Chapter II: Part 2

Adhik. I (1-7) proves that that within which the heaven, the earth, &c. are woven (Mu/nd/. Up. II, 2, 5) is Brahman.--Adhik. II (8, 9) shows that the bhûman referred to in Ch. Up. VII, 23 is Brahman.--Adhik. III (10-12) teaches that the Imperishable in which, according to B/ri/. Up. III, 8, 8, the ether is woven is Brahman.--Adhik. IV (13) decides that the highest person who is to be meditated upon with the syllable Om, according to Pra/s/na Up. V, 5, is not the lower but the higher Brahman.--According to Râmânuja the two alternatives are Brahman and Brahmâ (jîvasamash/t/irûpoz/nd/âdhipatis /k/aturmukha/h/).--Adhik. V and VI (comprising, according to /S/a@nkara, Sûtras l4-2l) discuss the question whether the small ether within the lotus of the heart mentioned in Ch. Up. VIII, 1 is the elemental ether or the individual soul or Brahman; the last alternative being finally adopted. In favour of the second alternative the pûrvapakshin pleads the two passages Ch. Up. VIII, 3, 4 and VIII, 12, 3, about the serene being (samprasâda); for by the latter the individual soul only can be understood, and in the chapter, of which the latter passage forms part, there are ascribed to it the same qualities (viz. freeness from sin, old age, death, &c.) that were predicated in VIII, 1, of the small ether within the heart.--But the reply to this is, that the second passage refers not to the (ordinary) individual soul but to the soul in that state where its true nature has become manifest, i.e. in which it is Brahman; so that the subject of the passage is in reality not the so-called individual soul but Brahman. And in the former of the two passages the soul is mentioned not on its own account, but merely for the purpose of intimating that the highest Self is the cause through which the individual soul manifests itself in its true nature.--What Râmânuja understands by the âvirbhâva of the soul will appear from the remarks on IV, 4.

The two next Sûtras (22, 23) constitute, according to /S/a@nkara, a new adhikara/n/a (VII), proving that he 'after whom everything shines, by whose light all this is lighted' (Ka/th/a Up. II, 5, 15) is not some material luminous body, but Brahman itself.--According to Râmânuja the two Sûtras do not start a new topic, but merely furnish some further arguments strengthening the conclusion arrived at in the preceding Sûtras.[9]

Adhik. VIII (24, 25) decides that the person of the size of a thumb mentioned in Ka/th/a Up. II, 4, 12 is not the individual soul but Brahman.

The two next adhikara/n/as are of the nature of a digression. The passage about the a@ngush/th/amâtra was explained on the ground that the human heart is of the size of a span; the question may then be asked whether also such individuals as belong to other classes than mankind, more particularly the Gods, are capable of the knowledge of Brahman: a question finally answered in the affirmative.--This discussion leads in its turn to several other digressions, among which the most important one refers to the problem in what relation the different species of beings stand to the words denoting them (Sûtra 28). In connexion herewith /S/a@nkara treats of the nature of words (/s/abda), opposing the opinion of the Mîmâ/m/saka Upavarsha, according to whom the word is nothing but the aggregate of its constitutive letters, to the view of the grammarians who teach that over and above the aggregate of the letters there exists a super-sensuous entity called 'spho/t/a,' which is the direct cause of the apprehension of the sense of a word (Adhik. IX; Sûtras 26-33).

Adhik. X (34-38) explains that /S/ûdras are altogether disqualified for Brahmavidyâ.

Sûtra 39 constitutes, according to /S/a@nkara, a new adhikara/n/a (XI), proving that the prâ/n/a in which everything trembles, according to /K/a/th/a Up. II, 6, 2, is Brahman.--According to Râmânuja the Sûtra does not introduce a new topic but merely furnishes an additional reason for the decision arrived at under Sûtras 24, 25, viz. that the a@ngus/th/amâtra is Brahman. On this supposition, Sûtras 24-39 form one adhikara/n/a in which 26-38 constitute a mere digression led up to by the mention made of the heart in 25.--The a@ngus/th/mâtra is referred to twice in the Ka/th/a Upanishad, once in the passage discussed (II, 4, 12), and once in II, 6, 17 ('the Person not larger than a thumb'). To determine what is meant by the a@ngus/th/mâtra, Râmânuja says, we are enabled by the passage II, 6, 2, 3, which is intermediate between the two passages concerning the a@ngus/th/mâtra, and which clearly refers to the highest Brahman, of which alone everything can be said to stand in awe.

The next Sûtra (40) gives rise to a similar difference of opinion. According to /S/a@nkara it constitutes by itself a new adhikara/n/a (XII), proving that the 'light' (jyotis) mentioned in Ch. Up. VIII, 12, 3 is the highest Brahman.--According to Râmânuja the Sûtra continues the preceding adhikara/n/a, and strengthens the conclusion arrived at by a further argument, referring to Ka/th/a Up. II, 5, 15--a passage intermediate between the two passages about the a@ngush/th/amâtra--which speaks of a primary light that cannot mean anything but Brahman. The Sûtra has in that case to be translated as follows: '(The a@ngush/th/amâtra is Brahman) because (in a passage intervening between the two) a light is seen to be mentioned (which can be Brahman only).'

The three last Sûtras of the pâda are, according to /S/a@nkara, to be divided into two adhikara/n/as (XIII and XIV), Sûtra 41 deciding that the ether which reveals names and forms (Ch. Up. VIII, 14) is not the elemental ether but Brahman; and 42, 43 teaching that the vij/ñ/ânamaya, 'he who consists of knowledge,' of B/ri/. Up. IV, 3, 7 is not the individual soul but Brahman.--According to Râmânuja the three Sûtras make up one single adhikara/n/a discussing whether the Chandogya Upanishad passage about the ether refers to Brahman or to the individual soul in the state of release; the latter of these two alternatives being suggested by the circumstance that the released soul is the subject of the passage immediately preceding ('Shaking off all evil as a horse shakes off his hair,' &c.). Sûtra 41 decides that 'the ether (is Brahman) because the passage designates the nature of something else,' &c. (i.e. of something other than the individual soul; other because to the soul the revealing of names and forms cannot be ascribed, &c.)--But, an objection is raised, does not more than one scriptural passage show that the released soul and Brahman are identical, and is not therefore the ether which reveals names and forms the soul as well as Brahman?--(The two, Sûtra 42 replies, are different) 'because in the states of deep sleep and departing (the highest Self) is designated as different' (from the soul)--which point is proved by the same scriptural passages which /S/a@nkara adduces;--and 'because such terms as Lord and the like' cannot be applied to the individual soul (43). Reference is made to IV, 4, 14, where all jagadvyâpâra is said to belong to the Lord only, not to the soul even when in the state of release.

PÂDA IV.

The last pâda of the first adhyâya is specially directed against the Sâ@nkhyas.

The first adhikara/n/a (1-7) discusses the passage Ka/th/a Up. I, 3, 10; 11, where mention is made of the Great and the Undeveloped--both of them terms used with a special technical sense in the Sâ@nkhya-/s/âstra, avyakta being a synonym for pradhâna.--/S/a@nkara shows by an exhaustive review of the topics of the Ka/th/a Upanishad that the term avyakta has not the special meaning which the Sâ@nkhyas attribute to it, but denotes the body, more strictly the subtle body (sûkshma /s/arîra), but at the same time the gross body also, in so far as it is viewed as an effect of the subtle one.

Adhik. II (8-10) demonstrates, according to /S/a@nkara, that the tricoloured ajâ spoken of in /S/ve. Up. IV, 5 is not the pradhâna of the Sânkhyas, but either that power of the Lord from which the world springs, or else the primary causal matter first produced by that power.--What Râmânuja in contradistinction from /S/a@nkara understands by the primary causal matter, follows from the short sketch given above of the two systems.

Adhik. III (11-13) shows that the pa/ñk/a pa/ñk/ajanâ/h/ mentioned in B/ri/. Up. IV, 4, 17 are not the twenty-five principles of the Sâ@nkhyas.--Adhik. IV (14, 15) proves that Scripture does not contradict itself on the all-important point of Brahman, i.e. a being whose essence is intelligence, being the cause of the world.

Adhik. V (16-18) is, according to /S/a@nkara, meant to prove that 'he who is the maker of those persons, of whom this is the work,' mentioned in Kau. Up. IV, 19, is not either the vital air or the individual soul, but Brahman.--The subject of the adhikara/n/a is essentially the same in Râmânuja's view; greater stress is, however, laid on the adhikara/n/a being polemical against the Sâ@nkhyas, who wish to turn the passage into an argument for the pradhâna doctrine.

The same partial difference of view is observable with regard to the next adhikara/n/a (VI; Sûtras 19-22) which decides that the 'Self to be seen, to be heard,' &c. (B/ri/. Up. II, 4, 5) is the highest Self, not the individual soul. This latter passage also is, according to Râmânuja, made the subject of discussion in order to rebut the Sâ@nkhya who is anxious to prove that what is there inculcated as the object of knowledge is not a universal Self but merely the Sâ@nkhya purusha.

Adhik. VII (23-27) teaches that Brahman is not only the efficient or operative cause (nimitta) of the world, but its material cause as well. The world springs from Brahman by way of modification (pari/n/âma; Sûtra 26).--Râmânuja views this adhikara/n/a as specially directed against the Se/s/vara-sâ@nkhyas who indeed admit the existence of a highest Lord, but postulate in addition an independent pradhâna on which the Lord acts as an operative cause merely.

Adhik. VIII (28) remarks that the refutation of the Sâ@nkhya views is applicable to other theories also, such as the doctrine of the world having originated from atoms.

After this rapid survey of the contents of the first adhyâya and the succinct indication of the most important points in which the views of /S/a@nkara and Râmânuja diverge, we turn to a short consideration of two questions which here naturally present themselves, viz., firstly, which is the principle on which the Vedic passages referred to in the Sûtras have been selected and arranged; and, secondly, if, where /S/a@nkara and Râmânuja disagree as to the subdivision of the Sûtras into Adhikara/n/as, and the determination of the Vedic passages discussed in the Sûtras, there are to be met with any indications enabling us to determine which of the two commentators is right. (The more general question as to how far the Sûtras favour either /S/a@nkara's or Râmânuja's general views cannot be considered at present.)

The Hindu commentators here and there attempt to point out the reason why the discussion of a certain Vedic passage is immediately followed by the consideration of a certain other one. Their explanations--which have occasionally been referred to in the notes to the translation--rest on the assumption that the Sûtrakâra in arranging the texts to be commented upon was guided by technicalities of the Mîmâ/m/sâ-system, especially by a regard for the various so-called means of proof which the Mîmâ/m/saka employs for the purpose of determining the proper meaning and position of scriptural passages. But that this was the guiding principle, is rendered altogether improbable by a simple tabular statement of the Vedic passages referred to in the first adhyâya, such as given by Deussen on page 130; for from the latter it appears that the order in which the Sûtras exhibit the scriptural passages follows the order in which those passages themselves occur in the Upanishads, and it would certainly be a most strange coincidence if that order enabled us at the same time to exemplify the various pramâ/n/as of the Mîmâ/m/sâ in their due systematic succession.

As Deussen's statement shows, most of the passages discussed are taken from the Chândogya Upanishad, so many indeed that the whole first adhyâya may be said to consist of a discussion of all those Chândogya passages of which it is doubtful whether they are concerned with Brahman or not, passages from the other Upanishads being brought in wherever an opportunity offers. Considering the prominent position assigned to the Upanishad mentioned, I think it likely that the Sûtrakâra meant to begin the series of doubtful texts with the first doubtful passage from the Chândogya, and that hence the sixth adhikara/n/a which treats of the anândamaya mentioned in the Taittirîya Upanishad has, in agreement with Râmânuja's views, to be separated from the subsequent adhikara/n/as, and to be combined with the preceding ones whose task it is to lay down the fundamental propositions regarding Brahman's nature.--The remaining adhikara/n/as of the first pâda follow the order of passages in the Chândogya Upanishad, and therefore call for no remark; with the exception of the last adhikara/n/a, which refers to a Kaushîtaki passage, for whose being introduced in this place I am not able to account.--The first adhikara/n/a of the second pâda returns to the Chândogya Upanishad. The second one treats of a passage in the Ka/th/a Upanishad where a being is referred to which eats everything. The reason why that passage is introduced in this place seems to be correctly assigned in the /S/rî-bhâshya, which remarks that, as in the preceding Sûtra it had been argued that the highest Self is not an enjoyer, a doubt arises whether by that being which eats everything the highest Self can be meant[10]--The third adhikara/n/a again, whose topic is the 'two entered into the cave' (Ka/th/a Up. I, 3, 1), appears, as Râmânuja remarks, to come in at this place owing to the preceding adhikara/n/a; for if it could not be proved that one of the two is the highest Self, a doubt would attach to the explanation given above of the 'eater' since the 'two entered into the cave,' and the 'eater' stand under the same prakara/n/a, and must therefore be held to refer to the same matter.--The fourth adhikara/n/a is again occupied with a Chândogya passage.--The fifth adhikara/n/a, whose topic is the Ruler within (antaryâmin), manifestly owes its place, as remarked by Râmânuja also, to the fact that the Vedic passage treated had been employed in the preceding adhikara/n/a (I, 2, 14) for the purpose of strengthening the argument [11].--The sixth adhikara/n/a, again, which discusses 'that which is not seen' (adre/s/ya; Mu/nd/. Up. I, 1, 6), is clearly introduced in this place because in the preceding adhikara/n/a it had been said that ad/ri/sh/t/a, &c. denote the highest Self;--The reasons to which the last adhikara/n/a of the second pâda and the first and third adhikara/n/as of the third pâda owe their places are not apparent (the second adhikara/n/a of the third pâda treats of a Chândogya passage). The introduction, on the other hand, of the passage from the Pra/s/na Upanishad treating of the akshara. O/m/kâra is clearly due to the circumstance that an akshara, of a different nature, had been discussed in the preceding adhikara/n/a.--The fifth and sixth adhikara/n/as investigate Chândogya passages.--The two next Sûtras (22, 23) are, as remarked above, considered by /S/a@nkara to constitute a new adhikara/n/a treating of the 'being after which everything shines' (Mu/nd/. Up. II, 2, 10); while Râmânuja looks on them as continuing the sixth adhikara/n/a. There is one circumstance which renders it at any rate probable that Râmânuja, and not /S/a@nkara, here hits the intention of the author of the Sûtras. The general rule in the first three pâdas is that, wherever a new Vedic passage is meant to be introduced, the subject of the discussion, i.e. that being which in the end is declared to be Brahman is referred to by means of a special word, in most cases a nominative form [12]. From this rule there is in the preceding part of the adhyâya only one real exception, viz. in I, 2, 1, which possibly may be due to the fact that there a new pâda begins, and it therefore was considered superfluous to indicate the introduction of a new topic by a special word. The exception supplied by I, 3, 19 is only an apparent one; for, as remarked above, Sûtra 19 does not in reality begin a new adhikara/n/a. A few exceptions occurring later on will be noticed in their places.--Now neither Sûtra 22 nor Sûtra 23 contains any word intimating that a new Vedic passage is being taken into consideration, and hence it appears preferable to look upon them, with Râmânuja, as continuing the topic of the preceding adhikara/n/a.--This conclusion receives an additional confirmation from the position of the next adhikara/n/a, which treats of the being 'a span long' mentioned in Ka/th/a Up. II, 4, 12; for the reason of this latter passage being considered here is almost certainly the reference to the alpa/s/ruti in Sûtra 21, and, if so, the a@ngush/th/amátra properly constitutes the subject of the adhikara/n/a immediately following on Adhik. V, VI; which, in its turn, implies that Sûtras 22, 23 do not form an independent adhikara/n/a.--The two next adhikara/n/as are digressions, and do not refer to special Vedic passages.--Sûtra 39 forms a new adhikara/n/a, according to /S/a@nkara, but not according to Râmânuja, whose opinion seems again to be countenanced by the fact that the Sûtra does not exhibit any word indicative of a new topic. The same difference of opinion prevails with regard to Sûtra 40, and it appears from the translation of the Sûtra given above, according to Râmânuja's view, that 'jyoti/h/' need not be taken as a nominative.--The last two adhikara/n/as finally refer, according to Râmânuja, to one Chândogya passage only, and here also we have to notice that Sûtra 42 does not comprise any word intimating that a new passage is about to be discussed.

From all this we seem entitled to draw the following conclusions. The Vedic passages discussed in the three first pâdas of the Vedánta-sûtras comprise all the doubtful--or at any rate all the more important doubtful--passages from the Chândogya Upanishad. These passages are arranged in the order in which the text of the Upanishad exhibits them. Passages from other Upanishads are discussed as opportunities offer, there being always a special reason why a certain Chândogya passage is followed by a certain passage from some other Upanishad. Those reasons can be assigned with sufficient certainty in a number of cases although not in all, and from among those passages whose introduction cannot be satisfactorily accounted for some are eliminated by our following the subdivision of the Sûtras into adhikara/n/as adopted by Râmânuja, a subdivision countenanced by the external form of the Sûtras.

The fourth pâda of the first adhyâya has to be taken by itself. It is directed specially and avowedly against Sâ@nkhya-interpretations of Scripture, not only in its earlier part which discusses isolated passages, but also--as is brought out much more clearly in the /S/rî-bhâshya than by /S/a@nkara--in its latter part which takes a general survey of the entire scriptural evidence for Brahman being the material as well as the operative cause of the world.

Deussen (p. 221) thinks that the selection made by the Sûtrakâra of Vedic passages setting forth the nature of Brahman is not in all cases an altogether happy one. But this reproach rests on the assumption that the passages referred to in the first adhyâya were chosen for the purpose of throwing light on what Brahman is, and this assumption can hardly be upheld. The Vedânta-sûtras as well as the Pûrvâ Mîmâ/m/sâ-sûtras are throughout Mîmâ/m/sâ i.e. critical discussions of such scriptural passages as on a primâ facie view admit of different interpretations and therefore necessitate a careful enquiry into their meaning. Here and there we meet with Sutrâs which do not directly involve a discussion of the sense of some particular Vedic passage, but rather make a mere statement on some important point. But those cases are rare, and it would be altogether contrary to the general spirit of the Sutrâs to assume that a whole adhyâya should be devoted to the task of showing what Brahman is. The latter point is sufficiently determined in the first five (or six) adhikara/n/as; but after we once know what Brahman is we are at once confronted by a number of Upanishad passages concerning which it is doubtful whether they refer to Brahman or not. With their discussion all the remaining adhikara/n/as of the first adhyâya are occupied. That the Vedânta-sûtras view it as a particularly important task to controvert the doctrine of the Sâ@nkhyas is patent (and has also been fully pointed out by Deussen, p. 23). The fifth adhikara/n/a already declares itself against the doctrine that the world has sprung from a non-intelligent principle, the pradhâna, and the fourth pâda of the first adhyâya returns to an express polemic against Sâ@nkhya interpretations of certain Vedic statements. It is therefore perhaps not saying too much if we maintain that the entire first adhyâya is due to the wish, on the part of the Sûtrakâra, to guard his own doctrine against Sâ@nkhya attacks. Whatever the attitude of the other so-called orthodox systems may be towards the Veda, the Sâ@nkhya system is the only one whose adherents were anxious--and actually attempted--to prove that their views are warranted by scriptural passages. The Sâ@nkhya tendency thus would be to show that all those Vedic texts which the Vedântin claims as teaching the existence of Brahman, the intelligent and sole cause of the world, refer either to the pradhâna or some product of the pradhâna, or else to the purusha in the Sânkhya sense, i.e. the individual soul. It consequently became the task of the Vedântin to guard the Upanishads against misinterpretations of the kind, and this he did in the first adhyâya of the Vedânta-sûtras, selecting those passages about whose interpretation doubts were, for some reason or other, likely to arise. Some of the passages singled out are certainly obscure, and hence liable to various interpretations; of others it is less apparent why it was thought requisite to discuss them at length. But this is hardly a matter in which we are entitled to find fault with the Sûtrakára; for no modern scholar, either European or Hindu, is--or can possibly be--sufficiently at home, on the one hand, in the religious and philosophical views which prevailed at the time when the Sûtras may have been composed, and, on the other hand, in the intricacies of the Mîmâ/m/sâ, to judge with confidence which Vedic passages may give rise to discussions and which not.

Notes:

[Footnote 1: The only 'sectarian' feature of the Srî-bhâshya is, that identifies Brahman with Vish/n/u or Nârâya/n/a; but this in no way affects the interpretations put on the Sûtras and Upanishads. Nârâya/n/a is in fact nothing but another name of Brahman.]

[Footnote 2: The Roman numerals indicate the number of the adhikara/n/a; the figures in parentheses state the Sûtras comprised in each adhikara/n/a.]

[Footnote 3: Deussen's supposition (pp. 30, 150) that the passage conveying the second interpretation is an interpolation is liable to two objections. In the first place, the passage is accepted and explained by all commentators; in the second place, /S/a@nkara in the passage immediately preceding Sûtra 12 quotes the adhikara/n/a 'ânandamayo s bhyâsàt' as giving rise to a discussion whether the param or the aparam brahman is meant. Now this latter point is not touched upon at all in that part of the bhâshya which sets forth the former explanation, but only in the subsequent passage, which refutes the former and advocates the latter interpretation.]

[Footnote 4: Eva/m/ jij/ñ/anasya brahma/nas/ /ko/tanabhogvabhutaga/d/arupsattvara, istamomayapradhânâd vyâv/ri/ttir uktâ, idânî/m/ karmava/s/vat trigu/n/atmakaprik/ri/u sa/m/sangammittanâmâvidhân intadukhasagaranimajjaonî/s/addhâ/h/. /k/i pratya gaumano nyan nikhilaheyapratauîka/m/ miatimyanandam brahmeti pratipadyate, anandamayo bhyásât.]

[Footnote 5: There is no reason to consider the passage 'atra ke/k/it' in /S/a@nkara's bhashya on Sutra 23 an interpolation as Deussen does (p. 30). It simply contains a criticism passed by /S/a@nkara on other commentators.]

[Footnote 6: To the passages on pp. 150 and 153 of the Sanskrit text, which Deussen thinks to be interpolations, there likewise applies the remark made in the preceding note.]

[Footnote 7: Gîvaysa iva parasyâpi brahma/n/a/h/ /s/arîrantarvaititvam abhyupagata/m/ /k/et tadvad eva /s/arîrasainbandhaprayuktasukhadukhopabhogapraptir hi /k/en na, hetuvai/s/eshyat, na hi /s/arîrântarvartitvam eva sukhadukhopabhogahetu/h/ api tu pu/n/yapàparnpakarmaparavasatva/m/ ta/k/ /K/àpahatapâpmana/h/ parahâtmano na sambhavati.]

[Footnote 8: The second interpretation given on pp. 184-5 of the Sanskrit text (beginning with apara âha) Deussen considers to be an interpolation, caused by the reference to the Paingi upanishad in /S/a@nkara's comment on I, 3, 7 (p. 232). But there is no reason whatsoever for such an assumption. The passage on p. 232 shows that /S/a@nkara considered the explanation of the mantra given in the Paingi-upanishad worth quoting, and is in fact fully intelligible only in case of its having been quoted before by /S/a@nkara himself.--That the 'apara' quotes the B/ri/hadára/n/yaka not according to the Ka/n/va text--to quote from which is /S/a@nkara's habit--but from the Madhyandina text, is due just to the circumstance of his being an 'apara,' i.e. not /S/a@nkara.]

[Footnote 9: Ita/s/ /k/aitad evam. Anuk/ri/tes tasya /k/a. Tasya daharâkâsasya parabrahma/n/o snukârâd ayam apahatapâpmatvâdigu/n/ako vimuktabandha/h/ pratyagâtmâ na daharakâ/s/a/h/ tadanukâras tatsâmya/m/ tathâ hi pratyagâlmanozpi vimuktasya parabrahmânukâra/h/ srûyate yadâ pa/s/ya/h/ pa/s/yate rukmavar/n/a/m/ kartâram î/s/a/m/ purusha/m/ brahmayoni/m/ tadâ vidvân pu/n/yapâpe vidhûya nira/ñg/ana/h/ parama/m/ sâmyam upaitîty atos'nukartâ prajâpativâkyanirdish/t/a/h/ anukârya/m/ para/m/ brahma na daharâkâ/s/a/h/. Api /k/a smaryate. Sa/m/sâri/n/oszpi muktâvasthâyâ/m/ paramasâmyâpattilaksha/n/a/h/ parabrahmânukâra/h/ smaryate ida/m/ j/ñ/ânam upâsritya, &c.--Ke/k/id anuk/ri/tes tasya /k/âpi smaryate iti /k/a sûtradvayam adhikara/n/ântara/m/ tam eva bhântam anubhâti sarva/m/ tasya bhâsâ sarvam ida/m/ vibhâtîty asyâ/h/ /s/rute/h/ parabrahmaparatvanir/n/ayâya prav/ri/tta/m/ vadanti. Tat tv ad/ris/yatvâdigu/n/ako dharmokte/h/ dyubhvâdyâyatana/m/ sva/s/abdâd ity adhi kara/n/advayena tasya prakara/n/asya brahmavishayatvapratipâdanât jyoti/sk/ara/n/âbhidhânât ity âdishu parasya brahma/n/o bhârûpatvâvagates /k/a pûrvapakshânutthânâd ayukta/m/ sûtrâksharavairûpya/k/ /k/a.]

[Footnote 10: Yadi paramâtmâ na bhoktâ eva/m/ taihi bhokt /i/tayâ pratîyamâno jîva eva syâd ity âsankyâha attâ.]

[Footnote 11: Sthânâdivyapade/s/â/k/ /k/a ity atra ya/h/ /k/akshushi tish/th/ann ity âdinâ pratipâdyamâna/m/ /k/akshushi sthitiniyamanâdika/m/ paramâtmana eveti siddha/m/ k/ri/tvâ akshipurushasya paramâtmatva/m/ sâdhitam idâni/m/ tad eva samarthayate antaryâû.]

[Footnote 12: Ânandamaya/h/ I, 1, 12; anta/h/ I, i, 20; âkâ/s/a/h/ I, 1, 22; prâna/h/ I, 1, 23; jyoti/h/ I, 1, 24; prâna/h/ I, 1, 28; attâ I, 2, 9; guhâ/m/ pravish/t/au I, 2, 11; antara I, 2,13; antaryâmî I, 2, 18; ad/ris/yatvâdigu/n/aka/h/ I, 2, 21; vai/s/vânara/h/ I, 2, 24; dyubhvâdyâyatanam I, 3, 1; bhûmâ I, 3, 8; aksheram I, 3, 10; sa/h/ I, 3, 13; dahara/h/ I, 3, 14; pramita/h/ I, 3, 24; (jyoti/h/ 40;) âkâ/s/a/h/ I, 3,41.]

SECOND ADHYÂYA.

The first adhyâya has proved that all the Vedânta-texts unanimously teach that there is only one cause of the world, viz. Brahman, whose nature is intelligence, and that there exists no scriptural passage which can be used to establish systems opposed to the Vedânta, more especially the Sâ@nkhya system. The task of the two first pâdas of the second adhyâya is to rebut any objections which may be raised against the Vedânta doctrine on purely speculative grounds, apart from scriptural authority, and to show, again on purely speculative grounds, that none of the systems irreconcilable with the Vedânta can be satisfactorily established.

PÂDA I.

Adhikara/n/a I refutes the Sâ@nkhya objection that the acceptation of the Vedânta system involves the rejection of the Sâ@nkhya doctrine which after all constitutes a part of Sm/ri/ti, and as such has claims on consideration.--To accept the Sâ@nkhya-sm/ri/ti, the Vedântin replies, would compel us to reject other Sm/ri/tis, such as the Manu-sm/ri/ti, which are opposed to the Sâ@nkhya doctrine. The conflicting claims of Sm/ri/tis can be settled only on the ground of the Veda, and there can be no doubt that the Veda does not confirm the Sâ@nkhya-sm/ri/ti, but rather those Sm/ri/tis which teach the origination of the world from an intelligent primary cause.

Adhik. II (3) extends the same line of argumentation to the Yoga-sm/ri/ti.

Adhik. III (4-11) shows that Brahman, although of the nature of intelligence, yet may be the cause of the non-intelligent material world, and that it is not contaminated by the qualities of the world when the latter is refunded into Brahman. For ordinary experience teaches us that like does not always spring from like, and that the qualities of effected things when the latter are refunded into their causes--as when golden ornaments, for instance, are melted and thereby become simple gold again--do not continue to exist in those causes.--Here also the argumentation is specially directed against the Sâ@nkhyas, who, in order to account for the materiality and the various imperfections of the world, think it necessary to assume a causal substance participating in the same characteristics.

Adhik. IV (12) points out that the line of reasoning followed in the preceding adhikara/n/a is valid also against other theories, such as the atomistic doctrine.

The one Sûtra (13) constituting Adhik. V teaches, according to /S/a@nkara, that although the enjoying souls as well as the objects of fruition are in reality nothing but Brahman, and on that account identical, yet the two sets may practically be held apart, just as in ordinary life we hold apart, and distinguish as separate individual things, the waves, ripples, and foam of the sea, although at the bottom waves, ripples, and foam are all of them identical as being neither more nor less than sea-water.--The /S/rî-bhâshya gives a totally different interpretation of the Sûtra, according to which the latter has nothing whatever to do with the eventual non-distinction of enjoying souls and objects to be enjoyed. Translated according to Râmânuja's view, the Sûtra runs as follows: 'If non-distinction (of the Lord and the individual souls) is said to result from the circumstance of (the Lord himself) becoming an enjoyer (a soul), we refute this objection by instances from every-day experience.' That is to say: If it be maintained that from our doctrine previously expounded, according to which this world springs from the Lord and constitutes his body, it follows that the Lord, as an embodied being, is not essentially different from other souls, and subject to fruition as they are; we reply that the Lord's having a body does not involve his being subject to fruition, not any more than in ordinary life a king, although himself an embodied being, is affected by the experiences of pleasure and pain which his servants have to undergo.--The construction which Râmânuja puts on the Sûtra is not repugnant either to the words of the Sûtra or to the context in which the latter stands, and that it rests on earlier authority appears from a quotation made by Râmànuja from the Drami/d/abhâshyakâra[13].

Adhik. VI (14-20) treats of the non-difference of the effect from the cause; a Vedânta doctrine which is defended by its adherents against the Vai/s/eshikas according to whom the effect is something different from the cause.--The divergent views of /S/a@nkara and Râmânuja on this important point have been sufficiently illustrated in the general sketch of the two systems.

Adhik. VII (21-23) refutes the objection that, from the Vedic passages insisting on the identity of the Lord and the individual soul, it follows that the Lord must be like the individual soul the cause of evil, and that hence the entire doctrine of an all-powerful and all-wise Lord being the cause of the world has to be rejected. For, the Sûtrakîra remarks, the creative principle of the world is additional to, i.e. other than, the individual soul, the difference of the two being distinctly declared by Scripture.--The way in which the three Sûtras constituting this adhikara/n/a are treated by /S/a@nkara on the one hand and Râmânuja on the other is characteristic. Râmânuja throughout simply follows the words of the Sûtras, of which Sûtra 21 formulates the objection based on such texts as 'Thou art that,' while Sûtra 22 replies that Brahman is different from the soul, since that is expressly declared by Scripture. /S/a@nkara, on the other hand, sees himself obliged to add that the difference of the two, plainly maintained in Sûtra 22, is not real, but due to the soul's fictitious limiting adjuncts.

Adhik. VIII (24, 25) shows that Brahman, although destitute of material and instruments of action, may yet produce the world, just as gods by their mere power create palaces, animals, and the like, and as milk by itself turns into curds.

Adhik. IX (26-29) explains that, according to the express doctrine of Scripture, Brahman does not in its entirety pass over into the world, and, although emitting the world from itself, yet remains one and undivided. This is possible, according to /S/a@nkara, because the world is unreal; according to Râmânuja, because the creation is merely the visible and tangible manifestation of what previously existed in Brahman in a subtle imperceptible condition.

Adhik. X (30, 31) teaches that Brahman, although destitute of instruments of action, is enabled to create the world by means of the manifold powers which it possesses.

Adhik. XI (32, 33) assigns the motive of the creation, or, more properly expressed, teaches that Brahman, in creating the world, has no motive in the strict sense of the word, but follows a mere sportive impulse.

Adhik. XII (34-36) justifies Brahman from the charges of partiality and cruelty which might be brought against it owing to the inequality of position and fate of the various animate beings, and the universal suffering of the world. Brahman, as a creator and dispenser, acts with a view to the merit and demerit of the individual souls, and has so acted from all eternity.

Adhik. XIII (37) sums up the preceding argumentation by declaring that all the qualities of Brahman--omniscience and so on--are such as to capacitate it for the creation of the world.

PÂDA II.

The task of the second pâda is to refute, by arguments independent of Vedic passages, the more important philosophical theories concerning the origin of the world which are opposed to the Vedânta view.--The first adhikara/n/a (1-10) is directed against the Sâ@nkhyas, whose doctrine had already been touched upon incidentally in several previous places, and aims at proving that a non-intelligent first cause, such as the pradhâna of the Sâ@nkhyas, is unable to create and dispose.--The second adhikara/n/a (11-17) refutes the Vai/s/eshika tenet that the world originates from atoms set in motion by the ad/ri/sh/t/a.--The third and fourth adhikara/n/as are directed against various schools of Bauddha philosophers. Adhik. III (18-27) impugns the view of the so-called sarvâstitvavâdins, or bâhyârthavâdins, who maintain the reality of an external as well as an internal world; Adhik. IV (28-32) is directed against the vij/ñ/ânavâdins, according to whom ideas are the only reality.--The last Sûtra of this adhikara/n/a is treated by Râmânuja as a separate adhikara/n/a refuting the view of the Mâdhyamikas, who teach that everything is void, i.e. that nothing whatever is real.--Adhik. V (33-36) is directed against the doctrine of the Jainas; Adhik. VI (37-41) against those philosophical schools which teach that a highest Lord is not the material but only the operative cause of the world.

The last adhikara/n/a of the pâda (42-45) refers, according to the unanimous statement of the commentators, to the doctrine of the Bhâgavatas or Pâ/ñk/arâtras. But /S/a@nkara and Râmânuja totally disagree as to the drift of the Sûtrakâra's opinion regarding that system. According to the former it is condemned like the systems previously referred to; according to the latter it is approved of.--Sûtras 42 and 43, according to both commentators, raise objections against the system; Sûtra 42 being directed against the doctrine that from the highest being, called Vâsudeva, there is originated Sa@nkarsha/n/a, i.e. the jiva, on the ground that thereby those scriptural passages would be contradicted which teach the soul's eternity; and Sûtra 43 impugning the doctrine that from Sa@nkarsha/n/a there springs Pradyumna, i.e. the manas.--The Sûtra on which the difference of interpretation turns is 44. Literally translated it runs, 'Or, on account of there being' (or, 'their being') 'knowledge and so on, there is non-contradiction of that.'--This means, according to /S/a@nkara, 'Or, if in consequence of the existence of knowledge and so on (on the part of Sa@nkarsha/n/a, &c. they be taken not as soul, mind, &c. but as Lords of pre-eminent knowledge, &c.), yet there is non-contradiction of that (viz. of the objection raised in Sûtra 42 against the Bhâgavata doctrine).'--According to Râmânuja, on the other hand, the Sûtra has to be explained as follows: 'Or, rather there is noncontradiction of that (i.e. the Pa/ñk/arâtra doctrine) on account of their being knowledge and so on (i.e. on account of their being Brahman).' Which means: Since Sa@nkarsha/n/a and so on are merely forms of manifestation of Brahman, the Pâ/ñk/arâtra doctrine, according to which they spring from Brahman, is not contradicted.--The form of the Sûtra makes it difficult for us to decide which of the two interpretations is the right one; it, however, appears to me that the explanations of the 'vâ' and of the 'tat,' implied in Râmânuja's comment, are more natural than those resulting from /S/a@nkara's interpretation. Nor would it be an unnatural proceeding to close the polemical pâda with a defence of that doctrine which--in spite of objections--has to be viewed as the true one.

PÂDA III.

The third pâda discusses the question whether the different forms of existence which, in their totality, constitute the world have an origin or not, i.e. whether they are co-eternal with Brahman, or issue from it and are refunded into it at stated intervals.

The first seven adhikara/n/as treat of the five elementary substances.--Adhik. I (1-7) teaches that the ether is not co-eternal with Brahman, but springs from it as its first effect.--Adhik. II (8) shows that air springs from ether; Adhik. IV, V, VI (10; 11; 12) that fire springs from air, water from fire, earth from water.--Adhik. III (9) explains by way of digression that Brahman, which is not some special entity, but quite generally 'that which is,' cannot have originated from anything else.

Adhik. VII (13) demonstrates that the origination of one element from another is due, not to the latter in itself, but to Brahman acting in it.

Adhik. VIII (14) teaches that the reabsorption of the elements into Brahman takes place in the inverse order of their emission.

Adhik. IX (15) remarks that the indicated order in which the emission and the reabsorption of the elementary substances take place is not interfered with by the creation and reabsorption of the organs of the soul, i.e. the sense organs and the internal organ (manas); for they also are of elemental nature, and as such created and retracted together with the elements of which they consist.

The remainder of the pâda is taken up by a discussion of the nature of the individual soul, the jîva.--Adhik. X (16) teaches that expressions such as 'Devadatta is born,' 'Devadatta has died,' strictly apply to the body only, and are transferred to the soul in so far only as it is connected with a body.

Adhik. XI (17) teaches that the individual soul is, according to Scripture, permanent, eternal, and therefore not, like the ether and the other elements, produced from Brahman at the time of creation.--This Sûtra is of course commented on in a very different manner by /S/a@nkara on the one hand and Râmânuja on the other. According to the former, the jîva is in reality identical--and as such co-eternal--with Brahman; what originates is merely the soul's connexion with its limiting adjuncts, and that connexion is moreover illusory.--According to Râmânuja, the jîva is indeed an effect of Brahman, but has existed in Brahman from all eternity as an individual being and as a mode (prakâra) of Brahman. So indeed have also the material elements; yet there is an important distinction owing to which the elements may be said to originate at the time of creation, while the same cannot be said of the soul. Previously to creation the material elements exist in a subtle condition in which they possess none of the qualities that later on render them the objects of ordinary experience; hence, when passing over into the gross state at the time of creation, they may be said to originate. The souls, on the other hand, possess at all times the same essential qualities, i.e. they are cognizing agents; only, whenever a new creation takes place, they associate themselves with bodies, and their intelligence therewith undergoes a certain expansion or development (vikâsa); contrasting with the unevolved or contracted state (sanko/k/a) which characterised it during the preceding pralaya. But this change is not a change of essential nature (svarûpânyathâbhâva) and hence we have to distinguish the souls as permanent entities from the material elements which at the time of each creation and reabsorption change their essential characteristics.

Adhik. XII (18) defines the nature of the individual soul. The Sûtra declares that the soul is 'j/ñ/a.' This means, according to /S/a@nkara, that intelligence or knowledge does not, as the Vai/s/eshikas teach, constitute a mere attribute of the soul which in itself is essentially non-intelligent, but is the very essence of the soul. The soul is not a knower, but knowledge; not intelligent, but intelligence.--Râmânuja, on the other hand, explains 'j/ñ/a' by 'j/ñ/at/ri/,' i.e. knower, knowing agent, and considers the Sûtra to be directed not only against the Vai/s/eshikas, but also against those philosophers who--like the Sâ@nkhyas and the Vedântins of /S/a@nkara's school--maintain that the soul is not a knowing agent, but pure /k/aitanya.--The wording of the Sûtra certainly seems to favour Râmânuja's interpretation; we can hardly imagine that an author definitely holding the views of /S/a@nkara should, when propounding the important dogma of the soul's nature, use the term j/ñ/a of which the most obvious interpretation j/ñ/ât/ri/, not j/ñ/ânam.

Adhik. XIII (19-32) treats the question whether the individual soul is a/n/u, i.e. of very minute size, or omnipresent, all-pervading (sarvagata, vyâpin). Here, again, we meet with diametrically opposite views.--In /S/a@nkara's opinion the Sûtras 19-38 represent the pûrvapaksha view, according to which the jîva is a/n/u, while Sûtra 29 formulates the siddhânta, viz. that the jîva, which in reality is all-pervading, is spoken of as a/n/u in some scriptural passages, because the qualities of the internal organ--which itself is a/n/u--constitute the essence of the individual soul as long as the latter is implicated in the sa/m/sâra.--According to Râmânuja, on the other hand, the first Sûtra of the adhikara/n/a gives utterance to the siddhânta view, according to which the soul is of minute size; the Sûtras 20-25 confirm this view and refute objections raised against it; while the Sûtras 26-29 resume the question already mooted under Sûtra 18, viz. in what relation the soul as knowing agent (j/ñ/ât/ri/) stands to knowledge (j/ñ/âna).--In order to decide between the conflicting claims of these two interpretations we must enter into some details.--/S/a@nkara maintains that Sûtras 19-28 state and enforce a pûrvapaksha view, which is finally refuted in 29. What here strikes us at the outset, is the unusual length to which the defence of a mere primâ facie view is carried; in no other place the Sûtras take so much trouble to render plausible what is meant to be rejected in the end, and an unbiassed reader will certainly feel inclined to think that in 19-28 we have to do, not with the preliminary statement of a view finally to be abandoned, but with an elaborate bonâ fide attempt to establish and vindicate an essential dogma of the system. Still it is not altogether impossible that the pûrvapaksha should here be treated at greater length than usual, and the decisive point is therefore whether we can, with /S/a@nkara, look upon Sûtra 29 as embodying a refutation of the pûrvapaksha and thus implicitly acknowledging the doctrine that the individual soul is all-pervading. Now I think there can be no doubt that /S/a@nkara's interpretation of the Sûtra is exceedingly forced. Literally translated (and leaving out the non-essential word 'prâj/ñ/avat') the Sûtra runs as follows: 'But on account of that quality (or "those qualities;" or else "on account of the quality--or qualities--of that") being the essence, (there is) that designation (or "the designation of that").' This /S/a@nkara maintains to mean, 'Because the qualities of the buddhi are the essence of the soul in the sa/m/sâra state, therefore the soul itself is sometimes spoken of as a/n/u.' Now, in the first place, nothing in the context warrants the explanation of the first 'tat' by buddhi. And--which is more important--in the second place, it is more than doubtful whether on /S/a@nkara's own system the qualities of the buddhi--such as pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, &c.--can with any propriety be said to constitute the essence of the soul even in the sa/m/sâra state. The essence of the soul in whatever state, according to /S/a@nkara's system, is knowledge or intelligence; whatever is due to its association with the buddhi is non-essential or, more strictly, unreal, false.

There are no similar difficulties in the way of Râmânuja's interpretation of the adhikara/n/a. He agrees with /S/a@nkara in the explanation of Sûtras 19-35, with this difference that he views them as setting forth, not the pûrvapaksha, but the siddhânta. Sûtras 26-28 also are interpreted in a manner not very different from /S/a@nkara's, special stress being laid on the distinction made by Scripture between knowledge as a mere quality and the soul as a knowing agent, the substratum of knowledge. This discussion naturally gives rise to the question how it is that Scripture in some places makes use of the term vij/ñ/âna when meaning the individual soul. The answer is given in Sûtra 29, 'The soul is designated as knowledge because it has that quality for its essence,' i.e. because knowledge is the essential characteristic quality of the soul, therefore the term 'knowledge' is employed here and there to denote the soul itself. This latter interpretation gives rise to no doubt whatever. It closely follows the wording of the text and does not necessitate any forced supplementation. The 'tu' of the Sûtra which, according to /S/a@nkara, is meant to discard the pûrvapaksha, serves on Râmânuja's view to set aside a previously-raised objection; an altogether legitimate assumption.

Of the three remaining Sûtras of the adhikara/n/a (30-32), 30 explains, according to /S/a@nkara, that the soul may be called a/n/u, since, as long as it exists in the sa/m/sâra condition, it is connected with the buddhi. According to Râmânuja the Sûtra teaches that the soul may be called vij/ñ/âna because the latter constitutes its essential quality as long as it exists.--Sûtra 31 intimates, according to /S/a@nkara, that in the states of deep sleep, and so on, the soul is potentially connected with the buddhi, while in the waking state that connexion becomes actually manifest. The same Sûtra, according to Râmânuja, teaches that j/ñ/ât/ri/tva is properly said to constitute the soul's essential nature, although it is actually manifested in some states of the soul only.--In Sûtra 32, finally, /S/a@nkara sees a statement of the doctrine that, unless the soul had the buddhi for its limiting adjunct, it would either be permanently cognizing or permanently non-cognizing; while, according to Râmânuja, the Sûtra means that the soul would either be permanently cognizing or permanently non-cognizing, if it were pure knowledge and all-pervading (instead of being /jñ/ât/ri/ and a/n/u, as it is in reality).--The three Sûtras can be made to fit in with either interpretation, although it must be noted that none of them explicitly refers to the soul's connexion with the buddhi.

Adhik. XIV and XV (33-39; 40) refer to the kart/ri/tva of the jîva, i.e. the question whether the soul is an agent. Sûtras 33-39 clearly say that it is such. But as, according to /S/a@nkara's system, this cannot be the final view,--the soul being essentially non-active, and all action belonging to the world of upâdhis,--he looks upon the next following Sûtra (40) as constituting an adhikara/n/a by itself, and teaching that the soul is an agent when connected with the instruments of action, buddhi, &c., while it ceases to be so when dissociated from them, 'just as the carpenter acts in both ways,' i.e. just as the carpenter works as long as he wields his instruments, and rests after having laid them aside.--Râmânuja, perhaps more naturally, does not separate Sûtra 40 from the preceding Sûtras, but interprets it as follows: Activity is indeed an essential attribute of the soul; but therefrom it does not follow that the soul is always actually active, just as the carpenter, even when furnished with the requisite instruments, may either work or not work, just as he pleases.

Adhik. XVI (41, 42) teaches that the soul in its activity is dependent on the Lord who impels it with a view to its former actions.

Adhik. XVII (43-53) treats of the relation of the individual soul to Brahman. Sûtra 43 declares that the individual soul is a part (a/ms/a) of Brahman, and the following Sûtras show how that relation does not involve either that Brahman is affected by the imperfections, sufferings, &c. of the souls, or that one soul has to participate in the experiences of other souls. The two commentators of course take entirely different views of the doctrine that the soul is a part of Brahman. According to Râmânuja the souls are in reality parts of Brahman[14]; according to Sa@nkara the 'a/ms/a' of the Sûtra must be understood to mean 'a/ms/a iva,' 'a part as it were;' the one universal indivisible Brahman having no real parts, but appearing to be divided owing to its limiting adjuncts.--One Sûtra (50) in this adhikara/n/a calls for special notice. According to Sa@nkara the words 'âbhâsa eva /k/a' mean '(the soul is) a mere reflection,' which, as the commentators remark, is a statement of the so-called pratibimbavâda, i.e. the doctrine that the so-called individual soul is nothing but the reflection of the Self in the buddhi; while Sûtra 43 had propounded the so-called ava/kkh/edavâda, i.e. the doctrine that the soul is the highest Self in so far as limited by its adjuncts.--According to Râmânuja the âbhâsa of the Sûtra has to be taken in the sense of hetvâbhâsa, a fallacious argument, and the Sûtra is explained as being directed against the reasoning of those Vedântins according to whom the soul is Brahman in so far as limited by non-real adjuncts[15].

PÂDA IV.

Adhik. I, II, III (1-4; 5-6; 7) teach that the prâ/n/as (by which generic name are denoted the buddhîndriyas, karmen-driyas, and the manas) spring from Brahman; are eleven in number; and are of minute size (a/n/u).

Adhik. IV, V, VI (8; 9-12; 13) inform us also that the mukhya prâ/n/a, i.e. the vital air, is produced from Brahman; that it is a principle distinct from air in general and from the prâ/n/as discussed above; and that it is minute (a/n/u).

Adhik. VII and VIII (14-16; 17-19) teach that the prâ/n/as are superintended and guided in their activity by special divinities, and that they are independent principles, not mere modifications of the mukhya prâ/n/a.

Adhik. IX (20-22) declares that the evolution of names and forms (the nâmarûpavyâkara/n/a) is the work, not of the individual soul, but of the Lord.

Notes:

[Footnote 13: Lokavat, Yathâ loke râja/s/âsanânuvartinâ/m/ /k/a râjânugrahanigrahak/ri/takhadukhayoges'pi na sa/s/arîraîvamâtre/n/a sâsake râjany api /s/âsanânuv/ri/ttyauv/ri/ttinimittasukhadukhayor bhokt/ri/vaprasa@nga/h/. Yathâha Drami/d/abhâshyakâra/h/ yathâ loke râjâ pra/k/uradanda/s/ûke ghores'narthasa/m/ka/t/es'pi prade/s/e vartamânoszpi vyajanâdyavadhûtadeho doshair na sprisyate abhipretâ/ms/ /k/a lokân paripipâlayishati bhogâ/ms/ /k/a gandhâdîn avi/s/vajanopabhogyân dhârayati tathâsau loke/s/varo bhramatsvasâmait/h/ya/k/amato doshair na sp/ris/yate rakshati /k/a lokân brahmalokâdi/ms/ /k/âvi/s/vajanopabhogyân dhârayatîti.]

[Footnote 14: Gîvasya kart/ri/tva/m/ paramapurushâyattam ity uktam. Idânîm kim aya/m/ gîva/h/ parasmâd atyantabhinna/h/ uta param eva brahma bhrântam uta brahmaivopâdhyava/kkh/innam atha brahmâ/ms/a iti sa/m/sayyate /s/rutivipraticpatte/h/ sa/m/saya/h/. Nanu tadananyam ârambha/n/a/s/abdâdibhya/h/ adhika/m/ tu bhedanirdesâd ity atraivâyam aitho nir/n/îta/h/ Satya/m/ sa eva nânâtvaikatva/s/rutivipratipattyâ skshipya jîvasya brahmâ/ms/atvopapâdanena vi/s/eshato nir/n/îyate. Yâvad dhi jîvasya brahmâ/m/satva/m/ na nir/n/îtam tâvaj jîvasya brahmanosnanyatva/m/ brahma/n/as tasmâd adhikatvâ/m/ /k/a na pratitish/th/ati. Ki/m/ tâvat prâptam. Atyanta/m/ bhinna iti. Kuta/h/. J/ñ/âj/ñ/nau dvâv ityâdibhedanirde/s/ât. J/ñ/âj/ñ/ayor abheda/s/rutayas tv agninâ si/ñk/ed itivad viruddhârthapratipâdanâd aupa/k/ârikya/h/, Brahma/n/os/ms/o jîva ity api na sâdhîya/h/, ekavastvekade/s/avâ/k/î hy a/ms/a/s/sabda/h/, jîvasya brahmaikade/s/atve tadgatâ doshâ brahma/n/i bhaveyu/h/. Na /k/a brahmakha/nd/o jîva ity a/ms/atvopapatti/h/ kha/nd/anânarhatvâd brahma/n/a/h/ prâguktadoshaprasa@ngâ/k/ /k/a, tasmâd atyantabhinnasya tada/ms/atva/m/ durupapâdam. Yadvâ bhrânta/m/ brahmaiva jîva/h/. Kuta/h/. Tat tvam asi ayam âtmâ brahmetyâdibrahmâtmabhâvopade/s/ât, nânâtmatvavâdinyas tu pratyakshâdisiddhârthânuvâditvâd ananyathâsiddhâdvaitopade/s/aparâbhi/h/ /s/rutibhi/h/ pratyakshâdaya/s/ /k/a avidyântargata/h/ khyâpyante.--Athavâ brahmaivânâdyupâdhyava/kkh/inna/m/ jîva/h/. Kuta/h/. Tata eva brahmâtmabhâvopade/s/at. Na /k/âyam upâdhir bhrântiparikalpita ita vaktu/m/ sakya/m/ bandhamokshâdivyavasthânupapatter. Ity eva/m/ prâtptesbhidhîyate. Brahmâ/ms/a iti. Kuta/h/. Nânâvyapade/s/âd anyathâ /k/aikatvena vyapade/s/âd ubhayathâ hi vyapade/s/o d/ris/yate. Nâvâvyapade/s/as tâvat srash/tri/tva/rig/yatva--niyant/ri/tvaniyâmyatva--sarvaj/ñ/atvâj/ñ/atva-- svâdhînatvaparâdhînatva--/s/uddhatvâ/s/uddhatva-- kalyâ/n/agu/n/âkaratvaviparîtatva--patitva/s/eshatvâdibhir d/ris/yate. Anyathâ /k/âbhedena vyapade/s/os pi tat tvam asi ayam âtmâ brahmetyâdibhir d/ris/yate. Api dâ/s/akitavâditvam apy adhîyate eke, brahma dâsâ brahma dâsâ brahmeme kitavâ ity âtharva/n/ikâ brahma/n/o dâ/s/akitavâditvam apy adhîyate, tata/s/ /k/a sarvajîvavyâpitvena abhedo vyapadi/s/yata it artha/h/. Evam ubhayavyapade/s/amukhyatvasiddhaye jîvosya/m/ brahma/n/os/ms/a ity abhyupagantavya/h/.]

[Footnote 15: Nanu bhrântabrahmajîvavâdeszpy avidyâk/ri/topâdhibhedâd bhogavyavasthâdaya upapadyanta ata âha, âbhâsa eva /k/a. Akha/nd/aikarasaprakâ/s/amâtratvarûpasya svarûpatirodhânapûrvakopâdhibhedopapâdanahetur âbhâsa eva. Prakâ/s/aikasvarûpasya prakâ/s/atirodhâna/m/ prakâ/s/anâ/s/a eveti prâg evopapâditam. Âbhâsâ eveti vâ pâ/th/a/h/, tathâ sati hetava âbhâsâ/h/.]

THIRD ADHYÂYA. PÂDA I.

Adhik. I (1-7) teaches that the soul, when passing out of the body at the time of death, remains invested with the subtle material elements (bhûtasûkshma) which serve as an abode to the prâ/n/as attached to the soul.

Adhik. II (8-11) shows that, when the souls of those who had enjoyed the reward of their good works in the moon descend to the earth in order to undergo a new embodiment, there cleaves to them a remainder (anu/s/aya) of their former deeds which determines the nature of the new embodiment.

Adhik. III (12-21) discusses the fate after death of those whom their good works do not entitle to pass up to the moon.

Adhik. IV, V, VI (22; 23; 24-27) teach that the subtle bodies of the souls descending from the moon through the ether, air, &c., do not become identical with ether, air, &c., but only like them; that the entire descent occupies a short time only; and that, when the souls finally enter into plants and so on, they do not participate in the life of the latter, but are merely in external contact with them.

PÂDA II.