Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 34 — The Vedanta-Sutras, Part I (Sankara/Thibaut, page scans)

knows the bliss of that Brahman fears nothing;' 'He understood that bliss is Brahman.' If it were a settled matter that Brahman is denoted by the term, 'the Self consisting of bliss,' then we could assume that in the subse- quent passages, where merely the word ' bliss ' is employed, the term ' consisting of bliss ' is meant to be repeated ; but that the Self consisting of bliss is not Brahman, we have already proved by means of the reason of joy being its head, and so on. Hence, as in another scriptural passage, viz. ' Brahman is knowledge and bliss' (Br/. Up. Ill, 9, 28), the mere word ' bliss ' denotes Brahman, we must conclude that also in such passages as, ' If that bliss existed not in the ether,' the word bliss is used with reference to Brahman, and is not meant to repeat the term ' consisting of bliss.' The repetition of the full compound, ' consisting of bliss,' which occurs in the passage, ' He reaches that Self consisting of bliss ' (Taitt. Up. II, 8), does not refer to Brahman, as it is contained in the enumeration of Non-Selfs, comprising the Self of food, &c, all of which are mere effects, and all of which are represented as things to be reached. — But, it may be said, if the Self consisting of bliss, which is said to have to be reached, were not Brahman — just as the Selfs con- sisting of food, &c. are not Brahman — then it would not be declared (in the passage immediately following) that he who knows obtains for his reward Brahman. — This objection we invalidate by the remark that the text makes its declaration as to Brahman — which is the tail, the support — being reached by him who knows, by the very means of the declaration as to the attainment of the Self of bliss ; as appears from the passage, ' On this there is also this sloka., from which all speech returns,' &c. With reference, again, to the passage, ' He desired : may I be many, may I grow forth/ which is found in proximity to the mention of the Self consisting of bliss, we remark that it is in reality con- nected (not with the Self of bliss but with) Brahman, which is mentioned in the still nearer passage, ' Brahman is the tail, the support,' and does therefore not intimate that the Self of bliss is Brahman. And, on account of its referring to the passage last quoted (' it desired,' &c), the later passage

76 vedanta-s6tras.

also, ' That is flavour/ &c, has not the Self of bliss for its subject. — But, it may be objected, the (neuter word) Brah- man cannot possibly be designated by a masculine word as you maintain is done in the passage, ' He desired/ &c. — In reply to this objection we point to the passage (Taitt. Up. II, i), ' From that Self sprang ether/ where, likewise, the masculine word 'Self can refer to Brahman only, since the latter is the general topic of the chapter. In the know- ledge of Bhrzgu and Varu;m finally ('he knew that bliss is Brahman '), the word ' bliss ' is rightly understood to denote Brahman, since we there meet neither with the affix ' maya/ nor with any statement as to joy being its head, and the like. To ascribe to Brahman in itself joy, and so on, as its members, is impossible, unless we have recourse to certain, however minute, distinctions qualifying Brahman ; and that the whole chapter is not meant to convey a knowledge of the qualified (savlresha) Brahman is proved by the passage (quoted above), which declares that Brahman transcends speech and mind. We therefore must conclude that the affix maya, in the word anandamaya, does not denote abundance, but expresses a mere effect, just as it does in the words annamaya and the subsequent similar com- pounds.

The Sutras are therefore to be explained as follows. There arises the question whether the passage, ' Brahman is the tail, the support/ is to be understood as intimating that Brahman is a mere member of the Self consisting of bliss, or that it is the principal matter. If it is said that it must be considered as a mere member, the reply is, ' The Self consisting of bliss on account of the repetition.5 That means : Brahman, which in the passage ' the Self con- sisting of bliss/ &c, is spoken of as the tail, the support, is designated as the principal matter (not as something subordinate). On account of the repetition ; for in the memorial doka, ' he becomes himself non-existing/ Brah- man alone is reiterated. ' If not, on account of the word denoting a modification ; not so, on account of abundance.' In this Sutra the word ' modification ' is meant to convey the sense of member. The objection that on account of

I Adhyaya, I Pada, 20. 77

the word 'tail/ which denotes a mere member, Brahman cannot be taken as the principal matter must be refuted. This we do by remarking that there is no difficulty, since a word denoting a member may be introduced into the passage on account of pra/hirya *. Pra^urya here means a phraseology abounding in terms denoting members. After the different members, beginning with the head and ending with the tail, of the Selfs, consisting of food, &c. have been enumerated, there are also mentioned the head and the other limbs of the Self of bliss, and then it is added, ' Brahman is the tail, the support; ' the intention being merely to intro- duce some more terms denoting members, not to convey the meaning of ' member,' (an explanation which is impos- sible) because the preceding Sutra already has proved Brahman (not to be a member, but) to be the principal matter. ' And because he is declared to be the cause of it.' That means : Brahman is declared to be the cause of the entire aggregate of effects, inclusive of the Self, consisting of bliss, in the following passage, ' He created all whatever there is ' (Taitt. Up. II, 6). And as Brahman is the cause, it cannot at the same time be called the member, in the literal sense of the word, of the Self of bliss, which is nothing but one of Brahman's effects. The other Sutras also (which refer to the Self of bliss2) are to be considered, as well as they may, as conveying a knowledge of Brahman, which (Brahman) is referred to in the passage about the tail.

20. The one within (the sun and the eye) (is the
highest Lord), on account of his qualities being
declared 3.

The following passage is found in Scripture (Kh. Up. I,
6, 6 ff.), ' Now that person-bright as gold who is seen within
■»

1 I. e. the word translated hitherto by abundance.

2 See I, 1, 15-19.

3 The preceding adhikara^a had shown that the five Selfs (con- sisting of food, mind, and so on), which the Taitt. Up. enumerates, are introduced merely for the purpose of facilitating the cognition of Brahman considered as devoid of all qualities ; while that Brahman

78 VEDANTA-S^TRAS.

the sun, with beard bright as gold and hair bright as gold, bright as gold altogether to the very tips of his nails, whose eyes are like blue lotus ; his name is Ut, for he has risen (udita) above all evil. He also who knows this rises above all evil. So much with reference to the devas.' And further on, with reference to the body, 'Now the person who is seen in the eye/ &c. Here the following doubt presents itself. Do these passages point out, as the object of devotion directed on the sphere of the sun and the eye, merely some special individual soul, which, by means of a large measure of knowledge and pious works, has raised itself to a position of eminence ; or do they refer to the eternally perfect highest Lord ?

The purvapakshin takes the former view. An individual soul, he says, is referred to, since Scripture speaks of a definite shape. To the person in the sun special features are ascribed, such as the possession of a beard as bright as gold and so on, and the same features manifestly belong to the person in the eye also, since they are expressly trans- ferred to it in the passage, ' The shape of this person is the same as the shape of that person.' That, on the other hand, no shape can be ascribed to the highest Lord, follows from the passage (Kau. Up. I, 3, 15), 'That which is without sound, without touch, without form, without decay.' That an individual soul is meant follows moreover from the fact that a definite abode is mentioned, ' He who is in the sun ; he who is in the eye.' About the highest Lord, who has no special abode, but abides in his own glory, no similar state- ment can be made ; compare, for instance, the two following passages, 'Where does he rest? In his own glory?' [Kh. Up. VII, 24, 1); and 'like the ether he is omnipresent, eternal.' A further argument for our view is supplied by the fact that the might (of the being in question) is said to be limited ; for the passage, ' He is lord of the worlds beyond that, and of the wishes of the devas,' indicates the

itself is the real object of knowledge. The present adhikara^a un- dertakes to show that the passage about the golden person represents he savLresha Brahman as the object of devout meditation.

T Adhyaya, I Pada, 20. 79

limitation of the might of the person in the sun ; and the passage, ' He is lord of the worlds beneath that and of the wishes of men,' indicates the limitation of the might of the person in the eye. No limit, on the other hand, can be admitted of the might of the highest Lord, as appears from the passage (Brz. Up. IV, 4, 22), 'He is the Lord of all, the king of all things, the protector of all things. He is a bank and a boundary so that these worlds may not be confounded ; ' which passage intimates that the Lord is free from all limiting distinctions. For all these reasons the person in the eye and the sun cannot be the highest Lord.

To this reasoning the Sutra replies, ' The one within, on account of his qualities being declared.' The person referred to in the passages concerning the person within the sun and the person within the eye is not a trans- migrating being, but the highest Lord. Why? Because his qualities are declared. For the qualities of the highest Lord are indicated in the text as follows. At first the name of the person within the sun is mentioned — 'his name is Ut' — and then this name is explained on the ground of that person being free from all evil, ' He has risen above all evil.' The same name thus explained is then transferred to the person in the eye, in the clause, ' the name of the one is the name of the other.' Now, entire freedom from sin is attributed in Scripture to the highest Self only; so, for instance (Kk. Up. VIII, 7, 1), ' The Self which is free from sin,' &c. Then, again, there is the passage, ' He is Rik, he is Saman, Uktha, Ya^us, Brah- man,' which declares the person in the eye to be the Self of the Rik, Saman, and so on ; which is possible only if that person is the Lord who, as being the cause of all, is to be considered as the Self of all. Moreover, the text, after having stated in succession Rik and Saman to have earth and fire for their Self with reference to the Devas, and, again, speech and breath with reference to the body, continues, ' Rik and Saman are his joints,' with reference to the Devas, and ' the joints of the one are the joints of the other,' with reference to the body. Now this statement

8o VEDANTA-sfjTRAS.