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

to him,' &c. ; thereupon follows an objection, ( What is there that deserves to be sought for or that is to be understood ? ' and thereon a final decisive statement, ' Then he should say : As large as this ether is, so large is that ether within the heart. Both heaven and earth are contained within it/ Here the teacher, availing himself of the comparison of the ether within the heart with the known (universal) ether, precludes the conception that the ether within the heart is small — which conception is based on the statement as to the smallness of the lotus, i. e. the heart — and thereby precludes the possibility of our understanding by the term ' the small ether,' the elemental ether. For, although the ordinary use of language gives to the word ' ether ' the sense of elemental ether, here the elemental ether cannot be thought of, because it cannot possibly be compared with itself. — But, has it not been stated above, that the ether, although one only, may be compared with itself, in consequence of an assumed difference between the outer and the inner ether ? — That explanation, we reply, is impossible ; for we cannot admit that a comparison of a thing with itself may be based upon a merely imaginary difference. And even if we admitted

1 Viz. of that which is within it. Ananda Giri proposes two explanations : na £eti, paravlreshaTzatvenety atra paro daharakâra upadanat tasminn iti saptamyanta-ta^abdasyeti jesha^. Yadva para^abdo * nta^sthavastuvishayas tadvwesha^atvena tasminn iti daharaka\rasyokter ity artha^. Ta^abdasya samnikrzsh/anvayayoge viprakrzsh/anvayasya g-aghanyatvad aka^antargata^ dhyeyam iti bhava^.

p. 77

the possibility of such a comparison, the extent of the outer ether could never be ascribed to the limited inner ether. Should it be said that to the highest Lord also the extent of the (outer) ether cannot be ascribed, since another scriptural passage declares that he is greater than ether (6a. Bra. X, 6, 3, 2), we invalidate this objection by the remark, that the passage (comparing the inner ether with the outer ether) has the purport of discarding the idea of smallness (of the inner ether), which is prima facie established by the smallness of the lotus of the heart in which it is contained, and has not the purport of establishing a certain extent (of the inner ether). If the passage aimed at both, a split of the sentence 1 would result.

, which is prima facie established by the smallness of the lotus of the heart in which it is contained, and has not the purport of establishing a certain extent (of the inner ether). If the passage aimed at both, a split of the sentence 1 would result. — Nor, if we allowed the assumptive difference of the inner and the outer ether, would it be possible to represent that limited portion of the ether which is enclosed in the lotus of the heart, as containing within itself heaven, earth, and so on. Nor can we reconcile with the nature of the elemental ether the qualities of Self-hood, freeness from sin, and so on, (which are ascribed to the ' small ' ether) in the following passage, ' It is the Self free from sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, of true desires, of true purposes.' — Although the term ' Self ' (occurring in the passage quoted) may apply to the individual soul, yet other reasons exclude all idea of the individual soul being meant (by the small ether). For it would be impossible to dissociate from the individual soul, which is restricted by limiting conditions and elsewhere compared to the point of a goad, the attribute of smallness attaching to it, on account of its being enclosed in the lotus of the heart. — Let it then be assumed — our opponent remarks — that the qualities of all-pervadingness, &c. are ascribed to the individual soul with the intention of intimating its non-difference from Brahman. — Well, we reply, if you suppose that the small ether is called all-pervading because it is one with Brahman, our own suppo-

1 A vakyabheda — split of the sentence — takes place according to the Mimatfzsa when one and the same sentence contains two new statements which are different. [34] N

178 vedAnta-s^tras.

sition, viz. that the all-pervadingness spoken of is directlypredicated of Brahman itself, is the much more simple one. — Concerning the assertion that the term ' city of Brahman ' can only be understood, on the assumption that the individual soul dwells, like a king, in one particular spot of the city of which it is the Lord, we remark that the term is more properly interpreted to mean ' the body in so far as it is the city of the highest Brahman ; ' which interpretation enables us to take the term ' Brahman' in its primary sense1. The highest Brahman also is connected with the body, for the latter constitutes an abode for the perception of Brahman 2. Other scriptural passages also express the same meaning, so, for instance, Pra. Up.

s to take the term ' Brahman' in its primary sense1. The highest Brahman also is connected with the body, for the latter constitutes an abode for the perception of Brahman 2. Other scriptural passages also express the same meaning, so, for instance, Pra. Up. V, 5, ' He sees the highest person dwelling in the city' (purusha = pumaya), &c, and Bri. Up. II, 5, 18, 'This person (purusha) is in all cities (bodies) the dweller within the city (purisaya).' — Or else (taking brahmapura to mean ^tvapura) we may understand the passage to teach that Brahman is, in the city of the individual soul, near (to the devout worshipper), just as Visrmu is near to us in the 5alagrama-stone. — Moreover, the text (VIII, 1, 6) at first declares the result of works to be perishable ('as here on earth whatever has been acquired by works perishes, so perishes whatever is acquired for the next world by good actions,' &c), and afterwards declares the imperishableness of the results flowing from a knowledge of the small ether, which forms the general subject of discussion ('those who depart from hence after having discovered the Self and those true desires, for them there is freedom in all worlds'). From this again it is manifest that the small ether is the highest Self. — We now turn to the statement made by the purvapakshin, ' that the sacred text does not represent the small ether as that

1 While the explanation of Brahman by ^iva would compel us to assume that the word Brahman secondarily denotes the individual soul.

8 Upalabdher adhish/Mnam brahmawa deha ishyate I Tenasddharawatvena deho brahmapuram bhavet 11

Bhamatf.

p. 79

which is to be sought for and to be understood, because it is mentioned as a distinguishing attribute of something else/ and reply as follows: If the (small) ether were not that which is to be sought for and to be understood, the description of the nature of that ether, which is given in the passage (' as large as this ether is, so large is that ether within the heart '), would be devoid of purport. — But — the opponent might say — that descriptive statement also has the purport of setting forth the nature of the thing abiding within (the ether) ; for the text after having raised an objection (in the passage, ' And if they should say to him : Now with regard to that city of Brahman and the palace in it, i. e.