Adi Shankaracharyas commentary (
The essence of the Upanishads and the Hindu philosophy is captured by the great Vedavyasa, also called Badarayana, in this great scripture. Vedavyasa is also the one who wrote the epic Mahabharata and he also compiled and re-wrote the Vedas, the Bhagavata Puranana and several other puranas.
Introduction
To the sacred literature of the Brahmans, in the strict sense of the term, i.e. to the Veda, there belongs a certain number of complementary works without whose assistance the student is, according to Hindu notions, unable to do more than commit the sacred texts to memory. In the first place all Vedic texts must, in order to be understood, be read together with running commentaries such as Sâyana’s commentaries on the Samhitâs and Brâhmanas,
and the Bhâshyas ascribed to Sankara on the chief Upanishads. But these commentaries do not by themselves conduce to a full comprehension of the contents of the sacred texts, since they confine themselves to explaining the meaning of each detached passage without investigating its relation to other passages, and the whole of which they form part; considerations of the latter kind are at any rate introduced occasionally only. The task of taking a comprehensive view of the contents of the Vedic writings as a whole, of systematising what they present in an unsystematical form, of showing the mutual co-ordination or subordination of single passages and sections, and of reconciling contradictions–which, according to the view of the orthodox commentators, can be apparent only–is allotted to a separate sâstra or body of doctrine which is termed Mîmâmsâ, i.e. the investigation or enquiry, viz. the enquiry into the connected meaning of the sacred texts.
and the Bhâshyas ascribed to Sankara on the chief Upanishads. But these commentaries do not by themselves conduce to a full comprehension of the contents of the sacred texts, since they confine themselves to explaining the meaning of each detached passage without investigating its relation to other passages, and the whole of which they form part; considerations of the latter kind are at any rate introduced occasionally only. The task of taking a comprehensive view of the contents of the Vedic writings as a whole, of systematising what they present in an unsystematical form, of showing the mutual co-ordination or subordination of single passages and sections, and of reconciling contradictions–which, according to the view of the orthodox commentators, can be apparent only–is allotted to a separate sâstra or body of doctrine which is termed Mîmâmsâ, i.e. the investigation or enquiry, viz. the enquiry into the connected meaning of the sacred texts.
Of this Mîmâmsâ two branches have to be distinguished, the so-called earlier (pûrva) Mîmâmsâ, and the later (uttara) Mîmâmsâ. The former undertakes to systematise the karmakânda, i.e. that entire portion of the Veda which is concerned with action, pre-eminently sacrificial action, and which comprises the Samhitâs and the Brâhmanas exclusive of the Âranyaka portions; the latter performs the same service with regard to the so-called gñânakânda, i.e. that part of the Vedic writings which includes the Âranyaka portions of the Brâhmanas, and a number of detached treatises called Upanishads. Its subject is not action but knowledge, viz. the knowledge of Brahman.
At what period these two sâstras first assumed a definite form, we are unable to ascertain. Discussions of the nature of those which constitute the subject-matter of the Pûrva Mîmâmsâ must have arisen at a very early period, and the word Mîmâmsâ itself together with its derivatives is already employed in the Brâhmanas to denote the doubts and discussions connected with certain contested points of ritual. The want of a body of definite rules prescribing how to act, i.e. how to perform the various sacrifices in full accordance with the teaching of the Veda, was indeed an urgent one, because it was an altogether practical want, continually pressing itself on the adhvaryus engaged in ritualistic duties. And the task of establishing such rules was moreover a comparatively limited and feasible one; for the members of a certain Vedic sâkhâ or school had to do no more than to digest thoroughly their own brâhmana and samhitâ, without being under any obligation of reconciling with the teaching of their own books the occasionally conflicting rules implied in the texts of other sâkhâs. It was assumed that action, as being something which depends on the will and choice of man, admits of alternatives, so that a certain sacrifice may be performed in different ways by members of different Vedic schools, or even by the followers of one and the same sâkhâ.
The Uttara Mîmâmsâ-sâstra may be supposed to have originated considerably later than the Pûrva Mîmâmsâ. In the first place, the texts with which it is concerned doubtless constitute the latest branch of Vedic literature. And in the second place, the subject-matter of those texts did not call for a systematical treatment with equal urgency, as it was in no way connected with practice; the mental attitude of the authors of the Upanishads, who in their lucubrations on Brahman and the soul aim at nothing less than at definiteness and coherence, may have perpetuated itself through many generations without any great inconvenience resulting therefrom.
But in the long run two causes must have acted with ever-increasing force, to give an impulse to the systematic working up of the teaching of the Upanishads also. The followers of the different Vedic sâkhâs no doubt recognised already at an early period the truth that, while conflicting statements regarding the details of a sacrifice can be got over by the assumption of a vikalpa, i.e. an optional proceeding, it is not so with regard to such topics as the nature of Brahman, the relation to it of the human soul, the origin of the physical universe, and the like. Concerning them, one opinion only can be the true one, and it therefore becomes absolutely incumbent on those, who look on the whole body of the Upanishads as revealed truth, to demonstrate that their teaching forms a consistent whole free from all contradictions. In addition there supervened the external motive that, while the karma-kânda of the Veda concerned only the higher castes of brahmanically constituted society, on which it enjoins certain sacrificial performances connected with certain rewards, the gñânakânda, as propounding a certain theory of the world, towards which any reflecting person inside or outside the pale of the orthodox community could not but take up a definite position, must soon have become the object of criticism on the part of those who held different views on religious and philosophic things, and hence stood in need of systematic defence.
At present there exists a vast literature connected with the two branches of the Mîmâmsâ. We have, on the one hand, all those works which constitute the Pûrva Mîmâmsâ-sâstra or as it is often, shortly but not accurately, termed, the Mîmâmsâ-sâstra and, on the other hand, all those works which are commonly comprised under the name Vedânta-sâstra. At the head of this extensive literature there stand two collections of Sûtras (i. e. short aphorisms constituting in their totality a complete body of doctrine upon some subject), whose reputed authors are Gaimini and Bâdarâyana. There can, however, be no doubt that the composition of those two collections of Sûtras was preceded by a long series of preparatory literary efforts of which they merely represent the highly condensed outcome. This is rendered probable by the analogy of other sâstras, as well as by the exhaustive thoroughness with which the Sûtras perform their task of systematizing the teaching of the Veda, and is further proved by the frequent references which the Sûtras make to the views of earlier teachers. If we consider merely the preserved monuments of Indian literature, the Sûtras (of the two Mîmâmsâs as well as of other sâstras) mark the beginning; if we, however, take into account what once existed, although it is at present irretrievably lost, we observe that they occupy a strictly central position, summarising, on the one hand, a series of early literary essays extending over many generations, and forming, on the other hand, the head spring of an ever broadening activity of commentators as well as virtually independent writers, which reaches down to our days, and may yet have some future before itself.
The general scope of the two Mîmâmsa-sûtras and their relation to the Veda have been indicated in what precedes. A difference of some importance between the two has, however, to be noted in this connexion. The systematisation of the karmakânda of the Veda led to the elaboration of two classes of works, viz. the Kalpa-sûtras on the one hand, and the Pûrva Mîmâmsa-sûtras on the other hand. The former give nothing but a description as concise as possible of the sacrifices enjoined in the Brâhmanas; while the latter discuss and establish the general principles which the author of a Kalpa-sûtra has to follow, if he wishes to render his rules strictly conformable to the teaching of the Veda. The gñânakânda of the Veda, on the other hand, is systematised in a single work, viz. the Uttara Mîmâmsâ or Vedanta-sûtras, which combine the two tasks of concisely stating the teaching of the Veda, and of argumentatively establishing the special interpretation of the Veda adopted in the Sûtras. This difference may be accounted for by two reasons. In the first place, the contents of the karmakânda, as being of an entirely practical nature, called for summaries such as the Kalpa-sûtras, from which all burdensome discussions of method are excluded; while there was no similar reason for the separation of the two topics in the case of the purely theoretical science of Brahman. And, in the second place, the Vedânta-sûtras throughout presuppose the Pûrva Mîmâmsâ-sûtras, and may therefore dispense with the discussion of general principles and methods already established in the latter.
The time at which the two Mîmâmsâ-sûtras were composed we are at present unable to fix with any certainty; a few remarks on the subject will, however, be made later on. Their outward form is that common to all the so-called Sûtras which aims at condensing a given body of doctrine in a number of concise aphoristic sentences, and often even mere detached words in lieu of sentences. Besides the Mîmâmsâ-sûtras this literary form is common to the fundamental works on the other philosophic systems, on the Vedic sacrifices, on domestic ceremonies, on sacred law, on grammar, and on metres. The two Mîmâmsâ-sûtras occupy, however, an altogether exceptional position in point of style. All Sûtras aim at conciseness; that is clearly the reason to which this whole species of literary composition owes its existence. This their aim they reach by the rigid exclusion of all words which can possibly be spared, by the careful avoidance of all unnecessary repetitions, and, as in the case of the grammatical Sûtras, by the employment of an arbitrarily coined terminology which substitutes single syllables for entire words or combination of words. At the same time the manifest intention of the Sûtra writers is to express themselves with as much clearness as the conciseness affected by them admits of. The aphorisms are indeed often concise to excess, but not otherwise intrinsically obscure, the manifest care of the writers being to retain what is essential in a given phrase, and to sacrifice only what can be supplied, although perhaps not without difficulty, and an irksome strain of memory and reflection. Hence the possibility of understanding without a commentary a very considerable portion at any rate of the ordinary Sûtras. Altogether different is the case of the two Mîmâmsâ-sûtras. There scarcely one single Sûtra is intelligible without a commentary. The most essential words are habitually dispensed with; nothing is, for instance, more common than the simple omission of the subject or predicate of a sentence. And when here and there a Sûtra occurs whose words construe without anything having to be supplied, the phraseology is so eminently vague and obscure that without the help derived from a commentary we should be unable to make out to what subject the Sûtra refers. When undertaking to translate either of the Mîmâmsâ-sutras we therefore depend altogether on commentaries; and hence the question arises which of the numerous commentaries extant is to be accepted as a guide to their right understanding.
The commentary here selected for translation, together with Bâdarâyana’s Sûtras 1 (to which we shall henceforth confine our attention to the exclusion of Gaimini’s Pûrva Mîmâmsâ-sutras), is the one composed by the celebrated theologian Sankara or, as he is commonly called, Sankarâkârya. There are obvious reasons for this selection. In the first place, the Sankara-bhâshya represents the so-called orthodox side of Brahmanical theology which strictly upholds the Brahman or highest Self of the Upanishads as something different from, and in fact immensely superior to, the divine beings such as Vishnu or Siva, which, for many centuries, have been the chief objects of popular worship in India. In the second place, the doctrine advocated by Sankara is, from a purely philosophical point of view and apart from all theological considerations, the most important and interesting one which has arisen on Indian soil; neither those forms of the Vedânta which diverge from the view represented by Sankara nor any of the non-Vedântic systems can be compared with the so-called orthodox Vedânta in boldness, depth, and subtlety of speculation. In the third place, Sankara’s bhâshya is, as far as we know, the oldest of the extant commentaries, and relative antiquity is at any rate one of the circumstances which have to be taken into account, although, it must be admitted, too much weight may easily be attached to it. The Sankara-bhâshya further is the authority most generally deferred to in India as to the right understanding of the Vedânta-sûtras, and ever since Sankara’s time the majority of the best thinkers of India have been men belonging to his school. If in addition to all this we take into consideration the intrinsic merits of Sankara’s work which, as a piece of philosophical argumentation and theological apologetics, undoubtedly occupies a high rank, the preference here given to it will be easily understood.
But to the European–or, generally, modern–translator of the Vedânta-sûtras with Sankara’s commentary another question will of course suggest itself at once, viz. whether or not Sankara’s explanations faithfully render the intended meaning of the author of the Sûtras. To the Indian Pandit of Sankara’s school this question has become an indifferent one, or, to state the case more accurately, he objects to its being raised, as he looks on Sankara’s authority as standing above doubt and dispute. When pressed to make good his position he will, moreover, most probably not enter into any detailed comparison of Sankara’s comments with the text of Bâdarâyana’s Sûtras, but will rather endeavour to show on speculative grounds that Sankara’s philosophical view is the only true one, whence it of course follows that it accurately represents the meaning of Bâdarâyana, who himself must necessarily be assured to have taught the true doctrine. But on the modern investigator, who neither can consider himself bound by the authority of a name however great, nor is likely to look to any Indian system of thought for the satisfaction of his speculative wants, it is clearly incumbent not to acquiesce from the out set in the interpretations given of the Vedânta-sûtras–and the Upanishads–by Sankara and his school, but to submit them, as far as that can be done, to a critical investigation.
This is a task which would have to be undertaken even if Sankara’s views as to the true meaning of the Sûtras and Upanishads had never been called into doubt on Indian soil, although in that case it could perhaps hardly be entered upon with much hope of success; but it becomes much more urgent, and at the same time more feasible, when we meet in India itself with systems claiming to be Vedântic and based on interpretations of the Sûtras and Upanishads more or less differing from those of Sankara. The claims of those systems to be in the possession of the right understanding of the fundamental authorities of the Vedânta must at any rate be examined, even if we should finally be compelled to reject them.
It appears that already at a very early period the Vedânta-sûtras had come to be looked upon as an authoritative work, not to be neglected by any who wished to affiliate their own doctrines to the Veda. At present, at any rate, there are very few Hindu sects not interested in showing that their distinctive tenets are countenanced by Bâdarâyana’s teaching. Owing to this the commentaries on the Sûtras have in the course of time become very numerous, and it is at present impossible to give a full and accurate enumeration even of those actually existing, much less of those referred to and quoted. Mr. Fitz-Edward Hall, in his Bibliographical Index, mentions fourteen commentaries, copies of which had been inspected by himself. Some among these (as, for instance, Râmânuga’s Vedânta-sâra, No. XXXV) are indeed not commentaries in the strict sense of the word, but rather systematic expositions of the doctrine supposed to be propounded in the Sûtras; but, on the other hand, there are in existence several true commentaries which had not been accessible to Fitz-Edward Hall. it would hardly be practical–and certainly not feasible in this place–to submit all the existing bhâshyas to a critical enquiry at once. All we can do here is to single out one or a few of the more important ones, and to compare their interpretations with those given by Sankara, and with the text of the Sûtras themselves.
The bhâshya, which in this connexion is the first to press itself upon our attention, is the one composed by the famous Vaishnava theologian and philosopher Râmânuga, who is supposed to have lived in the twelfth century. The Râmânuga or, as it is often called, the Srî-bhâshya appears to be
the oldest commentary extant next to Sankara’s. It is further to be noted that the sect of the Râmânugas occupies a pre-eminent position among the Vaishnava, sects which themselves, in their totality, may claim to be considered the most important among all Hindu sects. The intrinsic value of the Srî-bhâshya moreover is–as every student acquainted with it will be ready to acknowledge–a very high one; it strikes one throughout as a very solid performance due to a writer of extensive learning and great power of argumentation, and in its polemic parts, directed chiefly against the school of Sankara, it not unfrequently deserves to be called brilliant even. And in addition to all this it shows evident traces of being not the mere outcome of Râmânuga’s individual views, but of resting on an old and weighty tradition.
This latter point is clearly of the greatest importance. If it could be demonstrated or even rendered probable only that the oldest bhâshya which we possess, i. e. the Sankara-bhâshya, represents an uninterrupted and uniform tradition bridging over the interval between Bâdarâyana, the reputed author of the Sûtras, and Sankara; and if, on the other hand, it could be shown that the more modern bhâshyas are not supported by old tradition, but are nothing more than bold attempts of clever sectarians to force an old work of generally recognised authority into the service of their individual tenets; there would certainly be no reason for us to raise the question whether the later bhâshyas can help us in making out the true meaning of the Sûtras. All we should have to do in that case would be to accept Sankara’s interpretations as they stand, or at the utmost to attempt to make out, if at all possible, by a careful comparison of Sankara’s bhâshya with the text of the Sûtras, whether the former in all cases faithfully represents the purport of the latter.
In the most recent book of note which at all enters into the question as to how far we have to accept Sankara as a guide to the right understanding of the Sûtras (Mr. A. Gough’s Philosophy of the Upanishads) the view is maintained (pp. 239 ff.) that Sankara is the generally recognised expositor of true Vedânta doctrine, that that doctrine was handed down by an unbroken series of teachers intervening between him and the Sûtrakâra, and that there existed from the beginning only one Vedânta doctrine, agreeing in all essential points with the doctrine known to us from Sankara’s writings. Mr. Gough undertakes to prove this view, firstly, by a comparison of Sankara’s system with the teaching of the Upanishads themselves; and, secondly, by a comparison of the purport of the Sûtras–as far as that can be made out independently of the commentaries–with the interpretations given of them by Sankara. To both these points we shall revert later on. Meanwhile, I only wish to remark concerning the former point that, even if we could show with certainty that all the Upanishads propound one and the same doctrine, there yet remains the undeniable fact of our being confronted by a considerable number of essentially differing theories, all of which claim to be founded on the Upanishads. And with regard to the latter point I have to say for the present that, as long as we have only Sankara’s bhâshya before us, we are naturally inclined to find in the Sûtras–which, taken by themselves, are for the greater part unintelligible–the meaning which Sankara ascribes to them; while a reference to other bhâshyas may not impossibly change our views at once.–Meanwhile, we will consider the question as to the unbroken uniformity of Vedântic tradition from another point or view, viz. by enquiring whether or not the Sûtras themselves, and the Sankara-bhâshya, furnish any indications of there having existed already at an early time essentially different Vedântic systems or lines of Vedântic speculation.
FIRST ADHYÂYA.
PÂDA I.
The first five adhikaranas lay clown the fundamental positions with regard to Brahman. Adhik. I (1) 1 treats of what the study of the Vedânta presupposes. Adhik. II (2) defines Brahman as that whence the world originates, and so on. Adhik. III (3) declares that Brahman is the source of the Veda. Adhik. IV (4) proves Brahman to be the uniform topic of all Vedânta-texts. Adhik. V (5-11) is engaged in proving by various arguments that the Brahman, which the Vedanta-texts represent as the cause of the world, is an intelligent principle, and cannot be identified with the non-intelligent pradhâna from which the world springs according to the Sânkhyas.
With the next adhikarana there begins a series of discussions of essentially similar character, extending up to the end of the first adhyâya. The question is throughout whether certain terms met with in the Upanishads denote Brahman or some other being, in most cases the gîva, the individual soul. Sankara remarks at the outset that, as the preceding ten Sûtras had settled the all-important point that all the Vedânta-texts refer to Brahman, the question now arises why the enquiry should be continued any further, and thereupon proceeds to explain that the acknowledged distinction of a higher Brahman devoid of all qualities and a lower Brahman characterised by qualities necessitates an investigation whether certain Vedic texts of primâ facie doubtful import set forth the lower Brahman as the object of devout meditation, or the higher Brahman as the object of true knowledge. But that such an investigation is actually carried on in the remaining portion of the first adhyâya, appears neither from the wording of the Sûtras nor even from Sankara’s own treatment of the Vedic texts referred to in the Sûtras. In I, 1, 20, for instance, the question is raised whether the golden man within the sphere of the sun, with golden hair and beard and lotus-coloured eyes–of whom the Khândogya Upanishad speaks in I, 6, 6–is an individual soul abiding within the sun or the highest Lord. Sankara’s answer is that the passage refers to the Lord, who, for the gratification of his worshippers, manifests himself in a bodily shape made of Mâyâ. So that according to Sankara himself the alternative lies between the saguna Brahman and some particular individual soul, not between the saguna Brahman and the nirguna Brahman.
Adhik. VI (12-19) raises the question whether the ânandamaya, mentioned in Taittirîya Upanishad II, 5, is merely a transmigrating individual soul or the highest Self. Sankara begins by explaining the Sûtras on the latter supposition–and the text of the Sûtras is certainly in favour of that interpretation–gives, however, finally the preference to a different and exceedingly forced explanation according to which the Sûtras teach that the ânandamaya is not Brahman, since the Upanishad expressly says that Brahman is the tail or support of the ânandamaya 1.–Râmânuga’s interpretation of Adhikarana VI, although not agreeing in all particulars with the former explanation of Sankara, yet is at one with it in the chief point, viz. that the ânandamaya is Brahman. It further deserves notice that, while Sankara looks on Adhik. VI as the first of a series of interpretatory discussions, all of which treat the question whether certain Vedic passages refer to Brahman or not, Râmânuga separates the adhikarana from the subsequent part of the pâda and connects it with what had preceded. In Adhik. V it had been shown that Brahman cannot be identified with the pradhâna; Adhik. VI shows that it is different from the individual soul, and the proof of the fundamental position of the system is thereby completed 1.–Adhik. VII (20, 31) demonstrates that the golden person seen within the sun and the person seen within the eye, mentioned in Kh. Up. I, 6, are not some individual soul of high eminence, but the supreme Brahman.–Adhik. VIII (22) teaches that by the ether from which, according to Kh. Up. I, 9, all beings originate, not the elemental ether has to be understood but the highest Brahman.–Adhik. IX (23). The prâna also mentioned in Kh. Up. I, ii, 5 denotes the highest Brahman 2–Adhik. X (24-27) teaches that the light spoken of in Kh. Up. III, 13, 7 is not the ordinary physical light but the highest Brahman 3.–Adhik. XI (28-31) decides that the prâna mentioned in Kau. Up. III, 2 is Brahman.
PÂDA II.
Adhik. I (1-8) shows that the being which consists of mind, whose body is breath, &c., mentioned in Kh. Up. III, 14, is not the individual soul, but Brahman. The Sûtras of this adhikarana emphatically dwell on the difference of the individual soul and the highest Self, whence Sankara is obliged to add an explanation–in his comment on Sûtra 6–to the effect that that difference is to be understood as not real, but as due to the false limiting adjuncts of the highest Self.–The comment of Râmânuga throughout closely follows the words of the Sûtras; on Sûtra 6 it simply remarks that the difference of the highest Self from the individual soul rests thereon that the former as free from all evil is not subject to the effects of works in the same way as the soul is 1.–Adhik. II (9, 10) decides that he to whom the Brahmans and Kshattriyas are but food (Katha. Up. I, 2, 25) is the highest Self.–Adhik. III (11, 12) shows that the two entered into the cave (Katha Up. I, 3, 1) are Brahman and the individual soul 2.–Adhik. IV (13-17) shows that the person within the eye mentioned in Kh. Up. IV, 15, 1 is Brahman.–Adhik. V (18-20) shows that the ruler within (antaryâmin) described in Bri. Up. III, 7, 3 is Brahman. Sûtra 2,0 clearly enounces the difference of the individual soul and the Lord; hence Sankara is obliged to remark that that difference is not real.–Adhik. VI (21-23) proves that that which cannot be seen, &c, mentioned in Mundaka Up. I, 1, 3 is Brahman.–Adhik. VII (24-32) shows that the âtman vaisvânara of Kh. Up. V, 11, 6 is Brahman.
PÂDA III.
Adhik. I (1-7) proves that that within which the heaven, the earth, &c. are woven (Mund. Up. II, 2, 5) is Brahman.–Adhik. II (8, 9) shows that the bhûman referred to in Kh. Up. VII, 23 is Brahman.–Adhik. III (10-12) teaches that the Imperishable in which, according to Bri. Up. III, 8, 8, the ether is woven is Brahman.–Adhik. IV (13) decides that the highest person who is to be meditated upon with the syllable Om, according to Prasna Up. V, 5, is not the lower but the higher Brahman.–According to Râmânuga the two alternatives are Brahman and Brahmâ (gîvasa-mashtirûpo # ndâdhipatis katurmukhah).–Adhik. V and VI (comprising, according to–Sankara, Sûtras 14-21) 1 discuss the question whether the small ether within the lotus of the heart mentioned in Kh. Up. VIII, 1 is the elemental ether or the individual soul or Brahman; the last alternative being finally adopted. In favour of the second alternative the pûrvapakshin pleads the two passages Kh. Up. VIII, 3, 4 and VIII, 12, 3, about the serene being (samprasâda); for by the latter the individual soul only can be understood, and in the chapter, of which the latter passage forms part, there are ascribed to it the same qualities (viz. freeness from sin, old age, death, &c.) that were predicated in VIII, 1, of the small ether within the heart.–But the reply to this is, that the second passage refers not to the (ordinary) individual soul but to the soul in that state where its true nature has become manifest, i.e. in which it is Brahman; so that the subject of the passage is in reality not the so-called individual soul but Brahman. And in the former of the two passages the soul is mentioned not on its own account, but merely for the purpose of intimating that the highest Self is the cause through which the individual soul manifests itself in its true nature.–What Râmânuga understands by the âvirbhâva of the soul will appear from the remarks on IV, 4.
The two next Sûtras (22, 23) constitute, according to Sankara, a new adhikarana (VII), proving that he ‘after whom everything shines, by whose light all this is lighted’ (Katha Up. II, 5,15) is not some material luminous body, but Brahman itself.–According to Râmânuga the two Sûtras do not start a new topic, but merely furnish some further arguments strengthening the conclusion arrived at in the preceding Sûtras.) 2 Adhik. VIII (24, 25) decides that the person of the size of a thumb mentioned in Katha Up. II, 4, 12 is not the individual soul but Brahman.
The two next adhikaranas are of the nature of a digression. The passage about the angushthamâtra was explained on the ground that the human heart is of the size of a span; the question may then be asked whether also such individuals as belong to other classes than mankind, more particularly the Gods, are capable of the knowledge of Brahman: a question finally answered in the affirmative.–This discussion leads in its turn to several other digressions, among which the most important one refers to the problem in what relation the different species of beings stand to the words denoting them (Sûtra 28). In connexion herewith Sankara treats of the nature of words (sabda), opposing the opinion of the Mîmâmsaka Upavarsha, according to whom the word is nothing but the aggregate of its constitutive letters, to the view of the grammarians who teach that over and above the aggregate of the letters there exists a super-sensuous entity called ‘sphota,’ which is the direct cause of the apprehension of the sense of a word (Adhik. IX; Sûtras 26-33).
Adhik. X (34-38) explains that Sûdras are altogether disqualified for Brahmavidyâ.
Sûtra 39 constitutes, according to Sankara, a new adhikarana (XI), proving that the prâna in which everything trembles, according to Katha Up. II, 6, 2, is Brahman.–According to Râmânuga the Sûtra does not introduce a new topic but merely furnishes an additional reason for the decision arrived at under Sûtras 24, 25, viz. that the angushthamâtra is Brahman. On this supposition, Sûtras 24-39 form one adhikarana in which 26-38 constitute a mere digression led up to by the mention made of the heart in 25.–The angushthamâtra is referred to twice in the Katha Upanishad, once in the passage discussed (II, 4, 12), and once in II, 6, 17 (‘the Person not larger than a thumb’). To determine what is meant by the angushthamâtra, Râmânuga says, we are enabled by the passage II, 6, 2, 3, which is intermediate between the two passages concerning the angushthamâtra, and which clearly refers to the highest Brahman, of which alone everything can be said to stand in awe.
The next Sûtra (40) gives rise to a similar difference of opinion. According to Sankara it constitutes by itself a new adhikarana (XII), proving that the ‘light’ (gyotis) mentioned in Kh. Up. VIII, 12, 3 is the highest Brahman.–According to Râmânuga the Sûtra continues the preceding adhikarana, and strengthens the conclusion arrived at by a further argument, referring to Katha Up. II, 5, 15–a passage intermediate between the two passages about the angushthamâtra–which speaks of a primary light that cannot mean anything but Brahman. The Sûtra has in that case to be translated as follows: ‘(The angushthamâtra is Brahman) because (in a passage intervening between the two) a light is seen to be mentioned (which can be Brahman only).’
The three last Sûtras of the pâda are, according to Sankara, to be divided into two adhikaranas (XIII and XIV), Sûtra 41 deciding that the ether which reveals names and forms (Kh. Up. VIII, 14) is not the elemental ether but Brahman; and 42, 43 teaching that the vigñânamaya, ‘he who consists of knowledge,’ of Bri. Up. IV, 3, 7 is not the individual soul but Brahman.–According to Râmânuga the three Sûtras make up one single adhikarana discussing whether the Khandogya Upanishad passage about the ether refers to Brahman or to the individual soul in the state of release; the latter of these two alternatives being suggested by the circumstance that the released soul is the subject of the passage immediately preceding (‘Shaking off all evil as a horse shakes off his hair,’ &c.). Sûtra 41 decides that ‘the ether (is Brahman) because the passage designates the nature of something else,’ &c. (i.e. of something other than the individual soul; other because to the soul the revealing of names and forms cannot be ascribed, &c.)–But, an objection is raised, does not more than one scriptural passage show that the released soul and Brahman are identical, and is not therefore the ether which reveals names and forms the soul as well as Brahman?–(The two, Sûtra 42 replies, are different) ‘because in the states of deep sleep and departing (the highest Self) is designated as different’ (from the soul)–which point is proved by the same scriptural passages which Sankara adduces;–and ‘because such terms as Lord and the like’ cannot be applied to the individual soul (43). Reference is made to IV, 4, 14, where all gagadvyâpâra is said to belong to the Lord only, not to the soul even when in the state of release.
PÂDA IV.
The last pâda of the first adhyâya is specially directed against the Sânkhyas.
The first adhikarana (1-7) discusses the passage Katha Up. I, 3, 10; 11, where mention is made of the Great and the Undeveloped–both of them terms used with a special technical sense in the Sânkhya-sâstra, avyakta being a synonym for pradhâna.–Sankara shows by an exhaustive review of the topics of the Katha Upanishad that the term avyakta has not the special meaning which the Sânkhyas attribute to it, but denotes the body, more strictly the subtle body (sûkshma sarîra), but at the same time the gross body also, in so far as it is viewed as an effect of the subtle one.
Adhik. II (8-10) demonstrates, according to Sankara, that the tricoloured agâ spoken of in Sve. Up. IV, 5 is not the pradhâna of the Sânkhyas, but either that power of the Lord from which the world springs, or else the primary causal matter first produced by that power.–What Râmânuga in contradistinction from Sankara understands by the primary causal matter, follows from the short sketch given above of the two systems.
Adhik. III (11-13) shows that the pañka pañkaganâh mentioned in Bri. Up. IV, 4, 17 are not the twenty-five principles of the Sânkhyas.–Adhik. IV (14, 15) proves that Scripture does not contradict itself on the all-important point of Brahman, i.e. a being whose essence is intelligence, being the cause of the world.
Adhik. V (16-18) is, according to Sankara, meant to prove that ‘he who is the maker of those persons, of whom this is the work,’ mentioned in Kau. Up. IV, 19, is not either the vital air or the individual soul, but Brahman.–The subject of the adhikarana is essentially the same in Râmânuga’s view; greater stress is, however, laid on the adhikarana being polemical against the Sânkhyas, who wish to turn the passage into an argument for the pradhâna doctrine.
The same partial difference of view is observable with regard to the next adhikarana (VI; Sûtras 19-22) which decides that the ‘Self to be seen, to be heard,’ &c. (Bri. Up. II, 4, 5) is the highest Self, not the individual soul. This latter passage also is, according to Râmânuga, made the subject of discussion in order to rebut the Sânkhya who is anxious to prove that what is there inculcated as the object of knowledge is not a universal Self but merely the Sânkhya purusha.
Adhik. VII (23-27) teaches that Brahman is not only the efficient or operative cause (nimitta) of the world, but its material cause as well. The world springs from Brahman by way of modification (parinâma; Sûtra 26).–Râmânuga views this adhikarana as specially directed against the Sesvara-sânkhyas who indeed admit the existence of a highest Lord, but postulate in addition an independent pradhâna on which the Lord acts as an operative cause merely.
Adhik. VIII (28) remarks that the refutation of the Sânkhya views is applicable to other theories also, such as the doctrine of the world having originated from atoms.
After this rapid survey of the contents of the first adhyâya and the succinct indication of the most important points in which the views of Sankara and Râmânuga diverge, we turn to a short consideration of two questions which here naturally present themselves, viz., firstly, which is the principle on which the Vedic passages referred to in the Sûtras have been selected and arranged; and, secondly, if, where Sankara and Râmânuga disagree as to the subdivision of the Sûtras into Adhikaranas, and the determination of the Vedic passages discussed in the Sûtras, there are to be met with any indications enabling us to determine which of the two commentators is right. (The more general question as to how far the Sûtras favour either Sankara’s or Râmânuga’s general views cannot be considered at present.)
The Hindu commentators here and there attempt to point out the reason why the discussion of a certain Vedic passage is immediately followed by the consideration of a certain other one. Their explanations–which have occasionally been referred to in the notes to the translation–rest on the assumption that the Sûtrakâra in arranging the texts to be commented upon was guided by technicalities of the Mîmâmsâ-system, especially by a regard for the various so-called means of proof which the Mîmâmsaka employs for the purpose of determining the proper meaning and position of scriptural passages. But that this was the guiding principle, is rendered altogether improbable by a simple tabular statement of the Vedic passages referred to in the first adhyâya, such as given by Deussen on page 130; for from the latter it appears that the order in which the Sûtras exhibit the scriptural passages follows the order in which those passages themselves occur in the Upanishads, and it would certainly be a most strange coincidence if that order enabled us at the same time to exemplify the various pramânas of the Mîmâmsâ in their due systematic succession.
As Deussen’s statement shows, most of the passages discussed are taken from the Khândogya Upanishad, so many indeed that the whole first adhyâya may be said to consist of a discussion of all those Khândogya passages of which it is doubtful whether they are concerned with Brahman or not, passages from the other Upanishads being brought in wherever an opportunity offers. Considering the prominent position assigned to the Upanishad mentioned, I think it likely that the Sûtrakâra meant to begin the series of doubtful texts with the first doubtful passage from the Khândogya, and that hence the sixth adhikarana which treats of the anândamaya mentioned in the Taittirîya Upanishad has, in agreement with Râmânuga’s views, to be separated from the subsequent adhikaranas, and to be combined with the preceding ones whose task it is to lay down the fundamental propositions regarding Brahman’s nature.–The remaining adhikaranas of the first pâda follow the order of passages in the Khândogya Upanishad, and therefore call for no remark; with the exception of the last adhikarana, which refers to a Kaushîtaki passage, for whose being introduced in this place I am not able to account.–The first adhikarana of the second pâda returns to the Khândogya Upanishad. The second one treats of a passage in the Katha Upanishad where a being is referred to which eats everything. The reason why that passage is introduced in this place seems to be correctly assigned in the Srî-bhâshya, which remarks that, as in the preceding Sûtra it had been argued that the highest Self is not an enjoyer, a doubt arises whether by that being which eats everything the highest Self can be meant 1.–The third adhikarana again, whose topic is the ‘two entered into the cave’ (Katha Up. I, 3, 1), appears, as Râmânuga remarks, to come in at this place owing to the preceding adhikarana; for if it could not be proved that one of the two is the highest Self, a doubt would attach to the explanation given above of the ‘eater’ since the ‘two entered into the cave,’ and the ‘eater’ stand under the same prakarana, and must therefore be held to refer to the same matter.–The fourth adhikarana is again occupied with a Khândogya passage.–The fifth adhikarana, whose topic is the Ruler within (antaryâmin), manifestly owes its place, as remarked by Râmânuga also,
to the fact that the Vedic passage treated had been employed in the preceding adhikarana (I, 2, 14) for the purpose of strengthening the argument 1.–The sixth adhikarana, again, which discusses ‘that which is not seen’ (adresya; Mund. Up. I, 1, 6), is clearly introduced in this place because in the preceding adhikarana it had been said that adrishta, &c. denote the highest Self;–The reasons to which the last adhikarana of the second pâda and the first and third adhikaranas of the third pâda owe their places are not apparent (the second adhikarana of the third pâda treats of a Khândogya passage). The introduction, on the other hand, of the passage from the Prasna Upanishad treating of the akshara Omkâra is clearly due to the circumstance that an akshara, of a different nature, had been discussed in the preceding adhikarana.–The fifth and sixth adhikaranas investigate Khândogya passages.–The two next Sûtras (22, 23) are, as remarked above, considered by Sankara to constitute a new adhikarana treating of the ‘being after which everything shines’ (Mund. Up. II, 2, 10); while Râmânuga looks on them as continuing the sixth adhikarana. There is one circumstance which renders it at any rate probable that Râmânuga, and not Sankara, here hits the intention of the author of the Sûtras. The general rule in the first three pâdas is that, wherever a new Vedic passage is meant to be introduced, the subject of the discussion, i.e. that being which in the end is declared to be Brahman is referred to by means of a special word, in most cases a nominative form 2. From this rule there is in the preceding part of the adhyâya only one real exception, viz. in I, 2, 1, which possibly may be due to the fact that there a new pâda begins, and it therefore was considered superfluous to indicate the introduction of a new topic by a special word. The exception supplied by I, 3, 19 is only an apparent one; for, as remarked above, Sûtra 19 does not in reality begin a new adhikarana. A few exceptions occurring later on will be noticed in their places.–Now neither Sutra 22 nor Sutra 23 contains any word intimating that a new Vedic passage is being taken into consideration, and hence it appears preferable to look upon them, with Râmânuga, as continuing the topic of the preceding adhikarana.–This conclusion receives an additional confirmation from the position of the next adhikarana, which treats of the being ‘a span long’ mentioned in Katha Up. II, 4, 12; for the reason of this latter passage being considered here is almost certainly the reference to the alpasruti in Sûtra 21, and, if so, the angushthamâtra properly constitutes the subject of the adhikarana immediately following on Adhik. V, VI; which, in its turn, implies that Sutras 22, 23 do not form an independent adhikarana.–The two next adhikaranas are digressions, and do not refer to special Vedic passages.–Sutra 39 forms anew adhikarana, according to Sankara, but not according to Râmânuga, whose opinion seems again to be countenanced by the fact that the Sûtra does not exhibit any word indicative of a new topic. The same difference of opinion prevails with regard to Sûtra 40, and it appears from the translation of the Sûtra given above, according to Râmânuga’s view, that ‘gyotih’ need not be taken as a nominative.–The last two adhikaranas finally refer, according to Râmânuga, to one Khandogya passage only, and here also we have to notice that Sûtra 42 does not comprise any word intimating that a new passage is about to be discussed.
From all this we seem entitled to draw the following conclusions. The Vedic passages discussed in the three first pâdas of the Vedânta-sûtras comprise all the doubtful–or at any rate all the more important doubtful–passages from the Khandogya Upanishad. These passages are arranged in the order in which the text of the Upanishad exhibits them. Passages from other Upanishads are discussed as opportunities offer, there being always a special reason why a certain Khandogya passage is followed by a certain passage from some other Upanishad. Those reasons can be assigned with sufficient certainty in a number of cases although not in all, and from among those passages whose introduction cannot be satisfactorily accounted for some are eliminated by our following the subdivision of the Sûtras into adhikaranas adopted by Râmânuga, a subdivision countenanced by the external form of the Sûtras.
The fourth pâda of the first adhyâya has to be taken by itself. It is directed specially and avowedly against Sânkhya-interpretations of Scripture, not only in its earlier part which discusses isolated passages, but also–as is brought out much more clearly in the Srî-bhâshya than by Sankara–in its latter part which takes a general survey of the entire scriptural evidence for Brahman being the material as well as the operative cause of the world.
Deussen (p. 221) thinks that the selection made by the Sûtrakâra of Vedic passages setting forth the nature of Brahman is not in all cases an altogether happy one. But this reproach rests on the assumption that the passages referred to in the first adhyâya were chosen for the purpose of throwing light on what Brahman is, and this assumption can hardly be upheld. The Vedânta-sûtras as well as the Pûrvâ Mîmâmsâ-sûtras are throughout Mîmâmsâ i.e. critical discussions of such scriptural passages as on a primâ facie view admit of different interpretations and therefore necessitate a careful enquiry into their meaning. Here and there we meet with Sutrâs which do not directly involve a discussion of the sense of some particular Vedic passage, but rather make a mere statement on some important point. But those cases are rare, and it would be altogether contrary to the general spirit of the Sutrâs to assume that a whole adhyâya should be devoted to the task of showing what Brahman is. The latter point is sufficiently determined in the first five (or six) adhikaranas; but after we once know what Brahman is we are at once confronted by a number of Upanishad passages concerning which it is doubtful whether they refer to Brahman or not. With their discussion all the remaining adhikaranas of the first adhyâya are occupied. That the Vedânta-sûtras view it as a particularly important task to controvert the doctrine of the Sânkhyas is patent (and has also been fully pointed out by Deussen, p. 23). The fifth adhikarana already declares itself against the doctrine that the world has sprung from a non-intelligent principle, the pradhâna, and the fourth pâda of the first adhyâya returns to an express polemic against Sânkhya interpretations of certain Vedic statements. It is therefore perhaps not saying too much if we maintain that the entire first adhyâya is due to the wish, on the part of the Sûtrakâra, to guard his own doctrine against Sânkhya attacks. Whatever the attitude of the other so-called orthodox systems may be towards the Veda, the Sânkhya system is the only one whose adherents were anxious–and actually attempted–to prove that their views are warranted by scriptural passages. The Sânkhya tendency thus would be to show that all those Vedic texts which the Vedântin claims as teaching the existence of Brahman, the intelligent and sole cause of the world, refer either to the pradhâna or some product of the pradhâna, or else to the purusha in the Sânkhya sense, i.e. the individual soul. It consequently became the task of the Vedântin to guard the Upanishads against misinterpretations of the kind, and this he did in the first adhyâya of the Vedânta-sûtras, selecting those passages about whose interpretation doubts were, for some reason or other, likely to arise. Some of the passages singled out are certainly obscure, and hence liable to various interpretations; of others it is less apparent why it was thought requisite to discuss them at length. But this is hardly a matter in which we are entitled to find fault with the Sûtrakâra; for no modern scholar, either European or Hindu, is–or can possibly be–sufficiently at home, on the one hand, in the religious and philosophical views which prevailed at the time when the Sûtras may have been composed, and, on the other hand, in the intricacies of the Mîmâmsâ, to judge with confidence which Vedic passages may give rise to discussions and which not.
SECOND ADHYÂYA.
The first adhyâya has proved that all the Vedânta-texts unanimously teach that there is only one cause of the world, viz. Brahman, whose nature is intelligence, and that there exists no scriptural passage which can be used to establish systems opposed to the Vedânta, more especially the Sânkhya system. The task of the two first pâdas of the second adhyâya is to rebut any objections which may be raised against the Vedânta doctrine on purely speculative grounds, apart from scriptural authority, and to show, again on purely speculative grounds, that none of the systems irreconcilable with the Vedânta can be satisfactorily established.
PÂDA I.
Adhikarana I refutes the Sânkhya objection that the acceptation of the Vedânta system involves the rejection of the Sânkhya doctrine which after all constitutes a part of Smriti, and as such has claims on consideration.–To accept the Sânkhya-smriti, the Vedântin replies, would compel us to reject other Smritis, such as the Manu-smriti, which are opposed to the Sânkhya doctrine. The conflicting claims of Smritis can be settled only on the ground of the Veda, and there can be no doubt that the Veda does not confirm the Sânkhya-smriti, but rather those Smritis which teach the origination of the world from an intelligent primary cause.
Adhik. II (3) extends the same line of argumentation to the Yoga-smriti.
Adhik. III (4-11) shows that Brahman, although of the nature of intelligence, yet may be the cause of the non-intelligent material world, and that it is not contaminated by the qualities of the world when the latter is refunded into Brahman. For ordinary experience teaches us that like does not always spring from like, and that the qualities of effected things when the latter are refunded into their causes–as when golden ornaments, for instance, are melted and thereby become simple gold again–do not continue to exist in those causes.–Here also the argumentation is specially directed against the Sânkhyas, who, in order to account for the materiality and the various imperfections of the world, think it necessary to assume a causal substance participating in the same characteristics.
Adhik. IV (12) points out that the line of reasoning followed in the preceding adhikarana is valid also against other theories, such as the atomistic doctrine.
The one Sûtra (13) constituting Adhik. V teaches, according to Sankara, that although the enjoying souls as well as the objects of fruition are in reality nothing but Brahman, and on that account identical, yet the two sets may practically be held apart, just as in ordinary life we hold apart, and distinguish as separate individual things, the waves, ripples, and foam of the sea, although at the bottom waves, ripples, and foam are all of them identical as being neither more nor less than sea-water.–The Srî-bhâshya gives a totally different interpretation of the Sûtra, according to which the latter has nothing whatever to do with the eventual non-distinction of enjoying souls and objects to be enjoyed. Translated according to Râmânuga’s view, the Sûtra runs as follows: ‘If non-distinction (of the Lord and the individual souls) is said to result from the circumstance of (the Lord himself) becoming an enjoyer (a soul), we refute this objection by instances from every-day experience.’ That is to say: If it be maintained that from our doctrine previously expounded, according to which this world springs from the Lord and constitutes his body, it follows that the Lord, as an embodied being, is not essentially different from other souls, and subject to fruition as they are; we reply that the Lord’s having a body does not involve his being subject to fruition, not any more than in ordinary life a king, although himself an embodied being, is affected by the experiences of pleasure and pain which his servants have to undergo.–The construction which Râmânuga puts on the Sûtra is not repugnant either to the words of the Sutra or to the context in which the latter stands, and that it rests on earlier authority appears
from a quotation made by Râmânuga from the Dramidabhâshyakâra 1.
Adhik. VI (14-20) treats of the non-difference of the effect from the cause; a Vedânta doctrine which is defended by its adherents against the Vaiseshikas according to whom the effect is something different from the cause.–The divergent views of Sankara and Râmânuga on this important point have been sufficiently illustrated in the general sketch of the two systems.
Adhik. VII (21-23) refutes the objection that, from the Vedic passages insisting on the identity of the Lord and the individual soul, it follows that the Lord must be like the individual soul the cause of evil, and that hence the entire doctrine of an all-powerful and all-wise Lord being the cause of the world has to be rejected. For, the Sûtra-kâra remarks, the creative principle of the world is additional to, i.e. other than, the individual soul, the difference of the two being distinctly declared by Scripture.–The way in which the three Sûtras constituting this adhikarana are treated by Sankara on the one hand and Râmânuga on the other is characteristic. Râmânuga throughout simply follows the words of the Sûtras, of which Sûtra 21 formulates the objection based on such texts as ‘Thou art that,’ while Sûtra 22 replies that Brahman is different from the soul, since that is expressly declared by Scripture. Sankara, on the other hand, sees himself obliged to add that the difference of the two, plainly maintained in Sûtra 22, is not real, but due to the soul’s fictitious limiting adjuncts.
Adhik. VIII (24, 25) shows that Brahman, although destitute of material and instruments of action, may yet produce the world, just as gods by their mere power create palaces, animals, and the like, and as milk by itself turns into curds.
Adhik. IX (26-29) explains that, according to the express doctrine of Scripture, Brahman does not in its entirety pass over into the world, and, although emitting the world from itself, yet remains one and undivided. This is possible, according to Sankara, because the world is unreal; according to Râmânuga, because the creation is merely the visible and tangible manifestation of what previously existed in Brahman in a subtle imperceptible condition.
Adhik. X (30, 31) teaches that Brahman, although destitute of instruments of action, is enabled to create the world by means of the manifold powers which it possesses.
Adhik. XI (32, 33) assigns the motive of the creation, or, more properly expressed, teaches that Brahman, in creating the world, has no motive in the strict sense of the word, but follows a mere sportive impulse.
Adhik. XII (34-36) justifies Brahman from the charges of partiality and cruelty which might be brought against it owing to the inequality of position and fate of the various animate beings, and the universal suffering of the world. Brahman, as a creator and dispenser, acts with a view to the merit and demerit of the individual souls, and has so acted from all eternity.
Adhik. XIII (37) sums up the preceding argumentation by declaring that all the qualities of Brahman–omniscience and so on–are such as to capacitate it for the creation of the world.
PÂDA II.
The task of the second pâda is to refute, by arguments independent of Vedic passages, the more important philosophical theories concerning the origin of the world which are opposed to the Vedânta view.–The first adhikarana (1-10) is directed against the Sânkhyas, whose doctrine had already been touched upon incidentally in several previous places, and aims at proving that a non-intelligent first cause, such as the pradhâna of the Sânkhyas, is unable to create and dispose.–The second adhikarana (11-17) refutes the Vaiseshika tenet that the world originates from atoms set in motion by the adrishta.–The third and fourth adhikaranas are directed against various schools of Bauddha philosophers. Adhik. III (18-27) impugns the view of the so-called sarvâstitvavâdins, or bâhyârthavâdins, who maintain the reality of an external as well as an internal world; Adhik. IV (28-32) is directed against the vigñânavâdins, according to whom ideas are the only reality.–The last Sûtra of this adhikarana is treated by Râmânuga as a separate adhikarana refuting the view of the Mâdhyamikas, who teach that everything is void, i.e. that nothing whatever is real.–Adhik. V (33-36) is directed against the doctrine of the Gainas; Adhik. VI (37-41) against those philosophical schools which teach that a highest Lord is not the material but only the operative cause of the world.
The last adhikarana of the pâda (42-45) refers, according to the unanimous statement of the commentators, to the doctrine of the Bhâgavatas or Pâñkarâtras. But Sankara and Râmânuga totally disagree as to the drift of the Sûtrakâra’s opinion regarding that system. According to the former it is condemned like the systems previously referred to; according to the latter it is approved of.–Sûtras 42 and 43, according to both commentators, raise objections against the system; Sûtra 42 being directed against the doctrine that from the highest being, called Vâsudeva, there is originated Sankarshana, i.e. the gîva, on the ground that thereby those scriptural passages would be contradicted which teach the soul’s eternity; and Sûtra 43 impugning the doctrine that from Sankarshana there springs Pradyumna, i. e. the manas.–The Sûtra on which the difference of interpretation turns is 44. Literally translated it runs, ‘Or, on account of there being’ (or, ‘their being’) ‘knowledge and so on, there is non-contradiction of that.’–This means, according to Sankara, ‘Or, if in consequence of the existence of knowledge and so on (on the part of Sankarshana, &c. they be taken not as soul, mind, &c. but as Lords of pre-eminent knowledge, &c.), yet there is non-contradiction of that (viz. of the objection raised in Sûtra 42 against the Bhâgavata doctrine. According to Râmânuga, on the other hand, the Sûtra has to be explained as follows: ‘Or, rather there is non-contradiction of that (i.e. the Pañkarâtra doctrine) on account of their being knowledge and so on (i. e. on account of their being Brahman).’ Which means: Since Sankarshana and so on are merely forms of manifestation of Brahman, the Pâñkarâtra doctrine, according to which they spring from Brahman, is not contradicted.–The form of the Sûtra makes it difficult for us to decide which of the two interpretations is the right one; it, however, appears to me that the explanations of the ‘vâ’ and of the ‘tat,’ implied in Râmânuga’s comment, are more natural than those resulting from Sankara’s interpretation. Nor would it be an unnatural proceeding to close the polemical pâda with a defence of that doctrine which–in spite of objections–has to be viewed as the true one.
PÂDA III.
The third pâda discusses the question whether the different forms of existence which, in their totality, constitute the world have an origin or not, i. e. whether they are co-eternal with Brahman, or issue from it and are refunded into it at stated intervals.
The first seven adhikaranas treat of the five elementary substances.–Adhik. I (1-7) teaches that the ether is not co-eternal with Brahman, but springs from it as its first effect.–Adhik. II (8) shows that air springs from ether; Adhik. IV, V, VI (10; 11; 12) that fire springs from air, water from fire, earth from water.–Adhik. III (9) explains by way of digression that Brahman, which is not some special entity, but quite generally ‘that which is,’ cannot have originated from anything else.
Adhik. VII (13) demonstrates that the origination of one element from another is due, not to the latter in itself, but to Brahman acting in it.
Adhik. VIII (14) teaches that the reabsorption of the elements into Brahman takes place in the inverse order of their emission.
Adhik. IX (15) remarks that the indicated order in which the emission and the reabsorption of the elementary substances take place is not interfered with by the creation and reabsorption of the organs of the soul, i.e. the sense organs and the internal organ (manas); for they also are of elemental nature, and as such created and retracted together with the elements of which they consist.
The remainder of the pâda is taken up by a discussion of the nature of the individual soul, the gîva.–Adhik. X (16) teaches that expressions such as ‘Devadatta is born,’ ‘Devadatta has died,’ strictly apply to the body only, and are transferred to the soul in so far only as it is connected with a body.
Adhik. XI (17) teaches that the individual soul is, according to Scripture, permanent, eternal, and therefore not, like the ether and the other elements, produced from Brahman at the time of creation.–This Sûtra is of course commented on in a very different manner by Sankara on the one hand and Râmânuga on the other. According to the former, the gîva is in reality identical–and as such co-eternal–with Brahman; what originates is merely the soul’s connexion with its limiting adjuncts, and that connexion is moreover illusory.–According to Râmânuga, the gîva is indeed an effect of Brahman, but has existed in Brahman from all eternity as an individual being and as a mode (prakâra) of Brahman. So indeed have also the material elements; yet there is an important distinction owing to which the elements may be said to originate at the time of creation, while the same cannot be said of the soul. Previously to creation the material elements exist in a subtle condition in which they possess none of the qualities that later on render them the objects of ordinary experience; hence, when passing over into the gross state at the time of creation, they may be said to originate. The souls, on the other hand, possess at all times the same essential qualities, i.e. they are cognizing agents; only, whenever a new creation takes place, they associate themselves with bodies, and their intelligence therewith undergoes a certain expansion or development (vikâsa); contrasting with the unevolved or contracted state (sankoka) which characterised it during the preceding pralaya. But this change is not a change of essential nature (svarûpânyathâbhâva) and hence we have to distinguish the souls as permanent entities from the material elements which at the time of each creation and reabsorption change their essential characteristics.
Adhik. XII (18) defines the nature of the individual soul. The Sûtra declares that the soul is ‘gña.’ This means, according to Sankara, that intelligence or knowledge does not, as the Vaiseshikas teach, constitute a mere attribute of the soul which in itself is essentially non-intelligent, but is the very essence of the soul. The soul is not a knower, but knowledge; not intelligent, but intelligence.–Râmânuga, on the other hand, explains ‘gña’ by ‘gñatri,’ i.e. knower, knowing agent, and considers the Sûtra to be directed not only against the Vaiseshikas, but also against those philosophers who–like the Sânkhyas and the Vedântins of Sankara’s school–maintain that the soul is not a knowing agent, but pure kaitanya.–The wording of the Sûtra certainly seems to favour Râmânuga’s interpretation; we can hardly imagine that an author definitely holding the views of Sankara should, when propounding the important dogma of the soul’s nature, use the term gña of which the most obvious interpretation gñâtri, not gñânam.
Adhik. XIII (19-32) treats the question whether the individual soul is anu, i. e. of very minute size, or omnipresent, all-pervading (sarvagata, vyâpin). Here, again, we meet with diametrically opposite views.–In Sankara’s opinion the Sûtras 19-38 represent the pûrvapaksha view, according to which the gîva is anu, while Sûtra 29 formulates the siddhânta, viz. that the gîva, which in reality is all-pervading, is spoken of as anu in some scriptural passages, because the qualities of the internal organ–which itself is anu–constitute the essence of the individual soul as long as the latter is implicated in the samsâra.–According to Râmânuga, on the other hand, the first Sûtra of the adhikarana gives utterance to the siddhânta view, according to which the soul is of minute size; the Sûtras 20-25 confirm this view and refute objections raised against it; while the Sûtras 26-29 resume the question already mooted under Sûtra 18, viz. in what relation the soul as knowing agent (gñâtri) stands to knowledge (gñâna).–In order to decide between the conflicting claims of these two interpretations we must enter into some details.–Sankara maintains that Sûtras 19-28 state and enforce a pûrvapaksha view, which is finally refuted in 29. What here strikes us at the outset, is the unusual length to which the defence of a mere primâ facie view is carried; in no other place the Sûtras take so much trouble to render plausible what is meant to be rejected in the end, and an unbiassed reader will certainly feel inclined to think that in 19-28 we have to do, not with the preliminary statement of a view finally to be abandoned, but with an elaborate bonâ fide attempt to establish and vindicate an essential dogma of the system. Still it is not altogether impossible that the pûrvapaksha should here be treated at greater length than usual, and the decisive point is therefore whether we can, with Sankara, look upon Sûtra 29 as embodying a refutation of the pûrvapaksha and thus implicitly acknowledging the doctrine that the individual soul is all-pervading. Now I think there can be no doubt that Sankara’s interpretation of the Sûtra is exceedingly forced. Literally translated (and leaving out the non-essential word ‘prâgñavat’) the Sûtra runs as follows: ‘But on account of that quality (or “those qualities;” or else “on account of the quality–or qualities–of that”) being the essence, (there is) that designation (or “the designation of that”).’ This Sankara maintains to mean, ‘Because the qualities of the buddhi are the essence of the soul in the samsâra state, therefore the soul itself is sometimes spoken of as anu.’ Now, in the first place, nothing in the context warrants the explanation of the first ‘tat’ by buddhi. And–which is more important–in the second place, it is more than doubtful whether on Sankara’s own system the qualities of the buddhi–such as pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, &c.–can with any propriety be said to constitute the essence of the soul even in the samsâra state. The essence of the soul in whatever state, according to Sankara’s system, is knowledge or intelligence; whatever is due to its association with the buddhi is non-essential or, more strictly, unreal, false.
There are no similar difficulties in the way of Râmânuga’s interpretation of the adhikarana. He agrees with Sankara in the explanation of Sûtras 19-35, with this difference that he views them as setting forth, not the pûrvapaksha, but the siddhânta. Sûtras 26-28 also are interpreted in a manner not very different from Sankara’s, special stress being laid on the distinction made by Scripture between knowledge as a mere quality and the soul as a knowing agent, the substratum of knowledge. This discussion naturally gives rise to the question how it is that Scripture in some places makes use of the term vigñâna when meaning the individual soul. The answer is given in Sûtra 29, ‘The soul is designated as knowledge because it has that quality for its essence,’ i.e. because knowledge is the essential characteristic quality of the soul, therefore the term ‘knowledge’ is employed here and there to denote the soul itself. This latter interpretation gives rise to no doubt whatever. It closely follows the wording of the text and does not necessitate any forced supplementation. The ‘tu’ of the Sûtra which, according to Sankara, is meant to discard the pûrvapaksha, serves on Râmânuga’s view to set aside a previously-raised objection; an altogether legitimate assumption.
Of the three remaining Sûtras of the adhikarana (30-32), 30 explains, according to Sankara, that the soul may be called anu, since, as long as it exists in the samsâra condition, it is connected with the buddhi. According to Râmânuga the Sûtra teaches that the soul may be called vigñâna because the latter constitutes its essential quality as long as it exists.–Sûtra 31 intimates, according to Sankara, that in the states of deep sleep, and so on, the soul is potentially connected with the buddhi, while in the waking state that connexion becomes actually manifest. The same Sûtra, according to Râmânuga, teaches that gñâtritva is properly said to constitute the soul’s essential nature, although it is actually manifested in some states of the soul only.–In Sûtra 32, finally, Sankara sees a statement of the doctrine that, unless the soul had the buddhi for its limiting adjunct, it would either be permanently cognizing or permanently non-cognizing; while, according to Râmânuga, the Sûtra means that the soul would either be permanently cognizing or permanently non-cognizing, if it were pure knowledge and all-pervading (instead of being gñâtri and anu, as it is in reality).–The three Sûtras can be made to fit in with either interpretation, although it must be noted that none of them explicitly refers to the soul’s connexion with the buddhi.
Adhik. XIV and XV (33-39; 40) refer to the kartritva of the gîva, i. e. the question whether the soul is an agent. Sûtras 33-39 clearly say that it is such. But as, according to Sankara’s system, this cannot be the final view,–the soul being essentially non-active, and all action belonging to the world of upâdhis,–he looks upon the next following Sûtra (40) as constituting an adhikarana by itself, and teaching that the soul is an agent when connected with the instruments of action, buddhi, &c., while it ceases to be so when dissociated from them, ‘just as the carpenter acts in both ways,’ i.e. just as the carpenter works as long as he wields his instruments, and rests after having laid them aside.–Râmânuga, perhaps more naturally, does not separate Sûtra 40 from the preceding Sûtras, but interprets it as follows: Activity is indeed an essential attribute of the soul; but therefrom it does not follow that the soul is always actually active, just as the carpenter, even when furnished with the requisite instruments, may either work or not work, just as he pleases.
Adhik. XVI (41, 42) teaches that the soul in its activity is dependent on the Lord who impels it with a view to its former actions.
Adhik. XVII (43-53) treats of the relation of the individual soul to Brahman. Sûtra 43 declares that the individual soul is a part (amsa) of Brahman, and the following Sûtras show how that relation does not involve either that Brahman is affected by the imperfections, sufferings, &c. of the souls, or that one soul has to participate in the experiences of other souls. The two commentators of course take entirely different views of the doctrine that the soul is a part of Brahman. According to Râmânuga the souls are in reality parts of Brahman 1; according to Sankara the ‘amsa’ of the Sûtra must be understood to mean ‘amsa iva,’ ‘a part as it were;’ the one universal indivisible Brahman having no real parts, but appearing to be divided owing to its limiting adjuncts.–One Sûtra (50) in this adhikarana calls for special notice. According to Sankara the words ‘âbhâsa eva ka.’ mean ‘(the soul is) a mere reflection,’ which, as the commentators remark, is a statement of the so-called pratibimbavâda, i.e. the doctrine that the so-called individual soul is nothing but the reflection of the Self in the buddhi; while Sûtra 43 had propounded the so-called avakkhedavâda, i.e. the doctrine that the soul is the highest Self in so far as limited by its adjuncts.–According to Râmânuga the âbhâsa of the Sûtra has to be taken in the sense of hetvâbhâsa, a fallacious argument, and the Sûtra is explained as being directed against the reasoning of those Vedântins according to whom the soul is Brahman in so far as limited by non-real adjuncts 1.
PÂDA IV.
Adhik. I, II, III (1-4; 5-6; 7) teach that the prânas (by which generic name are denoted the buddhîndriyas, karmen-driyas, and the manas) spring from Brahman; are eleven in number; and are of minute size (anu).
Adhik. IV, V, VI (8; 9-12; 13) inform us also that the mukhya prâna, i.e. the vital air, is produced from Brahman; that it is a principle distinct from air in general and from the prânas discussed above; and that it is minute (anu).
Adhik. VII and VIII (14-16; 17-19) teach that the prânas are superintended and guided in their activity by special divinities, and that they are independent principles, not mere modifications of the mukhya prâna.
Adhik. IX (20-22) declares that the evolution of names and forms (the nâmarûpavyâkarana) is the work, not of the individual soul, but of the Lord
THIRD ADHYÂYA.
PÂDA I.
Adhik. I (1-7) teaches that the soul, when passing out of the body at the time of death, remains invested with the subtle material elements (bhûtasûkshma) which serve as an abode to the prânas attached to the soul.
Adhik. II (8-11) shows that, when the souls of those who had enjoyed the reward of their good works in the moon descend to the earth in order to undergo a new embodiment, there cleaves to them a remainder (anusaya) of their former deeds which determines the nature of the new embodiment.
Adhik. III (12-21) discusses the fate after death of those whom their good works do not entitle to pass up to the moon.
Adhik. IV, V, VI (22; 23; 24-27) teach that the subtle bodies of the souls descending from the moon through the ether, air, &c., do not become identical with ether, air, &c., but only like them; that the entire descent occupies a short time only; and that, when the souls finally enter into plants and so on, they do not participate in the life of the latter, but are merely in external contact with them.
PÂDA II.
Adhik. I (1-6) treats of the soul in the dreaming state. According to Sankara the three first Sûtras discuss the question whether the creative activity ascribed to the soul in some scriptural passages produces things as real as those by which the waking soul is surrounded, or not; Sûtra 3 settles the point by declaring that the creations of the dreaming soul are mere ‘Mâyâ,’ since they do not fully manifest the character of real objects. Sûtra 4 adds that dreams, although mere Mâyâ, yet have a prophetic quality. Sûtras 5 and 6 finally reply to the question why the soul, which after all is a part of the Lord and as such participates in his excellencies, should not be able to produce in its dreams a real creation, by the remark that the soul’s knowledge and power are obscured by its connexion with the gross body.
The considerably diverging interpretation given of this adhikarana by Râmânuga has the advantage of more closely connecting the Sûtras with each other. According to him the question is not whether the creations of a dream are real or not, but whether they are the work of the individual soul or of the Lord acting within the soul. Sûtras 1 and 2 set forth the pûrvapaksha. The creations of dreams (are the work of the individual soul); for thus Scripture declares: ‘And the followers of some sâkâs declare (the soul to be) a creator,’ &c. The third Sûtra states the siddhânta view: ‘But the creations of dreams are Mâyâ, i. e. are of a wonderful nature (and as such cannot be effected by the individual soul), since (in this life) the nature (of the soul) is not fully manifested.’ Concerning the word ‘mâyâ,’ Râmânuga remarks, ‘mâyâsabdo hy âskaryavâkî ganakasya kule gâtâ devamâyeva nirmitâ ityâdishu tathâ darsanât.’ The three remaining Sûtras are exhibited in the Srî-bhâshya in a different order, the fourth Sûtra, according to Sankara, being the sixth according to Râmânuga. Sûtras 4 and 5 (according to Râmânuga’s numeration) are explained by Râmânuga very much in the same way as by Sankara; but owing to the former’s statement of the subject-matter of the whole adhikarana they connect themselves more intimately with the preceding Sûtras than is possible on Sankara’s interpretation. In Sûtra 6 (sûkakas kâ hi) Râmânuga sees a deduction from the siddhânta of the adhikarana, ‘Because the images of a dream are produced by the highest Lord himself, therefore they have prophetic significance.’
Adhik. II teaches that in the state of deep dreamless sleep the soul abides within Brahman in the heart.
Adhik. III (9) expounds the reasons entitling us to assume that the soul awakening from sleep is the same that went to sleep.–Adhik. IV (9) explains the nature of a swoon.
Adhik. V (11-21) is, according to Sankara, taken up with the question as to the nature of the highest Brahman in which the individual soul is merged in the state of deep sleep. Sûtra 11 declares that twofold characteristics (viz. absence and presence of distinctive attributes, nirviseshatva and saviseshatva) cannot belong to the highest Brahman even through its stations, i.e. its limiting adjuncts; since all passages which aim at setting forth Brahman’s nature declare it to be destitute of all distinctive attributes.–The fact, Sûtra 12 continues, that in many passages Brahman is spoken of as possessing distinctive attributes is of no relevancy, since wherever there are mentioned limiting adjuncts, on which all distinction depends, it is specially stated that Brahman in itself is free from all diversity; and–Sûtra 13 adds–in some places the assumption of diversity is specially objected to.–That Brahman is devoid of all form (Sûtra 14), is the pre-eminent meaning of all Vedânta-texts setting forth Brahman’s nature.–That Brahman is represented as having different forms, as it were, is due to its connexion with its (unreal) limiting adjuncts; just as the light of the sun appears straight or crooked, as it were, according to the nature of the things he illuminates (15).–The Brihadâranyaka expressly declares that Brahman is one uniform mass of intelligence (16); and the same is taught in other scriptural passages and in Smriti (17).–At the unreality of the apparent manifoldness of the Self, caused by the limiting adjuncts, aim those scriptural passages in which the Self is compared to the sun, which remains one although his reflections on the surface of the water are many (18).–Nor must the objection be raised that that comparison is unsuitable, because the Self is not material like the sun, and there are no real upâdhis separate from it as the water is from the sun; for the comparison merely means to indicate that, as the reflected image of the sun participates in the changes, increase, decrease, &c., which the water undergoes while the sun himself remains unaffected thereby, so the true Self is not affected by the attributes of the upâdhis, while, in so far as it is limited by the latter, it is affected by them as it were (19, 20).–That the Self is within the upâdhis, Scripture declares (21).
From the above explanation of this important adhikarana the one given in the Srî-bhâshya differs totally. According to Râmânuga the adhikarana raises the question whether the imperfections clinging to the individual soul (the discussion of which has now come to an end) affect also the highest Lord who, according to Scripture, abides within the soul as antaryâmin. ‘Notwithstanding the abode (of the highest Self within the soul) (it is) not (affected by the soul’s imperfections) because everywhere (the highest Self is represented) as having twofold characteristics (viz. being, on one hand, free from all evil, apahatapâpman, vigara, vimrityu, &c., and, on the other hand, endowed with all auspicious qualities, satyakâma, satyasamkalpa, &c.) (11).–Should it be objected that, just as the soul although essentially free from evil–according to the Pragâpativâkya in the Khandogya–yet is liable to imperfections owing to its connexion with a variety of bodies, so the antaryâmin also is affected by abiding within bodies; we deny this because in every section of the chapter referring to the antaryâmin (in the Brihadâranyaka) he is expressly called the Immortal, the ruler within; which shows him to be free from the shortcomings of the giva (12).–Some, moreover, expressly assert that, although the Lord and the soul are within one body, the soul only is imperfect, not the Lord (dvâ suparnâ sayugâ sakhâyâ) (13).–Should it be said that, according to the Khândogya, Brahman entered together with the souls into the elements previously to the evolution of names and forms, and hence participates in the latter, thus becoming implicated in the samsâra; we reply that Brahman, although connected with such and such forms, is in itself devoid of form, since it is the principal element (agent; pradhâna) in the bringing about of names and forms (according to ‘âkâso ha vai nâmarûpayor nirvahitâ’) (14).–But does not the passage ‘satyam gñânam anantam brahma’ teach that Brahman is nothing but light (intelligence) without any difference, and does not the passage ‘neti neti’ deny of it all qualities?–As in order, we reply, not to deprive passages as the one quoted from the Taittirîya of their purport, we admit that Brahman’s nature is light, so we must also admit that Brahman is satyasamkalpa, and so on; for if not, the passages in which those qualities are asserted would become purportless (15).–Moreover the Taittirîya passage only asserts so much, viz. the prakâsarûpatâ of Brahman, and does not deny other qualities (16).–And the passage ‘neti neti’ will be discussed later on.–The ubhayalingatva of Brahman in the sense assigned above is asserted in many places Sruti and Smriti (17).–Because Brahman although abiding in many places is not touched by their imperfections, the similes of the reflected sun, of the ether limited by jars, &c., are applicable to it (18).–Should it be said that the illustration is not an appropriate one, because the sun is apprehended in the water erroneously only while the antaryâmin really abides within all things, and therefore must be viewed as sharing their defects (19); we reply that what the simile means to negative is merely that Brahman should, owing to its inherence in many places, participate in the increase, decrease, and so on, of its abodes. On this view both similes are appropriate (20).–Analogous similes we observe to be employed in ordinary life, as when we compare a man to a lion (21).
Sutras 22-30 constitute, according to Sankara, a new adhikarana (VI), whose object it is to show that the clause ‘not so, not so’ (neti neti; Brihadâr.) negatives, not Brahman itself, but only the two forms of Brahman described in the preceding part of the chapter. Sutras 23-26 further dwell on Brahman being in reality devoid of all distinctive attributes which are altogether due to the upâdhis. The last four Sutras return to the question how, Brahman being one only, the souls are in so many places spoken of as different from it, and, two explanatory hypotheses having been rejected, the conclusion is arrived at that all difference is unreal, due to fictitious limiting adjuncts.
According to Râmânuga, Sûtras 22 ff. continue the discussion started in Sûtra 11. How, the question is asked, can the ubhayalingatva of Brahman be maintained considering that the ‘not so, not so’ of the Brihadâranyaka denies of Brahman all the previously mentioned modes (prakâra), so that it can only be called that which is (sanmâtra)?–The reply given in Sutra 22 is that ‘not so, not so’ does not deny of Brahman the distinctive qualities or modes declared previously (for it would be senseless at first to teach them, and finally to deny them again 1), but merely denies the prâkritaitâvattva, the previously stated limited nature of Brahman, i.e. it denies that Brahman possesses only the previously mentioned qualifications. With this agrees, that subsequently to ‘neti neti’ Scripture itself enunciates further qualifications of Brahman. That Brahman as stated above is not the object of any other means of proof but Scripture is confirmed in Sutra 23, ‘Scripture declares Brahman to be the non-manifest.’–And the intuition (sâkshâtkâra) of Brahman ensues only upon its samrâdhana, i.e. upon its being perfectly pleased by the worshipper’s devotion, as Scripture and Smriti declare (24).–That this interpretation of ‘neti’ is the right one, is likewise shown by the fact that in the same way as prakâsa, luminousness, gñâna, intelligence, &c., so also the quality of being differentiated by the world (prapañkavsishtatâ) is intuited as non-different, i.e. as likewise qualifying Brahman; and that prakâsa, and so on, characterise Brahman, is known through repeated practice (on the part of rishis like Vâmadeva) in the work of samrâdhana mentioned before (25).–For all these reasons Brahman is connected with the infinite, i.e. the infinite number of auspicious qualities; for thus the twofold indications (linga) met with in Scripture are fully justified (26).–In what relation, then, does the akid vastu, i.e. the non-sentient matter, which, according to the brihadaranyaka, is one of the forms of Brahman, stand to the latter?–Non-sentient beings might, in the first place, be viewed as special arrangements (samsthanaviseshâh) of Brahman, as the coils are of the body of the snake; for Brahman is designated as both, i.e. sometimes as one with the world (Brahman is all this, &c.), sometimes as different from it (Let me enter into those elements, &c.) (27).–Or, in the second place, the relation of the two might be viewed as analogous to that of light and the luminous object which are two and yet one, both being fire (28).–Or, in the third place, the relation is like that stated before, i.e. the material world is, like the individual souls (whose case was discussed in II, 3, 43), a part amsa of Brahman (29, 30).
Adhik. VII (31-37) explains how some metaphorical expressions, seemingly implying that there is something different from Brahman, have to be truly understood.
Adhik. VIII (38-41) teaches that the reward of works is not, as Gaimini opines, the independent result of the works acting through the so-called apûrva, but is allotted by the Lord.
PÂDA III.
With the third pâda of the second adhyâya a new section of the work begins, whose task it is to describe how the individual soul is enabled by meditation on Brahman to obtain final release. The first point to be determined here is what constitutes a meditation on Brahman, and, more particularly, in what relation those parts of the Upanishads stand to each other which enjoin identical or partly identical meditations. The reader of the Upanishads cannot fail to observe that the texts of the different sâkhâs contain many chapters of similar, often nearly identical, contents, and that in some cases the text of even one and the same sâkhâ exhibits the same matter in more or less varied forms. The reason of this clearly is that the common stock of religious and philosophical ideas which were in circulation at the time of the composition of the Upanishads found separate expression in the different priestly communities; hence the same speculations, legends, &c. reappear in various places of the sacred Scriptures in more or less differing dress. Originally, when we may suppose the members of each Vedic school to have confined themselves to the study of their own sacred texts, the fact that the texts of other schools contained chapters of similar contents would hardly appear to call for special note or comment; not any more than the circumstance that the sacrificial performances enjoined on the followers of some particular sâkhâ were found described with greater or smaller modifications in the books of other sâkhâs also. But already at a very early period, at any rate long before the composition of the Vedânta-sûtras in their present form, the Vedic theologians must have apprehended the truth that, in whatever regards sacrificial acts, one sâkhâ may indeed safely follow its own texts, disregarding the texts of all other sâkhâs; that, however, all texts which aim at throwing light on the nature of Brahman and the relation to it of the human soul must somehow or other be combined into one consistent systematical whole equally valid for the followers of all Vedic schools. For, as we have had occasion to remark above, while acts may be performed by different individuals in different ways, cognition is defined by the nature of the object cognised, and hence can be one only, unless it ceases to be true cognition. Hence the attempts, on the one hand, of discarding by skilful interpretation all contradictions met with in the sacred text, and, on the other hand, of showing what sections of the different Upanishads have to be viewed as teaching the same matter, and therefore must be combined in one meditation. The latter is the special task of the present pâda.
Adhik. I and II (1-4; 5) are concerned with the question whether those vidyâs, which are met with in identical or similar form in more than one sacred text, are to be considered as constituting several vidyâs, or one vidyâ only. Sankara remarks that the question affects only those vidyâs whose object is the qualified Brahman; for the knowledge of the non-qualified Brahman, which is of an absolutely uniform nature, can of course be one only wherever it is set forth. But things lie differently in those cases where the object of knowledge is the sagunam brahma or some outward manifestation of Brahman; for the qualities as well as manifestations of Brahman are many. Anticipating the subject of a later adhikarana, we may take for an example the so-called Sândilyavidyâ which is met with in Kh. Up. III, 14, again–in an abridged form–in Bri. Up. V, 6, and, moreover, in the tenth book of the Satapatha-brâhmana (X, 6, 3). The three passages enjoin a meditation on Brahman as possessing certain attributes, some of which are specified in all the three texts (as, for instance, manomayatva, bhârûpatva), while others are peculiar to each separate passage (prânasarîratva and satyasamkalpatva, for instance, being mentioned in the Khândogya Upanishad and Satapatha-brâhmana, but not in the Brihadâranyaka Upanishad, which, on its part, specifies sarvavasitva, not referred to in the two other texts). Here, then, there is room for a doubt whether the three passages refer to one object of knowledge or not. To the devout Vedântin the question is not a purely theoretical one, but of immediate practical interest. For if the three texts are to be held apart, there are three different meditations to be gone through; if, on the other hand, the vidyâ is one only, all the different qualities of Brahman mentioned in the three passages have to be combined into one meditation.–The decision is here, as in all similar cases, in favour of the latter alternative. A careful examination of the three passages shows that the object of meditation is one only; hence the meditation also is one only, comprehending all the attributes mentioned in the three texts.
Adhik. III (6-8) discusses the case of vidyâs being really separate, although apparently identical. The examples selected are the udgîthavidyâs of the Khândogya Upanishad (I, 1-3) and the Brihadâranyaka Upanishad (I, 3), which, although showing certain similarities–such as bearing the same name and the udgîtha being in both identified with prâna–yet are to be held apart, because the subject of the Khândogya vidyâ is not the whole udgîtha but only the sacred syllabic Om, while the Brihadâranyaka Upanishad represents the whole udgîtha as the object of meditation.
Sûtra 9 constitutes in Sankara’s view a new adhikarana (IV), proving that in the passage, ‘Let a man meditate’ (Kh. Up. I, 1, 1), the Omkâra and the udgîtha stand in the relation of one specifying the other, the meaning being, ‘Let a man meditate on that Omkâra which,’ &c.–According to Râmânuga’s interpretation, which seems to fall in more satisfactorily with the form and the wording of the Sûtra, the latter merely furnishes an additional argument for the conclusion arrived at in the preceding adhikarana.–Adhik. V (10) determines the unity of the so-called prâna-vidyâs and the consequent comprehension of the different qualities of the prâna, which are mentioned in the different texts, within one meditation.
Adhik. VI comprises, according to Sankara, the Sûtras 11-13. The point to be settled is whether in all the meditations on Brahman all its qualities are to be included or only those mentioned in the special vidyâ. The decision is that the essential and unalterable attributes of Brahman, such as bliss and knowledge, are to be taken into account everywhere, while those which admit of a more or less (as, for instance, the attribute of having joy for its head, mentioned in the Taitt. Up.) are confined to special meditations.
Adhik. VII (14, 15), according to Sankara, aims at proving that the object of Katha. Up. III, 10, 11 is one only, viz. to show that the highest Self is higher than everything, so that the passage constitutes one vidyâ only.–Adhik. VIII (16, 17) determines, according to Sankara, that the Self spoken of in Ait. Âr. II, 4, 1, 1 is not a lower form of the Self (the so-called sûtrâtman), but the highest Self; the discussion of that point in this place being due to the wish to prove that the attributes of the highest Self have to be comprehended in the Aitareyaka meditation.
According to Râmânuga the Sûtras 11-17 constitute a single adhikarana whose subject is the same as that of Sankara’s sixth adhikarana. Sûtras 11-13 are, on the whole, explained as by Sankara; Sûtra 12, however, is said to mean, ‘Such attributes as having joy for its head, &c. are not to be viewed as qualities of Brahman, and therefore not to be included in every meditation; for if they were admitted as qualities, difference would be introduced into Brahman’s nature, and that would involve a more or less on Brahman’s part.’ Sûtras 14-17 continue the discussion of the passage about the priyasirastva.–If priyasirastva, &c. are not to be viewed as real qualities of Brahman, for what purpose does the text mention them?–’Because,’ Sûtra 14 replies, ‘there is no other purpose, Scripture mentions them for the purpose of pious meditation.’–But how is it known that the Self of delight is the highest Self? (owing to which you maintain that having limbs, head, &c. cannot belong to it as attributes.)–’ Because,’ Sûtra 15 replies, ‘the term “Self” (âtmâ ânandamaya) is applied to it.’–But in the previous parts of the chapter the term Self (in âtmâ pranamaya, &c.) is applied to non-Selfs also; how then do you know that in âtmâ ânandamaya it denotes the real Self?–’The term Self,’ Sûtra 16 replies, ‘is employed here to denote the highest Self as in many other passages (âtmâ vâ idam eka, &c.), as we conclude from the subsequent passage, viz. he wished, ‘May I be many.’–But, an objection is raised, does not the context show that the term ‘Self,’ which in all the preceding clauses about the prânamaya, &c. denoted something other than the Self, does the same in ânandamaya âtman, and is not the context of greater weight than a subsequent passage?–To this question asked in the former half of 17 (anvayâd iti ket) the latter half replies, ‘Still it denotes the Self, owing to the affirmatory statement,’ i.e. the fact of the highest Self having been affirmed in a previous passage also, viz. II, 1, ‘From that Self sprang ether.’
Adhik. IX (18) discusses a minor point connected with the prânasamvâda.–The subject of Adhik. X (19) has been indicated already above under Adhik. I.–Adhik. XI (20-22) treats of a case of a contrary nature; in Bri. Up. V, 5, Brahman is represented first as abiding in the sphere of the sun, and then as abiding within the eye; we therefore, in spite of certain counter-indications, have to do with two separate vidyâs.–Adhik. XII (23) refers to a similar case; certain attributes of Brahman mentioned in the Rânâya-nîya-khila have not to be introduced into the corresponding Khândogya vidyâ, because the stated difference of Brahman’s abode involves difference of vidyâ.–Adhik. XIII (24) treats of another instance of two vidyâs having to be held apart.
Adhik. XIV (25) decides that certain detached mantras and brâhmana passages met with in the beginning of some Upanishads–as, for instance, a brâhmana about the mahâvrata ceremony at the beginning of the Aitareya-âranyaka–do, notwithstanding their position which seems to connect them with the brahmavidyâ, not belong to the latter, since they show unmistakable signs of being connected with sacrificial acts.
Adhik. XV (26) treats of the passages stating that the man dying in the possession of true knowledge shakes off all his good and evil deeds, and affirms that a statement, made in some of those passages only, to the effect that the good and evil deeds pass over to the friends and enemies of the deceased, is valid for all the passages.
Sûtras 27-30 constitute, according to Sankara, two adhikaranas of which the former (XVI; 27, 28) decides that the shaking off of the good and evil deeds takes place-not, as the Kaush. Up. states, on the road to Brahman’s world–but at the moment of the soul’s departure from the body; the Kaushîtaki statement is therefore not to be taken literally.–The latter adhikarana (XVII; 29, 30) treats of the cognate question whether the soul that has freed itself from its deeds proceeds in all cases on the road of the gods (as said in the Kaush. Up.), or not. The decision is that he only whose knowledge does not pass beyond the sagunam brahma proceeds on that road, while the soul of him who knows the nirgunam brahma becomes one with it without moving to any other place.
The Srî-bhâshya treats the four Sûtras as one adhikarana whose two first Sûtras are explained as by Sankara, while Sûtra 29 raises an objection to the conclusion arrived at, ‘the going (of the soul on the path of the gods) has a sense only if the soul’s freeing itself from its works takes place in both ways, i.e. partly at the moment of death, partly on the road to Brahman; for otherwise there would be a contradiction ‘(the contradiction being that, if the soul’s works were all shaken off at the moment of death, the subtle body would likewise perish at that moment, and then the bodiless soul would be unable to proceed on the path of the gods). To this Sûtra 30 replies, ‘The complete shaking off of the works at the moment of death is possible, since matters of that kind are observed in Scripture,’ i. e. since scriptural passages show that even he whose works are entirely annihilated, and who has manifested himself in his true shape, is yet connected with some kind of body; compare the passage, ‘param gyotir upasampadya svena rûpenabhinishpadyate sa tatra paryeti krîdan ramamânah sa svarâd bhavati tasya sarveshu lokeshu kâmakâro bhavati.’ That subtle body is not due to karman, but to the soul’s vidyâmâhâtmya.–That the explanation of the Srî-bhâshya agrees with the text as well as Sankara’s, a comparison of the two will show; especially forced is Sankara’s explanation of ‘arthavattvam ubhayathâ,’ which is said to mean that there is arthavattva in one case, and non-arthavattva in the other case.
The next Sûtra (31) constitutes an adhikarana (XVIII)
deciding that the road of the gods is followed not only by those knowing the vidyâs which specially mention the going on that road, but by all who are acquainted with the saguna-vidyâs of Brahman.–The explanation given in the Srî-bhâshya (in which Sutras 31 and 32 have exchanged places) is similar, with the difference however that all who meditate on Brahman–without any reference to the distinction of nirguna and saguna–proceed after death on the road of the gods. (The Srî-bhâshya reads ‘sarveshâm,’ i.e. all worshippers, not ‘sarvâsâm,’ all saguna-vidyâs.)
Adhik. XIX (32) decides that, although the general effect of true knowledge is release from all forms of body, yet even such beings as have reached perfect knowledge may retain a body for the purpose of discharging certain offices.–In the Srî-bhâshya, where the Sûtra follows immediately on Sûtra 30, the adhikarana determines, in close connexion with 30, that, although those who know Brahman as a rule divest themselves of the gross body–there remaining only a subtle body which enables them to move–and no longer experience pleasure and pain, yet certain beings, although having reached the cognition of Brahman, remain invested with a gross body, and hence liable to pleasure and pain until they have fully performed certain duties.
Adhik. XX (33) teaches that the negative attributes of Brahman mentioned in some vidyâs–such as its being not gross, not subtle, &c.–are to be included in all meditations on Brahman.–Adhik. XXI (34) determines that Kâtha Up. III, 1, and Mu. Up. III, 1, constitute one vidyâ only, because both passages refer to the highest Brahman. According to Râmânuga the Sûtra contains a reply to an objection raised against the conclusion arrived at in the preceding Sûtra.–Adhik. XXII (35, 36) maintains that the two passages, Bri. Up. III, 4 and III, 5, constitute one vidyâ only, the object of knowledge being in both cases Brahman viewed as the inner Self of all.–Adhik. XXIII (37) on the contrary decides that the passage Ait. Âr. II, 2, 4, 6 constitutes not one but two meditations.–Adhik. XXIV (38) again determines that the vidyâ of the True contained in Bri. Up. V, 4, 5, is one only–According to Râmânuga, Sûtras 35-38 constitute one adhikarana only whose subject is the same as that of XXII according to Sankara.
Adhik. XXV (39) proves that the passages Kh. Up. VIII, 1 and Bri. Up. IV, 4, 22 cannot constitute one vidyâ, since the former refers to Brahman as possessing qualities, while the latter is concerned with Brahman as destitute of qualities.–Adhik. XXVI (40, 41) treats, according to Sankara, of a minor question connected with Kh. Up. V, 11 ff.–According to the Srî-bhâshya, Sûtras 39-41 form one adhikarana whose first Sûtra reaches essentially the same conclusion as Sankara under 39. Sûtras 40, 41 thereupon discuss a general question concerning the meditations on Brahman. The qualities, an opponent is supposed to remark, which in the two passages discussed are predicated of Brahman–such as vasitva, satyakâmatva, &c.–cannot be considered real (pâramârthika), since other passages (sa esha neti neti, and the like) declare Brahman to be devoid of all qualities. Hence those qualities cannot be admitted into meditations whose purpose is final release.–To this objection Sûtra 40 replies,’(Those qualities) are not to be left off (from the meditations on Brahman), since (in the passage under discussion as well as in other passages) they are stated with emphasis 1.’–But, another objection is raised, Scripture says that he who meditates on Brahman as satyakâma, &c. obtains a mere perishable reward, viz. the world of the fathers, and similar results specified in Kh. Up. VIII, 2; hence, he who is desirous of final release, must not include those qualities of Brahman in his meditation.–To this objection Sûtra 41 replies, ‘Because that (i. e. the free roaming in all the worlds, the world of the fathers, &c.) is stated as proceeding therefrom (i. e. the approach to Brahman which is final release) in the case of (the soul) which has approached Brahman;’ (therefore a person desirous of release, may include satyakâmatva, &c. in his meditations.)
Adhik. XXVII (42) decides that those meditations which are connected with certain matters forming constituent parts of sacrificial actions, are not to be considered as permanently requisite parts of the latter.–Adhik. XXVIII (43) teaches that, in a Bri. Up. passage and a similar Kh. Up. passage, Vâyu and Prâna are not to be identified, but to be held apart.–Adhik. XXIX (44-52) decides that the fire-altars made of mind, &c., which are mentioned in the Agnirahasya, do not constitute parts of the sacrificial action (so that the mental, &c. construction of the altar could optionally be substituted for the actual one), but merely subjects of meditations.
Adhik. XXX (53,54) treats, according to Sankara, in the way of digression, of the question whether to the Self an existence independent of the body can be assigned, or not (as the Materialists maintain).–According to the Srî-bhâshya the adhikarana does not refer to this wide question, but is concerned with a point more immediately connected with the meditations on Brahman, viz. the question as to the form under which, in those meditations, the Self of the meditating devotee has to be viewed. The two Sûtras then have to be translated as follows: ‘Some (maintain that the soul of the devotee has, in meditations, to be viewed as possessing those attributes only which belong to it in its embodied state, such as gñâtritva and the like), because the Self is (at the time of meditation) in the body.’–The next Sûtra rejects this view, ‘This is not so, but the separatedness (i. e. the pure isolated state in which the Self is at the time of final release when it is freed from all evil, &c.) (is to be transferred to the meditating Self), because that will be 1 the state (of the Self in the condition of final release).’
Adhik. XXXI (55, 56) decides that meditations connected with constituent elements of the sacrifice, such as the udgîtha, are, in spite of difference of svara in the udgîtha, &c., valid, not only for that sâkhâ in which the meditation actually is met with, but for all sâkhâs.–Adhik. XXXII (57) decides that the Vaisvânara Agni of Kh. Up. V, II ff. is to be meditated upon as a whole, not in his single parts.–Adhik. XXXIII (58) teaches that those meditations which refer to one subject, but as distinguished by different qualities, have to be held apart as different meditations. Thus the daharavidyâ, Sândilyavidyâ, &c. remain separate.
Adhik. XXXIV (59) teaches that those meditations on Brahman for which the texts assign one and the same fruit are optional, there being no reason for their being cumulated.–Adhik. XXXV (60) decides that those meditations, on the other hand, which refer to special wishes may be cumulated or optionally employed according to choice.–Adhik. XXXVI (61-66) extends this conclusion to the meditations connected with constituent elements of action, such as the udgîtha.
PÂDA IV.
Adhik. I (1-17) proves that the knowledge of Brahman is not kratvartha, i.e. subordinate to action, but independent.–Adhik. II (18-20) confirms this conclusion by showing that the state of the pravrâgins is enjoined by the sacred law, and that for them vidyâ only is prescribed, not action.–Adhik. III (21,22) decides that certain clauses forming part of vidyâs are not mere stutis (arthavâdas), but themselves enjoin the meditation.–The legends recorded in the Vedânta-texts are not to be used as subordinate members of acts, but have the purpose of glorifying–as arthavâdas–the injunctions with which they are connected (Adhik. IV, 23, 24).–For all these reasons the ûrdhvaretasah require no actions but only knowledge (Adhik. V, 25).–Nevertheless the actions enjoined by Scripture, such as sacrifices, conduct of certain kinds, &c., are required as conducive to the rise of vidyâ in the mind (Adhik. VI, 26, 27).–Certain relaxations, allowed by Scripture, of the laws regarding food, are meant only for cases of extreme need (Adhik. VII, 28-3l).–The âsramakarmâni are obligatory on him also who does not strive after mukti (Adhik. VIII, 32-35).–Those also who, owing to poverty and so on, are anâsrama have claims to vidyâ (Adhik. IX, 36-39).–An ûrdhvaretas cannot revoke his vow (Adhik. X, 40).–Expiation of the fall of an ûrdhvaretas (Adhik. XI, 41, 42).–Exclusion of the fallen ûrdhvaretas in certain cases (Adhik. XII, 43).–Those meditations, which are connected with subordinate members of the sacrifice, are the business of the priest, not of the yagamâna (Adhik. XIII, 44-46).–Bri. Up. III, 5, 1 enjoins mauna as a third in addition to bâlya and pânditya (Adhik. XIV, 47-49).–By bâlya is to be understood a childlike innocent state of mind (Adhik. XV, 50).
Sûtras 51 and 52 discuss, according to Râmânuga, the question when the vidyâ, which is the result of the means described in III, 4, arises. Sûtra 51 treats of that vidyâ whose result is mere exaltation (abhyudaya), and states that ‘it takes place in the present life, if there is not present an obstacle in the form of a prabalakarmântara (in which latter case the vidyâ arises later only), on account of Scripture declaring this (in various passages).’–Sûtra 52, ‘Thus there is also absence of a definite rule as to (the time of origination of) that knowledge whose fruit is release, it being averred concerning that one also that it is in the same condition (i.e. of sometimes having an obstacle, sometimes not).–Sankara, who treats the two Sûtras as two adhikaranas, agrees as to the explanation of 51, while, putting a somewhat forced interpretation on 52, he makes it out to mean that a more or less is possible only in the case of the saguna-vidyâs.
FOURTH ADHYÂYA.
PÂDA I.
Adhikarana I (1, 2).–The meditation on the Âtman enjoined by Scripture is not an act to be accomplished once only, but is to be repeated again and again.
Adhik. II (3).–The devotee engaged in meditation on Brahman is to view it as constituting his own Self.
Adhik. III (4).–To the rule laid down in the preceding adhikarana the so-called pratîkopâsanas, i.e. those meditations in which Brahman is viewed under a symbol or outward manifestation (as, for instance, mano brahmety upâsîta) constitute an exception, i.e. the devotee is not to consider the pratîka as constituting his own Self.
Adhik. IV (5).–In the pratîkopâsanas the pratîka is to be meditatively viewed as being one with Brahman, not Brahman as being one with the pratîka.–Râmânuga takes Sûtra 5 as simply giving a reason for the decision arrived at under Sûtra 4, and therefore as not constituting a new adhikarana.
Adhik. V (6).–In meditations connected with constitutives of sacrificial works (as, for instance, ya evâsau tapati tam udgîtham upâsîta) the idea of the divinity, &c. is to be transferred to the sacrificial item, not vice versâ. In the example quoted, for instance, the udgîtha is to be viewed as Âditya, not Âditya as the udgîtha.
Adhik. VI (7-10).–The devotee is to carry on his meditations in a sitting posture.–Sankara maintains that this rule does not apply to those meditations whose result is samyagdarsana; but the Sûtra gives no hint to that effect.
Adhik. VII (11).–The meditations maybe carried on at any time, and in any place, favourable to concentration of mind.
Adhik. VIII (12).–The meditations are to be continued until death.–Sankara again maintains that those meditations which lead to samyagdarsana are excepted.
Adhik. IX (13).–When through those meditations the knowledge of Brahman has been reached, the vidvân is no longer affected by the consequences of either past or future evil deeds.
Adhik. X (14).–Good deeds likewise lose their efficiency.–The literal translation of the Sûtra is, ‘There is likewise non-attachment (to the vidvân) of the other (i. e. of the deeds other than the evil ones, i. e. of good deeds), but on the fall (of the body, i.e. when death takes place).’ The last words of the Sûtra, ‘but on the fall,’ are separated by Sankara from the preceding part of the Sûtra and interpreted to mean, ‘when death takes place (there results mukti of the vidvân, who through his knowledge has freed himself from the bonds of works).’–According to Râmânuga the whole Sûtra simply means, ‘There is likewise non-attachment of good deeds (not at once when knowledge is reached), but on the death of the vidvân 1.’
Adhik. XI (15).–The non-operation of works stated in the two preceding adhikaranas holds good only in the case of anârabdhakârya works, i.e. those works which have not yet begun to produce their effects, while it does not extend to the ârabdhakârya works on which the present existence of the devotee depends.
Adhik. XII (16, 17).–From the rule enunciated in Adhik. X are excepted such sacrificial performances as are enjoined permanently (nitya): so, for instance, the agnihotra, for they promote the origination of knowledge.
Adhik. XIII (18).–The origination of knowledge is promoted also by such sacrificial works as are not accompanied with the knowledge of the upâsanas referring to the different members of those works.
Adhik. XIV (19).–The ârabdhakârya works have to be worked out fully by the fruition of their effects; whereupon the vidvân becomes united with Brahman.–The ‘bhoga’ of the Sûtra is, according to Sankara, restricted to the present existence of the devotee, since the complete knowledge obtained by him destroys the nescience which otherwise would lead to future embodiments. According to Râmânuga a number of embodied existences may have to be gone through before the effects of the ârabdhakârya works are exhausted.
PÂDA II.
This and the two remaining pâdas of the fourth adhyâya describe the fate of the vidvân after death. According to Sankara we have to distinguish the vidvân who possesses the highest knowledge, viz. that he is one with the highest Brahman, and the vidvân who knows only the lower Brahman, and have to refer certain Sûtras to the former and others to the latter. According to Râmânuga the vidvân is one only.
Adhik. I, II, III (1-6).–On the death of the vidvân (i.e. of him who possesses the lower knowledge, according to Sankara) his senses are merged in the manas, the manas in the chief vital air (prâna), the vital air in the individual soul (gîva), the soul in the subtle elements.–According to Râmânuga the combination (sampatti) of the senses with the manas, &c. is a mere conjunction (samyoga), not a merging (laya).
Adhik. IV (7).–The vidvân (i.e. according to Sankara, he who possesses the lower knowledge) and the avidvân, i.e. he who does not possess any knowledge of Brahman, pass through the same stages (i.e. those described hitherto) up to the entrance of the soul, together with the subtle elements, and so on into the nâdîs.–The vidvân also remains connected with the subtle elements because he has not yet completely destroyed avidyâ, so that the immortality which Scripture ascribes to him (amritatvam hi vidvân abhyasnute) is only a relative one.–Râmânuga quotes the following text regarding the immortality of the vidvân:
‘Yadâ sarve pramukyante kâmâ ye # sya hridi sthitâh
atha martyo # mrito bhavaty atra brahma samasnute,’
and explains that the immortality which is here ascribed to the vidvân as soon as he abandons all desires can only mean the destruction–mentioned in the preceding pâda–of all the effects of good and evil works, while the ‘reaching of Brahman’ can only refer to the intuition of Brahman vouchsafed to the meditating devotee.
Adhik. V (8-11) raises; according to Sankara, the question whether the subtle elements of which Scripture says that they are combined with the highest deity (tegah parasyâm devatâyâm) are completely merged in the latter or not. The answer is that a complete absorption of the elements takes place only when final emancipation is reached; that, on the other hand, as long as the samsâra state lasts, the elements, although somehow combined with Brahman, remain distinct so as to be able to form new bodies for the soul.
According to Râmânuga the Sûtras 8-11 do not constitute a new adhikarana, but continue the discussion of the point mooted in 7. The immortality there spoken of does not imply the separation of the soul from the body, ‘because Scripture declares samsâra, i. e. embodiedness up to the reaching of Brahman’ (tasya tâvad eva kiram yâvan na vimokshye atha sampatsye) (8).–That the soul after having departed from the gross body-is not disconnected from the subtle elements, is also proved hereby, that the subtle body accompanies it, as is observed from authority 1 (9).–Hence the immortality referred to in the scriptural passage quoted is not effected by means of the total destruction of the body (10).
Adhik. VI (12-14) is of special importance.–According to Sankara the Sûtras now turn from the discussion of the departure of him who possesses the lower knowledge only to the consideration of what becomes of him who has reached the higher knowledge. So far it has been taught that in the case of relative immortality (ensuing on the apara vidyâ) the subtle elements, together with the senses and so on, depart from the body of the dying devotee; this implies at the same time that they do not depart from the body of the dying sage who knows himself to be one with Brahman.–Against this latter implied doctrine Sûtra 12 is supposed to formulate an objection. ‘If it be said that the departure of the prânas from the body of the dying sage is denied (viz. in Bri. Up. IV, 4, 5, na tasya prâna utkrâmanti, of him the prânas do not pass out); we reply that in that passage the genitive “tasya” has the sense of the ablative “tasmât,” so that the sense of the passage is, “from him, i.e. from the gîva of the dying sage, the prânas do not depart, but remain with it.”–This objection Sankara supposes to be disposed of in Sûtra 13. ‘By some there is given a clear denial of the departure of the prânas in the case of the dying sage,’ viz. in the passage Bri. Up. III, 2, 11, where Yâgñavalkya instructs Ârtabhâga that, when this man dies, the prânas do not depart from it (asmât; the context showing that asmât means ‘from it,’ viz. from the body, and not ‘from him,’ viz. the gîva).–The same view is, moreover, confirmed by Smriti passages.
According to Râmânuga the three Sûtras forming Sankara’s sixth adhikarana do not constitute a new adhikarana at all, and, moreover, have to be combined into two Sûtras. The topic continuing to be discussed is the utkrânti of the vidvân. If, Sûtra 12 says, the utkrânti of the prânas is not admitted, on the ground of the denial supposed to be contained in Bri. Up. IV, 4, 5; the reply is that the sense of the tasya there is ‘sârîrât’ (so that the passage means, ‘from him, i.e. the gîva, the prânas do not depart’); for this is clearly shown by the reading of some, viz. the Mâdhyandinas, who, in their text of the passage, do not read ‘tasya’ but ‘tasmât.’–With reference to the instruction given by Yâgñavalkya to Ârtabhâga, it is to be remarked that nothing there shows the ‘ayam purusha’ to be the sage who knows Brahman.–And, finally, there are Smriti passages declaring that the sage also when dying departs from the body.
Adhik. VII and VIII (15, 16) teach, according to Sankara, that, on the death of him who possesses the higher knowledge, his prânas, elements, &c. are merged in Brahman, so as to be no longer distinct from it in any way.
According to Râmânuga the two Sûtras continue the teaching about the prânas, bhûtas, &c. of the vidvân in general, and declare that they are finally merged in Brahman, not merely in the way of conjunction (samyoga), but completely 1.
Adhik. IX (17).–Sankara here returns to the owner of the aparâ vidyâ, while Râmânuga continues the description of the utkrânti of his vidvân.–The gîva of the dying man passes into the heart, and thence departs out of the body by means of the nâdis; the vidvân by means of the nâdi called sushumnâ, the avidvân by means of some other nâdî.
Adhik. X (18, 19).–The departing soul passes up to the sun by means of a ray of light which exists at night as well as during day.
ik. XI (20, 21).–Also that vidvân who dies during the dakshinâyana reaches Brahman.
PÂDA III.
Adhik. I, II, III (1-3) reconcile the different accounts given in the Upanishads as to the stations of the way which leads the vidvân up to Brahman.
Adhik. IV (4-6)-By the ‘stations’ we have, however, to understand not only the subdivisions of the way but also the divine beings which lead the soul on.
The remaining part of the pâda is by Sankara divided into two adhikaranas. Of these the former one (7-14) teaches that the Brahman to which the departed soul is led by the guardians of the path of the gods is not the highest Brahman, but the effected (kârya) or qualified (saguna) Brahman. This is the opinion propounded in Sûtras 7-11 by Bâdari, and, finally, accepted by Sankara in his commentary on Sûtra 14. In Sûtras 12-14 Gaimini defends the opposite view, according to which the soul of the vidvân goes to the highest Brahman, not to the kâryam brahma. But Gaimini’s view, although set forth in the latter part of the adhikarana, is, according to Sankara, a mere pûrvapaksha, while Bâdari’s opinion represents the siddhânta.–The latter of the two adhikaranas (VI of the whole pâda; 15,16) records the opinion of Bâdarâyana on a collateral question, viz. whether, or not, all those who worship the effected Brahman are led to it. The decision is that those only are guided to Brahman who have not worshipped it under a pratîka form.
According to Râmânuga, Sûtras 7-16 form one adhikarana only, in which the views of Bâdari and of Gaimini represent two pûrvapakshas, while Bâdarâyana’s opinion is adopted as the siddhânta. The question is whether the guardians of the path lead to Brahman only those who worship the effected Brahman, i.e. Hiranyagarbha, or those who worship the highest Brahman, or those who worship the individual soul as free from Prakriti, and having Brahman for its Self (ye pratyagâtmânam prakritiviyuktam brahmâtmakam upâsate).–The first view is maintained by Bâdari in Sûtra 7, ‘The guardians lead to Brahman those who worship the effected Brahman, because going is possible towards the latter only;’ for no movement can take place towards the highest and as such omnipresent Brahman.–The explanation of Sûtra 9 is similar to that of Sankara; but more clearly replies to the objection (that, if Hiranyagarbha were meant in the passage, ‘purusho#mânavah sa etân brahma gamayati,’ the text would read ‘sa etân brahmânam gamayati’) that Hiranyagarbha is called Brahman on account of his nearness to Brahman, i.e. on account of his prathamagatva.—The explanation of 10, 11 is essentially the same as in Sankara; so also of 12-14.–The siddhânta view is established in Sûtra 13, ‘It is the opinion of Bâdarâyana that it, i.e. the gana of the guardians, leads to Brahman those who do not take their stand on what is pratîka, i.e. those who worship the highest Brahman, and those who meditate on the individual Self as dissociated from prakriti, and having Brahman for its Self, but not those who worship Brahman under pratîkas. For both views–that of Gaimini as well as that of Bâdari–are faulty.’ The kârya view contradicts such passages as ‘asmâk kharîrât samutthâya param gyotir upasampadya,’ &c.; the para view, such passages as that in the pañkâgni-vidyâ, which declares that ya ittham viduh, i.e. those who know the pañkâgni-vidyâ, are also led up to Brahman.
PÂDA IV.
Adhik. I (1-3) returns, according to–Sankara, to the owner of the parâ vidyâ, and teaches that, when on his death his soul obtains final release, it does not acquire any new characteristics, but merely manifests itself in its true nature.–The explanation given by Râmânuga is essentially the same, but of course refers to that vidvân whose going to Brahman had been described in the preceding pâda.
Adhik. II (4) determines that the relation in which the released soul stands to Brahman is that of avibhâga, non-separation. This, on Sankara’s view, means absolute non-separation, identity.–According to Râmânuga the question to be considered is whether the released soul views itself as separate (prithagbhûta) from Brahman, or as non-separate because being a mode of Brahman. The former view is favoured by those Sruti and Smriti passages which speak of the soul as being with, or equal to, Brahman; the latter by, such passages as tat tvam asi and the like.
Adhik. Ill (5-7) discusses the characteristics of the released soul (i.e. of the truly released soul, according to Sankara). According to Gaimini the released soul, when manifesting itself in its true nature, possesses all those qualities which in Kh. Up. VIII, 7, I and other places are ascribed to Brahman, such as apahatapâpmatva, satyasamkalpatva, &c., aisvarya.–According to Audulomi the only characteristic of the released soul is kaitanya.–According to Bâdarâyana the two views can be combined (Sankara remarking that satyasamkalpatva, &c. are ascribed to the released soul vyavahârâpekshayâ).
Adhik. IV (8-9) returns, according to Sankara, to the aparâ vidyâ, and discusses the question whether the soul of the pious effects its desires by its mere determination, or uses some other means. The former alternative is accepted–According to Râmânuga the adhikarana simply continues the consideration of the state of the released, begun in the preceding adhikarana. Of the released soul it is said in Kh. Up. VIII, 12, 3 that after it has manifested itself in its true nature it moves about playing and rejoicing with women, carriages, and so on. The question then arises whether it effects all this by its mere samkalpa (it having been shown in the preceding adhikarana that the released soul is, like the Lord, satyasamkalpa), or not. The answer is in favour of the former alternative, on account of the explicit declaration made in Kh. Up. VIII, 2, ‘By his mere will the fathers come to receive him.’
Adhik. V (10-14) decides that the released are embodied or disembodied according to their wish and will.
Adhik. VI (11, 12) explains how the soul of the released can animate several bodies at the same time.–Sûtra 12 gives, according to Sankara, the additional explanation that those passages which declare the absence of all specific cognition on the part of the released soul do not refer to the partly released soul of the devotee, but either to the soul in the state of deep sleep (svâpyaya = sushupti), or to the fully released soul of the sage (sampatti = kaivalya).–Râmânuga explains that the passages speaking of absence of consciousness refer either to the state of deep sleep, or to the time of dying (sampatti = maranam according to ‘vân manasi sampadyate,’.
Adhik. VII (17-21).–The released gîvas participate in all the perfections and powers of the Lord, with the exception of the power of creating and sustaining the world. They do not return to new forms of embodied existence.
The present translation of the Vedânta-sûtras does not aim at rendering that sense which their author may have aimed at conveying, but strictly follows Sankara’s interpretation. The question as to how far the latter agrees with the views held by Bâdarâyana has been discussed above, with the result that for the present it must, on the whole, be left an open one. In any case it would not be feasible to combine a translation of Sankara’s commentary with an independent version of the Sûtras which it explains. Similar considerations have determined the method followed in rendering the passages of the Upanishads referred to in the Sûtras and discussed at length by Sankara. There also the views of the commentator have to be followed closely; otherwise much of the comment would appear devoid of meaning. Hence, while of course following on the whole the critical translation published by Professor Max Müller in the earlier volumes of this Series, I had, in a not inconsiderable number of cases, to modify it so as to render intelligible Sankara’s explanations and reasonings. I hope to find space in the introduction to the second volume of this translation for making some general remarks on the method to be followed in translating the Upanishads.
I regret that want of space has prevented me from extracting fuller notes from later scholiasts. The notes given are based, most of them, on the tîkâs composed by Ânandagiri and Govindânanda (the former of which is unpublished as yet, so far as I know), and on the Bhâmatî.
My best thanks are due to Pandits Râma Misra Sâstrin and Gangâdhara Sâstrin of the Benares Sanskrit College, whom I have consulted on several difficult passages. Greater still are my obligations to Pandit Kesava Sâstrin, of the same institution, who most kindly undertook to read a proof of the whole of the present volume, and whose advice has enabled me to render my version of more than one passage more definite or correct.
*****Om Tat Sat*****
No comments:
Post a Comment