On your view there would likewise follow non-entireness of the Self. For
your opinion is that souls abide in numberless places, each soul having
the same size as the body which it animates. When, therefore, the soul
previously abiding in the body of an elephant or the like has to enter
into a body of smaller size, e. g. that of an ant, it would follow that
as the soul then occupies less space, it would not remain entire, but
would become incomplete.--Let us then avoid this difficulty by assuming
that the soul passes over into a different state--which process is
called paryâya,--which it may manage because it is capable of
contraction and dilatation.--To this the next Sûtra replies.
34. Nor also is there non-contradiction from paryâya; on account of
change, and so on.
Nor is the difficulty to be evaded by the assumption of the soul
assuming a different condition through contraction or dilatation. For
this would imply that the soul is subject to change, and all the
imperfections springing from it, viz. non-permanence, and so on, and
hence would not be superior to non-sentient things such as jars and the
like.
35. And on account of the endurance of the final (size), and the
(resulting) permanency of both; there is no difference.
The final size of the soul, i.e. the size it has in the state of Release,
is enduring since the soul does not subsequently pass into another body;
and both, i.e. the soul in the state of Release and the size of that
soul, are permanent (nitya). From this it follows that that ultimate
size is the true essential size of the soul and also belongs to it
previously to Release. Hence there is no difference of sizes, and the
soul cannot therefore have the size of its temporary bodies. The Ârhata
theory is therefore untenable.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the
impossibility in one.'
36. (The system) of the Lord (must be disregarded), on account of
inappropriateness.
So far it has been shown that the doctrines of Kapila, Kanâda, Sugata,
and the Arhat must be disregarded by men desirous of final beatitude;
for those doctrines are all alike untenable and foreign to the Veda. The
Sûtras now declare that, for the same reasons, the doctrine of Pasupati
also has to be disregarded. The adherents of this view belong to four
different classes--Kâpâlas, Kâlâmukhas, Pâsupatas, and Saivas. All of
them hold fanciful theories of Reality which are in conflict with the
Veda, and invent various means for attaining happiness in this life and
the next. They maintain the general material cause and the operative
cause to be distinct, and the latter cause to be constituted by Pasupati.
They further hold the wearing of the six so-called 'mudrâ' badges and
the like to be means to accomplish the highest end of man.
Thus the Kâpâlas say, 'He who knows the true nature of the six mudrâs,
who understands the highest mudrâ, meditating on himself as in the
position called bhagâsana, reaches Nirvâna. The necklace, the golden
ornament, the earring, the head-jewel, ashes, and the sacred thread are
called the six mudrâs. He whose body is marked with these is not born
here again.'--Similarly the Kâlâmukhas teach that the means for
obtaining all desired results in this world as well as the next are
constituted by certain practices--such as using a skull as a drinking
vessel, smearing oneself with the ashes of a dead body, eating the flesh
of such a body, carrying a heavy stick, setting up a liquor-jar and
using it as a platform for making offerings to the gods, and the like.
'A bracelet made of Rudrâksha-seeds on the arm, matted hair on the head,
a skull, smearing oneself with ashes, &c.'--all this is well known from
the sacred writings of the Saivas. They also hold that by some special
ceremonial performance men of different castes may become Brâhmanas and
reach the highest âsrama: 'by merely entering on the initiatory ceremony
(dîkshâ) a man becomes a Brâhmana at once; by undertaking the kâpâla
rite a man becomes at once an ascetic.'
With regard to these views the Sûtra says 'of pati, on account of
inappropriateness.' A 'not' has here to be supplied from Sûtra 32. The
system of Pasupati has to be disregarded because it is inappropriate, i.
e. because the different views and practices referred to are opposed to
one another and in conflict with the Veda. The different practices
enumerated above, the wearing of the six mudrâs and so on, are opposed
to each other; and moreover the theoretical assumptions of those people,
their forms of devotion and their practices, are in conflict with the
Veda. For the Veda declares that Nârâyana who is the highest Brahman is
alone the operative and the substantial cause of the world, 'Nârâyana is
the highest Brahman, Nârâyana is the highest Reality, Nârâyana is the
highest light, Nârâyana is the highest Self'; 'That thought, may I be
many, may I grow forth' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 3); 'He desired, may I be many,
may I grow forth' (Taitt. Up. II, 6, 1), and so on. In the same way the
texts declare meditation on the Supreme Person, who is the highest
Brahman, to be the only meditation which effects final release; cp. 'I
know that great Person of sunlike lustre beyond the darkness. A man who
knows him passes over death; there is no other path to go' (Svet. Up.
III, 8). And in the same way all texts agree in declaring that the works
subserving the knowledge of Brahman are only those sacrificial and other
works which the Veda enjoins on men in the different castes and stages
of life: 'Him Brâhmanas seek to know by the study of the Veda, by
sacrifice, by gifts, by penance, by fasting. Wishing for that world only,
mendicants wander forth from their homes' (Bri. Up. XI, 4, 22). In some
texts enjoining devout meditation, and so on, we indeed meet with terms
such as Prajâpati, Siva, Indra, Âkâsa, Prâna, &c., but that these all
refer to the supreme Reality established by the texts concerning
Nârâyana--the aim of which texts it is to set forth the highest Reality
in its purity--, we have already proved under I, 1, 30. In the same way
we have proved under Sû. I, 1, 2 that in texts treating of the creation
of the world, such as 'Being only this was in the beginning,' and the
like, the words _Being_, _Brahman_, and so on, denote nobody else but
Nârâyana, who is set forth as the universal creator in the account of
creation given in the text, 'Alone indeed there was Nârâyana, not Brahmâ,
not Isâna--he being alone did not rejoice' (Mahopanishad I).--As the
Pasupati theory thus teaches principles, meditations and acts
conflicting with the Veda, it must be disregarded.