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

(refer to Brahman) on account of the smallness of the abode, and on account of the denotation of that (viz. minuteness of the being meditated on) ; we say no, because (Brahman) has thus to be meditated upon, and because (in the same passage) it is said to be like ether.

It might be contended that, as the text ( he is my Self within the heart ' declares the being meditated on to dwell within a minute abode, viz. the heart ; and as moreover another text — ' smaller than a grain of rice/ &c, declares it to be itself of minute size, that being cannot be the highest Self, but only the embodied soul. For other passages speak of the highest Self as unlimited, and of the embodied soul as having the size of the point of a goad (cp. e.g. Mu. Up. I, i, 6, and 6Vet. Up. V, 8). — This objection the Sutra rebuts by declaring that the highest Self is spoken of as such, i. e. minute, on account of its having to be meditated upon as such. Such minuteness does not, however, belong to its true nature ; for in the same section it is distinctly declared to be infinite like ether — c greater than the earth, greater than the sky, greater than heaven, greater than all these worlds ' [Kh. Up. Ill, 14, 3). This shows that the designation of the highest Self as minute is for the purpose of meditation only. — The connexion of the whole section then is as follows. The clause ' All this is Brahman ; let a man meditate with calm mind on this world as beginning, ending, and breathing in Brahman,' enjoins meditation on Brahman as being the Self of all, in so far as it is the cause of the origin and destruction of all, and entering into all beings as their soul gives life to them. The next clause, 'Man is made of thought ; according as his thought is in this world, so will he be when he has departed this life,' declares the attainment of the desired object to depend on the nature of the meditation ; and the following clause, ' Let him therefore form the following thought/ thereupon repeats the injunction with a view to the declaration of details. The clause ' He who consists of mind/ &c, up to ' who is never surprised/ then

p. 265

The clause ' He who consists of mind/ &c, up to ' who is never surprised/ thenp. 265 states the nature and qualities, of the being to be meditated upon, which are to be comprised in the meditation. Next, the clause ' He is my Self/ up to * the kernel of a canary seed/ declares that the highest Person, for the purpose of meditation, abides in the heart of the meditating devotee ; representing it as being itself minute, since the heart is minute. After this the clause ' He also is my Self/ up to ' who is never surprised/ describes those aspects of the being meditated upon as within the heart, which are to be attained by the devotee. Next, the words * this my Self within the heart is that Brahman ' enjoins the reflection that the highest Brahman, as described before, is, owing to its supreme kindness, present in our hearts in order thereby to refresh and inspirit us. Then the clause ' When I shall have departed from hence I shall obtain him ' suggests the idea that there is a certainty of obtaining him on the basis of devout meditation ; and finally the clause * He who has this faith has no doubt ' declares that the devotee who is firmly convinced of his aim being attainable in the way described, will attain it beyond any doubt. — From all this it appears that the ' limitation of abode/ and the ' minuteness ' ascribed to Brahman, are merely for the purpose of meditation.

8. Should it be said that there is attainment of fruition (of pleasure and pain) ; we reply, not so, on account of difference.

But, if the highest Brahman is assumed to dwell within bodies, like the individual soul, it follows that, like the latter, it is subject to the experience of pleasure and pain, such experience springing from connexion with bodies ! — Of this objection the Sutra disposes by remarking ' not so, on account of difference (of reason)/ For what is the cause of experiences, pleasurable or painful, is not the mere dwelling within a body, but rather the subjection to the influence of good and evil deeds ; and such subjection is impossible in the case of the highest Self to which all evil is foreign. Compare the scriptural text ' One of the two eats the sweet fruit, the other one looks on without eating '

p. 266

(Mu. Up. Ill, i, i). — Here finishes the adhikaraf/a of * what is known everywhere/

Well then, if the highest Self is not an enjoyer, we must conclude that wherever fruition is referred to, the embodied soul only is meant ! — Of this view the next adhikara^a disposes.

9. The eater (is the highest Self) on account of there being taken all that is movable and immovable.

— Of this view the next adhikara^a disposes.

9. The eater (is the highest Self) on account of there being taken all that is movable and immovable.

We read in the Ka//£avalli (I, 3, 25), ' Who then knows where he is to whom the Brahmans and Kshattriyas are but food, and death itself a condiment ? ' A doubt here arises whether the i eater/ suggested by the words * food ' and ' condiment/ is the individual soul or the highest Self. — The individual soul, the Purvapakshin maintains ; for all enjoyment presupposes works, and works belong to the individual soul only. — Of this view the Sutra disposes. The * eater ' can be the highest Self only, because the taking, i. e. eating, of the whole aggregate of movable and immovable things can be predicated of that Self only. * Eating ' does not here mean fruition dependent on work, but rather the act of reabsorption of the world on the part of the highest Brahman, i. e. Vishmi, who is the cause of the origination, subsistence, and final destruction of the universe. This appears from the fact that Vishnu is mentioned in the same section, ' He reaches the end of his journey, and that is the highest place of Vishnu ' (Ka. Up. I, 3, 9). Moreover the clause ' to whom death is a condiment ' shows that by the Brahmans and Kshattriyas, mentioned in the text, we have to understand the whole universe of moving and non-moving things, viewed as things to be consumed by the highest Self. For a condiment is a thing which, while itself being eaten, causes other things to be eaten ; the meaning of the passage, therefore, is that while death itself is consumed, being a condiment as it were, there is at the same time eaten whatever is flavoured or made palatable by death, and that is the entire world of beings in which the Brahmans and Kshatp. 267triyas hold the foremost place. Now such eating of course is destruction or reabsorption, and hence such enjoyment — meaning general reabsorption— can belong to the highest Self only.

10. And on account of the topic of the whole section.

Moreover the highest Brahman constitutes the topic of the entire section. Cp. ' The wise who knows the Self as great and omnipresent does not grieve ' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 22) ; * That Self cannot be gained by the Veda, nor by understanding, nor by much learning. He whom the Self chooses, by him the Self can be gained ; the Self chooses him as his own ' (I, 2, 23). — Moreover, the clause (forming part of the text under discussion), ' Who knows him (i. e. the being which constitutes the topic of the section) where he is?* clearly shows that we have to recognise here the Self of which it had previously been said that it is hard to know unless it assists us with its grace.