Philosophy and Religion / Vedânta-Sûtras (Brahma Sutras)

Vedânta-Sûtras

Fourth Adhyâya

Third Pâda

Reverence to the Highest Self!

1. On the road beginning with light (the departed soul proceeds), on account of that being widely known.

It has been explained that up to the beginning of the way, the departure is the same. About the way itself, however, different texts make different declarations. One passage describes it as constituted by the junction of the veins and rays, 'Then he mounts upwards by just those rays' (Kh. Up. VIII, 6, 5), Another passage describes it as beginning with light, 'They go to the light, from light to day' (Kh. Up. V, 10, 1). Another way is described, Kau. Up. I, 3, 'Having reached the path of the gods, he comes to the world of Agni.' Another, Bri. Up. V, 10, 1, 'When the person goes away from this world, he comes to the wind.' Another again. Mu. Up. I, 2, 11, 'Free from passions they depart through the gate of the sun.' A doubt here arises whether these ways are different from each other, or whether there is only one road of which the different texts mention different particulars.--The pûrvapakshin embraces the former alternative, for the reason that those roads are referred to in different chapters and form parts of different meditations. If, moreover, we regarded the statements about light and so on, the emphatical assertion ¹ made in the first of the passages quoted above would be contradicted; and the statement about the quickness of mounting, 'As quickly as he sends off the mind he goes to the sun,' would also be interfered with. We therefore conclude that the roads described are different roads. To this we reply, 'On the road beginning with light;' i.e. we maintain that every one who desires to reach Brahman moves on the road beginning with light.--Why so?--'On account of its being widely known.' That road is known to all who possess knowledge. Thus the chapter of the vidyâ of the five fires ('And those also who in the forest meditate on the True as faith,' &c., Bri. Up. VI, 2, 15) expressly states that the road beginning with the light belongs to those also who practise other meditations.--That road, an objection is raised, may present itself to the mind in the case of those meditations which do not mention any road of their own; but why should it be accepted for such meditations as mention different roads of their own?--This objection would be valid, we reply, if the various roads mentioned were entirely different; but as a matter of fact there is only one road leading to the world of Brahman and possessing different attributes; and this road is designated in one place by one attribute and in another place by another attribute. For this relation of attributes and what possesses attributes is established by the circumstance that we recognise, in all the passages quoted, some part of the road ². And if the chapters which mention the roads are different, we, as long as the meditation is one, have to combine the different attributes of the road (mentioned separately in the different chapters), in the same way as (in general) the different particulars of one meditation (which are stated in different chapters) have to be combined. And even if the meditations (in which the particulars of the road are mentioned) are different, the road must be viewed as one and the same, because we recognise everywhere some part of the road and because the goal is everywhere the same. For all the following passages declare one and the same result, viz. the obtainment of the world of Brahman: 'In these worlds of Brahman they dwell for ever and ever' (Bri. Up. VI, 2, 15); 'There he dwells eternal years' (Bri. Up. V, 10, 1); 'Whatever victory, whatever greatness belongs to Brahman, that victory he gives, that greatness he reaches' (Kau. Up. I, 2); 'Those who find the world of Brahman by Brahmakarya' (Kh. Up. VIII, 4, 3).--To the remark that the emphatical assertion (made in the passage, 'Just by those rays,' &c.) would be contradicted by our admitting light and so on as stages of the road, we reply that no such difficulty exists, because that passage aims only at establishing the rays (as part of the road). For the one word 'just' cannot at the same time establish the rays and discard light and so on. The passage therefore must be understood as only emphasising the connexion with the rays.--Nor does the regard paid by us to the statements about light and so on being stages of the way contradict what one passage says about speed; for that passage means to say that one goes (to the world of Brahman) more quickly than anywhere else, so that its sense is, 'In the twinkling of an eye one goes there ³.'--Moreover the passage, 'On neither of these two ways' (Kh. Up. V, 10, 8)--in teaching that there is a third inferior road for those who have missed the other two roads--shows that besides the road of the fathers there is only one further road, viz. the road of the gods, of which light and so on are stages. The text about light and so on mentioning a greater number of stages while other texts mention a smaller number, it stands to reason that the less numerous should be explained in conformity, with the more numerous. For this reason also the Sûtra says, 'On the road beginning with light, on account of its being widely known.'

2. From the year to Vâyu; on account of the absence and presence of specification.

But by what special combination can we establish between the different attributes of the road the relation of what is determined by attributes and of determining attributes? The teacher out of kindness to us connects them as follows.--The Kaushîtakins describe the road of the gods as follows, 'Having reached the path of the gods he comes to the world of Agni, to the world of Vâyu, to the world of Varuna, to the world of Indra, to the world of Pragâpati, to the world of Brahman' (Kau. Up. I, 3). Now the world of Agni means the same as light, since both terms denote burning, and we therefore need not, with regard to them, search for the order in which they are to be combined. Vâyu, on the other hand, is not mentioned in the road beginning with light; in what place then is he to be inserted?--We read, Kh. Up. V, 10, 1, 'They go to the light, from light to day, from day to the waxing half of the moon, from the waxing half of the moon to the six months when the sun goes to the north, from those months to the year, from the year to Âditya.' Here they reach Vâyu after the year and before Âditya.--Why so?--'On account of the absence and presence of specification.' About Vâyu--concerning whom the passage, 'He goes to the world of Vâyu,' contains no specification--another passage does state such a specification, viz. Bri. Up. V, 10, 1, 'When the person goes away from this world he comes to Vâyu. Then Vâyu makes room for him like the hole of a wheel. and through it he mounts higher, he comes to Âditya.' On account of this specification which shows Vâyu to come before Âditya, Vâyu must be inserted between the year and Âditya.--But as there is a specification showing that Vâyu comes after Agni, why is he not inserted after the light?--There is no such specification, we reply.--But a scriptural passage has been quoted which runs as follows, 'Having reached the path of the gods he comes to the world of Agni, to the world of Vâyu.'--In that passage, we reply, we have only two clauses, of which the text exhibits one before the other, but there is no word expressing order of succession. We have there only a simple statement of facts, 'He goes to this and to that.' But in the other text we perceive a regular order of succession; for it intimates that after having mounted on high through an opening as large as the wheel of a chariot, granted by Vâyu, he approaches the sun. The Sûtra therefore rightly says, 'On account of the absence and presence of specification.'--The Vâgasaneyins in their text record that he proceeds 'from the months to the world of the gods, from the world of the gods to the sun' (Bri. Up. VI, 2, 15). Here, in order to maintain the immediate succession of Vâyu and Âditya, we must suppose the souls to go from the world of the gods to Vâyu. What the Sûtra says about the soul going to Vâyu from the year has reference to the text of the Khândogya. As between the Vâgasaneyaka and the Khândogya, the world of the gods is absent from one, the year from the other. As both texts are authoritative, both stages have to be inserted in each, and the distinction has to be made that, owing to its connexion with the months, the year has the first place (i.e. after the months and before the world of the gods), and the world of the gods the second place.

3. Beyond lightning (there is) Varuna, on account of the connexion (of the two).

The Khândogya continues, 'From Âditya to the moon, from the moon to lightning.' Here Varuna (mentioned in the Kaushîtaki-upan.) has to be brought in so that above that lightning he goes to the world of Varuna. For there is a connexion between lightning and Varuna; the broad lightnings dance forth from the womb of the clouds with the sound of deep thunder, and then water falls down. And a Brâhmana also says, 'It lightens, it thunders, it will rain' (Kh. Up. VII, 11, 1). But the lord of all water is Varuna, as known from Sruti and Smriti.--And above Varuna there come Indra and Pragâpati, as there is no other place for them, and according to the force of the text, as it stands. Varuna and so on should be inserted at the end, for that reason also that they are merely additional, no particular place being assigned to them. And lightning is the end of the road beginning with light ⁴.

4. (They are) conductors, this being indicated.

With regard to those beginning with light a doubt arises whether they are marks of the road, or places of enjoyment, or leaders of the travelling souls.--The first possible view of the question is that light and so on are marks of the road, because the instruction has that character. For as in ordinary life a man wishing to go to a village or a town is told, 'Go from here to that hill, from there to a fig-tree, from that to a river, from that to a village; after that you will reach the town;' so here the text also says, 'from light to day, from day to the waxing half of the month,' &c.--Or else light and so on may be viewed as places of enjoyment. For the text connects Agni and so on with the word 'world'; 'He comes to the world of Agni,' &c. Now the term 'world' is used to denote places of enjoyment of living beings, as when we say, 'The world of men; the world of the Fathers; the world of the gods.' A Brâhmana passage also says, 'They remain attached to the worlds which consist of day and night' (Sat. Brâ. X, 2, 6, 8). Therefore light and the rest are not conductors. Moreover, they cannot be conductors because they are without intelligence. For in ordinary life intelligent men only are appointed by the king to conduct travellers over difficult roads.

To all this we reply as follows. They must be conductors, because the text indicates this. For we read, 'From the moon to the lightning; there a person that is not a man leads them to Brahman;' which shows their conductorship to be something settled. Should it be objected that this last sentence exhausts itself in conveying its own purport ⁵; we say No; for the attribute ('that is not a man') has only the meaning of excluding his previously established humanity. Only if in the case of the light and the rest personal conductors are settled, and those of human nature, it is appropriate to use the attribute 'amânava,' to the end of excluding this (previously established) humanity ⁶.

But mere indication has no force, as there is nothing to prove (that there must be such personal conductors).--To this objection the next Sûtra replies.

5. (There are personal conductors) because that is established on the ground of both (i.e. road and travellers) being bewildered (i.e. unconscious).

As, owing to their separation from a body, the organs of those who go on the road beginning with light are wrapped up, they are incapable of ruling themselves; and the light &c., as they are without intelligence, are equally incapable. Hence it follows that the particular intelligent deities who represent light and the rest are appointed to the conductorship. For in ordinary life also drunken or senseless people whose sense-organs are wrapped up follow a road as commanded by others.--Again light and the rest cannot be taken for marks of the road because they are not always present. A man who dies in the night cannot come to day in its true (physical) nature; and he cannot wait (for the break of day), as we have already explained above (IV, 2, 19). But this objection does not apply to gods who are permanent. And gods may be called light and so on, because they represent light and so on. Nor is the expression, 'From light to day,' &c. objectionable, even if we adopt the sense of conductorship; for it means, through the light as cause they come to the day; through the day as cause, to the waxing half of the moon. And such instruction is seen also in the case of conductors known in ordinary life, for they say, Go hence to Balavarman, thence (i.e. Balavarman conducting you) to Gayasimha, thence to Krishnagupta. Moreover, in the beginning where the text says that they go to the light, a relation in general only is expressed, not a special relation; at the end, however, where it is said he leads them to Brahman, a special relation is expressed, viz. that between conducted and conductor. Therefore this is accepted for the beginning also.--And as the organs of the wandering souls are wrapped up together there is no possibility of their enjoying anything. Although, however, the wanderers do not enjoy anything, the word 'world' may be explained on the ground that those worlds are places of enjoyment for other beings dwelling there--The conclusion therefore is that he who has reached the world of Agni is led on by Agni, and he who has reached the world ruled by Vâyu, by Vâyu.

But how, if we adopt the view of conductorship, can this apply to Varuna and the rest? Varuna and the rest were inserted above the lightning; but scripture states that after the lightning until Brahman is reached a person leads who is not a man.--To this doubt the next Sûtra replies.

6. From thence (the souls are led) by him only who belongs to the lightning; the sacred text stating that.

From thence, i.e. after they have come to the lightning they go to the world of Brahman, being led through the worlds of Varuna and the rest by the person, not a man, who follows immediately after the lightning. For that that person leads them is stated in the following passage, 'When they have reached the place of lightning a person, not a man, leads them to the world of Brahman' (Bri. Up. VI, 2, 15). Varuna and the rest, we must understand, favour them either by not hindering or somehow assisting them.--Therefore it is well said that light and so on are the gods who act as conductors.

7. To the effected (Brahman) (the souls are led); (thus opines) Bâdari; because going to him is possible.

With regard to the passage, 'He leads them to Brahman.' the doubt arises whether that person leads the souls to the effected, lower, Brahman, or to the highest, non-modified, chief Brahman.--Whence the doubt?--Because the (ambiguous) word Brahman is used, and because scripture speaks of going.--The opinion of the teacher Bâdari is that the person, who is not a man, leads them to the lower, qualified, effected Brahman; because it is possible to go to that. For the effected Brahman which occupies a definite place can be the goal of a journey. With the highest Brahman, on the other hand, we cannot connect the ideas of one who goes, or object of going, or act of going; for that Brahman is present everywhere and is the inner Self of all.

8. And on account of (the Brahman to which the Souls are led) being qualified (in another passage).

That the soul's going has for its object the effected Brahman, we conclude from another scriptural passage also which qualifies Brahman in a certain way, 'He leads them to the worlds of Brahman; in these worlds of Brahman they live for ever and ever' (Bri. Up. VI, 2, 15). For it would be impossible to qualify the highest Brahman by means of the plural number ('worlds'); while the plural number may be applied to the lower Brahman which may abide in different conditions.--The term 'world' also can directly denote only some place of enjoyment falling within the sphere of effects and possessing the quality of being entered into, while it must be understood in a metaphorical sense in passages
⁷ such as 'Brahman is that world '(Bri. Up. IV, 4, 23).--And also what the text says concerning an abode and some one abiding within it ('in these worlds of Brahman,' &c.), cannot be directly understood of the highest Brahman.--For all these reasons the leading of the souls has the lower Brahman for its goal.

But even on this interpretation the word 'Brahman' is inappropriate, as it has been proved that Brahman is the cause of the origination and so on of the entire world.--To this objection the next Sûtra replies.

9. But on account of its proximity (to the higher Brahman) there is designation (of the lower Brahman) as that.

The word 'but' indicates the setting aside of the doubt.--As the lower Brahman is in proximity to the higher one, there is nothing unreasonable in the word 'Brahman' being applied to the former also. For when the higher Brahman is, for the purposes of pious meditation, described as possessing certain effected qualities--such as consisting of mind and the rest--which qualities depend on its connexion with certain pure limiting adjuncts; then it is what we call the lower Brahman.--But with the assumption of the lower Brahman there does not agree what scripture says about the souls not returning; for there is no permanence anywhere apart from the highest Brahman. And scripture declares that those who have set out on the road of the gods do not return, 'They who proceed on that path do not return to the life of man' (Kh. Up. IV, 15, 6); 'For them there is no return here' (Bri. Up. VI, 2, 15); 'Moving upwards by that a man reaches immortality' (Kh. Up. VIII, 6, 5).

To this objection we make the following reply.

10. On the passing away of the effected (world of Brahman) (the souls go) together with the ruler of that (world) to what is higher than that; on account of scriptural declaration.

When the reabsorption of the effected Brahman world draws near, the souls in which meanwhile perfect knowledge has sprung up proceed, together with Hiranyagarbha the ruler of that world, to 'what is higher than that i.e. to the pure highest place of Vishnu. This is the release by successive steps which we have to accept on the basis of the scriptural declarations about the non-return of the souls. For we have shown that the Highest cannot be directly reached by the act of going.

11. And on account of Smriti.

Smriti also agrees with this view; cp. the following passage, 'When the pralaya has come and the end of the highest (i.e. Hiranyagarbha), then they all, together with Brahman, with purified minds enter the highest place.'--The final conclusion (siddhânta) therefore is that the going of the souls, of which scripture speaks, has for its goal the effected Brahman.--But what is the primâ facie view, with regard to which this final conclusion has been established in Sutras 7-11?--This required primâ facie view is now set forth in the following Sûtras.

12. To the highest (Brahman) (the souls are led); Gaimini (opines); owing to this being the principal sense (of the word 'Brahman').

The teacher Gaimini is of opinion that the passage, 'He leads them to Brahman,' refers to the highest Brahman. For the highest Brahman constitutes the principal, primary sense, of the word 'Brahman,' which denotes the lower Brahman only in a secondary, metaphorical way. And where both senses are possible, the primary sense has to be preferred.

13. And because scripture declares that.

The text, 'Going upwards by that he reaches immortality,' declares that immortality is reached by going. But immortality is possible only in the highest Brahman, not in the effected one, because the latter is transitory. So scripture says, 'Where one sees something else, that is little, that is mortal' (Kh. Up. VII, 24, 1). According to the text of the Katha-upanishad also the going of the soul is towards the highest Brahman; for after the highest Brahman has been introduced there as general subject-matter--in the passage, 'That which thou seest,' &c., I, 2, 14, no other kind of knowledge is taken up later on.

14. And the intention of entering (can) not (be referred) to the effected (Brahman).

Moreover the intention of entering into which is expressed in the passage, 'I enter the hall of Pragâpati, the house' (Kh. Up. VIII, 14, 1), cannot have the lower Brahman for its object. For the immediately preceding passage, 'That within which these forms and names are contained is the Brahman,' shows that the highest Brahman, different in nature from the effected one, is the general subject-matter; and the subsequent passage, 'I am the glory of the Brâhmans,' represents the soul as the Self of all; it being known from another scriptural passage that 'Glory' is a name of the highest Brahman, 'There is no likeness of him whose name is great glory' (Vâg. Samh. XXXII, 3). And in the vidyâ of Brahman within the heart it is said of this same entering the house that it is preceded by going ⁸, 'There is the city of Brahman Aparâgitâ, and the golden hall built by Prabhu' (Kh. Up. VIII, 5, 3). And that the performing of a journey is intended follows also from the use of the verb 'pad,' which denotes going (prapadye, I enter).--The other (primâ facie) view therefore is that all the passages about the soul's going refer to the highest Brahman.

These two views have been embodied by the teacher in the Sûtras; one in the Sûtras 7-11, the other in the Sûtras 12-14. Now the arguments contained in the former set are capable of proving the fallaciousness of the arguments in the latter set, but not vice versâ; from which it follows that the former set states the final view and the latter set the primâ facie view only.--For nobody can compel us to accept the primary sense of a word (such as Brahman) even where it is impossible to do so.--And although met with in a chapter that treats of the highest knowledge, the reference to the going to Brahman--which belongs to another kind of knowledge--may be explained as aiming merely at the glorification of the highest knowledge (not at teaching that the going to Brahman is the result of higher knowledge).--And with reference to the passage, 'I enter the hall of Pragâpati the house,' there is no reason why we should not separate that passage from what precedes and refer the intention of entering to the effected Brahman. And the qualified Brahman also may be spoken of as being the Self of all, as shown by other passages such as 'He to whom all works, all desires belong,' &c. (Kh. Up. III, 14, 2). The texts about the going therefore all belong to the lower knowledge.--Others again, in accordance with the general principle that the earlier Sûtras set forth the primâ facie view, while the later ones contain the siddhânta view, maintain that the passages about the soul's going fall within the sphere of the higher knowledge. But this is impossible, because nothing may go to the highest Brahman. 'Omnipresent and eternal like the ether;' 'The Brahman which is visible, not invisible, the Self that is within all' (Bri. Up. III, 4, 1); 'Self only is all this' (Kh. Up. VII, 25, 2); 'Brahman only is all this, it is the best' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 11): from all these passages we ascertain that the highest Brahman is present everywhere, within everything, the Self of everything, and of such a Brahman it is altogether impossible that it ever should be the goal of going. For we do not go to what is already reached; ordinary experience rather tells us that a person goes to something different from him.--But we observe in ordinary experience also that something already reached may become an object of going, in so far as qualified by a different place; a man living on the earth, e.g. goes to the earth, in so far as he goes to another place on the earth. In the same way we see that a child reaches the adult state which in reality belongs to the child's identical Self, but is qualified by a difference of time. Analogously Brahman also may be an object of going in so far as it is possessed of all kinds of powers.--This may not be, we reply, because scripture expressly negatives Brahman's possessing any distinctive qualities.--'Without parts, without actions, tranquil, without fault, without taint' (Svet. Up. VI, 19); 'Neither coarse nor fine, neither short nor long' (Bri. Up. III, 8, 8); 'He who is without and within, unproduced '(Mu. Up. II, 1, 2); 'This great, unborn Self, undecaying, undying, immortal, fearless, is indeed Brahman' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 25); 'He is to be described by No, no!' (Bri. Up. III, 9, 26); from all these scriptural texts, as well as from Smriti and reasoning, it follows that the highest Self cannot be assumed to possess any differences depending on time or space or anything else, and cannot therefore become the object of going. The cases of places on the earth and of the different ages of man are by no means analogous; for they are affected by differences of locality and so on, and therefore can be gone to or reached.--Nor will it avail our opponent to say that Brahman possesses manifold powers, because scripture declares it to be the cause of the world's origination, sustentation, and final retractation; for those passages which deny difference have no other sense (but just the absolute denial of all difference).--But in the same way also those passages which state the origination and so on of the world have no other sense! (i.e. cannot be understood to teach anything but just the origination and so on of the world).--This is not so, we reply; for what they aim at teaching is the absolute oneness of Brahman. For texts which by means of the simile of the lump of clay, &c., teach that only that which is, viz. Brahman, is true, while everything effected is untrue, cannot aim at teaching the origination, &c. of the world.--But why should the passages about the origination, &c. of the world be subordinate to those which deny all difference, and not vice versa?--Because, we reply, the texts which negative all difference effect the cessation of all desire. For when the absolute oneness, permanence, and purity of the Self have once been apprehended, we cognize that the highest aim of man has been attained, and therefore conceive no further desires. Compare the following texts: 'What trouble, what sorrow can there be to him who beholds that unity?' (Îsâ-up. 7); 'Thou hast reached fearlessness, O Ganaka'(Bri. Up. IV, 2, 4); 'He who knows does not fear anything; he does not distress himself with the thought, Why did I not do what is good? Why did I do what is bad?' (Taitt. Up. II, 9.) This also follows from our observing that those who know realise contentment of mind; and from the fact that scripture blames the false notion of (the reality of) effects, 'From death to death goes he who sees here any difference' (Ka. Up. II. 4, 10). The texts negativing all difference cannot therefore be understood as subordinate to other texts. Those texts, on the other hand, which speak of the origination of the world and so on have no similar power of conveying a sense which effects cessation of all desire. At the same time it is manifest that they have another (than their literal) meaning. For the text, after having said at first, 'Of this shoot sprung up know that it cannot be without a root' (Kh. Up. VI, 8, 3), declares in the end that Being which is the root of the world is the only object of cognition. Similarly Taitt. Up. III, 1. 'That from which these beings are born, that by which when born they live, that into which they enter at their death, seek to know that; that is Brahman.' As thus the passages about origination and so on aim at teaching the unity of the Self, Brahman cannot be viewed as possessing manifold powers, and cannot therefore be the object of the action of going.--And, as already explained under IV, 2, 13, also the text Bri. Up. IV, 4, 6 ('Of him the prânas do not depart; being Brahman he goes to Brahman'), denies any going to the highest Brahman.

Moreover, on the hypothesis of going, that which goes, i.e. the individual soul, must be either a part of Brahman to which it goes, or an effect of Brahman, or different from Brahman; for if the two were absolutely identical no going could take place.--Well, what then?--We reply as follows. If, in the first place, the soul is a part of Brahman, it cannot go to it, since the whole is permanently reached by the part. Besides, the hypothesis of whole and parts cannot be applied to Brahman, which is acknowledged to be without parts.--The same objection lies against the hypothesis of the soul being an effect of Brahman; for also that which passes over into an effect is permanently reached by the effect. A jar made of clay does not exist apart from the clay which constitutes its Self; were it so apart it would cease to be. And on both hypotheses, as that to which the parts or the effects would belong, i.e. Brahman is altogether unchanging, its entering into the Samsâra state could not be accounted for.--Let then, in the third place, the soul be different from Brahman. In that case it must be either of atomic size, or infinite, or of some intervening extent. If it is omnipresent, it cannot go anywhere. If it is of some middling extent, it cannot be permanent. If it is of atomic size, the fact of sensation extending over the whole body cannot be accounted for. The two hypotheses of atomic and middling extent have moreover been refuted at length in a former part of this work (II, 3, 19 ff.). And from the soul's being different from the highest Brahman it also would follow that such texts as 'Thou art that' are futile. This latter objection also lies against the theories of the soul being a part or an effect of Brahman. Nor can the difficulty be got over by it being pleaded that a part and an effect are not different from the whole and the causal substance; for that kind of oneness is not oneness in the true literal sense--From all those three theories it moreover equally follows that the soul cannot obtain final release, because its Samsâra condition could never come to an end. Or else, if that condition should come to an end, it would follow that the very essence of the soul perishes; for those theories do not admit that the (imperishable) Brahman constitutes the Self of the soul.

Here now some come forward with the following contention. Works of permanent obligation and works to be performed on special occasions are undertaken to the end that harm may not spring up; such works as are due to special desires, and such as are forbidden, are eschewed, in order that neither the heavenly world nor hell may be obtained, and those works whose fruits are to be enjoyed in the current bodily existence are exhausted by just that fruition. Hence, as after the death of the present body, there is no cause for the origination of a now body, that blessed isolation which consists in the soul's abiding within its own nature will accomplish itself for a man acting in the way described above, even without the cognition of his Self being identical with Brahman's Self.--All this is inadmissible, we reply, because there is no proof of it. For scripture nowhere teaches that he who desires release should conduct himself in the way described. To say that because the Samsâra state depends on works, it will cease when works are absent, is an altogether arbitrary style of reasoning. And (whether arbitrary or not) this reasoning falls to the ground, because the absence of the cause is something that cannot be ascertained. It may be supposed that each living being has, in its former states of existence, accumulated many works which have part of them pleasant, part of them unpleasant results. As these works are such as to lead to contrary results, which cannot be enjoyed all of them at the same time, some works whose opportunity has come, build up the present state of existence; others sit inactive waiting for a place, a time, and operative causes (favourable to them). As these latter works cannot thus be exhausted in the present state of existence, we cannot definitely assert, even in the case of a man who conducts himself as described above, that at the end of his present bodily existence all cause for a new bodily existence will be absent. The existence of a remainder of works is, moreover, established by scriptural and Smriti passages, such as, 'Those whose conduct has been good' (Kh. Up. V, 10, 7); 'Then with the remainder.'--But may not, an objection is raised, those remaining works be wiped out (even in the present existence) by the performance of works of permanent obligation and such works as are due to special occasions?--This may not be, we reply, because the two sets of works are not of contrary nature. Where there is contrariety of nature, one thing may be wiped out by another; but good deeds performed in previous states of existence, and works of permanent obligation and so on (performed in the present life), are both of them equally pure and therefore not of opposite nature. Bad works indeed, as being of impure nature, are opposed to works of permanent obligation, &c., and therefore may be extinguished by the latter. But even from this admission it does not follow that the causes for a new embodied existence are altogether absent; for those causes may be supplied by good deeds, and we do not know that the evil works have been extinguished without a remainder. Nor is there anything to prove that the performance of works of permanent obligation, &c., leads only to the non-origination of harm, and not at the same time to the origination of new results (to be extinguished in future states of existence); for it may happen that such new results spring up collaterally. Thus Âpastamba says, 'When a mango tree is planted for the sake of its fruits, it in addition gives shade and fragrance; thus additional advantages spring from the performance of religious duty.'--Nor can anybody who has not reached perfect knowledge promise to refrain altogether, from birth to death, from all actions either forbidden or aiming at the fulfilment of special wishes for we observe that even the most perfect men commit faults, however minute. This may be a matter of doubt; all the same it remains true that the absence of causes for a new existence cannot be known with certainty.--If, further, the soul's unity with Brahman's Self--which is to be realised through knowledge--is not acknowledged, the soul whose essential nature it is to be an agent and enjoyer cannot even desire the state of blissful isolation; for a being cannot divorce itself from its true essence, not any more than fire can cease to be hot.--But, an objection is raised, what is of disadvantage to the soul is the state of agentship and fruition in so far as actually produced, not its mere potentiality. Release of the soul may, therefore, take place if only that actual condition is avoided while its potentiality remains.--This also, we reply, is not true: for as long as the potentiality exists it ill inevitably produce the actuality.--But, our opponent resumes, potentiality alone, without other co-operative causes, does not produce its effect; as long therefore as it is alone it cannot, though continuing to exist, do any harm!--This also, we reply, is not valid; for the co-operative causes also are, potentially, permanently connected (with the acting and enjoying soul). If, therefore, the soul whose essence is acting and enjoying is not considered to possess fundamental identity with Brahman --an identity to be realised by knowledge--there is not any chance of its obtaining final release. Scripture, moreover (in the passage, 'There is no other way to go,' Svet. Up. III, 8), denies that there is any other way to release but knowledge.--But if the soul is non-different from the highest Brahman, all practical existence comes to an end, because then perception and the other means of right knowledge no longer act!--Not so, we reply. Practical life will hold its place even then, just as dreamlife holds its place up to the moment of waking. Scripture, after having said that perception and the rest are operative in the sphere of those who have not reached true knowledge ('For where there is duality, as it were, there one sees the other,' &c.; Bri. Up. IV, 5, 15), goes on to show that those means of knowledge do not exist for those who possess that knowledge ('But when the whole of him has become the Self, whereby should he see another,' &c.). As thus for him who knows the highest Brahman all cognition of something to be gone to, &c. is sublated his going cannot in any way be shown to be possible.

To what sphere then belong the scriptural texts about the soul's going?--To the sphere of qualified knowledge, we reply. Accordingly the soul's going is mentioned in the chapter treating of the knowledge of the five fires, in the chapter treating of the knowledge of Brahman's couch, in the chapter treating of the knowledge of Agni Vaisvânara (Kh. Up. V, 3-10; Kau. Up. I; Kh. Up. V, 11-24). And where the soul's going is spoken of in a chapter treating of Brahman--(as e.g. in the passages, 'He leads them to Brahman,' &c., Kh. Up. IV, 15, 6, in a chapter treating of Brahman, as shown by 'Breath is Brahman,' &c., IV, 10, 5; and 'He departs upward,' &c., Kh. Up. VIII, 6, 5, in the chapter beginning 'There is this city of Brahman,' VIII, 1, 1)--such attributes as 'vâmanî,' i.e. Leader of blessings (Kh. Up. IV, 15, 3), and 'satyakâma,' i.e. having true wishes, show that there the qualified Brahman has to be meditated upon, and to that Brahman the soul can go. No passage, on the other hand, speaks of the soul's going to the highest Brahman; while such going is specially denied in the passage, 'Of him the prânas do not depart.' In passages, again, such as 'He who knows Brahman obtains the Highest' (Taitt. Up. II, 1), we indeed meet with the verb 'to reach,' which has the sense of going; but because, as explained before, the reaching of another place is out of question, 'reaching' there denotes only the obtainment (realisation) of one's own nature, in so far as (through true knowledge) the expanse of names and forms which Nescience superimposes (on Brahman) is dissolved. Such passages are to be understood analogously to the text, 'Being Brahman he enters into Brahman' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 6).--Besides, if the going were understood as connected with the highest Brahman, it could only subserve the purpose either of satisfying (the mind of him who knows) or of reflection. Now, a statement of the soul's going cannot produce any satisfaction in him who knows Brahman, since satisfaction is already fully accomplished through his perfect condition, bestowed on him by knowledge, of which he is immediately conscious. Nor, on the other hand, can it be shown that reflection on the soul's going in any way subserves knowledge, which is conscious of eternally perfect blessedness, and has not for its fruit something to be accomplished.--For all these reasons the soul's going falls within the sphere of the lower knowledge. And only in consequence of the distinction of the higher and lower Brahman not being ascertained, statements about the soul's going which apply to the lower Brahman are wrongly put in connexion with the higher Brahman.

But are there really two Brahmans, a higher one and a lower one?--Certainly there are two! For scripture declares this, as e.g. in the passage, 'O Satyakâma, the syllable Om is the higher and also the lower Brahman' (Pr. Up. V, 2).--What then is the higher Brahman, and what the lower?--Listen! Where the texts, negativing all distinctions founded on name, form, and the like, designate Brahman by such terms as that which is not coarse and so on, the higher Brahman is spoken of. Where, again, for the purpose of pious meditation, the texts teach Brahman as qualified by some distinction depending on name, form, and so on, using terms such as 'He who consists of mind, whose body is prâna, whose shape is light' (Kh. Up. III. 14, 2), that is the lower Brahman.--But is there not room here for the objection that this distinction of a higher and a lower Brahman stultifies the scriptural texts asserting aduality?--Not so, we reply. That objection is removed by the consideration that name and form, the adjuncts (of the one real Brahman), are due to Nescience. Passages such as 'If he desires the world of the fathers' (Kh. Up. VIII, 2, 1), which the text exhibits in proximity to a meditation on the lower Brahman, show that the fruit of such meditation is lordship over the worlds; a fruit falling within the sphere of the Samsâra, Nescience having not as yet been discarded. And as that fruit is bound to a special locality, there is nothing contradictory in the soul's going there in order to reach it. That the soul, although all-pervading, is viewed as going because it enters into connexion with the buddhi and the rest of its adjuncts, just as general space enters into connexion with jars and the like, we have explained under II, 3, 29.

For all these reasons the view of Bâdari as set forth in Sûtra 7 is the final one; while Sûtra 12, which states Gaimini's opinion, merely sets forth another view, to the end of the illumination of the learner's understanding.

15. Those who do not take their stand on symbols he leads, thus Bâdarâyana (opines); there being no fault in the twofold relation (resulting from this opinion); and the meditation on that (i.e. Brahman) (is the reason of this twofold relation).

It is a settled conclusion that all going has reference to the effected Brahman, not to the highest Brahman. Another doubt now arises here. Does that person who is not a man lead to the world of Brahman all those who take their stand on the effected Brahman, without any difference; or only some of them?

The pûrvapakshin maintains that all those who possess knowledge--provided that knowledge be not of the highest Brahman--go to the world of Brahman. For in Sûtra III, 3, 31 that going was put in connexion with all the different vidyâs (of the qualified Brahmans), without any distinction.

To this the Sûtrakâra replies, 'Those who do not take their stand on symbols.' That means: Excepting those who take their stand on symbols (i.e. who meditate on certain things as symbolically representing Brahman), that person who is not a man leads all others who take their stand (i.e. who meditate) on the effected Brahman, to the world of Brahman; this is the opinion of the teacher Bâdarâyana. For in acknowledging in this way a twofold relation there is no fault; since the argumentation as to the non-restriction of going (Sûtra III, 3, 31) may be understood as referring to all meditations with the exception of those on symbols. The words, 'and the meditation on that,' state the reason for this twofold relation. For he whose meditation is fixed on Brahman reaches lordship like that of Brahman, according to the scriptural relation, 'In whatever form they meditate on him, that they become themselves.' In the case of symbols, on the other hand, the meditation is not fixed on Brahman, the symbol being the chief element in the meditation.--But scripture says also that persons whose mind is not fixed on Brahman go to it; so in the knowledge of the five fires, 'He leads them to Brahman' (Kh. Up. V, 10, 2).--This may be so where we observe a direct scriptural declaration. We only mean to say that where there is no such declaration the general rule is that those only whose purpose is Brahman go to it, not any others.

16. And scripture declares a difference (in the case of meditations on symbols).

With reference to the meditations on symbols, such as name and so on, scripture declares that each following meditation has a different result from the preceding one, 'As far as name reaches he is lord and master;--speech is greater than name;--as far as speech reaches he is lord and master;--mind is greater than speech' (Kh. Up. VII, 1, ff.). Now this distinction of rewards is possible because the meditations depend on symbols, while there could be no such distinction if they depended on the one non-different Brahman.--Hence those who take their stand on symbols cannot have the same reward as others.

Footnotes

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE