Part 40

[Footnote 244: Bhâmatî: The individual soul is absolutely different from the highest Self; it is inquinated by the contact with its different limiting adjuncts. But it is spoken of, in the Upanishad, as non-different from the highest Self because after having purified itself by means of knowledge and meditation it may pass out of the body and become one with the highest Self. The text of the Upanishad thus transfers a future state of non-difference to that time when difference actually exists. Compare the saying of the Pâ/ñk/arâtrikas: 'Up to the moment of emancipation being reached the soul and the highest Self are different. But the emancipated soul is no longer different from the highest Self, since there is no further cause of difference.'--The technical name of the doctrine advocated by Au/d/ulomi is satyabhedavâda.]

[Footnote 245: Compare the note to the same mantra as quoted above under I, 1, 11.]

[Footnote 246: And not the relation of absolute identity.]

[Footnote 247: I.e. upon the state of emancipation and its absence.]

[Footnote 248: Upapâdita/m/ /k/eti, sarvasyâtmamâtratvam iti /s/esha/h/. Upapâdanaprakâra/m/ sû/k/ayati eketi. Sa yathârdrendhanâgner ityâdinaikaprasavatvam, yathâ sarvâsâm apâm ityâdinâ /k/aikapralayatva/m/ sarvasyoktam. Ân. Gi.]

[Footnote 249: So according to Go. Ân. and Ân. Gi., although their interpretations seem not to account sufficiently for the ekâm of the text.--Kâ/mk/id evaikâm iti jîvasthânâd anyâm ity artha/h/. Go. Ân.--Jîvabhâvena pratibimbâdhârâtiriktâm ity artha/h/. Ân. Gi.]

[Footnote 250: While release, as often remarked, is eternal, it being in fact not different from the eternally unchanging Brahman.]

[Footnote 251: I.e. that the operative cause and the substantial cause are separate things.]

[Footnote 252: Viz. the Sâ@nkhya-sm/ri/ti.]

SECOND ADHYÂYA.

FIRST PÂDA.

REVERENCE TO THE HIGHEST SELF!

1. If it be objected that (from the doctrine expounded hitherto) there would result the fault of there being no room for (certain) Sm/ri/tis; we do not admit that objection, because (from the rejection of our doctrine) there would result the fault of want of room for other Sm/ri/tis.

It has been shown in the first adhyâya that the omniscient Lord of all is the cause of the origin of this world in the same way as clay is the material cause of jars and gold of golden ornaments; that by his rulership he is the cause of the subsistence of this world once originated, just as the magician is the cause of the subsistence of the magical illusion; and that he, lastly, is the cause of this emitted world being finally reabsorbed into his essence, just as the four classes of creatures are reabsorbed into the earth. It has further been proved, by a demonstration of the connected meaning of all the Vedânta-texts, that the Lord is the Self of all of us. Moreover, the doctrines of the pradhâna, and so on, being the cause of this world have been refuted as not being scriptural.--The purport of the second adhyâya, which we now begin, is to refute the objections (to the doctrine established hitherto) which might be founded on Sm/ri/ti and Reasoning, and to show that the doctrines of the pradhâna, &c. have only fallacious arguments to lean upon, and that the different Vedânta-texts do not contradict one another with regard to the mode of creation and similar topics.--The first point is to refute the objections based on Sm/ri/ti.

Your doctrine (the pûrvapakshin says) that the omniscient Brahman only is the cause of this world cannot be maintained, 'because there results from it the fault of there being no room for (certain) Sm/ri/tis.' Such Sm/ri/tis are the one called Tantra which was composed by a /ri/shi and is accepted by authoritative persons, and other Sm/ri/tis based on it[253]; for all of which there would be no room if your interpretation of the Veda were the true one. For they all teach that the non-intelligent pradhâna is the independent cause of the world. There is indeed room (a raison d'être) for Sm/ri/tis like the Manu-sm/ri/ti, which give information about matters connected with the whole body of religious duty, characterised by injunction[254] and comprising the agnihotra and similar performances. They tell us at what time and with what rites the members of the different castes are to be initiated; how the Veda has to be studied; in what way the cessation of study has to take place; how marriage has to be performed, and so on. They further lay down the manifold religious duties, beneficial to man, of the four castes and â/s/ramas[255]. The Kâpila Sm/ri/ti, on the other hand, and similar books are not concerned with things to be done, but were composed with exclusive reference to perfect knowledge as the means of final release. If then no room were left for them in that connexion also, they would be altogether purposeless; and hence we must explain the Vedânta-texts in such a manner as not to bring them into conflict with the Sm/ri/tis mentioned[256].--But how, somebody may ask the pûrvapakshin, can the eventual fault of there being left no room for certain Sm/ri/tis be used as an objection against that sense of /S/ruti which--from various reasons as detailed under I, 1 and ff.--has been ascertained by us to be the true one, viz. that the omniscient Brahman alone is the cause of the world?--Our objection, the pûrvapakshin replies, will perhaps not appear valid to persons of independent thought; but as most men depend in their reasonings on others, and are unable to ascertain by themselves the sense of /S/ruti, they naturally rely on Sm/ri/tis, composed by celebrated authorities, and try to arrive at the sense of /S/ruti with their assistance; while, owing to their esteem for the authors of the Sm/ri/tis, they have no trust in our explanations. The knowledge of men like Kapila Sm/ri/ti declares to have been /ri/shi-like and unobstructed, and moreover there is the following /S/ruti-passage, 'It is he who, in the beginning, bears in his thoughts the son, the /ri/shi, kapila[257], whom he wishes to look on while he is born' (/S/ve. Up. V, 2). Hence their opinion cannot be assumed to be erroneous, and as they moreover strengthen their position by argumentation, the objection remains valid, and we must therefore attempt to explain the Vedânta-texts in conformity with the Sm/ri/tis.

This objection we dispose of by the remark, 'It is not so because therefrom would result the fault of want of room for other Sm/ri/tis.'--If you object to the doctrine of the Lord being the cause of the world on the ground that it would render certain Sm/ri/tis purposeless, you thereby render purposeless other Sm/ri/tis which declare themselves in favour of the said doctrine. These latter Sm/ri/ti-texts we will quote in what follows. In one passage the highest Brahman is introduced as the subject of discussion, 'That which is subtle and not to be known;' the text then goes on, 'That is the internal Self of the creatures, their soul,' and after that remarks 'From that sprang the Unevolved, consisting of the three gu/n/as, O best of Brâhma/n/as.' And in another place it is said that 'the Unevolved is dissolved in the Person devoid of qualities, O Brâhma/n/a.'--Thus we read also in the Purâ/n/a, 'Hear thence this short statement: The ancient Nârâya/n/a is all this; he produces the creation at the due time, and at the time of reabsorption he consumes it again.' And so in the Bhagavadgîtâ also (VII, 6), 'I am the origin and the place of reabsorption of the whole world.' And Âpastamba too says with reference to the highest Self, 'From him spring all bodies; he is the primary cause, he is eternal, he is unchangeable' (Dharma Sûtra I, 8, 23, 2). In this way Sm/ri/ti, in many places, declares the Lord to be the efficient as well as the material cause of the world. As the pûrvapakshin opposes us on the ground of Sm/ri/ti, we reply to him on the ground of Sm/ri/ti only; hence the line of defence taken up in the Sûtra. Now it has been shown already that the /S/ruti-texts aim at conveying the doctrine that the Lord is the universal cause, and as wherever different Sm/ri/tis conflict those maintaining one view must be accepted, while those which maintain the opposite view must be set aside, those Sm/ri/tis which follow /S/ruti are to be considered as authoritative, while all others are to be disregarded; according to the Sûtra met with in the chapter treating of the means of proof (Mîm. Sûtra I, 3, 3), 'Where there is contradiction (between /S/ruti and Sm/ri/ti) (Sm/ri/ti) is to be disregarded; in case of there being no (contradiction) (Sm/ri/ti is to be recognised) as there is inference (of Sm/ri/ti being founded on /S/ruti).'--Nor can we assume that some persons are able to perceive supersensuous matters without /S/ruti, as there exists no efficient cause for such perception. Nor, again, can it be said that such perception may be assumed in the case of Kapila and others who possessed supernatural powers, and consequently unobstructed power of cognition. For the possession of supernatural powers itself depends on the performance of religious duty, and religious duty is that which is characterised by injunction[258]; hence the sense of injunctions (i.e. of the Veda) which is established first must not be fancifully interpreted in reference to the dicta of men 'established' (i.e. made perfect, and therefore possessing supernatural powers) afterwards only. Moreover, even if those 'perfect' men were accepted as authorities to be appealed to, still, as there are many such perfect men, we should have, in all those cases where the Sm/ri/tis contradict each other in the manner described, no other means of final decision than an appeal to /S/ruti.--As to men destitute of the power of independent judgment, we are not justified in assuming that they will without any reason attach themselves to some particular Sm/ri/ti; for if men's inclinations were so altogether unregulated, truth itself would, owing to the multiformity of human opinion, become unstable. We must therefore try to lead their judgment in the right way by pointing out to them the conflict of the Sm/ri/tis, and the distinction founded on some of them following /S/ruti and others not.--The scriptural passage which the pûrvapakshin has quoted as proving the eminence of Kapila's knowledge would not justify us in believing in such doctrines of Kapila (i.e. of some Kapila) as are contrary to Scripture; for that passage mentions the bare name of Kapila (without specifying which Kapila is meant), and we meet in tradition with another Kapila, viz. the one who burned the sons of Sagara and had the surname Vâsudeva. That passage, moreover, serves another purpose, (viz. the establishment of the doctrine of the highest Self,) and has on that account no force to prove what is not proved by any other means, (viz. the supereminence of Kapila's knowledge.) On the other hand, we have a /S/ruti-passage which proclaims the excellence of Manu[259], viz. 'Whatever Manu said is medicine' (Taitt. Sa/m/h. II, 2, 10, 2). Manu himself, where he glorifies the seeing of the one Self in everything ('he who equally sees the Self in all beings and all beings in the Self, he as a sacrificer to the Self attains self-luminousness,' i.e. becomes Brahman, Manu Sm/ri/ti XII, 91), implicitly blames the doctrine of Kapila. For Kapila, by acknowledging a plurality of Selfs, does not admit the doctrine of there being one universal Self. In the Mahabhârata also the question is raised whether there are many persons (souls) or one; thereupon the opinion of others is mentioned, 'There are many persons, O King, according to the Sâ@nkhya and Yoga philosophers;' that opinion is controverted 'just as there is one place of origin, (viz. the earth,) for many persons, so I will proclaim to you that universal person raised by his qualities;' and, finally, it is declared that there is one universal Self, 'He is the internal Self of me, of thee, and of all other embodied beings, the internal witness of all, not to be apprehended by any one. He the all-headed, all-armed, all-footed, all-eyed, all-nosed one moves through all beings according to his will and liking.' And Scripture also declares that there is one universal Self, 'When to a man who understands the Self has become all things, what sorrow, what trouble can there be to him who once beheld that unity?' (Î/s/. Up 7); and other similar passages. All which proves that the system of Kapila contradicts the Veda, and the doctrine of Manu who follows the Veda, by its hypothesis of a plurality of Selfs also, not only by the assumption of an independent pradhâna. The authoritativeness of the Veda with regard to the matters stated by it is independent and direct, just as the light of the sun is the direct means of our knowledge of form and colour; the authoritativeness of human dicta, on the other hand, is of an altogether different kind, as it depends on an extraneous basis (viz. the Veda), and is (not immediate but) mediated by a chain of teachers and tradition.

Hence the circumstance that the result (of our doctrine) is want of room for certain Sm/ri/tis, with regard to matters contradicted by the Veda, furnishes no valid objection.--An additional reason for this our opinion is supplied by the following Sûtra.

2. And on account of the non-perception of the others (i.e. the effects of the pradhâna, according to the Sâ@nkhya system).

The principles different from the pradhâna, but to be viewed as its modifications which the (Sâ@nkhya) Sm/ri/ti assumes, as, for instance, the great principle, are perceived neither in the Veda nor in ordinary experience. Now things of the nature of the elements and the sense organs, which are well known from the Veda, as well as from experience, may be referred to in Sm/ri/ti; but with regard to things which, like Kapila's great principle, are known neither from the Veda nor from experience--no more than, for instance, the objects of a sixth sense--Sm/ri/ti is altogether impossible. That some scriptural passages which apparently refer to such things as the great principle have in reality quite a different meaning has already been shown under I, 4, 1. But if that part of Sm/ri/ti which is concerned with the effects (i.e. the great principle, and so on) is without authority, the part which refers to the cause (the pradhâna) will be so likewise. This is what the Sûtra means to say.--We have thus established a second reason, proving that the circumstance of there being no room left for certain Sm/ri/tis does not constitute a valid objection to our doctrine.--The weakness of the trust in reasoning (apparently favouring the Sâ@nkhya doctrine) will be shown later on under II, 1, 4 ff.

3. Thereby the Yoga (Sm/ri/ti) is refuted.

This Sûtra extends the application of the preceding argumentation, and remarks that by the refutation of the Sâ@nkhya-sm/ri/ti the Yoga-sm/ri/ti also is to be considered as refuted; for the latter also assumes, in opposition to Scripture, a pradhâna as the independent cause of the world, and the 'great principle,' &c. as its effects, although neither the Veda nor common experience favour these views.--But, if the same reasoning applies to the Yoga also, the latter system is already disposed of by the previous arguments; of what use then is it formally to extend them to the Yoga? (as the Sûtra does.)--We reply that here an additional cause of doubt presents itself, the practice of Yoga being enjoined in the Veda as a means of obtaining perfect knowledge; so, for instance, B/ri/. Up. II, 4, 5, '(The Self) is to be heard, to be thought, to be meditated upon[260].' In the /S/vetâ/s/vatara Upanishad, moreover, we find various injunctions of Yoga-practice connected with the assumption of different positions of the body; &c.; so, for instance, 'Holding his body with its three erect parts even,' &c. (II, 8).

Further, we find very many passages in the Veda which (without expressly enjoining it) point to the Yoga, as, for instance, Ka. Up. II, 6, 11, 'This, the firm holding back of the senses, is what is called Yoga;' 'Having received this knowledge and the whole rule of Yoga' (Ka. Up. II, 6, 18); and so on. And in the Yoga-/s/âstra itself the passage, 'Now then Yoga, the means of the knowledge of truth,' &c. defines the Yoga as a means of reaching perfect knowledge. As thus one topic of the /s/âstra at least (viz. the practice of Yoga) is shown to be authoritative, the entire Yoga-sm/ri/ti will have to be accepted as unobjectionable, just as the Sm/ri/ti referring to the ash/t/akâs[261].--To this we reply that the formal extension (to the Yoga, of the arguments primarily directed against the Sâ@nkhya) has the purpose of removing the additional doubt stated in the above lines; for in spite of a part of the Yoga-sm/ri/ti being authoritative, the disagreement (between Sm/ri/ti and /S/ruti) on other topics remains as shown above.--Although[262] there are many Sm/ri/tis treating of the soul, we have singled out for refutation the Sâ@nkhya and Yoga because they are widely known as offering the means for accomplishing the highest end of man and have found favour with many competent persons. Moreover, their position is strengthened by a Vedic passage referring to them, 'He who has known that cause which is to be apprehended by Sâ@nkhya and Yoga he is freed from all fetters' (/S/ve. Up. VI, 13). (The claims which on the ground of this last passage might be set up for the Sâ@nkhya and Yoga-sm/ri/tis in their entirety) we refute by the remark that the highest beatitude (the highest aim of man) is not to be attained by the knowledge of the Sâ@nkhya-sm/ri/ti irrespective of the Veda, nor by the road of Yoga-practice. For Scripture itself declares that there is no other means of obtaining the highest beatitude but the knowledge of the unity of the Self which is conveyed by the Veda, 'Over death passes only the man who knows him; there is no other path to go' (/S/ve. Up. III, 8). And the Sâ@nkhya and Yoga-systems maintain duality, do not discern the unity of the Self. In the passage quoted ('That cause which is to be apprehended by Sâ@nkhya and Yoga') the terms 'Sâ@nkhya' and 'Yoga' denote Vedic knowledge and meditation, as we infer from proximity[263]. We willingly allow room for those portions of the two systems which do not contradict the Veda. In their description of the soul, for instance, as free from all qualities the Sâ@nkhyas are in harmony with the Veda which teaches that the person (purusha) is essentially pure; cp. B/ri/. Up. IV, 3, 16. 'For that person is not attached to anything.' The Yoga again in giving rules for the condition of the wandering religious mendicant admits that state of retirement from the concerns of life which is known from scriptural passages such as the following one, 'Then the parivrâjaka with discoloured (yellow) dress, shaven, without any possessions,' &c. (Jâbâla Upan. IV).

The above remarks will serve as a reply to the claims of all argumentative Sm/ri/tis. If it be said that those Sm/ri/tis also assist, by argumentation and proof, the cognition of truth, we do not object to so much, but we maintain all the same that the truth can be known from the Vedânta-texts only; as is stated by scriptural passages such as 'None who does not know the Veda perceives that great one' (Taitt. Br. III, 12, 9, 7); 'I now ask thee that person taught in the Upanishads' (B/ri/. Up, III, 9, 26); and others.

4. (Brahman can) not (be the cause of the world) on account of the difference of character of that, (viz. the world); and its being such, (i.e. different from Brahman) (we learn) from Scripture.