Some (commentators) 1 quote under the present Sfttra the following passages, 4 the prazza of prazza ’ (Bri. Up. IV, 4,18), and 4 for to prazza mind is fastened ’ ( Kh. Up. VI, 8, 2). But that is wrong since these two passages offer no opportunity for any discussion, the former on account of the separation of the words, the latter on account of the general topic. When we meet with a phrase such as ‘the father of the father 5 we understand at once that the genitive denotes a father different from the father denoted by the nominative. Analogously we infer from the separation of words con¬ tained in the phrase, 4 the breath of breath,’ that the 4 breath of breath’ is different from the ordinary breath (denoted by the genitive 4 of breath ’). For one and the same thing cannot, by means of a genitive, be predicated of—and thus distinguished from—itself. Concerning the second passage we remark that, if the matter constituting the general topic of some chapter is referred to in that chapter under a different name, we yet conclude, from the general topic, that that special matter is meant. For instance, when we meet in the section which treats of the ^yotish/oma sacrifice with the passage, 4 in every spring he is to offer the ^yotis sacrifice,’ we at once understand that the word ^yotis denotes the ^yotish/oma. If we therefore meet with the clause 4 to prazza mind is fastened ’ in a section of which the highest Brahman is the topic, we do not for a moment suppose that the word prazza should there denote the ordinary breath which is a mere modification of air. The two passages thus do not offer any matter for discussion, and hence do not furnish appropriate instances for the Sutra. We have shown, on the other hand, that the passage about the prazza, which is the deity of the prastava, allows room for doubt, purvapaksha and final decision.
24. The ‘ light ’ (is Brahman), on account of the mention of feet (in a passage which is connected with the passage about the light).
Scripture says {Kh. Up. Ill, 13, 7), 4 Now that light which shines above this heaven, higher than all, higher than every- 1 The vmtMra, the commentators say.
88 VEDANTA-S<JTRAS.
thing, in the highest worlds beyond which there are no other worlds, that is the same light which is within man.’ Here the doubt presents itself whether the word 4 light ’ denotes the light of the sun and the like, or the highest Self. Under the preceding Sutras we had shown that some words which ordinarily have different meanings yet in certain passages denote Brahman, since characteristic marks of the latter are mentioned. Here the question has to be discussed whether, in connexion with the passage quoted, characteristic marks of Brahman are mentioned or not.
The purvapakshin maintains that the word 4 light ’ de¬ notes nothing else but the light of the sun and the like, since that is the ordinary well-established meaning of the term. The common use of language, he says, teaches us that the two words 4 light ’ and 4 darkness ’ denote mutually opposite things, darkness being the term for whatever interferes with the function of the sense of sight, as, for instance, the gloom of the night, while sunshine and whatever else favours the action of the eye is called light. The word 4 shines ’ also, which the text exhibits, is known ordinarily to refer to the sun and similar sources of light; while of Brahman, which is devoid of colour, it cannot be said, in the primary sense of the word, that it 4 shines.’ Further, the word ^yotis must here denote light because it is said to be bounded by the sky ( 4 that light which shines above this heaven’). For while it is impossible to consider the sky as being the boundary of Brahman, which is the Self of all and the source of all things movable or immovable, the sky may be looked upon as forming the boundary of light, which is a mere product and as such limited; accordingly the text says, 4 the light beyond heaven.’—But light, although a mere product, is perceived everywhere; it w^ould therefore be wrong to declare that it is bounded by the sky!—Well, then, the purvapakshin replies, let us assume that the light meant is the first-born (original) light which has not yet become tripartite 1. This explanation again cannot be 1 I.e. which has not been mixed with water and earth, according to Kh. Up. VI, 3, 3. Before that mixture took place light was 89 admitted, because the non-tripartite light does not serve any purpose.—But, the purvapakshin resumes, Why should its purpose not be found therein that it is the object of devout meditation?—That cannot be, we reply; for we see that only such things are represented as objects of devotion as have some other independent use of their own; so, for instance, the sun (which dispels darkness and so on). More¬ over the scriptural passage, ‘Let me make each of these three (fire, water, and earth) tripartite/ does not indicate any difference 1. And even of the non-tripartite light it is not known that the sky constitutes its boundary.—Well, then (the purvapakshin resumes, dropping the idea of the non- tripartite light), let us assume that the light of which the text speaks is the tripartite (ordinary) light. The objection that light is seen to exist also beneath the sky, viz. in the form of fire and the like, we invalidate by the remark that there is nothing contrary to reason in assigning a special locality to fire, although the latter is observed everywhere; while to assume a special place for Brahman, to which the idea of place does not apply at all, would be most un¬ suitable. Moreover, the clause c higher than everything, in the highest worlds beyond which there are no other worlds/ which indicates a multiplicity of abodes, agrees much better with light, which is a mere product (than with Brahman).
There is moreover that other clause also, c That is the same light which is within man/ in which the highest light is identified with the gastric fire (the fire within man). Now such identifications can be made only where there is a certain similarity of nature; as is seen, for instance, in the passage, c Of that person Bhuk is the head, for the head is one and that syllable is one 5 (B ri. Up. V, 5, 3). But that the fire within the human body is not Brahman clearly appears from the passage, ‘ Of this we have visible and audible proof’ (Kk. Up. Ill, 13, 7; 8), which declares that entirely separated from the other elements, and therefore bounded by the latter.
1 So as to justify the assumption that such a thing as non-tri¬ partite light exists at all.
90 VEDANTA-stiTRAS.
the fire is characterised by the noise it makes, and by heat; and likewise from the following passage, { Let a man meditate on this as that which is seen and heard.’ The same conclusion may be drawn from the passage, { He who knows this becomes conspicuous and celebrated,’ which proclaims an inconsiderable reward only, while to the devout meditation on Brahman a high reward would have to be allotted. Nor is there mentioned in the entire passage about the light any other characteristic mark of Brahman, while such marks are set forth in the passages (discussed above) which refer to pra^a and the ether. Nor, again, is Brahman indicated in the preceding section, { the Gayatri is everything whatsoever exists,’ &c. (Ill, 13); for that passage makes a statement about the G&yatri metre only. And even if that section did refer to Brahman, still Brahman would not be recognised in the passage at present under discussion; for there (in the section referred to) it is declared—in the clause, 4 Three feet of it are the Immortal in heaven ’—that heaven constitutes the abode; while in our passage the words { the light above heaven ’ declare heaven to be a boundary. For all these reasons the word ^yotis is here to be taken in its ordinary meaning, viz. light.
To this we make the following reply. The word ^yotis must be held to denote Brahman. Why? On account of the feet (quarters) being mentioned. In a preceding passage Brahman had been spoken of as having four feet (quarters). 4 Such is the greatness of it; greater than it is the Person (purusha). One foot of it are all the beings, three feet of it are the Immortal in heaven.’ That which in this passage is said to constitute the three-quarter part, immortal and connected with heaven, of Brahman, which altogether comprises four quarters; this very same entity we recognise as again referred to in the passage under discussion, because there also it is said to be connected with heaven. If therefore we should set it aside in our interpretation of the passage and assume the latter to refer to the ordinary light, we should commit the mistake of dropping, without need, the topic started and introducing 91 a new subject. Brahman, in fact, continues to form the subject-matter, not only of the passage about the light, but likewise of the subsequent section, the so-called S&ndilya.- vidya ( Kh. Up. Ill, 14). Hence we conclude that in our passage the word £ light ’ must be held to denote Brahman. The objection (raised above) that from common use the words £ light 5 and 4 to shine ’ are known to denote effected (physical) light is without force; for as it is known from the general topic of the chapter that Brahman is meant, those two words do not necessarily denote physical light only to the exclusion of Brahman 1, but may also denote Brahman itself, in so far as it is characterised by the physical shining light which is its effect. Analogously another mantra declares, £ that by which the sun shines kindled with heat’ (Taitt. Br. Ill, 12, 9, 7). Or else we may suppose that the word ^yotis here does not denote at all that light on which the function of the eye depends. For we see that in other passages it has altogether different meanings; so, for instance, B ri. Up. IV, 3, 5, £ With speech only as light man sits,’ and Taitt. Sa. I, 6, 3, 3, £ May the mind, the light, accept,’ &c. It thus appears that whatever illuminates (in the different senses of the word) something else may be spoken of as 4 light.’ Hence to Brahman also, whose nature is intelligence, the term 4 light ’ may be applied; for it gives light to the entire world. Similarly, other scriptural passages say, £ Him the shining one, every¬ thing shines after; by his light all this is lighted 5 (Kau. Up. II, 5, 15); and £ Him the gods worship as the light of lights, as the immortal’ (B ri. Up. IV, 4, 16). Against the further objection that the omnipresent Brahman cannot be viewed as bounded by heaven we remark that the assign¬ ment, to Brahman, of a special locality is not contrary to reason because it subserves the purpose of devout medita¬ tion. Nor does it avail anything to say that it is impossible to assign any place to Brahman because Brahman is out of connexion with all place. For it is possible to make such 1 Brahma^o vyava^idya te^*a^samarpakatvaw vkeshakatvam, tadabhavoxvheshakatvam. An. Gi.
92 VEDANTA-StJTRAS.
an assumption, because Brahman is connected with certain limiting adjuncts. Accordingly Scripture speaks of different kinds of devout meditation on Brahman as specially con¬ nected with certain localities, such as the sun, the eye, the heart. For the same reason it is also possible to attribute to Brahman a multiplicity of abodes, as is done in the clause (quoted above) 4 higher than all.’ The further ob¬ jection that the light beyond heaven is the mere physical light because it is identified with the gastric fire, which itself is a mere effect and is inferred from perceptible marks such as the heat of the body and a certain sound, is equally devoid of force; for the gastric fire may be viewed as the outward appearance (or symbol) of Brahman, just as Brah¬ man's name is a mere outward symbol. Similarly in the passage, 4 Let a man meditate on it (the gastric light) as seen and heard/ the visibility and audibility (here implicitly ascribed to Brahman) must be considered as rendered possible through the gastric fire being the outward appear¬ ance of Brahman. Nor is there any force in the objection that Brahman cannot be meant because the text mentions an inconsiderable reward only; for there is no reason com¬ pelling us to have recourse to Brahman for the purpose of such and such a reward only, and not for the purpose of such and such another reward. Wherever the text represents the highest Brahman—which is free from all connexion with distinguishing attributes—as the universal Self, it is understood that the result of that instruction is one only, viz. final release. Wherever, on the other hand. Brahman is taught to be connected with distinguishing attributes or outward symbols, there, we see, all the various rewards which this world can offer are spoken of; cp. for instance, B ri. Up. IV, 4, 34, 4 This is he who eats all food, the giver of wealth. He who knows this obtains wealth. 5 Although in the passage itself which treats of the light no charac¬ teristic mark of Brahman is mentioned, yet, as the Sutra intimates, the mark stated in a preceding passage (viz. the mantra, 4 Such is the greatness of it/ &c.) has to be taken in connexion with the passage about the light as well. The question how the mere circumstance of Brahman being 93 mentioned in a not distant passage can have the power of divorcing from its natural object and transferring to another object the direct statement about light implied in the word £ light/ may be answered without difficulty. The passage under discussion runs 1, * which above this heaven, the light/ The relative pronoun with which this clause begins intimates, according to its grammatical force 2, the same Brahman which was mentioned in the previous passage, and which is here recognised (as being the same which was mentioned before) through its connexion with heaven; hence the word ^yotis also—which stands in grammatical co-ordination to £ which ’—must have Brahman for its object. From all this it follows that the word ‘light’ here denotes Brahman.
25. If it be objected that (Brahman is) not(denoted) on account of the metre being denoted; (we reply) not so, because thus (i. e. by means of the metre) the direction of the mind (on Brahman) is declared; for thus it is seen (in other passages also).
We now address ourselves to the refutation of the asser¬ tion (made in the purvapaksha of the preceding Sutra) that in the previous passage also Brahman is not referred to, because in the sentence, £ Gayatri is everything whatsoever here exists,’ the metre called Gayatri is spoken of.—How (we ask the purvapakshin) can it be maintained that, on account of the metre being spoken of, Brahman is not denoted, while yet the mantra £ such is the greatness of it,’ &c., clearly sets forth Brahman with its four quarters? —You are mistaken (the purvapakshin replies). The sentence, £ Gayatri is everything/ starts the discussion of Gayatri. The same Gayatri is thereupon described under the various forms of all beings, earth, body, heart, speech, breath; to which there refers also the verse, £ that Gayatri 1 If we strictly follow the order of words in the original.
94 VEDANTA-S<JTRAS.
has four feet and is sixfold.’ After that we meet with the mantra, 4 Such is the greatness of it,’ &c. How then, we ask, should this mantra, which evidently is quoted with reference to the Gayatri (metre) as described in the preceding clauses, all at once denote Brahman with its four quarters? Since therefore the metre Gayatri: is the subject-matter of the entire chapter, the term 4 Brahman ’ which occurs in a subsequent passage (‘the Brahman which has thus been described’) must also denote the metre. This is analogous to a previous passage (Kh. Up. Ill, n, 3, 4 He who thus knows this Brahma-upanishad’), where the word Brahma- upanishad is explained to mean Veda-upanishad. As therefore the preceding passage refers (not to Brahman, but) to the Gayatri metre, Brahman does not constitute the topic of the entire section.
This argumentation, we reply, proves nothing against our position. ‘ Because thus direction of the mind is declared,’ i. e. because the Brahmazza passage, ‘ Gayatri indeed is all this,’ intimates that by means of the metre Gayatri the mind is to be directed on Brahman which is connected with that metre. Of the metre Gayatri, which is nothing but a certain special combination of syllables, it could not possibly be said that it is the Self of everything. We therefore have to understand the passage as declaring that Brahman, which, as the cause of the world, is connected with that product also whose name is Gayatri, is ‘ all this; ’ in accordance with that other passage which directly says, 4 All this indeed is Brahman’ ( Kh. Up. Ill, 14, 1). That the effect is in reality not different from the cause, we shall prove later on, under Sutra II, 1, 14. Devout meditation on Brahman under the form of certain effects (of Brahman) is seen to be men¬ tioned in other passages also, so, for instance, Ait. Ar. Ill, 3, 3, 12, 4 For the Bahvrz‘/£as consider him in the great hymn, the Adhvctryus in the sacrificial fire, the iT^andogas in the Mahavrata ceremony.’ Although, therefore, the previous passage speaks of the metre, Brahman is what is meant, and the same Brahman is again referred to in the passage about the light, whose purport it is to enjoin another form of devout meditation.
Another commentator 1 is of opinion that the term Gayatri (does not denote Brahman in so far as viewed under the form of Gciyatri, but) directly denotes Brahman, on account of the equality of number; for just as the Gayatri metre has four feet consisting of six syllables each, so Brahman also has four feet, (i. e. quarters.) Similarly we see that in other psssages also the names of metres are used to denote other things which resemble those metres in certain numerical relations; cp. for instance, Kh. Up. IV, 3, 8, where it is said at first, ‘Now these five and the other five make ten and that is the Krzta,’ and after that ‘these are again the Vira^* which eats the food.’ If we adopt this interpretation, Brahman only is spoken of, and the metre is not referred to at all. In any case Brahman is the subject with which the previous passage is concerned.
26. And thus also (we must conclude, viz. that Brahman is the subject of the previous passage), be¬ cause (thus only) the declaration as to the beings, &c. being the feet is possible.
That the previous passage has Brahman for its topic, we must assume for that reason also that the text designates the beings and so on as the feet of Gayatri. For the text at first speaks of the beings, the earth, the body, and the heart 2 *, and then goes on ‘ that Gayatri has four feet and is sixfold/ For of the mere metre, without any reference to Brahman, it would be impossible to say that the beings and so on are its feet. Moreover, if Brahman were not meant, there would be no room for the verse, ‘ Such is the great¬ ness, 5 &c. For that verse clearly describes Brahman in its own nature; otherwise it would be impossible to represent the Gayatri as the Self of everything as is done in the words, ‘ One foot of it are all the beings; three feet of it are what is immortal in heaven.’ The purusha-sukta also {Rik 1 The vrfttikara according to Go. An. in his /ika on the bha to the next Sutra.
2 Concerning the difficulty involved in this interpretation, cp.
Deussen, p. 183, note.
9 6 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
Samh. X, 90) exhibits the verse with sole reference to Brahman. Smrzti likewise ascribes to Brahman a like nature, ‘ I stand supporting all this world by a single portion of myself 5 (Bha. Gita X, 42). Our interpretation moreover enables us to take the passage, ‘that Brahman indeed which,’ &c. (Ill, 12, 7), in its primary sense, (i. e. to under¬ stand the word Brahman to denote nothing but Brahman.) And, moreover, the passage, ‘these are the five men of Brahman 5 (III, 13, 6), is appropriate only if the former passage about the Gayatri is taken as referring to Brahman (for otherwise the ‘ Brahman ’ in ‘ men of Brahman ’ would not be connected with the previous topic). Hence Brahman is to be considered as the subject-matter of the previous passage also. And the decision that the same Brahman is referred to in the passage about the light where it is recog¬ nised (to be the same) from its connexion with heaven, remains unshaken.
27. The objection that (the Brahman of the former passage cannot be recognised in the latter) on account of the difference of designation, is not valid because in either (designation) there is nothing contrary (to the recognition).
The objection that in the former passage (‘three feet of it are what is immortal in heaven 5 ), heaven is designated as the abode, while in the latter passage (‘ that light which shines above this heaven 5 ), heaven is designated as the boundary, and that, on account of this difference of desig¬ nation, the subject-matter of the former passage cannot be recognised in the latter, must likewise be refuted. This we do by remarking that in either designation nothing is contrary to the recognition. Just as in ordinary language a falcon, although in contact with the top of a tree, is not only said to be on the tree but also above the tree, so Brahman also, although being in heaven, is here referred to as being beyond heaven as well.
Another (commentator) explains: just as in ordinary language a falcon, although not in contact with the top of a 97 tree, is not only said to be above the top of the tree but also on the top of the tree, so Brahman also, which is in reality beyond heaven, is (in the former of the two passages) said to be in heaven. Therefore the Brahman spoken of in the former passage can be recognised in the latter also, and it remains therefore a settled conclusion that the word £ light ’ denotes Brahman.
28. Pra/za (breath) is Brahman, that being under¬ stood from a connected consideration (of the passages referring to pra^a).
In the Kaushitaki-brdhma/za-upanishad there is recorded a legend of Indra and Pratardana which begins with the words, £ Pratardana, forsooth, the son of Divodasa came by means of fighting and strength to the beloved abode of Indra 5 (Kau. Up. Ill, 1). In this legend we read: £ He said: I am pra/za, the intelligent Self (pra^viatman), medi¬ tate on me as Life, as Immortality 5 (III, 2). And later on (III, 3), £ Pra/za alone, the intelligent Self, having laid hold of this body, makes it rise up. 5 Then, again (III, 8), £ Let no man try to find out what speech is, let him know the speaker. 5 And in the end (III, 8), £ That breath indeed is the intelligent Self, bliss, imperishable, immortal. 5 —Here the doubt presents itself whether the word pra/za denotes merely breath, the modification of air, or the Self of some divinity, or the individual soul, or the highest Brahman.— But, it will be said at the outset, the Sutra I, 1, 21 already has shown that the word pra/za refers to Brahman, and as here also we meet with characteristic marks of Brahman, viz. the words £ bliss, imperishable, immortal, 5 what reason is there for again raising the same doubt?—We reply: Because there are observed here characteristic marks of different kinds. For in the legend we meet not only with marks indicating Brahman, but also with marks pointing to other beings. Thus Indra’s words, £ Know me only 5 (III, 1), point to the Self of a divinity; the words, £ Having laid hold of this body it makes it rise up, 5 point to the breath; the words, £ Let no man try to find out what speech is, let him know [34] H 98 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
the speaker/ point to the individual soul. There is thus room for doubt.
If, now, the purvapakshin maintains that the term prazza here denotes the well-known modification of air, i. e. breath, we, on our side, assert that the word prazza must be under¬ stood to denote Brahman.—For what reason?—On account of such being the consecutive meaning of the passages. For if we examine the connexion of the entire section which treats of the prazza, we observe that all the single passages can be construed into a whole only if they are viewed as referring to Brahman. At the beginning of the legend Pratardana, having been allowed by Indra to choose a boon, mentions the highest good of man, which he selects for his boon, in the following words, ‘ Do you your¬ self choose that boon for me which you deem most beneficial for a man.’ Now, as later on prazza is declared to be what is most beneficial for man, what should prizza denote but the highest Self? For apart from the cognition of that Self a man cannot possibly attain what is most beneficial for him, as many scriptural passages declare. Compare, for instance, 6Ve. Up. Ill, 8, ‘A man who knows him passes over death; there is no other path to go. 5 Again, the further passage, ‘ He who knows me thus by no deed of his is his life harmed, not by theft, not by bhrfizzahaty 4 5 (III, i), has a meaning only if Brahman is supposed to be the object of knowledge. For, that subsequently to the cognition of Brahman all works and their effects entirely cease, is well known from scriptural passages, such as the following, ‘ All works perish when he has been beheld who is the higher and the lower’ (Mu. Up. II, 2, 8). Moreover, prazza can be identified with the intelligent Self only if it is Brahman. For the air which is non-intelligent can clearly not be the intelligent Self. Those characteristic marks, again, which are mentioned in the concluding passage (viz. those inti¬ mated by the words ‘ bliss/ ‘ imperishable/ ‘ immortal ’) can, if taken in their full sense, not be reconciled with any being except Brahman. There are, moreover, the following passages, ‘ He does not increase by a good action, nor de¬ crease by a bad action. For he makes him whom he wishes 99 to lead up from these worlds do a good deed; and the same makes him whom he wishes to lead down from these worlds do a bad deed; 5 and, ‘ He is the guardian of the world, he is the king of the world, he is the Lord of the world 5 (Kau. Up. Ill, 8). All this can be properly understood only if the highest Brahman is acknowledged to be the subject-matter of the whole chapter, not if the vital air is substituted in its place. Hence the word prazza denotes Brahman.
29. If it be said that (Brahman is) not (denoted) on account of the speaker denoting himself; (we reply that this objection is not valid) because there is in that (chapter) a multitude of references to the interior Self.