The third pâda discusses the question whether the different forms of
existence which, in their totality, constitute the world have an origin
or not, i.e. whether they are co-eternal with Brahman, or issue from it
and are refunded into it at stated intervals.
The first seven adhikara/n/as treat of the five elementary
substances.--Adhik. I (1-7) teaches that the ether is not co-eternal
with Brahman, but springs from it as its first effect.--Adhik. II (8)
shows that air springs from ether; Adhik. IV, V, VI (10; 11; 12) that
fire springs from air, water from fire, earth from water.--Adhik. III
(9) explains by way of digression that Brahman, which is not some
special entity, but quite generally 'that which is,' cannot have
originated from anything else.
Adhik. VII (13) demonstrates that the origination of one element from
another is due, not to the latter in itself, but to Brahman acting in
it.
Adhik. VIII (14) teaches that the reabsorption of the elements into
Brahman takes place in the inverse order of their emission.
Adhik. IX (15) remarks that the indicated order in which the emission
and the reabsorption of the elementary substances take place is not
interfered with by the creation and reabsorption of the organs of the
soul, i.e. the sense organs and the internal organ (manas); for they
also are of elemental nature, and as such created and retracted together
with the elements of which they consist.
The remainder of the pâda is taken up by a discussion of the nature of
the individual soul, the jîva.--Adhik. X (16) teaches that expressions
such as 'Devadatta is born,' 'Devadatta has died,' strictly apply to the
body only, and are transferred to the soul in so far only as it is
connected with a body.
Adhik. XI (17) teaches that the individual soul is, according to
Scripture, permanent, eternal, and therefore not, like the ether and the
other elements, produced from Brahman at the time of creation.--This
Sûtra is of course commented on in a very different manner by /S/a@nkara
on the one hand and Râmânuja on the other. According to the former, the
jîva is in reality identical--and as such co-eternal--with Brahman; what
originates is merely the soul's connexion with its limiting adjuncts,
and that connexion is moreover illusory.--According to Râmânuja, the
jîva is indeed an effect of Brahman, but has existed in Brahman from all
eternity as an individual being and as a mode (prakâra) of Brahman. So
indeed have also the material elements; yet there is an important
distinction owing to which the elements may be said to originate at the
time of creation, while the same cannot be said of the soul. Previously
to creation the material elements exist in a subtle condition in which
they possess none of the qualities that later on render them the objects
of ordinary experience; hence, when passing over into the gross state at
the time of creation, they may be said to originate. The souls, on the
other hand, possess at all times the same essential qualities, i.e. they
are cognizing agents; only, whenever a new creation takes place, they
associate themselves with bodies, and their intelligence therewith
undergoes a certain expansion or development (vikâsa); contrasting with
the unevolved or contracted state (sanko/k/a) which characterised it
during the preceding pralaya. But this change is not a change of
essential nature (svarûpânyathâbhâva) and hence we have to distinguish
the souls as permanent entities from the material elements which at the
time of each creation and reabsorption change their essential
characteristics.
Adhik. XII (18) defines the nature of the individual soul. The Sûtra
declares that the soul is 'j/ñ/a.' This means, according to /S/a@nkara,
that intelligence or knowledge does not, as the Vai/s/eshikas teach,
constitute a mere attribute of the soul which in itself is essentially
non-intelligent, but is the very essence of the soul. The soul is not a
knower, but knowledge; not intelligent, but intelligence.--Râmânuja, on
the other hand, explains 'j/ñ/a' by 'j/ñ/at/ri/,' i.e. knower, knowing
agent, and considers the Sûtra to be directed not only against the
Vai/s/eshikas, but also against those philosophers who--like the
Sâ@nkhyas and the Vedântins of /S/a@nkara's school--maintain that the
soul is not a knowing agent, but pure /k/aitanya.--The wording of the
Sûtra certainly seems to favour Râmânuja's interpretation; we can hardly
imagine that an author definitely holding the views of /S/a@nkara
should, when propounding the important dogma of the soul's nature, use
the term j/ñ/a of which the most obvious interpretation j/ñ/ât/ri/, not
j/ñ/ânam.
Adhik. XIII (19-32) treats the question whether the individual soul is
a/n/u, i.e. of very minute size, or omnipresent, all-pervading
(sarvagata, vyâpin). Here, again, we meet with diametrically opposite
views.--In /S/a@nkara's opinion the Sûtras 19-38 represent the
pûrvapaksha view, according to which the jîva is a/n/u, while Sûtra 29
formulates the siddhânta, viz. that the jîva, which in reality is
all-pervading, is spoken of as a/n/u in some scriptural passages,
because the qualities of the internal organ--which itself is
a/n/u--constitute the essence of the individual soul as long as the
latter is implicated in the sa/m/sâra.--According to Râmânuja, on the
other hand, the first Sûtra of the adhikara/n/a gives utterance to the
siddhânta view, according to which the soul is of minute size; the
Sûtras 20-25 confirm this view and refute objections raised against it;
while the Sûtras 26-29 resume the question already mooted under Sûtra
18, viz. in what relation the soul as knowing agent (j/ñ/ât/ri/) stands
to knowledge (j/ñ/âna).--In order to decide between the conflicting
claims of these two interpretations we must enter into some
details.--/S/a@nkara maintains that Sûtras 19-28 state and enforce a
pûrvapaksha view, which is finally refuted in 29. What here strikes us
at the outset, is the unusual length to which the defence of a mere
primâ facie view is carried; in no other place the Sûtras take so much
trouble to render plausible what is meant to be rejected in the end, and
an unbiassed reader will certainly feel inclined to think that in 19-28
we have to do, not with the preliminary statement of a view finally to
be abandoned, but with an elaborate bonâ fide attempt to establish and
vindicate an essential dogma of the system. Still it is not altogether
impossible that the pûrvapaksha should here be treated at greater length
than usual, and the decisive point is therefore whether we can, with
/S/a@nkara, look upon Sûtra 29 as embodying a refutation of the
pûrvapaksha and thus implicitly acknowledging the doctrine that the
individual soul is all-pervading. Now I think there can be no doubt that
/S/a@nkara's interpretation of the Sûtra is exceedingly forced.
Literally translated (and leaving out the non-essential word
'prâj/ñ/avat') the Sûtra runs as follows: 'But on account of that
quality (or "those qualities;" or else "on account of the quality--or
qualities--of that") being the essence, (there is) that designation (or
"the designation of that").' This /S/a@nkara maintains to mean, 'Because
the qualities of the buddhi are the essence of the soul in the sa/m/sâra
state, therefore the soul itself is sometimes spoken of as a/n/u.' Now,
in the first place, nothing in the context warrants the explanation of
the first 'tat' by buddhi. And--which is more important--in the second
place, it is more than doubtful whether on /S/a@nkara's own system the
qualities of the buddhi--such as pleasure, pain, desire, aversion,
&c.--can with any propriety be said to constitute the essence of the
soul even in the sa/m/sâra state. The essence of the soul in whatever
state, according to /S/a@nkara's system, is knowledge or intelligence;
whatever is due to its association with the buddhi is non-essential or,
more strictly, unreal, false.
There are no similar difficulties in the way of Râmânuja's
interpretation of the adhikara/n/a. He agrees with /S/a@nkara in the
explanation of Sûtras 19-35, with this difference that he views them as
setting forth, not the pûrvapaksha, but the siddhânta. Sûtras 26-28 also
are interpreted in a manner not very different from /S/a@nkara's,
special stress being laid on the distinction made by Scripture between
knowledge as a mere quality and the soul as a knowing agent, the
substratum of knowledge. This discussion naturally gives rise to the
question how it is that Scripture in some places makes use of the term
vij/ñ/âna when meaning the individual soul. The answer is given in Sûtra
29, 'The soul is designated as knowledge because it has that quality for
its essence,' i.e. because knowledge is the essential characteristic
quality of the soul, therefore the term 'knowledge' is employed here and
there to denote the soul itself. This latter interpretation gives rise
to no doubt whatever. It closely follows the wording of the text and
does not necessitate any forced supplementation. The 'tu' of the Sûtra
which, according to /S/a@nkara, is meant to discard the pûrvapaksha,
serves on Râmânuja's view to set aside a previously-raised objection; an
altogether legitimate assumption.
Of the three remaining Sûtras of the adhikara/n/a (30-32), 30 explains,
according to /S/a@nkara, that the soul may be called a/n/u, since, as
long as it exists in the sa/m/sâra condition, it is connected with the
buddhi. According to Râmânuja the Sûtra teaches that the soul may be
called vij/ñ/âna because the latter constitutes its essential quality as
long as it exists.--Sûtra 31 intimates, according to /S/a@nkara, that in
the states of deep sleep, and so on, the soul is potentially connected
with the buddhi, while in the waking state that connexion becomes
actually manifest. The same Sûtra, according to Râmânuja, teaches that
j/ñ/ât/ri/tva is properly said to constitute the soul's essential
nature, although it is actually manifested in some states of the soul
only.--In Sûtra 32, finally, /S/a@nkara sees a statement of the doctrine
that, unless the soul had the buddhi for its limiting adjunct, it would
either be permanently cognizing or permanently non-cognizing; while,
according to Râmânuja, the Sûtra means that the soul would either be
permanently cognizing or permanently non-cognizing, if it were pure
knowledge and all-pervading (instead of being /jñ/ât/ri/ and a/n/u, as
it is in reality).--The three Sûtras can be made to fit in with either
interpretation, although it must be noted that none of them explicitly
refers to the soul's connexion with the buddhi.
Adhik. XIV and XV (33-39; 40) refer to the kart/ri/tva of the jîva, i.e.
the question whether the soul is an agent. Sûtras 33-39 clearly say that
it is such. But as, according to /S/a@nkara's system, this cannot be the
final view,--the soul being essentially non-active, and all action
belonging to the world of upâdhis,--he looks upon the next following
Sûtra (40) as constituting an adhikara/n/a by itself, and teaching that
the soul is an agent when connected with the instruments of action,
buddhi, &c., while it ceases to be so when dissociated from them, 'just
as the carpenter acts in both ways,' i.e. just as the carpenter works as
long as he wields his instruments, and rests after having laid them
aside.--Râmânuja, perhaps more naturally, does not separate Sûtra 40
from the preceding Sûtras, but interprets it as follows: Activity is
indeed an essential attribute of the soul; but therefrom it does not
follow that the soul is always actually active, just as the carpenter,
even when furnished with the requisite instruments, may either work or
not work, just as he pleases.
Adhik. XVI (41, 42) teaches that the soul in its activity is dependent
on the Lord who impels it with a view to its former actions.
Adhik. XVII (43-53) treats of the relation of the individual soul to
Brahman. Sûtra 43 declares that the individual soul is a part (a/ms/a)
of Brahman, and the following Sûtras show how that relation does not
involve either that Brahman is affected by the imperfections,
sufferings, &c. of the souls, or that one soul has to participate in the
experiences of other souls. The two commentators of course take entirely
different views of the doctrine that the soul is a part of Brahman.
According to Râmânuja the souls are in reality parts of Brahman[14];
according to Sa@nkara the 'a/ms/a' of the Sûtra must be understood to
mean 'a/ms/a iva,' 'a part as it were;' the one universal indivisible
Brahman having no real parts, but appearing to be divided owing to its
limiting adjuncts.--One Sûtra (50) in this adhikara/n/a calls for
special notice. According to Sa@nkara the words 'âbhâsa eva /k/a' mean
'(the soul is) a mere reflection,' which, as the commentators remark, is
a statement of the so-called pratibimbavâda, i.e. the doctrine that the
so-called individual soul is nothing but the reflection of the Self in
the buddhi; while Sûtra 43 had propounded the so-called ava/kkh/edavâda,
i.e. the doctrine that the soul is the highest Self in so far as limited
by its adjuncts.--According to Râmânuja the âbhâsa of the Sûtra has to
be taken in the sense of hetvâbhâsa, a fallacious argument, and the
Sûtra is explained as being directed against the reasoning of those
Vedântins according to whom the soul is Brahman in so far as limited by
non-real adjuncts[15].