Adhik. XX (33) teaches that the negative attributes of Brahman mentioned in some vidyas—such as its being not gross, not subtle, &c.—are to be included in all meditations on Brahman.—Adhik. XXI (34) determines that Ka/fe Up. Ill, 1, and Mu. Up. Ill, 1, constitute one vidya only, because both passages refer to the highest Brahman. According to Ramanuja the Sfitra contains a reply to an objection raised against the conclusion arrived at in the preceding Sutra.—Adhik. XXII (35, 36) maintains that the two passages, Bri. Up. Ill, 4 and III, 5, constitute one vidya only, the object of knowledge being in both cases Brahman viewed as the inner Self of all.—Adhik. XXIII (37) on the contrary decides that the passage Ait. Ar. II, 2, 4, 6 con¬ stitutes not one but two meditations.—Adhik. XXIV (38) again determines that the vidyi of the True contained in Bri. Up. V, 4, 5, is one only.—According to Rimanu^a, INTRODUCTION/ Sfitras 35-38 constitute one adhikara^a only whose subject is the same as that of XXII according to Sankara.
Adhik. XXV (39) proves that the passages Kh. Up. VIII, 1 and Bri. Up. IV, 4, 22 cannot constitute one vidya, since the former refers to Brahman as possessing qualities, while the latter is concerned with Brahman as destitute of qualities.—Adhik. XXVI (40, 41) treats, according to.San¬ kara, of a minor question connected with Kh. Up. V, 11 ff. —According to the.Srt-bhashya, Sutras 39-41 form one adhikara^a whose first Sfitra reaches essentially the same conclusion as.Sankara under 39. Sutras 40, 41 thereupon discuss a general question concerning the meditations on Brahman. The qualities, an opponent is supposed to re¬ mark, which in the two passages discussed are predicated of Brahman—such as va^itva, satyakamatva, &c.—cannot be considered real (paramarthika), since other passages (sa esha neti neti, and the like) declare Brahman to be devoid of all qualities. Hence those qualities cannot be admitted into meditations whose purpose is final release.—To this objec¬ tion Stitra 40 replies, ‘(Those qualities) are not to be left out (from the meditations on Brahman), since (in the passages under discussion as well as in other passages) they are stated with emphasis 1 /—But, another objection is raised, Scrip¬ ture says that he who meditates on Brahman as satyakama, &c. obtains a mere perishable reward, viz. the world of the fathers, and similar results specified in Kh. Up. VIII, 2; hence, he who is desirous of final release, must not include those qualities of Brahman in his meditation.—To this ob¬ jection Sutra 41 replies, ‘Because that (i.e. the free roaming in all the worlds, the world of the fathers, &c.) is stated as proceeding therefrom (i. e. the approach to Brahman which is final release) in the case of (the soul) which has approached Brahman;' (therefore a person desirous of release, may include satyakamatva, &c. in his meditations.)
1 Ramanuja has here some strong remarks on the improbability of qualities emphatically attributed to Brahman, in more than one passage, having to be set aside in any meditation: ‘ Na £a matapitWsahasrebhyo s pi vatsalataraw jastraw pratarakavad aparamarthikau nirasaniyau guwau pramawantarapratipannau adarewopadlrya sawsara^akraparivartanena purvam eva bambhramyam&nan mumukshhn bhftyo * pi bhramayitum alam,’ Ixxiv Adhik. XXVII (42) decides that those meditations which are connected with certain matters forming constituent parts of sacrificial actions, are not to be considered as perma¬ nently requisite parts of the latter.—Adhik. XXVIII (43) teaches that, in a Bri. Up. passage and a similar Kh. Up. passage, Vayu and Pr&;za are not to be identified, but to be held apart.—Adhik. XXIX (44-52) decides that the firealtars made of mind, &c., which are mentioned in the Agnirahasya, do not constitute parts of the sacrificial action (so that the mental, &c. construction of the altar could optionally be substituted for the actual one), but merely subjects of meditations.
Adhik. XXX (53,54) treats, according to.Sankara, in the way of digression, of the question whether to the Self an existence independent of the body can be assigned, or not (as the Materialists maintain).—According to the 5 ri-bh&-shya the adhikara^a does not refer to this wide question, but is concerned with a point more immediately connected with the meditations on Brahman, viz. the question as to the form under which, in those meditations, the Self of the meditating devotee has to be viewed. The two Sutras then have to be translated as follows: ‘ Some (maintain that the soul of the devotee has, in meditations, to be viewed as possessing those attributes only which belong to it in its embodied state, such as gnatritva and the like), because the Self is (at the time of meditation) in the body.* -—The next Sutra rejects this view, ‘ This is not so, but the separatedness (i. e. the pure isolated state in which the Self is at the time of final release when it is freed from all evil, &c.) (is to be transferred to the meditating Self), because that will be 1 the state (of the Self in the condition of final release). 5 Adhik. XXXI (55, 56) decides that meditations connected with constituent elements of the sacrifice, such as the udgitha, are, in spite of difference of svara in the udgitha, &c., valid, not only for that sakha. in which the medita¬ tion actually is met with, but for all Vakhas.—Adhik.
1 The *Sri-bhashya as well as several other commentaries reads tadbh&va* bhavitvat for.Sankara’s tadbhavabhavitvat.
lxxV XXXII (57) decides that the Vabvanara Agni of Kh. Up. V, 11 ff. is to be meditated upon as a whole, not in his single parts.—Adhik. XXXIII (58) teaches that those meditations which refer to one subject, but as distinguished by different qualities, have to be held apart as different meditations. Thus the daharavidya,.Sa/zafilyavidya, &c> remain separate.
Adhik. XXXIV (59) teaches that those meditations on Brahman for which the texts assign one and the same fruit are optional, there being no reason for their being cumu¬ lated.—Adhik. XXXV (60) decides that those meditations, on the other hand, which refer to special wishes may be cumulated or optionally employed according to choice.— Adhik. XXXVI (61-66) extends this conclusion to the meditations connected with constituent elements of action, such as the udgitha.
Pada IV.
Pada IV.
Adhik. I (1-17) proves that the knowledge of Brahman is not kratvartha, i. e. subordinate to action, but indepen¬ dent.—Adhik. II (18-20) confirms this conclusion by show¬ ing that the state of the pravra^ins is enjoined by the sacred law, and that for them vidyd only is prescribed, not action.—Adhik. Ill (21, 22) decides that certain clauses forming part of vidyas are not mere stutis (arthavadas), but themselves enjoin the meditation.—The legends recorded in the Vedanta-texts are not to be used as subordinate members of acts, but have the purpose of glorifying—as arthavadas—the injunctions with which they are connected (Adhik. IV, 23, 24).—For all these reasons the urdhvaretasa^ require no actions but only knowledge (Adhik. V, 25).—Nevertheless the actions enjoined by Scripture, such as sacrifices, conduct of certain kinds, &c., are required as conducive to the rise of vidya in the mind (Adhik. VI, 26, 27).—Certain relaxations, allowed by Scripture, of the laws regarding food, are meant only for cases of extreme need (Adhik. VII, 28-31).—The ajramakarmam are obligatory on him also who does not strive after mukti (Adhik. VIII, lxxvi lxxvi 33-35).—Those also who, owing to poverty and so on, are anlsrama have claims to vidyd (Adhik. IX, 36-39).—An tirdhvaretas cannot revoke his vow (Adhik. X, 40).—Ex¬ piation of the fall of an firdhvaretas (Adhik. XI, 41, 42).— Exclusion of the fallen urdhvaretas in certain cases (Adhik. XII, 43).—Those meditations, which are connected with subordinate members of the sacrifice, are the business of the priest, not of the ya^*amana (Adhik. XIII, 44-46).— B ri. Up. Ill, 5, 1 enjoins mauna as a third in addition to balya and pa^ditya (Adhik. XIV, 47-49).—By balya is to be understood a childlike innocent state of mind (Adhik. XV, 50).
Sfitras 51 and 52 discuss, according to Rdmanu^a, the question when the vidya, which is the result of the means described in III, 4, arises. Sutra 51 treats of that vidyd whose result is mere exaltation (abhyudaya), and states that ‘it takes place in the present life, if there is not present an obstacle in the form of a prabalakarmantara (in which latter case the vidya arises later only), on account of Scripture declaring this (in various passages).’—Sfitra 52, ‘Thus there is also absence of a definite rule as to (the time of origination of) that knowledge whose fruit is release, it being averred concerning that one also that it is in the same condition (i. e. of sometimes having an obstacle, some¬ times not).—.Sankara, w r ho treats the two Sutras as two adhikara^as, agrees as to the explanation of 51, while, putting a somewhat forced interpretation on 52, he makes it out to mean that a more or less is possible only in the case of the sagu^a-vidyds.
FOURTH ADHYAYA, PAda I.
Adhikara^a I (1, 2 ).—The meditation on the Atman enjoined by Scripture is not an act to be accomplished once only, but is to be repeated again and again.
Adhik. II (3).—The devotee engaged in meditation on Brahman is to view it as constituting his own Self.
lxxvii Adhik. Ill (4).—To the rule laid down in the preceding adhikara^a the so-called prattkopasanas, i. e. those medita¬ tions in which Brahman is viewed under a symbol or out¬ ward manifestation (as, for instance, mano brahmety upasita) constitute an exception, i. e. the devotee is not to consider the pratika as constituting his own Self.
Adhik. IV (5).—In the pratikopasanas the pratika is to be meditatively viewed as being one with Brahman, not Brahman as being one with the pratika.—Ramanuja takes Sutra 5 as simply giving a reason for the decision arrived at under Sutra 4, and therefore as not constituting a new adhikara^a.
Adhik. V (6).—In meditations connected with constitutives of sacrificial works (as, for instance, ya evasau tapati tarn udgitham upasita) the idea of the divinity, &c. is to be transferred to the sacrificial item, not vice versa. In the example quoted, for instance, the udgitha is to be viewed as Aditya, not Aditya as the udgitha.
Adhik. VI (7-10).—The devotee is to carry on his medi¬ tations in a sitting posture.—Sankara maintains that this rule does not apply to those meditations whose result is sa^yagdanrana; but the Sutra gives no hint to that effect.
Adhik.VII (11).—The meditations may be carried on at any time, and in any place, favourable to concentration of mind.
Adhik. VIII (12).—The meditations are to be continued until death.—Sankara again maintains that those medita¬ tions which lead to sa^yagdansana are excepted.
Adhik. IX (13).—When through those meditations the knowledge of Brahman has been reached, the vidvan is no longer affected by the consequences of either past or future evil deeds.
Adhik. X (14).—Good deeds likewise lose their efficiency. —The literal translation of the Sutra is, ‘ There is likewise non-attachment (to the vidvan) of the other (i.e. of the deeds other than the evil ones, i.e. of good deeds), but on the fall (of the body, i.e. when death takes place)/ The last words of the Sfitra, ‘ but on the fall,’ are separated by Sankara from the preceding part of the Sutra and interpreted to mean, ‘ when death takes place (there results mukti of lxxviii vedanta-s£jtras.
the vidvan, who through his knowledge has freed himself from the bonds of works).’-—According to R 4 m 4 nu^*a the whole Sutra simply means, ‘ There is likewise non-attach¬ ment of good deeds (not at once when knowledge is reached), but on the death of the vidvan V Adhik. XI (15).—The non-operation of works stated in the two preceding adhikara/zas holds good only in the case of anclrabdhakcirya works, i. e. those works which have not yet begun to produce their effects, while it does not extend to the arabdhak^rya works on which the present existence of the devotee depends.
Adhik. XII (16, 17).—From the rule enunciated in Adhik. X are excepted such sacrificial performances as are enjoined permanently (nitya): so, for instance, the agnihotra, for they promote the origination of knowledge.
Adhik. XIII (18).—The origination of knowledge is promoted also by such sacrificial works as are not accom¬ panied with the knowledge of the upasanas referring to the different members of those works.
Adhik. XIV (19).—The arabdhakarya works have to be worked out fully by the fruition of their effects; whereupon the vidvan becomes united with Brahman.—The £ bhoga ’ of the Sutra is, according to vSankara, restricted to the present existence of the devotee, since the complete know¬ ledge obtained by him destroys the nescience which other¬ wise would lead to future embodiments. According to Ramanuja a number of embodied existences may have to be gone through before the effects of the ctrabdhakarya works are exhausted.
Pada II.
This and the two remaining padas of the fourth adhyaya describe the fate of the vidvan after death. According to vSankara we have to distinguish the vidvan who possesses the highest knowledge, viz. that he is one with the highest 1 Nanu vidushoxpi setikartavyatakopasananirvrzttaye vri’sh/yannadiphalanishZany eva katha m tesha m virodhad vinajra u^yate. Tatraha pate tv iti. .Sarirapate tu tesha m vin&sa/i j-arirapatad urdhvaw tu vidyanuguwadmhZaphalani sukntani na-ryantity artha h.
lxxix Brahman, and the vidvan who knows only the lower Brah¬ man, and have to refer certain Sutras to the former and others to the latter. According to Rcimanu^a the vidvan is one only.
Adhik. I, II, III (1-6).—On the death of the vidvan (i.e. of him who possesses the lower knowledge, according to .Sankara) his senses are merged in the manas, the manas in the chief vital air (pr&^a), the vital air in the individual soul (^*iva), the soul in the subtle elements.—According to Rclm&nug'a the combination (sampatti) of the senses with the manas, &c. is a mere conjunction (sa^yoga), not a merging (laya).
Adhik. IV (7).—The vidvan (i.e. according to Sankara, he who possesses the lower knowledge) and the avidv&n, i.e. he who does not possess any knowledge of Brahman, pass through the same stages (i.e. those described hitherto) up to the entrance of the soul, together with the subtle elements, and so on into the n&/is.—The vidv&n also remains connected with the subtle elements because he has not yet completely destroyed avidya, so that the immor¬ tality which Scripture ascribes to him (amr/tatva;^ hi vidvan abhyajnute) is only a relative one.—Ramanuja quotes the following text regarding the immortality of the vidvan: c Yada sarve pramu^yante kima ye*sya hr/di sthita^ atha martyo * mrito bhavaty atra brahma samaj-nute/ and explains that the immortality which is here ascribed to the vidvan as soon as he abandons all desires can only mean the destruction—mentioned in the preceding pada— of all the effects of good and evil works, while the ‘ reaching of Brahman ’ can only refer to the intuition of Brahman vouchsafed to the meditating devotee.
Adhik. V (8-i 1) raises, according to Sankara, the ques¬ tion whether the subtle elements of which Scripture says that they are combined with the highest deity (te^*a^ parasyaw devatay&m) are completely merged in the latter or not. The answer is that a complete absorption of the elements takes place only when final emancipation is reached; that, on the other hand, as long as the sa^sara state lasts, the elements, although somehow combined with lxxx Brahman, remain distinct so as to be able to form new bodies for the soul.
According to RAmanu^a the Stitras 8-n do not con¬ stitute a new adhikara«a, but continue the discussion of the point mooted in 7. The immortality there spoken of does not imply the separation of the soul from the body, ‘ because Scripture declares sa#/sara, i. e. embodiedness up to the reaching of Brahman ’ (tasya tdvad eva kiram yivan na vimokshye atha sampatsye) (8).—That the soul after having departed from the gross body is not disconnected from the subtle elements, is also proved hereby, that the subtle body accompanies it, as is observed from authority 1 (9).—Hence the immortality referred to in the scriptural passage quoted is not effected by means of the total destruction of the body (10).
Adhik. VI (13-14) is of special importance.—According to Sankara the Sfttras now turn from the discussion of the departure of him who possesses the lower knowledge only to the consideration of what becomes of him who has reached the higher knowledge. So far it has been taught that in the case of relative immortality (ensuing on the apara vidyd) the subtle elements, together with the senses and so on, depart from the body of the dying devotee; this implies at the same time that they do not depart from the body of the dying sage who knows himself to be one with Brahman.
-—Against this latter implied doctrine Sutra 12 is supposed to formulate an objection. c If it be said that the departure of the pranas from the body of the dying sage is denied (viz. in B ri. Up. IV, 4, 5, na tasya pra^a utkramanti, of him the pr&nas do not pass out); we reply that in that passage the genitive “tasya” has the sense of the ablative “tasmat,” so that the sense of the passage is, “from him, i.e. from the <£*iva of the dying sage, the pranas do not depart, but remain with it.” ’—This objection.Sankara supposes to be disposed of in Sutra 13. ‘By some there is given a clear denial of the departure of the pranas in the case of the 1 Upalabhyate hi devayanena pantha ga^Mato vidushas tam pratibruyat satyam bruyad iti ^andramasa sawvadava^anena jarirasadbhava^, 2X2J1 sukshmajariram anuvartate.
Ixxxi dying sage,’ viz. in the passage B ri. Up. Ill, 2, 11, where Ya^avalkya instructs Artabhaga that, when this man dies, the pranas do not depart from it (asmat; the context showing that asmat means ‘ from it,’ viz. from the body, and not ‘ from him/ viz. the £*iva).—The same view is, moreover, confirmed by Smrzti passages.
According to Rcimanu£*a the three Sutras forming San¬ kara’s sixth adhikara^a do not constitute a new adhikara^a at all, and, moreover, have to be combined into two Sutras. The topic continuing to be discussed is the utkranti of the vidvan. If, Sfttra 12 says, the utkranti of the pranas is not admitted, on the ground of the denial supposed to be contained in Bn. Up. IV, 4, 5 \ the reply is that the sense of the tasya there is ‘ jarirat 5 (so that the passage means, ‘ from him, i. e. the £*iva, the pranas do not depart ’); for this is clearly shown by the reading of some, viz. the Madhyandinas, who, in their text of the passage, do not read ‘ tasya ’ but ‘ tasmat.’—With reference to the instruc¬ tion given by Ya^avalkya to Artabhaga, it is to be remarked that nothing there shows the ‘ ayam purusha * to be the sage who knows Brahman.—And, finally, there are Smrzti passages declaring that the sage also when dying departs from the body.
Adhik. VII and VIII (15,16) teach, according to Sankara, that, on the death of him who possesses the higher know¬ ledge, his pranas, elements, &c. are merged in Brahman, so as to be no longer distinct from it in any way.
According to Ramanuja the two Sutras continue the teaching about the pranas, bhfttas, &c. of the vidvan in general, and declare that they are finally merged in Brah¬ man, not merely in the way of conjunction (sawyoga), but completely 1.
Adhik. IX (17).—Sankara here returns to the owner of the apara vidya, while Ramanuja continues the description of the utkranti of his vidvan.—The £*iva of the dying man 1 When the ^iva has passed out of the body and ascends to the world of Brahman, it remains enveloped by the subtle body until it reaches the river Vi^ara. There it divests itself of the subtle body, and the latter is merged in Brahman.
passes into the heart, and thence departs out of the body by means of the nadis; the vidvan by means of the na d!i called sushum^a, the avidvan by means of some other na d\.
Adhik. X (18, 19).—The departing soul passes up to the sun by means of a ray of light which exists at night as well as during day.
Adhik. XI (20, 21).—Also that vidvan who dies during the dakshb/ayana reaches Brahman.
Pada III.
Adhik. I, II, III (1—3) reconcile the different accounts given in the Upanishads as to the stations of the way which leads the vidvan up to Brahman.
Adhik. IV (4-6).—By the ‘ stations’ we have, however, to understand not only the subdivisions of the way but also the divine beings which lead the soul on.
The remaining part of the pada is by Sankara divided into two adhikara^as. Of these the former one (7—14) teaches that the Brahman to which the departed soul is led by the guardians of the path of the gods is not the highest Brahman, but the effected (karya) or qualified (sagu^a) Brahman. This is the opinion propounded in Sutras 7-11 by Badari, and, finally, accepted by Sankara in his commentary on Sutra 14. In Sutras 12-14 Caimini defends the opposite view, according to which the soul of the vidvan goes to the highest Brahman, not to the karyam brahma. But £aimini’s view, although set forth in the latter part of the adhikara^a, is, according to Sankara, a mere purvapaksha, while Badari’s opinion represents the siddhanta. — The latter of the two adhikara^as (VI of the whole pada; 15, 16) records the opinion of Badaraya^a on a collateral question, viz. whether, or not, all those who worship the effected Brah¬ man are led to it. The decision is that those only are guided to Brahman who have not worshipped it under a pratika form.
According to Ramanuja, Sfitras 7—16 form one adhikara^a only, in which the views of Badari and of Gaimini represent two purvapakshas, while Badaraya^a’s opinion is adopted Ixxxiii as the siddhanta. The question is whether the guardians of the path lead to Brahman only those who worship the effected Brahman, i. e. Hira?/yagarbha, or those who worship the highest Brahman, or those who worship the individual soul as free from Prakrzti, and having Brahman for its Self (ye pratyagatmana/^ prakrztiviyukta;^ brahmatmakam upasate).—The first view is maintained by Badari in Sutra 7, 4 The guardians lead to Brahman those who worship the effected Brahman, because going is possible towards the latter only;’ for no movement can take place towards the highest and as such omnipresent Brahman.—The explana¬ tion of Sfttra 9 is similar to that of.Sankara; but more clearly replies to the objection (that, if Hirazzyagarbha were meant in the passage, 4 purusho*manava^ sa etan brahma gamayati,’ the text would read 4 sa etan brahmazzam gamayati ’) that Hirazzyagarbha is called Brahman on account of his nearness to Brahman, i.e.on account of his prathama^atva.— The explanation of 10, 11 is essentially the same as in.San¬ kara; so also of 12-14.—The siddhanta view is established in Shtra 13, 4 It is the opinion of B&darayazza that it, i. e. the gazza of the guardians, leads to Brahman those who do not take their stand on what is pratika, i. e. those who worship the highest Brahman, and those who meditate on the indi¬ vidual Self as dissociated from prakrzti, and having Brahman for its Self, but not those who worship Brahman under pratikas. For both views—that of Gaimini as well as that of Badari—are faulty.’ The karya view contradicts such passages as 4 asma^ ^arirat samutthaya paraz^ ^yotir upasampadya,’ &c.; the para view, such passages as that in the pazz^agni-vidya, which declares that ya itthazzz vi&uk, i. e. those who know the pa^agni-vidya, are also led up to Brahman.
Pada IV.
Adhik. I (1-3) returns, according to Sankara, to the owner of the para vidya, and teaches that, when on his death his soul obtains final release, it does not acquire any new characteristics, but merely manifests itself in its true nature.—The explanation given by Ramanuja is essentially f 2 lxxxlv the same, but of course refers to that vidvan whose going to Brahman had been described in the preceding pada.
Adhik. II (4) determines that the relation in which the released soul stands to Brahman is that of avibhaga, non¬ separation. This, on Sankara's view, means absolute non¬ separation, identity.—According to Ramanuja the question to be considered is whether the released soul views itself as separate (pmhagbhhta) from Brahman, or as non-separate because being a mode of Brahman. The former view is favoured by those 5 ruti and SnWti passages which speak of the soul as being with, or equal to, Brahman; the latter by such passages as tat tvam asi and the like 1.
Adhik, III (5-7) discusses the characteristics of the re¬ leased soul (i.e. of the truly released soul, according to vSankara). According to Gaimini the released soul, when manifesting itself in its true nature, possesses all those quali¬ ties which i n Kk. Up. VIII, 7,1 and other places are ascribed to Brahman, such as apahatapcipmatva, satyasawkalpatva, &c., alsvarya.—According to Au^ulomi the only character¬ istic of the released soul is ^aitanya.—According to Badarayana the two views can be combined (Garikara remarking that satyasa;/zkalpatva, &c. are ascribed to the released soul vyavaharapekshaya).
Adhik. IV (8-9) returns, according to.Sankara, to the aparct vidya, and discusses the question whether the soul of 1 Kim aya m paraw f ^yotir upasampanna/fc sarvabandhavinirmukta^ pratyagatma svatmanaw paramatmana^ przthagbhutam anubhavati uta tatprakarataya tadavibhaktam iti viraye so*mute sarvan kaman saha brahma^a vipa^ita pajya^ pajyate rukmavamaw kartaram \sam purushaw brahmayoniw tada vidvan purcyapape vidhilya mxafigaaah paramaw samyam upaiti ida m gnanam upamtya mama sadharmyam agatah sarve * pi nopa^ayante pralayena vyathanti ^etyadijrutisnmtibhyo muktasya pare^a sahityasamyasadharmyavagamat prAhagbhdtam anubhavatiti prapte u^yate. Avibhageneti. Parasmad brahmanah svatmanam avibhagenanubhavati mukta^. Kutak. DrzshAitvat. Far am brahmopasampadya nivrzttavidyatirodhanasya yathatathyena svatmano drishfatvat. Svatmana^ svarupaw hi tat tvam asy ayam atma brahma aitadatmyam ida m sarva m sarvaw khalv ida m brahmetyadisamanadhikara^yanirdemi^ ya atmani tishfkan atmano * ntaro yam atma na veda yasyatma sariram ya atmanam antaro yamayati atmantaryamy amnta^ anta h pravishfe/z rnsta ^ananam ityadibhu ka paramatmatmakam ta^^arirataya tatprakarabhutam iti pratipaditam avasthiter iti karakrztsnety atrato * vibhagenahaw brahmasmity evanubhavati.
lxxxv lxxxv the pious effects its desires by its mere determination, or uses some other means. The former alternative is ac¬ cepted.—According to Ramanuja the adhikarawa simply continues the consideration of the state of the released, begun in the preceding adhikarawa. Of the released soul it is said in Kh. Up. VIII, 12, 3 that after it has manifested itself in its true nature it moves about playing and rejoicing with women, carriages, and so on. The question then arises whether it effects all this by its mere sawzkalpa (it having been shown in the preceding adhikarawa that the released soul is, like the Lord, satyasawkalpa), or not. The answer is in favour of the former alternative, on account of the explicit declaration made in Kh. Up.VIII, 2, ‘By his mere will the fathers come to receive him.’
Adhik. V (10-14) decides that the released are embodied or disembodied according to their wish and will.
Adhik. VI (11,12) explains how the soul of the released can animate several bodies at the same time.—Sutra 12 gives, according to Sankara, the additional explanation that those passages which declare the absence of all specific cognition on the part of the released soul do not refer to the partly released soul of the devotee, but either to the soul in the state of deep sleep (svapyaya = sushupti), or to the fully released soul of the sage (sampatti = kaivalya).—R&manu^a explains that the passages speaking of absence of conscious¬ ness refer either to the state of deep sleep, or to the time of dying (sampatti = marawam according to ‘ van manasi sampadyate,’ &c.).
Adhik. VII (17-21).—The released ^ivas participate in all the perfections and powers of the Lord, with the exception of the power of creating and sustaining the world. They do not return to new forms of embodied existence.
After having, in this way, rendered ourselves acquainted with the contents of the Brahma-sutras according to the views of.Sankara as well as Ramanuja, we have now to consider the question which of the two modes of interpretation represents—or at any rate more closely approximates to—the true meaning of the Sutras. That lxxxvl vedanta-sOtras.
few of the Sutras are intelligible if taken by themselves, we have already remarked above; but this does not exclude the possibility of our deciding with a fair degree of cer¬ tainty which of the two interpretations proposed agrees better with the text, at least in a certain number of cases.
We have to note in the first place that, in spite of very numerous discrepancies,—of which only the more important ones have been singled out in the conspectus of contents,— the two commentators are at one as to the general drift of the Sutras and the arrangement of topics. As a rule, the adhikara/zas discuss one or several Vedic passages bearing upon a certain point of the system, and in the vast majority of cases the two commentators agree as to which are the special texts referred to. And, moreover, in a very large number of cases the agreement extends to the interpreta¬ tion to be put on those passages and on the Sutras. This far-reaching agreement certainly tends to inspire us with a certain confidence as to the existence of an old tradition concerning the meaning of the Sutras on which the bulk of the interpretations of Sankara as well as of Ramanuja are based.
But at the same time we have seen that, in a not incon¬ siderable number of cases, the interpretations of Sankara and Ramanuja diverge more or less widely, and that the Sutras affected thereby are, most of them, especially important because bearing on fundamental points of the Vedanta system. The question then remains which of the two interpretations is entitled to preference.
Regarding a small number of Sutras I have already (in the conspectus of contents) given it as my opinion that Ramanuja’s explanation appears to be more worthy of consideration. We meet, in the first place, with a number of cases in which the two commentators agree as to the literal meaning of a Sutra, but where Sankara sees him¬ self reduced to the necessity of supplementing his inter¬ pretation by certain additions and reservations of his own for which the text gives no occasion, while Ramanuja is able to take the Sutra as it stands. To exemplify this remark, I again direct attention to all those Sutras which in lxxxvii clear terms represent the individual soul as something dif¬ ferent from the highest soul, and concerning which.Sankara is each time obliged to have recourse to the plea of the Sfttra referring, not to what is true in the strict sense of the word, but only to what is conventionally looked upon as true. It is, I admit, not altogether impossible that.San¬ kara’s interpretation should represent the real meaning of the Sutras; that the latter, indeed, to use the terms em¬ ployed by Dr. Deussen, should for the nonce set forth an exoteric doctrine adapted to the common notions of man¬ kind, which, however, can be rightly understood by him only to whose mind the esoteric doctrine is all the while present. This is not impossible, I say; but it is a point which requires convincing proofs before it can be allowed.— We have had, in the second place, to note a certain number of adhikarazzas and Sutras concerning whose interpretation.Sankara and Ramanuja disagree altogether; and we have seen that not unfrequently the explanations given by the latter commentator appear to be preferable because falling in more easily with the words of the text. The most striking instance of this is afforded by the 13th adhikarazza of II, 3, which treats of the size of the jiva, and where Ramanuja’s explanation seems to be decidedly superior to Sankaras, both if we look to the arrangement of the whole adhikarazza and to the wording of the single Sutras. The adhikarazza is, moreover, a specially important