With reference to that which is the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, the text says, ‘Two birds, inseparable friends/ &c. (Mu. Up. Ill, 1, 1). This passage describes the two states of mere standing, i. e. mere presence, and of eating, the clause, ‘One of them eats the sweet fruit, 5 refer¬ ring to the eating, i.e. the fruition of the results of works, for the individual soul—which, like the air, is already excluded by the preceding Sutra—if it were not for the new argument brought forward in the following Sutra which applies to the individual soul only.
and the clause, ‘The other one looks on without eating/ describing the condition of mere inactive presence. The two states described, viz. of mere presence on the one hand and of enjoyment on the other hand, show that the Lord and the individual soul are referred to. Now there is room for this statement which represents the Lord as separate from the individual soul, only if the passage about the abode of heaven and earth likewise refers to the Lord; for in that case only there exists a continuity of topic. On any other supposition the second passage would contain a statement about something not connected with the general topic, and would therefore be entirely uncalled for.—But, it may be objected, on your interpretation also the second passage makes an uncalled-for statement, viz. in so far as it represents the individual soul as separate from the Lord.— Not so, we reply. It is nowhere the purpose of Scripture to make statements regarding the individual soul. From ordinary experience the individual soul, which in the different individual bodies is joined to the internal organs and other limiting adjuncts, is known to every one as agent and enjoyer, and we therefore must not assume that it is that which Scripture aims at setting forth. The Lord, on the other hand, about whom ordinary experience tells us nothing, is to be considered as the special topic of all scriptural passages, and we therefore cannot assume that any passage should refer to him merely casually 1.— 1 If the individual soul were meant by the abode of heaven, earth, &c., the statement regarding Lvara made in the passage about the two birds would be altogether abrupt, and on that ground objectionable. The same difficulty does not present itself with regard to the abrupt mention of the individual soul which is well known to everybody, and to which therefore casual allusions may be made.—I subjoin Ananda Giri’s commentary on the entire pas¬ sage: (rivasyopadhyaikyenavivakshitatvat tad^ane^pi sarvagTianasiddhes tasyayatanatvadyabhave hetvantarazra va/fyam ity fuankya shtre^a pariharati kuta^etyadina. Tad vya/£ash/e dyubhvaditi. Nirde^am eva dar^ayati tayor iti. Vibhaktyartham aha tabhyazra Mi. Sthityei'varasyadana^- ^lvasa^grahe^pi katham fovarasyaiva vhvayatanatva/rc tadaha yaditi. Lvarasyayanatvenaprakrftatve ^ivaprfl6l That the mantra ‘ two birds/ &c. speaks of the Lord and the individual soul we have already shown under I, 2, ii, —And if, according to the interpretation given in the Paingiupanishad (and quoted under I, 2, 11), the verse is under¬ stood to refer to the internal organ (sattva) and the individual soul (not to the individual soul and the Lord), even then there is no contradiction (between that interpre¬ tation and our present averment that the individual soul is not the abode of heaven and earth).—How so?—Here (i. e. in the present Sutra and the Sutras immediately preceding) it is denied that the individual soul which, owing to its imagined connexion with the internal organ and other limiting adjuncts, has a separate existence in separate bodies—its division being analogous to the division of universal space into limited spaces such as the spaces within jars and the like—is that which is called the abode of heaven and earth. That same soul, on the other hand, which exists in all bodies, if considered apart from the limit¬ ing adjuncts, is nothing else but the highest Self. Just as the spaces within jars, if considered apart from their limiting conditions, are merged in universal space, so the individual soul also is incontestably that which is denoted as the abode of heaven and earth, since it (the soul) cannot really be separate from the highest Self. That it is not the abode of heaven and earth, is therefore said of the indi¬ vidual soul in so far only as it imagines itself to be con¬ nected with the internal organ and so on. Hence it follows that the highest Self is the abode of heaven, earth, and so on.—The same conclusion has already been arrived at under I, a, 21; for in the passage concerning the source of all beings (which passage is discussed under the Sutra quoted) we meet with the clause, ‘ In which heaven and thakkathananupapattir ity uktam eva vyatirekadvaraha anyatheti. Givasyayatanatvenaprakrftatve tulyanupapattir iti ^ahkate nanviti. Tasyaikyarthaw lokasiddhasyanuvadatvan naivam ity aha neti. Givasyapikvatvabhaven&pratipadyatvam eva praka/ayati kshetra^o hiti. trvarasyapi lokavadisiddhatvad apratipadyatety a^ankyaha uvaras tv iti.
earth and the sky are woven/ In the present adhikara^a the subject is resumed for the sake of further elucidation.
8. The bhfiman (is Brahman), as the instruction about it is additional to that about the state of deep sleep (i. e. the vital air which remains awake even in the state of deep sleep).
We read (Kk. Up. VII, 23; 24), ‘That which is much (bhuman) we must desire to understand.—Sir, I desire to understand it.—Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is what is much (bhuman). Where one sees something else, hears something else, under¬ stands something else, that is the Little.’—Here the doubt arises whether that which is much is the vital air (pr&/za) or the highest Self.—Whence the doubt?—The word £ bhuman,’ taken by itself, means the state of being much, according to its derivation as taught by Pacini, VI, 4, 158. Hence there is felt the want of a specification showing what con¬ stitutes the Self of that muchness. Here there presents itself at first the approximate passage, £ The vital air is more than hope ’ (. Kh. Up. VII, 15, 1), from which we may conclude that the vital air is bhuman.—On the other hand, we meet at the beginning of the chapter, where the general topic is stated, with the following passage, £ I have heard from men like you that he who knows the Self overcomes grief. I am in grief. Do, Sir, help me over this grief of mine; ’ from which passage it would appear that the bhuman is the highest Self.—Hence there arises a doubt as to which of the two alternatives is to be embraced, and which is to be set aside.
The purvapakshin maintains that the bhuman is the vital air, since there is found no further series of questions and answers as to what is more. For while we meet with a series of questions and answers (such as, £ Sir, is there something which is more than a name?’— £ Speech is more than name.’— Ts there something which is more than speech?’— £ Mind is more than speech ’), which extends from name up to vital air, we do not meet with a similar question and answer as to what might be more than vital air (such as, £ Is there something which is more than vital air? ’—‘ Such and such a thing is more than vital air ’). The text rather at first declares at length (in the passage, 'The vital air is more than hope,’ &c.) that the vital air is more than all the members of the series from name up to hope; it then acknowledges him who knows the vital air to be an ativadin, i. e. one who makes a statement surpassing the preceding statements (in the passage, ‘ Thou art an ativadin. He may say I am an ati¬ vadin; he need not deny it ’); and it thereupon (in the passage, ‘But he in reality is an ativadin who declares something beyond by means of the True’ 1 ),—not leaving off, but rather continuing to refer to the quality of an ativctdin which is founded on the vital air,—proceeds, by means of the series beginning with the True, to lead over to the bhuman; so that we conclude the meaning to be that the vital air is the bhuman.—But, if the bhuman is interpreted to mean the vital air, how have we to explain the passage in which the bhuman is characterised, c Where one sees nothing else? 5 &c.—As, the purvapakshin replies, in the state of deep sleep we observe a cessation of all activity, such as seeing, &c., on the part of the organs merged in the vital air, the vital air itself may be charac¬ terised by a passage such as, c Where one sees nothing else.’
Similarly, another scriptural passage (Pra. Up. IV, % \ 3) de¬ scribes at first (in the words,‘ He does not hear, he does not see,’ &c.) the stateof deep sleep as characterised by the cessa¬ tion of the activity of all bodily organs, and then by declaring that in that state the vital air, with its five modifications, remains awake (‘ The fires of the pranas are awake in that town ’), shows the vital air to occupy the principal position in the state of deep sleep.—That passage also, which speaks of the bliss of the bhuman (‘ The bhuman is bliss,’ Kh. Up. VII, 23), can be reconciled with our explanation, because Pra. Up. IV, 6 declares bliss to attach to the state of deep sleep (‘ Then that god sees no dreams and at that time that happiness arises in his body ’).—Again, the statement, ‘The bhuman is immortality’ ( Kh. Up. VII, 34, 1), may 1 As might be the prima facie conclusion from the particle ‘ but '* introducing the sentence ‘ but he in reality/ &c.
M 2 likewise refer to the vital air; for another scriptural passage says, ‘Pra;za is immortality’ (Kau. Up. Ill, %).—But how can the view according to which the bhuman is the vital air be reconciled with the fact that in the beginning of the chapter the knowledge of the Self is represented as the general topic (‘ He who knows the Self overcomes grief, 5 &c.)? —By the Self there referred to, the purvapakshin replies, nothing else is meant but the vital air. For the passage, ‘ The vital air is father, the vital air is mother, the vital air is brother, the vital air is sister, the vital air is teacher, the vital air is Brahma/za’ (Kh. Up. VII, 15, 1), represents the vital air as the Self of everything. As, moreover, the passage, ‘As the spokes of a wheel rest in the nave, so all this rests in prazza,’ declares the pr&zza to be the Self of all—by means of a comparison with the spokes and the nave of a wheel—the prazza may be conceived under the form of bhuman, i. e. plenitude.—Bhuman, therefore, means the vital air.
To this we make the following reply.—Bhuman can mean the highest Self only, not the vital air.—Why?—‘ On account of information being given about it, subsequent to bliss/ The word ‘ bliss 5 (samprasada) means the state of deep sleep, as may be concluded, firstly, from the etymology of the word (‘In it he, i.e. man, is altogether pleased—samprasidati’)—and, secondly, from the fact of samprasada being mentioned in the Brzhadara/zyaka together with the state of dream and the waking state. And as in the state of deep sleep the vital air remains awake, the word ‘ sampra¬ sada 5 is employed in the Sutra to denote the vital air; so that the Sutra means, ‘on account of information being given about the bhuman, subsequently to (the informa¬ tion given about) the vital air/ If the bhuman were the vital air itself, it would be a strange proceeding to make statements about the bhuman in addition to the statements about the vital air. For in the preceding passages also we do not meet, for instance, with a statement about name subsequent to the previous statement about name (i. e. the text does not say ‘ name is more than name ’), but after something has been said about name, a new statement is made about speech, which is something different from name (i. e. the text says, ‘ Speech is more than name ’), and so on up to the statement about vital air, each subsequent state¬ ment referring to something other than the topic of the preceding one. We therefore conclude that the bhuman also, the statement about which follows on the statement about the vital air, is something other than the vital air.— But—it may be objected—we meet here neither with a ques¬ tion, such as, ‘ Is there something more than vital air? 5 nor with an answer, such as, ‘ That and that is more than vital air. 5 How, then, can it be said that the information about the bhuman is given subsequently to the information about the vital air?—Moreover, we see that the circumstance of being an ativ&din, which is exclusively connected with the vital air, is referred to in the subsequent passage (viz. ‘ But in reality he is an ativadin who makes a statement surpassing (the preceding statements) by means of the True’). There is thus no information additional to the information about the vital air.—To this objection we reply that it is impos¬ sible to maintain that the passage last quoted merely con¬ tinues the discussion of the quality of being an ativadin, as con¬ nected with the knowledge of the vital air; since the clause, ‘ He who makes a statement surpassing, &c. by means of the True/ states a specification.—But, the objector resumes, this very statement of a specification may be explained as referring to the vital air. If you ask how, we refer you to an analogous case. If somebody says, ‘ This Agnihotrin speaks the truth,’ the meaning is not that the quality of being an Agnihotrin depends on speaking the truth; that quality rather depends on the (regular performance of the) agnihotra only, and speaking the truth is mentioned merely as a special attribute of that special Agnihotrin. So our passage also (‘ But in reality he is an ativadin who makes a statement, &c. by means of the True’) does not intimate that the quality of being an ativadin depends on speaking the truth, but merely expresses that speaking the truth is a special attribute of him who knows the vital air; while the quality of being an ativadin must be con¬ sidered to depend on the knowledge of the vital air.—This objection we rebut by the remark that it involves an aban¬ donment of the direct meaning of the sacred text. For from the text, as it stands, we understand that the quality of being an ativadin depends on speaking the truth; the sense being: An ativadin is he who is an ativadin by means of the True. The passage does not in any way contain a eulogisation of the knowledge of the vital air. It could be connected with the latter only on the ground of general subject-matter (prakara^a)which would involve an abandonment of the di¬ rect meaning of the text in favour of prakara^a 1 2.—Moreover, the particle but (‘ But in reality he is,’ &c.), whose purport is to separate (what follows) from the subject-matter of what precedes, would not agree (with the pra^a explanation).
The following passage also, f But we must desire to know the True’ (VII, 16), which presupposes a new effort, shows that a new topic is going to be entered upon.—For these reasons we have to consider the statement about the ati¬ vadin in the same light as we should consider the remark— made in a conversation which previously had turned on the praise of those who study one Veda—that he who studies the four Vedas is a great Brahma^a; a remark which we should understand to be laudatory of persons different from those who study one Veda, i.e. of those who study all the four Vedas. Nor is there any reason to assume that a new topic can be introduced in the form of question and answer only; for that the matter propounded forms a new topic is sufficiently clear from the circumstance that no connexion can be established between it and the preceding topic. The succession of topics in the chapter under discussion is as follows: Narada at first listens to the instruction which Sanatkumara gives him about various matters, the last of which is Pra^a, and then becomes silent. Thereupon Sanatkumara explains to him spontaneously (without being 1 It being maintained that the passage referred to is to be viewed in connexion with the general subject-matter of the preceding part of the chapter.
2 And would thus involve a violation of a fundamental principle of the Mima^s^.
asked) that the quality of being an ativadin, if merely based on the knowledge of the vital air—which knowledge has for its object an unreal product,—is devoid of substance, and that he only is an ativddin who is such by means of the True. By the term ‘the True’ there is meant the highest Brahman; for Brahman is the Real, and it is called the ‘ True 5 in another scriptural passage also, viz. Taitt. Up. II, 1, ‘ The True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman.’ Narada, thus enlightened, starts a new line of enquiry (‘Might I, Sir, become an ativadin by the True?’) and Sanatkumara then leads him, by a series of instrumental steps, beginning with understanding, up to the knowledge of bhuman. We therefrom conclude that the bhuman is that very True whose explanation had been promised in addition to the (knowledge of the) vital air. We thus see that the instruction about the bhuman is additional to the instruction about the vital air, and bhuman must therefore mean the highest Self, which is different from the vital air. With this interpretation the initial statement, according to which the enquiry into the Self forms the general subjectmatter, agrees perfectly well. The assumption, on the other hand (made by the purvapakshin), that by the Self we have here to understand the vital air is indefensible.
For, in the first place, Self-hood does not belong to the vital air in any non-figurative sense. In the second place, cessation of grief cannot take place apart from the knowledge of the highest Self; for, as another scriptural passage declares, ‘There is no other path to go’ (SVet. Up. VI, 15). Moreover, after we have read at the outset, ‘ Do, Sir, lead me over to the other side of grief’ ( Kh. Up. VII, 1, 3), we meet with the following concluding words (VII, 26, 2), ‘ To him, after his faults had been rubbed out, the venerable Sanatkumara showed the other side of darkness.’ The term ‘ darkness ’ here denotes Nescience, the cause of grief, and so on.—Moreover, if the instruction terminated with the vital air, it would not be said of the latter that it rests on something else. But the brahma^a (Kk. Up. VII, 26, 1) does say, ‘The vital air springs from the Self.’ Nor can it be objected against this last argument that the concluding vedanta-s6tras.
part of the chapter may refer to the highest Self, while, all the same, the bhuman (mentioned in an earlier part of the chapter) may be the vital air. For, from the passage (VII, 24, 1), (‘ Sir, in what does the bhuman rest? In its own greatness,’ &c.), it appears that the bhuman forms the con¬ tinuous topic up to the end of the chapter.—The quality of being the bhuman — which quality is plenitude — agrees, moreover, best with the highest Self, which is the cause of everything.
9. And on account of the agreement of the attributes (mentioned in the text).
The attributes, moreover, which the sacred text ascribes to the bhuman agree well with the highest Self. The passage, £ Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is the bhuman,’ gives us to understand that in the bhuman the ordinary activities of seeing and so on are absent; and that this is characteristic of the highest Self, we know from another scriptural passage, viz. £ But when the Self only is all this, how should he see another? ’ &c. (B ri, Up. IV, 5,15). What is said about the absence of the activities of seeing and so on in the state of deep sleep (Pra. Up. IV, 2) is said with the intention of declaring the non-attachedness of the Self, not of describing the nature of the pra/za; for the highest Self (not the vital air) is the topic of that passage. The bliss also of which Scripture speaks as connected with that state is mentioned only in order to show that bliss constitutes the nature of the Self. For Scripture says (B ri, Up. IV, 3, 32), £ This is his highest bliss. All other creatures live on a small por¬ tion of that bliss.’—The passage under discussion also ( £ The bhuman is bliss. There is no bliss in that which is little (limited). The bhuman only is bliss ’) by denying the reality of bliss on the part of whatever is perishable shows that Brahman only is bliss as bhuman, i. e. in its plenitude.—Again, the passage, £ The bhuman is immor¬ tality,’ shows that the highest cause is meant; for the immortality of all effected things is a merely relative one, I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, IO.
and another scriptural passage says that ‘ whatever is different from that (Brahman) is perishable ’ ( Bri. Up. Ill, 4, 3). —Similarly, the qualities of being the True, and of resting in its own greatness, and of being omnipresent, and of being the Self of everything which the text mentions (as belonging to the bhuman) can belong to the highest Self only, not to anything else.—By all this it is proved that the bhuman is the highest Self.
10. The Imperishable (is Brahman) on account of (its) supporting (all things) up to ether.
We read (Bri. Up. Ill, 8, 7; 8), ‘ In what then is the ether woven, like warp and woof?—He said: O G&rgi, the Br^hma^as call this the akshara (the Imperishable). It is neither coarse nor fine, 5 and so on.—Here the doubt arises whether the word ‘ akshara 5 means ‘ syllable 5 or ‘the highest Lord/ The purvapakshin maintains that the word ‘akshara’ means ‘ syllable 5 merely, because it has, in such terms as akshara-samamnaya, the meaning of ‘ syllable; ’ because we have no right to disregard the settled meaning of a word; and because another scriptural passage also (‘ The syllable Om is all this,’ Kh. Up. II, 23,4) declares a syllable, repre¬ sented as the object of devotion, to be the Self of all.
To this we reply that the highest Self only is denoted by the word ‘akshara.’—Why?—Because it (the akshara) is said to support the entire aggregate of effects, from earth up to ether. For the sacred text declares at first that the entire aggregate of effects beginning with earth and differ¬ entiated by threefold time is based on ether, in which it is ‘ woven like warp and woof; ’ leads then (by means of the question, ‘ In what then is the ether woven, like warp and woof? ’) over to the akshara, and, finally, concludes with the words, ‘ In that akshara then, O G&rgi, the ether is woven, like warp and woof.’—Now the attribute of supporting everything up to ether cannot be ascribed to any being but Brahman. The text (quoted from the Kh. Up.) says indeed that the syllable Om is all this, but that statement YEDANTA-SUTRAS.
is to be understood as a mere glorification of the syllable Om considered as a means to obtain Brahman.—Therefore we take akshara to mean either c the Imperishable’ or 4 that which pervades; ’ on the ground of either of which explana¬ tions it must be identified with the highest Brahman.
But—our opponent resumes—while we must admit that the above reasoning holds good so far that the circum¬ stance of the akshara supporting all things up to ether is to be accepted as a proof of all effects depending on a cause, we point out that it may be employed by those also who declare the pradh&na to be the general cause. How then does the previous argumentation specially establish Brah¬ man (to the exclusion of the pradMna)?—The reply to this is given in the next Sutra.
11. This (supporting can), on account of the command (attributed to the Imperishable, be the work of the highest Lord only).
The supporting of all things up to ether is the work of the highest Lord only.—Why?—On account of the command.— For the sacred text speaks of a command (; By the command of that akshara, O G&rgt,sunand moon stand apart!’ 111,8,9), and command can be the work of the highest Lord only, not of the non-intelligent pradh&na. For non-intelligent causes such as clay and the like are not capable of command, with reference to their effects, such as jars and the like.
12. And on account of (Scripture) separating (the akshara) from that whose nature is different (from Brahman).
Also on account of the reason stated in this Sutra Brahman only is to be considered as the Imperishable, and the supporting of all things up to ether is to be looked upon as the work of Brahman only, not of anything else. The meaning of the Sutra is as follows. Whatever things other than Brahman might possibly be thought to be denoted by the term c akshara, 5 from the nature of all those things Scripture separates the akshara spoken of as the support of all things up to ether. The scriptural passage alluded to is III, 8, 11, ‘That akshara, 0 G&rgi, is unseen but seeing, unheard but hearing, unperceived but perceiving, unknown but knowing/ Here the designation of being unseen, &c. agrees indeed with the pradMna also, but not so the designation of seeing, &c., as the pradMna is nonintelligent.—Nor can the word akshara denote the embodied soul with its limiting conditions, for the passage following on the one quoted declares that there is nothing different from the Self (‘there is nothing that sees but it, nothing that hears but it, nothing that perceives but it, nothing that knows but it ’); and, moreover, limiting conditions are expressly denied (of the akshara) in the passage, ‘It is without eyes, without ears, without speech, without mind,’ &c. (Ill, 8, 8). An embodied soul without limiting con¬ ditions does not exist 1.—It is therefore certain beyond doubt that the Imperishable is nothing else but the highest Brahman.
13. On account of his being designated as the object of sight (the highest Self is meant, and) the same (is meant in the passage speaking of the medi¬ tation on the highest person by means of the syllable Om).
(In Pra. Up. V, 2) the general topic of discussion is set forth in the words, ‘ O Satyakctma, the syllable Om is the highest and also the other Brahman; therefore he who knows it arrives by the same means at one of the two.’ The text then goes on, ‘ Again, he who meditates with this syllable Om of three matras on the highest Person,’ &c.— Here the doubt presents itself, whether the object of medi¬ tation referred to in the latter passage is the highest Brahman or the other Brahman; a doubt based on the former pas¬ sage, according to which both are under discussion.
The purvapakshin maintains that the other, i. e. the lower 1 A remark directed against the possible attempt to explain the passage last quoted as referring to the embodied soul.
Brahman, is referred to, because the text promises only a reward limited by a certain locality for him who knows it. For, as the highest Brahman is omnipresent, it would be inappropriate to assume that he who knows it obtains a fruit limited by a certain locality. The objection that, if the lower Brahman were understood, there would be no room for the qualification, c the highest person/ is not valid, because the vital principle (prazza) may be called 4 higher 5 with reference to the body l.
To this we make the following reply: What is here taught as the object of meditation is the highest Brahman only. —Why?—On account of its being spoken of as the object of sight. For the person to be meditated upon is, in a com¬ plementary passage, spoken of as the object of the act of seeing, 4 He sees the person dwelling in the castle (of the body; purusham pumayam), higher than that one who is of the shape of the individual soul, and who is himself higher (than the senses and their objects). 5 Now, of an act of meditation an unreal thing also can be the object, as, for instance, the merely imaginary object of a wish. But of the act of seeing, real things only are the objects, as we know from experience; we therefore conclude, that in the passage last quoted, the highest (only real) Self which corresponds to the mental act of complete intuition 2 is spoken of as the object of sight. This same highest Self we recognise in the passage under discussion as the object of meditation, in conse¬ quence of the term, 4 the highest person. 5 —But—an objection will be raised—as the object of meditation we have the highest person, and as the object of sight the person higher than that one who is himself higher, &c.; how, then, are we to know that those two are identical?—The two passages, we 1 Ymd&h sthulo deha^, prazza^z sutratma. Ananda Giri.—The lower Brahman (hirazzyagarbha on sutratman) is the vital principle (prazza) in all creatures.