That the chapter aims at setting forth the nature of the
non-transmigrating Self, we have to conclude from that circumstance also
that there occur in it terms such as Lord and so on, intimating the
nature of the non-transmigrating Self, and others excluding the nature
of the transmigrating Self. To the first class belongs, for instance,
'He is the lord of all, the king of all things, the protector of all
things.' To the latter class belongs the passage, 'He does not become
greater by good works, nor smaller by evil works.'--From all which we
conclude that the chapter refers to the non-transmigrating highest Lord.
Notes:
[Footnote 164: From passages of which nature we may infer that in the
passage under discussion also the 'abode' is Brahman.]
[Footnote 165: From which circumstance we may conclude that the passage
under discussion also refers to Brahman.]
[Footnote 166: Yat sarvam avidyâropita/m/ tat sarva/m/ paramârthato
brahma na tu yad brahma tat sarvam ity artha/h/. Bhâmatî.]
[Footnote 167: So that the passage would have to be translated, 'That,
viz. knowledge, &c. is the bridge of the Immortal.']
[Footnote 168: Bhogyasya bhokt/ris/eshatvât tasyâyatanatvam uktam
â/s/a@nkyâha na /k/eti, jîvasyâd/ri/sh/t/advârâ dyubhvâdinimittatvezpi
na sâkshât tadâyatanatvam aupâdhikatvenâvibhutvâd ity artha/h/. Ânanda
Giri.]
[Footnote 169: It would not have been requisite to introduce a special
Sûtra for the individual soul--which, like the air, is already excluded
by the preceding Sûtra--if it were not for the new argument brought
forward in the following Sûtra which applies to the individual soul
only.]
[Footnote 170: If the individual soul were meant by the abode of heaven,
earth, &c., the statement regarding Î/s/vara made in the passage about
the two birds would be altogether abrupt, and on that ground
objectionable. The same difficulty does not present itself with regard
to the abrupt mention of the individual soul which is well known to
everybody, and to which therefore casual allusions may be made.--I
subjoin Ânanda Giri's commentary on the entire passage:
Jîvasyopâdhyaikyenâvivakshitatvât tadj/ñ/ânezpi sarvaj/ñ/ânasiddhes
tasyâyatanatvâdyabhâve hetvantara/m/ vâ/k/yam ity â/s/a@nkya sûtre/n/a
pariharati kuta/sk/etyâdinâ. Tad vyâ/k/ash/t/e dyubhvâdîti. Nirde/s/am
eva dar/s/ayati tayor iti. Vibhaktyartham âha tâbhyâ/m/ /k/eti.
Sthitye/s/varasyâdanâj jîvasa/m/grahezpi katham î/s/varasyaiva
vi/s/vâyatanatva/m/ tadâha yadîti. Î/s/varasyâyanatvenâprak/ri/tatve
jîvap/ri/thakkathanânupapattir ity uktam eva vyatirekadvârâha anyatheti.
Jîvasyâyatanatvenâprak/ri/tatve tulyânupapattir iti /s/a@nkate nanviti.
Tasyaikyârtha/m/ lokasiddhasyânuvâdatvân naivam ity âha neti.
Jîvasyâpûrvatvâbhâvenâpratipâdyatvam eva praka/t/ayati kshetraj/ñ/o
hîti. Î/s/varasyâpi lokavâdisiddhatvâd apratipâdyatety â/s/a@nkyâha
î/s/varas tv iti.]
[Footnote 171: As might be the primâ facie conclusion from the particle
'but' introducing the sentence 'but he in reality,' &c.]
[Footnote 172: It being maintained that the passage referred to is to be
viewed in connexion with the general subject-matter of the preceding
past of the chapter.]
[Footnote 173: And would thus involve a violation of a fundamental
principle of the Mîmâ/m/sâ.]
[Footnote 174: A remark directed against the possible attempt to explain
the passage last quoted as referring to the embodied soul.]
[Footnote 175: Pi/nd/a/h/ sthûlo deha/h/, prâ/n/a/h/ sûtrâtmâ. Ânanda
Giri.-The lower Brahman (hira/n/yagarbha on sûtrâtman) is the vital
principle (prâ/n/a) in all creatures.]
[Footnote 176: Sa/m/yagdar/s/ana, i.e. complete seeing or intuition; the
same term which in other places--where it is not requisite to insist on
the idea of 'seeing' in contradistinction from 'reflecting' or
'meditating'--is rendered by perfect knowledge.]
[Footnote 177: Translated above by 'of the shape of the individual
soul.']
[Footnote 178: Pa/n/ini III, 3, 77, 'mûrtta/m/ ghana/h/.']
[Footnote 179: So that the interpretation of the pûrvapakshin cannot be
objected to on the ground of its involving the comparison of a thing to
itself.]
[Footnote 180: So that no objection can be raised on the ground that
heaven and earth cannot be contained in the small ether of the heart.]
[Footnote 181: Viz. of that which is within it. Ânanda Giri proposes two
explanations: na /k/eti, paravi/s/esha/n/atvenety atra paro daharâkâ/s/a
upâdânât tasminn iti saptamyanta-ta/kkh/abdasyeti /s/esha/h/. Yadvâ
para/s/abdo s nta/h/sthavastuvishayas tadvi/s/esha/n/alvena tasminn iti
daharâkâ/s/asyokter ity artha/h/. Ta/kkh/abdasya
samnik/ri/sh/t/ânvayayoge viprak/ri/sh/t/ânvayasya jaghanyatvâd
âkâ/s/ântargata/m/ dhyeyam iti bhâva/h/.]
[Footnote 182: A vâkyabheda--split of the sentence--takes place
according to the Mîmâm/s/â when one and the same sentence contains two
new statements which are different.]
[Footnote 183: While the explanation of Brahman by jîva would compel us
to assume that the word Brahman secondarily denotes the individual
soul.]
[Footnote 184: Upalabdher adhish/th/ânam brahma/n/a deha ishyate.
Tenâsâdhâra/n/atvena deho brahmapuram bhavet. Bhâmatî.]
[Footnote 185: I.e. Brahmâ, the lower Brahman.]
[Footnote 186: The masculine 'âvirbhûtasvarûpa/h/' qualifies the
substantive jîva/h/ which has to be supplied. Properly speaking the jîva
whose true nature has become manifest, i.e. which has become Brahman, is
no longer jîva; hence the explanatory statement that the term jîva is
used with reference to what the jîva was before it became Brahman.]
[Footnote 187: To state another reason showing that the first and second
chapters of Prajâpati's instruction refer to the same subject.]
[Footnote 188: I.e. of whom cognition is not a mere attribute.]
[Footnote 189: Although in reality there is no such thing as an
individual soul.]
[Footnote 190: Nanu jîvabrahma/n/or aikyam na kvâpi sûtrakâro mukhato
vadati kim tu sarvatra bhedam eva, ato naikyam ish/t/am tatrâha
pratipâdyam tv iti.]
[Footnote 191: This last sentence is directed against the possible
objection that '/s/abda,' which the Sûtra brings forward as an argument
in favour of the highest Lord being meant, has the sense of 'sentence'
(vâkya), and is therefore of less force than li@nga, i.e. indicatory or
inferential mark which is represented in our passage by the
a@ngush/th/amâtratâ of the purusha, and favours the jîva interpretation.
/S/abda, the text remarks, here means /s/ruti, i.e. direct enunciation,
and /s/ruti ranks, as a means of proof, higher than li@nga.]
[Footnote 192: I.e. men belonging to the three upper castes.]
[Footnote 193: The first reason excludes animals, gods, and /ri/shis.
Gods cannot themselves perform sacrifices, the essential feature of
which is the parting, on the part of the sacrificer, with an offering
meant for the gods. /Ri/shis cannot perform sacrifices in the course of
whose performance the ancestral /ri/shis of the sacrificer are
invoked.--The second reason excludes those men whose only desire is
emancipation and who therefore do not care for the perishable fruits of
sacrifices.--The third and fourth reasons exclude the /S/ûdras who are
indirectly disqualified for /s/âstric works because the Veda in
different places gives rules for the three higher castes only, and for
whom the ceremony of the upanayana--indispensable for all who wish to
study the Veda--is not prescribed.--Cp. Pûrva Mîmâ/m/sâ Sûtras VI, 1.]
[Footnote 194: The reference is to Pûrva Mîmâ/m/sâ Sûtras I, 1, 5 (not
to I, 2, 21, as stated in Muir's Sanskrit Texts, III, p. 69).]
[Footnote 195: In which classes of beings all the gods are comprised.]
[Footnote 196: Which shows that together with the non-eternality of the
thing denoted there goes the non-eternality of the denoting word.]
[Footnote 197: Âk/ri/ti, best translated by [Greek: eidos].]
[Footnote 198: The pûrvapakshin, i.e. here the grammarian maintains, for
the reasons specified further on, that there exists in the case of words
a supersensuous entity called spho/t/a which is manifested by the
letters of the word, and, if apprehended by the mind, itself manifests
the sense of the word. The term spho/t/a may, according as it is viewed
in either of these lights, be explained as the manifestor or that which
is manifested.--The spho/t/a is a grammatical fiction, the word in so
far as it is apprehended by us as a whole. That we cannot identify it
with the 'notion' (as Deussen seems inclined to do, p. 80) follows from
its being distinctly called vâ/k/aka or abhidhâyaka, and its being
represented as that which causes the conception of the sense of a word
(arthadhîhetu).]
[Footnote 199: For that each letter by itself expresses the sense is not
observed; and if it did so, the other letters of the word would have to
be declared useless.]
[Footnote 200: In order to enable us to apprehend the sense from the
word, there is required the actual consciousness of the last letter plus
the impressions of the preceding letters; just as smoke enables us to
infer the existence of fire only if we are actually conscious of the
smoke. But that actual consciousness does not take place because the
impressions are not objects of perceptive consciousness.]
[Footnote 201: 'How should it be so?' i.e. it cannot be so; and on that
account the differences apprehended do not belong to the letters
themselves, but to the external conditions mentioned above.]
[Footnote 202: With 'or else' begins the exposition of the finally
accepted theory as to the cause why the same letters are apprehended as
different. Hitherto the cause had been found in the variety of the
upâdhis of the letters. Now a new distinction is made between
articulated letters and non-articulated tone.]
[Footnote 203: I.e. it is not directly one idea, for it has for its
object more than one letter; but it may be called one in a secondary
sense because it is based on the determinative knowledge that the
letters, although more than one, express one sense only.]
[Footnote 204: Which circumstance proves that exalted knowledge
appertains not only to Hira/n/yagarbha, but to many beings.]
[Footnote 205: Viz. naraka, the commentaries say.]
[Footnote 206: Asmin kalpe sarveshâm prâ/n/inâm dâhapâkaprakâ/s/akârî
yozyam agnir d/ris/yate sozyam agni/h/ pûrvasmin kalpe manushya/h/ san
devatvapadaprâpaka/m/ karmânush/th/âyâsmin kalpa etaj janma labdhavân
ata/h/ pûrvasmin kalpe sa manushyo bhâvinî/m/ sa/m/j/ñ/âm â/sri/tyâgnir
iti vyapadi/s/yate.--Sâya/n/a on the quoted passage.]
[Footnote 207: As, for instance, 'So long as Âditya rises in the east
and sets in the west' (Ch. Up. III, 6, 4).]
[Footnote 208: Whence it follows that the devas are not personal beings,
and therefore not qualified for the knowledge of Brahman.]
[Footnote 209: Yama, for instance, being ordinarily represented as a
person with a staff in his hand, Varu/n/a with a noose, Indra with a
thunderbolt, &c. &c.]
[Footnote 210: On the proper function of arthavâda and mantra according
to the Mîmâ/m/sâ, cp. Arthasa/m/graha, Introduction.]
[Footnote 211: See above, p. 197.]
[Footnote 212: Which can be offered by kshattriyas only.]
[Footnote 213: /S/rautali@ngenânumânabâdha/m/ dar/s/ayitvâ smârtenâpi
tadbâdha/m/ dar/s/âyati smârtam iti. Ki/m/ atra brahma am/ri/tam ki/m/
svid vedyam anuttamam, /k/intayet tatra vai gatvâ gandharvo mâm
ap/rikkh/ata, Vi/s/vâvasus tato râjan vedântaj/ñ/ânakovida iti
mokshadharme janakayâj/ñ/avalkyasa/m/vâdât prahlâdâjagarasa/m/vadâ/k/
/k/oktânumânâsiddhir ity artha/h/.]
[Footnote 214: As opposed to an action to be accomplished.]
[Footnote 215: Of this nature is, for instance, the arthavâda, 'Fire is
a remedy for cold.']
[Footnote 216: Of this nature is, for instance, the passage 'the
sacrificial post is the sun' (i.e. possesses the qualities of the sun,
luminousness, &c.; a statement contradicted by perception).]
[Footnote 217: And therefore to suppose that a divinity is nothing but a
certain word forming part of a mantra.]
[Footnote 218: The râjasûya-sacrifice is to be offered by a prince who
wishes to become the ruler of the whole earth.]
[Footnote 219: In one of whose stages the being desirous of final
emancipation becomes a deva.]
[Footnote 220: The commentaries explain 'therefore' by 'on account of
his being devoid of the three sacred fires.' This explanation does not,
however, agree with the context of the Taitt. Sa/m/h.]
[Footnote 221: The /S/ûdra not having acquired a knowledge of Vedic
matters in the legitimate way, i.e. through the study of the Veda under
the guidance of a guru, is unfit for sacrifices as well as for vidyâ.]
[Footnote 222: The li@nga contained in the word '/S/ûdra' has no proving
power as it occurs in an arthavâda-passage which has no authority if not
connected with a corresponding injunctive passage. In our case the
li@nga in the arthavâda-passage is even directly contradicted by those
injunctions which militate against the /S/ûdras' qualification for Vedic
matters.]
[Footnote 223: Ha/m/savâkyâd âtmanoznâdara/m/ /s/rutvâ jâna/s/rute/h/
/s/ug utpannety etad eva katha/m/ gamyate yenâsau /s/ûdra/s/abdena
sâ/k/yate tatrâha sp/ris/yate /k/eti. Ânanda Giri.]
[Footnote 224: I translate this passage as I find it in all MSS. of
/S/a@nkara consulted by me (noting, however, that some MSS. read
/k/aitrarathinâmaika/h/). Ânanda Giri expressly explains tasmâd by
/k/aitrarathad ity artha/h/.--The text of the Tâ/nd/ya Br. runs:
tasmâ/k/ /k/aitrarathînâm eka/h/ kshatrapatir gâyate, and the commentary
explains: tasmât kâra/n/âd adyâpi /k/itrava/ms/otpannânâ/m/ madhye eka
eva râjâ kshatrapatir balâdhipatir bhavati.--Grammar does not authorise
the form /k/ahraratha used in the Sûtra.]
[Footnote 225: The king A/s/vapati receives some Brâhma/n/as as his
pupils without insisting on the upanayana. This express statement of the
upanayana having been omitted in a certain case shows it to be the
general rule.]
[Footnote 226: As the words stand in the original they might be
translated as follows (and are so translated by the pûrvapakshin),
'Whatever there is, the whole world trembles in the prâ/n/a, there goes
forth (from it) a great terror, viz. the raised thunderbolt.']
[Footnote 227: The stress lies here on the 'as if.' which intimate that
the Self does not really think or move.]