made about speech, which is something different from name (i. e. the text says, ‘ Speech is more than name ’), and so on up to the statement about vital air, each subsequent state¬ ment referring to something other than the topic of the preceding one. We therefore conclude that the bhuman also, the statement about which follows on the statement about the vital air, is something other than the vital air.— But—it may be objected—we meet here neither with a ques¬ tion, such as, ‘ Is there something more than vital air? 5 nor with an answer, such as, ‘ That and that is more than vital air. 5 How, then, can it be said that the information about the bhuman is given subsequently to the information about the vital air?—Moreover, we see that the circumstance of being an ativ&din, which is exclusively connected with the vital air, is referred to in the subsequent passage (viz. ‘ But in reality he is an ativadin who makes a statement surpassing (the preceding statements) by means of the True’). There is thus no information additional to the information about the vital air.—To this objection we reply that it is impos¬ sible to maintain that the passage last quoted merely con¬ tinues the discussion of the quality of being an ativadin, as con¬ nected with the knowledge of the vital air; since the clause, ‘ He who makes a statement surpassing, &c. by means of the True/ states a specification.—But, the objector resumes, this very statement of a specification may be explained as referring to the vital air. If you ask how, we refer you to an analogous case. If somebody says, ‘ This Agnihotrin speaks the truth,’ the meaning is not that the quality of being an Agnihotrin depends on speaking the truth; that quality rather depends on the (regular performance of the) agnihotra only, and speaking the truth is mentioned merely as a special attribute of that special Agnihotrin. So our passage also (‘ But in reality he is an ativadin who makes a statement, &c. by means of the True’) does not intimate that the quality of being an ativadin depends on speaking the truth, but merely expresses that speaking the truth is a special attribute of him who knows the vital air; while the quality of being an ativadin must be con¬ sidered to depend on the knowledge of the vital air.—This VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
166 objection we rebut by the remark that it involves an aban¬ donment of the direct meaning of the sacred text. For from the text, as it stands, we understand that the quality of being an ativadin depends on speaking the truth; the sense being: An ativadin is he who is an ativadin by means of the True. The passage does not in any way contain a eulogisation of the knowledge of the vital air. It could be connected with the latter only on the ground of general subject-matter (prakara^a)which would involve an abandonment of the di¬ rect meaning of the text in favour of prakara^a 1 2.—Moreover, the particle but (‘ But in reality he is,’ &c.), whose purport is to separate (what follows) from the subject-matter of what precedes, would not agree (with the pra^a explanation). The following passage also, f But we must desire to know the True’ (VII, 16), which presupposes a new effort, shows that a new topic is going to be entered upon.—For these reasons we have to consider the statement about the ati¬ vadin in the same light as we should consider the remark— made in a conversation which previously had turned on the praise of those who study one Veda—that he who studies the four Vedas is a great Brahma^a; a remark which we should understand to be laudatory of persons different from those who study one Veda, i.e. of those who study all the four Vedas. Nor is there any reason to assume that a new topic can be introduced in the form of question and answer only; for that the matter propounded forms a new topic is sufficiently clear from the circumstance that no connexion can be established between it and the preceding topic. The succession of topics in the chapter under discussion is as follows: Narada at first listens to the instruction which Sanatkumara gives him about various matters, the last of which is Pra^a, and then becomes silent. Thereupon Sanatkumara explains to him spontaneously (without being 1 It being maintained that the passage referred to is to be viewed in connexion with the general subject-matter of the preceding part of the chapter.
2 And would thus involve a violation of a fundamental principle of the Mima^s^.
167 asked) that the quality of being an ativadin, if merely based on the knowledge of the vital air—which knowledge has for its object an unreal product,—is devoid of substance, and that he only is an ativddin who is such by means of the True. By the term ‘the True’ there is meant the highest Brahman; for Brahman is the Real, and it is called the ‘ True 5 in another scriptural passage also, viz. Taitt. Up. II, 1, ‘ The True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman.’ Narada, thus enlightened, starts a new line of enquiry (‘Might I, Sir, become an ativadin by the True?’) and Sanatkumara then leads him, by a series of instrumental steps, beginning with understanding, up to the knowledge of bhuman. We therefrom conclude that the bhuman is that very True whose explanation had been promised in addition to the (knowledge of the) vital air. We thus see that the instruction about the bhuman is additional to the instruction about the vital air, and bhuman must therefore mean the highest Self, which is different from the vital air. With this interpretation the initial statement, according to which the enquiry into the Self forms the general subject- matter, agrees perfectly well. The assumption, on the other hand (made by the purvapakshin), that by the Self we have here to understand the vital air is indefensible. For, in the first place, Self-hood does not belong to the vital air in any non-figurative sense. In the second place, cessation of grief cannot take place apart from the knowledge of the highest Self; for, as another scriptural passage declares, ‘There is no other path to go’ (SVet. Up. VI, 15). Moreover, after we have read at the outset, ‘ Do, Sir, lead me over to the other side of grief’ ( Kh. Up. VII, 1, 3), we meet with the following concluding words (VII, 26, 2), ‘ To him, after his faults had been rubbed out, the venerable Sanatkumara showed the other side of darkness.’ The term ‘ darkness ’ here denotes Nescience, the cause of grief, and so on.—Moreover, if the instruction terminated with the vital air, it would not be said of the latter that it rests on something else. But the brahma^a (Kk. Up. VII, 26, 1) does say, ‘The vital air springs from the Self.’ Nor can it be objected against this last argument that the concluding 168 vedanta-s6tras.
part of the chapter may refer to the highest Self, while, all the same, the bhuman (mentioned in an earlier part of the chapter) may be the vital air. For, from the passage (VII, 24, 1), (‘ Sir, in what does the bhuman rest? In its own greatness,’ &c.), it appears that the bhuman forms the con¬ tinuous topic up to the end of the chapter.—The quality of being the bhuman — which quality is plenitude — agrees, moreover, best with the highest Self, which is the cause of everything.
9. And on account of the agreement of the attributes (mentioned in the text).
The attributes, moreover, which the sacred text ascribes to the bhuman agree well with the highest Self. The passage, £ Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is the bhuman,’ gives us to understand that in the bhuman the ordinary activities of seeing and so on are absent; and that this is characteristic of the highest Self, we know from another scriptural passage, viz. £ But when the Self only is all this, how should he see another? ’ &c. (B ri, Up. IV, 5,15). What is said about the absence of the activities of seeing and so on in the state of deep sleep (Pra. Up. IV, 2) is said with the intention of declaring the non-attachedness of the Self, not of describing the nature of the pra/za; for the highest Self (not the vital air) is the topic of that passage. The bliss also of which Scripture speaks as connected with that state is mentioned only in order to show that bliss constitutes the nature of the Self. For Scripture says (B ri, Up. IV, 3, 32), £ This is his highest bliss. All other creatures live on a small por¬ tion of that bliss.’—The passage under discussion also ( £ The bhuman is bliss. There is no bliss in that which is little (limited). The bhuman only is bliss ’) by denying the reality of bliss on the part of whatever is perishable shows that Brahman only is bliss as bhuman, i. e. in its plenitude.—Again, the passage, £ The bhuman is immor¬ tality,’ shows that the highest cause is meant; for the immortality of all effected things is a merely relative one, I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, IO.
169 and another scriptural passage says that ‘ whatever is different from that (Brahman) is perishable ’ ( Bri. Up. Ill, 4, 3). —Similarly, the qualities of being the True, and of resting in its own greatness, and of being omnipresent, and of being the Self of everything which the text mentions (as belonging to the bhuman) can belong to the highest Self only, not to anything else.—By all this it is proved that the bhuman is the highest Self.
10. The Imperishable (is Brahman) on account of (its) supporting (all things) up to ether.
We read (Bri. Up. Ill, 8, 7; 8), ‘ In what then is the ether woven, like warp and woof?—He said: O G&rgi, the Br^hma^as call this the akshara (the Imperishable). It is neither coarse nor fine, 5 and so on.—Here the doubt arises whether the word ‘ akshara 5 means ‘ syllable 5 or ‘the highest Lord/ The purvapakshin maintains that the word ‘akshara’ means ‘ syllable 5 merely, because it has, in such terms as akshara-samamnaya, the meaning of ‘ syllable; ’ because we have no right to disregard the settled meaning of a word; and because another scriptural passage also (‘ The syllable Om is all this,’ Kh. Up. II, 23,4) declares a syllable, repre¬ sented as the object of devotion, to be the Self of all.
To this we reply that the highest Self only is denoted by the word ‘akshara.’—Why?—Because it (the akshara) is said to support the entire aggregate of effects, from earth up to ether. For the sacred text declares at first that the entire aggregate of effects beginning with earth and differ¬ entiated by threefold time is based on ether, in which it is ‘ woven like warp and woof; ’ leads then (by means of the question, ‘ In what then is the ether woven, like warp and woof? ’) over to the akshara, and, finally, concludes with the words, ‘ In that akshara then, O G&rgi, the ether is woven, like warp and woof.’—Now the attribute of supporting everything up to ether cannot be ascribed to any being but Brahman. The text (quoted from the Kh. Up.) says indeed that the syllable Om is all this, but that statement YEDANTA-SUTRAS.
170 is to be understood as a mere glorification of the syllable Om considered as a means to obtain Brahman.—Therefore we take akshara to mean either c the Imperishable’ or 4 that which pervades; ’ on the ground of either of which explana¬ tions it must be identified with the highest Brahman.
But—our opponent resumes—while we must admit that the above reasoning holds good so far that the circum¬ stance of the akshara supporting all things up to ether is to be accepted as a proof of all effects depending on a cause, we point out that it may be employed by those also who declare the pradh&na to be the general cause. How then does the previous argumentation specially establish Brah¬ man (to the exclusion of the pradMna)?—The reply to this is given in the next Sutra.
11. This (supporting can), on account of the command (attributed to the Imperishable, be the work of the highest Lord only).
The supporting of all things up to ether is the work of the highest Lord only.—Why?—On account of the command.— For the sacred text speaks of a command (; By the command of that akshara, O G&rgt,sunand moon stand apart!’ 111,8,9), and command can be the work of the highest Lord only, not of the non-intelligent pradh&na. For non-intelligent causes such as clay and the like are not capable of command, with reference to their effects, such as jars and the like.
12. And on account of (Scripture) separating (the akshara) from that whose nature is different (from Brahman).
Also on account of the reason stated in this Sutra Brahman only is to be considered as the Imperishable, and the supporting of all things up to ether is to be looked upon as the work of Brahman only, not of anything else. The meaning of the Sutra is as follows. Whatever things other than Brahman might possibly be thought to be denoted by the term c akshara, 5 from the nature of all those things Scripture separates the akshara spoken of as the 171 support of all things up to ether. The scriptural passage alluded to is III, 8, 11, ‘That akshara, 0 G&rgi, is unseen but seeing, unheard but hearing, unperceived but perceiving, unknown but knowing/ Here the designation of being unseen, &c. agrees indeed with the pradMna also, but not so the designation of seeing, &c., as the pradMna is non- intelligent.—Nor can the word akshara denote the embodied soul with its limiting conditions, for the passage following on the one quoted declares that there is nothing different from the Self (‘there is nothing that sees but it, nothing that hears but it, nothing that perceives but it, nothing that knows but it ’); and, moreover, limiting conditions are expressly denied (of the akshara) in the passage, ‘It is without eyes, without ears, without speech, without mind,’ &c. (Ill, 8, 8). An embodied soul without limiting con¬ ditions does not exist 1.—It is therefore certain beyond doubt that the Imperishable is nothing else but the highest Brahman.
13. On account of his being designated as the object of sight (the highest Self is meant, and) the same (is meant in the passage speaking of the medi¬ tation on the highest person by means of the syllable Om).
(In Pra. Up. V, 2) the general topic of discussion is set forth in the words, ‘ O Satyakctma, the syllable Om is the highest and also the other Brahman; therefore he who knows it arrives by the same means at one of the two.’ The text then goes on, ‘ Again, he who meditates with this syllable Om of three matras on the highest Person,’ &c.— Here the doubt presents itself, whether the object of medi¬ tation referred to in the latter passage is the highest Brahman or the other Brahman; a doubt based on the former pas¬ sage, according to which both are under discussion.
The purvapakshin maintains that the other, i. e. the lower 1 A remark directed against the possible attempt to explain the passage last quoted as referring to the embodied soul.
172 VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
Brahman, is referred to, because the text promises only a reward limited by a certain locality for him who knows it. For, as the highest Brahman is omnipresent, it would be inappropriate to assume that he who knows it obtains a fruit limited by a certain locality. The objection that, if the lower Brahman were understood, there would be no room for the qualification, c the highest person/ is not valid, because the vital principle (prazza) may be called 4 higher 5 with reference to the body l.
To this we make the following reply: What is here taught as the object of meditation is the highest Brahman only. —Why?—On account of its being spoken of as the object of sight. For the person to be meditated upon is, in a com¬ plementary passage, spoken of as the object of the act of seeing, 4 He sees the person dwelling in the castle (of the body; purusham pumayam), higher than that one who is of the shape of the individual soul, and who is himself higher (than the senses and their objects). 5 Now, of an act of meditation an unreal thing also can be the object, as, for instance, the merely imaginary object of a wish. But of the act of seeing, real things only are the objects, as we know from experience; we therefore conclude, that in the passage last quoted, the highest (only real) Self which corresponds to the mental act of complete intuition 2 is spoken of as the object of sight. This same highest Self we recognise in the passage under discussion as the object of meditation, in conse¬ quence of the term, 4 the highest person. 5 —But—an objection will be raised—as the object of meditation we have the highest person, and as the object of sight the person higher than that one who is himself higher, &c.; how, then, are we to know that those two are identical?—The two passages, we 1 Ymd&h sthulo deha^, prazza^z sutratma. Ananda Giri.—The lower Brahman (hirazzyagarbha on sutratman) is the vital principle (prazza) in all creatures.
2 Sazzzyagdanana, i.e. complete seeing or intuition; the same term which in other places—where it is not requisite to insist on the idea of 4 seeing ' in contradistinction from 4 reflecting 5 or 4 medi¬ tating'— is rendered by perfect knowledge.
173 reply, have in common the terms c highest ’ (or £ higher/ para) and £ person/ And it must not by any means be supposed that the term ^ivaghana 1 refers to that highest person which, considered as the object of meditation, had previously been introduced as the general topic. For the consequence of that supposition would be that that highest person which is the object of sight would be different from that highest person which is represented as the object of meditation. We rather have to explain the word ^ivaghana as £ He whose shape 2 is characterised by the ^ivas so that what is really meant by that term is that limited condition of the highest Self which is owing to its adjuncts, and manifests itself in the form of^ivas, i. e. individual souls; a condition analogous to the limitation of salt (in general) by means of the mass of a particular lump of salt. That limited condition of the Self may itself be called ‘higher/ if viewed with regard to the senses and their objects.
Another (commentator) says that we have to understand by the word ‘^ivaghana ’ the world of Brahman spoken of in the preceding sentence ( £ by the Saman verses he is led up to the world of Brahman ’), and again in the following sentence (v. 7), which may be called c higher/ because it is higher than the other worlds. That world of Brahman may be called ^ivaghana because all individual souls (^iva j with their organs of action may be viewed as comprised (sanghata = ghana) within Hira/zyagarbha, who is the Self of all organs, and dwells in the Brahma-world. We thus understand that he who is higher than that ^ivaghana, i. e. the highest Self, which constitutes the object of sight, also constitutes the object of meditation. The qualification, moreover, ex¬ pressed in the term £ the highest person’ is in its place only if we understand the highest Self to be meant. For the name, £ the highest person/ can be given only to the highest Self, higher than which there is nothing. So another scriptural passage also says, ‘ Higher than the person there is nothing—this is the goal, the highest road.’ Hence the 1 Translated above by * of the shape of the individual soul/ 174 VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
sacred text, which at first distinguishes between the higher and the lower Brahman (‘ the syllable Om is the higher and the lower Brahman’), and afterwards speaks of the highest Person to be meditated upon by means of the syllable Om, gives us to understand that the highest Person is nothing else but the highest Brahman. That the highest Self constitutes the object of meditation, is moreover intimated by the passage declaring that release from evil is the fruit (of medita¬ tion), ‘ As a snake is freed from its skin, so is he freed from evil.’—With reference to the objection that a fruit confined to a certain place is not an appropriate reward for him who meditates on the highest Self, we finally remark that the objection is removed, if we understand the passage to refer to emancipation by degrees. He who meditates on the highest Self by means of the syllable Om, as consisting of three matras, obtains for his (first) reward the world of Brahman, and after that, gradually, complete intuition.
14. The small (ether) (is Brahman) on account of the subsequent (arguments).
We read (Kh. Up. VIII, 1,1), ‘ There is this city of Brah¬ man, and in it the palace, the small lotus, and in it that small ether. Now what exists within that small ether that is to be sought for, that is to be understood,’ &c.—Here the doubt arises whether the small ether within the small lotus of the heart of which Scripture speaks, is the elemental ether, or the individual soul (vi^Tzanatman), or the highest Self. This doubt is caused by the words ‘ ether ’ and ‘ city of Brahman.’ For the word ‘ ether,’ in the first place, is known to be used in the sense of elemental ether as well as of highest Brahman. Hence the doubt whether the small ether of the text be the elemental ether or the highest ether, i. e. Brahman. In explanation of the expression ‘ city of Brahman,’ in the second place, it might be said either that the individual soul is here called Brahman and the body Brahman’s city, or else that the city of Brahman means the city of the highest Brahman. Here (i. e. in con¬ sequence of this latter doubt) a further doubt arises as to 175 the nature of the small ether, according as the individual soul or the highest Self is understood by the Lord of the city.
The purvapakshin maintains that by the small ether we have to understand the elemental ether, since the latter meaning is the conventional one of the word aka^a. The elemental ether is here called small with reference to its small abode (the heart).—In the passage, ‘As large as this ether is, so large is that ether within the heart,’ it is repre¬ sented as constituting at the same time the two terms of a comparison, because it is possible to make a distinction between the outer and the inner ether 1; and it is said that ‘heaven and earth are contained within it,’ because the whole ether, in so far as it is space, is one 2.—Or else, the purva¬ pakshin continues, the ‘ small one ’ may be taken to mean the individual soul, on account of the term, ‘the city of Brahman.’ The body is here called the city of Brahman because it is the abode of the individual soul; for it is acquired by means of the actions of the soul. On this interpretation we must assume that the individual soul is here called Brahman metaphorically. The highest Brahman cannot be meant, because it is not connected with the body as its lord. The lord of the city, i. e. the soul, is represented as dwelling in one spot of the city (viz. the heart), just as a real king resides in one spot of his residence. Moreover, the mind (manas) constitutes the limiting adjunct of the indi¬ vidual soul, and the mind chiefly abides in the heart; hence the individual soul only can be spoken of as dwelling in the heart. Further, the individual soul only can be spoken of as small, since it is (elsewhere; vSVet. Up. V, 8) compared in size to the point of a goad. That it is com¬ pared (in the passage under discussion) to the ether must be understood to intimate its non-difference from Brahman.— 1 So that the interpretation of the purvapakshin cannot be objected to on the ground of its involving the comparison of a thing to itself.
2 So that no objection can be raised on the ground that heaven and earth cannot be contained in the small ether of the heart.
Nor does the scriptural passage say that the 4 small ’ one is to be sought for and to be understood, since in the clause, £ That which is within that,’ &c., it is represented as a mere distinguishing attribute of something else \ To all this we make the following reply:—The small ether can mean the highest Lord only, not either the elemental ether or the individual soul.—Why?—On account of the subsequent reasons, i. e. on account of the reasons implied in the complementary passage. For there, the text declares at first, with reference to the small ether, which is enjoined as the object of sight, 4 If they should say to him/ &c.; thereupon follows an objection, £ What is there that deserves to be sought for or that is to be understood? ’ and thereon a final decisive statement, £ Then he should say: As large as this ether is, so large is that ether within the heart. Both heaven and earth are contained within it/ Here the teacher, availing himself of the comparison of the ether within the heart with the known (universal) ether, precludes the conception that the ether within the heart is small— which conception is based on the statement as to the smallness of the lotus, i. e. the heart—and thereby precludes the pos¬ sibility of our understanding by the term £ the small ether/ the elemental ether. For, although the ordinary use of language gives to the word £ ether ’ the sense of elemental ether, here the elemental ether cannot be thought of, because it cannot possibly be compared with itself.—But, has it not been stated above, that the ether, although one only, may be compared with itself, in consequence of an assumed dif¬ ference between the outer and the inner ether?—That explanation, we reply, is impossible; for we cannot admit that a comparison of a thing with itself may be based upon a merely imaginary difference. And even if we admitted 1 Viz. of that which is within it. Ananda Giri proposes two explanations: na £eti, paravhesha^atvenety atra paro daharak&ra upadanat tasminn iti saptamyanta-ta^Mabdasyeti jesha^. Yadva para^abdo * nta^sthavastuvishayas tadvuesha^atvena tasminn iti daharaka^asyokter ity artha^. Ta^Mabdasya samnikrzsh/anvaya- yoge viprakr/sh/anvayasya g-aghanyatvad ak&rantargataz# dhyeyam iti bhava^.
I 77 the possibility of such a comparison, the extent of the outer ether could never be ascribed to the limited inner ether. Should it be said that to the highest Lord also the extent of the (outer) ether cannot be ascribed, since another scriptural passage declares that he is greater than ether (6a. Bra. X, 6, 3, 2), we invalidate this objection by the remark, that the passage (comparing the inner ether with the outer ether) has the purport of discarding the idea of smallness (of the inner ether), which is prim a facie established by the smallness of the lotus of the heart in which it is contained, and has not the purport of establishing a certain extent (of the inner ether). If the passage aimed at both, a split of the sen¬ tence 1 would result.—Nor, if we allowed the assumptive difference of the inner and the outer ether, would it be possible to represent that limited portion of the ether which is enclosed in the lotus of the heart, as containing within itself heaven, earth, and so on. Nor can we reconcile with the nature of the elemental ether the qualities of Self-hood, freeness from sin, and so on, (which are ascribed to the £ small 5 ether) in the following passage, £ It is the Self free from sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, of true desires, of true purposes. 5 —Al¬ though the term £ Self 5 (occurring in the passage quoted) may apply to the individual soul, yet other reasons exclude