2 Sazzzyagdanana, i.e. complete seeing or intuition; the same term which in other places—where it is not requisite to insist on the idea of 4 seeing ' in contradistinction from 4 reflecting 5 or 4 medi¬ tating'— is rendered by perfect knowledge.
reply, have in common the terms c highest ’ (or £ higher/ para) and £ person/ And it must not by any means be supposed that the term ^ivaghana 1 refers to that highest person which, considered as the object of meditation, had previously been introduced as the general topic. For the consequence of that supposition would be that that highest person which is the object of sight would be different from that highest person which is represented as the object of meditation. We rather have to explain the word ^ivaghana as £ He whose shape 2 is characterised by the ^ivas so that what is really meant by that term is that limited condition of the highest Self which is owing to its adjuncts, and manifests itself in the form of^ivas, i. e. individual souls; a condition analogous to the limitation of salt (in general) by means of the mass of a particular lump of salt. That limited condition of the Self may itself be called ‘higher/ if viewed with regard to the senses and their objects.
Another (commentator) says that we have to understand by the word ‘^ivaghana ’ the world of Brahman spoken of in the preceding sentence ( £ by the Saman verses he is led up to the world of Brahman ’), and again in the following sentence (v. 7), which may be called c higher/ because it is higher than the other worlds. That world of Brahman may be called ^ivaghana because all individual souls (^iva j with their organs of action may be viewed as comprised (sanghata = ghana) within Hira/zyagarbha, who is the Self of all organs, and dwells in the Brahma-world. We thus understand that he who is higher than that ^ivaghana, i. e. the highest Self, which constitutes the object of sight, also constitutes the object of meditation. The qualification, moreover, ex¬ pressed in the term £ the highest person’ is in its place only if we understand the highest Self to be meant. For the name, £ the highest person/ can be given only to the highest Self, higher than which there is nothing. So another scriptural passage also says, ‘ Higher than the person there is nothing—this is the goal, the highest road.’ Hence the 1 Translated above by * of the shape of the individual soul/ sacred text, which at first distinguishes between the higher and the lower Brahman (‘ the syllable Om is the higher and the lower Brahman’), and afterwards speaks of the highest Person to be meditated upon by means of the syllable Om, gives us to understand that the highest Person is nothing else but the highest Brahman. That the highest Self constitutes the object of meditation, is moreover intimated by the passage declaring that release from evil is the fruit (of medita¬ tion), ‘ As a snake is freed from its skin, so is he freed from evil.’—With reference to the objection that a fruit confined to a certain place is not an appropriate reward for him who meditates on the highest Self, we finally remark that the objection is removed, if we understand the passage to refer to emancipation by degrees. He who meditates on the highest Self by means of the syllable Om, as consisting of three matras, obtains for his (first) reward the world of Brahman, and after that, gradually, complete intuition.
14. The small (ether) (is Brahman) on account of the subsequent (arguments).
We read (Kh. Up. VIII, 1,1), ‘ There is this city of Brah¬ man, and in it the palace, the small lotus, and in it that small ether. Now what exists within that small ether that is to be sought for, that is to be understood,’ &c.—Here the doubt arises whether the small ether within the small lotus of the heart of which Scripture speaks, is the elemental ether, or the individual soul (vi^Tzanatman), or the highest Self. This doubt is caused by the words ‘ ether ’ and ‘ city of Brahman.’ For the word ‘ ether,’ in the first place, is known to be used in the sense of elemental ether as well as of highest Brahman. Hence the doubt whether the small ether of the text be the elemental ether or the highest ether, i. e. Brahman. In explanation of the expression ‘ city of Brahman,’ in the second place, it might be said either that the individual soul is here called Brahman and the body Brahman’s city, or else that the city of Brahman means the city of the highest Brahman. Here (i. e. in con¬ sequence of this latter doubt) a further doubt arises as to the nature of the small ether, according as the individual soul or the highest Self is understood by the Lord of the city.
The purvapakshin maintains that by the small ether we have to understand the elemental ether, since the latter meaning is the conventional one of the word aka^a. The elemental ether is here called small with reference to its small abode (the heart).—In the passage, ‘As large as this ether is, so large is that ether within the heart,’ it is repre¬ sented as constituting at the same time the two terms of a comparison, because it is possible to make a distinction between the outer and the inner ether 1; and it is said that ‘heaven and earth are contained within it,’ because the whole ether, in so far as it is space, is one 2.—Or else, the purva¬ pakshin continues, the ‘ small one ’ may be taken to mean the individual soul, on account of the term, ‘the city of Brahman.’ The body is here called the city of Brahman because it is the abode of the individual soul; for it is acquired by means of the actions of the soul. On this interpretation we must assume that the individual soul is here called Brahman metaphorically. The highest Brahman cannot be meant, because it is not connected with the body as its lord. The lord of the city, i. e. the soul, is represented as dwelling in one spot of the city (viz. the heart), just as a real king resides in one spot of his residence. Moreover, the mind (manas) constitutes the limiting adjunct of the indi¬ vidual soul, and the mind chiefly abides in the heart; hence the individual soul only can be spoken of as dwelling in the heart. Further, the individual soul only can be spoken of as small, since it is (elsewhere; vSVet. Up. V, 8) compared in size to the point of a goad. That it is com¬ pared (in the passage under discussion) to the ether must be understood to intimate its non-difference from Brahman.— 1 So that the interpretation of the purvapakshin cannot be objected to on the ground of its involving the comparison of a thing to itself.
2 So that no objection can be raised on the ground that heaven and earth cannot be contained in the small ether of the heart.
Nor does the scriptural passage say that the 4 small ’ one is to be sought for and to be understood, since in the clause, £ That which is within that,’ &c., it is represented as a mere distinguishing attribute of something else \ To all this we make the following reply:—The small ether can mean the highest Lord only, not either the elemental ether or the individual soul.—Why?—On account of the subsequent reasons, i. e. on account of the reasons implied in the complementary passage. For there, the text declares at first, with reference to the small ether, which is enjoined as the object of sight, 4 If they should say to him/ &c.; thereupon follows an objection, £ What is there that deserves to be sought for or that is to be understood? ’ and thereon a final decisive statement, £ Then he should say: As large as this ether is, so large is that ether within the heart.
Both heaven and earth are contained within it/ Here the teacher, availing himself of the comparison of the ether within the heart with the known (universal) ether, precludes the conception that the ether within the heart is small— which conception is based on the statement as to the smallness of the lotus, i. e. the heart—and thereby precludes the pos¬ sibility of our understanding by the term £ the small ether/ the elemental ether. For, although the ordinary use of language gives to the word £ ether ’ the sense of elemental ether, here the elemental ether cannot be thought of, because it cannot possibly be compared with itself.—But, has it not been stated above, that the ether, although one only, may be compared with itself, in consequence of an assumed dif¬ ference between the outer and the inner ether?—That explanation, we reply, is impossible; for we cannot admit that a comparison of a thing with itself may be based upon a merely imaginary difference. And even if we admitted 1 Viz. of that which is within it. Ananda Giri proposes two explanations: na £eti, paravhesha^atvenety atra paro daharak&ra upadanat tasminn iti saptamyanta-ta^Mabdasyeti jesha^. Yadva para^abdo * nta^sthavastuvishayas tadvuesha^atvena tasminn iti daharaka^asyokter ity artha^. Ta^Mabdasya samnikrzsh/anvayayoge viprakr/sh/anvayasya g-aghanyatvad ak&rantargataz# dhyeyam iti bhava^.
I 77 the possibility of such a comparison, the extent of the outer ether could never be ascribed to the limited inner ether. Should it be said that to the highest Lord also the extent of the (outer) ether cannot be ascribed, since another scriptural passage declares that he is greater than ether (6a. Bra. X, 6, 3, 2), we invalidate this objection by the remark, that the passage (comparing the inner ether with the outer ether) has the purport of discarding the idea of smallness (of the inner ether), which is prim a facie established by the smallness of the lotus of the heart in which it is contained, and has not the purport of establishing a certain extent (of the inner ether). If the passage aimed at both, a split of the sen¬ tence 1 would result.—Nor, if we allowed the assumptive difference of the inner and the outer ether, would it be possible to represent that limited portion of the ether which is enclosed in the lotus of the heart, as containing within itself heaven, earth, and so on. Nor can we reconcile with the nature of the elemental ether the qualities of Self-hood, freeness from sin, and so on, (which are ascribed to the £ small 5 ether) in the following passage, £ It is the Self free from sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, of true desires, of true purposes. 5 —Al¬ though the term £ Self 5 (occurring in the passage quoted) may apply to the individual soul, yet other reasons exclude all idea of the individual soul being meant (by the small ether). For it would be impossible to dissociate from the individual soul, which is restricted by limiting conditions and elsewhere compared to the point of a goad, the attri¬ bute of smallness attaching to it, on account of its being enclosed in the lotus of the heart.—Let it then be assumed— our opponent remarks—that the qualities of all-pervadingness, &c. are ascribed to the individual soul with the intention of intimating its non-difference from Brahman.—Well, we reply, if you suppose that the small ether is called allpervading because it is one with Brahman, our own suppo- 1 A vakyabheda—split of the sentence—takes place according to the Mimatfzsa when one and the same sentence contains two new statements which are different.
sition, viz. that the all-pervadingness spoken of is directly predicated of Brahman itself, is the much more simple one.— Concerning the assertion that the term ‘ city of Brahman ’ can only be understood, on the assumption that the indi¬ vidual soul dwells, like a king, in one particular spot of the city of which it is the Lord, we remark that the term is more properly interpreted to mean £ the body in so far as it is the city of the highest Brahman; ’ which interpretation enables us to take the term £ Brahman ’ in its primary sense 1.
The highest Brahman also is connected with the body, for the latter constitutes an abode for the perception of Brah¬ man 2. Other scriptural passages also express the same meaning, so, for instance, Pra. Up. V, 5, £ He sees the highest person dwelling in the city’ (purusha = pumaya), &c., and Bn. Up. II, 5, 18, £ This person (purusha) is in all cities (bodies) the dweller within the city (purisaya).’—Or else (taking brahmapura to mean ^ivapura) we may understand the passage to teach that Brahman is, in the city of the individual soul, near (to the devout worshipper), just as Vishnu is near to us in the *Salagrama-stone.—Moreover, the text (VIII, 1, 6) at first declares the result of works to be perishable ( £ as here on earth whatever has been acquired by works perishes, so perishes whatever is acquired for the next world by good actions/ &c.), and afterwards declares the imperishableness of the results flowing from a knowledge of the small ether, which forms the general sub¬ ject of discussion ( £ those who depart from hence after having discovered the Self and those true desires, for them there is freedom in all worlds’). From this again it is manifest that the small ether is the highest Self.—We now turn to the statement made by the purvapakshin, £ that the sacred text does not represent the small ether as that 1 While the explanation of Brahman by giva, would compel us to assume that the word Brahman secondarily denotes the individual soul.
8 Upalabdher adhish/Mnam brahmawa deha ishyate I Tenasddharawatvena deho brahmaputam bhavet ll Bhamatf.
which is to be sought for and to be understood, because it is mentioned as a distinguishing attribute of something else/and reply as follows: If the (small) ether were not that which is to be sought for and to be understood, the description of the nature of that ether, which is given in the passage ( £ as large as this ether is, so large is that ether within the heart ’), would be devoid of purport.—But—the opponent might say—that descriptive statement also has the purport of setting forth the nature of the thing abiding within (the ether); for the text after having raised an objec¬ tion (in the passage, ‘ And if they should say to him: Now with regard to that city of Brahman and the palace in it, i. e. the small lotus of the heart, and the small ether within the heart, what is there within it that deserves to be sought for or that is to be understood?’) declares, when replying to that objection, that heaven, earth, and so on, are contained within it (the ether), a declaration to which the comparison with the ether forms a mere introduction.—Your reasoning, we reply, is faulty. If it were admitted, it would follow that heaven, earth, &c., which are contained within the small ether, constitute the objects of search and enquiry. But in that case the complementary passage would be out of place. For the text carrying on, as the subject of dis¬ cussion, the ether that is the abode of heaven, earth, &c.— by means of the clauses,‘ In it all desires are contained,’ ‘It is the Self free from sin,’ &c., and the passage, 'But those who depart from hence having discovered the Self, and the true desires' (in which passage the conjunction ‘ and ’ has the purpose of joining the desires to the Self)—declares that the Self as well, which is the abode of the desires, as the desires which abide in the Self, are the objects of know¬ ledge. From this we conclude that in the beginning of the passage also, the small ether abiding within the lotus of the heart, together with whatever is contained within it as earth, true desires, and so on, is represented as the object of knowledge. And, for the reasons explained, that ether is the highest Lord.
15. (The small ether is Brahman) on account of N 2 i So the action of going (into Brahman) and of the word (brahmaloka); for thus it is seen (i. e. that the indi¬ vidual souls go into Brahman is seen elsewhere in Scripture); and (this going of the souls into Brahman constitutes) an inferential sign (by means of which we may properly interpret the word ‘ brahmaloka').
It has been declared (in the preceding Sutra) that the small (ether) is the highest Lord, on account of the reasons contained in the subsequent passages. These subsequent reasons are now set forth.—For this reason also the small (ether) can be the highest Lord only, because the passage complementary to the passage concerning the small (ether) contains a mention of going and a word, both of which intimate the highest Lord. In the first place, we read ( Kh. Up. VIII, 3, a), c All these creatures, day after day going into that Brahma-world, do not discover it/ This passage which refers back, by means of the word c Brahma-world/ to the small ether which forms the general subject-matter, speaks of the going to it of the creatures, i. e. the individual souls, wherefrom we conclude that the small (ether) is Brahman. For this going of the individual souls into Brahman, which takes place day after day in the state of deep sleep, is seen, i. e. is met with in another scriptural passage, viz. Kh. Up. VI, 8, 1, c He becomes united with the True, 5 &c. In ordinary life also we say of a man who lies in deep sleep, ‘ he has become Brahman/ c he is gone into the state of Brahman/—In the second place, the word c Brahma-world, 5 which is here applied to the small (ether) under discussion, excludes all thought of the individual soul or the elemental ether, and thus gives us to understand that the small (ether) is Brahman. — But could not the word ‘ Brahma-world 5 convey as well the idea of the world of him whose throne is the lotus 1?—It might do so indeed, if we explained the compound ‘ Brahma-world 5 as c the world of Brahman/ But if we explain it on the ground of the co¬ ordination of both members of the compound—so that 1 I. e. Brahma, the lower Brahman.
‘ Brahma-world ’ denotes that world which is Brahman— then it conveys the idea of the highest Brahman only.— And that daily going (of the souls) into Brahman (mentioned above) is, moreover, an inferential sign for explaining the compound ‘ Brahma-world,’ on the ground of the co-ordina¬ tion of its two constituent members. For it would be impossible to assume that all those creatures daily go into the world of the effected (lower) Brahman; which world is commonly called the Satyaloka, i. e. the world of the True.
16. And on account of the supporting also (attri¬ buted to it), (the small ether must be the Lord) because that greatness is observed in him (accord¬ ing to other scriptural passages).
And also on account of the £ supporting ’ the small ether can be the highest Lord only.— How?—The text at first introduces the general subject of discussion in the passage, ‘ In it is that small ether; 5 declares thereupon that the small one is to be compared with the universal ether, and that everything is contained in it; subsequently applies to it the term ‘ Self,’ and states it to possess the qualities of being free from sin, &c.; and, finally, declares with reference to the same general subject of discussion, ‘ That Self is a bank, a limitary support (vidhrzti), that these worlds may not be confounded.’ As ‘ support 5 is here predicated of the Self, we have to understand by it a supporting agent. Just as a dam stems the spreading water so that the boundaries of the fields are not confounded, so that Self acts like a limitary dam in order that these outer and inner worlds, and all the different castes and Isramas may not be confounded. In accordance with this our text declares that greatness, which is shown in the act of holding asunder, to belong to the small (ether) which forms the subject of discussion; and that such greatness is found in the highest Lord only, is seen from other scriptural passages, such as ‘ By the command of that Imperishable, O Gargt, sun and moon are held apart’ (Bn. Up. Ill, 8, 9). Similarly, we read in another passage also, about whose referring to the highest Lord there is no doubt, ‘ He is the Lord of all, the king of all things, the protector of all things. He is a bank and a limitary support, so that these worlds may not be con¬ founded’ (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 2,2). —Hence, on account of the ‘supporting,’also the small (ether) is nothing else but the highest Lord.
17. And on account of the settled meaning.
The small ether within cannot denote anything but the highest Lord for this reason also, that the word ‘ether’ has (among other meanings) the settled meaning of ‘ highest Lord.’ Compare, for instance, the sense in which the word ‘ ether ’ is used in Kh. Up. VIII, 14, ‘He who is called ether is the revealer of all forms and names;’ and Kh. Up. I, 9, 1, ‘All these beings take their rise from the ether,’ &c. On the other hand, we do not meet with any passage in which the word ‘ ether ’ is used in the sense of ‘ individual soul.’ —We have already shown that the word cannot, in our passage, denote the elemental ether; for, although the word certainly has that settled meaning, it cannot have it here, because the elemental ether cannot possibly be com¬ pared to itself, &c. &c.
18. If it be said that the other one (i. e. the indi¬ vidual soul) (is meant) on account of a reference to it (made in a complementary passage), (we say) no, on account of the impossibility.
If the small (ether) is to be explained as the highest Lord on account of a complementary passage, then, the purvapakshin resumes, we point out that another complementary passage contains a reference to the other one, i. e. to the individual soul: ‘Now that serene being (literally: serenity, complete satisfaction), which after having risen out from this earthly body and having reached the highest light, appears in its true form, that is, the Self; thus he spoke ’ {Kh. Up. VIII, 3,4). For there the word ‘serenity,’ which is known to denote, in another scriptural passage, the state of deep sleep, can convey the idea of the individual soul only when it is in that state, not of anything else. The ‘ rising from the body 5 also can be predicated of the individual soul only whose abode the body is; just as air, &c., whose abode is the ether, are said to arise from the ether. And just as the word ‘ ether/ although in ordinary language not denoting the highest Lord, yet is admitted to denote him in such passages as,‘ The ether is the revealer of forms and names/ because it there occurs in conjunction with qualities of the highest Lord, so it may likewise denote the individual soul. Hence the term ‘ the small ether 5 denotes in the passage under discussion the individual soul, ‘on account of the reference to the other/ Not so, we reply, ( on account of the impossibility/ In the first place, the individual soul, which imagines itself to be limited by the internal organ and its other adjuncts, can¬ not be compared with the ether. And, in the second place, attributes such as freedom from evil, and the like, cannot be ascribed to a being which erroneously transfers to itself the attributes of its limiting adjuncts. This has already been set forth in the first Sutra of the present adhikara^a, and is again mentioned here in order to remove all doubt as to the soul being different from the highest Self. That the reference pointed out by the purvapakshin is not to the individual soul will, moreover, be shown in one of the next Sutras (I, 3, 31).
19. If it be said that from the subsequent (chapter it appears that the individual soul is meant), (we point out that what is there referred to is) rather (the individual soul in so far) as its true nature has become manifest (i. e. as it is non-different from Brahman).
The doubt whether, * on account of the reference to the other,’ the individual soul might not possibly be meant, has been discarded on the ground of ‘impossibility/ But, like a dead man on whom amrzta has been sprinkled, that doubt rises again, drawing new strength from the subsequent chapter which treats of Pra^clpati. For there he (Pra^ 4 pati) at the outset declares that the Self, which is free from sin and the like, is that which is to be searched out, that which we must try to understand ( Kh. Up. VIII, 7, 1); after that he points out that the seer within the eye, i. e. the individual soul, is the Self (‘ that person that is seen in the eye is the Self,’ VIII, 7, 3); refers again and again to the same entity (in the clauses ‘I shall explain him further to you/ VIII, 9, 3; VIII, 10, 4); and (in the explanations fulfilling the given promises) again explains the (nature of the) same individual soul in its different states (‘He who moves about happy in dreams is the Self/ VIII, 10, 1; ‘When a man being asleep, reposing, and at perfect rest sees no dreams, that is the Self/ VIII, 11, 1). The clause attached to both these explanations (viz. ‘ That is the immortal, the fearless; that is Brahman ’) shows, at the same time, the individual soul to be free from sin, and the like. After that Pra^apati, having discovered a shortcoming in the condition of deep sleep (in consequence of the expostulation of Indra,‘ In that way he does not know himself that he is I, nor does he know these beings/ VIII, 11, 2), enters on a further expla¬ nation (‘ I shall explain him further to you, and nothing more than this ’), begins by blaming the (soul’s) connexion with the body, and finally declares the individual soul, when it has risen from the body, to be the highest person. (‘ Thus does that serene being, arising from this body, appear in its own form as soon as it has approached the highest light. That is the highest person.’)—From this it appears that there is a possibility of the qualities of the highest Lord belonging to the individual soul also, and on that account we maintain that the term,‘ the small ether within it/ refers to the individual soul.
This position we counter-argue as follows. ‘ But in so far as its nature has become manifest. 5 The particle ‘ but 5 (in the Sutra) is meant to set aside the view of the purvapakshin, so that the sense of the Sutra is, ‘Not even on account of the subsequent chapter a doubt as to the small ether being the individual soul is possible, because there also that which is meant to be intimated is the individual soul, in so far only as its (true) nature has become manifest. 5 The Sutra uses the expression ‘ he whose nature has become manifest/