Because Brahman, being raised above all contact with the senses, is not
an object of perception and the other means of proof, but to be known
through Scripture only; therefore the text 'Whence these creatures are
born,' &c., has to be accepted as instructing us regarding the true
nature of Brahman.--But, our opponent points out, Scripture cannot be
the source of our knowledge of Brahman, because Brahman is to be known
through other means. For it is an acknowledged principle that Scripture
has meaning only with regard to what is not established by other sources
of knowledge.--But what, to raise a primâ facie counter objection, are
those other sources of knowledge? It cannot, in the first place, be
Perception. Perception is twofold, being based either on the sense-
organs or on extraordinary concentration of mind (yoga). Of Perception
of the former kind there are again two sub-species, according as
Perception takes place either through the outer sense-organs or the
internal organ (manas). Now the outer sense-organs produce knowledge of
their respective objects, in so far as the latter are in actual contact
with the organs, but are quite unable to give rise to the knowledge of
the special object constituted by a supreme Self that is capable of
being conscious of and creating the whole aggregate of things. Nor can
internal perception give rise to such knowledge; for only purely
internal things, such as pleasure and pain, fall within its cognisance,
and it is incapable of relating itself to external objects apart from
the outer sense-organs. Nor, again, perception based on Yoga; for
although such perception--which springs from intense imagination--
implies a vivid presentation of things, it is, after all, nothing more
than a reproduction of objects perceived previously, and does not
therefore rank as an instrument of knowledge; for it has no means of
applying itself to objects other than those perceived previously. And if,
after all, it does so, it is (not a means of knowledge but) a source of
error.--Nor also inference either of the kind which proceeds on the
observation of special cases or of the kind which rests on
generalizations (cp. Nyâya Sû. I, 1,5,). Not inference of the former
kind, because such inference is not known to relate to anything lying
beyond the reach of the senses. Nor inference of the latter kind,
because we do not observe any characteristic feature that is invariably
accompanied by the presence of a supreme Self capable of being conscious
of, and constructing, the universe of things.--But there _is_ such a
feature, viz. the world's being an effected thing; it being a matter of
common experience that whatever is an effect or product, is due to an
agent who possesses a knowledge of the material cause, the instrumental
cause, the final end, and the person meant to make use of the thing
produced. It further is matter of experience that whatever consists of
non-sentient matter is dependent on, or ruled by, a single intelligent
principle. The former generalization is exemplified by the case of jars
and similar things, and the latter by a living body in good health,
which consists of non-intelligent matter dependent on an intelligent
principle. And that the body is an effected thing follows from its
consisting of parts.--Against this argumentation also objections may be
raised. What, it must be asked, do you understand by this dependence on
an intelligent principle? Not, we suppose, that the origination and
subsistence of the non-intelligent thing should be dependent on the
intelligent principle; for in that case your example would not help to
prove your contention. Neither the origin nor the subsistence of a
person's healthy body depends on the intelligent soul of that person
alone; they rather are brought about by the merit and demerit of all
those souls which in any way share the fruition of that body--the wife,
e.g. of that person, and others. Moreover, the existence of a body made
up of parts means that body's being connected with its parts in the way
of so-called intimate relation (sama-vâya), and this requires a certain
combination of the parts but not a presiding intelligent principle. The
existence of animated bodies, moreover, has for its characteristic mark
the process of breathing, which is absent in the case of the earth, sea,
mountains, &c.--all of which are included in the class of things
concerning which you wish to prove something--, and we therefore miss a
uniform kind of existence common to all those things.--Let us then
understand by the dependence of a non-intelligent thing on an
intelligent principle, the fact of the motion of the former depending on
the latter!--This definition, we rejoin, would comprehend also those
cases in which heavy things, such as carriages, masses of stone, trees,
&c., are set in motion by several intelligent beings (while what you want
to prove is the dependence of a moving thing on one intelligent
principle). If, on the other hand, you mean to say that all motion
depends on intelligence in general, you only prove what requires no
proof.--Another alternative, moreover, here presents itself. As we both
admit the existence of individual souls, it will be the more economical
hypothesis to ascribe to them the agency implied in the construction of
the world. Nor must you object to this view on the ground that such
agency cannot belong to the individual souls because they do not possess
the knowledge of material causes, &c., as specified above; for all
intelligent beings are capable of direct knowledge of material causes,
such as earth and so on, and instrumental causes, such as sacrifices and
the like. Earth and other material substances, as well as sacrifices and
the like, are directly perceived by individual intelligent beings at the
present time (and were no doubt equally perceived so at a former time
when this world had to be planned and constructed). Nor does the fact
that intelligent beings are not capable of direct insight into the
unseen principle--called 'apûrva,' or by similar names--which resides in
the form of a power in sacrifices and other instrumental causes, in any
way preclude their being agents in the construction of the world. Direct
insight into powers is nowhere required for undertaking work: what _is_
required for that purpose is only direct presentative knowledge of the
things endowed with power, while of power itself it suffices to have
some kind of knowledge. Potters apply themselves to the task of making
pots and jars on the strength of the direct knowledge they possess of
the implements of their work--the wheel, the staff, &c.--without
troubling about a similar knowledge of the powers inherent in those
implements; and in the same way intelligent beings may apply themselves
to their work (to be effected by means of sacrifices, &c.), if only they
are assured by sacred tradition of the existence of the various powers
possessed by sacrifices and the like.--Moreover, experience teaches that
agents having a knowledge of the material and other causes must be
inferred only in the case of those effects which can be produced, and
the material and other causes of which can be known: such things, on the
other hand, as the earth, mountains, and oceans, can neither be produced,
nor can their material and other causes ever be known; we therefore have
no right to infer for them intelligent producers. Hence the quality of
being an effected thing can be used as an argument for proving the
existence of an intelligent causal agent, only where that quality is
found in things, the production of which, and the knowledge of the
causes of which, is possible at all.--Experience further teaches that
earthen pots and similar things are produced by intelligent agents
possessing material bodies, using implements, not endowed with the power
of a Supreme Lord, limited in knowledge and so on; the quality of being
an effect therefore supplies a reason for inferring an intelligent agent
of the kind described only, and thus is opposed to the inference of
attributes of a contrary nature, viz. omniscience, omnipotence, and
those other attributes that belong--to the highest Soul, whose existence
you wish to establish.--Nor does this (as might be objected) imply an
abandonment of all inference. Where the thing to be inferred is known
through other means of proof also, any qualities of an opposite nature
which maybe suggested by the inferential mark (linga) are opposed by
those other means of proof, and therefore must be dropped. In the case
under discussion, however, the thine; to be inferred is something not
guaranteed by any other means of proof, viz. a person capable of
constructing the entire universe; here there is nothing to interfere
with the ascription to such a person of all those qualities which, on
the basis of methodical inference, necessarily belong to it.--The
conclusion from all this is that, apart from Scripture, the existence of
a Lord does not admit of proof.
Against all this the Pûrvapakshin now restates his case as follows:--It
cannot be gainsaid that the world is something effected, for it is made
up of parts. We may state this argument in various technical forms. 'The
earth, mountains, &c., are things effected, because they consist of
parts; in the same way as jars and similar things.' 'The earth, seas,
mountains, &c., are effects, because, while being big; (i.e. non-atomic),
they are capable of motion; just as jars and the like.' 'Bodies, the
world, &c., are effects, because, while being big, they are solid
(mûrtta); just as jars and the like.'--But, an objection is raised, in
the case of things made up of parts we do not, in addition to this
attribute of consisting of parts, observe any other aspect determining
that the thing is an effect--so as to enable us to say 'this thing is
effected, and that thing is not'; and, on the other hand, we do observe
it as an indispensable condition of something being an effect, that
there should be the possibility of such an effect being brought about,
and of the existence of such knowledge of material causes, &c. (as the
bringing about of the effect presupposes).--Not so, we reply. In the
case of a cause being inferred on the ground of an effect, the knowledge
and power of the cause must be inferred in accordance with the nature of
the effect. From the circumstance of a thing consisting of parts we know
it to be an effect and on this basis we judge of the power and knowledge
of the cause. A person recognises pots, jars and the like, as things
produced, and therefrom infers the constructive skill and knowledge of
their maker; when, after this, he sees for the first time a kingly
palace with all its various wonderful parts and structures, he concludes
from the special way in which the parts are joined that this also is an
effected thing, and then makes an inference as to the architect's
manifold knowledge and skill. Analogously, when a living body and the
world have once been recognised to be effects, we infer--as their maker--
some special intelligent being, possessing direct insight into their
nature and skill to construct them.--Pleasure and pain, moreover, by
which men are requited for their merit and demerit, are themselves of a
non-intelligent nature, and hence cannot bring about their results
unless they are controlled by an intelligent principle, and this also
compels us to assume a being capable of allotting to each individual
soul a fate corresponding to its deserts. For we do not observe that non-
intelligent implements, such as axes and the like, however much they may
be favoured by circumstances of time, place, and so on, are capable of
producing posts and pillars unless they be handled by a carpenter. And
to quote against the generalization on which we rely the instance of the
seed and sprout and the like can only spring from an ignorance and
stupidity which may be called truly demoniac. The same remark would
apply to pleasure and pain if used as a counter instance. (For in all
these cases the action which produces an effect must necessarily be
guided by an intelligent principle.)--Nor may we assume, as a 'less
complicated hypothesis,' that the guiding principle in the construction
of the world is the individual souls, whose existence is acknowledged by
both parties. For on the testimony of observation we must deny to those
souls the power of seeing what is extremely subtle or remote in time or
place (while such power must necessarily be ascribed to a world-
constructing intelligence). On the other hand, we have no ground for
concluding that the Lord is, like the individual souls, destitute of
such power; hence it cannot be said that other means of knowledge make
it impossible to infer such a Lord. The fact rather is that as his
existence is proved by the argument that any definite effect presupposes
a causal agent competent to produce that effect, he is proved at the
same time as possessing the essential power of intuitively knowing and
ruling all things in the universe.--The contention that from the world
being an effect it follows that its maker does not possess lordly power
and so on, so that the proving reason would prove something contrary to
the special attributes (belonging to a supreme agent, viz. omnipotence,
omniscience, &c.), is founded on evident ignorance of the nature of the
inferential process. For the inference clearly does not prove that there
exist in the thing inferred all the attributes belonging to the proving
collateral instances, including even those attributes which stand in no
causal relation to the effect. A certain effect which is produced by
some agent presupposes just so much power and knowledge on the part of
that agent as is requisite for the production of the effect, but in no
way presupposes any incapability or ignorance on the part of that agent
with regard to things other than the particular effect; for such
incapability and ignorance do not stand towards that effect in any
causal relation. If the origination of the effect can be accounted for
on the basis of the agent's capability of bringing it about, and of his
knowledge of the special material and instrumental causes, it would be
unreasonable to ascribe causal agency to his (altogether irrelevant)
incapabilities and ignorance with regard to other things, only because
those incapabilities, &c., are observed to exist together with his
special capability and knowledge. The question would arise moreover
whether such want of capability and knowledge (with regard to things
other than the one actually effected) would be helpful towards the
bringing about of that one effect, in so far as extending to all other
things or to some other things. The former alternative is excluded
because no agent, a potter e.g., is quite ignorant of all other things
but his own special work; and the second alternative is inadmissible
because there is no definite rule indicating that there should be
certain definite kinds of want of knowledge and skill in the case of all
agents [FOOTNOTE 168:1], and hence exceptions would arise with regard to
every special case of want of knowledge and skill. From this it follows
that the absence of lordly power and similar qualities which (indeed is
observed in the case of ordinary agents but) in no way contributes
towards the production of the effects (to which such agents give rise)
is not proved in the case of that which we wish to prove (i.e. a Lord,
creator of the world), and that hence Inference does not establish
qualities contrary (to the qualities characteristic of a Lord).
A further objection will perhaps be raised, viz. that as experience
teaches that potters and so on direct their implements through the
mediation of their own bodies, we are not justified in holding that a
bodiless Supreme Lord directs the material and instrumental causes of
the universe.--But in reply to this we appeal to the fact of experience,
that evil demons possessing men's bodies, and also venom, are driven or
drawn out of those bodies by mere will power. Nor must you ask in what
way the volition of a bodiless Lord can put other bodies in motion; for
volition is not dependent on a body. The cause of volitions is not the
body but the internal organ (manas), and such an organ we ascribe to the
Lord also, since what proves the presence of an internal organ endowed
with power and knowledge is just the presence of effects.--But volitions,
even if directly springing from the internal organ, can belong to
embodied beings only, such only possessing internal organs!--This
objection also is founded on a mistaken generalization: the fact rather
is that the internal organ is permanent, and exists also in separation
from the body. The conclusion, therefore, is that--as the individual
souls with their limited capacities and knowledge, and their dependence
on merit and demerit, are incapable of giving rise to things so variously
and wonderfully made as worlds and animated bodies are--inference
directly leads us to the theory that there is a supreme intelligent
agent, called the Lord, who possesses unfathomable, unlimited powers and
wisdom, is capable of constructing the entire world, is without a body,
and through his mere volition brings about the infinite expanse of this
entire universe so variously and wonderfully planned. As Brahman may
thus be ascertained by means of knowledge other than revelation, the
text quoted under the preceding Sûtra cannot be taken to convey
instruction as to Brahman. Since, moreover, experience demonstrates that
material and instrumental causes always are things absolutely distinct
from each other, as e.g. the clay and the potter with his implements;
and since, further, there are substances not made up of parts, as e.g.
ether, which therefore cannot be viewed as effects; we must object on
these grounds also to any attempt to represent the one Brahman as the
universal material and instrumental cause of the entire world.
Against all this we now argue as follows:--The Vedânta-text declaring
the origination, &c., of the world does teach that there is a Brahman
possessing the characteristics mentioned; since Scripture alone is a
means for the knowledge of Brahman. That the world is an effected thing
because it consists of parts; and that, as all effects are observed to
have for their antecedents certain appropriate agents competent to
produce them, we must infer a causal agent competent to plan and
construct the universe, and standing towards it in the relation of
material and operative cause--this would be a conclusion altogether
unjustified. There is no proof to show that the earth, oceans, &c.,
although things produced, were created at one time by one creator. Nor
can it be pleaded in favour of such a conclusion that all those things
have one uniform character of being effects, and thus are analogous to
one single jar; for we observe that various effects are distinguished by
difference of time of production, and difference of producers. Nor again
may you maintain the oneness of the creator on the ground that
individual souls are incapable of the creation of this wonderful
universe, and that if an additional principle be assumed to account for
the world--which manifestly is a product--it would be illegitimate to
assume more than one such principle. For we observe that individual
beings acquire more and more extraordinary powers in consequence of an
increase of religious merit; and as we may assume that through an
eventual supreme degree of merit they may in the end qualify themselves
for producing quite extraordinary effects, we have no right to assume a
highest soul of infinite merit, different from all individual souls. Nor
also can it be proved that all things are destroyed and produced all at
once; for no such thing is observed to take place, while it is, on the
other hand, observed that things are produced and destroyed in
succession; and if we infer that all things are produced and destroyed
because they are effects, there is no reason why this production and
destruction should not take place in a way agreeing with ordinary
experience. If, therefore, what it is desired to prove is the agency of
one intelligent being, we are met by the difficulty that the proving
reason (viz. the circumstance of something being an effect) is not
invariably connected with what it is desired to prove; there, further,
is the fault of qualities not met with in experience being attributed to
the subject about which something has to be proved; and lastly there is
the fault of the proving collateral instances being destitute of what
has to be proved--for experience does not exhibit to us one agent
capable of producing everything. If, on the other hand, what you wish to
prove is merely the existence of an intelligent creative agent, you
prove only what is proved already (not contested by any one).--Moreover,
if you use the attribute of being an effect (which belongs to the
totality of things) as a means to prove the existence of one omniscient
and omnipotent creator, do you view this attribute as belonging to all
things in so far as produced together, or in so far as produced in
succession? In the former case the attribute of being an effect is not
established (for experience does not show that all things are produced
together); and in the latter case the attribute would really prove what
is contrary to the hypothesis of one creator (for experience shows that
things produced in succession have different causes). In attempting to
prove the agency of one intelligent creative being only, we thus enter
into conflict with Perception and Inference, and we moreover contradict
Scripture, which says that 'the potter is born' and 'the cartwright is
born' (and thus declares a plurality of intelligent agents). Moreover,
as we observe that all effected things, such as living bodies and so on,
are connected with pleasure and the like, which are the effects of
sattva (goodness) and the other primary constituents of matter, we must
conclude that effected things have sattva and so on for their causes.
Sattva and so on--which constitute the distinctive elements of the
causal substance--are the causes of the various nature of the effects.
Now those effects can be connected with their causes only in so far as
the internal organ of a person possessing sattva and so on undergoes
modifications. And that a person possesses those qualities is due to
karman. Thus, in order to account for the origination of different
effects we must necessarily assume the connexion of an intelligent agent
with karman, whereby alone he can become the cause of effects; and
moreover the various character of knowledge and power (which the various
effects presuppose) has its reason in karman. And if it be said that it
is (not the various knowledge, &c., but) the mere wish of the agent that
causes the origination of effects, we point out that the wish, as being
specialised by its particular object, must be based on sattva and so on,
and hence is necessarily connected with karman. From all this it follows
that individual souls only can be causal agents: no legitimate inference
leads to a Lord different from them in nature.--This admits of various
expressions in technical form. 'Bodies, worlds, &c., are effects due to
the causal energy of individual souls, just as pots are'; 'the Lord is
not a causal agent, because he has no aims; just as the released souls
have none'; 'the Lord is not an agent, because he has no body; just as
the released souls have none.' (This last argumentation cannot be
objected to on the ground that individual souls take possession of
bodies; for in their case there exists a beginningless subtle body by
means of which they enter into gross bodies).--'Time is never devoid of
created worlds; because it is time, just like the present time (which
has its created world).'
Consider the following point also. Does the Lord produce his effects,
with his body or apart from his body? Not the latter; for we do not
observe causal agency on the part of any bodiless being: even the
activities of the internal organ are found only in beings having a body,
and although the internal organ be eternal we do not know of its
producing any effects in the case of released disembodied souls. Nor
again is the former alternative admissible; for in that case the Lord's
body would either be permanent or non-permanent. The former alternative
would imply that something made up of parts is eternal; and if we once
admit this we may as well admit that the world itself is eternal, and
then there is no reason to infer a Lord. And the latter alternative is
inadmissible because in that case there would be no cause of the body,
different from it (which would account for the origination of the body).
Nor could the Lord himself be assumed as the cause of the body, since a
bodiless being cannot be the cause of a body. Nor could it be maintained
that the Lord can be assumed to be 'embodied' by means of some other
body; for this leads us into a _regressus in infinitum._--Should we,
moreover, represent to ourselves the Lord (when productive) as engaged
in effort or not?--The former is inadmissible, because he is without a
body. And the latter alternative is excluded because a being not making
an effort does not produce effects. And if it be said that the effect, i.
e. the world, has for its causal agent one whose activity consists in
mere desire, this would be to ascribe to the subject of the conclusion
(i.e. the world) qualities not known from experience; and moreover the
attribute to be proved would be absent in the case of the proving
instances (such as jars, &c., which are not the work of agents engaged
in mere wishing). Thus the inference of a creative Lord which claims to
be in agreement with observation is refuted by reasoning which itself is
in agreement with observation, and we hence conclude that Scripture is
the only source of knowledge with regard to a supreme soul that is the
Lord of all and constitutes the highest Brahman. What Scripture tells us
of is a being which comprehends within itself infinite, altogether
unsurpassable excellences such as omnipotence and so on, is antagonistic
to all evil, and totally different in character from whatever is
cognised by the other means of knowledge: that to such a being there
should attach even the slightest imperfection due to its similarity in
nature to the things known by the ordinary means of knowledge, is thus
altogether excluded.--The Pûrvapakshin had remarked that the oneness of
the instrumental and the material cause is neither matter of observation
nor capable of proof, and that the same holds good with regard to the
theory that certain non-composite substances such as ether are created
things; that these points also are in no way contrary to reason, we
shall show later on under Sû. I, 4, 23, and Sû. II, 3, 1.
The conclusion meanwhile is that, since Brahman does not fall within the
sphere of the other means of knowledge, and is the topic of Scripture
only, the text 'from whence these creatures,' &c., _does_ give
authoritative information as to a Brahman possessing the characteristic
qualities so often enumerated. Here terminates the adhikarana of
'Scripture being the source.'
A new objection here presents itself.--Brahman does not indeed fall
within the province of the other means of knowledge; but all the same
Scripture does not give authoritative information regarding it: for
Brahman is not something that has for its purport activity or cessation
from activity, but is something fully established and accomplished
within itself.--To this objection the following Sûtra replies.
[FOOTNOTE 168:1. A certain potter may not possess the skill and
knowledge required to make chairs and beds; but some other potter may
possess both, and so on. We cannot therefore point to any definite want
of skill and knowledge as invariably accompanying the capability of
producing effects of some other kind.]
4. But that (i.e. the authoritativeness of Scripture with regard to
Brahman) exists on account of the connexion (of Scripture with the
highest aim of man).
The word 'but' is meant to rebut the objection raised. _That_, i.e. the
authoritativeness of Scripture with regard to Brahman, is possible, on
account of samanvaya, i.e. connexion with the highest aim of man--that
is to say because the scriptural texts are connected with, i.e. have for
their subject, Brahman, which constitutes the highest aim of man. For
such is the connected meaning of the whole aggregate of words which
constitutes the Upanishads--'That from whence these beings are
born'(Taitt. Up. III, 1, 1). 'Being only this was in the beginning, one,
without a second' (Ch. Up. VI, 2), &c. &c. And of aggregates of words
which are capable of giving information about accomplished things known
through the ordinary means of ascertaining the meaning of words, and
which connectedly refer to a Brahman which is the cause of the
origination, subsistence, and destruction of the entire world, is
antagonistic to all imperfection and so on, we have no right to say that,
owing to the absence of a purport in the form of activity or cessation
of activity, they really refer to something other than Brahman.
For all instruments of knowledge have their end in determining the
knowledge of their own special objects: their action does not adapt
itself to a final purpose, but the latter rather adapts itself to the
means of knowledge. Nor is it true that where there is no connexion with
activity or cessation of activity all aim is absent; for in such cases
we observe connexion with what constitutes the general aim, i.e. the
benefit of man. Statements of accomplished matter of fact--such as 'a
son is born to thee.' 'This is no snake'--evidently have an aim, viz. in
so far as they either give rise to joy or remove pain and fear.
Against this view the Pûrvapakshin now argues as follows. The Vedânta-
texts do not impart knowledge of Brahman; for unless related to activity
or the cessation of activity, Scripture would be unmeaning, devoid of
all purpose. Perception and the other means of knowledge indeed have
their aim and end in supplying knowledge of the nature of accomplished
things and facts; Scripture, on the other hand, must be supposed to aim
at some practical purpose. For neither in ordinary speech nor in the
Veda do we ever observe the employment of sentences devoid of a
practical purpose: the employment of sentences not having such a purpose
is in fact impossible. And what constitutes such purpose is the
attainment of a desired, or the avoidance of a non-desired object, to be
effected by some action or abstention from action. 'Let a man desirous
of wealth attach himself to the court of a prince'; 'a man with a weak
digestion must not drink much water'; 'let him who is desirous of the
heavenly world offer sacrifices'; and so on. With regard to the
assertion that such sentences also as refer to accomplished things--'a
son is born to thee' and so on--are connected with certain aims of man,
viz. joy or the cessation of fear, we ask whether in such cases the
attainment of man's purpose results from the thing or fact itself, as e.
g. the birth of a son, or from the knowledge of that thing or fact.--You
will reply that as a thing although actually existing is of no use to
man as long as it is not known to him, man's purpose is accomplished by
his knowledge of the thing.--It then appears, we rejoin, that man's
purpose is effected through mere knowledge, even if there is no actual
thing; and from this it follows that Scripture, although connected with
certain aims, is not a means of knowledge for the actual existence of
things. In all cases, therefore, sentences have a practical purpose;
they determine either some form of activity or cessation from activity,
or else some form of knowledge. No sentence, therefore, can have for its
purport an accomplished thing, and hence the Vedânta-texts do not convey
the knowledge of Brahman as such an accomplished entity.
At this point somebody propounds the following view. The Vedânta-texts
_are_ an authoritative means for the cognition of Brahman, because as a
matter of fact they also aim at something to be done. What they really
mean to teach is that Brahman, which in itself is pure homogeneous
knowledge, without a second, not connected with a world, but is, owing
to beginningless Nescience, viewed as connected with a world, should be
freed from this connexion. And it is through this process of dissolution
of the world that Brahman becomes the object of an injunction.--But
which texts embody this injunction, according to which Brahman in its
pure form is to be realised through the dissolution of this apparent
world with its distinction of knowing subjects and objects of
knowledge?--Texts such as the following: 'One should not see (i. e.
represent to oneself) the seer of seeing, one should not think the
thinker of thinking' (Bri. Up. III, 4, 2); for this means that we should
realise Brahman in the form of pure Seeing (knowledge), free from the
distinction of seeing agents and objects of sight. Brahman is indeed
accomplished through itself, but all the same it may constitute an
object to be accomplished, viz. in so far as it is being disengaged from
the apparent world.
This view (the Mîmâmsaka rejoins) is unfounded. He who maintains that
injunction constitutes the meaning of sentences must be able to assign
the injunction itself, the qualification of the person to whom the
injunction is addressed, the object of the injunction, the means to
carry it out, the special mode of the procedure, and the person carrying
out the injunction. Among these things the qualification of the person
to whom the injunction addresses itself is something not to be enjoined
(but existing previously to the injunction), and is of the nature either
of cause (nimitta) or a result aimed at (phala). We then have to decide
what, in the case under discussion (i.e. the alleged injunction set
forth by the antagonist), constitutes the qualification of the person to
whom the injunction addresses itself, and whether it be of the nature of
a cause or of a result.--Let it then be said that what constitutes the
qualification in our case is the intuition of the true nature of Brahman
(on the part of the person to whom the injunction is addressed).--This,
we rejoin, cannot be a cause, as it is not something previously
established; while in other cases the nimitta is something so
established, as e.g. 'life' is in the case of a person to whom the
following injunction is addressed, 'As long as his life lasts he is to
make the Agnihotra-oblation.' And if, after all, it were admitted to be
a cause, it would follow that, as the intuition of the true nature of
Brahman is something permanent, the object of the injunction would have
to be accomplished even subsequently to final release, in the same way
as the Agnihotra has to be performed permanently as long as life lasts.--
Nor again can the intuition of Brahman's true nature be a result; for
then, being the result of an action enjoined, it would be something non-
permanent, like the heavenly world.--What, in the next place, would be
the 'object to be accomplished' of the injunction? You may not reply
'Brahman'; for as Brahman is something permanent it is not something
that can be realised, and moreover it is not denoted by a verbal form
(such as denote actions that can be accomplished, as e.g. yâga,
sacrifice).--Let it then be said that what is to be realised is Brahman,
in so far as free from the world!--But, we rejoin, even if this be
accepted as a thing to be realised, it is not the object (vishaya) of
the injunction--that it cannot be for the second reason just stated--but
its final result (phala). What moreover is, on this last assumption, the
thing to be realised--Brahman, or the cessation of the apparent world?--
Not Brahman; for Brahman is something accomplished, and from your
assumption it would follow that it is not eternal.--Well then, the
dissolution of the world!--Not so, we reply; for then it would not be
Brahman that is realised.--Let it then be said that the dissolution of
the world only is the object of the injunction!--This, too, cannot be,
we rejoin; that dissolution is the result (phala) and cannot therefore
be the object of the injunction. For the dissolution of the world means
final release; and that is the result aimed at. Moreover, if the
dissolution of the world is taken as the object of the injunction, that
dissolution would follow from the injunction, and the injunction would
be carried out by the dissolution of the world; and this would be a case
of vicious mutual dependence.--We further ask--is the world, which is to
be put an end to, false or real?--If it is false, it is put an end to by
knowledge alone, and then the injunction is needless. Should you reply
to this that the injunction puts an end to the world in so far as it
gives rise to knowledge, we reply that knowledge springs of itself from
the texts which declare the highest truth: hence there is no need of
additional injunctions. As knowledge of the meaning of those texts
sublates the entire false world distinct from Brahman, the injunction
itself with all its adjuncts is seen to be something baseless.--If, on
the other hand, the world is true, we ask--is the injunction, which puts
an end to the world, Brahman itself or something different from Brahman?
If the former, the world cannot exist at all: for what terminates it,
viz. Brahman, is something eternal; and the injunction thus being
eternal itself Cannot be accomplished by means of certa n actions.--Let
then the latter alternative be accepted!--But in that case, the niyoga
being something which is accomplished by a set of performances the
function of which it is to put an end to the entire world, the
performing person himself perishes (with the rest of the world), and the
niyoga thus remains without a substrate. And if everything apart from
Brahman is put an end to by a performance the function of which it is to
put an end to the world, there remains no result to be effected by the
niyoga, consequently there is no release.
Further, the dissolution of the world cannot constitute the instrument
(karana) in the action enjoined, because no mode of procedure
(itikartavyatâ) can be assigned for the instrument of the niyoga, and
unless assisted by a mode of procedure an instrument cannot operate,--
But why is there no 'mode of procedure'?--For the following reasons. A
mode of procedure is either of a positive or a negative kind. If
positive, it may be of two kinds, viz. either such as to bring about the
instrument or to assist it. Now in our case there is no room for either
of these alternatives. Not for the former; for there exists in our case
nothing analogous to the stroke of the pestle (which has the manifest
effect of separating the rice grains from the husks), whereby the
visible effect of the dissolution of the whole world could be brought
about. Nor, secondly, is there the possibility of anything assisting the
instrument, already existing independently, to bring about its effect;
for owing to the existence of such an assisting factor the instrument
itself, i.e. the cessation of the apparent world, cannot be established.
Nor must you say that it is the cognition of the non-duality of Brahman
that brings about the means for the dissolution of the world; for, as we
have already explained above, this cognition directly brings about final
Release, which is the same as the dissolution of the world, and thus
there is nothing left to be effected by special means.--And if finally
the mode of procedure is something purely negative, it can, owing to
this its nature, neither bring about nor in any way assist the
instrumental cause. From all this it follows that there is no
possibility of injunctions having for their object the realisation of
Brahman, in so far as free from the world.
Here another primâ facie view of the question is set forth.--It must be
admitted that the Vedânta-texts are not means of authoritative knowledge,
since they refer to Brahman, which is an accomplished thing (not a thing
'to be accomplished'); nevertheless Brahman itself is established, viz.
by means of those passages which enjoin meditation (as something 'to be
done'). This is the purport of texts such as the following: 'The Self is
to be seen, to be heard, to be reflected on, to be meditated upon' (Bri.
Up. II, 4, 5); 'The Self which is free from sin must be searched out'
(Ch. Up. VIII, 7, 1); 'Let a man meditate upon him as the Self' (Bri. Up.
I, 4, 7); 'Let a man meditate upon the Self as his world' (Bri. Up. I, 4,
15).--These injunctions have meditation for their object, and meditation
again is defined by its own object only, so that the injunctive word
immediately suggests an object of meditation; and as such an object
there presents itself, the 'Self' mentioned in the same sentence. Now
there arises the question, What are the characteristics of that Self?
and in reply to it there come in texts such as 'The True, knowledge,
infinite is Brahman'; 'Being only this was in the beginning, one without
a second.' As these texts give the required special information, they
stand in a supplementary relation to the injunctions, and hence are
means of right knowledge; and in this way the purport of the Vedânta-
texts includes Brahman--as having a definite place in meditation which
is the object of injunction. Texts such as 'One only without a second'
(Ch. Up. VI, 2, 1); 'That is the true, that is the Self (Ch. Up. VI, 8,
7); 'There is here not any plurality' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 19), teach that
there is one Reality only, viz. Brahman, and that everything else is
false. And as Perception and the other means of proof, as well as that
part of Scripture which refers to action and is based on the view of
plurality, convey the notion of plurality, and as there is contradiction
between plurality and absolute Unity, we form the conclusion that the
idea of plurality arises through beginningless avidyâ, while absolute
Unity alone is real. And thus it is through the injunction of meditation
on Brahman--which has for its result the intuition of Brahman--that man
reaches final release, i.e. becomes one with Brahman, which consists of
non-dual intelligence free of all the manifold distinctions that spring
from Nescience. Nor is this becoming one with Brahman to be accomplished
by the mere cognition of the sense of certain Vedânta-texts; for this is
not observed--the fact rather being that the view of plurality persists
even after the cognition of the sense of those texts--, and, moreover,
if it were so, the injunction by Scripture of hearing, reflecting, &c.,
would be purposeless.
To this reasoning the following objection might be raised.--We observe
that when a man is told that what he is afraid of is not a snake, but
only a rope, his fear comes to an end; and as bondage is as unreal as
the snake imagined in the rope it also admits of being sublated by
knowledge, and may therefore, apart from all injunction, be put an end
to by the simple comprehension of the sense of certain texts. If final
release were to be brought about by injunctions, it would follow that it
is not eternal--not any more than the heavenly world and the like; while
yet its eternity is admitted by every one. Acts of religious merit,
moreover (such as are prescribed by injunctions), can only be the causes
of certain results in so far as they give rise to a body capable of
experiencing those results, and thus necessarily produce the so-called
samsâra-state (which is opposed to final release, and) which consists in
the connexion of the soul with some sort of body, high or low. Release,
therefore, is not something to be brought about by acts of religious
merit. In agreement herewith Scripture says, 'For the soul as long as it
is in the body, there is no release from pleasure and pain; when it is
free from the body, then neither pleasure nor pain touch it' (Ch. Up.
VIII, 12, 1). This passage declares that in the state of release, when
the soul is freed from the body, it is not touched by either pleasure or
pain--the effects of acts of religious merit or demerit; and from this
it follows that the disembodied state is not to be accomplished by acts
of religious merit. Nor may it be said that, as other special results
are accomplished by special injunctions, so the disembodied state is to
be accomplished by the injunction of meditation; for that state is
essentially something _not_ to be effected. Thus scriptural texts say,
'The wise man who knows the Self as bodiless among the bodies, as
persisting among non-persisting things, as great and all-pervading; he
does not grieve' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 22); 'That person is without breath,
without internal organ, pure, without contact' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 2).--
Release which is a bodiless state is eternal, and cannot therefore be
accomplished through meritorious acts.
In agreement herewith Scripture says, 'That which thou seest apart from
merit (dharma) and non-merit, from what is done and not done, from what
exists and what has to be accomplished--tell me that' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 14).--
Consider what follows also. When we speak of something being
accomplished (effected-sâdhya) we mean one of four things, viz. its
being originated (utpatti), or obtained (prâpti), or modified (vikriti),
or in some way or other (often purely ceremonial) made ready or fit
(samskriti). Now in neither of these four senses can final Release be
said to be accomplished. It cannot be originated, for being Brahman
itself it is eternal. It cannot be attained: for Brahman, being the Self,
is something eternally attained. It cannot be modified; for that would
imply that like sour milk and similar things (which are capable of
change) it is non-eternal. Nor finally can it be made 'ready' or 'fit.'
A thing is made ready or fit either by the removal of some imperfection
or by the addition of some perfection. Now Brahman cannot be freed from
any imperfection, for it is eternally faultless; nor can a perfection be
added to it, for it is absolutely perfect. Nor can it be improved in the
sense in which we speak of improving a mirror, viz. by polishing it; for
as it is absolutely changeless it cannot become the object of any action,
either of its own or of an outside agent. And, again, actions affecting
the body, such as bathing, do not 'purify' the Self (as might possibly
be maintained) but only the organ of Egoity (ahamkartri) which is the
product of avidyâ, and connected with the body; it is this same
ahamkartri also that enjoys the fruits springing from any action upon
the body. Nor must it be said that the Self _is_ the ahamkartri; for the
Self rather is that which is conscious of the ahamkartri. This is the
teaching of the mantras: 'One of them eats the sweet fruit, the other
looks on without eating' (Mu. Up. III, 1, 1); 'When he is in union with
the body, the senses, and the mind, then wise men call him the Enjoyer'
(Ka. Up. I, 3,4); 'The one God, hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the
Self within all beings, watching over all works, dwelling in all beings,
the witness, the perceiver, the only one, free from qualities' (Svet. Up.
VI, 11); 'He encircled all, bright, bodiless, scatheless, without
muscles, pure, untouched by evil' (Îsa. Up. 8).--All these texts
distinguish from the ahamkartri due to Nescience, the true Self,
absolutely perfect and pure, free from all change. Release therefore--
which _is_ the Self--cannot be brought about in any way.--But, if this
is so, what then is the use of the comprehension of the texts?--It is of
use, we reply, in so far as it puts an end to the obstacles in the way
of Release. Thus scriptural texts declare: 'You indeed are our father,
you who carry us from our ignorance to the other shore' (Pra. Up. VI, 8);
'I have heard from men like you that he who knows the Self overcomes
grief. I am in grief. Do, Sir, help me over this grief of mine' (Ch. Up.
VII, 1, 3); 'To him whose faults had thus been rubbed out Sanatkumâra
showed the other bank of Darkness' (Ch. Up. VII, 26, 2). This shows that
what is effected by the comprehension of the meaning of texts is merely
the cessation of impediments in the way of Release. This cessation
itself, although something effected, is of the nature of that kind of
nonexistence which results from the destruction of something existent,
and as such does not pass away.--Texts such as 'He knows Brahman, he
becomes Brahman' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 9); 'Having known him he passes beyond
death' (Svet. Up. III,8), declare that Release follows immediately on
the cognition of Brahman, and thus negative the intervention of
injunctions.--Nor can it be maintained that Brahman is related to action
in so far as constituting the object of the action either of knowledge
or of meditation; for scriptural texts deny its being an object in
either of these senses. Compare 'Different is this from what is known,
and from what is unknown' (Ke. Up. II, 4); 'By whom he knows all this,
whereby should he know him?' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 15); 'That do thou know as
Brahman, not that on which they meditate as being this' (Ke. Up. II, 4).
Nor does this view imply that the sacred texts have no object at all;
for it is their object to put an end to the view of difference springing
from avidyâ. Scripture does not objectivise Brahman in any definite form,
but rather teaches that its true nature is to be non-object, and thereby
puts an end to the distinction, fictitiously suggested by Nescience, of
knowing subjects, acts of knowledge, and objects of knowledge. Compare
the text 'You should not see a seer of seeing, you should not think a
thinker of thought,' &c. (Bri. Up. III, 4, 2).--Nor, again, must it be
said that, if knowledge alone puts an end to bondage, the injunctions of
hearing and so on are purposeless; for their function is to cause the
origination of the comprehension of the texts, in so far as they divert
from all other alternatives the student who is naturally inclined to
yield to distractions.--Nor, again, can it be maintained that a
cessation of bondage through mere knowledge is never observed to take
place; for as bondage is something false (unreal) it cannot possibly
persist after the rise of knowledge. For the same reason it is a mistake
to maintain that the cessation of bondage takes place only after the
death of the body. In order that the fear inspired by the imagined snake
should come to an end, it is required only that the rope should be
recognised as what it is, not that a snake should be destroyed. If the
body were something real, its destruction would be necessary; but being
apart from Brahman it is unreal. He whose bondage does not come to an
end, in him true knowledge has not arisen; this we infer from the effect
of such knowledge not being observed in him. Whether the body persist or
not, he who has reached true knowledge is released from that very moment.--
The general conclusion of all this is that, as Release is not something
to be accomplished by injunctions of meditation, Brahman is not proved
to be something standing in a supplementary relation to such injunctions;
but is rather proved by (non-injunctory) texts, such as 'Thou art that';
'The True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman'; 'This Self is Brahman.'
This view (the holder of the dhyâna-vidhi theory rejoins) is untenable;
since the cessation of bondage cannot possibly spring from the mere
comprehension of the meaning of texts. Even if bondage were something
unreal, and therefore capable of sublation by knowledge, yet being
something direct, immediate, it could not be sublated by the indirect
comprehension of the sense of texts. When a man directly conscious of a
snake before him is told by a competent by-stander that it is not a
snake but merely a rope, his fear is not dispelled by a mere cognition
contrary to that of a snake, and due to the information received; but
the information brings about the cessation of his fear in that way that
it rouses him to an activity aiming at the direct perception, by means
of his senses, of what the thing before him really is. Having at first
started back in fear of the imagined snake, he now proceeds to ascertain
by means of ocular perception the true nature of the thing, and having
accomplished this is freed from fear. It would not be correct to say
that in this case words (viz. of the person informing) produce this
perceptional knowledge; for words are not a sense-organ, and among the
means of knowledge it is the sense-organs only that give rise to direct
knowledge. Nor, again, can it be pleaded that in the special case of
Vedic texts sentences may give rise to direct knowledge, owing to the
fact that the person concerned has cleansed himself of all imperfection
through the performance of actions not aiming at immediate results, and
has been withdrawn from all outward objects by hearing, reflection, and
meditation; for in other cases also, where special impediments in the
way of knowledge are being removed, we never observe that the special
means of knowledge, such as the sense-organs and so on, operate outside
their proper limited sphere.--Nor, again, can it be maintained that
meditation acts as a means helpful towards the comprehension of texts;
for this leads to vicious reciprocal dependence--when the meaning of the
texts has been comprehended it becomes the object of meditation; and
when meditation has taken place there arises comprehension of the
meaning of the texts!--Nor can it be said that meditation and the
comprehension of the meaning of texts have different objects; for if
this were so the comprehension of the texts could not be a means helpful
towards meditation: meditation on one thing does not give rise to
eagerness with regard to another thing!--For meditation which consists
in uninterrupted remembrance of a thing cognised, the cognition of the
sense of texts, moreover, forms an indispensable prerequisite; for
knowledge of Brahman--the object of meditation--cannot originate from
any other source.--Nor can it be said that that knowledge on which
meditation is based is produced by one set of texts, while that
knowledge which puts an end to the world is produced by such texts as
'thou art that,' and the like. For, we ask, has the former knowledge the
same object as the latter, or a different one? On the former alternative
we are led to the same vicious reciprocal dependence which we noted
above; and on the latter alternative it cannot be shown that meditation
gives rise to eagerness with regard to the latter kind of knowledge.
Moreover, as meditation presupposes plurality comprising an object of
meditation, a meditating subject and so on, it really cannot in any
perceptible way be helpful towards the origination of the comprehension
of the sense of texts, the object of which is the oneness of a Brahman
free from all plurality: he, therefore, who maintains that Nescience
comes to an end through the mere comprehension of the meaning of texts
really implies that the injunctions of hearing, reflection, and
meditation are purposeless.
The conclusion that, since direct knowledge cannot spring from texts,
Nescience is not terminated by the comprehension of the meaning of texts,
disposes at the same time of the hypothesis of the so-called 'Release in
this life' (jîvanmukti). For what definition, we ask, can be given of
this 'Release in this life'?--'Release of a soul while yet joined to a
body'!--You might as well say, we reply, that your mother never had any
children! You have yourself proved by scriptural passages that 'bondage'
means the being joined to a body, and 'release' being free from a body!--
Let us then define jîvanmukti as the cessation of embodiedness, in that
sense that a person, while the appearance of embodiedness persists, is
conscious of the unreality of that appearance.--But, we rejoin, if the
consciousness of the unreality of the body puts an end to embodiedness,
how can you say that jîvanmukti means release of a soul while joined to
a body? On this explanation there remains no difference whatsoever
between 'Release in this life' and Release after death; for the latter
also can only be defined as cessation of the false appearance of
embodiedness.--Let us then say that a person is 'jîvanmukta' when the
appearance of embodiedness, although sublated by true knowledge, yet
persists in the same way as the appearance of the moon being double
persists (even after it has been recognised as false).--This too we
cannot allow. As the sublating act of cognition on which Release depends
extends to everything with the exception of Brahman, it sublates the
general defect due to causal Nescience, inclusive of the particular
erroneous appearance of embodiedness: the latter being sublated in this
way cannot persist. In the case of the double moon, on the other hand,
the defect of vision on which the erroneous appearance depends is _not_
the object of the sublative art of cognition, i.e. the cognition of the
oneness of the moon, and it therefore remains non-sublated; hence the
false appearance of a double moon may persist.--Moreover, the text 'For
him there is delay only as long as he is not freed from the body; then
he will be released' (Ch. Up. VI, 14, 2), teaches that he who takes his
stand on the knowledge of the Real requires for his Release the putting
off of the body only: the text thus negatives jivanmukti. Âpastamba also
rejects the view of jivanmukti, 'Abandoning the Vedas, this world and
the next, he (the Samnyâsin) is to seek the Self. (Some say that) he
obtains salvation when he knows (the Self). This opinion is contradicted
by the sâstras. (For) if Salvation were obtained when the Self is known,
he should not feel any pain even in this world. Hereby that which
follows is explained' (Dh. Sû. II, 9, 13-17).--This refutes also the
view that Release is obtained through mere knowledge.--The conclusion to
be drawn from all this is that Release, which consists in the cessation
of all Plurality, cannot take place as long as a man lives. And we
therefore adhere to our view that Bondage is to be terminated only by
means of the injunctions of meditation, the result of which is direct
knowledge of Brahman. Nor must this be objected to on the ground that
Release, if brought about by injunctions, must therefore be something
non-eternal; for what is effected is not Release itself, but only the
cessation of what impedes it. Moreover, the injunction does not directly
produce the cessation of Bondage, but only through the mediation of the
direct cognition of Brahman as consisting of pure knowledge, and not
connected with a world. It is this knowledge only which the injunction
produces.--But how can an injunction cause the origination of knowledge?--
How, we ask in return, can, on your view, works not aiming at some
immediate result cause the origination of knowledge?--You will perhaps
reply 'by means of purifying the mind' (manas); but this reply may be
given by me also.--But (the objector resumes) there is a difference. On
my view Scripture produces knowledge in the mind purified by works;
while on your view we must assume that in the purified mind the means of
knowledge are produced by injunction.--The mind itself, we reply,
purified by knowledge, constitutes this means.--How do you know this?
our opponent questions.--How, we ask in return, do you know that the
mind is purified by works, and that, in the mind so purified of a person
withdrawn from all other objects by hearing, reflection and meditation,
Scripture produces that knowledge which destroys bondage?--Through
certain texts such as the following: 'They seek to know him by sacrifice,
by gifts, by penance, by fasting' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 22); 'He is to be
heard, to be reflected on, to be meditated on' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 5); 'He
knows Brahman, he becomes Brahman' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 9).--Well, we reply,
in the same way our view--viz. that through the injunction of meditation
the mind is cleared, and that a clear mind gives rise to direct
knowledge of Brahman--is confirmed by scriptural texts such as 'He is to
be heard, to be reflected on, to be meditated on' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 5);
'He who knows Brahman reaches the highest' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1); 'He is
not apprehended by the eye nor by speech' (Mu. Up. III, 1, 8); 'But by a
pure mind' (?); 'He is apprehended by the heart, by wisdom, by the mind'
(Ka. Up. II, 6, 9). Nor can it be said that the text 'not that which
they meditate upon as this' (Ke. Up. I, 4) negatives meditation; it does
not forbid meditation on Brahman, but merely declares that Brahman is
different from the world. The mantra is to be explained as follows:
'What men meditate upon as this world, that is not Brahman; know Brahman
to be that which is not uttered by speech, but through which speech is
uttered.' On a different explanation the clause 'know that to be
Brahman' would be irrational, and the injunctions of meditation on the
Self would--be meaningless.--The outcome of all this is that unreal
Bondage which appears in the form of a plurality of knowing subjects,
objects of knowledge, &c., is put an end to by the injunctions of
meditation, the fruit of which is direct intuitive knowledge of Brahman.
Nor can we approve of the doctrine held by some that there is no
contradiction between difference and non-difference; for difference and
non-difference cannot co-exist in one thing, any more than coldness and
heat, or light and darkness.--Let us first hear in detail what the
holder of this so-called bhedâbheda view has to say. The whole universe
of things must be ordered in agreement with our cognitions. Now we are
conscious of all things as different and non-different at the same time:
they are non-different in their causal and generic aspects, and
different in so far as viewed as effects and individuals. There indeed
is a contradiction between light and darkness and so on; for these
cannot possibly exist together, and they are actually met with in
different abodes. Such contradictoriness is not, on the other hand,
observed in the case of cause and effect, and genus and individual; on
the contrary we here distinctly apprehend one thing as having two
aspects--'this jar is clay', 'this cow is short-horned.' The fact is
that experience does not show us anything that has one aspect only. Nor
can it be said that in these cases there is absence of contradiction
because as fire consumes grass so non-difference absorbs difference; for
the same thing which exists as clay, or gold, or cow, or horse, &c., at
the same time exists as jar or diadem, or short-horned cow or mare.
There is no command of the Lord to the effect that one aspect only
should belong to each thing, non-difference to what is non-different,
and difference to what is different.--But one aspect only belongs to
each thing, because it is thus that things are perceived!--On the
contrary, we reply, things have twofold aspects, just because it is _thus_
that they are perceived. No man, however wide he may open his eyes, is
able to distinguish in an object--e.g. a jar or a cow--placed before him
which part is the clay and which the jar, or which part is the generic
character of the cow and which the individual cow. On the contrary, his
thought finds its true expression in the following judgments: 'this jar
is clay'; 'this cow is short-horned.' Nor can it be maintained that he
makes a distinction between the cause and genus as objects of the idea
of persistence, and the effect and individual as objects of the idea of
discontinuance (difference); for as a matter of fact there is no
perception of these two elements in separation. A man may look ever so
close at a thing placed before him, he--will not be able to perceive a
difference of aspect and to point out 'this is the persisting, general,
element in the thing, and that the non-persistent, individual, element.'
Just as an effect and an individual give rise to the idea of one thing,
so the effect plus cause, and the individual _plus_ generic character,
also give rise to the idea of one thing only. This very circumstance
makes it possible for us to recognise each individual thing, placed as
it is among a multitude of things differing in place, time, and
character.--Each thing thus being cognised as endowed with a twofold
aspect, the theory of cause and effect, and generic character and
individual, being absolutely different, is clearly refuted by perception.
But, an objection is raised, if on account of grammatical co-ordination
and the resulting idea of oneness, the judgment 'this pot is clay' is
taken to express the relation of difference, _plus_ non-difference, we
shall have analogously to infer from judgments such as 'I am a man', 'I
am a divine being' that the Self and the body also stand in the
bhedâbheda-relation; the theory of the co-existence of difference and
non-difference will thus act like a fire which a man has lit on his
hearth, and which in the end consumes the entire house!--This, we reply,
is the baseless idea of a person who has not duly considered the true
nature of co-ordination as establishing the bhedâbheda-relation. The
correct principle is that all reality is determined by states of
consciousness not sublated by valid means of proof. The imagination,
however, of the identity of the Self and the body is sublated by all the
means of proof which apply to the Self: it is in fact no more valid than
the imagination of the snake in the rope, and does not therefore prove
the non-difference of the two. The co-ordination, on the other hand,
which is expressed in the judgment 'the cow is short-horned' is never
observed to be refuted in any way, and hence establishes the bhedâbheda-
relation.
For the same reasons the individual soul (jîva) is not absolutely
different from Brahman, but stands to it in the bhedâbheda-relation in
so far as it is a part (amsa) of Brahman. Its non-difference from
Brahman is essential (svâbhâvika); its difference is due to limiting
adjuncts (aupâdhika). This we know, in the first place, from those
scriptural texts which declare non-difference--such as 'Thou art that'
(Ch. Up. VI); 'There is no other seer but he' (Bri. Up. III, 7, 23);
'This Self is Brahman' (Bri. Up. II, 5, 19); and the passage from the
Brahmasûkta in the Samhitopanishad of the Âtharvanas which, after having
said that Brahman is Heaven and Earth, continues, 'The fishermen are
Brahman, the slaves are Brahman, Brahman are these gamblers; man and
woman are born from Brahman; women are Brahman and so are men.' And, in
the second place, from those texts which declare difference: 'He who,
one, eternal, intelligent, fulfils the desires of many non-eternal
intelligent beings' (Ka. Up. II, 5, 13); 'There are two unborn, one
knowing, the other not-knowing; one strong, the other weak' (Svet. Up. I,
9); 'Being the cause of their connexion with him, through the qualities
of action and the qualities of the Self, he is seen as another' (Svet.
Up. V, 12); 'The Lord of nature and the souls, the ruler of the
qualities, the cause of the bondage, the existence and the release of
the samsâra' (Svet. Up. VI, 16); 'He is the cause, the lord of the lords
of the organs' (Svet. Up. VI, 9); 'One of the two eats the sweet fruit,
without eating the other looks on' (Svet. Up. IV, 6); 'He who dwelling
in the Self (Bri. Up. III, 7, 22); 'Embraced by the intelligent Self he
knows nothing that is without, nothing that is within' (Bri. Up. IV, 3,
21); 'Mounted by the intelligent Self he goes groaning' (Bri. Up. IV, 3,
35); 'Having known him he passes beyond death' (Svet. Up. III, 8).--On
the ground of these two sets of passages the individual and the highest
Self must needs be assumed to stand in the bhedâbheda-relation. And
texts such as 'He knows Brahman, he becomes Brahman' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 9),
which teach that in the state of Release the individual soul enters into
Brahman itself; and again texts such as 'But when the Self has become
all for him, whereby should he see another' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 13), which
forbid us to view, in the state of Release, the Lord as something
different (from the individual soul), show that non-difference is
essential (while difference is merely aupâdhika).
But, an objection is raised, the text 'He reaches all desires together
in the wise Brahman,' in using the word 'together' shows that even in
the state of Release the soul is different from Brahman, and the same
view is expressed in two of the Sûtras, viz. IV, 4, 17; 21.--This is not
so, we reply; for the text, 'There is no other seer but he' (Bri. Up.
III, 7, 23), and many similar texts distinctly negative all plurality in
the Self. The Taittirîya-text quoted by you means that man reaches
Brahman with all desires, i.e. Brahman comprising within itself all
objects of desire; if it were understood differently, it would follow
that Brahman holds a subordinate position only. And if the Sûtra IV, 4,
17 meant that the released soul is separate from Brahman it would follow
that it is deficient in lordly power; and if this were so the Sûtra
would be in conflict with other Sûtras such as IV, 4, 1.--For these
reasons, non-difference is the essential condition; while the
distinction of the souls from Brahman and from each other is due to
their limiting adjuncts, i.e. the internal organ, the sense-organs, and
the body. Brahman indeed is without parts and omnipresent; but through
its adjuncts it becomes capable of division just as ether is divided by
jars and the like. Nor must it be said that this leads to a
reprehensible mutual dependence--Brahman in so far as divided entering
into conjunction with its adjuncts, and again the division in Brahman
being caused by its conjunction with its adjuncts; for these adjuncts
and Brahman's connexion with them are due to action (karman), and the
stream of action is without a beginning. The limiting adjuncts to which
a soul is joined spring from the soul as connected with previous works,
and work again springs from the soul as joined to its adjuncts: and as
this connexion with works and adjuncts is without a beginning in time,
no fault can be found with our theory.--The non-difference of the souls
from each other and Brahman is thus essential, while their difference is
due to the Upâdhis. These Upâdhis, on the other hand, are at the same
time essentially non-distinct and essentially distinct from each other
and Brahman; for there are no other Upâdhis (to account for their
distinction if non-essential), and if we admitted such, we should again
have to assume further Upâdhis, and so on _in infinitum_. We therefore
hold that the Upâdhis are produced, in accordance with the actions of
the individual souls, as essentially non-different and different from
Brahman.
To this bhedâbheda view the Pûrvapakshin now objects on the following
grounds:--The whole aggregate of Vedânta-texts aims at enjoining
meditation on a non-dual Brahman whose essence is reality, intelligence,
and bliss, and thus sets forth the view of non-difference; while on the
other hand the karma-section of the Veda, and likewise perception and
the other means of knowledge, intimate the view of the difference of
things. Now, as difference and non-difference are contradictory, and as
the view of difference may be accounted for as resting on beginningless
Nescience, we conclude that universal non-difference is what is real.--
The tenet that difference and non-difference are not contradictory
because both are proved by our consciousness, cannot be upheld. If one
thing has different characteristics from another there is distinction
(bheda) of the two; the contrary condition of things constitutes non-
distinction (abheda); who in his senses then would maintain that these
two-suchness and non-suchness--can be found together? You have
maintained that non-difference belongs to a thing viewed as cause and
genus, and difference to the same viewed as effect and individual; and
that, owing to this twofold aspect of things, non-difference and
difference are not irreconcileable. But that this view also is untenable,
a presentation of the question in definite alternatives will show. Do
you mean to say that the difference lies in one aspect of the thing and
the non-difference in the other? or that difference _and_ non-difference
belong to the thing possessing two aspects?--On the former alternative
the difference belongs to the individual and the non-difference to the
genus; and this implies that there is no one thing with a double aspect.
And should you say that the genus and individual together constitute one
thing only, you abandon the view that it is difference of aspect which
takes away the contradictoriness of difference and non-difference. We
have moreover remarked already that difference in characteristics and
its opposite are absolutely contradictory.--On the second alternative we
have two aspects of different kind and an unknown thing supposed to be
the substrate of those aspects; but this assumption of a triad of
entities proves only their mutual difference of character, not their non-
difference. Should you say that the non-contradictoriness of two aspects
constitutes simultaneous difference and non-difference in the thing
which is their substrate, we ask in return--How can two aspects which
have a thing for their substrate, and thus are different from the thing,
introduce into that thing a combination of two contradictory attributes
(viz. difference and non-difference)? And much less even are they able
to do so if they are viewed as non-different from the thing which is
their substrate. If, moreover, the two aspects on the one hand, and the
thing in which they inhere on the other, be admitted to be distinct
entities, there will be required a further factor to bring about their
difference and non-difference, and we shall thus be led into a _regressus
in infinitum._--Nor is it a fact that the idea of a thing inclusive of
its generic character bears the character of unity, in the same way as
the admittedly uniform idea of an individual; for wherever a state of
consciousness expresses itself in the form 'this is such and such' it
implies the distinction of an attribute or mode, and that to which the
attribute or mode belongs. In the case under discussion the genus
constitutes the mode, and the individual that to which the mode belongs:
the idea does not therefore possess the character of unity.
For these very reasons the individual soul cannot stand to Brahman in
the bhedâbheda-relation. And as the view of non-difference is founded on
Scripture, we assume that the view of difference rests on beginningless
Nescience.--But on this view want of knowledge and all the imperfections
springing therefrom, such as birth, death, &c., would cling to Brahman
itself, and this would contradict scriptural texts such as 'He who is
all-knowing' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 9); 'That Self free from all evil' (Ch. Up.
VIII, 1, 5). Not so, we reply. For all those imperfections we consider
to be unreal. On your view on the other hand, which admits nothing but
Brahman and its limiting adjuncts, all the imperfections which spring
from contact with those adjuncts must really belong to Brahman. For as
Brahman is without parts, indivisible, the upâdhis cannot divide or
split it so as to connect themselves with a part only; but necessarily
connect themselves with Brahman itself and produce their effects on it.--
Here the following explanation may possibly be attempted. Brahman
determined by an upâdhi constitutes the individual soul. This soul is of
atomic size since what determines it, viz. the internal organ, is itself
of atomic size; and the limitation itself is without beginning. All the
imperfections therefore connect themselves only with that special place
that is determined by the upâdhi, and do not affect the highest Brahman
which is not limited by the upâdhi.--In reply to this we ask--Do you
mean to say that what constitutes the atomic individual soul is a part
of Brahman which is limited and cut off by the limiting adjunct; or some
particular part of Brahman which, without being thereby divided off, is
connected with an atomic upâdhi; or Brahman in its totality as connected
with an upâdhi; or some other intelligent being connected with an upâdhi,
or finally the upâdhi itself?--The first alternative is not possible,
because Brahman cannot be divided; it would moreover imply that the
individual soul has a beginning, for division means the making of one
thing into two.--On the second alternative it would follow that, as a
part of Brahman would be connected with the upâdhi, all the
imperfections due to the upâdhis would adhere to that part. And further,
if the upâdhi would not possess the power of attracting to itself the
particular part of Brahman with which it is connected, it would follow
that when the upâdhi moves the part with, which it is connected would
constantly change; in other words, bondage and release would take place
at every moment. If, on the contrary, the upâdhi possessed the power of
attraction, the whole Brahman--as not being capable of division--would
be attracted and move with the upâdhi. And should it be said that what
is all-pervading and without parts cannot be attracted and move, well
then the upâdhi only moves, and we are again met by the difficulties
stated above. Moreover, if all the upâdhis were connected with the parts
of Brahman viewed as one and undivided, all individual souls, being
nothing but parts of Brahman, would be considered as non-distinct. And
should it be said that they are not thus cognised as one because they
are constituted by different parts of Brahman, it would follow that as
soon as the upâdhi of one individual soul is moving, the identity of
that soul would be lost (for it would, in successive moments, be
constituted by different parts of Brahman).--On the third alternative
(the whole of) Brahman itself being connected with the upâdhi enters
into the condition of individual soul, and there remains no non-
conditioned Brahman. And, moreover, the soul in all bodies will then be
one only.--On the fourth alternative the individual soul is something
altogether different from Brahman, and the difference of the soul from
Brahman thus ceases to depend on the upâdhis of Brahman.--And the fifth
alternative means the embracing of the view of the Kârvâka (who makes no
distinction between soul and matter).--The conclusion from all this is
that on the strength of the texts declaring non-difference we must admit
that all difference is based on Nescience only. Hence, Scripture being
an authoritative instrument of knowledge in so far only as it has for
its end action and the cessation of action, the Vedânta-texts must be
allowed to be a valid means of knowledge with regard to Brahman's nature,
in so far as they stand in a supplementary relation to the injunctions
of meditation.
This view is finally combated by the Mîmâmsaka. Even if, he says, we
allow the Vedânta-texts to have a purport in so far as they are
supplementary to injunctions of meditation, they cannot be viewed as
valid means of knowledge with regard to Brahman. Do the texts referring
to Brahman, we ask, occupy the position of valid means of knowledge in
so far as they form a syntactic whole with the injunctions of meditation,
or as independent sentences? In the former case the purport of the
syntactic whole is simply to enjoin meditation, and it cannot therefore
aim at giving instruction about Brahman. If, on the other hand, the
texts about Brahman are separate independent sentences, they cannot have
the purport of prompting to action and are therefore devoid of
instructive power. Nor must it be said that meditation is a kind of
continued remembrance, and as such requires to be defined by the object
remembered; and that the demand of the injunction of meditation for
something to be remembered is satisfied by texts such as 'All this is
that Self', 'the True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman,' &c., which set
forth the nature and attributes of Brahman and--forming a syntactic
whole with the injunctions--are a valid means of knowledge with regard
to the existence of the matter they convey. For the fact is that the
demand on the part of an injunction of meditation for an object to be
remembered may be satisfied even by something unreal (not true), as in
the case of injunctions such as 'Let him meditate upon mind as Brahman'
(Ch. Up. III, 18, 1): the real existence of the object of meditation is
therefore not demanded.--The final conclusion arrived at in this
pûrvapaksha is therefore as follows. As the Vedânta-texts do not aim at
prompting to action or the cessation of action; as, even on the
supposition of their being supplementary to injunctions of meditation,
the only thing they effect is to set forth the nature of the object of
meditation; and as, even if they are viewed as independent sentences,
they accomplish the end of man (i.e. please, gratify) by knowledge
merely--being thus comparable to tales with which we soothe children or
sick persons; it does not lie within their province to establish the
reality of an accomplished thing, and hence Scripture cannot be viewed
as a valid means for the cognition of Brahman.
To this primâ facie view the Sûtrakâra replies, 'But this on account of
connexion.' 'Connexion' is here to be taken in an eminent sense, as
'connexion with the end of man.' That Brahman, which is measureless
bliss and therefore constitutes the highest end of man, is connected
with the texts as the topic set forth by them, proves Scripture to be a
valid means for the cognition of Brahman. To maintain that the whole
body of Vedânta-texts-which teach us that Brahman is the highest object
to be attained, since it consists of supreme bliss free of all blemish
whatsoever--is devoid of all use and purpose merely because it does not
aim at action or the cessation of action; is no better than to say that
a youth of royal descent is of no use because he does not belong to a
community of low wretches living on the flesh of dogs!
The relation of the different texts is as follows. There are individual
souls of numberless kinds-gods, Asuras, Gandharvas, Siddhas, Vidyâdharas,
Kinnaras, Kimpurushas, Yakshas, Râkshasas, Pisâkas, men, beasts, birds,
creeping animals, trees, bushes, creepers, grasses and so on--
distinguished as male, female, or sexless, and having different sources
of nourishment and support and different objects of enjoyment. Now all
these souls are deficient in insight into the true nature of the highest
reality, their understandings being obscured by Nescience operating in
the form of beginningless karman; and hence those texts only are fully
useful to them which teach that there exists a highest Brahman--which
the souls in the state of release may cognise as non-different from
themselves, and which then, through its own essential nature, qualities,
power and energies, imparts to those souls bliss infinite and
unsurpassable. When now the question arises--as it must arise--, as to
how this Brahman is to be attained, there step in certain other Vedânta-
texts--such as He who knows Brahman reaches the highest' (Bri. Up. II, 1,
1), and 'Let a man meditate on the Self as his world' (Bri. Up. 1, 4,
15)--and, by means of terms denoting 'knowing' and so on, enjoin
meditation as the means of attaining Brahman. (We may illustrate this
relation existing between the texts setting forth the nature of Brahman
and those enjoining meditation by two comparisons.) The case is like
that of a man who has been told 'There is a treasure hidden in your
house'. He learns through this sentence the existence of the treasure,
is satisfied, and then takes active steps to find it and make it his own.--
Or take the case of a young prince who, intent on some boyish play,
leaves his father's palace and, losing his way, does not return. The
king thinks his son is lost; the boy himself is received by some good
Brahman who brings him up and teaches him without knowing who the boy's
father is. When the boy has reached his sixteenth year and is
accomplished in every way, some fully trustworthy person tells him,
'Your father is the ruler of all these lands, famous for the possession
of all noble qualities, wisdom, generosity, kindness, courage, valour
and so on, and he stays in his capital, longing to see you, his lost
child. Hearing that his father is alive and a man so high and noble, the
boy's heart is filled with supreme joy; and the king also, understanding
that his son is alive, in good health, handsome and well instructed,
considers himself to have attained all a man can wish for. He then takes
steps to recover his son, and finally the two are reunited.
The assertion again that a statement referring to some accomplished
thing gratifies men merely by imparting a knowledge of the thing,
without being a means of knowledge with regard to its real existence--so
that it would be comparable to the tales we tell to children and sick
people--, can in no way be upheld. When it is ascertained that a thing
has no real existence, the mere knowledge or idea of the thing does not
gratify. The pleasure which stories give to children and sick people is
due to the fact that they erroneously believe them to be true; if they
were to find out that the matter present to their thought is untrue
their pleasure would come to an end that very moment. And thus in the
case of the texts of the Upanishads also. If we thought that these texts
do not mean to intimate the real existence of Brahman, the mere idea of
Brahman to which they give rise would not satisfy us in any way.
The conclusion therefore is that texts such as 'That from whence these
beings are born' &c. do convey valid instruction as to the existence of
Brahman, i.e. that being which is the sole cause of the world, is free
from all shadow of imperfection, comprises within itself all auspicious
qualities, such as omniscience and so on, and is of the nature of
supreme bliss.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'connexion'.
5. On account of seeing (i.e. thinking) that which is not founded on
Scripture (i.e. the Pradhâna) is not (what is taught by the texts
referring to the origination of the world).
We have maintained that what is taught by the texts relative to the
origination of the world is Brahman, omniscient, and so on. The present
Sûtra and the following Sûtras now add that those texts can in no way
refer to the Pradhâna and similar entities which rest on Inference only.
We read in the Chândogya, 'Being only was this in the beginning, one
only, without a second.--It thought, may I be many, may I grow forth.--
It sent forth fire' (VI, 2, 1 ff.)--Here a doubt arises whether the
cause of the world denoted by the term 'Being' is the Pradhâna. assumed
by others, which rests on Inference, or Brahman as defined by us.
The Pûrvapakshin maintains that the Pradhâna is meant. For he says, the
Chândogya text quoted expresses the causal state of what is denoted by
the word 'this', viz. the aggregate of things comprising manifold
effects, such as ether, &c., consisting of the three elements of
Goodness, Passion and Darkness, and forming the sphere of fruition of
intelligent beings. By the 'effected' state we understand the assuming,
on the part of the causal substance, of a different condition; whatever
therefore constitutes the essential nature of a thing in its effected
state the same constitutes its essential nature in the causal state also.
Now the effect, in our case, is made up of the three elements Goodness,
Passion and Darkness; hence the cause is the Pradhâna which consists in
an equipoise of those three elements. And as in this Pradhâna all
distinctions are merged, so that it is pure Being, the Chândogya text
refers to it as 'Being, one only, without a second.' This establishes
the non-difference of effect and cause, and in this way the promise that
through the knowledge of one thing all things are to be known admits of
being fulfilled. Otherwise, moreover, there would be no analogy between
the instance of the lump of clay and the things made of it, and the
matter to be illustrated thereby. The texts speaking of the origination
of the world therefore intimate the Pradhâna taught by the great Sage
Kapila. And as the Chândogya passage has, owing to the presence of an
initial statement (pratijñâ) and a proving instance, the form of an
inference, the term 'Being' means just that which rests on inference,
viz. the Pradhâna.
This primâ facie view is set aside by the words of the Sûtra. That which
does not rest on Scripture, i.e. the Pradhâna, which rests on Inference
only, is not what is intimated by the texts referring to the origination
of the world; for the text exhibits the root 'îksh'--which means 'to
think'--as denoting a special activity on the part of what is termed
'Being.' 'It thought, may I be many, may I grow forth.' 'Thinking'
cannot possibly belong to the non-sentient Pradhâna: the term 'Being'
can therefore denote only the all-knowing highest Person who is capable
of thought. In agreement with this we find that, in all sections which
refer to creation, the act of creation is stated to be preceded by
thought. 'He thought, shall I send forth worlds. He sent forth these
worlds' (Ait. Âr. II, 4, 1, 2); 'He thought he sent forth Prâna' (Pr. Up.
VI, 3); and others.--But it is a rule that as a cause we must assume
only what corresponds to the effect!--Just so; and what corresponds to
the total aggregate of effects is the highest Person, all-knowing, all-
powerful, whose purposes realise themselves, who has minds and matter in
their subtle state for his body. Compare the texts 'His high power is
revealed as manifold, as inherent, acting as force and knowledge' (Svet.
Up. VI, 8); 'He who is all-knowing, all-perceiving' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 9);
'He of whom the Unevolved is the body, of whom the Imperishable is the
body, of whom Death is the body, he is the inner Self of all things'
(Subâl. Up. VII).--This point (viz. as to the body of the highest
Person) will be established under Sû. II, 1, 4. The present Sûtra
declares that the texts treating of creation cannot refer to the
Pradhâna; the Sûtra just mentioned will dispose of objections. Nor is
the Pûrvapakshin right in maintaining that the Chândogya passage is of
the nature of an Inference; for it does not state a reason (hetu--which
is the essential thing in an Inference). The illustrative instance (of
the lump of clay) is introduced merely in order to convince him who
considers it impossible that all things should be known through one
thing--as maintained in the passage 'through which that is heard which
was not heard,' &c.,--that this _is_ possible after all. And the mention
made in the text of 'seeing' clearly shows that there is absolutely no
intention of setting forth an Inference.
Let us assume, then, the Pûrvapakshin resumes, that the 'seeing' of the
text denotes not 'seeing' in its primary, direct sense--such as belongs
to intelligent beings only; but 'seeing' in a secondary, figurative
sense which there is ascribed to the Pradhâna in the same way as in
passages immediately following it is ascribed to fire and water--'the
fire saw'; 'the water saw' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 3). The transference, to non-
existent things, of attributes properly belonging to sentient beings is
quite common; as when we say 'the rice-fields look out for rain'; 'the
rain delighted the seeds.'--This view is set aside by the next Sûtra.
6. If it be said that (the word 'seeing') has a secondary (figurative)
meaning; we deny this, on account of the word 'Self' (being applied to
the cause of the world).
The contention that, because, in passages standing close by, the word
'seeing' is used in a secondary sense, the 'seeing' predicated of the
Sat ('Being') is also to be taken in a secondary sense, viz. as denoting
(not real thought but) a certain condition previous to creation, cannot
be upheld; for in other texts met with in the same section (viz. 'All
this has that for its Self; that is the True, that is the Self', Ch. Up.
VI, 8, 7), that which first had been spoken of as Sat is called the
'Self'. The designation 'Self' which in this passage is applied to the
Sat in its relation to the entire world, sentient or non-sentient, is in
no way appropriate to the Pradhâna. We therefore conclude that, as the
highest Self is the Self of fire, water, and earth also, the words fire,
&c. (in the passages stating that fire, &c. thought) denote the highest
Self only. This conclusion agrees with the text 'Let me enter into these
three beings with this living Self, and evolve names and forms', for
this text implies that fire, water, &c. possess substantial being and
definite names only through the highest Self having entered into them.
The thought ascribed in the text to fire, water, &c. hence is thought in
the proper sense, and the hypothesis that, owing to its connexion with
these latter texts, the thought predicated of 'Being' ('it thought,' &c.
) should be thought in a figurative sense only thus lapses altogether.
The next following Sûtra confirms the same view.