To this we reply that the 6udras have no such claim, on account of their not studying the Veda. A person who has studied the Veda and understood its sense is indeed qualified for Vedic matters ; but a Sudra does not study the Veda, for such study demands as its antecedent the upanayana-ceremony, and that ceremony belongs to the three (higher) castes only. The mere circumstance of being in a condition of desire does not furnish a reason for qualification, if capability is absent. Mere temporal capability again does not constitute a reason for qualification, spiritual capability being required in spiritual matters. And spiritual capability is (in the case of the vSudras) excluded by their being excluded from the study of the Veda. — The Vedic statement, moreover, that the vSudra is unfit for sacrifices intimates, because
1 The commentaries explain ' therefore ' by l on account of his being devoid of the three sacred fires/ This explanation does not, however, agree with the context of the Taitt. Sawh.
I Adhyaya, 3 Pada, 34. 225
1 The £udra not having acquired a knowledge of Vedic matters in the legitimate way, i. e. through the study of the Veda under the guidance of a guru, is unfit for sacrifices as well as for vidya\
2 The lihga contained in the word 'Sudra' has no proving power as it occurs in an arthavada-passage which has no authority if not connected with a corresponding injunctive passage. In our case the linga in the arthavada-passage is even directly contradicted by those injunctions which militate against the £udras' qualification for Vedic matters.
226 VED ANTA-S^TR AS.
him,' or as c he in his grief rushed to Raikva ; ' while on the other hand it is impossible to accept the word in its ordinary conventional sense. The circumstance (of the king actually being grieved) is moreover expressly touched upon in the legend *.
35. And because the kshattriyahood (of G&namiti)
is understood from the inferential mark (supplied by
his being mentioned) later on with ATaitraratha (who
was a kshattriya himself).
Ganamiti cannot have been a Sudra by birth for that reason also that his being a kshattriya is understood from an inferential sign, viz. his being mentioned together (in one chapter) with the kshattriya jftTaitraratha Abhipratarin. For, later on, i. e. in the passage complementary to the sawvarga- vidyd, a kshattriya TTaitrarathi Abhipratarin is glorified, 'Once while Saunaka Kipeya and Abhipratarin Kikshaseni were being waited on at their meal a religious student begged of them ' (Kh. Up. IV, 3, 5). That this Abhipratdrin was a iTaitrarathi (i. e. a descendant of -ftTitraratha) we have to infer from his connexion with a Kapeya. For we know (from 5ruti) about the connexion of iTitraratha himself with the Kapeyas (' the K&peyas made iTitraratha perform that sacrifice;' T&ndya. Br. XX, 12, 5), and as a rule sacrificers of one and the same family employ officiating priests of one and the same family. Moreover, as we understand from Scripture (' from him a iif aitrarathi descended who was a prince2') that he (^Taitraratha) was a prince, we must
1 Ha#zsavaky£d dtmano^nadaraw mitva g&nasmtek sug ut-
pannety etad eva katha/rc gamyate yenasau judra^abdena su£yate
tatraha spmyate £eti. Ananda Giri.
2 I translate this passage as I find it in all MSS. of -Sankara consulted by me (noting, however, that some MSS. read /fcaitrarathi- namaika^). Ananda Giri expressly explains tasmad by /fcitraratMd ity artha^. — The text of the TaWya Br. runs : tasmad ^aitrarathrnam eka^ kshatrapatir gayate, and the commentary explains : tasm&t kdrawad adyapi ^itrava^otpannana^ madhye eka eva ra^d kshatra-
I Adhyaya, 3 Pada, 36. 227
understand him to have been a kshattriya. The fact now of Ganajruti being praised in the same vidyk with the kshattriya Abhipratirin intimates that the former also was a kshattriya. For as a rule equals are mentioned together with equals. That G&najruti was a kshattriya we more- over conclude from his sending his door-keeper and from other similar signs of power (mentioned in the text). — Hence the 5udras are not qualified (for the knowledge of Brahman).
36. On account of the reference to ceremonial
purifications (in the case of the higher castes) and
on account of their absence being declared (in the
case of the .Sudras).
patir baladhipatir bhavati. — Grammar does not authorise the form ^aitraratha used in the Sutra.
1 The king Awapati receives some Brdhma^as as his pupils without insisting on the upanayana. This express statement of the upanayana having been omitted in a certain case shows it to be the general rule.
2 28 VED ANTA-stjTRAS.
37. And on account of (Gautama) proceeding (to
initiate Cabala) on the ascertainment of (his) not
being that (i.e. a 6udra).
The 5udras are not qualified for that reason also that Gautama, having ascertained Cabala not to be a 6udra from his speaking the truth, proceeded to initiate and instruct him. ' None who is not a Brahma^a would thus speak out. Go and fetch fuel, friend, I shall initiate you. You have not swerved from the truth ' [Kh. Up. IV, 4, 5) ; which scriptural passage furnishes an inferential sign (of the vSudras not being capable of initiation).
38. And on account of the prohibition, in Smrz'ti,
of (the 6udras') hearing and studying (the Veda) and
(knowing and performing) (Vedic) matters.
The 5udras are not qualified for that reason also that Snm'ti prohibits their hearing the Veda, their studying the Veda, and their understanding and performing Vedic matters. The prohibition of hearing the Veda is conveyed by the following passages : ' The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with (molten) lead and lac,J and ' For a .Sudra is (like) a cemetery, therefore (the Veda) is not to be read in the vicinity of a .Sudra.' From this latter passage the prohibition of studying the Veda results at once ; for how should he study Scripture in whose vicinity it is not even to be read ? There is, moreover, an express prohibition (of the vSudras studying the Veda). ' His tongue is to be slit if he pronounces it ; his body is to be cut through if he preserves it.' The prohibitions of hearing and studying the Veda already imply the prohibition of the knowledge and performance of Vedic matters ; there are, however, express prohibitions also, such as 'he is not to impart knowledge to the 6udra,' and 'to the twice-born belong study, sacrifice, and the bestowal of gifts.' — From those .Sudras, however, who, like Vidura and 'the religious hunter/ acquire knowledge in consequence of the after effects of former deeds, the fruit of their knowledge cannot be with-
I Adhyaya, 3 Pada, 39. 2 29
held, since knowledge in all cases brings about its fruit. Smrz'ti, moreover, declares that all the four castes are qualified for acquiring the knowledge of the itihasas and pura^as ; compare the passage, ' He is to teach the four castes' (Mahabh.). — It remains, however, a settled point that they do not possess any such qualification with regard to the Veda.
39. (The pr&/za is Brahman), on account of the trembling (predicated of the whole world).
The discussion of qualification for Brahma-knowledge — on which we entered as an opportunity offered — being finished we return to our chief topic, i. e. the enquiry into the purport of the Vedanta-texts. — We read (Ka. Up. II, 6, 3), ' Whatever there is, the whole world when gone forth trembles in the pra^a. It (the pra/za) is a great terror, a raised thunderbolt. Those who know it become immortal V — This passage declares that this whole world trembles, abiding in pra;/a, and that there is raised something very terrible, called a thunderbolt, and that through its knowledge immortality is obtained. But as it is not immediately clear what the pra;*a is, and what that terrible thunderbolt, a discussion arises.
The purvapakshin maintains that, in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the term, pr&na. denotes the air with its five modifications, that the word 'thunderbolt' also is to be taken in its ordinary sense, and that thus the whole passage contains a glorification of air. For, he says, this whole world trembles, abiding within air with its five forms — which is here called pra^a — and the terrible thunderbolts also spring from air (or wind) as their cause. For in the air, people say, when it manifests itself in the form of Par^-anya, lightning, thunder, rain, and thunderbolts manifest themselves. — Through the knowledge of that air immortality
1 As the words stand in the original they might be translated as follows (and are so translated by the purvapakshin), ' Whatever there is, the whole world trembles in the pra^a, there goes forth (from it) a great terror, viz. the raised thunderbolt.'
2 30 vedAnta-sCtras.
also can be obtained ; for another scriptural passage says, 4 Air is everything by itself, and air is all things together. He who knows this conquers death.' — We therefore con- clude that the same air is to be understood in the passage under discussion.
To this we make the following reply. — Brahman only can be meant, on account of what precedes as well as what follows. In the preceding as well as the subsequent part of the chapter Brahman only is spoken of; how then can it be supposed that in the intermediate part all at once the air should be referred to? The immediately preceding passage runs as follows, ' That only is called the Bright, that is called Brahman, that alone is called the Immortal. All worlds are contained in it, and no one goes beyond it.' That the Brahman there spoken of forms the topic of our passage also, we conclude, firstly, from proximity; and, secondly, from the circumstance that in the clause, ' The whole world trembles in pra^a/ we recognise a quality of Brahman, viz. its constituting the abode of the whole world. That the word prd^a can denote the highest Self also, appears from such passages as ' the prd^a of prd^a ' (Br/. Up. IV, 4, 1 8). Being the cause of trembling, moreover, is a quality which properly appertains to the highest Self only, not to mere air. Thus Scripture says, ' No mortal lives by the pra^a and the breath that goes down. We live by another in whom these two repose' (Ka. Up. II, 5, 5). And also in the passage subsequent to the one under discussion, (' From terror of it fire burns, from terror the sun burns, from terror Indra and Vdyu, and Death as the fifth run away,') Brahman, and not the air, must be sup- posed to be spoken of, since the subject of that passage is represented as the cause of fear on the part of the whole world inclusive of the air itself. Thence we again conclude that the passage under discussion also refers to Brahman, firstly, on the ground of proximity ; and, secondly, because we recognise a quality of Brahman, viz. its being the cause of fear, in the words, ' A great terror, a raised thunderbolt.' The word * thunderbolt ' is here used to denote a cause of fear in general. Thus in ordinary life also a man strictly