Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 38 — The Vedanta-Sutras, Part II (Sankara/Thibaut, page scans)

soul to be) a creator/ &c. The third Sutra states the siddhanta view: 'But the creations of dreams are Maya, i.e. are of a wonderful nature (and as such cannot be effected by the individual soul), since (in this life) the nature (of the soul) is not fully manifested.' Concerning the word * maya,' Ramanu£*a remarks, ' mayd^abdo hy askaryzvaki ^"anaka^ya kule g&Xk devamayeva nirmita ityadishu tatha danyanat' The three remaining Sutras are exhibited in the Sri-bhashya in a different order, the fourth Sutra, according to vSankara, being the sixth according to R&ma- nu^a. Sutras 4 and 5 (according to Ramanii^a's numera- tion) are explained by Ramanu^-a very much in the same way as by vSaiikara ; but owing to the former's statement of the subject-matter of the whole adhikara^a they connect themselves more intimately with the preceding Sutras than is possible on vSankara's interpretation. In Sutra 6 (sukakas ka hi) Ramanu^a sees a deduction from the siddhanta of the adhikara^a, 'Because the images of a dream are pro- duced by the highest Lord himself, therefore they have prophetic significance/

Adhik. II teaches that in the state of deep dreamless sleep the soul abides within Brahman in the heart.

Adhik. Ill (9) expounds the reasons entitling us to
assume that the soul awakening from sleep is the same
that went to sleep. — Adhik. IV (9) explains the nature of
a swoon.

Adhik. V(n-2i) is, according to 6ankara, taken up with the question as to the nature of the highest Brahman in which the individual soul is merged in the state of deep sleep. Sutra 11 declares that twofold characteristics (viz. absence and presence of distinctive attributes, nirvi.reshatva and savLreshatva) cannot belong to the highest Brahman even through its stations, i. e. its limiting adjuncts ; since all passages which aim at setting forth Brahman's nature declare it to be destitute of all distinctive attributes. — The fact, Sutra 12 continues, that in many passages Brahman is spoken of as possessing distinctive attributes is of no relevancy, since wherever there are mentioned limiting ad- juncts, on which all distinction depends, it is specially stated

Ixil VEDANTA-sftTRAS.

that Brahman in itself is free from all diversity ; and — Sutra 13 adds — in some places the assumption of diversity is spe- cially objected to. — That Brahman is devoid of all form (Sutra 14), is the pre-eminent meaning of all Ved&nta-texts setting forth Brahman's nature. — That Brahman is repre- sented as having different forms, as it were, is due to its connexion with its (unreal) limiting adjuncts ; just as the light of the sun appears straight or crooked, as it were, according to the nature of the things he illuminates (15). — The BWhad&ra/zyaka expressly declares that Brahman is one uniform mass of intelligence (16); and the same is taught in other scriptural passages and in Smrz'ti (17). — At the unreality of the apparent manifoldness of the Self, caused by the limiting adjuncts, aim those scriptural passages in which the Self is compared to the sun, which remains one although his reflections on the surface of the water are many (18), — Nor must the objection be raised that that comparison is unsuitable, because the Self is not material like the sun, and there are no real upaldhis separate from it as the water is from the sun ; for the comparison merely means to indicate that, as the reflected image of the sun participates in the changes, increase, decrease, &c, which the water undergoes while the sun himself remains unaffected thereby, so the true Self is not affected by the attributes of the upadhis, while, in so far as it is limited by the latter, it is affected by them as it were (19, 20). — That the Self is within the upadhis, Scripture declares (21).

From the above explanation of this important adhikara^a the one given in the vSri-bhashya differs totally. According to Ram&nu^a the adhikara/za raises the question whether the imperfections clinging to the individual soul (the dis- cussion of which has now come to an end) affect also the highest Lord who, according to Scripture, abides within the soul as antaryamin. ' Notwithstanding the abode (of the highest Self within the soul) (it is) not (affected by the soul's imperfections) because everywhere (the highest Self is repre- sented) as having twofold characteristics (viz. being, on one hand, free from all evil, apahatapapman, vi^ara, vimrztyu, &c, and, on the other hand, endowed with all auspicious

INTRODUCTION. Ixiii

qualities, satyakdma, satyasa^kalpa, &c.) (n). — Should it be objected that, just as the soul although essentially free from evil — according to the Pra^&pativdkya in the Kkkn- dogya — yet is liable to imperfections owing to its connexion with a variety of bodies, so the antaryamin also is affected by abiding within bodies ; we deny this because in every section of the chapter referring to the antary&min (in the IWhad&ra^yaka) he is expressly called the Immortal, the ruler within ; which shows him to be free from the short- comings of the g\va. (12). — Some, moreover, expressly assert that, although the Lord and the soul are within one body, the soul only is imperfect, not the Lord (dv& suparaa sayu^a sakh&y&) (13). — Should it be said that, according to the -O&ndogya, Brahman entered together with the souls into the elements previously to the evolution of names and forms, and hence participates in the latter, thus becoming implicated in the sa;/zsara ; we reply that Brahman, although connected with such and such forms, is in itself devoid of form, since it is the principal element (agent ; pradhana) in the bringing about of names and forms (according to ' aka.ro ha vai namarupayor nirvahita') (14). — But does not the pas- sage ( satya^ ^anam anantam brahma ' teach that Brah- man is nothing but light (intelligence) without any difference, and does not the passage ' neti neti' deny of it all qualities ? — As in order, we reply, not to deprive passages as the one quoted from the Taittiriya of their purport, we admit that Brahman's nature is light, so we must also admit that Brahman is satyasa^kalpa, and so on ; for if not, the pas- sages in which those qualities are asserted would become purportless (15). — Moreover the Taittiriya passage only asserts so much, viz. the praka^arupata of Brahman, and does not deny other qualities (16). — And the passage 'neti neti' will be discussed later on. — The ubhayalihgatva of Brahman in the sense assigned above is asserted in many places of Sruti and Smr/ti (17). — Because Brahman although abiding in many places is not touched by their imperfec- tions, the similes of the reflected sun, of the ether limited by jars, &c, are applicable to it (18). — Should it be said that the illustration is not an appropriate one, because the

IxiV VEDANTA-stjTRAS.

sun is apprehended in the water erroneously only while the antaryamin really abides within all things, and therefore must be viewed as sharing their defects (19); we reply that what the simile means to negative is merely that Brahman should, owing to its inherence in many places, participate in the increase, decrease, and so on, of its abodes. On this view both similes are appropriate (20). — Analogous similes we observe to be employed in ordinary life, as when we compare a man to a lion (21).

Sutras 22-30 constitute, according to vSankara, a new adhikara^a (VI), whose object it is to show that the clause * not so, not so' (neti neti ; Brzhadar.) negatives, not Brah- man itself, but only the two forms of Brahman described in the preceding part of the chapter. Sutras 23-26 further dwell on Brahman being in reality devoid of all distinctive attributes which are altogether due to the upadhis. The last four Sutras return to the question how, Brahman being one only, the souls are in so many places spoken of as different from it, and, two explanatory hypotheses having been rejected, the conclusion is arrived at that all difference is unreal, due to fictitious limiting adjuncts.

According to Ramanu^a, Sutras 22 ff. continue the dis- cussion started in Sutra 11. How, the question is asked, can the ubhayalingatva of Brahman be maintained considering that the ' not so, not so ' of the Brzhadara^yaka denies of Brahman all the previously mentioned modes (prakara), $0 that it can only be called that which is (sanmatra) ? — The reply given in Sutra 22 is that ' not so, not so ' does not deny of Brahman the distinctive qualities or modes declared previously (for it would be senseless at first to teach them, and finally to deny them again1), but merely denies the prakrztaitavattva, the previously stated limited nature of Brahman, i.e. it denies that Brahman possesses only the previously mentioned qualifications. With this agrees, that subsequently to ' neti neti ' Scripture itself enunciates further qualifications of Brahman. — That Brahman as stated

1 All the mentioned modes of Brahman are known from Scripture only, not from ordinary experience. If the latter were the case, then, and then only, Scripture might at first refer to them ' anuvadena,' and finally negative them.

INTRODUCTION. IxV

above is not the object of any other means of proof but Scrip- ture is confirmed in Sutra 23, ' Scripture declares Brahman to be the non-manifest/ — And the intuition (s&kshatkara) of Brahman ensues only upon its sa^radhana, i.e. upon its being perfectly pleased by the worshipper's devotion, as Scripture and Smrzti declare (24). — That this interpretation of 'neti ' is the right one, is likewise shown by the fact that in the same way as prakcUa, luminousness, ^-/zana, intelligence, &c, so also the quality of being differentiated by the world (prapa^avuish/ata) is intuited as non-different, i. e. as like- wise qualifying Brahman ; and that praka^a, and so on, characterise Brahman, is known through repeated practice (on the part of rtshis like Vamadeva) in the work of sawridhana mentioned before (25). — For all these reasons Brahman is connected with the infinite, i.e. the infinite number of auspicious qualities ; for thus the twofold indica- tions (linga) met with in Scripture are fully justified (26). — In what relation, then, does the akid vastu, i.e. the non- sentient matter, which, according to the Brzhadara^yaka, is one of the forms of Brahman, stand to the latter ? — Non- sentient beings might, in the first place, be viewed as special arrangements (sa/^sthanavij-esha^) of Brahman, as the coils are of the body of the snake ; for Brahman is designated as both, i. e. sometimes as one with the world (Brahman is all this, &c), sometimes as different from it (Let me enter into those elements, &c.) (27). — Or, in the second place, the relation of the two might be viewed as analogous to that of light and the luminous object which are two and yet one, both being fire (28). — Or, in the third place, the relation is like that stated before, i.e. the material world is, like the individual souls (whose case was discussed in II, 3, 43), a part — a;/^a — of Brahman (29, 30).

Adhik. VII (31-37) explains how some metaphorical
expressions, seemingly implying that there is something
different from Brahman, have to be truly understood.

Adhik. VIII (38-41) teaches that the reward of works is not, as £aimini opines, the independent result of the works acting through the so-called apurva, but is allotted by the Lord.

lxvi vedanta-s6tras.