Part 34

To this we make the following reply.--Brahman only can be meant, on account of what precedes as well as what follows. In the preceding as well as the subsequent part of the chapter Brahman only is spoken of; how then can it be supposed that in the intermediate part all at once the air should be referred to? The immediately preceding passage runs as follows, 'That only is called the Bright, that is called Brahman, that alone is called the Immortal. All worlds are contained in it, and no one goes beyond it.' That the Brahman there spoken of forms the topic of our passage also, we conclude, firstly, from proximity; and, secondly, from the circumstance that in the clause, 'The whole world trembles in prâ/n/a' we recognise a quality of Brahman, viz. its constituting the abode of the whole world. That the word prâ/n/a can denote the highest Self also, appears from such passages as 'the prâ/n/a of prâ/n/a' (B/ri/. Up. IV, 4, 18). Being the cause of trembling, moreover, is a quality which properly appertains to the highest Self only, not to mere air. Thus Scripture says, 'No mortal lives by the prâ/n/a and the breath that goes down. We live by another in whom these two repose' (Ka. Up. II, 5 5). And also in the passage subsequent to the one under discussion, ('From terror of it fire burns, from terror the sun burns, from terror Indra and Vâyu, and Death as the fifth run away,') Brahman, and not the air, must be supposed to be spoken of, since the subject of that passage is represented as the cause of fear on the part of the whole world inclusive of the air itself. Thence we again conclude that the passage under discussion also refers to Brahman, firstly, on the ground of proximity; and, secondly, because we recognise a quality of Brahman, viz. its being the cause of fear, in the words, 'A great terror, a raised thunderbolt.' The word 'thunderbolt' is here used to denote a cause of fear in general. Thus in ordinary life also a man strictly carries out a king's command because he fearfully considers in his mind, 'A thunderbolt (i.e. the king's wrath, or threatened punishment) is hanging over my head; it might fall if I did not carry out his command.' In the same manner this whole world inclusive of fire, air, sun, and so on, regularly carries on its manifold functions from fear of Brahman; hence Brahman as inspiring fear is compared to a thunderbolt. Similarly, another scriptural passage, whose topic is Brahman, declares, 'From terror of it the wind blows, from terror the sun rises; from terror of it Agni and Indra, yea, Death runs as the fifth.'--That Brahman is what is referred to in our passage, further follows from the declaration that the fruit of its cognition is immortality. For that immortality is the fruit of the knowledge of Brahman is known, for instance, from the mantra, 'A man who knows him only passes over death, there is no other path to go' (/S/vet. Up. VI, 15).--That immortality which the pûrvapakshin asserts to be sometimes represented as the fruit of the knowledge of the air is a merely relative one; for there (i.e. in the chapter from which the passage is quoted) at first the highest Self is spoken of, by means of a new topic being started (B/ri/. Up. III, 4), and thereupon the inferior nature of the air and so on is referred to. ('Everything else is evil.')--That in the passage under discussion the highest Self is meant appears finally from the general subject-matter; for the question (asked by Na/k/iketas in I, 2, 14, 'That which thou seest as neither this nor that, as neither effect nor cause, as neither past nor future tell me that') refers to the highest Self.

40. The light (is Brahman), on account of that (Brahman) being seen (in the scriptural passage).

We read in Scripture, 'Thus does that serene being, arising from this body, appear in its own form as soon as it has approached the highest light' (Ch. Up. VIII, 12, 3). Here the doubt arises whether the word 'light' denotes the (physical) light, which is the object of sight and dispels darkness, or the highest Brahman.

The pûrvapakshin maintains that the word 'light' denotes the well-known (physical) light, because that is the conventional sense of the word. For while it is to be admitted that in another passage, discussed under I, 1, 24, the word 'light' does, owing to the general topic of the chapter, divest itself of its ordinary meaning and denote Brahman, there is in our passage no similar reason for setting the ordinary meaning aside. Moreover, it is stated in the chapter treating of the nâ/d/îs of the body, that a man going to final release reaches the sun ('When he departs from this body then he departs upwards by those very rays;' Ch. Up. VIII, 6, 5). Hence we conclude that the word 'light' denotes, in our passage, the ordinary light.

To this we make the following reply.--The word 'light' can denote the highest Brahman only, on account of that being seen. We see that in the whole chapter Brahman is carried on as the topic of discussion. For the Self, which is free from sin, &c. is introduced as the general subject-matter in VIII, 7, 1 ('the Self which is free from sin'); it is thereupon set forth as that which is to be searched out and to be understood (VIII, 7, 1); it is carried on by means of the clauses, 'I shall explain that further to you' (VIII, 9, 3 ff.); after that freedom from body is said to belong to it, because it is one with light ('when he is free from the body then neither pleasure nor pain touches him,' VIII, 12, 1)--and freedom from body is not possible outside Brahman--and it is finally qualified as 'the highest light, the highest person' (VIII, 12, 3).--Against the statement, made by the pûrvapakshin, that Scripture speaks of a man going to release as reaching the sun, we remark, that the release there referred to is not the ultimate one, since it is said to be connected with going and departing upwards. That the ultimate release has nothing to do with going and departing upwards we shall show later on.

41. The ether is (Brahman), as it is designated as something different, &c. (from name and form).

Scripture says, 'He who is called ether, (âkâ/s/a) is the revealer of all forms and names. That within which these forms and names are contained is the Brahman, the Immortal, the Self (Ch. Up. VIII, 14, 1).

There arising a doubt whether that which here is called ether is the highest Brahman or the ordinary elemental ether, the pûrvapakshin declares that the latter alternative is to be embraced, firstly, because it is founded on the conventional meaning of the word 'ether;' and, secondly, because the circumstance of revealing names and forms can very well be reconciled with the elemental ether, as that which affords room (for all things). Moreover, the passage contains no clear indicatory mark of Brahman, such as creative power, and the like.

To this we reply, that the word 'ether' can here denote the highest Brahman only, because it is designated as a different thing, &c. For the clause, 'That within which these two are contained is Brahman,' designates the ether as something different from names and forms. But, excepting Brahman, there is nothing whatever different from name and form, since the entire world of effects is evolved exclusively by names and forms. Moreover, the complete revealing of names and forms cannot be accomplished by anything else but Brahman, according to the text which declares Brahman's creative agency, 'Let me enter (into those beings) with this living Self (jîva âtman), and evolve names and forms' (Ch. Up. VI, 3, 2). But--it may be said--from this very passage it is apparent that the living Self also (i.e. the individual soul) possesses revealing power with regard to names and forms.--True, we reply, but what the passage really wishes to intimate, is the non-difference (of the individual soul from the highest Self). And the very statement concerning the revealing of names and forms implies the statement of signs indicatory of Brahman, viz. creative power and the like.--Moreover, the terms 'the Brahman, the Immortal, the Self' (VIII, 14) indicate that Brahman is spoken of.

42. And (on account of the designation) (of the highest Self) as different (from the individual soul) in the states of deep sleep and departing.

In the sixth prapâ/th/aka of the B/ri/hadâra/n/yaka there is given, in reply to the question, 'Who is that Self?' a lengthy exposition of the nature of the Self, 'He who is within the heart, among the prâ/n/as, the person of light, consisting of knowledge' (B/ri/. Up. IV, 3, 7). Here the doubt arises, whether the passage merely aims at making an additional statement about the nature of the transmigrating soul (known already from other sources), or at establishing the nature of the non-transmigrating Self.

The pûrvapakshin maintains that the passage is concerned with the nature of the transmigrating soul, on account of the introductory and concluding statements. For the introductory statement, 'He among the prâ/n/as who consists of knowledge,' contains marks indicatory of the embodied soul, and so likewise the concluding passage, 'And that great unborn Self is he who consists of cognition,' &c. (IV, 4, 22). We must therefore adhere to the same subject-matter in the intermediate passages also, and look on them as setting forth the same embodied Self, represented in its different states, viz. the waking state, and so on.

In reply to this, we maintain that the passage aims only at giving information about the highest Lord, not at making additional statements about the embodied soul.--Why?--On account of the highest Lord being designated as different from the embodied soul, in the states of deep sleep and of departing from the body. His difference from the embodied soul in the state of deep sleep is declared in the following passage, 'This person embraced by the intelligent (prâj/ñ/a) Self knows nothing that is without, nothing that is within.' Here the term, 'the person,' must mean the embodied soul; for of him it is possible to deny that he knows, because he, as being the knower, may know what is within and without. The 'intelligent Self,' on the other hand, is the highest Lord, because he is never dissociated from intelligence, i.e.--in his case--all-embracing knowledge.--Similarly, the passage treating of departure, i.e. death ('this bodily Self mounted by the intelligent Self moves along groaning'), refers to the highest Lord as different from the individual Self. There also we have to understand by the 'embodied one' the individual soul which is the Lord of the body, while the 'intelligent one' is again the Lord. We thus understand that 'on account of his being designated as something different, in the states of deep sleep and departure,' the highest Lord forms the subject of the passage.--With reference to the pûrvapakshin's assertion that the entire chapter refers to the embodied Self, because indicatory marks of the latter are found in its beginning, middle, and end, we remark that in the first place the introductory passage ('He among the prâ/n/as who consists of cognition') does not aim at setting forth the character of the transmigrating Self, but rather, while merely referring to the nature of the transmigrating Self as something already known, aims at declaring its identity with the highest Brahman; for it is manifest that the immediately subsequent passage, 'as if thinking, as if moving'[227], aims at discarding the attributes of the transmigrating Self. The concluding passage again is analogous to the initial one; for the words, 'And that great unborn Self is he who,' &c., mean: We have shown that that same cognitional Self, which is observed among the prâ/n/as, is the great unborn Self, i.e. the highest Lord--He, again, who imagines that the passages intervening (between the two quoted) aim at setting forth the nature of the transmigrating Self by representing it in the waking state, and so on, is like a man who setting out towards the east, wants to set out at the same time towards the west. For in representing the states of waking, and so on, the passage does not aim at describing the soul as subject to different states or transmigration, but rather as free from all particular conditions and transmigration. This is evident from the circumstance that on Janaka's question, which is repeated in every section, 'Speak on for the sake of emancipation,' Yaj/ñ/avalkya replies each time, 'By all that he is not affected, for that person is not attached to anything' (B/ri/. Up. IV, 3, 14-16). And later on he says (IV, 3, 22), 'He is not followed by good, not followed by evil, for he has then overcome all the sorrows of the heart.' We have, therefore, to conclude that the chapter exclusively aims at setting forth the nature of the non-transmigrating Self.

43. And on account of such words as Lord, &c.

That the chapter aims at setting forth the nature of the non-transmigrating Self, we have to conclude from that circumstance also that there occur in it terms such as Lord and so on, intimating the nature of the non-transmigrating Self, and others excluding the nature of the transmigrating Self. To the first class belongs, for instance, 'He is the lord of all, the king of all things, the protector of all things.' To the latter class belongs the passage, 'He does not become greater by good works, nor smaller by evil works.'--From all which we conclude that the chapter refers to the non-transmigrating highest Lord.

Notes:

[Footnote 164: From passages of which nature we may infer that in the passage under discussion also the 'abode' is Brahman.]

[Footnote 165: From which circumstance we may conclude that the passage under discussion also refers to Brahman.]

[Footnote 166: Yat sarvam avidyâropita/m/ tat sarva/m/ paramârthato brahma na tu yad brahma tat sarvam ity artha/h/. Bhâmatî.]

[Footnote 167: So that the passage would have to be translated, 'That, viz. knowledge, &c. is the bridge of the Immortal.']

[Footnote 168: Bhogyasya bhokt/ris/eshatvât tasyâyatanatvam uktam â/s/a@nkyâha na /k/eti, jîvasyâd/ri/sh/t/advârâ dyubhvâdinimittatvezpi na sâkshât tadâyatanatvam aupâdhikatvenâvibhutvâd ity artha/h/. Ânanda Giri.]

[Footnote 169: It would not have been requisite to introduce a special Sûtra for the individual soul--which, like the air, is already excluded by the preceding Sûtra--if it were not for the new argument brought forward in the following Sûtra which applies to the individual soul only.]

[Footnote 170: If the individual soul were meant by the abode of heaven, earth, &c., the statement regarding Î/s/vara made in the passage about the two birds would be altogether abrupt, and on that ground objectionable. The same difficulty does not present itself with regard to the abrupt mention of the individual soul which is well known to everybody, and to which therefore casual allusions may be made.--I subjoin Ânanda Giri's commentary on the entire passage: Jîvasyopâdhyaikyenâvivakshitatvât tadj/ñ/ânezpi sarvaj/ñ/ânasiddhes tasyâyatanatvâdyabhâve hetvantara/m/ vâ/k/yam ity â/s/a@nkya sûtre/n/a pariharati kuta/sk/etyâdinâ. Tad vyâ/k/ash/t/e dyubhvâdîti. Nirde/s/am eva dar/s/ayati tayor iti. Vibhaktyartham âha tâbhyâ/m/ /k/eti. Sthitye/s/varasyâdanâj jîvasa/m/grahezpi katham î/s/varasyaiva vi/s/vâyatanatva/m/ tadâha yadîti. Î/s/varasyâyanatvenâprak/ri/tatve jîvap/ri/thakkathanânupapattir ity uktam eva vyatirekadvârâha anyatheti. Jîvasyâyatanatvenâprak/ri/tatve tulyânupapattir iti /s/a@nkate nanviti. Tasyaikyârtha/m/ lokasiddhasyânuvâdatvân naivam ity âha neti. Jîvasyâpûrvatvâbhâvenâpratipâdyatvam eva praka/t/ayati kshetraj/ñ/o hîti. Î/s/varasyâpi lokavâdisiddhatvâd apratipâdyatety â/s/a@nkyâha î/s/varas tv iti.]

[Footnote 171: As might be the primâ facie conclusion from the particle 'but' introducing the sentence 'but he in reality,' &c.]

[Footnote 172: It being maintained that the passage referred to is to be viewed in connexion with the general subject-matter of the preceding past of the chapter.]

[Footnote 173: And would thus involve a violation of a fundamental principle of the Mîmâ/m/sâ.]

[Footnote 174: A remark directed against the possible attempt to explain the passage last quoted as referring to the embodied soul.]

[Footnote 175: Pi/nd/a/h/ sthûlo deha/h/, prâ/n/a/h/ sûtrâtmâ. Ânanda Giri.-The lower Brahman (hira/n/yagarbha on sûtrâtman) is the vital principle (prâ/n/a) in all creatures.]

[Footnote 176: Sa/m/yagdar/s/ana, i.e. complete seeing or intuition; the same term which in other places--where it is not requisite to insist on the idea of 'seeing' in contradistinction from 'reflecting' or 'meditating'--is rendered by perfect knowledge.]

[Footnote 177: Translated above by 'of the shape of the individual soul.']

[Footnote 178: Pa/n/ini III, 3, 77, 'mûrtta/m/ ghana/h/.']

[Footnote 179: So that the interpretation of the pûrvapakshin cannot be objected to on the ground of its involving the comparison of a thing to itself.]

[Footnote 180: So that no objection can be raised on the ground that heaven and earth cannot be contained in the small ether of the heart.]

[Footnote 181: Viz. of that which is within it. Ânanda Giri proposes two explanations: na /k/eti, paravi/s/esha/n/atvenety atra paro daharâkâ/s/a upâdânât tasminn iti saptamyanta-ta/kkh/abdasyeti /s/esha/h/. Yadvâ para/s/abdo s nta/h/sthavastuvishayas tadvi/s/esha/n/alvena tasminn iti daharâkâ/s/asyokter ity artha/h/. Ta/kkh/abdasya samnik/ri/sh/t/ânvayayoge viprak/ri/sh/t/ânvayasya jaghanyatvâd âkâ/s/ântargata/m/ dhyeyam iti bhâva/h/.]

[Footnote 182: A vâkyabheda--split of the sentence--takes place according to the Mîmâm/s/â when one and the same sentence contains two new statements which are different.]

[Footnote 183: While the explanation of Brahman by jîva would compel us to assume that the word Brahman secondarily denotes the individual soul.]

[Footnote 184: Upalabdher adhish/th/ânam brahma/n/a deha ishyate. Tenâsâdhâra/n/atvena deho brahmapuram bhavet. Bhâmatî.]

[Footnote 185: I.e. Brahmâ, the lower Brahman.]

[Footnote 186: The masculine 'âvirbhûtasvarûpa/h/' qualifies the substantive jîva/h/ which has to be supplied. Properly speaking the jîva whose true nature has become manifest, i.e. which has become Brahman, is no longer jîva; hence the explanatory statement that the term jîva is used with reference to what the jîva was before it became Brahman.]

[Footnote 187: To state another reason showing that the first and second chapters of Prajâpati's instruction refer to the same subject.]

[Footnote 188: I.e. of whom cognition is not a mere attribute.]

[Footnote 189: Although in reality there is no such thing as an individual soul.]

[Footnote 190: Nanu jîvabrahma/n/or aikyam na kvâpi sûtrakâro mukhato vadati kim tu sarvatra bhedam eva, ato naikyam ish/t/am tatrâha pratipâdyam tv iti.]

[Footnote 191: This last sentence is directed against the possible objection that '/s/abda,' which the Sûtra brings forward as an argument in favour of the highest Lord being meant, has the sense of 'sentence' (vâkya), and is therefore of less force than li@nga, i.e. indicatory or inferential mark which is represented in our passage by the a@ngush/th/amâtratâ of the purusha, and favours the jîva interpretation. /S/abda, the text remarks, here means /s/ruti, i.e. direct enunciation, and /s/ruti ranks, as a means of proof, higher than li@nga.]

[Footnote 192: I.e. men belonging to the three upper castes.]

[Footnote 193: The first reason excludes animals, gods, and /ri/shis. Gods cannot themselves perform sacrifices, the essential feature of which is the parting, on the part of the sacrificer, with an offering meant for the gods. /Ri/shis cannot perform sacrifices in the course of whose performance the ancestral /ri/shis of the sacrificer are invoked.--The second reason excludes those men whose only desire is emancipation and who therefore do not care for the perishable fruits of sacrifices.--The third and fourth reasons exclude the /S/ûdras who are indirectly disqualified for /s/âstric works because the Veda in different places gives rules for the three higher castes only, and for whom the ceremony of the upanayana--indispensable for all who wish to study the Veda--is not prescribed.--Cp. Pûrva Mîmâ/m/sâ Sûtras VI, 1.]

[Footnote 194: The reference is to Pûrva Mîmâ/m/sâ Sûtras I, 1, 5 (not to I, 2, 21, as stated in Muir's Sanskrit Texts, III, p. 69).]

[Footnote 195: In which classes of beings all the gods are comprised.]

[Footnote 196: Which shows that together with the non-eternality of the thing denoted there goes the non-eternality of the denoting word.]

[Footnote 197: Âk/ri/ti, best translated by [Greek: eidos].]

[Footnote 198: The pûrvapakshin, i.e. here the grammarian maintains, for the reasons specified further on, that there exists in the case of words a supersensuous entity called spho/t/a which is manifested by the letters of the word, and, if apprehended by the mind, itself manifests the sense of the word. The term spho/t/a may, according as it is viewed in either of these lights, be explained as the manifestor or that which is manifested.--The spho/t/a is a grammatical fiction, the word in so far as it is apprehended by us as a whole. That we cannot identify it with the 'notion' (as Deussen seems inclined to do, p. 80) follows from its being distinctly called vâ/k/aka or abhidhâyaka, and its being represented as that which causes the conception of the sense of a word (arthadhîhetu).]

[Footnote 199: For that each letter by itself expresses the sense is not observed; and if it did so, the other letters of the word would have to be declared useless.]

[Footnote 200: In order to enable us to apprehend the sense from the word, there is required the actual consciousness of the last letter plus the impressions of the preceding letters; just as smoke enables us to infer the existence of fire only if we are actually conscious of the smoke. But that actual consciousness does not take place because the impressions are not objects of perceptive consciousness.]

[Footnote 201: 'How should it be so?' i.e. it cannot be so; and on that account the differences apprehended do not belong to the letters themselves, but to the external conditions mentioned above.]

[Footnote 202: With 'or else' begins the exposition of the finally accepted theory as to the cause why the same letters are apprehended as different. Hitherto the cause had been found in the variety of the upâdhis of the letters. Now a new distinction is made between articulated letters and non-articulated tone.]

[Footnote 203: I.e. it is not directly one idea, for it has for its object more than one letter; but it may be called one in a secondary sense because it is based on the determinative knowledge that the letters, although more than one, express one sense only.]

[Footnote 204: Which circumstance proves that exalted knowledge appertains not only to Hira/n/yagarbha, but to many beings.]

[Footnote 205: Viz. naraka, the commentaries say.]

[Footnote 206: Asmin kalpe sarveshâm prâ/n/inâm dâhapâkaprakâ/s/akârî yozyam agnir d/ris/yate sozyam agni/h/ pûrvasmin kalpe manushya/h/ san devatvapadaprâpaka/m/ karmânush/th/âyâsmin kalpa etaj janma labdhavân ata/h/ pûrvasmin kalpe sa manushyo bhâvinî/m/ sa/m/j/ñ/âm â/sri/tyâgnir iti vyapadi/s/yate.--Sâya/n/a on the quoted passage.]

[Footnote 207: As, for instance, 'So long as Âditya rises in the east and sets in the west' (Ch. Up. III, 6, 4).]

[Footnote 208: Whence it follows that the devas are not personal beings, and therefore not qualified for the knowledge of Brahman.]

[Footnote 209: Yama, for instance, being ordinarily represented as a person with a staff in his hand, Varu/n/a with a noose, Indra with a thunderbolt, &c. &c.]

[Footnote 210: On the proper function of arthavâda and mantra according to the Mîmâ/m/sâ, cp. Arthasa/m/graha, Introduction.]

[Footnote 211: See above, p. 197.]

[Footnote 212: Which can be offered by kshattriyas only.]

[Footnote 213: /S/rautali@ngenânumânabâdha/m/ dar/s/ayitvâ smârtenâpi tadbâdha/m/ dar/s/âyati smârtam iti. Ki/m/ atra brahma am/ri/tam ki/m/ svid vedyam anuttamam, /k/intayet tatra vai gatvâ gandharvo mâm ap/rikkh/ata, Vi/s/vâvasus tato râjan vedântaj/ñ/ânakovida iti mokshadharme janakayâj/ñ/avalkyasa/m/vâdât prahlâdâjagarasa/m/vadâ/k/ /k/oktânumânâsiddhir ity artha/h/.]

[Footnote 214: As opposed to an action to be accomplished.]

[Footnote 215: Of this nature is, for instance, the arthavâda, 'Fire is a remedy for cold.']

[Footnote 216: Of this nature is, for instance, the passage 'the sacrificial post is the sun' (i.e. possesses the qualities of the sun, luminousness, &c.; a statement contradicted by perception).]

[Footnote 217: And therefore to suppose that a divinity is nothing but a certain word forming part of a mantra.]

[Footnote 218: The râjasûya-sacrifice is to be offered by a prince who wishes to become the ruler of the whole earth.]

[Footnote 219: In one of whose stages the being desirous of final emancipation becomes a deva.]