SRI-BHASHYA. 157-241 The Brahmavädin Series. THE SRI-BHÂSHYA.PUBLISHED BY M. C. ALASINGAPPERUMAL, B. A.. The “Brahmavadin” Press, TRIPLICANE, MADRAS. THE VEDANTA-SUTRAS WITH THE SRI-BHASHYA OF RAMANUJACHARYA. Translated into English BY M. RANGACHARYA, M.A., AND M. B. VARADARĀJA AIYANGAR, B.A., B.L. VOLUME I. adras: THE “BRAHMAVADIN” PRESS. 1899. (All Rights Reserved.) THIS VOLUME IS DEDICATED TO The Right Honourable Professor F. Max Muller, by the TRANSLATORS in grateful recognition of his valuable services rendered to the cause of Sanskrit Literature. 取卵 2052105PREFACE. HIS is the first of the three volumes in which it is pro- THIS posed to bring out an English translation of Ràmâ. nujacharya’s Sri-Bhashya, his well-known commentary on the Vedanta-Sutras of Badarayana. The Vedanta of India has now fully established its title to occupy a prominent place among the various systems of philosophy known to the world; and one aspect of it commonly called the Adwaita- Vedanta has long been familiar to European scholars, and has even met with fair recognition at their hands. Rāmā- nujacharya’s Sri Bhashya, is an exposition of the Visishta- dwaita aspect thereof, and it well deserves to be quite as widely known and appreciated as the Adwaita-Vedanta of Sankaracharya. The Visishtadwaitins represent a school of Vedantic thought, of which Sankaracharya himself has taken cognisance in his writings, and there is evidence to shew that it must have come down in the form of an un- broken tradition from very ancient times. The Bhagava- tas and Pancharatras, who have obviously played a very im- portant part in the history of Hindu religion, are in all probability the original system-makers of this school, which appears to be as old as the Upanishads themselves. The Upanishads and the Bagavadgita teach both jñana and bhaktı; that is, they teach that both wisdom and worship are capable of forming the means for the attain- ment of salvation. All along in ‘our history some seekers after truth and salvation may be seen to have relied more upon wisdom than upon worship, while others have relied ii more upon worship than upon wisdom. This division in religious thought is truly representative of two dissimilar innate tendencies in human nature, and the Bhāgavatas belong to the latter class. How far the Visishtãdwarta school interprets the Upanishads and the Bagavadgita aright is thus a question to which each earnest student of the Vedanta has to find his own answer. The discussion of the various Vedantic problems dealt with in this volume is so full and so well expressive of the fundamental con- clusions embodied in the Sri-Bhashya that it gives the volume a characteristic completeness, in spite of its being only a part of the whole work. It is therefore expected that students of Indian philosophy and Hindu religion will find this volume to be interesting and instructive. For the purposes of this translation we have consulted three editions of the Sri-Bhashya-the Madras edition printed in Telugu characters, the Benares edition in Deva- nagari characters, and the incomplete Calcutta edition, also in Devanagari characters and published by the Asiatic Society, We have found the Madras edition the most accurate among these, and have accordingly followed it in our trans- lation. The style of the Sri-Bhashya is severely argumen- tative and controversial, and it is also technical and terse. We have, however, tried our best to make the translation smooth and intelligible without any way sacrificing its faithfulness to the original. The additions and alterations needed to make the English rendering full and accurate are all enclosed within curved brackets; and the references to the various quotations and authorities cited in the work are generally given within square brackets, a few of these references being also given in foot-notes. Foot-notes have beer sparingly given, and only in places where it was thought they were absolutely necessary for the elucidation. and proper understanding of the text of the translation. With the object of enabling the readers to make out easily the nature and the relations between the vari- ous parts of the closely reasoned arguments to be found in this volume, we have given in the beginning an analytical outline of the contents of the volume. A table showing our system of transliteration and a list containing the abbreviations used by us are given at the end of the volume. The word atman is used in Sans- krit to denote the Brahman as well as the jiva; hence it has been translated as Self where it denotes the former and as self where it denotes the latter; and the pronouns who and which have been more or less indiscriminately used in relation to both of them. The word karman has been uniformly used in the form of karma, and its plural is given as karmas, as these forms seem to have be- come fairly current in English. The printing work has had to be done somewhat hurriedly, and a few errors have unavoidably crept in. The more serious ones among them are pointed out and corrected in a list of errata appended hereto. We do not know how far our English rendering of the Sri-Bhashya is all that it should be, but we have spared no pains to make it as good as we can. We are well aware that it is capable of much improvement; and yet it may not perhaps be too much to hope that our attempt to present faithfully in English the thoughts of one of India’s great teachers and religious reformers will be productive of sonie good in the way of helping on the world’s appreciation of India’s philosophic integrity and religious earnestness. NOVEMBER, 1899. MADRAS. M. R. M. V. B.CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. PART I. PAGE. i-lxxv. ::: I. 257- 264. … 284. 328. .. 346. 400. 409. … 417. 419. 425. 437. 439.

Analytical outline of contents

دب ج
4.
5.
in
6.
7.
78
8.
9.
Adhikarana
6
""
""
36
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
…
…
10.
""
II.
X.
12.
دو
13.
14.
15.
XI.
List of Abbreviations..
Table of Transliteration
Addenda et Corrigenda.

AN ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME I. In the Introduction to his Vedantadipa Rāmānują summarises the teachings of the Vedanta to the following effect-Of the three ultimate entities known to philosophy, the intelligent individual soul is essentially different from non-intelligent matter; and God, who forms the Supreme Soul of the universe, is absolutely different from the indi- vidual soul. The essential differences thus existing between matter, soul and God are intrinsic and natural. God, who is the same as the Supreme Brahman, is the cause of the universe; and the universe, which is made up of matter and soul, is the effect produced by Him. Matter and soul form the body of God; and this body is capable of exist- ing in a subtle as well as in a gross condition. God with his subtle body constitutes the universe in its causal condi- tion; and with His gross body He forms the created universe itself. The individual soul enters into matter and thereby makes it live; and similarly God enters into matter and soul and gives them their powers and their peculiar characters. The universe without God is exactly analogous to matter without soul; and in the world as we know it, all things are what they are, because God has penetrated into them and rules and guides them all from within, so much so that all things are representative of Him and all words denote Him in the main. The first part of the first chapter of the Vedanta- Sutras of Badarayana deals, says Ramanuja, with the question of what constitutes the cause of the world; and ii ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. this volume contains his commentary on the aphorisms making up that first part. They are intended to demon- strate that the Prakriti (non-ego) and the Purusha (ego) of the Sankhyas do not constitute the cause of the world, but that the cause thereof is the omniscient and omnipot- ent God Himself who is wholly pure and abundantly full of all auspicious qualities. Those aphorisms are as follow:-

Then therefore the enquiry into the Brahman. 2. (The Brahman is that) from whom (proceed) the creation, &c., of this (universe).
(That the Brahman is the cause of the creation, &c., of the universe, follows altogether from the scripture), because the scripture forms the source (of the knowledge relating to Him).
That (viz. the fact that the scripture forms alto- gether the source of the knowledge relating to the Brah- man) results, however, from (His constituting) the true purport (of the scripture).
Because the activity imported by the root iksh (to see i. e. to think) is predicated (in relation to what constitutes the cause of the world), that which is not revealed solely by the scripture (viz. the pradhana) is not (the Sat or the Existence which is referred to in the scrip- tural passage relating to the cause of the world).
If it be said that it (viz. the import of the root iksh, to see) is (here) figurative, (it is maintained that) it cannot be so; because there is the word Atman (or Self mentioned in the context).
Because (also) it is taught (in the context) that he who is firmly devoted to That (viz. the Sat) obtains final release.
Because also it is not declared (in the context) that it (viz. what is denoted by the word Sat or Existence) ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. deserves to be discarded. 111
Because (also) there would then be the contradic- tion of the proposition (enunciated in the context).
Because (also) there is (mentioned in the context) the withdrawal (of the individual self) into its own cause (i. e. into the Sat).
Because there has to be a similarity of import (between the passage under reference and the other pas- sages relating to the cause of the creation, &c., of the world). Because also it is revealed (in the very Upanishad in which the passage under discussion occurs, and in other Upanishads, that the Supreme Self is the cause of the universe).
That which is denoted by the word Anandamaya (is the Brahman); because there is, (in the context), the repetition (of various grades of bliss which culminate in the Anandamaya or the Highest Bliss).
It may be said that owing to there being the affix (mayat) significant of modification (the Anandamaya) is not (the Brahman); but it is not (right to say) so; because that (affix mayat) signifies abundance.
Because also He (the Anandamaya) is declared (in the context) to be the cause of that (which forms the bliss of the individual souls).
(Because) also that same Being, who is denoted by the words of the mantra (in the context), is declared (there to be the Anandamaya).
He who is other (than the Brahman) is not (that Being who is denoted by the words of the mantra), because (in such a case) there would be inappropriateness.
Because also there is (in the context) the decla- ration of difference (between the individual self and the Brahman).iv ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS.
Because also His will (is in itself the cause of creation), the pradhana is not needed (by Him in the act of creation just as it is needed by the individual self).
(Because) also it (viz. the scripture) declares (that) his (i. e. the individual self’s) acquisition of that (bliss takes place when he is) in (association with) this (Anandamaya).
He (i. e. the Person) who is within (the Sun and the eye is the Brahman), because His attributes are de- clared (in the context).
And He is different (from the Sun and other in- dividual selves), because. also there is the declaration of difference (between the Brahman on the one hand, and the Sun and other individual selves on the other).
That which is denoted by the word Akasa (is the Brahman), because His peculiar characteristics (are men- tioned in the context in relation to what is denoted by that word).
For that same reason (which has been given in the case of the Ākasa), He who is denoted by the word Prana (also in the context is the Brahman).
That which is denoted by the word Jyotis (is the Brahman), because there is the mention of (His) feet (in a connected context).
If it be said that, on account of the metre (known as the gayatri) being mentioned (in the context, the Light or Jyotis described above is) not (the Brahman), it is not (right to say) so; because the teaching (here) relates to the concentration of the mind (on the Brahman) conceived as that same (gayatri): indeed the scripture declares it ac- cordingly.
Because also it is appropriate only thus to de- clare that (intelligent) beings and other objects form the ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. feet (of the Gayatri).
If it be said that, on account of there being a difference between the (two) teachings (given in the con- text, what is denoted by the word Jyotis or Light) is not (the Brahman), it cannot be (right to say) so; because even in both those (teachings) there is nothing that is contradictory (of each other).
That which is denoted by Prana (Indra and other such words is the Brahman), because it is so under- stood in the sequel.
If it be said that, on account of the speaker (Indra) declaring himself (to be the object of worship, what is denoted by the words Indra and Prana is) not (the Brahman, it is replied that it cannot be so); because there is here (in this context) the mention of a multitude of attributes belonging to the Inner Self.
And the teaching (in the context) is, as in the case of Vamadeva, in accordance with the view found in the scripture.
If it be said that, on account of the characteris- tics of the individual self and of the principal vital air (be- ing mentioned in the context) there is no (reference to the Brahman here at all, it is replied that) it cannot be (right to say) so; because the worship (of the Brahman) has a threefold nature; because (elsewhere) this (threefold nature of His worship) is taken for granted; and because here (i. e. in the present context also) that (same kind of wor- ship) may be appropriately referred to. In accordance with the general fashion of Indian writers, Rāmānuja begins his Sri-Bhashya with a stanza in praise of God, wherein he lays particular stress on man’s duty of love and devotion to God, preferring this love and devotion even to the wisdom of the understand- vi ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. ing. Then in another stanza he speaks of the traditionally ancient character of the teachings contained in the Vedanta-Sutras, and gratefully recognises the value of the services rendered by early teachers in preserving and handing on those teachings, in accordance with which he himself undertakes to interpret the Vedanta-Sutras. (Vide page 1). After declaring that his own explanation of the Sutras is in accordance with the interpretation given by ‘ancient teachers’, such as Bodhāyana, Dramida, Tanka, &c., he commences the discussion of the meaning of the first aphorism-“Then therefore the enquiry into the Brahman.” The words of the Sutra are taken into consi- deration one after another, and their meaning and grammar are both clearly explained (pp. 2 to 4). He then gives what is called the Vakyartha of the Sutra, this Vakyartha being the full meaning that is conveyed by the aphoristic sentence as a whole. In keeping with the division of the revealed scripture of the Hindus into the Karmakanda and the Jñanakanda, there are two systems of philosophic enquiry known as the Karma-mimämsä and the Brahma-mimamsă. The former of these is what may be called a philosophy of sacrificial rites, and the latter is a philosophy that deals with the metaphysical foundations of the universe. The historical relation between the Karmakanda or the Old Testament of the Vedas and the Jnanakanda or the New Testament thereof is one of antecedence and sequence. And here this first aphorism is interpreted to mean that, immediately after acquiring the knowledge of the philosophy of Vedic sacrificial rites, the study of the philosophy of the Brahman has to be begun, for the reason that ritualistic works yield only small and unenduring results while the ‘knowledge’ of the Brahman gives rise to immortality and eternal free- ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. vii dom. Bodhayana is quoted in support of this interpreta- tion, and on his authority the two Mimämsäs are declared to form parts of one science (page 5). Since every Indian Arya is enjoined to learn the Karmakanda as well as the Jnanakanda of the Vedas, it may be argued that the study of the Karma-mimamsa is quite superfluous. In answer to this view it is pointed out that, in that injunction, learning the Vedas means nothing more than merely learning them by heart, and that such learning is efficacious in making them serve better whatever purpose they are intended to serve, and also in giving rise to a prima facie impression that ritualistic works yield insignificant and impermanent results while there is a mention made in the Upanishads of the attainment of everlasting immortality (pp. 6 to 8). Then Vedantic texts are quoted to show the destruc- tibility of the results of mere ritualistic works and the indestructible character of the results arising from the knowledge of the Brahman, and it is concluded that the study of the Karma-mimämsä must precede the study of the Brahma-mimämsä (pp. 8 to 10). Having thus stated his view of what meaning the word then conveys in this first aphorism, Ramanuja states the objections against his view with the object of meeting them so as to justify his own interpretation. A statement of objections that is given with an intention to meet them is called a Purvapaksha; and the objection against Rāmā- nuja’s interpretation of the word then here is known as the Laghu-purvapaksha or the ‘small objection’, in as much as there is a ‘great objection’ coming later on as against his interpretation of the word therefore. In this ‘small objection’ the opinions of Sankara and Bhaskara are shown to contradict each other, and Sankara’s opinion re- garding the meaning of the word then is summarised thus:- viii ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. " The cause of the bondage (of the soul) is merely the perception of distinctions, which is based on unreality and has its origin in the avidya (or ignorance) that veils the true nature of the Brahman; this bondage itself is unreal; solely by reason of its unreality it is de- stroyed to the very roots by means of knowledge; the knowledge that (so) destroys (the bondage) is derived out of (scriptural) passages such as “That thou art &c.; works are of no use in causing the origination of such knowledge in its own true nature, or in producing the effect of this knowledge that is so derived out of such passages, but the use of works consists only in (producing) the desire to know (the Brahman); and the use of works. is to be found in causing the increase of sattva or the qua- lity of goodness–an increase resulting from the destruction of rajas and tamas or the qualities of passion and darkness respectively, which form the roots of sin; and therefore, having in view only this use of works, it is declared in the scripture-“Brāhmaṇas desire to know, &c.” Hence, on account of the uselessness of the knowledge of works, the aforesaid fourfold means alone has to be stated to be the necessary antecedent of the enquiry into the Brahman (pp. 10 to 15.). Then follows what is called the Laghu-siddhanta or the ‘small conclusion ‘-that is-the answer to the ‘small objection’. In this answer it is pointed out that it is not the mere knowledge of what the scripture says that tends to the removal of ignorance and the attainment of immor- tality, but that devotion, meditation and worship alone can produce such a result. It is here shown how a purely in- tellectual realisation of the truth cannot eradicate the innate tendencies towards error, and how the word know- ledge is frequently enough used in the scriptures to meanANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. ix the same things as devotion, meditation or worship. Tanka is quoted in support of this view and in support of the contention that the innate tendency towards error can be cured only by work and worship. It is further shown that the fourfold mental and moral equipment, which, accord- ing to Sankara, ought to precede the study of the Vedanta, can be acquired only with the help of devotion, meditation and worship, and that ritualistic elements such as the Udgitha, &c., are also referred to in the Vedanta for the reason that they are helpful to meditation and to the acquisition of the needed mental and moral equipment mentioned above (pp. 15 to 27.). The meaning conveyed by the word therefore is then fully taken into consideration, and the Maha-purvapaksha or the ‘great objection’ against the view of Rāmānuja, as given by the followers of Sankara, is fairly fully stated (pp. 27 to 53.). The main question dealt with in this Purvapa- ksha naturally bears upon what it is that forms the cause for leading us to enquire into the Brahman, and why it is that the enquiry into the Brahman has to be begun and con- ducted; and the opinion of the Adwaitin on this question is given to the effect that the study of the Vedanta has to be undertaken to remove the avidya or ignorance that is at the root of the world’s manifestation of variety, so as to attain the knowledge of the oneness of the self with the Brahman, who is, by nature, eternal, pure, self-luminous and free (p. 53.). The various points mentioned in this ‘great objection’ are the following:-The unqualified absolute Brahman alone is real; all other things are only assumed to exist in Him, and are therefore unreal (pp. 27- 30.). Unreality is that which, being grounded upon what is perceived, is liable to be stultified by means of the knowledge of things as they are; and the world of B X ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. phenomena is based upon ignorance or avidya, and is hence such an unreality (pp. 30-32.). Knowledge destroys this ignorance which forms the foundation of our world-percep- tion; and the knowledge which so destroys ignorance and the consequent bondage of unreality is the knowledge that the self or the atman of the individual is one with the absolute Brahman (pp. 32-33.). Scriptural authority is all along aptly quoted in support of every one of these points. It is then shewn how, when there is conflict between scripture and perception, the former is of stronger authority and is capable of stultifying the latter (pp. 33-35.). There being scriptural passages which deal with the one absolute Brahman and those which deal with the phenomenal world of variety and distinctions, it is shown how the former passages are of stronger authority than the latter, and how it is even possible for some portions of the scrip- ture to stultify other portions thereof (pp. 35-37.). Then the meaning of the definitive scriptural sentence-‘The Brahman is Existence, Knowledge, Infinity’-is discussed from the Adwaitic stand-point, and it is shown how that sentence defines the absolute attributeless Brahman as He is essentially in Himself (pp. 37-42.). So far it is a discus- sion of the meaning of scriptural passages. After this the Adwaitic position is argued out on independent lines. At first it is brought out that perception apprehends only pure and unqualified existence, and that the distinction between things neither belongs to their essential nature nor consti- tutes any attribute of existence in itself (pp. 42-44.). It is then pointed out that all external objects are invariably apprehended as compounded of existence and experience, that in all perceptive cognitions existence alone unvary- ingly persists, while the differentiating peculiarities of things are seen to vary from thing to thing, and that therefore pure ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. XI unqualified existence alone is real, and that, in as much as this compounded experience too persists like existence in all perceptive cognitions, experience also constitutes the reality and has to be the same as existence itself (pp. 44-46.). And the experience which thus constitutes the reality is there-, after declared to be so self-evident as to be the cause of its own knowability as well as of the realisation that it is knowable (pp. 46-48.). Then it is shown that this experi- ence or what is otherwise called consciousness is, on account, of its self-evident nature, eternal, unoriginated, immodi- fiable and undifferentiated, and that it is the same entity as the atman or the self (pp. 49-51.). Finally the question of personality is taken up for consideration, and it is argued that the atman or the self is not the same as the knower, in as much as the idea of knowership in relation to the self is the result of the limitation imposed upon the intelli- gent principle of consciousness by the material principle of egoity known as ahankara, and in as much as again self-experience is possible even when there is no no- tion of egoity, as during dreamless sleep, swoon, &c. It is further argued that the internal self is a mere witness, and as such must be different from the knower which is the same as the ego or the thing ‘1’; and it is then shown that this limitation of personality cannot be an attribute of the self which is pure and undifferentiated intelligence, and that in the beatific state of final release the self is free from the limitation of personality, even as it is found to be so free in the condition of dreamless sleep. The one intelligent and undifferentiated principle of con- sciousness being thus shown to be the only reality, it is arrived at that the reason for undertaking the study of the Vedanta is to understand the nature of this reality, other- wise known as the Brahman, and to realise that everything xii ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. which is in any manner whatsoever different from it is wholly unreal (pp. 51 to 53.) The Maha-purvapaksha or thegreat objection’ is here brought to an end. Then begins the Maha-siddhanta or the ‘great con- clusion of Ramanuja and his school regarding the mean- ing of the word therefore in the first aphorism. The meaning conveyed by this word is thus expressed (p. 242.) in Ramanuja’s own words :-“Mere ritualistic works yield only small and transitory results. On the other hand, such works as constitute the worship of the Highest Person, and are performed without attachment to results yield an infinite and ever-enduring result in the form of that experience of the real nature of the Brahman which is caused by the origination of the knowledge which is the same as steady meditation or worship. Both these cannot become known without a knowledge of the true nature of works. Without such knowledge there can be no rejection of mere ritualistic works as they ordinarily are, and no subsequent adoption of them in the form pointed out above. Therefore, for this very reason, the enquiry into the Brahman has necessarily to be conducted.” This conclusion is arrived at only after meeting fully all the points raised against it in the ‘great objection’. And they are met one by one in the following order. To start with it is shown that one’s own experience, logical infer- ence, revelation, and definite as well as indefinite percep- tion, and all the other accepted criteria of truth prove only such things as are qualified by attributes, and that there is really no means of proving the thing which is absolute and unqualified. In this connection the nature of what is called definite and also of what is called indefinite perception is distinctly explained, and the view which maintains that there is both difference and non-difference between a ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. xiii thing and its qualifying attribute is shown to be wrong (pp. 53-60.). Next the position that perception must apprehend pure unqualified existence, in as much as it cannot have differentiation for its object and in as much as it is difficult to define differentiation, is taken into con- sideration and criticised; and it is argued in reply that perception does apprehend distinctions, that distinctions so apprehended establish the difference, not only be- tween one qualified thing and another, but also between the distinguishing attributes themselves, and that there- fore the apprehension of particularity has necessarily to be admitted in connection with every state of con- sciousness. It is further shown that the senses, which naturally cannot perceive pure unqualified existence, perceive only the configurations of the attributes of things, and that it is these configurations that con- stitute the logical genera and at the same time denote whatever forms the distinction between things (pp. 60-64.). Then it is pointed out how it is erroneous to hold that jars and other such specific objects are unreal, the reason for their unreality being that they do not persist before con- sciousness in all perceptions, and how again it is not possible for experience or consciousness to be the same as the one unqualified and absolute existence (pp. 64-65.). Afterwards the self-luminous character of experience is properly explained, and it is shown how experience does not cease to be experience when it becomes cap- able of being itself experienced (pp. 65-67.). The con– tention that experience or consciousness has the character of an unoriginated entity is then contradicted. It is argued that the absence of what is called the antecedent non– existence of experience does not prove its unoriginated character, because there is no rule which binds experienceXIV ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. to deal only with such objects as are existent at the same time with itself; and accordingly memory, logical inference, revelation and yogic perception are shown to relate to things which belong to a different time from that of their own existence or duration (pp. 67-69.). The reasoning involved in the supposition, that the antecedent non-exist- ence of consciousness is not at all made out by perception, is then pointed out to be untenable; and it is shown that perceptual consciousness is conditioned by time, and that none of our cognising states of consciousness can be eternal or objectless (pp. 69-71.). Even during sleep, trance, and conditions of intoxication, consciousness cannot be absolute and altogether objectless, as there is no recollection what- soever of our having at any time had any experience of such consciousness. In all its states consciousness is asso- ciated with the idea of the ego, is definite and relates to particular objects; and hence it cannot be unoriginated and eternal (pp. 71-72.). And then the immodifiable character of consciousness is contended against, and it is shown that it cannot be undifferentiated (pp. 72-74.). The position that consciousness can have no qualifying attributes is next disproved (pp. 74-75.).. Afterwards the question whether consciousness is the same as the self is taken up for consideration and criticism, and it is explained that consciousness cannot indeed be the same as the conscious subject, and that this conscious subject is permanent while the attribute of consciousness belonging to that subject is liable to be originated and destroyed; and then it is demonstrated that the idea of an unfounded and object- less consciousness being the same as the self is contradict- ed by cognition, and that in consequence pure experience or absolute consciousness alone cannot be the highest real- ity (pp. 75-77.). ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. XV After this the discussion of the problem of the soul’s personality is commenced from the stand-point of Rămă- nuja, and it is at first pointed out that what consti- tutes the subjective self or the soul of the individual is nothing other than the ego which is here called the thing ‘I’; similarly the thing thou’ or the objective world forms the content of the notion of the non- ego; such being the case, how can the knower and the known be identical? (pp. 77-79.). If the thing ‘I’ is the self, then, like the self, it must be intelligent and have at the same time intelligence to constitute its essence; and it is explained and illustrated how the thing ‘I’ may be both intelligence and intelligent at the same time. Then scriptural and other authorities are quoted to shew that the self-luminous self is always the knower, but that it is never mere luminousness (pp. 79-81.). Consciousness is like luminosity, and must necessarily belong to a luminous self; this self is the intelligent thing ‘I’, and the luminosity or intelligibility of consciousness itself is due to its associa- tion with the self which is undoubtedly the knowing ego (pp. 81-83.). Having thus shown that intelligence forms the essence as well as an attribute of the thing ‘I’, the view of the Adwaitin-that the idea of knowership is fal- sely superimposed upon the undifferentiated and intelligent principle of consciousness by ignorance or avidya-is next contended against. It is first shown that the knowership of the ego cannot be due to illusion, for the reason that the thing ‘I’ and its knowership are both separately and simultaneously cognised, unlike the mother-of-pearl and the silver superimposed thereon. It is next shewn that this knowership of the ego cannot be said to be due to the common error of mistaking the body for the self (pp. 83-84.). Nor does this knowership belong to the material principle xvi ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. of egoity known as ahankara, in as much as subjectivity can in no way belong to objective matter. The knower- ship of the self does not contradict its immodifiable nature, and need not therefore be supposed to be due to modifia- ble matter in any form (pp. 84-87.). Ahankara or the material principle of egoity cannot be supposed to have acquired the attribute of knowership either as a result of the reflection of the self’s intelligence thereon, or as a result of its contact with the knowing self (pp. 87-88.). Moreover, this supposed illusion of know- ership cannot be due to the material principle of egoity being the revealer of immaterial consciousness, in as much as the relation of the revealer and the revealed between any two things is mutually exchangeable and cannot exist when there is any incompatibility in nature between them. Nor is it appropriate to hold that ahan- kāra reveals consciousness at the same time that conscious- ness reveals ahankara; because it is not possible to under- stand what this revelation of the self through ahankara may mean, in as much as the self is not within the province of the senses and nothing can therefore serve as the means of bringing it into relation with them (pp. 88-90.). Nor again can the idea of the ego be due to the material princi- ple of egoity, on the score that this principle and this idea derived therefrom are useful in removing whatever ob- struction there is for our knowing the self. Indeed in no sense can there be a revelation of immaterial consciousness by means of the material principle of egoity (pp. 91-92.). Then it is argued that the nature of revealers is not to reveal the revealable thing as though it were within them- selves, and it is finally concluded that the subjective self itself forms the thing ‘I’ which is in no way other than the knower (pp. 93-94.). The idea of the ego which is ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. xvii thus intrinsically associated with the self does not get dis- sociated from it even in deep sleep; because at the time of waking, the self shines forth in one and the same continuous form of the thing ‘I’, even when we feel that, while asleep, we knew nothing at all, and that we did not know even. ourselves (pp. 94-96.). The position that the self is a mere witness is explained not to mean that it is a witness only of ignorance; for, to be a witness is certainly the same as to be a direct knower, and even in sleep and other such states the self is luminous and shines forth as the ego (pp. 96-97.).. In the final state of beatific release also the self continues to persist as the thing ‘I’; scripture also declares that it does so persist, and God Himself is revealed to us as a dis- tinct Person (pp. 97-100.). The material principle known as ahankara is indeed included among the things that go to make up our bodies; and it is called by that name be- cause it forms the cause of the imposition of the idea of the ego upon the body. This false idea of the ego is sub- ject to stultification, while the ego-hood of the self is real and incapable of being stultified. Therefore the thing ‘I’, which is the knower, is alone the self (pp. 100-101.). The next point taken up for consideration is the position of the Purvapakshin that, when there is conflict between scripture and perception, the former is of stronger authority as a criterion of truth, for the reason that the latter is grounded upon error. It is here shown that it is not possible. to make out definitely what that misguiding cause is which makes perception false and erroneous; it is shown that whatever makes perception erroneous must necessarily tend to make the scripture also erroneous, and that the scripture which is thus based upon error cannot certainly stultify per- ception.. It cannot be proved that, unlike perception, the scripture is incapable of being misled by any cause of error C xviii ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. such as avidya for instance; and the phenomenal know- ledge derived from the scripture is in no way different from the phenomenal knowledge obtained through perception. Nor can it be maintained that the teaching of perception is stultified by the teaching which is given in the scrip- ture, while this latter teaching is not so stultified by the former, and that in consequence the scripture is not false and erroneous; for, error is error even when it continues un- stultified (pp. 101-105.). There are certain analogies general- ly given to shew that the scripture, which, being based upon avidya or ignorance, is unreal, may form the means for the attainment of the highest reality known as the Brahman; and these analogies are all one after another pointed out to be not at all suited to the case under consideration, in as much as it is seen that in every one of them a real re- sult is derived from a real cause. When auspicious and inauspicious dreams give rise to good and bad results in life, the dreams are indeed as really existent as the results they give rise to. When magic, medicinal herbs, incantations, &c., give rise to illusions which cause fear, love and other emotions, the illusions are as real as the emotions them selves. Death may result from a suspicion of snake-bite and of poisoning; here the suspicion is as real as the death. The reflected image of a thing is as real as the thing itself. Dreams are real even in the ab- sence of the reality of the objects corresponding to them, in as much as what is required to make anything the ob- ject and the basis of any cognition is merely the manifes- tation of that thing to consciousness in some manner or other (pp. 105-107.). Even in the case of the apprehen- sion of the sounds of letters by means of the correspond- ing written signs, there is no cognition of the real by means of the unreal. When things are cognised by means.ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. XIX of sketches and pictures, there is at the basis of the cogni- tion a real similarity between the things and their represen- tations. The apprehension of the real and absolute Brahman by means of the unreal and phenomenal teachings of the scripture cannot also be proved on the analogy of the apprehension of the absolute un- differentiated sound known as Sphota with the help of its numerous phonetic differentiations or nadas. Although the unreality of the scripture is not such as may be due to its absolute non-existence, it is difficult to arrive at the knowledge of the noumenal reality by means of the phenomenal teachings of the scripture. Nothing that is un- real can ever give rise to the knowledge of that which is real (pp. 107-110.). After this the proper meaning of various passages in the Upanishads is taken into consideration, and it is shewn that their Adwaitic interpretation is not accurate and allow- able. The passages first taken into consideration are- “Existence alone, my dear child, this was in the beginning”, from the Chhandogya-Upanishad,” And that is the higher knowledge by which that Indestructible Being is known", from the Mundaka-Upanishad, and “The Brah- man is Existence, Knowledge, Infinity”, from the Taitti- riya-Upanishad; and it is proved that these do not relate to the absolute and unqualified Brahman, and that the grammatical equation to be found in the last passage is intended to establish that one and the same thing, namely, the Brahman is characterised by more than one attribute (pp. 110-112.). Does the statement that the Brahman is one only without a second mean that the Brahman is not associated with a second thing even in the form of a quality? It is shewn that it does not mean such a thing, and that the scriptural passages which speak of the Brah- XX ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. man as unqualified only declare that He is free from the qualities appertaining to material nature. There are also many passages which speak of the Brahman as qualified, and these declare that He is intrinsically possessed of all the auspicious and divine qualities. And His possessing the divine qualities is not contradicted by the non-possession of the qualities that appertain to material nature (pp. 112- 116.). The Ananda-valli of the Taittiriya-Upanishad teaches the Brahman to be possessed of qualities, and in doing so agrees with passages in the Chhandogya-Upanishad; and the Kena-Upanishad (II. 3.) does not declare that the Brahman forms no object of knowledge, in as much as this Upanishad has to agree in meaning with the Taittiriya- Upanishad and the Mundaka-Upanishad wherein it is declared that the Brahman has to be known and is cap- able of being known (pp. 116-119.). The passage in the Brihadaranyaka-Upanishad-" Thou shalt not see the seer of the sight, nor think the thinker of the thought’ is next shown not to negative the seer and the knower as distinct from sight and knowledge; and then the state- ment that the Brahman is bliss is interpreted to mean that the Brahman is indeed the Blissful Being (pp. 119- 121.). Finally it is pointed out that the Upanishadic passages which negative distinctions do not contradict those other passages which postulate distinctions, in as much as the world which is full of distinctions has the Brahman for its Self and has in consequence an organic oneness of nature; and it is shewn that the author of the Vedanta-Sutras is also of this same opinion (pp. 121- 124.). The question, whether the Smritis and the Puranas teach the attributeless Brahman to be pure intelligence and the only reality, is next examined in detail; and at ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. xxi the very commencement passages are quoted from the Bhagavadgita and the Vishnu-Purana to show that the Highest Brahman is full of all auspicious qualities and free from all evil, and that the world which is the mani- festation of His glory is as real as He is Himself real (pp. 124-129.). Then the passages relied upon by the Adwai- tins to prove their peculiar monistic position are all inter- preted in full accordance with their respective contexts and in obedience to all the accepted rules of interpretation, and it is concluded that in all the sastraic works there is no establishment of that thing which is devoid of attributes, no establishment of illusoriness in regard to the total- ity of perceivable objects, and no negation of the natural differences between the individual soul and non-intelligent matter and the Lord (pp. 129-156.). Incidentally it is pointed out how necessary it is to amplify and support the meanings of Vedic and Vedantic passages by means of the Itihasas and the Puranas, and how among these latter the Vishnu-Purana is highly authoritative (pp. 134-135.). The statement found in the Vishnu-Purana (II. 14. 31.), to the effect that ‘dualists see things wrongly,’ is shewn to negative only that ‘dualism’ which postulates a difference in kind between one individual soul and another, but not that other’ dualism’ which believes in the natural distinc- tion between the ultimate entities known as God, soul, and matter (pp. 142-144.). In accordance with this view a few more Puranic passages are explained; and the con- clusion is arrived at that, in the same way in which there is no essential identity between the body and the indivi- dual self, there is also no essential identity between one individual self and another, and that similarly there is no essential identity between the individual selves and the Supreme Self. That there is no substantial unity between xxii ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. the individual selves and the Supreme Self is further con- firmed by references to Upanishadic passages and to aphor- isms in the Vedanta-Sutras (pp. 144-148.) At last the question of what the sastras say regarding the nature of the individual self in the beatific condition of final freedom from all association with matter is discussed clearly, and it is established that in that condition the released individual self does not become identical in essence with the Supreme Self, but that it only acquires most of the auspicious and divine qualities of the Supreme Self; and it is shewn that the Brahman whom the individual self is said to attain in the state of moksha is not mere attributeless intelligence, that, on the contrary, He is full of goodness, power, and glory, and that the individual self becomes one with Him then for the reason that he attains the highest degree of equality with Him and is free from the bondage of karma (pp. 148-156.). Now begins the criticism of that theory of the Adwai- tins according to which a beginninglessly old ‘ignorance’ known as avidya or maya is held to be at the root of our perception of the differentiated phenomenal world, and according to which also such an avidya has necessarily to be admitted on the authority of the scripture and has to be understood to be a certain something which is neither a positive entity nor a negative non-entity. Seven difficul- ties are pointed out to be in the way of this theory being The first of these is called Asrayanupapatti and deals with the difficulty of finding something for this ‘ignorance’ to reside in. In as much as the self-hood of the individual self is itself projected by avidya, it is argued that this avidya cannot reside in the individual self and thus give rise to the illusion for which it is held to be responsi- ble. And in as much as the Brahman has the essential true. ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. xxiii nature of self-luminous intelligence, it is shewn that on no supposition can the Brahman be the seat of ‘ignorance.’ This supposed avidya therefore can have no abode to reside in (pp. 156-161.). The next difficulty in the way of the theory of maya is that this supposed ‘ignorance’ cannot, as maintained by its upholders, conceal the Brahman whose essential nature consists entirely of luminosity; for, the concealment of such a luminosity must mean nothing other than the destruction of the essential nature of the Brahman Himself. This difficulty is known as Tirodhananupapaṭṭi (page 161.). The third difficulty is called Swarupanupapatti and deals with the essential nature of this avidya. As long as it is a thing at all, it must either have the nature of a reality or the nature of an unreality. But it is not admitted to be a reality; and it cannot be an unreality, for, as long as a real misguiding error, different from the Brahman Himself, is not admitted, so long it is not possible to explain this theory of illusion (pp. 161- 162.). The fourth difficulty in the way of this theory of illusion is called the Anirvachaniyatwanupapatti, and points out how it is not possible for the illusion-pro- ducing avidya to be incapable of definition either as an entity or as a non-entity. All cognitions relate to entities or non-entities; and if it be held that the object of a cog- nition has neither the positive characteristics of an entity nor the negative characteristics of a non-entity, then all things may become the objects of all cognitions (pp. 162- 163.) Naturally the next question that is here discussed is- whether there is any means by which this curious avidya is brought within the range of our cognition; and it is shewn that there is no means of proof by which such an avidya can be arrived at and established, This difficultyxxiv ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. in the way of the theory of maya is spoken of as Pra- māṇānupapatti; and its discussion is started with the plau- sible supposition that the ‘ignorance’ known as avidya is capable of being directly experienced and has thus the nature of such a positive entity as cannot be contradicted by the witnessing principle of intelligence, and that it is therefore quite consistent with reason to realise that this avidya is definitively associated with the thing ‘I’. And it is further shewn here supposititiously. that it is possible to establish by logical inference also that there is an ‘igno- rance’ or avidya which does not mean a mere negation of knowledge but is itself a positive entity of some sort (pp. 163-167.). These suppositions are then replied to one after another. It is first shewn that, so far as the relation to the intelligent internal self is concerned, there can be no difference between the ignorance that is a mere non-existence of knowledge and the other supposed ‘igno- rance’ which has the nature of a positive entity (pp. 167- 168.). It is then argued that in the cognition-‘I am ignorant; I do not know myself, nor do I know another’- what is experienced is only that ignorance which is the antecedent non-existence of knowledge (pp. 168-169.). It is next shown that the Brahman can have no experience of any kind of avidya, and that, if it be a positive entity, there can be no removal of it by means of any knowledge (pp. 169-171.). The Brahman cannot be a witness of ‘ignorance’; because it is impossible for Him, whose essen- tial nature is absolute self-experience, to acquire the char- acter of a witness without the concealment of His own true nature. And the Brahman, who is without parts and with- out attributes, and who is pure luminosity itself, cannot at all be concealed (pp. 171-172.). This supposed con- cealment of the Brahman by means of ignorance cannot ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. XXV even be an indistinct manifestation of His altogether luminous and self-evident nature. In as much as it is possible for us to have an illusion without a really existing basis for it to be imposed upon, and without a positive misguiding cause for that illusion to be produced, the world-illusion does not necessarily prove a positive ‘igno- rance’ (pp. 172-174.). Accordingly the avidya of the Adwaitins cannot be proved by perception. It cannot be proved by logical inference either; because the syllo- gism that is intended to prove this positive ‘ignorance’ is also seen to prove the other unacceptable ignorance, and because also the illustrative example found in the body of the syllogism is defective. Moreover, there are faultless coun- ter-syllogistic statements which go to shew that every one of the Adwaitin’s predications about his avidya is wrong and untenable. The predication, that this positive avidya is capable of being removed by knowledge, cannot be main- tained on the analogy of fear and other such positive emo- tions disappearing as soon as it is known that they are due to a false cause; because the positive emotion here is not destroyed by a subsequent stultifying knowledge, but disappears of itself on account of its own transitoriness. Therefore the logical process of inference also cannot estab- lish that ‘ignorance’ which has the nature of a positive entity (pp. 174-179.). The hypothesis of maya is next taken into consideration in relation with the five theories of perception known to Indian philosophy. Things be- come manifest to consciousness through perception, and their manifestation may either correspond completely to the reality or it may not. Thus all the five theories of perception get reduced into two-that according to which perception presents to consciousness the thing as it is, and that again according to which perception presents to D xxvi ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. consciousness the thing as it is not. Of these two theories the former which is realistic is shewn to be true on the authority of tradition and scriptural teach- ing, and illusion and its stultification are accounted for by means of the belief that every thing in the uni- verse has the characteristics of every other thing therein (pp. 179-186.). Scriptural and traditional authority is quoted to prove that even dream-perceptions are realistic. Then a number of exceptions apparently contradicting this realistic theory of perception-such exceptions as the yel- low appearance of white things to the jaundiced eye, the circle of fire produced by the rotation of a fire-brand, &c., are all explained so as to show that all perceptions are undoubtedly realistic (pp. 186-191.). The objects cor- responding to all perceptions are real; only some percep- tions are experienced by certain particular persons only and last only for a short length of time, while others are experi- enced by all generally and have a longer duration. These latter stultify the former, as stultification is com- monly understood; and a true theory of perception does not at all stand in need of a positive avidya (pp. 191-192.). It is next shewn that the scriptural authorities relied upon by the Adwartins to prove that there is an avidya, which cannot be described either as an entity or as a non-entity, are all to be explained otherwise, and do not therefore tend to establish in any way such an avidya (pp. 192-197.). The Itihasas and the Puranas are also shewn to give no support to the theory of maya, in as much as all such pas- sages in them as seem to lend any support to this theory have, when properly considered, to be interpreted other- wise (pp. 197-210.). The sixth difficulty in the way of this theory of the world being an illusion produced by maya is then fully. ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. xxvii discussed, and it goes by the name of Nivartakanupapattı. This difficulty is in relation to the idea that the cessation of avidya or ‘ignorance’ takes place solely by means of the knowledge which has the attributeless Brahman for its object; and it is at first pointed out here that there are many scriptural passages, which do not teach the Brahman to be attributeless and unqualified, but teach on the con- trary that He is possessed of attributes and qualities. Then it is shewn that the grammatical equations found in the sentence That thou art’-and in other similar sen- tences do not denote the oneness of any attributeless thing, in as much as every grammatical equation has to denote a thing which, while being only one, is capable of existing in two forms. It cannot be established that the gramma- tical equation in ‘That thou art’ is intended to give rise to the stultification of any illusion due to avidya; it sim- ply shows the Brahman to be capable of existing in two different modes or forms. On this supposition alone can all the scriptural passages be harmoniously interpreted (pp. 210-214.). The universe is the body of which the Brahman is the Soul, and Vedantic passages clearly declare that all things have acquired the character of being things and of being expressible by means of words, only by reason of their having been entered into by the indivi- dual selves which are, in their turn, entered into by the Brahman as forming their Self. Thus the totality of all the intelligent and the non-intelligent beings becomes the same as the Brahman on account of the relation of the body and the soul existing between them (pp. 214-217). A grammatical equation can denote neither an absolute iden- tity nor an absolute and discrete dissimilarity be- tween the things mentioned therein. Hence those who maintain that there is only one attributeless thing in the xxviii ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. whole universe, those who maintain that there is both difference and non-difference at the same time between the Brahman and the individual souls, and also those who maintain that there is absolute difference between the individual souls and the Brahman will all find that such teachings regarding the sameness of the Brahman with the individual soul as are found in the Vedanta are all aimless and meaningless (pp. 217-219.). However, to those who maintain that the whole world forms the body of the Brahman all those Vedantic teach- ings, which declare that the Brahman Himself constitutes the whole world, are sure to appear as appropriate expla- nations of the truth. Grammatical equations can and do point out the attributive character of material adjuncts; and the equation that a man is an individual self cannot have a merely figurative significance, in as much as the human body has to form in this case a mode of the indivi- dual self. And the word which denotes a mode of the in- dividual self denotes the individual self also. Accordingly the words god, man, &c., include the individual self in their import. The individual selves form the body of the Highest Self, and hence possess the character of being His modes. Thus all the words which de- note individual selves include the Highest Self also in their import. Consequently all things may be gram- matically equated with the Brahman (pp. 219-224.). This position is then more fully explained and supported. All non-intelligent things constitute the objects of enjoy- ment, the intelligent things are the enjoyers thereof, and the Brahman is their Supreme Ruler; therefore they are distinct from one another in nature, as may be made out from various passages in the Upanishads and the Bhaga- vad-Gita (pp. 224-227.). Both the intelligent and the non-ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. xxix intelligent things form the body of the Brahman and have no separate existence from Him; they are in consequence subject to His control. Since in this way the intelligent and the non-intelligent things are seen to be the modes of the Highest Person, it is easy enough to understand how the scriptures teach that He Himself exists in the form of the world in its condition of cause as well as in its condi- tion of effect. Although the non-intelligent thing, the intel- ligent thing, and the Brahman are distinct from one another in nature, the world must accordingly have the Brahman for its material cause; and the Brahman who thus enters into the production of an effect retains, never- theless, His own immodifiable nature quite unaffected, in as much as there is and need be no transformation of His nature in the process of producing the effect. Such being the case, the statement that He is attributeless means that He is free from all evil qualities, and the statement that He possesses the nature of intelligence means that He is self-luminous and can be described only as intelligence in essence. The manifoldness of things which is negatived in the Vedanta is only such manifoldness as is due to the non-realisation of that oneness of the universe which results from the fact of the Brahman forming the Soul thereof. Only when interpreted thus can all the apparently conflict- ing scriptural passages be seen to agree with one another; and the theory of maya which imposes ignorance on the Brahman is therefore unfounded; and similarly the theory which subjects the Brahman to limiting conditions is also unfounded. The Highest Person is the one embodied Being, and matter and soul constitute His embodiment. Thus He is Himself all the three real entities-God, soul and matter. Consequently the knowledge which has an attri- buteless Brahman for its object is impossible and cannot XXX ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. be the complete knowledge of truth; and obviously such an impossible knowledge of the oneness of the attributeless Brahman cannot be the remover of the avidya postulated by the Adwailins (pp. 227-238.). The last difficulty pointed out by Rāmānuja in the way of this theory of maya is called Nivrittyanupapatti; and it points that the ‘ignorance’ postulated by the Adwai- tins has to be irremovable. The individual soul’s bondage of ‘ignorance’ is determined by karma and is a concrete reality. It cannot therefore be removed by any abstract knowledge. Divine worship and divine grace can alone cause the freedom of the soul, and to know God is to seek salvation. According to the Adwaitins the differentiations of the knower, the knowledge, and the known thing are all unreal; and even that knowledge which is capable of removing avidya has to be unreal and has to stand in need of another real removing knowledge. Nor indeed can that ‘knowledge’ which forms the essential nature of the Brahman constitute the knowledge, the birth of which means the destruction of avidya.. More- over the knower of this knowledge cannot be the unreal and superimposed individual self; nor can that knower be the Brahman, unless such knowership belongs to Him by nature and is not unreal. No knower will ever destroy himself as knower by means of the knowledge he knows, and the knowership of the Brahman cannot itself be equivalent to avidya. For all these reasons the remov- al of the Adwaitin’s hypothetical ‘ignorance’ is quite impos- sible (pp. 238-241.). Thus the Maha-siddhanta is brought to a close; and it is concluded that, as mere ritualistic works yield only small and transitory results, the enquiry into the Brahman has necessarily to be conducted so that we may know how ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. xxxi we are to worship Him and thereby attain Hin and Im- mortality (pp. 241-242.). Then comes forward another objector, the Mimam- saka, who says that the enquiry into the Brahman need not be conducted at all, in as much as such an enquiry cannot produce the result which is expected of it. His objection is called the Adhikarana-purvapaksha, and is largely based upon linguistic thought and reasoning. He says that the true signification of a word is always to de- note an action, and the import of the Vedas consists in the actions they prescribe. The Vedanta cannot be author- itative like them and cannot teach the Brahman, for the reason that the meaning of the word Brahman is independ- ently established otherwise than as an inference from actions. The physical expression of the emotions caused by listening to spoken sentences cannot enable us to determine the meanings of words, in as much as many things may give rise to similar emotions. Neither the etymology of a word, nor its relation to other words in a sentence can enable us to ascertain its mean- ing independently of all action; because both these methods of interpreting words are obviously depend- ent upon action. Moreover, mere verbal statements can- not produce any kind of practical conviction and activity, and volition alone is the cause of all voluntary activity. Therefore that which induces voluntary activity has to be the thing that is expressed by words, and thus it is but pro- per that action forms the thing which is to be learnt from the Vedas. The Brahman is neither. an action nor anything that is definitely related to an action; and the knowledge of such a Brahman cannot give rise to any infinite and eternal result in the shape of immortality. On the other xxxii ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. hand, ritualistic works themselves are declared in the Vedas to be capable of yielding eternal and indestructible meritorious results. Therefore the enquiry into the Brah- man need not at all be undertaken (pp. 242-246). The answer to this objection is called Adhikarana- siddhanta, and it leads us to the conclusion that the enquiry into the Brahman has necessarily to be con- ducted. The linguistic argument of the Purvapakshin is here met by pointing out distinctly that the relation be- tween words and their meanings is not primarily made out by means of any inference from the actions to which the utterance of words generally does give rise. Certain things have somehow acquired certain names, and the re- lation between such things and their names is dependent upon usage and is of itself naturally established without the help of any inference. The use of language is taught to children by their elders; and which words denote which things is distinctly and frequently enough pointed out to the young learners; thus they learn to associate the words with the things. The meaning of words is primari- ly made out only in this fashion; it may in some rare cases be made out also with the help of gestures. There- fore the rule that the meaning of words is only to denote actions is not binding (pp. 246-247). Even if the Vedas denote only actions, all such actions are seen to relate to the worship of the Brahman so that thereby He may be attained; and hence the knowledge of the true nature of the Brahman and His attributes is helpful to actions, and the Vedanta which deals with the Brahman has to be studied accordingly (pp. 248-249). Even in sentences like-’ Bring the ox’, the significance of words is not to be inferred from ‘action’; for, this ‘action’ has to be aimed at by the voli- tion of the speaker, and all activity proceeds from the ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. xxxiii dependence of the accomplishment of desire upon effort. Volitional desire has to be expressed by means of language before it is worked out into ‘action’; and this ‘action’ itself cannot be the thing desired, and it is not also capable of being defined as that as that which is accomplished by volition and which is also the principal object of volition (pp. 249-252.). Even when we take Vedic commandments into consideration we find that the action denoted by the verb in them is not the object that is to be accomplished by obeying them; nor is this object the Apurva that is produced by performing the action denoted by the verb of command. It must be some desirable and pleasing object like Swarga or it must be the avoidance of pain. A commandment is no pleasure in itself, and is not anywhere described as such in the Vedas; and the mandatory passages found in the Vedas relate only to such actions as are indicated by the verbs that give the command. Therefore commandments are not obeyed and worked out merely for themselves. Sacrifices and other such works, enjoined by the scripture and denoted by the verbal roots in the scriptural com- mandments, have all the character of constituting the worship of the Highest Person who is the internal ruler of all gods; and the result aimed at by those works flows to us altogether from that Highest Person Himself (pp. 252- 255.). The knowledge of the meaning and nature of Swarga is necessary on the part of him who performs the Jyotishṭoma sacrifice, in as much as Swarga is the object to be attained and the sacrifice is the means therefor. Similarly the Vedantic Brahman is the highest object to be attained by man, and Vedic ‘works’ are only the means to attain Him. The statement that the Chaturmasya sacrifice yields indestructible EXXXIV ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. results is not to be understood literally, as there are many explicit statements in the scripture to the effect that the results derived from the performance of ritualistic works as works are unimportant and unenduring. Accord- ingly it is concluded that, although the meaning and nature of Brahman are self-established and underived from any ‘action’, the study of the Vedanta which teaches such a Brahman has necessarily to be commenced and conducted (pp. 255-256.). The discussion of the one aphorism making up the Jijñāsādhikarana is thus brought to a close. Like the first, the second aphorism also makes up a whole Adhikarana, the object of which is to point out what that Brahman really is who is stated to be the object of all Vedantic study and investigation. The aphor- ism itself runs thus :-“The Brahman is that from whom proceed the creation, &c., of this universe.” After explain- ing the grammar and the meaning of the words in the aphorism, the question whether it gives any admissible definition of the Brahman is taken up for consideration; and the position of the Purvapakshin that it does not give any such definition is first stated. This aphorism is based on a passage in the Taittiriyopanishad (III. 1. 1.) wherein the Brahman is declared to be the creator, the preserver, and the destroyer of the world; and the question is wheth- er these characteristics of creation, &c., are competent to define Him. The characteristics of universal creation, preservation and destruction cannot define the Brahman; because Brahman may be a common noun, and because also these attributes being more than one may thus denote more than one Brahman as in the instance-“The ox is that which is broken-horned, hornless and fully horned,” ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. XXXV Nor can the attributes of creation, &c., give rise to any accidental characterisation of the Brahman, in as much as all accidental characterisations denote only such things as have already been definitively characterised in some form or other, and in as much as it is not possible to establish that there is any definitive characterisation of the Brah- man quite independently of the passage referred to in the aphorism. Therefore it is not possible to know the Brahman by means of any definition (pp. 257-259.). To these objections it is replied that the characteris- tics of universal creation, &c., mentioned in this aphorism are well suited to give us an accidental characterisation of the Brahman, and suited also to give a definition of the Brahman. It is not right to say that the Brahman is not at all known to us otherwise than through the char- acteristics of universal creation, &c.; etymology itself teaches us that He is a Being who is characterised by Su- preme Greatness and Growth and in the Upanishadic pas- sage under reference He is spoken of as a well known Be- ing. His greatness is really due to the fact of His being both the instrumental and the material cause of the universe, and the Brahman who is known to be all this may well be denoted by the characteristics of universal creation, &c. (pp. 259-261.). These characteristics of universal creation, &c., are also capable of defining the Brahman, in as much as they need not denote more than one Brahman. In the definition of the ox given above, all the three defining attributes are seen to conflict with each other; and thus they tend to denote more than one ox. In the given definition of the Brahman there is no such contradiction between the attributes, for the reason that the world’s creation, preservation, and destruction take place at different times. The attributes of universal creation, xxxvi ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. &c., define the Brahman to be the only cause of the universe, and the scriptural passage-“The Brahman is Existence, Knowledge, Infinity”-denotes His essen- tial nature to be different from that of all other things; and indeed there is no fallacy of reciprocal dependence between these two ways of knowing the Brahman. Thus the attributes of universal creation, &c., do de- fine the Brahman, and He is quite capable of being understood by means of a definition (pp. 261-263.). Con- sequently the Brahman cannot be a mere attributeless Being; etymology gives Him the characteristics of Great- ness and Growth, this aphorism defines Him as the Cause of the Universe, and other aphorisms endow Him with the power of ‘seeing’, &c. These aphorisms and the scriptural passages on which they are based do not constitute any authority for holding the opinion that the Brahman is an altogether attributeless Being. Logic deals with the simi- larities in the distribution of attributes among entities, and cannot of course prove an attributeless thing. Finally, it is not possible to interpret this aphorism to mean that the Brahman is the cause of the illusion of phenomena; because this illusion has to be based upon avidya, and the Brahman cannot be identical with it, but has to be a wit- ness thereof. To be such a witness implies that He has the character of homogeneous luminosity, whereby He ceases to be attributeless; and to deprive Him of this characteristic attribute of luminosity is to convert Him into nothingness (pp. 263-264.). The third Adhikarana also contains only one aphorism which runs thus:-“That the Brahman is the cause of the creation, &c., of the universe, follows altogether from the scripture; because the scripture forms the source of the ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. XXXVii knowledge relating to Him.” The aim of this aphorism is to shew that the Brahman, as defined in the previous aphorism, can be made out only by means of the Vedanta, and that there is no other means of knowing Him. The meaning of the aphorism is as usual explained and then the question it relates to is taken up for discussion. Against the above-mentioned view of the Vedantin that the scrip- ture alone forms the source of all our knowledge relating to the Brahman, the Mimamsakas, the Naiyyayikas, and the Vaiseshikas are the prominent orthodox objectors; and the position of the Mimamsaka is given at first, after stating, however, the general objection that the Brahman is capable of being made out by other means of proof than the scripture, and that the scripture has in consequence no special meaning or authority in this matter. The Mimam- saka agrees with the Vedantin so far as the revelational authority of the scripture is concerned, but holds that the scripture is an inviolable authority in relation to ritualistic ‘works’ also. Therefore he naturally contends that the Brahman cannot be proved either by perception, or by in- ference. External perception, internal perception, and yogic perception are all shown to be incapable of proving the Brahman; and it is next pointed out that neither deduction nor induction can establish the Brahman (pp. 265-267.). Here the Naiyyayika comes forward and says that the world is seen to be made up of component parts, and is thus a produced effect. Whatever is a produced effect necessarily implies a competent producing agent, and such an agent is the Brahman. Moreover, the world that is pro- duced out of non-intelligent matter cannot but be subject to the control of a single intelligent being, who has to be the Brahman in this case. Accordingly He is capable of being proved by logic (page 267.). At this point the Mimamsaka Xxxviii ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. joins issue with the Naiyyayika and points out that certain material bodies are not produced by those who control or enjoy them, that certain other material bodies, when their parts are seen to be organically put together, do not stand in need of any intelligent agent to control their working, and that there is no reason shown why in the case of the world the controlling intelligent being has to be only one, and has also to be other than the individual selves whose existence is admitted on both sides. Then the argument that every produced effect implies a competent agent to produce it, and that the world is such a produced effect is criticised; and in the course of the criticism it is distinct- ly shewn that this kind of design argument necessarily makes the world appear too much like a man-made thing and makes the Brahman Himself become too much like a human being, while there is really no impossibility in the way of the individual selves themselves satisfying the de- mands of this argument. Here a warning is given that from this it should not be understood that the Mimamsaka is of opinion that logic is of no use whatsoever in acquir- ing a true knowledge of the Brahman. His opinion is that logic is useful in understanding the sastras aright, and that apart from the sastras there is really no means by which God can be proved (pp. 267-271.). And now the Vaiseshika intervenes as against the Mimamsaka to shew that God is capable of being proved solely by means of the process of logical inference. The material world is made up of constituent parts; it is inert and gross, and is nevertheless set in motion and has a definite form; therefore it cannot but be a produced effect. To infer a producing agent from the fact of there being a produced effect is never unjustifiable-not even when we do not know the producibility of the effect and the productive competencyANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. xxxix of the agent. Both these are rightly inferred from the nature of the effect itself. Thus we arrive at God. The distri- bution of pleasure and pain to individuals in accordance with the merit and demerit.of their karmas cannot take place of itself. Hence a Person who is capable of award- ing skilfully the fruits of karmas in accordance with the various karmas themselves is also to be necessarily postu- lated. It is not right to hold that the individual selves themselves are the producing agents of the world and the distributors of the fruits of karmas, as their power and knowledge are seen to be inadequate to serve such a pur- pose, and as the inferred cause must in every way be competent to produce the observed effect. Nor is it right to maintain that this design argument proves the inferred creator of the world to be too human and to be thus devoid of the qualities of omniscience and the lordship of all things. Non-omniscience and non-lordship do not affect the producibility of things; and if they are not found in association with the producing Creator, surely there is nothing wrong in it. This design argument does not fail even on account of the fact that God has no material body in the way in which human agents have bodies. The will of God which is based on His mind is alone the active agent in creation; and His mind is eternal and unassociat- ed with matter. Accordingly God can be conclusively proved by logic. However, it cannot be proved that He is both the instrumental and the material cause of the world, in as much as that which forms the material cause is seen to be extremely different from that which forms the instrumental cause (pp. 271-277.). This position of the Vaiseshika is then taken up for final disposal, and it is shewn that his design argument is defective in many ways. The world and its various parts xl LAS ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. are, no doubt, produced effects; but there is really nothing in the logic given above to prove that they were creat- ed by one agent at one particular time. All the things in the world do not possess the character of being a single produced effect, and a single agent cannot be proved to be their Creator. On the score that individual souls cannot be the creators of our wonderful world, and on the score that it is inappropriate to assume many individual souls to have been agents in the act of creation, it is not right to argue that there must be only one Creator of the world. Through the highly increased influence of their adrishta, individual souls can and do produce certain particular created effects. The conceptions of the simultaneous origination of all things and the simultaneous destruction of all things do not deserve to occupy the position of proved truth; and a single person who is capable of creating all things at once is nowhere known to exist, and cannot be logically inferred, unless logical inference can make the improbable probable and the impossible possible. And scripture also contradicts the idea that all produced things have only one producing agent. God is not subject to karma, and is not actuated by the ‘qualities’ of sattva, rajas, and tamas; He can therefore neither desire creation nor produce creation. Further, He is without a material body and is devoid of all perceivable activity; and an agent who produces through mere desire is unperceived and is hence unin- ferrible. Consequently, the Brahman who is the Highest Person can be proved only by the sastras; and it is not opposed to reason, as shall be shewn later on, that He is the material cause as well as the instrumental cause of the whole universe, although there are portions in it which cannot be proved to be made up of constituent parts. Thus ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. xli the scriptural passage on which this aphorism is based is amply authoritative and abundantly full of import, in as much as the Brahman cannot, by any other means of proof, be cognised as the creator, the preserver, and the destroyer of the world (pp. 277-284.). The fourth Adhikarana also is, like the previous three, made up of only one aphorism; and it runs thus :-“That, viz. the fact that the scripture forms altogether the source of the knowledge relating to the Brahman, results, how- ever, from His constituting the true purport of the scrip- ture.” Now, although the Brahman cannot be cognised by any means of proof other than the sastras, is He after all really established by the sastras? This is the question which is discussed under this aphorism. After interpreting the words of the aphorism, some passages from certain Upanishads are quoted to shew that to teach the Brahman is the only aim of the sastras; and then it is formally stated that, although He does not import any activity or cessation from activity, He alone constitutes the true pur- port of the Vedanta. Here the Mimamsaka comes for- ward with his objection that all sentences have their finality in some utility or other, either as relating to voluntary activity or cessation from activity, or as relating to knowledge; that no sentence is thus capable of import- ing things, the ideas corresponding to which are already naturally established; and that consequently the Vedanta cannot establish the Brahman, the idea corresponding to whom is already naturally established (pp. 284-287.). This objection is answered by the Nishprapanchikara- na-niyoga-vadin who holds that the Upanishads give us the commandment to non-phenomenalise the Brahman, and that therefore they relate to action and have their F xlii ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. finality in utility. Even if the Brahman is self-evident, there is nothing wrong in His being made the object of an ‘action’ so that He may be realised in the non-phenomenal form (pp. 287-288). The Mimamsaka contends against this view also, and says that all those, who maintain like him that the syntactical meaning of sentences is a commandment, must also be prepared to distinctly point out like him, in every case under consideration, the commandment, the attribute of the person to whom the commandment is direct- ed, the special object of the commandment, the manner of carrying out the commandment, the details of procedure to be adopted in carrying it out, and the person who is to carry it out. It is fully possible to do this in connection with Vedic commandments all of which enjoin the perform- ance of ritualistic works. There is, for instance, the commandment bearing upon the Jyotishtoma sacrifice; this commandment is to be found in the Yajurveda; the attribute of the person to whom the commandment is directed is the desire to attain Swarga; the special object of the commandment is the Jyotishtoma sacrifice; the yajamāna or the sacrificer is the performer thereof; and the manner of performing it and the details of procedure to be adopted in so performing it are all distinctly laid down in authoritative works relating thereto. But in the case of the supposed Vedantic commandment enjoining the non-phenomenalisation of the Brahman, it is not possible to specify any attribute as that which has necessarily to belong to the person to whom the commandment is directed; nor is it possible to know in this case what the special object of the commandment is, in as much as this special and immediate object of the commandment has to be different from the final aim thereof, in the way in which the Jyotishtoma sacrifice is different from Swarga. Further, ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. xliii this supposed Vedantic commandment cannot but be useless- and absurd; and the details of procedure to be adopted in carrying it out are indeed nowhere to be found in the sastras. Therefore the Vedanta gives no commandment enjoining the non-phenomenalisation of the Brahman (pp. 288-293.). Then the Dhyana-niyoga-vädin comes forward with his objection against the contention of the Mimamsaka, and declares that the Vedanta is authoritative in teaching us the true nature of the Brahman by means of the injunc-. tion bearing upon His meditation. The Dhyana-niyoga- vadin is he who, while agreeing with the Mimamsaka in holding that the scripture cannot be of any authority in relation to anything the idea corresponding to which is already naturally established, maintains at the same time that the Vedanta is nevertheless authoritative in relation to the Brahman, in as much as it gives a commandment enjoining the meditation of which He forms the object. This commandment enjoining meditation implies the thing to be meditated upon, and that thing is no other than the Brahman, whose real nature also is described in the Vedanta. The Brahman alone is real while all else that is different from Him is unreal. Accordingly, when there is contradic- tion between distinction and non-distinction, the latter alone is the reality; and the final beatific release of the soul is the same as its becoming identified with the Brah- man. The achievement of this identification is not possi- ble without the help of that meditation which entirely relates to Him (pp. 293-295.). Here the Adwaitin begins to oppose the Dhyana-niyoga- vadin, and says that the freedom of the soul from the bond- age of avidya can and does result merely from the knowledge of the syntactical meaning of scriptural sentences,xliv ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. and that the final beatific release of the soul must be such as carnot be accomplished under an injunction, in as much as any possible fresh accomplishment of it will certainly imply that it is non-eternal. Final release or moksha is the same as the unembodied condition of the soul, and this unembodied condition is its essential nature and is hence eternal and uncreatable. To accomplish anything anew must mean either its origination, or attainment, or modifi- cation, or refinement; and it is not possible to predicate any of these things in regard to moksha. The knowledge of the syntactical meaning of sentences does not therefore produce moksha, but only removes the obstructions which are in its way. Final release follows immediately after the knowledge of the Brahman is acquired, and does not stand in need of anything that has to be produced by obey- ing a commandment given in the sastras. The sastras declare all phenomenal distinctions to be unreal and to be manufactured by avidya, and the commandment enjoining meditation is useful only in helping us to understand well the syntactical meaning of scriptural sentences. Immediately after the knowledge of truth is acquired, the bondage of unreality must necessarily give way; and to be released from this bondage, one need not wait even till the falling off of the body. It has thus to be made out that moksha is not a thing that can be accomplished by obeying the command- ment relating to meditation, and that the Brahman is not hence implied in that commandment; indeed He is inde- pendently taught and known (pp. 295-301.). This contention of the Adwaitin is next met by the Dhyana-niyoga-vädin. He says that the phenomenal bondage of the soul is a concrete reality and is actually perceived to be such. Mere abstract knowledge of any kind is wholly incompetent to remove this bondage; and ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. xİv the knowledge derived from the scripture is no exception in this matter and cannot destroy the sensory perception, of differentiated phenomena. Moreover, meditation can- not be the means of knowing the syntactical meaning of scriptural sentences, in as much as the Brahman has to be known before He can be meditated upon; nor can it produce the knowledge which relates to the oneness of the self with the non-phenomenal Brahman, because it has itself to pre-suppose many phenomenal entities. If it were. possible to destroy the bondage of avidya merely by the knowledge of the syntactical meaning of scriptural sentenc- es, the commandment enjoining meditation would become purposeless. The bondage of phenomenal unreality can- not, however, be so destroyed; and it follows as a matter of course that Jivanmukti, or the soul’s release from such a bondage even while it is in the embodied condition, is altogether impossible. The idea of Jivanmukti is illogical, and is opposed to scripture; it is discarded by a great teacher like Apastamba. Accordingly, bondage comes to an end only after death and by means of that injunction which relates to meditation and which produces the direct knowledge of the Brahman. What is accomplished under this injunction relating to meditation is not final release itself, but it is the removal of the obstructions to final release; therefore this injunction cannot give a non-eternal character to moksha. Obeying this injunction purifies the mind; the mind so purified realises the Brahman directly; and there is nothing in the scripture to shew that He cannot be made an object of meditation. Therefore the bondage of phenomenal unreality comes to an end only by obeying the commandment which enjoins meditation and the final result of which is the direct realisation of the Brahman (pp. 302-309.). xlvi ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. At this point the Dhyana-niyoga-vädin anticipates the objection of the Bhedabhedavadins, according to whom there is no contradiction between distinction and non- distinction, and the Brahman is thus the seat of both dis- tinction and non-distinction at the same time. Every object that we perceive is suggestive of similarity as well as of diversity. When a thing is realised as the cause. of another thing, there is the realisation of similarity or non-distinction between them; for instance, when clay is made out to be the cause of a pot, we see that there is non-distinction between the clay and the pot. Similarly, when a thing is realised as representative of a genus, there is the realisation of non-distinction between that thing and the other things belonging to that genus. On the other hand, when a thing is realised independently in its condi- tion as an effect or in its condition as a particular individual, there is the realisation of distinction between it and other things. Thus it is nothing uncommon to realise the same thing as the seat of both distinction and non-distinction at the same time. In every process of recognition also there is the realisation of both distinction and non-distinction in relation to one and the same thing (pp. 309-311.). It cannot be maintained, however, that the commonly current superim- position of the idea of the self on the body indicates that there is both distinction and non-distinction between the body and the self; because it is the unstultified idea alone which everywhere proves things. The idea of the serpent falsely perceived in a rope is soon stultified, and cannot prove any non-distinction as really existing between the serpent and the rope. Similarly the idea of the self arrived at in relation to the body is stultified, and cannot prove any non-distinction between the self and the body. Accord- ingly, the individual self is not absolutely distinct from the ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. xlvii Brahman; it is both distinct and non-distinct from Him; and there is ample scriptural authority to prove this (pp. 311-314.). In the state of final beatific release the indivi- dual self has to be absolutely identical with the Brahman; and non-distinction alone is thus natural, while the distinc- tion of the individual selves from the Brahman as well as from each other is due to limiting conditions. The karma of the individual self gives rise to these limiting conditions, and they in their turn give rise to karma. The stream is thus kept up; and according as the Brahman is or is not subject to these limiting conditions, He is realised to be distinct or non-distinct from the individual self. The spatial ether is, for example, distinct or non-distinct from the ether in a pot according as it is or is not limited by the walls of the containing pot (pp. 314-317.). The position of the Bhedabhedavadin so stated is then attacked by the Dhyana-niyoga-vadin. The idea of non- contradiction between distinction and non-distinction is shown to be illogical and untenable, and it is pointed out that in every perception it is realised that a particular thing is of a particular nature. Here the characterising thing is the genus and the characterised thing is the parti- cular individual. The individual self is not, however, real- ised as belonging to the genus Brahman, and cannot therefore be both distinct and non-distinct from the Brahman. Non-distinction is based upon the sastras; and distinction is due to avidya, which being unreal, is in- capable of tainting the Brahman. It is inconceivable how the supposed limiting conditions really do limit the Brahman who is only one and indivisible and homogene- ous. The individual self cannot be a bit of the Brahman cut off from Him by limiting conditions; it cannot be such a part of the Brahman as is not cut off from Him and xlviii ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. is still associated with limiting conditions; nor can it be the Brahman Himself in essence, though subject to limiting conditions; nor finally can it be the limiting condition itself. Thus non-distinction between the Brahman and the individual self is alone the reality, and the Vedanta is authoritative in relation to the essential nature of the Brahman, in as much as the knowledge thereof is needed as a complement to the injunction relating to meditation (pp. 317-323.). Now the Mimamsaka comes forward to meet finally the Dhyana-niyoga-vadin and maintains that, although the knowledge of the essential nature of the Brahman is need- ed as a complement to the injunction bearing upon medita- tion, there is indeed nothing to show that Vedantic passag- es import anything that is really existent. In connection with the commandment enjoining the realisation of the Brahman as a Name, we find that the completion of meditation is possible even when its object is a mere mental concept corresponding to which there may or may not be any external entity. The Vedanta is devoid of utility in the form of inducing activity or cessation from activity; and even when it is granted that it induces the activity of meditation, it is incapable of establishing the reality of the Brahman, in as much as an object of medi- tation need not always be real, and in as much as the idea corresponding to the word Brahman is already naturally established and known (pp. 323-325.). And at last the Vedantin comes forward and proves his case as against the Mimamsaka, and points out that the Vedanta which teaches that Brahman, who is the highest object of attainment for all, cannot be said not to have its finality only in utility. Such scriptural passages as relate to activity and cessation from activity may, onANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. xlix the other hand, be said not to have their finality in utility; because they give rise merely to that kind of knowledge which can be utilised only so long as there are desirable objects to attain. But Vedantic passages en- able us to know that individual souls acquire unlimited and unsurpassed bliss at the time of moksha, and enable us also to know that they continue for ever in the enjoy- ment of such bliss. Therefore there is really no end to the utility of the knowledge produced by the Vedanta. To know this invitingly attractive and worthy nature of the highest object of human pursuit is to be impelled to seek it so as to find it; and herein is the utility of the Vedanta. This utility cannot indeed be well based merely on such an abstract conception of the Brahman as has no reality to correspond to it. If it be shewn that the Upanishads do not teach the real existence of the Brahman, then, although they may give rise to the conceptual knowledge of the Brahman, they can have no finality in utility. There- fore the Brahman is really existent, and the chief end of the Vedanta is to teach us to know Him (pp. 325-328.). The fifth Adhikarana consists of eight aphorisms, commencing with the fifth and ending with the twelfth. The object of this Adhikarana is to establish that what is declared to be the cause of universal creation, &c., in the Vedanta is not Prakriti or primordial matter with all the potentialities assigned to it by the Sankhyas; but that it is that omniscient and omnipotent Being who has been denoted by the name of Brahman. The cause of the world is spoken of as Sat in the Chhandogya-Upanishad, and the word Sat means Existence. Does this word Existence denote the Pradhana or Prakriti of the Sankhyas, or does it denote the Brahman? The doubt arises that G 1 ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. it may denote the Pradhana, in as much as, whatever thing and whatever general nature thereof exist in the condition of a cause, that same thing and that same nature thereof have to exist also in the condition of an effect, and in as much as the world which is a produced effect and is hence made up of the qualities of sattva, rajas and tamas cannot therefore have the non-material ‘qua- lity-less’ Brahman for its cause. If the undifferentiated Pradhana is not taken to be the cause of the world, it is impossible to understand how, by knowing a certain single thing, all things become known, as it is declared in the scripture; and it is impossible also to understand why the statement relating to the cause of the world is, as given in the Chhandogya-Upanishad, in the form of a proposition and an illustration. In reply to such a supposition it is pointed out in the first of the eight aphorisms of this Adhikarana that the Existence spoken of as the cause of the world cannot be the Pradhana, because the activity of seeing and thinking is predicated in relation to it. There is no doubt that the cause has necessarily to be in natural conformity with the effect; and the Highest Per- son who owns all the intelligent and the non-intelligent things in their subtle state as His body is certainly in natural conformity with all produced effects, as taught in the Upanishads and as maintained by the Sutrakāra him- self. The passage dealing with the cause of the world in the Chhandogya-Upanishad is not really in the form of a syllogism, as the middle term is altogether wanting; and hence it surely cannot be that that passage mentions the logically inferrible Pradhana to be the cause of the world (pp. 329-334.). The second aphorism in the Adhikarana is intended to show that the activity of ‘seeing’ predicated in relation to the Sat which forms the cause of the world ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. li is not to be interpreted figuratively, in as much as that Sat is spoken of as the Atman. The teaching in the Chhandogya-Upanishad (VI. 8. 7.) has in view the world which is made up of intelligent and non-intelligent things, and points out that the Sat is the Atman or the Self thereof; and surely the non-intelligent Pradhana cannot be the intelligent Atman. The omniscient Brahman alone can be the world’s Atman, and can also see and think (pp. 334-336.). The third aphorism of the Adhikarana gives another reason why the Sat that is mentioned to be the cause of the world cannot be the material Pradhana, and that reason is that it is taught in the context that he who is firmly devoted to that Sat obtains final release as a result of his devotion. What one worships here on earth determines what one attains finally; and to attain the Pradhana is not to obtain moksha, but it is to get into the bondage of samsara. Indeed the Vedanta is not so unkind as to impel us to get into this bondage (pp. 336- 337.). The fourth aphorism here assigns another reason why the causal Sat cannot be the Pradhana; and that reason is that Svetaketu, who was desirous of attain- ing moksha, is taught in the context that he is the same as the Sat, which certainly cannot mean that he was mere matter; for, if he were the same as the Pradhana, he could obtain no moksha, and the idea of his being the same as the Sat would deserve to be discarded. But it is not taught that it is to be so discarded (page 337.). The next aphorism gives the fifth reason why the causal Sat is not the Pradhana; and in it it is pointed out that, if the Sat were the Pradhana, there would then be the contradiction of the proposition enunciated in the context to the effect that, by knowing a certain single thing, all things become known. This arises out of the fact that lii ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. non-intelligent matter cannot give rise to the intelligent individual souls, and cannot be their cause; and hence, by knowing it, all things cannot become known (page 338.). The next aphorism is based on a passage in the Chhandogya-Upanishad (VI. 8. 1.), in which it is declared that a sleeping person is in union with the Sat, and that while asleep he withdraws into his own cause and is also absorbed into his own cause. Here the Sat is the cause into which its effect, namely, the indi- vidual self withdraws; and the non-intelligent Pradhana does not deserve to be the cause of the individual self. Until final release takes place the individual self is asso- ciated with names and forms; in moksha and at the time of deep sleep he is embraced by the Brahman and gives up names and forms. It is thus that he withdraws into his own cause, and the Sat has therefore to be the Brahman (pp. 339-341.). The next aphorism maintains that the cause of the world cannot be the Pradhana, because the Sat which is mentioned here as the cause must have the same meaning as whatever is elsewhere in the scripture declared to be the world’s cause. In a number of scriptural passages the Lord of All is taught to be the cause of the world, and this causal Sat cannot therefore be other than the Lord (pp. 341-342.). The last aphorism of the Adhikarana says that more than all it is actually revealed in the Chhandogya and other Upanishads that the Supreme Self is the cause of the universe, and that the causal Sal cannot at all mean in consequence any thing other than that Supreme Self, who is the Highest Person and is also the Brahman that has to be enquired into in the Vedanta. In conclusion it is pointed out at the end of this Adhikarana that the import of it as a whole is against the position of the Adwaitins, according to which ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. liii the Brahman is a mere attributeless intelligence and luminosity. Here the Brahman is declared to be associat- ed with the real attribute of ‘seeing’, and His character as a witness cannot therefore be unreal. The ‘seeing’ and thinking Brahman must be an intelligent being, and to be an intelligent being is to possess the quality of intelligence. To be devoid of this attribute of intelligence is to be the same as the non-intelligent Pradhana, which surely the Brahman is not. In the same way in which the Brahman cannot be attributeless, He cannot also be mere luminosity or intelligence. Indeed luminosity or intelligence is that which makes itself and other things fit to be realised by a cognising mind; and a thing which is devoid of all attri- butes cannot possess this capacity. To grant that the Brahman has such a capacity is the same as to admit that He is none other than the all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God; and an attributeless entity cannot but be a mere nothing that is totally unrealisable (pp. 342-346.). The sixth Adhikarana is the. Anandamayadhikarana, and contains also eight aphorisms from the thirteenth to the twentieth. The object of the last Adhikarana, known as the Ikshatyadhikarana, is to prove that the Brahman declared to be the cause of the world is not the same as the Pradhana of the Sankhyas; and the Anandamayadhi- karana shews that that Brahman is different from the in- dividual self also. This Adhikarana is based on the Anan- davalli of the Taittiriya-Upanishad, and the first aphorism here runs thus: “That which is denoted by the word Anan- damaya is the Brahman; because there is, in the context, the repetition of various grades of bliss which culminate in the Anandamaya or the Highest Bliss.” Here the doubt arises whether this Anandamaya is the Highest Selfliv ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. who is different from the individual self commonly known as the jiva, or whether the Anandamaya is the jiva him- self. It can be made out from the context in the Taitti- riya-Upanishad that the Anandamaya denotes the Brah- man who is the cause of the world; and whether this Brahman is different from the jiva or not has therefore to be determined by making out what the Anandamaya means. According to the Sankhyas the association of the individual self with matter is the cause of all creation, and individual selves may accumulate the merit of karma to such an extent as even to become presiding deities at the commencement of what is called a creating kalpa or cycle. Hence they are the Purvapakshins here, and hold that the Anandamaya is the individual self. They say that since the Anandamaya is declared in the Taittiriya-Upanishad to be associated with an embodiment, it cannot be anything other than the individual self. Again, the fact that what is declared to be the cause of the world is, in scriptural passages, grammatically equated with the individual self, is evidence to them that the individual self itself is the cause of the world. The individual self can ‘see’ and think; and its final object of attainment is freedom from association with matter, in as much as such freedom from the bondage of matter and ignorance constitutes its essential nature and its bliss. With the object of pointing out this essential nature of the individual self, the Taittiriya-Upanishad says that the Anandamaya is different from the body (annamaya), different from the life inside it (pranamaya), different from the mind within (manomaya), and different even from the understanding therein (vijñanamaya). The Anandamaya is thus the innermost entity in the body, and is the same as the individual self (pp. 346-350.). Here the Adwaitin steps in with his interpretation of the ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. lv 上 Anandamaya. According to him the Anandamaya is not different from the Brahman who is the seat of joy, pleasure, satisfaction and bliss, all of which are described to be His constituent parts. The Brahman is of such a nature as distinguishes Him from all other things, He is the innermost essence of all and is called the Atman. The idea intended to be conveyed by the Adwaitin is that the individual self is not essentially different from the Brah- man who is altogether one only without a second, and that this secondless Being is the Anandamaya. The Adwaitin then meets a possible objection to the effect that the Ananda- maya may not be the Brahman, but may be something else; and he distinctly shews that the Anandamaya must not only mean the Brahman, but also must indicate that the Brahman is extremely different from pain, even as He is different from all things other than Himself. The differ- entiation of the individual selves from the Brahman and from each other is due to avidya; otherwise there is no difference between the essential nature of the individual self and that of the Brahman. Viewed in relation to its essential nature the individual self deserves to be called the Anandamaya quite as much as the Brahman does; and it is appropriate in the context to interpret the Ananda- maya as that individual self which is not in essence different from the Brahman (pp. 350-353.). Thus both the Sankhyas and the Adwaitins maintain, in their own respective ways, that the Anandamaya is nothing other than the individual self. At this point it is shewn that the aphorism quoted above indicates clearly that the Anandamaya must mean the Brahman, who is distinctly other than the individual self. The reason assigned for this is that, in the Taittiriya-Upanishad, there is a graded repetition of several kinds of bliss, lvi ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. in an order in which each succeeding bliss is a hundred fold of the bliss preceding it, so as to reach that bliss which forms the summit of an unsurpassable condition. This last bliss is not possible to the individual self, and denotes therefore the Brahman who alone can be its abode. Accordingly this Upanishad declares the Ananda- maya to be different from the vijanamaya, which latter has necessarily to mean the same as the individual self. The word vijñanamaya cannot mean mere intellect or understanding; for, if it be so interpreted, the affix mayat that is found in it would be meaningless; it really means the knower or the individual self. It is true that in the passage" The vijñana performs the sacrifice"-the word vijñāna stands for vijñanamaya; but it has to be borne in mind that words which denote the essential attributes of things are often used so as to denote those things them- selves; besides, there are grammatical rules according to which the word vijñāna has to mean an intelligent agent but not mere intelligence. The vijñana that performs the sacrifice is indeed an agent, which the mere intellect or understanding can never be; and this same vijñana is also said to own a body as its home. The Madhyandinas and the Kanvas have two separate recensions of the Brihada- ranyaka-Upanishad. In the recension of the latter there is a particular passage (III. 7. 22.) in which the word vijñāna occurs; and in the corresponding passage in the recension of the former it is found that the word atman is used instead of the word vijñana. This decides that the vijana which is used in the place of the vijñanamaya can be nothing other than the individual self, and the word vijanamaya itself very appropriately denotes the individual self. Therefore the Anandamaya, which is positively declared to be differ-: ent from the vijñanamaya, cannot denote the individual ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. lvii self, but must denote the Brahman who is other than the individual self (pp. 354-358.). Then this other position of the Purvapakshins-that, because the Being, who is declared to be the cause world, is, in a number of scriptural passages, seen to be grammatically equated with the individual self, the Anandamaya has to be the sione as the individual self-is taken up for consi- deration and criticism. The individual self is, no doubt, an intelligent being; but that being cannot have the power of creating, preserving, and destroying the world in accord- ance with his own will. The scripture and the Sūtrakāra are both agreed on this point, and the individual self is essentially different from the Brahman. The grammatical equation between the Brahman and the individual self cannot denote that both of them are essentially the same; it is indeed impossible for the all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good Brahman to be essentially the same as the ignorant, weak, and impure individual self. Nor can it be maintained reasonably that a grammatical equation is appropriate only when either of the two equated things in it is taken to be false; for, in the case of the Brahman and the individual self equated with each other, it is not easy to decide to which of them such a falsity belongs. Of course the Brahman is not unreal. The individual self may be so, on the supposition that the Brahman appears falsely as the individual self owing to the superimposition of avidya; but this would make the Brahman contradict Himself. This supposition cannot be forced on us to make the grammatical equations in the scripture significant; for, what is inappropriate and opposed to reason should not be assumed even for the purpose of making the scripture ap- propriate. This supposed association of the Brahman with evil cannot at all be a reality; and if it be held that His H lviii ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. attributeless character frees Him from such an association, it frees Him also from His association with all that is good and auspicious, and indeed makes all things unreal so that there remains nothing that is to be known through know- ing the Brahman. The proposition that, by knowing a certain single thing, all things become known, does not surely denote that all things are unreal. Again;t cannot be held that the unreality of all things is due to the fact of their being modifications of the one real thing which is attributeless intelligence. The attributelessness of the Brah- man is itself contradicted by the scripture; and in the equa- tion ‘That thou art’-neither the That nor the thou can denote an attributeless thing, unless indeed both these words are interpreted figuratively (pp. 358-366.). This difficulty of having to interpret both the words in a gram- matical equation figuratively cannot be got over by main- taining that the purpose of a grammatical equation is not at all to denote any attributes, but is merely to denote the oneness of the thing referred to therein; because the func- tion of a grammatical equation is to predicate in relation to a thing, either affirmatively or negatively, by means of certain words that that same thing, which has already a particular form denoted by some words, is also possessed of a certain other form. Only when one of the two attri- butes mentioned in a grammatical equation contradicts the other, is it right to interpret figuratively either of the two words denoting those attributes, in as much as the gram- matical equation has to denote only one thing as character- ised by two consistent attributes. Nor again can it be maintained that the words of a grammatical equation can- not import oneness in relation to the things they denote, on the ground that the thing correlated to any one attribute is distinct from the thing which is correlated to any other attri-ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. lix bute. This would be so, provided only that the mere correla- tion of a thing to two attributes is opposed to the oneness of that thing. Such is not always the case; when the two at- tributes are contradictory, then they can not meet in one and the same thing. Many consistent attributes may and do meet in one and the same thing; thus it is that grammatical equations become significant, and thus again it is that the perdurability of all perceived external objects can be maintained (pp. 366-371.). That the words in a grammatical equation have all the power of denoting a single thing, which is characterised by many attributes, is further shewn to be borne out by Jaimini in his Mimamsă aphorisms; and the Vedic commandment-“With the red, tawney-eyed heifer, one year old, let him purchase the soma plant”-is discussed fully from the stand-point of Jaimini. The conclusion here arrived at and illustrated is that, in any particular sentence forming a grammatical equation, a thing, which is characterised by one attribute or two attributes or many attributes, is denoted by certain particular words used in agreement either with the karaka case-affixes or with the nominative case-affix; that it is made out by means of the grammatical equation that the thing so characterised by all the attributes is only one; and that this one thing is associated with the action deno- ted by the verb forming the predicate of the sentence. Two minor objections against this conclusion are then dis- posed of, namely, that, in a grammatical equation in which a substance is mentioned, a word denoting a quality merely denotes that quality but not a thing as qualified by that quality, and that, as the purchase of the soma plant is completely concluded with the exchange of the one year old heifer, its redness, has no necessary relation to this transaction of purchase (pp. 371-377.). 1x ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. In accordance with the conclusion so arrived at regarding the import of a grammatical equation, the scrip- tural sentence-‘That thou art’-is interpreted so as to shew how, by means of the word ’thou’ also, it is the Highest Self alone that is denoted as forming the internal ruler of all individual selves. This interpretation is sup- ported by means of the teaching given in the scripture re- garding the differentiation of names and forms. The Brahman wishing to become manifold created the world. All the individual souls in the world entered, each ac- cording to its karma, into such material embodiments as were most suited to them. Then the Brahman Him- self entered into these souls so as to become their internal ruler. Thus it is that all things have become things, and that all significant words denote the Highest Self as asso- ciated with non-intelligent matter and the intelligent individual self (pp. 377-379.). Scriptural authority is then. sufficiently quoted to prove that the whole world accord- ingly forms the body of the Brahman, and that He Him- self constitutes the Self thereof; and it is thence arrived at that all things form modes of the Highest Self, and that words denoting non-intelligent material things as well as words denoting intelligent individual selves finally import the Highest Self Himself. Therefore in the sentence- ‘That thou art’-the grammatical equation of the word ‘That’ with the word ’thou’, which also thus denotes the Highest Self, has certainly a primary and natural signific- ance; and there is no need at all to adopt here any figura- tive interpretation of any kind whatever. As long as the material embodiment of a thing may happen to be one of its modes, it is not right to hold that it is only words denot- ing generic and other qualities that can be grammatically equated with words denoting substances. In the case of ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. 1xi a thing which can exist as the mode of another thing, the existence, persistence, and realisation of that thing are invariably associated with this other thing. Accordingly, the words which usually denote such things as are such modes denote also the things which are characterised by those modes. The material characteristics of the body do not taint the embodied individual soul; similarly the weaknesses and deficiencies of individual souls do not affect the Brahman who is their Soul. In the grammati- cal equation ‘That thou art’-the word ‘That’ denotes, therefore, the Highest Self as the all-knowing, all-power- ful, and all-good cause of the world; and the word ’thou also denotes that same Supreme Self as having for His body an embodied individual self. This interpretation of this grammatical equation is quite absolutely faultless; and it denotes at the same time that the individual self which is a mode and hence an attribute of the Highest Self is for that very reason different from the Highest Self. The word Anandamaya has to denote this Highest Self; therefore it can neither denote the independent individual self of the Sankhyas, nor that other individual self of the Adwaitins which is in essence identical with the Supreme Self (pp. 379-383). The contention of the Purvapakshins–that the grammatical equation of the word denoting the Brahman with words denoting individual selves is calculated to prove the Anandamaya to be the same as the individual self- is thus finally disposed of; and their other contention- that, since the Anandamaya is declared in the scripture to be associated with an embodiment, it cannot be any- thing other than the individual self-is then taken up for disposal. It is no doubt true that the Anandamaya is declared to be the embodied self of the vijanamaya; but lxii ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. it is also declared that, in the series consisting of the annamaya, the pranamaya, the manomaya, the vijana- maya and the Anandamaya, the embodied self of that which succeeds is the same as the embodied self of that which precedes; and the Brahman who is the cause of the world is spoken of in this Taittiriya-Upanishad itself as the Self of the whole series of created beings. More- over it is distinctly stated in the Subala-Upanishad that all the constituent principles of the universe form the body of the Highest Self. Therefore it is this Highest Self Himself who forms the embodied Self of the annamaya, the praṇamaya, the manomaya and the vijñānamaya; and the Anandamaya is Himself the embodied Self of Himself. Thus the Supreme Self also has an embodiment; He alone is the unconditioned and ever blissful Embodied Self. This is the reason why the sastra which deals with the Brahman is known to worthy persons by the name of the ‘Science of the Embodied Being.’ Consequently the Anandamaya is the Highest Self, and is undoubtedly dis- tinct from the individual self (pp. 383-386.). In the next aphorism another objection against the above interpretation of the Anandamaya is answered. In the word Anandamaya there is the affix known as mayat. According to Sanskrit grammar this affix generally signifies modification, although it may occasionally denote abun- dance as well. In the context the affix mayat is uniformly used so as to signify modification. Therefore the word Anan- damaya cannot be interpreted to mean any thing that is immodifiable. Even if it be granted that the mayat here denotes abundance, there is the difficulty that an abun- dance of bliss implies at least a modicum of misery. Therefore it is the modifiable individual self who is subject to misery that is denoted by the word Anandamaya. ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. lxiii Such is the position of the Purvapakshin, and it is counter- acted by this aphorism which says that the mayat here signi- fies only abundance. In the graded repetition of the various kinds of bliss, the highest unsurpassable bliss happens to be that which is attributed to the Anandamaya; and the Anandamaya must therefore mean the immodifiable and ever blissful Brahman. In the context the affix mayat cannot be uniformly interpreted to mean modification, in as much as the word pranamaya has to be interpreted to mean the same thing as the word präna means, or to mean that which has the activity of the prana in abundance. It is as common to use the affix mayat in the sense of abundance as it is to use it in the sense of modification. An abundance of bliss does not necessarily imply a modicum of misery; on- the other hand it only implies the negation of the smallness of bliss. The scripture says distinctly that the Brahman is wholly free from sin and from misery. The unsurpassably large amount of bliss belonging to the Brahman implies also the smallness of the bliss belonging to others; and it is not right to hold that the individual self is a modifica- tion of bliss, in as much as the knowledge and the bliss of the individual self are only in a state of contraction when in the condition of samsara. Therefore also the Ananda- maya is different from the individual self and is the same as the Supreme Self. (pp. 386-390.). The next aphorism says that the Anandamaya is not the individual self, in as much as He is declared to be the cause of bliss to all individual selves. The source of bliss cannot be the same as he who receives bliss therefrom (pp. 390-391.). The fourth aphorism in the Adhikarana says that that same Brahman, who is denoted by the words of the mantra which begins with-The Brahman is Existence, Knowledge, Infinity,’-is spoken of as the Anandamaya,Ixiv ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. and that therefore the Anandamaya cannot be the indivi- dual self. The Brahman is the object to be attained by the individual self who is the worshipper, and the object of worship cannot be the same as the worshipper (pp. 391- 392.). The next aphorism gives another reason why the Anandamaya cannot be the individual self; and that is— that there is inappropriateness in supposing that the Anandamaya is any thing other than the Supreme Self. It may be maintained by a Purvapakshin that, although it is true that a worshipper’s object of attainment is necessa- rily different from the worshipper himself, here the Brah- man, denoted by the words of the mantra referred to above, is not a different thing from the individual self. The mantra is intended to teach that the Brahman and the individual self are both one and the same, and that both of them have the same essential nature of attributeless and undifferentiated intelligence. Therefore the Anandamaya denotes only this essential nature of the individual self. The inappropriateness in maintaining a position like this is— that unconditioned omniscience will have to be attributed to the individual self, which has no omniscience at all in its bound condition of samsara. Even the released indi- vidual self cannot have such unconditioned omniscience as can ‘see’ and think in many ways, so as to create the world thereby, and make the Brahman manifold. Accordingly the Anandamaya has to denote the Brahman, who is the Su- preme Self and is other than the individual self. That speech and mind cannot grasp the Brahman does not mean that He is really attributeless, in spite of the scrip- ture attributing to Him innumerable auspicious qualities; it only means that speech and mind cannot prove Him. It is said that the unsurpassable Bliss of the Brahman may be known, and that to know it is to cease to have any fear ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. lxv from anywhere. Thus the Brahman described in the mantra has characteristics which are other than those that constitute the essential nature of the individual self; and the Anandamaya cannot again for this reason be the same as the individual self (pp. 392-396.). The next aphorism says that the Anandamaya is different from the individual self, for the reason that the Taittiriya-Upanish- ad itself declares that the individual self is different from the Brahman. (pp. 396-397.). There is again another reason given in the next aphorism to shew why the Anandamaya cannot be the individual self. The Brahman merely wills, and there arises creation; and He does not stand in need of any association with non- intelligent matter in the course of His willing such a creation. But no individual self that is capable of engag- ing in creation can ever do so without being in asso- ciation with matter (page 397.). The last reason why the Anandamaya cannot be the individual self is given in the last aphorism of the adhikarana. Since the bliss of the individual self is the result of that self’s association with the Anandamaya, the bliss-giver cannot be the same as the bliss-receiver. That the Brah- man is the supreme home of bliss and that He is Bliss Himself, so that without Him none can have any bliss of any kind, is amply borne out by scriptural authority. The jiva, or the individual self, is not taught to be such an en- tity; and therefore the conclusion of the Adhikarana is that the Brahman, who has been made out to be a differ- ent entity from the pradhana or non-intelligent matter, is also a different entity from the jiva or individual self (pp. 398-399.). The seventh adhikarana is called Antaradhikarana, I lxvi ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. and consists only of two aphorisms. This and the follow- ing four adhikaranas, belonging to the first part of the first chapter of the Vedanta-Sutras, are intended to estab- lish that the Brahman is different from certain particular non-intelligent entities,as also from the Sun, Prajapati, Indra and other such individual selves, who have attained god- hood and are in possession of peculiarly valuable merit due to their respective karmas. The first aphorism of the Antaradhikarana says that the Person, who is declared in the scripture to be within the Sun and within the eye, is the Brahman Himself, in as much as such attributes as belong only to the Brahman are seen to be applied to that Person. The Sankhyas are again the Purvapakshins here, and point out that this person is declared to be, like an in- dividual self, associated with a body; and they contend that individual selves themselves may, through the accu- mulated merit of their karmas, acquire omniscience, omni- potence, and all the other sovereignties which are attributed to the Brahman, and that there need be nothing called the Supreme Self as distinct from the individual self. Ac- cording to them it is only a highly meritorious individual self that is the person within the Sun and within the eye (pp. 400-402.). In answer to the Sankhyas it is first pointed out that “This same above-mentioned Person is risen above all sins,” and that to be so free from sin is to be free from all subjection to the influence of karma. No individual self is, by nature, free from the influence of karma; and the Brahman’s freedom from the influence of karma is indeed the basis of all the auspicious qualities and sovereignties that are attributed to Him as being natural to Him. To possess these things thus, it is altogether impossible for any individual self. Therefore the Person within the eye and within the Sun cannot be an individual self, That this ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. lxvii Person is declared to be associated with a body does not prove that He must, in consequence, be only an individual self; because it is possible for Him who wills the truth to will His own association with a body. Indeed there is incompatibility between His essential nature, which is free from the influence of karma, and His associa- tion with a material body, which is always controlled by karma; but then His body need not at all be material. That, with the object of favouring His worshippers, He often assumes suitable divine forms, that nevertheless He is free from the qualities belonging essentially to material Prakri- ti, and that the body which is at any time assumed by Him is immaterial and divine, are all capable of being well established by means of the scriptures. Consequently, He who abides within the brilliant orb of the Sun and within the eye is the Highest Self Himself, who is different from the Sun and other individual selves (pp. 403-408.). Then the other aphorism in the adhikarana draws attention to the fact that the scriptures themselves have declared this Highest Self to be different from the sun-god and other such individual selves; and in proof of this, passages are quoted from the Brihadaranyaka-Upanishad and from the Subala- Upanishad; and finally the adhikarana is brought to an end with the conclusion that the Supreme Self is altogether different from all the individual selves from the four-faced Brahma downwards (pp. 408-409.). The Akasadhikarana contains only one aphorism which says that what is denoted by the word Ākāśa in the Chhandogya-Upanishad (I. 9. 1.) is the Brahman, in as much as His peculiar characteristics are, in the context, mentioned in relation to what is denoted by that word. Sat, Atman, and such other words have already been shewn to xvili ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. denote the Brahman, who is the cause of the world and the home of all auspicious qualities and divine sovereignties. Here, it is pointed out that the word Akasa is also used, in the passage referred to above, to denote that same Brah- man. The Purvapakshin here contends that the word ākāśa must be interpreted to mean nothing other than the material element of akasa or ether. No one has any right to interpret a word so as to make it have a meaning which is other than its usual significance; and, when it is said in the scriptures that all beings are born out of the ākāśa, what is meant to be taught is that the whole world has been evolved out of the material element known as ether. The qualities of ‘seeing’, thinking, and willing are attributed to the cause of the world only figuratively. The word sat also means the material element known as akasa, and the word atman also may legitimately be interpreted to mean the same thing. That ākāśa is sometimes pointed out to be a produced effect, does not go against its being the cause of the world; because it is capable of existing both in the unevolved and the evolved conditions. This view agrees also with other statements in the scripture regarding the ākāśa; therefore the Brahman is not other than the well known element of akasa (pp. 409-413.). Against this contention it is argued that the Upanishadic passage on which this aphorism is based assigns to Akasa such attri- butes as cannot appropriately belong to the element ether. This element cannot be the cause of all things, in as much as the intelligent individual self cannot be born out of non-intelligent matter; it cannot be greater than all things, because to be greater than all things is to be unconditioned; nor can it be the best refuge, as long as it is merely that non-intelligent thing which deserves to be discarded and the attainment of which forms no desirable aim of life. It isANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. lxix not right to say that the word akasa cannot be interpreted to mean anything other than the well known material element ether; for, in the context, that word is used so as to denote a thing that has been already described. The thing so described is the Brahman; and in as much as He possesses the power of illuminating things, He is very appropriately called Akasa. The forced adoption of an interpretation that is against the context is in no way reasonable. It is true that the word atman is occasionally used so as to denote a non-intelligent thing, but the gene- ral rule is that it has to denote an intelligent entity; and the scripture ascribes to what forms the cause of the world such attributes as belong only to an intelligent being. It is thus a settled conclusion that the omniscient, omnipo- tent and omnipenetrative Brahman alone is denoted by the word Akasa in the context referred to above (pp. 413-417.). The Pranadhikarana is a short one containing only one aphorism, which says that the word Prana also is used in the Chhandogya-Upanishad to denote the Brahman. Here prana cannot mean merely life or vital air, in as much as it is used to denote a thing that has been otherwise describ- ed, and in as much as it is characterised to be an entity into which the world enters and out of which the world comes. Seeing that most things are dependent upon life, we cannot interpret this causal Prana to mean life. Stocks and stones and the essence of the intelli- gent individual self are all pervaded by the Brahman, and are thus dependent upon the Brahman; but there is no life or physical vitality in them. Therefore the word Prana also denotes, like the word Akasa, that all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good Brahman who 1xx ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. alone can be the cause of the universe and be its final home of refuge (pp. 417-418.). There are four aphorisms in the Jyotir-adhikarana, and they are intended to show that the word Jyotis and the word Gayatri are both used in the Chhandogya-Upanishad to denote the Brahman who is the cause of the world. It may be held that the word Jyotis means the ordinary light that counteracts darkness, in as much as no particular characteristics specially belonging to the Highest Self are mentioned here as being in association with the thing de- noted by that word. This Jyotis is also mentioned to be the same as the digestive heat of the stomach, and even ordinary light is quite capable of being characterised by great splendour. The ordinary well known light itself is therefore the Brahman which forms the resplendent cause of the world. Against this view the first aphorism in this adhikarana says that Jyotis or ‘Light’ here denotes the High- est Person Himself, as there is the mention of His feet in a connected context. It is said “All beings make up His one foot; His three immortal feet are in the Highest Heaven.” This means that all created beings indicate only a quarter of His power and greatness and glory, while the remaining three fourths are not made manifest in our visible universe at all. They are in the Highest Heaven, and this ‘Light’ is said to shine beyond that Highest Heaven. When it is taught that this Highest Person conceived as ‘Light’ has to be meditated upon as forming the digestive heat of the stomach, it does not prove that Jyotis cannot denote the Brahman. In the Bhagavad-gita the Lord has actually compared Himself to this digestive heat (pp. 419-421.). The mention of the feet here is also in relation to the Gayat- ri, which again is declared in the Chhandogya-Upanishad ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. lxxi to be the Brahman and to form the cause of all things. The second aphorism of this Adhikarana says that this word Gayatri does not mean the Vedic metre known by that name, but denotes the Brahman Himself. It is taught that one of the ways of meditating on Him is to conceive Him as the Gayatri metre, which has four feet even as He has His four feet. To use words which ordinari- ly denote metres in some other special sense is not un- common, and the word viraj is so used in this same Chhan- dogya-Upanishad. Therefore Gayatri also means the Supreme Self who is the cause of the world (pp. 421-423.). The next aphorism gives another reason why the word Gayatri has here to be understood to mean the Highest Person Himself. As in the case of the Highest Person, so in the case of the Gayatri also, it is pointed out that it has four feet and that all beings make up only one of these four feet. Therefore again the word Gayatri must denote the Brahman Himself (pp. 423-424.). The Jyotis or ‘Light’ mentioned above is said to shine beyond the Highest Heaven, and the three immortal feet of the Highest Person are taught to be in the Highest Heaven. In the former statement the Highest Heaven indicates a boun- dary, while in the latter it indicates a position of loca- tion. The last aphorism of this adhikarana says that, nevertheless, there is no incompatibility here to vitiate the conclusion that Jyotis really means the Highest Person. That Highest Person in the Highest Heaven, who is pos- sessed of unsurpassable splendour, is Himself the Light which is resplendent beyond the Highest Heaven. There is scriptural authority for this way of harmonising the above two statements. Consequently it is quite faultless to say that it is that Supreme Person Himself who is denoted by the word Jyotis or ‘Light’ (pp. 424-425.). xxii ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. The eleventh Adhikarana is known as the Indrapra- nadhikarana, and consists of four aphorisms. This adhika- rana is mainly based on passages to be found in the Kau- shitaki-Brahmana-Upanishad. In one of them Pratar- dana, the son of Divodāsa, is said to have gone to the abode of Indra and there to have been told by him to choose a boon. On Pratardana saying that on his behalf Indra himself may choose such a boon as is most beneficial to man, Indra is declared to have said “Indeed I am the Prana and the Omniscient Self. Worship and meditate on me as life, as immortality.” Here Indra is seen to desig- nate himself as Prana and to affirm that he is himself å worthy object of worship and meditation. Here the doubt naturally arises whether this Indra who calls himself Prana is merely the individual self known as the god Indra, or whether he is the Supreme Self who is other than any indi- vidual self. The first aphorism of the Adhikarana main. tains that the words Indra and Prana denote the Supreme Self, in as much as on that supposition alone the sequel be- comes appropriate, wherein it is said that this Prana is the Omniscient Self who is blissful, undecaying and immortal. (pp. 425-427.). The context of the passage quoted above makes it quite clear that it is the god Indra who is the speak- er therein, and as if for recognition and identification he also calls himself here as the slayer of Tvashtra ; and when he says that he himself is a worthy object of worship and me-" ditation, it cannot be that the word Indra denotes any thing other than the god of that name. The second aphorism here gives the reply to this objection, and says that it cannot be so, because there is in the context the mention of a multitude of attributes belonging to the Inner Self. The Kaushitaki-Brahmana-Upanishad says that Prana is the support of the whole universe that is made up of intelligent ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. lxxiii and non-intelligent things. This quality of being the support of all things can be appropriately attributed only to the Highest Self who is the Internal Ruler of all things. To be the worthy object of such worship as leads to final release and immortality, to be the im- peller of all activities, to be the support of all, to be the Lord of all, and to be blissful, undecaying and immortal, are all attributes belonging to the Inner Self; and they are ascribed to Indra and Prana. Therefore the words Indra and Prana denote the Supreme Self Himself here (pp. 427-430.). How can Indra presume that he is the possessor of all these attributes of the Inner Self? The third aphorism here gives the answer to this question. That Indra looked upon himself as the Highest Self is in accordance with the teaching given in the sastras, and in accordance with what Vamadeva is said to have done when he realised and saw the Brahman. After realising that the Highest person is the Internal Ruler of all things, and that the universe is His body, Prahlada is also said to have declared that he was all things himself and that all things existed in him (pp. 430-432.). The characteristics of the individual self and of the principal vital air are mentioned clearly in the context wherein the words Indra and Prana occur. Therefore these words cannot denote the Brahman, who is different from the intelligent individual selves and from non-intelligent matter, and who is also the cause of the world. The last aphorism of this adhikarana gives, however, the reply to this supposition, by pointing out that it is allowable to worship and meditate on the Brahman in three ways, that those three ways of worship and meditation are assumed to be proper in the context here, and that one of those three ways is actually adopted therein. The Brah- man may be worshipped in His essential unembodiedlxxiv ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. nature, or He may be worshipped as an embodied being; and in this latter case He may be conceived and meditat- ed upon either as an individual self or as a material object. Wherever particular individual selves and particular mate- rial objects are found so described in the scripture as to be in association with the peculiarly characteristic attributes of the Supreme Self, or wherever the words denoting those individual selves and material objects are seen to be gram- matically equated with words denoting the Supreme Self, -in all such cases what is intended to be taught is the worship and meditation of the Brahman as forming the Inner Self of all those intelligent and non-intelligent en- tities. Accordingly the words Indra and Prana also de- note the Supreme Self (pp. 432-435.). Thus ends the commentary on the first part of the first chapter of the Vedanta-Sutras. The first Adhikarana establishes the need for the study of the Vedanta and points out the purpose of such a study. The second gives a definition of the Brahman. The third points out that this definition has altogether to be based on the scripture. The fourth says that the scripture accordingly forms the only source from which a knowledge of the Brahman is to be derived, in as much as the Brahman is the one thing which it throughout aims at teaching. These four Adhikaranas contain only one aphorism each, and together they denote the need and the main object of Vedantic studies. The fifth Adhikarana establishes that the Brahman, who has been defined to be the cause of the creation, preserva- tion and destruction of the whole universe, is other than the purely material Pradhana of the Sankhyas. Thus the Vedanta does not believe in what may be called the omni- potence of matter, and there are eight aphorisms given to shew that matter cannot be the creator of the world. Then ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. lxxv · the eight aphorisms of the sixth Adhikarana demonstrate that, according to the teaching given in the Upanishads, the cause of the creation, preservation and destruction of the world is not only not matter, but it is not also any one of the individual souls existing in the universe. The Brahman who is the Highest Person is the Creator; and He is distinct from matter and distinct from soul. Then the remaining five Adhikaranas shew that it is only this Brahman who is mentioned as the Person within the Sun and the eye, and who is denoted in various contexts in the Upanishads by the words Akasa, Prana, Jyotis, Gayatri and Indra-and-Prana. Accordingly it is proved that the Prakriti and the Purusha of the Sankhyas do not constitute the cause of the world, but that the cause thereof is the omniscient and omnipotent God Himself who is wholly pure and abundantly full of all auspicious qualities. -:0:- Ta SRI-BHASHYA. CHAPTER. I. PART I. May my understanding assume the form of loving de- votion to that Highest Brahman who is the Home of Lakshmi, and to whom the creation, preservation, de- struction, &c., of all the worlds is (mere) play, whose main resolve consists in the protection of hosts of multiform subordinate beings, and who is specially seen to shine forth in what constitutes the head of the Vedas. May the fair-minded god-like ones of the earth drink in daily the speech-nectar of the son of Parasara (the nectar) which has been churned out of the heart of the milky ocean of the Upanishads, and quickens such souls as have lost hold of their life in God through the excessive flaming forth of the fire of samsaras (may they drink in that nectar) which has been carefully preserved by ancient teachers and has (hitherto) been held at a distance (from us all) on account of the mutual conflict of many schools of thought, and which is now brought within the reach (of all) by means of (our) appropriate words.
Lakshmi is the name of the god- dess of fortune, mercy and beauty. She is otherwise known as Sri, and is re- garded in Hindu Mythology as the wife of Vishnu or Nārāyaṇa. In the Taitt. Ar. in the passage “Hrischa te Lakshmischa patnyau,” both Lakshmi, and Hri or modesty personified, are spoken of as the wives of Vishnu.
The Upanishads are looked upon as forming the head of the le- das, and are also known as the Fe- dinta.
Samsara means the circuit of mundane existence consisting of fre- quent births and frequent deaths and all their consequences. SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. 1. Ancient teachers (such as Dramidacharya and others) abridged that extensive commentary on the Brahma-Si- tras which was composed by the venerable Bodhayana. In accordance with their opinion, the words of the sutras (i. e. aphorisms) are (here) explained. ADHIKARANA. I. Jijñāsādhikaranṇa. Sūtra 1. Athāto Brahmajijñāsā. Then therefore the enquiry into the Brahman. Here the word then is used in the sense of coming im- mediately after; the word therefore is used in the sense that that (enquiry) which has been concluded (viz. the enquiry into the Karma-kanda) is the reason (for under- taking the present enquiry). With him who has (first) studied and learnt the Vedas with all their limbs and head, and who, through realizing that the mere knowledge of (ritualistic) works gives small and transitory results, has the desire for final release born in him-(with him), the desire for that knowledge of the Brahman, which is pro- ductive of infinite and eternal results, is, indeed, of subse- quent origin. Brahmano jijñāsā - Brahmajijñāsā. Brahmanas, the
Brahma-Sutras is another name for the Vedanta-Sutras of Badarāyaṇa.
Accordingly, Bodhayana is called the Vrittikära or the author of the Tritti.
The Karma-kända is that section of Vedic scriptures which includes the Mantras, the Brahmanas and such portions of the Aranyakas as deal with rituals and their performance.
In the same way in which the Upanishads are looked upon as the head of the Vedas, the science of Sik- sha or phonetics, which deals with the proper pronunciation and euphony of words, grammar, metrics, Nirukta which deals with the etymology and proper meaning of Vedic words, astro- nomy, and Kalpa or the code of litur- gy, form the six limbs of the Vedas.Adhik. 1. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 3: genitive of the word Brahman, has (here) the objective sig- nificance, in accordance with the special rule-" The geni- tive followed by a word having a krits affix is used to denote the agent or the object." [Panini. II. 3. 65.]. Even if the genitive is taken as expressing relation in gener- al", the objective significance (of the genitive) is well esta- blished (here), because the desire to know requires an ob- ject. Yet again, because what is made out by the direct denotative power (of the genitive in accordance with Panini. II. 3. 65.) is more acceptable than what is ob- tained by a process of inference (in accordance with Panini.. II. 3. 50., where the genitive is declared to be capable of expressing relation in general) the genitive (here) has to be understood in the objective significance. It should not be supposed that because there is the rule-“The genitive prescribed specially for particular words is not to be com- pounded”-[Panini. II. 2. 10. Vartika.], this genitive in the objective significance, (being one such), is prohibited from being compounded (with other words); for, there is the rule of counter-exception (to this), viz. “The genitive, with a krit following, is to be compounded.” [Panini. II.
1. Vārtika.] By the word Brahman is denoted the Highest Person who is, by nature, devoid of all evil, and is possessed of hosts of auspicious qualities, which are innumerable and unsur- passed in excellence. For, everywhere (i. e. in all contexts) the word Brahman is seen to derive its meaning from the
See Panini III. 1. 93. Kridatin. Whenever a rule affecting a root ob- tains scope for its operation, then the affix which is applied to that root in accordance with that rule, and is other than verbal personal affixes such as mi, si, ti, is called a Krit. Generally, a Krit is an affix used to form nouns from roots. And a word ending with a Krit affix (Kyidanta) is also called a Krit. The word Jijnasa is a ver- bal noun and is taken to be a Kit here.
See Panini. II. 3.50. 4 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. association of brihattva, i. e. greatness, (with the thing denoted by it); and whatever greatness is, by nature as well as by qualities, unsurpassed in excellence, that is its primary and natural meaning 10. And He (who possesses such greatness) is alone the Lord of All. Hence the word Brahman is primarily used to signify Him alone. In cases where, on account of the association of a small modicum of that quality, other things than He are meant (by the word Brahman), it must be used in a secondary sense; because it is improper to postulate a variety of meanings (for it), as (it is improper) in the case also of the word Bhagavat". For the sake of attaining immortality, He alone has to be desired and to be known by (all) those who are afflicted with the three miseries12. Hence, the Lord of All is in- deed the Brahman who forms the object of (our present) enquiry. Jijñāsā is (literally) the desire to know. As (every) desire has for its basis the thing to be desired, here, that
In Indian literature it is held that the power of words to denote meanings is of three kinds, viz. de- notative, figurative and purportive. The purportive signification of words is by some maintained to be different from the suggestive signification, and accordingly the power of words is also said to be fourfold. See Kavya- prakasa, chapters, II. & III.
The word Bhagavat means the Divine Lord. It is, however, used frequently enough as a term of re- spect in association with the names of great and holy men, such as Vyasa, Bodhayana, &c. It is held that in all such cases the applicability of the word as a term of respect is due to the fact of such men possessing more or less the godly qualities of the Divine Lord.
The three miseries’ are the three kinds of miseries known as the Adhyatmika i. e. those which are due to one’s self, the Adhidaivika, those that arise out of deities or are of supernatural origin, and the Adhi- bhautika, those that arise out of natur- al causes and beings. For example, fever and other such diseases, anger, desire, and other such passions form the misery known as the Adhyatmika. Thunder, storm, lightning, &c., pro- duce the Adhidaivika misery. The Adhibhautika misery results from ghosts, devils, &c. Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 23 very knowledge (of the Brahman), which is the thing desir- ed, is enjoined. What is said is this:-As the (ritualistic) works learnt from the earlier part of the Mimamsa are capable of producing only small and transitory results, and as the knowledge of the Brahman, conclusively dealt with in the latter part (thereof), is capable of producing infinite and indestructible results,-for this reason alone, immediately after the antecedent knowledge of works, the Brahman has to be desired and known. Says the Vrittikara (Bodhā- yana) therefore:“The desire to know the Brahman comes immediately after the acquisition of the knowledge of (ritualistic) works is completed.” Moreover, he says, in the following manner, that between the Karma-mimämsä and the Brahma-mimamsa there is a sastraic (i. e. scienti- fic) unity (whereby the antecedence of the Karma-mi- mamsa is implied):-“This Mimamsa of the Embodied (i. e. of the Brahman) is composed so as to be one with that of Jaimini (i. e. the Karma-mimamsa) which consists of sixteen specific chapters; and so there is the establish- ment of sastraic unity between them.” Hence the differ- ence between the Purva-mimämsä and the Uttara-mi- mamsă is due to the difference in the subject-matter taken up to be propounded, like the difference between the first six and the second six chapters (of the Purva-mimāmsā), as also like the difference between one chapter and another (of either of the Mimämsäs). The Mimamsa-sastra (as a whole), beginning with “Then therefore the enquiry into dharma 13, (i. e. duty) “-[Pür. Mim. I. 1. 1.]; and ending with “There is non-return, according to scripture;
Dharma or duty is defined in the Purva-mimämsä to be " that thing which has the characteristics of a commandment.” Chodanalakshanortho dharmah. [Jaimini’s Purva-mimamsa. I. 1. 2.]. 6 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. İ. there is non-return, according to scripture”-[Ved. Sūt. IV. 4. 22.], has a certain order of sequence (in the treat- ment of its subject) in accordance with the peculiarity of the topics dealt with (therein). Accordingly, by the statement-“The Veda (Swa- dhyaya) has to be learnt”-[Taitt. Ar. II. 15.], the mental reception, by means of oral recitation, of the collection of syllables known as the Veda, which is denoted by the word Swadhyaya, is enjoined in the very beginning. And if it be asked, “Of what nature is that learning through oral reci- tation and how is it to be gone through ?"-we reply as follows: The requirements (for learning the Vedas) are enjoined by means of this passage, viz. “A Brāhmaṇa of eight years of age should be initiated (as a Vedic student) and be taught (to repeat the Vedas)-"[Sat. Br. ?]; as also by means of the teaching about special preparatory and purificatory ceremonies and restrictions (as to time, place, food, &c.) such as are laid down in this passage among others, viz. “Having, according to scriptural injunc- tions, made preparations to begin (to learn the Vedas) either (on the full moon day) in the month of Sravana (i. e. July-August) or (on the full moon day) in the month of Praushthapada (i. e. August-September), and having be- come fitted (therefor), a Brahmana should learn the Vedas for four months and a half.” [Manu. IV. 95.]. Vedas turns out to Thus it is understood that learning the be the mental reception of a collection of syllables, and consists in their recitation by the teacher followed by the after-recitation (of the pupil), who is in the habit of observ- ing special preparatory and purificatory ceremonies and restrictions, and who has been initiated by a teacher born of noble lineage, accustomed to pious observances, possess- ed of spiritual qualities, and also having a thorough know- Adhik. I. Sul. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 7 ledge of the Vedas. Learning the Vedas is, moreover, a samskara (i. e. a refinement or an exaltation of excellence) in relation to the Vedas, since it is seen that Swadhyaya forms the object (of such a samskara) in the passage- The Veda has to be learnt.” [Taitt. Ār. II. 15.]. Sams- kara (i. e. refinement or exaltation of excellence), it is well known, is the means of qualifying (a thing) for the fulfil- ment of other objects (than those for which it is suited without that samskara). And it is proper for the Vedas to be worthy of samskara (i. e. of getting their excellence exalted), because (when so qualified) they enable us to know (the nature of) duty, wealth, desire and final release, which form the fourfold objects of human pursuit ; and (they enable us to know also) the means of accomplishing them. And again (they are worthy of such samskāra), because, in the way of a mere silent repetition (of prayers). &c., they form, even as they are verbally, the means of accomplishing those (objects of human pursuit). Thus the injunction as to learning the Vedas finally comes to mean a mere mental reception of a collection of syllables, after (reciting) certain mantras1 4 and (obeying) certain regula- tions. Because the Vedas, as learnt by oral recitation, are, of their own nature, seen to give us knowledge of purposeful (i. e. fruit-giving) things, the person who has learnt the Vedas perceives, in the first instance, those purposeful (fruit- giving) things which are disclosed to him by the Vedas so learnt; and then betakes himself, of his own accord, to the ‘hearing’ (i. e. the study) of the Mimamsa which is of
A Mantra is interpreted to mean a sacred formula and its thought which protect the thinker thereof from all danger. It is, properly, a hymn or prayer address- ed to a deity, and is supposed to possess mystic and supernatural powers.S SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. the nature of an enquiry into Vedic texts, having for its result the determination of the special character and mode of those (purposeful and fruit-giving) things. There (i. e. in the Vedas), after the true nature of the injunctions re- garding works has been ascertained, he observes the insigni- ficant and impermanent character of the result of works. And then because, from the passages of the Upanishads which are a part of the Vedas learnt by oral recitation, a prima facie mental impression about an infinite and per- manent result in the form of immortality arises, he there- fore becomes qualified for the study of the Mimamsă of the Embodied (the Mimamsa) which is such an enquiry into Vedantic texts as results in the determination of the nature of that (immortality). Accordingly, Vedantic texts declare the destructibility of the results of mere works and the indestructible charac- ter of the results arising from the knowledge of the Brah- man:-“Just as the world obtained by works perishes here, so also, there, the world obtained by merit perishes.” [Chhand. Up. VII. 1. 6.]. “To him that (world obtained by works) indeed comes to an end.” [Brih. Up. III. 8. 10.]. “It is not reached by the non-eternal (works).” [Kath. Up. II. 10.]. Frail, indeed, are these floats in the form of sacrifices.” [Mund. Up. I. 2. 7.]. Having examined the worlds obtained by works, let a Brahmana acquire freedom from all desires. The changeless is not (gained) by the changeable; to know that, let him approach, with fuel in hand, a preceptor who is learned in the Vedas and has a sure footing in the Brahman. To him (i. e. to such a pupil) who, with restrained senses and fully tranquilled mind, has thus appoached him (i. e. the perceptor), that wise man (the Guru) should speak of that knowledge of the Brahman by which the ever-existent and indestructible Adhik. I. Sul. 1. SRI-BHASHYA. 9 Person (Purusha) is known.” [Munt. Up. I. 2. 12 & 13.]. Should speak of has (here) the same meaning as should teach. “He who knows the Brahman attains the High- est.” [Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.]. “He comes not to death again who sees that One.” [ ? ]. “He who sees (that One) does not see Death.” [Chhand. Up. VII. 26. 2.]. “He (who knows the Brahman) becomes free.” [Chhand. Up. VII. 25. 2.]. “He who knows Him thus becomes immortal here. There is no other path for the attainment of final release.” [Taitt. Ar. III. 12.7.]. “Knowing the individual self and the Impeller (i. e. the Brahman) to be separate, and being therefore blessed by Him, he attains immortality”. [Svet. Up. I. 6.]. To the same effect there are also other texts. It may, however, be said that Swarga (the celestial world of enjoyment) and other such results of works, the destructibility of Swarga and of such other things, and im- mortality as the result of the worship of the Brah- man-are (all) undoubtedly made out merely by learning the Vedas with their limbs; and that (therefore) he, who (having so learnt the Vedas) is desirous of obtaining final release, may at once betake himself to the enquiry into the Brahman immediately afterwards. What then is the reason for the (alleged) necessity of the (previous) enquiry into (ritu- alistic) duty (dharma)? If so asked-we reply" Let him not enter on the study of the Mimamsa of the Embo- died also, since, by merely learning the Vedas with their limbs, all things become known." It may be again said, however,-“True, there certainly arises a prima facie no- tion (of all those things mentioned above); still, as a sentence is capable of definitely importing a true meaning only when it is supported by logic, this notion, even though it at first sight appears of itself, does not transcend doubt 2 10 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Fart. I. and wrong apprehension. Hence to determine that (true meaning), an enquiry into Veda itic passages has to be undertaken.” If so, (we rejoin)" You please see to it that the enquiry into (ritualistic) duty also has to be un- dertaken for that very same reason." But it may be said again (by the Purvapakshin, 15 or the objector) as follows:-Whatever the enquiry into the Brahman invariably desiderates, that very thing should be stated to be the antecedent subject of enquiry (here). The enquiry into the Brahman does not desiderate the en- quiry into (ritulistic) duty (dharma), because in the case of him who has learnt the Vedanta, although he may have (previously) obtained no knowledge of (ritualistic) works, the enquiry into the meaning of Vedantic passages is quite possible and appropriate. In this same (Vedanta) are discussed those ufa anas or forms of worship which are based upon the Udgitha (i.e. the sacred syllable Om), &c., and are in themselves a part of (ritualistic) works. If it be held that one who has not obtained the knowledge of works is incapable of performing them (i. e. of going through those forms of worship), then, whoever thinks so is ignorant of the import of the Science of the Embodied. In this sci- ence, it is aimed to propound the knowledge of the oneness of the Atman (i. e. of the Self), for the purpose of destroying that false knowledge, which is the source of all (kinds of) misery to him,who is sunk in the ocean of the sorrows which arise out of the samsara (or the circuit of mundane exist- ence), that is made up of birth, old age, death, &c., and have for their cause the percertion of the various distinctions which are due to the beginningless avidya, (or ignorance).
This objector is the Adwaitin who is of opinion that the Karma- kanda need not be studied as the necessary preliminary to the study of the Jiana-kända or the Ved änta. Adhik. I. Sit. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. II How, then, is the knowledge of works, which depends upon distinctions, of any use to such a person? On the contrary it is positively unfavourable (to him). Moreover, the dis- cussion of the Udgitha, &c., really forms a part of (the study of) works; and yet as it (viz. that discussion) is closely allied to what constitutes knowledge, it is also (incidentally) con- ducted here (in the Vedanta). Indeed, it (i. e. the conduct of that discussion here) is not due to any direct relationship (of antecedence and sequence). Hence, whatever is desidera- ted by what forms the principal subject of this science-that very thing has to be mentioned as its antecedent. (The Blu- skariyas may, however, here interpose and say)" True; but the knowledge of works alone is what is desiderated by it, because it is declared that final release (or moksha) re- sults from knowledge that is added to works. He (the Sūtra-kara) also says: There is need of all (works), be- cause there are scriptural statements enjoining sacrifices, &c.; just as (the harness is needed) in the case of the horse.’ [Ved. Sit. III. 4. 26.]. Moreover, when the desi- deratel works are not (themselves) made out, it is not possible to know the distinction, as to with which (of them) there is to be the cumulative association (of knowledge), and as to with which it is not to be. Hence that (viz. karma) alone is the antecedent (subject of enquiry)." This view (we mention) is not proper, because the cessation of ignorance (or of avidya) is due solely to the knowledge of the Brahman, who is pure inteligence and hostile to all characterising attributes. In reality, final re.ease is merely the cessation o. ignorance. How can works which are subject to endless distinctions arising from the peculiarities due to the various conditions and stages of li.e, (arising) from the objects which these have in view and from the means of accomplishing them, as also from the manner of 12 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. accomplishing them-(how can such works) become the means for the destruction of ignorance, which(destruction) is, by nature, nothing other than the cessation of the percep- tion of all distinctions? Scriptural texts also say that works are an obstruction to final release, inasmuch as their results are of a transitory nature; and (they further say) that know- ledge alone forms the means of final release. “To him that (world obtained by works) indeed comes to an end.” [Brih. Up. III. 8. 10.]. “Just as the world obtained by works per- ishes here, so also, there, the world obtained by merit perishes.” [Chhand. Up. VIII. 1. 6.]. “He who knows the Brahman attains the Highest.” [Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.]. “He who knows the Brahman becomes the Brahman indeed.” [Munt. Up. III. 2. 9.]. “After knowing Him alone, one transcends death.” [Svet. Up. III. 8.]. To the same effect there are also other texts. Besides, it has been observed that vidya (or the know- ledge of the Brahman) is dependent upon karma, such as sacrifice, &c. Now, it (viz. karma) is (by nature) hostile to what forms the principal subject (of the Brahma-mimāmsā); from this fact, as well as from a careful consideration of the words of the scriptural passages (enjoining karma), it follows that, through previously purifying the internal organ (or the mind), it (viz. karma) is useful in producing the desire to know (the Brahman), but not in producing the fruit (in the form of moksha resulting from the knowledge of the Brah- man); and it is therefore that the word vividishanti (which means they desire to know) is mentioned in the scriptural passage (under reference, viz. Tametam Vedanuvachanena Brahmana vividishanti ya nena danena tapasanāśakena.) [Erih. Up. IV. 4. 22.]. The scripture itself declares in the following manner that after the desire to know (the Brahman) has come into existence, tranquillity, &c., consti-Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 13 tute the inborn means for the evolution of knowledge :- “Tranquilled in mind, with the senses restrained, having given up desires, resigned and patient, and absorbed in abstract meditation, let a man see the Self in the self.” [Brih. Up. IV. 4. 23.]. Therefore, after the desire to know (the Brahman) is thus born in one, whose sins have been destroyed by means of works done in hundreds of previous births without attachment to any particular result, (one’s) avidya (or ignorance) is removed by means of the knowledge derived from such passages as the following among others :-“Existence alone, my dear child, this was in the beginning, one only without a second.” [Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 1.]: “The Brahman is Existence, Knowledge, In- finity.” [Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.]: “He is without parts, He is without actions and tranquil.” [Svet. Up. VI. 19.]: “This atman (the self) is the Brahman.” [Brih. Up. II. 5. 19. & IV. 4. 5.]16: “That thou art.” [Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 7.]. ‘Hearing’ (sravana), ‘reflection’ (manana) and ‘steady meditation’ (nididhyasana) are useful for the purpose of knowing the meaning of (scriptural) sentences. ‘Hearing’ is to receive ideas which are supported by logic-from a pre- ceptor who has perceived the truth that Vedantic passages declare the knowledge of the oneness of the Self. ‘Reflection’ is rationally to fix in one’s self that, in a certain particular way alone, the idea thus taught by the teacher is true. ‘Steady meditation’ is the incessant contemplation of this very idea for the purpose of destroying that beginningless innate impression (vasana) of distinctions which is hostile to this (knowledge of the oreness of the Self). The know- ledge of the syntactical meaning of scriptural sentences
Vide also Mang Up. 1. 2. 14 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. removes the ignorance (or avidya) of him whose innate im- pression of distinctions has been removed by ‘hearing’, &c.; and so whatever is desiderated by that ‘hearing’ which is of this nature, should be ta ed to be the necessary ante- cedent (of the enquiry into the Brahman). And that (which is so desiderated) is this fourfold means, namely, (1) the discrimination between the eternal and the non-eternal things, (2) tranquillity of the mind, restraint of the senses, and an abundance of other 17 (similar) means, (3) the re- nunciation of the enjoyment of the fruits (of actions) here and hereafter, (4) and the desire for final release; because without this (four old means) it is impossible for the desire to know (the Brahman) to come into existence. From the very nature of the subject itself, this alone is made out to be the necessary antecedent (here). What has been said is this: That the cause of the bon- dage (o the soul) is merely the perception of distinctions, which is based on unreality and has its origin in the avidya (or ignorance) that veils the true nature of the Brahman; that the bondage itself is unreal; that solely by reason of its unreality it is destroyed to the very roots only by means of knowledge; that the knowledge thit (so) destroys (the bordage) is derived cut of (scriptura) passages such as “That thou art” [Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 7.], &c.; that works are of no use in causing the origination of such knowledge in its own true nature, or in producing the effect of this knowleage unat is so derived out of such passages, but that the use of works consists only in (producing) the desire to know (the Brahman); and that it (viz. the use of works) is to be found in causing the
These other similar means are uparati, or cessation from all desires, titiksha or resignation and patience, samalana or equaniin- ity, and sraddha or faith. Adhik. I. Sat. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 15 increase of sattva (i. e. the quality of goodness)-(an in- crease) resulting from the destruction of rajas and tamas (or the qualities of passion and darkness respectively) which form the roots of sin; and that, therefore, having in view (only) this use (of works), it is declared (in the scrip- ture)" Brahmanas desire to know &c." [Brih. Up. IV. 4. 22.]. Hence, on account of the uselessness of the knowledge of works, the aforesaid fourfold means alone has to be stated to be the necessary antecedent (of the enquiry into the Brahman). Regarding this (view) it is said (in reply) as follows:- The statement that the cessation of ignorance in itself constitutes final release, and that it results solely from the knowledge of the Brahman is admitted (by us). It has (however) to be discriminated, of what form that know- ledge is which it is desired to enjoin, by means of Vedantic passages, for the purpose of removing ignorance-whether what is to be learnt fron a scriptural sentence is merely the knowledge of the syntactical meaning of that en- tence, or whether it is knowledge which is based thereon and is the same as worship. It is surely not the knowledge arising out of (the syntax of) sentences, because such (know- ledge) results logically from the sentence itself, even with- out an injunction (enjoining that knowledge), and because also the removal of ignorance does not result from just so much alone. Moreover, it should not be urged-that, when the innate impression (vasana) of distinctions remains unre- moved, the Vedantic sentence does not give rise to that knowledge which is destructive of ignorance; that even if it (viz. such knowledge) come into existence (thus), it is nothing wrong if, all at once, the perception of distinctions does not cease for all, as in the analogous case of the per- sistence of the perception of two moons even when the 16 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. (real) oneness of the moon is known;–and that even though it (i. e. the innate impression of distinctions) has not ceased to be, since its roots have (already) been cut, it is powerless to bind (the self): because it is impossible for knowledge not to come into existence when the neces- sary materials for it are available; and because even where there is the wrong innate impression, it is seen that the knowledge which stultifies (such impressions) results from the teaching of trustworthy preceptors, and from the bases of logical inference, &c. It is not possible for you to say that even when there is the knowledge of the meaning of Vedantic passages, the perception of distinctions continues. to be, owing to the existence of a small vestige of the beginningless innate impression (of distinctions); because this innate impression, itself forming the means for the production of the perception of distinctions, is of the nature of an unreality, and is (therefore) removed at once by the genesis of true knowledge. If, even after the origination of knowledge, there be no removal of that (innate impression) which is unreal, then there can be nothing else to remove it; and therefore there will never be the removal of this innate impression (vasana). To say, that the perception of distinctions which results from such innate impressions has its roots cut and still continues to exist, is childish talk. In the case of the perception of two moons (when there is only one in reality) and in the case of other such things, even though the stultifier (of such a perception) is near at hand, the persistence of the false perception is not contra- dictory to reason; because the really existing darkness and such other misguiding things, forming the cause of (such) false perception, are not (thereby) destroyed, owing to the fact that they are not injuriously affected by (true) knowledge. But the effects in the form of fear, &c., (due Adle I. Sil. .] SRI-BHASHYA. 17 to such a false perception of a serpent in a real rope, &c.,) disappear, when they are put an end to by powerful means of true knowledge (such as the verbal testimony of a trust- worthy person, and so on). Moreover, the genesis of know- ledge can never take place in those who hold that that genesis, of knowledge results from the removal of the in- nate impression of distinctions. The innate impression of distinctions is beyond measure, (in strength), by reason of its accumulation from beginningless time; but the mental conception which is hostile to it (ie. to the innate impres sion of distinctions) is weak; therefore the removal of that (innate impression of distinctions or van) is not possible by means of this (hostile mental conception or bhajana). Hence that ‘knowledge’ alone which is different from the knowledge of the syntactical meaning of sentences, and is imported by words such as dhyana (meditation), utasana (worship), &c., is what it is desired to enjoin by means of Vedantic passages. To that same effect are the (following) scriptural texts:-“Having discovered (Him), let him practise know- ledge.” [Viniya prajaan kurvita.-Brih. Up. IV. 4. 21.]. “Having discovered (Him), let him know.” [Anu- vilya vijinit.hind, Up. VIII. 12. 6.]. “Meditate on the Self as the Om.” [Om iti eva atmanam dhyayatha.- Munt. Up. II. 2. 6.] “Having perceived That, one is freed from the jaws of death.” [Nichiya tan mrityumu- kha! pramuch ate.-Kati. Up. III. 15.] Let him worship the self alone as the object to be attained." [Atmanam eva lokam upasita.-Brih. Up. I. 4. 15.]. “Verily, my dear one, the Self has to be seen, has to be heard, has to be reflected upon, has to-be steadily meditate: upon:” (Atma va are srotavyo mantavyo nididhya fitavyah-Brih He has to be sought after, He has to be Up. II. 4. 5. 3 1418 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. specially desired and known." [Sonveshtavyassavijisi tayyah.-hand. Up. VIII. 7. 1.]. To this same effect there are also other similar scriptural passages. These (passages) have to import the same meaning as nididhyasitavyah, &c.18; accordingly, on account of the knowledge of the syntactical meaning of (scriptural) sentences being helpful to dhyana (or meditation), the passages Vijaya prajin kurvita, Anuvidya vijanai and others, (irst) re-affirm (the need for) that (knowledge) by means of (the words) anuvidya and vijfiya, and then they enjoin dhyana by means of prajin kurvita and vijanati. Šrotavyah also gives a restatement (of the need for knowing the syntactical meaning of sentences)-because the need for śravana (or ‘hearing’) arises of itself from the fact that a person, who has learnt the Vedas with a view to attain desirable ob- jects, sees that the Vedas are capable of affording instruction in regard to such desirable objects, and then betakes himself, of his own accord, to the ‘hearing’ of the Vedas for definitely ascertaining what those objects are. Mantavych also means (such) a restatement, because manana (or reflection) serves the purpose of fixing in the mind what has (already) been ‘heard.’ Therefore, it is dhyana (or meditation) alone that is enjoined (here). Says (the Sutra- kara) also-“Frequent repetition (is to be practised), as it is so taught.” [Ved. Sitt. IV. 1. 1.]. Therefore, this vedana (or knowledge), which it is desired to enjoin as a means of obtaining final release, has to be understood in the
The meanings of the Sanskrit words used in the context here are as follows:-nizidhyisilavye has to be steadily meditated upon; anuvidya– having discovered (Ilin); c= having understood (Him); vijänäi let him know; prajnim kurvila- let him practise knowledge; irolavya ==has to be ‘hear l’; tay has to be reflected ugun Adhik. I. Sat. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 19 sense of upisana (or worship). For knowledge (vidi) and worship (upati) are seen to be used, the one for the other, in the beginning and the conclusion of Vedantic passages such as the following:-“Let him worship (upasita) the mind as the Brahman. [Chhand. Up. III. 18. 1.];…….He, who knows (veda) thus, shines and warms up through fame, greatness and spiritual glory.” [Chhand. Up. III. 18. 6.]. “As, indeed, he is not all this, he does not know (veda). …..Let him worship (upasita) Him as the self itself.” [Brih. Up. I. 4. 7.]. And-" He who is the knower of that Brah- min (yastad veda), and that (Brahman) whom he knows (yat sa veda)–both these have been explained to you by me. [Chhand. Up. IV. 1. 4.];……Reverend sir, that deity which you worship (upisse), commend that deity unto me." [Chhand. Up. IV. 2. 2.]. Further, dhyana (or meditation) is of the form of a succes- sion of memories (or remembrances), which is unbroken like a stream of oil. For, firm memory is declared to be a means of final release in this passage, viz. “The memory becomes firm; when such memory is obtained, there is the loosening of all knots.” [Chhand. Up. VII. 26. 2.]. And such memory is of the same form as direct perception, because it (viz. the above passage) has to agree in meaning with–" When He who is the highest and lowest is seen, the knot of the heart is broken, doubts are all shattered; and his actions (or karma) perish." [Munt. Up. II. 2. 8.]. This being the case, it is decided by means of this passage-viz. “The Self, my dear one, has to be seen, &c,” [Brih. Up. II. 4. 5.]-that steady meditation (nididhyasana) has the same character as direct perception. Morcover, memory has the character of direct perception, because it is (simply) an intensification (of the process) of mental concep- tion. 20 SRT-BHASHYA. [Chap. 1. Part. 1. All this has been well explained by the Vakyaka a He says:-Vedana (or knowledge) is ufa ana (or worship), since it is so mentioned in the scriptures as to refer to that." It has thereby been explained that the vedana (or know- ledge) which is enjoined in all the Upanishads, as the means of attaining final release, is (the same as) utasana (or worship). After stating the position of an opponent to the effect that religious contemplation has to be gone through only once, for, by so doing, the intention of the scripture is fully carried out, as in the case of praya a and other such sacrificial offerings, it is finally determined by him (i. e. the Vakyaka a), in the passage" From the word upasana, it is conclusively established (that veda- na or knowledge means utasana or worship)"-that vedana frequently repeated is the means of final release. In the pissage “Ufasana (or worship) is the same as firm me- inory, as it is seen so to be, and as it is so declared in the scriptures “it is explained by him that that very same vedana (or knowledge), which is of the form of ufasana (or worship), has the character of firm memory. Such memory i declared to be the same as seeing; and (for it) to possess the nature of seeing is the same as to have the character of direct perception. Scripture thus specifies the memory which has been proved to possess the character of direct perception, and to be the means of final release: “This Self is not reached either by reflection (pravachana which means manana), or by steady meditation (medka or
The Vakyakära who is frequ- ently quoted by Ranaauja in his Sri-Bhashya & Vedartha-sangraha is known as Tanka. zo. Prayi as are the fore-offerings, as opposed to Anayas or the after- offerings. These praya offerings and others like them cannot be offer- ed more than once in any one parti- cular sacrifice. Vide Par. Mim. XI.
29 to 37. Adhik. 1. Sul. 1.] SRI-BHASHIYA. 21 n ́didhyā;ana); or by largely ‘hearing the scriptures. Whomsoever He chooses, by him alone is “He reached. *.. To him, this Self reveals His own form.” [Munt. Up. III. 2. 3.]. By means of this passage it is (first) stated that mere ‘hearing,’ reflection and steady meditation form no means for the attainment of the Self, and then it is declared that whomsoever this Self chooses, by him alone is He reach- el. For, it is indeed the dearest one that becomes worthy to be chosen. To whomsoever He is unsurpassing- ly dear, he alone is the dearest to Him. It is stated by the Lord Himself, in the following manner, that the Lord Himself, of His own accord, so acts as to cause His dearest one to attain Himself:-“To those who are desirous of an eternal union with Me, and, accordingly, worship Me, I give with love that faculty of understanding by which they come unto Me.” [B. G. X. ro.]; He has also said “Indeed, I am inexpressibly dear to him who has knowledge of Me, and he is dear to Me.” [B. G. VII. 17.]. Hence what is said is this:He alone, to whom this memory of the form of direct perception is of itself inexpressibly dear, by rea- son of the inexpressible dearness of the object of that memory-(he alone) is fit to be chosen by the “Highest Self; and so, by him alone is the Highest Self attainable. Firm memory of this same character is denoted by the word bhakti (devotion)-because the word bhakti is-syro- nymous with upasana (worship). For this very reason, it is declared by the Srutis and the Smritis as follows: Knowing Him alone, one transcends death.” [Svet. Up. 66
The Śrutis and the Smiths to- gether form the scripture of the Hin- lus. Sruti means Vedic revelation; and Smriti ordinarily means.the me- trical law-books. But here, in this work, Smriti is so used as to signify all except the Vedic portion of Hindu Scripture, and the Bhagavad Gita also is referred to under the name of a Smriti. 22 SRI BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. 1. III. 8. He who thus knows Him becomes immortal here. There is no other path for the attainment of final release.” [Tatt. A. III. 12.7]. “It is not possible to see Me, with the help of the Vedas, through the practice of religious austerity, through the giving of gifts, or through sacrifices, in the same manner in which you have seen Me (now). O Arjuna, destroyer of foes, it is possible really to know, to see, and to enter into Me, such as I am now, exclusively by means of bhakti.” [B. G. XI. 53 & 54]. “That Highest Person, O son of Pritha, is attainable ex- clusively by bhakti.” [B. G. VIII. 22]. &c., &c. It will be demonstrated later on in connection with (the sutra which says)-” There is need of all (works), be- cause there are scriptural statements enjoining sacrifices &c.; just as (there is the need of the harness) in the case of the horse”-Ved. Sit. III. 4. 26.]-that works such as sacri- fices, &c., form the means of attaining the firm memory of the aforesaid character. No doubt, the sacrifices, &c., referred to in the scriptural passage-"(Brihmanas) desire to know &c"-Brh. Up. IV. 4. 22.]–are of use in originating (in us) the desire to know (the Brahman). But yet, since such ve- dana (knowledge)-as is of the form of meditation, and is practised every day, and acquires increased excellence through repeated practice, and is continued up to the time of departure from this life-is of itself the means of attain- ing the Brahman; for the production of that (vedana), all. the works appertaining to the asramas (or the various stages of life) have to be gone through as long as life lasts. He (the Sitra-kira) also says (the same thing) in the following and other aphorisms :-"(Meditation has all along in the mean- while to be gone through) up to the time of death, for it is so declared in the scripture “[Ved. Sat. IV. 1. 12.]: “But
V.de also Vaj. Samh. XXX 18. and Teilt. Ar. III. 13. 1.Adhik. 1. Sit. 1.] .. SRI-BHASHYA. 23 the Agnihotra, &c., (have to be performed) solely for pro- ducing that (viz. vidve or knowledge), because it is so stated in the scripture -[Ved. Sut. IV. 1. 16.]: and “(Works have also to be performed) because of their helpfulnes (in the production of knowledge).” [Ved. Sut. III. 4. 33.1. The Vakvakara also says in the following manner that firm memory is the outcome of discrimination and other such qualities:-“That (viz. firm memory) results wholly from (vreka) discrimination, (vimoka) freedom, (abhyasa) practice, (kriya) work, (kalya) auspiciousness, (anavasala) absence of weakness, and (anuddharsha) ab- sence of excessive merriment; because it is only so possible, and because also there is scriptural authority to that effect.” He also explains the true nature of discrimination, &c., thus: “Discrimination means (here) the purification of the body by means of the food which is not impure, either because of its own nature, or because of its source, or because of any (other) special cause.” The scriptural authority for this is-“When the food is pure, the mind (i. c. the internal organ) becomes pure, when the mind is pure, there is firm memory.” [Chhand. Up. VII. 26. 2.]. “Freedom is the absence of clinging to desires.” The scrip- tural authority for this is” Tranquilled in mind, let him worship (the Brahman).” [hland. Up. III. 14. 1.]. “Prac- tice means the worshipping of (God) the Home of Good- ness again and again.” The scriptural authority quoted by the Bhashyakara (i. c. the commentator Dramidacharya) in support of this is here taken from the Smrit" Always with the mind fixed on His form, &c." [B. G. VIII. 6.1. “Work means the performance of the five great sacrifices, &c., according to one’s abilities.” The scriptural authority for this is" He who performs works in the right manrer is the best of those who know the Brahman." [Mund. 24 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

Up. III. 14:]: also." Brahmanas desire to know Him by reciting the Vedas, by sacrifices, by giving gifts, by religious austerities associated with fasting." [Brih. Up. IV. 4. 22.). “Auspiciousness consists in truth, uprightness, mercy, liberality, harmlessness, and in not coveting an- other’s property.” The, scriptural authority for this is- “He is to be reached through truth.” [Mund. Up. III. 1. 5.], and “To them alone comes this fruition of the Brahman which is devoid of evil.” [Pr. Up. I. 16.]. “Weakness is the lustrelessness of the mind, due to the melancholy which is born out of the untowardness of time and place, and the recol lection of sorrowful things, &c. Its opposite is the absence of weakness.” The scriptural authority for this is" This Self is not to be attained by one who is devoid of strength." [Mund Up. III. 24.] “Excessive merriment is the glad- ness derived from the opposites of those (qualities which give rise to avasadai. c. weakness); and the opposite of that (gladness) is the absence of excessive merriment.” That is to say, excessive joy also is obstructive (to the production of the knowledge of the Brahman). The scriptural authority for this is" Tranquilled in mind, with the senses restrain- ed, &c. [Brih. Up. IV. 4. 23.1. What is said is this- that to him, who is thus given to observe scriptural regula tions, the genesis of knowledge comes altogether through the performance of works enjoined in connection with the (various) asramas (or stages of life). To the same effect is another scriptural passage:“Vidyam chividyam cha yas tad vedobhayam sahal avidyaya mrityum tirtva vidyayi- mritam asnute.” [. Up. 11.] Here what is denoted by the word avidya is the work which is enjoined in connec- tion with the castes. and the asramas; avidyaya means, by means of work; mrityum denotes the effects of the past work which is obstructive to the genesis of knowledge; Adhik. 1. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 25 tirtvă means, having destroyed; vidyaya means, by means of the knowledge (of the Brahman); amritam denotes the Brahman; and (aśnute) means, he attains. [=He who knows both vidya (knowledge) and avidya (work) together, first destroys by means of (present) avidya (or work,) the effects of the past work (or karma) which is obstructive to the genesis of knowledge, and then attains the Brahman]. The avidya which is said to be the means of destroying the effects of past karma is other than vidya, and is the same as the work (karma) which is enjoined by the scriptures. To that effect is this passage :-“Having the knowledge of the Brahman as the object in view, he also relied upon (the scriptural) knowledge (of works) and performed numerous sacrifices, in order that he might destroy the effects of past karma by means of (present) avidya (or work).” [V.P.VI. 6. 12.]. Work which is obstructive to knowledge is of the form of merit and demerit. Both these are denoted by the word papa (sin), as they produce undesirable results, in consequ- ence of their obstructiveness to the origination of the know- ledge of the Brahman. Its (viz. sin’s) obstructiveness to (such) knowledge is by way of the increase of rajas and tamas (passion and darkness), which act as obstructions to pure unmixed sattva (goodness) that forms the means of producing (that same) knowledge. That papa (or sin). is obstructive to the origination of knowledge, is under- stood from the scriptural passage–" He of Himself in-. duces him, whom He wishes to lead downwards, to do work which is not good." [Kaush. Up. III. 9.] It is de- clared by the Lord Himself in the following and other passages that rajas and tamas veil true knowledge and that sattva is the means of (acquiring) true knowledge :- Knowledge results from sattva." [B. G. XIV. 17]. And therefore, to give rise to the genesis of knowledge, sinful 66 4 26 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. work (karma) has to be destroyed. Its destruction results from duty (dharma) performed without attachment to re- sults. To that effect is this scriptural statement 23" By means of duty (dharma) he gets rid of papa (or sin)." [M. När. 22. 1.]. Thus that knowledge which is the means of attaining the Brahman desiderates all the works enjoined in connection with the various asramas (or stages of life). Hence, as the knowledge of the true nature of the works so desiderated, and also the knowledge of the small and impermanent character of the results of mere works, are (both) conclusively dealt with in the Karma-mimämsä that (Mimāmsa) alone has to be mentioned as the necess- ary antecedent of the enquiry into the Brahman. Moreover, the discrimination of the eternal and the non-eternal things, &c., do not come into existence without the hearing’ of the (whole of the) Mimamsa; because, without coming to a decision regarding the particulars bear- ing on the fruits (of works), on the means (of performing them), on the modus operandi, and on the persons qualified (to perform them), it is difficult to understand the true nature of works, their results, the permanence or imper- manence thereof, and the eternity of the self, and such other things. That these also (viz. the discrimination of the eternal and the non-eternal things, &c.,) form the means (for acquiring the knowledge of the Brahman), is understood from their prescribed auxiliary use; and their prescribed auxiliary use is learnt from scriptural passages, from the bases of logical inference, &c. This (use of works) has to be made out from the third chapter (of the Purvamimāmsā.) The worship of the Udgitha, &c., although it (merely) serves the purpose of adding to works, really stands in 23. The reference given above is the Upanishads. according to Jacob’s Concordance to Adhik. 1. Süt. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 27 need of the knowledge of the Brahman, because it (viz. that worship) has to assume the form of the contempla- tion of the Brahman, and so has to be discussed here (i. c. in the Brahma-mimamsa) alone. And those works also (viz. the worship and meditation of the Udgitha, &c.), per- formed without attachment to results, produce the know- ledge of the Brahman; and because they thus come to re- semble that (knowledge) in character, they are very appro- priately dealt with here alone. And it is agreed on all hands that they (viz. the meditation of the Udgitha and other such meditations) depend upon the knowledge of the true nature of (ritualistic) works. What they (the Purvapakshins24 or the objectors) further say is as follows:- The Brahman alone, who is pure intelligence and hostile to all characterising attributes, is real; all other things than Him, such as the varied distinctions of the knower and the known and the knowledge arising there- from, &c., are merely assumed to exist in Him and are unreal because, by means of the following and other sästraic passages which are devoted to the teaching of the true nature of the principal subject (of the Brahma- mimämsä), it is declared that the Brahman alone who is pure intelligence and devoid of attributes is real, and that all else is unreal:-“Existence alone, my dear child, this was in the beginning, one only without a second.” [Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 1.]; “And that is the higher knowledge (vidya) by which that Indestructible Being is known–that (Be- ing) which is invisible, which cannot be seized, which has no family (or which has no name), which has no colour, no eyes, no ears: That which has no hands and no feet, and 24. These Purvapakshins or object- as the Maya-valins. are the Adwaitins known also 01328 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. That which the wise see as the source of all beings, is the eternal, the omnipresent, the all-pervading, the extremely subtle, and the imperishable One.” [Mund. Up. I. 1. 6.]; “The Brahman is Existence, Knowledge, Infinity.” [Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.]; “He is without parts, without actions, tranquil, and without fault, without taint.” [Svet. Up. VI. 19.]; “He who is of opinion (that that Brahman) is unknown-to him (He) is known; he who is of opinion (that that Brahman) is known to him–he does not know (Him) (because) to those who know well, (He) is un- known; to those who do not know well, (He) is known.” [Ken. Up. II. 3.]; “Thou shalt not see the seer of the sight nor think the thinker of the thought.” [Brih. Up. III. 4. 2.]; “The Brahman is bliss.” [Taitt. Up. III. 6. 1.]; “That which is all this is this Self.” [Brih. Up. IV. 5. 7.]; “There is nothing here that is many and varied. He who sees this world, as though it were varied, obtains death (mrityu) from death.” [Brih. Up. IV. 4. 19. & Kath. Up. IV. 10.]; “But where there is duality, as it were, there one sees another; but where to one all this becomes the Self, there who shall see whom by what, and who shall know which by what?” [Brih. Up. II. 4. 14. & IV. 5. 15.]; “Modification (i. e. vikara) is (mere) name having its origin in speech; that it is all clay is alone the reality.” [Chhand. Up. VI. 1. 4.]; “For whenever he perceives in Him even the smallest distinction, then, indeed, there is fear for him.” [Taitt. Up. II. 7. 1.]; “Not even on account of the peculiarity of situation can the twofold characteristics (viz. positive and negative) belong to the Highest, for everywhere (That is taught to be without distinctions).” [Ved. Sut. III. 2. 11.]; “But it (i. e. the world of dreams) is altogether a mere illusion, on account of its being of an unmanifest nature.” Adhik. I. Süt. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 66 29 Ved. Süt. III. 2. 3.]; “That in which differences have vanished, which is pure existence, which is beyond the sphere of speech, which is self-knowing-That is the Intelli- gence, called Brahman by name.” [V. P. VI. 7. 53.]; (I bow) to Him alone who in reality is of the nature of Intelligence and is absolutely pure (i. e. devoid of all attri- butes), and who, nevertheless, exists, in consequence of (our) illusive vision, in the form of material objects." [V. P. I. 2. 6.]; “O Lord of the universe! Thou alone art the only reality, and there is none other.” [V. P. I. 4. 38.]; “This which appears embodied belongs to Thee who art of the nature of Intelligence; and those who are not Yogins (i. e. those who are ignorant) look upon it, on account of (their) illusive perception, as though it formed the world. All this world is of the nature of Intelligence. Ignorant men look upon it as though it were made up of material things, and are tossed to and fro in a flood of illusions. Highest Lord! Those who know what is knowledge, and whose minds are pure, look upon the whole world as being made up of Intelligence and as consisting of Yourself.” [V. P. I. 4. 39 to 41.]; “Although He is to be found in one’s own body and in that of all others, Intelli- gence, which is one and simple, indeed, constitutes His reality. Dualists see things wrongly.” [V. P. II. 14. 31.]; “O, thou the best of kings, if there were any other like me or any other unlike me, then alone would it be proper to say that such an one is me and such an one is not me.” [V. P. II. 13. 90.]; “It is, in consequence of the differ- ence due to the holes in a flute, that the distinctions named shadja25, &c., (corresponding to the pitch of the sound) 25. Shadja is the name of the first note of the gamut and corresponds to the symbol do in do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, si, which are given in Indian music thus: sa, ri, ga, ma, pa. da, ni. The seven notes of the scale have the following names in Sanskrit: shadja, rishabha, gandhära, madhyama, panchama, darata, mishädha. 30 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. result to the air, which pervades all without distinction; just so is it the case with the Highest Self.” [V. P. II. 14. 32.]; “He is myself, and He is yourself, and all this is the same as the Self. Give up the illusion of distinc- tions. Thus taught by him, that great king saw the High- est Reality and gave up distinctions.” [V. P. II. 16. 23 & 24.]; “When the knowledge, which gives rise to distinc- tions, has undergone complete destruction, (then) who will create the unreal difference between the self and the Brah- man?” [V. P. VI. 7. 96.]; “O Gudakeša, in the form of the individual self, I exist within the heart of all beings.” [B. G. X. 20.]; “O Bhārata, know Me also as the knower of the body (i. e. as the individual self) in all bodies.” [B. G. XIII. 2.]; “There does not exist any being, moveable or immoveable, which is without Me.” [B. G. X. 39.]. Unreality is that, which, being grounded upon what is perceived, is liable to be stultified by means of the know- ledge of things as they actually are; as, for instance, it can be made out in the case of the (falsely perceived) serpent, &c., having for their foundation a (real) rope, &c. The assump- tion of the existence of that (serpent) there (i. e. in the rope) is due to something wrong that misguides us. Similar- ly, owing to a certain something that misguides us, all this world which is made up of the distinctions of gods, animals, men,immoveable things, &c.,is assumed to exist in the High- est Brahman whose essence is pure Intelligence; and it (viz. the world) is liable to be injuriously affected by the know- ledge of the true nature of the Brahman as He is, and has therefore the character of unreality. And that something which so misguides us is the beginningless ignorance (avidya) 26. Gudakesa is one of the names of Arjuna. Vide also B. G. I. 24., II. 9. & XI. 7.Literally it means one who has conquered sleep, or one who has a profusion of hair. Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 31 which is the cause of the varied and wonderful superimpo- sitions that veil the true nature (of the Brahman), and is (itself) unfit to be described either as existence or as non- existence. From the following and other passages it is evident that the Brahman Himself, who is devoid of attri- butes and is pure Intelligence, has His true nature veiled by the beginningless ignorance which is unfit to be describ- ed either as existence or as non-existence, and He thereby perceives the manifoldness existing within Himself :-“For they (i. e. the creatures) are drawn away (from the Brah- man) by means of ignorance (anṛita=avidya.).” [Chhand. Up. VIII. 3. 2.]; “Those who are (dependent on them- selves) have ignorance; their desires remain unfulfilled.” [Chhand. Up. VIII. 3. 1.]; “Then there was neither exist- ence nor non-existence, there was darkness (tamas=avid- ya); at first, Intelligence was veiled by darkness.” [R. V.X. 129. 1 & 3.];27 “Know then that Prakriti (Nature) is maya, and the great Lord, the Mayin (i. e. the possessor of the maya).” [Svet. Up. IV. 10.]; “Indra (i. e. the Highest Lord) is known to assume many forms through the power of illusions (maya).” [Brih. Up. II. 5. 19.]; “My maya is difficult to transcend.” [B. G. VII. 14.]; “When the individual soul, that has been asleep under the influence of the beginningless maya, wakes up, (then he knows the Unborn One).” [Mand. Up. II. 21.]. To the same effect are the following passages :-" Be- cause the Lord is of the nature of Intelligence, therefore He has the All for His form. But He is no material thing. Know then that the distinctions of mountain, ocean, land, &c., are indeed born out of Him and are the outcome of the display of illusion in Intelligence. But when, after all the effects of works are destroyed, there remains Intelligence 27. Vide also Taitt. Br. II. 8. 9. 32 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. alone in Its own true form, pure and devoid of evil, then in- deed cease to exist those fruits of the tree of illusion (sankalpa =avidya) which form the distinctions of things in things." [V. P. II. 12. 39. & 40.]; “Therefore, at no time and in no place, can there be any group of things other than Intelligence, O thou, twice-born one. The One Intelligence is appre- hended in many ways, by those whose minds are variously constituted on account of the variety of their own actions. The Intelligence which is pure, devoid of evil, devoid of sorrow and is free from contact with all greed, &c., is one and always one, is the Highest and the Highest Lord; He is Vasudeva, other than whom there is nothing. Thus have I told you of what is real existence, and how Intelligence. is real and all else unreal; and I have told you also that this, which is phenomenally realised well for practical pur- poses, is indeed that on which the world is dependent”. [V. P. II. 12. 43 to 45.] The following and other scriptural passages speak of the destruction of ignorance (avidya), by means of the knowledge of the oneness of the self with the Brahman, who is devoid of characterising attributes and is pure In- telligence :-" He comes not to Death (mrityu) who sees that One". [ ? ]; “He who sees that One does not see Death”. [Chhand. Up. VII. 26. 2.]; “For, indeed, when he obtains fearless support in that which is invisible, incorporeal, undefinable, homeless, then he obtains fearless- ness.” [Taitt. Up. II. 7. 1.]; " When He who is the high- est and lowest is beheld, then the knot of the heart is broken, doubts are all shattered, and his karmas perish." [Mund. Up. II. 2. 8.]; “He who knows the Brahman be- comes the Brahman indeed.” [Mund. Up. III. 2. 9.]: “He who thus knows Him transcends death (mrityu= avidya); there is no other path for the attainment of finalAdhik. I. Sul. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 33 release.”-[Svet. Up. III. 8.]; &c. Here avidya (ignorance) is denoted, by the word mrityu, as in this speech of Sanat- sujāta: “I say that false perception is death (mrityu), and I also say that right perception is always immortality.” [M. Bh. V. 41. 4.]. “The Brahman is Existence, Knowledge (or Intelli- gence), Infinity”-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], “The Brahman is Knowledge, Bliss”-[Brih. Up. III. 9. 28.], these and other such probative passages (in the Vedanta) conclusively est- ablish the essential nature of the Brahman to be free from at- tributes; and the knowledge, that this (Brahman) is ident- ical with the (individual) self, results logically from the following and other scriptural passages:-“And he who worships another deity, thinking that that (deity) is one, and he another, he does not know.” [Brih. Up. I. 4. 10.]; “He (the self) is not all this….Let him worship Him as the self itself.” [Brih. Up. I. 4. 7.]; “That thou art.” [Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 7.]; “Reverend deity, I am you, reverend deity, thou art me.” [?]; “Therefore whatever I am, that is that (deity), and whatever that (deity) is, that am I.” [Ait. Ar. II. 2. 4. 6.]. (The Sūtra-kara) also says the very same thing thus:-“But they (viz. the Jabalas) worship (the Lord) as the self, and they (viz. the scriptural texts) make us comprehend (it as such).” [Ved. Süt. IV. 1. 3.] Similarly, the Vak- yakara also says “The Lord is to be comprehended as nothing other than the self, since everything is assum- ed to exist in Him.” Thus by means of this knowledge of the oneness of the self and the Brahman, the de- struction of the bondage of unreality and of its cause comes on quite appropriately. However, it may be asked-how is that cessation of all distinctions, which is contrary to perception, accomplish- 10 5 34 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. ed by the knowledge that is derived out of the scripture ? -or, how, (for instance), by means of the knowledge ‘This is a rope, not a serpent’, is the destruction of the serpent-perception effected-(the destruction) that has to contradict what is actually perceived? Here (i. e., in the instance of the serpent falsely perceived in the rope) there is contradiction between two perceptions; there, however, (the contradiction lies) between perception (on the one hand) and the scripture based upon perceptions (on the other). Under these circumstances, when there is contradiction between two equally strong things, how can there be between them the relation of the stultified and the stultifier? If it be said in reply that it (viz. the rela- tion of the stultified and the stultifier) results from the fact of the former (i. e. the thing stultified) being produced by a misguiding cause, and the latter (i. e. the stultifier) not being so (produced), then, this same (contention) is equally applicable to the case of scripture and percep- tion also. What is said is this:-The cause of the rela- tion of the stultified and the stultifier is neither similar- ity, nor dependence, nor independence (in respect of any two things); because it is not possible to stultify (for instance), the direct perceptual knowledge, (of the single- ness of the flame in a lamp) by means of the inference 28 regarding the (constantly) changing character of flames. In this case, the oneness of the flame is undoubtedly made out 28. The body of the syllogism in regard to this inference is given as follows:-Madhyakshanaparampa- ravartini jwälä pratikshanam utpattivi- nasavali, vartyavayavavināsitwayogal, prathamacharamakshanajwälävat. That is to say:-The flame burning during the successive moments intermediate (between the moment of its birth and the moment of its extinction) is born and extinguished from moment to mo- ment, because it also shares the de- structibility of the lit portion of the wick, in the same way in which the flame is seen to do so during the first moment of its birth and the last mo- ment of its extinction, Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 35 by means of direct perception. Such being the case, when there is contradiction between two means of knowledge, then, that one happens to be the stultified, the logical re- sult of which it is possible to realise otherwise, while that other happens to be the stultifier, (the logical result of) which cannot be otherwise established, and is, more- over, singular and undoubted. That this is the relation of the stultified and the stultifier is established in all cases. Therefore, it is but proper that the cessation of that bondage, which is of the form of varied superimpositions resulting from direct perception, &c., which allow room for possible errors, does take place by means of the knowledge of the oneness of the self with the Brahman, who is unmixed Intelligence, destitute of attributes, eternal, pure, free, intelligent, and self-luminous-(the knowledge) that results from the scripture which, being in accordance with the tradition that is beginningless, endless and unbro- ken, does not admit of the smallest error, and is (as a means of knowledge) singular and undoubted (in value). But in regard to direct perception, which apprehends the world of distinctions resulting from varied superimpositions, the defect (or misguiding cause) known as avidya (or igno- rance), which mainly consists of the beginninglessly old in- nate impression of distinctions, is admissible and has its scope. However, stultification may possibly result to those scriptures (or sastras) also, which are free from all de- fects on account of their being in accord with the beginn- ingless, endless, and unbroken tradition; because they deal with distinctions in such passages as “Let him who is de- sirous of Swarga (or the celestial world of enjoyments) perform the Jyotishtoma sacrifice.” 29 Yes; and the sastra 29. Vide Taitt. Samh. VII. 4. 1 to 12. and Pur. Mim. IV. 4. 39 to 41. 36 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. İ. that deals with final release is of singular and undoubted authority; therefore, it (viz. the sastra dealing with distinct- ions) is certainly stultified thereby, in the same way in which the sastraic injunction 30 (imposing a penance) for an earlier disconnection (between the officiating priests connected together in a chain in the performance of the Pratassavana sacrifice) is stultified (by the injunction relating to the later disconnection), when an earlier and a later disconnection do take place. In Vedantic passages also this same rule holds good in respect of those injunc- tions which relate to the worship of the qualified Brah-. man, because the Supreme Brahman is devoid of attributes (and has, therefore, to be realised after the qualified Brah- man is known). But it may be asked, how there can be the stultification of the following and other sastraic statements which are in- tended to teach the essential nature of the Brahman:-“He who understands all and who knows all”-[Mund. Up. I. 30. In the sacrifice known as the Pratassavana, five Ritwiks (or officiat- ing priests) move one behind the other, taking hold of each other’s girdle. The Prastotri takes hold of the Adhwar- yu from behind, the Pratihartṛi takes hold of the Prastotri similarly, the Udgātți Lakes i takes hold of the Pratihartri similarly, the Brahma priest takes hold of the Udgatti in the same man- ner, and the Yajamana takes bold of the Brahma priest. While so moving, if the Udgätri disconnect him- self from the Prastotri, then the expia- tion prescribed therefor is, that the sacrifice so interrupted has to be com- pleted, without, however, distributing the dakshina (or the money intended for distribution among the priests), and then the whole thing is to be per- formed over again. If the Pratihartyi disconnect himself from the Prastotri, then the expiation prescribed there- for is, that all the property of the sacrificer should be distributed then and there. If both the Udgatṛi and the Prastotri disconnect themselves from the chain of priests, one after another, in the same sacrificial act, then the expiation prescribed in the case of him who disconnects himself later on has alone to be gone through, but not the expiation prescribed in the case of the earlier disconnection. Vide Pür. Mim. VI. 5. 49 to 55. Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 37

1. and II. 2. 7.]; “His supreme power is revealed, in- deed, as varied, natural, and as consisting of knowledge, strength, and action.”-[Svet. Up. VI. 8.]; “He who desires the truth and He who wills the truth”-[Chhand. Up. VIII. 1. 5.]; &c. If so asked, we answer that it (viz. such stul- tification) results from the power of the passages relating to the non-qualified (Brahman). What is said is this:-The following and other similar passages, viz. “That which is neither gross, nor atomic, nor short, nor long”-[Brih. Up. III. 8. 8.], “The Brahman is Existence, Knowledge, Infinity.”-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], “That which is with- out attributes, without taint”-[A. M. Nar. 7.], 31 declare that the Brahman is Intelligence, eternally un- changeable, and devoid of all attributes: while others (declare that He is) qualified. There being (thus) a conflict between (these) two kinds of passages, it is nothing wrong if, according to that very rule which is applicable to the dis- connection (in the chain of priests), the passages relating to the non-qualified (Brahman) are found to be more powerful, for the reason that these (latter) desiderate the (predication of) qualities, and have, therefore, to come into operation after (the passages which relate to the qualified Brahman). But if it be said that in the passage “The Brahman is Existence, Knowledge, Infinity”-knowledge, &c., are declared to be the attributes of the Brahman, it is replied that it is not so; because there has to be oneness in the meaning (of these words) due to the fact of their being grammatically equated. If it be (again) said that even in describing that which is characterised by many attri- butes, oneness in the meaning (of the words used to describe it) is not opposed to reason, then, (it has to be said that)
See also Adh. Up. 68.38 ŚRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. 1. whoever is (so) ignorant of the denotative power of words is (foolish like sheep which, being fit for sacrifices, are) beloved of the gods. Oneness in meaning implies that all the words (in a grammatical equation) denote the same thing. When- ever a thing that is characterised by attributes is described (in words), then, the difference in meaning between those (various characterising) words, in accordance with the difference in the characterising attributes (they denote), is unavoidable; and therefore (such) oneness in meaning does not result (here). If, however, it does result even as against this, then all the words cannot but have a synonimity in meaning, in as much as they have (all) to denote one and the same characterless thing. But listen attentively how there can be no (such) synonimity even when they import one and the same thing. It is settled that (in a grammati- cal equation) there is oneness of import, and hence it is that the one particular thing (mentioned therein) has the power of being denoted by the opposite of what is contra- dictory to the meaning of the several words (used in that equation). It follows, therefore, that all the words (in a grammatical equation) have (their own) meanings, and have oneness of import, and are not synonymous. What is said is this: The Brahman, who has to be understood as He really is, is of a nature which is the opposite of all things other (than Himself). All things, which are (thus) by nature opposed to Him, are, in the result, negatived by these three words (viz. existence, know- ledge, and infinity). Of these, the word existence refers to the Brahman as being other than that thing, which, on account of its being subject to modifications, is unreal; the word knowledge refers (to the same Brahman) as being other than that thing, which is, by nature, non-intelligent, and the luminosity of which is dependent upon other things; Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 39 and the word infinity refers (also to Him) as being other than that which is limited by time, by space, and by its own definite character as a thing. Moreover, this logical exclu- sion (of all that is not a thing from what is that thing) forms no positive or negative characterising attribute thereof, but means the Brahman Himself who is not any thing other (than Himself). Just as, in the case of whiteness or any other such thing, the logical exclusion of it, from blackness or any other such thing, gives the true nature of that particular thing itself (viz. whiteness or any other such thing), but forms no new characterising property (of that whiteness or any other such thing); so also, these three words, by indicating that the one particular thing (mentioned in the given grammatical equation) is oppos- ed by nature to all things different from itself, are abundantly full of meaning, have one and the same import, and(yet) are not synonymous. Therefore, it has been de- monstrated that the Brahman, which is one only, is self-luminous and is free from all characterising attri- butes. It is only when the meaning of this sentence is thus propounded, that there will be agreement in sense between it and the following passage among others :-“Existence alone, my dear child, this was in the beginning, one only, without a second.” [Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 1.]. The passages– “Whence indeed all these beings are born-"[Taitt. Up. III. 1. 1.]; “Existence alone, my dear child, this was in the beginning.”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 1.]; “Indeed the Self, this one only, was in the beginning.”-[Ait. Up. I. 1.] -these and other similar passages define the Brahman as the cause of the world; and His essential nature is here described to the effect that “The Brahman is Existence, Knowledge, Infinity.” Under these circumstances, in ac- 40 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. cordance with the rules2 which enforces faith (in the truthfulness of all that is said about any one thing) in all the recensions of the Vedas, it is the Brahman Himself, who is without a second and excludes (from Himself) (all) similars and dissimilars, that is to be made out in all the passages which characterise Him to be the cause (of the world). That essential nature, which is (here) intended to be propounded, and belongs to the Brahman, who is without a second and is pointed out to be the cause of the world, has (therefore) to be explained so as not to contradict this (aforesaid characterisation). The scriptural text relating to His being without a second does not admit the existence of any second thing even in the form of a quality. Otherwise, there will be a contradiction also of the statement which says (He is) “untainted” and “devoid of attributes,” &c. Therefore, this passage which defines (the Brahman) denotes only That which is indi- visible and homogeneous. It may however be said that there is an indicative 33 (or figurative) sense in the use of the words Existence,’ ‘Knowledge,’ &c., since, by losing their own proper mean-
This rule termed the Sarvasã- khapratyayanyaya may be explained as follows:-The rituals known as the new-moon and full-moon sacrifices are mentioned in several recensions of the Vedas such as Kathaka, Ka- nva, Madhyandina, Taittiriya, &c. Each of these recensions mentions only a few of the characteristics of those sacrifices, and those that are mentioned in any one of them are not all mentioned in the others. Never- theless, all the characteristics men- tioned in all the recensions have to be put together in performing those sacrifices in accordance with any re- cension, because the essential nature of those sacrifices has to be the same throughout. Consequently, the new-moon and full-moon sacrifices are not different in the different re- censions of the Vedas. Similarly, all the statements made about any one particular thing in all the recensions of the Vedas have to be taken together as really characterising that particular thing in each recension. Vide Pür. Mim. II. 4. 8 to 32.
Vide supra p. 4. note 10. Adhik. 1. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 41 ings, they express the nature of that thing which excludes the opposite of what they denote. This is nothing wrong, because the purportive power (of words) is stronger than their denotative power. It is surely agreed on all hands that the purpose of a grammatical equation is to be found solely in (its) oneness (of import.) Again, it may be said that all the words (in a sentence) are not commonly seen to be used in a figurative sense. What of it? Such use is not seen in the case of even a single word, when, (in adopting the purely denotative sense of the words), there is no contradiction of the purport of the sentence. After it has been determined that such and such is the main purport of a group of words, which are used together (in a sent- ence), then, for the purpose of removing any contradiction (which the purely denotative sense of the words may give rise to) in relation to that (purport), (to adopt) the figura- tive interpretation in relation to two, or three, or all (the words), is in no way wrong, just as (it is not wrong to do so) in relation to any one (word). This is so admitted by (all) those who take their stand on the sastras. Those 3 4 who maintain that the syntactical meaning of sentences is to be finally found in action, acknowledge that all the words that are found in the sentences of ordinary language possess the figurative significance; because (according to them) the mandatory and other verbal forms such as the lin &c., 35 are primarily used so as to signify the produc- tion of the (new unperceivable principle) apurvas. The
These are the Prabhakaras- a school of Mimamsakas who hold the position that words have a meaning only in so far as they express actions or are associated with actions in one way or another.
Li is the verbal form of the potential mood, and it is also used in the sense of the imperative mood.
This apurva is otherwise called aarishta by the followers of Jaimini, 6 It is said to be a new and invisible something, representing either an im- perceptible afterstate of a work per- formed in obedience to a command- ment, or the state immediately ante- cedent to the production of the result of that work. In either case, this new principle is of itself held to be enough to produce the good or the bad re- sults of works. 42 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. action signified by verbs is (only) figuratively made known by means of (their) mandatory and other forms. And those other words, which (being different from verbs) de- note their own meanings which are dependent upon action, have also their primary sense undoubtedly in producing the unperceivable principle apurva; and hence to declare that they are (also) significant of action like verbs is (to make them) altogether figurative. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in (adopting) the figurative interpretation of even all the words (in a sentence), if it is to serve the purpose of counteracting the contradiction of the purport of sentences. Therefore the Vedanta is undoubtedly expressive of all these conclusions, and is, in consequence, unquestion- ably authoritative. · Moreover, it has been stated (above) that, in the event of there being a conflict (of the sastras) with perception, &c., the sastras are more powerful. It is only when there is any (such) conflict, that the higher authoritativeness (of the sastras) has to be asserted. But there is no (such) conflict noticeable at all, because perception (also) appre- hends the Brahman who is devoid of attributes and is pure existence. It may be asked, how it can be said that percep- tion apprehends pure existence, seeing that it has for its objects a variety of things, as when (it is perceived) that a jar exists, that a cloth exists, and so on. If (in perception) there be no apprehension of distinctions, then all percep- tions will relate to only one object, and will, accordingly, be the cause of only one realisation, as in the case of the knowledge which results from a continuous stream (of simi- lar perceptions). (This is, no doubt,) true; and it shall be ex- amined here accordingly. How are existence and its differen- tiation made out when it is realised that a jar exists? Both these realisations cannot indeed have perception for theirAdhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 43 basis; because they result from knowledge born at different times, and because also perceptual knowledge lasts only for a moment. Therefore, it has to be ascertained whether that which forms the object of perception is the (essential) nature of things or (their apparent) differentiation. Since the apprehension of differentiation very naturally pre-supposes the apprehension of the essential nature of things, and also (pre-supposes) the remembrance of the correlatives of that (differentiation), for this very reason it has necessarily to be admitted that sense-perception has the essential nature of things for its object; and so, differentiation is not apprehended by means of sense-perception. Therefore, the realisation of distinctions is altogether based upon error. Again, that something which is known as differentiation. is not capable of being defined by those who know the sci- ence of logic. Indeed, differentiation does not constitute the essential nature of things. Otherwise, when the essential nature of a thing is perceived, then, in the same way in which there results the realisation of that essential nature, there will have to result (also) the realisation of the dis- tinctions differentiating it from all other things. The re- alisation that one thing is different (from another) desider- ates the remembrance of correlatives; therefore, it should not be urged that, even when the essential nature of things is apprehended, there happens to be no realisation of dis- tinctions, for want of the remembrance, at that very time, of the correlatives of that (differentiation); for, surely, it is not allowable, on the part of him who holds that differentia- tion is not at all distinct from the essential nature of things, to posit that (before realising differentiation) it is necessary to know the connected correlatives; because, (according to him) the essential nature of things and its differentiation have both the character of not being different from that 44 ŚRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. essential nature. And if there is no need to know any correlatives in the case of the realisation of the essential nature of things, so also must it be in the case of the re- alisation of differentiation. And the statement that a jar is different (from other things), must then be, like the statement that the hand is the hand, an identical proposi- tion (affirming the admitted identity between the jar and its differentiation from other things). Nor is (differentiation) a qualifying attribute. If it have the character of a qualifying attribute, then it has necessarily to be accepted that it (viz., this qualifying attribute) is distinct from that essential nature of things (which is qualified by it). Otherwise, it (viz. differentia- tion) will certainly be the same as the essential nature of things. If it be granted that there is a distinction (between the essential nature of things and its differentiating attri- butes), then in regard to this differentiation (which has been hypothetically taken to be a qualifying attribute), its own character as a differentiation forms its qualifying attri- bute, and in regard to this also, (it being again different from the essential nature of things, its own character as a differentiation forms its qualifying attribute, and so on); thus (arises) a regressus in infinitum. Moreover, (if it be held that differentiation is a qualifying attribute), then, there will also be the logical fallacy of reciprocal dependence; for, there will then result the apprehension of (individual) differentiation when there is the apprehension of things as characterised by (their) generic and other (such) qualities, and there will (similarly) arise the apprehension of things as characterised by (their) generic and other (such) qualities when there is (merely) the apprehension of (individual) differentiation. Therefore, differentiation being difficult of definition, perception brings to light pure existence alone. Adhik. 1. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 45 Again, from the instances such as a jar exists, a cloth exists, a jar is experienced, and a cloth is experienced, –it is seen that all external objects are invariably apprehended as compounded of existence and experi- ence. Now, in all cognitions, existence alone is seen to persist always, and so it alone is the reality; and the differentiating attributes (which are specific of jars, cloths, &c.,) are all unreal, on account of their having to be (one after another) excluded, as, for example, the (falsely perceived) serpent in a (real) rope (is excluded). That is to say, the rope is the (real) entity and forms the persistent basis (of all the false perceptions); and the (falsely perceived) snake, crack in the earth, stream of water, &c., are all unreal, in as much as they are all liable to be excluded one after another. To this it may be objected thus:-In the case of the (false- ly perceived) snake, &c., in a (real) rope, the snake, &c., are of an unreal nature, because (the perception in regard to them) is stultified by knowing the actual reality of their basis, such as the rope, &c., through making out that it (viz. the thing perceived) is a rope but no snake; but not because those (perceptions) are one after another excluded. And the reality of the rope, &c., is not due to their persist- ence all along, but is due to their remaining unstultified (even by the knowledge of what forms their basic reality). But, in the present instance, how can there be unreality in regard to jars, &c., the perceptions whereof are not (so) stultified? This objection is thus answered :-The logical exclu- sion-well, it has to be ascertained of what nature that (exclusion) is. Is it, (for example, of the nature of) the non-existence of cloth, &c., in the cognition that a jar ex- ists? If so, it must be concluded that the stultification of (the cognition of) cloth, &c., results from this (cognition) 46 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. 1. Part. I. that a jar exists. Hence logical exclusion is such a nega- tion of (the cognition of) objects as is based upon (such a) stultification. And this kind of (exclusion) establishes the unreality of those objects which are (so) excluded. Pure existence alone, being unstultified, persists all along, like the rope (for example, in the falsely perceived instances of the snake, the crack in the earth, &c., referred to above). Therefore, all that is other than pure existence is unreal. And the syllogistic statement (here) is as follows:- Existence is real, because it continues to persist all along, like the rope, &c., in the instances of the rope-serpent, &c., (above referred to). Jars, &c., are unreal, because they are (all one after another) excluded, like the (falsely per- ceived) snake, &c., that have for their basis the (real) rope, &c. Such being the case, it is only experience, which con- tinues to persist all along, that constitutes reality, and it (viz. experience) is existence itself. It may, however, be said again that pure existence, being the object of experience, is different from it. It is not so, because (all such) differentiation has already been set aside, as not forming the content of perception, and as being diffi- cult of definition. And for this same reason, the idea that existence forms the object of experience can not be in agreement with any authoritative position in logic. There- fore existence is the same as experience. And this (experi- ence) is self-evident, (simply) because it has the nature of an experience. If it have any other proof (than itself), then, there will be room to characterise it as no experience, in the same way in which jars and such other things (are not exper- ience). Further, it is not possible to posit the necessity of one experience for (making out) another experience, because it (viz. experience) is capable of becoming evident merely by its own existence. Indeed, experience, while it exists, is not Adhik. I. Sul. 1.] ŚRI-BHASHYA. 47 found to be incapable of becoming evident like jars, &c., (which are incapable of becoming evident simply because they exist). Otherwise, (1. e. if experience be found to be incapable of becoming evident simply through its existence), it will have to be acknowledged that it has its knowabi- lity dependent upon something other than itself. Then perhaps you hold as follows:-Even in the case of an experience that has (actually) come into existence, it is merely the object (of that experience) that is brought to light, as (for instance) when a jar is experienced; because no one, who knows that a certain particular thing is a jar, also experiences at that very same time experience-in-itself, which forms no object (of experi- ence) and is not of the nature of what may be (externally) pointed to by the word ’this’. Therefore, in the same way in which contact with the eye and other similar senses is the cause of the production of the knowability of jars and other external objects, an (external) entity alone forms the cause of the production of that same knowability in rela- tion to experience. Immediately afterwards, (that is, after perceiving an object) experience is inferred from the logical basis of distinct knowability which is momentarily associa- ted with that object. If that be so, it may be said that ex- perience, which is intelligence, acquires the nature of non- intelligence. What, then, is the nature of this intelligence known to be? Surely, it cannot be the invariable associa- tion of knowability with its own existence, because (such knowability) is found to exist (also) in association with pleasures, &c. Indeed, pleasures, &c., while they exist, are never unfelt. Therefore, experience-in-itself is not experienced by itself, on account of the impossibility of such a thing (taking place), in the same way in which (it is impossible) for the finger-tip, which feels all other things by48 ŚRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. touch, to perceive itself by touching itself. (To all this, it is thus replied):-That knowability which, like colour, &c., forms a property of objects, and is other than experience, is not (at all) known to exist; moreover, it is not proper to assume (the existence of) a property called knowability, when it is possible to realise all things by means of that experience alone which is ad- mitted by both (sides); for these reasons all this (above contention) is simply the foolish display of the intelligence of him who has not himself understood the peculiar nature of experience. Consequently, experience is not made out by means of inference, and is not also made evident by any other means of knowledge. But, on the contrary, exper- ience, which proves all things, proves itself, and the syllogistic statement here is as follows:-Experience is that in respect of which its own characteristic property and the realisation thereof are (both) independent of any thing else; because it (viz. experience) forms, through its association (with another thing), the means of having that property and that realisation in connnection with that other thing; whatever is, by its own association (with another thing), the means of giving rise to a characterising property and its realisation in that other thing, that is seen to be independent of all other things in the matter of that (property) and that (realisation) in reference to itself. For instance, there is the case of colour, &c., in relation to visibility, &c. Colour, &c., while producing by means of their own association, visibility, &c., in the earth and such other things, are not themselves dependent upon the association of colour, &c., for the production of visi- bility, &c., in relation to themselves. Therefore, exper- ience is itself the cause of its own knowability as well as of the realisatoin that it is knowable, Adhik. I. Sul. 1.] ( SRI-BHASHYA. 49 This same experience which is self-luminous is also eternal, because antecedent 37 non-existence and other non-existences are absent (in relation to it.) And such absence (of non-existence) certainly results from the self- evident nature (of experience.) Indeed, it is not possible to make out the antecedent non-existence’ of self-evident experience,either by itself,or by other means. Experience- if it have to cause the knowledge of its own ’non-existence’— does not, as a matter of fact, cause such knowledge, while it is itself existent. While it is existent, simply because there will (otherwise) be contradiction, its non-existence’ cannot exist. And so, how can it cause the knowledge of its own ’non-existence’? Similarly, even when not exist- ent, it (viz. experience) does not cause the knowledge (of its non-existence’). How can experience, being itself non- existent, become the means of proving its own ’non-exist- ence’? Nor is it possible to know it (viz. ’non-existence’) by other means, because experience is not the object of anything other than itself. The means of proof, that can prove the antecedent non-existence’ of this (viz. ex-
Non-existence (or abhāva) is of four kinds viz. prāgabhava, pradh- wamsabhava, anyonyabhava, and at- yantabhava. Pragabhava or antecedent non-existence exists antecedently to the production of an effect such as a pot; that is, the pot is non-existent before it is produced. Thus, this non- existence is incapable of having a beginning but capable of having an end. Pradhwamsabhava is the non-existence consequent on the des- truction of a thing such as a pot; that is, the pot is non-existent after it is destroyed. So this particular non- existence is capable of having an origin 6 7 but is incapable of having an end. For example, when a pot or any other such thing is destroyed, this particu- lar non-existence comes into being and thereafter persists for ever. Anyo- nyabhava or mutual non-existence means that in any one thing there is the non-existence of another, as when it is said that a pot is not a cloth. This coincides with what is generally known as ‘difference.’ Atyantabhava or abso- lute non-existence is that kind of non- existence which negates the existence of a thing at all times. For instance, the horns of a hare are non-existent at all times. 50 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. perience), has to prove such non-existence’ after making out objectively what experience really is. It is not possible to know its ’non-existence’ by other means, because it is self-evident, and is not therefore capable of being perceived definitely as an external object, so as to say ‘This it is’. Hence, it cannot be said that experience is originated, as there is the absence of antecedent non-existence’ in rela- tion to it. Therefore, it has also none of those other modifications 38 of the produced thing, which are invariably associated with origination. This un-originated experi- ence does not admit of any manifoldness (or variation) within itself, because, in relation to it, there is the realis- ation of what is contradictory to the predication (of such manifoldness i. e. the realisation of non-origination). Indeed, that which is not originated has never been seen to be manifold (or varied in character). More- over, distinction and such other things, are (themselves) capable of being experienced (i. e. of becoming the objects of experience), and cannot, therefore, be the qualify- ing attributes of experience, in the same way in which colour and such other things are not (such attributes). There- fore, as experience is of the nature of experience alone, nothing else that is capable of being experienced can be its qualifying attribute. For whatever reason consciousness is devoid of all distinctions, for that same reason, it has not, for its basis, a knowing subject called the alman (or the self), which is different from its own essential nature (as consciousness). Therefore, and also because it has an intelligent nature, that very thing (viz. consciousness),
These modifications are stated to be six in number and are given as follows:- Shad bhavavikara bhavan- titi Varshyayanih jayate asti viparina- mate varddhate apakshivate vinasvatiti.” Nir. I. 1. 3. They are: Origination, existence, modification, increase, de- crease and destruction. Vide also I’. P. I. 2. 11. Adhik. I. Sit. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 51 which possesses the character of being self-luminous, itself constitutes the alman (or the self). Non-intelligence also, which is invariably concomitant with what is not the self, and is logically excluded from consciousness, indeed, nega- tives (the view) that consciousness (itself) does not consti- tute the atman. It may, however, be said that the (self’s) character of being the knower is established by the cognition I know’. It is not so; it results from illusion, in the same way in which the characteristics of silver are (illusorily perceived) in a bit of the mother-of-pearl. Because experience does not poss- ess the property of being the subject of any predication, of which it is itself the object; therefore, this character of being the knower is (simply) super-imposed (upon consciousness), in the same way in which, when one says ‘I am a man,’ the love of self, due to the feeling that a thing is one’s own, is (superimposed) upon the altogether external lump(of matter) that is characterised by the generic and other properties of the thing called man. To be the knower is, in fact, to be the same as the subject of the predication of knowing. And it (viz. this knower-ship) is subject to modification, is non- intelligent and is seated in the knot of the evolved principle of egoity known as the ahankara. 39 How can this become
Ahankara forms the third of the twenty-four material principles that go to make up the objective world according to the Sankhyas. The Purusha or the soul is the twenty- fifth principle, differing from all the material principles on account of its intelligent character. The notion of egoity is here held to be due to the association of this intelligent princi- ple with matter or Prakriti. Primor- dial Prakriti is held to give rise to the Mahat or the ‘Great Principle’ which is also known as Buadhi, per- haps for the reason that the cognisa- blity of the external world by the Purusha is due to it. Out of this Mahat is evolved the principle known as Ahaikara, which is a kind of ‘mind-stuff’ responsible for our sense of egoity and for the production of the senses and the mind. &c. 52 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. possible in relation to the immodifiable witnessing principle, the atman, which is entirely made up of pure intelligence? The quality of being the subject of a predication and other such qualities do not form the attributes of the self, simply because they are, like colour and such other things, realis- able by means of direct perception. It is seen that there is self-experience, even when there is no notion of egoity, as during dreamless sleep, swoon, &c.; therefore, the self does not fall within the sphere of the notion of egoity. If the property of being the subject of a predication as well as the property of being the object of the notion of egoity be (both) admitted of the self, then, as in the case of the body, (which possesses both these properties), it is difficult to avoid, (in relation to the self), the resulting attribution of non-intelligence, externality, and non-self-hood, &c. It is, indeed, well-known among those, who follow the well- established criteria of truth, that the self, which is the en- joyer of Swarga and other similar fruits of the actions of the body, is different from the body, which falls within the sphere of the notion of egoity, and is generally well known to be the subject of predications. And, similarly, it has to be understood that the internal self, the witness, is altogether different from the knower, which is the thing ‘I’. Thus the principle of egoity, which, though non-intelli- gent, reveals the self to be the same as the immodifiable experience, does reveal it as constituting its own basis. The nature of revealers is to reveal the revealed, as though they (i. e. the revealed things) were within themselves (i. c. the revealers). Indeed, a mirror, a sheet of water, a mass of matter, &c., (respectively) reveal a face, the orb of the moon, and the outline of a cow, &c., as though these were (actually) within them. The illusion I know’; is due to this same fact. Do not ask how experience, which is (Adhik. 1. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 53 self-luminous, can be revealed by the non-intelligent prin- ciple of egoity, which is itself revealed by that (experience); surely, it is seen that the palm of the hand, which is revealed by a beam of the sun’s rays, itself reveals them (at the same time). Indeed, the rays of the sun passing through the holes of a window are frequently seen to be- come more brilliant by means of (their contact with) the palm of the hand, which is (itself) revealed by them. In the cognition ‘I know’, for whatever reason, this knower, which is the thing ‘I’, forms no real attribute of the self, which is pure intelligence; for that same reason, it (viz. the thing ‘I’) does not find its way into the states of dream- less sleep and final release. Indeed, here (in these states), by reason of the cessation of the super-imposition of the thing ‘I’, the self shines forth altogether in the form of pure and natural experience. It is only in consequence of this fact that one who has risen from deep sleep observes sometimes I did not know even myself’. Thus, conscious- ness alone, which, in reality, is destitute of all distinctions and alternations, which is destitute of attributes and is pure intelligence, which is homogeneous and eternally unchange- able, manifests itself, through illusion, as wonderfully and variedly manifold in the forms of the knower, the known, and knowledge. Therefore (the study of) the whole of the Vedanta has to be undertaken to remove the ignorance, which is at the root of this (manifestation), so as to attain the knowledge of the oneness of the self with the Brahman who is, by nature, eternal, pure, self-luminous and free. This opinion of persons who are devoid of those spe- cial qualities which make one worthy of the choice of the Highest Person who is taught in the Upanishads-of those 54 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. (persons) whose understanding is, in its entirety, tainted with the innate impression of beginninglessly ancient sins, and who are ignorant of the essential nature of words and sentences and their correct meanings, and (are ignorant) also of such sound logical processes as enable (us) to pro- ceed rightly (in our reasonings), and as are (at the same time) based upon perception and all other (well known) criteria of truth,- (this opinion of such persons) is found- ed upon that kind of unsubstantial and variedly fall- acious reasoning which is not applicable to any other similar case as an alternative; and it therefore deserves to be disregarded by all those who are conversant with that knowledge of truth, which is based upon percep- tion and all other such criteria of truth as are supported by logic. And this comes out in the following manner: Those, who maintain the view 40 that there is a thing which is devoid of attributes, cannot say what criterion there is to prove that thing which is so devoid of attributes; because, all the criteria of truth (that form the means of logical proof) deal (only) with such objects as possess attri- butes. And the convention that obtains in their own school, that it (viz. the thing devoid of attributes) is established by one’s own experience, is counteracted by the fact of such ex- perience having, (nevertheless), the qualification of being witnessed by the atman (or the self); because, all experi- ence relates to objects which are qualified by some attri- bute or other, as, for instance, in the specific cognition ‘I saw this’. If it have to be demonstrated, by some specious reasoning or other, that an experience, while it is being ex- perienced, is without attributes, although it is (in fact) pos-
Vide supra pp. 27 et seq. Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 55 sessed of attributes, it can be so demonstrated only with the help of such natural qualifying attributes as are peculiar to that (experience) itself, and are different from its own existence. Therefore, even thus, it continues to be qualifi- ed by means of its own qualifying attributes, which form the basis of such demonstration, which are different from its own existence, and are also peculiar to itself. Under these circumstances, it is only some attributes that are denied in relation to a thing which is (already) qualified by other attributes; therefore, the thing which is devoid of attributes can in no way be proved. To consciousness, indeed, belongs the quality of illum- inating external objects as well as the quality of self-lum- inousness, because perception becomes possible to the knower (only) in the way of bringing external objects to the light (of consciousness). We will, in our own turn, explain, with great clearness of judgment, that, (even) during dreams, conditions of intoxication, and swoons, experience is altogether qualified. There are, undoubtedly, many at- tributes, in regard to experience, such as eternity, &c., which are also admitted by you (our opponent). And it is not possible to declare that these also constitute the thing-in-it- self (which is pure and simple); for, even if they are taken to constitute the (attributeless) thing-in-itself, we find that there are conflicting views in regard to its various modes, and every one tries to establish his own position by means of such of its modes as are approved of by him. Therefore, it has to be stated that that thing is certain- ly qualified by such attributes as accord with the accept- ed criteria of truth. Verbal testimony (i. e. revelation) also possesses the power of denoting only such objects as are qualified by attri- butes, because it is extant in the form of words and sentences 56 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. A word is, in fact, the result of the combination of roots and terminations. There is difference between the mean- ing of the root and that of the termination, and it is there- fore unavoidable that words denote only such things as are qualified (by attributes). And the difference between words binds us to a difference in (their) meaning. A sent- ence, which is a collection of words, gives expression to the peculiar relations existing between the meanings of the several words (therein), and is hence incapable of denoting Verbal testi- any object which is devoid of attributes. mony is, therefore, no authoritative means of proving the thing which is devoid of attributes. Perception, which is differentiated into the divisions of the indefinite and the definite, has not the power of being the means to prove the thing which is without attributes. Definite perception has for its object only that which is qualified, because it relates wholely to objects that are characterised by many things such as (their) generic and other properties. Indefinite perception also certainly relates to qualified objects, because all those things which are experienced in it (viz. in indefinite per- ception) are found to be synthetically put together in defi- nite perception. Indefinite perception is, indeed, known to be the perception of that which is devoid of some particular attribute or other, but not (the perception) of that which is devoid of all attributes; because the percep- tion of such a thing is not seen to occur at any time, and because also it is impossible. Surely, all cognition is pro- duced in association with some defining attribute or other, so as to denote that a particular thing is of a particular nature. The perception of anything is impossible apart from the configuration of its characterising attributes, (in the same way in which it is not possible to perceive, for Adhik. I. Sul. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 57 instance, an ox) apart from the triangular face, the dewlap, and such other things (as go to make up its configuration). Hence, indefinite perception is the first outline-perception in relation to things which are of the same kind; and it is said that the second and the following outline-percep- tions are definite (perceptions). Here, in the first outline- perception, the generic properties of the ox and of such other objects (of perception) can not be made out to poss- ess (in relation to them) the property of continued persist- ence. The possibility of making out such continued per- sistence is to be found only in connection with the second and the following outline-perceptions. The generic proper- ties of the ox and of other similar objects of perception constitute the configuration of the thing which is ap- prehended in the first outline-perception; that these (generic properties) possess the character of continued per- sistence, is conclusively made out in the second and follow- ing outline-perceptions; and so the second and following outline-perceptions are characterised as being definite. The first outline-perception is characterised as being indefinite, because the continued persistence of such generic proper- ties of the ox and of other similar objects of perception, as constitute the configuration due, (for instance), to things like the dewlap &c., is not apprehended in that first outline- perception, but not because there is (in it) no apprehen- sion of the generic and other properties which together go to make up a (perceptive) configuration. Even in the first outline-perception, it is only such a configuration, that constitutes the thing which is apprehended,so as to be able to say that it is of a particular form; for, the generic and other properties, which constitute such a configuration, have no characteristics other than those apprehended by the sens- es, and, further, the configurated cannot, as a matter of 838 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. fact, be apprehended apart from the configuration. There- fore, just as the configurated and the configuration are always apprehended (together in perception), so also, in the second and following outline-perceptions, the generic properties, such as those of the ox and of other objects, are always made out to possess the character of continued per- sistence (in relation to those objects). Consequently, they (i. c. the second and following outline-perceptions) un- doubtedly possess the character of being definite. Thus, perception can never have for its object the thing which is devoid of attributes. For these same reasons, the theory which maintains (the thing perceived) to be distinct and non-distinct (at one and the same time) has also been throughout set at naught. In the cognition, “This thing is of this nature’ (Idam ittham), how is it possible to get any idea regarding the identity of the concepts denoted by the words idam (which means this thing) and ittham (which means of this nature)? Of these two, the concept denoted by the word ittham refers, (for example), to the configuration characteris- ed by the dewlap and such other things relating to the ox; and the object possessing these characteristics is denoted by the word idam. Thus the identity of these two concepts is contradicted by perception itself. Accordingly, the thing, which is perceived, is, even in the very beginning, perceiv- ed, as if it is altogether excluded (and is thus different) from all other things. And this exclusion is due to the fact that a perception, which makes out a particular thing (such as an ox or any other object) to be of a particular nature, is in- variably associated with a particular configuration (of at- tributes), such as that which is made up of the generic pro- perties, &c., of the ox or of any other object. In all cases wherein the relation of the qualifier and the qualified is Adhik. I. Süt. I.] SRI-BHASHYA. 59 perceived, it is quite clear, by means of that perception it- self, that they are quite distinct from each other. It being so, a stick, an ear-ring and other such objects, possessing distinct configurations of their own and existing in them- selves, may occasionally happen, however, to be here and there the characterising adjuncts of some other object (than themselves). But the generic properties of the ox and of other such objects become cognisable things only by rea- son of their making up the configurations of (those) ob- jects, and hence they form the attributes of substances. In both these cases (viz. in the case of the separable ad- juncts, such as sticks, ear-rings &c., and in that of the in- separable attributes, such as the generic properties of the ox and of other similar objects), the relation of the qualifier and the qualified is one and the same. And it is for this very reason (i. e. because both separable and inseparable adjuncts possess alike the power of qualifying things), that there re- sults also the perception of the difference between them (i. c. between the qualifier and the qualified). There is however, this much of peculiarity. Sticks and other separ- able adjuncts are capable of being perceived as existing separately; whereas the generic properties of the ox, &c., are systematically incapable of it (i. c. of being perceived as existing separately from the thing they qualify). Hence, the statement, that the differentiation of things is contra- dicted by perception, can be made only by ignoring the true character of perception. Indeed, it is agreed on all hands that the true character of perception is to denote that a particular thing is of a particular nature. All this has been clearly enunciated by the Sutrakara in the aphorism-“It cannot be true, because it is impossible (for contradictory attributes to exist at the same time) in one and the same thing.” [Ved. Sut. II. 2. 31.]. 60 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. And, in as much as perception has thus qualified things for its objects, inference also, relating as it does to such objects as are qualified by the relations observed in perception, &c, has to deal only with qualified things. Even where there is difference of opinion as to the number of the various means of knowledge, all the means of knowledge, accepted by all, deal with this same (qualifi- ed) thing. Therefore, by no means of knowledge can there be the establishment of the thing which is devoid of attributes. Whoever, while he is himself relying upon the natural qualifying attributes of a thing, declares that that very thing is devoid of attributes,–he does not know the contradiction in terms to be found in his own speech, as when one enunciates the barrenness of one’s own mother. It has been stated above41 that, because perception ap- prehends pure existence, it cannot have differentiation for its object; and that differentiation is difficult to define, because it does not admit of any one of the several alternat- ive views (in regard to its own nature). This (opinion) also has been driven away (as untrue), on the ground that perception has for its object only such things as are charac- terised by generic and other properties, and (also on the ground) that generic and other properties, by reason of desiderating their correlatives, form the means of realising the distinctions between themselves and the (distinctions between the) things (qualified by them). What has been admitted by you, (our opponents),-in the case of conscious- ness and in the case of colour and other such qualities,-to the effect that they, being the cause of particular realisa- tions in regard to other objects (than themselves), are also
Vide supra pp. 42 & 43. Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 61 the cause of such realisations in regard to themselves,-that certainly holds good in the case of differentiation also.There- fore, there is neither the fallacy of regressus in infinitum nor the fallacy of reciprocal dependence.42 Even if percept- ual knowledge last only for one moment, yet, during that very moment, the generic properties which, (for example), belong to the ox and other such objects, which are the same as the distinctions between those things and constitute their configurations,–they are (all) apprehended; therefore, there is nothing else here (i. e. in perception) that remains to be apprehended in any other moment. Moreover, if perception apprehend pure unqualified existence, then there would result the contradiction of such (definite) cognitions as are realised in the instances, ‘A jar exists’ and ‘A cloth exists.’ If differentiation, which is a thing other than pure existence, and consists of generic properties and such other attributes as go to make up the configurations of things, be not apprehended by perception, why does one who is in quest of a horse turn away at the sight of a buffalo? If pure existence alone be the object of all cognitions, why are not all the words which are associated with the objects of all those cognitions remembered in each one of those cognitions? Further, if the two states of consciousness, re- lating to a horse and to an elephant (respectively), have the same thing for their object, then (the apprehension of) whichever of them is perceived later on would merely be the apprehending of the already apprehended, and so there would be the absence of any difference (between them); therefore, there would be nothing (here) to distinguish it (i. e. the latter state of perceptive consciousness) from memory. If, in every state of consciousness, the apprehension of particularity is ad-
Vide supra p. 44. 62 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. mitted, then surely it will have to be admitted that percep- tion has qualified things for its object. If all states of consciousness have the same thing for their object, there will then be the apprehension of all things by means of only one state of consciousness, and, in consequence, there will have to be the non-existence of persons affected with blind- ness, deafness, &c. Moreover, pure unqualified existence is not surely ap- prehended by the eye, because it apprehends colour, things possessing colour, and all such things as are characterised by inherent association with anything that has colour. Nor (is pure existence apprehended) by the sense of touch, because it has for its object things possessing tangibility. The sense of hearing and the other senses also have not pure existence for their object, but have for their object the characterising attributes of sound, taste, and smell. Therefore, here (i. e. in this world) there is nothing to be found which can apprehend existence-in-itself. If, solely by means of perception, there be the apprehension of pure existence which is devoid of attributes, then, the scripture, which also relates to it, will have to deal with a result already arrived at by some other means of knowledge, and will therefore acquire the character of what gives expression to a mere tautological repetition. And, for the same reason, there would also result cognisability in regard to the Brahman which is pure existence. You have yourself admitted that in such a case (i. e. when the Brahman becomes cognisable) non-intelligence, destructibility, &c., (would result to it also). Therefore, perception certainly has for its object only such things as are qualified by differentiation which is constituted by the configurations of things and has for its basis their generic and other pro- perties.Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 63 There is nothing other than this perceptive configuration which is seen to be capable of giving rise to the impression that several things are of only one form; and it is possible to realise the generic properties, such as those of an ox and of other objects, merely by means of that (configur- ation) alone. And again, even when it is held that the gener- ic properties of things are distinct from their (corresponding) configurations, the perception of configuration has unavoid- ably to be admitted. Therefore, this (perceptive) configur- ation alone constitutes the genus (in logic). Configuration is well known to be that which constitutes a thing’s own pecu- liarity, and so it has to be (severally) synthesised by percep- tion in accordance with the thing that is perceived. Because the realisation that one thing is different from another results solely by means of the apprehension of their (respective) generic qualities, and because no other thing than generic properties is observed (when such differentiation is perceiv- ed), and because also they (viz. the generic properties) are admitted as well by him who maintains that (differentiation) is distinct (from generic properties), therefore (i. e. for all these reasons), generic properties such as those of an ox and of other objects, alone constitute differentiation. It may, however, be said that, if generic and other properties alone constitute differentiation, then, as soon as they are apprehended, there will be the realisation of differentiation also, in the same way in which they are themselves realised. True, differentiation too is so realised, through the realisation of the generic properties, (for in- stance), of the ox and of other such objects. Indeed, the generic properties, such as those of an ox, &c., are different from all things other than themselves, because, as soon as the generic properties such as those of an ox, &c., are apprehended, there results the removal of all other 64 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I Part. I. impressions of similarity as well as (the removal) of their realisation. Surely, the negation of non-differentiation results wholly from the apprehension of distinctions. However, in the realisation ‘This is different from that,’ the declara- tion made in regard to these mutually exclusive correlatives (viz. this’ and ’that’) desiderates (each of) those (corre- latives); it is, therefore, said that the realisation that one thing is different from another is dependent upon correlat- ives. 4 The statement made above 43 to the effect that jars and other such specific objects are unreal, because they do not persist before consciousness in all perceptions, this is an erroneous assumption on the part of one who has not rightly considered the relation of the stultified and the stultifier, and the peculiar nature of the properties of logical exclusion and continued persistence (in regard to percep- tions). In fact, the relation of the stultified and the stultifier arises only when there is a contradiction between two cognitions; and then (i. e. when it arises), there is certainly the exclusion of that which is stultified. Now, in regard to (perceptions which relate to) jars, cloths, &c., there is no (mutual) contradiction at all (between them); because they are different from one another in point of time and place. If, when the existence of a thing (is perceived) in relation to any particular place and any particular time, its non-existence (also be perceived) in relation to the same place and the same time, then there is contradiction. And in such a case, that which is the stronger (of the two) becomes the stultifier, and there arises the negation of the stultified. If a thing, which is experienced as existing in relation to a certain time and a
Vide supra p. 45. Adhik. I. Süt. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 65 certain place, is perceived to be non-existent in relation to a different time and a different place, (then) there is no contradiction; and so, how can there be the relation of the stultified and the stultifier in such a case? Or, how can it be said,that, what has been (already once) negatived in one instance, is (again) to be negatived in another instance? On the other hand, in the case of the rope-snake and other (illusorily perceived) things, there is the perception of their non-existence in that very place and that very time (wherein they are also perceived to exist); therefore, there arise contradiction, stultification and logical exclusion. The logical exclusion of a thing, (which is perceived in relation to a particular place and a particular time), from a differ- ent place and a different time, is not thus seen to be in- variably concomitant with unreality; and therefore, mere- ly to possess the quality of being logically excluded, (so as not to persist before consciousness in perception), does not constitute the cause of unreality. The statement that existence (alone) is real, because it is persistent (before consciousness), is in itself evident, and does not stand in need of any means (such as perception) to prove it. There- fore, pure existence alone is not the thing (which is appre- hended in perception). There is the relation of subject and object between experience and any particular entity (which is experienced); thus the difference (between them) is established by per- ception, and is incapable of being stultified; therefore this (contention) also has been set at naught, namely, that ex- perience itself is existence. It has been further44 stated that experience possesses the quality of self-luminousness. This is true in the case
Vide supra p. 46. 9 66 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. of the self, which is the knower, only at the time it brings external objects to the light of consciousness. But there is no rule to the effect that it is so at all times in the case of all (persons); because the experience of others forms (to us) the object of such inferential knowledge as is based upon the acceptance and rejection (of things in accordance with their own likes and dislikes); and also because it is seen that one’s own past experience becomes even an object of knowledge, as when (one says) ‘I had known’. If, in this way, it is not possible to say that experience is self-evident, it is also wrong to declare that, if experienced, it loses the character of an experience; because the character of being no experience at all would thereby result to one’s own past experiences and the experiences of others, on the score that they are themselves experienced. And if it be not granted that the experiences of others can be made out (by us) by means of the process of inference, there would then result the non-apprehension of the relation between words and their meanings, in consequence of which there would arise the cessation of the use of all words. Further, it is only after making out by means of inference that the teacher is possessed of knowledge, that an approach to him is made (by the pupil); and this too would thereby become impossible. It can not be that (experience) ceases to possess the character of an ex- perience, merely because it becomes the object of an- other experience. The character of an experience, indeed, consists in the fact that, while it lasts, it is luminous (i. e. intelligible) solely by means of its own existence, to that which constitutes its basis, (i. e. to the self); or, it consists in the fact of its being the means of proving (the exist- ence of) its objects solely by means of its own existence. Although these two (characterisations of experience) are Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 67 capable of being realised in an experience other than one’s own, they do not (thereby) fall away, seeing that they are (at the same time) established by means of one’s own ex- perience; and so this character of an experience does not disappear (in relation to any experience, even though it becomes the object of another experience). And jars, &c., certainly do not possess the character of an experience, (simply) because they are devoid of this (above-mentioned) nature (of an experience), but not because they are cap- able of being experienced. Similarly, when an experience is incapable of being experienced, then it is difficult to avoid the result that it is not at all an experience; because the flowers imagined to grow in the sky and other such imaginary objects, which are not capable of being experienc- ed, constitute no experience (at all). If it be said that the sky-flower and other (such purely imaginary) things are not experience, because they are non-existent, but not because they cannot be experienced, then let it be held that, in the case of jars and other similar things also, it is the fact of their not being opposed to ’non-intelligence’ which binds them to the condition of their being no experi- ence, but not the fact of their incapability to be experi- enced. Should it be said that, when an experience is cap- able of being experienced, then, like jars and other objects, it would acquire the character of not being opposed to ’non- intelligence,’ then, surely, as in the case of the sky-flower and other (imaginary) objects, there would certainly result to it (i. e. to experience), even when it is not capable of being experienced, the quality of not being opposed to ’non-intelli- gence’. Hence it is ridiculous to say that, if it (viz. experi- ence) is capable of being experienced, then it has not the character of an experience. Again, the view in which origination is denied to con-68 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. sciousness which is self-evident, on the score of the absence of its antecedent non-existence4 and other non-existences, -this view is very much like the presentation of a stick (for purposes of guidance) to one who is blind by another who is born blind. It is not possible to speak of the absence of (such) antecedent non-existence, on the ground that there is nothing which can apprehend it; because it (viz. that antecedent non-existence) is apprehended by experience itself. If it be asked, how experience, at the same time that it exists, can give us the contradictory knowledge of its non-existence, it is replied that there is no rule which binds experience to deal only with such objects as are existent at the same time with itself; for then there would result, to past and future occurrences, the quality of being no objects (of experience at all). But if you say that the antecedent non-existence and other non-existences (in relation to an experience), while they are being made out, are, as a rule, found to exist simultane- ously with that (experience), it is asked in return “Did you perceive this state of things in any case?” Then (i. e. if it be possible so to perceive them), surely on account of that very perception, antecedent non-existence and other non-existences are proved to exist (in relation to experi- ence). Thus there can be no denial of such antecedent non- existence (in relation to experience). However, who is there but is insane that will say that a thing’s antecedent non-existence is existent simultaneously with that (thing) itself? Indeed, this is the natural condition of the perception which is born of the senses-that it has the power of appre- hending the thing which is existent simultaneously with
Vide supra p. 49. Adhik. I. Sul. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 69 itself, but such is not also (the condition) of all kinds of knowledge and of all means of true knowledge; because in the case of memory, inference, revelation, yogic4c per- ception, and the like, it is observed that there is the apprehension of the thing, the existence of which belongs to a time different (from that of their own existence). Hence also, no instrument of knowledge is ever dissociated from what is to be discerned by it. The relation of an instrument of knowledge, to the thing that is to be discern- ed by it, does not consist in the absence of the dissocia- tion of that (instrument of knowledge) from the thing which exists at the same time with itself; but, on the other hand, (such relation) consists in the negation of the unreality of that particular form of any particular thing which is discerned in association with any particular time, place, and other such (determining) conditions. Thus the position that memory does not deal with external objects, because even when the external object (to which it refers) has disappeared, memory is seen to continue,-this is also set at naught. It may, however, be said :-The antecedent non-exist- ence of consciousness is not at all made out by perception, because such (non-existence) does not exist. Nor is such (non-existence) made out by the other means of proof, because (in relation to it) the basis of logical inference and the other limbs of syllogistic reasoning are absent.
This is the perception which peculiarly belongs to the Yogin, who, by withdrawing the mind into itself and concentrating it on its own con- ceptions, has succeeded in actualising those conceptions in the form of di- rcct perceptions. The realisation that results in Yoga is said to correspond to the conception in the mind of him who practises it. Yadrisi bhavana yatra siddhirbhavati tadrisi. There is, however, an opinion which maintains that Yogic perception is a separate means of knowledge, and gives rise to realisations which are not possible otherwisc. 70 ŚRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. Indeed,there is to be found here no such basis of inference as is invariably associated with the antecedent non-existence of consciousness. Revelation also is not at all seen to deal with it (i. e. with such antecedent non-existence). Hence, the antecedent non-existence (of consciousness) cannot be proved, because there is really no means of proving it. To this, it is replied thus :-If, abandoning the peculiar support of the self-evident nature (of consciousness), you rely upon the absence of the means to prove that (non- existence), then it would be well for you to stop the discussion, bearing in mind that that (same non-exist- tence) is established by the negative proof of non-cognition relating to a necessarily associated thing. Moreover, perceptual knowledge, which during the time that it exists, proves (the existence of) its objects, such as jars &c., is not seen to give rise to the knowledge of their existence at all times. Therefore, the existence of jars and such other objects during periods antecedent and subse- quent (to their perception), is not made out (by means of perception). Such non-cognition is seen to be due to perceptual consciousness being conditioned by time. If per- ceptual consciousness, which has jars, &c., for its objects, is itself made out to be unconditioned by time, then, the objects of (that) consciousness, such as jars, &c., would also appear to be unconditioned by time, and so would be etern- al. If (this) consciousness which is self-evident be eternal, it should of itself appear to be so eternal. But it is not so made out. Similarly, if the inferential and the other cognising states of consciousness are made out to be un- conditioned by time, then they would make their objects also appear unconditioned by time; and so all such objects would become eternal; for every object has a nature which corresponds to the state of consciousness (that represents Adhik. 1. Süt. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 71 it). Again, there is no objectless consciousness, in as much as such a thing is unknown. Indeed,the self-luminous nature of consciousness has been demonstrated solely by means of the fact that perception brings external objects to the light of consciousness. If consciousness have not the power of bringing external objects to light, there would result to it the absence of self-luminousness; in consequence of this (absence of self-luminousness), and also in consequence of the fact that experience is incapable of being experienced by any other experience, consciousness itself would become a mere nothing. Further, it should not be stated that during sleep,47 conditions of intoxication, swoons, &c., totally objectless, absolute consciousness alone shines forth; because such a statement would be invalidated by the negative proof of non-cognition relating to a necessarily associated thing. If during these states also, experience is experienced, then, at the time of waking, there will have to be its recollection. But there is no such thing. It may, however, be said that it is not commonly seen that an object which has been experienc- ed, is, as a rule, remembered; and therefore, how can the absence of recollection prove the non-existence of the (cor- responding) experience? It is stated (in reply to this) that, provided there are no such powerful causes as the dissolu- tion of the body, &c., which remove all innate mental impressions, then uniform non-remembrance establishes only the non-existence of experience. Surely, the non- existence of experience is not proved solely through the uniform absence of any remembrance thereof; because it is possible for one who has just risen from sleep to real- ise by means of introspective observation alone that all the
Vide supra pp. 52 & 53. 72 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. while he did not know anything. Moreover, it is not pos- sible to say that, even when experience exists, the uniform non-remembrance thereof is due either to want of associa- tion with objects or to the destruction of the principle of egoity; because, the non-experience of some one thing (such as a jar) and the non-existence of another thing (such as a cloth) do not constitute the causes of the non-remembrance of some other experienced object (such as a wall). It will be explained presently that, in those states also (namely, sleep, intoxication, swoon, &c), the idea of the ego continues to persist. It has, indeed, been stated already that, during sleep and other similar states, it is possible to have such experience as is definite and relates to particular objects. What has been so stated is really true. Indeed, that (experience) is self-experience. And it will be est- ablished further on that that (self-experience) is definite and relates to particular objects. But, here, only such consci- ousness as is altogether objectless, and is without a basis, is denied. If mere consciousness alone is said to be self- experience, (we say) it is not so, because it will be explain- ed hereafter that it (viz. consciousness) is dependent upon (some thing else as) its basis. Hence it cannot be said that, because experience, while it exists, does not establish its antecedent non-existence, (such) antecedent non-exis- tence is disproved. In explaining the possiblity of experi- ence being experienced, its incapability to be proved other- wise (than by itself) has also been negatived. Therefore, the non-origination of consciousness merely on the ground that there is no proof of antecedent non-existence and other non- existences in relation to it-that is not supported by logic. What has been stated 48 already to the effect that, on
Vide subra p. 30.Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] ŚRI-BHASHYA. 73 account of there being no origination of consciousness, other modifications are also negatived in relation to it, that also is unreasonable; because such reasoning is too wide and inconclusive, holding good in the case of antecedent non- existence also. In fact, although it has no origination, it is seen to be capable of destruction. If, (for the pur- pose of meeting this difficulty), this (proposition) is qualified by saying (that it holds true only) in the case of entities, then, indeed, (your) skilfulness in logical reasoning becomes quite manifest. Thus, for instance, the avidya (or ignorance), which is accepted by you, is un-originated; and it is, never- theless, the seat of a variety of modifications, and is also put an end to after the origination of true knowledge. If you say that all its modifications are unreal, then, is there, according to you, any modification which has the nature of reality, so that this qualification (thus limiting the scope of the proposition mentioned above) may become significant? But this (kind of modification that has the nature of reality) is surely not acknowledged by you. Again, what has been already49 stated to the effect that experience does not admit of any differentiation in regard to itself, on account of its being unborn,-that also is un- founded: because the self which is undoubtedly unborn is seen to be differentiated from the body, the organs of sense, and other such things; and also because it has necessarily to be accepted that the self is different from the admitted- ly beginningless avidya (or ignorance). If you say that this differentiation is itself of the nature of unreality, (we ask), did you anywhere observe any differentiation which has the nature of reality and is the necessary concomitant of origination? Indeed, if ignorance be not in reality
Vide supra p. 50. IO 74 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. distinct from the self, then, as a matter of fact, ignorance itself may become the self. In maintaining the distinctions between such perceivable objects as are realised in unstulti- fied perceptions, the distinction between the perceptions themselves is established; in the same way in which the distinction between the various kinds of the process of cutting (is established) by means of the distinction between the things cut (accordingly). Moreover, the statements5° already made to the effect that consciousness, which is altogether of the nature of con- sciousness, can have no qualifying attribute that is itself capable of being objectively perceived by consciousness,and that such (attributes) cannot qualify consciousness merely because they are objectively perceivable,-both these also are not absolutely conclusive, because, in relation to it (viz. consciousness), there are the attributes of eternity, self-lu- minousness, &c., which are well established by the authori- tative criteria of knowledge, and are also admitted by your- selves (our opponents). Neither do these (attributes) consti- tute pure consciousness, because they are in their essential nature distinct (from consciousness). Indeed, consciousness is that which, solely by means of its own existence, makes intelligible to that which constitutes its own foundation, any external object whatsoever. Self-luminousness con- sists in being luminous, in consequence of a thing’s own ex- istence, to that which constitutes that thing’s own found- ation; luminosity (or intelligibility) is that (quality) which is common to all intelligent and non-intelligent things alike, and makes them fit to be practically realised; eternity is, in- deed, existence through all time; unity is limitation by the number one ; &c., &c. Even when these (qualifying attri-
Vide supra p. 50. Adhik 1. Süt. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 75 butes) constitute the negation of non-intelligence and other such things (as have to be excluded from consci- ousness), then, even as such, they form the qualifying at- tributes of consciousness; therefore, it is inevitable that this reasoning becomes too wide (and inconclusive) in as much as they, nevertheless, continue to be the attributes of consciousness. If, for the reason that consciousness is op- posed to non-intelligence, and other such qualities, (merely) on account of their being different from its own essential nature, neither a negative nor a positive qualification can be admitted in relation to it, then, the (various) statements severally negating those (qualities) will have to import nothing at all. Then, is consciousness provable (as existent) or not? If provable, it must be characterised as being possessed of attri- butes. If not, it becomes a mere nothing like the ‘sky- flower’ and other (imaginary) objects. If you say that the proof itself is consciousness, it has to be asked whose that (proof) is, and to what it refers. If it do not belong to any one, and be not in regard to some thing, then that (proof) is no proof. Indeed, proving, like son-ship, belongs to some one and is in relation to some thing (or person). If it be said that (the proving) belongs to the self, (we ask) who this self is. Was it not stated by you that it (viz. the self) is consciousness itself? Yes, it was so stated; only, it is a wrong statement. And this can be made out thus. How can that consciousness, which, by reason of its making a number of objects intelligible to a person, is related to those (objects) and to that (person), experience that it is itself the self? What is said is this:-Experience is that which, solely by means of its own existence, possesses the quality of making a thing fit to be realized in relation to what constitutes the basis of that (experience) itself; it has other names, such as 76 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. 1. knowledge (jana), comprehension (avagati), consciousness (samvid), and the like; it always relates to an object and is a particular attribute of the experiencing self: and again it is well known to all as possessing the qualification of being witnessed by the self, as when (one says), ‘I know a jar,’ I understand this thing,’ ‘I am conscious of a cloth,’ &c. Indeed, it is on account of its possessing this aforesaid nature, that self-luminousness has been postulated in relation to it even by you. This (experience) which relates to an object and is a particular attribute of the subject (of the predication of knowing), cannot possess the quality of itself being the subject (of any predication), quite as much as (it cannot possess) the quality of being the object (thereof). Accordingly, the permanent character of this subject (of the predication of knowing) is directly ascertained; and origination, existence, and destruction, in relation to that attribute which belongs to this subject and is called consci- ousness, are also ascertained to be true, in the same way in which they are (so ascertained) in the case of pleasure, pain, &c. The permanent character of this subject (of the predi- cation of knowing,) is indeed established by that kind of per- ception which leads to the recognition of identity, as (when one says), “This is that very thing which was formerly expe- rienced by me.” Origination and other such things are also established in regard to consciousness, by the cognitions’ I know,’ ‘I had known,’ ‘The knowledge which I, the know- er, had, is now lost’; and where then is its oneness (with the self)? If consciousness, which is thus destructible moment after moment, be admitted to be the self, then it becomes impossible indeed, to have the recognitive cognition-“I saw (again) on the next day that (same thing) which was seen on the previous day.” Surely, there is no possibility of the recog- nitive cognition by one person of any thing experienced by Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 77 another person. Again, when experience is admitted to be the self, and eternity too is predicated of it, then also there will similarly arise the absence of the cognition leading to recognition. Indeed, the cognition which leads to recogni- tion, as for instance (when one feels), ‘I myself experienced this formerly also,’-that establishes the experiencing sub- ject to continue unchanged in antecedent and subsequent intervals of time, but does not prove pure unconditioned experience. Surely, you also do not accept that experience is the same as the subject who experiences; experience is merely experience (to you). It has already been stated (by us) that that unfounded or objectless something which is called consciousness cannot exist, because there is absolutely no knowledge (of such a thing). Thus the view, that that same consciousness, which is indeed admitted by both of us, is the self itself, is contradicted by cognition; and all the specious arguments, which were intended to demonstrate that such pure experience alone is the highest reality, have also been thus completely refuted. It may however be said again thus:-In the idea of the ego to be found in the cognition ‘I know (this),’ that which, (not being objective), is not denoted by the word ’this,’ and which is homogeneous luminosity and is the thing denoted by chit (or intelligence),–that is the self; now, the idea of the ego, resulting from the cogni- tion ‘I know,’ acquires, by reason of its being made lumin- ous in that (intelligence) through the strength of that (in- telligence), the characteristics of the thing ’thou’ (or of the non-ego); and it is, therefore, other than pure intelligence, and means certainly the thing ’thou’ (or the non-ego). It is not (right to say) so; simply because, (in such a case), that perceptual knowledge, in which, as when one says ‘I know (a thing),’ there is (between the knowing and the knower)78 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. the relation of an attribute to the possessor thereof, that would itself be (thereby) contradicted. Moreover,-” If the thing ‘I’ (or the ego) is not the self,there will be no subject- ivity to the self. For, the subjective thing is distinguished from the objective thing by means of the idea of the ego. In- deed, he who is desirous of final release betakes to the ‘hear- ing’ &c., (of the scriptures), with the intention that he may himself become devoid of all misery, the enjoyer of infinite bliss,and free. If any one holds that final release consists in the destruction of the thing ‘I’ (or of one’s own personality), then such an one will surely get away from even the merest scent of the discussion bearing upon the topic of final release. No one, who believes that,even after he ceases to exist,there is some kind of consciousness which is other than himself, will ever make any attempt to attain that (kind of conscious- ness as his goal after death) It is only by being associated with the self, that this (consciousness) has its own existence, has its own character as consciousness, and its other qualifi- cations. When this association with the self is severed, consciousness itself ceases to exist; in the same way in which, in the absence of the cutter and the object to be cut, there can be no cutting or any other such process. Hence it is settled that the thing ‘I,’ which is also the knower, is the subjective self. The scripture also says ‘My dear one, by means of what is one to know the knower?’ [Brih. Up. IV. 5. 15.]. The Smriti also says-‘Whoever knows this (body), him they call the kshetrajña. [B. G. XIII. 2.]. The Sutra-kara also says the same thing opening it with the aphorisms The individual self is not (produced) as there are no scriptural statements to that effect’-[Ved. Sut. II. 3. 18.], and ‘For that very reason, (the individual self) is the knower.’ [Ved. Sit. II. 3. 19.]. Therefore it is decided that the self is not pure and unqualified conscious- Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 79 ness." Indeed, the thing ‘I’ is of itself established by the notion of the ego; the thing ’thou’ is the content of the notion of the non-ego. It being so, to say that the knower, who is realised when one says ‘I know,’ is the non-ego, is, moreover, a contradiction in terms, very much like the statement- My mother is barren.’ Again, this knower, the thing ‘I,’ has not its luminos- ity dependent upon anything else, because it possesses self-luminousness. Indeed, to be self-luminous is to possess the character of intelligence. Whatever, like the flame of a lamp, possesses the character of luminosity, that possesses its own light independently of anything else. For, surely, the flame of a lamp and such other self-luminous things, seeing that they are made to shine out by means of the power of their own light, can not possess non-luminousness, nor (can they possess) the character of having their lumin- osity dependent upon anything else. What then are they? The flame of a lamp has the nature of light, and certainly shines of itself, and also makes other objects shine by means of its own radiance. What is said is this:-One and the same substance tejas (or the material element of light and heat) exists, for in- stance, in the form of luminosity as well as in the form of that which is luminous. Though luminosity forms an attribute of the thing which is luminous, nevertheless, it is the sub- stance tejas, and nothing else. It is not a quality like whiteness, &c., because (unlike them) it can exist elsewhere also than in what constitutes its basis, and because also it is itself the possessor of colour. As it is of a different nature from whiteness and other such qualities, and possess- es the quality of luminosity, it is undoubtedly the substance tejas and nothing else. If a thing brings to light its own nature as well as other things, it is thereby said to possess 80 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. luminosity. And the practical realisation of this (luminosity) as a quality necessarily results from its invariably having that (substance tejas) for its basis, and also from its forming a dependent constituent thereof. It is not that the compo- nent parts of its basis (i. e. of the substance tejas), becoming scattered and getting into motion, are spoken of as light; for, (under such a supposition), there would be the destruc- tion of gems, of the sun, and of other such luminous. bodies (through their mere shining). And in the case of the flame of a lamp also, there would at no time be the perception of an united whole. Indeed, it is not possible to say that lamp-flames, whose component parts have the nature of becoming scattered, do invariably get col- lected together into a whole only to the extent of four inches, rise up, and then spread about, at the same time and in the same form, horizontally and upwards and down- wards. Hence, it is ascertained, that lamp-flames which possess luminosity are produced and destroyed every moment; because there is, (for their production), the order- ed convergence of sufficient causes (such as wicks, oil, &c.,), and because also, on the destruction of those (causes), they (i. e. the flames) are themselves destroyed. That light acquires greater brilliance, greater warmth, &c., near its own source, is capable of being proved by direct perception, in the same way in which, heat &c., are (seen to be greater in intensity) near fire, &c. In this same manner, the self, which is wholly of the nature of intelligence, is (also) charac- terised by the attribute of intelligence. Indeed, to possess the character of intelligence is to be self-luminous. To that effect are the following and other scriptural texts :-“Just as a solid lump of salt has neither inside, nor outside, and is altogether one whole mass of taste, so also, my dear one, he, this self, who has Adhik. I. Süt. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 81 neither inside nor outside, is altogether one whole mass of knowledge, and is altogether made up of intelligence.” [Brih. Up. IV. 5. 13.]: “Here, this purusha becomes self-luminous.” [Brih. Up. IV. 3. 9 & 14.]: “There is no disappearance of the knowledge of the knower.” [Brih. Up. IV. 3. 30.]: “Then whoever feels ‘I smell this’,-that is the self.” [Chhand. Up. VIII. 12. 4.]: “Who is the self? He is that person who is luminous in the proximity of the prānas and the heart, and wholly consists of knowledge.” [Brih. Up. IV. 3.7.]: “He is, indeed, the seer, the hearer, the taster, the smeller, the thinker, the knower, the doer, and is the person who is made up of intelligence.” [Pr. Up. IV. 9.]: “By means of what, my dear one, is one to know the knower.” [Brih. Up. IV. 5. 15.]: “This person (i. e. purusha) surely knows.” [ ? ]: “Whoever sees (that One) sees not death, nor disease, nor the state of sorrow.” [Chhand. Up. VII. 26. 2.]: “He is the Highest Person..; he (in His presence) does not mind this body which has had birth.” [Chhand. Up. VIII. 12.3.]: “In this same manner, all these sixteen kalas, which belong to the seer and are dependent on the Purusha, meet their end after attaining the Purusha.” [Pr. Up. VI. 5.]: “Different from this which consists of mind is the inner self which consists of understanding.” [Taitt.Up. II. 4. 1.]. And the Sutra-kara also says in the sequel-“For that very reason, (the self) is the knower.” [Ved. Süt. II. 3. 18.]. Therefore, this self, which is self-luminous, is indeed the knower always, it is not mere luminousness.
Vide Pr. Up, VI. 4. where these are enumerated as follows:- (1) The principal vital air Prana, (2) Faith, i. e. belief in the reality of God (Sraddha) (3) Ether, (4) Air, (5) Light, (6) Water, (7) Earth, (8) Mind,(9) The ten Indriyas, Į I (10) Food, (11) Strength of body and of the senses, (12) Austerities and penance, Tapas (13) The sacred hymns or Mantras (14) Works (sac- rificial and other) (15) Swarga and other such results of works (16) The names of Swarga &c. 82 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. Luminosity, as in the case of the luminosity of lamp- flames and other similar objects, must necessarily belong to something, simply because it possesses the character of lum- inosity. Therefore, consciousness in itself is not capable of becoming the self. Moreover, those that know the power and import of words say that the words samvid (conscious- ness), anubhuti (experience), jñana (knowledge), &c., are words implying relation. It is not seen either in ordinary language or in the scripture that the verbs to know, &c., are at all used without an object or without a subject. What has been stated52 to the effect that consciousness itself is the self, because it possesses the quality of intelli- gence, in regard to that (statement), this has to be asked, namely, what it is that is meant by intelligence. If it be replied that it is the possession of that luminosity which is due to the mere fact of a thing’s own existence, then, in that case, such an explanation, being also applicable to the flame of a lamp, is too wide. If, as apart from consciousness, this quality of luminosity is not granted at all, there will then result the fallacies of inconclusiveness and contradic- tion.53 Moreover, (the definition that intelligence means) the possession of that kind of existence which is invari- ably associated with luminosity (or intelligibility),-that has been already declared to be invalid, because it is too wide, being applicable also to the case of pleasures, &c. If it be said that pleasures and other such feelings, although in-
Vide supra pp. 50 & 51.
Inconclusiveness results, be- cause, without knowing luminosity, as apart from consciousness, any defini- tion of consciousness in which the idea of luminosity is involved, must necessarily prove meaningless and in- conclusive. Contradiction results, be- cause, not to admit luminosity as apart from consciousness, which is itself defined by means of the idea of luminosity, is the same as to admit that that luminosity is a peculiarly characteristic attribute of the con- sciousness which has been taken to be attributeless,Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 83 variably associated with luminosity, are like jars and other objects, made luminous (or intelligible) to a thing other than themselves, and are, in consequence, non-intelligent, and thereby constitute the non-self; (it is asked in return)- Is intelligence, then, luminous to itself?’ It also is always luminous to another thing, the knower, which is the ego in the cognition ‘I know’; in the same way (in which happiness is luminous to a thing other than itself) in the cognition ‘I am happy.’ Hence, the intelligence which has the character of self-luminousness is not proved to exist in relation to consciousness. Therefore that intelli- gent thing ‘I’, which is proved to itself by the mere fact of its own existence, that alone is the self (or the atman). The luminosity of consciousness also is dependent upon its association with that (self). Indeed, analogously to the case of pleasures and other such feelings, the intelligibil- ity of consciousness to the self, which constitutes its own basis, and its un-intelligibility to other things (than the self), are (both) wholly due to that (association with the self.) Therefore, the self is not pure consciousness itself, but is undoubtedly the ego, the knower. Again, what has been urged54 to the effect that, because no illusion is possible without a basis (for it to be imposed upon), experience, which is, in truth, unfounded in any thing else and is objectless, constitutes the reality, but, neverthe- less becomes manifest, through illusion, as the knower; just as the mother-of-pearl is made out, (through illusion), to possess the characteristics of silver;-this (view also) is incorrect. If it were correct, then, the experiencing sub- ject, namely, the ego, would, in consequence of its being
Vide supra p. 51. $4 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. equivalent to experience (itself), appear in the form-‘I am (myself) experience’; in the same way in which silver and other (illusorily perceived) things are made out to be nothing other than the lustrous substances which are plac- ed in front of us. But, here, this same experience, which is itself separately cognised, qualifies some thing else, namely, the ego, just as a stick qualifies (or characterises) Devadat- ta (when he is holding it.) It is indeed thus that there arises the cognition, I experience.’ Such being the case, how can the cognition I experience,’ while showing the ego to be qualified by experience, be declared to relate entirely to this qualifying attribute, namely, experience, as if one may say that the cognition-‘Devadatta is the possessor of a stick’ relates merely to the stick? What has been further stated55 to the effect that the (self’s) quality of being the knower is seen to come out only in relation to him who, thinking that he is stout and so on, mistakes the body for the self, and that this (knowership) is therefore unreal, this (also) is incorrect; because there would then result unreality to experience also, which is maintained by you to be the self, in as much as (such experience also) is cognisable only by him who possesses that (mistaken notion of the body being the self.) If it be said that there is no unreality in relation to experience, in as much as it is not contradicted by that knowledge of truth which stultifies all other things (than truth), then, in that case, certainly (the self’s) quality of being the knower is not also unreal, on account of the absence of that same stultification. Then again it has been said thus:- It is not possible
Vide supra pp. 51 & 52. Adhik. 1. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 85 to postulate, in the case of the self which does not admit of modifications, the quality of being the knower, which is the same as being the subject of the predication of know- ing. Thus, this quality of being the knower, which is of the nature of a modification and is non-intelligent, rests in the knot of the material principle of egoity which is capable of modifications and is itself a modification of prakriti (i. e. nature). Hence, knowership does not be- long to the self, but belongs to this material principle of egoity, which constitutes an internal organ. Indeed, the quality of being the subject of predications and other such qualities, are all attributes of perceivable objects, just as colour and other such qualities are. If the quality of being the subject of predications and the quality of being denoted by the idea of the ego are (both) admit- ted in relation to the self, then, as in the case of the body, so also, in the case of the self, there would result (to it) non-selfhood, objectivity, non-intelligence, &c. All this is not right; because, this material principle of egoity which constitutes an internal organ (of the body), is, like the body, possessed of non-selfhood, the character of being a modification of the prakriti, perceivability, ob- jectivity, the character of being utilised by other things than itself, and other similar characteristics; and because also, the quality of being the knower has the peculiar character of belonging always to an intelligent thing. What is said is this:-Just as the body and other simi- lar objects are, by means of their perceivability, ob- jectivity, and other such characteristics, distinguished from whatever is characterised by the opposites of these (charac- teristics), viz. the quality of being the perceiver, subjectivity, and the like; so also, the principle of egoity which is of the nature of an internal organ, being made up of the same 86 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. substance (as the body), is distinguished by those very cha- racteristics (of perceivability, &c.,) from that (which is characterised by the other attributes of being the perceiver, &c). Hence, the quality of being the knower does not, like the quality of being consciousness, belong to this principle of egoity, for the mere reason that, (if it did), there would thereby be the contradiction of its own nature. Just as the quality of being consciousness is not admissible in re- lation to the principle of egoity, which is the object of that (consciousness), so also the quality of being the knower can not be admitted in relation to what constitutes the ob- ject of (knowledge) itself. Moreover, the quality of being the knower is not of the nature of a modification. The quality of being the knower is, indeed, the same as the quality of being the seat of the attribute of intelligence; and intelligence, being the natural attribute of this eternal thing (viz. the self), is (itself) eternal. And he (the Sutrakāra) speaks of the eternity of the self in the following aphorism and in others, “The self is not (a produced thing), as there are no scrip- tural statements to that effect.” [Ved. Sut. II. 3. 18.]. In the aphorism-“For that very reason, (the self) is the knower.” [Ved. Sut. II. 3. 19.],-by mentoning the (self to be) knower he declares that it is natural for the self to be the seat of intelligence. It has been stated that there is no- thing wrong in the (self), which is itself of the nature of intelligence, being (at the same time) the seat of intelligence; just as (there is nothing wrong) in gems and other simlar objects, (although they are made up of the material element of heat and light), being themselves the seat of luminosity. We will establish farther on that intelligence, which of itself is unconditioned, is capable of contraction and expansion. Hence, in the state of the knower of the body (i. e. as the Adhik. I. Sut. I.] SRI-BHASHYA. 87 embodied individual self), it exists, owing to its past ac- tions (or karmas), in a contracted condition, (the contrac- tion thereof) varying in degree in accordance with the nature of those particular actions; and that (state of con- traction or expansion) is regulated by means of the sens- es. The statement about the rising and the setting (of intelligence) is made, having regard to this aforesaid pass- age of intelligence through the door-way of the senses. In the matter of this movement of the intelligence, there cert- ainly results (to the self) the quality of being an agent; but that quality is not natural (to it), being due to its kar- mas (or past actions); and so the self has undoubtedly an immodifiable nature. Knowership, which is of this afore- said nature, belongs only to the self, whose essential character is intelligence; and consequently, this knower- ship cannot possibly belong, at any time, to the non-intelli- gent principle of egoity (i. e. ahankara). If, however, it be said that,‘in regard to this principle of egoity, whose essential nature is non-intelligence, there is the possibility of (its acquiring) the quality of knowership, on account of its proximity to intelligence and the conse- quent reflection (of qualities) therefrom, it is asked in return-what is this reflection of intelligence? Does the reflection of the principle of egoity fall upon consciousness, or, does the reflection of consciousness fall upon the princi- ple of egoity? It (viz. the reflection of the principle of egoity) does not fall upon consciousness, because knower- ship is not admissible in regard to consciousness. It (viz. the reflection of consciousness) does not fall upon the principle of egoity, because it is impossible for that (princi- ple of egoity), which is admittedly non-intelligent, ever to possess the quality of knowership, and because also both (consciousness and the principle of egoity) are not capable88 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I Part. I. of being perceived by the organ of sight. And surely, no reflection is seen to take place in relation to invisible objects. Then again, it may be urged that the quality of being the knower results from contact with intelligence, in the same way in which the heat in a lump of iron results from contact with fire. It cannot be so here, however; be- cause knowership is not admitted to be an intrinsic quality. of consciousness; for that same reason, this quality of know- ership cannot, from contact with it, result to the principle of egoity, nor can it be apprehended (in relation to that principle). Since knowership cannot at all be predi- cated of the principle of egoity which is non-intelligent, there cannot, through contact with it, result to conscious- ness the quality of being the knower, nor can there arise (thus) the apprehension of that (quality of being the knower) in relation to consciousness. What has been further stated to the effect that both of them (viz. consciousness and the material principle of egoity), do not, in reality, possess the quality of knower- ship, but that this material principle of egoity is the revealer of experience, and consequently reveals that expe- rience as though it were within itself, in the way in which mirrors and other such revealers do;-this (also) is not right; because, the self-luminous atman cannot appro- priately be held to be revealed by the non-intelligent principle of egoity. This has been declared thus:-“It does not stand to reason that the principle of egoity, whose nature consists in non-intelligent materiality, reveals the atman which is self-luminous, in the same way in which (it does not stand to reason to hold that) a dead ember
Vide supra pp.52 & 53. Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 89 (reveals) the sun.” [A. S.].57 Indeed, all things have their cognisability dependent upon self-luminous experience. It being so, those, who know the self, ridicule the idea that the non-intelligent principle of egoity, the luminosity of which is dependent on that (experience), reveals that same experience, the luminosity of which is, (on the contrary), neither producible nor destructible, and itself forms the means by which all things are cognised. Moreover, since there is incompatibility between the nature of the material principle of egoity and (the nature) of experience, and since also there will result to experience, (when it hap- pens to be a thing revealed by ahankara), the char- acter of being no experience at all, there cannot be the relation of the revealer and the revealed (between them). This has been stated thus :-“The relation of the revealer and the revealed (between any two things) is mutually exchangeable, and cannot exist when there is any incompat- ibility in nature (between them). If the self be capable of being revealed, it would, like a jar, (for instance), acquire, in consequence, the character of being no experience at all.” [Ā. S.] Again, it is not very appropriate (to hold), in regard to consciousness, that it is revealed by the principle of egoity, which is itself revealed by consciousness, just as a beam of the sun’s rays is revealed by the palm of the hand, which is itself revealed by that (very beam of rays); because, in this instance itself, there is really no revelation of the beam of the sun’s rays by means of the palm of the hand. Surely, on account of their progress being obstructed by the palm of
This stanza occurs in the Atmasiddhi of Yamunacharya, the lead- er of Sri-Vaishnavism in South India just before Rāmānuja. Much of Ra- 12 manuja’s reasonings in the Jijñāsadh- karana are based upon the writings of Yamunacharya, as it may be made out from a study of his Siddhitraya. 90 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. the hand, the rays become increased (through reflection and scattering) and are themselves very clearly perceived; thus the palm of the hand cannot possess the character of a revealer (of the sun’s rays), in as much as it simply. serves to increase them (thus). nd go rast Yet again, of what nature is that revelation which is effected by the principle of egoity in relation to this self (or the atman), the essential nature of which is the same as that of consciousness? It is not, surely, origination, be- cause it (viz. the atman) is self-established, and it is in con- sequence impossible for it to be originated by any thing else. Nor does it (viz. such revelation) consist in making that (self) intelligible, because it (viz. the self which is the same as experience) is incapable of being experienced by any other experience. And for this same reason there can be nothing that is of use as a means for experiencing that (self). It (viz. this sort of instrumental utility of a thing) is indeed of two kinds. It consists either in serving as the means which brings the object of knowledge into relation with the perceiving senses; just as-in the matter of the apprehension of generic qualities, one’s own face, and such other things the individual, the mirror, and such other things (respectively) form the means of bringing (those generic qualities, that face, and those other things) into rela- tion with the senses. Or, it (viz. such instrumental utility) consists in serving the purpose of removing the impurity found in one who is desirous of acquiring knowledge; just as tranquillity, self-restraint, and such other things are (in the way of removing the impurities of him who is desi- rous of true knowledge auxiliary) to the science which is the means of knowing the supreme reality. It is therefore de-. clared accordingly:-“As it (viz. the ego) is not within the province of the senses, nothing can serve as the means Adhik. I. Süt. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. of bringing it into relation with them.“58 91 Moreover, even if it be allowed that experience is cap- able of being experienced, it is not proper to say that the ego is useful as a means for experiencing that (experience). Indeed, it (viz. such instrumental utility thereof) may con- sist in the removal of any obstruction to the origination of the experience which is thus capable of being experienced; in the same way in which lamp-flames and other luminous things serve, in relation to the organ of sight, as instruments for the removal of the deep darkness which is an obstruc- tion to the origination of the perception of colour and other qualities. But here (i. e. in the case of experience or consciousness) there is no such removable obstruction. Surely, in the consciousness which is the same as the at- man, there is not anything to be found which, while being an obstruction to the origination of the knowledge of that (atman), is capable of being removed by the material principle of egoity. If it be said that there is (the obstruction offered by) ignorance (which has to be remov- ed), it is replied that it is not right to entertain such an opinion, for the reason that it is not admissible to hold that ignorance (or avidya) can be removed by the material principle of egoity (or ahankara). Indeed, what removes ignorance is not anything other than knowledge. Moreover,
Only the first half of the Sloku from the Atmasiddhi is quoted above, but the other half also is pertinent to the context. And the whole sloka, when translated, runs thus - “As it (viz. the ego) is not within the province of the senses, nothing can serve as the means of bringing it into relation with them. The ego is it- self the knower and therefore this (knower) cannot be purified by that (ego) itself.” It is, in accordance with this opinion of Yamunacharya so ex- pressed, that Ramanuja argues out the impossibility of anything proving a helpful instrument, in either of the two ways mentioned above, in the matter of the realisation of the atman. 92 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. it is not possible for ignorance to have consciousness for its basis, because it would then have the same basis for itself as knowledge has, and because also its objects would then be the same as those of that (knowledge). Ignorance cannot exist in the witness who is pure unqualified consciousness, and is free from the condition of being the knower as well as that of being the object (of knowledge). Just as jars and other similar objects cannot form the seat of ignor- ance, because they are not, even in the least, the seat of knowledge, so also pure unqualified consciousness cannot be the seat of ignorance, for the reason that it too is not the seat of knowledge. Even if consciousness be taken to be the seat of ignorance, that same (consciousness), which is (also) taken to be the self, cannot form the object of knowledge; therefore the cessation of the ignorance which is found in it (viz. in this consciousness) cannot be brought about by means of knowledge. Knowledge, indeed, removes always the ignorance which relates to its own objects, as in the case of the rope and other things (where the false knowledge of the snake,&c., in relation to the rope, &c., is removed by the true knowledge of the rope as rope). Hence, the ignorance which has consciousness for its basis can never be destroyed by any thing whatsoever. It will be stated further on that the true nature of this ignorance, which is not capable of being described either as an entity or as a non-entity, is altogether difficult of definition. And because this ignorance, which is of the nature of the antecedent non-existence of knowledge, is not an obstruction to the origination of knowledge, it cannot, through causing its own destruction, serve as an instrument for producing that knowledge. Hence there can be no revelation of experience by the material principle of egoity in any manner whatso- ever.Adhik. I. Süt. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 93 Moreover, the nature of revealers is not to reveal the revealable thing as though it were within themselves; be- cause such (a revelation) is not seen in the case of lamp- flames and such other self-luminous things, and because also knowledge, the instrument of knowledge, and all that helps that (instrument of knowledge in the production of knowledge) are all of such a nature as is consistent with the realisation of things as they are. And this fact is proved by the rule which declares that self-evident things prove themselves. Again, mirrors and other things are not the revealers of faces and other objects, but (only) form the means to produce that cause of erroneousness which (for instance) consists in the bending back of the ocular aura (to one’s own face.) And it being so, all false appearances arise from such a cause of error. But the revealers are (really) such things as are like the aloka59 (or the ocular aura). Further, here, in the present instance, it is not possible for the material principle of egoity to impose any such error upon the self-luminous consciousness. The logical genus represents the typical form of the individuals (that go to make it up); and it is therefore that it appears to be contained in the individuals, but not because it is revealed by the individuals. Hence, to give rise to the apprehension of consciousness as abiding in the material principle of egoity, which forms an internal
Aloka which has been translat- ed here as Ocular Aura is a kind of influence, which, proceeding from the eye and falling upon external objects, is supposed to make them visible. According to this theory of vision, the eye sees only such objects as are touched, as it were, by its own loka; the perception of the images which are due to reflection is supposed to be caused by the mirror or any other reflecting surface bending back this aloka; and, accordingly, a man sees his own face in a mirror, because the äloka from his eyes goes to the mir- ror, is there bent back, and finally re- turns and falls on his own face. 94 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. organ, there is, indeed, nothing which can serve as a means, either in itself or through causing an error. Thus the quality of being the knower does not belong to the mate- rial principle of egoity, nor is there any impression to the effect that it does. Therefore, the subjective self is the thing ‘I’, which is of itself made out to be the knower; but is not pure unqualified consciousness. It has also been stated already that, on the dis- appearance of the idea of the ego, consciousness cannot acquire the subjectivity (of the self). Although, (during deep sleep), the thing ‘I’ (or the ego) does not, owing to its being overpowered by the quality of darkness (or tamas), and owing also to the absence of the experience of external objects, distinctly and clearly manifest itself, still, because the self shines forth (as before) in one and the same contin- uous form of the ‘I’ at the time of waking, there is no dis- appearance of the idea of the ego even in deep sleep. It has to be stated that the experience which is accepted by you does also shine forth in that very same form. As a matter of fact, no one, who has risen from sleep, introspectively realises, as existing simultaneously with the condition of sleep, any experience which is of the following form, name- ly, “I who am (pure) consciousness which is free from the notion of the ego, and the nature of which is hostile to all other things, have (all this while) remained as a witness of ignorance.” The introspective realisation of one who has risen from sleep is, indeed, to the effect-“I have slept happily.” By means of this process of introspective realisa- tion, it is made out that even at that time (i. e. during sleep) the self, which is the thing ‘I’, possesses the quality of being the enjoyer of happiness as well as the quality of being the knower. It should not be urged that the realisa- tion is simply to the effect-“I so slept then as to feel Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 95 happy now”; because that realisation is not at all of such a form. Moreover, (it may be said that) a person who has risen from sleep realises by introspection the very thing which was experienced (by him) before, and then observes This was done by me’. This was experienced by me,’ ‘I said this’; and that, therefore, it is not right to think that the quality of being the enjoyer of happiness cannot be consistently applied to the ego, on account of the impermanent character of this ego which is the self. But if it be said (in reply) that he also realises by introspection All this while (during my sleep) I knew nothing at all,’ (we ask)-‘What (follows) then’? If it be said that ’nothing at all’ means (here) the negation of all things, it is replied that it can not be so, for the reason that the thing ‘I,’ the knower, must continue to persist when one can say ‘I knew,’ (even though his knowledge relates to nothing). In fact, this negation here relates only to knowable objects. If the negation by means of the word ’nothing’ here relates to the entire totality of things, then that experience also, which is admitted by you (to be existent during sleep), will have to be denied. Now (it is held that) the self, which is the knower, and constitutes the thing ‘I’ which is continuously existent even during sleep,is (first) introspect- ively realised as the ‘I’ (or the ego); and that that (ego). is then denied by means of the cognition-I knew nothing at all.’ Thus, this same introspective realisation–‘I knew nothing at all.’-is made to prove the reality of that know- ledge which is, however, denied to exist at that time of sleep), and (to prove) also the unreality of the thing ‘I’, which is the knower and is continuously existent; and let, such a thing as this be proved only to the gods (who do not reply to arguments and criticism). If it be said that when one observes I did not know 96 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. even myself (in sleep)’, the continued existence of the thing ‘I’ also is not then apprehended, it is replied that you the purvapakshins do not know even the contradiction (thus arising) between your own experience and your own de- scription (of it). Indeed, this experience and its description are to the effect-‘I did not know myself.’ If it be ask- ed what it is that is negated in the word ‘myself’, it would be indeed a pertinent question put by you. It is thus answered. It is not the essential reality of the continued persistence of the thing ‘I’, which is the knower, that is denied (here). But (what is denied is) that the thing ‘I’ which is, at the time of waking, made out to have been continuously existent, is characterised by caste, and the various stages of life, &c. When it is said ‘I did not know myself,’ the real import (of that utterance) has to be distinctly ascertained. The import of that particular portion (of the sentence) which is denoted by ‘myself’ is the thing ‘I’ which is characterised by such peculiarities of caste &c., as are continuously applied to it in the condition of wake- fulness. The import of that (other) portion (of the sent- ence) which is denoted by ‘I’ is the ego, which is well known to exist in the condition of self-absorption as alto- gether consisting of indistinct self-experience. The form of this experience is indeed to this effect, viz. ‘I did not know even myself, as being asleep, and as possessing a particular nature.’ Moreover, your position indeed is this, that, in deep sleep, the self exists as the witness of ignorance. To be a witness is certainly the same as to be a direct knower; and one who does not know cannot at all possess the character of a witness. In the scripture as well as in the
Vide supra p. 53. Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 97 world, it is the knower alone that is spoken of as the witness. Mere knowledge is not (the witness). The vene- rable Panini also declares thus :-“The word witness is an appellative term and means the person who directly sees.” [Panini. V. 2. 91.]. The word witness is used always in the sense of one who knows. And this aforesaid witness, who is realised when one says ‘I know,’ is undoubtedly the thing ‘I’; and it being so, how can the thing ‘I’ be not known to exist then (i. e. during deep sleep)? Therefore, it is a settled conclusion that the thing ‘I’, being luminous to itself, shines forth invariably as the ‘I’; and so, even in sleep and other such states, the self is luminous and un- doubtedly shines forth as the ego. 1 Again what has been stated to the effect that in the state of final release the thing ‘I’ does not continue to persist-this (also) is not good. If it do not (so persist), then final release would, in other words, come to mean the enun- ciation of the destruction of the self. Moreover, the thing ‘I’ is no mere attribute, so that, even after its cessation, the essential entity may remain, as it does in the case of the removal of ignorance. On the contrary, the thing ‘I’ is it- self the self; and intelligence is its attribute; because intelli- gence is, indeed, apprehended to be the attribute of the thing ‘I’ in the cognitions ‘I know’, and ‘Knowledge has come to me.’ Further, he who considers the self to be afflicted with the adhyatmika2 and other miseries, saying ‘I am sorrowful,’ and in whom the desire for final release is born to the effect (of making him feel)-‘How may I become tranquilled and devoid of sorrow, setting aside the whole of misery, so that it may never occur again to me,’–such a man alone strives for the attainment of that (release). Should he, however, come to think-‘I shall be no more, if I utilise
Vide supra p. 53.
Vide supra p. 4. n. 12.. 1398 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. the means (for the attainment of release),’-he would flee away from even the semblance of any discussion bearing upon the topic of final release; and then the whole science treating of final release would, (through want of scope), become unauthoritative, because there would be none at all having the needed qualification (for the attainment of final release). It may be said that that mere luminousness alone, which is indicated by the word ‘I’, remains in the state of final release; but then of what use is it? No one, whose actions are based upon right understanding, will ever make any attempt (to obtain final release) with the knowledge that even though his ego ceases to exist, something which is mere luminousness remains. Therefore the thing ‘I’ itself, which is made out to be the knower, is the subjective self. And this subjective self, even in the state of final release, shines indeed as the ’l’, because it is luminous to itself. Whatever is luminous to itself, that always shines forth as the ‘I’. Thus, for instance, the self, which is subject to the round of births and deaths, is admitted by both the contending parties to be possessed of such lumi- nousness. Whatever does not shine forth as the ’l’, that is not luminous to itself, like jars and other similar objects, for instance. This self in the state of final emancipation is luminous to itself. Therefore it (viz. the self) shines forth always as the ‘I’. Ignorance, transmigration, &c., cannot be said to result to that (released self), in consequence of its thus shining forth as the ‘I’, because they (viz. ignor- ance, transmigration, &c.,) are opposed to the condition of -final release, and because also, the notion of the ‘I” is not the cause of ignorance and such other things. Ignor- ance, indeed, is either not to know a thing as it is, or to know it other than as it is, or to know it as contrary to what it is. The essential nature of the self consists, indeed, Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 99 in being the ‘I’; and so the notion of the ‘I’, which is of the nature of the knowledge of the self itself, cannot cause ignorance; and how can it cause the condition of transmigration? On the contrary that (notion of the ‘I’), being opposed to it (viz. ignorance), certainly destroys it. (The subjective self shines indeed as the ‘I’ even in the state of final release), also because the experience of that self is seen to have been altogether in the form of the ‘I’, in the case of Vamadeva and others who had their ignorance destroyed in its entirety by means of the direct realisation of the Brahman as constituting the Self of all. It is, indeed, heard declared in the scripture to the following effect:-“After seeing this (Brahman), the sage Vamadeva experienced I have become Manu and the sun also.” [Brih. Up. I. 4. 10.]; “I alone exist and will exist.” [Ath. Up. I. 1.]. The Highest Brahman, who is not ignorant of any thing which is distinct (from Himself), and who is denoted altogether by the import of the word ‘Sat’ (i. c. existence), is also (seen to be) accustomed to the same usage (of per- sonality) in the following scriptural passages :-“Indeed, I (will enter) these three deities.” [Chhand. Up. VI. 3. 2.]; May I become manifold and be born.” [Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 3.]; “He thought-May I create the worlds.” [Ait. Up. I. 1.]. Again that same (association of person- ality with the Highest Brahman) may be seen in the following and other passages also:-“Because I transcend the destructible and am also superior to the indestructible, therefore, I am known as the Highest Person, both in the world and in the scripture.” [B. G. XV. 18.]; “I am the Self, O Gudakesa.” [B. G. X. 20]; “It is not that I did never exist.” [B. G. II. 12.]; “I am the source as well as the end of the whole world.” [B. G. VII. 6.]. I am the
Vide supra p. 30. n. 26. 66 100 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. source of all; everything goes forth from Me." [B. G. X. 8.]; “I am their deliverer from the deadly ocean of the circuit of mundane existence.” [B. G. XII. 7.]; “I am the seed- giving father.” [B. G. XIV. 4.]; “I know the past things.” [B. G. VII. 26.]. It may, however, be asked “If the ‘I’ constitutes the self, then, how is it that the principle of egoity is declared by the Lord to be among the things that go to make up the material embodiment (or kshetra of the individual self) as in the following passage :-‘The great elements, the principle of egoity, the buddhi or the princi- ple known as mahat, the prakriti……(all these thrown together have been declared to make up this changeful material embodiment)’?” [B. G. XIII. 5.]. It is thus said (in reply to this):-In all declarations regarding (His) essen- tial nature, the teaching is given (by Him only in the first person) as ‘I’, and the essential nature of the self is also apprehended in that very same form (viz. as the ‘I’ or the ego); therefore, the true nature of the subjective self is surely in the form of the ‘I’. It is, indeed, declared by the Lord Himself that the principle of egoity, which is one of the various modifications of the prakriti, is included among the things that go to make up this material embodiment. And it is called the principle of egoity (or ahankara) because it forms the cause of the imposition of the idea of the ego upon the body, which is other than the self. And again the etymology of this word ahankara (which means the principle of egoity) is to be made out on the supposition that the affix termed chvis 4 has become applicable here on account of (our) assuming as really existing what does not so exist. Moreover, this same ahankara, which (often) forms 6.4. Vide Panini. V. 4. 50. Vartika. Adhik. 1. Süt. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. IOI the cause of disesteem in regard to men of position, and is otherwise named pride, is often declared in the scripture to be worthy of rejection. 5 Therefore such idea of egoity as is not stultified by any thing is directly within the pro- vince of the self itself. That other idea of egoity, which is within the province of the body, is certainly ignorance. To the same effect it has been declared by the reverend Parasara (also):-“C thou, worthy son of thy family, listen also to the teaching regarding the true nature of ignorance as well. It is the imposition of the idea of the self on that which is no self.” [V. P. VI. 7. 10.] If mere consciousness alone constitute the self, then, the body which is not the self, but which is, (nevertheless), mistaken for the self, would illusorily appear as mere consciousness, but not appear as the knower. Therefore, the thing ‘I’, which is the knower, is alone the self. It has been taught: “Thus, the self which is the knower shines forth as the ‘I’, because it can be so established by direct perception, and because the aforesaid arguments and scriptural texts are applicable so to prove it, and because also ignorance cannot (really) be associated with it.” [A. S.] To the same effect is this passage:-“The self is other than the body, the senses, the mind and vitality; and is self-evident. It is eternal, all-pervading, different in each body, and happy in itself.” [A. S.] To be self-evident is to be self-luminous; to be all-pervading is to possess the power of getting into the inside of all inanimate things by reason of its own extreme subtlety. It has been stated that sense-perception, which em- braces all distinctions, is grounded upon error and is, in con- sequence, liable to give rise to false knowledge; and that
Vide B. G. XVI. 18.
Vide supra pp. 33 to 35) 102 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part I. therefore it is apt to be stultified by scripture. Here, it has to be questioned what this error is, grounded whereon, perception becomes capable of giving rise to false knowledge. If it be replied that the beginninglessly old innate impression of distinctions itself is, indeed, the cause of error, then it is asked whether it has been already ascertained elsewhere that this innate impression of distinctions possesses, like ‘dark- ness’, &c., the character of being the cause of (our) appre- hending things as being other than what they really are. If it be said again that this is made out by that same (afore- said) scriptural stultification (of perception), it is replied that it cannot be so, for the reason that the logical fallacy of reciprocal dependence would thereby result (in the following manner). When it is settled that scripture gives rise to the knowledge of that thing which is devoid of all attributes, then (alone) is it demonstrable that the innate impression of distinctions forms the misguiding cause of error (in relation to perception); and again, when the innate impression of distinctions is proved to be of the nature of a misguiding cause of erroneous perception, then (alone) is it demonstrable that scripture gives rise to the knowledge of that thing which is devoid of all attributes. Moreover, if, by being based upon the innate impression of distinctions, perception gives rise to such knowledge as is other than the reality, then scripture also, being similarly based thereon, would acquire the same character (of giving rise to false knowledge). It may be urged again that, although based upon error, the scripture forms the stultifier of perception, in as much as it is the means of that knowledge which is destructive of all the distinctions apprehended in perception, and is therefore of stronger name also of an eye-disease.
Vide infra p. 104. n. 69., where this darkness is explained to be theAdhik. 1. Sul. 1.] ŚRI-BHASHYA. 103 authority as a criterion of truth; if so, it is replied that it can not be so, because, when it is known that it (viz. зcripture) is based upon error, the idea that it is stronger as a criteri- on of truth can serve no purpose. For, when the fear caused by the false perception of the snake in a real rope is found to exist in a man, that fear is not seen to cease even after he is told-This is no snake, do not be afraid’-by another who knows that he is labouring under an illusion. That scripture is based upon error can, however, be thought of only at the time of hearing’ it; because reflection,s &c., consist in practically realising that knowledge of the oneness of the Brahman and the self, which is destructive of all the distinctions apprehended at the time of ‘hearing.’ Again, by what means have you come to know what the scripture is and how it is incapable of being erroneous, while perception is capable of being erroneous? That self- evident experience (of yours) which is devoid of all attributes cannot, indeed, give rise to this knowledge, because it is whol- ly objectless and because also it can lend no special support to the scripture. Nor does sense-perception (give rise to this knowledge), because, being based upon error, it relates to what is other than the reality. The other means of proof (such as inference, &c.,) being themselves based upon that (perception), cannot also (give rise to that knowledge). Hence, on account of the unavailability of any means of proof to establish your own position, there can be no proof of the position accepted by you. It may, however, be said that we also have to make use of (such) means of proof and (such) objects of know- ledge as appertain to the phenomenal world. But what is this which you call phenomenal? If it be said that it is that which results from first impressions, and is then made
“Reflection &c.” means reflection and steady meditation, 104 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I Part. I. out to be (really) otherwise when examined by means of appropriate reasoning, it is asked in reply, of what use that can be. Even though it be accepted as a means of proof, it cannot effect what a means of proof has to ac- complish, because it is capable of being itself stultified by appropriate reasoning. Again it may be said that, although both scripture and perception are based upon ignorance, the objects of percep- tion are found to be stultified by the scripture,’ while the object of the scripture, namely, the Brahman, which is the only existence without a second, is not seen to be so stultified subsequently; and that, in consequence, the Brahman alone, which is pure experience and devoid of all attributes, is the highest reality. To say so is wrong, because whatever is based upon error, even though it continues unstultified, can be demonstrated to possess the character of unreality. What is said is this: All those men, for instance, who are affected by timiras 9, who do not know that they are them- selves so affected by timira, who dwell in such mountain caves as are inaccessible to other men, and who are free
Timira commonly means dark- ness, and is here used to denote obviously a disease of the eye. In the Sabdakalpadruma of Raja Radha- kanta Deva, it is said that this dis- ease itself is called ‘darkness,’ be- cause it darkens vision. According to Vabhata who is quoted here, this disease affects the fourth coat of the eye, obstructs vision in all directions, and finally causes blindness. In this disease, it is said, that single objects appear double or multiple, and that short objects appear long and vice versa, &c., &c. If the disease grows and invades the third coat of the eye, it comes to be known as kacha. In this disease the eye is always directed upwards, and the vision is hazy and often coloured; faces appear noseless, single objects appear multiplied, and straight objects appear crooked, &c., &c. When kacha grows, it leads to blindness. On pages 16 & 102,we have translated timura as darkness, so that it may mean either the ordinary dark- ness resulting from want of light, or the eye-disease known as aarkness, because both these act as misguid- ing causes of false perception. Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 105 from all other causes of error in vision, such as the eye-disease kacha, &c., have without distinction, the perception of two moons (when there is only one in reality), as they are all equally subject to that misguiding cause (of false perception) which is known as timira; here, there is no apprehension of any stultifier (of such a perception), and (yet) it cannot for that reason be other than false; accordingly, the moon’s duality, which forms the object of that (perception), is also undoubtedly false. Indeed, an error-producer is that which is the cause of false knowledge. In this same manner, the knowledge of the Brahman, although free from the notion of any thing that may stultify it, has to be undoubtedly false; and with it, its object, which is the Brahman, (has also to be false); because that (knowledge) is (held to be) based upon ignorance. And the forms of the syllogistic statement in this connection would be as follow: (i). The Brahman which is (now) the subject of discussion (between us) is unreal, because it is the object of the knowledge which is produced in one who is possessed of ignorance; as, for example, the phenomenal world. (ii). The Brahman is false, because it is the object of know- ledge (or experience); as, for example, the phenomenal world. (iii). The Brahman is unreal, because it is the object of that knowledge which is produced by false causes; as, for example, that same phenomenal world. Moreover, it should not be urged that the unreal per- ception of elephants and other objects arising in dreams do form the cause of the attainment of real good and evil (in life); and that it is not opposed to reason to hold that, simi- larly, the scripture, which, being based upon ignorance, is unreal, forms the means for the attainment of the object which is known as Brahman and constitutes the highest reality: because the cognition arising in dreams is not at all 14 106 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. of an unreal nature. Indeed, here (in dreams), there is unreality only in relation to the objects (perceived therein), because stultification is seen only in relation to them, but not in relation to the perception itself. Surely there is not born in any one the belief that will make him feel “That conscious state itself which was experienced by me during dreams is non-existent.” As a matter of fact, the idea of stultification here is in the form-“The conscious state is existent, but the objects (thereof) are non-existent.” That knowledge which consists of illusions, and is caused by the incantations (mantras) and medicinal herbs, &c., of the enchanter, is quite real and forms also the cause of love and fear; because, in this case also, the knowledge (or the conscious state so produced) remains unstultified. That perception of the snake, &c., which is imposed upon the rope, &c., and is produced by means of the misguiding causes relating to the objects of perception and the perceiv- ing senses, &c.,-that is also truly existent and forms the cause of fear and other emotions. The impression resulting from the proximity of the snake to one’s self, to the effect that one has been bitten (by it), even when not so bitten,- this also is undoubtedly real. The idea giving rise to a (false) suspicion of poisoning is also certainly real, and forms the cause of death. The reflected appearance of the face, &c., in water, &c., is a really existing thing, and forms the means of ascertaining the particular characteristics found in the face which is a really existing thing. The reality of these various states of consciousness is conclusively estab- lished, in as much as they have an origin, and also form the causes of actions which are determined by motives. If it be asked, how, even in the absence of the elephant and other objects (perceived in dreams), the forms of cog- nition relating to them can be real, we reply that that Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 107 (question itself) is not right; because these forms of cogni- tion merely require, as a rule, some object (whether it be real or unreal) to depend upon, and to relate to. For, what is required to make a thing the basis and the object of any cognition, is merely the manifestation of that thing (to consciousness); and there certainly does exist such a mani- festation under the influence of the misguiding cause (which is productive of such manifestation). However, that (thing which is so made manifest to consciousness), is, when stultified, conclusively proved to be unreal. And it has been already declared that that cognition which conti- nues unstultified relates certainly to the reality. Further, in the case also of the apprehension of the sounds of letters by means of (the corresponding) written signs, there is no cognition of the real by means of the un- real, because the written sign itself is really existent. To this, it may be objected that the sign is taken to be of the same nature as the sound, and is thus the cause of the cognition of the sound here, but that its identity in nature with the sound is unreal. This is not so; because the unreal (or non-existent) nature of the identity (of the sign) with the sound cannot form the means (of producing such a cognition). Indeed, it is not seen, nor is it possible, that what does not exist, and is not cognisable, can form the means (of proving any thing). Again, it may be said that the imposition of the idea of the alphabetic sound on that (written sign) is the cause (of the apprehension of the sound with the help of the sign). If it be so held, then, there would not be here, (as you contend), the cognition of the real by means of the unreal, simply because that (super- imposed) idea is (itself) real. Moreover, there would then result also the oneness of the means of proof with the object to be proved, because both of them possess the same108 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. character of being the cognition of alphabetic sound. And again, if a written sign forms the means (for the cognition of an alphabetic sound), by reason of its supposititious and unreal identity in nature with that sound, then it is easy enough for any one sign to be so supposititiously and un- really identical in nature with all the alphabetic sounds; and thus there will have to result the cognition of all the alphabetic sounds by looking at any one written sign of a letter. Then again, it may be said that, just as there is the convention of using ‘Devadatta’ and other nominal words in relation to particular masses of matter, so also, there is the convention of associating a particular sound, which is perceivable by the ear, with a particular written. sign, which is perceivable by the eye; and that, conse- quently, a particular written sign is the cause of the cognition of a particular alphabetic sound. Well then, there is, in that case, the cognition of the real by means of the real, because both the written sign and the (phonet- ic) convention are of a real nature. The cognition of the real wild ox by means of the written outline of the wild ox is founded upon similarity, and this similarity is itself real. Again, there is no cognition of the real by means of the unreal, even in the case where, by means of particular phonetic differentiations, the one undifferentiated sound (known as sphota) 70 is seen to become the means of apprehending a variety of meanings; because this one un- differentiated sound is revealed by numerous phonetic
This is what is known as the Sphota of the grammarians, according to whom, this Sphota which is eternal is ’the cause of the manifestation of all sounds,’ and so they hold that all the things in the world which are expressed by sounds are traceable to that one eternal sound. The Purva- mimamsa also ascribes eternity to all Vedic sounds. Vide Pur. Mim. I. 1. 5 to 23. Vide also Manu. I. 21. & Taitt. Br. II. 2. 4. 2. Adhik. I. Süt. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA. 109 differentiations (or nadas), and forms the cause of the origin of the knowledge of a variety of meanings, owing to the apprehension of its relation with various meanings, according as they are severally revealed by the various phonetic differentiations (thereof). It is not also proper to hold that sound possesses (at all) the undifferentiated character of unity; because ga and the other phonetic elements of language, which undoubtedly import meanings, do themselves constitute sound, in as much as they (alone) are perceived by the ear. Therefore, by means of the scripture, which is false, it is difficult to arrive at that knowledge the object of which is the real Brahman. An objection may, however, be raised against this conclusion to the following effect:-The scripture is not false, in the same way in which the flowers imagined to grow in the sky (are false); because it is made out to be a real entity (or sat) before the knowledge of non-duality (is born). Indeed, it is only after the knowledge of the truth is born, that the scripture acquires the character of being untrue. And then it is that the scripture can not form the means of knowing the Brahman, which is pure intelligence and is devoid of all distinctions. When it, however, does form such a means, then the scripture is really existent, for the reason that it is then made out to be so existent. To this objection, it is replied that it cannot be so; because, when the scripture does not really exist, to make out that it does exist is false. What (follows) then? Then (follows) this: In consequence of the unreality of the knowledge produced by the unreal scripture, there will result unreal- ity to the Brahman also which forms the object of that (knowledge); in the same way in which, owing to the fals- ity of the knowledge of fire inferred by means of aqueous 110 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. vapour wrongly perceived to be smoke, the fire also which forms the object of that (inferential knowledge) is unreal. Moreover, the absence of any subsequent stultification (of the scriptural knowledge of the Brahman after it is actual- ly produced) is not also proved; because such stultification of that (scriptural knowledge) is really to be found in the statement (of some 71 Buddhists) that nothingness alone is the reality. If it be said that that (statement) is based upon illusion, it is replied that it has been already declared by you that this (scriptural knowledge) also is based upon illusion. Indeed the absence of any such stultification is to be found only in relation to that (state- ment that nothingness is alone the reality)! We have now done with the ridiculing of such ill-founded and fallacious reasoning.

What has been urged? 2-by the Purvapakshins-to the effect that Vedanta passages such as “Existence alone, my dear child, this was in the beginning”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 1.], and the like, are intended to establish that thing alone which is devoid of attributes and is of the uniform nature of intelligence, this (view also) is incorrect; because in the way of proving the proposition 73 that, by knowing a cer- tain One Thing, all things become known, it is declared that the Highest Brahman, which is denoted by the word Sat (or Existence), is the material cause of the world, is the efficient cause of the world, is omniscient, omnipot- ent, wills the truth, pervades all, supports all, controls all, and is characterised by innumerable other auspicious quali- ties; and that the whole world has that (Brahman) for its

71. These are the Madhyamikas; and the statement quoted above is also mentioned in the Sankhya apho- risins of Kapila, I. 44., for the purpose

of refutation.

72. Vide supra p. 27.

73. Vide Chhand. Up. VI. 1. 3. wherein this proposition is given.

Adhik. I. Süt. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

III

Soul; and that, in consequence, the context (wherein the above scriptural passage occurs) proceeds to teach Sveta- ketu that he is of the same nature as the Brahman thus described. Indeed, this subject-is discussed (by us) at length in the Vedartha-sangraha 74. In this work also [Ved. Sut. II. 1. 15.], in the section treating of the origin of the world, this (subject) will be discussed well with great clearness. In this passage also, namely,-“And that is the higher (knowledge) by which that Indestructible Being (is known)”-[Mund. Up. I. 1. 5], the evil qualities appertaining to matter (or prakriti) are first negatived (in relation to the Brahman), and then it is declared that the Highest Brahman possesses innumerable auspicious qualities such as eternity, omnipresence, subtlety, all-pervasiveness, indestructibility, the quality of being the source of all, omniscience, and so on. By means of this passage also, namely, “The Brahman is Existence, Knowledge, Infinity”-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], that thing which is devoid of attributes is not arrived at, be- cause the fact of their (i. c. of Brahman, Existence, Know- ledge, and Infinity) being grammatically equated has to be understood to mean the denotation of some one thing which is characterised by more than one attribute. Indeed, (for words) to be grammatically equated is to import only one thing through a variety of significations. Regarding the use of these words so as to import only one thing, either by signi- fying those qualities which form the primary and natural meaning of the words, ‘Existence,’ ‘Knowledge’, &c., or by denoting the opposite of what is contrary to each of those particular qualities, a difference between their signi- fications has necessarily to be accepted. Here, however,

74. Vide pp. 20 to 60, Vedartha- sangraha, edited at Madras, in Telugu characters, by Messrs J. Tiry-

malacharya and A. K. Vijayaragha- vacharya.

112

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

there is this much of peculiarity. In one case, the words have their primary and natural meaning; and in the other, they have a figurative significance. To be opposed to what is ignorance, &c., does not surely constitute the essential nature of the entity Brahman; for, (if it did), the true nature of (that) Brahman would be fully made out by means of only one word, and the use of the other words would, in consequence, be meaningless. Moreover, under such a circumstance, there will not be any grammatical equation between these words, for the (mere) reason that those words, all of which denote only one thing, cannot have a variety of significations. Furthermore, a variety of qualified conditions results to one and the same thing from a variety of qualifying attributes, and consequently the words (in a grammatical equation) acquire a variety of meanings; and this is not incompatible with their being grammatically equated, because an equation between words is, indeed, intended to establish that one and the same thing is characterised by more than one attribute. In fact, grammarians75 declare that a grammatical equation (between words) means that words having a variety of significations are used so as to import only one thing.

It has been further urged by the Purvapakshins-to the following effect :-In the passage, “One only without a second”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 1.], the word advitiya (which means without a second) does not admit of (the Brahman) being associated with a second thing even in the form of a quality. Hence, according to the rule which enforces faith in all the recensions of the Vedas, it has to

75. Vide Kaiyyata’s commentary on Patanjali’s Maha-Bhashya, Vriddhy- ahnika and also the portion relating to Panini 1. 2. 42. The definition of a grammatical equation as given by Kai-

yyata under Fanini 1. 2. 42., runs as follows :-Bhinnapravṛittinimittayuk- tasya anekasya sahdasya ekasmin arthe 1rittis samanadhikaranyam.

76. Vide supra p. 40. & n. 32.Adhik. I. Süt. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

113

be admitted that the passages which relate to (the Brah- man as) the cause of the world, are all intended to estab- lish that Thing which is without a second. The defini- tion of that Brahman, which is characterised as the cause of the world, and is without a second, is given here to this effect: “The Brahman is Existence, Knowledge, Infini- ty.” [Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.]. Hence that Brahman, which it is intended to define, is certainly devoid of attributes. Otherwise, there would be the contradiction of all such statements as (declare the Brahman to be) ‘without attributes’, ‘without taint’, [Adh. Up. 68.], and so on.

To hold so is not appropriate, because the word advitiya is intended to establish the possession of won- derful powers by the Brahman, who is the material cause of the universe, by pointing out that there is no other who is the ruler thereof and is different from Himself. Similarly, the following among other passages, viz. “It thought, may I become manifold and be born; It created the element tejas.”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 3.], also makes known the pos- session of such wonderful powers (by the Brahman). If it be asked, how by the unqualified statement (that the Brah- man is) advitiya (or without a second) the negation merely of any other cause (than the Brahman) is made out, (it is said thus in reply):-The Brahman, who is desirous of creat- ing, is the material cause of the world, as declared in the passage-“Existence alone, my dear child, this was in the beginning”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 1.]. And in accordance with the very nature of the production of effects, some other cause (than the material one) is also then naturally thought of in the mind, and that, consequently, the word advitiya negatives only that (other cause). Indeed, if it be taken that all things (other than the essential Brahman) are negatived (by the use of that word advitiya), eternity

15

114

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

and other qualities which are accepted by you, and which you desire to establish (in regard to the Brahman), would also be thus negatived. In the present, instance, the rule 77 which enforces faith in all the recensions of the Vedas produces results contrary to what you desire; be- cause, omniscience and other qualities mentioned in all the recensions of the Vedas in relation to what forms the cause of the world, have, (in accordance with that rule) to be brought together here. Hence, it is understood, even from the nature of the passages relating to (the Brahman as) the cause of the world, that it is the qualified thing alone. which is declared in the passage “The Brahman is Existence, Knowledge, Infinity.” [Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.]. Moreover, there does not thus arise any contradiction of the passages which describe the Brahman as being free from attributes, because these passages such as, “(He is) without attributes……without taint “[Adh. Up. 68.], “(He is) without parts, without actions, tranquilled “-[Svet. Up. VI. 19.], and others, deal with qualities which appertain to prakriti (i. e. nature), and which (therefore) deserve to be rejected (in any description of the Brahman).

Those scriptural texts also, which maintain that the essential nature of the Brahman is pure unqualified intelli- gence, declare that that Brahman has, (at the same time), the essential nature of intelligence. By this much (it is not meant) that pure unqualified intelligence which is devoid of attributes is alone the reality; because he who is the knower can alone possess the essential nature of intelligence. Indeed, it has been already stated that it is proper for him alone who is of the essential nature of intelligence, to be the seat of intelligence; analogously to the case of

77. Vide supra p. 40. n. 32.

Adhik. 1. Sut. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

115

gems, of the sun, of lampflames, &c., (which, being them- selves of the nature of the luminous element tejas, are also the seat of luminosity). Indeed, all the scriptural texts declare (in relation to the Brahman) that He is undoubted- ly the knower.

The following and other scriptural passages declare that auspicious qualities, like the quality of being the knower, are natural to the Brahman who is Himself of the essential nature of intelligence, and also that (the Brahman), is (at the same time), destitute of all such qualities as deserve to be rejected:“He who understands all and who knows all”-[Mund. Up. I. 1. 9.]; “It thought” [Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 3.]; “This same deity thought “-[Chhand. Up. VI 3. 2.]; “He thought-may I create the worlds”-[Ait. Up. I. 1.]; “The Eternal among the eternals, the Intelligent among the intelligent, who, though One, fulfils the desires of the many “[Kath. Up. V. 13. & Svet. Up. VI. 13.]; “The two unborn, the intelligent and the non-intelligent, (are) the Lord and the non-lord”-[Svet. Up. I. 9.]; “May we know that highest adorable God who is the ruler of the worlds, who is the greatest Lord being the highest of Lords, who is the highest Deity among deities, and who is the highest Protector among protectors. He has neither the body nor the senses and organs, and there is seen neither His equal nor His superior. His supreme power is revealed, indeed, as varied, natural, and as consisting of knowledge, strength, and action.”- [Svet. Up. VI. 7 & 8.]; “This Self is devoid of sin, is free from old age, free from death, free from sorrow, free from hunger, free from thirst, and desires the truth and wills the truth.”-[Chhand. Up. VIII. 1. 5. & VIII. 7. 1 & 3.]. In the portion beginning with ‘devoid of sin’ and ending with free from thirst,’ this (last) passage negatives (in

116

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. 1. Part. I.

relation to the Brahman) all evil qualities; and then it mentions the auspicious qualities of the Brahman by means of the expressions “desires the truth,” and “wills the truth”; and in itself it (thus) discriminates between the meaning of the passages which deal with the Brahman as unqualified and that of passages which deal with the Brahman as qualified. Therefore there is no contradiction between the passages which speak of the Brahman as qua- lified and again as unqualified, and it can not hence be suspected in the least that either (of those two sets of passages) depends upon and relates to unreality.

This scriptural passage (from the Taittiriya-Upanishad, viz. II. 8 & 9. Anuvākas) 78 begins by describing the auspi-

78. The inuvakas here referred to run as follows:-“Through fear of Him the wind blows; through that fear the sun rises; through fear of Him fire and Indra (perform their duties), and Death runs as the fifth.’ Now, what follows is an enquiry into (the nature of) bliss:-Let there be a young man, noble and well versed in the Vedas, very quick and active, firm and strong, and let the whole of this earth full of wealth belong to him, that is the unit of human bliss, and like- wise of the sage who has a sure foot- ing in the Vedas, (and has the know- ledge of the Brahman), and is free from desires. One hundred times that human bliss is the unit of the bliss of ‘human’ Gandharvas, and like- wise of the sage who has a sure foot- ing in the Vedas and is free from de- sires.

One hundred times that bliss

of ‘human’ Gandharvas is the unit of the bliss of ‘divine’ Gandharvas and

likewise of the sage who has a sure footing in the Vedas and is free from desires. One hundred times that

bliss of ‘divine’ Gandharvas is the unit of the bliss of the Pitris who have acquired long-enduring worlds, and (it is) likewise (the unit) of the sage who has a sure footing in the Vedas and is free from desires. One hundred times that bliss of the Pitris who have acquired long-enduring worlds is the unit of the bliss of the

Devas born in the world known as Ajana, and (it is) likewise (the unit of the bliss) of the sage who has a sure footing in the Vedas and is free from desires. One hundred times

that bliss of the Devas born in the world known as Ajana is the unit of the bliss of the gods known as Karma-devas who have become gods (Devas) through (the performance of sacrificial) acts, and (it is) likewise (the unit) of the sage who has a sure

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

117

cious qualities of the Brahman, saying “Through fear of Him, the wind blows”; then it speaks of the unsurpassable bliss of the kshetrajña (or the soul), in a regular order of increasing succession, saying “That which is a hundred times, &c.”; and then it declares with very great regard the infinitude of the auspicious qualities of the Brahman, saying–“Who- ever knows the bliss of that Brahman, without being able to attain whom speech returns with the mind, &c.”

The passage which makes known the result of the worship of the Brahman, viz. Sośnute sarvan kāmān saha Brahmana vipaschita-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], speaks also of the infinitude of the qualities possessed by the Highest Brahman who is intelligent. (The prose order of this sentence runs thus)-Vipaschita Brahmana saha sarvan kāmān samasnute. The word kama is derived from the root kam to

footing in the Vedas and is free from desires. One hundred times that bliss of the gods known as Karma- devas is the unit of the bliss of the (original) Devas (to whom alone sacri- fices are offered) and (it is) likewise (the unit) of the sage who has a sure footing in the Vedas and is free from desires. One hundred times that bliss of the (original) Devas is the unit of the bliss of Indra, and like- wise of the sage who has a sure footing in the Vedas and is free from desires. One hundred times that

bliss of Indra is the unit of the bliss of Brihaspati and likewise of the sage who has a sure footing in the Vedas and is free from desires. One hund- red times that bliss of Brihaspati is the unit of the bliss of Prajapati and likewise of the sage who has a suic

footing in the Vedas and is free from desires. One hundred times that bliss of Prajapati is the unit of the bliss of the Brahman, and likewise of the sage who has a sure footing in the Vedas and is free from desires. He

who is in the purusha and He who is also in the sun, (both) are one and the same Being. He who knows this, after departing from this world, reaches the Self which consists of ‘food,’ reaches the Self which consists of vitality, reaches the Self which consists of

mind, reaches the Self which con- sists of understanding, and reaches (finally) the Self which consists of bliss. Accordingly, the following sloka is given :-‘Whoever knows the bliss of the Brahman, without being able to attain whom, speech returns with the mind, he need not fear anything.“118

SRI-BHASHYA.

[Chap. 1. Part. 1.

covet and means that which is covetable, i. c. auspicious qualities. The meaning (of the passage accordingly) is that he (the successful worshipper) attains along with the (intelli- gent) Brahman all those (auspicious) qualities. The word ’ with ‘79 (is used) to bring out prominently the (possession of) qualities (by the Brahman), as it is brought out in con- nection with the Dahara-vidya 80 viz. “What exists within that (small space inside the heart), that has to be sought after.” [Chhand. Up. VIII. 1. 1.]. That, between wor- ship and its result, there is a similarity of nature, is proved conclusively by the scriptural passage which says.-” Of whatever nature a man’s worship is in this world, of that same nature that man becomes after death.” [Chhand. Up. III. 14. 1.].

If it be said that by means of the passage-” He who is of opinion (that the Brahman) is unknown,–to him (the Brahman) is known………to those who know well, (He) is unknown”-[Ken. Up. II. 3.], the Brahman is declared to form no object of knowledge, it is replied that in such a case there ought not to be any teaching to the effect that final release results from knowledge, as (it is found declared) in the following passages :-” He who knows the Brahman attains the Highest”-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], “He who knows the Brahman becomes the Brahman indeed “-[Mund. Up. III. 2. 9.]. The scriptural passage-“Whoever knows the Brahman as non-existent, he becomes non-existent indeed.

79. Vide Panini. II. 3. 19.

80. Dahara-vidya is that vidya or form of worshipping the Supreme Brahman, which consists in medi- tating on Him as dwelling in the small etherial space within the heart. In connection with this vidya or form

of worship, the Brahman who has to be

meditated upon is declared in the con- text to be the ‘Self who is devoid of sin, is free from old age, free from death, free from sorrow, free from hunger, free from thirst, and desires the truth and wills the truth.’ Vide also M. När. X. 7. & XI. 7.

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

119

Whoever knows the Brahman as existent, him, therefore, they know as existing “-[Taitt. Up. II. 6. 1.]-speaks of the destruction of the self and the continuance of the self as resulting (respectively) from the non-existence and the exist- ence of that knowledge the object of which is the Brahman. Therefore all the scriptural texts enjoin only that knowledge which relates to the Brahman, for the purpose of attain- ing final release. And the knowledge (so enjoined) is of the nature of worship, and it has been already stated that the object of such worship is the Brahman who is possessed of attributes. In the passage “Without being able to at- tain Him, speech returns with the mind “-[Taitt. Up. II. 9. 1.]-it is declared that the Brahman is infinite, is possessed of innumerable attributes, and is incapable of being measured by speech and mind as possessing any defi- nite magnitude; and then it is said of those, who suppose that they have any definite knowledge of the Brahman to the effect that the Brahman is of such and such magni- tude, that they do not know the Brahman well and have no correct opinion (of the Brahman), because the Brahman is immeasurable. Otherwise, in the passage-” He who is of opinion that (the Brahman) is unknown-to him (the Brahman) is known……..to those who know well, (He) is unknown.”-[Ken. Up. II. 3.], the statement about (the Brahman) being rightly made out and (the Brahman) be- ing well known would meet with contradiction in that very same context.

It has been stated81-by the Purvapakshins-that the scriptural passage-"(Thou shalt) not (see) the seer of the sight, nor (think) the thinker of the thought.” [Brih. Up. III. 4. 2.], negatives the seer and the knower as distinct

81. Vide supra p. 28,

120

ŚRI-BHASHYA.

[Chap. I. Part. I.

from sight and knowledge. This (objection) is invalidated by understanding that what the passage teaches is as follows:- “Understand that it is only fallacious reasoning which arrives at the conclusion that the knower has the essential nature of ignorance, on the ground that his quality of sentiency is of an accidental character; and then, do not look upon, and do not think of, the self as such (in reality), but look upon the self, who is the seer and the knower, as being also surely of the nature of sight and knowledge.” Or the meaning of the passage is this:-“Set aside the individual self who is the seer of sight and the knower of knowledge and then worship the Highest Self alone who is the Soul within all beings.” Otherwise, there will be the contradic- tion of the following and other scriptural passages (relating to the Brahman) as the knower:-“My dear one, by what means has one to know the knower?” [Brih. Up. II. 4. 14.].

What has been urged82-by the Purvapakshins–to the effect that from the passage “The Brahman is bliss.” [Taitt. Up. III. 6. 1.], the essential nature of the Brahman is (made out to be) pure bliss,-that is met by saying that this passage declares the essential nature of the Brahman, who is the seat of knowledge, to be knowledge (itself). Indeed, that conscious state which is agreeable is said to be bliss. The meaning of the scriptural passage– “The Brahman is intelligence, bliss “-[Brih. Up. III. 9. 28.], is that that state of consciousness which is of the nature of bliss is alone the Brahman. Hence, also, results that uniform homogeneity of nature (in relation to the Brahman) which is advocated by you. It has been already stated that, in regard to this Brahman, the true nature of which

82. Vide supra p. 28,

Adhik. 1. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

121

is intelligence itself, the quality of being the knower also is undoubtedly established by hundreds of scriptural texts. In the same manner, by means of these distinct state- ments also–“That is the unit of the bliss of the Brahman”- [Taitt. Up. II. 8. 13.], and” Whoever knows the bliss of the Brahman, &c.,”-[Taill. Up. II. 9. 1.], (it is established that) the Brahman is not mere bliss, but is the blissful One. To be the Knower is, indeed, to be the blissful One.

Again, it has been affirmed 83 that the negation of dis-. tinctions (in regard to the Brahman) is asserted in various ways in the following passages:- “But where there is duality, as it were,” [Brih. Up. II. 4. 14. & IV. 5. 15.]; “There is nothing here that is many and varied. He who sees this world, as though it were manifold, obtains death from death.”-[Brih. Up. IV. 4. 19. & Kath. Up. IV. 10.]; “But where to one all this becomes the Self, there who shall see whom by what ?” [Brih. Up. II. 4. 14. & IV. 5. 15.]. This (objection) is invalidated when it is made out that the whole universe, which is the effect of the Brahman and has that (Brahman) for its internal ruler, is one with (the Brahman Himself) in as much as it has that (Brahman) for its Self, and that the manifoldness contrary to that (oneness) is what is negatived in those (passages); but that other manifoldness of the Brahman which is grounded upon His volition to be born as many, in accordance with the scriptural passage May I become manifold and be born”–[Taill. Up. II. 6. 1. & Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 3.], and which (mani- foldness) is (again) well established by the scripture, that is not negatived. If it be said that, by reason of the negation of manifoldness, all this (scriptural authority)

83. Vide supra p. 28.

16

122

SRI-BHASHYA.

[Chap. I. Part. I.

relates to things which are unreal; then it is replied that it is not so; because, after predicating in relation to the Brahman such manifoldness as cannot be made out by per- ception and all the other means of proof, and as is difficult of realisation, to say that that same thing (viz. manifoldness) is negatived (in relation to the Brahman)–this is indeed matter for laughter.

It has been stateds 4 that in accordance with the passage “For, whenever he perceives in Him even the smallest distinction, then there is fear for him “[Tailt. Up. II. 7. 1.], fear comes to him who sees manifoldness in the Brah- man. This is wrong; because the continued meditation of the manifoldness of that (Brahman) is taught to be the means of tranquillity in the following passage: “Let a man meditate, having been tranquilled by the knowledge’ All this indeed is the Brahman; all this is born in It, is absorbed into It, and lives in It.”” [Chhand. Up. III. 14. 1.]. Accord- ingly, here (in this passage), tranquillity is taught to result from the continued meditation of the fact that it (viz. the world) has that (Brahman) for its Self, in as much as the work of creation, preservation, and destruction proceed from Him in regard to the whole world. Therefore, the conti- nued meditation of the fact that the world which is full of differentiations owing to the varieties of gods, animals, men, immoveable objects, and other things that are (all) really existent (therein), has the Brahman for its Self, forms the cause of tranquillity; and is hence the cause of the attainment of fearlessness; and so there can be no room to suppose that it (viz. such meditation) forms the cause of any fear. If so, it may be asked, why it is declared– “Then there is fear for him.” [Taitt. Up. II. 7. 1.]. To this

84. Vide supra p. 28,Adhik. I. Sut. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

123

it is replied thus:-When that support in the Brahman which, in the passage-“For, indeed, when he obtains fearless support in that which is invisible, incorporeal, indefinable, homeless, then he obtains fearlessness.”- [Tailt. Up. II. 7. 1.], is declared to be the cause of fearless- ness, is interrupted, then there results fear. To the same effect it is declared by the great sages in the following and other passages :-“If Vasudeva is not meditated upon (at least) for the short interval of a muhürla 85 or even for a mere moment, that is loss, that is great weakness, that is illusion, and that is unnatural activity.“se The (word) antara (which is in the first passage quoted above) means breach of continuity in the meditation that has its support in the Brahman, and is indeed its interruption.87

It has been urged 88 that, in the aphorism begin- ning with “Not even on account of the peculiarity of situation”-[Ved. Süt. III. 2. 11.], he (the Sutrakara) men-

85. A Muhurta is one-thirtieth part of a day i.e. a period of 48 minutes, a day being equal to 24 hours. It is however used to denote any short space of time.

86. This passage, in all probability, occurs in more than one Vaishnava Purana, and is to be found in the following form in the Garuda-Pura- na-Sa hanih tat mahat chhidram sa cha andhajadamukata yat muhurtam kshanam va api Vasudevah na chint- rate [CCXXXIV. 23.]. “If Vasude- va is not meditated upon (at least) for the short interval of a muhurta

or even for a mere moment, that is loss, that is great weakness, and that is blindness, dullness and dumbness.”

87. The passage from the Taittirt- ya-Upanishad [II. 7. 1.], which, ac- cording to the Adwaitins, negatives manifoldness in relation to the Brah- man is interpreted by them thus:- “For whenever he perceives in Him even the smallest distinction, then, in- deed, there is fear for him.” Ilerc the word antara is understood to mean distinction. But Ramanują takes this same word to mean breach of continuity or interruption, and inter- prets

the passage thus:-”

“For when- ever he causes the smallest interrup- tion in the meditation that is based on Him, then indeed there is fear for him.”

88. Vide supra p. 28.

124

SRI-BHASHYA.

[Chap. I. Part. I.

tions the Brahman to be devoid of all attributes. This is not so; because there he speaks of the Brahman as being undoubtedly possessed of attributes. And it has been said that in the aphorism beginning with “But it is a mere illusion”-[Ved. Sut. III. 2. 3.], the objects experienced in dreams also are declared to be mere illusions, because they are different from the things which are experienced in the wakeful state. But therein, he (the Sütrakāra) says that they also, like the objects experienced in the wakeful state, possess the characteristics, of reality.

What has been asserted 89 to the effect that, in the Smritis and the Puranas also, pure intelligence alone, which is devoid of attributes, is taught to be real while all else is unreal, that (again) is incorrect.

“Whoever knows Me as the unborn, as the begin- ningless, as the great Lord of the world” [B. G. X. 3.]. “All beings abide in Me and I do not abide in them. And the beings do not also abide in Me.

See my

The protector of all beings, My will is the producing

sovereign glory and power. I do not abide in beings. cause of all beings.” [B. G. IX. 4 & 5.]. “I am the source as well as the destruction of the whole world. O Dhananjaya; there is nothing else higher than Me. All this (creation) is strung on Me like a number of gems on a thread.” [B. G. VII. 6 & 7.]. “I stand support- ing the whole world by a small part (of my power).” [B. G. X. 42.]. “The Highest Person is another; and He is called the Highest Self who, having entered the three worlds as the Imperishable Lord, supports (them). Be- cause I transcend the destructible and am also superior to the indestructible, therefore am I celebrated in the world

89. Vide supra pp. 29 & 30.

Adhik. I. Süt. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA. “

125

and in the Vedas as the Highest Person.” [B. G. XV. 17. & 18.]. “O sage! He (viz. the Lord) transcends the prakritis (which forms the natural and material founda- tion) of all beings, (transcends) all its modifications, 91 all the blemishes (arising out) of its qualities. 92 He, who is the Self of all, has passed beyond all veils, 93 and by Him is pervaded all that is within the inside of the universe. He is of that nature which is characterised by all the auspicious qualities; He has, by a small part of His own powers, held up the whole creation; He assumes at His will any desirable and worthy form, and He has accomplished the good of the whole world. He is the one collection of splendour, strength, sovereignty, great powers of know- ledge, excellent heroism, and other such qualities. He is high among the highest, and in Him, who is the Lord of the higher and the lower, are never found the afflictions and all other such undesirable things. He is the Lord in the individual form and also in the form of the totality; He has an unmanifest nature and also a manifest nature. He is the Lord of all, the Seer of all, the Knower of all. He possesses all powers, and is known as the highest Lord. That, by means of which that Brahman who is devoid of all evil, pure, high, devoid of all blemishes and is of one form, is either seen or attained-that

90. This is the Aryakta which is that state of primordial nature that im- mediately precedes the evolution of the various constituent elements of

the universe.

91 These ‘modifications’ are the con- stituent principles of the universe such as the Mahal or the ‘great principle’, the Ahankara or the principle of egoity, the organs of perception. the

organs of activity, the mind, the gross elements and the subtle ele-

ments.

92. These are: (1) Sattva, the qua- lity of goodness; (2) Rajas, the qua- lity of passion; (3) Tamas, the quali- ty of darkness.

93. These ‘veils’ are: (1) Karma or ignorance, (2) Vasana or innate impressions,’ &c.

126

SRI-BHASHYA.

[Chap. I. Part. I.

is called knowledge and all else (is called) ignorance.” [V. P. VI. 5. 82 to 87.]. “O Maitreya! The word Bhagavat (Divine Lord,) is used to denote the High- est Brahman who is pure and is well known as the pos- sessor of great sovereignty, and is the cause of all caus- es. The syllable bha is associated with two meanings, viz. that He makes all materials ready (for creation), and that He is the upholder. Similarly, the meaning of the syllable ga, O sage, is, that He is the leader (i. e. the pre- server), the destroyer, and the creator. Bhaga (which is made up of these two syllables) is an affirmation (in rela- tion to Him) of the (following) six (qualities) in their en- tirety, namely, sovereignty, heroism, renown, glory, know- ledge and dispassion. The meaning of the syllable va is to the effect that all beings abide in Him, who is the Self of all beings and is also the Self of all, and that He (abides) in all beings and is therefore imperishable. Knowledge, power, strength, sovereignty, heroism, splendour-all these are fully expressed by the word Bhagavat; only evil (un- desirable) qualities and other such things are not. Such, O Maitreya, is this important word Bhagavat. (It is applied) to Vasudeva who is the Highest Brahman, and is not appli- cable to others. Here, this word, denotes, by convention, a thing deserving of worship, and is not used in its secondary sense; elsewhere, indeed, it is used in its secondary sense.” [V. P. VI. 5. 72 to 77.]. “Wherever, O king, all these powers 94 are established, there is another great Form of the Lord, which is different from His Universal Form. He, out of His own playfulness, causes that (Form

94. These are the three suklis or powers, viz. the Vishnu-sakti which is the power of Vishnu and is the high- est, the Kshetrajna-vakti or the

power of the individual self, and the third power is that which is deno- ted by the word avidya or karma. Vide V. P. VI.7.61 to 70.

Adhik. 1. Sut. 1.]

"

SRI-BHASHYA.

127

of His) which is endowed with all powers, to become act- ively manifest under the names of gods, animals, and men. That (activity) is (intended) for the good of the worlds and is not produced by means of karma (i. e. the effect of works operating upon Him). The activity of that unknowable (Brahman) is all-pervading and is of an irresistible nature.” [V. P. VI. 7. 70 to 72.]. “The highest abode called Vishnu is, in this manner, stainless, eternal, all-pervading, undecaying and free from all evil.” [V. P. I. 22. 53.]. “The Supreme Self is high among those that are high and is the highest; and is firmly established in the self (of all be- ings) and is devoid of the defining attributes of form, co- lour, &c. He is free from waste, destruction, modification, growth, and birth and is capable of being spoken of abso- lutely as that which always is. Because He abides every- where and all things abide in Him, therefore He is called Vasudeva by the learned. That Brahman is the highest, is eternal, unborn, indestructible, imperishable and is always of one nature, and is pure through the absence of evil. That alone is all this and is possessed of a manifest and an un- manifest nature. Moreover, It exists in the form of Puru- sha (or Person) as well as in the form of Time.” [V. P. I. 2. 10 to 14.]. “The prakriti (i. e. nature) which has been spoken of by me as possessing a manifest and an unmanifest nature, and the purusha (i. e. the self), are, both of them, absorbed into the Highest Self. And the Highest Self is the support of all, and is the Highest Lord. He is celebra- ted under the name of Vishnu in the Vedas and in the Vedanta.” [V. P. VI. 4. 39 & 40.]. “That Brahman has two forms, viz. the embodied and the unembodied. These two possess (respectively) a destructible and an indestruct- ible nature, and are found to exist in all beings. The inde- structible is that Highest Brahman, the destructible is the128

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

whole of this world. The whole of this world is the mani- festation of the power of the Supreme Brahman, in that same way in which spreading light is (the manifestation) of the fire located in a particular spot.” [V. P. I. 22. 55 to 57.]. “The power of Vishnu is called the higher, that known as the kshetrajna (i. e. the individual self), is, similarly, the lower (power). Another named avidya (igno- rance) and karma is said to be the third power, by which, O king, the all-pervading power known as the kshetrajñā is completely enveloped. The power known as the kshetra- jîa acquires, on account of its being covered by that (avidya or karma), all the ever-recurring miseries belonging to the circuit of mundane existence, and exists in all beings in dif- ferent degrees, O thou, protector of the earth.” [V.P. VI.7. 61 to 63.]. “O thou, the most intelligent one, the mutually interrelated prakriti and purusha (i. e. nature and soul) are encompassed by the power of Vishnu which pervades all beings as their Self. That same power (of Vishnu) is the cause of their separation and interrelation………. Just as, from a mass of water, the wind bears away hun- dreds of minute drops without itself being moistened (by them), so also is that same power of Vishnu (related) to all that is of the nature of prakriti and purusha.” [V. P. II. 7. 29 to 31.]. “O thou, the best of sages, all this world above-mentioned is undecaying, eternal and is subject to the alternations of expansion and contraction, birth and de- struction.” [V. P. I. 22. 60.]. ·

By means of these and other such passages, the Highest Brahman is (first of all) declared to be, by nature, free from

95. The individual self goes under the name of kshetrajña, because, in that condition, it is the knower of the

kshetra i. e. of the material body, with which it is associated.

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

129

even the smallest taint of all that is evil, and to possess that nature which is characterised by all the auspicious qualities, and to be engaged, out of free sportiveness, in the creation, preservation, destruction, inter-penetration, control, &c., of the world; and then all the intelligent and non-intelligent existences (in the universe), which exist in all conditions and are undoubtedly real, are stated to be of the same form as the Brahman owing to their constituting His body, because the words sariraj (embodiment), rupa (form), tanu (body), amsa (part), sakti (power), vibhuti (glory), and the like, are used (in the above passages), and because also they are equated with ‘That’ (viz. the Brahman); and then the intelligent thing (viz. the self), which forms the glory of that (Brahman), is said to exist (freely) in its own essential nature, and also (to exist) in the form of the kshetrajna owing to its association with non-intelligent matter; and, (lastly), it is laid down that in the condition of the kshetrajna it (viz. the self) is veiled by the avidya (or ignorance) which is of the nature of meritorious and sinful actions, and that it has, in consequence, no unbroken remembrance of its own natural condition as intelligence,” but continuously thinks (of itself) as existing in the form. of things which possess a non-intelligent nature. Therefore, it is made out that the Brahman is possessed of attributes, and that the world which is the manifestation of His glory is undoubtedly real also.

In the passage-“That in which differences have vanished”-[V.P. VI. 7.53.], it is declared that the true

96. Vide supra p. 29, where the trans- lation of this passage, in accordance with the interpretation of the Adwai- lins, is given in full as follows :— “That in which differences have va-

17

nished, which is pure existence, which is beyond the sphere of speech, which is self-knowing—That is the Intelli- gence, called Brahman by name.”

130

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

nature of the self, even when it is united with particular modifications of the prakriti, such as gods, men, &c., is inexpressible by words like god, &c., which denote distinc- tions in relation to it, because it is devoid of intrinsic ‘dis- tinctions; and that it is to be defined as wholly consisting of intelligence and existence; and that it is self-knowing, and is invisible (even) to the mind of one who has gone through the practice of yoga (i. e. mental concentration and meditation). Therefore, from this (passage) the negation of the world does not follow. If it be asked, how this is arrived at, we reply that it is thus:-In the context 97 (wherein this passage occurs), yoga is stated to be the only remedy to bring about the cessation of the circuit of mundane existence; then the constituent parts of the yoga are mentioned up to pratyahara ;98 and then with the intention of pointing out a good and worthy object for the purpose of accomplishing dharana99 (or concentration), the two forms of the Highest Brahman i. e. Vishnu, which are denoted by the word power-sakti-are declared to consist of the divisions of the embodied and the unembodied. Then again the division called the embodied, that is the kshetrajna, which is associated with non-intelligent matter and is encircled by that ignorance (or avidya) which is known as karma and forms the third power (of Vishnu), is affirmed to be bad and unworthy (for purposes of meditation) on ac- count of its being connected with the three100 (undesirable) conceptions: afterwards, the character of being a good and

97. Vide V. P. VI. 7.

98. Pratyahāra means the withdraw- al of the senses from external objects.

99. Dharani means steady concen- tration of the mind on a particular object,

100. These conceptions are:-(1) the conception that we become the Brak- man Himself; (2) the conception that we merely do the work; (3) the con- ception that we become the Brahman

and do the work.

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

131

worthy object (to help concentration) is denied (also) in re- lation to the second division called the unembodied, which is devoid of ignorance, is separate from non-intelligent matter, and is altogether of the form of intelligence, on account of its being an object worthy to be meditated upon only by accomplished yogins, and on account of its being incapable of proving a support to the mind of a beginner in yoga, and also on account of its being devoid of uncaused intrinsic purity: (lastly), the embodied (universal) form (of the Brah- man) which is the seat of His three powers, viz. the higher power which is this (above mentioned) unembodied (form of the self), the (other) lower power which is the (self’s) embodied form called the kshetrajña, and ignorance (or avidya) which is of the nature of karma and is known as the third power and which forms the cause of leading the self, which is of the nature of the higher power, to assume the condition of the kshetrajña-(this embodied form of the Brahman) which is peculiar to the Divine Lord, and is ascertained by means of Vedanta passages like “He is of sunlike lustre.” [Svet. Up. III. 8. & B. G. VIII. 9.]-101 (this) is declared to be the good and worthy object (for the accomplishment of dharana). In this context, the passage

“That in which differences have vanished &c.” [V. P. VI. 7. 53.], is intended to show that the self which has the pure unembodied nature is unfit to be a good and worthy object (for the accomplishment of dharana). Accordingly, it has been stated (in the same work, viz. Vishnu-Purana): “O king! That (unembodied form of the Lord) is not fit to be meditated upon by one who begins the practice of yoga.” [V. P. VI. 7. 55]. “The highest home which is the second (unembodied form) of Him who is called Vishnu

101. Vide also Taitt. Ar. III. 12. 7.

132

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. 1. Part. I.

is fit to be meditated upon by yogins……. Wher- ever, O king, all these powers are established, there is another great Form of the Lord, which is different from His Universal Form”. [V. P. VI. 7. 69 & 70.]. In the same manner, after stating that the (four-faced) Brahma, Sanandana, and others who are beings inside the universe, are unfit to be good and worthy objects, (to help concentration) owing to their being covered by means of ignorance (or avidya), the character of being (such a) good and worthy object is denied by the venerable Saunaka in relation also to those bound souls in whom knowledge is originated only later on by means of yoga, and who have (thus) realised their true nature, for the reason that they are themselves devoid of uncaused intrinsic purity. It is stated (by Saunka) in the following and other passages that the natural and peculiar form of Vishnu, who is the Highest Brahman, can alone be (such a) good and worthy object (for the accomplishment of dharana) :-“Be- cause all living things from Brahma to a clump of grass, that are within the world, are within the grasp of the ever chang- ing circuit of mundane existence caused by karma, there- fore, they are not helpful in meditation to those that meditate. Indeed, they are all in ignorance (or avidya) and are subject to the ever-recurring succession of births and deaths. Those also in whom knowledge of truth is born later on are not at all helpful in meditation. Their knowledge of truth is not natural to them, because it is derived from an- other source. Therefore that pure Brahman is, alone, by nature, full of (such) knowledge.” [V. Dh.102 CIV. 23 to 26]. Consequently in this passage (viz. V. P. VI. 7. 53. “That

102. This Vishnu-Dharma forms a portion of the Bhavishyat-Purana and

is said to have been taught by Sauna-

ka.Adhik. 1. Süt. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

133

in which differences have vanished”, &c.,) the negation of distinctions is not brought out.

Also in the passage-"(I bow to Him alone) who in real- ity is of the nature of intelligence,” &c., [V. P. I. 2. 6.],108 unreality is not established in relation to the whole aggre- gate of those objects which are distinct from intelligence, be- cause therein only this much is stated, viz. that the false ap- prehension of the self, which is of the nature of intelligence, in the form of gods, men, and such other objects, is a mere illusion. Indeed, if it be said that the false apprehension of the mother-of-pearl as silver is an illusion, it does not follow that all the collection of silver in the world becomes thereby unreal. There is the appearance of unity between the Brahman and the world due to the fact of their being grammatically equated (in the sastras); and it may be urged that it is an illusion to apprehend, in consequence, the Brahman whose essential nature is Intelligence, in the form of things (other than Intelligence); and if it be held that when it is so urged, the whole collection of things in the world would acquire the character of falsity, (it is de- clared in reply that) that (opinion) is wrong; because, that Vishnu who is the Highest Brahman, who is devoid of even the smallest taint of all such evil things as igno- rance and the like, who is identified with all the auspicious qualities, and is the owner of great sovereignty, is taught in this sastra, and it is thus impossible to have any illusory vision in relation to Him. Moreover, it will be presently established, that the declaration of unity (between the

103. This passage has been already translated from the stand-point of the Adwaitins and is to the following effect:-"(I bow) to Him alone who in reality is of the nature of Intelli-

gence and is absolutely pure (i. c. devoid of all attributes), and who, nevertheless, exists in consequence of (our) illusive vision in the form of material objects.” Vide supra p. 29.

134

SRI-BHASHYA.

[Chap. 1. Part. I.

Brahman and the world) resulting from the fact of their being equated, does not admit of stultification and is not opposed to reason. Therefore this passage also [viz. V. P. I. 2. 6.] does not stultify the natural reality of external objects.

Accordingly, from this scriptural passage, viz. “From whom all these beings are born, in whom, when born, they live, and whom they enter when they perish; do thou desire to know that well; that is the Brahman.”-[Taitt. Up. III. 1. 1.], it may be concluded that the cause of the origin, &c., of the world is the Brahman,; but then we learn from the sastraic commandment,-“The Veda should be amplified and supported by the Itihasas and the Pura- nas, 104 because the Veda is afraid of him who has little learning that he would do it wrong.”-[M.Bh. I. 1. 264.], that amplification and confirmation are necessarily to be effected with the help of the Itihasas and the Puranas in relation to what is taught (here in the above scriptural passage). To amplify and support is indeed to elucidate the meanings of the Vedic passages which are known to oneself by means of the sayings of those who know all the Vedas and their meanings, and who have, by the great power of their yoga, directly perceived the things constituting the truth of the Vedas. Amplification and confirmation, indeed, have necessarily to be effected (in connection with the import of Vedic passages), because it is difficult to understand the meanings of all the passages

104. An Itihasa like the Ramayana or the Mahabharata is a work pur- porting to deal with ancient history. Puranas are works which treat of the five topics, viz. primordial creation or evolution of matter, primordial crea-

tion of form-possessing conscious and unconscious bodies, genealogy of the gods &c., periods of time known as the Manwantaras, and the history of the dynasties of kings.

Adhik. I. Sul. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

135

found in all the recensions of the Vedas by knowing only a small part thereof, and it is in consequence impossible to attain certainty without that (amplification and confirma- tion). Here (i. e. in the context wherein the passage-"(I bow to Him alone) who in reality is of the nature of Intelligence”-occurs), Maitreya:desires to get his own knowledge of the teachings of the Vedas amplified and supported at the hands of the reverend Parasara, who was in possession of that knowledge of the reality of the Highest Divinity which he had obtained from Pulastya and Vasishtha as a boon bestowed upon him, and questioned (Parasara) thus :-“Again I wish to hear from you, O thou, the knower of religion and duty, how this world came into existence, and what will become of it again. O thou, glorious one, what does the world consist of? O thou, reverend one, whence (came) all this moveable and immoveable creation; how and where was it hidden, and into what will it be absorbed ?” [V. P. I. 1. 4 & 5.]. By means of these and other passages, the particular nature of the Brahman, the characteristics of the different kinds of His glory, the nature of worshipping Him, the particular results (of such worship) are all here questioned about. In the question regarding the particular nature of the Brahman, the efficient and material causes (of the world) are enquired about in the query- “Whence (came) all this moveable and immoveable (creation)?”; (therefore), in the query-” What does it consist of”-it is asked of what nature that world is which is the object of creation, preservation, and destruction; and the reply to this is-“And the world is that (Brahman).” [V. P. I. 1. 31.]. This sameness (of the world with the Brahman) is due to the invariable association (of the world with the Brahman) on account of His constituting the Self (there-

136

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

of) as its internal ruler; but is not due to the oneness in substance between the subject and the predicate (in the proposition “And the world is that Brahman)”; because the equation (between the world and the Brahman) in the passage” And the world is that (Brahman)"-forms the reply to the question “What does it (i. e. the world) consist of?” The affix mayat in yanmayam (i. e. what does it consist of) 105 does not denote modification; other- wise, this separate question would (relate to what has al- ready been asked and thus) be purposeless. Nor is it used in the sense of importing that very thing itself which is denoted by the word to which it is affixed, as in the case of the word praṇa-maya,1° because the reply” And the world is that (Brahman)"–would be inappropriate (in such a case). Indeed, in such a case, the reply should have been “(And the world is) Vishnu Himself.“10: Hence that (affix mayat) imports only the abundance (of that thing which is denoted by the word to which it is attached). (Here) the affix mayat is (used) in accordance with the rule which says “The affix mayat is (to be employed) wherever an abundance of a thing has to be expressed.”

105. That part of the sloka which contains the affix mayat is as follows: -Yanmayam hi jagat brahman ya- Lah chi etat characharam.

106. Here i. e. in the word prana- maya, the affix mayat gives to that word the power of importing that very thing which is denoted by the word prani itself; cf. Pranamayam ätmānam upasankramya. Taitt. Up.

III. 10. 5.

107. The equation between the Brah- man and the world, contained in the

answer” And the world is that Brahman”-posits two different enti- ties, and it would become an identity if the affix mayat were to have no significance. When it is possible to make the affix mayat significant, that interpretation in which it loses all sig- nificance, as it would do if the above supposition were right, is. not held to be correct according to the accepted rules of interpretation in Vedantic literature.

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

137

[Panini. V. 4. 21.]. Certainly, the whole world being the body of that (Brahman) is abundantly full of Him. There- fore it is settled that the equation in the statement-“And the world is that (Brahman)"-made in reply to the question “What does it consist of?"-results from there being, bet- ween the world and the Brahman, the same relation as there is between the body and the soul. Otherwise, all these questions and answers would not be appropriate in the sastra which is admitted to be devoted to the establish- ment of that thing which is devoid of all attributes; and the sastra which is intended to be an explanation of that thing would also be thus inappropriate. Indeed, in such a case, to the one question of the form “What is the basis of the illusion of the world ?"-there would be only one answer in this form, viz. “Pure intelligence that is devoid of all attri- butes.” If the equation (contained in the statement-“And the world is that Brahman”) denote the unity of substance between the world and the Brahman, then the fact of His being the sole seat of myriads of auspicious qualities such as the quality of willing the truth, &c., as well as the fact of His being the opposite of all that is evil, would be stulti- fied,and the Brahman would also become the seat of all evil. It will be established later on that the fact of (the Brah- man and the world) being equated denotes primarily the same relation (between them) as there is between the soul and the body. Hence, by means of the passages commencing with " (The Supreme Self) is high among those that are high and is the Highest”, &c., [V. P. I. 2. 10.], (Parāśara) proceeds to explain in extenso the idea briefly conveyed in the stanza-“The world came into existence from the will of Vishnu, and it is altogether existent there- in. He is the cause of the preservation and destruction of this world, and the world is Himself.” [V. P. I. 1. 31.];

18138

SRI-BHASHYA.

[Chap. I. Part. I.

and with that object in view, he first bows to the Divine Lord Vishnu,who is in His own natural form and is the High- est Brahman, by repeating the stanza commencing with- “(I bow) to the Immutable………” [V. P. I. 2. 1.];108 and then again he bows to the same (Vishnu) who is existent in the form of the trinity made up of Brahma (the creator), of His own incarnation (as Vishnu), and of Siva, and (is also existent in the form of) prakriti (or nature), Time, kshe- trajña (or the individual self), the aggregate creation and the individual created beings. In that context, this stanza, which begins with “(I bow to) Him (alone) who is in reality of the nature of intelligence,” speaks of the nature of that Highest Self which is in the form of the individual entities known as kshetrajñas. Therefore, here (i. e. in this stanza), the thing which is destitute of attributes is not taught.

If the sastras relate to the establishment of that illu- sion which is based upon the Brahman, whose nature is (pure and simple) intelligence devoid of attributes, then the objection-“How is it posssible for the Brahman who is without qualities, who is unknowable, pure and devoid of evil by nature, to be the agent in the acts of creation, &c.,109 (of the world)?”-[V. P. I. 3. 1.]-would be inappropriate here; and similarly its invalidation as given in the following passage, would also be (inappropri- ate) “O thou, the best of ascetics, there are, in all things, powers which cannot be brought within the sphere of thinkable (or explicable) knowledge, and for that very same

108. The whole of this stanza is as follows:-"(I bow) to the Immutable Vishnu who is eternally pure and forms the Highest Self, who has a uniformly homogeneous nature and

6

is the conqueror’ or, in other words, the possessor of all.”

109. The et cetera here implies pre- servation and destruction in relation to the world.

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

139

reason, those acts of creation, &c., constitute the inherent (inexplicable) powers of the Brahman, as heat (constitutes the inherent power) of fire.” [V. P. I. 3. 2 & 3]. Indeed, if that be the case (i. e. if the sastra relate to the establish- ment of illusion as aforesaid), then the (above mentioned) objection (in regard to the sastra declaring the thing that is devoid of attributes), and its refutation would (severally) run thus: (i). How is it that the Brahman which is devoid of qualities becomes the agent in the acts of creation, &c? (ii). The creation proceeding from the Brahman is not real, but is manufactured by illusion. But the objection really is to this effect-“The work of creation, &c., is seen in association with those who possess the qualities of sattva,110 &c., who are imperfect, and are bound by karma; and so, how is it possible for Him who is devoid of the qualities of sattva, &c., who is perfect, who is not bound by karma, and who cannot have any association with karma, (how is it possible for such a Person)—to be the agent in the acts of creation, &c? And the answer to this objection also is really to this effect “The union of all powers in the Brahman, who is distinct from all perceiv- able things and is altogether of the aforesaid nature, is not incompatible with reason, in the same way in which the association of the power of heat, &c., with fire, &c., which are distinct from water, &c., (is not incompatible with reason).

The statement’ 11” Thou alone art the only reality, &c.,” [V. P. I. 4. 38.], does not also speak of the unreality

110. These are: Sattva, goodness, Rajas, passion, and Tamas, darkness. 111. This is half of the stanza, V. P. 1. 4. 38. And, its meaning according to the Adwaitins (vide p. 29. supra),

has been already given as follows:- “O Lord of the universe! Thou alone art the only reality and there is none other.”

140

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

of the whole (world), but (speaks only of) the unreality of that thing the existence of which is (held to be) independ- ent of That (viz. the Brahman), the reason being that the whole (world) has that (same Brahman) for its Soul. He (ie. Parasara) declares again the same thing thus-“That greatness by which all this moveable and immoveable (creation) is pervaded is Thine.” [V. P. I. 4. 38.].112 Because all this moveable and immoveable (creation) is pervaded by Thee, therefore, all this has Thee for its Soul; and so there is nothing other than Thee. Hence, as being the Self of all, Thou alone art the only reality. Hence (also) it has been stated that what constitutes Thy great- ness is Thy omnipenetrativeness. Otherwise it should have been stated that it (viz. Thy omnipenetrativeness) is an illusion; and the expressions113 ‘O, Lord of the Universe’, “Thou,’ &c., would then have a figurative (or second- ary) significance; and there would be the contradiction of the context wherein the Divine Lord’s great boar in- carnation is glorified as He is sportively lifting up the earth (from beneath the waters).

The whole world is, as if by its Soul, pervaded by Thee who art of the nature of intelligence, and constitutes Thy body; therefore those, who do not pos- sess the means of perceiving (the world) as having Thee for its Soul, make out through illusory percep- tion that this (world) is altogether made up of gods, men, and other such things; accordingly, he (i. e. Parasara) says in this connection-“This which appears,

112. This is the second half of the thus in the Sanskrit original:-Para- stanza V. P. I. 4. 38.

113. These expressions are contain- ed in V. P. 1. 4. 38., which runs

mirthaḥ tvam eva ekah na anyah asti jiga’ah pate | tava eshah mahima yena

vyaptam etat characharam.

Adhik. I. Sit. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

&c. [V. P. I. 4. 39.].114

i41

To perceive the world, which, in reality, has Thee for its Soul, as made up of gods, men, and other such things is, no doubt, an illusion in itself; but the perception which apprehends the individual souls, that have the nature of intelligence, as though they were made up of gods, men, and other such material configurations, is also an illusion; accordingly, he (i. e. Parasara) says in this connection- “All this (world) is of the nature of intelligence, &c.” [V. P. I. 4. 40.] 115

Those who, on the other hand, are intelligent and understand the self, the nature of which is intelligence, and whose minds are well purified by the acquisition of what gives rise to the experience that the whole (universe) has the Divine Lord for its Soul,–they perceive that all this world has the characteristics of the body, being (itself) made up of such particular modifications of prakriti (or nature) as gods, men, &c., and then look upon it as constituting Thy body, and as having Thee, who art different from the body and hast the essential nature of intelligence, for its Soul: accord- ingly, he (i.c. Parasara) says in this connection-“Those who know what is knowledge, &c.”-[V. P. I. 4. 41.].116

114. This stanza is understood by the Adwaitins as follows:-” This which appears embodied belongs to Thee who art of the nature of Intelli- gence; and those who are not Yogins (i. e. those who are ignorant) look upon it, on account of (their) illusive perception, as though it formed the world.” Vide supra p. 29.

115. This stanza is interpreted by the Adwaitins thus:-“All this world is of the nature of Intelligence. Igno-

rant men look upon it as though it were made up of material things, and are tossed to and fro in a flood of illusions.” Vide supra p. 29.

116. This stanza as interpreted by the Adwaitins has been already given as follows:-“Highest Lord! Those who know what is knowledge, and whose minds are pure, look upon the whole world as being made up of Intelligence and as consisting of Your- self.” Vide supra p. 29.

142

SRI-BHASHYA.

[Chap. I. Part. İ.

Otherwise, among the stanzas, there would be a redundant repetition; the words (therein) would acquire a figurative (or secondary) significance; there would be the contradic- tion of things (as made out by perception and the other means of knowledge), the contradiction of the context, and also the contradiction of the purport of this sastraic work.117

In this stanza also, namely,-“Although he is to be found in one’s own body and in that of all others, (intelli- gence) which is one and simple, &c.,”-[V. P. II. 14.31.],118 what is meant is, that, while all the individual selves are similar in nature for the reason that they solely consist of intelligence, the perception of duality (or difference) in relation to individual selves, as though they (also), owing to their association with certain material masses, which are particular modifications of the prakriti and are known as gods, men, &c., had the nature of gods, &c.,-(that perception of difference) is unreal. The duality (or difference) found to exist in relation to masses of matter, and (the duality or difference) found to exist in relation to indivi- dual souls are not in fact denied (here). The meaning is, that the thing called the self, which exists in (association with) the varied and wonderful masses of matter known as gods, men, &c., is all alike; and to that same effect it has been declared by the Lord (Himself) in the following and other similar passages:-“The learned look alike

117. The sastraic work here mention- ed is the Vishnu-Purana of Parasara from which the above stanzas [I. 4. 38 to 41.] as well as others, are all quoted, as the references given above show.

118. Vide supra p. 29. where the

Adwaitins are made to quote this stanza as follows:-“Although He is to be found in one’s own body and in that of all others, Intelligence which is one and simple indeed con- situtes Ilis reality. Dualists sec things wrongly.“Adhik. I. Sut. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

143

upon a dog and upon an outcast (or a Chandala).”-[B. G. V. 18.];119 “Indeed, the brahman (i. e. the indi- vidual soul here) is (by nature) devoid of all evil and is alike in all beings.”-[B. G. V. 19.]. Accordingly, in the passage,-“Although he is to be found in one’s own body and in that of all others, &c.,”-[V. P. II. 14. 31.], the distinction between one’s self and that of another is also distinctly mentioned as existing in relation to the thing which is other than the body (viz. the individual soul).

In this passage also which begins with” If there were any other like me or any other unlike me”-[V. P. II. 13. 90.],120 the essential identity of individual souls is not taught, because it is not admissible to use the word para (which means another like me) and the word anya (which means another unlike me) in one and the same sense, as though the statement meant- “If there were any one other than me other than me.” There (i. e. in that passage), the word para (which means another) denotes the self which is distinct from one’s own self; and in as much as that (self) also is altogether of the nature of intelligence, the word an- ya (or different) means the negation of any other nature (to the self than that of intelligence). What is said is this:-“If some individual self other than my own self be of a differ- ent nature from intelligence which is my nature, then, it is

119. The whole of this stanza is as follows:-” The learned look alike upon a person who has an abundance of knowledge and humility, upon a Brāhmaṇa, a cow, an elephant, a dog, and an outcast.”

120. This sloka runs thus in the Sanskrit original:-Yadi anyah asti parah kah api mattah parthivasattama |

tada eshah ayam ayam cha anyah vaktum evam api ishyate. Vide supra p. 29. where the Adwaitins interpret it as follows:-“O thou, the best of kings, if there were any other like me, or any other unlike (or differ- ent from) me, then alone would it be proper to say that such an one is me and such an one is not me,”

144

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

possible to mention-I am of this nature, he is of a diff- erent nature.’ But it is not seen to be so, because all (the individual selves) are wholly of the nature of intelligence, and are therefore undoubtedly alike in nature."

In this passage also which begins with “It is in conse- quence of the difference due to the holes in a flute “, [V. P. II. 14.32],121 what is declared is that the difference of character in relation to the individual selves is not due to their essential nature, but is due to their having entered the (various) masses of matter known as gods, &c.; and it is not (declared herein) that all the selves are one (in essence). In the illustrative example also, there is no substantial sameness between the particles of air which are associated with the several holes (of the flute), but there is only similarity of nature (between them). Indeed, those (particles of air) are all of one character, because they possess the same aërial nature; and they have a variety of names such as shadja, &c.,122 because they pass out through a variety of holes. In the case of the individual selves, also, the variety of names, such as gods, &c., results in a similar way. The things which form portions of the elemental substances fire, water, and earth are one in nature with those substances, on account of their being themselves made up of those particular substances; (but really) there can be no essen- tial identity between them (i. e. between the part and the whole). Thus it has necessarily to be accepted that the various particles of air are also distinct from each other in essence, (though similar in nature).

121. This stanza is found on pp. 29 & 30. to the following effect :-” It is, in consequence of the difference due to the holes in a flute, that the distinc- tions named Shadja &c., (correspond-

ing to the pitch of the sound) result to the air, which pervades all without distinction; just so is it the case with the Highest Self.”

122. Vide supra p. 29. n. 25.

Adhik. I. Süt. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

145

In the stanza123 which begins with-" He is myself and he is yourself" [V. P. II. 16. 23 & 24.], he (i. e. Parasara) recalls to mind, by means of the word ‘he’, the aforesaid character of intelligence belonging to all the individual selves; then concludes, from myself, yourself, &c., being. (here) grammatically equated, that intelligence alone con- stitutes the character of the things denoted by myself, your- self, &c.; and he at last says “Give up that illusion of distinction between individual selves which is based upon the distinction of such material forms as gods, &c.”. Otherwise, in relation to that (self) which is to be taught here as being essentially different from the body, it would not be appropriate to point out those differentiations (in the forms of I, thou, &c.,) that are to be found in the state- ment that I, thou, and all this have the essential nature of the self. And it is not also possible for the words I, thou, &c., to be the accidental indicators (of the nature of the self), because they are grammatically equated with what constitutes the thing that has to be so indicated by means of accidental attributes; that is, (because they are equated) with all this has the essential nature of the self. It is said that he (viz. the person so taught) acted up to that teach- ing, and “gave up the idea of distinction after seeing the highest reality.” If it be asked, how this conclusion (of ours) is arrived at, (we reply) that it is arrived at because the teaching has reference to the process of discrimination between the body and the soul. And that (teaching) begins

123. This stanza runs in the Sans- krit original as follows:-Sah aham sa cha tvam sa cha sarvam etat atma- swarupam tyaja bhedamoham | itiritaḥ tena sa rajavaryah tatyāja bhedam paramarthadrishtik || This stanza has been already translated on p. 30,

19

supra thus:-“He is myself, and He is yourself and all this is the same as the Self. Give up the illusion of distinctions. Thus taught by him, that great king, saw the Highest Reality and gave up distinctions.”

146

SRI-BHASHYA.

[Chap. I. Part. I.

thus:-“Because the body which is characterised by head, hand, &c., is distinct from the purusha (i. e. the self)”-[V. P. II. 13.89.].124

The stanza125 beginning with–“When the knowledge which gives rise to distinctions”,-[V. P. VI. 7. 96.] is also not intended to establish the essential oneness in the nature of individual selves. Nor (is it intended to estab- lish the essential oneness) of the individual self and the Supreme Self. The essential oneness of the indivi- dual selves is negatived in the manner already stated. There is also no essential identity between the individual self and the Supreme Self, in the same way in which (there is no essential identity) between the body and the individual self. To this effect, indeed, are the fol- lowing and other Vedantic passages :-“Two birds, which possess similar attributes and are inseparable friends, cling to the same tree; one of them eats the sweet pippala fruit, while the other shines in splendour without eating at all.” [Mund. Up. III. 1. 1.]; “Those who know the Brahman, and who have worshipped the five fires and also the trinachiketa fire, declare that there are the two that enjoy the reward of works in the world of good deeds, that they have entered into the cave (of the heart), in the transcendentally excellent ether of which they reside and are as shadow and sunlight.” [Kath. Up. III. 1.]; “He who has entered within, is the ruler of all things that are born, and is the Self of all.”

124. The latter half of this sloka is to the following effect :-“There- fore which of these am I to designate by this name of ‘I’?”

125. This stanza has been already translated while stating the position of the Adwaitins. Vide supra p. 30.

[Taitt. Ar. III. 24.]. In this

where it is given as follows:-“When the knowledge which gives rise to distinctions has undergone complete destruction, (then), who will create the unreal difference between the

self and the Brahman?”

126. Literally, drink in.

Adhik. I. Süt. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

147

Sastraic work (also, viz. the Vishnu-Purana), the distinction (betwen the individual self and the Supreme Self) is declar- ed in the following manner:-“O sage! He (viz. the Lord) transcends the prakriti (which forms the natur- al and material foundation) of all beings, (transcends) all its modifications, and all the blemishes (arising out) of its qualities. He, who is the Self of all, has passed be- yond all veils, and by Him is pervaded all that is within the universe. He is of that nature which is characterised by all auspicious qualities…. He is high among the high- est, and in Him, who is the Lord of the higher and the lower, the afflictions and all other such undesirable things have no place.” [V. P. VI. 5. 83 to 85.];127 “Another (power) named avidya (or ignorance) and karma is said to be the third power by which, O king, the all-pervading power known as the kshetrajña is completely enclosed.“128 [V. P. VI. 7. 61 &62.]: and (the same difference is taught) in the following aphorisms also, viz.-“And both of them (i.e. both the recen- sions of the Brihadaranyaka-Upanishad, viz. the Kanva and the Madhyandina) speak of it (i. e. of the individual self) as being different (from the internal Ruler who is the Highest).” [Ved. Sut. I. 2. 21.]; “And on account of the declaration of difference, (the Supreme Self is) different (from the indi- vidual self).” [Ved. Sut. I. 1. 22.]; “(The Brahman is) in- deed other than (the individual self), because of the (scrip- tural) declaration of difference (between them).” [Ved. Süt. II. 1. 22.]. Moreover, the following and other Vedant- ic texts, viz.” He who dwelling in the self, is within the self, Whom the self does not know, Whose body is the self and Who internally rules the self. (He is your Self &c).” [Madh. Brih. Up. III. 7. 22.]; “He is embraced by

127. Vide supra p. 125.

128. Vide supra p. 128.148

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. 1.

the omniscient Self.” [Brih. Up. 4. 3. 21.]; “He is ridden upon by the omniscient Self.” [Brih. Up. WV. 3. 35.], determine that the essential nature of the individual self and that of the Supreme Self are both of a mutually exclu- sive character. (For all these reasons there can be no substantitial unity between the individual self and the Supreme Self).

Moreover, in the case also of one who has been releas- ed from avidya by adopting the means (intended therefor), there cannot be essential unity with the Supreme Self, (which is incapable of being the seat of avidya or ignorance); because that which is capable of being the seat of igno- rance can never acquire the character of what is (naturally) unfit to be the seat thereof. To the same effect, it is taught in the following passage :-“If it be held that the identity of the Highest Self with the individual self is the highest truth, it is wrong (to hold so); because any substance which is different from another cannot indeed acquire the character of that other substance.” [V. P. II. 14. 27.]. Be- sides, it is stated in the Bhagavad-Gita, that a released soul attains only His character, (but not His essential na- ture):-“Depending upon this knowledge, those who at- tain sameness129 of nature with Myself are not born at the time of creation, and are not hurt at the time of dissolution.” [B. G. XIV. 2.]. Here (i. e. in the Vishnu-Purana) also, there is the following passage to the same effect :-“O sage, that Brahman, by His own power, makes this worshipper, who is deserving of a change of state for the better, acquire His own nature in the same way in which a magnet makes the metal acquire its own magnetic

129. The idea is that the released soul possesses the same nature as the Supreme Self, but does not become

one in substance with the Supreme Self.

Adhik. 1. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

149

character.” [V. P. VI. 7. 30.]. The word atmabhava (in this stanza) 130 means His own nature. Surely, the thing which is attracted does not become identical with that which attracts. Says (the same thing the Sutrakara) also thus: “Except in the matter of the activity relating to (the creation &c., of) the world, (the released souls possess all the powers belonging to the Lord), because (the Lord Himself forms) the topic of the contexts (wherein the above-mentioned activity is referred to), and because also (the individual souls) are not mentioned (therein).” [Ved. Sut. IV. 4. 17.]; “And on account of the characteristic of equality (between the individual self and the Supreme Self) being solely confined to enjoyment “–[Ved. Sut. IV. 4. 21.]; “And on account of (the Brahman) being taught to be that which is to be approached by the released (souls.)”-[Ved. Sut. I. 3. 2.]. The Vritti also (of Bodhayana) states it thus: “Except in the matter of the activity relating to the creation of the world, (the released soul)is equal to the Highest Light (i. c. to the Brahman).” And the commentator Drami- da also says “On account of close association with the Deity, he who is devoid of the body (i. c. the released soul) may become capable of enjoying all desirable objects like the Deity Himself.” (To the same effect) are also the following and other scriptural texts :-“Those who depart from here, after having known the Self and also His eternal and auspicious qualities, for them there is free movement in all the worlds.” [Chhand. Up. VIII.1. 6.]; “He who knows the Brahman attains the Highest.” [Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.]; “He attains, with the intelligent Brahman, all the

130. The stanza quoted above runs thus:-Atmabhavam nayati enam tat brahma dhyayinam mune | vikaryam

atmanaḥ saktyä loham akarshakaḥ yatha.

150

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. 1. Part. 1.

auspicious qualities.” [Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.]; “He (i. c. the released self), having reached that Self which consists of bliss and moving about in all these worlds, enjoying what- ever things he likes, and assuming whatever form he likes, (sits down singing this saman.-Ha, viha, viha, vu).” [Taitt. Up. III. 10. 5.]; “He moves about there.” [Chhand. Up. VIII. 12. 3.]; “Bliss indeed is He.. Having ob- tained this very Bliss, he becomes blissful.” [Taitt. Up. II. 7. 1.]; “Just as flowing rivers disappear in the sea losing their name and form, so also the wise man, freed from name and form, reaches that Divine Person who is higher than the highest.” [Mund. Up. III. 2. 8.]; “Then the wise man, shaking off merit and demerit and being untaint- ed, attains the highest degree of equality (with the Brah- man).” [Mund. Up. III. 1. 3.].

In the following and other aphorisms-” Bliss and other qualities (have to be assumed in all the vidyas),131. because the possessor (of those qualities happens to be the same Brahman in all the vidyas).”-[Ved. Sut. III. 3. 11.]; “Because they (viz. the vidyas) do not differ in their re- sults,there is freedom of choice (in regard to them).”-[Ved. Sūt. III. 3. 57.], it is stated by the Sutrakara himself that the qualified Brahman alone is the object of worship in all the vidyas relating to the Supreme Being, that the result (of all such meditations or forms of worship) is of one and the same nature, and that, therefore, there is freedom of choice

131. The Vidyas are forms of wor- ship. For example, the Sad-vidya taught to Svetaketu in Chhand. Up. VI. is that form of worship in which the Brahman is taught to be worship- ped as the self-existent Soul of the universe. Similarly the Pratar-

danavidya is a form of worship taught to Pratardana by Indra in Kaush. Up. III. The Daharavidya is another form of worship in which the Brah- man is taught to be worshipped as residing within the small etherial space of the heart. Chhand. Up. VIII.

Adhik. I. Sat. 1.]

SRI-BHISHYA.

151

in regard to the vidyas. By the Vakya-kara (Taika) also, in the passage-

“That (object to be attained) is what is possessed (of qualities), because worship relates to that which possesses qualities”-it is stated that the qualified Brah- man alone is worthy of being the object of worship, and that there is freedom of choice in regard to the vidyas (relating to the attainment of the Brahman). This is also similarly explained by the commentator (Dramiḍāchār- ya) in the passage beginning with 132" Even when one is bent upon meditating on (the Brahman as) pure existence."

This passage “He who knows the Brahman be- comes the Brahman indeed.”-[Mund. Up. III. 2. 9.], has to import the same thing as the following and other passages: “Freed from name and form, he reaches the Divine Person who is higher than the highest.”–[Mund. Up. III. 2. 8.]; “Being untainted, he attains the highest degree of equality (with the Brahman).”-[Mund. Up. III. 1. 3.]; “Having reached the Highest Light (i. e. the Brahman) he (i. e. the released soul) manifests himself in his own true form.”-[Chhand. Up. VIII. 3. 4.); therefore, here also, one, who is freed from the name and form that belong to prakriti (or nature) and who is destitute of the distinctions resulting from that (name and that form), is said to possess the same character as the Brahman, for the reason that he also is (then) solely of the nature of intelligence. Moreover,

132. This passage is quoted in full in the Vedartha-sangraha of Rama- nuja and it runs thus :-Yadyapi satchitto na nirbhugnadawatam guna- gunam manasanudhavet tathapyantar- gunamera devatam bhajata iti tatrapi sagunaiva devata pripyate. Its meaning is:-Even when one is bent upon meditating on the Brahman as

pure existence, one should not steadi- ly pursue in one’s own mind merely a collection of qualities as unassoci- ated with the Deity; even then, one worships that Deity alone which is possessed of qualities, and so, in such a case also, that deity alone which is possessed of qualities is attained,

152

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

when one thing possesses the same nature as another, then the experession that this thing is the same as that other has a real and natural significance,133 as, in the instance, “This (thing) here is an ox.” Here also (i.e. in the Vishnu- Purana) in the passage-" O king, that which leads (us) to the object of (our) attainment (viz. the Brahman) is know- ledge. Similarly, what has to be led (unto the Brahman) is the individual self in whom all the bhāvanās 134 are extin- guished." [V. P. VI. 7. 93.], it is (first) declared that, by meditating on the Highest Brahman, the individual self, who is, like the Highest Brahman, freed from all the bha- vanās, that is, from the three! 35 bhāvanas, namely, karma- bhāvanā, brahma-bhāvanā and ubhaya-bhavana, becomes worthy to be led (unto the Brahman); then in the pas- sage “O, thou, the twice-born one, the kshetrajña (or the individual self) is the owner of the means (for obtaining final release), and knowledge is the means which is thus at his disposal. After accomplishing the end, namely, final

133. Vide supra p. 4. n. 10.

134. Bhāvanas mean here the innate tendencies for indulging in wrong conceptions regarding the ultimate nature of things. In Indian psycho- logy, a bhavana is spoken of as a sams- kāra i. e. as an innate impression or an innate tendency. Memory (smriti) and bhavana (conception) are both classed as samskaras, and curiously enough elasticity (sthitisthapaka) also is spoken of as a samskāra; the idea being that, just as the elasticity of bodies is no more than a tendency impressed upon the particles of those bodies,so also, memory and conception are innate tendencies impressed upon

the mind-substance. The three bhava- nas or wrong conceptions referred to above are:-(1). The conception that we merely do the work, (2) the con- ception that we wholly become the Brahman, and (3) the conception that, on the other hand, we do the- work and also become the Brahman. It seems to be held here that, in religion, it is as wrong to rely solely upon the performance of prescribed duties, as to believe in the possibility of our attaining identity in essence with the Supreme Self; because the perfec- tion of the individual indeed constitutes the true goal of every true religion.

135. Vide nn. 100. & 134., supra.Adhik. I. Süt. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

153

release, it (i. e. that knowledge) will cease to operate as a means, having fully performed its functions.”-[V. P. VI. 7. 94.], it is stated that the means, which is in the form of the meditation of the Highest Brahman, ceases to oper- ate as a means, after having fully performed its function in the way of causing, to the individual self, the attainment of its own nature which is free from all the bhāvanās; and then it is said that, in consequence, meditation should be practised till the accomplishment of the end in view; and then at last the essential nature of the released self is thus described in the following passage:136" Having then attained the state which corresponds to the nature of that (Brahman), he (viz. the released self) becomes ’non-differ- ent’ from the Highest Self, and distinctions (in relation to him) are the products of his ignorance." [V. P. VI.7. 95.]. (Here) the word tadbhava means the bhava of the Brah- man, that is, His nature; (but it does) not (import) substantial unity (between the individual self and the Sup- reme Self); because, if it did, the second word bhava, in the expression tadbhavabhavamäpannah, would be of no use, and because also there would then arise the contra- diction of the teaching given before. Whatever constitutes the condition wherein the Brahman is completely free from all the bhāvanas, the attainment of that is the attainment of the state corresponding to the nature of that (Brahman). When one has (thus) attained that state, then one becomes ’non-different’ from the Supreme Self, that is, one becomes free from difference. This (individual self), by reason of its possessing the nature of intelligence, is itself of the same character as the Supreme Self, and hence its difference from

136. This passage is as follows in the original:-Tadbhar abhavamäpannas ta-

20

aāsau paramatmanā | bhavatyabhedt bheaascha tasyajnanakṛito bhavet||

154

ŚRI-BHASHYA.

[Chap. I. Part. I.

Him consists in its having the form of gods and other (material embodiments). The association of this (individual self) with such (an embodiment) results from the ignorance which is of the nature of karma, but is not due to its own essential nature. When karma, which has the nature of ignorance and forms the root of all distinctions in the form of gods, &c., is destroyed by means of the meditation of the Highest Brahman, then that distinction of gods, &c., ceases to be, owing to the cessation of the cause thereof; and accordingly, he (i. e. the released soul) does not differ (from the Brahman). It is thus stated in this passage:- “But the distinction of one individual self (from other simi- lar selves) which are all of the same nature results from the external covering of karma. When the distinction of gods, &c., (in relation to them) altogether ceases to exist, and indeed he alone remains.” [V. P. II. 14. 33.]. The same thing is explained elsewhere thus:-“When knowledge which produces distinctions has undergone complete destruction, (then) who will create the unreal difference between the self and the Brahman?” [V. P. VI. 7. 96.].137 (Here) the word vibheda means various kinds of distinctions, such as those which are found in the (varied) forms of gods, animals, men and immoveable things. This same thing is stated by Saunaka also thus: “This fourfold distinction also is dependent upon false know- ledge.” [V. Dh. C. 20.]. The meaning is this:-Ignorance, otherwise called karma, forms, in regard to the individual self which is of the nature of intelligence, the cause of the various kinds of distinctions, such as gods, &c.; and when it is totally destroyed by means of the meditation

137. This stanza is as follows in the original :-Vibhedajanake inane nasam atyantikam gate | atmano brah-

ceases to exist, the covering

mano bhedam asantam kah karish- yati || Vide supra p. 30.

Adhik. I. Süt. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

155

of the Highest Brahman, then who is there that will per- ceive, between the individual self and the Highest Brahman, the distinction that consists in having the forms of gods, &c., which owing to the non-existence of the cause thereof, has itself become non-existent ? In this very work itself (i. c. in the Vishnu-Purana) it has indeed been stated that “An- other (power) named avidya and karma (forms the third power of the Brahman).” [V. P. VI. 7. 61.].188 In the passage “And know also the kshetrajña (or the individual self) to be the same as Myself.”-[B. G. XIII. 2.], and in others, the declaration of oneness (between the indivi- dual self and the Supreme Self) is based on the (Brah- man) constituting the Self of all in the form of their internal ruler. Otherwise, there would arise the contradiction of the following and other passages :-“The destructible is (made up of) all created beings, and it is stated that the indestructible is the eternally unchangeable. Different from these is the Highest Person.” [B. G. XV. 16 & 17.]. In this very work (viz. the Bhagavad-Gita), it is explicitly stated by the Lord Himself that He is the Self of all in the form of their internal ruler, as for instance, in the passage “O Arjuna, the Lord exists in the region of the heart of all beings.” [B. G. XVIII. 61.], and also in the passage-" And I am also seated in the heart of all." [B. G. XV. 15.]. The same thing is also declared in the passage-“O Gudākesa, I am that Self who is established in the interior of all beings.” [B. G. X. 20.].139 In fact, (here), the word bhuta denotes the body which includes the self also. Because He is the Self of all, for that very reason, all things constitute His body; and hence their separate existence is negatived in the passage

138. Vide supra p. 128.

the original:-Ahamatma gudakesa 139. This passage is as follows in sarvabhutasayasthitaḥ.

156

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

“That exists not which is without (Me).” [B. G. X. 39.]. This passage contains the summary of the Lord’s sovereign glories, and has therefore to be understood to possess such a significance (as has been given above). Next to this, it is stated “Whatever thing is full of glory, or of wealth, or of power, know thou that particular thing to proceed from a part of My splendour.”– [B. G. X. 41.], and “I stand supporting the whole world by a small part (of My power).” [B. G. X. 42.]. Therefore, in all the sastraic works,140 there is no establishment of that thing which is devoid of attri- butes, nor is there the establishment of illusoriness in regard to the totality of perceivable objects, nor also is there the negation of the natural difference between the individual

self, non-intelligent matter, and the Lord.

It has been also declared1 41-by the Purvapakshins-to the following effect:-The whole universe, with its infinite distinctions in the form of the ruler and the ruled and the like, is the result of the superimposition of error on an attri- buteless and self-luminous thing. And that error is the be- ginningless ignorance (or avidya) which cannot be defined either as existent or as non-existent, and which, (neverthe- less) is the cause of those varied and wonderful illusory pro- jections that conceal the true nature of things. And that avidya has necessarily to be admitted, because there is the following among other scriptural texts (to prove it):-“For

140. The sastras are works of religious authority and include four different kinds of them, known by the names of Śruti, Smriti, Itihasa and Purana in the order of their importance. Sruti is revelation and is made up of the Vedas and the Upanishads, &c. Smriti embo- dies tradition and the sacred laws.

Itihasa deals with ancient history, and the Puranas are semi-historical works containing also myths and le- gends which are intended to illustrate important principles of religion and

conduct.

141.Vide supra pp. 27, 30, & 31.

Adhik. I. Sat. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

157

they (i. e. the creatures) are drawn away (from the Brah- man) by means of ignorance.”-[Chhand. Up. VIII. 3. 2.]; because also there would (otherwise). result in regard to the Brahman the impossibility of His being one with the individual self, in accordance with what is learnt from the grammatical equation found in the passage-“That thou art” 142-and in others like it. That (avidya) again is no real entity, because in relation to it there is no illusion and no stultification (of illusion). And it (viz. that avidya) is not a non-entity either, because (in relation to it) there is no ma- nifestation and no stultification (of manifestation). 143 Therefore those that know the truth hold that this avidya (or ignorance) is different from both these alternative ways of looking at it.

This (view) is improper. Indeed, residing in what, does it (viz. avidya) produce illusion? Surely, (it does) not (pro- duce illusion), itself residing in the individual self; because the self-hood (of the individual self) is itself projected by avidya

142. Vide Chhand. Up. VI. 9. 4; VI. 10. 3; VI. 11. 3; VI. 12. 3; VI. 13. 3; VI. 14. 3. VI. 15. 3; VI. 16. 3. 143. The way in which the object of any notion is made out to be either a real entity or a non-entity is given in this brief formula: Sannabadhyate, asannapratiyate, which means that the perception of the real entity is never altogether stultified, and that the non-entity is never really perceived. In the passage above, avidya i.e. ignorance, is said to be neither an entity nor a non-entity-neither an entity like a rope, nor a non-entity like the horns of a hare. The rope,

being an entity, is capable of being perceived as a rope, or as something other than the rope, for instance, as a snake. This perception of the snake in the rope is an illusion which is capable of being stultified, and the rope is thus an object of illusion as well as of the stultification of that illusion. The horns of a hare, being non-existent, are of course incapable of being perceived. Nevertheless, they are manifest to the mind, in as much as they constitute the object of a notion corresponding to them, and also of the stultification of the reality of the contents of that notion.158

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. 1. Part. I.

(or ignorance). Neither (does it produce illusion), itself resid- ing in the Brahman; because He has the essential nature of self-luminous intelligence, and is thus opposed to avidya (or ignorance). Moreover, it is admitted (by you) that it (viz. avidya) is destroyed by knowledge. “If ignorance, which has the nature of unreality and is removable by knowledge, may veil the Highest Brahman who has the nature of intelligence, then who is there that is competent to be its remover? If it be said that to know the Brahman to be (pure) intelligence is what (really) removes ignorance, (we say) that it (viz. such knowledge) also cannot, like the Brah- man, certainly be the remover of avidya (or ignorance); be- cause, it (viz. that knowledge) makes that same (Brahman) luminous (i. e. intelligible). If it be possible to have the cog- nition that the Brahman is (pure) intelligence, there would then result cognisability (to the Brahman); but,according to your own saying, it must be that the Brahman should not possess the (cognisable) character of an experience”. 144 If it be said that that knowledge, which is to the effect that the Brahman has the essential nature of intelligence, is the destroyer of that avidya (or ignorance), but not that (other) knowledge (or intelligence) which constitutes the essential nature of the Brahman, we reply that it is not right to hold so; because while both possess in common the power of bringing the true nature of the Brahman to light, it is not possible to make out any differentiating peculiarity (about them) to the effect that one of them is contradictory of avidya (or ignorance), and that the other is not. What is said is this :-Whatever is, by means of that knowledge which is to the effect that the

144. The above quotation is in all probability from the Nyayatattva of Nathamuni, the grandfather of the

famous Yamunacharya known in the Tamil land as Alavandar.

Adhik. 1. Süt. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

159

Brahman has the nature of intelligence, made out to be the true nature of the Brahman,-that becomes evident of itself on account of the self-luminous character of the Brahman; and so, in the matter of contradicting avidya (or ignorance), there is no differentiating peculiarity about the knowledge (or intelligence) which constitutes the essential nature (of the Brahman), or about that (other) knowledge whose object is that (essential nature of the Brahman).

Moreover, according to you-the Purvapakshins, the Brahman whose essential nature consists of experience is incapable of being experienced by any other experience; and so (to you) there can be no knowledge which has that (Brahman) for its object. Therefore, if knowledge (or in- telligence) is held to be contradictory of avidya, then He (viz. the Brahman) is of his own nature opposed (to that avidya); and thus it is not possible for that (avidya or igno- rance) to reside in the Brahman. The mother-of-pearl and other such substances, (on which illusions are superim- posed), are themselves incapable of bringing their own real- ity to light, and are not opposed to the ignorance which relates to themselves; therefore they require some other knowledge for the removal of that (avidya or ignorance). But the Brahman constitutes the reality of Himself, as established by His own self-experience; and so, He is opposed to that ignorance which relates to Himself. For this very reason, it (viz. that ignorance which relates to the Brahman) does not further stand in need of any other means to remove it.

However, it may again be said that the knowledge of the unreality of what is other than the Brahman is op- posed to this ignorance. But it is not so. (Here) it has to be discriminated whether this knowledge of the

160

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

unreality of what is other than the Brahman is opposed to the ignorance of the real nature of the Brahman, or, whether it is opposed to that (other) ignorance which is to the effect that the world is real. Surely, this (knowledge) is not contradictory of the ignorance which relates to the real nature of the Brahman, because it has not that (real nature of the Brahman) for its object. Indeed, there arises contradiction only when (both) knowledge and ignorance have one and the same thing for their object. The (true) knowledge that the world is unreal is contra dicted by the ignorance (or false knowledge) that the world is real. By that (knowledge which establishes the unreality of the world), only that ignorance is contradicted which leads to the conclusion that the world is real. Hence the ignorance relating to the essential nature of the Brahman surely continues to persist. It may be said that the ignorance which relates to the essential nature of the Brahman is in- deed to the effect that He has a second, and that that (igno- rance) is removed, as a matter of fact, by the knowledge of the unreality of what is other than that (Brahman), and that the true nature of the Brahman is made out by self- experience. But this is not so. If it is established by self-experience that the true nature of the Brahman is to be without a second, then there can arise neither that ignorance which is opposed to that (true nature) and is to the effect that He has a second, nor can there arise any stultification of that (ignorance). If it be said that this secondlessness is an attribute (of His), we say it is not so; because you have yourselves declared that the Brah- man is essentially of the nature of (pure) experience, and is thus free from all attributes that are capable of being experienced. Therefore, solely on account of (such) in- compatibility, the Brahman, whose essential nature is

Adhik. I. Süt. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

161

intelligence cannot be the abode of ignorance (or avidya).

Moreover, he who declares that the Brahman, whose essential nature entirely consists of luminosity, is (never- theless) concealed by avidya (or ignorance),-by him is declared the destruction of nothing other than the very essential nature of the Brahman Himself. The conceal- ment of luminosity means either the obstruction of the origination of luminosity or the destruction of existing (luminosity). Since it is admitted that this luminosity of the Brahman is incapable of being a produced thing, the concealment of luminosity (here) means only the destruc- tion of luminosity.

Then again it is said that, on account of a misguiding thing resident in itself, this objectless and self-luminous experience which is not dependent upon anything else, realises itself as having an infinite number of abodes, and as having an infinite number of objects to experience; and here it has to be determined whether this misguiding thing, which is resident in that (experience) itself, is of the nature of a reality, or is of the nature of an unreality. Surely, it is not a reality, in as much as it is not admitted. (by you) to be so. Nor is it an unreality. For if it were an unreality,145 it (viz. this misguiding thing) must be acknowledged to be either the knower, or the known object, or the knowledge. Surely, it is not knowledge, be- cause distinctions in relation to the essential nature of know-

145. The distinctions in the universe in the forms of the knower, the known object and the knowledge are held by the Adwaitins to be due to maya. Consequently any unreal

21

thing which is the result of such māyā or ignorance has to be made out either as the knower or as the known object or as the knowledge, which together make up the visible universe,

162

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

ledge (or consciousness) are not admitted (by you); and because also unreality is not admitted (by you) in relation to consciousness itself which forms the basis of illusion, lest such (an admission) should give room to the hypothesis of the Madhyamikas.146 The knower, the known object, and the knowledge (or consciousness) conditioned by them, (both), may themselves be characterised as constituting the misguiding error (for the reason that they are conditioned); but then they require another error at their root (to make them conditioned and erroneous); and thus arises a regres- sus in infinitum. And then, wishing to avoid this (difficul- ty), you may say that the really existent experience itself, which is the same as the Brahman, forms this misguiding error. And if the Brahman Himself form the misguiding error, then, the appearance of the phenomenal universe would itself be dependent upon that (Brahman). What is the use of assuming (in such a case) another avidya (or ignorance) which is similar in nature to the phenomenal universe? If the Brahman Himself have the character of the misguiding error, (then), owing to His eternity, there would be no final release (to the individual self). There- fore, as long as a real misguiding error, different from the Brahman Himself, is not admitted, so long it is not possible to explain (the theory of) illusion.

Again, what is the meaning of the (alleged) impossi- bility of definition (in relation to avidya)? It may be said that this consists in its (i. e. avidya’s) having the characteristics neither of an entity nor of a non-entity; if so, such a thing is sure to be incapable of definition, be-

146. The Madhyamikas are Nihi- listic Buddhists. Vide l’ed. Süt. 11.2.

30. for a fuller discussion and criti- cism of their theory.Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

163

cause there is no means of knowing a thing of that kind. What is said is this:-The whole of the totality of things has to be established as existent (only)by means of (mental) cognitions, and all cognition relates to entities or non-enti- ties. And if it be held that the object of a cognition, which has (thus) to relate to entities or non-entities, has neither the characteristics of an entity nor those of a non-entity, then all things might become the objects of all cognitions.

It may be again stated here as follows:-A certain particular thing which conceals the true nature of all things, which is the material cause of various internal and external superimpositions, which is itself incapable of being defined either as an entity or as a non-entity, which is denoted by the words avidya, ajñāna, &c., and which is it- self capable of being removed by the knowledge of the real nature of things, (such a thing) is indeed made out, by means of perception and inference, to be altogether existent in the form of an entity, in as much as it happens to be dif- ferent from the antecedent non-existence1 47 of knowledge. The superimposition of such distinctions, as egoity (or knowership), knowledge, and the thing known,. on the internal self, the essential nature of which is concealed by that (avidya) itself, and which (however) is (really) un- changeable and is made up of self-luminous intelligence,- (such a superimposition) has for its material cause the Brahman who is conditioned by that (same avidya). For the reason that there are various particular states of that same (avidya), there also arises, in regard to the world which is itself a super-imposition, the further superimposition, which consists of (the falsely perceived)

147. Vide supra p. 49. 11. 37.

164

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

snake, silver, &c., that are capable of being stultified by (correct) knowledge, and consists also of the (correct) knowledge relating to all the various particular things (in the world). And the fact also, that all things which possess the nature of unreality have that (avidya) for their material cause, is made out by the force of the. reasoning, that, of a thing which is unreal, the cause also deserves to be certainly unreal. Indeed, the perception which has for its object that avidya, which forms the cause (of such a world), is a direct manifestation (of avidya) to consciousness to the effect “I am ignorant, I do not know myself, nor do I know another.” But this (direct perception of ignorance) has not for its object the antece- dent non-existence of knowledge; for, that (antecedent non-existence) is made out with the aid of the sixth means of proof,148 whereas this (perception of ignorance) is quite as direct as when (one feels) “I am happy.” Even when it is granted that non-existence (of knowledge) is capable of being directly experienced, this experience can not deal with the non-existence of knowledge in the self; because there is the knowledge (of such non-existence) even at the time of this experience, and because also, if it (viz. such knowledge) were not existent then, there would be the im- possibility of making out that there was no knowledge.

What is said amounts to this :-In this experience-

148. The six means of proof the non-existence of things. It is are:-(1). Pratyaksha, perception by the senses; (2) Anumana,inference; (3) Upamana, analogy or comparison; (4) Sabda or Aptavachana,verbal testimony or revelation; (5) Arthapatti, circum- stantial presumption; (6) Anupalabdhi or Abhavapratyaksha, negative proof of non-cognition intended to establish

said that, according to this last, we make out the non-existence of a pot, for instance, by not perceiving it. There are also three other means of proof known to Indian philosophers, namely, Sambhava, equivalence; Aitthya, tradition or fallible testi- mony; and Cheshta, gesture.

Adhik. I. Süt. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

165

‘I am ignorant’,-is there or is there not any cognition of the self, namely, the ‘I’, as the thing which has the non- existence of knowledge for its characterising attribute, and also (is there or is there not any cognition) of know- ledge as the thing which is opposed to ignorance? If there is, then, wholly owing to self-contradiction, it is impossible to have any experience of the non- existence of (all) knowledge. If there is not, then that experience of the non-existence of knowledge cannot at all come into existence, in as much as it depends upon the knowledge of the thing characterised by that (non-exist- ence of knowledge) and also upon the knowledge of the thing which is contrary (to the same non-existence of knowledge). This objection holds good equally in the case where non-existence of knowledge is taken to be dedu- cible by inference, and also in the case where it is taken to form the object that is to be establshed by the means of proof known as abhava (or anupalabdhi).149 When, how- ever, it is granted that this avidya (or ignorance) has the nature of an entity, then, even though there is the know- ledge of that thing which has this (non-existence of know- ledge for its) characterising attribute, and also (the know- ledge) of that thing which is contrary (to the non-existence of knowledge), it has to be admitted that there is no con- tradiction (between this knowledge and that avidya or ignorance which is not merely the negation of knowledge, but is a positive entity of some sort). Therefore, this ex- perience-‘I am ignorant’-relates only to that avidya (or ignorance) which has the nature of a (positive) entity.

Again, it may be objected that, although (this) ignorance

149. Anupalabdhi is the negative proof of non-cognition intended to esta-

blish the non-existence of things. Vide supra n. 148.

166

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

(or avidya) has the nature of a (positive) entity, yet, it is con- tradicted by the witnessing principle of intelligence, the nature of which is to make the truth of things manifest. But this is not right. The witnessing principle of intelligence does not deal with the truth of things, but deals with this ignorance; for, otherwise, the manifestation to consciousness of all such things as are unreal would be impossible. Indeed, (this positive) ignorance (or avidya) is not removed by that knowledge which has (that same) ignorance for its object; and, accordingly, there is here no contradiction (between this positive entity called ignorance and the knowledge of that same ‘ignorance’).

And again it may be said :-This ignorance, although it possesses the nature of an (independent) entity, becomes a thing that is directly cognisable by the witnessing prin- ciple of intelligence, only in definitive association with a particular (external) object. And the object here (which by association defines this ignorance) is itself capable of being established independently of any means of proof. There- fore, how can this ignorance (or avidya), which is defi- nitively associated with the thing ‘I’, (that is not an exter- nal object), become a thing cognisable by the witnessing principle of intelligence? There is, however, nothing wrong in this. The whole of the totality of things is made up of objects which are cognisable by the witnessing principle of intelligence, either in the form of known things or in the form of unknown things. It being so, there is need of the interposition of a means of proof to prove only that thing which happens to be known as non-intelligent. But to prove the thing which is intelligent, subjective and self- evident, there is no need of the interposition of (such) a means of proof. Therefore, the presentation of this thing (viz. the thing ‘I’) to consciousness, as that which is al-

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

167

ways definitively associated with avidya (or ignorance) is quite consistent with reason. And consequently, by means of direct perception which is supported by logical reason- ing, this ignorance (or avidya) is made out to have indeed the character of a positive entity.

This ignorance (or avidya) which has the nature of an entity is established by means of inference also thus: -That knowledge, which is obtained with the help of the accepted means of proof and (the nature of) which is the subject of dispute (between us), has, for its antecedent in time, another existent thing which is different from the antecedent non-existence of that (knowledge) itself, and veils the objects of that same (knowledge), and is capable of being removed by that (very knowledge), and is existent in the same place as that (knowledge); because it brings to light objects which were unknown before, and is thus like the light of the lamp-flame first lit up in the midst of darkness. Darkness is merely either the absence of light or the absence of the perception of colour, but is not a substance; and if, (on this supposition), it be asked how it is that it is put forth here as an illustration to prove that ignorance (or avidya) which has the nature of a positive substance, it is replied that, because darkness is perceived to possess the conditions of density, thinness, &c., and because also (it is perceived) as having colour, it cannot but be a distinct substance. Therefore this (argu- ment here advanced) is unobjectionable.

To all this, we make the following reply :-In the cog- nition ‘I am ignorant, I do not know myself, nor do I know another,’-that ignorance which has the nature of an entity is not made out either by perception in itself or (by perception) as supported by logical reasoning. The contra- diction, that has been pointed out in relation to (the ignor-168

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

ance which forms) the antecedent non-existence of know- ledge, applies equally well to this (other) ignorance also which has the nature of an entity. Is the internal subject (viz. the ego) made out or not made out to be that which is definitively distinct from ignorance by forming the abode and the object (thereof)? If you hold that it is so made out, then when it is so made out, how can there remain yet that ignorance of it which is capable of being re- moved by the knowledge of its true nature? If you hold that it is not so made out, then, how is it possible to expe- rience the ignorance which is not associated with the ne- cessary concomitants of an abode and an object?

Then again, it may be said that the opposite of igno- rance consists in the distinct manifestation of the true nature (of the ego), and that (to us however) there is that apprehension (of the ego) the true nature of which is in- distinct; and that, therefore, even when there is the knowledge of that (ego) which forms the abode and the object (of this positive ignorance), there is no contradiction at all in experiencing such ignorance. Indeed, if this is true, the antecedent non-existence of knowledge also forms the object of that (ego) the true nature of which is distinct, (i. e. this antecedent non-existence of knowledge is thus like your ‘positive ignorance’). And the know- ledge of the abode of this (negative ignorance also), as well as of what constitutes its contradiction, relates to that (ego) the true nature of which is, (of itself), indistinct. Therefore, (in upholding your ‘positive ignorance’), there is nothing special, apart from the stubborn adherence to your own views.

Even that ignorance, which has the nature of an enti- ty,is, while it is being made out as ignorance, really depend- ent upon other (correlated) things; just as the apprehension

Adhik. 1. Süt. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

169

of the antecedent non-existence (of knowledge) is (so de- pendent). Accordingly, ignorance may be either the absence of knowledge, or what is different from that (knowledge), or what is the opposite of it. In the case of all these three (ways of looking at ignorance), the need for making out the true nature of that (knowledge, the absence of, the differ- ence from, or the contradiction of which constitutes ignor- ance) has necessarily to be admitted. Surely, in making out the true nature of darkness, there is no need of light. Nevertheless, when that (darkness) has to be made out to be the same as that which is the opposite of light, there certainly is needed the (previous) knowledge of light. The ignorance admitted by you is never realised as it is in itself, but is merely realised as that which is not knowledge. Such being the case, it (viz. the ignorance assumed to be a positive entity by you) is as dependent upon knowledge as (is the idea of) the non- existence of knowledge. And the antecedent non-existence of knowledge is admitted by you also, and it is moreover understood by all. Therefore, it has to be granted that, in the cognition ‘I am ignorant, I do not know myself, nor do I know another,’ what is experienced is only that ante- cedent non-existence of knowledge which is accepted by both of us.

Moreover, the experience of ignorance (or avidya) is not possible to the Brahman, whose essential nature is alto- gether made up of eternal, free, self-luminous and uni- form intelligence; because He is Himself of the nature of self-experience. If it be said that, even the Brahman, whose essential nature is self-experience, perceives ignorance (or avidya) when that essential nature of His is concealed, it is asked, what it is to have the concealment of one’s own essen- tial nature. If it be replied that it is the possession of an

22

170

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

unmanifest nature, it is asked again how that Brahman, whose essential nature is self-experience, can possess an unmanifest nature. If it be again said, in reply, that it is possible for that Brahman, whose essential nature is self-experience, to acquire an unmanifest character through the influence of something other than Himself, then, as has been already stated, there would result to the Brahman the destruction of His own essential nature, owing to the influence of that other thing; because (according to you) luminosity (or, in other words, manifest intelligibility) has to constitute the essential nature of that (Brahman), owing to the fact that an attribute called luminosity is not ac- knowledged (by you in relation to the Brahman). Again, this ignorance (or avidya), which forms the cause of the concealment of the essential nature of the Brahman, conceals the Brahman, only after it is itself experienced (by the Brahman); and it is after (thus) concealing the Brahman, that it in itself becomes the object of His experience. Thus there arises the logical fallacy of re- ciprocal dependence. If it be said that it (viz. avidya) conceals (the Brahman) only after it is experienced (by the Brahman), it would follow that that Brahman, whose essen- tial nature is not concealed, Himself experiences that igno- rance (or avidya). Then the hypothesis of concealment would be purposeless, as also the hypothesis of this (con- cealing) ignorance itself; because it must be possible for the Brahman to perceive the world also which is acknow- ledged to be the result of ignorance (or avidya), in the same way in which (it is possible for Him) to perceive this ignorance (or avidya).

Further, does the Brahman, of Himself, experience this ignorance, or (does He experience it) through the influence of something other than Himself? If it be said that He

Adhik. I. Süt. 1]. SRI-BHASHYA.

171

of Himself (experiences it), we reply that, because the ex- perience of ignorance is thus associated with the essential nature of the Brahman, there can be no release (from it). Or, owing to the fact that the Brahman, whose essential nature is experience, acquires thus the character of being the experience of ignorance, there will arise the destruction of the essential nature of the Brahman Himself, through the knowledge which is destructive (of that ignorance or avidya); in the same manner in which the perception of silver (in a mother-of-pearl) is destroyed by means of the know- ledge which stultifies the falsely perceived silver. If the Brahman experience ignorance (or avidya) through the influence of something other (than Himself), what is that other thing? If it be said that it is another igno- rance (or avidya), there would result the fallacy 150 of regressus in infinitum. If it be (again) said that after hav- ing concealed the Brahman Himself, it (viz. ignorance or avidya) becomes the object of experience, then it is re- plied that, in such a case, like kacha151 and other causes of false perception, this ignorance (or avidya) also, through the mere fact of its own existence as an entity, conceals the Brahman; and that, in consequence, there will be no removal of ignorance (or avidya) by means of knowledge.

It may be said again that this ignorance (or avidya) is itself beginningless, and that it causes the Brahman to be the witness 152 of (that ignorance) itself, at the same

150. Because this other ignorance would have to depend upon a third ignorance, which again would have to depend upon a fourth, and this again upon a fifth, and so on ad infinitum.

151. Vide supra p. 104. n. 69. 152. In this case, one and the same

ignorance produces the concealment of the Brahman at the same time that it causes Him to be a witness of itself, and so there is no such fallacy as requires the postulation of a series of avidyas.

172

SRI-BHASHYA.

[Chap. I. Part. I.

time that it also (produces) the concealment of the essential nature of the Brahman, and that there is, in consequence, no room for fallacies like regressus in infinitum, &c. But it is replied that this is not right; because it is impossible for the Brahman, whose essential na- ture is self-experience, to acquire the character of being a witness without the concealment of His own true na- ture. If it be said in reply that (the true nature of the Brahman) is concealed by some other cause (than igno- rance or avidya), then, it is pointed out that the beginning- lessness of this ignorance (or avidya) is (thereby) given up, and the aforesaid fallacy of regressus in infinitum also follows. If one, whose essential nature is altogether uncon- cealed, acquires the character of being a witness, then that one cannot possess the character of being altogether the basis of self-experience.

Furthermore, when the Brahman is concealed by ignorance (or avidya), does not that Brahman shine forth even a little? Or does He shine forth a little ? On the former supposition, the Brahman, whose essential nature is pure luminosity, becomes non-luminosity; and, as it has been already stated more than once, He (thus) acquires the cha- racter of a mere nothing. On the latter supposition, it is asked, which is the part concealed, and which is it that shines forth, in the Brahman who is uniformly Exist-. ence and Intelligence and Bliss throughout? As it is im- possible for a thing, which is destitute of parts, destitute of attributes, and is pure luminosity, to have two distinct forms, concealment and luminosity cannot, at one and the same time, exist together in that thing.

Then, again, it may be urged that, when concealed by ignorance (or avidya), the Brahman who is uniformly Exist- ence and Intelligence and Bliss throughout, appears likeAdhik. I. Sut. 1.]

ŚRI-BHASHYA.

173

a thing which has an indistinct nature. Then, of what nature is the distinctness and indistinctness of that thing the essential nature of which is pure luminosity? What is said is this: Whatever is possessed of parts, whatever is possessed of attributes, whatever forms the thing illum- ined by luminosity, the complete manifestation of that thing is distinct manifestation. That manifestation in which a few of the attributes (of a thing) are absent is indistinct manifestation. It being so, whatso- ever aspect of the thing is unknown, in that aspect, there is the absence of luminosity; and for that very rea- son, there can be no indistinctness in relation to luminosity. Whatsoever aspect of the thing is known, in that aspect the luminosity relating to it is undoubtedly distinct. Hence, under all circumstances, there can be no indistinctness in relation to what constitutes luminosity. Even in per- ceiving an external object as it is, even then indistinct- ness consists in not knowing a few of the attributes belonging to it. Therefore, when the Brahman who is not the object of perception, who is devoid of attri- butes, and is pure luminosity, is of Himself completely manifest in His own true nature, then that indistinctness, which consists in the non-perception of a few of His attri- butes and which is said to be the result of ignorance (or avidya), cannot at all exist (in relation to Him).

Moreover, does this indistinctness which is the result of ignorance (or avidya) disappear at the rise of the knowledge of truth, or does it not? If it does not disappear, then there cannot be the beatific state of final release. If it dis- appears, then it has to be determined of what form the reality is. If it be said that it has a distinctly manifest na- ture, then, it is asked, whether or not this distinctly mani- fest nature existed before (that reality was veiled by igno-

174

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

rance or avidya). If it did exist before, then, (in relation to that reality), there cannot be that indistinctness which is the result of ignorance (or avidya), and (there cannot be) also the disappearance of that (same indistinctness). If it did not exist before, then the beatific state of final release acquires the character of an effect, and thus becomes impermanent.

And it has been already stated153 that this ignorance (or avidya) cannot exist, simply because its abode cannot be defined. Moreover, even he, who maintains that illu- sion has an unreal misguiding cause at its root, will find it difficult to establish that illusion does not arise without a (really existing) basis (for it to be imposed upon); because illusion is possible, even when its basis is unreal, in the same way in which that illusion is possible when the mis- guiding cause producing the illusion and (the reality form- ing) the seat of (such) a misguiding cause are (both) unreal. And from this (possibility of illusion without a real basis) there will only follow the nothingness of all things.

What has been stated already to the effect that ignor- ance (or avidya), which has the nature of an entity, is established by the logical process of inference also,–that is not right; because (such) a logical process of inference is impossible. But it may be said that the inference intended to establish this has already been given. True, it has been so given; but it is wrong; because, in (establishing) the ig- norance (accepted by you), the middle term of the syllo- gism 154 proves also that other ignorance which is not accep- table (to you), and is hence unfavourable (to you). There (i. e. in your syllogism), if it (viz. the middle term) does not

153. Vide supra pp. 157. et seq. 154. Vide supra p. 167. where this

syllogism is given in full.

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

175

form the means of proving that other ignorance, then it ceas- es to be absolute.155 If it does form the means of proving that (ignorance) also, then this other ignorance prevents (the Brahman) from becoming the witness of the ig- norance (or avidya accepted by you); and consequently, the hypothesis of (a positive) ignorance (or avidya) becomes purposeless.

Moreover, the illustrative example 156 is deficient in regard to the middle term, because the light of the lamp-flame does not really possess the power of illumin- ing such things as were unknown before. Indeed, every- where, it is intelligence alone that possesses the power of illumining (things). For, even when the lamp-flame is in existence, in the absence of intelligence, there will be no illumination in relation to objects. The senses also are merely the means of producing knowledge; but they do not possess the power of illumining (things). The light of the lamp-flame possesses only the power of being helpful to the knowledge-producing sense of sight, through removing the darkness which obstructs (the production of knowledge). The current notion that the lamp-flame is an illuminator, depends upon its being a serviceable means to the sense of sight, which is engaged in the production of that knowledge which illu- mines (things). It may be said “The light of the lamp- flame has been cited by us as an illustration, not because we admit it to possess the same illuminating

155. If the middle term of the syllogism here prove an ignorance or avidya, other than what has the na- ture of a positive entity, then the reasoning becomes too wide. If the same middle term do not, however,

prove the ignorance or avidya which is other than the positive one under discussion, then the reasoning be- comes too narrow. In either case, this syllogism cannot but be fallacious.

156. Vide supra p. 167.

176

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

character as knowledge has; but because we admit that knowledge itself has the power of causing such illumina- tion as comes after the removal of what conceals its own object.” This is not, however, right. Surely, the charac- ter of an illuminator does not consist merely in the re- moval of what obstructs (illumination); but (consists) wholly in the definite presentation of things (to conscious- ness), or, in other words, (it consists) in making things fit to be realised. And this (power) belongs only to intelligence. If the power of illumining things, that were not illumined before, is admitted in relation to such things also as are helpful (in the production of knowledge), then, surely the power of illumining things not illumined before has to be admitted in relation to the senses also, because, (in the production of knowledge), they are helpful in the highest degree. If it be so admitted, then, because, (in producing knowledge), they (viz. the senses) are not preceded in time by some other thing capable of being removed by them, the middle term (in your syllogism) ceases to be absolute. And now let us have done with this (kind of criticism.)

And in this connection there are the following counter- syllogistic statements :-That ignorance (or avidya), which is the subject of dispute (between us), has not for its abode the Brahman who is pure intelligence: because it (viz. that avidya) possesses the character of (illusory) non- knowledge,157 like the (illusory) non-knowledge which re- lates to the mother-of-pearl, &c; indeed this has the know- er for its abode. That ignorance (or avidya), which is the subject of dispute (between us), does not conceal the

157. Non-knowledge is used here so as to denote, either false know-

ledge, or the opposite of knowledge, or what is other than knowledge.

Adhik. I. Süt. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

177

Brahman who is pure intelligence: because it possesses the character of (illusory) non-knowledge, like the (illusory) non-knowledge which relates to the mother-of-pearl, &c; indeed this conceals (only external) objects. That ignorance (or avidya), which is the subject of dispute (be- tween us), is not capable of being removed by knowledge: because it does not possess the power of concealing the ob- jects of knowledge. Whatever non-knowledge is removed by knowledge, that (non-knowledge) conceals the objects of knowledge, like the non-knowledge relating to the mother- of-pearl, &c.

The Brahman is not the seat of ignorance (or avidya), because, (according to you), He, like pots, &c., does not possess the quality of being the knower. The Brahman is not concealed by ignorance (or avidya); be- cause He is not, (according to you), an object of knowledge. Whatever is concealed by non-knowledge, that has to be an object of knowledge, like the mother-of-pearl, &c. The Brahman is not that ignorance (or avidya) which is capable of being removed by knowledge; because He is not an object of knowledge. Whatever non-knowledge is capable of being removed by knowledge, that (non-know- ledge) is an object of knowledge, like (the non-knowledge relating to) the mother-of-pearl, &c. That knowledge which is acquired with the help of the accepted means of proof, and (the nature of) which is the subject of dispute (between us,) has not, for its antecedent in time, any ignorance (or avidya) which is different from its own antecedent non-existence; because that (knowledge also) possesses the character of such knowledge as is ob- tained with the help of the accepted means of proof; like the knowledge which, being derived with the help of the accepted means of proof, proves (according to you) the ignorance (or avidya) that is admitted by you. Know-

23178

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

ledge cannot be the destroyer of an entity; because it possesses the character of knowledge, even when it is not associated with the manifestation of any particular (constructive or destructive) power. Whatever happens to be the destroyer of an entity, that is seen to be either the knowledge or the non-knowledge which is associated with the manifestation of a particular power, like the knowledge which is possessed by the Lord, and by Yogins and others, or like the (non-knowledge which is found in a) club and other similar objects. That ignorance (or avidya) which has the nature of an entity is not capable of being destroy- ed by knowledge; because it possesses the nature of an entity, like pots, &c., (which are not destroyed merely by any knowledge).

It may be said again here that we (actually) see the (subsequent) stultifying knowledge destroy fear158and other such emotions, which are (positive entities) caused by the previous (false) knowledge (of a serpent superimposed upon a rope, for instance). But that is not right. Indeed, the disappearance of those (emotions of fear, &c.,) is not due to knowledge; because, being transitory, they themselves go out of existence, and because also, when their cause is removed, they never recur again. Their transitoriness is made out from the fact that they are experienced, like knowledge, only in the presence of that which brings them into existence, and also from the fact that they are not experienced otherwise. And if fear and other

158. This is an oft-quoted illustra- tion of the Alwaitins. They hold that fear and such other emotions are of the nature of positive entities, and may arise from illusory causes like the false perception of a snake

in a rope, and that they can be de- stroyed by the knowledge of the real- ity. So also ignorance or avidya has the nature of an entity and can be de- stroyed by the knowledge of the Brah-

man,

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

179

such emotions are not transitory, then, in a continuous succession of the same mental impressions which form the cause of fear and other such emotions, every one of those mental impressions will, without any difference whatever, act as the cause of the production of fear and of other such emotions; and thus there will be room for many fears (to arise without cessation from the same cause to the same person) and therefore also (they cannot but be transitory).

By the mention of purposeless qualifications in the statement that (knowledge) has, for its antecedent in time, another existing thing which is different from the antece- dent non-existence of that (knowledge itself), 159 your wonderful skill in using words is indeed well shown forth.

Therefore, by means of the logical process of inference also, there cannot be the establishment of that ignorance (or avidya) which has the nature of an entity.

It will be stated presently that ignorance (or avidya) cannot be established by scriptural evidence as well as by the evidence of circumstantial presumption in relation to the interpretation of the scriptures. This proposition1c" also, namely, that the cause of a thing, which is unreal, is also certainly unreal, will be disproved by the logical

159. Vide supra p. 167., where the statement in which these qua- lifications occur, runs thus;-“That knowledge, which is obtained with the help of the accepted means of proof and (the nature of) which is the subject of dispute between us, has for its antecedent in time, another existing thing which is different from the an- tecedent non-existence of that (know- ledge) itself.” The object of the state- ment above quoted is to prove that

ignorance or avidya is a positive en- tity, but not simply the negation of knowledge. This idea that it is an en- tity is expressed by the use of the word vastu which means an existent thing. Therefore it is pointed out in the argument, here, that all the qualifica- tions attached to that word vastu so as to make it signify an entity are redundant in as much as, of itself, it signifies an entity.

160. Vide supra p. 164.

180

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

arguments that are appropriately given in the section 161 which begins with the aphorism.-"(The Brahman) is not (the cause of this world) being different from this world &c." [Ved. Sut. II. 1.4.].

Hence, there can be no perception which has that indescribable ignorance (or avidya) for its object. It (viz. that ignorance) can not be admitted to be of such (inde- scribable) nature even though (in relation to it), there are perception, illusion, and stultification. Whatever becomes manifest to consciousness, that alone forms the object of perception, illusion, and stultification. It is not proper to assume that what is not arrived at by means of these modes of manifestation, as well as by means of any other mode of manifestation, forms the object of these (very modes of manifestation). It may be said again, thus:-There is the perception of silver, &c., in the mother-of-pearl, &c.; and even at the time of this perception there is the stultification to the effect that it (viz. silver) is not in exist- ence (there); and one thing cannot, possibly, appear like another for all these reasons, it has to be assumed that a new indescribable something in the form of this silver becomes manifest under the influence of a misguiding cause. But it is not right to say so: because, even when such an assumption is made, the appearance of one thing like an- other is not avoided; and because it is possible to have perceptual manifestation, volitional activity, illusion, and stultification (of illusion), only when it is admitted that it is possible for one thing to appear like another; and because also it is improper to assume the existence of a

161. This section comprises sūtras II. I. 4 to 12. and goes by the name of the Vilakshanatwadhikarana, on account of the first sütra in the scc- tion being as follows:-“The Brah-

man is not the cause of this world, being different from this world; and such difference is made out from the scripture.”

Adhik. I. Sul. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

181

thing which is absolutely unseen and has no originating cause whatsoever. Indeed, this (silver) which is assumed (by you) to be indescribable is not perceived (then at the time of the illusion) to be indescribable, but (is perceived) to be nothing other than real silver. If, (however), it appeared to be altogether indescribable, then, there would be no room for illusion, for stultification, and also for volitional activity. Hence, you also have to admit the view that it is only the mother-of-pearl and other such things which appear to consciousness in the form of silver and other such things; because, when one thing does not appear like another, it is not possible to have (the related) manifestation, volitional activity, stultification, and illusion (in connection with things), and because also it is not possible to avoid that (kind of otherwise-manifestation).

Moreover, even those, who hold other opinions regarding the manifestation of things to consciousness, have necessarily to accept the appearance of things otherwise than as they are, although they may have gone very far (in their course of reasoning). According to the view1c2 which says that what becomes manifest to consciousness is mere non-existence, (this non-existence has to appear) in the form of existence. According to the view163 which says that what becomes manifest to consciousness is merely the idea, (this idea has to appear) in the form of objects. According to the view104 which says that what becomes manifest to consciousness is the non-apprehension (of the differ-

162. This refers to Nihilism or

the view of the Madhyamikas.

163. This refers to Idealism, or the view of the Yogachāras.

164. This is the view of those who are known as Akhyativadins.

The names of the several khyātis or theories of perception are given in this commonly quoted sloka- Almakhyatirasatkhyalirakhyātiḥkhyatir- anyatha lathanirvachanakhyatirily- etatkydtipanchakam||

182

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

ence (between two things), the characteristic of one thing has to appear as the characteristic of another thing, and two perceptions have to appear as only one; and even on the supposition that there is no object corresponding to this erroneous perception, (a non-existent) object has to appear as existent.

Moreover, he, who holds the view that here (i. e. in the mother-of-pearl) a kind of new and indescribable silver is born, has also to state the cause of the origin of that (silver). It (viz. the cause of the origin of that silver) can not be the mere manifestation of that silver, because that (manifesta- tion) has that (same silver) for its object, and so cannot itself come into existence before the production of that (silver). That (a particular manifestation) has arisen with- out relating to any particular object, that that (manifestation itself) has afterwards produced that (object), and then has made it its own object, this is indeed the teaching of very great men!! Again (it may be said that) it (viz. the cause of the origin of that silver) is an error (or defect) found in the senses, &c. This is not so, because it (viz. such a cause of erroneous perception) abides in the person, and so cannot have the power of producing an effect that is found in relation to external objects. Then again it is not the senses (that form the cause of the origin of such silver), because they are the means of producing knowledge. Nor are the wrongly affected senses (the cause of the origin of that silver), because they also are capable of giving rise to something peculiar, only in relation to that know- ledge which is produced by themselves. That the beginning- less ignorance (or avidya) constitutes the cause (of the pro- duction of that silver) has, indeed, been already disproved.

Again, how is it that this indescribable and newly produced totality of things is made to be the object of theAdhik. I. Sul. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

183

notion and of the word which denote silver and other (such falsely perceived) objects, but is not made the object of the notion and of the word which denote pots and other (cor- rectly perceived) things? If it be said that it is due to their similarity with silver and other (such falsely perceived) ob- jects, then let the notion and the word (which denote this new and indescribable totality of things) denote that (tota- lity) to be the same as that (silver and other such things which are perceived to be unreal). If it be said that it is due to their association with the genus of silver and of other (such falsely perceived) objects, it is asked whether this genus is real, or whether it is unreal. Surely, it cannot be real; because, (in such a case), it cannot be (inseparably) asso- ciated with what is unreal. Nor can it be unreal; because, (then), it cannot be in (inseparable) association with what is real, and because also it is not possible for the notion and the word which denote reality to be made to denote that which is unreal. Thus we have had enough in the way of criticising unripe and fallacious reasoning.

On the other hand, (the truth is as follows):-“The opinion of those who know the Vedas is that all knowledge is real, because, according to the Srutis and the Smritis, every thing may become manifest in the form of every other thing. At the commencement of (the portion dealing with) creation and the other acts (of the Lord) which are preced- ed by His volition-May I become manifold’-[Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 3.]-it is urged in the Sruti itself (I will make) each of these165 tri-partite’.166-[Chhand. Up. VI. 3. 3 &

165. These, namely, the things fire, water and earth. Vide Chhand.

Up. VI. 2,3 & 4.

166. Tripartition is the process by which each one of the three things namely, fire, water and earth is so

constituted as to possess the character of all the three elements of tejas, water, and earth. This composition is said to be caused at the beginning of creation. Vide Chhand. Up. VI. 3. 4 & 5. Thus, when the thing fire is

184

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

4.]. Thus, indeed, the tri-partition (of the elements) is made out by direct revelation. The red colour of fire is the colour of (the element) tejas, the white (colour of fire) is (the colour of the element) of water, and the black (colour of fire) is (the colour of the element) of earth.107 Thus this tripleness of form is shown by the Sruti itself

to exist in relation to fire itself. It is so stated in the Vishnu-Purana168 also at the commencement of (the portion dealing with) creation, in the following and other passages:Then they (viz. the constituent elements1¢9

divided into two equal parts, one of these halves is found to be made up of the element of fire; and if the other half be again subdivided into two parts, one of these would be seen to be made up of the element of water, and the other, of the element of earth. Such is the case also with watery and earthy things. Hence 50 per cent of the thing fire, is made up of the ele- ment tejas, 25 per cent, of the ele- ment of water, and 25 per cent, of the element of earth. To this thing the name of fire is given, because in it the element tejas preponderates over the other two elements. Similarly that thing is called water in the composi- tion of which the element of water preponderates over the other two elements of tejas and earth. And that thing is called earth in the composition of which the element of earth preponderates over the other two elements of tejas and water. In this manner every thing in the world may be said to contain every other thing in the world, but it derives its name from that element in its composition

which preponderates over the others.

167. Vide Chhand. Up.VI.4. 1 to 6. 168. Vide V. P. I. 2.

169. The constituent elements or Tattvas of the universe are as follow in the descending order:-(1) Pradhana or Prakriti, nature, (2) Mahat or Buddhi, the ‘great principle’, (3) Ahankara or egoity; the Tan- matras or the subtle and rudimentary elements characterised by (4) Ŝabda, sound, (5) Sparsa, touch, (6) Rupa, form or colour, (7) Rasa, taste, (8) Gandha, smell; the grosser elements corresponding to these Tanmatras are (9) Akasa, ether, (ro) Vayu, air, (11) Tejas, light or heat, (12) Ap, water, (13) Sanghata or Prithivi, the earth; (14) the mind; the senses of (15) Šrotra, hearing, (16) Trak, touch, (17) Chakshus, sight, (18) Rasa, taste (19) Gandha, smell; and the or gans of (20) speaking, (27) work- ing, (22) walking, and the organs connected with (23) defaccation and (24) reproduction. The 25th element is the individual soul, which is beyond the Prakriti, in the ascending order.

Adhik. I. Sul. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

185

themselves) possessing varied powers were, while sepa- rate, wholly unable to create beings, without (themselves) having been thrown together. Having secured combination with each other, and abiding in each other, the elements, that begin with the universal principle known as the mahat and end with the (well known) particular principles, have gone to make up the universe indeed.’ 170 Further, the Sutrakāra (viz. Badarayana) also has similarly spoken of the tripleness of form, belonging to the elements, to the effect that, although all created things consist of the three elements (of lejas, water and earth), still the mention of water as the name of a particular thing is due to the preponderance of that element in it; 171 and thus arises a difference of names (in relation to things). The wise hold that the direction of the Sruti to use the pütika plant in the absence of the soma plant is due to the presence of the constituents of the soma (in the putika). The use of wild rice (for offerings) in the absence of cultivated rice is due to (the wild rice) possess- ing the characteristics of the cultivated rice. That which is found to form a part of any (homogeneous) substance- that alone is similar (in essence) to that (substance). The presence of silver, &c., in the mother-of-pearl, &c., is thus taught by the Sruti itself. The difference in the names of things such as silver, mother-of-pearl, &c., has preponder- ance for its cause. Moreover, the mother-of-pearl, &c., are perceived as being similar to silver, &c.. Hence, the presence here (i. e. in the mother-of-pearl) of that (viz.

The Sankhyas admit only these 25 tall- vas or principles. The l’edantins how- ever add the Brahman as the 26th tal- tva, above and beyond the individual soul. Cf. M. Bh. II. 223. & Manu. 1.

170. For the seven principles from

24

the Mahat downwards, vide supra n 169. These are called universal prin ciples, and the remaining sixteen are called particular principles. Vide IP. I. 2. 52 to 54.

171. Ved. Sit. III. 1. 2,

186

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

silver) is determined by perception. Sometimes, on account of a defect in the sense of sight, &c., the silver-part (in the mother-of-pearl) is apprehended without the shell-part; and, accordingly, one in quest of, silver begins to act in obedience to volition. When the defect is removed, and the shell-part of the mother-of-pearl is appre- hended, that (volitional activity in regard to silver) ceases. Therefore, the perception of silver &c., in the mother-of- pearl, &c., is real. The relation of the stultified and the stultifier also, (existing between these perceptions), re- sults from the preponderance of the one (perception) over the other, according as the apprehension of the preponder- ance of the mother-of-pearl (over the silver) is partial or complete. Therefore, this (relation of the stultified and the stultifier) is not dependent upon their relating to unreal things and real things. The rule that every thing has the characteristics of every other thing is thus established.”

In the condition of dreams also, according to the merit and demerit of living beings, God Himself creates corres- ponding objects, which are capable of being perceived by certain particular persons, and which come to their end after a certain particular length of time. To this same effect is the following scriptural text relating to the condition of dreams: “There (i.c. in the condition of dreams), there are no chariots, no horses to be yoked, and no roads. But He creates the chariots, the horses to be yoked, and the roads. There is no bliss, no happiness and no joy, but He creates bliss, happiness and joy. There, there are no puddles, no lakes, and no rivers, but He creates the puddles, the lakes, and the rivers. Indeed, He is the creator.” [Brih. Up. IV. 3. 10.]. Although these things are not at that time (of dreaming) capable of being perceived by all persons other (than the dreamer), yet the Lord creates such things

Adhik. I. Sul. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

187

to be perceived only by each particular (dreaming) per- son. Indeed, He is the creator. That kind of creatorship is appropriate to Him who wills the truth and whose powers are wonderful. This is the meaning (of the above scriptural text). Again (it is stated in the scripture thus) :–" That Person, who, engaged in creating things according to His free will and pleasure, is ever wakeful, while all these are asleep, That is the Brilliant One, That is the Brahman, That alone is called the Immortal. All the worlds abide in Him, and there is none to transcend Him." [Kath. Up. V. 8.]. The Sutrakara also, (first of all) in these two apho- risnis, namely, “In the intermediate state (i. e. in the dream- ing state), there is creation, for, it (viz. the scripture) says (so).”-[Ved. Sut. III. 2. 1.], “And some (say the indivi- dual self is the creator, sons and others (being the things created).” [Ved. Sul. III. 2. 2.], supposes the individual self to be the creator in relation to the things seen in dreams; then by means of this aphorism, namely,-“But it (viz. all that is seen in dreams) is merely the maya’ (of the Lord but not the creation of the individual self), because they (viz. the attributes of willing the truth, &c.,) have not their nature manifest in full (the individual self in the samsara state).”-[Ved. Sut. III. 2. 3.], and by means of other aphorisms, he shows that the individual self cannot have the characteristics of the creator, because the natural characteristics of willing the truth, &c., belonging to the individual self, are all unmanifest there in the samsara state. This wonderful creation, created so as to be capable of being perceived by certain particular (dreaming) persons, altogether proceeds from the Lord. Seeing that the scripture says “All the worlds abide in Him.” [Kath. Up.

172. Maya here means wonderful creation.188

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

To

V. 8], it is made out that the Supreme Self is Himself the creator there (i. e. in dreams). Thus, he (the Sutrakāra) disproves (the supposition with which he started). him, who, sleeping in a room or in any other place, ex- periences a dream, it is possible to go to another country with his own body, to be crowned there as a king, to be decapitated, and so on. These are the results of his karmic imerit and demerit, and are possible only in consequence of the creation of another body having the same form and configuration as the body that is in the state of sleep.

But in the (perception of the) yellow conch and other such things (by the jaundiced eye), the ocular rays173 combined with the bilious substance existing in the eye are brought into association with the conch and other such things. The whiteness belonging to the conch is not apprehended, be- cause it is overpowered by the yellow colour belonging to the bile. Hence, as in the case of the conch-shell covered with gold, there is the perception that the conch is yellow. The bilious substance and the yellow colour, belonging to it, are very subtle, and are not therefore apprehended by the standers by. But, by him who is (thus) afflicted with bilious- ness, they are, though subtle, apprehended well, because they have proceeded from his own eyes and are thus in very close proximity (to him). They are also, though at a distance, apprehended by means of the ocular rays, which possess that peculiar power which is due to having apprehended them (in close proxi- mity). A crystal gem lying close to a china rose is apprehended to be red, because it is overpowered by the brilliant coloration of that (china rose). Al- though the (coloured) brilliance of the china rose radi-

173. Vide supra. p. 93. n. 59.

Adhik. I. Süt. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

189

ates in all directions, yet it is apprehended with great clearness, only when it is in association with a transpar- ent substance (like the crystal gem). Thus, this (redness of the crystal gem) is capable of being established by perception. Again, the perception of water in a mirage pos- sesses the character of reality, because water is (always) found in association with both the elements of tejas and earth, and because there is (here) no apprehension of lejas and earth on account of some defect in the sense organs, and because also there is the apprehension of water through the influence of some unseen agency.

Also, in regard to rotation of a fire-

the circle of fire produced by the brand, the perception of that (circle) is rightly caus- ed, in consequence of there being no apprehension of the interspaces (between any two successive positions of the fire-brand), owing to the very rapid motion of the fire-brand and its consequent association with all the parts (of the circumference). Even in the perception of this circle, there is indeed such apprehension of certain parti- cular objects in association with certain particular posi- tions, as is attended with the non-apprehension of the interspaces. In the case of some positions there is the non- apprehension of interspaces, for the reason that the inter- spaces are themselves absent. In other positions, there is the non-apprehension (of interspaces) on account of the rapid- ity of motion. Such is the difference (between them). Therefore, this (perception of the circle of fire) is based upon reality. The perception of one’s own face in the mirr- or and in other such things is also based upon reality. The rays proceeding from the eye are stopped and reflected in their movement by the mirror and other such things; and thus, they first apprehend the mirror and other such things, and then apprehend one’s own face and other similar

190

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. 1. Part. I.

objects. In this case also, on account of the rapidity of movement (of the ocular aura), there is no apprehension of the interspace (between the mirror and the image), and consequently there is such a perception. Also in regard to the illusion relating to direction in space, since any other region of space may be actually found to exist in this (region of space), that other region of space is, through the influence of some unseen agency, apprehend- ed as if unassociated with this region of space. There- fore the apprehension of one region of space as another is also based upon reality itself.

Even in the case of the perception of two moons and other such perceptions, there is a division caused in the movement of the aura proceeding from the eye, owing to timira, 174 pressure with the fingers, &c., and hence there arises a variety in the means intended to help (the apprehension of the moon). Thus a duality of the means which are in- dependent of each other forms the cause of the two ap- prehensions of the (one) moon. Of this (duality), one means apprehends the moon in its own place. But the second one, being somewhat crooked in its movement, first apprehends the region near to the moon and then appre- hends the moon there as dissociated from its own place. Therefore, in the apprehension of the moon in association with two regions at the same time, there arises, on account of the variety in the apprehension, a variety in the form of the thing apprehended; and there is also the absence of the apprehension of unity. Thus there is this particular per- ception to the effect that there are two moons. The asso- ciation of that (moon which is perceived in a place other than its own), with that place which is other than

174. Vide supra p. 104. n. 69.

Adhik. I. Sit. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

191

its own, is due to the incessant apprehension of (that) other place and of the moon as unassociated with its own place. Therefore, the two apprehensions of the moon which are associated with two regions are also real. On account of there being a duality in the apprehension, the duality of the form which is apprehended in relation to the moon is also real. However, it may be held (here) that of the two apprehensions of the moon which are cha- racterised by two different qualifications, only one moon has to be the object. But, in such an apprehension, there is no power possessed by the eye itself (to reduce it to only one apprehension), as (there is) in the case of the recognitive cognition; and so the ocular perception (of two moons) continues to remain as such. Although

both the eyes form (only) one means intended to help (the apprehension of things), nevertheless, we have to assume from the effect produced (in this case of double vision) that the aura proceeding from the eye becomes changed into two means intended to help (the apprehension of things), for the reason that it (viz. that aura) is split up by limira and other such misguiding causes. But when the misguiding cause is removed, the moon, as associated with its own region, becomes known by means of only one apprehension. Therefore, the belief arises that the moon is only in one place. This duality of the means is due to the misguiding cause; the duality of apprehension is due to that (duality of the means); the duality in the form of the thing appre- hended is due to that (duality of apprehension). According- ly, it (viz. this explanation) is faultless.

Therefore it is a settled conclusion that the totality of all perceptions is (altogether) based upon reality.

Criticisms of the other theories of perception are fully given by those who maintain those (various) theories

192

SRI-BHASHYA.

[Chap. I. Part. I.

themselves, and so no attempt is made (here) in the way of (discussing) them. Or rather, what is the use (of indul- ging) in too many forms of discussion of this kind? To those who accept the whole collection of the criteria of truth known as perception, inference, and scripture, and who ac- knowledge that Highest Brahman who is understood by means of the scripture, who is devoid of the least taint of all evil, who is possessed of hosts of innumer- able auspicious qualities unsurpassed in excellence, and who is omniscient and wills the truth- (to them), what is there that cannot be proved and what is there that cannot be accomplished? Indeed, the Divine Lord, who is the Highest Brahman, creates the whole of this world to suit the merit and demerit of the individual souls, so that it may be enjoyed (and endured by them). Accordingly, by Him there are created certain things which form the common objects of experience to all, and are capable of being experienced as the experience of (karmic) results in the form of pleasures, pains, and states of indifference to pleasures and pains; and (by Him are also created) certain other things which are the objects of the experience of certain particular persons only, and which last only for a certain length of time, and are to be experienced as subject to various specific conditions. It being so, the relation of the stultified and the stultifier (between these two sets of things) is due to the one constituting the object of the exprience common to all, and the other not constituting such an object.

Thus the whole (argument) is perfectly appropriate.

Then again what has been urged 175 to the effect that (the avidya), which is unfit to be defined either as an entity or as a non-entity, is established by revelation,

175. Vide supra pp. 30 & 31.Adhik. I. Süt. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

193

-that is not right; because in the following scriptural passage-Anritena hi pratyadhah17-and in others, the word anrita does not denote what is indescribable. Indeed, the word anrita denotes what is not rita. The word rita expresses karma177 (or the fruits of action), because it is stated 178 in the scripture that “there are the two enjoy- ing rita (or the fruits of action).” Rita is that karma which is free from attachment to fruits, which consists in the worship of the Highest Person, and the fruit of which is the attainment of that Person. Here (in the passage under discussion), anrita is the karma which is different from this (rita), and (therefore) has samsara179 for its result, and is (thus) opposed to the attainment of the Brahman. This (we learn) from the scriptural passage180_“They (i. e. the crea- tures) do not obtain this world of the Brahman, being drawn away by anrita.”

Also in the passage181- “Then there was neither existence (sat) nor non-existence (asat)” the words sat and asat refer to intelligent and non- intelligent objects as produced by the secondary particular creation;182 because this passage is intended to establish that the two things, which, as found at the time of creation, are denoted by the words sat and tyat188 and form the

176. Vide supra pp. 31 & 157. This is apparently a quotation from Chhand. Up. VIII. 3. 2.-“For they (i. e. the creatures) are drawn away (from the Brahman) by means of anṛita.”

177. Rita may also mean religious duties or works performed in this life, truth, law, &c.

178. Vide Kath. Up. III. 1.

179. The word samsara means the ever-recurring succession of births and deaths and the consequent conti- nuance of the bondage of the soul.

25

180. Vide Chhana. Up. VIII. 3. 2. 181. Taitt. Br. II. 8. 9. & R. V. X. 129. 1 & 3. Vide supra p. 31.

182. This is the creation of form- possessing conscious and unconscious bodies taking place after the creation of undifferentiated primordial matter.

183. Vide Taitt. Up. 11. 6. 1., where the individual self which is intelli- gent and the non-intelligent Prakriti, or nature in its undifferentiated pri- mordial state, are respectively called Sat and Tyat, for the reason that the

194

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

differentiated intelligent and non-intelligent objects pro- duced by the secondary particular creation, are, at the time of universal dissolution, absorbed into the thing which is denoted by the word tamas184 and constitutes the undif- ferentiated primordial non-intelligent matter. In this (passage), there is no mention made of anything which is said to possess the character of being indescribable either as an entity or as a non-entity; because only the absence, at a particular time, of the things denoted by the words sat and asat is (herein) mentioned. What is denoted by the word tamas here is made out to mean undifferentiated primordial non-intelligent matter from another scriptural passage (also) which is to the effect-“The avyakta 185 is absorbed into the akshara; the akshara is absorb- ed into the tamas.” [Sub. Up. II.]. By the word tamas is denoted the subtle state of that prakriti which is made up of undifferentiated primordial non-intelligent matter; this is indeed true. But if it be said that this (prakriti) is denoted by the word maya, as in the passage

individual self is incapable of under- going any transformation, and the non-intelligent Prakriti is capable of undergoing transformations at all

times.

184. Tamas is one of the names of the Pradhana or the Prakrit in its undifferentiated primordial state. Vide Sub. Up. II. In this state, it is said to be very subtle, so that it cannot be easily distinguished from the indivi- dual self with which it is invariably associated.

185. Four different states of the Prakriti or nature are mentioned in Sub. Up. II. In its primary undiff-

erentiated state, it is called the Avibhakta-tamas; in its first differen- tiated state, it is called the Vibhakta- tamas; in its next state, it is called the Akshara in which even the quali- ties of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas are not seen to be differentiated and in which it is also said to be promiscuously mixed up with the individual self; in its last state, it is called the Avyakta in which the differentiation of the three Gunas has begun to take place. From this Avyakta proceeds the principle known as the Mahat, from this again proceeds the principle called Ahan- kara or egoity; and so on,

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

195

“Know then that prakriti is maya.” [Svet. Up. IV. 10.], and that it is therefore indescribable; it is replied that it is not so, because the word maya is not known to ex- press what is indescribable. If it be said (again) that the word maya, being synonymous with unreality (i. e. ignorance or avidya), expresses what is indescribable, it is replied that this (also) is not right. Indeed, the word maya does not, in all cases, denote unreality (i. e. ignorance or avidya); because the word maya is used to denote the weapons of Rakshasas and Asuras which, surely, are real- ly existent things. Accordingly, there is this passage :- “The thousand mayas (or wonderfully created weapons) of Sambara were destroyed one after another by that quickly moving (discus of the Lord) in guarding from injury the body of the boy (Prahlada).” [V. P. I. 19. 20.]. Hence the word maya denotes the creation of wonderful things. Prakriti also is called by the name of maya, because it certainly possesses the power of creating wonderful things. The scriptural passage “Out of this (prakriti ), He, who is the owner of the maya (i. e. the Lord), creates this world wherein another being (viz. the individual self) is bound down by maya.”-[Svet. Up. IV. 9.]-also points out that the prakriti, which is denoted by the word māyā, possesses the power of causing the creation of wonder- ful things. The Highest Person is called the Mayin, simply because He is the owner of that (maya),186 but not because He is characterised by ignorance (or avidya). Indeed, it is stated in the scriptural passage-" And in that (world) another being (viz. the individual soul) is bound down by māyā". [Svet Up. IV. 9.], as also in the passage" When the individual soul, that has been asleep under the influence

186. The word miya means either tion. It also means skill, knowledge, wonderful powers or wonderful crea- &c.

196

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

of the beginningless maya, wakes up, (then he knows the Unborn One)."-[Mand. Up. II. 21.], that the individual soul is bound down by maya (i. e. by nature). In the (follow- ing) scriptural passage also-“Indra (ie. the Highest Lord) is known to assume many forms through mayas (or His wonderful powers of creating things)”-[Brih. Up. II. 5. 19.],187 the wonderful powers (of the Lord) are denoted (by the word maya). Indeed, it is only for this reason that it is said “He (i. e. the Lord) shines very much like tvashtri (i. e. the creator).” [R. V. VI. 47. 19.]. Indeed nothing shines forth that is overpowered by unreality (viz. ignor- ance or avidyā). Even in the passage-" My maya is difficult to transcend."-[B. G. VII. 14.], it is stated that it (viz. maya) consists of qualities; therefore, what is denoted (by maya) is that prakriti itself which is made up of the three qualities (of sattva or goodness, rajas or passion, and tamas or darkness). Thus, by means of the scriptures, there is no establishment of that ig- norance (or avidya) which cannot be described either as an entity or as a non-entity.

Nor (is that ignorance or avidya established) by means of the inappropriateness (which, in the absence of ignorance or avidya, would result) in relation to the teaching of unity (between the individual self and the Supreme Self). For, in the passage188_“That thou art,"-there is the teach- ing of unity between the individual self and the Supreme Self; yet we do not see here any such inappropriateness as. forms the cause for assuming that ignorance (or avidya) which is contrary to (the nature of) the Brahman who is referred to in the context, who is known here by the word

187. Vide also R. V. VI. 47. 18. 188. Vide Chhand. Up. VI. 8.

7. & also n. 142 supra.

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

197

‘That’, who is omniscient, and who wills the truth, and is the cause of the creation, preservation, and destruction of all the worlds. The teaching of unity (here) is very ap- propriate, because by the word thou’ also, (as by the word ‘That’), is denoted the Brahman whose body is the individual soul. By the scriptural passage “Entering in along with this individual self which is (also) the same as Myself, I evolve the differentiation of names and forms.”- (Chhand. Up. VI. 3. 2.]-it is stated that all things pos- sess names and forms only to the extent that they include the Highest Self. Hence, there need be no assumption of ignorance (or avidya) in relation to the Brahman.

In the Itihasas and the Puranas189 also, the discus- sion regarding any avidya that is related to the Brahman is nowhere to be found. Nevertheless, it may be said as follows: The passage190 beginning with “The Lights are Vishnu " [V. P. II. 12. 38.]-lays down the proposition that the Brahman is the only reality; then the passage beginning with191” Because the Lord has the nature of Intelligence, therefore, He (has the All for His form)” explains that the world which is differentiated by the distinctions of mountains, oceans, lands, &c., is the result of the display of avidya in relation

189. Vide supra p. 136. 11.

140.

190. The whole of this passage is as follows:-“The Lights are Vishņu, the worlds are Vishņu, the forests are Vishnu, the mountains and the regions of space, the rivers and the seas, all that is existent and all that is non-existent, are all He alone, O thou, the best of Bräh- maņas!”

191. Vide supra p. 31. where the Adwaitins are made to quote this passage thus :-" Because the Lord is of the nature of Intelligence, therefore He has the All for His

form. But He is no material thing. Know then that the distinctions, of mountain, ocean, land, &c., are indeed born out of Him and are the outcome of illusion in Intelligence." P. II. 12. 39.

V.198

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. 1. Part. 1.

to the Brahman whose essential nature is altogether In- telligence; afterwards the passage192 beginning with- “But when………(there remains Intelligence alone) in its own form, and pure, (then indeed cease to exist the fruits of the tree of illusion)"-confirms that it (viz. the world) is the result of the display of ignorance, by means of the fact that, at the time when the Brahman, whose true nature is Intelligence, exists in His own natural state, there is to be found no distinction whatever between things; thereafter by means of the two stanzas, one beginning with193” Is there any (external) object “-and the other beginning with194-Mahi ghaṭatvam (which means “the mud, the formation of a pot out of it,”)-the unreality of the distinctions between things is stated even from the stand-point of the perception195 of the world; then the

192. This again has been quoted according to the Adwaitins on pp. 31 & 32 supra, thus:-“But when, after all the effects of works are de- stroyed, there remains Intelligence alone in Its own true form, pure and devoid of evil, then indeed cease to exist those fruits of the tree of illusion, which form the distinc- tions of things in things.” V. P.

II. 12. 40.

is to

193. The whole of this pas-

sage

the following effect :-“Is there anywhere any (external) object which is with- out beginning, middle and end, which is always uniform, and which, moreover, undergoes changes of state, and which frequently is not what it was. If such a thing there be, how can it indeed be the reality?” “V. P.

II. 12, 41.

194. This passage may be translat- ed thus:-Those who, through the influence of their own Karmas, are pre- vented from having correct notions regarding (the nature of) the self -by them are seen (those various states of matter such as) the mud, the formation of a pot (out of it), the breaking (up of that pot) into two halves, its turning into particles, their turning into dust, and this again into atoms. (This being so), tell me whether this (matter) can be the (un- changeable) reality. V. P. II. 12. 42.

195. According to the Adwai- tins, the true nature of perception is to apprehend the one Reality which exists at all times, but not to appre- hend those distinctions which make up the world and are all super-impos- ed on the Reality by Ignorance or Avidya. Vide supra pp. 42 & 43.

Adhik. I. Süt. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

199

stanza beginning with196"Therefore, (there can be) noth- ing other than Intelligence”-sums up the already enunciat- ed unreality of whatever is different from the Brahman; then by means of the passage1 97 beginning with “The one In- telligence…(is apprehended in many ways)"-it is made clear that one’s own karma alone is the basis of ignorance (or avidya) which is the cause of the perception of differ- ence in relation to the Brahman whose true nature is In- telligence; then, by means of the passage198 beginning with “The Intelligence which is pure…………(is one).” -the true nature of the Brahman, who has the character of Intelligence, is examined; and (lastly) by means of the passage199”(Thus) have I told you of what is real, &c.”- the truth has been taught to you to the effect that the Brahman whose true nature is Intelligence is alone real and nothing else (is real); that everything else is certainly unreal; and that the reality of the world and all other things is merely phenomenal. And such, indeed, is seen to be the teaching (given in the Vishnu-Purana in the portion

196. This passage is found quoted on p. 32. supra as follows:- Therefore, at no time and in no place, can there be any group of things other than Intelligence, O thou, the twice-born one. V. P. II.

12. 43.

197 This is the second half of the passage V. P. II. 12. 43:- The One Intelligence is apprehended in many ways by those whose minds are variously constituted on account of the variety of their own Karmas.

198. This passage runs thus on p. 32. supra :-The Intelligence

which is pure, devoid of evil, devoid of sorrow, and is free from contact with all greed,&c., is one and always one, is the Highest and the Highest Lord; He is Vasudeva, other than whom there is nothing. V. P. II. 12. 44.

199. This again is quoted on p. 32. supra as follows:-Thus have I told you of what is real ex- istence, and how Intelligence is real and all else is unreal; and I have told you also that this which is phe- nomenally realised well for practical purposes is that on which the world is dependent. V. P. II. 12. 45.

200

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

named Bhuvanakosa). 200

All this is not right. Here, after explaining in extenso the nature of the world which is conceived to be an unopened flower-bud, another form of it that was not mentioned before is set forth briefly, beginning with 201 “Listen.” In the world which is made up of the intelligent and the non- intelligent things, that intelligent part, the individual pecu- liarity of which is beyond the sphere of speech and mind and which is known to itself, and which, being entirely of the nature of intelligence, is untouched by any modifica- tions of matter, (that part) is expressed by the word ’exist- ence’, for the reason that it is indestructible. But the non-in- telligent part undergoes a variety of modifications caused by the karma of the intelligent part, and is destructible; and it is (therefore) expressed by the word ’non-existence’. And both form the body of Vasudeva, the Highest Brahman, and have Him for their Self. Therefore, this form (of the Lord) is (thus) briefly described here. Accordingly, in the passage- “That water202 which is the body of Vishnu, from that, O

200. Bhuvanakosa is the name given to chapters 1 to 12. of the second Amsa of the Vishnu-Purana, because in these chapters the world is described under the conception of a lotus-bud. Vide V. P. II. 2. 10. 201. Vide V. P. II. 12. 36. This stanza and the stanza preceding

it are as follow:-Thus, then, the situation of the earth and of the Lights, of the divisions of the terrestrial world, and of the oceans and of the mountains, has all been described at length, as also of the lowlands between the principal mountains, and of the rivers. Moreover, the nature of the beings

which live in them (has also been described). Listen again to another

description which is brief.

202. Here water is used so as to mean the primordial substratum of the whole universe known as the Brahmanda; because water has been held to be the first created thing, and in it the Self-existent Lord is said to have placed the seed which became a golden egg. Out of which was born the four-faced Brahma, the creating deity. Hence primordial matter and all its evolved modifications are denoted by the word water here. Cf. also Manu I. 8 & 9, et seq.

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

201

Brāhmaṇa, sprang the earth, lotus-shaped, together with its mountains, oceans, and all other such things.”-[V. P. II. 12. 37.]-it is said that, because water forms the body of Vishnu, the world also, being a modification of water, forms the body of Vishnu, and that Vishnu is the Self of that (world). Hence, he (Parasara) says that, of the grammatical equation which is itself an explanation of the teaching of identity (between the individual self and the Supreme Self) as found in all scriptures, and which is also dealt with in the passage 203 beginning with-" The Lights are Vishnu"-(of that equation) the foundation is nothing other than the relation of the soul and the body (be- tween the Brahman and the universe). In this sastraic work (viz. the Vishnu-Purana) itself, even earlier (than in this context), this very thing is mentioned more than once thus: “They are all His body”-204 “The whole of that is the body of the Lord."-205” Being indestructible, He alone is the Self of all beings, and has the form of the universe.“206 This identity (between the individual self and the Supreme Self), as consisting of the relation of the body and the soul, is taught by the equation stated in the passage beginning with “The Lights are Vishnu.” Here, the thing which has the nature of existence and (the thing) which has the nature of non-existence, both of which are found in the world, are spoken of as forming the body of

203.

204.

Vide supra p. 197. n. 190.

Vide V. P. I. 22. 86. The whole passage containing this statement runs thus :-“Here, there, or anywhere else, whatever things exist embodied and unembodied, they are all His body.”

205. Vide V. P. I. 22. 38. 26

which contains this statement and is to the following effect :-Whatever forms the instrumental cause of any created thing which is created by any living being, the whole of that, O Brāhmaṇa, is the body of the

Lord.

206. Vide V. P. I. 2. 69.

202

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

Vishnu, and as having that Vishnu for their Self. This (viz. the individual soul) is of the nature of existence; that (viz. prakriti or matter) has the nature of non-existence. The reason for this (viz. prakriti) having the nature of non- existence is given thus:-“Because the Lord is of the nature of Intelligence, therefore, He (has the All for His form)".207 The natural form of the Lord, who is established as the Self of all the individual souls, is Intelligence alone; but it is not the form of things such as gods, men, and other embodied objects; and because this is so, therefore, the forms of non-intelligent matter such as gods, men,ocean, land, and other such things are the result of the display of His intelli- gence, and are based upon the continuous apprehension of the self-differentiations of that (self) which is known as existence, and which has altogether the nature of intelli- gence; they (viz. those differentiations) are in the form of gods and other material embodiments; that is, they are based upon karma which (in its turn) is based upon the continuous apprehension of the forms of gods and other material embodiments (in association with the self). This is the meaning (of the stanza under discussion). From this, it is implied that, because the non-intelligent thing is the seat of transformations according to the karma of the individual soul, therefore it is expressed by the word ’non-existence’, and that all else is expressed by the word ’existence’. He (Parasara) explains this same thing in the passage 208 be- ginning with " But when……(there remains intelligence) in its own true form, and pure,……… (then, indeed, cease to exist the fruits of the tree of illusion).” When, after the destruction of all the karmas which form the basis for the continuous apprehension of the self-differentiations (of

207. Vide supra p. 31. & also n. 191. also n. 192.

208. Vide supra pp. 31 & 32, &Adhik. I. Süt. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

203

among things, there will things which are intended (self), and which are them-

the self) in the form of gods, &c., the thing which is called the self, and the nature of which is pure intelligence, becomes free from evil and perfectly pure and assumes its own natural form, then, not be those distinctions of for the enjoyment’ of the selves the results of the karma that is at the root of the supposition that the self is identically the same with material forms, such as those of gods, &c. Those modifi- cations of the material entity, which are in the form of gods, men, mountains, oceans, lands, &c., and which form the objects of enjoyment among those things known as gods, &c., and which are wrongly taken to be the same as the self, they cease to exist when the karma which forms their basis is destroyed. Therefore, the meaning is that the non-intelligent thing, which is capable of being found in certain particular states which last only for a time, has to be denoted by the word ’non-existence’, and that all else has to be denoted by the word ’existence’; because this (latter) is, at all times, altogether of the form of self-evident intelligence. Accordingly, in the passage beginning with “Is there (any- where) any (external) object,“209-he (Parasara) says that the non-intelligent thing is to be denoted by the word ’non-existence’ alone; because, every moment, it becomes altered in form and is, in consequence, found in conditions which last only for a time. Indeed, that thing which is always uniform and which is without beginning, middle and end, is that which is denoted by the word ’existence’; because it is not proper to think of it as non-existent at any time. Nothing that is non-intelligent is seen any- where to be of that description. In the passage beginn-

209. This is the first half of V. P. II, 12. 41. Vide supra p. 198. n. 193.

204

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

ing with 210”(Is there anywhere any external object) which, moreover, (undergoes) changes of state”-he (Parasara) says what it then (really) is. That thing which undergoes changes of state every moment,-that gives up its former states one after another, as it passes into latter states one after another; and so, when it is in any one of its former states, it can not be in simultaneous as- sociation with any one of its latter states. Hence, at all times, it is to be denoted by the word ’non-existence’ alone. That it has, indeed, to be so made out, is declared in the passage211 beginning with Mahi ghatatvam. Those who, through their own karmas, are found in the form of gods, men, &c., and are, in consequence, prevented from having correct ideas regarding the (nature of the) self,-by them, the non-intelligent thing which is the object of their ’enjoyment’ is perceived to undergo transformations every moment. The meaning is that it is actually experienced (to be of such a nature). This being the case, is there any non-intelligent thing which is seen to be always in the same state and to be without beginning, middle and end, and thus deserves to be denoted by the word ’exist- ence’? The intended conclusion is that there is no such Because this is so, therefore, the non-intelligent thing, which is different from the self the true nature of which is intelligence, is never and nowhere fit to be denoted by the word ’existence’. Accordingly, he (Parašara) gives the passage 212 beginning with “Therefore, (at no time and in no place can there be any collection of

thing.

210. This is the latter half of the passage V. P. II. 12. 41. Vide supra p. 198. n. 193.

211. Vide supra p. 198. n. 194. V.

P. II. 12. 42.

212. This is the first half of stanza V. P. II. 12. 43. Vide supra p. 199. n. 196.

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

205

things) other than intelligence.” But the self has every- where the uniform nature of intelligence, and is, in con- sequence, essentially opposed to the distinctions known as gods, &c. Nevertheless, those who think of the self itself as being differentiated by those distinctions known as gods, &c., which are based upon the various kinds of karma performed by themselves and form the cause of their entering into the bodies known as gods, &c.,-(they) imagine (the self) to be so varied in nature as to correspond to each of those particular forms. Accord- ingly, he (Parasara) says in the passage21 3beginning with- “The one intelligence is apprehended in many ways”-that the conception of those distinctions is not due to anything in the essential nature of the self (itself). Indeed, the essen- tial nature of the self is free from karma; and for that very reason, it is untouched by prakriti (or nature) which acts as a taint. Therefore again, it is dissociated from all evil qualities such as sorrow, ignorance, greed, and the like. It is one, because it is not capable of increase and de- crease; for that very same reason, it is always in the same state; and forming the body of Vasudeva, it has Him for its Self, because there is nothing which has not Him for its Self. Accordingly, he (Parašara) gives the passage “The intelligence, which is pure,… (is one).“214 The intelligent thing, being always in the same state, is denoted by the word ’existence’. But the non-intelligent thing is every moment subject to modifications, and is thus always subject to destruction; therefore it is always fit to be denoted by the word ’non-existence’. The world, which is thus made up of these intelligent and non-intelligent

213. This is the second half of stanza V. P. II. 12. 43. Vide supra p. 199. n. 197.

214. V. P. II. 12. 44. Vide supra p. 199. n. 198.

206

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

things, forms the body of Vasudeva, and has Him for its Self. Thus the reality of the world is very well explained. For this same purpose, (Parašara) gives the pas- sage 215 beginning with “Thus (have I told you) of what is real.” Here, (this explanation of what is) real (sat- yam) and unreal (asatyam) concludes the topic the con- sideration of which was begun in the passage 216” All that is existent and all that is non-existent (are Vishnu).” This thing (viz. the self) is altogether of the nature of in- telligence, and is thus similar throughout; and its essen- tial distinction (from other selves) is inexpressible by means of words. And it is this thing alone which, when mixed up with non-intelligent matter and thus brought within the material world, acquires those distinctions in the form of gods, men, &c., as required for the proper practi- cal realisation of things. Of these (distinctions) which so exist, the cause is stated to be nothing other than karma. Accordingly, he (Parašara) gives the passage- “And (I have told you also) that this is that.“217 He ex- plains this very same thing in the passage beginning

215. This passage V. P. II. 12. 45. is as follows in the original :-Sad- bhara evam bhavato mayokto jña- nam yatha satyam asatyam anyat || Its meaning is :-Thus have I told you of what is real existence and how intelligence is real and all else is unreal. Vide supra p. 32. & n. 199.

216. These expressions occur in V. P. II. 12. 38. Vide supra p. 197. n. 190. where it has been already quoted in full. This sloka is as follows in the original:-Jyotimshi vishnur bhu- vanani vishnur vanani vishnur girayo aisascha nadyas samudrascha sa

eva sarvam yadasti yannasti cha vipravarya Here, the expression yadasti means all that is existent and the expression yannasti means all that is non-existent.

217. Vide V. P. II. 45. This passage is as follows in the original: -Etattu yal samvyavaharabhutam tatrapichoktam bhuvanasritam te|| According to the Adwaitins, the meaning of this passage has been al- ready given(vide supra p.32.& n.199.)as follows:-“And I have told you also that this which is phenomenally re- alised well for practical purposes is

Adhik. I. Süt. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

207

with 218”(The karmas which are made up of) the sacrifice, the sacrificial animal, &c.” He says in the passage beginning with 219-“And this which (I have described to you to be the world, to this indeed goes he who is altogether under the influence of karma……),"-that the object of the know- ledge that the world is real is to induce the effort to secure the means for the attainment of beatific release.

Here (i. e. even in this context), there is not seen any one appropriate word used to denote that Highest Brahman who is devoid of attributes, or (to denote) that ignorance (or avidya) which is resident in that (Brahman) and is incapable of being defined either as an entity or as a non- entity, or (to denote that) the world is manufactured by that (avidya). The karma of the individual selves is opposed to the knowledge of the truth of things, and is

:1

that on which the world is depend- ent.” This interpretation is here cri- ticised by Ramanuja. According to him, the meaning of this passage, as made out from the context in which it occurs, is to the following effect :- And I have told you also that this individual self, the nature of which is pure intelligence, when mixed up with non-intelligent matter, and thus brought within the world, is that which causes those distinc- tions which are required for the proper realisation of things in the form of gods, men, &c.

218. The whole of this pas- sage is as follows:-The Karmas which are made up of the sacrifice, the sacri- ficial animal, the sacrificial fire, all the officiating priests, the Soma juice,

the gods, and the heavenly world of pleasure, form the (commonly adopted) path, and in it are seen (the forms of gods, &c.), and the results of these Karmas are the enjoyments of the earthly world and of the other parts of the universe. V. P. II. 12. 46.

219. This sloka V. P. II. 12. 47., runs thus:-“And this which I have described to you to be the world, to this, indeed, goes he who is altogether under the influence of Karma. Knowing the impermanent character of the fruits of Karma, one has to aim at that which is firm, unchangeable and always uniform, so that one may thereby surely enter into Väsu- deva.“208

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

declared to be thus the cause that makes the self, the nature of which is pure intelligence, experience such varied conditions as those of gods, &c. ;-and it is also declared to be the cause that makes non-intelligent (inert) matter undergo (all its) transformations; moreover, the words existence, non-existence, reality and unreality are (all) in- capable of denoting that thing which cannot be defined either as an entity or as a non-entity: for these reasons, the whole world which is expressible by the words existence and non-existence, and is made up of intelligent and non- intelligent things, constitutes the body of the Most High, the Highest Lord, the Supreme Brahman, namely, Vishnu. The words non-existence and unreality are the opposites of existence and reality; therefore, by means of them, only unreality or non-existence is made out, but not indescrib- ability. The words non-existence and unreality which have been applied to the non-intelligent thing are not here used to denote what is a mere nothing or what is false, but are used to denote destructibility. It is only this destructibil- ity which is set forth in the passages beginning with 220 “Is there any (external) object”-and also with 221 Mahi ghatatvam. (In regard to our view), there is neither want of proof nor stultification by means of right knowledge; because what is experienced in one form at one time is perceived to be otherwise at another time by reason of a certain transformation (thereof), and it is, in consequ- ence, spoken of as non-existent. Indeed, to be a mere nothing is to be unworthy of any association with any means of proof. And if a thing, which is experienced as existent in relation to a particular place and time, is also perceived as non-existent in relation to that same place and

220. Vide supra p. 198, n. 193. 221. Vide supra p. 198. n. 194.

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

209

time, then there is stultification; but not when a thing experienced at one time is, through transformation and other such causes, made out to be non-existent at another time; because (in this latter case) there is (really) no con- tradiction owing to there being a difference in the time (of the two opposite experiences). Therefore there is no fal- sity (here at all).

What is said is this:-The thing known as the self is essentially of the nature of intelligence; it is without be- ginning, middle and end, and is always in one and the same natural condition; therefore, it is always and of itself ex- pressible by the word existence. But the non-intelligent thing, which forms the object of the ’enjoyment’ of the in- dividual selves, is subject to transformation and destruction, in accordance with the karma of those (selves), and so is always full of the import of the word non-existence; there- fore it is expressible by the words non-existence and unreality.

This same thing is also stated in the following pass- ages:-“Whatever, even by a change of time, does not undergo such a change of name as arises out of transformations and other similar causes, what is that object, O king, what is it?” [V. P. II. 13. 100.]; “The wise acknowledge that what is indestructible forms the reality; and that, no doubt, is non- existent, which is produced by destructible things.” [V. P. II. 14. 24]. Unreality has been declared to be the realisa- tion of the conception of pure existence in relation to a thing which is found to be existent or non-existent in accord- ance with particular conditions of place, time, and activity. The realisation under the conception of pure existence be- longs (rightly) only to the self, and so it is declared to be real. Further, from the listener Maitreya’s repetition (of the teaching listened to by him) in the sloka which says “It has been taught to me how all the three worlds exist sup-

27

210

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

ported by Vishnu, and how intelligence is, by pre-eminence, the reality.”-[V. P. II. 13. 2.], it is made out that the foundation of the grammatical equation, contained in the passage 222 beginning with “The Lights are Vishnu”, is the relation of the soul and the body (between the Brahman and the universe), that the intelligent and non- intelligent things are denoted, as a rule, by the use of the words existence and non-existence, that intelligence has a natural condition uncaused by karma and is thus pre-emi- nent, and that the non-intelligent thing is not pre-eminent for the reason that it undergoes transformations which are due to the karma of that (intelligent self).

What has been urged 223-by the Purvapakshins-to the effect that the scriptures speak of the cessation of ignorance (or avidya) as taking place by means of the knowledge of the attributeless Brahman alone, that is not right; for, (in such a case) there would be the contradiction of the following and many other scriptural passages:-“I know this great Person of sun-like lustre who is beyond darkness. He who thus knows Him becomes immortal here; there is no other path for the attainment of final release.” [Taitt. Ar. III. 12. 7.];224 “All the nimeshas 225 were born out of the Person who has the lustre of lightning.” [M. När. I. 8.]; “There is no ruler over Him; His glory is

222, Vide supra p. 197. n. 190. 223. Vide supra p. 32.

224. Vide also Vaj. Samh. XXX. 18. Cf. Tailt. Ar. III. 13. 1; B. G. VIII. 9; Svet. Up. III. 8. & VI, 15.

225. A nimesha is a twinkling of the eye considered as a measure of time. According to some, it is=

1/18 kashtha 1/540 kala-1/16200 kshana 1/194400 muhurta=1/5832000 day 7/135th of a second, a day being equal to 24 hours. According to V. P. I. 3. 8, 9 & 10, a nimesha is= 1/15 kashtha 1/450 kala-1/13500 mukurta 1/405000 day-16/75th of a

second,

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

211

indeed great.” [M. När. I. 10.]; “Those who know this Person, they become immortal.” [M. Nar. I. 11.]. It is only because the Brahman is possessed of attri- butes, that all the scriptural passages declare that final release results solely from the knowledge of the Brahman as possessed of attributes. It has been already stated that the probative226 passages also prove only that Brahman who is qualified.

The grammatical equation, found in the passage227- “That thou art”-and in other similar passages, has no re- ference to the oneness of any attribute less thing, because the words ‘That’ and ’thou’ have the power of denoting the Brahman as qualified. Indeed, the word ‘That’ points to the Brahman who is omniscient, who wills the truth, and who is the cause of the world; because in the pas- sage” That thought-May I become many”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 3.], and in other similar passages, it is He who forms the subject. The word ’thou’ which is equated with ‘That’ sets forth the Brahman whose body is that in- dividual self which is associated with non-intelligent matter; because a grammatical equation has to denote only one thing which exists in two forms. If these two forms are given up, then the equation will have also to be given up; because, (when those two forms are given up), there will be no difference in the significations (of the words ’thou’ and ‘That’), and because also there will then have to be a figura- tive (or secondary) signification in relation to both these words. 228 And when it is said-‘This is that Devadatta’,

226. Such as “The Brahman is Ex- istence, Knowledge, Infinity.” Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.Vide supra pp. III. et seq. 227. Vide Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 7. & 11. 142. supra.

228. For a Samanadhikaranya or a

grammatical equation to be right, it is necessary that it should not be a mere identity, and also that the words equat- ed in the equation should not all have figurative or secondary significations.

212

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

The contradiction arising

there is no secondary signification (in relation to all the equa- ted words); because there is no contradiction in perceiv- ing identity (in relation to Devadatta) as associated with a past and a present time. from the same thing being found in different places is re- moved by the difference in time. (If, in the equation-‘That thou art’, the two forms of the one thing referred to in it be given up), there would then be a contradiction of the beginning of that context wherein it is said “That thought, ‘May I become many’ “;229the proposition that, by knowing one thing, all things become known, would also thus become inappropriate; and He whose true nature is intelligence, who is devoid of all evil, who is omniscient, and whose nature is characterised by all the auspicious qualities, would thereby acquire ignorance (or avidya) and (would become) the object of all the innu- merable wrong aims of life which are produced by that (ignorance or avidya). If the equation (here) implies the stultification (of a previously existing wrong conception), then the two words ‘That’ and ’thou’ have to figuratively signify a basis (for the super-imposition of that wrong con- ception) and the removal (of that super-imposition). These figurative significations, &c., constitute those defects (which have been referred to above). There is, however, this much of peculiarity. Here, there is the unavoidable forced assumption of a stultification which is not realised in the same way in which it is realised in the cognition-“This (mother-of-pearl) is no silver”; and there is also the impossi- bility of a stultification (arising), because the word ‘That’ does not, beyond expressing merely a basis (for the super- imposition of a wrong conception), denote any attribute (of that basis, so as to contradict such a super-imposition). If it

229. Vide Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 3.Adhik. I. Sut. 1.]

ŚRI-BHASHYA.

213

be said that the word ‘That’ denotes the unveiled nature of what was formerly veiled, (it is replied that it is) not (so); because when first the basis itself is unknown, illu- sion and its stultification which are dependent thereon are impossible. If it be said (again) that the basis which forms the seat of illusion is itself unconcealed, then that very nature of the basis would be contradictory to illusion; and therefore when that, (basis)becomes clearly known (by means of the import of the equation under reference), then there can absolutely be no illusion and no stultification, as both of them are dependent on that (basis). Consequently it is difficult to establish an illusion and its stultification (in relation to the grammatical equation ‘That thou art ‘), when a really exist- ing attribute and its concealment are not admitted (to be denoted by the word ‘That’) over and above (its denoting) the basis (for that attribute and its concealment). Indeed, when a basis which is merely of the form of a person, for instance, is being perceived, and when the really existing at- tribute of royalty (which belongs to that person) and which is other than that (basis) is concealed, it is only then that there can be the illusion of (that person) being, (say), a wild hunter; and there will be the cessation of that (illu- sion) on explaining that the attribute of royalty (belongs to that person), but not on merely explaining that basis (to be a person); because that (basis), being (itself) plainly visible, does not stand in need of being explained; and because also, there can be no destruction of illusion (when merely the basis is thus explained). The two words (“That’ and thou’) mainly signify the Brahman who is the cause of the world, and who has the individual soul for His body. It has been (thus) established that the grammatical equation (here) is due to the fact of there being the denota- tion of one and the same thing as existing in association with

214

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

two (different) modes (or forms). (By means of this gram- matical equation) another peculiar characteristic in relation to the Brahman, who is devoid of all evil, and whose nature is characterised by all the auspicious qualities, is established in the form of His being the internal ruler of all individual souls; and (this conclusion) is completely in harmony with the beginning of the context (in which this grammatical equation occurs). Thus also there results the demons- tration of the proposition 23° that, by knowing one thing, all things become known; because the Brahman, who owns the intelligent and the non-intelligent things in the subtle state as His body, is Himself an effect (in the form of the Brah- man) who possesses the intelligent and the non-intelligent things in the gross state as His body. (According to our in- terpretation) there is also no contradiction of other scriptu- ral passages such as the following:-"(May we know) Him who is the highest and greatest Lord of lords.”-[Svet. Up. VI. 7.]; “His supreme power is revealed indeed as varied."―[Svet. Up. VI. 8.]; “He (i. e.the Lord) is devoid of sins, He desires the truth and wills the truth.”-[Chhand. Up. VIII. 1. 5. & VIII. 7. 1.].

If it be asked in what manner the subject and the predicate in the sentence ‘That thou art’ are particularised, it is replied that there is (really) nothing predicated here of anything; because, in the (earlier) statement 231 itself- “All this has that (Brahman) for its Self”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 7.], it (viz. the predication of oneness) has been al- ready arrived at. Indeed the sastra has a meaning only

230. Vide Chhand. Up. VI. 1. 3. wherein this proposition is given.

231. This statement occurs in the context earlier than the grammati- cal equation ‘That Thou art’, in

Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 7. where we read “All this has That for its Self. That is Existence, That is the Self. That thou art, O Svetaketu.”

Adhik. I. Sit. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

215

in so for as it relates to what has not been already arrived at.232 Here, (i. e. in this statement), by means of the expression all this’, the world with the individual souls is first pointed out; it is then declared, by means of the expression ‘has this (Brahman) for its Self’, that this (Brahman) is the Self of that (world); and the reason for it is given in the passage which says “All these things which are born, my dear one, have their origin in the sat (i. e. in the Existent One), have their abode in the sat, and are established in the sat.” [Chhard. Up. VI. 8. 4 & 6.], as (it is also given) in the passage which says-“Let a man (meditate), being tranquilled in mind by the knowledge that all this, indeed, is the Brahman, that all this is born in Him, is absorbed into Him, and lives in Him.” [Chhand. Up. III. 14. 1.]. Similarly, other scriptural passages also speak of the identity of the Brahman with the intelligent and the non-intelligent things, which are different from Him, as being nothing other than the relation of the soul and the body (between them). Among others, they are as follow:-” He, who has entered within, is the ruler of all things that are born and is the Self of all.” [Taitt. Ar. III. 24.]; “He who, dwelling in the earth, is within the earth, whom the earth does not know, whose body is the earth, who inter- nally rules the earth,-He is thy internal ruler and immor- tal Self.” [Brih. Up. III. 7. 3.]; “He who, dwelling in the self, is within the self, whom the self does not know, whose body is the self, and who internally rules the self,- He is thy internal ruler and immortal Self.” [Madh. Brih. Up. III. 7. 22.]; “He who is moving within the earth,………whose body is matter (mrityu or prakriti),

232. Cf. Pir. Mim. III. 4. 15. & X. 4, 22,

216

SRI-BHASHYA.

[Chap. I. Part. I.

whom matter (prakriti) does not know,-He is the internal Self of all beings, He is devoid of all sins, He is the Divine Lord, He is the one Narayana.” [Sub. Up. VII. 1.]; “Having created that (viz. the world), He entered into that same (world); having entered into that same (world), He became the sat and the tyat.“233 [Taitt. Up. II. 6. 1.]. In this context also by the statement-“Entering in along with this individual self which (also) is the same as Myself, I evolve the differentiations of name and form.” [Chhand. Up. VI. 3. 2.], it is declared that all things acquire the character of being things, and of being expressible by means of words, only by reason of their having been entered into by the individual selves which, (in their turn), have the Brahman for their Self Because the statement-” Having entered into that (world), He became the sat and the tyat”-has to possess the same meaning as this (statement above viz. that all this has that Brahman for its Self), it follows that the individual self also has the Brahman for its Self wholly owing to the fact of the Brahman having entered into it. Hence, it is concluded that the whole totality of beings which is made up of the intelligent and the non-intelli- gent things is identical with the Brahman, only because of the relation of the body and the soul (existing between them). Hence all that is different from the Brahman be- comes an entity only through constituting His body; and accordingly, the word also which denotes that (entity or thing) imports its (full) meaning only when it includes that (Brahman). Therefore it is a demonstrated conclu- sion, that all words have severally the power of denoting the Brahman, as in association with the thing denoted re-

233. Vide supra p. 193. n. 183. The reference given above is accord-

ing to Jacob’s Concordance to the Upanishads.

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

217.

spectively by every one of them, in accordance with that im- port of theirs which is made out by popular usage. Thus the import of the proposition, enunciated to the effect that “All this has that (Brahman) for its Self”, is specially summed up by means of the grammatical equation-“That thou art.”

Hence it is, that, in the case of those who234 maintain that there is only one attributeless thing, and in the case of those who235 maintain that there is difference and non- difference (between the individual soul and the Brahman), and also in the case of those who236 maintain that there is absolute difference (between the individual soul and the Brahman), all such teachings regarding the identity be- tween the Brahman and the individual soul, as are given by means of grammatical inequalities237 and by means of gram-

234. These are the Adwaitins who are of opinion that the Brahman who is devoid of all characterising attributes is alone real, and that all

else is unreal.

235. These are the Bhaskariyas and Yadavaprakasiyas. The former of these maintain that the difference

between the individual self and the Brahman is due to limiting condi- tions, and that, on the removal of those conditions, the individual self becomes one with the Brahman. For instance, the spatial ether in its origi- nal state is unconditioned, but it may get conditioned by the material outline of a pot or any other such thing. The ether within the pot is compared to the individual self. On the destruction of the pot, the ether in the pot becomes one with the

28

spatial ether which is compared to the Brahman.

The latter, viz. the Yadavaprakasi- yas, hold that just as one portion of a lump of clay may be converted in- to pots and dishes, while another portion remains as clay pure and simple, so also the Brahman evolves the individual selves out of a portion of Himself, the other portion remain- ing undifferentiated, so that He is both distinct from the individual selves

and also non-distinct from them.

236. These are the Vaiseshikas

who hold that the Brahman is entire- ly distinct from the individual selves.

237. A grammatical inequality may be exemplified by-Tasza esha evi sarira ātmā which means-“The em- bodied Self of that is He Himself.”

Taitt. Up. II. 3. 1. Here the word218

SRI-BHASHYA.

[Chap. I. Part. I.

matical equations, will amount to having been completely thrown away. When there is only one thing in existence, in relation to what (other thing) can there be the teaching of its identity? If it be replied that that (identity) is only in relation to that same (thing), it is rejoined that that (identity of the one existent thing with itself) has been already made out from the scriptural text238 relied upon by yourselves (i. e. the Adwaitins), and that there is thus nothing which remains to be learnt from (a fresh statement of) identity. If it be said again that it is the destruction of the superimposed differences (which forms the purpose of the teaching of this identity), it is replied that it has been already pointed out that that (purpose) cannot be accomplished at all by means of the identity found in the equation That thou art’. Moreover, (this) grammatical equation indicates two (different) modes (or forms) in relation to the Brahman, and thus proves what is altogether unfavourable (to this monistic position). And according to the opinion of those who maintain that there is both difference and non-difference (between the individual self and the Brahman), the Brahman Himself

tasya (meaning of tha’) stands in the genitive case i. e. in a different gram- matical case from that of the words esha (He), sirira (the embodied), atman (the Self), all of which stand in the nominative case. However, in a sentence forming a grammatical equation, all the words have to be in the same grammatical case as in Sat- yam jñānam anantam Brahma.

238. This text is, among others, stated by the Srutaprakasikacharya, to be nothing other than Taitt. Up.

4

II. 1. 1., “The Brahman is Exist- ence, Knowledge, Infinity.” The idea is that, since this text itself declares that the one existing thing is identi- cal with itself, no more teaching as to identity is necessary and conse- quently the grammatical equation “Thit thou art,” is meaningless. The text referred to here may also be Ailalatmyam idam sarvam, which means that all this has Him for its Self, in as much as the equation

That thou art’ comes after this.

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

219

has to be in association with limiting conditions; and conse- quently all the blemishes, which are found in individual souls and are due to those (limiting conditions), will tend to taint the Brahman Himself. Therefore, all the teach- ings which teach the identity of the individual soul, with the Brahman, who is characterised by the utter absence of all blemishes and possesses all the auspicious qualities, will, solely owing to self-contradiction, amount to having been wholly thrown away. And again, according to the opinion of those who maintain that the difference and non-difference, (between the individual soul and the Brah- man), are both natural (i. e. uncaused by any limiting con- ditions whatsoever), it has to be admitted that the Brahman Himself acquires (quite naturally) the condition of the individual soul, and thus all the blemishes (belonging to the individual self) will become as natural (to Him) as (His own) auspicious qualities. Consequently, to teach the identity (of the individual soul) with that Brahman, who is devoid of all blemishes, is certainly inconsistent. Fur- ther, according to the opinion of those who maintain that there is absolute difference (between the individual soul and the Brahman), it is impossible to have any kind of identity between things which are so altogether different; and it is for this very reason that the teachings which teach the identity of the Brahman and the individual soul become inappropriate. Thus (in this case) the whole of the Vedanta will have to be given up as meaningless.

However, according to those who 239 maintain that, as proclaimed in all the Upanishads, the whole world forms the body of the Brahman, all those teachings which teach

239. These are the Visishtädwaitins intelligent individual selves as well as who hold that the Brahman has the the non-intelligent matter as His body.

220

SRI-BHASHYA.

[Chap. I. Part. 1.

that the Brahman Himself forms the whole world become appropriate explanations (of the truth). A grammatical equation which expresses that, through the influence of karmas, an individual self has become an ox, a horse, a man, or a god, is generally seen, in popular usage as well as in the scriptures, to possess a real and natural signifi- cance; because, like generic characterisations and qualities, substances also may become the attributes (of things) when they constitute the bodies (of those things). Moreover, the fact that generic characterisations and qualities are merely the modes of substances forms the basis of gramma- tical equations like The ox is broken-horned’, and ‘The cloth is white’. Seeing that the material masses, which are characterised by the attributes of man and of other forms of physical embodiment, become intelligible things only when they constitute the modes of the individual self, the gram- matical equation which says that the individual self has become a human being, a male, a eunuch, or a female, is, in all cases, equally appropriate. Therefore, the basis of grammatical equations is altogether this (kind of) modality, but does not consist of generic characterisations and other such things all of which exclude each other. Indeed, when such substances as are capable of existing in themselves form the attributes of (other) substances occasionally and in special cases, then there is seen the use of an affix having the force of matup,240 as in the instances of dandin (one who possesses a danda or a stick) and kundalin (one who possesses a kundala or an ear-ring). Such is not the case with substances which are incapable of existing in a condition in which they may be separately perceived. The

240. When one who possesses a is nini, which signifies the possession stick (danda) is called a dandin, the of a thing. affix having the force of matup here

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

221

attributive character of those (substances) is to be conclu- sively made out only by means of grammatical equations.

Here, however, it may be said thus:-In the case where, through the influence of karmas, an indivi- dual self has become an ox, a horse, a man, a god, a male, a female, or a eunuch, the material embodiment known as man and the other (material embodiments) are all held to be the modes of that individual self; in the same way in which, when it is said-The ox is broken-horned and hornless’, ‘The cloth is white’, ‘The cloth is black’, generic characteristics and (other) qualities (form the modes of the substances they qualify). If it be so held, then, as in the case of the genus and the individuals (belonging to it), so in the case of the body and the individual self also, there must be, as a general rule, the simultaneous perception of the mode and the possessor of the mode. But it is not seen to take place thus. Indeed, as (they do perceive) the generic characteristics (of the ox and of other beings), simultaneously and in inseparable association with what those characteris- tics qualify, so, people do not, as a general rule,perceive the material embodiments like those of man, &c., simultane- ously and in association with the individual self, so as to make out that they are entirely dependent upon the individual self. Hence, the grammatical equation which says that a man is an individual self has a merely figurative signification.

But this is not right. The material embodiments like those of man, &c., possess, equally with generic and other qualifications, the character of being entirely dependent on the individual self, the character of being serviceable only to that (self), and the character of being the mode of that (self). The character of their being altogether dependent upon the individual self alone is made out from the destruc-

222

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

tion of the body (taking place) on the separation of the indi- vidual self (from it). The character of their being service- able to the individual self alone (is made out) from the fact of their existing merely to enjoy the fruits of the karma of that (self). Also, the character of their being the modes of that (self is made out) from the knowledge that they constitute the attributes of the individual self, as in the instances of a god and a man. This is, indeed, the reason why (generically significant) words like ox, &c., have their meanings so as to include the individuals (belonging to their respective genera). Being devoid of this aforesaid nature, such (words) as danda (stick), kundala (ear-ring) and others, have an affix possessing the force of matup (attached to them) when they form attributes, as in the instances of dandin (the possessor of a stick) and kundalin (the possessor of an ear-ring). The material embodiments like those of gods, men, &c., possess, of their own nature, the charac- ter of being dependent upon the individual self alone, the character of being serviceable to that (self) alone, and the character of being the mode of that (self) alone; it is therefore that the grammatical equation, which says that an individual self is a god or a man, is freely current in popular usage as well as in the scriptures. There is, as a general rule, the simultaneous perception of the genus and the individual (belonging to it), because both of them are capable of being apprehended by the eye; but the individual self is not apprehended at the time of the ocular apprehension of the body, because the individual self is not capable of being apprehended by the eye. Do not say that a thing, which is capable of being appre- hended as existing separately, cannot have mere modality to constitute its own nature: because, it is made out that, like generic and other qualifications, the body alsoAdhik. I. Sut. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

223

possesses altogether the nature of being a mode of that (self), owing to its being solely dependent upon that (self), and owing to its being solely serviceable to that (self), and owing also to its being an attribute of that (self). And it has been stated that the law of simultaneous perception is dependent upon the knowability (of the mode and of the possessor of the mode) by means of one and the same perceiving apparatus. Thus the eye cannot apprehend the possession, by the earth and other substances, of smell, taste, and other qualities, although these (qualities) naturally belong to them. Similarly, although the body, which is capable of being apprehended by the eye, possesses fully the nature of being a mode of the individual self, yet, it is not so apprehended, because the eye does not possess the power of apprehending the individual self. Merely on account of this much, the body cannot be destitute of the character of being a mode of that (self). The basis of the grammatical equation (between the body and the indivi- dual self) is nothing other than (the body) possessing the character of being altogether a mode of that (self).

Moreover, that word, which is capable of denoting (the body) as a mode of the individual self, denotes that body to be the mode of the individual self at the same time that it denotes the individual self also. It may, however, be said that, solely in accordance with the practical usage of words, it is only the body that is apprehended by means of the word ‘body’, and that therefore the word ‘body’ does not possess the power of including the individual self also in its meaning. To this it is replied that it is not so; because, (here, i. e. in the case where the word ‘body’ denotes merely the body), that body, which is nothing other than a mode of the individual self, is specifically mentioned with the object of pointing out its distin-

224

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

guishing feature as a thing. Therefore, the word ‘body’ is a definitively determinative word, like the words ‘ox-ness’ (i. e. gotva), ‘whiteness’, ‘quality’, ‘form’, &c. Consequently, like the words ‘ox’, &c., the words, ‘god’, ‘man’, &c., include the individual self in their import. Similarly, the individual selves, which are associated with material forms like those of god, man, &c., form the body of the Highest Self, and hence possess the char- acter of being His modes. Therefore all the words which denote the individual self include the Highest Self also in their import. Consequently, all the intel- ligent and the non-intelligent things possess the character of being things, solely because they are the modes of the Highest Brahman; and that is why they are so spoken of in practice as to be grammatically equated with that (Brah- man). This matter is fully proved in the Vedartha-san- graha.41 He (viz. the Sutrakāra) speaks of this very iden- tity, which has the character of the relation between the soul and the body, in the aphorism-” But they (viz. the Jābālas) worship the Lord as the self, and they (viz. the scriptural texts) make us comprehend (it as such).” [Ved. Sut. IV. 1. 3]. And the Vakyakara also says,-242 “The Lord is to be comprehended as nothing other than the self.”

The truth here is this. Some of the scriptural passages, such as the following among others, speak of the distinction in nature between the non-intelligent thing (prakriti), the intelligent thing (or the individual self), and the Highest Brahman, as consisting in their possessing, (respectively),the character of being the object of enjoyment,

241. Vide Vedartha-sangraha pp. 20 to 60, edited at Madras in Telugu characters by Messrs. J. Tirumala-

charya and A, K. Vijayaraghava- charya.

242. Vide supra p. 33.

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

225

the character of being the enjoyer, and the character of being the Supreme Ruler :-“Out of this(prakriti or nature), He who is the owner of the maya (i. e. the Lord) creates this world wherein another being(viz. the individual self) is bound down by maya.”-[Svet. Up. IV. 9.]; “Know then that prakriti is maya, and the great Lord the Mayin (1. e. the pos- sessor of the maya).”-[Svet. Up. IV. 10.]; “The destructi- ble is the prakriti; the immortal and the indestructible is the hara (i. e. the individual self); and the Lord alone rules over the destructible (prakriti) and the individual self.”- [Svet. Up. 1. 10.];-here, by the expression that the immortal and the indestructible is the hara,’ the enjoyer is pointed out; he (viz. the individual self) is (called) the hara because the individual self utilises the prakriti as an object of his own enjoyment; “He is the cause, He is the Lord of what is the lord of the senses (i. e. of the jiva or the individual soul); He has no progenitor and no su- perior.”-[Svet. Up. VI.9.];” He is the Lord of the prakriti (nature) and of the individual soul and is the regulator of the qualities.“248-[Svet. Up. VI. 16.]; “He is the Lord of the universe, He is the Lord of the individual souls, and is eter- nal, auspicious and inexhaustible.”-[M. Nar. XI. 3.]; “The two unborn, the Intelligent and the non-intelligent (are) the Lord and the non-lord.”-[Svet. Up. 1. 9.]; “The Eternal among the eternals, the Intelligent among the intelligent, who, though One, fulfils the desires of the many.” [Kath. Up. V. 13. & Svet. Up. VI. 13.]; “Knowing the enjoyer, the object of enjoyment and the Impeller,” [Svet. Up. I. 12.]; “One of them eats the sweet pippala fruit, while the other shines in splendour without eating at

243. These qualities are the well- primordial prakriti becomes differenti- known Sattva, goodness, Rajas, pas-

sion and Tamas, darkness, by which

29

ated.

226

SRI-BHASHYA.

[Chap. 1. Part. I. all.”-[Svet. Up. IV. 6. & Mund. Up. III. 1. 1.]; “Knowing the individual self and the Impeller to be different, and being therefore blessed by Him, he attains immortality.” [Svet Up. I. 6.]; “There is one unborn female being (aja) which is red, white and black, and which produces numerous offspring of the same kind as herself; there is another male being (aja) who loves her and is close to her; there is still another male being (aja) who, after having enjoyed her, gives her up.” [Svet. Up. IV. 5.];244 “On the same tree, the purusha (i. e. the individual self) sits immersed in grief, and, being ignorant and powerless, he feels sorry. When he sees another, the Lord, to be fully satisfied, then he (also), reliev- ed from grief, attains His greatness.” [Svet. Up. IV. 7.].

(To the same effect are) the following passages in the Smriti also: “This prakriti of Mine is divided into eight 245 parts in the form of the ahankara, &c. This is My lower prakriti. Know that to be My higher prakriti which is other than this (lower one), and which consists of individu- al selves. By it, this world is supported, O thou, mighty-arm- ed one!” [B. G. VII. 4 & 5.]; “All created beings, O son of Kunti, enter into My prakriti at the end of each kalpa,240 and at the beginning of each kalpa I again send them forth.

244. The female being referred to in this passage is the Prakriti or primor- dial nature; the first male being is the individual soul in the samsara state; the second male being is the indivi- dual soul in the released state. The three colours red, white, and black, are explained as signifying the three Gunas or qualities, viz. Rajas, Sattva, and Tamas, respectively.

245. These eight parts are the five elements, viz. the earth, water

fire,air and ether (or ākāśa); the mind; the principle known as the Mahat or Buddhi, and the Ahankara.

246. A Kalpa is a period of time equal to 4,320,000,000 solar years. It is a day of the creating Brahma and his night also is equal to the day. At the beginning of each Kalpa, the creation of the world is said to begin and at the end of each Kalpa happens the destruction of the whole world.

Adhik. I. Süt. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

227

Transforming My own prakriti, I send forth again and again, the whole of this collection of beings, which is itself not free, in as much as it is under the influence of prakriti.” [B. G. IX. 7 & 8.] ; “Presided over by Me, prakriti gives birth to all this movable and immovable creation. Indeed, for this reason it is, O son of Kunti, that the world goes on undergoing transformation.”-[B. G. IX. 10.]; “And know that the prakriti and the purusha are both beginning- less.” [B. G.XIII. 19.]; “My womb is the great brahman (or prakriti); in it I place the embryo; the origin of all beings proceeds from that, O Bharata.” [B. G. XIV. 3.]. That great brahman of Mine which is the source of this world and is called the prakriti, and which is a subtle and non-intelligent entity,-in it, I place the embryo known as the intelligent thing. From thence, that is, from the connection between the intelligent and the non-intelligent things which is caused by Me, there results the origin of all these beings which begin with the gods and end with the immovable things, and which are all thus mixed up with the non-intelligent thing. This is the meaning (of the last quoted sloka).

Similarly, several other scriptural passages declare that the Highest Person forms the Self (of all), and that the intelligent and the non-intelligent things have no separate existence from Him; because those intelligent and non-intelligent things, which exist in the form of the enjoyer and the thing enjoyed, and which exist also in all conditions, constitute the body of the Highest Person, and are, in consequence, subject to His control. They are those which begin with “He who, dwelling in the earth, is within the earth, whom the earth does not know, whose body is the earth, and who internally rules the earth (He is thy internal ruler and immortal Self)”; and conclude with “He who, dwelling in the self,228

SRI-BHASHYA.

[Chap. I. Part. I.

is within the self, whom the self does not know, whose body is the self and who internally rules the self, He is thy internal ruler and immortal Self.” [Madh. Brih. Up. III. 7.3 to 22.]. To the same effect is the passage beginning with “He who is moving within the earth, whose body is the earth, whom the earth does not know”-and (end- ing with)“He who is moving within the akshara, whose body is the akshara, whom the akshara does not know; He who is moving within the mrityu (or prakriti) whose body is mrityu, whom mrityu does not know ;-He is the internal Self of all beings, He is devoid of sins, He is the Divine Lord, He is the One Narayana.” [Sub. Up. VII. 1.]. Here, the word mritvu means that subtle non-intelli- gent thing which is expressed by the word tamas,247 be- cause in this very Upanishad it is stated “The avyakta is absorbed into the akshara and the akshara is absorbed into the tamas.” [Sub. Up. II.], and (because) it is stated also (elsewhere) “He, who has entered within, is the ruler of things that are born and is the Self of all.” [Taitt. Ār. III. 24.].

Thus the Highest Person Himself, who, by having the intelligent and the non-intelligent things existing in all conditions as His body, owns them as His modes, exists in the form of the world in its condition as cause as well as in its condition as effect. Accordingly, with the object of making this very thing known, some scriptural passages say that the world in its condition as cause and also in its condition as effect is He Himself. They are those which begin with “Existence alone, my dear child, this was in the beginning, one only without a second. It thought-‘May I become manifold and be born.’ It created tejas.” [Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 3.],-and (end with)

247. Vide supra. p. 194. n. 184.

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

229

“All these things which are born, my dear one, have their origin in the sat (i. e. in the Existent One), have their abode in the sat, and are established in the sat….All this has That (Brahman) for its Self. That (Brahman) is existence. He is the Self. That thou art, O Svetaketu.” [Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 4, 6 & 7.]. To this effect, there is, among others, the following scriptural passage which begins with " He willed-May I become manifold and be born.’ He perfor-

med tapas. Having performed tapas, He created all this”; and concludes with “While being the unchangeable individual self (satya) and the changeable matter (anrita) He has remained true to His own nature.” [Taitt. Up. II. 6. 1.].

That distinction in nature which exists between the intelligent and the non-intelligent things (on the one hand), and the Highest Person (on the other hand), and which is learnt from other scriptural passages as well, is brought to mind here also, (i. e. in the following passage)" Entering into these three deities248 along with this individual self which is (also) the same as Myself, I evolve the differentiations of name and form."-[Chhand. Up. VI. 3. 2.], and also in the passage-" Having creat- ed that, He entered into that same (world). Having entered into that (world), He became the sat and the tyat………He became the intelligent thing and the non- intelligent thing. While thus being the unchangeable individual self and the changeable matter, He has re- mained true to His own nature." [Taitt. Up. II. 6. 1.]. The idea that the individual soul has the Brah- man for its Self, as made out from the expression-

‘Entering along with this individual self which is (also)

((

248. These are the elements tejas, water and earth. They are called deities because they are said to be

the very first things created by the presiding Deity of the universe.

230

ŚRI-BHASHYA.

[Chap. I. Part. I.

the same as Myself"-[Chhand. Up. VI. 3. 2.], that is understood to be dependent upon the relation of the soul and the body (existing between the Brahman and the individual self); because that expression has to import the same meaning as this expression-“Having entered into that (world), He became the sat and the tyat, (He became) the intelligent thing and the non-intelligent thing.” [Taitt. Up. II. 6. 1.]. That differentiation of names and forms which is exactly of this very kind is mentioned in this passage also, namely, “Indeed, this was then undiffer- entiated. It has been now differentiated by means of names and forms.” [Brih. Up. I. 4. 7.]. Thus He who

exists in the condition of effect, and who exists in the condition of cause, and who owns the intelligent and the non-intelligent things in their gross and subtle states as His body, He is the Highest Person alone. Therefore, for the reason that the effect is nothing other than the cause (modified), and that, in consequence, the effect becomes known when the cause is known, the desired knowledge of all things as resulting from the knowledge of one thing is possible and very appropriate. In the passage “Enter- ing into these three deities along with this individual self which is (also) the same as Myself, I evolve the differentia- tions of name and form “-all the non-intelligent things are referred to by the expression ’the three deities’; and then the differentiation of names and forms is said to result from the fact of the individual souls, which have Him for their Self, entering into those things. Thus, all significant words signify only that Highest Self who is associated with the individual selves which are themselves associated with non-intelligent matter. Therefore the equating of the word which denotes an effect, with the word which denotes the Highest Self in the condition of cause,

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.]

SRI-BHASHYA.

231

has a real and natural significance. Thus that Brahman, who owns the intelligent and the non-intelligent things in their gross and subtle states as His modes, (He) is Himself the effect and the cause; and accordingly the world has the Brahman for its material cause. The Brahman

Himself forms the material cause of the world, for the reason that that Brahman, who owns the intelligent and the non-intelligent things in their subtle state as His body, constitutes the cause (of all); nevertheless, by virtue of the material cause (of the world) being a composite thing (made up of the individual souls, the prakriti and the Brahman) the non-mixing-up of the natures of the Brah- man and of the intelligent as well as of the non-intelligent things is perfectly possible and appropriate. Thus, for instance, although a variegatedly woven cloth has for its material cause a mixture of white, black and red threads, the association of whiteness, &c., is to be found con- fined only to the region where a particular kind of thread exists; and accordingly, in the condition of effect also, there is no fusion of the colours in all the parts (of the cloth). Similarly, although the world has for its material cause the mixture of the intelligent thing and the non-intelligent thing and the Lord, nevertheless, in its condition as an effect also, there is no fusion of the characteristics of the enjoyer, of the thing enjoyed, and of the controller, &c. These threads which are capable of existing independently, when they are occasionally brought together by the will of man, acquire the character of a cause and (also) the character of an effect. But here (i. e. in the case of the world) there is this much peculiarity, namely, that the intelligent and the non-intelli- gent things existing in all conditions acquire their character of being things, only because they form the modes of the Highest Person through constituting His body, and that

232

SRI-BHASHYA.

[Chap. I. Part. I.

therefore the Highest Person who has those things as His modes is always denoted by all words. The existence of distinctions in nature and their non-mixing-up are both alike here (i. e. in the case of the production of the world) as well as there (i. e. in the case of the production of the variegatedly woven cloth). This being the case, although the Highest Brahman enters into the production of an effect, there being no transformation of His own nature, the immodifiability (of the Highest Brahman) is well est- ablished. The condition of an effect is also very appropriate (in relation to the Brahman), for the reason that He is the Self of the intelligent and the non-intelligent things in their gross state, when they are differentiated by the divi- sions of names and forms. Indeed, to become an effect is nothing other than passing into another condition. The scriptural statements regarding the attributelessness (of the Brahman) are also appropriate because the Highest Per- son is not in association with evil qualities. This scrip- tural passage249 which, in the portion-” He (i. e. the Self) is devoid of sins, is free from old age, free from death, free from sorrow, free from hunger, free from thirst,”- negatives all evil qualities (in relation to the Brahman), and then lays down in the portion–“He (the Self) desires the truth and wills the truth “the auspicious qualities (of the Brahman);-(this scriptural passage) alone settles that the negation of qualities, which is declared elsewhere in the scriptures and is understood to be applicable in a general sense, relates (only) to evil qualities. The statement that 250 the Brahman possesses the nature of intelligence is quite appropriate, because it amounts to say- ing that the true nature of the Brahman who is omnisci-

249. Vide Chhand. Up. VIII. 1. 5. & VIII. 7. 1 & 3.

250. Vide V. P. I. 2. 6. & also Bahvrichopanishad.Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

233

ent and omnipotent, who is opposed to all that is evil, and who is the mine of all auspicious qualities,. is capable of being described only as Intelligence, and that He has the nature of intelligence for the reason that He possesses self- luminousness. The following and other scriptural passages, namely, “He who understands all and who knows all”– [Mund. Up. I. 1. 9.], “His supreme power is revealed, in- deed, as varied and natural and as consisting of knowledge, strength, and action.”-[Svet. Up. VI. 8.], “My dear one, by what means has one to know the knower.”-[Brih. Up. II. 4. 14.], teach that the Brahman is the knower; and this passage,” (The Brahman is) Existence, Knowledge, (Infinity).”-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], and others (teach that the Brahman) has the essential nature of intelligence, because He can be described only as Intelligence, and because also He is self-luminous. In the passages-" He willed- ‘May I become many."-[Taitt. Up. II. 6.1.], “It thought- ‘May I become many.”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 3.], “It is differentiated by means of names and forms.”-[Brih. Up. I. 4. 7.], (it is declared) that the Brahman Himself exists, of His own free will, in various modes by reason of His possessing the wonderful unchangeable things and changeable things as His body; and that, in consequence, the manifold nature of such things, as are opposed to Him and as have not the Brahman for their Self, is unreal. Therefore it is this (unreal manifoldness of things) that is negatived in the following and other passages:- “He, who sees this world as though it were manifold (or varied), obtains death from death. There is nothing here that is many and varied.”-[Brih. Up. IV. 4. 19. & Kath. Up. IV. 10.]; “But where there is duality, as it were, there one sees another; but where to one all this becomes

30

234

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

the Self, there who shall see whom by what, and who shall know which by what ?”-[Brih. Up. II. 4. 14. & IV.5. 15.]. On the contrary, it is not also that manifold modality of the Brahman which is due to His assumption of various names and forms, which is established in scrip- tural passages such as “May I become manifold and be born”-[Taitt. Up. II. 6. 1. & Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 3.],- and in others, and which (again) is due to His own free will, -(it is not this manifold modality) that is negatived. This (manifold modality) is proved to be existent in the com- mencement of even that passage which negatives (mani- foldness) by saying “But where to one all this becomes the Self, &c.” [Brih. Up. II. 4. 14. & IV. 5. 15.]; and (it is also established to be existent) by means of the follow- ing and other passages:-“He who knows all things to be apart from Him, him will all things. abandon.”-[Brih. Up. II. 4. 6. & IV. 5. 7.]; “That which is this Rig-Veda is the breath of Him i. e. of this great Being.” [Sub: Up. II.3.251 Thus there is no contradiction whatsoever in relation to all those scriptural passages which speak of such distinctions in essence and in nature as exist between the intelligent thing (or the individual soul), the non-intelli- gent thing (or prakriti) and the Lord; and (there is no contradiction also) in regard to those scriptural passages which speak of the relation of cause and effect (as exist- ing between the Brahman and the universe) and (also in regard to those which speak) of the identity of the effect with the cause. The relation of the body and the soul exists at all times between the intelligent thing (or the individual soul) and the non-intelligent thing (or prakriti, on the one hand), and the Highest Self (on the

251. Cf. Brih. Up. II. 4. 10.

Adhik. 1. Sul. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

235

other). This is made out by means of the scriptural pass- ages which declare that those things which form the body (of the Lord) acquire, when in the condition of cause, that subtle state which is incapable of being differentiated by means of names and forms, and acquire (again), when in the condition of effect, such a gross state as is capable of that (differentiation by names and forms). Therefore there is to be seen no room whatsoever for maintaining the view252 which imposes ajñāna (or ignorance) on the Brahman. And the view253 which brings about distinctions in the Brahman Himself by means of limiting conditions, and all those other views, which are based upon fallacious reasoning and are contradictory to (the teaching of) all the scriptures, (are also untenable). The intelligent thing (or the individual soul), the non-intelligent thing (or matter), and the Lord, are all proved by means of special scriptural texts to be possessed of independent characteristics; and they are also proved by the scriptures themselves to constitute respectively the modes (of the Brahman) and the possessor of those modes, for the reason that there is (between the intelligent and the non-intelligent things on the one hand and the Lord on the other hand) the relation of the body and the soul. In regard to these, other scriptural pass- ages prove (the consequent) relation of effect and cause, and also prove (the resulting) identity of the effect with the cause. Indeed, there is no contradiction in this. For instance, the mandatory passage,254 which says " (Let him perform) the new-moon sacrifice and the full-moon sacrifice," lays down in one commandment that, on the part of him who is desirous (of Swarga),255 it is obligatory

252. This view is held by the Adwaitins. 253. This is the view of the Bhas- kariyas.

254. Vide Taitt. Samh. 11. 2. 5. 255. Swarga is the celestial world of enjoyments.

236

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

to perform the six sacrifices beginning with the Agneya which have all separately come into existence from the various scriptural passages 256 relating to their origin, and which, nevertheless, have fallen into two groups in accord- ance with the two 257 passages that refer to their grouping.

256. The names of the six sacrifices are Agneya, Agnishomiya, the two Aindras, Aindragna, and Upamsu. The passage relating to the origin of the Agneya sacrifice is given in Tuitt. Samh. 11. 6. 3. 3. to the effect Yadagneyoshtakapalomāvāsyāyām cha paurṇamasyam chichyuto bhavati. This means that the sacrifice known as the Agneya, in which eight clay cups are used for the purpose of making offerings to the god Agni, and which is to be performed on the days of new-moon and full-moon, never fails to be successful in produ- cing the desired results. The pass- age relating to the Agnishomiya sacrifice is as follows:-Tabhyameta- magnishomiyamekādasakapālam pur- namase pravachchhat. Taitt. Samh. 11. 5. 2. 3. That is to say, he, Indra, gave to Agni and Soma, on the full-moon day, that portion of the sacrificial offering which is known as Agnishomiya wherein eleven clay cups are used to make offerings to the deities. The two sacrifices known as the Aindras are mentioned in the passages:-Aindram dadhyamavasyā- yam. Taitt. Samh. II. 5. 4. 1.; Am- dram payomavasyāyām. These incan respectively that the Aindra sacri- fice, consisting in the offering of

curds, is to be performed on the new- moon day, and that the other Aindra sacrifice consisting in the offering of milk is also to be performed on the new-moon day. The sacrifice known as Aindragna is given in Taitt. Samh. II. 5. to the effect that the Aindra- gna sacrifice which consists in the offering of curds in eight clay cups is to be performed on the new- moon day. The Upamsu sacrifice is given in the passage-Tavabrütāvag- nishomāvājyasyaiva nāvupāmsu pur- namasyām vajan. Both Agni and Soma said-" Perform for us on the full-moon day the sacrifice known as Upamsu and consisting in the offer- ing of ghee." All these six passages enjoin in six separate commandments the performance of all the six sacri- fices mentioned above.

257. The performance of all these six sacrifices is again enjoined in two commandments, viz. Ya evam vidvan purnamāsim yajate Ya evam vidvan amatasyam yajate. Taitt, Samh, I. 6. 9, 1 & 2. “He who knows thus performs the full-moon sacri- fice, he who knows thus performs the new-moon sacrifice.” Thus the six sacrifices become reduced, as it

were, to two.

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

237

Similarly, the following and other scriptural passages declare separately that the intelligent thing (viz. the individual self), the non-intelligent thing (viz. matter or prakriti), and the Lord are distinct in essence and in nature :–“The destruct- ible is the prakriti, the immortal and the indestructible is the hara (i. e. the individual self), and the Lord alone rules over the destructible (prakriti) and the individual self.”- [Svet. Up. I. 10.]; “He is the Lord of the prakriti and of the individual souls, and is the regulator of the qualities.” 25 8 [Svet. Up. VI. 16.]; “He is the Lord of the world, the Lord of the individual souls. The Highest Self is Nārā- yana.” [M. Nar. XI. 3.]. Then the following and other scriptural passages declare that the intelligent thing and the non-intelligent thing, existing in all conditions, form the body of the Highest Self and that that Highest Self constitutes the Self of those things:-"(He) whose body is the earth," [Sub. Up. VII. 1.]; “(He) whose body is the individual self,” [Madh. Brih. Up. III. 7. 22.]; “(He) whose body is the avyakta,…whose body is the akshara,259……He is the internal Self of all beings; He is devoid of all sins, He is the Divine Lord, He is the one Nārāyaṇa.”-[Sub. Up. VII. 1.]. Then again the following and other scriptur- al passages-“Existence (or Sat) alone, my dear child, this was in the beginning”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 1.]; “All this has that (Brahman) for its Self (or Atman).”- [Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 7.]; “All this, indeed, is the Brah- man.”-[Chhand. Up. III. 14. 1.];-declare, by means of words like Sat, Brahman, Atman, &c., which denote the Highest Self who is the Embodied Being, that the Highest

258. The ‘qualities’ are the well known three qualities of Sattva, good- ness, Rajas, passion, and Tamas,

darkness.

259. Vide supra p. 194. n. 185.238

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. 1.

Self who is one only, who is in the condition of cause, and who is also in the condition of effect, is Himself all the three200 (kinds of real) entities which are separately made out. There is, indeed, nothing wrong in denoting that Highest Self, who owns the intelligent and the non-intelli- gent things as His body, by the word Paramatman; in the same way in which (there is nothing wrong) in denoting a particular individual self, that has the figure of man for his body, by the word atman, as when it is said (in relation to a man)—“This individual self is happy." Therefore let this overlong discussion come to an end.

Again what has been further stated201 (by the Purvapak- shins) to the effect that it is right to hold that the cessation of ignorance (or avidya) takes place solely by means of the knowledge of the oneness of the self and the Brahman, -that is not right; because the bondage (of ignorance) is real and is thus incapable of being removed by knowledge. How is it possible to predicate unreality in relation to this bondage which consists in the (individual self) entering into bodies such as those of gods, &c., owing to its meritorious and unmeritorious karmas and is of the nature of the ex- perience of the pleasures and pains that arise out of that (embodiment)? It has been already 262 explained that the cessation of the bondage which is of this nature is attain- able by that grace of the Highest Person which is conse- quent on His being pleased with the worship that is offer- ed in the form of loving devotion (by the worshipper). As that knowledge, which is accepted by you, and (ac- cording to you), relates to what is different from things as

261. Vide supra pp. 32 & 33.. 262, Vide supra pp. 20, 21 & 22.

260. These are:-the Prakriti or matter, the individual self, and the Supreme Self.

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA,

239

they are, is of an unreal nature, the consequence (thereof) is only the intensification of the bondage; because the sastra 203 says “It is false, because an object which is different from another cannot, indeed, acquire the character of that other object."-and because also, in the following passages” Different from these is the Highest Per- son."–[B. G. XV. 17.]; “Knowing the individual self and the Impeller to be different”-[Svet. Up. I. 6.],-it is taught that the knowledge relating to the Brahman, who is different from the individual self, and who is the internal ruler thereof, is the means

means of obtaining the final release which possesses the characteristics of the highest object of human pursuit. Moreover, that know- ledge which is capable of removing (ignorance or avidya), and which is accepted by you, is itself unreal. Therefore, (to remove it), some other remover has to be sought and found. If it be said that this knowledge, which removes (ignorance or avidya), removes that whole totality of distinctions which is opposed to itself, and then, being itself momentary, perishes of itself, it is replied that it is not so. As its essence, its origin and destruction are all false, some other (knowledge), which is capable of removing that avidya (or ignorance) by which (its) destruction and the hypothesis in relation to it are (both) falsely assumed, has to be sought and found. If it be said (again) that the destruction264 of that (knowledge which removes avidya) is nothing other than the manifestation of the true nature of the Brahman Himself, it is replied that, in that case, there

263. Vide supra p. 148. where this stanza is quoted as follow’s “If it be held that the identity of the Highest Self with the individual self is the highest truth, it is false, be- cause an object which is differ-

ent from another cannot, indeed, ac- quire the character of that other ob- ject.” V. P. II. 14. 27.

264. This is the non-existence consequent on the destruction of a thing. Vide supra p. 49. n. 37.

240

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

will be no origination of that knowledge which removes (ignorance or avidya); for, as long as what constitutes the destruction of a thing continues in existence, so long there is no possibility of the origination of that thing. Moreover, it is asked who it is that is the knower of this knowledge, which relates to the negation of all that is different from the Brahman, who is Himself pure intelligence. If it be replied that that (knower) is merely a superimposition, then it is replied that it cannot be so; because that (knower) forms the object of the knowledge which is calculated to remove (avidya), and consequently deserves to be negated; thus there is no possibility of that (knower) being (also) the agent (in the removal of ignorance by means) of that (knowledge which is calculated to remove ignorance). If it be said (again) that that (knower) is of the nature of the Brahman Himself, it is asked whether the knowership of the Brahman is, so far as it relates to that knowledge which removes (ignorance), natural or superimposed. If superimposed, then this (superimposition) and the other avidya on which that (superimposition) is based cannot form the objects of that knowledge which is calculated to remove ignorance; and therefore it (viz. this superimposed knowership) certainly continues to persist. If some other knowledge that is calculated to remove (ignorance or avidya) be admitted, then, since that (knowledge) also is subject to the three- fold differentiation (of the knower, the thing known,and the knowledge), there would result a regressus in infinitum 265

265. Because this knowledge that is calculated to remove the avidya or ignorance, which superimposes knower-ship, is itself based upon another avidya; and so, another know-

ledge has to be assumed to remove it, and again another to remove each such knowledge so assumed in succession, Thus there will result an infinite series leading to no end.

Adhik. I. Sut. I.] SRI-BHASHYA.

241

in relation to the knower. If this (knowership) be- longs, by nature, to the Brahman Himself, then our view must find acceptance (with you). The statement, that the knowledge which removes (ignorance or avidya) and the knower of that (knowledge) are (both) different from the Brahman, and are therefore included among those things that deserve to be removed by that (knowledge) itself, is as ludicrous as the statement which makes out that, in saying that Devadatta has cut off all that is above the surface of the earth, the cutter and the process of cutting relating to this very same cutting action (of Devadatta) are also to be included among the things cut off (by Devadatta). That knower who is superimposed cannot himself become the agent in the act of producing the knowledge which is cal- culated to remove (ignorance or avidya), and which (again) forms the cause of his own destruction; because one’s own destruction is not an object of human pursuit. If, more- over, the destruction of that (superimposed knowership) is admitted to be the same as the (manifestation of the) true nature of the Brahman, then, there will be no room at all for the assumption of the avidya and the other such things and (also for the assumption) of the perception of distinc- tions as consequent thereon. Therefore, let us have done with this (criticism); it amounts to beating with a club him who has been already killed by fate.

Therefore, as the bondage (of samsara) is based upon that ajñana (or ignorance) which is of the nature of a stream of beginningless karma, the destruction of that (ajñāna) results only from that knowledge2 which possess- es the characteristics already mentioned (by us).

266. Vide supra pp. 17 to 22.

31

The

242

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

production of that (knowledge) is the result of the per- formance of those duties which are appropriate to the various stages and conditions of life, and are characterised by the (spiritual) refinement due to that peculiar know- ledge of the real nature of the individual self, which mani- fests itself in the form of the daily practised worship of the Highest Person.

This being so, mere (ritualistic) works yield (only) small and transitory results. On the other hand, such works as constitute the worship of the Highest Person, and are performed without attachment to results, yield an infi- nite and ever enduring result in the form of that experience of the real nature of the Brahman which is caused by the origination of the knowledge which is the same as steady meditation (or worship). Both (these) cannot become known without a knowledge of the true nature of works. (Without such knowledge), there can be no rejection of (mere ritualistic) works as they ordinarily are, and no subsequent adoption of them in the form pointed out above. Therefore, for this very reason, the enquiry into the Brahman has necessarily to be conducted immediately after the enquiry into works; and hence it has been stated (by the Sutra- kāra)–“Then therefore, &c.” [Ved. Sut. I. 1. 1.].267

Under these circumstances, another purvapakshin 268 may hold the following opinion :-

It is not possible to determine the power of a word to signify a meaning, except by means of the use it is put to

267. This sutra is in full as follows:- ‘Then therefore the enquiry into the Brahman,"

268. These Purvapakshins are the Mimämsakas known as the Prabhā- karas. Vide supra p. 41. n. 34.Adhik. 1. Süt. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

243

by such (speakers and responsive listeners) as are well ac- quainted with the significations of words. And accordingly, the true signification of a word is only to denote an action; because it is with the object of denoting actions that words are actually made use of. Consequently the import of the Vedas is merely in the form of actions. Therefore, the Vedanta is not capable of occupying the position of autho- rity in relation to the Highest Brahman whose meaning is already established (otherwise than as an inference from actions).

Moreover, in regard to those sentences which relate to things that have an already established signification, as when they speak of the birth of a son269 and other such happy incidents, it is not possible to determine that, through the joyous expansion of the face resulting from the attain- ment of a desired object, and through other such indi- cations (alone), they (viz. those sentences) form the means of importing a special meaning; because the things which are productive of joy are existent in all the three (different) times (viz. past, present, and future), and are (indeed) end- less in number; and because also (in the present case of the birth of a son) there is the possibility of its association with other joy-giving things such as an auspicious and lucky moment (of birth), an easy and happy delivery, and

so on.

Further,270 that a word has the power of denoting a thing which has an already established import,-(this) it is not possible to determine by means of the fact that the meanings of ununderstood words and terminations are

269. The Mimamsakas mentioned above criticise thus this example of the birth of a son, which is cited by the Bhattas or the followers of Kumarila-

Bhatta.

270. Here again, the same Mimam- sakas criticise this example cited by the Naiyyayikas.

244

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. 1. Part. I.

made out either by ascertaining their etymological signific- ance, or by ascertaining the meaning of the other (re- lated) words (in a sentence); because that (ascertainment of the etymological significance of ununderstood words and terminations, as well as that ascertainment of the meaning of the other words), relates to a number of words known to denote actions, and is (therefore) the same as determin- ing a particular variety of those (actions).

And again,271 it cannot be maintained that, in the case of the person who is afraid of an (illusorily perceived) serpent, the fear of the serpent is seen to disappear immedi- ately after he hears the words “This is no serpent, this is a rope’, and that therefore this (statement ‘This is no serpent, this is a rope’) forms the means of knowing the absence of the (illusorily perceived) serpent; because, in this case also there are many causes for the cessation of the fear, such as those which give rise to the knowledge that this thing (viz. the illusorily perceived serpent) is devoid of motion, devoid of poison, is inanimate, and so on; and it is not thus pos- sible (for that statement alone) to produce this special con- viction in particular (viz. that the illusorily perceived ser- pent is a mere rope).

It may again be said as follows:-272 On the strength of the universal concomitance of volition with voluntary activity, it is made out that words give rise to that know- ledge which induces volitional activity. Thus every word relates to an action, and so all the words (in a sentence) denote only a conjointly determined action. Consequently, it is not possible to conclude with certainty that the signi- ficant power of a word consists only in denoting its own

271. The example which is cited by the Adwaitins is here criticised by the Mimämsakas above mentioned.

272. The very same Mimamsakas

here cite and criticise the position of Vachaspati who is, in all probability, the Mimamsaka known as Vāchas- pati Misra.

Adhik. I. Süt. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

245

meaning in association with that of the other (words in the sentence). The desire to accomplish one’s own wishes forms the cause of voluntary activity through giving rise to voli- tion, but not by itself; for, (otherwise), there would be no possibility of voluntary activity in regard to the desire to accomplish such wishes as relate to the past, to the future and (even) to the present. For, as long as the belief which is to the effect-“Without my own effort, it is not possible for me to accomplish the fulfilment of my desires; there- fore it has to be accomplished by my own actions”-is not produced in one, so long one does not put forth voluntary activity. Consequently, volition alone is the cause of vol- untary activity. And accordingly, that which induces voluntary activity is itself the thing which is expressed by words; therefore action alone constitutes the thing that is to be learnt from the Vedas. Thus indeed there can be no acquisition of the infinite and eternal results which are of the nature of the attainment of the Brahman (whose significance is) already naturally established; and it is declared in the following passage among others, namely, “Those meritorious results of works which accrue to him who performs the chaturmasya 273 sacrifice are indeed indestructible.”–[Ap. Sr. VIII. 1. 1.], that works alone are capable of producing permanent results; for all

273. Chaturmasya is the name given to three seasonal or four-month- ly sacrifices which are performed at the Parvans or commencement of the three seasons, the spring, the rainy season and the autumn. These sacri- fices are:-(1) The Vaisvadeva which is generally performed on the full- moon of Phalguna, (2) the Varunapra- ghasa which is performed on the full-

moon of Ashadha,(3) and the Sakame- dha which is performed on that same day of Kartika. The sacrifice known as the Sunasiriya is considered by some to be a fourth Chaturmasya, but the exact time of its performance is not known. All these sacrifices belong to the larger subdivision call- ed Haviryajña. Vide Sat. Br. II,

5.

246

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

these reasons it is improper to undertake that enquiry into the Brahman which gives rise to the knowledge of the inconsiderable and impermanent character of the fruits of works, (and gives rise also to the knowledge) of the infinite and ever enduring character of the fruits that result from ‘knowing’ the Brahman.

To all this, the following is the reply:-Those who are guided by the accepted criteria of truth do not highly value that opinion according to which that manner of ap- prehending the relation between words and their meanings, which is known all the world over, is discarded, so as to give rise to the belief that words have the power of pro- ducing the knowledge of only such significations as are not commonly current in the world. Indeed, children under- stand the relation between words and their meanings in the following manner. Mothers, fathers, and others frequent- ly indicate with (their) fingers (to children their) mamas, papas, maternal uncles and others, as well as the moon, (domesticated) animals, men, beasts, birds, serpents, &c., with the object of telling (the children that they should) know a particular person (to be such and such), and know a particular thing (to be such and such); then, by means of the particular words used, they (viz. the children) largely learn those particular meanings; and then they perceive that the knowledge which associates every one of those particular words with their particular meanings very gradually arises in themselves. Afterwards they come to the conclusion that the use of those words with those significations forms the foundation-principle according to which words acquire their character of being signific- ant; because no other relation is seen to exist between words and their meanings, and because also there is no

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

247

knowledge of any person who fixes by convention (the relation between words and their meanings). And when, in regard to words other than those the meanings of which are already known, they (i. e. the childern) are, in addition, taught by speakers (who are well acquainted with the meanings of words) that a particular word has a particular meaning, only then do they come to know the meanings of all the words; and afterwards, for the purpose of imparting their ideas to others, they make use of a number of sentences which give expression to those ideas.

In another way also it is very easy to understand the relation between words and their meanings. (For instance), a certain person, by means of the movements of his hands. and other gesticulations asks another to go and tell Devadatta that his father is doing well. Then this (other) person, when engaged in so informing (Devadatta) makes use of the words “Your father is doing well.” A (third) person who is standing near and is desirous of learning the meanings of words, and who, like a dumb man, is well conversant with the details of gesticulation, learns that this person is called upon so to inform (Devadatta), follows (him), and then listens to the words which are made use of in giving that information; and at last he thus arrives at the conclusion that a particular word signifies a particular meaning. Therefore the rule that the meaning of words is only to denote actions is not binding. Accordingly, the Vedanta signifies the Highest Brahman (the import of the words signifying whom is) naturally established, and (it) also (signifies) that worship which relates to Him and yields unlimited results. Consequently, that enquiry about the Brahman, the aim of which is to find out that (Brahman and that worship relating to Him), has necessarily to be248

conducted.

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

Even if the Vedas are denotative of actions, the en- quiry into the Brahman has indeed necessarily to be conducted. How is that? Because they (viz. the Vedas) yield results which flow from the actions that relate to such worship as is taught in the following and other scrip- tural passages:-“Verily, my dear one, the Self has to be seen, has to be heard, has to be reflected upon, has to be steadily meditated upon.”-[Brih. Up. IV. 5. 6.]; “He has to be sought after, He has to be specially desired and known.”-[Chhand. Up. VIII. 7. 1.]; “Having discovered Him, let him practise knowledge.”-[Brih. Up. IV. 4. 21.]; “There is in it the small etherial space. What exists with- in that (small etherial space), that has to be sought after, that has to be well understood.”-[Chhand. Up. VIII. 1. 1.]; “There also is the blissful small etherial space. What- ever is within it, that has to be meditated upon.” -[M. När. X. 7.]: and because also, it is declared in the following scriptural passage-” He who knows the Brah- man attains the Highest."-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], as well as in other similar scriptural passages, that the Brahman is attained as a consequence (of those results of worship). Therefore the true nature of the Brahman and His attri- butes are made out only as being helpful to actions, in the same way in which (the knowledge of the nature of the thing to be attained is helpful to action) in the analogous case of Swarga,274 which is in itself a particular place of

274. The Vedas give the in- junction-“He, who desires to attain Swarga, shall perform the Jyotishtoma sacrifice”; and the statement given elsewhere describing the nature of Swarga as that world “in which there is no heat, no cold and no dis-

agreeableness” is helpful in producing the desire for the attainment of Swar- ga and is, in consequence, helpful in causing the performance of the Jyotish- toma sacrifice in obedience to the in- junction relating to it.

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

249

such pleasure as is unmixed with pain, and also in other similar cases; (it is found to be so helpful) in the case of the pre-eminence 27 which is to be derived from the per- formance of the nocturnal satras276 and (also) in the case of that relation of cause and effect which exists between the reviling and beating277 (of the Brahmanas) and the fine of a hundred gold coins (prescribed therefor).

Even in sentences like “Bring the ox”, the signific- ance of words does not relate to actions, because the ‘action’ thought of by you is difficult of definition. Indeed, your ‘action’ comes into existence after the volition (in relation to it), and is (simply)that which is aimed at by that volition. To be that, which is aimed at by volition, is to be the object of volition. And to be the object 278of volition is to be that which (that) volition most desires to attain. And that which is most desired to be attained is pleasure, or the avoidance of existing pain by its means.

275. Again, the Vedas give, in one place, the injunction-" He shall perform the nocturnal sacrifices." Elsewhere, the result of the perfor- mance of nocturnal sacrifices is stat-

ed to be the attainment of eminence, as, for instance, in the passage- “Those, indeed, who perform these nocturnal sacrifices, they attain emi- nence.” This passage is helpful to action in as much as it stimulates the

desire to attain eminence, and thus leads to the performance of those noc- turnal sacrifices. Vide Pur, Mim. IV.

3. 17 to 19.

276. A Satra is a long sacrifice or sacrificial session lasting, accord- ing to some, from 13 to 100 days. Satras of many years’ duration are

32

This being so, if

also mentioned in Vedic literature.

277. And again, the Vedas prohi- bit the reviling and the beating of a Brāhmaṇa by means of the injunction- “Therefore, let him not revile and beat a Brahmana.” Taitt. Samh. II. 6. 10. 2. The effect of violating this injunction is given in the following passage :-" He who reviles and beats (a Brahmana), let him be punish- ed by the fine of a hundred gold coins." Taitt. Samh. 11. 6. 10. 2. This passage mentions the result flowing from disobeying the injunc- tion, and thus is helpful in producing the desire to act in accordance with the above prohibition.

278. Vide Panini 1. 4. 49., for this definition of karma or object.

250

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

a person, who desires to have pleasure, &c., perceives that these things cannot be acquired without any effort on his own part, then, that person is seen to act voluntarily like one who is desirous of putting forth effort. Thus, regarding that which is the object of desire, it is nowhere seen that to possess the characteristics of the thing aimed at by volition is anything other than to have its (own) ac-, complishment dependent on (that) volition. And an object of desire possesses the character of what stimulates (the accomplishment of that desire), only in so far as the accomplishment (of that object of desire) is dependent upon effort; because (all) activity proceeds only from this (dependence of accomplishment on effort).

Moreover, to be aimed at by volition is not to be that which is agreeable to men; because pleasure itself (which is no action) is that which is agreeable to men. Further, the cessation of pain does not possess the (positive) character of being what is agreeable to men. Indeed, the discrimination between the true nature of pleasure and pain is to the effect that what is agreeable to men is pleasure, and that what is disagreeable to them is pain. Pain is that which is disagreeable; and hence, its cessation becomes a desirable thing, but not because that (cessation) is (in a positive way) agreeable. Indeed, the existence of a thing in accordance with its own true nature, in a condition which is free from the association of what is agreeable as well as of what is disagreeable, constitutes the cessation of pain. Therefore action and (all) other similar things, which are different from pleasure, cannot possess the character of what is agreeable. Moreover, it (viz. action) also cannot be what is agreeable, even on account of its aiming at pleasure; because it is itself of the nature of pain. Even when it aims at pleasure, there is only the mere

Adhik. I. Süt. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

251

desire to appropriate that (pleasure). Further, to be what is aimed at by volition is not to be that prin- cipal thing which has (that) volition subordinate to itself; because, on your side, the character of being (such) a principal thing has not been defined. And since the character of being so subordinate (to a principal thing) is the same as to be capable of being invariably influenced by the volition which is set in motion in obedience to the purposes of another, it is not thereby made out that the character of being (such) a prin- cipal thing is to be that which is oppositely correlated to that (subordinate thing). For, if it were so, the volition would not possess the character of what is so subordinate; and that which is to be accomplished by it would not, in consequence, have the character of a principal thing. And again, for the reason that the character of being a subordi- nate thing is (simply) to be capable of producing that prac- tical activity which is intended to serve the purposes of another, it cannot be said that that another forms the princi- pal thing; because the character of being what is aimed at (by volition) is all that is to be defined (here), and because also the master too is seen to be capable of producing the activity which is intended to serve the purposes of the ser- vant. But if it be said that the master, in accordance with his own desire,puts forth voluntary activity even in the mat- ter of feeding the servant, it is replied that this is not right; because the servant also, out of his own desire, puts forth voluntary activity in the matter of feeding the master. Thus the true nature of ‘action’ itself has not been defined; and it is improper (to hold) that what is correlated to ‘action’, (as the thing to be accomplished by it), is the sub- ordinate thing, and that what is correlated to this (subor-1 dinate thing as the owner thereof) is the principal thing.

252

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

Also, to be what is aimed at by volition is not the same as to constitute the utility of volition. The utility of the volition of a person is indeed nothing other than that utility which leads to the origination of his volition; and he is himself actuated by desire. Therefore, the thing aimed at by volition has not been definitely shown to be other than the thing desired. Consequently, it is cer- tainly difficult to demonstrate that ‘action’ consists in being that which is accomplished by volition as well as in being the principal object of volition.

Moreover, a commandment also is different from pleasure and the cessation of pain, both of which are immediate objects of desire; therefore its desirability and the possibility of its being accomplished by volition are both due wholly to its forming a means of attaining those (objects of desire which are in the form of pleasure and the cessation of pain). It is for this very reason that it (viz. the command- ment) is other than the verb (denoting action). Otherwise, (the action denoted by) the verb itself would form the object to be accomplished. The object of accomplishment ex- pressed by the lin279 and other verbal forms, in harmony with their use along with the word swargakama (in the Vedic commandment Jyotishṭomena swargakāmo yajeta), is nothing other than the attainment of Swarga; therefore the object of accomplishment here is that new and invisi- ble something itself (known as apurva),280 which is other than the ephemeral action (of sacrificing), and which causes the enduring attainment of Swarga. Accordingly, the import of this new and invisible something (apūrva)has indeed to be made out by imagining it to be the means of attaining Swarga. Thus it is said here that that object

279. Vide supra p. 41. n. 35. 280. Vide supra p. 41. n. 36.Adhik. 1. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

253

which is to be accomplished is, at first, arrived at independ- ently of all other things; and then, for the purpose of up- holding this independent character (of that object of accomplishment), it is said that it is only the apurva which later on becomes the means of causing the attainment of Swarga. Surely this is ludicrous; because that word (viz. yajeta) which denotes, while in association with the. word swargakama, the object of accomplishment, cannot at first denote the independent character (of that object of accomplishment); and because also that independent thing,. which is different from pleasure, from the cessation of pain, and from the means of attaining them, is not seen to be capable of being accomplished by means of volition.

And again, what is this usefulness of the command- ment? If it be said that, like pleasure, commandment (also) possesses the character of being agreeable, (it is asked) whether commandment constitutes pleasure; for pleasure alone is what is agreeable. If it be said (again) that, like some particular kind of pleasure or other, it is also a peculiar pleasure that is synonymous with commandment, it has to be explained what means of proof there is to establish this. If it be said that one’s own experience is the means of proof, it is seen not to be so; because even you do not experience in any definite manner any pleasure arising out of the experience of a commandment, in the same way in which (you experience) the pleasure arising out of the experience of (pleasurable) external objects. If it be said that a commandment is declared by an autho- ritative regulation to be an object of human pursuit, and that it is, therefore, carried into effect subsequently, it is asked what that authoritative regulation is which says that a commandment is an object of human pursuit. It is not the (law-imposing) voice of the people;

254

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

because that (voice of the people which imposes a commandment) relates to work which is identical with pain; and because also it merely declares (the com- mandment) to be worthy of being carried into effect by volition, only in so far as it forms a means for the attain- ment of pleasure and other such things. Nor is it the voice of the Vedas, for that also enjoins the duty to be per- formed only as a means for the attainment of Swarga and other such things. It is neither the daily obligatory nor the occasionally obligatory injunction (of the Smritis); be- cause that also possesses its power of importing it (i. e. a commandment), only through the knowledge of (that) new and invisible something (or apurva) which is found in the sentence 281 containing (the word) swargakama. Therefore, as now stated, it is unavoidable that that (injunction of the Smritis) also implies the performance of works, (only) for the attainment of pleasure and other such things. Those works, the results of which are systematically temporal, bear fruit, as soon as they are performed, in the form of plenty of food, healthiness, and such other things which are enjoyed then (and there); and consequently there is no knowledge of the experience of that pleasure which in contradistinction to them has the nature of (the working out of) a commandment. Thus we have no means whatsoever to prove that a commandment is a pleasure.

Even in the explanatory and eulogistic allegories and fables found in the Vedas, 282you do not generally see the

281. This sentence is-Jyotish- tomena swargakāmo yajela.

282. The ‘Veda consists, according to the opinion of the Mimamsakas, of three parts, viz. Mantras, Vidhis and Arthavadas. Mantras are sacred hymns

and prayers, &c. Vidhis are injunctions i. e. rules laying down the performance of particular rites. Arthavaas are explanatory remarks on the meaning of Mantras and the purpose of rites, and consist of Ninda or censure 2. e

Adhik. I. Sut. 1.] SRI-BHASHYA.

255

description of the various modes of that pleasure which has the nature of a commandment, in the same way in which (you there see) the description of the various modes of the pleasure which relates to Swarga and such other things. cluded that, even in

Therefore, it is finally con- those passages which give out only injunctions, the lin and the other inflectional forms of the verb denote, as established by the science of grammar itself, the fact that the meaning of a root relates to nothing other than what is to be accomplished by the activity of the agent. Under the aphorism-" From Him (comes) the fruit (of our works), because (such a thing) is appropriate."-[Ved. Sut. III. 2. 37.], it will be est- ablished that sacrifices and other such things, which are denoted by the verbal roots (used in scriptural command- ments), possess the character of constituting the worship of the Highest Person who is the internal ruler of gods like Agni (Fire), &c.; and that the accomplishment of the re- sults aimed at (by such works) comes from that Highest Person (who is so) worshipped.

Therefore it is conclusively proved that the Vedanta teaches the Highest Brahman (the import of the words denoting whom is) naturally established. Accordingly, the endlessness and the eternity of the fruits resulting from

controversial remarks; Samsa i. e. eulogium or ‘recommendation’; Pura- kalpa or the account of sacrificial rites in former times; Parakriti i. e. the achievement or the feat of another. This last comprises the stories about certain performances of renowned Srotriyas or sacrificial priests, about gifts presented by kings to Brah-

maņas, &c. Under the head of Purakalpa come the numerous stories of the fight between the Devas and the Asuras, as also the legends con- cerning the sacrifices performed by the gods. Thus Arthavada includes all the explanatory and eulogistic allegories, fables, &c,

256

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

the worship of the Brahman are also proved. In the case of the chiturmasya283 sacrifice and other such (ritualistic) works also, it is taught that mere works yield unenduring re- sults; and therefore it has to be understood that the teach- ing regarding (their) indestructible results is meant to be indicative of (their) relative superiority, as in the follow- ing among other passages where the scripture says,- “This vayu (air) and (this) antariksha (ether) are immor- tal.” [Brih. Up. II. 3. 3.].284 Thus, mere works yield inconsiderable and unenduring results, and the knowledge of the Brahman yields infinite and ever enduring results. Consequently, it is maintained that it is proper to com- mence that enquiry into the Brahman the fruit of which is the determination of that (knowledge of the Brahman).

283. Vide supra p. 245. n. 273 : 284. The idea intended to be con- veyed here is this :-There are expli- cit statements in the scriptures to the effect that the results derived from the performance of ritualistic works are impermanent. This gene- ral proposition allows no room for exceptions, and the Chaturmasya sacrifice is no exception to the rule. Therefore the statement that it yields permanent results can only mean that

1.

its results last longer than those of any other kind of ‘work’. Similarly, the immortality of air and ether implies that they are less mortal than other things. For the general state- ment regarding the impermanence of the results of ‘works’,-vide Chhand. Up. VIII. 1. 6., where it is said- “Just as the world obtained by works perishes here, so also, there, the world obtained by merit perishes.”

Adhik. II. Süt. 2.] SRI-BHASHYA.

ADHIKARANA. II.

Janmadyadhikarana.

257

To point out what that Brahman really is which is stated to be the object of the enquiry here, he (the Sutra- kāra) says-

Sutra 2. Janmadyasya yatah.

(The Brahman is that) from whom (proceed) the creation, &c., of this (universe).

The word janmādi means creation, preservation, and destruction. The attributive compound 285 (here) denotes that (collection of things) which is characterised (as having ‘creation’ at its beginning). The word asya. denotes the world which is constituted in an unthinkably varied and wonderful fashion, and which is mixed up with (all) the individual souls, beginning with Brahma and ending with a clump of grass, each of which has its own particularly assigned enjoyment of the fruits (of karmas) limited to particular times and places. The word yataḥ denotes that that Highest Person who is the Lord of all, who possesses a nature which is hostile to all that is evil, who wills the truth, who possesses innumerable auspicious qualities, such as knowledge, bliss, &c., who is omniscient, omnipotent, and merciful in the highest degree, and from whom proceed creation, preservation, and destruction,- (it denotes that that Highest Person) is the Brahman. This is the meaning of this sutra.

There is the scriptural passage which begins with “The celebrated Bhrigu, son of Varuna,- approached his father, saying ‘Reverend sir, teach me the Brahman”,-and con-

285. Vide Patanjali’s Maha-Bhashya on Panini 1. 1. 27; II. 2. 24; VI. 1. 1.-

33258

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

cludes with “From whom all these beings are born, by whom, when born, they are all preserved, and to whom they go when they perish, do thou desire to know that well; that is the Brahman.” [Taitt. Up. III. 1. 1.]. Here there arises the doubt whether or not it is possible to know the Brahman definitely by means of this passage. It is perhaps held that it is not possible. The words creation, &c., do not, indeed, define the Brahman by constituting His charac- terising attributes; for, (if they did), there would result the predication of non-unity in relation to the Brahman, in consequence of His being characterised by many attributes. Indeed to be the characterising attribute (of a thing) is to be that which distinguishes it (from other things). It may be urged that in the instance,-“Devadatta is brown, youth- ful, red-eyed, and symmetrical in form”, there is seen only one Devadatta, although there are many characterising attributes (in relation to him); and that, similarly, in the case here also there is only one Brahman. It can not be so. In that case, all the characterising attributes meet in only one individual, because the oneness (which relates to Devadatta) is made out through other means of proof. Otherwise, even in that case, the predication of non-unity would be unavoidable on account of this distinguishing character (of those attributes). But here, (in the case under discussion), it is intended to define the Brahman by means of this same (collectively given) attribute (of creation, &c.,); accordingly, that predication of plurality in relation to the Brahman, which results from a variety of distinguishing attributes, is unavoidable for the reason that the oneness of the Brahman is not made out by other means of proof. . If it be said that that oneness is made out here also, because the word Brahman (in the scriptural passage under discussion) is only one, it is replied that it cannot be so

Adhik. II. Sut. 2.] SRI-BHASHYA.

259

made out. If, to a person who does not know any indivi- dual ox, and who is desirous to know (the ox), it is given out “An ox is that which is broken-horned, hornless and fully horned”, there will then be the apprehension (by him) of a plurality of individual oxen, owing to there being a variety of distinguishing attributes, such as the posses- sion of broken horns and so on, although the word ox is used only once; accordingly, there must be many indivi- dual Brahmans. For this very reason it is not possible for these characteristics (of creation, &c.,) to constitute even collectively the definition of the thing which it is intended to define. Nor can (these attributes of creation, &c.,) point out (the Brahman) by constituting (His) accidental characteristics, because there is no apprehension (of the Brahman) in any other form. Indeed, all acci- dental characteristics are seen to be the means of appre- hending, under a different form, a thing already known in some one particular form; as in the following among other instances, namely, “Where there is that crane, that is Devadatta’s field.” And it may be said that the creation, &c., of the world form accidental characterisations in rela- tion to Him who has already been made out by means of (the passage) “The Brahman is Existence, Knowledge, Infinity.” [Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.]. But it is not right, for the reason that, in relation to these two passages which define the Brahman, there results the fallacy of reciprocal depend- ence; in as much as the form (of the thing to be defined) denoted by either (of those passages) is dependent upon that which is denoted by the other. Therefore it is not possible to know the Brahman by means of any definition.

To this it is said in reply as follows:-It is possible to know the Brahman by means of the creation, preserv

260

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

ation, and destruction of the world, which (together) constitute (His) accidental characteristics. Moreover, there can be (here) no non-apprehension of the Brahman due to the non-apprehension of a form (in relation to Him), other than the form which is characterised by these accidental characteristics. Indeed, that which is charac- terised (here) by means of accidental characteristics is Greatness unsurpassed in excellence; and it is Growth also, because the root286 brih (to grow) is capable of that meaning. And the creation, preservation, and destruction of the world constitute the accidental characteristics of that (Brahman thus made out to be Greatness and Growth). By the expressions-from whom’, ‘by whom’ and ‘(to) whom’, the cause of the creation, &c., (of the world) is pointed out (in this passage) as though it is a well known thing; and it is, accordingly, restated here in conformity with that well known knowledge. And the fact of (that cause) being thus well known is due to the only one thing, which is expressed by the word ‘Existence’ (or sat), forming the instrumental and the material cause (of the world), as it is given in the passage-“Existence alone, my dear child, this was in the beginning, one only, without a second…….It thought-May I become many and be born’. It created tejas.” [Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 1 & 3.]. And this (fact of the Brahman forming the instrumental and the material cause of the world) results thus from the statement that this ‘Existence’ was one only in the beginning, there is the predication of the character of a material cause (in relation to that only one thing); and from the expression without a second’, there is the negation of any other presiding deity; and

286. See Ath. Up. 4. & also V. P. III. 3. 22.

.

Adhik. 11. Sat. 2.] SRI-BHASHYA.

261

again from the statement-“It thought, ‘May I become many and be born’; It created tejas”-there is the declaration of only one (Being as constituting the deity presiding over creation). Hence that is the Brahman from whom proceed the creation, preservation, and destruc- tion of the world; consequently, the attributes of creation, preservation and destruction define the Brahman to be that thing which is their own instrumental and material cause. The Brahman is understood to be that Greatness which consists in possessing omniscience, the quality of will- ing the truth, and wonderful powers and so on, which are all implied in His being the instrumental and the material cause of the world; and for this reason also there does not arise the inappropriateness which is due to the non-realisa- tion of another form (in relation to the Brahman), because creation, &c., constitute the characteristics (of the Brah- man) so realised.

There is nothing wrong in creation, &c., forming even the defining characteristics (of the Brahman), in as much as they are (His) attributes. Even those attributes which form the defining characteristics (of a thing) denote that thing which is contrary to what is characterised by their opposites. Even when the thing, which it is desired to define, happens to be (only) one and has its essential nature unknown,-(even then for that one thing) to be characterised by many attributes, which do not conflict with each other, does not imply any differentiation (in relation to it); because all the characterising attributes are seen to relate to one and the same thing, and are thus applied together to one and the same thing. But the attributes of being broken-horned, &c., (mentioned before in relation to the ox), indicate different individual oxen, solely by reason of the contradiction (existing between

262

SRI-BHASHYA.

[Chap. 1. Part. 1.

the attributes themselves). But here (i.e. in the case of the Brahman) the attributes of creation, &c., do not con- tradict (each other) owing to the difference in the time (of their occurrence). The Brahman, who is the cause of the creation, &c., of the world, is apprehended from the passage which begins with “From whom all these beings are born”-[Taitt. Up. III. 1. 1.], and deals with the cause of the universe; and the scriptural passage-" The Brahman is Existence, Knowledge, Infinity."-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], -denotes that essential nature of His which is different from all other things. Here the word ‘Existence’ denotes the Brahman as possessing the state of the unconditioned being. By this (word) the non-intelligent thing (or matter) which is subject to modifications, and the intelligent thing (or the individual soul) which is associated with it are (both) excluded; because these two (things) are not cap- able of unconditioned existence, owing to the fact that they are capable of existing in various states so as to assume various names. The word ‘Knowledge’ denotes (in rela- tion to Him) the eternal and uncontracted condition of pure intelligence. By this (word) the released souls are ex- cluded (from the definition of the Brahman), owing to the fact that their intelligence must have been at one time in a contracted state. The word ‘Infinity’ denotes that essen- tial nature (of His) which is free from the limitations of space, of time, and of being some one particular thing (among others). This essential nature (of the Brahman) is possessed of attributes, and therefore (His) infinity is the consequence of (His) nature as well as qualities. By this (word) are excluded (all) those freed individual souls whose nature and qualities are not unsurpassed (in excellence), and who are distinct from the two classes of things already excluded (from the definition of the Brahman) byAdhik. II. Süt. 2.] SRI-BHASHYA.

263

means of the first two words (Existence and Knowledge); because characterising attributes possess the power of ex- clusively defining things. Therefore, by means of this passage, namely,287 “The Brahman is Existence, Knowledge, Infinity”, that Brahman, whose true nature is made out from the creation, &c., of the world, is defined as being different from all other things; and thus there is (here) no fallacy of reciprocal dependence. Consequently, it is a settled conclusion that the Brahman who is the cause of the creation, &c., of all the worlds, who is untainted, who is omniscient, who wills the truth, and who is omnipotent, is capable of being understood by means of a definition.

Those again who say that the object of the enquiry (here) is the attributeless thing, according to their view, the aphorisms 288_"(Then therefore) the enquiry into the Brahman", and “(That is the Brahman) from whom (pro- ceed) the creation, &c., of this (universe)."-would be inap- propriate; because there is (here) the etymological expla- nation 289 that the Brahman is unsurpassed Greatness and Growth; and also because that same Brahman is declared (herein) to be the cause of the creation, &c., of the world. Similarly, in the groups of succeeding aphorisms, as well as in the groups of scriptural passages quoted under those aphorisms, it may be observed that the association of the powers of ‘seeing’, &c., is predicated (in relation to the Brahman). Hence the sutras (or aphorisms) and the scriptural passages quoted under those aphorisms do not constitute any authority for that (i. e. for holding the view that the object of the enquiry here is the attributeless thing). Logic also is no means of proving that thing

287. Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1,

288. Vide Ved. Süt. 1. 1. 1 & 2.

289. Vide supra n. 286.

264

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

which is devoid of characterising attributes; because it 290 deals with such a thing as is associated with the character- istics of that which forms the basis of logical inference, and which is invariably concomitant with the characteristics of the thing to be proved. The thing which is devoid of characterising attributes is not established even according to your own imaginary position that the Brahman is that from whom proceeds the illusion regarding the creation, &c., of the world; because thereby it will have to be admitted that ignorance (or avidya) is the source of this illusion, and that the Brahman is the witness of this ignorance. Indeed, (He) is said to be a witness simply because (He) has the character of homogeneous luminosity. And luminosity is a characteristic which distinguishes (the possessor thereof) from what is non-intelligence, and it has the nature of what makes itself and other things fit to be realised (by the mind). If this be so (admitted), then there results (to the Brahman) the condition of being qualified by characterising attributes. If this be not (so admitted), there would be no luminosity at all, and there would be only nothingness.

ADHIKARANA. III.

Sastrayonitwadhikarana.

It has been stated that the Brahman, who is the cause of the creation, &c., of the world, is capable of being made out from the Vedanta. This is improper. Indeed,

290. The meaning is this:-In a syllogism, the minor term is found associated with the characteristics of the middle term which is associated with the characteristics of the major term. Thus in the syllogism, “The

mountain is fiery, because it smokes”, the minor term ‘mountain’ is asso-

ciated with the characteristics of the middle term ‘smoke’ which again is associated with the characteristics of the major term ‘fire’,

Adhik. III. Sul. 3.] SRI-BHASHYA.

265

that (Brahman) is not established by (Vedanta) passages, because He is established by means of logical inference. To such a supposition, he (the Sutrakāra) says in reply-

Sutra 3. Sastrayonitwāt.

(That the Brahman is the cause of the creation, &c., of the universe, follows altogether from the scripture), because the scripture forms the source (of the knowledge relating to Him).

He, in relation to whom the scripture forms the source, or the instrument (of knowledge), or the means of proof,- He is the scripture-sourced one. And the state of His being so scripture-sourced is His scripture-sourcedness. From that, (that is), from the sastra having the character of being the means of acquiring the knowledge relating to the Brahman, the Brahman has that (sastra) for (His) source. The Brahman is altogether beyond the senses, and so does not form the object of any means of proof, such as perception, &c.; and the sastra alone forms the means to prove Him. Consequently, the scriptural passage beginning with “From whom all these beings are born”-[Taitt. Up. III. 1. 1.], certainly teaches that Brahman who is of the nature already described. This is the meaning (of this sūtra).

It may, however, be said here thus :-Indeed, it is not possible for the Brahman to be that which has the sastra as the means of proving Him; because the Brahman is capable of being made out by other means of proof. And the sastra 291 has a meaning only in so far as it relates to what has not been already arrived at.

What 292 then is the means of proving that (Brah

291. Cf. Pür. Mim. III. 4. 12. & III. 5. 21. Vide supra n. 232.

34

292. Here, the objector is the Mimämsaka,

266

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

man)? Surely, it is not perception. It (viz. perception) is of two kinds; that which is born of the senses, and that which is born of yoga (or introspective realisation through mental concentration). The (perception) which is born of the senses is of two kinds, namely, outside-born (or exter- nal) and inside-born (or internal). The external senses give rise to the knowledge of such of their own objects as are fit to be brought into contact (with them) in the usual way; and accordingly they do not produce the knowledge which relates to that particular Person who is capable of directly perceiving all things, and is (also) capable of bringing them into existence. Nor does the internal (perception prove the Brahman); because, in relation to external objects (naturally) distinct from pain, pleasure, &c., which are (all)internal, it cannot operate independent- ly of the external senses. Even yogic perception 298 does not (prove the Brahman). It (viz. yogic perception) results from the utmost intensification of mental conception, and although it has the character of a clear presentation before consciousness, it is nothing other than the mere remem- brance of previously experienced things; and it is, therefore, no (separate) means of proof. Under these circumstances, how can it have the character of direct perception, seeing that there is no cause to make it deal with things other than those (to which that remembrance and that concep- tion relate)? If it did deal with such things, it would acquire the character of an illusion. Inference also, whether arrived at through the particular way of deduction or arrived at through the generic way of induction, is not (the means of proving the Brahman). (Inference) arrived at through the particular way of deduction is not (the

293. Vide supra p.69. n. 46.

Adhik. III. Sut. 3.] SRI-BHASHYA.

267

means of proof here), because there is no knowledge of its relating to anything which is beyond the senses. There is also no such basis of inductive inference as is seen to give rise to a generalisation and as is invariably associated with that particular Person who is capable of directly perceiving all things and of actually bringing those (things) into existence.

It may, however, be again objected thus:-294 (The idea of) the world being a produced effect is invariably associated with (the idea of) there being, (in relation to it), an agent, who knows thoroughly its material cause, its auxiliary implements of production, its disposal and its purpose. The idea also that the world is produced by the non-intelligent thing (or matter) is invariably associated with the idea of its being subject to the control of a single intelligent being. Indeed, all produced effects such as pots, &c., are seen to be associated with a producing agent who knows their material cause, their auxiliary implements of production, their disposal and their purpose. (For example), one’s own body, which is produced out of non-intelligent matter and is free from disease, is indeed subject to the control of a single intelligent being. The world is a produced effect, because it is made up of compo- nent parts.

It is replied (to this) as follows:-What is it (for a thing) to be subject to the control of a single intelligent being? It is, surely, not to have the origin and the exist- ence (of that thing) subject to the control of that (being); for, then, the illustrative example (given above) will be found to be defective in regard to that which is to be proved. Indeed, one’s own body, which is free from

294. The cbjector here is one who partly accepts the doctrines of the

Naiyyayikas and believes in the value of the design argument’.268

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

disease, has not its origin and existence subject to the control of a single intelligent being; because, to all (those) intelligent beings, such as the wife, &c., who are the enjoyers of that body, the origin and the existence of that (body) appear to be due to something that is unknown. Moreover, the body which is organically made up of con- stituent parts does not, for the purpose of existing in the form of a complete whole the constituent parts of which are inherently associated together, stand in need of an intelligent being over and above the peculiar putting together of its constituent parts. And that (kind of) existence, which is characterised by life, can not possibly be predicated in relation to the earth, the ocean, the mountain, &c., which are all admitted to fall into the same class (as the body); and hence, we find that there is no (kind of) existence that is of a uniform nature and is found to be alike in the case under consideration as well as in other parallel cases. If it be said that (for a thing) to be subject to the control of a (single intelligent) being, is the same as to have its movements determined by that (single being), then, this (law) is seen to be transgressed in the case of heavy chariots and stones and trees and other such objects, which are all capable of being moved only by many intelligent beings, (although they are all produced out of non-intelligent matter and have thus to be under- stood in accordance with the above hypothesis to be subject to the control of a single intelligent being). If it be said that it (viz. the fact of being produced out of non- intelligent matter) is the same as to be simply dependent upon intelligent beings, then, there arises the fallacy of prov- ing the proved. Moreover, it is proper to admit that the in- dividual souls alone, which are accepted by both parties, do possess the quality of being agents; because there is

Adhik. III. Süt. 3.] SRI-BHASHYA.

269

(the support of) simplicity (in favour of such an admis- sion). And it is not right to hold that it is impossible for the quality of being an agent to exist in relation to the individual souls, since they do not know the material cause, &c., (in regard to the production of things); for, all the individual souls are in possession of the power of direct- ly perceiving the material cause (of things) such as the (ele- ment) earth, &c., and (also) the auxiliary means (of produc- ing them), such as sacrifices, &c. Accordingly, the (element) earth, &c., and sacrifices, &c., are directly perceived by them now. In relation to the intelligent beings (viz. the individual souls), there is (indeed) no impossibility of the quality of being an agent, even in the absence of the direct perception of that unseen something 295 which is expressed by the word apurva and by other words, and has the nature of the power which results from sacrifices, &c., that form the auxi- liary means (of producing things); because the production of thing, does not stand in need of such direct perception. In- deed, the direct perception of that which has power is alone useful in causing the production of anything. It is the know- ledge alone, but not the direct perception, of power that is (here) useful. As a matter of fact, potters and others do not begin their work of making jars, water-pots, and such other things, only after having directly perceived the power of those things (which form the auxiliary imple- ments of production); in the same way in which (they perceive) the rod, the wheel, and the other things that form the auxiliary means to the performance of their work. And, in the case of those intelligent beings (or the indivi- dual souls) who are, in accordance with the sastras, under- stood to possess the particular kind of power which results

295. Vide supra p. 41. n. 36. Vide also Pür. Mim. II. 1. 1 to 4.

270

ŚRI-BHASHYA.

[Chap. I. Part. I.

from sacrifices, &c., it is not (at all) inappropriate here that they do the work (of producing things). Moreover, that thing the making of which is possible and the know- ledge relating to the material cause, &c., of which is also possible, that thing alone is seen to have (been produced by) an agent who knows those (possibilities). But the earth, the mountain, the great ocean, &c., are things the making of which is impossible (to individual souls), and the knowledge of the material cause, &c., in relation to them is also impossible (to individual souls); therefore they are not made by intelligent beings (or the individual souls). Hence, it is only such a quality of being a produced effect as is found in association with a thing which is like jars, water-pots, and other objects resembling them, which is itself capable of being made (by individual souls), and the material cause, &c., relating to which are (all) capable of being known (by them), (it is only this quality of being a produced effect) that is competent to establish that an intelligent maker (or agent) must have necessarily preceded (the production of that thing). Fur- ther, such a produced effect as a pot or any other similar object is seen to have been caused by one who is not the lord of all, whose knowledge and power are very limited, who has a body, who is provided with auxiliary imple- ments of production, and whose desires are unfulfilled; accordingly, this means of proving an intelligent agent (in relation to the world), from the fact of the world possess- ing the characteristics of a produced thing, establishes an intelligent agent who is altogether of the above-mentioned nature; and thus it proves unfavourable, for the reason that it establishes in relation to the Person intended to be proved here (as the agent in the act of creation) the opposites of omniscience, the lordship of all, and other

Adhik. III. Sut. 3.] SRI-BHASHYA.

271

such qualities. Moreover, owing to this much alone, it cannot be said that all logical inferences have to be given up (in this matter). If a thing which has to be proved by logical reasoning falls (also) within the scope of some other means of proof, then all such mistaken characteristics (in relation to that thing), as are arrived at on the strength of the bases of logical inference, are contradicted by that (other) means of proof; and hence those (characteristics) cease to be.296 But here, in the case of Him who is the thing to be proved, who is incapable of being dealt with by all other means of proof (than the sastras), and who is skilled in the creation of all the worlds, all the attributes, which are, as a rule, invariably associated with Him and are made out by means of direct and converse processes of logical inference, are, without exception, rightly found to be relevant and admissible; and they continue to remain as such, because there is no other means of proving (Him) by which these attributes may become stultified. Therefore, how is the Lord to be established without the agamas (or sastras)?

Here (again), they (viz. the purvapakshins)297 say as follows:-It is not possible to deny the fact that the world is a produced effect; simply because it is made up of constituent parts. And the following are the syllo-

296. For example, a traveller who has missed his way, and is overtaken by darkness, happens to see at a dis- tance the ignis fatuus; and mistaking it to be some kind of light lit up by man, he draws the inference that a human habitation must be found near the light. He moves on in the direction of the light, and at last per- ceives no such habitation. Here, the existence of the human habitation is

capable of being made out by means of logical inference as well as by means of direct perception; and the inferred existence of the habitation is contradicted by means of the per- ceived non-existence thereof. Only thus can the conclusions of logic be- come stultified.

297. The Purvapakshins here are the Vaiseshikas,

272

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

gistic statements (in regard to this position):-(1) The earth, the mountain, &c., which are (all) the subject of discussion (here), are produced effects, because they are made up of constituent parts; as is the case with pots, &c. (2) Similarly, the earth, the ocean, the mountain, &c., which are (all) the subject of discussion (here), are produced effects, because, being themselves gross, they possess the power of being set in motion; as is the case with a pot. (3) The body and the world, &c., are produced effects,- because, being themselves gross, they have a definite form; as is the case with a pot. In the case of such substances as are made up of constituent parts, we do not find any characteristic, other than the fact of their being made up of constituent parts, which uniformly defines the state of a produced effect so as to point out what is (really so) pro- duced and what is not. If it be said that the possibility of (such things) being made, and the possibility of knowing their material cause, &c., are found invariably associated with the fact of things being produced effects,-it is replied that to hold so is not right. Even in the case of things which are accepted to be produced effects, the knowledge and the power (relating to the maker of the produced thing) are inferred from the product itself. Elsewhere also, the fact of a thing being a produced effect is made out through its being made up of constituent parts and through such other (causes). Hence, those two things (viz. the knowledge and the power of the producer of an effect) are certainly capable of being established (by inference). There is, thus, no peculiarity here. Accordingly, in the case of jars, water-pots and other made things, a person, after knowing that they are produced effects, makes out, by means of inference, the knowledge and the power which are found in the producing agent and are needed for theAdhik. III. Sat. 3.] SRI-BHASHYA.

273

making of those things. And (such a person) sees the palace of a king which he had never before seen, and which is wonderfully planned. Then, by means of the peculiarity in the arrangement of its parts, he arrives at the conclusion that it is a produced effect; and immediate- ly afterwards he learns by inference the wonderful nature of the knowledge and the power possessed by the producer (of that palace) for (the purpose of producing) it. There- fore, if the character of being a produced effect is established in the case of the body, of the world and such other things, then, a particular Person, who is capable of directly per- ceiving and of creating all things as well as of performing other actions in relation to them, is certainly proved. Moreover, in the case of intelligent beings (i. c. the indivi- dual souls), the enjoyment of pleasure and pain is based upon merit and demerit (respectively); however, these two things (viz. merit and demerit) are not themselves intelli- gent, and are not presided over by any intelligent being; hence they are not themselves capable of being the means of yielding the fruits (of karma). Accordingly, some particular Person, who is capable of skilfully awarding all fruits in accordance with all the (various) karmas, has to be postulated; because hatchets and other instruments, which are themselves not intelligent, are not, for instance, seen to be the means of producing the sacrificial pole and such other things, when not presided over by a carpenter, even though the proper place, the proper time, and the numerous other accessories (for making them) are all available and at hand. The case of the seed becoming the sprout and all other similar cases (also) fall within the scope of this case under discussion; therefore to maintain any variation in logic in relation to them is to display that ignorance which belongs to demons learned in the scriptures.

35

274

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

For the very same reason, the statement which main- tains that the above logic has to vary in the case of pleasure and other such things is (also) quite similar in character. 298 Further, it is not proper to assume, for the sake of simplici- ty, that this kind of presidentship belongs to the indivi- dual souls themselves, which are admitted by both parties; because, in their case, it is conclusively established that they do not possess the power of perceiving what is subtle, what is hidden, and what is far away. Indeed, in all cases, the hypothesis has to be altogether in accordance with the perception. And, in the case of the Lord of all, there can be no demonstration of powerlessness, as (there is) in the case of the individual soul. Therefore, it is not impossible to prove Him by other means of proof (than the scripture). He (the Lord) is proved to be arrived at as the cause of a produced effect which is invariably associat- ed with an efficient producing agent; and hence He is surely made out as naturally possessing the power of directly perceiving and controlling all things. What has been already stated299 to the effect that, by postulating the absence of lordship, &c., (in relation to the agent of creation), there results the fact of prov- ing, (in relation to that agent), the opposites of certain

298. Pleasure and other sensa- tions and emotions give rise to their corresponding physical expressions. These expressions are therefore pro- duced effects having those sensations and emotions for their cause. And the sensations and emotions are not themselves intelligent agents. It may therefore be argued that all produced effects need not have an intelligent agent engaged in producing them.

As the hatchet has to be handled by the carpenter, so also these sensations and emotions have to be felt by an intelligent being; otherwise, there can be no physical expression corres- ponding to them. Consequently, even here the predication of the intelligent agent cannot be avoid- ed,

299. Vide supra p. 270.

Adhik. III. Sut. 3.] SRI-BHASHYA.

275

(desired) attributes, that is due to the ignorance of the various processes of logical inference; because all the attributes which are found to exist together in ana- logous and parallel cases, but do not themselves form the cause of producing the effect (in question), are not found to exist in the thing to be proved. What is said is this:- Anything which has to be produced (or made) by any one requires, for its production, that its producer should have the power of producing it, and have also the knowledge of its material cause and of the auxiliary means (needed for producing it). It does not require, (on his part), the incap- ability of producing other things and the ignorance in re- gard to other (causes and means); because they (viz. this powerlessness and this ignorance) do not form the cause (of what he has to produce). When, indeed, the production of a thing is possible by means of the power of producing it and by means of the knowledge of its material cause and of the accessories (needed for producing it), the ignorance, &c., of other things do not in any way affect (the produc- tion of it); and hence they do not deserve to form the cause of its production, merely on the score that they are seen to be in some way related (to that cause). Moreover,

do (that) ignorance and that other thing (viz. powerless- ness) which, relating to objects other than the thing to be produced, are, (according to you), capable of affecting the production of a thing (do they) relate to all (such pro- ducible) things, or do they relate to only a few (such) things? Surely, they cannot relate to all (such) things, for it is not right to say that potters and others do not know anything other than what has to be produced by them. Nor do they relate only to a few (such) things; because there is no definite rule to settle, in the case of every one of all the agents, what particular kind of ignorance

276

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

and powerlessness he is to have, and there results, in consequence, a straying away from the hypothesis to postulate ignorance, &c., in relation to all things. There- fore, the fact that non-lordship and other such attributes, which do not affect the producibility of things, are not found in association with what is to be proved (i. e. with the Creator), does not (indeed) prove the contrary (of what is to be proved). It may be said that, since potters and others are seen to possess the power of controlling the use of rods, wheels, &c., only with the help of their bodies, it is therefore impossible for the Lord who has no body to become the controller of the material cause of the world and of the auxiliary means (needed for producing it). In such a case, it is replied that it is not right to hold so, because the expulsion and destruction of ghosts, demons, poisons, &c., found in the bodies of others are seen to re- sult solely with the help of the will (of the magician) If it be asked, how the Lord who has no body can Himself have that will which makes others act, it is replied that the will is not dependent upon the body, in as much as the body does not form the cause of the will. The mind alone is the cause of the will, and that is admitted to be found in the Lord also; because, from the very same fact of (the world’s) being a produced effect, His mind also is arrived at (by us through inference), in the same way in which His knowledge and power are. If it be said that, since he alone has the mind who has the body, the will born of the mind belongs only to him who has the body, it is replied that it cannot be so; because the mind is eternal, and the mind continues to exist even after the destruction of the body, and is not, in consequence, invariably associated with it. Thus, the individual soul who is under the influence of merit and demerit, and who is possessed of power and knowledge, is

Adhik. III. Süt. 3.] SRI-BHASHYA.

277

not competent to produce such effects as the creation of the body, the world, &c., which are all characterised by a peculiarly wonderful arrangement of (their) constituent parts. Consequently, that particular Person, namely, the Lord, who is clever in the creation of all the worlds, whose knowledge, power, and lordship are unthinkable and immeasurable, who is without a body, who, merely by means of the instrument of volition, has established this infinite and wide world of wonderful arrangements,-(such a Lord) is established solely by means of the logical process of inference. Therefore, in as much as the Brahman is capable of being conclusively made out by a means of proof (other than the scriptures), this scriptural passage (viz. “From whom, all these beings are born, &c.”,) does not establish the Brahman. Moreover, it is seen that only two very extremely different things, namely, the mud and the potter, constitute the material and the instrumental causes (of a pot). It is not further proper to suppose that the spatial ether and such other things, which have no constituent parts, possess the character of a produced effect. Consequently it is not possible to establish that the only one Brahman constitutes (both) the material and the instrumental causes of the whole world.

If it be thus argued, we make the following reply:-

The scriptural passage 300 relating to the origin, &c., (of the world) certainly gives rise to the knowledge of the Brahman as possessing the above-mentioned characteristics. Why? Because the Brahman is to be proved solely by means of the sastras. What has been stated to the effect that the whole world is a produced effect, in as much as it is made up of constituent parts and (possesses) other allied

300. Vide Taitt. Up. III. 1. 1.278

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

(characteristics); that a produced effect is seen to be invari- ably associated with a special agent suited to the production thereof; and that, therefore, some one who is clever in the creation of all the worlds, and in knowing their material cause and the auxiliary means of producing them, has to be inferred; this is improper: because, though the earth, and the great ocean, &c., are produced effects, there is no proof to show that they were created by one (agent) at only one particular time. Again, all the things (in the world) do not possess the character of constituting a single produced effect, in the same way in which a pot does (possess such a character), so that there may be one agent (to produce them all) at one and the same time; because, in the case of produced things, which are quite distinct from one another, there is the perception of difference in time and of difference in agents; and there is, in conse- quence, no apprehension of any rule laying down only one particular agent and one particular time (in regard to the production of things). Again, in as much as the individual souls are incapable of creating the wonderful world, and in as much as it is inappropriate to assume many (individual souls to be the creators of the world), when, on the strength of the world being a produced effect, an agent differ- ent from those (individual souls) has to be assumed (as the creator of the world),-merely on this score it is not right to hold that there must be only one agent (in the matter of creating the world): because, owing to the fact that those individual souls themselves who have increased their special merits are seen to possess wonderful powers, and owing also to the fact that to them alone there is the possibility of the fruition of that highly increased influence (of the karmas) which is known as adrishta,301 it is appropriate for each

301. Vide supra p. 41. n. 36.

Adhik. III. Sut. 3.] SRI-BHASHYA.

279

of those (individual souls) to form the cause of producing particular and distinct created effects; and it is not, in con- sequence, proper to assume (as the agent in the act of creation) a person who is distinct from them and is quite unseen. Again, the (conceptions of the) simultaneous origin- ation of all things and the simultaneous destruction of all things do not deserve to occupy the position of proved truth; because such a thing is not seen (to occur), and because creation and destruction are seen to take place only one after another in order, and because also, even when the simultaneous origination and destruction of all things have to be assumed owing to the fact of their being produced effects, there is nothing wrong in supposing that those acts (of creation and destruction) take place in accordance with what is ordinarily perceived (to be the case). Therefore, if it is the agency of one intelligent being (in regard to the production of all things) that is to be established, then, there is no invariable asso- ciation of the produced character of things (with such a single producing agent). Moreover, the subject of the dis- cussion (viz. such an intelligent being) will (then) have to possess attributes generally unknown to be possessed by him, and the given example (of the pot) will be defective in illustrating the thing to be proved; because such a single person as is capable of creating all things is not known to exist. If it is only an intelligent agency that is to be established, then there results the fallacy of proving the admittedly proved. Is this character of being a produced effect, which is intended to prove some one being who is possessed of omniscience and omnipotence,

(is this) found in relation to all such things as are pro- duced at one and the same time? Or is it found in rela- tion to all such things as are produced one after another

280

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

in order? If it be found in relation to all things which are held to be produced at one and the same time, then (owing to the hypothesis being untrue) the character of being a produced effect would itself remain unproved (in relation to the world); and if it be found in relation to all things which are held to be produced one after another in order, then, it would be established that they must be produced by many agents, and there would be the conse- quent contradiction (of what is to be proved here). Under these circumstances, in proving the agency of (only) one being (in relation to all produced things in the world), there is not only the contradiction of perception and inference, but (there is) also the contradiction of the scriptures; for, we see it mentioned (separately) in the scriptures that the maker of the pot is born, and also that the maker of the chariot is born.302

Moreover, all produced effects such as bodies, &c., are seen to be associated with pleasures, &c., which are them- selves the produced effects of the qualities of goodness, &c.303 Therefore, it has necessarily to be admitted that all produced effects result from the qualities of goodness, &c. The qualities of goodness, &c., which form the source of the wonderful variety of produced effects, are indeed the special characteristics found in the (producing) cause. It is (only) in consequence of the modification of the internal organ (or manas) of the person who is possessed of those (qualities) that it becomes appropriate to declare that those

302. The idea is that, if all things are produced only by one agent, the maker of the pot cannot be different from the maker of the chariot. The scripture mentions these separately so as to imply that they are different from each other. Accordingly, the

scriptures contradict the idea that all produced things have only one pro- ducing agent.

303. These are the three well known qualities of Sattva, goodness, Rajas, passion & Tamas, darkness.

Adhik. III. Sut. 3.] SRI-BHASHYA.

281

produced effects result from those (qualities). And, in the case of such a person, the possession of those (qualities) is due to karma.304 Therefore, for the very commencement of any particular work, as the producing agent’s knowledge and power, his association with karma (also) has necessari- ly to be admitted to form, indeed, the cause of a produc- ed effect. (It has necessarily to be so admitted), for the reason that the wonderful nature of (the agent’s) knowledge and power is (itself) due to karma. Even

when it is held that desire is the cause of the commence- ment of work, it is not possible to give up the (agent’s) association with karma, for the reason that that (desire), which is specially characterised by its relation to some particular object or other, is itself due to the qualities of goodness, &c. Therefore the individual souls alone be- come the agents, and some one else who is distinct from them cannot be established (as agent) by means of logic- al inference. And the syllogistic statements (in this connection) are as follow :-(1) The body, the world, &c., have the individual souls for their (producing) agents; because they possess the character of being produced effects, (even) as a pot does: (2) The Lord is no agent (in the act of creation); because He has no purpose (in creation), just as released souls (have not): (3) The Lord is no agent (in the act of creation); because He has no body, just as those same (released souls have not). And this (last reasoning) is not fallacious in being too widely applicable to the case of individual souls getting to preside over their own bodies, because, in such a case also, there is the (previous) existence of the beginningless subtle body (in association with those souls): (4) Time, about

304. The word karma here means the effects of those actions. actions done in previous births and

36

282

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. 1.

which there is difference of opinion, can never have been devoid of (created) worlds; because it possesses the character of being time, (even) like the present time.

And again, does the Lord perform work with a body, or (does He do so) without a body? Surely, (He does) not (do so) without a body; because it is not possible for him who has no body to be an agent. Even mental actions are possible for him alone who has a body; be- cause, although the mind is eternal, the released souls are not known to be characterised by those (mental) actions. Nor indeed (does He perform actions) while possessing a body; because it (viz. the embodied condition of the Lord) does not admit any of the possible alternative views (in regard to it). Is that body (of the Lord) eternal or non- eternal? Surely, it is not eternal; for, if that (body) which is made up of constituent parts be eternal, there would be nothing wrong in the world also being eternal; and consequently, there would be no proving of the Lord. Nor also is that (body) non-eternal; because that which is different from it and forms (in its own turn) the cause of that body can not then be existent. If it be said that He, (the Lord) is alone the cause (of His own body), it is replied that it cannot be so; because it is impossible for him who has no body to be the cause of that (viz. his own body). If it be said that, (at the time of creation), He acquires a body by taking unto Himself some body other than His own, it is replied that it cannot be so; because this will lead to the fallacy of regressus in infinitum. Is He full of activity or is He devoid of all activity? not full of activity, because He has no body at all. ther does He who is, like a released soul, devoid of all activity, perform any work. If it be maintained that the world which is a produced thing has for its (producing)

He is

Nei-Adhik. III. Sut. 3.] SRI-BHASHYA.

283

agent one whose activity is only to desire, then the sub- ject of the discussion (viz. the creating agent) will have to possess attributes generally unknown (to be possessed by such as he); and the given example will be defective in illustrating the thing to be proved. Therefore, the pro- cess of logically inferring the Lord, in accordance with what we perceive, is itself stultified by having to accord with what we actually see. Consequently, the Highest Person who is the Lord of all, and is the Highest Brah- man, is proved only by the sastras. And the sastras declare Him to be entirely distinct from all the things which are cognised by all the other means of proof, to be an ocean of such unsurpassingly great and noble qualities as are made up of omniscience, the quality of willing the truth, and numerous other similar qualities, and to be possessed of a nature which is in itself hostile to all that is evil; and hence there cannot result, (in relation to Him), even a tittle of that defect which is due to any similarity with those things that are established to be existent with the help of the other means of proof.

It has been stated already-by the purvapakshin- that the identity of the material and the instrumental causes (of produced things) is not actually perceived, and that the character of being produced effects cannot be established in relation to spatial ether and such other things as are not made up of (various) constituent parts. Even this is not opposed to reason; and it will be proved so under the aphorisms-” (The Brahman is) also the mate- rial cause of the world, because (His being so) does not disagree with the example given to illustrate the proposi- tion." [Ved. Sit. I. 4. 23.]; and-“The spatial ether is not (a produced thing) on account of the absence of scriptural statements to that effect.” [Ved. Sut. II. 3. 1.].

284

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

Therefore, it is a demonstrated conclusion that the scriptural passage, which begins with “From whom all these beings (are born)”-[Taitt. Up. III. 1. 1.], proves the Brahmar to be possessed of the above-mentioned charac- teristics; for the reason that He is not cognisable by any other means of proof, and is, in consequence, to be dealt with solely by the sastras.

ADHIKARANA. IV.

Samanvayadhikarana.

Although the Brahman is not cognised by any means of proof (other than the sastras), nevertheless, the sastras may not prove the Brahman, the idea correspond- ing to whom is naturally established in as much as He does not import any activity or cessation from activity. In answer to such a doubt, he (the Sutrakära) says:-

Sūtra 4. Tattu samanvayat.

That (viz. the fact that the scripture forms altogether the source of the knowledge relating to the Brahman) results, however, from (His constituting) the true purport (of the scripture).

The word however is intended to remove the doubt raised. The word that denotes the fact that the śästras form indeed the means of proving the Brahman. How? From (His constituting) the true purport (of the scripture). (His constituting) the true purport (of the scripture) is (the same as His being) the highest object of human pursuit; because, the Brahman who is the highest object of human pursuit is alone intended to be denoted (by the sastras). All the Upanishadic passages such as the following and others have to be interpreted to mean this very same

Adhik. IV. Sut. 4.] SRI-BHASHYA.

285

thing:-“From whom all these beings are born”-[Taitt. Up. III. 1. 1.]; “Existence alone, my dear child, this was in the beginning, one only, without a second”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 1.]; “It thought-May I become manifold and be born’. It created tejas.”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 3.]; “The Brahman, indeed, this one alone was in the beginn- ing”-[Brih. Up. I. 4. 11.]; “The Self, indeed, this one alone was in the beginning”-[Brih. Up. I. 4. 17.]; “From that same Self, indeed, the spatial ether came into existence.”-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.]; “Indeed Nārāyaṇa alone then was”-[Mah. Up. I.]; “The Brahman is Exist- ence, Knowledge, Infinity.”-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.]; “The Brahman is bliss.”-[Taitt. Up. III. 6. 1.].

•

Moreover, those collections of words (that make up the scriptural passages) are capable of denoting such well established things as are made out in accordance with the natural process of deriving the meanings of words, and the true purport of those (passages) is the Brahman who is the cause of the creation, preservation, and destruction of all the worlds, who is hostile to all that is evil, and who is an ocean of innumerable noble qualities, and has the nature of unsurpassed bliss; and it cannot be that they (viz. such scriptural passages) deal with things other (than the Brah- man), seeing that they are (while so denoting the Brahman) devoid of utility either in the way of inducing activity or cessation from activity; for, every one of all the means of proof has its finality in giving rise to the knowledge of that which forms its own particular object. Again, the operation of a means of proof is not determined by utility. Utility, indeed, is determined by the means of proof. Further, that (viz. the scriptural passage) which is free from all concern with inducing activity or cessation from activity can not be said to be devoid of utility; because it is seen to be related

286

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. 1. Part. I.

to one of the objects of human pursuit. For instance, in passages like “A son is born to you”, “This is no serpent”, which deal with matters of fact (without import- ing any activity or cessation from activity), it is seen that they are (also) possessed of utility in the way of (produ- cing) joy and (causing) the removal of fear (respectively).

Here, he (viz. a Mimamsaka Purvapakshin) says:-

The Vedanta passages do not establish the Brahman, because the sastra, which is incapable of importing any activity or cessation from activity, is (thus) purposeless. No doubt perception and the other means of proof have their finality in giving rise to the knowledge of the truth of things. Nevertheless the sastra (or the scripture) must have its finality in utility. Neither in popular usage nor in the Vedas do we see the use of any sentence that is purpose- less. It is not possible for a sentence to be made use of, or to be listened to, without there being some utility or other in view. And that utility is made out to have the nature of the acquisition of what is desirable and of the getting rid of what is undesirable by means of voluntary activity or cessation from activity, as is seen in the following and other instances:- One who is desirous of wealth should go to the palace of a king’; One whose digestion is weak should not drink (too much) water’; ‘One who is desirous of Swarga should perform (the Jyotishtoma) sacrifice’; ‘One should not eat onions’.

Moreover, it has been already stated to the effect that, even in the case of the statements-“A son is born to you”, “This is no serpent, but a rope”, and in other similar (statements), all of which deal with things, the ideas corresponding to which are already naturally established, there is seen the association of utility (with those state- ments) in the form of (the production of) joy and the removal

Adhik. IV. Sut. 4.] SRI-BHASHYA.

287

of fear, &c. Here, it has to be discriminated whether the attainment of utility results from the fact of the birth of a son, and so on, or from the (mere) knowledge thereof. If it be said that a thing, although existing, is of no utility when unknown, and that therefore it (viz. the attainment of uti- lity) results from the knowledge thereof;-then, even when the thing itself is non-existing, utility must result merely from the knowledge (regarding that thing). Thus, although the sastra has its finality in utility, nevertheless, it (viz. the śästra) is no means of proving the existence of things in as much as it does not relate to things (but relates to knowledge merely). Therefore, all sentences have their finality in some utility or other, either as re- lating to voluntary activity or cessation from activity, or as relating to knowledge. Hence, no sentence is capable of importing things, the ideas corresponding to which are already naturally established. Consequently the Vedanta passages do not establish the Brahman, the idea corres- ponding to whom is already naturally established.

Here another (purvapakshin) 305 may say :-The Ved- anta passages also are the means of proving the Brahman solely by reason of their relating to actions. How? Be- cause the Brahman becomes the object of a command- ment, which relates to the destruction of the phenomenal world, and is to the effect that the Brahman-who is (in Himself) non-phenomenal, who has no second and is uni- form intelligence, and who, nevertheless, appears to be in association with the phenomenal world owing to the influence of the beginninglessly old ignorance, should be realised as non-phenomenal. What is that commandment,

305. Namely, the Nishprapañcht karananiyogavadin.288

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

which relates to the Brahman who is uniform intelligence, and is to be realised by means of the destruction of the phenomenal world that is found to exist in the (differentiat- ed) condition of the knower and the known? (That com- mandment is to be found in the following and other passages) :-“Thou shalt not see the seer of the sight, nor think the thinker of the thought”.-[Brih. Up. III. 4. 2.]. The meaning is that the Brahman should be realised as pure and simple experience which is devoid of the distinc- tion of the knower and the known. Even if the Brahman is self-evident, there is nothing wrong in (His) being made the object of an action so as to realise (Him) in the non-phenomenal form.

It is wrong to hold so (says the Mimamsaka).306 He, who maintains that the syntactical meaning of sentences is a commandment, has surely to point out what the com- mandment is, the attribute of the person to whom the com- mandment is directed, the special object (of the command- ment), the performance thereof, the details of the proce- dure to be adopted, and the performer (of the command- ment). Among these, the attribute of the person to whom the commandment is directed is, indeed, incapable of being postulated (in regard to this commandment of realising the Brahman as non-phenomenal). And that (attribute) is of two kinds as causal and as resultant. It has to be discrimi- nated here what the attribute of the person is to whom this commandment is directed, and whether it is causal or resultant. If the experience of the truth regarding the

306. The Mimamsaka is the main objector against the Vedantin in this Adhikarana. The Mimamsaka re- futes from his own stand-point the Nishprapanchi karananiyogavadin who

holds that the Upanishads give us the commandment to non-phenomenalise the Brahman. Then the Mimämsaka is himself refuted by the Vedantin.

Adhik. IV. Süt. 4.] SRI-BHASHYA.

289

essential nature of the Brahman constitutes the attribute of the person to whom the commandment is directed, then, this (attribute) cannot be causal; because it has not already become available (to him), unlike life, &c., (which have so become available, and form the necessary conditions preceding, for instance, the performance of the agnihotra sacrifice as long as life lasts, in accordance with the Vedic injunction." One should perform the agnihotra sacrifice as long as life lasts").807 However, if that (attribute) be causal, then, owing to its being eternal, there would be room for the performance of what constitutes the special object of that ever obligatory (commandment) even after the attainment of final release, in the same way in which the agnihotra sacrifice, &c., which are dependent upon life (are to be performed as long as that life lasts). Nor also is that (attribute which has the character of the experience of the real nature of the Brahman) resultant; because, by being the result of the working out of a commandment, it has, like Swarga, &c., to become non-eternal. Again what is the special object of the commandment here? If it be said that it is the Brah- man Himself, it is replied that it cannot be so ; because He, being eternal, cannot be produced anew, and because also He is not imported by any verbal form signifying an action. If it be said that the non-phenomenal Brahman is the thing to be worked out (under the commandment), then, although He is (thus) the thing to be (immediately) accomplished (under the injunction), He forms the final result itself (of the injunction). He cannot form the special object of the commandment, because He is not imported by any verbal forms signifying an action. More-

307. Vide Bahvṛicha-Brahmana.

37

290

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

over, what is it that has to be accomplished (under the injunction)? Is it the Brahman, or (is it) the destruction of the phenomenal world? It is not the Brahman; because He is ever-accomplished, and because also there would result non-eternity (in relation to the Brahman if he had to be accomplished). Nor is it the destruction of the phenomenal world (that has to be accomplished under the injunction). Then, indeed, the Brahman would not be the thing to be accomplished (under the injunction). If it be said that the destruction of the phenomenal world itself forms the special object of the commandment, it is replied that it cannot be so; because that (destruction) is the final result (to be achieved under the commandment) and cannot hence form the immediate object of the commandment. Indeed, the destruction of the phenomenal world is itself the beatific release (of the bound soul); and that is the final fruit (of the injunction). And if this, (however), form (also) the immediate object of the commandment, then the destruction of the phenomenal world would be due to the carrying out of the commandment, and the commandment would be carried out by the destruction of the phenomenal world. There would, in consequence, be the logical fallacy of reciprocal dependence.

Further, is the phenomenal world, which has to be put an end to, false or real? If it be of a false nature, then it has to be put an end to by right knowledge alone, and consequently the injunction (to do something) would be of no use whatsoever. If it be said that the injunction, after producing the knowledge which puts an end (to the phenomenal world), thereby puts an end to the pheno- menal world, (then, it is replied that) this (knowledge) results from the scriptural texts 3 “s on which you yourself

308. Such as Brih. Up. III. 4. 2; Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 1; Brih. Up. IV,

Adhik. IV. Sut. 4.] SRI-BHASHYA.

291

rely, and that there is therefore no use for this .com- mandment. Moreover, the whole phenomenal world which is false, and is distinct from the Brahman, is stultified by means of the knowledge of the syntactical meaning of scriptural sentences. Consequently, the commandment, with all its accessories, is itself non est. If the phenome- nal world happens to be the thing which is to be destroyed, then, does the commandment, which is intended to bring about the destruction of the phenomenal world, relate to that which is the same in nature as the Brahman? Or (does it) relate to that which is different from Him? If it relate to that which is the same in nature as the Brahman Himself, then, (He being eternal), the very existence of the phenome- nal world that is to be destroyed would indeed be impossi- ble, for the reason that the destroyer thereof is eternal; again in such a case (that) commandment would become eternal, and it would not be possible for it to be accomplished by working out its immediate object. Or (the commandment may relate to) that which is different in nature from the true nature of the Brahman. Since that (commandment) is to be fulfilled by working out its immediate object which consists in the destruction of the whole phenomenal world, the person who has to carry out (the commandment) is also destroyed thereby. Consequently, there is no estab- lishment (of the injunction) for want of a (personal) found- ation (for it) to rest upon. Since, by merely working out that immediate object (of the commandment) which con- sists in the destruction of the phenomenal world, all that is different from the essential nature of the Brahman be- comes destroyed, what is known as moksha or beatific release cannot be the final fruit obtained by (obeying)

4. 19; &c., which are quoted by you i. e. the Nishprapanchikarananiyoga-

vadin to show that the Brahman alone is real and the world unreal.

292

the commandment.399

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. 1.

Moreover, in regard to such a performance of the commandment as leads to the destruction of the phenome- nal world, there are to be found no details of the pro- cedure to be adopted; and whatever (commandment) is (thus) unassisted (by the details of procedure), that cannot be carried out. Consequently, there can be no perfor- mability (in relation to the commandment under consi- deration). If it be asked how there is (here) the absence of the details of procedure, it is pointed out that it is thus:- The details of procedure in regard to this (commandment) are either of a positive character or of a negative character. Such (details of procedure) as are of a positive character are divided into the different classes of those that bring about the corpus of the performance and those that (merely) render help to the performance. And both these kinds are not admissible (in this case). Indeed, like the stroke of a heavy club, &c., (which destroy a pot or some such thing), there is not seen (here) anything that is (by its operation) capable of putting an end to the whole phenomenal world. Therefore, these (details of procedure) are not (of a positive character and) thus perceivable. Nor also is it possible for a completed performance to stand in need of any accessory help for the production of the thing to be accomplished (by that performance); because (in such a case), owing to there being the (associated) existence of the thing which helps (the performance), it is not

309. The distinction between what is called the immediate object of a commandment and what constitutes its final fruit may well be illustrated in connection with the Vedic com- mandment which says that he who is

desirous of obtaining Swarga shall perform the Jyotishtoma sacrifice. Here the Jyotishtoma sacrifice is the immediate object of the command- ment, and Swarga is its final fruit.Adhik. IV. Sut. 4.] SRI-BHASHYA.

293

possible to (distinctly) realise the essential nature of such a performance (of the commandment) as consists in the destruction of the whole phenomenal world. If it be said that to know the Brahman to be without a second produces the corpus of the performance, which consists in the destruction of the phenomenal world, then, by that same (knowledge), final release which is in the form of the destruction of the phenomenal world is attained; accordingly, it has been already stated that, (in conse- quence), there remains nothing to be accomplished by the performance, &c. If (the details of procedure are) of a negative character, then solely owing to their being non-existent, they do not produce the corpus of the performance; nor do they help it. Therefore, it is not possible (to hold) that this injunction 310 relates to the non-phenomenal Brahman.

Again, another (purvapakshin) 311 may say as fol-

lows:-

No doubt, the Vedanta passages are of no authority as relating to the true nature of the Brahman, the idea corresponding to whom is already naturally established. Nevertheless, the true nature of the Brahman is cer- tainly proved (by means of them). How? On the strength of the commandment enjoining meditation. Thus, indeed, do the scriptures declare:-“Verily, my dear one, the Self has to be seen,……….has to be steadily meditated upon,”-[Brih. Up.II. 4. 5.];812 “The Self who is devoid of sins ;… He has to be sought after, He has to be specially desired and known”.-[Chhand.

310. Brih. Up. III. 4. 2. &c. 311. This objector is the Dhyana-

niyogara lin.

312. Vide also Byih. Up. IV. 5. 6.

294

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. 1.

Up. VIII. 7. 1.]; “Meditate on Him as the self itself.” [Brih. Up. I. 4. 7.]; “Let him meditate upon the Self alone as the object to be attained.” [Brih. Up. I. 4. 15.]. Here the commandment which certainly relates to medi- tation implies the thing to be meditated upon; because the meditation which forms the special object of that (com- mandment) is itself capable of being defined solely by means of the thing to be meditated upon. And that thing to be meditated upon is the Self, as it is shown by the scriptural passages 313 relied upon by yourselves. If it be asked of what nature He (i. e. the Self) is, then (it is replied that), by way of stating the peculiarity of His true nature, the following and other similar passages become authori- tative, as being complementary to the injunction relat- ing to meditation, and that, therefore, those (passages) do, indeed, denote by implication the true nature of the Brahman who is included within the body of the meditation which forms the special object of the in- junction (here):-“The Brahman is Existence, Know- ledge, Infinity.”-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.]; “Existence alone, my dear child, this was in the beginning.”- [Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 1.]. Therefore, by means of the following passages, namely, “One only without a second” –[Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 1.]; “That is Existence, He is the Self, That thou art, O Svetaketu.”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 7.]; “There is nothing here that is many and varied.”-[Brih. Up. IV. 4. 19.]; as well as by means of other passages, it is made out that only the essential nature of the Brah- man is undoubtedly real, and that all else that is different from Him is unreal. Distinction is apprehended by

313. See Brih. Up. III. 4..2. II. 4. 5. & IV. 5. 6. The Dhyananiyoga-

karananiyogavadin who has quoted Brih. Up, III. 4. 2, wherein the Self

vadin criticises the Nishprapanchi- is mentioned.

Adhik. IV. Süt. 4.] SRI-BHASHYA.

295

perception and the other means of proof, as well as by means of the sastra which relates to works and rests upon distinctions. When there is mutual contradiction between distinction and non-distinction, then, since it is also possible for the perception of distinctions to be based upon the beginninglessly old ignorance (or avidya), it is decided that the absence of distinctions alone is the reality. It being so, by means of the injunction relating to such a meditation of the Brahman as gives rise to the direct perception of Him, that final release is obtained which is the same as becoming the Brahman, who is devoid of all the manifold distinctions due to ignorance, who is without a second and is uniform intelligence. Moreover, it cannot be proved with the help of Vedanta passages that it is possible (for us) to become the Brahman merely by means of the knowledge of the syntactical meaning of scriptural sentences; because such a thing is not known to take place, and because also the (actual) perception of a variety of dis- tinctions continues to persist (even after the acquisition of such a knowledge). Under these circumstances, the in- junction 314 regarding hearing’, &c.,315 becomes purpose- less.

"

(Here), again, it may be said316 thus:-It is seen that the fear which is due to the (falsely perceived) snake ceases by means of the teaching “This is a rope, (but) not a

314. This injunction is Brih. Up. II. 4. 5 or IV. 5. 6. wherein it is declared that “The Self has to be heard, to be reflected upon, and to be steadily meditated upon.”

315. Hearing’, &c., i, e. ‘hearing’, reflection, and steady meditation.

316. This is the well known exam- ple of the Adwaitin who is of opinion

that the Brahman alone is real and all else unreal; in the same way in which the snake falsely perceived in a rope is unreal while the rope alone is real. The Dhyananiyogavidin here states in anticipation the objection from the stand-point of the Adwaitin before refuting it.

296

ŚRI-BHASHYA.

[Chap. I. Part. I.

snake.” And like the snake (falsely perceived) in the rope, the bondage of the world also is of a false nature. Consequently, it must be capable of being stultified by knowledge. Therefore, it is proper (to hold) that freedom from such (bondage) results wholly from the knowledge derived from scriptural passages, but not from (working out) any commandment. If final release be capable of being accomplished under an injunction, then there would be non- eternity in relation to it also, as (there is) in the case of Swarga, &c. But the eternal character of final release is, in- deed, acknowledged by all the disputants.

Moreover, the merit and the demerit (of works) have the power of giving rise to their effects only in the way of producing such bodies as are fit for the enjoyment of those particular effects. Therefore, they (viz. merit and demerit) must inevitably possess the character of giv- ing rise to samsara,317 the nature of which consists in an association (of the individual souls) with the four318 kinds of bodies commencing with Brahma and ending with the immovable things. Therefore, final release is not capable of being accomplished by merit. To the same effect is the following scriptural passage :-“To him who is and has a body, there is no destruction of the pleasing and the unpleasing; the pleasing and the unpleasing touch not him who is and has no body.” [Chhand. Up. VIII. 12. 1.]. Thus, regarding final release the nature of which is to be without a body, it is declared that there are no pleasing or unpleasing effects merit. Therefore, it is made

317. Samsara is the circuit of mun- dane existence. In other words, it is the ever-recurring succession of births and deaths, and the consequent con- tinuance of the bondage of the soul.

produced by merit and de- out that the unembodied

318. The four kinds of bodies are those of gods, men, lower animals and of immovable things (Sthavar 1). Vide supra p. 154. Cf. also V. Dh. C. 20:

Adhik. IV. Sut. 4.] SRI-BHASHYA.

297

condition cannot be accomplished by merit. And in the way in which a particular result is to be accomplished by means of a particular commandment, the unembodied condition cannot be accomplished by means of the injunc- tion relating to meditation; because the unembodied condi- tion constitutes the essential nature (of the self) and is not, therefore, a thing which is to be accomplished. The following and other scriptural texts declare the same thing thus: “Knowing Him to be the unembodied One who exists in non-eternal bodies, (knowing Him) to be the Self which is great and omnipresent, the wise man does not grieve.”-[Kath. Up. II. 22.]; “Indeed He is pure, with- out life, without mind.”-[Mund. Up. II. 1. 2.]; “Indeed this Person is devoid of attachment,”-[Brih. Up. IV. 3. 15.]. Therefore, final release which is the same as the unembo- died condition is eternal, and is, in consequence, incapable of being produced by merit. To the same effect is the following scriptural passage:-“That which is other than merit and demerit, that which is other than this effect and cause, that which is other than the past and the future, say, if thou seest that.” [Kath. Up. II.

14.].

Again, it is surely impossible to predicate in regard to final release that capability of being accomplished (anew), which (accomplishing) is four-fold in the forms of origina- tion, attainment, modification, and refinement. It is not capable of being originated; because final release, being of the nature of the Brahman, is itself characterised by eter- nity. Nor is it capable of being attained (anew); because the Brahman Himself is of the nature of the self, and hence it (viz. final release) has the character of being ever attained. Nor also is it capable of being modified; be- cause non-eternity would result to it thereby, as (there is) in the case of curds, &c. Nor again is it capable of

38298

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

being refined. Refinement, indeed, is accomplished either by the removal of defects or by the addition of excellence. Surely it (viz. refinement) cannot be (produced here) by the removal of defects, on account of the eternal purity of the Brahman. Nor is it (viz. refinement) to be (ac- complished here) by the addition of excellence, because (the Brahman is) of the nature of such excellence as cannot be added to. By reason of its being eternally immodifia- ble, it cannot form the object of any action which takes place either in itself or takes place in others; thus no refine- ment can be effected (in relation to it), as (it is effected) in the case of mirrors, &c., by the action of rubbing; and the self is not purified by the act of bathing, &c., which relate to the body; but (what is so purified is) that egoistic agent which is caught hold of by ignorance (or avidya) and is in association with that (body) and to him (i. c. to that agent) alone belongs the enjoyment of the result of that (act of bathing). But the egoistic agent himself is not the self, because he has that (self) for his witness. Similarly, the words of the scriptural hymn also declare :-“One of them eats the sweet pippala fruit, while the other shines in splendour without eating at all.” [Mund. Up. III. 1. 1.].319 Moreover, the essential nature of the self is distinctly made out to be different from the egoistic agent who is caught hold of by ignorance (or avidya), (it is made out) to possess such excellence as cannot be added to, to be eternally pure and to be immodifiable, from the fol- lowing scriptural passages :-“The wise say that what is associated with the body, the senses, and the mind, forms the enjoyer.”-[Kath. Up. III. 4.]; “The one Lord is hidden in all beings, pervades all, and is the inter-

319. See also Svet. Up. IV. 6.

Adhik. IV. Sut. 4.] SRI-BHASHYA.

299

nal Self of all beings; He is the presiding deity over ac- tions, and lives in all beings; He is the witness, the intel- ligent one, who is absolute and devoid of qualities.”-[Svet. Up. VI. 11. & Brah. Up. III.]; “He understood Him to be bright, bodiless, scatheless, without sinews, pure, and untouched by evil.”-[Is. Up. VIII.]. Hence, owing to its being of the nature of the Self, final release is not a thing that can (thus) be accomplished (anew).

It may be asked-If so, what is it that is accomplished by means of the knowledge of the syntactical meaning of sentences? We say (in reply) that it is merely the removal of the obstruction to final release (that is so accomplished). To the same effect are the following and other scriptural passages:-“Thou art our Father who enablest us to cross to the other shore which is far away from Ignorance.”-[Pr Up. VI. 8.]; “I have, indeed, learnt the sastras thus. He. who knows the Self crosses the ocean of misery, only with the help of venerable teachers like yourself. Venerable sir, I who am so (destitute of the knowledge of the Self) feel very grieved. May you, venerable sir, enable me, who am so, to cross over to the other shore (of the ocean of misery).”-[Chhand. Up. VII. 1. 3.]; “To him whose sins have been destroyed, the venerable Sanatkumāra shows the other shore of darkness.”-[Chhand. Up. VII. 26. 2.]. Therefore, the removal of the obstructions to that final re- lease, which is certainly eternal, is accomplished by means of the knowledge of the syntactical meaning of scriptural sentences. But (such) removal, although capable of being. accomplished anew, has itself the nature of that non-exist- ence 320 which follows destruction; and hence it cannot have an end. The following and other scriptural

320. Vide supra p. 49. n. 37.

300

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

statements, namely, “He who knows the Brahman be- comes the Brahman indeed.”-[Mund. Up. III. 2. 9.], “He who thus knows Him transcends death.”-[Svet. Up. III. 8. & VI. 15.],-declare that final release follows imme- diately after the knowledge (of the Brahman), and (so) oppose the interposition of any injunction (bearing upon meditation). Moreover, it (viz. final release or the attainment of the Brahman) does not acquire the character of a produced effect, either by being the object of the act of knowing, or by being the object of the act of meditation; because such a character of being the object of both (these acts) is negatived in the following and in other scriptural passages:-“It is certainly different from the known, and is also different from the knower.”- [Ken. Up. I. 3.]; “By Whom one knows all this, by what is He to be known?”-[Brih. Up. II. 4. 14. & IV. 5. 15.]; “Know thou That alone to be the Brahman, not this which they worship.”-[Ken. Up. I. 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8.]. By this much, it does not also follow that the sastras have no object whatsoever; because the sastras relate to the removal of distinctions manufactured by ignorance. Indeed, the sastras do not deal with the Brahman as possessing definitely discernible characteristics; but, while declaring the true nature of the internal (subjective) self which is no (external) object, they put an end to the distinc- tions which are in the form of the knowledge, the knower, and the object of knowledge, and which are all manufactur- ed by ignorance (or avidya). To the same effect, there is, among others, the following sastraic injunction :-” Thou shalt not see the seer of the sight, &c." [Brih. Up. III. 4. 2.]. Further, it should not be (supposed) that the cessation of bondage results wholly from knowledge, and that consequently the injunction relating to ‘hear-

Adhik. IV. Sut. 4.] SRI-BHASHYA.

301

ing’, &c., is purposeless; because they (viz. ‘hear- ing’, reflection and steady meditation) form the means of understanding the syntactical meaning of scriptural sen- tences, by causing us to turn away from all such distrac- tions as relate to things other than the Brahman and are (all) due to our own nature.

Again it should not be urged that the cessation of bond- age is not seen to take place by means of knowledge alone; because bondage is of a false nature, and it is not hence possible for it to remain (even) subsequently to (the birth of) knowledge. For this same reason it is not right to say that the cessation of bondage takes place only after the falling off of the body. Indeed, the cessation of the fear due to the falsely perceived serpent does not require any destruc- tion of a serpent beyond the (mere) knowledge of the real- ity of the rope. If the association of the body (with the self) were of the nature of a reality, then there would be the necessity for its destruction. But that (association), being distinct from the Brahman, is not of the nature of a real- ity. It is known that, to him whose bondage has not ceas- ed, knowledge is not born; because the effect of know- ledge is not seen (in relation to him). Therefore, whether the body exists or not, immediately after knowing the syntactical meaning of sentences, one is undoubtedly releas- ed (from bondage).

Consequently, final release is not capable of being accomplished by the injunction relating to meditation; and hence, the Brahman is not proved to be dependent upon the injunction relating to meditation; but (He is establish- ed) by means of the following scriptural passages which altogether relate to Him:-“The Brahman is Exist- ence, Knowledge, Infinity.”-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.]; “That thou art.”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 7.]; “This self

302

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

is the Brahman.”-[Brih. Up. II. 5. 19. & IV. 4. 5.].821

This (position) 822 is not right; because it is not possible for the cessation of bondage to take place merely by means of the knowledge of the syntactical meaning of sentences. No doubt, the bondage which is of a false nature is cap- able of being stultified by knowledge. Nevertheless, as that bondage is directly perceived, it cannot be stultified by that knowledge of the syntactical meaning of sentences which is of an indirect (abstract) nature; because, when the direct perception of a snake is existent in relation to the rope and other such things, it is not seen that the removal of fear takes place merely by that indirect (ab- stract) knowledge, which is contradictory of the serpent and is produced by the teaching of trustworthy persons to the effect-“This is no serpent, this is a rope.” And the teaching of trustworthy persons becomes the cause of the removal of fear, only by happening to be the cause of such activity as results from the direct perception of the reality of things. Accordingly, a person who has fled away, taking fright at the sight of the serpent falsely perceived in a rope, begins to see the reality of things by means of the teaching of trustworthy persons to the effect"This is no serpent, this is a rope"; then he sees that (rope) itself directly, and then becomes free from fear. Moreover, it is not right to say that verbal testimony of itself produces such knowledge as has the nature of direct perception; because it (viz. verbal testi- mony) does not possess the character of an organ of sense. Among the apparatuses of knowledge, the senses alone form

321. Vide also Mand. Up. I. 2. 322. Here begins the Dhyanani- yogavadin’s refutation of the objec-

tion against his views raised above by the AdwaitinAdhik. IV. Süt. 4.] SRI-BHASHYA.

303

the means of direct perception. And in the case of that person whose sins have not been destroyed by the perfor- mance of works without attachment to their fruits, and who has not turned away from external objects by ‘hear- ing’, reflection, and steady meditation, the Vedic text alone cannot produce direct knowledge. Even when (that) person has the obstructions (in the way of his ac- quiring knowledge) removed, and is devoted to those things (viz. ‘hearing’, reflection, and steady meditation), it is not possible (for him) to have that (direct knowledge from verbal testimony alone); because the senses, which (alone) form the special apparatus of (direct) knowledge, are not seen to transgress their limitations in regard to what con- stitutes their object.

Moreover, meditation is no means of knowing the syntactical meaning of sentences; because, (in such a case), there will arise the fallacy of reciprocal dependence,-in as much as the knowledge of the syntactical meaning of sen- tences must be born before there can be the meditation of its object, and meditation must be completed before there can be the knowledge of the syntactical meaning of sen- tences. And it should not be (urged) that meditation and the knowledge of the syntactical meaning of sentences re- late to different things. If they did so, then meditation would be no means of producing the knowledge of the syntactical meaning of sentences. Indeed, the medita- tion of one thing cannot lead to the fruition of another thing. It is unavoidable (to hold) that meditation, which is the same as an unbroken flow of memory relating to a thing that is known, has invariably to be preceded by the knowledge of the syntactical meaning of sentences; because there is no other means by which the knowledge relating to the Brahman, who is the object of medi-

304

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

tation, can be produced.

Further it is not right to say that the knowledge which is at the root of medita- tion is derived from a different set of passages, while the knowledge which relates to the removal (of ignorance) is derived from passages like “That thou art.” [Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 7.]. Does this knowledge which is at the root of meditation, and is derived from a different set of passages, relate to the same thing as that to which the knowledge derived from passages like-“That thou art”, &c., relates? Or does it relate to a different thing? If that (knowledge) relates to the same thing (as this), there results the already stated fallacy of reciprocal dependence. If that knowledge relates to a different thing (from what this knowledge relates to), then it is not possible to prove that by means of meditation there arises the fruition of what this (latter knowledge) relates to. Further, meditation pre-supposes many phenomenal entities like the object of medita- tion, and the agent of meditation, &c. Consequent- ly it is of no use, so far as we see, in producing that knowledge of the syntactical meaning of sentences which relates to the oneness of the self with the non-phenomenal Brahman. Therefore, the commandments enjoining ‘hear- ing’, reflection, and steady meditation are certainly useless to him who maintains (the view) that the destruction of ignorance (or avidya) takes place merely by means of the knowledge of the syntactical meaning of sentences.

For whatsoever reason, direct (perceptual) knowledge (of things) is not produced by means of scriptural passages, and ignorance (or avidya) remains, in consequence, unde- stroyed by means of the knowledge of the syntactical meaning of scriptural sentences, for that very same rea- son, the idea that (the self’s) release from the bondage (of samsara) takes place even while in this life is also driven

Adhik. IV. Sut. 4.] SRI-BHASHYA.

305

away (as untrue). And what is this release from bondage even while in this life? It may be said that it is release resulting (to the self) even in the embodied condition; but then such a statement will be self-contradictory in meaning like the statement- “My mother is barren “; because it has been declared by yourself, with the help of scriptural passages, that to be embodied is to be in bondage, and that to become unembodied is to obtain release. And again it is not (right to say) that, when the appearance of the associ- ation (of the self) with the body is in existence, then, who- ever has the belief that (such an) appearance is false,–to him there is the destruction of (this) association with the body. If (his) association with the body is destroyed by the belief that it is false, how can there be release to him even when he has the body? That release (from embodi- ment) which results to one after death is also undeniably the destruction of the false appearance of one’s being asso- ciated with a body. Then what is the peculiarity about this release which takes place even while in this life? Moreover, it may be said that, in whomsoever this false appearance of his (self) having a body persists even after the stultification (of that falsity), just like the false percep- tion of two moons (persisting even when one knows that there is only one moon), (it may be said that) such a per- son is he who is released even while in this life: if so, it is replied that it cannot be so; because this stultifying know- ledge relates to all things other than the Brahman. To- gether with the false appearance of (the self) having a body, the blemishes resulting from ignorance (or avidya) and from ‘work’ (or karma) and from other such things, which are all the causes (of the false appearance of the self’s embodiment itself), are all stultified by that (stultifying knowledge) alone; and thus, it is not possible to say that (any)

39

306

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

stultified thing does persist. But in the case of (the percep- tion of) two moons (when there is in reality only one moon), that defect, which is the cause of such a false appearance, is no object of the stultifying knowledge which is to the effect that the moon is only one; and hence it is not thereby stultified. Consequently the persistence of the false appearance of two moons is proper. Moreover, this scriptural text, which says “So long as he is not freed (from the body), so long there is delay; then he will be blessed.” [Chhand. Up. VI. 14. 2.], declares that, in the case of him who observes the form of worship known as the Sadvidya,323 final release stands in need of only the falling off of (his) body; and thus it prohibits the (occurrence of) release even while in this life. This aforesaid release even while in this life has been discarded by Apastamba also in the following aphorisms:-“Giving up the Vedas, this world, and the other, one should seek the Self. It may be said that, on knowledge arising, there is the attainment of bliss; but that is negatived by the scriptures. If the at- tainment of bliss were possible on knowledge arising, then, even here, one should not have misery. By this, the other (also) has been explained.” [Ap. Dh. II. 21. 13 to 17.]. By these (aphorisms), (the opinion that) final release (occurs) by means of mere knowledge alone is also discard- ed. Therefore that release, which has the nature of the removal of all distinctions, does not result to one who is alive. Consequently, bondage comes to an end only by means of that injunction which relates to meditation, and which produces the direct knowledge of the Brah-

323. This is a form of worship taught to Svetaketu by his father. Vide Chhand. Up. VI., wherein it is given that the Supreme Self is to be

meditated upon so that He may be realised as the self-existent Soul of

the whole universe.

Adhik. IV. Süt. 4.] SRI-BHASHYA.

man.

307

No non-eternal character can result to final release simply on the score that it is accomplished in accordance with an injunction; because what is (so) ac- complished is merely the removal of the obstructions (to fin- al release). Further, the cessation of bondage is not caused directly by the injunction (itself); but (it is caused) by the direct knowledge of the Brahman. who is non-pheno- menal, and who is homogeneous intelligence. And the injunction produces this direct knowledge. If it be asked how an injunction may be the cause of producing know- ledge, it is asked in reply, how do your ‘works’ performed without attachment to results form the cause of the pro- duction of knowledge? If you say, (that they do so), through the purification of the mind, I say that it is the same in my case also. It may be said again (by you) that, in your case, knowledge is produced, by means of the sastras, in the mind which is (already) pure, but that, in my case, that thing has (indeed) to be pointed out which forms the apparatus for producing knowledge in the mind which is purified by the injunction. If so, we say in reply that that mind, which is purified by the injunction relating to meditation, is itself the means for the pro- duction of knowledge. If it be asked how this is made out, we ask in reply, how is it made out in your case that the mind becomes pure by means of ‘works’ and that by means of hearing’, reflection, and steady meditation, the sastras produce that knowledge, which is stultifica- tory (of ignorance), in the pure mind of him alone who has turned away from all other things than the Brahman? You may answer that it is (so) made out by means of the following and other scriptural passages:-“They desire to know (the Brahman) by sacrifices, by giving gifts, by reli- gious austerities associated with fasting.”-[Brik. Up.308

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

IV. 4. 22.]; “(The Self) has to be……heard, has to be reflected upon, has to be steadily meditated upon.”- [Brih. Up. IV. 5. 6.]; “He who knows the Brahman becomes the Brahman indeed.”-[Mund. Up. III. 2. 9.]. If so, I reply that, in my case also, in accordance with the following among other scriptural passages, namely-” (The Self) has to be…heard, has to be reflected upon, has to be steadily meditated upon.”-[Brih. Up. II. 4. 5. & IV. 5.6.]; “He who knows the Brahman attains the Highest.”- [Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.]; “He (i. e. the Lord) is not apprehend- ed by the eye nor even by speech.”-[Mund. Up. III. 1. 8.];" But He (the Lord) is apprehended by the pure mind." -[ ? ]; “He (the Lord) is apprehended by the heart, by steady wisdom, and by the mind.”-[Kath. Up. VI. 9.];324-it is made out that the mind becomes pure by means of the injunction relating to meditation, and that the mind (so) purified gives rise to the direct know- ledge of the Brahman. Thus it (viz. the whole argument) is faultless.

If you say that by means of the scriptural passage- “Not this which they worship!”-[Ken. Up. I. 4. et seq],- the character of being the object of meditation is denied (in relation to the Brahman), it is replied that it cannot be so. The fact of the Brahman being the object of medita- tion is not denied (herein), but the fact that the Brahman is distinct from the world is declared in this passage. The meaning of this passages 25 is this: “This world which peoples 20 here worship, that is not the Brahman. Know

324. Vide also Svet. Up. III. 13. &

M. När. I. 11.

325. The whole of this passage runs as follows:-” Know thou Him alone to be the Brahman who is not made out by speech and by whom speech is

brought into existence; but not this which they worship." Vide Ken, Up. I. 4. et seq.

326. Literally, living beings (prani-

nah).

Adhik. IV. Sut. 4.] SRI-BHASHYA.

309

thou Him alone to be the Brahman who is not made out by speech, and by whom speech is brought into existence." Otherwise, the statement-Know thou Him alone to be the Brahman’-would be contradicted, and the injunction enjoining meditation would become purposeless.

Therefore the whole of the bondage, which is made up of unreality and is of the nature of the phenomenal world consisting of the knower, the known, &c., comes to an end by means of that very injunction which enjoins medi- tation, and the result of which is the direct realisation of the Brahman.

It is also asserted by some37 that there is no contra- diction between distinction and non-distinction. This is improper; for distinction and non-distinction cannot meet together in one and the same thing, as heat and cold, light and darkness, &c., (can not so meet). (To this) it may be said again as follows:-

The whole of the totality of things is indeed estab- lished by perception and all things are apprehended as distinct and non-distinct. There is non-distinction (when they are looked upon) as constituting causes and as consti- tuting genera (and species), and there is distinction (when they are looked upon) as constituting effects and as consti- tuting particular individuals. The contradiction existing between sunlight and shadow, &c., is characterised by their not being found together, and by their having a divers- ity of abodes. But in the case of causes and effects, as well as in the case of genera and (their) individual mem- bers, both those (characteristics) are not found; but, on

327. This position is maintained by the Bhaskartyas and it is here ex-

plained in full before it is contradict- ed. Vide supra p. 217. 11. 235.

310

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

the contrary, one and the same thing appears in two forms as (when it is said)-This pot is clay’,‘This ox is brok- en-horned’, ‘This ox is hornless’. And in this world there is nothing that is generally seen to have only one form.

Nor is non-distinction seen to be that which destroys distinction, as when fire and such other things (consume and destroy the distinction) of grass and such other things; accordingly, there is no substantial contra- diction (between distinction and non-distinction); for, that object which exists in the form of clay, gold, ox, or an equine animal, &c., may itself exist (also) in the shape of a pot, a crown, a broken-horned (ox), or a mare, &c. There is no fiat of the Lord to the effect that non-distinc- tion and distinction should (respectively) constitute the singular characteristics of the thing (genus) which is non- distinct, and of the thing (individual) which is distinct. If it be said that there is oneness of form (in relation to those things), because it is so perceived; then let it be admitt- ed that there are also the two forms of distinction and of non-distinction for the same reason that they are also perceived. Indeed, when things such as pots, dishes, broken-horned (oxen), and horn-less (oxen), &c., are perceived, a person who has his eyes wide open is not able to discern (any) distinction (in each of his perceptions) to the effect-This is clay, that is pot’, and ‘This is the general property of the species ox, but this is the indi- vidual ox’. On the other hand, his perceptions are only to the effect-This pot is clay’,- The ox is broken- horned’. If it be said that he does discern distinction (in each of his perceptions), on the score that the cause and the class are made out from the knowledge of their persistence, while the effect and the individual are made out by means of the knowledge of their power of logical

Adhik. IV. Sut. 4.] SRI-BHASHYA.

311

exclusion, it is replied that it cannot be so; because (such) a distinction in character is not perceived. Indeed, even those who observe very minutely do not perceive, in rela- tion to the thing placed before them, any distinction in character to the effect- This is what persists’ and ‘This is what excludes’. Just as, in the case of an effect and of an individual, (both of) whose oneness (with the correspond- ing cause and the corresponding genus respectively) is well perceived, the idea of oneness is born (in the mind); so also, in the case of what has a cause and belongs to a genus, that idea of oneness is born without any differ- ence whatsoever. It is exactly similarly that the recogni- tive cognition, which is to the effect This is that same thing’, is born even in regard to all such objects as are ex- tremely different from one another owing to (differences in) space, time, and the characteristic form. Therefore, in as much as (all) things appear as having certainly two na- tures, the enunciation of any extreme difference between the cause and the effect as well as between the genus and the individual is contradicted by perception.

It may be again said that, as in the instances’ This pot is clay’, ‘This ox is broken-horned’,-(so also) in the instances’ I am a god’, ‘I am a man’, there is the per- ception of oneness owing to there being a grammatical equation; that in consequence there is distinction and non- distinction between the self and the body also; and that, accordingly, this declaration of distinction and non-distinc- tion acts like the flame of fire set to (consume) one’s own house. This statement-(we, the Bhaskariyas, say)-is the outcome of undeveloped wisdom regarding grammatical equations which establish distinction and non-distinction, and regarding (also) the knowledge of the real meaning of those (same grammatical equations). Thus, for instance,

312

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. 1.

it is the unstultified idea alone which everywhere proves things. But the imposed idea of the self, existing in (inti- mate) association with gods and other (material embodi- ments), is contradicted by all the means of proof which establish the reality of the self; and that (idea) does not prove, (in consequence), the non-distinction between the self and the body; in the same way in which the idea of the serpent (falsely perceived) in a rope, &c., (does not prove any non-distinction as existing between the serpent and the rope). And the grammatical equations, which are to the effectThe ox is broken-horned’, ‘The ox is hornless’, are not seen to be stultified anywhere by any- thing; hence there is no exaggeration in (our) statement. For these same reasons, the self also is not totally dis- tinct from the Brahman. On the other hand, as being a part of the Brahman, it is (both) distinct and non- distinct (from Him). It being so, non-distinction alone is natural, and distinction is due to limiting conditions. If it be asked how this is made out, it is replied (that it is made out) by means of the following and other scriptural texts “That thou art.”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 7.]; “There is no other seer than He.”-[Brih. Up. III. 7. 23.]; “This self is the Brahman”.-[Brih. Up. II. 5. 19. & IV. 4. 5. & Mand. Up. 1. 2.]. Non-distinction (between the self and the Brahman) is declared in the hymn which relates to the Brahman and forms the Samhitopanishad of the Atharvanikas; and it says, after introducing the subject-matter of the topic by mentioning the Brahman to be these two, namely, the Earth and the Heaven, that “The fishermen are the Brahman, the slaves are the Brahman, and these gamblers are also the Brahman, man and woman are born out of the Brahman; women are the Brahman, and man also (is the Brahman).” And distinctionAdhik. IV. Sul. 4.] SRI-BHASHYA.

313

(between the self and the Brahman) is also declared in the following and other scriptural passages :-“The Eter- nal among the eternals, the Intelligent among the in- telligent, who, though One, fulfils the desires of the many.”-[Kath. Up. V. 13. & Svet. Up. VI. 13.]; “The two unborn, the intelligent and the non-intelligent (are) the Lord and the non-Lord.”-[Svet. Up. I. 9.]; “An- other (viz. the Lord) also is seen to be the cause of their association with the qualities of the ‘works’ (which lead to samsara) and the qualities of the self (which lead to beatific release).”-[Svet. Up. V. 12.]; “He is the Lord of the prakriti and of the individual soul, and is the regulator of the qualities; He is the cause of sam- sara, of final release, of existence, and of bondage.”- [Svet. Up. VI. 16.]; “He is the cause, the Lord of what is the lord of the senses (i. e. of the jiva or the indi- vidual soul).”-[Svet. Up. VI. 9.]; “One of them eats the sweet pippala fruit, while the other shines in splen- dour without eating at all.”-[Mund. Up. III. 1. 1. & Svet. Up. IV. 6.]; “He who, dwelling in the self, &c.”- [Madh. Brih. Up. III. 7. 22.]; “He is embraced by the omniscient Self and knows nothing that is external.”- [Brih. Up. IV. 3. 21.]; “He is ridden upon by the omni- scient Self and goes away giving3 28 up his body.”-[Brih. Up. IV. 3. 35.]; “Knowing Him alone, one transcends death.” [Svet. Up. III. 8.]. Therefore, (both) distinction and non-distinction have necessarily to be admitted be- tween the individual self and the Supreme Self. It being so, non-distinction is, however, made out to be natural, because the scriptural passage-" He who knows the Brahman becomes the Brahman indeed."-[Mund. Up. III. 2. 9.],

328. The word used in the original is utsarjan which is interpreted by

Sankara to mean groaning along.

40

314

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

-and others like it declare that, in the condition of final release, the individual self acquires the nature of the Brahman; and because also the passage-“But where to one all this becomes the Self, there who shall see whom by what?”-[Brih. Up. II. 4. 14. & IV. 5. 15.],-negatives the apprehension of the Lord then as being different (from the individual self).

However, it may be said that even then distinction is perceived in accordance with the scriptural passage which speaks of the association (of the individual self with the Brahman), and is to this effect-“He attains with the omniscient Brahman all the auspicious qualities.”-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.]; and that he (the Sutrakāra) also says the same thing in these aphorisms-“Except in the matter of the activity relating to (the creation, &c., of) the world, (the released souls possess all the powers belonging to the Lord); because (the Lord Himself forms) the topic of the contexts (wherein the above-mentioned activity is referred to), and because also (the individual souls) are not mention- ed (therein).”-[Ved. Sut. IV. 4. 17.]; “And on account of the characteristic of equality (between the individual self and the Supreme Self) being solely confined to (the matter of) enjoyment.”-[Ved. Sut. IV. 4. 21.].. (But) this is not so; because the distinction of the individual self (from the Brahman) is denied by hundreds of scriptural passages such as “There is no other seer than He.”- [Brih. Up. III. 7. 23.], and others. By means of the passage “He attains with the omniscient Brahman all the auspicious qualities.”–[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.],-what is said is that he enjoys the Brahman along with all (His) desirable qualities; that is, he enjoys the Brahman posses- sed of all those qualities. Otherwise, the phrase “with the (omniscient) Brahman” would lead to the Brahman be-

Adhik. ÍV. Sūt. 4.] SRI-BHASHYA.

315

coming unimportant. If, by means of the aphorism- “Except in the matter of the activity relating to (the creation, &c., of) the world, &c.”, the released souls are made out to have a distinct existence (from the Brahman), then it is the same as stating (that these individual souls have a) deficiency of lordship. For, otherwise, there will be the contradiction of this aphorism among others, name- ly," (Only) after attaining the Highest Light, is there the manifestation (of the individual self’s own nature; as may be inferred) from (the use of) the word ‘own’. [Ved. Sut. IV. 4. 1.]. 329 Therefore, non-distinction (between the self and the Brahman) is alone na- tural.

But the distinction of the individual selves from the Brahman as well as from each other is due to limiting conditions, such as the intellect, the senses and the body. Although the Brahman is not made up of constituent parts and is found everywhere, yet there certainly results dis- tinction even in relation to the Brahman by means of the limiting conditions, such as the intellect, &c., just as (dis- tinction results) in the case of the spatial330 ether by means of (limiting conditions like) pots, &c. And there is (here) no fallacy of reciprocal dependence to the effect that there is the association of limiting conditions like the intellect, &c., with the Brahman who is already differentiated, and

329. The passage which is the basis of this aphorism and contains the word own (or sva) runs thus:-Paran- jyotirupasampadya svena ripen ibinish- padhyate Chhand. Up. VIII. 12. 2.]. “After attaining the Highest Light(ie. the Brahman), he (the individual self) becomes manifest in his own nature.”

330. The ether which exists within a pot (ghatakasa) is said to be condi- tioned by the pot. On the destruction of the pot, the ether which was with- in it becomes one with the spatial ether outside (mahakau), which, in itself, is unconditioned.

316

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

that there is differentiation in relation to the Brahman by means of His association with limiting conditions like the intellect, &c.; because the limiting condition and its association (with the Brahman) are (both) due to karma ;331 and because also the stream of that (karma) is beginningless.

What is said is this:-By means of the individual self which is held in bondage by its past karma, there is produced that limiting - condition. which is found in association with that (self) itself; and karma (is produced) by the (self’s) being associated with that (limiting condition): thus there is nothing wrong (here), in as much as the relation between karma and (these) limiting conditions is beginningless in accordance with the argument 332 derived from the seed and the sprout. Therefore, it is the non-distinction of the indivi- dual selves from each other as well as from the Brahman that is certainly natural.

But distinction arises, however, from limiting condi- tions. The distinction also of these limiting conditions from each other as well as from the Brahman is natural, like (their) non-distinction; because these limiting conditions are not subject to other limiting conditions, and because also, if these (latter) be admitted, there would result a regressus in infinitum. Consequently, according to the karma of the individual selves, such limiting conditions are produced (in relation to the Brahman) as have, indeed,

331. Here karma means the effects of past works,

332. A seed produces a sprout this sprout produces another seed, this seed another sprout, this again another seed, and so on. Similarly a karma produces a limiting condition,

this condition produces another karma, this karma another limiting condition, and so on. Thus there can be no beginning to the relation which exists between karma and limiting conditions.

Adhik. IV. Sut. 4.] SRI-BHASHYA.

317

a nature which is (both) distinct and non-distinct from the Brahman,

(In reply to this), it is said here 333 thus:-

It has been stated that the whole collection of Ved- antic passages relate to the injunction regarding the medi- tation of the Brahman who is without a second, and is existence, knowledge and bliss; that consequently it is non-distinction which is made out by means of Vedantic passages; and that distinction is made out by means of the sastras relating to ‘works’, as well as by means of percep- tion, &c., which are all dependent upon distinctions; and that, (under these circumstances), non-distinction is alone the reality, because, there is mutual contradiction between distinction and non-distinction, and because also the per- ception of distinctions may result even from the beginning- lessly old ignorance (or avidya) as its source. But what has been stated there (in that context) to the effect that there is contradiction between distinction and non- distinction, for the reason that both of them are estab- lished by perception, that is improper. Indeed, for a thing to be distinct from another thing is the same as that thing having characteristics which are different from those of the other thing; and non-distinction is the con. dition opposite to this. Who is there that is in his senses, and will speak of the existence in one and the same place of those two things (viz. distinction and non-dis- tinction) which have (respectively) the nature of a parti- cular condition and of the opposite of that particular condition? If it be said that non-distinction exists in the form of the cause as well as in the form of

333. Hercunder, the Dhyananiyoga- Bhaskariyas stated above. vädin refutes the position of the318

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

the genus, and that distinction exists in the form of the effect as well as in the form of the individual, and that, owing to there being (such) a difference between their forms there is no contradiction (between them),-it is repli- ed that it is not (right to say so); because such (a position) does not admit of any one of the possible alternative views (in relation to it). Does he who says that there is no con- tradiction (between distinction and non-distinction) owing to the difference in the form of their appearance,-(does he) hold that distinction exists in one particular form, while non-distinction exists in another particular form? Or (does he hold) that both of them are to be found in one thing which is capable of adopting both those forms? In the first alternative, distinction belongs to the individual and non-distinction belongs to the genus, and hence, no one thing has both these forms (of distinction and non-distinction). If it be said that the genus and the individual are both one and the same thing, then (the contention), that there is no contradiction (between them), in as much as there is a difference in the form of their appearance, will amount to have been given up. It has been already stated that it is contrary to reason for one and the same thing to have its own peculiar charac- teristics and (also) their opposites. And, in the second alternative, there are two forms which are mutually con- tradictory, and the thing with which they are associated is unknown. Hence, even if a third form (other than the jati or genus, and the vyakti or the individual) be admitt- ed, there would be only the proving of the mutual distinc- tion between (all) the three forms, but no (proving of the) absence of distinction (between them). If it be said that that non-contradiction (between distinction and non-dis- tinction), which it is sought to maintain by the

Adhik. IV. Süt. 4.] SRI-BHASHYA.

319

(supposition of) two forms, is the same as being (both) distinct and non-distinct from the thing which forms the abode of those (two forms),-it is asked in reply how the two forms, which abide in a thing and are themselves (thus) different from (that) thing, can be capable of introducing into that thing hostile attribut- es (at the same time). Of what nature is non-dis-

tinction then? If the two forms (on the one hand) and the thing, (on the other hand), which possesses them are admitted to be (distinctly) two in nature, then, there would be the necessity for another form that is capable of holding them together. Consequently, there would be the fallacy of regressus in infinitum. . Moreover, there is the apprehension of an admitted oneness in relation to the perception of individuals; similarly, how- ever, in regard to that thing also which has (its) similars, there arises no such perception as is, characterised by oneness; because all perception arises only as relating to the characteristic modes (of things) and to the things characterised by those modes, to the effect that a particular thing is of a particular nature. In such (a perception), the thing which characterises is the genus, and the thing which is characterised is the indivi- dual (belonging to that genus); and therefore perception has not (only) one form. For this same reason, the quality of being (both) distinct and non-distinct from the Brahman is not possible in relation to the indivi- dual self also. Accordingly, the perception of distinction is solely based upon the beginninglessly old ignorance (or avidya), in as much as non-distinction is based on the sastras (the logical result of which is) arrived at in- dependently (of all other means of knowledge).

It may be said that, if such be the case, the Brah-

320

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

man Himself would possess ignorance, and that conse- quently the evils of birth, old age, death, &c., resulting from that (ignorance) would taint (Him); and that for the same reason the following and other scriptural texts, namely, “He who understands all and who knows all”-[Mund. Up. I. 1. 9. & II. 2. 7.]; “This Self is devoid of sin.”-[Chhand. Up. VIII. 1. 5. & VIII. 7. 1 & 3.], would also be contradicted. But this is not right; because the evils of ignorance, &c., are not real. But, in as much as yous 34 do not admit (the existence of) things other than the limiting conditions and the Brahman, the association of those limiting conditions with the Brahman Himself and the evils of (His) constituting the individual self, of (His) being (thus) ignorant, &c., (all of) which result from that (association), would all occur (according to you) in reality. Indeed, these limiting conditions, which are associated with the Brahman who is without constituent parts and indivisible, do not get into association (with Him) either after cutting Him or after dividing Him. But, on the contrary, they are associated with His essential na- ture, and hence they work out their effects within Himself.

You may, however, hold that the Brahman limited by conditions is the individual self; and that that (individual self) is atomic (in size); that its atomic character is due to the atomic (or non-pervasive) nature of the manas which is one of the limiting conditions; that this limiting condition is beginninglessly old; and that, therefore, the evils, which are associated with the thing that is limited by conditions,

334. You means the Bhaskariyas who admit only the Brahman and the conditions limiting Him. Beyond

these, they do not admit the existence of anything else.

Adhik. IV. Sut. 4.] SRI-BHASHYA.

man.

321

are not associated with the Highest unconditioned Brah- If so, it has to be asked whether the individual self which is atomic in size is a bit of the Brahman cut off (from Him) by limiting conditions; or whether it (viz. the individual self) is any such special part of the Brah- man as is not at all divided from the Brahman and is (nevertheless) associated with that limiting condition which is characterised by the atomic size; or whether it is, in essence, the Brahman Himself in association with limiting conditions; or whether it is some other intelligent being associated with limiting conditions; or whether it is the limiting condition itself. As the Brahman is incapable of being divided, the first alternative cannot be assumed; and (if it be assumed), there would be a beginning (in time) to the individual self; indeed cutting off means the splitting of an already existing thing into two. In accordance with the second alternative, a particular part of the Brahman Himself is associated with limiting conditions, and hence all the evils arising out of limiting conditions accrue to Him alone; and when a limiting condition is detached and transferred (from one part of the Brahman to another), then, owing to the fact that it is not possible for the limit- ing condition to carry with itself that part of the Brahman which was associated with itself (before), and owing also to the fact that the part of the Brahman which is associat- ed with limiting conditions varies from moment to moment, both bondage and final release have to be taking place every moment. If it were possible (for the limiting condition) to carry with itself (that part of the Brahman with which it is associated), then, since the Brahman is indivisible, the whole (of the Brahman) would have to be so carried. If it be said that a thing which has no constituent parts and is all-pervading cannot be (so) carried,"

41

322

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I.

then the statement already made to the effect that the limiting condition is detached and transferred must itself be- come an error. When all the limiting conditions are asso- ciated with the (various) parts of the (one) undivided Brah- man, then, since all the individual selves form such parts of the (one undivided) Brahman, they will have all to be put together and realised as one. If, owing to their form- ing (His) various parts, there can be no putting them to- gether (so as to cause their coalescence), then, even after the limiting conditions are detached and transferred, there can be no coalescence of even a single part (freed from limiting conditions with the unconditioned whole). In ac- cordance with the third alternative, the essential nature of the Brahman Himself assumes the state of the individual self, through association with limiting conditions; and hence there can be no establishment of the unconditioned Brahman as apart from that (individual self), and there will have to be only one individual self in all bodies. In ac- cordance with the fourth alternative, the individual self is (by nature) altogether different from the Brahman, and therefore the idea that the differentiation of the individual self (from the Brahman) is due to limiting conditions will amount to have been given up. In accordance with the last alternative, the view of the Charvakas335 themselves will come to have been accepted. Therefore, on the strength of the sastras declaring that there is non-disinc-

The Charvākas are the mate- rialists of Hindu philosophy. Their sceptical doctrines were handed down to Charvaka and his followers by one Vachaspati or Brihaspati. Their opinions are embodied in what are called Barhaspatya-sutras. They are regarded as atheists by the orthodox in matters of Vedic faith. The Chārvākas believe only in one crite- rion of truth, namely, perception. According to them non-intelligent matter itself is the cause of crea- tion.Adhik. IV. Sut. 4.] SRI-BHASHYA. 323 tion (between things), it has to be accepted that all distinc- tions are based upon ignorance (or avidya) alone. Accordingly, although the sastras are authoritative. only in so far as they relate to utility either in the form of activity or of cessation from activity, it is established that Vedantic passages are authoritative in relation to the essential nature of the Brahman (also), in as much as they are needed as a complement to the injunction relat- ing to meditation. This (view) also is improper.33 Even though it be granted that they are needed as a complement to the injunction relating to meditation, there is no authoritative proof that Vedantic passages import anything that is real. What is said is this:-Do the passages relating to the essential nature of the Brahman possess authoritativeness in relation to that essential nature of the Brahman, by im-. porting the same thing as the injunction relating to medi- tation (does)? Or (do they do so) independently and of their own accord? If they have (such) oneness of import, then they must refer mainly to the injunction relating to meditation; and thus it is not possible for them to aim at denoting the essential nature of the Brahman. If they import a different thing (from the injunction relating to meditation), then, since they are devoid of utility in the form of inducing either activity or cessation from activity, they certainly cannot have any (real) meaning at all. Moreover, it should not be urged-that meditation has the nature of a flow of memory, and is capable of being

Hereunder the Mimamsaka, who is the main objector against the views intended to be propounded by the Sutrakara in Ved. Süt. I. 1. 4., refutes the position of the Dhyana- myogavadin. 324 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. definitely described only by means of what constitutes the thing that is to be remembered;-and that, if it be asked what the particular object of remembrance in connection with this injunction bearing upon meditation is, then, the following passages-“All this is that Self.”-[Brih. Up. II. 4. 6. & IV. 5. 7.]; “The Brahman is omnisci- ent.”-[Brih. Up. II. 5. 19.]; “The Brahman is Exist- ence, Knowledge, Infinity.”-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], and other such passages point out the essential nature and the peculiar characteristics of that (object of remembrance), and thus acquire the sameness of import with that (injunction relating to meditation), and become authoritative in estab- lishing the reality of the thing (imported): because, al- though the injunction relating to meditation is necessarily dependent upon what forms the object of remembrance, yet the reality of the thing to be meditated upon is not absolutely needed, for the reason that the completion of meditation becomes possible even with the help of a cer- tain thing which is unreal, as in the case of the injunc- tion 337 enjoining the realisation of the Brahman as a Name. Thus it is arrived at that the Brahman is not proved by means of the scriptures; because Vedantic passages are devoid of utility in the form of inducing either activity or cessation from activity; and because, even when needed as a complement to the injunction relating to meditation, they have their finality only in denoting the essential nature of the particular object of meditation; again because, even when they are capable of having an independent import, there is to be found in merely know- ing (their meaning) the whole range of their utility, as is the case with sentences (uttered) to gratify children,
Vide Chhand. Up. VII. 1. 5. where this injunction is given. Adhik. IV. Sut. 4.] SRI-BHASHYA. 325 sickly persons, and other such people; and because also they (viz. Vedantic passages) cannot point out the real- ity of those things the ideas corresponding to which have been already naturally established. In this connection, it is laid down (by the Sutrakara) “That (viz. the fact that the scripture forms altoge- ther the source of the knowledge relating to the Brahman) results, however, from (His constituting) the true pur- port (of the scriptures). “‘338 The word samanvaya means the proper purport, that is, such a purport as constitutes an object of human pursuit. The meaning is that, owing to the fact that the Brahman who is the highest object of human pursuit and whose very nature is unsurpassed bliss forms the purport (of the scriptures) by constituting the thing that is to be denoted (by them), that, namely, the fact that the scripture forms the means of proving (the Brahman), is undoubtedly established. The whole collection of Vedantic passages teaches the Brahman who is the highest object of attainment, in as much as His essential nature is devoid of all evil and consists of unsurpassed bliss; and whoever says that, never- theless, it (viz. that collection) has not its finality in uti- lity, because it does not lead to either activity or cessation from activity, (he) says, (as it were), that a person who dwells in a palace is destitute of all usefulness in as much as he does not get into a dog-kennel. What is said is this:-Individual souls have the know- ledge of their own nature as well as of the reality of the higher and the lower truths that are concealed by the veil of that ignorance which is the same in nature as the beginning- lessly old karma; they exist in the form of gods, Asuras,
This is Ved. Süt. I. 1. 4. and is as follows:-Tattu samanvayat. 326 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. 1. Part. I. Gandharvas, Siddhas, Vidyadharas, Kinnaras, Kimpuru- shas, Yakshas, Rakshasas, Pisachas, men, beasts, birds, reptiles, trees, shrubs, creepers, grass, and other (material embodiments); they are differentiated by the distinctions of the male sex, of the female sex, and of sexlessness, and have their own specially appointed supporters, protectors and special objects of enjoyment: and (under these cir- cumstances) that passage alone has its finality in utility which teaches that there exists the Highest Brahman who, by means of His own essential nature, character and qualities, greatness and activity, causes to these (individual souls) unlimited and unsurpassed joy at the time when there happens to be no difference between the (personal) experience of (the Brahman) Himself and the experience which these (souls) have in their released state (of beatitude). But that (other kind of) passage, which relates to activity and cessation from activity, has not its finality in utility, in as much as it gives rise to that knowledge which can be utilised only so long as there are (desirable) objects to be attained. When it is desired to know how the Brahman who is of this nature is to be at- tained, then, worship (or upasana) is enjoined, as the means of attaining the Brahman,by the words vedana, &c., (meaning knowledge, &c.,) in the following passages :- “He who knows the Brahman attains the Highest.”- [Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.]; “Let him worship the Self alone as the object to be attained.”-[Brih. Up. I. 4. 15.]. This (utility of the teaching given by Vedanta) is analogous to the case of a person who, on hearing the statement that there is hidden treasure in his house, comes to know of the existence of (such a) hidden treasure, (thereby) becomes pleased, and then tries to get at it. It is also analogous to this other case :-A young prince, while engaged in play Adhik. IV. Sut. 4.] SRI-BHASHYA. 327 with (other) lads, gets out of the palace, and, straying from the right road, is lost, and is taken by the king (to be so lost). (The prince) himself does not know his (own) father, is brought up by a Brāhmaṇa of merit, and is made to learn (all) the Vedic scriptures. When he is sixteen years of age and is the possessor339 of all auspicious qualities, he hears a statement made by a very worthy person to this effect:-“Your father is the lord of the whole world, and is blessed with the qualities of dignity, liberality, affection, excellent behaviour, heroism, bravery and overwhelming strength, &c. He is waiting in the best of cities solely with the desire to see you, (his) lost son.” When (the prince hears this statement), he becomes then and there full of unsurpassed joy by realising (within himself)-” I am indeed the son of a person who is alive, and my father is abundantly blessed with all kinds of wealth.” The king also, on hearing that his own son is alive, is healthy, is beautiful to look at, and is conversant with all that has to be known, becomes like one who has attained all the ob- jects of human pursuit; and thereafter he tries to get him (i. e. the son) back. And at last they both meet together. Such also is (this utility). Again what has been stated-by the purvapakshin-to the effect that Vedantic passages relate to things, the ideas corresponding to which have been already naturally estab- lished, and are hence no means of proving the real exist- ence of the things imported (by them), but are like the sentences which are uttered for the gratification of children, sickly persons and other (such people), in as much as their utility has its finality only in (producing) the mere (men- tal) knowledge of that (to which they relate); that is
The word used in the text is akarą which means a mine. It is metaphorically used to signify an inexhaustible source of anything.328 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. wrong. When the absence of the reality of the thing imported (by a sentence) is definitely determined, then, even if that (thing) be (mentally) known, it cannot serve any useful purpose. In the case of children, sickly people &c., joy &c., are produced by the illusion that the thing (imported by the sentences uttered for their gratification) is really existent. If, at the time when such (illusory) knowledge is existent, the conviction should arise that the thing imported is really non-existent, then joy, &c., would, (in consequence), disappear that very moment. If, in the case of the Upanishadic passages also, it be deter- mined that they do not denote the real existence of the Brahman, then, although they give rise to the (conceptual) knowledge of the Brahman, there would be (to those passages) no finality in utility. Therefore, it is a demonstrated conclusion that the scriptural passage, which begins with “From whom all these beings are born”-[Taitt. Up. III. 1. 1.], de- clares that that Brahman-who is the only cause of all the worlds, who is devoid of even the smallest taint of all that is evil, who is the abode 340 of innumerable auspicious qualities, such as omniscience, the quality of willing the truth, &c., and who is bliss unsurpassed in excellence,- is really existent. ADHIKARANA. V. Ikshatyadhikarana. Sūtra 5. Ikshaternāsabdam. Because the activity imported by the root iksh (to see i. e. to think) is predicated (in relation to what con- stitutes the cause of the world) that which is not reveal-
Here again the word used in the text is akara. Vide supra n. 339. Adhik. V. Sut. 5.] SRI-BHASHYA. 329 ed solely by the scripture, (viz. the pradhana) 341 is not (the Sat or the Existence which is referred to in the scrip- tural passage relating to the cause of the world). It has been already stated that that Brahman, who is taught in the scriptural passage which relates to the cause of the world and which begins with “From whom all these (beings are born)”-[Taitt. Up. III. 1. 1.],-(that Brahman) who is omniscient, who is omnipotent, who is hostile to all that is evil and forms the only seat of all the auspicious qualities, has to be enquired into. Now, by means of this aphorism-“Because the activity im- ported by the root iksh (to see i. e. to think), is predicat- ed (in relation to what constitutes the cause of the world), that which is not revealed solely by the scripture (viz. the pradhana) is not (the Sat or the Existence which is refer- red to in the scriptural passage relating to the cause of the world)”, and by means of other aphorisms, it is declared that the scriptural passages 342 which mention the cause of the world do not possess the power of denoting the pradhana and other similar things which are cap- able of being established by the process of logical in- ference. This is what is revealed in the Chhandogya :- “Existence alone, my dear child, this was in the begin- ning, one only, without a second……..It thought-’ May I become manifold and be born’. It created tejas, &c.” [Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 1, 2, et seq.]. Here the doubt arises whether that, which is the cause of the world and is denoted by the word Existence (or Sat), is the
The Pradhana of the San- khyas is what is otherwise known as the Prakriti. It is Nature, or the self- evolving material substratum of the 42 universe.
The passages forming the basis of this Adhikarana are contain- ed in Chhand. Up. VI. 330 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. pradhana which has been mentioned by others and is cap- able of being established by logical inference, or whether it is the Brahman who possesses the characteristics already stated? It is perhaps held 3 43 that it is the pradhana. Why? The passage-“Existence alone, my dear child, this was in the beginning, one only, &c."-speaks of the causal condition of that thing which is denoted by the word ’this’, which constitutes the thing to be enjoyed (or endured) by intelligent beings (viz. the individual souls), and which is made up (of the qualities) of sattva (goodness), rajas (pas- sion), and tamas (darkness), and which (again) exists in variously modified forms such as the ether, &c. Indeed, a thing which exists in the condition of a cause acquires the character of an effect merely by getting into another con- dition. Whatever thing and whatever (general) nature (thereof) exist in the condition of a cause, that same thing and that same nature (thereof) exist also in the condition of an effect. Moreover, a produced effect is made up (of the qualities) of sattva, &c. Therefore that pradhana in which these qualities are held in a state of equilibrium 844 is
The Sänkhya is the furva- pakshin, or the objector here.
According to the Sankhyas, the evolutionary processes of creation are possible only when there is he- terogeneity in the constitution of the Prakriti. This heterogeneity is the result of the differentiation of the Prakriti into the three Gunds of Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas. When this differentiation ceases, or when there is homogeneity in the constitu- tion of the Prakriti, there can be no creation and no evolution. Satta re- presents the condition of completed development and perfect equilibrium. Rajas represents the condition of act- ive up-building heterogeneity, the want of equilibrium in which is the cause of the progress of evolution. And Tamas represents that other con- dition which causes the evolved uni- verse to tend towards dissolution. These three terms are also used with a psychological significance, which is partly figurative but is more largely due to the belief that the material of the body of the incarnating soul de- termines largely the nature of the mental and moral qualities possessed by it in the embodied condition, and that this material itself is so chosen Adhik. V. Sut. 5.] SRI-BHASHYA. 331 alone the cause (of the universe). That same (pradhana) is, in the passage-“Existence alone, my dear child, this was in the beginning, one only, without a second”,-de- clared to be that undifferentiated existence which has ab- sorbed into itself all differentiating peculiarities. It is for this reason that a cause and its effect have no (essential) difference between them. Only thus can this proposition become appropriate (which says) that, by knowing one thing, all things become known. Otherwise, there would further be a complete difference between the thing intend- ed to be illustrated and the example of the lump of clay and of the produced effects thereof, which are (all) given as an illustration in the scriptural passage that begins with-“Just as, my dear child, by one lump of clay, &c.”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 1. 4.]. Therefore, in the scriptural passage which relates to the cause of the world, nothing other than the pradhana taught by the great sage Kapila is mentioned. Moreover, this passage (now under discussion) contains a proposition and an illustration, and thus it has surely the form of a logical inference. Consequently, what is denoted by the word Existence (or Sat) is nothing other than that (pradhana) which is capable of being proved by inference (to be the cause of the world). If it be so held, it is stated (in reply) thus:-“Because the activity imported by the root iksh (to see i. e. to think), is predicated (in relation to what constitutes the cause of the world), that which is not revealed solely by the scripture (viz. the pradhana) is not (the Sat or the Existence which is referred to in the scriptural passage relating to that cause of the world).” That which is not revealed solely as to suit the Karma of the incarnating soul. 332 ŚRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. by the scripture is that in relation to which the scripture alone does not form the means of proof. It is that which is capable of being established by the process of logical inference. The meaning is that it is the pradhana. That (pradhana) is not denoted by the scriptural passages relat- ing to the cause of the world. Why? Because the act- ivity imported by the root iksh (to see i. e. to think) is predicated. That is, because the root iksh is used, in the scriptural passage-“It thought-May I become manifold and be born.”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 3.],-to denote a parti- cular kind of activity in relation to what is imported by the word Existence (or Sat). And it is not possible for the non- intelligent pradhana to be associated with the activity of seeing (i. e. of thinking). Therefore, what forms the import of the word Existence (or Sat) is that Highest Person who is capable of so ‘seeing’, and who is a particular intelligent Being that is omniscient and omnipotent. Accordingly, in all contexts which relate to creation, the act of creation is invariably preceded by the act of ‘seeing’ (i. e. of thinking), as in the following and other scriptural passages :-” He thought ‘May I create the worlds’. He created these worlds." [Ait. Up. I. 1 & 2.]; “He thought….. He created the pranas.” [Pr. Up. VI. 3 & 4.]. It may, however, be said here that the cause has necessarily to be in natural conformity with the effect. That is true; and the Highest Person who is omniscient and omnipotent, who wills the truth, and who owns the intelligent as well as the non-intelligent things in their subtle state as His body, is certainly in natural conform- ity with all produced effects. For example, the follow- ing scriptural passages say the same thing:-" His supreme power is revealed, indeed, as varied, natural, and as consisting of knowledge, strength, and action."-[Svet. Up.Adhik. V. Süt. 5.] SRI-BHASHYA. 333 VI. 8.]; “He who understands all and who knows all and whose tapas345 consists of knowledge “-[Mund. Up. I. 1. 9.]; “He whose body is the avyakta,346 whose body is the akshara……whose body is mrityu, He is the internal Self of all beings.”-[Sub. Up. VII.]. And this will be fully explained under the aphorism-” (The Brah- man is) not (the cause of the world), because (He is) different (from this world)”-[Ved. Sut. II. 1. 4.], and also under other aphorisms. Here, (however), it is maintained that the scriptural passages relating to the creation of the world are not capable of importing the pradhana. The logical objections in regard to what actu- ally forms the import (of those passages) will be invalidat- ed in that same context (in which this above-mentioned aphorism occurs). What has been stated to the effect that this passage (viz. Chhand. Up. VI. 1 & 2.) is decidedly in the form of a logical inference, on account of its containing a propo- sition and an illustration, that is not right; because there is not given in it any basis of logical inference (i.c. the middle term). When, by means of the passage" (Did you ask for that teaching) by which what is not heard be- comes heard"-[Chhand. Up. VI. 1. 3.], it is desired to teach how by knowing (a certain) one thing all things become known, then, the example (of the clay, &c.,) is indeed made use of merely to show the possibility of such a thing to him who is of opinion that such a thing is
The word tapas ordinarily denotes penance and religious aus- terities. It is frequently said in Vedic and Vedantic literature that be- fore creation the Creator per- formed tapas. Surely this tapas can- not mean penance or austerities, and it is generally interpreted to mean His inner mental effort of thinking and willing which has been at the root of all creation,
Vide supra un. 184 & 185. 334 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. 1. Part. I. altogether impossible. As a matter of fact, solely for the reason that the activity imported by the root iksh (to see i. e. to think), is declared (in relation to what forms the cause of the world), it is made out that there is not even the remotest mention of any logical inference (here). It may again be said thus :-It is not that main and natural significance of ‘seeing’, which is found to exist in intelligent beings, that is mentioned here; but, on the other hand, it is a figurative significance of ‘seeing’ (that is implied here); because, in the following scriptural passages “That fire saw”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 3.1, “Those waters saw”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 4.], there is the association of a figurative ‘seeing’ (with the pradhana). Moreover, it is common to apply figuratively the attributes of intelligent beings to non-intelligent things, as in the instances, “The paddy crops are expecting the rains”, “By means of the rains the (sown) seed became exceed- ingly gladdened.” Therefore, after stating the supposition that the ‘seeing’ (here mentioned) may be figurative, he (the Sutrakāra) disproves it (thus). Sūtra 6. Gauṇas hennatmasabdāt. If it be said that it (viz. the import of the root iksh, to see) is (here) figurative, (it is maintained that) it cannot be so; because there is the word Atman (or Self mentioned in the context).347 What has been stated (above) to the effect that, since there is the association of a figurative ‘seeing’ (with the
The Upanishadic context re- the sixth Prapathaka of the Chhand- lating to this section is the whole of ogya-Upanishad. Adhik. V. Sut. 6.] SRI-BHASHYA. 335 pradhana), this predication of ‘seeing’ in relation to Exist- ence (or Sat) also is figurative, and is intended to denote that condition (of the pradhana) which invariably pre- cedes creation, this is not right; because, in the following passage (occurring in that context)-“All this has That for its Self; That is Existence; That is the Atman (or the Self).”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 7.], that which is denoted by the word Existence (or Sat) is (also) denoted by the word Atman (or Self). What is said is this:-That teaching, which is found in the passage “All this has That for its Self…… That is the Self.”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 7.],–has in view the world which is made up of intelligent and non-intelli- gent things, and points out that the Sat (or the Exist- ence) is the Self thereof; and it (viz. such a teaching) can- not be appropriately given in relation to the (purely) non- intelligent thing pradhana. Thus the elements of fire (tejas), water, and earth have also the Highest Self for their Self. Therefore the words tejas, &c., are also significant of the Highest Self alone. Accordingly there is the fol- lowing scriptural passage:-“Indeed entering into these three deities along with this individual self which is (also) the same as Myself, I evolve the differentiation of names and forms.” [Chhand. Up. VI. 3. 2.]. And from this it follows that tejas and the other elements acquire the character of being things and also the capability of assum- ing their own particular names wholly as a consequence of the Supreme Self entering into them. Therefore in these statements also, namely," That fire saw"; “Those waters saw”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 3 & 4.], the predica- tion of ‘seeing’ has its primary and natural significance. Consequently, in the statement-" It saw “-[Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 3.], the supposition, which gives a figurative signi- ficance (to seeing ‘) even as a consequence of the associa- 336 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. tion (of that seeing’ with the pradhana), is altogether dispelled (as wrong). Such is the meaning of this aphorism. What is denoted by the word Existence (or Sat) is not the pradhana, for the following reason also:- Sutra 7. Tannishthasya mokshopadesāt. Because (also) it is taught (in the context) that he who is firmly devoted to That (viz. the Sat) obtains final release. After the scriptural sentence-“That thou art”- [Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 7.],-teaches Svetaketu, who is desir- ous of attaining final release, that the Sat is to be continu- ously meditated upon as the Atman (or the Self), this (other) sentence-“As long as he is not freed (from the body), so long there is delay; then he will be blessed.”- [Chhand. Up. VI. 14. 2.]-tells him that in the case of the person, who is firmly devoted to that (Sat or One Exist- ence), final release, the nature of which is the attainment of the Brahman, is delayed only till the falling off of the body. And if the non-intelligent pradhana had been taught to be the cause of the world, then it would not have been appro- priate to teach that the continuous meditation of it as the Self forms the means of attaining final release. And accord- ing to the passage” Of whatever nature a man’s worship is in this world, of that nature he becomes after death."-[Chhand. Up. III. 14. 1.], there must result to him, who is firmly devoted to that (pradhana), nothing other than the attainment of that (same) non-in- telligent thing (or the pradhana). Moreover, the sastra Adhik. V. Sut. 8.] ŚRI-BHASHYA. 337 (or the scripture), which is much more affectionate (to- wards us) than even thousands of mothers and fathers, cannot teach (us) to attain that non-intelligent thing (or pradhana) which forms the cause of (our) being attacked by (our) well-known three miseries. 348 Indeed those who maintain that the pradhana forms the cause of the world do not acknowledge that final release results to him who is firmly devoted to (that) pradhana. Again the pradhana is not (what is denoted by the word Sat or Existence) for the following reason also:- Sutra 8. Heyatvavachanachcha. Because also it is not declared (in the context) that it (viz. what is denoted by the word Sat or Existence) deserves to be discarded. If the pradhana alone were that cause (of crea- tion) which is denoted by the word Sat (or Existence), then (the idea of) Svetaketu, who was desirous of attain- ing final release, being the same as that (Sat) would be opposed to (his) final release, and should therefore have been taught (to him) to be only such (an idea) as altogether deserved to be discarded. And that is not done. On the contrary, in the following passages, namely, “That thou art,”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 7.]; “So long as he is not (freed from the body), &c.”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 14. 2.],- it is taught that that (idea of his being the same as the Sat) is necessarily such as deserves to be adopted (by him).
Vide supra p. 4. n. 12. 43338 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. The pradhana is not (what is denoted by the word Sat or Existence) for the following reason also:- Sūtra 9. Pratijñāvirodhāt. 349 Because (also) there would then be the contradiction of the proposition 350 (enunciated in the context). If the pradhana were taken to be the cause of the world, there would also be the contradiction of the propo- sition (enunciated in the context). Indeed, in the very beginning of the scriptural passage (under reference), the proposition is enunciated that, by knowing a (certain) single thing, all things become known. And that (propo- sition) has to be justified solely by means of the fact that, from the knowledge of the causal Sat (or Existence), the world, which is its produced effect and is made up of the intelligent and the non-intelligent things, becomes known; and the reason (for this) is that a cause and its effect are not different from each other. But the whole collection of intelligent beings (viz. the individual selv- es) cannot be the effects produced out of the pradhana; and consequently, by knowing the pradhana, the know- ledge relating to the whole collection of intelligent beings cannot result; thus this (proposition itself) would be con- tradicted if the pradhana be taken to be the cause of the world.
This Sutra is not commented upon by Sankara and by Anandatirtha in their commentaries on the l’edanta- Sutras.
This proposition is contain- ed in Chhand. Up. VI. 1. 3. and is to the effect-“Did you ask for that teaching by which what is not heard becomes heard, what is not thought becomes thought, what is not known becomes known.” Adhik. V. Sut. 10.] SRI-BHASHYA. 339 The pradhana is not (what is denoted by the word Sat or Existence in the scriptural passage under discussion) for the following reason also:- Sutra 10. Svāрyayāt. Because (also), there is (mentioned in the context), the withdrawal (of the individual self) into its own cause, (i. e. into the Sat). This scriptural passage, namely,-“Know from me, my dear child, what deep sleep is. When any person is known to be asleep, he is then in union with the Sat. He withdraws into his own cause. Therefore they say, he sleeps, because he is absorbed into his own cause (i.e. into the. Brahman).”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 1.]-relates to that very subject which is denoted by the word Sat. It declares that the individual soul, who is asleep and is in union with the Sat, has withdrawn (himself) into his own cause; that is, that he has been absorbed into his own. cause. And (the) dissolution (of a thing) is (its) absorption into (its) own cause. Moreover the non-intelligent pra- dhana does not deserve to become the cause of the individual soul. The meaning of the scriptural statement-“He with- draws into his own cause,”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 1.],-is that the individual soul goes back only unto the Supreme. Self. It is declared in the scriptural passage 351 relat- ing to the differentiation of names and forms that that Brahman Himself, who has the intelligent thing (or the individual soul) for His body and forms its Self, is denoted by the word jiva (which ordinarily means the individual soul). By means of the statement-" He is then in union with the Sat; He withdraws into his own cause."-[Chhand.
Vide Chhand. Up. VI 3. 2. 340 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. Up. VI. 8. 1.]-it is taught that that Brahman who is denoted by the word jiva is free from (any) asso- ciation with names and forms at the time of deep sleep also, as (He is) at the time of universal dissolu- tion; and (He) is hence to be denoted merely by the word Sat (or Existence). To the same effect it is stated in similar contexts (elsewhere) that, owing to his (i. e. the in- dividual self’s) not being associated with names and forms, he is embraced by Him who is omniscient; and consequently it is said that," When he is embraced by the omniscient Self, he does not know anything that is external nor any- thing that is internal." [Brih. Up. IV. 3. 21.]. Indeed, un- til final release takes place, the individual self is associated with names and forms; and it is, therefore, that there is born (in him) the knowledge of objects other than him- self. At the time of deep sleep he certainly gives up names and forms, and is embraced by the Sat (i. e. by the Brahman): and again, in the wakeful state, he becomes associated with names and forms and assumes (for himself) a particular name and a particular form. This is clearly stated in other scriptural passages, namely," When he (i. e. the individual self) is asleep, he sees no dreams whatsoever; and he becomes one wholly with that Prana (or Brahman)……….. …..From that Self, the pranas proceed each towards its (own) place."- [Kaush. Up. IV. 19.]. To the same effect is the following scriptural passage also-“Whatever these beings are here, (i. c. in the state of separation from their cause), whether a tiger, or a lion, or a wolf, or a boar,…………. 352 or a fly, or a mosquito,-that they become again and again.”
The quotation here is not Complete, the portion omitted being “or an insect or a moth.” Adhik. V. Süt. II.] SRI-BHASHYA. 341 [Chhand. Up. VI. 9. 2. & VI. 10. 2.]. And a similar scriptural text also says that the individual soul who is so in deep sleep “is embraced by the omniscient Self.” [Brih. Up. IV. 3. 21.]. Therefore, He who is denoted by the word Sat (in the scriptural passage under discussion), is that Highest Person alone who is the Highest Brah- man, who is omniscient and is the Highest Lord. The, Vrittikara (Bodhayana) says the same thing thus:- “In the scriptural text-Then he is in union with the Sat.-this (viz. the fact that the Sat is the Brahman who is the cause of the world) is conclusively made out. by means of (the creatures) withdrawing (into the Sat) and returning (from the Sat); and the scripture also says that ‘He (the individual self) is embraced by the omnisci- ent Self.”" The pradhana is not (what is denoted by the word Sat) for the following reason also :- Sutra 11. Gatisāmānyāt. Because there has to be a similarity of import (between the passage under reference and the other passages relating to the cause of the creation, &c., of the world). Whatever is the import of the following among other passages relating to the creation of the world, namely,- “The Self, indeed, this one only was in the beginning. No- thing else lived. 35 3 He thought-May I create the worlds.’ He created these worlds.”-[Ait. Up. I. 1 & 2.]; “From that same Self, indeed, the spatial ether came
Literally, winked or opened its eyes. 342 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. 1. into existence, from the spatial ether the air (came into existence); from the air, the fire; from the fire, the waters; and from the waters, the earth.”-[Taitt. Up. H. 1. 1.]; “That which is this Rigveda is the breath of Him, that is, of this Great Being.”-[Sub. Up. II.]-954 (whatever) is (their) signification, from the similarity (of import) with that, that is, from the sameness of meaning (which) this (passage under reference) is to have with that (signification)-(it has to be inferred that the pra- dhana is not the Sat). In all these (above passages) also, the Lord of all is made out to be the cause (of the world). Therefore here (i. e. in this passage) also it is definitely determined that the Lord of all is alone the cause (of the world). The pradhana is not (what is denoted by the word Sat) for the following reason also: Sūtra 12. Srutatva chcia. Because also it is revealed (in the very Upanishad in which the passage under discussion occurs, and in other Upanishads, that the Supreme Self is the cause of the universe). Indeed, in this very Upanishad (viz. the Chhandogya), in the following passages, namely," Entering in along with this individual self which is (also) the same as Myself, I evolve the differentiation of names and forms."-[Chhand Up. VI. 3. 2.], “All these things which are born, my dear one, have their origin in the Sat (i. c. in the One Existence), have their abode in the Sat, and are established in the Sat.”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 4 & 6.], “All this has this (Brahman) for its Self. That (Brahman) is Existence.
Vide supra n. 251.Adhik. V. Sut. 12.] SRI-BHASHYA. 343 He is the Self.”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 7.], “Whatever there is here as existent and whatever there is as non-existent in relation to him,-all that is contained in Him.”-[Chhand. Up. VIII. 1. 3.], “In Him, all desires are contained.”- [Chhand. Up. VIII. 1. 5.], “This Self is devoid of sin, is free from old age, free from death, free from sorrow, free from hunger, free from thirst, and desires the truth, and wills the truth.”–[Chhand. Up. VIII.1. 5. & VIII. 7. 1 & 3.], it is declared that that, which is denoted by the word Sat, is, in consequence of its possessing the same character as the Self, capable of causing the differentiation of names and forms and possesses (the qua- lity of) omniscience, (the quality of) omnipotence, the quality of being the support of all, the quality of being devoid of sin, &c., the quality of desiring the truth, and also the quality of willing the truth. To the same effect are the following and other scriptural passages found else- where also:-“He has none as His lord and (none) as His ruler in the world; and He has no characteristic body whatsoever. He is the cause and is the Lord of what is the lord of the senses (i. e. of the jiva or the individual soul); He has no progenitor and no superior.”-[Svet. Up. VI. 9.]; “The omniscient Lord who creates all beings gives them names, and, calling them (by those names), He ever continues to be.”-[Taitt. Ar. III. 12. 7.]; “He, who has entered within, is the ruler of all things that are born, and is the Self of all.”-[Taitt. Ar. III. 24.]; “He is the Self of the whole universe and is the best refuge; He is the Lord of the world, the Lord of the indi- vidual souls; whatever thing there is in this world, either seen or heard, Nārāyaṇa pervades all that within and without and so remains for ever”.-[M. När. XI. 3 & 5.]; “He is the internal Self of all beings, He is devoid of all 344 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. sins, He is the Divine Lord, He is the one Nārāyaṇa.’ [Sub. Up. VII. 1.]. Therefore the scriptural passage which mentions the cause of the world is not capable of importing (as such) the pradhana and other similar things. Consequently it is settled that that Narayana alone-who is omniscient and omnipotent, who is the Lord of all lords, who is devoid of even the smallest taint of all that is evil, who is the great ocean that receives the flood of all the collections of (all) the innumerable auspicious qua- lities which are unsurpassed in excellence, who is the Highest Person,-He alone forms the one cause of the universe and is the Brahman that has to be enquired into. For the same reason it has to be understood that the contention, which maintains that the Brahman is pure in- telligence devoid of characterising attributes, has also been set at naught by the Sutrakara with the help of these (above quoted) scriptural passages; because it is establish- ed (by him) that that Brahman, who is to be enquired into, is associated with the real attribute of ‘seeing’, &c., which forms the main and natural significance of the root iksh, (to ‘see’). Indeed, according to the contention which maintains that that (which is the cause of the world) is devoid of characterising attributes, even the character of a witness (i. e: of one who ‘sees’) has to be unreal (as applied to that cause). That the Brahman, who is to be made out from the Vedanta, has been enunciated to be the object of the enquiry (here), and that He is intelligent, are (both) declared by means of this aphorism among others; namely,-“Because the activity imported by the root iksh (to see i.e. to think) is predicated (in relation to what constitutes the cause of the world), that which is not revealed solely by the scripture (viz. the pradhara), is not (the Sat or the Existence which is referred to in Adhik. V. Süt. 12.] SRI-BHASHYA. 345 the scriptural passage relating to that cause of the world).” [Ved. Sut. I. 1. 5.]. To possess the character of an intel- ligent being is known to be the same as to possess the quality of intelligence. And accordingly that which is devoid of the attribute of ‘seeing’ (or thinking) has exact- ly the same nature as the pradhana. Moreover, according to the position which maintains that the Brahman is pure luminosity devoid of charac- terising attributes, it is difficult even to establish that He is (such) luminosity. Luminosity (or intelligence) is indeed. known to be that particular thing which is capable of mak- ing itself and other things fit to be realised (by the mind). The thing which is devoid of attributes does not possess both these characteristics, and it certainly has in consequence the character of a non-intelligent thing like a pot or any other similar object. If it be said that, even though it does not possess both these characteristics, it is as good as if it had them, it is replied that it cannot be so. To be as good as if it had them is indeed nothing other than (for it) to be able to do what they are capable of doing. On admitting the possession (by the Brahman) of the quality correspond- ing to this capability, the position which maintains the attributelessness (of the Brahman) will indeed amount to have been given up. Again, if it be urged that, on the autho- rity of the scripture, this one particular characteristic quality (of capability) has to be admitted, then indeed, for that same reason, omniscience, omnipotence, the quality of being the Lord of all lords, the quality of being the abode of all auspicious attributes, the quality of being hostile to all that is evil, and all other similar qualities will have to be admitted. Again, to possess a capability is the same as to be able to produce a particular effect; and that (possession of the capability) has to be definitely determined 44 346 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. solely by means of (its) produced effect. When (such) a particular produced effect is incapable of being proved, then the possession of that capability, which has to be defi- nitely determined solely by means of that (effect), becomes also incapable of proof. Further, according to him who maintains (the Brah- man to be) an attributeless entity, it is impossible to prove (that the Brahman possesses) the character of being a thing at all; for, it has been already 355 pointed out that percep- tion, inference, revelation, and one’s own experience deal with things which are possessed of attributes. Therefore, it is conclusively established that that Highest Person alone, who is capable of seeing’ and of willing to the effect 356-May I become manifold in the form of the world which is made up of wonderful intelligent and non-intelligent things’, that (Highest Person alone) is He who has to be enquired into. ADHIKARANA. VI. Anandamayadhikarana. It has thus been pointed out how the Brahman, who is to be enquired into, is distinct from the pradhana which is (merely) an object to be enjoyed (or endured) by intelli- gent beings (i.c.by individual souls), which is non-intelligent in its own nature, and which consists of the qualities of sattva (goodness), rajas (passion), and tamas (darkness). Now, it will be declared that the Brahman, who is hostile to all that is evil and who is unsurpassed bliss itself, is distinct (both) from the subjective self who is pure, and
Vide supra pp. 54 to 60. 356. Vide Taitt. Up. 11. 6. 1. & Chhana. Up. VI.2. 3. Adhik. VI. Sut. 13.] SRI-BHASHYA. 347 also (from the subjective self) who is under the influence of karma and is (thus) impure, owing to his being immersed in the ocean of varied and endless miseries resulting from his association with the prakriti which is made up of the three qualities (of sattva, &c.). Sutra 13. Anandamayobhyäsät. That which is denoted by the word Anandamaya (is the Brahman); because there is, (in the context), the repetition of various grades (of bliss which culminate in the Anandamaya or the Highest Bliss). Starting (the exposition of) the subject-matter of the context in the passage “This purusha 358 is thus a modification of the essence of food”, - [Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], the Taittiriyas recite-“Different from this which consists of understanding (or knowledge) is the (still) inner Self, the Anandamaya (or That which con- sists of Bliss).” [Taitt. Up. II. 5. 1.]. Here the doubt arises whether this Anandamaya is the Highest Self, who is different from the individual self that is subject to bondage and release, and is generally denoted by the word jiva; or whether (the Anandamaya is) that (individual self) himself. It is perhaps thought right to hold 959 that it is the individual self. Why? Because, in the passage- “This itself is the embodied Self of that (which consists of understanding or knowledge).”-[Taitl. Up. II. 5. 1.]- it is declared that the Anandamaya is associated with an embodiment. Indeed the embodied one is that individual
The context here is Taitt.Up.11. 358. The word Purusha is here interpreted to mean the body.
The Purvatakshin or the ob- jector here is the Sankhya.348 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. self who is in association with the body. It may how- ever be said that the scripture has (here) the aim of show- ing what that happiness is which is enjoyed by the Brahman, who is declared to be the cause of the world; and that, (with that object in view), it refers in the beginning to what consists of food, &c.; and that, going on step by step, it finally teaches that that same cause of the world is what consists of Bliss. And that which is the cause of the world has been stated to be the omniscient Lord of all, because it is revealed in the scrip- tural sentence-“It saw “[Chhand Up. VI. 2. 3.]- that that (cause) is capable of the activity of seeing’ (i. e. of thinking). True, it has been (so) stated; but that (cause of the world) is nothing other than the jiva (or the individual self); because, in the passages-” Entering in along with this individual self which is (also) the same as Myself, &c.”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 3. 2.]; “That thou art, O Svetaketu.”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 7.], that which is pointed out to be the cause of the world is seen to be grammatically equated with the individual self. A grammatical equation is indeed intended to give the teaching of oneness (about the things equated therein); as in the instance-” This is that Deva- datta", and in other (such instances). And that act of creation which is invariably preceded by ‘seeing’ (i.e. by thinking) is certainly appropriate to the intelligent indivi- dual self (also). Therefore, by means of the passage-“He who knows the Brahman attains the Highest.”-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], that essential nature of the individual self, which is (altogether) free from association with the non-intelli- gent thing (viz. matter), is taught to be the (final) object of attainment. The definition of that essential nature, which is free from association with the non- Adhik. VI. Sut. 13.] SRI-BHASHYA. 349 intelligent thing (matter), is said to be this, namely, “The Brahman is Existence, Knowledge, Infinity.” [Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.]. Indeed final release is nothing other than the attainment of this nature (by the individual self); because “To him who is and has a body, there is no destruction of the pleasing and the unpleasing; the pleasing and the unpleasing touch not him who is and has no body.” [Chhand. Up. VIII. 12. 1.]. Hence, that essen- tial nature of the individual self, which is free from igno- rance (or avidya) and is referred to in the very beginning (of the context under reference),-(that) is taught to be the Anandamava (or that which consists of bliss). According- ly, with a view to indicate the essential nature of the indi- vidual self, the body is, in accordance with the manner of pointing out the moon with the help of (an apparently contiguous) branch of a tree, first of all pointed out in the statement that the purusha is made up of food-[Taitt. Up. II.1. 1.]; and then the five-fold prana existing within that (body) and forming its support, then the mind existing even in the interior of that (prana) and then the intellect existing within that (mind), are all mentioned, each in its particular place, in an order helpful to ready apprehension, by means of the expressions (that the purusha is) pranamaya (or that which consists of prana), is manomaya (or that which consists of mind), and is vijanamaya (or that which consists of understanding or knowledge); afterwards, the individual self which exists in the interior of all these things is taught in the passage-“Different (from the vi- jnanamaya) is the inner self, the anandamaya.” [Taitt. Up. II. 5. 1.]; and then it (i.e. the context under reference) brings to a close the series leading to the internal self. Consequently, it is definitely determined that what is (here) taught is that the essential nature of the individual self 350 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. 1. Part. 1. itself is that Brahman which is referred to in the very beginning of the context in the passage-" He who knows the Brahman attains (the Highest)."-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], and that that same (essential nature of the individual self) is the anandamaya (or what consists of bliss). It may also be said 800 that, in accordance with the scriptural statement-“The Brahman is the tail and the support."[Taitt. Up. II. 5. 1.], the Brahman is made out to be other than the Anandamaya (or that which consists of bliss). But it can not be so(made out). The Brahman Him- self who is (here) conceived to have the form of an embodied person (or purusha) is, in harmony with His own peculiar nature, represented to be possessed of the head, the arm and the tail. Just as, in the scriptural statement beginning with “This is its head”-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], the body, which is a modification of food and is an organic whole made up of constituent parts, is described as possess- ing the head, the arm and the tail which are (all) its own constituent parts and are not different from itself; so also, the Brahman too, who consists of bliss, is described by means of joy, &c., which are not different from Him- self. It being so, on account of His being the seat of joy, pleasure, satisfaction and bliss, which are (all) described to be (His) constituent parts, the Anandamaya who is an indivisible whole is spoken of as “the Brahman who is the tail and the support.” And if anything other than the Ananda- maya (or what consists of Bliss) had been the Brahman, then it would have also been described to the effect that “Different from this, indeed, which consists of Bliss, is the (still) inner Self, the Brahman.” And it is not so described. What is said is this:-The Brahman, who is referred to in
This objection against the Sankhya proceeds from the.Adwaitin. Adhik. VI. Sut. 13.] SRI-BHASHYA. 351 the very beginning (of the present context) in the passage- “He who knows the Brahman attains the Highest “.- [Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], is by means of the definition given in the passages01” The Brahman is Existence, Know- ledge, Infinity” declared to possess such a nature as distin- guishes Him from all other things; and then that same Brahman is mentioned by the word Atman (or Self) in the passage-“From that same Self, indeed, (the spatial ether came into existence)”,- [Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.]; and then the scriptural passage, which explains self-hood to consist in being the innermost (essence) of all, gradually passes in review the pranamaya and other such things which, owing to each of them being more and more within, are, one after another, represented to be the self of those things which are denoted as the annamaya and so on; and then (lastly) what is pointed out by the word Atman (or Self), in the scriptural statement-“Differ- ent (from the vijñanamaya) is the inner Self, the Ananda- maya”-[Taitt. Up. II. 5. 1.], is made to have its final meaning in (denoting) the Anandamaya (or what consists of Bliss). Therefore, by means of (the use of) the word Atman (or Self), it is definitely determined that the Brah- man who is referred to in the very beginning (of this context) is the Anandamaya (or what consists of Bliss) It may again be said as follows:-After stating that “the Brahman is the tail and the support”-[Taitt. Up. II. 5. 1.], it (viz. the context here) points out, by means of this (Sloka)-“Whoever knows the Brahman as non-existent, he becomes non-existent indeed; whoever knows the Brah- man as existent, him, therefore, they know as existing.” [Taitt. Up. II. 6. 1.], that the existence and non-existence
Taitt. Up. II. 1. L. 352 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. of the self result (respectively) from the knowledge and the ignorance relating to the Brahman, but not from the knowledge and the ignorance relating to the anandamaya (or what consists of bliss). Further it is not appropriate to have any doubt in relation to the knowledge of the exist- ence and non-existence of such an anandamaya as is known all the world over to consist of joy, pleasure, &c. Therefore this sloka (mentioned above) is not given in re- ference to the Anandamaya (or what consists of Bliss). Accordingly the Brahman is other than the Anandama- va (or what consists of bliss). But it is not (right to say) so. Just as, after making the statements-“This is the tail and the support.”-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], “The earth is the tail and the support.”-[Taitt. Up. II. 2. 1.], “The Atharvãngirases (or the hymns revealed by the Athar- vas and Angirases) are the tail and the support.”–[Taitt. Up. II. 3. 1.], “The mahas (or splendour) is the tail and the support.”.[Taitt. Up. II. 4. 1.],-the slokas commenc- ing with “All the creatures are produced from food (anna)” –[Taitt. Up. II. 2. 1.], are all given in their respective contexts so as not to denote merely the tail, but so as to denote the (whole) body which is made up of food, &c.; so also, here too, this sloka which says” He becomes non- existent indeed, &c."-relates to the Anandamaya, but does not relate to the tail which is different from the Ananda- maya. Even when the Anandamaya is itself taken to be the Brahman, it is certainly appropriate to have the doubt regarding the existence and non-existence of that bliss which is (in itself) undefinable but is (merely) described as consisting of joy, pleasure, &c. The unknowability of that Brahman also who is spoken of as the tail is altogether due to (His) consisting of undefinable bliss. If it be said that the Anandamaya is not the Brahman, becauseAdhik. VI. Sut. 13.] SRI-BHASHYA. 353 the Brahman does not possess the head and other such constituent parts; it is replied that the tail also cannot be the Brahman, because the Brahman does not possess the nature of being a tail, and (does not also possess) the nature of being a support. It may (here) be said, however, that the expression-’the tail and the support’ is a merely indicatory description of the Brah- man, in as much as He forms the basis of that thing which is illusorily caused by ignorance (or avidya). Then, indeed, to possess joy as the head, and other things as other parts (of the body) will (also) form an indicatory description of that Brahman who is different from pain and consists of bliss. The result is this:-In the passage-“The Brahman is Existence, Knowledge, Infinity.”-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], He is declared to be different from all things which are other than Himself, which are subject to modi- fication, and which are non-intelligent and definable; and the statement that He is Anandamaya teaches that He is different (also) from pain. And for this reason the affix mayat found in (the word) Anandamaya, which relates to the Brahman who is indivisible and wholly consists of uniform bliss, has to be understood to denote the same thing as the word to which it is affixed (viz. the word Ananda), in the same way in which (that affix has to be understood) in the word pranamaya. The individual self, who is differen- tiated into the varied and wonderful divisions manufactured by ignorance (or avidya) and consisting of gods and other such (embodied) beings, has such an essential nature as is indivisible and homogeneous and forms the only seat of pleasure; and he is accordingly called Anandamaya (or that which consists of bliss). Consequently this Ananda- maya is the subjective self. 45 354 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. If it be so argued, we say in reply “That which is denoted by the word Anandamaya (is the Brahman), be- cause there is, (in the context), the repetition (of various grades of bliss which culminate in the Anandamaya or the Highest Bliss).” [Ved. Sut. I. 1. 13.]. The Anandamaya (or That which consists of Bliss) is the Highest Self. Why? Because there is a (graded) repetition (of bliss). In the passage beginning with “Now this is an in- vestigation into bliss.”-[Taitt. Up. II. 8. 1.] and ending with “From Whom speech ‘returns, &c. “-[Taitt. Up. II. 9. 1.],-bliss is continuously repeated, in an order in which each succeeding (bliss) is a hundredfold of the bliss (preceding it), so as to reach that (bliss) which forms the summit of an unsurpassable condition. This (last bliss) is not possible to the individual self who is capable of en- joying (only) a small and limited amount of pleasure which is mixed with endless miseries; and it (viz. this bliss), in consequence, denotes, as forming its abode, the Highest Self Himself who is hostile to all that is evil, who is the only seat of all auspicious qualities and is quite distinct from all other things (than Himself). Accordingly, the following passage says “Different from this which consists of understanding (or the vijnanamaya) is the (still) inner Self, the Anandamaya (or That which consists of Bliss).” [Taitt. Up. II. 5. 1.]. The vijñanamaya (or that which consists of understanding or knowledge) is, indeed, the individual self, and not merely the intellect; because, by means of the affix mayat, a distinction is implied (between vijñāna and vijñanamaya). But, in the case of the word pranamaya, it is accepted as a matter of necessity that that (affix mayat) imports the same thing (as the word prāņa to which it is affixed). Here (in vijanamaya) however, in as much as it is possible for the individual self to possess Adhik. VI. Sut. 13.] SRI-BHASHYA. 355 it (i. e. vijñana, or understanding), it is not right to make that (affix mayat) meaningless. We have al- ready mentioned that the individual self, in the bound and released conditions, is nothing other than the knower. And it will be stated presently show, in the case of the (word) pranamaya and others, the affix mayat is capable of being (fully) significant. It may be asked, how, if such be the case, the use of the word vijñana itself (to denote the individual self) is appropriate in the sloka which, beginning with “The vijana performs the sacrifice.”-[Taitt. Up. II. 5. 1.], relates to the vijanamaya (or that which consists of understanding). It is nothing wrong to speak of vijñana (or understanding) as constituting the essential nature of the individual self who is none other than the knower; because he possesses self-luminosity, and because also the essential nature of the knower (too) has to be described only by means of (his) knowledge. Indeed those words, which denote such attributes as are descriptive of the essential nature of things, import, by means of (those same) attributes, the essential nature also of that thing which is the possessor of those attributes; like ox and other words (which by means of the general attributes they denote import also the essen- tial nature of the thing to which they belong). Or, in accordance with the (grammatical) aphorism-“The kritya affix 363 lyut has more than one significance.”-[Panini. III. 3. 113.],it has to be accepted that, (in the case of the root jna, to know, associated with the suffix vi), the affix lyut denotes the agent. Or, accepting that it (viz. the root jna to know) belongs to the group of roots commencing with nand (to please), the affix lyur has to be understood,
See under aphorism 14 infra. 363. The Kritya affix Lyut (i. e. And) may denote the agent or the object or impersonal activity. 356 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. (in the case of the root jna to know), to denote the agent, in accordance with the (grammatical) aphorism, which begins with (the group of roots commencing with) nand, (to please), and (the group of roots commencing with) grah, (to seize), and which prescribes (the affixes) lyur, &c., (to those respective groups of roots). [Panini. III. 1. 134.]. 364 And it is for this very reason that it is declared in the scriptural passage “The vijana performs the sacrifice, and it also performs the karmas.” [Taitt. Up. II. 5. 1.], that the vijana possesses the quality of being the agent in performing sacrifices, &c. Indeed it is not possible for the mere intellect to possess the quality of being an agent. As a matter of fact, in relation to what is made up of food (i. e. the annamaya), as also in relation to other (similar) things which are all non-intelligent, which are all serviceable to intelligent beings, and which are all mentioned before the vijanamaya (is mentioned in the context), there is no declaration of that quality of agent- ship which forms (exclusively) the attribute of intelligent beings. For the same reason, the scriptural passage- “(He i. e. the Supreme Person became) the intelligent thing and the non-intelligent thing.”-[Taitt. Up. II. 6. 1.] -separately points out the intelligent thing (or the in- dividual self) and the non-intelligent thing (or matter) by means of their characteristic peculiarities of having a home and of being homeless (respectively); and accord- ingly this (passage) indicates by means of the word
That is to say, the affix Lyur is to be applied to the group of roots beginning with Nand to please; the affix nini is to be applied to the group of roots beginning with Grah to seize; and the affix Ach is to be applied to the group of roots begin- ning with Pach to cook. By the ap- plication of these several affixes nouns signifying agents are derived from these several roots. Adhik. VI. Sut. 13.] SRI-BHASHYA. 357 vijñana (i. e. knowledge or understanding) the intelligent being who possesses that (vijnana) as his characteristic quality. Accordingly, in the Brahmana 365 which relates to Him who is the Internal Ruler of all, the Madh- yandinas-who mention the alternative passage which is to the effect-“He who, dwelling in the self, &c.” [Madh. Brih. Up. III. 7. 22.], in the place of that passage which is stated in other words, in the recension of the Kanvas to the effect” He who, dwelling in know- ledge (or understanding), &c.”-[Kan. Brih. Up. III. 7. 22.], make it clear that what is denoted by the word vijñāna (or understanding), as contained in the recension of the Kanvas, is (nothing other than) the individual self. The neuter gender used in the case of the word vijñāna denotes that it is intended to point it out as a thing. Therefore the Anandamaya (or That which consists of Bliss) is accordingly different from the individual self consisting of intelligence, and is the Highest Self who exists within that (individual self). Although, in the sloka-“The vijana performs the sacrifice, &c.”-[Taitt. Up. II. 5. 1.], mere knowledge alone is mentioned but not the knower; nevertheless, by means of the statement–" Different (from the manomaya) is this inner self, the vijñanamaya (or that which consists of knowledge)."-[Taitt. Up. II. 4. 1.],-it is the knower himself who possesses that (vijana or knowledge) that is taught (to be the individual self). For example, although merely the food is mentioned, in the following śloka, namely,-“All creatures are produced from food, &c.”-[Taitt. Up. II.2.1.]; nevertheless, in this (other) passage, namely, “This same embodied person (purusha)
This is the seventh Brah- mana of the third chapter of the Brihadaranyaka-Upanishad.358 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. is thus what is made up of the essence of food.”-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], it is not merely the food that is pointed out; but, on the other hand, (what is pointed out) is that which is made up of that (food), that is, what is a modification thereof. Bearing all this in mind, the Sutra- kära himself says (almost) immediately afterwards, (that the Anandamaya is different from the individual self)– “Because (also), there is, (in the context), the declaration of difference (between the individual self and the Brah- man).” [Ved. Sut. I. 1. 18.]. It has been stated (by the Pirvapakshin) to the effect that what forms the cause of the world is also none other than what possesses the essential nature of the individual self, on the ground that He who is mentioned to be the cause of the world is (again) pointed out by being gramma- tically equated with the individual self in the scriptural passages" Entering along with this individual self which is (also) the same as Myself, &c."-[Chhand. Up. VI. 3. 2.], and “That thou art”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 7.]; and (it has also been stated) that, bearing this in mind, that essential nature of the individual self itself, which, at starting, is referred to in the passage-" He who knows the Brahman attains the Highest."-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], is taught to be the Anandamaya (or that which consists of bliss) owing to its being distinct from pain. This is not right; because, although the individual self possesses the nature of an intelligent being, it is not possi- ble for it to be associated with that varied and wonderful act of creation which is invariably preceded by his own volition (as forming the cause thereof), in accordance with the passage-“It thought- “May I become manifold and be born’: It created tejas.” [Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 3.]. Under the aphorisms-” Except in the matter of the activ- Adhik. VI. Sut. 13.] SRI-BHASHYA. 359 ity relating to (the creation, &c., of) the world"-[Ved. Sut. IV. 4. 17.],-and-" And on account of the character- istic of equality (between the individual self and the Supreme Self) being solely confined to (the item of) enjoy- ment"-[Ved. Sut. IV. 4. 21.],-it will be established that, even when he (the individual self) is in the pure and free condition (of release), he cannot have the activity relating to (the creation, &c., of) the world. If it be asked, how, when the Brahman who is the cause of the world, is not admitted to possess the same essential nature as the indi- vidual self, the grammatical equation in the statements- “(Entering along) with this individual self which is (also) the same as Myself”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 3. 2.],–and- “That thou art.”-[Chhand. Up. VI. i8. 7.], would be appropriate; it is asked in reply, how the Brahman- who is devoid of even the smallest taint of all that is evil, who wills the truth, who is omniscient and omnipotent, who possesses the whole collection of innumerable auspi- cious qualities unsurpassed in excellence, and who is the cause of all things,–can acquire that essential nature of the individual self which is full of thinking and blinking, and (full) of all other similar activities resulting from the karma which is the abode of endless and varied miseries. If it be said that it (viz. the grammatical equation) becomes appro- priate when either of the two (equated things) is taken to be false, it is asked-Pray, to which (does that falsity belong)? Does it belong to that (individual self) which is associated with evil, or to that (Supreme Self) the essential nature whereof is hostile to evil and forms the only abode of all auspicious qualities? If it be said that the Brahman, who is hostile to evil and forms the only abode of auspicious qua- lities, constitutes the basis of the beginningless ignorance (or avidya), and thus appears falsely to be associated with 360 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. evil, and that this (apparent association with evil) is false in nature; then it amounts to making a self-contradictory statement to the effect that the Brahman is hostile to evil and forms the only abode of auspicious qualities, and be- comes, (at the same time), owing to His forming the basis of the beginningless ignorance (or avidya) the abode of such false appearances as give rise to endless miseries. Indeed to be associated with evil is nothing other than to be the basis of ignorance (or avidya), and to be also the abode of such false appearances as lead to the miseries resulting from that (avidya). To be associated with them (viz. with avidya or ignorance and its effects) and to be hostile to them are certainly contradictory of each other. In spite of this being so, do not say that there is no contra- diction, for the reason that that (association with avidya or ignorance and its results) is of a false nature. Whatever is of a false nature,–that certainly constitutes a wrong aim of life; and you yourself say that (the study of) the whole of the Vedanta is commenced for the destruction of that (wrong aim). And the association, with such a wrong aim of life as deserves to be set at naught, is undoubtedly contradicted by that nature (of the Brahman) which is hostile to evil and forms the only abode of (all) auspicious qualities. It may be said-What shall we do? The proposition that, by knowing one thing, all things become known has been en- unciated in the passage-"(Did you ask for that teaching) by which what is not heard becomes heard?" [Chhand. Up. VI. 1. 3.]; and then, in the passage beginning with— “Existence alone, my dear child, this was in the beginning” -[Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 1.], it has been declared that the Brah- man is the only cause of all the worlds; and in the passage “It thought-May I become manifold ?”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 3.], (it has been declared) that He possesses Adhik. VI. Süt. 13.] SRI-BHASHYA. 361 the quality of willing the truth; and afterwards, by means of the grammatical equation, contained in the passage- “That thou art”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 7], it has been pre- dicated in relation to that same Brahman that ‘That’ is one with the individual self who is the abode of endless mise- ries and now, because this (oneness) is incapable of being otherwise explained, it has to be assumed that the Brah- man Himself is the basis of ignorance (or avidya) and of other such things. If it be so said, it is replied that what is inappropriate and opposed to reason should not be assum- ed even for the purpose of making the scripture appro- priate. Then again it may be said that (His) association with evil is indeed a reality, but (His) possessing the char- acter of being the only abode of (all) auspicious qualities is of the nature of an unreality. Then this sastra, which has been promulgated with the object of saving such intel- ligent beings (or individual souls) as are tormented by the three 366 miseries, saves them well enough indeed by teaching them that, in relation to Him (viz. the Brahman), the torment of the three miseries is alone real while (His) character of pure and unmixed auspiciousness is super- imposed by illusion !! And again with the desire of avoiding this erroneous conclusion it may be said, re- garding the Brahman,-that His possessing the character of the individual self and of one who is misery-stricken, &c., which are all different from His essential nature of pure and attributeless Intelligence, must be assumed to be false; and that similarly His possessing the quality of willing the truth, His being the abode of auspicious qua- lities, His being the cause of the world, and His other such qualities also (have all to be assumed to be false). If you
Vide supra n. 12. 46 362 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. say so, how wonderful must be your skill in thinking out the meanings of sentences ! The proposition that, by knowing one thing, all things become known, cannot at all hold good, when all things are taken to be unreal, in as much as all the things that have to be known will then be non-existent. If, in the way in which the knowledge in relation to the one thing is real, the knowledge relating to all things also is equally real and is included in that (knowledge relating to that one thing), then indeed, it is possible to say that, by knowing that (one thing), all things become known. As a matter of fact, by knowing the really existent mother-of-pearl, the silver that is super- imposed upon that (mother-of-pearl) and is unreal does not become known. It may be again said that the mean- ing of the proposition that, by knowing one thing, all things become known is this :-that thing which is attri- buteless is alone real and all else is unreal. Then surely it would not have been declared in the scripture thus:-" (Did you ask for that teaching) by which what is not heard becomes heard, what is not thought be- comes thought, what is not known becomes known ?“367 [Chhand. Up. VI. 1. 3.]. The meaning of this passage is indeed this-when that one thing is heard, all that which was unheard becomes also heard. If the real ex- istence of that one thing alone, which is attributeless and is defined to be the cause of the world, had been en- unciated in the proposition, then the illustrative example given to the effect-“Just as, my dear child, by one lump of clay, all that is made of clay becomes known “- (Chhand. Up. VI. 1. 4.), would also have been found to
But it would have been de- clared to the effect-“Did you ask for that teaching by which all things

are (taught) to be of a false nature, or by which all things become stul- tified.“Adhik. VI. Sut. 13.] SRI-BHASHYA. 363 be inappropriate. Indeed what is illustrated (here) is that, by knowing the lump of clay, all the modifications of that (clay) become known. It may be said that here (i.e. in this illustration) the unreality of the modifications is also implied. But then the unreality of these modi- fications of clay could not have been such a conclusive- ly proved thing to the pupils 68 (Svetaketu), as the (illusorily perceived) snake in the rope and other (such falsely perceived) objects (would have been). According- ly, to illustrate the import of the proposition enunciated, it could not have been appropriate to introduce,as if they had been well known, the examples beginning with- “Just as, my dear child, &c.”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 1. 4. 5 & 6.].369 Moreover it cannot be said that, previous to the gene- sis of the knowledge produced by the scriptural passage- “That thou art.”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 7.]-and by other similar passages, we have any such criterion of truth, either with or without the support of logic, as gives rise to the know- ledge of that unreality which is associated with all modifica- tions. This subject will be dealt with under the aphorism “(The world) is not different from that (Brahman), be- cause (it is so made out) from the (group of) passages having the word ‘beginning’ at their commencement.” [Ved. Süt. II. 1. 15.]. Accordingly there are the following and other similar passages:-“Existence alone, my dear child, this was 368. Literally, one who is desirous of ‘hearing’ i. e. of learning. 369. These are three illustrations given in Chhand. Up. VI. 1. 4 5 & 6., and are to the following effect :-Just as, by knowing one lump of clay, all that is made of clay is known; just as, by knowing one nugget of gold, all that is made of gold is known; and just as, by knowing one pair of (iron) nail-scissors, all that is made of iron is known: exactly similarly’ by knowing the One Existence. namely, the Brahman, all that is evolved out of Him becomes known. 364 SRI-BHASHYA, [Chap. I. Part. I. in the beginning, one only, without a second.”-[Chhand. Up. VI 2. 1.]; “It thought-May I become manifold and be born.’ It created tejas.”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 3.]; “Indeed, entering these three deities along with this individual self which is (also) the same as Myself, I evolve the differentiations of name and form.”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 3. 2.]; “All these things which are born, my dear one, have their origin in the Sat (i. e. in the One Existence), have their abode in the Sat, and are established in the Sat.” [Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 4 & 6.]; “All this has That for its Self.”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 7.]. And by means of these, innumerable characteristic attributes (in relation to the Brahman), such as are capable of being made out solely by means of the sastras,-are predicated; and (those predi- cations) are the following and others :-This world has the Sat (or the Brahman) for its Self; before the time of crea- tion it is destitute of the differentiation of names and forms; in the matter of creating the world the Brahman, who is denoted by the word Sat (or Existence), does not stand in need of any cause other than Himself; He is at the time of creation possessed of that characteristic volition which is peculiar to none other than Himself and is to the effect-“I will myself become manifold in the form of endless immovable and movable things”; in accordance with His volition, creation is characterised by a peculiarly well defined arrangement of endless and wonderful entities; the differentiation of endless names and forms results from the entrance of the individual self, which has (the Brah- man) Himself for its Self, into all the non-intelligent things; and all things other than (the Brahman) Himself have Himself for their basis, have Himself for their abode, are capable of activity through Himself, live by none other than Himself, and are established in Himself. In other con- Adhik. VI. Sut. 13.] SRI-BHASHYA. 365 6 texts also such qualities as are all incapable of being made out by all other means of proof (than the sastras) are in a thousand ways declared to be found in association with Him; and they are, among others, the quality of being de- void of all that is evil so as to be wholly free from sin and of such other evil things, the quality of omniscience, the quali- ty of being the Lord of all, the quality of desiring the truth and the quality of willing the truth, the quality of possess- ing that unsurpassed bliss which forms the cause of the bliss that belongs to all (others). (In the passage That thou art’), the word ‘That’ points out the Brahman, who forms the subject of the context and is characterised by endless attributes, which are (all), in this manner, not within the province of any other means of proof (than the scripture); and to say that that (word) is intended to teach only that thing which is devoid of attributes is to talk incoherently like a mad man; because it is (so very) inappropriate (to say so). And the word thou’ denotes the individual self who is associated with the condition of being in samsara (or the circuit of mundane existence). If this (word) also be intended to denote that (thing) the essential nature of which is free from all attributes, then its own real significa- tion would have to be given up. Moreover it has been already 369 pointed out that concealment by ignorance (or avidya) is indeed not possible in relation to that thing which is, by nature, attributeless and luminous; the reason is that, (if it were possible), it would lead to the destruction of the essential nature (of that thing) itself and to other such (inconsistencies). Again in such a case, in re- gard to both the words ‘That’ and ’thou’ which are found in the grammatical equation (‘That thou art)’, their main 370. Vide supra p. 161. 366 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. 1. Part. I. and natural significance has to be given up, and in conse- quence a figurative significance (in relation to both of them) has necessarily to be accepted. Further, it may be said thus :-The (words) which are found in a grammatical equation are not at all capable of importing (any) thing which has the character of a special attribute, because they are all intended to denote only one thing. And solely from this there results the negation of attributes which gives rise to the denotation of the one- ness of the thing itself. Therefore there is no room for any figurative interpretation (here). For example, in the instance"The lily is blue”-the two words (blue and lily) are intended to point out the oneness of that thing which is characterised (by what they denote); and there- fore the quality of being a lily and (the quality) of being blue are not both meant to be spoken of (here). If they were (so) meant to be spoken of, then, indeed, there would result the denotation of the oneness of that form which is characterised by the quality of being a lily, with that (other) form which is characterised by the quality of being blue. But this cannot be. Indeed that (one) thing (which is imported by the grammatical equation) is not character- ised by (what is signified by) the word lily, which is (it- self) in the form of what is characterised by blueness; be- cause there would (otherwise) be room for the rela- tion of reciprocal inherence371 between a class and a quality. Therefore what is denoted by the grammatical equation (here) is merely the oneness of that thing which is (at once) characterised by the quality of being blue and the quality of being a lily. For example, in the instance,- 371. The class would have to be inherent in the quality and the qua- lity in the class. As a matter of fact, it is the quality that is inher- ent in the class, Adhik. VI. Süt. 13.] SRI-BHASHYA. 367 This is that Devadatta’-it is not possible for the gramma- tical equation to denote that a person, who was in associa- tion with a past time and a far off place, is existing in that very same condition in association with a near place and the present time; accordingly, what is denoted by the grammatical equation (here) is merely the oneness of that essential nature (of the person) which is characterised by (its) association with both (those) times and both (those) places. Although that quality, which is made out at the time of hearing a single word such as ‘blue’ or any other, is not, on account of contradiction, denoted (by that word) at the time when it is grammatically equated (with any other word or words); nevertheless, as it denotes a main part of the thing which is intended to be denoted (by the grammatical equation), there is no figurative signifi- cance (in relation to it). On the other hand there is merely a desire not to mention (any) thing which constitu- tes a quality (of that one thing which forms the import of the equation). This indeed is the nature of a gramma- tical equation in all cases. Therefore there is nothing wrong (here). This aforesaid (argument) is of no value. Indeed in all sentences what is to be understood is merely those particular relations which are found between the things imported by the words (in those sentences), and which have arisen in accordance with the proper process of mak- ing out the meanings of words. Even when they are used in a grammatical equation, words like ‘blue’, &c., denote the thing which is characterised by blueness, &c., as estab- lished in accordance with the proper process of making out the meanings of words; and (they denote that thing) in its relation with the (other) things denoted by the other words (therein). For instance, when it is said-368 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. ‘Bring the blue lily,’-what is brought is a thing which Again, when it is said- excited with ruttishness is characterised by blueness, &c. “A herd of elephants, which is (madamudita), exists in the Vindhya forest (or Vindh- yaṭavi),"-what is pointed out is only that thing which is characterised by the attributes denoted by the two words (madamudita and Vindhyaṭavi). In the same man- ner, in Vedantic passages also wherein grammatical equa- tions are mentioned, what is to be understood is that Brahman who is undoubtedly characterised by all (those) particular attributes (which are denoted by the various words in those grammatical equations). Moreover, when it is desired to mention an attribute (as qualifying a thing), it is not that a thing, which has a form already characterised by some attributes, is (again) to be character- ised by some (other) attributes; but, on the other hand, the essential nature (of that one thing itself) is to be characterised by all the attributes. Accordingly “A grammatical equation (between words) means that words having a variety of significations are used so as to import only one thing.“372 The function of a gram- matical equation is to predicate, (in relation to a thing), either affirmatively or negatively, by means of certain words that that same thing which has already a particular form denoted by some words is also possessed of a cer- tain other form: as, in the instance-” Devadatta is brown, youthful, and red-eyed, without mental weakness, without money, and without fault.” And where, by the words of a grammatical equation, any two attributes are mentioned which are not capable of being consistently applied to one and the same thing, even there it has 372. Vide supra n. 75. Adhik. VI. Sut. 13.] SRI-BHASHYA. 369 necessarily to be accepted that (only) one of the two words (signifying those attributes) can not have its main and natural significance, but not both of them; as in the instance,” The man of the Vahika country is a go 373 (or a brute).” In the instance-The lily is blue’–and in others like it, there is no contradiction of the co-exist- ence of two attributes (in one and the same thing); and hence what is denoted (there) is only one thing as charac- terised by two attributes. Again you may hold as follows: What is pointed out as being correlated to (any) one particular attribute is distinct in nature from what is correlated to some other attribute. Accordingly, even though (the words in a gram- matical equation) are found in the same grammatical case, it is not (thereby) possible for them to import oneness (in regard to the thing they denote), as (it is not possible) in the case, for instance, of (the words) pot and cloth. There- fore (the words in a grammatical equation) are not capable of denoting (only) one thing as characterised by many attributes. On the other hand, it is the essential nature (of a certain thing) that is first explained by means of the attributes (denoted by the words in the grammatical equa tion); and it is subsequently (to this) that they (viz. those words) become capable of denoting the oneness of that (thing). It may be so, provided (only) that the mere correla- tion (of a thing) to two attributes is opposed to the one- ness (of that thing). This, however, is not seen to be the case. Indeed, what stands in the way of the oneness (of 373. The original here is Gaur- vähikaḥ, and the word Vähika is also interpreted to mean the person who is outside the pale of Vedic religion. 47 What is to be noted in this illustra- tion is that the word go instead of meaning an ox as usual means a senseless brute. 370 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. 1. Part. I. a thing) is only the association (of that thing) with two such attributes, as are not capable of meeting together in one and the same thing that is to be characterised by (those) attributes. And (such) incapability (of meeting together in one and the same thing) is, in the case of the character- istics of the pot and those of the cloth, established by other means of proof. But, in the instance-The lily is blue-and in others like it, no such contradiction is pér- ceived; in the same way in which no contradiction is perceived in the case where the attributé of owning a stick and the attribute of wearing an ear-ring (are both found in association with one and the same person), and also in the case where the attribute of having a form, the attribute of having a taste, the attribute of possessing a smell, &c., (are found in association with one and the same thing). It is not merely that there is no (such) contradiction whatso- ever: but the association (of a thing) with two attributes (denoted by two words in a grammatical equation) certain- ly proves (also) that a grammatical equation has the power of importing a single thing through the difference in the significations (of the words used therein). Otherwise, there would be no reason to use more than one word to indicate merely the oneness of the essential nature (of a thing); and thus there would be no grammatical equation at all. If, irrespective of their own relation (to themselves and to the thing they qualify), the attributes (denoted by the words in a grammatical equation) be taken to denote only the accidental characteristic of the essential nature (of that thing), then, that thing would be sufficiently well marked out by only one (such accidental attribute); and, in consequence, all other accidental attributes would cer- tainly become meaningless. If another form, characterised by (these) other accidental attributes, be admitted (in rela- Adhik. VI. Sut. 13.] SRI-BHASHYA. 371 tion to the essential nature of that thing), then, there would be room for saying that it (i. e. that essential nature) is a qualified thing. Again in the instance-This is that Devadatta’, there is not even the slightest room for (any) figurative (or secondary) interpretation; because there is no contradiction (to be thereby got over), in as much as that thing, which at a past time was in association with a particular far off place, may, without any contradiction, exist at the present time in association with a near place. Indeed it is by means of this very reason that those who maintain374 the perdurability of external objects prove through the recognitive cognition-This is that person’, that a thing which has been in association with two differ- ent periods (or points) of time is (really) one and the same. Otherwise, there would be a contradiction between the (same) perceptions (belonging to different times), and all things would in consequence acquire the character of be- ing transient in existence. And the contradiction result- ing from the association (of one and the same thing) with two different places is, however, invalidated by the differ- ence in time. For whatever reason the words used in a grammatical equation possess the power of denoting a single thing which is characterised by many attributes, for that very same reason, the exchange (in return for the soma) of the heifer, which is one year old and is characterised by redness, &c., is enjoined as the thing that has to be done under the commandment-“With the red, tawney-eyed hei- fer, one year, old, let him purchase the soma plant.” [Taitt. Samh. VI. 1. 6. 7.]. And it is accordingly stated thus:- 374. As against the Saugalas or external things are transitory. Buddhists who maintain that all 372 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. 1. “Because the substance (heifer) and the quality (redness) are associated with one and the same action (of buying in the above passage), there is the binding rule that they shall together denote one and the same thing.” [Pur. Mim. III 1. 12.]. The purvapakshin (or the objector) here is of the following opinion:-No doubt, the word ‘red’ denotes the quality of redness which is contained in substances, for the reason that quality also, like genus (or jāti) possesses the singular character of being a mode of substances. Nevertheless, in relation to the redness (here), there is no rule compelling its invariable association with the one year old heifer; because it is not possible, (in one commandment), to enjoin two things to the effect-“Let him purchase ‘with the one year old heifer, and let that (purchase) be made in exchange for a red one.” And for this reason, the sentence is to be broken up where the word aruṇaya (i. e. red) occurs, so as surely to denote without distinction that redness which is contained in all the things mentioned in the context as necessary (for the sacrifice). The use of the feminine gender in connection with the word ‘red’ is intended to denote (in a general way all) the things which are mentioned as necessary in the context and which are of all genders. Therefore, in relation to the redness (here), there is no rule compelling its invariable association with the one year old heifer. In reply to this it is stated as follows:-“Because the substance (heifer) and the quality (redness) are associated with one and the same action (of buying), there is the bind- ing rule that they shall together denote one and the same thing.” [Pur. Mim. III. 1. 12.]. By means of the grammatical equation (in the passage above quoted), the words arunaya and ekahayanya, which (respectively) de- pote the thing that is characterised by redness and theAdhik. VI. Sul. 13.] SRI-BHASHYA. 373 thing that is only one year old, are made out to import one and the same thing; and this being the case, the thing heifer which is one year old and the quality of redness are (both) declared by that very word arunaya to be relat- ed to each other in the form of the qualified and the qua- lifier; and there is nothing opposed to reason in their be- ing (thus) associated together in relation to one and the same action of buying; consequently, it is unavoidably necessary for redness to be associated with the one year old heifer which forms the means for the purchase (of the soma plant). If, like the association of the act of buying with the one year old heifer, the association of redness also (with it) is to be definitely made out by means of the (mandatory) sentence itself, then the (one) sentence will have to be construed as having two meanings. But this is not found to be the case. By means of the word ‘red’ (arunaya) itself, the thing which is characterised by red- ness is expressed; what is made out by its being gramma- tically equated with the word ekahayanya (i. e. the one year old heifer) is merely the fact that that thing is the one year old heifer; and its association with this quality is not (what is so made out). Indeed, a grammatical equa- tion imports nothing other than the oneness of that thing which is characterised by (many) attributes. The defi- nition of a grammatical equation is surely as follows “A grammatical equation875 (between words) means that words having a variety of significations are used so as to import only one thing.” It is certainly thus that the statement-The cloth is red’-and other such statements constitute (each) a single sentence owing to (the words in them) importing only one thing. Indeed 375. Vide supra n. 75. 374 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. 1. (here) the function of this sentence consists in (denot- ing) the association of the cloth with the predication expressed by the verb ’to be’. But its association with the red colour is expressed merely by the word red. What is definitely made out by the grammatical equation is only this much, that the cloth is that substance which is asso- ciated with the red colour. Thus it is nothing wrong to say -that, (in any particular sentence forming a grammatical equation), a thing which is characterised by one attribute, or two attributes, or many attributes is denoted by certain particular words used in agreement either with the karaka case-affixes 76 or with the nominative case-affix; and that it is made out by means of the grammatical equation that the thing so characterised by all the attri- butes is only one; and that this one thing is associated with the action denoted by the verb (forming the predicate of the sentence). (To illustrate this) there are the following instances:-” Devadatta is brown, youthful, red-eyed, possesses a stick, and wears an ear-ring” “Let him make the curtain by means of the white cloth “-” Bring 376. The word Karaka expresses the relation of a noun to the verb in a sentence. There are six such rela- tions according to Panini, viz. (1). Karman, the object or the idea ex- pressed by the accusative case; (2). Karana, the instrument or the idea expressed by the instrumental case; (3). Kartri, the agent expressed by the instrumental case; if not ex- pressed by the instrumental case, it is not considered a Karaka when ex- pressed by the nominative case; the agent and the instrument are both capable of being expressed by the instrumental case; (4) Sampradana, the recipient of the object of a gift; this is the idea expressed by the dative case; (5) Apadana, abla- tion i.e. the departure or removal of a thing from a fixed point; this is the idea expressed by the ablative case; and (6) Adhikarana, location or the place of action,; this is the idea expressed by the locative case The genitive or possessive case is not considered a Karaka, because it expresses the relation between two nouns but not the relation between a noun and a verb. Adhik. VI. Sul. 13.] SRI-BHASHYA. 375 the lily which is blue “-” Bring the blue lily “Bring the cow which is white and which possesses beauti- ful eyes”-“Let him offer the sacrificial cake of rice (puro- dasa) in eight clay cups to Agni who shows the way.” [Taitt. Samh. II. 2. 2. 1.].377 And the same is the case with the scriptural passage-“With the red, tawney-eyed heifer, one year old, let him purchase the soma plant.” [Taitt. Samh. VI. 1. 6. 7.] What is said is this :-Just as, when it is said “Let him cook the rice in a vessel by means of fire-sticks,”–one single action denoted by the verb is made out to be simultaneously associated with different words which are in more than one karaka case,- so also, at the very time when any particular kāraka relation is made out (in a grammatical equation), every such karaka relation as is mentioned in the group of words forming the grammatical equation is perceived to be characterised by many attributes at once: and thus it is that each (such relation) agrees with the verb. In this there is nothing opposed to reason, and there are the follow- ing and other similar instances (to show it):-“Let the clever cook cook the food prepared with milk, in a proper- sized vessel, by means of dry fire-sticks got out of the khadira tree (Acacia Catechu). What has been (by implication) stated to the effect that a word, which denotes a quality and is used in a sen- tence in which a substance has been already mentioned, denotes merely a quality, and that therefore the word ‘red’ (arunaya) in the sentence (given above) denotes nothing other than a mere quality,-that is not appropriate; because it is not anywhere seen, either in popular usage or in the Vedas, that a word, which denotes a quality and is 377. Vide also Ait. Br.VII. 8, 376 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. grammatically equated with (another) word denoting a substance, imports merely a quality. It is even wrong to say that a word, which denotes a quality and exists in a sentence in which a substance has been already mentioned, denotes merely a quality; because, in the instance-“The cloth is white”–and in others like it, although a substance is made mention of, what is denoted (by the sentence) is nothing other than a substance which is characterised by a quality. In the following instance, namely, “The white….. belonging to the cloth”,878 the non-apprehension of the cloth which is characterised by whiteness is due to the mention of the words in dissimilar grammatical cases; but is not at all due to a substance having been already men- tioned (in the sentence). Adopting that same instance, we may speak of- The white part belonging to the cloth’, –or some such thing. In this case, the words (sukla i. e. white and bhaga i. e. part) are (both) used in the same grammatical case, and what is therefore apprehended is a substance which is characterised by whiteness. What has been further stated to the effect that, since the purchase (of the soma plant) is completely concluded with the exchange of the one year old heifer, (its) redness has no necessary relation whatsoever to this transaction of purchase, that also is inappropriate; because a word,- which denotes a quality (such as redness) and is found in a grammatical equation along with any other word denot- ing a substance that is not characterised by any quality op- posed (to the quality already referred to),-expresses that 378. The Sanskrit equivalent of this as given in the original is as follows:- Palasya suklah. Pata- sya is the genitive of pala and so is in the genitive case, and suklah is in the nominative case. Thus there are two dissimilar grammatical cases here. Adhik. VI. Süt. 13.] SRI-BHASHYA. 377 quality as abiding in that (substance); and hence there is nothing wrong in such a quality being associated with the action denoted by the verb (in the sentence). Moreover, it having been established by means of the foregoing argu- ment that the quality of redness has, according to gram- mar, a certain relation to the substance (i. e. to the one year old heifer), the conclusion (of the purvapakshin) was accord- ingly given to the effect that, since substance and quality are not (separately) capable of serving as the means for purchasing (the soma plant), it is proved by implication that they are both mutually related to one another that also is inappropriate. Therefore the meaning of this (Purva-Mimamsa aphorism) is nothing other than what has been given above (by us). Accordingly, in the grammatical equation-That thou art’ and in others like it, the teaching of oneness has to be brought out without giving up, even in the least, the qualifications denoted by both the words (‘That’ and ’thou’). But this is not possible for him who does not admit the Highest Self (or the Brahman) to be hostile to all that is evil, to form the only abode of all the innumerable auspicious qualities, and to be a separate Being from the intelligent individual soul, which is capable of existing both in the pure and in the impure condition and is subject to endless miseries superimposed by the beginningless igno- rance (or avidya). Since it has to be accepted that the words used in a grammatical equation are intended to denote the oneness of that thing which is characterised by such attributes as are given (therein), it may be said that, even when one admits (the Highest Self as described above), the association with all those evils that belong to what is denoted by the word ’thou’ will tend to affect the Highest Self. But it is replied that it is not (right to 48378 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. say) so; because, by means of the word ’thou’ also, it is the Highest Self alone that is denoted as forming the internal ruler of the individual selves. What is said is this: The Highest Brahman-who is denoted by the word Sat (or Existence), who is devoid of even the smallest taint of all that is evil, who possesses, together with the quality of willing the truth, the whole collection of innumerable auspicious qualities unsurpassed in excellence, and who forms the cause of all things,-willed to the effect ‘May I become many’; then He created in order the whole world consisting of (the elements of) fire, water, earth, and of such other things; then, in that world existing in the form of the wonderful material configura- tions known as gods, &c., He caused the whole series of intelligent individual souls to enter into such material em- bodiments as were suited to their own respective karmas so that they might (severally) constitute the self (of those embodiments); then He Himself, wholly of His own ac- cord, entered into the individual selves so as to form their internal Self; and then He introduced the differentiation of names and forms among the material embodiments which are known as gods, &c., and which, being of this nature, are composite and include Him also within themselves. The meaning is that He caused the composite mass, which is altogether of this nature, to assume the character of a thing and also to become capable of being denoted by words. In the passage-379”(Entering along) with this indivi- dual self which is (also) the same as Myself’, the expression -with this individual self which is also the same as My- self’,-shows that the individual self has the Brahman for his Self. And it is made out that the individual self has 379. Vide Chhand. Up. VI. 3. 2. Adhik. VI. Sut. 13. SRI-BHASHYA. 379 the Brahman for his Self for the reason that the Brahman has entered into this individual self so. as to constitute his Self; because in the context in which the passage 380-“He created all this, whatever there is. Having created it, He entered into that same thing. Having entered into it, He became the sat and the tyat.“381-occurs, the two things, namely, the intelligent thing and the non-intelligent thing, which are denoted by the expression ‘all this’, are sepa- rately pointed out by means of the words sat and tyat, as also by means of the words vijana and avijñāna ; and then the Brahman is spoken of as entering even into the intelligent thing (viz. the individual self). Therefore it has to be understood that, owing to the differentiation of names and forms having taken place in this manner, all significant words denote the Highest Self as associated with the non-intelligent thing (matter) and with the (in- telligent) individual self. Moreover, by means of the passage-“All this has That for its Self.”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 8. 7.], the world which is associated with the intelligent things (or the individual selves) is (first) pointed out as ‘all this’, and then it is declared that He, (the Lord), is the Self thereof. And since the Brahman forms in this manner the Self of all the intelligent things and the non-intelligent things, the whole world together with all the intelligent individual selves forms His body. And to this effect there are these other scriptural passages:-“He, who has entered within, is the ruler of all things that are born, and (He) is 380. Vide Taitt. Up. II. 6. [ The continuation of this passage is as follows:-“He became the Nirukta or the defined and the Anirukta or the undefined, the Nilayana or what has a home and the Anilayana or the home- less, the Vijnana or the intelligent thing and the Avijñana or the non- intelligent thing, &c.” 381. Vide supra n. 183. 380 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. 1. “He who is earth,……He the Self of all.”–[Taitt. Ar. III. 24.]; " He who, dwelling in the earth, is within the earth, whom the earth does not know, whose body is the earth, and who internally rules the earth, He is thy internal ruler and immortal Self…… He who, dwelling in the self, is within the self, whom the self does not know, whose body is the self, and who inter- nally rules the self,-He is thy internal ruler and immortal Self.” [Madh. Brih. Up. III. 7. 3 to 22.]; moving within the earth, whose body is the who is moving within the waters, whose body is the waters………………He who is moving within the akshara, whose body is the akshara,382 whom the akshara does not know………He is the internal Self of all beings, He is devoid of all sins, He is the Divine Lord, He is the one Nārāyaṇa.” [Sub. Up. VII. 1.]. These and other passag- es first point out that the whole world together with the intelligent individual selves constitutes His body, and then they teach that the Highest Self forms the Self of that (world). Therefore those words also, which denote the in- telligent things (or the individual selves), denote the High- est Self alone who forms the Self also of the intelligent things and has these intelligent things for His body; in the same manner in which those words which denote the non-intelligent configurated material masses known as gods, &c., denote only those individual selves who have those particular masses of matter for their bodies. (To illustrate this) there are the following and other (examples)” The four who perform the sacrifice known as the panchadasarātra acquire god-hood.“383 The meaning is that they become gods. In the case of words which denote material embodi- 382. Vide supra. n. 185. 383. Vide . Sr. XI. 2. 9. Adhik. VI. Sut. 13.] SRI-BHASHYA. 381 ments, it is right (to say) that they also include in their im- port that which is the embodied; because a material em- bodiment possesses, in relation to the embodied, the cha- racter of being a mode (thereof); and because also those words which denote modes include in their import the things which are the possessors of those modes. Indeed what is meant by a mode is that aspect, which is made out to be of a particular nature, and which is in relation to the thing that is denoted, when it is said “This thing is of this nature.” That (mode) is necessarily dependent upon that thing; hence, the knowledge of that (mode) is necessari- ly dependent upon that (thing); consequently, it is proper (for that mode) to include (within its significance) that very thing. Accordingly, even the word which denotes that (mode) includes that (thing) in its import. It is for this very reason that ox, horse, man, and other such words, as are denotative of particular genera and are the modes of particular masses of matter, include in their import the masses of matter which are (respectively) character- ised by (those) modes. And any such mass of matter, constituting the body of an intelligent individual soul, forms his mode. Similarly, even those intelligent individu- al souls, who have particular masses of matter for their bodies, form modes of the Highest Self. Therefore they (i. e. those words) finally include in their import the High- est Self Himself. Thus the Highest Self Himself is denot- ed by all words. And consequently the grammatical equation (of the word ‘That’), with the word (’thou’), which (so) denotes the Highest Self, has certainly a primary and natural significance. It may, however, be said (here) thus :-It is only such words as denote genera and qualities that are seen to be grammatically equated with words denoting substances; 382 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. 1. Part. I. as, in the instances, The ox is broken-horned’,‘The candied sugar is white’. And in the case of such substanc- es as form the modes of other substances, the affix having the force of matups 8 4 is seen to be applied to them (when they are used in grammatical equations); as in the instances of dandin (or one who is the possessor of a stick) and kunda- lin (or one who is the wearer of an ear-ring). But it is not right to say so. Neither the genus, nor the quality, nor the substance,nor any single one of these can make a gram- matical equation (fully) significant; because each of them may stray into the other. In the case of a thing which can exist as the mode of another thing, the existence, persist- ence, and realisation (of that thing) are invariably associat- ed with this (other) thing. Hence the words which denote that (mode) possess the power of denoting the substance which is characterised by what is denoted by themselves. Consequently, it is certainly proper for them to be grammatically equated with the word which denot- es that substance as characterised by an attribute different (from what they themselves denote). Where, on the other hand, it is desired that a substance, which is capable of being realised separately and exists in itself, should form, somewhere and at some time the mode of another sub- stance, there, the affix having the force of matup becomes applicable. Thus it (i. e. the position here maintained) is faultless. Therefore the words ‘T’, ’thou’, and others, which in themselves specially denote the individual self, signify the Highest Self Himself, owing to the individual selves also, who are associated with the non-intelligent thing (matter), 384. This affix has the sense of possession. The affix nini also has the same signification. This is the affix used in Dandm and Kundalen.Adhik. VI. Sil. 13.] SRI-BHASHYA. 383 forming a mode of that (Highest Self); the reason for this is that they thus constitute the body of the Highest Self. And this (view) is summed up in the grammatical equation -“That thou art’. Such being the case, in consequence of the individual self (thus) standing in the relation of the body to the Highest Self, those peculiar attributes which belong to the individual self do not affect the Highest Self; in the same way in which childhood, youth, and other such conditions, which are associated with one’s own body, do not affect the individual self. Therefore, in the grammatical equation-That thou art’, the word ‘That’ denotes the Highest Self who is the cause of the world, who wills the truth, who is the abode of all auspi- cious qualities, who is devoid of even the smallest taint of all that is evil; and (the word) ’thou’ also denotes that same (Supreme Self) as possessing for His body that embodied individual self. Accordingly, the gramma- tical equation (‘That thou art’) has a primary and natural significance; there is no contradiction of the context (wherein it occurs); there is no contradiction of any one of all the scriptural passages; and even the slightest taint of ignorance (or avidya) and of other evils does not become possible in relation to the Brahman who is free from im- purity and forms the only abode of auspicious quali- ties. Since the fact of (the Brahman) being gramma- tically equated with the individual self also imports in this manner that He is different from the individual self who forms His attribute,-therefore the Anandamaya (or He who consists of Bliss), who is the Highest Self, is different from the individual self who consists of knowledge (or understanding). What has been stated above 385 to the effect that, in 385. Vide the objection-statement, supra pp. 347 & 348. 384 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. 1. Part. I. the statement-“This itself is the embodied Self of that (which consists of knowledge or understanding)”-[Taitt. Up. II. 5. 1.], the anandamaya (or he who consists of bliss) is declared to be associated with a body, and that it is not thus possible for him to be other than the individual self; that is not right: because, in this con- text, by means of the statement-“The embodied Self of this is the same as that of the former.” [Taitt. Up. II. 3. 1. II. 4. I. & II. 5. 1.], it is declared in each case that the Highest Self Himself is the embodied Self (of all). How? Because the Highest Brahman who is other than the individual self, and who, in accordance with the scrip- tural statement-“From that same Self, indeed, the spatial ether came into existence.”-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], is known to be the supreme cause of the whole series of created ob- jects such as the spatial ether and other things, is (Himself) taught to be the Self;–it is (therefore) made out ’that the spatial ether and other things including the annamaya (or what is made up of food), which are all different from Him, constitute His body. And by means of the following passage belonging to the Subalopanishad-” (He) whose body is the earth….whose body is the waters,….whose body is the fire….whose body is the air…..whose body is the spa- tial ether…. whose body is the akshara….whose body is mrityu (ie. prakriti or nature),….He is the internal Self of all beings, He is devoid of all sins, He is the Divine Lord, He is the One Nārāyaṇa.” [Sub. Up. VII. 1.], it is clearly stated that all the constituent principles of the universe form the body of the Highest Self. There- fore, in this very passage, namely,” From that same Self, indeed, (the spatial ether came into existence) ‘– [Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], what is made out is that the Highest Self Himself forms the embodied Self of the Adhik. VI. Süt. 13.] SRI-BHASHYA. 385 annamaya (or what is made up of food). The context speaks of the pranamaya (or what consists of prana) in the passage-” He who is (the embodied Self) of the for- mer-He Himself is the embodied Self of this." [Taitt. Up. II. 3. 1.]. The meaning is that He who is the embodied Self of the annamaya mentioned before, and who forms the supreme cause (of the universe), as established by means of other scriptural passages, is Himself the Highest Self; it is He alone who is the embodied Self also of the pranamaya (or what is made up of prana). In this manner it (viz. the context) has to be understood in the case of the manomaya (or what con- sists of mind) and the vijanamaya (or what consists of knowledge). But in regard to the Anandamaya (or that which consists of bliss), the indicative expression 386_" He Himself" [Taitt. Up. II.6.1.]–is given to show that He has none other for His Self. How is that? In the fore- going manner, it has been made out that the Highest Self Himself is the embodied Self of the vijanamaya (or what consists of knowledge) also. This being the case, if it be said that He who is the embodied Self of the vijña- namaya (or what consists of knowledge) is Himself the embodied Self of the Anandamaya (or what consists of bliss) also: then, the Anandamaya who is made out by the repetition (of the word ‘bliss ‘), to be the Supreme Self will Himself have to be understood as forming the Self of the Supreme Self. Accordingly the whole. collection of intelli- gent and non-intelligent things which are different from Himself constitute His body. He alone is in consequence the unconditioned embodied Self. It is for this very 386. This expression is contained in the passage-“The embodied Self of this (which consists of bliss) is He 49 Himself who is (the embodied Self) of the former (whieh consists of un- derstanding).” 386 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. reason that this sastra which is promulgated in relation to the Highest Brahman is called by worthy persons as the Science of the Embodied. Consequently the Anandamaya who is the Highest Self is undoubtedly dis- tinct from the individual self who consists of knowledge. He (a purvapakshin) might say (here) as follows:- This Anandamaya is not different from the individual self, because the affix mayat which signifies modification is found to be used (here). The affix mayat is taught to possess the significance of modification in the (grammatical) aphorism which (for the first time) introduces (its modifi- catory significance) by saying “The affix mayat also is used in these two (significations)”-[Panini. IV. 3. 143.]; and (it is) also (taught) in the aphorism which is to the effect-“It (viz. the affix mayat) is always used (in the sense of modification) after the words known as the vriddhas 387 and after the group of words beginning with sara.” [Panini. IV. 3. 144.]. And this word Anandamaya is a vriddha. It may (again) be said (here) that the affix mayat has also the power of signifying abundance, because it is taught (to have that signification) in the aphorism-“The affix mayat is (to be employed) wher- ever the abundance of a thing has to be expressed.” [Panini. V. 4. 21.]; for example, where it is said “The sacrifice is abundantly full of food (annamaya)” that (affix mayat) has this (signification) alone. It is, (however), not right 387. The definition of this word is given in Panini I. 1. 73. That word the first vowel of which is subjected to the process known as Triddhi (i. e. lengthening) is a Vriddha, as in the word Ananda where the first vowel is a lengthened 4. Adhik. VI. Sut. 14.] SRI-BHASHYA. 387 to say so. It (viz. the affix mayat) in annamaya is seen in the very beginning (of this context) to possess the significance of modification. Therefore, according to the propriety of interpretation suited to the context, it is right for this (affix mayat in the word Anandamaya) also to have nothing other than the signification of modifi- cation. Moreover, even if it (viz. the affix mayat) have the signification of abundance (in Anandamaya), the character of being other than the individual self cannot result to that (Anandamaya). Thus, when it is said that one is abundantly full of bliss, it is indeed unavoidable (for that one) to be mixed up with misery; for an abundance of bliss implies the possession of a small modicum of misery. Indeed to be an individual self is nothing other than to be associated with misery. Therefore it is right. (for the affix mayat) to have only that significance of modification which is arrived at in accordance with that propriety of in- terpretation which is suited to the context. Furthermore, in popular usage as in the instances mrinmaya (or what is made up of clay), hiranmaya (or what is made up of gold), darumaya (or what is made up of wood), and in other such instances and in the Vedas as in the instances of the semicircular vessel which is made of leaves (parna- mayi), and of the ladles which are made of the wood called sami (samimayyah), and of the girdle which is made of grass (darbhamayi) and in other such instanc- es, the affix mayat is very frequently used in the sense of modification; and consequently that (sense) alone comes to the mind at the very outset. And the individual self does certainly possess the character of being a modi- fication of bliss. To that (individual self) who is in himself of the nature of bliss, the condition of being found in the state of samsara is nothing other than becoming388 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. a modification of that (bliss). In as much as the affix mayat which denotes modification is found to be used (in the case of the word anandamaya), the anandamaya (or what consists of bliss) is accordingly nothing other than the individual self. After stating this (objection) thus, he (the Sutrakāra) invalidates it (as follows):- Sūtra 14. Vikarasabdanneti henna prachuryāt. It may be said that owing to there being the affix (maya!) significant of modification, (the Anandamaya is not (the Brahman); but it is not (right to say) so; be- cause that (affix mayat) signifies abundance. This (above-stated position of the Purvapakshin) is not right. Why? Because of there being the significance of abundance. That is, because there is an abundance of bliss in the Highest Brahman, and because also it is possible for the affix mayat to signify abundance. What is said is this: This Bliss is resident in the Brahman, because it is not possible for the individual self to be the abode of that Ananda (or bliss) which is continuously repeated in an order in which each succeeding bliss is a hundredfold of the bliss (preceding it). It being so determined, the Ananda- maya (or That which consists of Bliss) must be the High- est Brahman, because there can be no modification in rela- tion to that Brahman, and because also it is possible for the rule regulating the use of the affix mayat to operate so as to signify abundance also. Even on account of the propri- ety of interpretation suited to the context, and on ac- count of the frequency of its use (in the sense of modi- fication), the affix mayat cannot (here) have the signi- ficance of modification; because, (if it did), there would be the contradiction of the context. Moreover (this) propriety of interpretation suited to the context has been given Adhik. VI. Süt. 14.] SRI-BHASHYA. 389 up even in relation to the word pranamaya itself; because, in the case of that word, it is not possible (for the affix mayat) to import modification. Thus, in this case, the vayu (or vital air), which usually has a five-fold388 activity, becomes capable of being denoted merely by the word pra- namaya, for the reason that it is in possession of the activity of the prana, or for the reason that, among the five activities known as the prana (or the vital activity), the apana (or the excretory activity), &c., the activity of the prana is here in abundance. Again, it cannot be said that the affix mayat is not largely used in the sense of abundance; because it is so seen in the following and other instances “The sacrifice is abundantly full of food (anna- maya)”-“The journey is abundantly full of carts (sakața- mayi). What has been stated above to the effect that an abund- ance of bliss necessarily implies the existence of a small amount of misery,-that is not right. Indeed the abund- ance of a thing is the same as having an exceedingly large amount of it, and this does not necessarily imply the exist ence of another thing. On the other hand, it implies the negation of the smallness of that thing itself. The exist ence and non-existence of that other thing have to be made out by other means of proof. And in the present case, the absence of such other things is made out by this other means of proof found in the scriptural passage-“He who is devoid of sin.”-[Chhand. Up. VIII. 7. 1.]-and in others like it. Under these circumstances, only this much can be said, that the exceedingly large amount of the bliss belonging to the Brahman necessarily implies 388. The five activities are of the Prana or the principal vital activity, the Apana or excretory activity, the Samana or digestive activity, the Vyana or circulatory activity and the Udana or respiratory activity. 390 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. 1. Part. 1. the smallness of the bliss belonging to others. And in the passage beginning with-“That is one unit of human bliss.” -[Taitt. Up. II. 8. 1.],-this (fact) is declared to the effect that, in comparison with the bliss belonging to the indi- vidual self, the Bliss belonging to the Brahman is in an unsurpassable condition and is exceedingly large. What has been further stated to the effect that it is possible for the individual self to become a modification of bliss, that also is not appropriate. That, in the way in which clay becomes modified into the form of pots, &c., the individual self, whose essential nature consists of know- ledge and bliss, becomes modified into some form or other is against all scripture, tradition and logic. And it will be established hereafter889 that, in the condition of samsara, his knowledge and bliss are (merely) in a contracted condi- tion under the influence of karma. Therefore also, the Anandamaya (or That which consists of Bliss) is different from the individual self and is the Supreme Brahman. The Anandamaya (or That which consists of Bliss) is different from the individual self for the following reason also:- Sutra 15. Taddhetuvyapadesachcha. Because also He (the Anandamaya) is declared (in the context) to be the cause of that (which forms the bliss of the individual souls). “If this Akasa (i. e. the Brahman) be not Bliss, who indeed is there that can live, and who that can enjoy ? 389. Vide Sri-Bhashya under Ved. Sül. III. 2. 3. Adhik. VI. Sut. 16.] SRI-BHASHYA. 391 For He Himself causes bliss.” [Taitt. Up. II. 7. 1.]. In this passage, by means of the statement-‘He Himself causes bliss’-it is declared that He is the cause of bliss to the individual selves. Therefore it is to be understood that this bliss-giver who is the Anandamaya is that High- est Self who is different from the individual self that is to be blessed. And it will be stated presently that the Ananda- maya Himself is here 39o denoted by the word Ananda (or Bliss.) The Anandamaya is different from the individual self for the following reason also :- Sūtra 16. Mantravarṇikameva cia giyate ibms (Because) also that same Being, who is denoted by the words of the mantra 391 (in the context), is declared (there to be the Anandamaya). That same Brahman who is denoted by the words of the mantra, which begins with “The Brahman is Exist- ence, Knowledge, Infinity.”-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1 ], is spok- en of as the Anandamaya. And that (Anandamaya) is the Highest Brahman who is different from what constitutes the essential nature of the individual self. And according- ly, by means of the passage” He who knows the Brah- man attains the Highest."-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], it is pointed out that the Brahman is the object that is to be 390. Vide Sri-Bhashya under Ved. Süt. I. 1. 20. infra. 391. This mantra is to the follow- ing effect: “The Brahman is Exist- ence, Knowledge, Infinity; He is hidden in the cave of the heart, in the highest ether; and he who knows (Him thus) attains along with the Omniscient Brahman all the auspi- cious qualities.” Taitt. Up. II. 1. I. The word Mantra means a metrical composition, 392 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. attained by the individual self. In (the sentence)-" This is stated in relation to That."-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], (the word) ‘That’ means the Brahman. Having that (Brah- man) in view, that is, accepting Him as the thing to be taught, this rik (or verse) is repeated by those who study the Vedas. The meaning is that the subject mentioned in the brahmana392 is clearly explained by means of this man- tra. The object to be attained by the individual self who is the worshipper is certainly the Brahman who is entirely distinct from him. And immediately afterwards (in the context), by means of the succeeding brahmanas as well as the mantras, beginning with the passage-" From that same Self, indeed, the spatial ether came into existence." [Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], this same (thing) is clearly expound- ed. Therefore the Anandamaya is different from the indi- vidual self. Here he (a purvapakshin) might say thus:-No doubt, He who has to be attained (by the individual self) must be different from the individual self who is the worshipper. Nevertheless, the Brahman denoted by the words of the mantra (above) is not a different thing from the individual self; but, on the other hand, He is that pure essential nature of the aforesaid worshipper himself, which is devoid of even the smallest taint of all evils, which is devoid of attributes, and which is pure undifferentiated intelligence. That same (essential nature of the individual self) is clearly brought out by means of the mantra begin. ning with “The Brahman is Existence, Knowledge, Infini- 392. A Brahmana is a prose commentary on a Mantra or a metrical composition. The Taittiriyobanishad consists also of a miscellaneous collec- tion of Mantras and Brahmanas like the Taittiriya-Samhita itself,Adhik. VI. Sut. 17.] SRI-BHASHYA. 393 ty.” [Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.]. That same (essential nature of the individual self) again is known to be devoid of attri- butes owing to its being beyond the province of speech and mind, in accordance with the passage-“Without being able to attain Him, speech returns with the mind.” [Taitt. Up. II. 9. 1.]. Hence, it is that same (essential nature of the individual self) which is denoted by the words of the mantra (under reference). Consequently the Ananda- maya is not other than that (essential nature of the indi- vidual self). To this he (the Sutrakāra) gives the following reply:- Sutra 17. Netaronupapatteḥ. He who is other (than the Brahman) is not (that Being who is denoted by the words of the mantra), because (in such a case) there would be inappropriateness. He who is different from the Highest Self and is denoted by the word jiva (which means the individual self), is not, even in the state of final release, that Being who is denoted by the words of the mantra. Why? Because there is inappropriateness; that is, it is not possi- ble for such an individual self to have unconditioned omni- science (vipaschittva). This very same unconditioned omniscience is indeed meant to be explained by the reference to the quality of willing the truth in the passage-" He desired May I become many and be born’." [Taill. Up. II. 6. 1.]. Omniscience (vipaschittva) is indeed the possession of such an intelligence as ‘sees’ in many ways. After eliding the syllable yat forming a part of the word pasyat, the word vipaśchit is derived from it; because it (viz. the word vipaschit) belongs to the group of words 50 394 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. beginning with prishodara.393 Omniscience is certainly possible to a released individual self. Nevertheless, as that same individual self has no omniscience in the state of samsara, it is not possible for him to possess uncondition- ed omniscience. The released individual self, who has at- tained the state of pure undifferentiated intelligence, can- not at all possess this omniscience; because he does not ‘see’ in a variety of ways. Such is (the inappropriateness). It has been already 394 pointed out that the thing which is devoid of attributes cannot be made out by any accepted criteria of truth whatsoever. If the passage- “(Without being able to attain) Him, speech returns (with the mind).” [Taitt. Up. II. 9. 1.]-declare the return of speech and mind from the Brahman (without attaining Him), it (surely) can not thereby become capable of giving rise to the knowledge of the attributelessness of (that) Be- ing. But, on the other hand, it will merely tell us that speech and mind form no means of proving that (Being). And accordingly, He will acquire the character of a mere nothing. Beginning with the statement 395. “He who knows the Brahman attains (the Highest)”, it is mentioned (in the scripture) that the Brahman is omni- scient, that He is the, cause of the world, that He is the only abode of knowledge and bliss, that He is the bestow- er of bliss on all others, that He is, of His own free will, the creator of the whole world made up of the intelligent things and the non-intelligent things, that He forms the Self of the whole series of created things by enter- ing into them, that He is the cause of fear and of fearlessness, that He is the ruler of the wind, the sun, &c., that He possesses that bliss which is unsurpassed in the or- 393. Vide Panini Vl. 3. 109. 394. Vide supra pp. 54 to 60. 395. Taitt Up. 11. I, I, Adhik. VI. Sut. 17.] SRI-BHASHYA. 395 der in which each succeeding bliss is a hundredfold of the bliss immediately preceding it, and that He is many other such things. And it is the idle talk of a deluded person to say that the Brahman is, after all (these are mentioned), declared to be incapable of any proof, in as much as speech and mind cannot operate (so as to give rise to any know- ledge) in relation to the Brahman. By means of the word Ananda (or Bliss) in the expression “He who knows the Bliss of the Brahman”-[Taitt. Up. II. 9. 1.], this passage refers to the Bliss pointed out by the word yat in the ex- pression" (Without being able to attain) that (Bliss) speech returns (with the mind)"-[Taitt. Up. II. 9. 1.]; it then says that that Bliss is related to the Brahman by distinctly mentioning that it belongs to the Brahman; and if, by saying he who knows’, it then speaks of the knowledge of that same Bliss which is beyond the province of speech and mind, it will be, like the bellowing noise of an old bull and other such things, (altogether) meaningless, and will not at all fall within the class of what are called sentences. Accordingly, it (viz. this passage) proceeds to give the definite measurement of the excellence of the Bliss of the Brahman in that order in which each succeeding bliss is a hundred fold of the bliss (immediately preceding it); and then speech and mind return from Him (without attaining Him) on account of that (Bliss) being incapable of (such) definite measurement. And it is this that is stated in the expression (Without being able to attain) that (Bliss) speech returns (with the mind)’. It is said that he who knows that Bliss of the Brahman, which is in this manner incapable of definite measurement, need not have any fear from anywhere. Moreover it is undoubtedly very clear that this omniscient Being who is denoted by the words of the mantra (under reference), and who is 396 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. subsequently declared in the passage beginning with “He desired, &c.”-[Taill. Up. II. 6.1.], to have of His own free will thought it fit to create and preserve the world, to be the internal Self of the world, &c., has in consequence characteristics other than those which constitute the essen- tial nature of the released individual self. For the following reason also, the Anandamaya (or that which consists of bliss) is different from the individual self, who is capable of existing in both the states (of bond- age and of final release). Sutra 18. Bhedavyapadesachcl a. Because also there is (in the context) the declara- tion of difference (between the individual self and the Brahman). The scriptural context, which, beginning with the statement “From that same Self, indeed, the spatial ether (came into existence).”-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], explains the Brahman denoted by the words of the mantra (above quoted), teaches, by means of the passage “Different from this which consists of understanding (or knowledge) is the (still) inner Self, the Anandamaya.”-[Taill. Up. II.5.1.], that He is different from the individual self also; in the same way in which (He is different) from anna (food), prana (principal vital air), and manas (mind). Therefore it is made out that, owing to the declaration of (this) difference (between the Anandamaya and the individual self), this Being, who is denoted by the words of the mantra (under reference) and is the Anandamaya, is certainly Adhik. VI. Sut. 19.] SRI-BHASHYA. different from the individual self. 397 For the following reason also, (the Anandamaya) is different from the individual self. Sutra 19. Kāmachei a nänumānāpekshā. Because also His will (is in itself the cause of crea- tion), the pradhana 396 is not needed (by, Him in the act of creation just as it is needed by the individual self). In connection with the act of creating the world, it is impossible for the individual self, who is subject to the influ- ence of avidya (or ignorance), to avoid the necess- ity of being associated with that non-intelligent thing (viz. matter) which is denoted by the words anuma- nika, pradhana, &c. Indeed, it is only in this man- ner that the four-faced Brahma and others form the cause of the world. In the present instance, however, the creation of wonderful intelligent and non-intelligent things is, in the statement-“He created all this, what- ever there is.”-[Taitt. Up. II. 6. 1.], declared to take place solely from that will, which belongs to Him who is devoid of any association with the non-intelligent thing (pradhana), and which is referred to in the statement-" He desired (i. e. willed), ‘May I become manifold and be born." [Taitt. Up. II. 6.1.]. It is accordingly made out that the Anandamaya does not, while creating the world, stand in need of any association with the non-intelligent thing pradhana.

The word Anumana means literally that which is capable of be- ing made out by inference to be the cause of the world. Like the word Anumānika, it denotes the Pradhana of the Sankhyas.398 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. 1. The Anandamaya is different from the individual self for the following reason also:- Sūtra 20. Asminnasya cl a tad yogam sāsti. (Because) also it (viz. the scripture) declares (that) his (i. e. the individual self’s) acquisition of that (bliss takes place when he is) in (association with) this (Anandamaya). ‘In this’ means-in the Anandamaya. ‘His’ 6 of the individual self. The acquisition of that’ means-the acquisition of bliss. It declares’, that is, the scripture de- clares. It is said “Bliss indeed is He. Having obtained that very same Bliss, he (the individual self) becomes blissful.” [Taitt. Up. II.7. 1.]. The meaning is this:-When it is de- clared that, by attaining the Anandamaya who is denoted by the word Bliss, that being, who is apt to be de- noted by the word jiva (which means the individual self), becomes blissful, then, who but a mad man will say that, by attaining whichever (Being) whoever becomes blissful, he is himself that same (Being)? It has been thus deter- mined that the Anandamaya is the Highest Brahman, and hence it is that that same Anandamaya is denot- ed by the word Ananda (or Bliss) in the following and other scriptural passages :-" If this Akasa be not Bliss"- [Taitt. Up. II. 7. 1.]; “The Brahman is Knowledge, Bliss.” -[Brih. Up. III. 9. 28.]; in the same way in which the vijñānamaya (or what consists of knowledge) is (denoted) by the word vijñana (or knowledge.) It is for this very reason (of our having to interpret Ananda as Anandamaya) that there is given a distinct indication (to that effect) Adhik. VI. Süt. 20.] SRI-BHASHYA. 399 in the passage “He who knows the Bliss of the Brahman (need not have any fear from anywhere).” [Taitt. Up. II. 9. 1.]. And it is for this same reason again that the result (of such knowledge of the Bliss of the Brahman) is pointed out in the statement-“He reaches that Self who is the Ananda- maya.”-[Taitt. Up. II. 8. 1.]. Moreover the annamaya (or what is made up of food) and the other things, which have been mentioned in the earlier397 anuvāka are recapitulated in the later398 anuvaka to the follow- ing effect:“Let him know the anna (or food) as the Brahman.” [Taitt. Up. III. 2. 1.]; “Let him know the prana (or the principal vital air) as the Brahman.” [Taitt. Up. III. 3. 1.]; “Let him know the manas (or mind) as the Brahman.” [Taitt. Up. III. 4. 1.]; “Let him know the vijñāna (or knowledge) as the Brahman.” [Taitt. Up. III. 5. 1.]. Hence it is made out that, in this statement also, namely, “(Let him know) the Ananda (or Bliss) as the Brahman.” [Taitt. Up. III. 6. 1.], it is the Anandamaya Himself that is taught (by means of the word Ananda). And for that same reason, even that (i. e. the later anuvaka) is concluded by the statement-" He (i.e. the released self) having reached that Self which consists of Bliss (Ananda- maya)…(sits down singing this saman-Ha, Vüha, Vüha, Vi)." [Taitt. Up. III. 10 5.]. Therefore, it is a demonstrated conclusion that that Highest Brahman, who is a different entity from what is apt to be denoted by the word pradhana, is also a different entity from that (other) entity, which is capable of being signified by the word jiva (which means the individual self).
The earlier Anuvaka is the Anandavalli-Chapter II of the Taitt. Ub.
The later Anuraka is the Bhriguvali-Chapter III of the same Taitt. Up. 400 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. ADHIKARANA. VII. Antaradhikarana. It is certainly not possible for the individual selves- who possess very little merit-to create the world out of their own free will, to be associated with unsurpassable bliss, to form the cause of fear and of fearlessness, &c. Nevertheless, such a thing may surely be possible in the case of the Sun, Indra, Prajapati, and other such (individual selves) who possess peculiarly valuable merit. He (the Sūtrakāra) disproves this aforesaid supposi- tion thus:- Sutra 21. Antastadd harmopadesāt. He (i. e. the Person) who is within (the Sun and the eye is the Brahman), because His attributes are de- clared (in the context). 399 It is revealed in the Chhandogya thus :-“This Person who is seen within the Sun,-He is brilliant like gold, has a golden beard, and has golden hairs, and is altogether golden even to the very tips of His nails. His two eyes are like the lotus just opened by the sun. His name is High. This same above-mentioned Person is risen above all sins. He who knows (Him) thus rises indeed above all sins. The Rik and the Saman are the two psalms in praise of Him……….This is what relates to Him as He is in the gods. Now this is what relates to Him as He is in
The context referred to here is Chhandogya Upanishad. I. 6 & 7. Adhik. VII. Sut. 21.] SRI-BHASHYA. 401 our selves………….Again, that Person who is seen within the eye, He is that same Rik and that same Saman, He is that Uktha,400 that Yajus and that Brahman. The form of this above-mentioned Person (in the eye) is the same as the form of that (other Person in the Sun). The psalms in praise of that other (Person) are (the same as) the psalms in praise of this (Person). The name of that (other Person) is the name of this (Person) also.” [Chhand. Up. I. 6. 6 to 8. & I. 7. 1 to 5.]. Here the doubt arises whether this Person who exists within the eye and the bright orb of the Sun is that same individual self who possesses such sovereignties as result from an accumulation of the merit of works, and who is capable of being denoted by Sun and other such words; or whether He is the Supreme Self who is other than that (Sun). It is perhaps thought right to hold that He is that same individual self who has accumulated the merits of his works. Why? Because it is declared that that (Person) is associated with a body. Indeed it is possible only for the individual selves to be associated with a body. As a matter of fact, it is for the purpose of experiencing pleasure and pain in accordance with the results of works that there is the association (of the self) with a body. It is surely for this very reason that final release, which is free from association with karmas, is declared in the following passage to be capable of attainment in the bodiless condition:-“To him who is and has a body, there is no destruction of the pleasing and the unpleasing; the pleasing and the unpleasing touch not him who is and has no body.” [Chhand. Up. VIII. 12. 1.]. Moreover it is
An Uktha is a verse be- longing to the subdivision known as the Sastras which are recited either 51 audibly or inaudibly as opposed to the Stomas which are sung. 402 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. possible for an increase of knowledge as well as an increase of strength to take place from the greatness of the merit of works. For this same reason the lordship of worlds and desires is appropriate only to such (an individual self as has so made his own merit great). And for the same reason again (it becomes appropriate for him) to be the object of worship, to be the giver of the fruits of works, and also to be useful in causing the attainment of final release by pro- ducing the annihilation of sins. Even among men, those who have accumulated merit are seen to be very great in consequence of (their) knowledge, power, &c. The Siddhas and the Gandharvas are greater than they. Even greater than these are the gods. Still greater are Indra and others. Accordingly, some one among Brahma and the others from him downwards attains in each kalpa401 the above- mentioned sovereignty as a consequence of (his own) special merit; and thus performs even the work of the creation, &c., of the world. Therefore, the scriptural passage, which deals with what forms the cause of the world and with what forms the internal self of the world, &c., relates only to this being who has specially increased his merit and is (thereby) omniscient and omni- potent. Hence there is nothing that is called the Supreme Self as distinct from the individual self. This being the case, the scriptural passage-“That which is neither gross, nor atomic, nor short, &c.”-[Brih. Up. III. 8. 8.] and others like it are intended to import the essential nature of the individual self. And those scriptures which deal with final release are intended to teach the essential nature of that (individual self) and also (to teach) the means of attaining that (pure essential nature).
Vide supra p. 226. n. 246.Adhik. VII. Süt. 21.] SRI-BHASHYA. 403 If it be so held, it is stated in reply-" He (i. e. the person) who is within (the Sun and the eye is the Brahman), because His attributes are declared (in the context)." [Ved. Sut. I. 1. 21.]. That Person who is perceived within the Sun and within the eye-He is the Supreme Self, and is other than the individual self. Why? Because His attributes are declared (in the con- text). That attribute which it is impossible for the in- dividual self to possess, which belongs only to Him who is other than the individual self and is the Highest Self, and which imports the quality of being devoid of sin, &c., -that is taught in the statement beginning with- “This same above-mentioned Person is risen above all sins.” [Chhand. Up. I. 6. 7.]. Indeed to be devoid of sin is to be free from karma. The meaning is that it is to be free from even the smallest amount of subjection to the influence of karma. As a matter of fact, individual selves are subject to the influence of karmas, in as much as they have to experience pleasures and pains in obedience to their karmas. Therefore, the quality of being free from all sin forms the attribute of the Supreme Self Himself, who is other than the individual self. Based upon this (quality) and conditioned by His own essential nature are -the quality which relates to the lordship of worlds and desires, the quality of willing the truth, &c., the quality of being the internal Self of all beings, which are all His own attributes. Says the scripture to the same effect-“This Self is devoid of sin, is free from old age, free from death, free from sorrow, free from hunger, free from thirst, and desires the truth and wills the truth.” [Chhand. Up. VIII. 1. 5. & VIII. 7. 1 & 3.]. And similarly there is the passage" He is the internal Self of all beings, He is devoid of all sins, He is the Divine Lord, He 404 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. 1. Part. 1. is the one Narayana." [Sub. Up. VII. 1.]. To be cap- able of creating all the intelligent and non-intelligent things, in conformity with the quality of willing the truth as stated in the passage “He desired,-May I become manifold and be born.” [Taitt. Up. II. 6. 1.], to form the absolute cause of fear and of fearlessness, to possess that unsurpassable bliss which is devoid of the limitations due to apprehension by speech and mind,-these and such other attributes, which are natural and are not capable of being acquired by means of karmas, are impossible for the individual self to possess. What has been stated to the effect that, owing to there being the mention of the association with a body, the Person (referred to in the scriptural text quoted above) is not other than the individual self, that is not right. Indeed, association with a body does not establish (any) subjection to the influence of karmas; because it is possible for Him who wills the truth to have the association with a body merely through His own will. It may again be said thus :-The body is known to be that aggregate of the elements which are modifica- tions of the prakriti (or matter) made up of the three 402 qualities. And association with it cannot, in accordance with His will, result to that Person who is devoid of sin and who wills the truth; because such (an association) cannot be an aim of (His) life. And he who is subject to the influence of karmas, and who is totally ignorant of his own essential nature, cannot possibly avoid that association (with the body), in consequence of his having to enjoy the results corresponding to his works, even though he does not like it. It would be so, provided (we grant) that His
Vide sutra n. 344. Adhik. VII. Sut. 21.] SRI-BHASHYA. 405 body is made up of the three qualities and is a modification of the prakriti (or matter). But that (body) is in accord- ance with His own desire, and is suited to His own nature, and is altogether non-material; and thus the whole (of our argument) is appropriate. What is said is this :- There are myriads of innumerable auspicious qualities which are natural in themselves, and are unsurpassed in excellence, and belong to that Highest Brahman Himself who is entirely distinct from all other things (than Himself), by reason of His possessing that nature which is wholly made up of infinite knowledge and bliss, and which is hostile to all that is evil. In the very same manner, there is (to Him) a natural and divine form also, which is in accord- ance with His own desire and is suited to Himself, which is uniform, unthinkable, immaterial, wonderful, eternal and faultless, and which is the home of endless. collections of unsurpassable qualities such as splendour, beauty, fragrance, tenderness, elegance, youthfulness and the like. With the object of favouring His worshippers, He (i. e. Nārāyaṇa) causes this same form of His to assume such a configura- tion as is suited to the understanding of each of those (worshippers)-Nārāyaṇa who is the ocean of bound- less mercy, sweet disposition, affection and generosity, who is free from even the smallest taint of all that is evil, who is free from all sin, who is the Highest Self, the High- est Brahman, and the Highest Person. By means of these passages,namely, “Existence alone, my dear child, this was in the beginning”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 1.]; “The Self, indeed, this one only was in the beginning.” [Ait. Up. I. 1.], “Indeed, Nārāyaṇa alone then was, and not the (four-faced) Brahma nor Isana”, [Mah. Up. 1.]- and by means of others, (the Brahman) is made out to be the only cause of all the worlds; and the essential nature 406 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. of that Highest Brahman is understood to be of this (above-mentioned) character with the help of such passages as “The Brahman is Existence, Knowledge, Infinity.” [Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], “The Brahman is knowledge and bliss.” [Brih. Up. III. 9. 28.]. In the following and other scriptural passages, namely, “(That which is) without attributes, without taint.”-[Adh. Up. 68.], “(This Self) is devoid of sin, is free from old age, free from death, free from sorrow, free from hunger, free from thirst, and desires the truth and wills the truth.”-[Chhand. Up. VIII. 1. 5. VIII. 7. 1 & 3.], “He has neither body nor senses, and there is seen neither His equal nor His superior; His supreme power is revealed indeed as varied and natural and as consisting of knowledge, strength, and action.” [Svet. Up. VI. 8.], “(May we know) that highest and greatest Lord of lords, who is the highest Deity of deities.” -[Svet. Up. VI. 7.], “He is the cause, the Lord of what is the lord of the senses (i. c. of the jiva or the individual soul); He has no progenitor, and no superior.”-[Svet. Up. VI. 9.], “The omniscient Lord who creates all beings, gives them names, and, calling them (by those names), ever con- tinues to be.”–[Taitt. Ar. III. 12. 7.], “I know this great Person of sun-like lustre who is altogether beyond darkness.’ [Taitt. Ar. III. 12. 7.], “All the nimeshas were born out of the Person who has the lustre of light- ning.” [M. När. I. 8.]; (in these and other passages), they (i. c. the scriptures) deny that the Highest Brahman possesses such qualities as belong to prakriti (or nature) and as deserve to be discarded; (they deny) that He is associated with a body made up of prakriti and (thus) worthy of rejection, and that He has any association with the condition of being subject to the influence of karma, which has that (association with the body) at its root: Adhik. VII. Süt. 21.] SRI-BHASHYA. 407 and then they declare that He possesses auspicious quali- ties and has a beautiful form. To bless His worshippers, the Divine Lord who is all-merciful makes this same afore- said natural form of His assume, in accordance with His own desire, the configurations of gods, men, &c., so that it may have that appearance, which is suited to the under- standings of those (worshippers). The scripture speaks of this same fact thus:-“Although He is unborn, He is born in various ways.” [Taitt. Ar. III. 12. 7.]. And the Smriti also (says the same thing) thus :-“Although I am unborn, and inexhaustible in My own nature, and although I am the Lord of all beings, taking up My own prakriti, I am then born again and again, by means of My own maya………for the protection of the good and for the destruction of evil-doers.” [B. G. IV. 6 & 8.]. Indeed the good (here) are the worshippers. The principal object of accomplishment is nothing other than their protection. But the destruction of evil-doers is an object of secondary importance, because that is possible (to Him) even by merely willing it. The expression ‘My own prakriti’ means His own peculiar nature. The mean- ing is “Taking up His own peculiar nature, but not (taking up) the nature of those who are in samsara, (He is born again and again).” The meaning of the expression by means of My own maya’ is by means of that mental power which is of the nature of His own will. Lexicographers read the word maya as synonymous also with knowledge (or jnana) as when they say mayā vayunam jñānam. [Vide Nir. III. 9.]. Moreover the venerable Parašara speaks (of this form of the Lord) thus :-“Wherever, O king, all these powers are established, that is another great form of the Lord, which is different from His Universal Form. He, out of His own playfulness, makes that (form of His), which is408 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. possessed of all powers, actively manifest under the names of gods, animals and men. That (activity) is (intended) for the good of the worlds and is not produced by means of karma (i. e. by means of the effect of works operating upon Him).” [V. P. VI. 7. 70 to 72.]. And in the Mahabharata it is thus stated that even the incarnated form (of the Lord) is not made up of prakriti (or matter):- “The body of this Highest Self is not a configuration of the collection of material elements.” Hence the Highest Brahman Himself is the possessor of that form which is of this description, and so this (form) also is His own attribute. Consequently, He who abides within the brilliant orb of the Sun and within the eye is the Highest Self Himself who is other than the Sun and other indivi- dual selves. Sätra 22. Bhedavyapadesã-1.chanyaḥ. And he is different (from the Sun and other indivi- dual selves) because also there is the declaration of difference (between the Brahman on the one hand and the Sun and other individual selves on the other). The difference of this Highest Self from the sun-god and other individual selves is declared (in the scriptures). The following scriptural passages also, namely,-” He who, dwelling within the Sun, is within the Sun, whom the Sun does not know, whose body is the Sun, who internally rules the Sun-(He is thy internal ruler and immortal Self)………. ………He who, dwelling within the self, is within the self, whom the self does not know, whose body is the self, who internally rules the self-(He Adhik. VIII. Süt. 23.] SRI-BHASHYA. 409 is thy internal ruler and immortal Self)."[Madh. Brih. Up. III. 7. 9 to 22.]; “(He) whose body is the akshara….whom the akshara does not know,…who is moving within the mrityu (or prakriti), whose body is mrityu, whom mrityu does not know,-He is the internal Self of all beings, He is free from all sins, He is the Divine Lord, He is the one Nārāyaṇa.” [Sub. Up. VII. 1.]-(these) first point out that the individual selves form the body of this Highest Self who is free from sin, and then declare that He forms the internal Self of them all. Therefore it is an established conclusion that the Supreme Self is altogether different from all the individual selves from the four-faced Brahma downwards. ADHIKARANA. VIII. Akasadhikarana. In the passage-“From whom all these beings are born”-[Taitt. Up.III. 1. 1.], it is made out that the Brah- man is the cause of the world.. With the object of satisfy- ing the desire to know what that cause of the world is, that cause of the world has been pointed out in general terms (such as Sat, Atman, &c.,) in the following passages:- “Existence (or Sat) alone, my dear child, this was in the beginning.”-[Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 1.]; " It created tejas"- [Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 3.]; “The Self (or Atman), indeed, this one only was in the beginning……… He created these worlds.”-[Ait. Up. I. 1 & 2.]; “Indeed from that same Self (or Atman) the spatial ether came into existence.” [Taitt. Up. II, 1. 1.]; and it has the nature of such a 52 410 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. special entity as is characterised by the peculiarities indicat- ed by the attribute of ‘seeing’ and the attribute of bliss: consequently that (cause) has been declared to be the Brahman who is different from the pradhana (or matter), and from the individual self, and from other such things. Now, in the aphorism-“That which is denoted by the word Akasa (is the Brahman), because His peculiar characteristics (are mentioned in the context in relation to what is denoted by that word).”-[Ved. Sut. 1. 1. 23.]- and in other aphorisms (following it), which make up the remaining portion of this quarter (of the first chapter), it (viz. that cause of the world) is denoted by means of (certain) particular terms such as Akasa, &c.; and then- even in discussions bearing upon what constitutes the cause of the world, and upon what possesses the sovereignty of the world, and upon such other things, it is the Brahman Himself who is declared to be the entity that is different from those intelligent and non-intelligent things, which are well known to be denoted by ākāśa and other words, and (it is He Himself) who is (also declared to be) possessed of the characteristics mentioned already. Sūtra 23. Ākāśastallingāt. That which is denoted by the word Akasa (is the Brahman), because His peculiar characteristics (are mentioned in the context493in relation to what is denoted by that word). It is revealed in the Chhandogya to this effect:-“What is the goal of this world? And he (Pravahana) says in
The context referred to here is Chhand. Up. I. 9. Adhik. VIII. Sut. 23.] SRI-BHASHYA. 411 reply-It is the Akasa; all these beings are, indeed, born out of the Akasa; they go unto the Akasa at the end; as the Akasa is greater than all these beings, the Akasa is the best refuge.” [Chhand. Up. I. 9. 1.]. Here the doubt arises whether it is the well known element of akasa (or ether) itself that is denoted by the word Akasa, or whether it is the Brahman Himself as having the above-mentioned characteristics. It is perhaps held that it is the well known element of ākāśa. Why? In the case of any thing that has to be made out altogether by means of a word, that same meaning (of it), which is established in accordance with the proper process of deriving the meanings of words and which is expressed by that word,-that alone has to be accepted. Hence, the well known element of akasa (or ether) is itself the cause of the whole world which is made up of the totality of (all the) movable and immov- able beings. Therefore the Brahman can not be other than that (akasa). However, it has been already pointed out that the Brahman is distinct from the non-intelligent thing (matter) as well as from the (intelligent) individual self, for the reason that He performs such acts of creation, &c., as are invariably caused by (His) ‘seeing’ (i. c. willing). True, it was (so) pointed out; but that (statement) is not right. Accordingly, when it is declared that “He from whom all these beings are born-That is the Brahman.”- [Taitt. Up. III. 1. 1.], then, it may be specially desired to know what that particular entity is which is the cause of the birth, &c.,404 of all those beings that are born; in such a case, that special entity is made known by means of the passage beginning with “All these beings are indeed born out of the akasa”-[Chhand. Up. I. 9. 1.]:
Birth, &c., means birth, sustentation and destruction. 412 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. thus, the cause of the origin, &c., of the world is definitely determined to be nothing other than the akasa. It being so, Sat and other words which possess a general signific- ance, and which are mentioned in the following passage among other passages also, namely,-“Existence (or Sat) alone, my dear child, this was in the beginning”–[Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 1.],-denote that same special entity ākāśa. In the passage “The Self (or the Atman), indeed, this one only was in the beginning.”-[Ait. Up. I. 1.]-and in others, the word Atman is also used to signify that same thing (ākāśa). Indeed that word Atman also is not restricted to mean only intelligent beings. For example, there is the instance–“The pot is mṛidatmaka (or made up of clay).” Since the word Atman may be derived 405 from the root ap to pervade, the word Atman also signifies the ākāśa (or the ether) quite absolutely. Hence, when it is thus determined that the ākāśa itself is the Brahman that forms the cause of the world, then the activity of ‘seeing’, &c., have to be understood in their figurative.sense so as to suit that (element of ākāśa). If the cause of the world had been, as a matter of fact, denoted only by Sat and other such general terms, then, in accordance with the import of seeing’, &c., (predicated in relation to it), that cause would have been specially made out to be nothing other than a particular intelligent being. But by the word ākāśa itself a characteristic entity is definitely pointed out; and thus there is nothing else that has to be particularly understood (to be its import) as arising from the natural- ness of its meaning (in the context). Indeed, it may be said (here) that, in the passage-" From the Self the ākāśa came into existence."-[Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.], the akäsa
See Sandilya-Upanishad. III.Adhik. VIII. Sat. 23.] SRI-BHASHYA. 413 itself is made out to be a produced effect. True; in fact, vayu (air) and all other such things exist in two conditions, namely, the subtle condition and the gross condition. Of these the subtle condition of the element of akasa consti- tutes the cause; and its gross condition, the effect. The meaning of the passage-“From the Self the ākāśa came into existence.”–[Taill. Up. II. 1. 1.]-is, that from its subtle form, it became changed into its own gross form. By means of the passage beginning with “All these beings are, indeed, born out of the akasa.”-[Chhand. Up. I. 9. 1.], it is declared that the whole world derives its existence from, and has its dissolution in, the ākāśa itself; hence it is determined that that same ākāśa is indeed the Brahman that forms the cause of the world. For whatever reason the Brahman is not other than the well known element of ākāśa, for that same reason the (following scrip- tural) statements-“If this ākāśa be not bliss, &c.”-[Taitt. Up. II. 7. 1.], “The akasa is, indeed, the evolver of name. and form.” [Chhand. Up. VIII. 14.1.]-and other such (state- ments) are also (seen to be) very appropriate. There- fore the Brahman is not other than the well known element of ākāśa. If it be so held, we reply (thus):-" That which is denoted by the word Akasa (is the Brahman), because His peculiar characteristics (are mentioned in the con- text in relation to what is denoted by that word)." [Ved. Sut. I. 1. 23.]. That which is denoted by the word Ākāśa is that Highest Self Himself who has the characteristics already mentioned, and who is a different entity from the non-intelligent and well known element of akāśa (or ether). Why? Because His peculiar characteristics (are mentioned in the context in relation to what is denoted by that word). To be the only cause of all the 414

SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. 1. Part. 1. worlds, to be greater than all others, to be the best refuge, &c., which are all the characteristics of the Highest Self, are found mentioned (in the context under reference). Indeed, it is not possible for that non-intelligent thing, which is usually denoted by the well known word ākāśa, to be the cause of the world; because it is not possible for an intelligent thing to be the produced effect of that (non-intelligent thing). And to be the best refuge is to be that highest object which is worthy of being attained by intelligent beings; and to be this, it is not possible for that non-intelligent thing which deserves to be discarded and which is opposed to all the desirable aims of life. And to be greater than all is to be unconditioned; it is to be so great by means of all the auspicious qualities as to remain unsurpassed by all. To be this also, it is not possible for the non-intelligent thing. What has been stated to the effect that a specially characteristic thing is mentioned by means of the word Akāśa, in response to the query to know what that parti- cular object is which forms the cause of the world, and that, in consequence, every thing else (in the context) has to be explained so as to exactly agree with that (ākāsa) itself, that is improper; because, in the passage.-" All these beings are, indeed, born out of the Akasa."-[Chhand. Up. I. 9. 1.], that (Akasa) is pointed out as if it were (a thing) already well known. Indeed, to mention a thing as if it were well known implies that there is some other means of knowing it. And the other means of knowledge (here) are, indeed, the following passage and other similar ones :-“Existence alone, my dear child, this was in the beginning.” [Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 1.]. And they declare the Brahman to be altogether the same as has been al- ready mentioned. Accordingly, the Brahman established Adhik. VIII. Sut. 23.] SRI-BHASHYA. 415 by those (passages) is pointed out by the word Akasa as if it were a well known thing. And it is also possible for the Highest Brahman to be denoted by the word Akāśa,400 in as much as He possesses the power of illuminating things, that is, in as much as He is lumin- ous to Himself and also causes other things to shine. Further, this word Akasa, even when it is capable of importing a particular (well known) entity, denotes that particular non-intelligent thing which it is not possible to think of as forming the cause of the intelligent thing. Such excerpts from scriptural passages as the following among others, namely,-" It thought “-[Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 3.]“He desired-May I become manifold”-[Taitt. Up. II. 6. 1.], enable us to know that peculiar Being who is characterised by the attribute of omniscience and the attribute of willing the truth, &c.; and now to cause, by means of that (akasa), the import of those scrip- tural passages, which are capable of proving that (Being), to be other than what that (import) really is, this is not (certainly) within the province of correct reasoning. Simi- larly, it is not also possible to make the common import of those numerous passages, which are capable of denot- ing that peculiar Being thus characterised by peculiar and endless attributes, become something other than what that (import) really is, through the influence of a single passage which is merely a restatement (of something that has been already taught). It has been stated that the word Atman is not absolute- ly restricted to mean intelligent beings, because it is seen (to be used otherwise) in the instance-“The pot is mrid- 406. The word Akasa is derived from the root Kas to shine and is interpreted to mean that which is luminous to itself and also that which causes other things to shine. 416 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. atmaka (or made up of clay).” In reply to this it is said thus-No doubt, the word Atman is, in some cases, used even so as to denote things other than what is intelligent. Nevertheless, the word Atman is very largely used so as to denote that (intelligent entity) which forms the correlative of the body. Consequently, that intelligent entity it- self which is correlated to the body is made out to be mentioned in the following and other passages, namely,- “The Self (or Atman), indeed, this one only was in the be- ginning.”-[Ait. Up. I. 1.]; “From the Self, the ākāśa (or the spatial ether) came into existence.” [Taitt. Up. II. 1. 1.]. For example, although the word go (i. e. ox) may ex- press many things, that thing alone which has the dewlap and other such (characteristics) is naturally and of itself ap- prehended thereby, on account of its being largely used (to signify that thing): and to apprehend its other meanings, it is necessary to have a special mention made of each (of those meanings) in particular. Similarly, each of the following and other particular scriptural passages, namely, “He thought-May I create the worlds.”-[Ait. Up. I. 1.], “He desired, May I become manifold and be born."-Taill. Up. II. 6. 1.]-themselves confirm that it (viz. the word Atman) signifies nothing other than that intelligent entity, which is of itself arrived at (from the common use of that word) and forms (also), the correlative of the body. Thus the Brahman-who forms the only cause of all the worlds, and who is characterised by many such wonder- ful attributes, as are peculiar to none other than Himself, and as are made out by means of excerpts from scriptural passages, is Himself established by means of the passage beginning with “Existence alone, my dear child, &c.” -[Chhand. Up. VI. 2. 1.]. And it is thus a settled con- clusion that (that Brahman) Himself is pointed out by Adhik. IX. Süt. 24.] SRI-BHASHYA. 417 means of the word Akasa, in the passage beginning with- “All these beings are indeed (born out of the Akāsa)”- [Chhand. Up. I. 9. 1.], as if He were already well known. ADHIKARANA. IX. Pranadhikarana. Sutra 24. Ata eva praṇaḥ. For that same reason (which has been given in the case of Akāša), He who is denoted by the word Prāṇa (also in the context 407 is the Brahman). After commencing the context by means of the state- ment “O thou prastotri, that deity which invariably attends the prastava, &c.”,-408 it is revealed in the Chhandogya to this effect :-“Which is that deity? He said-Indeed it is the Prana. All these beings certainly enter into the Prana (to be absorbed into it); they are evolved out of the Prana. This is that deity which invaria- bly attends the prastava. And if, without knowing that deity, you had sung (your) psalms of praise, your head would have fallen off”.”-[Chhand. Up. I. 10. 9. & I. 11. 4 & 5.]. Here the word Prana also denotes, like the word Akasa, the Highest Self Himself who is other than the ordinarily well known prana (or vital air); because this (prana) is described 407. The context here referred to is Chhand. Up. I. 10 & 11. 408. Prastava is the prelude or the introductory words of a Saman sung 53 by the Prastotri who is the assistant of the Udgalri or the chanter of the Samaveda.418 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. (in the context), as if it were a well known thing, by means of the characteristics of the whole world entering into it and coming out of it, &c., which are not (at all) common to it. However, there may also be an additional objection (here) to the effect that, since the whole of the totality of beings is seen to have its existence and activity depend- ent upon the prana, the ordinarily well known prana (or vital air) itself deserves to be pointed out as the cause of the world. And the invalidation (of this objection) is to the effect that the statement-“All these beings certainly enter into the Prana (to be absorbed into it), they are evolved out of the Prana.”-[Chhand. Up. I. 11. 5.]-can not be appropriate in relation to stones and sticks, as also in relation to the essen- tial nature of the intelligent thing (viz. the individual self); because it (viz. that prana) does not exist (in them). Therefore the word Prana (here) denotes the Highest Brahman Himself for the reason that it is to be understood as that which gives life to all beings. Consequently, it is a demonstrated conclusion that the Highest Brahman Himself-who is altogether different from the ordinarily well known ākāśa (or ether), prāna (or vital air), and other such things, who is the only cause of all the worlds, who possesses infinite myriads of auspi- cious qualities, such as the quality of being free from sin, the quality of omniscience, the quality of willing the truth, &c., is denoted (here) by such words as Akasa, Prana, &c. Adhik. X. Süt. 25.] SRI-BHASHYA. ADHIKARANA. X. Jyotiradhikarana. 419 Hereafter, by means of the aphorism-“That which is denoted by the word Jyotis (is the Brahman), because there is the mention of (His) feet (in a connected context)”- [Ved. Sut. I. 1. 25.] and by means of the other aphorisms (following it), it is declared that that Jyotis (or Light), which is characterised by at least a certain unsurpassa- ble quality invariably associated with what constitutes the cause of the world, and which is also denoted by Indra and other words that are ordinarily well known to refer to other things, is the Highest Brahman Himself. Sūtra 25. Jyotischaraṇābhidhānāt. That which is denoted by the word Jyotis (is the Brahman), because there is the mention of (His) feet (in a connected context). It is revealed in the Chhandogya to this effect:-“Now that Light which shines beyond this Highest Heaven, be- yond all the things in the universe, beyond the whole uni- verse, in the highest worlds than which there are no higher worlds, that is that same Light indeed which is within this person.” [Chhand. Up. III. 13. 7.]. Here there arises the doubt whether that thing which is denoted by the word Jyotis (or Light), which is associated with unsurpassa- ble brilliance and forms that same well known light which belongs to the sun-god and others,-(whether that) is the Brahman that forms the cause of the world; or whether that (thing) is the Highest Person, who is altogether 420 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. 1. distinct from the aggregate of intelligent and non-intelli- gent things, who is the highest cause, who has un- limited splendour, who is omniscient and wills the truth. It is perhaps thought right to hold that it is the ordinarily well known light itself (which is denoted by the word Jyotis). Why? Because, although it (viz. Jyotis) is described as if it were an already well known thing, there are not found mentioned in the passage in which it occurs any such characteristics as are invariably associated with the Highest Self, in the same way in which (they are seen to be so associated) with (what is denoted by) Ākāśa, Prāna, and other such words; and it is not, in consequence, possible to derive (from that context) any knowledge which leads to the recognition of the Highest Person (therein) and because also that (Jyotis itself) is taught to be the same as the digestive heat in the stomach. The ordinarily well known light itself has (thus) to be the Brahman that forms the cause of the world; for, there is associated with it (also) that unsur- passable splendour which is invariably concomitant withi what constitutes the cause (of the world). If it be so held, we state in reply-“That which is de- noted by the word Jyotis (is the Brahman), because there is the mention of (His) feet (in a connected context).” [Ved. Sut. I. 1. 25.]. That ‘Light’, which is described as being related to the Highest Heaven and is associated with unsurpassable splendour, is the Highest Person Him- self. Why? Because, in the passage-” All beings make up His one foot; His three immortal feet are in the High- est Heaven."-[Chhand. Up. III. 12. 6.], all beings are de- clared to form the foot of this same entity who is in rela- tion with the Highest Heaven. What is said is this:- In the passage-“That Light which is beyond the Highest Adhik. X. Sut. 26.] SRI-BHASHYA. 421 Heaven, &c.”-[Chhand. Up. III. 13.7.], the peculiar char- acteristics of the Highest Person are certainly not mention- ed; nevertheless, it is recognised that, since the Highest Per- son is mentioned in a former passage (in the same con- text) as being related to the Highest Heaven, this Light also which is related to that Highest Heaven is that Person Himself. And in the teaching that that (Jyotis) is one with the digestive heat of the stomach, there is nothing wrong; because it (viz. that teaching) is a command- ment enjoining the continued meditation of that (Highest Person) in the form of that (digestive heat) for the purpose of attaining the fruition of a desired result. And that the digestive heat of the stomach has the character of that (Highest Person) is declared by the Lord Himself in the passage-“Becoming the vaisva- nara,409 I dwell in the bodies of all living beings.” [B. G. XV. 14.]. Sutra 26. Chhandobhidhānānneti-tenna tathacle- torpaṇanigamat tathāhidarsanam. If it be said that, on account of the metre (known as the gayatri) being mentioned (in the context, the Light or Jyotis described above is) not (the Brahman), it is not (right to say) so; because the teaching (here) relates to the concentration of the mind (on the Brahman) conceiv- ed as that same (gayatri): indeed the scripture declares it accordingly. In a former passage (in the same context), the metre 409. This is an epithet of Agni or Fire. Here, this word denotes the digestive heat of the stomach in accordance with the scriptural pas- sage-“This Fire which is within man and by which food is digested-that is the laisvinara.” Brih. Up. V. 9. 1, 422 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. known as the gayatri is mentioned in the statement-“The Gayatri indeed is all this.”-[Chhand. Up. III. 12. 1.]; and this Rik verse also, which is then quoted after the statement “Therefore this same (Gayatri known as the Brahman) is also declared in a Rik410 verse.”- [Chhand. Up. III. 12. 5.] to the effect-" Such is His great- ness." [Chhand. Up. III. 12. 6.], relates to (that) metre: hence, here (i. e. in the passage under discussion) there is no mention of the Highest Person. If it be so held, (it is replied that) it cannot be (right to maintain) So,-“Because the teaching (here) relates to the concen- tration of the mind (on the Brahman) cónceived as that same (gayatri).” Here it is not merely the metre (gayatri) that is denoted by the word Gayatri; because it is impossible for what is merely a metre to form the Self of all. But on the other hand, it is taught here that the mind as concentrated on the gayatri is to be applied to the Brahman Himself. The meaning is- that, for the purpose of attaining the fruition of the desir- ed result, it is taught in relation to the Brahman that He is to be continuously conceived and meditated upon as being similar to the gayatri. And from the passage- “All beings make up His one foot; His three immortal feet are in the Highest Heaven”-[Chhand. Up. III. 12. 6.], there arises a similarity between the Brahman who (thus) has four feet and the gayatri which also has four feet. And the gayatri (metre) with four feet is met with occasionally, as in the following instance :- Indrassachipatiḥ | Valenapiditaḥ || Duschyavano vrisha | 410. Vide R. V. X. 90. 3.Adhik. X. Sut. 27.] SRI-BHASHYA. Samitsu sasahiḥ || 411 423 “Indeed (the scripture declares it) accordingly “-that is -elsewhere also a word which ordinarily denotes a metre is used to denote other things, in consequence of its simi- larity with them; for example, in connection with the vidya (or the form of worship) in which the vital air is enjoined to be meditated upon and worshipped as having the quality of absorbing all things at once into itself, it is declared, in the passage beginning with- “Now these five and the other five make ten."-412 [Chhand. Up. IV. 3. 8.], that “this same (ten-syllabled metre) viraj (which consists of ten constituent parts) is that which eats the food (consisting of ten parts).” [Chhand. Up. IV. 3. 8.]. For the following reason also, what is denoted by the word Gayatri is the Brahman Himself: Sūtra 27. Bhū tādipadavyapadesopapatteschaivam. Because also it is appropriate only thus to declare that (intelligent) beings and other objects form the feet (of the Gayatri). 411. Halayudhabhatta quotes these lines almost as they are given above in his commentary under the following aphorism of Pingala in his work on Sanskrit prosody: Adyam chatushpat ritubhih. Here the metre known as Gayatri is said to consist of four parts of six syllables each. And in illustration of this the following example is given :- 412. Indrassachi patih Valena vilitaḥ || Duschyavano vrisha | Lamatsu sasahiḥ || The first five are-Vayu, air, Agni, fire, Aditya, sun, Chanara, moon, and Ap, water; the second five are-Prana, breath, Vik, speech, Cha- kshus, sight, Srotra, hearing, and Ma- nas, mind. 424 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. After pointing out the (intelligent) beings, the earth, the body, and the heart (to form the feet of the Gayatri), there is this teaching which is given to the effect-“This above-mentioned (Gayatri) has four feet.”-[Chhand. Up. III. 12. 5.]; and such (a teaching) can be highly appropriate only in relation to the Brahman Himself, who is (here) denoted by the word Gayatri. Sutra 28. Upadesabhedännetichennobhayasminnapy- avirodhāt. If it be said that, on account of there being a differ- ence between the (two) teachings (given in the context, what is denoted by the word Jyotis or Light) is not (the Brahman), it cannot be (right to say) so; because even in both those (teachings) there is nothing that is contra- dictory (of each other). In a former passage (in the same context), namely,- “His three immortal feet are in the Highest Heaven (divi).”-[Chhand. Up. III. 12. 6.], the Highest Heaven (dyu) is pointed out as the position of location; and here (i. e. in the passage under reference), viz.-“Beyond the Highest Heaven, (divah)”-[Chhand. Up. III. 13.7.], it (viz. that Highest Heaven) is indicated to be a boundary; and thus the teaching has different forms. Consequently that Brahman who is declared in the previous pas- sage cannot be recognised in the subsequent one. If it be so held, (it is replied that) it cannot be so; because even in (regard to) both those teachings there is a similarity in the nature of their import, and there is thus nothing to hinder such a recognition. For an (analogous) example, there is this instance-“The hawk Adhik. XI. Sut. 29.] SRI-BHASHYA. 425 is on the top of the tree,” and “The hawk is above the top of the tree.” Therefore, the Highest Person Himself, who is possessed of unsurpassable splendour, is declared to be that Jyotis (or Light) which is resplend- ent beyond the Highest Heaven. And the Highest Person is declared to have four feet in this passage,-“Such is His greatness. Greater than that is the Purusha. All beings make up His one foot. His three immortal feet are in the Highest Heaven.” [R. V. X. 90. 3. & Chhand. Up. III. 12. 6.]: and He is also declared to have an im- material form in the passage-“I know this great Person of sunlike lustre who is beyond darkness.”-[Taitt. Ār. III. 12. 7.]; and the splendour belonging to such (a Person) is also non-material. Consequently, it is faultless to say that, owing to His possessing that (splen- dour), He Himself is denoted by the word Jyotis (or Light here). ADHIKARANA. XI. Indrapranadhikarana. It has been stated that that which is associated with unsurpassable splendour, which is denoted by the word Jyo- tis (or Light), and which is pointed out as if it were a well- known thing, is the Highest Person Himself. Now, he (the Sūtrakāra) says that what are denoted also by Indra, Prana and other such words, and are declared in the scrip- tures to constitute objects of worship, owing to their forming the means of attaining that immortality which is invariably associated with what constitutes the cause of the world,- (they) are (all the same as) the Highest Person Himself, 54 426 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. Sūtra 29. Pranastathanugamat. That which is denoted by Praṇa (Indra and other such words is the Brahman), because it is so understood in the sequel. In the Kaushitaki-Brahmana, the context413 dealing with the vidya (or form of worship) taught to Pratardana is begun with the passage–“Now Pratardana, the son of Divodāsa, went to the favourite abode of Indra by means of battle and valour”; and therein it is remarked by Pratardana to Indra, who had asked him to choose a boon,” You yourself choose for me that boon which you think is most beneficial to man”; and thereafter, it is declared thus (in the same context):-” He said-‘Indeed, I am the Prana and the omniscient Self. Worship and meditate on me as life, as immortality’." [Kaush. Up. III. 1.]. Here the doubt arises whether this Being, who is de- noted by the words Indra and Prana to be the object of such worship as is most beneficial (to man), is the indi- vidual self himself; or whether He is the Supreme Self who is other than the individual self. It is perhaps thought right to hold that that (Being) is the individual self him- self. Why? Because the word Indra is ordinarily well known to denote only a particular individual self, and the word Prana also which is grammatically equated with that (word Indra) signifies that same (individual self). When this individual self having the name of Indra was told by Pratardana to the effect-“You yourself choose for me that boon which you think is most benefi- 413. The context referred to here is the third chapter of the Kaushitakt- Brahmana-Upanishad. Adhik. XI. Sut. 30.] SRI-BHASHYA. 427, cial to man.”-[Kaush. Up. III. 1.], he (i. e. Indra) taught the worship of himself as being the most beneficial by saying “Worship me.” [Kaush. Up. III. 1.1. And what is most beneficial (here) is nothing other than what forms the means for the attainment of immortality. That the worship of that (Being), which is the cause of the world, forms the means for the attainment of immortality, is made out from this passage-“So long as he is not freed (from the body), so long there is delay; then he will be blessed.” [Chhand. Up. VI. 14. 2.]. Therefore the well known Indra himself who has the nature of an individual self is tliat Brahman who forms the cause of the world. To this supposition there is this reply" That which is denoted by Prana (Indra and other such words is the Brahman); because it is so understood in the sequel." [Ved. Sut. I. 1. 29.] This Being who is denoted by the words Indra and Prana is not merely the individual self; but, on the other hand, He is the Highest Brahman who is a different entity from the individual self; because it is only on such a supposition that that meaning in the sequel becomes appropriate which is derived from the grammatical equation of what is in the very commence- ment denoted by the words Indra and Prana with the words ananda (blissful), ajará (undecaying), and amrita (immortal), as mentioned in the scriptural passage- “That same Prana is the omniscient Self who is blissful, undecaying and immortal.” [Kaush. Up. III. 9.]. Sūtra 30. Navakturätmopadesáditichedadhyatma. sambandhabhu māhyasmin. If it be said that, on account of the speaker (Indra) declaring himself (to be the object of worship, what is428 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. 1. denoted by the words Indra and Prara is) not (the Brah- man, it is replied that it cannot be right to say so); be- cause there is here (in this context) the mention of a mul- titude of attributes belonging to the Inner Self. What has been stated to the effect that He who is denoted by the words Indra and Prana is the Supreme Brahman, in as much as He is that same entity that is im- ported by the passage-" He is blissful, undecaying, and immortal."-[Kaush. Up. III. 9.],-that is not appropriate; because Indra, who is the speaker in the passages-“Know me alone.”-[Kaush. Up. III. 1.] and-“I am the Prana and the omniscient self. Meditate on me as life, as immor- tality.”-[Kaush. Up. III. 1.],-teaches Pratardana that he himself, who is made out to be of the nature of an indivi- dual self on account of his having killed Tvashtra and of having done other (such acts) as are stated in the following passage among others-namely “I killed the three-headed Tvashtra”, [Kaush. Up. III. 1.], is undoubtedly the object of worship (sought after). Hence, it having been understood in the beginning (of the context) that he (Indra) is a particular individual self, the conclusion (of that context) with “He is blissful, undecaying and immortal, &c.”-[Kaush. Up. III. 9.]-has (necessarily) to be inter- preted in conformity with that (commencement). When it is so held, he (the Sutrakara) disproves (such a supposition) by saying-“Because there is here (in this context) the mention of a multitude of attributes belong- ing to the Inner Self.” That related quality which exists in the Self is the attribute of the Inner Self. Its ‘multitudinousness’ is its abundance. The meaning is that it is manifold. This manifoldness of the related quality results from the manifoldness of the things which are Adhik. XI. Sut. 30.] SRI-BHASHYA. related to the Self so as to be contained in Him. 429 And this (manifoldness of attributes) is indeed possible only in relation to the Highest Self taken to be the speaker here. Thus, in the passage-“Just as, in a chariot, the circum- ference (of a wheel) is fixed to the spokes and the spokes are fixed to the nave, so also these subtle material elements (bhutamātras) are made to depend on the subtle intelli- gences (prajñāmātras), and the subtle intelligences are made to depend upon the Prana. This same Prana Him- self is the omniscient Self, who is blissful, undecaying, and immortal.” [Kaush. Up. III. 9.], the whole collection of non-intelligent things is denoted by the word bhutamātra; then by means of the word prajñāmatra the whole series of intelligent individual selves is denoted as forming the support of those (non-intelligent things); then it is pointed out that the subject of the context denoted by the words Indra and Prana forms the support of those (intelligent individual selves) also; and (finally), it (viz. that context) teaches that that same Being is “blissful, undecaying, and immortal.” The meaning is, that this quality of being the support of all the things, which consist of the intelligent and the non-intelligent entities, is appropriate only in relation to that Highest Self who is a different entity from the individual self. Or, in the expression-“Because there is here (in this context) the mention of a multitude of attributes be longing to the Inner Self, “the attributes of the Inner Self’ are those attributes which are the peculiar charac- teristics of the Highest Self. Their ‘multitudinousness’, that is, their manifoldness is indeed found ‘here’, that is, in the present context. Accordingly, at the outset it is made out in the passages “You yourself choose for me that boon which you think is most beneficial to man,”-[Kaush. 30 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. Up. III.1.] and “Worship me.”-[Kaush. Up. III.1.], that the Indra, who is denoted by the word Prana, is the object of that peculiar worship of the Highest Self, which forms the means for the attainment of final release. Simi- larly, to be the Impeller of all activities, in accordance with the passage “He of Himself induces him, whom He wishes to lead beyond these worlds, to do work which is good; He of Himself induces him, whom He wishes to lead downwards, to do work which is not good.”-[Kaush. Up. III. 9.], is also an attribute of the Supreme Self. So also to be the support of all, in accordance with the passage- “Just as, in a chariot, the circumference (of a wheel) is fixed to the spokes, and the spokes are fixed to the nave, so also these subtle material elements are made to depend upon the subtle intelligences, and the subtle intelligences are made to depend upon the Prana,”-[Kaush. Up. III. 9.]-is an attribute of Himself. Similarly again those attributes, which are found mentioned in the passage– “This same Prana Himself is the omniscient Self who is blissful, undecaying and immortal.”-[Kaush. Up. III. 9.], belong to that Supreme Self Himself. And these (attributes) also, namely, that “He is the Lord of all the worlds” and that “He is the Lord of all”- [Kaush. Up. III. 9.],-are possible only in relation to the Supreme Self. Consequently, in as much as the attributes of the Supreme Self are here abundantly men- tioned, it is the Supreme Self Himself who is denoted by the words Indra and Prana here. To point out how under such a circumstance it be- comes appropriate for Indra, who is well known to be of the nature of an individual self, to teach that he himself is the object of worship, he (the Sutrakara) says:- Adhik. XI. Süt. 31.] SRI-BHASHYA. Sūtra 31. Sastradrish yatupadeso Vamadevavat. 431 And the teaching (in the context) is, as in the case of Vamadeva, in accordance with the view found in the scripture. This teaching, which, in the statements–” Know me alone”-[Kaush. Up. III.1.] and-“Worship me”-[Kaush. Up. III. 1.], is given to the effect that his own self is the Brahman who has to be worshipped, is not derived from that self-knowledge which is obtained from other means of proof (than the scripture); but, on the other hand, it is the result of the self-knowledge which is derived from the scripture itself. What is said is this:-In accordance with the follow- ing and other similar passages, namely, “Entering in along with this individual self, which is (also) the same as Myself, I evolve the differentiations of name and form [hand. Up. VI. 3. 2.], “All this has That for its Self.”- [Chhand. Up. VI.8.7.], “He who has entered within is the ruler of all things that are born, and is the Self of all.”- [Taitt. Ar. III. 21.], “He who, dwelling in the self, is with- in the self, whom the self does not know, whose body is the self, and who internally rules the self, &c.”-[Madh. Brih. Up. III. 7. 22.], “He is the internal Self of all beings, He is devoid of sin, He is the Divine Lord, He is the One Nārāyaṇa.”-[Sub. Up. VII.1.], he (i. e. Indra) had in mind. that the Supreme Self owns the individual selves as His body, and knew also that the words I, thou, and others, which denote individual selves, include the Supreme Self Himself within their import; and thereafter, by means of the scriptural statements “Know me alone”-[Kaush. Up. III. 1.] and-“Worship me “-[Kaush. Up. III. 1.] he taught that none other than the Supreme Self who has (Indra) himself for His body forms the object of worship. 432 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. 1. That is, Vamadeva “As in the case of Vamadeva.” realised that the Highest Brahman forms the internal Self of all things and that all things form His body, and that those words which denote material embodiments in- clude the embodied in their import; and then he indicated the Highest Brahman who has himself (i. e. Vamadeva) for His body by the word ‘I’; and (lastly) he taught, with the help of a grammatical equation with that (‘I’), that he (himself) was Manu, the sun, &c., in the following and other passages:-“After seeing this (Brahman), the sage Vamadeva experienced I have become Manu and the sun also.”-[Brih. Up. I. 4. 10.], “I am the sage and seer Kakshivat.” [R. V. IV. 26. 1.]. And Prahlada also says the same thing thus:-“Since the Infinite One exists in all things, I am also none other than He; all things proceed from me, I am all things and all things exist in me who am eternal.” [V. P. I. 19. 85.]. After previously stating an objection (that may be raised against his position), he (the Sutrakāra) gives below the reason why, in this context, the words that denote the individual self and denote also certain non-intelligent things (such as the prana or the principal vital air) are used to denote the Highest Brahman who forms the object of worship. Sitra 32. Jivamukhyapranalingannetichennopäsä- traividhyādāsritatvadihatad yogāt. If it be said that, on account of the characteristics of the individual self and of the principal vital air (being mentioned in the context), there is no (reference to theAdhik. X1. Sut. 32.] SRI-BHASHYA. 433 Brahman here at all, it is replied that) it cannot be (right to say) so; because the worship (of the Brah- man) has a threefold nature; because (elsewhere) this (threefold nature of His worship) is taken for granted; and because here (i. e. in the present context also) that (same kind of worship) may be appropriately referred to. The characteristics of the individual self are mention- ed in the following and other passages :-“Let no man specially desire to know what speech is, let him under- stand who the speaker is.”-[Kaush. Up. III. 8.]; “I killed the three-headed Tvashtra ; I handed over the devotees, (named) Arunmukhas to the wolves.”-[Kaush. Up. III. 1.]. The characteristics of the principal vital air are given in the following passages :-“So long as the prana dwells in this body, so long surely there is life.”-[Kaush. Up. III. 1.]; “Now indeed the sentient prana, firmly taking hold of this body, makes it rise up.”-[Kaush. Up. III. 2.]. If it be said that, in consequence, there is here (i. e. in this context) no mention (really) of a multitude of attri- butes belonging to the Inner Self, (it is replied that) it cannot be so for this reason, namely, that the worship (of the Brahman) has a threefold nature. The denota- tion (of the Brahman) by means of certain particular words (in this context) is meant to teach the threefold nature of (His) worship. The meaning is that it is meant to serve the object of teaching the three kinds of continued meditation (in relation to the Brahman), name- ly, the continued’ meditation of the Brahman as forming the only cause of all the worlds in accordance with His own essential nature; the continued meditation (of the Brahman) as having the whole series of enjoyers (or the individual selves) for His body; and the continued medi- 55 434 SRI-BHASHYA. [Chap. I. Part. I. tation (of the Brahman) as having the enjoyable (material) things and the auxiliary (material) helps to enjoyment for His body. This same threefold continued meditation of the Brahman is taken for granted in other (scriptural) contexts also. In the following and other passages, namely, “The Brahman is Existence, Knowledge, Infi- nity.”-[Taitt. Up. II.1.1.]-and “The Brahman is bliss.”- [Taitt. Up. III. 6. 1.], the continued meditation (of the Brahman) as He is in His own essential nature (is taken for granted). In the following and other passages, namely, -“Having created it, He entered into it; having entered into it, He became the sat and the tyat, the defined and the undefined, the possessor of a home and the homeless one, the intelligent thing and the non-intelligent thing. While being the unchangeable individual self (satya) and the changeable matter, He has (nevertheless) remained true to His own nature.” [Taitt. Up. 11. 6. 1.],-the continued meditation (of the Brahman) as having the enjoyers (or the individual selves) for His body and also as having the enjoyable (material) things and the (material) auxiliaries of enjoyment for His body, (is taken for granted). The mean- ing is that here, that is, in the (present) context also, this threefold meditation of the Brahman is appropriate. What is said is this: Wherever particular individual selves from the four-faced Brahma downwards and particular non- intelligent things from the prakriti downwards are found mentioned in association with the peculiarly charac- teristic attributes of the Supreme Self, or wherever the words denoting them (i. e. those intelligent indivi- dual selves and those non-intelligent things) are seen to be grammatically equated with the words denoting the Supreme Self;- in all such cases, what is intended to be taught is the continued meditation of the Brahman as form- Adhik. XI. Sut. 32.] SRI-BHASHYA. 435 ing the Inner Self of those particular intelligent and non-intelligent entities. Consequently, it is an established conclusion that he who is denoted by the words Indra and Prana here (i. e. in the context under reference) is the Supreme Self Himself, who is a different entity from the individual selves. END OF VOLUME I. Printed at The Brahmavadin Press, Triplicane, Madras: ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS VOLUME. A. M. Nār. Atharva-Mahānārāyaṇa-Upanishad. Adh. Up. Adhyatma-Upanishad. Adhik. Adhikarana. Ait. Ār. Aitareya-Aranyaka. Ait. Br. Aitareya-Brāhmaṇa.

Ait. Up. Aitareya-Upanishad. Ath. Up. Atharvasira-Upanishad. A. S. Atmasiddhi of Yamunacharya. Ap. Dh. Apastamba-Dharma-Sutras. Ap. Sr. Apastamba-Srauta-Sutras. As. Sr. Asvalayana-Srauta-Sutras. B. G. Bhagavad-Gitā.

Brih. Up. Brihadaranyaka-Upanishad. Brah. Up. Brahma-Upanishad. Chhand. Up. Chhandogya-Upanishad. Is. Up. Isavasya-Upanishad. Kath. Up. Katha-Upanishad. Kan. Brih. Up. Brihadaranyaka-Upanishad, Ken. Up. Kena-Upanishad.

Kanva recension. Kaush. Up. Kaushitaki-Brāhmaṇa-Upanishad. M. Bh. Mahābhārata. M. Nār. Taittiriya-Mahānārāyaṇa-Upanishad. Mah. Up. Maha-Upanishad. Manu. Manusmriti.

Madh. Brih. Up.-Brihadaranyaka-Upanishad, Madhyandina recension. Mand. Up.-Mandukya-Upanishad. Mund. Up.-Mundaka-Upanishad.438 ABBREVIATIONS. n.-foot-note. nn.-foot-notes. Nir. Nirukta of Yāska. Panini. Ashṭādhyāyi of Panini. Pūr. Mim. Pūrva-Mimämsä aphorisms of Jaimini. Pr. Up. Prasna-Upanishad. R. V. Rigveda-Samhita. Sat. Br. Satapatha-Brāhmaṇa.

Svet. Up. Svetasvatara-Upanishad. Sub. Up. Subala-Upanishad. Sūt.=Sūtra. Taitt. Ar. Taittiriya-Aranyaka. Taitt. Br.-Taittiriya-Brāhmaṇa. Taitt. Samh. Taittiriya-Samhita. Taitt. Up. Taittiriya-Upanishad. V. Dh. Vishnu-Dharma.

=
V. P. Vishnu-Purana.
Vāj. Samh. Vājasaneyi-Samhita.
Ved. Sūt. Vedānta-Sutras of Badarāyaṇa.
THE FOLLOWING IS THE SYSTEM OF TRANS-
LITERATION ADOPTED IN THIS WORK.
Equivalents and Pronunciation.
Vowels.
अ
37
3TT
231 2
a
in
i
"”
i
u
99
*
ल
ऊ
उ
, ♬ A & 3 gam
ऋ
ri
lri
35
33
"”
mica.
father (father).
give.
police (police). put.
rule (rule).
gridiron or critique. the above prolonged.
revelry (revelri).
the above prolonged.
ल
Iri
"”
e
دو
prey.
ai
aisle.
""
ओ
0
note.
19
औ
au like ou,,
loud.
Consonants. Equivalents and Pronunciation.
EFF
k
ख्
kh
in
kind.
ink-horn (inkhorn).
39
gun.
log-hut (loghut). king (king).
such.
church-hill (churchhill).
ग्
&
اور درد اور لار المار لكر
ज्
مة
g
99
gh
""
n
“2
ch
39
chh
19
jump.
440
TRANSLITERATION.
Consonants. Equivalents and Prominciation.
jh
99.
ñ
"”
t.
39
th
99
dh
…
n
39
99
hedge-hog (hejhog).
singe (siñj).
cat (cat)..
ant-hill (anthill).
dance (dance). red-haired (redhaired). bind (bind).
kith.
nuthook (more dental)..
this.
adhere (more dental).
not.
धू
न्
प्
फ्
लू
व्
ET
प्
t like th
th
d like th
dh
n
p
99
“}
93
pot.
ph
19
-b
bh
m
y
r
1
v & w
s
35
39
29
99
66
uphill.
bear.
abhor.
map.
royal.
rod.
like.
waver.
sure (sure).
rush.
sir.
sh
S
“}
हू
h
hear.
19
h (aspirate)
Symbol for the sibilant called
visarga, or substitute for final s,
ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA.
Page
viii
16
Ist
Line 14th from below
13th
For
his
Read
His
fourfold means fourfold moral
27
5th
darkness’
91
realisation
mentoning
means
‘darkness’
realisation
mentioning
time of
20
22nd from above
worid.
Saunka
7th from below (right-hand column)
7in
25th from above 10th from below 22nd from above
48
86
IIth
95
6th
124
132
15th
146
27th
11
152 184
2nd
204 205
209
215
228
20th
247
4th
256
317
343
347
7th from below 9th from above
352
9th
380
Ist
11
388
9th
11
407
33

11 99 7th from below 18th from above 111.24. experession or denoted by is by III.24 III.24. childern the general there is contra- diction III.24. of various grades (of Bliss III.24. (the Ananda- 12.7 maya time (of world, Saunaka III.21. expression or- denoted simply by is always to be by means of III.21. III.21. children a general there is no con- Stradiction III.21. ((of various 1 grades of bliss 111.21. (the Ananda- maya) 13.1.UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. REC’D LD-URD OL SEP 2 41973 JUL 27 1973 Form L9-Series 444 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY A 000 085 997 5