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

The source of all beings is the highest Lord, not either of the two others, viz. the pradhana and the individual soul, on account of the following reason also. In the first place, the text distinguishes the source of all beings from the embodied soul, as something of a different nature ; compare the passage (II, 1, 2), 'That heavenly person is without body, he is both without and within, not produced, with- out breath and without mind, pure.' The distinctive attri- butes mentioned here, such as being of a heavenly nature, and so on, can in no way belong to the individual soul,

I40 VEDANTA-StjTRAS.

which erroneously considers itself to be limited by name and form as presented by Nescience, and erroneously imputes their attributes to itself. Therefore the passage manifestly refers to the Person which is the subject of all the Upanishads. — In the second place, the source of all beings which forms the general topic is represented in the text as something different from the pradhana, viz. in the passage, ' Higher than the high Imperishable.' Here the term fc Imperishable ? means that undeveloped entity which represents the seminal potentiality of names and forms, contains the fine parts of the material elements, abides in the Lord, forms his limiting adjunct, and being itself no effect is high in com- parison to all effects ; the whole phrase, ' Higher than the high Imperishable,' which expresses a difference then clearly shows that the highest Self is meant here. — We do not on that account assume an independent entity called pradhana and say that the source of all beings is stated separately therefrom ; but if a pradhana is to be assumed at all (in agreement with the common opinion) and if being assumed it is assumed of such a nature as not to be opposed to the statements of Scripture, viz. as the subtle cause of all beings denoted by the terms 'the Undeveloped' and so on, we have no objection to such an assumption, and declare that, on account of the separate statement therefrom, i. e. from that pradhana, * the source of all beings ' must mean the highest Lord. — A further argument in favour of the same conclusion is supplied by the next Sutra.

23. And on account of its form being mentioned.

Subsequently to the passage, ' Higher than the high Imperishable/ we meet (in the passage, ' From him is born breath,' &c.) with a description of the creation of all things, from breath down to earth, and then with a statement of the form of this same source of beings as consisting of all created beings, ' Fire is his head, his eyes the sun and the moon, the quarters his ears, his speech the Vedas dis- closed, the wind his breath, his heart the universe ; from his feet came the earth ; he is indeed the inner Self of all things.' This statement of form can refer only to the

I Adhyaya, 2 Pad a, 23. 141

highest Lord, and not either to the embodied soul, which, on account of its small power, cannot be the cause of all effects, or to the pradhana, which cannot be the inner Self of all beings. We therefore conclude that the source of all beings is the highest Lord, not either of the other two. — But wherefrom do you conclude that the quoted declara- tion of form refers to the source of all beings ? — From the general topic, we reply. The word 'he ' (in the clause, * He is indeed the inner Self of all things ') connects the passage with the general topic. As the source of all beings consti- tutes the general topic, the whole passage, from ' From him is born breath,5 up to, ' He is the inner Self of all beings,' refers to that same source. Similarly, when in ordinary conversation a certain teacher forms the general topic of the talk, the phrase, ' Study under him ; he knows the Veda and the Vedclngas thoroughly,' as a matter of course, refers to that same teacher. — But how can a bodily form be ascribed to the source of all beings which is characterised by invisi- bility and similar attributes? — The statement as to its nature, we reply, is made for the purpose of showing that the source of all beings is the Self of all beings, not of showing that it is of a bodily nature. The case is analogous to such passages as, ' I am food, I am food, I am the eater of food ' (Taitt. Up. Ill, io, 6). — Others, however, are of opinion l that the statement quoted does not refer to the source of all beings, because that to which it refers is spoken of as something produced. For, on the one hand, the immediately pre- ceding passage (' From him is born health, mind, and all organs of sense, ether, air, light, water, and the earth, the support of all ') speaks of the aggregate of beings from air down to earth as something produced, and, on the other

1 Vrz'ttikrz'dvyakhyam dushayati, Go. An. ; ekade^ina^z dushayati, Ananda Giri; tad etat paramatenakshepasamadhanabhyaw vya- khyaya svamatena vya^ash/e, puna^ ,rabdo*pi purvasmad vi^esha;^ dyotayann asyesh/ataw su^ayati, Bhamati. — The statement of the two former commentators must be understood to mean — in agree- ment with the Bhamati — that A^ahkara is now going to refute the preceding explanation by the statement of his own view. Thus Go. An. later on explains ' asmin pakshe ' by c svapakshe/

1 4 2 VEDANTA-SfjTRAS.

hand, a passage met with later on (' From him comes Agni, the sun being his fuel/ up to ' All herbs and juices ') ex- presses itself to the same purpose. How then should all at once, in the midst of these two passages (which refer to the creation), a statement be made about the nature of the source of all beings ? — The attribute of being the Self of all beings (which above was said to be mentioned in the passage about the creation, ' Fire is his head,' &c. is not mentioned there but) is stated only later on in a passage subsequent to that which refers to the creation, viz. ' The Person is all this, sacrifice/ &c. (II, i, 10). — Now, we see that jruti as well as smrzti speaks of the birth of Pra^&pati, whose body is this three- fold world; compare Rzg-veda. Sa^h. X, 131, 1, ' Hira^ya- garbha arose in the beginning ; he was the one born Lord of things existing. He established the earth and this sky ; to what God shall we offer our oblation?5 where the expres- sion ' arose ' means ' he was born.5 And in snm'ti we read, ' He is the first embodied one, he is called the Person ; as the primal creator of the beings Brahman was evolved in the beginning.5 This Person which is (not the original Brahman but) an effect (like other created beings) may be called the internal Self of all beings (as it is called in II, 1, 4), because in the form of the Self of breath it abides in the Selfs of all beings. — On this latter explanation (according to which the passage, ' Fire is his head,5 &c, does not describe the nature of the highest Lord, and can therefore not be referred to in the Sutra) the declaration as to the Lord being the ' nature 5 of all which is contained in the passage, ' The Person is all this, sacrifice,' &c, must be taken as the reason for establishing the highest Lord, (i. e. as the passage which, according to the Sutra, proves that the source of all beings is the highest Lord 1.)

1 The question is to what passage the ' rupopanyasat ' of the Sutra refers. — According to the opinion set forth first it refers to Mu. Up. II, 1, 4 ff. — But, according to the second view, II, 1, 4 to II, 1 , 9, cannot refer to the source of all beings, i. e. the highest Self, because that entire passage describes the creation, the inner Self of which is not the highest Self but Pra^apati, i. e. the Hira/zya- garbha or Sutratman of the later Vedanta, who is himself an

I Adhyaya, 2 Pada, 24. 1 43

24. Vaisvanara (is the highest Lord) on account of
the distinction qualifying the common terms (VaLrva-
nara and Self).

(In Kh. Up. V, 11 ff.) a discussion begins with the words, ' What is our Self, what is Brahman?' and is carried on in the passage, ' You know at present that Vauvanara Self, tell us that;' after that it is declared with reference to Heaven, sun, air, ether, water, and earth, that they are con- nected with the qualities of having good light, &c, and, in order to disparage devout meditation on them singly, that they stand to the VaLrvanara in the relation of being his head, &c, merely; and then finally (V, 18) it is said, 'But he who meditates on the Vauvanara Self as measured by a span, as abhivimana \ he eats food in all worlds, in all beings, in all Selfs. Of that VaLrvanara Self the head is Sute^as (having good light), the eye Vuvarupa (multiform), the breath Przthag- vartman (moving in various courses), the trunk Bahula (full), the bladder Rayi (wealth), the feet the earth, the chest the altar, the hairs the grass on the altar, the heart the Garhapatya fire, the mind the Anvaharya fire, the mouth the Ahavaniya fire.' — Here the doubt arises whether by the term 'VaLsva- nara' we have to understand the gastric fire, or the elemental fire, or the divinity presiding over the latter, or the embodied soul, or the highest Lord. — But what, it may be asked, gives rise to this doubt ? — The circumstance, we reply, of ' VaLrva- nara ' being employed as a common term for the gastric fire, the elemental fire, and the divinity of the latter, while 'Self is a term applying to the embodied soul as well as to the highest Lord. Hence the doubt arises which meaning of the term is to be accepted and which to be set aside.

Which, then, is the alternative to be embraced? — Vai-
jvanara, the purvapakshin maintains, is the gastric fire,
because we meet, in some passages, with the term used in

' effect,' and who is called the inner Self, because he is the breath of life (pra/za) in everything. — Hence the Sutra must be connected with another passage, and that passage is found in II, 1, 10, where it is said that the Person (i. e. the highest Self) is all this, &c. 1 About which term see later on.

1 44 VEDANtA-S^TR AS.

that special sense; so, for instance (Br/. Up. V, 9), 'Agni VaLrvanara is the fire within man by which the food that is eaten is cooked.5 — Or else the term may denote fire in general, as we see it used in that sense also ; so, for instance {Rig- veda Sa/7zh. X, 88, 12), ' For the whole world the gods have made the Agni Vauvanara a sign of the days.5 Or, in the third place, the word may denote that divinity whose body is. fire. For passages in which the term has that sense are likewise met with ; compare, for instance, 7^/g-veda Sa^h. I, 98, i, ' May we be in the favour of Vauvanara ; for he is the king of the beings, giving pleasure, of ready grace ; ' this and similar passages properly applying to a divinity endowed with power and similar qualities. Perhaps it will be urged against the preceding explanations, that, as the word Vairvanara is used in co-ordination with the term ' Self,5 and as the term ' Self alone is used in the intro- ductory passage (' What is our Self, what is Brahman?5), Vauvanara has to be understood in a modified sense, so as to be in harmony with the term Self. Well, then, the purvapakshin rejoins, let us suppose that Vauvanara is the embodied Self which, as being an enjoyer, is in close vicinity to the Vairvanara fire,1 (i. e. the fire within the body,) and with which the qualification expressed by the term, c Measured by a span,5 well agrees, since it is restricted by its limiting condition (viz. the body and so on).— In any case it is evident that the term Vauvanara does not denote the highest Lord.