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

hat the pradhana is denoted by the word ' own/ because belonging to the Self (as being the Self's own), there would remain the same absurd statement as to an intelligent entity being resolved into a non-intelligent one. Moreover another scriptural passage (viz. ' embraced by the intelligent — prAgna, — Self he knows nothing that is without, nothing that is within,' Bri. Up. IV, 3, 3i) declares that the soul in the condition of dreamless sleep is resolved into an intelligent entity. Hence that into which all intelligent souls are resolved is an intelligent cause of the world, denoted by the word ' Sat,' and not the pradhana. — A further reason for the pradhana not being the cause is subjoined.

10. On account of the uniformity of view (of the Vedinta-texts, Brahman is to be considered the cause).

If, as in the argumentations of the logicians, so in the Vedanta-texts also, there were set forth different views concerning the nature of the cause, some of them favouring the theory of an intelligent Brahman being the cause of the world, others inclining towards the pradhana doctrine, and others again tending in a different dif ectkm ; ' then it might perhaps be possible to interpret such passages as those, which speak of the cause of the world as thinking, in such a manner as to make them fall in with the pradhana theory. But the stated condition is absent since all the Vedanta-texts uniformly teach that the cause of the world is the intelligent Brahman. Compare, for instance, ' As from a burning fire $parks proceed in all directions, thus from that Self the pra^as proceed each towards its place ; from the pra^as the gods, from the gods the worlds ' (Kau. Up. Ill, 3). And 'from that Self sprang ether' (Taitt. Up. II, 1). And 'all this springs from the Self (Kk. Up. VII, 26, 1). And 'this pr&^a is born from the Self (Pr. Up. Ill, 3); all which passages declare the Self to be the cause. That the word 'Self denotes an intelligent being, we have already shown.

I ADHYAYA, I pAdA, II. 6 1

And that all the Vedanta-texts advocate the same view as to an intelligent cause of the world, greatly strengthens their claim to be considered a means of right knowledge, just as the corresponding claims of the senses are strengthened by their giving us information of a uniform character re-f garding colour and the like. The all-knowing Brahman is'; therefore to be considered the cause of the world, 'on account of the uniformity of view (of the Vedanta-texts)/— A further reason for this conclusion is advanced* ii.

formation of a uniform character re-f garding colour and the like. The all-knowing Brahman is'; therefore to be considered the cause of the world, 'on account of the uniformity of view (of the Vedanta-texts)/— A further reason for this conclusion is advanced* ii. And because it is directly stated in Scripture (therefore the all-knowing Brahman is the cause of the world).

That the all-knowing Lord is the cause of the world, is also declared in a text directly referring to him (viz. the all-knowing one), viz. in the following passage of the mantropanishad of the 6Veta.svataras (VI, 9) where the word * he ' refers to the previously mentioned all-knowing Lord, 'He is the cause, the lord of the lords of the organs, and there is of him neither parent nor lord.' It is therefore finally settled that the all-knowing Brahman is the general cause, not the non-intelligent pradhctna or anything else.

In what precedes we have shown, availing ourselves of appropriate arguments, that the Vedanta-texts exhibited \ under Sutras 1, 1-11, are capable of proving that the all- ; knowing, all-powerful Lord is the cause of the origin, subsistence, and dissolution of the world. And we have explained, by pointing to the prevailing uniformity of view (1, 10), that all Vedanta-texts whatever maintain an intelligent cause. The question might therefore be asked, ' What reason is there for the subsequent part of the Vedantasutras?' (as the chief point is settled already.)

To this question we reply as follows : Brahman is apprehended under two forms ; in the first place as qualified by limiting conditions owing to the multiformity of the evolutions of name and form (i. e. the multiformity of the created world); in the second place as being the opposite of this, i. e. free from all limiting conditions whatever. Comparep. 62 the following passages: Bri. Up. IV, 5, 15, 'For where there is duality as it were, then one sees the other; but when the Self only is all this, how should he see another ? ' Kh. Up. VII, 24, 1, 'Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is the greatest. Where one sees something else, hears something else, understands something else, that is the little. The greatest is immortal; the little is mortal;' Taitt. Ar. Ill, 12, 7, 'The wise one, who having produced all forms and made all names, sits calling (the things by their names x) ; ' Sv. Up.

ars something else, understands something else, that is the little. The greatest is immortal; the little is mortal;' Taitt. Ar. Ill, 12, 7, 'The wise one, who having produced all forms and made all names, sits calling (the things by their names x) ; ' Sv. Up. VI, 19, ' Who is without parts, without actions, tranquil, without faults, without taint, the highest bridge of immortality, like a fire that has consumed its fuel;' "Bri. Up. II, 3, 6, 'Not so, not so;5 Bri. Up. Ill, 8, 8, c It is neither coarse nor fine, neither short nor long ; ' and ' defective is one place, perfect the other.' All these passages, with many others, declare Brahman to possess a double nature, according as it is the object either of Knowledge or of Nescience. As long as it is the object of Nescience, there are applied to it the categories of devotee, object of devotion, and the like2. The different modes of devotion lead to different results, some to exaltation, some to gradual emancipation, some to success in works ; those modes are distinct on account of the distinction of the different qualities and limiting conditions3. And although the one highest Self only, i. e. the Lord distinguished by those different qualities constitutes the object of devotion, still the fruits (of devotion) are distinct, according as the devotion refers to different qualities. Thus Scripture says, 'According as man worships him, that he becomes;' and, 'According to what his thought is in this world, so will he be when he has departedp. 63 this life' (Kh. Up. Ill, 14, 1). Smrzti also makes an analogous statement, ' Remembering whatever form of being he leaves this body in the end, into that form he enters, being impressed with it through his constant meditation' (Bha. GitaVIII, 6).

1 The wise one, i.e. the highest Self; which as givatman is conversant with the names and forms of individual things.

2 I. e. it is looked upon as the object of the devotion of the individual souls ; while in reality all those souls and Brahman are one.

3 Qualities, i. e. the attributes under which the Self is meditated on ; limiting conditions, i. e. the localities — such as the heart and the like — which in pious meditation are ascribed to the Self.