The first five adhikara^as lay down the fundamental positions with regard to Brahman. Adhik, I (i)1 treats of what the study of the Vedanta presupposes. Adhik. II (2) defines Brahman as that whence the world originates, and so on. Adhik. Ill (3) declares that Brahman is the source of the Veda. Adhik. IV (4) proves Brahman to be the uniform topic of all Vedanta-texts. Adhik. V (5-1 1) is engaged in proving by various arguments that the Brah- man, which the Vedanta-texts represent as the cause of the world, is an intelligent principle, and cannot be iden- tified with the non-intelligent pradhana from which the world springs according to the Sankhyas.
With the next adhikara/za there begins a series of dis- cussions of essentially similar character, extending up to the end of the first adhyaya. The question is throughout whether certain terms met with in the Upanishads denote Brahman or some other being, in most cases the ^iva, the individual soul. 6ankara remarks at the outset that, as the preceding ten Sutras had settled the all-important point that all the Vedanta-texts refer to Brahman, the question now arises why the enquiry should be continued any fur- ther, and thereupon proceeds to explain that the acknow- ledged distinction of a higher Brahman devoid of all qualities and a lower Brahman characterised by qualities necessitates an investigation whether certain Vedic texts of prima facie doubtful import set forth the lower Brah- man as the object of devout meditation, or the higher Brahman as the object of true knowledge. But that such an investigation is actually carried on in the remaining portion of the first adhyaya, appears neither from the wording of the Sutras nor even from 5ankara's own treatment of the Vedic
1 The Roman numerals indicate the number of the adhikarawa ; the figures in parentheses state the Sutras comprised in each adhikara^a.
Introduction. Xxxu1
texts referred to in the Sutras. In I, I, so, for instance, the question is raised whether the golden man within the sphere of the sun, with golden hair and beard and lotus-coloured eyes — of whom the ^Oandogya Upanishad speaks in I, 6, 6 — is an individual soul abiding within the sun or the highest Lord. .Sankara's answer is that the passage refers to the Lord, who, for the gratification of his worshippers, manifests himself in a bodily shape made of Maya. So that according to 6ankara himself the alternative lies between the sagu^a Brahman and some particular individual soul, not between the sagu?za Brahman and the nirgu/za Brahman.
Adhik. VI (r 2-19) raises the question whether the ananda- maya, mentioned in Taittiriya Upanishad II, 5, is merely a transmigrating individual soul or the highest Self. 5an- kara begins by explaining the Sutras on the latter suppo- sition— and the text of the Sutras is certainly in favour of that interpretation — gives, however, finally the preference to a different and exceedingly forced explanation according to which the Sutras teach that the anandamaya is not Brah- man, since the Upanishad expressly says that Brahman is the tail or support of the anandamaya1. — Ramanu^a's in- terpretation of Adhikara/za VI, although not agreeing in all particulars with the former explanation of vSankara, yet is at one with it in the chief point, viz. that the ananda- maya is Brahman. It further deserves notice that, while vSankara looks on Adhik. VI as the first of a series of interpretatory discussions, all of which treat the question whether certain Vedic passages refer to Brahman or not, Ramanii^a separates the adhikara/za from the subsequent part of the pada and connects it with what had preceded. In Adhik. V it had been shown that Brahman cannot be
1 Deussen's supposition (pp. 30, 150) that the passage conveying the second, interpretation is an interpolation is liable to two objections. In the first place, the passage is accepted and explained by all commentators ; in the second place, Sankara in the passage immediately preceding Sutra 12 quotes the adhikarawa ' anandamayo*bhyasat ' as giving rise to a discussion whether the param or the aparam brahman is meant. Now this latter point is not touched upon at all in that part of the bhashya which sets forth the former explanation, but only in the subsequent passage, which refutes the former and advocates the latter interpretation.
XXXIV VEDANTA-stlTRAS.
identified with the pradhana ; Adhik. VI shows that it is different from the individual soul, and the proof of the fundamental position of the system is thereby completed \ — Adhik. VII (20, 21) demonstrates that the golden person seen within the sun and the person seen within the eye, mentioned in Kh. Up. I, 6, are not some individual soul of high eminence, but the supreme Brahman. — Adhik. VIII (22) teaches that by the ether from which, according to Kh. Up. I, 9, all beings originate, not the elemental ether has to be understood but the highest Brahman. — Adhik. IX (23). The pra/za also mentioned in Kh. Up. I, 11, 5 denotes the highest Brahman 2. — Adhik. X (24-27) teaches that the light spoken of in Kh. Up. Ill, 13, 7 is not the ordinary physical light but the highest Brahman 3. — Adhik. XI (28-31) decides that the pra/za mentioned in Kau. Up. Ill, 2 is Brahman.
PAda II.
Adhik. I (1-8) shows that the being which consists of mind, whose body is breath, &c, mentioned in Kh. Up. Ill, 14, is not the individual soul, but Brahman. The Sutras of this adhikara/za emphatically dwell on the dif- ference of the individual soul and the highest Self, whence vSankara is obliged to add an explanation — in his comment on Sutra 6 — to the effect that that difference is to be under- stood as not real, but as due to the false limiting adjuncts of the highest Self. — The comment of Ramanu^a through- out closely follows the words of the Sutras ; on Sutra 6 it simply remarks that the difference of the highest Self
1 Evaw ^i^asitasya brahma^aj Manabhogyabhuta^a^arupasattvara^astamo- mayapradhanad vyavrzttir ukta, idaniw karmavajyat trigu^atmakaprakr/ti- sawsarganimittananavidhanantadiikhasagaranima^anenajuddha/§ ka. pratya- gatmano^nyan nikhilaheyapratyanikaw niratirayanandam brahmeti pratipa- dyate, anandamayo * bhyasat.
2 There is no reason to consider the passage ' atra ke£it' in Ankara's bhashya on Sutra 23 an interpolation as Deussen does (p. 30). It simply contains a criticism passed by Ankara on other commentators.
3 To the passages on pp. 150 and 153 of the Sanskrit text, which Deussen thinks to be interpolations, there likewise applies the remark made in the preceding note.
Introduction. Xxxv
VI (21-23) proves that that which cannot be seen, &c, mentioned in Mundaka, Up. I, 1, 3 is Brahman. — Adhik.
VII (24-32) shows that the atman vaLsvanara of Kh. Up. V, 11, 6 is Brahman.
PAda III.
Adhik. I (1-7) proves that that within which the heaven, the earth, &c. are woven (Mu^. Up. II, 2, 5) is Brahman. — Adhik. II (8, 9) shows that the bhuman referred to in Kh. Up. VII, 23 is Brahman. — Adhik. Ill (10-12) teaches that the Imperishable in which, according to Brz. Up. Ill, 8, 8, the ether is woven is Brahman. — Adhik. IV (13) decides that the highest person who is to be meditated upon with the syllable Om, according to Pra^na Up. V, 5, is not the
1 £ivasya iva parasyapi brahma^a^ jarirantarvartitvam abhyupagata?7z ket tadvad eva ^arirasambandhaprayuktasukhadukhopabhogapraptir iti ken na, hetuvaireshyat, na hi jarirantarvartitvam eva sukhadukhopabhogahetu& api tu pu^yapaparupakarmaparavajatvaw tak Hpahatapapmana^ paramatmano na sambhavati.
XXXVI VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
lower but the higher Brahman. — According to Ramanu^a the two alternatives are Brahman and Brahmd (^ivasa- mashrirupo^^adhipatu ^aturmukha^). — Adhik. V and VI (comprising, according to 5ankara, Sutras 14-21) 1 discuss the question whether the small ether within the lotus of the heart mentioned in Kh. Up. VIII, 1 is the elemental ether or the individual soul or Brahman ; the last alternative being finally adopted. In favour of the second alternative the purvapakshin pleads the two passages Kh. Up. VIII, 3, 4 and VIII, 12, 3, about the serene being (samprasada) ; for by the latter the individual soul only can be understood, and in the chapter, of which the latter passage forms part, there are ascribed to it the same qualities (viz. freeness from sin, old age, death, &c.) that were predicated in VIII, 1, of the small ether within the heart. — But the reply to this is, that the second passage refers not to the (ordinary) individual soul but to the soul in that state where its true nature has become manifest, i. e. in which it is Brahman ; so that the subject of the passage is in reality not the so-called individual soul but Brahman. And in the former of the two passages the soul is mentioned not on its own account, but merely for the purpose of intimating that the highest Self is the cause through which the individual soul manifests itself in its true nature. — What Ramanu^a understands by the avirbhava of the soul will appear from the remarks on IV, 4.
The two next Sutras (22, 23) constitute, according to vSankara, a new adhikara^a (VII), proving that he ' after whom everything shines, by whose light all this is lighted ' (KaMa Up. II, 5, 15) is not some material luminous body, but Brahman itself. — According to R&manu^a the two Sutras do not start a new topic, but merely furnish some further arguments strengthening the conclusion arrived at in the preceding Sutras2.
1 Sutras 14-2 1 are divided into two adhikara/zas by the Adhikara/mratnamala, but really constitute a simple adhikara^a only.
2 Itaj ^aitad evam. Anukrztes tasya £a. Tasya daharakaj-asya parabrahma/zo mukarad ayam apahatapapmatvadigu/zako vimuktabandha^ pratyagatma na daharaka^a^ tadanukaras tatsamyaw tatha hi pratyagatmanoxpi vimuktasya
Introduction* Xxxv11
Adhik. VIII (34, 25) decides that the person of the size
of a thumb mentioned in Ka#5a Up. II, 4, 12 is not the
individual soul but Brahman.
The two next adhikara/zas are of the nature of a digres- sion. The passage about the angush/^amatra was explained on the ground that the human heart is of the size of a span ; the question may then be asked whether also such individuals as belong to other classes than mankind, more particularly the Gods, are capable of the knowledge of Brahman : a question finally answered in the affirmative. — This discussion leads in its turn to several other digressions, among which the most important one refers to the problem in what relation the different species of beings stand to the words denoting them (Sutra 38). In connexion herewith 5ankara treats of the nature of words (^abda), opposing the opinion of the Mimawsaka Upavarsha, according to whom the word is nothing but the aggregate of its constitutive letters, to the view of the grammarians who teach that over and above the aggregate of the letters there exists a super- sensuous entity called ' spho/a,' which is the direct cause of the apprehension of the sense of a word (Adhik. IX ; Sutras
Adhik. X (34-38) explains that £udras are altogether disqualified for Brahmavidya.
Sutra 39 constitutes, according to 5ankara, a new adhi-
kara^a (XI\ proving that the pra/^a in which everything
trembles, according to Ka/fa Up. II, 6, 2, is Brahman. —
According to Ramanu^-a the Sutra does not introduce a new
topic but merely furnishes an additional reason for the
parabrahmanukara^ mvyate yada pasyaA pajyate rukmavama;;/ kartaram isa.m purushaw brahmayoniw tada vidvan pu/zyapape vidhuya nira^anaA paramaw samyam upaitity ato*nukarta pra^apativakyanirdish/a^ anukaryaw paraw brahma na daharaka\fa/$. Api ka. smaryate. Sawsari/zo * pi muktavasthaya;^ paramasamyapattilakshawa/fc parabrahmanukara^ smaryate idaw ^anam upamtya, &c— Ke/Sdd anukrztes tasya Hpi smaryate iti ka. sutradvayam adhi- karawantarazw tarn eva bhantam anubhati sarvaw tasya bhasa sarvam id&m vibhatity asya/fc srutek parabrahmaparatvanirwayaya pravWtta/» vadanti. Tat tv adwyatvadiguwako dharmokte/fc dyubhvadyayatanazra sva^abdad ity adhi- kararcadvayena tasya prakarawasya brahmavishayatvapratipadanat gyotiska.- rawabhidh&nat ity adishu parasya brahma^o bharupatvavagatej kz. purvapaksha- nutthanad ayuktaw sutraksharavairupya/& ka,.
xxxviii vedanta-sOtras.
decision arrived at under Sutras 24, 25, viz. that the angush- /^amatra is Brahman. On this supposition, Sutras 24-39 f°rm one adhikara^a in which 26-38 constitute a mere digression led up to by the mention made of the heart in 25. — The angush/^amatra is referred to twice in the Ka/^a Upanishad, once in the passage discussed (II, 4, 12), and once in II, 6, 17 (' the Person not larger than a thumb '). To determine what is meant by the angush^amatra, Ramdnu^-a says, we are enabled by the passage II, 6, 2, 3, which is intermediate between the two passages concerning the angush^amatra, and which clearly refers to the highest Brahman, of which alone everything can be said to stand in awe.