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

The Sutra gives another argument establishing the same conclusion, ' and the text enounces something more than that,' i.e. more than "the preceding negation. The words of the text meant are ' (not) is there anything beyond.' — If the negation, ' Not so, not so ! ' were meant to negative all things whatever, and this terminated in absolute nonexistence, the text could not even allude to ' anything beyond.' — The words of the text are to be connected as follows. After the clause, ' Not so, not so ! ' has given information about Brahman, the clause next following illustrates this teaching by saying : There is nothing beyond or separate from this Brahman ; therefore Brahman is expressed by ' Not so, not so ! ' which latter words do not mean that Brahman itself does not exist. The implied meaning rather is that different from everything else there exists the ' nonnegatived ' Brahman. — The w^ords of the text admit, however, of another interpretation also ; for they may mean that there is no teaching of Brahman higher than that teaching which is implied in the negation of plurality expressed by ' Not so, not so ! ' On this latter interpretation

Ill ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 24. 17I

the words of the Sutra, ' and the text enounces something more than that,' must be taken to refer to the name mentioned in the text, ' Then comes the name, the True of the True ; the senses being the True and he the True of them.' — This again has a sense only if the previous negative clause denies everything but Brahman, not everything but absolute non-existence. For, if the latter were the case, what then could be called the True of the True ? — We therefore decide that the clause, ' Not so, not so ! ' negatives not absolutely everything, but only everything but Brahman.

23. That (Brahman) is unevolved ; for (thus scripture) says.

If that highest Brahman which is different from the world that is negatived in the passage discussed above really exists, why then is it not apprehended? — Because, the Sutrakara replies, it is unevolved, not to be apprehended by the senses ; for it is the witness of whatever is apprehended (i.e. the subject in all apprehension). Thus 5ruti says, ' He is not apprehended by the eye, nor by speech, nor by the other senses^ not by penance or good works' (Mu. Up. Ill, I, 8) ; 'That Self is to be described by No, no ! He is incomprehensible, for he cannot be comprehended ' (Brz. Up. HI, 9, 26); 'That which cannot be seen nor apprehended' (Mu. Up. I, I, 6); 'When in that which is invisible, incorporeal, undefined, unsupported ' &c. (Taitt. Up. II, 7). Similar statements are made in Smrz'ti-passages; so e. g. ' He is called unevolved, not to be fathomed by thought, unchangeable.'

24. And in the state of perfect conciliation also
(the Yogins apprehend the highest Brahman),
according to ^'ruti and Smritl.

At the time of perfect conciliation the Yogins see the unevolved Self free from all plurality. By 'perfect conciliation ' we understand the presentation before the mind (of the highest Self), which is effected through meditation and devotion. — This is vouched for by 6^ruti as well as

p. 172