The text of the same Upanishad directly declares that the being denoted
by the word 'Sat' evolves, as the universal Self, names and forms; is
all-knowing, all-powerful, all-embracing; is free from all evil, &c.;
realises all its wishes and purposes. 'Let me, entering those beings
with this living; Self, evolve names and forms' (Ch. Up. VI, 3, 2); 'All
these creatures have their root in the Sat, they dwell in the Sat, they
rest in the Sat' (VI, 8, 4); 'All this has that for its Self; it is the
True, it is the Self (VI, 8, 7); 'Whatever there is of him here in the
world, and whatever is not, all that is contained within it' (VIII, 1,
3); 'In it all desires are contained. It is the Self free from sin, free
from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, whose wishes
come true, whose purposes come true' (VIII, 1, 5).--And analogously
other scriptural texts, 'Of him there is no master in the world, no
ruler; not even a sign of him. He is the cause, the lord of the lords of
the organs, and there is of him neither parent nor lord' (Svet. Up. VI,
9). 'The wise one who, having created all forms and having given them
names, is calling them by those names' (Taitt. Ar. III, 12, 7); 'He who
entered within is the ruler of all beings, the Self of all' (Taitt. Ar.
III, 24); 'The Self of all, the refuge, the ruler of all, the Lord of
the souls' (Mahânâr. Up. XI); 'Whatsoever is seen or heard in this world,
inside or outside, pervading that all Nârâyana abides' (Mahânâr. Up. XI);
'He is the inner Self of all beings, free from all evil, the divine, the
only god Nârâyana.'--These and other texts which declare the world to
have sprung from the highest Lord, can in no way be taken as
establishing the Pradhâna. Hence it remains a settled conclusion that
the highest Person, Nârâyana, free from all shadow of imperfection, &c.,
is the single cause of the whole Universe, and is that Brahman which
these Sûtras point out as the object of enquiry.
For the same reasons the theory of a Brahman, which is nothing but non-
differenced intelligence, must also be considered as refuted by the
Sûtrakâra, with the help of the scriptural texts quoted; for those texts
prove that the Brahman, which forms the object of enquiry, possesses
attributes such as thinking, and so on, in their real literal sense. On
the theory, on the other hand, of a Brahman that is nothing but
distinctionless intelligence even the witnessing function of
consciousness would be unreal. The Sûtras propose as the object of
enquiry Brahman as known from the Vedânta-texts, and thereupon teach
that Brahman is intelligent (Sû. I, 1, 5 ff.) To be intelligent means to
possess the quality of intelligence: a being devoid of the quality of
thought would not differ in nature from the Pradhâna. Further, on the
theory of Brahman being mere non-differenced light it would be difficult
to prove that Brahman is self-luminous. For by light we understand that
particular thing which renders itself, as well as other things, capable
of becoming the object of ordinary thought and speech; but as a thing
devoid of all difference does not, of course, possess these two
characteristics it follows that it is as devoid of intelligence as a pot
may be.--Let it then be assumed that although a thing devoid of all
distinction does not actually possess these characteristics, yet it has
the potentiality of possessing them!--But if it possesses the attribute
of potentiality, it is clear that you abandon your entire theory of a
substance devoid of all distinction!--Let us then admit, on the
authority of Scripture, that the universal substance possesses this one
distinguishing attribute of self-luminousness.--Well, in that case you
must of course admit, on the same authority, all those other qualities
also which Scripture vouches for, such as all-knowingness, the
possession of all powers, and so on.--Moreover, potentiality means
capability to produce certain special effects, and hence can be
determined on the ground of those special effects only. But if there are
no means of knowing these particular effects, there are also no means of
cognising potentiality.--And those who hold the theory of a substance
devoid of all difference, have not even means of proof for their
substance; for as we have shown before, Perception, Inference, Scripture,
and one's own consciousness, are all alike in so far as having for their
objects things marked by difference.--It therefore remains a settled
conclusion that the Brahman to be known is nothing else but the highest
Person capable of the thought 'of becoming many' by manifesting himself
in a world comprising manifold sentient and non-sentient creatures.--
Here terminates the adhikarana of 'seeing'.
So far the Sûtras have declared that the Brahman which forms the object
of enquiry is different from the non-intelligent Pradhâna, which is
merely an object of fruition for intelligent beings. They now proceed to
show that Brahman--which is antagonistic to all evil and constituted by
supreme bliss--is different from the individual soul, which is subject
to karman, whether that soul be in its purified state or in the impure
state that is due to its immersion in the ocean of manifold and endless
sufferings, springing from the soul's contact with Prakriti (Pradhâna).
13. The Self consisting of Bliss (is the highest Self) on account of
multiplication.
We read in the text of the Taittirîyas, 'Different from this Self, which
consists of Understanding, is the other inner Self which consists of
bliss' (Taitt. Up. II, 5).--Here the doubt arises whether the Self
consisting of bliss be the highest Self, which is different from the
inner Self subject to bondage and release, and termed 'jîva.' (i.e.
living self or individual soul), or whether it be that very inner Self,
i.e. the jîva.--It _is_ that inner Self, the Pûrvapakshin contends. For
the text says 'of that this, i.e. the Self consisting of bliss, is the
sârîra Self'; and sârîra means that which is joined to a body, in other
words, the so-called jîva.--But, an objection is raised, the text
enumerates the different Selfs, beginning with the Self consisting of
bliss, to the end that man may obtain the bliss of Brahman, which was,
at the outset, stated to be the cause of the world (II, 1), and in the
end teaches that the Self consisting of bliss is the cause of the world
(II, 6). And that the cause of the world is the all-knowing Lord, since
Scripture says of him that 'he thought,' we have already explained.--
That cause of the world, the Pûrvapakshin rejoins, is not different from
the jîva; for in the text of the Chândogyas that Being which first is
described as the creator of the world is exhibited, in two passages, in
co-ordination with the jîva ('having entered into them with that living
Self' and 'Thou art that, O Svetaketu'). And the purport of co-
ordination is to express oneness of being, as when we say, 'This person
here is that Devadatta we knew before.' And creation preceded by thought
can very well be ascribed to an intelligent jîva. The connexion of the
whole Taittirîya-text then is as follows. In the introductory clause,
'He who knows Brahman attains the Highest,' the true nature of the jîva,
free from all connexion with matter, is referred to as something to be
attained; and of this nature a definition is given in the words, 'The
True, knowledge, the Infinite is Brahman.' The attainment of the jîva in
this form is what constitutes Release, in agreement with the text, 'So
long as he is in the body he cannot get free from pleasure and pain; but
when he is free from the body then neither pleasure nor pain touches
him' (Ch. Up. VIII, 12, 1). This true nature of the Self, free from all
avidyâ, which the text begins by presenting as an object to be attained,
is thereupon declared to be the Self consisting of bliss. In order to
lead up to this--just as a man points out to another the moon by first
pointing out the branch of a tree near which the moon is to be seen--the
text at first refers to the body ('Man consists of food'); next to the
vital breath with its five modifications which is within the body and
supports it; then to the manas within the vital breath; then to the
buddhi within the manas--'the Self consisting of breath'; 'the Self
consisting of mind' (manas); 'the Self consisting of understanding'
(vijñâna). Having thus gradually led up to the jîva, the text finally
points out the latter, which is the innermost of all ('Different from
that is the inner Self which consists of bliss'), and thus completes the
series of Selfs one inside the other. We hence conclude that the Self
consisting of bliss is that same jîva-self which was at the outset
pointed out as the Brahman to be attained.--But the clause immediately
following, 'Brahman is the tail, the support (of the Self of bliss'),
indicates that Brahman is something different from the Self of bliss!--
By no means (the Pûrvapakshin rejoins). Brahman is, owing to its
different characteristics, there compared to an animal body, and head,
wings, and tail are ascribed to it, just as in a preceding clause the
body consisting of food had also been imagined as having head, wings,
and tail--these members not being something different from the body, but
the body itself. Joy, satisfaction, great satisfaction, bliss, are
imagined as the members, non-different from it, of Brahman consisting of
bliss, and of them all the unmixed bliss-constituted Brahman is said to
be the tail or support. If Brahman were something different from the
Self consisting of bliss, the text would have continued, 'Different from
this Self consisting of bliss is the other inner Self--Brahman.' But
there is no such continuation. The connexion of the different clauses
stands as follows: After Brahman has been introduced as the topic of the
section ('He who knows Brahman attains the Highest'), and defined as
different in nature from everything else ('The True, knowledge'), the
text designates it by the term 'Self,' &c. ('From that Self sprang
ether'), and then, in order to make it clear that Brahman is the
innermost Self of all, enumerates the pranamaya and so on--designating
them in succession as more and more inward Selfs--, and finally leads up
to the ânandamaya as the innermost Self('Different from this, &c., is the
Self consisting of bliss'). From all which it appears that the term
'Self' up to the end denotes the Brahman mentioned at the beginning.--
But, in immediate continuation of the clause, 'Brahman is the tail, the
support,' the text exhibits the following sloka: 'Non-existing becomes
he who views Brahman as non-existing; who knows Brahman as existing, him
we know as himself existing.' Here the existence and non-existence of
the Self are declared to depend on the knowledge and non-knowledge of
Brahman, not of the Self consisting of bliss. Now no doubt can possibly
arise as to the existence or non-existence of this latter Self, which,
in the form of joy, satisfaction, &c., is known to every one. Hence the
sloka cannot refer to that Self, and hence Brahman is different from
that Self.--This objection, the Pûrvapakshin rejoins, is unfounded. In
the earlier parts of the chapter we have corresponding slokas, each of
them following on a preceding clause that refers to the tail or support
of a particular Self: in the case, e.g. of the Self consisting of food,
we read, 'This is the tail, the support,' and then comes the sloka,
'From food are produced all creatures,' &c. Now it is evident that all
these slokas are meant to set forth not only what had been called 'tail,'
but the entire Self concerned (Self of food, Self of breath, &c.); and
from this it follows that also the sloka, 'Non-existing becomes he,'
does not refer to the 'tail' only as something other than the Self of
bliss, but to the entire Self of bliss. And there may very well be a
doubt with regard to the knowledge or non-knowledge of the existence of
that Self consisting of unlimited bliss. On your view also the
circumstance of Brahman which forms the tail not being known is due to
its being of the nature of limitless bliss. And should it be said that
the Self of bliss cannot be Brahman because Brahman does not possess a
head and other members; the answer is that Brahman also does not possess
the quality of being a tail or support, and that hence Brahman cannot be
a tail.--Let it then be said that the expression, 'Brahman is the tail,'
is merely figurative, in so far as Brahman is the substrate of all
things imagined through avidyâ!--But, the Pûrvapakshin rejoins, we may
as well assume that the ascription to Brahman of joy, as its head and so
on, is also merely figurative, meant to illustrate the nature of Brahman,
i.e. the Self of bliss as free from all pain. To speak of Brahman or the
Self as consisting of bliss has thus the purpose of separating from all
pain and grief that which in a preceding clause ('The True, knowledge,
the Infinite is Brahman') had already been separated from all changeful
material things. As applied to Brahman (or the Self), whose nature is
nothing but absolute bliss, the term 'ânandamaya' therefore has to be
interpreted as meaning nothing more than 'ânanda'; just as prânamaya
means prâna.
The outcome of all this is that the term 'ânandamaya' denotes the true
essential nature--which is nothing but absolute uniform bliss--of the
jiva that appears as distinguished by all the manifold individualising
forms which are the figments of Nescience. The Self of bliss is the jîva
or pratyag-âtman, i.e. the individual soul.
Against this primâ facie view the Sûtrakâra contends that the Self
consisting of bliss is the highest Self 'on account of multiplication.'--
The section which begins with the words,'This is an examination of bliss,'
and terminates with the sloka, 'from whence all speech turns back'
(Taitt. Up. II, 8), arrives at bliss, supreme and not to be surpassed,
by successively multiplying inferior stages of bliss by a hundred; now
such supreme bliss cannot possibly belong to the individual soul which
enjoys only a small share of very limited happiness, mixed with endless
pain and grief; and therefore clearly indicates, as its abode, the
highest Self, which differs from all other Selfs in so far as being
radically opposed to all evil and of an unmixed blessed nature. The text
says, 'Different from this Self consisting of understanding (vijñâna)
there is the inner Self consisting of bliss'. Now that which consists of
understanding (vijñâna) is the individual soul (jîva), not the internal
organ (buddhi) only; for the formative element, 'maya,' ('consisting of';
in vijñânamaya) indicates a difference (between vijñâna and vijñânamaya).
The term 'prâna-maya' ('consisting of breath') we explain to mean
'prâna' only, because no other explanation is possible; but as
vijñânamaya may be explained as,--jîva, we have no right to neglect
'maya' as unmeaning. And this interpretation is quite suitable, as the
soul in the states of bondage and release alike is a 'knowing' subject.
That moreover even in 'prânamaya', and so on, the affix 'maya' may be
taken as having a meaning will be shown further on.--But how is it then
that in the sloka which refers to the vijñânamaya, 'Understanding
(vijñâna) performs the sacrifice', the term 'vijñâna' only is used?--The
essential nature, we reply, of the knowing subject is suitably called
'knowledge', and this term is transferred to the knowing subject itself
which is defined as possessing that nature. For we generally see that
words which denote attributes defining the essential nature of a thing
also convey the notion of the essential nature of the thing itself. This
also accounts for the fact that the sloka ('Vijñâna performs the
sacrifice, it performs all sacred acts') speaks of vijñâna as being the
agent in sacrifices and so on; the buddhi alone could not be called an
agent. For this reason the text does not ascribe agency to the other
Selfs (the prânamaya and so on) which are mentioned before the
vijñânamaya; for they are non-intelligent instruments of intelligence,
and the latter only can be an agent. With the same view the text further
on (II, 6), distinguishing the intelligent and the non-intelligent by
means of their different characteristic attributes, says in the end
'knowledge and non-knowledge,' meaning thereby that which possesses the
attribute of knowledge and that which does not. An analogous case is met
with in the so-called antaryâmi-brâhmana (Bri. Up. III. 7). There the
Kânvas read, 'He who dwells in knowledge' (vijñâna; III, 7, 16), but
instead of this the Mâdhyandinas read 'he who dwells in the Self,' and
so make clear that what the Kânvas designate as 'knowledge' really is
the knowing Self.--That the word vijñâna, although denoting the knowing
Self, yet has a neuter termination, is meant to denote it as something
substantial. We hence conclude that he who is different from the Self
consisting of knowledge, i.e. the individual Self, is the highest Self
which consists of bliss.
It is true indeed that the sloka, 'Knowledge performs the sacrifice,
'directly mentions knowledge only, not the knowing Self; all the same we
have to understand that what is meant is the latter, who is referred to
in the clause, 'different from this is the inner Self which consists of
knowledge.' This conclusion is supported by the sloka referring to the
Self which consists of food (II, 2); for that sloka refers to food only,
'From food are produced all creatures,' &c., all the same the preceding
clause 'this man consists of the essence of food' does not refer to food,
but to an effect of it which consists of food. Considering all this the
Sûtrakâra himself in a subsequent Sûtra (I, 1, 18) bases his view on the
declaration, in the scriptural text, of difference.--We now turn to the
assertion, made by the Pûrvapakshin, that the cause of the world is not
different from the individual soul because in two Chândogya passages it
is exhibited in co-ordination with the latter ('having entered into them
with this living Self,' 'Thou art that'); and that hence the
introductory clause of the Taitt. passage ('He who knows Brahman reaches
the Highest') refers to the individual soul--which further on is called
'consisting of bliss,' because it is free from all that is not pleasure.--
This view cannot be upheld; for although the individual soul is
intelligent, it is incapable of producing through its volition this
infinite and wonderful Universe--a process described in texts such as
'It thought, may I be many, may I grow forth.--It sent forth fire,' &c.
That even the released soul is unequal to such 'world business' as
creation, two later Sûtras will expressly declare. But, if you deny that
Brahman, the cause of the world, is identical with the individual soul,
how then do you account for the co-ordination in which the two appear in
the Chândogya texts?--How, we ask in return, can Brahman, the cause of
all, free from all shadow of imperfection, omniscient, omnipotent, &c.
&c., be one with the individual soul, all whose activities--whether it be
thinking, or winking of an eye, or anything else--depend on karman,
which implies endless suffering of various kind?--If you reply that this
is possible if one of two things is unreal, we ask--which then do you
mean to be unreal? Brahman's connexion with what is evil?--or its
essential nature, owing to which it is absolutely good and antagonistic
to all evil?--You will perhaps reply that, owing to the fact of Brahman,
which is absolutely good and antagonistic to all evil, being the
substrate of beginningless Nescience, there presents itself the false
appearance of its being connected with evil. But there you maintain what
is contradictory. On the one side there is Brahman's absolute perfection
and antagonism to all evil; on the other it is the substrate of
Nescience, and thereby the substrate of a false appearance which is
involved in endless pain; for to be connected with evil means to be the
substrate of Nescience and the appearance of suffering which is produced
thereby. Now it is a contradiction to say that Brahman is connected with
all this and at the same time antagonistic to it!--Nor can we allow you
to say that there is no real contradiction because that appearance is
something false. For whatever is false belongs to that group of things
contrary to man's true interest, for the destruction of which the
Vedânta-texts are studied. To be connected with what is hurtful to man,
and to be absolutely perfect and antagonistic to all evil is self-
contradictory.--But, our adversary now rejoins, what after all are we to
do? The holy text at first clearly promises that through the cognition
of one thing everything will be known ('by which that which is not heard
_is_ heard,' &c., Ch. Up. VI, 1, 3); thereupon declares that Brahman is
the sole cause of the world ('Being only this was in the beginning'),
and possesses exalted qualities such as the power of realising its
intentions ('it thought, may I be many'); and then finally, by means of
the co-ordination, 'Thou art that' intimates that Brahman is one with
the individual soul, which we know to be subject to endless suffering!
Nothing therefore is left to us but the hypothesis that Brahman is the
substrate of Nescience and all that springs from it!--Not even for the
purpose, we reply, of making sense of Scripture may we assume what in
itself is senseless and contradictory!--Let us then say that Brahman's
connexion with evil is real, and its absolute perfection unreal!--
Scripture, we reply, aims at comforting the soul afflicted by the
assaults of threefold pain, and now, according to you, it teaches that
the assaults of suffering are real, while its essential perfection and
happiness are unreal figments, due to error! This is excellent comfort
indeed!--To avoid these difficulties let us then assume that both
aspects of Brahman--viz. on the one hand its entering into the
distressful condition of individual souls other than non-differenced
intelligence, and on the other its being the cause of the world, endowed
with all perfections, &c.--are alike unreal!--Well, we reply, we do not
exactly admire the depth of your insight into the connected meaning of
texts. The promise that through the knowledge of one thing everything
will be known can certainly not be fulfilled if everything is false, for
in that case there exists nothing that could be known. In so far as the
cognition of one thing has something real for its object, and the
cognition of all things is of the same kind, and moreover is comprised
in the cognition of one thing; in so far it can be said that everything
is known through one thing being known. Through the cognition of the
real shell we do not cognise the unreal silver of which the shell is the
substrate.--Well, our adversary resumes, let it then be said that the
meaning of the declaration that through the cognition of one thing
everything is to be known is that only non-differenced Being is real,
while everything else is unreal.--If this were so, we rejoin, the text
would not say, 'by which the non-heard is heard, the non-known is
known'; for the meaning of this is, 'by which when heard and known' (not
'known as false') 'the non-heard is heard,' &c. Moreover, if the meaning
were that only the one non-differenced substance understood to be the
cause of the world is real, the illustrative instance, 'As by one lump
of clay everything made of clay is known,' would not be suitable; for
what is meant there is that through the cognition of the (real) lump of
clay its (real) effects are known. Nor must 'you say that in the
illustrative instance also the unreality of the effect is set forth; for
as the person to be informed is not in any way convinced at the outset
that things made of clay are unreal, like the snake imagined in the
rope, it is impossible that such unreality should be referred to as if
it were something well known (and the clause, 'as by one lump of clay,'
&c., undoubtedly _does_ refer to something well known), in order to
render the initial assertion plausible. And we are not aware of any
means of knowledge--assisted or non-assisted by ratiocination--that
would prove the non-reality of things effected, previous to the
cognition produced by texts such as 'That art thou'; a point which will
be discussed at length under II, 1.--'Being only this was in the
beginning, one, without a second'; 'it thought, may I be many, may I
grow forth; it sent forth fire'; 'Let me now enter those three beings
with this living Self and evolve names and forms'; 'All these creatures,
my son, have their root in the True, they dwell in the True, they rest
in the True,' &c.; these passages declare in succession that that which
really is is the Self of this world; that previous to creation there is
no distinction of names and forms; that for the creation of the world
Brahman, termed 'the True' (or 'Real'), requires no other operative
cause but itself; that at the time of creation it forms a resolution,
possible to itself only, of making itself manifold in the form of
endless movable and immovable things; that in accordance with this
resolution there takes place a creation, proceeding in a particular
order, of an infinite number of manifold beings; that by Brahman
entering into all non-intelligent beings with the living soul--which has
its Self in Brahman--there takes place an evolution, infinite in extent,
of all their particular names and forms; and that everything different
from Brahman has its root and abode in that, is moved by that, lives by
that, rests on that. All the different points--to be learned from
Scripture only--which are here set forth agree with what numerous other
scriptural texts teach about Brahman, viz. that it is free from all
evil, devoid of all imperfection, all-knowing, all-powerful; that all
its wishes and purposes realise themselves; that it is the cause of all
bliss; that it enjoys bliss not to be surpassed. To maintain then that
the word 'that,' which refers back to the Brahman mentioned before, i.e.
a Brahman possessing infinite attributes, should aim at conveying
instruction about a substance devoid of all attributes, is as unmeaning
as the incoherent talk of a madman.
The word 'thou' again denotes the individual soul as distinguished by
its implication in the course of transmigratory existence, and the
proper sense of this term also would have to be abandoned if it were
meant to suggest a substance devoid of all distinctions. And that, in
the case of a being consisting of non-differenced light, obscuration by
Nescience would be tantamount to complete destruction, we have already
explained above.--All this being thus, your interpretation would involve
that the proper meaning of the two words 'that' and 'thou'--which refer
to one thing--would have to be abandoned, and both words would have to
be taken in an implied sense only.
Against this the Pûrvapakshin now may argue as follows. Several words
which are applied to one thing are meant to express one sense, and as
this is not possible in so far as the words connote different attributes,
this part of their connotation becomes inoperative, and they denote only
the unity of one substance; implication (lakshanâ), therefore, does not
take place. When we say 'blue (is) (the) lotus' we employ two words with
the intention of expressing the unity of one thing, and hence do not aim
at expressing a duality of attributes, viz. the quality of blueness and
the generic character of a lotus. If this latter point was aimed at, it
would follow that the sentence would convey the oneness of the two
aspects of the thing, viz. its being blue and its being a lotus; but
this is not possible, for the thing (denoted by the two terms) is not
characterised by (the denotation of) the word 'lotus,' in so far as
itself characterised by blueness; for this would imply a reciprocal
inherence (samavâya) of class-characteristics and quality [FOOTNOTE 219:1].
What the co-ordination of the two words conveys is, therefore, only the
oneness of a substance characterised by the quality of blueness, and at
the same time by the class attributes of a lotus. In the same way, when
we say 'this (person is) that Devadatta' the co-ordination of the words
cannot possibly mean that Devadatta in so far as distinguished by his
connexion with a past time and a distant place is one with Devadatta in
so far as distinguished by his connexion with the present time and a
near place; what it means to express is only that there is oneness on
the part of a personal substance--which substance is characterised by
connexion with both places and moments of time. It is true indeed that
when we at first hear the one word 'blue' we form the idea of the
attribute of blueness, while, after having apprehended the relation of
co-ordination (expressed in 'blue is the lotus'), this idea no longer
presents itself, for this would imply a contradiction; but all the same
'implication' does not take place. The essence of co-ordination consists,
in all cases, therein that it suppresses the distinguishing elements in
the words co-ordinated. And as thus our explanation cannot be charged
with 'implication,' it cannot be objected to.
All this, we rejoin, is unfounded. What the words in all sentences
whatsoever aim at conveying is only a particular connexion of the things
known to be denoted by those words. Words such as 'blue,' standing in co-
ordination with others, express that some matter possessing the
attribute of blueness, &c., as known from the ordinary use of language,
is connected with some other matter. When, e.g., somebody says 'bring
the blue lotus,' a thing is brought which possesses the attribute of
blueness. And when we are told that 'a herd of elephants excited with
passion lives in the Vindhya-forest,' we again understand that what is
meant is something possessing several attributes denoted by several
words. Analogously we have to understand, as the thing intimated by
Vedânta-texts in the form of coordination, Brahman as possessing such
and such attributes.--It is an error to assume that, where a sentence
aims at setting forth attributes, one attribute is to be taken as
qualifying the thing in so far as qualified by another attribute; the
case rather is that the thing itself is equally qualified by all
attributes. For co-ordination means the application, to one thing, of
several words having different reasons of application; and the effect of
co-ordination is that one and the same thing, because being connected--
positively or negatively--with some attribute other than that which is
conveyed by one word, is also known through other words. As e.g. when it
is said that 'Devadatta (is) dark-complexioned, young, reddish-eyed, not
stupid, not poor, of irreproachable character.' Where two co-ordinate
words express two attributes which cannot exist combined in one thing,
one of the two words is to be taken in a secondary sense, while the
other retains its primary meaning, as e.g. in the case of the sentence,
'The Vâhîka man is an ox.' But in the case of the 'blue lotus' and the
like, where there is nothing contradictory in the connexion of the two
attributes with one thing, co-ordination expresses the fact of one thing
being characterised by two attributes.--Possibly our opponent will here
make the following remark. A thing in so far as defined by its
correlation to some one attribute is something different from the thing
in so far as defined by its correlation to some second attribute; hence,
even if there is equality of case affixes (as in 'nîlam utpalam'), the
words co-ordinated are incapable of expressing oneness, and cannot,
therefore, express the oneness of a thing qualified by several
attributes; not any more than the juxtaposition of two words such as
'jar' and 'cloth'--both having the same case-ending--can prove that
these two things are one. A statement of co-ordination, therefore,
rather aims at expressing the oneness of a thing in that way that it
presents to the mind the essential nature of the thing by means of
(words denoting) its attributes.--This would be so, we reply, if it were
only the fact of a thing's standing in correlation to two attributes
that is in the way of its unity. But this is not the case; for what
stands in the way of such unity is the fact of there being several
attributes which are not capable of being combined in one thing. Such
incapability is, in the case of the generic character of a jar and that
of a piece of cloth, proved by other means of knowledge; but there is no
contradiction between a thing being blue and its being a lotus; not any
more than there is between a man and the stick or the earrings he wears,
or than there is between the colour, taste, smell, &c., of one and the
same thing. Not only is there no contradiction, but it is this very fact
of one thing possessing two attributes which makes possible co-
ordination--the essence of which is that, owing to a difference of
causes of application, several words express one and the same thing. For
if there were nothing but essential unity of being, what reason would
there be for the employment of several words? If the purport of the
attributes were, not to intimate their connexion with the thing, but
merely to suggest the thing itself, one attribute would suffice for such
suggestion, and anything further would be meaningless. If, on the other
hand, it were assumed that the use of a further 'suggestive' attribute
is to bring out a difference of aspect in the thing suggested, such
difference of aspect would imply differentiation in the thing (which you
maintain to be free from all difference).--Nor is there any shade even
of 'implication' in the judgment, 'This person is that Devadatta'; for
there is absolutely no contradiction between the past Devadatta, who was
connected with some distant place, and the present Devadatta, who is
connected with the place before us. For this very reason those who
maintain the permanency of things prove the oneness of a thing related
to two moments of time on the basis of the judgment of recognition
('this is that'); if there really were a contradiction between the two
representations it would follow that all things are (not permanent but)
momentary only. The fact is that the contradiction involved in one thing
being connected with two places is removed by the difference of the
correlative moments of time. We therefore hold to the conclusion that co-
ordinated words denote one thing qualified by the possession of several
attributes.
For this very reason the Vedic passage, 'He buys the Soma by means of a
cow one year old, of a tawny colour, with reddish-brown eyes' (arunayâ,
ekahâyanyâ, piñgâkshyâ), must be understood to enjoin that the purchase
is to be effected by means of a cow one year old, possessing the
attributes of tawny colour, &c. This point is discussed Pû. Mî. Sû. III,
1, 12.--The Pûrvapakshin there argues as follows: We admit that the word
'arunayâ' ('by means of a tawny one') denotes the quality of tawniness
inclusive of the thing possessing that quality; for qualities as well as
generic character exist only in so far as being modes of substances. But
it is not possible to restrict tawny colour to connexion with a cow one
year old, for the injunction of two different things (which would result
from such restriction; and which would necessitate the sentence to be
construed as----) 'He buys by means of a cow one year old, and that a
red one' is not permissible [FOOTNOTE 222:1]. We must therefore break up
the sentence into two, one of which is constituted by the one word
'arunayâ'--this word expressing that tawny colour extends equally to all
the substances enjoined in that section (as instrumental towards the end
of the sacrifice). And the use of the feminine case-termination of the
word is merely meant to suggest a special instance (viz. the cow) of all
the things, of whatever gender, which are enjoined in that section.
Tawniness must not therefore be restricted to the cow one year old only.--
Of this pûrvapaksha the Sûtra disposes in the following words: 'There
being oneness of sense, and hence connexion of substance and quality
with one action, there is restriction.'--The fact that the two words
'arunayâ' and 'ekahâyanyâ'--which denote a substance, viz. a cow one
year old, distinguished by the quality of possessing tawny colour--stand
in co-ordination establishes that they have one sense; and is the
substance, viz. the cow, and the quality, viz. tawny colour--which the
word 'arunayâ' denotes as standing in the relation of distinguishing
attribute and thing distinguished thereby--can thus, without any
contradiction, be connected with the one action called 'the buying of
the Soma', tawny colour is restricted to the cow one year old which is
instrumental with regard to the purchase. If the connexion of tawniness
with the action of buying were to be determined from syntactical
connexion--in the same way as there is made out the connexion of the cow
one year old with that action--then the injunctory sentence would indeed
enjoin two matters (and this would be objectionable). But such is not
the case; for the one word 'arunyâ' denotes a substance characterised by
the quality of tawniness, and the co-ordination in which 'arunayâ'
stands to 'ekahâyanyâ' makes us apprehend merely that the thing
characterised by tawniness also is one year old, but does not make a
special statement as to the connexion of that quality with the thing.
For the purport of co-ordination is the unity of a thing distinguished
by attributes; according to the definition that the application to one
thing of several words possessing different reasons of application,
constitutes co-ordination. For the same reason, the syntactical unity
(ekavâkyatvam) of sentences such as 'the cloth is red' follows from all
the words referring to one thing. The function of the syntactical
collocation is to express the connexion of the cloth with the action of
being; the connexion of the red colour (with the cloth) on the other
hand is denoted by the word 'red' only. And what is ascertained from co-
ordination (sâmânâdhikaranya) is only that the cloth is a substance to
which a certain colour belongs. The whole matter may, without any
contradiction, be conceived as follows. Several words--having either the
affixes of the oblique cases or that of the nominative case--which
denote one or two or several qualities, present to the mind the idea of
that which is characterised by those qualities, and their co-ordination
intimates that the thing characterised by all those attributes is one
only; and the entire sentence finally expresses the connexion in which
the thing with its attributes stands to the action denoted by the verb.
This may be illustrated by various sentences exhibiting the co-
ordination of words possessing different case-endings, as e.g. 'There
stands Devadatta, a young man of a darkish complexion, with red eyes,
wearing earrings and carrying a stick' (where all the words standing in
apposition to Devadatta have the nominative termination); 'Let him make
a stage curtain by means of a white cloth' (where 'white' and 'cloth'
have instrumental case-endings), &c. &c. We may further illustrate the
entire relation of co-ordinated words to the action by means of the
following two examples: 'Let him boil rice in the cooking-pot by means
of firewood': here we take in simultaneously the idea of an action
distinguished by its connexion with several things. If we now consider
the following amplified sentence, 'Let a skilful cook prepare, in a
vessel of even shape, boiled rice mixed with milk, by means of sticks of
dry khâdira wood,' we find that each thing connected with the action is
denoted by an aggregate of co-ordinated words; but as soon as each thing
is apprehended, it is at one and the same moment conceived as something
distinguished by several attributes, and as such connects itself with
the action expressed by the verb. In all this there is no contradiction
whatever.--We must further object to the assertion that a word denoting
a quality which stands in a sentence that has already mentioned a
substance denotes the quality only (exclusive of the substance so
qualified), and that hence the word 'arunayâ' also denotes a quality
only. The fact is that neither in ordinary nor in Vedic language we ever
meet with a word which--denoting a quality and at the same time standing
in co-ordination with a word denoting a substance--denotes a _mere_
quality. Nor is it correct to say that a quality-word occurring in a
sentence which has already mentioned a substance denotes a mere quality:
for in a sentence such as 'the cloth (is) white,' where a substance is
mentioned in the first place, the quality-word clearly denotes (not mere
whiteness but) something which possesses the quality of whiteness. When,
on the other hand, we have a collocation of words such as 'patasya
suklah' ('of the cloth'--gen.; 'white' nom.), the idea of a cloth
distinguished by whiteness does not arise; but this is due not to the
fact of the substance being mentioned first, but to the fact of the two
words exhibiting different case-terminations. As soon as we add to those
two words an appropriate third one, e.g. 'bhâgah' (so that the whole
means 'The white part of a cloth'), the co-ordination of two words with
the same case-termination gives rise to the idea of a thing
distinguished by the attribute of whiteness.--Nor can we agree to the
contention that, as the buying of the Soma is exclusively concluded by
the cow one year old (as instrumental in the purchase), the quality of
tawniness (denoted by the word 'arunayâ') cannot connect itself with the
action expressed by the verb; for a word that denotes a quality and
stands in co-ordination with a word denoting a substance which has no
qualities opposed in nature to that quality, denotes a quality abiding
in that substance, and thus naturally connects itself with the action
expressed by the verb. And since, as shown, the quality of tawniness
connects itself with its substance (the cow) on the mere basis of the
form of the words, it is wrong (on the part of the Pûrvapakshin to
abandon this natural connexion and) to establish their connexion on the
ground of their being otherwise incapable of serving as means of the
purchase.
All this confirms our contention, viz. that the co-ordination of 'thou'
and 'that' must be understood to express oneness, without, at the same
time, there being given up the different attributes denoted by the two
words. This however is not feasible for those who do not admit a highest
Self free from all imperfection and endowed with all perfections, and
different from that intelligent soul which is conditioned by Nescience,
involved in endless suffering and undergoing alternate states of purity
and impurity.--But, an objection is raised, even if such a highest Self
be acknowledged, it would have to be admitted that the sentence aims at
conveying the oneness of that which is distinguished by the different
attributes denoted by the words co-ordinated, and from this it follows
that the highest Self participates in all the suffering expressed by the
word 'thou'!--This is not so, we reply; since the word 'thou' also
denotes the highest Self, viz. in so far as it is the inner Ruler
(antaryâmin) of all souls.--The connected meaning of the text is as
follows. That which is denoted as 'Being,' i.e. the highest Brahman
which is the cause of all, free from all shadow of imperfection, &c.,
resolved 'to be many'; it thereupon sent forth the entire world,
consisting of fire, water, &c.; introduced, in this world so sent forth,
the whole mass of individual souls into different bodies divine, human,
&c., corresponding to the desert of each soul--the souls thus
constituting the Self of the bodies; and finally, itself entering
according to its wish into these souls--so as to constitute their inner
Self--evolved in all these aggregates, names and forms, i.e. rendered
each aggregate something substantial (vastu) and capable of being
denoted by a word. 'Let me enter into these beings with this living Self
(jîvena âtmana) means 'with this living _me_,' and this shows the living
Self, i.e. the individual soul to have Brahman for its Self. And that
this having Brahman for its Self means Brahman's being the inner Self of
the soul (i.e. the Self inside the soul, but not identical with it),
Scripture declares by saying that Brahman entered into it. This is
clearly stated in the passage Taitt. Up. II, 6, 'He sent forth all this,
whatever there is. Having sent forth he entered into it. Having entered
it he became _sat_ and _tyat_.' For here 'all this' comprises beings
intelligent as well as non-intelligent, which afterwards are
distinguished as _sat_ and _tyat_, as knowledge (vijñâna) and non-
knowledge. Brahman is thus said to enter into intelligent beings also.
Hence, owing to this evolution of names and forms, all words denote the
highest Self distinguished by non-intelligent matter and intelligent
souls.--Another text, viz. Ch. Up. VI, 8, 7,'All this has its Self in
that,' denotes by 'all this' the entire world inclusive of intelligent
souls, and says that of this world that (i.e. Brahman) is the Self.
Brahman thus being the Self with regard to the whole universe of matter
and souls, the universe inclusive of intelligent souls is the body of
Brahman.--Other scriptural texts teach the same doctrine; cp. 'Entered
within, the ruler of beings, the Self of all' (Taitt. Âr. III, 24);'He
who dwelling in the earth is within the earth--whose body is the earth,'
& c., up to 'he who dwelling within the Self is within the Self, whom
the Self does not know, of whom the Self is the body, who rules the Self
from within, he is thy Self, the Ruler within, the Immortal' (Bri. Up.
III, 7, 3-22; Mâdhyand. Sâ.); 'He who moves within the earth, of whom
the earth is the body, &c.--who moves within the Imperishable, of whom
the Imperishable is the body, whom the Imperishable does not know; he
the inward ruler of all beings, free from evil, the divine, the one god,
Nârayana' (Subâ. Up. VII). All these texts declare that the world
inclusive of intelligent souls is the body of the highest Self, and the
latter the Self of everything. Hence those words also that denote
intelligent souls designate the highest Self as having intelligent souls
for his body and constituting the Self of them; in the same way as words
denoting non-sentient masses of matter, such as the bodies of gods, men,
& c., designate the individual souls to which those bodies belong. For
the body stands towards the embodied soul in the relation of a mode
(prakâra); and as words denoting a mode accomplish their full function
only in denoting the thing to which the mode belongs, we must admit an
analogous comprehensiveness of meaning for those words which denote a
body. For, when a thing is apprehended under the form 'this is such,'
the element apprehended as 'such' is what constitutes a mode; now as
this element is relative to the thing, the idea of it is also relative
to the thing, and finds its accomplishment in the thing only; hence the
word also which expresses the mode finds its accomplishment in the
thing. Hence words such as 'cow', 'horse', 'man', which denote a mode,
viz. a species, comprise in their meaning also that mass of matter which
exhibits the characteristics of the species, and as that mass of matter
constitutes the body and therefore is a mode of a soul, and as that soul
again, so embodied, is a mode of the highest Self; it follows that all
these words extend in their signification up to the highest Self. The
meaning of all words then is the highest Self, and hence their co-
ordination with words directly denoting that highest Self is a primary
(not merely 'implied') one.
But, an objection is raised, we indeed observe that words denoting
species or qualities stand in co-ordination to words denoting substances,
'the ox is short-horned,' 'the sugar is white'; but where substances
appear as the modes of other substances we find that formative affixes
are used, 'the man is dandin, kundalin' (bearing a stick; wearing
earrings).--This is not so, we reply. There is nothing to single out
either species, or quality, or substance, as what determines co-
ordination: co-ordination disregards such limitations. Whenever a _thing_
(whether species, or quality, or substance) has existence as a _mode_
only--owing to its proof, existence and conception being inseparably
connected with something else--the words denoting it, as they designate
a substance characterised by the attribute denoted by them,
appropriately enter into co-ordination with other words denoting the
same substance as characterised by other attributes. Where, on the other
hand, a substance which is established in separation from other things
and rests on itself, is assumed to stand occasionally in the relation of
mode to another substance, this is appropriately expressed by the use of
derived forms such as 'dandin, kundalin.' Hence such words as 'I,' 'thou,'
&c., which are different forms of appellation of the individual soul,
at bottom denote the highest Self only; for the individual souls
together with non-sentient matter are the body--and hence modes--of the
highest Self. This entire view is condensed in the co-ordination 'Thou
art that.' The individual soul being thus connected with the highest
Self as its body, its attributes do not touch the highest Self, not any
more than infancy, youth, and other attributes of the material body
touch the individual soul. Hence, in the co-ordination 'Thou art that,'
the word 'that' denotes the highest Brahman which is the cause of the
world, whose purposes come true, which comprises within itself all
blessed qualities, which is free from all shadow of evil; while the word
'thou' denotes the same highest Self in so far as having for its body
the individual souls together with their bodies. The terms co-ordinated
may thus be taken in their primary senses; there is no contradiction
either with the subject-matter of the section, or with scripture in
general; and not a shadow of imperfection such as Nescience, and so on,
attaches to Brahman, the blameless, the absolutely blessed. The co-
ordination with the individual soul thus proves only the difference of
Brahman from the soul, which is a mere mode of Brahman; and hence we
hold that different from the Self consisting of knowledge, i.e. the
individual soul, is the Self consisting of bliss, i.e. the highest Self.
Nor is there any force in the objection that as the Self of bliss is
said to be 'sârira,' i.e. embodied-viz. in the clause 'of him the
embodied Self is the same' (Taitt. Up. II, 5, 6)--it cannot be different
from the individual soul. For throughout this section the recurring
clause 'of him the embodied Self is the same as of the preceding one,'
refers to the highest Self, calling that the 'embodied' one. The clause
'From that same Self sprang ether' (II, 1) designates the highest
Brahman-which is different from the individual soul and is introduced as
the highest cause of all things created--as the 'Self'; whence we
conclude that all things different from it--from ether up to the Self of
food constitute its body. The Subâla-upanishad moreover states quite
directly that all beings constitute the body of the highest Self: 'He of
whom the earth is the body, of whom water is the body, of whom fire is
the body, of whom wind is the body, of whom ether is the body, of whom
the Imperishable is the body, of whom Death is the body, he the inner
Self of all, the divine one, the one god Nârâyana.' From this it follows
that what constitutes the embodied Self of the Self of food is nothing
else but the highest Self referred to in the clause 'From that same Self
sprang ether.' When, then, the text further on says with regard to the
Self of breath, 'of him the embodied Self is the same as of the
preceding one' (II, 3), the meaning can only be that what constitutes
the embodied Self of the 'preceding' Self of food, viz. the highest Self
which is the universal cause, is also the embodied Self of the Self
consisting of breath. The same reasoning holds good with regard to the
Self consisting of mind and the Self consisting of knowledge. In the
case, finally, of the Self consisting of bliss, the expression 'the
same' (esha eva) is meant to convey that that Self has its Self in
nothing different from itself. For when, after having understood that
the highest Self is the embodied Self of the vijñânamaya also, we are
told that the embodied Self of that vijñânamaya is also the embodied
Self of the ânandamaya, we understand that of the ânandamaya--which we
know to be the highest Self on the ground of 'multiplication'--its own
Self is the Self. The final purport of the whole section thus is that
everything different from the highest Self, whether of intelligent or
non-intelligent nature, constitutes its body, while that Self alone is
the non-conditioned embodied Self. For this very reason competent
persons designate this doctrine which has the highest Brahman for its
subject-matter as the 'sârîraka,' i. e. the doctrine of the 'embodied'
Self.--We have thus arrived at the conclusion that the Self of bliss is
something different from the individual Self, viz. the highest Self.
Here the Pûrvapakshin raises the following objection.--The Self
consisting of bliss (ânandamaya) is not something different from the
individual soul, because the formative element--maya denotes something
made, a thing effected. That this is the meaning of--maya in ânandamaya
we know from Pânini IV, 3, 144.--But according to Pâ. V, 4, 21,--maya
has also the sense of 'abounding in'; as when we say 'the sacrifice is
annamaya,' i.e. abounds in food. And this may be its sense in
'ânandamaya' also!--Not so, the Pûrvapakshin replies. In 'annamaya,' in
an earlier part of the chapter,--maya has the sense of 'made of',
'consisting of'; and for the sake of consistency, we must hence ascribe
the same sense to it in 'ânandamaya.' And even if, in the latter word,
it denoted abundance, this would not prove that the ânandamaya is other
than the individual soul. For if we say that a Self 'abounds' in bliss,
this implies that with all this bliss there is mixed some small part of
pain; and to be 'mixed with pain' is what constitutes the character of
the individual soul. It is therefore proper to assume, in agreement with
its previous use, that 'ânandamaya' means 'consisting of bliss.' In
ordinary speech as well as in Vedic language (cp. common words such as
'mrinmaya,' 'hiranmaya'; and Vedic clauses such as 'parnamayijuhûh')
-maya as a rule means 'consisting of,' and this meaning hence presents
itself to the mind first. And the individual soul _may_ be denoted as
'made of bliss'; for in itself it is of the essence of bliss, and its
Samsâra state therefore is something 'made of bliss.' The conclusion
therefore is that, owing to the received meaning of -maya, the
ânandamaya is none other than the individual soul.--To this primâ facie
view the next Sûtra refers and refutes it.
[FOOTNOTE 219:1. I.e. we should not in that case be able to decide
whether the quality (i.e., here, the blueness) inheres in the class (i.e.,
here, the lotus), or vice versa.]
[FOOTNOTE 222:1. For it would imply so-called vâkyabheda, 'split of the
sentence,' which arises when one injunctory clause is made to enjoin two
different things.]
14. If, on account of its being a word denoting an effect, (ânandamaya
be said) not (to denote the highest Self); (we say) no, on account of
abundance.
We deny the conclusion of the Pûrvapakshin, on the ground of there being
abundance of bliss in the highest Brahman, and 'abundance' being one of
the possible meanings of -maya.--Since bliss such as described in the
Taitt. Up.--bliss which is reached by successively multiplying by
hundred all inferior kinds of bliss--cannot belong to the individual
soul, we conclude that it belongs to Brahman; and as Brahman cannot be
an effect, and as -maya, may have the sense of 'abounding in,' we
conclude that the ânandamaya is Brahman itself; inner contradiction
obliging us to set aside that sense of -maya which is recommended by
regard to 'consequence' and frequency of usage. The regard for
consistency, moreover, already has to be set aside in the case of the
'prânamaya'; for in that term -maya cannot denote 'made of.' The
'prânamaya' Self can only be called by that name in so far as air with
its five modifications has (among others) the modification called prâna,
i.e. breathing out, or because among the five modifications or functions
of air prâna is the 'abounding,' i.e. prevailing one.--Nor can it be
truly said that -maya is but rarely used in the sense of 'abounding in':
expressions such as 'a sacrifice abounding in food' (annamaya), 'a
procession with many carriages' (sakatamayî), are by no means uncommon.--
Nor can we admit that to call something 'abounding in bliss' implies the
presence of _some_ pain. For 'abundance' precludes paucity on the part
of that which is said to abound, but does not imply the presence of what
is contrary. The presence or absence of what is contrary has to be
ascertained by other means of proof; and in our case we do ascertain the
absence of what is contrary to bliss by such means, viz. the clause
'free from evil,' &c. Abundance of bliss on the part of Brahman
certainly implies a relation to paucity on the part of some other bliss;
and in accordance with this demand the text says 'That is one measure of
human bliss,' &c. (II, 8, 1). The bliss of Brahman is of measureless
abundance, compared to the bliss of the individual soul.--Nor can it be
maintained that the individual soul may be viewed as being an effect of
bliss. For that a soul whose essential nature is knowledge and bliss
should in any way be changed into something else, as a lump of clay is
made into a pot, is an assumption contradicted by all scripture, sacred
tradition, and reasoning. That in the Samsâra state the soul's bliss and
knowledge are contracted owing to karman will be shown later on.--The
Self of bliss therefore is other than the individual soul; it is Brahman
itself.
A further reason for this conclusion is supplied by the next Sûtra.