Sa^h. X, 90) exhibits the verse with sole reference to Brahman. Smrzti likewise ascribes to Brahman a like nature, ' I stand supporting all this world by a single portion of myself (Bha. Gita X, 42). Our interpretation moreover enables us to take the passage, 'that Brahman indeed which,' &c. (Ill, 12, 7), in its primary sense, (i.e. to under- stand the word Brahman to denote nothing but Brahman.) And, moreover, the passage, 'these are the five men of Brahman5 (III, 13, 6), is appropriate only if the former passage about the Gayatri is taken as referring to Brahman (for otherwise the ' Brahman ' in ' men of Brahman ' would not be connected with the previous topic). Hence Brahman is to be considered as the subject-matter of the previous passage also. And the decision that the same Brahman is referred to in the passage about the light where it is recog- nised (to be the same) from its connexion with heaven, remains unshaken.
27. The objection that (the Brahman of the former
passage cannot be recognised in the latter) on account
of the difference of designation, is not valid because
in either (designation) there is nothing contrary (to
the recognition).
The objection that in the former passage ('three feet of it are what is immortal in heaven '), heaven is designated as the abode, while in the latter passage (' that light which shines above this heaven5), heaven is designated as the boundary, and that, on account of this difference of desig- nation, the subject-matter of the former passage cannot be recognised in the latter, must likewise be refuted. This we do by remarking that in either designation nothing is contrary to the recognition. Just as in ordinary language a falcon, although in contact with the top of a tree, is not only said to be on the tree but also above the tree, so Brahman also, although being in heaven, is here referred to as being beyond heaven as well.
Another (commentator) explains : just as in ordinary language a falcon, although not in contact with the top of a
I Adhyaya, I Pada, 28. ()J
tree, is not only said to be above the top of tire tree but also on the top of the tree, so Brahman also, which is in reality beyond heaven, is (in the former of the two passages) said to be in heaven. Therefore the Brahman spoken of in the former passage can be recognised in the latter also, and it remains therefore a settled conclusion that the word c light ' denotes Brahman.
28. Pra^a (breath) is Brahman, that being under-
stood from a connected consideration (of the passages
referring to pra^a).
In the Kaushitaki-br&hma/za-upanishad there is recorded a legend of Indra and Pratardana which begins with the words, ' Pratardana, forsooth, the son of Divodasa came by means of fighting and strength to the beloved abode of Indra5 (Kau. Up. Ill, 1). In this legend we read: * He said : I am pra/za, the intelligent Self (pra^vlatman), medi- tate on me as Life, as Immortality' (III, 2). And later on (III, 3), 'Pra/za alone, the intelligent Self, having laid hold of this body, makes it rise up.' Then, again (III, 8), ' Let no man try to find out what speech is, let him know the speaker.' And in the end (III, 8), ' That breath indeed is the intelligent Self, bliss, imperishable, immortal.' — Here the doubt presents itself whether the word pra^a denotes merely breath, the modification of air, or the Self of some divinity, or the individual soul, or the highest Brahman. — But, it will be said at the outset, the Sutra I, 1, 21 already has shown that the word pra/za refers to Brahman, and as here also we meet with characteristic marks of Brahman, viz. the words ' bliss, imperishable, immortal/ what reason is there for again raising the same doubt ? — We reply : Because there are observed here characteristic marks of different kinds. For in the legend we meet not only with marks indicating Brahman, but also with marks pointing to other beings. Thus Indra's words, ' Know me only' (III, 1), point to the Self of a divinity ; the words, ' Having laid hold of this body it makes it rise up,' point to the breath ; the words, ' Let no man try to find out what speech is, let him know [34] H
98 VEDANTA- SUTRAS.
the speaker,5 point to the individual soul. There is thus room for doubt.
If, now, the purvapakshin maintains that the term pra^a here denotes the well-known modification of air, i. e. breath, we, on our side, assert that the word pra^a must be under- stood to denote Brahman. — For what reason? — On account of such being the consecutive meaning of the passages. For if we examine the connexion of the entire section which treats of the pra/za, we observe that all the single passages can be construed into a whole only if they are viewed as referring to Brahman. At the beginning of the legend Pratardana, having been allowed by Indra to choose a boon, mentions the highest good of man, which he selects for his boon, in the following words, ' Do you your- self choose that boon for me which you deem most beneficial for a man.' Now, as later on pra^a is declared to be what is most beneficial for man, what should pra/za denote but the highest Self? For apart from the cognition of that Self a man cannot possibly attain what is most beneficial for him, as many scriptural passages declare. Compare, for instance, 6Ve. Up. Ill, 8, ' A man who knows him passes over death ; there is no other path to go.5 Again, the further passage, c He who knows me thus by no deed of his is his life harmed, not by theft, not by bhru^ahatya ' (III, i), has a meaning only if Brahman is supposed to be the object of knowledge. For, that subsequently to the cognition of Brahman all works and their effects entirely cease, is well known from scriptural passages, such as the following, f All works perish when he has been beheld who is the higher and the lower' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 8). Moreover, pra^a can be identified with the intelligent Self only if it is Brahman. For the air which is non-intelligent can clearly not be the intelligent Self. Those characteristic marks, again, which are mentioned in the concluding passage (viz. those inti- mated by the words * bliss,5 ' imperishable,' ' immortal ') can, if taken in their full sense, not be reconciled with any being except Brahman. There are, moreover, the following passages, ' He does not increase by a good action, nor de- crease by a bad action. For he makes him whom he wishes
I Adhyaya, I Pada, 29. 99
to lead up from these worlds do a good deed ; and the same makes him whom he wishes to lead down from these worlds do a bad deed ;' and, ' He is the guardian of the world, he is the king of the world, he is the Lord of the world ' (Kau. Up. Ill, 8). All this can be properly understood only if the highest Brahman is acknowledged to be the subject-matter of the whole chapter, not if the vital air is substituted in its place. Hence the word pra^a denotes Brahman.
29. If it be said that (Brahman is) not (denoted)
on account of the speaker denoting himself; (we
reply that this objection is not valid) because there
is in that (chapter) a multitude of references to the
interior Self.
An objection is raised against the assertion that pra^a de- notes Brahman. The word pra/za, it is said, does not denote the highest Brahman, because the speaker designates him- self. The speaker, who is a certain powerful god called Indra, at first says, in order to reveal himself to Pratardana, ' Know me only,' and later on, ' I am pra^a, the intelligent Self/ How, it is asked, can the pra/za, which this latter passage, expressive of personality as it is, represents as the Self of the speaker, be Brahman to which, as we know from Scripture, the attribute of being a speaker cannot be ascribed ; compare, for instance, Brz. Up. Ill, 8, 8, ' It is without speech, without mind.5 Further on, also, the speaker, i. e. Indra, glorifies himself by enumerating a number of attri- butes, all of which depend on personal existence and can in no way belong to Brahman, ' I slew the three-headed son of Tvash/r/ ; I delivered the Arunmukhas, the devotees, to the wolves,' and so on. Indra may be called prazza on account of his strength. Scripture says, ' Strength indeed is pra/za,' and Indra is known as the god of strength ; and of any deed of strength people say, i It is Indra's work.' The personal Self of a deity may, moreover, be called an intelligent Self; for the gods, people say, possess unob- structed knowledge. It thus being a settled matter that some passages convey information about the personal Self
IOO VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
of some deity, the other passages also — as, for instance, the one about what is most beneficial for man — must be inter- preted as well as they may with reference to the same deity. Hence pra/za does not denote Brahman.
This objection we refute by the remark that in that chapter there are found a multitude of references to the in- terior Self. For the passage, ' As long as pra/za dwells in this body so long surely there is life/ declares that that pra^a only which is the intelligent interior Self — and not some particular outward deity — has power to bestow and to take back life. And where the text speaks of the eminence of the pra^as as founded on the existence of the pra;za, it shows that that pra/za is meant which has reference to the Self and is the abode of the sense-organs 1.
Of the same tendency is the passage, ' Pra^a, the intel- ligent Self, alone having laid hold of this body makes it rise up ; ' and the passage (which occurs in the passus, ( Let no man try to find out what speech is/ &c), ' For as in a car the circumference of the wheel is set on the spokes and the spokes on the nave, thus are these objects set on the subjects (the senses) and the subjects on the pra^a. And that pra^a indeed is the Self of pra^/la, blessed, imperishable, immortal.5 So also the following passage which, referring to this interior Self, forming as it were the centre of the peripherical interaction of the objects and senses, sums up as follows, ' He is my Self, thus let it be known ;' a summing up which is appropriate only if pra/m is meant to denote not some outward existence, but the interior Self. And another scriptural passage declares 'this Self is Brahman, omniscient2' (Brz. Up. II, 5, 19). We therefore arrive at
1 The text runs, l astitve ka. pra#ana/# niAsreyasam/ and Go. An. explains 'astitve pra/zasthitau praraanazrc indriya^am sthitir ity arthata^ jrutrm aha.' He as well as An. Gi. quotes as the text of the scriptural passage referred to ' athato ni/breyasadanam ity adi.' But if instead of ' astitve ka, ' we read ' asti tv eva/ we get the con- cluding clause of Kau. Up. Ill, 2, as given in Cowell's edition.
2 Whence we know that the interior Self referred to in the Kau. Up. is Brahman.
I Adhyaya, I Pada, 30. Ioi
the conclusion that, on account of the multitude of references to the interior Self, the chapter contains information regard- ing Brahman, not regarding the Self of some deity. — How then can the circumstance of the speaker (Indra) referring to himself be explained ?
30. The declaration (made by Indra about himself,
viz. that he is one with Brahman) (is possible) through
intuition vouched for by Scripture, as in the case of
Vamadeva.
The individual divine Self called Indra perceiving by means of rzshi-like intuition1 — the existence of which i& vouched for by Scripture — its own Self to be identical with the supreme Self, instructs Pratardana (about the highest Self) by means of the words c Know me only.'