Format by A.K. Aruna, 2021 ver.2.0: UpasanaYoga. If downloaded, requires installed Devanāgarī Siddhanta1.ttf font, downloadable from UpasanaYoga. If run from UpasanaYoga website, it alternatively can use online Web Font. Top button "Collapse all panels" contracts the view in which individual items can be re-expanded, or again the top button "Restore all panels" reloads page to original view.
This is V. M. Apte’s 1960 English translation of Ādi-Śaṅkara's Bhāṣyam (commentary) comprising for the students of Vedānta an excellent introduction and summary of the main topics concerning the proper textual understanding of the Upaniṣads.
by A.K. Aruna
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/, or click the following logo:
युष्मद्-अस्मत्-प्रत्यय-गोचरयोर् विषय-विषयिणोस् तमः-प्रकाशवद् विरुद्ध-स्व-भावयोर् इतरेतर-भाव-अनुपपत्तौ सिद्धायाम्,
That the sense-object (Viṣaya) and the subject of sense-objects (Viṣayin) which are within the range of the denotative power of the words ‘Yuṣmat’ (‘You’, including the Lord as an object of my prayers) and ‘Asmat’ (‘I’) respectively, And have natures as opposed to each other as darkness and light, Cannot transform themselves into each other, being (a matter) firmly established,
तद्-धर्माणाम् अपि सुतराम् इतरेतर-भाव-अनुपपत्तिः।
The attributes of these two also, with a greater reason therefore, cannot transform themselves into the nature of each other.
इत्य् अतः अस्मत्-प्रत्यय-गोचरे विषयिणि चिद्-आत्मके युष्मत्-प्रत्यय-गोचरस्य विषयस्य तद्-धर्माणां च अध्यासः, तद्-विपर्ययेण विषयिणस् तद्-धर्माणां च विषयेऽध्यासो, मिथ्येति भवितुं युक्तम्।
And therefore, the mutual superimposition of the sense-objects which are within the range of the denotative power of the word ‘Yuṣmat’ and its attributes, on the subject of sense-objects which is within the range of the denotative power of the word ‘Asmat’ and has pure intelligence as its self, and its attributes, Is necessarily unreal (Mithyā).
तथापि (or तथाहि) अन्योऽन्यस्मिन्न् अन्योऽन्य-आत्मकताम् अन्योऽन्य-धर्मांश् च अध्यस्य इतरेतर-अविवेकेन अत्य्-अन्त-विविक्तयोर् धर्म-धर्मिणोः, मिथ्या-ज्ञान-निमित्तः, सत्य-अनृते मिथुनी-कृत्य, ‘अहम् इदम्, ममेदम्’ इति नैसर्गिकोऽयं लोक-व्यवहारः।
All the same, it is a natural course of worldly conduct resulting from false-ignorance (i.e. false-knowledge, Mithyā-jñāna, see Note below) (in a person), to superimpose the sense-objects and the subject of sense-objects which are absolutely different from each other, and their respective attributes, mutually on each other, through failure to discriminate or distinguish either of them from each other, and by coupling truth and untruth together and to imagine thus — ‘I am this’, ‘This is mine’ [Note: Apte consistently applies this translation of ‘Mithyājñāna’ as being ‘Mithyā-ajñāna false-ignorance’, instead of the usual and more traditional ‘Mithyā-jñāna false-knowledge’, but ‘false-ignorance’ seems to be a confusing double negative, like ‘false lack of knowledge, or false misunderstanding’. As with the word ‘Ākāsa’ rendered as ‘space’ instead of ‘ether’, we choose in the following translation to change the rendering of this word to be the less confusing expressionn ‘false-knowledge’ instead].
अथ अध्यास-लक्षण-भाष्यम्1. L.5
आह, कोऽयम् अध्यासो नामेति।
(The opponent asks — ) What indeed then, is this superimposition any way?
उच्यते, स्मृति-रूपः परत्र पूर्व-दृष्ट-अवभासः।
We reply — It is the unreal manifestation of some thing previously perceived and which is of the nature of remembrance, on some thing else.
तं केचिद्, ‘अन्यत्र अन्य-धर्म-अध्यासः’ इति वदन्ति।
Some describe it as the superimposition of the attributes of one thing, on some other thing.
केचित् तु, ‘यत्र यद्-अध्यासः, तद्-विवेक-अग्रह-निबन्धनो भ्रमः’ इति।
(Some describe it) as the confusion based on the inability to discriminate between that which is superimposed on some thing else, and that some thing else on which it is superimposed.
अन्ये तु, ‘यत्र यद्-अध्यासः, तस्यैव विपरीत-धर्मत्व-कल्पनाम् आचक्षत’ इति।
Others again describe it as the fictitious assumption in a thing, of attributes contrary to the attributes of that thing on which some thing else is superimposed.
सर्वथा अपि त्व् अन्यस्य अन्य-धर्म-अवभासतां न व्यभिचरति।
All the same, none of these definitions differ in any way as to the generally unreal assumption about the attributes of one thing as being the attributes of some other thing.
तथा च लोकेऽनुभवः, ‘शुक्तिका हि रजतवद् अवभासते, एकश् चन्द्रः स-द्वितीयवद्’ इति।
Even so is our experience in the ordinary world. A mother-of-pearl appears as if it is silver. The moon, one as she is, appears as if she is two moons.
अथ अध्यास-सम्भावना-भाष्यम्1. L.12
कथं पुनः प्रत्यग्-आत्मन्य् अविषयेऽध्यासो विषय-तद्-धर्माणाम्।
(Says the opponent — ) How can there be a superimposition of a sense-object and its attributes on the Universal Self (Pratyag-ātmā) which is not an object?
सर्वो हि पुरोऽवस्थिते विषये विषय-अन्तरम् अध्यस्यति। युष्मत्-प्रत्यय-अपेतस्य च प्रत्यग्-आत्मनोऽविषयत्वं ब्रवीषि।
Everybody superimposes one sense-object on another which is right before one’s eyes, while you have mentioned (earlier), that the Universal Self to which the word ‘Yuṣmat’ is not applicable, is not a sense-object.
उच्यते, न तावद् अयम् एक-अन्तेन अविषयः, अस्मत्-प्रत्यय-विषयत्वात्। अपरोक्षत्वाच् च प्रत्यग्-आत्म-प्रसिद्धेः।
We reply — The Universal Self is not a non-object in the extreme sense, because it is an object denoted by the word ‘Asmat’, and it is also well-known that the Universal Self can be directly and intuitively perceived.
न च अयम् अस्ति नियमः पुरोऽवस्थित एव विषये विषय-अन्तरम् अध्यसितव्यम् इति।
There is no such hard and fast rule, that it is only on an object right before one’s eyes that another object should be superimposed.
अप्रत्यक्षेऽपि ह्य् आकाशे बालास् तल-मलिनता-आद्य् अध्यस्यन्ति।
Ignorant people superimpose the attributes of concavity (Tala) and dustiness etc. on the Ākāśa (Space) which is not directly visible.
एवम् अविरुद्धः प्रत्यग्-आत्मन्य् अप्य् अनात्म-अध्यासः।
Therefore to superimpose the non-self on the Universal Self is not inconsistent.
अथ विद्या-अविद्या-विवेक-भाष्यम्1. L.18
तम् एतम् एवं-लक्षणम् अध्यासं पण्डिता ‘अविद्या’ इति मन्यन्ते, तद्-विवेकेन च वस्तु-स्व-रूप-अवधारणं विद्याम् आहुः।
Learned men consider superimposition of this nature as Nescience (Avidyā) And they (further) say that knowledge (Vidyā) is the determination of the real nature of a thing by discrimination.
तत्रैवं सति यत्र यद्-अध्यासस् तत्-कृतेन दोषेण गुणेन वा अणुमात्रेण अपि स न संबध्यते।
This being so, that on which some other thing is superimposed is not in the least affected by the faults and merits of the thing superimposed.
अथ व्यवहारमात्रस्य-अविद्यकत्व-प्रतिपादकं भाष्यम्1. L.20
तम् एतम् अविद्या-आख्यम् आत्म-अनात्मनोर् इतरेतर-अध्यासं पुरस्कृत्य सर्वे प्रमाण-प्रमेय-व्यवहारा लौकिका वैदिकाश् च प्रवृत्ताः, सर्वाणि च शास्त्राणि विधि-प्रतिषेध-मोक्ष-पराणि।
And it is by entertaining i.e. adopting this reciprocal superimposition of the Self and the non-self, that all worldly conduct and Vedic actions depending on the means-of-proof (Pramāṇa) and the objects of knowledge, and all scriptural injunctions and prohibitions, known as Nescience, are promoted.
कथं पुनर् अविद्यावद् विषयाणि प्रत्यक्ष-आदीनि प्रमाणानि शास्त्राणि चेति।
How again (says the opponent) are the means of right knowledge such as direct perception etc. and the Scriptures, concerned with that which is the object of Nescience?
उच्यते, देहेन्द्रिय-आदिष्व् अहं-मम-अभिमान-रहितस्य प्रमातृत्व-अनुपपत्तौ प्रमाण-प्रवृत्त्य्-अनुपपत्तेः।
We reply — Because in the case of a person who has no such false sense of ‘I’ or ‘Mine’ with regard to the body and the sense-organs, there is no possibility of his being desirous of knowledge, as there is no possibility of the operation of the means of right knowledge.
न हि इन्द्रियाण्य् अनुपादाय प्रत्यक्ष-आदि-व्यवहारः संभवति। न च अधिष्ठानम् अन्तरेण इन्द्रियाणां व्यवहारः संभवति। न च अनध्यस्त-आत्म-भावेन देहेन कश्चिद् व्याप्रियते।
Without the employment of the sense-organs, perception is not possible, and without a basis (such as a body) the operation of senses organs is not possible, And nobody ever acts or is concerned with a mere body which is not superimposed by the notion of the Self.
न चैतस्मिन् सर्वस्मिन्न् असत्य् असङ्गस्य आत्मनः प्रमातृत्वम् उपपद्यते। न च प्रमातृत्वम् अन्तरेण प्रमाण-प्रवृत्तिर् अस्ति।
Neither in the absence of all this (i.e. mutual superimposition), is it possible either for the Self which is free from all contact, to be a knowing agent, Nor in the absence of the condition of a knowing agent is any operation of the means of right knowledge possible.
तस्माद् अविद्यावद् विषयाण्य् एव प्रत्य्-अक्ष-आदीनि प्रमाणानि शास्त्राणि चेति।
Therefore, means of right knowledge such as direct perception etc., and the Śāstras have for their object that which is dependent on Nescience.
पश्व्-आदिभिश् च अविशेषात्।
This a person has in common with the animals etc.
यथा हि पश्व्-आदयः शब्द-आदिभिः श्रोत्र-आदीनां संबन्धे सति, शब्ध-आदि-विज्ञाने प्रति-कूले जाते ततो निवर्तन्ते, अनु-कूले च प्रवर्तन्ते, यथा दण्डोद्यत-करं पुरुषम् अभिमुखम् उपलभ्य ‘मां हन्तुम् अयम् इच्छति’ इति पलायितुम् आरभन्ते, हरित-तृण-पूर्ण-पाणिम् उपलभ्य तं प्रति अभिमुखी-भवन्ति।
Just as animals etc., when sounds are in contact with the ear etc., and the knowledge of the same is not favourable, go away from them, and when it is favourable, are attracted towards them, As for instance, finding in front of themselves a man holding up a stick, they begin to run away from him, thinking that he wishes to strike them, but when they find him in front of themselves with his hands full of green grass, approach him;
एवं पुरुषा अपि व्युत्पन्न-चित्ताः क्रूर-दृष्टीन् आक्रोशतः खङ्गोद्यत-करान् बलवत उपलभ्य ततो निवर्तन्ते, तद्-विपरीतान् प्रति प्रवर्तन्ते।
Similarly men even when they are able to discriminate properly, (finding before them) strong men who have swords in their upraised hands and who have a fierce aspect, and who are shouting wildly, go away from them, and approach those who are of an opposite nature,
अतः समानः पश्व्-आदिभिः पुरुषाणां प्रमाण-प्रमेय-व्यवहारः।
And thus, the employment of the means of right knowledge and the objects of knowledge is common both to animals and men.
पश्व्-आदीनां च प्रसिद्ध एव अविवेक-पुरःसरः प्रत्य्-अक्ष-आदि-व्यवहारः।
Now, the employment of the means of right knowledge such as direct perception etc. by animals is well-known as being due to their failure to discriminate properly.
तत्-सामान्य-दर्शनाद् व्युत्पत्तिमताम् अपि पुरुषाणां प्रत्यक्ष-आदि-व्यवहारस् तत्-कालः समान इति निश्चीयते।
Similarly, it is thus determined, that even in the case of properly discriminating persons their employment of the means of right knowledge such as direct perception, which is seen to be common to them with animals, is at similar times, also similar.
शास्त्र-व्यवहारस्य अप्य् अविद्या-पुरस्सरत्व-प्रदर्शन-भाष्यम्1. L.32
शास्त्रीये तु व्यवहारे यद्य् अपि बुद्धि-पूर्व-कारी न अविदित्वा आत्मनः पर-लोक-संबन्धम् अधिक्रियते, तथा अपि न वेदान्त-वेद्यम् अशनाय-आद्य्-अतीतम् अपेत-ब्रह्म-क्षत्र-आदि-भेदम् असंसार्य्-आत्म-तत्त्वम् अधिकारेऽपेक्ष्यते, अनुपयोगात् अधिकार-विरोधाच् च।
In the case of activities based on the Scriptures (such as sacrifices etc.) though a man motivated by intelligence is not competent to act without the knowledge of the relation of the Self with the world beyond (Para-loka), Yet the knowledge of the Self which can only be acquired from Vedānta, and is beyond the physical necessities of eating etc., and is beyond the distinctions of Brāhmaṇa and Kṣatriya and which is not of the nature of transmigratory existence, is not necessary for a man for attaining that competency, Because it is useless and even opposed to such competency (for performing religious acts).
प्राक् च तथा-भूत-आत्म-विज्ञानात् प्रवर्तमानं शास्त्रम् अविद्यावद् विषयत्वं न अतिवर्तते।
The Śāstra which comes into operation before the realization of such nature of the Self does not exceed its jurisdiction of being concerned only with that which is affected by Nescience.
तथा हि, ‘ब्राह्मणो यजेत’ इत्य्-आदीनि शास्त्राण्य् आत्मनि वर्ण-आश्रम-वयोऽवस्था-आदि-विशेष-अध्यासम् आश्रित्य प्रवर्तन्ते।
Thus Scriptural injunctions such as “a Brāhmaṇa should sacrifice” operate by depending on this superimposition on the Self, of caste, stage of life (Āśrama), age and special conditions.
अथ अध्यास-प्रकार-प्रदर्शन-भाष्यम्1. L.35
‘अध्यासो नाम अतस्मिंस् तद्-बुद्धिः’ इत्य् अवोचाम।
We have already said that superimposition is the notion of that in something which is not that.
तद् यथा पुत्र-भार्या-आदिषु वि-कलेषु स-कलेषु वा ‘अहम् एव वि-कलः, स-कलो वा’ इति बाह्य-धर्मान् आत्मनि अध्यस्यति, तथा देह-धर्मान् ‘स्थूलोऽहम् कृशोऽहम् गौरोऽहम् तिष्ठामि गच्छामि लङ्घयामि च’ इति,
Just as it is, for instance, when a person superimposes on his Self attributes external to his own Self, i.e. when his son or wife etc., are in sound health or otherwise, he considers himself to be similarly sound in health or otherwise, Or when he superimposes the attributes of his body on his Self, thus — “I am Stout or lean or fair, or I am standing or going or crossing over”,
तथेन्द्रिय-धर्मान् ‘मूकः काणः क्लीबो बधिरोऽन्धोऽहम्’ इति, तथा अन्तःकरण-धर्मान् काम-संकल्प-विचिकित्सा-अध्यवसाय-आदीन्।
Or when he superimposes the attributes of his sense-organs on his Self, thus — “I am dumb or squint-eyed or impotent or deaf or blind”, Or when he superimposes on his own Self the attributes of his internal sense-organ (Antaḥ-karaṇa) i.e. the mind, viz., desire, intention, doubt,' determination etc.
एवम् अहं-प्रत्ययिनम् अशेष-स्व-प्रचार-साक्षिणि प्रत्यग्-आत्मन्य् अध्यस्य तं च प्रत्यग्-आत्मानं सर्व-साक्षिणं तद्-विपर्ययेण अन्तःकरण-आदिष्व् अध्यस्यति।
In this manner he Superimposes that which experiences the ‘I’ or ‘Ego’ viz., the minds on the Universal Self which is a witness of all the processes of the mind, And conversely superimposes the Universal Self on the internal sense-organ i.e. the mind.
अथ अध्यास-विचारोपसंहार-भाष्यम्1. L.39
एवम् अयम् अनादिर् अनन्तो नैसर्गिकोऽध्यासो मिथ्या-प्रत्यय-रूपः कर्तृत्व-भोक्तृत्व-प्रवर्तकः सर्व-लोक-प्रत्यक्षः।
It is in this manner, that there is this beginningless and endless natural process of superimposition, which is of the nature of erroneous conception and which promotes the notion of the Self as being an agent and experiencer, which is perceived by all.’
अथ मीमांसा-अवकरणिका-भाष्यम्1. L.40
अस्य अनर्थ-हेतोः प्रहाणाय आत्मैकत्व-विद्या-प्रतिपत्तये सर्वे वेदान्ता आरभ्यन्ते।
It is with a view to destroy this cause of all evil, and for acquiring the knowledge of the unity of the Self, that all Vedānta is begun.
यथा च अयम् अर्थः सर्वेषां वेदान्तानां, तथा वयम् अस्यां शारिरक-मीमांसायां प्रदर्शयिष्यामः।
How this is the meaning of all Vedānta (texts) we will endeavour to show in this present Śārīraka-Mīmāṃsā.
Atha: now, then, afterwards; Ataḥ: therefore; Brahma-jijñāsā: a desire for the knowledge of Brahman (the enquiry into the real nature of Brahman).
🔗 Now, therefore, the inquiry into Brahman (should be taken up). — 220.127.116.11.1.1 L.2
तत्र अथ-शब्दः आनन्तर्य-अर्थः परिगृह्यते, न अधिकार-अर्थः, ब्रह्म-जिज्ञासाया अनधिकार्यत्वात्।
The word ‘Now’ is to be understood as meaning something which follows (after the attainment of the requisite spiritual qualities) and not as something which introduces a subject, Because the desire to know Brahman is not something which is possible to be introduced as a subject,
मङ्गलस्य च वाक्य-अर्थे समन्वय-अभावात्।
Nor can the word mean an auspicious recitation (Maṅgala), as it cannot be properly construed in the meaning of the sentence.
अर्थ-अन्तर-प्रयुक्त एव ह्य् अथ-शब्दः श्रुत्या मङ्गल-प्रयोजनो भवति।
The word ‘Now’ which is used in a different meaning, has still the effect of an auspicious recitation by its being merely heard.
पूर्व-प्रकृत-अपेक्षायाश् च फलत आनन्तर्य-अव्यतिरेकात्।
The expectation of its referring to something relevant to something else which has gone before is virtually not different from a thing’s following after:
सति च आनन्तर्य-अर्थत्वे, यथा धर्म-जिज्ञासा पूर्व-वृत्तं वेद-अध्ययनं नियमेन अपेक्षते, एवं ब्रह्म-जिज्ञासा अपि यत् पूर्व-वृत्तं नियमेन अपेक्षते, तद् वक्तव्यम्।
The word being understood then, as indicating something which comes after something else, that something else which is expected to have been accomplished, before the desire for the knowledge of Brahman (can be entertained) needs to be mentioned, just as in the case of a desire for the knowledge of duty (Dharma) the study of the Veda is expected to have been accomplished already, before such desire for the knowledge of duty (is entertained).
स्वाध्याय-आनन्तर्यं तु समानम्।
The coming after the study of the Veda, is common (to both).
नन्व् इह कर्म-अवबोध-आनन्तर्यं विशेषः।
But, (says the opponent) the peculiar difference Here (i.e. in the case of the desire for the knowledge of Brahman) is its coming after the (previous) knowledge of the acts of duty:
न, धर्म-जिज्ञासायाः प्राग् अपि अधीत-वेदान्तस्य ब्रह्म-जिज्ञासोपपत्तेः।
No (we reply). In the case of a person who has studied the Vedānta, it is reasonably sustainable, that the desire for the knowledge of Brahman may arise (in him) even before the arising of the desire for the knowledge of duty.
यथा च हृदय-आद्य्-अवदानानाम् आनन्तर्य-नियमः, क्रमस्य विवक्षितत्वात्, न तथेह क्रमो विवक्षितः।
Here (i.e. in the case of the desire to know Brahman) no particular serial order is intended to be prescribed (by the Scriptures), just as in the case of the desire for the knowledge of duty, a serial order is intended to be prescribed, in as much as there is a rule about (a particular thing) coming after (another particular thing) such as in the cutting off of the heart (of the animal sacrificed) etc.,
शेष-शेषित्वे अधिकृत-अधिकारे वा प्रमाण-अभावात्, धर्म-ब्रह्म-जिज्ञासयोः फल-जिज्ञास्य-भेदाच् च।
Or as there is no proof to hold, that as between the desire for the knowledge of duty and the desire for the knowledge of Brahman, there is a relation of one thing being the principal thing and another a subsidiary thing, or as there is no proof of any similar relation as between competency (Adhikāra) and a person who has such competency (Adhikṛta), and, as there is a difference between the desire to know ‘duty’ and the desire to know ‘Brahman’, and also a difference in their results and the things to be known.
अभ्युदय-फलं धर्म-ज्ञानं तच् च अनुष्ठान-अपेक्षम्, निःश्रेयस-फलं तु ब्रह्म-विज्ञानम्, न च अनुष्ठान-अन्तर-अपेक्षम्।
Knowledge of duty has for its result secular prosperity (Abhyudaya) and it expects the performance of certain actions (such as sacrifices etc.). The knowledge of Brahman, on the other hand, has for its result eternal bliss (Niḥśreyasa) and it does not expect the performance of any act.
भव्यश् च धर्मो जिज्ञास्यो न ज्ञान-कालेऽस्ति, पुरुष-व्यापार-तन्त्रत्वात्।
Religious duty is something which is to be done at some future time and it does not exist at the time of the acquirement of its knowledge and it depends upon the activity of a man.
इह तु भूतं ब्रह्म जिज्ञास्यं नित्यत्वान् न पुरुष-व्यापार-तन्त्रम्।
Here on the other hand it is Brahman which is actually eternally in existence, that is desired to be known, and being thus eternal does not depend upon any action on the part of a man.
Also as between the two there is a difference in the operation of the scriptural injunction.
या हि चोदना धर्मस्य लक्षणम्, सा स्व-विषये नियुञ्जानैव पुरुषम् अवबोधयति।
Injunction which is a characteristic of religious duty instructs a person and at the same time enjoins him to the performance of the same.
ब्रह्म-चोदना तु पुरुषम् अवबोधयत्य् एव केवलम्, अवबोधस्य चोदना-जन्यत्वान् न पुरुषोऽवबोधे नियुज्यते।
The science of Brahman however merely instructs a person about Brahman, but it does not enjoin a man to any act of acquiring knowledge.
यथा अक्ष-अर्थ-संनिकर्षेण अर्थ-अवबोधे, तद्वत्।
The case is similar to the perception of a sense-object merely by the connection of a sense-organ with its object.
तस्मात् किम् अपि वक्तव्यं, यद् अनन्तरं ब्रह्म-जिज्ञासोपदिश्यत इति।
Therefore it is necessary to mention something, after (the accomplishment of) which the inquiry into Brahman is advised.
उच्यते, नित्य-अनित्य-वस्तु-विवेकः इह-अमुत्र-अर्थ-भोग-विरागः शम-दम-आदि-साधन-संपत् मुमुक्षुत्वं च।
We reply — Discrimination between the eternal thing and a transitory thing, distaste for the enjoyment of things here in this world as well as in the world beyond, equipment of oneself with tranquillity, self-restraint, and such other similar means, and the desire for Final Release.
तेषु हि सत्सु, प्राग् अपि धर्म-जिज्ञासाया ऊर्ध्वं च शक्यते ब्रह्म जिज्ञासितुं ज्ञातुं च, न विपर्यये।
When these are present, it is possible to desire the knowledge of Brahman and to realize it actually, even before the desire for the knowledge of duty or after it, just as you please.
तस्मात् अथ-शब्देन यथोक्त-साधन-संपत्त्य्-आनन्तर्यम् उपदिश्यते॥
The word ‘Now’ indicates — following after the acquisition of the means as mentioned (above).
अतः-शब्दो हेत्व्-अर्थः। यस्माद् वेद एव अग्नि-होत्र-आदीनां श्रेयः-साधनानाम् अनित्य-फलतां दर्शयति,
The word ‘Therefore’ (Ataḥ, in the Sūtra) is indicative of the reason, in as much as the Scriptures themselves disclose the transitory nature of the fruit of such means of acquiring secular prosperity as the Agni-hotra etc., thus —
‘तद् यथेह कर्म-चितो लोकः क्षीयते, एवम् एव अमुत्र पुण्य-चितो लोकः क्षीयते’ (ChanU.8.1.6) इत्य्-आदिः,
“As here on earth whatever has been acquired by religious actions perishes, even so, in the next world also whatever is acquired by merit, perishes” (ChanU.8.1.6) etc.
तथा ब्रह्म-विज्ञानाद् अपि परं पुरुष-अर्थं दर्शयति ‘ब्रह्म-विद् आप्नोति परम्’ (TaitU.2.1) इत्य्-आदिः,
Similarly the Scriptures also show that by realizing Brahman the highest aim of man is attained, thus — “One who realizes Brahman attains Final Release.” (TaitU.2.1 Eng.).
तस्मात् यथोक्त-साधन-संपत्त्य्-अनन्तरं ब्रह्म-जिज्ञासा कर्तव्या।
Therefore the desire for the knowledge of Brahman should be entertained after the acquisition of the four means referred to above.
ब्रह्मणो जिज्ञासा ब्रह्म-जिज्ञासा।
‘Brahma-jijñāsā’ is the desire to know Brahman.
ब्रह्म च वक्ष्यमाण-लक्षणम् ‘जन्म-आद्य् अस्य यतः’ इति।
Brahman is that whose definition will be stated presently in the subsequent Sūtra, viz., “From which the origination of creation etc., (comes about).”
अत एव न ब्रह्म-शब्दस्य जात्य्-आद्य्-अर्थ-अन्तरम् आशङ्कितव्यम्।
One should not therefore think that the word ‘Brahman’ may mean the Brāhmaṇa caste.
ब्रह्मण इति कर्मणि षष्ठी, न शेषे, जिज्ञास्य-अपेक्षत्वाज् जिज्ञासायाः, जिज्ञास्य-अन्तर-अनिर्देशाच् च।
The form ‘Brahmaṇaḥ’ is in grammar the ‘Karmaṇi’ genitive of Brahman and not the ‘Śeṣe’ genitive, Because the desire for the knowledge of Brahman presupposes an object such as Brahman, of which knowledge is to be desired, and because no other such object is here indicated.
ननु शेष-षष्ठी-परिग्रहेऽपि ब्रह्मणो जिज्ञासा-कर्मत्वं न विरुध्यते, संबन्ध-सामान्यस्य विशेष-निष्ठत्वात्।
But (says the opponent) even if we understand ‘Brahmaṇaḥ’ as a ‘Śeṣe’ genitive, the fact that Brahman is the object of the desire to know is not contradicted, for the general relation (indicated by the genitive case) may base itself on the particular relation (indicated by the ‘Karmaṇi’ genitive).
एवम् अपि प्रत्यक्षं ब्रह्मणः कर्मत्वम् उत्सृज्य, सामान्य-द्वारेण परोक्षं कर्मत्वं कल्पयतो, व्य्-अर्थः प्रयासः स्यात्।
We reply — In giving up Brahman as the object directly indicated (by understanding ‘Brahmaṇaḥ’ as the ‘Karmaṇi’ genitive) and then by accepting it as the object indicated, in an indirect way (as indicated by the ‘Śeṣe’ genitive) you will be taking needless trouble.
न व्य्-अर्थः, ब्रह्म-आश्रित-अशेष-विचार-प्रतिज्ञान-अर्थत्वाद्
If the opponent were to say that it would not be undertaking needless trouble (in understanding ‘Brahmaṇaḥ’ as the ‘Śeṣe’ genitive) as it would mean the desire to know all that which is dependent on the word Brahman,
इति चेत्, न, प्रधान-परिग्रहे तद्-अपेक्षितानाम् अर्थ-आक्षिप्तत्वात्।
We reply — no, because when we accept the principal thing (as indicated by the ‘Karmaṇi’ genitive) it also necessarily implies that all those secondary things meant by the word Brahman, are included in the principal thing.
ब्रह्म हि ज्ञानेन आप्तुम् इष्टतमत्वात् प्रधानम्।
Brahman being the most desirable thing to be realized by knowledge, is of course the principal thing.
तस्मिन् प्रधाने जिज्ञासा-कर्मणि परिगृहीते, यैर् जिज्ञासितैर् विना ब्रह्म जिज्ञासितं न भवति, तान्य् अर्थ-आक्षिप्तान्य् एवेति न पृथक्-सूत्रयितव्यानि।
When that principal thing is once accepted as the object of the desire to know, all those other (secondary) things, without desiring to know which Brahman cannot be properly desired to be known, are necessarily implied, and need not be separately mentioned in the Sūtra.
यथा ‘राजा असौ गच्छति’ इत्य् उक्ते स-परिवारस्य राज्ञो गमनम् उक्तं भवति, तद्वत्।
For when we say ‘The king is passing by’, it implies that the passing by of the king along with his retinue is meant.
It (i.e. that Brahman is the object as indicated by the ‘Karmaṇi’ genitive) is in consonance with the Scriptures.
‘यतो वा इमानि भूतानि जायन्ते’ (TaitU.3.1) इत्य्-आद्याः श्रुतयः ‘तद् विजिज्ञासस्व तद् ब्रह्म’ इति प्रत्यक्षम् एव ब्रह्मणो जिज्ञासा-कर्मत्वं दर्शयन्ति। तच् च कर्मणि षष्ठी-परिग्रहे सूत्रेण अनुगतं भवति।
The Scriptural passages “That from which all these things are born” (TaitU.3.1 Eng.) etc. And “Desire to know that, that is Brahman” (TaitU.3.1 Eng.) Actually indicate that Brahman is the object indicated by the ‘Karmaṇi’ genitive and that alone will be in consonance with the Sūtra.
तस्माद् ब्रह्मण इति कर्मणि षष्ठी।
Therefore the form ‘Brahmaṇaḥ’ is the ‘Karmaṇi’ genitive.
ज्ञातुम् इच्छा जिज्ञासा।
‘Jijñāsā’ means the desire to know.
अवगति-पर्यन्तं ज्ञानं सन्-वाच्याया इच्छायाः कर्म, फल-विषयत्वाद् इच्छायाः।
Complete comprehension is the object of the suffix ‘San’ which means desire, because desire has for its object the result of action.
ज्ञानेन हि प्रमाणेन अवगन्तुम् इष्टं ब्रह्म।
Knowledge is the only means of comprehending Brahman,
ब्रह्म-अवगतिर् हि पुरुष-अर्थः, निः-शेष-संसार-बीज-अविद्या-आद्य्-अनर्थ-निबर्हणात्।
And the complete knowledge of Brahman is the highest aim (of man) through the destruction of the evil of Nescience which is the root-cause (lit., the seed) of all transmigratory existence.
तस्माद् ब्रह्म जिज्ञासितव्यम्॥
Therefore the knowledge of Brahman should be desired.
तत् पुनर् ब्रह्म प्रसिद्धम् अप्रसिद्धं वा स्यात्,
But again (says the opponent), that Brahman must either be well-known or not known at all.
यदि प्रसिद्धं न जिज्ञासितव्यम्,
If it is well-known, it need not be desired to be known.
अथ अप्रसिद्धं नैव शक्यं जिज्ञासितुम् इति।
If it is not known at all, it would not be possible to desire to know it.
उच्यते, अस्ति तावद् ब्रह्म नित्य-शुद्ध-बुद्ध-मुक्त-स्व-भावं सर्वज्ञं सर्व-शक्ति-समन्वितम्।
We reply — Brahman which is omniscient, all-powerful, and of the nature of eternal purity, intelligence and freedom, exists of course.
ब्रह्म-शब्दस्य हि व्युत्पाद्यमानस्य नित्य-शुद्धत्व-आदयोऽर्थाः प्रतीयन्ते, बृहतेर् धातोर् अर्थ-अनुगमात्।
Etymologically, from the root ‘Bṛha’ we understand such things as eternal purity, etc.
सर्वस्य आत्मत्वाच् च ब्रह्म-अस्तित्व-प्रसिद्धिः।
The existence of Brahman is moreover well-known, because of its being the Self of every one.
सर्वो ह्य् आत्म-अस्तित्वं प्रत्येति, न ‘न अहम् अस्मि’ इति।
Every one experiences the existence of the Self, and does not experience that he is not.
यदि हि न आत्म-अस्तित्व-प्रसिद्धिः स्यात्, सर्वो लोकः ‘न अहम् अस्मि’ इति प्रतीयात्।
If the well-known existence of the Self were not to be so in fact, every one would experience that he does not exist.
आत्मा च ब्रह्म॥
The Self of course is Brahman.
यदि तर्हि लोके ब्रह्म आत्मत्वेन प्रसिद्धम् अस्ति, ततो ज्ञातम् एवेत्य् अजिज्ञास्यत्वं पुनर् आपन्नम्।
But (says the opponent), if Brahman is known to everybody as the Self, then being already so known, it comes to this, that in that case there could not be any desire to know it.
न, तद्-विशेषं प्रति विप्रतिपत्तेः।
No (we reply), because there is a conflict of opinion as to its special nature.
देह-मात्रं चैतन्य-विशिष्टम् आत्मेति प्राकृता जना लौकायतिकाश् च प्रतिपन्नाः।
Unsophisticated persons and the Lokāyatikas understand that the mere body as such endowed with intelligence is the Self.
इन्द्रियाण्य् एव चेतनान्य् आत्मेत्य् अपरे।
Others that the sense-organs which are intelligent are the Self.
मन इत्य् अन्ये।
Some say that the mind is Ātmā,
विज्ञान-मात्रं क्षणिकम् इत्य् एके।
Some say that it is merely momentary knowledge.
शून्यम् इत्य् अपरे।
Some others say that the Self is merely a vacuum (Śūnya).
अस्ति देह-आदि-व्यतिरिक्तः संसारी कर्ता भोक्तेत्य् अपरे।
Others again say that an entity different from the body which is an agent, an experiencer, and a transmigratory being is in fact in existence.
भोक्तैव केवलं न कर्तेत्य् एके।
Some others say that the Self is an experiencer only but not an agent.
अस्ति तद्-व्यतिरिक्त ईश्वरः सर्वज्ञः सर्व-शक्तिर् इति केचित्।
Some others think that there is a Lord who is omniscient and all-powerful, and is different from the Self.
आत्मा स भोक्तुर् इत्य् अपरे।
Others that the Ātmā is the Self of the experiencing Jīva.
एवं बहवो विप्रतिपन्ना युक्ति-वाक्य-तद्-आभास-समाश्रयाः सन्तः।
In this manner there are many who have resorted to fallacious reasoning or the Scriptures as an authority and have differed amongst themselves in their view (as to what the Self i.e. Brahman is).
तत्र अविचार्य यत् किञ्चित् प्रतिपद्यमानो निःश्रेयसात् प्रतिहन्येत, अनर्थं च इयात्।
Under these circumstances if one were to conclude recklessly and to understand something else (as the Self), one may miss Final Beatitude and may be ruined.
तस्माद् ब्रह्म-जिज्ञासोपन्यास-मुखेन वेदान्त-वाक्य-मीमांसा तद्-अविरोधि-तर्कोपकरणा निःश्रेयस-प्रयोजना प्रस्तूयते॥१॥
Hence now begins, under the designation of ‘an inquiry into Brahman’, an analysis of the Vedānta texts with the help of Logic (Tarka) conformable to the Scriptures, having the highest Beatitude as its reward. — 1.
ब्रह्म जिज्ञासितव्यम् इत्य् उक्तम्।
We have said so far that one should desire to know Brahman.
किं लक्षणं पुनस् तद् ब्रह्म इत्य् अत आह भगवान् सूत्रकारः।
The question arises — What are the characteristics of that Brahman? Therefore Bhagavān Sūtra-kāra has said:
←PrevNext→ जन्माद्यस्य यतः॥१.१.२॥ Janmādy asya yahaḥ.
Janma-ādi: origin etc.; Asya: of this (world); Yataḥ: from which.
🔗 (Brahman is that) from which the origin etc. of this (world, proceed). — 18.104.22.168.1.2 L.3
जन्म उत्पत्तिर् आदिर् अस्य, इति तद्-गुण-संविज्ञानो बहु-व्रीहिः।
The compound word ‘Janmādi’ is a Bahu-vrīhi compound of the ‘Tat-guṇa-saṃvijñāna’ type, and it is dissolved as follows: — ‘That of which origin is the first’.
The meaning of the compound word is — origin, preservation and dissolution.
जन्मनश् च आदित्वं श्रुति-निर्देश-अपेक्षं वस्तु-वृत्त-अपेक्षं च।
Origin comes first in order, because it is so indicated in the Scriptures and also because it is so in fact.
श्रुति-निर्देशस् तावत्, ‘यतो वा इमानि भूतानि जायन्ते’ (TaitU.3.1) इति,
The indication of the Scriptures is “From whence these beings are born” etc. (TaitU.3.1 Eng.) in which origin, preservation and dissolution are mentioned in their order.
अस्मिन् वाक्ये जन्म-स्थिति-प्रलयानां क्रम-दर्शनात्। वस्तु-वृत्तम् अपि जन्मना लब्ध-सत्ताकस्य धर्मिणः स्थिति-प्रलय-संभवात्।
The fact as it is, is that it is only when a thing possessing attributes has attained the condition of existence, that preservation and dissolution of the same are possible.
अस्येति प्रत्यक्ष-आदि-संनिधापितस्य धर्मिण इदमा निर्देशः।
The word ‘Asya’ (in the Sūtra) indicates the thing possessing attributes, which is established by direct means of knowledge etc. as — this is it.
The genitive case (of Asya) is for showing the relation with the origin etc.
यत इति कारण-निर्देशः।
The word ‘Yataḥ’ indicates by the ablative case the cause (of the origin).
अस्य जगतो नाम-रूपाभ्यां व्याकृतस्य अनेक-कर्तृ-भोक्तृ-संयुक्तस्य प्रतिनियत-देश-काल-निमित्त-क्रिया-फल-आश्रयस्य मनसा अप्य् अचिन्त्य-रचना-रूपस्य जन्म-स्थिति-भङ्गं यतः सर्वज्ञात् सर्व-शक्तेः कारणाद् भवति,
The omniscient and all-powerful cause from which (Yataḥ), the origin, preservation and dissolution of this transient world, which is distinguished by names and forms, and which is connected with diverse agents and enjoyers, springs, and which is the basis of the fruit of actions depending upon a particular environment, time, and cause, and in even the mere thinking about which, imagination boggles and is unable to comprehend the arrangement,
‘तद् ब्रह्म’ इति वाक्य-शेषः।
That is Brahman which is to be understood as the complementary portion of the Sūtra.
अन्येषाम् अपि भाव-विकाराणां त्रिष्व् एव अन्तर्-भाव इति जन्म-स्थिति-नाशानाम् इह ग्रहणम्।
These three only viz. the origin, preservation and dissolution, are to be understood here, as the other modifications of existence are covered by these three.
यास्क-परिपठितानां तु ‘जायतेऽस्ति’ इत्य्-आदीनां ग्रहणे तेषां जगतः स्थिति-काले संभाव्यमानत्वान् मूल-कारणाद् उत्पत्ति-स्थिति-नाशा जगतो न गृहीताः स्युर् इत्य् आशङ्क्येत,
If we include the other modifications of existence enumerated by Yāska, we may be tempted to doubt the origin, preservation and dissolution as originating from the root-cause, as they (i.e. other modifications) are possible only when the transient world is in existence.
तन् मा शङ्की इति या उत्पत्तिर् ब्रह्मणः, तत्रैव स्थितिः प्रलयश् च, त एव गृह्यन्ते।
In order that we should not doubt that the preservation and dissolution is of that only which is created, we should understand only these three (by the word Janmādi).
न यथोक्त-विशेषणस्य जगतो यथोक्त-विशेषणम् ईश्वरं मुक्त्वा अन्यतः प्रधानाद् अचेतनात् अणुभ्यो अभावाद् संसारिणो वा उत्पत्त्य्-आदि संभावयितुं शक्यम्।
It is not possible to conceive the origin etc. of this transient world of the type described (above) to be from any cause other than the Lord described as above, viz. from the non-sentient Pradhāna (of the Sāṅkhyas) or from the atoms (of the Vaiśeṣikas), or from mere non-existence (as held by the followers of Buddha), or from a transmigratory being (such as Hiraṇya-garbha).
न च स्व-भावतः, विशिष्ट-देश-काल-निमित्तानाम् इहोपादानात्।
Nor can it ever evolve from its own nature (without any cause), for in such a matter, particular environment, time and cause have to be considered to be necessary.
एतद् एव अनुमानं संसारि-व्यतिरिक्तेश्वर-अस्तित्व-आदि-साधनं मन्यन्ते ईश्वर-कारणिनः।
Those who maintain the Lord as the cause of this transient world (such as the Logicians) think that the same inference (as is stated just above) also supplies the means for holding the existence of the Lord as distinguished from the transmigratory Self etc., as being the cause (of this transmigratory world).
नन्व् इह अपि तद् एवोपन्यस्तं जन्म-आदि-सूत्रे।
But (says the opponent) the same argument (by inference) is also adopted in this ‘Janmādi’ Sūtra.
न, वेदान्त-वाक्य-कुसुम-ग्रथन-अर्थत्वात् सूत्राणाम्।
No (we reply), for the Sūtras are meant only for the purpose of stringing together the flower-like Vedānta passages.
वेदान्त-वाक्यानि हि सूत्रैर् उदाहृत्य विचार्यन्ते।
The Sūtras refer to the Vedānta passages which are considered therein.
वाक्य-अर्थ-विचारण-अध्यवसान-निर्वृत्ता हि ब्रह्म-अवगतिः, न अनुमान-आदि-प्रमाण-अन्तर-निर्वृत्ता।
For the knowledge of Brahman is effected by the determination (brought about) by the consideration of the meaning of the Vedānta passages, and not by the other means of right knowledge such as inference etc.
सत्सु तु वेदान्त-वाक्येषु जगतो जन्म-आदि-कारण-वादिषु, तद्-अर्थ-ग्रहण-दार्ढ्याय अनुमानम् अपि वेदान्त-वाक्य-अविरोधि प्रमाणं भवत् न निवार्यते, श्रुत्यैव च सहायत्वेन तर्कस्य अप्य् अभ्युपेतत्वात्।
Such Vedānta passages dealing with the cause of the creation etc. of the transitory world being there (for that purpose), Inference also, which is not antagonistic (to such passages) and furnishes a means of right knowledge, for the strengthening of the understanding of the meaning of these passages, is not rejected, Because the Scriptures themselves accept the aid of Logic as an auxiliary.
तथा हि, ‘श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यः’ (BrhUEng.2.4.5) इति श्रुतिः,
For Scriptural passages such as “The Self is to be heard and cogitated upon” (BrhUEng.2.4.5),
‘पण्डितो मेधावी गन्धारान् एवोपसंपद्येतैवम् एवेह आचार्यवान् पुरुषो वेद’ (ChanU.6.14.2) इति च पुरुष-बुद्धि-साहाय्यम् आत्मनो दर्शयति।
And “A learned and intelligent person does of course reach Gāndhāra, and similarly, a man who has a teacher acquires knowledge (of Brahman)” (ChanU.6.14.2), show that a man’s intelligence is helpful to the Scriptures.
न, धर्म-जिज्ञासायाम् इव श्रुत्य्-आदय एव प्रमाणं ब्रह्म-जिज्ञासायाम्,
It is not that the Scriptures alone are the means of the right knowledge of Brahman, as is the case about the right knowledge of religious duty,
किन् तु श्रुत्य्-आदयोऽनुभाव-आदयश् च यथा-संभवम् इह प्रमाणम्, अनुभव-अवसानत्वाद् भूत-वस्तु-विषयत्वाच् च ब्रह्म-ज्ञानस्य।
But the Scriptures, as also intuitional experience, so far as is possible, constitute the authoritative or valid means of right knowledge, Because the knowledge of Brahman culminates in the realization (Anubhava) of Brahman, and has an already existing entity as its object.
कर्तव्ये हि विषये न अनुभव-अपेक्षा अस्ति इति श्रुत्य्-आदीनाम् एव प्रामाण्यं स्यात्, पुरुष-अधीन-आत्म-लाभत्वाच् च कर्तव्यस्य।
In the case of religious action there is no expectation of intuitional experience (Anubhava, i.e. direct experience) and the Scriptures alone are the authoritative means of its right knowledge, and action is dependent upon man for its origination.
कर्तुम् अकर्तुम् अन्यथा वा कर्तुं शक्यं लौकिकं वैदिकं च कर्म,
In the case of action in ordinary life, or action according to the Vedas, it is possible that it may either be done or not done or done in a different way.
यथा ‘अश्वेन गच्छति पद्भ्याम् अन्यथा वा न वा गच्छति’ इति,
For instance a man may use a horse for going (from one place to another) or he may go on foot or in some other way or he may not go at all.
तथा ‘अति-रात्रे षोडशिनं गृह्णाति’, ‘न अति-रात्रे षोडशिनं गृह्णाति’, ‘उदिते जुहोति’, ‘अनुदिते जुहोति’ इति।
Similarly, in an Atirātra sacrifice he may optionally use (take up) or may not use (take up) the ‘Ṣo-ḍaśi’ (a particular sacrificial cup) or he may sacrifice either before or after sun-rise,
विधि-प्रतिषेधाश् च अत्र अर्थवन्तः स्युः, विकल्पोत्सर्ग-अपवादाश् च।
And in this manner injunctions and prohibitions, options, and rules and their exceptions, have a proper raison d’etre.
न तु वस्तु ‘एवम् नैवम्’, ‘अस्ति न अस्ति’ इति वा विकल्प्यते।
But there is no such scope for exercising an option in the case of an existing entity, such as that it is like this or not like this or that it does not exist.
विकल्पनास् तु पुरुष-बुद्ध्य्-अपेक्षाः।
Options again depend upon the notions of a person,
न वस्तु-याथा-आत्म्य-ज्ञानं पुरुष-बुद्ध्य्-अपेक्षम्। किं तर्हि? वस्तु-तन्त्रम् एव तत्।
While the knowledge of an entity as it actually is, depends upon the thing itself, and not upon the notions of a man.
न हि स्थाणाव् एकस्मिन् ‘स्थाणुर् वा पुरुषोऽन्यो वा’ इति तत्त्व-ज्ञानं भवति। तत्र ‘पुरुषोऽन्यो वा’ इति मिथ्या-ज्ञानम्, ‘स्थाणुर् एव’ इति तत्त्व-ज्ञानम्, वस्तु-तन्त्रत्वात्।
In the case of a pillar, for instance, that it is either a pillar or a man or something else cannot (each) be correct knowledge, because the knowledge that it is a pillar depends upon the pillar itself. In this manner, the authoritativeness or validity of the knowledge of an entity actually in existence depends upon the entity itself.
तत्रैवं सति ब्रह्म-ज्ञानम् अपि वस्तु-तन्त्रम् एव, भूत-वस्तु-विषयत्वात्।
That being so, the knowledge of Brahman also, is knowledge depending upon the entity itself, in as much as it concerns the actually existing entity itself.
ननु भूत-वस्तु-विषयत्वे ब्रह्मणः प्रमाण-अन्तर-विषयत्वम् एवेति वेदान्त-वाक्य-विचारणा अनर्थिकैव प्राप्ता।
But (says the opponent) Brahman being an existing entity, it is the province of other means of right knowledge also, and thus it comes to this that the consideration of the Scriptural passages is therefore purposeless.
न, इन्द्रिय-अविषयत्वेन संबन्ध-अग्रहणात्।
No (we say), Brahman not being an object of sense, it has no relation with the sense-organs.
स्व-भावतो विषय-विषयाणि इन्द्रियाणि, न ब्रह्म-विषयाणि।
Sense-organs by their very nature have sense-objects for their province while Brahman is not their province.
सति हि इन्द्रिय-विषयत्वे ब्रह्मणः, इदं ब्रह्मणा संबद्धं कार्यम् इति गृह्येत।
Were Brahman to be an object of sense-organs, we would be able to know that this world (the effect of Brahman) is connected with Brahman.
कार्यमात्रम् एव तु गृह्यमाणं, किं ब्रह्मणा संबद्धम्? किम् अन्येन केनचिद् वा संबद्धम्? इति न शक्यं निश्चेतुम्।
But we are unable to determine whether the world, which alone we are able to perceive, is connected with Brahman or something else.
तस्माज् जन्म-आदि-सूत्रं न अनुमाणोपन्यास-अर्थम्।
Therefore, the Sūtra ‘Janmādi etc.’ is not meant for the statement of an inference.
किं तर्हि? वेदान-वाक्य-प्रदर्शन-अर्थम्।
What is it for, then? It is for commending the Vedānta passage to the notice (of the student).
किं पुनस् तद् वेदान्त-वाक्यं यत् सूत्रेणेह लिलक्षयिषितम्?
Now what precisely is the Vedānta passage to which the Sūtra is meant to draw attention?
‘भृगुर् वै वारुणिः। वरुणं पितरम् उपससार। अधीहि भगवो ब्रह्मेति’ इत्य् उपक्रम्य आह, ‘यतो वा इमानि भूतानि जायन्ते। येन जातानि जीवन्ति। यत् प्रयन्त्य् अभिसंविशन्ति। तद् विजिज्ञासस्व। तद् ब्रह्मेति।’ (TaitU.3.1)
The scriptures beginning thus — “Bhṛgu the son of Varuṇa approached his father Varuṇa (and said) — ‘Oh Bhagavān, teach me what Brahman is’”, Go on further and say — “That from which all these beings are born, that by which, after being born, they live, and that to which they go and in which they are absorbed, that (you should) try to know, that is Brahman” (TaitU.3.1 Eng.).
तस्य च निर्णय-वाक्यम्, ‘आनन्दाद् ध्य् एव खल्व् इमानि भूतानि जायन्ते। आनन्देन जातानि जीवन्ति। आनन्दं प्रयन्त्य् अभिसंविशन्ति।’ (TaitU.3.6) इति।
And of that the conclusive passage is — “From Bliss (Ānanda) these things are born, by Bliss, after they are born they live, and into Bliss, at death they enter” (TaitU.3.6 Eng.).
अन्यान्य् अप्य् एवं जातीयकानि वाक्यानि निय-शुद्ध-बुद्ध-मुक्त-स्व-भाव-सर्वज्ञ-स्व-रूप-कारण-विषयाणि उदाहर्तव्यानि॥२॥
Other similar passages also, having reference to the cause (Brahman) which has eternal purity, intelligence, freedom and omniscience as its nature, should be adduced in illustration. — 2.
जगत्-कारणत्व-प्रदर्शनेन सर्व-ज्ञं ब्रह्मेत्य् उपक्षिप्तम्, तद् एव द्रढयन्न् आह।
We have stated, by indicating that Brahman is the cause of the transitory world, that it is omniscient. Now wishing to make that statement firmer (the Sūtra-kāra) says: —
Śāstra: the scripture; Yonitvāt: being the source of or the means of the right knowledge.
🔗 (The omniscience of Brahman) follows from its being the source of the Śāstra i.e. the Scriptures. — 22.214.171.124.1.3 L.2
महत ऋग्-वेद-आदेः शास्त्रस्य अनेक-विद्या-स्थानोपबृंहितस्य प्रदीपवत् सर्व-अर्थ-अवद्योतिनः सर्वज्ञ-कल्पस्य योनिः कारणं ब्रह्म।
Brahman is the source of i.e. the cause of the Śāstra comprising of the great Ṛg and other Vedas, the Śāstra which is supplemented by many Vidyās and which like a flambeau illuminates all objects and which is almost all-knowing.
न हि ईदृशस्य शास्त्रस्य ऋग्-वेद-आदि-लक्षणस्य सर्वज्ञ-गुण-अन्वितस्य सर्वज्ञाद् अन्यतः संभवोऽस्ति।
It is not possible, that such Śāstra of the nature of the Ṛg and the other Vedas, which is endowed with the quality of omniscience can have its origination from any thing other than what is omniscient.
यद्यद् विस्तर-अर्थं शास्त्रं यस्मात् पुरुष-विशेषात् संभवति, यथा व्याकरण-आदि पाणिन्य्-आदेः, ज्ञेयैक-देश-अर्थम् अपि, स ततोऽप्य् अधिकतर-विज्ञान इति प्रसिद्धं लोके।
It is well-known in the world that any author from whom any special body of Śāstra emanates — as, for instance, Grammar from Pāṇini — , and refers to only a branch of knowledge, possesses more knowledge than that Śāstra.
किम् उ वक्तव्यम्, अनेक-शाखा-भेद-भिन्नस्य देव-तिर्यङ्-मनुष्य-वर्ण-आश्रम-आदि-प्रविभाग-हेतोः ऋग्-वेद-आद्य्-आख्यस्य सर्वज्ञान-आकरस्य अप्रयत्नेनैव लीला-न्यायेन पुरुष-निःश्वासवत् यस्मान् महतो भूतात् योनेः संभवः,
How can anything (more) be said about that great Being who is the source (Yoni), i.e. from whom, as if without any special effort and as if in sport and as naturally as its own breathings, is born the Ṛg-Veda, which is the ocean of all knowledge, the cause of the distinction as between all the different classes and conditions of the Devas, animals and men, and which is divided into many different branches,
‘अस्य महतो भूतस्य निःश्वसितम् एतद् यद् ऋग्-वेदः’ (BrhU.2.4.10) इत्य्-आदि-श्रुतेः, तस्य महतो भूतस्य निर्-अतिशयं सर्वज्ञत्वं सर्व-शक्तिमत्त्वं चेति।
According to the Scriptural passage — “That which is the Ṛg-Veda is but merely the breathing (the Divine Afflatus) of that great divine Being” (BrhUEng.2.4.10), and also that the great Being possesses unsurpassed omniscience and is all-powerful?
अथवा यथोक्तम् ऋग्-वेद-आदि-शास्त्रं योनिः कारणं प्रमाणम् अस्य ब्रह्मणो यथावत्-स्व-रूप-अधिगमेz।
Or (we may construe the Sūtra in this way) — the Śāstra, Ṛg-Veda etc. described above, is the source, the cause, and the authoritative means of the understanding of the right knowledge of Brahman as it is.
शास्त्राद् एव प्रमाणात् जगतो जन्म-आदि-कारणं ब्रह्म अधिगम्यत इत्य् अभिप्रायः।
What is meant to be conveyed is that Brahman which is the cause and origin etc. of this transitory world, is understood from the Śāstra (such as the Scriptures) which is the only means of right knowledge.
शास्त्रम् उदाहृतं पूर्व-सूत्रे, ‘यतो वा इमानि भूतानि जायन्ते’ (TaitU.3.1) इत्य्-आदि।
The Scriptural passage in point is quoted in the former Sūtra — “From which all beings are born” (TaitU.3.1 Eng.) etc.
किम् अर्थं तर्हि इदं सूत्रम्, यावता पूर्व-सूत्रेणैव एवं-जातीयकं शास्त्रम् उदाहरता शास्त्र-योनित्वं ब्रह्मणो दर्शितम्।
(The opponent asks) — in that case what is the occasion for this Sūtra, when by quoting the Scriptures you have indicated that Brahman has this Śāstra as its source?
उच्यते तत्र पूर्व-सूत्र-अक्षरेण स्पष्टं शास्त्रस्य अनुपादानाज् जन्म-आदि केवलम् अनुमानम् उपन्यस्तम् इत्य् आशङ्कयेत,
We reply — The words of the previous Sūtra did not clearly indicate the Śāstra, and hence one may feel a doubt that by the word ‘Janmādi’ only an inference is stated.
ताम् आशङ्कां निवर्तयितुम् इदं सूत्रं प्रववृते ‘शास्त्र-योनित्वात्’ इति॥३॥
And now, this Sūtra endeavours to remove this doubt, (by stating) ‘From its being the source” etc. — 3.
कथं पुनर् ब्रह्मणः शास्त्र-प्रमाणकत्वम् उच्यते, यावता ‘आम्नायस्य क्रिया-अर्थत्वाद् आनर्थक्यम् अतद्-अर्थानाम्’ (जै. सू. १.२.१) इति क्रिया-परत्वं शास्त्रस्य प्रदर्शितम्।
But (it is again objected) how can it be said that Brahman has the Śāstra (the Scriptures) as its authority, since it has been shown (by me) on the authority — “The Vedas having action (Kriyā) as their purpose, those portions of it which do not indicate any action, are purposeless” (Jai. Sū. 1.2.1), that the Scriptures indicate action.
अतो वेदान्तानाम् आनर्थक्यम्, अक्रिया-अर्थत्वात्।
Those portions of the Scriptures which are known by the name of Vedānta, are therefore purposeless, because they do not indicate that any action is meant (by them).
कर्तृ-देवता-आदि-प्रकाशन-अर्थत्वेन वा क्रिया-विधि-शेषत्वम्, उपासना-आदि-क्रिया-अन्तर-विधान-अर्थत्वं वा।
Or else (it may be said) that by way of indicating an agent or a deity etc., or by way of indicating an injunction to action such as devout meditation, they are but supplementary to an injunction to action.
न हि परिनिष्ठित-वस्तु-प्रतिपादनं संभवति, प्रत्यक्ष-आदि-विषयत्वात् परिनिष्ठ-वस्तुनः,
But it is not at all possible that they are for the purpose of propounding an entity firmly established as an entity, because an established entity is an object of direct perception etc.,
तत्-प्रतिपादने च हेयोपादेय-रहिते पुरुष-अर्थ-अभावात्।
And also because there is absence of any aim of man being served by propounding anything which is not connected with something which has to be given up (Heya) or accepted (Upadeya).
अत एव ‘सोऽरोदीत्’ इत्य् एवम्-आदीनाम् आनर्थक्यं मा भूद् इति
It is precisely because of this, viz. that sentences like “He wept” should not be rendered purposeless,
‘विधिना त्व् एक-वाक्यत्वात् स्तुत्य्-अर्थेन विधीनां स्युः’ (जै. सू. १.२.७) इति स्तावकत्वेन अर्थवत्त्वम् उक्तम्।
That they are said to be useful by way of glorification (of the passage with which they are connected) on the authority of Pūrva Mīmāṃsā (Jai. Sū. 1.2.7), thus — “These sentences being in syntactical relation with an injunctional passage, they are for the glorification of that injunction.”
मन्त्राणां च ‘इषे त्वा’ (यजुर्-वेद १.१.१) इत्य्-आदीनां क्रिया-तत्-साधन-अभिधायित्वेन कर्म-समवायित्वम् उक्तम्।
In the same way Mantras like “For strength I cut thee (Oh blade of grass)” (recited when Darbhas are being cut for the Darśa-pūrṇa-māsa sacrifice) are said to be in a relation of invariable concomittance to action, by indicating action and the means to accomplish the same.
न क्वचिद् अपि वेद-वाक्यानां विधि-संस्पर्शम् अन्तरेण अर्थवत्ता दृष्टा उपपन्ना वा।
It is nowhere observed nor is it reasonably understandable from the Scriptural passages, that they are purposeful as apart from their being connected with an injunction in some way.
न च परिनिष्ठिते वस्तु-स्व-रूपे विधिः संभवति, क्रिया-विषयत्वाद् विधेः।
In the case of an entity established as such, an injunction is not possible, because an injunction has action for its province.
तस्मात् कर्म-अपेक्षित-कर्तृ-स्व-रूप-देवता-आदि-प्रकाशनेन क्रिया-विधि-शेषत्वं वेदान्तानाम्।
Therefore (the opponent concludes) the Vedāntas are merely supplementary to injunctions for action, by way of making the nature of the agent and the deities necessary for such action, manifest.
अथ प्रकरण-अन्तर-भयान् न एतद् अभ्युपगम्यते, तथा अपि स्व-वाक्य-गतोपासना-आदि-कर्म-परत्वम्।
If it be said that they cannot be so understood because it is feared that that would necessarily imply a different chapter (Prakaraṇa), then they may be understood as indicating actions such as devout meditation etc. referred to in their passages.
तस्मान् न ब्रह्मणः शास्त्र-योनित्वम् इति प्राप्ते, उच्यते,
The conclusion of the opponent, then, being that Brahman has not the Scriptures as its origin, the reply given is: —
←PrevNext→ तत्तु समन्वयात्॥१.१.४॥ Tat tu samanvayāt.
Tat: that; Tu: but; Samanvayāt: on account of agreement or harmony, because it is the main purpose.
🔗 But it is so (i.e. Brahman is so known from the Scriptures), because they (i.e. all Vedānta texts) have that connected sequence. — 126.96.36.199.1.4 L.14
The word ‘Tu’ (but) in the Sūtra means the rebuttal of the objections (of the opponent).
तद् ब्रह्म सर्वज्ञं सर्व-शक्ति जगद्-उत्पत्ति-स्थिति-लय-कारणं वेदान्त-शास्त्राद् एव अवगम्यते।
That the all-powerful cause of the origin, preservation and dissolution of the transient world is the omniscient Brahman, is understood from the Vedānta Śāstra itself.
How so? Because that is the connected sequence (Samanvaya).
सर्वेषु हि वेदान्तेषु वाक्यानि तात्-पर्येणैतस्य अर्थस्य प्रतिपादकत्वेन समनुगतानि
In all the Vedānta texts the sentences construe properly by intimating that to be the meaning.
‘सद् एव सोम्येदम् अग्र आसीत् एकम् एव अद्वितीयम्’ (ChanU.6.2.1),
For instance (the following texts) — “In the beginning, Oh Saumya, this world was just Being (Sat), the one only without a second” (ChanU.6.2.1),
‘आत्मा वा इदम् एक एव अग्र आसीत्’ (AitU.1.1.1),
And “This Self alone was in existence in the beginning” (AitU.1.1.1),
‘तद् एतद् ब्रह्म अपूर्वम् अनपरम् अनन्तरम् अबाह्यम्। अयम् आत्मा ब्रह्म सर्व-अनुभूः’ (BrhU.2.5.19),
And “That precisely is this Brahman, without itself being the cause, without itself being an effect, having nothing inside or outside of it. This is the Self, the Brahman which perceives everything” (BrhUEng.2.5.19),
‘ब्रह्मैवेदम् अमृतं पुरस्तात्’ (MunU.2.2.11) इत्य्-आदीनि।
And “It is that immortal Brahman right in front” (MunU.2.2.11) etc.
न च तद्-गतानां पदानां ब्रह्म-स्व-रूप-विषये निश्चिते समन्वयेऽवगम्यमाने अर्थ-अन्तर-कल्पना युक्ता,
It is not proper to attribute any other meaning to these passages when their connected sequence is determined to be with regard to the nature of Brahman,
Because, otherwise there would be the predicament of the abandonment of what is stated in the Scriptures and the acceptance of something which is not so stated.
न च तेषां कर्तृ-देवता-आदि-स्व-रूप-प्रतिपादन-परता अवसीयते, ‘तत् केन कं पश्येत्’ (BrhU.2.4.14) इत्य्-आदि-क्रिया-कारक-फल-निराकरण-श्रुतेः।
It cannot be understood that they propound the nature of the agent, because of the Scriptural statement “Then by what should one see and whom?” (BrhUEng.2.4.14) which in effect rejects all actions, agents and fruits.
न च परिनिष्ठित-वस्तु-स्व-रूपत्वेऽपि प्रत्यक्ष-आदि-विषयत्वं ब्रह्मणः,
Nor can Brahman, though it is determined to be of the nature of an already established entity, be an object of direct perception,
‘तत् त्वम् असि’ (ChanU.6.8.7…) इति ब्रह्म-आत्म-भावस्य शास्त्रम् अन्तरेण अनवगम्यमानत्वात्।
Because it is not possible to comprehend, except by means of the Śāstra, that the Self is Brahman, as conveyed by the Scriptural passage — “That thou art” (ChanU.6.8.7).
यत् तु हेयोपादेय-रहितत्वाद् उपदेश-आनर्थक्यम् इति,
As regards the objection (of the opponent) that any instruction which does not require the giving up or the accepting of anything, is purposeless,
नैष दोषः, हेयोपादेय-शून्य-ब्रह्म-आत्मता-अवगमाद् एव सर्व-क्लेश-प्रहाणात् पुरुष-अर्थ-सिद्धेः।
(We say) this is no fault, because the highest aim of man is accomplished by knowing, that Brahman, from which nothing can be discarded and to which nothing can be added, is the Self, and that it destroys all misery.
देवता-आदि-प्रतिपादनस्य तु स्व-वाक्य-गतोपासना-अर्थत्वेऽपि न कश्चिद् विरोधः।
There is no contradiction even if it be understood that it has the purpose of propounding the deities etc. connected with the devout meditation referred to in its own passages (in Vedānta).
न तु तथा ब्रह्मण उपासना-विधि-शेषत्वं संभवति,
Understanding it even in that manner would not render Brahman as being supplementary to an injunction for devout meditation,
एकत्वे हेयोपादेय-शून्यतया क्रिया-कारक-आदि-द्वैत-विज्ञानोपमर्दोपपत्तेः।
For it can be reasonably sustainable that when the unity of Brahman and the Self is understood, there is destruction of all notions of duality, of actions, agents etc., there being then nothing to give up or to accept.
न हि एकत्व-विज्ञानेनोन्मथितस्य द्वैत-विज्ञानस्य पुनः संभवोऽस्ति, ेनोपासना-विधि-शेषत्वं ब्रह्मणः प्रतिपाद्येत।
There is no possibility of the revival of the notion of duality which has once been uprooted by the knowledge of absolute unity, Because of which we would again arrive at the conclusion about Brahman being supplementary to an injunction for devout meditation.
यद्य् अपि अन्यत्र वेद-वाक्यानां विधि-संस्पर्शम् अन्तरेण प्रमाणत्वं न दृष्टम्,
Though elsewhere (i.e. in the Karma-kāṇḍa) we do not accept the validity or authoritativeness of Vedic passages except when they are connected with injunctions,
तथा अप्य् आत्म-विज्ञानस्य फल-पर्यन्तत्वान् न तद्-विषयस्य शास्त्रस्य प्रामाण्यं शक्यं प्रत्याख्यातुम्।
Still as the knowledge of the Self results in its own fruit, it would not be possible to impugn the validity or authoritativeness of the Śāstra dealing with the subject of the Self.
न च अनुमान-गम्यं शास्त्र-प्रामाण्यम्, येन अन्यत्र दृष्टं निदर्शनम् अपेक्षेत।
It is not that the validity or authoritativeness of this Śāstra is inferable, so that it may expect instances observed elsewhere (to be cited).
तस्मात् सिद्धं ब्रह्मणः शास्त्र-प्रमाणकत्वम्॥
Therefore it is proved that Brahman has the Scriptures as its valid authority.
अत्र अपरे प्रत्यवतिष्ठन्ते, यद्य् अपि शास्त्र-प्रमाणकं ब्रह्म, तथा अपि प्रतिपत्ति-विधि-विषयतयैव शास्त्रेण ब्रह्म समर्प्यते,
Here some others come forward with the objection thus — Even though Brahman has the Śāstra as the only means to its right knowledge, Still the Śāstra culminates in making Brahman an object of an injunction for Upāsanā i.e. meditation (Pratipatti),
यथा यूप-आहवनीय-आदीन्य् अलौकिकान्य् अपि विधि-शेषतया शास्त्रेण समर्प्यन्ते, तद्वत्।
Just as the Śāstra culminates in making the sacrificial post (Yūpa) and the Āhavanīya Agni etc., though they are not familiar in ordinary life, as being supplementary to an injunction.
कुत एतत्? प्रवृत्ति-निवृत्ति-प्रयोजन-परत्वाच् छास्त्रस्य।
Whence do you get that? Because the Śāstra has the purport of either promoting or discouraging (action).
तथा हि शास्त्र-तात्-पर्यविदाम् आहुः, ‘दृष्टो हि तस्य अर्थः कर्म-अवबोधनम्’ (शा. भा. १.१.१) इति।
For, those who know the Śāstra have said so, thus — “The obvious meaning of it (i.e. the Veda) is seen to be an instruction to do something” (Sāṅkhya Bhā. 1.1.1),
‘चोदनेति क्रियायाः प्रवर्तकं वचनम्’ (शा. भा. १.१.२), ‘तस्य ज्ञानम् उपदेशः’ (जै. सू. १.१.५),
“Injunction is a statement which stimulates action” (Sāṅkhya Bhā. 1.1.2, and instruction is the knowledge of that” (Jai. Sū. 1.1.5),
‘तद्-भूतानां क्रिया-अर्थेन समाम्नायः’ (जै. सू. १.१.२५),
“Words in a sentence should be construed as having relation to a word signifying action” (Jai. Sū. 1.1.25),
‘आम्नायस्य क्रिया-अर्थत्वाद् आनर्थक्यम् अतद्-अर्थानाम्’ (जै. सू. १.२.१) इति च।
“As action is the purport of the Veda, whatever does not refer to action is without a purpose” (Jai. Sū. 1.2.1).
अतः पुरुषं क्वचिद् विषय-विशेषे प्रवर्तयत् कुतश्चिद् विषय-विशेषान् निवर्तयच् च अर्थवच् छास्त्रम्।
Hence it is in stimulating a person to activity with regard to some particular object, or by making him averse to act with regard to some other object, that the Scriptures have a purpose,
तच्-छेषतया च अन्यद् उपयुक्तम्।
And that (part of it) which does not do so is utilized as being supplementary to action.
तद्-सामान्याद् वेदान्तानाम् अपि तथैव अर्थवत्त्वं स्यात्।
In common with it, Vedānta passages likewise, will have a purpose only in the same way.
सति च विधि-परत्वे, यथा स्वर्ग-आदि-कामस्य अग्नि-होत्र-आदि-साधनं विधीयते,
The Scriptures being of the nature of injunctions, it stands to reason that just as Agni-hotra and other means are enjoined on one who is desirous of heaven etc.,
एवम् अमृतत्व-कामस्य ब्रह्म-ज्ञानं विधीयत इति युक्तम्।
Similarly acquisition of the knowledge of Brahman is enjoined on one who is desirous of immortality.
नन्व् इह जिज्ञास्य-वैलक्षण्यम् उक्तम्,
But (says the Bhāṣya-kāra) a difference in the nature of what is desired to be known is mentioned here.
कर्म-काण्डे भव्यो धर्मो जिज्ञास्यः, इह तु भूतं नित्य-निर्वृत्तं ब्रह्म जिज्ञास्यम् इति।
In the Karma-kāṇḍa what is indicated as desired to be known is Duty (Dharma), which is performed some time in the future, But here on the contrary the already existing and eternally established Brahman is indicated as that which is desired to be known.
तत्र धर्म-ज्ञान-फलाद् अनुष्ठान-अपेक्षाद् वि-लक्षणं ब्रह्म-ज्ञान-फलं भवितुम् अर्हति।
Therefore the fruit in the form of the knowledge of Brahman is different from the fruit in the form of the knowledge of Duty which expects the doing of some particular act.
न अर्हत्य् एवं भवितुम्, कार्य-विधि-प्रयुक्तस्यैव ब्रह्मणः प्रतिपाद्यमानत्वात्।
(The Vṛtti-kāra says — ) It does not deserve to be so, because what is intended to be propounded is Brahman, which is connected with an injunction for something to be done,
‘आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः’ (BrhU.2.4.5–6),
As for instance — “Verily the Self is to be seen (BrhUEng.2.4.5).
‘य आत्मा अपहत-पाप्मा … सोऽन्वेष्ठव्यः स विजिज्ञासितव्यः’ (ChanU.8.7.1),
When the following injunctional statements are there, viz. “That Ātmā (Self), which is sinless — he is to be looked for, he is to be understood” (ChanU.8.7.1),
‘आत्मेत्य् एवोपासीत’ (BrhU.1.4.7), ‘आत्मानम् एव लोकम् उपासीत’ (BrhU.1.4.15),
“Let (a man) meditate devoutly on the Self only, as his true state” (BrhUEng.1.4.15),
‘ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति’ (MunU.3.2.9) इत्य्-आदि-विधानेषु सत्सु,
“He who knows Brahman, himself becomes Brahman” (MunU.3.2.9), etc.,
‘कोऽसाव् आत्मा?’ ‘किं तद् ब्रह्म?’ इत्य् आकाङ्क्षायां तत्-स्व-रूप-समर्पणेन सर्वे वेदान्ता उपयुक्ताः,
And when there is a desire to know what that Brahman is and what that Self is, all the Vedānta passages are employed in intimating the nature of Brahman, thus: —
‘नित्यः सर्वज्ञः सर्व-गतो नित्य-तृप्तो नित्य-शुद्ध-बुद्ध-मुक्त-स्व-भावो विज्ञानम् आनन्दं ब्रह्म’ इत्य् एवम्-आदयः।
(Brahman) is eternal, omniscient, all-pervading, absolutely eternally satisfied, and is of the nature of being eternally pure, intelligent, and free, and is knowledge and Bliss etc.
तद्-उपासनाच् च शास्त्र-दृष्टोऽदृष्टो मोक्षः फलं भविष्यति इति।
It is through devout meditation that the fruit viz. Final Release which is not capable of being seen, but is envisaged by the Śāstra, will accrue.
कर्तव्य-विध्य्-अननुप्रवेशे वस्तुमात्र-कथने हानोपादान-असंभवात्
If the Vedānta passages were not to lead towards an injunction to some action, and were to be statements of mere things only, then by reason of the impossibility (in such a case) of knowing what is to be given up or what is to be accepted,
‘सप्त-द्वीपा वसुमती’, ‘राजा असौ गच्छति’ इत्य्-आदि-वाक्यवद्-वेदान्त-वाक्यानाम् आनर्थक्यम् एव स्यात्।
The Vedānta passages would be as purposeless as the sentences ‘The Earth consists of seven islands’, ‘Here goes the king’ etc.
ननु वस्तुमात्र-कथनेऽपि ‘रज्जुर् इयं, न अयं सर्पः’ इत्य्-आदौ भ्रान्ति-जनित-भीति-निवर्तनेन अर्थवत्त्वं दृष्टम्।
But (says the Bhāṣya-kāra) just as even the mere mention of a fact viz. that this is a rope and not a snake, has meaning by way of removing the fear caused by the erroneous opinion (that it is a snake),
तथेह अप्य् असंसार्य्-आत्म-वस्तु-कथनेन संसारित्व-भ्रान्ति-निवर्तनेन अर्थवत्त्वं स्यात्।
So also here, the mere mention of the entity i.e. the Self which is not of a transmigratory nature, would have a meaning by way of removing the erroneous opinion about its being of a transmigratory nature.
स्याद् एतद् एवम्, यदि रज्जु-स्व-रूप-श्रवण इव सर्प-भ्रान्तिः, संसारित्व-भ्रान्तिर् ब्रह्म-स्व-रूप-श्रवणमात्रेण निवर्तेत।
(The Vṛtti-kāra replies —) This would be so, provided the erroneous opinion about the Self being of a transmigratory nature were to be removed by merely hearing about the nature of Brahman, even as the erroneous opinion about a rope being a snake is removed by hearing about the nature of the rope as being a rope only.
न तु निवर्तते, श्रुत-ब्रह्मणोऽपि यथा पूर्वं सुख-दुःख-आदि-संसारि-धर्म-दर्शनात्,
But it is not so removed, because even in the case of a person who has heard what Brahman is, he is still seen to be affected by pleasure, pain and such other attributes of a transmigratory being,
‘श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यः’ (BrhU.2.4.5, 4.5.6) इति च श्रवणोत्तर-कालयोर् मनन-निदिध्यासनयोर् विधि-दर्शनात्।
And because we see that there are such injunctions (in the Scriptures) about hearing and cogitating upon the Self, thus — “The Self should be heard and cogitated upon and constantly meditated upon” (BrhUEng.2.4.5).
तस्मात् प्रतिपत्ति-विधि-विषयतयैव शास्त्र-प्रमाणकं ब्रह्म अभ्युपगन्तव्यम् इति॥
Therefore Brahman should be understood as having the Śāstra as the right means of its knowledge, by way of its being an object of an injunction for meditation (i.e. Upāsanā).
अत्र अभिधीयते, न, कर्म-ब्रह्म-विद्या-फलयोर् वैलक्षण्यात्।
To all this (The Bhāṣya-kāra replies) — No, because of the dissimilarity between the fruits of actions and the fruits of the knowledge of Brahman.
शारीरं वाचिकं मानसं च कर्म श्रुति-स्मृति-सिद्धं धर्म-आख्यम्, यद्-विषया जिज्ञासा ‘अथ अतो धर्म-जिज्ञासा’ (जै. सू. १.१.१) इति सूत्रिता।
Action, known by the name of ‘duty’ from the Scriptures and Smṛtis, is the activity of the body, speech and the mind, The desire to know which is expressed in the Sūtra — “Now therefore the inquiry into Duty”,
अधर्मोऽपि हिंसा-आदिः प्रतिषेध-चोदना-लक्षणत्वाज् जिज्ञास्यः परिहाराय।
And that which is non-Duty, such as killing etc., which is of the nature of a prohibition has to be inquired into with a view to avoid the doing of it.
तयोश् चोदना-लक्षणयोर् अर्थ-अनर्थयोर् धर्म-अधर्मयोः फले प्रत्यक्षे सुख-दुःखे शरीर-वाङ्-मनोभिर् एवोपभुज्यमाने विषयेन्द्रिय-संयोग-जन्ये ब्रह्म-आदिषु (देहवत्सु) स्थावर-अन्तेषु प्रसिद्धे।
The fruits of these good and evil things such as duties and non-duties which are of the nature of an injunction, which actually are pleasure and pain respectively and which arise out of the union of the sense-organs and sense-objects and are experienced only by the body, speech and the mind, are generally known by all, right from the Brahman (Hiraṇya-garbha) down to the inanimate things.
मनुष्यत्वाद् आरभ्य ब्रह्म-अन्तेषु देहवत्सु सुख-तारतम्यम् अनुश्रूयते।
The Scriptures declare that there are different degrees of pleasure as experienced by all embodied beings, from men right up to the Brahman (Hiraṇya-garbha).
ततश् च तद्-धेतोर् धर्मस्य तारतम्यं गम्यते। धर्म-तारतम्याद् अधिकारि-तारतम्यम्।
Hence from them we understand that there are comparative degrees of Duty which is their cause and from these comparative degrees of Duty, the comparative degrees of the competency of persons who perform such Duties (is understood).
प्रसिद्धं च अर्थित्व-सामर्थ्य-आदि-कृतम् अधिकारि-तारतम्यम्।
The comparative degrees of the competency of persons performing such Duties is well-known as being caused by their ability for actions and their desire for certain results.
तथा च याग-आद्य्-अनुष्ठायिनाम् एव विद्या-समाधि-विशेषाद् उत्तरेण पथा गमनम्,
Thus we learn that only those who perform Sacrifices and have special ability for meditation (Upāsanā) and concentration on Deities etc., proceed by the Northern Path (Devāyana)
केवलैर् इष्टा-पूर्त-दत्त-साधनैर् धूम-आदि-क्रमेण दक्षिणेन पथा गमनम्
And those who perform only minor Sacrifices and works of charity and public utility, proceed by the Southern Path (Pitṛ-yāṇa),
तत्र अपि सुख-तारतम्यम्, तत्-साधन-तारतम्यं च शास्त्रात् ‘यावत् संपातम् उषित्वा’ (ChanU.5.10.5) इत्य् अस्माद् गम्यते।
And we also know from the Śāstra, such as the Scriptural passage “Having dwelt there till their action is worked out or consumed” (ChanU.5.10.5), that even there such comparative degrees of pleasure and the means of pleasure are understood (as existing).
तथा मनुष्य-आदिषु नारक-स्थावर-अन्तेषु सुख-लवश् चोदना-लक्षण-धर्म-साध्य एवेति गम्यते तारतम्येन वर्तमानः।
We also know that beginning from man down to those who reside in hell, and all the inanimate things, there exists a comparative modicum of pleasure attainable by ‘Duty’ (Dharma) which is of the nature of an injunction.
तथोर्ध्व-गतेष्व् अधो-गतेषु च देहवत्सु दुःख-तारतम्य-दर्शनात् तद्-धेतोर् अधर्मस्य प्रतिषेध-चोदना-लक्षणस्य तद्-अनुष्ठायिनां च तारतम्यं गम्यते।
So also in the case of those who possess a body and who have either gone down (the abyss) or gone up (to heaven), in as much as comparative degrees of pain are to be seen, it is understood, that its cause viz. religious demerit (Adharma), which is known from prohibitory injunctions, as well as those who perpetrate such non-meritorious actions, also have such comparative degrees.
एवम् अविद्या-आदि-दोषवतां धर्म-अधर्म-तारतम्य-निमित्तं शरीरोपादान-पूर्वकं सुख-दुःख-तारतम्यम् अनित्यं संसार-रूपं श्रुति-स्मृति-न्याय-प्रसिद्धम्।
In this manner, in the case of those who are affected by the fault of the nature of Nescience etc., that there are differences in the comparative degrees of pleasure and pain which are of the transitory nature of a transmigratory existence and which are caused by their merit or demerit and which are preceded by a prior assumption of a body, is well-known from the Scriptures, Smṛtis and Nyāya (Logic).
तथा च श्रुतिः ‘न ह वै स-शरीरस्य सतः प्रिय-अप्रिययोर् अपहतिर् अस्ति’ इति यथा-वर्णितं संसार-रूपम् अनुवदति।
The Scriptural passage “As long as he continues to possess a body, there is no freedom for him from pleasure and pain” refers to the transmigratory nature as described above.
‘अशरीरं वाव सन्तं न प्रिय-अप्रिये स्पृशतः’ (ChanU.8.12.1) इति प्रिय-अ-प्रिय-स्पर्शन-प्रतिषेधाच् चोदना-लक्षण-धर्म-कार्यत्वं मोक्ष-आख्यस्य अशरीरत्वस्य प्रतिषिध्यत इति गम्यते।
So also we learn from the Scriptural passage “When he is once rid of this body neither pleasure nor pain affect him” (ChanU.8.12.1), which denies any touch of either pleasure or pain, that the disembodied condition called Final Release is not the result of religious Duty (Dharma) which is of the nature of an injunction.
धर्म-कार्यत्वे हि प्रिय-अप्रिय-स्पर्शन-प्रतिषेधो नोपपद्यते।
Were it to be the result of religious duty, such denial of being touched either by pleasure or pain would not be reasonably sustainable.
अशरीरत्वम् एव धर्म-कार्यम् इति चेत्, न, तस्य स्वा-भाविकत्वात्,
If it be said (by the opponent) that the disembodied condition is itself the result of Duty, (we reply that) it is not so, because the condition of being unembodied is natural to the Ātmā1.1.4 L.85
‘अशरीरग्ँ शरीरेषु अनवस्थेष्व् अवस्थितम्। महान्तं विभुम् आत्मानं मत्वा धीरो न शोचति’ (KathU.1.2.22),
As illustrated by the following Scriptural passages — “The wise one, knowing the Self to be bodiless amongst the embodied, unchanging amongst the changeable, great and omni-present, does not grieve” (KathU.1.2.22),
‘अप्राणो ह्य् अमनाः शुभ्रः’ (MunU.2.1.2),
“He is without vital breath (Prāṇa), without mind and is pure” (MunU.2.1.2),
‘असङ्गो ह्य् अयं पुरुषः’ (BrhU.4.3.15) इत्य्-आदि-श्रुतिभ्यः।
“That Puruṣa is without any attachment” (BrhUEng.4.3.15).
अत एव अनुष्ठेय-कर्म-फल-वि-लक्षणं मोक्ष-आख्यम् अशरिरत्वं नित्यम् इति सिद्धम्।
It is proved therefore that the eternal unembodied condition called ‘Final Release’ is dissimilar to the fruit of action which has to be performed.
तत्र किंचित् परिणामि-नित्यं यस्मिन् विक्रियमाणेऽपि ‘तद् एवेदम्’ इति बुद्धिर् न विहन्यते,
Amongst these eternal things there are some which are eternal but subject to modification, and though they undergo such modification, the notion of their being the same eternal things is not destroyed,
यथा पृथिव्य्-आदि जगन्-नित्यत्व-वादिनाम्, यथा च सांख्यानां गुणाः।
As for instance, the Earth, as understood by those who hold the view that this transitory world is eternal, or the Attributes (Guṇas) according to the Sāṅkhyas.
इदं तु पारम-अर्थिकं कूटस्थ-नित्यं व्योमवत् सर्व-व्यापि सर्व-विक्रिया-रहितं नित्य-तृप्तं निर्-अवयवं स्वयं-ज्योतिः-स्व-भावम्,
This (Self or Brahman) however is eternal in the highest sense, eternally unchanging, all-pervading like the sky (Ākāśa), free from all modifications, eternally contented, without any parts, and is of the nature of a self-luminant entity,
यत्र धर्म-अधर्मौ सह कार्येण काल-त्रयं च नोपावर्तेते।
In whose case meritorious or unmeritorious religious duty or actions along with their effects, in the past, present or future, do not apply.
तद् एतद् अशरीरत्वं मोक्ष-आख्यम् ‘अन्यत्र धर्माद्, अन्यत्र अधर्माद्, अन्यत्र अस्मात् कृत-अकृतात्। अन्यत्र भूताच् च भव्याच् च’ (KathU.1.2.24) इत्य्-आदि-श्रुतिभ्यः।
And this precisely is that unembodied condition called Final Release, according to such Scriptural passages as “Different from duty (Dharma) and non-duty (Adharma), different from every effect and cause, And different from past and the future also” (KathU.1.2.24) etc.
अतस् तद् ब्रह्म, यस्येयं जिज्ञासा प्रस्तुता। तद् यदि कर्तव्य-शेषत्वेनोपदिश्येत,
Hence if this Brahman, an inquiry about which is proposed here, were to be propounded (by the Scriptures) as being supplementary to action (Karma)
तेन च कर्तव्येन साध्यश् चेन् मोक्षोऽभ्युपगम्येत, अनित्य एव स्यात्।
And were Final Release (Mokṣa) to be understood as obtainable through action, It would necessarily be of a transitory nature,
तत्रैवं सति यथोक्त-कर्म-फलेष्व् एव तारतम्य-अवस्थितेष्व् अनित्येषु कश्चिद् अतिशयो मोक्ष इति प्रसज्येत।
And it would then come to this, that Final Release is but only a superior type of a transitory fruit of actions as amongst those described above, and which stand to each other in the comparative degrees (of greatness or smallness).
नित्यश् च मोक्षः सर्वैर् मोक्ष-वादिभिर् अभ्युपगम्यते।
All those who regard Final Release as a creed, understand it as being eternal,
अतो न कर्तव्य-शेषत्वेन ब्रह्मोपदेशो युक्तः।
And therefore it would not be proper to propound Brahman as being supplementary to action.
अपि च ‘ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति’ (MunU.3.2.9),
Besides the following passages from the Scriptures “He who knows Brahman, becomes Brahman” (MunU.3.2.9),
‘क्षीयन्ते च अस्य कर्माणि तस्मिन् दृष्टे पर-अवरे’ (MunU.2.2.8),
“All the sum total of his actions perishes when he who is both the higher and the lower is beheld” (MunU.2.2.8),
‘आनन्दं ब्रह्मणो विद्वान् न बिभेति कुतश्चन’ (TaitU.2.9)।
“He who knows the joy of Brahman is never afraid” (TaitU.2.9 Eng.).
‘अभयं वै जनक प्राप्तोऽसि’ (BrhU.4.2.4),
“O Janaka, you have indeed reached fearlessness” (BrhUEng.4.2.4),
‘तद् आत्मानम् एव अवेद् अहं ब्रह्म अस्मि इति, तस्मात् तत् सर्वम् अभवत्’ (BrhU.1.4.10, वाज्॰ब्रा॰उ॰ १.४.१०),
“That Brahman knew itself, only as itself being Brahman, Therefore it became all that” (BrhUEng.1.4.10),
‘तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वम् अनुपश्यतः’ (IsU.7) इति एवम्-आद्याः श्रुतयो ब्रह्म-विद्या-अनन्तरम् मोक्षं दर्शयन्त्यो मध्ये कार्य-अन्तरं वारयन्ति।
“To him who realizes the unity of all, whence can there be any infatuation or bewailing” (IsU.7) etc., — Which show that Final Release comes about simultaneously with the knowledge of Brahman, preclude the possibility of any action in between the two.
तथा ‘तद्धैतत् पश्यन्न् ऋषिर् वामदेवः प्रतिपेदेऽहं मनुर् अभवं सूर्यश् च’ (BrhU.1.4.10) इति ब्रह्म-दर्शन-सर्व-आत्म-भावयोर् मध्ये कर्तव्य-अन्तर-वारणायोदाहार्यम्,
We can similarly quote as an illustration the Scriptural passage “Seeing this the sage Vāma-deva understood, I was Manu, I am the sun” (BrhUEng.1.4.10), To show, that in between the realization of Brahman and becoming one with the Universal Self there is no other action in between,
यथा ‘तिष्ठन् गायति’ इति तिष्ठति-गायत्योर् मध्ये तत्-कर्तृकं कार्य-अन्तरं न अस्ति इति गम्यते।
Just as in the sentence “He sings standing” we understand that there is no other action intervening between his singing and standing.
‘त्वं हि नः पिता योऽस्माकम् अविद्यायाः परं पारं तारयसि’ (PrasU.6.8),
Passages from the Scriptures such as “You indeed are our father, you who carry us from ignorance to the other shore beyond” (PrasU.6.8),
‘श्रुतं ह्य् एव मे भगवद्-दृशेभ्यस् तरति शोकम् आत्मविद् इति, सोऽहं भगवः शोचामि, तं मा भगवाञ् छोकस्य पारं तारयतु’ (ChanU.7.1.3),
“I have heard from men like you, that one who knows the Self overcomes grief, I myself am in similar grief, the Bhagavān should help me to tide over the grief” (ChanU.7.1.3),
‘तस्मै मृदित-कषायाय तमसः पारं दर्शयति भगवान् सनत्कुमारः’ (ChanU.7.26.2) इति चैवम्-आद्याः श्रुतयो मोक्ष-प्रतिबन्ध-निवृत्तिमात्रम् एव आत्म-ज्ञानस्य फलं दर्शयन्ति।
“To him whose faults had been washed off, Bhagavān Sanat-kumāra showed the other side beyond the darkness” (ChanU.7.26.2), Show that the fruit of the knowledge of Brahman consists in merely the removal of the obstacle to Final Release.
तथा च आचार्य-प्रणीतं न्यायोपबृंहितं सूत्रम्, ‘दुःख-जन्म-प्रवृत्ति-दोष-मिथ्या-ज्ञानानाम् उत्तरोत्तर-अपाये तद्-अनन्तर-अपायाद् अपवर्गः’ (न्या. सू. १.१.२) इति।
Similar is the Sūtra of the great teacher (Gautama) supplemented by reasoning, thus — Final Release (results) from the successive removal of erroneous ignorance, faults, activity, birth and pain, the removal of each succeeding member of the series serving to cause the removal of the one coming earlier (Nyāya Sū. 1.1.2).
मिथ्या-ज्ञान-अपायश् च ब्रह्म-आत्मैकत्व-विज्ञानाद् भवति।
This removal of the erroneous ignorance moreover results from the knowledge of the unity of one’s own Self with Brahman.
न चेदं ब्रह्म-आत्मैकत्व-विज्ञानं संपद्-रूपम्,
This knowledge of the unity of the Self with Brahman is not of the nature of attributing greatness to a comparatively small thing (Sampad-rūpa),
यथा ‘अनन्तं वै मनोऽनन्ता विश्वे देवा अनन्तम् एव स तेन लोकं जयति’ (BrhU.3.1.9) इति।
As for instance in the passage “The mind is infinite, the Viśve-devas are infinite: he thereby conquers the infinite world” (BrhUEng.3.1.9).
न च अध्यास-रूपम्,
Nor is it of the nature of a superimposition,
यथा ‘मनो ब्रह्मेत्य् उपासीत’ (ChanU.3.18.1),
As for instance in the passages “Contemplate devoutly on the mind as Brahman” (ChanU.3.18.1),
‘आदित्यो ब्रह्मेत्य् आदेशः’ (ChanU.3.19.1) इति च मन-आदित्य-आदिषु ब्रह्म-दृष्ट्य्-अध्यासः।
“The advice is that the sun is Brahman” (ChanU.3.19.1) etc., Where there is a superimposition by way of looking upon the mind and the sun respectively as Brahman.
न अपि विशिष्ट-क्रिया-योग-निमित्तम् ‘वायुर् वाव संवर्गः … प्राणो वाव संवर्गः’ (ChanU.4.3.1–3) इतिवत्।
Nor is it something caused by any special action, As for instance “Vāyu indeed is the absorber” (ChanU.4.3.1), “The Vital Breath (Prāṇa) indeed is the absorber” (ChanU.4.3.3).
न अप्य् आज्य-अवेक्षण-आदि-कर्मवत् कर्म-अङ्ग-संस्कार-रूपम्।
Nor is it of the nature of any special process of the refinement (Saṃskāra) of any thing supplementary to action, such as the act of looking upon the sacrificial ghee etc. (Ājyāvekṣaṇa).
संपद्-आदि-रूपे हि ब्रह्म-आत्मैकत्व-विज्ञानेऽभ्युपगम्यमाने
If we were to understand the knowledge of the unity of the Self with Brahman, to be of the nature of attributing greatness to a comparatively small thing,
‘तत् त्वम् असि’ (ChanU.6.8.7), ‘अहं ब्रह्म अस्मि’ (BrhU.1.4.10), ‘अयम् आत्मा ब्रह्म’ (BrhU.2.5.19) इत्य् एवम्-आदीनां वाक्यानां ब्रह्म-आत्मैकत्व-वस्तु-प्रतिपादन-परः पद-समन्वयः पीड्येत।
Then the co-ordinated meaning of the sentences such as “That thou art” (ChanU.6.8.7) and “I am Brahman” (BrhUEng.1.4.10) and “This Self is Brahman” (BrhUEng.2.5.19) which have the purport of propounding the unity of the Self and Brahman, would be done violence to,
‘भिद्यते हृदय-ग्रन्थिश् छिद्यन्ते सर्व-संशयाः’ (MunU.2.2.8) इति चैवम्-आदीनि अविद्या-निवृत्ति-फल-श्रवणान्य् उपरुध्येरन्।
And would contradict Scriptural passages about the fruit in the form of the removal of Nescience Such as “The knots of the Hṛdaya are cut asunder and all doubts are resolved” (MunU.2.2.8),
‘ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति’ (MunU.3.2.9) इति चैवम्-आदीनि तद्-भाव-आपत्ति-वचनानि संपद्-आदि-पक्षे न सामञ्जस्येनोपपद्येरन्।
And passages like “knowing Brahman, he became Brahman” (MunU.3.2.9) which speak about the Self attaining the condition of Brahman, cannot be properly understood.
तस्मान् न संपद्-आदि-रूपं ब्रह्म-आत्मैकत्व-विज्ञानम्।
Therefore the knowledge of the unity of the Self and Brahman is not of the nature of attributing greatness to a small thing etc.;
अतो न पुरुष-व्यापार-तन्त्रा ब्रह्म-विद्या।
Hence also, the science of the knowledge of Brahman does not depend upon some sort of operation by man.
किं तर्हि? प्रत्यक्ष-आदि-प्रमाण-विषय-वस्तु-ज्ञानवद् वस्तु-तन्त्रैव।
What is it then? It is that it depends upon the thing itself, even as is the knowledge of a thing which is the object of the right means of knowledge such as direct perception.
एवं-भूतस्य ब्रह्मणस् तज्-ज्ञानस्य च न कयाचिद् युक्त्या शक्यः कार्य-अनुप्रवेशः कल्पयितुम्।
It is not possible to imagine by any method of reasoning, that Brahman or the knowledge of Brahman which happens to be of such a nature, is supplementary to action.
न च विदि-क्रिया-कर्मत्वेन कार्य-अनुप्रवेशो ब्रह्मणः, ‘अन्यद् एव तद् विदिताद् अथो अविदिताद् अधि’ (KenU.1.3) इति विदि-क्रिया-कर्मत्व-प्रतिषेधात्,
Nor can Brahman be said to be supplementary to action, as being an object of the act of knowing, Because, the Scriptural passage — “It is different from the known as well as the unknown” (KenU.1.3) — Denies that it is the object of the act of knowing,
‘येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति तं केन विजानीयात्?’ (BrhU.2.4.13) इति च।
As also the Scriptural passage — “How should one know him, by whose help one knows all this?” (BrhUEng.2.4.13).
तथोपास्ति-क्रिया-कर्मत्व-प्रतिषेधोऽपि भवति, ‘यद् वाचा अनभ्युदितं येन वाग् अभ्युद्यते’ (KenU.1.4) इत्य् अविषयत्वं ब्रह्मण उपन्यस्य,
Similarly there is a denial of Brahman being the object of the act of devout meditation, Because, after having declared Brahman as not being an object (of sense), by the Scriptural passage — “That which is not proclaimed by speech, but by which speech is made manifest” —
‘तद् एव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि, नेदं यद् इदम् उपासते’ (KenU.1.4) इति।
It is said — “you should know that alone as Brahman, and not this on which you are devoutly meditating” (KenU.1.4).
अविषयत्वे ब्रह्मणः शास्त्र-योनित्व-अनुपपत्तिर् इति चेत्।
If there is an objection (by the opponent) that in case Brahman is not an object (of sense), the Śāstra could not possibly be its source (as is said in Sūtra 2),
न, अविद्या-कल्पित-भेद-निवृत्ति-परत्वाच् छास्त्रस्य।
We reply — No, because the Śāstra has concern merely for the removal of difference imagined through Nescience
न हि शास्त्रम् इदंतया विषय-भूतं ब्रह्म प्रतिपिपादयिषति।
And it does not purport to propound Brahman as being an object objectively, thus — This is Brahman.
किं तर्हि? प्रत्यग्-आत्मत्वेन अविषयतया प्रतिपादयत् अविद्या-कल्पितं वेद्य-वेदितृ-वेदन-आदि-भेदम् अपनयति।
What then does it propound? It propounds Brahman as not being an object (of sense), but as being the Universal Self And thereby removes the distinction between objects to be known, the knower, and the act of knowing etc., as imagined through Nescience.
तथा च शास्त्रम्, ‘यस्य अमतं तस्य मतं, मतं यस्य न वेद सः। अविज्ञातं विजानतां विज्ञातम् अविजानताम्’ (KenU.2.3),
Similarly the Scriptures say — “It is conceived by him by whom it is not conceived. He by whom it is conceived, knows it not, It is not understood by those who say they understand it, and it is understood by those who say that they understand it not” (KenU.2.3),
‘न दृष्टेर् द्रष्टारं पश्येर्, … न विज्ञातेर् विज्ञातारं विजानीयाः’ (BrhU.3.4.2) इति चैवम्-आदि।
“You cannot see the seer of sight, you cannot hear the hearer of hearing, you cannot perceive the perceiver of perception, you cannot know the knower of knowledge” (BrhUEng.3.4.2) etc.
अतोऽविद्या-कल्पित-संसारित्व-निवर्तनेन नित्य-मुक्त-आत्म-स्व-रूप-समर्पणान् न मोक्षस्य अनित्यत्व-दोषः।
Hence, Final Release is not open to the fault of being transitory, because the removal of the notion of the transitory condition, imagined through Nescience, culminates in indicating Final Release to be of the nature of the eternally free Self.
यस्य तु उत्पाद्यो मोक्षः, तस्य मानसं वाचिकं कायिकं वा कार्यम् अपेक्षत इति युक्तम्।
For him however, who holds Final Release as something to be effected (by action), It would be logical to say that it depends upon the mental, vocal or bodily action.
तथा विकार्यत्वे च। तयोः पक्षयोर् मोक्षस्य ध्रुवम् अनित्यत्वम्।
Final Release would certainly be transitory also in the case of those who consider it as being something which undergoes modification.
न हि दध्य्-आदि विकार्यम् उत्पाद्यं वा घट-आदि नित्यं दृष्टं लोके।
In the ordinary worldly life, things like curds which result by modification (of milk) and things like an earthen pot which are the result of manufacture (from earth), are not observed to be everlasting.
न च आप्यत्वेन अपि कार्य-अपेक्षा, स्व-आत्म-रूपत्वे सत्य् अनाप्यत्वात्,
Nor can there be any expectation of some sort of action, by considering Final Release as something to be obtained, for, as Brahman is of the nature of one’s own Self, it is not capable of being obtained (from outside).
स्व-रूप-व्यतिरिक्तत्वेऽपि ब्रह्मणो न आप्यत्वम्, सर्व-गतत्वेन नित्य-आप्त-स्व-रूपत्वात् सर्वेण ब्रह्मण आकाशस्येव।
Even if Brahman is considered to be something different from one’s own self, it is not capable of being obtained, Because of its being all-pervading like the Ākāśa, and as all persons always happen to possess it in themselves as their own nature.
न अपि संस्कार्यो मोक्षः, येन व्यापारम् अपेक्षेत।
Nor is Final Release something which admits of being subjected to a process of refinement, so that it should expect some sort of operation.
संस्कारो हि नाम संस्कार्यस्य गुण-आधानेन वा स्यात्, दोष-अपनयनेन वा।
Refinement can be effected either by the addition of some attribute (to a thing), or by the removal of some blemish (in it).
न तावद् गुण-आधानेन संभवति, अनाधेय-अतिशय-ब्रह्म-स्व-रूपत्वान् मोक्षस्य,
It is not possible to refine Final Release by the addition to it of some attribute, Because Final Release is of the nature of Brahman to which nothing can possibly be added.
न अपि दोष-अपनयनेन, नित्य-शुद्ध-ब्रह्म-स्व-रूपत्वान् मोक्षस्य।
Nor is it possible to refine it by the removal of some blemish, because Final Release is of the nature of Brahman which is eternally pure.
स्व-आत्म-धर्म एव सन् तिरोभूतो मोक्षः क्रियया आत्मनि संस्क्रियमाणेऽभिव्यज्यते, यथा आदर्शे निघर्षण-क्रियया संस्क्रियमाणे भास्वरत्वं धर्म इति चेत्,
If it be argued by the opponent, that just as a mirror which is subjected to a process of polishing becomes bright and shining, Similarly Final Release being an attribute of the Self which for the time being happens to be obscured, becomes manifest when it is subjected to a process of refinement by some sort of action,
न, क्रिया-आश्रयत्व-अनुपपत्तेर् आत्मनः।
We reply — No, because it cannot be reasonably understood that the Self can ever be an object of any sort of action on it,
यद्-आश्रया हि क्रिया, तम् अविकुर्वती नैव आत्मानं लभते।
Because action can never come into being without causing any modification into that in which it abides.
यद्य् आत्मा क्रियया विक्रियेत अनित्यत्वम् आत्मनः प्रसज्येत।
If the Self were to be liable to modification by action on itself, it would mean that it is not eternal,
‘अविकार्योऽयम् उच्यते’ इति चैवम्-आदीनि वाक्यानि बाध्येरन्। तच् च अनिष्टम्।
And in that case Scriptural passages such as “It is said to be unmodifiable” would be contradicted, which is not desirable.
तस्मान् न स्व-आश्रया क्रिया आत्मनः संभवति।
Therefore there is no possibility of the Self ever acting on itself,
अन्य-आश्रयायास् तु क्रियाया अविषयत्वान् न तया आत्मा संस्क्रियते।
And as the Self is not the object of any action which has another object as the sphere of its activity, the Self is in no way modified by any such action.
ननु देह-आश्रयया स्नान-आचमन-यज्ञोपवीत-आदिकया क्रियया देही संस्क्रियमाणो दृष्टः।
But says the opponent, the Jīva-self (i.e. the individual embodied Self) is observed to acquire refinement by such actions as bathing, performing Ācamana (sipping water) and wearing the sacred thread, which depend upon there being a body.
न, देह-आदि-संहतस्यैव अविद्या-गृहीतस्य आत्मनः संस्क्रियमाणत्वात्।
No, we reply, the one that acquires this refinement is the Jīva-Self, which under the influence of Nescience, has for the time being connection with a body.
प्रत्यक्षं हि स्नान-आचमन-आदेर् देह-समवायित्वम्।
For it is a matter of direct perception that such bathing and Ācamana is in direct relation with the body,
तया देह-आश्रयया तत्-संहत एव कश्चिद् अविद्यया आत्मत्वेन परिगृहीतः संस्क्रियत इति युक्तम्।
And therefore it is proper to hold, that by that action of which the body is the sphere, it is only that particular Jīva-Self which under the influence of Nescience, is (for the time being) the Self of that body, that acquires the refinement.
यथा देह-आश्रय-चिकित्सा-निमित्तेन धानु-साम्येन तत्-संहतस्य तद्-अभिमानिन आरोग्य-फलम्,
Just as by the re-establishment of the humoral balance (of a body) by means of medical treatment, It is that embodied Jīva-Self which is in connection with such a body which it considers to be its, that gets the fruit in the form of perfect health,
‘अहम् अरोगः’ इति यत्र बुद्धिर् उत्पद्यते,
And it is that embodied Jīva-Self in which this consciousness of the absence of any such malaise arises.
एवं स्नान-आचमन-यज्ञोपवीत-आदिकना ‘अहं शुद्धः संस्कृतः’ इति यत्र बुद्धिर् उत्पद्यते, स संस्क्रियते।
In a similar way it is that embodied Jīva-Self in which there arises the consciousness of such refinement by such bathing and Ācamana and the wearing of the sacred thread thus — I have been purified and refined — that happens to acquire such refinement.
स च देहेन संहत एव।
He is of course in contact with that body,
तेनैव अहं-कर्त्रा अहं-प्रत्यय-विषयेन प्रत्ययिना सर्वाः क्रिया निर्वर्त्यन्ते।
And all actions performed by him, who — as being the object of the terms ‘I’ and ‘agent’ — is the experiencer,
तत्-फलं च स एव अश्नाति, ‘तयोर् अन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्व् अत्ति अनश्नन्न् अन्योऽभिचाकशीति’ (MunU.3.1.1) इति मन्त्र-वर्णात्
And it is he alone that enjoys the fruit, according to the following Scriptural Mantras viz. “One of the two enjoys the delectable Pippala (fruit), and the other one (the Universal Self) refrains from enjoying and merely keeps looking on” (MunU.3.1.1),
‘आत्मेन्द्रिय-मनो-युक्तं भोक्तेत्य् आहुर् मनीषिणः’ (KathU.1.3.4) इति च।
“When he is in union with the body, the senses and the mind, the wise people say that he is the experiencer” (KathU.1.3.4).
तथा च ‘एको देवः सर्व-भूतेषु गूढः सर्व-व्यापी सर्व-भूत-अन्तर्-आत्मा। कर्म-अध्यक्षः सर्व-भूत-अधिवासः साक्षी चेता केवलो निर्-गुणश् च’ (SvetU.6.11 इति,
Also “He is the one God hidden in all beings, who is all-pervading, the Universal Self of all beings, The director of all actions, dwelling in all beings, the witness, the vitalizer, the one and the only one, and the one free from all attributes” (SvetU.6.11).
‘स पर्यगाच् छुक्रम् अकायम् अव्रणम् अस्नाविरं शुद्धम् अपाप-विद्धम्’ (IsU.8) इति च,
And “He pervades all and is bright, incorporeal, scatheless, without muscles, (and is) pure and untouched by sin” (IsU.8).
एतौ मन्त्राव् अनाधेय-अतिशयतां नित्य-शुद्धतां च ब्रह्मणो दर्शयतः।
These two Mantras show the eternal purity of Brahman, and that it is not possible to improve upon it in any way.
ब्रह्म-भावश् च मोक्षः।
Final Release is nothing but becoming Brahman,
तस्मान् न संस्कार्योऽपि मोक्षः।
Therefore Final Release is also not something which admits of any refinement.
अतोऽन्यन् मोक्षं प्रति क्रिया-अनुप्रवेश-द्वारं न शक्यं केनचिद् दर्शयितुम्।
Therefore, it is not possible for anybody to show any other way by which Final Release could be connected with action.
तस्माज् ज्ञानम् एकं मुक्त्वा क्रियाया गन्धमात्रस्य अप्य् अनुप्रवेश इह नोपपद्यते।
Therefore barring knowledge and knowledge alone, action cannot have any the slightest relation to it.
ननु ज्ञानं नाम मानसी क्रिया।
But (says the opponent) knowledge of course is a mental act.
No (we reply), because there is dissimilarity (between the two).
क्रिया हि नाम सा यत्र वस्तु-स्व-रूप-निर्-अपेक्षैव चोद्यते, पुरुष-चित्त-व्यापार-अधीना च।
Action is of course that which is enjoined, independently of the nature of anything, and is dependent on the operation of the mind of a man,
यथा ‘यस्यै देवतायै हविर् गृहीतं स्यात् तां मनसा ध्यायेद् वषट्-करिष्यन्’ इति ‘… संध्यां मनसा ध्यायेत्’ (ऐत्॰ब्रा॰ ३.८.१) इति चैवम्-आदिषु।
For instance as in the following passages viz., “For whatever Divinity an oblation is taken up (by the Adhvaryu priest) one (the Hotṛ) should meditate on that Divinity while. reciting ‘Vaṣaṭ’. “Let him meditate on Sandhyā” (Ait. Brā. 3.8.1) etc.
ध्यानं चिन्तनं यद्य् अपि मानसम्, तथा अपि पुरुषेण कर्तुम् अकर्तुम् अन्यथा वा कर्तुं शक्यम्, पुरुष-तन्त्रत्वात्।
Though meditation or reflection is mental, It is yet possible for a man to do it or not to do it or to do it in some other way, because it solely depends upon a man.
ज्ञानं तु प्रमाण-जन्यम्।
Knowledge however is generated by the right means of knowledge.
प्रमाणं च यथा-भूत-वस्तु-विषयम्।
The right means of knowledge has concern with things as they actually exist,
अतो ज्ञानं कर्तुम् अकर्तुम् अन्यथा वा कर्तुं अशक्यम्।
And it is impossible to generate knowledge or not to generate it or to generate it in some other way (optionally),
केवलं वस्तु-तन्त्रम् एव तत्, न चोदना-तन्त्रम्, न अपि पुरुष-तन्त्रम्।
Because knowledge depends upon the existing thing itself, and not upon any injunction or upon a man.
तस्मान् मानसत्वेऽपि ज्ञानस्य महद् वैलक्षण्यम्।
Therefore, knowledge though mental is greatly dissimilar (to meditation).
यथा च ‘पुरुषो वाव गौतम अग्निः’ (ChanU.5.7.1), ‘योषा वाव गौतम अग्निः’ (5.8.1) इत्य् अत्र योषित्-पुरुषयोर् अग्नि-बुद्धिर् मानसी भवति।
Just as in the Scriptural passage “A man, verily Oh Gautama, is Agni”, “the woman, verily O Gautama, is Agni” (ChanU.5.7.1, 5.8.1) The conception that a man or a woman is Agni is mental,
केवल-चोदना-जन्यत्वात् क्रियैव सा पुरुष-तन्त्रा च।
And as resulting from an injunction, is action pure and simple and it depends on a man.
या तु प्रसिद्धेऽग्नाव् अग्नि-बुद्धिः, न सा चोदना-तन्त्रा, न अपि पुरुष-तन्त्रा।
But the conception of the ordinary fire as Agni is neither any thing which depends upon an injunction or on a man,
किं तर्हि? प्रत्य्-अक्ष-विषय-वस्तु-तन्त्रैवेति ज्ञानम् एवैतत्, न क्रिया।
But something which depends on the thing (the fire) itself, and it is knowledge pure and simple and not action.
एवं सर्व-प्रमाण-विषय-वस्तुषु वेदितव्यम्।
In the case of all things which are objects of the right means of knowledge, one should understand similarly.
तत्रैवं सति यथा-भूत-ब्रह्म-आत्म-विषयम् अपि ज्ञानं न चोदना-तन्त्रम्।
This being so, the knowledge that the eternally existing Brahman is the Self, is not something which depends upon an injunction.
तद्-विषये लिङ्-आदयः श्रूयमाणा अपि अनियोज्य-विषयत्वात् कुण्ठी-भवन्ति उपल-आदिषु प्रयुक्त-क्षुर-तैक्ष्ण्य-आदिवत्, अहेय-अनुपादेय-वस्तु-विषयत्वात्।
So Brahman not being the object of an injunction, or not being an entity from which any thing can be discarded or to which any thing can be added, any imperative forms (of verbs) we see used in the Scriptures, become as ineffective as when the sharp edge of a razor is employed on a stone.
किम् अर्थानि तर्हि? ‘आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यः’ (BrhU.2.4.5) इत्य्-आदीनि विधि-च्छायानि वचनानि।
What then is the purport (the opponent asks) of passages like “The Self (Oh Maitreyī) is to be seen, heard etc.” (BrhUEng.2.4.5) which have an appearance of an injunction?
स्वा-भाविक-प्रवृत्ति-विषय-विमुखी-करण-अर्थानि इति ब्रूमः।
We reply — They are for the purpose of making (a man) averse to the objects of his natural tendency.
यो हि बहिर्-मुखः प्रवर्तते पुरुषः ‘इष्टं मे भूयात्, अन्ष्टिं मा भूत्’ इति,
In the case of a man who is an extrovert and acts with a view to attain the objects of his desire and to avoid things distasteful to him,
न च तत्र आत्य्-अन्तिकं पुरुष-अर्थं लभते, तम् आत्य्-अन्तिक-पुरुष-अर्थ-वाञ्छिनं स्वा-भाविक-कार्य-करण-संघात-प्रवृत्ति-गोचराद् वि-मुखी-कृत्य प्रत्यग्-आत्म-स्रोतस्तया प्रवर्तयन्ति ‘आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः’ इत्य्-आदीनि।
He, having failed to attain the highest aim of man, is yet desirous of attaining such aim, Passages like “The Self, Oh Maitreyī, should be seen” etc. help him to set his face against the aggregate of the objects of the natural tendency of his body and sense-organs, and to direct the stream of his mind towards the Universal Self.
तस्य आत्म-अन्वेषणाय प्रवृत्तस्य अहेयम् अनुपादेयं च आत्म-तत्त्वम् उपदिश्यते
To him who has started on the quest of the Self, the Scriptures propound the true nature of the Self from which nothing can be discarded and to which nothing can be added, by means of the following passages,
‘इदं सर्वं यद् अयम् आत्मा’ (BrhU.2.4.6),
Viz. “All this is that which is the Self” (BrhUEng.2.4.6),
‘यत्र त्व् अस्य सर्वम् आत्मैव अभूत् तत् केन कं पश्येत् … केन कं विजानीयात् … विज्ञातारम् अरे केन विजानीयात्’ (BrhU.4.5.15),
“When the Self only is all this, how should he see another, How should he know another, how should he know the Knower?” (BrhUEng.4.5.15),
‘अयम् आत्मा ब्रह्म’ (BrhU.2.5.19) इत्य्-आदिभिः।
“This Self is Brahman” (BrhUEng.2.5.19) etc.
यद् अप्य् अकर्तव्य-प्रधानम् आत्म-ज्ञानं हानायोपादानाय वा न भवति इति, तत् तथैवेत्य् अभ्युपगम्यते।
Now we understand, that the knowledge of the Self with respect to which contra-indication of any action as such is the principal thing, and, that it does not admit of the giving up or the taking up of anything, is but too true.
अलंकारो ह्य् अयम् अस्माकम्, यद् ब्रह्म-आत्म-अवगतौ सत्यां सर्व-कर्तव्यता-हानिः कृत-कृत्यता चेति।
The fact that when there is the realization of Brahman, all duties come to an end and there is satisfaction that the aim is achieved, is something which indeed is a feather in our cap (lit., it is our Alaṅ-kāra i.e. an ornament).
तथा च श्रुतिः ‘आत्मानं चेद् विजानीयाद् अयम् अस्मि इति पूरुषः। किम् इच्छन् कस्य कामाय शरीरम् अनुसंज्वरेत्’ (BrhU.4.4.12) इति।
The Scriptures also say similarly thus — “If a man understands the Self as his own Self, Then wishing for what should he suffer along with his suffering body?” (BrhUEng.4.4.12),
‘एतद् बुद्ध्वा बुद्धिमान् स्यात् कृत-कृत्यश् च भारत’ (BhG.15.20) इति च स्मृतिः।
And the Smṛti also says thus — “Having understood this, O Bhārata, a man becomes enlightened and one who has achieved his aim.” (BhG.15.20).
तस्मान् न प्रतिपत्ति-विधि-शेषतया ब्रह्मणः समर्पणम्।
Therefore the Vedānta Śāstra does not culminate in propounding Brahman as being something which could be an object of an injunction to realize it.
यद् अपि केचिद् आहुः, प्रवृत्ति-निवृत्ति-विधि-तच्-छेष-व्यतिरेकेण केवल-वस्तु-वादी वेद-भागो न अस्ति इति, तन् न,
The objection which some raise, that there is no such portion of the Scriptures which has the purport of merely making a statement about an existing entity (Vastu), as distinguished from an injunction for the doing or for abstaining from doing something, or being supplementary to any such injunction for doing or abstaining from doing something, is not a felicitous statement,
औपनिषदस्य पुरुषस्य अनन्य-शेषत्वात्।
Because the Puruṣa of the Upaniṣads is not subsidiary to anything else.
योऽसाव् उपनिषत्स्व् एव अधिगतः पुरुषोऽसंसारी ब्रह्म-स्व-रूपः उत्पाद्य-आदि-चतुर्-विध-द्रव्य-वि-लक्षणः स्व-प्रकरणस्थोऽनन्य-शेषः, न ‘असौ न अस्ति न अधिगम्यत’ इति वा शक्यं वदितुम्,
It cannot be said about that Puruṣa which can be comprehended only from the Upaniṣads, and which is not of a transmigratory nature, and which in fact is Brahman, and is different from the fourfold materials of things which are liable to be created etc., and which is a topic in itself, and is not subsidiary to any thing else, that it is not, or that it cannot be comprehended,
‘स एष नेति नेत्य् आत्मा’ (BrhU.3.9.26) इत्य् आत्म-शब्दात्,
Because, in the following Scriptural passage it is described as the Ātmā (the Self) thus — (The Self can only be described negatively as) “Ātmā is, not that, not that” (BrhUEng.3.9.26)
आत्मनश् च प्रत्याख्यातुम् अशक्यत्वात्, य एव निराकर्ता तस्यैव आत्मत्वात्।
And it is not possible to deny the Self, because whosoever endeavours to deny it, is himself the Self (Ātmā).
नन्व् आत्मा अहं-प्रत्यय-विषयत्वाद् ‘उपनिषत्स्व् एव विज्ञायत’ इत्य् अनुपपन्नम्।
To the objection that it is not reasonably sustainable that the Self is to be understood from the Upaniṣads only, because it is the object of the notion of ‘I’ or ‘Ego’,
न, तत्-साक्षित्वेन प्रत्युक्तत्वात्।
(We reply) — No, it is not so, because the Self is the immediate consciousness (Sākṣī) of that Jīva-Self which is the object of the notion of ‘I’ or ‘Ego’.
न ह्य् अहं-प्रत्यय-विषय-कर्तृ-व्यतिरेकेण तत्-साक्षी सर्व-भूतस्थः सम एकः कूटस्थ-नित्यः पुरुषो विधि-काण्डे तर्क-समये वा केनचद् अधिगतः सर्वस्य आत्मा।
Now, because this Puruṣa who is the mere immediate consciousness, as distinguished from the agent who is the object of the notion of ‘I’ or ‘Ego’, which resides in all beings, is uniform, the only one (without a second), is eternally unchanging, is the Self of all, and is not understood by anybody either from the Vedic chapter on injunctions or from the science of reasoning (Nyāya),
अतः स न केनचित् प्रत्याख्यातुं शक्यः, विधि-शेषत्वं वा नेतुम्।
And it is not therefore possible for anybody to deny it, or reduce it to the status of being supplementary to an injunction.
आत्मत्वाद् एव च सर्वेषाम्, न हेयो न अप्य् उपादेयः।
It is precisely because of its being the Self of all that it cannot either be discarded or taken up.
सर्वं हि विनश्यद्-विकार-जातं पुरुष-अन्तं विनश्यति।
All things which are the modifications of the root-cause and are perishable, perish only upto the Puruṣa.
पुरुषो हि विनाश-हेत्व्-अभावाद् अविनाशी,
The Puruṣa is imperishable because of the absence of any cause for such destruction,
विक्रिया-हेत्व्-अभावाच् च कूटस्थ-नित्यः,
Is eternally unchanging because of the absence of any cause for its modification,
अत एव नित्य-शुद्ध-बुद्ध-मुक्त-स्व-भावः।
And is (therefore) of the nature of being eternally pure, enlightened, and free.
तस्मात् ‘पुरुषान् न परं किञ्चित् सा काष्ठा सा परा गतिः’ (KathU.1.3.11), ‘तं त्व् औपनिषदं पुरुषं पृच्छामि’ (BrhU.3.9.26) इति चौपनिषदत्व-विशेषणं पुरुषस्योपनिषत्सु प्राधान्येन प्रकाश्यमानत्वे उपपद्यते।
Therefore the particularization of the Puruṣa as the one belonging to the Upaniṣads, in the passages “There is nothing beyond the Puruṣa, he is the final goal and the transcendental condition” (KathU.1.3.11), And “I ask you about the Puruṣa mentioned in the Upaniṣads” (BrhUEng.3.9.26) Can be proper, only if the Puruṣa is principally the subject illustrated in the Upaniṣads.
अतो भूत-वस्तु-परो वेद-भागो न अस्ति इति वचनं साहसमात्रम्।
Therefore it is but a bold and reckless statement that no portion of the Scriptural texts treats of an existing entity.
यद् अपि शास्त्र-तात्-पर्यविदाम् अनुक्रमणम्, ‘दृष्टो हि तस्य अर्थः कर्म-अवबोधनम्’ (शा. भा. १.१.१) इत्य्-एवम्-आदि, तत् धर्म-जिज्ञासा-विषयत्वाद् विधि-प्रतिषेध-शास्त्र-अभिप्रायं द्रष्टव्यम्।
The statement of those who know the purport of the Śāstras, viz. “We have seen that the meaning of that is the knowledge of action” etc., Being with regard to the subject relating to the desire to know ‘Duty’ (Dharma), should be understood as purporting to relate to the Śāstra of injunctions and prohibitions (i.e. the Karma-kāṇḍa of the Pūrva Mīmāṃsā).
अपि च ‘आम्नायस्य क्रिया-अर्थत्वाद् आनर्थक्यम् अतद्-अर्थानाम्’ (शा. भा. १.१.२) इत्य् एतद् एक-अन्तेन अभ्युपगच्छतां भूतोपदेशानाम् आनर्थक्य-प्रसङ्गः।
Besides if we were to understand that “action is the purport of the Scriptures, and whatever does not refer to it is purposeless” in the extreme sense, There would occur the predicament of the mention of existing entities (in the Śāstra) being rendered purposeless.
प्रवृत्ति-निवृत्ति-विधि-तच्-छेष-व्यतिरेकेण भूतं चेद् वस्तु उपदिशति भव्य-अर्थत्वेन, कूटस्थ-नित्यं भूतं नोपदिशति इति को हेतुः?
If the Śāstra does in fact propound an existing entity, as apart from an injunction about an action or aversion to it or something supplementary to these, with regard to something (occurring) in the future, Then where is the reason for maintaining that it does not propound the eternally existing and unchanging entity (such as Brahman)?
न हि भूतम् उपदिश्यमानं क्रिया भवति।
Merely because an existing entity is propounded (in the Scriptures) it does not thereby become ‘action’.
अक्रियात्वेऽपि भूतस्य क्रिया-साधनत्वात् क्रिया-अर्थ एव भूतोपदेश इति चेत्,
If it were to be objected that although an existing entity may not be ‘action’ as such, still the propounding of an existing entity (by the Śāstra) is for the purpose of ‘action’, because of its being the means of ‘action’,
नैष दोषः, क्रिया-अर्थत्वेऽपि क्रिया-निर्वर्तन-शक्तिमद्-वस्तु उपदिष्टम् एव,
We reply — this is no fault, because even if we understand the mention of an existing entity for the purpose of ‘action’, the existing entity possessing such potentiality for bringing about such ‘action’, would thus happen to have been propounded all the same.
क्रिया-अर्थत्वं तु प्रयोजनं तस्य, न चैतावता वस्त्व् अनुपदिष्टं भवति।
Their aim may very well be to subserve ‘action’, but even if it were to be so, it would not mean that an existing entity is not propounded at all. That it is meant to subserve ‘action’ is its fruit.
यदि नामोपदिष्टं किं तव तेन स्याद् इति।
But (says the opponent) supposing it is so propounded, how does it help you?
उच्यते, अनवगत-आत्म-वस्तु-उपदेशश् च तथैव भवितुम् अर्हति, तद्-अवगत्या मिथ्या-ज्ञानस्य संसार-हेतोर् निवृत्तिः प्रयोजनं क्रियत इत्य् अविशिष्टम् अर्थवत्त्वं क्रिया-साधन-वस्तु-उपदेशेन।
We reply — The propounding of an existing entity such as the Self is also of such a nature, and by understanding such existing entity (as the Self or Brahman) which has the result of removing erroneous ignorance, the cause of transmigratory existence, the purpose that an entity has such a meaning, is common between it and the propounding of an entity which is a means for ‘action’.
अपि च ‘ब्राह्मणो न हन्तव्यः’ इति च एवम्-आद्या निवृत्तिर् उपदिश्यते। न च सा क्रिया, न अपि क्रिया-साधनम्।
Moreover the Śāstra is seen to teach ‘abstention’ such as — “A Brāhmaṇa should not be killed”, Which is neither ‘action’ nor a means for ‘action’.
अक्रिया-अर्थानाम् उपदेशोऽनर्थकश् चेत्, ‘ब्राह्मणो न हन्तव्यः’ इत्य्-आदि-निवृत्त्य्-उपदेशानाम् आनर्थक्यं प्राप्तम्। तच् च अनिष्टम्।
Now if instruction about entities not meant for the purpose of ‘action’ were to be purposeless, Then the inevitable conclusion is, that instruction about such ‘abstention’ as that ‘a Brāhmaṇa should not be killed’ would be without a purpose, which would not be desirable.
न च स्व-भाव-प्राप्त-हन्त्य्-अर्थ-अनुरागेण नञः शक्यम् अप्राप्त-क्रिया-अर्थत्वं कल्पयितुं हनन-क्रिया-निवृत्त्य्-औदासीन्य-व्यतिरेकेण।
From the mere connection of the suffix Nañ (नञ्) with the verb ‘to kill’ (Han) — which means the act of killing which follows naturally from the verb ‘to kill’ — it is not possible to imagine that it expresses some new meaning, and that too ‘an action’ which is different from mere passivity or indifference as to the act of killing.
नञश् चैष स्व-भावः, यत् स्व-संबन्धिनोऽभावं बोधयति इति।
The nature of Nañ is such that it makes known the non-existence of that in connection with which it is used,
And the consciousness of such non-existence is the cause of the (resulting) passive indifference.
सा च दग्धेन्धन-अग्निवत् स्वयम् एवोपशाम्यति।
That consciousness wears off of itself, like fire after the complete combustion of fuel.
तस्मात् प्रसक्त-क्रिया-निवृत्त्य्-औदासीन्यम् एव ‘ब्राह्मणो न हन्तव्यः’ इत्य्-आदिषु प्रतिषेध-अर्थं मन्यामहे, अन्यत्र प्रजा-पति-व्रत-आदिभ्यः।
Therefore, we consider that everywhere — except in the case of the Prajā-pati-vrata — in the case of passages like “A Brāhmaṇa should not be killed” the passive indifference resulting from the aversion to the suggested act, is itself to be understood in the sense of a prohibition (of an act).
तस्मात् पुरुष-अर्थ-अनुपयोग्य्-उपाख्यान-आदि-भूत-अर्थवाद-विषयम् आनर्थक्य-अभिधानं द्रष्टव्यम्।
Therefore the reference to the purposelessness of passages (which do not imply action according to Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā) should be understood to have reference to Artha-vāda passages, like legends, which are useless so far as the highest aim of man is concerned.
यद् अप्य् उक्तम्, कर्तव्य-विध्य्-अनुप्रवेशम् अन्तरेण वस्तुमात्रम् उच्यमानम् अनर्थकं स्तात्, ‘सप्त-द्वीपा वसुमती’ इत्य्-आदिवद् इति, तत् परिहृतम्,
Then with regard also to what has been said, viz. that the mention of actually existing entities which do not lead up to some sort of injunction to action, is purposeless like such sentences as ‘the world is comprised of seven islands’, it has been refuted,
‘रज्जुर् इयम्, न अयं सर्पः’ इति वस्तुमात्र-कथनेऽपि प्रयोजनस्य दृष्टत्वात्।
Because it has been seen that a fruit does accrue by the mere mention of such an entity, thus — ‘This is a rope and not a snake’.
ननु श्रुत-ब्रह्मणोऽपि यथा-पूर्वं संसारित्व-दर्शनान् न रज्जु-स्व-रूप-कथनवद् अर्थवत्त्वम् इत्य् उक्तम्।
But (retorts the opponent) I have said already that as it is seen that even in the case of a person who has received instruction about Brahman, he is still seen to continue to be in the same transmigratory condition, the Scriptural passages have no such meaning as there is in mentioning that this is a rope and not a snake.
अत्रोच्यते, न अवगत-ब्रह्म-आत्म-भावस्य यथा-पूर्वं संसारित्वं शक्यं दर्शयितुम्,
To this, we reply — it is not possible to show that he who has once understood the condition of the Self’s unity with Brahman, still continues to be affected by the transmigratory condition,
Because it is contradictory to the condition of the unity of the Self with Brahman achieved on Scriptural authority.
न हि शरीर-आद्य्-आत्म-अभिमानिनो ‘दुःख-भय-आदिमत्त्वं दृष्टम्’ इति तस्यैव वेद-प्रमाण-जनित-ब्रह्म-आत्म-अवगमे तद्-अभिमान-निवृत्तौ तद् एव मिथ्या-ज्ञान-निमित्तं दुःख-भय-आदिमत्त्वं भवति इति शक्यं कल्पयितुम्।
It is not possible to maintain, that because we see that a man who vainly supposes the Self to be the body is affected by pain or fear, he would continue to be affected by the same condition of pain or fear, which in fact is caused by erroneous-ignorance, when his vanity in supposing the Self to be the body is removed by the knowledge of the unity of the Self with Brahman, generated by such right means of knowledge as the Scriptures.
न हि धनिनो गृहस्थस्य धन-अभिमानिनो धन-अपहार-निमित्तं ‘दुःखं दृष्टम्’ इति तस्यैव प्रव्रजितस्य धन-अभिमान-रहितस्य तद् एव धन-अपहार-निमित्तं दुःखं भवति।
It cannot be, that because we see that a rich man who is vain about his wealth, is affected by pain caused by his wealth being taken away from him, is subject to similar pain by his wealth being taken away from him, when he has renounced the world and has become a Sanyāsin and when thereby his vanity about his wealth is removed.
न च कुण्डलिनः कुण्डलित्व-अभिमान-निमित्तं ‘सुखं दृष्टम्’ इति तस्यैव कुण्डल-वियुक्तस्य कुण्डलित्व-अभिमान-रहितस्य तद् एव कुण्डलित्व-अभिमान-निमित्तं सुखं भवति।
Nor can it be, that because it is seen that a man who wears a Kuṇḍala (an ear ornament) feels pleasure caused by his vanity about the Kuṇḍala, continues to have similar pleasure caused by the vanity of being adorned with a Kuṇḍala, when he has divested himself of the Kuṇḍala and is free from the vanity of the adornment by it.
तद् उक्तं श्रुत्या, ‘अशरीरं वाव सन्तं न प्रिय-अप्रिये स्पृशतः’ (ChanU.8.12.1) इति।
This has been expressed by the Scriptures as follows — “Neither pain nor pleasure affect one who is in a disembodied condition” (ChanU.8.12.1).
शरीरे पतितेऽशरीरत्वं स्यात्, न जीवत इति चेत्,
If it be objected, that disembodiedness supervenes after the body falls (i.e. when a person dies), and not while a person continues to live,
न, स-शरीरत्वस्य मिथ्या-ज्ञान-निमित्तत्वात्।
We reply — no, because the embodied condition itself is caused by erroneous-ignorance.
न ह्य् आत्मनः शरीर-आत्म-अभिमान-लक्षणं मिथ्या-ज्ञानं मुक्त्वा अन्यतः स-शरीरत्वं शक्यं कल्पयितुम्।
In the case of the Self it is not possible to conceive of any corporeality for the Self, otherwise than by the erroneous-ignorance of the nature of the vanity of the Self being possessed of a body.
नित्यम् अशरीरत्वम्, अकर्म-निमित्तत्वात् इत्य् अवोचाम।
We have already said that the Self is eternally sans-body, because of its not having action as its cause.
तत्-कृत-धर्म-अधर्म-निमित्तं स-शरीरत्वम् इति चेत्,
If it is urged that corporeality is caused by meritorious and unmeritorious actions,
न, शरीर-संबन्धस्य असिद्धत्वात्,
We reply — no, because in as much as the relation of the Self with a body is not yet properly established,
Any assumption about the Self having performed meritorious or unmeritorious actions is even still less established.
शरीर-संबन्धस्य धर्म-अधर्मयोस् तत्-कृतत्वस्य चेतरेतर-आश्रयत्व-प्रसङ्गात्।
And also because the assumption of corporeality to the Self as depending upon meritorious and unmeritorious actions and of meritorious and unmeritorious actions as depending upon the corporeality of the Self, would, lead (us) towards (the fallacy of) mutual interdependence as cause and effect.
And this notion about the beginninglessness (of these two) would be like a series of the blind leading the blind (Andha-paramparā).
क्रिया-समवाय-अभावाच् च आत्मनः कर्तृत्व-अनुपपत्तेः।
And it is not reasonably sustainable to predicate activity as referring to the Self in as much as it has no relation to action.
संनिधानमात्रेण राज-प्रभृतीनां दृष्टं कर्तृत्वम् इति चेत्,
If it be said that we observe activity on the part of kings etc. (without their being actually physically active) merely by their immediate presence,
न, धन-दान-आद्य्-उपार्जित-भृत्य-संबन्धित्वात् तेषां कर्तृत्वोपपत्तेः।
We reply — no, their apparent activity is understood to be reasonably sustainable because of their relation (as masters) with their servants obtained on wages etc.
न त्व् आत्मनो धन-दान-आदिवच् छरीर-आदिभिः स्व-स्वामि-संबन्ध-निमित्तं किंचिच् छक्यं कल्पयितुम्।
It is not possible to imagine in the case of the Self, any cause such as wages etc. effecting a relation between it and the body, like the relation between a master and a servant,
मिथ्या-अभिमानस् तु प्रत्यक्षः संबन्ध-हेतुः।
When erroneous-ignorance is there as a direct cause of its relation to a body.
एतेन यजमानत्वम् आत्मनो व्याख्यातम्।
In this way the host-ship (Yajamānatva) of the Self is explained.
अत्र आहुः, देह-आदि-व्यतिरिक्तस्य आत्मनः आत्मीये देह-आदाव् अभिमानो गौणः, न मिथ्येति चेत्,
If one were to object here (as does, for instance a follower of Prabhākara’s view) that the identification by the Self with the body, when in fact it is different from the body, is not erroneous, but is in a secondary sense,
न, प्रसिद्ध-वस्तु-भेदस्य गौणत्व-मुख्यत्व-प्रसिद्धेः।
We reply — no, it is well-known that it is only when there is an evident difference between two entities, that the use of a term in a primary and secondary sense is reasonably sustainable.
यस्य हि प्रसिद्धो वस्तु-भेदः, यथा केसर-आदिमान् आकृति-विशेषोऽन्वय-व्यतिरेकाभ्यां सिंह-शब्द-प्रत्यय-भाङ् मुख्योऽन्यः प्रसिद्धः,
Just when the difference between two entities is patent to a man, as for instance when it is well-known to him that an animal with a mane etc. and a peculiar proud form, which by the method of positive and negative instances, deserves to have a designation, viz., a lion, applied to it, is a distinct and separate entity,
ततश् च अन्यः पुरुषः प्रायिकैः क्रौर्य-शौर्य-आदिभिः सिंह-गुणैः संपन्नः सिद्धः, तस्य पुरुषे सिंह-शब्द-प्रत्ययौ गौणौ भवतः, न अप्रसिद्ध-वस्तु-भेदस्य।
And when there also is another person who is endowed with the usual qualities of a lion such as fierceness and boldness, and who is a different entity altogether and is quite distinct from the former (i.e. the lion), Then the consciousness (Pratyaya, ‘notion’) in such a man, of the other man’s lioninity, and the use by such a man of the term ‘lion’ for that other man, is in a secondary or figurative sense, and not when the difference between the two is not known to him.
तस्य त्व् अन्यत्र-अन्य-शब्द-प्रत्ययौ भ्रान्ति-निमित्ताव् एव भवतः, न गौणौ,
Hence a man’s consciousness and the use by him of one term for another (when he is not conscious of the difference between two entities) are caused by his confusion alone and are not in a secondary or figurative sense.
यथा मन्द-अन्धकारे स्थाणुर् अयम् इत्य् अगृह्यमाण-विशेषे पुरुष-शब्द-प्रत्ययौ स्थाणु-विषयौ, यथा वा शुक्तिकायाम् अकस्माद् रजतम् इति निश्चितौ शब्द-प्रत्ययौ,
Just as in the twilight, when a pillar is not cognized as such, a man’s consciousness of it and his use of the term ‘man’ for it, or when in the case of a mother-of-pearl his consciousness of it and his use of the term ‘silver’ for it, is prima facie not in a secondary or figurative sense.
तद्वद् देह-आदि-संघाते अहं इति निर्-उपचारेण शब्द-प्रत्ययाव् आत्म-अनात्म-अविवेकेनोत्पद्यमानौ कथं गौणौ शक्यौ वदितुम्।
Similarly, how can the consciousness of and the use by a man of the term ‘I’ with respect to the aggregate of body etc., be said to be in a secondary or figurative sense, when his consciousness and his use of the term ‘I’ for the body are caused by his not being able to discriminate between the Self and that which is not the Self?
आत्म-अनात्म-विवेकिनाम् अपि पण्डितानाम् अज-अवि-पालानाम् इव अविविक्तौ शब्द-प्रत्ययौ भवतः।
Even in the case of those learned people who are able to discriminate between the Self and the non-Self, their consciousness and use of the term ‘I’ for the body, is, like that of the shepherd’s (Ajāvi-pāla), due to their inability to discriminate between the Self and the non-Self.
तस्माद् देह-आदि-व्यतिरिक्त-आत्म-अस्तित्व-वादिनां देह-आदाव् अहं-प्रत्ययो मिथ्यैव, न गौणः।
Therefore to those who hold that there is a self distinct from the body, the notion of ‘I’ in the body etc. is simply false, not secondary [Trans. from Panoli].
तस्मान् मिथ्या-प्रत्यय-निमित्तत्वात् स-शरीरत्वस्य, सिद्धं जीवतोऽपि विदुषोऽशरीरत्वम्।
Hence since the conception that the self is embodied is false, it has been proved that even while living the enlightened one can be bodiless [Trans. from Panoli].
तथा च ब्रह्मविद्-विषया श्रुतिः, ‘तद् यथा अहि-निर्ल्वयनी वल्मीके मृता प्रत्यस्ता शयीतैवम् एवेदग्ँ शरीरग्ँ शेते। अथ अयम् अशरीरोऽमृतः प्राणो ब्रह्मैव तेज एव’ (BrhU.4.4.7) इति,
The same is illustrated by the Scriptural passages relating to a person who has realized Brahman, thus — “Just as the slough of a snake lies inert and spread out at length on an ant-hill, even so does this body also. And this disembodied and immortal vital breath (Prāṇa) is in reality the Brahman, the Tejas” (BrhUEng.4.4.7).
‘स-चक्षुर् अचक्षुर् इव स-कर्णोऽकर्ण इव स-वाग् अवाग् इव स-मना अमना इव स-प्राणोऽप्राण इव’ इति च।
Similarly — “While endowed with eyes he is sans-eyes, while endowed with the organ of hearing he is without the organ of hearing, and so on in the case of speech, the mind and the vital breath (Prāṇa)”,
स्मृतिर् अपि च, ‘स्थित-प्रज्ञस्य का भाषा’ (BhG.2.54) इत्य्-आद्या स्थित-प्रज्ञस्य लक्षणान्य् आचक्षाणा विदुषः सर्व-प्रवृत्त्य्-असंबन्धं दर्शयति।
Smṛti also, in the passage beginning thus — “What is the nature of the language used by one whose intellect is well-poised” (BhG.2.54)? — And enumerating the characteristics of a man whose intellect is well-poised, describes the total absence of any the least relation with activity.
तस्मान् न अवगत-ब्रह्म-आत्म-भावस्य यथा-पूर्वं संसारित्वम्,
Therefore, a man who has realized the unity of the Self and Brahman has no further transmigratory life as before.
यस्य तु यथा-पूर्वं संसारित्वं न असाव् अवगत-ब्रह्म-आत्म-भाव इत्य् अनवद्यम्।
Ergo, it is clear that he who continues to have such transmigratory existence has not realized the unity of the Self and Brahman and the Śāstra therefore is absolutely flawless.
यत् पुनर्-उक्तं श्रवणात् पराचीनयोर् मनन-निदिध्यासनयोर् दर्शनाद् विधि-शेषत्वं ब्रह्मणः न स्व-रूप-पर्यवसायित्वम् इति,
Again with regard to what was said, viz., that because it is observed that further cogitation and meditation should follow the hearing of Brahman, Brahman is merely complementary to an injunction and its knowledge does not culminate in the realization of its own nature,
न तु तद् अस्ति, मनन-निदिध्यासनयोर् अपि श्रवणवद् अवगत्य्-अर्थत्वात्।
We reply — no, because cogitation and meditation are for the purpose of their ultimate culmination in the realization (of Brahman).
न, अवगत्य्-अर्थत्वान् मनन-निदिध्यासनयोः। यदि ह्य् अवगतं ब्रह्म अन्यत्र विनियुज्येत, भवेत् तदा विधि-शेषत्वम्,
If Brahman after being fully realized were to be employed elsewhere (for some other purpose) then it would very well happen to be complementary to an injunction, But it is not so, because (as said above) cogitation and meditation also, like hearing, are meant ultimately to culminate in the complete realization (of Brahman).
तस्मान् न प्रतिपत्ति-विधि-विषयतया शास्त्र-प्रमाणकत्वं ब्रह्मणः संभवति इति
Therefore it is not possible (to say) that Brahman is something, to know which the Śāstra is the right means of knowledge, only in so far as it is the object of an injunction to meditate upon,
अतः स्व-तन्त्रम् एव ब्रह्म शात्र-प्रमाणकम्, वेदान्त-वाक्य-समन्वयाद् इति सिद्धम्।
And it is conclusively established by the proper co-ordination of the Scriptural passages That Brahman is independent in itself, having the Śāstra as the right means of its knowledge.
एवं च सति ‘अथ अतो ब्रह्म-जिज्ञासा’ इति तद्-विषयः पृथक्-शास्त्र-आरम्भ उपपद्यते।
This being so, an altogether separate beginning of the Śāstra, thus — “Now, therefore, the inquiry into Brahman” — is perfectly justified.
प्रतिपत्ति-विधि-परत्वे हि ‘अथ अतो धर्म-जिज्ञासा’ इत्य् एव आरब्धत्वान् न पृथक्-शास्त्रम् आरभ्येत।
Were it to be of the nature of an injunction to realize, the Śāstra-kāra would begin it thus — “Now, therefore, the inquiry into Dharma” — and he would not begin a new Śāstra at all.
आरभ्यमाणं चैवम् आरभ्येत, ‘अथ अतः परिशिष्ट-धर्म-जिज्ञासा’ इति,
And even if he were to follow the former course, he would begin it like this — “Now, therefore, the inquiry into the supplementary part of Dharma”,
‘अथ अतः क्रत्व्-अर्थ-पुरुष-अर्थयोर् जिज्ञासा’ (जै. सू. ४.१.१) इतिवत्।
Similar to “Now therefore an inquiry into the aim of a sacrifice (Kratu) or the highest aim of a man” (as in the Jai. Sū. 4.1.1).
ब्रह्म-आत्मैक्य-अवगतिस् त्व् अप्रतिज्ञातेति, तद्-अर्थो युक्तः शास्त्र-आरम्भः, ‘अथ अतो ब्रह्म-जिज्ञासा’ इति।
And as the knowledge of the unity of the Self and Brahman is not described to be the scope of the Śāstra of Dharma (i.e. Pūrva Mīmāṃsā), It is quite logical that the beginning in the present case is thus — “Now therefore an inquiry into Brahman”.
तस्मात् ‘अहं ब्रह्म अस्मि’ इत्य् एतद्-अवसाना एव सर्वे विधयः, सर्वाणि चेतराणि प्रमाणानि।
Therefore all injunctions and all other means of knowledge are valid only upto the realization thus — “I am Brahman”.
न ह्य् अहेय-अनुपादेय-अद्वैत-आत्म-अवगतौ निर्-विषयाण्य् अप्रमातृकाणि च प्रमाणानि भवितुम् अर्हन्ति इति।
For when the knowledge of the Self from which nothing can be discarded and to which nothing can be added has supervened, the right means of knowledge no longer continue to be the right means of knowledge.
अपि च आहुः,
Besides it is said —
गौण-मिथ्यात्मनोऽसत्त्वे पुत्र-देहादि-बाधनात्। सद्-ब्रह्मात्माहम् इत्येवं बोधे कार्यं कथं भवेत्॥
When there has arisen (in a man’s mind) the knowledge viz. “I am the Sat, the Brahman is but myself”, and when owing to the ablation of the conceptions of the son, the body etc. as being one’s own Self, the figurative and false-knowledge about the Self has come to an end, how should then any Kārya i.e. effect (originating in wrong conceptions) exist any longer?
अन्वेष्टव्यात्म-विज्ञानात् प्राक् प्रमातृत्वम् आत्मनः। अन्विष्टः स्यात् प्रमातैव पाप्म-दोषादि-वर्जितः॥
As long as the knowledge of the Self, which the Scriptures want us to endeavour after, has not arisen, so long, the Self is a knowing agent, but the same knowing agent becomes that which is searched after, viz. the Highest Self, which is free from all evil and blemish, when the real nature of the Self is realized.
देहात्म-प्रत्ययो यद्वत् प्रमाणत्वेन कल्पितः। लौकिकं तद्वद् एवेदं प्रमाणं त्व् आ आत्म-निश्चयात्॥
Just as the idea of the Self being the body is assumed as valid (in ordinary life), so also all the Pramāṇas (i.e. the means of right knowledge such as perception etc.) are valid only until the one and the only one Self is properly realized.
एवं तावद्वेदान्तवाक्यानां ब्रह्मात्मावगतिप्रयोजनानां ब्रह्मात्मनि तात्पर्येण समन्वितानामन्तरेणापि कार्यानुप्रवेशं ब्रह्मणि पर्यवसानमुक्तम्।
So far we have said, how the passages of Vedānta which have the knowledge of Brahman as their fruit or result, and which have been shown to have a regular sequence indicating the Self as Brahman, without their having any relation to action, ultimately culminate in (the understanding of) Brahman.
ब्रह्म च सर्वज्ञं सर्वशक्ति जगदुत्पत्तिस्थितिलयकारणमित्युक्तम्।
We have also said how Brahman is omniscient and all-powerful and is the cause of the origin, preservation and destruction of the transient world.
सांख्यादयस्तु परिनिष्ठितं वस्तु प्रमाणान्तरगम्यमेवेति मन्यमानाः प्रधानादीनि कारणान्तराण्यनुमिमानास्तत्परतयैव वेदान्तवाक्यानि योजयन्ति।
The Sāṅkhyas and others however, who consider an ascertained entity to be capable of being understood only by other means of right knowledge and who infer the Pradhāna etc. as the cause, construe the Vedānta passages as indicating those to be the causes (i.e. Pradhāna etc.).
सर्वेष्वेव वेदान्तवाक्येषु सृष्टिविषयेष्वनुमानेनैव कार्येण कारणं लिलक्षयिषितम्।
They think that from all the Vedānta passages which have the origin (of the world) as their province, the cause is to be deduced from the effect by inference.
प्रधानपुरुषसंयोगा नित्यानुमेया इति सांख्या मन्यन्ते।
The Sāṅkhyas hold that the contacts of the Puruṣa are inferable and constant.
काणादास्त्वेतेभ्य एव वाक्येभ्य ईश्वरं निमित्तकारणमनुमिमते, अणूंश्च समवायिकारणम्।
The followers of Kaṇāda infer from these very passages the Lord (Īśvara) to be the accidental or efficient cause and the Atoms as the cause which is in constant concomitant relation with the effect, (i.e. that they are the material cause of the world).
एवमन्येऽपि तार्किका वाक्याभासयुक्त्याभासावष्टम्भाः पूर्वपक्षवादिन इहोत्तिष्ठन्ते।
Other Logicians who depend upon fallacious passages and logic, stand forth as opponents, in this connection.
तत्र पदवाक्यप्रमाणज्ञेनाचार्येण वेदान्तवाक्यानां ब्रह्मात्मावगतिपरत्वप्रदर्शनाय वाक्याभासयुक्त्याभासप्रतिपत्तयः पूर्वपक्षीकृत्य निराक्रियन्ते॥
Therefore the Ācārya (Bādarāyaṇa), an authority on words, sentences and the right means of knowledge (i.e. Vyākaraṇa, Mīmāṃsā, and Nyāya), in order to demonstrate that the Vedānta passages aim at the comprehension of Brahman, First states the wrong views derived from the fallacious passages and logic as the objections, and then refutes them.
तत्र सांख्याः प्रधानं त्रिगुणमचेतनं स्वतन्त्रं जगतः कारणमिति मन्यमाना आहुः –
In this connection the Sāṅkhyas who hold the inert Pradhāna which is made up of three qualities to be the cause of the transient world, say —
यानि वेदान्तवाक्यानि सर्वज्ञस्य सर्वशक्तेर्ब्रह्मणो जगत्कारणत्वं प्रदर्शयन्तीत्यवोचः, तानि प्रधानकारणपक्षेऽपि योजयितुं शक्यन्ते।
Those Vedānta passages which you have mentioned as indicating the omniscient and all-powerful Brahman to be the cause of the transient world, Can even be shown to be equally applicable in the case of the view which holds the Pradhāna to be the cause.
सर्वशक्तित्वं तावत्प्रधानस्यापि स्वविकारविषयमुपपद्यते। एवं सर्वज्ञत्वमप्युपपद्यते; कथम्?
The all-powerfulness of the Pradhāna with regard to its own modifications is reasonably sustainable And even so is its omniscience. How is it so?
यत्त्वं ज्ञानं मन्यसे, स सत्त्वधर्मः, ‘सत्त्वात्संजायते ज्ञानम्’ (BhG.14.17) इति स्मृतेः।
What you consider as knowledge is the Sattva quality according to the Smṛti passage — “Knowledge is generated from Sattva” (BhG.14.17).
तेन च सत्त्वधर्मेण ज्ञानेन कार्यकरणवन्तः पुरुषाः सर्वज्ञा योगिनः प्रसिद्धाः।
It is well-known that some men equipped with bodies and sense-organs are omniscient and Yogins, because of knowledge which is the quality of Sattva.
सत्त्वस्य हि निरतिशयोत्कर्षे सर्वज्ञत्वं प्रसिद्धम्।
As is well-known it is when this quality ‘Sattva’ attains the highest unsurpassable perfection that omniscience results.
न केवलस्य अकार्यकरणस्य पुरुषस्योपलब्धिमात्रस्य सर्वज्ञत्वं किञ्चिज्ज्ञत्वं वा कल्पयितुं शक्यम्।
It is not possible to imagine omniscience or the possession of even a modicum of knowledge in the case of the Puruṣa who is unequipped with a body and sense-organs but is possessed of mere intelligence alone.
त्रिगुणत्वात्तु प्रधानस्य सर्वज्ञानकारणभूतं सत्त्वं प्रधानावस्थायामपि विद्यत इति प्रधानस्याचेतनस्यैव सतः सर्वज्ञत्वमुपचर्यते, वेदान्तवाक्येषु।
And because of the triple qualities of the Pradhāna — inert though it is in its Pradhāna state — omniscience is figuratively spoken of about it, because the Sattva quality which is the cause of all knowledge is inherent in the Pradhāna.
अवश्यं च त्वयापि सर्वज्ञं ब्रह्मेत्यभ्युपगच्छता सर्वज्ञानशक्तिमत्त्वेनैव सर्वज्ञत्वमभ्युपगन्तव्यम्।
You (Vedāntins) also, who understand Brahman as omniscient, must necessarily understand by omniscience referred to in the Vedānta passages, something which is equipped with the latent power for all knowledge.
न हि सर्वदा सर्वविषयं ज्ञानं कुर्वदेव ब्रह्म वर्तते। तथाहि – ज्ञानस्य नित्यत्वे ज्ञानक्रियां प्रति स्वातन्त्र्यं ब्रह्मणो हीयेत;
It cannot be that Brahman keeps on cognizing all the time (without interruption), because were Brahman to keep on cognizing eternally, Its freedom (to do so only if and when it chooses to do so) would be lost.
अथानित्यं तदिति ज्ञानक्रियाया उपरमे उपरमेतापि ब्रह्म, तदा सर्वज्ञानशक्तिमत्त्वेनैव सर्वज्ञत्वमापतति।
Again if we were to understand it as not cognizing eternally (but only intermittently) it may even refrain from cognizing (when it so chooses). Hence omniscience would be tantamount to mean that it is only equipped with the potentiality for cognizing everything.
अपि च प्रागुत्पत्तेः सर्वकारकशून्यं ब्रह्मेष्यते त्वया।
Besides you desire to understand Brahman as not being equipped with the instruments for action, prior to the creation of the world.
न च ज्ञानसाधनानां शरीरेन्द्रियादीनामभावे ज्ञानोत्पत्तिः कस्यचिदुपपन्ना।
It is not reasonable that knowledge can possibly arise in any one in the absence of a body and sense-organs etc. which are the means of acquiring knowledge.
अपि च प्रधानस्यानेकात्मकस्य परिणामसम्भवात्कारणत्वोपपत्तिर्मृदादिवत्, नासंहतस्यैकात्मकस्य ब्रह्मणः;
Besides, Pradhāna being of a multiple composition, modification of it is possible, and it may — like clay etc. — be reasonably supposed to be the cause of the world, But not so Brahman which is unmixed (i.e. unconnected with anything else), and which is only a mere single unit in itself.
इत्येवं प्राप्ते, इदं सूत्रमारभ्यते –
The conclusion arrived at (by the Sāṅkhyas) being this, the following Sūtra is begun: —
Īkṣateḥ: on account of seeing (thinking); Na: is not; A-śabdam: not based on the scriptures.
🔗 On account of thinking — (Pradhāna) is not (the cause) — (it is) not based on the Scriptures. — 188.8.131.52.1.5 L.24
न सांख्यपरिकल्पितमचेतनं प्रधानं जगतः कारणं शक्यं वेदान्तेष्वाश्रयितुम्। अशब्दं हि तत्।
In Vedānta, it is not possible to accept the non-intelligent Pradhāna as contemplated by the Sāṅkhyas, to be the cause of the transient world. It is not mentioned in the Scriptures.
कथमशब्दत्वम्? ईक्षतेः ईक्षितृत्वश्रवणात्कारणस्य।
How is it not mentioned in the Scriptures? Because of the word ‘thinking’. Because the Scriptures refer to ‘thinking’ on the part of the cause (of the transient world).
कथम्? एवं हि श्रूयते – ‘सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (ChanU.6.2.1) इत्युपक्रम्य ‘तदैक्षत बहु स्यां प्राजायेयेति तत्तेजोऽसृजत’ (ChanU.6.2.3) इति।
How so? Because the Scriptures, beginning with — “O Saumya, in the beginning ‘Sat’ alone without a second, was all this (i.e. the transient world)” (ChanU.6.2.1) — Say further — “that Sat thought, I shall make myself many and create, and it created Tejas (the element of heat and light)” (ChanU.6.2.3).
तत्र इदंशब्दवाच्यं नामरूपव्याकृतं जगत् प्रागुत्पत्तेः सदात्मनावधार्य, तस्यैव प्रकृतस्य सच्छब्दवाच्यस्येक्षणपूर्वकं तेजःप्रभृतेः स्रष्टृत्वं दर्शयति।
There, having determined the transient world as evolved by names and forms, to be indicated by the word ‘This’, as being merely the Sat-Self in the beginning, The same Sat relevant to the passage, and denoted by the word Sat, is indicated to be the creator of Tejas etc., after having previously thought about them.
तथान्यत्र – ‘आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाग्र आसीत्। नान्यत्किञ्चन मिषत्। स ईक्षत लोकान्नु सृजा इति। स इमाँल्लोकानसृजत’ (AitU.1.1.1) (AitU.1.1.2) इतीक्षापूर्विकामेव सृष्टिमाचष्टे।
Similarly elsewhere it mentions ‘thinking’ as having been antecedent to creation, thus — “This world in the beginning was only the Self, nothing else was then actually active. He thought, ‘I will create all the worlds’, and then created He all these worlds” (AitU.1.1.1,2).
क्वचिच्च षोडशकलं पुरुषं प्रस्तुत्याह – ‘स ईक्षाञ्चक्रे, स प्राणमसृजत’ (PrasU.6.3) (PrasU.6.4) इति।
Somewhere else it alludes to the Puruṣa of sixteen parts and says — “He thought. He created the Prāṇa” (PrasU.6.3).
ईक्षतेरिति च धात्वर्थनिर्देशोऽभिप्रेतः, यजतेरितिवत्, न धातुनिर्देशः।
By the verb ‘to think’ the meaning of the verb is intended to be conveyed, like the verb ‘to sacrifice, and not merely the root verb.
तेन ‘यः सर्वज्ञः सर्वविद्यस्य ज्ञानमयं तपः। तस्मादेतद्ब्रह्म नाम रूपमन्नं च जायते’ (MunU.1.1.9) इत्येवमादीन्यपि सर्वज्ञेश्वरकारणपराणि वाक्यान्युदाहर्तव्यानि।
Similarly, Scriptural passages such as — “He who is omniscient in the comprehensive sense and who perceives everything in detail and whose penance is knowledge And from whom the lower Brahman, names and forms and food were created” (MunU.1.1.9) — Which have the purport of conveying that the omniscient Lord is the cause (of the transient world), should be adduced as instances.
यत्तूक्तं सत्त्वधर्मेण ज्ञानेन सर्वज्ञं प्रधानं भविष्यतीति, तन्नोपपद्यते।
What you (the opponent) have stated, viz. that the Pradhāna can be omniscient merely by means of ‘knowledge’ which is the quality of Sattva, is not reasonably sustainable.
न हि प्रधानावस्थायां गुणसाम्यात्सत्त्वधर्मो ज्ञानं सम्भवति।
In the Pradhāna state when the qualities are in equipoise i.e. are evenly balanced, knowledge as the quality of ‘Sattva’ is not possible. (Because, according to the Sāṅkhya tenet, creation by Pradhāna starts, when the equipoise of the three qualities i.e. Guṇas — viz. Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas — is disturbed and one quality predominates over the other two.)
ननूक्तं सर्वज्ञानशक्तिमत्त्वेन सर्वज्ञं भविष्यतीति;
Oh, but have I not said (retorts the opponent), that it would be omniscient because of its potentiality for all knowledge?
That also is not reasonably sustainable.
यदि गुणसाम्ये सति सत्त्वव्यपाश्रयां ज्ञानशक्तिमाश्रित्य सर्वज्ञं प्रधानमुच्येत,
For if you were to maintain, that even when there is a perfect equipoise Pradhāna can be omniscient by relying upon its potentiality for knowledge abiding in ‘Sattva’,
कामं रजस्तमोव्यपाश्रयामपि ज्ञानप्रतिबन्धकशक्तिमाश्रित्य किञ्चिज्ज्ञमुच्येत।
Sure enough, because of its potentiality for obstructing knowledge abiding in its Rajas (passion) and Tamas (darkness) qualities, you will have to say that the Pradhāna hardly has any knowledge at all.
अपि च नासाक्षिका सत्त्ववृत्तिर्जानातिना अभिधीयते।
Moreover, a mere Sattva function as apart from a witnessing agent (immediate consciousness), is not capable of being expressed by the verb ‘to know’.
न चाचेतनस्य प्रधानस्य साक्षित्वमस्ति।
Nor is non-sentient Pradhāna such a witnessing agent.
तस्मादनुपपन्नं प्रधानस्य सर्वज्ञत्वम्।
Therefore the omniscience of Pradhāna is not reasonably inferable,
योगिनां तु चेतनत्वात्सत्त्वोत्कर्षनिमित्तं सर्वज्ञत्वमुपपन्नमित्यनुदाहरणम्।
While the omniscience of Yogins brought about by the excellence of the ‘Sattva’ quality and because of their being animate beings is reasonably sustainable and so it cannot be an illustration in point.
अथ पुनः साक्षिनिमित्तमीक्षितृत्वं प्रधानस्यापि कल्प्येत, यथाग्निनिमित्तमयःपिण्डादेर्दग्धृत्वम्;
If however you imagine Pradhāna to be endowed with the capacity to ‘think’ as caused by its having such a witnessing agent, Just as in the case of an iron ball its capacity to burn is caused by Agni,
तथा सति यन्निमित्तमीक्षितृत्वं प्रधानस्य, तदेव सर्वज्ञं ब्रह्म मुख्यं जगतः कारणमिति युक्तम्।
Then, it being so, it would be reasonable to hold that that which you conceive to be the cause which brings about ‘thinking’, is itself the chief omniscient Brahman, which (according to us) is the cause of the transient world.
यत्पुनरुक्तं ब्रह्मणोऽपि न मुख्यं सर्वज्ञत्वमुपपद्यते, नित्यज्ञानक्रियत्वे ज्ञानक्रियां प्रति स्वातन्त्र्यासम्भवादिति;
To the objection raised by you, viz. that constant cognizing by Brahman in the primary sense is not reasonably sustainable, as it would not then be possible for it to have freedom to do so (i.e. to cognize if and when it so pleases),
अत्रोच्यते – इदं तावद्भवान्प्रष्टव्यः – कथं नित्यज्ञानक्रियत्वे सर्वज्ञत्वहानिरिति।
We say — You (who raise this objection) ought to be asked — how can there ever be a loss of the omniscience (of Brahman) because of its constant cognizing activity?
यस्य हि सर्वविषयावभासनक्षमं ज्ञानं नित्यमस्ति, सोऽसर्वज्ञ इति विप्रतिषिद्धम्।
To say of one — whose knowledge is capable of making all objects manifest and who is eternal — that he is not omniscient, is contradictory.
अनित्यत्वे हि ज्ञानस्य, कदाचिज्जानाति कदाचिन्न जानातीत्यसर्वज्ञत्वमपि स्यात्।
If knowledge were not to be eternal then Brahman would sometimes know and at other times would not, and then it may be that there may perhaps be no omniscience.
नासौ ज्ञाननित्यत्वे दोषोऽस्ति।
No such fault is there, in the case of eternal cognizing.
ज्ञाननित्यत्वे ज्ञानविषयः स्वातन्त्र्यव्यपदेशो नोपपद्यते इति चेत्,
(If you were to object) that in the case of constant cognizing, the mention of freedom with regard to knowledge would not be reasonably sustainable,
न; प्रततौष्ण्यप्रकाशेऽपि सवितरि ‘दहति’ ‘प्रकाशयति’ इति स्वातन्त्र्यव्यपदेशदर्शनात्।
(We say) — No. Though the Sun with its constant heat and light is there, we find a reference to its freedom, such as (when we say) that the Sun scorches or it shines.
ननु सवितुर्दाह्यप्रकाश्यसंयोगे सति ‘दहति’ ‘प्रकाशयति’ इति व्यपदेशः स्यात्;
But (says the opponent), it is only when the Sun is in contact with something which can be scorched or made manifest, that there is a reference to its scorching or shining,
न तु ब्रह्मणः प्रागुत्पत्तेर्ज्ञानकर्मसंयोगोऽस्तीति विषमो दृष्टान्तः।
But as there is no connection between Brahman and the object of knowledge before the creation of the world, the illustration is not apt.
न; असत्यपि कर्मणि ‘सविता प्रकाशते’ इति कर्तृत्वव्यपदेशदर्शनात्,
No (we reply), even in the absence of any object (of knowledge), we see a reference to the activity (of the Sun) as that the Sun shines.
एवमसत्यपि ज्ञानकर्मणि ब्रह्मणः ‘तदैक्षत’ इति कर्तृत्वव्यपदेशोपपत्तेर्न वैषम्यम्।
Similarly even in the absence of any object of knowledge, a reference to Brahman’s activity as that ‘it thought’ is reasonably sustainable (in a secondary sense), and so there is no difficulty.
कर्मापेक्षायां तु ब्रह्मणि ईक्षितृत्वश्रुतयः सुतरामुपपन्नाः।
If an object (of knowledge) is necessary (according to the opponent) Scriptural passages referring to ‘thinking’ by Brahman are all the more reasonably sustainable.
किं पुनस्तत्कर्म, यत्प्रागुत्पत्तेरीश्वरज्ञानस्य विषयो भवतीति –
What then (asks the opponent) is that object (of knowledge), which before the creation can be the province of the Lord’s knowledge?
तत्त्वान्यत्वाभ्यामनिर्वचनीये नामरूपे अव्याकृते व्याचिकीर्षिते इति ब्रूमः।
Those names and forms — we reply — which are yet unevolved (Avyākṛta), but which are intended to be evolved, and with regard to whom it is not possible to say whether they are the same or different from Īśvara — are such objects.
यत्प्रसादाद्धि योगिनामप्यतीतानागतविषयं प्रत्यक्षं ज्ञानमिच्छन्ति योगशास्त्रविदः, किमु वक्तव्यं तस्य नित्यसिद्धस्येश्वरस्य सृष्टिस्थितिसंहृतिविषयं नित्यज्ञानं भवतीति।
Need it be said, that the knowledge of the eternally existing (Nitya-siddha) Lord, with regard to the creation, subsistence, and reabsorption of the world, is eternal, When those who are experts in the science of Yoga say that they have actual knowledge with regard to the past and future things through the favour of the Lord?
यदप्युक्तं प्रागुत्पत्तेर्ब्रह्मणः शरीरादिसम्बन्धमन्तरेणेक्षितृत्वमनुपपन्नमिति,
The objection that before the creation (of the world) Brahman which has no contact with a body etc. cannot be reasonably understood to be able to think,
न तच्चोद्यमवतरति; सवितृप्रकाशवद्ब्रह्मणो ज्ञानस्वरूपनित्यत्वेन ज्ञानसाधनापेक्षानुपपत्तेः।
Cannot be advanced (against us), as the eternal nature of the knowledge of Brahman like the constant refulgence of the Sun cannot be reasonably understood to have any necessity for the means of knowledge.
अपि चाविद्यादिमतः संसारिणः शरीराद्यपेक्षा ज्ञानोत्पत्तिः स्यात्; न ज्ञानप्रतिबन्धकारणरहितस्येश्वरस्य।
Moreover, it may be that in the case of a transmigratory being affected by Nescience etc. the generation of knowledge may depend upon a body etc., But it cannot be so in the case of the Lord who is free from any obstruction to knowledge.
मन्त्रौ चेमावीश्वरस्य शरीराद्यनपेक्षतामनावरणज्ञानतां च दर्शयतः –
The following Mantras illustrate how the Lord has no need for a body and his knowledge is unhampered.
‘न तस्य कार्यं करणं च विद्यते न तत्समश्चाभ्यधिकश्च दृश्यते। परास्य शक्तिर्विविधैव श्रूयते स्वाभाविकी ज्ञानबलक्रिया च’ (SvetU.6.8) इति।
“He is without a body and organs, nor is there any thing like unto Him or above Him, His power is pre-eminent and comprehensive, His cognizing and possessing strength is natural to His nature” (SvetU.6.8).
‘अपाणिपादो जवनो ग्रहीता पश्यत्यचक्षुः स शृणोत्यकर्णः। स वेत्ति वेद्यं न च तस्यास्ति वेत्ता तमाहुरग्र्यं पुरुषं महान्तम्’ (SvetU.3.9) इति च।
“Without hands and feet He grasps and speeds, sans-eyes He sees, sans-ears He hears, He knows all that is knowable, but there is no one who knows Him, and He is the primeval and the greatest Puruṣa” (SvetU.3.19).
ननु नास्ति तव ज्ञानप्रतिबन्धकारणवानीश्वरादन्यः संसारी –
But (says the opponent), is it not it, that as different from the Lord, there is no other transmigratory Self affected with the cause of obstruction to knowledge?
‘नान्योऽतोऽस्ति द्रष्टा ... नान्योऽतोऽस्ति विज्ञाता’ (BrhU.3.7.23) इत्यादिश्रुतेः;
Because the Scriptures say — “There is no other seer than Him, there is no other knower than Him” (BrhU.3.7.23).
तत्र किमिदमुच्यते – संसारिणः शरीराद्यपेक्षा ज्ञानोत्पत्तिः, नेश्वरस्येति?
And if so, how is it said, that in the case of a transmigratory Self the generation of knowledge is dependent on a body etc., but not so in the case of the Lord?
अत्रोच्यते – सत्यं नेश्वरादन्यः संसारी;
To that we reply — Indeed, it is true that there is no other such transmigratory Self, as apart from the Lord.
तथापि देहादिसङ्घातोपाधिसम्बन्ध इष्यत एव, घटकरकगिरिगुहाद्युपाधिसम्बन्ध इव व्योम्नः;
Still we do accept (as necessary) a connection with a body etc., Just as we accept in the case of the Ākāśa, connection with adjuncts such as a jar, a pot, a hill or a cave etc.
तत्कृतश्च शब्दप्रत्ययव्यवहारो लोकस्य दृष्टः – ‘घटच्छिद्रम्’ ‘करकच्छिद्रम्’ इत्यादिः, आकाशाव्यतिरेकेऽपि; तत्कृता चाकाशे घटाकाशादिभेदमिथ्याबुद्धिर्दृष्टा;
In ordinary life we do see the use of such words as the cavity of a jar or a pot, because of such connection, even though the cavity is not different from the Ākāśa, And we do also see the erroneous conception of differences in the Ākāśa, such as the Ākāśa of the jar etc., caused by it (viz. the same connection).
Similarly here also, there is the erroneous conception of difference between the Lord and the transmigratory Self, caused by the absence of discrimination of the contact with the adjuncts, such as the union with a body etc.
दृश्यते चात्मन एव सतो देहादिसङ्घातेऽनात्मन्यात्मत्वाभिनिवेशो मिथ्याबुद्धिमात्रेण पूर्वपूर्वेण।
We do see that the Self even though it is but the Self only has an attachment for union with a body etc. (which is not the Self), as if it were the Self, the attachment being caused by an antecedent erroneous conception.
सति चैवं संसारित्वे देहाद्यपेक्षमीक्षितृत्वमुपपन्नं संसारिणः।
This being so, the ability of the transmigratory Self to ‘think’, depending upon the body etc., is reasonably sustainable, during such transmigratory condition.
यदप्युक्तं प्रधानस्यानेकात्मकत्वान्मृदादिवत्कारणत्वोपपत्तिर्नासंहतस्य ब्रह्मण इति, तत्प्रधानस्याशब्दत्वेनैव प्रत्युक्तम्।
What has been said before (by the opponent) that the Pradhāna consisting as it does of many elements can be properly understood to be the cause (of the world), like clay etc., which is the cause of a jar, but not Brahman which is not connected with anything, Is refuted by saying that Pradhāna has no valid Scriptural authority.
यथा तु तर्केणापि ब्रह्मण एव कारणत्वं निर्वोढुं शक्यते, न प्रधानादीनाम्, तथा प्रपञ्चयिष्यति ‘न विलक्षणत्वादस्य ...’ (BrS.2.1.4) इत्येवमादिना॥५॥
How, even by Logic and argument, it is possible to maintain that it is Brahman only which is the cause (of the world) and not Pradhāna etc. will be discussed hereafter by Sūtra (BrS.2.1.4). — 5.
अत्राह – यदुक्तं नाचेतनं प्रधानं जगत्कारणमीक्षितृत्वश्रवणादिति,
(The Sāṅkhya opponent says here) — What you have said, viz., that the non-sentient Pradhāna cannot be the cause of the transient world, because the Scriptures refer to ‘thinking’,
तदन्यथाप्युपपद्यते; अचेतनेऽपि चेतनवदुपचारदर्शनात्।
(We do not admit) as what we say is reasonably sustainable in another way, because it is seen that nonsentient things are figuratively referred to as if they are sentient.
यथा प्रत्यासन्नपतनतां नद्याः कूलस्यालक्ष्य ‘कूलं पिपतिषति’ इत्यचेतनेऽपि कूले चेतनवदुपचारो दृष्टः,
Just as, when the erosion of a (river) bank is seen to be imminent, even in the case of a non-sentient entity such as a bank, figurative use (of words) such as ‘the bank is desirous of falling’ (the desiderative form showing desire) as if it is a sentient entity is seen,
तद्वदचेतनेऽपि प्रधाने प्रत्यासन्नसर्गे चेतनवदुपचारो भविष्यति ‘तदैक्षत’ इति।
Similarly, in the case of a non-sentient entity like Pradhāna when creation by it is imminent, it would be possible to say about it figuratively, that “it (i.e. the Pradhāna) thought”.
यथा लोके कश्चिच्चेतनः ‘स्नात्वा भुक्त्वा चापराह्णे ग्रामं रथेन गमिष्यामि’ इतीक्षित्वा अनन्तरं तथैव नियमेन प्रवर्तते,
Just as in ordinary life a person thinks that after having had a bath and dinner, he will, in the afternoon, proceed to the town by a chariot and then as a rule behaves accordingly,
तथा प्रधानमपि महदाद्याकारेण नियमेन प्रवर्तते; तस्माच्चेतनवदुपचर्यते।
Similarly the Pradhāna also when it proceeds to transform itself into the form of ‘the great principle’ (Mahat) is spoken of figuratively as if it is sentient.
कस्मात्पुनः कारणात् विहाय मुख्यमीक्षितृत्वम् औपचारिकं तत्कल्प्यते?
But why (say we) do you imagine this ‘thinking’ in its primary sense, to have been used in a figurative sense?
‘तत्तेज ऐक्षत’ (ChanU.6.2.3) ‘ता आप ऐक्षन्त’ (ChanU.6.2.4) इति चाचेतनयोरप्यप्तेजसोश्चेतनवदुपचारदर्शनात्;
(The Sāṅkhya refutes this by saying) — Because it is seen that even non-sentient ‘water’ and ‘Tejas’ are spoken of figuratively as if they are sentient, thus — “That Tejas thought, the Āpas thought” (ChanU.6.2.3,4).
तस्मात्सत्कर्तृकमपीक्षणमौपचारिकमिति गम्यते, उपचारप्राये वचनात्; –
Therefore, it is understood that the act of ‘thinking’ by the Sat must be in the figurative sense, because it is mentioned in a context where figurative use is to be seen. (The Sāṅkhya opponent wants to establish that as ‘thinking’ by Sat is mentioned in the Scriptures along with such non-sentient entities like the Tejas and the Āpas as ‘thinking’, figuratively, it (i.e. Sat) must mean the Pradhāna and not Brahman, as the Vedāntin would have it.)
इत्येवं प्राप्ते, इदं सूत्रमारभ्यते –
The contention of the Sāṅkhya being this, the following Sūtra is stated: —
Gauṇaḥ: indirect, secondary, figurative; Cet: if; Na: not; Ātma-śabdāt: because of the word Ātman, i.e., soul.
🔗 If it be said (that the word ‘thinking’) is used figuratively — (we say) no, because of the word ‘Self’. — 184.108.40.206.1.6 L.11
यदुक्तं प्रधानमचेतनं सच्छब्दवाच्यं तस्मिन्नौपचारिकमीक्षितृत्वम् अप्तेजसोरिवेति, तदसत्।
What is said (before), viz. that the word ‘to think’ is used in the figurative sense in connection with the nonintelligent Pradhāna which is indicated by the word ‘Sat’, just as it is used with regard to Āpaḥ and Tejas, is not so.
कस्मात्? आत्मशब्दात्; ‘सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीत्’ इत्युपक्रम्य, ‘तदैक्षत’ (ChanU.6.2.1) ‘तत्तेजोऽसृजत’ (ChanU.6.2.3) इति च तेजोबन्नानां सृष्टिमुक्त्वा,
Why? Because of the word ‘Self’. The Scriptures, beginning with — “Oh Saumya, this Sat alone was in the beginning” — and after having mentioned the creation of ‘Tejas’, ‘Āpaḥ’ and ‘Anna’ thus — “It thought, it created the ‘Tejas’ (ChanU.6.2.1,3),
तदेव प्रकृतं सदीक्षितृ तानि च तेजोबन्नानि देवताशब्देन परामृश्याह – ‘सेयं देवतैक्षत’ ‘हन्ताहमिमास्तिस्रो देवता अनेन जीवेनात्मनानुप्रविश्य नामरूपे व्याकरवाणि’ (ChanU.6.3.2) इति।
And after referring to the same ‘Sat’ which is relevant to the context as the one that ‘thinks’, and the same ‘Tejas’, ‘Āpaḥ’ and ‘Anna’, by the word Deities, say further — “This Deity here thought, Oh well, I myself, after having entered into these three Deities as the Jīva-Self, will make names and forms manifest” (ChanU.6.3.2) etc.
तत्र यदि प्रधानमचेतनं गुणवृत्त्येक्षितृ कल्प्येत, तदेव प्रकृतत्वात् ‘सेयं देवता’ इति परामृश्येत;
There, if the non-sentient Pradhāna is imagined figuratively as the one that thinks, Then the same Pradhāna being relevant (to the context) would be referred to as “This here Deity”.
न तदा देवता जीवमात्मशब्देनाभिदध्यात्।
In that case the Deity would not designate the ‘Jīva’ by the word ‘Self’.
जीवो हि नाम चेतनः शरीराध्यक्षः प्राणानां धारयिता, तत्प्रसिद्धेर्निर्वचनाच्च।
That the ‘Jīva’ of course is the sentient ruler of the body and the sustainer of the ‘Prāṇas’, is so because it is well-known, and is so etymologically also.
स कथमचेतनस्य प्रधानस्यात्मा भवेत्।
How then can the ‘Jīva’ be the Self of the non-sentient Pradhāna?
आत्मा हि नाम स्वरूपम्।
The Self verily is one’s own form (Sva-rūpa).
नाचेतनस्य प्रधानस्य चेतनो जीवः स्वरूपं भवितुमर्हति।
The sentient Jīva does not deserve to be the own form of non-sentient Pradhāna.
अथ तु चेतनं ब्रह्म मुख्यमीक्षितृ परिगृह्येत, तस्य जीवविषय आत्मशब्दप्रयोग उपपद्यते।
If however the sentient Brahman is accepted to be the one that ‘thinks’ in the primary sense, Then in that case, the use of the word ‘Self’ with reference to ‘Jīva’ is reasonably sustainable.
तथा ‘स य एषोऽणिमैतदात्म्यमिदं सर्वं तत्सत्यं स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो’ (ChanU.6.14.3) इत्यत्र ‘स आत्मा’ इति प्रकृतं
Similarly, (in the Scriptures) in the passage — “That which is this subtle essence, is the Self of all this, that is the Truth, that is the Self, that thou art, Oh Śveta-ketu” (ChanU.6.14.3), the same ‘Sat’ relevant to the context,
सदणिमानमात्मानमात्मशब्देनोपदिश्य, ‘तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो’ इति चेतनस्य श्वेतकेतोरात्मत्वेनोपदिशति।
the subtle essence, the Self, is indicated as ‘the Self’, And the sentient Śveta-ketu is told about that as being the Self of himself, thus — “Oh Śveta-ketu, that thou art”.
Āpaḥ and Tejas on the other hand being sense-objects are non-sentient
नामरूपव्याकरणादौ च प्रयोज्यत्वेनैव निर्देशात्,
And because of their being referred to as sense-objects, with respect to whom evolution by names and forms etc. is to be made,
न चात्मशब्दवत्किञ्चिन्मुख्यत्वे कारणमस्तीति युक्तं कूलवद्गौणत्वमीक्षितृत्वस्य। तयोरपि सदधिष्ठितत्वापेक्षमेवेक्षितृत्वम्।
And as there is no reason why it (i.e. thinking) should — as in the case of the word ‘Self’ — be taken in its primary sense, it stands to reason to hold, that the act of ‘thinking’, so far as ‘Āpaḥ’ and ‘Tejas’ are concerned, should, as in the case of the bank (of a river) be taken as being used in a figurative sense. Or rather, even the act of ‘thinking’ on the part of Tejas and Āpaḥ also should be understood, to be used in its primary sense, because of their being presided over by the ‘Sat’.
We have already said that in the case of ‘Sat’, because the word ‘Self’ is used with reference to it, the act of thinking is not used in a figurative sense. — 6.
अथोच्येत – अचेतनेऽपि प्रधाने भवत्यात्मशब्दः, आत्मनः सर्वार्थकारित्वात्;
If you (the opponent) were to say — It would be possible to use the word ‘Self’ (figuratively) in the case of the nonsentient Pradhāna Because it accomplishes all things desired by the Puruṣa,
यथा राज्ञः सर्वार्थकारिणि भृत्ये भवत्यात्मशब्दः ‘ममात्मा भद्रसेनः’ इति।
Just as in the case of a king, as all things desired by him are accomplished for him by his servant, it is possible for him to use the word ‘Self’ figuratively for the servant, as for instance thus — Bhadra-sena is my alter ego (Mamātmā).
प्रधानं हि पुरुषस्यात्मनो भोगापवर्गौ कुर्वदुपकरोति, राज्ञ इव भृत्यः सन्धिविग्रहादिषु वर्तमानः।
Pradhāna obliges a person’s Self by accomplishing for the Self its enjoyments and Final Release, Just as a servant of a king obliges him by acting in the matter of a treaty and war.
अथवैक एवात्मशब्दश्चेतनाचेतनविषयो भविष्यति, ‘भूतात्मा’ ‘इन्द्रियात्मा’ इति च प्रयोगदर्शनात्;
Or, the same word ‘Self’ may be used in the case of both sentient and non-sentient entities, Because we see a similar use in such words as “the Self of the elements, the Self of the senses” etc.
यथैक एव ज्योतिःशब्दः क्रतुज्वलनविषयः।
Or, just as the same word Jyotis (light of Brahman, Light as Supreme Spirit) is used both for ‘Jyoti-ṣṭoma’ (a type of Soma Sacrifice) and fire.
तत्र कुत एतदात्मशब्दादीक्षतेरगौणत्वमित्यत उत्तरं पठति –
Hence, how do you (the Vedāntin) say that the word ‘thinking’ is used in its non-figurative sense? To that the reply is given: —
Tat: to that; Niṣṭhasya: of the devoted; Mokṣa-uopadeśāt: from the statement of salvation.
🔗 Because there is instruction about Final Release for a man who is devoted to that (i.e. Sat), (the word self is not applicable to Pradhāna). — 220.127.116.11.1.7 L.7
न प्रधानमचेतनमात्मशब्दालम्बनं भवितुमर्हति; ‘स आत्मा’ इति प्रकृतं सदणिमानमादाय, ‘तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो’ इति चेतनस्य श्वेतकेतोर्मोक्षयितव्यस्य तन्निष्ठामुपदिश्य, आचार्यवान्पुरुषो वेद तस्य तावदेव चिरं यावन्न विमोक्ष्येऽथ सम्पत्स्ये’ (ChanU.6.14.2) इति मोक्षोपदेशात्।
The non-sentient Pradhāna does not deserve to be the support i.e. the meaning of the word ‘Self’, because having recognized the ‘Sat’ the subtle essence relevant to the context to be the Self, And having instructed sentient Śveta-ketu, who is to be helped in attaining Final Release, to have that (Self) as his support, (i.e. to know that he and the Sat are not different entities), Further instruction about Final Release is given as follows: — “The man who has secured a preceptor, attains knowledge. He has to tarry only upto the time of his death to attain Final Release and become one with the Self” (ChanU.6.14.2).
यदि ह्यचेतनं प्रधानं सच्छब्दवाच्यम् ‘तत् असि’ इति ग्राहयेत्, मुमुक्षुं चेतनं सन्तमचेतनोऽसीति,
If the sentient Śveta-ketu who is desirous of attaining Final Release, is instructed to the effect, that he is the non-sentient Pradhāna indicated by,the word Sat, then in effect the Śāstra would be instructing the sentient Śveta-ketu, that he is the non-sentient Pradhāna,
तदा विपरीतवादि शास्त्रं पुरुषस्यानर्थायेत्यप्रमाणं स्यात्।
And then in that case the Śāstra which is flawless, would be instructing perversely and would lead a man to ruin and would be unauthoritative i.e. invalid.
न तु निर्दोषं शास्त्रमप्रमाणं कल्पयितुं युक्तम्।
But it is not reasonable or logical to imagine the Śāstra which is flawless to be unauthoritative or invalid.
यदि चाज्ञस्य सतो मुमुक्षोरचेतनमनात्मानमात्मेत्युपदिशेत्प्रमाणभूतं शास्त्रम्,
If the Śāstra which is authoritative were to instruct a person, who though ignorant is desirous of attaining Final Release, that the non-sentient Pradhāna, which in fact is not the Self, is the Self in fact,
स श्रद्दधानतया अन्धगोलाङ्गूलन्यायेन तदात्मदृष्टिं न परित्यजेत्,
And if such a person trusting (in such instruction) does not rid himself of the notion that the Pradhāna is the Self, in accordance with the maxim of the blind man holding the bull’s tail,
तद्व्यतिरिक्तं चात्मानं न प्रतिपद्येत;
And does not succeed in understanding the proper Self which is different from the Pradhāna,
तथा सति पुरुषार्थाद्विहन्येत, अनर्थं च ऋच्छेत्।
Then, he, under such circumstances would be foiled in (his pursuit of) the highest aim of man and would lead himself to ruin.
तस्माद्यथा स्वर्गाद्यर्थिनोऽग्निहोत्रादिसाधनं यथाभूतमुपदिशति, तथा मुमुक्षोरपि ‘स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो’ इति यथाभूतमेवात्मानमुपदिशतीति युक्तम्।
Therefore it is logical and reasonable to hold that just as the Śāstra instructs a person who is desirous of attaining heaven, about such means of attaining it, as Agni-hotra etc., which are the proper means, Similarly, the Śāstra instructs a person who is desirous of attaining Final Release, about the Self as it really is, viz. by a passage like — “He (is) the Self, that thou art, Oh Śveta-ketu.”
एवं च सति तप्तपरशुग्रहणमोक्षदृष्टान्तेन सत्याभिसन्धस्य मोक्षोपदेश उपपद्यते।
It is only if it is so, that instruction about Final Release would be proper and reasonable, on the analogy of the illustration of “the ordeal of the acquittal of a truthful man by (his) taking the hot hatchet in hand”.
अन्यथा ह्यमुख्ये सदात्मतत्त्वोपदेशे, ‘अहमुक्थमस्मीति विद्यात्’ (ऐ. आ. २-१-२-६) इतिवत्सम्पन्मात्रमिदमनित्यफलं स्यात्;
Otherwise, if the instruction about the Sat-principle is in a figurative sense, As for instance in the passage — “Know me to be the Uktha (i.e. Prāṇa or hymn)” (Ait. Ār. 2. 1.2.6), it would be an instruction having a noneternal fruit and would be of the nature of a fanciful combination i.e. imagining a small thing as great (Sampad-rūpam).
तत्र मोक्षोपदेशो नोपपद्येत।
In that case it would not properly and reasonably be instruction in Final Release.
तस्मान्न सदणिमन्यात्मशब्दस्य गौणत्वम्।
Therefore the use of the word ‘Self’ with reference to the subtle essence ‘Sat’ is not to be understood in a figurative sense.
भृत्ये तु स्वामिभृत्यभेदस्य प्रत्यक्षत्वादुपपन्नो गौण आत्मशब्दः ‘ममात्मा भद्रसेनः’ इति।
In the case of the servant, of course, the difference between the master and servant being patent, the use of the word Self in the figurative sense, as — “Bhadra-sena, (is) my alter ego” — is reasonably sustainable.
अपि च क्वचिद्गौणः शब्दो दृष्ट इति नैतावता शब्दप्रमाणकेऽर्थे गौणीकल्पना न्याय्या, सर्वत्रानाश्वासप्रसङ्गात्।
Besides, it is not justifiable to imagine a figurative use (of words) in the case of things for which Scriptures are the only valid means of right knowledge, only because there is such figurative use in some stray instance, Because it would then lead to doubt in all cases.
यत्तूक्तं चेतनाचेतनयोः साधारण आत्मशब्दः, क्रतुज्वलनयोरिव ज्योतिःशब्द इति,
As regards the argument which is advanced (by the opponent) — viz., that the word ‘Self’ could have a common application both in the case of sentient and non-sentient entities, As in the case of the word ‘Jyotis’ used commonly both for the Sacrifice of that name and fire —
It is not so, because it is not logical to ascribe more than one meaning to a word.
तस्माच्चेतनविषय एव मुख्य आत्मशब्दश्चेतनत्वोपचाराद्भूतादिषु प्रयुज्यते – ‘भूतात्मा’ ‘इन्द्रियात्मा’ इति च।
Therefore the word Self used in the primary sense only with respect to sentient entities, is used in the case of elements etc., as — the Self of the elements and the Self of the sense-organs — only with a view to speak about their sentiency figuratively.
साधारणत्वेऽप्यात्मशब्दस्य न प्रकरणमुपपदं वा किञ्चिन्निश्चायकमन्तरेणान्यतरवृत्तिता निर्धारयितुं शक्यते।
Even assuming the word Self to have a common application, it is not possible in the absence of any particular chapter (Prakaraṇa) or an Upapada to determine that a word is used in one of the two senses (i.e. principal and figurative).
न चात्राचेतनस्य निश्चायकं किञ्चित्कारणमस्ति।
There is no means, in this case, by which one could determine that the non-sentient (Pradhāna) is meant.
प्रकृतं तु सदीक्षितृ सन्निहितश्च चेतनः श्वेतकेतुः।
The ‘Sat’, the one that thinks, is here relevant to the context, the sentient Śveta-ketu is just near at hand,
न हि चेतनस्य श्वेतकेतोरचेतन आत्मा सम्भवतीत्यवोचाम।
And we have already discussed how the sentient Śveta-ketu could not have a nonsentient Pradhāna as his ‘Self’.
तस्माच्चेतनविषय इहात्मशब्द इति निश्चीयते।
Therefore we conclude that the word ‘Self’ is here used with respect to a sentient object.
ज्योतिःशब्दोऽपि लौकिकेन प्रयोगेण ज्वलन एव रूढः, अर्थवादकल्पितेन तु ज्वलनसादृश्येन क्रतौ प्रवृत्त इत्यदृष्टान्तः।
The word ‘Jyotis’ also, which by custom is used for fire only in ordinary life, Is used to indicate a sacrifice, only on account of a similarity with fire, imagined by Artha-vāda, and is not therefore an apt illustration.
अथवा पूर्वसूत्र एवात्मशब्दं निरस्तसमस्तगौणत्वसाधारणत्वाशङ्कतया व्याख्याय, ततः स्वतन्त्र एव प्रधानकारणनिराकरणहेतुर्व्याख्येयः – ‘तन्निष्ठस्य मोक्षोपदेशात्’ इति।
Or it should be understood, that having discussed the word ‘Self’ in the previous Sūtra by dispelling all doubts about its being used in the figurative sense or about its being common (to more than one thing), The present Sūtra — “Because there is instruction of Final Release for a man who is devoted to that (i.e. Sat)” is for furnishing a separate reason for getting rid of the idea that' the Pradhāna is the cause (of the world).
तस्मान्नाचेतनं प्रधानं सच्छब्दवाच्यम्॥७॥
Therefore the word Sat does not indicate the non-sentient Pradhāna. — 7.
कुतश्च न प्रधानं सच्छब्दवाच्यम्? –
Then for stating another reason why Pradhāna is not indicated by the word Sat, (the Sūtra-kāra) says further: —
←PrevNext→ हेयत्वावचनाच्च॥१.१.८॥ Heyatvāvacanāc ca.
Heyatva: fitness to be discarded; Avacanāt: not being stated (by the scriptures); Ca: and.
🔗 And also because there is no mention of its having to be discarded. — 18.104.22.168.1.8 L.2
यद्यनात्मैव प्रधानं सच्छब्दवाच्यम्, ‘स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि’ इतीहोपदिष्टं स्यात्;
If (we were to hold) that the Pradhāna which is not the Self, is indicated by the word Sat, And if it is supposed, that the preceptor has here instructed Śveta-ketu about that Pradhāna, in the passage — “He is the Self, that thou art”,
स तदुपदेशश्रवणादनात्मज्ञतया तन्निष्ठो मा भूदिति, मुख्यमात्मानमुपदिदिक्षु शास्त्रं तस्य हेयत्वं ब्रूयात्।
Then the preceptor, in order that by hearing such instruction, Śveta-ketu, because of his ignorance of the Self, may not put his trust in that (i.e. Pradhāna), And also with a desire to instruct him about the real Self, would naturally instruct him about discarding that Pradhāna.
यथारुन्धतीं दिदर्शयिषुस्तत्समीपस्थां स्थूलां ताराममुख्यां प्रथममरुन्धतीति ग्राहयित्वा, तां प्रत्याख्याय, पश्चादरुन्धतीमेव ग्राहयति;
Just as a person desiring to point out the star Arundhatī (to some other person) first makes him accept a big star near about Arundhatī, which in fact is not Arundhatī, as being Arundhatī, and afterwards asks him to reject that big star, and instructs him to accept that which is the proper Arundhatī,
Similarly the preceptor (who desires to instruct Śveta-ketu about the real Self) would tell him that this (i.e. the Pradhāna indicated by him first as the Self) is not the real Self.
But the preceptor has not said so.
सन्मात्रात्मावगतिनिष्ठैव हि षष्ठप्रपाठकपरिसमाप्तिर्दृश्यते।
(We see that) right up to the end of the sixth chapter full reliance on understanding this Sat alone as the real Self is to be seen.
The word ‘also’ in the Sūtra, is intended to demonstrate the augmentation of the non-contradiction of the original declaration.
सत्यपि हेयत्ववचने प्रतिज्ञाविरोधः प्रसज्येत।
Besides, a contradiction of the original declaration would result, even if there were to be a statement about the discarding of the Pradhāna as the real Self.
कारणविज्ञानाद्धि सर्वं विज्ञातमिति प्रतिज्ञातम् –
The declaration is that by the knowledge of the cause, every thing (which is its effect) is known.
‘उत तमादेशमप्राक्ष्यः येनाश्रुतꣳ श्रुतं भवत्यमतं मतमविज्ञातं विज्ञातमिति; कथं नु भगवः स आदेशो भवतीति’ (ChanU.6.1.3);
It is stated in the beginning — “But, Oh Śveta-ketu, have you at all asked for that instruction, by which, what is not heard becomes heard, what is not perceived becomes perceived, and what is not known becomes known? What can that instruction be? (asks Śveta-ketu of the preceptor, his father)” (ChanU.6.1.3).
‘यथा सोम्यैकेन मृत्पिण्डेन सर्वं मृन्मयं विज्ञातं स्याद् वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ (ChanU.6.1.4)
(The preceptor says) — “Just as, Oh Saumya, by one ball of clay, every thing that in essence is earth, becomes known, Modification is merely another name (for the cause) and is only an expression in speech (i.e. the modification is merely the cause in another form) and that it is merely clay only, is the truth” (ChanU.6.1.4).
‘एवं सोम्य स आदेशो भवति’ (ChanU.6.1.6) इति वाक्योपक्रमे श्रवणात्।
Oh Saumya, this is the instruction.” (ChanU.6.1.6).
न च सच्छब्दवाच्ये प्रधाने भोग्यवर्गकारणे हेयत्वेनाहेयत्वेन वा विज्ञाते भोक्तृवर्गो विज्ञातो भवति,
Even if it is understood that the Pradhāna indicated by the word Sat, is the cause of the whole class of the objects of enjoyment, and even when it is known as being something which is either to be discarded or not to be discarded, Even then, the class of experiencing Selfs as a whole (i.e. the Jīva-Selfs) is not known thereby,
Because the class of experiencing Selfs is not a modification or an effect of Pradhāna.
तस्मान्न प्रधानं सच्छब्दवाच्यम्॥८॥
Therefore, the Pradhāna is not indicated by the word Sat. — 8.
Sva-apyayāt: on account of merging in one’s own self.
🔗 Because of the absorption into the Self. — 22.214.171.124.1.9 L.2
तदेव सच्छब्दवाच्यं कारणं प्रकृत्य श्रूयते –
With reference to that same cause, indicated by the word Sat, it is declared in the Scriptures —
‘यत्रैतत्पुरुषः स्वपिति नाम, सता सोम्य तदा सम्पन्नो भवति; स्वमपीतो भवति; तस्मादेनं स्वपितीत्याचक्षते; स्वं ह्यपीतो भवति’ (ChanU.6.8.1) इति।
“When the Self (Puruṣa) sleeps, O Saumya, he verily becomes one with his own Self, becomes absorbed into his own Self. Therefore he is said to be sleeping. He merges into the Self.” (ChanU.6.8.1).
एषा श्रुतिः स्वपितीत्येतत्पुरुषस्य लोकप्रसिद्धं नाम निर्वक्ति।
The Scriptural statement etymologically explains the verb ‘Sleeps’ which refers to the well-known name of the Puruṣa.
By the word ‘Sva’ (one’s own) is meant the Self or Ātmā.
यः प्रकृतः सच्छब्दवाच्यस्तमपीतो भवत्यपिगतो भवतीत्यर्थः।
The meaning is that he becomes absorbed i.e. merged in the Self (Ātmā) which is relevant to the (present) context, and which is indicated by the word Sat.
अपिपूर्वस्यैतेर्लयार्थत्वं प्रसिद्धम्, प्रभवाप्ययावित्युत्पत्तिप्रलययोः प्रयोगदर्शनात्।
It is well-known that when the root ‘ई Ī’ has ‘अपि Api’ as its suffix, it means ‘to be absorbed in’, and we find that the words ‘Birth’ and ‘Absorption’ are used synonymously with the words ‘Creation’ and ‘Dissolution’ respectively.
मनःप्रचारोपाधिविशेषसम्बन्धादिन्द्रियार्थान्गृह्णंस्तद्विशेषापन्नो जीवो जागर्ति;
When the Jīva-Self, on account of contact with the peculiar adjuncts of the nature of the operation of the mind or intelligence, perceives sense-objects, as one who has (for the time being) attained that particular condition (of the Self being in contact with a body, and of seemingly being under the influence of Nescience), he is said to be awake.
तद्वासनाविशिष्टः स्वप्नान्पश्यन्मनःशब्दवाच्यो भवति;
When he (the Self) coloured with the impression (gathered in the waking state) sees dreams, he is then indicated by the word mind or intelligence.
स उपाधिद्वयोपरमे सुषुप्तावस्थायामुपाधिकृतविशेषाभावात् स्वात्मनि प्रलीन इवेति ‘स्वं ह्यपीतो भवति’ (ChanU.6.8.1) इत्युच्यते।
And when limiting adjuncts of both these sorts have ceased to operate, then in the condition of deep sleep, because of the absence of any special condition caused by the limiting adjuncts, He is as it were absorbed into himself, and it is then said of him — “He is absorbed in his own self” (ChanU.6.8.1).
यथा हृदयशब्दनिर्वचनं श्रुत्या दर्शितम् – ‘स वा एष आत्मा हृदि, तस्यैतदेव निरुक्तम् – हृद्ययमिति; तस्माद्धृदयमिति’ (ChanU.8.3.3);
Just as the Scriptures have described the etymological derivation of the word ‘Hṛdaya’ thus — “He the Self abides in the ‘Hṛd’ and therefore it is ‘Hṛdayam’” (ChanU.8.3.3),
यथा वाशनायोदन्याशब्दप्रवृत्तिमूलं दर्शयति श्रुतिः – ‘आप एव तदशितं नयन्ते’ (ChanU.6.8.3) ‘तेज एव तत्पीतं नयते’ (ChanU.6.8.5) इति च;
Or just as the Scriptures describe the root cause of the words ‘Aśanāyā’ and ‘Udanyā’ (Hunger and Thirst, Āpaḥ and Tejas) thus — “It is water that carries (and digests) the food eaten, it is Tejas which absorbs the Water that is drunk” (ChanU.6.8.3–5),
एवं स्वमात्मानं सच्छब्दवाच्यमपीतो भवति इतीममर्थं स्वपितिनामनिर्वचनेन दर्शयति।
Similarly the Scriptures show by the etymological derivation of the word ‘he sleeps’, that the meaning is that he becomes absorbed in his own self which is indicated by the word Sat.
न च चेतन आत्मा अचेतनं प्रधानं स्वरूपत्वेन प्रतिपद्येत।
It cannot be, that the sentient Self attains the non-sentient Pradhāna as being its own self.
यदि पुनः प्रधानमेवात्मीयत्वात्स्वशब्देनैवोच्येत, एवमपि चेतनोऽचेतनमप्येतीति विरुद्धमापद्येत।
Again even if the word ‘Sva’ is understood to mean ‘as pertaining to itself’ and is construed to be the Pradhāna, Still (to say) that a sentient thing is absorbed into a nonsentient thing would be contradictory and irreconcilable.
श्रुत्यन्तरं च – ‘प्राज्ञेनात्मना सम्परिष्वक्तो न बाह्यं किञ्चन वेद नान्तरम्’ (BrhU.4.3.21) इति सुषुप्तावस्थायां चेतने अप्ययं दर्शयति।
Another Scriptural passage also, viz. “Embraced by the enlightened Self, he was conscious of nothing, either external or internal” (BrhUEng.4.3.21) — Shows that there is a merger into a sentient entity in the condition of deep sleep.
अतो यस्मिन्नप्ययः सर्वेषां चेतनानां तच्चेतनं सच्छब्दवाच्यं जगतः कारणं, न प्रधानम्॥९॥
Therefore (the conclusion is) — That, into which all sentient things are absorbed, is the sentient one indicated by the word Sat, which is the cause of the world, and not the Pradhāna. — 9.
Gati: view; Sāmānyāt: on account of the uniformity.
🔗 Because the trend (of all Vedānta passages) is uniformly the same. — 126.96.36.199.1.10 L.2
यदि तार्किकसमय इव वेदान्तेष्वपि भिन्ना कारणावगतिरभविष्यत्,
If, as in the Śāstra of the Naiyyāyikas (Logicians), in the Vedānta also we had come across a trend showing different causes (of the transient world),
क्वचिच्चेतनं ब्रह्म जगतः कारणम्, क्वचिदचेतनं प्रधानम्, क्वचिदन्यदेवेति;
As for instance the sentient Brahman, or the non-sentient Pradhāna, or perhaps a third one quite different from the first two,
Then perhaps, following the trend of opinion of those who claim Pradhāna to be the cause, we would have construed ‘the thinking etc.’ mentioned in the Scriptural texts in a like manner.
But it is not (found to be) so.
समानैव हि सर्वेषु वेदान्तेषु चेतनकारणावगतिः।
That the cause is the sentient being (Brahman) is the uniform common knowledge gathered from all Vedānta passages.
‘यथाग्नेर्ज्वलतः सर्वा दिशो विस्फुलिङ्गा विप्रतिष्ठेरन्न् एवमेवैतस्मादात्मनः सर्वे प्राणा यथायतनं विप्रतिष्ठन्ते प्राणेभ्यो देवा देवेभ्यो लोकाः’ (कौ. उ. ३-३) इति,
The following Scriptural passages, viz. “Just as from burning fire scintillse fly off in all directions, even so all vital airs (Prāṇas) fly off from this ‘Self’ to their respective destinations, and from the vital airs to the Gods, and from the Gods to the worlds (and reach their respective destinations).” (KausU.3.3),
‘तस्माद्वा एतस्मादात्मन आकाशः सम्भूतः’ (TaitU.2.1.1) इति,
“From this Self the Ākāśa came into being” (TaitU.2.1 Eng.),
‘आत्मत एवेदं सर्वम्’ (ChanU.7.26.1) इति,
“All this (has come into being) from the Self” (ChanU.7.26.1),
‘आत्मन एष प्राणो जायते’ (PrasU.3.3) इति च आत्मनः कारणत्वं दर्शयन्ति सर्वे वेदान्ताः।
“This vital air has come into being from the Self” (PrasU.3.3) etc., show, that the Self is the cause.
आत्मशब्दश्च चेतनवचन इत्यवोचाम।
We have already said that the word Self is indicative of a sentient entity.
महच्च प्रामाण्यकारणमेतत्, यद्वेदान्तवाक्यानां चेतनकारणत्वे समानगतित्वम्, चक्षुरादीनामिव रूपादिषु।
That all the Vedānta passages uniformly indicate a sentient cause, just as eyes etc. have a uniform function as regards Rūpa (form) etc., is a great reason for their being authoritative.
अतो गतिसामान्यात्सर्वज्ञं ब्रह्म जगतः कारणम्॥१०॥
Therefore, because knowledge derived from all Vedānta passages has a uniform trend, the Omniscient Brahman is the cause of the transitory world. — 10.
Śrutatvāt: being declared by the Śruti; Ca: also, and.
🔗 Also because it is directly so stated in the Scriptures. — 188.8.131.52.1.11 L.2
स्वशब्देनैव च सर्वज्ञ ईश्वरो जगतः कारणमिति श्रूयते, श्वेताश्वतराणां मन्त्रोपनिषदि
In the Mantropaniṣad of the Śvetāśvataras, that the omniscient Lord is the cause of the transient world is directly so stated.
सर्वज्ञमीश्वरं प्रकृत्य – ‘स कारणं करणाधिपाधिपो न चास्य कश्चिज्जनिता न चाधिपः’ (SvetU.6.9) इति।
With reference to the omniscient Lord, it says thus: — “He is the cause, the Lord of the Lords of the sense-organs (Karaṇas). No body has been his creator or Lord.” (SvetU.6.9).
तस्मात्सर्वज्ञं ब्रह्म जगतः कारणम्, नाचेतनं प्रधानमन्यद्वेति सिद्धम्॥११॥
It is therefore established, that the omniscient Brahman, and neither the non-sentient Pradhāna nor any other thing, is the cause of the transitory world. — 11.
‘जन्माद्यस्य यतः’ इत्यारभ्य ‘श्रुतत्वाच्च’ इत्येतदन्तैः सूत्रैर्यान्युदाहृतानि वेदान्तवाक्यानि, तेषां सर्वज्ञः सर्वशक्तिरीश्वरो जगतो जन्मस्थितिलयकारणमित्येतस्यार्थस्य प्रतिपादकत्वं न्यायपूर्वकं प्रतिपादितम्।
We have so far propounded with the help of Nyāya (Logic), that the passages from Vedānta quoted by us in the Sūtras, beginning with BrS.1.1.2 and ending with BrS.1.1.11, propound that the omniscient and all-powerful Lord is the cause of the creation, preservation, and dissolution of the transitory world.
गतिसामान्योपन्यासेन च सर्वे वेदान्ताश्चेतनकारणवादिन इति व्याख्यातम्।
We have also described by observing, that the knowledge derived from all the Vedānta passages has a uniform trend, and that all the Vedānta passages maintain that an intelligent entity is the cause (of the world).
अतः परस्य ग्रन्थस्य किमुत्थानमिति,
Hence, (it may be objected) how does (any necessity of) a further treatise then arise?
उच्यते – द्विरूपं हि ब्रह्मावगम्यते –
We reply: — Brahman is understood to be of two sorts,
One, characterized by the limiting adjuncts of the differences in modifications by name and form,
तद्विपरीतं च सर्वोपाधिविवर्जितम्।
And the other, different from it, viz. one, in which all limiting adjuncts are absent.
‘यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति तदितर इतरं पश्यति’ (BrhU.2.4.14)
The following sentences (from the Scriptures) in a thousand ways, indicate the two-fold nature of Brahman by distinguishing it with reference to the differences due to knowledge and Nescience (See 1.1.12 L.14 below), viz. “For where there is duality as it were, then one sees another” (BrhUEng.2.4.14),
‘यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्’ (BrhU.4.5.15)
“Where however the Self only is all this, whom can (he) see, and with what?” (BrhUEng.4.5.15),
‘यत्र नान्यत्पश्यति नान्यच्छृणोति नान्यद्विजानाति स भूमाथ यत्रान्यत्पश्यत्यन्यच्छृणोत्यन्यद्विजानाति तदल्पम्; यो वै भूमा तदमृतमथ यदल्पं तन्मर्त्यम्’ (ChanU.7.24.1)
“Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, knows nothing else, that is Bhūmā (The Great One)”, “Where one sees something else, hears something else, knows something else, that is ‘the little’”, “That which is the Bhūmā is immortal, that which is ‘the little’ is mortal” (ChanU.7.24.1),
‘सर्वाणि रूपाणि विचित्य धीरो नामानि कृत्वाभिवदन्यदास्ते’ (तै. आ. ३-१२-७)
“The Self-possessed one, who having created all forms and named them, sits (quietly in repose) calling them by their names” (Tait. Ār. 3.12.7),
‘निष्कलं निष्क्रियं शान्तं निरवद्यं निरञ्जनम्। अमृतस्य परं सेतुं दग्धेन्धनमिवानलम्’ (SvetU.6.19)
“Who is without parts, without action, tranquil, without faults, and without taint, And who is the transcendent bund of immortality, and is like fire which has consumed the fuel” (SvetU.6.19),
‘नेति नेति’ (BrhU.2.3.6)
(Whatever is predicated to be Brahman) is “Not that, not that” (BrhUEng.2.3.6),
“Neither gross nor atomic” (BrhUEng.3.8.8),
‘न्यूनमन्यत्स्थानं सम्पूर्णमन्यत्’ इति चैवं सहस्रशो विद्याविद्याविषयभेदेन ब्रह्मणो द्विरूपतां दर्शयन्ति वेदान्तवाक्यानि।
“The one resort (i.e. qualified Brahman) is jejune (Nyūna), and the other (i.e. unqualified Brahman) is full and satisfying to the mind.” Hundreds of passages such as these reveal the dual nature of Brahman, according as it is the object of knowledge or ignorance [trans. from Panoli].
तत्राविद्यावस्थायां ब्रह्मण उपास्योपासकादिलक्षणः सर्वो व्यवहारः।
In its Nescient condition, Brahman can play the dual role of the devotee (the Jīva-Self), as well as the object of devotion (the Highest Self i.e. Brahman).
तत्र कानिचिद्ब्रह्मण उपासनान्यभ्युदयार्थानि, कानिचित्क्रममुक्त्यर्थानि, कानिचित्कर्मसमृद्ध्यर्थानि।
There, some meditations on Brahman, have secular prosperity as their aim, While some have Final Release by progressive stages as their aim, While some others have the richer augmentation i.e. maximization of religious actions, as their aim.
तेषां गुणविशेषोपाधिभेदेन भेदः।
These meditations are distinct from each other because of the distinction as between the different adjuncts viz. special qualities of each.
एक एव तु परमात्मेश्वरस्तैस्तैर्गुणविशेषैर्विशिष्ट उपास्यो यद्यपि भवति, तथापि यथागुणोपासनमेव फलानि भिद्यन्ते;
Though it is but the only one, the Highest Self and the Lord, that is the object of devotion, as characterized by several distinct qualities, Yet, the fruits of such meditations vary according to the particular aspect (of the Lord) with reference to which such meditations themselves vary.
‘तं यथा यथोपासते तदेव भवति’ इति श्रुतेः,
Because, the Scriptural text says: — “The way in which he (the devotee — the Jīva-Self) offers his devotion, so he becomes”
‘यथाक्रतुरस्मिँल्लोके पुरुषो भवति, तथेतः प्रेत्य भवति’ (ChanU.3.14.1) इति च।
And “Just how in his world a person wishes, so he, after death here, becomes” (ChanU.3.14.1).
स्मृतेश्च – ‘यं यं वापि स्मरन्भावं त्यजत्यन्ते कलेबरम्। तं तमेवैति कौन्तेय सदा तद्भावभावितः’ (BhG.8.6) इति।
Smṛti also says similarly: — “Remembering whatever particular deity, he shuffles off this mortal coil, That deity he reaches, always bearing that deity in his mind.” (BhG.8.6)
यद्यप्येक आत्मा सर्वभूतेषु स्थावरजङ्गमेषु गूढः,
Though the same Self is immanent but hidden in all beings moveable and immoveable,
तथापि चित्तोपाधिविशेषतारतम्यादात्मनः कूटस्थनित्यस्यैकरूपस्याप्युत्तरोत्तरमाविष्कृतस्य तारतम्यमैश्वर्यशक्तिविशेषैः श्रूयते –
Still, because of the comparative and superlative degrees of the different limiting adjuncts of the intelligence of the Self, the Scriptures say that though the Self is unchanging, eternal, and of a uniform nature, it becomes manifest as possessing comparatively more or less degrees of the different qualities of lordliness and power,
‘तस्य य आत्मानमाविस्तरां वेद’ (ऐ. आ. २-३-२-१) इत्यत्र।
As for instance in: — “He who knows the highest and the widest manifestation of the Self” (Ait. Ār. 184.108.40.206).
स्मृतावपि – ‘यद्यद्विभूतिमत्सत्त्वं श्रीमदूर्जितमेव वा। तत्तदेवावगच्छ त्वं मम तेजोंऽशसम्भवम्’ (BhG.10.41) इति
So also in Smṛti — “Whatever being, possessed of power, splendour, or might, be there, Know it to have been created from portions of my own Tejas” (BhG.10.41).
यत्र यत्र विभूत्याद्यतिशयः, स स ईश्वर इत्युपास्यतया चोद्यते।
In whomsoever, this transcendent power is in evidence, he is the Lord, and so devotion to him is inculcated.
एवमिहाप्यादित्यमण्डले हिरण्मयः पुरुषः सर्वपाप्मोदयलिङ्गात्पर एवेति वक्ष्यति।
Even so, here also, the Sūtra-kāra will hereafter tell you, that, by reason of the indicatory mark of his rising superior to every kind of evil, the person in the disc of the Sun possessing the structure of gold is the Highest Self.
एवम् ‘आकाशस्तल्लिङ्गात्’ (BrS.1.1.22) इत्यादिषु द्रष्टव्यम्।
The same should be seen as applying to the Sūtra “The Ākāśa (is Brahman) because there is (here) a characteristic mark (of Brahman)” (BrS.1.1.22) etc.
एवं सद्योमुक्तिकारणमप्यात्मज्ञानम् उपाधिविशेषद्वारेणोपदिश्यमानम् अप्यविवक्षितोपाधिसम्बन्धविशेषं परापरविषयत्वेन सन्दिह्यमानं वाक्यगतिपर्यालोचनया निर्णेतव्यं भवति – यथेहैव तावत् ‘आनन्दमयोऽभ्यासात्’ इति।
Similarly though the knowledge of the Self is the means of immediate Final Release, Yet, in as much as instruction about it is given by way of special distinctive adjuncts, And thus there is a doubt as to whether such knowledge relates to the Apara i.e. Sa-guṇa Brahman (qualified Brahman) or whether, even though such instruction is given by way of special and distinctive limiting adjuncts, they are not in fact intended to be spoken of, and such knowledge relates to the Para i.e. Nir-guṇa Brahman (unqualified Brahman), It is necessary to come to a determination of it, by considering the general trend of the Scriptural passages, as for instance, in the Sūtra “Ānandamaya (is Brahman) because of repetition.” (BrS.1.1.12).
एवमेकमपि ब्रह्मापेक्षितोपाधिसम्बन्धं निरस्तोपाधिसम्बन्धं चोपास्यत्वेन ज्ञेयत्वेन च वेदान्तेषूपदिश्यत इति प्रदर्शयितुं परो ग्रन्थ आरभ्यते।
It is with a desire to illustrate, that, even though Brahman is but one only, the Vedāntas are intended for instructing (a person) about it, either as being the object of devotion or as being the object of knowledge, according as it is desired to speak about its having a relation with limiting adjuncts, or as being absolutely divested of any such relation with limiting adjuncts, that the further portion of this treatise is begun.
यच्च ‘गतिसामान्यात्’ इत्यचेतनकारणनिराकरणमुक्तम्, तदपि वाक्यान्तराणि ब्रह्मविषयाणि व्याचक्षाणेन ब्रह्मविपरीतकारणनिषेधेन प्रपञ्च्यते –
What has already been said before (by the Sūtra-kāra) with a view to refute the idea about the non-intelligent Pradhāna being the cause of the transient world, by the foregoing Sūtra — “Because of the trend being uniform” (BrS.1.1.10) — Is being amplified by him further by considering other Scriptural passages which deny that something other than Brahman (viz. the Pradhāna) is the cause (of the transitory world): —
Ānandamayaḥ: full of bliss; Abhyāsāt: because of repetition.
🔗Ānandamaya (i.e. one which structurally is bliss, and is the Highest Brahman) because of the constant repetition of it (as the Highest Self). — 220.127.116.11.1.12 L.32
तैत्तिरीयके अन्नमयं प्राणमयं मनोमयं विज्ञानमयं चानुक्रम्याम्नायते – ‘तस्माद्वा एतस्माद्विज्ञानमयादन्योऽन्तर आत्मानन्दमयः’ (TaitU.2.5.1) इति।
In the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (TaitU.2.5.1) after having enumerated the Self as one having the structure of food, vital air, mind, and understanding respectively, it is said — “The Self which structurally is bliss and is the Ātmā (Self), and is different from and is still inner than the Self which has the structure of understanding.”
तत्र संशयः – किमिहानन्दमयशब्देन परमेव ब्रह्मोच्यते, यत्प्रकृतम् सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म’ (TaitU.2.1.1) इति, किं वान्नमयादिवद्ब्रह्मणोऽर्थान्तरमिति।
In this connection there is a doubt, whether, here, by the word ‘Ānandamaya’, the transcendent Brahman which is relevant to the context here, thus — “Brahman is Truth, Knowledge, and Infinite” (TaitU.2.1 Eng.) — Is meant here, or whether like Annamaya etc., something other than Brahman is meant?
What then is the conclusion you have arrived at?
ब्रह्मणोऽर्थान्तरममुख्य आत्मानन्दमयः स्यात्।
(The opponent answers) — Ānandamaya is the Self (Ātmā) in a secondary sense, and is something different than Brahman.
Why so? — Because it occurs in a series (lit., it has fallen in the stream) of non-principal Selfs such as Annamaya, etc.,
अथापि स्यात्सर्वान्तरत्वादानन्दमयो मुख्य एवात्मेति;
(If the Vṛtti-kāra says) — It may well be, that Ānandamaya being the innermost of all the Selfs (mentioned in order as stated above) is of course the principal Self,
He says, No, it cannot be so, because the Scriptures mention the limbs of the body, such as Joy (Priya) etc., and also its embodied condition.
मुख्यश्चेदात्मा स्यान्न प्रियादिसंस्पर्शः स्यात्।
Were this Ānandamaya Self to be the Highest Self i.e. the principal Self, we would not expect tc hear of any connection between it and “Joy etc.”.
इह तु ‘तस्य प्रियमेव शिरः’ (TaitU.2.5.1) इत्यादि श्रूयते।
But here we do find it mentioned that “Joy is its caput (Latin for ‘Head’ or ‘Top’)”.
शारीरत्वं च श्रूयते – ‘तस्यैष एव शारीर आत्मा यः पूर्वस्य’ इति।
We also find that the Scriptures mention its being embodied, as follows: — “Of that former one, this one is the embodied Self” (TaitU.2.6 Eng.).
तस्य पूर्वस्य विज्ञानमयस्यैष एव शारीर आत्मा य एष आनन्दमय इत्यर्थः।
The meaning is — That which is this Ānandamaya Self is the embodied Self of the former i.e. of the Self which has the structure of understanding.
न च सशरीरस्य सतः प्रियाप्रियसंस्पर्शो वारयितुं शक्यः।
It is not possible to avoid contact with joy or evil in the case of a Self which is embodied.
तस्मात्संसार्येवानन्दमय आत्मेत्येवं प्राप्ते, इदमुच्यते –
Therefore the Ānandamaya Self is but only the transmigratory Self.
‘आनन्दमयोऽभ्यासात्’। पर एवात्मानन्दमयो भवितुमर्हति।
With respect to the conclusion thus arrived at (by the opponent) the Vṛtti-kāra replies — “The Self which has the structure of bliss is the Highest Self because of the constant repetition (about its being the Highest Self).” The Ānandamaya Self deserves to be Para i.e. (the Highest Self) only.
How so? Because of the repetition.
परस्मिन्नेव ह्यात्मन्यानन्दशब्दो बहुकृत्वोऽभ्यस्यते।
(In this chapter) the word Ānanda (bliss) is very frequently mentioned as being synonymous with the Highest Self.
आनन्दमयं प्रस्तुत्य ‘रसो वै सः’ (TaitU.2.7.1) इति तस्यैव रसत्वमुक्त्वा,
With reference to the Ānandamaya, after glorifying it, by mentioning it to have the quality of being the Rasa (quintessence i.e. the cause of satisfaction) by the words “He verily is the quintessence”,
उच्यते – ‘रसꣳ ह्येवायं लब्ध्वानन्दीभवति। को ह्येवान्यात्कः प्राण्यात्। यदेष आकाश आनन्दो न स्यात्। एष ह्येवानन्दयाति’ (TaitU.2.7.1)
It is mentioned — “After having obtained this quintessence, he becomes one possessed of joy etc.” “If this Ākāśa (i.e. the Ātmā abiding in the Hṛdaya in the form of the Ākāśa) were not to be ‘the joy’, who else would breathe and who else would live? For he alone causes joy.” (TaitU.2.7 Eng.).
‘सैषानन्दस्य मीमाꣳसा भवति’ (TaitU.2.8.2)
“This is an interpretative analysis of Bliss.”
“(The man who has acquired knowledge) reaches this Ānandamaya Self.”
‘आनन्दं ब्रह्मणो विद्वान्न बिभेति कुतश्चन’ (TaitU.2.9.1) इति;
“He who knows the bliss of Brahman, does not have fear of anything (i.e. he becomes unafraid).” (TaitU.2.8–9 Eng.).
आनन्दो ब्रह्मेति व्यजानात्’ (TaitU.3.6.1) इति च।
“He understood that Ānanda i.e. Joy or Bliss is Brahman.” (TaitU.3.6 Eng.).
श्रुत्यन्तरे च ‘विज्ञानमानन्दं ब्रह्म’ (BrhU.3.9.28) इति ब्रह्मण्येवानन्दशब्दो दृष्टः।
In another scriptural passage — as for instance in “Knowledge and bliss is Brahman” (BrhUEng.3.9.28) — we find bliss used as a synonym of Brahman.
एवमानन्दशब्दस्य बहुकृत्वो ब्रह्मण्यभ्यासादानन्दमय आत्मा ब्रह्मेति गम्यते।
In this manner, because the word Ānanda (bliss) is repeatedly used for Brahman, it is understood (by us) that the Ānandamaya Self is Brahman.
यत्तूक्तमन्नमयाद्यमुख्यात्मप्रवाहपतितत्वादानन्दमयस्याप्यमुख्यत्वमिति, नासौ दोषः, आनन्दमयस्य सर्वान्तरत्वात्।
The objection raised (above), that ‘Ānandamaya’ thus occurring in the series (i.e. literally having fallen in the stream of the non-principal Selfs such as Annamaya etc.), it also is a non-principal Self, Is not a fault (in our view), because Ānandamaya Self is the innermost of all.
मुख्यमेव ह्यात्मानमुपदिदिक्षु शास्त्रं लोकबुद्धिमनुसरत्, अन्नमयं शरीरमनात्मानमत्यन्तमूढानामात्मत्वेन प्रसिद्धमनूद्य मूषानिषिक्तद्रुतताम्रादिप्रतिमावत् ततोऽन्तरं ततोऽन्तरमित्येवं पूर्वेण पूर्वेण समानम् उत्तरमुत्तरमनात्मानमात्मेति ग्राहयत्, प्रतिपत्तिसौकर्यापेक्षया सर्वान्तरं मुख्यमानन्दमयमात्मानमुपदिदेशेति श्लिष्टतरम्।
It is better to understand, that the Śāstra with a view to instruct (a person) in the principal Highest Self, but acting in conformity with the popular notion, And referring to the body which is a modification of earth etc. and which is not the Self, but which however is known by the extremely ignorant as being the Self, makes him understand, every successively inner non-Self, which — like icons of molten copper poured into a mould — are all alike, And where each successive non-Self (in the series) is similar to the one that has come before — as the Highest Self, and expecting that it may thus be comprehended the more easily, gives instruction about the innermost principal Ānandamaya Self (as being the Highest Self).
यथारुन्धतीदर्शने बह्वीष्वपि तारास्वमुख्यास्वरुन्धतीषु दर्शितासु, या अन्त्या प्रदर्श्यते सा मुख्यैवारुन्धती भवति;
Just as in the illustration about Arundhatī (the star of that name), when, after having shown many stars which are not Arundhatī as being Arundhatī, The one that is shown last, is really the principal and proper Arundhatī,
Similarly, here also the Ānandamaya Self, because it is the innermost of all, is properly the Highest Self.
यत्तु ब्रूषे, प्रियादीनां शिरस्त्वादिकल्पनानुपपन्ना मुख्यस्यात्मन इति –
With regard to what you (the opponent) have stated (as an objection), that in the case of the principal Self, the notion of joy being the caput etc. cannot be reasonably sustainable,
अतीतानन्तरोपाधिजनिता सा; न स्वाभाविकीत्यदोषः।
We reply, that the notion is caused by the immediately penultimate adjunct (in the form of a sheath having the structure of knowledge) and is not natural to the Highest Self, and so really there is no fault.
शारीरत्वमप्यानन्दमयस्यान्नमयादिशरीरपरम्परया प्रदर्श्यमानत्वात्; न पुनः साक्षादेव शारीरत्वं संसारिवत्।
The embodiedness of the Ānandamaya Self in a secondary sense can be demonstrated to be so by reason of its being in the series of embodied Selfs such as the Annamaya Self etc., And not because like the transmigratory Self it actually is embodied,
तस्मादानन्दमयः पर एवात्मा॥१२॥
And therefore the Ānandamaya Self alone, of course, is the highest Self i.e. Brahman. — 12.
←PrevNext→ विकारशब्दान्नेति चेन्न प्राचुर्यात्॥१.१.१३॥ Vikāra-śabdān neti cen na prācuryāt.
Vikāra-śabdāt: from the word ‘Ānandamaya’ with the suffix ‘mayat’ denoting modification; Na: is not; Iti: this; thus; Cet: if; Na: not so; Prācuryāt: because of abundance.
🔗 (If it be said that the word ‘Ānandamaya’ does not mean the highest Self) because the word ‘Maya’ which means having the structure of, or being a modification (Vikāra) of, we reply — no, because (the word ‘Maya’) indicates plenitude (of that to which it is affixed). — 18.104.22.168.1.13 L.1
अत्राह – नानन्दमयः पर आत्मा भवितुमर्हति;
Here the opponent raises the objection — Ānandamaya does not deserve to mean the Highest Self.
Why? Because of the word ‘Maya’ which means, having the structure of or being a modification of (something to which it is affixed).
प्रकृतिवचनादयमन्यः शब्दो विकारवचनः समधिगतः ‘आनन्दमयः’ इति, मयटो विकारार्थत्वात्;
In as much as the derivative affix ‘Maya’ in Ānandamaya has that meaning, the word Ānandamaya is different from the word ‘Ānanda’ which is meant to indicate a cause (Prakṛti).
तस्मादन्नमयादिशब्दवद्विकारविषय एवायमानन्दमयशब्द इति चेत्,
Therefore, like the word Annamaya etc., the word Ānandamaya also denotes something which has the structure of bliss or is a modification of bliss.
न; प्राचुर्यार्थेऽपि मयटः स्मरणात्।
To this argument of the opponent, we reply — No, because it is said in the Smṛti of (Paṇini) that the word ‘Maya’ also means ‘plenitude’.
‘तत्प्रकृतवचने मयट्’ (पा. सू. ५-४-२) इति हि प्रचुरतायामपि मयट् स्मर्यते;
The Sūtra of Pāṇini (5.4.21) says that ‘Maya’ also means plenitude (of that to which it is affixed).
यथा ‘अन्नमयो यज्ञः’ इत्यन्नप्रचुर उच्यते, एवमानन्दप्रचुरं ब्रह्मानन्दमयमुच्यते।
For instance, just as “Annamayaḥ Yajnaḥ” (TaitU.2.8 Eng.) means a sacrifice wherein there is a plenitude of food, similarly Brahman which has such plenitude of bliss is termed Ānandamaya.
आनन्दप्रचुरत्वं च ब्रह्मणो मनुष्यत्वादारभ्योत्तरस्मिन्नुत्तरस्मिन्स्थाने शतगुण आनन्द इत्युक्त्वा ब्रह्मानन्दस्य निरतिशयत्वावधारणात्।
That Brahman has plenitude of bliss, follows, because after first declaring, that beginning with man, right through the ascending series, in every succeeding class bliss is a hundredfold greater, And because it has been finally determined that the bliss of Brahman is understood to be unexcelled (by any other bliss).
Therefore, the derivative affix ‘Maya’ is indicative of plenitude. — 13.
←PrevNext→ तद्धेतुव्यपदेशाच्च॥१.१.१४॥ Tad-dhetu-vyapadeśāc ca.
Tad + Hetu: the cause of that, namely the cause of Ānanda; Vyapadeśāt: because of the statement of declaration; Ca: and.
🔗 Also because (Brahman) is mentioned to be the cause of that (bliss). — 22.214.171.124.1.14 L.1
इतश्च प्राचुर्यार्थे मयट्; यस्मादानन्दहेतुत्वं ब्रह्मणो व्यपदिशति श्रुतिः – ‘एष ह्येवानन्दयाति’ इति – आनन्दयतीत्यर्थः।
Because of this also, the affix ‘Maya’ indicates plenitude (of that to which it is affixed), as the Scriptures declare that Brahman is the cause of bliss, thus — “For he alone causes bliss” (TaitU.2.7 Eng.).
यो ह्यन्यानानन्दयति स प्रचुरानन्द इति प्रसिद्धं भवति;
For it is well-known that he who confers bliss, has himself a plenitude of it.
यथा लोके योऽन्येषां धनिकत्वमापादयति स प्रचुरधन इति गम्यते, तद्वत्।
For just as in ordinary life, we understand that he who brings about ‘richness’ in others, must himself have such plenitude of wealth, similarly, it is like that.
तस्मात्प्राचुर्यार्थेऽपि मयटः सम्भवादानन्दमयः पर एवात्मा॥१४॥
Therefore as the word ‘Maya’ may also mean plenitude (of that to which it is affixed), ‘Ānandamaya’ is the Highest Self. — 14.
←PrevNext→ मान्त्रवर्णिकमेव च गीयते॥१.१.१५॥ Māntra-varṇikam eva ca gīyate.
Māntra-varṇikam: He who is described in the Mantra portion; Eva: the very same; Ca: and also, moreover; Gīyate: is sung.
🔗 That same Brahman which has been expounded (in the previous Mantra) is (here) sung. — 126.96.36.199.1.15 L.1
इतश्चानन्दमयः पर एवात्मा;
This is how again, ‘Ānandamaya’ is, of course, the Highest Self,
यस्मात् ‘ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम्’ (TaitU.2.1.1) इत्युपक्रम्य, ‘सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म’ (TaitU.2.1.1) इत्यस्मिन्मन्त्रे यत् ब्रह्म प्रकृतं
Wherefore, having begun thus — “One who knows Brahman, attains Brahman,” — The same Brahman, which is relevant to the context, in the Mantra — “Brahman is Truth, Knowledge and Infinite” (TaitU.2.1 Eng.) —
And which has been determined to be characterized by the qualities of Truth, Knowledge and Infinitude,
यस्मादाकाशादिक्रमेण स्थावरजङ्गमानि भूतान्यजायन्त,
And from which all inanimate things and animate beings beginning with the Ākāśa were originated,
यच्च भूतानि सृष्ट्वा तान्यनुप्रविश्य गुहायामवस्थितं सर्वान्तरम्,
And which (Brahman) having created these beings has itself entered into them, and which remains confined in a cave and is inside all and everything,
यस्य विज्ञानाय ‘अन्योऽन्तर आत्मा’ ‘अन्योऽन्तर आत्मा’ इति प्रक्रान्तम्,
And for making which comprehensible, “another Self inside this Self, another Self inside this Self” is stated,
तन्मान्त्रवर्णिकमेव ब्रह्मेह गीयते – ‘अन्योऽन्तर आत्मानन्दमयः’ (TaitU.2.5.1) इति।
The same Brahman which has been referred to in the Mantra “One who knows Brahman, attains the highest” is here sung thus — “Still another Self inside this Self, is the Ānandamaya (Self)” (TaitU.2.5 Eng.).
मन्त्रब्राह्मणयोश्चैकार्थत्वं युक्तम्, अविरोधात्।
That, Mantra and Brāhmaṇa must agree in the same sense, is proper, because there is (supposed to be) no conflict between them.
अन्यथा हि प्रकृतहानाप्रकृतप्रक्रिये स्याताम्।
Otherwise it would be tantamount to giving up what is relevant and accepting what is not so relevant.
न चान्नमयादिभ्य इवानन्दमयादन्योऽन्तर आत्माभिधीयते।
Just as the ‘Ānandamaya’ Self is indicated to be inside the ‘Annamaya’ Self etc. similarly no other Self still inner than the ‘Ānandamaya’ is mentioned.
एतन्निष्ठैव च ‘सैषा भार्गवी वारुणी विद्या’ (TaitU.3.6.1) – ‘आनन्दो ब्रह्मेति व्यजानात्’ (TaitU.3.6.1) इति।
The Lore (Vidyā) referred to in the Scriptural passage “This same is the Lore (Vidyā) which Bhṛgu derived from Varuṇa” (TaitU.3.6 Eng.) also is founded precisely on that i.e. Brahman.
तस्मादानन्दमयः पर एवात्मा॥१५॥
Therefore ‘Ānandamaya’ is the Highest Self. — 15.
Na: not; Itaraḥ: the other, i.e., the Jīva; Anupapatteḥ: because of the impossibility, non-reasonableness.
🔗 The Ānandamaya-Self is not the other (i.e. the Jīva-Self), because it is not reasonably sustainable. — 188.8.131.52.1.16 L.1
इतश्चानन्दमयः पर एवात्मा, नेतरः;
This again is how ‘Ānandamaya’-Self is the Highest Self and not the other one.
इतर ईश्वरादन्यः संसारी जीव इत्यर्थः।
The other one, other than the Lord, is the transmigratory Jīva-Self, is the meaning.
न जीव आनन्दमयशब्देनाभिधीयते। कस्मात्? अनुपपत्तेः।
The Jīva-Self is not expressed by the word ‘Ānandamaya’. Why? Because it is not reasonably sustainable.
आनन्दमयं हि प्रकृत्य श्रूयते – ‘सोऽकामयत। बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति। स तपोऽतप्यत। स तपस्तप्त्वा। इदꣳ सर्वमसृजत। यदिदं किञ्च’ (TaitU.2.6.1) इति।
It is with reference to the Ānandamaya Self that the Scriptures say thus: — “He desired, may I be many and may I create etc., He went into penance. Having performed penance, created He all this i.e. whatever that there is etc.” (TaitU.2.6 Eng.).
Here, contemplation by him before the creation of a body,
सृज्यमानानां च विकाराणां स्रष्टुरव्यतिरेकः,
The absence of any difference between the modifications created, and their creator,
सर्वविकारसृष्टिश्च न परस्मादात्मनोऽन्यत्रोपपद्यते॥१६॥
And the creation of all the modifications about to be created, is not reasonably possible in the case of any entity other than the Highest Self. — 16.
←PrevNext→ भेदव्यपदेशाच्च॥१.१.१७॥ Bheda-vyapadeśāc ca.
Bheda: difference; Vyapadeśāt: because of the declaration; Ca: and.
🔗 On account of the mention of distinction (Bheda) (the Ānandamaya is not the transmigratory Self). — 184.108.40.206.1.17 L.1
इतश्च नानन्दमयः संसारी;
This is why, again, the ‘Ānandamaya Self’ is not the transmigratory Self.
यस्मादानन्दमयाधिकारे ‘रसो वै सः। रसꣳ ह्येवायं लब्ध्वानन्दी भवति’ (TaitU.2.7.1) इति जीवानन्दमयौ भेदेन व्यपदिशति।
In the ‘Ānandamaya’ chapter, the Scriptural passage “He verily is the quintessence (that satisfies); having obtained the quintessence he becomes full of bliss” (TaitU.2.7 Eng.) Mentions the Jīva-Self, and the ‘Ānandamaya-Self’ as being distinct (from each other).
न हि लब्धैव लब्धव्यो भवति।
For, the one who is the recipient cannot at the same time be that which is received.
कथं तर्हि ‘आत्मान्वेष्टव्यः’ ‘आत्मलाभान्न परं विद्यते’ इति श्रुतिस्मृती, यावता न लब्धैव लब्धव्यो भवतीत्युक्तम्?
If then it is said (says the opponent) that the recipient cannot at the same time be that which is received, How then (would you reconcile) the Scriptural and Smṛti sentences — “The Self is to be sought for”, “There is nothing higher than the attainment of the Self”?
बाढम् – तथाप्यात्मनोऽप्रच्युतात्मभावस्यैव सतस्तत्त्वानवबोधनिमित्तो मिथ्यैव देहादिष्वनात्मसु आत्मत्वनिश्चयो लौकिको दृष्टः।
Oh, alright (we say). But the Self, even though it is something which never deviates from its own selfhood, Yet, in ordinary life, we see (the phenomenon), that because of not having properly understood the truth, there is a conviction that the body etc. which really are not the Selfs, are the Selfs.
तेन देहादिभूतस्यात्मनोऽपि आत्मा – अनन्विष्टः ‘अन्वेष्टव्यः’, अलब्धः ‘लब्धव्यः’, अश्रुतः ‘श्रोतव्यः’, अमतः ‘मन्तव्यः’, अविज्ञातः ‘विज्ञातव्यः’ – इत्यादिभेदव्यपदेश उपपद्यते।
And therefore in the case of the Jīva-Self which has (through Nescience) egoistically identified itself with a body, Scriptural instruction which makes a difference (between the highest Self and the Jīva-Self), thus — “The Self, which is not yet searched for, deserves to be searched, which is not yet heard, deserves to be heard, which is not yet cogitated upon, deserves to be cogitated upon, and which is not yet understood, deserves to be understood”, becomes reasonably sustainable.
प्रतिषिध्यत एव तु परमार्थतः सर्वज्ञात्परमेश्वरादन्यो द्रष्टा श्रोता वा ‘नान्योऽतोऽस्ति द्रष्टा’ (BrhU.3.7.23) इत्यादिना।
But the Scriptures in the ultimate real sense do deny, Of course, any seer or hearer, other than the omniscient supreme Lord, thus — “Than this, there is no other seer etc.” (BrhUEng.3.7.23).
परमेश्वरस्तु अविद्याकल्पिताच्छारीरात्कर्तुर्भोक्तुः विज्ञानात्माख्यात् अन्यः;
As for the supreme Lord, he is different from the one, who through Nescience is wrongly conceived to be the cognitional Self (Vijñānātmā) and the agent or doer and the experiencer.
यथा मायाविनश्चर्मखड्गधरात्सूत्रेणाकाशमधिरोहतः स एव मायावी परमार्थरूपो भूमिष्ठोऽन्यः;
Just as the real illusionist par excellence who stands on the ground, is different from the other illusory person, who appears to ascend into the sky by a rope with a sword and a leather shield in his hand,
यथा वा घटाकाशादुपाधिपरिच्छिन्नादनुपाधिपरिच्छिन्न आकाशोऽन्यः।
Or just as the real Ākāśa uncircumscribed by any limiting adjunct, is different from the Ākāśa in a jar, which is circumscribed with such a limiting adjunct (viz. the jar).
ईदृशं च विज्ञानात्मपरमात्मभेदमाश्रित्य ‘नेतरोऽनुपपत्तेः’ ‘भेदव्यपदेशाच्च’ इत्युक्तम्॥१७॥
It is on the basis of the assumption of a distinction of this nature between the Highest Self and the cognitional Self, that the two Sūtras (BrS.1.1.16 & 17) are propounded. — 17.
←PrevNext→ कामाच्च नानुमानापेक्षा॥१.१.१८॥ Kāmāc ca nānumānāpekṣā.
Kāmāt: because of desire or willing; Ca: and; Na: not; Anumāna: the inferred one, i. e., the Pradhāna; Apekṣā: necessity.
🔗 On account of (the mention of) a desire (on the part of the ‘Ānandamaya’) there is no necessity of accepting that which is inferred (by the Sāṅkhyas) viz. the Pradhāna (as the cause). — 220.127.116.11.1.18 L.1
आनन्दमयाधिकारे च ‘सोऽकामयत बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति’ (TaitU.2.6.1) इति कामयितृत्वनिर्देशात् नानुमानिकमपि सांख्यपरिकल्पितमचेतनं प्रधानमानन्दमयत्वेन कारणत्वेन वा अपेक्षितव्यम्।
Because of the mention in the Ānandamaya Chapter of one who is desirous, thus — “He desired, may I be many, may I create” (TaitU.2.6 Eng.) — We should not expect, the inferred non-sentient Pradhāna, imagined by the Sāṅkhyas, to be' either the Ānandamaya Self or the cause (of the world).
‘ईक्षतेर्नाशब्दम्’ (BrS.1.1.5) इति निराकृतमपि प्रधानं
Though the Pradhāna (claimed by the Sāṅkhyas as being the cause) has already been refuted by the Sūtra — “On account of thinking — is not — (it is) not based on Scriptures” — (BrS.1.1.5),
पूर्वसूत्रोदाहृतां कामयितृत्वश्रुतिमाश्रित्य प्रसङ्गात्पुनर्निराक्रियते गतिसामान्यप्रपञ्चनाय॥१८॥
It is again refuted here, casually, as occasion has offered, with reference to the Scriptural mention in the earlier Sūtra, of desire (on the part of the cause of the world), for the purpose of a further elaboration of the uniform trend (of the Scriptural passages). — 18.
←PrevNext→ अस्मिन्नस्य च तद्योगं शास्ति॥१.१.१९॥ Asminn asya ca tad-yogaṃ śāsti.
Asmin: in him; in the person called Ānandamaya; Asya: his, of the Jīva; Ca: and, also; Tat: that; Yogam: union; Śāsti: (Śruti) teaches.
🔗 (The Scriptures) teach the merging (Yoga) of this (i.e. the Jīva-Self) into this (i.e. in the Ānandamaya). — 18.104.22.168.1.19 L.1
इतश्च न प्रधाने जीवे वानन्दमयशब्दः;
This is again why the word Ānandamaya is not applicable to the Pradhāna or the Jīva-Self.
यस्मादस्मिन्नानन्दमये प्रकृत आत्मनि, प्रतिबुद्धस्यास्य जीवस्य, तद्योगं शास्ति –
Because the Scriptures teach that the enlightened Jīva-Self becomes one with the Ānandamaya-Self which is the Self relevant to the context here.
तदात्मना योगस्तद्योगः, तद्भावापत्तिः, मुक्तिरित्यर्थः –
Becoming one with that Self means attaining its condition, i.e. attaining Final Release.
तद्योगं शास्ति शास्त्रम् –
The Śāstra teaches this becoming one with, thus —
‘यदा ह्येवैष एतस्मिन्नदृश्येऽनात्म्येऽनिरुक्तेऽनिलयनेऽभयं प्रतिष्ठां विन्दते। अथ सोऽभयं गतो भवति। यदा ह्येवैष एतस्मिन्नुदरमन्तरं कुरुते। अथ तस्य भयं भवति’ (TaitU.2.7.1) (TaitU.2.7.1) इति।
“When he (i.e. the Jīva-Self) finds freedom from fear and a firm support in this Invisible, Incorporeal, Undefined and Unsuported one, then he attains fearlessness, But when he is conscious of any the least little difference, then he must needs be assailed by fear.” (TaitU.2.7 Eng.) etc.
एतदुक्तं भवति –
It has been said —
यदैतस्मिन्नानन्दमयेऽल्पमप्यन्तरमतादात्म्यरूपं पश्यति, तदा संसारभयान्न निवर्तते; यदा त्वेतस्मिन्नानन्दमये निरन्तरं तादात्म्येन प्रतितिष्ठति, तदा संसारभयान्निवर्तत इति।
As long as he is conscious of the least little difference of the nature of nonidentity between himself and the Ānandamaya Self, he does not get a relief from the fear of transmigratory existence (Saṃsāra) And as soon as he becomes firmly based, and becomes completely one with the Ānandamaya Self and completely coincides with the Ānandamaya Self, he finds a relief from the fear of transmigratory existence etc.
तच्च परमात्मपरिग्रहे घटते, न प्रधानपरिग्रहे जीवपरिग्रहे वा।
That is possible only when by Ānandamaya Self we understand the Highest Self, and not when we take it to mean either the Pradhāna or the Jīva-Self.
तस्मादानन्दमयः परमात्मेति स्थितम्॥१९॥
Therefore if stands established (says the Vṛtti-kāra) that Ānandamaya is the Highest Self.
इदं त्विह वक्तव्यम् –
It has to be said here however (says the Bhāṣya-kāra)
‘स वा एष पुरुषोऽन्नरसमयः’ (TaitU.2.1.1) ‘तस्माद्वा एतस्मादन्नरसमयादन्योऽन्तर आत्मा प्राणमयः’ (TaitU.2.2.1) तस्मात् ‘अन्योऽन्तर आत्मा मनोमयः’ (TaitU.2.3.1) तस्मात् ‘अन्योऽन्तर आत्मा विज्ञानमयः’ (TaitU.2.4.1) इति च विकारार्थे मयट्प्रवाहे सति,
That when there is this stream of ‘Maya’ affixes which indicate the structure of or the modification of (that to which it is affixed), thus — “This Puruṣa here has the structure of the quintessence of food, And inside this ‘Anna-rasamaya’ there is the inner Self which has the structure of vital air (Prāṇamaya) And inside this Prāṇamaya there is the still inner Self which has the structure of the mind (Manomaya) And inside the Manomaya there is a still further inner Self which has the structure of cognition (Vijñānamaya)” (TaitU.2.1,2,3,4 Eng.),
आनन्दमय एवाकस्मादर्धजरतीयन्यायेन कथमिव मयटः प्राचुर्यार्थत्वं ब्रह्मविषयत्वं चाश्रीयत इति।
— How can we capriciously on the analogy of the maxim of ‘a half of the old hag’ (Ardha-jaratīya Nyāya) accept ‘plenitude’ as the meaning of this ‘Maya’ affix in Ānandamaya, or that because of the ‘Maya’ affix, Ānandamaya means Brahman?
If you were to say, that it should be so understood because the chapter is about Brahman as referred to in the Mantra,
न; अन्नमयादीनामपि तर्हि ब्रह्मत्वप्रसङ्गः।
We reply — No, because in that case there is the predicament of Annamaya etc. also meaning Brahman.
अत्राह – युक्तमन्नमयादीनामब्रह्मत्वम्,
Here (the Vṛtti-kāra) says — That the Annamaya etc. are not Brahman is only proper,
Because successively another inner Self and still another inner Self is mentioned in the case of each of these (first four),
आनन्दमयात्तु न कश्चिदन्य आन्तर आत्मोच्यते;
But no such other Self, inner than the Ānandamaya is mentioned,
And therefore the Ānandamaya Self is Brahman,
Otherwise, there will be the predicament of discarding what is relevant to the context, and accepting that which is not so relevant.
अत्रोच्यते – यद्यप्यन्नमयादिभ्य इवानन्दमयात् ‘अन्योऽन्तर आत्मा’ इति न श्रूयते,
With regard to this it is said — even though the Scriptures do not speak of any Self still inner than the Ānandamaya, as they do after Annamaya etc.,
तथापि नानन्दमयस्य ब्रह्मत्वम्;
Still Ānandamaya could not be Brahman,
यत आनन्दमयं प्रकृत्य श्रूयते – ‘तस्य प्रियमेव शिरः, मोदो दक्षिणः पक्षः, प्रमोद उत्तरः पक्षः, आनन्द आत्मा, ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा’ (TaitU.2.5.1) इति।
In as much as, with reference to Ānandamaya the Scriptures declare thus — “Joy is its caput, delight the right side, greater delight the left side, Bliss (Ānanda) the Self, and Brahman the tail, the pedestal” (TaitU.2.5 Eng.).
तत्र यद्ब्रह्मेह मन्त्रवर्णे प्रकृतम् ‘सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म’ (TaitU.2.1.1) इति, तदिह ‘ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा’ इत्युच्यते।
And the same Brahman which is relevant to the Mantra passage — “Truth, Knowledge, and Infinite is Brahman” — is precisely stated here as being “Brahman the tail, the pedestal”,
तद्विजिज्ञापयिषयैवान्नमयादय आनन्दमयपर्यन्ताः पञ्च कोशाः कल्प्यन्ते।
And it is with a desire to impart the knowledge of that, that beginning with Annamaya and ending with Ānandamaya these five sheaths are imagined.
तत्र कुतः प्रकृतहानाप्रकृतप्रक्रियाप्रसङ्गः।
So whence can there be any discarding of what is revelant and accepting of what is not?
नन्वानन्दमयस्यावयवत्वेन ‘ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा’ इत्युच्यते, अन्नमयादीनामिव ‘इदं पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा’ इत्यादि;
But (says the Vṛtti-kāra) just as in the case of Annamaya etc., this “the tail, the pedestal” is mentioned as the limb of Annamaya, even so “Brahman the tail, the pedestal” is mentioned here as the limb of Ānandamaya.
तत्र कथं ब्रह्मणः स्वप्रधानत्वं शक्यं विज्ञातुम्?
How can we then understand that here, Brahman is mentioned as the principal Brahman?
To that we reply — Because it is the relevant thing.
नन्वानन्दमयावयवत्वेनापि ब्रह्मणि विज्ञायमाने न प्रकृतत्वं हीयते,
But (says the Vṛtti-kāra) — even if we understand Brahman (mentioned) as a limb of Ānandamaya it won’t detract in any way from Brahman being the relevant thing here,
Because (as we suggest) Ānandamaya itself is Brahman.
अत्रोच्यते – तथा सति तदेव ब्रह्म आनन्दमय आत्मा अवयवी,
To this we reply — In that case, to understand once, that the Ānandamaya Self, the whole entity possessed of limbs (Avayavin) as Brahman,
तदेव च ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा अवयव इत्यसामञ्जस्यं स्यात्।
And then again, to understand Ānandamaya’s causal appendage i.e. “the tail, the pedestal” which is a part (Avayava), as Brahman, would be incongruous.
अन्यतरपरिग्रहे तु युक्तम् ‘ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा’ इत्यत्रैव ब्रह्मनिर्देश आश्रयितुम्,
When making a choice as between the two is inevitable, it is proper to accept an indication of Brahman in “Brahman the tail, the pedestal”
ब्रह्मशब्दसंयोगात्; नानन्दमयवाक्ये, ब्रह्मशब्दसंयोगाभावादिति।
As the word Brahman is actually mentioned in connection with that, and not in the sentence containing (the word) Ānandamaya, because of the absence of the word Brahman, in connection with that.
अपि च ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठेत्युक्त्वेदमुच्यते – ‘तदप्येष श्लोको भवति। असन्नेव स भवति। असद्ब्रह्मेति वेद चेत्। अस्ति ब्रह्मेति चेद्वेद। सन्तमेनं ततो विदुः’ (TaitU.2.6.1) इति।
Moreover in continuation of the mention of “Brahman the tail, the pedestal” it is said — “The verse is sung. The verse is that — He who understands that Brahman is not, himself does not exist, but if he knows that Brahman is, then he is known as existing” (TaitU.2.6 Eng.).
अस्मिंश्च श्लोकेऽननुकृष्यानन्दमयं ब्रह्मण एव भावाभाववेदनयोर्गुणदोषाभिधानाद्गम्यते – ‘ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा’ इत्यत्र ब्रह्मण एव स्वप्रधानत्वमिति।
As without bringing up Ānandamaya any further, merit and demerit are mentioned as being the result of knowing Brahman as existing or not existing respectively, we understand that The principal Brahman by itself is mentioned in the sentence — “Brahman the tail, the pedestal”.
न चानन्दमयस्यात्मनो भावाभावाशङ्का युक्ता,
It would not be reasonable to doubt whether the Ānandamaya Self exists or does not exist,
Because the Ānandamaya Self as specially characterised by joy and bliss etc. is well-known to all.
कथं पुनः स्वप्रधानं सद्ब्रह्म आनन्दमयस्य पुच्छत्वेन निर्दिश्यते – ‘ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा’ इति?
But (says the Vṛtti-kāra) how can Brahman which is the principal thing by itself, be mentioned as being the tail of Ānandamaya?
To this objection we reply — This is no fault,
पुच्छवत्पुच्छम्, प्रतिष्ठा परायणमेकनीडं लौकिकस्यानन्दजातस्य ब्रह्मानन्दः इत्येतदनेन विवक्ष्यते,
Because, the bliss of Brahman is the tail, like a tail, i.e. it is the support or pedestal, the last resort, the one and only one nest (abode) of all worldly pleasures, is intended to be mentioned by this (i.e. Brahman the tail, the pedestal)
नावयवत्वम्; ‘एतस्यैवानन्दस्यान्यानि भूतानि मात्रामुपजीवन्ति’ (BrhU.4.3.32) इति श्रुत्यन्तरात्।
And there is no intention of mentioning a limb (as such), because another Scriptural passage says — “All beings sustain themselves on portions of this bliss only” (BrhUEng.4.3.32).
अपि चानन्दमयस्य ब्रह्मत्वे प्रियाद्यवयवत्वेन सविशेषं ब्रह्माभ्युपगन्तव्यम्;
Moreover if by Ānandamaya we understand Brahman, we should understand it as Sa-guṇa (qualified by attributes) Brahman, because it is said to have limbs such as bliss etc.
निर्विशेषं तु ब्रह्म वाक्यशेषे श्रूयते, वाङ्मनसयोरगोचरत्वाभिधानात् – ‘यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते। अप्राप्य मनसा सह। आनन्दं ब्रह्मणो विद्वान्। न बिभेति कुतश्चन’ (TaitU.2.9.1) इति।
Brahman uncharacterized by any attributes i.e. Nir-guṇa Brahman is mentioned in the residuary passage as being unperceivable by speech or the mind in the Scriptural passage — “Unable to attain it (i.e. Brahman), speech along with the mind is turned back. One who has knowledge of the bliss of Brahman, has no fear from any quarter” (TaitU.2.9 Eng.).
अपि चानन्दप्रचुर इत्युक्ते दुःखास्तित्वमपि गम्यते;
Besides if we speak about a ‘Plenitude’ of bliss (about a thing) it necessarily is understood to imply the existence of at least some pain,
प्राचुर्यस्य लोके प्रतियोग्यल्पत्वापेक्षत्वात्।
Because in the ordinary world ‘Plenitude’ (of any thing) does imply at least a small measure of its antonym also.
तथा च सति ‘यत्र नान्यत्पश्यति, नान्यच्छृणोति, नान्यद्विजानाति, स भूमा’ (ChanU.7.24.1) इति भूम्नि ब्रह्मणि तद्व्यतिरिक्ताभावश्रुतिरुपरुध्येत।
In that case the Scriptural passage — “Where he sees nothing else, understands nothing else, he is the Bhūmā” (ChanU.7.24.1) — where, the statement that in Bhūmā which is Brahman, everything else except that is absent, would be contradicted.
प्रतिशरीरं च प्रियादिभेदादानन्दमयस्य भिन्नत्वम्;
‘Joy etc.’ being different, in different bodies, the Ānandamaya Self also would be different in every body,
ब्रह्म तु न प्रतिशरीरं भिद्यते,
While Brahman on the other hand does not so differ in different bodies,
‘सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म’ (TaitU.2.1.1) इत्यानन्त्यश्रुतेः
Because the Scriptural passage — “Brahman is Truth, Knowledge, and Infinity” (TaitU.2.1 Eng.) indicates its infinitude,
‘एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः सर्वव्यापी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा’ (SvetU.6.11) इति च श्रुत्यन्तरात्।
And also because of another Scriptural passage — “He is the one and only one God hidden in all beings, he is all-pervading and the inner-Self of all beings” (SvetU.6.11).
न चानन्दमयस्याभ्यासः श्रूयते। प्रातिपदिकार्थमात्रमेव हि सर्वत्राभ्यस्यते –
Moreover the Scriptures do not show any repetition of the word Ānandamaya, but of only the radical part of the compound word, viz., Ānanda, thus —
‘रसो वै सः। रसꣳ ह्येवायं लब्ध्वानन्दी भवति। को ह्येवान्यात्कः प्राण्यात्। यदेष आकाश आनन्दो न स्यात्’ (TaitU.2.7.1) ‘सैषानन्दस्य मीमाꣳसा भवति’ (TaitU.2.8.2) ‘आनन्दं ब्रह्मणो विद्वान्न बिभेति कुतश्चनेति’ (TaitU.2.9.1)
“He verily is the quintessence, he having attained that quintessence, becomes happy. By what else could any one sustain oneself if this Ākāśa (i.e. the Ātmā abiding in the Hṛdaya in the form of the Ākāśa) were not to be bliss? This here is the analytical interpretation of bliss. A man who knows the bliss of Brahman, is not afraid of anything.” (TaitU.2.7–9 Eng.).
‘आनन्दो ब्रह्मेति व्यजानात्’ (TaitU.3.6.1) इति च।
“He knew that Ānanda is Brahman.” (TaitU.3.6 Eng.).
यदि चानन्दमयशब्दस्य ब्रह्मविषयत्वं निश्चितं भवेत्,
If it could be definitely concluded that the word Ānandamaya means Brahman,
तत उत्तरेष्वानन्दमात्रप्रयोगेष्वप्यानन्दमयाभ्यासः कल्प्येत;
Then we may imagine that in the subsequent use of the mere word Ānanda, there is a repetition of the word Ānandamaya,
न त्वानन्दमयस्य ब्रह्मत्वमस्ति, प्रियशिरस्त्वादिभिर्हेतुभिरित्यवोचाम;
But we have already stated, how by reason of (the mention of) “Joy is the caput” etc., Ānandamaya could not be Brahman.
तस्माच्छ्रुत्यन्तरे ‘विज्ञानमानन्दं ब्रह्म’ (BrhU.3.9.28) इत्यानन्दप्रातिपदिकस्य ब्रह्मणि प्रयोगदर्शनात्,
Therefore, as in another Scriptural passage — “Knowledge and bliss is Brahman” (BrhUEng.3.9.28) We find that only the radical part (of the compound word Ānandamaya) viz. the word Ānanda, is used in the sense of Brahman,
‘यदेष आकाश आनन्दो न स्यात्’ (TaitU.2.7.1) इति ब्रह्मविषयः प्रयोगो न त्वानन्दमयाभ्यास इत्यवगन्तव्यम्।
It should be understood that in the Scriptural passage — “If Ākāśa were not to be Ānanda” — the word Ānanda is used in the sense of Brahman, and is by no means a repetition of the word Ānandamaya.
यस्त्वयं मयडन्तस्यैवानन्दमयशब्दस्याभ्यासः ‘एतमानन्दमयमात्मानमुपसङ्क्रामति’ (TaitU.2.8.5) इति, न तस्य ब्रह्मविषयत्वमस्ति;
The repetition of Ānandamaya, i.e. Ānanda with the ‘Maya’ affix, that is seen in — “He reaches beyond (i.e. gives up) the Ānandamaya Self” (TaitU.2.8 Eng.) — does not refer to Brahman,
विकारात्मनामेवान्नमयादीनामनात्मनामुपसङ्क्रमितव्यानां प्रवाहे पठितत्वात्।
As it is mentioned along with the stream of those other non-Selfs, such as the Annamaya etc., which are of the nature of modifications and which have to be abandoned by proper discrimination.
नन्वानन्दमयस्योपसङ्क्रमितव्यस्यान्नमयादिवदब्रह्मत्वे सति नैव विदुषो ब्रह्मप्राप्तिः फलं निर्दिष्टं भवेत्।
But then (says the Vṛtti-kāra), if the Ānandamaya Self which has to be thus abandoned after proper discrimination, were, like the Annamaya etc., not to be Brahman, the Scriptures would not mention, that a person who knows thus, attains the fruit viz. the attainment of Brahman.
To this objection we reply — This is no fault,
आनन्दमयोपसङ्क्रमणनिर्देशेनैव विदुषः पुच्छप्रतिष्ठाभूतब्रह्मप्राप्तेः फलस्य निर्दिष्टत्वात्,
Because precisely by that very indication about the giving up of Ānandamaya by proper discrimination, the attainment of the fruit viz. Brahman, which is “the tail, the pedestal”, also happens to be indicated,
‘तदप्येष श्लोको भवति’ ‘यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते’ इत्यादिना च प्रपञ्च्यमानत्वात्।
And also because of the further elaboration of the same made by the Scriptural passages — “That the verse is sung”, and “from which the speech (Vāk) is thrown back” etc.
या त्वानन्दमयसन्निधाने ‘सोऽकामयत बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति’ (TaitU.2.6.1) इतीयं श्रुतिरुदाहृता,
The Scriptural passage “He desired, may I be many” which is mentioned (by the Vṛtti-kāra) as being recited near the word Ānandamaya (in the sentence),
सा ‘ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा’ इत्यनेन सन्निहिततरेण ब्रह्मणा सम्बध्यमाना नानन्दमयस्य ब्रह्मतां प्रतिबोधयति।
Being however connected with Brahman, as mentioned in “Brahman the tail, the pedestal”, which is even still nearer to it, does not indicate that Ānandamaya is Brahman,
तदपेक्षत्वाच्चोत्तरस्य ग्रन्थस्य ‘रसो वै सः’ (TaitU.2.7.1) इत्यादेर्नानन्दमयविषयता।
And in as much as, the subsequent passage, viz. “He verily is the quintessence”, is with reference to that, it has no concern with Ānandamaya.
ननु ‘सोऽकामयत’ इति ब्रह्मणि पुंलिङ्गनिर्देशो नोपपद्यते।
But (objects the Vṛtti-kāra) in the case of Brahman (which is the word of the neuter gender), the mention of the masculine gender as in “He desired” would not be reasonably sustainable.
नायं दोषः, ‘तस्माद्वा एतस्मादात्मन आकाशः सम्भूतः’ इत्यत्र पुंलिङ्गेनाप्यात्मशब्देन ब्रह्मणः प्रकृतत्वात्।
To this we reply — This is no fault, because in the Scriptural passage “From that very Ātmā (Self) the Ākāśa was born”, Brahman has been referred to by the word Ātmā (Self) which is of the masculine gender.
यत्तु भार्गवी वारुणी विद्या – ‘आनन्दो ब्रह्मेति व्यजानात्’ (TaitU.3.6.1) इति, तस्यां मयडश्रवणात्प्रियशिरस्त्वाद्यश्रवणाच्च युक्तमानन्दस्य ब्रह्मत्वम्।
As regards the Lore (Vidyā) of Bhṛgu, derived from Varuṇa viz. “He understood Ānanda to be Brahman” — In which there is no mention of the ‘Maya’ affix, or of “Joy is the caput” etc., that Ānanda means Brahman, is proper.
तस्मादणुमात्रमपि विशेषमनाश्रित्य न स्वत एव प्रियशिरस्त्वादि ब्रह्मण उपपद्यते।
Therefore, without having recourse to even an iota of qualifying distinction, it is not reasonably sustainable to ascribe to Brahman in itself any such (qualifying distinction) as “Joy is the caput” etc.
न चेह सविशेषं ब्रह्म प्रतिपिपादयिषितम्, वाङ्मनसगोचरातिक्रमश्रुतेः।
Because the Scriptures mention that Brahman transcends speech and the mind, it (obviously) is not intended to expound qualified Brahman here.
तस्मादन्नमयादिष्विवानन्दमयेऽपि विकारार्थ एव मयट् विज्ञेयः, न प्राचुर्यार्थः॥
Therefore, as in the case of ‘Annamaya’ etc. so in the case of Ānandamaya also, the Maya-affix should be understood as signifying ‘having the structure of’, or, ‘being the modification of’ and not plenitude.
सूत्राणि त्वेवं व्याख्येयानि –
So, the Sūtras should be explained as follows: —
‘ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा’ इत्यत्र
In “Brahman the tail, the pedestal” (TaitU.2.5 Eng.) a doubt arises, thus —
किमानन्दमयावयवत्वेन ब्रह्म विवक्ष्यते,
Is it intended to mention Brahman as being a limb of Ānandamaya,
or is Brahman itself as such, intended to be mentioned?
(If the conclusion of the Vṛtti-kāra is) — Because of the word ‘tail’ it (i.e. Brahman) is intended to be mentioned as a limb —
उच्यते – आनन्दमयोऽभ्यासात् – आनन्दमय आत्मा इत्यत्र ‘ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा’ इति स्वप्रधानमेव ब्रह्मोपदिश्यते; अभ्यासात्
We reply, that in the Sūtra — “Ānandamaya (is Brahman), Because of the repetition” (BrS.1.1.12) — in the sentence, the Self is Ānandamaya, Brahman as such, is taught by the words “Brahman the tail, the pedestal”, because there is repetition (of Brahman).
‘असन्नेव स भवति’ इत्यस्मिन्निगमनश्लोके ब्रह्मण एव केवलस्याभ्यस्यमानत्वात्।
Because in the illustrative verse — “He is as if he is non-existent” — it is Brahman that is repeatedly spoken of.
If it be said, it is not so, because of a word meaning ‘modification’ (Vikāra) (BrS.1.1.13),
न प्राचुर्यात् – विकारशब्देनावयवशब्दोऽभिप्रेतः;
(We say) — no, because of plenitude. By the word modification here, a limb is meant.
पुच्छमित्यवयवशब्दान्न स्वप्रधानत्वं ब्रह्मण इति यदुक्तम्, तस्य परिहारो वक्तव्यः;
It is necessary to refute the doubt expressed — that as by the word ‘the tail’ a limb is indicated, Brahman as such is not its meaning.
अत्रोच्यते – नायं दोषः,
With regard to this (doubt) we say — This is no fault,
प्राचुर्यादप्यवयवशब्दोपपत्तेः; प्राचुर्यं प्रायापत्तिः, अवयवप्राये वचनमित्यर्थः;
Because the word Bhūmā (Plenitude) also, may indicate a ‘limb’ which comes about to mean that in the passage many words meaning limbs are referred to.
अन्नमयादीनां हि शिरआदिषु पुच्छान्तेष्ववयवेषूक्तेष्वानन्दमयस्यापि शिरआदीन्यवयवान्तराण्युक्त्वा अवयवप्रायापत्त्या ‘ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा’ इत्याह,
Limbs from head to tail having been mentioned in the case of ‘Annamaya’ etc., similar limbs are mentioned in the case of Ānandamaya also, such as ‘Caput’ etc. and as in this way limbs are often mentioned (in the passages about Annamaya up to Vijñānamaya) it is also similarly mentioned in the case of Ānandamaya, thus viz. — “Brahman the tail, the pedestal”.
नावयवविवक्षया; यत्कारणम् ‘अभ्यासात्’ इति स्वप्रधानत्वं ब्रह्मणः समर्थितम्।
But there is no intention here, of mentioning limbs, because earlier it has been established that Brahman is not mentioned as a limb, but Brahman as such is mentioned. It is because of this reason that we have explained that “by repetition” Brahman as such is indicated (in “Brahman, the tail, pedestal”).
In the Sūtra — “Because it is propounded that it is the cause” —
सर्वस्य हि विकारजातस्य सानन्दमयस्य कारणत्वेन ब्रह्म व्यपदिश्यते – ‘इदꣳ सर्वमसृजत, यदिदं किञ्च’ (TaitU.2.6.1) इति।
As Brahman is indicated as being the cause of the aggregate of modifications including Ānandamaya, thus — “(He) created all this, whatever there is” (TaitU.2.6 Eng.).
न च कारणं सद्ब्रह्म स्वविकारस्यानन्दमयस्य मुख्यया वृत्त्यावयव उपपद्यते।
Brahman thus being the cause (of its modifications), it is not reasonably sustainable to say, that it is the limb of its own modification viz. Ānandamaya, by understanding the word ‘limb’ in its primary sense.
अपराण्यपि सूत्राणि यथासम्भवं पुच्छवाक्यनिर्दिष्टस्यैव ब्रह्मण उपपादकानि द्रष्टव्यानि॥१२–१९॥
The other Sūtras also may, so far as possible, be understood to expound ‘Brahman’ as indicated by the sentence referring to the tail. — 11–19.
Antaḥ: (Antar-ātmā, the being within the sun and the eye); Tat-Dharma: His essential attribute; Upadeśāt: because of the teaching, as Śruti teaches.
🔗 The one inside (the sun and the eyes is the Highest Self) because (here) its attributes are propounded. — 22.214.171.124.1.20 L.1
The Scriptures mention as follows: —
‘अथ य एषोऽन्तरादित्ये हिरण्मयः पुरुषो दृश्यते हिरण्यश्मश्रुर्हिरण्यकेश आ प्रणखात्सर्व एव सुवर्णः’ (ChanU.1.6.6)
“This aureate-complexioned Puruṣa that is seen in the Sun, having an aureate beard and hair, and who is aureate all over down to his nails”;
‘तस्य यथा कप्यासं पुण्डरीकमेवमक्षिणी तस्योदिति नाम स एष सर्वेभ्यः पाप्मभ्य उदित उदेति ह वै सर्वेभ्यः पाप्मभ्यो य एवं वेद ... इत्यधिदैवतम्’ (ChanU.1.6.7-8)
“His eyes are (pink) like a lotus which is (pink) like the seat of a monkey; his name is ‘Ut’, he has come out clear of all sin; he who knows it to be like this, also comes out clear of all sin”; “This is with reference to the deities (Devas)” (ChanU.1.6.7–8).
‘अथाध्यात्मम् ... अथ य एषोऽन्तरक्षिणि पुरुषो दृश्यते’ (ChanU.1.7.1) (ChanU.1.7.5) इत्यादि।
Further on also, with reference to the body “This Puruṣa that is seen in the eyes” etc. (ChanU.1.7.1–5).
तत्र संशयः –
Now (in this case) the doubt arises,
किं विद्याकर्मातिशयवशात्प्राप्तोत्कर्षः कश्चित्संसारी सूर्यमण्डले चक्षुषि चोपास्यत्वेन श्रूयते,
Whether here the Scriptures mention some one who belongs to the transmigratory condition (Saṃsārin), who, because of the profundity of his knowledge (Vidyā) and action (Karma) has acquired great eminence (Utkarṣa) and who as the one in the Sun and the eyes, is mentioned as an object of devotion,
किं वा नित्यसिद्धः परमेश्वर इति।
Or whether, the eternally perfect, Supreme Lord, is mentioned.
किं तावत्प्राप्तम्? संसारीति।
What then is (the conclusion) arrived at (by the opponent)? That a Puruṣa in a transmigratory condition is meant.
How so? Because the Scriptures mention the Puruṣa as one having a form.
आदित्यपुरुषे तावत् ‘हिरण्यश्मश्रुः’ इत्यादि रूपमुदाहृतम्;
As regards the Puruṣa in the Sun, its form viz. his having an aureate beard, is mentioned,
अक्षिपुरुषेऽपि तदेवातिदेशेन प्राप्यते ‘तस्यैतस्य तदेव रूपं यदमुष्य रूपम्’ इति।
And by an extended application (Atideśa), the same is made applicable to the Puruṣa in the eyes, thus — “The form of this one is the same as that of the other”,
न च परमेश्वरस्य रूपवत्त्वं युक्तम्, ‘अशब्दमस्पर्शमरूपमव्ययम्’ (KathU.1.3.15) इति श्रुतेः;
While it is impossible to ascribe ‘form’ to the Supreme Lord, because the Scriptures mention that “he is sans-Sound, sans-Touch, sans-Form and sans-Decay” (KathU.1.3.15).
आधारश्रवणाच्च – ‘य एषोऽन्तरादित्ये य एषोऽन्तरक्षिणि’ इति।
Also, because of the mention by the Scriptures of an abode, thus — “He who is in the Sun, he who is in the eyes”.
न ह्यनाधारस्य स्वमहिमप्रतिष्ठस्य सर्वव्यापिनः परमेश्वरस्याधार उपदिश्येत।
There cannot possibly be any mention of an abode in the case of the Supreme Lord, who (according to Scriptures) is without any special abode, who is all-pervading and well-ensconced in his own glory,
‘स भगवः कस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठित इति स्वे महिम्नि’ (ChanU.7.24.1) इति
As is seen in the Scriptural passage — “Where, Oh revered one, has He his abode? (The reply is) In His own glory” (ChanU.7.24.1).
‘आकाशवत्सर्वगतश्च नित्यः’ (शत. ब्रा. १०-६-३-२) इति च श्रुती भवतः।
“Like the Ākāśa he is all-pervading and eternal” etc.
Also because the Scriptures speak of their limited power, thus: —
‘स एष ये चामुष्मात्पराञ्चो लोकास्तेषां चेष्टे देवकामानां च’ (ChanU.1.6.8) इत्यादित्यपुरुषस्य ऐश्वर्यमर्यादा;
“He who is the Lord of the worlds beyond (the Sun) and of the desires of the deities (Devas)” — in the case of the Puruṣa in the Sun (ChanU.1.6.8),
‘स एष ये चैतस्मादर्वाञ्चो लोकास्तेषां चेष्टे मनुष्यकामानां च’ (ChanU.1.7.6) इत्यक्षिपुरुषस्य।
And “Who is Lord of the worlds below and of the desires of men” (ChanU.1.7.6) — in the case of the Puruṣa in the eyes.
न च परमेश्वरस्य मर्यादावदैश्वर्यं युक्तम्;
It is not possible to conceive of any limit in the case of the Supreme Lord
‘एष सर्वेश्वर एष भूताधिपतिरेष भूतपाल एष सेतुर्विधरण एषां लोकानामसंभेदाय’ (BrhU.4.4.22) इत्यविशेषश्रुतेः।
As would be seen from the Scriptural passage — “He is the Lord of all, the head of all beings, the protector of all beings, and the bund that supports i.e. upholds the worlds, so that they may not be confounded (by promiscuity)” (BrhUEng.4.4.22) — which does not mention any limiting adjuncts.
तस्मान्नाक्ष्यादित्ययोरन्तः परमेश्वर इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः –
Therefore the Puruṣa in the Sun and in the eyes is not the Supreme Lord.
अन्तस्तद्धर्मोपदेशात् इति। ‘य एषोऽन्तरादित्ये’ ‘य एषोऽन्तरक्षिणि’ इति च श्रूयमाणः पुरुषः परमेश्वर एव, न संसारी।
To this conclusion, we reply — “The one inside (the Sun and the eyes, is the Highest Self), because here His i.e. the Lord’s attributes are propounded”. The Puruṣa that is mentioned in “this Puruṣa in the Sun” and “this Puruṣa in the eyes” — is the Highest Lord, and not a person in a transmigratory condition.
How so? Because, its (i.e. the Lord’s) attributes are propounded.
तस्य हि परमेश्वरस्य धर्मा इहोपदिष्टाः।
The attributes of the Highest Lord are here propounded thus —
तद्यथा – ‘तस्योदिति नाम’ इति श्रावयित्वा तस्यादित्यपुरुषस्य नाम ‘स एष सर्वेभ्यः पाप्मभ्य उदितः’ इति सर्वपाप्मापगमेन निर्वक्ति।
Having mentioned that “His name is Ut”, the Scriptures etymologically derive the name of this Puruṣa in the Sun by mentioning his being free from all sin, thus — “He rises clear out of all sin”,
तदेव च कृतनिर्वचनं नामाक्षिपुरुषस्याप्यतिदिशति – ‘यन्नाम तन्नाम’ इति।
And then, the same name, which is etymologically so derived, is, by an extended application, mentioned as being the name of the Puruṣa in the eyes also, thus — “The name (of the one) is the name (of the other).”
सर्वपाप्मापगमश्च परमात्मन एव श्रूयते – ‘य आत्मापहतपाप्मा’ (ChanU.8.7.1) इत्यादौ।
Separation from (i.e. having no contact with) all sin, is possible only in the case of the Highest Lord, as mentioned in the following Scriptural passages — “The Self (Ātmā) which is free from all sin” (ChanU.8.7.1) etc.
तथा चाक्षुषे पुरुषे ‘सैव ऋक् तत्साम तदुक्थं तद्यजुस्तद्ब्रह्म’ इति ऋक्सामाद्यात्मकतां निर्धारयति।
Similarly, in the case of the Puruṣa in the eyes, he is definitely ascertained to be the self of the Ṛk and the Sāman etc., thus — “She is the Ṛk, that is the Sāman, and the Uktha (a special collection of hymns recited in a sacrifice), the Yajus, the Brahman”.
सा च परमेश्वरस्योपपद्यते, सर्वकारणत्वात्सर्वात्मकत्वोपपत्तेः।
This, being the Self (of the Ṛk and the Sāman etc.), is reasonably sustainable only in the case of the Highest Lord, because, being the cause of all, and the Self of all, it is reasonably sustainable in his case.
पृथिव्यग्न्याद्यात्मके चाधिदैवतमृक्सामे,वाक्प्राणाद्यात्मके चाध्यात्ममनुक्रम्याह – ‘तस्यर्क्च साम च गेष्णौ’ इत्यधिदैवतम्।
Then, having commenced by mentioning, that the Ṛk and the Sāman have the earth and the Agni respectively as their Selfs, with reference to the Devas (Adhidaivatā), and that the same Ṛk and Sāman have the Vāk (speech) and the Prāṇa as their Selfs respectively,
तथाध्यात्ममपि – ‘यावमुष्य गेष्णौ तौ गेष्णौ’ इति।
With reference to the body (Adhyātma), the Scriptures proceed to mention, thus — “With reference to the Devas (in the case of the Puruṣa in the Sun) the Ṛk and the Sāman) are the joints (of the foot), and with reference to the body, joints in the former case, are the joints in the latter” etc.
तच्च सर्वात्मकत्वे सत्येवोपपद्यते।
Now that is possible only in the case of one who is the Self of all.
‘तद्य इमे वीणायां गायन्त्येतं ते गायन्ति तस्मात्ते धनसनयः’ (ChanU.1.7.6) इति च लौकिकेष्वपि गानेष्वस्यैव गीयमानत्वं दर्शयति।
And the Scriptures show, that even in the case of singing, in the ordinary world, the same self of all is sung about, by mentioning thus — “And those who sing to the accompaniment of a Vīṇa (lute), sing about Him (i.e. the Self of all) only, and therefore they become possessed of wealth” (ChanU.1.7.6).
तच्च परमेश्वरपरिग्रह एव घटते –
This fits in properly in the case of the Highest Lord only.
‘यद्यद्विभूतिमत्सत्त्वं श्रीमदूर्जितमेव वा। तत्तदेवावगच्छ त्वं मम तेजोंशसम्भवम्’ (BhG.10.41) इति भगवद्गीतादर्शनात्।
For the Smṛti says — “Whatever being, possessed of power, glory, or strength, is there, know it to have been generated from my Tejas (energy)” (BhG.10.41).
लोककामेशितृत्वमपि निरङ्कुशं श्रूयमाणं परमेश्वरं गमयति।
Besides, the being possessed of the power to rule the worlds and desires without let or hindrance, that we hear mentioned, also indicates the Highest Lord.
यत्तूक्तं हिरण्यश्मश्रुत्वादिरूपवत्त्वश्रवणं परमेश्वरे नोपपद्यत इति,
With regard to the objection (raised by the opponent), that the mention in the Scriptures, of form such as having an aureate beard etc., is not reasonably sustainable in the case of the Highest Lord,
अत्र ब्रूमः – स्यात्परमेश्वरस्यापीच्छावशान्मायामयं रूपं साधकानुग्रहार्थम्, ‘माया ह्येषा मया सृष्टा यन्मां पश्यसि नारद। सर्वभूतगुणैर्युक्तं मैवं मां ज्ञातुमर्हसि’ इति स्मरणात्।
We reply — It may well be the illusory form assumed by the Lord, at will, with a desire to extend his grace to the devout worshipper, Because the Smṛti says, “What you see before you, Oh Nārada, is the Māyā generated by me. It is not correct to understand me as one endowed with all the attributes of beings.”
अपि च, यत्र तु निरस्तसर्वविशेषं पारमेश्वरं रूपमुपदिश्यते, भवति तत्र शास्त्रम् ‘अशब्दमस्पर्शमरूपमव्ययम्’ (KathU.1.3.15) इत्यादि।
However, where the form (Rūpa) of the highest Lord, divested of all kinds of adjuncts, is propounded, there the Śāstra is — “(The Brahman) is, sans-Sound, sans-Touch, sans-Form and sans-Decay” (KathU.1.3.15), etc.
सर्वकारणत्वात्तु विकारधर्मैरपि कैश्चिद्विशिष्टः परमेश्वर उपास्यत्वेन निर्दिश्यते – ‘सर्वकर्मा सर्वकामः सर्वगन्धः सर्वरसः’ (ChanU.3.14.2) इत्यादिना।
Because the Highest Lord is the cause of all, the Highest Lord as endowed with the qualities of its modifications is also indicated as an object of devotion, thus — “The repository of all actions, desires, fragrances and tastes etc.” (ChanU.3.14.2).
तथा हिरण्यश्मश्रुत्वादिनिर्देशोऽपि भविष्यति।
In the same way, it may well be that the Lord may also be referred to as one having an aureate beard.
यदप्याधारश्रवणान्न परमेश्वर इति,
To the objection (of the opponent Vṛtti-kāra), that because of the mention of an abode, it cannot be the Highest Lord,
अत्रोच्यते – स्वमहिमप्रतिष्ठस्याप्याधारविशेषोपदेश उपासनार्थो भविष्यति; सर्वगतत्वाद्ब्रह्मणो व्योमवत्सर्वान्तरत्वोपपत्तेः।
We reply — The propounding of Him who is perfectly ensconced in his own glory, as one having an abode, may also be for the purpose of devotion, Because Brahman being all-pervading, it can be reasonably sustainable, that like Ākāśa, it is inside anything and everything.
The Scriptural mention of a limit to his Lordly might, with reference to its division into its Adhidaivatā and Adhyātma aspects, is also for the purpose of devotion.
Therefore it is the Highest Lord that is propounded as being the Puruṣa in the sun and the eyes. — 20.
Bheda: difference; Vyapadeśāt: because of declaration; Ca: and, also; Anyaḥ: is different, another, other than the Jīva or the individual soul.
🔗 Besides, (the Puruṣa in the orb of the sun) is different (from the Jīva-Self), because there is a reference (in the Scriptures) to a distinction (between the two). — 126.96.36.199.1.21 L.1
अस्ति चादित्यादिशरीराभिमानिभ्यो जीवेभ्योऽन्य ईश्वरोऽन्तर्यामी –
The Lord, the internal ruler is of course different from the Jīva-Self that identifies itself with the body of the Sun (Āditya) etc., because such a statement of difference (between the two) is mentioned in another Scriptural passage thus —
‘य आदित्ये तिष्ठन्नादित्यादन्तरो यमादित्यो न वेद यस्यादित्यः शरीरं य आदित्यमन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः’ (BrhU.3.7.9) इति श्रुत्यन्तरे भेदव्यपदेशात्।
“He who abides in the sun but is distinct from him, and whom the sun knows not, and whose body is the sun, and who rules or regulates the sun from within, That same is your Self (Ātmā), the ruler or regulator from within, and the immortal one.” (BrhUEng.3.7.9).
तत्र हि ‘आदित्यादन्तरो यमादित्यो न वेद’ इति वेदितुरादित्याद्विज्ञानात्मनोऽन्योऽन्तर्यामी स्पष्टं निर्दिश्यते।
There, (by the expression — who abides in the sun but is distinct from him, and whom the sun knows not), the internal ruler or regulator is clearly indicated to be different from the one who is meant to be the knower, viz. the sun, i.e. the cognitional Self.
स एवेहाप्यन्तरादित्ये पुरुषो भवितुमर्हति, श्रुतिसामान्यात्।
Therefore by reason of the parallel Scriptural passage, the very same (internal ruler or regulator) deserves to be the Puruṣa in the sun, here.
तस्मात्परमेश्वर एवेहोपदिश्यत इति सिद्धम्॥२१॥
Therefore it is clearly proved that in the passage (mentioned in the beginning of the Sūtra 20) instruction about the Highest Lord is given. — 21.
Ākāśaḥ: the word Ākāśa as used here; Tad: His, of Brahman; Liṅgāt: because of characteristic mark.
🔗 The Ākāśa is (Brahman) because there is (here) a characteristic mark of it (i.e. Brahman). — 188.8.131.52.1.22 L.1
इदमामनन्ति ‘अस्य लोकस्य का गतिरित्याकाश इति होवाच सर्वाणि ह वा इमानि भूतान्याकाशादेव समुत्पद्यन्त आकाशं प्रत्यस्तं यन्त्याकाशो ह्येवैभ्यो ज्यायानाकाशः परायणम्’ (ChanU.1.9.1) इति।
(Śālāvatya a Brāhmaṇa asks Pravāhaṇa Jaivali, the Kṣatriya King) “To what does this world go back (ultimately)? He replied — The Ākāśa, All these beings are born only out of the Ākāśa and are also absorbed into the Ākāśa, the Ākāśa verily is greater than these, and the Ākāśa is the ultimate resort” (ChanU.1.9.1).
तत्र संशयः – किमाकाशशब्देन परं ब्रह्माभिधीयते,
A doubt here arises — Whether the Highest Brahman is mentioned by the word Ākāśa1.1.22 L.3
Or the material Sky i.e. the atmosphere?
कुतः संशयः? उभयत्र प्रयोगदर्शनात्।
Whence is the doubt? Because (the same word Ākāśa is observed to be used) in the case of both.
भूतविशेषे तावत्सुप्रसिद्धो लोकवेदयोराकाशशब्दः।
The word Ākāśa which is well-known in the ordinary world and in the Scriptures,
ब्रह्मण्यपि क्वचित्प्रयुज्यमानो दृश्यते,
As being used in the sense of the material sky or atmosphere is also occasionally seen to be used for Brahman,
यत्र वाक्यशेषवशादसाधारणगुणश्रवणाद्वा निर्धारितं ब्रह्म भवति – यथा
Where, for instance, — because of the complementary sentence, or because of the mention of an uncommon quality — it becomes established that Brahman is meant, thus —
‘यदेष आकाश आनन्दो न स्यात्’ (TaitU.2.7.1) इति
“If this Ākāśa were not to be bliss (i.e. Brahman)” (TaitU.2.7 Eng.),
‘आकाशो वै नाम नामरूपयोर्निर्वहिता ते यदन्तरा तद्ब्रह्म’ (ChanU.8.14.1) इति चैवमादौ।
Or “It is the Ākāśa, that verily is the revealer of all names and forms, that, within which (these names and forms) are, that is Brahman” (ChanU.8.14.1) etc.
Therefore it is, that there is this doubt.
किं पुनरत्र युक्तम्? भूताकाशमिति।
What then is reasonably possible here? That it is the sky i.e. the atmosphere.
कुतः? तद्धि प्रसिद्धतरेण प्रयोगेण शीघ्रं बुद्धिमारोहति।
Why so? because it is that, that quickly comes up to the mind i.e. intelligence (Buddhi) because of its more well-known use (in that sense).
न चायमाकाशशब्द उभयोः साधारणः शक्यो विज्ञातुम्, अनेकार्थत्वप्रसङ्गात्।
It is not possible to understand, that the word Ākāśa can be used commonly for both, because it would, in that case, lead to the fault of one word having more than one (primary) meaning.
तस्माद्ब्रह्मणि गौण एव आकाशशब्दो भवितुमर्हति।
Therefore when the word Ākāśa is used in the sense of Brahman, it deserves to have been used in its secondary or metaphorical sense,
विभुत्वादिभिर्हि बहुभिर्धर्मैः सदृशमाकाशेन ब्रह्म भवति।
Because, Brahman, having many attributes such as being all-pervading etc., is similar to Ākāśa.
न च मुख्यसम्भवे गौणोऽर्थो ग्रहणमर्हति।
When the primary sense is possible, it does not deserve to be understood as being used in the secondary or metaphorical sense,
सम्भवति चेह मुख्यस्यैवाकाशस्य ग्रहणम्।
And it is possible, here, to understand Ākāśa in its primary sense of the material sky or atmosphere.
ननु भूताकाशपरिग्रहे वाक्यशेषो नोपपद्यते – ‘सर्वाणि ह वा इमानि भूतान्याकाशादेव समुत्पद्यन्ते’ इत्यादिः;
(But says the Vedāntin), if we understand it to mean the material sky or atmosphere, then the complementary passage — “All these beings are borm out of this Ākāśa only” — would not be reasonably sustainable.
नैष दोषः, भूताकाशस्यापि वाय्वादिक्रमेण कारणत्वोपपत्तेः।
(To this) the opponent says — This is no fault, because it is reasonably sustainable, that the material sky or the atmosphere also, can, by way of the serial order of air (Vāyu) etc. be understood to be the cause (of air etc.).
विज्ञायते हि – ‘तस्माद्वा एतस्मादात्मन आकाशः सम्भूत आकाशाद्वायुर्वायोरग्निः’ (TaitU.2.1.1) इत्यादि।
Because it is known from the Scriptures thus — “From this self, verily, the Ākāśa was born, from the Ākāśa the air, and from the air the fire (Agni) etc.” (TaitU.2.1 Eng.).
ज्यायस्त्वपरायणत्वे अपि भूतान्तरापेक्षयोपपद्येते भूताकाशस्यापि।
The qualities of “being greater and being the ultimate resort” are reasonably sustainable also in the case of the material Sky i.e. atmosphere, with reference to those other beings (born out of the material sky i.e. the atmosphere).
तस्मादाकाशशब्देन भूताकाशस्य ग्रहणम्
Thus, therefore, it is proper to understand “the material Sky” i.e. the atmosphere by the word Ākāśa.
इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः – आकाशस्तल्लिङ्गात्।
This being the conclusion (arrived at by the opponent), to that, We reply — “The Ākāśa (is Brahman) because of the indicatory mark about it”.
आकाशशब्देनेह ब्रह्मणो ग्रहणं युक्तम्।
It is but proper to take Ākāśa to mean Brahman.
Why? Because there is an indicatory mark about it.
परस्य हि ब्रह्मण इदं लिङ्गम् – ‘सर्वाणि ह वा इमानि भूतान्याकाशादेव समुत्पद्यन्ते’ इति।
That “All these beings are born out of this Ākāśa only” is the indicatory mark of the Highest Brahman,
परस्माद्धि ब्रह्मणो भूतानामुत्पत्तिरिति वेदान्तेषु मर्यादा।
And that all beings are born out of the Highest Brahman is the terminus ad quem of Vedānta.
ननु भूताकाशस्यापि वाय्वादिक्रमेण कारणत्वं दर्शितम्।
But (says the opponent) we have already demonstrated how the sky i.e. the atmosphere is the cause, by way of the serial order of air (Vāyu) etc.
(We reply) of course it is true you have demonstrated that.
तथापि मूलकारणस्य ब्रह्मणोऽपरिग्रहात्, आकाशादेवेत्यवधारणं सर्वाणीति च भूतविशेषणं नानुकूलं स्यात्।
But if Brahman is not accepted as being the root-cause, the final determination — ‘From the Ākāśa (ether or space) only’, and the adjective ‘all’ (Sarvāṇi) governing the beings, would not be favourable (to such a construction, as you, the opponent, suggest).
तथा ‘आकाशं प्रत्यस्तं यन्ति’ इति ब्रह्मलिङ्गम्, ‘आकाशो ह्येवैभ्यो ज्यायानाकाशः परायणम्’ इति च ज्यायस्त्वपरायणत्वे।
Similarly, the indicatory mark “that (all beings) become absorbed in the Ākāśa”, and “Ākāśa verily is the greater and ultimate resort”, which indicate the attribute of ‘being greater and being the ultimate resort’ also, (would not be favourable),
ज्यायस्त्वं ह्यनापेक्षिकं परमात्मन्येवैकस्मिन्नाम्नातम् – ‘ज्यायान्पृथिव्या ज्यायानन्तरिक्षाज्ज्यायान्दिवो ज्यायानेभ्यो लोकेभ्यः’ (ChanU.3.14.3) इति।
Because, this ‘being greater’ without reference to any other thing is mentioned by Scriptures, only in the case of the Highest Self, thus — “Greater than the earth, the sky, the heaven and all these worlds” (ChanU.3.14.3),
तथा परायणत्वमपि परमकारणत्वात्परमात्मन्येव उपपन्नतरं भवति।
And this ‘being the ultimate resort’ is more reasonably sustainable in the case of the Highest Self only, as being the transcendent cause.
श्रुतिश्च – ‘विज्ञानमानन्दं ब्रह्म रातिर्दातुः परायणम्’ (BrhU.3.9.28) इति।
The Scriptural passage is — “Knowledge and Bliss is Brahman the ultimate resort of the sacrificing host (from whom, the priests presiding at the sacrifice get money-gifts i.e. Dakṣiṇā)” (BrhUEng.3.9.28).
अपि चान्तवत्त्वदोषेण शालावत्यस्य पक्षं निन्दित्वा, अनन्तं किञ्चिद्वक्तुकामेन जैवलिनाकाशः परिगृहीतः;
Besides, (Jaivali) after animadverting the case made out by Śālāvatya (that the Sāman is eternal), and with a desire to mention something which is ‘eternal’, accepts the Ākāśa as the eternal (one),
तं चाकाशमुद्गीथे सम्पाद्योपसंहरति – ‘स एष परोवरीयानुद्गीथः स एषोऽनन्तः’ (ChanU.1.9.2) इति।
And by treating the ‘Udgītha’ as the Ākāśa by imaginative contemplation, concludes thus — “He is the ‘Udgītha’ who is greater than the great’ and he also is the eternal (one)” (ChanU.1.9.2).
That eternity (mentioned therein) is an indicatory mark of Brahman.
यत्पुनरुक्तं भूताकाशं प्रसिद्धिबलेन प्रथमतरं प्रतीयत इति,
To the objection, that, on the strength of its being well-known, the sky or the atmosphere comes up to the mind first, before any thing else,
अत्र ब्रूमः – प्रथमतरं प्रतीतमपि सद्वाक्यशेषगतान्ब्रह्मगुणान्दृष्ट्वा न परिगृह्यते।
We reply — Because, after observing the attributes of Brahman as they are mentioned in the complementary passage, the sky i.e. the atmosphere, though it comes up to the mind or intelligence first, before anything else, has to be rejected.
दर्शितश्च ब्रह्मण्यप्याकाशशब्दः ‘आकाशो वै नाम नामरूपयोर्निर्वहिता’ (ChanU.8.14.1) इत्यादौ।
We have already demonstrated how the word Ākāśa is used for Brahman, thus — “Ākāśa verily is the revealer of names and forms” (ChanU.8.14.1) etc.
तथाकाशपर्यायवाचिनामपि ब्रह्मणि प्रयोगो दृश्यते –
Similarly we observe the use of the synonyms of Ākāśa for Brahman, thus —
‘ऋचो अक्षरे परमे व्योमन् यस्मिन्देवा अधि विश्वे निषेदुः’ (ऋ. सं. १-१६४-३९)
“The Vedas (Ṛcs) are (based) in the imperishable (Akṣara) and the highest Ākāśa, and all Gods have their base in it” (Ṛg. Sam. 1.164.39);
‘सैषा भार्गवी वारुणी विद्या परमे व्योमन्प्रतिष्ठिता’ (TaitU.3.6.1)
“This is the Lore (Vidyā) of Bhṛgu as derived from Varuṇa, which is based in the Akṣara.” (TaitU.3.6 Eng.);
‘ॐ कं ब्रह्म खं ब्रह्म’ (ChanU.4.10.5)
“Om, Ka (pleasure) is Brahman, Kha (Akṣara) is Brahman” (ChanU.4.10.5)
‘खं पुराणम्’ (BrhU.5.1.1) इति चैवमादौ।
And “Kha is the ancient one” (BrhUEng.5.1) etc.
वाक्योपक्रमेऽपि वर्तमानस्याकाशशब्दस्य वाक्यशेषवशाद्युक्ता ब्रह्मविषयत्वावधारणा।
The word Ākāśa, which occurs in the introductory passage also, is to be understood as referring to ‘Brahman’ on the strength of the complementary passage.
‘अग्निरधीतेऽनुवाकम्’ इति हि वाक्योपक्रमगतोऽप्यग्निशब्दो माणवकविषयो दृश्यते।
We observe that even the word Agni (fire) which, though it occurs in the introductory passage — “Agni is studying the Anuvāka (a collection of Ṛk- and Yajur-Veda hymns)” — is understood to mean a scholar (Māṇavaka).
तस्मादाकाशशब्दं ब्रह्मेति सिद्धम्॥२२॥
Therefore, it is established that by the word Ākāśa, Brahman is indicated. — 22.
Ataḥ eva: for the same reason; Prāṇaḥ: the breath (also refers to Brahman).
🔗 For the same reason, Prāṇa i.e. the Vital Air (is Brahman). — 184.108.40.206.1.23 L.1
उद्गीथे – ‘प्रस्तोतर्या देवता प्रस्तावमन्वायत्ता’ इत्युपक्रम्य श्रूयते –
In the Udgīṭha chapter, after mentioning the introductory sentence “O Prastotṛ, that deity connected with the Prastāva (Prelude or introductory words of Sāman)”, it is mentioned —
‘कतमा सा देवतेति, प्राण इति होवाच, सर्वाणि ह वा इमानि भूतानि प्राणमेवाभिसंविशन्ति, प्राणमभ्युज्जिहते, सैषा देवता प्रस्तावमन्वायत्ता’ (ChanU.1.11.4) (ChanU.1.11.5) इति।
“What then is the deity; He replied — The Vital Air. All these beings merge in the Vital air only and spring from it, and this is the deity which is connected with the Prastāva etc.” (ChanU.1.11.4–5).
तत्र संशयनिर्णयौ पूर्ववदेव द्रष्टव्यौ।
With regard to this, the doubt and the decision (on that doubt) should be understood to be similar to those stated herein-before (in the previous Sūtra).
‘प्राणबन्धनं हि सोम्य मनः’ (ChanU.6.8.2)
In the Scriptural passages — “O mild one, the mind is dependent on the Vital Air” (ChanU.6.8.2),
‘प्राणस्य प्राणम्’ (BrhU.4.4.18) इति चैवमादौ ब्रह्मविषयः प्राणशब्दो दृश्यते;
“The Vital Air of the Vital Airs” (BrhUEng.4.4.18) — the word ‘Prāṇa’ appears to have been used to denote Brahman,
वायुविकारे तु प्रसिद्धतरो लोकवेदयोः;
While its use as a word indicating the modification of Vāyu (air) is more well-known in the ordinary world and the Scriptures,
अत इह प्राणशब्देन कतरस्योपादानं युक्तमिति भवति संशयः।
And a doubt arises as to what should properly be understood by the word ‘Prāṇa’.
किं पुनरत्र युक्तम्? वायुविकारस्य पञ्चवृत्तेः प्राणस्योपादानं युक्तम्।
What then is proper here? It is proper to understand by Prāṇa, that which is a modification of Vāyu and has a five-fold function,
तत्र हि प्रसिद्धतरः प्राणशब्द इत्यवोचाम।
Because we have already mentioned that Prāṇa is better known as that (i.e. as a modification of Vāyu).
ननु पूर्ववदिहापि तल्लिङ्गाद्ब्रह्मण एव ग्रहणं युक्तम्।
But (says the Vedāntin) because of the indicatory mark of that (i.e. Brahman) we should, as (we did) earlier, understand Prāṇa to indicate Brahman,
इहापि हि वाक्यशेषे भूतानां संवेशनोद्गमनं पारमेश्वरं कर्म प्रतीयते।
Because here also, the absorption into and rising from, of beings, is seen to be the work of the Highest Lord.
न, मुख्येऽपि प्राणे भूतसंवेशनोद्गमनस्य दर्शनात्।
No, (says the opponent), because the absorption into and rising from of beings is seen to be from the principal Vital Air also,
एवं ह्याम्नायते – ‘यदा वै पुरुषः स्वपिति प्राणं तर्हि वागप्येति प्राणं चक्षुः प्राणं श्रोत्रं प्राणं मनः, स यदा प्रबुध्यते प्राणादेवाधि पुनर्जायन्ते’ (श. ब्रा. १०-३-३-६) इति।
Because even so says the Scriptural passage — “When a Puruṣa sleeps, then in that condition, speech merges into the Vital Air, and similarly, the eye, the ear and the mind also, merge into the Vital Air, And when he wakes up, these again arise from the same Vital Air”(Śat. Brā. 10.3.3.6).
प्रत्यक्षं चैतत् – स्वापकाले प्राणवृत्तावपरिलुप्यमानायामिन्द्रियवृत्तयः परिलुप्यन्ते, प्रबोधकाले च पुनः प्रादुर्भवन्तीति।
It also is actually evident that during the period of sleep, while the function of the Vital Air still continues, the functions of the sense-organs get absorbed, and they are revived at waking time.
इन्द्रियसारत्वाच्च भूतानामविरुद्धो मुख्ये प्राणेऽपि भूतसंवेशनोद्गमनवादी वाक्यशेषः।
Beings having the sense-organs as their essence, the complementary passage which speaks of absorption into and rising from of the beings, is not contradictory, even in the case of the principal Vital Air.
अपि चादित्योऽन्नं चोद्गीथप्रतिहारयोर्देवते प्रस्तावदेवतायाः प्राणस्यानन्तरं निर्दिश्येते;
Besides, the sun and food which are the deities of the Udgīṭha and Pratihāra respectively, are indicated after Prāṇa, which is the deity of the Prastāva.
न च तयोर्ब्रह्मत्वमस्ति; तत्सामान्याच्च प्राणस्यापि न ब्रह्मत्वमित्येवं प्राप्ते सूत्रकार आह –
They (i.e. the Sun and food) certainly are not Brahman, and therefore in common with them, the Vital Air also could not be Brahman. This being the conclusion (of the opponent) the Sūtra-kāra replies —
अत एव प्राणः इति। तल्लिङ्गादिति पूर्वसूत्रे निर्दिष्टम्।
“For the same reason, the Vital Airs (are Brahman)”. “Because of the indicatory mark of that” has been explained in the previous Sūtra.
अत एव तल्लिङ्गात्प्राणशब्दमपि परं ब्रह्म भवितुमर्हति।
Therefore, because of the indicatory mark of that (i.e. Brahman) that which is expressed by the word Prāṇa also deserves to be understood to be Brahman.
प्राणस्यापि हि ब्रह्मलिङ्गसम्बन्धः श्रूयते – ‘सर्वाणि ह वा इमानि भूतानि प्राणमेवाभिसंविशन्ति प्राणमभ्युज्जिहते’ (ChanU.1.11.5) इति।
The Scriptures mention, that even ‘Vital air’ has a connection with the indicatory mark of Brahman, as follows: — “All these beings, verily, are absorbed into the ‘Vital air’ and also rise from the ‘Vital air’.” (ChanU.1.11.5).
प्राणनिमित्तौ सर्वेषां भूतानामुत्पत्तिप्रलयावुच्यमानौ प्राणस्य ब्रह्मतां गमयतः।
The mention of the absorption and rise of all beings from Prāṇa (Vital air) goes to indicate that Prāṇa (Vital air) is Brahman.
ननूक्तं मुख्यप्राणपरिग्रहेऽपि संवेशनोद्गमनदर्शनमविरुद्धम्, स्वापप्रबोधयोर्दर्शनादिति।
But (says the opponent) we have said that, even if by the word ‘Prāṇa’ we understand the principal Vital air, the absorption into and rising (of sense-organs) from the principal Vital air is not contradictory, because we observe it to be so during sleep and on awakening.
अत्रोच्यते – स्वापप्रबोधयोरिन्द्रियाणामेव केवलानां प्राणाश्रयं संवेशनोद्गमनं दृश्यते, न सर्वेषां भूतानाम्;
To this we reply — During sleep and on awakening, the absorption into and rising up (from Prāṇa) of only the sense-organs is seen, and not of all beings,
इह तु सेन्द्रियाणां सशरीराणां च जीवाविष्टानां भूतानाम्, ‘सर्वाणि ह वा इमानि भूतानि’ इति श्रुतेः।
While here (it is seen) to be generally of all beings endowed with the Jīva-Self and sense-organs and bodies also, because of the Scriptural passage — “All these beings”.
यदापि भूतश्रुतिर्महाभूतविषया परिगृह्यते, तदापि ब्रह्मलिङ्गत्वमविरुद्धम्।
Even if we understand the Scriptural mention of beings, as referring to the (five) great elements, even then it would not be contradictory to understand that, as an indictatory mark of Brahman.
ननु सहापि विषयैरिन्द्रियाणां स्वापप्रबोधयोः प्राणेऽप्ययं प्राणाच्च प्रभवं शृणुमः –
But (says the opponent) we find it mentioned in the Scriptures that during sleep and on awakening, there is absorption into and rising up from the ‘Vital air’, of sense-organs along with the sense-objects, as follows: —
‘यदा सुप्तः स्वप्नं न कञ्चन पश्यत्यथास्मिन्प्राण एवैकधा भवति तदैनं वाक्सर्वैर्नामभिः सहाप्येति’ (कौ. उ. ३-३) इति।
“When a man is asleep, he does not experience any dream, but becomes one with the ‘Vital air’ and at that time, speech along with all names is absorbed into it” (KausU.3.3).
तत्रापि तल्लिङ्गात्प्राणशब्दं ब्रह्मैव।
There also (we say) because of the indicatory mark of that (i.e. Brahman), by the word Prāṇa, Brahman alone is indicated.
Then again, (the objection) that because of proximity with the sun and food (which certainly are not Brahman) the word ‘Prāṇa’ also is not indicative of Brahman, is not reasonable,
वाक्यशेषबलेन प्राणशब्दस्य ब्रह्मविषयतायां प्रतीयमानायां सन्निधानस्याकिञ्चित्करत्वात्।
Because when on the strength of the complementary passage, the word ‘Prāṇa’ is properly understood to mean Brahman, mere proximity is helpless (lit., unable to do anything).
यत्पुनः प्राणशब्दस्य पञ्चवृत्तौ प्रसिद्धतरत्वम्, तदाकाशशब्दस्येव प्रतिविधेयम्।
Again, the objection, that the word ‘Prāṇa’ is better known as meaning the Vital air with its five-fold function, should be refuted in the same way, as the objection with regard to the word Ākāśa is refuted.
तस्मात्सिद्धं प्रस्तावदेवतायाः प्राणस्य ब्रह्मत्वम्॥
Therefore it is thus established that ‘Prāṇa’ which is the deity connected with Prastāva, is Brahman.
अत्र केचिदुदाहरन्ति – ‘प्राणस्य प्राणम्’ ‘प्राणबन्धनं हि सोम्य मनः’ इति च।
In this connection, some others (commentators) quote the following passages — “The Prāṇa of Prāṇa”, “Oh mild one, mind depends upon Prāṇa” (as ambiguous passages),
तदयुक्तम्; शब्दभेदात्प्रकरणाच्च संशयानुपपत्तेः।
But it is not reasonable, because on account of the difference in the Scriptural words and the subject matter of the chapter (Prakaraṇa), no doubt is reasonably sustainable.
यथा पितुः पितेति प्रयोगे, अन्यः पिता षष्ठीनिर्दिष्टात् प्रथमानिर्दिष्टः, पितुः पिता इति गम्यते;
For instance, when we use the expression ‘father’s father’, the father indicated by the genitive case of the first word ‘father’ is different from the person indicated by the word ‘father’ used in the nominative case, and means the father’s father i.e. the grand-father.
तद्वत् ‘प्राणस्य प्राणम्’ इति शब्दभेदात्प्रसिद्धात्प्राणात् अन्यः प्राणस्य प्राण इति निश्चीयते।
Similarly in the expression “the Prāṇa of Prāṇa” as there the two ‘Prāṇa’ words are separate and distinct, we can determine that the Prāṇa of Prāṇa is different from the well-known Prāṇa (the Vital air).
न हि स एव तस्येति भेदनिर्देशार्हो भवति।
The same thing ‘He’, does not deserve to be distinguished from itself as ‘His’, (only by using the genitive case) and designating ‘He’ as ‘His’.
यस्य च प्रकरणे यो निर्दिश्यते नामान्तरेणापि स एव तत्र प्रकरणी निर्दिष्ट इति गम्यते;
(And with regard to the second passage), if a thing is indicated in one chapter (as the topic of that chapter), then we conclude, that the same thing is indicated in the same chapter as that chapter’s topic, even if it is referred to in it by some other name.
यथा ज्योतिष्टोमाधिकारे ‘वसन्ते वसन्ते ज्योतिषा यजेत’ इत्यत्र ज्योतिःशब्दो ज्योतिष्टोमविषयो भवति,
As for instance, in the chapter dealing with Jyoti-ṣṭoma sacrifice, in the passage “In every spring a person should perform the Jyotis”, the word ‘Jyotis’ refers to the Jyoti-ṣṭoma sacrifice,
तथा परस्य ब्रह्मणः प्रकरणे ‘प्राणबन्धनं हि सोम्य मनः’ इति श्रुतः प्राणशब्दो वायुविकारमात्रं कथमवगमयेत्।
Similarly in the chapter dealing with the ‘Highest Brahman’, when the Scriptural passage says, “O mild one, the mind is dependent on Prāṇa” — how could we understand the word ‘Prāṇa’ to mean only a modification of Vāyu?
अतः संशयाविषयत्वान्नैतदुदाहरणं युक्तम्।
Therefore, there being nothing here to suggest a doubt, this cannot be an illustration in point.
प्रस्तावदेवतायां तु प्राणे संशयपूर्वपक्षनिर्णया उपपादिताः॥२३॥
With respect to the deity connected with Prastāva, we have already discussed the doubt (arising from the use of the word) ‘Prāṇa’, the objection raised (with regard to it), and the final conclusion. — 23.
Jyotiḥ: the light; Carana: feet; Abhidhānāt: because of the mention.
🔗 (The word) Jyotis (is Brahman) on account of the mention of feet. — 220.127.116.11.1.24 L.1
इदमामनन्ति – ‘अथ यदतः परो दिवो ज्योतिर्दीप्यते विश्वतः पृष्ठेषु सर्वतः पृष्ठेष्वनुत्तमेषूत्तमेषु लोकेष्विदं वाव तद्यदिदमस्मिन्नन्तः पुरुषे ज्योतिः’ (ChanU.3.13.7) इति।
The Scriptures mention: — “Now, after what has gone before (viz., the devout meditation on Gāyatrī as Brahman), the lustre (Jyotis) that continues to shine above this heaven, on the top of this world, on the top of everything in the best of all worlds than which no other world (Loka) is better (viz., the Satya-Loka), is the same as the lustre that is within this Puruṣa” (ChanU.3.13.7).
तत्र संशयः – किमिह ज्योतिःशब्देनादित्यादिकं ज्योतिरभिधीयते,
With regard to that, a doubt arises — Whether by the word lustre, a light such as the Sun is meant
किं वा पर आत्मा इति।
Or the Highest Brahman.
अर्थान्तरविषयस्यापि प्राणशब्दस्य तल्लिङ्गाद्ब्रह्मविषयत्वमुक्तम्।
It is said (by us before) that a word which ordinarily denotes another object, is, because of there being an indicatory mark of that (Brahman), supposed to denote Brahman,
इह तु तल्लिङ्गमेवास्ति नास्तीति विचार्यते।
But here (in the above Scriptural passage) as even such indicatory mark is not present, the matter deserves consideration.
What, then, is your suggestion?
आदित्यादिकमेव ज्योतिःशब्देन परिगृह्यत इति।
(The opponent says) — By the word Lustre, the Sun etc. is understood.
कुतः? प्रसिद्धेः। तमो ज्योतिरिति हीमौ शब्दौ परस्परप्रतिद्वन्द्विविषयौ प्रसिद्धौ।
Why so? Because it is well-known. Darkness and Light are terms which are antonyms of each other.
चक्षुर्वृत्तेर्निरोधकं शार्वरादिकं तम उच्यते।
Noctural darkness etc. is the obstructor of the function of the eye.
तस्या एवानुग्राहकमादित्यादिकं ज्योतिः। तथा ‘दीप्यते’ इतीयमपि श्रुतिरादित्यादिविषया प्रसिद्धा।
The verb ‘Shines’ occurring in the Scriptures is well-known to be in connection with the Sun etc.
न हि रूपादिहीनं ब्रह्म दीप्यत इति मुख्यां श्रुतिमर्हति।
The Scriptures cannot predicate of the formless Brahman, that it ‘shines’ in the principal sense of the verb ‘to shine’,
And the Scriptures also mention the heaven as the boundary, beyond which that (Lustre) is said to shine.
न हि चराचरबीजस्य ब्रह्मणः सर्वात्मकस्य द्यौर्मर्यादा युक्ता;
Brahman which is the Self of all, and the source of all moveable and immoveable things cannot be said to have a boundary such as the heaven.
कार्यस्य तु ज्योतिषः परिच्छिन्नस्य द्यौर्मर्यादा स्यात्।
But lustre which is a modification (as from a cause, and is circumscribed by a limit), can quite properly be said to have a boundary viz. the heaven.
‘परो दिवो ज्योतिः’ इति च ब्राह्मणम्।
“Lustre beyond the heaven” is the Scriptural Brāhmaṇa passage.
ननु कार्यस्यापि ज्योतिषः सर्वत्र गम्यमानत्वाद्द्युमर्यादावत्त्वमसमञ्जसम्।
But (says the Vedāntin) even when lustre is such a modification (Kārya), it would be wrong to say about it also, that it has a boundary such as the heaven, because it is experienced everywhere.
अस्तु तर्ह्यत्रिवृत्कृतं तेजः प्रथमजम्।
Then (says the opponent) let it be the untriformed (Atri-vṛtkṛta) lustre, which is born first (from Vāyu).
न, अत्रिवृत्कृतस्य तेजसः प्रयोजनाभावादिति।
No (retorts the Vedāntin), the untriformed lustre has no useful purpose (Prayojana).
इदमेव प्रयोजनं यदुपास्यत्वमिति चेत्, –
(To this the opponent retorts) — If it be said, that it is a thing which is the object of devout meditation is itself such a purpose,
No (replies the Vedāntin), because it is only things like the sun etc. which are employed for a different purpose, that are objects of devout meditation,
‘तासां त्रिवृतं त्रिवृतमेकैकां करवाणि’ (ChanU.6.3.3) इति चाविशेषश्रुतेः।
Because, there is the Scriptural passage: — “I will make each of these three, triform” (ChanU.6.3.3) which does not make any distinction (between any of these three).
न चात्रिवृत्कृतस्यापि तेजसो द्युमर्यादत्वं प्रसिद्धम्।
Besides it is not so well-known that the untriformed lustre also has the heaven as its boundary.
अस्तु तर्हि त्रिवृत्कृतमेव तत्तेजो ज्योतिःशब्दम्।
Oh well (says the opponent), then, let that triformed lustre itself be understood to be the lustre (referred to here).
ननूक्तमर्वागपि दिवोऽवगम्यतेऽग्न्यादिकं ज्योतिरिति;
But (says the Vedāntin) we have said that lustre in the form of fire etc. is observed to be below the heaven also.
नैष दोषः; सर्वत्रापि गम्यमानस्य ज्योतिषः ‘परो दिवः’ इत्युपासनार्थः प्रदेशविशेषपरिग्रहो न विरुध्यते।
(To which the opponent replies) No, this is no fault, because it is not contradictory to speak of lustre which is known to be everywhere, as being understood to have a particular locus such as ‘beyond the heaven’, for the purpose of devout meditation,
न तु निष्प्रदेशस्यापि ब्रह्मणः प्रदेशविशेषकल्पना भागिनी।
But it is not logical to think of Brahman which is uncircumscribed by any particular limit, as having any such special locus.
‘सर्वतः पृष्ठेष्वनुत्तमेषूत्तमेषु लोकेषु’ इति चाधारबहुत्वश्रुतिः कार्ये ज्योतिष्युपपद्यतेतराम्।
The Scriptural passages about the plurality of abodes (Ādhāra-bahutva-śruti) viz. “On the top of every thing in the best of all worlds than whom there is no better (i.e. in the Satya-Loka)” are more appropriate in the case of lustre which is a modification.
‘इदं वाव तद्यदिदमस्मिन्नन्तः पुरुषे ज्योतिः’ (ChanU.3.13.7) इति च कौक्षेये ज्योतिषि परं ज्योतिरध्यस्यमानं दृश्यते।
In the Scriptural passage “This verily is that (lustre) which is inside a Puruṣa” (ChanU.3.13.7), it is the supreme lustre (i.e. Brahman) that is seen to be superimposed on the gastric fire.
सारूप्यनिमित्ताश्चाध्यासा भवन्ति – यथा ‘तस्य भूरिति शिर एकं हि शिर एकमेतदक्षरम्’ (BrhU.5.5.3) इति।
Superimpositions are caused by similarity in form, as for instance: — “Of him, ‘Bhū’ is the caput, the head (in a body) is one, and this letter is also one”. (BrhUEng.5.5.3).
कौक्षेयस्य तु ज्योतिषः प्रसिद्धमब्रह्मत्वम्।
And it is patent, that gastric fire is not Brahman.
‘तस्यैषा दृष्टिः’ (ChanU.3.13.7) ‘तस्यैषा श्रुतिः’ इति चौष्ण्यघोषविशिष्टत्वस्य श्रवणात्।
And also in the Scriptural passages, “This is the means of seeing it actually”, “This is the means of hearing it” (ChanU.3.13.7), it is mentioned that it has the special attributes of heat and sound,
‘तदेतद्दृष्टं च श्रुतं चेत्युपासीत’ इति च श्रुतेः।
And one should meditate on this as that which is seen or heard.
‘चक्षुष्यः श्रुतो भवति य एवं वेद’ (ChanU.3.13.8) इति चाल्पफलश्रवणादब्रह्मत्वम्।
Also (the Scriptural passage) — “He who knows this in this manner, becomes handsome and well-known.” (ChanU.3.13.8) could not indicate Brahman, because of a minor fruit.
महते हि फलाय ब्रह्मोपासनमिष्यते।
Devout meditation on Brahman is intended for a great fruit only.
न चान्यदपि किञ्चित्स्ववाक्ये प्राणाकाशवज्ज्योतिषोऽस्ति ब्रह्मलिङ्गम्।
Besides in the sentence under consideration there is no other indicatory mark of Brahman, here, in the case of ‘Lustre’, as in the case of Prāṇa and Ākāśa.
न च पूर्वस्मिन्नपि वाक्ये ब्रह्म निर्दिष्टमस्ति, ‘गायत्री वा इदꣳ सर्वं भूतम्’ इति च्छन्दोनिर्देशात्।
Nor is Brahman indicated in the preceding sentence, because in that sentence, viz. “Gāyatrī is all this creation”, there is only a statement about the Gāyatrī metre,
अथापि कथञ्चित्पूर्वस्मिन्वाक्ये ब्रह्म निर्दिष्टं स्यात्, एवमपि न तस्येह प्रत्यभिज्ञानमस्ति।
And even if we suppose that Brahman is anyhow indicated in the preceding sentence, even then, there is nothing to make us aware that the same Brahman is indicated here.
तत्र हि ‘त्रिपादस्यामृतं दिवि’ (ChanU.3.12.1) (ChanU.3.12.6) इति द्यौरधिकरणत्वेन श्रूयते;
There, by the passage “Its three parts which are immortal are in heaven” (ChanU.3.12.1,6), the heaven is mentioned as the abode.
अत्र पुनः ‘परो दिवो ज्योतिः’ इति द्यौर्मर्यादात्वेन।
But here (in the present sentence) — “Lustre above the heaven” — heaven is mentioned as the boundary.
तस्मात्प्राकृतं ज्योतिरिह ग्राह्यमित्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः –
Therefore, it is only the Lustre which is an effect from a cause that should be understood to be referred to here.
ज्योतिरिह ब्रह्म ग्राह्यम्।
As regards this conclusion of the opponent, we reply — By the word ‘Lustre’ we should understand Brahman.
कुतः? चरणाभिधानात्, पादाभिधानादित्यर्थः।
How so? Because of the mention of the feet. The meaning is that the foot (of a metre) is mentioned.
पूर्वस्मिन्हि वाक्ये चतुष्पाद्ब्रह्म निर्दिष्टम् – ‘तावानस्य महिमा ततो ज्यायाꣳश्च पूरुषः। पादोऽस्य सर्वा भूतानि त्रिपादस्यामृतं दिवि’ (ChanU.3.12.6) इत्यनेन मन्त्रेण।
Just in the previous sentence quadrupedal Brahman is indicated by the following Mantra: — “Only that much is the greatness of this (i.e. the Gāyatrī metre of four parts), greater than it is the Puruṣa, one foot of his represents all these beings, and the remaining three immortal feet are in heaven” (ChanU.3.12.6).
तत्र यच्चतुष्पदो ब्रह्मणस्त्रिपादमृतं द्युसम्बन्धिरूपं निर्दिष्टम्, तदेवेह द्युसम्बन्धान्निर्दिष्टमिति प्रत्यभिज्ञायते।
We know that the same three immortal feet of the quadrupedal Brahman which are mentioned in connection with the heaven there, are here indicated, because of the connection with heaven.
तत्परित्यज्य प्राकृतं ज्योतिः कल्पयतः प्रकृतहानाप्रकृतप्रक्रिये प्रसज्येयाताम्।
If one were to reject that and accept the ordinary light, (the fault of) giving up that which is relevant and accepting that which is irrelevant, would occur.
न केवलं ज्योतिर्वाक्य एव ब्रह्मानुवृत्तिः; परस्यामपि शाण्डिल्यविद्यायामनुवर्तिष्यते ब्रह्म।
It is not that Brahman has again been repeated from the previous sentence only, in the passage referring to ‘Lustre’, but (it will be seen) that in the subsequent ‘Śāṇḍilya Vidyā’ also, the same Brahman will again be repeated.
तस्मादिह ज्येतिरिति ब्रह्म प्रतिपत्तव्यम्।
Therefore here, by ‘Lustre’ (Jyotis) we should understand Brahman.
यत्तूक्तम् – ‘ज्योतिर्दीप्यते’ इति चैतौ शब्दौ कार्ये ज्योतिषि प्रसिद्धाविति,
The objection, that the words ‘The Lustre shines’ are well-known to be used in the case of ‘Lustre’ the effect (from a cause),
नायं दोषः; प्रकरणाद्ब्रह्मावगमे सत्यनयोः शब्दयोरविशेषकत्वात्,
(We reply) — it is no fault, because, when from the chapter, Brahman is understood (to be indicated), the words ‘the Lustre shines’ have not the effect of indicating an ordinary light (an effect from a cause) to the exclusion of Brahman,
दीप्यमानकार्यज्योतिरुपलक्षिते ब्रह्मण्यपि प्रयोगसम्भवात्;
And it is possible to use the expression for Brahman, which is suggested by an effect (of Brahman, such as the Sun) having a shining Lustre.
‘येन सूर्यस्तपति तेजसेद्धः’ (तै. ब्रा. ३-१२-९-७) इति च मन्त्रवर्णात्।
And also because of the words of the Mantra — “That (Brahman), kindled by whose Tejas, the' Sun shines” (Tait. Brā. 18.104.22.168).
यद्वा, नायं ज्योतिःशब्दश्चक्षुर्वृत्तेरेवानुग्राहके तेजसि वर्तते, अन्यत्रापि प्रयोगदर्शनात् –
Or else it may also be, that the word ‘Lustre’ does not refer only to Lustre which helps the function of the eye, because, we find it used elsewhere also as follows: —
‘वाचैवायं ज्योतिषास्ते’ (BrhU.4.3.5)
“When the sun has set (i.e. in darkness), sound (Vāk) serves as light (for the Puruṣa)” (BrhUEng.4.3.5),
‘मनो ज्योतिर्जुषताम्’ (तै. ब्रा. १-६-३-३) इति च।
“The mind of the partaker of ghee is lustre (i.e. Jyotis).” (Tait. Brā. 1. 6.3.3).
Therefore, whatever is the cause which makes different things manifest (and not only the sense-organ ‘eye’) is said to be the ‘Lustre’.
तथा सति ब्रह्मणोऽपि चैतन्यरूपस्य समस्तजगदवभासहेतुत्वादुपपन्नो ज्योतिःशब्दः।
That being so, the word ‘Lustre’ is appropriate in the case of Brahman, which is of the nature of intelligence, because of its being the cause which makes the whole world manifest.
‘तमेव भान्तमनुभाति सर्वं तस्य भासा सर्वमिदं विभाति’ (KathU.2.2.15) (MunU.2.2.11)
And also because of the following Scriptural passages: — “After Him who continues to shine, all things shine, and it is by His effulgence that all this is illuminated” (KausU.2.5.15),
‘तद्देवा ज्योतिषां ज्योतिरायुर्होपासतेऽमृतम्’ (BrhU.4.4.16) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यश्च।
And “Him, the Gods meditate upon devoutly, as the lustre of all lustres, as life itself (Āyus), as the immortal” (BrhUEng.4.4.16).
यदप्युक्तं द्युमर्यादत्वं सर्वगतस्य ब्रह्मणो नोपपद्यत इति,
With regard to the objection, that it is not reasonably sustainable in the case of Brahman which is all-pervading, that it has a boundary such as the heaven,
अत्रोच्यते – सर्वगतस्यापि ब्रह्मण उपासनार्थः प्रदेशविशेषपरिग्रहो न विरुध्यते।
We reply — Even in the case of the all-pervading Brahman, it is not contradictory to speak about its having a particular ‘locus’ for the purpose of devout meditation.
ननूक्तं निष्प्रदेशस्य ब्रह्मणः प्रदेशविशेषकल्पना नोपपद्यत इति; नायं दोषः, निष्प्रदेशस्यापि ब्रह्मण उपाधिविशेषसम्बन्धात्प्रदेशविशेषकल्पनोपपत्तेः।
But (says the opponent) we have already said that it is not reasonably sustainable to imagine Brahman to be circumscribed when it is undelimited (i.e. is all-pervading), Because even though it is so undelimited, it is reasonably sustainable to say about it, so long as it continues to be affected by any particular adjunct, that it is circumscribed or limited.
तथा हि – आदित्ये, चक्षुषि, हृदये इति प्रदेशविशेषसम्बन्धीनि ब्रह्मणः उपासनानि श्रूयन्ते।
In this manner it is, that Scriptures mention devout meditations on Brahman in connection with such definite objects such as the Sun, the eyes, and the Hṛdaya.
एतेन ‘विश्वतः पृष्ठेषु’ इत्याधारबहुत्वमुपपादितम्।
On the strength of the above, the plurality of abodes, as in “On the top of everything”, has been explained.
यदप्येतदुक्तम् औष्ण्यघोषानुमिते कौक्षेये कार्ये ज्योतिष्यध्यस्यमानत्वात्परमपि दिवः कार्यज्योतिरेवेति, तदप्ययुक्तम्;
The further objection, that inasmuch as the notion of the highest lustre is superimposed (during devout meditation) on the gastric fire inferred from its warmth and sound, and which is an effect (Kārya), the lustre ‘beyond the heaven’ should also be understood to be an effect (Kārya) only, is not proper and reasonable.
परस्यापि ब्रह्मणो नामादिप्रतीकत्ववत्कौक्षेयज्योतिष्प्रतीकत्वोपपत्तेः।
Because, as in the case of the Nāman etc. (either names such as Viṣṇu, Hari etc. or some Tāntrika device) which are used as a symbol, that the gastric fire also can be a symbol of Brahman is reasonably sustainable.
‘दृष्टं च श्रुतं चेत्युपासीत’ इति तु प्रतीकद्वारकं दृष्टत्वं श्रुतत्वं च भविष्यति।
The seeing or hearing as mentioned in the Scriptural passage “It should be meditated upon as that which is the means of seeing it or hearing it” can well be so by way of being a symbol (of Brahman).
यदप्युक्तमल्पफलश्रवणात् न ब्रह्मेति, तदप्यनुपपन्नम्;
The objection, that because a minor fruit is mentioned by the Scriptures, the word ‘Lustre’ should not be understood to be Brahman, is similarly not reasonably sustainable,
न हि इयते फलाय ब्रह्माश्रयणीयम्, इयते न इति नियमे हेतुरस्ति।
As there is no raison d’etre for a rule that one should have recourse to Brahman for obtaining that much fruit only, and not for obtaining this much.
यत्र हि निरस्तसर्वविशेषसम्बन्धं परं ब्रह्मात्मत्वेनोपदिश्यते, तत्रैकरूपमेव फलं मोक्ष इत्यवगम्यते।
Where the Highest Brahman devoid of all connection with any particular attributes is taught to be the Self of all, we understand (in that case) that there is a uniform fruit only, viz. Final Release,
यत्र तु गुणविशेषसम्बन्धं प्रतीकविशेषसम्बन्धं वा ब्रह्मोपदिश्यते, तत्र संसारगोचराण्येवोच्चावचानि फलानि दृश्यन्ते –
But where Brahman, as connected with distinguishing attributes, or as connected with outward symbols, is taught, (In that case) higher or lower fruits as they are known in this transmigratory existence, are found to be mentioned,
‘अन्नादो वसुदानो विन्दते वसु य एवं वेद’ (BrhU.4.4.24) इत्याद्यासु श्रुतिषु।
As for instance in the following Scriptural passage — “He is the eater of all food’s and the giver of wealth; he who knows it to be so, obtains wealth” (BrhUEng.4.4.24).
यद्यपि न स्ववाक्ये किञ्चिज्ज्योतिषो ब्रह्मलिङ्गमस्ति, तथापि पूर्वस्मिन्वाक्ये दृश्यमानं ग्रहीतव्यं भवति।
Though in the present passage, there is no indicatory mark of Brahman in the case of the word ‘Lustre’, still, the indicatory mark which appears in the preceding sentence, should be accepted (for this Sūtra also).
तदुक्तं सूत्रकारेण – ज्योतिश्चरणाभिधानादिति।
The same is stated by the Sūtra-kāra in the present Sūtra “Jyotis (is Brahman) on account of the mention of the feet”.
कथं पुनर्वाक्यान्तरगतेन ब्रह्मसन्निधानेन ज्योतिःश्रुतिः स्वविषयात् शक्या प्रच्यावयितुम्?
As to the objection, as to how the fact of the proximity of Brahman in the former Scriptural sentence about Jyotis can cause the word ‘Jyotis’ mentioned in the Scriptural passage here to be diverted from its own proper subject,
नैष दोषः, ‘अथ यदतः परो दिवो ज्योतिः’ इति प्रथमतरपठितेन यच्छब्देन सर्वनाम्ना द्युसम्बन्धात्प्रत्यभिज्ञायमाने पूर्ववाक्यनिर्दिष्टे ब्रह्मणि स्वसामर्थ्येन परामृष्टे सत्यर्थाज्ज्योतिःशब्दस्यापि ब्रह्मविषयत्वोपपत्तेः।
We reply — It is no fault, because when once the pronoun ‘Yat’ which is mentioned earlier in the Scriptural passage “Yat ataḥ paro divo Jyotiḥ” has by its own power (of indicating what is near it) intimated Brahman which is known from its relation with heaven, and is indicated in the preceding Sūtra, then it is of course reasonably sustainable that the word ‘Lustre’ also indicates Brahman.
तस्मादिह ज्योतिरिति ब्रह्म प्रतिपत्तव्यम्॥२४॥
Therefore, by the word ‘Lustre’ here, we should understand Brahman. — 24.
←PrevNext→ छन्दोभिधानान्नेति चेन्न तथा चेतोर्पणनिगदात्तथाहि दर्शनम्॥१.१.२५॥ Chando'bhidhānān neti cen na tathā ceto'rpaṇa-nigadāt tathāhi darśanam.
Chandas: the metre known as Gāyatrī; Abhidhānāt: because of the description; Na: not; Iti: thus; Cet: if; Na: not; Tathā: thus, like that; Cetas-arpaṇa: application of the mind; Nigadāt: because of the teaching; Tathā hi: like that; Darśanam: it is seen (in other texts).
🔗 If it is said that (Brahman) is not indicated, because only the Gāyatrī metre is mentioned, (we reply) — no, because resigning of the mind is mentioned, and it is so seen from the Scriptures also. — 22.214.171.124.1.25 L.1
अथ यदुक्तं पूर्वस्मिन्नपि वाक्ये न ब्रह्माभिहितमस्ति, ‘गायत्री वा इदꣳ सर्वं भूतं यदिदं किञ्च’ (ChanU.3.12.1) इति गायत्र्याख्यस्य च्छन्दसोऽभिहितत्वादिति; तत्परिहर्तव्यम्।
Now what has been said, viz. that, as only the metre called Gāyatrī is mentioned (and not Brahman) in even the preceding Sūtra, in the Scriptural passage “Gāyatrī is all this creation, whatsoever all this is” (ChanU.3.12.1) has to be refuted.
कथं पुनश्छन्दोभिधानान्न ब्रह्माभिहितमिति शक्यते वक्तुम्? यावता ‘तावानस्य महिमा’ इत्येतस्यामृचि चतुष्पाद्ब्रह्म दर्शितम्।
(The Vedāntin says) — How can it be said, that because of the mention of only a metre, Brahman is not indicated, When, in that Scriptural Ṛk — “That much is its greatness etc.” — the quadrupedal Brahman is indicated?
It is not so (says the opponent).
‘गायत्री वा इदꣳ सर्वम्’ इति गायत्रीमुपक्रम्य,
When, having introduced Gāyatrī by the Scriptural passage — “Gāyatrī is all this” —
And having described the same Gāyatrī in its different distinctive features such as, the elements, the earth, the body, the heart, speech, and vital air,
‘सैषा चतुष्पदा षड्विधा गायत्री तदेतदृचाभ्यनूक्तं तावानस्य महिमा’ (ChanU.3.12.5) (ChanU.3.12.6) इति तस्यामेव व्याख्यातरूपायां गायत्र्यामुदाहृतो मन्त्रः
And having also quoted the Mantra — “This Gāyatrī is quadrupedal and six-formed (‘four-quartered six-fold Gāyatrī’ — Hume) and when, the Mantra that all this is, is made manifest by this Ṛk; that much is its greatness” (ChanU.3.12.5,6) — in connection with the same Gāyatrī which is explained in this form, is cited in illustration of it,
How can the same Mantra suddenly indicate the quadrupedal Brahman?
योऽपि तत्र ‘यद्वै तद्ब्रह्म’ (ChanU.3.12.7) इति ब्रह्मशब्दः, सोऽपि च्छन्दसः प्रकृतत्वाच्छन्दोविषय एव।
And again, when the word Brahman which in “Which verily is that Brahman” (ChanU.3.12.7) is also used in connection with the same ‘metre’, inasmuch as it is the same metre which is relevant (to this context),
‘य एतामेवं ब्रह्मोपनिषदं वेद’ (ChanU.3.11.3) इत्यत्र हि वेदोपनिषदमिति व्याचक्षते।
And when in the Scriptural passage “Who knows this (Gāyatrī) as ‘Brahma-Upaniṣad’ in this manner” (ChanU.3.11.3) also, it is construed as ‘Veda-Upaniṣad’, how can it indicate the quadrupedal Brahman?
तस्माच्छन्दोभिधानान्न ब्रह्मणः प्रकृतत्वमिति चेत्,
Therefore, if it be said (by the opponent), that as only a ‘metre’ is mentioned, Brahman is not relevant (i.e. is not the subject dealt with) here,
नैष दोषः। तथा चेतोर्पणनिगदात् – तथा गायत्र्याख्यच्छन्दोद्वारेण, तदनुगते ब्रह्मणि चेतसोऽर्पणं चित्तसमाधानम् अनेन ब्राह्मणवाक्येन निगद्यते – ‘गायत्री वा इदꣳ सर्वम्’ इति।
We reply — This is no fault, because it is in that manner that by the Scriptural Brāhmaṇa passage “Gāyatrī verily is all this” the resigning of the mind (in Brahman) is mentioned, by means of the fixing of the mind in abstract contemplation i.e. by resigning of the mind in Brahman, which is connected with this metre known as the Gāyatrī.
न ह्यक्षरसन्निवेशमात्राया गायत्र्याः सर्वात्मकत्वं सम्भवति।
It is not possible, that Gāyatrī which is merely a particular metrical arrangement of letters can be the Self of all.
तस्माद्यद्गायत्र्याख्यविकारेऽनुगतं जगत्कारणं ब्रह्म निर्दिष्टम्, तदिह सर्वमित्युच्यते, यथा ‘सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म’ (ChanU.3.14.1) इति।
Therefore (we say) that Brahman, the cause of this transitory world, which is inherent in its effect known as Gāyatrī, is what is here described as ‘all’, as for instance in the Scriptural passage — “All this, verily, is Brahman” (ChanU.3.14.1).
कार्यं च कारणादव्यतिरिक्तमिति वक्ष्यामः – ‘तदनन्यत्वमारम्भणशब्दादिभ्यः’ (BrS.2.1.14) इत्यत्र।
We shall speak hereafter by the Sūtra “Tad ananyatvam ārambhana-śabdādibhyaḥ” (BrS.2.1.14), that an effect is not different from the cause.
तथान्यत्रापि विकारद्वारेण ब्रह्मण उपासनं दृश्यते –
In other places too we observe devout meditation on Brahman, in an indirect way through an effect or modification, thus —
‘एतं ह्येव बह्वृचा महत्युक्थे मीमांसन्त एतमग्नावध्वर्यव एवं महाव्रते च्छन्दोगाः’ (ऐ. आ. ३-२-३-१२) इति।
“The followers of Ṛg-Veda interpret it (Brahman) in the great Uktha, the followers of Yajur-Veda, in the sacrificial fire, and the followers of Sāman-Veda, in ‘Mahā-vrata’” (Ait. Brā. 126.96.36.199).
तस्मादस्ति च्छन्दोभिधानेऽपि पूर्वस्मिन्वाक्ये चतुष्पाद्ब्रह्म निर्दिष्टम्।
Therefore also, even though in the preceding sentence, a metre is mentioned, it is the quadrupedal Brahman that is indicated,
तदेव ज्योतिर्वाक्येऽपि परामृश्यत उपासनान्तरविधानाय।
And the same is again referred to in the sentence containing the word ‘Jyotis’, with a view to enjoin another (sort of) devout meditation.
अपर आह – साक्षादेव गायत्रीशब्देन ब्रह्म प्रतिपाद्यते, संख्यासामान्यात्।
Others (the Vṛtti-kāras etc.) maintain that by the word Gāyatrī, Brahman itself is directly indicated (and not indirectly) because of numerical equality.
यथा गायत्री चतुष्पदा षडक्षरैः पादैः, तथा ब्रह्म चतुष्पात्।
Just as Gāyatrī (the metre), has four feet (Caraṇas) consisting of six words in every foot, so Brahman also is quadrupedal.
तथान्यत्रापि च्छन्दोभिधायी शब्दोऽर्थान्तरे संख्यासामान्यात्प्रयुज्यमानो दृश्यते।
Similarly elsewhere also, a word signifying a metre is used to indicate another meaning, because of numerical equality.
तद्यथा – ‘ते वा एते पञ्चान्ये पञ्चान्ये दश सन्तस्तत्कृतम्’ इत्युपक्रम्याह ‘सैषा विराडन्नादी’ इति।
As for instance, beginning with “These five of one sort (viz. Vāyu, fire, sun, moon and water, in the Ādhidaivika sense) and those other five of the other sort (viz. Vital air, speech, eyes, ear and mind in the Ādhyātmika sense), being ten in all, make the ‘Kṛta’”, it is further mentioned thus: — “So is this Virāṭ which is the eater of all things” (ChanU.4.3.8).
अस्मिन्पक्षे ब्रह्मैवाभिहितमिति न च्छन्दोभिधानम्।
According to the adherents of this view (Pakṣa), by the word Gāyatrī, Brahman is directly indicated and not only a metre.
सर्वथाप्यस्ति पूर्वस्मिन्वाक्ये प्रकृतं ब्रह्म इति॥२५॥
Be that as it may, we consider that in every way in the preceding sentence Brahman is the relevant thing. — 25.
Bhūta-ādi: the elements etc. i.e. the elements, the earth, the body and the heart; Pāda: (of) foot, part; Vyapadeśa: (of) mention (of) declaration or expression; Upapatteḥ: because of the possibility or proof, reasonableness, as it is rightly deduced from the above reasons; Ca: also; Evam: thus, so.
🔗 (We must understand it) like this, as only in that way, the mention of the beings etc. as constituting the foot (of Brahman), can be reasonably sustainable. — 188.8.131.52.1.26 L.1
इतश्चैवमभ्युपगन्तव्यमस्ति पूर्वस्मिन्वाक्ये प्रकृतं ब्रह्मेति;
Hence it is, that it has to be understood in this manner, viz. that in the previous sentence Brahman is the relevant thing,
यतो भूतादीन्पादान्व्यपदिशति श्रुतिः।
As the Scriptures mention beings etc. as constituting the foot (of Brahman).
भूतपृथिवीशरीरहृदयानि हि निर्दिश्याह – ‘सैषा चतुष्पदा षड्विधा गायत्री’ (ChanU.4.3.8) इति।
Having indicated the beings, the Earth, the body and the Hṛdaya, the Scriptures say — “This Gāyatrī is quadrupedal and six-form” (ChanU.4.3.8).
न हि ब्रह्मानाश्रयणे केवलस्य च्छन्दसो भूतादयः पादा उपपद्यन्ते।
If it (i.e. the Gāyatrī metre) is not accepted to be Brahman, (the mention) that a mere metre has beings etc. as constituting its foot, would not be reasonably sustainable.
अपि च ब्रह्मानाश्रयणे नेयमृक् सम्बध्येत – ‘तावानस्य महिमा’ इति।
Besides, again, if we do not accept it (i.e. the metre) to be Brahman, the Ṛk “That much is its greatness” cannot be properly connected (with the preceding Ṛk).
अनया हि ऋचा स्वरसेन ब्रह्मैवाभिधीयते, ‘पादोऽस्य सर्वा भूतानि त्रिपादस्यामृतं दिवि’ (ChanU.3.12.5) इति सर्वात्मत्वोपपत्तेः।
It is by this very Ṛk that Brahman alone is indicated, and it is by the Scriptural passage “All beings are its foot and its three immortal feet are in heaven” that “That Brahman is the Self of all” (ChanU.3.12.5) becomes reasonably sustainable.
पुरुषसूक्तेऽपीयमृक् ब्रह्मपरतयैव समाम्नायते।
Even in the ‘Puruṣa-Sūkta’, this Ṛk is mentioned as meaning Brahman.
स्मृतिश्च ब्रह्मण एवंरूपतां दर्शयति – ‘विष्टभ्याहमिदं कृत्स्नमेकांशेन स्थितो जगत्’ (BhG.10.42) इति।
Smṛti also similarly indicates Brahman to be of such nature, thus — “I stand supporting all this world by one portion of myself” (BhG.10.42).
‘यद्वै तद्ब्रह्म’ (ChanU.3.12.7) इति च निर्देश एवं सति मुख्यार्थ उपपद्यते।
The indication (by the Scriptural passage) “That which verily is Brahman” (ChanU.3.12.7) can be said to be reasonably sustainable in its principal meaning, only if it is so.
‘ते वा एते पञ्च ब्रह्मपुरुषाः’ (ChanU.3.13.6) इति च हृदयसुषिषु ब्रह्मपुरुषश्रुतिर्ब्रह्मसम्बन्धितायां विवक्षितायां सम्भवति।
The Scriptural passage — “The five Brahma-Puruṣas (the door-keepers of the Brahma-Loka)” (ChanU.3.13.6) — which speaks of Brahma-Puruṣas in connection with the five vents of the Hṛdaya (i.e. doors through which to attain Brahman) can only be possible, provided what is intended to be said, has a connection with Brahman.
तस्मादस्ति पूर्वस्मिन्वाक्ये ब्रह्म प्रकृतम्।
Therefore, it is Brahman that is relevant in the preceding sentence.
तदेव ब्रह्म ज्योतिर्वाक्ये द्युसम्बन्धात्प्रत्यभिज्ञायमानं परामृश्यत इति स्थितम्॥२६॥
The conclusion, that the same Brahman is recognizable in, and is referred to, in the sentence containing the word ‘Jyotis’, by reason of a connection with the heavenly world, thus stands (established). – 26.
Upadeśa: of teaching of grammatical construction or cases; Bhedāt: because of the difference; Na: not; Iti cet: if it be said; Na: no; Ubhayasmin: in both, (whether in the ablative case or in the locative case); Api: even; A-virodhāt: because there is no contradiction.
🔗 If it be objected that (Brahman of the preceding sentence) cannot be understood (as Brahman, in the following sentence) because of the difference in the instruction, (we say) No, because as between them both there is no contradiction. — 184.108.40.206.1.27 L.1
यदप्येतदुक्तम् – पूर्वत्र ‘त्रिपादस्यामृतं दिवि’ इति सप्तम्या द्यौः आधारत्वेनोपदिष्टा;
What also has been said — viz. that as, in the Scriptural passage “Its three immortal feet are in heaven” the locative case (Divi) is used to indicate that heaven is referred to as the support,
इह पुनः ‘अथ यदतः परो दिवः’ इति पञ्चम्या मर्यादात्वेन;
And again (in the subsequent passage) “That which is beyond the heaven” the ablative case (Divaḥ) is used to indicate heaven as a boundary,
तस्मादुपदेशभेदान्न तस्येह प्रत्यभिज्ञानमस्तीति – तत्परिहर्तव्यम्।
Therefore, inasmuch as there is difference in the instruction, there is no recognition of that Brahman here (i.e. in the present sentence) — has to be refuted.
अत्रोच्यते – नायं दोषः, उभयस्मिन्नप्यविरोधात्।
With regard to this we say — This is no fault, because as between them both there is no contradiction (in using the locative and the ablative case for indicating Brahman).
उभयस्मिन्नपि सप्तम्यन्ते पञ्चम्यन्ते चोपदेशे न प्रत्यभिज्ञानं विरुध्यते।
In both the instructions in which the locative and the ablative case is used, there is no contradiction as to what is understood by both the sentences.
यथा लोके वृक्षाग्रेण सम्बद्धोऽपि श्येन उभयथोपदिश्यमानो दृश्यते –
Just as in ordinary life, a falcon which has a connection with the top of a tree, is seen to be described either way,
वृक्षाग्रे श्येनो वृक्षाग्रात्परतः श्येन इति च,
As for instance thus — in the top of a tree or beyond the top of a tree, —
एवं दिव्येव सद्ब्रह्म दिवः परमित्युपदिश्यते।
Similarly, Brahman, even though it is in heaven, is described as being beyond the heaven.
अपर आह – यथा लोके वृक्षाग्रेणासम्बद्धोऽपि श्येन उभयथोपदिश्यमानो दृश्यते – वृक्षाग्रे श्येनो वृक्षाग्रात्परतः श्येन इति च,
Another commentator says — Just as in ordinary life a falcon which really has no connection with the top of a tree, is seen to be described either way, as for instance, a falcon on the top of a tree or beyond the top of a tree,
एवं दिवः परमपि सद्ब्रह्म दिवीत्युपदिश्यते।
Similarly even Brahman which is beyond the heaven, is referred to as being in the heaven.
तस्मादस्ति पूर्वनिर्दिष्टस्य ब्रह्मण इह प्रत्यभिज्ञानम्।
Therefore there is recognition of Brahman, as indicated in the former sentence, in the latter sentence also.
अतः परमेव ब्रह्म ज्योतिःशब्दमिति सिद्धम्॥२७॥
Therefore it is established, that the transcendent Brahman alone is to be understood by the word ‘Jyotis’. — 27.
Prāṇaḥ: the breath or life-energy; Tathā: thus, so, likewise like that stated before; like that stated in the Śruti quoted before in connection therewith; Anugamāt: because of being understood (from the texts).
🔗Prāṇa (the chief vital air) is Brahman, because it is so comprehended. — 220.127.116.11.1.28 L.1
अस्ति कौषीतकिब्राह्मणोपनिषदीन्द्रप्रतर्दनाख्यायिका – ‘प्रतर्दनो ह वै दैवोदासिरिन्द्रस्य प्रियं धामोपजगाम युद्धेन च पौरुषेण च’ (कौ. उ. ३-१) इत्यारभ्याम्नाता।
In the Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa Upaniṣad there is mention of the following Indra-Pratardana legend, which begins thus — “Pratardana the grandson of Divo-dāsa, once upon a time reached the abode of Indra by means of battle and his prowess or manliness”.
तस्यां श्रूयते – ‘स होवाच प्राणोऽस्मि प्रज्ञात्मा तं मामायुरमृतमित्युपास्स्व’ (कौ. उ. ३-२) इति।
In that legend, it is mentioned thus — (Indra said) “I am the Prāṇa, the Intelligential Self, and you should meditate on me, who am such, as life and immortality”.
तथोत्तरत्रापि – ‘अथ खलु प्राण एव प्रज्ञात्मेदं शरीरं परिगृह्योत्थापयति’ (कौ. उ. ३-३) इति।
And later on — “It is the Prāṇa, which verily is the Intelligential Self, which seizes hold of this body and animates it”. (KausU.3.3).
तथा ‘न वाचं विजिज्ञासीत वक्तारं विद्यात्’ इति।
Similarly also (it mentions) — “Do not care to know ‘speech’ (Vāk) but try to know the speaker etc.”.
अन्ते च ‘स एष प्राण एव प्रज्ञात्मानन्दोऽजरोऽमृतः’ (कौ. उ. ३-९) इत्यादि।
And in the end — “This Prāṇa itself indeed is the Intelligential Self, bliss, and (is) ageless (i.e. unaging) and immortal etc.” (KausU.3.8).
तत्र संशयः – किमिह प्राणशब्देन वायुमात्रमभिधीयते, उत देवतात्मा, उत जीवः, अथवा परं ब्रह्मेति।
In this connection a doubt arises as follows — Whether here, the word Prāṇa merely denotes Vāyu (air) or the ‘Self’ of a deity, or the Jīva-Self, or the Highest Brahman.
ननु ‘अत एव प्राणः’ इत्यत्र वर्णितं प्राणशब्दस्य ब्रह्मपरत्वम्;
(Here the opponent says) — that the word Prāṇa indicates Brahman, is described already in the Sūtra “For the same reason Prāṇa is Brahman” (BrS.1.1.23).
इहापि च ब्रह्मलिङ्गमस्ति – ‘आनन्दोऽजरोऽमृतः’ इत्यादि;
Here also there is an indicatory mark of Brahman viz. “Bliss, ageless (i.e. unaging) and immortal etc.”.
कथमिह पुनः संशयः सम्भवति?
Whence then, could any doubt be possible? –
(To this) we reply — (a doubt arises) because there are more than one indicatory marks.
न केवलमिह ब्रह्मलिङ्गमेवोपलभ्यते।
Not only is there an indicatory mark of Brahman, but there are other indicatory marks also.
सन्ति हीतरलिङ्गान्यपि – ‘मामेव विजानीहि’ (कौ. उ. ३-१) इतीन्द्रस्य वचनं देवतात्मलिङ्गम्। ‘इदं शरीरं परिगृह्योत्थापयति’ इति प्राणलिङ्गम्। ‘न वाचं विजिज्ञासीत वक्तारं विद्यात्’ इत्यादि जीवलिङ्गम्। अत उपपन्नः संशयः।
(For instance,) Indra’s words — “You should know me only” (KausU.3.1), are the indicatory mark of the Self of a deity; “Which seizes hold of this body and animates it i.e. rouses it to action” is an indicatory mark of the Chief Vital Air; “Do not care to know speech, but try to know the speaker” is the indicatory mark of the Jīva-Self, and so, a doubt validly arises.
तत्र प्रसिद्धेर्वायुः प्राण इति प्राप्ते इदमुच्यते –
(With regard to this, the conclusion of the opponent being) because it is so well-known, (only) Vāyu (air) is the Prāṇa,
प्राणशब्दं ब्रह्म विज्ञेयम्।
(We reply) — By the word Prāṇa, we should know, that Brahman is meant.
कुतः? तथानुगमात्। तथाहि पौर्वापर्येण पर्यालोच्यमाने वाक्ये पदानां समन्वयो ब्रह्मप्रतिपादनपर उपलभ्यते।
How so? Because that is how we have to understand it, because, if we consider the sentence (i.e. as a whole from the beginning to the end), and the natural construction of the words and their meaning, it appears that it is intended to propound Brahman.
उपक्रमे तावत् ‘वरं वृणीष्व’ इतीन्द्रेणोक्तः प्रतर्दनः परमं पुरुषार्थं वरमुपचिक्षेप –
So far as the beginning is concerned, when Pratardana is spoken to, by Indra, thus — “Choose a boon” — Pratardana chooses as the boon the highest aim of man, thus —
‘त्वमेव मे वृणीष्व यं त्वं मनुष्याय हिततमं मन्यसे’ इति।
“(Oh Indra,) do please choose for me that boon which you consider as most beneficial to man.”
तस्मै हिततमत्वेनोपदिश्यमानः प्राणः कथं परमात्मा न स्यात्।
Then, how can Prāṇa, about which instruction is here given to Pratardana as being the most beneficial, not be the Highest Brahman?
न ह्यन्यत्र परमात्मविज्ञानाद्धिततमप्राप्तिरस्ति,
There is nothing, except the knowledge of the Highest Brahman, whose acquisition is the most beneficial,
‘तमेव विदित्वाति मृत्युमेति नान्यः पन्था विद्यतेऽयनाय’ (SvetU.3.8) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः।
Because the Scriptural passage says — “It is by knowing Brahman that a man conquers Death, there is no other path for going (out of the transmigratory existence)” (SvetU.3.8).
तथा ‘स यो मां वेद न ह वै तस्य केनचन कर्मणा लोको मीयते न स्तेयेन न भ्रूणहत्यया’ (कौ. उ. ३.१) इत्यादि च ब्रह्मपरिग्रहे घटते।
Similarly the Scriptural passage — “The person who knows me is not by any act of his deprived of his fruit (Loka i.e. Mokṣa), even though he commits a theft or causes the death of a man learned in Vedas” (KausU.3.1) — fits in, only if we understand Prāṇa to be Brahman.
ब्रह्मविज्ञानेन हि सर्वकर्मक्षयः प्रसिद्धः –
It is well-known that through the knowledge of Brahman, all ‘Karma’ is worked out or exhausted,
‘क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि तस्मिन्दृष्टे परावरे’ इत्याद्यासु श्रुतिषु।
For the Scriptural passage says — “When that Parāvara (one that is both the higher and the lower) is realized, all the Karma of a man is exhausted”. (MunU.2.2.8).
प्रज्ञात्मत्वं च ब्रह्मपक्ष एवोपपद्यते।
That Prāṇa is the Intelligential Self would be reasonably possible, only if it is accepted that Prāṇa indicates Brahman.
न ह्यचेतनस्य वायोः प्रज्ञात्मत्वं सम्भवति।
It is not possible that the non-sentient ‘Vāyu’ could be the sentient Self.
तथोपसंहारेऽपि ‘आनन्दोऽजरोऽमृतः’ इत्यानन्दत्वादीनि न ब्रह्मणोऽन्यत्र सम्यक् सम्भवन्ति।
Similarly in the peroration also, blissfulness etc. referred to in “Bliss, ageless (unaging) and immortal” could not be reasonably sustainable, unless by these words we understand Brahman.
‘स न साधुना कर्मणा भूयान्भवति नो एवासाधुना कर्मणा कनीयानेष ह्येव साधु कर्म कारयति तं यमेभ्यो लोकेभ्य उन्निनीषते। एष उ एवासाधु कर्म कारयति तं यमेभ्यो लोकेभ्योऽधो निनीषते’ इति, ‘एष लोकाधिपतिरेष लोकपाल एष लोकेशः’ (कौ. उ. ३-९) इति च।
(Also the Scriptural passage) — “He does not add to his stature by good deeds, nor does he become any the less in stature by bad action; for he makes those, whom he desires to uplift from these regions, do good deeds, And makes those, whom he desires to lead towards the abyss, do bad deeds” etc. And “He is the head of this world, and the ruler of it” (KausU.3.8).
सर्वमेतत्परस्मिन्ब्रह्मण्याश्रीयमाणेऽनुगन्तुं शक्यते, न मुख्ये प्राणे।
It is possible to understand all this in this manner, only if we understand that by Prāṇa, the Highest Brahman is meant, and not the ‘Chief Vital Air’.
Therefore Prāṇa means Brahman. — 28.
←PrevNext→ न वक्तुरात्मोपदेशादिति चेदध्यात्मसम्बन्धभूमा ह्यस्मिन्॥१.१.२९॥ Na vaktur ātmopadeśād iti ced adhyātma-sambandha-bhūmā hy asmin.
Na: not; Vaktuḥ: of the speaker (Indra); Ātmā: of the Self; Upadeśāt: on account of instruction; Iti: thus; Cet: if; Adhyātma-sambandha-bhūmā: abundance of reference to the Inner Self; Hi: because; Asmin: in this (chapter or Upaniṣad).
🔗 If it be said that (Brahman) is not (indicated), because the speaker instructs about his own-self, (we reply) — no, because there is here (in this Adhyāya) a profusion of Adhyātma relation (i.e. the relation of the Jīva-Self with the Highest Self). — 18.104.22.168.1.29 L.1
यदुक्तं प्राणो ब्रह्मेति, तदाक्षिप्यते –
Objection is here raised to the statement (of the Vedāntin) that Prāṇa is Brahman, thus —
न परं ब्रह्म प्राणशब्दम्;
Highest Brahman is not expressed by the word Prāṇa.
Why? Because the speaker gives instruction about his own-self.
वक्ता हीन्द्रो नाम कश्चिद्विग्रहवान्देवताविशेषः स्वमात्मानं प्रतर्दनायाचचक्षे – ‘मामेव विजानीहि’ इत्युपक्रम्य ‘प्राणोऽस्मि प्रज्ञात्मा’ इत्यहंकारवादेन।
The speaker, by name Indra, who is a particular deity endowed with a body, Speaks about his own-self to Pratardana, thus — He (Indra) begins by saying “Know me only” and then says in an egotistic manner (Ahaṅ-kāra-vādena), “I am Prāṇa the Intelligential Self”.
स एष वक्तुरात्मत्वेनोपदिश्यमानः प्राणः कथं ब्रह्म स्यात्?
How then, can this Prāṇa, about which instruction is given (by Indra) about its being the self of the speaker, be Brahman?
न हि ब्रह्मणो वक्तृत्वं सम्भवति, ‘अवागमनाः’ (BrhU.3.8.8) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः।
It is not possible that Brahman can express itself in speech, because the Scriptures mention that Brahman is “Sans-speech, sans-mind” (BrhUEng.3.8.8).
तथा विग्रहसम्बन्धिभिरेव ब्रह्मण्यसम्भवद्भिर्धर्मैरिन्द्र आत्मानं तुष्टाव –
Similarly Indra praises himself as possessing attributes associated only with a body, which could not be possible in the case of Brahman, thus —
‘त्रिशीर्षाणं त्वाष्ट्रमहनमरुन्मुखान्यतीञ्शालावृकेभ्यः प्रायच्छम्’ इत्येवमादिभिः।
“I killed the three-headed Tvāṣṭrā, threw the Yatis who could not recite the Vedas properly (Arunmukhān), to the wolves” etc.
प्राणत्वं चेन्द्रस्य बलवत्त्वादुपपद्यते;
That Indra can be Prāṇa, is reasonably possible, because of his might,
‘प्राणो वै बलम्’ इति हि विज्ञायते।
Because it is known that “Prāṇa verily is might”.
बलस्य चेन्द्रो देवता प्रसिद्धा। ‘या च काचिद्बलकृतिः, इन्द्रकर्मैव तत्’ इति हि वदन्ति।
It is a well-known that Indra is the deity possessing might, and any deed requiring might is known as the work of Indra.
And because the self of a deity possesses unobstructed knowledge, it can be described as being the Intelligential Self.
अप्रतिहतज्ञाना देवता इति हि वदन्ति।
It is said that deities possess unobstructed knowledge.
निश्चिते चैवं देवतात्मोपदेशे हिततमत्वादिवचनानि यथासम्भवं तद्विषयाण्येव योजयितव्यानि।
When, therefore, it is determined that the instruction is about the self of a deity, words referring to ‘being most beneficial’ (Hitātmatva) should so far as possible be construed as referring to that deity.
तस्माद्वक्तुरिन्द्रस्यात्मोपदेशात् न प्राणो ब्रह्मेत्याक्षिप्य प्रतिसमाधीयते –
Having in this manner raised the objection that, as the instruction is, that as the speaker Indra is referring to his own-self as Prāṇa, it cannot be Brahman, it is refuted as follows —
‘अध्यात्मसम्बन्धभूमा ह्यस्मिन्’ इति। अध्यात्मसम्बन्धः प्रत्यगात्मसम्बन्धः, तस्य भूमा बाहुल्यम्, अस्मिन्नध्याये उपलभ्यते।
That there is a profusion of ‘Adhyātma’ relation (i.e. the relation between the Jīva-Self and the Highest Self), i.e. a profusion of a relation to the Universal Self, in this.
‘यावद्ध्यस्मिञ्शरीरे प्राणो वसति तावदायुः’ इति प्राणस्यैव प्रज्ञात्मनः प्रत्यग्भूतस्यायुष्प्रदानोपसंहारयोः स्वातन्त्र्यं दर्शयति,
The Scriptural passage — “As long as Prāṇa resides in the body, so long there is life” — shows that only Prāṇa which is the Intelligential and the Universal Self, has the freedom (Svātantrya) of conferring and taking away life,
न देवताविशेषस्य पराचीनस्य।
And not any particular Deity which has come into existence later on.
तथास्तित्वे च प्राणानां निःश्रेयसमित्यध्यात्ममेवेन्द्रियाश्रयं प्राणं दर्शयति।
Similarly the Scriptural passage “There is however a superior excellence among the vital breaths” (KausU.3.2) indicates the Prāṇa (i.e. the Chief Prāṇa) as the highest good of the sense-organs which abide in it.
तथा ‘प्राण एव प्रज्ञात्मेदं शरीरं परिगृह्योत्थापयति’ (कौ. उ. ३.३) इति। ‘न वाचं विजिज्ञासीत वक्तारं विद्यात्’ इति चोपक्रम्य
Similarly beginning with the Scriptural passages — “Prāṇa alone, which is the Intelligential Self, seizes hold of the body and animates it i.e. rouses it to action” (KausU.3.3), And “Do not care to know speech, but desire to know the speaker” —,
‘तद्यथा रथस्यारेषु नेमिरर्पिता नाभावरा अर्पिता एवमेवैता भूतमात्राः प्रज्ञामात्रास्वर्पिताः प्रज्ञामात्राः प्राणेऽर्पिताः स एष प्राण एव प्रज्ञात्मानन्दोऽजरोऽमृतः’ इति
The Scriptural passage — “Just as the tyre of a chariot is set on the spokes and the spokes are set in the nave, even so, entities like Earth, water etc. and their attributes viz. smell etc. (i.e. Bhūta-mātras) are set in sense-organs like the ear etc. and their sensations (i.e. Prajñā-mātrās) are set in the Prāṇa And this Prāṇa is the Intelligential Self, bliss, ageless and immortal” — in the end,
Concludes, that “the Prāṇa is the Universal Self which is unconquered by the interaction of the sense-organs,”
‘स म आत्मेति विद्यात्’ इति चोपसंहारः प्रत्यगात्मपरिग्रहे साधुः, न पराचीनपरिग्रहे।
And the final conclusion — “Know him to be my-self” — would be sound, only if (by Prāṇa) the Universal Self is accepted, and not any other entity which has come into existence later on.
‘अयमात्मा ब्रह्म सर्वानुभूः’ (BrhU.2.5.19) इति च श्रुत्यन्तरम्।
Another Scriptural passage is — “This Self is Brahman, the all-perceiving” (BrhUEng.2.5.19).
तस्मादध्यात्मसम्बन्धबाहुल्याद्ब्रह्मोपदेश एवायम्, न देवतात्मोपदेशः॥२९॥
Therefore it is because there is this profusion of Adhyātma relation (i.e. the relation of the Jīva-Self with the Highest Self), that the instruction is only about Brahman and not about the Self of a deity. — 29.
Śāstra-dṛṣṭyā: through insight based on scripture or as attested by Śruti; Tu: but; Upadeśaḥ: instruction; Vāma-devavat: like that of Vāma-deva.
🔗 The Instruction (by Indra to Pratardana) is in conformity with the realization of the truth of the Śāstra (by Indra), as was in the case of Vāma-deva. — 22.214.171.124.1.30 L.2
इन्द्रो नाम देवतात्मा स्वमात्मानं परमात्मत्वेन ‘अहमेव परं ब्रह्म’ इत्यार्षेण दर्शनेन यथाशास्त्रं पश्यन् उपदिशति स्म – ‘मामेव विजानीहि’ इति;
The deity Indra, realizing with the intuition of a Sage, that according to the Śāstra his own self was the Highest Self i.e. that he himself was the Highest Brahman, gave instruction (to Pratardana) thus — “Know me only”,
यथा ‘तद्धैतत्पश्यन्नृषिर्वामदेवः प्रतिपेदेऽहं मनुरभवꣳ सूर्यश्च’ इति, तद्वत्; ‘तद्यो यो देवानां प्रत्यबुध्यत स एव तदभवत्’ (BrhU.1.4.10) इति श्रुतेः।
Just as the Sage Vāma-deva, realizing this Brahman, understood (i.e. arrived at the knowledge), “I was Manu and the Sun” And “Whosoever amongst the Gods became enlightened, he indeed became that” (BrhUEng.1.4.10).
यत्पुनरुक्तम् – ‘मामेव विजानीहि’ इत्युक्त्वा, विग्रहधर्मैरिन्द्रः आत्मानं तुष्टाव त्वाष्ट्रवधादिभिरिति, तत्परिहर्तव्यम्;
The objection (of the opponent), that Indra has praised his own self, by mentioning his killing of Tvāṣṭrā with the help of the attributes of his body, and in saying “Know me only” — has now to be refuted.
अत्रोच्यते – न तावत् त्वाष्ट्रवधादीनां विज्ञेयेन्द्रस्तुत्यर्थत्वेनोपन्यासः – ‘यस्मादेवंकर्माहम्, तस्मान्मां विजानीहि’ इति;
To that we say — The killing of Tvāṣṭrā etc. is not mentioned by Indra, with a view to praise himself as his being the one to be known, by saying “Because this is my handiwork, therefore you should know me.”
How then (are the killing of Tvāṣṭrā etc. mentioned)?
We reply — Indra has said so, with a view to praise knowledge,
यत्कारणं त्वाष्ट्रवधादीनि साहसान्युपन्यस्य परेण विज्ञानस्तुतिमनुसन्दधाति – ‘तस्य मे तत्र लोम च न मीयते स यो मां वेद न ह वै तस्य केन च कर्मणा लोको मीयते’ इत्यादिना।
And it is because of this reason, that having mentioned such heroic deeds as the killing of Tvāṣṭrā etc., he subsequently continues the praise of the knowledge (of the Highest Self), In this manner — “Who knows me thus, also would not lose the fruit of Final Release.”
एतदुक्तं भवति –
What this (sentence) means is this —
यस्मादीदृशान्यपि क्रूराणि कर्माणि कृतवतो मम ब्रह्मभूतस्य लोमापि न हिंस्यते, स योऽन्योऽपि मां वेद, न तस्य केनचिदपि कर्मणा लोको हिंस्यत इति।
Not a hair of mine, who am one with Brahman, is injured, even though I have perpetrated cruel deeds like these, Nor will any other person who knows me (as Brahman), will by any action of his, be deprived of the fruit of Final Release.
विज्ञेयं तु ब्रह्मैव ‘प्राणोऽस्मि प्रज्ञात्मा’ इति वक्ष्यमाणम्।
That which is to be known, is, of course, Brahman, which is described subsequently (by the next sentence) thus — “I am Prāṇa, the Intelligential Self”.
Therefore, this sentence refers to Brahman. — 30.
Jīva-mukhya-prāṇa-liṅgāt: on account of the characteristic marks of the individual soul and the chief vital air; Na: not; Iti: thus; Cet: if; Na: not; Upāsā: worship, meditation; Trai-vidhyāt: because of the three ways; Āśritatvāt: on account of Prāṇa being accepted (elsewhere in Śruti in the sense of Brahman); Iha: in the Kauṣītaki passage; Tad-yogāt: because of its appropriateness; as they have been applied; because words denoting Brahman are mentioned with reference to Prāṇa.
🔗 If it be said (that Prāṇa does not indicate Brahman) because of there being indicatory marks of the Jīva-Self and the principal Vital Air, (we say) — No, because there would thus be three-foldness's of devout meditation, and because also of acceptance (of this meaning, Brahman, elsewhere), and also because of the mention here of being connected (with the indicatory marks of Brahman). — 126.96.36.199.1.31 L.1
यद्यप्यध्यात्मसम्बन्धभूमदर्शनान्न पराचीनस्य देवतात्मन उपदेशः,
(The opponent says — ) Even though the instruction is not (according to you, the Vedāntin) with regard to the Self of a deity which has come into existence later on, because there is, as is seen, a profusion of many things, (with respect to) the Adhyātma relation (i.e. the relation of the Jīva-Self with the Highest Self),
तथापि न ब्रह्मवाक्यं भवितुमर्हति।
Still the sentence does not deserve to be a sentence indicative of Brahman.
कुतः? जीवलिङ्गात् मुख्यप्राणलिङ्गाच्च।
How so? Because of the indicatory marks of the Jīva-Self and the Chief Vital Air.
जीवस्य तावदस्मिन्वाक्ये विस्पष्टं लिङ्गमुपलभ्यते – ‘न वाचं विजिज्ञासीत वक्तारं विद्यात्’ इत्यादि।
As far as the Jīva-Self is concerned, we find that there is a clear indicatory mark of the Jīva-Self in this sentence, thus — “Do not care to know ‘speech’ (Vāk) but desire to know the ‘speaker’” etc. —
अत्र हि वागादिभिः करणैर्व्यापृतस्य कार्यकरणाध्यक्षस्य जीवस्य विज्ञेयत्वमभिधीयते।
Because here, the Jīva-Self, which is the ruler or controller of the body and sense-organs, and which is engrossed in the sense-organs such as speech etc., is mentioned as the one that should be known.
तथा मुख्यप्राणलिङ्गमपि – ‘अथ खलु प्राण एव प्रज्ञात्मेदं शरीरं परिगृह्योत्थापयति’ इति।
Similarly there is the indicatory mark of the Chief Vital Air also, thus — “It is verily Prāṇa the Intelligential Self that supports this (Idam) body and rouses it to action.”
शरीरधारणं च मुख्यप्राणस्य धर्मः;
To support the body is the function of the Chief Vital Air,
प्राणसंवादे वागादीन्प्राणान्प्रकृत्य – ‘तान्वरिष्ठः प्राण उवाच मा मोहमापद्यथाहमेवैतत्पञ्चधात्मानं प्रविभज्यैतद्बाणमवष्टभ्य विधारयामि’ (PrasU.2.3) इति श्रवणात्।
Because in the Prāṇa-dialogue, with reference to speech and other sense-organs (the Scriptures mention as follows) — “The highest Prāṇa said to them, do not be deluded, it is I only that divide myself five-fold and support this body and rouse it to action.” (PrasU.2.3).
ये तु ‘इमं शरीरं परिगृह्य’ इति पठन्ति, तेषाम् इमं जीवमिन्द्रियग्रामं वा परिगृह्य शरीरमुत्थापयतीति व्याख्येयम्।
In the case of those who recite thus — “Giving support to this (Imam) body” — It should be explained as follows — (I) support this Jīva-Self or the collection of sense-organs and rouse the body to action.
प्रज्ञात्मत्वमपि जीवे तावच्चेतनत्वादुपपन्नम्।
It is reasonably sustainable to say of the Jīva-Self, that it is the Intelligential Self, because of its sentiency.
मुख्येऽपि प्राणे प्रज्ञासाधनप्राणान्तराश्रयत्वादुपपन्नमेव।
It is reasonably possible to say even in the case of the Chief Vital Air, that it is the Intelligential Self, because of its being the support of the other sense-organs which are the instruments of perception.
एवं जीवमुख्यप्राणपरिग्रहे च, प्राणप्रज्ञात्मनोः सहवृत्तित्वेनाभेदनिर्देशः, स्वरूपेण च भेदनिर्देशः, इत्युभयथापि निर्देश उपपद्यते –
If it is understood that both the Jīva-Self and the Chief Vital Air are meant by the word Prāṇa It is reasonably possible to understand the indication to be both ways (Ubhayathā Nirdeśa), viz., the indication of identity between them (Abheda-nirdeśa), because of the co-ordinated parallel function (Saha-vṛttitvena) of the Prāṇa and the Intelligential Self, and the indication of distinction between them (Bheda-nirdeśa), because of their having their own separate form (Sva-rūpeṇa), as follows —
‘यो वै प्राणः स प्रज्ञा या वै प्रज्ञा स प्राणः’ ‘सह ह्येतावस्मिञ्शरीरे वसतः सहोत्क्रामतः’ इति।
“Verily what is Prāṇa is intelligence, and what is intelligence is Prāṇa (which shows their non-difference) and they reside together in this body, and move out together (which shows the difference between them).”
ब्रह्मपरिग्रहे तु किं कस्माद्भिद्येत?
If however Prāṇa were to be accepted as Brahman, then what ever can be so distinguished from each other?
तस्मादिह जीवमुख्यप्राणयोरन्यतर उभौ वा प्रतीयेयातां न ब्रह्मेति चेत्,
Therefore, here, by Prāṇa, we should understand the Jīva-Self or the Chief Vital Air or both, but (certainly) not Brahman.
(To this, we reply) — It is not so, because of the threefoldness of devout meditation.
एवं सति त्रिविधमुपासनं प्रसज्येत – जीवोपासनं मुख्यप्राणोपासनं ब्रह्मोपासनं चेति।
Because if we were to understand it like that, it would mean threefold devout meditation — devout meditation on the Jīva-Self, on the Chief Vital Air, and on Brahman,
न चैतदेकस्मिन्वाक्येऽभ्युपगन्तुं युक्तम्।
And it is not proper to understand all this (as meant) in one sentence.
उपक्रमोपसंहाराभ्यां हि वाक्यैकवाक्यत्वमवगम्यते।
From the introductory and the concluding sentence also, it is understood that there is but one sentence only,
‘मामेव विजानीहि’ इत्युपक्रम्य, ‘प्राणोऽस्मि प्रज्ञात्मा तं मामायुरमृतमित्युपास्स्व’ इत्युक्त्वा, अन्ते ‘स एष प्राण एव प्रज्ञात्मानन्दोऽजरोऽमृतः’ इत्येकरूपावुपक्रमोपसंहारौ दृश्येते।
Because beginning with “Know me only” and having then said “I am Prāṇa, the Intelligential Self, you should contemplate devoutly on me, as life and as immortality” in the end, (the Scriptures say) “This very Prāṇa is the Intelligential Self, Bliss, the ageless and immortal” and thus the introductory and the concluding portions appear to be of the same nature.
That being so, it is logical to understand that there is but one meaning only.
न च ब्रह्मलिङ्गमन्यपरत्वेन परिणेतुं शक्यम्;
It is not possible to construe the indicatory mark of Brahman, as being an indicatory mark of something else,
दशानां भूतमात्राणां प्रज्ञामात्राणां च ब्रह्मणोऽन्यत्र अर्पणानुपपत्तेः।
For the ten existential elements (Bhūta-mātras) and the ten intelligential elements (Prajñā-mātrās) cannot be reasonably understood to have been tenoned and mortised into anything other than Brahman.
आश्रितत्वाच्च अन्यत्रापि ब्रह्मलिङ्गवशात्प्राणशब्दस्य ब्रह्मणि वृत्तेः,
Besides, it has been accepted in another place also (in BrS.1.1.23) that because of the indicatory mark of Brahman, the word Prāṇa serves to indicate Brahman.
इहापि च हिततमोपन्यासादिब्रह्मलिङ्गयोगात्, ब्रह्मोपदेश एवायमिति गम्यते।
Here also because of the relation (of the word Prāṇa) to the indicatory mark of Brahman, by way of a reference to “being most beneficial”, it is understood that this also is instruction about Brahman only.
यत्तु मुख्यप्राणलिङ्गं दर्शितम् – ‘इदं शरीरं परिगृह्योत्थापयति’ इति, तदसत्;
What has been indicated as the indicatory mark of the Chief Vital Air by the sentence “Supports this body and rouses it to action”, is really not so,
प्राणव्यापारस्यापि परमात्मायत्तत्वात्परमात्मन्युपचरितुं शक्यत्वात् –
Because, as the function of the Chief Vital Air also, depends on the Highest Self, it is possible figuratively to construe that function as appertaining to the Highest Self,
‘न प्राणेन नापानेन मर्त्यो जीवति कश्चन। इतरेण तु जीवन्ति यस्मिन्नेतावुपाश्रितौ’ (KathU.2.2.5) इति श्रुतेः।
For the Scriptural passage says — “It is not because of the Prāṇa (which has an upward tendency) and the Apāna (which has a downward tendency), that any mortal lives. They live because of another, in whom the Prāṇa and the Apāna rest” (KathU.2.5.5).
यदपि ‘न वाचं विजिज्ञासीत वक्तारं विद्यात्’ इत्यादि जीवलिङ्गं दर्शितम्, तदपि न ब्रह्मपक्षं निवारयति।
That, which has been known as the indicatory mark of the Jīva-Self, by the passage — “Do not care to know ‘speech’ (Vāk) but desire to know the speaker” — also, is unable to preclude the view that it refers to Brahman,
न हि जीवो नामात्यन्तभिन्नो ब्रह्मणः, ‘तत्त्वमसि’ ‘अहं ब्रह्मास्मि’ इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः।
Because, the Jīva-Self in fact is not something absolutely different from Brahman, because of the Scriptural passages — “That thou art”, “I am Brahman” etc.
बुद्ध्याद्युपाधिकृतं तु विशेषमाश्रित्य ब्रह्मैव सन् जीवः कर्ता भोक्ता चेत्युच्यते।
It is by resorting to a special aspect (of Brahman), as a result of adjuncts such as intelligence etc., that the Jīva-Self, even though in fact it is Brahman, is described as the agent and the experiencer.
तस्योपाधिकृतविशेषपरित्यागेन स्वरूपं ब्रह्म दर्शयितुम् ‘न वाचं विजिज्ञासीत वक्तारं विद्यात्’ इत्यादिना प्रत्यगात्माभिमुखीकरणार्थ उपदेशो न विरुध्यते।
It is therefore not contradictory to give instruction to a person in order to direct his mind towards the Universal Self, and in order to make him realize his own nature (Brahman) by getting him to shed his peculiar adventitious aspect as caused by adjuncts, by such a passage as “Do not care to know ‘speech’ (Vāk) but desire to know the speaker” etc.
‘यद्वाचानभ्युदितं येन वागभ्युद्यते। तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते’ (KenU.1.4) इत्यादि च श्रुत्यन्तरं वचनादिक्रियाव्यापृतस्यैवात्मनो ब्रह्मत्वं दर्शयति।
The Scriptural passage — “That which is not made manifest by speech, but which makes speech manifest, that you should know to be Brahman and not this, on which you are meditating devoutly” (KenU.1.4) etc. — shows, that the Jīva-Self itself, which is engrossed in actions such as speech etc., is Brahman.
यत्पुनरेतदुक्तम् – ‘सह ह्येतावस्मिञ्शरीरे वसतः सहोत्क्रामतः’ इति प्राणप्रज्ञात्मनोर्भेददर्शनं ब्रह्मवादे नोपपद्यत इति,
With regard to the other objection (of the opponent), viz., that the fact, that Prāṇa and the Intelligential Self are seen to be two different entities, as evidenced by the Scriptural passage “They reside in the body together and also move out from it together”, is not reasonably sustainable, in the Brahma-Vāda (i.e. the doctrine that Prāṇa means Brahman),
नैष दोषः; ज्ञानक्रियाशक्तिद्वयाश्रययोर्बुद्धिप्राणयोः प्रत्यगात्मोपाधिभूतयोर्भेदनिर्देशोपपत्तेः।
We say — It is no fault, because, as it is reasonably sustainable to conceive of an indication of difference between intelligence and Prāṇa, which constitute the support of knowledge and of the power to act, and which have become the adjuncts of the Universal Self,
उपाधिद्वयोपहितस्य तु प्रत्यगात्मनः स्वरूपेणाभेद इत्यतः ‘प्राण एव प्रज्ञात्मा’ इत्येकीकरणमविरुद्धम्॥
There really is no difference in the nature of the Universal Self as such which has been affected by these two adjuncts, and hence there is no contradiction in equating the Prāṇa with the Intelligential Self.
अथवा ‘नोपासात्रैविध्यादाश्रितत्वादिह तद्योगात्’ इत्यस्यायमन्योऽर्थः –
Or the following part of the Sūtra, viz. “Na upāsātraividhyāt, āśritatvāt, iha tat yogāt” can have the following other meaning (according to the Vṛtti-kāra).
न ब्रह्मवाक्येऽपि जीवमुख्यप्राणलिङ्गं विरुध्यते।
Supposing the indicatory marks here to be of the Jīva-Self or of the Chief Vital Air, it would not be contradictory, even if this sentence were to be a sentence referring to Brahman.
कथम्? उपासात्रैविध्यात्। त्रिविधमिह ब्रह्मण उपासनं विवक्षितम् – प्राणधर्मेण, प्रज्ञाधर्मेण, स्वधर्मेण च।
How so? Because of the threefold devout meditation on Brahman, viz., in its character of being the Prāṇa, or of being the intelligence, or in its capacity as being itself (i.e. Brahman).
तत्र ‘आयुरमृतमित्युपास्स्वायुः प्राणः’ इति ‘इदं शरीरं परिगृह्योत्थापयति’ इति ‘तस्मादेतदेवोक्थमुपासीत’ इति च प्राणधर्मः।
There the passages “Meditate devoutly (on me) as life (Āyus) and immortality, life is Prāṇa”, “Supports this body and rouses it into action”, “Therefore meditate devoutly on this only as Uktha” indicate its character as Prāṇa.
‘अथ यथास्यै प्रज्ञायै सर्वाणि भूतान्येकीभवन्ति तद्व्याख्यास्यामः’ इत्युपक्रम्य ‘वागेवास्या एकमङ्गमदूदुहत्तस्यै नाम परस्तात्प्रतिविहिता भूतमात्रा प्रज्ञया वाचं समारुह्य वाचा सर्वाणि नामान्याप्नोति’ इत्यादिः प्रज्ञाधर्मः।
Thereafter beginning with — “Now we shall describe how all beings become one in that intelligence”, The further passage — “Speech gave one portion of itself to intelligence; name is its externally correlated existential element; with intelligence (Prājña) having mounted on speech; with speech one obtains all names”, etc. — indicates its character as Intelligence.
‘ता वा एता दशैव भूतमात्रा अधिप्रज्ञं दश प्रज्ञामात्रा अधिभूतम्।
यदि भूतमात्रा न स्युर्न प्रज्ञामात्राः स्युः।
यदि प्रज्ञामात्रा न स्युर्न भूतमात्राः स्युः।
न ह्यन्यतरतो रूपं किञ्चन सिध्येत्। नो एतन्नाना।’
Then the following passages —
“These ten existential elements (Bhūta-mātras) verily are with reference to intelligence (Adhiprajña), the ten intelligential elements (Prajñā-mātrās) are with reference to elements.
For truly if there were no elements of being, there would be no elements of existence;
Verily, if there were no elements of intelligence there would be no elements of being.
For truly from either of them alone no appearance (Rūpa) whatsoever would be effected. They are not different (from each other)”,
‘तद्यथा रथस्यारेषु नेमिरर्पिता नाभावरा अर्पिता एवमेवैता भूतमात्राः प्रज्ञामात्रास्वर्पिताः प्रज्ञामात्राः प्राणेऽर्पिताः स एष प्राण एव प्रज्ञात्मा’
“That just as the tyre of a chariot is set on the spokes and the spokes are tenoned and mortised in the nave, similarly, the existential elements are set in intelligence and the intelligential elements are tenoned and mortised in the Prāṇa. This Prāṇa is the Intelligential Self”
— Indicate its character as itself i.e. Brahman.
Therefore, it is but one devout meditation on Brahman in its character as affected by these two sorts of adjuncts
स्वधर्मेण चैकमुपासनं त्रिविधं विवक्षितम्।
And in its own character as itself, which is mentioned here in a threefold way.
अन्यत्रापि ‘मनोमयः प्राणशरीरः’ (ChanU.3.14.2) इत्यादावुपाधिधर्मेण ब्रह्मण उपासनमाश्रितम्;
Elsewhere also, it is seen that devout meditation on Brahman is resorted to in its character as affected by adjuncts, as for instance in — “He whose structure is the mind and whose body is the Prāṇa” (ChanU.3.14.2).
इहापि तद्युज्यते वाक्यस्योपक्रमोपसंहाराभ्यामेकार्थत्वावगमात्
Here also, the same is fit and proper, by reason of the introductory and the concluding passages, because, we have understood it to have the same one meaning,
And because we find here the indicatory marks of Prāṇa, Intelligence and Brahman.
Therefore it is established that this is a sentence which propounds Brahman. — 31.
प्रथमे पादे ‘जन्माद्यस्य यतः’ इत्याकाशादेः समस्तस्य जगतो जन्मादिकारणं ब्रह्मेत्युक्तम्।
In the first Pāda, it has been said that according to the Sūtra “Janmādyasya yataḥ” (BrS.1.1.2), Brahman is the cause of all this transitory world such as the Ākāśa etc.,
तस्य समस्तजगत्कारणस्य ब्रह्मणो व्यापित्वं नित्यत्वं सर्वज्ञत्वं सर्वशक्तित्वं सर्वात्मत्वमित्येवंजातीयका धर्मा उक्ता एव भवन्ति।
And by that, impliedly it is as good as said, how Brahman, the cause of all this world, has the attributes of being all-pervading, eternal, omniscient, all-powerful and the Self of all.
अर्थान्तरप्रसिद्धानां च केषाञ्चिच्छब्दानां ब्रह्मविषयत्वहेतुप्रतिपादनेन
After stating that certain words well-known to have another meaning, are in fact indicative of Brahman,
कानिचिद्वाक्यानि स्पष्टब्रह्मलिङ्गानि सन्दिह्यमानानि ब्रह्मपरतया निर्णीतानि।
And that certain sentences, though they are clearly the indicatory marks of Brahman, are doubted as being so, it has also been determined that they refer to Brahman.
पुनरप्यन्यानि वाक्यान्यस्पष्टब्रह्मलिङ्गानि सन्दिह्यन्ते –
Again there are certain other sentences which do not clearly seem to be the indicatory marks of Brahman, and are doubted
किं परं ब्रह्म प्रतिपादयन्ति, आहोस्विदर्थान्तरं किञ्चिदिति।
As to their significance, i.e. it is doubted whether they propound Brahman or something else.
तन्निर्णयाय द्वितीयतृतीयौ पादावारभ्येते –
The second and the third Pādas are begun with a view to determine that.
←PrevNext→ सर्वत्र प्रसिद्धोपदेशात्॥१.२.१॥ Sarvatra prasiddhopadeśāt.
Sarvatra: everywhere, in every Vedantic passage i.e., in all Upaniṣads; Prasiddha: the well-known; Upadeśāt: because of the teaching.
🔗 (Because) throughout instruction about that which is well-known (i.e. Brahman) is given. — 188.8.131.52.2.1 L.1
इदमाम्नायते – ‘सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म तज्जलानिति शान्त उपासीत। अथ खलु क्रतुमयः पुरुषो यथाक्रतुरस्मिँल्लोके पुरुषो भवति तथेतः प्रेत्य भवति स क्रतुं कुर्वीत’ (ChanU.3.14.1)
The Scriptures say — “All this, verily, is Brahman, (and that it is) ‘Tajjalān’ (Tad-brahma-jāta-līyate-aniti-iti’). Let a man meditate devoutly on it with a calm and collected mind. Man verily is an embodiment of desire; just how a man desires during this life, so he becomes after his exit from here. He should therefore have a firm determination.” (ChanU.3.14.1)
‘मनोमयः प्राणशरीरः’ (ChanU.3.14.2) इत्यादि।
“(The Self) has mind as its structure, Prāṇa as its body, (and is possessed of the nature of lustre).” (ChanU.3.14.2) etc.
तत्र संशयः – किमिह मनोमयत्वादिभिर्धर्मैः शारीर आत्मोपास्यत्वेनोपदिश्यते,
In this connection a doubt arises, whether by the attributes such as “having the mind as its structure” etc., instruction is given about the Jīva-Self as the one to be devoutly meditated upon,
Or about the Highest Brahman.
What then is your conclusion?
It is that the embodied Jīva-Self is meant.
कुतः? तस्य हि कार्यकरणाधिपतेः प्रसिद्धो मनआदिभिः सम्बन्धः,
How so? Because it is the embodied Jīva-Self which is the master of the body and the sense-organs, it is he that is well-known to be so connected with the mind etc.,
न परस्य ब्रह्मणः;
And not the Highest Brahman,
‘अप्राणो ह्यमनाः शुभ्रः’ (MunU.2.1.2) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः।
Which in view of the Scriptural passage — “He is sans-vital air, sans-mind, and is pure” (MunU.2.1.2) etc. — is not so connected.
ननु ‘सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म’ इति स्वशब्देनैव ब्रह्मोपात्तम्;
But (says the Vedāntin) here, by the Scriptural sentence — “All this verily is Brahman” — it is Brahman as indicated by its own word that is accepted.
कथमिह शारीर आत्मोपास्यत्वेनाशङ्क्यते?
How can then there be any doubt that the embodied Jīva-Self is here meant to be devoutly meditated upon?
नैष दोषः; नेदं वाक्यं ब्रह्मोपासनाविधिपरम्।
(To this the opponent replies) — This is no fault. This sentence is not meant for giving an injunction for devout meditation on Brahman.
किं तर्हि? शमविधिपरम्; यत्कारणम् ‘सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म तज्जलानिति शान्त उपासीत’ इत्याह।
What then (is it for)? It has the purport of giving an injunction to be calm and collected, because it is said, “All this verily is Brahman, and therefore being calm and collected one should meditate devoutly on Tajjalān as that.”
एतदुक्तं भवति – यस्मात्सर्वमिदं विकारजातं ब्रह्मैव, तज्जत्वात् तल्लत्वात् तदनत्वाच्च –
It means to say — because all this, which is a modification (as from a cause), is in substance Brahman only, and because it is Tajjalān (Taj-ja-la-an, i.e. from which all things spring up, in which all things end, and in which all things live),
न च सर्वस्यैकात्मत्वे रागादयः सम्भवन्ति –
and because all this is but one i.e. the Self only, there is no possibility of passions etc. arising,
तस्मात् शान्त उपासीतेति।
therefore, being calm and collected, one should meditate devoutly.
न च शमविधिपरत्वे सत्यनेन वाक्येन ब्रह्मोपासनं नियन्तुं शक्यते।
Therefore the sentence being meant for giving an injunction to meditate devoutly by being calm and collected, it cannot also indicate devout meditation on Brahman.
उपासनं तु ‘स क्रतुं कुर्वीत’ इत्यनेन विधीयते। क्रतुः सङ्कल्पो ध्यानमित्यर्थः।
Devout meditation however is prescribed by the injunction — “He should have a firm determination (Kratu)”, and it means Saṅkalpa or meditation,
तस्य च विषयत्वेन श्रूयते – ‘मनोमयः प्राणशरीरः’ इति जीवलिङ्गम्।
And with a view to indicate the object of that meditation, the Scriptures say — “Having mind as its structure and Prāṇa as its body” — (which is) the indicatory mark of the Jīva-Self.
अतो ब्रूमः – जीवविषयमेतदुपासनमिति। ‘सर्वकर्मा सर्वकामः’ इत्याद्यपि श्रूयमाणं पर्यायेण जीवविषयमुपपद्यते।
Again, the Scriptural mention about its being “that to whom all works and all desires belong”, also, in this manner, becomes reasonably sustainable in the case of the Jīva-Self.
‘एष म आत्मान्तर्हृदयेऽणीयान्व्रीहेर्वा यवाद्वा’ इति च हृदयायतनत्वमणीयस्त्वं चाराग्रमात्रस्य जीवस्यावकल्पते, नापरिच्छिन्नस्य ब्रह्मणः।
The reference to the Hṛdaya, as being the abode, and as to its' extreme minuteness, in the Scriptural passage — “This my Self, which is in the ‘Hṛdaya’ and is smaller than a grain of rice or barley” — is possible to be conceived of only in the case of the Jīva-Self which is as small as the point of a prod, And not in the case of Brahman, which has no finite determinations.
ननु ‘ज्यायान्पृथिव्याः’ इत्याद्यपि न परिच्छिन्नेऽवकल्पत इति।
But, (retorts the Vedāntin), the passage — “Greater than the Earth (Pṛthivī)” — is not possible to be conceived of in the case of that which has a finite determination (i.e. the Jīva-Self).
अत्र ब्रूमः – न तावदणीयस्त्वं ज्यायस्त्वं चोभयमेकस्मिन्समाश्रयितुं शक्यम्, विरोधात्;
(To this the opponent replies) — This, being very minute and also being great, cannot be accepted in the case of one and the same thing at once, because of their being contradictory to each other.
अन्यतराश्रयणे च, प्रथमश्रुतत्वादणीयस्त्वं युक्तमाश्रयितुम्;
Therefore, when we have to accept only one of the two alternatives, it is proper to accept ‘being minute’ which is mentioned first.
ज्यायस्त्वं तु ब्रह्मभावापेक्षया भविष्यतीति।
As to its being greater, it may also be possible (in the case of the Jīva-Self), because in the ultimate sense the Jīva-Self is after all, Brahman.
निश्चिते च जीवविषयत्वे यदन्ते ब्रह्मसङ्कीर्तनम् – ‘एतद्ब्रह्म’ (ChanU.3.14.4) इति,
When it is finally determined that the passage refers to the Jīva-Self, the mention, in the end, of its being Brahman, by the words “This is Brahman” (ChanU.3.14.4),
Should also be understood to have reference to the Jīva-Self, because it is meant for the purpose of a reference to what is relevant.
तस्मान्मनोमयत्वादिभिर्धर्मैर्जीव उपास्य इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः –
Therefore, because of the attributes of “having mind as its structure” etc., it is the Jīva-Self on which devout meditation is to be made.
परमेव ब्रह्मेह मनोमयत्वादिभिर्धर्मैरुपास्यम्।
(To this conclusion of the opponent) we reply — Because of the attributes, as having mind as its structure etc., it is the Highest Brahman alone that is to be devoutly meditated upon.
कुतः? सर्वत्र प्रसिद्धोपदेशात्।
How so? Because, as the instruction everywhere is about what is well-known to be so,
यत्सर्वेषु वेदान्तेषु प्रसिद्धं ब्रह्मशब्दस्यालम्बनं जगत्कारणम्, इह च ‘सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म’ इति वाक्योपक्रमे श्रुतम्, तदेव मनोमयत्वादिधर्मैर्विशिष्टमुपदिश्यत इति युक्तम्।
It is proper and reasonable to think that the cause of the world, which depends upon the word ‘Brahman’ (for its meaning), which is here mentioned by the Scriptures in the beginning as “All this verily is Brahman”, is the same about which instruction is given, as being characterized by attributes such as having mind as its structure,
एवं च सति प्रकृतहानाप्रकृतप्रक्रिये न भविष्यतः।
And it is only in this way that the fault of rejection of that which is relevant and the acceptance of that which is not so relevant, would not occur.
ननु वाक्योपक्रमे शमविधिविवक्षया ब्रह्म निर्दिष्टं न स्वविवक्षयेत्युक्तम्।
But (says the opponent) we have said that in the beginning Brahman is indicated for the purpose of mentioning the injunction to be calm and collected and not with the purpose of mentioning Brahman itself.
अत्रोच्यते – यद्यपि शमविधिविवक्षया ब्रह्म निर्दिष्टम्,
To this, we reply — (even though you say) that it is with a view to be calm and collected that Brahman is mentioned,
तथापि मनोमयत्वादिषूपदिश्यमानेषु तदेव ब्रह्म सन्निहितं भवति,
Yet when instruction is given about attributes such as having mind as its structure etc., the same Brahman is in close proximity.
जीवस्तु न सन्निहितः, न च स्वशब्देनोपात्त इति वैषम्यम्॥१॥
That the Jīva-Self however is neither anywhere proximate, nor is it mentioned in so many words, is the difference between the two views. — 1.
←PrevNext→ विवक्षितगुणोपपत्तेश्च॥१.२.२॥ Vivakṣita-guṇopapatteś ca.
Vivakṣita: desired to be expressed; Guṇa: qualities; Upapatteḥ: because of the reasonableness, for the justification; Ca: and, moreover.
🔗 Because attributes intended to be expressed (by the Scriptures) are, moreover, reasonably sustainable (only in the case of Brahman). — 184.108.40.206.2.2 L.1
Those attributes intended to be spoken of, are attributes meant to be expressed.
यद्यप्यपौरुषेये वेदे वक्तुरभावात् नेच्छार्थः सम्भवति,
Even though a desiderative form (Icchārtha) is not possible in the case of the Scriptures which have no author as such who can speak (of what is intended to be expressed), inasmuch as they are neither created by man nor by God (Apauruṣeya)
Yet it can be taken to be so used in a figurative sense on account of the fruit or result (which follows after what is said in the Scriptures) and which is accepted (for consideration).
लोकेऽपि यच्छब्दाभिहितमुपादेयं भवति तद्विवक्षितमित्युच्यते, यदनुपादेयं तदविवक्षितमिति।
In ordinary life also, that which is expressed in words and is intended to be accepted, is said to be so meant to be expressed, and that which is not so meant to be accepted, is not so meant to be expressed.
तद्वद्वेदेऽप्युपादेयत्वेनाभिहितं विवक्षितं भवति, इतरदविवक्षितम्।
Similarly in the Scriptures also, that which is spoken of as fit to be accepted, is said to be intended to be expressed, and all else as not intended to be expressed.
उपादानानुपादाने तु वेदवाक्यतात्पर्यातात्पर्याभ्यामवगम्येते।
As to what is intended to be accepted or not intended to be accepted, is understood from whether the Vedic text means that to be the gist or not.
तदिह ये विवक्षिता गुणा उपासनायामुपादेयत्वेनोपदिष्टाः सत्यसङ्कल्पप्रभृतयः, ते परस्मिन्ब्रह्मण्युपपद्यन्ते।
Similarly here, those attributes such as the attribute of having true purposes etc., which are intended to be expressed as being fit to be accepted for devout meditation, are reasonably sustainable in the case of the Highest Brahman,
सत्यसङ्कल्पत्वं हि सृष्टिस्थितिसंहारेष्वप्रतिबद्धशक्तित्वात्परमात्मन एवावकल्पते।
Because that attribute of ‘having a true purpose’ is possible to be conceived of as belonging to the Highest Self only, because of its possessing unobstructed power in the matter of creation, preservation and destruction.
परमात्मगुणत्वेन च ‘य आत्मापहतपाप्मा’ (ChanU.8.7.1) इत्यत्र ‘सत्यकामः सत्यसङ्कल्पः’ इति श्रुतम्,
It is also in the passage beginning with “That Self which is free from sin” (ChanU.8.7.1) that the attributes of “having true desires and purposes” are mentioned as attributes belonging to the Highest Self.
‘आकाशात्मा’ इति च। आकाशवदात्मा अस्येत्यर्थः। सर्वगतत्वादिभिर्धर्मैः सम्भवत्याकाशेन साम्यं ब्रह्मणः।
The words “whose Self is the Ākāśa” mean, whose Self is like the Ākāśa, because Brahman’s similarity to the Ākāśa, is on account of its attribute of being all-pervading etc.
‘ज्यायान्पृथिव्याः’ इत्यादिना चैतदेव दर्शयति।
By the words “Greater than the Earth” also, a similar thing is indicated.
यदापि आकाश आत्मा अस्येति व्याख्यायते, तदापि सम्भवति सर्वजगत्कारणस्य सर्वात्मनो ब्रह्मण आकाशात्मत्वम्।
Even if it were to be construed as ‘one whose Self is the Ākāśa’, even then it would be possible to say of Brahman, which is the Self of all and the cause of all the transitory world, as having the Ākāśa as its Self.
अत एव ‘सर्वकर्मा’ इत्यादि।
Hence also (Brahman is described as) — “He to to whom all works belong” etc.
एवमिहोपास्यतया विवक्षिता गुणा ब्रह्मण्युपपद्यन्ते।
In this way the attributes intended to be expressed as being fit for devout meditation, are reasonably sustainable in the case of Brahman.
यत्तूक्तम् – ‘मनोमयः प्राणशरीरः’ इति जीवलिङ्गम्, न तद्ब्रह्मण्युपपद्यत इति;
As regards what is said (by the opponent) — viz. “Having mind as its structure and Prāṇa as its body” is an indicatory mark of the Jīva-Self, and therefore, it is not reasonably sustainable in the case of Brahman, —
तदपि ब्रह्मण्युपपद्यत इति ब्रूमः।
We say that that also is reasonably sustainable
सर्वात्मत्वाद्धि ब्रह्मणो जीवसम्बन्धीनि मनोमयत्वादीनि ब्रह्मसम्बन्धीनि भवन्ति।
Because Brahman is all-pervading, and the terms ‘having mind as its structure and Prāṇa as its body’, which have a relation to the Jīva-Self, are applicable also in the case of Brahman.
तथा च ब्रह्मविषये श्रुतिस्मृती भवतः – ‘त्वं स्त्री त्वं पुमानसि त्वं कुमार उत वा कुमारी। त्वं जीर्णो दण्डेन वञ्चसि त्वं जातो भवसि विश्वतोमुखः’ (SvetU.4.3) इति;
The Scriptures and the Smṛtis also are to the same effect — “Thou art woman as well as man, youth as well as maiden, Thou art the aged one going about with (the help of) a staff and thou art born (i.e. thou manifestest thyself) in all directions” (SvetU.4.3).
‘सर्वतःपाणिपादं तत्सर्वतोऽक्षिशिरोमुखम्। सर्वतःश्रुतिमल्लोके सर्वमावृत्य तिष्ठति’ (BhG.3.13) इति च।
Also, “Having hands and feet in all directions, having eyes, heads, and faces in all directions, Having ears in all directions and encompassing everything” (BhG.13.13).
‘अप्राणो ह्यमनाः शुभ्रः’ इति श्रुतिः शुद्धब्रह्मविषया,
That the Scriptural words ‘sans-Prāṇa, sans-mind, and pure’ are with reference to the unqualified Brahman1.2.2 L.21
इयं तु श्रुतिः ‘मनोमयः प्राणशरीरः’ इति सगुणब्रह्मविषयेति विशेषः।
And “having mind as its structure and Prāṇa as its body’ are with reference to qualified Brahman, is the distinguishing feature in this.
अतो विवक्षितगुणोपपत्तेः परमेव ब्रह्म इहोपास्यत्वेनोपदिष्टमिति गम्यते॥२॥
Hence, as the attributes which are intended to be expressed, are reasonably sustainable (in the case of Brahman), it is understood that it is the Highest Brahman about which instruction is given here, as being that which is fit for devout meditation upon. — 2.
←PrevNext→ अनुपपत्तेस्तु न शारीरः॥१.२.३॥ Anupapattes tu na śārīraḥ.
An-upapatteḥ: not being justifiable, because of the impossibility, because of the unreasonableness, because they are not appropriate; Tu: but on the other hand; Na: not; Śārīraḥ: the embodied, the Jīva or the individual soul.
🔗 But the embodied Jīva-Self is not (indicated by these attributes), because it is not reasonably sustainable. — 220.127.116.11.2.3 L.1
पूर्वेण सूत्रेण ब्रह्मणि विवक्षितानां गुणानामुपपत्तिरुक्ता।
It has been said in the former Sūtra, how the attributes intended to be expressed as being applicable to Brahman, are reasonably sustainable.
अनेन शरीरे तेषामनुपपत्तिरुच्यते।
By this Sūtra it is proposed to say how they are not reasonably sustainable, in the case of the embodied Jīva-Self.
The word ‘but’ is meant to indicate final determination.
ब्रह्मैवोक्तेन न्यायेन मनोमयत्वादिगुणम्;
According to the reasoning given (above) Brahman alone is endowed with attributes such as “having mind as its structure”
न तु शारीरो जीवो मनोमयत्वादिगुणः; यत्कारणम् –
And not the embodied Jīva-Self,
‘सत्यसङ्कल्पः’ ‘आकाशात्मा’ ‘अवाकी’ ‘अनादरः’ ‘ज्यायान्पृथिव्याः’ इति चैवंजातीयका गुणा न शारीरे आञ्जस्येनोपपद्यन्ते।
Because, such attributes as “His desires are true; Ākāśa is its self”, “(It is) sans-speech, sans-desire, greater than the Earth” are not correctly or reasonably sustainable in the case of the embodied Jīva-Self.
शारीर इति शरीरे भव इत्यर्थः।
Śārīra is one that exists in a body.
नन्वीश्वरोऽपि शरीरे भवति।
But (says the opponent) the Lord also exists in a body.
सत्यम्, शरीरे भवति; न तु शरीर एव भवति;
(We reply) — Of course, he does so exist in the body, but not only in the body,
‘ज्यायान्पृथिव्या ज्यायानन्तरिक्षात्’ ‘आकाशवत्सर्वगतश्च नित्यः’ (शत. ब्रा. १०-६-३-२) इति च व्यापित्वश्रवणात्।
Because the Scriptures mention that he pervades everything, by the passage — “Greater than the Earth, greater than the space between heaven and the Earth (Antar-ikṣa), (he) pervades everything like the Ākāśa, and is eternal”.
जीवस्तु शरीर एव भवति, तस्य भोगाधिष्ठानाच्छरीरादन्यत्र वृत्त्यभावात्॥३॥
The Jīva-Self exists in the body, which is his seat of enjoyment or pain, because it has no function outside the body. — 3.
←PrevNext→ कर्मकर्तृव्यपदेशाच्च॥१.२.४॥ Karma-kartṛ-vyapadeśāc ca.
Karma: object; Kartṛ: agent; Vyapadeśāt: because of the declaration or mention; Ca: and.
🔗 (It is not the Jīva-Self), also because, there is a mention of an object (of action) and of one who acts i.e. an agent (Karma-kartṛ). — 18.104.22.168.2.4 L.1
इतश्च न शारीरो मनोमयत्वादिगुणः; यस्मात्कर्मकर्तृव्यपदेशो भवति –
Thus again is how the embodied Jīva-Self is not the one who possesses the attribute of ‘having mind as its structure’, because there is a mention in the Scriptures, of an object and an agent, thus —
‘एतमितः प्रेत्याभिसम्भवितास्मि’ (ChanU.3.14.4) इति।
“Departing from here (from the body i.e. dying) I shall be one that has obtained this (i.e. Brahman)” (ChanU.3.14.4).
एतमिति प्रकृतं मनोमयत्वादिगुणमुपास्यमात्मानं कर्मत्वेन प्राप्यत्वेन व्यपदिशति;
By this (Etam) here, the relevant Ātmā (Brahman) possessed of the qualities of ‘having mind as its structure’, which is the object of devout meditation, is indicated as the object which is to be attained (by the meditator),
अभिसम्भवितास्मीति शारीरमुपासकं कर्तृत्वेन प्रापकत्वेन।
And by ‘I shall have obtained’ the one who attains and the one who meditates devoutly, i.e. the embodied Jīva-Self, is indicated.
‘Shall have obtained’ means ‘shall have reached’.
न च सत्यां गतावेकस्य कर्मकर्तृव्यपदेशो युक्तः।
As far as possible it is not logical to indicate the same entity, as being at once both the object and the agent.
तथोपास्योपासकभावोऽपि भेदाधिष्ठान एव।
Similarly, the possibility of one being the devout meditator and the other being that which is to be meditated upon, also depends upon their being different (entities).
तस्मादपि न शारीरो मनोमयत्वादिविशिष्टः॥४॥
For this reason also the embodied Jīva-Self is not the one that has the attribute of ‘having mind as its structure’. — 4.
🔗 Because (the Scriptures) mention different words. — 22.214.171.124.2.5 L.1
इतश्च शारीरादन्यो मनोमयत्वादिगुणः; यस्माच्छब्दविशेषो भवति समानप्रकरणे श्रुत्यन्तरे –
It is because there are different words in a chapter on a similar subject in another Scriptural passage, that again it is, that the one endowed with the attribute of ‘having mind as its structure’ is different from the embodied Jīva-Self, thus —
‘यथा व्रीहिर्वा यवो वा श्यामाको वा श्यामाकतण्डुलो वैवमयमन्तरात्मन्पुरुषो हिरण्मयः’ (श. ब्रा. १०-६-३-२) इति।
“Like a grain of rice or barley or canary or kernel of a canary seed, is the aureate-complexioned Puruṣa which is within the inner-Self” (Śat. Brā. 10.6.3.2).
शारीरस्यात्मनो यः शब्दोऽभिधायकः सप्तम्यन्तः – अन्तरात्मन्निति; तस्माद्विशिष्टोऽन्यः प्रथमान्तः पुरुषशब्दो मनोमयत्वादिविशिष्टस्यात्मनोऽभिधायकः।
The word which expresses the Self endowed with the special quality of having ‘mind as its structure’, viz. the word ‘Puruṣa’ in the nominative case, is different from the other word inner-Self which is in the locative case, viz. the inner-Self (Antar-ātman), and means the embodied Jīva-Self.
That is how difference between the two (i.e. the Puruṣa and the Śārīra) becomes clear to us. — 5.
🔗 Because of the Smṛti also. — 126.96.36.199.2.6 L.1
स्मृतिश्च शारीरपरमात्मनोर्भेदं दर्शयति –
Smṛti also indicates the difference between the embodied Jīva-Self and the Highest Self, thus —
‘ईश्वरः सर्वभूतानां हृद्देशेऽर्जुन तिष्ठति। भ्रामयन्सर्वभूतानि यन्त्रारूढानि मायया’ (BhG.18.61) इत्याद्या।
“Oh Arjuna, the Lord is immanent in the region of the Hṛdaya of all beings, making them go round and round by his power of illusion (Māyā) as if they are riding on a machine”. (BhG.18.61).
अत्राह – कः पुनरयं शारीरो नाम परमात्मनोऽन्यः, यः प्रतिषिध्यते – ‘अनुपपत्तेस्तु न शारीरः’ इत्यादिना?
Here a doubt is raised by one, as follows: Who again is this embodied Jīva-Self (Śārīra) as distinguished from the Highest Self, who is rejected by the third Sūtra of this Pāda?
श्रुतिस्तु ‘नान्योऽतोऽस्ति द्रष्टा नान्योऽतोऽस्ति श्रोता’ (BrhU.3.7.23) इत्येवंजातीयका परमात्मनोऽन्यमात्मानं वारयति।
The Scriptural passage — such as “There is no other seer but this, no other hearer but this etc.” (BrhUEng.3.7.23) — , in effect, denies any Self other than the Highest Self.
तथा स्मृतिरपि ‘क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि सर्वक्षेत्रेषु भारत’ (BhG.13.2) इत्येवंजातीयकेति।
Similarly Smṛti also — such as “Oh Bhārata, know me to be the knower of the body in all the bodies” (BhG.13.2).
अत्रोच्यते – सत्यमेवैतत् –
To this we reply — It (i.e. what you say) is of course true.
पर एवात्मा देहेन्द्रियमनोबुद्ध्युपाधिभिः परिच्छिद्यमानो बालैः शारीर इत्युपचर्यते;
It is but only the Highest Self which comes to have finite determination (as it were), by reason of limiting adjuncts such as body, sense-organs, the mind and intelligence, and which is mistakenly and in a figurative sense accepted by the ignorant as the embodied Jīva-Self,
यथा घटकरकाद्युपाधिवशादपरिच्छिन्नमपि नभः परिच्छिन्नवदवभासते, तद्वत्।
Just as the Ākāśa (Nabhas) which in fact is unlimited, appears as if it is limited, on account of limiting adjuncts such as a jar or a pot etc.
तदपेक्षया च कर्मकर्तृत्वादिभेदव्यवहारो न विरुध्यते
And taking into consideration this difference with reference to it (i.e. the limiting adjuncts), the treating of the one as the object (i.e. the Highest Self) and the other as the agent (i.e. the Jīva-Self), is not contradictory,
प्राक् ‘तत्त्वमसि’ इत्यात्मैकत्वोपदेशग्रहणात्।
As long as a person has not received instruction about the Self (Ātmā) being the only one, by such Scriptural passage as “That thou art” etc.
गृहीते त्वात्मैकत्वे बन्धमोक्षादिसर्वव्यवहारपरिसमाप्तिरेव स्यात्॥६॥
When once the fact that the Self (Ātmā) is but one only is grasped, then there is an end to all the notions about the conditions of bondage and Final Release. — 6.
←PrevNext→ अर्भकौकस्त्वात्तद्व्यपदेशाच्च नेति चेन्न निचाय्यत्वादेवं व्योमवच्च॥१.२.७॥ Arbhakaukastvāt tad-vyapadeśāc ca neti cen na nicāyyatvād evaṃ vyomavac ca.
Arbhaka-okastvāt: because of the smallness of the abode; Tad-vyapadeśāt: because of the description or denotation as such i.e. minuteness; Ca: and also; Na: not; Iti: not so; Cet: if; Na: not; Nicāyyatvāt: because of meditation (in the heart); Evam: thus, so; Vyomavat: like space; Ca: and.
🔗 (If it be objected, that Brahman is not indicated) because of the tiny-ness of the nest (i.e. abode), and because it is so mentioned, (we say) — No, because that is how (it is instructed) the Highest Brahman should be contemplated. (The case is) similar to that of the Ākāśa. — 188.8.131.52.2.7 L.1
अर्भकमल्पम् ओको नीडम्, ‘एष म आत्मान्तर्हृदये’ इति परिच्छिन्नायतनत्वात्,
The word ‘Arbhaka’ means tiny and the word ‘Okas’ means a nest. The objection raised, that because the Scriptural passage “This Self (Ātmā) of mine within the Hṛdaya” shows a limited abode,
स्वशब्देन च ‘अणीयान्व्रीहेर्वा यवाद्वा’ इत्यणीयस्त्वव्यपदेशात्, शारीर एवाराग्रमात्रो जीव इहोपदिश्यते,
And also because another Scriptural passage “Minuter than the grain of rice or barley” makes a reference to the minuteness (of the Self) in so many specific words, instruction about the Jīva-Self which is only as small as the point of a prod, is here given,
न सर्वगतः परमात्मा – इति यदुक्तं तत्परिहर्तव्यम्।
And not about the all-pervading Highest Self — has now to be refuted.
अत्रोच्यते – नायं दोषः। न तावत्परिच्छिन्नदेशस्य सर्वगतत्वव्यपदेशः कथमप्युपपद्यते।
We reply — This is no fault. It is not reasonably sustainable in any way to say of an entity which has a finite determination, that it is all-pervading,
सर्वगतस्य तु सर्वदेशेषु विद्यमानत्वात्परिच्छिन्नदेशव्यपदेशोऽपि कयाचिदपेक्षया सम्भवति।
But because an all-pervading entity is necessarily present everywhere, it is possible to say about such an entity with reference to some particular connection, that it is circumscribed in a limited space,
यथा समस्तवसुधाधिपतिरपि हि सन् अयोध्याधिपतिरिति व्यपदिश्यते।
Just as, the King of the whole world can also be described as the King of Ayodhyā.
कया पुनरपेक्षया सर्वगतः सन्नीश्वरोऽर्भकौका अणीयांश्च व्यपदिश्यत इति।
In what connection, however, can the Lord, all-pervading though he is, be described as having a tiny nest (i.e. abode) and as being as minute as an atom?
Because, we reply, he is to be contemplated in this way.
एवम् अणीयस्त्वादिगुणगणोपेत ईश्वरः, तत्र हृदयपुण्डरीके निचाय्यो द्रष्टव्य उपदिश्यते; यथा सालग्रामे हरिः।
The instruction given is, that the Lord endowed with a set of attributes such as being as minute as an atom, is to be contemplated as being in the lotus of the Hṛdaya, just as Hari (is contemplated) in the Śāla-grāma (a stone symbol of Hari) because it is there (in the lotus of the Hṛdaya) that intelligence can grasp it.
तत्रास्य बुद्धिविज्ञानं ग्राहकम्; सर्वगतोऽपीश्वरस्तत्रोपास्यमानः प्रसीदति।
All-pervading though the Lord is, He vouchsafes His grace to one who meditates devoutly on Him as being there.
It should be seen that the case is similar to that of the Ākāśa.
यथा सर्वगतमपि सद्व्योम सूचीपाशाद्यपेक्षयार्भकौकोऽणीयश्चेति व्यपदिश्यते, एवं ब्रह्मापि।
Just as the Ākāśa, all-pervading though it is, spoken of as having a tiny nest or as being minute, when considered in relation with a needle or a net, even so, is Brahman.
तदेवं निचाय्यत्वापेक्षं ब्रह्मणोऽर्भकौकस्त्वमणीयस्त्वं च, न पारमार्थिकम्।
Therefore, it is, when considered in its relation to contemplation, that this view of Brahman as having a tiny nest or as being minute, is there, and not in its ultimate real sense.
तत्र यदाशङ्क्यते – हृदयायतनत्वाद्ब्रह्मणो हृदयानां च प्रतिशरीरं भिन्नत्वाद्भिन्नायतनानां च शुकादीनामनेकत्वसावयवत्वानित्यत्वादिदोषदर्शनाद्ब्रह्मणोऽपि तत्प्रसङ्ग इति, तदपि परिहृतं भवति॥७॥
This also refutes the objection of some to the opinion of the Vedāntins, that because Brahman has the Hṛdaya as its abode, and as each different body has a different Hṛdaya as an abode, Therefore, just as parrots etc., who have their separate individual abodes, are seen to be subject to faults, such as being more than one, having limbs, and being non-permanent etc., even so, is Brahman subject to a similar predicament. — 7.
←PrevNext→ सम्भोगप्राप्तिरिति चेन्न वैशेष्यात्॥१.२.८॥ Sambhoga-prāptir iti cen na vaiśeṣyāt.
Sambhoga-prāpti: that it has experience of pleasure and pain; Iti: thus; Cet: if; Na: not; Vaiśeṣyāt: because of the difference in nature.
🔗 If it be objected (that being connected with the Hṛdaya of every person) Brahman also will be subject to the experience of pleasure and pain, (we say) no, because there is a distinction (between the Jīva-Self and the Highest Self). — 184.108.40.206.2.8 L.1
व्योमवत्सर्वगतस्य ब्रह्मणः सर्वप्राणिहृदयसम्बन्धात्,
(If it is argued by the opponent) that Brahman being all-pervading like the Ākāśa and being connected with the Hṛdayas of all beings,
चिद्रूपतया च शारीरादविशिष्टत्वात्, सुखदुःखादिसम्भोगोऽप्यविशिष्टः प्रसज्येत;
And being undistinguishable from the embodied Jīva-Self because of the nature of intelligence (in the case of both), it will, in common with the embodied Jīva-Self, necessarily have experience of pleasure and pain,
एकत्वाच्च – न हि परस्मादात्मनोऽन्यः कश्चिदात्मा संसारी विद्यते, ‘नान्योऽतोऽस्ति विज्ञाता’ (BrhU.3.7.23) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः।
And also because of their being one and the same entity, because the Scriptural passage mentions — “Than this there is no other cognizer” (BrhUEng.3.7.23), there is nothing like a transmigratory Self as such, as apart from the Highest Self,
तस्मात्परस्यैव ब्रह्मणः सम्भोगप्राप्तिरिति चेत्,
And therefore it is precisely only the Highest Self which experiences pleasure and pain inherent in the transmigratory existence.
(To this objection we say) — No, because there is a difference or speciality here,
न तावत्सर्वप्राणिहृदयसम्बन्धात् चिद्रूपतया च शारीरवद्ब्रह्मणः सम्भोगप्रसङ्गः, वैशेष्यात्।
And because of that, Brahman is not involved in any such predicament of having to experience pleasure and pain, like the embodied Jīva-Self, by reason of its being related with the Hṛdayas of all beings.
विशेषो हि भवति शारीरपरमेश्वरयोः।
There necessarily is a distinction between the embodied Jīva-Self and the Highest Lord.
एकः कर्ता भोक्ता धर्माधर्मादिसाधनः सुखदुःखादिमांश्च।
One (the embodied Jīva-Self) is an agent, an experiencer, the instrument of meritorious and unmeritorious actions, and is liable to pleasure and pain,
While the other one (the Highest Lord) is quite the opposite of that, and is one who is endowed with the attribute of being free from sin etc.
एतस्मादनयोर्विशेषादेकस्य भोगः, नेतरस्य।
Hence because of this distinction between these two, one is Subject to the experience of pleasure and pain, and not the other.
यदि च सन्निधानमात्रेण वस्तुशक्तिमनाश्रित्य कार्यसम्बन्धोऽभ्युपगम्येत,
If by ignoring the powers of entities, we were to understand them to be connected through their effects, merely by reason of their proximity,
Then the Ākāśa etc., also may suffer the predicament of being scorched (when Anything burns).
सर्वगतानेकात्मवादिनामपि समावेतौ चोद्यपरिहारौ।
A similar doubt and a similar refutation of it, would apply in the case of those who hold that there are many Selfs and they all are all-pervading.
यदप्येकत्वाद्ब्रह्मण आत्मान्तराभावाच्छारीरस्य भोगेन ब्रह्मणो भोगप्रसङ्ग इति,
With regard to the objection that as Brahman is the only one Highest Self and that as there is no other Self, therefore, when the embodied Jīva-Self experiences pleasure or pain, Brahman also is in the predicament experiencing pleasure or pain,
अत्र वदामः – इदं तावद्देवानांप्रियः प्रष्टव्यः – कथमयं त्वयात्मान्तराभावोऽध्यवसित इति।
We say — Oh thou, the favourite of the Gods (which means, a fool), thou deservest to be asked this — Whence hast thou determined that there is no Self other than Brahman?
‘तत्त्वमसि’ ‘अहं ब्रह्मास्मि’ ‘नान्योऽतोऽस्ति विज्ञाता’ इत्यादिशास्त्रेभ्य इति चेत्,
And if thou sayest, that thou hast determined it to be so, because of such Scriptural passages as “That thou art”, “I am Brahman”, “There is no other knower than this”,
यथाशास्त्रं तर्हि शास्त्रीयोऽर्थः प्रतिपत्तव्यः,
Then we reply that the purport of a Śāstra ought to be understood, according to the Śāstra itself (and in no other way),
न तत्रार्धजरतीयं लभ्यम्।
And thou canst not, in the case of one and the Same thing, accept only a part of it, and reject the rest (i.e. one cannot accept only a part of a thing, but one must accept the thing as a whole).
शास्त्रं च ‘तत्त्वमसि’ इत्यपहतपाप्मत्वादिविशेषणं ब्रह्म शारीरस्यात्मत्वेनोपदिशच्छारीरस्यैव तावदुपभोक्तृत्वं वारयति।
The Śāstra “That thou art”, which gives instruction, that Brahman, which is free from all sin, is the Self of the embodied Jīva-Self, rather obviates any experience of pleasure and pain even by the embodied Jīva-Self itself,
कुतस्तदुपभोगेन ब्रह्मण उपभोगप्रसङ्गः।
and so, how can such (fancied) experience of pleasure or pain by the Jīva-Self ever involve Brahman in the predicament of having to experience similar pleasure or pain?
अथागृहीतं शारीरस्य ब्रह्मणैकत्वम्, तदा मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तः शारीरस्योपभोगः;
If, however, the unity of the embodied Jīva-Self and Brahman, is not Realized, then the experience of pleasure and pain by the embodied Jīva-Self is caused by false-knowledge only,
न तेन परमार्थरूपस्य ब्रह्मणः संस्पर्शः।
And it cannot contaminate Brahman in the ultimate sense.
न हि बालैस्तलमलिनतादिभिर्व्योम्नि विकल्प्यमाने तलमलिनतादिविशिष्टमेव परमार्थतो व्योम भवति।
It is riot, that because ignorant people imagine that the sky has concavity and that it is dusty, that the sky really is so (i.e. that it, in fact, has concavity and that it is dusty).
तदाह – न, वैशेष्यादिति नैकत्वेऽपि शारीरस्योपभोगेन ब्रह्मण उपभोगप्रसङ्गः, वैशेष्यात्।
The Sūtra-kāra says the same thing by the expression — “No, because there is a distinction”, — and even, though the embodied Jīva-Self and Brahman are in fact one, Brahman is not in the predicament of having to experience pleasure and pain, by reason of the experience of pleasure and pain by the embodied Jīva-Self,
विशेषो हि भवति मिथ्याज्ञानसम्यग्ज्ञानयोः।
As there is a distinction between false-knowledge, and true knowledge.
मिथ्याज्ञानकल्पित उपभोगः, सम्यग्ज्ञानदृष्टमेकत्वम्।
Experience of pleasure and pain is due to false-knowledge, and the fact of the unity (between the Śārīra and Brahman) is realized through true knowledge.
न च मिथ्याज्ञानकल्पितेनोपभोगेन सम्यग्ज्ञानदृष्टं वस्तु संस्पृश्यते।
A thing experienced through true knowledge is not affected by the experience of pleasure and pain imagined through false-knowledge.
तस्मान्नोपभोगगन्धोऽपि शक्य ईश्वरस्य कल्पयितुम्॥८॥
Therefore one cannot imagine, that the Lord can ever have even the least little whiff of any experience of pleasure and pain. — 8.
Attā: the Eater; Cara-acara-grahaṇāt: because the movable and immovable (i.e. the whole universe) is taken (as His food).
🔗 (The Highest-Self is) the devourer because all movable and immovable entities are devoured (by it). — 220.127.116.11.2.9 L.1
कठवल्लीषु पठ्यते ‘यस्य ब्रह्म च क्षत्रं चोभे भवत ओदनः। मृत्युर्यस्योपसेचनं क इत्था वेद यत्र सः’ (KathU.1.2.24) इति।
We read in the Kaṭha-vallī as follows: “He, to whom Brāhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas serve as but rice, And Death as but the pouring (over the rice, of either ghee or buttermilk), who is there who knows, where He, who is like that, is?” (KathU.1.2.24)
अत्र कश्चिदोदनोपसेचनसूचितोऽत्ता प्रतीयते।
Here we find, that as suggested by rice and its pouring, a devourer is indicated.
तत्र किमग्निरत्ता स्यात्, उत जीवः, अथवा परमात्मा, इति संशयः;
In this connection, a doubt arises, whether ‘fire’ is meant to be the devourer, or the Jīva-Self, or the Highest-Self,
As no particular distinguishing criterion (which would determine, which of these three is meant) is known.
त्रयाणां चाग्निजीवपरमात्मनामस्मिन्ग्रन्थे प्रश्नोपन्यासोपलब्धेः।
Because it is understood that questions with respect to all these three are propounded here (in Kaṭha-vallī).
Then, what, do you suggest, is meant?
(The opponent says) — Fire is the devourer meant here.
कुतः? ‘अग्निरन्नादः’ (BrhU.1.4.6) इति श्रुतिप्रसिद्धिभ्याम्।
Why so? Because of the mention in the Scriptures — “Fire the devourer of food” (BrhUEng.1.4.6),
जीवो वा अत्ता स्यात् ‘तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्ति’ (MunU.3.1.1) इति दर्शनात्;
And also because fire is well-known (to be the devourer), or, may be, the Jīva-Self is the devourer meant, because it is seen (from the Scriptures) that “One of these two partakes of the delectable Pippala (a fruit)” (MunU.3.1.1).
न परमात्मा, ‘अनश्नन्नन्योऽभिचाकशीति’ (MunU.3.1.1) इति दर्शनादिति
But (certainly) not the Highest-Self, because it is seen (from the Scriptures) that “The other one does not partake of it, but only keeps looking on” (MunU.3.1.1).
एवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः – अत्तात्र परमात्मा भवितुमर्हति।
Our reply to this conclusion (of the opponent), is thus: It is the Highest-Self that deserves to be the devourer meant here.
Why so? Because (whoever is meant to be the devourer) is mentioned as devouring all that is movable and the immovable.
चराचरं हि स्थावरजङ्गमं मृत्यूपसेचनमिहाद्यत्वेन प्रतीयते;
The whole movable and immovable (world) for which death serves as the pouring, is here seen to be the material fit to be devoured,
तादृशस्य चाद्यस्य न परमात्मनोऽन्यः कार्त्स्न्येनात्ता सम्भवति।
And no one else other than the Highest-Self could possibly be the devourer of all this, comprehensively.
परमात्मा तु विकारजातमुपसंहरन्सर्वमत्तीत्युपपद्यते।
That the Highest-Self which destroys the whole aggregate of creation, is the devourer of everything, is only what is reasonably sustainable.
नन्विह चराचरग्रहणं नोपलभ्यते, कथं सिद्धवच्चराचरग्रहणं हेतुत्वेनोपादीयते?
But (says the opponent) the devouring of all the movable and immovable world, is not found (mentioned) here, so how can you adopt the devouring of the whole movable and immovable world to be so readily available as a reason for determining (that the Highest-Self is meant)?
To this objection we reply — This is no fault.
मृत्यूपसेचनत्वेनेहाद्यत्वेन सर्वस्य प्राणिनिकायस्य प्रतीयमानत्वात्,
From the mention of Death serving as but a ‘pouring’ we do properly understand, that the entire world of beings is indicated
And that the Brāhmaṇas and the Kṣatriyas as being chiefly important, are mentioned only illustratively to be the kind of food devoured by the Highest-Self.
यत्तु परमात्मनोऽपि नात्तृत्वं सम्भवति ‘अनश्नन्नन्योऽभिचाकशीति’ इति दर्शनादिति,
To the objection raised — viz. that it is not possible that the Highest-Self can be the devourer, as the Scriptures mention that “The other one does not partake (of the Pippala) but merely keeps looking on” — ,
अत्रोच्यते – कर्मफलभोगस्य प्रतिषेधकमेतद्दर्शनम्, तस्य सन्निहितत्वात्।
We reply, that this mention is for the purpose of denying the experience of the fruit of action (on the part of the Highest-Self), as that is proximate, in the context.
न विकारसंहारस्य प्रतिषेधकम्,
Such mention is not for the purpose of denying the destruction of the whole creation,
सर्ववेदान्तेषु सृष्टिस्थितिसंहारकारणत्वेन ब्रह्मणः प्रसिद्धत्वात्।
Because, in all the Vedāntas, Brahman is well-known as the cause of the creation, preservation and destruction (of the transitory world).
Therefore it is the Highest-Self alone, that deserves to be the devourer referred to here. — 9.
🔗 And because of the chapter (being about the Highest-Self). — 18.104.22.168.2.10 L.1
इतश्च परमात्मैवेहात्ता भवितुमर्हति; यत्कारणं प्रकरणमिदं परमात्मनः –
This again is why the Highest-Self alone deserves to be the devourer (meant here), as this chapter deals with the Highest-Self.
‘न जायते म्रियते वा विपश्चित्’ (KathU.1.2.18) इत्यादि। प्रकृतग्रहणं च न्याय्यम्।
The Scriptural passage — “The Knowing-Self is neither born nor does it die” (KathU.1.2.18) — shows, that it stands to reason to accept what is relevant here (viz. the Highest-Self).
‘क इत्था वेद यत्र सः’ इति च दुर्विज्ञानत्वं परमात्मलिङ्गम्॥१०॥
Again the passage “Who indeed knows, where such a one as He, is”, which shows that the Highest-Self is difficult to comprehend, is an indicatory mark of the Highest-Self. — 10.
←PrevNext→ गुहां प्रविष्टावात्मानौ हि तद्दर्शनात्॥१.२.११॥ Gṛhāṃ praviṣṭāv ātmānau hi tad-darśanāt.
Guhām: in the cavity (of the heart) Praviṣṭau: the two who have entered; Ātmanau: are the two selfs (individual soul and the Supreme Soul); Hi: indeed, because; Tad-darśanāt: because it is so seen.
🔗 The two who have entered the cave (of Hṛdaya), are the two-selfs (the Jīva-Self and the Highest-Self), because it is so seen. — 22.214.171.124.2.11 L.1
कठवल्लीष्वेव पठ्यते –
In the Kaṭha-vallī itself, it is said —
‘ऋतं पिबन्तौ सुकृतस्य लोके गुहां प्रविष्टौ परमे परार्धे। छायातपौ ब्रह्मविदो वदन्ति पञ्चाग्नयो ये च त्रिणाचिकेताः’ (KathU.1.3.1) इति।
“Those two (Selfs) who imbibe the fruits of actions in the ‘world acquired by good deeds’ (i.e. in the body), and have entered the exalted Ākāśa-like cave of the Hṛdaya which deserves to be half the location of the Highest-Self (Parārdha), And with regard to whom, those who have realized Brahman and those who have maintained the five fires (viz. the house-holder’s fires) and have kept the three Nāciketa fires, say, that they are (as different as) the light and shade.” (KathU.1.3.1).
तत्र संशयः – किमिह बुद्धिजीवौ निर्दिष्टौ,
A doubt here arises, whether intelligence (Buddhi) and the Jīva-Self are here indicated,
Or, the Jīva-Self and the Highest-Self are indicated.
If it is understood that intelligence and the Jīva-Self are here indicated,
ततो बुद्धिप्रधानात्कार्यकरणसङ्घाताद्विलक्षणो जीवः प्रतिपादितो भवति।
Then that would mean — that the Jīva-Self is different from the aggregate of body and the sense-organs which have intelligence as their chief factor, is what is here propounded.
It is expected that it would deserve to be so propounded here,
‘येयं प्रेते विचिकित्सा मनुष्येऽस्तीत्येके नायमस्तीति चैके। एतद्विद्यामनुशिष्टस्त्वयाहं वराणामेष वरस्तृतीयः’ (KathU.1.1.2) इति पृष्टत्वात्।
Because in the following Scriptural passage, the question (which Naciketā asks) is, as follows: — “When a man dies, the doubt that men have, some saying that he (continues) to exist, and others that he does not exist, That, instructed by you (i.e. by Death) I would like to know. That is the third amongst the boons.” (KathU.1.1.2).
अथ जीवपरमात्मानौ, ततो जीवाद्विलक्षणः परमात्मा प्रतिपादितो भवति।
If (on the other hand), it is understood that the Jīva-Self and the Highest-Self are here indicated, then it would appear, that the Highest-Self which is different from the Jīva-Self is what is propounded here.
तदपीह प्रतिपादयितव्यम् –
In that case also, it is expected that it would be so expounded,
‘अन्यत्र धर्मादन्यत्राधर्मादन्यत्रास्मात्कृताकृतात्। अन्यत्र भूताच्च भव्याच्च यत्तत्पश्यसि तद्वद’ (KathU.1.2.14) इति पृष्टत्वात्।
Because in the Scriptural passage the question also asked (by Naciketā) is as follows: — “That something other than duty properly performed (Anyatra Dharmāt), and other than undutiful conduct (Anyatra Adharmāt), other than this effect (i.e. the created thing) and the cause, Other than the past and the future, that you know, and that you should impart to me.” (KathU.1.2.14).
अत्राहाक्षेप्ता – उभावप्येतौ पक्षौ न सम्भवतः।
Here, some other opponent intervenes and says: — Neither of these two views is possible.
कस्मात्? ऋतपानं हि कर्मफलोपभोगः, ‘सुकृतस्य लोके’ इति लिङ्गात्।
Why so? Because, drinking of the fruit of actions means experiencing the fruit of actions, because of the indicatory mark, “The world of good actions i.e. the body”.
तच्च चेतनस्य क्षेत्रज्ञस्य सम्भवति, नाचेतनाया बुद्धेः।
To have a body is possible only for a sentient Knower of the body (Cetanasya Kṣetra-jñasya) and not for the non-sentient intelligence or mind.
‘पिबन्तौ’ इति द्विवचनेन द्वयोः पानं दर्शयति श्रुतिः।
By the dual form ‘Pibantau’, the Scriptures indicate drinking by two,
अत एव क्षेत्रज्ञपरमात्मपक्षोऽपि न सम्भवति;
And hence, the view that the two may be intelligence (Buddhi) and the Jīva-Self, is not possible,
अतो बुद्धिक्षेत्रज्ञपक्षस्तावन्न सम्भवति।
And for a similar reason (Ata eva) the view that the two may be the Jīva-Self, and the Highest-Self, is also not possible,
चेतनेऽपि परमात्मनि ऋतपानासम्भवात्,
Because in the case of the Highest-Self though it is sentient, drinking is not possible,
अनश्नन्नन्योऽभिचाकशीति’ इति मन्त्रवर्णादिति।
Because of the Mantra words “The other does not partake of the Pippala, but only keeps looking on.”
अत्रोच्यते – नैष दोषः; छत्रिणो गच्छन्तीत्येकेनापि च्छत्रिणा बहूनामच्छत्रिणां छत्रित्वोपचारदर्शनात्।
With regard to this objection, it is said: This is no fault, because, if amongst many men going along, even if only one man amongst them may have an umbrella, it is said figuratively about all of them, that persons carrying umbrellas are going.
एवमेकेनापि पिबता द्वौ पिबन्तावुच्येयाताम्।
Similarly, even when only one of these two drinks, it is figuratively said that both drink.
यद्वा जीवस्तावत्पिबति; ईश्वरस्तु पाययति;
Or it may also be said, that the Jīva-Self is the one who drinks, and the Lord causes the Jīva-Self to drink,
पाययन्नपि पिबतीत्युच्यते, पाचयितर्यपि पक्तृत्वप्रसिद्धिदर्शनात्।
And even though the Lord only causes the Jīva-Self to drink, he himself is said to drink, just as, one who causes others to cook, is said to be the one who cooks.
It is even possible to say, that the two may be Intelligence (Buddhi) and the Knower of the body,
करणे कर्तृत्वोपचारात्, ‘एधांसि पचन्ति’ इति प्रयोगदर्शनात्।
Because, we see, that (figuratively) action is predicated of an instrument of action, as for instance, we find it said like this: “The fuel is cooking.”
न चाध्यात्माधिकारेऽन्यौ कौचिद्द्वावृतं पिबन्तौ सम्भवतः।
In a chapter dealing with the Adhyātma (the relation of the Jīva-Self with the Highest-Self) any other pair of drinkers (other than the Jīva-Self and the Highest-Self), is not possible.
तस्माद्बुद्धिजीवौ स्यातां जीवपरमात्मानौ वेति संशयः॥
Therefore, it is, that a doubt arises (as said by the opponent, above) whether the pair of Intelligence and the Jīva-Self is meant here, or the pair of the Jīva-Self and the Highest-Self.
What then is your view?
(The opponent says) that Intelligence and the Knower of the body are meant here.
कुतः? ‘गुहां प्रविष्टौ’ इति विशेषणात्।
Why so? Because it has been so particularized in the words — “(The two) have entered the cave.”
यदि शरीरं गुहा, यदि वा हृदयम्,
Whether, by the word cave, we understand the body or the Hṛdaya,
उभयथापि बुद्धिक्षेत्रज्ञौ गुहां प्रविष्टावुपपद्येते।
In either case it is reasonably sustainable that those who are supposed to have entered the cave are, Intelligence (Buddhi) and the Knower of the body,
न च सति सम्भवे सर्वगतस्य ब्रह्मणो विशिष्टदेशत्वं युक्तं कल्पयितुम्।
And so far as it is possible, it is not proper to imagine that the all-pervading Brahman is circumscribed i.e. confined to a particular region.
‘सुकृतस्य लोके’ इति च कर्मगोचरानतिक्रमं दर्शयति।
The words “the world of good actions” (which mean a body) show that there is no escaping the influence of action (on the part of these two).
परमात्मा तु न सुकृतस्य वा दुष्कृतस्य वा गोचरे वर्तते, ‘न कर्मणा वर्धते नो कनीयान्’ इति श्रुतेः।
The Highest-Self is on the other hand beyond the sphere of good or bad actions, because of the Scriptural passage — “He does not either increase or decrease (in his status) by action.”
‘छायातपौ’ इति च चेतनाचेतनयोर्निर्देश उपपद्यते, छायातपवत्परस्परविलक्षणत्वात्।
The words “light and shade” indicate, that it is reasonably sustainable, that there is an indication of sentient and non-sentient entities being as different from each other, as light and shade.
तस्माद्बुद्धिक्षेत्रज्ञाविहोच्येयातामित्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः
Therefore it is the Intelligence (Buddhi) and the Jīva-Self that are spoken of here.
As to this conclusion ' (of the opponent) we reply: — It is the Cognitional Jīva-Self and the Highest-Self that are here spoken of.
कस्मात्? आत्मानौ हि तावुभावपि चेतनौ समानस्वभावौ।
Whence is it so? Because, both of them are selfs and sentient, and have a common nature.
संख्याश्रवणे च समानस्वभावेष्वेव लोके प्रतीतिर्दृश्यते।
For we find that in the ordinary world, when we hear of any reference by way of enumeration by number (Saṅkhyā-śravaṇe), we experience that it is so said, about things which have a common nature.
‘अस्य गोर्द्वितीयोऽन्वेष्टव्यः’ इत्युक्ते, गौरेव द्वितीयोऽन्विष्यते, नाश्वः पुरुषो वा।
When it is said (by somebody) that ‘a fellow for this bull should be looked for’ it is a bull that is searched for and not a horse or a man.
तदिह ऋतपानेन लिङ्गेन निश्चिते विज्ञानात्मनि
So here, when one (of the two) is ascertained to be the Cognitional Jīva-Self, on the strength of the indicatory mark “Drinking the fruit of action”,
द्वितीयान्वेषणायां समानस्वभावश्चेतनः परमात्मैव प्रतीयते।
And another like it is to be searched for, the Intelligent Highest-Self, which has a nature common with it (i.e. the Jīva-Self) is to be understood.
ननूक्तं गुहाहितत्वदर्शनान्न परमात्मा प्रत्येतव्य इति;
But (says the opponent) we have said, that because being in a cave is to be seen here, the Highest-Self ought not to be understood.
गुहाहितत्वदर्शनादेव परमात्मा प्रत्येतव्य इति वदामः।
As to this we reply — It is precisely because of that (i.e. that “being in a cave” is to be seen here) that the Highest-Self should be understood here.
गुहाहितत्वं तु श्रुतिस्मृतिष्वसकृत्परमात्मन एव दृश्यते –
Because we see more than once,' in the Scriptures and the Smṛtis, that “being in the cave” is mentioned in connection with the Highest-Self,
‘गुहाहितं गह्वरेष्ठं पुराणम्’ (KathU.1.2.12)
As for instance — “The ancient one who is hidden in the cave and is in an un-get-at-able region” (KathU.1.2.12);
‘यो वेद निहितं गुहायां परमे व्योमन्’ (TaitU.2.1.1)
“One who knows the Puruṣa hidden in the cave of the great Ākāśa” (TaitU.2.1 Eng.);
‘आत्मानमन्विच्छ गुहां प्रविष्टम्’ इत्याद्यासु।
“Look for the self which is hidden in the cave” etc.
सर्वगतस्यापि ब्रह्मण उपलब्ध्यर्थो देशविशेषोपदेशो न विरुध्यत इत्येतदप्युक्तमेव।
Besides we have already said, that all-pervading though Brahman is, it is not contradictory to give instruction about it, as having a finite determination in a particular limited region for the purpose of its realization.
सुकृतलोकवर्तित्वं तु च्छत्रित्ववदेकस्मिन्नपि वर्तमानमुभयोरविरुद्धम्।
Though, being present in body, is applicable to one only (i.e. the Jīva-Self), it would not be contradictory if it is so said about both, on the analogy of many persons being described as persons equipped with umbrellas, even when only one amongst them happens to be equipped with an umbrella,
Nor is the expression “light and shade” also contradictory,
Because being in a transmigratory condition (i.e. being yet unenlightened) and not being in a transmigratory condition (i.e. being enlightened or liberated) is being as different from each other as darkness and light.
Transmigratory condition is the result of Nescience,
And ‘not being in the transmigratory condition’ is the real transcendental condition.
तस्माद्विज्ञानात्मपरमात्मानौ गुहां प्रविष्टौ गृह्येते॥११॥
Therefore, the Cognitional Jīva-Self and the Highest-Self should be understood to be mentioned here. — 11.
Viśeṣanāt: on account of distinctive qualities; Ca: and.
🔗 Because of the particularization. — 126.96.36.199.2.12 L.2
‘आत्मानं रथिनं विद्धि शरीरं रथमेव तु’ (KathU.1.3.3) इत्यादिना परेण ग्रन्थेन रथिरथादिरूपककल्पनया विज्ञानात्मानं रथिनं संसारमोक्षयोर्गन्तारं कल्पयति।
Because, here, a distinction is (seen to be) made, which is possible, only as between the Cognitional Self and the Highest-Self. Because, in the passage “Know the Self to be the charioteer and the body to be the chariot” (KathU.1.3.3), By the allegorical conception of the charioteer and the chariot, the Cognitional Self, the charioteer, is imagined (by the Scriptures) to be the traveller passing through transmigratory existence towards Final Release,
‘सोऽध्वनः पारमाप्नोति तद्विष्णोः परमं पदम्’ (KathU.1.3.9) इति परमात्मानं गन्तव्यं कल्पयति।
And by the passage “He reaches beyond the end of the way and attains the seat of Viṣṇu” (KathU.1.3.9) Is indicated the Highest-Self, which is to be ultimately reached (by the traveller i.e. the Cognitional-Self).
तथा ‘तं दुर्दर्शं गूढमनुप्रविष्टं गुहाहितं गह्वरेष्ठं पुराणम्। अध्यात्मयोगाधिगमेन देवं मत्वा धीरो हर्षशोकौ जहाति’ (KathU.1.2.12) इति पूर्वस्मिन्नपि ग्रन्थे मन्तृमन्तव्यत्वेनैतावेव विशेषितौ।
Similarly by the preceding passage — viz. “The wise one, by contemplative study of Adhyātma (the relation between the Jīva-Self and the Highest-Self), knows the ancient One, who is difficult to discern, who has been a mystery, and who has, as it were, entered into a cave, and who rules from an inaccessible place, and ultimately renounces pleasure or pain” (KathU.1.2.12) — also, the same two are differentiated from each other, one of the two (i.e. the Jīva-Self, as being the one that contemplates, and the other, i.e. the Highest-Self, as being the object of such contemplation).
प्रकरणं चेदं परमात्मनः।
Besides, this chapter also deals with the Highest-Self.
‘ब्रह्मविदो वदन्ति’ इति च वक्तृविशेषोपादानं परमात्मपरिग्रहे घटते।
And the passage “Those who have realized Brahman, speak” by which a special category of speakers is understood, fits in properly, only if we understand the Highest-Self (to be meant as being one of the two).
Therefore, here, the Jīva-Self and the Highest-Self are referred to.
एष एव न्यायः ‘द्वा सुपर्णा सयुजा सखाया’ (MunU.3.1.1) इत्येवमादिष्वपि।
The same reasoning (Nyāya) applies in the case of the passages such as — “Two birds, inseparable friends” (MunU.3.1.1) etc.
तत्रापि ह्याध्यात्माधिकारान्न प्राकृतौ सुपर्णावुच्येते।
There also, the chapter being one dealing with Adhyātma, it could not be said to refer to ordinary birds.
‘तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्ति’ इत्यदनलिङ्गाद्विज्ञानात्मा भवति।
One may well be the Cognitional-Self, because of the indicatory mark of eating, viz. “One of them partakes of the sweet Pippala fruit”, —
‘अनश्नन्नन्योऽभिचाकशीति’ इत्यनशनचेतनत्वाभ्यां परमात्मा। अनन्तरे च मन्त्रे तावेव द्रष्टृद्रष्टव्यभावेन विशिनष्टि –
And the other may well be the Highest-Self because of his abstention from the partaking of it, and because of its being sentient, (as indicated) by the passage “The other one does not partake (of the fruit) but keeps looking on”.
‘समाने वृक्षे पुरुषो निमग्नोऽनीशया शोचति मुह्यमानः। जुष्टं यदा पश्यत्यन्यमीशमस्य महिमानमिति वीतशोकः’ (MunU.3.1.2) इति॥
Again in the following Mantra — “The Puruṣa engulfed in the same tree (i.e. the body), grieves bewildered, because of the absence of the realization of any ruling power in him (Anīśayā), But when he sees the other as the one who is the Lord, and who is worshipped by those who endeavour to realize Him, and beholds His glory (Mahimānam), then he goes beyond grief” (MunU.3.1.2) (— The same two are indicated as being different from each other, one of them being the seer (i.e. the Jīva-Self) and the other, as the one that is seen (the Highest-Self).)
अपर आह – ‘द्वा सुपर्णा’ इति नेयमृगस्याधिकरणस्य सिद्धान्तं भजते, पैङ्गिरहस्यब्राह्मणेनान्यथा व्याख्यातत्वात् –
Some other opponent maintains that this Ṛk — viz. “Two birds” etc. — has not the conclusion arrived at (by the Sūtra-kāra) in this Adhikaraṇa, because (according to him) the Paiṅgi-Rahasya-Brāhmaṇa, has interpreted it in another way, viz.,
‘तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्तीति सत्त्वमनश्नन्नन्योऽभिचाकशीतीत्यनश्नन्नन्योऽभिपश्यति ज्ञस्तावेतौ सत्त्वक्षेत्रज्ञौ’ इति।
That by “One of these two partakes of the sweet fruit” intelligence (i.e. Sattva) is indicated, and by “The other one does not partake (of the fruit) but keeps only looking on” the ‘Jña’ (ज्ञ), the Knower, is indicated, and it is this pair of ‘intelligence’ and ‘the Knower in the body’ that should be understood.
सत्त्वशब्दो जीवः क्षेत्रज्ञशब्दः परमात्मेति यदुच्यते, तन्न; सत्त्वक्षेत्रज्ञशब्दयोरन्तःकरणशारीरपरतया प्रसिद्धत्वात्।
The suggestion that the word ‘Sattva’ indicates the Jīva-Self and the word ‘Kṣetra-jña’ indicates the Highest-Self, is not correct, Because the two words (Sattva and Kṣetra-jña) are well-known as being used for the internal organ (Antaḥ-karaṇa) and the embodied Jīva-Self (respectively).
तत्रैव च व्याख्यातत्वात् – ‘तदेतत्सत्त्वं येन स्वप्नं पश्यति, अथ योऽयं शारीर उपद्रष्टा स क्षेत्रज्ञस्तावेतौ सत्त्वक्षेत्रज्ञौ’ इति।
Besides they are so explained even there thus: — “That which is intelligence, by means of which he sees dreams, and the one who, constructively, is the Seer i.e. the embodied one, the cognizer in the body, are the two who form this pair of ‘Sattva’ and ‘Kṣetra-jña’.”
नाप्यस्याधिकरणस्य पूर्वपक्षं भजते।
Nor does this Ṛk support the conclusion of the opponent’s view (Pūrva-pakṣa).
न ह्यत्र शारीरः क्षेत्रज्ञः कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वादिना संसारधर्मेणोपेतो विवक्ष्यते।
This Ṛk does not intend to speak of the embodied Jīva-Self, the knower in the body, the one affected by the attributes of transmigratory existence such as the attributes of being an agent or an experiencer,
कथं तर्हि? सर्वसंसारधर्मातीतो ब्रह्मस्वभावश्चैतन्यमात्रस्वरूपः; ‘अनश्नन्नन्योऽभिचाकशीतीत्यनश्नन्नन्योऽभिपश्यति ज्ञः’ इति वचनात्,
But on the other hand it is intended to speak, as shown by the Scriptural passage “The other one does not partake (of the fruit) but merely keeps looking on, and is the Knower (Jña)”, About the one who is beyond the attribute of transmigratory existence and has the inherent nature of Brahman i.e. pure sentiency,
‘तत्त्वमसि’ ‘क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि’ (BhG.13.2) इत्यादिश्रुतिस्मृतिभ्यश्च।
And that is so, also because of the Scriptural and Smṛti passages such as “That thou art” and “Also know me as the cognizer in the body” (BhG.13.2).
तावता च विद्योपसंहारदर्शनमेवमेवावकल्पते, ‘तावेतौ सत्त्वक्षेत्रज्ञौ न ह वा एवंविदि किञ्चन रज आध्वंसते’ इत्यादि।
It is only if we understand it in this manner, that the conclusion arrived at in this instruction (Vidyā) is justified, viz. — “Those two are the ‘Sattva’ and the ‘Kṣetra-jña’ and no ignorance (Rajas) clings to him who knows it to be like this.”
कथं पुनरस्मिन्पक्षे ‘तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्तीति सत्त्वम्’ इत्यचेतने सत्त्वे भोक्तृत्ववचनमिति,
But (says the opponent) if we accept this interpretation or this view, how is it possible to understand the reference to eating in the case of ‘Sattva’ which is non-sentient, as is to be seen in the passage “One of the two partakes of the sweet Pippala fruit”, as meaning the Sattva?
उच्यते – नेयं श्रुतिरचेतनस्य सत्त्वस्य भोक्तृत्वं वक्ष्यामीति प्रवृत्ता –
To this we reply — This Scriptural passage does not start with a desire to speak of the non-sentient ‘Sattva’ as an experiencer,
किं तर्हि? – चेतनस्य क्षेत्रज्ञस्याभोक्तृत्वं ब्रह्मस्वभावतां च वक्ष्यामीति।
But with a desire to say, that the sentient cognizer in the body is not the experiencer, but that it has the nature of Brahman.
तदर्थं सुखदुःखादिविक्रियावति सत्त्वे भोक्तृत्वमध्यारोपयति।
And it is with that purpose that the attribute of being an experiencer is superimposed on ‘Sattva’ which is affected with such notions, as that of pleasure etc.
इदं हि कर्तृत्वं भोक्तृत्वं च सत्त्वक्षेत्रज्ञयोरितरेतरस्वभावाविवेककृतं कल्प्यते।
It is thought that the attributes of being an experiencer and an agent, are the result of the failure to discriminate properly between the respective natures of ‘Sattva’ and ‘Kṣetra-jña’,
परमार्थतस्तु नान्यतरस्यापि सम्भवति, अचेतनत्वात्सत्त्वस्य, अविक्रियत्वाच्च क्षेत्रज्ञस्य।
While in the ultimate true sense, it is not at all possible in the case of either, inasmuch as the ‘Sattva’ is non-sentient and the ‘Kṣetra-jña’ (cognizer in the body) is not liable to modifications.
अविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापितस्वभावत्वाच्च सत्त्वस्य सुतरां न सम्भवति।
It is even less possible in the case of ‘Sattva’ whose nature is brought about by Nescience.
तथा च श्रुतिः – ‘यत्र वा अन्यदिव स्यात्तत्रान्योऽन्यत्पश्येत्’ इत्यादिना स्वप्नदृष्टहस्त्यादिव्यवहारवदविद्याविषय एव कर्तृत्वादिव्यवहारं दर्शयति।
Even so, says the Scriptural passage — “Where things, as it were, appear to be different, there, it is possible for one to see another” — Which shows that all this behaviour as an agent etc., is quite as much the result of Nescience as is the behaviour of an elephant as seen in a dream.
‘यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्’ (BrhU.4.5.15) इत्यादिना च विवेकिनः कर्तृत्वादिव्यवहारं निवारयति॥१२॥
The Scriptural passage — “Where he sees all this as but only his own Self, what can he see and by what”? (BrhUEng.4.5.15) — shows that in the case of one who is able to discriminate properly, there is absence of any such behaviour as that of an agent. — 12.
←PrevNext→ अन्तर उपपत्तेः॥१.२.१३॥ Antara upapatteḥ.
Antaraḥ: inside (the eye), the being within the eye; Upapatteḥ: on account of the appropriateness of (attributes).
🔗 The Puruṣa that is inside (the eye, is Brahman), because that is reasonably sustainable. — 188.8.131.52.2.13 L.1
‘य एषोऽक्षिणि पुरुषो दृश्यत एष आत्मेति होवाचैतदमृतमभयमेतद्ब्रह्मेति। तद्यद्यप्यस्मिन्सर्पिर्वोदकं वा सिञ्चति वर्त्मनी एव गच्छति’ (ChanU.4.15.1) इत्यादि श्रूयते।
A Scriptural passage is as follows: — “He (the Ācārya) said that the Puruṣa that is seen inside the eye is the Self, it is the immortal one, the fearless, it is Brahman. It is seen that if one were to drop either ghee or water in the eye, (it does not cling to the eye, but) it promptly runs out towards the eye-lashes.” (ChanU.4.15.1).
तत्र संशयः –
With regard to that the doubt arises,
किमयं प्रतिबिम्बात्माक्ष्यधिकरणो निर्दिश्यते,
Whether the Self as the reflection in the eye is meant here,
Or the Cognitional Self,
Or the Self of a deity which presides in the sense-organ called the eye,
Or the Lord.
What then is the conclusion you arrive at?
छायात्मा पुरुषप्रतिरूप इति।
It is, that it is the reflection of the Self, the exact image of the Puruṣa.
कुतः? तस्य दृश्यमानत्वप्रसिद्धेः, ‘य एषोऽक्षिणि पुरुषो दृश्यते’ इति च प्रसिद्धवदुपदेशात्।
How so? Because, that it is so seen is well-known, and instruction about it is given in the Scriptures as being so well-known, as follows: “The Puruṣa that is seen inside the eye”.
विज्ञानात्मनो वायं निर्देश इति युक्तम्। स हि चक्षुषा रूपं पश्यंश्चक्षुषि सन्निहितो भवति।
Or it would be logical to say that there is a reference to the Cognitional-Self here, because it is he, that is in close proximity in the eye, seeing form or colour (Rūpa) with it (i.e. the eye).
The word ‘Self’ (used here), is favourable to the view which is interpreted here
आदित्यपुरुषो वा चक्षुषोऽनुग्राहकः प्रतीयते – ‘रश्मिभिरेषोऽस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठितः’ (BrhU.5.5.2) इति श्रुतेः,
Or may be, it means that it refers to the Puruṣa in the Sun, which helps the eyes, because a Scriptural passage says as follows: — “He dwells in the eye by way of the rays” (BrhUEng.5.5.2).
अमृतत्वादीनां च देवतात्मन्यपि कथञ्चित्सम्भवात्।
The attributes of immortality etc., can somehow be understood to be possible in the case of the Self of the deity.
नेश्वरः, स्थानविशेषनिर्देशात् –
But in no way can it ever mean the Lord, because a particular circumscribed abode is here indicated.
इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः – परमेश्वर एवाक्षिण्यभ्यन्तरः पुरुष इहोपदिष्ट इति।
To this conclusion (of the opponent) we reply — It is the Lord alone about whom instruction is here given as the Puruṣa that is in the eye.
How so? Because that is what is reasonably sustainable.
उपपद्यते हि परमेश्वरे गुणजातमिहोपदिश्यमानम्।
The aggregate of attributes about which instruction is here given appears to be reasonably sustainable only in the case of the Lord,
आत्मत्वं तावन्मुख्यया वृत्त्या परमेश्वरे उपपद्यते, ‘स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि’ इति श्रुतेः।
For selfhood (Ātmatva) in its chief primary sense is reasonably sustainable in the case of the Lord, because of the Scriptural passage — “That is the Self, that thou art.”
अमृतत्वाभयत्वे च तस्मिन्नसकृच्छ्रूयेते।
We have seen that Scriptures more than once have mentioned immortality and fearlessness in connection with it (i.e. the Lord).
Similarly, the eye as an abode, is proper in the case of the Highest Lord.
यथा हि परमेश्वरः सर्वदोषैरलिप्तः, अपहतपाप्मत्वादिश्रवणात्;
Just as the Highest Lord is free from all faults, as being free from all sins,
तथाक्षिस्थानं सर्वलेपरहितमुपदिष्टम् ‘तद्यद्यप्यस्मिन्सर्पिर्वोदकं वा सिञ्चति, वर्त्मनी एव गच्छति’ इति श्रुतेः।
Similarly instruction about the eye as an abode is given, as being free from all contamination, Because the Scriptural passage says as follows: “That if one were to drop either ghee or water in the eye it promptly runs out towards the eyelashes”.
Besides the instruction, that he is the one to whom all blessings go etc., is reasonably possible to be imagined only in his case.
‘एतं संयद्वाम इत्याचक्षते। एतं हि सर्वाणि वामान्यभिसंयन्ति’, (ChanU.4.15.2)
The Scriptural passage says — “It is called ‘Samyad-vāma’ because all blessings go to him.” (ChanU.4.15.2)
‘एष उ एव वामनीरेष हि सर्वाणि वामानि नयति। एष उ एव भामनीरेष हि सर्वेषु लोकेषु भाति’ (ChanU.4.15.3) (ChanU.4.15.4) इति च।
“It is called ‘Vāmanī’ because it is that which conveys all the fruits of good actions (to beings, who perform such good actions). It is called ‘Bhāmanī’ because it is that which shines in all the worlds” (ChanU.4.15.2–4).
अत उपपत्तेरन्तरः परमेश्वरः॥१३॥
Therefore, inasmuch as it is reasonably sustainable in this way, the Highest Lord is the one that is within (the eye). — 13.
←PrevNext→ स्थानादिव्यपदेशाच्च॥१.२.१४॥ Sthānādi-vyapadeśāc ca.
Sthāna-ādi: the place and the rest; Vyapadeśāt: on account of the statement; Ca: and.
🔗 Also because an abode etc. is mentioned. — 184.108.40.206.2.14 L.1
कथं पुनराकाशवत्सर्वगतस्य ब्रह्मणोऽक्ष्यल्पं स्थानमुपपद्यत इति,
How, again, can a small abode like an eye, be reasonably sustainable in the case of the Ākāśa-like all-pervading, Brahman?
अत्रोच्यते – भवेदेषानवकॢप्तिः, यद्येतदेवैकं स्थानमस्य निर्दिष्टं भवेत्।
To this we reply — Such inappropriateness may well occur, if that abode only (i.e. only the eye) were to have been indicated as the abode of Brahman,
सन्ति ह्यन्यान्यपि पृथिव्यादीनि स्थानान्यस्य निर्दिष्टानि – ‘यः पृथिव्यां तिष्ठन्’ (BrhU.3.7.3) इत्यादिना।
But other abodes as well such as the Earth etc. are indicated (as the abodes of Brahman), By the Scriptural passage “He who dwells in the Earth etc.” (BrhUEng.3.7.3), and inter alia,
तेषु हि चक्षुरपि निर्दिष्टम् ‘यश्चक्षुषि तिष्ठन्’ इति।
The eye also is therein mentioned, thus — “He who dwells in the eye etc.”.
This is indicated by using the word Ādi (etc.) in the word “Sthānādi” in the Sūtra.
न केवलं स्थानमेवैकमनुचितं ब्रह्मणो निर्दिश्यते।
Here, not only an abode (as for instance, the eye) which is really inappropriate (as an abode of Brahman) is seen to be indicated,
किं तर्हि? नाम रूपमित्येवंजातीयकमप्यनामरूपस्य ब्रह्मणोऽनुचितं निर्दिश्यमानं दृश्यते – ‘तस्योदिति नाम’ (ChanU.1.6.7) ‘हिरण्यश्मश्रुः’ इत्यादि।
But even such other things as name and form which also have no appropriate use in the case of the nameless and formless Brahman, are also seen to be indicated, As for instance in the Scriptural passage — “His name is ‘Ut’, he has an aureate beard” (ChanU.1.6.7) etc.
निर्गुणमपि सद्ब्रह्म नामरूपगतैर्गुणैः सगुणमुपासनार्थं तत्र तत्रोपदिश्यत इत्येतदप्युक्तमेव।
And it has also been stated that, Brahman, being as it is without any attribute, is, in various places, taught as being endowed with attributes for the purpose of devout meditation.
सर्वगतस्यापि ब्रह्मण उपलब्ध्यर्थं स्थानविशेषो न विरुध्यते, सालग्राम इव विष्णोरित्येतदप्युक्तमेव॥१४॥
Just as (for the purpose of devout contemplation) a special abode of Viṣṇu viz. Śāla-grāma (is mentioned), even so, it is not contradictory, that Brahman, all-pervading though it is, has, for the purpose of its realization (Upalabdhyārtham), a circumscribed abode. — 14.
←PrevNext→ सुखविशिष्टाभिधानादेव च॥१.२.१५॥ Sukha-viśiṣṭābhidhānād eva ca.
Sukha: bliss; Viśiṣṭa: qualified by; Abhidhānāt: because of the description; Eva: alone; Ca: and.
🔗 Also because of the mention (of Brahman) as possessing (the characteristic of) pleasure. — 220.127.116.11.2.15 L.1
अपि च नैवात्र विवदितव्यम् – किं ब्रह्मास्मिन्वाक्येऽभिधीयते, न वेति।
Besides, in this connection, indeed, no discussion, as to whether Brahman is spoken of in this sentence or not, need be made, because it is established that the passage refers to Brahman,
सुखविशिष्टाभिधानादेव ब्रह्मत्वं सिद्धम्।
Precisely because it is mentioned as possessing (the characteristic of) pleasure.
सुखविशिष्टं हि ब्रह्म यद्वाक्योपक्रमे प्रक्रान्तम् ‘प्राणो ब्रह्म कं ब्रह्म खं ब्रह्म’ (ChanU.4.14.1) इति, तदेवेहाभिहितम्;
In the beginning of the sentence, that very Brahman which is distinguished by (the characteristic of) pleasure and which is mentioned thus — “Prāṇa is Brahman, ‘Ka’ is Brahman, ‘Kha’ is Brahman” (ChanU.4.14.1) — Is the same that is spoken of here,
प्रकृतपरिग्रहस्य न्याय्यत्वात्, ‘आचार्यस्तु ते गतिं वक्ता’ (ChanU.4.14.1) इति च गतिमात्राभिधानप्रतिज्ञानात्।
Because it stands to reason that what is accepted as relevant to the subject in the beginning should be accepted as having been meant here. By a Scriptural passage — “The Ācārya, however, will speak to you about the way” (ChanU.4.14.1) — (the sacred fires have said) that only the way will be told you (by the Ācārya, and not that he will introduce a new subject).
कथं पुनर्वाक्योपक्रमे सुखविशिष्टं ब्रह्म विज्ञायत इति, उच्यते –
Again, how do we understand that in the beginning of the sentence Brahman as possessed of (the characteristic of) pleasure, is spoken of?
‘प्राणो ब्रह्म कं ब्रह्म खं ब्रह्म’ (ChanU.4.10.5) इत्येतदग्नीनां वचनं श्रुत्वोपकोसल उवाच –
We reply: — Upakosala, on hearing the words “Prāṇa is Brahman, ‘Ka’ is Brahman, ‘Kha’ is Brahman” (ChanU.4.10.5), mentioned by the sacred fires, said,
‘विजानाम्यहं यत्प्राणो ब्रह्म, कं च तु खं च न विजानामि’ इति।
“I can understand that Prāṇa is Brahman, but I do not understand what ‘Ka’ and ‘Kha’ mean.”
तत्रेदं प्रतिवचनम् – ‘यद्वाव कं तदेव खं यदेव खं तदेव कम्’ इति।
And there the reply is — “That which is ‘Ka’ is verily ‘Kha’, and that which is ‘Kha’ is verily ‘Ka’” (ChanU.4.10.5).
तत्र खंशब्दो भूताकाशे निरूढो लोके।
Now, there the word ‘Kha’ is known by people to be a word used for the element Ākāśa.
यदि तस्य विशेषणत्वेन कंशब्दः सुखवाची नोपादीयेत,
Now, if we don’t take the word ‘Ka’ which means pleasure as an adjective of ‘Kha’,
तथा सति केवले भूताकाशे ब्रह्मशब्दो नामादिष्विव प्रतीकाभिप्रायेण प्रयुक्त इति प्रतीतिः स्यात्।
Then, in that case, it would be understood that the word ‘Brahman’ is used in connection with the mere element Ākāśa, in the sense of a symbol, just as a Nāman is understood as a symbol (of Brahman).
तथा कंशब्दस्य विषयेन्द्रियसम्पर्कजनिते सामये सुखे प्रसिद्धत्वात्,
Similarly the word ‘Ka’, being a word which is well-known as being used for pleasure not unmixed with pain resulting from the contact of the sense-organs with their objects,
यदि तस्य खंशब्दो विशेषणत्वेन नोपादीयेत;
If we do not take the word ‘Kha’ to be an adjective of the word ‘Ka’,
लौकिकं सुखं ब्रह्मेति प्रतीतिः स्यात्।
Then the realization would be that mere worldly pleasure is Brahman.
इतरेतरविशेषितौ तु कंखंशब्दौ सुखात्मकं ब्रह्म गमयतः।
When, however, the words ‘Ka’ and ‘Kha’ are used (as here) as qualifying each other, then the two together, would indicate Brahman having the nature of pleasure.
तत्र द्वितीये ब्रह्मशब्देऽनुपादीयमाने ‘कं खं ब्रह्म’ इत्येवोच्यमाने कंशब्दस्य विशेषणत्वेनैवोपयुक्तत्वात्सुखस्य गुणस्याध्येयत्वं स्यात्;
Now, if the word (Brahman) is not supposed to be used twice in the sentence and the sentence were to read thus — ‘Kam-Kham Brahman’ — Then the word Ka having been appropriated as an adjective of Kha, the attribute ‘pleasure’ would not be understood to be one which should be contemplated upon,
तन्मा भूत् – इत्युभयोः कंखंशब्दयोर्ब्रह्मशब्दशिरस्त्वम् – ‘कं ब्रह्म खं ब्रह्म’ इति।
And it is with a view to avoid this that both the words Ka and Kha are headed by Brahman (Brahma-śirastvam) i.e. the word Brahman is placed after them thus — “Ka is Brahman, Kha is Brahman”.
इष्टं हि सुखस्यापि गुणस्य गुणिवद्ध्येयत्वम्।
It is necessary that the attribute ‘pleasure’, also along with the object which is endowed with that attribute (i.e. the qualified Brahman) should be meditated upon.
तदेवं वाक्योपक्रमे सुखविशिष्टं ब्रह्मोपदिष्टम्।
Hence in this manner, in the beginning of the sentence, instruction about Brahman as possessed of the attribute of pleasure is given.
प्रत्येकं च गार्हपत्यादयोऽग्नयः स्वं स्वं महिमानमुपदिश्य ‘एषा सोम्य तेऽस्मद्विद्यात्मविद्या च’ इत्युपसंहरन्तः पूर्वत्र ब्रह्म निर्दिष्टमिति ज्ञापयन्ति।
Each one of the sacred fires, viz. the Gārha-patya (the householder’s Agni) and others, having given instruction (to Upakosala) about their own greatness or glory, Indicate, As they conclude the subject by mentioning, by the passage “Oh mild one (we have told you) this is our knowledge pertaining to ourselves and our knowledge about Brahman”, that it is Brahman that is indicated earlier.
‘आचार्यस्तु ते गतिं वक्ता’ इति च गतिमात्राभिधानप्रतिज्ञानमर्थान्तरविवक्षां वारयति।
The sentence “The Ācārya will speak to you about the way”, which promises the mention (by the Ācārya) of the way only, precludes the possibility of any desire to speak about anything else.
‘यथा पुष्करपलाश आपो न श्लिष्यन्त एवमेवंविदि पापं कर्म न श्लिष्यते’ (ChanU.4.14.3) इति चाक्षिस्थानं पुरुषं विजानतः पाप्मनानुपघातं ब्रुवन्नक्षिस्थानस्य पुरुषस्य ब्रह्मत्वं दर्शयति।
The Scriptural passage — “Just as water does not adhere to the leaf of a lotus, even so, sin does not contaminate one who knows this in this way” (ChanU.4.14.3) — , Which speaks of one who knows the Puruṣa in the eye as the one who is not assailed or overwhelmed with sin, also indicates the Puruṣa in the eye as being Brahman.
तस्मात्प्रकृतस्यैव ब्रह्मणोऽक्षिस्थानतां संयद्वामत्वादिगुणतां चोक्त्वा अर्चिरादिकां तद्विदो गतिं वक्ष्यामीत्युपक्रमते –
It is because of this, that having spoken of Brahman, which is relevant here, as having its abode in the eye, and as being endowed with the attribute of ‘Samyad-vāma’, The Scriptures, purporting to mention the ‘Path of the Arci etc.’ as being the path of those who know it to be so, begin by mentioning —
‘य एषोऽक्षिणि पुरुषो दृश्यत एष आत्मेति होवाच’ (ChanU.4.15.1) इति॥१५॥
“He said: This, the Puruṣa that is seen in the eye, is the Self etc.” (ChanU.4.15.1). — 15.
←PrevNext→ श्रुतोपनिषत्कगत्यभिधानाच्च॥१.२.१६॥ Śrutopaniṣatka-gaty-abhidhānāc ca.
Śruta: heard; Upaniṣatka: the Upaniṣads; Gati: way; Abhidhānāt: because of the statement; Ca: and.
🔗 Also because of the declaration of the path of one who has heard (i.e. realized the esoteric significance of) the Upaniṣads. — 18.104.22.168.2.16 L.1
इतश्चाक्षिस्थानः पुरुषः परमेश्वरः,
This again is why the Puruṣa whose abode is in the eye is the Highest Lord,
यस्माच्छ्रुतोपनिषत्कस्य श्रुतरहस्यविज्ञानस्य ब्रह्मविदो या गतिर्देवयानाख्या प्रसिद्धा श्रुतौ –
Because the ‘Deva-yāna Path’ of those, who have understood the inward or esoteric significance of the Upaniṣads and have realized Brahman, is well-known from the Scriptures, thus —
‘अथोत्तरेण तपसा ब्रह्मचर्येण श्रद्धया विद्ययात्मानमन्विष्यादित्यमभिजयन्ते। एतद्वै प्राणानामायतनमेतदमृतमभयमेतत्परायणमेतस्मान्न पुनरावर्तन्ते’ (PrasU.1.10) इति,
“Those who have sought out the Self by penance, celibate life, faith and knowledge, reach the Āditya (after death) by the northern path. This verily is the abode of the Prāṇas (the abode of Hiraṇya-garbha considered singly and cosmically), this the immortal one, free from fear, and the sheet anchor from where (having once reached) they do not (have to) return.” (PrasU.1.10).
स्मृतावपि – ‘अग्निर्ज्योतिरहः शुक्लः षण्मासा उत्तरायणम्। तत्र प्रयाता गच्छन्ति ब्रह्म ब्रह्मविदो जनाः’ (BhG.8.24) इति,
In Smṛti also, thus — “Agni, Jyotis, the day, the bright fortnight, the six months of Uttarāyaṇa (six months during which the Sun appears to change its position gradually from South to North). By this path, after death those who know Brahman reach Brahman.” (BhG.8.24).
The same Path is seen to be mentioned by the Scriptures for those who know the Puruṣa in the eye,
‘अथ यदु चैवास्मिञ्छव्यं कुर्वन्ति यदि च नार्चिषमेवाभिसम्भवन्ति’ इत्युपक्रम्य
Beginning as follows — “With regard to a person who had died, whether his funeral and obsequies are performed or not (by his sons etc.), such person reaches the Arci i.e. light of the sun”,
‘आदित्याच्चन्द्रमसं चन्द्रमसो विद्युतं, तत्पुरुषोऽमानवः स एनान्ब्रह्म गमयत्येष देवपथो ब्रह्मपथ, एतेन प्रतिपद्यमाना इमं मानवमावर्तं नावर्तन्ते’ (ChanU.4.15.5) इति।
And thereafter (the path is indicated thus) — “From the Sun he reaches the moon, from the moon to the lightning. There a being that is non-human (i.e. who is a super-man) leads them on to Brahman. This is the path of the Gods, the path of Brahman. Those who reach (Brahman) by this path do not revert to the condition of recurring birth and death.” (ChanU.4.15.5).
तदिह ब्रह्मविद्विषयया प्रसिद्धया गत्या अक्षिस्थानस्य ब्रह्मत्वं निश्चीयते॥१६॥
In this way, here, it is determined that the one whose abode is in the eye, is Brahman, because of the mention of the path of those who know Brahman. — 16.
←PrevNext→ अनवस्थितेरसम्भवाच्च नेतरः॥१.२.१७॥ Anavasthiter asambhavāc ca netaraḥ.
Anavasthiteḥ: not existing always; Asambhavāt: on account of the impossibility; Ca: and; Na: not; Itaraḥ: any other.
🔗 None other but Brahman (can be the person in the eye) on account of the reflected Selfs either not always existing or because of the impossibility (of its having the attributes mentioned). — 22.214.171.124.2.17 L.1
यत्पुनरुक्तं छायात्मा, विज्ञानात्मा, देवतात्मा वा स्यादक्षिस्थान इति,
With regard to what is said, viz. that the Puruṣa in the eye may be the reflected Self, or the cognitional Self, or the Self of a deity,
अत्रोच्यते – न च्छायात्मादिरितर इह ग्रहणमर्हति।
We reply — No, the reflected Self etc. or any such other entity does not deserve to be accepted (as the Puruṣa in the eye).
Why so? Because of (its) not being an always existing entity.
न तावच्छायात्मनश्चक्षुषि नित्यमवस्थानं सम्भवति।
As for the reflected Self, it is not possible that it can always be present in the eye.
यदैव हि कश्चित्पुरुषश्चक्षुरासीदति, तदा चक्षुषि पुरुषच्छाया दृश्यते;
Whenever some person is right in front of one’s eye, his reflection is to be seen in the eye,
अपगते तस्मिन्न दृश्यते।
And it is not so seen, when such person has gone away.
‘य एषोऽक्षिणि पुरुषः’ इति च श्रुतिः सन्निधानात्स्वचक्षुषि दृश्यमानं पुरुषमुपास्यत्वेनोपदिशति।
The Scriptural passage, which says, “The Puruṣa that is seen in the eye”, gives instruction that the Puruṣa that is seen in the eye, being in close proximity, should be devoutly meditated upon.
न चोपासनाकाले च्छायाकरं कञ्चित्पुरुषं चक्षुःसमीपे सन्निधाप्योपास्त इति युक्तं कल्पयितुम्।
It is not possible to imagine, that at the time of devout meditation, one places a person near the eye for affording a reflection, and then meditates devoutly.
‘अस्यैव शरीरस्य नाशमन्वेष नश्यति’ (ChanU.8.9.1) इति श्रुतिश् छायात्मनोऽप्यनवस्थितत्वं दर्शयति।
The Scriptural passage — “It (the reflected self) is also destroyed along with the destruction of the body” (ChanU.8.9.1) — Shows how the reflected Self also, is not an always existing entity.
असम्भवाच्च तस्मिन्नमृतत्वादीनां गुणानां न च्छायात्मनि प्रतीतिः।
Besides it cannot be that the person in the eye could be the reflected Self, because it is not possible, and the attributes of being immortal etc. (which have been predicated of the Puruṣa in the eye, in this passage) are not seen to be present in the reflected Self.
तथा विज्ञानात्मनोऽपि साधारणे कृत्स्नशरीरेन्द्रियसम्बन्धे सति न चक्षुष्येवावस्थितत्वं शक्यं वक्तुम्।
Similarly, the cognitional Self’s connection with the whole body and the sense-organs being everywhere in general, It is not possible to say that it is present in the eye only.
ब्रह्मणस्तु सर्वव्यापिनोऽपि दृष्ट उपलब्ध्यर्थो हृदयादिदेशविशेषसम्बन्धः।
With regard to Brahman, even though it is all-pervading, it is seen that Brahman is associated with a particular region, such as the Hṛdaya etc., for the purpose of its realization there.
समानश्च विज्ञानात्मन्यप्यमृतत्वादीनां गुणानामसम्भवः।
The absence of the association of attributes, such as immortality etc., also in the cognitional Self, is seen to be common (with the reflected Self).
यद्यपि विज्ञानात्मा परमात्मनोऽनन्य एव, तथाप्यविद्याकामकर्मकृतं तस्मिन्मर्त्यत्वमध्यारोपितं भयं च इत्यमृतत्वाभयत्वे नोपपद्येते।
It cannot be said to be reasonably sustainable, that immortality and freedom from fear Can belong to the cognitional Self, even though it really is not different from the Highest Self, because of mortality and fear being superimposed on the cognitional Self as a result of Nescience, desire, and the performance of duties (Karma).
Nor is it reasonably sustainable to suppose the attributes of Samyad-vāmatva etc., to be inherent in the cognitional Self, because of its not possessing Lordly power.
देवतात्मनस्तु ‘रश्मिभिरेषोऽस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठितः’ इति श्रुतेः यद्यपि चक्षुष्यवस्थानं स्यात्,
As for the Self of a deity (like the Sun), though it could be said to be present in the eye, because of the Scriptural passage — “It is present in the eye through the rays” — ,
तथाप्यात्मत्वं तावन्न सम्भवति, पराग्रूपत्वात्।
Still the nature of being ‘the Self’ is not possible in its case, as it has a visible external form.
अमृतत्वादयोऽपि न सम्भवन्ति, उत्पत्तिप्रलयश्रवणात्।
Nor are immortality etc. possible, because the Scriptures mention creation and dissolution (about it).
अमरत्वमपि देवानां चिरकालावस्थानापेक्षम्।
Besides the supposed immortality of the deities is also relative because of the deities having a comparatively longer span of life (than men).
ऐश्वर्यमपि परमेश्वरायत्तम्, न स्वाभाविकम्;
Whatever Lordly power they possess is also not natural, but is dependent on the Highest Lord,
‘भीषास्माद्वातः पवते। भीषोदेति सूर्यः। भीषास्मादग्निश्चेन्द्रश्च। मृत्युर्धावति पञ्चमः’ (TaitU.2.8.1) इति मन्त्रवर्णात्।
Because of the Mantra words which are as follows: — “It is through the fear of the Highest Self, that the wind blows, the Sun rises and Agni and Indra also (behave as they do), and Death, the fifth (in the mentioned list), stalks about” (TaitU.2.8 Eng.).
तस्मात्परमेश्वर एवायमक्षिस्थानः प्रत्येतव्यः।
Therefore, it should be realized, that the person in the eye is the Highest Lord only.
अस्मिंश्च पक्षे ‘दृश्यते’ इति प्रसिद्धवदुपादानं शास्त्राद्यपेक्षं विद्वद्विषयं प्ररोचनार्थमिति व्याख्येयम्॥१७॥
So, in this view of the matter the mention (of the person in the eye) as “is seen” as if it is well-known, Should be explained as being only with reference to the Śāstra and is in reference to learned people (who realize the Highest Self in this way) and is also for the purpose of creating a liking (for devout meditation etc.). — 17.
Antar-yāmi: the ruler within; Adhidaiva-ādiṣu: in the gods, etc.; Tat: His; Dharma: attributes; Vyapadeśāt: because of the statement.
🔗 The internal Controller dwelling in deities etc. (is the Highest Self) because of the mention of its attributes. — 126.96.36.199.2.18 L.1
‘य इमं च लोकं परं च लोकं सर्वाणि च भूतानि योऽन्तरो यमयति’ (BrhU.3.7.1) इत्युपक्रम्य श्रूयते –
A Scriptural passage, beginning with “He who controls this world, the world beyond, and all the beings, internally” (BrhUEng.3.7.1),
‘यः पृथिव्यां तिष्ठन्पृथिव्या अन्तरो यं पृथिवी न वेद यस्य पृथिवी शरीरं यः पृथिवीमन्तरो यमयति एष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः’ (BrhU.3.7.3) इत्यादि।
Goes further on to say — “One who dwells in the Earth and one whom the Earth does not realize, whose body is the Earth, who controls the Earth from within, He is the one who is your Self, the internal Controller (Antar-yāmi) and the immortal one” (BrhUEng.3.7.1–2) etc.
अत्राधिदैवतमधिलोकमधिवेदमधियज्ञमधिभूतमध्यात्मं च कश्चिदन्तरवस्थितो यमयिता अन्तर्यामीति श्रूयते।
Here in this passage the Scriptures mention some internal Controller who controls from within, as the one dwelling within the Gods, the world, the Veda, the Sacrifice, the beings, and the Self of the body.
स किमधिदैवाद्यभिमानी देवतात्मा कश्चित्, किं वा प्राप्ताणिमाद्यैश्वर्यः कश्चिद्योगी, किं वा परमात्मा, किं वार्थान्तरं किञ्चित्, इत्यपूर्वसंज्ञादर्शनात्संशयः।
Here, as a strange name is seen (to be mentioned by the Scriptures) a doubt arises as to whether the Scriptures refer to some Self of a deity which attaches itself to it, or to some Yogi who has acquired Lordly powers such as ‘Aṇimā’ (i.e. the power to make oneself as minute as an atom i.e. Aṇu) etc., or whether it means something else altogether.
किं तावन्नः प्रतिभाति?
How does it then strike you?
संज्ञाया अप्रसिद्धत्वात्संज्ञिनाप्यप्रसिद्धेनार्थान्तरेण केनचिद्भवितव्यमिति।
It seems to me (says the opponent) that the name (as mentioned here) being unfamiliar, the object to which such name is applied, must (like the unfamiliar name) mean something which is similarly unfamiliar.
अथवा नानिरूपितरूपमर्थान्तरं शक्यमस्त्यभ्युपगन्तुम्।
Or perhaps it may be that it is not possible to understand it to mean some other entity (such as Brahman) which has no definitely described form as such.
अन्तर्यामिशब्दश्चान्तर्यमनयोगेन प्रवृत्तो नात्यन्तमप्रसिद्धः।
As the word ‘Antar-yāmi’ is etymologically derived from (a root) which means ‘controlling from within’, it is after all not so very unfamiliar.
तस्मात्पृथिव्याद्यभिमानी कश्चिद्देवोऽन्तर्यामी स्यात्।
Therefore, it may well be that the ‘Antar-yāmi’ is some deity which presides over the Earth etc.,
तथा च श्रूयते – ‘पृथिव्येव यस्यायतनमग्निर्लोको मनो ज्योतिः’ (BrhU.3.9.10) इत्यादि।
Because, we find it so mentioned in the following Scriptural passage — “He whose body is the Earth, fire is the sight (Loka) and mind is the light” (BrhUEng.3.9.10) etc.
स च कार्यकरणवत्त्वात्पृथिव्यादीनन्तस्तिष्ठन्यमयतीति युक्तं देवतात्मनो यमयितृत्वम्।
It would be proper to conclude that the Self of a deity which being endowed with a body and sense-organs dwells in the body and controls it from within, is the Controller.
योगिनो वा कस्यचित्सिद्धस्य सर्वानुप्रवेशेन यमयितृत्वं स्यात्।
Or, it may be that the controlling power may be of some Yogi who has acquired superhuman powers and has thereby access into everything,
न तु परमात्मा प्रतीयेत, अकार्यकरणत्वात्; इत्येवं प्राप्ते इदमुच्यते –
But in no case can it be understood to be the Highest-Self, as it has not (the advantage of) a body and the sense-organs.
योऽन्तर्याम्यधिदैवादिषु श्रूयते, स परमात्मैव स्यात्, नान्य इति।
This being the conclusion (of the opponent), we reply — The internal controller mentioned in the Scriptures as being the deity dwelling in the Deities etc., can only be the Highest-Self and none else.
How so? Because there is mention of its attributes.
तस्य हि परमात्मनो धर्मा इह निर्दिश्यमाना दृश्यन्ते।
It is to be seen that the attributes of that Highest-Self are indicated here.
पृथिव्यादि तावदधिदैवादिभेदभिन्नं समस्तं विकारजातमन्तस्तिष्ठन्यमयतीति परमात्मनो यमयितृत्वं धर्म उपपद्यते;
That the ability to control is the attribute only of the Highest-Self, who, dwelling in the aggregate of all this varied creation, such as the Earth etc. and in the deity etc., controls all from within, is alone reasonably sustainable.
सर्वविकारकारणत्वे सति सर्वशक्त्युपपत्तेः।
Omnipotence is reasonably sustainable in the Highest-Self alone, as being the cause of all creation.
‘एष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः’ इति चात्मत्वामृतत्वे मुख्ये परमात्मन उपपद्येते।
The attributes of being the Self and possessing immortality, as referred to in the Scriptural passage “This is your Self, the controller from within, and the immortal one”, are reasonably sustainable only in the case of the principal Highest-Self.
‘यं पृथिवी न वेद’ इति च पृथिवीदेवताया अविज्ञेयमन्तर्यामिणं ब्रुवन्देवतात्मनोऽन्यमन्तर्यामिणं दर्शयति।
The Scriptural words — “Whom the Earth does not realize” — which purport to say that the deity viz. the Earth does not realize the Antar-yāmi, show that the Antar-yāmi is something different from the deity viz. the Earth,
पृथिवी देवता ह्यहमस्मि पृथिवीत्यात्मानं विजानीयात्।
Because the deity, Earth, would of course know that it is the Earth.
तथा ‘अदृष्टोऽश्रुतः’ इत्यादिव्यपदेशो रूपादिविहीनत्वात्परमात्मन उपपद्यत इति।
Similarly the references to “the unseen”, “the unheard of” in the Scriptures are reasonably sustainable only in the case of the Highest Self who is devoid of any form (Rūpa).
यत्त्वकार्यकरणस्य परमात्मनो यमयितृत्वं नोपपद्यत इति,
With regard to the objection, that as the Highest Self is without any body or sense-organs of its own, it could not be properly understood to be the internal Controller,
नैष दोषः; यान्नियच्छति तत्कार्यकरणैरेव तस्य कार्यकरणवत्त्वोपपत्तेः।
We reply — That is no fault, as it can reasonably be said to be possessed of a body and the sense-organs vicariously through the body and the sense-organs of that which it controls viz. the Jīva-Self.
तस्याप्यन्यो नियन्तेत्यनवस्थादोषश्च न सम्भवति, भेदाभावात्।
It is not possible, that our view would be open to the fault of regressus ad infinitum or the vicious infinite (by arguing that the Controller would presuppose another Controller and so on ad infinitum), because of the absence of any difference (between the Jīva-Self and the Highest-Self).
भेदे हि सत्यनवस्थादोषोपपत्तिः।
If there were to be any such difference, then of course our view would be open to the fault of regressus ad infinitum.
Therefore, the Highest Self alone is the Antar-yāmi. — 18.
←PrevNext→ न च स्मार्तमतद्धर्माभिलापात्॥१.२.१९॥ Na ca smārtam atad-dharmābhilāpāt.
Na: neither; Ca: also, and; Smārtam: that which is taught in (Sāṅkhya) Smṛti; A-tad-dharma-abhilāpāt: because qualities contrary to its nature are mentioned.
🔗 (The Pradhāna) of the Smṛtis, is not ‘the Antar-yāmi’, because, (here) its attributes are not stated. — 188.8.131.52.2.19 L.1
स्यादेतत् – अदृष्टत्वादयो धर्माः सांख्यस्मृतिकल्पितस्य प्रधानस्याप्युपपद्यन्ते, रूपादिहीनतया तस्य तैरभ्युपगमात्।
It may well be (says the opponent), that the attributes such as being the “Unseen” etc. are reasonably sustainable also in the case of the Pradhāna as contemplated by the Smṛti of the Sāṅkhyas, Because they understand the Pradhāna as formless etc.
‘अप्रतर्क्यमविज्ञेयं प्रसुप्तमिव सर्वतः’ (मनु. १-५) इति हि स्मरन्ति।
Because the Smṛti says, “(It is) incomprehensible by reason, is unknowable, and is as it were dormant on all sides” (Manu. 1.5),
तस्यापि नियन्तृत्वं सर्वविकारकारणत्वादुपपद्यते।
And being the cause of all creation, it can reasonably be sustainable to understand it as having the power to control.
Therefore, the Pradhāna can be synonymous with the Antar-yāmi.
‘ईक्षतेर्नाशब्दम्’ (BrS.1.1.5) इत्यत्र निराकृतमपि सत् प्रधानमिहादृष्टत्वादिव्यपदेशसम्भवेन पुनराशङ्क्यते।
Though the Pradhāna (claimed as being the cause of all creation) has already been rejected in the Sūtra “Īkṣaternāśabdam” (BrS.1.1.5), Still, a doubt is here again raised (as to whether it cannot be the cause), because of the possibility of its being referred to as “the Unseen” etc.
अत उत्तरमुच्यते – न च स्मार्तं प्रधानमन्तर्यामिशब्दं भवितुमर्हति।
To this we give reply — The Pradhāna of the Smṛti does not deserve to be synonymous with the word Antar-yāmi.
Why so? Because its attributes are not mentioned here.
यद्यप्यदृष्टत्वादिव्यपदेशः प्रधानस्य सम्भवति,
For though it may be possible to speak of it as the ‘Unseen’,
तथापि न द्रष्टृत्वादिव्यपदेशः सम्भवति, प्रधानस्याचेतनत्वेन तैरभ्युपगमात्।
Still it could never be described as being the ‘Seer’, because they (i.e. the Sāṅkhyas) understand it to be non-sentient.
‘अदृष्टो द्रष्टाश्रुतः श्रोतामतो मन्ताविज्ञातो विज्ञाता’ (BrhU.3.7.23) इति हि वाक्यशेष इह भवति।
The complementary passage here is — “Unseen yet seeing, unheard of yet able to hear, unperceivable yet one able to perceive, unknowable yet one able to know” (BrhUEng.3.7.23).
आत्मत्वमपि न प्रधानस्योपपद्यते॥१९॥
Again it is not reasonably possible for the Pradhāna to be the Self. — 19.
यदि प्रधानमात्मत्वद्रष्टृत्वाद्यसम्भवान्नान्तर्याम्यभ्युपगम्यते, शारीरस्तर्ह्यन्तर्यामी भवतु।
(The opponent here retorts) — Well, if the Pradhāna cannot be understood to be the Antar-yāmi, because of the impossibility of its being the Self or the Seer, Then let the embodied Jīva-Self be the Antar-yāmi1.2.20 L.2
शारीरो हि चेतनत्वाद्द्रष्टा श्रोता मन्ता विज्ञाता च भवति, आत्मा च प्रत्यक्त्वात्।
Because it at least is sentient and can be the ‘seer’, ‘hearer’, ‘contemplator’ and the ‘knower’, and can also be the ‘Self’ because of its being the innermost.
Similarly he is immortal also, because experience by him of the fruits of meritorious and unmeritorious actions (in another body), is reasonably sustainable (in his case).
अदृष्टत्वादयश्च धर्माः शारीरे सुप्रसिद्धाः;
The attributes of being ‘unseen’ etc. are well-known in the case of the embodied Jīva-Self,
दर्शनादिक्रियायाः कर्तरि प्रवृत्तिविरोधात्,
Because it is contradictory that action (Kriyā) like seeing etc. can ever have a tendency to operate on the agent of such action (i.e. one who is the subject (Kartā) cannot himself be the object (Karma) of an action (Kriyā),
‘न दृष्टेर्द्रष्टारं पश्येः’ (BrhU.3.4.2) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यश्च।
And also because of the Scriptural passages such as “Thou canst not see the Seer of sight” (BrhUEng.1.1.1).
तस्य च कार्यकरणसङ्घातमन्तर्यमयितुं शीलम्, भोक्तृत्वात्।
Besides it (i.e. the embodied Jīva-Self) being an experiencer, it is his natural tendency to control the complex (Saṅghāta) of the body and the sense-organs from within.
तस्माच्छारीरोऽन्तर्यामीत्यत उत्तरं पठति –
Therefore it is the embodied Jīva-Self that is the Antar-yāmi. To this conclusion (of the opponent) the reply is —
←PrevNext→ शारीरश्चोभयेऽपि हि भेदेनैनमधीयते॥१.२.२०॥ Śārīraś cobhayo'pi hi bhedenainam adhīyate.
Śārīraḥ: the embodied, the individual soul; Ca: also, and; (Na: not); Ubhaye: the both namely the recentions Kāṇva and Mādhyaṃ-dinas; Api: even, also; Hi: because; Bhedena: by way of difference; Enam: this, the Jīva; Adhīyate: read, speak of, indicate.
🔗 The embodied. Jīva-Self also could not be (the Antar-yāmi) because, both (the recensions of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka i.e. of the Kāṇva and of the Mādhyaṃ-dina) recite it as being different (from the Antar-yāmi). — 184.108.40.206.2.20 L.9
The word ‘not’ is to be understood as following from the previous Sūtra.
शारीरश्च नान्तर्यामी स्यात्।
The embodied Jīva-Self is not to be accepted as the Antar-yāmi.
कस्मात्? यद्यपि द्रष्टृत्वादयो धर्मास्तस्य सम्भवन्ति, तथापि घटाकाशवदुपाधिपरिच्छिन्नत्वान्न कार्त्स्न्येन पृथिव्यादिष्वन्तरवस्थातुं नियन्तुं च शक्नोति।
Why so? Because though attributes such as the ‘Seer’ etc. are possible in its case, Still, having a finite determination like the Ākāśa in the jar as a result of limiting adjuncts, it cannot dwell in the Earth etc. or control them fully and comprehensively.
अपि चोभयेऽपि हि शाखिनः काण्वा माध्यन्दिनाश्चान्तर्यामिणो भेदेनैनं शारीरं पृथिव्यादिवदधिष्ठानत्वेन नियम्यत्वेन चाधीयते –
Besides the followers of both the branches (Śākhās), viz. the Kāṇvas and the Mādhyaṃ-dinas, recite this Antar-yāmi as being different from the embodied Jīva-Self, which like the Earth etc. is fit for being the basis of and being controlled by (the Antar-yāmi).
‘यो विज्ञाने तिष्ठन्’ (BrhU.3.7.22) इति काण्वाः।
The Kāṇvas recite thus — “That (Paramātmā) which dwells in knowledge” (BrhUEng.3.7.22),
‘य आत्मनि तिष्ठन्’ इति माध्यन्दिनाः।
And the Mādhyaṃ-dinas thus — “He (the Paramātmā) that: dwells in the Self (Ātmā).”
‘य आत्मनि तिष्ठन्’ इत्यस्मिंस्तावत् पाठे भवत्यात्मशब्दः शारीरस्य वाचकः।
In the recension (of the Mādhyaṃ-dinas) — viz. “He (the Paramātmā) that dwells in the Self (Ātmā)” — the word Self is indicative of the embodied Jīva-Self.
‘यो विज्ञाने तिष्ठन्’ इत्यस्मिन्नपि पाठे विज्ञानशब्देन शारीर उच्यते, विज्ञानमयो हि शारीर इति।
And in the recension (of the Kāṇvas) — viz. “That (Paramātmā) which dwells in knowledge (Vijñāna)” — also, the embodied Jīva-Self is spoken of by the word ‘Knowledge’, as of course the embodied Jīva-Self is one whose structure is Knowledge.
तस्माच्छारीरादन्य ईश्वरोऽन्तर्यामीति सिद्धम्।
Therefore, it is proved that some one other than the embodied Jīva-Self, is the Lord and the Antar-yāmi.
कथं पुनरेकस्मिन्देहे द्वौ द्रष्टारावुपपद्येते – यश्चायमीश्वरोऽन्तर्यामी, यश्चायमितरः शारीरः?
How again, (says the opponent) can two ‘Seers’ — of which one is the Lord and the Antar-yāmi, and another the embodied Jīva-Self — , being in one and the same body, be reasonably sustainable?
(To this the reply is) — Why should it not be reasonably sustainable?
‘नान्योऽतोऽस्ति द्रष्टा’ इत्यादिश्रुतिवचनं विरुध्येत।
Because (says the opponent) in that case the Scriptural passage “There is no other Seer than this” will be contradicted,
अत्र हि प्रकृतादन्तर्यामिणोऽन्यं द्रष्टारं श्रोतारं मन्तारं विज्ञातारं चात्मानं प्रतिषेधति।
Because any ‘seeing’, ‘hearing’, ‘contemplating’ and ‘knowing’ Self other than the Antar-yāmi which is relevant here, is denied by it.
If it be said (by the Vedāntin) that the passage is meant to deny any other controller,
(We the opponents say) — No, because here there is no predicament of the possibility of any other controller, nor is there any specific Scriptural mention of the absence of any other controller.
अत्रोच्यते – अविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापितकार्यकरणोपाधिनिमित्तोऽयं शारीरान्तर्यामिणोर्भेदव्यपदेशः,
(To this argument of the opponent) we reply — This difference between the embodied Jīva-Self and the Antar-yāmi mentioned here, is occasioned by limiting adjuncts in the form of a body and sense-organs, which are the result of Nescience,
And not in the ultimate real sense.
एको हि प्रत्यगात्मा भवति, न द्वौ प्रत्यगात्मानौ सम्भवतः।
There could be only one universal Self (Pratyag-ātmā) and there could never be two of that kind,
एकस्यैव तु भेदव्यवहार उपाधिकृतः,
And it is as the result of adjuncts only that the same one universal Self is spoken of as two different selfs,
यथा घटाकाशो महाकाश इति।
Just as, the Ākāśa in the jar is spoken of as being different from the great Ākāśa.
ततश्च ज्ञातृज्ञेयादिभेदश्रुतयः प्रत्यक्षादीनि च प्रमाणानि संसारानुभवो विधिप्रतिषेधशास्त्रं चेति सर्वमेतदुपपद्यते।
It is only if we understand it to be so, that the Scriptural passages which speak of the difference between the ‘Knower’ and ‘the object to be known’, the means of proof such as direct perception etc., the experience of the transmigratory condition, and the Śāstra which lays down injunctions and prohibitions, become reasonably sustainable.
तथा च श्रुतिः –
The Scriptural passage also is similar.
‘यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति तदितर इतरं पश्यति’ इत्यविद्याविषये सर्वं व्यवहारं दर्शयति।
Thus the passage “It is only when there is a consciousness of duality as it were, that one sees another” indicates, that it is only in the realm of Nescience that all worldly conduct is to be seen,
‘यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्’ इति विद्याविषये सर्वं व्यवहारं वारयति॥२०॥
And the Scriptural passage “When all else becomes but the Self to him, how can he see, and, with what?” precludes the possibility of any worldly conduct in the realm of knowledge. — 20.
A-dṛśyatva: invisibility; Ādi: and the rest, beginning with; Guṇakaḥ: one who possesses the quality (Adriśyatva-ādi-guṇakaḥ: possessor of qualities like invisibility); Dharma-ukteḥ: because of the mention of qualities.
🔗 That which has the attributes of being invisible etc. (is Brahman), because there is a mention of its attributes. — 220.127.116.11.2.21 L.1
‘अथ परा यया तदक्षरमधिगम्यते’ (MunU.1.1.5) ‘यत्तदद्रेश्यमग्राह्यमगोत्रमवर्णमचक्षुःश्रोत्रं तदपाणिपादम्, नित्यं विभुं सर्वगतं सुसूक्ष्मं तदव्ययं यद्भूतयोनिं परिपश्यन्ति धीराः’ (MunU.1.1.6) इति श्रूयते।
There are Scriptural passages as follows: “Now (i.e. after what has gone before) the Higher Knowledge, by means of which the Imperishable is known,” “That which is invisible and incomprehensible, nameless and colourless, and that which is sans-eyes, sans-ears, sans-hands and sans-feet, And is eternal and all-pervading, and which reaches everywhere, which is super-subtle and imperishable and which is regarded by the wise as the source of all beings” (MunU.1.1.5–6).
तत्र संशयः – किमयमदृश्यत्वादिगुणको भूतयोनिः प्रधानं स्यात्,
With regard to this, there is a doubt. Can this Bhūta-Yoni (source of all beings) having attributes such as being invisible etc., be the Pradhāna,
Or the embodied Jīva-Self,
Or the Highest Lord?
तत्र प्रधानमचेतनं भूतयोनिरिति युक्तम्,
Here (the opponent) says, that it is the Pradhāna that can properly be the Bhūta-Yoni1.2.21 L.6
अचेतनानामेव तत्र दृष्टान्तत्वेनोपादानात्।
Because only non-sentient things are referred to here by way of an illustration of it, thus —
‘यथोर्णनाभिः सृजते गृह्णते च यथा पृथिव्यामोषधयः सम्भवन्ति। यथा सतः पुरुषात्केशलोमानि तथाक्षरात्सम्भवतीह विश्वम्’ (MunU.1.1.7) इति।
“Just as a spider throws out and withdraws its thread, or just as trees grow out of the Earth, Or just as hair etc. grow out of a living person, similarly this universe is born out of this — the Imperishable.” (MunU.1.1.7).
ननूर्णनाभिः पुरुषश्च चेतनाविह दृष्टान्तत्वेनोपात्तौ;
But (if the Vedāntin says) — It is the sentient spider and person that are here taken as illustrations,
नेति ब्रूमः। न हि केवलस्य चेतनस्य तत्र सूत्रयोनित्वं केशलोमयोनित्वं वास्ति।
No (replies the opponent), because it is not the purely sentient one that is here seen to be the source of the thread or the hair.
चेतनाधिष्ठितं ह्यचेतनमूर्णनाभिशरीरं सूत्रस्य योनिः, पुरुषशरीरं च केशलोम्नामिति प्रसिद्धम्।
It is well-known that it is the non-sentient body of the spider, presided over by a sentient being, that is really the source of the thread, and it is the body of a person, that is the source of hair etc.
अपि च पूर्वत्रादृष्टत्वाद्यभिलापसम्भवेऽपि द्रष्टृत्वाद्यभिलापासम्भवान्न प्रधानमभ्युपगतम्।
Besides in the earlier Sūtra, the Pradhāna could not be accepted (as the cause of the universe) because, though it could be understood to be the ‘unseen’, it was not possible to understand it as being the ‘Seer’.
इह त्वदृश्यत्वादयो धर्माः प्रधाने सम्भवन्ति।
Here, however, the attributes of being ‘invisible’ etc. are possible in the case of the Pradhāna,
न चात्र विरुध्यमानो धर्मः कश्चिदभिलप्यते।
And there is no mention here of any attribute incompatible with the Pradhāna.
ननु ‘यः सर्वज्ञः सर्ववित्’ (MunU.1.1.9) इत्ययं वाक्यशेषोऽचेतने प्रधाने न सम्भवति,
(The Vedāntin retorts), Oh, but the complementary sentence — “He who is omniscient and who perceives i.e. knows everything” (MunU.1.1.9) — could not be possible in the case of the non-sentient Pradhāna.
कथं प्रधानं भूतयोनिः प्रतिज्ञायत इति;
How then can you recognize the Pradhāna as the Bhūta-Yoni?
अत्रोच्यते – ‘यया तदक्षरमधिगम्यते’ ‘यत्तदद्रेश्यम्’ इत्यक्षरशब्देनादृश्यत्वादिगुणकं भूतयोनिं श्रावयित्वा,
To this (the opponent replies) — After mentioning the Bhūta-Yoni by the word ‘Imperishable’ as having attributes such as being the invisible etc., by the Scriptural passages “By which this Imperishable is attained”, and “That which is invisible”,
पुनरन्ते श्रावयिष्यति – ‘अक्षरात्परतः परः’ (MunU.2.1.2) इति।
The Scriptures will here-after further proceed to mention towards the end, thus — “(It is) further beyond the ‘Imperishable’, which itself is beyond” (MunU.2.1.2).
तत्र यः परोऽक्षराच्छ्रुतः, स सर्वज्ञः सर्ववित्सम्भविष्यति।
Here that which is mentioned as being beyond the Imperishable may well be the Omniscient and all-perceiving.
प्रधानमेव त्वक्षरशब्दनिर्दिष्टं भूतयोनिः।
The Pradhāna however which is indicated by the word ‘Imperishable’, may well be the Bhūta-Yoni.
यदा तु योनिशब्दो निमित्तवाची,
Even if, however, the word ‘source’ Yoni) is taken to be indicative of a cause,
तदा शारीरोऽपि भूतयोनिः स्यात्,
The embodied Jīva-Self also may very well be the Bhūta-Yoni,
Because it is by way of the meritorious and unmeritorious actions of the Jīva-Self that it is the cause of all this aggregate of beings coming into being.
एवं प्राप्ते अभिधीयते – योऽयमदृश्यत्वादिगुणको भूतयोनिः, स परमेश्वर एव स्यात्, नान्य इति।
(To this conclusion of the opponent), we reply — It is the Highest Lord alone which can be the Bhūta-Yoni possessing attributes such as being the ‘invisible’ etc., and none else.
How do you (we) understand it like that? Because of the mention of its attributes.
परमेश्वरस्य हि धर्म इहोच्यमानो दृश्यते – ‘यः सर्वज्ञः सर्ववित्’ इति।
It is seen that the attributes of the Highest Lord are here mentioned, thus — “He who is omniscient and perceives everything”.
न हि प्रधानस्याचेतनस्य शारीरस्य वोपाधिपरिच्छिन्नदृष्टेः सर्वज्ञत्वं सर्ववित्त्वं वा सम्भवति।
It is not possible that either the non-sentient Pradhāna, or the embodied Jīva-Self whose vision is circumscribed by limiting adjuncts, can possess the attributes of omniscience or the perceiving of everything.
नन्वक्षरशब्दनिर्दिष्टाद्भूतयोनेः परस्यैव एतत्सर्वज्ञत्वं सर्ववित्त्वं च,
But (says the opponent), we have already stated that the attributes of omniscience or the perceiving of everything, may be of that which is beyond the Bhūta-Yoni which is indicated by the word Imperishable,
And that they do not appertain to Bhūta-Yoni.
अत्रोच्यते – नैवं सम्भवति;
To this we (the Vedāntins) reply — It is not possible that it could be so.
यत्कारणम् ‘अक्षरात्सम्भवतीह विश्वम्’ इति प्रकृतं भूतयोनिमिह जायमानप्रकृतित्वेन निर्दिश्य,
Having indicated Bhūta-Yoni which is relevant here as the cause of everything that is about to be created by the Scriptural passage “This Universe is born of this Imperishable” — ,
अनन्तरमपि जायमानप्रकृतित्वेनैव सर्वज्ञं निर्दिशति –
The Scriptures, also, later on, indicate the same omniscient entity as the cause of all things about to be created, by the Scriptural passage —
‘यः सर्वज्ञः सर्वविद्यस्य ज्ञानमयं तपः। तस्मादेतद्ब्रह्म नाम रूपमन्नं च जायते’ इति।
“He who is omniscient and he who perceives all, whose penance has pure knowledge as its content, from Him is born this Brahman (supersensible effects), names and forms, and food (or Earth)”.
तस्मान्निर्देशसाम्येन प्रत्यभिज्ञायमानत्वात्प्रकृतस्यैवाक्षरस्य भूतयोनेः सर्वज्ञत्वं सर्ववित्त्वं च धर्म उच्यत इति गम्यते।
We understand, therefore, that both (i.e. Akṣara and Bhūta-Yoni) having been indicated to be the same by a similarity of indication, the attributes of omniscience and of being the perceiver of all, are spoken of of the same Imperishable Bhūta-Yoni which is relevant here.
‘अक्षरात्परतः परः’ इत्यत्रापि न प्रकृताद्भूतयोनेरक्षरात्परः कश्चिदभिधीयते।
In the case of the Scriptural passage — “The one that is beyond the Imperishable, which itself is beyond” — also, none other is mentioned as being beyond the Imperishable but the Akṣara Bhūta-Yoni which is relevant here.
How is it known like that?
‘येनाक्षरं पुरुषं वेद सत्यं प्रोवाच तां तत्त्वतो ब्रह्मविद्याम्’ (MunU.1.2.13) इति
Because by the Scriptural passage — “The teacher should truthfully teach the pupil the knowledge of Brahman (Brahma-Vidyā) as it is, in such a way that it will make the pupil understand correctly the Puruṣa, the Imperishable.” (MunU.1.2.13) —
प्रकृतस्यैवाक्षरस्य भूतयोनेरदृश्यत्वादिगुणकस्य वक्तव्यत्वेन प्रतिज्ञातत्वात्।
We are able to know that it is intended to speak of the Imperishable Bhūta-Yoni which has the attribute of being ‘invisible’.
कथं तर्हि ‘अक्षरात्परतः परः’ इति व्यपदिश्यत इति, उत्तरसूत्रे तद्वक्ष्यामः।
How is it then (says the opponent) that it is indicated as being “Beyond the Imperishable, which itself is beyond”?
अपि चात्र द्वे विद्ये वेदितव्ये उक्ते –
(The Vedāntin says), we will answer that in the next Sūtra. Besides, here it is mentioned, that there are two kinds of ‘Knowledge’ (Vidyās) which should be known.
‘परा चैवापरा च’ इति।
One is Para-Vidyā and the other the Apara-Vidyā.
तत्रापरामृग्वेदादिलक्षणां विद्यामुक्त्वा ब्रवीति
In that connection, having spoken of the Apara-Vidyā which is of the nature of the Ṛg-Veda etc., the Scriptures proceed to say —
‘अथ परा यया तदक्षरमधिगम्यते’ इत्यादि।
“Now about the Para-Vidyā by means of which the Imperishable is known.”
तत्र परस्या विद्याया विषयत्वेनाक्षरं श्रुतम्।
Here the Imperishable is mentioned as being the subject of the Para-Vidyā.
यदि पुनः परमेश्वरादन्यददृश्यत्वादिगुणकमक्षरं परिकल्प्येत,
If, therefore, we imagine that the Imperishable which possesses the attribute of being invisible, is something different from the Highest Lord,
नेयं परा विद्या स्यात्।
Then it would not be the Para-Vidyā.
परापरविभागो ह्ययं विद्ययोः अभ्युदयनिःश्रेयसफलतया परिकल्प्यते।
This distinction between Vidyās (knowledges) into the Para and the Apara is with reference to the fruit of such Knowledges, viz. secular prosperity (as that of the Apara) and absolute bliss (as that of the Para).
न च प्रधानविद्या निःश्रेयसफला केनचिदभ्युपगम्यते।
Nobody understands the Knowledge of Pradhāna as having absolute bliss as its fruit.
तिस्रश्च विद्याः प्रतिज्ञायेरन्, त्वत्पक्षेऽक्षराद्भूतयोनेः परस्य परमात्मनः प्रतिपाद्यमानत्वात्।
According to your view, by which, the Highest Lord supposed to be beyond the Imperishable Bhūta-Yoni, is intended to be propounded, there would have to be a declaration about three kinds of Vidyās,
द्वे एव तु विद्ये वेदितव्ये इह निर्दिष्टे।
But here only two kinds of Vidyās are indicated as fit to be known.
‘कस्मिन्नु भगवो विज्ञाते सर्वमिदं विज्ञातं भवति’ (MunU.1.1.3) इति चैकविज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानापेक्षणं सर्वात्मके ब्रह्मणि विवक्ष्यमाणेऽवकल्पते,
The expectation of being able to know everything by knowing only one thing, referred to in the Scriptural passage, thus — “Oh Bhagvān, what is that, by knowing which, everything else becomes known automatically” (MunU.1.1.3) — , can only be possible, if it is intended to speak of Brahman only as being the Self of all,
नाचेतनमात्रैकायतने प्रधाने, भोग्यव्यतिरिक्ते वा भोक्तरि।
And not (if it is intended to speak) of Pradhāna, the cause of the non-sentient things only, or of the experiencer (Jīva), as distinguished from the objects of experience.
अपि च ‘स ब्रह्मविद्यां सर्वविद्याप्रतिष्ठामथर्वाय ज्येष्ठपुत्राय प्राह’ (MunU.1.1.1) इति ब्रह्मविद्यां प्राधान्येनोपक्रम्य
Moreover, having in the beginning introduced Brahma-Vidyā as the chief topic by the Scriptural passage — “He (Brahma-deva) spoke about the knowledge of Brahman (Brahma-Vidyā) as the basis of all other knowledges, to his eldest son Atharva (MunU.1.1.1)” — ,
परापरविभागेन परां विद्यामक्षराधिगमनीं दर्शयन् तस्या ब्रह्मविद्यात्वं दर्शयति।
The Scriptures, after demonstrating the distinction between the Para and the Apara Vidyā, further demonstrate the Para Vidyā as the one which leads to the knowledge of the Imperishable, and ultimately indicates it as the Brahma-Vidyā.
सा च ब्रह्मविद्यासमाख्या तदधिगम्यस्य अक्षरस्याब्रह्मत्वे बाधिता स्यात्।
This knowledge referred to as the Brahma-Vidyā would be wrongly so called, if the Imperishable, which is understood by means of that knowledge, were not to be Brahman.
अपरा ऋग्वेदादिलक्षणा कर्मविद्या ब्रह्मविद्योपक्रमे उपन्यस्यते ब्रह्मविद्याप्रशंसायै –
The lesser knowledge of religious duties (Karma-Vidyā), which is of the nature of the Ṛg-Veda etc. and is referred to in the introduction to Brahma-Vidyā, is for the glorification of the latter i.e. Brahma-Vidyā,
‘प्लवा ह्येते अदृढा यज्ञरूपा अष्टादशोक्तमवरं येषु कर्म। एतच्छ्रेयो येऽभिनन्दन्ति मूढा जरामृत्युं ते पुनरेवापि यन्ति’ (MunU.1.2.7) इत्येवमादिनिन्दावचनात्।
As illustrated by the censure clause thus — “These barques of the nature of a sacrifice in which religious duties of less importance are performed by the team of eighteen (i.e. 16 Sacrificial priests viz. ‘Ṛtvijaḥ’ and the sacrificer (Yajamāna) and the sacrificer’s wife) are frail and unsafe. These ignorant people who consider this as the ultimate bliss, become subject to old age and death over and over again” (MunU.1.2.7).
निन्दित्वा चापरां विद्यां ततो विरक्तस्य परविद्याधिकारं दर्शयति – ‘परीक्ष्य लोकान्कर्मचितान्ब्राह्मणो निर्वेदमायान्नास्त्यकृतः कृतेन। तद्विज्ञानार्थं स गुरुमेवाभिगच्छेत्समित्पाणिः श्रोत्रियं ब्रह्मनिष्ठम्’ (MunU.1.2.12) इति।
Having thus censured the Apara Vidyā, the Scriptures indicate the eligibility of those who have turned away in disgust from Apara Vidyā to Brahma-Vidyā, thus: — “A Brāhmaṇa, having examined (the value of) all these worlds (such as the heaven) which are gained by the performance of religious duties, and after experiencing a feeling of revulsion from them, and realizing that, that which is without a cause, viz. Brahman, can never be obtained by that which is only an effect from that cause, Should, with a desire to know Brahma-Vidyā, approach a teacher, who is well versed in the Vedas and who has put his faith in Brahman, with sacrificial sticks in his hand” (MunU.1.2.12).
यत्तूक्तम् – अचेतनानां पृथिव्यादीनां दृष्टान्तत्वेनोपादानाद्दार्ष्टान्तिकेनाप्यचेतनेनैव भूतयोनिना भवितव्यमिति, तदयुक्तम्;
As regards the objection taken, viz. that as non-sentient things such as the Earth are here referred to as illustrations, the thing to which such illustration refers (viz. Bhūta-Yoni) also must necessarily be nonsentient,
न हि दृष्टान्तदार्ष्टान्तिकयोरत्यन्तसाम्येन भवितव्यमिति नियमोऽस्ति;
We reply — There is no such invariable rule that an illustration and that which is illustrated by it, should be exactly similar.
अपि च स्थूलाः पृथिव्यादयो दृष्टान्तत्वेनोपात्ता इति न स्थूल एव दार्ष्टान्तिको भूतयोनिरभ्युपगम्यते।
Besides, it is not understood by you also that because gross and material things such as the Earth are taken as illustration, the Bhūta-Yoni, which these illustrations illustrate, should also be understood as gross and material.
तस्माददृश्यत्वादिगुणको भूतयोनिः परमेश्वर एव॥२१॥
Therefore, the Bhūta-Yoni which possesses the attribute of being invisible, is none else but the Highest Lord. — 21.
←PrevNext→ विशेषणभेदव्यपदेशाभ्यां च नेतरौ॥१.२.२२॥ Viśeṣaṇa-bheda-vyapadeśābhyāṃ ca netarau.
Viśeṣaṇa-bheda-vyapadeśābhyām: on account of the mention of distinctive attributes and differences; Ca: and; Na: not; Itarau: the other two.
🔗 The other two (i.e. the Pradhāna and the embodied Jīva-Self) are not (the Bhūta-Yoni) because of the statement of distinctive attributes and of difference. — 18.104.22.168.2.22 L.1
इतश्च परमेश्वर एव भूतयोनिः, नेतरौ – शारीरः प्रधानं वा।
This is again why the Highest Lord only is the Bhūta-Yoni and not the other two, viz. the Pradhāna and the embodied Jīva-Self.
How so? Because of the reference to distinctive attributes and differences.
विशिनष्टि हि प्रकृतं भूतयोनिं शारीराद्विलक्षणत्वेन –
The Bhūta-Yoni which is relevant to the context here, is distinguished from the embodied Jīva-Self as being entirely dissimilar, thus —
‘दिव्यो ह्यमूर्तः पुरुषः सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो ह्यजः। अप्राणो ह्यमनाः शुभ्रः’ (MunU.2.1.2) इति।
“The Puruṣa is celestial, incorporeal, and one that is both outside and inside and is unborn. He is without the Vital Air and is mindless and pure etc.” (MunU.2.1.2).
न ह्येतद्दिव्यत्वादिविशेषणम् अविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापितनामरूपपरिच्छेदाभिमानिनः तद्धर्मान्स्वात्मनि कल्पयतः शारीरस्योपपद्यते।
These distinguishing attributes such as being celestial etc. would not be reasonably sustainable, in the case of the embodied Jīva-Self, which fondly considers itself as having finite determination by names and forms brought about by Nescience, and which imagines such attributes as appertaining to its own Self.
तस्मात्साक्षादौपनिषदः पुरुष इहोच्यते।
Therefore, it is the Puruṣa of the Upaniṣads that is directly spoken of here.
तथा प्रधानादपि प्रकृतं भूतयोनिं भेदेन व्यपदिशति – ‘अक्षरात्परतः परः’ इति।
Similarly, the Scriptures also refer to the Bhūta-Yoni which is relevant to the context here, as distinguished from the Pradhāna, thus — “Which is beyond the Imperishable, which itself is beyond.”
अक्षरमव्याकृतं नामरूपबीजशक्तिरूपं भूतसूक्ष्ममीश्वराश्रयं तस्यैवोपाधिभूतम्, सर्वस्माद्विकारात्परो योऽविकारः, तस्मात्परतः परः इति भेदेन व्यपदिशन् परमात्मानमिह विवक्षितं दर्शयति।
The Scriptures indicate that it is intended to speak of the Highest Self, as being different (from the Pradhāna) by stating that it is beyond the Imperishable, which is a subtle element, and which has the nature i.e. form of being the seed (i.e. origin) of names and forms, which is yet unmanifested, and which itself depends upon the Lord, and constitutes the limiting adjuncts of the Lord Himself, and which, without being an effect as such, is beyond all other effects.
नात्र प्रधानं नाम किञ्चित्स्वतन्त्रं तत्त्वमभ्युपगम्य,
It is not as if (in this Sūtra) having understood the Pradhāna to be some independent element,
It then is distinguished from something else.
किं तर्हि? यदि प्रधानमपि कल्प्यमानं श्रुत्यविरोधेनाव्याकृतादिशब्दवाच्यं भूतसूक्ष्मं परिकल्प्येत,
Now even if you insist upon understanding the Pradhāna to be that subtle element as expressed by the word ‘Unmanifested’, by avoiding any conflict with the Scriptures,
You are welcome to do so.
तस्माद्भेदव्यपदेशात् परमेश्वरो भूतयोनिरित्येतदिह प्रतिपाद्यते॥२२॥
All that we wish to expound is, that as distinguished from it, the Bhūta-Yoni here, is the Highest Lord. — 22.
कुतश्च परमेश्वरो भूतयोनिः? –
Whence again (is it) that Bhūta-Yoni means the Highest Lord?
←PrevNext→ रूपोपन्यासाच्च॥१.२.२३॥ Rūpopanyāsāc ca.
Rūpa: form; Upanyāsāt: because of the mention; Ca: and.
🔗 Also because of the statement of the form (of that). — 22.214.171.124.2.23 L.2
अपि च ‘अक्षरात्परतः परः’ इत्यस्यानन्तरम् ‘एतस्माज्जायते प्राणः’ इति प्राणप्रभृतीनां पृथिवीपर्यन्तानां तत्त्वानां सर्गमुक्त्वा, तस्यैव भूतयोनेः सर्वविकारात्मकं रूपमुपन्यस्यमानं पश्यामः –
Because we see, moreover, that after having spoken about the creation of all the elements beginning with the Vital Air etc. and ending with, the Earth etc. by the passage “From it the Vital Airs are created” which comes after the passage “Beyond the Imperishable which itself is beyond”, the form of the Bhūta-Yoni as being the Self of all modifications is stated thus —
‘अग्निर्मूर्धा चक्षुषी चन्द्रसूर्यौ दिशः श्रोत्रे वाग्विवृताश्च वेदाः। वायुः प्राणो हृदयं विश्वमस्य पद्भ्यां पृथिवी ह्येष सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा’ (MunU.2.1.4) इति।
“Fire is the caput, the moon and the sun are the eyes, the directions or quarters are the ears, the revealed Vedas are the speech, the air is the Prāṇa, the Universe is the Hṛdaya, from his feet the Earth (is created), and he is the internal Self of all beings” (MunU.2.1.4) — ,
तच्च परमेश्वरस्यैवोचितम्, सर्वविकारकारणत्वात्;
Which is fit or proper, only in the case of the Highest Lord as being the cause of all creation,
न शारीरस्य तनुमहिम्नः;
And not of the embodied Jīva-Self whose greatness is comparatively small,
नापि प्रधानस्य अयं रूपोपन्यासः सम्भवति,
Nor can it be possible that it is the mention of the form (Rūpa) of the Pradhāna,
Because it is not possible that it could be the inner-Self of all beings.
तस्मात्परमेश्वर एव भूतयोनिः, नेतराविति गम्यते।
Therefore we consider that by Bhūta-Yoni, the Highest Lord (is indicated) and not the other two (viz. the Pradhāna and the embodied Jīva-Self).
कथं पुनर्भूतयोनेरयं रूपोपन्यास इति गम्यते?
How do we know that the statement about the form, is with regard to the form of the Bhūta-Yoni?
प्रकरणात्, ‘एषः’ इति च प्रकृतानुकर्षणात्।
(To that, we reply) — Because of the chapter, and also because of the bringing forward of the pronoun ‘this one’ (Eṣaḥ) which refers to that which is relevant to the context.
भूतयोनिं हि प्रकृत्य ‘एतस्माज्जायते प्राणः’ ‘एष सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा’ इति वचनं भूतयोनिविषयमेव भवति;
The statements — “From him the Prāṇa is born” (MunU.2.1.3) and “He is the inner-Self of all beings” (MunU.2.1.4) — used with reference to the Bhūta-Yoni, can only be with reference to the Bhūta-Yoni.
यथा उपाध्यायं प्रकृत्य ‘एतस्मादधीष्व, एष वेदवेदाङ्गपारगः’ इति वचनमुपाध्यायविषयं भवति, तद्वत्।
Just as, for instance, when with reference to a religious preceptor it is said ‘You should learn from him, he is an expert in the Vedas and Vedāṅgas (subjects subsidiary to the Vedas)’, the statement is one with regard to that religious preceptor.
कथं पुनरदृश्यत्वादिगुणकस्य भूतयोनेर्विग्रहवद्रूपं सम्भवति?
How again (says the opponent), is it possible that the Bhūta-Yoni which has the attribute of being ‘invisible’, can be said to have a corporeal form?
सर्वात्मत्वविवक्षयेदमुच्यते, न तु विग्रहवत्त्वविवक्षया इत्यदोषः, ‘अहमन्नम्’ ‘अहमन्नादः’ (TaitU.3.10.6) इत्यादिवत्॥
(To this, we reply) — There is no fault, because this has been said with the intention of conveying that it is the Self of all, and not with the intention to convey that it has a corporeal form, just as, for instance, a person who has realized Brahman, with a view to convey that he is the Self of all, says (as in the Scriptural passage) — “I am the food, I am the consumer of the food etc.” (TaitU.3.10.6).
अन्ये पुनर्मन्यन्ते – नायं भूतयोनेः रूपोपन्यासः, जायमानत्वेनोपन्यासात्।
Some others here take the view, that there is no statement here, of the form (Rūpa) of the Bhūta-Yoni, but of the things which are about to be originated from the Bhūta-Yoni.
‘एतस्माज्जायते प्राणो मनः सर्वेन्द्रियाणि च। खं वायुर्ज्योतिरापः पृथिवी विश्वस्य धारिणी’ इति हि पूर्वत्र
The Scriptural passage, before the present one, viz. “From him is born the Prāṇa, mind, and all the sense-organs, Ākāśa, air (Vāyu), light, water and the Earth which supports the world”,
प्राणादि पृथिव्यन्तं तत्त्वजातं जायमानत्वेन निरदिक्षत्।
Mentions the aggregate of beings, beginning with the Prāṇa and ending with the Earth, as being born,
उत्तरत्रापि च ‘तस्मादग्निः समिधो यस्य सूर्यः’ इत्येवमादि
And another passage which comes after, beginning with “From him is born the Agni, of which the Sun is the fuel”
‘अतश्च सर्वा ओषधयो रसश्च’ इत्येवमन्तं जायमानत्वेनैव निर्देक्ष्यति।
And ending with “And from him also are born the herbs and Rasas”, also shows similarly that it all is born out of it.
इहैव कथमकस्मादन्तराले भूतयोनेः रूपमुपन्यसेत्?
How, then, all at once can the Scriptures be understood to mention (between these two passages) the form (Rūpa) of the Bhūta-Yoni?
सर्वात्मत्वमपि सृष्टिं परिसमाप्योपदेक्ष्यति –
That the Bhūta-Yoni is the Self of all, will also be mentioned subsequently, after finishing the mention of the creation,
‘पुरुष एवेदं विश्वं कर्म’ (MunU.2.1.10) इत्यादिना।
By the passage — “All this, the work of the Universe, is this Puruṣa” etc. (MunU.2.1.10).
श्रुतिस्मृत्योश्च त्रैलोक्यशरीरस्य प्रजापतेर्जन्मादि निर्दिश्यमानमुपलभामहे –
From the Scriptures and the Smṛtis, we find mention of the birth etc. of Prajā-pati (i.e. Hiraṇya-garbha) who has the threefold world as his body, thus —
‘हिरण्यगर्भः समवर्तताग्रे भूतस्य जातः पतिरेक आसीत्। स दाधार पृथिवीं द्यामुतेमां कस्मै देवाय हविषा विधेम’ (ऋ. सं. १०-१२१-१) इति –
“Hiraṇya-garbha came into being first, and having come into being, became the Lord of all beings which were created. He established the Earth and the Heaven. We should propitiate him by oblations etc.” (Ṛg-Veda-Sam. 10.121.1).
समवर्ततेति अजायतेत्यर्थः –
The word ‘Samavartata’ means ‘came into being’.
तथा, ‘स वै शरीरी प्रथमः स वै पुरुष उच्यते। आदिकर्ता स भूतानां ब्रह्माग्रे समवर्तत’ इति च।
(And the Smṛti says) similarly — “He is the first embodied one, and is called the Puruṣa. He, Brahman, i.e. Hiraṇya-garbha, was the creator of all beings and was himself the first to be born”.
विकारपुरुषस्यापि सर्वभूतान्तरात्मत्वं सम्भवति,
This Hiraṇya-garbha, who, of course, is himself a modification, can very well be the inner self of all beings,
Because, he dwells in all beings in the Adhyātma relation, by being himself of the nature of Prāṇa.
अस्मिन्पक्षे ‘पुरुष एवेदं विश्वं कर्म’ इत्यादिसर्वरूपोपन्यासः परमेश्वरप्रतिपत्तिहेतुरिति व्याख्येयम्॥२३॥
In the case of this view it should be explained, that the mention of the form of all, by the passage “All this work of the universe, is this Puruṣa” etc., is the means of understanding the Highest Lord (as meant by the word Bhūta-Yoni). — 23.
Vaiśvā-naraḥ: Vaiśvā-nara; Sa-ādhāraṇa-śabda: common word; Viśeṣāt: because of the distinction.
🔗Vaiśvā-nara (is the Highest Self), because though the two Scriptural words are common, (for one and the same entity), a distinction between them has been mentioned. — 126.96.36.199.2.24 L.1
‘को न आत्मा किं ब्रह्म’ (ChanU.5.11.1) इति ‘आत्मानमेवेमं वैश्वानरं सम्प्रत्यध्येषि तमेव नो ब्रूहि’ (ChanU.5.11.6) इति चोपक्रम्य
The Scriptures begin thus — “What is our Ātmā, what is Brahman?” and “You know the Vaiśvā-nara Ātmā, please tell us about it” (ChanU.5.11.1,6) — ,
द्युसूर्यवाय्वाकाशवारिपृथिवीनां सुतेजस्त्वादिगुणयोगमेकैकोपासननिन्दया च
And then, by censuring each separate meditation, on the Heaven, the Sun, the Vāyu, the Ākāśa, the Water, and the Earth, which have the attributes of Sutejā (having good light) etc., respectively,
वैश्वानरं प्रत्येषां मूर्धादिभावमुपदिश्याम्नायते –
And after mentioning that each of these, i.e. the Heaven, the Sun, etc., were but only the head, the eyes, etc. respectively of the Vaiśvā-nara, say thus —
‘यस्त्वेतमेवं प्रादेशमात्रमभिविमानमात्मानं वैश्वानरमुपास्ते, स सर्वेषु लोकेषु सर्वेषु भूतेषु सर्वेष्वात्मस्वन्नमत्ति; तस्य ह वा एतस्यात्मनो वैश्वानरस्य मूर्धैव सुतेजाश्चक्षुर्विश्वरूपः प्राणः पृथग्वर्त्मात्मा सन्देहो बहुलो वस्तिरेव रयिः पृथिव्येव पादावुर एव वेदिर्लोमानि बर्हिर्हृदयं गार्हपत्यो मनोऽन्वाहार्यपचन आस्यमाहवनीयः’ (ChanU.5.18.2) इत्यादि।
“He who meditates on the Vaiśvā-nara-ātmā which has the dimensions of only a span and which is Abhivimāna (i.e. one, as being the universal Self, is understood to be the ego), Eats food in all the worlds, in all beings and in all selfs, And of this Vaiśvā-nara-ātmā, the head is the brightly shining Heaven (Sutejā), the eye is the Sun (the multi-form), Prāṇa is the Vāyu which moves in diverse ways, the torso is the Ākāśa (Bahula), the bladder is wealth, the feet are the Earth, the chest is the altar, the hair is the sacrificial grass, the Hṛdaya is the Gārha-patya fire, the mind is the Anvāhārya-pacana fire, and the mouth (Āsya) is the Āhavanīya fire” (ChanU.5.18.2).
तत्र संशयः – किं वैश्वानरशब्देन जाठरोऽग्निरुपदिश्यते,
With respect to this there is a doubt as follows: Is the word Vaiśvā-nara, about which instruction is here given (by the Scriptures), the gastric fire,
Or ‘Agni’ the created element,
अथ तदभिमानिनी देवता,
Or a deity presiding over such Agni,
Or the embodied Jīva-Self
Or the Highest-Self?
किं पुनरत्र संशयकारणम्?
What again is the raison d’etre of this doubt?
वैश्वानर इति जाठरभूताग्निदेवतानां साधारणशब्दप्रयोगात्, आत्मेति च शारीरपरमेश्वरयोः।
Because the use of the word ‘Vaiśvā-nara’ is common to all these three, viz. the gastric fire, the elemental fire, and a deity presiding over the elemental fire, and the word ‘Ātmā’ is common to the embodied Jīva-Self, and the Highest-Self.
तत्र कस्योपादानं न्याय्यं कस्य वा हानमिति भवति संशयः।
Under these circumstances the doubt is, as to what would be proper to accept and to reject.
What then is your (i.e. the opponent’s) conclusion?
(The opponent says) that (by Vaiśvā-nara) the gastric fire is meant.
कुतः? तत्र हि विशेषेण क्वचित्प्रयोगो दृश्यते –
Whence is it so? Because we see that it is used particularly in that sense sometimes, thus: —
‘अयमग्निर्वैश्वानरो योऽयमन्तः पुरुषे येनेदमन्नं पच्यते यदिदमद्यते’ (BrhU.5.9.1) इत्यादौ।
“This is the fire Vaiśvā-nara that is inside a man, and by means of which what is eaten is digested.” (BrhUEng.5.9).
अग्निमात्रं वा स्यात्, सामान्येनापि प्रयोगदर्शनात् –
Or it may mean the ordinary fire (Agni) because the use of the term is common (to both the fire and the Sun), thus: —
‘विश्वस्मा अग्निं भुवनाय देवा वैश्वानरं केतुमह्नामकृण्वन्’ (ऋ. सं. १०-८८-१२) इत्यादौ।
“The Vaiśvā-nara fire (i.e. the Sun) the sign of the day, was created by the Gods for the whole world”. (Ṛg. Sam. 10.88.12).
अग्निशरीरा वा देवता स्यात्, तस्यामपि प्रयोगदर्शनात् –
Or may be, it may mean the deity having fire as its body, because we find the use of the word Vaiśvā-nara possible in its case,
‘वैश्वानरस्य सुमतौ स्याम राजा हि कं भुवनानामभिश्रीः’ (ऋ. सं. १-९८-१) इत्येवमाद्यायाः श्रुतेर्देवतायामैश्वर्याद्युपेतायां सम्भवात्।
As the Scriptural passage “May we be in the good graces of Vaiśvā-nara, he is the King of the worlds and is the cause of pleasure, and is powerful or shining”, and some other passages, show that it is so possible in the case of deities equipped with power etc.
अथात्मशब्दसामानाधिकरण्यादुपक्रमे च ‘को न आत्मा किं ब्रह्म’ इति केवलात्मशब्दप्रयोगादात्मशब्दवशेन वैश्वानरशब्दः परिणेय इत्युच्यते,
(If you the Vedāntin were to object and say) that because of the fact that the word Vaiśvā-nara is used with the same case-ending (Nom. sing.) as the word Ātmā, and because the mere word Ātmā is used in the introductory sentence “What is our Ātmā and what is Brahman?”, the word Vaiśvā-nara should be so interpreted as to be in agreement with the word Ātmā —
तथापि शारीर आत्मा स्यात्;
(We the opponents say) that it may mean the embodied Jīva-Self,
तस्य भोक्तृत्वेन वैश्वानरसन्निकर्षात्,
Because in its role of an experiencer, he is close to the Vaiśvā-nara (the gastric fire),
प्रादेशमात्रमिति च विशेषणस्य तस्मिन्नुपाधिपरिच्छिन्ने सम्भवात्।
And also because the distinctive feature of ‘having the dimensions of a span’ is possible in its case, because of its being circumscribed by the limiting adjuncts.
तस्मान्नेश्वरो वैश्वानर इत्येवं प्राप्तम्॥
Therefore, it cannot be that Vaiśvā-nara could mean the Lord.
तत्रेदमुच्यते – वैश्वानरः परमात्मा भवितुमर्हति।
(To this conclusion of the opponent) we give reply: — The Vaiśvā-nara deserves to be the Highest-Self.
How so? Because, a distinguishing feature is mentioned in connection with the words which are common to both.
‘Sādhāraṇa-śabda-viśeṣaḥ’ means the distinguishing feature of the words which however are common (one word ‘Vaiśvā-nara’ is common to three things and the other word ‘Ātmā’ to two things).
यद्यप्येतावुभावप्यात्मवैश्वानरशब्दौ साधारणशब्दौ – वैश्वानरशब्दस्तु त्रयाणां साधारणः, आत्मशब्दश्च द्वयोः –
Though these two words Ātmā and Vaiśvā-nara are common (to the two and three things respectively) i.e. the word ‘Vaiśvā-nara’ is common to three things and the word ‘Ātmā’ is common to two things,
तथापि विशेषो दृश्यते, – येन परमेश्वरपरत्वं तयोरभ्युपगम्यते –
Still we are able to discern a distinguishing feature, by means of which we are able to understand both these words to mean the Highest Lord, the distinguishing feature being, as in the sentence —
‘तस्य ह वा एतस्यात्मनो वैश्वानरस्य मूर्धैव सुतेजाः’ इत्यादिः।
“Of this Vaiśvā-nara-ātmā, the head is the bright Heavenly light (Sutejā)” (ChanU.5.18.2).
अत्र हि परमेश्वर एव द्युमूर्धत्वादिविशिष्टोऽवस्थान्तरगतः प्रत्यगात्मत्वेनोपन्यस्त आध्यानायेति गम्यते, कारणत्वात्।
We are able to understand here that the Highest-Lord as being the cause of all, and as being characterized as one having the Heaven as his caput etc., and also as having attained another condition (of the nature of Adhyātma and Adhidaiva), is here hinted at, as being the Universal-Self, for the purpose of meditation.
कारणस्य हि सर्वाभिः कार्यगताभिरवस्थाभिरवस्थावत्त्वात् द्युलोकाद्यवयवत्वमुपपद्यते।
A cause being always present in all the conditions of every effect (of which it is the cause), it is reasonably sustainable to say of this cause (i.e. the Highest-Lord), that it has the heaven etc. as a part of it.
‘स सर्वेषु लोकेषु सर्वेषु भूतेषु सर्वेष्वात्मस्वन्नमत्ति’ इति च सर्वलोकाद्याश्रयं फलं श्रूयमाणं परमकारणपरिग्रहे सम्भवति,
Besides, the fruit that is mentioned by the Scriptures here, viz. “He eats food in all the worlds, in all the beings, and in all the Selfs”, which is comprised of all the worlds etc., is reasonably sustainable, only if (by Vaiśvā-nara) we understand the Highest-Cause (i.e. the Parameśvara),
‘एवं हास्य सर्वे पाप्मानः प्रदूयन्ते’ (ChanU.5.24.3) इति च तद्विदः सर्वपाप्मप्रदाहश्रवणम्,
And also, the mention by the Scriptures, of the incineration of all sins of him who knows this as being so (i.e. who knows that Vaiśvā-nara means the Highest-Lord) thus: — “(Just as cotton on the tip of an arrow is consumed in fire), even so are his sins incinerated.” (ChanU.5.24.3).
‘को न आत्मा किं ब्रह्म’ इति चात्मब्रह्मशब्दाभ्यामुपक्रमः; – इत्येवमेतानि लिङ्गानि परमेश्वरमेव गमयन्ति।
Such indicatory marks, as the use in the introductory portion of the words Ātmā and Brahman, in the passage “What is our Ātmā, what is Brahman?”, also inform us that Vaiśvā-nara is the Highest-Lord.
तस्मात्परमेश्वर एव वैश्वानरः॥२४॥
Therefore, Vaiśvā-nara means the Highest-Lord. — 24.
Smaryamānam: mentioned in the Smṛti; Anumānam: indicatory mark, inference; Syāt: may be; Iti: because thus.
🔗 Also because what is stated in the Smṛti justifies an inference (of its having a Scriptural text as its source). — 188.8.131.52.2.25 L.1
इतश्च परमेश्वर एव वैश्वानरः;
This is also why the Vaiśvā-nara is the Highest-Lord only;
यस्मात्परमेश्वरस्यैव ‘अग्निरास्यं द्यौर्मूर्धा’ इतीदृशं त्रैलोक्यात्मकं रूपं स्मर्यते –
Because the Smṛti mentions the form of the Highest-Lord only as being the self of the threefold world, as, that Agni is his mouth, and heaven the caput, thus: —
‘यस्याग्निरास्यं द्यौर्मूर्धा खं नाभिश्चरणौ क्षितिः। सूर्यश्चक्षुर्दिशः श्रोत्रं तस्मै लोकात्मने नमः’ इति।
“Let salutation be to him who is the Self of the world and who has Agni as his mouth, heaven as the caput, Ākāśa as the navel, Earth as the feet, the Sun as the eye, and the Directions as the ears etc.”
तत्स्मर्यमाणं रूपं मूलभूतां श्रुतिमनुमापयदस्य वैश्वानरशब्दस्य परमेश्वरपरत्वे अनुमानं लिङ्गं गमकं स्यादित्यर्थः।
This means, that the form which is mentioned in the Smṛti and which leads us to an inference of the original Scriptural text as its source, furnishes the indicatory mark, which informs us that the word Vaiśvā-nara means the Highest Lord (because all Smṛtis are supposed to be based on some Scriptural text).
इतिशब्दो हेत्वर्थे –
The word ‘Iti’ in the Sūtra means ‘a reason’.
यस्मादिदं गमकम्, तस्मादपि वैश्वानरः परमात्मैवेत्यर्थः।
Because there is this indicatory mark, therefore also Vaiśvā-nara means the Highest-Self only.
यद्यपि स्तुतिरियम् – ‘तस्मै लोकात्मने नमः’ इति, तथापि स्तुतित्वमपि नासति मूलभूते वेदवाक्ये सम्यक् ईदृशेन रूपेण सम्भवति।
Even though the passage “Let Salutation be to the Self of the world” constitutes a glorification, such significance of glorification in this way would not be possible, in the absence of a sentence in the Scriptures which serves as a source (for the Smṛti).
‘द्यां मूर्धानं यस्य विप्रा वदन्ति खं वै नाभिं चन्द्रसूर्यौ च नेत्रे। दिशः श्रोत्रे विद्धि पादौ क्षितिं च सोऽचिन्त्यात्मा सर्वभूतप्रणेता’ इत्येवंजातीयका च स्मृतिरिहोदाहर्तव्या॥२५॥
A similar Smṛti passage — “He whose head, the learned say, is the Heaven, the Ākāśa is the navel, the Sun and the Moon the eyes, Directions the ears, Earth the feet, know him to be the incomprehensible Self and the creator of all beings” — Should also be quoted here as an illustration. — 25.
←PrevNext→ शब्दादिभ्योऽन्तःप्रतिष्ठानाच्च नेति चेन्न तथादृष्ट्युपदेशादसम्भवात्पुरुषमपि चैनमधीयते॥१.२.२६॥ Sabdādibhyo'ntaḥpratiṣṭhānāc ca neti cen na tathā-dṛṣṭy-upadeśād asambhavāt puruṣam api cainam adhīyate.
Śabda-ādibhyaḥ: on account of the word; Antaḥ: within; Pratiṣṭhānāt: because of abiding; Ca: and; Na: not; Iti cet: if it be said; Na: not so; Tathā: thus, as such; Dṛṣṭi-upadeśāt: on account of the instructions to conceive it; Asambhavāt: because of impossibility; Puruṣam: as person; Api: also; Ca: and; Evam: him; Adhīyate: (they) describe.
🔗 If it be said (that Vaiśvā-nara is not the Highest Self or Lord), because of the Scriptural words etc. (having different meanings) and also because it has its locus inside (the body), (we say) no, because the instruction is, to look upon it that way, and also because some (Vāja-saneyins) recite (the Vaiśvā-nara) as a Puruṣa. — 184.108.40.206.2.26 L.1
अत्राह – न परमेश्वरो वैश्वानरो भवितुमर्हति।
Here it is said (by the opponent) — The Vaiśvā-nara does not deserve to be the Highest Lord.
How so? Because of the words etc. (having different meanings) and also because the locus (of the Vaiśvā-nara) is inside (the body).
शब्दस्तावत् – वैश्वानरशब्दो न परमेश्वरे सम्भवति, अर्थान्तरे रूढत्वात्;
As regards the argument about the Scriptural word — the word Vaiśvā-nara cannot possibly be understood to mean the Highest Lord, because according to firmly established usage, it has another meaning.
तथाग्निशब्दः ‘स एषोऽग्निर्वैश्वानरः’ इति।
Similarly also, because of the word ‘Agni’ in “This Agni is Vaiśvā-nara” (Śat. Brā. 10.6.1.11).
आदिशब्दात् ‘हृदयं गार्हपत्यः’ (ChanU.5.18.2) इत्याद्यग्नित्रेताप्रकल्पनम्;
By the word ‘etc.’ in the Sūtra, is meant the imagining of the triad of sacrificial fires referred to in “The Hṛdaya is the Gārha-patya fire” etc. (ChanU.5.18.2).
‘तद्यद्भक्तं प्रथममागच्छेत्तद्धोमीयम्’ (ChanU.5.10.1) इत्यादिना च प्राणाहुत्यधिकरणतासङ्कीर्तनम्।
By the Scriptural passage — “The food (Bhakta) that comes in first is meant for the purpose of a sacrifice” (ChanU.5.10.1) etc. — praise is offered (to Vaiśvā-nara) as its being the repository of the oblation to the Prāṇa.
एतेभ्यो हेतुभ्यो जाठरो वैश्वानरः प्रत्येतव्यः।
Because of these reasons, by Vaiśvā-nara one should understand the gastric fire.
तथान्तःप्रतिष्ठानमपि श्रूयते – ‘पुरुषेऽन्तः प्रतिष्ठितं वेद’ इति। तच्च जाठरे सम्भवति।
Similarly, Scriptures mention about its having a locus internally (in the body) thus: “He knows him as being inside the Puruṣa”, which is possible only in the case of the gastric fire.
यदप्युक्तम् ‘मूर्धैव सुतेजाः’ इत्यादेर्विशेषात्कारणात्परमात्मा वैश्वानर इति,
To the suggestion made, that because of the mention of the special feature — viz. that the ‘Sutejā’ is its head etc. — the Vaiśvā-nara should be understood to be the Highest Lord,
अत्र ब्रूमः – कुतो ह्येष निर्णयः, यदुभयथापि विशेषप्रतिभाने सति परमेश्वरविषय एव विशेष आश्रयणीयो न जाठरविषय इति।
We (i.e. the opponent) say — The Special feature is seen to be possible equally in both cases (i.e. in the case of both the Highest Lord and the gastric fire), so how do you then arrive at a determination that the special feature should be accepted as applying to the Highest Lord only, and not to the gastric fire?
अथवा भूताग्नेरन्तर्बहिश्चावतिष्ठमानस्यैष निर्देशो भविष्यति।
Or it may be, that what the Scriptures indicate is the element ‘fire’, which can have a locus both in the body and outside it.
तस्यापि हि द्युलोकादिसम्बन्धो मन्त्रवर्णे अवगम्यते –
We understand from the Mantra-words that the ordinary fire is associated with the Heaven etc., thus —
‘यो भानुना पृथिवीं द्यामुतेमामाततान रोदसी अन्तरिक्षम्’ (ऋ. सं. १०-८८-३) इत्यादौ।
“He who with his lustre has pervaded the Heaven, the Earth, the Ākāśa (space) and Antar-ikṣa” (Ṛg-Veda-Sam. 10.88.3) etc.
अथवा तच्छरीराया देवताया ऐश्वर्ययोगात् द्युलोकाद्यवयवत्वं भविष्यति।
Or else it may be that the being inside and outside may refer to the deity which has fire as its body, and which, because of the power which it has, can be said to have the heavenly world etc. as a limb.
तस्मान्न परमेश्वरो वैश्वानर इति॥
Therefore, Vaiśvā-nara cannot be the Highest-Lord.
अत्रोच्यते – न तथादृष्ट्युपदेशादिति।
To this conclusion of the opponent we reply — It could not be so, because the instruction is that one should look upon it as the Highest Lord.
न शब्दादिभ्यः कारणेभ्यः परमेश्वरस्य प्रत्याख्यानं युक्तम्।
It is not proper, that because of reasons such as Scriptural words etc., the Highest Lord should not be understood as being indicated by the word Vaiśvā-nara.
कुतः? तथा जाठरापरित्यागेन, दृष्ट्युपदेशात्।
How so? Because the instruction is about looking upon Vaiśvā-nara as the Highest Lord, without giving up the looking upon Vaiśvā-nara as the gastric fire.
परमेश्वरदृष्टिर्हि जाठरे वैश्वानरे इहोपदिश्यते – ‘मनो ब्रह्मेत्युपासीत’ (ChanU.3.18.1) इत्यादिवत्।
The instruction here is, to look upon the gastric fire as the Highest-Lord, just as in the passage “Meditate devoutly on the mind as Brahman” (ChanU.3.18.1) (the instruction is that mind should be looked upon as Brahman),
अथवा जाठरवैश्वानरोपाधिः परमेश्वर इह द्रष्टव्यत्वेनोपदिश्यते – ‘मनोमयः प्राणशरीरो भारूपः’ (ChanU.3.14.2) इत्यादिवत्।
Or that the Highest Lord, as affected by the limiting adjunct of the gastric-Vaiśvā-nara, should be looked upon as the one to be seen, as for instance in the passage “(He) having mind as his structure, breath as his body, and lustre as his form” (ChanU.3.14.2) (the instruction is that the Highest Lord having mind etc. as his adjuncts should be meditated upon).
यदि चेह परमेश्वरो न विवक्ष्येत, केवल एव जाठरोऽग्निर्विवक्ष्येत,
Were the Scriptures desirous of referring to the gastric fire only and not desirous of referring to the Highest Lord,
ततः ‘मूर्धैव सुतेजाः’ इत्यादेर्विशेषस्यासम्भव एव स्यात्।
The distinctive feature, such as ‘Sutejā is the head”, would be impossible.
यथा तु देवताभूताग्निव्यपाश्रयेणाप्ययं विशेष उपपादयितुं न शक्यते, तथोत्तरसूत्रे वक्ष्यामः।
How, even by resorting to the deity or the element ‘fire’ (as being the Vaiśvā-nara), it would not be possible to propound the distinctive feature (viz. that the head is the Sutejā) fittingly, we shall say in the Sūtra which follows.
यदि च केवल एव जाठरो विवक्ष्येत, पुरुषेऽन्तःप्रतिष्ठितत्वं केवलं तस्य स्यात्; न तु पुरुषत्वम्;
If it was intended to speak of the gastric fire only, then, merely that it is inside the man, would alone be possible, but not that it was the Puruṣa also.
पुरुषमपि चैनमधीयते वाजसनेयिनः –
But the Vāja-saneyins recite, that he is the Puruṣa also, thus: —
‘स एषोऽग्निर्वैश्वानरो यत्पुरुषः स यो हैतमेवमग्निं वैश्वानरं पुरुषविधं पुरुषेऽन्तः प्रतिष्ठितं वेद’ (श. ब्रा. १०-६-१-११) इति।
“This Agni Vaiśvā-nara which is a Puruṣa. He who knows this Agni Vaiśvā-nara as being like the Puruṣa and as having a locus inside a man” (Śat. Brā. 10.6.1.11).
परमेश्वरस्य तु सर्वात्मत्वात्पुरुषत्वं पुरुषेऽन्तःप्रतिष्ठितत्वं चोभयमुपपद्यते।
The Highest Lord being the self of all, that it can at once be both the Puruṣa and be also inside a Puruṣa, is reasonably sustainable.
ये तु ‘पुरुषविधमपि चैनमधीयते’ इति सूत्रावयवं पठन्ति, तेषामेषोऽर्थः –
In the case of those who recite “Puruṣavidham api ca enam adhīyate” as a part of the Sūtra, the meaning is —
केवलजाठरपरिग्रहे पुरुषेऽन्तःप्रतिष्ठितत्वं केवलं स्यात्; न तु पुरुषविधत्वम्;
If by Vaiśvā-nara we were to understand merely the gastric fire, it would be only possible that it has a locus inside a Puruṣa, and not that it is the Puruṣa also.
पुरुषविधमपि चैनमधीयते वाजसनेयिनः –
But the Vāja-saneyins recite (the Vaiśvā-nara) as being like a Puruṣa also, thus —
‘पुरुषविधं पुरुषेऽन्तः प्रतिष्ठितं वेद’ इति।
“(He who) knows him as being like a Puruṣa, and also as having a locus inside a Puruṣa.”
पुरुषविधत्वं च प्रकरणात् यदधिदैवतं द्युमूर्धत्वादि पृथिवीप्रतिष्ठितत्वान्तम्,
From the chapter, “(Vaiśvā-nara) being like a Puruṣa” is understood, in both the ways, viz., in its cosmic aspect in relation to Gods, beginning with “the heaven being its head” and ending with “being firmly set in the Earth”,
यच्चाध्यात्मं प्रसिद्धं मूर्धत्वादि चुबुकप्रतिष्ठितत्वान्तम्, तत्परिगृह्यते॥२६॥
And in its aspect in relation to Adhyātma, as its “being the head” (of the meditator) in its ordinary physical sense, in the beginning, and ending with “being firmly set in the chin”. — 26.
←PrevNext→ अत एव न देवता भूतं च॥१.२.२७॥ Ata eva na devatā bhūtaṃ ca.
Ataḥ eva: for the same reasons; Na: (is) not; Devatā: the presiding deity of fire; Bhūtam: the element of fire; Ca: and.
🔗 And for the same reason therefore (Vaiśvā-nara) cannot either he the deity (of, Fire) or the element (Fire). — 220.127.116.11.2.27 L.1
Again the statement which has been made before, viz.,
भूताग्नेरपि मन्त्रवर्णे द्युलोकादिसम्बन्धदर्शनात् ‘मूर्धैव सुतेजाः’ इत्याद्यवयवकल्पनं तस्यैव भविष्यतीति, तच्छरीराया देवताया वा ऐश्वर्ययोगादिति; तत्परिहर्तव्यम्।
That, as in the words of the Mantras we are able to observe a connection between the element Agni and the heavenly world etc., the imagining of the parts of a body, thus — Sutejā is the head (of the Vaiśvā-nara) — , may be with reference to the element ‘fire’ or that it may be with reference to the deity (fire) on account of its powerfulness, has to be refuted.
अत्रोच्यते – अत एवोक्तेभ्यो हेतुभ्यो न देवता वैश्वानरः। तथा भूताग्निरपि न वैश्वानरः;
With regard to that, we say — for the same reasons, Vaiśvā-nara can neither be a deity nor the fire.
न हि भूताग्नेरौष्ण्यप्रकाशमात्रात्मकस्य द्युमूर्धत्वादिकल्पनोपपद्यते,
As regards the element ‘fire’ which has the qualities of heat and light only, imagining it as having the heaven as the head etc. is not reasonably sustainable,
Because an effect or modification cannot ever be the Self of another effect or modification.
तथा देवतायाः सत्यप्यैश्वर्ययोगे न द्युमूर्धत्वादिकल्पना सम्भवति,
Nor can it be possible, in the case of a deity possessing power, to imagine, that it has ‘Heaven as its head’,
Because it (the deity) is not the cause of anything (being itself an effect only) and because its power is dependent upon the Lord.
आत्मशब्दासम्भवश्च सर्वेष्वेषु पक्षेषु स्थित एव॥२७॥
In all these views, moreover, the objection about the impossibility of Vaiśvā-nara being the Self, is also common of course. — 27.
Sa-akṣāt: directly; Api: also, even; A-virodham: no objection, no contradiction; Jaiminiḥ: (so says) Jaimini.
🔗Jaimini is of opinion that there is no contradiction in holding, that here, direct meditation on the Highest Lord is intended. — 18.104.22.168.2.28 L.1
पूर्वं जाठराग्निप्रतीको जाठराग्न्युपाधिको वा परमेश्वर उपास्य इत्युक्तम्
It has been said in the preceding Sūtras, that the Highest Lord having the gastric fire as its symbol or its limiting adjunct, he is indicated to be the one to be devoutly meditated upon,
In accordance with the reason that the Vaiśvā-nara has a locus inside a person.
इदानीं तु विनैव प्रतीकोपाधिकल्पनाभ्यां साक्षादपि परमेश्वरोपासनपरिग्रहे न कश्चिद्विरोध इति जैमिनिराचार्यो मन्यते।
Here in this Sūtra Ācārya Jaimini considers, with regard to the passage about Vaiśvā-nara in this Sūtra, that no contradiction is involved even if we accept that a direct devout meditation on the Highest Lord is indicated, without imagining his being affected by any adjunct or his being a symbol.
ननु जाठराग्न्यपरिग्रहेऽन्तःप्रतिष्ठितत्ववचनं शब्दादीनि च कारणानि विरुध्येरन्निति।
But (says the opponent) — If we do not understand that by Vaiśvā-nara the gastric fire is meant, then the statement that it has a locus inside, as also the reasons based on Scriptural words etc., would be contradicted.
अत्रोच्यते – अन्तःप्रतिष्ठितत्ववचनं तावन्न विरुध्यते।
To this the reply given is — So far as the statement “having a locus inside” is concerned, it is not contradicted.
न हीह ‘पुरुषविधं पुरुषेऽन्तः प्रतिष्ठितं वेद’ इति जाठराग्न्यभिप्रायेणेदमुच्यते,
The statement made here, viz. “Knows him to be like a Puruṣa and that he has a locus inside”, is not made with a desire to convey that the gastric fire is meant,
Because that is not relevant to the context here, nor is it so mentioned by the Scriptures in so many words.
कथं तर्हि? यत्प्रकृतं मूर्धादिचुबुकान्तेषु पुरुषावयवेषु पुरुषविधत्वं कल्पितम्, तदभिप्रायेणेदमुच्यते – ‘पुरुषविधं पुरुषेऽन्तः प्रतिष्ठितं वेद’ इति;
How then is it? The statement “being like a Puruṣa and having a locus inside” is made, so as to indicate that the ‘being like a Puruṣa’ which is relevant here and which is imagined in the bodily parts of a Puruṣa, beginning with ‘the caput’ and ending with ‘the chin’ (Cibuka),
यथा वृक्षे शाखां प्रतिष्ठितां पश्यतीति, तद्वत्।
Is just like seeing the branches of a tree as having a firm base in the tree.
अथवा यः प्रकृतः परमात्माध्यात्ममधिदैवतं च पुरुषविधत्वोपाधिः, तस्य यत्केवलं साक्षिरूपम्, तदभिप्रायेणेदमुच्यते – ‘पुरुषविधं पुरुषेऽन्तः प्रतिष्ठितं वेद’ इति।
Or it may be that the words ‘Knows it to have a locus inside a Puruṣa’ are mentioned with the intention of conveying the pure and the merely witness-like nature of the Highest Self, which is relevant to the context here and which in its Adhyātma and Adhidaivatā aspects is referred to as being affected by such limiting adjuncts as “being like a Puruṣa”.
निश्चिते च पूर्वापरालोचनवशेन परमात्मपरिग्रहे, तद्विषय एव वैश्वानरशब्दः केनचिद्योगेन वर्तिष्यते –
When once it is finally determined, by means of the consideration of what has gone before and which follows after (the passage considered in the Sūtra), that the Highest Self should be understood to be indicated by the word Vaiśvā-nara, then that word (Vaiśvā-nara) used in this sense, could anyhow be shown to be properly so used, by some sort of etymological derivation as follows: —
विश्वश्चायं नरश्चेति, विश्वेषां वायं नरः, विश्वे वा नरा अस्येति विश्वानरः परमात्मा, सर्वात्मत्वात्, विश्वानर एव वैश्वानरः;
He who, as being universal, is the man (Nara) i.e. Jīva, or he who is the maker of all modifications, or he of whom all men are the creation, is the Vaiśvā-nara and the Highest Self, as he is the Self of all.
(It is a rule in grammar) that the Taddhita suffix (अ A) when it is applied to a word does not change the original meaning of the word. Just like the words Rākṣasa and Vāyasa (which are the Taddhita suffix forms of Rakṣas and Vayas).
अग्निशब्दोऽप्यग्रणीत्वादियोगाश्रयणेन परमात्मविषय एव भविष्यति।
The word ‘Agni’ also, by having recourse to a similar etymological derivation, such as ‘one who leads to the fruits of action’, may well indicate the Highest Self.
गार्हपत्यादिकल्पनं प्राणाहुत्यधिकरणत्वं च परमात्मनोऽपि सर्वात्मत्वादुपपद्यते॥२८॥
Imagining of the Vaiśvā-nara as the gastric fire or the repository of oblations, is reasonably sustainable in the case of the Highest Self also, as being the Self of all. — 28.
कथं पुनः परमेश्वरपरिग्रहे प्रादेशमात्रश्रुतिरुपपद्यत इति,
If by Vaiśvā-nara we understand the Highest Lord, how again can the Scriptural statement about his being of the size of a span, be reasonably sustainable?
तां व्याख्यातुमारभते –
To explain this, it is said: —
Abhivyakteḥ: because of manifestation; Iti: thus, so; Āśma-rathyaḥ: (says) Āśma-rathya.
🔗 Because of the manifestation (Vyakti), says Āśma-rathya. — 22.214.171.124.2.29 L.3
अतिमात्रस्यापि परमेश्वरस्य प्रादेशमात्रत्वमभिव्यक्तिनिमित्तं स्यात्।
It is possible for the Highest Lord, who transcends any notion of measurement, to manifest himself, as one having the measurement of a span, with a view to discover himself (to the devout meditator).
अभिव्यज्यते किल प्रादेशमात्रपरिमाणः परमेश्वर उपासकानां कृते।
(It may be understood) that the Highest Lord manifests himself as being of the measurement of a span, for the sake of those who devoutly meditate on him,
प्रदेशविशेषेषु वा हृदयादिषूपलब्धिस्थानेषु विशेषेणाभिव्यज्यते।
And he manifests himself particularly in places suited for such mainfestation, such as the Hṛdaya etc.
अतः परमेश्वरेऽपि प्रादेशमात्रश्रुतिरभिव्यक्तेरुपपद्यत इत्याश्मरथ्य आचार्यो मन्यते॥२९॥
Therefore Ācārya Āśma-rathya thinks that the Scriptural passage about ‘being of the measurement of a span’ is reasonably sustainable in the case of the Highest Lord, whenever he wishes to manifest himself. — 29.
Anusmṛteḥ: for the sake of meditation or constant remembrance; Bādariḥ: (so says) the sage Bādari.
🔗 Because of the thinking (of one thing to the exclusion of all others), says Bādari. — 126.96.36.199.2.30 L.1
प्रादेशमात्रहृदयप्रतिष्ठेन वायं मनसानुस्मर्यते; तेन ‘प्रादेशमात्रः’ इत्युच्यते;
He is described as having the measure of a span, because he who has his location in the Hṛdaya which is of the measurement of a span, is thought of by the mind,
यथा प्रस्थमिता यवाः प्रस्था इत्युच्यन्ते, तद्वत्।
Just as barley which is measured by a unit of measurement called (Prastha), is called a Prastha (of barley).
यद्यपि च यवेषु स्वगतमेव परिमाणं प्रस्थसम्बन्धाद्व्यज्यते,
Or rather, it may be that barley which has a dimension of its own, inherent in itself, is revealed by being associated with the Prastha.
न चेह परमेश्वरगतं किञ्चित्परिमाणमस्ति – यद्धृदयसम्बन्धाद्व्यज्येत;
Here, however, it is not, as if the Highest Lord has any dimensions, which could be said to be revealed by his association with the Hṛdaya,
तथापि प्रयुक्तायाः प्रादेशमात्रश्रुतेः सम्भवति यथाकथञ्चिदनुस्मरणमालम्बनमित्युच्यते।
But as he is described in the Scriptures as having ‘the measurement of a span’, so, anyhow, meditation on him is a sort of a ground to enable one to say so.
प्रादेशमात्रत्वेन वायमप्रादेशमात्रोऽप्यनुस्मरणीयः प्रादेशमात्रश्रुत्यर्थवत्तायै।
Or else it might be said, that in order to justify the Scriptural passage as having a proper sense, he who is by no means measurable by a span, should be thought of as having this measurement of a span.
एवमनुस्मृतिनिमित्ता परमेश्वरे प्रादेशमात्रश्रुतिरिति बादरिराचार्यो मन्यते॥३०॥
In this way, the Ācārya Bādari thinks, the Scriptural passage about ‘being of the measurement of a span’ may be understood to mean the Highest Lord, as thought of or remembered (by his devout worshippers). — 30.
←PrevNext→ सम्पत्तेरिति जैमिनिस्तथा हि दर्शयति॥१.२.३१॥ Sampatter iti jaiminis tathā hi darśayati.
Sampatteḥ: because of imaginary identity; Iti: thus, so; Jaimini: (says) Jaimini; Tathā: in this way; Hi: because; Darśayati: (the Śruti) declares.
🔗Jaimini thinks that (the Highest Lord may he described as having the measurement of a span) because of Sampatti (i.e. imagining a small thing to be a great thing). The Scriptures also indicate similarly. — 188.8.131.52.2.31 L.1
सम्पत्तिनिमित्ता वा स्यात्प्रादेशमात्रश्रुतिः।
The Scriptural passage about (the Highest Lord being of the measurement of a span) may be due to Sampatti, (thinks Ācārya Jaimini).
कुतः? तथाहि समानप्रकरणं वाजसनेयिब्राह्मणं द्युप्रभृतीन्पृथिवीपर्यन्तांस्त्रैलोक्यात्मनो वैश्वानरस्यावयवानध्यात्ममूर्धप्रभृतिषु चुबुकपर्यन्तेषु देहावयवेषु सम्पादयत्प्रादेशमात्रसम्पत्तिं परमेश्वरस्य दर्शयति –
How is it so? Because so does a similar chapter in the Vāja-saneyi Brāhmaṇa (describe it) by imaginatively identifying the several parts of Vaiśvā-nara, which has the nature of the three worlds such as the Heaven etc., upto the Earth, in their Adhyātma aspect, in terms of the parts of a body (of the devout worshipper), such as the head etc., upto the chin, and thus shows the Highest Lord to be of the measurement of a span, thus: —
‘प्रादेशमात्रमिव ह वै देवाः सुविदिता अभिसम्पन्नास्तथा तु व एतान्वक्ष्यामि यथा प्रादेशमात्रमेवाभिसम्पादयिष्यामीति।
“So indeed did the Gods realize him, as being of the measurement of a span. I will now demonstrate to you the several parts of him, by which I will have shown you, how (the Highest Lord) has the measure of a span.
स होवाच मूर्धानमुपदिशन्नुवाचैष वा अतिष्ठा वैश्वानर इति।
So instructing them about the head he said, ‘This is the Atiṣṭhā i.e. the topmost part i.e. the head of the Vaiśvā-nara.’
चक्षुषी उपदिशन्नुवाचैष वै सुतेजा वैश्वानर इति।
Instructing them about the eyes, he said, ‘This is the Sutejā (i.e. one having great splendour)’ i.e. the Sun-like Vaiśvā-nara.
नासिके उपदिशन्नुवाचैष वै पृथग्वर्त्मात्मा वैश्वानर इति।
Instructing them about the nostrils he said, ‘This that moves in all ways is the Ātmā or Prāṇa of Vaiśvā-nara’.
मुख्यमाकाशमुपदिशन्नुवाचैष वै बहुलो वैश्वानर इति।
Instructing about the Ākāśa in the mouth, he said, ‘This is Bahula (Profusion) of Vaiśvā-nara.’
मुख्या अप उपदिशन्नुवाचैष वै रयिर्वैश्वानर इति।
Instructing them about the saliva in the mouth, he said, ‘This is the wealth (Rayi) of Vaiśvā-nara’ [Trans. per Panoli].
चुबुकमुपदिशन्नुवाचैष वै प्रतिष्ठा वैश्वानरः’ इति।
Instructing them about the Chin he said, ‘This is the pedestal (Pratiṣṭhā) of Vaiśvā-nara’.”
By ‘Cubuka’ is meant the lower jaw.
यद्यपि वाजसनेयके द्यौरतिष्ठात्वगुणा समाम्नायते, आदित्यश्च सुतेजस्त्वगुणः,
Now, though in the Vāja-saneyi Brāhmaṇa, heaven is mentioned as having the quality of being the head and the Sun as the Sutejā,
छान्दोग्ये पुनः द्यौः सुतेजस्त्वगुणा समाम्नायते, आदित्यश्च विश्वरूपत्वगुणः;
And in the Chāndogya, the heaven is indicated as the Sutejā, and the Sun is mentioned as being multiform,
तथापि नैतावता विशेषेण किञ्चिद्धीयते,
Still this sort of little difference between these two statements, does not do any harm,
Because the statement about him who is described as having the measurement of a span, in the Vaiśvā-nara-Vidyā is common to both,
And all the different branches intimate that very same thing.
सम्पत्तिनिमित्तां प्रादेशमात्रश्रुतिं युक्ततरां जैमिनिराचार्यो मन्यते॥३१॥
Ācārya Jaimini considers this Scriptural passage about being of the measurement of a span, due to ‘Sampatti’, as having a fitter application. — 31.
🔗 Also (The Jābālas) mentioned (the Highest Lord as one that resides) in this i.e. between the head and the chin. — 184.108.40.206.2.32 L.1
आमनन्ति चैनं परमेश्वरमस्मिन्मूर्धचुबुकान्तराले जाबालाः –
The Jābālas also mention the Highest Lord as located in the space between the head and chin, thus: —
‘य एषोऽनन्तोऽव्यक्त आत्मा सोऽविमुक्ते प्रतिष्ठित इति। सोऽविमुक्तः कस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठित इति। वरणायां नास्यां च मध्ये प्रतिष्ठित इति। का वै वरणा का च नासीति’।
“This eternal and unmanifest Self (Ātmā) is located in the Avimukta i.e. the Jīva-Self (i.e. one who is considered as a finite entity because of the limiting adjuncts, for the purpose of devout meditation). Where is this Avimukta located? In between the Varaṇā and the Nāsī is it located. And what is Varaṇā and what is Nāsī?”
तत्र चेमामेव नासिकाम् ‘सर्वाणीन्द्रियकृतानि पापानि वारयतीति सा वरणा, सर्वाणीन्द्रियकृतानि पापानि नाशयतीति सा नासी’ इति वरणानासीति निरुच्य,
Here the Scriptural text having etymologically derived the word Nāsikā (nose) as Varaṇā and Nāsī, thus — that which prevents sins of the sense-organs from occurring is the Varaṇā, and that which destroys the sin committed by the sense-organs is the Nāsī,
पुनरप्यामनन्ति – ‘कतमच्चास्य स्थानं भवतीति। भ्रुवोर्घ्राणस्य च यः सन्धिः स एष द्युलोकस्य परस्य च सन्धिर्भवति’ (जा. उ. १) इति।
The Scriptures say again: — “Where is its location? It is in that place where the eyebrows and the nose meet and the place where the heavenly world (the Dyuloka) and the Para (Brahma-Loka) meet.” (Jāb. Up. 1).
तस्मादुपपन्ना परमेश्वरे प्रादेशमात्रश्रुतिः।
Therefore, that the Scriptural passage about ‘being of the measurement of a span’ indicates the Highest Lord, is reasonably sustainable.
The term Abhivimāna mentioned in the Scriptures indicates the Universal Self.
प्रत्यगात्मतया सर्वैः प्राणिभिरभिविमीयत इत्यभिविमानः;
It is Abhivimāna because it is known by all beings as ‘being the Universal Self’,
अभिगतो वायं प्रत्यगात्मत्वात्, विमानश्च मानवियोगात् इत्यभिविमानः।
Or because it is realized by all as the Universal-Self, and as also one who is beyond any notion of measurement, as being the Universal-Self, and as being measureless.
अभिविमिमीते वा सर्वं जगत्, कारणत्वादित्यभिविमानः।
Or, that, it is the one that as being the cause of this transitory world, creates it and therefore is Abhivimāna.
तस्मात्परमेश्वरो वैश्वानर इति सिद्धम्॥३२॥
Therefore, it is proved that by Vaiśvā-nara, the Highest Lord is meant. — 32.
Dyu: heaven; Bhū: earth; Ādi: and the rest; Āyatanam: abode; Sva: own; Śabdāt: from the word (Sva-śabdāt: on account of the word ‘Self’).
🔗 The abode of the Heaven and the Earth etc. (is Brahman) because it is so expressed by the word ‘Sva’ (the Self) meaning one’s own. — 220.127.116.11.3.1 L.1
इदं श्रूयते – ‘यस्मिन्द्यौः पृथिवी चान्तरिक्षमोतं मनः सह प्राणैश्च सर्वैः। तमेवैकं जानथ आत्मानमन्या वाचो विमुञ्चथामृतस्यैष सेतुः’ (MunU.2.2.5) इति।
A Scriptural passage mentions as follows: — “Know that one only — the Self — wherein the Heaven and Earth and the Antar-ikṣa (the space between the Earth and the Heaven) are woven (as weft) and also the mind along with all the Prāṇas (sense-organs). Give up all other talk. He is the bund i.e. causeway leading up to immortality” (MunU.2.2.5).
अत्र यदेतद्द्युप्रभृतीनामोतत्ववचनादायतनं किञ्चिदवगम्यते, तत्किं परं ब्रह्म स्यात्, आहोस्विदर्थान्तरमिति सन्दिह्यते।
Here, it is doubted whether that something which is understood as some sort of an abode or sanctuary (Āyatana), by reason of the words “in which the Heaven etc. are woven”, means the Highest Brahman or something else.
तत्रार्थान्तरं किमप्यायतनं स्यादिति प्राप्तम्।
The conclusion (of the opponent) is that the word ‘Abode’ may mean something else (than Brahman).
कस्मात्? ‘अमृतस्यैष सेतुः’ इति श्रवणात्।
How is it so? Because the Scriptures mention: “He is the bund i.e. causeway leading up to immortality”.
पारवान्हि लोके सेतुः प्रख्यातः।
In ordinary life it is well-known that a bund or causeway has something beyond it (which is reached after crossing it).
न च परस्य ब्रह्मणः पारवत्त्वं शक्यमभ्युपगन्तुम् –
Now, it cannot be understood that the Highest Brahman has anything beyond itself (to which Brahman as the bund or causeway leads up),
‘अनन्तमपारम्’ (BrhU.2.4.12) इति श्रवणात्।
Because the Scriptures mention it as being “eternal and as having nothing beyond it” (BrhUEng.2.4.12).
अर्थान्तरे चायतने परिगृह्यमाणे स्मृतिप्रसिद्धं प्रधानं परिग्रहीतव्यम्,
Now, if something else (than Brahman) is understood to be the meaning of the word ‘Abode’, it may be understood to mean the Pradhāna well-known in the Sāṅkhya Smṛti,
Because it is reasonably sustainable, that the Pradhāna as being the cause (of the world, according to the Sāṅkhyas) can be said to be the Abode (of that of which it is the cause).
श्रुतिप्रसिद्धो वा वायुः स्यात् – ‘वायुर्वाव गौतम तत्सूत्रं वायुना वै गौतम सूत्रेणायं च लोकः परश्च लोकः सर्वाणि च भूतानि सन्दृब्धानि भवन्ति’ (BrhU.3.7.2) इति वायोरपि विधारणत्वश्रवणात्।
Or else, it may also be understood to mean the Vāyu (air) well-known in the Scriptures, as being the upholder, thus: — “Oh Gautama, Vāyu is the thread, because it is by Vāyu, the thread, that this world, the world beyond, and all the beings are held together (as flowers in a garland)” (BrhUEng.3.7.2).
शारीरो वा स्यात्; – तस्यापि भोक्तृत्वात्, भोग्यं प्रपञ्चं प्रत्यायतनत्वोपपत्तेः
Or may be, it may mean the embodied Jīva-Self, because it is reasonably sustainable that being an experiencer it can be said to be the ‘Abode’ of all these manifold things which are the objects of its enjoyment.
इत्येवं प्राप्ते इदमाह – द्युभ्वाद्यायतनमिति।
To this conclusion (of the opponent), we reply thus: — “The Abode of the Heaven and the Earth” etc.
द्यौश्च भूश्च द्युभुवौ, द्युभुवौ आदी यस्य तदिदं द्युभ्वादि।
The compound word ‘Dyubhvādi’ is dissolved as follows: — The Heaven and the Earth is ‘Dyubhuvau’ and that of which ‘Dyubhuvau’ is the first, is the ‘Dyubhvādi’.
यदेतदस्मिन्वाक्ये द्यौः पृथिव्यन्तरिक्षं मनः प्राणा इत्येवमात्मकं जगत् ओतत्वेन निर्दिष्टम्, तस्यायतनं परं ब्रह्म भवितुमर्हति।
The Highest Brahman deserves to be the abode of the transitory world comprising of the Heaven, the Earth, the Antar-ikṣa, and the mind with all the Prāṇas i.e. the sense-organs, which have been indicated as being woven in it.
कुतः? स्वशब्दात् आत्मशब्दादित्यर्थः।
How is it so? Because it is so expressed in its own term (Sva), i.e. the ‘Ātmā’.
आत्मशब्दो हीह भवति – ‘तमेवैकं जानथ आत्मानम्’ इति।
Here we find the word Ātmā mentioned thus: — “Know that one only — the Ātmā”.
आत्मशब्दश्च परमात्मपरिग्रहे सम्यगवकल्पते, नार्थान्तरपरिग्रहे।
The word Ātmā can be properly understood, only if by it we understand the Highest Self, and no other thing.
क्वचिच्च स्वशब्देनैव ब्रह्मण आयतनत्वं श्रूयते –
Occasionally Brahman’s being the Abode is expressed by the word (Sva) expressive of itself thus: —
‘सन्मूलाः सोम्येमाः सर्वाः प्रजाः सदायतनाः सत्प्रतिष्ठाः’ (ChanU.6.8.4) इति।
“O Saumya, all these created things have their root in the Being (the Sat), have their Abode in the ‘Being’, and have the ‘Being’ as their pedestal” (ChanU.6.8.4).
स्वशब्देनैव चेह पुरस्तादुपरिष्टाच्च ब्रह्म सङ्कीर्त्यते –
Here, also, preceding and following the passage' (discussed in this Sūtra) Brahman is mentioned in its own terms, thus: —
‘पुरुष एवेदं विश्वं कर्म तपो ब्रह्म परामृतम्’ इति, ‘ब्रह्मैवेदममृतं पुरस्ताद्ब्रह्म पश्चाद्ब्रह्म दक्षिणतश्चोत्तरेण’ (MunU.2.2.11) इति च।
“The Puruṣa precisely is all this Karma (such as Agni-hotra etc.), penance, Brahman and the super-immortal” (MunU.2.1.10). “What here is in front (in the East) and behind (in the West) and in the South and in the North, is only this Brahman, the immortal.” (MunU.2.2.11).
There, however, because the Scriptures mention the relationship (between Brahman and the creation) as that of the abode, and that of which it is the abode,
सर्वं ब्रह्मेति च सामानाधिकरण्यात्, यथानेकात्मको वृक्षः शाखा स्कन्धो मूलं चेति, एवं नानारसो विचित्र आत्मेत्याशङ्का सम्भवति;
And by the common case-endings of the words ‘Sarvam’ and ‘Brahman’, a doubt may be possible, that, just as a tree is made up of such different parts as branches, the stump and the roots, and is therefore of a manifold nature, similarly Brahman also may be of a manifold and variegated nature consisting of different Rasas,
तां निवर्तयितुं सावधारणमाह – ‘तमेवैकं जानथ आत्मानम्’ इति।
And to remove that doubt, it is declared with a confident determination, thus: — “Know, that one and one only — the Ātmā”.
एतदुक्तं भवति – न कार्यप्रपञ्चविशिष्टो विचित्र आत्मा विज्ञेयः।
By that is meant — the Ātmā should not be understood as having manifold forms as characterized by the heterogeneous creation.
किं तर्हि? अविद्याकृतं कार्यप्रपञ्चं विद्यया प्रविलापयन्तः तमेवैकमायतनभूतमात्मानं जानथ एकरसमिति।
How then (should it be known)? Rather, that by effacing the idea of this manifoldness of creation brought about by Nescience by means of true knowledge, one should realize the one and the only Self, which is of a homogeneous structure, as being the only one abode.
यथा ‘यस्मिन्नास्ते देवदत्तस्तदानय’ इत्युक्ते आसनमेवानयति, न देवदत्तम्;
Just as when it is said, that, that on which Deva-datta sits should be brought, the prayer-carpet is brought, and not Deva-datta,
Similarly instruction is here given that the Self which is of a homogeneous structure and which is the abode (of everything that is created), is that which has to be realized.
विकारानृताभिसन्धस्य चापरवादः श्रूयते –
Similarly the Scriptures censure one who puts his faith in the unreal creation (as being the reality) thus: —
‘मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति’ (KathU.2.1.10) इति।
“One who sees things as different from each other (i.e. fails to realize the unity of things) goes from death to death” (KathU.2.1.10).
सर्वं ब्रह्म’ इति तु सामानाधिकरण्यं प्रपञ्चप्रविलापनार्थम्,
The common case-ending of ‘Sarvam’ and ‘Brahman’ is for the purpose of removing the idea of the heterogeneity of creation,
And not for the purpose of emphasizing that Brahman has a diversity of essential structure,
‘स यथा सैन्धवघनोऽनन्तरोऽबाह्यः कृत्स्नो रसघन एवैवं वा अरेऽयमात्मानन्तरोऽबाह्यः कृत्स्नः प्रज्ञानघन एव’ (BrhU.4.5.13) इत्येकरसताश्रवणात्।
Because we find that the Scriptures mention the homogeneous structure of Brahman, thus: — “Just as a lump of salt has nothing inside it which is different from the outside, but has an entirely homogeneous structure of salinity, even so (Oh Maitreyī) is the Self without any inside and outside (as different from each other) but has a total uniformity of structure of pure knowledge”. (BrhUEng.4.5.13).
तस्माद्द्युभ्वाद्यायतनं परं ब्रह्म।
Therefore, it is the Highest Brahman that is meant by ‘the abode of the Heaven and the Earth’.
यत्तूक्तम् – सेतुश्रुतेः, सेतोश्च पारवत्त्वोपपत्तेः,
With regard to the objection mentioned, viz. that as the Scriptures mention a bund or causeway, and as it stands to reason, that a bund or causeway has something beyond it,
ब्रह्मणोऽर्थान्तरेण द्युभ्वाद्यायतनेन भवितव्यमिति,
Something other than Brahman should be understood by the words “Abode of the Heaven and the Earth”,
अत्रोच्यते – विधारणत्वमात्रमत्र सेतुश्रुत्या विवक्ष्यते, न पारवत्त्वादि।
We reply — The Scriptures mention the bund or causeway, only with a view to signify its attribute of being a support, and not with a view to convey that it has anything beyond it (to be reached, after crossing it).
न हि मृद्दारुमयो लोके सेतुर्दृष्ट इत्यत्रापि मृद्दारुमय एव सेतुरभ्युपगम्यते।
And even though in ordinary life we find that a bund or causeway is built of earth and timber, still, we do not understand that the bund or causeway referred to here is also similarly built of earth and timber.
सेतुशब्दार्थोऽपि विधारणत्वमात्रमेव, न पारवत्त्वादि,
The meaning of the word bund or causeway also, is that it upholds or supports something and not that there is anything beyond it,
षिञो बन्धनकर्मणः सेतुशब्दव्युत्पत्तेः।
Because it is derived from the root ‘Si’ which means the action of upholding or supporting.
अपर आह – ‘तमेवैकं जानथ आत्मानम्’ इति यदेतत्सङ्कीर्तितमात्मज्ञानम्,
Another (opponent) says, the knowledge of the Self which is mentioned here by the words “Know that and that one only, the Ātmā”,
यच्चैतत् ‘अन्या वाचो विमुञ्चथ’ इति वाग्विमोचनम्,
And the instruction to give up all other talk, by the words “Leave off all other talk” —
तत् अत्र अमृतत्वसाधनत्वात्, ‘अमृतस्यैष सेतुः’ इति सेतुश्रुत्या सङ्कीर्त्यते;
The Self is here mentioned by the Scriptures by the word “bund or causeway” as being the means of attaining immortality, by the words “It is the bund or causeway leading up to immortality”,
न तु द्युभ्वाद्यायतनम्।
And not with the intention of emphasizing that it is the abode of the Heaven and the Earth.
तत्र यदुक्तम् – सेतुश्रुतेर्ब्रह्मणोऽर्थान्तरेण द्युभ्वाद्यायतनेन भवितव्यमिति, एतदयुक्तम्॥१॥
Therefore, the objection taken, viz. that because the Scriptures mention a bund or causeway, “the abode of the Heaven and the Earth” means something other than Brahman, is not proper. — 1.
Mukta-upasṛpya: to be attained by the liberated; Vyapadeśāt: because of declaration.
🔗 Because of the statement about the attainment (of Brahman), by those who have attained Final Release. — 18.104.22.168.3.2 L.1
इतश्च परमेव ब्रह्म द्युभ्वाद्यायतनम्;
This is again how the abode of the Heaven and the Earth, is the Highest Brahman,
यस्मान्मुक्तोपसृप्यतास्य व्यपदिश्यमाना दृश्यते।
Because we find that it is indicated as the object of attainment by those who have attained Final Release.
That, which is attained by those who have attained Final Release, is what it attained by the liberated.
When a person entertains a notion that his body etc. — which are not the Self — are the Self, it is Nescience (Avidyā).
ततस्तत्पूजनादौ रागः, तत्परिभवादौ च द्वेषः, तदुच्छेददर्शनाद्भयं मोहश्च –
This leads to attachment (Rāga) for the worship etc. of the body, and to hatred towards things which cause injury etc., to fear and delusion of mind at the prospect of its destruction,
इत्येवमयमनन्तभेदोऽनर्थव्रातः सन्ततः सर्वेषां नः प्रत्यक्षः।
And this continuous stream of manifold evils of countless different sorts, is directly known to us all.
तद्विपर्ययेणाविद्यारागद्वेषादिदोषमुक्तैरुपसृप्यमुपगम्यमेतदिति द्युभ्वाद्यायतनं प्रकृत्य व्यपदेशो भवति।
Conversely, this abode of the Heaven and the Earth, which is referred to as relevant to the present context, is indicated as that which is to be attained by those who have attained Final Release from such faults as Nescience, attachment and hatred etc.
कथम्? ‘भिद्यते हृदयग्रन्थिश्छिद्यन्ते सर्वसंशयाः। क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि तस्मिन्दृष्टे परावरे’ (MunU.2.2.8) इत्युक्त्वा,
How (is it so indicated)? Because, after mentioning, “The knots of the Hṛdaya are cut asunder and all doubts are resolved, and the Karma (aggregate of actions) of a person is exhausted when this (Brahman) which itself is both the cause (Para) and the effect (Avara) is realized (by a person)” (MunU.2.2.8),
ब्रवीति – ‘तथा विद्वान्नामरूपाद्विमुक्तः परात्परं पुरुषमुपैति दिव्यम्’ (MunU.3.2.8) इति।
The Scriptures say — “So the person who has realized (Brahman) and who is released from (the bondage of) names and forms, reaches the celestial Puruṣa (i.e. the Highest Self) which is greater than the great unmanifested (Avyakta i.e. Māyā)” (MunU.3.2.8).
ब्रह्मणश्च मुक्तोपसृप्यत्वं प्रसिद्धं शास्त्रे –
That, Brahman is that which is to be attained, is well-known from the Śāstra, thus: —
‘यदा सर्वे प्रमुच्यन्ते कामा येऽस्य हृदि श्रिताः। अथ मर्त्योऽमृतो भवत्यत्र ब्रह्म समश्नुते’ (BrhU.4.4.7) इत्येवमादौ।
“When all the desires which are in the heart of a mortal are given up, then he becomes immortal and attains Brahman here and now” (BrhUEng.4.4.7).
प्रधानादीनां तु न क्वचिन्मुक्तोपसृप्यत्वमस्ति प्रसिद्धम्।
The Pradhāna etc. are not any where known to be fit to be attained by a person who has attained Final Release.
अपि च ‘तमेवैकं जानथ आत्मानमन्या वाचो विमुञ्चथामृतस्यैष सेतुः’ इति वाग्विमोकपूर्वकं विज्ञेयत्वमिह द्युभ्वाद्यायतनस्योच्यते।
Because what has been referred to here, as the abode of the Heaven and the Earth and the one that should be known, after having given up all talk, by the Scriptural passage “Know that one Ātmā only, leave off all other talk. He is the bund or causeway leading up to immortality”,
तच्च श्रुत्यन्तरे ब्रह्मणो दृष्टम् – ‘तमेव धीरो विज्ञाय प्रज्ञां कुर्वीत ब्राह्मणः। नानुध्यायाद्बहूञ्शब्दान्वाचो विग्लापनं हि तत्’ (BrhU.4.4.2) इति।
Is in another passage seen to have reference to Brahman, thus: — “Let a wise Brāhmaṇa, after realizing Him, concentrate his attention on Him. He should not waste his words, because that is only a weariness of speech” (BrhUEng.4.4.21).
तस्मादपि द्युभ्वाद्यायतनं परं ब्रह्म॥२॥
It is because of this also, that the abode of the Heaven and the Earth is the Highest Brahman. — 2.
Na: not; Anumānam: that which is inferred i.e. Pradhāna; A-tad-śabdāt: because there is no word denoting it.
🔗 (The abode of the Heaven and the Earth) is not the inferred one (i.e. the Pradhāna) because there is no word indicating it. — 22.214.171.124.3.3 L.1
यथा ब्रह्मणः प्रतिपादको वैशेषिको हेतुरुक्तः, नैवमर्थान्तरस्य वैशेषिको हेतुः प्रतिपादकोऽस्तीत्याह।
There is no special particular reason present i.e. available here which will be able to propound, why “the abode of the Heaven and the Earth etc.” means some other thing (i.e. the Pradhāna), just as the Scriptures mention a particular special reason why “the abode of the Heaven and the Earth etc.” means Brahman.
नानुमानं सांख्यस्मृतिपरिकल्पितं प्रधानम् इह द्युभ्वाद्यायतनत्वेन प्रतिपत्तव्यम्।
‘The abode of the Heaven and the Earth’ should not therefore be understood to mean the Pradhāna inferred by the Sāṅkhya Smṛti.
Why? Because there is no word (in the Scriptures) indicating that.
तस्याचेतनस्य प्रधानस्य प्रतिपादकः शब्दः तच्छब्दः, न तच्छब्दः अतच्छब्दः।
A word indicating the non-sentient Pradhāna is ‘tat-śabdaḥ’ and a word that does not indicate that, is ‘Atat-śabdaḥ’.
न ह्यत्राचेतनस्य प्रधानस्य प्रतिपादकः कश्चिच्छब्दोऽस्ति, येनाचेतनं प्रधानं कारणत्वेनायतनत्वेन वावगम्येत।
Here there is no word which would indicate the non-sentient Pradhāna, by which we may understand the Pradhāna as the cause (of the world etc.) or the abode (of the heaven and Earth etc.),
तद्विपरीतस्य चेतनस्य प्रतिपादकशब्दोऽत्रास्ति – ‘यः सर्वज्ञः सर्ववित्’ (MunU.1.1.9) इत्यादिः।
But there is a word which is indicative of a sentient entity dissimilar to it, viz. — “One who is omniscient, and all-knowing” (MunU.1.1.9).
अत एव न वायुरपीह द्युभ्वाद्यायतनत्वेनाश्रीयते॥३॥
We cannot therefore, for the same reason, accept the Vāyu also as being the ‘abode of the Heaven and the Earth’ — 3.
Prāṇa-bhṛt: the living or individual soul, supporter of Prāṇa, i.e., Jīva; Ca: also; (Na: not).
🔗 (Nor) the one that supports the Prāṇa (i.e. the Jīva-Self) also. — 126.96.36.199.3.4 L.1
यद्यपि प्राणभृतो विज्ञानात्मन आत्मत्वं चेतनत्वं च सम्भवति, तथाप्युपाधिपरिच्छिन्नज्ञानस्य सर्वज्ञत्वाद्यसम्भवे सति अस्मादेवातच्छब्दात् प्राणभृदपि न द्युभ्वाद्यायतनत्वेनाश्रयितव्यः।
Nor should the cognitional Jīva-Self, even though ‘being the Self and ‘being sentient’ is possible in its case, be accepted to be the abode of the Heaven and the Earth etc., for the same reason, viz. that there is no word indicative of that (i.e. the Jīva-Self) and, in as much as its knowledge is circumscribed by limiting adjuncts (such as a body etc.) and, as omniscience is not possible in its case.
न चोपाधिपरिच्छिन्नस्याविभोः प्राणभृतो द्युभ्वाद्यायतनत्वमपि सम्यक्संभवति।
Nor can ‘being the abode of the Heaven and the Earth’ be appropriate in the case of the Prāṇa-bhṛt i.e. the Jīva-Self, which has a definite determination as a result of limiting adjuncts and which is not all-pervading.
This stating of a separate Sūtra (Pṛthag-yoga-karaṇam) is in view of the next Sūtra (i.e. Uttarārtham). — 4.
Bheda-vyapadeśāt: on account of difference being mentioned.
🔗 Because a difference (between the Jīva-Self and the Highest Self) is mentioned. — 188.8.131.52.3.5 L.2
भेदव्यपदेशश्चेह भवति – ‘तमेवैकं जानथ आत्मानम्’ इति ज्ञेयज्ञातृभावेन।
In the Scriptural passage “Know that and that one only, the Ātmā”, distinction is made between that which is to be known (i.e. the Highest Self) and the knower (i.e. the Jīva-Self).
तत्र प्राणभृत् तावन्मुमुक्षुत्वाज्ज्ञाता;
Therein, we understand that the Jīva-Self which is desirous of attaining Final Release is the knower,
परिशेषादात्मशब्दवाच्यं ब्रह्म ज्ञेयं द्युभ्वाद्यायतनमिति गम्यते, न प्राणभृत्॥५॥
Therefore the other remaining entity which is the one to be known, viz. Brahman indicated by the word Ātmā, is the abode of the Heaven and the Earth, and not the one that supports the Prāṇa (Prāṇa-bhṛt) i.e. the Jīva-Self. — 5.
Prakaraṇāt: On account of the subject matter, from the context.
🔗 Because of the chapter (which deals with Brahman). — 184.108.40.206.3.6 L.2
प्रकरणं चेदं परमात्मनः –
This chapter also, besides, is with regard to the Highest Self.
‘कस्मिन्नु भगवो विज्ञाते सर्वमिदं विज्ञातं भवति’ (MunU.1.1.3) इत्येकविज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानापेक्षणात्।
Because the expectation is, that by knowing that one (i.e. Brahman) all else would be known, as for instance in the Scriptural passage — “By knowing what, Oh Bhagavān, all this becomes known?” (MunU.1.1.3).
परमात्मनि हि सर्वात्मके विज्ञाते सर्वमिदं विज्ञातं स्यात्, न केवले प्राणभृति॥६॥
It is only when the Highest Self which is