24. And on account of the description of its form.
'Fire is his head, his eyes the sun and the moon, the regions his ears,
his speech the Vedas disclosed, the wind his breath, his heart the
universe; from his feet came the earth; he is indeed the inner Self of
all things' (II, 1, 4)--the outward form here described can belong to
none but the highest Self; that is, the inner Self of all beings. The
section therefore treats of the highest Self.
25. Vaisvanara (is the highest Self), on account of the distinctions
qualifying the common term.
The Chandogas read in their text, 'You know at present that Vaisvanara
Self, tell us that,' &c., and further on, 'But he who meditates on the
Vaisvanara Self as a span long,' &c. (Ch. Up. V, 11, 6; 18, 1). The
doubt here arises whether that Vaisvanara Self can be made out to be the
highest Self or not. The Purvapakshin maintains the latter alternative.
For, he says, the word Vaisvanara is used in the sacred texts in four
different senses. It denotes in the first place the intestinal fire, so
in Bri. Up, V, 9, 'That is the Vaisvanara fire by which the food that is
eaten is cooked, i.e. digested. Its noise is that which one hears when
one covers one's ears. When man is on the point of departing this life
he does not hear that noise.'--It next denotes the third of the elements,
so in Ri_. Samh. X, 88, 12, 'For the whole world the gods have made the
Agni Vaisvanara a sign of the days.'--It also denotes a divinity, so Ri_.
Samh. I, 98, 1, 'May we be in the favour of Vaisvanara, for he is the
king of the kings,' &c. And finally it denotes the highest Self, as in
the passage, 'He offered it in the Self, in the heart, in Agni
Vaisvanara'; and in Pra. Up. I, 7, 'Thus he rises as Vaisvanara,
assuming all forms, as breath of life, as fire.'--And the characteristic
marks mentioned in the introductory clauses of the Chandogya-text under
discussion admit of interpretations agreeing with every one of these
meanings of the word Vaisvanara.
Against this prima facie view the Sutra declares itself. The term
'Vaisvanara' in the Chandogya-text denotes the highest Self, because the
'common' term is there qualified by attributes specially belonging to
the highest Self. For the passage tells us how Aupamanyava and four
other great Rhshis, having met and discussed the question as to what was
their Self and Brahman, come to the conclusion to go to Uddalaka because
he is reputed to know the Vaisvanara Self. Uddalaka, recognising their
anxiety to know the Vaisvanara Self, and deeming himself not to be fully
informed on this point, refers them to Asvapati Kaikeya as thoroughly
knowing the Vaisvanara Self; and they thereupon, together with Uddalaka,
approach Asvapati. The king duly honours them with presents, and as they
appear unwilling to receive them, explains that they may suitably do so,
he himself being engaged in the performance of a religious vow; and at
the same time instructs them that even men knowing Brahman must avoid
what is forbidden and do what is prescribed. When thereupon he adds that
he will give them as much wealth as to the priests engaged in his
sacrifice, they, desirous of Release and of knowing the Vaisanara Self,
request him to explain that Self to them. Now it clearly appears that as
the Rishis are said to be desirous of knowing--that Brahman which is the
Self of the individual souls ('what is our Self, what is Brahman'), and
therefore search for some one to instruct them on that point, the
Vaisvanara Self--to a person acquainted with which they address
themselves--can be the highest Self only. In the earlier clauses the
terms used are 'Self' and 'Brahman,' in the later 'Self' and 'Vaisvanara';
from this it appears also that the term 'Vaisvanara,' which takes the
place of 'Brahman,' denotes none other but the highest Self. The results,
moreover, of the knowledge of the Vaisvanara Self, which are stated in
subsequent passages, show that the Vaisvanara Self is the highest
Brahman. 'He eats food in all worlds, in all beings, in all Selfs'; 'as
the fibres of the Ishika reed when thrown into the fire are burnt, thus
all his sins are burned' (V, 18, I; 24, 3).
The next Sutra supplies a further reason for the same conclusion.
26. That which the text refers to is an inferential mark--thus.
The text describes the shape of Vaisvanara, of whom heaven, &c., down to
earth constitute the several limbs; and it is known from Scripture and
Smriti that such is the shape of the highest Self. When, therefore, we
recognise that shape as referred to in the text, this supplies an
inferential mark of Vaisvanara being the highest Self.--The 'thus' (iti)
in the Sutra denotes a certain mode, that is to say, 'a shape of such a
kind being recognised in the text enables us to infer that Vaisvanara is
the highest Self.' For in Scripture and Smriti alike the highest Person
is declared to have such a shape. Cp. e.g. the text of the Atharvanas.
'Agni is his head, the sun and moon his eyes, the regions his cars, his
speech the Vedas disclosed, the wind his breath, his heart the Universe;
from his feet came the earth; he is indeed the inner Self of all things'
(Mu. Up. II, I, 4). 'Agni' in this passage denotes the heavenly world,
in agreement with the text 'that world indeed is Agni.' And the
following Smrriti texts: 'He of whom the wise declare the heavenly world
to be the head, the ether the navel, sun and moon the eyes, the regions
the ears, the earth the feet; he whose Self is unfathomable is the
leader of all beings'; and 'of whom Agni is the mouth, heaven the head,
the ether the navel, the earth the feet, the sun the eye, the regions
the ear; worship to him, the Self of the Universe!'--Now our text
declares the heavenly world and so on to constitute the head and the
other limbs of Vaisvanara. For Kaikeya on being asked by the Rishis to
instruct them as to the Vasvanara Self recognises that they all know
something about the Vaisvanara Self while something they do not know
(for thus only we can explain his special questions), and then in order
to ascertain what each knows and what not, questions them separately.
When thereupon Aupamanyava replies that he meditates on heaven only as
the Self, Kaikeya, in order to disabuse him from the notion that heaven
is the whole Vaisvanara Self, teaches him that heaven is the head of
Vaisvanara, and that of heaven which thus is a part only of Vaisvanara,
Sutejas is the special name. Similarly he is thereupon told by the other
Rishis that they meditate only on sun, air, ether, and earth, and
informs them in return that the special names of these beings are 'the
omniform,' 'he who moves in various ways,' 'the full one,''wealth and
'firm rest,' and that these all are mere members of the Vaisvanara Self,
viz. its eyes, breath, trunk, bladder, and feet. The shape thus
described in detail can belong to the highest Self only, and hence
Vaisvanara is none other but the highest Self.
The next Sutra meets a further doubt as to this decision not yet being
well established.
27. Should it be said that it is not so, on account of the word, &c.,
and on account of the abiding within; we say, no; on account of
meditation being taught thus, on account of impossibility; and because
they read of him as person.
An objection is raised. Vaisvanara cannot be ascertained to be the
highest Self, because, on the account of the text and of the abiding
within, we can understand by the Vaisvanara in our text the intestinal
fire also. The text to which we refer occurs in the Vaisvanara-vidya of
the Vajasaneyins, 'This one is the Agni Vaisvanara,' where the two words
'Agni' and 'Vaisvanara' are exhibited in co-ordination. And in the
section under discussion the passage, 'the heart is the Garhapatya fire,
the mind the Anvaharya-pakana fire, the mouth the Ahavaniya fire' (Ch.
Up. V, 18, 2), represents the Vaisvanara in so far as abiding within the
heart and so on as constituting the triad of sacred fires. Moreover the
text, 'The first food which a man may take is in the place of Soma. And
he who offers that first oblation should offer it to Prana' (V, 19, 1),
intimates that Vaisvanara is the abode of the offering to Prana. In the
same way the Vajasaneyins declare that Vaisvanara abides within man, viz.
in the passage 'He who knows this Agni Vaisvanara shaped like a man
abiding within man.' As thus Vaisvanara appears in co-ordination with
the word 'Agni,' is represented as the triad of sacred fires, is said to
be the abode of the oblation to Breath, and to abide within man, he must
be viewed as the intestinal fire, and it is therefore not true that he
can be identified with the highest Self only.
This objection is set aside by the Sutra. It is not so 'on account of
meditation (on the highest Self) being taught thus,' i.e. as the text
means to teach that the highest Brahman which, in the manner described
before, has the three worlds for its body should be meditated upon as
qualified by the intestinal fire which (like other beings) constitutes
Brahman's body. For the word 'Agni' denotes not only the intestinal fire,
but also the highest Self in so far as qualified by the intestinal fire.--
But how is this to be known?--'On account of impossibility;' i.e.
because it is impossible that the mere intestinal fire should have the
three worlds for its body. The true state of the case therefore is that
the word Agni, which is understood to denote the intestinal fire, when
appearing in co-ordination with the term Vaisvanara represented as
having the three worlds for his body, denotes (not the intestinal fire,
but) the highest Self as qualified by that fire viewed as forming the
body of the Self. Thus the Lord also says, 'As Vaisvanara fire I abide
in the body of living creatures and, being assisted by breath inspired
and expired, digest the fourfold food' (Bha Gi. XIV, 15). 'As Vaisvanara
fire' here means 'embodied in the intestinal fire.'--The Chandogya text
under discussion enjoins meditation on the highest Self embodied in the
Vaisvanara fire.--Moreover the Vajasaneyins read of him, viz. the
Vaisvanara, as man or person, viz. in the passage 'That Agni Vaisvanara
is the person' (Sa. Bra. X, 6, 1, 11). The intestinal fire by itself
cannot be called a person; unconditioned personality belongs to the
highest Self only. Compare 'the thousand-headed person' (Ri. Samh.), and
'the Person is all this' (Sve. Up. III, 15).
28. For the same reasons not the divinity and the element.
For the reasons stated Vaisvanara can be neither the deity Fire, nor the
elemental fire which holds the third place among the gross elements.
29. Jaimini thinks that there is no objection to (the word 'Agni')
directly (denoting the highest Self).
So far it has been maintained that the word 'Agni,' which stands in co-
ordination with the term 'Vaisvanara,' denotes the highest Self in so
far as qualified by the intestinal fire constituting its body; and that
hence the text under discussion enjoins meditation on the highest Self.
Jaimini, on the other hand, is of opinion that there is no reasonable
objection to the term 'Agni,' no less than the term: 'Vaisvanara,' being
taken _directly_ to denote the highest Self. That is to say--in the same
way as the term 'Vaisvanara,' although a common term, yet when qualified
by attributes especially belonging to the highest Self is known to
denote the latter only as possessing the quality of ruling all men; so
the word 'Agni' also when appearing in connexion with special attributes
belonging to the highest Self denotes that Self only. For any quality on
the ground of which 'Agni' may be etymologically explained to denote
ordinary fire--as when e.g. we explain 'agni' as he who 'agre nayati'--
may also, in its highest non-conditioned degree, be ascribed to the
supreme Self. Another difficulty remains. The passage (V, 18, 1) 'yas tv
etam evam pradesamatram abhivimanam,' &c. declares that the non-limited
highest Brahman is limited by the measure of the pradesas, i.e. of the
different spaces-heaven, ether, earth, &c.--which had previously been
said to constitute the limbs of Vaisvanara. How is this possible?
30. On account of definiteness; thus Asmarathya opines.
The teacher Asmarathya is of opinion that the text represents the
highest Self as possessing a definite extent, to the end of rendering
the thought of the meditating devotee more definite. That is to say--the
limitation due to the limited extent of heaven, sun, &c. has the purpose
of rendering definite to thought him who pervades (abhi) all this
Universe and in reality transcends all measure (vimana).--A further
difficulty remains. For what purpose is the highest Brahman here
represented like a man, having a head and limbs?--This point the next
Sutra elucidates.
31. On account of meditation, Badari thinks.
The teacher Badari thinks that the representation in the text of the
supreme Self in the form of a man is for the purpose of devout
meditation. 'He who in this way meditates on that Vaisvanara Self as
"pradesamatra" and "abhivimana," he eats food in all worlds, in all
beings, in all Selfs.' What this text enjoins is devout meditation for
the purpose of reaching Brahman. 'In this way' means 'as having a human
form.' And 'the eating' of food in all worlds, &c. means the gaining of
intuitional knowledge of Brahman which abides everywhere and is in
itself of the nature of supreme bliss. The special kind of food, i.e.
the special objects of enjoyment which belong to the different Selfs
standing under the influence of karman cannot be meant here; for those
limited objects have to be shunned by those who desire final release. A
further question arises. If Vaisvanara is the highest Self, how can the
text say that the altar is its chest, the grass on the altar its hairs,
and so on? (V, 18, 2.) Such a statement has a sense only if we
understand by Vaisvanara the intestinal fire.--This difficulty the next
Sutra elucidates.
32. On account of imaginative identification, thus Jaimini thinks; for
thus the text declares.
The teacher Jaimini is of opinion that the altar is stated to be the
chest of Vaisvanara, and so on, in order to effect an imaginative
identification of the offering to Prana which is daily performed by the
meditating devotees and is the means of pleasing Vaisvanara, having the
heaven and so on for his body, i.e. the highest Self, with the Agnihotra-
offering. For the fruit due to meditation on the highest Self, as well
as the identity of the offering to breath with the Agnihotra, is
declared in the following text, 'He who without knowing this offers the
Agnihotra--that would be as if removing the live coals he were to pour
his libation on dead ashes. But he who offers this Agnihotra with a full
knowledge of its purport, he offers it in all worlds, in all beings, in
all Selfs. As the fibres of the Ishika reed when thrown into the fire
are burnt, thus all his sins are burnt.' (V, 24, 1-3.)
33. Moreover, they record him in that.
They (i.e. the Vajasaneyins) speak of him, viz. Vaisvanara who has
heaven for his head, &c.--i.e. the highest Self--as within that, i.e.
the body of the devotee, so as to form the abode of the oblation to
Prana; viz. in the text,'Of that Vaisvanara Self the head is Sutejas,'
and so on. The context is as follows. The clause 'He who meditates on
the Vaisvanara Self as pradesamatra,' &c. enjoins meditation on the
highest Self having the three worlds for its body, i.e. on Vaisvanara.
The following clause 'he eats food in all worlds' teaches that the
attaining of Brahman is the reward of such meditation. And then the text
proceeds to teach the Agnihotra offered to Prana, which is something
subsidiary to the meditation taught. The text here establishes an
identity between the members--fire, sun, &c.--of the Vaisvanara enjoined
as object of meditation (which members are called Sutejas, Visvarupa, &c.
), and parts--viz. head, eye, breath, trunk, bladder, feet--of the
worshipper's body. 'The head is Sutejas'--that means: the head of the
devotee is (identical with) heaven, which is the head of the highest
Self; and so on up to 'the feet,' i.e. the feet of the devotee are
identical with the earth, which constitutes the feet of the highest Self,
The devotee having thus reflected on the highest Self, which has the
three worlds for its body, as present within his own body, thereupon is
told to view his own chest, hair, heart, mind and mouth as identical
with the altar, grass and the other things which are required for the
Agnihotra; further to identify the oblation to Prana with the Agnihotra,
and by means of this Prana-agnihotra to win the favour of Vaisvanara, i.
e. the highest Self. The final--conclusion then remains that Vaisvanara
is none other than the highest Self, the supreme Person.--Here
terminates the adhikarana of 'Vaisvanara.'
THIRD PADA.
1. The abode of heaven, earth, &c. (is the highest Self), on account of
terms which are its own.
The followers of the Atharva-veda have the following text, 'He in whom
the heaven, the earth and the sky are woven, the mind also, with all the
vital airs, know him alone as the Self, and leave off other words; he is
the bank (setu) of the Immortal' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 5). The doubt here
arises whether the being spoken of as the abode of heaven, earth, and so
on, is the individual soul or the highest Self.
The Purvapakshin maintains the former alternative. For, he remarks, in
the next sloka, 'where like spokes in the nave of a wheel the arteries
meet, he moves about within, becoming manifold,' the word 'where' refers
back to the being which in the preceding sloka had been called the abode
of heaven, earth, and so on, the clause beginning with 'where' thus
declaring that that being is the basis of the arteries; and the next
clause declares that same being to become manifold or to be born in many
ways. Now, connexion with the arteries is clearly characteristic of the
individual soul; and so is being born in many forms, divine and so on.
Moreover, in the very sloka under discussion it is said that that being
is the abode of the mind and the five vital airs, and this also is a
characteristic attribute of the individual soul. It being, on these
grounds, ascertained that the text refers to the individual soul we must
attempt to reconcile therewith, as well as we can, what is said about
its being the abode of heaven, earth, &c.
This prima facie view is set aside by the Sutra. That which is described
as the abode of heaven, earth, &c. is none other than the highest
Brahman, on account of a term which is 'its own,' i.e. which specially
belongs to it. The clause we have in view is 'he is the bank of the
Immortal.' This description applies to the highest Brahman only, which
alone is, in all Upanishads, termed the cause of the attainment of
Immortality; cp. e.g. 'Knowing him thus a man becomes immortal; there is
no other path to go' (Sve. Up. III, 8). The term 'setu' is derived from
_si_, which means to bind, and therefore means that which binds, i.e.
makes one to attain immortality; or else it may be understood to mean
that which leads towards immortality that lies beyond the ocean of
samsara, in the same way as a bank or bridge (setu) leads to the further
side of a river.--Moreover the word 'Self (atman) (which, in the text
under discussion, is also applied to that which is the abode of heaven,
earth, &c.), without any further qualification, primarily denotes
Brahman only; for 'atman' comes from _ap_, to reach, and means that
which 'reaches' all other things in so far as it rules them. And further
on (II, 2, 7) there are other terms, 'all knowing,' 'all cognising,'
which also specially belong to the highest Brahman only. This Brahman
may also be represented as the abode of the arteries; as proved e.g. by
Mahanar. Up. (XI, 8-12), 'Surrounded by the arteries he hangs ... in the
middle of this pointed flame there dwells the highest Self.' Of that
Self it may also be said that it is born in many ways; in accordance
with texts such as 'not born, he is born in many ways; the wise know the
place of his birth.' For in order to fit himself to be a refuge for
gods, men, &c. the supreme Person, without however putting aside his
true nature, associates himself with the shape, make, qualities and
works of the different classes of beings, and thus is born in many ways.
Smriti says the same: 'Though being unborn, of non-perishable nature,
the Lord of all beings, yet presiding over my Prakriti I am born by my
own mysterious power' (Bha. Gi. IV, 6). Of the mind also and the other
organs of the individual soul the highest Self is strictly the abode;
for it is the abode of everything.--The next Sutra supplies a further
reason.
2. And on account of its being declared that to which the released have
to resort.
The Person who is the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, is also
declared by the text to be what is to be reached by those who are
released from the bondage of Samsara existence. 'When the seer sees the
brilliant maker and Lord as the Person who has his source in Brahman,
then possessing true knowledge he shakes off good and evil, and, free
from passion, reaches the highest oneness' (Mu. Up. III, 1, 3). 'As the
flowing rivers disappear in the sea, losing their name and form, thus a
wise man freed from name and form goes to the divine Person who is
higher than the high' (III, 2, 8). For it is only those freed from the
bondage of Samsara who shake off good and evil, are free from passion,
and freed from name and form.
For the Samsara state consists in the possession of name and form, which
is due to connexion with non-sentient matter, such connexion springing
from good and evil works. The Person therefore who is the abode of
heaven, earth, &c., and whom the text declares to be the aim to be
reached by those who, having freed themselves from good and evil, and
hence from all contact with matter, attain supreme oneness with the
highest Brahman, can be none other than this highest Brahman itself.
This conclusion, based on terms exclusively applicable to the highest
Brahman, is now confirmed by reference to the absence of terms specially
applicable to the individual soul.
3. Not that which is inferred, on account of the absence of terms
denoting it, and (so also not) the bearer of the Pranas (i. e. the
individual soul).
As the section under discussion does not treat of the Pradhana, there
being no terms referring to that, so it is with regard to the individual
soul also. In the text of the Sutra we have to read either anumanam, i.
e. 'inference,' in the sense of 'object of inference,' or else anumanam,
'object of inference'; what is meant being in both cases the Pradhana
inferred to exist by the Sankhyas.
4. On account of the declaration of difference.
'On the same tree man sits immersed in grief, bewildered by "anisa"; but
when he sees the other one, the Lord, contented, and his glory; then his
grief passes away' (Mu. Up. III, 1, 2). This, and similar texts, speak
of that one, i.e. the one previously described as the abode of heaven,
earth, &c., as different from the individual soul.--The text means--the
individual soul grieves, being bewildered by her who is not 'isa,' i.e.
Prakriti, the object of fruition. But its grief passes away when it sees
him who is other than itself, i.e. the beloved Lord of all, and his
greatness which consists in his ruling the entire world.
5. On account of the subject-matter.
It has been already shown, viz. under I, 2, 21, that the highest Brahman
constitutes the initial topic of the Upanishad. And by the arguments set
forth in the previous Sutras of the present Pada, we have removed all
suspicion as to the topic started being dropped in the body of the
Upanishad.
6. And on account of abiding and eating.
'Two birds, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of them
eats the sweet fruit; without eating, the other looks on' (Mu. Up. III,
1, 1). This text declares that one enjoys the fruit of works while the
other, without enjoying, shining abides within the body. Now this
shining being which does not enjoy the fruit of works can only be the
being previously described as the abode of heaven, earth, &c., and
characterised as all knowing, the bridge of immortality, the Self of all;
it can in no way be the individual Self which, lamenting, experiences
the results of its works. The settled conclusion, therefore, is that the
abode of heaven, earth, and so on, is none other than the highest Self.--
Here terminates the adhikarana of 'heaven, earth, and so on.'
7. The bhuman (is the highest Self), as the instruction about it is
additional to that about serenity.
The Chandogas read as follows: 'Where one sees nothing else, hears
nothing else, knows nothing else, that is fulness (bhuman). Where one
sees something else, hears something else, knows something else, that is
the Little' (Ch. Up. VII, 23, 24).
The term 'bhuman' is derived from _bahu_ (much, many), and primarily
signifies 'muchness.' By 'much' in this connexion, we have however to
understand, not what is numerous, but what is large, for the text uses
the term in contrast with the 'Little' (alpa), i.e. the 'Small.' And the
being qualified as 'large,' we conclude from the context to be the Self;
for this section of the Upanishad at the outset states that he who knows
the Self overcomes grief (VII, 1, 3), then teaches the knowledge of the
bhuman, and concludes by saying that 'the Self is all this' (VII, 25, 2).
The question now arises whether the Self called bhuman is the individual
Self or the highest Self.--The Purvapakshin maintains the former view.
For, he says, to Narada who had approached Sanatkumara with the desire
to be instructed about the Self, a series of beings, beginning with
'name' and ending with 'breath,' are enumerated as objects of devout
meditation; Narada asks each time whether there be anything greater than
name, and so on, and each time receives an affirmative reply ('speech is
greater than name,' &c.); when, however, the series has advanced as far
as Breath, there is no such question and reply. This shows that the
instruction about the Self terminates with Breath, and hence we conclude
that breath in this place means the individual soul which is associated
with breath, not a mere modification of air. Also the clauses 'Breath is
father, breath is mother,' &c. (VII, 15, 1), show that breath here is
something intelligent. And this is further proved by the clause 'Slayer
of thy father, slayer of thy mother,' &c. (VII, 15, 2; 3), which
declares that he who offends a father, a mother, &c., as long as there
is breath in them, really hurts them, and therefore deserves reproach;
while no blame attaches to him who offers even the grossest violence to
them after their breath has departed. For a conscious being only is
capable of being hurt, and hence the word 'breath' here denotes such a
being only. Moreover, as it is observed that also in the case of such
living beings as have no vital breath (viz. plants), suffering results,
or does not result, according as injury is inflicted or not, we must for
this reason also decide that the breath spoken of in the text as
something susceptible of injury is the individual soul. It consequently
would be an error to suppose, on the ground of the comparison of Prana
to the nave of a wheel in which the spokes are set, that Prana here
denotes the highest Self; for the highest Self is incapable of being
injured. That comparison, on the other hand, is quite in its place, if
we understand by Prana the individual soul, for the whole aggregate of
non-sentient matter which stands to the individual soul in the relation
of object or instrument of enjoyment, has an existence dependent on the
individual soul. And this soul, there called Prana, is what the text
later on calls Bhuman; for as there is no question and reply as to
something greater than Prana, Prana continues, without break, to be the
subject-matter up to the mention of bhuman. The paragraphs intervening
between the section on Prana (VII, 15) and the section on the bhuman
(VII, 23 ff.) are to be understood as follows. The Prana section closes
with the remark that he who fully knows Prana is an ativadin, i.e. one
who makes a final supreme declaration. In the next sentence then, 'But
this one in truth is an ativadin who makes a supreme statement by means
of the True,' the clause 'But this one is an ativadin' refers back to
the previously mentioned person who knows the Prana, and the relative
clause 'who makes,' &c., enjoins on him the speaking of the truth as an
auxiliary element in the meditation on Prana. The next paragraph, 'When
one understands the truth then one declares the truth,' intimates that
speaking the truth stands in a supplementary relation towards the
cognition of the true nature of the Prana as described before. For the
accomplishment of such cognition the subsequent four paragraphs enjoin
reflection, faith, attendance on a spiritual guide, and the due
performance of sacred duties. In order that such duties may be
undertaken, the next paragraphs then teach that bliss constitutes the
nature of the individual soul, previously called Prana, and finally that
the Bhuman, i.e. the supreme fulness of such bliss, is the proper object
of inquiry. The final purport of the teaching, therefore, is that the
true nature of the individual soul, freed from Nescience, is abundant
bliss--a conclusion which perfectly agrees with the initial statement
that he who knows the Self passes beyond sorrow. That being, therefore,
which has the attribute of being 'bhuman,' is the individual Self. This
being so, it is also intelligible why, further on, when the text
describes the glory and power of the individual Self, it uses the term
'I'; for 'I' denotes just the individual Self: 'I am below, I am above,
& c., I am all this' (VII, 25, 1). This conclusion having been settled,
all remaining clauses must be explained so as to agree with it.
This prima facie view is set aside by the Sutra. The being characterised
in the text as 'bhuman' is not the individual Self, but the highest Self,
since instruction is given about the bhuman in addition to 'serenity'
(samprasada). 'Samprasada' denotes the individual soul, as we know from
the following text, 'Now that "serenity", having risen from out this
body, and having reached the highest light, appears in its true form'
(Ch. Up. VIII, 3, 4). Now in the text under discussion instruction is
given about a being called 'the True,' and possessing the attribute of
'bhuman,' as being something additional to the individual soul; and this
being called 'the True' is none other than the highest Brahman. Just as
in the series of beings beginning with name and ending with breath, each
successive being is mentioned in addition to the preceding one--
wherefrom we conclude that it is something really different from what
precedes; so that being also which is called 'the True,' and which is
mentioned in addition to the individual Self called Prana, is something
different from the individual Self, and this being called 'the True' is
the same as the Bhuman; in other words, the text teaches that the Bhuman
is the highest Brahman called 'the True.' This the Vrittikara also
declares: 'But the Bhuman only. The Bhuman is Brahman, because in the
series beginning with name instruction is given about it subsequently to
the individual Self.'
But how do we know that the instruction as to 'the True' is in addition
to, and refers to something different from, the being called Prana?--The
text, after having declared that he who knows the Prana is an ativadin,
goes on, 'But really that one is an ativadin who makes a supreme
declaration by means of the True.' The 'but' here clearly separates him
who is an ativadin by means of the True from the previous ativadin, and
the clause thus does not cause us to recognise him who is ativadin by
means of Prana; hence 'the True' which is the cause of the latter
ativadin being what he is must be something different from the Prana
which is the cause of the former ativadin's quality.--But we have
maintained above that the text enjoins the speaking of 'the True' merely
as an auxiliary duty for him who knows Prana; and that hence the Prana
continues to be the general subject-matter!--This contention is
untenable, we reply. The conjunction 'but' shows that the section gives
instruction about a new ativadin, and does not merely declare that the
ativadin previously mentioned has to speak the truth. It is different
with texts such as 'But that one indeed is an Agnihotrin who speaks the
truth'; there we have no knowledge of any further Agnihotrin, and
therefore must interpret the text as enjoining truthfulness as an
obligation incumbent on the ordinary Agnihotrin. In the text under
discussion, on the other hand, we have the term 'the True', which makes
us apprehend that there is a further ativadin different from the
preceding one; and we know that that term is used to denote the highest
Brahman, as e.g. in the text, 'The True, knowledge, the Infinite is
Brahman.' The ativadin who takes his stand on this Brahman, therefore,
must be viewed as different from the preceding ativadin; and a
difference thus established on the basis of the meaning and connexion of
the different sentences cannot be set aside. An ativadin ('one who in
his declaration goes beyond') is one who maintains, as object of his
devotion, something which, as being more beneficial to man, surpasses
other objects of devotion. The text at first declares that he who knows
Prana, i.e. the individual soul, is an ativadin, in so far as the object
of his devout meditation surpasses the objects from name up to hope; and
then goes on to say that, as that object also is not of _supreme_
benefit to man, an ativadin in the full sense of the term is he only who
proclaims as the object of his devotion the highest Brahman, which alone
is of supreme unsurpassable benefit to man. 'He who is an ativadin by
the True,' i.e. he who is an ativadin characterised by the highest
Brahman as the object of his meditation. For the same reason the pupil
entreats, 'Sir, may I be an ativadin with the True!' and the teacher
replies, 'But we must desire to know the True!'--Moreover, the text, VII,
26, I, 'Prana springs from the Self,' declares the origination from the
Self of the being called Prana; and from this we infer that the Self
which is introduced as the general subject-matter of the section, in the
clause 'He who knows the Self passes beyond death,' is different from
the being called Prana.--The contention that, because there is no
question and answer as to something greater than Prana, the instruction
about the Self must be supposed to come to an end with the instruction
about Prana, is by no means legitimate. For that a new subject is
introduced is proved, not only by those questions and answers; it may be
proved by other means also, and we have already explained such means.
The following is the reason why the pupil does not ask the question
whether there is anything greater than Prana. With regard to the non-
sentient objects extending from name to hope--each of which surpasses
the preceding one in so far as it is more beneficial to man--the teacher
does not declare that he who knows them is an ativadin; when, however,
he comes to the individual soul, there called Prana, the knowledge of
whose true nature he considers highly beneficial, he expressly says that
'he who sees this, notes this, understands this is an ativadin' (VII, 15,
4). The pupil therefore imagines that the instruction about the Self is
now completed, and hence asks no further question. The teacher on the
other hand, holding that even that knowledge is not the highest,
spontaneously continues his teaching, and tells the pupil that truly he
only is an ativadin who proclaims the supremely and absolutely
beneficial being which is called 'the True,' i.e. the highest Brahman.
On this suggestion of the highest Brahman the pupil, desirous to learn
its true nature and true worship, entreats the teacher, 'Sir, may I
become an ativadin by the True!' Thereupon the teacher--in order to help
the pupil to become an ativadin,--a position which requires previous
intuition of Brahman--enjoins on him meditation on Brahman which is the
means to attain intuition ('You must desire to know the True!'); next
recommends to him reflection (manana) which is the means towards
meditation ('You must desire to understand reflection'); then--taking it
for granted that the injunction of reflection implies the injunction of
'hearing' the sacred texts which is the preliminary for reflecting--
advises him to cherish faith in Brahman which is the preliminary means
towards hearing ('You must desire to understand faith'); after that
tells him to practise, as a preliminary towards faith, reliance on
Brahman ('You must desire to understand reliance'); next admonishes him,
to apply himself to 'action,' i.e. to make the effort which is a
preliminary requisite for all the activities enumerated ('You must
desire to understand action'). Finally, in order to encourage the pupil
to enter on all this, the teacher tells him to recognise that bliss
constitutes the nature of that Brahman which is the aim of all his
effort ('You must desire to understand bliss'); and bids him to realise
that the bliss which constitutes Brahman's nature is supremely large and
full ('You must endeavour to understand the "bhuman," i.e. the supreme
fulness of bliss'). And of this Brahman, whose nature is absolute bliss,
a definition is then given as follows,' Where one sees nothing else,
hears nothing else, knows nothing else, that is bhuman.' This means--
when the meditating devotee realises the intuition of this Brahman,
which consists of absolute bliss, he does not see anything apart from it,
since the whole aggregate of things is contained within the essence and
outward manifestation (vibhuti) of Brahman. He, therefore, who has an
intuitive knowledge of Brahman as qualified by its attributes and its
vibhuti--which also is called aisvarya, i.e. lordly power--and
consisting of supreme bliss, sees nothing else since there _is_ nothing
apart from Brahman; and sees, i.e. feels no pain since all possible
objects of perception and feeling are of the nature of bliss or pleasure;
for pleasure is just that which, being experienced, is agreeable to
man's nature.--But an objection is raised, it is an actual fact that
this very world is perceived as something different from Brahman, and as
being of the nature of pain, or at the best, limited pleasure; how then
can it be perceived as being a manifestation of Brahman, as having
Brahman for its Self, and hence consisting of bliss?--The individual
souls, we reply, which are under the influence of karman, are conscious
of this world as different from Brahman, and, according to their
individual karman, as either made up of pain or limited pleasure. But as
this view depends altogether on karman, to him who has freed himself
from Nescience in the form of karman, this same world presents itself as
lying within the intuition of Brahman, together with its qualities and
vibhuti, and hence as essentially blissful. To a man troubled with
excess of bile the water he drinks has a taste either downright
unpleasant or moderately pleasant, according to the degree to which his
health is affected; while the same water has an unmixedly pleasant taste
for a man in good health. As long as a boy is not aware that some
plaything is meant to amuse him, he does not care for it; when on the
other hand he apprehends it as meant to give him delight, the thing
becomes very dear to him. In the same way the world becomes an object of
supreme love to him who recognises it as having Brahman for its Self,
and being a mere plaything of Brahman--of Brahman, whose essential
nature is supreme bliss, and which is a treasure-house, as it were, of
numberless auspicious qualities of supreme excellence. He who has
reached such intuition of Brahman, sees nothing apart from it and feels
no pain. This the concluding passages of the text set forth in detail,
'He who sees, perceives and understands this, loves the Self, delights
in the Self, revels in the Self, rejoices in the Self; he becomes a Self
ruler, he moves and rules in all worlds according to his pleasure. But
those who have a different knowledge from this, they are ruled by others,
they live in perishable worlds, they do not move in all the worlds
according to their liking.' 'They are ruled by others,' means 'they are
in the power of karman.' And further on, 'He who sees this does not see
death, nor illness, nor pain; he who sees this sees everything and
obtains everything everywhere.'
That Brahman is of the nature of supreme bliss has been shown in detail
under I, 1, 12 ff.--The conclusion from all this is that, as the text
applies the term 'bhuman' to what was previously called the Real or True,
and which is different from the individual soul there called Prana, the
bhuman is the highest Brahman.
8. And on account of the suitability of the attributes.
The attributes also which the text ascribes to the bhuman suit the
highest Self only. So immortality ('The Bhuman is immortal,' VII, 24, 1);
not being based on something else ('it rests in its own greatness');
being the Self of all ('the bhuman is below,' &c., 'it is all this');
being that which produces all ('from the Self there springs breath,' &c.
). All these attributes can be reconciled with the highest Self only.--
The Purvapakshin has pointed to the text which declares the 'I' to be
the Self of all (VII, 25, 1); but what that text really teaches is
meditation on Brahman under the aspect of the 'I.' This appears from the
introductory clause 'Now follows the instruction with regard to the I.'
That of the 'I,' i.e. the individual Self, also the highest Self is the
true Self, scripture declares in several places, so e.g. in the text
about the inward Ruler (Bri. Up. III, 7). As therefore the individual
soul finds its completion in the highest Self only, the word 'I' also
extends in its connotation up to the highest Self; and the instruction
about the 'I' which is given in the text has thus for its object
meditation on the highest Self in so far as having the individual Self
for its body. As the highest Self has all beings for its body and thus
is the Self of all, it is the Self of the individual soul also; and this
the text declares in the passage beginning 'Now follows the instruction
about the Self,' and ending 'Self is all this.' In order to prove this
the text declares that everything originates from the highest Self which
forms the Self of the individual soul also, viz. in the passage 'From
the Self of him who sees this, perceives this, knows this, there springs
breath,' &c.--that means: breath and all other beings spring from the
highest Self which abides within the Self of the meditating devotee as
its inner ruler. Hence, the text means to intimate, meditation should be
performed on the 'I,' in order thus firmly to establish the cognition
that the highest Self has the 'I,' i.e. the individual soul for its body.
It is thus an established conclusion that the bhuman is the highest Self.
Here terminates the adhikarana of 'fulness.'
9. The Imperishable (is Brahman), on account of its supporting that
which is the end of ether.
The Vajasaneyins, in the chapter recording the questions asked by Gargi,
read as follows: 'He said, O Gargi, the Brahmanas call that the
Imperishable. It is neither coarse nor fine, neither short nor long, it
is not red, not fluid, it is without a shadow,' &c. (Bri. Up. III, 8, 8).
A doubt here arises whether that Imperishable be the Pradhana, or the
individual soul, or the highest Self.--The Pradhana, it may be
maintained in the first place. For we see that in passages such as
'higher than that which is higher than the Imperishable' the term
'Imperishable' actually denotes the Pradhana; and moreover the qualities
enumerated, viz. not being either coarse or fine, &c., are
characteristic of the Pradhana.--But, an objection is raised, in texts
such as 'That knowledge by which the Imperishable is apprehended' (Mu.
Up. I, 1, 5), the word 'Imperishable' is seen to denote the highest
Brahman!--In cases, we reply, where the meaning of a word may be
determined on the basis either of some other means of proof or of
Scripture, the former meaning presents itself to the mind first, and
hence there is no reason why such meaning should not be accepted.--But
how do you know that the ether of the text is not ether in the ordinary
sense?--From the description, we reply, given of it in the text, 'That
above the heavens,' &c. There it is said that all created things past,
present and future rest on ether as their basis; ether cannot therefore
be taken as that elementary substance which itself is comprised in the
sphere of things created. We therefore must understand by 'ether' matter
in its subtle state, i.e. the Pradhana; and the Imperishable which
thereupon is declared to be the support of that Pradhana, hence cannot
itself be the Pradhana.--Nor is there any force in the argument that a
sense established by some other means of proof presents itself to the
mind more immediately than a sense established by Scripture; for as the
word 'akshara' (i.e. the non-perishable) intimates its sense directly
through the meaning of its constituent elements other means of proof
need not be regarded at all.
Moreover Yajnavalkya had said previously that the ether is the cause and
abode of all things past, present and future, and when Gargi thereupon
asks him in what that ether 'is woven,' i.e. what is the causal
substance and abode of ether, he replies 'the Imperishable.' Now this
also proves that by the 'Imperishable' we have to understand the
Pradhana which from other sources is known to be the causal substance,
and hence the abode, of all effected things whatsoever.
This prima facie view is set aside by the Sutra. The 'Imperishable' is
the highest Brahman, because the text declares it to support that which
is the end, i. e. that which lies beyond ether, viz. unevolved matter
(avyakritam). The ether referred to in Gargi's question is not ether in
the ordinary sense, but what lies beyond ether, viz. unevolved matter,
and hence the 'Imperishable' which is said to be the support of that
'unevolved' cannot itself be the 'unevolved,' i.e. cannot be the
Pradhana. Let us, then, the Purvapakshin resumes, understand by the
'Imperishable,' the individual soul; for this may be viewed as the
support of the entire aggregate of non-sentient matter, inclusive of the
elements in their subtle condition; and the qualities of non-coarseness,
& c., are characteristic of that soul also. Moreover there are several
texts in which the term 'Imperishable' is actually seen to denote the
individual soul; so e.g. 'the non-evolved' is merged in the
'Imperishable'; 'That of which the non-evolved is the body; that of
which the Imperishable is the body'; 'All the creatures are the
Perishable, the non-changing Self is called the Imperishable' (Bha. GI.
XV, 16).
To this alternative prima facie view the next Sutra replies.
10. And this (supporting) (springs) from command.
The text declares that this supporting of ether and all other things
proceeds from command. 'In the command of that Imperishable sun and moon
stand, held apart; in the command of that Imperishable heaven and earth
stand, held apart,' &c. Now such supreme command, through which all
things in the universe are held apart, cannot possibly belong to the
individual soul in the state either of bondage or of release. The
commanding 'Imperishable' therefore is none other than the supreme
Person.
11. And on account of the exclusion of (what is of) another nature (than
Brahman).
Another nature, i. e. the nature of the Pradhana, and so on. A
supplementary passage excludes difference on the part of the
Imperishable from the supreme Person. 'That Imperishable, O Gargi, is
unseen but seeing; unheard but hearing; unthought but thinking; unknown
but knowing. There is nothing that sees but it, nothing that hears but
it, nothing that thinks but it, nothing that knows but it. In that
Imperishable, O Gargi, the ether is woven, warp and woof.' Here the
declaration as to the Imperishable being what sees, hears, &c. excludes
the non-intelligent Pradhana; and the declaration as to its being all-
seeing, &c. while not seen by any one excludes the individual soul. This
exclusion of what has a nature other than that of the highest Self thus
confirms the view of that Self being meant.--Or else the Sutra may be
explained in a different way, viz. 'On account of the exclusion of the
existence of another.' On this alternative the text 'There is nothing
that sees but it,' &c., is to be understood as follows: 'while this
Imperishable, not seen by others but seeing all others, forms the basis
of all things different from itself; there is no other principle which,
unseen by the Imperishable but seeing it, could form _its_ basis,' i.e.
the text would exclude the existence of any other thing but the
Imperishable, and thus implicitly deny that the Imperishable is either
the Pradhana or the individual Self.--Moreover the text 'By the command
of that Imperishable men praise those who give, the gods follow the
Sacrficer, the fathers the Darvi-offering,' declares the Imperishable to
be that on the command of which there proceed all works enjoined by
Scripture and Smriti. such as sacrificing, giving, &c., and this again
shows that the Imperishable must be Brahman, the supreme Person. Again,
the subsequent _passus_, 'Whosoever without knowing that Imperishable,'
& c., declares that ignorance of the Imperishable leads to the Samsara,
while knowledge of it helps to reach Immortality: this also proves that
the Imperishable is the highest Brahman.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the Imperishable.' |
|
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기