j68 vedanta-sCtras.
knowledge, and can, therefore, not be negatived.—On this latter interpretation the repetition of ‘ not ’ must be con¬ sidered as due to emphasis only.
To this we make the following reply. It is impossible that the phrase, ‘Not so, not so!’ should negative both, since that would imply the doctrine of a general Void. When¬ ever we deny something unreal, we do so with reference to something real; the unreal snake, e.g. is negatived with reference to the real rope. But this (denial of something unreal with reference to something real) is possible only if some entity is left. If everything is denied, no entity is left, and if no entity is left, the denial of some other entity which we may wish to undertake, becomes impossible, i.e. that latter entity becomes real and as such cannot be negatived. —Nor, in the second place, can Brahman be denied; for that would contradict the introductory phrase of the chapter, ‘ Shall I tell you Brahman?? (B ri. Up. II, i, i); would show disregard of the threat conveyed in Taitt. Up. II, 6, ‘He who knows the Brahman as non-existing becomes himself non¬ existing; ’ would be opposed to definitive assertions such as ‘ By the words “ He is ” is he to be apprehended ’ (Ka.
Up. II, 6, 13); and would involve a stultification of the entire Vedanta.—The phrase that Brahman transcends all speech and thought does certainly not mean to say that Brahman does not exist; for after the Vedanta-part of scripture has established at length the existence of Brahman —in such passages as ‘ He who knows Brahman obtains the highest‘Truth, knowledge, infinite is Brahman 5 —it cannot be supposed all at once to teach its non-existence. For, as the common saying is, ‘ Better than bathing it is not to touch dirt at all/ The passage, ‘ from whence all speech with the mind turns away unable to reach it ’ (Taitt. Up. II, 4), must, therefore, rather be viewed as intimating Brahman.
The passage of the B ri. Up. under discussion has, there¬ fore, to be understood as follows. Brahman is that whose nature is permanent purity, intelligence, and freedom; it transcends speech and mind, does not fall within the cate¬ gory of ‘object,’ and constitutes the inward Self of all. Of this Brahman our text denies all plurality of forms; but Brahman itself it leaves untouched. This the Sutra expresses in the words, 4 for it denies the suchness which forms the topic of discussion/ That means: The passage ‘ Not so,’ &c., denies of Brahman the limited form, material as well as immaterial, which in the preceding part of the chapter is described at length with reference to the gods as well as the body, and also the second form which is produced by the first, is characterised by mental impressions, forms the essence of that which is immaterial, is denoted by the term purusha, rests on the subtle Self (lingatman) and is described by means of comparisons with saffron-colour, &c., since the purusha, which is the essence of what is immaterial, does not itself possess colour perceivable by the eye. Now these forms of Brahman are by means of the word 4 so ’ (iti), which always refers to something approximate brought into con¬ nexion with the negative particle ‘not.’ Brahman itself, on the other hand (apart from its forms), is, in the previous part of the chapter, mentioned not as in itself constituting the chief topic, but only in so far as it is qualified by its forms; this appears from the circumstance of Brahman being exhibited in the genitive case only ('These are two forms of Brahman ’). Now, after the two forms have been set forth, there arises the desire of knowing that to which the two forms belong, and hence the text continues, 4 Now then the teaching by means of “Not so, not so.’” This pas¬ sage, we conclude, conveys information regarding the nature of Brahman by denying the reality of the forms fictitiously attributed to it; for the phrase, 4 Not so, not so 1 ’ negatives the whole aggregate of effects superimposed on Brahman.
Effects we know to have no real existence, and they can therefore be negatived; not so, however, Brahman, which constitutes the necessary basis for all fictitious superimpo¬ sition.—Nor must the question be asked here, how the sacred text, after having itself set forth the two forms of Brahman, can negative them in the end, contrary to the principle that not to touch dirt is better than bathing after having done so. For the text does not set forth the two forms of Brahman as something the truth of which is to be established, but merely mentions those two forms, which in vedanta-s6tras.
the sphere of ordinary thought are fictitiously attributed to Brahman, in order finally to negative them and establish thereby the true nature of the formless Brahman.
The double repetition of the negation may either serve the purpose of furnishing a special denial of the material as well as the immaterial form of Brahman; or the first 4 Not so ’ may negative the aggregate of material elements, while the second denies the aggregate of mental impressions. Or else the repetition may be an emphatic one, intimating that whatever can be thought is not Brahman. This is, perhaps, the better explanation. For if a limited number of things are denied each individually, there still remains the desire to know whether something else may not be Brahman; an emphatic repetition of the denial on the other hand shows that the entire aggregate of objects is denied and that Brahman is the inward Self; whereby all further enquiry is checked.—The final conclusion, therefore, is, that the text negatives only the cosmic plurality fictitiously superimposed on Brahman, but leaves Brahman itself untouched.
The Sutra gives another argument establishing the same conclusion, ‘and the text enounces something more than that, 5 i.e. more than the preceding negation. The words of the text meant are 4 (not) is there anything beyond.’— If the negation, 4 Not so, not so! ’ were meant to negative all things whatever, and this terminated in absolute non¬ existence, the text could not even allude to ‘anything beyond.’—The words of the text are to be connected as follows. After the clause, 4 Not so, not so! ’ has given infor¬ mation about Brahman, the clause next following illustrates this teaching by saying: There is nothing beyond or sepa¬ rate from this Brahman; therefore Brahman is expressed by 4 Not so, not so! 5 which latter words do not mean that Brahman itself does not exist. The implied meaning rather is that different from everything else there exists the 4 nonnegatived 5 Brahman.—The words of the text admit, how¬ ever, of another interpretation also; for they may mean that there is no teaching of Brahman higher than that teaching which is implied in the negation of plurality ex¬ pressed by ‘ Not so, not so! ’ On this latter interpretation the words of the Sutra, ‘ and the text enounces something more than that/ must be taken to refer to the name men¬ tioned in the text, ‘ Then comes the name, the True of the True; the senses being the True and he the True of them/ —This again has a sense only if the previous negative clause denies everything but Brahman, not everything but absolute non-existence. For, if the latter were the case, what then could be called the True of the True?—We there¬ fore decide that the clause, £ Not so, not so! ’ negatives not absolutely everything, but only everything but Brahman.
23. That (Brahman) is unevolved; for (thus scripture) says. If that highest Brahman which is different from the world that is negatived in the passage discussed above really exists, why then is it not apprehended?—Because, the Sutrakara replies, it is unevolved, not to be apprehended by the senses; for it is the witness of whatever is apprehended (i.e. the subject in all apprehension). Thus vSruti says, ‘ He is not apprehended by the eye, nor by speech, nor by the other senses, not by penance or good works’ (Mu. Up. Ill, 1, 8); ‘That Self is to be described by No, no! He is incomprehensible, for he cannot be comprehended ’ (B ri. Up. Ill, 9, 26); ‘That which cannot be seen nor appre¬ hended’ (Mu. Up. I, 1, 6); ‘When in that which is invis¬ ible, incorporeal, undefined, unsupported 5 &c. (Taitt. Up. II, 7). Similar statements are made in Smrzti-passages; so e. g. ‘ He is called unevolved, not to be fathomed by thought, unchangeable.’
24. And in the state of perfect conciliation also (the Yogins apprehend the highest Brahman), according to Yruti and Smnti.
At the time of perfect conciliation the Yogins see the unevolved Self free from all plurality. By ‘perfect con¬ ciliation ’ we understand the presentation before the mind (of the highest Self), which is effected through meditation and devotion.—This is vouched for by Sruti as well as I 72 Smrzti. So, e.g. Ka. Up. IV, 1, ‘The Self-existent pierced the openings of the senses so that they turn outward; there¬ fore man looks without, not within himself. Some wise man, however, with his eyes closed and wishing for immortality, saw the Self within.’ And Mu. Up. Ill, J, 8, ‘ When a man’s mind has become purified by the serene light of knowledge then he sees him, meditating on him as without parts.’ Smrzti-passages of the same tendency are the following ones, ‘ He who is seen as light by the Yogins meditating on him sleepless, with suspended breath, with contented minds, with subdued senses; reverence be to him 1!’ and ‘The Yogins see him, the august, eternal one.’
But if in the state of perfect conciliation there is a being to be conciliated and a being conciliating, does not this involve the distinction of a higher and a lower Self?—No, the next Sutra replies.
25. And as in the case of (physical) light and the like, there is non-distinction (of the two Selfs), the light (i.e. the intelligent Self) (being divided) by its activity; according to the repeated declarations of scripture. As light, ether, the sun and so on appear differentiated as it were through their objects such as fingers, vessels, water and so on which constitute limiting adjuncts 2, while in reality they preserve their essential non-differentiatedness; so the distinction of different Selfs is due to limiting adjuncts only, while the unity of all Selfs is natural and original. For on the doctrine of the non-difference of the individual soul and the highest Self the Ved&nta-texts insist again and again 3.
1 Whose Self is Yoga.
2 Light is differentiated as it were by the various objects on which it shines; the all-pervading ether is divided into parts as it were by hollow bodies; the sun is multiplied as it were by its reflections in the water.
3 It certainly looks here as if the Bhashyakara did not know what to do with the words of the Sutra. The ‘ karmarn/ which is Ill ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 26. Hence (the soul enters into unity) with the infinite (i.e. the highest Self); for this scripture indicates. Hence i. e. because the non-difference of all Selfs is essential and their difference due to Nescience only, the individual soul after having dispelled Nescience by true knowledge passes over into unity with the highest Self. For this is indicated by scripture, cp. e.g. Mu. Up. Ill, 2, 9, 4 He who knows that highest Brahman becomes even Brahman;’ B ri. Up. IV, 4, 6, ‘Being Brahman he goes to Brahman.’
27. But on account of twofold designation, (the relation of the highest Self to the individual soul has to be viewed) like that of the snake to its coils. In order to justify his own view as to the relation of the conciliating individual soul and the conciliated highest Self, the Sutrakara mentions a different view of the same matter. —Some scriptural passages refer to the highest Self and the individual soul as distinct entities, cp. e.g. Mu. Up. Ill, 1, 8, ‘ Then he sees him meditating on him as without parts,’ where the highest Self appears as the object of the soul’s vision and meditation; Mu. Up. Ill, 2, 8, ‘ He goes to the divine Person who is greater than the great; ’ and B ri. Up. Ill, 7, 15, ‘ Who rules all beings within;’ in which passages the highest Self is represented as the object of approach and as the ruler of the individual soul. In other places again the two are spoken of as non-different, so e.g. Kh. Up. VI, 8, 7, ‘Thou art that;’ B ri. Up. I, 4, 10, ‘ I am Brahman;' B ri. Up. Ill, 4, 1, ‘This is thy Self who is within all;’ B ri. Up. Ill, 7, 15, ‘He is thy Self, the ruler within, the immortal.’—As thus difference and non-differ¬ ence are equally vouched for by scripture, the acceptation of absolute non-difference would render futile all those as good as passed over by him, is explained by Go. An. as ‘ dhyanadikarmawy upadhau.' An. Gi. says, ‘ atmaprakaja^abdito^wanatatkarye karma/zy upadhau savueshas' &c. texts which speak of difference. We therefore look on the relation of the highest Self and the soul as analogous to that of the snake and its coils. Viewed as a whole the snake is one, non-different, while an element of difference appears if we view it with regard to its coils, hood, erect posture and so on.
28. Or else like that of light to its substratum, both being fire.
Or else the relation of the two may be viewed as follows. Just as the light of the sun and its substratum, i.e. the sun himself, are not absolutely different—for they both consist of fire—and yet are spoken of as different, so also the soul and the highest Self.
29. Or else (the relation of the two is to be conceived) in the manner stated above. Or else the relation of the two has to be conceived in the manner suggested by Sutra 25. For if the bondage of the soul is due to Nescience only, final release is possible. But if the soul is really and truly bound—whether the soul be considered as a certain condition or state of the highest Self as suggested in Sutra 27, or as a part of the highest Self as suggested in Sutra 28—its real bondage cannot be done away with, and thus the scriptural doctrine of final release becomes absurd.—Nor, finally, can it be said that 6 ruti equally teaches difference and non-difference. For non-difference only is what it aims at establishing; while, when engaged in setting forth something else, it merely refers to difference as something known from other sources of knowledge (viz. perception, &c.).—Hence the conclusion stands that the soul is not different from the highest Self, as explained in Sutra 25.
30. And on account of the denial.
The conclusion arrived at above is confirmed by the fact of scripture expressly denying that there exists any intel¬ ligent being apart from the highest Self. Cp. ‘ There is no other seer but he’ (B ri. Up. Ill, 7, 23). And the same conclusion follows from those passages which deny the existence of a world apart from Brahman and thus leave Brahman alone remaining, viz. ‘ Now then the teaching, Not so, not so!’ (B ru Up. II, 3, 6); ‘That Brahman is without cause and without effect, without anything inside or outside'’ (B ri. Up. II, 5, 19).
31. Beyond (Brahman, there is something) further, on account of the designations of bank, measure, connexion, separation.
With reference to this Brahman which we have ascer¬ tained to be free from all plurality there now arises the doubt—due to the conflicting nature of various scriptural statements—whether something exists beyond it or not. We therefore enter on the task of explaining the true meaning of those scriptural passages which seem to indicate that there is some entity beyond, i.e. apart from Brahman.
The purvapakshin maintains that some entity must be admitted apart from Brahman, because Brahman is spoken of as being a bank; as having size; as being connected; as being separated.—As a bank it is spoken of in the passage, Kh. Up. VIII, 4, 1, ‘That Self is a bank, a boundary.’ The word ‘bank’ (setu) ordinarily denotes a structure of earth, wood and the like, serving the purpose of checking the flow of water. Here, being applied to the Self, it intimates that there exists something apart from the Self, just as there exists something different from an ordinary bank. The same conclusion is confirmed by the words, ‘Having passed the bank’ (VIII, 4, 2). For as in ordinary life a man after having crossed a bank reaches some place which is not a bank, let us say a forest; so, we must understand, a man after having crossed, i.e. passed beyond the Self reaches something which is not the Self.— As having size Brahman is spoken of in the following passages, ‘This Brahman has four feet (quarters), eight hoofs, sixteen parts.’ Now it is well known from ordinary experience that wherever an object, a coin, e.g. has a definite limited size, there exists something different from that object; we therefore must assume that there also exists something different from Brahman.—Brahman is declared to be connected in the following passages, ‘ Then he is united with the True' ( Kh. Up. VI, 8, 1), and ‘The embodied Self is embraced by the highest Self 1 (Brz. Up. IV, 3, 31). Now we observe that non-measured things are connected with things measured, men, e.g. with a town. And scripture declares that the individual souls are, in the state of deep sleep, connected with Brahman. Hence we conclude that beyond Brahman there is something unmeasured.—The same conclusion is finally confirmed by those texts which proclaim difference, so e.g. the passage, I, 6, 6 ff. (‘Now that golden person who is seen within the sun' &c.), which at first refers to a Lord residing in the sun and then mentions a Lord residing in the eye, distinct from the former (‘Now the person who is seen within the eye ’). The text dis¬ tinctly transfers to the latter the form &c. of the former 1 (‘The form of that person is the same as the form of the other ’ &c.), and moreover declares that the lordly power of both is limited, ‘ He obtains through the one the worlds beyond that and the wishes of the devas ’ &c.; which is very much as if one should say, ‘ This is the reign of the king of Magadha and that the reign of the king of Videha.’
From all this it follows that there exists something different from Brahman.
32. But (Brahman is called a bank &c.) on account of (a certain) equality. The word ‘ but ’ is meant to set aside the previously established conclusion.—There can exist nothing different from Brahman, since we are unable to observe a proof for such existence. That all existences which have a beginning spring from, subsist through, and return into Brahman we have already ascertained, and have shown that the effect is non-different from the cause.—Nor can there exist, apart from Brahman, something which has no beginning, since scripture affirms that ‘ Being only this was 1 Which would be unnecessary if the two were not distinct.
in the beginning, one, without a second/ The promise moreover that through the cognition of one thing every¬ thing will be known, renders it impossible that there should exist anything different from Brahman.—But does not the fact that the Self is called a bank, &c. indicate that there exists something beyond the Self?—No, we reply; the passages quoted by the pfirvapakshin have no power to prove his conclusion. For the text only says that the Self is a bank, not that there is something beyond it. Nor are we entitled to assume the existence of some such thing, merely to the end of accounting for the Self being called a bank; for the simple assumption of some¬ thing unknown is a mere piece of arbitrariness. If, more¬ over, the mere fact of the Self being called a bank implied the existence of something beyond it, as in the case of an ordinary bank, we should also be compelled to conclude that the Self is made of earth and stones; which would run counter to the scriptural doctrine that the Self is not something produced.—The proper explanation is that the Self is called a bank because it resembles a bank in a certain respect; as a bank dams back the water and marks the boundary of contiguous fields, so the Self supports the world and its boundaries. The Self is thus glorified by the name of bank because it resembles one.— In the clause quoted above, ‘having passed that bank,’ the verb ‘ to pass ’ cannot be taken in the sense of ‘ going beyond/ but must rather mean 4 to reach fully/ In the same way we say of a student, c he has passed the science of grammar/ meaning thereby that he has fully mastered it.
33. (The statement as to Brahman having size) subserves the purpose of the mind; in the manner of the four feet (quarters).
In reply to the purvapakshin’s contention that the state¬ ments as to Brahman’s size, prove that there exists some¬ thing different from Brahman, we remark that those state¬ ments merely serve the purposes of the mind, i.e. of devout meditation.—But how can the cognition of something con-[38] N i;8 i;8 sisting of four, or eight, or sixteen parts be referred to Brahman?—Through its modifications (effects), we reply, Brahman is assumed to be subject to measure. For as some men are of inferior, others of middling, others again of superior intelligence, not all are capable of fixing their mind on the infinite Brahman, devoid of all effects. ‘ In the manner of the four feet, 5 i.e. in the same way as ( Kh. Up. Ill, 18), for the purpose of pious meditation, speech and three other feet are ascribed to mind viewed as the personal manifestation of Brahman, and fire and three other feet to the ether viewed as the cosmic manifestation of Brahman. —Or else the phrase, ‘ in the manner of the four quarters/ may be explained as follows. In the same way as to facili¬ tate commerce, a karshapa/za is assumed to be divided into four parts—for there being no fixed rule as to the value of bargains, people cannot always carry on their transactions with whole karshapazzas only—, (so, in order to facilitate pious meditation on the part of less intelligent people, four feet, &c., are ascribed to Brahman).
34. (The statements concerning connexion and difference) are due to difference of place; in the manner of light and so on. The present Sutra refutes the allegation that something different from Brahman exists, firstly, because things are said to be connected with Brahman, and secondly, because things are said to be separate from it. The fact is, that all those statements regarding connexion and difference are made with a view to difference of place. When the cog¬ nition of difference which is produced by the Selfs con¬ nexion with different places, i.e. with the buddhi and the other limiting adjuncts, ceases on account of the cessation of those limiting adjuncts themselves, connexion with the highest Self is metaphorically said to take place; but that is done with a view to the limiting adjuncts only, not with a view to any limitation on the part of the Self.—In the same way, all statements regarding difference have reference to the difference of Brahman’s limiting adjuncts only, not to any difference affecting Brahman’s own nature.—All this is analogous to the case of light and the like. For the light of the sun or the moon also is differentiated by its connexion with limiting adjuncts, and is, on account of these adjuncts, spoken of as divided, and, when the adjuncts are removed, it is said to enter into connexion (union). Other instances of the effect of limiting adjuncts are furnished by the ether entering into connexion with the eyes of needles and the like.
35. And because (only such a connexion) is possible.
Moreover, only such a connexion as described above is possible. For scriptural passages, such as ‘ He is gone to his Self 5 ( Kh. Up. VI, 8, 1), declare that the connexion of the soul with the highest Self is one of essential nature. But as the essential nature of a thing is imperishable, the connexion cannot be analogous to that of the inhabitants with the town, but can only be explained with reference to an obscuration, owing to Nescience, of the soul's true nature.—Similarly the difference spoken of by scripture cannot be real, but only such as is due to Nescience; for many texts declare that there exists only one Lord. Ana¬ logously, scripture teaches that the one ether is made manifold as it were by its connexion with different places ‘ The ether which is outside man is the ether which is inside man, and the ether within the heart’ (Kh. Up.
Ill, 12, 7 ff.).
36. (The same thing follows) from the express denial of other (existences). Having thus refuted the arguments of the purvapakshin, the Sutrakara in conclusion strengthens his view by a further reason. A great number of Vedic passages—which, considering the context in which they stand, cannot be explained otherwise—distinctly deny that there exists any¬ thing apart from Brahman; ‘He indeed is below; I am below; the Self is below 9 (Kh. Up. VII, 25, 1; 2); ‘ Who¬ soever looks for anything elsewhere than in the Self was abandoned by everything' (B ri. Up. II, 4, 6); ‘Brahman N 2 alone is all this’ (Mu. Up. II, 2, n); ‘The Self is all this ’ (Kk. Up. VII, 25, 2); ‘In it there is no diversity’ (B ri. Up. IV, 4, 19); ‘He to whom there is nothing superior, from whom there is nothing different’ ( 5 vet. Up. Ill, 9); ‘This is the Brahman without cause and without effect, without anything inside or outside’ (B ri. Up. II, 5, 19).—And that there is no other Self within the highest Self, follows from that scriptural passage which teaches Brahman to be within everything (B ri. Up. II, 5, 19).
37. Thereby the omnipresence (of Brahman is established), in accordance with the statements about (Brahman’s) extent. The preceding demonstration that the texts calling Brahman a bank, and so on, are not to be taken literally, and that, on the other hand, the texts denying all plurality must be accepted as they stand, moreover, serves to prove that the Self is omnipresent. If the former texts were taken literally, banks and the like would have to be looked upon as belonging to the Self, and thence it would follow that the Self is limited. And if the texts of the latter class were not accepted as valid, there would be substances exclusive of each other, and thus the Self would again be limited.— That the Self is omnipresent follows from the texts pro¬ claiming its extent, &c., cp. Kh. Up. VIII, 1, 3, ‘As large as this ether is, so large is that ether within the heart; ’ ‘Like the ether, he is omnipresent and eternal;’ ‘He is greater than the sky, greater than the ether’ (.Sat. Br. X, 6, 3, 2); ‘ He is eternal, omnipresent, firm, immoveable ’ (Bha. Gita II, 24); and other similar passages from 6ruti and Smrzti.
38. From him (i.e. the Lord, there comes) the fruit (of works); for (that only) is possible.