‘ When he thus departs the (chief) pr&zza departs after him, and when the prazza thus departs all the other pranas depart after it ’ (B ri. Up. IV, 4, 2), and similar passages. Now this going of the pranas is not possible without a base; hence we infer that water also—mixed with parts of the other elements—goes (from the old body to the new one), serving the purpose of supplying a base for the moving pranas. For the prazzas cannot, without such a base, either move or abide anywhere; as we observe in living beings.
4. If it be said (that the prazzas do not go) on account of the scriptural statement as to entering into Agni, &c., we deny this on account of the metaphorical nature (of those statements).
Well, the purvapakshin resumes, we deny that at the time when a new body is obtained the prazzas go with the soul, because scripture speaks of their going to Agni, &c. For that at the time of death speech and the other prazzas go to Agni and the other gods the following passage ex¬ pressly declares: ‘When the speech of the dead person enters into the fire, breath into the air/ &c. (B ru Up. Ill, 2, 13).—To this we reply that the objection is of no force on account of the metaphorical character of those statements. The entering of speech, &c., into Agni is metaphorical, because we observe no such entering in the case of the hairs of the head and body. For although the text says that ‘ the hairs of the body enter into the shrubs and the hairs of the head into the trees; ’ still we cannot under¬ stand this to mean that the hairs actually fly away from the body and enter into trees and shrubs. On the other hand, the soul could not go at all if we denied to it the limiting adjunct formed by the pranas, and without the latter it could not, in the new body, enter into the state of fruition. Besides, other passages distinctly declare that the pranas go with the soul.—From all this we conclude that the passage about speech, &c. entering into Agni, metaphoric¬ ally expresses that Agni and the other divinities who act as guides of the pranas and co-operate with them stop their co-operation at the time of death.
5. If an objection be raised on the ground of (water) not being mentioned in the first fire, we refute it by remarking that just it (viz. water) (is meant), on the ground of fitness.
Well, the purvapakshin resumes, but how can it be ascertained that £ in the fifth oblation water is called man/ considering that water is not mentioned by scripture with reference to the first fire (altar)? For the text enumerates five fires—the first of which is the heavenly world—as the abodes of the five oblations. With reference to the first of those fires—introduced by the words ‘ The fire is that world, O Gautama/ it is stated that iraddha (faith) is the material constituting the oblation (‘ on that altar the devas offer jraddha 5 ); while nothing is said about water being the offered material. If, with reference to the four follow¬ ing fires, viz. Par^anya, &c., water is assumed to constitute the offering, we have no objection because in the substances stated there as forming the oblations, viz. Soma, and so on, water may preponderate. But to set aside, in the case of Ill ADHYAYA, I PADA, 5. 107 the first fire, jraddha (i.e. faith) which is directly mentioned in the text, and to substitute in its place the assumption of water, about which the text says nothing, is an arbitrary proceeding. In reality jraddha must be explained, in con¬ formity with its ordinary meaning, as a kind of mental state, viz. faith. Hence it is objectionable to maintain that water, in the fifth oblation, becomes man.
To this view of the purvapakshin we demur, because, in the case of the first fire, the word ^raddhi is to be taken in the sense of ‘water/—On what ground?—On the ground of fitness. For on that explanation only beginning, middle, and end of the passage harmonise so that the syntactical unity of the whole remains undisturbed. On the other explanation (i. e. ^raddha being taken in the sense of ‘ faith’), if the question were asked how water, in the fifth oblation, can be called man, and if, in way of reply, the text could point only to faith, i.e. something which is not water, as constituting the material of the oblation; then question and answer would not agree, and so the unity of the whole passage would be destroyed. The text, moreover, by concluding ‘ For this reason is water in the fifth oblation called man,’ indicates the same interpretation 1.—Further, the text points out, as effects of jraddha, substances in which water in its gross form preponderates, viz. Soma, rain, &c. And this again furnishes a reason for interpreting jraddha as water, because the effect generally is cognate in nature to the cause. Nor again can the mental conception called faith be taken out from the mind or soul, whose attribute it is, and be employed as an offering, as the heart can be cut out of the sacrificial animal. For this reason also the word.sraddha must be taken to mean ‘water/ Water can, moreover, be fitly called by that name, on the ground of Vedic usage, cp. ‘ jraddha indeed is water ’ (Taitt. Sa^h. I, 6, 8, 1). Moreover, water when forming the seed of the body enters into the state of thinness, subtilty, and herein again resembles faith, so that its being called ^raddha 1 Upasaz/zharalo^anayam api jraddhavrabdatvam apam evety aha tv iti. An. Gi.
io8 vedanta-sOtras.
is analogous to the case of a man who is as valiant as a lion being himself called a lion.—Again, the word.yraddha may fitly be applied to water, because water is intimately con¬ nected with religious works (sacrifices, &c.) which depend on faith; just as the word c platform * is applied to men (standing on the platform). And finally the waters may fitly be called jraddha, on account of their being the cause of faith, according to the scriptural passage, ‘ Water indeed produces faith in him for holy works V 6. (Should it be said that the souls are not en¬ veloped by water) on account of this not being stated by scripture, we refute the objection on the ground of those who perform ish/is, &c., being understood.
Well, let it be granted that, on account of question and answer, water, passing through the forms of jraddha, &c., may in the fifth oblation obtain the shape of man. But still we cannot allow that the souls when moving from one body into another are enveloped by water. For this is not directly stated by scripture, there being in the whole passage no word referring to the souls, while there are words referring to water. Hence the assertion that the soul goes enveloped by water is unfounded.—This objection is invalid, we reply,* on account of those who perform ish/is, &c., being understood.’ For in the passage beginning c But they who living in a village practise sacrifices, works of public utility and alms, they go to the smoke’ (V, 3, 10), it is said that those who perform ishds reach, on the road of the fathers leading through smoke, &c., the moon, ‘From ether they go to the moon; that is Soma, the king.’ Now these same persons are meant in the passage about the five fires also, as we conclude from the equality of scriptural statement in the passage, £ In that fire the devas offer 1 Apo heti, asmai puz?zse*dhikari/ze sa/rcnamante ^anayanti dananamatre^a snanadipu^yakarmasiddhyarthaw jraddham ity artha^. An. Gi.
Ill ADHYAYA, I PADA, 6. 109 ^raddhi. From that oblation rises Soma the king 1 / To those 2 (persons who have performed ish/is, &c.) water is supplied in the shape of the materials employed to perform the agnihotra, the danapurzzamasa and other sacrifices, viz. sour milk, milk, &c., which substances, as consisting mostly of water, may directly be considered as water. Of these, when offered in the ahavaniya, the subtle parts assume the form of an apurva resulting from the oblation 3, and attach themselves to the performer of the sacrifice. Then (when the sacrificer dies) the priests offer his body, with the funeral ceremonies 4, into the crematory fire, with the mantra, ‘(may) he (go) to the heavenly world, svaha/ Then the water forming the oblation—which was connected with deeds resulting from faith 5 —having assumed the form of an apurva envelops the souls of those who had performed the sacrifices, and leads them up to the heavenly world to receive their reward.—In accordance with the preceding interpretation scripture says in the agnihotra chapter also— in the complementary passage constituting the reply to the six questions—that the two agnihotra-oblations go up to the other world in order to originate the fruit (of the work of the sacrificer), £ Those two oblations when offered go up, &c/ (vSat. Br. XI, 6, 2, 6).— Hence we conclude that the 1 Both passages speak of something reaching, i.e. becoming the moon. Now, as that something is, in the passage about the road of the fathers, the £ivas of those who have performed ish/is, &c., we conclude that by the jraddha also, from which in the other passage the moon is said to rise, those g-tvas are meant, or, properly speak¬ ing, the subtle body of water which envelops those ^ivas.—Dhftmadi- vakye pawMgnivakye £a somara^atvaprapthravazzavheshad ish/adi- kari/za h ^raddha^abditadbhir vesh/Ma dyulokaw yantiti bhatity artha^. An. Gi.
2 An. Gi. introduces this clause by: nanu mahad iha jrutyor vaila- ksha«yaw,.sraddhisabditanam apa m kva/£id dyuloke homa^ jruta^ kva&d ish/adikarMm dhumadikrame^aka^apraptir na H tesham apa^ santi yena tadveshMitanazzz gatis tatraha tesham £eti.
3 I read, with a MS. of An. Gi., ahutyaphrvarupa^.
5 And is on that account properly called jraddha.
souls, when going to the enjoyment of the fruits of their works, are enveloped by the water of which the oblations consist 1.
But how can it be maintained that those who perform sacrifices, &c., go to the enjoyment of the fruit of their works, considering that scripture declares them when having reached the moon—by the path leading through smoke, &c.—to become food, 4 That is Soma the king; that is the food of the gods; the gods do eat it’ ( Kh. Up. V, 10, 4); and the corresponding passage, ‘ Having reached the moon they become food, and then the Devas feed on them there as sacrificers feed on Soma as it increases and decreases 5 (B ru Up. VI, 2, 16)? If, in accordance with these passages, they are eaten by the gods as by tigers, &c., it is not possible that they should enjoy the fruit of their deeds.— To this the following Sutra replies.
7. Or (the souls’ being the food of the gods is) metaphorical, on account of their not knowing the Self. For thus (scripture) declares.
The word ‘ or 5 is meant to set aside the started objection. The souls 5 being food has to be understood in a metaphorical, not a literal, sense, as otherwise all scriptural statements of claims (adhikara)—such as c He who is desirous of the heavenly world is to sacrifice’—would be contradicted. If 1 -Sankara's attempts to render plausible the interpretation of sraddha by 4 water/ and to base thereon the doctrine of the souls when going to a new body being enveloped by a subtle involucrum of water (and the other elements contained therein) are, of course, altogether artificial. I do not, however, see that he can be taxed with inconsistency (as he is by Deussen, p. 408). Sraddha is to him in the first place the gross water which constitutes the chief material employed in the sacrifices; in the second place the apurva which results from the sacrifice, and which is imagined to consist of the subtle parts of the water whose gross parts have been consumed by the sacrificial fire. These subtle parts attach themselves to the soul, accompany it as an involucrum when it goes to another world, and form the base of any new body which the soul may have to assume in accordance with its previous deeds.
Ill ADHYAYA, I PADA, 7.
I I I the performers of sacrifices, &c., did not, in the sphere of the moon, enjoy the fruits of their works, why should they undertake works such as sacrifices, which are to him who performs them the cause of great trouble? We see, more¬ over, that the word c food/ as denoting in general whatever is the cause of enjoyment, is metaphorically used of that also which is not food (in the narrower sense), as, for in¬ stance, in such phrases as ‘the VaLryas are the food of kings, the animals are the food of the Vahyas.’ Hence what is meant there by the term ‘eating’ is the rejoicing of the gods with the performers of sacrifices, &c., who stand in a subordinate (instrumental) relation to that rejoic¬ ing—a rejoicing analogous to that of an ordinary man with beloved persons such as wife, children, friends, and so on— not actual eating like the chewing and swallowing of sweet¬ meats. For that the gods eat in the ordinary way a scriptural passage expressly denies ( Kh. Up. Ill, 6, 1), ‘ The gods do not eat or drink; by seeing the nectar they are satisfied.’ At the same time the performers of sacrifices, although standing in a subordinate relation to the gods, may themselves be in a state of enjoyment, like servants who (although subordinate to the king) themselves live on the king.—That the performers of sacrifices are objects of enjoyment for the gods follows, moreover, from their quality of not knowing the Self. For that those who do not know the Self are objects of enjoyment for the gods the following scriptural passage shows, ‘ Now, if a man worships another deity, thinking the deity is one and he is another, he does not know. He is like a beast for the Devas ’ (B ri. Up. I, 4, 10). That means: he, in this life, propitiating the gods by means of oblations and other works, serves them like a beast, and does so in the other world also, depending on them like a beast and enjoying the fruits of his works as assigned by them.—The latter part of the Sutra can be explained in another manner also 1. Those who do not know the Self are those who perform works only, such as sacrifices, &c., 1 Anatma^abdamiter mukhyarthatvanurodhena sfitramasyartham uktva prakarawanurodhenarthantaram aha. An. Gi.
and do not join knowledge to works. We then take the expression, 4 the knowledge of the Self/ as indirectly denot¬ ing the knowledge of the five fires; an explanation which rests on the general subject-matter. And on account of the performers of sacrifices being destitute of the knowledge of the five fires the circumstance of their serving as food is brought forward as a mere guzzavada 1 for the purpose of glorifying the knowledge of the five fires. For the latter is what the text aims at enjoining, as we infer from the general purport of the passage.— 4 For thus 5 another scrip¬ tural passage 4 declares/ viz. that enjoyment (on the part of the^iva) takes place in the sphere of the moon, 4 Having enjoyed greatness in the Soma world he returns again’ (Pr. Up. V, 4). Another scriptural passage also declares that the performers of sacrifices dwelling together with the gods obtain enjoyment, 4 A hundred blessings of the fathers who have conquered this world make one blessing of the work- gods, who obtain their godhead by work ’ (B ri. Up. IV, 3, 33).—As thus the statement about the performers of sacri¬ fices becoming food is metaphorical only, we understand that it is their souls which go, and hence there is no longer any objection to the doctrine that they go enveloped by water.
8. On the passing away of the works (the soul redescends) with a remainder, according to scripture and Sm/Vti, as it went (i.e. passing through the same stations) and not thus (i.e. in the inverse order).
Scripture states that the souls of those who perform sacrifices, and the like, rise on the road leading through smoke, and so on, to the sphere of the moon, and when they have done with the enjoyment (of the fruits of their works) again descend, 4 Having dwelt there, y&vatsampatam 2, they return again that way as they came/ &c., up to 4 Those whose conduct has been good obtain some good birth, the 2 About which term see further on.
birth of a Brahma;za, &c.—Those whose conduct has been evil obtain the birth of a dog, &c.’ ( Kh. Up. V, 10, 5-7). Here it must be considered whether the souls, after having enjoyed the fruits of all their works, descend without a remainder (anuraya, of their works), or with such a re¬ mainder (of unrequited works).—The purvapakshin says: without such a remainder.—Why?—On account of the specification £ yavat sampatam.’ The word sampata here denotes the aggregate of works (karma^aya) 1, which is so called because by it the souls pass from this world to that world for the purpose of enjoying the fruits of the works. So that the entire clause £ Having dwelt there as far as the aggregate of the works extends ’ indicates their works being completely requited there. The same thing is indicated by another scriptural passage, £ But when in their case that (i.e. the effect of their w r orks) ceases’ (B ri. Up. VI, 2, 16).— Well, but why should we not assume that these passages (do not mean that all works are requited there but) only indicate that the soul enjoys in the other world so long as there are works to be enjoyed there?—It is impossible to assume this, because elsewhere a reference is made to the totality of works. For the passage, Bn. Up. IV, 4, 6, £ Having obtained the end of whatever deed he does here on earth, he again returns from that world to this world to action,’ intimates, by means of the comprehensive term £ whatever,’ that all works done here are exhausted there.—Moreover, death has the power of manifesting those works whose fruit has not yet begun 2; the manifestation of those works not being possible previously to death because then they are ob¬ structed by those works whose fruits have already begun. Now death must manifest alike all works whose fruits had not begun previously, because the cause being the same the effects cannot be different. Analogously a lamp which is placed at the same distance from a jar and a piece of cloth 1 The Comm, on Kh. Up. V, 10, 5, explains it by £ sampatanti yeneti sampata^ karmawa^ kshaya^, yavat sampatam yavat \axmanah kshaya^.’
2 Abhivyakth ha karmarca/fl phaladanayonmukhatvam. An. Gi.
114 illuminates the latter as well as the former.—Hence it follows that the souls descend without a remainder of unrequited works.
To this we reply as follows: 4 On the passing away of the works with a remainder.’ That means: when the aggregate of works with which the souls had risen to the moon for the purpose of the enjoyment of their fruits is, by such enjoy¬ ment, exhausted, then the body, consisting of water, which had originated in the moon for the purpose of such enjoy¬ ment, is dissolved by contact with the fire of the grief springing from the observation that the enjoyment comes to an end; just as snow and hail are melted by contact with the rays of the sun, or the hardness of ghee by contact with the heat of fire. Then, at the passing away of the works, i.e. when the works performed, such as sacrifices, &c., are, by the enjoyment of their fruits, exhausted, the souls descend with a remainder yet left.—But on what grounds is that remainder assumed?—On the ground of what is seen (.Sruti) and Smrz'ti. For scripture declares manifestly that the souls descend joined with such a remainder, 4 Those whose conduct (v£ara?za) has been good will quickly attain some good birth, the birth of a Brahmazza, or a Kshattriya, or a Vauya. But those whose conduct has been evil will quickly'attain an evil birth, the birth of a dog, or a hog, or a iTazzdala.’ That the word £arazza here means the re¬ mainder (of the works) will be shown later on. Moreover, the different degrees of enjoyment which are implied in the difference of birth on the part of the living beings point, as they cannot be accidental, to the existence of such a remainder of works. For we know from scripture that good fortune as well as misfortune is caused by good and evil works. Smrz’ti also teaches that the members of the different castes and a^ramas do, in accordance with their works, at first enjoy the fruit of their works and then enter into new existences, in which they are distinguished from each other by locality, caste, family, shape, length of life, knowledge, conduct, property, pleasure, and intelligence; which doctrine implies that they descend with a remainder of their works.—Of what kind then is that so-called re- Ill ADHYAYA, I PADA, 8. 115 mainder?—Some say that thereby we have to understand a remainder of the works which had been performed (in the previous existence) for the sake of the heavenly world, and whose fruits have (for the greater part) been enjoyed. That remainder might then be compared to the remainder of oil which sticks to the inside of a vessel previously filled with oil even after it has been emptied.—But you have no right to assume a remainder in the case of works, the fruits of which have been enjoyed already, since the adrzsh/a (which springs from works) is opposed to the works (so as to destroy them completely 1 ).—This objection, we reply, is not valid, as we do not maintain that the works are com¬ pletely requited (previously to the new existence).—But the souls do ascend to the sphere of the moon for the express purpose of finding there a complete requital of their works! —True; but when only a little of the effects of their works is left, they can no longer stay there. For as some courtier who has joined the king’s court with all the requisites which the king’s service demands is unable to remain at court any longer, when in consequence of his long stay most of his things are worn out, so that he is perhaps left with a pair of shoes and an umbrella only; so the soul, when possessing only a small particle of the effects of its works, can no longer remain in the sphere of the moon.—But all this reasoning is in fact altogether unfounded 2. For it has already been stated that, on account of (the adnsh/a) being opposed to the work, the continued existence of a remainder cannot be admitted in the case of works which had been performed with a view to the heavenly world, and which have been requited in the moon.—But has it not also been said above that not all the work whose fruit the heavenly world is meets with requital there?—Yes, but that state¬ ment is not defensible. For works which are performed for 1 Bhandanusarina/i snehasyavirodhad yukta^ j'esha^, karma tu phalodayavirodhitvat phala/rc keg g&X&m nash/am eveti na tasya jeshasiddhir iti.rankate nanv iti. An. Gi.
2 Ivakaro madhuroktya prayukto vastutas tv evakaro vivakshita^. An. Gi.
VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
I 16 the purpose of obtaining the heavenly world produce their entire heavenly fruit for the soul only as long as it stays in heaven, and if we take our stand on scripture we have no right to assume that they produce even a particle of fruit for the souls after those have again descended from heaven. That some part of the oil continues to remain in the vessel is unobjectionable because we see it, and we likewise see that some part of the courtier’s equipment continues to remain with him; but that some part of those works which led the soul to heaven continues to exist, that we neither see nor are able to surmise, because it would contradict the texts declaring that the heavenly world (alone) is the fruit of the works.—That of works whose fruit is heaven, such as sacrifices and the like, no remainder continues to exist, we must necessarily acknowledge for the following reason also. If some part of those good works, such as sacrifices, &c., on account of which the agents enjoyed the heavenly world, were surmised to continue in existence as a remainder, that remainder would in all cases be itself a good one, would never be of a contrary nature. But then our supposition would be in conflict with the scriptural passage which distinguishes remainders of a different kind, viz. 4 Those whose conduct has been good;—those whose conduct has been evil,’ &c. Hence after the fruits of that set of works which is requited in the other world have been (completely) enjoyed, the remaining other set of works whose fruits are to be enjoyed in this world constitutes the so-called anu^aya with which the souls re-descend.—It was said above that we must assume the souls to descend without any such remainder, after having reached, by the enjoyment of the fruits, the end of all the works done here below, on account of the compre¬ hensive statement implied in the expression ‘whatever.’ But that assertion cannot be upheld as the existence of such a remainder has been proved. Hence we have to understand that the souls re-descend after having exhausted, by the enjoyment of its fruits, only that entire part of the works done here below whose fruit belongs to the other world and is begun to be enjoyed there.—The proof given by us of the existence of the remainder refutes at the same Ill ADHYAYA, I pAdA, 8.
ii 7 time the other assertion made above, viz. that death mani¬ fests equally all works the enjoyment of whose fruits was not begun here below, and that on that account we are not entitled to draw a line between works whose fruits begin in the other world and works whose fruits begin in this world only (i.e. in a new existence on earth).—We, moreover, have to ask for what reason it is maintained that death manifests (i.e. lays open and makes ready for requital) those works whose fruits have not begun here below. The answer will be that in this life the operation of certain works cannot begin because it is obstructed by other works whose fruits already begin here below, that, however, that operation does begin as soon as, at the moment of death, the obstruction ceases. Well, then, if previously to death those actions whose fruits have already begun prevent other actions from beginning their operation, at the time of death also certain works of less force will be obstructed in their operation by other works of greater force, it being impossible that the fruits of works of opposite tendency should begin at the same time. For it is impossible to maintain that different deeds whose fruits must be experienced in different exist¬ ences should, merely because they have this in common that their fruits have not begun (previously to death), be¬ come manifest on the occasion of one and the same death, and originate one new existence only; against this militates