42. (The soul is) a part, on account of the declarations of difference
and otherwise; some also record (that Brahman is of) the nature of
slaves, fishermen, and so on.
The Sûtras have declared that the individual soul is an agent, and as
such dependent on the highest Person. The following question now arises--
Is the individual soul absolutely different from Brahman? or is it
nothing else than Brahman itself in so far as under the influence of
error? or is it Brahman in so far as determined by a limiting adjunct
(upâdhi)? or is it a part (amsa) of Brahman?--The doubt on this point is
due to the disagreement of the scriptural texts.--But this whole matter
has already been decided under Sû. II, 1, 22.--True. But as a difficulty
presents itself on the ground of the conflicting nature of the texts--
some asserting the difference and some the unity of the individual soul
and Brahman--the matter is here more specially decided by its being
proved that the soul is a part of Brahman. As long as this decision
remains unsettled, the conclusions arrived at under the two Sûtras
referred to, viz. that the soul is non-different from Brahman and that
Brahman is 'additional' to the soul, are without a proper basis.
Let it then first be said that the soul is absolutely different from
Brahman, since texts such as 'There are two, the one knowing, the other
not knowing, both unborn, the one strong, the other weak' (Svet. Up. I,
9) declare their difference. Texts which maintain the non-difference of
a being which is knowing and another which is not knowing, if taken
literally, convey a contradiction--as if one were to say, 'Water the
ground with fire'!-and must therefore be understood in some secondary
metaphorical sense. To hold that the individual soul is a part of
Brahman does not explain matters; for by a 'part' we understand that
which constitutes part of the extension of something. If, then, the soul
occupied part of the extension of Brahman, all its imperfections would
belong to Brahman. Nor can the soul be a part of Brahman if we take
'part' to mean a _piece_ (khanda); for Brahman does not admit of being
divided into pieces, and moreover, the difficulties connected with the
former interpretation would present themselves here also. That something
absolutely different from something else should yet be a part of the
latter cannot in fact be proved.
Or else let it be said that the soul is Brahman affected by error
(bhrama). For this is the teaching of texts such as 'Thou art that';
'this Self is Brahman.' Those texts, on the other hand, which declare
the difference of the two merely restate what is already established by
perception and the other means of knowledge, and therefore are shown, by
those texts the purport of which it is to teach non-duality not
established by other means, to lie--like perception and the other means
of knowledge themselves--within the sphere of Nescience.
Or let it be assumed, in the third place, that the individual soul is
Brahman as determined by a beginningless limiting adjunct (upâdhi). For
it is on this ground that Scripture teaches the Self to be Brahman. And
that upâdhi must not be said to be a mere erroneous imagination, for on
that view the distinction of bondage, release, and so on, would be
impossible.
Against all these views the Sûtra declares that the soul is a part of
Brahman; since there are declarations of difference and also 'otherwise,'
i.e. declarations of unity. To the former class belong all those texts
which dwell on the distinction of the creator and the creature, the
ruler and the ruled, the all-knowing and the ignorant, the independent
and the dependent, the pure and the impure, that which is endowed with
holy qualities and that which possesses qualities of an opposite kind,
the lord and the dependent. To the latter class belong such texts as
'Thou art that' and 'this Self is Brahman.' Some persons even record
that Brahman is of the nature of slaves, fishermen, and so on. The
Âtharvanikas, that is to say, have the following text,' Brahman are the
slaves. Brahman are these fishers,' and so on; and as Brahman there is
said to comprise within itself all individual souls, the passage teaches
general non-difference of the Self. In order, then, that texts of both
these classes may be taken in their primary, literal sense, we must
admit that the individual soul is a part of Brahman. Nor is it a fact
that the declarations of difference refer to matters settled by other
means of knowledge, such as perception and so on, and on that account
are mere reiterations of something established otherwise (in consequence
of which they would have no original proving force of their own, and
would be sublated by the texts declaring non-duality). For the fact that
the soul is created by Brahman, is ruled by it, constitutes its body, is
subordinate to it, abides in it, is preserved by it, is absorbed by it,
stands to it in the relation of a meditating devotee, and through its
grace attains the different ends of man, viz. religious duty, wealth,
pleasure and final release--all this and what is effected thereby, viz.
the distinction of the soul and Brahman, does not fall within the
cognisance of perception and the other means of proof, and hence is not
established by something else. It is therefore not true that the texts
declaring the creation of the world, and so on, are mere reiterations of
differences established by other means of authoritative knowledge, and
hence have for their purport to teach things that are false.--[Nor will
it do to say that the texts declaring duality teach what indeed is not
established by other means of knowledge but is erroneous.] 'Brahman
conceives the thought of differentiating itself, forms the resolution of
becoming many, and accordingly creates the ether and the other elements,
enters into them as individual soul, evolves all the different forms and
names, takes upon himself all the pleasures and pains which spring from
experiencing the infinite multitude of objects thus constituted, abides
within and inwardly rules all beings, recognises itself in its jîva-
condition to be one with the universal causal Brahman, and finally
accomplishes its release from the samsâra and the body of sacred
doctrine by which this release is effected'--all this the Veda indeed
declares, but its real purport is that all this is only true of a
Brahman under the influence of an illusion, and therefore is unreal!--
while at the same time Brahman is defined as that the essential nature
of which is absolutely pure intelligence! Truly, if such were the
purport of the Veda, what more would the Veda be than the idle talk of a
person out of his mind!
Nor finally is there any good in the theory of the soul being Brahman in
so far as determined by a limiting adjunct. For this view also is in
conflict with the texts which distinguish Brahman as the ruling and the
soul as the ruled principle, and so on. One and the same Devadatta does
not become double as it were--a ruler on the one hand and a ruled
subject on the other--because he is determined by the house in which he
is, or by something else.
In order to be able to account for the twofold designations of the soul,
we must therefore admit that the soul is a _part_ of Brahman.