1 As the meaning of the word a^a is going to be discussed, and as the author of the Sutras and *Sarikara seem to disagree as to its meaning (see later on), I prefer to leave the word untranslated in this place. — Sankara reads — and explains, — in the mantra, sarupa^ (not sarupam) and bhuktabhog&m, not bhuktabhogyam.
254 vedanta-s6tr as.
followers of Kapila claim the authority of Scripture for their pradhana hypothesis.
To this argumentation we reply, that the quoted mantra by no means proves the Sankhya doctrine to be based on Scripture. That mantra, taken by itself, is not able to give additional strength to any doctrine. For, by means of some supposition or other, the terms a^*a, &c. can be reconciled with any doctrine, and there is no reason for the special assertion that the Sankhya doctrine only is meant. The case is analogous to that of the cup mentioned in the mantra, * There is a cup having its mouth below and its bottom above' (Br/. Up. II, 2, 3). Just as it is impossible to decide on the ground of this mantra taken by itself what special cup is meant — it being possible to ascribe, somehow or other, the quality of the mouth being turned downward to any cup — ; so here also there is no special quality stated, so that it is not possible to decide from the mantra itself whether the pradhana is meant by the term a^-a, or some- thing else. — But in connexion with the mantra about the cup we have a supplementary passage from which we learn what kind of cup is meant, ' What is called the cup having its mouth below and its bottom above is this head/ — Whence, however, can we learn what special being is meant by the a^-a of the vSveta^vatara-upanishad ? — To this question the next Sutra replies.
9. But the (elements) beginning with light (are
meant by the term a^i) ; for some read so in their
text.
By the term a^a we have to understand the causal matter of the four classes of beings, which matter has sprung from the highest Lord and begins with light, i. e. comprises fire, water, and earth. — The word ' but ' (in the Sutra) gives emphasis to the assertion. — This a^a. is to be considered as comprising three elementary substances, not as consisting of three gu^as in the Sankhya sense. We draw this conclusion from the fact that one ^akha, after having related how fire, water, and earth sprang from the highest Lord, assigns to them red colour, and so on. ' The red colour of burning fire
I Adhyaya, 4 Pada, 9. 255
(agni) is the colour of the elementary fire (te^as), its white colour is the colour of water, its black colour the colour of earth/ &c. Now those three elements — fire, water, and earth — we recognise in the vSVetcLrvatara passage, as the words red, white, and black are common to both passages, and as these words primarily denote special colours and can be applied to the Sankhya gu/zas in a secondary sense only. That passages whose sense is beyond doubt are to be used for the interpretation of doubtful passages, is a generally acknow- ledged rule. As we therefore find that in the 5veta^vatara — after the general topic has been started in 1, 1, ' The Brahman- students say, Is Brahman the cause?' — the text, previous to the passage under discussion, speaks of a power of the highest Lord which arranges the whole world (' the Sages devoted to meditation and concentration have seen the power belonging to God himself, hidden in its own qualities ') ; and as further that same power is referred to in two subsequent complementary passages (' Know then, Prakrzti is Maya, and the great Lord he who is affected with Maya ; ' ' who being one only rules over every germ ;' IV, 10, 11) ; it cannot possibly be asserted that the mantra treating of the a^*a refers to some independent causal matter called pradhana. We rather assert, on the ground of the general subject-matter, that the mantra describes the same divine power referred to in the other passages, in which names and forms lie unevolved, and which we assume as the antecedent condition of that state of the world in which names and forms are evolved. And that divine power is represented as three-coloured, because its products, viz. fire, water, and earth, have three distinct colours. — But how can we maintain, on the ground of fire, water, and earth having three colours, that the causal matter is appropriately called a three-coloured a£*a? if we consider, on the one hand, that the exterior form of the genus a^a (i. e. goat) does not inhere in fire, water, and earth ; and, on the other hand, that Scripture teaches fire, water, and earth to have been pro- duced, so that the word a^a cannot be taken in the sense 'non-produced1/ — To this question the next Sutra replies.
1 Here there seems to be a certain discrepancy between the
256 VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
10. And on account of the statement of the
assumption (of a metaphor) there is nothing con-
trary to reason (in a^a denoting the causal matter) ;
just as in the case of honey (denoting the sun) and
similar cases.
The word a£*a neither expresses that fire, water, and earth belong to the goat species, nor is it to be explained as meaning 'unborn;' it rather expresses an assumption, i.e. it intimates the assumption of the source of all beings (which source comprises fire, water, and earth), being compared to a she-goat. For as accidentally some she-goat might be partly red, partly white, partly black, and might have many young goats resembling her in colour, and as some he-goat might love her and lie by her, while some other he-goat might leave her after having enjoyed her ; so the universal causal matter which is tri-coloured, because comprising fire, water, and earth, produces many inanimate and animate beings similar to itself, and is enjoyed by the souls fettered by Nescience, while it is abandoned by those souls which have attained true knowlege. — Nor must we imagine that the distinction of individual souls, which is implied in the preceding explanation, involves that reality of the multi- plicity of souls which forms one of the tenets of other philo- sophical schools. For the purport of the passage is to intimate, not the multiplicity of souls, but the distinction of
views of the Sutra writer and -Sahkara. GovincMnanda notes that according to the Bhashyakr/'t ag& means simply maya — which interpretation is based on prakarawa— while, according to the Sutra- krz't, who explains a^a on the ground of the iTMndogya-passage treating of the three primary elements, a^a denotes the aggregate of those three elements constituting an avantaraprakrzti. — On *Sah- kara's explanation the term a^a presents no difficulties, for mayd is a^-a, i.e. unborn, not produced. On the explanation of the Sutra writer, however, a^u cannot mean unborn, since the three primary elements are products. Hence we are thrown back on the r&d/ii signification of a^a, according to which it means she-goat. But how can the avantara-prakrz'ti be called a she-goat? To this question the next Sutra replies.
I Adhyaya, \ Pada, Ii. 257
the states of bondage and release. This latter distinction is explained with reference to the multiplicity of souls as ordinarily conceived ; that multiplicity, however, depends altogether on limiting adjuncts, and is the unreal product of wrong knowledge merely ; as we know from scriptural passages such as, ' He is the one God hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the Self in all beings,5 &c. — The words ' like the honey ' (in the Sutra) mean that just as the sun, although not being honey, is represented as honey (Kh. Up. Ill, 1), and speech as a cow (Br/. Up. V, 8), and the heavenly world, &c. as the fires (Br/. Up. VI, 2, 9), so here the causal matter, although not being a she-goat, is metaphori- cally represented as one. There is therefore nothing con- trary to reason in the circumstance of the term a^a being used to denote the aggregate of fire, water, and earth.
11. (The assertion that there is scriptural autho-
rity for the pradhana, &c. can) also not (be based)
on the mention of the number (of the Sankhya
categories), on account of the diversity (of the
categories) and on account of the excess (over the
number of those categories).
The attempt to base the Sankhya doctrine on the mantra speaking of the a^*a having failed, the Sankhya again comes forward and points to another mantra : ' He in whom the five "five-people" and the ether rest, him alone I believe to be the Self; I who know believe him to be Brahman' (Br/. Up. IV, 4, 17). In this mantra we have one word which expresses the number ftvz, viz. the five-people, and then another word, viz. five, which qualifies the former ; these two words together therefore convey the idea of five pentads, i.e. twenty-five. Now as many beings as the number twenty- five presupposes, just so many categories the Sankhya system counts. Cp. Sankhya Karika, 3 : ' The funda- mental causal substance (i.e. the pradhana) is not an effect. Seven (substances), viz. the Great one (Intellect), and so on, are causal substances as well as effects. Sixteen are effects. The soul is neither a causal substance nor an effect.' [34] S
258 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
As therefore the number twenty-five, which occurs in the scriptural passage quoted, clearly refers to the twenty-five categories taught in the Sankhya-smrzti, it follows that the doctrine of the pradhana, &c. rests on a scriptural basis.
To this reasoning we make the following reply. — It is impossible to base the assertion that the pradhana, &c. have Scripture in their favour on the reference to their number which you pretend to find in the text, ' on account of the diversity of the Sankhya categories.' The Sankhya categories have each their individual difference, and there are no attributes belonging in common to each pentad on account of which the number twenty-five could be divided into five times five. For a number of individually separate things can, in general, not be combined into smaller groups of two or three, &c. unless there be a special reason for such combination. — Here the Sankhya will perhaps rejoin that the expression five (times) five is used only to denote the number twenty-five which has five pentads for its constituent parts; just as the poem says, 'five years and seven Indra did not rain,' meaning only that there was no rain for twelve years. — But this explanation also is not tenable. In the first place, it is liable to the objection that it has recourse to indirect indication 1. — In the second place, the second ' five ' constitutes a compound with the word 'people,' the Brahma/za-accent showing that the two form one word only2. To the same conclusion we are led by another passage also (Taitt. Samh. I, 6, 3, 2, pankkniitn tva pa^a^ananam, &c.) where the two terms constitute one word, have one accent and one case-
1 Indication (laksha#a, which consists in this case in five times five being used instead of twenty-five) is considered as an objectionable mode of expression, and therefore to be assumed in interpretation only where a term can in no way be shown to have a direct meaning.
2 That ^nk&gzx&h is only one word appears from its having only one accent, viz. the udatta on the last syllable, which udatta becomes anudatta according to the rules laid down in the Bhashika Sutra for the accentuation of the ^atapatha-brahmawa.