1 Parima^asya hrfdayadvararopitasya smaryama^e katham aropo vishayavishayitvena bhedad ity a^ankya vyakhyantavam aha pra- de^eti. Ananda GirL 152 VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
brahmazza which treats of the same topic identifies heaven, earth, and so on-—which are the members of Vauvanara viewed as the Self of the threefold world—with certain parts of the human frame, viz. the parts comprised between the upper part of the head and the chin, and thus declares the imaginative identity of Vaiiv&nara with something whose measure is a span. There we read, ‘The Gods indeed reached him, knowing him as measured by a span as it were. Now I will declare them (his members) to you so as to identify him (the Vauvinara) with that whose measure is a span; thus he said. Pointing to the upper part of the head he said: This is what stands above (i. e. the heavenly world) as Vauv4nara (i. e. the head of Vais- vanara x ). Pointing to the eyes he said: This is he with good light (i. e. the sun) as Vauvanara (i. e. the eye of V.). Pointing to the nose he said: This is he who moves on manifold paths (i. e. the air) as Vai^vanara (i. e. the breath of V.). Pointing to the space (ether) within his mouth he said: This is the full one (i. e. the ether) as Vafcvanara. Pointing to the saliva within his mouth he said: This is wealth as Vafovanara (i. e. the water in the bladder of V.). Pointing to the chin he said: This is the base as Vauvanara (i. e. the feet of V.).’—Although in the Va^asaneyi-brahmazza the heaven is denoted as that which has the attribute of standing above and the sun as that which has the attribute of good light, while in the ATMndogya the heaven is spoken of as having good light and the sun as being multiform; still this difference does not interfere (with the unity of the vidya) 2, because both texts equally use the term ‘ measured by a span,’ and because all,yakh4s intimate the same.—The above explana¬ tion of the term ‘ measured by a span/ which rests on imaginative identification, the teacher (Gaimini considers the most appropriate one.
32. Moreover they (the Cabalas) speak of him 1 Atra sarvatra vahvanara^abdas tadangapara^. Go. An.
2 Which unity entitles us to use the passage from the *Sat. Brd. for the explanation of the passage from the Kh. Up.
153 (the highest Lord) in that (i.e. the interstice between the top of the head and the chin which is measured by a span).
Moreover the Cabalas speak in their text of the highest Lord as being in the interstice between the top of the head and the chin. 4 The unevolved infinite Self abides in the avimukta (i.e. the non-released soul). Where does that avimukta abide? It abides in the Varava and the Nasi, in the middle. What is that Varava, what is that Nasi? 5 The text thereupon etymologises the term Vara/za as that which wards off (varayati) all evil done by the senses, and the term Nasi as that which destroys (nlrayati) all evil done by the senses; and then continues, 4 And what is its place? —The place where the eyebrows and the nose join. That is the joining place of the heavenly world (represented by the upper part of the head) and of the other (i. e. the earthly world represented by the chin). 5 (Cabala Up. I.)—Thus it appears that the scriptural statement which ascribes to the highest Lord the measure of a span is appropriate. That the highest Lord is called abhivimana refers to his being the inward Self of all. As such he is directly measured, i. e. known by all animate beings. Or else the word may be explained as 4 he who is near everywhere —as the inward Self—and w T ho at the same time is measure¬ less 5 (as being infinite). Or else it may denote the highest Lord as him who, as the cause of the world, measures it out, i. e. creates it. By all this it is proved that VaLvanara is the highest Lord.
i54 VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
THIRD PADA.
Reverence to the highest Self!
i. The abode of heaven, earth, and so on (is Brahman), on account of the term ‘ own/ i. e. Self.
We read (Mu. Up. II, 2, 5), ‘ He in whom the heaven, the earth, and the sky are woven, the mind also with all the vital airs, know him alone as the Self, and leave off other words! He is the bridge of the Immortal. 5 —Here the doubt arises whether the abode which is intimated by the state¬ ment of the heaven and so on being woven in it is the highest Brahman or something else.
The purvapakshin maintains that the abode is something else, on account of the expression, ‘ It is the bridge of the Immortal. 5 For, he says, it is known from every-day ex¬ perience that a bridge presupposes some further bank to which it leads, while it is impossible to assume something further beyond the highest Brahman, which in Scripture is called ‘endless, without a further shore 5 (B ri. Up. II, 4, 12). Now if the abode is supposed to be something different from Brahman, it must be supposed to be either the pra- dhana known from Smrz’ti, which, as being the (general) cause, may be called the (general) abode; or the air known from vSruti, of which it is said (B ri. Up. Ill, 7, 2, ‘ Air is that thread, O Gautama. By air as by a thread, O Gautama, this world and the other world and all beings are strung together 5 ), that it supports all things; or else the embodied soul which, as being the enjoyer, may be considered as an abode with reference to the objects of its fruition.
Against this view we argue with the sutrakara as follows:— 6 Of the world consisting of heaven, earth, and so on, which in the quoted passage is spoken of as woven (upon some¬ thing), the highest Brahman must be the abode. 5 —Why?— On account of the word ‘ own, 5 i. e. on account of the word ‘ Self. 5 For we meet with the word ‘ Self 5 in the pas¬ sage, ‘ Know him alone as the Self.’ This term ‘Self 5 is 155 thoroughly appropriate only if we understand the highest Self and not anything else.—(To propound another inter¬ pretation of the phrase 4 sva.rabdat 5 employed in the Sutra.) Sometimes also Brahman is spoken of in *Sruti as the general abode by its own terms (i.e. by terms properly designating Brahman), as, for instance ( Kh. Up. VI, 8, 4), 4 All these creatures, my dear, have their root in the being, their abode in the being, their rest in the being 1. 5 —(Or else we have to explain 4 sva.rabdena 5 as follows), In the passages preceding and following the passage under discussion Brahman is glorified with its own names 2; cp. Mu. Up. II, 1, 10, 4 The Person is all this, sacrifice, penance, Brahman, the highest Immortal, 5 and II, 2, 11, 4 That immortal Brahman is before, is behind, Brahman is to the right and left. 5 Here, on account of mention being made of an abode and that which abides, and on account of the co-ordination expressed in the passage, 4 Brahman is all 5 (Mu. Up. II, 2, 11), a suspicion might arise that Brah¬ man is of a manifold variegated nature, just as in the case of a tree consisting of different parts we distinguish branches, stem, and root. In order to remove this suspicion the text declares (in the passage under discussion), ‘Know him alone as the Self. 5 The sense of which is: The Self is not to be known as manifold, qualified by the universe of effects; you are rather to dissolve by true knowledge the universe of effects, which is the mere product of Nescience, and to know that one Self, which is the general abode, as uniform. Just as when somebody says, ‘Bring that on which Deva- datta sits, 5 the person addressed brings the chair only (the abode of Devadatta), not Devadatta himself; so the pas¬ sage, 4 Know him alone as the Self, 5 teaches that the object to be known is the one uniform Self which constitutes the general abode. Similarly another scriptural passage re¬ proves him who believes in the unreal world of effects, 1 From passages of which nature we may infer that in the passage under discussion also the ‘ abode 5 is Brahman.
2 From which circumstance we may conclude that the passage under discussion also refers to Brahman.
VEDANTA-SlJTRAS.
156 ‘ From death to death goes he who sees any difference here’ (Ka. Up. II, 4, 11). The statement of co-ordination made in the clause ‘ All is Brahman’ aims at dissolving (the wrong conception of the reality of) the world, and not in any way at intimating that Brahman is multiform in nature 1; for the uniformity (of Brahman’s nature) is expressly stated in other passages such as the following one, ‘ As a mass of salt has neither inside nor outside, but is altogether a mass of taste, thus indeed has that Self neither inside nor outside, but is altogether a mass of knowledge’ (B ri. Up. IV, 5 > 13)-— For all these reasons the abode of heaven, earth, &c. is the highest Brahman.—Against the objection that on account of the text speaking of a ‘ bridge,’ and a bridge requiring a further bank, we have to understand by the abode of heaven and earth something different from Brahman, we remark that the word ‘bridge’ is meant to intimate only that that which is called a bridge supports, not that it has a further bank. We need not assume by any means that the bridge meant is like an ordinary bridge made of clay and wood. For as the word setu (bridge) is derived from the root si, which means ‘to bind,’ the idea of holding together, supporting is rather implied in it than the idea of being connected with something beyond (a further bank).
According to the opinion of another (commentator) the word ‘ bridge ’ does not glorify the abode of heaven, earth, &c., but rather the knowledge of the Self which is glorified in the preceding clause, ‘ Know him alone as the Self,’ and the abandonment of speech advised in the clause, ‘ leave off other words;’ to them, as being the means of obtaining immortality, the expression ‘the bridge of the immortal’ applies 2. On that account we have to set aside the assertion that, on account of the word ‘ bridge,’ something different from Brahman is to be understood by the abode of heaven, earth, and so on.
1 Yat sarvam avidyaropitazrc tat sarva m paramarthato brahma na tu yad brahma tat sarvam ity artha^. Bhamatf.
2 So that the passage would have to be translated, ‘That, viz. knowledge, &c. is the bridge of the Immortal.’
157 2. And on account of its being designated as that to which the Released have to resort.
By the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, we have to understand the highest Brahman for that reason also that we find it denoted as that to which the Released have to resort.—The conception that the body and other things contained in the sphere of the Not-self are our Self, constitutes Nescience; from it there spring desires with regard to whatever promotes the well-being of the body and so on, and aversions with regard to whatever tends to injure it; there further arise fear and confusion when we observe anything threatening to destroy it. All this con¬ stitutes an endless series of the most manifold evils with which we all are acquainted. Regarding those on the other hand who have freed themselves from the stains of Nescience desire aversion and so on, it is said that they have to resort to that, viz. the abode of heaven, earth, &c. which forms the topic of discussion. For the text, after having said, £ The fetter of the heart is broken, all doubts are solved, all his works perish when He has been beheld who is the higher and the lower ’ (Mu. Up. II, 2, 8), later on remarks, £ The wise man freed from name and form goes to the divine Person who is greater than the great* (Mu. Up. Ill, 2, 8). That Brahman is that which is to be resorted to by the released, is known from other scriptural passages, such as £ When all desires which once entered his heart are undone then does the mortal become immortal, then he obtains Brahman 5 (B ru Up. IV, 4, 7). Of the pradhana and similar entities, on the other hand, it is not known from any source that they are to be resorted to by the released. Moreover, the text (in the passage, £ Know him alone as the Self and leave off other words ’) declares that the knowledge of the abode of heaven and earth, &c. is connected with the leaving off of all speech; a condition which, according to another scrip¬ tural passage, attaches to (the knowledge of) Brahman; cp. Bri. Up. IV, 4, 21, £ Let a wise Br&hma;za, after he has dis¬ covered him, practise wisdom. Let him not seek after many words, for that is mere weariness of the tongue/—For that reason also the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, is the highest Brahman.
3. Not (i. e. the abode of heaven, earth, &c. can¬ not be) that which is inferred, (i. e. the pradhana), on account of the terms not denoting it.
While there has been shown a special reason in favour of Brahman (being the abode), there is no such special reason in favour of anything else. Hence he (the sutrak&ra) says that that which is inferred, i. e. the pradhana assumed by the Solhkhya-smrzti, is not to be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c.—Why?—On account of the terms not denoting it. For the sacred text does not contain any term intimating the non-intelligent pradhana, on the ground of which we might understand the latter to be the general cause or abode; while such terms as 4 he who perceives all and knows all’ (Mu. Up. 1,1, 9) intimate an intelligent being opposed to the pradhana in nature.—For the same reason the air also cannot be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, and so on.
4. (Nor) also the individual soul (pra^abhrzt).
Although to the cognitional (individual) Self the qualities of Selfhood and intelligence do belong, still omniscience and similar qualities do not belong to it as its knowledge is limited by its adjuncts; thus the individual soul also cannot be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c., for the same reason, i. e. on account of the terms not denoting it.—Moreover, the attribute of forming the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, cannot properly be given to the individual soul because the latter is limited by certain adjuncts and therefore non-pervading (not omnipresent) 1. —The special enunciation (of the individual soul) is caused by what follows 2.—The individual soul is not to be 1 Bhogyasya bhoktr Aeshatvat tasyayatanatvam uktam a^ankyaha na keti, ^ivasyadrz'sh/advara dyubhvadinimittatvexpi na sakshat tadayatanatvam aupadhikatvenavibhutvad ity artha^. Ananda Giri.
2 It would not have been requisite to introduce a special Sutra 159 accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c. for the follow¬ ing reason also.
5. On account of the declaration of difference.
The passage ‘Know him alone as the Self’ moreover implies a declaration of difference, viz. of the difference of the object of knowledge and the knower. Here the indi¬ vidual soul as being that which is desirous of release is the knower, and consequently Brahman, which is denoted by the word ‘ self 5 and represented as the object of knowledge, is understood to be the abode of heaven, earth, and so on. —For the following reason also the individual soul cannot be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c.
6. On account of the subject-matter.
The highest Self constitutes the subject-matter (of the entire chapter), as we see from the passage, ‘ Sir, what is that through which, when it is known, everything else becomes known? 5 (Mu. Up. 1,1, 3), in which the knowledge of everything is declared to be dependent on the knowledge of one thing. For all this (i.e. the entire world) becomes known if Brahman the Self of all is known, not if only the individual soul is known.—Another reason against the individual soul follows.
7. And on account of the two conditions of stand¬ ing and eating (of which the former is characteristic of the highest Lord, the latter of the individual soul).
With reference to that which is the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, the text says, ‘Two birds, inseparable friends/ &c. (Mu. Up. Ill, 1, 1). This passage describes the two states of mere standing, i. e. mere presence, and of eating, the clause, ‘One of them eats the sweet fruit, 5 refer¬ ring to the eating, i.e. the fruition of the results of works, for the individual soul—which, like the air, is already excluded by the preceding Sutra—if it were not for the new argument brought forward in the following Sutra which applies to the individual soul only.
and the clause, ‘The other one looks on without eating/ describing the condition of mere inactive presence. The two states described, viz. of mere presence on the one hand and of enjoyment on the other hand, show that the Lord and the individual soul are referred to. Now there is room for this statement which represents the Lord as separate from the individual soul, only if the passage about the abode of heaven and earth likewise refers to the Lord; for in that case only there exists a continuity of topic. On any other supposition the second passage would contain a statement about something not connected with the general topic, and would therefore be entirely uncalled for.—But, it may be objected, on your interpretation also the second passage makes an uncalled-for statement, viz. in so far as it represents the individual soul as separate from the Lord.— Not so, we reply. It is nowhere the purpose of Scripture to make statements regarding the individual soul. From ordinary experience the individual soul, which in the different individual bodies is joined to the internal organs and other limiting adjuncts, is known to every one as agent and enjoyer, and we therefore must not assume that it is that which Scripture aims at setting forth. The Lord, on the other hand, about whom ordinary experience tells us nothing, is to be considered as the special topic of all scriptural passages, and we therefore cannot assume that any passage should refer to him merely casually 1.— 1 If the individual soul were meant by the abode of heaven, earth, &c., the statement regarding Lvara made in the passage about the two birds would be altogether abrupt, and on that ground objectionable. The same difficulty does not present itself with regard to the abrupt mention of the individual soul which is well known to everybody, and to which therefore casual allusions may be made.—I subjoin Ananda Giri’s commentary on the entire pas¬ sage: (rivasyopadhyaikyenavivakshitatvat tad^ane^pi sarvagTiana- siddhes tasyayatanatvadyabhave hetvantarazra va/fyam ity fuankya shtre^a pariharati kuta^etyadina. Tad vya/£ash/e dyubhvaditi. Nirde^am eva dar^ayati tayor iti. Vibhaktyartham aha tabhyazra Mi. Sthityei'varasyadana^- ^lvasa^grahe^pi katham fovarasyaiva vhva- yatanatva/rc tadaha yaditi. Lvarasyayanatvenaprakrftatve ^ivaprfl6l That the mantra ‘ two birds/ &c. speaks of the Lord and the individual soul we have already shown under I, 2, ii, —And if, according to the interpretation given in the Paingi- upanishad (and quoted under I, 2, 11), the verse is under¬ stood to refer to the internal organ (sattva) and the individual soul (not to the individual soul and the Lord), even then there is no contradiction (between that interpre¬ tation and our present averment that the individual soul is not the abode of heaven and earth).—How so?—Here (i. e. in the present Sutra and the Sutras immediately preceding) it is denied that the individual soul which, owing to its imagined connexion with the internal organ and other limiting adjuncts, has a separate existence in separate bodies—its division being analogous to the division of universal space into limited spaces such as the spaces within jars and the like—is that which is called the abode of heaven and earth. That same soul, on the other hand, which exists in all bodies, if considered apart from the limit¬ ing adjuncts, is nothing else but the highest Self. Just as the spaces within jars, if considered apart from their limiting conditions, are merged in universal space, so the individual soul also is incontestably that which is denoted as the abode of heaven and earth, since it (the soul) cannot really be separate from the highest Self. That it is not the abode of heaven and earth, is therefore said of the indi¬ vidual soul in so far only as it imagines itself to be con¬ nected with the internal organ and so on. Hence it follows that the highest Self is the abode of heaven, earth, and so on.—The same conclusion has already been arrived at under I, a, 21; for in the passage concerning the source of all beings (which passage is discussed under the Sutra quoted) we meet with the clause, ‘ In which heaven and thakkathananupapattir ity uktam eva vyatirekadvaraha anyatheti. Givasyayatanatvenaprakrftatve tulyanupapattir iti ^ahkate nanviti. Tasyaikyarthaw lokasiddhasyanuvadatvan naivam ity aha neti. Givasyapikvatvabhaven&pratipadyatvam eva praka/ayati kshetra^o hiti. trvarasyapi lokavadisiddhatvad apratipadyatety a^ankyaha uvaras tv iti.
earth and the sky are woven/ In the present adhikara^a the subject is resumed for the sake of further elucidation.
8. The bhfiman (is Brahman), as the instruction about it is additional to that about the state of deep sleep (i. e. the vital air which remains awake even in the state of deep sleep).
We read (Kk. Up. VII, 23; 24), ‘That which is much (bhuman) we must desire to understand.—Sir, I desire to understand it.—Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is what is much (bhuman). Where one sees something else, hears something else, under¬ stands something else, that is the Little.’—Here the doubt arises whether that which is much is the vital air (pr&/za) or the highest Self.—Whence the doubt?—The word £ bhuman,’ taken by itself, means the state of being much, according to its derivation as taught by Pacini, VI, 4, 158. Hence there is felt the want of a specification showing what con¬ stitutes the Self of that muchness. Here there presents itself at first the approximate passage, £ The vital air is more than hope ’ (. Kh. Up. VII, 15, 1), from which we may conclude that the vital air is bhuman.—On the other hand, we meet at the beginning of the chapter, where the general topic is stated, with the following passage, £ I have heard from men like you that he who knows the Self overcomes grief. I am in grief. Do, Sir, help me over this grief of mine; ’ from which passage it would appear that the bhuman is the highest Self.—Hence there arises a doubt as to which of the two alternatives is to be embraced, and which is to be set aside.
The purvapakshin maintains that the bhuman is the vital air, since there is found no further series of questions and answers as to what is more. For while we meet with a series of questions and answers (such as, £ Sir, is there something which is more than a name?’— £ Speech is more than name.’— Ts there something which is more than speech?’— £ Mind is more than speech ’), which extends from name up to vital air, we do not meet with a similar question and answer as to what might be more than vital air (such as, £ Is there something which is more than vital air? ’—‘ Such and such a thing is more than vital air ’). The text rather at first declares at length (in the passage, 'The vital air is more than hope,’ &c.) that the vital air is more than all the members of the series from name up to hope; it then acknowledges him who knows the vital air to be an ativadin, i. e. one who makes a statement surpassing the preceding statements (in the passage, ‘ Thou art an ativadin. He may say I am an ati¬ vadin; he need not deny it ’); and it thereupon (in the passage, ‘But he in reality is an ativadin who declares something beyond by means of the True’ 1 ),—not leaving off, but rather continuing to refer to the quality of an ativctdin which is founded on the vital air,—proceeds, by means of the series beginning with the True, to lead over to the bhuman; so that we conclude the meaning to be that the vital air is the bhuman.—But, if the bhuman is interpreted to mean the vital air, how have we to explain the passage in which the bhuman is characterised, c Where one sees nothing else? 5 &c.—As, the purvapakshin replies, in the state of deep sleep we observe a cessation of all activity, such as seeing, &c., on the part of the organs merged in the vital air, the vital air itself may be charac¬ terised by a passage such as, c Where one sees nothing else.’ Similarly, another scriptural passage (Pra. Up. IV, % \ 3) de¬ scribes at first (in the words,‘ He does not hear, he does not see,’ &c.) the stateof deep sleep as characterised by the cessa¬ tion of the activity of all bodily organs, and then by declaring that in that state the vital air, with its five modifications, remains awake (‘ The fires of the pranas are awake in that town ’), shows the vital air to occupy the principal position in the state of deep sleep.—That passage also, which speaks of the bliss of the bhuman (‘ The bhuman is bliss,’ Kh. Up. VII, 23), can be reconciled with our explanation, because Pra. Up. IV, 6 declares bliss to attach to the state of deep sleep (‘ Then that god sees no dreams and at that time that happiness arises in his body ’).—Again, the statement, ‘The bhuman is immortality’ ( Kh. Up. VII, 34, 1), may 1 As might be the prima facie conclusion from the particle ‘ but '* introducing the sentence ‘ but he in reality/ &c.
likewise refer to the vital air; for another scriptural passage says, ‘Pra;za is immortality’ (Kau. Up. Ill, %).—But how can the view according to which the bhuman is the vital air be reconciled with the fact that in the beginning of the chapter the knowledge of the Self is represented as the general topic (‘ He who knows the Self overcomes grief, 5 &c.)? —By the Self there referred to, the purvapakshin replies, nothing else is meant but the vital air. For the passage, ‘ The vital air is father, the vital air is mother, the vital air is brother, the vital air is sister, the vital air is teacher, the vital air is Brahma/za’ (Kh. Up. VII, 15, 1), represents the vital air as the Self of everything. As, moreover, the passage, ‘As the spokes of a wheel rest in the nave, so all this rests in prazza,’ declares the pr&zza to be the Self of all—by means of a comparison with the spokes and the nave of a wheel—the prazza may be conceived under the form of bhuman, i. e. plenitude.—Bhuman, therefore, means the vital air.
To this we make the following reply.—Bhuman can mean the highest Self only, not the vital air.—Why?—‘ On account of information being given about it, subsequent to bliss/ The word ‘ bliss 5 (samprasada) means the state of deep sleep, as may be concluded, firstly, from the etymology of the word (‘In it he, i.e. man, is altogether pleased—samprasi- dati’)—and, secondly, from the fact of samprasada being mentioned in the Brzhadara/zyaka together with the state of dream and the waking state. And as in the state of deep sleep the vital air remains awake, the word ‘ sampra¬ sada 5 is employed in the Sutra to denote the vital air; so that the Sutra means, ‘on account of information being given about the bhuman, subsequently to (the informa¬ tion given about) the vital air/ If the bhuman were the vital air itself, it would be a strange proceeding to make statements about the bhuman in addition to the statements about the vital air. For in the preceding passages also we do not meet, for instance, with a statement about name subsequent to the previous statement about name (i. e. the text does not say ‘ name is more than name ’), but after something has been said about name, a new statement is