Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 38 — The Vedanta-Sutras, Part II (Sankara/Thibaut, page scans)

and effects (of what is perceived in a dream) such as the bite of a snake or bathing in a river take place with regard to a dreaming person. — But, it will be said, these effects themselves are unreal ! — These effects themselves, we reply, are unreal indeed ; but not so the consciousness which the dreaming person has of them. This consciousness is a real result ; for it is not sublated by the waking consciousness. The man who has risen from sleep does indeed consider the effects perceived by him in his dream such as being bitten by a snake, bathing in a river, &c. to be unreal, but he does not on that account consider the consciousness he had of them to be unreal likewise. — (We remark in passing that) by this fact of the consciousness of the dreaming person not being sublated (by the waking consciousness) the doctrine of the body being our true Self is to be con- sidered as refuted *. — Scripture also (in the passage, ' If a man who is engaged in some sacrifice undertaken for some special wish sees in his dream a woman, he is to infer there- from success in his work') declares that by the unreal phantom of a dream a real result such as prosperity may be obtained. And, again, another scriptural passage, after having declared that from the observation of certain un- favourable omens a man is to conclude that he will not live long, continues ' if somebody sees in his dream a black man with black teeth and that man kills him,' intimating thereby that by the unreal dream-phantom a real fact, viz. death, is notified. — It is, moreover, known from the ex- perience of persons who carefully observe positive and negative instances that such and such dreams are auspicious omens, others the reverse. And (to quote another example that something true can result from or be known through something untrue) we see that the knowledge of the real sounds A. &c. is reached by means of the unreal written letters. Moreover, the reasons which establish the unity of the

1 Svapna^agraddehayor vyabhi£are*pi pratyabhi^-Mnat tadanu- gatatmaikyasiddhe^ ^aitanyasya ka, dehadharmatve rupadivat tadanu- palabdhiprasahgad avagator Mbadhat tadrupasyatmano dehadvayati- rekasiddher dehamatratmavado na yukta ity artha^. An. Gi.

326 VEDANTA-sftTRAS.

Self are altogether final, so that subsequently to them nothing more is required for full satisfaction1. An injunction as, for instance, ' He is to sacrifice ' at once renders us desirous of knowing what is to be effected, and by what means and in what manner it is to be effected ; but passages such as, 'Thou art that/ ' I am Brahman,' leave nothing to be desired because the state of consciousness produced by them has for its object the unity of the universal Self. For as long as something else remains a desire is possible ; but there is nothing else which could be desired in addition to the absolute unity of Brah- man. Nor can it be maintained that such states of con- sciousness do not actually arise ; for scriptural passages such as, 'He understood what he said ' (Kh. Up. VII, 18, 2), declare them to occur, and certain means are enjoined to bring them about, such as the hearing (of the Veda from a teacher) and the recital of the sacred texts. Nor, again, can such consciousness be objected to on the ground either of uselessness or of erroneousness, because, firstly, it is seen to have for its result the cessation of ignorance, and because, secondly, there is no other kind of knowledge by which it could be sublated. And that before the knowledge of the unity of the Self has been reached the whole real-unreal course of ordinary life, worldly as well as religious, goes on unimpeded, we have already explained. When, however, final authority having intimated the unity of the Self, the entire course of the world which was founded on the previous distinction is sublated, then there is no longer any oppor- tunity for assuming a Brahman comprising in itself various elements.

But — it may be said — (that would not be a mere assump- tion, but) Scripture itself, by quoting the parallel instances of clay and so on, declares itself in favour of a Brahman

1 As long as the 'vyavahara' presents itself to our mind, we might feel inclined to assume in Brahman an element of manifoldness whereby to account for the vyavahara ; but as soon as we arrive at true knowledge, the vyavahara vanishes, and there remains no longer any reason for qualifying in any way the absolute unity of Brahman.

Ii Adhyaya, I Pada, 1 4. 327

capable of modification ; for we know from experience that clay and similar things do undergo modifications. — This objection — we reply — is without force, because a number of scriptural passages, by denying all modification of Brah- man, teach it to be absolutely changeless (ku/astha). Such passages are, ' This great unborn Self, undecaying, undying, immortal, fearless, is indeed Brahman' (Br/. Up. IV, 4, 25) ; ' That Self is to be described by No, no' (Br/. Up. Ill, 9, 26); ' It is neither coarse nor fine' (Br/. Up. Ill, 8, 8). For to the one Brahman the two qualities of being subject to modification and of being free from it cannot both be ascribed. And if you say, 'Why should they not be both predicated of Brahman (the former during the time of the subsistence of the world, the latter during the period of reabsorption) just as rest and motion may be predicated (of one body at different times)?' we remark that the quali- fication, 'absolutely changeless' (ku/astha), precludes this. For the changeless Brahman cannot be the substratum of varying attributes. And that, on account of the negation of all attributes, Brahman really is eternal and changeless has already been demonstrated. — Moreover, while the cognition of the unity of Brahman is the instrument of final release, there is nothing to show that any independent result is connected with the view of Brahman, by undergoing a modification, passing over into the form of this world. Scripture expressly declares that the knowledge of the changeless Brahman being the universal Self leads to a result ; for in the passage which begins, ' That Self is to be described by No, no,' we read later on, ' O kanaka, you have indeed reached fearlessness ' (Br/. Up. IV, 2, 4). We have then 1 to accept the following conclusion that, in the sections treating of Brahman, an independent result belongs only to the knowledge of Brahman as devoid of all attributes and distinctions, and that hence whatever is stated as having no special fruit of its own — as, for instance, the passages about Brahman modifying itself into the form of this

1 Tatreti, sr/sh/yadijrutina/rc svarthe phalavaikalye satiti yavat. An. Gi.

328 VED ANTA-Sti TR AS.

world — is merely to be applied as a means for the cogni- tion of the absolute Brahman, but does not bring about an independent result ; according to the principle that whatever has no result of its own, but is mentioned in con- nexion with something else which has such a result, is subordinate to the latter 1. For to maintain that the result of the knowledge of Brahman undergoing modifications would be that the Self (of him who knows that) would undergo corresponding modifications2 would be inappro- priate, as the state of final release (which the soul obtains through the knowledge of Brahman) is eternally unchanging. But, it is objected, he who maintains the nature of Brah- man to be changeless thereby contradicts the fundamental tenet according to which the Lord is the cause of the world, since the doctrine of absolute unity leaves no room for the distinction of a Ruler and something ruled. — This objection we ward off by remarking that omniscience, &c. (i. e. those qualities which belong to Brahman only in so far as it is related to a world) depend on the evolution of the germinal principles called name and form, whose essence is Nescience. The fundamental tenet which we maintain (in accordance with such scriptural passages as, ' From that Self sprang ether,' &c. ; Taitt. Up. II, 1) is that the creation, sustentation, and reabsorption of the world proceed from an omniscient, omnipotent Lord, not from a non-intelligent pradhana or any other principle. That tenet we have stated in I, i, 4, and here we do not teach anything contrary to it. — But how, the question may be asked, can you make this last assertion while all the while you maintain the absolute unity and non-duality of the Self? — Listen how. Belonging to the Self, as it were, of the omniscient Lord, there are name and form, the figments of Nescience, not to be defined either

1 A Mimawsa principle. A sacrificial act, for instance, is inde- pendent when a special result is assigned to it by the sacred texts ; an act which is enjoined without such a specification is merely auxiliary to another act.

2 According to the *$ruti 'in whatever mode he worships him into that mode he passes himself/

Ii Adhyaya, I Pada, 1 4. 329

as being (i. e. Brahman), nor as different from it 1, the germs of the entire expanse of the phenomenal world, called in 5ruti and Smrtti the illusion (maya), power (^akti), or nature (prakrzti) of the omniscient Lord. Different from them is the omniscient Lord himself, as we learn from scrip- tural passages such as the following, ' He who is called ether is the revealer of all forms and names ; that within which these forms and names are contained is Brahman' (Kh. Up. VIII, 14, 1); cLet me evolve names and forms' (Kk. Up. VI, 3, 2) ; ' He, the wise one, who having divided all forms and given all names, sits speaking (with those names)' (Taitt. Ar. Ill, 12, 7) ; ' He who makes the one seed manifold ' (6Ve. Up. VI, 12). — Thus the Lord depends (as Lord) upon the limiting adjuncts of name and form, the products of Nes- cience; just as the universal ether depends (as limited ether, such as the ether of a jar, &c.) upon the limiting ad- juncts in the shape of jars, pots, &c. He (the Lord) stands in the realm of the phenomenal in the relation of a ruler to the so-called ^ivas (individual souls) or cognitional Selfs (vi^Tzancitman), which indeed are one with his own Self — just as the portions of ether enclosed in jars and the like are one with the universal ether — but are limited by aggregates of instruments of action (i. e. bodies) produced from name and form, the presentations of Nescience. Hence the Lord's being a Lord, his omniscience, his omnipotence, &c. all depend on the limitation due to the adjuncts whose Self is Nescience ; while in reality none of these qualities belong to the Self whose true nature is cleared, by right knowledge, from all adjuncts whatever. Thus Scripture also says, ' Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is the Infinite' (Kh. Up. VII, 24, 1) ; ' But when the Self only has become all this, how should he see another?' (Bri* Up. II, 4, 13.) In this manner the Vedanta-texts declare that for him who has reached the

1 Tattvanyatvabhyam iti, na huvaratvena te niru^yete ^adagWayor abhedayogat napi tato^nyatvena niruktim arhataA svatantryewa sattasphurtyasambhavdt na hi g-a^/am a§-a</anapekshya#z sattasphur- timad upalakshyate ^adatvabhahgaprasangat tasmad avidyatmake naroarupe ity artha^. An. Gi.

3 30 vedanta-s6tras.