That the.Sftdras are not qualified, follows from that circumstance also that in different places of the vidy&s such ceremonies as the upanayana and the like are referred to. Compare, for instance,.Sat. Br. XI, 5, 3, 13, ‘He initiated him as a pupil;’ Kh. Up. VII, 1, 1, ‘Teach me, Sir! thus he approached him;’ Pra. Up. I, 1, ‘Devoted to Brahman, firm in Brahman, seeking for the highest Brahman they, carrying fuel in their hands, approached the venerable Pippal&da, thinking that he would teach them all that.’— Thus the following passage also, ‘ He without having made them undergo the upanayana (said) to them’ (Kh. Up. V, 11, 7), shows that the upanayana is a well-established cere¬ mony 1.—With reference to the 6udras, on the other hand, the absence of ceremonies is frequently mentioned; so, for instance, Manu X, 4, where they are spoken of as ‘once- born ’ only (‘the.Stidra is the fourth caste, once-born ’), and Manu X, 126, ‘ In the.Sudra there is not any sin, and he is not fit for any ceremony.’
patir baladhipatir bhavati.—Grammar does not authorise the form ^aitraratha used in the Sfitra.
1 The king A,rvapati receives some Brdhmawas as his pupils without insisting on the upanayana. This express statement of the upanayana having been omitted in a certain case shows it to be the general rule.
37. And on account of (Gautama) proceeding (to initiate Gabala) on the ascertainment of (his) not being that (i.e. a 6udra).
The Gtidras are not qualified for that reason also that Gautama, having ascertained Gabala not to be a Gfidra from his speaking the truth, proceeded to initiate and instruct him. ‘None who is not a Brahma^a would thus speak out. Go and fetch fuel, friend, I shall initiate you. You have not swerved from the truth 5 (Kk. Up. IV, 4, 5) 5 w’hich scriptural passage furnishes an inferential sign (of the Gfidras not being capable of initiation).
38. And on account of the prohibition, in Srimti, of (the 6udras’) hearing and studying (the Veda) and (knowing and performing) (Vedic) matters.
The vSfidras are not qualified for that reason also that Snmti prohibits their hearing the Veda, their studying the Veda, and their understanding and performing Vedic matters. The prohibition of hearing the Veda is conveyed by the following passages: ‘ The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with (molten) lead and lac, 5 and ‘ For a wSudra is (like) a cemetery, therefore (the Veda) is not to be read in the vicinity of a.Sudra. 5 From this latter passage the prohibition of studying the Veda results at once; for how should he study Scripture in whose vicinity it is not even to be read? There is, moreover, an express prohibition (of the vSfidras studying the Veda). ‘ His tongue is to be slit if he pronounces it; his body is to be cut through if he preserves it.’ The prohibitions of hearing and studying the Veda already imply the prohibition of the knowledge and performance of Vedic matters; there are, however, express prohibitions also, such as ‘he is not to impart knowledge to the 6udra, 5 and ‘ to the twice-born belong study, sacrifice, and the bestowal of gifts. 5 —From those 6udras, however, who, like Vidura and ‘the religious hunter, 5 acquire knowledge in consequence of the after effects of former deeds, the fruit of their knowledge cannot be with- 229 held, since knowledge in all cases brings about its fruit. Smrzti, moreover, declares that all the four castes are qualified for acquiring the knowledge of the itihasas and purazzas; compare the passage, c He is to teach the four castes’ (Mahabh.).—It remains, however, a settled point that they do not possess any such qualification with regard to the Veda.
39. (The pr&zza is Brahman), on account of the trembling (predicated of the whole world).
The discussion of qualification for Brahma-knowledge— on which we entered as an opportunity offered—being finished we return to our chief topic, i. e. the enquiry into the purport of the Vedanta-texts.—We read (Ka. Up. II, 6, 2), ‘ Whatever there is, the whole world when gone forth trembles in the prazza. It (the prazza) is a great terror, a raised thunderbolt. Those who know it become immortal V —This passage declares that this whole world trembles, abiding in prazza, and that there is raised something very terrible, called a thunderbolt, and that through its knowledge immortality is obtained. But as it is not immediately clear what the prazza is, and what that terrible thunderbolt, a discussion arises.
The purvapakshin maintains that, in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the term, pr&zza denotes the air with its five modifications, that the word ‘ thunderbolt’ also is to be taken in its ordinary sense, and that thus the whole passage contains a glorification of air. For, he says, this whole world trembles, abiding within air with its five forms —which is here called prazza—and the terrible thunderbolts also spring from air (or wind) as their cause. For in the air, people say, when it manifests itself in the form of Par^anya, lightning, thunder, rain, and thunderbolts manifest themselves.—Through the knowledge of that air immortality 1 As the words stand in the original they might be translated as follows (and are so translated by the pftrvapakshin), ‘ Whatever there is, the whole world trembles in the piazza, there goes forth (from it) a great terror, viz. the raised thunderbolt.’
230 vedAnta-sCtras.
also can be obtained; for another scriptural passage says, 4 Air is everything by itself, and air is all things together. He who knows this conquers death.’—We therefore con¬ clude that the same air is to be understood in the passage under discussion.
To this we make the following reply.—Brahman only can be meant, on account of what precedes as well as what follows. In the preceding as well as the subsequent part of the chapter Brahman only is spoken of; how then can it be supposed that in the intermediate part all at once the air should be referred to? The immediately preceding passage runs as follows, 4 That only is called the Bright, that is called Brahman, that alone is called the Immortal. All worlds are contained in it, and no one goes beyond it.’ That the Brahman there spoken of forms the topic of our passage also, we conclude, firstly, from proximity; and, secondly, from the circumstance that in the clause, 4 The whole world trembles in pra^a/ we recognise a quality of Brahman, viz. its constituting the abode of the whole world. That the word prcbza can denote the highest Self also, appears from such passages as ‘the prd^a of prd/za’ (Brz. Up. IV, 4, 18). Being the cause of trembling, moreover, is a quality which properly appertains to the highest Self only, not to mere air. Thus Scripture says, 4 No mortal lives by the pra^a and the breath that goes down. We live by another in whom these two repose’ (Ka. Up. II, 5, 5). And also in the passage subsequent to the one under discussion, ( 4 From terror of it fire burns, from terror the sun burns, from terror Indra and Viyu, and Death as the fifth run away,’) Brahman, and not the air, must be sup¬ posed to be spoken of, since the subject of that passage is represented as the cause of fear on the part of the whole world inclusive of the air itself. Thence we again conclude that the passage under discussion also refers to Brahman, firstly, on the ground of proximity; and, secondly, because we recognise a quality of Brahman, viz. its being the cause of fear, in the words, 4 A great terror, a raised thunderbolt.’ The word 4 thunderbolt ’ is here used to denote a cause of fear in general. Thus in ordinary life also a man strictly 23I carries out a king’s command because he fearfully considers in his mind, ‘ A thunderbolt (i. e. the king’s wrath, or threatened punishment) is hanging over my head; it might fall if I did not carry out his command.’ In the same manner this whole world inclusive of fire, air, sun, and so on, regularly carries on its manifold functions from fear of Brahman; hence Brahman as inspiring fear is compared to a thunderbolt. Similarly, another scriptural passage, whose topic is Brahman, declares, ‘From terror of it the wind blows, from terror the sun rises; from terror of it Agni and Indra, yea, Death runs as the fifth.’—That Brahman is what is referred to in our passage, further follows from the declara¬ tion that the fruit of its cognition is immortality. For that immortality is the fruit of the knowledge of Brahman is known, for instance, from the mantra, ‘ A man who knows him only passes over death, there is no other path to go ’ (vSVet. Up. VI, 15).—That immortality which the purva- pakshin asserts to be sometimes represented as the fruit of the knowledge of the air is a merely relative one; for there (i.e. in the chapter from which the passage is quoted) at first the highest Self is spoken of, by means of a new topic being started (B ri. Up. Ill, 4), and thereupon the inferior nature of the air and so on is referred to. (‘Everything else is evil.’)—That in the passage under discussion the highest Self is meant appears finally from the general subjectmatter; for the question (asked by Na^iketas in I, 3, 14, ‘ That which thou seest as neither this nor that, as neither effect nor cause, as neither past nor future tell me that ’) refers to the highest Self.
40. The light (is Brahman), on account of that (Brahman) being seen (in the scriptural passage).
We read in Scripture, ‘ Thus does that serene being, arising from this body, appear in its own form as soon as it has approached the highest light’ (Kh. Up. VIII, 12, 3). Here the doubt arises whether the word ‘ light ’ denotes the (physical) light, which is the object of sight and dispels dark¬ ness, or the highest Brahman.
The pfirvapakshin maintains that the word c light 5 denotes the well-known (physical) light, because that is the conven¬ tional sense of the world. For while it is to be admitted that in another passage, discussed under I, i, 24, the word ‘light’ does, owing to the general topic of the chapter, divest itself of its ordinary meaning and denote Brahman, there is in our passage no similar reason for setting the ordinary meaning aside. Moreover, it is stated in the chapter treating of the naafts of the body, that a man going to final release reaches the sun (‘ When he departs from this body then he departs upwards by those very rays; ’ Kh. Up. VIII, 6, 5). Hence we conclude that the word ‘light 5 denotes, in our passage, the ordinary light.
To this we make the following reply.—The word ‘light’ can denote the highest Brahman only, on account of that being seen. We see that in the whole chapter Brahman is carried on as the topic of discussion. For the Self, which is free from sin, &c. is introduced as the general subject- matter in VIII, 7,1 (‘ the Self which is free from sin ’); it is thereupon set forth as that which is to be searched out and to be understood (VIII, 7, 1); it is carried on by means of the clauses, ‘I shall explain that further to you’ (VIII, 9, 3 ff.); after that freedom from body is said to belong to it, because it is one with light (‘ when he is free from the body then neither pleasure nor pain touches him, 5 VIII, 12, 1)— and freedom from body is not possible outside Brahman— and it is finally qualified as ‘the highest light, the highest person 5 (VIII, 12, 3).—Against the statement, made by the purvapakshin, that Scripture speaks of a man going to re¬ lease as reaching the sun, we remark that the release there referred to is not the ultimate one, since it is said to be con¬ nected with going and departing upwards. That the ulti¬ mate release has nothing to do with going and departing upwards we shall show later on.
41. The ether is (Brahman), as it is designated as something different, &c. (from name and form).
Scripture says, ‘ He who is called ether (aka.s*a) is the revealer of all forms and names. That within which these 233 forms and names are contained is the Brahman, the Immor¬ tal, the Self' {Kh. Up. VIII, 14, 1).
There arising a doubt whether that which here is called ether is the highest Brahman or the ordinary elemental ether, the purvapakshin declares that the latter alternative is to be embraced, firstly, because it is founded on the con¬ ventional meaning of the word ‘ether;’ and, secondly, because the circumstance of revealing names and forms can very well be reconciled with the elemental ether, as that which affords room (for all things). Moreover, the passage contains no clear indicatory mark of Brahman, such as creative power, and the like.
To this we reply, that the word ‘ether’ can here denote the highest Brahman only, because it is designated as a different thing, &c. For the clause, ‘That within which these two are contained is Brahman,’ designates the ether as something different from names and forms. But, excepting Brahman, there is nothing whatever different from name and form, since the entire world of effects is evolved exclusively by names and forms. Moreover, the complete revealing of names and forms cannot be accom¬ plished by anything else but Brahman, according to the text which declares Brahman’s creative agency, ‘ Let me enter (into those beings) with this living Self (^*iva atman), and evolve names and forms ’ ( Kh. Up. VI, 3, 2). But—it may be said—from this very passage it is apparent that the living Self also (i. e. the individual soul) possesses revealing power with regard to names and forms.—True, we reply, but what the passage really wishes to intimate, is the non¬ difference (of the individual soul from the highest Self). And the very statement concerning the revealing of names and forms implies the statement of signs indicatory of Brahman, viz. creative power and the like.— Moreover, the terms ‘the Brahman, the Immortal, the Self’ (VIII, 14) indicate that Brahman is spoken of.
42. And (on account of the designation) (of the highest Self) as different (from the individual soul) in the states of deep sleep and departing.
234 VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
In the sixth prapa/^aka of the Bnhadara^yaka there is given, in reply to the question, ‘ Who is that Self? ’ a lengthy exposition of the nature of the Self, ‘ He who is within the heart, among the pri/zas, the person of light, consisting of knowledge’ (B ri. Up. IV, 3, 7). Here the doubt arises, whether the passage merely aims at making an additional statement about the nature of the transmi¬ grating soul (known already from other sources), or at establishing the nature of the non-transmigrating Self.
The pfirvapakshin maintains that the passage is concerned with the nature of the transmigrating soul, on account of the introductory and concluding statements. For the intro¬ ductory statement, ‘ He among the prd«as who consists of knowledge/ contains marks indicatory of the embodied soul, and so likewise the concluding passage, ‘ And that great unborn Self is he who consists of cognition/ &c. (IV, 4, 22). We must therefore adhere to the same subject- matter in the intermediate passages also, and look on them as setting forth the same embodied Self, represented in its different states, viz. the waking state, and so on.
In reply to this, we maintain that the passage aims only at giving information about the highest Lord, not at making additional statements about the embodied soul.—Why?— On account of the highest Lord being designated as different from the embodied soul, in the states of deep sleep and of departing from the body. His difference from the embodied soul in the state of deep sleep is declared in the following passage, ‘ This person embraced by the intelligent (prag-na.) Self knows nothing that is without, nothing that is within.’ Here the term, ‘ the person/ must mean the embodied soul; for of him it is possible to deny that he knows, because he, as being the knower, may know what is within and without. The ‘intelligent Self/ on the other hand, is the highest Lord, because he is never dissociated from intelligence, i. e.—in his case—all-embracing knowledge. — Similarly, the passage treating of departure, i. e. death (‘ this bodily Self mounted by the intelligent Self moves along groaning ’), refers to the highest Lord as different from the individual Self. There also we have to understand by the ‘ embodied one 5 the indi- 235 vidual soul which is the Lord of the body, while the ‘ intel¬ ligent one ’ is again the Lord. We thus understand that ‘ on account of his being designated as something different, in the states of deep sleep and departure,’ the highest Lord forms the subject of the passage.—With reference to the purvapakshin’s assertion that the entire chapter refers to the embodied Self, because indicatory marks of the latter are found in its beginning, middle, and end, we remark that in the first place the introductory passage (‘He among the pranas who consists of cognition’) does not aim at setting forth the character of the transmigrating Self, but rather, while merely referring to the nature of the transmigrating Self as something already known, aims at declaring its identity with the highest Brahman; for it is manifest that the immediately subsequent passage, ‘as if thinking, as if moving 1,’ aims at discarding the attributes of the transmigrating Self. The concluding pas¬ sage again is analogous to the initial one; for the words, ‘ And that great unborn Self is he who,’ &c., mean: We have shown that that same cognitional Self, which is observed among the pri^as, is the great unborn Self, i. e. the highest Lord.—He, again, who imagines that the pas¬ sages intervening (between the two quoted) aim at setting forth the nature of the transmigrating Self by represent¬ ing it in the waking state, and so on, is like a man who, setting out towards the east, wants to set out at the same time towards the west. For in representing the states of waking, and so on, the passage does not aim at describing the soul as subject to different states or transmigration, but rather as free from all particular conditions and trans¬ migration. This is evident from the circumstance that on Ganaka's question, which is repeated in every section, ‘ Speak on for the sake of emancipation/ Ya^viavalkya replies each time, ‘ By all that he is not affected, for that person is not attached to anything’ (B ri. Up. IV, 3, 14-16). And later on he says (IV, 3, 22), ‘ He is not followed by 1 The stress lies here on the ‘ as if/ which intimate that the Self does not really think or move.
good, not followed by evil, for he has then overcome all the sorrows of the heart/ We have, therefore, to conclude that the chapter exclusively aims at setting forth the nature of the non-transmigrating Self.
43. And on account of such words as Lord, &c.
That the chapter aims at setting forth the nature of the non-transmigrating Self, we have to conclude from that circumstance also that there occur in it terms such as Lord and so on, intimating the nature of the non-transmigrating Self, and others excluding the nature of the transmigrating Self. To the first class belongs, for instance,‘ He is the lord of all, the king of all things, the protector of all things/ To the latter class belongs the passage, £ He does not be¬ come greater by good works, nor smaller by evil works/— From all which we conclude that the chapter refers to the non-transmigrating highest Lord.
237 FOURTH PADA.
Reverence to the highest Self!
1. If it be said that some (mention) that which is based on inference (i. e. the pradhana); we deny this, because (the term alluded to) refers to what is con¬ tained in the simile of the body (i.e. the body itself); and (that the text) shows.
In the preceding part of this work—as whose topic there has been set forth an enquiry into Brahman—we have at first defined Brahman (I, 1, <z ); we have thereupon refuted the objection that that definition applies to the pradh&na also, by showing that there is no scriptural authority for the latter (1,1,5), and we have shown in detail that the common purport of all Vedanta-texts is to set forth the doctrine that Brahman, and not the pradhana, is the cause of the world. Here, however, the Sankhya again raises an objection which he considers not to have been finally disposed of.
It has not, he says, been satisfactorily proved that there is no scriptural authority for the pradhana; for some.yakhcts contain expressions which seem to convey the idea of the pradhana. From this it follows that Kapila and other supreme rzshis maintain the doctrine of the pradhana being the general cause only because it is based on the Veda.—As long therefore as it has not been proved that those passages to which the Sankhyas refer have a different meaning (i. e. do not allude to the pradhana), all our previous argumentation as to the omniscient Brahman being the cause of the world must be considered as unsettled. We there¬ fore now begin a new chapter which aims at proving that those passages actually have a different meaning.
The Sankhyas maintain that that also which is based on inference, i. e. the pradhana, is perceived in the text of some ^akhas. We read, for instance, they say, in the Kanaka (I, 3, 11), ‘Beyond the Great there is the Undeveloped, 238 VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
beyond the Undeveloped there is the Person.’ There we recognise, named by the same names and enumerated in the same order, the three entities with which we are acquainted from the Sdnkhya-smr/ti, viz. the great principle, the Un¬ developed (the pradMna), and the soul 1. That by the Un¬ developed is meant the pradhana is to be concluded from the common use of Smrz’ti and from the etymological inter¬ pretation of which the word admits, the pradMna being called undeveloped because it is devoid of sound and other qualities. It cannot therefore be asserted that there is no scriptural authority for the pradMna. And this pradhana vouched for by Scripture we declare to be the cause of the world, on the ground of Scripture, Smr/ti, and ratiocination.
Your reasoning, we reply, is not valid. The passage from the Kanaka quoted by you intimates by no means the existence of that great principle and that Undeveloped which are known from the Sankhya-smrzti. We do not recognise there the pradhana of the ScLnkhyas, i. e. an inde¬ pendent general cause consisting of three constituting elements; we merely recognise the word ‘ Undeveloped,’ which does not denote any particular determined thing, but may—owing to its etymological meaning, ‘that which is not developed, not manifest * — denote anything subtle and difficult to distinguish. The Sankhyas indeed give to the word a settled meaning, as they apply it to the pradMna; but then that meaning is valid for their system only, and has no force in the determination of the sense of the Veda. Nor does mere equality of position prove equality of being, unless the latter be recognised indepen¬ dently. None but a fool would think a cow to be a horse because he sees it tied in the usual place of a horse. We, moreover, conclude, on the strength of the general subject- matter, that the passage does not refer to the pradhana the fiction of the Sankhyas, ‘ on account of there being referred 1 The Great one is the technical S&nkhya-term for buddhi, avyakta is a common designation of pradhana or prakn'ti, and purusha is the technical name of the soul. Compare, for instance, Sankhya Kar. 2, 3.
239 to that which is contained in the simile of the body/ This means that the body which is mentioned in the simile of the chariot is here referred to as the Undeveloped. We infer this from the general subject-matter of the passage and from the circumstance of nothing else remaining.—The immediately preceding part of the chapter exhibits the simile in which the Self, the body, and so on, are compared to the lord of a chariot, a chariot, See., ‘ Know the Self to be the lord of the chariot, the body to be the chariot, the intellect the charioteer, and the mind the reins. The senses they call the horses, the objects of the senses their roads. When he (the Self) is in union with the body, the senses and the mind, then wise people call him the enjoyer/ The text then goes on to say that he whose senses, &c. are not well controlled enters into sa^s&ra, while he who has them under control reaches the end of the journey, the highest place of Vish/zu. The question then arises: What is the end of the journey, the highest place of Vishzzu? Whereupon the text explains that the highest Self which is higher than the senses, &c., spoken of is the end of the journey, the highest place of Vishzzu. ‘ Beyond the senses there are the objects, beyond the objects there is the mind, beyond the mind there is the intellect, the great Self is beyond the in¬ tellect. Beyond the great there is the Undeveloped, beyond the Undeveloped there is the Person. Beyond the Person there is nothing—this is the goal, the highest Road/ In this passage we recognise the senses, &c. which in the preceding simile had been compared to horses and so on, and we thus avoid the mistake of abandoning the matter in hand and taking up a new subject. The senses, the intellect, and the mind are referred to in both passages under the same names. The objects (in the second passage) are the objects which are (in the former passage) designated as the roads of the senses; that the objects are beyond (higher than) the senses is known from the scriptural passage representing the senses as grahas, i.e. graspers, and the objects as atigrahas, i. e. superior to the grahas (B ri. Up. Ill, 3). The mind (manas) again is superior to the objects, because the relation of the senses and their objects is based on the mind. The intellect 240 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
(buddhi) is higher than the mind, since the objects of enjoy¬ ment are conveyed to the soul by means of the intellect. Higher than the intellect is the great Self which was repre¬ sented as the lord of the chariot in the passage, £ Know the Self to be the lord of the chariot/ That the same Self is referred to in both passages is manifest from the repeated use of the word £ Self; 5 that the Self is superior to intelli¬ gence is owing to the circumstance that the enjoyer is naturally superior to the instrument of enjoyment. The Self is appropriately called great as it is the master.— Or else the phrase £ the great Self’ may here denote the intellect of the first-born Hira/zyagarbha which is the basis of all intellects; in accordance with the following Smrz’ti- passage f it is called mind, the great one; reflection, Brahman; the stronghold, intellect; enunciation, the Lord; highest knowledge, consciousness; thought, remembrance 1 / and like¬ wise with the following scriptural passage, £ He (Hira^ya- garbha) who first creates Brahman and delivers the Vedas to him’ (SVet. Up. VI, 18). The intellect, which in the former passage had been referred to under its common name buddhi, is here mentioned separately, since it may be repre¬ sented as superior to our human intellects. On this latter explanation of the term £ the great Self, 5 we must assume that the personal Self which in the simile had been compared to the charioteer is, in the latter passage, included in the highest person (mentioned last); to which there is no objec¬ tion, since in reality the personal Self and the highest Self are identical.—Thus there remains now the body only which had before been compared to a chariot. We therefore con- 1 Satfzkalpavikalparfipamananajaktya haira^yagarbhi buddhir manas tasya^ vyash/imana^su samash/itaya vyaptim aha mahan iti. Sa^kalpadi^aktitaya tarhi sawdehatmatva/^ tatraha matir iti. Mahatvam upapadayati brahmeti. Bhogya^atadharatvam aha pur iti. Ni^ayatmakatvam aha buddhir iti. Kirthaktimattvam aha khyatir iti. Niyamanajaktimatvam aha favara iti. Loke yat prakrfsh/affz £$anam tato*natirekam aha pra^eti. Tatphalam api tato narthantaravishayam ity aha sawvid iti. A^itpradhanatvam aha kitir iti. ^atasarvarthanusawdhana^aktim aha smr/th keti. Ananda Giri.
elude that the text after having enumerated the senses and all the other things mentioned before, in order to point out the highest place, points out by means of the one remaining word, viz. avyakta, the only thing remaining out of those which had been mentioned before, viz. the body. The entire passage aims at conveying the knowledge of the unity of the inward Self and Brahman, by describing the soul’s passing through sa^sara and release under the form of a simile in which the body, &c. of the soul—which is affected by Nescience and therefore joined to a body, senses, mind, intellect, objects, sensations, &c.—are compared to a chariot, and so on.—In accordance with this the subsequent verse states the difficulty of knowing the highest place of Vishnu ( £ the Self is hidden in all beings and does not shine forth, but it is seen by subtle seers through their sharp and subtle intellect ’), and after that the next verse declares Yoga to be the means of attaining that cognition. 6 A wise man should keep down speech in the mind, he should keep down the mind in intelligence, intelligence he should keep down within the great Self, and he should keep that within the quiet Self/—That means: The wise man should restrain the activity of the outer organs such as speech, &c., and abide within the mind only; he should further restrain the mind which is intent on doubtful external objects within intelli¬