termination. The word thus being a compound there is neither a repetition of the word 'five,' involving two pentads, nor does the one five qualify the other, as the mere secondary member of a compound cannot be qualified by another word. — But as the people are already denoted to be five by the compound ' five-people,' the effect of the other 'five' qualifying the compound will be that we understand twenty-five people to be meant; just as the expression 'five five-bundles' (panka, pankapvXyah) conveys the idea of twenty-five bundles. — The instance is not an analogous one, we reply. The word ' pa#/£apuli ' denotes a unity (i. e. one bundle made up of five bundles), and hence when the question arises, ' How many such bundles are there ? ' it can be qualified by the word ' five,' indicating that there are five such bundles. The word pa^a^ana//, on the other hand, conveys at once the idea of distinction (i.e. of five distinct things), so that there is no room at all for a further desire to know how many people there are, and hence no room for a further qualification. And if the word 'five' be taken as a qualifying word it can only qualify the numeral five (in five-people); the objection against which assumption has already been stated. — For all these reasons the expression the five five-people cannot denote the twenty-five categories of the Sankhyas. — This is further not possible ' on account of the excess.' For on the Sankhya interpretation there would be an excess over the number twenty-five, owing to the circumstance of the ether and the Self being mentioned separately. The Self is spoken of as the abode in which the five five-people rest, the clause ' Him I believe to be the Self being connected with the 'in whom' of the antecedent clause. Now the Self is the intelligent soul of the Sahkhyas which is already included in the twenty-five categories, and which therefore, on their interpretation of the passage, would here be mentioned once as constituting the abode and once as what rests in the abode! If, on the other hand, the soul were supposed not to be comprised in the twenty-five categories, the Sankhya would thereby abandon his own doctrine of the categories being twenty-five. The same
2 6o vedanta-sOtras.
remarks apply to the separate mention made of the ether. — How, finally, can the mere circumstance of a certain number being referred to in the sacred text justify the assumption that what is meant are the twenty-five Sankhya categories of which Scripture speaks in no other place? especially if we consider that the word ^ana has not the settled meaning of category, and that the number may be satisfactorily accounted for on another interpretation of the passage.
How, then, the Sankhya will ask, do you interpret the phrase 'the five five-people?' — On the ground, we reply, of the rule Pacini II, i, 50, according to which certain compounds formed with numerals are mere names. The word pankaganAk thus is not meant to convey the idea of the number five, but merely to denote certain classes of beings. Hence the question may present itself, How many such classes are there? and to this question an answer is given by the added numeral 'five.' There are certain classes of beings called five-people, and these classes are five. Analogously we may speak of the seven seven- rzshis, where again the compound denotes a class of beings merely, not their number. — Who then are those five- people? — To this question the next Sutra replies.
12. (The pa^a^ana/^ are) the breath and so on, (as is seen) from the complementary passage.
The mantra in which the pa^a^ana^ are ^mentioned is followed by another one in which breath and four other things are mentioned for the purpose of describing the nature of Brahman. ' They who know the breath of breath, the eye of the eye, the ear of the ear, the food of food, the mind of mind V Hence we conclude, on the ground of proximity, that the five-people are the beings mentioned in this latter mantra. — But how, the Sankhya asks, can the word ' people ' be applied to the breath, the eye, the ear, and so on ? — How, we ask in return, can it be
1 So in the Madhyandina recension of the Upanishad ; the Ka«va recension has not the clause ' the food of food/
I Adhyaya, 4 Pada, 12. 26 1
applied to your categories? In both cases the common meaning of the word ' people ' has to be disregarded ; but in favour of our explanation is the fact that the breath, the eye, and so on, are mentioned in a complementary passage. The breath, the eye, &c. may be denoted by the word ' people ' because they are connected with people. Moreover, we find the word * person/ which means as much as 'people/ applied to the pra^as in the passage, 'These are the five persons of Brahman5 (Kk. Up. Ill, 13, 6) ; and another passage runs, ' Breath is father, breath is mother,' &c. {Kk. Up. VII, 15, 1). And, owing to the force of composition, there is no objection to the compound being taken in its settled conventional meaning *. — But how can the conventional meaning be had recourse to, if there is no previous use of the word in that meaning? — That may be done, we reply, just as in the case of udbhid and similar words 2. We often infer that a word of unknown meaning refers to some known thing because it is used in connexion with the latter. So, for instance, in the case of the fol- lowing words : ' He is to sacrifice with the udbhid ; he cuts the yupa ; he makes the vedi.' Analogously we conclude that the term pa^a^ana/^, which, from the grammatical rule quoted, is known to be a name, and which there- fore demands a thing of which it is the name, denotes the breath, the eye, and so on, which are connected with it through their being mentioned in a complementary passage. — Some commentators explain the word pa«£a-
1 This in answer to the Sankhya who objects to ^ana when applied to the prana, &c. being interpreted with the help of lakshawa; while if referred to the pradhana, &c. it may be explained to have a direct meaning, on the ground of yaugika interpretation (the pradhana being ^ana because it produces, the mahat &c. being ^ana because they are produced). The Vedantin points out that the compound pa^a^ana^ has its own xhdhi- meaning, just as a^vakarwa, literally horse-ear, which conventionally denotes a certain plant.
2 We infer that udbhid is the name of a sacrifice because it is mentioned in connexion with the act of sacrificing; we infer that the yupa is a wooden post because it is said to be cut, and so on.
262 VEDANTA-SUTR AS.
ganak to mean the Gods, the Fathers, the Gandharvas, the Asuras, and the Rakshas. Others, again, think that the four castes together with the Nishadas are meant. Again, some scriptural passage (Rzg-veda Sa^h. VIII, 53, 7) speaks of the tribe of ' the five-people,' meaning thereby the created beings in general ; and this latter explanation also might be applied to the passage under discussion. The teacher (the Sutrakara), on the other hand, aiming at showing that the passage does not refer to the twenty-five categories of the Sankhyas, declares that on the ground of the complementary passage breath, &c. have to be under- stood.
Well, let it then be granted that the five-people mentioned
in the Madhyandina-text are breath, &c. since that text
mentions food also (and so makes up the number five).
But how shall we interpret the Ka^va-text which does not
mention food (and thus altogether speaks of four things
only) ? — To this question the next Sutra replies.
13. In the case of (the text of) some (the Ka^vas)
where food is not mentioned, (the number five is
made full) by the light (mentioned in the preceding
mantra).
The Ka;2va-text, although not mentioning food, makes up the full number five, by the light mentioned in the mantra preceding that in which the five-people are spoken of. That mantra describes the nature of Brahman by saying, ' Him the gods worship as the light of lights.'— If it be asked how it is accounted for that the light mentioned in both texts equally is in one text to be employed for the expla- nation of the five-people, and not in the other text ; we reply that the reason lies in the difference of the requirements. As the Madhyandinas meet in one and the same mantra with breath and four other entities enabling them to interpret the term, 'the five-people,' they are in no need of the light mentioned in another mantra. The Ka/zvas, on the other hand, cannot do without the light. The case is analogous to that of the Sho^arin-cup, which, according to different
I Adhyaya, \ Pada, 1 4. 263
passages, is either to be offered or not to be offered at the atiratra-sacrifice.
We have proved herewith that Scripture offers no basis for the doctrine of the pradhana. That this doctrine can- not be proved either by Smrzti or by ratiocination will be shown later on.
14. (Although there is a conflict of the Vedanta-
passages with regard to the things created, such as)
ether and so on ; (there is no such conflict with
regard to the Lord) on account of his being re-
presented (in one passage) as described (in other
passages), viz. as the cause (of the world).
In the preceding part of the work the right definition of Brahman has been established ; it has been shown that all the Vedanta-texts have Brahman for their common topic ; and it has been proved that there is no scriptural authority for the doctrine of the pradhana. — But now a new objection presents itself
It is not possible — our opponent says — to prove either that Brahman is the cause of the origin, &c. of the world, or that all Vedanta-texts refer to Brahman; because we observe that the Vedanta-texts contradict one another. All the Vedanta-passages which treat of the creation enumerate its successive steps in different order, and so in reality speak of different creations. In one place it is said that from the Self there sprang the ether (Taitt. Up. II, 1); in another place that the creation began with fire (K/i. Up. VI, 2, 3) ; in another place, again, that the Person created breath and from breath faith (Pr. Up.VI, 4) ; in another place, again, that the Self created these worlds, the water (above the heaven), light, the mortal (earth), and the water (below the earth) (Ait. Ar. II, 4, 1, 3; 3). There no order is stated at all. Somewhere else it is said that the creation origi- nated from the Non-existent. ' In the beginning this was non-existent ; from it was born what exists' (Taitt. Up. II, 7) ; and, ' In the beginning this was non-existent ; it became existent; it grew' (Kh. Up. Ill, 19, 1). In another place,
264 VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
again, the doctrine of the Non-existent being the ante- cedent of the creation is impugned, and the Existent men- tioned in its stead. ' Others say, in the beginning there was that only which is not ; but how could it be thus, my dear ? How could that which is be born of that which is not?' (Kk. Up. VI, 2, 1; 2.) And in another place, again, the development of the world is spoken of as having taken place spontaneously, ' Now all this was then undeveloped. It became developed by form and name ' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 7)* — As therefore manifold discrepancies are observed, and as no option is possible in the case of an accomplished matter 1, the Vedanta-passages cannot be accepted as authorities for determining the cause of the world, but we must rather accept some other cause of the world resting on the authority of Smrzti and Reasoning.