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

The Taittiriya-upanishad (II, 1-5), after having enume- rated the Self consisting of food, the Self consisting of the vital airs, the Self consisting of mind, and the Self consisting of understanding, says, ' Different from this which consists of understanding is the other inner Self which consists of bliss.' Here the doubt arises whether the phrase, * that which con- sists of bliss/ denotes the highest Brahman of which it had been said previously, that ' It is true Being, Knowledge, with- out end/ or something different from Brahman, just as the

1 Ananda Giri on the preceding passage beginning from 'thus here also :' na kevalazra dvaividhyam brahmawa^ jrutismrz'tyor eva siddhazrc kim tu sutrakrz'to*pi matam ity dha, evam iti, .rrutismrz'tyor iva prakrzte*pi jastre dvairupyam brahmawo bhavati ; tatra sopa- dhikabrahmavishayam antastaddharmadhikara/zam udaharati adi- tyeti ; uktanyayazrc tulyade^eshu prasarayati evam iti ; sopadhikopa- dejavan nirupadhikopade^aztf danayati evam ityadina, atma^anaw ninzetavyam iti sambandha^ ; niraayaprasangam aha pareti ; an- namay&dyupadhidv&roktasya katham paravidyavishayatva/# tatraha up&dhiti ; nirwayakramam dha v&kyeti, ukt&rtham adhikara«aw kvd- stity &sankyokta#z yatheti.

I Adhyaya, I Pada, 12, 65

Self consisting of food, &c., is different from it. — The purvapakshin maintains that the Self consisting of bliss is a secondary (not the principal) Self, and something different from Brahman ; as it forms a link in a series of Selfs, beginning with the Self consisting of food, which all are not the principal Self. To the objection that even thus the Self consisting of bliss may be considered as the primary Self, since it is stated to be the innermost of all, he replies that this cannot be admitted, because the Self of bliss is declared to have joy and so on for its limbs, and because it is said to be embodied. If it were identical with the primary Self, joy and the like would not touch it ; but the text expressly says * Joy is its head ;' and about its being em- bodied we read, c Of that former one this one is the em- bodied Self (Taitt. Up. II, 6), i.e. of that former Self of Understanding this Self of bliss is the embodied Self. And of what is embodied, the contact with joy and pain cannot be prevented. Therefore the Self which consists of bliss is nothing but the transmigrating Soul.

To this reasoning we make the following reply : — By the Self consisting of bliss we have to understand the highest Self, Von account of repetition.' For the word ' bliss' is repeatedly applied to the highest Self. So Taitt. Up. II, 7, where, after the clause * That is flavour ' — which refers back to the Self consisting of bliss, and declares it to be of the nature of flavour — we read, 'For only after having perceived flavour can any one perceive delight. Who could breathe, who could breathe forth if that Bliss existed not in the ether (of the heart) ? For he alone causes blessedness ;' and again, II, 8, 'Now this is an examination of Bliss;' ' He reaches that Self consisting of Bliss ; ' and again, II, 9, ' He who knows the Bliss of Brahman fears nothing;' and in addition, ' He understood that Bliss is Brahman ' (III, 6). And in another scriptural passage also (Bri. Up. Ill, 9, 28), ' Knowledge and bliss is Brahman/ we see the word ' bliss ' applied just to Brahman. As, therefore, the word l bliss ' is repeatedly used with reference to Brahman, we conclude that the Self consisting of bliss is Brahman also. The objection that the Self consisting of bliss can only denote [34] F

66 VEDANTA-stjTRAS.

the secondary Self (the Sa^sarin), because it forms a link in a series of secondary Serfs, beginning with the one consisting of food, is of no force, for the reason that the Self consisting of bliss is the innermost of all. The 3astra, wishing to convey information about the primary Self, adapts itself to common notions, in so far as it at first refers to the body consisting of food, which, although not the Self, is by very obtuse people identified with it ; it then proceeds from the body to another Self, which has the same shape with the preceding one, just as the statue possesses the form of the mould into which the molten brass had been poured ; then, again, to another one, always at first representing the Non-Self as the Self, for the purpose of easier comprehension ; and it finally teaches that the innermost Self1, which consists of bliss, is the real Self. Just as when a man, desirous of pointing out the star Arundhati to another man, at first points to several stars which are not Arundhati as being Arundhati, while only the star pointed out in the end is the real Arundhati ; so here also the Self consisting of bliss is the real Self on account of its being the innermost (i. e. the last). Nor can any weight be allowed to the objection that the attribution of joy and so on, as head, &c, cannot possibly refer to the real Self; for this attribution is due to the immediately preceding limiting condition (viz. the Self consisting of understanding, the so-called vi^anako^a), and does not really belong to the real Self. The possession of a bodily nature also is ascribed to the Self of bliss, only because it is represented as a link in the chain of bodies which begins with the Self consisting of food, and is not ascribed to it in the same direct sense in which it is predicated of the transmigrating Self. Hence the Self consisting of bliss is the highest Brahman.

13. If (it be objected that the term anandamaya,
consisting of bliss, can) not (denote the highest Self)
on account of its being a word denoting a modifica-

1 After which no other Self is mentioned.

I Adhyaya, I Pada, 15. 67

tion (or product) ; (we declare the objection to be)
not (valid) on account of abundance, (the idea of
which may be expressed by the affix maya.)

Here the purvapakshin raises the objection that the word anandamaya (consisting of bliss) cannot denote the highest Self. — Why ?— Because the word anandamaya is understood to denote something different from the original word (i. e. the word ananda without the derivative affix maya), viz. a modification ; according to the received sense of the affix maya. 'Anandamaya ' therefore denotes a modification, just as annamaya (consisting of food) and similar words do.

This objection is, however, not valid, because c maya. ' is also used in the sense of abundance, i. e. denotes that where there is abundance of what the original word expresses. So, for instance, the phrase ' the sacrifice is annamaya ' means ' the sacrifice is abounding in food ' (not ' is some modifica- tion or product of food '). Thus here Brahman also, as abounding in bliss, is called anandamaya. That Brahman does abound in bliss follows from the passage (Taitt. Up. II, 8), where, after the bliss of each of the different classes of beings, beginning with man, has been declared to be a hundred times greater than the bliss of the immediately preceding class, the bliss of Brahman is finally proclaimed to be absolutely supreme. Maya therefore denotes abundance.

14. And because he is declared to be the cause of
it, (i. e. of bliss ; therefore maya is to be taken as
denoting abundance.)

Maya must be understood to denote abundance, for that reason also that Scripture declares Brahman to be the cause of bliss, ' For he alone causes bliss ' (Taitt. Up. II, 7). For he who causes bliss must himself abound in bliss; just as we infer in ordinary life, that a man who enriches others must himself possess abundant wealth. As, there- fore, maya may be taken to mean ' abundant,' the Self consisting of bliss is the highest Self.

15. Moreover (the dnandamaya is Brahman be-

68 VEDANTA-sftTRAS.

cause) the same (Brahman) which had been referred
to in the mantra is sung, (i. e. proclaimed in the
Brahma^a passage as the anandamaya.)

The Self, consisting of joy, is the highest Brahman for the following reason also \ On the introductory words * he who knows Brahman attains the highest' (Taitt. Up. II, i), there follows a mantra proclaiming that Brahman, which forms the general topic of the chapter, possesses the quali- ties of true existence, intelligence, infinity ; after that it is said that from Brahman there sprang at first the ether and then all other moving and non- moving things, and that, entering into the beings which it had emitted, Brahman stays in the recess, inmost of all ; thereupon, for its better comprehension, the series of the different Selfs (' different from this is the inner Self,' &c.) are enumerated, and then finally the same Brahman which the mantra had proclaimed, is again proclaimed in the passage under discussion, ' different from this is the other inner Self, which consists of bliss.' To assume that a mantra and the Brahma/za passage be- longing to it have the same sense is only proper, on account of the absence of contradiction (which results therefrom) ; for otherwise we should be driven to the unwelcome in- ference that the text drops the topic once started, and turns to an altogether new subject.

Nor is there mentioned a further inner Self different from the Self consisting of bliss, as in the case of the Self con- sisting of food, &c.2 On the same (i. e. the Self consisting of bliss) is founded, ' This same knowledge of Bhrzgu and Varu/za ; he understood that bliss is Brahman ' (Taitt. Up. Ill, 6). Therefore the Self consisting of bliss is the highest Self.

1 The previous proofs were founded on lihga ; the argument which is now propounded is founded on prakarazza.

2 While, in the case of the Selfs consisting of food and so on, a further inner Self is duly mentioned each time. It cannot, there- fore, be concluded that the Selfs consisting of food, &c, are likewise identical with the highest Self referred to in the mantra.

I Adhyava, I Pada, 1 7. 69

16. (The Self consisting of bliss is the highest
Self,) not the other (i. e. the individual Soul), on
account of the impossibility (of the latter assump-
tion).

And for the following reason also the Self consisting of bliss is the highest Self only, not the other, i. e. the one which is other than the Lord, i. e. the transmigrating in- dividual soul. The personal soul cannot be denoted by the term ' the one consisting of bliss/ Why ? On account of the impossibility. For Scripture says, with reference to the Self consisting of bliss, ' He wished, may I be many, may I grow forth. He brooded over himself. After he had thus brooded, he sent forth whatever there is/ Here, the desire arising before the origination of a body, &c, the non- separation of the effects created from the creator, and the creation of all effects whatever, cannot possibly belong to any Self different from the highest Self.

17. And on account of the declaration of the
difference (of the two, the anandamaya cannot be the
transmigrating soul).

The Self consisting of bliss cannot be identical with the transmigrating soul, for that reason also that in the section treating of the Self of bliss, the individual soul and the Self of bliss are distinctly represented as different ; Taitt. Up. II, 7, 'It (i.e. the Self consisting of bliss) is a flavour; for only after perceiving a flavour can this (soul) perceive bliss/ For he who perceives cannot be that which is per- ceived.— But, it may be asked, if he who perceives or attains cannot be that which is perceived or attained, how about the following Sruti- and Smr zti-passages, ' The Self is to be sought ;' ' Nothing higher is known than the attain- ment of the Self 1?'— This objection, we reply, is legitimate (from the point of view of absolute truth). Yet we see that in ordinary life, the Self, which in reality is never anything

1 Yadi labdM na labdhavyaA kathaw tarhi paramatmano vastuto Abhinnena ^ivatmana paramatm& labhyata ity artha^. Bhamati.

70 VEDANTA-stfTRAS.