From that Self sprang ether/ where, likewise, the masculine word ‘Self’ can refer to Brahman only, since the latter is the general topic of the chapter. In the know¬ ledge of Bhrzgu and Varu;/a finally ( £ he knew that bliss is Brahman ’), the word ‘ bliss 5 is rightly understood to denote Brahman, since we there meet neither with the affix £ maya/ nor with any statement as to joy being its head, and the like. To ascribe to Brahman in itself joy, and so on, as its members, is impossible, unless we have recourse to certain, however minute, distinctions qualifying Brahman; and that the whole chapter is not meant to convey a knowledge of the qualified (savbesha) Brahman is proved by the passage (quoted above), which declares that Brahman transcends speech and mind. We therefore must conclude that the affix maya, in the word anandamaya, does not denote abundance, but expresses a mere effect, just as it does in the words annamaya and the subsequent similar com¬ pounds.
The Sutras are therefore to be explained as follows. There arises the question whether the passage, ‘ Brahman is the tail, the support/ is to be understood as intimating that Brahman is a mere member of the Self consisting of bliss, or that it is the principal matter. If it is said that it must be considered as a mere member, the reply is, ‘ The Self consisting of bliss on account of the repetition. 5 That means: Brahman, which in the passage ‘ the Self con¬ sisting of bliss/ &c., is spoken of as the tail, the support, is designated as the principal matter (not as something subordinate). On account of the repetition; for in the memorial doka, ‘ he becomes himself non-existing/ Brah¬ man alone is reiterated. ‘ If not, on account of the word denoting a modification; not so, on account of abundance.’ In this Sutra the word c modification ’ is meant to convey the sense of member. The objection that on account of 77 the word 4 tail/ which denotes a mere member, Brahman cannot be taken as the principal matter must be refuted. This we do by remarking that there is no difficulty, since a word denoting a member may be introduced into the passage on account of pra/£urya*. Pra^urya here means a phraseology abounding in terms denoting members. After the different members, beginning with the head and ending with the tail, of the Selfs, consisting of food, &c. have been enumerated, there are also mentioned the head and the other limbs of the Self of bliss, and then it is added, ‘ Brahman is the tail, the support; ’ the intention being merely to intro¬ duce some more terms denoting members, not to convey the meaning of 4 member/ (an explanation which is impos¬ sible) because the preceding Sutra already has proved Brahman (not to be a member, but) to be the principal matter. 4 And because he is declared to be the cause of it/ That means: Brahman is declared to be the cause of the entire aggregate of effects, inclusive of the Self, consisting of bliss, in the following passage, 4 He created all whatever there is ’ (Taitt. Up. II, 6). And as Brahman is the cause, it cannot at the same time be called the member, in the literal sense of the word, of the Self of bliss, which is nothing but one of Brahman’s effects. The other Sutras also (which refer to the Self of bliss 1 2 ) are to be considered, as well as they may, as conveying a knowledge of Brahman, which (Brahman) is referred to in the passage about the tail.
20. The one within (the sun and the eye) (is the highest Lord), on account of his qualities being declared 3.
The following passage is found in Scripture ( Kh. Up. I, 6, 6 ff.), ‘ Now that persombright as gold who is seen within 1 I. e. the word translated hitherto by abundance.
2 See I, i, 15-19.
3 The preceding adhikara^a had shown that the five Selfs (con¬ sisting of food, mind, and so on), which the Taitt. Up. enumerates, are introduced merely for the purpose of facilitating the cognition of Brahman considered as devoid of all qualities; while that Brahman 78 VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
the sun, with beard bright as gold and hair bright as gold, bright as gold altogether to the very tips of his nails, whose eyes are like blue lotus; his name is Ut, for he has risen (udita) above all evil. He also who knows this rises above all evil. So much with reference to the devas.’ And further on, with reference to the body, ‘Now the person who is seen in the eye,’ &c. Here the following doubt presents itself. Do these passages point out, as the object of devotion directed on the sphere of the sun and the eye, merely some special individual soul, which, by means of a large measure of knowledge and pious works, has raised itself to a position of eminence; or do they refer to the eternally perfect highest Lord?
The purvapakshin takes the former view. An individual soul, he says, is referred to, since Scripture speaks of a definite shape. To the person in the sun special features are ascribed, such as the possession of a beard as bright as gold and so on, and the same features manifestly belong to the person in the eye also, since they are expressly trans¬ ferred to it in the passage, ‘ The shape of this person is the same as the shape of that person.’ That, on the other hand, no shape can be ascribed to the highest Lord, follows from the passage (Kau. Up. I, 3,15), ‘That which is without sound, without touch, without form, without decay.’ That an individual soul is meant follows moreover from the fact that a definite abode is mentioned, ‘ He who is in the sun; he who is in the eye.’ About the highest Lord, who has no special abode, but abides in his own glory, no similar state¬ ment can be made; compare, for instance, the two following passages, ‘Where does he rest? In his own glory?’ (. Kh. Up. VII, 24, 1); and ‘like the ether he is omnipresent, eternal.’ A further argument for our view is supplied by the fact that the might (of the being in question) is said to be limited; for the passage, ‘ He is lord of the worlds beyond that, and of the wishes of the devas,’ indicates the itself is the real object of knowledge. The present adhikara^a un¬ dertakes to show that the passage about the golden person represents he savhesha Brahman as the object of devout meditation.
79 limitation of the might of the person in the sun; and the passage, ‘He is lord of the worlds beneath that and of the wishes of men, 5 indicates the limitation of the might of the person in the eye. No limit, on the other hand, can be admitted of the might of the highest Lord, as appears from the passage (B ru Up. IV, 4, 22), ‘He is the Lord of all, the king of all things, the protector of all things. He is a bank and a boundary so that these worlds may not be confounded; 5 which passage intimates that the Lord is free from all limiting distinctions. For all these reasons the person in the eye and the sun cannot be the highest Lord.
To this reasoning the Sutra replies, ‘The one within, on account of his qualities being declared. 5 The person referred to in the passages concerning the person within the sun and the person within the eye is not a trans¬ migrating being, but the highest Lord. Why? Because his qualities are declared. For the qualities of the highest Lord are indicated in the text as follows. At first the name of the person within the sun is mentioned—‘his name is Ut 5 —and then this name is explained on the ground of that person being free from all evil, ‘ He has risen above all evil. 5 The same name thus explained is then transferred to the person in the eye, in the clause, ‘ the name of the one is the name of the other. 5 Now, entire freedom from sin is attributed in Scripture to the highest Self only; so, for instance ( Kh. Up. VIII, 7, 1), ‘ The Self which is free from sin,’ &c. Then, again, there is the passage, ‘ He is Ri k, he is Saman, Uktha, Ya^us, Brah¬ man, 5 which declares the person in the eye to be the Self of the Rik, Saman, and so on; which is possible only if that person is the Lord who, as being the cause of all, is to be considered as the Self of all. Moreover, the text, after having stated in succession Rik and Saman to have earth and fire for their Self with reference to the Devas, and, again, speech and breath with reference to the body, continues, ‘ Rik and Saman are his joints, 5 with reference to the Devas, and ‘ the joints of the one are the joints of the other, 5 with reference to the body. Now this statement 8o vedanta-s{jtras.
also can be made only with regard to that which is the Self of all. Further, the passage, 4 Therefore all who sing to the Vina sing him, and from him also they obtain wealth/ shows that the being spoken of is the sole topic of all worldly songs; which again holds true of the highest Lord only. That absolute command over the objects of worldly desires (as displayed, for instance, in the bestowal of wealth) entitles us to infer that the Lord is meant, appears also from the following passage of the Bhagavad- gita (X, 41), 4 Whatever being there is possessing power, glory, or strength, know it to be produced from a portion of my energy 1.’ To the objection that the statements about bodily shape contained in the clauses, 4 With a beard bright as gold/ &c., cannot refer to the highest Lord, we reply that the highest Lord also may, when he pleases, assume a bodily shape formed of Maya, in order to gratify thereby his devout worshippers. Thus Snrn’ti also says, 4 That thou seest me, O Narada, is the M&ya emitted by me; do not then look on me as endowed with the qualities of all beings.’ We have further to note that expressions such as, 4 That which is without sound, without touch, without form, without decay/ are made use of where instruction is given about the nature of the highest Lord in so far as he is devoid of all qualities; while passages such as the following one, 4 He to whom belong all works, all desires, all sweet odours and tastes’ (Kk. Up. Ill, 14, 2), which represent the highest Lord as the object of devotion, speak of him, who is the cause of everything, as possessing some of the qualities of his effects. Analogously he may be spoken of, in the passage under discussion, as having a beard bright as gold and so on. With reference to the objection that the highest Lord cannot be meant because an abode is spoken of, we remark that, for the purposes of devout meditation, a special abode may be assigned to Brahman, although it abides in its own glory only; for as Brahman is, like ether, all-pervading, it may be viewed as 1 So that the real giver of the gifts bestowed by princes on poets and singers is Brahman.
being within the Self of all beings. The statement, finally, about the limitation of Brahman’s might, which depends on the distinction of what belongs to the gods and what to the body, has likewise reference to devout meditation only. From all this it follows that the being which Scripture states to be within the eye and the sun is the highest Lord.
21. And there is another one (i. e. the Lord who is different from the individual souls animating the sun, &c.), on account of the declaration of distinc¬ tion.
There is, moreover, one distinct from the individual souls which animate the sun and other bodies, viz. the Lord who rules within; whose distinction (from all individual souls) is proclaimed in the following scriptural passage, ‘ He who dwells in the sun and within the sun, whom the sun does not know, whose body the sun is, and who rules the sun within; he is thy Self, the ruler within, the immortal 5 (B ri. Up. Ill, 7, 9). Here the expression, 4 He within the sun whom the sun does not know,’ clearly indicates that the Ruler within is distinct from that cognising individual soul whose body is the sun. With that Ruler within we have to identify the person within the sun, according to the tenet of the sameness of purport of all Vedanta-texts. It thus remains a settled conclusion that the passage under dis¬ cussion conveys instruction about the highest Lord.
22. The aka^a, i. e. ether (is Brahman) on account of characteristic marks (of the latter being men¬ tioned).
In the.Oandogya (I, 9) the following passage is met with, ‘What is the origin of this world? 5 ‘ Ether, 5 he replied. ‘For all these beings take their rise from the ether only, and return into the ether. Ether is greater than these, ether is their rest. 5 —Here the following doubt arises. Does the word ‘ ether 5 denote the highest Brahman or the elemental ether? —Whence the doubt?—Because the word is seen to be used in both senses. Its use in the sense of ‘ elemental ether 5 is well established in ordinary as well as in Vedic speech; [34] G 82 vedAnta-s^tras.
and, on the other hand, we see that it is sometimes used to denote Brahman, viz. in cases where we ascertain, either from some complementary sentence or from the fact of special qualities being mentioned, that Brahman is meant. So, for instance, Taitt. Up. II, J, i If that bliss existed not in the ether; 5 and Kh. Up. VIII, 14, ‘ That which is called ether is the revealer of all forms and names; that within which forms and names are 1 that is Brahman. 5 Hence the doubt.—Which sense is then to be adopted in our case? — The sense of elemental ether, the purvapakshin replies; because this sense belongs to the word more commonly, and therefore presents itself to the mind more readily. The word ‘ ether 5 cannot be taken in both senses equally, because that would involve a (faulty) attribution of several meanings to one and the same word. Hence the term { ether 5 applies to Brahman in a secondary (metaphorical) sense only; on account of Brahman being in many of its attributes, such as all pervadingness and the like, similar to ether. The rule is, that when the primary sense of a word is possible, the word must not be taken in a secondary sense. And in the passage under discussion only the primary sense of the word ‘ ether 5 is admissible. Should it be objected that, if we refer the passage under discussion to the ele¬ mental ether, a complementary passage (‘ for all these beings take their rise from the ether only, &c.’) cannot be satisfactorily accounted for; we reply that the elemental ether also may be represented as a cause, viz. of air, fire, &c. in due succession. For we read in Scripture (Taitt. Up. II, 1), ‘ From that Self sprang ether, from ether air, from air fire, and so on. 5 The qualities also of being greater and of being a place of rest may be ascribed to the elemental ether, if we consider its relations to all other beings. There¬ fore we conclude that the word ‘ether 5 here denotes the elemental ether.
To this we reply as follows:—The word ether must here be taken to denote Brahman, on account of characteristic marks of the latter being mentioned. For the sentence, 1 Or else ‘ that which is within forms and names.’
83 ‘ All these beings take their rise from the ether only/ clearly indicates the highest Brahman, since all Vedanta-texts agree in definitely declaring that all beings spring from the highest Brahman.—But, the opponent may say, we have shown that the elemental ether also may be repre¬ sented as the cause, viz. of air, fire, and the other elements in due succession.—We admit this. But still there remains the difficulty, that, unless we understand the word to apply to the fundamental cause of all, viz. Brahman, the affirmation contained in the word ‘only 5 and the qualification expressed by the word ‘ all 5 (in ‘ all beings ’) would be out of place. Moreover, the clause, ‘ They return into the ether, 5 again points to Brahman, and so likewise the phrase, ‘ Ether is greater than these, ether is their rest;' for absolute supe¬ riority in point of greatness Scripture attributes to the highest Self only; cp. Kh. Up. Ill, 14, 3, ‘ Greater than the earth, greater than the sky, greater than heaven, greater than all these worlds. 5 The quality of being a place of rest likewise agrees best with the highest Brahman, on account of its being the highest cause. This is confirmed by the following scriptural passage: ‘ Knowledge and bliss is Brah¬ man, it is the rest of him who gives gifts’ (Bn. Up. Ill, 9, 28). Moreover, Caivali finding fault with the doctrine of Sala- vatya, on account of (his saman) having an end (Kh. Up. I, 8, 8), and wishing to proclaim something that has no end chooses the ether, and then, having identified the ether with the Udgitha, concludes, ‘He is the Udgitha greater than great; he is without end. 5 Now this endlessness is a characteristic mark of Brahman. To the remark that the sense of‘elemental ether 5 presents itself to the mind more readily, because it is the better established sense of the word akai-a, we reply, that, although it may present itself to the mind first, yet it is not to be accepted, because we see that qualities of Brahman are mentioned in the com¬ plementary sentences. That the word aka^a is also used to denote Brahman has been shown already; cp. such passages as, ‘ Ether is the revealer of all names and forms. 5 We see, moreover, that various synonyma of aka^a are employed to denote Brahman. So, for instance; Rik Sa//zh.
I, 164, 39, ‘In which the Vedas are 1, in the Imperishable one (i. e. Brahman), the highest, the ether (vyoman), on which all gods have their seat/ And Taitt. Up. Ill, 6, ‘ This is the knowledge of Bhrzgu and Varuzza, founded on the highest ether (vyoman)/ And again, ‘ Om, ka is Brah¬ man, ether (kha) is Brahman’ (Kh. Up. IV, 10, 5), and ‘the old ether’ (Bri. Up. V, i) 2. And other similar passages. On account of the force of the complementary passage we are justified in deciding that the word ‘ether/ although occurring in the beginning of the passage, refers to Brahman. The case is analogous to that of the sentence, ‘ Agni (lit. the fire) studies a chapter,’ where the word agni, although occurring in the beginning, is at once seen to denote a boy 3. It is therefore settled that the word ‘ ether’ denotes Brahman.
23. For the same reason breath (is Brahman).
Concerning the udgttha it is said (Kh. Up. I, 10, 9), ‘Prastot ri, that deity which belongs to the prastava, &c.,’ and, further on (I, 11, 4; 5), ‘Which then is that deity? He said: Breath. For all these beings merge into breath alone, and from breath they arise. This is the deity belonging to the prastava/ With reference to this passage doubt and decision are to be considered as analogous to those stated under the preceding Sutra. For while in some passages—as, for instance, ‘ For indeed, my son, mind is fastened to prazza/ Kh. Up. VI, 8, 2; and, ‘the praz^a of prazza/ Bri. Up. IV, 4, 18—the word ‘breath’ is seen to denote Brahman, its use 1 Viz. as intimating it. Thus An. Gi. and Go. An. against the accent of rikih. Sayazza explains rik&h as genitive.
2 Ozzzkarasya pratikatvena va^akatvena lakshakatvena va brah- matvam uktam, om iti, ka m sukha m tasyarthendriyayoga^atvazzz varayituzzz kham iti, tasya bhutaka^atvaw vyaseddhum purazzam ity uktam. An. Gi.
3 The doubt about the meaning of a word is preferably to be decided by means of a reference to preceding passages; where that is not possible (the doubtful word occurring at the beginning of some new chapter) complementary, i. e. subsequent passages have to be taken into consideration.
85 in the sense of a certain modification of air is better estab¬ lished in common as well as in Vedic language. Hence there arises a doubt whether in the passage under dis¬ cussion the word prazza denotes Brahman or (ordinary) breath. In favour of which meaning have we then to decide?
Here the purvapakshin maintains that the word must be held to denote the fivefold vital breath, which is a peculiar modification of wind (or air); because, as has been re¬ marked already, that sense of the word prazza is the better established one.—But no, an objector will say, just as in the case of the preceding Sutra, so here also Brahman is meant, on account of characteristic marks being mentioned; for here also a complementary passage gives us to understand that all beings spring from and merge into prazza; a process which can take place in connexion with the highest Lord only.—This objection, the purvapakshin replies, is futile, since we see that the beings enter into and proceed from the principal vital air also. For Scripture makes the fol¬ lowing statement (.Sat. Br. X, 3, 3, 6), 4 When man sleeps, then into breath indeed speech merges, into breath the eye, into breath the ear, into breath the mind; when he awakes then they spring again from breath alone/ What the Veda here states is, moreover, a matter of observation, for during sleep, while the process of breathing goes on uninterruptedly, the activity of the sense organs is interrupted and again becomes manifest at the time of awaking only. And as the sense organs are the essence of all material beings, the com¬ plementary passage which speaks of the merging and emerging of the beings can be reconciled with the principal vital air also. Moreover, subsequently to prazza being mentioned as the divinity of the prastava the sun and food are designated as the divinities of the udgitha and the pratihara. Now as they are not Brahman, the prazza also, by parity of reasoning, cannot be Brahman.
To this argumentation the author of the Sutras replies: For the same reason prazza—that means: on account of the presence of characteristic marks—which constituted the reason stated in the preceding Sutra—the word prazza also 86 VEDANTA-SlJTRAS.
must be held to denote Brahman. For Scripture says of prazza also, that it is connected with marks characteristic of Brahman. The sentence, ‘ All these beings merge into breath alone, and from breath they arise, 5 which declares that the origination and retractation of all beings depend on prazza, clearly shows prazza to be Brahman. In reply to the assertion that the origination and retractation of all beings can be reconciled equally well with the assumption of prazza de¬ noting the chief vital air, because origination and retractation take place in the state of waking and of sleep also, we remark that in those two states only the senses are merged into, and emerge from, the chief vital air, while, according to the scriptural passage, ‘For all these beings, &c., 5 all beings whatever into which a living Self has entered, together with their senses and bodies, merge and emerge by turns. And even if the word ‘ beings 5 were taken (not in the sense of animated beings, but) in the sense of material elements in general, there would be nothing in the way of interpreting the passage as referring to Brahman.—But, it may be said, that the senses together with their objects do, during sleep, enter into prazza, and again issue from it at the time of waking, we distinctly learn from another scriptural passage, viz. Kau. Up. Ill, 3, ‘When a man being thus asleep sees no dream whatever, he becomes one with that prazza alone.
Then speech goes to him with all names, 5 &c.—True, we reply, but there also the word prazza denotes (not the vital air) but Brahman, as we conclude from characteristic marks of Brahman being mentioned. The objection, again, that the word prazza cannot denote Brahman because it occurs in proximity to the words ‘ food 5 and ‘ sun 5 (which do not refer to Brahman), is altogether baseless; for proximity is of no avail against the force of the complementary passage which intimates that prazza is Brahman. That argument, finally, which rests on the fact that the word prazza com¬ monly denotes the vital air with its five modifications, is to be refuted in the same way as the parallel argument which the purvapakshin brought forward with reference to the word ‘ ether. 5 From all this it follows that the prazza, which is the deity of the prastava, is Brahman.
37