To this we make the following reply. — The word VaLsva- nara denotes the highest Self, on account of the distinction qualifying the two general terms. — Although the term ' Self/ as well as the term ' VaLrvanara,5 has various meanings— the latter term denoting three beings while the former denotes two — yet we observe a distinction from which we conclude that both terms can here denote the highest Lord only ; viz. in the passage, ' Of that VaLsvanara Self the head is Sute^-as,5 &c. For it is clear that that passage refers to the highest Lord in so far as he is distinguished by having heaven, and so on, for his head and limbs, and in so far as
1 Sarire laksha;zajra vauvanara^abdopapattim aha tasyeti. An. Gi.
I Adhyaya, 2 Pada, 25. 1 45
he has entered into a different state (viz. into the state of being the Self of the threefold world) ; represents him, in fact, for the purpose of meditation, as the internal Self of everything. As such the absolute Self may be represented, because it is the cause of everything; for as the cause virtually contains all the states belonging to its effects, the heavenly world, and so on, may be spoken of as the members of the highest Self. — Moreover, the result which Scripture declares to abide in all worlds— viz. in the passage, ' He eats food in all worlds, in all beings, in all Selfs' — is possible only if we take the term Vafcvanara to denote the highest Self. — The same remark applies to the declaration that all the sins are burned of him who has that knowledge, ' Thus all his sins are burned/ &c. (Kk. Up. V, 24, 3).— Moreover, we meet at the beginning of the chapter with the words ' Self and ' Brahman ; ' viz. in the passage, ' What is our Self, what is Brahman ? ' Now these are marks of Brahman, and indicate the highest Lord only. Hence he only can be meant by the term Vauvanara.
25. (And) because that which is stated by Smrzti
(i. e. the shape of the highest Lord as described by
Smrzti) is an inference (i. e. an indicatory mark from
which we infer the meaning of .Sruti).
The highest Lord only is Vairvanara, for that reason also that Smrzti ascribes to the highest Lord only a shape con- sisting of the threefold world, the fire constituting his mouth, the heavenly world his head, &c. So, for instance, in the following passage, 'He whose mouth is fire, whose head the heavenly world, whose navel the ether, whose feet the earth, whose eye the sun, whose ears the regions, reverence to him the Self of the world.' The shape described here in Smrzti allows us to infer a vSruti passage on which the Smrzti rests, and thus constitutes an inference, i. e. a sign indicatory of the word ' VaLsvanara ' denoting the highest Lord. For, although the quoted Smrzti passage contains a glorification \
1 And as such might be said not to require a basis for its statements.
I46 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
still even a glorification in the form in which it there appears is not possible, unless it has a Vedic passage to rest on. — Other Smriti passages also may be quoted in connexion with this Sutra, so, for instance, the following one, 'He whose head the wise declare to be the heavenly world, whose navel the ether, whose eyes sun and moon, whose ears the regions, and whose feet the earth, he is the inscrutable leader of all beings.'
26. If it be maintained that (Vaisvanara is) not (the
highest Lord) on account of the term (viz. Vai^vi-
nara, having a settled different meaning), &c, and
on account of his abiding within (which is a charac-
teristic of the gastric fire) ; (we say) no, on account
of the perception (of the highest Lord), being taught
thus (viz. in the gastric fire), and on account of the
impossibility (of the heavenly world, &c. being the
head, &c. of the gastric fire), and because they (the
Va^asaneyins) read of him (viz. the Vai^vanara) as
man (which term cannot apply to the gastric fire).
Here the following objection is raised. — VaLsvanara can- not be the highest Lord, on account of the term, &c, and on account of the abiding within. The term, viz. the term Vatrvanara, cannot be applied to the highest Lord, because the settled use of language assigns to it a different sense. Thus, also, with regard to the term Agni (fire) in the pas- sage (.Sat. Bra. X, 6, 1, 11), 'He is the Agni VaLsvanara.' The word ' &c/ (in the Sutra) hints at the fiction concerning the three sacred fires, the garhapatya being represented as the heart, and so on, of the VaLsvanara Self (Kh. Up. V, 18, 2 1). — Moreover, the passage, 'Therefore the first food which a man may take is in the place of homa ' (Kh. Up. V, 19, 1), contains a glorification of (VaLrvanara) being the abode of the oblation to Pra^a 2. For these reasons we have to under-
1 Na k& garhapatyadihrz'dayadita brahma/za^ sambhavini. Bh£- matt.
2 Na ka. pra^ahutyadhikarawata * nyatra ^a/^aragner yugyate. Bhamatf.
stand by VaLrvanara the gastric fire. — Moreover, Scripture speaks of the Vauvanara as abiding within, ' He knows him abiding within man ; ' which again applies to the gastric fire only. — With reference to the averment that on account of the specifications contained in the passage, 'His head is Sute^as,' &c, VaLsvanara is to be explained as the highest Self, we (the purvapakshin) ask : How do you reach the decision that those specifications, although agreeing with both inter- pretations, must be assumed to refer to the highest Lord only, and not to the gastric fire ? — Or else we may assume that the passage speaks of the elemental fire which abides within and without; for that that fire is also connected with the heavenly world, and so on, we understand from the mantra, ' He who with his light has extended himself over earth and heaven, the two halves of the world, and the atmo- sphere' (^^g-veda Sa^h. X, 88, 3). — Or else the attribute of having the heavenly world, and so on, for its members may, on account of its power, be attributed to that divinity which has the elemental fire for its body. — Therefore Vaiyvanara is not the highest Lord.
To all this we reply as follows. — Your assertions are unfounded, « because there is taught the perception in this manner.5 The reasons (adduced in the former part of the Sutra), viz. the term, and so on, are not sufficient to make us abandon the interpretation according to which VaLrvanara is the highest Lord. — Why? — On account of perception being taught in this manner, i. e. without the gastric fire being set aside. For the passages quoted teach the perception of the highest Lord i n the gastric fire, analogously to such pas- sages as ' Let a man meditate on the mind as Brahman ' (Kh. Up. Ill, 1 8, i).— Or else they teach that the object of perception is the highest Lord, in so far as he has the gastric fire called VaLrvanara for his limiting condition; ana- logously to such passages as ' He who consists of mind, whose body is breath, whose form is light' (Kk. Up. Ill, 14, % 1). If it were the aim of the passages about the Vau-
1 According to the former explanation the gastric fire is to be looked on as the outward manifestation (pratika) of the highest Lord ; according to the latter as his limiting condition.
1 48 VEDANTA-sftTR AS.
vanara to make statements not concerning the highest Lord, but merely concerning the gastric fire, there would be no possibility of specifications such as contained in the passage ' His head is Sute^-as/ &c. That also on the assumption of Vauvanara being either the divinity of fire or the elemental fire no room is to be found for the said specifications, we shall show under the following Sutra. — Moreover, if the mere gastric fire were meant, there would be room only for a declaration that it abides within man, not that it i s man. But, as a matter of fact, the Va^asaneyins speak of him — in their sacred text — as man, ' This Agni Vauvanara is man ; he who knows this Agni VaLsvanara as man-like, as abiding within man/ &c. (5at. Bra. X, 6, 1, 1 1). The highest Lord, on the other hand, who is the Self of everything, may be spoken of as well as man, as abiding within man. — Those who, in the latter part of the Sutra, read ' man-like ' (puru- shavidham) instead of ' man ' (purusham), wish to express the following meaning : If Vauvanara were assumed to be the gastric fire only, he might be spoken of as abiding within man indeed, but not as man-like. But the Va^asaneyins do speak of him as man-like, ' He who knows him as man-like, as abiding within man.' — The meaning of the term man-like is to be concluded from the context, whence it will be seen that, with reference to nature, it means that the highest Lord has the heaven for his head, &c, and is based on the earth ; and with reference to man, that he forms the head, &c, and is based on the chin (of the devout worshipper *).
27. For the same reasons (the VaLrvanara) cannot be the divinity (of fire), or the element (of fire).
The averment that the fanciful attribution of members contained in the passage 'His head is Sute^as,' &c. may apply to the elemental fire also which from the mantras is seen to be connected with the heavenly world, &c, or else to the divinity whose body is fire, on account of its power, is refuted by the following remark: For the reasons
1 I. e. that he may be fancifully identified with the head and so on of the devout worshipper.
I Adhyaya, 2 Pada, 28. I49
already stated VaLsvanara is neither the divinity nor the element. For to the elemental fire which is mere heat and light the heavenly world and so on cannot properly be ascribed as head and so on, because an effect cannot be the Self of another effect. — Again, the heavenly world cannot be ascribed as head, &c. to the divinity of fire, in spite of the power of the latter ; for, on the one hand, it is not a cause (but a mere effect), and on the other hand its power depends on the highest Lord. Against all these interpretations there lies moreover the objection founded on the inapplicability of the term 'Self.5
28. 6aimini (declares that there is) no contradic-
tion even on the assumption of a direct (worship of
the highest Lord as Vaisvanara).
Above (Sutra 26) it has been said that Vauvanara is the highest Lord, to be meditated upon as having the gastric fire either for his outward manifestation or for his limiting condition; which interpretation was accepted in deference to the circumstance that he is spoken of as abiding within — and so on. — The teacher £aimini however is of opinion that it is not necessary to have recourse to the assumption of an outward manifestation or limiting condition, and that there is no objection to refer the passage about VaLyv&nara to the direct worship of the highest Lord. — But, if you reject the interpretation based on the gastric fire, you place yourself in opposition to the statement that Vauvanara abides within, and to the reasons founded on the term, &c. (Su. 2,6).— To this we reply that we in no way place ourselves in opposition to the statement that Vauvanara abides within. For the passage, ' He knows him as man-like, as abiding within man,' does not by any means refer to the gastric fire, the latter being neither the general topic of discussion nor having been mentioned byname before.— What then does it refer to?— It refers to that which forms the subject of discussion, viz. that similarity to man (of the highest Self) which is fancifully found in the members of man from the upper part of the head down to the chin ; the text therefore says, ' He knows him as man-like,
1 50 vedAnta-s6 tr as.