The Vedânta-Sûtras, Part II, with the Commentary by Sankarâkârya — SBE Vol. 38

' That the word bhava/i ' beings ' here means ' individual souls,'
we conclude from their being said to have the same nature as the
Imperishable.

II ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 1 7. 3 1

For the individual souls are of the same nature as Brahman, because they are endowed with intelligence. Nor can the fact that in some places (as, for instance, in the accounts of the creation of the elements) the creation of the soul is not mentioned, invalidate what is stated about it in other places ; it being a general principle of interpretation that whatever new, and at the same time non-contradictory, matter is taught in some scriptural passage has to be combined with the teaching of all other passages. Hence that passage also which speaks of the Self entering (into its effects and thus becoming ^iva) must be explained as stating the Self's passing over into an effect (viz. the soul), analogously to such passages as ' that made itself its Self,' &c. (Taitt. Up. II, 7). — From all which it follows that the individual soul is a product.

To all this we reply, that the individual soul is not a product. — Why ? — On account of the absence of scriptural statement. For in the chapters which treat of the creation, the production of the soul is, in most cases, not mentioned. — But, it was admitted above that the circumstance of something not being stated in some places does not invalidate the statements made about it elsewhere. — True, that was admitted ; but we now declare that the production of the soul is not possible. — Why ? — ' On account of the eternity, &c., resulting from them ' (i. e. the scriptural passages). The word ' &c.' implies non-originatedness and similar attributes. For we know from scriptural passages that the soul is eternal, that it has no origin, that it is unchanging, that what constitutes the soul is the unmodified Brahman, and that the soul has its Self in Brahman. A being of such a nature cannot be a product. The scriptural passages to which we are alluding are the following :— 'The living Self dies not' {Kh. Up. VI, 11, 3); ' This great unborn Self undecaying, undying, immortal, fearless is indeed Brahman ' (Brz. Up. IV, 4, 25) ; ' The knowing Self is not born, it dies not' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 18) ; 'The Ancient is unborn, eternal, everlasting' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 18) ; ' Having sent forth that he entered into it' (Taitt. Up. II, 6); 'Let me now enter those with this livlnof Self and let me then

p. 32

evolve Hames and forms ' [Kh. Up. VI, 3, 2) ; ' He entered thither to the very tips of the finger-nails ' (B;-/. Up. I, 4, 7) ; ' Thou art that ' [I<h. Up. VI, 8, 7) ; ' I am Brahman ' (Brz. Up. 1, 4, 10); 'This Self is Brahman knowing all' (Br/. Up. II, 5, 19). — All these texts declare the eternity of the soul, and thus militate against the view of its having been produced.— But it has been argued above that the soul must be a modification because it is divided, and must have an origin because it is a modification ! — It is not, we reply, in itself divided; for scripture declares that 'there is one God hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the Self within all beings' (5"ve. Up. VI, 11); it only appears divided owing to its limiting adjuncts, such as the mind and so on, just as the ether appears divided by its connexion with jars and the like. Scripture (viz. Brz. Up. IV, 4, 5, ' that Self is indeed Brahman, made up of knowledge, mind, life, sight, hearing,' &c.) also declares that the one unmodified Brahman is made up of a plurality of intellects (buddhi), &c. By Brahman being made up of mind and so on is meant, that its nature is coloured thereby, while the fact of its being entirely separate from it is non-apparent. Analogously we say that a mean, cowardly fellow is made up of womanishness. — The casual passages which speak of the soul's production and dissolution must therefore be interpreted on the ground of the soul's connexion with its limiting adjuncts ; when the adjunct is produced or dissolved, the soul also is said to be produced or dissolved. Thus scripture also declares, ' Being altogether a mass of knowledge, having risen from out of these elements it again perishes after them. When he has departed there is no more knowledge' (Br/. Up. IV, 5, 13). What is meant there, is only the dissolution of the limiting adjuncts of the Self, not the dissolution of the Self itself ^ The text itself explains this, in reply to Maitreyi's ques-