That the soul goes embedded in the subtle rudiments of the elements
follows therefrom also that when passing out of the old body it is said
to be followed by the prânas, 'when he thus passes out, the chief prâna
follows after him,' &c. (Bri. Up. V, 4, 2). Compare also Smriti: 'It
draws to itself the organs of sense, with the mind for the sixth. When
the Ruler (soul) obtains a new body, and passes out of another, he takes
with him those organs and then moves on, as the wind takes the odours
from their abodes (the flowers)' (Bha. Gî. XV, 8). But the prânas cannot
move without a substrate, and hence we must admit that the rudiments of
the elements--which are their substrate--are also moving.
4. If it be said (that it is not so) on account of scriptural statement
as to going to Agni and the rest; we say no, on account of the secondary
nature (of the statement).
But the text, 'when the speech of the dead person enters into fire,' &c.
(Bri. Up. III, 2, 13). declares that when a person dies his organs go
into fire, and so on; they cannot therefore accompany the soul. Hence
the text which asserts the latter point must be explained in some other
way!--Not so, the Sûtra replies. The text stating that the organs go to
fire, and so on, cannot be taken in its literal sense; for it continues,
'the hairs of the body enter into herbs, the hair of the head into
trees' (which manifestly is not true, in its literal sense). The going
of speech, the eye, and so on, must therefore be understood to mean that
the different organs approach the divinities (Agni and the rest) who
preside over them.
5. Should it be said, on account of absence of mention in the first
(reply); we say no, for just that (is meant), on the ground of fitness.
An objection is raised to the conclusion arrived at under III, 1, 1; on
the ground that in the first oblation, described in Ch. Up. V, 4, 2, as
being made into the heavenly world, water is not mentioned at all as the
thing offered. The text says, 'on that altar the gods offer sraddhâ';
and by sraddhâ (belief) everybody understands a certain activity of mind.
Water therefore is not the thing offered.--Not so, we reply. It is
nothing else but water, which there is called sraddhâ. For thus only
question and answer have a sense. For the question is, 'Do you know why
in the fifth libation water is called man?' and at the outset of the
reply sraddhâ is mentioned as constituting the oblation made into the
heavenly world viewed as a fire. If here the word sraddhâ did not denote
water, question and answer would refer to different topics, and there
would be no connexion. The form in which the final statement is
introduced (iti tu pañkamyâm, &c., 'but thus in the fifth oblation,' &c.),
moreover, also intimates that sraddhâ means water. The word 'iti,'
_thus_, here intimates that the answer is meant to dispose of the
question, 'Do you know _how_?' &c. Sraddhâ becomes moon, rain, food,
seed, embryo in succession, and _thus_ the water comes to be called man.
Moreover, the word sraddhâ is actually used in the Veda in the sense of
'water'; 'he carries water, sraddhâ indeed is water' (Taitt. Samh. I, 6,
8, 1). Aad what the text says as to king Soma (the moon) originating
from sraddhâ when offered, also shows that sraddhâ must mean water.
6. 'On account of this not being stated by Scripture'; not so, on
account of those who perform sacrifices and so on being understood.
But, a further objection is raised, in the whole section under
discussion no mention at all is made of the soul; the section cannot
therefore prove that the soul moves, enveloped by water. The text speaks
only of different forms of water sraddhâ and the rest.--This, the Sûtra
points out, is not so, on account of those who perform sacrifices being
understood. For further on in the same chapter it is said, that those
who, while destitute of the knowledge of Brahman, practise sacrifices,
useful works and alms, reach the heavenly world and become there of the
essence of the moon (somarâjânah); whence, on the results of their good
works being exhausted, they return again and enter on a new embryonic
state (Ch. Up. V, 10). Now in the preceding section (V, 9) it is said
that they offer sraddhâ in the heavenly world, and that from that
oblation there arises the king Soma--an account which clearly refers to
the same process as the one described in V, 10. We herefrom infer that
what is meant in V, 9 is that that being which was distinguished by a
body of sraddhâ, becomes a being distinguished by a body of the nature
of the moon. The word body denotes that the nature of which it is to be
the attribute of a soul, and thus extends in its connotation up to the
soul. The meaning of the section therefore is that it is the soul which
moves enveloped by water and the other rudimentary elements.--But the
phrase 'him the gods eat' (V, 10, 4) shows that the king Soma cannot be
the soul, for that cannot be eaten!--To this the next Sûtra replies.
7. Or it is metaphorical, on account of their not knowing the Self. For
thus Scripture declares.
He who performs sacrifices, and so on, and thus does not know the Self,
is here below and in yonder world a mere means of enjoyment for the
devas. He serves them here, by propitiating them with sacrifices, and so
on; and when the gods, pleased with his service, have taken him up into
yonder world, he there is a common means of enjoyment for them (since
they are gratified by the presence of a faithful servant). That those
not knowing the Self serve and benefit the gods, Scripture explicitly
declares, 'He is like a beast for the devas' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 10). Smriti
also declares, that while those who know the Self attain to Brahman,
those who do not know it are means of enjoyment for the devas, 'To the
gods go the worshippers of the gods, and they that are devoted to me go
to me' (Bha. Gî. VII, 23). When Scripture speaks of the soul being eaten
by the gods, it therefore only means that the soul is to them a source
of enjoyment. That eating the soul means no more than satisfaction with
it, may also be inferred from the following scriptural passage, 'The
gods in truth do not eat nor do they drink; by the mere sight of that
amrita they are satisfied.'--It thus remains a settled conclusion that
the soul moves enveloped by the subtle rudiments of the elements.--Here
terminates the adhikarana of 'the obtaining of another body.'
8. On the passing away of the works, with a remainder, according to
Scripture and Smriti; as it went and not so.
The text declares that those who only perform sacrifices and useful
works ascend by the road of the fathers, and again return to the earth
when they have fully enjoyed the fruit of their works, 'having dwelt
there yâvat sampâtam, they return by the same way' (Ch. Up. V, 10, 5).
The question here arises whether the descending soul carries a certain
remainder (anusaya) of its works or not.--It does not, since it has
enjoyed the fruit of all its works. For by 'anusaya' we have to
understand that part of the karman which remains over and above the part
retributively enjoyed; but when the fruit of the entire karman has been
enjoyed, there is no such remainder. And that this is so we learn from
the phrase 'yâvat sampâtam ushitvâ,' which means 'having dwelt there as
long as the karman lasts' (sampatanty anena svargalokam iti sampâtah).
Analogously another text says, 'Having obtained the end of whatever deed
he does on earth, he again returns from that world to this world to
action' (Bri. Up. V, 4, 6).--Against this primâ facie view the Sûtra
declares 'with a remainder he descends, on account of what is seen, i.e.
scriptural text, and Smriti.' The scriptural text is the one 'Those
whose conduct has been good' (V, 10, 7), which means that among the
souls that have returned, those whose karman is good obtain a good birth
as Brâhmanas or the like, while those whose karman is bad are born again
as low creatures-dogs, pigs, Kândâlas, and the like. This shows that the
souls which have descended are still connected with good or evil karman.
Smriti also declares this: 'Men of the several castes and orders, who
always stand firm in the works prescribed for them, enjoy after death
the rewards of their works, and by virtue of a remnant (of their works)
they are born again in excellent countries, castes and families, endowed
with beauty, long life, learning in the Vedas, wealth, good conduct,
happiness and wisdom. Those who act in a contrary manner perish'
(Gautama Dha. Sû. XI, 29); 'Afterwards when a man returns to this world
he obtains, by virtue of a remainder of works, birth in a good family,
beauty of form, beauty of complexion, strength, aptitude for learning,
wisdom, wealth, and capacity for fulfilling his duties. Therefore,
rolling like a wheel (from the one to the other), in both worlds he
dwells in happiness' (Âpast. Dha. Sû. II, 1, 2, 3). The clause 'as long
as his works last' (yâvat-sampâtam) refers to that part of his works
only which was performed with a view to reward (as promised for those
works by the Veda); and the same holds true with regard to the passage
'whatever work man does here on earth' (Bri. Up. V, 4, 6). Nor is it
possible that works, the fruit of which has not yet been enjoyed, and
those the result of which has not been wiped out by expiatory ceremonies,
should be destroyed by the enjoyment of the fruits of other works. Hence
those who have gone to that world return with a remnant of their works,
'as they went and not so'--i.e. in the same way as they ascended and
also in a different way. For the ascent takes place by the following
stages--smoke, night, the dark half of the moon, the six months of the
sun's southern progress, the world of the fathers, ether, moon. The
descent, on the other hand, goes from the place of the moon, through
ether, wind, smoke, mist, cloud. The two journeys are alike in so far as
they pass through ether, but different in so far as the descent touches
wind, and so on, and does not touch the world of the fathers, and other
stages of the ascent.
9. 'On account of conduct'; not so, since (karana) connotes works; thus
Kârshnâjini thinks.
In the phrases 'those whose works were good' (ramanîya-karanâh), and
'those whose works were bad' (kapûyâ-karanâh), the word karana does not
denote good and evil works (i.e. not such works as the Veda on the one
hand enjoins as leading to certain rewards, and on the other prohibits,
threatening punishment), for, in Vedic as well as ordinary language, the
term karana is generally used in the sense of âkâra, i.e. general
conduct. In ordinary speech such words as âkâra, sîla, vritta are
considered synonymous, and in the Veda we read 'whatever works (karmâni)
are blameless, those should be regarded, not others. Whatever our good
conduct (su-karitâni) was, that should be observed by thee, nothing
else' (Taitt. Up. I, 11, 2)--where 'works' and 'conduct' are
distinguished. Difference in quality of birth therefore depends on
conduct, not on the remainder of works performed with a view to certain
results.--This primâ facie view the Sûtra sets aside, 'not so, because
the scriptural term karana connotes works; thus the teacher Kârshnâjini
thinks.' For mere conduct does not lead to experiences of pleasure and
pain; pleasure and pain are the results of _works_ in the limited sense.
10. 'There is purposelessness'; not so, on account of the dependence on
that.
But if conduct has no result, it follows that good conduct, as enjoined
in the Smritis, is useless!--Not so, we reply; for holy works enjoined
by the Veda depend on conduct, in so far as a man of good conduct only
is entitled to perform those works. This appears from passages such as
the following: 'A man who is not pure is unfit for all religious work,'
and 'Him who is devoid of good conduct the Vedas do not purify.'
Kârshnâjini's view thus is, that the karana of the text implies karman.