The Vedânta-Sûtras with the Commentary of Râmânuja, Part III — SBE Vol. 48 (trans. George Thibaut, 1904)

For in the antaryamin-brahma;/a the clause which in the Madhyandina-text runs as follows, ' he who abides in the Self/ is in the text of the Ka^vas represented by the clause * he who abides in knowledge.'

p. 545

Similarly the text 'knowledge performs the sacrifice and all sacred acts' (Taitt. Up. II, 5, 1) shows that it is knowledge only which is the true nature of the active Self. And Smrzti texts convey the same view, as e.g. 'it in reality is of the nature of absolutely spotless intelligence.' A second Purvapakshin denies the truth of this view. If, he says, we assume that the Self's essential nature consists either in mere knowledge or in its being a knowing subject, it follows that as the Self is omnipresent there must be consciousness at all places and at all times. On that doctrine we, further, could not account for the use of the instruments of cognition (i.e. the sense-organs, &c.) ; nor for the fact that in the states of deep sleep, swoon and so on, the Self although present is not observed to be conscious, while on the other hand consciousness is seen to arise as soon as the conditions of the waking state are realised. We therefore conclude that neither intelligence or consciousness, nor being a knowing agent, constitutes the essence of the soul, but that consciousness is a mere adventitious or occasional attribute. And the omnipresence of the Self must needs be admitted since its effects are perceived everywhere. Nor is there any valid reason for holding that the Self moves to any place; for as it is assumed to be present everywhere the actual accomplishment of effects (at certain places only) may be attributed to the moving of the body only. — Scripture also directly declares that in the state of deep sleep there is no consciousness, e I do not indeed at the present moment know myself, so as to be able to say " that am I," nor do I know those beings/ Similarly Scripture declares the absence of consciousness in the state of final release, ' when he has departed there is no consciousness' (Br/. Up. II, 4, 12); where the Self is spoken of as having knowledge for its essential nature, the meaning only is that knowledge constitutes its specific quality, and the expression is therefore not to be urged in its literal sense.

Against all this the Sutra declares ' for this very reason a knower.' This Self is essentially a knower, a knowing subject ; not either mere knowledge or of non-sentient [48] N n

p. 546

Against all this the Sutra declares ' for this very reason a knower.' This Self is essentially a knower, a knowing subject ; not either mere knowledge or of non-sentient [48] N np. 546 nature. — Why? — ' For this very reason/ i.e. on account of Scripture itself. * For this reason ' refers back to the ' on account of Scripture ' in the preceding Sutra. For in the ^T^andogya, where the condition of the released and the non-released soul is described, the text says ' He who knows, let me smell this, he is the Self — with the mind seeing those pleasures he rejoices — the devas who are in the world of Brahman — whose desires are true, whose purposes are true — not remembering the body into which he was born ' (Kh. Up. VIII, 12, 4-5 ; 1, 5 ; 12, 3). And elsewhere 'The seer does not see death' (Kk. Up. VII, 26, 2). Similarly we read in the Va^asaneyaka, in reply to the question 4 Who is that Self?' — * He who is within the heart, surrounded by the Pra^as, the person of light, consisting of knowledge ' (Brt. Up. IV, 3, 7) ; ' By what should one know the knower ? ' (Br/. Up. IV, 5, 15) ; ' That person knows/ And 'for he is the knower, the hearer, the smeller, the taster, the perceiver, the thinker, the agent — he the person whose Self is knowledge ' ; and 'thus these sixteen parts of that seer' (Pra. Up. IV, 9; VI, 5). To the objection that if being a cognising subject constituted the essential nature of the Self it would follow that as the Self is omnipresent, there would be consciousness always and everywhere, the next Sutra replies.

20. On account of (its) passing out, moving and returning.

The Self is not omnipresent, but on the contrary, of atomic size (ami). — How is this known ? — Since Scripture says that it passes out, goes and returns. Its passing out is described in the following passage 'by that light this Self departs, either through the eye, or through the skull, or through other parts of the body ' (Br/. Up. IV, 4, 2). Its going in the following text ' all those who pass away out of this world go to the moon/ and its returning in the text ' from that world he comes again into this world, for action/ All this going, and so on, cannot be reconciled with the soul being present everywhere.

p. 547

21. And on account of the latter two (being effected) through the Self.

The ' and ' has affirming power. The ' passing out ' might somehow be reconciled with a non-moving Self (such as the omnipresent Self would be) if it were taken in the sense of the Self separating from the body ; but for the going and returning no analogous explanation is possible. They, therefore, must be taken as effected by the Self itself (which, then, cannot be omnipresent and non-moving).

22. If it be said that (the soul) is not atomic, on account of scriptural statement of (what is) not that ; we say no, on account of the other one being the topic.

They, therefore, must be taken as effected by the Self itself (which, then, cannot be omnipresent and non-moving).

22. If it be said that (the soul) is not atomic, on account of scriptural statement of (what is) not that ; we say no, on account of the other one being the topic.

The passage 'He who is within the heart, surrounded by the Pra^as, the person consisting of knowledge ' (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 7) introduces as the topic of discussion the personal Self, and further on in the same chapter we read * the unborn Self, the great one ' (IV, 4, 22). The personal Self, being expressly called great, cannot, therefore, be atomic ! — Not so, we reply. ' Since the other one is the topic/ In the second text quoted that Self which is other than the personal Self— i.e. the highest Self (pra^Tza) constitutes the topic. In the beginning of the chapter, indeed, the individual Self is introduced, but later on, between the two texts quoted, the instruction begins to concern itself with the highest Self, ' he by whom there is known the Self of intelligence ' (pratibuddha atma ; IV, 4, 13). It is this latter Self which, in 22, is called great, not the individual Self.

23. And on account of the very word, and of measure.

Scripture directly applies the word ' a^u ' to the individual Self, * By thought is to be known that atomic Self into which Breath has entered fivefold' (Mu. Up. Ill, 1, 9). — By the term ' unmana ' in the Sutra we have to understand measurement by selection of comparative instances.

N n 2

54§ VEDANTA-SUTRAS.

Scripture declares the minuteness of the individual Self by reference to things which are like atoms in size, ' The individual soul is to be known as part of the hundredth part of the point of a hair divided a hundred times, and yet it is to be infinite ' (Svet. Up. V, 9) ; ' that lower one is seen of the measure of the point of a goad ' (V, 8). For these reasons also the individual Self must be viewed as atomic. — But this conflicts with the fact that sensation extends over the whole body ! — This objection the next Sutra refutes by means of an analogous instance.

24. There is no contradiction, as in the case of sandal-ointment.

As a drop of sandal-ointment, although applied to one spot of the body only, yet produces a refreshing sensation extending over the whole body ; thus the Self also, although dwelling in one part of the body only, is conscious of sensations taking place in any part of the body.

25. Should it be said (that this is not so) on account of specialisation of abode ; we say no, on account of the acknowledgment (of a place of the Self), viz. in the heart.