Sutras 26-29 resume the question already mooted under* Sutra 1 8, viz. in what relation the soul as knowing agent (gna.tr i) stands to knowledge (gna.na). — In order to decide between the conflicting claims of these two interpretations we must enter into some details. — Sankara maintains that Sutras 19-28 state and enforce a purvapaksha view, which is finally refuted in 29. What here strikes us at the outset, is the unusual length to which the defence of a mere prima facie view is carried ; in no other place the Sutras take so much trouble to render plausible what is meant to be re- jected in the end, and an unbiassed reader will certainly feel inclined to think that in 19-28 we have to do, not with the preliminary statement of a view finally to be abandoned, but with an elaborate bond fide attempt to establish and vindicate an essential dogma of the system. Still it is not altogether impossible that the purvapaksha should here be treated at greater length than usual, and the decisive point is therefore whether we can, with 5ankara, look upon Sutra 29 as embodying a refutation of the purvapaksha and thus im- plicitly acknowledging the doctrine that the individual soul is all-pervading. Now I think there can be no doubt that Sankara's interpretation of the Sutra is exceedingly forced. Literally translated (and leaving out the non-essential word * pra^avat ') the Sutra runs as follows : ' But on account of that quality (or "those qualities ; " or else " on account of the quality — or qualities— of that ") being the essence, (there is) that designation (or " the designation of that").' This An- kara maintains to mean, ' Because the qualities of the buddhi are the essence of the soul in the sa;/zsara state, therefore the soul itself is sometimes spoken of as a/2u.' Now, in the first place, nothing in the context warrants the explanation of the first ' tat ' by buddhi. And — which is more important — in the second place, it is more than doubtful whether on Sahkara's own system the qualities of the buddhi — such as pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, &c. — can with any propriety be said to constitute the essence of the soul even in the sawsara state. The essence of the soul in whatever state, according to Sankara's sys- tem, is knowledge or intelligence ; whatever is due to its
lvi VEDANTA-stjTRAS.
association with the buddhi is non-essential or, more strictly, unreal, false.
There are no similar difficulties in the way of R^manu^a's interpretation of the adhikara^a. He agrees with 5ankara in the explanation of Sutras 19-25, with-this difference that he views them as setting forth, not the purvapaksha, but the siddh&nta. Sutras 26-2,8 also are interpreted in a manner not very different from Sankara's, special stress being laid on the distinction made by Scripture between knowledge as a mere quality and the soul as a knowing agent, the sub- stratum of knowledge. This discussion naturally gives rise to the question how it is that Scripture in some places makes use of the term vignana. when meaning the indi- vidual soul. The answer is given in Sutra 29, ' The soul is designated as knowledge because it has that quality for its essence/ i. e. because knowledge is the essential character- istic quality of the soul, therefore the term ' knowledge ' is employed here and there to denote the soul itself. This latter interpretation gives rise to no doubt whatever. It closely follows the wording of the text and does not necessitate any forced supplementation. The 'tu' of the Sutra which, according to ^Sankara, is meant to discard the purvapaksha, serves on Rctmanu^a's view to set aside a previously-raised objection ; an altogether legitimate assumption.
INTRODUCTION. lvil
doctrine that, unless the soul had the buddhi for its limiting adjunct, it would either be permanently cognizing or perma- nently non-cognizing; while, according to R&m&nu^a, the Sutra means that the soul would either be permanently cognizing or permanently non-cognizing, if it were pure knowledge and all-pervading (instead of being gndXri and a^u, as it is in reality). — The three Sutras can be made to fit in with either interpretation, although it must be noted that none of them explicitly refers to the soul's connexion with the buddhi.
Adhik. XIV and XV (33-39 ; 40) refer to the kartn'tva of the ^Iva, i. e. the question whether the soul is an agent. Sutras 33-39 clearly say that it is such. But as, according to vSankara's system, this cannot be the final view, — the soul being essentially non-active, and all action belonging to the world of upadhis, — he looks upon the next following Sutra (40) as constituting an adhikara^a by itself, and teaching that the soul is an agent when connected with the instru- ments of action, buddhi, &c, while it ceases to be so when dissociated from them, 'just as the carpenter acts in both ways/ i. e. just as the carpenter works as long as he wields his instruments, and rests after having laid them aside. — Rclminu^*a, perhaps more naturally, does not separate Sutra 40 from the preceding Sutras, but interprets it as follows : Activity is indeed an essential attribute of the soul ; but therefrom it does not follow that the soul is always actually active, just as the carpenter, even when furnished with the requisite instruments, may either work or not work, just as he pleases.
Adhik. XVI (41, 42) teaches that the soul in its activity is dependent on the Lord who impels it with a view to its former actions.
Adhik. XVII (43-53) treats of the relation of the indivi- dual soul to Brahman. Sutra 43 declares that the individual soul is a part (amsa) of Brahman, and the following Sutras show how that relation does not involve either that Brahman is affected by the imperfections, sufferings, &c. of the souls, or that one soul has to participate in the experiences of other souls. The two commentators of course take entirely
lviii vedAnta-s^tras.
different views of the doctrine that the soul is a part of Brahman. According to Rdmdnu^*a the souls are in reality parts of Brahman1; according to vSankara the ' af/wa ' of the Sutra must be understood to mean ' a^j-a iva,' ' a part as it were ; ' the one universal indivisible Brahman having no real parts, but appearing to be divided owing to its limiting adjuncts. — One Sutra (50) in this adhikara^a calls for special notice. According to Sankara the words 'albMsa eva £a' mean '(the soul is) a mere reflection/ which, as the commentators remark, is a statement of the so-called pratibimbavada; i. e. the doctrine that the so-called individual soul is nothing but the reflection of the Self in the buddhi ; while Sutra 43 had propounded the so-called avaM^edav&da, i. e. the doctrine that the soul is the highest Self in so far as limited by its adjuncts. — According to R&manu^a the £bh&sa of the Sutra has to be taken in the
1 61vasya kaxtritv&m paramapurusMyattam ity uktam. Idaniw kim ayaw gtv&h parasmad atyantabhinna^ uta param eva brahma bhrantam uta brahmaivo- pidhyava^Minnam atha brahmawja iti sazwrayyate jrutivipratipatte^ sa.msaya.a. Nanu tadananyam arambhawarabdMibhya^ adhikaw tu bhedanird&fad ity atraivayam artho nirnfta/i. Satya/rc sa eva ninatvaikatvajrutivipratipattya * kshipya ^ivasya brahmaw.ratvopapadanena vlreshato niraiyate. Yavad dhi ^ivasya brahmawsatvaw na niraitam tava^* ^ivasya brahmano * nanyatvaw brahma^as tasmad adhikatvaw ka. na pratitish^ati. Kim tavat praptam. Atyantaw bhinna iti. Kuta^. Gnkgnau dvav ityadibhedanirde.rat. Gna.gna.yor abhedairutayas tv agnina sizzled itivad viruddharthapratipadanad aupa^arikya^. Brahma/zo * mso ^iva ity api na sadhiya^, ekavastvekadcrava^i hy a.msa.sa,bda.a, ^ivasya brahmaikade-ratve tadgata dosha brahmam bhaveyu^. Na ka, brahma- khaWo gha, ity aw^atvopapatti^ kha^ananarhatvad brahma^a^ pragukta- doshaprasanga^ ka,, tasmad atyantabhinnasya ta.damsa.t\a,m durupapadam. Yadv& bhrantaw brahmaiva ^iva^. Kuta^. Tat tvam asi ayam atma brah- metyadibrahmatmabhavopadejat, nanatmatvavadinyas tu pratyakshadisiddhar- thanuvaditvad ananyathasiddhadvaitopadejaparabhi/^ jrutibhi^ pratyakshadaya^ hi avidyantargata/fc khyapyante. — Athava brahmaivanadyupadhyava/^Minnaw ^iva^. Kuta/fc. Tata eva brahmatmabha.vopade.rat. Na Hyam upadhir bhrantiparikalpita ita vaktum sakyam bandhamokshadivyavasthanupapatter. Ity evaw prapte * bhidhiyate. Brahma^wa iti. Kuta>&. Nana.vyapade.rad anyatha >£aikatvena vyapadcrad ubhayatha hi vyapade^o dwyate. Nanavya- padcras tavat srash/rztvasrz^yatva — niyantrztvaniyamyatva — sarva^/zatva- gnalva. — svadhinatvaparadhmatva — juddhatvaj-uddhatva — kalyaTzagrmakarat- vaviparitatva — patitvareshatvadibhir dwyate. Anyatha Hbhedena vyapa- de.yo.spi tat tvam asi ayam atma brahmetyadibhir drwyate. Api dsbakita- vaditvam apy adhfyate eke, brahma d&ra brahma da^a brahmeme kitava ity atharvamka brahma^o da\rakitavaditvam apy adhiyate, tataj* ka. sarva^ivavya- pitvena abhedo vyapadlryata ity artha^. Evam ubhayavyapade^amukhyatva- siddhaye givo*ya.m brahma^o * msa. ity abhyupagantavya^.
INTRODUCTION. llX
sense of hetvabhasa, a fallacious argument, and the Stitra is explained as being directed against the reasoning of those Vedantins according to whom the soul is Brahman in so far as limited by non-real adjuncts \
Pada IV.
Adhik. I, II, III (1-4 ; 5-6; 7) teach that the pra/zas (by which generic name are denoted the buddhtndriyas, karmen- driyas, and the manas) spring from Brahman ; are eleven in number ; and are of minute size (a;/u).
Adhik. IV, V, VI (8; 9-12; 13) inform us also that the mukhya pra^a, i.e. the vital air, is produced from Brahman; that it is a principle distinct from air in general and from the pra^as discussed above ; and that it is minute (a^u).
Adhik. VII and VIII (14-16; 17-19) teach that the pra/zas are superintended and guided in their activity by special divinities, and that they are independent principles, not mere modifications of the mukhya pra;za.
Adhik. IX (20-2,2) declares that the evolution of names
and forms (the namarupavyakara/za) is the work, not of the
individual soul, but of the Lord.
THIRD ADHYAYA. PAda I.
Adhik. I (1-7) teaches that the soul, when passing out of the body at the time of death, remains invested with the subtle material elements (bhutasukshma) which serve as an abode to the pra;zas attached to the soul.
Adhik. II (8-1 1) shows that, when the souls of those who had enjoyed the reward of their good works in the moon descend to the earth in order to undergo a new embodi- ment, there cleaves to them a remainder (anuraya) of their
1 Nanu bhrantabrahma^ivavade * py avidyak^/topadhibhedad bhogavya- vasthadaya upapadyanta ata aha, abhasa eva ka.. Akha^aikarasapraka\rama- tratvarupasya svanlpatirodhanapurvakopadhibhedopapadanahetur abhasa eva. Praka^aikasvarupasya prakajatirodhanaw praksLranaja eveti prag evopapaditam. AbhasEi eveti va paY^a/6, tatha sati hetava abhasa^.
lx VEDANTA-S<JTRAS.
former deeds which determines the nature of the new embodiment.
Adhik. Ill (12,-2,1) discusses the fate after death of those
whom their good works do not entitle to pass up to the
moon.
Adhik. IV, V, VI (22; 23; 24-27) teach that the subtle bodies of the souls descending from the moon through the ether, air, &c, do not become identical with ether, air, &c, but only like them ; that the entire descent occupies a short time only; and that, when the souls finally enter into plants and so on, they do not participate in the life of the latter, but are merely in external contact with them.
Pada II.
Adhik. I (1-6) treats of the soul in the dreaming state. According to Sankara the three first Statras discuss the question whether the creative activity ascribed to the soul in some scriptural passages produces things as real as those by which the waking soul is surrounded, or not ; Stitra 3 settles the point by declaring that the creations of the dreaming soul are mere ' Mayi,5 since they do not fully manifest the character of real objects. Sutra 4 adds that dreams, although mere Maya, yet have a prophetic quality. Sutras 5 and 6 finally reply to the question why the soul, which after all is a part of the Lord and as such parti- cipates in his excellencies, should not be able to produce in its dreams a real creation, by the remark that the soul's knowledge and power are obscured by its connexion with the gross body.
The considerably diverging interpretation given of this adhikara^a by Ramanu^a has the advantage of more closely connecting the Sutras with each other. According to him the question is not whether the creations of a dream are real or not, but whether they are the work of the indi- vidual soul or of the Lord acting within the soul. Sutras 1 and 2 set forth the purvapaksha. The creations of dreams (are the work of the individual soul) ; for thus Scripture declares : ' And the followers of some .yakhas declare (the