—This conclusion is confirmed by other passages also, such as ‘ Speech is indeed the fourth foot of Brahman; that foot shines with Agni as its light and warms ’ ( Kh. Up. IV, 18, 3)) which passage declares that speech is made of the light of Agni. Other passages intimate the same thing by declaring that speech, &c., pass over into Agni, &c., cp. Bri. Up. I, 3, 12, ‘ He carried speech across first.; when speech had become freed from death it became Agni/ Everywhere the enumeration of speech and so on on the one side and Agni and so on on the other side—wherein is implied a distinction of the personal and the divine element —proceeds on the ground of the same relation (viz. of that which is guided and that which guides). Smr/ti-passages also declare at length that speech, &c., are guided by Agni and the other divinities, cp. for instance, £ Brahma^as knowing the truth call speech the personal element, that which is spoken the natural element and fire (Agni) the divine element.’—The assertion that the pr&zzas being endowed with the capability of producing their effects act from their own power is unfounded, as we see that some things which possess the capability of motion, e. g. cars, actually move only if dragged by bulls and the like. Hence, as both alternatives are possible \ we decide on the ground of scripture that the pranas act under the guidance of the divinities.—The next Sutra refutes the assertion that from the fact of the divinities guiding the pranas it would follow that they—and not the embodied soul—are the enjoyers.
15. (It is not so) (because the pranas are con¬ nected) with that to which the pranas belong (i.e. the individual soul), (a thing we know) from scrip¬ ture.
Although there are divinities guiding the pranas, yet we learn from scripture that those pranas are connected with the embodied soul which is the Lord of the aggregate of 1 Viz. that something should act by itself, and that it should act under guidance only.
II ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, I 7.
93 instruments of action. The following passage, e.g. ‘where the sight has entered into the void there is the person of the eye; the eye itself is the instrument of seeing. He who knows, let me smell this, he is the Self; the nose is the instrument of smelling/ declares that the pranas are connected with the embodied soul only. Moreover the plurality of the divinities guiding the organs renders it impossible that they should be the enjoyers in this body. For that there is in this body only one embodied enjoyer is understood from the possibility of the recognition of identity and so on x.
16. And on account of the permanence of this (viz. the embodied soul).
This embodied soul abides permanently in this body as the enjoyer, since it can be affected by good and evil and can experience pleasure and pain. Not so the gods; for they exist in the state of highest power and glory and cannot possibly enter, in this wretched body, into the con¬ dition of enjoyers. So scripture also says, ‘ Only what is good approaches him; verily evil does not approach the devas’ (B ri. Up. I, 5, 20).—And only with the embodied soul the pranas are permanently connected, as it is seen that when the soul passes out &c. the prd/zas follow it. This we see from passages such as the following: ‘ When it passes out the prazza passes out after it, and when the prazza thus passes out all the other pra/zas pass after it’ (B ri. Up. IV, 4, 2). Hence although there are ruling divi¬ nities of the organs, the embodied soul does not cease to be the enjoyer; for the divinities are connected with the organs only, not with the state of the soul as enjoyer.
17. They (the pranas) are senses, on account of being so designated, with the exception of the best (the mukhya pra/za).
We have treated of the mukhya pra/za and the other 1 Yo*hazzz rfipam adrakshaw so * haw srmomity ekasyaiva praty- abhi^anam pratisamdhanam. Go. An.
94 vedanta-sCtras.
eleven pranas in due order.-—Now there arises another doubt, viz. whether the other pranas are functions of the mukhya prazza or different beings.—The purvapakshin main¬ tains that they are mere functions, on account of scriptural statement. For scripture, after having spoken of the chief prazza and the other prazzas in proximity, declares that those other prazzas have their Self in the chief prazza, £ Well, let us all assume his form. Thereupon they all assumed his form * (B ri. Up. I, 5 > 2i).—Their unity is moreover ascertained from the unity of the term applied to them, viz. pr&zza. Otherwise there either would result the objectionable cir¬ cumstance of one word having different senses, or else the word would in some places have to be taken in its primary sense, in others in a derived sense. Hence, as prazza, apana, &c. are the five functions of the one chief prazza, so the eleven prazzas also which begin with speech are mere functions of the chief prazza.—To this we reply as follows. Speech and so on are beings different from the chief prazza, on account of the difference of designation.—Which is that difference of designation?—The eleven prazzas remaining if we abstract from the best one, i.e. the chief prazza, are called the sense- organs (indriya), as we see them designated in.Sruti, ‘ from him is born breath, mind, and all organs of sense’ (Mu. Up. II, i, 3). In this and other passages prazza and the sense-organs are mentioned separately.—But in that case the mind also would have to be excluded from the class of sense-organs, like the prazza; as we see that like the latter it is separately mentioned in the passage, ‘ The mind and all organs of sense.’ True; but in Smrzti eleven sense-organs are mentioned, and on that account the mind must, like the ear, and so on, be comprised in the sense-organs. That the prazza on the other hand is a sense-organ is known neither from Smrzti nor.Sruti.—Now this difference of designation is appropriate only if there is difference of being. If there were unity of being it would be contradictory that the prazza although one should sometimes be designated as sense¬ -organ and sometimes not. Consequently the other prazzas Vre different in being from the chief prazza.—For this con¬ clusion the following Sutra states an additional reason.
95 18. On account of the scriptural statement of difference.
The prazza is everywhere spoken of as different from speech, &c. The passage, e.g. beginning with ‘ They said to speech 5 (B ri. Up. I, 3, 2), enumerates speech, &c., which were overwhelmed by the evil of the Asuras, concludes thereupon the section treating of speech, &c., and then specially mentions the mukhya prazza as overcoming the Asuras, in the paragraph beginning ‘ Then they said to the breath in the mouth/—Other passages also referring to that difference maybe quoted, so, for instance, £ He made mind, speech, and breath for himself* (B ri. Up. I, 5, 3).—For this reason also the other pranas are different in being from the chief prazza.—Another reason follows.
19. And on account of the difference of character¬ istics.
There is moreover a difference of characteristics between the chief prazza and the other prazzas. When speech &c. are asleep, the chief pr&zza alone is awake. The chief prazza alone is not reached by death, while the other prazzas are. The staying and departing of the chief prazza—not that of the sense-organs—is the cause of the maintenance and the destruction of the body. The sense-organs, on the other hand, are the cause of the perception of the sense-objects, not the chief prazza. Thus there are manifold differences distinguishing the prazza from the senses, and this also shows the latter to be different in being from the prazza.—To infer from the passage, ‘ thereupon they all assumed his form,’ that the sense-organs are nothing but prazza is wrong, because there also an examination of the context makes us understand their difference. For there the sense-organs are enumerated first Voice held, I shall speak/ &c.); after that it is said that speech, &c. were seized by death in the form of weariness (‘ Death having become weariness held them back; therefore speech grows weary ’); finally prazza is mentioned separately as not having been overcome by death (‘ but death did not seize the central breath *), and is 96 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
asserted to be the best (‘ he is the best of us ’). The assum¬ ing of the form of pra^a has therefore, in accordance with the quoted passages, to be understood to mean that the energizing of speech and so on depends on the pra^a, but not that they are identical with it.—Hence it follows that the word c pra?za’ is applied to the sense-organs in a secondary sense. Thus *Sruti also says, ‘Thereupon they all assumed his form, and therefore they are called after him pranas;’ a passage declaring that the word pra^a, which properly refers to the chief pra//a, is secondarily applied to the sense-organs also. Speech and the other sense-organs are therefore different in being from the pra^a.
20. But the fashioning of names and forms belongs to him who renders tripartite, on account of the teaching (of scripture).
In the chapter treating of the Being (sat), subsequently to the account of the creation of fire, water, and food (earth), the following statement is made, ‘ That divinity thought, let me now enter those three beings with this living Self (£*iva atma), and let me then evolve names and forms 1;— let me make each of these three tripartite’ (Kk. Up. VI, 3, 2; 3).—Here the doubt arises whether the agent in that evolution of names and forms is the^iva (the living, i.e. the individual Self or soul) or the highest Lord.—The purva- pakshin maintains the former alternative, on account of the qualification contained in the words ‘with this living Self.’ The use of ordinary language does, in such phrases as ‘ Having entered the army of the enemy by means of a spy I count it,’ attribute the counting of the army in which the. spy is the real agent to the Self of the king who is the causal agent; which attribution is effected by means of the use of the first person, ‘ I count.’ So here the sacred text attributes the evolving of names and forms—in which the ^iva is the real agent—to the Self of the divinity which is the causal agent; the attribution being effected by means Literally, with this living Self having entered let me evolve, &c.
II ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 20.
97 of the use of the first person, ‘ let me evolve/—Moreover we see in the case of names such as Z>ittha, Z>avittha, &c., and in the case of forms such as jars, dishes and the like that the individual soul only is the evolving agent 1. Hence the evolution of names and forms is the work of the £*iva.
To this the Sutra replies: ‘But the fashioning of names and forms belongs to him who renders tripartite/ The particle ‘ but 5 discards the purvapaksha. Fashioning means evolv¬ ing. The term ‘he who renders tripartite’ denotes the highest Lord, his agency being designated as beyond con¬ tradiction in the case of the rendering tripartite (of fire, &c.). The entire evolution of names and forms which is seen, e.g. in fire, sun, moon, lightning, or in different plants such as ku^a-grass, ka^a-grass, pakha-trees, or in various living beings such as cattle, deer, men, all this manifold evolution according to species and individuals can surely be the work of the highest Lord only, who fashioned fire, water, and earth.—Why?—On account of the teaching of the sacred text.—For the text says at first c that divinity/ &c., and then goes on in the first person ‘ let me evolve; ’ which implies the statement that the highest Brahman only is the evolving agent.—But we ascertain from the qualification contained in the words c with this living Self/ that the agent in the evolution is the living Self!—No, we reply. The words 'with this living Self’ are connected with the words ‘ having entered/ in proximity to which they stand; not with the clause ‘let me evolve/ If they were connected with the former words, we should have to assume that the first person, which refers to the divinity—viz. ‘let me evolve ’—is used in a metaphorical sense. And with regard to all the manifold names and forms such as mountains, rivers, oceans, &c., no soul, apart from the Lord, possesses the power of evolution; and if any have such power, it is dependent on the highest Lord. Nor is the so-called ‘ living Self’ absolutely different from the highest Lord, as the spy is from the king; as we see from its being qualified 1 Names being given and vessels being shaped by a class of £-ivas, viz. men.
as the living Self, and as its being the^iva (i.e. an individual soul apparently differing from the universal Self) is due to the limiting adjuncts only. Hence the evolution of names and forms which is effected by it is in reality effected by the highest Lord. And that the highest Lord is he who evolves the names and forms is a principle acknowledged by all the Upanishads; as we see from such passages as 4 He who is called ether is the evolver of all forms and names 5 ( Kh. Up. VIII, 14). The evolution of names and forms, therefore, is exclusively the work of the highest Lord, who is also the author of the tripartite arrangement.—The meaning of the text is that the evolution of names and forms was preceded by the tripartition, the evolution of each particular name and form being already explained by the account of the origin of fire, water, and earth. The act of tripartition is expressly described by Sruti in the cases of fire, sun, moon, and lightning, ‘ The red colour of burning fire is the colour of fire, the white colour of fire is the colour of water, the black colour of fire the colour of earth/ &c. In this way there is evolved the distinctive form of fire, and in connexion therewith the distinctive name ‘ fire/ the name depending on the thing. The same remarks apply to the cases of the sun, the moon, and lightning. The instance (given by the text) of the tripartition of fire implies the statement that the three substances, viz. earth, water, fire, were rendered tripartite in the same manner; as the begin¬ ning as well as the concluding clause of the passage equally refers to all three. For the beginning clause says, ‘ These three beings became each of them tripartite; 5 and the con¬ cluding clause says, ‘Whatever they thought looked red they knew was the colour of fire/ &c. &c., up to ‘ Whatever they thought was altogether unknown they knew was some combination of these three beings/ Having thus described the external tripartition of the three elements the text goes on to describe another tripartition with reference to man, ‘ those three beings when they reach man become each of them tripartite/ This tripartition in man the teacher sets forth (in the following Sutra) according to scripture, with a view to the refutation of some foreseen objection.
II ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 2 2.
99 21. The flesh, &c., originates from earth, accord¬ ing to the scriptural statement; and (so also) in the case of the two other (elements).
From tripartite earth when assimilated by man there are produced as its effects flesh, &c., according to scripture. For the text says, ‘ Food (earth) when eaten becomes three¬ fold; its grossest portion becomes feces, its middle portion flesh, its subtlest portion mind/ The meaning is that the tripartite earth is eaten in the shape of food such as rice, barley, &c.; that its grossest parts are discharged in the form of feces, that its middle parts nourish the flesh of the body, and its subtlest parts feed the mind. Analogously we have to learn from the text the effects of the two other elements, viz. fire and water; viz. that urine, blood, and breath are the effects of water; bone, marrow, and speech those of fire.—Here now an objection is raised. If all material things are tripartite (i.e. contain parts of the three elements alike)—according to the indifferent statement, ‘ He made each of these tripartite’—for what reason then has there been made the distinction of names, ‘ this is fire, this is water, this is earth?’ And again, why is it said that among the elements of the human body, flesh, &c., is the effect of the eaten earth only; blood, &c., the effect of the water drunk; bone, &c., the effect of the fire eaten?—To this objection the next Sutra replies.
22. But on account of their distinctive nature there is a (distinctive) designation of them.
The word ‘but’ repels the objection raised. By ‘dis¬ tinctive nature’ we have to understand preponderance. Although all things are tripartite, yet we observe in different places a preponderance of different elements; heat preponderates in fire, water in all that is liquid, food in earth. This special tripartition aims at rendering possible the distinctions and terms of ordinary life. For if the tripartition resulted in sameness, comparable to that of the three strands of a tripartite rope, we could not distinguish— and speak of as distinguished—the three elements.—Hence, H 2 IOO VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
although there is a tripartition, we are enabled ‘ on account of distinctive nature* to give special designations to the three elements, viz. fire, water, and earth and their pro¬ ducts.—The repetition (of ‘ designation of them ’) indicates the termination of the adhyaya.
THIRD ADHYAYA.
FIRST PADA.
Reverence to the highest Self!
i. In obtaining a different (body) (the soul) goes enveloped (by subtle parts of the elements), (as appears from) question and explanation.
In the second adhyaya we have refuted the objections raised against the Vedantic view of Brahman on the ground of Smrz’ti and reasoning; we have shown that all other opinions are devoid of foundation, and that the alleged mutual contradictions ofVedic texts do not exist. Further we have demonstrated that the entities different from—but subordinate to—the individual soul (such as pra^a, &c.) spring from Brahman.—Now in the third adhyaya we shall discuss the following subjects: the manner in which the soul together with its subordinate adjuncts passes through the sa/^sara (III, i); the different states of the soul and the nature of Brahman (III, 2); the separateness or non¬ separateness of the vidyas and the question whether the qualities (of Brahman) have to be cumulated or not (III, 3); the accomplishment of man’s highest end by means of per¬ fect knowledge (sa/^yagdarsana), the different injunctions as to the means of perfect knowledge and the absence of certain rules as to release which is the fruit (of perfect knowledge*) (III, 4). As occasion leads some other matters also will be explained.—The first pada explains, on the ground of the so-called vidya of the five fires ( Kh. Up. V, 3-10), the different modes of the soul’s passing through the sawsara; the reason of that doctrine being (the inculcation of) absence 1 I.e. the absence of a rule laying down that release consequent on knowledge takes place in the same existence in which the means of reaching perfect knowledge are employed.
102 VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
of all desire (vairagya), in accordance with the scriptural remark at the end (of the vidya), { hence let a man take care to himself.'—The soul accompanied by the chief vital air, the sense-organs and the mind, and taking with itself nescience (avidya), moral good or ill-desert (karman), and the impressions left by its previous existences 1, leaves its former body and obtains a new body; this is known from the scriptural passage extending from Bri. Up. IV, 4, 1 Then those pranas gather around him ’) up to IV, 4, 4 (‘ It makes to itself another newer and more beautiful shape'); which passage forms part of a chapter treating of the sa^sara-state. And it moreover follows from the pos¬ sibility (thus resulting) of the soul enjoying the fruits of good and evil actions.—Here the question arises whether the soul when going to the new body is enveloped or not by subtle parts of the elements constituting the seeds of the body.—It is not so enveloped, the purvapakshin says.— Why?—Because scripture, while stating that the soul takes the organs with itself, does not state the same with regard to the elements. For the expression c those parts of light ’ (te^omatra^) which occurs in the passage c He taking with him those parts of light, 5 &c., intimates that the organs only are taken (and not the elements), since in the complement¬ ary portion of the passage the eye, &c.^ are spoken of, and not the subtle parts of the elements. The subtle parts of the elements can moreover easily be procured anywhere; for wherever a new body is to be originated they are pre¬ sent, and the soul’s taking them with itself would, therefore, be useless. Hence we conclude that the soul when going is not enveloped by them.
To this the teacher replies, ‘ in obtaining another it goes enveloped. 5 That means: we must understand that the soul when passing from one body to another is enveloped by the subtle parts of the elements which are the seeds of the new 3 I read avidya with the commentators (Go. An., however, mentions the reading ‘ vidyd 5 also); although vidya appears preferable. Cp. Max Mullers note 2, p. 175, Upan. II; Deussen, p. 405.—Purva- pragna ^anmantariya-sa^skara^. An. Gi.
Ill ADHYAYA, I PADA, I.
103 body.—How do we know this?—‘From the question and the explanation.' The question is, ‘ Do you know why in the fifth libation water is called man? 5 (V, 3, 3.) The explanation, i.e. answer, is given in the entire passage which, after having explained how the five libations in the form of ^raddha. Soma, rain, food, seed are offered in the five fires, viz. the heavenly world, Par^anya, the earth, man and woman, concludes, ‘ For this reason is water in the fifth obla¬ tion called man.’ Hence we understand that the soul goes enveloped by water.—But—an objection will be raised— another scriptural passage declares that like a caterpillar the soul does not abandon the old body before it makes an approach to another body 1. (B ri. Up. IV, 4, 3, ‘And as a caterpillar.')—We reply that what there is compared to the (action of the) caterpillar is (not the non-abandonment of the old body but) merely the lengthening out of the crea¬ tive effort whose object is the new body to be obtained, which (new body) is presented by the karman of the soul 2. Hence there is no contradiction.—As the mode of obtaining a new body is thus declared by 6ruti, all hypotheses which owe their origin to the mind of man only are to be set aside because they are contradicted by scripture. So e.g. the opinion (of the Sankhyas) that the Self and the organs are both all-pervading 3, and when obtaining a new body only begin to function in it in consequence of the kar¬ man; or the opinion (of the Bauddhas) that the Self alone 1 Evaw hi sftkshmadehaparishvakto rawhet yady asya sthula/// sarivam rawhato na bhavet, asti tv asya vartamanasthhla^arirayoga^ adehantarapraptes tn^a^alayukanidanranena, tasman nidarsawa- ^rutivirodhan na sukshmadehaparishvakto rawhatiti. Bha.
2 Pratipattavya^ praptavyo yo dehas tadvishayaya bhavanaya utpadanaya dirghibhavamatraw ^alukayopamiyate. Bha.—An. Gi. explains: praptavyo yo dehas tadvishayabhavanaya devo*ham ityadikaya dirghibhavo vyavahitarthalambanatvaw tavanmatram ityadi.
3 Kara^anam ahawkarikatvat tasya vyapitvat tesham api tadat- makanaw vyapitvam. Go. An.—The organs are, according to the Sankhya, the immediate effects of the ahawkara, but why all- pervading on that account?
104 vedanta-sOtras.
(without the organs) begins to function in a new body, and that as the body itself, so new sense-organs also are pro¬ duced in the new abode of fruition 1; or the opinion (of the Vabeshikas) that the mind only proceeds to the new abode of fruition 2; or the opinion (of the Digambara Gainas) that the individual soul only flying away from the old body alights in the new one as a parrot flies from one tree to another.—But—an objection will be raised—from the quoted question and answer it follows that the soul goes enveloped by water only, according to the meaning of the word made use of by scripture, viz. water. How then can the general statement be maintained that the soul goes enveloped by subtle parts of all elements?—To this doubt the next Sutra replies.
2. But on account of (water) consisting of three (elements) (the soul is enveloped not by water merely; the latter alone is, however, mentioned) on account of preponderance.
The word ‘but 5 disposes of the objection raised.—Water consists of three elements, as we know from the scriptural statement regarding tripartition. If, therefore, water is admitted to originate (the new body) the other two elements also have necessarily to be admitted (as taking part in the origination). The body moreover consists of three elements, as the effects of the three, i.e. fire, water, and earth, are observed in it, and further as it contains three materials, viz. wind, bile, and phlegm 3. Being such it cannot originate from mere water, the other elements being left aside. Hence the term water made use of in the scriptural ques¬ tion and answer refers to the fact of water preponderating, 1 Atma khalv alaya^anasamtanas tasya vrfttaya^ ^abdadi^anani tallabha^ jarirantare bhavati, kevala^abdas tu kara^asahityam atmano varayati. Go. An.
2 Kevalaw kara^air atmana £a rahitam iti yavat, kara/zani nfitan- any eva tatrarabhyante atma tu vibhutvad akriyo*pi tatra wYttima- tram apnoti. An. Gi.
3 The last of which only is of prevailingly watery character.
Ill ADHYAYA, I PADA, 4.
105 not to its being the only element. As a matter of fact we see that in all animated bodies liquid substances such as juices, blood, and the like preponderate.—But we likewise observe in bodies a large amount of earthy matter!—True, but the amount of water is larger than that of any other matter. Moreover, liquid matter prevails in that which is the seed of the body. Further, we know that works (kar- man) constitute the efficient cause for the origination of a new body, and (sacrificial) works such as the agnihotra, &c., consist in the offering of liquid substances such as Soma, butter, milk and the like. Thereby also the preponder¬ ance of water is established. And on account of that preponderance the word * water’ implies the subtle parts of all the elements which constitute the seed of the body.
3. And on account of the going of the pranas.
Scripture states that, when a new body is obtained, the pranas also go (from the old body to the new one). Cp.