Chapter XV: Part 15

34. Grief of him (i.e. of Jâna/s/ruti) (arose) on account of his hearing a disrespectful speech about himself; on account of the rushing on of that (grief) (Raikva called him /S/ûdra); for it (the grief) is pointed at (by Raikva).

(In the preceding adhikara/n/a) the exclusiveness of the claim of men to knowledge has been refuted, and it has been declared that the gods, &c. also possess such a claim. The present adhikara/n/a is entered on for the purpose of removing the doubt whether, as the exclusiveness of the claim of twice-born men is capable of refutation, the /S/ûdras also possess such a claim.

The pûrvapakshin maintains that the /S/ûdras also have such a claim, because they may be in the position of desiring that knowledge, and because they are capable of it; and because there is no scriptural prohibition (excluding them from knowledge) analogous to the text, 'Therefore[220] the /S/ûdra is unfit for sacrificing' (Taitt. Sa/m/h. VII, 1, 1, 6). The reason, moreover, which disqualifies the /S/ûdras for sacrificial works, viz. their being without the sacred fires, does not invalidate their qualification for knowledge, as knowledge can be apprehended by those also who are without the fires. There is besides an inferential mark supporting the claim of the /S/ûdras; for in the so-called sa/m/varga-knowledge he (Raikva) refers to Jâna/s/ruti Pautrâya/n/a, who wishes to learn from him, by the name of /S/ûdra 'Fie, necklace and carnage be thine, O /S/ûdra, together with the cows' (Ch. Up. IV, 2, 3). Sm/ri/ti moreover speaks of Vidûra and others who were born from /S/ûdra mothers as possessing eminent knowledge.--Hence the /S/ûdra has a claim to the knowledge of Brahman.

To this we reply that the /S/ûdras have no such claim, on account of their not studying the Veda. A person who has studied the Veda and understood its sense is indeed qualified for Vedic matters; but a /S/ûdra does not study the Veda, for such study demands as its antecedent the upanayana-ceremony, and that ceremony belongs to the three (higher) castes only. The mere circumstance of being in a condition of desire does not furnish a reason for qualification, if capability is absent. Mere temporal capability again does not constitute a reason for qualification, spiritual capability being required in spiritual matters. And spiritual capability is (in the case of the /S/ûdras) excluded by their being excluded from the study of the Veda.--The Vedic statement, moreover, that the /S/ûdra is unfit for sacrifices intimates, because founded on reasoning, that he is unfit for knowledge also; for the argumentation is the same in both cases[221].--With reference to the pûrvapakshin's opinion that the fact of the word '/S/ûdra' being enounced in the sa/m/varga-knowledge constitutes an inferential mark (of the /S/ûdra's qualification for knowledge), we remark that that inferential mark has no force, on account of the absence of arguments. For the statement of an inferential mark possesses the power of intimation only in consequence of arguments being adduced; but no such arguments are brought forward in the passage quoted.[222] Besides, the word '/S/ûdra' which occurs in the sa/m/varga-vidyâ would establish a claim on the part of the /S/ûdras to that one vidyâ only, not to all vidyâs. In reality, however, it is powerless, because occurring in an arthavâda, to establish the /S/ûdras' claim to anything.--The word '/S/ûdra' can moreover be made to agree with the context in which it occurs in the following manner. When Jâna/s/ruti Pautrâya/n/a heard himself spoken of with disrespect by the flamingo ('How can you speak of him, being what he is, as if he were like Raikva with the car?' IV, 1, 3), grief (su/k/) arose in his mind, and to that grief the /ri/shi Raikva alludes with the word /S/ûdra, in order to show thereby his knowledge of what is remote. This explanation must be accepted because a (real) born /S/ûdra is not qualified (for the sa/m/varga-vidyâ). If it be asked how the grief (su/k/) which had arisen in Jânasruti's mind can be referred to by means of the word /S/ûdra, we reply: On account of the rushing on (âdrava/n/a) of the grief. For we may etymologise the word /S/ûdra by dividing it into its parts, either as 'he rushed into grief (/S/u/k/am abhidudrâva) or as 'grief rushed on him,' or as 'he in his grief rushed to Raikva;' while on the other hand it is impossible to accept the word in its ordinary conventional sense. The circumstance (of the king actually being grieved) is moreover expressly touched upon in the legend[223].

35. And because the kshattriyahood (of Jâna/s/ruti) is understood from the inferential mark (supplied by his being mentioned) later on with /K/aitraratha (who was a kshattriya himself).

Jâna/s/ruti cannot have been a /S/ûdra by birth for that reason also that his being a kshattriya is understood from an inferential sign, viz. his being mentioned together (in one chapter) with the kshattriya /K/aitraratha Abhipratârin. For, later on, i.e. in the passage complementary to the sa/m/varga-vidyâ, a kshattriya /K/aitrarathi Abhipratârin is glorified, 'Once while /S/aunaka Kâpeya and Abhipratârin Kâkshaseni were being waited on at their meal a religious student begged of them' (Ch. Up. IV, 3, 5). That this Abhipratârin was a /K/aitrarathi (i.e. a descendant of /K/itraratha) we have to infer from his connexion with a Kâpeya. For we know (from /S/ruti) about the connexion of /K/itraratha himself with the Kâpeyas ('the Kâpeyas made /K/itraratha perform that sacrifice;' Tâ/nd/ya. Br. XX, 12, 5), and as a rule sacrificers of one and the same family employ officiating priests of one and the same family. Moreover, as we understand from Scripture ('from him a /K/aitrarathi descended who was a prince[224]') that he (/K/aitraratha) was a prince, we must understand him to have been a kshattriya. The fact now of Jâna/s/ruti being praised in the same vidyâ with the kshattriya Abhipratârin intimates that the former also was a kshattriya. For as a rule equals are mentioned together with equals. That Jâna/s/ruti was a kshattriya we moreover conclude from his sending his door-keeper and from other similar signs of power (mentioned in the text).--Hence the /S/ûdras are not qualified (for the knowledge of Brahman).

36. On account of the reference to ceremonial purifications (in the case of the higher castes) and on account of their absence being declared (in the case of the /S/ûdras).

That the /S/ûdras are not qualified, follows from that circumstance also that in different places of the vidyâs such ceremonies as the upanayana and the like are referred to. Compare, for instance, /S/at. Br. XI, 5, 3, 13, 'He initiated him as a pupil;' Ch. Up. VII, 1, 1, 'Teach me, Sir! thus he approached him;' Pra. Up. I, 1, 'Devoted to Brahman, firm in Brahman, seeking for the highest Brahman they, carrying fuel in their hands, approached the venerable Pippalâda, thinking that he would teach them all that.'--Thus the following passage also, 'He without having made them undergo the upanayana (said) to them' (Ch. Up. V, 11, 7), shows that the upanayana is a well-established ceremony[225].--With reference to the /S/ûdras, on the other hand, the absence of ceremonies is frequently mentioned; so, for instance, Manu X, 4, where they are spoken of as 'once born' only ('the /S/ûdra is the fourth caste, once-born'), and Manu X, 126, 'In the /S/ûdra there is not any sin, and he is not fit for any ceremony.'

37. And on account of (Gautama) proceeding (to initiate Jâbâla) on the ascertainment of (his) not being that (i.e. a /S/ûdra).

The /S/ûdras are not qualified for that reason also that Gautama, having ascertained Jâbâla not to be a /S/ûdra from his speaking the truth, proceeded to initiate and instruct him. 'None who is not a Brâhma/n/a would thus speak out. Go and fetch fuel, friend, I shall initiate you. You have not swerved from the truth' (Ch. Up. IV, 4, 5); which scriptural passage furnishes an inferential sign (of the /S/ûdras not being capable of initiation).

38. And on account of the prohibition, in Sm/ri/ti, of (the /S/ûdras') hearing and studying (the Veda) and (knowing and performing) (Vedic) matters.

The /S/ûdras are not qualified for that reason also that Sm/ri/ti prohibits their hearing the Veda, their studying the Veda, and their understanding and performing Vedic matters. The prohibition of hearing the Veda is conveyed by the following passages: 'The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with (molten) lead and lac,' and 'For a /S/ûdra is (like) a cemetery, therefore (the Veda) is not to be read in the vicinity of a /S/ûdra.' From this latter passage the prohibition of studying the Veda results at once; for how should he study Scripture in whose vicinity it is not even to be read? There is, moreover, an express prohibition (of the /S/ûdras studying the Veda). 'His tongue is to be slit if he pronounces it; his body is to be cut through if he preserves it.' The prohibitions of hearing and studying the Veda already imply the prohibition of the knowledge and performance of Vedic matters; there are, however, express prohibitions also, such as 'he is not to impart knowledge to the /S/ûdra,' and 'to the twice-born belong study, sacrifice, and the bestowal of gifts.'--From those /S/ûdras, however, who, like Vidura and 'the religious hunter,' acquire knowledge in consequence of the after effects of former deeds, the fruit of their knowledge cannot be withheld, since knowledge in all cases brings about its fruit. Sm/ri/ti, moreover, declares that all the four castes are qualified for acquiring the knowledge of the itihâsas and purâ/n/as; compare the passage, 'He is to teach the four castes' (Mahâbh.).--It remains, however, a settled point that they do not possess any such qualification with regard to the Veda.

39. (The prâ/n/a is Brahman), on account of the trembling (predicated of the whole world).

The discussion of qualification for Brahma-knowledge--on which we entered as an opportunity offered--being finished we return to our chief topic, i.e. the enquiry into the purport of the Vedânta-texts.--We read (Ka. Up. II, 6, 2), 'Whatever there is, the whole world when gone forth trembles in the prâ/n/a. It (the prâ/n/a) is a great terror, a raised thunderbolt. Those who know it become immortal[226].'--This passage declares that this whole world trembles, abiding in prâ/n/a, and that there is raised something very terrible, called a thunderbolt, and that through its knowledge immortality is obtained. But as it is not immediately clear what the prâ/n/a is, and what that terrible thunderbolt, a discussion arises.

The pûrvapakshin maintains that, in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the term, prâ/n/a denotes the air with its five modifications, that the word 'thunderbolt' also is to be taken in its ordinary sense, and that thus the whole passage contains a glorification of air. For, he says, this whole world trembles, abiding within air with its five forms--which is here called prâ/n/a--and the terrible thunderbolts also spring from air (or wind) as their cause. For in the air, people say, when it manifests itself in the form of Parjanya, lightning, thunder, rain, and thunderbolts manifest themselves.--Through the knowledge of that air immortality also can be obtained; for another scriptural passage says, 'Air is everything by itself, and air is all things together. He who knows this conquers death.'--We therefore conclude that the same air is to be understood in the passage under discussion.

To this we make the following reply.--Brahman only can be meant, on account of what precedes as well as what follows. In the preceding as well as the subsequent part of the chapter Brahman only is spoken of; how then can it be supposed that in the intermediate part all at once the air should be referred to? The immediately preceding passage runs as follows, 'That only is called the Bright, that is called Brahman, that alone is called the Immortal. All worlds are contained in it, and no one goes beyond it.' That the Brahman there spoken of forms the topic of our passage also, we conclude, firstly, from proximity; and, secondly, from the circumstance that in the clause, 'The whole world trembles in prâ/n/a' we recognise a quality of Brahman, viz. its constituting the abode of the whole world. That the word prâ/n/a can denote the highest Self also, appears from such passages as 'the prâ/n/a of prâ/n/a' (B/ri/. Up. IV, 4, 18). Being the cause of trembling, moreover, is a quality which properly appertains to the highest Self only, not to mere air. Thus Scripture says, 'No mortal lives by the prâ/n/a and the breath that goes down. We live by another in whom these two repose' (Ka. Up. II, 5 5). And also in the passage subsequent to the one under discussion, ('From terror of it fire burns, from terror the sun burns, from terror Indra and Vâyu, and Death as the fifth run away,') Brahman, and not the air, must be supposed to be spoken of, since the subject of that passage is represented as the cause of fear on the part of the whole world inclusive of the air itself. Thence we again conclude that the passage under discussion also refers to Brahman, firstly, on the ground of proximity; and, secondly, because we recognise a quality of Brahman, viz. its being the cause of fear, in the words, 'A great terror, a raised thunderbolt.' The word 'thunderbolt' is here used to denote a cause of fear in general. Thus in ordinary life also a man strictly carries out a king's command because he fearfully considers in his mind, 'A thunderbolt (i.e. the king's wrath, or threatened punishment) is hanging over my head; it might fall if I did not carry out his command.' In the same manner this whole world inclusive of fire, air, sun, and so on, regularly carries on its manifold functions from fear of Brahman; hence Brahman as inspiring fear is compared to a thunderbolt. Similarly, another scriptural passage, whose topic is Brahman, declares, 'From terror of it the wind blows, from terror the sun rises; from terror of it Agni and Indra, yea, Death runs as the fifth.'--That Brahman is what is referred to in our passage, further follows from the declaration that the fruit of its cognition is immortality. For that immortality is the fruit of the knowledge of Brahman is known, for instance, from the mantra, 'A man who knows him only passes over death, there is no other path to go' (/S/vet. Up. VI, 15).--That immortality which the pûrvapakshin asserts to be sometimes represented as the fruit of the knowledge of the air is a merely relative one; for there (i.e. in the chapter from which the passage is quoted) at first the highest Self is spoken of, by means of a new topic being started (B/ri/. Up. III, 4), and thereupon the inferior nature of the air and so on is referred to. ('Everything else is evil.')--That in the passage under discussion the highest Self is meant appears finally from the general subject-matter; for the question (asked by Na/k/iketas in 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') refers to the highest Self.

40. The light (is Brahman), on account of that (Brahman) being seen (in the scriptural passage).

We read in Scripture, 'Thus does that serene being, arising from this body, appear in its own form as soon as it has approached the highest light' (Ch. Up. VIII, 12, 3). Here the doubt arises whether the word 'light' denotes the (physical) light, which is the object of sight and dispels darkness, or the highest Brahman.

The pûrvapakshin maintains that the word 'light' denotes the well-known (physical) light, because that is the conventional sense of the word. For while it is to be admitted that in another passage, discussed under I, 1, 24, the word 'light' does, owing to the general topic of the chapter, divest itself of its ordinary meaning and denote Brahman, there is in our passage no similar reason for setting the ordinary meaning aside. Moreover, it is stated in the chapter treating of the nâ/d/îs of the body, that a man going to final release reaches the sun ('When he departs from this body then he departs upwards by those very rays;' Ch. Up. VIII, 6, 5). Hence we conclude that the word 'light' denotes, in our passage, the ordinary light.

To this we make the following reply.--The word 'light' can denote the highest Brahman only, on account of that being seen. We see that in the whole chapter Brahman is carried on as the topic of discussion. For the Self, which is free from sin, &c. is introduced as the general subject-matter in VIII, 7, 1 ('the Self which is free from sin'); it is thereupon set forth as that which is to be searched out and to be understood (VIII, 7, 1); it is carried on by means of the clauses, 'I shall explain that further to you' (VIII, 9, 3 ff.); after that freedom from body is said to belong to it, because it is one with light ('when he is free from the body then neither pleasure nor pain touches him,' VIII, 12, 1)--and freedom from body is not possible outside Brahman--and it is finally qualified as 'the highest light, the highest person' (VIII, 12, 3).--Against the statement, made by the pûrvapakshin, that Scripture speaks of a man going to release as reaching the sun, we remark, that the release there referred to is not the ultimate one, since it is said to be connected with going and departing upwards. That the ultimate release has nothing to do with going and departing upwards we shall show later on.

41. The ether is (Brahman), as it is designated as something different, &c. (from name and form).

Scripture says, 'He who is called ether, (âkâ/s/a) is the revealer of all forms and names. That within which these forms and names are contained is the Brahman, the Immortal, the Self (Ch. Up. VIII, 14, 1).

There arising a doubt whether that which here is called ether is the highest Brahman or the ordinary elemental ether, the pûrvapakshin declares that the latter alternative is to be embraced, firstly, because it is founded on the conventional meaning of the word 'ether;' and, secondly, because the circumstance of revealing names and forms can very well be reconciled with the elemental ether, as that which affords room (for all things). Moreover, the passage contains no clear indicatory mark of Brahman, such as creative power, and the like.

To this we reply, that the word 'ether' can here denote the highest Brahman only, because it is designated as a different thing, &c. For the clause, 'That within which these two are contained is Brahman,' designates the ether as something different from names and forms. But, excepting Brahman, there is nothing whatever different from name and form, since the entire world of effects is evolved exclusively by names and forms. Moreover, the complete revealing of names and forms cannot be accomplished by anything else but Brahman, according to the text which declares Brahman's creative agency, 'Let me enter (into those beings) with this living Self (jîva âtman), and evolve names and forms' (Ch. Up. VI, 3, 2). But--it may be said--from this very passage it is apparent that the living Self also (i.e. the individual soul) possesses revealing power with regard to names and forms.--True, we reply, but what the passage really wishes to intimate, is the non-difference (of the individual soul from the highest Self). And the very statement concerning the revealing of names and forms implies the statement of signs indicatory of Brahman, viz. creative power and the like.--Moreover, the terms 'the Brahman, the Immortal, the Self' (VIII, 14) indicate that Brahman is spoken of.

42. And (on account of the designation) (of the highest Self) as different (from the individual soul) in the states of deep sleep and departing.

In the sixth prapâ/th/aka of the B/ri/hadâra/n/yaka there is given, in reply to the question, 'Who is that Self?' a lengthy exposition of the nature of the Self, 'He who is within the heart, among the prâ/n/as, the person of light, consisting of knowledge' (B/ri/. Up. IV, 3, 7). Here the doubt arises, whether the passage merely aims at making an additional statement about the nature of the transmigrating soul (known already from other sources), or at establishing the nature of the non-transmigrating Self.

The pûrvapakshin maintains that the passage is concerned with the nature of the transmigrating soul, on account of the introductory and concluding statements. For the introductory statement, 'He among the prâ/n/as who consists of knowledge,' contains marks indicatory of the embodied soul, and so likewise the concluding passage, 'And that great unborn Self is he who consists of cognition,' &c. (IV, 4, 22). We must therefore adhere to the same subject-matter in the intermediate passages also, and look on them as setting forth the same embodied Self, represented in its different states, viz. the waking state, and so on.

In reply to this, we maintain that the passage aims only at giving information about the highest Lord, not at making additional statements about the embodied soul.--Why?--On account of the highest Lord being designated as different from the embodied soul, in the states of deep sleep and of departing from the body. His difference from the embodied soul in the state of deep sleep is declared in the following passage, 'This person embraced by the intelligent (prâj/ñ/a) Self knows nothing that is without, nothing that is within.' Here the term, 'the person,' must mean the embodied soul; for of him it is possible to deny that he knows, because he, as being the knower, may know what is within and without. The 'intelligent Self,' on the other hand, is the highest Lord, because he is never dissociated from intelligence, i.e.--in his case--all-embracing knowledge.--Similarly, the passage treating of departure, i.e. death ('this bodily Self mounted by the intelligent Self moves along groaning'), refers to the highest Lord as different from the individual Self. There also we have to understand by the 'embodied one' the individual soul which is the Lord of the body, while the 'intelligent one' is again the Lord. We thus understand that 'on account of his being designated as something different, in the states of deep sleep and departure,' the highest Lord forms the subject of the passage.--With reference to the pûrvapakshin's assertion that the entire chapter refers to the embodied Self, because indicatory marks of the latter are found in its beginning, middle, and end, we remark that in the first place the introductory passage ('He among the prâ/n/as who consists of cognition') does not aim at setting forth the character of the transmigrating Self, but rather, while merely referring to the nature of the transmigrating Self as something already known, aims at declaring its identity with the highest Brahman; for it is manifest that the immediately subsequent passage, 'as if thinking, as if moving'[227], aims at discarding the attributes of the transmigrating Self. The concluding passage again is analogous to the initial one; for the words, 'And that great unborn Self is he who,' &c., mean: We have shown that that same cognitional Self, which is observed among the prâ/n/as, is the great unborn Self, i.e. the highest Lord--He, again, who imagines that the passages intervening (between the two quoted) aim at setting forth the nature of the transmigrating Self by representing it in the waking state, and so on, is like a man who setting out towards the east, wants to set out at the same time towards the west. For in representing the states of waking, and so on, the passage does not aim at describing the soul as subject to different states or transmigration, but rather as free from all particular conditions and transmigration. This is evident from the circumstance that on Janaka's question, which is repeated in every section, 'Speak on for the sake of emancipation,' Yaj/ñ/avalkya replies each time, 'By all that he is not affected, for that person is not attached to anything' (B/ri/. Up. IV, 3, 14-16). And later on he says (IV, 3, 22), 'He is not followed by good, not followed by evil, for he has then overcome all the sorrows of the heart.' We have, therefore, to conclude that the chapter exclusively aims at setting forth the nature of the non-transmigrating Self.

43. And on account of such words as Lord, &c.

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.]

FOURTH PÂDA.

REVERENCE TO THE HIGHEST SELF!

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.