But how does the confined locality of the eye agree with Brahman which
is omnipresent like the ether?--To this question we reply that there
would indeed be a want of agreement if that one locality only were
assigned to the Lord. For other localities also, viz. the earth and so
on, are attributed to him in the passage, 'He who dwells in the earth,'
&c. (B/ri/. Up. III, 7, 3). And among those the eye also is mentioned,
viz. in the clause, 'He who dwells in the eye,' &c. The phrase 'and so
on,' which forms part of the Sûtra, intimates that not only locality is
assigned to Brahman, although not (really) appropriate to it, but that
also such things as name and form, although not appropriate to Brahman
which is devoid of name and form, are yet seen to be attributed to it.
That, in such passages as 'His name is ut, he with the golden beard'
(Ch. Up. I, 6, 7, 6), Brahman although devoid of qualities is spoken of,
for the purposes of devotion, as possessing qualities depending on name
and form, we have already shown. And we have, moreover, shown that to
attribute to Brahman a definite locality, in spite of his omnipresence,
subserves the purposes of contemplation, and is therefore not contrary
to reason[145]; no more than to contemplate Vish/n/u in the sacred
/s/âlagrâm.
15. And on account of the passage referring to that which is
distinguished by pleasure (i.e. Brahman).
There is, moreover, really no room for dispute whether Brahman be meant
in the passage under discussion or not, because the fact of Brahman
being meant is established 'by the reference to that which is
distinguished by pleasure.' For the same Brahman which is spoken of as
characterised by pleasure in the beginning of the chapter[146], viz. in
the clauses, 'Breath is Brahman, Ka is Brahman, Kha is Brahman,' that
same Brahman we must suppose to be referred to in the present passage
also, it being proper to adhere to the subject-matter under discussion;
the clause, 'The teacher will tell you the way[147],' merely announcing
that the way will be proclaimed [by the teacher; not that a new subject
will be started].--How then, it may be asked, is it known that Brahman,
as distinguished by pleasure, is spoken of in the beginning of the
passage?--We reply: On hearing the speech of the fires, viz. 'Breath is
Brahman, Ka is Brahman, Kha is Brahman,' Upako/s/ala says, 'I understand
that breath is Brahman, but I do not understand that Ka or Kha is
Brahman.' Thereupon the fires reply, 'What is Ka is Kha, what is Kha is
Ka.' Now the word Kha denotes in ordinary language the elemental ether.
If therefore the word Ka which means pleasure were not applied to
qualify the sense of 'Kha,' we should conclude that the name Brahman is
here symbolically[148] given to the mere elemental ether as it is (in
other places) given to mere names and the like. Thus also with regard to
the word Ka, which, in ordinary language, denotes the imperfect pleasure
springing from the contact of the sense-organs with their objects. If
the word Kha were not applied to qualify the sense of Ka we should
conclude that ordinary pleasure is here called Brahman. But as the two
words Ka and Kha (occur together and therefore) qualify each other, they
intimate Brahman whose Self is pleasure. If[149] in the passage referred
to (viz. 'Breath is Brahman, Ka is Brahman, Kha is Brahman') the second
Brahman (i.e. the word Brahman in the clause 'Ka is Brahman') were not
added, and if the sentence would run 'Ka, Kha is Brahman,' the word Ka
would be employed as a mere qualifying word, and thus pleasure as being
a mere quality would not be represented as a subject of meditation. To
prevent this, both words--Ka as well as Kha--are joined with the word
Brahman ('Ka (is) Brahman, Kha (is) Brahman'). For the passage wishes to
intimate that pleasure also, although a quality, should be meditated
upon as something in which qualities inhere. It thus appears that at the
beginning of the chapter Brahman, as characterised by pleasure, is
spoken of. After that the Gârhapatya and the other sacred fires proclaim
in turns their own glory, and finally conclude with the words, 'This is
our knowledge, O friend, and the knowledge of the Self;' wherein they
point back to the Brahman spoken of before. The words, 'The teacher will
tell you the way' (which form the last clause of the concluding
passage), merely promise an explanation of the way, and thus preclude
the idea of another topic being started. The teacher thereupon saying,
'As water does not cling to a lotus leaf, so no evil deed clings to one
who knows it' (which words intervene between the concluding speech of
the fires and the information given by the teacher about the person
within the eye) declares that no evil attacks him who knows the person
within the eye, and thereby shows the latter to be Brahman. It thus
appears that the teacher's intention is to speak about that Brahman
which had formed the topic of the instruction of the fires; to represent
it at first as located in the eye and possessing the qualities of
Sa/m/yadvâma and the like, and to point out afterwards that he who thus
knows passes on to light and so on. He therefore begins by saying, 'That
person that is seen in the eye that is the Self.'
16. And on account of the statement of the way of him who has heard the
Upanishads.
The person placed in the eye is the highest lord for the following
reason also. From /s/ruti as well as sm/ri/ti we are acquainted with the
way of him who has heard the Upanishads or the secret knowledge, i.e.
who knows Brahman. That way, called the path of the gods, is described
(Pra. Up. I, 10), 'Those who have sought the Self by penance,
abstinence, faith, and knowledge gain by the northern path the sun. This
is the home of the spirits, the immortal, free from fear, the highest.
From thence they do not return;' and also (Bha. Gîtâ VIII, 24), 'Fire,
light, the bright fortnight, the six months of the northern progress of
the sun, on that way those who know Brahman go, when they have died, to
Brahman.' Now that very same way is seen to be stated, in our text, for
him who knows the person within the eye. For we read (Ch. Up. IV, 15,
5), 'Now whether people perform obsequies for him or no he goes to
light;' and later on, 'From the sun (he goes) to the moon, from the moon
to lightning. There is a person not human, he leads them to Brahman.
This is the path of the gods, the path that leads to Brahman. Those who
proceed on that path do not return to the life of man.' From this
description of the way which is known to be the way of him who knows
Brahman we ascertain that the person within the eye is Brahman.
17. (The person within the eye is the highest), not any other Self; on
account of the non-permanency (of the other Selfs) and on account of the
impossibility (of the qualities of the person in the eye being ascribed
to the other Selfs).
To the assertion made in the pûrvapaksha that the person in the eye is
either the reflected Self or the cognitional Self (the individual soul)
or the Self of some deity the following answer is given.--No other Self
such as, for instance, the reflected Self can be assumed here, on
account of non-permanency.--The reflected Self, in the first place, does
not permanently abide in the eye. For when some person approaches the
eye the reflection of that person is seen in the eye, but when the
person moves away the reflection is seen no longer. The passage 'That
person within the eye' must, moreover, be held, on the ground of
proximity, to intimate that the person seen in a man's own eye is the
object of (that man's) devout meditation (and not the reflected image of
his own person which he may see in the eye of another man). [Let, then,
another man approach the devout man, and let the latter meditate on the
image reflected in his own eye, but seen by the other man only. No, we
reply, for] we have no right to make the (complicated) assumption that
the devout man is, at the time of devotion, to bring close to his eye
another man in order to produce a reflected image in his own eye.
Scripture, moreover, (viz. Ch. Up. VIII, 9, 1, 'It (the reflected Self)
perishes as soon as the body perishes,') declares the non-permanency of
the reflected Self.--And, further, 'on account of impossibility' (the
person in the eye cannot be the reflected Self). For immortality and the
other qualities ascribed to the person in the eye are not to be
perceived in the reflected Self.--Of the cognitional Self, in the second
place, which is in general connexion with the whole body and all the
senses, it can likewise not be said that it has its permanent station in
the eye only. That, on the other hand, Brahman although all-pervading
may, for the purpose of contemplation, be spoken of as connected with
particular places such as the heart and the like, we have seen already.
The cognitional Self shares (with the reflected Self) the impossibility
of having the qualities of immortality and so on attributed to it.
Although the cognitional Self is in reality not different from the
highest Self, still there are fictitiously ascribed to it (adhyâropita)
the effects of nescience, desire and works, viz, mortality and fear; so
that neither immortality nor fearlessness belongs to it. The qualities
of being the sa/m/yadvâma, &c. also cannot properly be ascribed to the
cognitional Self, which is not distinguished by lordly power
(ai/s/varya).--In the third place, although the Self of a deity (viz.
the sun) has its station in the eye--according to the scriptural
passage, 'He rests with his rays in him'--still Selfhood cannot be
ascribed to the sun, on account of his externality (parâgrûpatva).
Immortality, &c. also cannot be predicated of him, as Scripture speaks
of his origin and his dissolution. For the (so-called) deathlessness of
the gods only means their (comparatively) long existence. And their
lordly power also is based on the highest Lord and does not naturally
belong to them; as the mantra declares, 'From terror of it (Brahman) the
wind blows, from terror the sun rises; from terror of it Agni and Indra,
yea, Death runs as the fifth.'--Hence the person in the eye must be
viewed as the highest Lord only. In the case of this explanation being
adopted the mention (of the person in the eye) as something well known
and established, which is contained in the words 'is seen' (in the
phrase 'the person that is seen in the eye'), has to be taken as
referring to (the mental perception founded on) the /s/âstra which
belongs to those who know; and the glorification (of devout meditation)
has to be understood as its purpose.
18. The internal ruler over the devas and so on (is Brahman), because
the attributes of that (Brahman) are designated.
In B/ri/. Up. III, 7, 1 ff. we read, 'He who within rules this world and
the other world and all beings,' and later on, 'He who dwells in the
earth and within the earth, whom the earth does not know, whose body the
earth is, who rules the earth within, he is thy Self, the ruler within,
the immortal,' &c. The entire chapter (to sum up its contents) speaks of
a being, called the antaryâmin (the internal ruler), who, dwelling
within, rules with reference to the gods, the world, the Veda, the
sacrifice, the beings, the Self.--Here now, owing to the unusualness of
the term (antaryâmin), there arises a doubt whether it denotes the Self
of some deity which presides over the gods and so on, or some Yogin who
has acquired extraordinary powers, such as, for instance, the capability
of making his body subtle, or the highest Self, or some other being.
What alternative then does recommend itself?
As the term is an unknown one, the pûrvapakshin says, we must assume
that the being denoted by it is also an unknown one, different from all
those mentioned above.--Or else it may be said that, on the one hand, we
have no right to assume something of an altogether indefinite character,
and that, on the other hand, the term antaryâmin--which is derived from
antaryamana (ruling within)--cannot be called altogether unknown, that
therefore antaryâmin may be assumed to denote some god presiding over
the earth, and so on. Similarly, we read (B/ri/. Up. III, 9, 16), 'He
whose dwelling is the earth, whose sight is fire, whose mind is light,'
&c. A god of that kind is capable of ruling the earth, and so on,
dwelling within them, because he is endowed with the organs of action;
rulership is therefore rightly ascribed to him.--Or else the rulership
spoken of may belong to some Yogin whom his extraordinary powers enable
to enter within all things.--The highest Self, on the other hand, cannot
be meant, as it does not possess the organs of action (which are
required for ruling).
To this we make the following reply.--The internal ruler, of whom
Scripture speaks with reference to the gods, must be the highest Self,
cannot be anything else.--Why so?--Because its qualities are designated
in the passage under discussion. The universal rulership implied in the
statement that, dwelling within, it rules the entire aggregate of
created beings, inclusive of the gods, and so on, is an appropriate
attribute of the highest Self, since omnipotence depends on (the
omnipotent ruler) being the cause of all created things.--The qualities
of Selfhood and immortality also, which are mentioned in the passage,
'He is thy Self, the ruler within, the immortal,' belong in their
primary sense to the highest Self.--Further, the passage, 'He whom the
earth does not know,' which declares that the internal ruler is not
known by the earth-deity, shows him to be different from that deity; for
the deity of the earth knows itself to be the earth.--The attributes
'unseen,' 'unheard,' also point to the highest Self, which is devoid of
shape and other sensible qualities.--The objection that the highest Self
is destitute of the organs of action, and hence cannot be a ruler, is
without force, because organs of action may be ascribed to him owing to
the organs of action of those whom he rules.--If it should be objected
that [if we once admit an internal ruler in addition to the individual
soul] we are driven to assume again another and another ruler ad
infinitum; we reply that this is not the case, as actually there is no
other ruler (but the highest Self[150]). The objection would be valid
only in the case of a difference of rulers actually existing.--For all
these reasons, the internal ruler is no other but the highest Self.
19. And (the internal ruler is) not that which the Sm/ri/ti assumes,
(viz. the pradhâna,) on account of the statement of qualities not
belonging to it.
Good so far, a Sâ@nkhya opponent resumes. The attributes, however, of
not being seen, &c., belong also to the pradhâna assumed by the
Sâ@nkhya-sm/ri/ti, which is acknowledged to be devoid of form and other
sensible qualities. For their Sm/ri/ti says, 'Undiscoverable,
unknowable, as if wholly in sleep' (Manu I, 5). To this pradhâna also
the attribute of rulership belongs, as it is the cause of all effects.
Therefore the internal ruler may be understood to denote the pradhâna.
The pradhâna has, indeed, been set aside already by the Sûtra I, 1, 5,
but we bring it forward again, because we find that attributes belonging
to it, such as not being seen and the like, are mentioned in Scripture.
To this argumentation the Sûtrakâra replies that the word 'internal
ruler' cannot denote the pradhâna, because qualities not belonging to
the latter are stated. For, although the pradhâna may be spoken of as
not being seen, &c, it cannot be spoken of as seeing, since the
Sâ@nkhyas admit it to be non-intelligent. But the scriptural passage
which forms the complement to the passage about the internal ruler
(B/ri/. Up. III, 7, 23) says expressly, 'Unseen but seeing, unheard but
hearing, unperceived but perceiving, unknown but knowing.'--And Selfhood
also cannot belong to the pradhâna.
Well, then, if the term 'internal ruler' cannot be admitted to denote
the pradhâna, because the latter is neither a Self nor seeing; let us
suppose it to denote the embodied (individual) soul, which is
intelligent, and therefore hears, sees, perceives, knows; which is
internal (pratya/ñk/), and therefore of the nature of Self; and which is
immortal, because it is able to enjoy the fruits of its good and evil
actions. It is, moreover, a settled matter that the attributes of not
being seen, &c., belong to the embodied soul, because the agent of an
action, such as seeing, cannot at the same time be the object of the
action. This is declared in scriptural passages also, as, for instance
(B/ri/. Up. III, 4, 2), 'Thou couldst not see the seer of sight.' The
individual soul is, moreover, capable of inwardly ruling the complex of
the organs of action, as it is the enjoyer. Therefore the internal ruler
is the embodied soul.--To this reasoning the following Sûtra replies.
20. And the embodied soul (also cannot be understood by the internal
ruler), for both also (i.e. both recensions of the B/ri/had Âra/n/yaka)
speak of it as different (from the internal ruler).
The word 'not' (in the Sûtra) has to be supplied from the preceding
Sûtra. Although the attributes of seeing, &c., belong to the individual
soul, still as the soul is limited by its adjuncts, as the ether is by a
jar, it is not capable of dwelling completely within the earth and the
other beings mentioned, and to rule them. Moreover, the followers of
both /s/âkhâs, i.e. the Kâ/n/vas as well as the Mâdhyandinas, speak in
their texts of the individual soul as different from the internal ruler,
viz. as constituting, like the earth, and so on, his abode and the
object of his rule. The Kâ/n/vas read (B/ri/. Up. III, 7, 22), 'He who
dwells in knowledge;' the Mâdhyandinas, 'He who dwells in the Self.' If
the latter reading is adopted, the word 'Self' denotes the individual
soul; if the former, the individual soul is denoted by the word
'knowledge;' for the individual soul consists of knowledge. It is
therefore a settled matter that some being different from the individual
soul, viz. the lord, is denoted by the term 'internal ruler.'--But how,
it may be asked, is it possible that there should be within one body two
seers, viz. the lord who rules internally and the individual soul
different from him?--Why--we ask in return--should that be
impossible?--Because, the opponent replies, it is contrary to scriptural
passages, such as, 'There is no other seer but he,' &c., which deny that
there is any seeing, hearing, perceiving, knowing Self, but the internal
ruler under discussion.--May, we rejoin, that passage not have the
purpose of denying the existence of another ruler?--No, the opponent
replies, for there is no occasion for another ruler (and therefore no
occasion for denying his existence), and the text does not contain any
specification, (but merely denies the existence of any other seer in
general.)
We therefore advance the following final refutation of the opponent's
objection.--The declaration of the difference of the embodied Self and
the internal ruler has its reason in the limiting adjunct, consisting of
the organs of action, presented by Nescience, and is not absolutely
true. For the Self within is one only; two internal Selfs are not
possible. But owing to its limiting adjunct the one Self is practically
treated as if it were two; just as we make a distinction between the
ether of the jar and the universal ether. Hence there is room for those
scriptural passages which set forth the distinction of knower and object
of knowledge, for perception and the other means of proof, for the
intuitive knowledge of the apparent world, and for that part of
Scripture which contains injunctions and prohibitions. In accordance
with this, the scriptural passage, 'Where there is duality, as it were,
there one sees another,' declares that the whole practical world exists
only in the sphere of Nescience; while the subsequent passage, 'But when
the Self only is all this, how should he see another?' declares that the
practical world vanishes in the sphere of true knowledge.
21. That which possesses the attributes of invisibility and so on (is
Brahman), on account of the declaration of attributes.
Scripture says, 'The higher knowledge is this by which the
Indestructible is apprehended. That which cannot be seen nor seized,
which is without origin and qualities, without eyes and ears, without
hands and feet, the eternal, all-pervading, omnipresent, infinitesimal,
that which is imperishable, that it is which the wise regard as the
source of all beings' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 5; 6).--Here the doubt arises
whether the source of all beings which is spoken of as characterised by
invisibility, &c. be the prâdhana or the embodied soul, or the highest
Lord.
We must, the pûrvapakshin says, understand by the source of all beings
the non-intelligent prâdhana because (in the passage immediately
subsequent to the one quoted) only non-intelligent beings are mentioned
as parallel instances. 'As the spider sends forth and draws in its
thread, as plants grow on the earth, as from the living man hairs spring
forth on the head and the body, thus everything arises here from the
Indestructible.'--But, it may be objected, men and spiders which are
here quoted as parallel instances are of intelligent nature.--No, the
pûrvapakshin replies; for the intelligent being as such is not the
source of the threads and the hair, but everybody knows that the
non-intelligent body of the spider ruled by intelligence is the source
of the threads; and so in the case of man also.--While, moreover, in the
case of the preceding Sûtra, the pradhâna hypothesis could not be
accepted, because, although some qualities mentioned, such as
invisibility and so on, agreed with it, others such as being the seer
and the like did not; we have here to do only with attributes such as
invisibility which agree with the pradhâna, no attribute of a contrary
nature being mentioned.--But the qualities mentioned in the
complementary passage (Mu. Up. I, 1, 9), 'He who knows all and perceives
all,' do not agree with the non-intelligent pradhâna; how, then, can the
source of all beings be interpreted to mean the pradhâna?--To this the
pûrvapakshin replies: The passage, 'The higher knowledge is that by
which the Indestructible is apprehended, that which cannot be seen,'
&c., points, by means of the term 'the Indestructible,' to the source of
all beings characterised by invisibility and similar attributes. This
same 'Indestructible' is again mentioned later on in the passage, 'It is
higher than the high Imperishable.' Now that which in this latter
passage is spoken of as higher than the Imperishable may possess the
qualities of knowing and perceiving everything, while the pradhâna
denoted by the term 'the Imperishable' is the source of all beings.--If,
however, the word 'source' (yoni) be taken in the sense of operative
cause, we may by 'the source of the beings' understand the embodied Self
also, which, by means of merit and demerit, is the cause of the origin
of the complex of things.
To this we make the following reply.--That which here is spoken of as
the source of all beings, distinguished by such qualities as
invisibility and so on, can be the highest Lord only, nothing
else.--Whereupon is this conclusion founded?--On the statement of
attributes. For the clause, 'He who is all-knowing, all-perceiving,'
clearly states an attribute belonging to the highest Lord only, since
the attributes of knowing all and perceiving all cannot be predicated
either of the non-intelligent pradhâna or the embodied soul whose power
of sight is narrowed by its limiting conditions. To the objection that
the qualities of knowing and perceiving all are, in the passage under
discussion, attributed to that which is higher than the source of all
beings--which latter is denoted by the term 'the Imperishable'--not to
the source itself, we reply that this explanation is inadmissible
because the source of all beings, which--in the clause, 'From the
Indestructible everything here arises'--is designated as the material
cause of all created beings, is later on spoken of as all-knowing, and
again as the cause of all created beings, viz. in the passage (I, 1, 9),
'From him who knows all and perceives all, whose brooding consists of
knowledge, from him is born that Brahman, name, form, and food.' As
therefore the Indestructible which forms the general topic of discussion
is, owing to the identity of designation, recognised (as being referred
to in the later passage also), we understand that it is the same
Indestructible to which the attributes of knowing and perceiving all are
ascribed.--We further maintain that also the passage, 'Higher than the
high Imperishable,' does not refer to any being different from the
imperishable source of all beings which is the general topic of
discussion. We conclude this from the circumstance that the passage, 'He
truly told that knowledge of Brahman through which he knows the
imperishable true person,' (I, 2, 13; which passage leads on to the
passage about that which is higher than the Imperishable,) merely
declares that the imperishable source of all beings, distinguished by
invisibility and the like--which formed the subject of the preceding
chapter--will be discussed. The reason why that imperishable source is
called higher than the high Imperishable, we shall explain under the
next Sûtra.--Moreover, two kinds of knowledge are enjoined there (in the
Upanishad), a lower and a higher one. Of the lower one it is said that
it comprises the /Ri/g-veda and so on, and then the text continues, 'The
higher knowledge is that by which the Indestructible is apprehended.'
Here the Indestructible is declared to be the subject of the higher
knowledge. If we now were to assume that the Indestructible
distinguished by invisibility and like qualities is something different
from the highest Lord, the knowledge referring to it would not be the
higher one. For the distinction of lower and higher knowledge is made on
account of the diversity of their results, the former leading to mere
worldly exaltation, the latter to absolute bliss; and nobody would
assume absolute bliss to result from the knowledge of the
pradhâna.--Moreover, as on the view we are controverting the highest
Self would be assumed to be something higher than the imperishable
source of all beings, three kinds of knowledge would have to be
acknowledged, while the text expressly speaks of two kinds
only.--Further, the reference to the knowledge of everything being
implied in the knowledge of one thing--which is contained in the passage
(I, 1, 3), 'Sir, what is that through which if it is known everything
else becomes known?'--is possible only if the allusion is to Brahman the
Self of all, and not either to the pradhâna which comprises only what is
non-intelligent or to the enjoyer viewed apart from the objects of
enjoyment.--The text, moreover, by introducing the knowledge of Brahman
as the chief subject--which it does in the passage (I, 1, 1), 'He told
the knowledge of Brahman, the foundation of all knowledge, to his eldest
son Atharvan'--and by afterwards declaring that out of the two kinds of
knowledge, viz. the lower one and the higher one, the higher one leads
to the comprehension of the Imperishable, shows that the knowledge of
the Imperishable is the knowledge of Brahman. On the other hand, the
term 'knowledge of Brahman' would become meaningless if that
Imperishable which is to be comprehended by means of it were not
Brahman. The lower knowledge of works which comprises the /Ri/g-veda,
and so on, is mentioned preliminarily to the knowledge of Brahman for
the mere purpose of glorifying the latter; as appears from the passages
in which it (the lower knowledge) is spoken of slightingly, such as (I,
2, 7), 'But frail indeed are those boats, the sacrifices, the eighteen
in which this lower ceremonial has been told. Fools who praise this as
the highest good are subject again and again to old age and death.'
After these slighting remarks the text declares that he who turns away
from the lower knowledge is prepared for the highest one (I, 2, 12),
'Let a Bráhama/n/a after he has examined all these worlds which are
gained by works acquire freedom from all desires. Nothing that is
eternal (not made) can be gained by what is not eternal (made). Let him
in order to understand this take fuel in his hand and approach a guru
who is learned and dwells entirely in Brahman.'--The remark that,
because the earth and other non-intelligent things are adduced as
parallel instances, that also which is compared to them, viz. the source
of all beings must be non-intelligent, is without foundation, since it
is not necessary that two things of which one is compared to the other
should be of absolutely the same nature. The things, moreover, to which
the source of all beings is compared, viz. the earth and the like, are
material, while nobody would assume the source of all beings to be
material.--For all these reasons the source of all beings, which
possesses the attributes of invisibility and so on, is the highest Lord.
22. The two others (i.e. the individual soul and the pradhâna) are not
(the source of all beings) because there are stated distinctive
attributes and difference.
The source of all beings is the highest Lord, not either of the two
others, viz. the pradhâna and the individual soul, on account of the
following reason also. In the first place, the text distinguishes the
source of all beings from the embodied soul, as something of a different
nature; compare the passage (II, 1, 2), 'That heavenly person is without
body, he is both without and within, not produced, without breath and
without mind, pure.' The distinctive attributes mentioned here, such as
being of a heavenly nature, and so on, can in no way belong to the
individual soul, which erroneously considers itself to be limited by
name and form as presented by Nescience, and erroneously imputes their
attributes to itself. Therefore the passage manifestly refers to the
Person which is the subject of all the Upanishads.--In the second place,
the source of all beings which forms the general topic is represented in
the text as something different from the pradhâna, viz. in the passage,
'Higher than the high Imperishable.' Here the term 'Imperishable' means
that undeveloped entity which represents the seminal potentiality of
names and forms, contains the fine parts of the material elements,
abides in the Lord, forms his limiting adjunct, and being itself no
effect is high in comparison to all effects; the whole phrase, 'Higher
than the high Imperishable,' which expresses a difference then clearly
shows that the highest Self is meant here.--We do not on that account
assume an independent entity called pradhâna and say that the source of
all beings is stated separately therefrom; but if a pradhâna is to be
assumed at all (in agreement with the common opinion) and if being
assumed it is assumed of such a nature as not to be opposed to the
statements of Scripture, viz. as the subtle cause of all beings denoted
by the terms 'the Undeveloped' and so on, we have no objection to such
an assumption, and declare that, on account of the separate statement
therefrom, i.e. from that pradhâna, 'the source of all beings' must mean
the highest Lord.--A further argument in favour of the same conclusion
is supplied by the next Sûtra.