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

stance, the attribute of having joy for its head, men-

INTRODUCTION. lxiX

tioned in the Taitt. Up.) are confined to special meditations.— Adhik. VII (14, 15), according to 5ankara, aims at proving that the object of Ka/^a Up. Ill, 10, 11 is one only, viz. to show that the highest Self is higher than everything, so that the passage constitutes one vidya only. — Adhik. VIII (16, 17) determines, according to 5ankara, that the Self spoken of in Ait. Ar. II, 4, 1, 1 is not a lower form of the Self (the so-called sutratman), but the highest Self; the discussion of that point in this place being due to the wish to prove that the attributes of the highest Self have to be comprehended in the Aitareyaka meditation.

According to Raman uga. the Sutras 11-17 constitute a single adhikara/za whose subject is the same as that of ♦Sankara's sixth adhikara/za. Sutras 11-13 are> on tne whole, explained as by Sankara ; Sutra 12, however, is said to mean, ' Such attributes as having joy for its head, &c. are not to be viewed as qualities of Brahman, and therefore not to be included in every meditation ; for if they were admitted as qualities, difference would be introduced into Brahman's nature, and that would involve a more or less on Brahman's part.' Sutras 14-17 continue the discussion of the passage about the priya^irastva. — If priyârirastva, &c. are not to be viewed as real qualities of Brahman, for what purpose does the text mention them ? — ' Because/ Sutra 14 replies, * there is no other purpose, Scripture mentions them for the purpose of pious meditation.'— But how is it known that the Self of delight is the highest Self? (owing to which you maintain that having limbs, head, &c. cannot belong to it as attributes.) — ' Because,' Sutra 15 replies/ the term " Self" (atma anandamaya) is applied to it.' — But in the previous parts of the chapter the term Self (in atma pra/zamaya, Sec.) is applied to non- Selfs also ; how then do you know that in atma anandamaya it denotes the real Self? — ' The term Self,' Sutra 16 replies, ' is employed here to denote the highest Self as in many other passages (atma va idam eka, &c), as we conclude from the subsequent passage, viz. he wished, May I be many.' — But, an objection is raised, does not the context show that the term ' Self,' which in all the preceding lxx VEDANTA-StjTRAS.

clauses about the pra/zamaya, &c.

a idam eka, &c), as we conclude from the subsequent passage, viz. he wished, May I be many.' — But, an objection is raised, does not the context show that the term ' Self,' which in all the preceding lxx VEDANTA-StjTRAS.

clauses about the pra/zamaya, &c. denoted something other than the Self, does the same in anandamaya atman, and is not the context of greater weight than a subsequent passage ? — To this question asked in the former half of 1 7 (anvayad iti ktt) the latter half replies, ' Still it denotes the Self, owing to the affirmatory statement,' i.e. the fact of the highest Self having been affirmed in a previous passage also, viz. II, 1, ' From that Self sprang ether/

Adhik. IX (18) discusses a minor point connected with the pra^asa^vada. — The subject of Adhik. X (19) has been indicated already above under Adhik. I. — Adhik. XI (20-22) treats of a case of a contrary nature ; in Brz. Up. V, 5, Brahman is represented first as abiding in the sphere of the sun, and then as abiding within the eye ; we therefore, in spite of certain counter-indications, have to do with two separate vidyas. — Adhik. XII (23) refers to a similar case; certain attributes of Brahman mentioned in the Ra/zayaniya-khila have not to be introduced into the corresponding AT/zandogya vidya, because the stated difference of Brahman's abode involves difference of vidya. — Adhik. XIII (24) treats of another instance of two vidyas having to be held apart.

Adhik. XIV (25) decides that certain detached mantras and brahma;za passages met with in the beginning of some Upanishads — as, for instance, a brahma;za about the mahavrata ceremony at the beginning of the Aitareya-ara/zyaka — do, notwithstanding their position which seems to connect them with the brahmavidya, not belong to the latter, since they show unmistakable signs of being connected with sacrificial acts.

Adhik. XV (26) treats of the passages stating that the man dying in the possession of true knowledge shakes off all his good and evil deeds, and affirms that a statement, made in some of those passages only, to the effect that the good and evil deeds pass over to the friends and enemies of the deceased, is valid for all the passages.

Sutras 27-30 constitute, according to Sankara, two adhikara/zas of which the former (XVI ; 27, 28) decides that the shaking off of the good and evil deeds takes place — not, as

INTRODUCTION. lxXl

the Kaush. Up. states, on the road to Brahman's world — but at the moment of the soul's departure from the body ; the Kaushitaki statement is therefore not to be taken literally.

shaking off of the good and evil deeds takes place — not, as

INTRODUCTION. lxXl

the Kaush. Up. states, on the road to Brahman's world — but at the moment of the soul's departure from the body ; the Kaushitaki statement is therefore not to be taken literally. — The latter adhikara^a (XVII ; 29, 30) treats of the cognate question whether the soul that has freed itself from its deeds proceeds in all cases on the road of the gods (as said in the Kaush. Up.), or not. The decision is that he only whose knowledge does not pass beyond the sagu^am brahma proceeds on that road, while the soul of him who knows the nirgu/zam brahma becomes one with it without moving to any other place.

The Sri-bhashya treats the four Sutras as one adhikara^a whose two first Sutras are explained as by vSankara, while Sutra 29 raises an objection to the conclusion arrived at, * the going (of the soul on the path of the gods) has a sense only if the soul's freeing itself from its works takes place in both ways, i. e. partly at the moment of death, partly on the road to Brahman ; for otherwise there would be a contradiction ' (the contradiction being that, if the soul's works were all shaken off at the moment of death, the subtle body would likewise perish at that moment, and then the bodiless soul would be unable to proceed on the path of the gods). — To this Sutra 30 replies, 'The complete shaking off of the works at the moment of death is possible, since matters of that kind are observed in Scripture,' i. e. since scriptural passages show that even he whose works are entirely annihilated, and who has manifested himself in his true shape, is yet connected with some kind of body ; compare the passage, £para^ ^yotir upasampadya svena rupe- ;zabhinishpadyate sa tatra paryeti kridan ramamana/^ sa svarâd bhavati tasya sarveshu lokeshu kama^aro bhavati.' That subtle body is not due to karman, but to the soul's vidyamahatmya. — That the explanation of the 5ri-bhashya agrees with the text as well as Ankara's, a comparison of the two will show ; especially forced is 5ankara's explanation of ' arthavattvam ubhayatha,' which is said to mean that there is arthavattva in one case, and non-arthavattva in the other case.

The next Sutra (31) constitutes an adhikara/za (XVIII)

lxxii vedanta-s6tras.

deciding that the road of the gods is followed not only by those knowing the vidyas which specially mention the going on that road, but by all who are acquainted with the sagu/za-vidyas of Brahman.