discriminative knowledge the nature of the individual soul, which is (in reality) pure light, is non-discriminated as it were from its limiting adjuncts consisting of body, senses, mind, sense- objects and feelings, and appears as consisting of the energies of seeing and so on. Similarly — to quote an analogous case from ordinary experience —the true nature of a pure crystal, i. e. its transparency and whiteness, is, before the rise of discriminative knowledge (on the part of the observer), non-discriminated as it were from any limiting adjuncts of red or blue colour ; while, as soon as through some means of true cognition discriminative knowledge has arisen, it is said to have now accomplished its true nature, i. e. transparency and whiteness, although in reality it had already done so before. Thus the discriminative knowledge, effected by vSruti, on the part of the individual soul which previously is non-discriminated as it were from its limiting adjuncts, is (according to the scriptural passage under dis- cussion) the soul's rising from the body, and the fruit of that discriminative knowledge is its accomplishment in its true nature, i. e. the comprehension that its nature is the pure Self. Thus the embodiedness and the non-embodiedness of the Self are due merely to discrimination and non-discrimi- nation, in agreement with the mantra, ' Bodiless within the bodies,' &c. (Ka. Up. I, 3, %%)> and the statement of Smrzti as to the non-difference between embodiedness and non- embodiedness ' Though dwelling in the body, O Kaunteya, it does not act and is not tainted' (Bha. Gi. XIII, 31). The individual soul is therefore called 'That whose true nature is non-manifest ' merely on account of the absence of discriminative knowledge, and it is called ' That whose nature has become manifest ' on account of the presence of such knowledge. Manifestation and non-manifestation of its nature of a different kind are not possible, since its nature is nothing but its nature (i. e. in reality is always the same). Thus the difference between the individual soul and the highest Lord is owing to wrong knowledge only, not to any reality, since, like ether, the highest Self is not in real contact with anything.
And wherefrom is all this to be known? — From the instruc-
1 88 VEDANTA-S^JTRAS.
tion given by Pra^apati who, after having referred to the ^iva (' the person that is seen in the eye,' &c.), continues ' This is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman.' If the well-known seer within the eye were different from Brahman which is characterised as the immortal and fear- less, it would not be co-ordinated (as it actually is) with the immortal, the fearless, and Brahman. The reflected Self, on the other hand, is' not spoken of as he who is characterised by the eye (the seer within the eye), for that would render Pra^&pati obnoxious to the reproach of saying deceitful things. — So also, in the second section, the passage, ' He who moves about happy in dreams,' &c. does not refer to a being different from the seeing person within the eye spoken of in the first chapter, (but treats of the same topic) as appears from the introductory clause, ' I shall explain him further to you.' Moreover1, a person who is conscious of having seen an elephant in a dream and of no longer seeing it when awake discards in the waking state the object which he had seen (in his sleep), but recognises himself when awake to be the same person who saw something in the dream. — Thus in the third section also Pra^apati does indeed declare the absence of all particular cognition in the state of deep sleep, but does not contest the identity of the cognising Self (' In that way he does not know himself that he is I, nor all these beings '). The following clause also, ' He is gone to utter annihilation/ is meant to intimate only the annihilation of all specific cognition, not the annihilation of the cogniser. For there is no destruction of the knowing of the knower as — according to another scriptural pas- sage (Br/. Up. IV, 3, 30) — that is imperishable. — Thus, again, in the fourth section the introductory phrase of Pra^apati is, ' I shall explain him further to you and nothing different from this ; ' he thereupon refutes the con- nexion (of the Self) with the body and other limiting conditions (' Maghavat, this body is mortal,5 &c), shows the individual soul — which is there called ' the serene being ' —
1 To state another reason showing that the first and second chapters of Pra^apati's instruction refer to the same subject.
I Adhyaya, 3 Pada, 1 9. 1 89
in the state when it has reached the nature of Brahman
('It appears in its own form'), and thus proves the soul to
be non-different from the highest Brahman whose charac-
teristics are immortality and fearlessness.
Some (teachers) however are of opinion that if the highest Self is meant (in the fourth section) it would be inappropriate to understand the words ' This (him) I will explain further/ &c, as referring to the individual soul, and therefore suppose that the reference is (not to the individual soul forming the topic of the three preceding sections, but) to the Self possessing the qualities of freeness from sin, &c, which Self is pointed out at the beginning of the entire chapter (VII, 1). — Against this interpretation we remark that, in the first place, it disregards the direct enunciation of the pronoun (i. e. the ' this' in 'this I will explain') which rests on something approximate (i.e. refers to something mentioned not far off), and, in the second place, is opposed to the word ' further' (or ' again ') met with in the text, since from that interpretation it would follow that what had been discussed in the preceding sections is not again discussed in the subsequent section. Moreover, if Pra^-apati, after having made a promise in the clause, ' This I shall explain ' (where that clause occurs for the first time), did previously to the fourth section explain a different topic in each section, we should have to conclude that he acted deceitfully . — Hence (our opinion about the purport of the whole chapter remains valid, viz. that it sets forth how) the unreal aspect of the individual soul as such — which is a mere presentation of Nescience, is stained by all the desires and aversions attached to agents and enjoy ers, and is con- nected with evils of various kinds — is dissolved by true knowledge, and how the soul is thus led over into the opposite state, i. e. into its true state in which it is one with the highest Lord and distinguished by freedom from sin and similar attributes. The whole process is similar to that by which an imagined snake passes over into a rope as soon as the mind of the beholder has freed itself from its erroneous imagination.
Others again, and among them some of ours (asmadiya^ £a ke^it), are of opinion that the individual soul as such
1 90 VEDANTA-SfjTRAS.
is real. To the end of refuting all these speculators who obstruct the way to the complete intuition of the unity of the Self this ^ariraka-^astra has been set forth, whose aim it is to show that there is only one highest Lord ever unchanging, whose substance is cognition \ and who, by means of Nescience, manifests himself in various ways, just as a thaumaturg appears in different shapes by means of his magical power. Besides that Lord there is no other sub- stance of cognition. — If, now, the Sutrakara raises and refutes the doubt whether a certain passage which (in reality) refers to the Lord does refer to the individual soul, as he does in this and the preceding Sutras 2, he does so for the following purpose. To the highest Self which is eternally pure, intelligent and free, which is never changing, one only, not in contact with anything, devoid of form, the opposite characteristics of the individual soul are errone- ously ascribed ; just as ignorant men ascribe blue colour to the colourless ether. In order to remove this erroneous opinion by means of Vedic passages tending either to prove the unity of the Self or to disprove the doctrine of duality — which passages he strengthens by arguments — he insists on the difference of the highest Self from the individual soul, does however not mean to prove thereby that the soul is different from the highest Self, but, whenever speaking of the soul, refers to its distinction (from the Self) as forming an item of ordinary thought, due to the power of Nescience. For thus, he thinks, the Vedic injunctions of works which are given with a view to the states of acting and enjoying, natural (to the non-enlightened soul), are not stultified.— That, however, the absolute unity of the Self is the real purport of the Astra's teaching, the Sutrakara declares, for instance, in I, 1, 30 3. The refutation of the reproach of
1 I. e. of whom cognition is not a mere attribute.
2 Although in reality there is no such thing as an individual soul.
3 Nanu £-ivabrahma«or aikyam na kvapi sutrakaro mukhato
vadati kim tu sarvatra bhedam eva, ato naikyam ish/am tatr&ha
pratipadyam tv iti.
I Adhyaya, 3 Pada, 21. 191
futility raised against the injunctions of works has already- been set forth by us, on the ground of the distinction between such persons as possess full knowledge, and such as do not.
20. And the reference (to the individual soul) has a different meaning.
The alleged reference to the individual soul which has been pointed out (by the purvapakshin) in the passage complementary to the passage about the small ether ('Now that serene being/ &c, VIII, 3, 4) teaches, if the small ether is interpreted to mean the highest Lord, neither the worship of the individual soul nor any qualification of the subject under discussion (viz. the small ether), and is therefore devoid of meaning.— On that account the Sutra declares that the reference has another meaning, i. e. that the reference to the individual soul is not meant to deter- mine the nature of the individual soul, but rather the nature of the highest Lord. In the following manner. The indi- vidual soul which, in the passage referred to, is called the serene being, acts in the waking state as the ruler of the aggregate comprising the body and the sense-organs; permeates in sleep the nadis of the body, and enjoys the dream visions resulting from the impressions of the waking state ; and, finally, desirous of reaching an inner refuge, rises in the state of deep sleep beyond its imagined connexion with the gross and the subtle body, reaches the highest light, i. e. the highest Brahman previously called ether, and thus divesting itself of the state of specific cognition appears in its own (true) nature. The highest light which the soul is to reach and through which it is manifested in its true nature is the Self, free from sin and so on, which is there represented as the object of worship. — In this sense the reference to the individual soul can be admitted by those also who maintain that in reality the highest Lord is meant.
21. If it be said that on account of the scriptural
192 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
declaration of the smallness (of the ether) (the Lord
cannot be meant ; we reply that) that has been ex-
plained (before).
The purvapakshin has remarked that the smallness of the ether stated by Scripture (' In it is that small ether ') does not agree with the highest Lord, that it may however be predicated of the individual soul which (in another passage) is compared to the point of a goad. As that remark calls for a refutation we point out that it has been refuted already, it having been shown — under I, 2, 7 — that a rela- tive smallness may be attributed to the Lord. The same refutation is — as the Sutra points out — to be applied here also. — That smallness is, moreover, contradicted by that scriptural passage which compares (the ether within the heart) with the known (universal) ether. (' As large as is this ether, so large is the ether within the heart.3)
22. On account of the acting after (i.e. the shining
after), (that after which sun, moon, &c. are said to
shine is the highest Self), and (because by the light)
of him (all this is said to be lighted).