Only so much, i.e. only those qualities which have to be included in all
meditations on Brahman, without which the essential special nature of
Brahman cannot be conceived, i.e. bliss, knowledge, and so on,
characterised by absence of grossness and the like. Other qualities,
such as doing all works and the like, although indeed following their
substrate, are explicitly to be meditated on in special meditations only.--
Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the idea of the Imperishable.'
35. Should it be said that (the former reply refers) to that Self to
which the aggregate of material things belongs (since) otherwise the
difference (of the two replies) could not be accounted for; we say--no;
as in the case of instruction
In the Brihad-aranyaka (III, 4; 5) the same question is asked twice in
succession ('Tell me the Brahman which is visible, not invisible, the
Self who is within all'), while Yâjñavalkya gives a different answer to
each ('He who breathes in the upbreathing,' &c.; 'He who overcomes
hunger and thirst,' &c.). The question here is whether the two
meditations, suggested by these sections, are different or not. They are
different, since the difference of reply effects a distinction between
the two vidyâs. The former reply declares him who is the maker of
breathing forth, and so on to be the inner Self of all; the latter
describes him as free from hunger, thirst, and so on. It thence appears
that the former passage refers to the inner (individual) Self which is
different from body, sense-organs, internal organ and vital breath;
while the latter refers to that which again differs from the inner Self,
viz. the highest Self, free from hunger, thirst, and so on. As the
individual soul is inside the aggregate of material things, it may be
spoken of as being that inner Self of all. Although this kind of
inwardness is indeed only a relative one, we nevertheless must accept it
in this place; for if, desirous of taking this 'being the inner Self of
all' in its literal sense, we assumed the highest Self to be meant, the
difference of the two replies could not be accounted for. The former
reply evidently refers to the individual soul, since the highest Self
cannot be conceived as breathing forth, and so on; and the latter reply,
which declares the Self to be raised above hunger, &c., evidently refers
to the highest Self. This is expressed in the earlier part of the Sûtra:
'The former reply refers to the Self to which there belongs the
aggregate of material things, i.e. the individual soul as being the
inner Self of all; otherwise we could not account for the difference of
the two replies.'--The last words of the Sûtra negative this--'not so,'
i.e. there is no difference of vidyâs, since both assertions and replies
refer to the highest Self. The question says in both places, 'the
Brahman which is visible, not invisible, the Self who is within all,'
and this clearly refers to the highest Self only. We indeed observe that
in some places the term _Brahman_ is, in a derived sense, applied to the
individual soul also; but the text under discussion, for distinction's
sake, adds the qualification 'the Brahman which is manifest' (sâkshât).
The quality of 'aparokshatva' (i.e. being that which does not transcend
the senses but lies openly revealed) also, which implies being connected
with all space and all time, suits Brahman only, which from texts such
as 'the True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman' is known to be infinite.
In the same way the attribute of being the inner Self of all can belong
to the highest Self only, which texts such as 'He who dwelling within
the earth,' &c., declare to be the inner ruler of the universe. The
replies to the two questions likewise can refer to Brahman only. The
unconditional causal agency with regard to breath, declared in the
clause 'he who breathes in the upbreathing,' &c., can belong to the
highest Self only, not to the individual soul, since the latter
possesses no such causal power when in the state of deep sleep. Ushasta
thereupon, being not fully enlightened, since causality with regard to
breathing may in a sense be attributed to the individual soul also,
again asks a question, in reply to which Yâjñavalkya clearly indicates
Brahman, 'Thou mayest not see the seer of sight,' &c., i.e. thou must
not think that my previous speech has named as the causal agent of
breathing the individual soul, which is the causal agent with regard to
those activities which depend on the sense-organs, viz. seeing, hearing,
thinking, and knowing; for in the state of deep sleep, swoon, and so on,
the soul possesses no such power. And moreover another text also--'Who
could breathe if that bliss existed not in the ether?' (Taitt. Up. II,
7)--declares that the highest Self only is the cause of the breathing of
all living beings. In the same way the answer to the second question can
refer to the highest Self only, which alone can be said to be raised
above hunger, thirst, and so on. For this reason also both replies wind
up with the same phrase, 'Everything else is of evil.' The iteration of
question and reply serves the purpose of showing that the same highest
Brahman which is the cause of all breathing is beyond all hunger, thirst,
and so on.--The Sûtra subjoins a parallel instance. 'As in the case of
instruction.' As in the vidyâ of that which truly is (Ch. Up. VI, 1 ff.),
question and reply are iterated several times, in order to set forth the
various greatness and glory of Brahman.--Thus the two sections under
discussion are of the same nature, in so far as setting forth that the
one Brahman which is the inner Self of all is the cause of all life and
raised beyond all imperfections; and hence they constitute one
meditation only.--To this a new objection is raised. The two sections
may indeed both refer to the highest Brahman; nevertheless there is a
difference of meditation, as according to the one Brahman is to be
meditated upon as the cause of all life, and according to the other as
raised above all defects; this difference of character distinguishes the
two meditations. And further there is a difference of interrogators; the
first question being asked by Ushasta, the second by Kahola.
36. There is interchange (of ideas), for the texts distinguish; as in
other cases.
There is no difference of vidyâ because both questions and answers have
one subject-matter, and because the one word that possesses enjoining
power proves the connexion of the two sections. Both questions have for
their topic Brahman viewed as the inner Self of all; and in the second
question the word 'eva' ('just,' 'very') in 'Tell me just that Brahman,'
&c., proves that the question of Kahola has for its subject the Brahman,
to the qualities of which the question of Ushasta had referred. Both
answers again refer to the one Brahman, viewed as the Self of all. The
idea of the injunction of the entire meditation again is suggested in
the second section only, 'Therefore a Brahmana, after he has done with
learning, is to wish to stand by real strength.' The object of
meditation being thus ascertained to be one, there must be effected a
mutual interchange of the ideas of Ushasta and Kahola, i.e. Ushasta's
conception of Brahman being the cause of all life must be entertained by
the interrogating Kahola also; and vice versa the conception of Kahola
as to Brahman being beyond hunger, thirst, and so on, must be
entertained by Ushasta also. This interchange being made, the difference
of Brahman, the inner Self of all, from the individual soul is
determined by both sections. For this is the very object of
Yâjñavalkya's replies: in order to intimate that the inner Self of all
is different from the individual soul, they distinguish that Self as the
cause of all life and as raised above hunger, thirst, and so on. Hence
Brahman's being the inner Self of all is the only quality that is the
subject of meditation; that it is the cause of life and so on are only
means to prove its being such, and are not therefore to be meditated on
independently.--But if this is so, to what end must there be made an
interchange, on the part of the two interrogators, of their respective
ideas?--Brahman having, on the ground of being the cause of all life,
been ascertained by Ushasta as the inner Self of all, and different from
the individual soul, Kahola renews the question, thinking that the inner
Self of all must be viewed as different from the soul, on the ground of
some special attribute which cannot possibly belong to the soul; and
Yâjñavalkya divining his thought thereon declares that the inner Self
possesses an attribute which cannot possibly belong to the soul, viz.
being in essential opposition to all imperfection. The interchange of
ideas therefore has to be made for the purpose of establishing the idea
of the individual nature of the object of meditation.--'As elsewhere,' i.
e. as in the case of the knowledge of that which truly is, the repeated
questions and replies only serve to define one and the same Brahman, not
to convey the idea of the object of meditation having to be meditated on
under new aspects.--But a new objection is raised--As there is, in the
Sad-vidyâ also, a difference between the several questions and answers,
how is that vidyâ known to be one?--To this question the next Sûtra
replies.
37. For one and the same (highest divinity), called the 'truly being,'
and so on (is the subject of that meditation).
For the highest divinity, called there _that which is_--which was
introduced in the clause 'that divinity thought,' &c.--is intimated by
all the following sections of that chapter. This is proved by the fact
that the attributes--'that_ which truly _is' and so on--which were
mentioned in the first section and confirmed in the subsequent ones, are
finally summed up in the statement, 'in that all this has its Self, that
is the True, that is the Self.'
Some interpreters construe the last two Sûtras as constituting two
adhikaranas. The former Sûtra, they say, teaches that the text, 'I am
thou, thou art I,' enjoins a meditation on the soul and the highest Self
as interchangeable. But as on the basis of texts such as 'All this is
indeed Brahman,' 'all this has its Self in Brahman,' 'Thou art that,'
the text quoted is as a matter of course understood to mean that there
is one universal Self, the teaching which it is by those interpreters
assumed to convey would be nothing new; and their interpretation
therefore must be rejected. The point as to the oneness of the
individual and the highest Self will moreover be discussed under IV, I,
3. Moreover, there is no foundation for a special meditation on Brahman
as the individual soul and the individual soul as Brahman, apart from
the meditation on the Self of all being one.--The second Sûtra, they say,
declares the oneness of the meditation on the True enjoined in the text,
'whosoever knows this great wonderful first-born as the True Brahman'
(_Bri_. Up. V, 4), and of the meditation enjoined in the subsequent
passage (V, 5. 2), 'Now what is true, that is the Âditya, the person
that dwells in yonder orb, and the person in the right eye.' But this
also is untenable. For the difference of abode mentioned in the latter
passage (viz. the abode in the sun and in the eye) establishes difference
of vidyâ, as already shown under Sû. III, 3, 21. Nor is it possible to
assume that the two meditations comprised in the latter text which have
a character of their own in so far as they view the True as embodied in
syllables, and so on, and which are declared to be connected with a
special result ('he who knows this destroys evil and leaves it'), should
be identical with the one earlier meditation which has an independent
character of its own and a result of its own ('he conquers these
worlds'). Nor can it be said that the declaration of a fruit in 'he
destroys evil and leaves it' refers merely to the fruit (not of the
entire meditation but) of a subordinate part of the meditation; for
there is nothing to prove this. The proof certainly cannot be said to
lie in the fact of the vidyâs being one; for this would imply reasoning
in a circle, viz. as follows--it being settled that the vidyâs are one,
it follows that the fruit of the former meditation only is the main one,
while the fruits of the two later meditations are subordinate ones; and--
it being settled that those two later fruits are subordinate ones, it
follows that, as thus there is no difference depending on connexion with
fruits, the two later meditations are one with the preceding one.--All
this proves that the two Sûtras can be interpreted only in the way
maintained by us.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'being within.'
38. Wishes and the rest, here and there; (as is known from the abode,
and so on).
We read in the Chândogya (VIII, I, 1), 'There is that city of Brahman,
and in it the palace, the small lotus, and in it that small ether,' &c.;
and in the Vâjasaneyaka, 'He is that great unborn Self who consists of
knowledge,' and so on. A doubt here arises whether the two texts
constitute one meditation or not.--The two meditations are separate, the
Pûrvapakshin maintains; for they have different characters. The
Chândogya represents as the object of meditation the ether as
distinguished by eight different attributes, viz. freedom from all evil
and the rest; while, according to the Vâjasaneyaka, the being to be
meditated on is he who dwells within that ether, and is distinguished by
attributes such as lordship, and so on.--To this we reply that the
meditations are not distinct, since there is no difference of character.
For desires and so on constitute that character 'here and there,' i.e.
in both texts nothing else but Brahman distinguished by attributes, such
as having true wishes, and so on, forms the subject of meditation. This
is known 'from the abode and so on,' i.e. the meditation is recognised
as the same because in both texts Brahman is referred to as abiding in
the heart, being a bridge, and so on. Lordship and the rest, which are
stated in the Vâjasaneyaka, are special aspects of the quality of being
capable to realise all one's purposes, which is one of the eight
qualities declared in the Chândogya, and as such prove that all the
attributes going together with that quality in the Chândogya are valid
for the Vâjasaneyaka also. The character of the two vidyâs therefore
does not differ. The connexion with a reward also does not differ, for
it consists in both cases in attaining to Brahman; cp. Ch. Up. VIII, 12,
3 'Having approached the highest light he is manifested in his own form,'
and Bri. Up. V, 4, 24 'He becomes indeed the fearless Brahman.' That,
in the Chândogya-text, the term _ether_ denotes the highest Brahman, has
already been determined under I, 3, 14. As in the Vâjasaneyaka, on the
other hand, he who abides in the ether is recognised as the highest Self,
we infer that by the ether in which he abides must be understood the
ether within the heart, which in the text 'within there is a little
hollow space (sushira)' (Mahânâr. Up. XI, 9) is called sushira. The two
meditations are therefore one. Here an objection is raised. It cannot be
maintained that the attributes mentioned in the Chândogya have to be
combined with those stated in the Vâjasaneyaka (lordship, rulership, &c.
), since even the latter are not truly valid for the meditation. For the
immediately preceding passage, 'By the mind it is to be perceived that
there is here no plurality: from death to death goes he who sees here
any plurality; as one only is to be seen that eternal being, not to be
proved by any means of proof,' as well as the subsequent text, 'that
Self is to be described by No, no,' shows that the Brahman to be
meditated upon is to be viewed as devoid of attributes; and from this we
infer that the attributes of lordship and so on, no less than the
qualities of grossness and the like, have to be denied of Brahman. From
this again we infer that in the Chândogya also the attributes of
satyakâmatva and so on are not meant to be declared as Brahman's true
qualities. All such qualities--as not being real qualities of Brahman--
have therefore to be omitted in meditations aiming at final release.--
This objection the next Sûtra disposes of.