all idea of the individual soul being meant (by the small ether). For it would be impossible to dissociate from the individual soul, which is restricted by limiting conditions and elsewhere compared to the point of a goad, the attri¬ bute of smallness attaching to it, on account of its being enclosed in the lotus of the heart.—Let it then be assumed— our opponent remarks—that the qualities of all-pervading- ness, &c. are ascribed to the individual soul with the intention of intimating its non-difference from Brahman.—Well, we reply, if you suppose that the small ether is called all- pervading because it is one with Brahman, our own suppo- 1 A vakyabheda—split of the sentence—takes place according to the Mimatfzsa when one and the same sentence contains two new statements which are different.
sition, viz. that the all-pervadingness spoken of is directly predicated of Brahman itself, is the much more simple one.— Concerning the assertion that the term ‘ city of Brahman ’ can only be understood, on the assumption that the indi¬ vidual soul dwells, like a king, in one particular spot of the city of which it is the Lord, we remark that the term is more properly interpreted to mean £ the body in so far as it is the city of the highest Brahman; ’ which interpretation enables us to take the term £ Brahman ’ in its primary sense 1. The highest Brahman also is connected with the body, for the latter constitutes an abode for the perception of Brah¬ man 2. Other scriptural passages also express the same meaning, so, for instance, Pra. Up. V, 5, £ He sees the highest person dwelling in the city’ (purusha = pumaya), &c., and Bn. Up. II, 5, 18, £ This person (purusha) is in all cities (bodies) the dweller within the city (purisaya).’—Or else (taking brahmapura to mean ^ivapura) we may understand the passage to teach that Brahman is, in the city of the individual soul, near (to the devout worshipper), just as Vishnu is near to us in the *Salagrama-stone.—Moreover, the text (VIII, 1, 6) at first declares the result of works to be perishable ( £ as here on earth whatever has been acquired by works perishes, so perishes whatever is acquired for the next world by good actions/ &c.), and afterwards declares the imperishableness of the results flowing from a knowledge of the small ether, which forms the general sub¬ ject of discussion ( £ those who depart from hence after having discovered the Self and those true desires, for them there is freedom in all worlds’). From this again it is manifest that the small ether is the highest Self.—We now turn to the statement made by the purvapakshin, £ that the sacred text does not represent the small ether as that 1 While the explanation of Brahman by giva, would compel us to assume that the word Brahman secondarily denotes the individual soul.
8 Upalabdher adhish/Mnam brahmawa deha ishyate I Tenasddharawatvena deho brahmaputam bhavet ll Bhamatf.
179 which is to be sought for and to be understood, because it is mentioned as a distinguishing attribute of something else/and reply as follows: If the (small) ether were not that which is to be sought for and to be understood, the description of the nature of that ether, which is given in the passage ( £ as large as this ether is, so large is that ether within the heart ’), would be devoid of purport.—But—the opponent might say—that descriptive statement also has the purport of setting forth the nature of the thing abiding within (the ether); for the text after having raised an objec¬ tion (in the passage, ‘ And if they should say to him: Now with regard to that city of Brahman and the palace in it, i. e. the small lotus of the heart, and the small ether within the heart, what is there within it that deserves to be sought for or that is to be understood?’) declares, when replying to that objection, that heaven, earth, and so on, are contained within it (the ether), a declaration to which the comparison with the ether forms a mere introduction.—Your reasoning, we reply, is faulty. If it were admitted, it would follow that heaven, earth, &c., which are contained within the small ether, constitute the objects of search and enquiry. But in that case the complementary passage would be out of place. For the text carrying on, as the subject of dis¬ cussion, the ether that is the abode of heaven, earth, &c.— by means of the clauses,‘ In it all desires are contained,’ ‘It is the Self free from sin,’ &c., and the passage, 'But those who depart from hence having discovered the Self, and the true desires' (in which passage the conjunction ‘ and ’ has the purpose of joining the desires to the Self)—declares that the Self as well, which is the abode of the desires, as the desires which abide in the Self, are the objects of know¬ ledge. From this we conclude that in the beginning of the passage also, the small ether abiding within the lotus of the heart, together with whatever is contained within it as earth, true desires, and so on, is represented as the object of knowledge. And, for the reasons explained, that ether is the highest Lord.
15. (The small ether is Brahman) on account of N 2 i So VEDANTA-StjTRAS.
the action of going (into Brahman) and of the word (brahmaloka); for thus it is seen (i. e. that the indi¬ vidual souls go into Brahman is seen elsewhere in Scripture); and (this going of the souls into Brahman constitutes) an inferential sign (by means of which we may properly interpret the word ‘ brahmaloka').
It has been declared (in the preceding Sutra) that the small (ether) is the highest Lord, on account of the reasons contained in the subsequent passages. These subsequent reasons are now set forth.—For this reason also the small (ether) can be the highest Lord only, because the passage complementary to the passage concerning the small (ether) contains a mention of going and a word, both of which intimate the highest Lord. In the first place, we read ( Kh. Up. VIII, 3, a), c All these creatures, day after day going into that Brahma-world, do not discover it/ This passage which refers back, by means of the word c Brahma-world/ to the small ether which forms the general subject-matter, speaks of the going to it of the creatures, i. e. the individual souls, wherefrom we conclude that the small (ether) is Brahman. For this going of the individual souls into Brahman, which takes place day after day in the state of deep sleep, is seen, i. e. is met with in another scriptural passage, viz. Kh. Up. VI, 8, 1, c He becomes united with the True, 5 &c. In ordinary life also we say of a man who lies in deep sleep, ‘ he has become Brahman/ c he is gone into the state of Brahman/—In the second place, the word c Brahma-world, 5 which is here applied to the small (ether) under discussion, excludes all thought of the individual soul or the elemental ether, and thus gives us to understand that the small (ether) is Brahman. — But could not the word ‘ Brahma-world 5 convey as well the idea of the world of him whose throne is the lotus 1?—It might do so indeed, if we explained the compound ‘ Brahma-world 5 as c the world of Brahman/ But if we explain it on the ground of the co¬ ordination of both members of the compound—so that 1 I. e. Brahma, the lower Brahman.
‘ Brahma-world ’ denotes that world which is Brahman— then it conveys the idea of the highest Brahman only.— And that daily going (of the souls) into Brahman (mentioned above) is, moreover, an inferential sign for explaining the compound ‘ Brahma-world,’ on the ground of the co-ordina¬ tion of its two constituent members. For it would be impossible to assume that all those creatures daily go into the world of the effected (lower) Brahman; which world is commonly called the Satyaloka, i. e. the world of the True.
16. And on account of the supporting also (attri¬ buted to it), (the small ether must be the Lord) because that greatness is observed in him (accord¬ ing to other scriptural passages).
And also on account of the £ supporting ’ the small ether can be the highest Lord only.— How?—The text at first introduces the general subject of discussion in the passage, ‘ In it is that small ether; 5 declares thereupon that the small one is to be compared with the universal ether, and that everything is contained in it; subsequently applies to it the term ‘ Self,’ and states it to possess the qualities of being free from sin, &c.; and, finally, declares with reference to the same general subject of discussion, ‘ That Self is a bank, a limitary support (vidhrzti), that these worlds may not be confounded.’ As ‘ support 5 is here predicated of the Self, we have to understand by it a supporting agent. Just as a dam stems the spreading water so that the boundaries of the fields are not confounded, so that Self acts like a limitary dam in order that these outer and inner worlds, and all the different castes and Isramas may not be confounded. In accordance with this our text declares that greatness, which is shown in the act of holding asunder, to belong to the small (ether) which forms the subject of discussion; and that such greatness is found in the highest Lord only, is seen from other scriptural passages, such as ‘ By the command of that Imperishable, O Gargt, sun and moon are held apart’ (Bn. Up. Ill, 8, 9). Similarly, we read in another passage also, about whose referring to the highest 182 VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
Lord there is no doubt, ‘ He is the Lord of all, the king of all things, the protector of all things. He is a bank and a limitary support, so that these worlds may not be con¬ founded’ (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 2,2). —Hence, on account of the ‘supporting,’also the small (ether) is nothing else but the highest Lord.
17. And on account of the settled meaning.
The small ether within cannot denote anything but the highest Lord for this reason also, that the word ‘ether’ has (among other meanings) the settled meaning of ‘ highest Lord.’ Compare, for instance, the sense in which the word ‘ ether ’ is used in Kh. Up. VIII, 14, ‘He who is called ether is the revealer of all forms and names;’ and Kh. Up. I, 9, 1, ‘All these beings take their rise from the ether,’ &c. On the other hand, we do not meet with any passage in which the word ‘ ether ’ is used in the sense of ‘ individual soul.’ —We have already shown that the word cannot, in our passage, denote the elemental ether; for, although the word certainly has that settled meaning, it cannot have it here, because the elemental ether cannot possibly be com¬ pared to itself, &c. &c.
18. If it be said that the other one (i. e. the indi¬ vidual soul) (is meant) on account of a reference to it (made in a complementary passage), (we say) no, on account of the impossibility.
If the small (ether) is to be explained as the highest Lord on account of a complementary passage, then, the purvapakshin resumes, we point out that another complementary passage contains a reference to the other one, i. e. to the individual soul: ‘Now that serene being (literally: serenity, complete satisfaction), which after having risen out from this earthly body and having reached the highest light, appears in its true form, that is, the Self; thus he spoke ’ {Kh. Up. VIII, 3,4). For there the word ‘serenity,’ which is known to denote, in another scriptural passage, the state of deep sleep, can convey the idea of the individual soul only when it is in that state, not of anything else. The ‘ rising from the body 5 also can be predicated of the individual soul only whose abode the body is; just as air, &c., whose abode is the ether, are said to arise from the ether. And just as the word ‘ ether/ although in ordinary language not denoting the highest Lord, yet is admitted to denote him in such passages as,‘ The ether is the revealer of forms and names/ because it there occurs in conjunction with qualities of the highest Lord, so it may likewise denote the individual soul. Hence the term ‘ the small ether 5 denotes in the passage under discussion the individual soul, ‘on account of the reference to the other/ Not so, we reply, ( on account of the impossibility/ In the first place, the individual soul, which imagines itself to be limited by the internal organ and its other adjuncts, can¬ not be compared with the ether. And, in the second place, attributes such as freedom from evil, and the like, cannot be ascribed to a being which erroneously transfers to itself the attributes of its limiting adjuncts. This has already been set forth in the first Sutra of the present adhikara^a, and is again mentioned here in order to remove all doubt as to the soul being different from the highest Self. That the reference pointed out by the purvapakshin is not to the individual soul will, moreover, be shown in one of the next Sutras (I, 3, 31).
19. If it be said that from the subsequent (chapter it appears that the individual soul is meant), (we point out that what is there referred to is) rather (the individual soul in so far) as its true nature has become manifest (i. e. as it is non-different from Brahman).
The doubt whether, * on account of the reference to the other,’ the individual soul might not possibly be meant, has been discarded on the ground of ‘impossibility/ But, like a dead man on whom amrzta has been sprinkled, that doubt rises again, drawing new strength from the subsequent chapter which treats of Pra^clpati. For there he (Pra^ 4 pati) 184 VEDANTA-s(jTRAS.
at the outset declares that the Self, which is free from sin and the like, is that which is to be searched out, that which we must try to understand ( Kh. Up. VIII, 7, 1); after that he points out that the seer within the eye, i. e. the individual soul, is the Self (‘ that person that is seen in the eye is the Self,’ VIII, 7, 3); refers again and again to the same entity (in the clauses ‘I shall explain him further to you/ VIII, 9, 3; VIII, 10, 4); and (in the explanations fulfilling the given promises) again explains the (nature of the) same individual soul in its different states (‘He who moves about happy in dreams is the Self/ VIII, 10, 1; ‘When a man being asleep, reposing, and at perfect rest sees no dreams, that is the Self/ VIII, 11, 1). The clause attached to both these explanations (viz. ‘ That is the immortal, the fearless; that is Brahman ’) shows, at the same time, the individual soul to be free from sin, and the like. After that Pra^apati, having discovered a shortcoming in the condition of deep sleep (in consequence of the expostulation of Indra,‘ In that way he does not know himself that he is I, nor does he know these beings/ VIII, 11, 2), enters on a further expla¬ nation (‘ I shall explain him further to you, and nothing more than this ’), begins by blaming the (soul’s) connexion with the body, and finally declares the individual soul, when it has risen from the body, to be the highest person. (‘ Thus does that serene being, arising from this body, appear in its own form as soon as it has approached the highest light. That is the highest person.’)—From this it appears that there is a possibility of the qualities of the highest Lord belonging to the individual soul also, and on that account we maintain that the term,‘ the small ether within it/ refers to the individual soul.
This position we counter-argue as follows. ‘ But in so far as its nature has become manifest. 5 The particle ‘ but 5 (in the Sutra) is meant to set aside the view of the purvapakshin, so that the sense of the Sutra is, ‘Not even on account of the subsequent chapter a doubt as to the small ether being the individual soul is possible, because there also that which is meant to be intimated is the individual soul, in so far only as its (true) nature has become manifest. 5 The Sutra uses the expression ‘ he whose nature has become manifest/ 185 which qualifies ^iva, the individual soul, with reference to its previous condition \ — The meaning is as follows. Pra^dpati speaks at first of the seer characterised by the eye (‘ That person which is within the eye/ &c.); shows thereupon, in the passage treating of (the reflection in) the waterpan, that he (viz. the seer) has not his true Self in the body; refers to him repeatedly as the subject to be explained (in the clauses ‘ I shall explain him further to you ’); and having then spoken of him as subject to the states of dreaming and deep sleep, finally explains the individual soul in its real nature, i. e. in so far as it is the highest Brahman, not in so far as it is indi¬ vidual soul (‘As soon as it has approached the highest light it appears in its own form ’). The highest light mentioned, in the passage last quoted, as what is to be approached, is nothing else but the highest Brahman, which is distinguished by such attributes as freeness from sin, and the like. That same highest Brahman constitutes —as we know from passages such as ‘ that art thou ’—the real nature of the individual soul, while its second nature, i. e. that aspect of it which depends on fictitious limiting conditions, is not its real nature. For as long as the indi¬ vidual soul does not free itself from Nescience in the form of duality—which Nescience may be compared to the mistake of him who in the twilight mistakes a post for a man—and does not rise to the knowledge of the Self, whose nature is unchangeable, eternal Cognition—which expresses itself in the form ‘ I am Brahman’—so long it remains the individual soul. But when, discarding the aggregate of body, sense- organs and mind, it arrives, by means of Scripture, at the knowledge that it is not itself that aggregate, that it does not form part of transmigratory existence, but is the True, the Real, the Self, whose nature is pure intelligence; then 1 The masculine c avirbhutasvarupa^ ’ qualifies the substantive ^•iva^ which has to be supplied. Properly speaking the £iva whose true nature has become manifest, i. e. which has become Brahman, is no longer £iva; hence the explanatory statement that the term g-iva is used with reference to what the £iva was before it became Brahman.
i86 VEDANTA-SljTRAS, knowing itself to be of the nature of unchangeable, eternal Cognition, it lifts itself above the vain conceit of being one with this body, and itself becomes the Self, whose nature is unchanging, eternal Cognition. As is declared in such scriptural passages as £ He who knows the highest Brahman becomes even Brahman ’ (Mu. Up. Ill, 2, 9). And this is the real nature of the individual soul by means of which it arises from the body and appears in its own form.
Here an objection may be raised. How, it is asked, can we speak of the true nature (svarupa) of that which is unchanging and eternal, and then say that‘ it appears in its own form (true nature)?’ Of gold and similar substances, whose true nature becomes hidden, and whose specific qualities are rendered non-apparent by their contact with some other substance, it may be said that their true nature is rendered manifest when they are cleaned by the application of some acid substance; so it may be said, likewise, that the stars, whose light is during daytime overpowered (by the superior brilliancy of the sun), become manifest in their true nature at night when the overpowering (sun) has departed. But it is impossible to speak of an analogous overpowering of the eternal light of intelligence by whatever agency, since, like ether, it is free from all contact, and since, moreover, such an assumption would be contradicted by what we actually observe. For the (energies of) seeing, hearing, noticing, cognising constitute the character of the individual soul, and that character is observed to exist in full perfection, even in the case of that individual soul which has not yet risen beyond the body. Every individual soul carries on the course of its practical existence by means of the activities of seeing, hearing, cognising; otherwise no practical existence at all would be possible. If, on the other hand, that character would realise itself in the case of that soul only which has risen above the body, the entire aggregate of practical exis¬ tence, as it actually presents itself prior to the soul’s rising, would thereby be contradicted. We therefore ask: Wherein consists that (alleged) rising from the body? Wherein con¬ sists that appearing (of the soul) in its own form?
To this we make the following reply.—Before the rise of 187 discriminative knowledge the nature of the individual soul, which is (in reality) pure light, is non-discriminated as it were from its limiting adjuncts consisting of body, senses, mind, sense-objects and feelings, and appears as consisting of the energies of seeing and so on. Similarly—to quote an analogous case from ordinary experience—the true nature of a pure crystal, i. e. its transparency and whiteness, is, before the rise of discriminative knowledge (on the part of the observer), non-discriminated as it were from any limiting adjuncts of red or blue colour; while, as soon as through some means of true cognition discriminative knowledge has arisen, it is said to have now accomplished its true nature, i. e. transparency and whiteness, although in reality it had already done so before. Thus the discriminative knowledge, effected by 6ruti, on the part of the individual soul which previously is non-discriminated as it were from its limiting adjuncts, is (according to the scriptural passage under dis¬ cussion) the soul’s rising from the body, and the fruit of that discriminative knowledge is its accomplishment in its true nature, i. e. the comprehension that its nature is the pure Self. Thus the embodiedness and the non-embodiedness of the Self are due merely to discrimination and non-discrimi¬ nation, in agreement with the mantra, 4 Bodiless within the bodies,’ &c. (Ka. Up. I, 2, 22), and the statement of Smrzti as to the non-difference between embodiedness and non- embodiedness 4 Though dwelling in the body, O Kaunteya, it does not act and is not tainted’ (Bha. Gi. XIII, 31). The individual soul is therefore called c That whose true nature is non-manifest ’ merely on account of the absence of discriminative knowledge, and it is called 4 That whose nature has become manifest ’ on account of the presence of such knowledge. Manifestation and non-manifestation of its nature of a different kind are not possible, since its nature is nothing but its nature (i. e. in reality is always the same). Thus the difference between the individual soul and the highest Lord is owing to wrong knowledge only, not to any reality, since, like ether, the highest Self is not in real contact with anything.
And wherefrom is all this to be known?—From the instruc- 188 VEDANTA-S^JTRAS.
tion given by Pra^apati who, after having referred to the ^iva (‘ the person that is seen in the eye,’ &c.), continues ‘ This is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman. 5 If the well-known seer within the eye were different from Brahman which is characterised as the immortal and fear¬ less, it would not be co-ordinated (as it actually is) with the immortal, the fearless, and Brahman. The reflected Self, on the other hand, is' not spoken of as he who is characterised by the eye (the seer wdthin the eye), for that would render Pra^&pati obnoxious to the reproach of saying deceitful things.—So also, in the second section, the passage, ‘ He who moves about happy in dreams,’ &c. does not refer to a being different from the seeing person within the eye spoken of in the first chapter, (but treats of the same topic) as appears from the introductory clause, ‘ I shall explain him further to you.’ Moreover 1, a person who is conscious of having seen an elephant in a dream and of no longer seeing it when awake discards in the waking state the object which he had seen (in his sleep), but recognises himself when awake to be the same person who saw something in the dream.— Thus in the third section also Pra^*apati does indeed declare the absence of all particular cognition in the state of deep sleep, but does not contest the identity of the cognising Self (‘ In that way he does not know himself that he is I, nor all these beings 5 ). The following clause also, ‘ He is gone to utter annihilation, 5 is meant to intimate only the annihilation of all specific cognition, not the annihilation of the cogniser. For there is no destruction of the knowing of the knower as—according to another scriptural pas¬ sage (B ri. Up. IV, 3, 30)—that is imperishable.—Thus, again, in the fourth section the introductory phrase of Pra^apati is, ‘ I shall explain him further to you and nothing different from this; 5 he thereupon refutes the con¬ nexion (of the Self) with the body and other limiting conditions (‘ Maghavat, this body is mortal, 5 &c.), shows the individual soul—which is there called ‘ the serene being 5 —