But what, it may be asked, is that so-called embodied Self different from the highest Self which is to be set aside according to the preceding Sutras ? vSruti passages, as well as Smriti, expressly deny that there is any Self apart from the highest Self ; compare, for instance, Bri. Up. Ill, 7, 33, * There is no other seer but he ; there is no other hearer but he;' and Bha. GitA XIII, 2, 'And know me also, O Bh&rata, to be the kshetra^a in all kshetras.'

True, we reply, (there is in reality one universal Self only.) But the highest Self in so far as it is limited by its adjuncts, viz. the body, the senses, and the mind (mano-buddhi), is, by the ignorant, spoken of as if it were embodied. Simi- larly the ether, although in reality unlimited, appears limited owing to certain adjuncts, such as jars and other vessels. With regard to this (unreal limitation of the one Self) the distinction of objects of activity and of agents may be practically assumed, as long as we have not learned — from the passage, 'That art thou' — that the Self is one only. As soon, however, as we grasp the truth that there is only one universal Self, there is an end to the whole practical view of the world with its distinction of bondage, final release, and the like.

7. If it be said that (the passage does) not (refer
to Brahman) on account of the smallness of the
abode (mentioned), and on account of the denotations
of that (i. e. of minuteness) ; we say, no ; because
(Brahman) has thus to be contemplated, and be-
cause the case is analogous to that of ether.

On account of the limitation of its abode, which is men- tioned in the clause, ' He is my Self within the heart,' and on account of the declaration as to its minuteness contained in the direct statement, ' He is smaller than a grain of rice/ &c. ; the embodied soul only, which is of the size of an awl's point, is spoken of in the passage under discussion, and not [34] I

1 1 4 vedanta-s6tras.

the highest Self. This assertion made above (in the purva- paksha of Sutra I, and restated in the purvapaksha of the present Sutra) has to be refuted. We therefore maintain that the objection raised does not invalidate our view of the passage. It is true that a thing occupying a limited space only cannot in any way be spoken of as omnipresent ; but, on the other hand, that which is omnipresent, and therefore in all places may, from a certain point of view, be said to occupy a limited space. Similarly, a prince may be called the ruler of Ayodhya although he is at the same time the ruler of the whole earth. — But from what point of view can the omnipresent Lord be said to occupy a limited space and to be minute? — He may, we reply, be spoken of thus, ' because he is to be contemplated thus.' The passage under discus- sion teaches us to contemplate the Lord as abiding within the lotus of the heart, characterised by minuteness and similar qualities — which apprehension of the Lord is ren- dered possible through a modification of the mind — just as Hari is contemplated in the sacred stone called 5alagram. Although present everywhere, the Lord is pleased when meditated upon as dwelling in the heart. The case is, moreover, to be viewed as analogous to that of the ether. The ether, although all-pervading, is spoken of as limited and minute, if considered in its connexion with the eye of a needle ; so Brahman also. But it is an understood matter that the attributes of limitation of abode and of minuteness depend, in Brahman's case, entirely on special forms of con- templation, and are not real. The latter consideration dis- poses also of the objection, that if Brahman has its abode in the heart, which heart-abode is a different one in each body, it would follow that it is affected by all the imper- fections which attach to beings having different abodes, such as parrots shut up in different cages, viz. want of unity, being made up of parts, non-permanency, and so on.

8. If it is said that (from the circumstance of
Brahman and the individual soul being one) there
follows fruition (on the part of Brahman) ; we say,
no ; on account of the difference of nature (of the two).

I Adhyaya, 2 Pada, 8. Ii5

But, it may be said, as Brahman is omnipresent like ether, and therefore connected with the hearts of all living beings, and as it is of the nature of intelligence and therefore not dif- ferent from the individual soul, it follows that Brahman also has the same fruition of pleasure, pain, and so on (as the indi- vidual soul). The same result follows from its unity. For in reality there exists no transmigratory Self different from the highest Self; as appears from the text, 'There is no other knower but he' (Br/. Up. Ill, 7, 23), and similar pas- sages. Hence the highest Self is subject to the fruition connected with transmigratory existence.

This is not so, we reply ; because there is a difference of nature. From the circumstance that Brahman is connected with the hearts of all living beings it does not follow that it is, like the embodied Self, subject to fruition. For, between the embodied Self and the highest Self, there is the dif- ference that the former acts and enjoys, acquires merit and demerit, and is affected by pleasure, pain, and so on ; while the latter is of the opposite nature, i.e. characterised by being free from all evil and the like. On account of this difference of the two, the fruition of the one does not extend to the other. To assume merely on the ground of the mutual proximity of the two, without considering their essentially different powers, that a connexion with effects exists (in Brahman's case also), would be no better than to suppose that space is on fire (when something in space is on fire). The same objection and refutation apply to the case of those also who teach the existence of more than one omni- present Self. In reply to the assertion, that because Brahman is one and there are no other Selfs outside it, Brahman must be subject to fruition since the individual soul is so, we ask the question: How have you, our wise opponent, ascertained that there is no other Self? You will reply, we suppose, from scriptural texts such as, ' That art thou,' { I am Brahman/ ' There is no other knower but he,' and so on. Very well, then, it appears that the truth about scriptural matters is to be ascertained from Scripture, and that Scripture is not sometimes to be appealed to, and on other occasions to be disregarded.

1 1 6 VEDANTA-S#TRAS.

Scriptural texts, such as fthat art thou/ teach that Brahman which is free from all evil is the Self of the embodied soul, and thus dispel even the opinion that the em- bodied soul is subject to fruition ; how then should fruition on the part of the embodied soul involve fruition on the part of Brahman ? — Let, then, the unity of the individual soul and Brahman not be apprehended on the ground of Scripture.— In that case, we reply, the fruition on the part of the individual soul has wrong knowledge for its cause, and Brahman as it truly exists is not touched thereby, not any more than the ether becomes really dark-blue in con- sequence of ignorant people presuming it to be so. For this reason the Sutrakara says1 'no, on account of the difference.' In spite of their unity, fruition on the part of the soul does not involve fruition on the part of Brahman ; because there is a difference. For there is a difference between false knowledge and perfect knowledge, fruition being the figment of false knowledge while the unity (of the Self) is revealed by perfect knowledge. Now, as the substance revealed by perfect knowledge cannot be affected by fruition which is nothing but the figment of false knowledge, it is impossible to assume even a shadow of fruition on Brahman's part.

9. The eater (is the highest Self) since what is
movable and what is immovable is mentioned (as
his food).

We read in the Ka/^avallf (I, 3, 25), ' Who then knows where He is, He to whom the Brahmans and Kshattriyas are but food, and death itself a condiment ? ' This passage intimates, by means of the words ' food ' and ' condiment,' that there is some eater. A doubt then arises whether the eater be Agni or the individual soul or the highest Self; for no distinguishing characteristic is stated, and Agni as well as the individual soul and the highest Self is observed to form, in that Upanished, the subjects of questions2.

1 Another interpretation of the later part of Sutra.

2 Cp. Ka/^a Up. I, 1, 13; 20; I, 2, 14.

I Adhyaya, 2 Pada, Io. I 1 7

The purvapakshin maintains that the eater is Agni, fire being known from Scripture as well (cp. Bri. Up. I, 4, 6) as from ordinary life to be the eater of food. Or else the individual soul may be the eater, according to the passage, ' One of them eats the sweet fruit' (Mu. Up. Ill, 1, 1). On the other hand, the eater cannot be Brahman on account of the passage (which forms the continuation of the one quoted from the Mu. Up.), 'The other looks on without eating.'

The eater, we reply, must be the highest Self ' because there is mentioned what is movable and what is immov- able.' For all things movable and immovable are here to be taken as constituting the food, while death is the condiment. But nothing beside the highest Self can be the consumer of all these things in their totality; the highest Self, however, when reabsorbing the entire aggre- gate of effects may be said to eat everything. If it is objected that here no express mention is made of things movable and things immovable, and that hence we have no right to use the (alleged) mention made of them as a reason, we reply that this objection is unfounded; firstly, because the aggregate of all living beings is seen to be meant from the circumstance of death being the condiment ; and, secondly, because the Brahmans and Kshattriyas may here, on account of their pre-eminent position, be viewed as instances only (of all beings). Concerning the objection that the highest Self cannot be an eater on account of the passage quoted ('the other looks on without eating'), we remark that that passage aims at denying the fruition (on the part of the highest Self) of the results of works, such fruition being mentioned in immediate proximity, but is not meant to negative the reabsorption of the world of effects (into Brahman) ; for it is well established by all the Vedanta-texts that Brahman is the cause of the creation, subsistence, and reabsorption of the world. There- fore the eater can here be Brahman only.

10. And on account of the topic under discussion. That the highest Self only can be the eater referred to

1 1 8 vedanta-s6tras.

is moreover evident from the passage (Ka. Up. I, 3, 18), (' The knowing Self is not born, it dies not '), which shows that the highest Self is the general topic. And to adhere to the general topic is the proper proceeding. Further, the clause, 'Who then knows where he is/ shows that the cognition is connected with difficulties ; which circumstance again points to the highest Self.

ii. The 'two entered into the cave' (are the in-
dividual soul and the highest Self), for the two are
(intelligent) Selfs (and therefore of the same nature),
as it is seen (that numerals denote beings of the
same nature).

In the same Ka/^avalli we read (I, 3, 1), 'There are the two drinking the reward of their works in the world, (i. e. the body,) entered into the cave, dwelling on the highest summit. Those who know Brahman call them shade and light ; likewise those householders who perform the Tri;z&- kiketa, sacrifice/