We read in the Chândogya. (III, 13, 7), 'Now that light which shines
above this heaven, higher than everything, in the highest worlds beyond
which there are no other worlds, that is the same light which is within
man.'--Here a doubt arises, viz. whether the brightly shining thing here
called 'light' is the well-known light of the sun and so on, viewed as a
causal universal principle (Brahman); or the all-knowing, &c., highest
Person of infinite splendour, who is different in nature from all
sentient and non-sentient beings, and is the highest cause.--The
Pûrvapakshin maintains that the reference is to ordinary light. For, he
says, the passage does not mention a particular characteristic attribute
which can belong to the highest Self only--while such attributes _were_
met with in the texts referring to Ether and Breath--, and as thus there
is no opening for a recognition of the highest Self, and as at the same
time the text identifies 'light' with the intestinal heat of living
beings, we conclude that the text represents the well-known ordinary
light as Brahman, the cause of the world--which is possible as causal
agency is connected with extreme light and heat.--This primâ facie view
the Sûtra sets aside. The light which the text states to be connected
with heaven and possessing supreme splendour can be the highest Person
only, since a preceding passage in the same section--' All the beings
are one foot of it, three feet are the Immortal in heaven'--refers to
all beings as being a foot of that same being which is connected with
heaven. Although the passage, 'That light which shines above,' &c., does
not mention a special attribute of the highest Person, yet the passage
previously quoted refers to the highest Person as connected with heaven,
and we therefore recognise that Person as the light connected with
heaven, mentioned in the subsequent passage.
Nor does the identification, made in a clause of the text, of light with
the intestinal heat give rise to any difficulty; for that clause is
meant to enjoin meditation on the highest Brahman in the form of
intestinal heat, such meditation having a special result of its own.
Moreover, the Lord himself declares that he constitutes the Self of the
intestinal fire, 'Becoming the Vaisvânara-fire I abide in the body of
living creatures' (Bha. Gî. XV, 14).
26. If it be objected that (Brahman is) not (denoted) on account of the
metre being denoted; (we reply) not so, because thus the direction of
the mind (on Brahman) is declared; for thus it is seen.
The previous section at first refers to the metre called Gâyatrî, 'The
Gâyatrî indeed is everything' (III, 12, 1), and then introduces--with
the words 'this is also declared by a Rik_ verse'--the verse, 'Such is
the greatness of it (viz. the Gâyatrî),' &c. Now, as this verse also
refers to the metre, there is not any reference to the highest Person.--
To this objection the second part of the Sûtra replies. The word
'Gâyatrî' does not here denote the metre only, since this cannot
possibly be the Self of all; but the text declares the application of
the idea of Gâyatrî to Brahman, i.e. teaches, to the end of a certain
result being obtained, meditation on Brahman in so far as similar to
Gâyatrî. For Brahman having four feet, in the sense indicated by the rik_,
may be compared to the Gâyatrî with its four (metrical) feet. The
Gâyatrî (indeed has as a rule three feet, but) occasionally a Gâyatrî
with four feet is met with; so, e.g., 'Indras sakîpatih | valena pîditah |
duskyavano vrishâ | samitsu sâsahih.' We see that in other passages also
words primarily denoting metres are employed in other senses; thus, e.g.,
in the samvargavidyâ (Ch. Up. IV, 3, 8), where Virâj (the name of a
metre of ten syllables) denotes a group of ten divine beings.
For this conclusion the next Sûtra supplies a further argument.
27. And thus also, because (thus only) the designation of the beings,
and so on, being the (four) feet is possible.
The text, moreover, designates the Gâyatrî as having four feet, after
having referred to the beings, the earth, the body, and the heart; now
this has a sense only if it is Brahman, which here is called Gâyatrî.
28. If it be said that (Brahman is) not (recognised) on account of the
difference of designation; (we say) not so, on account of there being no
contradiction in either (designation).
In the former passage, 'three feet of it are what is immortal in heaven,'
heaven is referred to as the abode of the being under discussion;
while in the latter passage, 'that light which shines above this heaven,'
heaven is mentioned as marking its boundary. Owing to this discrepancy,
the Brahman referred to in the former text is not recognised in the
latter.--This objection the Sûtra disposes of by pointing out that owing
to the essential agreement of the two statements, nothing stands in the
way of the required recognition. When we say, 'The hawk is on the top of
the tree,' and 'the hawk is above the top of the tree,' we mean one and
the same thing.--The 'light,' therefore, is nothing else but the most
glorious and luminous highest Person. Him who in the former passage is
called four-footed, we know to have an extraordinarily beautiful shape
and colour--(cp., e.g., 'I know that great Person of sunlike colour
beyond the darkness' (Svet. Up. III, 9))--, and as hence his brilliancy
also must be extraordinary, he is, in the text under discussion, quite
appropriately called 'light.'--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'light.'
It has been shown that the being endowed with supreme brilliance, called
'Light,' which the text mentions as something well known, is the highest
Person. The Sûtrakâra will now show that the being designated as Indra
and Prâna, which the text enjoins as an object of meditation, for the
reason that it is the means for attaining immortality--a power which is
inseparable from causal power--, is likewise the highest Person.