But, in reality, the following remarks have to be made concerning the true meaning of the word ‘ dnandamaya h On what grounds, we ask, can it be maintained that the 1 The explanation of the anandamaya given hitherto is here re¬ called, and a different one given. The previous explanation is attributed by Go. An. to the vrfttikara.
affix ‘ maya ’ after having, in the series of compounds begin¬ ning with annamaya and ending with vi^anamaya, denoted mere modifications, should all at once, in the word anandamaya, which belongs to the same series, denote abun¬ dance, so that anandamaya would refer to Brahman? If it should be said that the assumption is made on account of the governing influence of the Brahman proclaimed in the mantra (which forms the beginning of the chapter, Taitt.
Up. II), we reply that therefrom it would follow that also the Selfs consisting of food, breath, &c., denote Brahman (because the governing influence of the mantra extends to them also).—The advocate of the former interpretation will here, perhaps, restate an argument already made use of above, viz. as follows: To assume that the Selfs consisting of food., and so on, are not Brahman is quite proper, because after each of them an inner Self is mentioned. After the Self of bliss, on the other hand, no further inner Self is mentioned, and hence it must be considered to be Brahman itself; otherwise we should commit the mistake of dropping the subject-matter in hand (as which Brahman is pointed out by the mantra), and taking up a new topic.—But to this we reply that, although unlike the case of the Selfs con¬ sisting of food, &c., no inner Self is mentioned after the Self consisting of bliss, still the latter cannot be considered as Brahman, because with reference to the Self consisting of bliss Scripture declares, ‘Joy is its head. Satisfaction is its right arm. Great satisfaction is its left arm. Bliss is its trunk. Brahman is its tail, its support/ Now, here the very same Brahman which, in the mantra, had been introduced as the subject of the discussion, is called the tail, the support; while the five involucra, extending from the involiicrum of food up to the involucrum of bliss, are merely introduced for the purpose of setting forth the knowledge of Brahman. How, then, can it be maintained that our interpretation implies the needless dropping of the general subject-matter and the introduction of a new topic?—But, it may again be objected, Brahman is called the tail, i. e. a member of the Self consisting of bliss; analogously to those passages in which a tail and other members are ascribed to the Selfs consisting of food and so on. On what grounds, then, can we claim to know that Brahman (which is spoken of as a mere member, i. e. a subordinate matter) is in reality the chief matter referred to? —From the fact, we reply, of Brahman being the general subject-matter of the chapter.—But, it will again be said, that interpretation also according to which Brahman is cognised as a mere member of the anandamaya does not involve a dropping of the subject-matter, since the ananda¬ maya himself is Brahman.—But, we reply, in that case one and the same Brahman would at first appear as the whole, viz. as the Self consisting of bliss, and thereupon as a mere part, viz. as the tail; which is absurd. And as one of the two alternatives must be preferred, it is certainly appro¬ priate to refer to Brahman the clause ‘ Brahman is the tail 5 which contains the word ‘ Brahman,' and not the sentence about the Self of Bliss in which Brahman is not mentioned. Moreover, Scripture, in continuation of the phrase, ‘ Brahman is the tail, the support,' goes on, ‘ On this there is also the following.doka: He who knows the Brahman as non-existing becomes himself non¬ existing. He who knows Brahman as existing him we know himself as existing.' As this.doka, without any refer¬ ence to the Self of bliss, states the advantage and disadvan¬ tage connected with the knowledge of the being and nonbeing of Brahman only, we conclude that the clause, ‘ Brahman is the tail, the support, 5 represents Brahman as the chief matter (not as a merely subordinate matter). About the being or non-being of the Self of bliss, on the other hand, a doubt is not well possible, since the Self of bliss distinguished by joy, satisfaction, &c., is well known to every one.—But if Brahman is the principal matter, how can it be designated as the mere tail of the Self of bliss (‘ Brahman is the tail, the support 5 )?—Its being called so, we reply, forms no objection; for the word tail here denotes that which is/ of the nature of a tail, so that we have to understand that the bliss of Brahman is not a member (in its literal sense), but the support or abode, the one nest (resting-place) of all worldly bliss. Analogously another scriptural passage declares, c All other creatures live on a small portion of that bliss 5 (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 32). Further, if by the Self consisting of bliss we were to understand Brahman, we should have to assume that the Brahman meant is the Brahman distinguished by qualities (savi^esha), because it is said to have joy and the like for its members. But this assumption is contradicted by a complementary passage (II, 9) which declares that Brahman is the object neither of mind nor speech, and so shows that the Brahman meant is the (absolute) Brahman (devoid of qualities), ‘ From whence all speech, with the mind, turns away unable to reach it, he who knows the bliss of that Brahman fears nothing.’ Moreover, if we speak of something as ‘abounding in bliss 1,’ we thereby imply the co-existence of pain; for the word c abundance ’ in its ordinary sense implies the existence of a small measure of what is opposed to the thing whereof there is abundance. But the passage so understood would be in conflict with another passage ( Kh.
Up. VII, 24), c Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is the Infinite; ’ which declares that in the Infinite, i. e. Brahman, there is nothing whatever different from it. Moreover, as joy, &c. differ in each individual body, the Self consisting of bliss also is a different one in each body. Brahman, on the other hand, does not differ according to bodies; for the mantra at the be¬ ginning of the chapter declares it to be true Being, knowledge, infinite, and another passage says, c He is the one God, hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the Self within all beings ’ (Sv. Up. VI, 11). Nor, again, does Scripture exhibit a frequent repetition of the word ‘ anandamaya; ’ for merely the radical part of the compound (i. e. the word ananda without the affix maya) is repeated in all the following passages: e It is a flavour, far only after seizing flavour can any one seize bliss. Who could breathe, who could breathe forth, if that bliss existed not in the ether? For he alone causes blessed¬ ness;’ ‘Now this is an examination of bliss; 5 ‘ He who 1 In which sense, as shown above, the word anandamaya must be taken if understood to denote Brahman.
knows the bliss of that Brahman fears nothing ‘He understood that bliss is Brahman/ If it were a settled matter that Brahman is denoted by the term, ‘ the Self consisting of bliss, 5 then we could assume that in the subse¬ quent passages, where merely the word ‘ bliss 5 is employed, the term ‘ consisting of bliss 5 is meant to be repeated; but that the Self consisting of bliss is not Brahman, we have already proved by means of the reason of joy being its head, and so on. Hence, as in another scriptural passage, viz. ‘ Brahman is knowledge and bliss 5 (B ri. Up. Ill, 9, 28), the mere word ‘ bliss 5 denotes Brahman, we must conclude that also in such passages as, ‘ If that bliss existed not in the ether, 5 the word bliss is used with reference to Brahman, and is not meant to repeat the term ‘ consisting of bliss. 5 The repetition of the full compound, ‘ consisting of bliss, 5 which occurs in the passage, ‘ He reaches that Self consisting of bliss 5 (Taitt. Up. II, 8), does not refer to Brahman, as it is contained in the enumeration of Non-Selfs, comprising the Self of food, &c., all of which are mere effects, and all of which are represented as things to be reached.—But, it may be said, if the Self consisting of bliss, which is said to have to be reached, were not Brahman—just as the Selfs con¬ sisting of food, &c. are not Brahman—then it would not be declared (in the passage immediately following) that he who knows obtains for his reward Brahman.—This objection we invalidate by the remark that the text makes its declaration as to Brahman—which is the tail, the support— being reached by him who knows, by the very means of the declaration as to the attainment of the Self of bliss; as appears from the passage, ‘ On this there is also this ^loka, from which all speech returns, 5 &c. With reference, again, to the passage, ‘ He desired: may I be many, may I grow forth/ which is found in proximity to the mention of the Self consisting of bliss, we remark that it is in reality con¬ nected (not with the Self of bliss but with) Brahman, which is mentioned in the still nearer passage, ‘ Brahman is the tail, the support, 5 and does therefore not intimate that the Self of bliss is Brahman. And, on account of its referring to the passage last quoted (‘ it desired/ &c.), the later passage also, ‘ That is flavour/ &c., has not the Self of bliss for its subject.—But, it may be objected, the (neuter word) Brah¬ man cannot possibly be designated by a masculine word as you maintain is done in the passage, c He desired/ &c.—In reply to this objection we point to the passage (Taitt. Up. II, 1), c From that Self sprang ether/ where, likewise, the masculine word ‘Self’ can refer to Brahman only, since the latter is the general topic of the chapter. In the know¬ ledge of Bhrzgu and Varu;/a finally ( £ he knew that bliss is Brahman ’), the word ‘ bliss 5 is rightly understood to denote Brahman, since we there meet neither with the affix £ maya/ nor with any statement as to joy being its head, and the like. To ascribe to Brahman in itself joy, and so on, as its members, is impossible, unless we have recourse to certain, however minute, distinctions qualifying Brahman; and that the whole chapter is not meant to convey a knowledge of the qualified (savbesha) Brahman is proved by the passage (quoted above), which declares that Brahman transcends speech and mind. We therefore must conclude that the affix maya, in the word anandamaya, does not denote abundance, but expresses a mere effect, just as it does in the words annamaya and the subsequent similar com¬ pounds.
The Sutras are therefore to be explained as follows. There arises the question whether the passage, ‘ Brahman is the tail, the support/ is to be understood as intimating that Brahman is a mere member of the Self consisting of bliss, or that it is the principal matter. If it is said that it must be considered as a mere member, the reply is, ‘ The Self consisting of bliss on account of the repetition. 5 That means: Brahman, which in the passage ‘ the Self con¬ sisting of bliss/ &c., is spoken of as the tail, the support, is designated as the principal matter (not as something subordinate). On account of the repetition; for in the memorial doka, ‘ he becomes himself non-existing/ Brah¬ man alone is reiterated. ‘ If not, on account of the word denoting a modification; not so, on account of abundance.’ In this Sutra the word c modification ’ is meant to convey the sense of member. The objection that on account of the word 4 tail/ which denotes a mere member, Brahman cannot be taken as the principal matter must be refuted.
This we do by remarking that there is no difficulty, since a word denoting a member may be introduced into the passage on account of pra/£urya*. Pra^urya here means a phraseology abounding in terms denoting members. After the different members, beginning with the head and ending with the tail, of the Selfs, consisting of food, &c. have been enumerated, there are also mentioned the head and the other limbs of the Self of bliss, and then it is added, ‘ Brahman is the tail, the support; ’ the intention being merely to intro¬ duce some more terms denoting members, not to convey the meaning of 4 member/ (an explanation which is impos¬ sible) because the preceding Sutra already has proved Brahman (not to be a member, but) to be the principal matter. 4 And because he is declared to be the cause of it/ That means: Brahman is declared to be the cause of the entire aggregate of effects, inclusive of the Self, consisting of bliss, in the following passage, 4 He created all whatever there is ’ (Taitt. Up. II, 6). And as Brahman is the cause, it cannot at the same time be called the member, in the literal sense of the word, of the Self of bliss, which is nothing but one of Brahman’s effects. The other Sutras also (which refer to the Self of bliss 1 2 ) are to be considered, as well as they may, as conveying a knowledge of Brahman, which (Brahman) is referred to in the passage about the tail.
20. The one within (the sun and the eye) (is the highest Lord), on account of his qualities being declared 3.
The following passage is found in Scripture ( Kh. Up. I, 6, 6 ff.), ‘ Now that persombright as gold who is seen within 1 I. e. the word translated hitherto by abundance.
2 See I, i, 15-19.
3 The preceding adhikara^a had shown that the five Selfs (con¬ sisting of food, mind, and so on), which the Taitt. Up. enumerates, are introduced merely for the purpose of facilitating the cognition of Brahman considered as devoid of all qualities; while that Brahman the sun, with beard bright as gold and hair bright as gold, bright as gold altogether to the very tips of his nails, whose eyes are like blue lotus; his name is Ut, for he has risen (udita) above all evil. He also who knows this rises above all evil. So much with reference to the devas.’ And further on, with reference to the body, ‘Now the person who is seen in the eye,’ &c. Here the following doubt presents itself. Do these passages point out, as the object of devotion directed on the sphere of the sun and the eye, merely some special individual soul, which, by means of a large measure of knowledge and pious works, has raised itself to a position of eminence; or do they refer to the eternally perfect highest Lord?
The purvapakshin takes the former view. An individual soul, he says, is referred to, since Scripture speaks of a definite shape. To the person in the sun special features are ascribed, such as the possession of a beard as bright as gold and so on, and the same features manifestly belong to the person in the eye also, since they are expressly trans¬ ferred to it in the passage, ‘ The shape of this person is the same as the shape of that person.’ That, on the other hand, no shape can be ascribed to the highest Lord, follows from the passage (Kau. Up. I, 3,15), ‘That which is without sound, without touch, without form, without decay.’ That an individual soul is meant follows moreover from the fact that a definite abode is mentioned, ‘ He who is in the sun; he who is in the eye.’ About the highest Lord, who has no special abode, but abides in his own glory, no similar state¬ ment can be made; compare, for instance, the two following passages, ‘Where does he rest? In his own glory?’ (. Kh. Up. VII, 24, 1); and ‘like the ether he is omnipresent, eternal.’ A further argument for our view is supplied by the fact that the might (of the being in question) is said to be limited; for the passage, ‘ He is lord of the worlds beyond that, and of the wishes of the devas,’ indicates the itself is the real object of knowledge. The present adhikara^a un¬ dertakes to show that the passage about the golden person represents he savhesha Brahman as the object of devout meditation.
limitation of the might of the person in the sun; and the passage, ‘He is lord of the worlds beneath that and of the wishes of men, 5 indicates the limitation of the might of the person in the eye. No limit, on the other hand, can be admitted of the might of the highest Lord, as appears from the passage (B ru Up. IV, 4, 22), ‘He is the Lord of all, the king of all things, the protector of all things. He is a bank and a boundary so that these worlds may not be confounded; 5 which passage intimates that the Lord is free from all limiting distinctions. For all these reasons the person in the eye and the sun cannot be the highest Lord.
To this reasoning the Sutra replies, ‘The one within, on account of his qualities being declared. 5 The person referred to in the passages concerning the person within the sun and the person within the eye is not a trans¬ migrating being, but the highest Lord. Why? Because his qualities are declared. For the qualities of the highest Lord are indicated in the text as follows. At first the name of the person within the sun is mentioned—‘his name is Ut 5 —and then this name is explained on the ground of that person being free from all evil, ‘ He has risen above all evil. 5 The same name thus explained is then transferred to the person in the eye, in the clause, ‘ the name of the one is the name of the other. 5 Now, entire freedom from sin is attributed in Scripture to the highest Self only; so, for instance ( Kh. Up. VIII, 7, 1), ‘ The Self which is free from sin,’ &c. Then, again, there is the passage, ‘ He is Ri k, he is Saman, Uktha, Ya^us, Brah¬ man, 5 which declares the person in the eye to be the Self of the Rik, Saman, and so on; which is possible only if that person is the Lord who, as being the cause of all, is to be considered as the Self of all. Moreover, the text, after having stated in succession Rik and Saman to have earth and fire for their Self with reference to the Devas, and, again, speech and breath with reference to the body, continues, ‘ Rik and Saman are his joints, 5 with reference to the Devas, and ‘ the joints of the one are the joints of the other, 5 with reference to the body. Now this statement 8o vedanta-s{jtras.
also can be made only with regard to that which is the Self of all. Further, the passage, 4 Therefore all who sing to the Vina sing him, and from him also they obtain wealth/ shows that the being spoken of is the sole topic of all worldly songs; which again holds true of the highest Lord only. That absolute command over the objects of worldly desires (as displayed, for instance, in the bestowal of wealth) entitles us to infer that the Lord is meant, appears also from the following passage of the Bhagavadgita (X, 41), 4 Whatever being there is possessing power, glory, or strength, know it to be produced from a portion of my energy 1.’ To the objection that the statements about bodily shape contained in the clauses, 4 With a beard bright as gold/ &c., cannot refer to the highest Lord, we reply that the highest Lord also may, when he pleases, assume a bodily shape formed of Maya, in order to gratify thereby his devout worshippers. Thus Snrn’ti also says, 4 That thou seest me, O Narada, is the M&ya emitted by me; do not then look on me as endowed with the qualities of all beings.’ We have further to note that expressions such as, 4 That which is without sound, without touch, without form, without decay/ are made use of where instruction is given about the nature of the highest Lord in so far as he is devoid of all qualities; while passages such as the following one, 4 He to whom belong all works, all desires, all sweet odours and tastes’ (Kk. Up. Ill, 14, 2), which represent the highest Lord as the object of devotion, speak of him, who is the cause of everything, as possessing some of the qualities of his effects. Analogously he may be spoken of, in the passage under discussion, as having a beard bright as gold and so on. With reference to the objection that the highest Lord cannot be meant because an abode is spoken of, we remark that, for the purposes of devout meditation, a special abode may be assigned to Brahman, although it abides in its own glory only; for as Brahman is, like ether, all-pervading, it may be viewed as 1 So that the real giver of the gifts bestowed by princes on poets and singers is Brahman.
being within the Self of all beings. The statement, finally, about the limitation of Brahman’s might, which depends on the distinction of what belongs to the gods and what to the body, has likewise reference to devout meditation only. From all this it follows that the being which Scripture states to be within the eye and the sun is the highest Lord.
21. And there is another one (i. e. the Lord who is different from the individual souls animating the sun, &c.), on account of the declaration of distinc¬ tion.
There is, moreover, one distinct from the individual souls which animate the sun and other bodies, viz. the Lord who rules within; whose distinction (from all individual souls) is proclaimed in the following scriptural passage, ‘ He who dwells in the sun and within the sun, whom the sun does not know, whose body the sun is, and who rules the sun within; he is thy Self, the ruler within, the immortal 5 (B ri. Up. Ill, 7, 9). Here the expression, 4 He within the sun whom the sun does not know,’ clearly indicates that the Ruler within is distinct from that cognising individual soul whose body is the sun. With that Ruler within we have to identify the person within the sun, according to the tenet of the sameness of purport of all Vedanta-texts. It thus remains a settled conclusion that the passage under dis¬ cussion conveys instruction about the highest Lord.
22. The aka^a, i. e. ether (is Brahman) on account of characteristic marks (of the latter being men¬ tioned).
In the.Oandogya (I, 9) the following passage is met with, ‘What is the origin of this world? 5 ‘ Ether, 5 he replied. ‘For all these beings take their rise from the ether only, and return into the ether. Ether is greater than these, ether is their rest. 5 —Here the following doubt arises. Does the word ‘ ether 5 denote the highest Brahman or the elemental ether? —Whence the doubt?—Because the word is seen to be used in both senses. Its use in the sense of ‘ elemental ether 5 is well established in ordinary as well as in Vedic speech; [34] G and, on the other hand, we see that it is sometimes used to denote Brahman, viz. in cases where we ascertain, either from some complementary sentence or from the fact of special qualities being mentioned, that Brahman is meant. So, for instance, Taitt. Up. II, J, i If that bliss existed not in the ether; 5 and Kh. Up. VIII, 14, ‘ That which is called ether is the revealer of all forms and names; that within which forms and names are 1 that is Brahman. 5 Hence the doubt.—Which sense is then to be adopted in our case? — The sense of elemental ether, the purvapakshin replies; because this sense belongs to the word more commonly, and therefore presents itself to the mind more readily. The word ‘ ether 5 cannot be taken in both senses equally, because that would involve a (faulty) attribution of several meanings to one and the same word. Hence the term { ether 5 applies to Brahman in a secondary (metaphorical) sense only; on account of Brahman being in many of its attributes, such as all pervadingness and the like, similar to ether. The rule is, that when the primary sense of a word is possible, the word must not be taken in a secondary sense.
And in the passage under discussion only the primary sense of the word ‘ ether 5 is admissible. Should it be objected that, if we refer the passage under discussion to the ele¬ mental ether, a complementary passage (‘ for all these beings take their rise from the ether only, &c.’) cannot be satisfactorily accounted for; we reply that the elemental ether also may be represented as a cause, viz. of air, fire, &c. in due succession. For we read in Scripture (Taitt. Up. II, 1), ‘ From that Self sprang ether, from ether air, from air fire, and so on. 5 The qualities also of being greater and of being a place of rest may be ascribed to the elemental ether, if we consider its relations to all other beings. There¬ fore we conclude that the word ‘ether 5 here denotes the elemental ether.
To this we reply as follows:—The word ether must here be taken to denote Brahman, on account of characteristic marks of the latter being mentioned. For the sentence, 1 Or else ‘ that which is within forms and names.’