‘ All these beings take their rise from the ether only/ clearly indicates the highest Brahman, since all Vedanta-texts agree in definitely declaring that all beings spring from the highest Brahman.—But, the opponent may say, we have shown that the elemental ether also may be repre¬ sented as the cause, viz. of air, fire, and the other elements in due succession.—We admit this. But still there remains the difficulty, that, unless we understand the word to apply to the fundamental cause of all, viz. Brahman, the affirmation contained in the word ‘only 5 and the qualification expressed by the word ‘ all 5 (in ‘ all beings ’) would be out of place. Moreover, the clause, ‘ They return into the ether, 5 again points to Brahman, and so likewise the phrase, ‘ Ether is greater than these, ether is their rest;' for absolute supe¬ riority in point of greatness Scripture attributes to the highest Self only; cp. Kh. Up. Ill, 14, 3, ‘ Greater than the earth, greater than the sky, greater than heaven, greater than all these worlds. 5 The quality of being a place of rest likewise agrees best with the highest Brahman, on account of its being the highest cause. This is confirmed by the following scriptural passage: ‘ Knowledge and bliss is Brah¬ man, it is the rest of him who gives gifts’ (Bn. Up. Ill, 9, 28).
Moreover, Caivali finding fault with the doctrine of Salavatya, on account of (his saman) having an end (Kh. Up. I, 8, 8), and wishing to proclaim something that has no end chooses the ether, and then, having identified the ether with the Udgitha, concludes, ‘He is the Udgitha greater than great; he is without end. 5 Now this endlessness is a characteristic mark of Brahman. To the remark that the sense of‘elemental ether 5 presents itself to the mind more readily, because it is the better established sense of the word akai-a, we reply, that, although it may present itself to the mind first, yet it is not to be accepted, because we see that qualities of Brahman are mentioned in the com¬ plementary sentences. That the word aka^a is also used to denote Brahman has been shown already; cp. such passages as, ‘ Ether is the revealer of all names and forms. 5 We see, moreover, that various synonyma of aka^a are employed to denote Brahman. So, for instance; Rik Sa//zh.
G 2 8 4 I, 164, 39, ‘In which the Vedas are 1, in the Imperishable one (i. e. Brahman), the highest, the ether (vyoman), on which all gods have their seat/ And Taitt. Up. Ill, 6, ‘ This is the knowledge of Bhrzgu and Varuzza, founded on the highest ether (vyoman)/ And again, ‘ Om, ka is Brah¬ man, ether (kha) is Brahman’ (Kh. Up. IV, 10, 5), and ‘the old ether’ (Bri. Up. V, i) 2. And other similar passages. On account of the force of the complementary passage we are justified in deciding that the word ‘ether/ although occurring in the beginning of the passage, refers to Brahman. The case is analogous to that of the sentence, ‘ Agni (lit. the fire) studies a chapter,’ where the word agni, although occurring in the beginning, is at once seen to denote a boy 3. It is therefore settled that the word ‘ ether’ denotes Brahman.
23. For the same reason breath (is Brahman).
Concerning the udgttha it is said (Kh. Up. I, 10, 9), ‘Prastot ri, that deity which belongs to the prastava, &c.,’ and, further on (I, 11, 4; 5), ‘Which then is that deity? He said: Breath. For all these beings merge into breath alone, and from breath they arise. This is the deity belonging to the prastava/ With reference to this passage doubt and decision are to be considered as analogous to those stated under the preceding Sutra. For while in some passages—as, for instance, ‘ For indeed, my son, mind is fastened to prazza/ Kh. Up. VI, 8, 2; and, ‘the praz^a of prazza/ Bri. Up. IV, 4, 18—the word ‘breath’ is seen to denote Brahman, its use 1 Viz. as intimating it. Thus An. Gi. and Go. An. against the accent of rikih. Sayazza explains rik&h as genitive.
2 Ozzzkarasya pratikatvena va^akatvena lakshakatvena va brahmatvam uktam, om iti, ka m sukha m tasyarthendriyayoga^atvazzz varayituzzz kham iti, tasya bhutaka^atvaw vyaseddhum purazzam ity uktam. An. Gi.
3 The doubt about the meaning of a word is preferably to be decided by means of a reference to preceding passages; where that is not possible (the doubtful word occurring at the beginning of some new chapter) complementary, i. e. subsequent passages have to be taken into consideration.
in the sense of a certain modification of air is better estab¬ lished in common as well as in Vedic language. Hence there arises a doubt whether in the passage under dis¬ cussion the word prazza denotes Brahman or (ordinary) breath. In favour of which meaning have we then to decide?
Here the purvapakshin maintains that the word must be held to denote the fivefold vital breath, which is a peculiar modification of wind (or air); because, as has been re¬ marked already, that sense of the word prazza is the better established one.—But no, an objector will say, just as in the case of the preceding Sutra, so here also Brahman is meant, on account of characteristic marks being mentioned; for here also a complementary passage gives us to understand that all beings spring from and merge into prazza; a process which can take place in connexion with the highest Lord only.—This objection, the purvapakshin replies, is futile, since we see that the beings enter into and proceed from the principal vital air also. For Scripture makes the fol¬ lowing statement (.Sat. Br. X, 3, 3, 6), 4 When man sleeps, then into breath indeed speech merges, into breath the eye, into breath the ear, into breath the mind; when he awakes then they spring again from breath alone/ What the Veda here states is, moreover, a matter of observation, for during sleep, while the process of breathing goes on uninterruptedly, the activity of the sense organs is interrupted and again becomes manifest at the time of awaking only. And as the sense organs are the essence of all material beings, the com¬ plementary passage which speaks of the merging and emerging of the beings can be reconciled with the principal vital air also. Moreover, subsequently to prazza being mentioned as the divinity of the prastava the sun and food are designated as the divinities of the udgitha and the pratihara. Now as they are not Brahman, the prazza also, by parity of reasoning, cannot be Brahman.
To this argumentation the author of the Sutras replies: For the same reason prazza—that means: on account of the presence of characteristic marks—which constituted the reason stated in the preceding Sutra—the word prazza also must be held to denote Brahman. For Scripture says of prazza also, that it is connected with marks characteristic of Brahman. The sentence, ‘ All these beings merge into breath alone, and from breath they arise, 5 which declares that the origination and retractation of all beings depend on prazza, clearly shows prazza to be Brahman. In reply to the assertion that the origination and retractation of all beings can be reconciled equally well with the assumption of prazza de¬ noting the chief vital air, because origination and retractation take place in the state of waking and of sleep also, we remark that in those two states only the senses are merged into, and emerge from, the chief vital air, while, according to the scriptural passage, ‘For all these beings, &c., 5 all beings whatever into which a living Self has entered, together with their senses and bodies, merge and emerge by turns. And even if the word ‘ beings 5 were taken (not in the sense of animated beings, but) in the sense of material elements in general, there would be nothing in the way of interpreting the passage as referring to Brahman.—But, it may be said, that the senses together with their objects do, during sleep, enter into prazza, and again issue from it at the time of waking, we distinctly learn from another scriptural passage, viz. Kau. Up. Ill, 3, ‘When a man being thus asleep sees no dream whatever, he becomes one with that prazza alone. Then speech goes to him with all names, 5 &c.—True, we reply, but there also the word prazza denotes (not the vital air) but Brahman, as we conclude from characteristic marks of Brahman being mentioned. The objection, again, that the word prazza cannot denote Brahman because it occurs in proximity to the words ‘ food 5 and ‘ sun 5 (which do not refer to Brahman), is altogether baseless; for proximity is of no avail against the force of the complementary passage which intimates that prazza is Brahman. That argument, finally, which rests on the fact that the word prazza com¬ monly denotes the vital air with its five modifications, is to be refuted in the same way as the parallel argument which the purvapakshin brought forward with reference to the word ‘ ether. 5 From all this it follows that the prazza, which is the deity of the prastava, is Brahman.
Some (commentators) 1 quote under the present Sfttra the following passages, 4 the prazza of prazza ’ (Bri. Up. IV, 4,18), and 4 for to prazza mind is fastened ’ ( Kh. Up. VI, 8, 2). But that is wrong since these two passages offer no opportunity for any discussion, the former on account of the separation of the words, the latter on account of the general topic. When we meet with a phrase such as ‘the father of the father 5 we understand at once that the genitive denotes a father different from the father denoted by the nominative. Analogously we infer from the separation of words con¬ tained in the phrase, 4 the breath of breath,’ that the 4 breath of breath’ is different from the ordinary breath (denoted by the genitive 4 of breath ’). For one and the same thing cannot, by means of a genitive, be predicated of—and thus distinguished from—itself. Concerning the second passage we remark that, if the matter constituting the general topic of some chapter is referred to in that chapter under a different name, we yet conclude, from the general topic, that that special matter is meant. For instance, when we meet in the section which treats of the ^yotish/oma sacrifice with the passage, 4 in every spring he is to offer the ^yotis sacrifice,’ we at once understand that the word ^yotis denotes the ^yotish/oma. If we therefore meet with the clause 4 to prazza mind is fastened ’ in a section of which the highest Brahman is the topic, we do not for a moment suppose that the word prazza should there denote the ordinary breath which is a mere modification of air. The two passages thus do not offer any matter for discussion, and hence do not furnish appropriate instances for the Sutra. We have shown, on the other hand, that the passage about the prazza, which is the deity of the prastava, allows room for doubt, purvapaksha and final decision.
24. The ‘ light ’ (is Brahman), on account of the mention of feet (in a passage which is connected with the passage about the light).
Scripture says {Kh. Up. Ill, 13, 7), 4 Now that light which shines above this heaven, higher than all, higher than every- 1 The vmtMra, the commentators say.
thing, in the highest worlds beyond which there are no other worlds, that is the same light which is within man.’ Here the doubt presents itself whether the word 4 light ’ denotes the light of the sun and the like, or the highest Self. Under the preceding Sutras we had shown that some words which ordinarily have different meanings yet in certain passages denote Brahman, since characteristic marks of the latter are mentioned. Here the question has to be discussed whether, in connexion with the passage quoted, characteristic marks of Brahman are mentioned or not.
The purvapakshin maintains that the word 4 light ’ de¬ notes nothing else but the light of the sun and the like, since that is the ordinary well-established meaning of the term. The common use of language, he says, teaches us that the two words 4 light ’ and 4 darkness ’ denote mutually opposite things, darkness being the term for whatever interferes with the function of the sense of sight, as, for instance, the gloom of the night, while sunshine and whatever else favours the action of the eye is called light. The word 4 shines ’ also, which the text exhibits, is known ordinarily to refer to the sun and similar sources of light; while of Brahman, which is devoid of colour, it cannot be said, in the primary sense of the word, that it 4 shines.’ Further, the word ^yotis must here denote light because it is said to be bounded by the sky ( 4 that light which shines above this heaven’).
For while it is impossible to consider the sky as being the boundary of Brahman, which is the Self of all and the source of all things movable or immovable, the sky may be looked upon as forming the boundary of light, which is a mere product and as such limited; accordingly the text says, 4 the light beyond heaven.’—But light, although a mere product, is perceived everywhere; it w^ould therefore be wrong to declare that it is bounded by the sky!—Well, then, the purvapakshin replies, let us assume that the light meant is the first-born (original) light which has not yet become tripartite 1. This explanation again cannot be 1 I.e. which has not been mixed with water and earth, according to Kh. Up. VI, 3, 3. Before that mixture took place light was admitted, because the non-tripartite light does not serve any purpose.—But, the purvapakshin resumes, Why should its purpose not be found therein that it is the object of devout meditation?—That cannot be, we reply; for we see that only such things are represented as objects of devotion as have some other independent use of their own; so, for instance, the sun (which dispels darkness and so on). More¬ over the scriptural passage, ‘Let me make each of these three (fire, water, and earth) tripartite/ does not indicate any difference 1. And even of the non-tripartite light it is not known that the sky constitutes its boundary.—Well, then (the purvapakshin resumes, dropping the idea of the nontripartite light), let us assume that the light of which the text speaks is the tripartite (ordinary) light. The objection that light is seen to exist also beneath the sky, viz. in the form of fire and the like, we invalidate by the remark that there is nothing contrary to reason in assigning a special locality to fire, although the latter is observed everywhere; while to assume a special place for Brahman, to which the idea of place does not apply at all, would be most un¬ suitable. Moreover, the clause c higher than everything, in the highest worlds beyond which there are no other worlds/ which indicates a multiplicity of abodes, agrees much better with light, which is a mere product (than with Brahman).
There is moreover that other clause also, c That is the same light which is within man/ in which the highest light is identified with the gastric fire (the fire within man). Now such identifications can be made only where there is a certain similarity of nature; as is seen, for instance, in the passage, c Of that person Bhuk is the head, for the head is one and that syllable is one 5 (B ri. Up. V, 5, 3). But that the fire within the human body is not Brahman clearly appears from the passage, ‘ Of this we have visible and audible proof’ (Kk. Up. Ill, 13, 7; 8), which declares that entirely separated from the other elements, and therefore bounded by the latter.
1 So as to justify the assumption that such a thing as non-tri¬ partite light exists at all.
the fire is characterised by the noise it makes, and by heat; and likewise from the following passage, { Let a man meditate on this as that which is seen and heard.’ The same conclusion may be drawn from the passage, { He who knows this becomes conspicuous and celebrated,’ which proclaims an inconsiderable reward only, while to the devout meditation on Brahman a high reward would have to be allotted. Nor is there mentioned in the entire passage about the light any other characteristic mark of Brahman, while such marks are set forth in the passages (discussed above) which refer to pra^a and the ether. Nor, again, is Brahman indicated in the preceding section, { the Gayatri is everything whatsoever exists,’ &c. (Ill, 13); for that passage makes a statement about the G&yatri metre only. And even if that section did refer to Brahman, still Brahman would not be recognised in the passage at present under discussion; for there (in the section referred to) it is declared—in the clause, 4 Three feet of it are the Immortal in heaven ’—that heaven constitutes the abode; while in our passage the words { the light above heaven ’ declare heaven to be a boundary. For all these reasons the word ^yotis is here to be taken in its ordinary meaning, viz. light.
To this we make the following reply. The word ^yotis must be held to denote Brahman. Why? On account of the feet (quarters) being mentioned. In a preceding passage Brahman had been spoken of as having four feet (quarters). 4 Such is the greatness of it; greater than it is the Person (purusha). One foot of it are all the beings, three feet of it are the Immortal in heaven.’ That which in this passage is said to constitute the three-quarter part, immortal and connected with heaven, of Brahman, which altogether comprises four quarters; this very same entity we recognise as again referred to in the passage under discussion, because there also it is said to be connected with heaven. If therefore we should set it aside in our interpretation of the passage and assume the latter to refer to the ordinary light, we should commit the mistake of dropping, without need, the topic started and introducing a new subject. Brahman, in fact, continues to form the subject-matter, not only of the passage about the light, but likewise of the subsequent section, the so-called S&ndilya.-vidya ( Kh. Up. Ill, 14). Hence we conclude that in our passage the word £ light ’ must be held to denote Brahman. The objection (raised above) that from common use the words £ light 5 and 4 to shine ’ are known to denote effected (physical) light is without force; for as it is known from the general topic of the chapter that Brahman is meant, those two words do not necessarily denote physical light only to the exclusion of Brahman 1, but may also denote Brahman itself, in so far as it is characterised by the physical shining light which is its effect. Analogously another mantra declares, £ that by which the sun shines kindled with heat’ (Taitt. Br. Ill, 12, 9, 7). Or else we may suppose that the word ^yotis here does not denote at all that light on which the function of the eye depends.
For we see that in other passages it has altogether different meanings; so, for instance, B ri. Up. IV, 3, 5, £ With speech only as light man sits,’ and Taitt. Sa. I, 6, 3, 3, £ May the mind, the light, accept,’ &c. It thus appears that whatever illuminates (in the different senses of the word) something else may be spoken of as 4 light.’ Hence to Brahman also, whose nature is intelligence, the term 4 light ’ may be applied; for it gives light to the entire world. Similarly, other scriptural passages say, £ Him the shining one, every¬ thing shines after; by his light all this is lighted 5 (Kau. Up. II, 5, 15); and £ Him the gods worship as the light of lights, as the immortal’ (B ri. Up. IV, 4, 16). Against the further objection that the omnipresent Brahman cannot be viewed as bounded by heaven we remark that the assign¬ ment, to Brahman, of a special locality is not contrary to reason because it subserves the purpose of devout medita¬ tion. Nor does it avail anything to say that it is impossible to assign any place to Brahman because Brahman is out of connexion with all place. For it is possible to make such 1 Brahma^o vyava^idya te^*a^samarpakatvaw vkeshakatvam, tadabhavoxvheshakatvam. An. Gi.
an assumption, because Brahman is connected with certain limiting adjuncts. Accordingly Scripture speaks of different kinds of devout meditation on Brahman as specially con¬ nected with certain localities, such as the sun, the eye, the heart. For the same reason it is also possible to attribute to Brahman a multiplicity of abodes, as is done in the clause (quoted above) 4 higher than all.’ The further ob¬ jection that the light beyond heaven is the mere physical light because it is identified with the gastric fire, which itself is a mere effect and is inferred from perceptible marks such as the heat of the body and a certain sound, is equally devoid of force; for the gastric fire may be viewed as the outward appearance (or symbol) of Brahman, just as Brah¬ man's name is a mere outward symbol. Similarly in the passage, 4 Let a man meditate on it (the gastric light) as seen and heard/ the visibility and audibility (here implicitly ascribed to Brahman) must be considered as rendered possible through the gastric fire being the outward appear¬ ance of Brahman. Nor is there any force in the objection that Brahman cannot be meant because the text mentions an inconsiderable reward only; for there is no reason com¬ pelling us to have recourse to Brahman for the purpose of such and such a reward only, and not for the purpose of such and such another reward. Wherever the text represents the highest Brahman—which is free from all connexion with distinguishing attributes—as the universal Self, it is understood that the result of that instruction is one only, viz. final release. Wherever, on the other hand. Brahman is taught to be connected with distinguishing attributes or outward symbols, there, we see, all the various rewards which this world can offer are spoken of; cp. for instance, B ri. Up. IV, 4, 34, 4 This is he who eats all food, the giver of wealth. He who knows this obtains wealth. 5 Although in the passage itself which treats of the light no charac¬ teristic mark of Brahman is mentioned, yet, as the Sutra intimates, the mark stated in a preceding passage (viz. the mantra, 4 Such is the greatness of it/ &c.) has to be taken in connexion with the passage about the light as well.
The question how the mere circumstance of Brahman being mentioned in a not distant passage can have the power of divorcing from its natural object and transferring to another object the direct statement about light implied in the word £ light/ may be answered without difficulty. The passage under discussion runs 1, * which above this heaven, the light/ The relative pronoun with which this clause begins intimates, according to its grammatical force 2, the same Brahman which was mentioned in the previous passage, and which is here recognised (as being the same which was mentioned before) through its connexion with heaven; hence the word ^yotis also—which stands in grammatical co-ordination to £ which ’—must have Brahman for its object. From all this it follows that the word ‘light’ here denotes Brahman.
25. If it be objected that (Brahman is) not(denoted) on account of the metre being denoted; (we reply) not so, because thus (i. e. by means of the metre) the direction of the mind (on Brahman) is declared; for thus it is seen (in other passages also).
We now address ourselves to the refutation of the asser¬ tion (made in the purvapaksha of the preceding Sutra) that in the previous passage also Brahman is not referred to, because in the sentence, £ Gayatri is everything whatsoever here exists,’ the metre called Gayatri is spoken of.—How (we ask the purvapakshin) can it be maintained that, on account of the metre being spoken of, Brahman is not denoted, while yet the mantra £ such is the greatness of it,’ &c., clearly sets forth Brahman with its four quarters? —You are mistaken (the purvapakshin replies). The sentence, £ Gayatri is everything/ starts the discussion of Gayatri. The same Gayatri is thereupon described under the various forms of all beings, earth, body, heart, speech, breath; to which there refers also the verse, £ that Gayatri 1 If we strictly follow the order of words in the original.
has four feet and is sixfold.’ After that we meet with the mantra, 4 Such is the greatness of it,’ &c. How then, we ask, should this mantra, which evidently is quoted with reference to the Gayatri (metre) as described in the preceding clauses, all at once denote Brahman with its four quarters? Since therefore the metre Gayatri: is the subject-matter of the entire chapter, the term 4 Brahman ’ which occurs in a subsequent passage (‘the Brahman which has thus been described’) must also denote the metre. This is analogous to a previous passage (Kh. Up. Ill, n, 3, 4 He who thus knows this Brahma-upanishad’), where the word Brahmaupanishad is explained to mean Veda-upanishad. As therefore the preceding passage refers (not to Brahman, but) to the Gayatri metre, Brahman does not constitute the topic of the entire section.