but the Self, is, owing to non-comprehension of the truth, identified with the Non-Self, i. e. the body and so on ; whereby it becomes possible to speak of the Self in so far as it is identified with the body, and so on, as something not searched for but to be searched for, not heard but to be heard, not seized but to be seized, not perceived but to be perceived, not known but to be known, and the like. Scripture, on the other hand, denies, in such passages as 'there is no other seer but he' (Br/. Up. Ill, 7, 23), that there is in reality any seer or hearer different from the all-knowing highest Lord. (Nor can it be said that the Lord is unreal because he is identical with the unreal individual soul ; for)1 the Lord differs from the soul (vignk- natman) which is embodied, acts and enjoys, and is the product of Nescience, in the same way as the real juggler who stands on the ground differs from the illusive juggler, who, holding in his hand a shield and a sword, climbs up to the sky by means of a rope ; or as the free unlimited ether differs from the ether of a jar, which is determined by its limiting adjunct, (viz, the jar.) With reference to this fictitious difference of the highest Self and the individual Self, the two last Sutras have been propounded.
18. And on account of desire (being mentioned
as belonging to the anandamaya) no regard is to be
had to what is inferred, (i. e. to the pradhina inferred
by the Sankhyas.)
Since in the passage ' he desired, may I be many, may I grow forth,' which occurs in the chapter treating of the anandamaya (Taitt. Up. II, 6), the quality of feeling desire is mentioned, that which is inferred, i. e. the non- intelligent pradhana assumed by the Sankhyas, cannot be regarded as being the Self consisting of bliss and the cause of the world. Although the opinion that the pradhana is the
1 Yatha parame^varad bhinno ^ivatma drash/a na bhavaty evam £-ivatmano*pi drash/ur na bhinna^ parame^vara iti ^ivasydnirva^- yatve parame^varo^py anirva^yaA syad ity ata aha paramcrvaras tv avidyakalpitad iti. Ananda Giri.
I Adhyaya, T Pada, 1 9. 7 1
cause of the world, has already been refuted in the Sutra I, 1, 5, it is here, where a favourable opportunity presents itself, refuted for a second time on the basis of the scrip- tural passage about the cause of the world feeling desire, for the purpose of showing the uniformity of view (of all scriptural passages).
1 9. And, moreover, it (i. e. Scripture) teaches the
joining of this (i.e. the individual soul) with that, (i.e.
the Self consisting of bliss), on that (being fully
known).
And for the following reason also the term, 'the Self consisting of bliss,' cannot denote either the pradhana or the individual soul. Scripture teaches that the individual soul when it has reached knowledge is joined, i. e. identified, with the Self of bliss under discussion, i.e. obtains final release. Compare the following passage (Taitt. Up. II, 7),! ' When he finds freedom from fear, and rest in that which ' is invisible, incorporeal, undefined, unsupported, then he has obtained the fearless. For if he makes but the smallest distinction in it there is fear for him.' That means, if he sees in that Self consisting of bliss even a small difference in the form of non-identity, then he finds no release from the fear of transmigratory existence. But when he, by means of the cognition of absolute identity, finds absolute rest in the Self consisting of bliss, then he is freed from the fear of transmigratory existence. But this (finding absolute rest) is possible only when we understand by the Self con- sisting of bliss, the highest Self, and not either the pra- dhana or the individual soul. Hence it is proved that the Self consisting of bliss is the highest Self.
But, in reality, the following remarks have to be made
concerning the true meaning of the word ' dnandamaya V
On what grounds, we ask, can it be maintained that the
1 The explanation of the anandamaya given hitherto is here re- called, and a different one given. The previous explanation is attributed by Go. An. to the vrzttikara.
72 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
affix ' maya ' after having, in the series of compounds begin- ning with annamaya and ending with vi^Tzanamaya, denoted mere modifications, should all at once, in the word ananda- maya, which belongs to the same series, denote abun- dance, so that anandamaya would refer to Brahman ? If it should be said that the assumption is made on account of the governing influence of the Brahman proclaimed in the mantra (which forms the beginning of the chapter, Taitt. Up. II), we reply that therefrom it would follow that also the Selfs consisting of food, breath, &c, denote Brahman (because the governing influence of the mantra extends to them also). — The advocate of the former interpretation will here, perhaps, restate an argument already made use of above, viz. as follows : To assume that the Selfs consisting of food., and so on, are not Brahman is quite proper, because after each of them an inner Self is mentioned. After the Self of bliss, on the other hand, no further inner Self is mentioned, and hence it must be considered to be Brahman itself; otherwise we should commit the mistake of dropping the subject-matter in hand (as which Brahman is pointed out by the mantra), and taking up a new topic. — But to this we reply that, although unlike the case of the Selfs con- sisting of food, &c, no inner Self is mentioned after the Self consisting of bliss, still the latter cannot be considered as Brahman, because with reference to the Self consisting of bliss Scripture declares, ' Joy is its head. Satisfaction is its right arm. Great satisfaction is its left arm. Bliss is its trunk. Brahman is its tail, its support.' Now, here the very same Brahman which, in the mantra, had been introduced as the subject of the discussion, is called the tail, the support ; while the five involucra, extending from the involucrum of food up to the involucrum of bliss, are merely introduced for the purpose of setting forth the knowledge of Brahman. How, then, can it be maintained that our interpretation implies the needless dropping of the general subject-matter and the introduction of a new topic? — But, it may again be objected, Brahman is called the tail, i. e. a member of the Self consisting of bliss ; analogously to those passages in which a tail and
I Adhyaya, I Pada, 1 9. 73
other members are ascribed to the Selfs consisting of food and so on. On what grounds, then, can we claim to know that Brahman (which is spoken of as a mere member, i. e. a subordinate matter) is in reality the chief matter referred to ? — From the fact, we reply, of Brahman being the general subject-matter of the chapter. — But, it will again be said, that interpretation also according to which Brahman is cognised as a mere member of the anandamaya does not involve a dropping of the subject-matter, since the ananda- maya himself is Brahman. — But, we reply, in that case one and the same Brahman would at first appear as the whole, viz. as the Self consisting of bliss, and thereupon as a mere part, viz. as the tail ; which is absurd. And as one of the two alternatives must be preferred, it is certainly appro- priate to refer to Brahman the clause ' Brahman is the tail ' which contains the word ( Brahman,' and not the sentence about the Self of Bliss in which Brahman is not mentioned. Moreover, Scripture, in continuation of the phrase, 'Brahman is the tail, the support/ goes on, ' On this there is also the following sloka. : He who knows the Brahman as non-existing becomes himself non- existing. He who knows Brahman as existing him we know himself as existing/ As this ^loka, without any refer- ence to the Self of bliss, states the advantage and disadvan- tage connected with the knowledge of the being and non- being of Brahman only, we conclude that the clause, ' Brahman is the tail, the support,' represents Brahman as the chief matter (not as a merely subordinate matter). About the being or non-being of the Self of bliss, on the other hand, a doubt is not well possible, since the Self of bliss distinguished by joy, satisfaction, &c, is well known to every one. — But if Brahman is the principal matter, how can it be designated as the mere tail of the Self of bliss (' Brahman is the tail, the support ') ? — Its being called so, we reply, forms no objection ; for the word tail here denotes that which is, of the nature of a tail, so that we have to understand that the bliss of Brahman is not a member (in its literal sense), but the support or abode, the one nest (resting-place) of all worldly bliss. Analogously another
74 VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
scriptural passage declares, ' All other creatures live on a small portion of that bliss' (Br/. Up. IV, 3, 32). Further, if by the Self consisting of bliss we were to understand Brahman, we should have to assume that the Brahman meant is the Brahman distinguished by qualities (savuesha), because it is said to have joy and the like for its members. But this assumption is contradicted by a complementary passage (II, 9) which declares that Brahman is the object neither of mind nor speech, and so shows that the Brahman meant is the (absolute) Brahman (devoid of qualities), * From whence all speech, with the mind, turns away unable to reach it, he who knows the bliss of that Brahman fears nothing.' Moreover, if we speak of something as ' abounding in bliss V we thereby imply the co-existence of pain ; for the word ' abundance ' in its ordinary sense implies the existence of a small measure of what is opposed to the thing whereof there is abundance. But the passage so understood would be in conflict with another passage [Kh. Up. VII, 24), ' Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is the Infinite ; ' which declares that in the Infinite, i. e. Brahman, there is nothing whatever different from it. Moreover, as joy, &c. differ in each individual body, the Self consisting of bliss also is a different one in each body. Brahman, on the other hand, does not differ according to bodies ; for the mantra at the be- ginning of the chapter declares it to be true Being, knowledge, infinite, and another passage says, c He is the one God, hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the Self within all beings ' (Sv. Up. VI, 11). Nor, again, does Scripture exhibit a frequent repetition of the word ' anandamaya ; ' for merely the radical part of the compound (i. e. the word ananda without the affix maya) is repeated in all the following passages : ' It is a flavour, far only after seizing flavour can any one seize bliss. Who could breathe, who could breathe forth, if that bliss existed not in the ether? For he alone causes blessed- ness ;' ' Now this is an examination of bliss;' ' He who
1 In which sense, as shown above, the word anandamaya must be taken if understood to denote Brahman.