The Sri-bhashya treats the four Sutras as one adhikara^a whose two first Sutras are explained as by vSankara, while Sutra 29 raises an objection to the conclusion arrived at, * the going (of the soul on the path of the gods) has a sense only if the soul's freeing itself from its works takes place in both ways, i. e. partly at the moment of death, partly on the road to Brahman ; for otherwise there would be a con- tradiction ' (the contradiction being that, if the soul's works were all shaken off at the moment of death, the subtle body would likewise perish at that moment, and then the bodi- less soul would be unable to proceed on the path of the gods). — To this Sutra 30 replies, 'The complete shaking off of the works at the moment of death is possible, since matters of that kind are observed in Scripture,' i. e. since scriptural passages show that even he whose works are entirely annihilated, and who has manifested himself in his true shape, is yet connected with some kind of body ; com- pare the passage, £para^ ^yotir upasampadya svena rupe- ;zabhinishpadyate sa tatra paryeti kridan ramamana/^ sa svar&d bhavati tasya sarveshu lokeshu kama^aro bhavati.' That subtle body is not due to karman, but to the soul's vidyamahatmya. — That the explanation of the 5ri-bhashya agrees with the text as well as Ankara's, a comparison of the two will show ; especially forced is 5ankara's explana- tion of ' arthavattvam ubhayatha,' which is said to mean that there is arthavattva in one case, and non-arthavattva in the other case.
The next Sutra (31) constitutes an adhikara/za (XVIII)
lxxii vedanta-s6tras.
deciding that the road of the gods is followed not only by those knowing the vidyas which specially mention the going on that road, but by all who are acquainted with the sagu/za-vidyas of Brahman. — The explanation given in the •Sri-bhashya (in which Sutras 31 and 32 have exchanged places) is similar, with the difference however that all who meditate on Brahman — without any reference to the dis- tinction of nirgu/za and sagu/za — proceed after death on the road of the gods. (The .Sri-bhashya reads 'sarvesh&m,' i. e. all worshippers, not ' sarvasam/ all sagu^a-vidyas.)
Adhik. XIX (32) decides that, although the general effect of true knowledge is release from all forms of body, yet even such beings as have reached perfect knowledge may retain a body for the purpose of discharging certain offices. — In the Sri-bhashya, where the Sutra follows immediately on Sutra 30, the adhikara^a determines, in close connexion with 30, that, although those who know Brahman as a rule divest themselves of the gross body— there remaining only a subtle body which enables them to move — and no longer experience pleasure and pain, yet certain beings, although having reached the cognition of Brahman, remain invested with a gross body, and hence liable to pleasure and pain until they have fully performed certain duties.
Adhik. XX (33) teaches that the negative attributes of Brahman mentioned in some vidyas — such as its being not gross, not subtle, &c. — are to be included in all meditations on Brahman.— Adhik. XXI (34) determines that Ka/^a Up. Ill, 1, and Mu. Up. Ill, t, constitute one vidya only, because both passages refer to the highest Brahman. According to Ramanu^-a the Sutra contains a reply to an objection raised against the conclusion arrived at in the preceding Sutra.— Adhik. XXII (35, 36) maintains that the two passages, Bri Up. Ill, 4 and III, 5, constitute one vidya only, the object of knowledge being in both cases Brahman viewed as the inner Self of all.— Adhik. XXIII (37) on the contrary decides that the passage Ait. Ar. II, 2, 4, 6 con- stitutes not one but two meditations.— Adhik. XXIV (38) again determines that the vidyd of the True contained in Bri. Up. V, 4, 5, is one only.— According to Rdmanu^a,
Introduction/ 1
Xx1u
Sutras 35-38 constitute one adhikara^a only whose subject is the same as that of XXII according to Sankara.
1 Ramanu^u has here some strong remarks on the improbability of qualities emphatically attributed to Brahman, in more than one passage, having to be set aside in any meditation : ' Na ka, matapitWsahasrebhyo * pi vatsalataraw SB.stra.rn prat&rakavad aparamarthikau nirasaniyau guwau pramawantaraprati- pannau adarewopadijya sawsara^akraparivartanena pftrvam eva bambhramya- manan mumukshtin bhuyo*pi bhramayitum alam/
Ixxiv vedAnta-s^tras.
Adhik. XXVII (42) decides that those meditations which are connected with certain matters forming constituent parts of sacrificial actions, are not to be considered as perma- nently requisite parts of the latter. — Adhik. XXVIII (43) teaches that, in a Bri.Up. passage and a similar Kh. Up. passage, Vayu and Pra;za are not to be identified, but to be held apart.— Adhik. XXIX (44-52) decides that the fire- altars made of mind, &c, which are mentioned in the Agni* rahasya, do not constitute parts of the sacrificial action (so that the mental, &c. construction of the altar could optionally be substituted for the actual one), but merely subjects of meditations.
Adhik. XXX (53, 54) treats, according to 5ankara, in the way of digression, of the question whether to the Self an existence independent of the body can be assigned, or not (as the Materialists maintain).— According to the vSri-bha- shya the adhikara^a does not refer to this wide question, but is concerned with a point more immediately connected with the meditations on Brahman, viz. the question as to the form under which, in those meditations, the Self of the meditating devotee has to be viewed. The two Sutras then have to be translated as follows : ' Some (maintain that the soul of the devotee has, in meditations, to be viewed as possessing those attributes only which belong to it in its embodied state, such as gnatritva and the like), because the Self is (at the time of meditation) in the body.* « — The next Sutra rejects this view, ' This is not so, but the separatedness (i. e. the pure isolated state in which the Self is at the time of final release when it is freed from all evil, &c.) (is to be transferred to the meditating Self), because that will be * the state (of the Self in the condition of final release).'
Adhik. XXXI (55, 56) decides that meditations connected
with constituent elements of the sacrifice, such as the
udgitha, are, in spite of difference of svara in the udgitha,
&c, valid, not only for that sakha in which the medita-
tion actually is met with, but for all rakhas. — Adhik.
1 The *Sri-bhashya as well as several other commentaries reads tadbhava* bhavitvat for iankara's tadbhavabhavitvat.
INTRODUCTION. ' lxxV
XXXII (57) decides that the VaLrvanara Agni of Kh. Up. V, 1 1 ff. is to be meditated upon as a whole, not in his single parts.— Adhik. XXXIII (58) teaches that those meditations which refer to one subject, but as distinguished by different qualities, have to be held apart as different meditations. Thus the daharavidya, vSa/zafilyavidya, &c. remain separate.
Adhik. XXXIV (59) teaches that those meditations on Brahman for which the texts assign one and the same fruit are optional, there being no reason for their being cumu- lated.— Adhik. XXXV (60) decides that those meditations, on the other hand, which refer to special wishes may be cumulated or optionally employed according to choice. — Adhik. XXXVI (61-66) extends this conclusion to the meditations connected with constituent elements of action, such as the udgitha.
Pada IV.
Adhik. I (1-17) proves that the knowledge of Brahman is not kratvartha, i. e. subordinate to action, but indepen- dent.— Adhik. II (18-20) confirms this conclusion by show- ing that the state of the pravra^ins is enjoined by the sacred law, and that for them vidyd only is prescribed, not action. — Adhik. Ill (21, 22) decides that certain clauses forming part of vidyas are not mere stutis (arthavadas), but themselves enjoin the meditation. — The legends recorded in the Vedanta-texts are not to be used as subordinate members of acts, but have the purpose of glorifying — as arthavadas — the injunctions with which they are connected (Adhik. IV, 23, 24). — For all these reasons the urdhvare- tasa^ require no actions but only knowledge (Adhik. V, 25). — Nevertheless the actions enjoined by Scripture, such as sacrifices, conduct of certain kinds, &c, are required as conducive to the rise of vidya in the mind (Adhik. VI, 26, 27). — Certain relaxations, allowed by Scripture, of the laws regarding food, are meant only for cases of extreme need (Adhik. VII, 28-31). — The a-sramakarmam are obligatory on him also who does not strive after mukti (Adhik. VIII,
lxxvi vedAnta-s6tras.
32-35)* — Those also who, owing to poverty and so on, are anlsrama have claims to vidyi (Adhik. IX, 36-39). — An urdhvaretas cannot revoke his vow (Adhik. X, 40). — Ex- piation of the fall of an urdhvaretas (Adhik. XI, 41, 42). — Exclusion of the fallen urdhvaretas in certain cases (Adhik. XII, 43). — Those meditations, which are connected with subordinate members of the sacrifice, are the business of the priest, not of the ya^*amana (Adhik. XIII, 44-46). — Brz. Up. Ill, 5> 1 enjoins mauna as a third in addition to balya and p&nditya. (Adhik. XIV, 47-49). — By balya is to be understood a childlike innocent state of mind (Adhik. XV, 50).
Sutras 51 and 53 discuss, according to R&manu^a, the question when the vidya, which is the result of the means described in III, 4, arises. Sutra 51 treats of that vidyd whose result is mere exaltation (abhyudaya), and states that ' it takes place in the present life, if there is not present an obstacle in the form of a prabalakarmantara (in which latter case the vidyd arises later only), on account of Scripture declaring this (in various passages).'— Sutra 52, ' Thus there is also absence of a definite rule as to (the time of origination of) that knowledge whose fruit is release, it being averred concerning that one also that it is in the same condition (i. e. of sometimes having an obstacle, some- times not). — 5ankara, who treats the two Sutras as two adhikara/zas, agrees as to the explanation of 51, while, putting a somewhat forced interpretation on 52, he makes it out to mean that a more or less is possible only in the case of the sagu^a-vidyds.
FOURTH ADHYAYA,
PAda I.
Adhikara^a I (1, 2). — The meditation on the Atman
enjoined by Scripture is not an act to be accomplished once
only, but is to be repeated again and again.
Adhik. II (3). — The devotee engaged in meditation on Brahman is to view it as constituting his own Self,
INTRODUCTION. lx
Xvu
Adhik. Ill (4). — To the rule laid down in the preceding adhikara^a the so-called pratikopasanas, i.e. those medita- tions in which Brahman is viewed under a symbol or out- ward manifestation (as, for instance, mano brahmety upasita) constitute an exception, i. e. the devotee is not to consider the pratika as constituting his own Self.
Adhik. IV (5). — In the pratikopasanas the pratika is to be meditatively viewed as being one with Brahman, not Brahman as being one with the pratika. — Ramanu^a takes Sutra 5 as simply giving a reason for the decision arrived at under Sutra 4, and therefore as not constituting a new adhikara^a.
Adhik. V (6). — In meditations connected with constitu- tives of sacrificial works (as, for instance, ya evasau tapati tarn udgitham upasita) the idea of the divinity, &c. is to be transferred to the sacrificial item, not vice versa. In the example quoted, for instance, the udgitha is to be viewed as Aditya, not Aditya as the udgitha.
Adhik. VI (7-10). — The devotee is to carry on his medi- tations in a sitting posture. — vSankara maintains that this rule does not apply to those meditations wThose result is sa^yagdanana ; but the Sutra gives no hint to that effect.
Adhik. VI I ( 1 1 ). — The meditations may be carried on at any time, and in any place, favourable to concentration of mind.
Adhik. VIII (12). — The meditations are to be continued
until death. — .Sankara again maintains that those medita-
tions which lead to sa^yagdar^ana are excepted.
Adhik. IX (13). — When through those meditations the
knowledge of Brahman has been reached, the vidvan is no
longer affected by the consequences of either past or future
evil deeds.
Adhik. X (14). — Good deeds likewise lose their efficiency. — The literal translation of the Sutra is, ' There is likewise non-attachment (to the vidvan) of the other (i.e. of the deeds other than the evil ones, i.e. of good deeds), but on the fall (of the body, i.e. when death takes place)/ The last words of the Sutra, ' but on the fall,' are separated by Sankara from the preceding part of the Sutra and interpreted to mean, ' when death takes place (there results mukti of
lxxviii VEDANTA-stfTRAS.
the vidvan, who through his knowledge has freed himself
from the bonds of works).'- — According to Ramanug-a the
whole Sutra simply means, ' There is likewise non-attach-
ment of good deeds (not at once when knowledge is
reached), but on the death of the vidvan V