Scripture says, ' All this indeed is Brahman, beginning, ending, and breathing in it ; thus knowing let a man meditate with calm mind. Now man is made of determination (kratu) ; according to what his determination is in this world so will he be when he has departed this life. Let him there- fore form this determination : he who consists of mind, whose body is breath (the subtle body),' &c. {Kh. Up. Ill, 14). Concerning this passage the doubt presents itself whether what is pointed out as the object of meditation, by means of attributes such as consisting of mind, &c, is the embodied (individual) soul or the highest Brahman.
The embodied Self, the purvapakshin says. — Why? — Because the embodied Self as the ruler of the organs of action is well known to be connected with the mind and so on, while the highest Brahman is not, as is declared in several scriptural passages, so, for instance (Mu. Up. II, 1, 2),
I08 VEDANTA-stjTRAS.
' He is without breath, without mind, pure.' — But, it may be objected, the passage, ' All this indeed is Brahman,' mentions Brahman directly ; how then can you suppose that the embodied Self forms the object of meditation ? — This objec- tion does not apply, the purvapakshin rejoins, because the passage does not aim at enjoining meditation on Brahman, but rather at enjoining calmness of mind, the sense being : because Brahman is all this, ta^alan, let a man meditate with a calm mind. That is to say : because all this aggregate of effects is Brahman only, springing from it, ending in it, and breathing in it ; and because, as everything constitutes one Self only, there is no room for passion ; therefore a man is to meditate with a calm mind. And since the sentence aims at enjoining calmness of mind, it cannot at the same time enjoin meditation on Brahman1; but meditation is separately enjoined in the clause, ' Let him form the determination, i.e. reflection.' And thereupon the subsequent passage, ' He who consists of mind, whose body is breath/ &c. states the object of the meditation in words indicatory of the individual soul. For this reason we maintain that the meditation spoken of has the individual soul for its object. The other attributes also subsequently stated in the text, ' He to whom all works, all desires belong,5 &c. may rightly be held to refer to the individual soul. The attributes, finally, of being what abides in the heart and of being extremely minute which are mentioned in the pas- sage, ' He is my Self within the heart, smaller than a corn of rice, smaller than a corn of barley,' may be ascribed to the individual soul which has the size of the point of a goad, but not to the unlimited Brahman, If it be objected that the immediately following passage, i greater than the earth,' &c, cannot refer to something limited, we reply that smallness and greatness which are mutually opposite cannot indeed be ascribed to one and the same thing ; and that, if one attribute
1 The clause ' he is to meditate with a calm mind ' if taken as a gu^avidhi, i. e. as enjoining some secondary matter, viz. calmness of mind of the meditating person, cannot at the same time enjoin meditation ; for that would involve a so-called split of the sentence (vakyabheda).
T Adhyaya, 2 Pada, 2. Io9
only is to be ascribed to the subject of the passage, smallness is preferable because it is mentioned first ; while the great- ness mentioned later on may be attributed to the soul in so far as it is one with Brahman. If it is once settled that the whole passage refers to the individual soul, it follows that the declaration of Brahman also, contained in the passage, f That is Brahman ' (III, 14, 4), refers to the individual soul1, as it is clearly connected with the general topic. Therefore the individual soul is the object of meditation indicated by the qualities of consisting of mind and so on.
To all this we reply : The highest Brahman only is what is to be meditated upon as distinguished by the attributes of consisting of mind and so on. — Why ? — ' On account of there being taught here what is known from everywhere.' What is known from all Vedanta-passages to be the sense of the word Brahman, viz. the cause of the world, and what is mentioned here in the beginning words of the passage, (' all this indeed is Brahman,') the same we must assume to be taught here as distinguished by certain qualities, viz. consisting of mind and so on. Thus we avoid the fault of dropping the subject-matter under discussion and needlessly introducing a new topic. — But, it may be said, it has been shown that Brahman is, in the beginning of the passage, introduced merely for the purpose of intimating the injunc- tion of calmness of mind, not for the purpose of intimating Brahman itself. — True, we reply ; but the fact nevertheless remains that, where the qualities of consisting of mind, &c. are spoken of, Brahman only is proximate (i. e. mentioned not far off so that it may be concluded to be the thing referred to), while the individual soul is neither proximate nor intimated by any word directly pointing to it. The cases of Brahman and the individual soul are therefore not equal.
2. And because the qualities desired to be ex-
pressed are possible (in Brahman ; therefore the
passage refers to Brahman).
1 £ive*pi dehadibrz/tfhanag- ^yastvanyayad va brahmatety artha/2. An. Gi.
I I O VEDANTA-SlJTRAS.
Although in the Veda which is not the work of man no wish in the strict sense can be expressed *, there being no speaker, still such phrases as 'desired to be expressed,' may- be figuratively used on account of the result, viz. (mental) comprehension. For just as in ordinary language we speak of something which is intimated by a word and is to be received (by the hearer as the meaning of the word), as ' desired to be expressed ; ' so in the Veda also whatever is denoted as that which is to be received is ' desired to be expressed,' everything else 'not desired to be expressed.' What is to be received as the meaning of a Vedic sentence, and what not, is inferred from the general purport of the passage. Those qualities which are here desired to be expressed, i. e. intimated as qualities to be dwelt on in meditation, viz. the qualities of having true purposes, &c. are possible in the highest Brahman ; for the quality of having true purposes may be ascribed to the highest Self which possesses unimpeded power over the creation, subsist- ence, and reabsorption of this world. Similarly the qualities of having true desires and true purposes are attributed to the highest Self in another passage, viz. the one beginning, 'The Self which is free from sin" {Kh. Up. VIII, 7, 1). The clause, ' He whose Self is the ether,' means ' he whose Self is like the ether;' for Brahman may be said to be like the ether on account of its omnipresence and other qualities. This is also expressed by the clause, ' Greater than the earth.' And the other explanation also, accord- ing to which the passage means 'he whose Self is the ether ' is possible, since Brahman which as the cause of the whole world is the Self of everything is also the Self of the ether. For the same reasons he is called ' he to whom all works belong, and so on.' Thus the qualities here intimated as topics of meditation agree with the nature of Brahman. We further maintain that the terms ' consisting of mind,' and ' having breath for its body,' which the purvapakshin asserts
1 The discussion is brought on by the term ' vivakshita ' in the Sutra whose meaning is 'expressed, aimed at/ but more literally ' desired to be expressed.'
I ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 3. Ill
cannot refer to Brahman, may refer to it. For as Brahman is the Self of everything, qualities such as consisting of mind and the like, which belong to the individual soul, belong to Brahman also. Accordingly vSruti and Smrzti say of Brahman, ' Thou art woman, thou art man ; thou art youth, thou art maiden ; thou as an old man totterest along on thy staff; thou art born with thy face turned everywhere ' (5ve. Up. IV, 3), and * its hands and feet are everywhere, its eyes and head are everywhere, its ears are everywhere, it stands encompassing all in the world ' (Bha. Gita III, 13).
The passage (quoted above against our view), ' Without breath, without mind, pure,' refers to the pure (unrelated) Brahman. The terms ' consisting of mind ; having breath for its body,' on the other hand, refer to Brahman as distinguished by qualities. Hence, as the qualities mentioned are possible in Brahman, we conclude that the highest Brahman only is represented as the object of meditation.
3. On the other hand, as (those qualities) are not
possible (in it), the embodied (soul is) not (denoted
by manomaya, &c).
The preceding Sutra has declared that the qualities mentioned are possible in Brahman ; the present Sutra states that they are not possible in the embodied Self. Brahman only possesses, in the manner explained, the qualities of consisting of mind, and so on ; not the em- bodied individual soul. For qualities such as expressed in the words, { He whose purposes are true, whose Self is the ether, who has no speech, who is not disturbed, who is greater than the earth,' cannot easily be attributed to the embodied Self. By the term ' embodied ' (^arira) we have to understand ' residing5 in a body. If it be objected that the Lord also resides in the body1, we reply, True, he does reside in the body, but not in the body only ; for jruti declares him to be all-pervading ; compare, ' He is greater than the earth ; greater than the atmosphere, omnipresent like the ether, eternal.' The individual soul, on the other
1 Because he is vyapin.
112 VEDANTA-sflTRAS.
hand, is in the body only, apart from which as the abode of fruition it does not exist.
4. And because there is a (separate) denotation of the object of activity and of the agent.
The attributes of consisting of mind, and so on, cannot belong to the embodied Self for that reason also, that there is a (separate) denotation of the object of activity and of the agent. In the passage, ' When I shall have departed from hence I shall obtain him ' {Kh. Up. Ill, 14, 4), the word ' him ' refers to that which is the topic of discussion, viz. the Self which is to be meditated upon as possessing the attributes of consisting of mind, &c, as the object of an activity, viz. as something to be obtained ; while the words, 4 1 shall obtain,' represent the meditating individual Self as the agent, i. e. the obtainer. Now, wherever it can be helped, we must not assume that one and the same being is spoken of as the agent and the object of the activity at the same time. The relation existing between a person medi- tating and the thing meditated upon requires, moreover, different abodes. — And thus for the above reason, also, that which is characterised by the attributes of consisting of mind, and so on, cannot be the individual soul.
5. On account of the difference of words.
That which possesses the attributes of consisting of mind, and so on, cannot be the individual soul, for that reason also that there is a difference of words.
That is to say, we meet with another scriptural passage of kindred subject-matter (5at. Bra. X, 6, 3, 2), 'Like a rice grain, or a barley grain, or a canary seed or the kernel of a canary seed, thus that golden person is in the Self.5 There one word, i. e. the locative ' in the Self,' denotes the embodied Self, and a different word, viz. the nominative 'person/ denotes the Self distinguished by the qualities of con- sisting of mind, &c. We therefrom conclude that the two are different.
6. And on account of Smrzti.
Smrzti also declares the difference of the embodied Self
I Adhyava, 2 Pada, 7. Ii3
and the highest Self, viz. Bha. Gita XVIII, 6r5'The Lord, O Ar^una, is seated in the heart of all beings, driving round by his magical power all beings (as if they were) mounted on a machine.'