1. If it be said that some (mention) that which is based on inference
(i.e. the pradhâna); we deny this, because (the term alluded to) refers
to what is contained in the simile of the body (i.e. the body itself);
and (that the text) shows.
In the preceding part of this work--as whose topic there has been set
forth an enquiry into Brahman--we have at first defined Brahman (I, 1,
2); we have thereupon refuted the objection that that definition applies
to the pradhâna also, by showing that there is no scriptural authority
for the latter (I, 1, 5), and we have shown in detail that the common
purport of all Vedânta-texts is to set forth the doctrine that Brahman,
and not the pradhâ/n/a, is the cause of the world. Here, however, the
Sâ@nkhya again raises an objection which he considers not to have been
finally disposed of.
It has not, he says, been satisfactorily proved that there is no
scriptural authority for the pradhâna; for some /s/âkhâs contain
expressions which seem to convey the idea of the pradhâna. From this it
follows that Kapila and other supreme /ri/shis maintain the doctrine of
the pradhâna being the general cause only because it is based on the
Veda.--As long therefore as it has not been proved that those passages
to which the Sâ@nkhyas refer have a different meaning (i.e. do not
allude to the pradhâna), all our previous argumentation as to the
omniscient Brahman being the cause of the world must be considered as
unsettled. We therefore now begin a new chapter which aims at proving
that those passages actually have a different meaning.
The Sâ@nkhyas maintain that that also which is based on inference, i.e.
the pradhâna, is perceived in the text of some /s/âkhâs. We read, for
instance, they say, in the Kâ/th/aka (I, 3, 11), 'Beyond the Great there
is the Undeveloped, beyond the Undeveloped there is the Person.' There
we recognise, named by the same names and enumerated in the same order,
the three entities with which we are acquainted from the
Sâ@nkhya-sm/ri/ti, viz. the great principle, the Undeveloped (the
pradhâna), and the soul[228]. That by the Undeveloped is meant the
pradhâna is to be concluded from the common use of Sm/ri/ti and from the
etymological interpretation of which the word admits, the pradhâna being
called undeveloped because it is devoid of sound and other qualities. It
cannot therefore be asserted that there is no scriptural authority for
the pradhâna. And this pradhâna vouched for by Scripture we declare to
be the cause of the world, on the ground of Scripture, Sm/ri/ti, and
ratiocination.
Your reasoning, we reply, is not valid. The passage from the Kâ/th/aka
quoted by you intimates by no means the existence of that great
principle and that Undeveloped which are known from the
Sâ@nkhya-sm/ri/ti. We do not recognise there the pradhâna of the
Sâ@nkhyas, i.e. an independent general cause consisting of three
constituting elements; we merely recognise the word 'Undeveloped,' which
does not denote any particular determined thing, but may--owing to its
etymological meaning, 'that which is not developed, not
manifest'--denote anything subtle and difficult to distinguish. The
Sâ@nkhyas indeed give to the word a settled meaning, as they apply it to
the pradhâna; but then that meaning is valid for their system only, and
has no force in the determination of the sense of the Veda. Nor does
mere equality of position prove equality of being, unless the latter be
recognised independently. None but a fool would think a cow to be a
horse because he sees it tied in the usual place of a horse. We,
moreover, conclude, on the strength of the general subject-matter, that
the passage does not refer to the pradhâna the fiction of the Sâ@nkhyas,
'on account of there being referred to that which is contained in the
simile of the body.' This means that the body which is mentioned in the
simile of the chariot is here referred to as the Undeveloped. We infer
this from the general subject-matter of the passage and from the
circumstance of nothing else remaining.--The immediately preceding part
of the chapter exhibits the simile in which the Self, the body, and so
on, are compared to the lord of a chariot, a chariot, &c., 'Know the
Self to be the lord of the chariot, the body to be the chariot, the
intellect the charioteer, and the mind the reins. The senses they call
the horses, the objects of the senses their roads. When he (the Self) is
in union with the body, the senses and the mind, then wise people call
him the enjoyer.' The text then goes on to say that he whose senses, &c.
are not well controlled enters into sa/m/sâra, while he who has them
under control reaches the end of the journey, the highest place of
Vish/n/u. The question then arises: What is the end of the journey, the
highest place of Vish/n/u? Whereupon the text explains that the highest
Self which is higher than the senses, &c., spoken of is the end of the
journey, the highest place of Vish/n/u. 'Beyond the senses there are the
objects, beyond the objects there is the mind, beyond the mind there is
the intellect, the great Self is beyond the intellect. Beyond the great
there is the Undeveloped, beyond the Undeveloped there is the Person.
Beyond the Person there is nothing--this is the goal, the highest Road.'
In this passage we recognise the senses, &c. which in the preceding
simile had been compared to horses and so on, and we thus avoid the
mistake of abandoning the matter in hand and taking up a new subject.
The senses, the intellect, and the mind are referred to in both passages
under the same names. The objects (in the second passage) are the
objects which are (in the former passage) designated as the roads of the
senses; that the objects are beyond (higher than) the senses is known
from the scriptural passage representing the senses as grahas, i.e.
graspers, and the objects as atigrahas, i.e. superior to the grahas
(B/ri/ Up. III, 2). The mind (manas) again is superior to the objects,
because the relation of the senses and their objects is based on the
mind. The intellect (buddhi) is higher than the mind, since the objects
of enjoyment are conveyed to the soul by means of the intellect. Higher
than the intellect is the great Self which was represented as the lord
of the chariot in the passage, 'Know the Self to be the lord of the
chariot.' That the same Self is referred to in both passages is manifest
from the repeated use of the word 'Self;' that the Self is superior to
intelligence is owing to the circumstance that the enjoyer is naturally
superior to the instrument of enjoyment. The Self is appropriately
called great as it is the master.--Or else the phrase 'the great Self'
may here denote the intellect of the first-born Hira/n/yagarbha which is
the basis of all intellects; in accordance with the following
Sm/ri/ti-passage it is called mind, the great one; reflection, Brahman;
the stronghold, intellect; enunciation, the Lord; highest knowledge,
consciousness; thought, remembrance[229], and likewise with the
following scriptural passage, 'He (Hira/n/ya-garbha) who first creates
Brahman and delivers the Vedas to him' (/S/vet. Up. VI, 18). The
intellect, which in the former passage had been referred to under its
common name buddhi, is here mentioned separately, since it may be
represented as superior to our human intellects. On this latter
explanation of the term 'the great Self,' we must assume that the
personal Self which in the simile had been compared to the charioteer
is, in the latter passage, included in the highest person (mentioned
last); to which there is no objection, since in reality the personal
Self and the highest Self are identical.--Thus there remains now the
body only which had before been compared to a chariot. We therefore
conclude that the text after having enumerated the senses and all the
other things mentioned before, in order to point out the highest place,
points out by means of the one remaining word, viz. avyakta, the only
thing remaining out of those which had been mentioned before, viz. the
body. The entire passage aims at conveying the knowledge of the unity of
the inward Self and Brahman, by describing the soul's passing through
sa/m/sâra and release under the form of a simile in which the body, &c.
of the soul--which is affected by Nescience and therefore joined to a
body, senses, mind, intellect, objects, sensations, &c.--are compared to
a chariot, and so on.--In accordance with this the subsequent verse
states the difficulty of knowing the highest place of Vish/n/u ('the
Self is hidden in all beings and does not shine forth, but it is seen by
subtle seers through their sharp and subtle intellect'), and after that
the next verse declares Yoga to be the means of attaining that
cognition. 'A wise man should keep down speech in the mind, he should
keep down the mind in intelligence, intelligence he should keep down
within the great Self, and he should keep that within the quiet
Self.'--That means: The wise man should restrain the activity of the
outer organs such as speech, &c., and abide within the mind only; he
should further restrain the mind which is intent on doubtful external
objects within intelligence, whose characteristic mark is decision,
recognising that indecision is evil; he should further restrain
intelligence within the great Self, i.e. the individual soul or else the
fundamental intellect; he should finally fix the great Self on the calm
Self, i.e. the highest Self, the highest goal, of which the whole
chapter treats.--If we in this manner review the general context, we
perceive that there is no room for the pradhâna imagined by the
Sânkhyas.
2. But the subtle (body is meant by the term avyakta) on account of its
capability (of being so designated).
It has been asserted, under the preceding Sûtra, that the term 'the
Undeveloped' signifies, on account of the general subject-matter and
because the body only remains, the body and not the pradhâna of the
Sâ@nkhyas.--But here the following doubt arises: How can the word
'undeveloped' appropriately denote the body which, as a gross and
clearly appearing thing, should rather be called vyakta, i.e. that which
is developed or manifested?
To this doubt the Sûtra replies that what the term avyakta denotes is
the subtle causal body. Anything subtle may be spoken of as Undeveloped.
The gross body indeed cannot directly be termed 'undeveloped,' but the
subtle parts of the elements from which the gross body originates may be
called so, and that the term denoting the causal substance is applied to
the effect also is a matter of common occurrence; compare, for instance,
the phrase 'mix the Soma with cows, i.e. milk' (/Ri/g-veda. S. IX, 46,
4). Another scriptural passage also--'now all this was then undeveloped'
(B/ri/. Up. I, 4, 7)--shows that this, i.e. this developed world with
its distinction of names and forms, is capable of being termed
undeveloped in so far as in a former condition it was in a merely
seminal or potential state, devoid of the later evolved distinctions of
name and form.
3. (Such a previous seminal condition of the world may be admitted) on
account of its dependency on him (the Lord); (for such an admission is)
according to reason.
Here a new objection is raised.--If, the opponent says, in order to
prove the possibility of the body being called undeveloped you admit
that this world in its antecedent seminal condition before either names
or forms are evolved can be called undeveloped, you virtually concede
the doctrine that the pradhâna is the cause of the world. For we
Sâ@nkhyas understand by the term pradhâna nothing but that antecedent
condition of the world.
Things lie differently, we rejoin. If we admitted some antecedent state
of the world as the independent cause of the actual world, we should
indeed implicitly, admit the pradhâna doctrine. What we admit is,
however, only a previous state dependent on the highest Lord, not an
independent state. A previous stage of the world such as the one assumed
by us must necessarily be admitted, since it is according to sense and
reason. For without it the highest Lord could not be conceived as
creator, as he could not become active if he were destitute of the
potentiality of action. The existence of such a causal potentiality
renders it moreover possible that the released souls should not enter on
new courses of existence, as it is destroyed by perfect knowledge. For
that causal potentiality is of the nature of Nescience; it is rightly
denoted by the term 'undeveloped;' it has the highest Lord for its
substratum; it is of the nature of an illusion; it is a universal sleep
in which are lying the transmigrating souls destitute for the time of
the consciousness of their individual character.[230] This undeveloped
principle is sometimes denoted by the term âkâ/s/a, ether; so, for
instance, in the passage, 'In that Imperishable then, O Gârgî, the ether
is woven like warp and woof' (B/ri/. Up. III, 8, 11). Sometimes, again,
it is denoted by the term akshara, the Imperishable; so, for instance
(Mu. Up. II, 1, 2), 'Higher, than the high Imperishable.' Sometimes it
is spoken of as Mâyâ, illusion; so, for instance (/S/ve. Up. IV, 10),
'Know then Prak/ri/ti is Mâyâ, and the great Lord he who is affected
with Mâyâ.' For Mâyâ is properly called undeveloped or non-manifested
since it cannot be defined either as that which is or that which is
not.--The statement of the Kâ/th/aka that 'the Undeveloped is beyond the
Great one' is based on the fact of the Great one originating from the
Undeveloped, if the Great one be the intellect of Hira/n/yagarbha. If,
on the other hand, we understand by the Great one the individual soul,
the statement is founded on the fact of the existence of the individual
soul depending on the Undeveloped, i.e. Nescience. For the continued
existence of the individual soul as such is altogether owing to the
relation in which it stands to Nescience. The quality of being beyond
the Great one which in the first place belongs to the Undeveloped, i.e.
Nescience, is attributed to the body which is the product of Nescience,
the cause and the effect being considered as identical. Although the
senses, &c. are no less products of Nescience, the term 'the
Undeveloped' here refers to the body only, the senses, &c. having
already been specially mentioned by their individual names, and the body
alone being left.--Other interpreters of the two last Sûtras give a
somewhat different explanation[231].--There are, they say, two kinds of
body, the gross one and the subtle one. The gross body is the one which
is perceived; the nature of the subtle one will be explained later on.
(Ved. Sû. III, 1, 1.) Both these bodies together were in the simile
compared to the chariot; but here (in the passage under discussion) only
the subtle body is referred to as the Undeveloped, since the subtle body
only is capable of being denoted by that term. And as the soul's passing
through bondage and release depends on the subtle body, the latter is
said to be beyond the soul, like the things (arthavat), i.e. just as the
objects are said to be beyond the senses because the activity of the
latter depends on the objects.--But how--we ask interpreters--is it
possible that the word 'Undeveloped' should refer to the subtle body
only, while, according to your opinion, both bodies had in the simile
been represented as a chariot, and so equally constitute part of the
topic of the chapter, and equally remain (to be mentioned in the passage
under discussion)?--If you should rejoin that you are authorised to
settle the meaning of what the text actually mentions, but not to find
fault with what is not mentioned, and that the word avyakta which occurs
in the text can denote only the subtle body, but not the gross body
which is vyakta, i.e. developed or manifest; we invalidate this
rejoinder by remarking that the determination of the sense depends on
the circumstance of the passages interpreted constituting a syntactical
whole. For if the earlier and the later passage do not form a whole they
convey no sense, since that involves the abandonment of the subject
started and the taking up of a new subject. But syntactical unity cannot
be established unless it be on the ground of there being a want of a
complementary part of speech or sentence. If you therefore construe the
connexion of the passages without having regard to the fact that the
latter passage demands as its complement that both bodies (which had
been spoken of in the former passage) should be understood as referred
to, you destroy all syntactical unity and so incapacitate yourselves
from arriving at the true meaning of the text. Nor must you think that
the second passage occupies itself with the subtle body only, for that
reason that the latter is not easily distinguished from the Self, while
the gross body is easily so distinguished on account of its readily
perceived loathsomeness. For the passage does not by any means refer to
such a distinction--as we conclude from the circumstance of there being
no verb enjoining it--but has for its only subject the highest place of
Vish/n/u, which had been mentioned immediately before. For after having
enumerated a series of things in which the subsequent one is always
superior to the one preceding it, it concludes by saying that nothing is
beyond the Person.--We might, however, accept the interpretation just
discussed without damaging our general argumentation; for whichever
explanation we receive, so much remains clear that the Kâ/th/aka passage
does not refer to the pradhâna.
4. And (the pradhâna cannot be meant) because there is no statement as
to (the avyakta) being something to be cognised.
The Sâ@nkhyas, moreover, represent the pradhâna as something to be
cognised in so far as they say that from the knowledge of the difference
of the constitutive elements of the pradhâna and of the soul there
results the desired isolation of the soul. For without a knowledge of
the nature of those constitutive elements it is impossible to cognise
the difference of the soul from them. And somewhere they teach that the
pradhâna is to be cognised by him who wishes to attain special
powers.--Now in the passage under discussion the avyakta is not
mentioned as an object of knowledge; we there meet with the mere word
avyakta, and there is no sentence intimating that the avyakta is to be
known or meditated upon. And it is impossible to maintain that a
knowledge of things which (knowledge) is not taught in the text is of
any advantage to man.--For this reason also we maintain that the word
avyakta cannot denote the pradhâna.--Our interpretation, on the other
hand, is unobjectionable, since according to it the passage mentions the
body (not as an object of knowledge, but merely) for the purpose of
throwing light on the highest place of Vish/n/u, in continuation of the
simile in which the body had been compared to a chariot.
5. And if you maintain that the text does speak (of the pradhâna as an
object of knowledge) we deny that; for the intelligent (highest) Self is
meant, on account of the general subject-matter.
Here the Sâ@nkhya raises a new objection, and maintains that the
averment made in the last Sûtra is not proved, since the text later on
speaks of the pradhâna--which had been referred to as the
Undeveloped--as an object of knowledge. 'He who has perceived that which
is without sound, without touch, without form, without decay, without
taste, eternal, without smell, without beginning, without end, beyond
the great and unchangeable, is freed from the jaws of death' (Ka. Up.
II, 3, 15). For here the text speaks of the pradhâna, which is beyond
the great, describing it as possessing the same qualities which the
Sâ@nkhya-sm/ri/ti ascribes to it, and designating it as the object of
perception. Hence we conclude that the pradhâna is denoted by the term
avyakta.
To this we reply that the passage last quoted does represent as the
object of perception not the pradhâna but the intelligent, i.e. the
highest Self. We conclude this from the general subject-matter. For that
the highest Self continues to form the subject-matter is clear from the
following reasons. In the first place, it is referred to in the passage,
'Beyond the person there is nothing, this is the goal, the highest
Road;' it has further to be supplied as the object of knowledge in the
passage, 'The Self is hidden in all beings and does not shine forth,'
because it is there spoken of as difficult to know; after that the
restraint of passion, &c. is enjoined as conducive to its cognition, in
the passage, 'A wise man should keep down speech within the mind;' and,
finally, release from the jaws of death is declared to be the fruit of
its knowledge. The Sâ@nkhyas, on the other hand, do not suppose that a
man is freed from the jaws of death merely by perceiving the pradhâna,
but connect that result rather with the cognition of the intelligent
Self.--The highest Self is, moreover, spoken of in all Vedânta-texts as
possessing just those qualities which are mentioned in the passage
quoted above, viz. absence of sound, and the like. Hence it follows,
that the pradhâna is in the text neither spoken of as the object of
knowledge nor denoted by the term avyakta.
6. And there is question and explanation relative to three things only
(not to the pradhâna).
To the same conclusion we are led by the consideration of the
circumstance that the Ka/th/avallî-upanishad brings forward, as subjects
of discussion, only three things, viz. the fire sacrifice, the
individual soul, and the highest Self. These three things only Yama
explains, bestowing thereby the boons he had granted, and to them only
the questions of Na/k/iketas refer. Nothing else is mentioned or
enquired about. The question relative to the fire sacrifice is contained
in the passage (Ka. Up. I, 1, 13), 'Thou knowest, O Death, the fire
sacrifice which leads us to Heaven; tell it to me, who am full of
faith.' The question as to the individual soul is contained in I, 1, 20,
'There is that doubt when a man is dead, some saying, he is; others, he
is not. This I should like to know, taught by thee; this is the third of
my boons.' And the question about the highest Self is asked in the
passage (I, 2, 14), 'That which thou seest as neither this nor that, as
neither effect nor cause, as neither past nor future, tell me
that.'--The corresponding answers are given in I, 1, 15, 'Yama then told
him that fire sacrifice, the beginning of all the worlds, and what
bricks are required for the altar, and how many;' in the passage met
with considerably later on (II, 5, 6; 7), 'Well then, O Gautama, I shall
tell thee this mystery, the old Brahman and what happens to the Self
after reaching death. Some enter the womb in order to have a body as
organic beings, others go into inorganic matter according to their work
and according to their knowledge;' and in the passage (I, 2, 18), 'The
knowing Self is not born nor does it die,' &c.; which latter passage
dilates at length on the highest Self. But there is no question relative
to the pradhâna, and hence no opportunity for any remarks on it.
Here the Sâ@nkhya advances a new objection. Is, he asks, the question
relative to the Self which is asked in the passage, 'There is that doubt
when a man is dead,' &c., again resumed in the passage, 'That which thou
seest as neither this nor that,' &c, or does the latter passage raise a
distinct new question? If the former, the two questions about the Self
coalesce into one, and there are therefore altogether two questions
only, one relative to the fire sacrifice, the other relative to the
Self. In that case the Sûtra has no right to speak of questions and
explanations relating to three subjects.--If the latter, you do not
consider it a mistake to assume a question in excess of the number of
boons granted, and can therefore not object to us if we assume an
explanation about the pradhâna in excess of the number of questions
asked.
To this we make the following reply.--We by no means assume a question
in excess of the number of boons granted, being prevented from doing so
by the influence of the opening part of that syntactical whole which
constitutes the Ka/th/avallî-upanishad. The Upanishad starts with the
topic of the boons granted by Yama, and all the following part of the
Upanishad--which is thrown into the form of a colloquy of Yama and
Na/k/iketas--carries on that topic up to the very end. Yama grants to
Na/k/iketas, who had been sent by his father, three boons. For his first
boon Na/k/iketas chooses kindness on the part of his father towards him,
for his second boon the knowledge of the fire sacrifice, for his third
boon the knowledge of the Self. That the knowledge of the Self is the
third boon appears from the indication contained in the passage (I, 1,
20), 'There is that doubt--; this is the third of my boons.'--If we
therefore supposed that the passage, 'That which thou seest as neither
this nor that,' &c., raises a new question, we should thereby assume a
question in excess of the number of boons granted, and thus destroy the
connexion of the entire Upanishad.--But--the Sâ@nkhya will perhaps
interpose--it must needs be admitted that the passage last quoted does
raise a new question, because the subject enquired about is a new one.
For the former question refers to the individual soul, as we conclude
from the doubt expressed in the words, 'There is that doubt when a man
is dead--some saying, he is; others, he is not.' Now this individual
soul, as having definite attributes, &c., cannot constitute the object
of a question expressed in such terms as, 'This which thou seest as
neither this nor that,' &c.; the highest Self, on the other hand, may be
enquired about in such terms, since it is above all attributes. The
appearance of the two questions is, moreover, seen to differ; for the
former question refers to existence and non-existence, while the latter
is concerned with an entity raised above all definite attributes, &c.
Hence we conclude that the latter question, in which the former one
cannot be recognised, is a separate question, and does not merely resume
the subject of the former one.--All this argumentation is not valid, we
reply, since we maintain the unity of the highest Self and the
individual Self. If the individual Self were different from the highest
Self, we should have to declare that the two questions are separate
independent questions, but the two are not really different, as we know
from other scriptural passages, such as 'Thou art that.' And in the
Upanishad under discussion also the answer to the question, 'That which
thou seest as neither this nor that,' viz. the passage, 'The knowing
Self is not born, it dies not'--which answer is given in the form of a
denial of the birth and death of the Self-clearly shows that the
embodied Self and the highest Self are non-different. For there is room
for a denial of something only when that something is possible, and the
possibility of birth and death exists in the embodied Self only, since
it is connected with the body, but not in the highest Self.--There is,
moreover, another passage conveying the same meaning, viz. II, 4, 4,
'The wise when he knows that that by which he perceives all objects in
sleep or in waking, is the great omnipresent Self, grieves no more.'
This passage makes the cessation of all grief dependent on the knowledge
of the individual Self, in so far as it possesses the qualities of
greatness and omnipresence, and thereby declares that the individual
Self is not different from the highest Self. For that the cessation of
all sorrow is consequent on the knowledge of the highest Self, is a
recognised Vedânta tenet.--There is another passage also warning men not
to look on the individual Self and the highest Self as different
entities, viz. II, 4, 10, 'What is here the same is there; and what is
there the same is here. He who sees any difference here goes from death
to death.'--The following circumstance, too, is worthy of consideration.
When Na/k/iketas has asked the question relating to the existence or
non-existence of the soul after death, Yama tries to induce him to
choose another boon, tempting him with the offer of various objects of
desire. But Na/k/iketas remains firm. Thereupon Death, dwelling on the
distinction of the Good and the Pleasant, and the distinction of wisdom
and ignorance, praises Na/k/iketas, 'I believe Na/k/iketas to be one who
desires knowledge, for even many pleasures did not tear thee away' (I,
2, 4); and later on praises the question asked by Na/k/iketas, 'The wise
who, by means of meditation on his Self, recognises the Ancient who is
difficult to be seen, who has entered into the dark, who is hidden in
the cave, who dwells in the abyss, as God, he indeed leaves joy and
sorrow far behind' (I, 2, 12). Now all this means to intimate that the
individual Self and the highest Self are non-different. For if
Na/k/iketas set aside the question, by asking which he had earned for
himself the praise of Yama, and after having received that praise asked
a new question, all that praise would have been bestowed on him unduly.
Hence it follows that the question implied in I, 2, 14, 'That which thou
seest as neither this nor that,' merely resumes the topic to which the
question in I, 1, 20 had referred.--Nor is there any basis to the
objection that the two questions differ in form. The second question, in
reality, is concerned with the same distinction as the first. The first
enquires about the existence of the soul apart from the body, &c.; the
second refers to the circumstance of that soul not being subject to
sa/m/sâra. For as long as Nescience remains, so long the soul is
affected with definite attributes, &c.; but as soon as Nescience comes
to an end, the soul is one with the highest Self, as is taught by such
scriptural texts as 'Thou art that.' But whether Nescience be active or
inactive, no difference is made thereby in the thing itself (viz. the
soul). A man may, in the dark, mistake a piece of rope lying on the
ground for a snake, and run away from it, frightened and trembling;
thereon another man may tell him, 'Do not be afraid, it is only a rope,
not a snake;' and he may then dismiss the fear caused by the imagined
snake, and stop running. But all the while the presence and subsequent
absence of his erroneous notion, as to the rope being a snake, make no
difference whatever in the rope itself. Exactly analogous is the case of
the individual soul which is in reality one with the highest soul,
although Nescience makes it appear different. Hence the reply contained
in the passage, 'It is not born, it dies not,' is also to be considered
as furnishing an answer to the question asked in I, 1, 20.--The Sûtra is
to be understood with reference to the distinction of the individual
Self and the highest Self which results from Nescience. Although the
question relating to the Self is in reality one only, yet its former
part (I, 1, 20) is seen specially to refer to the individual Self, since
there a doubt is set forth as to the existence of the soul when, at the
time of death, it frees itself from the body, and since the specific
marks of the sa/m/sâra-state, such as activity, &c. are not denied;
while the latter part of the question (I, 2, 14), where the state of
being beyond all attributes is spoken of, clearly refers to the highest
Self.--For these reasons the Sûtra is right in assuming three topics of
question and explanation, viz. the fire sacrifice, the individual soul,
and the highest Self. Those, on the other hand, who assume that the
pradhâna constitutes a fourth subject discussed in the Upanishad, can
point neither to a boon connected with it, nor to a question, nor to an
answer. Hence the pradhâna hypothesis is clearly inferior to our own.