1 From passages of which nature we may infer that in the passage under discussion also the ' abode ' is Brahman.
2 From which circumstance we may conclude that the passage under discussion also refers to Brahman.
I 5 6 VEDANTA-S^JTRAS.
' From death to death goes he who sees any difference here' (Ka. Up. II, 4, 11). The statement of co-ordination made in the clause ' All is Brahman' aims at dissolving (the wrong conception of the reality of) the world, and not in any way at intimating that Brahman is multiform in nature 1 ; for the uniformity (of Brahman's nature) is expressly stated in other passages such as the following one, ' As a mass of salt has neither inside nor outside, but is altogether a mass of taste, thus indeed has that Self neither inside nor outside, but is altogether a mass of knowledge' (Bri. Up. IV, $, 13). — For all these reasons the abode of heaven, earth, &c. is the highest Brahman. — Against the objection that on account of the text speaking of a ' bridge,' and a bridge requiring a further bank, we have to understand by the abode of heaven and earth something different from Brahman, we remark that the word 'bridge' is meant to intimate only that that which is called a bridge supports, not that it has a further bank. We need not assume by any means that the bridge meant is like an ordinary bridge made of clay and wood. For as the word setu (bridge) is derived from the root si, which means 'to bind,' the idea of holding together, supporting is rather implied in it than the idea of being connected with something beyond (a further bank).
According to the opinion of another (commentator) the word ' bridge ' does not glorify the abode of heaven, earth, &c, but rather the knowledge of the Self which is glorified in the preceding clause, ' Know him alone as the Self,' and the abandonment of speech advised in the clause, ' leave off other words;' to them, as being the means of obtaining immortality, the expression 'the bridge of the immortal' applies2. On that account we have to set aside the assertion that, on account of the word ' bridge,' something different from Brahman is to be understood by the abode of heaven, earth, and so on.
1 Yat sarvam avidyaropitazrc tat sarvaw paramarthato brahma na tu yad brahma tat sarvam ity artha^. Bhamatf.
2 So that the passage would have to be translated, l That, viz. knowledge, &c. is the bridge of the Immortal.'
I Adhyaya, 3 Pad a, 2. 1 57
2. And on account of its being designated as that to which the Released have to resort.
By the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, we have to understand the highest Brahman for that reason also that we find it denoted as that to which the Released have to resort. — The conception that the body and other things contained in the sphere of the Not-self are our Self, constitutes Nescience; from it there spring desires with regard to whatever promotes the well-being of the body and so on, and aversions with regard to whatever fends to injure it ; there further arise fear and confusion when we observe anything threatening to destroy it. All this con- stitutes an endless series of the most manifold evils with which we all are acquainted. Regarding those on the other hand who have freed themselves from the stains of Nescience desire aversion and so on, it is said that they have to resort to that, viz. the abode of heaven, earth, &c. which forms the topic of discussion. For the text, after having said, ' The fetter of the heart is broken, all doubts are solved, all his works perish when He has been beheld who is the higher and the lower ' (Mu. Up. II, a, 8), later on remarks, ' The wise man freed from name and form goes to the divine Person who is greater than the great' (Mu. Up. Ill, 2, 8). That Brahman is that which is to be resorted to by the released, is known from other scriptural passages, such as ' When all desires which once entered his heart are undone then does the mortal become immortal, then he obtains Brahman' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 7). Of the pradhana and similar entities, on the other hand, it is not known from any source that they are to be resorted to by the released. Moreover, the text (in the passage, ' Know him alone as the Self and leave off other words ') declares that the knowledge of the abode of heaven and earth, &c. is connected with the leaving off of all speech ; a condition which, according to another scrip- tural passage, attaches to (the knowledge of) Brahman ; cp. Bri. Up. IV, 4, 2i9 ' Let a wise Br&hma«a, after he has dis- covered him, practise wisdom. Let him not seek after many words, for that is mere weariness of the tongue/ — For that
I 58 VEDANTA-Stf TRAS.
reason also the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, is the highest Brahman.
3. Not (i. e. the abode of heaven, earth, &c. can-
not be) that which is inferred, (i. e. the pradhana), on
account of the terms not denoting it.
While there has been shown a special reason in favour of Brahman (being the abode), there is no such special reason in favour of anything else. Hence he (the sutrak&ra) says that that which is inferred, i.e. the pradhana assumed by the Sclnkhya-smrz'ti, is not to be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c. — Why? — On account of the terms not denoting it. For the sacred text does not contain any term intimating the non-intelligent pradhana, on the ground of which we might understand the latter to be the general cause or abode ; while such terms as l he who perceives all and knows all' (Mu. Up. 1, 1, 9) intimate an intelligent being opposed to the pradhana in nature. — For the same reason the air also cannot be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, and so on.
4. (Nor) also the individual soul (pra^abhrzt).
Although to the cognitional (individual) Self the qualities of Selfhood and intelligence do belong, still omniscience and similar qualities do not belong to it as its knowledge is limited by its adjuncts ; thus the individual soul also cannot be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c, for the same reason, i.e. on account of the terms not denoting it. — Moreover, the attribute of forming the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, cannot properly be given to the individual soul because the latter is limited by certain adjuncts and therefore non-pervading (not omnipresent)1. — The special enunciation (of the individual soul) is caused by what follows2. — The individual soul is not to be
1 Bhogyasya bhoktrz'seshatvat tasyayatanatvam uktam a^ankyaha na >£eti, ^ivasyadrzsh/advara dyubhvadinimittatve*pi na sakshat tadayatanatvam aupadhikatvenavibhutvad ity artha^. Ananda Giri.
2 It would not have been requisite to introduce a special Sutra
I Adhyaya, 3 Pada, 7. J 59
accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c. for the follow- ing reason also.
5. On account of the declaration of difference.
The passage 'Know him alone as the Self moreover implies a declaration of difference, viz. of the difference of the object of knowledge and the knower. Here the indi- vidual soul as being that which is desirous of release is the knower, and consequently Brahman, which is denoted by the word ' self and represented as the object of knowledge, is understood to be the abode of heaven, earth, and so on. — For the following reason also the individual soul cannot be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c.
6. On account of the subject-matter.
The highest Self constitutes the subject-matter (of the entire chapter), as we see from the passage, ' Sir, what is that through which, when it is known, everything else becomes known ? ' (Mu. Up. 1, 1, 3), in which the knowledge of everything is declared to be dependent on the knowledge of one thing. For all this (i. e. the entire world) becomes known if Brahman the Self of all is known, not if only the individual soul is known. — Another reason against the individual soul follows.
7. And on account of the two conditions of stand-
ing and eating (of which the former is characteristic
of the highest Lord, the latter of the individual soul).
With reference to that which is the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, the text says, 'Two birds, inseparable friends,' &c. (Mu. Up. Ill, 1, 1). This passage describes the two states of mere standing, i. e. mere presence, and of eating, the clause, 'One of them eats the sweet fruit,5 refer- ring to the eating, i.e. the fruition of the results of works,
for the individual soul — which, like the air, is already excluded by the preceding Sutra — if it were not for the new argument brought forward in the following Sutra which applies to the individual soul only.
l60 VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
and the clause, ' The other one looks on without eating/ describing the condition of mere inactive presence. The two states described, viz. of mere presence on the one hand and of enjoyment on the other hand, show that the Lord and the individual soul are referred to. Now there is room for this statement which represents the Lord as separate from the individual soul, only if the passage about the abode of heaven and earth likewise refers to the Lord ; for in that case only there exists a continuity of topic. On any other supposition the second passage would contain a statement about something not connected with the general topic, and would therefore be entirely uncalled for. — But, it may be objected, on your interpretation also the second passage makes an uncalled-for statement, viz. in so far as it represents the individual soul as separate from the Lord. — Not so, we reply. It is nowhere the purpose of Scripture to make statements regarding the individual soul. From ordinary experience the individual soul, which in the different individual bodies is joined to the internal organs and other limiting adjuncts, is known to every one as agent and enjoyer, and we therefore must not assume that it is that which Scripture aims at setting forth. The Lord, on the other hand, about whom ordinary experience tells us nothing, is to be considered as the special topic of all scriptural passages, and we therefore cannot assume that any passage should refer to him merely casually \ —
1 If the individual soul were meant by the abode of heaven, earth, &c, the statement regarding Irvara made in the passage about the two birds would be altogether abrupt, and on that ground objectionable. The same difficulty does not present itself with regard to the abrupt mention of the individual soul which is well known to everybody, and to which therefore casual allusions may be made. — I subjoin Ananda Giri's commentary on the entire pas- sage: (rivasyopadhyaikyenavivakshitatvat tad^ane^pi sarva^ana- siddhes tasyayatanatvadyabhave hetvantaraw va/fcyam ity a^ahkya sutreraa pariharati kuta^etyadina. Tad vya/£ash/e dyubhvaditi. Nirde^am eva darcayati tayor iti. Vibhaktyartham aha tabhyazrc £eti. Sthitye.fvarasyadanag' £tvasa#zgrahe*pi katham fovarasyaiva virva- yatanatva#z tadaha yaditi. Lrvarasyayanatvenaprakr/tatve ^ivapr/-