Philosophy and Religion / Vedânta-Sûtras (Brahma Sutras)

Vedânta-Sûtras

Fourth Adhyâya

Fourth Pâda

Reverence to the Highest Self!

1. (On the soul's) having entered (into the highest light), there is manifestation (of its own nature); (as we infer) from the word 'own.'

'Thus does that serene being, having risen out of this body and entered into the highest light, manifest itself by its own nature' (Kh. Up. VII, 12, 3). Regarding this text a doubt arises whether the Self ¹ manifests itself through some adventitious distinction--as the Self (of him who possesses the lower knowledge only) does in the world of the gods and other abodes of enjoyment--or only through its own Self.--The pûrvapakshin maintains that, as in other places, here also the manifestation takes place through some adventitious characteristic; because release also is a fruit (like other fruits, e.g. svarga), and because 'manifestation' means as much as origination. If the manifestation took place only through the Self's own nature, it would already appear in the Self's former states: for a thing's own nature is never absent from it. The Self therefore manifests itself by means of some adventitious distinction.

To this we make the following reply. It manifests itself through its Self only, not through any other attribute.--Why so?--On account of the word 'own' in the clause 'by its own nature.' For on the other view the qualification conveyed by 'own' would be unmeaning.--But may not the term 'own' merely indicate that that form belongs to that which manifests itself?--Not so, we reply. This is a point which would not require to be stated. For as in whatever form a thing manifests itself that form necessarily belongs to it, the qualification 'own' would be devoid of purport. It has a meaning, on the other hand, if it denotes the Self, the sense conveyed then being that the manifestation takes place only through the nature of the Self, not through any other, adventitious, nature.--But, as a thing cannot be without its own nature, what difference is there between the Self's former states and its present state (after the manifestation)?--To this question the next Sûtra replies.

2. (The Self whose true nature has manifested itself is) released; according to the promise (made by scripture).

That soul, of which the text says that it manifests itself, is released from its former bondage and abides in its own pure Self; while previously its Self was stained by the three states (i.e. the state of waking, dreaming, and dreamless sleep), according to Kh. Up. VIII, 9-11, 'It is blind;'--'it weeps as it were;'--'it goes to utter annihilation.' This is the difference.--But how is it known that in its present condition the soul is released?--'On account of the promise,' the Sûtra says. For after the teacher has promised to give further instruction about the Self as free from the imperfections of the three states ('I shall explain him further to you,' Kh. Up. VIII, 11, 3), he introduces the topic (of the released Self) in the words, 'Him being free from the body neither pleasure nor pain touches,' and concludes, 'By his own nature he manifests himself; that is the highest Person.' The words at the beginning of the tale also, 'The Self which is free from sin' (VIII, 7, 1), make a promise regarding the released Self. And release is a fruit in so far only as it is a cessation of all bondage, not as implying the accession of something new. And with reference to the assertion that manifestation is the origination of something new we remark that it is so only with regard to a former condition (which ceases to be), as when we say of a convalescent person that he now manifests himself free from sickness. Hence there is no room for objections.

3. (The light into which the soul enters is) the Self; owing to the subject-matter of the chapter.

But how can the soul be called 'released,' considering that the clause 'having entered into the highest light' speaks of it as within the sphere of what is a mere effect? For the word 'light,' according to general usage, denotes physical light. And none who has not passed beyond the sphere of what is effected can be released, it being known that whatever is an effect is tainted with evil.--This objection is without force, we reply; because in the passage referred to the word 'light' denotes the Self, in accordance with the subject-matter of the chapter. For as such the highest Self is introduced in the words, 'The Self which is free from sin, old age, death,' &c., and we therefore may not all at once pass over to physical light; incurring thereby the fault of abandoning the topic under discussion and introducing a new one. Besides, the word 'light' sometimes denotes the Self, as e.g. in the passage, 'That the gods meditate on as the light of lights' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 16). We have discussed this at length under I, 3, 40.

4. (The released soul abides) in non-division (from the highest Self); because that is seen from scripture.

A doubt here arises whether that soul of which the text says, 'Having entered the highest light it manifests itself by its true nature,' remains separate from the highest Self, or abides in the state of non-division from it.--Somebody might be inclined to think that--because in the passage, 'He moves about there,' a distinction is made between the abode and him who abides; and because the clause, 'Having entered the highest light,' mentions an agent and an object (of the agent's activity)--the soul remains distinct from the highest Self.--This view the Sûtra sets aside. The released soul is non-separate from the highest Self.--Why so?--Because that is seen from scripture. For passages such as 'Thou art that' (Kh. Up. VI, 8, 7); 'I am Brahman' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 10);--Where he sees nothing else' (Kh. Up. VII, 24, 1); 'But there is then nothing second, nothing else different that he could see' (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 23), show that the highest Self abides in the state of non-division. And the fruit must be assumed to correspond to the cognition, according to what was explained under IV, 3, 15. And also such passages as 'Just as pure water poured into pure water remains the same, thus, O Gautama, is the Self of a thinker who knows' (Ka. Up. II, 4, 15), whose object it is to describe the nature of the released soul, declare that there is non-separation only. The same follows from the comparisons (of the soul entering Brahman) to rivers falling into the sea. Passages where separation (of abode and abiding thing, &c.) is expressed, may be explained as, in a secondary sense, expressing non-separation; so e.g. Kh. Up. VII. 24, 1, 'In what does the Infinite rest?--In its own greatness;' and Kh. Up. VII, 25, 2, 'Loving the Self, playing with the Self.'

5. By (a nature) like that of Brahman (the soul manifests itself); (thus) Gaimini (opines); on account of reference and the rest.

It has been concluded that the clause, 'by its own nature,' means that the soul manifests itself by its own Self only, not by some other adventitious character. What has now to be inquired into is the specific qualities of that nature. Here the Sûtra at first states the opinion of the teacher Gaimini. According to him the soul's own nature is 'like that of Brahman,' i.e. it comprises all the qualities beginning with freeness from sin and concluding with truthfulness of conception (i.e. the qualities enumerated in Kh. Up. VIII, 7, 1), and also omniscience and omnipotence; and in this nature the soul manifests itself.--Why so?--Because this is known from reference ² and the rest. For the reference to certain qualities made in VIII, 7, 1, teaches that the Selfhood of the Self is such (i.e. such as made up of those qualities).--Again, the passage, 'He there moves about eating, playing, rejoicing,' shows that the Self possesses lordly power; so also the passage, 'For him there is free movement in all worlds' (Kh. Up. VIII, 1, 6). And thus also there is justification for such designations as 'All-knowing; all-powerful.'

6. By the sole nature of intelligence (the soul manifests itself), as that is its Self; thus Audulomi (opines).

Although the text enumerates different qualities, such as freeness from sin, &c., these qualities rest only on fanciful conceptions due to difference of words; for what the text intimates is only absence in general of all qualities such as sin and the rest. Intelligence alone constitutes the nature of the Self, and hence it is proper to conclude that it manifests itself in a nature consisting of that only. This conclusion will also agree with other scriptural texts, such as Bri. Up. IV, 5, 13. 'Thus this Self has neither inside nor outside, but is altogether a mass of knowledge.' Qualities, on the other hand, such as having true wishes, are indeed mentioned by the text as real (positive) attributes, the meaning being that his wishes are true, i.e. truly existent; but all the same they, as depending on the connexion with limiting adjuncts, cannot constitute the true nature of the Self, as intelligence does. For all manifoldness of character has to be denied of Brahman, as we have shown under III, 2, 11. For the same reason the mention made of eating and so on, means only the absence of all pain in general, and aims at glorification, just as the passage about 'loving the Self' (Kh. Up. VII, 25, 2). For love, play, and the like cannot in their literal sense be ascribed to the action of the Self, because they presuppose something second (beyond the Self). Hence the soul manifests itself in the nature of pure intelligence, free from all manifoldness, calm, not capable of being expressed by any terms. This is the view of the teacher Audulomi.

7. Thus also, on account of the existence of the former (qualities), (admitted) owing to reference and so on, there is absence of contradiction, (as) Bâdarâyana (thinks).

Thus also, i.e. although it be admitted that intelligence only constitutes the true nature of the Self, also the former nature, i.e. lordly power like that of Brahman, which is intimated by reference and the rest, is--with a view to the world of appearances--not rejected; and hence there is no contradiction. This is the opinion of the teacher Bâdarâyana.

8. But by mere will (the released effect their purposes); because scripture states that.

In the meditation on Brahman within the heart we read as follows: 'If he desires the world of the fathers, by his mere will the fathers rise,' &c. (Kh. Up. VIII, 2, 1).--A doubt here presents itself whether the will alone is the cause of the rising of the fathers, or the will joined with some other operative cause.--The pûrvapakshin maintains that although scripture says 'by his mere will,' some other cause must be supposed to co-operate, as in ordinary life. For as in our ordinary experience the meeting with one's father is caused by one's will, and, in addition, by the act of going and so on, so it will be in the case of the released soul also; and thus we do not assume something contrary to observation. When the text says 'by his mere will,' it implies, as in the case of a king, the whole apparatus of other easily procurable instrumental causes by which the desired object is obtained. Besides, if the fathers and so on rose owing to a mere wish, they would be of unstable nature, like the imaginary representation of some desired object, and thus not be able to procure any solid enjoyment.--To this we reply that the rising of the fathers and so on is due to the will only.--Why so?--Because scripture declares this. If any other cause were required, the direct scriptural statement 'by his will only' would thereby be contradicted. And even if we admit some other cause accompanying the act of will, it cannot be a cause to be realised by an effort; for therefrom it would follow that before the realisation of that cause the will would be barren. Nor can the analogies of ordinary experience be applied to something to be learned from scripture. For as the will of the released differs in nature from the will of ordinary men, it may have the power of effecting something that possesses as much stability as the special purpose requires.

9. And for this very same reason (the released soul is) without another lord.

For this very same reason, i.e. owing to the fact of the will of the released person not being barren, he who knows has no other lord over himself. For not even an ordinary person when forming wishes will, if he can help it, wish himself to be subject to another master. And scripture also declares this when saying, 'Those who depart from hence, after having discovered the Self and those true desires, for them there is freedom in all worlds' (Kh. Up. VIII, 1, 6).

10. The absence (of a body and sense-organs, on the part of the released) Bâdari (asserts); for thus scripture says.

The passage, 'By his mere wish the fathers rise,' shows that the released possesses a mind (internal organ, manas) whereby he wills. A question however arises whether he who knows, after having reached lordly power, possesses a body and senses, or not. Here the teacher Bâdari is of opinion that the glorified possessor of knowledge is without body and sense-organs.--Why so?--Because scripture declares this, With the mind seeing those wishes he rejoices' (Kh. Up. VIII, 12, 5). If he rejoiced with the mind, the body, and the senses, scripture would not specially say 'with the mind.' Hence there are neither body nor sense-organs in the state of release.

11. The presence (of a body and senses) Gaimini (asserts); because the text records option (of the released person multiplying himself).

The teacher Gaimini is of opinion that the released person possesses a body and sense-organs as well as a mind. For passages like 'He is onefold, he is threefold' (Kh. Up. VII, 26, 2) declare that the Self has the option of manifold existence which cannot be brought about without manifoldness of body.--The capability of optionally multiplying one's self is, indeed, mentioned in the knowledge of plenitude (bhûman) which refers to Brahman as devoid of qualities, but this lordly power which is valid only for the qualified state is there mentioned only in order to glorify the knowledge of the (unqualified) plenitude; and it therefore presents itself as constituting the fruit of qualified knowledge ³.

12. For this reason Bâdarâyana (opines that the released person is) of both kinds; as in the case of the twelve days' sacrifice.

The teacher Bâdarâyana, again, thinks that for this reason, i.e. because scripture contains indications of both kinds, the proper conclusion is that the released person exists in both conditions. When he wishes to have a body, he appears with one; when he wishes to be disembodied, he is without one. For he has various wishes, and all his wishes are realised.--'As in the case of the twelve days' sacrifice.' As the soma sacrifice extending over twelve days may be viewed either as a sattra or as an ahîna sacrifice, because both alternatives are indicated by scriptural passages ⁴; so it is here also.

13. When there is no body, (the process) may take place as in the dreaming state.

When there is no body and no sense-organs, the process in the state of release may be viewed as analogous to that in the state of dream, when objects wished, such as a father and so on, have a perceptional existence only while body, senses, and objects do not really exist.

14. When there is (a body), (it may be) as in the waking state.

When, on the other hand, the released person has a body, then the objects of his wishes--fathers and so on--may have real existence, as in the waking state.

15. The entering (of one soul into several bodies) is like (the multiplication of) the flame of a lamp; for thus scripture declares.

Under Sûtra 11 it has been shown that the released person is embodied. The question now arises whether the bodies which the released create for themselves when rendering themselves threefold and so on are soulless like wooden figures, or animated by souls like the bodies of us men.--The pûrvapakshin maintains that as neither the soul nor the manas can be divided they are joined with one body only, while the other bodies are soulless.--To this the Sûtrakâra replies, 'Like the flame of a lamp is their entering,' i.e. just as the one flame of a lamp can pass over into several flames (lighted at the original flame), because it possesses the power of modifying itself, thus the soul of him who knows, although one only, multiplying itself through its lordly power, enters into all those bodies. For scripture declares that in this way one may become many, 'He is onefold, he is threefold, fivefold, sevenfold' (Kh. Up. VII, 26, 2). And this is not possible, if we should accept the simile of the wooden puppets, or the entering of other souls into those additional bodies ⁵. Nor again can there be any motion on the part of bodies destitute of souls.--Nor is there any force in the objection that, because the Self and the Manas cannot be divided, they cannot be in connexion with more than one body. For the Self, because possessing the quality of having true wishes (i.e. wishes which become real), may be supposed to create other bodies with internal organs, conformable to the original one organ; and, the Self dividing itself through the division of its limiting adjuncts, it may be possible to give a soul to each created body. This is the topic which the books on Yoga treat, in the chapters explaining the connexion of one soul with several bodies.--But how can lordly power, enabling the released soul to enter into several bodies, be admitted, if we consider that different scriptural texts declare that the soul in that state has not any specific cognition? so e.g. 'Whereby should he know another?' 'For there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could know;' 'An ocean is that one seer, without any duality' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 14; IV, 3, 30; 32).

To this objection the next Sûtra replies.

16. (What scripture says about absence of all specific cognition) refers either to deep sleep or union (release); for this is manifested (by the texts).

By 'entering into one's own Self' is meant dreamless sleep; according to the text, 'He is gone to his own Self, he sleeps they say' (Kh. Up. VI, 8, 1). 'Union' means blissful isolation (final release), according to the text, 'Being Brahman he goes to Brahman' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 6). What the texts say about absence of specific cognition is said with reference to either of those two states, dreamless sleep or final release.--How do we know this?--Because this is 'manifest,' owing to the fact that those two states form the topic there (where absence of all cognition is mentioned). Compare the passages, 'Having risen from out of these elements it perishes again after them. Having departed there is no more knowledge;' 'But where the Self only is all this;' 'Where when asleep he desires no more desires, and dreams no more dreams' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 12; IV, 5, 15; IV, 3, 19).--Those passages, on the other hand, which describe lordly power refer to an altogether different condition, which--like the heavenly world and so on--is an abode where qualified knowledge produces its results.--Thus there is no contradiction.

17. With the exception of world-business (the released possess all lordly power), (the Lord) being the topic (where world-business is referred to), and (the souls) not being near (to such business).

The following doubt here presents itself. Do those who through meditations on the qualified Brahman enter, together with their manas, into a condition of equality with the Lord, possess unlimited lordly power, or power limited to some extent?--The pûrvapakshin maintains that their power must be unlimited, because we meet with texts such as 'He obtains Self-lordship' (Taitt. Samh. I, 6, 2); 'All the gods bring an offering for him' (Taitt. Samh. I, 5, 3); 'For them there is freedom in all worlds' (Kh. Up. VIII, 1, 6)--To this the Sûtra replies, 'Excepting the world-business.' With the exception of the origination and so on of the world all other lordly powers, as e.g. rendering one's self of atomic size, must belong to the released. The world-business, on the other hand, can belong to the everlastingly perfect Lord only.--Why so?--Because there (where the origination and so on of the world are referred to) the Lord forms the general topic, and because the other (souls) do not stand near (to the world-business). The highest Lord only is appointed to do all work referring to the entire world; for the world's origination and so on are taught only where he constitutes the general subject-matter, and moreover he (only) is eternal, and described in scripture (as the creator, &c. of the world) ⁶. The lordly power of the other souls, on the contrary, scripture shows to have a beginning, because it depends on their searching for and striving to know the Lord. They are therefore remote from all world-business. And just because they have minds, they might be of different minds, and one might have the intention of preserving the world while another might wish to destroy it. Such conflicts can only be avoided by assuming that the wishes of one should conform to those of another, and from this it follows that all other souls (but the Lord) depend on the highest Lord.

18. (Should it be said that the souls must possess unlimited power) on account of manifest teaching; we reply No, because scripture states him who, entrusted with office, abides in the spheres (of the sun and so on), (to be that one on whom the soul's obtaining lordly power depends).

It remains to refute the remark, made by the pûrvapakshin, that absolute power on the part of those who know must be inferred from texts directly asserting such power, as e.g. 'He obtains self-lordship.'--This refutation the above Sûtra undertakes. Scripture declares that the obtainment of rulership on the soul's part, depends on the highest Lord who, as entrusted with definite offices, abides in certain definite abodes, such as the sphere of the sun, &c. This is shown by the text going on to say (after the clause quoted above), 'He obtains the lord of Mind.' For that means that he obtains the lord known to be the lord of all minds. In accordance herewith the text later on says that he becomes lord of speech, lord of the eye, lord of the ear, lord of understanding.--Similarly in other passages also the lordly power of the other souls has to be viewed, according to circumstances, as depending on the eternally perfect Lord.

19. And (there is also a form of the highest Lord) not abiding in effected things; for thus scripture declares his abiding.

Moreover, according to scripture, there is also an eternal form of the highest Lord which does not abide in effects; he is not only the ruling soul of the spheres of the sun and so on which lie within the sphere of what is effected. For the text declares his abiding in a twofold form, as follows: 'Such is the greatness of it; greater than it is the Person. One foot of him are all beings; three feet of him is what is immortal in heaven' (Kh. Up. III, 12, 6). And it cannot be maintained that that form of him which is divorced from all effects is reached by those who put their trust on his other form; for their minds are not set on the former. Hence as he who does not reach that form of the double-natured highest Lord which is divorced from all qualities stops at that form which is distinguished by qualities, so also, unable to reach unlimited power within the latter form, he stops at limited lordly power.

20. And thus perception and inference show.

Scripture and Smriti both declare that the highest light does not abide within effected things, 'The sun does not shine there, nor the moon and the stars, nor these lightnings, and much less this fire' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 10). 'The sun does not illume it, nor the moon, nor fire' (Bha. Gîtâ XV, 6).--The Sûtra is meant to show that the non-abiding of the highest light within effected things is a well-known circumstance.

21. And on account of the indications of equality of enjoyment only.

The lordly power of those who take their stand on the effected Brahman is not absolute, for that reason also that scripture teaches that their enjoyment only is equal to that of the eternally perfect Lord. For scripture contains statements and indications of the difference (of the Lord and the released soul); compare 'To him he says, Water indeed is enjoyed ⁷ (by me); that world (is to be enjoyed by thee also)' (Kau. Up. I, 7); 'As all beings honour that deity, so do all beings honour him who knows that' (Bri. Up. I, 5, 20); 'He obtains through it equality (in body) and sameness of abode with that deity' (Bri. Up. I, 5, 23). But from the circumstance of the lordly power of the released souls not being absolute it follows that it comes to an end, and then they will have to return from the world of Brahman!--To this objection the reverend Bâdarâyana replies in the following Sûtra.

22. (Of them) there is non-return, according to scripture; non-return, according to scripture.

Those who, in following the road of the gods, to which the vein and the ray are leading, and on which light is the first stage, reach the world of Brahman as described by scripture--where 'there are the two lakes Ara and Nya in the world of Brahman, in the third heaven from hence,' and where 'there is the lake Airammadîya and the Asvattha tree showering down Soma. and the city of Brahman Aparâgitâ and the golden hall built by Prabhu' (Kh. Up. VIII, 5, 3)--and set forth at length in mantras, arthavâdas, and so on; those, we say, who reach that world do not return from there after having finished the enjoyment of their deeds; as those do who have gone to the world of the moon and other places.---Why so?--Because scriptural passages teach that they do not so return. Compare 'Moving upwards by it he reaches the immortal' (Kh. Up. VIII, 6, 6); 'For them there is no return' (Bri. Up. VI, 2, 15); 'Those who proceed on that path do not return to the life of man' (Kh. Up. IV, 15, 6); 'He reaches the world of Brahman and does not return' (Kh. Up. VIII, 15, 1). That the finality of their lordly power does not imply their return to the life of man, we have shown under IV, 3, 10. It is a settled matter that those who through perfect knowledge have dispelled all mental darkness and are devoted to the eternally perfect Nirvâna do not return. And as those also who rely on the knowledge of the qualified Brahman in the end have recourse to that (Nirvâna), it follows that they also do not return.--The repetition of the words, 'Non-return, according to scripture,' indicates the conclusion of this body of doctrine.

Footnotes

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE