Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 34 — The Vedanta-Sutras, Part I (Sankara/Thibaut, page scans)
The text is shown on its own: no facing layer is held for this issue.
The translator’s English as printed. The original-language text is not held; names are romanised as the translator printed them.
of the former interpretation will here, perhaps, restate an argument already made use of above, viz. as follows : To assume that the Selfs consisting of food., and so on, are not Brahman is quite proper, because after each of them an inner Self is mentioned. After the Self of bliss, on the other hand, no further inner Self is mentioned, and hence it must be considered to be Brahman itself; otherwise we should commit the mistake of dropping the subject-matter in hand (as which Brahman is pointed out by the mantra), and taking up a new topic. — But to this we reply that, although unlike the case of the Selfs consisting of food, &c, no inner Self is mentioned after the Self consisting of bliss, still the latter cannot be considered as Brahman, because with reference to the Self consisting of bliss Scripture declares, ' Joy is its head. Satisfaction is its right arm. Great satisfaction is its left arm. Bliss is its trunk. Brahman is its tail, its support.' Now, here the very same Brahman which, in the mantra, had been introduced as the subject of the discussion, is called the tail, the support ; while the five involucra, extending from the involucrum of food up to the involucrum of bliss, are merely introduced for the purpose of setting forth the knowledge of Brahman. How, then, can it be maintained that our interpretation implies the needless dropping of the general subject-matter and the introduction of a new topic? — But, it may again be objected, Brahman is called the tail, i. e. a member of the Self consisting of bliss ; analogously to those passages in which a tail andp. 73 other members are ascribed to the Selfs consisting of food and so on. On what grounds, then, can we claim to know that Brahman (which is spoken of as a mere member, i. e. a subordinate matter) is in reality the chief matter referred to ? — From the fact, we reply, of Brahman being the general subject-matter of the chapter. — But, it will again be said, that interpretation also according to which Brahman is cognised as a mere member of the anandamaya does not involve a dropping of the subject-matter, since the anandamaya himself is Brahman. — But, we reply, in that case one and the same Brahman would at first appear as the whole, viz. as the Self consisting of bliss, and thereupon as a mere part, viz. as the tail ; which is absurd.
f the subject-matter, since the anandamaya himself is Brahman. — But, we reply, in that case one and the same Brahman would at first appear as the whole, viz. as the Self consisting of bliss, and thereupon as a mere part, viz. as the tail ; which is absurd. And as one of the two alternatives must be preferred, it is certainly appropriate to refer to Brahman the clause ' Brahman is the tail ' which contains the word ( Brahman,' and not the sentence about the Self of Bliss in which Brahman is not mentioned. Moreover, Scripture, in continuation of the phrase, 'Brahman is the tail, the support/ goes on, ' On this there is also the following sloka. : He who knows the Brahman as non-existing becomes himself non-existing. He who knows Brahman as existing him we know himself as existing/ As this ^loka, without any reference to the Self of bliss, states the advantage and disadvantage connected with the knowledge of the being and non-being of Brahman only, we conclude that the clause, ' Brahman is the tail, the support,' represents Brahman as the chief matter (not as a merely subordinate matter). About the being or non-being of the Self of bliss, on the other hand, a doubt is not well possible, since the Self of bliss distinguished by joy, satisfaction, &c, is well known to every one. — But if Brahman is the principal matter, how can it be designated as the mere tail of the Self of bliss (' Brahman is the tail, the support ') ? — Its being called so, we reply, forms no objection ; for the word tail here denotes that which is, of the nature of a tail, so that we have to understand that the bliss of Brahman is not a member (in its literal sense), but the support or abode, the one nest (resting-place) of all worldly bliss. Analogously anotherp. 74 scriptural passage declares, ' All other creatures live on a small portion of that bliss' (Br/. Up. IV, 3, 32). Further, if by the Self consisting of bliss we were to understand Brahman, we should have to assume that the Brahman meant is the Brahman distinguished by qualities (savuesha), because it is said to have joy and the like for its members. But this assumption is contradicted by a complementary passage (II, 9) which declares that Brahman is the object neither of mind nor speech, and so shows that the Brahman meant is the (absolute) Brahman (devoid of qualities), * From whence all speech, with the mind, turns away unable to reach it, he who knows the bliss of that Brahman fears nothing.' Moreover, if we speak of something as ' abounding in bliss V we thereby imply the is the (absolute) Brahman (devoid of qualities), * From whence all speech, with the mind, turns away unable to reach it, he who knows the bliss of that Brahman fears nothing.' Moreover, if we speak of something as ' abounding in bliss V we thereby imply the co-existence of pain ; for the word ' abundance ' in its ordinary sense implies the existence of a small measure of what is opposed to the thing whereof there is abundance. But the passage so understood would be in conflict with another passage [Kh. Up. VII, 24), ' Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is the Infinite ; ' which declares that in the Infinite, i. e. Brahman, there is nothing whatever different from it. Moreover, as joy, &c. differ in each individual body, the Self consisting of bliss also is a different one in each body. Brahman, on the other hand, does not differ according to bodies ; for the mantra at the beginning of the chapter declares it to be true Being, knowledge, infinite, and another passage says, c He is the one God, hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the Self within all beings ' (Sv. Up. VI, 11). Nor, again, does Scripture exhibit a frequent repetition of the word ' anandamaya ; ' for merely the radical part of the compound (i. e. the word ananda without the affix maya) is repeated in all the following passages : ' It is a flavour, far only after seizing flavour can any one seize bliss. Who could breathe, who could breathe forth, if that bliss existed not in the ether? For he alone causes blessedness ;' ' Now this is an examination of bliss;' ' He who
1 In which sense, as shown above, the word anandamaya must be taken if understood to denote Brahman.
p. 75
knows the bliss of that Brahman fears nothing;' 'He understood that bliss is Brahman.' If it were a settled matter that Brahman is denoted by the term, 'the Self consisting of bliss,' then we could assume that in the subsequent passages, where merely the word ' bliss ' is employed, the term ' consisting of bliss ' is meant to be repeated ; but that the Self consisting of bliss is not Brahman, we have already proved by means of the reason of joy being its head, and so on. Hence, as in another scriptural passage, viz. ' Brahman is knowledge and bliss' (Br/. Up.
No commentary for this page under the selected tracks.
There is commentary on page 1.