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

To this we make the following reply. The word ^yotis must be held to denote Brahman. Why ? On account of the feet (quarters) being mentioned. In a preceding passage Brahman had been spoken of as having four feet (quarters). ' Such is the greatness of it ; greater than it is the Person (purusha). One foot of it are all the beings, three feet of it are the Immortal in heaven.' That which in this passage is said to constitute the three-quarter part, immortal and connected with heaven, of Brahman, which altogether comprises four quarters ; this very same entity we recognise as again referred to in the passage under discussion, because there also it is said to be connected with heaven. If therefore we should set it aside in our interpretation of the passage and assume the latter to refer to the ordinary light, we should commit the mistake of dropping, without need, the topic started and introducing

I Adhyaya, I Pada, 24. 9 1

a new subject. Brahman, in fact, continues to form the subject-matter, not only of the passage about the light, but likewise of the subsequent section, the so-called vSa^lya- vidya (Kh. Up. Ill, 14). Hence we conclude that in our passage the word ' light ' must be held to denote Brahman. The objection (raised above) that from common use the words ' light ' and ' to shine ' are known to denote effected (physical) light is without force ; for as it is known from the general topic of the chapter that Brahman is meant, those two words do not necessarily denote physical light only to the exclusion of Brahman1, but may also denote Brahman itself, in so far as it is characterised by the physical shining light which is its effect. Analogously another mantra declares, * that by which the sun shines kindled with heat' (Taitt. Br. Ill, 12, 9, 7). Or else we may suppose that the word ^yotis here does not denote at all that light on which the function of the eye depends. For we see that in other passages it has altogether different meanings ; so, for instance, Brz. Up. IV, 3, 5, ' With speech only as light man sits,' and Taitt. Sa. I, 6, 3, 3, ' May the mind, the light, accept,' &c. It thus appears that whatever illuminates (in the different senses of the word) something else may be spoken of as { light.' Hence to Brahman also, whose nature is intelligence, the term ' light ' may be applied ; for it gives light to the entire world. Similarly, other scriptural passages say, ' Him the shining one, every- thing shines after ; by his light all this is lighted ' (Kau. Up. II, 5, 15); and ' Him the gods worship as the light of lights, as the immortal' (Brz. Up. IV, 4, 16). Against the further objection that the omnipresent Brahman cannot be viewed as bounded by heaven we remark that the assign- ment, to Brahman, of a special locality is not contrary to reason because it subserves the purpose of devout medita- tion. Nor does it avail anything to say that it is impossible to assign any place to Brahman because Brahman is out of connexion with all place. For it is possible to make such

1 Brahma^o vyava^idya te^a^samarpakatvaw vlreshakatvam, tadabhavo*vireshakatvam. An. Gi.

9 2 VED ANTA-SlJTR AS.

an assumption, because Brahman is connected with certain limiting adjuncts. Accordingly Scripture speaks of different kinds of devout meditation on Brahman as specially con- nected with certain localities, such as the sun, the eye, the heart. For the same reason it is also possible to attribute to Brahman a multiplicity of abodes, as is done in the clause (quoted above) ' higher than all.' The further ob- jection that the light beyond heaven is the mere physical light because it is identified with the gastric fire, which itself is a mere effect and is inferred from perceptible marks such as the heat of the body and a certain sound, is equally devoid of force ; for the gastric fire may be viewed as the outward appearance (or symbol) of Brahman, just as Brah- man's name is a mere outward symbol. Similarly in the passage, ' Let a man meditate on it (the gastric light) as seen and heard,' the visibility and audibility (here implicitly ascribed to Brahman) must be considered as rendered possible through the gastric fire being the outward appear- ance of Brahman. Nor is there any force in the objection that Brahman cannot be meant because the text mentions an inconsiderable reward only ; for there is no reason com- pelling us to have recourse to Brahman for the purpose of such and such a reward only, and not for the purpose of such and such another reward. Wherever the text represents the highest Brahman — which is free from all connexion with distinguishing attributes — as the universal Self, it is understood that the result of that instruction is one only, viz. final release. Wherever, on the other hand, Brahman is taught to be connected with distinguishing attributes or outward symbols, there, we see, all the various rewards which this world can offer are spoken of; cp. for instance, Br/. Up. IV, 4, 34, ' This is he who eats all food, the giver of wealth. He who knows this obtains wealth.' Although in the passage itself which treats of the light no charac- teristic mark of Brahman is mentioned, yet, as the Sutra intimates, the mark stated in a preceding passage (viz. the mantra, ' Such is the greatness of it,' &c.) has to be taken in connexion with the passage about the light as well. The question how the mere circumstance of Brahman being

I Adhyaya, I Pada, 25. 93

mentioned in a not distant passage can have the power of divorcing from its natural object and transferring to another object the direct statement about light implied in the word i light/ may be answered without difficulty. The passage under discussion runs 1, ( which above this heaven, the light/ The relative pronoun with which this clause begins intimates, according to its grammatical force2, the same Brahman which was mentioned in the previous passage, and which is here recognised (as being the same which was mentioned before) through its connexion with heaven; hence the word ^yotis also — which stands in grammatical co-ordination to ' which '—must have Brahman for its object. From all this it follows that the word 'light' here denotes Brahman.

25. If it be objected that (Brahman is) not (denoted)
on account of the metre being denoted ; (we reply)
not so, because thus (i. e. by means of the metre) the
direction of the mind (on Brahman) is declared ; for
thus it is seen (in other passages also).

We now address ourselves to the refutation of the asser- tion (made in the purvapaksha of the preceding Sutra) that in the previous passage also Brahman is not referred to, because in the sentence, ' Gayatri is everything whatsoever here exists,' the metre called Gayatri is spoken of. — How (we ask the purvapakshin) can it be maintained that, on account of the metre being spoken of, Brahman is not denoted, while yet the mantra 'such is the greatness of it,' &c, clearly sets forth Brahman with its four quarters? — You are mistaken (the purvapakshin replies). The sentence, ' Gayatri is everything,5 starts the discussion of Gayatri. The same Gayatri is thereupon described under the various forms of all beings, earth, body, heart, speech, breath ; to which there refers also the verse, ' that Gayatri

1 If we strictly follow the order of words in the original.

2 Svasamarthyena sarvanamna^ sannihitaparamamtvava^ena.

94 VEDANTA-S<JTRAS.

has four feet and is sixfold.' After that we meet with the mantra, ' Such is the greatness of it/ &c. How then, we ask, should this mantra, which evidently is quoted with reference to the Gayatri (metre) as described in the preceding clauses, all at once denote Brahman with its four quarters ? Since therefore the metre Gayatri is the subject-matter of the entire chapter, the term ' Brahman ' which occurs in a subsequent passage ('the Brahman which has thus been described') must also denote the metre. This is analogous to a previous passage (Kh. Up. Ill, n, 3, ' He who thus knows this Brahma-upanishad'), where the word Brahma- upanishad is explained to mean Veda-upanishad. As therefore the preceding passage refers (not to Brahman, but) to the Gayatri metre, Brahman does not constitute the topic of the entire section.

This argumentation, we reply, proves nothing against our position. ' Because thus direction of the mind is declared,' i. e. because the Brahma^a passage, ' Gayatri indeed is all this,' intimates that by means of the metre Gayatri the mind is to be directed on Brahman which is connected with that metre. Of the metre Gayatri, which is nothing but a certain special combination of syllables, it could not possibly be said that it is the Self of everything. We therefore have to understand the passage as declaring that Brahman, which, as the cause of the world, is connected with that product also whose name is Gayatri, is ' all this ; ' in accordance with that other passage which directly says, 'AH this indeed is Brahman' (Kh. Up. Ill, 14, 1). That the effect is in reality not different from the cause, we shall prove later on, under Sutra II, 1, 14. Devout meditation on Brahman under the form of certain effects (of Brahman) is seen to be men- tioned in other passages also, so, for instance, Ait. Ar. Ill, 3, 3, 12, 'For the Bahvr^as consider him in the great hymn, the Adhv^ryus in the sacrificial fire, the -Oandogas in the Mahavrata ceremony.' Although, therefore, the previous passage speaks of the metre, Brahman is what is meant, and the same Brahman is again referred to in the passage about the light, whose purport it is to enjoin another form of devout meditation.

I Adhyaya, I Pada, 26. 95

Another commentator1 is of opinion that the term Gayatri (does not denote Brahman in so far as viewed under the form of Gayatri, but) directly denotes Brahman, on account of the equality of number ; for just as the Gayatri metre has four feet consisting of six syllables each, so Brahman also has four feet, (i. e. quarters.) Similarly we see that in other psssages also the names of metres are used to denote other things which resemble those metres in certain numerical relations; cp. for instance, Kh. Up. IV, 3, 8, where it is said at first, 'Now these five and the other five make ten and that is the Krzta,' and after that 'these are again the Vira^ which eats the food.' If we adopt this interpretation, Brahman only is spoken of, and the metre is not referred to at all. In any case Brahman is the subject with which the previous passage is concerned.

26. And thus also (we must conclude, viz. that
Brahman is the subject of the previous passage), be-
cause (thus only) the declaration as to the beings,
&c. being the feet is possible.

That the previous passage has Brahman for its topic, we must assume for that reason also that the text designates the beings and so on as the feet of Gayatri. For the text at first speaks of the beings, the earth, the body, and the heart 2, and then goes on ' that Gayatri has four feet and is sixfold/ For of the mere metre, without any reference to Brahman, it would be impossible to say that the beings and so on are its feet. Moreover, if Brahman were not meant, there would be no room for the verse, ' Such is the great- ness,' &c. For that verse clearly describes Brahman in its own nature ; otherwise it would be impossible to represent the Gayatri as the Self of everything as is done in the words, ' One foot of it are all the beings ; three feet of it are what is immortal in heaven.' The purusha-sukta also {Rik

1 The vrz'ttikara according to Go. An. in his /ika on the bhashya to the next Sutra.

2 Concerning the difficulty involved in this interpretation, cp. Deussen, p. 183, note.

g6 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.