Here the purvapakshin maintains that the word must be held to denote the fivefold vital breath, which is a peculiar modification of wind (or air); because, as has been re- marked already, that sense of the word pra/^a is the better established one.— But no, an objector will say, just as in the case of the preceding Sutra, so here also Brahman is meant, on account of characteristic marks being mentioned ; for here also a complementary passage gives us to understand that all beings spring from and merge into pra;za ; a process which can take place in connexion with the highest Lord only. — This objection, the purvapakshin replies, is futile, since we see that the beings enter into and proceed from the principal vital air also. For Scripture makes the fol- lowing statement (Sat. Br. X, 3, 3, 6), 'When man sleeps, then into breath indeed speech merges, into breath the eye, into breath the ear, into breath the mind ; when he awakes then they spring again from breath alone/ What the Veda here states is, moreover, a matter of observation, for during sleep, while the process of breathing goes on uninterruptedly, the activity of the sense organs is interrupted and again becomes manifest at the time of awaking only. And as the sense organs are the essence of all material beings, the com- plementary passage which speaks of the merging and emerging of the beings can be reconciled with the principal vital air also. Moreover, subsequently to pra/za being mentioned as the divinity of the prastava the sun and food are designated as the divinities of the udgitha and the pratihara. Now as they are not Brahman, the pra^a also, by parity of reasoning, cannot be Brahman.
To this argumentation the author of the Sutras replies : For the same reason pra/za — that means : on account of the presence of characteristic marks — which constituted the reason stated in the preceding Sutra — the word pra^a also
86 VEDANTA-StJTRAS.
must be held to denote Brahman. For Scripture says of pra/^a also, that it is connected with marks characteristic of Brahman. The sentence, ' All these beings merge into breath alone, and from breath they arise,' which declares that the origination and retractation of all beings depend on pra;za, clearly shows pra;za to be Brahman. In reply to the assertion that the origination and retractation of all beings can be reconciled equally well with the assumption of pra^a de- noting the chief vital air, because origination and retractation take place in the state of waking and of sleep also, we remark that in those two states only the senses are merged into, and emerge from, the chief vital air, while, according to the scriptural passage, ' For all these beings, &c.,' all beings whatever into which a living Self has entered, together with their senses and bodies, merge and emerge by turns. And even if the word ' beings ' were taken (not in the sense of animated beings, but) in the sense of material elements in general, there would be nothing in the way of interpreting the passage as referring to Brahman. — But, it may be said, that the senses together with their objects do, during sleep, enter into pra/za, and again issue from it at the time of waking, we distinctly learn from another scriptural passage, viz. Kau. Up. Ill, 3, 'When a man being thus asleep sees no dream whatever, he becomes one with that pra/za alone. Then speech goes to him with all names,5 &c. — True, we reply, but there also the word pra/za denotes (not the vital air) but Brahman, as we conclude from characteristic marks of Brahman being mentioned. The objection, again, that the word pra/za cannot denote Brahman because it occurs in proximity to the words ' food ' and ' sun ' (which do not refer to Brahman), is altogether baseless ; for proximity is of no avail against the force of the complementary passage which intimates that pra?za is Brahman. That argument, finally, which rests on the fact that the word pra;za com- monly denotes the vital air with its five modifications, is to be refuted in the same way as the parallel argument which the purvapakshin brought forward with reference to the word ' ether.' From all this it follows that the pra/za, which is the deity of the prastava, is Brahman.
I Adhyaya, I Pada, 24. 87
Some (commentators)1 quote under the present Sutra the following passages, ' the pra/za of pra/za ' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 18), and ' for to pra^a mind is fastened ' (Kk. Up. VI, 8, 2). But that is wrong since these two passages offer no opportunity for any discussion, the former on account of the separation of the words, the latter on account of the general topic. When we meet with a phrase such as 'the father of the father ' we understand at once that the genitive denotes a father different from the father denoted by the nominative. Analogously we infer from the separation of words con- tained in the phrase, ' the breath of breath,' that the c breath of breath ' is different from the ordinary breath (denoted by the genitive ' of breath '). For one and the same thing cannot, by means of a genitive, be predicated of — and thus distinguished from — itself. Concerning the second passage we remark that, if the matter constituting the general topic of some chapter is referred to in that chapter under a different name, we yet conclude, from the general topic, that that special matter is meant. For instance, when we meet in the section which treats of the ^yotish/oma sacrifice with the passage, ' in every spring he is to offer the ^yotis sacrifice,' we at once understand that the word ^yotis denotes the ^yotish/oma. If we therefore meet with the clause ' to pra/za mind is fastened ' in a section of which the highest Brahman is the topic, we do not for a moment suppose that the word pra^a should there denote the ordinary breath which is a mere modification of air. The two passages thus do not offer any matter for discussion, and hence do not furnish appropriate instances for the Sutra. We have shown, on the other hand, that the passage about the pra/za, which is the deity of the prastava, allows room for doubt, purvapaksha and final decision.
24. The ' light ' (is Brahman), on account of the
mention of feet (in a passage which is connected
with the passage about the light).
Scripture says {Kk. Up. Ill, 13, 7), ' Now that light which shines above this heaven, higher than all, higher than every-
1 The vmtikara, the commentators say.
88 vedanta-sOtras.
thing, in the highest worlds beyond which there are no other worlds, that is the same light which is within man.' Here the doubt presents itself whether the word ' light ' denotes the light of the sun and the like, or the highest Self. Under the preceding Sutras we had shown that some words which ordinarily have different meanings yet in certain passages denote Brahman, since characteristic marks of the latter are mentioned. Here the question has to be discussed whether, in connexion with the passage quoted, characteristic marks of Brahman are mentioned or not.
The purvapakshin maintains that the word ' light ' de- notes nothing else but the light of the sun and the like, since that is the ordinary well-established meaning of the term. The common use of language, he says, teaches us that the two words ' light ' and ' darkness ' denote mutually opposite things, darkness being the term for whatever interferes with the function of the sense of sight, as, for instance, the gloom of the night, while sunshine and whatever else favours the action of the eye is called light. The word ' shines ' also, which the text exhibits, is known ordinarily to refer to the sun and similar sources of light ; while of Brahman, which is devoid of colour, it cannot be said, in the primary sense of the word, that it ' shines.' Further, the word ^yotis must here denote light because it is said to be bounded by the sky ('that light which shines above this heaven'). For while it is impossible to consider the sky as being the boundary of Brahman, which is the Self of all and the source of all things movable or immovable, the sky may be looked upon as forming the boundary of light, which is a mere product and as such limited ; accordingly the text says, ' the light beyond heaven.' — But light, although a mere product, is perceived everywhere ; it would therefore be wrong to declare that it is bounded by the sky ! — Well, then, the purvapakshin replies, let us assume that the light meant is the first-born (original) light which has not yet become tripartite1. This explanation again cannot be
1 I. e. which has not been mixed with water and earth, according to Kh. Up. VI, 3, 3. Before that mixture took place light was
I Adhyaya, I Pada, 24. 89
admitted, because the non-tripartite light does not serve any purpose. — But, the purvapakshin resumes, Why should its purpose not be found therein that it is the object of devout meditation ?— That cannot be, we reply ; for we see that only such things are represented as objects of devotion as have some other independent use of their own ; so, for instance, the sun (which dispels darkness and so on). More- over the scriptural passage, 'Let me make each of these three (fire, water, and earth) tripartite,' does not indicate any difference1. And even of the non-tripartite light it is not known that the sky constitutes its boundary. — Well, then (the purvapakshin resumes, dropping the idea of the non- tripartite light), let us assume that the light of which the text speaks is the tripartite (ordinary) light. The objection that light is seen to exist also beneath the sky, viz. in the form of fire and the like, we invalidate by the remark that there is nothing contrary to reason in assigning a special locality to fire, although the latter is observed everywhere ; while to assume a special place for Brahman, to which the idea of place does not apply at all, would be most un- suitable. Moreover, the clause ' higher than everything, in the highest worlds beyond which there are no other worlds,' which indicates a multiplicity of abodes, agrees much better with light, which is a mere product (than with Brahman). There is moreover that other clause also, ' That is the same light which is within man/ in which the highest light is identified with the gastric fire (the fire within man). Now such identifications can be made only where there is a certain similarity of nature ; as is seen, for instance, in the passage, ' Of that person BhM is the head, for the head is one and that syllable is one ' (Br/. Up. V, 5, 3). But that the fire within the human body is not Brahman clearly appears from the passage, ' Of this we have visible and audible proof (Kh. Up. Ill, 13, 7; 8), which declares that
entirely separated from the other elements, and therefore bounded by the latter.
1 So as to justify the assumption that such a thing as non-tri- partite light exists at all.
90 VEDANTA-stjTRAS.
the fire is characterised by the noise it makes, and by heat ; and likewise from the following passage, ' Let a man meditate on this as that which is seen and heard.' The same conclusion may be drawn from the passage, { He who knows this becomes conspicuous and celebrated,' which proclaims an inconsiderable reward only, while to the devout meditation on Brahman a high reward would have to be allotted. Nor is there mentioned in the entire passage about the light any other characteristic mark of Brahman, while such marks are set forth in the passages (discussed above) which refer to pra^a and the ether. Nor, again, is Brahman indicated in the preceding section, ' the Gayatri is everything whatsoever exists,5 &c. (Ill, 12); for that passage makes a statement about the Gayatri metre only. And even if that section did refer to Brahman, still Brahman would not be recognised in the passage at present under discussion ; for there (in the section referred to) it is declared — in the clause, 4 Three feet of it are the Immortal in heaven ' — that heaven constitutes the abode ; while in our passage the words ' the light above heaven ' declare heaven to be a boundary. For all these reasons the word ^yotis is here to be taken in its ordinary meaning, viz. light.