(In Pra. Up. V, 2) the general topic of discussion is set forth in the words, ' O Satyak&ma, the syllable Om is the highest and also the other Brahman ; therefore he who knows it arrives by the same means at one of the two.' The text then goes on, c Again, he who meditates with this syllable Om of three matras on the highest Person,' &c. — Here the doubt presents itself, whether the object of medi- tation referred to in the latter passage is the highest Brahman or the other Brahman ; a doubt based on the former pas- sage, according to which both are under discussion.
The purvapakshin maintains that the other, i. e. the lower
1 A remark directed against the possible attempt to explain the passage last quoted as referring to the embodied soul.
172 vedanta-s6tras.
Brahman, is referred to, because the text promises only a reward limited by a certain locality for him who knows it. For, as the highest Brahman is omnipresent, it would be inappropriate to assume that he who knows it obtains a fruit limited by a certain locality. The objection that, if the lower Brahman were understood, there would be no room for the qualification, ' the highest person,' is not valid, because the vital principle (pra^a) may be called ' higher ' with reference to the body \
To this we make the following reply : What is here taught as the object of meditation is the highest Brahman only. — Why? — On account of its being spoken of as the object of sight. For the person to be meditated upon is, in a com- plementary passage, spoken of as the object of the act of seeing, e He sees the person dwelling in the castle (of the body ; purusham pumayam), higher than that one who is of the shape of the individual soul, and who is himself higher (than the senses and their objects).' Now, of an act of meditation an unreal thing also can be the object, as, for instance, the merely imaginary object of a wish. But of the act of seeing, real things only are the objects, as we know from experience ; we therefore conclude, that in the passage last quoted, the highest (only real) Self which corresponds to the mental act of complete intuition 2 is spoken of as the object of sight. This same highest Self we recognise in the passage under discussion as the object of meditation, in conse- quence of the term, ' the highest person.' — But — an objection will be raised — as the object of meditation we have the highest person, and as the object of sight the person higher than that one who is himself higher, &c. ; how, then, are we to know that those two are identical ? — The two passages, we
1 YindaJi sthulo deha^, pra/za^ sutratma. Ananda Giri. — The lower Brahman (hirarayagarbha on sutratman) is the vital principle (pra^a) in all creatures.
2 Saflzyagdawana, i.e. complete seeing or intuition; the same term which in other places — where it is not requisite to insist on the idea of ' seeing ' in contradistinction from ' reflecting ' or ' medi- tating'— is rendered by perfect knowledge.
I Adhyaya, 3 Pad a, 1 3. I 73
reply, have in common the terms ' highest ' (or ' higher,' para) and ' person.' And it must not by any means be supposed that the term ^ivaghana1 refers to that highest person which, considered as the object of meditation, had previously been introduced as the general topic. For the consequence of that supposition would be that that highest person which is the object of sight would be different from that highest person which is represented as the object of meditation. We rather have to explain the word ^ivaghana as ' He whose shape2 is characterised by the^ivas ;' so that what is really meant by that term is that limited condition of the highest Self which is owing to its adjuncts, and manifests itself in the form of ^ivas, i. e. individual souls ; a condition analogous to the limitation of salt (in general) by means of the mass of a particular lump of salt. That limited condition of the Self may itself be called 'higher/ if viewed with regard to the senses and their objects.
Another (commentator) says that we have to understand by the word '^ivaghana ' the world of Brahman spoken of in the preceding sentence (' by the Saman verses he is led up to the world of Brahman '), and again in the following sentence (v. 7), which may be called ' higher,' because it is higher than the other worlds. That world of Brahman may be called ^ivaghana because all individual souls (^ivaj with their organs of action may be viewed as comprised (sarighata = ghana) within Hira/zyagarbha, who is the Self of all organs, and dwells in the Brahma-world. We thus understand that he who is higher than that ^ivaghana, i. e. the highest Self, which constitutes the object of sight, also constitutes the object of meditation. The qualification, moreover, ex- pressed in the term 'the highest person' is in its place only if we understand the highest Self to be meant. For the name, ' the highest person/ can be given only to the highest Self, higher than which there is nothing. So another scriptural passage also says, ' Higher than the person there is nothing — this is the goal, the highest road.' Hence the
1 Translated above by * of the shape of the individual soul/
2 Pacini III, 3, 77, 'murttazra ghana^/
1 74 VEDANTA-stiTRAS.
sacred text, which at first distinguishes between the higher and the lower Brahman (' the syllable Om is the higher and the lower Brahman'), and afterwards speaks of the highest Person to be meditated upon by means of the syllable Om, gives us to understand that the highest Person is nothing else but the highest Brahman. That the highest Self constitutes the object of meditation, is moreover intimated by the passage declaring that release from evil is the fruit (of medita- tion), ' As a snake is freed from its skin, so is he freed from evil.' — With reference to the objection that a fruit confined to a certain place is not an appropriate reward for him who meditates on the highest Self, we finally remark that the objection is removed, if we understand the passage to refer to emancipation by degrees. He who meditates on the highest Self by means of the syllable Om, as consisting of three matras, obtains for his (first) reward the world of Brahman, and after that, gradually, complete intuition.
14. The small (ether) (is Brahman) on account of the subsequent (arguments).
We read [Kh. Up. VIII, 1, 1), ' There is this city of Brah- man, and in it the palace, the small lotus, and in it that small ether. Now what exists within that small ether that is to be sought for, that is to be understood,' &c. — Here the doubt arises whether the small ether within the small lotus of the heart of which Scripture speaks, is the elemental ether, or the individual soul (vi^anatman), or the highest Self. This doubt is caused by the words ' ether ' and ' city of Brahman.' For the word ' ether,' in the first place, is known to be used in the sense of elemental ether as well as of highest Brahman. Hence the doubt whether the small ether of the text be the elemental ether or the highest ether, i.e. Brahman. In explanation of the expression c city of Brahman,' in the second place, it might be said either that the individual soul is here called Brahman and the body Brahman's city, or else that the city of Brahman means the city of the highest Brahman. Here (i. e. in con- sequence of this latter doubt) a further doubt arises as to
I Adhyaya, 3 Pad a, 1 4. I 75
the nature of the small ether, according as the individual soul or the highest Self is understood by the Lord of the city.
The purvapakshin maintains that by the small ether we have to understand the elemental ether, since the latter meaning is the conventional one of the word akaj-a. The elemental ether is here called small with reference to its small abode (the heart). — In the passage, ' As large as this ether is, so large is that ether within the heart,' it is repre- sented as constituting at the same time the two terms of a comparison, because it is possible to make a distinction between the outer and the inner ether1 ; and it is said that 4 heaven and earth are contained within it,' because the whole ether, in so far as it is space, is one 2. — Or else, the purva- pakshin continues, the ' small one ' may be taken to mean the individual soul, on account of the term, ' the city of Brahman.' The body is here called the city of Brahman because it is the abode of the individual soul ; for it is acquired by means of the actions of the soul. On this interpretation we must assume that the individual soul is here called Brahman metaphorically. The highest Brahman cannot be meant, because it is not connected with the body as its lord. The lord of the city, i. e. the soul, is represented as dwelling in one spot of the city (viz. the heart), just as a real king resides in one spot of his residence. Moreover, the mind (manas) constitutes the limiting adjunct of the indi- vidual soul, and the mind chiefly abides in the heart; hence the individual soul only can be spoken of as dwelling in the heart. Further, the individual soul only can be spoken of as small, since it is (elsewhere ; vSvet. Up. V, 8) compared in size to the point of a goad. That it is com- pared (in the passage under discussion) to the ether must be understood to intimate its non-difference from Brahman. —
1 So that the interpretation of the purvapakshin cannot be objected to on the ground of its involving the comparison of a thing to itself.
2 So that no objection can be raised on the ground that heaven and earth cannot be contained in the small ether of the heart.
1 76 VEDANTA-stjTRAS.
Nor does the scriptural passage say that the ' small ' one is to be sought for and to be understood, since in the clause, ' That which is within that,' &c, it is represented as a mere distinguishing attribute of something else \
To all this we make the following reply : — The small ether can mean the highest Lord only, not either the elemental ether or the individual soul. — Why ? — On account of the subsequent reasons, i. e. on account of the reasons implied in the complementary passage. For there, the text declares at first, with reference to the small ether, which is enjoined as the object of sight, ' If they should say to him,' &c. ; thereupon follows an objection, ( What is there that deserves to be sought for or that is to be understood ? ' and thereon a final decisive statement, ' Then he should say : As large as this ether is, so large is that ether within the heart. Both heaven and earth are contained within it/ Here the teacher, availing himself of the comparison of the ether within the heart with the known (universal) ether, precludes the conception that the ether within the heart is small — which conception is based on the statement as to the smallness of the lotus, i. e. the heart — and thereby precludes the pos- sibility of our understanding by the term ' the small ether,' the elemental ether. For, although the ordinary use of language gives to the word ' ether ' the sense of elemental ether, here the elemental ether cannot be thought of, because it cannot possibly be compared with itself. — But, has it not been stated above, that the ether, although one only, may be compared with itself, in consequence of an assumed dif- ference between the outer and the inner ether ? — That explanation, we reply, is impossible ; for we cannot admit that a comparison of a thing with itself may be based upon a merely imaginary difference. And even if we admitted
1 Viz. of that which is within it. Ananda Giri proposes two explanations : na £eti, paravlreshaTzatvenety atra paro daharak&ra upadanat tasminn iti saptamyanta-ta^abdasyeti jesha^. Yadva para^abdo * nta^sthavastuvishayas tadvwesha^atvena tasminn iti daharaka\rasyokter ity artha^. Ta^abdasya samnikrzsh/anvaya- yoge viprakrzsh/anvayasya g-aghanyatvad aka^antargata^ dhyeyam iti bhava^.