the fact of the definite fruits (attached to each particular work) being of contrary natures 1. Nor, on the other hand, can we maintain that at the time of death some works manifest themselves while others are altogether extin¬ guished; for that would contradict the fact that absolutely all works have their fruits. No work in fact can be extinguished except by means of expiatory actions, &c. 2 Smrzti also declares that works whose operation is ob- 1 On which account they cannot be experienced in one and the same existence.
2 Works are extinguished either by expiatory ceremonies or by the knowledge of Brahman or by the full fruition of their conse¬ quences.
118 vedanta-sCtras.
structed by other works leading to fruits of a contrary nature last for a long time, £ Sometimes a good deed persists immovable as it were, the doer meanwhile remain¬ ing immerged in the sa/^sara, until at last he is released from pain/ Moreover, if all unrequited works becoming manifest on the occasion of one and the same death were to begin one new existence only, the consequence would be that those who are born again in the heavenly world, or in hell, or as animals, could, as not entitled thereto, perform no religious works, and being thus excluded from all chance of acquiring religious merit and demerit could not enter on any new forms of existence, as all reason for the latter would be absent 1. And that would further contradict Smrzti, which declares that some single actions, such as the murder of a Brahma^a, are the causes of more than one new existence. Nor can we assume, for the knowledge of the particular results springing from religious merit and demerit, any other cause than the sacred texts 2. Nor, again, does death manifest (bring about the requital of) those works whose fruit is observed to be enjoyed already here below, as, for instance, the kariresh/i, &c. 3 How then can we allow the assumption that death manifests all actions? The instance of the lamp (made use of by the purvapakshin) is already refuted by our having shown the relative strength of actions 4. Or else we may look on the matter as analogous to the manifestation (by a lamp) of bigger and smaller objects. For as a lamp, although equally distant from a big and a very small thing, may manifest the former only 1 And in consequence of this they could never obtain final release.
2 We have the sacred texts only to teach us what the effects of particular good or evil actions may be.
3 The kariresh/i is a sacrifice offered by those who are desirous of rain.
4 I.e. by our having shown that death does not equally manifest all works, but that, after death has taken place, the stronger works bring about their requital while the operation of the weaker ones is retarded thereby.
Ill ADHYAYA, I PADA, 9.
119 and not the latter, so death provokes the operation of the stronger works only, not of the weaker ones, although an equal opportunity presents itself for both sets of works as hitherto unrequited.—Hence the doctrine that all works are mani¬ fested by death cannot be maintained, as it is contradicted by 5 ruti, Smrzti, and reason alike. That the existence of a remainder of works should stand in the way of final release is a misplaced fear, as we know from wSruti that all works whatever are destroyed by perfect knowledge. It therefore is a settled conclusion that the souls re-descend with a remainder of works. They descend ‘ as they came ’ (mounted up); 4 not thus/ i.e. in inverted order. We con¬ clude that they descend ‘ as they came ’ from the fact of ether and smoke, which the text includes in the road of the fathers, being mentioned in the description of the descent also, and from the expression 4 as they came.’ That they follow the inverted order we conclude from night, &c., not being mentioned, and from the cloud, &c., being added.
9. Should it be objected that on account of con¬ duct (the assumption of a remainder is not needed), we deny this because (the scriptural expression ‘ conduct’) is meant to connote (the remainder); so Karsh/za^ini thinks.
But—an objection may be raised—the scriptural passage, which has been quoted for the purpose of proving that the existence of a remainder of works (‘those whose conduct has been good/ &c.), declares that the quality of the new birth depends on karana, not on anuj-aya. Now karana and anuraya are different things; for karana is the same as £aritra, akara,.rila, all of which mean conduct 1, while anu^aya denotes work remaining from requited work. Scripture also speaks of actions and conduct as different things, ‘According as he acts and according as he conducts himself so will he be ’ (B ri. Up. IV, 4, 5); and ‘Whatever 1 *Sila also means here ‘conduct’ only, as we see from its being co-ordinated with Tarawa, ^aritra, &c.; not character.
120 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
works are blameless those should be regarded, not others; whatever our good conduct was that should be observed by thee’ (Taitt. Up. I, n, 2). From the passage which pro¬ claims the dependence of the quality of birth on conduct the existence of an unrequited remainder of works cannot therefore be proved.—This objection is without force, we reply, because the scriptural term ‘ conduct } is meant to connote the remainder of the works. This is the opinion of the teacher Karsh^^ini.
10. If it be said that purposelessness (of conduct would result therefrom), we deny this on account of the dependence (of work) on that (conduct).
That may be; but for what reason should we abandon that meaning which the term ‘ karana ’ directly conveys, viz. the meaning ‘ conduct/ and accept the merely connota- tive meaning ‘ remainder of the works?’ Conduct, which the text directly mentions, may be supposed to have for its fruit either a good or an evil birth, according as it is enjoined or prohibited, good or evil. Some fruit will have to be allowed to it in any case; for otherwise it would follow that it is purposeless.—This objection is without force ‘ on account of the dependence on it/ Such works as sacrifices, and the like, depend on conduct in so far as somebody whose conduct is not good is not entitled to perform them. This we know from Smrzti-passages, such as the following, ‘ Him who is devoid of good conduct the Vedas do not purify/—And also if conduct is considered as subservient to man 1 it will not be purposeless. For when the aggregate of works such as sacrifices, &c., begins to originate its fruit, the conduct which has reference to the sacrifice will originate there (i. e. in the fruit) some addition.
1 I.e. as something which produces in man a sazrcskara analogous to that produced by other preparatory or purificatory rites such as bathing, &c.—In the preceding sentences conduct had been spoken of not as purushartha but as karmanga. In that case it produces no separate result; while if considered as purushartha it has a special result of its own.
Ill ADHYAYA, I PAD A, 12.
12 I And it is known from.Sruti as well as Smrzti that work effects everything \ It is, therefore, the opinion of Karsh- nagini that the remainder of works only—which is connoted by the term 4 conduct ’—is the cause of the souls entering on new births. For as work may be the cause of new births, it is not proper to assume that conduct is the cause. If a man is able to run away by means of his feet he will surely not creep on his knees.
ii. But {katana means) nothing but good and evil works; thus Badari opines.
The teacher Badari, however, thinks that the word 1 kaxana 3 denotes nothing else but good works and evil works. It means the same as anush/Zzana (performance) or karman (work). For we see that the root kax (to walk, to conduct oneself) is used in the general sense of acting. Of a man who performs holy works such as sacrifices, &c., people say in ordinary language, 4 that excellent man walks in righteousness.’ The word akaxa also denotes only a kind of religious duty. That works and kaxana (conduct) are sometimes spoken of as different things is analogous to the distinction sometimes made between Brahmazzas and Pari- vra^akas 1 2. We, therefore, decide that by men of good kaxana are meant those whose works are worthy of praise, by men of evil kaxana those whose works are worthy of blame.
12. Of those also who do not perform sacrifices (the ascent to the moon) is stated by scripture.
It has been said that those who perform sacrifices, &c., go to the moon. The question now arises whether those also who do not perform sacrifices go to the moon or not.—The purvapakshin maintains that it cannot be asserted that men belonging to the former class only go to the moon, 1 A clause added to guard against the assumption—which might be based on the preceding remarks—that conduct is, after all, the cause of the quality of the new birth.
2 Although the latter are a mere sub-class of the former.
122 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
because scripture speaks of the moon as being resorted to by those also who have not performed sacrifices. For the Kaushitakins make the following general statement, ‘All who depart from this world go to the moon ’ (Kau. Up. I, 2). Moreover, the origination of a new body in the case of those who are born again is not possible without their having (previously) reached the moon, on account of the precise definition of number contained in the statement, ‘ In the fifth oblation ’ ( Kh. Up. V, 9, i) 1. Hence all men must be supposed to resort to the moon. If it be objected that it does not appear proper that those who perform sacrifices and those who do not should go to the same place, we reply that there is no real objection, because those who do not perform sacrifices do not enjoy anything in the moon.
13. But of the others, after having enjoyed the fruits of their actions in Sawyamana, ascent and descent take place; as such a course is declared (by scripture).
‘ But 5 discards the purvapaksha. It is not true that all men go to the moon. For the ascent to the moon is for the purpose of enjoyment only; it is neither without a special purpose nor for the mere purpose of subsequent re-descent. Just as a man climbs on a tree for the purpose of breaking fruit or blossoms, not either without any aim or for the mere purpose of coming down again. Now it has been admitted already that for those who do not offer sacrifices there is not any enjoyment in the moon; hence those only who perform sacrifices rise to the moon, not any other persons. The latter descend to Sa^yamana, the abode of Yama, suffer there the torments of Yama corresponding to their evil deeds, and then again re-ascend to this world. Such is their ascent and descent; as we maintain on the ground of such a course being declared by scripture. For a scriptural passage embodying Yama’s own words declares that those who die without having offered sacrifices fall into Yama’s 1 Which statement presupposes four other oblations, the first of which is the one from which ‘ Soma the king rises.’
Ill ADHYAYA, I PADA, 17.
123 power. ‘ The other world never rises before the eyes of the careless child deluded by the delusion of wealth. This is the world, he thinks, there is no other; thus he falls again and again under my sway 5 (Ka. Up. I, 2, 6). Scripture con¬ tains many other passages likewise leading us to infer that men fall into Yama’s power; cp. e.g. ‘ Yama, the gathering- place of men * (Ri. Sa//zh. X, 14, 1).
14. The Smrztis also declare this.
Moreover, authorities like Manu, Vyasa, &c., declare that in the city Sa/^yamana evil works are requited under Yama’s rule; cp. the legend of Na&keta and others.
15. Moreover there are seven (hells).
Moreover, the pura/za-writers record that there are seven hells, Raurava, &c., by name, which serve as abodes of enjoyment of the fruits of evil deeds. As those who do not sacrifice, &c. go there, how should they reach the moon? —But, an objection is raised, the assertion that evil doers suffer punishments allotted by Yama is contradicted by the circumstance that Snmti mentions different other beings, such as iTitragupta, &c., who act as superintendents in Rau¬ rava and the other hells.—This objection the next Sutra refutes.
16. On account of his activity there also no contradiction exists.
There is no contradiction, as the same Yama is admitted to act as chief ruler in those seven hells. Of iTitragupta and others Smrzti merely speaks as superintendents em¬ ployed by Yama.
17. But on (the two roads) of knowledge and works, those two being under discussion.
In that place of the knowledge of the five fires, where the answer is expected to the question, ‘ Do you know why that world never becomes full? * the text runs as follows: ‘ On neither of these two ways are those small creatures continu¬ ally returning, of whom it may be said, Live and die. Theirs is a third place. Therefore that world never becomes full/ 124 VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
By the two ways mentioned in this passage we have to understand knowledge and works.—Why?—On account of their being the subjects under discussion. That means: knowledge and works are under discussion as the means for entering on the road of the gods and the road of the fathers. The clause, ‘those who know this/ proclaims knowledge to be the means whereby to obtain the road of the gods; the clause, 4 sacrifices, works of public utility, and alms/proclaims works to be that by which we obtain the road of the fathers. Under the heading of these two paths there stands the subsequent passage, 4 on neither of these two ways, &c/ To explain. Those who are neither entitled, through knowledge, to follow the road of the gods, nor, by works, to follow the road of the fathers, for those there is a third path on which they repeatedly return to the existence of small animals. For this reason also those who do not perform sacrifices, &c. do not reach the moon.—But why should they not first mount to the sphere of the moon and thence descending enter on the existence of small animals? —No, that would imply entire purposelessness of their mounting.—Moreover, if all men when dying would reach the sphere of the moon, that world would be filled by the departed, and from that would result an answer contrary to the question (viz. 4 why does not that world become full? ’). For an answer is expected showing that that world does not become full.—Nor can we admit the explanation that the other world possibly does not become full because re-descent is admitted; since this is not stated by scripture* For it is true, indeed, that the not becoming full might be explained from their re-descending; but scripture actually explains it from the existence of a third place, 4 Theirs is a third place; therefore that world never becomes full/ Hence the fact of the other world not becoming full must be explained from their not-ascending only. For, other¬ wise, the descent equally taking place in the case of those who do perform sacrifices, &c., it would follow that the statement of a third place is devoid of purpose.—The word 4 but ’ (in the Sutra) is meant to preclude the idea—arising from the passage of another jakha (i.e. the Kaush. Up.)
Ill ADHYAYA, I PADA, 19.
«5 —that all departed go to the moon. Under the circum¬ stances the word ‘ all ’ which occurs in that passage has to be taken as referring only to those qualified, so that the sense is ‘all those who depart from this world properly qualified go to the moon/—The next Sutra is directed against the averment that all must go to the moon for the purpose of obtaining a new body, in accordance with the definite statement of number (‘in the fifth oblation &c/).
18. Not in (the case of) the third place, as it is thus perceived, With regard to the third place, the rule of the oblations being five in number need not be attended to for the purpose of obtaining a new body.—Why?—On account of it being perceived thus. That means: because it is seen that the third place is reached in the manner de¬ scribed without any reference to the oblations being limited to the number five, ‘Live and die. That is the third place/—Moreover, in the passage, ‘ In the fifth obla¬ tion water is called man/ the number of the oblations is stated to be the cause of the water becoming the body of a man, not of an insect or moth, &c.; the word ‘ man * applying to the human species only.—And, further, the text merely teaches that in the fifth oblation the waters are called man, and does not at the same time deny that, where there is no fifth oblation, they are not called man; for if it did the latter, the sentence would have the imper¬ fection of having a double sense. We therefore have to understand that the body of those men who are capable of ascending and descending originates in connexion with the fifth oblation, that in the case of other men, however, a body forms itself from water mixed with the other ele¬ ments even without a settled number of oblations.
19. It is, moreover, recorded in the (ordinary) world.
There are, moreover, traditions, apart from the Veda, that certain persons like Dro^a, Dhmh/adyumna, Sita, Draupadi, &c., were not born in the ordinary way from 126 VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
mothers. In the case of Dro«a and others there was absent the oblation which is made into the woman; while in the case of Dhrzsh/adyumna and others, even two of the oblations, viz. the one offered into woman and the one offered into man, were absent. Hence in other cases also birth may be supposed to take place independently of the number of oblations.—It is, moreover, commonly known that the female crane conceives without a male.
20. And on account of observation.
It is, moreover, observed that out of the four classes of organic beings—viviparous animals, oviparous animals, ani¬ mals springing from heat, and beings springing from germs (plants)—the two latter classes are produced without sexual intercourse, so that in their case no regard is had to the number of oblations. The same may therefore take place in other cases also.—But, an objection may here be raised, scripture speaks of those beings as belonging to three classes only, because there are three modes of origin only; ‘ That which springs from an egg, that which springs from a living being, that which springs from a germ* (Kh. Up. VI, 3, i). How then can it be maintained that there are four classes?—To this objection the next Sutra replies.
2i. The third term comprises that which springs from heat.
The third term in the scriptural passage quoted, i.e. 4 that which springs from a germ/ must be understood as implying those beings also which spring from heat; the two classes having in common that they spring from earth or water, i.e. from something stable. Different from their origin is the origin of those beings which spring from moving things (viz. animals).—In other places the beings springing from heat and those springing from germs are spoken of as constituting separate classes.—Hence there is no contra¬ diction.
22. (On the part of the soul’s descending from the Ill ADHYAYA, I PADA, 2 2.
127 moon) there is entering into similarity of being (with ether and so on); as this (only) is possible.
It has been explained that the souls of those who perform sacrifices, &c., after having reached the moon dwell there as long as their works last and then re-descend with a remain¬ der of their works. We now have to inquire into the mode of that descent. On this point scripture makes the follow¬ ing statement: ‘ They return again the way they came, to the ether, from the ether to the air. Then the sacrificer having become air becomes smoke, having become smoke he becomes mist, having become mist he becomes a cloud, having become a cloud he rains down.*—Here a doubt arises whether the descending souls pass over into a state of identity with ether, &c., or into a state of similarity.—The purvapakshin maintains that the state is one of identity, because this is directly stated by the text. Otherwise there would take place so-called indication (laksha«&). Now whenever the doubt lies between a directly expressed and a merely indicated meaning the former is to be preferred. Thus the following words also, ‘ Having become air he be¬ comes smoke/ &c., are appropriate only if the soul be under¬ stood to identify itself with them.—Hence it follows that the souls become identical with ether, &c.—To this we reply that they only pass into a state of similarity to ether, &c. When the body, consisting of water which the soul had assumed in the sphere of the moon for the purpose of en¬ joyment, dissolves at the time when that enjoyment comes to an end, then it becomes subtle like ether, passes there¬ upon into the power of the air, and then gets mixed with smoke, &c. This is the meaning of the clauses, ‘ They return as they came to the ether, from the ether to the air, &c.’— How is this known to be the meaning?—Because thus only it is possible. For it is not possible that one thing should become another in the literal sense of the word. If, more¬ over, the souls became identified with ether they could no longer descend through air, &c. And as connexion with the ether is, on account of its all-pervadingness, eternal, no other connexion (of the souls) with it can here be meant 128 vedanta-s£jtras.
but their entering into a state of similarity to it 1. And in cases where it is impossible to accept the literal meaning of the text it is quite proper to assume the meaning which is merely indicated.—For these reasons the souls’ becoming ether, &c., has to be taken in the secondary sense of their passing into a state of similarity to ether, and so on.
23. (The soul passes through the stages of its descent) in a not very long time; on account of the special statement.
A doubt arises with reference to the period beginning with the soul’s becoming ether and extending up to its entering into rice, &c., viz. whether the soul remains a long time in the state of similarity to each of the stages of its way before It enters into similarity to the next one, or only a short time.—The purvapakshin maintains that, on ac¬ count of the absence of a definite text, no binding rule exists.—To this we reply that the souls remain in the state of similarity to ether, &c., for a short period only before they fall to the earth in raindrops. We infer this from the circumstance of the text making a special statement. For after having said that the souls enter into rice, &c., it adds, ‘ From thence the escape is beset with more pain; ’ a state¬ ment implying that the escape from the previous states was comparatively easy and pleasant. Now this difference in point of pleasantness must be based on the comparative shortness or length of the escape; for as, at that time, the body is not yet formed, enjoyment (in the ordinary sense) is not possible. Hence we conclude that, up to the moment when the souls enter into rice, &c., their descent is accomplished in a short time.
1 It might be said that the relation to ether, &c., into which the souls enter, is the relation of conjunction (sazrcyoga), not the relation of similarity. But as nothing can enter into the relation of sa/rayoga with ether (everything being in eternal sazuyoga with it) we must assume that 4 becoming ether 9 means ‘ becoming like ether,’ and by parity of reasoning, that ‘ becoming air, &c.,’ means ‘ becoming like air.
Ill ADHYAYA, I PADA, 24.
129 24. (The descending souls enter) into (plants) animated by other (souls), as in the previous cases, on account of scriptural declaration.
In the description of the souls’ descent we read, after their coming down in raindrops has been mentioned, 4 Then they are born as rice and corn, herbs and trees, sesamum and beans.’—Here a doubt arises whether, at this stage of their descent, the souls to which a remainder of their works con¬ tinues to cling really pass over into the different species of those immoveable things (plants) and enjoy their pleasures and pains, or if they enter merely into a state of conjunction with the bodies of those plants which are animated by different souls.—The purvapakshin maintains that they pass over into those species and enjoy their pleasures and pains, on account of the remainder of works still attaching to them; firstly, because that enables us to take the verb ‘to be born ’ in its literal sense; secondly, because we know from 5 ruti and Smrz'ti that the condition of a plant may be a place of enjoyment (of the fruits of actions); and thirdly, because sacrifices and similar actions, being connected with harm done to animals, &c., may lead to unpleasant results. We therefore take the ‘being born as rice,’ &c., of those to whom a remainder of their works attaches, in its literal sense, and consider the case to be analogous to that of a man who is born either as a dog or a hog or a ATa^ala, where we have to understand that the man really becomes a dog, and so on, and experiences the pleasures and pains connected with that condition.
To this reasoning we reply as follows:—The souls to which a remainder attaches enter merely into conjunction with rice plants, &c., which are already animated by other souls; and do not enjoy their pleasures and pains; ‘as in the previous cases.’ As the souls’ becoming air, smoke, &c., was decided to mean only that they become connected with them 1, so here too their becoming rice, &c. merely means that they 1 This does not agree well with what had been said above about the souls becoming similar to ether, air, &c.
become connected with those plants.—How is this known? —From the fact of the statement here also being of the same nature.—Of what nature?—Here, also, as in the case of the souls becoming ether, &c., down to rain, the text does not refer to any operation of the works; hence we conclude that the souls do not enjoy pleasure and pain. Where, on the other hand, the text wants to intimate that the souls undergo pleasure and pain, there it refers to the operation of the former works; so, e. g. in the passage which treats of men of good or evil conduct. Moreover, if we should take the souls’ being born as rice, &c., in its literal sense, it would follow that when the rice plants are reaped, unhusked, split, cooked and eaten, the souls which have descended into them and are animating them would have to leave them; it being generally known that when a body is destroyed the soul animating it abandons it. And then (if the souls left the plants) the text could not state (as it does state, V, io, 6) that the souls which had entered into the plants are trans¬ mitted by animal generation (on the part of those who eat the plants). Hence it follows that the souls which have descended are merely outwardly connected with the plants animated by other souls. This suffices to refute the asser¬ tions that ‘ to be born ’ must be taken in its literal sense; and that the state of vegetable existence affords a place for enjoyment. We do not entirely deny that vegetable existence may afford a place for enjoyment; it may do so in the case of other beings which, in consequence of their unholy deeds, have become plants. We only maintain that those souls which descend from the moon with an un¬ requited remainder of works do not experience the enjoy¬ ment connected with plant life.
25. Should it be said that (sacrificial work is) unholy; we deny this on the ground of scripture.
We proceed to refute the remark made by the purva- pakshin that sacrificial works are unholy because involving harm done to animals, &c., that they may therefore lead to unpleasant results, and that hence the statement as to the souls being born as plants, &c., may be taken in its Ill ADHYAYA, I PADA, 26. I3I