Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 34 — The Vedanta-Sutras, Part I (Sankara/Thibaut, page scans)

Vedas, the same the Unborn one again gives to them when they are produced afresh at the end of the night (the mahapralaya). As the various signs of the seasons return in succession in their due time, thus the same beings again appear in the different yugas. And of whatever individuality the gods of the

1 Asmin kalpe sarveshâm pramnam dahapakapraka\raMri yo *yam agnir drwyate so*yam agni/£ purvasmin kalpe manushya^ san devatvapadaprapakaw karmanush/Myasmin kalpa eta^ ^anma labdhavan ata^ purvasmin kalpe sa manushyo bhavini^ samgrâm. aw'tyagnir iti vyapadiryate. — Sayarca on the quoted passage.

p. 2

past ages were, equal to them are the present gods in name and form.'

3 1 . On account of the impossibility of (the gods being qualified) for the madhu-vidyi, &c. Gaimini (maintains) the non-qualification (of the gods for the Brahma-vidya).

A new objection is raised against the averment that the gods, &c. also are entitled to the knowledge of Brahman. The teacher, Caimini, considers the gods and similar beings not to have any claim. — Why? — On account of the impossibility, in the case of the so-called Madhu-vidya, &c. If their claim to the knowledge of Brahman were admitted, we should have to admit their claim to the madhu-vidya ('the knowledge of the honey ') also, because that also is a kind of knowledge not different (from the knowledge of Brahman). But to admit this latter claim is not possible ; for, according to the passage, ' The Sun is indeed the honey of the devas ' (K/i. Up. Ill, i,i), men are to meditate on the sun (the god Aditya) under the form of honey/ and how, if the gods themselves are admitted as meditating worshippers, can Aditya meditate upon another Aditya ? — Again, the text, after having enumerated five kinds of nectar, the red one, &c. residing in the sun, and after having stated that the five classes of gods, viz. the Vasus, Rudras, Adityas, Maruts, and Sâdhyas, live on one of these nectars each, declares that ' he who thus knows this nectar becomes one of the Vasus, with Agni at their head, he sees the nectar and rejoices,' &c, and indicates thereby that those who know the nectars enjoyed by the Vasus, &c, attain the greatness of the Vasus, &c. But how should the Vasus themselves know other Vasus enjoying the nectar, and what other Vasu-greatness should they desire to attain ? — We have also to compare the passages ' Agni is one foot, Aditya is one foot, the quarters are one foot ' (Kh. Up. Ill, 18, o) ; ' Air is indeed the absorber ' (Kh. Up.

Vasus enjoying the nectar, and what other Vasu-greatness should they desire to attain ? — We have also to compare the passages ' Agni is one foot, Aditya is one foot, the quarters are one foot ' (Kh. Up. Ill, 18, o) ; ' Air is indeed the absorber ' (Kh. Up. IV, 3, i) ; ' Aditya is Brahman, this is the doctrine.' All these passages treat of the meditation on the Self of certain divinities, for which meditation these divinities themI ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 32. 2\*]selves are not qualified. — So it is likewise impossible that the rzshis themselves should be qualified for meditations connected with rzshis, such as expressed in passages like Bri. Up. II, 2, 4, ' These two are the rzshis Gautama and Bharadva^a ; the right Gautama, the left Bharadva^a.5 — Another reason for the non-qualification of the gods is stated in the following Sutra.

32. And (the devas, &c. are not qualified) on account of (the words denoting the devas, &c.) being (used) in the sense of (sphere of) light.

To that sphere of light, the purvapakshin resumes, which is stationed in the sky, and during its diurnal revolutions illumines the world, terms such as Aditya, i. e. the names of devas, are applied, as we know from the use of ordinary language, and from Vedic complementary passages1. But of a mere sphere of light we cannot understand how it should be endowed with either a bodily form, consisting of the heart and the like, or intelligence, or the capability of forming wishes 2. For mere light we know to be, like earth, entirely devoid of intelligence. The same observation applies to Agni (fire), and so on. It will perhaps be said that our objection is not valid, because the personality of the devas is known from the mantras, arthavadas, itihasas, pura^as, and from the conceptions of ordinary life3; but we contest the relevancy of this remark. For the conceptions of ordinary life do not constitute an independent means of knowledge ; we rather say that a thing is known from ordinary life if it is known by the (acknowledged) means of knowledge, perception, &c. But none of the recognised means of knowledge, such as perception and the like, apply to the

1 As, for instance, ' So long as Aditya rises in the east and sets in the west ' (Kh. Up. Ill, 6, 4).

2 Whence it follows that the devas are not personal beings, and therefore not qualified for the knowledge of Brahman.

3 Yama, for instance, being ordinarily represented as a person with a staff in his hand, Varurca with a noose, Indra with a thunderbolt, &c. &c.

2 1 8 vedAnta-sutras.

matter under discussion.

beings, and therefore not qualified for the knowledge of Brahman.

3 Yama, for instance, being ordinarily represented as a person with a staff in his hand, Varurca with a noose, Indra with a thunderbolt, &c. &c.

2 1 8 vedAnta-sutras.

matter under discussion. Itihasas and pura^as again being of human origin, stand themselves in need of other means of knowledge on which to base. The arthavada passages also, which, as forming syntactical wholes with the injunctory passages, have merely the purpose of glorifying (what is enjoined in the latter), cannot be considered to constitute by themselves reasons for the existence of the personality, &c. of the devas. The mantras again, which, on the ground of direct enunciation, &c, are to be employed (at the different stages of the sacrificial action), have merely the purpose of denoting things connected with the sacrificial performance, and do not constitute an independent means of authoritative knowledge for anything1. — For these reasons the devas, and similar beings, are not qualified for the knowledge of Brahman.

33. Bâdaraya/za, on the other hand, (maintains) the existence (of qualification for Brahma-vidyS, on the part of the gods) ; for there are (passages indicatory of that).

The expression ' on the other hand ' is meant to rebut the purvapaksha. The teacher, Badaraya^a, maintains the existence of the qualification on the part of the gods, &c. For, although the qualification of the gods cannot be admitted with reference to the madhu-vidya, and similar topics of knowledge, in which the gods themselves are implicated, still they may be qualified for the pure knowledge of Brahman, qualification in general depending on the presence of desire, capability, &c.2 Nor does the impossibility of qualification in certain cases interfere with the presence of qualification in those other cases where it is not impossible. To the case of the gods the same reasoning applies as to the case of men ; for among men also, all are not qualified for everything, Brahma^as, for instance, not for the ra^asuya-sacrifice 3.

1 On the proper function of arthavada and mantra according to the Mimanzsa, cp. Arthasa/rcgraha, Introduction.

2 See above, p. 197.

3 Which can be offered by kshattriyas only.

p. 219

And, with reference to the knowledge of Brahman, Scripture, moreover, contains express hints notifying that the devas are qualified ; compare, for instance, Bri. Up. 1, 4, 10, ' Whatever Deva was awakened (so as to know Brahman) he indeed became that; and the same with rz'shis;5 Kh. Up.