WITH THE COMMENTARY BY

RÂMÂNUJA

TRANSLATED BY

GEORGE THIBAUT

PART III

Sacred Books of the East, Volume 48

[1904]
 

CONTENTS.
 

INTRODUCTION

ADHYÂYA I

Pâda I

Pâda II

Pâda III

Pâda IV


ADHYÂYA II

Pâda I

Pâda II

Pâda III

Pâda IV


ADHYÂYA III

Pâda I

Pâda II

Pâda III

Pâda IV


ADHYÂYA IV

Pâda I

Pâda II

Pâda III

Pâda IV


INDEXES BY DR. M. WINTERNITZ:--

Index of Quotations

Index of Sanskrit Words

Index of Names and Subjects

Corrigenda

Transliteration of Oriental Alphabets adopted for the Translations of the
Sacred Books of the East

INTRODUCTION.
 

In the Introduction to the first volume of the translation of the
'Vedânta-Sûtras with Sankara's Commentary' (vol. xxxiv of this Series) I
have dwelt at some length on the interest which Râmânuja's Commentary
may claim--as being, on the one hand, the fullest exposition of what may
be called the Theistic Vedânta, and as supplying us, on the other, with
means of penetrating to the true meaning of Bâdarâyana's Aphorisms. I do
not wish to enter here into a fuller discussion of Râmânuja's work in
either of these aspects; an adequate treatment of them would, moreover,
require considerably more space than is at my disposal. Some very useful
material for the right understanding of Râmânuju's work is to be found
in the 'Analytical Outline of Contents' which Messrs. M. Rangâkârya and
M. B. Varadarâja Aiyangâr have prefixed to the first volume of their
scholarly translation of the Srîbhâshya (Madras, 1899).

The question as to what the Stûras really teach is a critical, not a
philosophical one. This distinction seems to have been imperfectly
realised by several of those critics, writing in India, who have
examined the views expressed in my Introduction to the translation of
Sankara's Commentary. A writer should not be taxed with 'philosophic
incompetency,' 'hopeless theistic bias due to early training,' and the
like, simply because he, on the basis of a purely critical investigation,
considers himself entitled to maintain that a certain ancient document
sets forth one philosophical view rather than another. I have nowhere
expressed an opinion as to the comparative philosophical value of the
systems of Sankara and Râmânuja; not because I have no definite opinions
on this point, but because to introduce them into a critical enquiry
would be purposeless if not objectionable.

The question as to the true meaning of the Sûtras is no doubt of some
interest; although the interest of problems of this kind may easily be
over-estimated. Among the remarks of critics on my treatment of this
problem I have found little of solid value. The main arguments which I
have set forth, not so much in favour of the adequacy of Râmânuja's
interpretation, as against the validity of Sankarâkârya's understanding
of the Sûtras, appear to me not to have been touched. I do not by any
means consider the problem a hopeless one; but its solution will not be
advanced, in any direction, but by those who will be at the trouble of
submitting the entire body of the Sûtras to a new and detailed
investigation, availing themselves to the full of the help that is to be
derived from the study of all the existing Commentaries.

The present translation of the Srîbhâshya claims to be faithful on the
whole, although I must acknowledge that I have aimed rather at making it
intelligible and, in a certain sense, readable than scrupulously
accurate. If I had to rewrite it, I should feel inclined to go even
further in the same direction. Indian Philosophy would, in my opinion,
be more readily and widely appreciated than it is at present, if the
translators of philosophical works had been somewhat more concerned to
throw their versions into a form less strange and repellent to the
western reader than literal renderings from technical Sanskrit must
needs be in many passages. I am not unaware of the peculiar dangers of
the plan now advocated--among which the most obvious is the temptation
it offers to the translator of deviating from the text more widely than
regard for clearness would absolutely require. And I am conscious of
having failed in this respect in more than one instance. In other cases
I have no doubt gone astray through an imperfect understanding of the
author's meaning. The fact is, that as yet the time has hardly come for
fully adequate translations of comprehensive works of the type of the
Srîbhâshya, the authors of which wrote with reference--in many cases
tacit--to an immense and highly technical philosophical literature which
is only just beginning to be studied, and comprehended in part, by
European scholars.

It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge the help which I have received
from various quarters in preparing this translation. Pandit Gangâdhara
Sâstrin, C. I. E., of the Benares Sanskrit College, has, with unwearying
kindness and patience, supplied me throughout with comments of his own
on difficult sections of the text. Pandit Svâmin Râma Misra Sâstrin has
rendered me frequent assistance in the earlier portion of my task. And
to Mr. A. Venis, the learned Principal of the Benares Sanskrit College,
I am indebted for most instructive notes on some passages of a
peculiarly technical and abstruse character. Nor can I conclude without
expressing my sense of obligation to Colonel G. A. Jacob, whose
invaluable 'Concordance to the Principal Upanishads' lightens to an
incalculable degree the task of any scholar who is engaged in work
bearing on the Vedânta.

VEDÂNTA-SÛTRAS

WITH

RÂMÂNUJA'S SRÎBHÂSHYA
 

FIRST ADHYÂYA.

FIRST PÂDA.

MAY my mind be filled with devotion towards the highest Brahman, the
abode of Lakshmi who is luminously revealed in the Upanishads; who in
sport produces, sustains, and reabsorbs the entire Universe; whose only
aim is to foster the manifold classes of beings that humbly worship him.

The nectar of the teaching of Parâsara's son (Vyâsa),--which was brought
up from the middle of the milk-ocean of the Upanishads--which restores
to life the souls whose vital strength had departed owing to the heat of
the fire of transmigratory existence--which was well guarded by the
teachers of old--which was obscured by the mutual conflict of manifold
opinions,--may intelligent men daily enjoy that as it is now presented
to them in my words.

The lengthy explanation (vritti) of the Brahma-sûtras which was composed
by the Reverend Bodhâyana has been abridged by former teachers;
according to their views the words of the Sûtras will be explained in
this present work.




1. Then therefore the enquiry into Brahman.

In this Sûtra the word 'then' expresses immediate sequence; the word
'therefore' intimates that what has taken place (viz. the study of the
karmakânda of the Veda) constitutes the reason (of the enquiry into
Brahman). For the fact is that the enquiry into (lit.'the desire to
know') Brahman--the fruit of which enquiry is infinite in nature and
permanent--follows immediately in the case of him who, having read the
Veda together with its auxiliary disciplines, has reached the knowledge
that the fruit of mere works is limited and non-permanent, and hence has
conceived the desire of final release.

The compound 'brahmajijñâsâ' is to be explained as 'the enquiry of
Brahman,' the genitive case 'of Brahman' being understood to denote the
object; in agreement with the special rule as to the meaning of the
genitive case, Pânini II, 3, 65. It might be said that even if we
accepted the general meaning of the genitive case--which is that of
connexion in general--Brahman's position (in the above compound) as an
object would be established by the circumstance that the 'enquiry'
demands an object; but in agreement with the principle that the direct
denotation of a word is to be preferred to a meaning inferred we take
the genitive case 'of Brahman' as denoting the object.

The word 'Brahman' denotes the hightest Person (purushottama), who is
essentially free from all imperfections and possesses numberless classes
of auspicious qualities of unsurpassable excellence. The term 'Brahman'
is applied to any things which possess the quality of greatness
(brihattva, from the root 'brih'); but primarily denotes that which
possesses greatness, of essential nature as well as of qualities, in
unlimited fulness; and such is only the Lord of all. Hence the word
'Brahman' primarily denotes him alone, and in a secondary derivative
sense only those things which possess some small part of the Lord's
qualities; for it would be improper to assume several meanings for the
word (so that it would denote primarily or directly more than one thing).
The case is analogous to that of the term 'bhagavat [FOOTNOTE 4:1].' The
Lord only is enquired into, for the sake of immortality, by all those
who are afflicted with the triad of pain. Hence the Lord of all is that
Brahman which, according to the Sûtra, constitutes the object of enquiry.
The word 'jijñâsâ' is a desiderative formation meaning 'desire to know.'
And as in the case of any desire the desired object is the chief thing,
the Sûtra means to enjoin knowledge--which is the object of the desire
of knowledge. The purport of the entire Sûtra then is as follows: 'Since
the fruit of works known through the earlier part of the Mîmâmsâ is
limited and non-permanent, and since the fruit of the knowledge of
Brahman--which knowledge is to be reached through the latter part of the
Mîmâmsâ--is unlimited and permanent; for this reason Brahman is to be
known, after the knowledge of works has previously taken place.'--The
same meaning is expressed by the Vrittikâra when saying 'after the
comprehension of works has taken place there follows the enquiry into
Brahman.' And that the enquiry into works and that into Brahman
constitute one body of doctrine, he (the Vrittikâra) will declare later
on 'this Sârîraka-doctrine is connected with Jaimini's doctrine as
contained in sixteen adhyâyas; this proves the two to constitute one
body of doctrine.' Hence the earlier and the later Mîmâmsâ are separate
only in so far as there is a difference of matter to be taught by each;
in the same way as the two halves of the Pûrva Mîmâmsâ-sûtras,
consisting of six adhyâyas each, are separate [FOOTNOTE 5:1]; and as each
adhyâya is separate. The entire Mîmâmsâ-sâtra--which begins with the
Sûtra 'Now therefore the enquiry into religious duty' and concludes with
the Sûtra '(From there is) no return on account of scriptural statement'--
has, owing to the special character of the contents, a definite order of
internal succession. This is as follows. At first the precept 'one is to
learn one's own text (svâdhyâya)' enjoins the apprehension of that
aggregate of syllables which is called 'Veda,' and is here referred to
as 'svâdhyâya.' Next there arises the desire to know of what nature the
'Learning' enjoined is to be, and how it is to be done. Here there come
in certain injunctions such as 'Let a Brahnmana be initiated in his
eighth year' and 'The teacher is to make him recite the Veda'; and
certain rules about special observances and restrictions--such as
'having performed the upâkarman on the full moon of Sravana or
Praushthapada according to prescription, he is to study the sacred
verses for four months and a half--which enjoin all the required details.

From all these it is understood that the study enjoined has for its
result the apprehension of the aggregate of syllables called Veda, on
the part of a pupil who has been initiated by a teacher sprung from a
good family, leading a virtuous life, and possessing purity of soul; who
practises certain special observances and restrictions; and who learns
by repeating what is recited by the teacher.

And this study of the Veda is of the nature of a samskâra of the text,
since the form of the injunction 'the Veda is to be studied' shows that
the Veda is the object (of the action of studying). By a samskâra is
understood an action whereby something is fitted to produce some other
effect; and that the Veda should be the object of such a samskaâra is
quite appropriate, since it gives rise to the knowledge of the four
chief ends of human action--viz. religious duty, wealth, pleasure, and
final release--and of the means to effect them; and since it helps to
effect those ends by itself also, viz. by mere mechanical repetition
(apart from any knowledge to which it may give rise).

The injunction as to the study of the Veda thus aims only at the
apprehension of the aggregate of syllables (constituting the Veda)
according to certain rules; it is in this way analogous to the recital
of mantras.

It is further observed that the Veda thus apprehended through reading
spontaneously gives rise to the ideas of certain things subserving
certain purposes. A person, therefore, who has formed notions of those
things immediately, i.e. on the mere apprehension of the text of the
Veda through reading, thereupon naturally applies himself to the study
of the Mimâmsa, which consists in a methodical discussion of the
sentences constituting the text of the Veda, and has for its result the
accurate determination of the nature of those things and their different
modes. Through this study the student ascertains the character of the
injunctions of work which form part of the Veda, and observes that all
work leads only to non-permanent results; and as, on the other hand, he
immediately becomes aware that the Upanishad sections--which form part
of the Veda which he has apprehended through reading--refer to an
infinite and permanent result, viz. immortality, he applies himself to
the study of the Sârîraka-Mîmâmsâ, which consists in a systematic
discussion of the Vedânta-texts, and has for its result the accurate
determination of their sense. That the fruit of mere works is transitory,
while the result of the knowledge of Brahman is something permanent, the
Vedanta-texts declare in many places--'And as here the world acquired by
work perishes, so there the world acquired by merit perishes' (Ch. Up.
VIII, 1,6); 'That work of his has an end' (Bri. Up. III, 8, 10); 'By
non-permanent works the Permanent is not obtained' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 10);
'Frail indeed are those boats, the sacrifices' (Mu. Up. I, 2, 7); 'Let a
Brâhmana, after he has examined all these worlds that are gained by
works, acquire freedom from all desires. What is not made cannot be
gained by what is made. To understand this, let the pupil, with fuel in
his hand, go to a teacher who is learned and dwells entirely in Brahman.
To that pupil who has approached him respectfully, whose mind is
altogether calm, the wise teacher truly told that knowledge of Brahman
through which he knows the imperishable true Person' (Mu. Up. I, 2, 12,
13). 'Told' here means 'he is to tell.'--On the other hand, 'He who
knows Brahman attains the Highest' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1); 'He who sees
this does not see death' (Ch. Up. VII, 26, 2); 'He becomes a self-ruler'
(Ch. Up. VII, 25, 2); 'Knowing him he becomes immortal here' (Taitt. Âr.
III, 12, 7); 'Having known him he passes over death; there is no other
path to go' (Svet. Up. VI, 15); 'Having known as separate his Self and
the Mover, pleased thereby he goes to immortality' (Svet. Up. I, 6).

But--an objection here is raised--the mere learning of the Veda with its
auxiliary disciplines gives rise to the knowledge that the heavenly
world and the like are the results of works, and that all such results
are transitory, while immortality is the fruit of meditation on Brahman.
Possessing such knowledge, a person desirous of final release may at
once proceed to the enquiry into Brahman; and what need is there of a
systematic consideration of religious duty (i.e. of the study of the
Purva Mimâmsâ)?--If this reasoning were valid, we reply, the person
desirous of release need not even apply himself to the study of the
Sârîraka Mîmâmsâ, since Brahman is known from the mere reading of the
Veda with its auxiliary disciplines.--True. Such knowledge arises indeed
immediately (without deeper enquiry). But a matter apprehended in this
immediate way is not raised above doubt and mistake. Hence a systematic
discussion of the Vedânta-texts must he undertaken in order that their
sense may be fully ascertained--We agree. But you will have to admit
that for the very same reason we must undertake a systematic enquiry
into religious duty!

[FOOTNOTE 4:1. 'Bhagavat' denotes primarily the Lord, the divinity;
secondarily any holy person.]

[FOOTNOTE 5:1. The first six books of the Pûrva Mîmâmsâ-sûtras give
rules for the fundamental forms of the sacrifice; while the last six
books teach how these rules are to be applied to the so-called modified
forms.]




THE SMALL PÛRVAPAKSHA.

But--a further objection is urged--as that which has to precede the
systematic enquiry into Brahman we should assign something which that
enquiry necessarily presupposes. The enquiry into the nature of duty,
however, does not form such a prerequisite, since a consideration of the
Vedanta-texts may be undertaken by any one who has read those texts,
even if he is not acquainted with works.--But in the Vedanta-texts there
are enjoined meditations on the Udgîtha and the like which are matters
auxiliary to works; and such meditations are not possible for him who is
not acquainted with those works!--You who raise this objection clearly
are ignorant of what kind of knowledge the Sârîraka Mîmâmsâ is concerned
with! What that sâstra aims at is to destroy completely that wrong
knowledge which is the root of all pain, for man, liable to birth, old
age, and death, and all the numberless other evils connected with
transmigratory existence--evils that spring from the view, due to
beginningless Nescience, that there is plurality of existence; and to
that end the sâstra endeavours to establish the knowledge of the unity
of the Self. Now to this knowledge, the knowledge of works--which is
based on the assumption of plurality of existence--is not only useless
but even opposed. The consideration of the Udgîtha and the like, which
is supplementary to works only, finds a place in the Vedânta-texts, only
because like them it is of the nature of knowledge; but it has no direct
connexion with the true topic of those texts. Hence some prerequisite
must be indicated which has reference to the principal topic of the
sâstra.--Quite so; and this prerequisite is just the knowledge of works;
for scripture declares that final release results from knowledge with
works added. The Sûtra-writer himself says further on 'And there is need
of all works, on account of the scriptural statement of sacrifices and
the like' (Ve. Sû. III, 4, 26). And if the required works were not known,
one could not determine which works have to be combined with knowledge
and which not. Hence the knowledge of works is just the necessary
prerequisite.--Not so, we reply. That which puts an end to Nescience is
exclusively the knowledge of Brahman, which is pure intelligence and
antagonistic to all plurality. For final release consists just in the
cessation of Nescience; how then can works--to which there attach
endless differences connected with caste, âsrama, object to be
accomplished, means and mode of accomplishment, &c.--ever supply a means
for the cessation of ignorance, which is essentially the cessation of
the view that difference exists? That works, the results of which are
transitory, are contrary to final release, and that such release can be
effected through knowledge only, scripture declares in many places;
compare all the passages quoted above (p. 7).

As to the assertion that knowledge requires sacrifices and other works,
we remark that--as follows from the essential contrariety of knowledge
and works, and as further appears from an accurate consideration of the
words of scripture--pious works can contribute only towards the rise of
the desire of knowledge, in so far namely as they clear the internal
organ (of knowledge), but can have no influence on the production of the
fruit, i.e. knowledge itself. For the scriptural passage concerned runs
as follows Brâhmanas desire to know him by the study of the Veda, by
sacrifice, by gifts,' &c. (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 22).

According to this passage, the desire only of knowledge springs up
through works; while another text teaches that calmness, self-restraint,
and so on, are the direct means for the origination of knowledge itself.
(Having become tranquil, calm, subdued, satisfied, patient, and
collected, he is to see the Self within the Self (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 23).)

The process thus is as follows. After the mind of a man has been cleaned
of all impurities through works performed in many preceding states of
existence, without a view to special forms of reward, there arises in
him the desire of knowledge, and thereupon--through knowledge itself
originated by certain scriptural texts--'Being only, this was in the
beginning, one only without a second' (Ch. Up. VI, I, 2); 'Truth,
Knowledge, the Infinite, is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1); 'Without parts,
without actions, calm, without fault, without taint' (Svet. Up. VI, 19);
'This Self is Brahman' (Bri. Up. II, 5, 19); 'Thou art that' (Ch. Up. VI,
9, 7), Nescience comes to an end. Now, 'Hearing,' 'reflection,' and
'meditation,' are helpful towards cognising the sense of these Vedic
texts. 'Hearing' (sravana) means the apprehension of the sense of
scripture, together with collateral arguments, from a teacher who
possesses the true insight, viz. that the Vedânta-texts establish the
doctrine of the unity of the Self. 'Reflection' (mananam) means the
confirmation within oneself of the sense taught by the teacher, by means
of arguments showing it alone to be suitable. 'Meditation'
(nididhyâsanam) finally means the constant holding of thai sense before
one's mind, so as to dispel thereby the antagonistic beginningless
imagination of plurality. In the case of him who through 'hearing,'
'reflection,' and meditation,' has dis-dispelled the entire imagination
of plurality, the knowledge of the sense of Vedânta-texts puts an end to
Nescience; and what we therefore require is a statement of the
indispensable prerequisites of such 'hearing,' 'reflection,' and so on.
Now of such prerequisites there are four, viz. discrimination of what is
permanent and what is non-permanent; the full possession of calmness of
mind, self-restraint and similar means; the renunciation of all
enjoyment of fruits here below as well as in the next world; and the
desire of final release.

Without these the desire of knowledge cannot arise; and they are
therefore known, from the very nature of the matter, to be necessary
prerequisites. To sum up: The root of bondage is the unreal view of
plurality which itself has its root in Nescience that conceals the true
being of Brahman. Bondage itself thus is unreal, and is on that account
cut short, together with its root, by mere knowledge. Such knowledge is
originated by texts such as 'That art thou'; and work is of no help
either towards its nature, or its origination, or its fruit (i.e.
release). It is on the other hand helpful towards the desire of
knowledge, which arises owing to an increase of the element of goodness
(sattva) in the soul, due to the destruction of the elements of passion
(rajas) and darkness (tamas) which are the root of all moral evil. This
use is referred to in the text quoted above, 'Brâhmanas wish to know him,'
&c. As, therefore, the knowledge of works is of no use towards the
knowledge of Brahman, we must acknowledge as the prerequisite of the
latter knowledge the four means mentioned above.




THE SMALL SIDDHÂNTA.

To this argumentation we make the following reply. We admit that release
consists only in the cessation of Nescience, and that this cessation
results entirely from the knowledge of Brahman. But a distinction has
here to be made regarding the nature of this knowledge which the
Vedânta-texts aim at enjoining for the purpose of putting an end to
Nescience. Is it merely the knowledge of the sense of sentences which
originates from the sentences? or is it knowledge in the form of
meditation (upâsana) which has the knowledge just referred to as its
antecedent? It cannot be knowledge of the former kind: for such
knowledge springs from the mere apprehension of the sentence, apart from
any special injunction, and moreover we do not observe that the
cessation of Nescience is effected by such knowledge merely. Our
adversary will perhaps attempt to explain things in the following way.
The Vedânta-texts do not, he will say, produce that knowledge which
makes an end of Nescience, so long as the imagination of plurality is
not dispelled. And the fact that such knowledge, even when produced,
does not at once and for every one put a stop to the view of plurality
by no means subverts my opinion; for, to mention an analogous instance,
the double appearance of the moon--presenting itself to a person
affected with a certain weakness of vision--does not come to an end as
soon as the oneness of the moon has been apprehended by reason.
Moreover, even without having come to an end, the view of plurality is
powerless to effect further bondage, as soon as the root, i.e.
Nescience, has once been cut But this defence we are unable to admit. It
is impossible that knowledge should not arise when its means, i.e. the
texts conveying knowledge, are once present. And we observe that even
when there exists an antagonistic imagination (interfering with the rise
of knowledge), information given by competent persons, the presence of
characteristic marks (on which a correct inference may be based), and
the like give rise to knowledge which sublates the erroneous
imagination. Nor can we admit that even after the sense of texts has
been apprehended, the view of plurality may continue owing to some small
remainder of beginningless imagination. For as this imagination which
constitutes the means for the view of plurality is itself false, it is
necessarily put an end to by the rise of true knowledge. If this did not
take place, that imagination would never come to an end, since there is
no other means but knowledge to effect its cessation. To say that the
view of plurality, which is the effect of that imagination, continues
even after its root has been cut, is mere nonsense. The instance of some
one seeing the moon double is not analogous. For in his case the
non-cessation of wrong knowledge explains itself from the circumstance
that the cause of wrong knowledge, viz. the real defect of the eye which
does not admit of being sublated by knowledge, is not removed, although
that which would sublate wrong knowledge is near. On the other hand,
effects, such as fear and the like, may come to an end because they can
be sublated by means of knowledge of superior force. Moreover, if it
were true that knowledge arises through the dispelling of the
imagination of plurality, the rise of knowledge would really never be
brought about. For the imagination of plurality has through gradual
growth in the course of beginningless time acquired an infinite
strength, and does not therefore admit of being dispelled by the
comparatively weak conception of non-duality. Hence we conclude that the
knowledge which the Vedânta-texts aim at inculcating is a knowledge
other than the mere knowledge of the sense of sentences, and denoted by
'dhyâna,' 'upâsanâ' (i. e. meditation), and similar terms.

With this agree scriptural texts such as 'Having known it, let him
practise meditation' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 21); 'He who, having searched out
the Self, knows it' (Ch. Up. VIII, 7, 1); 'Meditate on the Self as Om'
(Mu. Up. II, 2, 6); 'Having known that, he is freed from the jaws of
death' (Ka. Up. I, 3, 15); 'Let a man meditate on the Self only as his
world' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 15); 'The Self is to be seen, to be heard, to her
reflected on, to be meditated on' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 6); 'That we must
search out, that we must try to understand' (Ch. Up. VIII, 7, 1).

(According to the principle of the oneness of purport of the different
sâkhâs) all these texts must be viewed as agreeing in meaning with the
injunction of meditation contained in the passage quoted from the Bri.
Up.; and what they enjoin is therefore meditation. In the first and
second passages quoted, the words 'having known' and 'having searched
out' (vijñâya; anuvidya) contain a mere reference to (not injunction of)
the apprehension of the meaning of texts, such apprehension subserving
meditation; while the injunction of meditation (which is the true
purport of the passages) is conveyed by the clauses 'let him practise
meditation' (prajñâm kurvîta) and 'he knows it.' In the same way the
clause 'the Self is to be heard' is a mere anuvâda, i.e. a mere
reference to what is already established by other means; for a person
who has read the Veda observes that it contains instruction about
matters connected with certain definite purposes, and then on his own
account applies himself to methodical 'hearing,' in order definitely to
ascertain these matters; 'hearing' thus is established already. In the
same way the clause 'the Self is to be reflected upon' is a mere anuvâda
of reflection which is known as a means of confirming what one has
'heard.' It is therefore meditation only which all those texts enjoin.
In agreement with this a later Sûtra also says, 'Repetition more than
once, on account of instruction' (Ve. Sû. IV, I, I). That the knowledge
intended to be enjoined as the means of final release is of the nature
of meditation, we conclude from the circumstance that the terms
'knowing' and'meditating' are seen to be used in place of each other in
the earlier and later parts of Vedic texts. Compare the following
passages: 'Let a man meditate on mind as Brahman,' and 'he who knows
this shines and warms through his celebrity, fame, and glory of
countenance' (Ch. Up. III, 18, 1; 6). And 'He does not know him, for he
is not complete,' and 'Let men meditate on him as the Self (Bri. Up. I,
4, 7). And 'He who knows what he knows,' and 'Teach me the deity on
which you meditate' (Ch. Up. IV, 1, 6; 2, 2).

'Meditation' means steady remembrance, i.e. a continuity of steady
remembrance, uninterrupted like the flow of oil; in agreement with the
scriptural passage which declares steady remembrance to be the means of
release, 'on the attainment of remembrance all the ties are loosened'
(Ch. Up. VII, 26, 2). Such remembrance is of the same character (form)
as seeing (intuition); for the passage quoted has the same purport as
the following one, 'The fetter of the heart is broken, all doubts are
solved, and all the works of that man perish when he has been seen who
is high and low' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 8). And this being so, we conclude that
the passage 'the Self is to be seen' teaches that 'Meditation' has the
character of 'seeing' or 'intuition.' And that remembrance has the
character of 'seeing' is due to the element of imagination
(representation) which prevails in it. All this has been set forth at
length by the Vâkyakâra. 'Knowledge (vedana) means meditation (upâsana),
scripture using the word in that sense'; i.e. in all Upanishads that
knowledge which is enjoined as the means of final release is Meditation.
The Vâkyakâra then propounds a pûrvapaksha (primâ facie view), 'Once he
is to make the meditation, the matter enjoined by scripture being
accomplished thereby, as in the case of the prayâjas and the like'; and
then sums up against this in the words 'but (meditation) is established
on account of the term meditation'; that means--knowledge repeated more
than once (i.e. meditation) is determined to be the means of Release.--
The Vâkyakâra then goes on 'Meditation is steady remembrance, on the
ground of observation and statement.' That means--this knowledge, of the
form of meditation, and repeated more than once, is of the nature of
steady remembrance.

Such remembrance has been declared to be of the character of 'seeing,'
and this character of seeing consists in its possessing the character of
immediate presentation (pratyakshatâ). With reference to remembrance,
which thus acquires the character of immediate presentation and is the
means of final release, scripture makes a further determination, viz. in
the passage Ka. Up. I, 2, 23, 'That Self cannot be gained by the study
of the Veda ("reflection"), nor by thought ("meditation"), nor by much
hearing. Whom the Self chooses, by him it may be gained; to him the Self
reveals its being.' This text says at first that mere hearing,
reflection, and meditation do not suffice to gain the Self, and then
declares, 'Whom the Self chooses, by him it may be gained.' Now a
'chosen' one means a most beloved person; the relation being that he by
whom that Self is held most dear is most dear to the Self. That the Lord
(bhagavân) himself endeavours that this most beloved person should gain
the Self, he himself declares in the following words, 'To those who are
constantly devoted and worship with love I give that knowledge by which
they reach me' (Bha. Gî. X, 10), and 'To him who has knowledge I am dear
above all things, and he is dear to me' (VII, 17). Hence, he who
possesses remembrance, marked by the character of immediate presentation
(sâkshâtkâra), and which itself is dear above all things since the
object remembered is such; he, we say, is chosen by the highest Self,
and by him the highest Self is gained. Steady remembrance of this kind
is designated by the word 'devotion' (bhakti); for this term has the
same meaning as upâsanâ (meditation). For this reason scripture and
smriti agree in making the following declarations, 'A man knowing him
passes over death' (Svet. Up. III, 8); 'Knowing him thus he here becomes
immortal' (Taitt. Âr. III, 12,7); 'Neither by the Vedas, nor by
austerities, nor by gifts, nor by sacrifice can I be so seen as thou
hast seen me. But by devotion exclusive I may in this form be known and
seen in truth, O Arjuna, and also be entered into' (Bha. Gî. XI, 53, 54);
'That highest Person, O Pârtha, may be obtained by exclusive devotion'
(VIII, 22).

That of such steady remembrance sacrifices and so on are means will be
declared later on (Ve. Sû. III, 4, 26). Although sacrifices and the like
are enjoined with a view to the origination of knowledge (in accordance
with the passage 'They desire to know,' Bri. Up. IV, 4, 22), it is only
knowledge in the form of meditation which--being daily practised,
constantly improved by repetition, and continued up to death--is the
means of reaching Brahman, and hence all the works connected with the
different conditions of life are to be performed throughout life only
for the purpose of originating such knowledge. This the Sûtrakâra
declares in Ve. Sû. IV, 1, 12; 16; III, 4, 33, and other places. The
Vâkyakâra also declares that steady remembrance results only from
abstention, and so on; his words being 'This (viz. steady remembrance =
meditation) is obtained through abstention (viveka), freeness of mind
(vimoka), repetition (abhyâsa), works (kriyâ), virtuous conduct
(kalyâna), freedom from dejection (anavasâda), absence of exultation
(anuddharsha); according to feasibility and scriptural statement.' The
Vâkyakâra also gives definitions of all these terms. Abstention (viveka)
means keeping the body clean from all food, impure either owing to
species (such as the flesh of certain animals), or abode (such as food
belonging to a Kândâla or the like), or accidental cause (such as food
into which a hair or the like has fallen). The scriptural passage
authorising this point is Ch. Up. VII, 26, 'The food being pure, the
mind becomes pure; the mind being pure, there results steady remembrance.'
Freeness of mind (vimoka) means absence of attachment to desires. The
authoritative passage here is 'Let him meditate with a calm mind' (Ch.
Up. III, 14, 1). Repetition means continued practice. For this point the
Bhâshya-kâra quotes an authoritative text from Smriti, viz.: 'Having
constantly been absorbed in the thought of that being' (sadâ
tadbhâvabhâvitah; Bha. Gî. VIII, 6).--By 'works' (kriyâ) is understood
the performance, according to one's ability, of the five great
sacrifices. The authoritative passages here are 'This person who
performs works is the best of those who know Brahman' (Mu. Up. III, 1,
4); and 'Him Brâhmanas seek to know by recitation of the Veda, by
sacrifice, by gifts, by penance, by fasting' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 22).--By
virtuous conduct (kalyânâni) are meant truthfulness, honesty, kindness,
liberality, gentleness, absence of covetousness. Confirmatory texts are
'By truth he is to be obtained' (Mu. Up. III, 1, 5) and 'to them belongs
that pure Brahman-world' (Pr. Up. I, 16).--That lowness of spirit or
want of cheerfulness which results from unfavourable conditions of place
or time and the remembrance of causes of sorrow, is denoted by the term
'dejection'; the contrary of this is 'freedom from dejection.' The
relevant scriptural passage is 'This Self cannot be obtained by one
lacking in strength' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 4).--'Exultation' is that
satisfaction of mind which springs from circumstances opposite to those
just mentioned; the contrary is 'absence of exultation.' Overgreat
satisfaction also stands in the way (of meditation). The scriptural
passage for this is 'Calm, subdued,' &c. (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 23).--What the
Vâkyakâra means to say is therefore that knowledge is realised only
through the performance of the duly prescribed works, on the part of a
person fulfilling all the enumerated conditions.

Analogously another scriptural passage says 'He who knows both knowledge
and non-knowledge together, overcoming death by non-knowledge reaches
the Immortal through knowledge' (Îs. Up. II). Here the term
'non-knowledge' denotes the works enjoined on the different castes and
âsramas; and the meaning of the text is that, having discarded by such
works death, i.e. the previous works antagonistic to the origination of
knowledge, a man reaches the Immortal, i.e. Brahman, through knowledge.
The non-knowledge of which this passage speaks as being the means of
overcoming death can only mean that which is other than knowledge, viz.
prescribed works. The word has the same sense in the following passage:
'Firm in traditional knowledge he offered many sacrifices, leaning on
the knowledge of Brahman, so as to pass beyond death by non-knowledge'
(Vi. Pu. VI, 6, 12).--Antagonistic to knowledge (as said above) are all
good and evil actions, and hence--as equally giving rise to an
undesirable result--they may both be designated as evil. They stand in
the way of the origination of knowledge in so far as they strengthen the
elements of passion and darkness which are antagonistic to the element
of goodness which is the cause of the rise of knowledge. That evil works
stand in the way of such origination, the following scriptural text
declares: 'He makes him whom he wishes to lead down from these worlds do
an evil deed' (Ka. Up. III, 8). That passion and darkness veil the
knowledge of truth while goodness on the other hand gives rise to it,
the Divine one has declared himself, in the passage 'From goodness
springs knowledge' (Bha. Gî. XIV, 17). Hence, in order that knowledge
may arise, evil works have to be got rid of, and this is effected by the
performance of acts of religious duty not aiming at some immediate
result (such as the heavenly world and the like); according to the text
'by works of religious duty he discards all evil.' Knowledge which is
the means of reaching Brahman, thus requires the works prescribed for
the different âsramas; and hence the systematic enquiry into works (i.
e. the Pûrva Mîmâmsâ)--from which we ascertain the nature of the works
required and also the transitoriness and limitation of the fruits of
mere works--forms a necessary antecedent to the systematic enquiry into
Brahman. Moreover the discrimination of permanent and non-permanent
things, &c. (i.e. the tetrad of 'means' mentioned above, p. 11) cannot
be accomplished without the study of the Mîmâmsâ; for unless we
ascertain all the distinctions of fruits of works, means, modes of
procedure and qualification (on the part of the agent) we can hardly
understand the true nature of works, their fruits, the transitoriness or
non-transitoriness of the latter, the permanence of the Self, and
similar matters. That those conditions (viz. nityânityavastuviveka,
sama, dama, &c.) are 'means' must be determined on the basis of viniyoga
('application' which determines the relation of principal and
subordinate matters--angin and anga); and this viniyoga which depends on
direct scriptural statement (sruti), inferential signs (linga), and so
on, is treated of in the third book of the Pûrva Mîmâmsâ-sûtras. And
further we must, in this connexion, consider also the meditations on the
Udgîtha and similar things--which, although aiming at the success of
works, are of the nature of reflections on Brahman (which is viewed in
them under various forms)--and as such have reference to knowledge of
Brahman. Those works also (with which these meditations are connected)
aim at no special results of their own, and produce and help to perfect
the knowledge of Brahman: they are therefore particularly connected with
the enquiry into Brahman. And that these meditations presuppose an
understanding of the nature of works is admitted by every one.




THE GREAT PÛRVAPAKSHA.

THE ONLY REALITY IS BRAHMAN.

Brahman, which is pure intelligence and opposed to all difference,
constitutes the only reality; and everything else, i.e. the plurality of
manifold knowing subjects, objects of knowledge, and acts of knowledge
depending on those two, is only imagined on (or 'in') that Brahman, and
is essentially false.

'In the beginning, my dear, there was that only which is, one only
without a second' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 1); 'The higher knowledge is that by
which the Indestructible is apprehended' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 5); 'That which
cannot be seen nor seized, which has no eyes nor ears, no hands nor feet,
the permanent, the all-pervading, the most subtle, the imperishable
which the wise regard as the source of all beings' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 6);
'The True, knowledge, the Infinite is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1); 'He
who is without parts, without actions, tranquil, without fault, without
taint' (Svet. Up. VI, 19); 'By whom it is not thought, by him it is
thought; he by whom it is thought knows it not. It is not known by those
who know it, known by those who do not know it' (Ke. Up. II, 3); 'Thou
mayest not see the seer of sight; thou mayest not think the thinker of
thought' (Bri. Up. III, 4, 2); 'Bliss is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. III, 6, 1);
'All this is that Self' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 7); 'There is here no diversity
whatever' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 19); 'From death to death goes he who sees
any difference here' (Ka. Up. II, 4, 10); 'For where there is duality as
it were, there one sees the other'; 'but where the Self has become all
of him, by what means, and whom, should he see? by what means, and whom,
should he know?' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 15); 'the effect is a name merely
which has its origin in speech; the truth is that (the thing made of
clay) is clay merely' (Ch. Up. VI, 1, 4); 'for if he makes but the
smallest distinction in it there is fear for him' (Taitt. Up. II, 7);--
the two following Vedânta-sûtras: III, 2, 11; III, 2, 3--the following
passages from the Vishnu-purâna: 'In which all difference vanishes,
which is pure Being, which is not the object of words, which is known by
the Self only--that knowledge is called Brahman' (VI, 7, 53); 'Him whose
essential nature is knowledge, who is stainless in reality'; 'Him who,
owing to erroneous view, abides in the form of things' (I, 2, 6); 'the
Reality thou art alone, there is no other, O Lord of the world!--
whatever matter is seen belongs to thee whose being is knowledge; but
owing to their erroneous opinion the non-devout look on it as the form
of the world. This whole world has knowledge for its essential nature,
but the Unwise viewing it as being of the nature of material things are
driven round on the ocean of delusion. Those however who possess true
knowledge and pure minds see this whole world as having knowledge for
its Self, as thy form, O highest Lord!' (Vi. Pu. I, 4, 38 ff.).--'Of
that Self, although it exists in one's own and in other bodies, the
knowledge is of one kind, and that is Reality; those who maintain
duality hold a false view' (II, 14, 31); 'If there is some other one,
different from me, then it can be said, "I am this and that one is
another"' (II, 13, 86); 'As owing to the difference of the holes of the
flute the air equally passing through them all is called by the names of
the different notes of the musical scale; so it is with the universal
Self' (II, 14, 32); 'He is I; he is thou; he is all: this Universe is
his form. Abandon the error of difference. The king being thus
instructed, abandoned the view of difference, having gained an intuition
of Reality' (II, 16, 24). 'When that view which gives rise to difference
is absolutely destroyed, who then will make the untrue distinction
between the individual Self and Brahman?' (VI, 7, 94).--The following
passages from the Bhagavad-Gîtâ: 'I am the Self dwelling within all
beings' (X, 20); 'Know me to be the soul within all bodies' (XIII, 2);
'Being there is none, movable or immovable, which is without me' (X, 39).--
All these and other texts, the purport of which clearly is instruction
as to the essential nature of things, declare that Brahman only, i.e.
non-differenced pure intelligence is real, while everything else is
false.

The appearance of plurality is due to avidyâ.

'Falsehood' (mithyâtva) belongs to what admits of being terminated by
the cognition of the real thing--such cognition being preceded by
conscious activity (not by mere absence of consciousness or knowledge).
The snake, e.g. which has for its substrate a rope or the like is false;
for it is due to an imperfection (dosha) that the snake is imagined in
(or 'on') the rope. In the same way this entire world, with its
distinctions of gods, men, animals, inanimate matter, and so on, is,
owing to an imperfection, wrongly imagined in the highest Brahman whose
substance is mere intelligence, and therefore is false in so far as it
may be sublated by the cognition of the nature of the real Brahman. What
constitutes that imperfection is beginningless Nescience (avidyâ), which,
hiding the truth of things, gives rise to manifold illusions, and cannot
be defined either as something that is or as something that is not.--'By
the Untrue they are hidden; of them which are true the Untrue is the
covering' (Ch, Up. VIII, 3, 1); 'Know Mâya to be Prakriti, and the great
Lord him who is associated with Mâya' (Svet. Up. IV, 10); 'Indra appears
manifold through the Mâyâs' (Bri. Up. II, 5, 19); 'My Mâya is hard to
overcome' (Bha. Gî. VII, 14); 'When the soul slumbering in beginningless
Mâyâ awakes' (Gau. Kâ. I, 16).--These and similar texts teach that it is
through beginningless Mâyâ that to Brahman which truly is pure
non-differenced intelligence its own nature hides itself, and that it
sees diversity within itself. As has been said, 'Because the Holy One is
essentially of the nature of intelligence, the form of all, but not
material; therefore know that all particular things like rocks, oceans,
hills and so on, have proceeded from intelligence [FOOTNOTE 22:1] But
when, on the cessation of all work, everything is only pure intelligence
in its own proper form, without any imperfections; then no differences--
the fruit of the tree of wishes--any longer exist between things.
Therefore nothing whatever, at any place or any time, exists apart from
intelligence: intelligence, which is one only, is viewed as manifold by
those whose minds are distracted by the effects of their own works.
Intelligence pure, free from stain, free from grief, free from all
contact with desire and other affections, everlastingly one is the
highest Lord--Vâsudeva apart from whom nothing exists. I have thus
declared to you the lasting truth of things--that intelligence only is
true and everything else untrue. And that also which is the cause of
ordinary worldly existence has been declared to you' (Vi. Pu. II, 12,
39, 40, 43-45).

Avidyâ is put an end to by true Knowledge.

Other texts declare that this Nescience comes to an end through the
cognition of the essential unity of the Self with Brahman which is
nothing but non-differenced intelligence. 'He does not again go to death;'
'He sees this as one;' 'He who sees this does not see death' (Ch. Up.
VI, 27); 'When he finds freedom from fear and rest in that which is
invisible, incorporeal, undefined, unsupported, then he has obtained the
fearless' (Taitt. Up. II, 7); 'The fetter of the heart is broken, all
doubts are solved and all his works perish when he has been beheld who
is high and low' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 8); 'He knows Brahman, he becomes
Brahman only' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 9); 'Knowing him only a man passes over
death; there is no other path to go' (Svet. Up. III, 8). In these and
similar passages, the term 'death' denotes Nescience; analogously to the
use of the term in the following words of Sanatsujâta, 'Delusion I call
death; and freedom from delusion I call immortality' (Sanatsuj. II, 5).
The knowledge again of the essential unity and non-difference of Brahman--
which is ascertained from decisive texts such as 'The True, knowledge,
the Infinite is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1); 'Knowledge, bliss is
Brahman' (Bri. Up. III, 9, 28)--is confirmed by other passages, such as
'Now if a man meditates on another deity, thinking the deity is one and
he another, he does not know' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 10); 'Let men meditate
upon him as the Self (Bri. Up. I, 4, 7); 'Thou art that' (Ch. Up. VI, 8,
7); 'Am I thou, O holy deity? and art thou me, O holy deity?'; 'What I
am that is he; what he is that am I.'--This the Sûtrakâra himself will
declare 'But as the Self (scriptural texts) acknowledge and make us
apprehend (the Lord)' (Ve. Sû. IV, 1, 3). Thus the Vâkyakâra also, 'It
is the Self--thus one should apprehend (everything), for everything is
effected by that.' And to hold that by such cognition of the oneness of
Brahman essentially false bondage, together with its cause, comes to an
end, is only reasonable.

Scripture is of greater force than Perception

But, an objection is raised--how can knowledge, springing from the
sacred texts, bring about a cessation of the view of difference, in
manifest opposition to the evidence of Perception?--How then, we rejoin,
can the knowledge that this thing is a rope and not a snake bring about,
in opposition to actual perception, the cessation of the (idea of the)
snake?--You will perhaps reply that in this latter case there is a
conflict between two forms of perception, while in the case under
discussion the conflict is between direct perception and Scripture which
is based on perception. But against this we would ask the question how,
in the case of a conflict between two equal cognitions, we decide as to
which of the two is refuted (sublated) by the other. If--as is to be
expected--you reply that what makes the difference between the two is
that one of them is due to a defective cause while the other is not: we
point out that this distinction holds good also in the case of Scripture
and perception being in conflict. It is not considerations as to the
equality of conflicting cognitions, as to their being dependent or
independent, and so on, that determine which of the two sublates the
other; if that were the case, the perception which presents to us the
flame of the lamp as one only would not be sublated by the cognition
arrived at by inference that there is a succession of different flames.
Wherever there is a conflict between cognitions based on two different
means of knowledge we assign the position of the 'sublated one' to that
which admits of being accounted for in some other way; while that
cognition which affords no opening for being held unauthoritative and
cannot be accounted for in another way, is the 'sublating one [FOOTNOTE
25:1].' This is the principle on which the relation between 'what
sublates' and 'what is sublated' is decided everywhere. Now apprehension
of Brahman--which is mere intelligence, eternal, pure, free,
self-luminous--is effected by Scripture which rests on endless unbroken
tradition, cannot therefore be suspected of any, even the least,
imperfection, and hence cannot be non-authoritative; the state of
bondage, on the other hand, with its manifold distinctions is proved by
Perception, Inference, and so on, which are capable of imperfections and
therefore may be non-authoritative. It is therefore reasonable to
conclude that the state of bondage is put an end to by the apprehension
of Brahman. And that imperfection of which Perception--through which we
apprehend a world of manifold distinctions--may be assumed to be
capable, is so-called Nescience, which consists in the beginningless
wrong imagination of difference.--Well then--a further objection is
raised--let us admit that Scripture is perfect because resting on an
endless unbroken tradition; but must we then not admit that texts
evidently presupposing the view of duality, as e.g. 'Let him who desires
the heavenly world offer the Jyotishtoma-sacrifice'--are liable to
refutation?--True, we reply. As in the case of the Udgâtri and
Pratihartri breaking the chain (not at the same time, but) in
succession [FOOTNOTE 26:1], so here also the earlier texts (which refer
to duality and transitory rewards) are sublated by the later texts which
teach final release, and are not themselves sublated by anything else.

The texts which represent Brahman as devoid of qualities have greater
force

The same reasoning applies to those passages in the Vedânta-texts which
inculcate meditation on the qualified Brahman, since the highest Brahman
is without any qualities.--But consider such passages as 'He who
cognises all, who knows all' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 9); 'His high power is
revealed as manifold, as essential, acting as force and knowledge' (Svet.
Up. VI, 8); 'He whose wishes are true, whose purposes are true' (Ch. Up.
VIII, 1, 5); how can these passages, which clearly aim at defining the
nature of Brahman, be liable to refutation?--Owing to the greater weight,
we reply, of those texts which set forth Brahman as devoid of qualities.
'It is not coarse, not fine, not short, not long' (Bri. Up. III, 8, 8);
'The True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1); 'That
which is free from qualities,' 'that which is free from stain'--these
and similar texts convey the notion of Brahman being changeless, eternal
intelligence devoid of all difference; while the other texts--quoted
before--teach the qualified Brahman. And there being a conflict between
the two sets of passages, we--according to the Mîmâmsâ principle
referred to above--decide that the texts referring to Brahman as devoid
of qualities are of greater force, because they are later in order
[FOOTNOTE 27:1] than those which speak of Brahman as having qualities.
Thus everything is settled. The text Taitt. Up. II, 1 refers to Brahman
as devoid of qualities.

But--an objection is raised--even the passage 'The True, knowledge,
infinite is Brahman' intimates certain qualities of Brahman, viz. true
being, knowledge, infinity!--Not so, we reply. From the circumstance
that all the terms of the sentence stand in co-ordination, it follows
that they convey the idea of one matter (sense) only. If against this
you urge that the sentence may convey the idea of one matter only, even
if directly expressing a thing distinguished by several qualities; we
must remark that you display an ignorance of the meaning of language
which appears to point to some weakmindedness on your part. A sentence
conveys the idea of one matter (sense) only when all its constitutive
words denote one and the same thing; if, on the other hand, it expresses
a thing possessing several attributes, the difference of these
attributes necessarily leads to a difference in meaning on the part of
the individual words, and then the oneness of meaning of the sentence is
lost.--But from your view of the passage it would follow that the
several words are mere synonyms!--Give us your attention, we reply, and
learn that several words may convey one meaning without being idle
synonyms. From the determination of the unity of purport of the whole
sentence [FOOTNOTE 27:2] we conclude that the several words, applied to
one thing, aim at expressing what is opposite in nature to whatever is
contrary to the meanings of the several words, and that thus they have
meaning and unity of meaning and yet are not mere synonyms. The details
are as follows. Brahman is to be defined as what is contrary in nature
to all other things. Now whatever is opposed to Brahman is virtually set
aside by the three words (constituting the definition of Brahman in the
Taittiriya-text). The word 'true' (or 'truly being') has the purport of
distinguishing Brahman from whatever things have no truth, as being the
abodes of change; the word 'knowledge' distinguishes Brahman from all
non-sentient things whose light depends on something else (which are not
self-luminous); and the word 'infinite' distinguishes it from whatever
is limited in time or space or nature. Nor is this 'distinction' some
positive or negative attribute of Brahman, it rather is just Brahman
itself as opposed to everything else; just as the distinction of white
colour from black and other colours is just the true nature of white,
not an attribute of it. The three words constituting the text thus _have_
a meaning, have _one_ meaning, and are non-synonymous, in so far as they
convey the essential distinction of one thing, viz. Brahman from
everything else. The text thus declares the one Brahman which is
self-luminous and free from all difference. On this interpretation of
the text we discern its oneness in purport with other texts, such as
'Being only this was in the beginning, one only, without a second.'
Texts such as 'That from whence these beings are born' (Taitt. Up. III,
1); 'Being only this was in the beginning' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 1); 'Self
alone was this in the beginning' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 1), &c., describe
Brahman as the cause of the world; and of this Brahman the Taittirîya
passage 'The True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman' gives the strict
definition.

In agreement with the principle that all sâkhâs teach the same doctrine
we have to understand that, in all the texts which speak of Brahman as
cause, Brahman must be taken as being 'without a second', i.e. without
any other being of the same or a different kind; and the text which aims
at defining Brahman has then to be interpreted in accordance with this
characteristic of Brahman, viz. its being without a second. The
statement of the Chândogya as to Brahman being without a second must
also be taken to imply that Brahman is non-dual as far as qualities are
concerned; otherwise it would conflict with those passages which speak
of Brahman as being without qualities and without stain. We therefore
conclude that the defining Taittirîya-text teaches Brahman to be an
absolutely homogeneous substance.

But, the above explanation of the passage being accepted, it follows
that the words 'true being,' 'knowledge,' &c., have to be viewed as
abandoning their direct sense, and merely suggesting a thing distinct in
nature from all that is opposite (to what the three words directly
denote), and this means that we resort to so-called implication (implied
meaning, lakshanâ)!--What objection is there to such a proceeding? we
reply. The force of the general purport of a sentence is greater than
that of the direct denotative power of the simple terms, and it is
generally admitted that the purport of grammatical co-ordination is
oneness (of the matter denoted by the terms co-ordinated).--But we never
observe that all words of a sentence are to be understood in an implied
sense!--Is it then not observed, we reply, that _one_ word is to be
taken in its implied meaning if otherwise it would contradict the
purport of the whole sentence? And if the purport of the sentence, which
is nothing but an aggregate of words employed together, has once been
ascertained, why should we not take two or three or all words in an
implied sense--just as we had taken one--and thus make them fit in with
the general purport? In agreement herewith those scholars who explain to
us the sense of imperative sentences, teach that in imperative sentences
belonging to ordinary speech all words have an implied meaning only (not
their directly denotative meaning). For, they maintain, imperative forms
have their primary meaning only in (Vedic) sentences which enjoin
something not established by other means; and hence in ordinary speech
the effect of the action is conveyed by implication only. The other
words also, which form part of those imperative sentences and denote
matters connected with the action, have their primary meaning only if
connected with an action not established by other means; while if
connected with an ordinary action they have a secondary, implied,
meaning only [FOOTNOTE 30:1]. Perception reveals to us non-differenced
substance only

We have so far shown that in the case of a conflict between Scripture
and Perception and the other instruments of knowledge, Scripture is of
greater force. The fact, however, is that no such conflict is observed
to exist, since Perception itself gives rise to the apprehension of a
non-differenced Brahman whose nature is pure Being.--But how can it be
said that Perception, which has for its object things of various kinds--
and accordingly expresses itself in judgments such as 'Here is a jar,'
'There is a piece of cloth'--causes the apprehension of mere Being? If
there were no apprehension of difference, all cognitions would have one
and the same object, and therefore would give rise to one judgment only--
as takes place when one unbroken perceptional cognition is continued for
some time.--True. We therefore have to enquire in what way, in the
judgment 'here is a jar,' an assertion is made about being as well as
some special form of being. These implied judgments cannot both be
founded on perception, for they are the results of acts of cognition
occupying different moments of time, while the perceptional cognition
takes place in one moment (is instantaneous). We therefore must decide
whether it is the essential nature of the jar, or its difference from
other things, that is the object of perception. And we must adopt the
former alternative, because the apprehension of difference presupposes
the apprehension of the essential nature of the thing, and, in addition,
the remembrance of its counterentities (i.e. the things from which the
given thing differs). Hence difference is not apprehended by Perception;
and all judgments and propositions relative to difference are founded on
error only.

Difference--bheda--does not admit of logical definition

The Logicians, moreover, are unable to give a definition of such a thing
as 'difference.' Difference cannot in the first place be the essential
nature (of that which differs); for from that it would follow that on
the apprehension of the essential nature of a thing there would at once
arise not only the judgment as to that essential nature but also
judgments as to its difference from everything else.--But, it may be
objected to this, even when the essential nature of a thing is
apprehended, the judgment 'this thing is different from other things'
depends on the remembrance of its counterentities, and as long as this
remembrance does not take place so long the judgment of difference is
not formed!--Such reasoning, we reply, is inadmissible. He who maintains
that 'difference' is nothing but 'essential nature' has no right to
assume a dependence on counterentities since, according to him,
essential nature and difference are the same, i.e. nothing but essential
nature: the judgment of difference can, on his view, depend on
counterentities no more than the judgment of essential nature does. His
view really implies that the two words 'the jar' and 'different' (in the
judgment 'the jar is different') are synonymous, just as the words
'hasta' and 'kara' are (both of which mean 'hand').

Nor, in the second place, can 'difference' be held to be an attribute
(dharma). For if it were that, we should have to assume that
'difference' possesses difference (i.e. is different) from essential
nature; for otherwise it would be the same as the latter. And this
latter difference would have to be viewed as an attribute of the first
difference, and this would lead us on to a third difference, and so in
infinitum. And the view of 'difference' being an attribute would further
imply that difference is apprehended on the apprehension of a thing
distinguished by attributes such as generic character and so on, and at
the same time that the thing thus distinguished is apprehended on the
apprehension of difference; and this would constitute a logical seesaw.--
'Difference' thus showing itself incapable of logical definition, we are
confirmed in our view that perception reveals mere 'Being' only.

Moreover, it appears that in states of consciousness such as 'Here is a
jar,' 'There is a piece of cloth,' 'The jar is perceived,' 'The piece of
cloth is perceived,' that which constitutes the things is Being
(existence; sattâ) and perception (or 'consciousness'; anubhûti). And we
observe that it is pure Being only which persists in all states of
cognition: this pure Being alone, therefore, is _real_. The differences,
on the other hand, which do not persist, are unreal. The case is
analogous to that of the snake-rope. The rope which persists as a
substrate is real, while the non-continuous things (which by wrong
imagination are superimposed on the rope) such as a snake, a cleft in
the ground, a watercourse, and so on, are unreal.

But--our adversary objects--the instance is not truly analogous. In the
case of the snake-rope the non-reality of the snake results from the
snake's being sublated (bâdhita) by the cognition of the true nature of
the substrate 'This is a rope, not a snake'; it does not result from the
non-continuousness of the snake. In the same way the reality of the rope
does not follow from its persistence, but from the fact of its being not
sublated (by another cognition). But what, we ask, establishes the
non-reality of jars and pieces of cloth?--All are agreed, we reply, that
we observe, in jars and similar things, individual difference
(vyâvritti, literally 'separation,' 'distinction'). The point to decide
is of what nature such difference is. Does it not mean that the judgment
'This is a jar' implies the negation of pieces of cloth and other
things? But this means that by this judgment pieces of cloth and other
things are sublated (bâdhita). Individual difference (vyâvritti) thus
means the cessation (or absence), due to sublation, of certain objects
of cognition, and it proves the non-reality of whatever has
non-continuous existence; while on the other hand, pure Being, like the
rope, persists non-sublated. Hence everything that is additional to pure
Being is non-real.--This admits of being expressed in technical form.
'Being' is real because it persists, as proved by the case of the rope
in the snake-rope; jars and similar things are non-real because they are
non-continuous, as proved by the case of the snake that has the rope for
its substrate.

From all this it follows that persisting consciousness only has real
being; it alone is.

Being and consciousness are one. Consciousness is svayamprakâsa.

But, our adversary objects, as mere Being is the object of consciousness,
it is different therefrom (and thus there exists after all 'difference'
or 'plurality').--Not so, we reply. That there is no such thing as
'difference,' we have already shown above on the grounds that it is not
the object of perception, and moreover incapable of definition. It
cannot therefore be proved that 'Being' is the object of consciousness.
Hence Consciousness itself is 'Being'--that which is.--This
consciousness is self-proved, just because it is consciousness. Were it
proved through something else, it would follow that like jars and
similar things it is not consciousness. Nor can there be assumed, for
consciousness, the need of another act of consciousness (through which
its knowledge would be established); for it shines forth (prakâsate)
through its own being. While it exists, consciousness--differing therein
from jars and the like--is never observed not to shine forth, and it
cannot therefore be held to depend, in its shining forth, on something
else.--You (who object to the above reasoning) perhaps hold the
following view:--even when consciousness has arisen, it is the object
only which shines forth--a fact expressed in sentences such as: the jar
is perceived. When a person forms the judgment 'This is a jar,' he is
not at the time conscious of a consciousness which is not an object and
is not of a definite character. Hence the existence of consciousness is
the reason which brings about the 'shining forth' of jars and other
objects, and thus has a similar office as the approximation of the
object to the eye or the other organs of sense (which is another
condition of perceptive consciousness). After this the existence of
consciousness is inferred on the ground that the shining forth of the
object is (not permanent, but) occasional only [FOOTNOTE 34:1]. And
should this argumentation be objected to on the ground of its implying
that consciousness--which is essentially of the nature of intelligence--
is something non-intelligent like material things, we ask you to define
this negation of non-intelligence (which you declare to be
characteristic of consciousness). Have we, perhaps, to understand by it
the invariable concomitance of existence and shining forth? If so, we
point out that this invariable concomitance is also found in the case of
pleasure and similar affections; for when pleasure and so on exist at
all, they never are non-perceived (i.e. they exist in so far only as we
are conscious of them). It is thus clear that we have no consciousness
of consciousness itself--just as the tip of a finger, although touching
other things, is incapable of touching itself.

All this reasoning, we reply, is entirely spun out of your own fancy,
without any due consideration of the power of consciousness. The fact is,
that in perceiving colour and other qualities of things, we are not
aware of a 'shining forth' as an attribute of those things, and as
something different from consciousness; nor can the assumption of an
attribute of things called 'light,' or 'shining forth,' be proved in any
way, since the entire empirical world itself can be proved only through
consciousness, the existence of which we both admit. Consciousness,
therefore, is not something which is inferred or proved through some
other act of knowledge; but while proving everything else it is proved
by itself. This may be expressed in technical form as follows--
Consciousness is, with regard to its attributes and to the empirical
judgments concerning it, independent of any other thing, because through
its connexion with other things it is the cause of their attributes and
the empirical judgments concerning them. For it is a general principle
that of two things that which through its connexion with the other is
the cause of the attributes of--and the empirical judgments about--the
latter, is itself independent of that other as to those two points. We
see e.g. that colour, through its conjunction with earth and the like,
produces in them the quality of visibility, but does not itself depend
for its visibility on conjunction with colour. Hence consciousness is
itself the cause of its own 'shining forth,' as well as of the
empirically observed shining forth of objects such as jars and the like.

Consciousness is eternal and incapable of change.

This self-luminous consciousness, further, is eternal, for it is not
capable of any form of non-existence--whether so--called antecedent
non-existence or any other form. This follows from its being
self-established. For the antecedent non-existence of self-established
consciousness cannot be apprehended either through consciousness or
anything else. If consciousness itself gave rise to the apprehension of
its own non-existence, it could not do so in so far as 'being,' for that
would contradict its being; if it is, i.e. if its non-existence is not,
how can it give rise to the idea of its non-existence? Nor can it do so
if not being; for if consciousness itself is not, how can it furnish a
proof for its own non-existence? Nor can the non-existence of
consciousness be apprehended through anything else; for consciousness
cannot be the object of anything else. Any instrument of knowledge
proving the non-existence of consciousness, could do so only by making
consciousness its object--'this is consciousness'; but consciousness, as
being self-established, does not admit of that objectivation which is
implied in the word 'this,' and hence its previous non-existence cannot
be proved by anything lying outside itself.

As consciousness thus does not admit of antecedent non-existence, it
further cannot be held to originate, and hence also all those other
states of being which depend on origination cannot be predicated of it.

As consciousness is beginningless, it further does not admit of any
plurality within itself; for we observe in this case the presence of
something which is contrary to what invariably accompanies plurality
(this something being 'beginninglessness' which is contrary to the
quality of having a beginning--which quality invariably accompanies
plurality). For we never observe a thing characterised by plurality to
be without a beginning.--And moreover difference, origination, &c., are
objects of consciousness, like colour and other qualities, and hence
cannot be attributes of consciousness. Therefore, consciousness being
essentially consciousness only, nothing else that is an object of
consciousness can be its attribute. The conclusion is that consciousness
is free from difference of any kind.

The apparent difference between Consciousness and the conscious subject
is due to the unreal ahamkâra.

From this it further follows that there is no substrate of
consciousness--different from consciousness itself--such as people
ordinarily mean when speaking of a 'knower.' It is self-luminous
consciousness itself which constitutes the so-called 'knower.' This
follows therefrom also that consciousness is not non-intelligent (jada);
for non-intelligence invariably accompanies absence of Selfhood
(anâtmatva); hence, non-intelligence being absent in consciousness,
consciousness is not non-Self, that means, it is the Self.

But, our adversary again objects, the consciousness which expresses
itself in the judgment 'I know,' proves that the quality of being a
'knower' belongs to consciousness!--By no means, we reply. The
attribution to consciousness of this quality rests on error, no less
than the attribution, to the shell, of the quality of being silver.
Consciousness cannot stand in the relation of an agent toward itself:
the attribute of being a knowing agent is erroneously imputed to it--an
error analogous to that expressed in the judgment 'I am a man,' which
identifies the Self of a person with the outward aggregate of matter
that bears the external characteristics of humanity. To be a 'knower'
means to be the agent in the action of knowing; and this is something
essentially changeful and non-intelligent (jada), having its abode in
the ahamkâra, which is itself a thing subject to change. How, on the
other hand, could such agency possibly belong to the changeless
'witness' (of all change, i.e. consciousness) whose nature is pure Being?
That agency cannot be an attribute of the Self follows therefrom also
that, like colour and other qualities, agency depends, for its own proof,
on seeing, i.e. consciousness.

That the Self does not fall within the sphere (is not an object of), the
idea of 'I' is proved thereby also that in deep sleep, swoon, and
similar states, the idea of the 'I' is absent, while the consciousness
of the Self persists. Moreover, if the Self were admitted to be an agent
and an object of the idea of 'I,' it would be difficult to avoid the
conclusion that like the body it is non-intelligent, something merely
outward ('being for others only, not for itself') and destitute of
Selfhood. That from the body, which is the object of the idea of 'I,'
and known to be an agent, there is different that Self which enjoys the
results of the body's actions, viz. the heavenly word, and so on, is
acknowledged by all who admit the validity of the instruments of
knowledge; analogously, therefore, we must admit that different from the
knower whom we understand by the term 'I,' is the 'witnessing' inward
Self. The non-intelligent ahamkâra thus merely serves to manifest the
nature of non-changing consciousness, and it effects this by being its
abode; for it is the proper quality of manifesting agents to manifest
the objects manifested, in so far as the latter abide in them. A mirror,
e.g., or a sheet of water, or a certain mass of matter, manifests a face
or the disc of the moon (reflected in the mirror or water) or the
generic character of a cow (impressed on the mass of matter) in so far
as all those things abide in them.--In this way, then, there arises the
erroneous view that finds expression in the judgment 'I know.'--Nor must
you, in the way of objection, raise the question how self-luminous
consciousness is to be manifested by the non-intelligent ahamkâra, which
rather is itself manifested by consciousness; for we observe that the
surface of the hand, which itself is manifested by the rays of sunlight
falling on it, at the same time manifests those rays. This is clearly
seen in the case of rays passing through the interstices of network; the
light of those rays is intensified by the hand on which they fall, and
which at the same time is itself manifested by the rays.

It thus appears that the 'knowing agent,' who is denoted by the 'I,' in
the judgment 'I know,' constitutes no real attribute of the Self, the
nature of which is pure intelligence. This is also the reason why the
consciousness of Egoity does not persist in the states of deep sleep and
final release: in those states this special form of consciousness passes
away, and the Self appears in its true nature, i.e. as pure
consciousness. Hence a person who has risen from deep, dreamless sleep
reflects, 'Just now I was unconscious of myself.'

Summing up of the pûrvapaksha view.

As the outcome of all this, we sum up our view as follows.--Eternal,
absolutely non-changing consciousness, whose nature is pure
non-differenced intelligence, free from all distinction whatever, owing
to error illusorily manifests itself (vivarttate) as broken up into
manifold distinctions--knowing subjects, objects of knowledge, acts of
knowledge. And the purpose for which we enter on the consideration of
the Vedânta-texts is utterly to destroy what is the root of that error,
i.e. Nescience, and thus to obtain a firm knowledge of the oneness of
Brahman, whose nature is mere intelligence--free, pure, eternal.

[FOOTNOTE 22:1. In agreement with the use made of this passage by the
Pûrvapakshin, vijñâna must here be understood in the sense of avidyâ.
Vijñânasabdena vividham jñâyate-neneti karanavyutpattyâ-vidyâ-bhidhiyate.
Sru. Pra.]

[FOOTNOTE 25:1. The distinction is illustrated by the different views
Perception and Inference cause us to take of the nature of the flame of
the lamp. To Perception the flame, as long as it burns, seems one and
the same: but on the ground of the observation that the different
particles of the wick and the oil are consumed in succession, we infer
that there are many distinct flames succeeding one another. And we
accept the Inference as valid, and as sublating or refuting the
immediate perception, because the perceived oneness of the flame admits
of being accounted for 'otherwise,' viz. on the ground of the many
distinct flames originating in such rapid succession that the eye
mistakes them for one. The inference on the other hand does not admit of
being explained in another way.]

[FOOTNOTE 26:1. The reference is to the point discussed Pû. Mî. Sû. VI,
5, 54 (Jaim. Nyâ. Mâlâ Vistara, p. 285).]

[FOOTNOTE 27:1. The texts which deny all qualities of Brahman are later
in order than the texts which refer to Brahman as qualified, because
denial presupposes that which is to be denied.]

[FOOTNOTE 27:2. The unity of purport of the sentence is inferred from
its constituent words having the same case-ending.]

[FOOTNOTE 30:1. The theory here referred to is held by some of the
Mîmâmsakas. The imperative forms of the verb have their primary meaning,
i.e. the power of originating action, only in Vedic sentences which
enjoin the performance of certain actions for the bringing about of
certain ends: no other means of knowledge but the Veda informing us that
such ends can be accomplished by such actions. Nobody, e.g. would offer
a soma sacrifice in order to obtain the heavenly world, were he not told
by the Veda to do so. In ordinary life, on the other hand, no imperative
possesses this entirely unique originative force, since any action which
may be performed in consequence of a command may be prompted by other
motives as well: it is, in technical Indian language, established
already, apart from the command, by other means of knowledge. The man
who, e.g. is told to milk a cow might have proceeded to do so, apart
from the command, for reasons of his own. Imperatives in ordinary speech
are therefore held not to have their primary meaning, and this
conclusion is extended, somewhat unwarrantably one should say, to all
the words entering into an imperative clause.]

[FOOTNOTE 34:1. Being not permanent but occasional, it is an effect only,
and as such must have a cause.]




THE GREAT SIDDHÂNTA.

This entire theory rests on a fictitious foundation of altogether hollow
and vicious arguments, incapable of being stated in definite logical
alternatives, and devised by men who are destitute of those particular
qualities which cause individuals to be chosen by the Supreme Person
revealed in the Upanishads; whose intellects are darkened by the
impression of beginningless evil; and who thus have no insight into the
nature of words and sentences, into the real purport conveyed by them,
and into the procedure of sound argumentation, with all its methods
depending on perception and the other instruments of right knowledge.
The theory therefore must needs be rejected by all those who, through
texts, perception and the other means of knowledge--assisted by sound
reasoning--have an insight into the true nature of things.




There is no proof of non-differenced substance.

To enter into details.--Those who maintain the doctrine of a substance
devoid of all difference have no right to assert that this or that is a
proof of such a substance; for all means of right knowledge have for
their object things affected with difference.--Should any one taking his
stand on the received views of his sect, assert that the theory of a
substance free from all difference (does not require any further means
of proof but) is immediately established by one's own consciousness; we
reply that he also is refuted by the fact, warranted by the witness of
the Self, that all consciousness implies difference: all states of
consciousness have for their object something that is marked by some
difference, as appears in the case of judgments like 'I saw this.' And
should a state of consciousness--although directly apprehended as
implying difference--be determined by some fallacious reasoning to be
devoid of difference, this determination could be effected only by means
of some special attributes additional to the quality of mere Being; and
owing to these special qualities on which the determination depends,
that state of consciousness would clearly again be characterised by
difference. The meaning of the mentioned determination could thus only
be that of a thing affected with certain differences some other
differences are denied; but manifestly this would not prove the
existence of a thing free from all difference. To thought there at any
rate belongs the quality of being thought and self-illuminatedness, for
the knowing principle is observed to have for its essential nature the
illumining (making to shine forth) of objects. And that also in the
states of deep sleep, swoon, &c., consciousness is affected with
difference we shall prove, in its proper place, in greater detail.
Moreover you yourself admit that to consciousness there actually belong
different attributes such as permanency (oneness, self-luminousness, &c.
), and of these it cannot be shown that they are only Being in general.
And even if the latter point were admitted, we observe that there takes
place a discussion of different views, and you yourself attempt to prove
your theory by means of the differences between those views and your own.
It therefore must be admitted that reality is affected with difference
well established by valid means of proof.




Sabda proves difference.

As to sound (speech; sabda) it is specially apparent that it possesses
the power of denoting only such things as are affected with difference.
Speech operates with words and sentences. Now a word (pada) originates
from the combination of a radical element and a suffix, and as these two
elements have different meanings it necessarily follows that the word
itself can convey only a sense affected with difference. And further,
the plurality of words is based on plurality of meanings; the sentence
therefore which is an aggregate of words expresses some special
combination of things (meanings of words), and hence has no power to
denote a thing devoid of all difference.--The conclusion is that sound
cannot be a means of knowledge for a thing devoid of all difference.




Pratyaksha--even of the nirvikalpaka kind--proves difference.

Perception in the next place--with its two subdivisions of
non-determinate (nirvikalpaka) and determinate (savikalpaka)
perception--also cannot be a means of knowledge for things devoid of
difference. Determinate perception clearly has for its object things
affected with difference; for it relates to that which is distinguished
by generic difference and so on. But also non-determinate perception has
for its object only what is marked with difference; for it is on the
basis of non-determinate perception that the object distinguished by
generic character and so on is recognised in the act of determinate
perception. Non-determinate perception is the apprehension of the object
in so far as destitute of some differences but not of all difference.
Apprehension of the latter kind is in the first place not observed ever
to take place, and is in the second place impossible: for all
apprehension by consciousness takes place by means of some distinction
'This is such and such.' Nothing can be apprehended apart from some
special feature of make or structure, as e.g. the triangularly shaped
dewlap in the case of cows. The true distinction between non-determinate
and determinate perception is that the former is the apprehension of the
first individual among a number of things belonging to the same class,
while the latter is the apprehension of the second, third, and so on,
individuals. On the apprehension of the first individual cow the
perceiving person is not conscious of the fact that the special shape
which constitutes the generic character of the class 'cows' extends to
the present individual also; while this special consciousness arises in
the case of the perception of the second and third cow. The perception
of the second individual thus is 'determinate' in so far as it is
determined by a special attribute, viz. the extension, to the
perception, of the generic character of a class--manifested in a certain
outward shape--which connects this act of perception with the earlier
perception (of the first individual); such determination being
ascertained only on the apprehension of the second individual. Such
extension or continuance of a certain generic character is, on the other
hand, not apprehended on the apprehension of the first individual, and
perception of the latter kind thence is 'non-determinate.' That it is
such is not due to non-apprehension of structure, colour, generic
character and so on, for all these attributes are equally objects of
sensuous perception (and hence perceived as belonging to the first
individual also). Moreover that which possesses structure cannot be
perceived apart from the structure, and hence in the case of the
apprehension of the first individual there is already perception of
structure, giving rise to the judgment 'The thing is such and such.' In
the case of the second, third, &c., individuals, on the other hand, we
apprehend, in addition to the thing possessing structure and to the
structure itself, the special attribute of the persistence of the
generic character, and hence the perception is 'determinate.' From all
this it follows that perception never has for its object that which is
devoid of all difference.




The bhedâbheda view is untenable.

The same arguments tend to refute the view that there is difference and
absence of difference at the same time (the so-called bhedâbheda view).
Take the judgment 'This is such and such'; how can we realise here the
non-difference of 'being this' and 'being such and such'? The 'such and
such' denotes a peculiar make characterised, e.g. by a dewlap, the
'this' denotes the thing distinguished by that peculiar make; the
non-difference of these two is thus contradicted by immediate
consciousness. At the outset the thing perceived is perceived as
separate from all other things, and this separation is founded on the
fact that the thing is distinguished by a special constitution, let us
say the generic characteristics of a cow, expressed by the term 'such
and such.' In general, wherever we cognise the relation of
distinguishing attribute and thing distinguished thereby, the two
clearly present themselves to our mind as absolutely different.
Somethings--e.g. staffs and bracelets--appear sometimes as having a
separate, independent existence of their own; at other times they
present themselves as distinguishing attributes of other things or
beings (i.e. of the persons carrying staffs or wearing bracelets). Other
entities--e.g. the generic character of cows--have a being only in so
far as they constitute the form of substances, and thus always present
themselves as distinguishing attributes of those substances. In both
cases there is the same relation of distinguishing attribute and thing
distinguished thereby, and these two are apprehended as absolutely
different. The difference between the two classes of entities is only
that staffs, bracelets, and similar things are capable of being
apprehended in separation from other things, while the generic
characteristics of a species are absolutely incapable thereof. The
assertion, therefore, that the difference of things is refuted by
immediate consciousness, is based on the plain denial of a certain form
of consciousness, the one namely--admitted by every one--which is
expressed in the judgment 'This thing is such and such.'--This same
point is clearly expounded by the Sûtrakâra in II, 2, 33.




Inference also teaches difference.

Perception thus having for its object only what is marked by difference,
inference also is in the same case; for its object is only what is
distinguished by connexion with things known through perception and
other means of knowledge. And thus, even in the case of disagreement as
to the number of the different instruments of knowledge, a thing devoid
of difference could not be established by any of them since the
instruments of knowledge acknowledged by all have only one and the same
object, viz. what is marked by difference. And a person who maintains
the existence of a thing devoid of difference on the ground of
differences affecting that very thing simply contradicts himself without
knowing what he does; he is in fact no better than a man who asserts
that his own mother never had any children.




Perception does not reveal mere being.

In reply to the assertion that perception causes the apprehension of
pure Being only, and therefore cannot have difference for its object;
and that 'difference' cannot be defined because it does not admit of
being set forth in definite alternatives; we point out that these
charges are completely refuted by the fact that the only objects of
perception are things distinguished by generic character and so on, and
that generic character and so on--as being relative things--give at once
rise to the judgment as to the distinction between themselves and the
things in which they inhere. You yourself admit that in the case of
knowledge and in that of colour and other qualities this relation holds
good, viz. that something which gives rise to a judgment about another
thing at the same time gives rise to a judgment about itself; the same
may therefore be admitted with regard to difference [FOOTNOTE 44:1].

For this reason the charge of a regressus in infinitum and a logical
seesaw (see above, p. 32) cannot be upheld. For even if perceptive
cognition takes place within one moment, we apprehend within that moment
the generic character which constitutes on the one hand the difference
of the thing from others, and on the other hand the peculiar character
of the thing itself; and thus there remains nothing to be apprehended in
a second moment.

Moreover, if perception made us apprehend only pure Being judgments
clearly referring to different objects--such as 'Here is a jar,' 'There
is a piece of cloth'--would be devoid of all meaning. And if through
perception we did not apprehend difference--as marked by generic
character, &c., constituting the structure or make of a thing, why
should a man searching for a horse not be satisfied with finding a
buffalo? And if mere Being only were the object of all our cognitions,
why should we not remember, in the case of each particular cognition,
all the words which are connected with all our cognitions? And further,
if the cognition of a horse and that of an elephant had one object only,
the later cognition would cause us to apprehend only what was
apprehended before, and there being thus no difference (of object of
cognition) there would be nothing to distinguish the later state of
cognition from remembrance. If on the other hand a difference is
admitted for each state of consciousness, we admit thereby that
perception has for its objects things affected with difference.

If all acts of cognition had one and the same object only, everything
would be apprehended by one act of cognition; and from this it would
follow that there are no persons either deaf or blind!

Nor does, as a matter of fact, the eye apprehend mere Being only; for
what it does apprehend is colour and the coloured thing, and those other
qualities (viz. extension, &c.), which inhere in the thing together with
colour. Nor does feeling do so; for it has for its objects things
palpable. Nor have the ear and the other senses mere Being for their
object; but they relate to what is distinguished by a special sound or
taste or smell. Hence there is not any source of knowledge causing us to
apprehend mere Being. If moreover the senses had for their object mere
Being free from all difference, it would follow that Scripture which has
the same object would (not be originative of knowledge but) perform the
function of a mere anuvâda, i.e. it would merely make statements about
something, the knowledge of which is already established by some other
means. And further, according to your own doctrine, mere Being, i.e.
Brahman, would hold the position of an object with regard to the
instruments of knowledge; and thus there would cling to it all the
imperfections indicated by yourself--non-intelligent nature,
perishableness and so on.--From all this we conclude that perception has
for its object only what is distinguished by difference manifesting
itself in generic character and so on, which constitute the make or
structure of a thing. (That the generic character of a thing is nothing
else but its particular structure follows) from the fact that we do not
perceive anything, different from structure, which could be claimed as
constituting the object of the cognition that several individuals
possess one and the same general form. And as our theory sufficiently
accounts for the ordinary notions as to generic character, and as
moreover even those who hold generic character to be something different
from structure admit that there is such a thing as (common) structure,
we adhere to the conclusion that generic character is nothing but
structure. By 'structure' we understand special or distinctive form; and
we acknowledge different forms of that kind according to the different
classes of things. And as the current judgments as to things being
different from one another can be explained on the basis of the
apprehension of generic character, and as no additional entity is
observed to exist, and as even those who maintain the existence of such
an additional thing admit the existence of generic character, we further
conclude that difference (bheda) is nothing but generic character (jâti).--
But if this were so, the judgment as to difference would immediately
follow from the judgment as to generic character, as soon as the latter
is apprehended! Quite true, we reply. As a matter of fact the judgment
of difference is immediately formulated on the basis of the judgment as
to generic character. For 'the generic character' of a cow, e.g., means
just the exclusion of everything else: as soon as that character is
apprehended all thought and speech referring to other creatures
belonging to the same wider genus (which includes buffaloes and so on
also) come to an end. It is through the apprehension of difference only
that the idea of non-difference comes to an end.

[FOOTNOTE 44:1. Colour reveals itself as well as the thing that has
colour; knowledge reveals itself as well as the object known; so
difference manifests itself as well as the things that differ.]




Plurality is not unreal.

Next as to the assertion that all difference presented in our
cognition--as of jars, pieces of cloth and the like--is unreal because
such difference does not persist. This view, we maintain, is altogether
erroneous, springs in fact from the neglect of distinguishing between
persistence and non-persistence on the one hand, and the relation
between what sublates and what is sublated on the other hand. Where two
cognitions are mutually contradictory, there the latter relation holds
good, and there is non-persistence of what is sublated. But jars, pieces
of cloth and the like, do not contradict one another, since they are
separate in place and time. If on the other hand the non-existence of a
thing is cognised at the same time and the same place where and when its
existence is cognised, we have a mutual contradiction of two cognitions,
and then the stronger one sublates the other cognition which thus comes
to an end. But when of a thing that is perceived in connexion with some
place and time, the non-existence is perceived in connexion with some
other place and time, there arises no contradiction; how then should the
one cognition sublate the other? or how can it be said that of a thing
absent at one time and place there is absence at other times and places
also? In the case of the snake-rope, there arises a cognition of
non-existence in connexion with the given place and time; hence there is
contradiction, one judgment sublates the other and the sublated
cognition comes to an end. But the circumstance of something which is
seen at one time and in one place not persisting at another time and in
another place is not observed to be invariably accompanied by falsehood,
and hence mere non-persistence of this kind does not constitute a reason
for unreality. To say, on the other hand, that what is is real because
it persists, is to prove what is proved already, and requires no further
proof.




Being and consciousness are not one.

Hence mere Being does not alone constitute reality. And as the
distinction between consciousness and its objects--which rests just on
this relation of object and that for which the object is--is proved by
perception, the assertion that only consciousness has real existence is
also disposed of.




The true meaning of Svayamprakâsatva.

We next take up the point as to the self-luminousness of consciousness
(above, p. 33). The contention that consciousness is not an object holds
good for the knowing Self at the time when it illumines (i.e.
constitutes as its objects) other things; but there is no absolute rule
as to all consciousness never being anything but self-luminous. For
common observation shows that the consciousness of one person may become
the object of the cognition of another, viz. of an inference founded on
the person's friendly or unfriendly appearance and the like, and again
that a person's own past states of consciousness become the object of
his own cognition--as appears from judgments such as 'At one time I knew.'
It cannot therefore be said 'If it is consciousness it is self-proved'
(above p. 33), nor that consciousness if becoming an object of
consciousness would no longer be consciousness; for from this it would
follow that one's own past states, and the conscious states of others--
because being objects of consciousness--are not themselves consciousness.
Moreover, unless it were admitted that there is inferential knowledge of
the thoughts of others, there would be no apprehension of the connexion
of words and meaning, and this would imply the absolute termination of
all human intercourse depending on speech. Nor also would it be possible
for pupils to attach themselves to a teacher of sacred lore, for the
reason that they had become aware of his wisdom and learning. The
general proposition that consciousness does not admit of being an object
is in fact quite untenable. The essential 'nature of consciousness or
knowledge--consists therein that it shines forth, or manifests itself,
through its own being to its own substrate at the present moment; or (to
give another definition) that it is instrumental in proving its own
object by its own being [FOOTNOTE 48:1].

Now these two characteristics are established by a person's own state of
consciousness and do not vanish when that consciousness becomes the
object of another state of consciousness; consciousness remains also in
the latter case what it is. Jars and similar things, on the other hand,
do not possess consciousness, not because they are objects of
consciousness but because they lack the two characteristics stated
above. If we made the presence of consciousness dependent on the absence
of its being an object of consciousness, we should arrive at the
conclusion that consciousness is not consciousness; for there are
things--e.g. sky-flowers--which are not objects of consciousness and at
the same time are not consciousness. You will perhaps reply to this that
a sky-flower's not being consciousness is due not to its not being an
object of consciousness, but to its non-existence!--Well then, we
rejoin, let us say analogously that the reason of jars and the like not
being contradictory to Nescience (i.e. of their being jada), is their
not being of the nature of consciousness, and let us not have recourse
to their being objects of consciousness!--But if consciousness is an
object of consciousness, we conclude that it also is non-contradictory
of Nescience, like a jar!--At this conclusion, we rejoin, you may arrive
even on the opposite assumption, reasoning as follows: 'Consciousness is
non-contradictory of Nescience, because it is not an object of
consciousness, like a sky-flower! All which shows that to maintain as a
general principle that something which is an object of consciousness
cannot itself be consciousness is simply ridiculous.'

[FOOTNOTE 48:1. The comment of the Sru. Pra. on the above definitions
runs, with a few additional explanations, as follows: The term
'anubhûti' here denotes knowledge in general, not only such knowledge as
is not remembrance (which limited meaning the term has sometimes). With
reference to the 'shining forth' it might be said that in this way jars
also and similar things know or are conscious because they also shine
forth' (viz. in so far as they are known); to exclude jars and the like
the text therefore adds 'to its own substrate' (the jar 'shines forth,'
not to itself, but to the knowing person). There are other attributes
of the Self, such as atomic extension, eternity, and so on, which are
revealed (not through themselves) but through an act of knowledge
different from them; to exclude those the text adds 'through its own
being.' In order to exclude past states of consciousness or acts of
knowledge, the text adds 'at the present moment.' A past state of
consciousness is indeed not revealed without another act of knowledge
(representing it), and would thus by itself be excluded; but the text
adds this specification (viz. 'at the present moment') on purpose, in
order to intimate that a past state of consciousness can be represented
by another state--a point denied by the opponent. 'At the present
moment' means 'the connexion with the object of knowledge belonging to
the present time.' Without the addition of 'to its own substrate' the
definition might imply that a state of consciousness is manifest to
another person also; to exclude this the clause is added. This first
definition might be objected to as acceptable only to those who maintain
the svayamprakâsatva-theory (which need not be discussed here); hence a
second definition is given. The two clauses 'to its own substrate' and
'at the present moment' have to be supplied in this second definition
also. 'Instrumental in bringing about' would apply to staffs, wheels,
and such like implements also; hence the text adds 'its own object.'
(Staffs, wheels, &c. have no 'objects.') Knowledge depending on sight
does not bring about an object depending on hearing; to exclude this
notion of universal instrumentality the text specifies the object by the
words 'its own.' The clause 'through its own being' excludes the sense
organs, which reveal objects not by their own being, but in so far as
they give rise to knowledge. The two clauses 'at the present moment' and
'to its own substrate' have the same office in the second definition as
in the first.]




Consciousness is not eternal.

It was further maintained by the pûrvapakshin that as consciousness is
self-established it has no antecedent non-existence and so on, and that
this disproves its having an origin. But this is an attempt to prove
something not proved by something else that is equally unproved;
comparable to a man blind from birth undertaking to guide another blind
man! You have no right to maintain the non-existence of the antecedent
non-existence of consciousness on the ground that there is nothing to
make us apprehend that non-existence; for there is something to make us
apprehend it, viz. consciousness itself!--But how can consciousness at
the time when it is, make us apprehend its own previous non-existence
which is contradictorily opposed to it?--Consciousness, we rejoin, does
not necessarily constitute as its objects only what occupies the same
time with itself; were it so it would follow that neither the past nor
the future can be the object of consciousness. Or do you mean that there
is an absolute rule that the Antecedent non-existence of consciousness,
if proved, must be contemporaneous with consciousness? Have you then, we
ask, ever observed this so as to be able to assert an absolute rule? And
if it were observed, that would prove the existence of previous
non-existence, not its negation!--The fact, however, is that no person
in his senses will maintain the contemporaneous existence of
consciousness and its own antecedent non-existence. In the case of
perceptive knowledge originating from sensation, there is indeed this
limitation, that it causes the apprehension of such things only as are
actually present at the same time. But this limitation does not extend
to cognitions of all kinds, nor to all instruments of knowledge; for we
observe that remembrance, inference, and the magical perception of Yogis
apprehend such things also as are not present at the time of
apprehension. On this very point there rests the relation connecting the
means of knowledge with their objects, viz. that the former are not
without the latter. This does not mean that the instrument of knowledge
is connected with its object in that way that it is not without
something that is present at the time of cognition; but rather that the
instrument of knowledge is opposed to the falsehood of that special form
in which the object presents itself as connected with some place and
time.--This disposes also of the contention that remembrance has no
external object; for it is observed that remembrance is related to such
things also as have perished.--Possibly you will now argue as follows.
The antecedent non-existence of consciousness cannot be ascertained by
perception, for it is not something present at the time of perception.
It further cannot be ascertained by the other means of knowledge, since
there is no characteristic mark (linga) on which an inference could be
based: for we do not observe any characteristic mark invariably
accompanied by the antecedent non-existence of consciousness. Nor do we
meet with any scriptural text referring to this antecedent
non-existence. Hence, in the absence of any valid instrument of
knowledge, the antecedent non-existence of consciousness cannot be
established at all.--If, we reply, you thus, altogether setting aside
the force of self-provedness (on which you had relied hitherto), take
your stand on the absence of valid means of knowledge, we again must
request you to give in; for there is a valid means of knowledge whereby
to prove the antecedent non-existence of consciousness, viz. valid
non-perception (anupalabdhi).

Moreover, we observe that perceptional knowledge proves its object, be
it a jar or something else, to exist only as long as it exists itself,
not at all times; we do not, through it, apprehend the antecedent or
subsequent existence of the jar. Now this absence of apprehension is due
to the fact that consciousness itself is limited in time. If that
consciousness which has a jar for its object were itself apprehended as
non-limited in time, the object also--the jar--would be apprehended
under the same form, i.e. it would be eternal. And if self-established
consciousness were eternal, it would be immediately cognised as eternal;
but this is not the case. Analogously, if inferential consciousness and
other forms of consciousness were apprehended as non-limited in time,
they would all of them reveal their objects also as non-limited, and
these objects would thus be eternal; for the objects are conform in
nature to their respective forms of consciousness.




There is no consciousness without object.

Nor is there any consciousness devoid of objects; for nothing of this
kind is ever known. Moreover, the self-luminousness of consciousness has,
by our opponent himself, been proved on the ground that its essential
nature consists in illumining (revealing) objects; the self-luminousness
of consciousness not admitting of proof apart from its essential nature
which consists in the lighting up of objects. And as moreover, according
to our opponent, consciousness cannot be the object of another
consciousness, it would follow that (having neither an object nor itself
being an object) it is something altogether unreal, imaginary.

Nor are you justified in maintaining that in deep sleep, swoon,
senselessness and similar states, pure consciousness, devoid of any
object, manifests itself. This view is negatived by 'valid
non-perception' (see above, p. 52). If consciousness were present in
those states also, there would be remembrance of it at the time of
waking from sleep or recovery from swoon; but as a matter of fact there
is no such remembrance.--But it is not an absolute rule that something
of which we were conscious must be remembered; how then can the absence
of remembrance prove the absence of previous consciousness?--Unless, we
reply, there be some cause of overpowering strength which quite
obliterates all impressions--as e.g. the dissolution of the body--the
absence of remembrance does necessarily prove the absence of previous
consciousness. And, moreover, in the present case the absence of
consciousness does not only follow from absence of remembrance; it is
also proved by the thought presenting itself to the person risen from
sleep, 'For so long a time I was not conscious of anything.'--Nor may it
be said that even if there was consciousness, absence of remembrance
would necessarily follow from the absence (during deep sleep) of the
distinction of objects, and from the extinction of the consciousness of
the 'I'; for the non-consciousness of some one thing, and the absence of
some one thing cannot be the cause of the non-remembrance of some other
thing, of which there had been consciousness. And that in the states in
question the consciousness of the 'I' does persist, will moreover be
shown further on.

But, our opponent urges, have you not said yourself that even in deep
sleep and similar states there is consciousness marked by difference?--
True, we have said so. But that consciousness is consciousness of the
Self, and that this is affected by difference will be proved further on.
At present we are only interested in denying the existence of your pure
consciousness, devoid of all objects and without a substrate. Nor can we
admit that your pure consciousness could constitute what we call the
consciousness of the Self; for we shall prove that the latter has a
substrate.

It thus cannot be maintained that the antecedent non-existence of
consciousness does not admit of being proved, because consciousness
itself does not prove it. And as we have shown that consciousness itself
may be an object of consciousness, we have thereby disproved the alleged
impossibility of antecedent non-existence being proved by other means.
Herewith falls the assertion that the non-origination of consciousness
can be proved.




Consciousness is capable of change.

Against the assertion that the alleged non-origination of consciousness
at the same time proves that consciousness is not capable of any other
changes (p. 36), we remark that the general proposition on which this
conclusion rests is too wide: it would extend to antecedent
non-existence itself, of which it is evident that it comes to an end,
although it does not originate. In qualifying the changes as changes of
'Being,' you manifest great logical acumen indeed! For according to your
own view Nescience also (which is not 'Being') does not originate, is
the substrate of manifold changes, and comes to an end through the rise
of knowledge! Perhaps you will say that the changes of Nescience are all
unreal. But, do you then, we ask in reply, admit that any change is
real? You do not; and yet it is only this admission which would give a
sense to the distinction expressed by the word 'Being' [FOOTNOTE 54:1].

Nor is it true that consciousness does not admit of any division within
itself, because it has no beginning (p. 36). For the non-originated Self
is divided from the body, the senses, &c., and Nescience also, which is
avowedly without a beginning, must needs be admitted to be divided from
the Self. And if you say that the latter division is unreal, we ask
whether you have ever observed a real division invariably connected with
origination! Moreover, if the distinction of Nescience from the Self is
not real, it follows that Nescience and the Self are essentially one.
You further have yourself proved the difference of views by means of the
difference of the objects of knowledge as established by non-refuted
knowledge; an analogous case being furnished by the difference of acts
of cleaving, which results from the difference of objects to be cleft.
And if you assert that of this knowing--which is essentially knowing
only--nothing that is an object of knowledge can be an attribute, and
that these objects--just because they are objects of knowledge--cannot
be attributes of knowing; we point out that both these remarks would
apply also to eternity, self-luminousness, and the other attributes of
'knowing', which are acknowledged by yourself, and established by valid
means of proof. Nor may you urge against this that all these alleged
attributes are in reality mere 'consciousness' or 'knowing'; for they
are essentially distinct. By 'being conscious' or 'knowing', we
understand the illumining or manifesting of some object to its own
substrate (i.e. the substrate of knowledge), by its own existence (i.e.
the existence of knowledge) merely; by self-luminousness (or
'self-illuminatedness') we understand the shining forth or being
manifest by its own existence merely to its own substrate; the terms
'shining forth', 'illumining', 'being manifest' in both these
definitions meaning the capability of becoming an object of thought and
speech which is common to all things, whether intelligent or
non-intelligent. Eternity again means 'being present in all time';
oneness means 'being defined by the number one'. Even if you say that
these attributes are only negative ones, i.e. equal to the absence of
non-intelligence and so on, you still cannot avoid the admission that
they are attributes of consciousness. If, on the other hand, being of a
nature opposite to non-intelligence and so on, be not admitted as
attributes of consciousness--whether of a positive or a negative
kind--in addition to its essential nature; it is an altogether unmeaning
proceeding to deny to it such qualities, as non-intelligence and the
like.

We moreover must admit the following alternative: consciousness is
either proved (established) or not. If it is proved it follows that it
possesses attributes; if it is not, it is something absolutely nugatory,
like a sky-flower, and similar purely imaginary things.

[FOOTNOTE 54:1. The Sânkara is not entitled to refer to a distinction of
real and unreal division, because according to his theory all
distinction is unreal.]




Consciousness is the attribute of a permanent Conscious self.

Let it then be said that consciousness is proof (siddhih) itself. Proof
of what, we ask in reply, and to whom? If no definite answer can be
given to these two questions, consciousness cannot be defined as
'proof'; for 'proof' is a relative notion, like 'son.' You will perhaps
reply 'Proof to the Self'; and if we go on asking 'But what is that
Self'? you will say, 'Just consciousness as already said by us before.'
True, we reply, you said so; but it certainly was not well said. For if
it is the nature of consciousness to be 'proof' ('light,'
'enlightenment') on the part of a person with regard to something, how
can this consciousness which is thus connected with the person and the
thing be itself conscious of itself? To explain: the essential character
of consciousness or knowledge is that by its very existence it renders
things capable of becoming objects, to its own substrate, of thought and
speech. This consciousness (anubhûti), which is also termed jñâna,
avagati, samvid, is a particular attribute belonging to a conscious Self
and related to an object: as such it is known to every one on the
testimony of his own Self--as appears from ordinary judgments such as 'I
know the jar,' 'I understand this matter,' 'I am conscious of (the
presence of) this piece of cloth.' That such is the essential nature of
consciousness you yourself admit; for you have proved thereby its
self-luminousness. Of this consciousness which thus clearly presents
itself as the attribute of an agent and as related to an object, it
would be difficult indeed to prove that at the same time it is itself
the agent; as difficult as it would be to prove that the object of
action is the agent.

For we clearly see that this agent (the subject of consciousness) is
permanent (constant), while its attribute, i. e. consciousness, not
differing herein from joy, grief, and the like, rises, persists for some
time, and then comes to an end. The permanency of the conscious subject
is proved by the fact of recognition, 'This very same thing was formerly
apprehended by me.' The non-permanency of consciousness, on the other
hand, is proved by thought expressing itself in the following forms, 'I
know at present,' 'I knew at a time,' 'I, the knowing subject, no longer
have knowledge of this thing.' How then should consciousness and (the
conscious subject) be one? If consciousness which changes every moment
were admitted to constitute the conscious subject, it would be
impossible for us to recognise the thing seen to-day as the one we saw
yesterday; for what has been perceived by one cannot be recognised by
another. And even if consciousness were identified with the conscious
subject and acknowledged as permanent, this would no better account for
the fact of recognition. For recognition implies a conscious subject
persisting from the earlier to the later moment, and not merely
consciousness. Its expression is 'I myself perceived this thing on a
former occasion.' According to your view the quality of being a
conscious agent cannot at all belong to consciousness; for consciousness,
you say, is just consciousness and nothing more. And that there exists a
pure consciousness devoid of substrate and objects alike, we have
already refuted on the ground that of a thing of this kind we have
absolutely no knowledge. And that the consciousness admitted by both of
us should be the Self is refuted by immediate consciousness itself. And
we have also refuted the fallacious arguments brought forward to prove
that mere consciousness is the only reality.--But, another objection is
raised, should the relation of the Self and the 'I' not rather be
conceived as follows:--In self-consciousness which expresses itself in
the judgment 'I know,' that intelligent something which constitutes the
absolutely non-objective element, and is pure homogeneous light, is the
Self; the objective element (yushmad-artha) on the other hand, which is
established through its being illumined (revealed) by the Self is the
_I_--in 'I know'--and this is something different from pure
intelligence, something objective or external?

By no means, we reply; for this view contradicts the relation of
attribute and substrate of attribute of which we are directly conscious,
as implied in the thought 'I know.'

Consider also what follows.--'If the _I_ were not the Self, the
inwardness of the Self would not exist; for it is just the consciousness
of the _I_ which separates the inward from the outward.

'"May I, freeing myself from all pain, enter on free possession of
endless delight?" This is the thought which prompts the man desirous of
release to apply himself to the study of the sacred texts. Were it a
settled matter that release consists in the annihilation of the I, the
same man would move away as soon as release were only hinted at. "When I
myself have perished, there still persists some consciousness different
from me;" to bring this about nobody truly will exert himself.

'Moreover the very existence of consciousness, its being a consciousness
at all, and its being self-luminous, depend on its connexion with a Self;
when that connexion is dissolved, consciousness itself cannot be
established, not any more than the act of cutting can take place when
there is no person to cut and nothing to be cut. Hence it is certain
that the I, i.e. the knowing subject, is the inward Self.'

This scripture confirms when saying 'By what should he know the knower?'
(Bri. Up. II, 4, 15); and Smriti also, 'Him who knows this they call the
knower of the body' (Bha. Gî. XIII, 1). And the Sûtrakâra also, in the
section beginning with 'Not the Self on account of scriptural statement'
(II, 3, 17), will say 'For this very reason (it is) a knower' (II, 3,
18); and from this it follows that the Self is not mere consciousness.

What is established by consciousness of the 'I' is the I itself, while
the not-I is given in the consciousness of the not-I; hence to say that
the knowing subject, which is established by the state of consciousness,
'I know,' is the not-I, is no better than to maintain that one's own
mother is a barren woman. Nor can it be said that this 'I,' the knowing
subject, is dependent on its light for something else. It rather is
self-luminous; for to be self-luminous means to have consciousness for
one's essential nature. And that which has light for its essential
nature does not depend for its light on something else. The case is
analogous to that of the flame of a lamp or candle. From the
circumstance that the lamp illumines with its light other things, it
does not follow either that it is not luminous, or that its luminousness
depends on something else; the fact rather is that the lamp being of
luminous nature shines itself and illumines with its light other things
also. To explain.--The one substance tejas, i.e. fire or heat, subsists
in a double form, viz. as light (prabhâ), and as luminous matter.
Although light is a quality of luminous substantial things, it is in
itself nothing but the substance tejas, not a mere quality like e.g.
whiteness; for it exists also apart from its substrates, and possesses
colour (which is a quality). Having thus attributes different from those
of qualities such as whiteness and so on, and possessing illumining
power, it is the substance tejas, not anything else (e.g. a quality).
Illumining power belongs to it, because it lights up itself and other
things. At the same time it is practically treated as a quality because
it always has the substance tejas for its substrate, and depends on it.
This must not be objected to on the ground that what is called light is
really nothing but dissolving particles of matter which proceed from the
substance tejas; for if this were so, shining gems and the sun would in
the end consume themselves completely. Moreover, if the flame of a lamp
consisted of dissolving particles of matter, it would never be
apprehended as a whole; for no reason can be stated why those particles
should regularly rise in an agglomerated form to the height of four
fingers breadth, and after that simultaneously disperse themselves
uniformly in all directions--upwards, sideways, and downwards. The fact
is that the flame of the lamp together with its light is produced anew
every moment and again vanishes every moment; as we may infer from the
successive combination of sufficient causes (viz. particles of oil and
wick) and from its coming to an end when those causes are completely
consumed.

Analogously to the lamp, the Self is essentially intelligent (kid-rûpa),
and has intelligence (kaitanya) for its quality. And to be essentially
intelligent means to be self-luminous. There are many scriptural texts
declaring this, compare e.g. 'As a mass of salt has neither inside nor
outside but is altogether a mass of taste, thus indeed that Self has
neither inside nor outside but is altogether a mass of knowledge' (Bri.
Up. IV, 5, 13); 'There that person becomes self-luminous, there is no
destruction of the knowing of the knower' (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 14; 30); 'He
who knows, let me smell this, he is the Self (Ch. Up. VIII, 12, 4); 'Who
is that Self? That one who is made of knowledge, among the prânas,
within the heart, the light, the person' (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 7); 'For it is
he who sees, hears, smells, tastes, thinks, considers, acts, the person
whose Self is knowledge' (Pr. Up. IV, 9); 'Whereby should one know the
knower' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 15). 'This person knows,' 'The seer does not
see death nor illness nor pain' (Ch. Up. VII, 26, 2); 'That highest
person not remembering this body into which he was born' (Ch. Up. VIII,
12, 3); 'Thus these sixteen parts of the spectator that go towards the
person; when they have readied the person, sink into him' (Pr. Up. VI,
5); 'From this consisting of mind, there is different an interior Self
consisting of knowledge' (Taitt. Up. II, 4). And the Sûtrakâra also will
refer to the Self as a 'knower' in II, 3, 18. All which shows that the
self-luminous Self is a knower, i.e. a knowing subject, and not pure
light (non-personal intelligence). In general we may say that where
there is light it must belong to something, as shown by the light of a
lamp. The Self thus cannot be mere consciousness. The grammarians
moreover tell us that words such as 'consciousness,' 'knowledge,' &c.,
are relative; neither ordinary nor Vedic language uses expressions such
as 'he knows' without reference to an object known and an agent who
knows.

With reference to the assertion that consciousness constitutes the Self,
because it (consciousness) is not non-intelligent (jada), we ask what
you understand by this absence of non-intelligence.' If you reply
'luminousness due to the being of the thing itself (i.e. of the thing
which is ajada)'; we point out that this definition would wrongly
include lamps also, and similar things; and it would moreover give rise
to a contradiction, since you do not admit light as an attribute,
different from consciousness itself. Nor can we allow you to define
ajadatva as 'being of that nature that light is always present, without
any exception,' for this definition would extend also to pleasure, pain,
and similar states. Should you maintain that pleasure and so on,
although being throughout of the nature of light, are non-intelligent
for the reason that, like jars, &c., they shine forth (appear) to
something else and hence belong to the sphere of the not-Self; we ask in
reply: Do you mean then to say that knowledge appears to itself?
Knowledge no less than pleasure appears to some one else, viz. the 'I':
there is, in that respect, no difference between the judgment 'I know,'
and the judgment 'I am pleased.' Non-intelligence in the sense of
appearingness-to-itself is thus not proved for consciousness; and hence
it follows that what constitutes the Self is the non-jada 'I' which is
proved to itself by its very Being. That knowledge is of the nature of
light depends altogether on its connection with the knowing 'I': it is
due to the latter, that knowledge, like pleasure, manifests itself to
that conscious person who is its substrate, and not to anybody else. The
Self is thus not mere knowledge, but is the knowing 'I.'




The view that the conscious subject is something unreal, due to the
ahamkâra, cannot be maintained.

We turn to a further point. You maintain that consciousness which is in
reality devoid alike of objects and substrate presents itself, owing to
error, in the form of a knowing subject, just as mother o' pearl appears
as silver; (consciousness itself being viewed as a real substrate of an
erroneous imputation), because an erroneous imputation cannot take place
apart from a substrate. But this theory is indefensible. If things were
as you describe them, the conscious 'I' would be cognised as co-ordinate
with the state of consciousness 'I am consciousness,' just as the
shining thing presenting itself to our eyes is judged to be silver. But
the fact is that the state of consciousness presents itself as something
apart, constituting a distinguishing attribute of the I, just as the
stick is an attribute of Devadatta who carries it. The judgment 'I am
conscious' reveals an 'I' distinguished by consciousness; and to declare
that it refers only to a state of consciousness--which is a mere
attribute--is no better than to say that the judgment 'Devadatta carries
a stick' is about the stick only. Nor are you right in saying that the
idea of the Self being a knowing agent, presents itself to the mind of
him only who erroneously identifies the Self and the body, an error
expressing itself in judgments such as 'I am stout,' and is on that
account false; for from this it would follow that the consciousness
which is erroneously imagined as a Self is also false; for it presents
itself to the mind of the same person. You will perhaps rejoin that
consciousness is not false because it (alone) is not sublatcd by that
cognition which sublates everything else. Well, we reply, then the
knowership of the Self also is not false; for that also is not sublatcd.
You further maintain that the character of being a knower, i.e. the
agent in the action of knowing, does not become the non-changing Self;
that being a knower is something implying change, of a non-intelligent
kind (jada), and residing in the ahamkâra which is the abode of change
and a mere effect of the Unevolved (the Prakriti); that being an agent
and so on is like colour and other qualities, an attribute of what is
objective; and that if we admit the Self to be an agent and the object
of the notion of the 'I,' it also follows that the Self is, like the
body, not a real Self but something external and non-intelligent. But
all this is unfounded, since the internal organ is, like the body,
non-intelligent, an effect of Prakriti, an object of knowledge,
something outward and for the sake of others merely; while being a
knowing subject constitutes the special essential nature of intelligent
beings. To explain. Just as the body, through its objectiveness,
outwardness, and similar causes, is distinguished from what possesses
the opposite attributes of subjectiveness, inwardness, and so on; for
the same reason the ahamkâra also--which is of the same substantial
nature as the body--is similarly distinguished. Hence the ahamkâra is
no more a knower than it is something subjective; otherwise there would
be an evident contradiction. As knowing cannot be attributed to the
ahamkâra, which is an object of knowledge, so knowership also cannot be
ascribed to it; for of that also it is the object. Nor can it be
maintained that to be a knower is something essentially changing. For to
be a knower is to be the substrate of the quality of knowledge, and as
the knowing Self is eternal, knowledge which is an essential quality of
the Self is also eternal. That the Self is eternal will be declared in
the Sûtra, II, 3, 17; and in II, 3, 18 the term 'jña' (knower) will show
that it is an essential quality of the Self to be the abode of
knowledge. That a Self whose essential nature is knowledge should be the
substrate of the (quality of) knowledge--just as gems and the like are
the substrate of light--gives rise to no contradiction whatever.

Knowledge (the quality) which is in itself unlimited, is capable of
contraction and expansion, as we shall show later on. In the so-called
kshetrajña--condition of the Self, knowledge is, owing to the influence
of work (karman), of a contracted nature, as it more or less adapts
itself to work of different kinds, and is variously determined by the
different senses. With reference to this various flow of knowledge as
due to the senses, it is spoken of as rising and setting, and the Self
possesses the quality of an agent. As this quality is not, however,
essential, but originated by action, the Self is essentially unchanging.
This changeful quality of being a knower can belong only to the Self
whose essential nature is knowledge; not possibly to the non-intelligent
ahamkâra. But, you will perhaps say, the ahamkâra, although of non-
intelligent nature, may become a knower in so far as by approximation to
intelligence it becomes a reflection of the latter. How, we ask in
return, is this becoming a reflection of intelligence imagined to take
place? Does consciousness become a reflection of the ahamkâra, or does
the ahamkâra become a reflection of consciousness? The former
alternative is inadmissible, since you will not allow to consciousness
the quality of being a knower; and so is the latter since, as explained
above, the non-intelligent ahamkâra can never become a knower. Moreover,
neither consciousness nor the ahamkâra are objects of visual perception.
Only things seen by the eye have reflections.--Let it then be said that
as an iron ball is heated by contact with fire, so the consciousness of
being a knower is imparted to the ahamkâra through its contact with
Intelligence.--This view too is inadmissible; for as you do not allow
real knowership to Intelligence, knowership or the consciousness of
knowership cannot be imparted to the ahamkâra by contact with
Intelligence; and much less even can knowership or the consciousness of
it be imparted to Intelligence by contact with the essentially non-
intelligent ahamkâra. Nor can we accept what you say about
'manifestation.' Neither the ahamkâra, you say, nor Intelligence is
really a knowing subject, but the ahamkâra manifests consciousness
abiding within itself (within the ahamkâra), as the mirror manifests the
image abiding within it. But the essentially non-intelligent ahamkâra
evidently cannot 'manifest' the self-luminous Self. As has been said
'That the non-intelligent ahamkâra should manifest the self-luminous
Self, has no more sense than to say that a spent coal manifests the Sun.'
The truth is that all things depend for their proof on self-luminous
consciousness; and now you maintain that one of these things, viz. the
non-intelligent ahamkâra--which itself depends for its light on
consciousness--manifests consciousness, whose essential light never
rises or sets, and which is the cause that proves everything! Whoever
knows the nature of the Self will justly deride such a view! The
relation of 'manifestation' cannot hold good between consciousness and
the ahamkâra for the further reason also that there is a contradiction
in nature between the two, and because it would imply consciousness not
to be consciousness. As has been said, 'One cannot manifest the other,
owing to contradictoriness; and if the Self were something to be
manifested, that would imply its being non-intelligent like a jar.' Nor
is the matter improved by your introducing the hand and the sunbeams
(above, p. 38), and to say that as the sunbeams while manifesting the
hand, are at the same time manifested by the hand, so consciousness,
while manifesting the ahamkâra, is at the same time itself manifested by
the latter. The sunbeams are in reality not manifested by the hand at
all. What takes place is that the motion of the sunbeams is reversed
(reflected) by the opposed hand; they thus become more numerous, and
hence are perceived more clearly; but this is due altogether to the
multitude of beams, not to any manifesting power on the part of the hand.

What could, moreover, be the nature of that 'manifestation' of the Self
consisting of Intelligence, which would be effected through the ahamkâra?
It cannot be origination; for you acknowledge that what is self-
established cannot be originated by anything else. Nor can it be
'illumination' (making to shine forth), since consciousness cannot--
according to you--be the object of another consciousness. For the same
reason it cannot be any action assisting the means of being conscious of
consciousness. For such helpful action could be of two kinds only. It
would either be such as to cause the connexion of the object to be known
with the sense-organs; as e.g. any action which, in the case of the
apprehension of a species or of one's own face, causes connexion between
the organ of sight and an individual of the species, or a looking-glass.
Or it would be such as to remove some obstructive impurity in the mind
of the knowing person; of this kind is the action of calmness and self-
restraint with reference to scripture which is the means of apprehending
the highest reality. Moreover, even if it were admitted that
consciousness may be an object of consciousness, it could not be
maintained that the 'I' assists the means whereby that consciousness is
effected. For if it did so, it could only be in the way of removing any
obstacles impeding the origination of such consciousness; analogous to
the way in which a lamp assists the eye by dispelling the darkness which
impedes the origination of the apprehension of colour. But in the case
under discussion we are unable to imagine such obstacles. There is
nothing pertaining to consciousness which obstructs the origination of
the knowledge of consciousness and which could be removed by the
ahamkâra.--There is something, you will perhaps reply, viz. Nescience!
Not so, we reply. That Nescience is removed by the ahamkâra cannot be
admitted; knowledge alone can put an end to Nescience. Nor can
consciousness be the abode of Nescience, because in that case Nescience
would have the same abode and the same object as knowledge.

In pure knowledge where there is no knowing subject and no object of
knowledge--the so-called 'witnessing' principle (sâkshin)--Nescience
cannot exist. Jars and similar things cannot be the abode of Nescience
because there is no possibility of their being the abode of knowledge,
and for the same reason pure knowledge also cannot be the abode of
Nescience. And even if consciousness were admitted to be the abode of
Nescience, it could not be the object of knowledge; for consciousness
being viewed as the Self cannot be the object of knowledge, and hence
knowledge cannot terminate the Nescience abiding within consciousness.
For knowledge puts an end to Nescience only with regard to its own
objects, as in the case of the snake-rope. And the consequence of this
would be that the Nescience attached to consciousness could never be
destroyed by any one.--If Nescience, we further remark, is viewed as
that which can be defined neither as Being nor non-Being, we shall show
later on that such Nescience is something quite incomprehensible.--On
the other hand, Nescience, if understood to be the antecedent non-
existence of knowledge, is not opposed in nature to the origination of
knowledge, and hence the dispelling of Nescience cannot be viewed as
promoting the means of the knowledge of the Self.--From all this it
follows that the ahamkâra cannot effect in any way 'manifestation of
consciousness.'

Nor (to finish up this point) can it be said that it is the essential
nature of manifesting agents to manifest things in so far as the latter
have their abode in the former; for such a relation is not observed in
the case of lamps and the like (which manifest what lies outside them).
The essential nature of manifesting agents rather lies therein that they
promote the knowledge of things as they really are, and this is also the
nature of whatever promotes knowledge and the means thereof. Nor is it
even true that the mirror manifests the face. The mirror is only the
cause of a certain irregularity, viz. the reversion of the ocular rays
of light, and to this irregularity there is due the appearance of the
face within the mirror; but the manifesting agent is the light only. And
it is evident that the ahamkâra is not capable of producing an
irregularity (analogous to that produced by the mirror) in consciousness
which is self-luminous.--And--with regard to the second analogous
instance alleged by you--the fact is that the species is known through
the individual because the latter is its substrate (as expressed in the
general principle, 'the species is the form of the individual'), but not
because the individual 'manifests' the species. Thus there is no reason,
either real or springing from some imperfection, why the consciousness
of consciousness should be brought about by its abiding in the ahamkâra,
and the attribute of being the knowing agent or the consciousness of
that cannot therefore belong to the ahamkâra. Hence, what constitutes
the inward Self is not pure consciousness but the 'I' which proves
itself as the knowing subject. In the absence of egoity, 'inwardness'
could not be established for consciousness.




The conscious subject persists in deep sleep.

We now come to the question as to the nature of deep sleep. In deep
sleep the quality of darkness prevails in the mind and there is no
consciousness of outward things, and thus there is no distinct and clear
presentation of the 'I'; but all the same the Self somehow presents
itself up to the time of waking in the one form of the 'I,' and the
latter cannot therefore be said to be absent. Pure consciousness assumed
by you (to manifest itself in deep sleep) is really in no better case;
for a person risen from deep sleep never represents to himself his
state of consciousness during sleep in the form, 'I was pure
consciousness free from all egoity and opposed in nature to everything
else, witnessing Nescience'; what he thinks is only 'I slept well.' From
this form of reflection it appears that even during sleep the Self. i.e.
the 'I,' was a knowing subject and perceptive of pleasure. Nor must you
urge against this that the reflection has the following form: 'As now I
feel pleasure, so I slept then also'; for the reflection is distinctly
_not_ of that kind. [FOOTNOTE 68:1] Nor must you say that owing to the
non-permanency of the 'I' its perception of pleasure during sleep
cannot connect itself with the waking state. For (the 'I' is permanent
as appears from the fact that) the person who has risen from sleep
recalls things of which he was conscious before his sleep, 'I did such
and such a thing,' 'I observed this or that,' 'I said so or so.'--But,
you will perhaps say, he also reflects, 'For such and such a time I was
conscious of nothing!'--'And what does this imply?' we ask.--'It implies
a negation of everything!'--By no means, we rejoin. The words 'I was
conscious' show that the knowing 'I' persisted, and that hence what is
negated is only the objects of knowledge. If the negation implied in 'of
nothing' included everything, it would also negative the pure
consciousness which you hold to persist in deep sleep. In the judgment
'I was conscious of nothing,' the word 'I' clearly refers to the 'I,' i.
e. the knowing Self which persists even during deep sleep, while the
words 'was conscious of nothing' negative all knowledge on the part of
that 'I'; if, now, in the face of this, you undertake to prove by means
of this very judgment that knowledge--which is expressly denied--existed
at the time, and that the persisting knowing Self did not exist, you may
address your proof to the patient gods who give no reply!--But--our
opponent goes on to urge--I form the following judgment also: 'I then
was not conscious of myself,' and from this I understand that the 'I'
did not persist during deep sleep!--You do not know, we rejoin, that
this denial of the persistence of the 'I' flatly contradicts the state
of consciousness expressed in the judgment 'I was not conscious of
myself' and the verbal form of the judgment itself!--But what then is
denied by the words 'of myself?--This, we admit, is a reasonable
question. Let us consider the point. What is negatived in that judgment
is not the knowing 'I' itself, but merely the distinctions of caste,
condition of life, &c. which belong to the 'I' at the time of waking. We
must distinguish the objects of the several parts of the judgment under
discussion. The object of the '(me) myself' is the 'I' distinguished by
class characteristics as it presents itself in the waking state; the
object of the word 'I' (in the judgment) is that 'I' which consists of a
uniform flow of self-consciousness which persists in sleep also, but is
then not quite distinct. The judgment 'I did not know myself' therefore
means that the sleeper was not conscious of the place where he slept, of
his special characteristics, and so on.--It is, moreover, your own view
that in deep sleep the Self occupies the position of a witnessing
principle with regard to Nescience. But by a witness (sâkshin) we
understand some one who knows about something by personal observation
(sâkshât); a person who does not know cannot be a witness. Accordingly,
in scripture as well as in ordinary language a knowing subject only, not
mere knowledge, is spoken of as a witness; and with this the Reverend
Pânini also agrees when teaching that the word 'sâkshin' means one who
knows in person (Pâ. Sû. V, 2, 91). Now this witness is nothing else but
the 'I' which is apprehended in the judgment 'I know'; and how then
should this 'I' not be apprehended in the state of sleep? That which
itself appears to the Self appears as the 'I,' and it thus follows that
also in deep sleep and similar states the Self which then shines forth
appears as the 'I.'

[FOOTNOTE 68:1. I. e. the reflection as to the perception of pleasure
refers to the past state of sleep only, not to the present moment of
reflection.]




The conscious subject persists in the state of release.

To maintain that the consciousness of the 'I' does not persist in the
state of final release is again altogether inappropriate. It in fact
amounts to the doctrine--only expressed in somewhat different words--
that final release is the annihilation of the Self. The 'I' is not a
mere attribute of the Self so that even after its destruction the
essential nature of the Self might persist--as it persists on the
cessation of ignorance; but it constitutes the very nature of the Self.
Such judgments as 'I know', 'Knowledge has arisen in me', show, on the
other hand, that we are conscious of knowledge as a mere attribute of
the Self.--Moreover, a man who suffering pain, mental or of other kind--
whether such pain be real or due to error only--puts himself in relation
to pain--'I am suffering pain'--naturally begins to reflect how he may
once for all free himself from all these manifold afflictions and enjoy
a state of untroubled ease; the desire of final release thus having
arisen in him he at once sets to work to accomplish it. If, on the other
hand, he were to realise that the effect of such activity would be the
loss of personal existence, he surely would turn away as soon as
somebody began to tell him about 'release'. And the result of this would
be that, in the absence of willing and qualified pupils, the whole
scriptural teaching as to final release would lose its authoritative
character.--Nor must you maintain against this that even in the state of
release there persists pure consciousness; for this by no means improves
your case. No sensible person exerts himself under the influence of the
idea that after he himself has perished there will remain some entity
termed 'pure light!'--What constitutes the 'inward' Self thus is the 'I',
the knowing subject.

This 'inward' Self shines forth in the state of final release also as an
'I'; for it appears to itself. The general principle is that whatever
being appears to itself appears as an 'I'; both parties in the present
dispute establish the existence of the transmigrating Self on such
appearance. On the contrary, whatever does not appear as an 'I', does
not appear to itself; as jars and the like. Now the emancipated Self
does thus appear to itself, and therefore it appears as an 'I'. Nor does
this appearance as an 'I' imply in any way that the released Self is
subject to Nescience and implicated in the Samsâra; for this would
contradict the nature of final release, and moreover the consciousness
of the 'I' cannot be the cause of Nescience and so on. Nescience
(ignorance) is either ignorance as to essential nature, or the cognition
of something under an aspect different from the real one (as when a
person suffering from jaundice sees all things yellow); or cognition of
what is altogether opposite in nature (as when mother o' pearl is
mistaken for silver). Now the 'I' constitutes the essential nature of
the Self; how then can the consciousness of the 'I,' i.e. the
consciousness of its own true nature, implicate the released Self in
Nescience, or, in the Samsâra? The fact rather is that such
consciousness destroys Nescience, and so on, because it is essentially
opposed to them. In agreement with this we observe that persons like the
rishi Vâmadeva, in whom the intuition of their identity with Brahman had
totally destroyed all Nescience, enjoyed the consciousness of the
personal 'I'; for scripture says, 'Seeing this the rishi Vâmadeva
understood,_I_ was Manu and the Sun' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 10). And the
highest Brahman also, which is opposed to all other forms of Nescience
and denoted and conceived as pure Being, is spoken of in an analogous
way; cp. 'Let me make each of these three deities,' &c. (Ch. Up. VI, 3,
3); 'May I be many, may I grow forth' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 3); 'He thought,
shall I send forth worlds?' (Ait. Âr. II, 4, 1, 1); and again, 'Since I
transcend the Destructible, and am higher also than the Indestructible,
therefore I am proclaimed in the world and in the Veda as the highest
Person' (Bha. Gî. XV, 18); 'I am the Self, O Gûdâkesa.' (Bha. Gî. X, 20);
'Never was I not' (Bha. Gî. II, 12); 'I am the source and the
destruction of the whole world' (Bha. Gî. VII, 6); 'I am the source of
all; from me proceeds everything' (Bha. Gî. X, 8); 'I am he who raises
them from the ocean of the world of death' (Bha. Gî. XII, 7); 'I am the
giver of seed, the father' (Bha. Gî. XIV, 4); 'I know the things past'
(Bha. Gî. VII, 26).--But if the 'I' (aham) constitutes the essential
nature of the Self, how is it that the Holy One teaches the principle of
egoity (ahamkâra) to belong to the sphere of objects, 'The great
elements, the ahamkâra, the understanding (buddhi), and the Unevolved'
(Bha. Gî. XIII, 5)?--As in all passages, we reply, which give
information about the true nature of the Self it is spoken of as the 'I',
we conclude that the 'I' constitutes the essential nature of the inward
Self. Where, on the other hand, the Holy One declares the ahamkâra--a
special effect of the Unevolved--to be comprised within the sphere of
the Objective, he means that principle which is called ahamkâra, because
it causes the assumption of Egoity on the part of the body which belongs
to the Not-self. Such egoity constitutes the ahamkâra also designated as
pride or arrogance, which causes men to slight persons superior to
themselves, and is referred to by scripture in many places as something
evil. Such consciousness of the 'I' therefore as is not sublated by
anything else has the Self for its object; while, on the other hand,
such consciousness of the 'I' as has the body for its object is mere
Nescience. In agreement with this the Reverend Parâsara has said, 'Hear
from me the essential nature of Nescience; it is the attribution of
Selfhood to what is not the Self.' If the Self were pure consciousness
then pure consciousness only, and not the quality of being a knowing
subject, would present itself in the body also, which is a Not-self
wrongly imagined to be a Self. The conclusion therefore remains that the
Self is nothing but the knowing 'I'. Thus it has been said, 'As is
proved by perception, and as also results from reasoning and tradition,
and from its connexion with ignorance, the Self presents itself as a
knowing 'I'. And again,'That which is different from body, senses, mind,
and vital airs; which does not depend on other means; which is permanent,
pervading, divided according to bodies-that is the Self blessed in
itself.' Here 'not dependent on other means' means 'self-luminous'; and
'pervading' means 'being of such a nature as to enter, owing to
excessive minuteness, into all non-sentient things.'




In cases of Scripture conflicting with Perception, Scripture is not
stronger. The True cannot be known through the Untrue.

With reference to the assertion (p. 24 ff.) that Perception, which
depends on the view of plurality, is based on some defect and hence
admits of being otherwise accounted for--whence it follows that it is
sublated by Scripture; we ask you to point out what defect it is on
which Perception is based and may hence be accounted for otherwise.--'
The beginningless imagination of difference' we expect you to reply.--
But, we ask in return, have you then come to know by some other means
that this beginningless imagination of difference, acting in a manner
analogous to that of certain defects of vision, is really the cause of
an altogether perverse view of things?--If you reply that this is known
just from the fact that Perception is in conflict with Scripture, we
point out that you are reasoning in a circle: you prove the
defectiveness of the imagination of plurality through the fact that
Scripture tells us about a substance devoid of all difference; and at
the same time you prove the latter point through the former. Moreover,
if Perception gives rise to perverse cognition because it is based on
the imagination of plurality, Scripture also is in no better case--for
it is based on the very same view.--If against this you urge that
Scripture, although based on a defect, yet sublates Perception in so far
as it is the cause of a cognition which dispels all plurality
apprehended through Perception, and thus is later in order than
Perception; we rejoin that the defectiveness of the foundation of
Scripture having once been recognised, the circumstance of its being
later is of no avail. For if a man is afraid of a rope which he mistakes
for a snake his fear does not come to an end because another man, whom
he considers to be in error himself, tells him 'This is no snake, do not
be afraid.' And that Scripture _is_ founded on something defective is
known at the very time of hearing Scripture, for the reflection (which
follows on hearing) consists in repeated attempts to cognise the oneness
of Brahman--a cognition which is destructive of all the plurality
apprehended through the first hearing of the Veda.--We further ask, 'By
what means do you arrive at the conclusion that Scripture cannot
possibly be assumed to be defective in any way, while defects may be
ascribed to Perception'? It is certainly not Consciousness--self-proved
and absolutely devoid of all difference--which enlightens you on this
point; for such Consciousness is unrelated to any objects whatever, and
incapable of partiality to Scripture. Nor can sense-perception be the
source of your conviction; for as it is founded on what is defective it
gives perverse information. Nor again the other sources of knowledge;
for they are all based on sense-perception. As thus there are no
acknowledged means of knowledge to prove your view, you must give it up.
But, you will perhaps say, we proceed by means of the ordinary empirical
means and objects of knowledge!--What, we ask in reply, do you
understand by 'empirical'?--What rests on immediate unreflective
knowledge, but is found not to hold good when tested by logical
reasoning!--But what is the use, we ask, of knowledge of this kind? If
logical reasoning refutes something known through some means of
knowledge, that means of knowledge is no longer authoritative!--Now you
will possibly argue as follows: 'Scripture as well as Perception is
founded on Nescience; but all the same Perception is sublated by
Scripture. For as the object of Scripture, i.e. Brahman, which is one
and without a second, is not seen to be sublated by any ulterior
cognition, Brahman, i.e. pure non-differenced Consciousness, remains as
the sole Reality.'--But here too you are wrong, since we must decide
that something which rests on a defect is unreal, although it may remain
unrefuted. We will illustrate this point by an analogous instance. Let
us imagine a race of men afflicted with a certain special defect of
vision, without being aware of this their defect, dwelling in some
remote mountain caves inaccessible to all other men provided with sound
eyes. As we assume all of these cave dwellers to be afflicted with the
same defect of vision, they, all of them, will equally see and judge
bright things, e.g. the moon, to be double. Now in the case of these
people there never arises a subsequent cognition sublating their
primitive cognition; but the latter is false all the same, and its
object, viz., the doubleness of the moon, is false likewise; the defect
of vision being the cause of a cognition not corresponding to reality.--
And so it is with the cognition of Brahman also. This cognition is based
on Nescience, and therefore is false, together with its object, viz.
Brahman, although no sublating cognition presents itself.--This
conclusion admits of various expressions in logical form. 'The Brahman
under dispute is false because it is the object of knowledge which has
sprung from what is affected with Nescience; as the phenomenal world is.'
'Brahman is false because it is the object of knowledge; as the world
is.' 'Brahman is false because it is the object of knowledge, the rise
of which has the Untrue for its cause; as the world is.'

You will now perhaps set forth the following analogy. States of dreaming
consciousness--such as the perception of elephants and the like in one's
dreams--are unreal, and yet they are the cause of the knowledge of real
things, viz. good or ill fortune (portended by those dreams). Hence
there is no reason why Scripture--although unreal in so far as based on
Nescience--should not likewise be the cause of the cognition of what is
real, viz. Brahman.--The two cases are not parallel, we reply. The
conscious states experienced in dreams are not unreal; it is only their
objects that are false; these objects only, not the conscious states,
are sublated by the waking consciousness. Nobody thinks 'the cognitions
of which I was conscious in my dream are unreal'; what men actually
think is 'the cognitions are real, but the things are not real.' In the
same way the illusive state of consciousness which the magician produces
in the minds of other men by means of mantras, drugs, &c., is true, and
hence the cause of love and fear; for such states of consciousness also
are not sublated. The cognition which, owing to some defect in the
object, the sense organ, &c., apprehends a rope as a snake is real, and
hence the cause of fear and other emotions. True also is the imagination
which, owing to the nearness of a snake, arises in the mind of a man
though not actually bitten, viz. that he has been bitten; true also is
the representation of the imagined poison, for it may be the cause of
actual death. In the same way the reflection of the face in the water is
real, and hence enables us to ascertain details belonging to the real
face. All these states of consciousness are real, as we conclude from
their having a beginning and actual effects.--Nor would it avail you to
object that in the absence of real elephants, and so on, the ideas of
them cannot be real. For ideas require only _some_ substrate in general;
the mere appearance of a thing is a sufficient substrate, and such an
appearance is present in the case in question, owing to a certain defect.
The thing we determine to be unreal because it is sublated; the idea is
non-sublated, and therefore real.

Nor can you quote in favour of your view--of the real being known
through the unreal--the instance of the stroke and the letter. The
letter being apprehended through the stroke (i.e. the written character)
does not furnish a case of the real being apprehended through the unreal;
for the stroke itself is real.--But the stroke causes the idea of the
letter only in so far as it is apprehended as being a letter, and this
'being a letter' is untrue!--Not so, we rejoin. If this 'being a letter'
were unreal it could not be a means of the apprehension of the letter;
for we neither observe nor can prove that what is non-existent and
indefinable constitutes a means.--Let then the idea of the letter
constitute the means!--In that case, we rejoin, the apprehension of the
real does not spring from the unreal; and besides, it would follow
therefrom that the means and what is to be effected thereby would be one,
i.e. both would be, without any distinction, the idea of the letter only.
Moreover, if the means were constituted by the stroke in so far as it is
_not_ the letter, the apprehension of all letters would result from the
sight of one stroke; for one stroke may easily be conceived as _not_
being _any_ letter.--But, in the same way as the word 'Devadatta'
conventionally denotes some particular man, so some particular stroke
apprehended by the eye may conventionally symbolise some particular
letter to be apprehended by the ear, and thus a particular stroke may be
the cause of the idea of a particular letter!--Quite so, we reply, but
on this explanation the real is known through the real; for both stroke
and conventional power of symbolisation are real. The case is analogous
to that of the idea of a buffalo being caused by the picture of a
buffalo; that idea rests on the similarity of picture and thing
depicted, and that similarity is something real. Nor can it be said
(with a view to proving the pûrvapaksha by another analogous instance)
that we meet with a cognition of the real by means of the unreal in the
case of sound (sabda) which is essentially uniform, but causes the
apprehension of different things by means of difference of tone (nâda).
For sound is the cause of the apprehension of different things in so far
only as we apprehend the connexion of sound manifesting itself in
various tones, with the different things indicated by those various
tones [FOOTNOTE 77:1]. And, moreover, it is not correct to argue on the
ground of the uniformity of sound; for only particular significant
sounds such as 'ga,' which can be apprehended by the ear, are really
'sound.'--All this proves that it is difficult indeed to show that the
knowledge of a true thing, viz. Brahman, can be derived from Scripture,
if Scripture--as based on Nescience--is itself untrue.

Our opponent may finally argue as follows:--Scripture is not unreal in
the same sense as a sky-flower is unreal; for antecedently to the
cognition of universal non-duality Scripture is viewed as something that
_is_, and only on the rise of that knowledge it is seen to be unreal. At
this latter time Scripture no longer is a means of cognising Brahman,
devoid of all difference, consisting of pure Intelligence; as long on
the other hand as it is such a means, Scripture _is_; for then we judge
'Scripture is.'--But to this we reply that if Scripture is not (true),
the judgment 'Scripture is' is false, and hence the knowledge resting on
false Scripture being false likewise, the object of that knowledge, i.e.
Brahman itself, is false. If the cognition of fire which rests on mist
being mistaken for smoke is false, it follows that the object of that
cognition, viz. fire itself, is likewise unreal. Nor can it be shown
that (in the case of Brahman) there is no possibility of ulterior
sublative cognition; for there may be such sublative cognition, viz. the
one expressed in the judgment 'the Reality is a Void.' And if you say
that this latter judgment rests on error, we point out that according to
yourself the knowledge of Brahman is also based on error. And of our
judgment (viz. 'the Reality is a Void') it may truly be said that all
further negation is impossible.--But there is no need to continue this
demolition of an altogether baseless theory.

[FOOTNOTE 77:1. And those manifestations of sound by means of various
tones are themselves something real.]




No scriptural texts teach a Brahman devoid of all difference.

We now turn to the assertion that certain scriptural texts, as e.g.
'Being only was this in the beginning,' are meant to teach that there
truly exists only one homogeneous substance, viz. Intelligence free from
all difference.--This we cannot allow. For the section in which the
quoted text occurs, in order to make good the initial declaration that
by the knowledge of one thing all things are known, shows that the
highest Brahman which is denoted by the term 'Being' is the substantial
and also the operative cause of the world; that it is all-knowing,
endowed with all powers; that its purposes come true; that it is the
inward principle, the support and the ruler of everything; and that
distinguished by these and other good qualities it constitutes the Self
of the entire world; and then finally proceeds to instruct Svetaketu
that this Brahman constitutes his Self also ('Thou art that'). We have
fully set forth this point in the Vedârtha-samgraha and shall establish
it in greater detail in the present work also, in the so-called
ârambhana-adhikarana.--In the same way the passage 'the higher knowledge
is that by which the Indestructible is apprehended, &c.' (Mu. Up. I, 1,
5) first denies of Brahman all the evil qualities connected with Prakriti,
and then teaches that to it there belong eternity, all-pervadingness,
subtilty, omnipresence, omniscience, imperishableness, creativeness with
regard to all beings, and other auspicious qualities. Now we maintain
that also the text 'True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman', does not
prove a substance devoid of all difference, for the reason that the
co-ordination of the terms of which it consists explains itself in so
far only as denoting one thing distinguished by several attributes. For
'co-ordination' (sâmânâdhikaranya, lit.'the abiding of several things in
a common substrate') means the reference (of several terms) to one
thing, there being a difference of reason for the application (of
several terms to one thing). Now whether we take the several terms,'
True','Knowledge','Infinite', in their primary sense, i. e. as denoting
qualities, or as denoting modes of being opposed to whatever is contrary
to those qualities; in either case we must needs admit a plurality of
causes for the application of those several terms to one thing. There is
however that difference between the two alternatives that in the former
case the terms preserve their primary meaning, while in the latter case
their denotative power depends on so-called 'implication' (lakshanâ).
Nor can it be said that the opposition in nature to non-knowledge,
&c.(which is the purport of the terms on the hypothesis of lakshanâ),
constitutes nothing more than the essential nature (of one
non-differenced substance; the three terms thus having one purport
only); for as such essential nature would be sufficiently apprehended
through one term, the employment of further terms would be purposeless.
This view would moreover be in conflict with co-ordination, as it would
not allow of difference of motive for several terms applied to one
thing. On the other hand it cannot be urged against the former
alternative that the distinction of several attributes predicated of one
thing implies a distinction in the thing to which the attributes belong,
and that from this it follows that the several terms denote several
things--a result which also could not be reconciled with
'co-ordination'; for what 'co-ordination' aims at is just to convey the
idea of one thing being qualified by several attributes. For the
grammarians define 'coordination' as the application, to one thing, of
several words, for the application of each of which there is a different
motive.

You have further maintained the following view:--In the text 'one only
without a second', the phrase 'without a second' negatives all duality
on Brahman's part even in so far as qualities are concerned. We must
therefore, according to the principle that all Sâkhâs convey the same
doctrine, assume that all texts which speak of Brahman as cause, aim at
setting forth an absolutely non-dual substance. Of Brahman thus
indirectly defined as a cause, the text 'The True, knowledge, infinite
is Brahman,' contains a direct definition; the Brahman here meant to be
defined must thus be devoid of all qualities. Otherwise, moreover, the
text would be in conflict with those other texts which declare Brahman
to be without qualities and blemish.--But this also cannot be admitted.
What the phrase 'without a second' really aims at intimating is that
Brahman possesses manifold powers, and this it does by denying the
existence of another ruling principle different from Brahman. That
Brahman actually possesses manifold powers the text shows further on,
'It thought, may I be many, may I grow forth,' and 'it sent forth fire,'
and so on.--But how are we to know that the mere phrase 'without a
second' is meant to negative the existence of all other causes in
general?--As follows, we reply. The clause 'Being only this was in the
beginning, one only,' teaches that Brahman when about to create
constitutes the substantial cause of the world. Here the idea of some
further operative cause capable of giving rise to the effect naturally
presents itself to the mind, and hence we understand that the added
clause 'without a second' is meant to negative such an additional cause.
If it were meant absolutely to deny all duality, it would deny also the
eternity and other attributes of Brahman which you yourself assume. You
in this case make just the wrong use of the principle of all the--Sâkhâs
containing the same doctrine; what this principle demands is that the
qualities attributed in all--Sâkhâs to Brahman as cause should be taken
over into the passage under discussion also. The same consideration
teaches us that also the text 'True, knowledge', &c., teaches Brahman to
possess attributes; for this passage has to be interpreted in agreement
with the texts referring to Brahman as a cause. Nor does this imply a
conflict with the texts which declare Brahman to be without qualities;
for those texts are meant to negative the evil qualities depending on
Prakriti.--Those texts again which refer to mere knowledge declare
indeed that knowledge is the essential nature of Brahman, but this does
not mean that mere knowledge constitutes the fundamental reality. For
knowledge constitutes the essential nature of a knowing subject only
which is the substrate of knowledge, in the same way as the sun, lamps,
and gems are the substrate of Light. That Brahman is a knowing subject
all scriptural texts declare; cp. 'He who is all knowing' (Mu. Up. I, 1,
9); 'It thought' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 3); 'This divine being thought' (Ch. Up.
VI, 3, 2); 'He thought, let me send forth the worlds' (Ait. Âr. II,4, 1,
2); 'He who arranges the wishes--as eternal of those who are not eternal,
as thinker of (other) thinkers, as one of many' (Ka. Up. II, 5, 13);
'There are two unborn ones--one who knows, one who does not know--one
strong, the other weak' (Svet. Up. I, 9); 'Let us know Him, the highest
of Lords, the great Lord, the highest deity of deities, the master of
masters, the highest above the god, the lord of the world, the adorable
one' (Svet. Up. VI, 7); 'Of him there is known no effect (body) or
instrument; no one is seen like unto him or better; his high power is
revealed as manifold, forming his essential nature, as knowledge,
strength, and action' (Svet. Up. VI, 8); 'That is the Self, free from
sin, ageless, deathless, griefless, free from hunger and thirst, whose
wishes are true, whose purposes are true' (Ch. Up. VIII, 1, 5). These
and other texts declare that to Brahman, whose essential nature is
knowledge, there belong many excellent qualities--among which that of
being a knowing subject stands first, and that Brahman is free from all
evil qualities. That the texts referring to Brahman as free from
qualities, and those which speak of it as possessing qualities, have
really one and the same object may be inferred from the last of the
passages quoted above; the earlier part of which--'free from sin,' up to
'free from thirst'--denies of Brahman all evil qualities, while its
latter part--'whose wishes are true,' and so on--asserts of its certain
excellent qualities. As thus there is no contradiction between the two
classes of texts, there is no reason whatever to assume that either of
them has for its object something that is false.--With regard to the
concluding passage of the Taittiriya-text, 'from whence all speech,
together with the mind, turns away, unable to reach it [FOOTNOTE 82:1],'
we point out that with the passage 'From terror of it the wind blows,'
there begins a declaration of the qualities of Brahman, and that the
next section 'one hundred times that human bliss,' &c., makes statements
as to the relative bliss enjoyed by the different classes of embodied
souls; the concluding passage 'He who knows the bliss of that Brahman
from whence all speech, together with the mind, turns away unable to
reach it,' hence must be taken as proclaiming with emphasis the infinite
nature of Brahman's auspicious qualities. Moreover, a clause in the
chapter under discussion--viz. 'he obtains all desires, together with
Brahman the all-wise' (II, 1)--which gives information as to the fruit
of the knowledge of Brahman clearly declares the infinite nature of the
qualities of the highest all-wise Brahman. The desires are the
auspicious qualities of Brahman which are the objects of desire; the man
who knows Brahman obtains, together with Brahman, all qualities of it.
The expression 'together with' is meant to bring out the primary
importance of the qualities; as also described in the so-called dahara-
vidyâ (Ch. Up. VIII, 1). And that fruit and meditation are of the same
character (i.e. that in meditations on Brahman its qualities are the
chief matter of meditation, just as these qualities are the principal
point in Brahman reached by the Devotee) is proved by the text
'According to what a man's thought is in this world, so will he be after
he has departed this life' (Ch. Up. III, 14, 1). If it be said that the
passage 'By whom it is not thought by him it is thought', 'not
understood by those who understand' (Ke. Up. II, 3), declares Brahman
not to be an object of knowledge; we deny this, because were it so,
certain other texts would not teach that final Release results from
knowledge; cp. 'He who knows Brahman obtains the Highest' (Taitt. Up. II,
1, 1); 'He knows Brahman, he becomes Brahman.' And, moreover, the text
'He who knows Brahman as non-existing becomes himself non-existing; he
who knows Brahman as existing, him we know himself as existing' (Taitt
Up. II, 6, 1), makes the existence and non-existence of the Self
dependent on the existence and non-existence of knowledge which has
Brahman for its object. We thus conclude that all scriptural texts
enjoin just the knowledge of Brahman for the sake of final Release. This
knowledge is, as we already know, of the nature of meditation, and what
is to be meditated on is Brahman as possessing qualities. (The text from
the Ke. Up. then explains itself as follows:--) We are informed by the
passage 'from whence speech together with mind turns away, being unable
to reach it', that the infinite Brahman with its unlimited excellences
cannot be defined either by mind or speech as being so or so much, and
from this we conclude the Kena text to mean that Brahman is not thought
and not understood by those who understand it to be of a definitely
limited nature; Brahman in truth being unlimited. If the text did not
mean this, it would be self-contradictory, parts of it saying that
Brahman is _not_ thought and _not_ understood, and other parts, that it
_is_ thought and _is_ understood.

Now as regards the assertion that the text 'Thou mayest not see the seer
of seeing; thou mayest not think the thinker of thinking' (Bri. Up. III,
5, 2), denies the existence of a seeing and thinking subject different
from mere seeing and thinking--This view is refuted by the following
interpretation. The text addresses itself to a person who has formed the
erroneous opinion that the quality of consciousness or knowledge does
not constitute the essential nature of the knower, but belongs to it
only as an adventitious attribute, and tells him 'Do not view or think
the Self to be such, but consider the seeing and thinking Self to have
seeing and thinking for its essential nature.'--Or else this text may
mean that the embodied Self which is the seer of seeing and the thinker
of thinking should be set aside, and that only the highest Self--the
inner Self of all beings--should be meditated upon.--Otherwise a
conflict would arise with texts declaring the knowership of the Self,
such as 'whereby should he know the knower?' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 15).

Your assertion that the text 'Bliss is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. III, 6, 1)
proves pure Bliss to constitute the essential nature of Brahman is
already disposed of by the refutation of the view that knowledge
(consciousness) constitutes the essential nature of Brahman; Brahman
being in reality the substrate only of knowledge. For by bliss we
understand a pleasing state of consciousness. Such passages as
'consciousness, bliss is Brahman,' therefore mean 'consciousness--the
essential character of which is bliss--is Brahman.' On this identity of
the two things there rests that homogeneous character of Brahman, so
much insisted upon by yourself. And in the same way as numerous passages
teach that Brahman, while having knowledge for its essential nature, is
at the same time a knowing subject; so other passages, speaking of
Brahman as something separate from mere bliss, show it to be not mere
bliss but a subject enjoying bliss; cp. 'That is one bliss of Brahman'
(Taitt. Up. II, 8, 4); 'he knowing the bliss of Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II,
9, 1). To be a subject enjoying bliss is in fact the same as to be a
conscious subject.

We now turn to the numerous texts which, according to the view of our
opponent, negative the existence of plurality.--'Where there is duality
as it were' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 15); 'There is not any plurality here; from
death to death goes he who sees here any plurality' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 19);
'But when for him the Self alone has become all, by what means, and whom,
should he see?' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 15) &c.--But what all these texts deny
is only plurality in so far as contradicting that unity of the world
which depends on its being in its entirety an effect of Brahman, and
having Brahman for its inward ruling principle and its true Self. They
do not, on the other hand, deny that plurality on Brahman's part which
depends on its intention to become manifold--a plurality proved by the
text 'May I be many, may I grow forth' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 3). Nor can our
opponent urge against this that, owing to the denial of plurality
contained in other passages this last text refers to something not real;
for it is an altogether laughable assertion that Scripture should at
first teach the doctrine, difficult to comprehend, that plurality as
suggested by Perception and the other means of Knowledge belongs to
Brahman also, and should afterwards negative this very doctrine!

Nor is it true that the text 'If he makes but the smallest "antaram" (i.
e. difference, interval, break) in it there is fear for him' (Taitt. Up.
II, 7) implies that he who sees plurality within Brahman encounters fear.
For the other text 'All this is Brahman; let a man meditate with calm
mind on all this as beginning, ending and breathing in it, i.e. Brahman'
(Ch. Up. III, 14, 1) teaches directly that reflection on the plurality
of Brahman is the cause of peace of mind. For this passage declares that
peace of mind is produced by a reflection on the entire world as
springing from, abiding within, and being absorbed into Brahman, and
thus having Brahman for its Self; and as thus the view of Brahman
constituting the Self of the world with all its manifold distinctions of
gods, men, animals, inanimate matter and so on, is said to be the cause
of peace of mind, and, consequently, of absence of fear, that same view
surely cannot be a _cause_ of fear!--But how then is it that the Taitt.
text declares that 'there is fear for him'?--That text, we reply,
declares in its earlier part that rest in Brahman is the cause of
fearlessness ('when he finds freedom from fear, rest, in that which is
invisible, incorporeal, undefined, unsupported; then he has obtained
fearlessness'); its latter part therefore means that fear takes place
when there is an interval, a break, in this resting in Brahman. As the
great Rishi says 'When Vâsudeva is not meditated on for an hour or even
a moment only; that is loss, that is great calamity, that is error, that
is change.'

The Sûtra III, 2, ii does not, as our opponent alleges, refer to a
Brahman free from all difference, but to Brahman as possessing
attributes--as we shall show in its place. And the Sûtra IV, 2, 3
declares that the things seen in dreams are mere 'Mâyâ' because they
differ in character from the things perceived in the waking state; from
which it follows that the latter things are real.

[FOOTNOTE 82:1. Which passage appears to refer to a nirguna brahman,
whence it might be inferred that the connected initial passage--'Satyam
jñanam,' &c.--has a similar purport.]




Nor do Smriti and Purâna teach such a doctrine.

Nor is it true that also according to Smriti and Purânas only non-
differenced consciousness is real and everything else unreal.--'He who
knows me as unborn and without a beginning, the supreme Lord of the
worlds' (Bha. Gî. X, 3); 'All beings abide in me, I abide not in them.
Nay, the beings abide not in me--behold my lordly power. My Self
bringing forth the beings supports them but does not abide in them' (Bha.
Gî. IX, 4, 5); 'I am the origin and the dissolution of the entire world;
higher than I there is nothing else: on me all this is strung as pearls
on a thread' (Bha. Gî. VII, 6, 7); 'Pervading this entire Universe by a
portion (of mine) I abide' (Bha. Gî. X, 42); 'But another, the highest
Person, is called the highest Self who, pervading the three worlds
supports them, the eternal Lord. Because I transcend the Perishable and
am higher than the Imperishable even, I am among the people and in the
Veda celebrated as the supreme Person' (Bha. Gî. XV, 17, 18).

'He transcends the fundamental matter of all beings, its modifications,
properties and imperfections; he transcends all investing (obscuring)
influences, he who is the Self of all. Whatever (room) there is in the
interstices of the world is filled by him; all auspicious qualities
constitute his nature. The whole creation of beings is taken out of a
small part of his power. Assuming at will whatever form he desires he
bestows benefits on the whole world effected by him. Glory, strength,
dominion, wisdom, energy, power and other attributes are collected in
him, Supreme of the supreme in whom no troubles abide, ruler over high
and low, lord in collective and distributive form, non-manifest and
manifest, universal lord, all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, highest
Lord. The knowledge by which that perfect, pure, highest, stainless
homogeneous (Brahman) is known or perceived or comprehended--that is
knowledge: all else is ignorance' (Vishnu Purâna VI, 5, 82-87).--'To
that pure one of mighty power, the highest Brahman to which no term is
applicable, the cause of all causes, the name "Bhagavat" is suitable.
The letter bha implies both the cherisher and supporter; the letter ga
the leader, mover and creator. The two syllables bhaga indicate the six
attributes--dominion, strength, glory, splendour, wisdom, dispassion.
That in him--the universal Self, the Self of the beings--all beings
dwell and that he dwells in all, this is the meaning of the letter va.
Wisdom, might, strength, dominion, glory, without any evil qualities,
are all denoted by the word bhagavat. This great word bhagavat is the
name of Vâsudeva who is the highest Brahman--and of no one else. This
word which denotes persons worthy of reverence in general is used in its
primary sense with reference to Vâsudeva only; in a derived sense with
regard to other persons' (Vi. Pu. VI, 5, 72 ff.); 'Where all these
powers abide, that is the form of him who is the universal form: that is
the great form of Hari. That form produces in its sport forms endowed
with all powers, whether of gods or men or animals. For the purpose of
benefiting the worlds, not springing from work (karman) is this action
of the unfathomable one; all-pervading, irresistible' (Vi. Pu. VI, 7, 69-
71); 'Him who is of this kind, stainless, eternal, all-pervading,
imperishable, free from all evil, named Vishnu, the highest abode' (Vi.
Pu. I, 22,53); 'He who is the highest of the high, the Person, the
highest Self, founded on himself; who is devoid of all the
distinguishing characteristics of colour, caste and the like; who is
exempt from birth, change, increase, decay and death; of whom it can
only be said that he ever is. He is everywhere and in him everything
abides; hence he is called Vâsudeva by those who know. He is Brahman,
eternal, supreme, imperishable, undecaying; of one essential nature and
ever pure, as free from all defects. This whole world is Brahman,
comprising within its nature the Evolved and the Unevolved; and also
existing in the form of the Person and in that of time' (Vi. Pu. I, 2,
10-14); 'The Prakriti about which I told and which is Evolved as well as
Unevolved, and the Person--both these are merged in the highest Self.
The highest Self is the support of all, the highest Lord; as Vishnu he
is praised in the Vedas and the Vedânta-texts' (Vi. Pu. VI, 4, 38, 39).
'Two forms are there of that Brahman, one material, the other immaterial.
These two forms, perishable and imperishable, are within all things: the
imperishable one is the highest Brahman, the perishable one this whole
world. As the light of a fire burning in one place spreads all around,
so the energy of the highest Brahman constitutes this entire world' (Vi.
Pu. I, 23,53-55). 'The energy of Vishnu is the highest, that which is
called the embodied soul is inferior; and there is another third energy
called karman or Nescience, actuated by which the omnipresent energy of
the embodied soul perpetually undergoes the afflictions of worldly
existence. Obscured by Nescience the energy of the embodied soul is
characterised in the different beings by different degrees of
perfection' (Vi. Pu. VI, 7, 61-63).

These and other texts teach that the highest Brahman is essentially free
from all imperfection whatsoever, comprises within itself all auspicious
qualities, and finds its pastime in originating, preserving, reabsorbing,
pervading, and ruling the universe; that the entire complex of
intelligent and non-intelligent beings (souls and matter) in all their
different estates is real, and constitutes the form, i.e. the body of
the highest Brahman, as appears from those passages which co-ordinate it
with Brahman by means of terms such as sarîra (body), rûpa (form), tanu
(body), amsa (part), sakti (power), vibhûti (manifestation of power),
and so on;--that the souls which are a manifestation of Brahman's power
exist in their own essential nature, and also, through their connexion
with matter, in the form of embodied souls (kshetrajña);--and that the
embodied souls, being engrossed by Nescience in the form of good and
evil works, do not recognise their essential nature, which is knowledge,
but view themselves as having the character of material things.--The
outcome of all this is that we have to cognise Brahman as carrying
plurality within itself, and the world, which is the manifestation of
his power, as something real.

When now the text, in the sloka 'where all difference has vanished' (Vi.
Pu. VI, 7, 53), declares that the Self, although connected with the
different effects of Prakriti, such as divine, human bodies, and so on,
yet is essentially free from all such distinctions, and therefore not
the object of the words denoting those different classes of beings, but
to be defined as mere knowledge and Being; to be known by the Self and
not to be reached by the mind of the practitioner of Yoga (yogayuj);
this must in no way be understood as denying the reality of the world.--
But how is this known?--As follows, we reply. The chapter of the Purâna
in which that sloka occurs at first declares concentration (Yoga) to be
the remedy of all the afflictions of the Samsâra; thereupon explains the
different stages of Yoga up to the so-called pratyâhâra (complete
restraining of the senses from receiving external impressions); then, in
order to teach the attainment of the 'perfect object' (subhâsraya)
required for dhâranâ, declares that the highest Brahman, i. e. Vishnu,
possesses two forms, called powers (sakti), viz. a denned one (mûrta)
and an undefined one (amûrta); and then teaches that a portion of the
'defined' form, viz. the embodied soul (kshetrajña), which is
distinguished by its connexion with matter and involved in Nescience--
that is termed 'action,' and constitutes a third power--is not perfect.
The chapter further teaches that a portion of the undefined form which
is free from Nescience called action, separated from all matter, and
possessing the character of pure knowledge, is also not the 'perfect
object,' since it is destitute of essential purity; and, finally,
declares that the 'perfect object' is to be found in that defined form
which is special to Bhagavat, and which is the abode of the three powers,
viz. that non-defined form which is the highest power, that non-defined
form which is termed embodied soul, and constitutes the secondary
(apara) power, and Nescience in the form of work--which is called the
third power, and is the cause of the Self, which is of the essence of
the highest power, passing into the state of embodied soul. This defined
form (which is the 'perfect object') is proved by certain Vedânta-texts,
such as 'that great person of sun-like lustre' (Svet. Up. III, 8). We
hence must take the sloka, 'in which all differences vanish,' &c., to
mean that the pure Self (the Self in so far as knowledge only) is not
capable of constituting the 'perfect object.' Analogously two other
passages declare 'Because this cannot be reflected upon by the beginner
in Yoga, the second (form) of Vishnu is to be meditated upon by Yogins-
the highest abode.' 'That in which all these powers have their abode,
that is the other great form of Hari, different from the (material)
Visva form.'

In an analogous manner, Parâsara declares that Brahmâ, Katurmukha,
Sanaka, and similar mighty beings which dwell within this world, cannot
constitute the 'perfect object' because they are involved in Nescience;
after that goes on to say that the beings found in the Samsâra are in
the same condition--for they are essentially devoid of purity since they
reach their true nature, only later on, when through Yoga knowledge has
arisen in them--; and finally teaches that the essential individual
nature of the highest Brahman, i.e. Vishnu, constitutes the 'perfect
object.' 'From Brahmâ down to a blade of grass, all living beings that
dwell within this world are in the power of the Samsâra due to works,
and hence no profit can be derived by the devout from making them
objects of their meditation. They are all implicated in Nescience, and
stand within the sphere of the Samsâra; knowledge arises in them only
later on, and they are thus of no use in meditation. Their knowledge
does not belong to them by essential nature, for it comes to them
through something else. Therefore the stainless Brahman which possesses
essential knowledge,' &c. &c.--All this proves that the passage 'in
which all difference vanishes' does not mean to deny the reality of the
world.

Nor, again, does the passage 'that which has knowledge for its essential
nature' (Vi. Pu. 1,2,6) imply that the whole complex of things different
from knowledge is false; for it declares only that the appearance of the
Self--the essential nature of which is knowledge--as gods, men, and so
on, is erroneous. A declaration that the appearance of mother o' pearl
as silver is founded on error surely does not imply that all the silver
in the world is unreal!--But if, on the ground of an insight into the
oneness of Brahman and the world--as expressed in texts where the two
appear in co-ordination--a text declares that it is an error to view
Brahman, whose essential nature is knowledge, under the form of material
things, this after all implies that the whole aggregate of things is
false!--By no means, we rejoin. As our sástra distinctly teaches that
the highest Brahman, i. e. Vishnu, is free from all imperfections
whatsoever, comprises within himself all auspicious qualities, and
reveals his power in mighty manifestations, the view of the world's
reality cannot possibly be erroneous. That information as to the oneness
of two things by means of co-ordination does not allow of sublation (of
either of the two), and is non-contradictory, we shall prove further on.
Hence also the sloka last referred to does not sublate the reality of
the world.

'That from whence these beings are born, by which, when born, they live,
into which they enter when they die, endeavour to know that; that is
Brahman' (Taitt. Up. III, 1). From this scriptural text we ascertain
that Brahman is the cause of the origination, and so on, of the world.
After this we learn from a Purâna text ('He should make the Veda grow by
means of Itihâsa and Purâna; the Veda fears that a man of little reading
may do it harm') that the Veda should be made to grow by Itihâsa and
Purâna. By this 'making to grow' we have to understand the elucidation
of the sense of the Vedic texts studied by means of other texts,
promulgated by men who had mastered the entire Veda and its contents,
and by the strength of their devotion had gained full intuition of Vedic
truth. Such 'making to grow' must needs be undertaken, since the purport
of the entire Veda with all its Sâkhâs cannot be fathomed by one who has
studied a small part only, and since without knowing that purport we
cannot arrive at any certitude.

The Vishnu Purâna relates how Maitreya, wishing to have his knowledge of
Vedic matters strengthened by the holy Parâsara, who through the favour
of Pulastya and Vasishtha had obtained an insight into the true nature
of the highest divinity, began to question Parâsara, 'I am desirous to
hear from thee how this world originated, and how it will again
originate in future, and of what it consists, and whence proceed animate
and inanimate things; how and into what it has been resolved, and into
what it will in future be resolved?' &c. (Vi. Pu. I, 1). The questions
asked refer to the essential nature of Brahman, the different modes of
the manifestation of its power, and the different results of
propitiating it. Among the questions belonging to the first category,
the question 'whence proceed animate and inanimate things?' relates to
the efficient and the material cause of the world, and hence the clause
'of what the world consists' is to be taken as implying a question as to
what constitutes the Self of this world, which is the object of creation,
sustentation, and dissolution. The reply to this question is given in
the words 'and the world is He.' Now the identity expressed by this
clause is founded thereon that he (i.e. Brahman or Vishnu) pervades the
world as its Self in the character of its inward Ruler; and is not
founded on unity of substance of the pervading principle and the world
pervaded. The phrase 'consists of' (-maya) does not refer to an effect
(so that the question asked would be as to the causal substance of which
this world is an effect), for a separate question on this point would be
needless. Nor does the--maya express, as it sometimes does-e.g. in the
case of prana-maya [FOOTNOTE 92:1], the own sense of the word to which it
is attached; for in that case the form of the reply 'and the world is
He' (which implies a distinction between the world and Vishnu) would be
inappropriate; the reply would in that case rather be 'Vishnu only.'
What 'maya' actually denotes here is abundance, prevailingness, in
agreement with Pânini, V, 4, 21, and the meaning is that Brahman
prevails in the world in so far as the entire world constitutes its body.
The co-ordination of the two words 'the world' and 'He' thus rests on
that relation between the two, owing to which the world is the body of
Brahman, and Brahman the Self of the world. If, on the other hand, we
maintained that the sâstra aims only at inculcating the doctrine of one
substance free from all difference, there would be no sense in all those
questions and answers, and no sense in an entire nastra devoted to the
explanation of that one thing. In that case there would be room for one
question only, viz. 'what is the substrate of the erroneous imagination
of a world?' and for one answer to this question, viz. 'pure
consciousness devoid of all distinction!'--And if the co-ordination
expressed in the clause 'and the world is he' was meant to set forth the
absolute oneness of the world and Brahman, then it could not be held
that Brahman possesses all kinds of auspicious qualities, and is opposed
to all evil; Brahman would rather become the abode of all that is impure.
All this confirms the conclusion that the co-ordination expressed in
that clause is to be understood as directly teaching the relation
between a Self and its body.--The sloka, 'From Vishnu the world has
sprung: in him he exists: he is the cause of the subsistence and
dissolution of this world: and the world is he' (Vi. Pu. I, 1, 35),
states succinctly what a subsequent passage--beginning with 'the highest
of the high' (Vi. Pu. I, 2, 10)--sets forth in detail. Now there the
sloka,'to the unchangeable one' (I, 2, 1), renders homage to the holy
Vishnu, who is the highest Brahman in so far as abiding within his own
nature, and then the text proceeds to glorify him in his threefold form
as Hiranyagarbha, Hari, and Sankara, as Pradhâna, Time, and as the
totality of embodied souls in their combined and distributed form. Here
the sloka, 'Him whose essential nature is knowledge' (I, 2, 6),
describes the aspect of the highest Self in so far as abiding in the
state of discrete embodied souls; the passage cannot therefore be
understood as referring to a substance free from all difference. If the
sâstra aimed at teaching that the erroneous conception of a manifold
world has for its substrate a Brahman consisting of non-differenced
intelligence, there would be room neither for the objection raised in I,
3, I ('How can we attribute agency creative and otherwise to Brahman
which is without qualities, unlimited, pure, stainless?') nor for the
refutation of that objection, 'Because the powers of all things are the
objects of (true) knowledge excluding all (bad) reasoning, therefore
there belong to Brahman also such essential powers as the power of
creating, preserving, and so on, the world; just as heat essentially
belongs to fire [FOOTNOTE 94:1].' In that case the objection would rather
be made in the following form: 'How can Brahman, which is without
qualities, be the agent in the creation, preservation, and so on, of the
world?' and the answer would be, 'Creation by Brahman is not something
real, but something erroneously imagined.'--The purport of the objection
as it stands in the text is as follows: 'We observe that action creative
and otherwise belongs to beings endowed with qualities such as goodness,
and so on, not perfect, and subject to the influence of karman; how then
can agency creative, and so on, be attributed to Brahman which is devoid
of qualities, perfect, not under the influence of karman, and incapable
of any connexion with action?' And the reply is, 'There is nothing
unreasonable in holding that Brahman as being of the nature described
above, and different in kind from all things perceived, should possess
manifold powers; just as fire, which is different in kind from water and
all other material substances, possesses the quality of heat and other
qualities.' The slokas also, which begin with the words 'Thou alone art
real' (Vi. Pu. I, 4, 38 ff.), do not assert that the whole world is
unreal, but only that, as Brahman is the Self of the world, the latter
viewed apart from Brahman is not real. This the text proceeds to confirm,
'thy greatness it is by which all movable and immovable things are
pervaded.' This means--because all things movable and immovable are
pervaded by thee, therefore all this world has thee for its Self, and
hence 'there is none other than thee' and thus thou being the Self of
all art alone real. Such being the doctrine intended to be set forth,
the text rightly says, 'this all-pervasiveness of thine is thy
greatness'; otherwise it would have to say, 'it is thy error.' Were this
latter view intended, words such as 'Lord of the world,' 'thou,' &c.,
could not, moreover, be taken in their direct sense, and there would
arise a contradiction with the subject-matter of the entire chapter, viz.
the praise of the Holy one who in the form of a mighty boar had uplifted
in play the entire earth.--Because this entire world is thy form in so
far as it is pervaded as its Self by thee whose true nature is knowledge;
therefore those who do not possess that devotion which enables men to
view thee as the Self of all, erroneously view this world as consisting
only of gods, men, and other beings; this is the purport of the next
sloka, 'this which is seen.'--And it is an error not only to view the
world which has its real Self in thee as consisting of gods, men, and so
on, but also to consider the Selfs whose true nature is knowledge as
being of the nature of material beings such as gods, men, and the like;
this is the meaning of the next sloka, 'this world whose true nature is
knowledge.'--Those wise men, on the other hand, who have an insight into
the essentially intelligent Self, and whose minds are cleared by
devotion--the means of apprehending the Holy one as the universal Self--,
they view this entire world with all its manifold bodies--the effects of
primeval matter--as thy body--a body the Self of which is constituted by
knowledge abiding apart from its world-body; this is the meaning of the
following sloka: 'But those who possess knowledge,' &c.--If the
different slokas were not interpreted in this way, they would be mere
unmeaning reiterations; their constitutive words could not be taken in
their primary sense; and we should come into conflict with the sense of
the passages, the subject-matter of the chapter, and the purport of the
entire sâstra. The passage, further, 'Of that Self although it exists in
one's own and in other bodies, the knowledge is of one kind' (Vi. Pu. II,
14, 31 ff.), refers to that view of duality according to which the
different Selfs--although equal in so far as they are all of the essence
of knowledge--are constituted into separate beings, gods, men, &c., by
their connexion with different portions of matter all of which are
modifications of primary matter, and declares that view to be false. But
this does not imply a denial of the duality which holds good between
matter on the one hand and Self on the other: what the passage means is
that the Self which dwells in the different material bodies of gods, men,
and so on, is of one and the same kind. So the Holy one himself has said,
'In the dog and the low man eating dog's flesh the wise see the same';
'Brahman, without any imperfection, is the same' (Bha. Gî. V, 18, 19).
And, moreover, the clause 'Of the Self although existing in one's own
and in other bodies' directly declares that a thing different from the
body is distributed among one's own and other bodies.

Nor does the passage 'If there is some other (para) different (anya)
from me,' &c. (Vi. Pu. II, 13, 86) intimate the oneness of the Self; for
in that case the two words 'para' and 'anya' would express one meaning
only (viz. 'other' in the sense of 'distinct from'). The word 'para'
there denotes a Self distinct from that of one's own Self, and the word
'anya' is introduced to negative a character different from that of pure
intelligence: the sense of the passage thus is 'If there is some Self
distinct from mine, and of a character different from mine which is pure
knowledge, then it can be said that I am of such a character and he of a
different character'; but this is not the case, because all Selfs are
equal in as far as their nature consists of pure knowledge.--Also the
sloka beginning 'Owing to the difference of the holes of the flute' (Vi.
Pu. II, 14, 32) only declares that the inequality of the different Selfs
is owing not to their essential nature, but to their dwelling in
different material bodies; and does not teach the oneness of all Selfs.
The different portions of air, again, passing through the different
holes of the flute--to which the many Selfs are compared--are not said
to be one but only to be equal in character; they are one in character
in so far as all of them are of the nature of air, while the different
names of the successive notes of the musical scale are applied to them
because they pass out by the different holes of the instrument. For an
analogous reason the several Selfs are denominated by different names,
viz. gods and so on. Those material things also which are parts of the
substance fire, or water, or earth, are one in so far only as they
consist of one kind of substance; but are not absolutely one; those
different portions of air, therefore, which constitute the notes of the
scale are likewise not absolutely one. Where the Purâna further says 'He
(or "that") I am and thou art He (or "that"); all this universe that has
Self for its true nature is He (or "that"); abandon the error of
distinction' (Vi. Pu. II, 16, 23); the word 'that' refers to the
intelligent character mentioned previously which is common to all Selfs,
and the co-ordination stated in the two clauses therefore intimates that
intelligence is the character of the beings denoted 'I' and 'Thou';
'abandon therefore,' the text goes on to say, 'the illusion that the
difference of outward form, divine and so on, causes a corresponding
difference in the Selfs.' If this explanation were not accepted (but
absolute non-difference insisted upon) there would be no room for the
references to difference which the passages quoted manifestly contain.

Accordingly the text goes on to say that the king acted on the
instruction he had received, 'he abandoned the view of difference,
having recognised the Real.'--But on what ground do we arrive at this
decision (viz. that the passage under discussion is not meant to teach
absolute non-duality)?--On the ground, we reply, that the proper topic
of the whole section is to teach the distinction of the Self and the
body--for this is evident from what is said in an early part of the
section, 'as the body of man, characterised by hands, feet, and the like,'
&c. (Vi. Pu. II, 13, 85).--For analogous reasons the sloka 'When that
knowledge which gives rise to distinction' &c. (Vi. Pu. VI, 7, 94)
teaches neither the essential unity of all Selfs nor the oneness of the
individual Self and the highest Self. And that the embodied soul and the
highest Self should be essentially one, is no more possible than that
the body and the Self should be one. In agreement herewith Scripture
says, 'Two birds, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of
them eats the sweet fruit, the other looks on without eating' (Mu. Up.
III, 1, 1). 'There are two drinking their reward in the world of their
own works, entered into the cave, dwelling on the highest summit. Those
who know Brahman call them shade and light,' &c. (Ka. Up. I, 3, 1). And
in this sâstra also (i.e. the Vishnu Purâna) there are passages of
analogous import; cp. the stanzas quoted above, 'He transcends the
causal matter, all effects, all imperfections such as the gunas' &c.

The Sûtras also maintain the same doctrine, cp. I, 1, 17; I, 2, 21; II,
1, 22; and others. They therein follow Scripture, which in several
places refers to the highest and the individual soul as standing over
against each other, cp. e.g. 'He who dwells in the Self and within the
Self, whom the Self does not know, whose body the Self is, who rules the
Self from within' (Bri. Up. III, 7, 22); 'Embraced by the intelligent
Self (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 21); 'Mounted by the intelligent Self (IV, 3, 35).
Nor can the individual Self become one with the highest Self by freeing
itself from Nescience, with the help of the means of final Release; for
that which admits of being the abode of Nescience can never become quite
incapable of it. So the Purâna says, 'It is false to maintain that the
individual Self and the highest Self enter into real union; for one
substance cannot pass over into the nature of another substance.'
Accordingly the Bhagavad Gîtâ declares that the released soul attains
only the same attributes as the highest Self. 'Abiding by this knowledge,
they, attaining to an equality of attributes with me, do neither come
forth at the time of creation, nor are troubled at the time of general
destruction' (XIV, 2). Similarly our Purâna says, 'That Brahman leads
him who meditates on it, and who is capable of change, towards its own
being (âtmabhâva), in the same way as the magnet attracts the iron' (Vi.
Pu. VI, 7, 30). Here the phrase 'leads him towards his own being' means
'imparts to him a nature like his own' (not 'completely identifies him
with itself'); for the attracted body does not become essentially one
with the body attracting.

The same view will be set forth by the Sûtrakâra in IV, 4, 17; 21, and I,
3, 2. The Vritti also says (with reference to Sû. IV, 4, 17) 'with the
exception of the business of the world (the individual soul in the state
of release) is equal (to the highest Self) through light'; and the
author of the Dramidabhâshya says, 'Owing to its equality (sâyujya) with
the divinity the disembodied soul effects all things, like the divinity.'
The following scriptural texts establish the same view, 'Those who
depart from hence, after having known the Self and those true desires,
for them there is freedom in all the worlds' (Ch. Up. VIII, 1, 6); 'He
who knows Brahman reaches the Highest' (Taitt. Up. II, 1); 'He obtains
all desires together with the intelligent Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1);
'Having reached the Self which consists of bliss, he wanders about in
these worlds having as much food and assuming as many forms as he likes'
(Taitt. Up. III, 10, 5); 'There he moves about' (Ch. Up. VIII, 12, 3);
'For he is flavour; for only after having perceived a flavour can any
one perceive pleasure' (Taitt. Up. II, 7); 'As the flowing rivers go to
their setting in the sea, losing name and form; thus he who knows, freed
from name and form, goes to the divine Person who is higher than the
high' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 8); 'He who knows, shaking off good and evil,
reaches the highest oneness, free from stain' (Mu. Up. III, 1, 3).

The objects of meditation in all the vidyâs which refer to the highest
Brahman, are Brahman viewed as having qualities, and the fruit of all
those meditations. For this reason the author of the Sûtras declares
that there is option among the different vidyâs--cp. Ve. Sû. III, 3, II;
III., 3, 59. In the same way the Vâkyakâra teaches that the qualified
Brahman only is the object of meditation, and that there is option of
vidyâs; where he says '(Brahman) connected (with qualities), since the
meditation refers to its qualities.' The same view is expressed by the
Bhâshyakâra in the passage beginning 'Although he who bases himself on
the knowledge of Being.'--Texts such as 'He knows Brahman, he becomes
Brahman' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 9) have the same purport, for they must be
taken in connexion with the other texts (referring to the fate of him
who knows) such as 'Freed from name and form he goes to the divine
Person who is higher than the high'; 'Free from stain he reaches the
highest oneness' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 8; III, 1,3); 'Having approached the
highest light he manifests himself in his own shape' (Kh. Up. VIII, 3,
4). Of him who has freed himself from his ordinary name and form, and
all the distinctions founded thereon, and has assumed the uniform
character of intelligence, it may be said that he is of the character of
Brahman.--Our Purâna also propounds the same view. The sloka (VI, 7, 91),
'Knowledge is the means to obtain what is to be obtained, viz. the
highest Brahman: the Self is to be obtained, freed from all kinds of
imagination,' states that that Self which through meditation on Brahman,
is freed from all imagination so as to be like Brahman, is the object to
be attained. (The three forms of imagination to be got rid of are so-
called karma-bhâvanâ, brahma-bhâvanâ and a combination of the two. See
Vi. Pu. VI, 7.) The text then goes on, 'The embodied Self is the user of
the instrument, knowledge is its instrument; having accomplished Release--
whereby his object is attained--he may leave off.' This means that the
Devotee is to practise meditation on the highest Brahman until it has
accomplished its end, viz. the attainment of the Self free from all
imagination.--The text continues, 'Having attained the being of its
being, then he is non-different from the highest Self; his difference is
founded on Nescience only.' This sloka describes the state of the
released soul. 'Its being' is the being, viz. the character or nature,
of Brahman; but this does not mean absolute oneness of nature; because
in this latter case the second 'being' would be out of place and the
sloka would contradict what had been said before. The meaning is: when
the soul has attained the nature of Brahman, i.e. when it has freed
itself from all false imagination, then it is non-different from the
highest Self. This non-difference is due to the soul, as well as the
highest Self, having the essential nature of uniform intelligence. The
difference of the soul--presenting itself as the soul of a god, a man,
&c.--from the highest Self is not due to its essential nature, but rests
on the basis of Nescience in the form of work: when through meditation
on Brahman this basis is destroyed, the difference due to it comes to an
end, and the soul no longer differs from the highest Self. So another
text says, 'The difference of things of one nature is due to the
investing agency of outward works; when the difference of gods, men,
&c., is destroyed, it has no longer any investing power' (Vi. Pu. II,
14, 33).--The text then adds a further explanation, 'when the knowledge
which gives rise to manifold difference is completely destroyed, who
then will produce difference that has no real existence?' The manifold
difference is the distinction of gods, men, animals, and inanimate
things: compare the saying of Saunaka:'this fourfold distinction is
founded on false knowledge.' The Self has knowledge for its essential
nature; when Nescience called work--which is the cause of the manifold
distinctions of gods, men, &c.--has been completely destroyed through
meditation on the highest Brahman, who then will bring about the
distinction of gods, & c., from the highest Self--a distinction which in
the absence of a cause cannot truly exist.--That Nescience is called
karman (work) is stated in the same chapter of the Purâna (st.
61--avidyâ karmasamjña).

The passage in the Bhagavad Gîtâ, 'Know me to be the kshetrajña' (XIII,
2), teaches the oneness of all in so far as the highest Self is the
inward ruler of all; taken in any other sense it would be in conflict
with other texts, such as 'All creatures are the Perishable, the
unchanging soul is the Imperishable; but another is the highest Person'
(Bha. Gî. XV, 16). In other places the Divine one declares that as
inward Ruler he is the Self of all: 'The Lord dwells in the heart of all
creatures' (XVIII, 61), and 'I dwell within the heart of all' (XV, 15).
and 'I am the Self which has its abode within all creatures' (X, 20).
The term 'creature' in these passages denotes the entire aggregate of
body, &c., up to the Self.--Because he is the Self of all, the text
expressly denies that among all the things constituting his body there
is any one separate from him,'There is not anything which is without me'
(X, 39). The place where this text occurs is the winding up of a
glorification of the Divine one, and the text has to be understood
accordingly. The passage immediately following is 'Whatever being there
is, powerful, beautiful, or glorious, even that know thou to have sprung
from a portion of my glory; pervading this entire Universe by a portion
of mine I do abide' (X, 41; 42).

All this clearly proves that the authoritative books do _not_ teach the
doctrine of one non-differenced substance; that they do _not_ teach that
the universe of things is false; and that they do _not_ deny the
essential distinction of intelligent beings, non-intelligent things, and
the Lord.

[FOOTNOTE 92:1. 'Prânamaya' is explained as meaning 'prana' only.]

[FOOTNOTE 94:1. The sense in which this sloka has to be taken is 'As in
ordinary life we ascribe to certain things (e.g. gems, mantras) certain
special powers because otherwise the effects they produce could not be
accounted for; so to Brahman also,' &c.]




The theory of Nescience cannot be proved.

We now proceed to the consideration of Nescience.--According to the view
of our opponent, this entire world, with all its endless distinctions of
Ruler, creatures ruled, and so on, is, owing to a certain defect,
fictitiously superimposed upon the non-differenced, self-luminous
Reality; and what constitutes that defect is beginningless Nescience,
which invests the Reality, gives rise to manifold illusions, and cannot
be denned either as being or non-being. Such Nescience, he says, must
necessarily be admitted, firstly on the ground of scriptural texts, such
as 'Hidden by what is untrue' (Ch. Up. VIII, 3, 2), and secondly because
otherwise the oneness of the individual souls with Brahman--which is
taught by texts such as 'Thou are that'--cannot be established. This
Nescience is neither 'being,' because in that case it could not be the
object of erroneous cognition (bhrama) and sublation (bâdha); nor is it
'non-being,' because in that case it could not be the object of
apprehension and sublation [FOOTNOTE 102:1]. Hence orthodox Philosophers
declare that this Nescience falls under neither of these two opposite
categories.

Now this theory of Nescience is altogether untenable. In the first place
we ask, 'What is the substrate of this Nescience which gives rise to the
great error of plurality of existence?' You cannot reply 'the individual
soul'; for the individual soul itself exists in so far only as it is
fictitiously imagined through Nescience. Nor can you say 'Brahman'; for
Brahman is nothing but self-luminous intelligence, and hence
contradictory in nature to Nescience, which is avowedly sublated by
knowledge.

'The highest Brahman has knowledge for its essential nature: if
Nescience, which is essentially false and to be terminated by knowledge,
invests Brahman, who then will be strong enough to put an end to it?'

'What puts an end to Nescience is the knowledge that Brahman is pure
knowledge!'--'Not so, for that knowledge also is, like Brahman, of the
nature of light, and hence has no power to put an end to Nescience.--And
if there exists the knowledge that Brahman is knowledge, then Brahman is
an object of knowledge, and that, according to your own teaching,
implies that Brahman is not of the nature of consciousness.'

To explain the second of these slokas.--If you maintain that what
sublates Nescience is not that knowledge which constitutes Brahman's
essential nature, but rather that knowledge which has for its object the
truth of Brahman being of such a nature, we demur; for as both these
kinds of knowledge are of the same nature, viz. the nature of light,
which is just that which constitutes Brahman's nature, there is no
reason for making a distinction and saying that one knowledge is
contradictory of Nescience, and the other is not. Or, to put it
otherwise--that essential nature of Brahman which is apprehended through
the cognition that Brahman is knowledge, itself shines forth in
consequence of the self-luminous nature of Brahman, and hence we have no
right to make a distinction between that knowledge which constitutes
Brahman's nature, and that of which that nature is the object, and to
maintain that the latter only is antagonistic to Nescience.--Moreover
(and this explains the third sloka), according to your own view Brahman,
which is mere consciousness, cannot be the object of another
consciousness, and hence there is no knowledge which has Brahman for its
object. If, therefore, knowledge is contradictory to non-knowledge
(Nescience), Brahman itself must be contradictory to it, and hence
cannot be its substrate. Shells (mistaken for silver) and the like which
by themselves are incapable of throwing light upon their own true nature
are not contradictory to non-knowledge of themselves, and depend, for
the termination of that non-knowledge, on another knowledge (viz. on the
knowledge of an intelligent being); Brahman, on the other hand, whose
essential nature is established by its own consciousness, is
contradictorily opposed to non-knowledge of itself, and hence does not
depend, for the termination of that non-knowledge, on some other
knowledge.--If our opponent should argue that the knowledge of the
falsity of whatever is other than Brahman is contradictory to non-
knowledge, we ask whether this knowledge of the falsity of what is other
than Brahman is contradictory to the non-knowledge of the true nature of
Brahman, or to that non-knowledge which consists in the view of the
reality of the apparent world. The former alternative is inadmissible;
because the cognition of the falsity of what is other than Brahman has a
different object (from the non-knowledge of Brahman's true nature) and
therefore cannot be contradictory to it; for knowledge and non-knowledge
are contradictory in so far only as they refer to one and the same
object. And with regard to the latter alternative we point out that the
knowledge of the falsity of the world is contradictory to the non-
knowledge which consists in the view of the reality of the world; the
former knowledge therefore sublates the latter non-knowledge only, while
the non-knowledge of the true nature of Brahman is not touched by it.--
Against this it will perhaps be urged that what is here called the non-
knowledge of the true nature of Brahman, really is the view of Brahman
being dual in nature, and that this view is put an end to by the
cognition of the falsity of whatever is other than Brahman; while the
true nature of Brahman itself is established by its own consciousness.--
But this too we refuse to admit. If non-duality constitutes the true
nature of Brahman, and is proved by Brahman's own consciousness, there
is room neither for what is contradictory to it, viz. that non-knowledge
which consists in the view of duality, nor for the sublation of that non-
knowledge.--Let then non-duality be taken for an attribute (not the
essential nature) of Brahman!--This too we refuse to admit; for you
yourself have proved that Brahman, which is pure Consciousness, is free
from attributes which are objects of Consciousness.--From all this it
follows that Brahman, whose essential nature is knowledge, cannot be the
substrate of Nescience: the theory, in fact, involves a flat
contradiction.

When, in the next place, you maintain that Brahman, whose nature is
homogeneous intelligence, is invested and hidden by Nescience, you
thereby assert the destruction of Brahman's essential nature. Causing
light to disappear means either obstructing the origination of light, or
else destroying light that exists. And as you teach that light
(consciousness) cannot originate, the 'hiding' or 'making to disappear'
of light can only mean its destruction.--Consider the following point
also. Your theory is that self-luminous consciousness, which is without
object and without substrate, becomes, through the influence of an
imperfection residing within itself, conscious of itself as connected
with innumerous substrata and innumerous objects.--Is then, we ask, that
imperfection residing within consciousness something real or something
unreal?--The former alternative is excluded, as not being admitted by
yourself. Nor can we accept the latter alternative; for if we did we
should have to view that imperfection as being either a knowing subject,
or an object of knowledge, or Knowing itself. Now it cannot be 'Knowing,'
as you deny that there is any distinction in the nature of knowing;
and that 'Knowing,' which is the substrate of the imperfection, cannot
be held to be unreal, because that would involve the acceptance of the
Mâdhyamika doctrine, viz. of a general void [FOOTNOTE 106:1].

And if knowers, objects of knowledge and knowing as determined by those
two are fictitious, i.e. unreal, we have to assume another fundamental
imperfection, and are thus driven into a _regressuss in infinitum_.--To
avoid this difficulty, it might now be said that real consciousness
itself, which constitutes Brahman's nature, is that imperfection.--But
if Brahman itself constitutes the imperfection, then Brahman is the
basis of the appearance of a world, and it is gratuitous to assume an
additional avidyâ to account for the vorld. Moreover, as Brahman is
eternal, it would follow from this hypothesis that no release could ever
take place. Unless, therefore, you admit a real imperfection apart from
Brahman, you are unable to account for the great world-error.

What, to come to the next point, do you understand by the
inexplicability (anirvakaniyatâ) of Nescience? Its difference in nature
from that which _is_, as well as that which _is not_! A thing of such
kind would be inexplicable indeed; for none of the means of knowledge
apply to it. That is to say--the whole world of objects must be ordered
according to our states of consciousness, and every state of
consciousness presents itself in the form, either of something existing
or of something non-existing. If, therefore, we should assume that of
states of consciousness which are limited to this double form, the
object can be something which is neither existing nor non-existing, then
anything whatever might be the object of any state of consciousness
whatever.

Against this our opponent may now argue as follows:--There is, after all,
something, called avidyâ, or ajñâna, or by some other name, which is a
positive entity (bhâva), different from the antecedent non-existence of
knowledge; which effects the obscuration of the Real; which is the
material cause of the erroneous superimposition on the Real, of manifold
external and internal things; and which is terminated by the cognition
of the true nature of the one substance which constitutes Reality. For
this avidyâ is apprehended through Perception as well as Inference.
Brahman, in so far as limited by this avidyâ, is the material cause of
the erroneous superimposition--upon the inward Self, which in itself is
changeless pure intelligence, but has its true nature obscured by this
superimposition--of that plurality which comprises the ahamkâra, all
acts of knowledge and all objects of knowledge. Through special forms of
this defect (i.e. avidyâ) there are produced, in this world superimposed
upon Reality, the manifold special superimpositions presenting
themselves in the form of things and cognitions of things--such as
snakes (superimposed upon ropes), silver (superimposed on shells), and
the like. Avidyâ constitutes the material cause of this entire false
world; since for a false thing we must needs infer a false cause. That
this avidyâ or ajñâna (non-knowledge) is an object of internal
Perception, follows from the fact that judgments such as 'I do not know',
'I do not know either myself or others,' directly present themselves to
the mind. A mental state of this kind has for its object not that non-
knowledge which is the antecedent non-existence of knowledge--for such
absence of knowledge is ascertained by the sixth means of proof
(anupalabdhi); it rather is a state which presents its object directly,
and thus is of the same kind as the state expressed in the judgment 'I
am experiencing pleasure.' Even if we admit that 'absence of something'
(abhâva) can be the object of perception, the state of consciousness
under discussion cannot have absence of knowledge in the Self for its
object. For at the very moment of such consciousness knowledge exists;
or if it does not exist there can be no consciousness of the absence of
knowledge. To explain. When I am conscious that I am non-knowing, is
there or is there not apprehension of the Self as having non-existence
of knowledge for its attribute, and of knowledge as the counterentity of
non-knowledge? In the former case there can be no consciousness of the
absence of knowledge, for that would imply a contradiction. In the
latter case, such consciousness can all the less exist, for it
presupposes knowledge of that to which absence of knowledge belongs as
an attribute (viz. the Self) and of its own counterentity, viz.
knowledge. The same difficulty arises if we view the absence of
knowledge as either the object of Inference, or as the object of the
special means of proof called 'abhâva' (i.e. anupalabdhi). If, on the
other hand, non-knowledge is viewed (not as a merely negative, but) as a
positive entity, there arises no contradiction even if there is (as
there is in fact) at the same time knowledge of the Self as qualified by
non-knowledge, and of knowledge as the counterentity of non-knowledge;
and we therefore must accept the conclusion that the state of
consciousness expressed by 'I am non-knowing,' has for its object a non-
knowledge which is a positive entity.--But, a Nescience which is a
positive entity, contradicts the witnessing consciousness, whose nature
consists in the lighting up of the truth of things! Not so, we reply.
Witnessing consciousness has for its object not the true nature of
things, but Nescience; for otherwise the lighting up (i.e. the
consciousness) of false things could not take place. Knowledge which has
for its object non-knowledge (Nescience), does not put an end to that
non-knowledge. Hence there is no contradiction (between kaitanya and
ajñana).--But, a new objection is raised, this positive entity,
Nescience, becomes an object of witnessing Consciousness, only in so far
as it (Nescience) is defined by some particular object (viz. the
particular thing which is not known), and such objects depend for their
proof on the different means of knowledge. How then can that Nescience,
which is defined by the 'I' (as expressed e. g. in the judgment, 'I do
not know myself'), become the object of witnessing Consciousness?--There
is no difficulty here, we reply. All things whatsoever are objects of
Consciousness, either as things known or as things not known. But while
the mediation of the means of knowledge is required in the case of all
those things which, as being non-intelligent (jada), can be proved only
in so far as being objects known (through some means of knowledge), such
mediation is not required in the case of the intelligent (ajada) inner
Self which proves itself. Consciousness of Nescience is thus possible in
all cases (including the case 'I do not know myself'), since witnessing
Consciousness always gives definition to Nescience.--From all this it
follows that, through Perception confirmed by Reasoning, we apprehend
Nescience as a positive entity. This Nescience, viewed as a positive
entity, is also proved by Inference, viz. in the following form: All
knowledge established by one of the different means of proof is preceded
by something else, which is different from the mere antecedent non-
existence of knowledge; which hides the object of knowledge; which is
terminated by knowledge; and which exists in the same place as knowledge;
because knowledge possesses the property of illumining things not
illumined before;--just as the light of a lamp lit in the dark illumines
things.--Nor must you object to this inference on the ground that
darkness is not a substance, but rather the mere absence of light, or
else the absence of visual perception of form and colour, and that hence
darkness cannot be brought forward as a similar instance proving
Nescience to be a positive entity. For that Darkness must be considered
a positive substance follows, firstly, from its being more or less dense,
and secondly, from its being perceived as having colour.

To all this we make the following reply. Neither Perception alone, nor
Perception aided by Reasoning, reveals to us a positive entity,
Nescience, as implied in judgments such as 'I am non-knowing,' 'I know
neither myself nor others.' The contradiction which was urged above
against the view of non-knowledge being the antecedent non-existence of
knowledge, presents itself equally in connexion with non-knowledge
viewed as a positive entity. For here the following alternative presents
itself--the inner Reality is either known or not known as that which
gives definition to Nescience by being either its object or its
substrate. If it be thus known, then there is in it no room for
Nescience which is said to be that which is put an end to by the
cognition of the true nature of the Inner Reality. If, on the other hand,
it be not thus known, how should there be a consciousness of Nescience
in the absence of that which defines it, viz. knowledge of the substrate
or of the object of Nescience?--Let it then be said that what is
contradictory to non-knowledge is the clear presentation of the nature
of the inner Self, and that (while there is consciousness of ajñâna) we
have only an obscure presentation of the nature of the Self; things
being thus, there is no contradiction between the cognition of the
substrate and object of Nescience on the one side, and the consciousness
of ajñâna on the other.--Well, we reply, all this holds good on our side
also. Even if ajñâna means antecedent non-existence of knowledge, we can
say that knowledge of the substrate and object of non-knowledge has for
its object the Self presented obscurely only; and thus there is no
difference between our views--unless you choose to be obstinate!

Whether we view non-knowledge as a positive entity or as the antecedent
non-existence of knowledge, in either case it comes out as what the word
indicates, viz. non-knowledge. Non-knowledge means either absence of
knowledge, or that which is other than knowledge, or that which is
contradictory to knowledge; and in any of these cases we have to admit
that non-knowledge presupposes the cognition of the nature of knowledge.
Even though the cognition of the nature of darkness should not require
the knowledge of the nature of light, yet when darkness is considered
under the aspect of being contrary to light, this presupposes the
cognition of light. And the non-knowledge held by you is never known in
its own nature but merely as 'non-knowledge,' and it therefore
presupposes the cognition of knowledge no less than our view does,
according to which non-knowledge is simply the negation of knowledge.
Now antecedent non-existence of knowledge is admitted by you also, and
is an undoubted object of consciousness; the right conclusion therefore
is that what we are conscious of in such judgments as 'I am non-knowing,'
&c., is this very antecedent non-existence of knowledge which we both
admit.

It, moreover, is impossible to ascribe to Brahman, whose nature is
constituted by eternal free self-luminous intelligence, the
consciousness of Nescience; for what constitutes its essence is
consciousness of itself. If against this you urge that Brahman, although
having consciousness of Self for its essential nature, yet is conscious
of non-knowledge in so far as its (Brahman's) nature is hidden; we ask
in return what we have to understand by Brahman's nature being hidden.
You will perhaps say 'the fact of its not being illumined.' But how, we
ask, can there be absence of illumination of the nature of that whose
very nature consists in consciousness of Self, i.e. self-illumination?
If you reply that even that whose nature is consciousness of Self may be
in the state of its nature not being illumined by an outside agency, we
point out that as according to you light cannot be considered us an
attribute, but constitutes the very nature of Brahman, it would--
illumination coming from an external agency--follow that the very nature
of Brahman can be destroyed from the outside. This we have already
remarked.--Further, your view implies on the one hand that this non-
knowledge which is the cause of the concealment of Brahman's nature
hides Brahman in so far as Brahman is conscious of it, and on the other
hand that having hidden Brahman, it becomes the object of consciousness
on the part of Brahman; and this evidently constitutes a logical see-saw.
You will perhaps say [FOOTNOTE 111:1] that it hides Brahman in so far
only as Brahman is conscious of it. But, we point out, if the
consciousness of ajñâna takes place on the part of a Brahman whose
nature is not hidden, the whole hypothesis of the 'hiding' of Brahman's
nature loses its purport, and with it the fundamental hypothesis as to
the nature of ajnâna; for if Brahman may be conscious of ajnâna (without
a previous obscuration of its nature by ajnâna) it may as well be held
to be in the same way conscious of the world, which, by you, is
considered to be an effect of ajnâna.

How, further, do you conceive this consciousness of ajnâna on Brahman's
part? Is it due to Brahman itself, or to something else? In the former
case this consciousness would result from Brahman's essential nature,
and hence there would never be any Release. Or else, consciousness of
ajnâna constituting the nature of Brahman, which is admittedly pure
consciousness, in the same way as the consciousness of false silver is
terminated by that cognition which sublates the silver, so some
terminating act of cognition would eventually put an end to Brahman's
essential nature itself.--On the second alternative we ask what that
something else should be. If you reply 'another ajnâna,' we are led into
a _regressus in infinitum_.--Let it then be said [FOOTNOTE 112:1] that
ajnâna having first hidden Brahman then becomes the object of its
consciousness. This, we rejoin, would imply that ajnâna acting like a
defect of the eye by its very essential being hides Brahman, and then
ajnâna could not be sublated by knowledge. Let us then put the case as
follows:--Ajnâna, which is by itself beginningless, at the very same
time effects Brahman's witnessing it (being conscious of it), and
Brahman's nature being hidden; in this way the _regressus in infinitum_
and other difficulties will be avoided.--But this also we cannot admit;
for Brahman is essentially consciousness of Self, and cannot become a
witnessing principle unless its nature be previously hidden.--Let then
Brahman be hidden by some other cause!--This, we rejoin, would take away
from ajnâna its alleged beginninglessness, and further would also lead
to an infinite regress. And if Brahman were assumed to become a witness,
without its essential nature being hidden, it could not possess--what
yet it is maintained to possess--the uniform character of consciousness
of Self.--If, moreover, Brahman is hidden by avidyâ, does it then not
shine forth at all, or does it shine forth to some extent? On the former
alternative the not shining forth of Brahman--whose nature is mere light--
reduces it to an absolute non-entity. Regarding the latter alternative
we ask, 'of Brahman, which is of an absolutely homogeneous nature, which
part do you consider to be concealed, and which to shine forth?' To that
substance which is pure light, free from all division and distinction,
there cannot belong two modes of being, and hence obscuration and light
cannot abide in it together.--Let us then say that Brahman, which is
homogeneous being, intelligence, bliss, has its nature obscured by
avidyâ, and hence is seen indistinctly as it were.--But how, we ask, are
we to conceive the distinctness or indistinctness of that whose nature
is pure light? When an object of light which has parts and
distinguishing attributes appears in its totality, we say that it
appears distinctly; while we say that its appearance is indistinct when
some of its attributes do not appear. Now in those aspects of the thing
which do not appear, light (illumination) is absent altogether, and
hence we cannot there speak of indistinctness of light; in those parts
on the other hand which do appear, the light of which they are the
object is distinct. Indistinctness is thus not possible at all where
there is light. In the case of such things as are apprehended as objects,
indistinctness may take place, viz. in so far as some of their
distinguishing attributes are not apprehended. But in Brahman, which is
not an object, without any distinguishing attributes, pure light, the
essential nature of which it is to shine forth, indistinctness which
consists in the non-apprehension of certain attributes can in no way be
conceived, and hence not be explained as the effect of avidyâ.

We, moreover, must ask the following question: 'Is this indistinctness
which you consider an effect of avidyâ put an end to by the rise of true
knowledge or not?' On the latter alternative there would be no final
release. In the former case we have to ask of what nature Reality is.
'It is of an essentially clear and distinct nature.' Does this nature
then exist previously (to the cessation of indistinctness), or not? If
it does, there is no room whatever either for indistinctness the effect
of avidyâ, or for its cessation. If it does not previously exist, then
Release discloses itself as something to be effected, and therefore non-
eternal.--And that such non-knowledge is impossible because there is no
definable substrate for it we have shown above.--He, moreover, who holds
the theory of error resting on a non-real defect, will find it difficult
to prove the impossibility of error being without any substrate; for, if
the cause of error may be unreal, error may be supposed to take place
even in case of its substrate being unreal. And the consequence of this
would be the theory of a general Void.

The assertion, again, that non-knowledge as a positive entity is proved
by Inference, also is groundless. But the inference was actually set
forth!--True; but it was set forth badly. For the reason you employed
for proving ajñâna is a so-called contradictory one (i.e. it proves the
contrary of what it is meant to prove), in so far as it proves what is
not desired and what is different from ajñâna (for what it proves is
that there is a certain _knowledge_, viz. that all knowledge resting on
valid means of proof has non-knowledge for its antecedent). (And with
regard to this knowledge again we must ask whether it also has non-
knowledge for its antecedent.) If the reason (relied on in all this
argumentation) does not prove, in this case also, the antecedent
existence of positive non-knowledge, it is too general (and hence not to
be trusted in any case). If, on the other hand, it does prove antecedent
non-knowledge, then this latter non-knowledge stands in the way of the
non-knowledge (which you try to prove by inference) being an object of
consciousness, and thus the whole supposition of ajñâna as an entity
becomes useless.

The proving instance, moreover, adduced by our opponent, has no proving
power; for the light of a lamp does not possess the property of
illumining things not illumined before. Everywhere illumining power
belongs to knowledge only; there may be light, but if there is not also
Knowledge there is no lighting up of objects. The senses also are only
causes of the origination of knowledge, and possess no illumining power.
The function of the light of the lamp on the other hand is a merely
auxiliary one, in so far as it dispels the darkness antagonistic to the
organ of sight which gives rise to knowledge; and it is only with a view
to this auxiliary action that illumining power is conventionally
ascribed to the lamp.--But in using the light of the lamp as a proving
instance, we did not mean to maintain that it possesses illumining power
equal to that of light; we introduced it merely with reference to the
illumining power of knowledge, in so far as preceded by the removal of
what obscures its object!--We refuse to accept this explanation.
Illumining power does not only mean the dispelling of what is
antagonistic to it, but also the defining of things, i.e. the rendering
them capable of being objects of empirical thought and speech; and this
belongs to knowledge only (not to the light of the lamp). If you allow
the power of illumining what was not illumined, to auxiliary factors
also, you must first of all allow it to the senses which are the most
eminent factors of that kind; and as in their case there exists no
different thing to be terminated by their activity, (i.e. nothing
analogous to the ajñâna to be terminated by knowledge), this whole
argumentation is beside the point.

There are also formal inferences, opposed to the conclusion of the
pûrvapakshin.--Of the ajñâna under discussion, Brahman, which is mere
knowledge, is not the substrate, just because it is ajñâna; as shown by
the case of the non-knowledge of the shell (mistaken for silver) and
similar cases; for such non-knowledge abides within the knowing subject.--
The ajñâna under discussion does not obscure knowledge, just because it
is ajñâna; as shown by the cases of the shell, &c.; for such non-
knowledge hides the object.--Ajñâna is not terminated by knowledge,
because it does not hide the object of knowledge; whatever non-knowledge
is terminated by knowledge, is such as to hide the object of knowledge;
as e.g. the non-knowledge of the shell.--Brahman is not the substrate of
ajñâna, because it is devoid of the character of knowing subject; like
jars and similar things.--Brahman is not hidden by ajñâna, because it is
not the object of knowledge; whatever is hidden by non-knowledge is the
object of knowledge; so e.g. shells and similar things.--Brahman is not
connected with non-knowledge to be terminated by knowledge, because it
is not the object of knowledge; whatever is connected with non-knowledge
to be terminated by knowledge is an object of knowledge; as e.g. shells
and the like. Knowledge based on valid means of proof, has not for its
antecedent, non-knowledge other than the antecedent non-existence of
knowledge; just because it is knowledge based on valid proof; like that
valid knowledge which proves the ajñâna maintained by you.--Knowledge
does not destroy a real thing, because it is knowledge in the absence of
some specific power strengthening it; whatever is capable of destroying
things is--whether it be knowledge or ajñâna--strengthened by some
specific power; as e.g. the knowledge of the Lord and of Yogins; and as
the ajñâna consisting in a pestle (the blow of which destroys the pot).

Ajñâna which has the character of a positive entity cannot be destroyed
by knowledge; just because it is a positive entity, like jars and
similar things.

But, it now may be said, we observe that fear and other affections,
which are positive entities and produced by previous cognitions, are
destroyed by sublative acts of cognition!--Not so, we reply. Those
affections are not destroyed by knowledge; they rather pass away by
themselves, being of a momentary (temporary) nature only, and on the
cessation of their cause they do not arise again. That they are of a
momentary nature only, follows from their being observed only in
immediate connexion with the causes of their origination, and not
otherwise. If they were not of a temporary nature, each element of the
stream of cognitions, which are the cause of fear and the like, would
give rise to a separate feeling of fear, and the result would be that
there would be consciousness of many distinct feelings of fear (and this
we know not to be the case).--In conclusion we remark that in defining
right knowledge as 'that which has for its antecedent another entity,
different from its own antecedent non-existence,' you do not give proof
of very eminent logical acuteness; for what sense has it to predicate of
an entity that it is different from nonentity?--For all these reasons
Inference also does not prove an ajñâna which is a positive entity. And
that it is not proved by Scripture and arthâpatti, will be shown later
on. And the reasoning under Sû. II, 1, 4. will dispose of the argument
which maintains that of a false thing the substantial cause also must be
false.

We thus see that there is no cognition of any kind which has for its
object a Nescience of 'inexplicable' nature.--Nor can such an
inexplicable entity be admitted on the ground of apprehension, erroneous
apprehension and sublation (cp. above, p. 102). For that only which is
actually apprehended, can be the object of apprehension, error and
sublation, and we have no right to assume, as an object of these states
of consciousness, something which is apprehended neither by them nor any
other state of consciousness.--'But in the case of the shell, &c.,
silver is actually apprehended, and at the same time there arises the
sublating consciousness "this silver is not real," and it is not
possible that one thing should appear as another; we therefore are
driven to the hypothesis that owing to some defect, we actually
apprehend silver of an altogether peculiar kind, viz. such as can be
defined neither as real nor as unreal.'--This also we cannot allow,
since this very assumption necessarily implies that one thing appears as
another. For apprehension, activity, sublation, and erroneous cognition,
all result only from one thing appearing as another, and it is not
reasonable to assume something altogether non-perceived and groundless.
The silver, when apprehended, is not apprehended as something
'inexplicable,' but as something real; were it apprehended under the
former aspect it could be the object neither of erroneous nor of
sublative cognition, nor would the apprehending person endeavour to
seize it. For these reasons you (the anirva-kaniyatva-vâdin) also must
admit that the actual process is that of one thing appearing as another.

Those also who hold other theories as to the kind of cognition under
discussion (of which the shell, mistaken for silver, is an instance)
must--whatsoever effort they may make to avoid it--admit that their
theory finally implies the appearing of one thing as another. The so-
called asatkhyâti-view implies that the non-existing appears as existing;
the âtmakhyâti-view, that the Self--which here means 'cognition'--
appears as a thing; and the akhyâti-view, that the attribute of one
thing appears as that of another, that two acts of cognition appear as
one, and--on the view of the non-existence of the object--that the non-
existing appears as existing [FOOTNOTE 118:1].

Moreover, if you say that there is originated silver of a totally new
inexplicable kind, you are bound to assign the cause of this origination.
This cause cannot be the perception of the silver; for the perception
has the silver for its object, and hence has no existence before the
origination of the silver. And should you say that the perception,
having arisen without an object, produces the silver and thereupon makes
it its object, we truly do not know what to say to such excellent
reasoning!--Let it then be said that the cause is some defect in the
sense-organ.--This, too, is inadmissible; for a defect abiding in the
percipient person cannot produce an objective effect.--Nor can the
organs of sense (apart from defects) give rise to the silver; for they
are causes of cognitions only (not of things cognised). Nor, again, the
sense-organs in so far as modified by some defect; for they also can
only produce modifications in what is effected by them, i.e. cognition.
And the hypothesis of a beginningless, false ajñâna constituting the
general material cause of all erroneous cognitions has been refuted
above.

How is it, moreover, that this new and inexplicable thing (which you
assume to account for the silver perceived on the shell) becomes to us
the object of the idea and word 'silver,' and not of some other idea and
term, e.g. of a jar?--If you reply that this is due to its similarity to
silver, we point out that in that case the idea and the word presenting
themselves to our mind should be that of 'something resembling silver.'
Should you, on the other hand, say that we apprehend the thing as silver
because it possesses the generic characteristics of silver, we ask
whether these generic characteristics are real or unreal. The former
alternative is impossible, because something real cannot belong to what
is unreal; and the latter is impossible because something unreal cannot
belong to what is real.

But we need not extend any further this refutation of an altogether ill-
founded theory.

[FOOTNOTE 102:1. 'Nescience' is sublated (refuted) by the cognition of
Brahman, and thereby shown to have been the object of erroneous
cognition: it thus cannot be 'being,' i.e. real. Nor can it be
altogether unreal, 'non-being,' because in that case it could not be the
object either of mental apprehension or of sublation.]

[FOOTNOTE 106:1. If the imperfection inhering in Consciousness is itself
of the nature of consciousness, and at the same time unreal, we should
have to distinguish two kinds of Consciousness--which is contrary to the
fundamental doctrine of the oneness of Consciousness. And if, on the
other hand, we should say that the Consciousness in which the
imperfection inheres is of the same nature as the latter, i.e. unreal,
we are landed in the view of universal unreality.]

[FOOTNOTE 111:1. Allowing the former view of the question only.]

[FOOTNOTE 112:1. Adopting the latter view only; see preceding note.]

[FOOTNOTE 118:1. For a full explanation of the nature of these 'khyâtis,'
see A. Venis' translation of the Vedânta Siddhânta Muktâvali (Reprint
from the Pandit, p. 130 ff.).]




All knowledge is of the Real.

'Those who understand the Veda hold that all cognition has for its
object what is real; for Sruti and Smriti alike teach that everything
participates in the nature of everything else. In the scriptural account
of creation preceded by intention on the part of the Creator it is said
that each of these elements was made tripartite; and this tripartite
constitution of all things is apprehended by Perception as well. The red
colour in burning fire comes from (primal elementary) fire, the white
colour from water, the black colour from earth--in this way Scripture
explains the threefold nature of burning fire. In the same way all
things are composed of elements of all things. The Vishnu Purâna, in its
account of creation, makes a similar statement: "The elements possessing
various powers and being unconnected could not, without combination,
produce living beings, not having mingled in any way. Having combined,
therefore, with one another, and entering into mutual associations--
beginning with the principle called Mahat, and extending down to the
gross elements--they formed an egg," &c. (Vi. Pu. I, 2, 50; 52). This
tripartiteness of the elements the Sûtrakâra also declares (Ve. Sû. III,
1, 3). For the same reason Sruti enjoins the use of Putîka sprouts when
no Soma can be procured; for, as the Mîmâmsakas explain, there are in
the Putîka plant some parts of the Soma plant (Pû. Mî. Sû.); and for the
same reason nîvâra grains may be used as a substitute for rice grains.
That thing is similar to another which contains within itself some part
of that other thing; and Scripture itself has thus stated that in shells,
&c., there is contained some silver, and so on. That one thing is
called "silver" and another "shell" has its reason in the relative
preponderance of one or the other element. We observe that shells are
similar to silver; thus perception itself informs us that some elements
of the latter actually exist in the former. Sometimes it happens that
owing to a defect of the eye the silver-element only is apprehended, not
the shell-element, and then the percipient person, desirous of silver,
moves to pick up the shell. If, on the other hand, his eye is free from
such defect, he apprehends the shell-element and then refrains from
action. Hence the cognition of silver in the shell is a true one. In the
same way the relation of one cognition being sublated by another
explains itself through the preponderant element, according as the
preponderance of the shell-element is apprehended partially or in its
totality, and does not therefore depend on one cognition having for its
object the false thing and another the true thing. The distinctions made
in the practical thought and business of life thus explain themselves on
the basis of everything participating in the nature of everything else.'

In dreams, again, the divinity creates, in accordance with the merit or
demerit of living beings, things of a special nature, subsisting for a
certain time only, and perceived only by the individual soul for which
they are meant. In agreement herewith Scripture says, with reference to
the state of dreaming, 'There are no chariots in that state, no horses,
no roads; then he creates chariots, horses, and roads. There are no
delights, no joys, no bliss; then he creates delights, joys, and bliss.
There are no tanks, no lakes, no rivers; then he creates tanks, lakes,
and rivers. For he is the maker' (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 10). The meaning of
this is, that although there are then no chariots, &c., to be perceived
by other persons, the Lord creates such things to be perceived by the
dreaming person only. 'For he is the maker'; for such creative agency
belongs to him who possesses the wonderful power of making all his
wishes and plans to come true. Similarly another passage, 'That person
who is awake in those who are asleep, shaping one lovely sight after
another, that indeed is the Bright, that is Brahman, that alone is
called the Immortal. All worlds are contained in it, and no one goes
beyond it' (Ka. Up. II, 5, 8).--The Sûtrakâra also, after having in two
Sûtras (III, 2, 1; 2) stated the hypothesis of the individual soul
creating the objects appearing in dreams, finally decides that that
wonderful creation is produced by the Lord for the benefit of the
individual dreamer; for the reason that as long as the individual soul
is in the samsâra state, its true nature--comprising the power of making
its wishes to come true--is not fully manifested, and hence it cannot
practically exercise that power. The last clause of the Katha text ('all
worlds are contained in it,' &c.) clearly shows that the highest Self
only is the creator meant. That the dreaming person who lies in his
chamber should go in his body to other countries and experience various
results of his merit or demerit--being at one time crowned a king,
having at another time his head cut off, and so on--is possible in so
far as there is created for him another body in every way resembling the
body resting on the bed.

The case of the white shell being seen as yellow, explains itself as
follows. The visual rays issuing from the eye are in contact with the
bile contained in the eye, and thereupon enter into conjunction with the
shell; the result is that the whiteness belonging to the shell is
overpowered by the yellowness of the bile, and hence not apprehended;
the shell thus appears yellow, just as if it were gilt. The bile and its
yellowness is, owing to its exceeding tenuity, not perceived by the
bystanders; but thin though it be it is apprehended by the person
suffering from jaundice, to whom it is very near, in so far as it issues
from his own eye, and through the mediation of the visual rays, aided by
the action of the impression produced on the mind by that apprehension,
it is apprehended even in the distant object, viz. the shell.--In an
analogous way the crystal which is placed near the rose is apprehended
as red, for it is overpowered by the brilliant colour of the rose; the
brilliancy of the rose is perceived in a more distinct way owing to its
close conjunction with the transparent substance of the crystal.--In the
same way the cognition of water in the mirage is true. There always
exists water in connexion with light and earth; but owing to some defect
of the eye of the perceiving person, and to the mysterious influence of
merit and demerit, the light and the earth are not apprehended, while
the water _is_ apprehended.--In the case again of the firebrand swung
round rapidly, its appearance as a fiery wheel explains itself through
the circumstance that moving very rapidly it is in conjunction with all
points of the circle described without our being able to apprehend the
intervals. The case is analogous to that of the perception of a real
wheel; but there is the difference that in the case of the wheel no
intervals are apprehended, because there are none; while in the case of
the firebrand none are apprehended owing to the rapidity of the movement.
But in the latter case also the cognition is true.--Again, in the case
of mirrors and similar reflecting surfaces the perception of one's own
face is likewise true. The fact is that the motion of the visual rays
(proceeding from the eye towards the mirror) is reversed (reflected) by
the mirror, and that thus those rays apprehend the person's own face,
subsequently to the apprehension of the surface of the mirror; and as in
this case also, owing to the rapidity of the process, there is no
apprehension of any interval (between the mirror and the face), the face
presents itself as being in the mirror.--In the case of one direction
being mistaken for another (as when a person thinks the south to be
where the north is), the fact is that, owing to the unseen principle (i.
e. merit or demerit), the direction which actually exists in the other
direction (for a point which is to the north of me is to the south of
another point) is apprehended by itself, apart from the other elements
of direction; the apprehension which actually takes place is thus
likewise true. Similar is the case of the double moon. Here, either
through pressure of the finger upon the eye, or owing to some abnormal
affection of the eye, the visual rays are divided (split), and the
double, mutually independent apparatus of vision thus originating,
becomes the cause of a double apprehension of the moon. One apparatus
apprehends the moon in her proper place; the other which moves somewhat
obliquely, apprehends at first a place close by the moon, and then the
moon herself, which thus appears somewhat removed from her proper place.
Although, therefore, what is apprehended is the one moon distinguished
by connection with two places at the same time--an apprehension due to
the double apparatus of vision--yet, owing to the difference of
apprehensions, there is a difference in the character of the object
apprehended, and an absence of the apprehension of unity, and thus a
double moon presents itself to perception. That the second spot is
viewed as qualifying the moon, is due to the circumstance that the
apprehension of that spot, and that of the moon which is not apprehended
in her proper place, are simultaneous. Now here the doubleness of the
apparatus is real, and hence the apprehension of the moon distinguished
by connexion with two places is real also, and owing to this doubleness
of apprehension, the doubleness of aspect of the object apprehended, i.e.
the moon, is likewise real. That there is only one moon constituting the
true object of the double apprehension, this is a matter for which
ocular perception by itself does not suffice, and hence what is actually
seen is a double moon. That, although the two eyes together constitute
one visual apparatus only, the visual rays being divided through some
defect of the eyes, give rise to a double apparatus--this we infer from
the effect actually observed. When that defect is removed there takes
place only one apprehension of the moon as connected with her proper
place, and thus the idea of one moon only arises. It is at the same time
quite clear how the defect of the eye gives rise to a double visual
apparatus, the latter to a double apprehension, and the latter again to
a doubleness of the object of apprehension.

We have thus proved that all cognition is true. The shortcomings of
other views as to the nature of cognition have been set forth at length
by other philosophers, and we therefore do not enter on that topic. What
need is there, in fact, of lengthy proofs? Those who acknowledge the
validity of the different means of knowledge, perception, and so on, and--
what is vouched for by sacred tradition--the existence of a highest
Brahman--free from all shadow of imperfection, of measureless excellence,
comprising within itself numberless auspicious qualities, all-knowing,
immediately realising all its purposes--, what should they not be able
to prove? That holy highest Brahman--while producing the entire world as
an object of fruition for the individual souls, in agreement with their
respective good and ill deserts--creates certain things of such a nature
as to become common objects of consciousness, either pleasant or
unpleasant, to all souls together, while certain other things are
created in such a way as to be perceived only by particular persons, and
to persist for a limited time only. And it is this distinction--viz. of
things that are objects of general consciousness, and of things that are
not so--which makes the difference between what is called 'things
sublating' and 'things sublated.'--Everything is explained hereby.




Neither Scripture nor Smriti and Purâna teach Nescience.

The assertion that Nescience--to be defined neither as that which is nor
as that which is not--rests on the authority of Scripture is untrue. In
passages such as 'hidden by the untrue' (Ch. Up. VIII, 3, 2), the word
'untrue' does not denote the Undefinable; it rather means that which is
different from 'rita,' and this latter word--as we see from the passage
'enjoying the rita' (Ka. Up. 1,3, 1)--denotes such actions as aim at no
worldly end, but only at the propitiation of the highest Person, and
thus enable the devotee to reach him. The word 'anrita' therefore
denotes actions of a different kind, i.e. such as aim at worldly results
and thus stand in the way of the soul reaching Brahman; in agreement
with the passage 'they do not find that Brahma-world, for they are
carried away by anrita' (Ch. Up. VIII, 3, 2). Again, in the text 'Then
there was neither non-Being nor Being' (Ri. Samh. X, 129, 1), the terms
'being' and 'non-being' denote intelligent and non-intelligent beings in
their distributive state. What that text aims at stating is that
intelligent and non-intelligent beings, which at the time of the
origination of the world are called 'sat' and 'tyat' (Taitt. Up. II, 6),
are, during the period of reabsorption, merged in the collective
totality of non-intelligent matter which the text denotes by the term
'darkness' (Ri. Samh. X, 129, 3). There is thus no reference whatever to
something 'not definable either as being or non-being': the terms
'being' and 'non-being' are applied to different mode; of being at
different times. That the term 'darkness' denotes the collective
totality of non-intelligent matter appears from another scriptural
passage, viz, 'The Non-evolved (avyaktam) is merged in the Imperishable
(akshara), the Imperishable in darkness (tamas), darkness becomes one
with the highest divinity.' True, the word 'darkness' denotes the subtle
condition of primeval matter (prakriti), which forms the totality of non-
intelligent things; but this very Prakriti is called Mâyâ--in the text
'Know Prakriti to be Mâyâ,' and this proves it be something
'undefinable': Not so, we reply; we meet with no passages where the word
'Mâyâ' denotes that which is undefinable. But the word 'Mâyâ' is
synonymous with 'mithyâ,' i.e. falsehood, and hence denotes the
Undefinable also. This, too, we cannot admit; for the word 'Mâyâ' does
not in all places refer to what is false; we see it applied e.g. to such
things as the weapons of Asuras and Râkshasas, which are not 'false' but
real. 'Mâyâ,' in such passages, really denotes that which produces
various wonderful effects, and it is in this sense that Prakriti is
called Mâyâ. This appears from the passage (Svet. Up. IV, 9) 'From that
the "mâyin" creates all this, and in that the other one is bound up by
mâyâ.' For this text declares that Prakriti--there called Mâyâ--produces
manifold wonderful creations, and the highest Person is there called
'mâyin' because he possesses that power of mâyâ; not on account of any
ignorance or nescience on his part. The latter part of the text
expressly says that (not the Lord but) another one, i.e. the individual
soul is bound up by mâyâ; and therewith agrees another text, viz. 'When
the soul slumbering in beginningless Mâyâ awakes' (Gaud. Kâ.). Again, in
the text 'Indra goes multiform through the Mâyâs' (Ri. Samh. VI, 47, 18),
the manifold powers of Indra are spoken of, and with this agrees what
the next verse says, 'he shines greatly as Tvashtri': for an unreal
being does not shine. And where the text says 'my Mâyâ is hard to
overcome' (Bha. Gî. VII, 14), the qualification given there to Mâyâ, viz.
'consisting of the gunas,' shows that what is meant is Prakriti
consisting of the three gunas.--All this shows that Scripture does not
teach the existence of a 'principle called Nescience, not to be defined
either as that which is or that which is not.'

Nor again is such Nescience to be assumed for the reason that otherwise
the scriptural statements of the unity of all being would be unmeaning.
For if the text 'Thou art that,' be viewed as teaching the unity of the
individual soul and the highest Self, there is certainly no reason,
founded on unmeaningness, to ascribe to Brahman, intimated by the word
'that'--which is all-knowing, &c.--Nescience, which is contradictory to
Brahman's nature.--Itihâsa and Purâna also do not anywhere teach that to
Brahman there belongs Nescience.

But, an objection is raised, the Vishnu Purâna, in the sloka, 'The stars
are Vishnu,' &c. (II, 12, 38), first refers to Brahman as one only, and
comprising all things within itself; thereupon states in the next sloka
that this entire world, with all its distinctions of hills, oceans, &c.,
is sprung out of the 'ajñâna' of Brahman, which in itself is pure 'jñâna,'
i.e. knowledge; thereupon confirms the view of the world having sprung
from ajñâna by referring to the fact that Brahman, while abiding in its
own nature, is free from all difference (sl. 40); proves in the next two
slokas the non-reality of plurality by a consideration of the things of
this world; sums up, in the following sloka, the unreality of all that
is different from Brahman; then (43) explains that action is the root of
that ajñâna which causes us to view the one uniform Brahman as manifold;
thereupon declares the intelligence constituting Brahman's nature to be
free from all distinction and imperfection (44); and finally teaches
(45) that Brahman so constituted, alone is truly real, while the so-
called reality of the world is merely conventional.--This is not, we
reply, a true representation of the drift of the passage. The passage at
the outset states that, in addition to the detailed description of the
world given before, there will now be given a succinct account of
another aspect of the world not yet touched upon. This account has to be
understood as follows. Of this universe, comprising intelligent and non-
intelligent beings, the intelligent part--which is not to be reached by
mind and speech, to be known in its essential nature by the Self only,
and, owing to its purely intelligential character, not touched by the
differences due to Prakriti--is, owing to its imperishable nature,
denoted as that which is; while the non-intelligent, material; part
which, in consequence of the actions of the intelligent beings undergoes
manifold changes, and thus is perishable, is denoted as that which is
not. Both parts, however, form the body of Vâsudeva, i.e. Brahman, and
hence have Brahman for their Self. The text therefore says (37), 'From
the waters which form the body of Vishnu was produced the lotus-shaped
earth, with its seas and mountains': what is meant is that the entire
Brahma-egg which has arisen from water constitutes the body of which
Vishnu is the soul. This relation of soul and body forms the basis of
the statements of co-ordination made in the next sloka (38), 'The stars
are Vishnu,' &c.; the same relation had been already declared in
numerous previous passages of the Purâna ('all this is the body of Hari,'
&c.). All things in the world, whether they are or are not, are
Vishnu's body, and he is their soul. Of the next sloka, 'Because the
Lord has knowledge for his essential nature,' the meaning is 'Because of
the Lord who abides as the Self of all individual souls, the essential
nature is knowledge only--while bodies divine, human, &c., have no part
in it--, therefore all non-intelligent things, bodies human and divine,
hills, oceans, &c., spring from his knowledge, i.e. have their root in
the actions springing from the volitions of men, gods, &c., in whose
various forms the fundamental intelligence manifests itself. And since
non-intelligent matter is subject to changes corresponding to the
actions of the individual souls, it may be called 'non-being,' while the
souls are 'being.'--This the next sloka further explains 'when knowledge
is pure,' &c. The meaning is 'when the works which are the cause of the
distinction of things are destroyed, then all the distinctions of bodies,
human or divine, hills, oceans, &c.--all which are objects of fruition
for the different individual souls--pass away.' Non-intelligent matter,
as entering into various states of a non-permanent nature, is called
'non-being'; while souls, the nature of which consists in permanent
knowledge, are called 'being.' On this difference the next sloka insists
(41). We say 'it is' of that thing which is of a permanently uniform
nature, not connected with the idea of beginning, middle and end, and
which hence never becomes the object of the notion of non-existence;
while we say 'it is not' of non-intelligent matter which constantly
passes over into different states, each later state being out of
connexion with the earlier state. The constant changes to which non-
intelligent matter is liable are illustrated in the next sloka, 'Earth
is made into a jar,' &c. And for this reason, the subsequent sloka goes
on to say that there _is_ nothing but knowledge. This fundamental
knowledge or intelligence is, however, variously connected with manifold
individual forms of being due to karman, and hence the text adds: 'The
one intelligence is in many ways connected with beings whose minds
differ, owing to the difference of their own acts' (sl 43, second half).
Intelligence, pure, free from stain and grief, &c., which constitutes
the intelligent element of the world, and unintelligent matter--these
two together constitute the world, and the world is the body of Vâsudeva;
such is the purport of sloka 44.--The next sloka sums up the whole
doctrine; the words 'true and untrue' there denote what in the preceding
verses had been called 'being' and 'non-being'; the second half of the
sloka refers to the practical plurality of the world as due to karman.

Now all these slokas do not contain a single word supporting the
doctrine of a Brahman free from all difference; of a principle called
Nescience abiding within Brahman and to be defined neither as that which
is nor as that which is not; and of the world being wrongly imagined,
owing to Nescience. The expressions 'that which is' and 'that which is
not' (sl 35), and 'satya' (true) and 'asatya' (untrue; sl 45), can in no
way denote something not to be defined either as being or non-being. By
'that which is not' or 'which is untrue,' we have to understand not what
is undefinable, but that which has no true being, in so far as it is
changeable and perishable. Of this character is all non-intelligent
matter. This also appears from the instance adduced in sl 42: the jar is
something perishable, but not a thing devoid of proof or to be sublated
by true knowledge. 'Non-being' we may call it, in so far as while it is
observed at a certain moment in a certain form it is at some other
moment observed in a different condition. But there is no contradiction
between two different conditions of a thing which are perceived at
different times; and hence there is no reason to call it something
futile (tuchcha) or false (mithyâ), &c.




Scripture does not teach that Release is due to the knowledge of a non-
qualified Brahman.--the meaning of 'tat tvam asi.'

Nor can we admit the assertion that Scripture teaches the cessation of
avidyâ to spring only from the cognition of a Brahman devoid of all
difference. Such a view is clearly negatived by passages such as the
following: 'I know that great person of sun-like lustre beyond darkness;
knowing him a man becomes immortal, there is no other path to go' (Svet.
Up. III, 8); 'All moments sprang from lightning, the Person--none is
lord over him, his name is great glory--they who know him become
immortal' (Mahânâ. Up. I, 8-11). For the reason that Brahman is
characterised by difference all Vedic texts declare that final release
results from the cognition of a qualified Brahman. And that even those
texts which describe Brahman by means of negations really aim at setting
forth a Brahman possessing attributes, we have already shown above.

In texts, again, such as 'Thou art that,' the co-ordination of the
constituent parts is not meant to convey the idea of the absolute unity
of a non-differenced substance: on the contrary, the words 'that' and
'thou' denote a Brahman distinguished by difference. The word 'that'
refers to Brahman omniscient, &c., which had been introduced as the
general topic of consideration in previous passages of the same section,
such as 'It thought, may I be many'; the word 'thou,' which stands in co-
ordination to 'that,' conveys the idea of Brahman in so far as having
for its body the individual souls connected with non-intelligent matter.
This is in accordance with the general principle that co-ordination is
meant to express one thing subsisting in a twofold form. If such
doubleness of form (or character) were abandoned, there could be no
difference of aspects giving rise to the application of different terms,
and the entire principle of co-ordination would thus be given up. And it
would further follow that the two words co-ordinated would have to be
taken in an implied sense (instead of their primary direct meaning). Nor
is there any need of our assuming implication (lakshanâ) in sentences
[FOOTNOTE 130:1] such as 'this person is that Devadatta (known to me
from former occasions)'; for there is no contradiction in the cognition
of the oneness of a thing connected with the past on the one hand, and
the present on the other, the contradiction that arises from difference
of place being removed by the accompanying difference of time. If the
text 'Thou art that' were meant to express absolute oneness, it would,
moreover, conflict with a previous statement in the same section, viz.
'It thought, may I be many'; and, further, the promise (also made in the
same section) that by the knowledge of one thing all things are to be
known could not be considered as fulfilled. It, moreover, is not
possible (while, however, it would result from the absolute oneness of
'tat' and 'tvam') that to Brahman, whose essential nature is knowledge,
which is free from all imperfections, omniscient, comprising within
itself all auspicious qualities, there should belong Nescience; and that
it should be the substrate of all those defects and afflictions which
spring from Nescience. If, further, the statement of co-ordination
('thou art that') were meant to sublate (the previously existing wrong
notion of plurality), we should have to admit that the two terms 'that'
and 'thou' have an implied meaning, viz. in so far as denoting, on the
one hand, one substrate only, and, on the other, the cessation of the
different attributes (directly expressed by the two terms); and thus
implication and the other shortcomings mentioned above would cling to
this interpretation as well. And there would be even further
difficulties. When we form the sublative judgment 'this is not silver,'
the sublation is founded on an independent positive judgment, viz. 'this
is a shell': in the case under discussion, however, the sublation would
not be known (through an independent positive judgment), but would be
assumed merely on the ground that it cannot be helped. And, further,
there is really no possibility of sublation, since the word 'that' does
not convey the idea of an attribute in addition to the mere substrate.
To this it must not be objected that the substrate was previously
concealed, and that hence it is the special function of the word 'that'
to present the substrate in its non-concealed aspect; for if, previously
to the sublative judgment, the substrate was not evident (as an object
of consciousness), there is no possibility of its becoming the object
either of an error or its sublation.--Nor can we allow you to say that,
previously to sublation, the substrate was non-concealed in so far as
(i. e. was known as) the object of error, for in its 'non-concealed'
aspect the substrate is opposed to all error, and when that aspect
shines forth there is no room either for error or sublation.--The
outcome of this is that as long as you do not admit that there is a real
attribute in addition to the mere substrate, and that this attribute is
for a time hidden, you cannot show the possibility either of error or
sublation. We add an illustrative instance. That with regard to a man
there should arise the error that he is a mere low-caste hunter is only
possible on condition of a real additional attribute--e.g. the man's
princely birth--being hidden at the time; and the cessation of that
error is brought about by the declaration of this attribute of princely
birth, not by a mere declaration of the person being a man: this latter
fact being evident need not be declared at all, and if it is declared it
sublates no error.--If, on the other hand, the text is understood to
refer to Brahman as having the individual souls for its body, both words
('that' and 'thou') keep their primary denotation; and, the text thus
making a declaration about one substance distinguished by two aspects,
the fundamental principle of 'co-ordination' is preserved, On this
interpretation the text further intimates that Brahman--free from all
imperfection and comprising within itself all auspicious qualities--is
the internal ruler of the individual souls and possesses lordly power.
It moreover satisfies the demand of agreement with the teaching of the
previous part of the section, and it also fulfils the promise as to all
things being known through one thing, viz. in so far as Brahman having
for its body all intelligent and non-intelligent beings in their gross
state is the effect of Brahman having for its body the same things in
their subtle state. And this interpretation finally avoids all conflict
with other scriptural passages, such as 'Him the great Lord, the highest
of Lords' (Svet. Up. VI, 7); 'His high power is revealed as manifold'
(ibid. VI, 8); 'He that is free from sin, whose wishes are true, whose
purposes are true' (Ch. Up. VIII, 7, 1), and so on.

But how, a question may be asked, can we decide, on your interpretation
of the text, which of the two terms is meant to make an original
assertion with regard to the other?--The question does not arise, we
reply; for the text does not mean to make an original assertion at all,
the truth which it states having already been established by the
preceding clause, 'In that all this world has its Self.' This clause
does make an original statement--in agreement with the principle that
'Scripture has a purport with regard to what is not established by other
means'--that is, it predicates of 'all this,' i.e. this entire world
together with all individual souls, that 'that,' i.e. Brahman is the
Self of it. The reason of this the text states in a previous passage,
'All these creatures have their root in that which is, their dwelling
and their rest in that which is'; a statement which is illustrated by an
earlier one (belonging to a different section), viz. 'All this is
Brahman; let a man meditate with calm mind on this world as beginning,
ending, and breathing in Brahman' (Ch. Up. III. 14, 1). Similarly other
texts also teach that the world has its Self in Brahman, in so far as
the whole aggregate of intelligent and non-intelligent beings
constitutes Brahman's body. Compare 'Abiding within, the ruler of beings,
the Self of all'; 'He who dwells in the earth, different from the earth,
whom the earth does not know, whose body the earth is, who rules the
earth within--he is thy Self, the ruler within, the immortal. He who
dwells in the Self,'&c. (Bri. Up. III, 7,3; 22); 'He who moving within
the earth, and so on--whose body is death, whom death does not know, he
is the Self of all beings, free from sin, divine, the one God, Nårâyana'
(Subâl. Up. VII, 1); 'Having created that he entered into it; having
entered it he became sat and tyat' (Taitt. Up. II, 6). And also in the
section under discussion the passage 'Having entered into them with this
living Self let me evolve names and forms,' shows that it is only
through the entering into them of the living soul whose Self is Brahman,
that all things possess their substantiality and their connexion with
the words denoting them. And as this passage must be understood in
connexion with Taitt. Up. II, 6 (where the 'sat' denotes the individual
soul) it follows that the individual soul also has Brahman for its Self,
owing to the fact of Brahman having entered into it.--From all this it
follows that the entire aggregate of things, intelligent and non-
intelligent, has its Self in Brahman in so far as it constitutes
Brahman's body. And as, thus, the whole world different from Brahman
derives its substantial being only from constituting Brahman's body, any
term denoting the world or something in it conveys a meaning which has
its proper consummation in Brahman only: in other words all terms
whatsoever denote Brahman in so far as distinguished by the different
things which we associate with those terms on the basis of ordinary use
of speech and etymology.--The text 'that art thou' we therefore
understand merely as a special expression of the truth already
propounded in the clause 'in that all this has its Self.'

This being so, it appears that those as well who hold the theory of the
absolute unity of one non-differenced substance, as those who teach the
doctrine of bhedâbheda (co-existing difference and non-difference), and
those who teach the absolute difference of several substances, give up
all those scriptural texts which teach that Brahman is the universal
Self. With regard to the first-mentioned doctrine, we ask 'if there is
only one substance; to what can the doctrine of universal identity
refer?'--The reply will perhaps be 'to that very same substance.'--But,
we reply, this point is settled already by the texts defining the nature
of Brahman [FOOTNOTE 134:1], and there is nothing left to be determined
by the passages declaring the identity of everything with Brahman.--But
those texts serve to dispel the idea of fictitious difference!--This, we
reply, cannot, as has been shown above, be effected by texts stating
universal identity in the way of co-ordination; and statements of co-
ordination, moreover, introduce into Brahman a doubleness of aspect, and
thus contradict the theory of absolute oneness.--The bhedâbheda view
implies that owing to Brahman's connexion with limiting adjuncts
(upâdhi) all the imperfections resulting therefrom--and which avowedly
belong to the individual soul--would manifest themselves in Brahman
itself; and as this contradicts the doctrine that the Self of all is
constituted by a Brahman free from all imperfection and comprising
within itself all auspicious qualities, the texts conveying that
doctrine would have to be disregarded. If, on the other hand, the theory
be held in that form that 'bhedâbheda' belongs to Brahman by its own
nature (not only owing to an upâdhi), the view that Brahman by its
essential nature appears as individual soul, implies that imperfections
no less than perfections are essential to Brahman, and this is in
conflict with the texts teaching that everything is identical with
Brahman free from all imperfections.--For those finally who maintain
absolute difference, the doctrine of Brahman being the Self of all has
no meaning whatsoever--for things absolutely different can in no way be
one--and this implies the abandonment of all Vedânta-texts together.

Those, on the other hand, who take their stand on the doctrine,
proclaimed by all Upanishads, that the entire world forms the body of
Brahman, may accept in their fulness all the texts teaching the identity
of the world with Brahman. For as genus (jâti) and quality (guna), so
substances (dravya) also may occupy the position of determining
attributes (viseshana), in so far namely as they constitute the body of
something else. Enunciations such as 'the Self (soul) is, according to
its works, born either (as) a god, or a man, or a horse, or a bull,'
show that in ordinary speech as well as in the Veda co-ordination has to
be taken in a real primary (not implied) sense. In the same way it is
also in the case of generic character and of qualities the relation of
'mode' only (in which generic character and qualities stand to
substances) which determines statements of co-ordination, such as 'the
ox is broken-horned,' 'the cloth is white.' And as material bodies
bearing the generic marks of humanity are definite things, in so far
only as they are modes of a Self or soul, enunciations of co-ordination
such as 'the soul has been born as a man, or a eunuch, or a woman,' are
in every way appropriate. What determines statements of co-ordination is
thus only the relation of 'mode' in which one thing stands to another,
not the relation of generic character, quality, and so on, which are of
an exclusive nature (and cannot therefore be exhibited in co-ordination
with substances). Such words indeed as denote substances capable of
subsisting by themselves occasionally take suffixes, indicating that
those substances form the distinguishing attributes of other substances--
as when from danda, 'staff,' we form dandin, 'staff-bearer'; in the case,
on the other hand, of substances not capable of subsisting and being
apprehended apart from others, the fact of their holding the position of
attributes is ascertained only from their appearing in grammatical co-
ordination.--But, an objection is raised, if it is supposed that in
sentences such as 'the Self is born, as god, man, animal,' &c., the body
of a man, god, &c., stands towards the Self in the relation of a mode,
in the same way as in sentences such as 'the ox is broken-horned,' 'the
cloth is white,' the generic characteristic and the quality stand in the
relation of modes to the substances ('cow,' 'cloth') to which they are
grammatically co-ordinated; then there would necessarily be simultaneous
cognition of the mode, and that to which the mode belongs, i.e. of the
body and the Self; just as there is simultaneous cognition of the
generic character and the individual. But as a matter of fact this is
not the case; we do not necessarily observe a human, divine, or animal
body together with the Self. The co-ordination expressed in the form
'the Self is a man,' is therefore an 'implied' one only (the statement
not admitting of being taken in its primary literal sense).--This is not
so, we reply. The relation of bodies to the Self is strictly analogous
to that of class characteristics and qualities to the substances in
which they inhere; for it is the Self only which is their substrate and
their final cause (prayojana), and they are modes of the Self. That the
Self only is their substrate, appears from the fact that when the Self
separates itself from the body the latter perishes; that the Self alone
is their final cause, appears from the fact that they exist to the end
that the fruits of the actions of the Self may be enjoyed; and that they
are modes of the Self, appears from the fact that they are mere
attributes of the Self manifesting itself as god, man, or the like.
These are just the circumstances on account of which words like 'cow'
extend in their meaning (beyond the class characteristics) so as to
comprise the individual also. Where those circumstances are absent, as
in the case of staffs, earrings, and the like, the attributive position
is expressed (not by co-ordination but) by means of special derivative
forms--such as dandin (staff-bearer), kundalin (adorned with earrings).
In the case of bodies divine, human, &c., on the other hand, the
essential nature of which it is to be mere modes of the Self which
constitutes their substrate and final cause, both ordinary and Vedic
language express the relation subsisting between the two, in the form of
co-ordination, 'This Self is a god, or a man,' &c. That class
characteristics and individuals are invariably observed together, is due
to the fact of both being objects of visual perception; the Self, on the
other hand, is not such, and hence is not apprehended by the eye, while
the body is so apprehended. Nor must you raise the objection that it is
hard to understand how that which is capable of being apprehended by
itself can be a mere mode of something else: for that the body's
essential nature actually consists in being a mere mode of the Self is
proved--just as in the case of class characteristics and so on--by its
having the Self only for its substrate and final cause, and standing to
it in the relation of a distinguishing attribute. That two things are
invariably perceived together, depends, as already observed, on their
being apprehended by means of the same apparatus, visual or otherwise.
Earth is naturally connected with smell, taste, and so on, and yet these
qualities are not perceived by the eye; in the same way the eye which
perceives the body does not perceive that essential characteristic of
the body which consists in its being a mere mode of the Self; the reason
of the difference being that the eye has no capacity to apprehend the
Self. But this does not imply that the body does not possess that
essential nature: it rather is just the possession of that essential
nature on which the judgment of co-ordination ('the Self is a man, god,'
&c.) is based. And as words have the power of denoting the relation of
something being a mode of the Self, they denote things together with
this relation.--But in ordinary speech the word 'body' is understood to
mean the mere body; it does not therefore extend in its denotation up to
the Self!--Not so, we reply. The body is, in reality, nothing but a mode
of the Self; but, for the purpose of showing the distinction of things,
the word 'body' is used in a limited sense. Analogously words such as
'whiteness,' 'generic character of a cow,' 'species,''quality,' are used
in a distinctive sense (although 'whiteness' is not found apart from a
white thing, of which it is the prakâra, and so on). Words such as
'god,' 'man,' &c., therefore do extend in their connotation up to the
Self. And as the individual souls, distinguished by their connexion with
aggregates of matter bearing the characteristic marks of humanity,
divine nature, and so on, constitute the body of the highest Self, and
hence are modes of it, the words denoting those individual souls extend
in their connotation up to the very highest Self. And as all intelligent
and non-intelligent beings are thus mere modes of the highest Brahman,
and have reality thereby only, the words denoting them are used in co-
ordination with the terms denoting Brahman.--This point has been
demonstrated by me in the Vedârthasamgraha. A Sûtra also (IV, 1, 3) will
declare the identity of the world and Brahman to consist in the relation
of body and Self; and the Vâkyakâra too says 'It is the Self--thus
everything should be apprehended.'

[FOOTNOTE 130:1. Which are alleged to prove that sâmânâdhikaranya is to
be explained on the basis of lakshanâ.]

[FOOTNOTE 134:1. Such as 'The True, knowledge,' &c.]




Summary statement as to the way in which different scriptural texts are
to reconciled.

The whole matter may be summarily stated as follows. Some texts declare
a distinction of nature between non-intelligent matter, intelligent
beings, and Brahman, in so far as matter is the object of enjoyment, the
souls the enjoying subjects, and Brahman the ruling principle. 'From
that the Lord of Mâyâ creates all this; in that the other one is bound
up through that Mâyâ' (Svet. Up. IV, 9); 'Know Prakriti to be Mâyâ, and
the great Lord the ruler of Mâyâ' (10); 'What is perishable is the
Pradhâna, the immortal and imperishable is Hara: the one God rules the
Perishable and the Self' (Svet Up. I, 10)--In this last passage the
clause 'the immortal and imperishable is Hara,' refers to the enjoying
individual soul, which is called 'Hara,' because it draws (harati)
towards itself the pradhâna as the object of its enjoyment.--' He is the
cause, the lord of the lords of the organs, and there is of him neither
parent nor lord' (Svet. Up. VI, 9); 'The master of the pradhâna and of
the individual souls' (Svet. Up. VI, 16); 'The ruler of all, the lord of
the Selfs, the eternal, blessed, undecaying one' (Mahânâr. Up. XI, 3);
'There are two unborn ones, one knowing, the other not knowing, one a
ruler, the other not a ruler' (Svet. Up. 1, 9); 'The eternal among the
non-eternal, the intelligent one among the intelligent, who though one
fulfils the desires of many' (Svet. Up. VI, 13); 'Knowing the enjoyer,
the object of enjoyment and the Mover' (Svet. Up. I, 12); 'One of them
eats the sweet fruit, the other looks on without eating' (Svet. Up. IV,
6); 'Thinking that the Self is different from the Mover, blessed by him
he reaches Immortality' (Svet. Up. I, 6); 'There is one unborn female
being, red, white, and black, uniform but producing manifold offspring.
There is one unborn male being who loves her and lies by her; there is
another who leaves her after he has enjoyed her' (Svet. Up. IV, 5). 'On
the same tree man, immersed, bewildered, grieves on account of his
impotence; but when he sees the other Lord contented and knows his glory,
then his grief passes away' (Svet. Up. IV, 9).--Smriti expresses itself
similarly.--'Thus eightfold is my nature divided. Lower is this Nature;
other than this and higher know that Nature of mine which constitutes
the individual soul, by which this world is supported' (Bha. Gì. VII, 4,
5). 'All beings at the end of a Kalpa return into my Nature, and again
at the beginning of a Kalpa do I send them forth. Resting on my own
Nature again and again do I send forth this entire body of beings, which
has no power of its own, being subject to the power of nature' (Bha. Gî.
IX, 7, 8); 'With me as supervisor Nature brings forth the movable and
the immovable, and for this reason the world ever moves round' (Bha. Gî.
IX, 10); 'Know thou both Nature and the Soul to be without beginning'
(XIII, 19); 'The great Brahman is my womb, in which I place the embryo,
and thence there is the origin of all beings' (XIV, 3). This last
passage means--the womb of the world is the great Brahman, i.e. non-
intelligent matter in its subtle state, commonly called Prakriti; with
this I connect the embryo, i.e. the intelligent principle. From this
contact of the non-intelligent and the intelligent, due to my will,
there ensues the origination of all beings from gods down to lifeless
things.

Non-intelligent matter and intelligent beings--holding the relative
positions of objects of enjoyment and enjoying subjects, and appearing
in multifarious forms--other scriptural texts declare to be permanently
connected with the highest Person in so far as they constitute his body,
and thus are controlled by him; the highest Person thus constituting
their Self. Compare the following passages: 'He who dwells in the earth
and within the earth, whom the earth does not know, whose body the earth
is, and who rules the earth within, he is thy Self, the ruler within,
the immortal,' &c. (Bri. Up. III, 7, 3-23); 'He who moves within the
earth, whose body the earth is, &c.; he who moves within death, whose
body death is,' &c.(Subâla Up. VII, 1). In this latter passage the word
'death' denotes what is also called 'darkness,' viz. non-intelligent
matter in its subtle state; as appears from another passage in the same
Upanishad,'the Imperishable is merged in darkness.' And compare also
'Entered within, the ruler of creatures, the Self of all' (Taitt. Âr.
III, 24).

Other texts, again, aim at teaching that the highest Self to whom non-
intelligent and intelligent beings stand in the relation of body, and
hence of modes, subsists in the form of the world, in its causal as well
as in its effected aspect, and hence speak of the world in this its
double aspect as that which is (the Real); so e.g. 'Being only this was
in the beginning, one only without a second--it desired, may I be many,
may I grow forth--it sent forth fire,' &c., up to 'all these creatures
have their root in that which is,' &c., up to 'that art thou, O
Svetaketu' (Ch. Up. VI, 2-8); 'He wished, may I be many,' &c., up to 'it
became the true and the untrue' (Taitt. Up. II, 6). These sections also
refer to the essential distinction of nature between non-intelligent
matter, intelligent beings, and the highest Self which is established by
other scriptural texts; so in the Chândogya passage, 'Let me enter those
three divine beings with this living Self, and let me then evolve names
and forms'; and in the Taitt. passage, 'Having sent forth that he
entered into it; having entered it he became sat and tyat, knowledge and
(what is) without knowledge, the true and the untrue,' &c. These two
passages evidently have the same purport, and hence the soul's having
its Self in Brahman--which view is implied in the Ch. passage--must be
understood as resting thereon that the souls (together, with matter)
constitute the body of Brahman as asserted in the Taitt. passage ('it
became knowledge and that which is without knowledge,' i.e. souls and
matter). The same process of evolution of names and forms is described
elsewhere also, 'All this was then unevolved; it became evolved by form
and name' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 7). The fact is that the highest Self is in
its causal or in its 'effected' condition, according as it has for its
body intelligent and non-intelligent beings either in their subtle or
their gross state; the effect, then, being non-different from the cause,
and hence being cognised through the cognition of the cause, the result
is that the desired 'cognition of all things through one' can on our
view be well established. In the clause 'I will enter into these three
divine beings with this living Self,' &c., the term 'the three divine
beings' denotes the entire aggregate of non-sentient matter, and as the
text declares that the highest Self evolved names and forms by entering
into matter by means of the living souls of which he is the Self, it
follows that all terms whatsoever denote the highest Self as qualified
by individual Selfs, the latter again being qualified by non-sentient
matter. A term which denotes the highest Self in its causal condition
may therefore be exhibited in co-ordination with another term denoting
the highest Self in its 'effected' state, both terms being used in their
primary senses. Brahman, having for its modes intelligent and non-
intelligent things in their gross and subtle states, thus constitutes
effect and cause, and the world thus has Brahman for its material cause
(upâdâna). Nor does this give rise to any confusion of the essential
constituent elements of the great aggregate of things. Of some parti-
coloured piece of cloth the material cause is threads white, red, black,
&c.; all the same, each definite spot of the cloth is connected with one
colour only white e.g., and thus there is no confusion of colours even
in the 'effected' condition of the cloth. Analogously the combination of
non-sentient matter, sentient beings, and the Lord constitutes the
material cause of the world, but this does not imply any confusion of
the essential characteristics of enjoying souls, objects of enjoyment,
and the universal ruler, even in the world's 'effected' state. There is
indeed a difference between the two cases, in so far as the threads are
capable of existing apart from one another, and are only occasionally
combined according to the volition of men, so that the web sometimes
exists in its causal, sometimes in its effected state; while non-
sentient matter and sentient beings in all their states form the body of
the highest Self, and thus have a being only as the modes of that--on
which account the highest Self may, in all cases, be denoted by any term
whatsoever. But the two cases are analogous, in so far as there persists
a distinction and absence of all confusion, on the part of the
constituent elements of the aggregate. This being thus, it follows that
the highest Brahman, although entering into the 'effected' condition,
remains unchanged--for its essential nature does not become different--
and we also understand what constitutes its 'effected' condition, viz.
its abiding as the Self of non-intelligent and intelligent beings in
their gross condition, distinguished by name and form. For becoming an
effect means entering into another state of being.

Those texts, again, which speak of Brahman as devoid of qualities,
explain themselves on the ground of Brahman being free from all touch of
evil. For the passage, Ch. Up. VIII, 1, 5--which at first negatives all
evil qualities 'free from sin, from old age, from death, from grief,
from hunger and thirst', and after that affirms auspicious qualities
'whose wishes and purposes come true'--enables us to decide that in
other places also the general denial of qualities really refers to evil
qualities only.--Passages which declare knowledge to constitute the
essential nature of Brahman explain themselves on the ground that of
Brahman--which is all-knowing, all-powerful, antagonistic to all evil, a
mass of auspicious qualities--the essential nature can be defined as
knowledge (intelligence) only--which also follows from the 'self-
luminousness' predicated of it. Texts, on the other hand, such as 'He
who is all-knowing' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 9); 'His high power is revealed as
manifold, as essential, acting as force and knowledge' (Svet. Up. VI, 8);
'Whereby should he know the knower' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 14), teach the
highest Self to be a knowing subject. Other texts, again, such as 'The
True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1), declare
knowledge to constitute its nature, as it can be denned through
knowledge only, and is self-luminous. And texts such as 'He desired, may
I be many' (Taitt. Up. II, 6); 'It thought, may I be many; it evolved
itself through name and form' (Ch. Up. VI, 2), teach that Brahman,
through its mere wish, appears in manifold modes. Other texts, again,
negative the opposite view, viz. that there is a plurality of things not
having their Self in Brahman. 'From death to death goes he who sees here
any plurality'; 'There is here not any plurality' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 19);
'For where there is duality as it were' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 14). But these
texts in no way negative that plurality of modes--declared in passages
such as 'May I be many, may I grow forth'--which springs from Brahman's
will, and appears in the distinction of names and forms. This is proved
by clauses in those 'negativing' texts themselves, 'Whosoever looks for
anything elsewhere than in the Self', 'from that great Being there has
been breathed forth the Rig-veda,' &c. (Bri. Up. II, 4, 6, 10).--On
this method of interpretation we find that the texts declaring the
essential distinction and separation of non-sentient matter, sentient
beings, and the Lord, and those declaring him to be the cause and the
world to be the effect, and cause and effect to be identical, do not in
any way conflict with other texts declaring that matter and souls form
the body of the Lord, and that matter and souls in their causal
condition are in a subtle state, not admitting of the distinction of
names and forms while in their 'effected' gross state they are subject
to that distinction. On the other hand, we do not see how there is any
opening for theories maintaining the connexion of Brahman with Nescience,
or distinctions in Brahman due to limiting adjuncts (upâdhi)--such and
similar doctrines rest on fallacious reasoning, and flatly contradict
Scripture.

There is nothing contradictory in allowing that certain texts declare
the essential distinction of matter, souls, and the Lord, and their
mutual relation as modes and that to which the modes belong, and that
other texts again represent them as standing in the relation of cause
and effect, and teach cause and effect to be one. We may illustrate this
by an analogous case from the Karmakânda. There six separate oblations
to Agni, and so on, are enjoined by separate so-called originative
injunctions; these are thereupon combined into two groups (viz. the new
moon and the full-moon sacrifices) by a double clause referring to those
groups, and finally a so-called injunction of qualification enjoins the
entire sacrifice as something to be performed by persons entertaining a
certain wish. In a similar way certain Vedânta-texts give instruction
about matter, souls, and the Lord as separate entities ('Perishable is
the pradhâna, imperishable and immortal Hara,' &c., Svet Up. I, 10; and
others); then other texts teach that matter and souls in all their
different states constitute the body of the highest Person, while the
latter is their Self ('Whose body the earth is,' &c.); and finally
another group of texts teaches--by means of words such as 'Being,'
'Brahman,' 'Self,' denoting the highest Self to which the body belongs--
that the one highest Self in its causal and effected states comprises
within itself the triad of entities which had been taught in separation
('Being only this was in the beginning'; 'In that all this has its Self;
'All this is Brahman').--That the highest Self with matter and souls for
its body should be simply called the highest Self, is no more
objectionable than that that particular form of Self which is invested
with a human body should simply be spoken of as Self or soul--as when we
say 'This is a happy soul.'




Nescience cannot be terminated by the simple act of cognising Brahman as
the universal self.

The doctrine, again, that Nescience is put an end to by the cognition of
Brahman being the Self of all can in no way be upheld; for as bondage is
something real it cannot be put an end to by knowledge. How, we ask, can
any one assert that bondage--which consists in the experience of
pleasure and pain caused by the connexion of souls with bodies of
various kind, a connexion springing from good or evil actions--is
something false, unreal? And that the cessation of such bondage is to be
obtained only through the grace of the highest Self pleased by the
devout meditation of the worshipper, we have already explained. As the
cognition of universal oneness which you assume rests on a view of
things directly contrary to reality, and therefore is false, the only
effect it can have is to strengthen the ties of bondage. Moreover, texts
such as 'But different is the highest Person' (Bha. Gî. XV, 17), and
'Having known the Self and the Mover as separate' (Svet. Up. I, 6),
teach that it is the cognition of Brahman as the inward ruler different
from the individual soul, that effects the highest aim of man, i.e.
final release. And, further, as that 'bondage-terminating' knowledge
which you assume is itself unreal, we should have to look out for
another act of cognition to put an end to it.--But may it not be said
that this terminating cognition, after having put an end to the whole
aggregate of distinctions antagonistic to it, immediately passes away
itself, because being of a merely instantaneous nature?--No, we reply.
Since its nature, its origination, and its destruction are all alike
fictitious, we have clearly to search for another agency capable of
destroying that avidyâ which is the cause of the fiction of its
destruction!--Let us then say that the essential nature of Brahman
itself is the destruction of that cognition!--From this it would follow,
we reply, that such 'terminating' knowledge would not arise at all; for
that the destruction of what is something permanent can clearly not
originate!--Who moreover should, according to you, be the cognising
subject in a cognition which has for its object the negation of
everything that is different from Brahman?--That cognising subject is
himself something fictitiously superimposed on Brahman!--This may not be,
we reply: he himself would in that case be something to be negatived,
and hence an object of the 'terminating' cognition; he could not
therefore be the subject of cognition!--Well, then, let us assume that
the essential nature of Brahman itself is the cognising subject!--Do you
mean, we ask in reply, that Brahman's being the knowing subject in that
'terminating' cognition belongs to Brahman's essential nature, or that
it is something fictitiously superimposed on Brahman? In the latter case
that superimposition and the Nescience founded on it would persist,
because they would not be objects of the terminating cognition, and if a
further terminating act of knowledge were assumed, that also would
possess a triple aspect (viz. knowledge, object known, and subject
knowing), and we thus should be led to assume an infinite series of
knowing subjects. If, on the other band, the essential nature of Brahman
itself constitutes the knowing subject, your view really coincides with
the one held by us. [FOOTNOTE 146:1] And if you should say that the
terminating knowledge itself and the knowing subject in it are things
separate from Brahman and themselves contained in the sphere of what is
to be terminated by that knowledge, your statement would be no less
absurd than if you were to say 'everything on the surface of the earth
has been cut down by Devadatta with one stroke'--meaning thereby that
Devadatta himself and the action of cutting down are comprised among the
things cut down!--The second alternative, on the other hand--according
to which the knowing subject is not Brahman itself, but a knower
superimposed upon it--would imply that that subject is the agent in an
act of knowledge resulting in his own destruction; and this is
impossible since no person aims at destroying himself. And should it be
said that the destruction of the knowing agent belongs to the very
nature of Brahman itself [FOOTNOTE 147:1], it would follow that we can
assume neither plurality nor the erroneous view of plurality, nor avidyâ
as the root of that erroneous view.--All this confirms our theory, viz.
that since bondage springs from ajnâna in the form of an eternal stream
of karman, it can be destroyed only through knowledge of the kind
maintained by us. Such knowledge is to be attained only through the due
daily performance of religious duties as prescribed for a man's caste
and âsrama, such performance being sanctified by the accompanying
thought of the true nature of the Self, and having the character of
propitiation of the highest Person. Now, that mere works produce limited
and non-permanent results only, and that on the other hand works not
aiming at an immediate result but meant to please the highest Person,
bring about knowledge of the character of devout meditation, and thereby
the unlimited and permanent result of the intuition of Brahman being the
Self of all--these are points not to be known without an insight into
the nature of works, and hence, without this, the attitude described--
which is preceded by the abandonment of mere works--cannot be reached.
For these reasons the enquiry into Brahman has to be entered upon _after_
the enquiry into the nature of works.

[FOOTNOTE 146:1. According to which Brahman is not jñânam, but jñâtri.]

[FOOTNOTE 147:1. And, on that account, belongs to what constitutes man's
highest aim.]




The Vedântin aiming to ascertain the nature of Brahman from Scripture,
need not be disconcerted by the Mîmâmsâ-theory of all speech having
informing power with regard to actions only.

Here another primâ facie view [FOOTNOTE 148:1] finally presents itself.
The power of words to denote things cannot be ascertained in any way but
by observing the speech and actions of experienced people. Now as such
speech and action always implies the idea of something to be done
(kârya), words are means of knowledge only with reference to things to
be done; and hence the matter inculcated by the Veda also is only things
to be done. From this it follows that the Vedânta-texts cannot claim the
position of authoritative means of knowledge with regard to Brahman,
which is (not a thing to be done but) an accomplished fact.--Against
this view it must not be urged that in the case of sentences expressive
of accomplished facts--as e.g. that a son is born to somebody--the idea
of a particular thing may with certainty be inferred as the cause of
certain outward signs--such as e.g. a pleased expression of countenance--
which are generally due to the attainment of a desired object; for the
possible causes of joy, past, present, and future, are infinite in
number, and in the given case other causes of joy, as e.g. the birth
having taken place in an auspicious moment, or having been an easy one,
&c., may easily be imagined. Nor, again, can it be maintained that the
denotative power of words with regard to accomplished things may be
ascertained in the way of our inferring either the meaning of one word
from the known meaning of other words, or the meaning of the radical
part of a word from the known meaning of a formative element; for the
fact is that we are only able to infer on the basis of a group of words
known to denote a certain thing to be done, what the meaning of some
particular constituent of that group may be.--Nor, again, when a person,
afraid of what he thinks to be a snake, is observed to dismiss his fear
on being told that the thing is not a snake but only a rope, can we
determine thereby that what terminates his fear is the idea of the non-
existence of a snake. For there are many other ideas which may account
for the cessation of his fear--he may think, e.g., 'this is a thing
incapable of moving, devoid of poison, without consciousness'--the
particular idea present to his mind we are therefore not able to
determine.--The truth is that from the fact of all activity being
invariably dependent on the idea of something to be done, we learn that
the meaning which words convey is something prompting activity. All
words thus denoting something to be done, the several words of a
sentence express only some particular action to be performed, and hence
it is not possible to determine that they possess the power of denoting
their own meaning only, in connexion with the meaning of the other words
of the sentence.--(Nor must it be said that what moves to action is not
the idea of the thing to be done, but the idea of the means to do it;
for) the idea of the means to bring about the desired end causes action
only through the idea of the thing to be done, not through itself; as is
evident from the fact that the idea of means past, future, and even
present (when divorced from the idea of an end to be accomplished), does
not prompt to action. As long as a man does not reflect 'the means
towards the desired end are not to be accomplished without an effort of
mine; it must therefore be accomplished through my activity'; so long he
does not begin to act. What causes activity is thus only the idea of
things to be done; and as hence words denote such things only, the Veda
also can tell us only about things to be done, and is not therefore in a
position to give information about the attainment of an infinite and
permanent result, such result being constituted by Brahman, which is
(not a thing to be done, but) an accomplished entity. The Veda does, on
the other hand, actually teach that mere works have a permanent result
('Imperishable is the merit of him who offers the kâturmâsya-sacrifices,'
and so on); and hence it follows that to enter on an enquiry into
Brahman for the reason that the knowledge of Brahman has an infinite and
permanent result, while the result of works is limited and non-permanent,
is an altogether unjustified proceeding.

To this we make the following reply.--To set aside the universally known
mode of ascertaining the connexion of words and their meanings, and to
assert that all words express only one non-worldly meaning (viz. those
things to be done which the Veda inculcates), is a proceeding for which
men paying due attention to the means of proof can have only a slight
regard. A child avowedly learns the connexion of words and meanings in
the following way. The father and mother and other people about him
point with the finger at the child's mother, father, uncle, &c, as well
as at various domestic and wild animals, birds, snakes, and so on, to
the end that the child may at the same time pay attention to the terms
they use and to the beings denoted thereby, and thus again and again
make him understand that such and such words refer to such and such
things. The child thus observing in course of time that these words of
themselves give rise to certain ideas in his mind, and at the same time
observing neither any different connexion of words and things, nor any
person arbitrarily establishing such connexion, comes to the conclusion
that the application of such and such words to such and such things is
based on the denotative power of the words. And being taught later on by
his elders that other words also, in addition to those learned first,
have their definite meaning, he in the end becomes acquainted with the
meanings of all words, and freely forms sentences conveying certain
meanings for the purpose of imparting those meanings to other persons.

And there is another way also in which the connexion of words and things
can easily be ascertained. Some person orders another, by means of some
expressive gesture, to go and inform Devadatta that his father is doing
well, and the man ordered goes and tells Devadatta 'Your father is doing
well.' A by-stander who is acquainted with the meaning of various
gestures, and thus knows on what errand the messenger is sent, follows
him and hears the words employed by him to deliver his message: he
therefore readily infers that such and such words have such and such a
meaning.--We thus see that the theory of words having a meaning only in
relation to things to be done is baseless. The Vedânta-texts tell us
about Brahman, which is an accomplished entity, and about meditation on
Brahman as having an unlimited result, and hence it behoves us to
undertake an enquiry into Brahman so as fully to ascertain its nature.

We further maintain that even on the supposition of the Veda relating
only to things to be done, an enquiry into Brahman must be undertaken.
For 'The Self is to be seen, to be heard, to be reflected on, to be
meditated on' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 5); 'He is to be searched out, him we
must try to understand' (Ch. Up. VIII, 7, 1); 'Let a Brâhmana having
known him practise wisdom' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 21); 'What is within that
small ether, that is to be sought for, that is to be understood' (Ch. Up.
VIII, 1,1); 'What is in that small ether, that is to be meditated upon'
(Mahânâr. Up. X, 7)--these and similar texts enjoin a certain action,
viz. meditation on Brahman, and when we then read 'He who knows Brahman
attains the highest,' we understand that the attainment of Brahman is
meant as a reward for him who is qualified for and enters on such
meditation. Brahman itself and its attributes are thus established
thereby only--that they subserve a certain action, viz. meditation.
There are analogous instances in the Karmakânda of the Veda. When an
arthavâda-passage describes the heavenly vorld as a place where there is
no heat, no frost, no grief, &c., this is done merely with a view to
those texts which enjoin certain sacrifices on those who are desirous of
the heavenly world. Where another arthavâda says that 'those who perform
certain sattra-sacrifices are firmly established,' such 'firm
establishment' is referred to only because it is meant as the reward for
those acting on the text which enjoins those sattras, 'Let him perform
the râtri-sattras' (Pû. Mî. Sû. IV, 3, 17). And where a text says that a
person threatening a Brâhmana is to be punished with a fine of one
hundred gold pieces, this statement is made merely with reference to the
prohibitory passage, 'Let him not threaten a Brâhmana'(Pû. Mî. Sû. III,
4, 17).

We, however, really object to the whole theory of the meaning of words
depending on their connexion with 'things to be done,' since this is not
even the case in imperative clauses such as 'bring the cow.' For you are
quite unable to give a satisfactory definition of your 'thing to be done
'(kârya). You understand by 'kârya' that which follows on the existence
of action (kriti) and is aimed at by action. Now to be aimed at by
action is to be the object (karman) of action, and to be the object of
action is to be that which it is most desired to obtain by action
(according to the grammarian's definition). But what one desires most to
obtain is pleasure or the cessation of pain. When a person desirous of
some pleasure or cessation of pain is aware that his object is not to be
accomplished without effort on his part, he resolves on effort and
begins to act: in no case we observe an object of desire to be aimed at
by action in any other sense than that of its accomplishment depending
on activity. The prompting quality (prerakatva) also, which belongs to
objects of desire, is nothing but the attribute of their accomplishment
depending on activity; for it is this which moves to action.--Nor can it
be said that 'to be aimed at by action' means to be that which is
'agreeable' (anukûla) to man; for it is pleasure only that is agreeable
to man. The cessation of pain, on the other hand, is not what is
'agreeable' to man. The essential distinction between pleasure and pain
is that the former is agreeable to man, and the latter disagreeable
(pratikûla), and the cessation of pain is desired not because it is
agreeable, but because pain is disagreeable: absence of pain means that
a person is in his normal condition, affected neither with pain nor
pleasure. Apart from pleasure, action cannot possibly be agreeable, nor
does it become so by being subservient to pleasure; for its essential
nature is pain. Its being helpful to pleasure merely causes the resolve
of undertaking it.--Nor, again, can we define that which is aimed at by
action as that to which action is auxiliary or supplementary (sesha),
while itself it holds the position of something principal to be
subserved by other things (seshin); for of the sesha and seshin also no
proper definition can be given. It cannot be said that a sesha is that
which is invariably accompanied by an activity proceeding with a view to
something else, and that the correlate of such a sesha is the seshin;
for on this definition the action is not a sesha, and hence that which
is to be effected by the action cannot be the correlative seshin. And
moreover a seshin may not be defined as what is correlative to an action
proceeding with a view to--i. e. aiming at--something else; for it is
just this 'being aimed at' of which we require a definition, and
moreover we observe that also the seshin (or 'pradhâna') is capable of
action proceeding with a view to the sesha, as when e.g. a master does
something for--let us say, keeps or feeds--his servant. This last
criticism you must not attempt to ward off by maintaining that the
master in keeping his servant acts with a view to himself (to his own
advantage); for the servant in serving the master likewise acts with a
view to himself.--And as, further, we have no adequate definition of
'kârya,' it would be inappropriate to define sesha as that which is
correlative to kârya, and seshin as that which is correlative to sesha.--
Nor, finally, may we define 'that which is aimed at by action' as that
which is the final end (prayojana) of action; for by the final end of an
action we could only understand the end for which the agent undertakes
the action, and this end is no other than the desired object. As thus
'what is aimed at by action' cannot be defined otherwise than what is
desired, kârya cannot be defined as what is to be effected by action and
stands to action in the relation of principal matter (pradhâna or
seshin).

(Let it then be said that the 'niyoga,' i.e. what is commonly called the
apûrva--the supersensuous result of an action which later on produces
the sensible result--constitutes the prayojana--the final purpose--of
the action.--But) the apûrva also can, as it is something different from
the direct objects of desire, viz. pleasure and the cessation of pain,
be viewed only as a means of bringing about these direct objects, and as
something itself to be effected by the action; it is for this very
reason that it is something different from the action, otherwise the
action itself would be that which is effected by the action. The thing
to be effected by the action-which is expressed by means of optative and
imperative verbal forms such as yajeta, 'let him sacrifice'--is, in
accordance with the fact of its being connected with words such as
svargakâmah, 'he who is desirous of heaven', understood to be the means
of bringing about (the enjoyment of) the heavenly world; and as the
(sacrificial) action itself is transitory, there is assumed an
altogether 'new' or 'unprecedented' (apûrva) effect of it which (later
on) is to bring about the enjoyment of heaven. This so-called 'apûrva'
can therefore be understood only with regard to its capability of
bringing about the heavenly world. Now it certainly is ludicrous to
assert that the apûrva, which is assumed to the end of firmly
establishing the independent character of the effect of the action first
recognised as such (i.e. independent), later on becomes the means of
realising the heavenly world; for as the word expressing the result of
the action (yajta) appears in syntactical connexion with 'svargakâmah'
(desirous of heaven), it does not, from the very beginning, denote an
independent object of action, and moreover it is impossible to recognise
an independent result of action other than either pleasure or cessation
of pain, or the means to bring about these two results.--What, moreover,
do you understand by the apûrva being a final end (prayojana)?-You will
perhaps reply, 'its being agreeable like pleasure.'--Is then the apûrva
a pleasure? It is pleasure alone which is agreeable!--Well, let us then
define the apûrva as a kind of pleasure of a special nature, called by
that name!--But what proof, we ask, have you for this? You will, in the
first place, admit yourself that you do not directly experience any
pleasure springing from consciousness of your apûrva, which could in any
way be compared to the pleasure caused by the consciousness of the
objects of the senses.--Well, let us say then that as authoritative
doctrine gives us the notion of an apûrva as something beneficial to man,
we conclude that it will be enjoyed later on.--But, we ask, what is the
authoritative doctrine establishing such an apûrva beneficial to man?
Not, in the first place, ordinary, i.e. non-Vedic doctrine; for such has
for its object action only which always is essentially painful. Nor, in
the next place, Vedic texts; for those also enjoin action only as the
means to bring about certain results such as the heavenly world. Nor
again the Smriti texts enjoining works of either permanent or occasional
obligation; for those texts always convey the notion of an apûrva only
on the basis of an antecedent knowledge of the apûrva as intimated by
Vedic texts containing terms such as svargakâmah. And we, moreover, do
not observe that in the case of works having a definite result in this
life, there is enjoyment of any special pleasure called apûrva, in
addition to those advantages which constitute the special result of the
work and are enjoyed here below, as e.g. abundance of food or freedom
from sickness. Thus there is not any proof of the apûrva being a
pleasure. The arthavâda-passages of the Veda also, while glorifying
certain pleasurable results of works, as e.g. the heavenly world, do not
anywhere exhibit a similar glorification of a pleasure called apûrva.

From all this we conclude that also in injunctory sentences that which
is expressed by imperative and similar forms is only the idea that the
meaning of the root--as known from grammar--is to be effected by the
effort of the agent. And that what constitutes the meaning of roots, viz.
the action of sacrificing and the like, possesses the quality of
pleasing the highest Person, who is the inner ruler of Agni and other
divinities (to whom the sacrifices are ostensibly offered), and that
through the highest Person thus pleased the result of the sacrifice is
accomplished, we shall show later on, under Sû. III, 2, 37--It is thus
finally proved that the Vedânta-texts give information about an
accomplished entity, viz. Brahman, and that the fruit of meditation on
Brahman is something infinite and permanent. Where, on the other hand,
Scripture refers to the fruit of mere works, such as the kâturmâsya-
sacrifices, as something imperishable, we have to understand this
imperishableness in a merely relative sense, for Scripture definitely
teaches that the fruit of all works is perishable.

We thus arrive at the settled conclusion that, since the fruit of mere
works is limited and perishable, while that of the cognition of Brahman
is infinite and permanent, there is good reason for entering on an
enquiry into Brahman--the result of which enquiry will be the accurate
determination of Brahman's nature.--Here terminates the adhikarana of
'Enquiry.'

What then is that Brahman which is here said to be an object that should
be enquired into?--To this question the second Sûtra gives a reply.

[FOOTNOTE 148:1. This view is held by the Prâbhâkara Mîmâmsakas.]




2. (Brahman is that) from which the origin, &c., of this (world proceed).

The expression 'the origin', &c., means 'creation, subsistence, and
reabsorption'. The 'this' (in 'of this') denotes this entire world with
its manifold wonderful arrangements, not to be fathomed by thought, and
comprising within itself the aggregate of living souls from Brahmâ down
to blades of grass, all of which experience the fruits (of their former
actions) in definite places and at definite times. 'That from which,' i.
e. that highest Person who is the ruler of all; whose nature is
antagonistic to all evil; whose purposes come true; who possesses
infinite auspicious qualities, such as knowledge, blessedness, and so on;
who is omniscient, omnipotent, supremely merciful; from whom the
creation, subsistence, and reabsorption of this world proceed--he is
Brahman: such is the meaning of the Sûtra.--The definition here given of
Brahman is founded on the text Taitt. Up. III, 1, 'Bhrigu Vâruni went to
his father Varuna, saying, Sir, teach me Brahman', &c., up to 'That from
which these beings are born, that by which when born they live, that
into which they enter at their death, try to know that: that is Brahman.'

A doubt arises here. Is it possible, or not, to gain a knowledge of
Brahman from the characteristic marks stated in this passage?--It is not
possible, the Pûrvapakshin contends. The attributes stated in that
passage--viz. being that from which the world originates, and so on--do
not properly indicate Brahman; for as the essence of an attribute lies
in its separative or distinctive function, there would result from the
plurality of distinctive attributes plurality on the part of Brahman
itself.--But when we say 'Devadatta is of a dark complexion, is young,
has reddish eyes,' &c., we also make a statement as to several
attributes, and yet we are understood to refer to one Devadatta only;
similarly we understand in the case under discussion also that there is
one Brahman only!--Not so, we reply. In Devadatta's case we connect all
attributes with one person, because we know his unity through other
means of knowledge; otherwise the distinctive power of several
attributes would lead us, in this case also, to the assumption of
several substances to which the several attributes belong. In the case
under discussion, on the other hand, we do not, apart from the statement
as to attributes, know anything about the unity of Brahman, and the
distinctive power of the attributes thus necessarily urges upon us the
idea of several Brahmans.--But we maintain that the unity of the term
'Brahman' intimates the unity of the thing 'Brahman'!--By no means, we
reply. If a man who knows nothing about cows, but wishes to know about
them, is told 'a cow is that which has either entire horns, or mutilated
horns, or no horns,' the mutally exclusive ideas of the possession of
entire horns, and so on, raise in his mind the ideas of several
individual cows, although the term 'cow' is one only; and in the same
way we are led to the idea of several distinct Brahmans. For this reason,
even the different attributes combined are incapable of defining the
thing, the definition of which is desired.--Nor again are the
characteristics enumerated in the Taitt. passage (viz. creation of the
world, &c.) capable of defining Brahman in the way of secondary marks
(upalakshana), because the thing to be defined by them is not previously
known in a different aspect. So-called secondary marks are the cause of
something already known from a certain point of view, being known in a
different aspect--as when it is said 'Where that crane is standing, that
is the irrigated field of Devadatta.'--But may we not say that from the
text 'The True, knowledge, the Infinite is Brahman,' we already have an
idea of Brahman, and that hence its being the cause of the origin, &c.,
of the world may be taken as collateral indications (pointing to
something already known in a certain way)?--Not so, we reply; either of
these two defining texts has a meaning only with reference to an aspect
of Brahman already known from the other one, and this mutual dependence
deprives both of their force.--Brahman cannot therefore be known through
the characteristic marks mentioned in the text under discussion.

To this primâ facie view we make the following reply. Brahman can be
known on the basis of the origination, subsistence, and reabsorption of
the world--these characteristics occupying the position of collateral
marks. No objection can be raised against this view, on the ground that,
apart from what these collateral marks point to, no other aspect of
Brahman is known; for as a matter of fact they point to that which is
known to us as possessing supreme greatness (brihattva) and power of
growth (brimhana)--this being the meaning of the root brimh (from which
'Brahman' is derived). Of this Brahman, thus already known (on the basis
of etymology), the origination, sustentation, and reabsorption of the
world are collateral marks. Moreover, in the Taitt. text under
discussion, the relative pronoun--which appears in three forms, (that)
'from whence,' (that) 'by which,' (that) 'into which'--refers to
something which is already known as the cause of the origin, and so on,
of the world. This previous knowledge rests on the Ch. passage, 'Being
only this was in the beginning,' &c., up to 'it sent forth fire'--which
declares that the one principle denoted as 'being' is the universal
material, and instrumental cause. There the clause 'Being only this was
in the beginning, one only,' establishes that one being as the general
material cause; the word 'without a second' negatives the existence of a
second operative cause; and the clauses 'it thought, may I be many, may
I grow forth', and 'it sent forth fire', establish that one being (as
the cause and substance of everything). If, then, it is said that
Brahman is that which is the root of the world's origination,
subsistence, and reabsorption, those three processes sufficiently
indicate Brahman as that entity which is their material and operative
cause; and as being the material and the operative cause implies
greatness (brihattva) manifesting itself in various powers, such as
omniscience, and so on, Brahman thus is something already known; and as
hence origination, &c., of the world are marks of something already
known, the objection founded above on the absence of knowledge of
another aspect of Brahman is seen to be invalid.--Nor is there really
any objection to the origination, &c., of the world being taken as
characteristic marks of Brahman in so far as they are distinctive
attributes. For taken as attributes they indicate Brahman as something
different from what is opposed to those attributes. Several attributes
which do not contradict each other may serve quite well as
characteristic marks defining one thing, the nature of which is not
otherwise known, without the plurality of the attributes in any way
involving plurality of the thing defined; for as those attributes are at
once understood to belong to one substrate, we naturally combine them
within that one substrate. Such attributes, of course, as the possession
of mutilated horns (mentioned above), which are contradictorily opposed
to each other, necessarily lead to the assumption of several individual
cows to which they severally belong; but the origination, &c., of the
world are processes separated from each other by difference of time only,
and may therefore, without contradiction, be connected with one Brahman
in succession.--The text 'from whence these beings', &c., teaches us
that Brahman is the cause of the origination, &c., of the world, and of
this Brahman thus known the other text 'The True, knowledge, the
Infinite is Brahman', tells us that its essential nature marks it off
from everything else. The term 'True' expresses Brahman in so far as
possessing absolutely non-conditioned existence, and thus distinguishes
it from non-intelligent matter, the abode of change, and the souls
implicated in matter; for as both of these enter into different states
of existence called by different names, they do not enjoy unconditioned
being. The term 'knowledge' expresses the characteristic of permanently
non-contracted intelligence, and thus distinguishes Brahman from the
released souls whose intelligence is sometimes in a contracted state.
And the term 'Infinite' denotes that, whose nature is free from all
limitation of place, time, and particular substantial nature; and as
Brahman's essential nature possesses attributes, infinity belongs both
to the essential nature and to the attributes. The qualification of
Infinity excludes all those individual souls whose essential nature and
attributes are not unsurpassable, and who are distinct from the two
classes of beings already excluded by the two former terms (viz. 'true
being' and 'knowledge').--The entire text therefore defines Brahman--
which is already known to be the cause of the origination, &c., of the
world--as that which is in kind different from all other things; and it
is therefore not true that the two texts under discussion have no force
because mutually depending on each other. And from this it follows that
a knowledge of Brahman may be gained on the ground of its characteristic
marks--such as its being the cause of the origination, &c., of the world,
free from all evil, omniscient, all-powerful, and so on.

To those, on the other hand, who maintain that the object of enquiry is
a substance devoid of all difference, neither the first nor the second
Sûtra can be acceptable; for the Brahman, the enquiry into which the
first Sûtra proposes, is, according to authoritative etymology,
something of supreme greatness; and according to the second Sûtra it is
the cause of the origin, subsistence, and final destruction of the world.
The same remark holds good with regard to all following Sûtras, and the
scriptural texts on which they are based--none of them confirm the
theory of a substance devoid of all difference. Nor, again, does
Reasoning prove such a theory; for Reasoning has for its object things
possessing a 'proving' attribute which constantly goes together with an
attribute 'to be proved.' And even if, in agreement with your view, we
explained the second Sûtra as meaning 'Brahman is that whence proceeds
the error of the origination, &c., of the world', we should not thereby
advance your theory of a substance devoid of all difference. For, as you
teach, the root of all error is Nescience, and Brahman is that which
witnesses (is conscious of) Nescience, and the essence of witnessing
consciousness consists in being pure light (intelligence), and the
essence of pure light or intelligence is that, distinguishing itself
from the Non-intelligent, it renders itself, as well as what is
different from it, capable of becoming the object of empiric thought and
speech (vyavahâra). All this implies the presence of difference--if
there were no difference, light or intelligence could not be what it is,
it would be something altogether void, without any meaning.--Here
terminates the adhikarana of 'origination and so on.'

An objection to the purport of the preceding Sûtras here presents itself.--
The assertion that Brahman, as the cause of the origination, &c., of the
world, must be known through the Vedânta-texts is unfounded; for as
Brahman may be inferred as the cause of the world through ordinary
reasoning, it is not something requiring to be taught by authoritative
texts.--To this objection the next Sûtra replies.




3. Because Scripture is the source (of the knowledge of Brahman).

Because Brahman, being raised above all contact with the senses, is not
an object of perception and the other means of proof, but to be known
through Scripture only; therefore the text 'Whence these creatures are
born,' &c., has to be accepted as instructing us regarding the true
nature of Brahman.--But, our opponent points out, Scripture cannot be
the source of our knowledge of Brahman, because Brahman is to be known
through other means. For it is an acknowledged principle that Scripture
has meaning only with regard to what is not established by other sources
of knowledge.--But what, to raise a primâ facie counter objection, are
those other sources of knowledge? It cannot, in the first place, be
Perception. Perception is twofold, being based either on the sense-
organs or on extraordinary concentration of mind (yoga). Of Perception
of the former kind there are again two sub-species, according as
Perception takes place either through the outer sense-organs or the
internal organ (manas). Now the outer sense-organs produce knowledge of
their respective objects, in so far as the latter are in actual contact
with the organs, but are quite unable to give rise to the knowledge of
the special object constituted by a supreme Self that is capable of
being conscious of and creating the whole aggregate of things. Nor can
internal perception give rise to such knowledge; for only purely
internal things, such as pleasure and pain, fall within its cognisance,
and it is incapable of relating itself to external objects apart from
the outer sense-organs. Nor, again, perception based on Yoga; for
although such perception--which springs from intense imagination--
implies a vivid presentation of things, it is, after all, nothing more
than a reproduction of objects perceived previously, and does not
therefore rank as an instrument of knowledge; for it has no means of
applying itself to objects other than those perceived previously. And if,
after all, it does so, it is (not a means of knowledge but) a source of
error.--Nor also inference either of the kind which proceeds on the
observation of special cases or of the kind which rests on
generalizations (cp. Nyâya Sû. I, 1,5,). Not inference of the former
kind, because such inference is not known to relate to anything lying
beyond the reach of the senses. Nor inference of the latter kind,
because we do not observe any characteristic feature that is invariably
accompanied by the presence of a supreme Self capable of being conscious
of, and constructing, the universe of things.--But there _is_ such a
feature, viz. the world's being an effected thing; it being a matter of
common experience that whatever is an effect or product, is due to an
agent who possesses a knowledge of the material cause, the instrumental
cause, the final end, and the person meant to make use of the thing
produced. It further is matter of experience that whatever consists of
non-sentient matter is dependent on, or ruled by, a single intelligent
principle. The former generalization is exemplified by the case of jars
and similar things, and the latter by a living body in good health,
which consists of non-intelligent matter dependent on an intelligent
principle. And that the body is an effected thing follows from its
consisting of parts.--Against this argumentation also objections may be
raised. What, it must be asked, do you understand by this dependence on
an intelligent principle? Not, we suppose, that the origination and
subsistence of the non-intelligent thing should be dependent on the
intelligent principle; for in that case your example would not help to
prove your contention. Neither the origin nor the subsistence of a
person's healthy body depends on the intelligent soul of that person
alone; they rather are brought about by the merit and demerit of all
those souls which in any way share the fruition of that body--the wife,
e.g. of that person, and others. Moreover, the existence of a body made
up of parts means that body's being connected with its parts in the way
of so-called intimate relation (sama-vâya), and this requires a certain
combination of the parts but not a presiding intelligent principle. The
existence of animated bodies, moreover, has for its characteristic mark
the process of breathing, which is absent in the case of the earth, sea,
mountains, &c.--all of which are included in the class of things
concerning which you wish to prove something--, and we therefore miss a
uniform kind of existence common to all those things.--Let us then
understand by the dependence of a non-intelligent thing on an
intelligent principle, the fact of the motion of the former depending on
the latter!--This definition, we rejoin, would comprehend also those
cases in which heavy things, such as carriages, masses of stone, trees,
&c., are set in motion by several intelligent beings (while what you want
to prove is the dependence of a moving thing on one intelligent
principle). If, on the other hand, you mean to say that all motion
depends on intelligence in general, you only prove what requires no
proof.--Another alternative, moreover, here presents itself. As we both
admit the existence of individual souls, it will be the more economical
hypothesis to ascribe to them the agency implied in the construction of
the world. Nor must you object to this view on the ground that such
agency cannot belong to the individual souls because they do not possess
the knowledge of material causes, &c., as specified above; for all
intelligent beings are capable of direct knowledge of material causes,
such as earth and so on, and instrumental causes, such as sacrifices and
the like. Earth and other material substances, as well as sacrifices and
the like, are directly perceived by individual intelligent beings at the
present time (and were no doubt equally perceived so at a former time
when this world had to be planned and constructed). Nor does the fact
that intelligent beings are not capable of direct insight into the
unseen principle--called 'apûrva,' or by similar names--which resides in
the form of a power in sacrifices and other instrumental causes, in any
way preclude their being agents in the construction of the world. Direct
insight into powers is nowhere required for undertaking work: what _is_
required for that purpose is only direct presentative knowledge of the
things endowed with power, while of power itself it suffices to have
some kind of knowledge. Potters apply themselves to the task of making
pots and jars on the strength of the direct knowledge they possess of
the implements of their work--the wheel, the staff, &c.--without
troubling about a similar knowledge of the powers inherent in those
implements; and in the same way intelligent beings may apply themselves
to their work (to be effected by means of sacrifices, &c.), if only they
are assured by sacred tradition of the existence of the various powers
possessed by sacrifices and the like.--Moreover, experience teaches that
agents having a knowledge of the material and other causes must be
inferred only in the case of those effects which can be produced, and
the material and other causes of which can be known: such things, on the
other hand, as the earth, mountains, and oceans, can neither be produced,
nor can their material and other causes ever be known; we therefore have
no right to infer for them intelligent producers. Hence the quality of
being an effected thing can be used as an argument for proving the
existence of an intelligent causal agent, only where that quality is
found in things, the production of which, and the knowledge of the
causes of which, is possible at all.--Experience further teaches that
earthen pots and similar things are produced by intelligent agents
possessing material bodies, using implements, not endowed with the power
of a Supreme Lord, limited in knowledge and so on; the quality of being
an effect therefore supplies a reason for inferring an intelligent agent
of the kind described only, and thus is opposed to the inference of
attributes of a contrary nature, viz. omniscience, omnipotence, and
those other attributes that belong--to the highest Soul, whose existence
you wish to establish.--Nor does this (as might be objected) imply an
abandonment of all inference. Where the thing to be inferred is known
through other means of proof also, any qualities of an opposite nature
which maybe suggested by the inferential mark (linga) are opposed by
those other means of proof, and therefore must be dropped. In the case
under discussion, however, the thine; to be inferred is something not
guaranteed by any other means of proof, viz. a person capable of
constructing the entire universe; here there is nothing to interfere
with the ascription to such a person of all those qualities which, on
the basis of methodical inference, necessarily belong to it.--The
conclusion from all this is that, apart from Scripture, the existence of
a Lord does not admit of proof.

Against all this the Pûrvapakshin now restates his case as follows:--It
cannot be gainsaid that the world is something effected, for it is made
up of parts. We may state this argument in various technical forms. 'The
earth, mountains, &c., are things effected, because they consist of
parts; in the same way as jars and similar things.' 'The earth, seas,
mountains, &c., are effects, because, while being big; (i.e. non-atomic),
they are capable of motion; just as jars and the like.' 'Bodies, the
world, &c., are effects, because, while being big, they are solid
(mûrtta); just as jars and the like.'--But, an objection is raised, in
the case of things made up of parts we do not, in addition to this
attribute of consisting of parts, observe any other aspect determining
that the thing is an effect--so as to enable us to say 'this thing is
effected, and that thing is not'; and, on the other hand, we do observe
it as an indispensable condition of something being an effect, that
there should be the possibility of such an effect being brought about,
and of the existence of such knowledge of material causes, &c. (as the
bringing about of the effect presupposes).--Not so, we reply. In the
case of a cause being inferred on the ground of an effect, the knowledge
and power of the cause must be inferred in accordance with the nature of
the effect. From the circumstance of a thing consisting of parts we know
it to be an effect and on this basis we judge of the power and knowledge
of the cause. A person recognises pots, jars and the like, as things
produced, and therefrom infers the constructive skill and knowledge of
their maker; when, after this, he sees for the first time a kingly
palace with all its various wonderful parts and structures, he concludes
from the special way in which the parts are joined that this also is an
effected thing, and then makes an inference as to the architect's
manifold knowledge and skill. Analogously, when a living body and the
world have once been recognised to be effects, we infer--as their maker--
some special intelligent being, possessing direct insight into their
nature and skill to construct them.--Pleasure and pain, moreover, by
which men are requited for their merit and demerit, are themselves of a
non-intelligent nature, and hence cannot bring about their results
unless they are controlled by an intelligent principle, and this also
compels us to assume a being capable of allotting to each individual
soul a fate corresponding to its deserts. For we do not observe that non-
intelligent implements, such as axes and the like, however much they may
be favoured by circumstances of time, place, and so on, are capable of
producing posts and pillars unless they be handled by a carpenter. And
to quote against the generalization on which we rely the instance of the
seed and sprout and the like can only spring from an ignorance and
stupidity which may be called truly demoniac. The same remark would
apply to pleasure and pain if used as a counter instance. (For in all
these cases the action which produces an effect must necessarily be
guided by an intelligent principle.)--Nor may we assume, as a 'less
complicated hypothesis,' that the guiding principle in the construction
of the world is the individual souls, whose existence is acknowledged by
both parties. For on the testimony of observation we must deny to those
souls the power of seeing what is extremely subtle or remote in time or
place (while such power must necessarily be ascribed to a world-
constructing intelligence). On the other hand, we have no ground for
concluding that the Lord is, like the individual souls, destitute of
such power; hence it cannot be said that other means of knowledge make
it impossible to infer such a Lord. The fact rather is that as his
existence is proved by the argument that any definite effect presupposes
a causal agent competent to produce that effect, he is proved at the
same time as possessing the essential power of intuitively knowing and
ruling all things in the universe.--The contention that from the world
being an effect it follows that its maker does not possess lordly power
and so on, so that the proving reason would prove something contrary to
the special attributes (belonging to a supreme agent, viz. omnipotence,
omniscience, &c.), is founded on evident ignorance of the nature of the
inferential process. For the inference clearly does not prove that there
exist in the thing inferred all the attributes belonging to the proving
collateral instances, including even those attributes which stand in no
causal relation to the effect. A certain effect which is produced by
some agent presupposes just so much power and knowledge on the part of
that agent as is requisite for the production of the effect, but in no
way presupposes any incapability or ignorance on the part of that agent
with regard to things other than the particular effect; for such
incapability and ignorance do not stand towards that effect in any
causal relation. If the origination of the effect can be accounted for
on the basis of the agent's capability of bringing it about, and of his
knowledge of the special material and instrumental causes, it would be
unreasonable to ascribe causal agency to his (altogether irrelevant)
incapabilities and ignorance with regard to other things, only because
those incapabilities, &c., are observed to exist together with his
special capability and knowledge. The question would arise moreover
whether such want of capability and knowledge (with regard to things
other than the one actually effected) would be helpful towards the
bringing about of that one effect, in so far as extending to all other
things or to some other things. The former alternative is excluded
because no agent, a potter e.g., is quite ignorant of all other things
but his own special work; and the second alternative is inadmissible
because there is no definite rule indicating that there should be
certain definite kinds of want of knowledge and skill in the case of all
agents [FOOTNOTE 168:1], and hence exceptions would arise with regard to
every special case of want of knowledge and skill. From this it follows
that the absence of lordly power and similar qualities which (indeed is
observed in the case of ordinary agents but) in no way contributes
towards the production of the effects (to which such agents give rise)
is not proved in the case of that which we wish to prove (i.e. a Lord,
creator of the world), and that hence Inference does not establish
qualities contrary (to the qualities characteristic of a Lord).

A further objection will perhaps be raised, viz. that as experience
teaches that potters and so on direct their implements through the
mediation of their own bodies, we are not justified in holding that a
bodiless Supreme Lord directs the material and instrumental causes of
the universe.--But in reply to this we appeal to the fact of experience,
that evil demons possessing men's bodies, and also venom, are driven or
drawn out of those bodies by mere will power. Nor must you ask in what
way the volition of a bodiless Lord can put other bodies in motion; for
volition is not dependent on a body. The cause of volitions is not the
body but the internal organ (manas), and such an organ we ascribe to the
Lord also, since what proves the presence of an internal organ endowed
with power and knowledge is just the presence of effects.--But volitions,
even if directly springing from the internal organ, can belong to
embodied beings only, such only possessing internal organs!--This
objection also is founded on a mistaken generalization: the fact rather
is that the internal organ is permanent, and exists also in separation
from the body. The conclusion, therefore, is that--as the individual
souls with their limited capacities and knowledge, and their dependence
on merit and demerit, are incapable of giving rise to things so variously
and wonderfully made as worlds and animated bodies are--inference
directly leads us to the theory that there is a supreme intelligent
agent, called the Lord, who possesses unfathomable, unlimited powers and
wisdom, is capable of constructing the entire world, is without a body,
and through his mere volition brings about the infinite expanse of this
entire universe so variously and wonderfully planned. As Brahman may
thus be ascertained by means of knowledge other than revelation, the
text quoted under the preceding Sûtra cannot be taken to convey
instruction as to Brahman. Since, moreover, experience demonstrates that
material and instrumental causes always are things absolutely distinct
from each other, as e.g. the clay and the potter with his implements;
and since, further, there are substances not made up of parts, as e.g.
ether, which therefore cannot be viewed as effects; we must object on
these grounds also to any attempt to represent the one Brahman as the
universal material and instrumental cause of the entire world.

Against all this we now argue as follows:--The Vedânta-text declaring
the origination, &c., of the world does teach that there is a Brahman
possessing the characteristics mentioned; since Scripture alone is a
means for the knowledge of Brahman. That the world is an effected thing
because it consists of parts; and that, as all effects are observed to
have for their antecedents certain appropriate agents competent to
produce them, we must infer a causal agent competent to plan and
construct the universe, and standing towards it in the relation of
material and operative cause--this would be a conclusion altogether
unjustified. There is no proof to show that the earth, oceans, &c.,
although things produced, were created at one time by one creator. Nor
can it be pleaded in favour of such a conclusion that all those things
have one uniform character of being effects, and thus are analogous to
one single jar; for we observe that various effects are distinguished by
difference of time of production, and difference of producers. Nor again
may you maintain the oneness of the creator on the ground that
individual souls are incapable of the creation of this wonderful
universe, and that if an additional principle be assumed to account for
the world--which manifestly is a product--it would be illegitimate to
assume more than one such principle. For we observe that individual
beings acquire more and more extraordinary powers in consequence of an
increase of religious merit; and as we may assume that through an
eventual supreme degree of merit they may in the end qualify themselves
for producing quite extraordinary effects, we have no right to assume a
highest soul of infinite merit, different from all individual souls. Nor
also can it be proved that all things are destroyed and produced all at
once; for no such thing is observed to take place, while it is, on the
other hand, observed that things are produced and destroyed in
succession; and if we infer that all things are produced and destroyed
because they are effects, there is no reason why this production and
destruction should not take place in a way agreeing with ordinary
experience. If, therefore, what it is desired to prove is the agency of
one intelligent being, we are met by the difficulty that the proving
reason (viz. the circumstance of something being an effect) is not
invariably connected with what it is desired to prove; there, further,
is the fault of qualities not met with in experience being attributed to
the subject about which something has to be proved; and lastly there is
the fault of the proving collateral instances being destitute of what
has to be proved--for experience does not exhibit to us one agent
capable of producing everything. If, on the other hand, what you wish to
prove is merely the existence of an intelligent creative agent, you
prove only what is proved already (not contested by any one).--Moreover,
if you use the attribute of being an effect (which belongs to the
totality of things) as a means to prove the existence of one omniscient
and omnipotent creator, do you view this attribute as belonging to all
things in so far as produced together, or in so far as produced in
succession? In the former case the attribute of being an effect is not
established (for experience does not show that all things are produced
together); and in the latter case the attribute would really prove what
is contrary to the hypothesis of one creator (for experience shows that
things produced in succession have different causes). In attempting to
prove the agency of one intelligent creative being only, we thus enter
into conflict with Perception and Inference, and we moreover contradict
Scripture, which says that 'the potter is born' and 'the cartwright is
born' (and thus declares a plurality of intelligent agents). Moreover,
as we observe that all effected things, such as living bodies and so on,
are connected with pleasure and the like, which are the effects of
sattva (goodness) and the other primary constituents of matter, we must
conclude that effected things have sattva and so on for their causes.
Sattva and so on--which constitute the distinctive elements of the
causal substance--are the causes of the various nature of the effects.
Now those effects can be connected with their causes only in so far as
the internal organ of a person possessing sattva and so on undergoes
modifications. And that a person possesses those qualities is due to
karman. Thus, in order to account for the origination of different
effects we must necessarily assume the connexion of an intelligent agent
with karman, whereby alone he can become the cause of effects; and
moreover the various character of knowledge and power (which the various
effects presuppose) has its reason in karman. And if it be said that it
is (not the various knowledge, &c., but) the mere wish of the agent that
causes the origination of effects, we point out that the wish, as being
specialised by its particular object, must be based on sattva and so on,
and hence is necessarily connected with karman. From all this it follows
that individual souls only can be causal agents: no legitimate inference
leads to a Lord different from them in nature.--This admits of various
expressions in technical form. 'Bodies, worlds, &c., are effects due to
the causal energy of individual souls, just as pots are'; 'the Lord is
not a causal agent, because he has no aims; just as the released souls
have none'; 'the Lord is not an agent, because he has no body; just as
the released souls have none.' (This last argumentation cannot be
objected to on the ground that individual souls take possession of
bodies; for in their case there exists a beginningless subtle body by
means of which they enter into gross bodies).--'Time is never devoid of
created worlds; because it is time, just like the present time (which
has its created world).'

Consider the following point also. Does the Lord produce his effects,
with his body or apart from his body? Not the latter; for we do not
observe causal agency on the part of any bodiless being: even the
activities of the internal organ are found only in beings having a body,
and although the internal organ be eternal we do not know of its
producing any effects in the case of released disembodied souls. Nor
again is the former alternative admissible; for in that case the Lord's
body would either be permanent or non-permanent. The former alternative
would imply that something made up of parts is eternal; and if we once
admit this we may as well admit that the world itself is eternal, and
then there is no reason to infer a Lord. And the latter alternative is
inadmissible because in that case there would be no cause of the body,
different from it (which would account for the origination of the body).
Nor could the Lord himself be assumed as the cause of the body, since a
bodiless being cannot be the cause of a body. Nor could it be maintained
that the Lord can be assumed to be 'embodied' by means of some other
body; for this leads us into a _regressus in infinitum._--Should we,
moreover, represent to ourselves the Lord (when productive) as engaged
in effort or not?--The former is inadmissible, because he is without a
body. And the latter alternative is excluded because a being not making
an effort does not produce effects. And if it be said that the effect, i.
e. the world, has for its causal agent one whose activity consists in
mere desire, this would be to ascribe to the subject of the conclusion
(i.e. the world) qualities not known from experience; and moreover the
attribute to be proved would be absent in the case of the proving
instances (such as jars, &c., which are not the work of agents engaged
in mere wishing). Thus the inference of a creative Lord which claims to
be in agreement with observation is refuted by reasoning which itself is
in agreement with observation, and we hence conclude that Scripture is
the only source of knowledge with regard to a supreme soul that is the
Lord of all and constitutes the highest Brahman. What Scripture tells us
of is a being which comprehends within itself infinite, altogether
unsurpassable excellences such as omnipotence and so on, is antagonistic
to all evil, and totally different in character from whatever is
cognised by the other means of knowledge: that to such a being there
should attach even the slightest imperfection due to its similarity in
nature to the things known by the ordinary means of knowledge, is thus
altogether excluded.--The Pûrvapakshin had remarked that the oneness of
the instrumental and the material cause is neither matter of observation
nor capable of proof, and that the same holds good with regard to the
theory that certain non-composite substances such as ether are created
things; that these points also are in no way contrary to reason, we
shall show later on under Sû. I, 4, 23, and Sû. II, 3, 1.

The conclusion meanwhile is that, since Brahman does not fall within the
sphere of the other means of knowledge, and is the topic of Scripture
only, the text 'from whence these creatures,' &c., _does_ give
authoritative information as to a Brahman possessing the characteristic
qualities so often enumerated. Here terminates the adhikarana of
'Scripture being the source.'

A new objection here presents itself.--Brahman does not indeed fall
within the province of the other means of knowledge; but all the same
Scripture does not give authoritative information regarding it: for
Brahman is not something that has for its purport activity or cessation
from activity, but is something fully established and accomplished
within itself.--To this objection the following Sûtra replies.

[FOOTNOTE 168:1. A certain potter may not possess the skill and
knowledge required to make chairs and beds; but some other potter may
possess both, and so on. We cannot therefore point to any definite want
of skill and knowledge as invariably accompanying the capability of
producing effects of some other kind.]




4. But that (i.e. the authoritativeness of Scripture with regard to
Brahman) exists on account of the connexion (of Scripture with the
highest aim of man).

The word 'but' is meant to rebut the objection raised. _That_, i.e. the
authoritativeness of Scripture with regard to Brahman, is possible, on
account of samanvaya, i.e. connexion with the highest aim of man--that
is to say because the scriptural texts are connected with, i.e. have for
their subject, Brahman, which constitutes the highest aim of man. For
such is the connected meaning of the whole aggregate of words which
constitutes the Upanishads--'That from whence these beings are
born'(Taitt. Up. III, 1, 1). 'Being only this was in the beginning, one,
without a second' (Ch. Up. VI, 2), &c. &c. And of aggregates of words
which are capable of giving information about accomplished things known
through the ordinary means of ascertaining the meaning of words, and
which connectedly refer to a Brahman which is the cause of the
origination, subsistence, and destruction of the entire world, is
antagonistic to all imperfection and so on, we have no right to say that,
owing to the absence of a purport in the form of activity or cessation
of activity, they really refer to something other than Brahman.

For all instruments of knowledge have their end in determining the
knowledge of their own special objects: their action does not adapt
itself to a final purpose, but the latter rather adapts itself to the
means of knowledge. Nor is it true that where there is no connexion with
activity or cessation of activity all aim is absent; for in such cases
we observe connexion with what constitutes the general aim, i.e. the
benefit of man. Statements of accomplished matter of fact--such as 'a
son is born to thee.' 'This is no snake'--evidently have an aim, viz. in
so far as they either give rise to joy or remove pain and fear.

Against this view the Pûrvapakshin now argues as follows. The Vedânta-
texts do not impart knowledge of Brahman; for unless related to activity
or the cessation of activity, Scripture would be unmeaning, devoid of
all purpose. Perception and the other means of knowledge indeed have
their aim and end in supplying knowledge of the nature of accomplished
things and facts; Scripture, on the other hand, must be supposed to aim
at some practical purpose. For neither in ordinary speech nor in the
Veda do we ever observe the employment of sentences devoid of a
practical purpose: the employment of sentences not having such a purpose
is in fact impossible. And what constitutes such purpose is the
attainment of a desired, or the avoidance of a non-desired object, to be
effected by some action or abstention from action. 'Let a man desirous
of wealth attach himself to the court of a prince'; 'a man with a weak
digestion must not drink much water'; 'let him who is desirous of the
heavenly world offer sacrifices'; and so on. With regard to the
assertion that such sentences also as refer to accomplished things--'a
son is born to thee' and so on--are connected with certain aims of man,
viz. joy or the cessation of fear, we ask whether in such cases the
attainment of man's purpose results from the thing or fact itself, as e.
g. the birth of a son, or from the knowledge of that thing or fact.--You
will reply that as a thing although actually existing is of no use to
man as long as it is not known to him, man's purpose is accomplished by
his knowledge of the thing.--It then appears, we rejoin, that man's
purpose is effected through mere knowledge, even if there is no actual
thing; and from this it follows that Scripture, although connected with
certain aims, is not a means of knowledge for the actual existence of
things. In all cases, therefore, sentences have a practical purpose;
they determine either some form of activity or cessation from activity,
or else some form of knowledge. No sentence, therefore, can have for its
purport an accomplished thing, and hence the Vedânta-texts do not convey
the knowledge of Brahman as such an accomplished entity.

At this point somebody propounds the following view. The Vedânta-texts
_are_ an authoritative means for the cognition of Brahman, because as a
matter of fact they also aim at something to be done. What they really
mean to teach is that Brahman, which in itself is pure homogeneous
knowledge, without a second, not connected with a world, but is, owing
to beginningless Nescience, viewed as connected with a world, should be
freed from this connexion. And it is through this process of dissolution
of the world that Brahman becomes the object of an injunction.--But
which texts embody this injunction, according to which Brahman in its
pure form is to be realised through the dissolution of this apparent
world with its distinction of knowing subjects and objects of
knowledge?--Texts such as the following: 'One should not see (i. e.
represent to oneself) the seer of seeing, one should not think the
thinker of thinking' (Bri. Up. III, 4, 2); for this means that we should
realise Brahman in the form of pure Seeing (knowledge), free from the
distinction of seeing agents and objects of sight. Brahman is indeed
accomplished through itself, but all the same it may constitute an
object to be accomplished, viz. in so far as it is being disengaged from
the apparent world.

This view (the Mîmâmsaka rejoins) is unfounded. He who maintains that
injunction constitutes the meaning of sentences must be able to assign
the injunction itself, the qualification of the person to whom the
injunction is addressed, the object of the injunction, the means to
carry it out, the special mode of the procedure, and the person carrying
out the injunction. Among these things the qualification of the person
to whom the injunction addresses itself is something not to be enjoined
(but existing previously to the injunction), and is of the nature either
of cause (nimitta) or a result aimed at (phala). We then have to decide
what, in the case under discussion (i.e. the alleged injunction set
forth by the antagonist), constitutes the qualification of the person to
whom the injunction addresses itself, and whether it be of the nature of
a cause or of a result.--Let it then be said that what constitutes the
qualification in our case is the intuition of the true nature of Brahman
(on the part of the person to whom the injunction is addressed).--This,
we rejoin, cannot be a cause, as it is not something previously
established; while in other cases the nimitta is something so
established, as e.g. 'life' is in the case of a person to whom the
following injunction is addressed, 'As long as his life lasts he is to
make the Agnihotra-oblation.' And if, after all, it were admitted to be
a cause, it would follow that, as the intuition of the true nature of
Brahman is something permanent, the object of the injunction would have
to be accomplished even subsequently to final release, in the same way
as the Agnihotra has to be performed permanently as long as life lasts.--
Nor again can the intuition of Brahman's true nature be a result; for
then, being the result of an action enjoined, it would be something non-
permanent, like the heavenly world.--What, in the next place, would be
the 'object to be accomplished' of the injunction? You may not reply
'Brahman'; for as Brahman is something permanent it is not something
that can be realised, and moreover it is not denoted by a verbal form
(such as denote actions that can be accomplished, as e.g. yâga,
sacrifice).--Let it then be said that what is to be realised is Brahman,
in so far as free from the world!--But, we rejoin, even if this be
accepted as a thing to be realised, it is not the object (vishaya) of
the injunction--that it cannot be for the second reason just stated--but
its final result (phala). What moreover is, on this last assumption, the
thing to be realised--Brahman, or the cessation of the apparent world?--
Not Brahman; for Brahman is something accomplished, and from your
assumption it would follow that it is not eternal.--Well then, the
dissolution of the world!--Not so, we reply; for then it would not be
Brahman that is realised.--Let it then be said that the dissolution of
the world only is the object of the injunction!--This, too, cannot be,
we rejoin; that dissolution is the result (phala) and cannot therefore
be the object of the injunction. For the dissolution of the world means
final release; and that is the result aimed at. Moreover, if the
dissolution of the world is taken as the object of the injunction, that
dissolution would follow from the injunction, and the injunction would
be carried out by the dissolution of the world; and this would be a case
of vicious mutual dependence.--We further ask--is the world, which is to
be put an end to, false or real?--If it is false, it is put an end to by
knowledge alone, and then the injunction is needless. Should you reply
to this that the injunction puts an end to the world in so far as it
gives rise to knowledge, we reply that knowledge springs of itself from
the texts which declare the highest truth: hence there is no need of
additional injunctions. As knowledge of the meaning of those texts
sublates the entire false world distinct from Brahman, the injunction
itself with all its adjuncts is seen to be something baseless.--If, on
the other hand, the world is true, we ask--is the injunction, which puts
an end to the world, Brahman itself or something different from Brahman?
If the former, the world cannot exist at all: for what terminates it,
viz. Brahman, is something eternal; and the injunction thus being
eternal itself Cannot be accomplished by means of certa n actions.--Let
then the latter alternative be accepted!--But in that case, the niyoga
being something which is accomplished by a set of performances the
function of which it is to put an end to the entire world, the
performing person himself perishes (with the rest of the world), and the
niyoga thus remains without a substrate. And if everything apart from
Brahman is put an end to by a performance the function of which it is to
put an end to the world, there remains no result to be effected by the
niyoga, consequently there is no release.

Further, the dissolution of the world cannot constitute the instrument
(karana) in the action enjoined, because no mode of procedure
(itikartavyatâ) can be assigned for the instrument of the niyoga, and
unless assisted by a mode of procedure an instrument cannot operate,--
But why is there no 'mode of procedure'?--For the following reasons. A
mode of procedure is either of a positive or a negative kind. If
positive, it may be of two kinds, viz. either such as to bring about the
instrument or to assist it. Now in our case there is no room for either
of these alternatives. Not for the former; for there exists in our case
nothing analogous to the stroke of the pestle (which has the manifest
effect of separating the rice grains from the husks), whereby the
visible effect of the dissolution of the whole world could be brought
about. Nor, secondly, is there the possibility of anything assisting the
instrument, already existing independently, to bring about its effect;
for owing to the existence of such an assisting factor the instrument
itself, i.e. the cessation of the apparent world, cannot be established.
Nor must you say that it is the cognition of the non-duality of Brahman
that brings about the means for the dissolution of the world; for, as we
have already explained above, this cognition directly brings about final
Release, which is the same as the dissolution of the world, and thus
there is nothing left to be effected by special means.--And if finally
the mode of procedure is something purely negative, it can, owing to
this its nature, neither bring about nor in any way assist the
instrumental cause. From all this it follows that there is no
possibility of injunctions having for their object the realisation of
Brahman, in so far as free from the world.

Here another primâ facie view of the question is set forth.--It must be
admitted that the Vedânta-texts are not means of authoritative knowledge,
since they refer to Brahman, which is an accomplished thing (not a thing
'to be accomplished'); nevertheless Brahman itself is established, viz.
by means of those passages which enjoin meditation (as something 'to be
done'). This is the purport of texts such as the following: 'The Self is
to be seen, to be heard, to be reflected on, to be meditated upon' (Bri.
Up. II, 4, 5); 'The Self which is free from sin must be searched out'
(Ch. Up. VIII, 7, 1); 'Let a man meditate upon him as the Self' (Bri. Up.
I, 4, 7); 'Let a man meditate upon the Self as his world' (Bri. Up. I, 4,
15).--These injunctions have meditation for their object, and meditation
again is defined by its own object only, so that the injunctive word
immediately suggests an object of meditation; and as such an object
there presents itself, the 'Self' mentioned in the same sentence. Now
there arises the question, What are the characteristics of that Self?
and in reply to it there come in texts such as 'The True, knowledge,
infinite is Brahman'; 'Being only this was in the beginning, one without
a second.' As these texts give the required special information, they
stand in a supplementary relation to the injunctions, and hence are
means of right knowledge; and in this way the purport of the Vedânta-
texts includes Brahman--as having a definite place in meditation which
is the object of injunction. Texts such as 'One only without a second'
(Ch. Up. VI, 2, 1); 'That is the true, that is the Self (Ch. Up. VI, 8,
7); 'There is here not any plurality' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 19), teach that
there is one Reality only, viz. Brahman, and that everything else is
false. And as Perception and the other means of proof, as well as that
part of Scripture which refers to action and is based on the view of
plurality, convey the notion of plurality, and as there is contradiction
between plurality and absolute Unity, we form the conclusion that the
idea of plurality arises through beginningless avidyâ, while absolute
Unity alone is real. And thus it is through the injunction of meditation
on Brahman--which has for its result the intuition of Brahman--that man
reaches final release, i.e. becomes one with Brahman, which consists of
non-dual intelligence free of all the manifold distinctions that spring
from Nescience. Nor is this becoming one with Brahman to be accomplished
by the mere cognition of the sense of certain Vedânta-texts; for this is
not observed--the fact rather being that the view of plurality persists
even after the cognition of the sense of those texts--, and, moreover,
if it were so, the injunction by Scripture of hearing, reflecting, &c.,
would be purposeless.

To this reasoning the following objection might be raised.--We observe
that when a man is told that what he is afraid of is not a snake, but
only a rope, his fear comes to an end; and as bondage is as unreal as
the snake imagined in the rope it also admits of being sublated by
knowledge, and may therefore, apart from all injunction, be put an end
to by the simple comprehension of the sense of certain texts. If final
release were to be brought about by injunctions, it would follow that it
is not eternal--not any more than the heavenly world and the like; while
yet its eternity is admitted by every one. Acts of religious merit,
moreover (such as are prescribed by injunctions), can only be the causes
of certain results in so far as they give rise to a body capable of
experiencing those results, and thus necessarily produce the so-called
samsâra-state (which is opposed to final release, and) which consists in
the connexion of the soul with some sort of body, high or low. Release,
therefore, is not something to be brought about by acts of religious
merit. In agreement herewith Scripture says, 'For the soul as long as it
is in the body, there is no release from pleasure and pain; when it is
free from the body, then neither pleasure nor pain touch it' (Ch. Up.
VIII, 12, 1). This passage declares that in the state of release, when
the soul is freed from the body, it is not touched by either pleasure or
pain--the effects of acts of religious merit or demerit; and from this
it follows that the disembodied state is not to be accomplished by acts
of religious merit. Nor may it be said that, as other special results
are accomplished by special injunctions, so the disembodied state is to
be accomplished by the injunction of meditation; for that state is
essentially something _not_ to be effected. Thus scriptural texts say,
'The wise man who knows the Self as bodiless among the bodies, as
persisting among non-persisting things, as great and all-pervading; he
does not grieve' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 22); 'That person is without breath,
without internal organ, pure, without contact' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 2).--
Release which is a bodiless state is eternal, and cannot therefore be
accomplished through meritorious acts.

In agreement herewith Scripture says, 'That which thou seest apart from
merit (dharma) and non-merit, from what is done and not done, from what
exists and what has to be accomplished--tell me that' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 14).--
Consider what follows also. When we speak of something being
accomplished (effected-sâdhya) we mean one of four things, viz. its
being originated (utpatti), or obtained (prâpti), or modified (vikriti),
or in some way or other (often purely ceremonial) made ready or fit
(samskriti). Now in neither of these four senses can final Release be
said to be accomplished. It cannot be originated, for being Brahman
itself it is eternal. It cannot be attained: for Brahman, being the Self,
is something eternally attained. It cannot be modified; for that would
imply that like sour milk and similar things (which are capable of
change) it is non-eternal. Nor finally can it be made 'ready' or 'fit.'
A thing is made ready or fit either by the removal of some imperfection
or by the addition of some perfection. Now Brahman cannot be freed from
any imperfection, for it is eternally faultless; nor can a perfection be
added to it, for it is absolutely perfect. Nor can it be improved in the
sense in which we speak of improving a mirror, viz. by polishing it; for
as it is absolutely changeless it cannot become the object of any action,
either of its own or of an outside agent. And, again, actions affecting
the body, such as bathing, do not 'purify' the Self (as might possibly
be maintained) but only the organ of Egoity (ahamkartri) which is the
product of avidyâ, and connected with the body; it is this same
ahamkartri also that enjoys the fruits springing from any action upon
the body. Nor must it be said that the Self _is_ the ahamkartri; for the
Self rather is that which is conscious of the ahamkartri. This is the
teaching of the mantras: 'One of them eats the sweet fruit, the other
looks on without eating' (Mu. Up. III, 1, 1); 'When he is in union with
the body, the senses, and the mind, then wise men call him the Enjoyer'
(Ka. Up. I, 3,4); 'The one God, hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the
Self within all beings, watching over all works, dwelling in all beings,
the witness, the perceiver, the only one, free from qualities' (Svet. Up.
VI, 11); 'He encircled all, bright, bodiless, scatheless, without
muscles, pure, untouched by evil' (Îsa. Up. 8).--All these texts
distinguish from the ahamkartri due to Nescience, the true Self,
absolutely perfect and pure, free from all change. Release therefore--
which _is_ the Self--cannot be brought about in any way.--But, if this
is so, what then is the use of the comprehension of the texts?--It is of
use, we reply, in so far as it puts an end to the obstacles in the way
of Release. Thus scriptural texts declare: 'You indeed are our father,
you who carry us from our ignorance to the other shore' (Pra. Up. VI, 8);
'I have heard from men like you that he who knows the Self overcomes
grief. I am in grief. Do, Sir, help me over this grief of mine' (Ch. Up.
VII, 1, 3); 'To him whose faults had thus been rubbed out Sanatkumâra
showed the other bank of Darkness' (Ch. Up. VII, 26, 2). This shows that
what is effected by the comprehension of the meaning of texts is merely
the cessation of impediments in the way of Release. This cessation
itself, although something effected, is of the nature of that kind of
nonexistence which results from the destruction of something existent,
and as such does not pass away.--Texts such as 'He knows Brahman, he
becomes Brahman' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 9); 'Having known him he passes beyond
death' (Svet. Up. III,8), declare that Release follows immediately on
the cognition of Brahman, and thus negative the intervention of
injunctions.--Nor can it be maintained that Brahman is related to action
in so far as constituting the object of the action either of knowledge
or of meditation; for scriptural texts deny its being an object in
either of these senses. Compare 'Different is this from what is known,
and from what is unknown' (Ke. Up. II, 4); 'By whom he knows all this,
whereby should he know him?' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 15); 'That do thou know as
Brahman, not that on which they meditate as being this' (Ke. Up. II, 4).
Nor does this view imply that the sacred texts have no object at all;
for it is their object to put an end to the view of difference springing
from avidyâ. Scripture does not objectivise Brahman in any definite form,
but rather teaches that its true nature is to be non-object, and thereby
puts an end to the distinction, fictitiously suggested by Nescience, of
knowing subjects, acts of knowledge, and objects of knowledge. Compare
the text 'You should not see a seer of seeing, you should not think a
thinker of thought,' &c. (Bri. Up. III, 4, 2).--Nor, again, must it be
said that, if knowledge alone puts an end to bondage, the injunctions of
hearing and so on are purposeless; for their function is to cause the
origination of the comprehension of the texts, in so far as they divert
from all other alternatives the student who is naturally inclined to
yield to distractions.--Nor, again, can it be maintained that a
cessation of bondage through mere knowledge is never observed to take
place; for as bondage is something false (unreal) it cannot possibly
persist after the rise of knowledge. For the same reason it is a mistake
to maintain that the cessation of bondage takes place only after the
death of the body. In order that the fear inspired by the imagined snake
should come to an end, it is required only that the rope should be
recognised as what it is, not that a snake should be destroyed. If the
body were something real, its destruction would be necessary; but being
apart from Brahman it is unreal. He whose bondage does not come to an
end, in him true knowledge has not arisen; this we infer from the effect
of such knowledge not being observed in him. Whether the body persist or
not, he who has reached true knowledge is released from that very moment.--
The general conclusion of all this is that, as Release is not something
to be accomplished by injunctions of meditation, Brahman is not proved
to be something standing in a supplementary relation to such injunctions;
but is rather proved by (non-injunctory) texts, such as 'Thou art that';
'The True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman'; 'This Self is Brahman.'

This view (the holder of the dhyâna-vidhi theory rejoins) is untenable;
since the cessation of bondage cannot possibly spring from the mere
comprehension of the meaning of texts. Even if bondage were something
unreal, and therefore capable of sublation by knowledge, yet being
something direct, immediate, it could not be sublated by the indirect
comprehension of the sense of texts. When a man directly conscious of a
snake before him is told by a competent by-stander that it is not a
snake but merely a rope, his fear is not dispelled by a mere cognition
contrary to that of a snake, and due to the information received; but
the information brings about the cessation of his fear in that way that
it rouses him to an activity aiming at the direct perception, by means
of his senses, of what the thing before him really is. Having at first
started back in fear of the imagined snake, he now proceeds to ascertain
by means of ocular perception the true nature of the thing, and having
accomplished this is freed from fear. It would not be correct to say
that in this case words (viz. of the person informing) produce this
perceptional knowledge; for words are not a sense-organ, and among the
means of knowledge it is the sense-organs only that give rise to direct
knowledge. Nor, again, can it be pleaded that in the special case of
Vedic texts sentences may give rise to direct knowledge, owing to the
fact that the person concerned has cleansed himself of all imperfection
through the performance of actions not aiming at immediate results, and
has been withdrawn from all outward objects by hearing, reflection, and
meditation; for in other cases also, where special impediments in the
way of knowledge are being removed, we never observe that the special
means of knowledge, such as the sense-organs and so on, operate outside
their proper limited sphere.--Nor, again, can it be maintained that
meditation acts as a means helpful towards the comprehension of texts;
for this leads to vicious reciprocal dependence--when the meaning of the
texts has been comprehended it becomes the object of meditation; and
when meditation has taken place there arises comprehension of the
meaning of the texts!--Nor can it be said that meditation and the
comprehension of the meaning of texts have different objects; for if
this were so the comprehension of the texts could not be a means helpful
towards meditation: meditation on one thing does not give rise to
eagerness with regard to another thing!--For meditation which consists
in uninterrupted remembrance of a thing cognised, the cognition of the
sense of texts, moreover, forms an indispensable prerequisite; for
knowledge of Brahman--the object of meditation--cannot originate from
any other source.--Nor can it be said that that knowledge on which
meditation is based is produced by one set of texts, while that
knowledge which puts an end to the world is produced by such texts as
'thou art that,' and the like. For, we ask, has the former knowledge the
same object as the latter, or a different one? On the former alternative
we are led to the same vicious reciprocal dependence which we noted
above; and on the latter alternative it cannot be shown that meditation
gives rise to eagerness with regard to the latter kind of knowledge.
Moreover, as meditation presupposes plurality comprising an object of
meditation, a meditating subject and so on, it really cannot in any
perceptible way be helpful towards the origination of the comprehension
of the sense of texts, the object of which is the oneness of a Brahman
free from all plurality: he, therefore, who maintains that Nescience
comes to an end through the mere comprehension of the meaning of texts
really implies that the injunctions of hearing, reflection, and
meditation are purposeless.

The conclusion that, since direct knowledge cannot spring from texts,
Nescience is not terminated by the comprehension of the meaning of texts,
disposes at the same time of the hypothesis of the so-called 'Release in
this life' (jîvanmukti). For what definition, we ask, can be given of
this 'Release in this life'?--'Release of a soul while yet joined to a
body'!--You might as well say, we reply, that your mother never had any
children! You have yourself proved by scriptural passages that 'bondage'
means the being joined to a body, and 'release' being free from a body!--
Let us then define jîvanmukti as the cessation of embodiedness, in that
sense that a person, while the appearance of embodiedness persists, is
conscious of the unreality of that appearance.--But, we rejoin, if the
consciousness of the unreality of the body puts an end to embodiedness,
how can you say that jîvanmukti means release of a soul while joined to
a body? On this explanation there remains no difference whatsoever
between 'Release in this life' and Release after death; for the latter
also can only be defined as cessation of the false appearance of
embodiedness.--Let us then say that a person is 'jîvanmukta' when the
appearance of embodiedness, although sublated by true knowledge, yet
persists in the same way as the appearance of the moon being double
persists (even after it has been recognised as false).--This too we
cannot allow. As the sublating act of cognition on which Release depends
extends to everything with the exception of Brahman, it sublates the
general defect due to causal Nescience, inclusive of the particular
erroneous appearance of embodiedness: the latter being sublated in this
way cannot persist. In the case of the double moon, on the other hand,
the defect of vision on which the erroneous appearance depends is _not_
the object of the sublative art of cognition, i.e. the cognition of the
oneness of the moon, and it therefore remains non-sublated; hence the
false appearance of a double moon may persist.--Moreover, the text 'For
him there is delay only as long as he is not freed from the body; then
he will be released' (Ch. Up. VI, 14, 2), teaches that he who takes his
stand on the knowledge of the Real requires for his Release the putting
off of the body only: the text thus negatives jivanmukti. Âpastamba also
rejects the view of jivanmukti, 'Abandoning the Vedas, this world and
the next, he (the Samnyâsin) is to seek the Self. (Some say that) he
obtains salvation when he knows (the Self). This opinion is contradicted
by the sâstras. (For) if Salvation were obtained when the Self is known,
he should not feel any pain even in this world. Hereby that which
follows is explained' (Dh. Sû. II, 9, 13-17).--This refutes also the
view that Release is obtained through mere knowledge.--The conclusion to
be drawn from all this is that Release, which consists in the cessation
of all Plurality, cannot take place as long as a man lives. And we
therefore adhere to our view that Bondage is to be terminated only by
means of the injunctions of meditation, the result of which is direct
knowledge of Brahman. Nor must this be objected to on the ground that
Release, if brought about by injunctions, must therefore be something
non-eternal; for what is effected is not Release itself, but only the
cessation of what impedes it. Moreover, the injunction does not directly
produce the cessation of Bondage, but only through the mediation of the
direct cognition of Brahman as consisting of pure knowledge, and not
connected with a world. It is this knowledge only which the injunction
produces.--But how can an injunction cause the origination of knowledge?--
How, we ask in return, can, on your view, works not aiming at some
immediate result cause the origination of knowledge?--You will perhaps
reply 'by means of purifying the mind' (manas); but this reply may be
given by me also.--But (the objector resumes) there is a difference. On
my view Scripture produces knowledge in the mind purified by works;
while on your view we must assume that in the purified mind the means of
knowledge are produced by injunction.--The mind itself, we reply,
purified by knowledge, constitutes this means.--How do you know this?
our opponent questions.--How, we ask in return, do you know that the
mind is purified by works, and that, in the mind so purified of a person
withdrawn from all other objects by hearing, reflection and meditation,
Scripture produces that knowledge which destroys bondage?--Through
certain texts such as the following: 'They seek to know him by sacrifice,
by gifts, by penance, by fasting' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 22); 'He is to be
heard, to be reflected on, to be meditated on' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 5); 'He
knows Brahman, he becomes Brahman' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 9).--Well, we reply,
in the same way our view--viz. that through the injunction of meditation
the mind is cleared, and that a clear mind gives rise to direct
knowledge of Brahman--is confirmed by scriptural texts such as 'He is to
be heard, to be reflected on, to be meditated on' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 5);
'He who knows Brahman reaches the highest' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1); 'He is
not apprehended by the eye nor by speech' (Mu. Up. III, 1, 8); 'But by a
pure mind' (?); 'He is apprehended by the heart, by wisdom, by the mind'
(Ka. Up. II, 6, 9). Nor can it be said that the text 'not that which
they meditate upon as this' (Ke. Up. I, 4) negatives meditation; it does
not forbid meditation on Brahman, but merely declares that Brahman is
different from the world. The mantra is to be explained as follows:
'What men meditate upon as this world, that is not Brahman; know Brahman
to be that which is not uttered by speech, but through which speech is
uttered.' On a different explanation the clause 'know that to be
Brahman' would be irrational, and the injunctions of meditation on the
Self would--be meaningless.--The outcome of all this is that unreal
Bondage which appears in the form of a plurality of knowing subjects,
objects of knowledge, &c., is put an end to by the injunctions of
meditation, the fruit of which is direct intuitive knowledge of Brahman.

Nor can we approve of the doctrine held by some that there is no
contradiction between difference and non-difference; for difference and
non-difference cannot co-exist in one thing, any more than coldness and
heat, or light and darkness.--Let us first hear in detail what the
holder of this so-called bhedâbheda view has to say. The whole universe
of things must be ordered in agreement with our cognitions. Now we are
conscious of all things as different and non-different at the same time:
they are non-different in their causal and generic aspects, and
different in so far as viewed as effects and individuals. There indeed
is a contradiction between light and darkness and so on; for these
cannot possibly exist together, and they are actually met with in
different abodes. Such contradictoriness is not, on the other hand,
observed in the case of cause and effect, and genus and individual; on
the contrary we here distinctly apprehend one thing as having two
aspects--'this jar is clay', 'this cow is short-horned.' The fact is
that experience does not show us anything that has one aspect only. Nor
can it be said that in these cases there is absence of contradiction
because as fire consumes grass so non-difference absorbs difference; for
the same thing which exists as clay, or gold, or cow, or horse, &c., at
the same time exists as jar or diadem, or short-horned cow or mare.
There is no command of the Lord to the effect that one aspect only
should belong to each thing, non-difference to what is non-different,
and difference to what is different.--But one aspect only belongs to
each thing, because it is thus that things are perceived!--On the
contrary, we reply, things have twofold aspects, just because it is _thus_
that they are perceived. No man, however wide he may open his eyes, is
able to distinguish in an object--e.g. a jar or a cow--placed before him
which part is the clay and which the jar, or which part is the generic
character of the cow and which the individual cow. On the contrary, his
thought finds its true expression in the following judgments: 'this jar
is clay'; 'this cow is short-horned.' Nor can it be maintained that he
makes a distinction between the cause and genus as objects of the idea
of persistence, and the effect and individual as objects of the idea of
discontinuance (difference); for as a matter of fact there is no
perception of these two elements in separation. A man may look ever so
close at a thing placed before him, he--will not be able to perceive a
difference of aspect and to point out 'this is the persisting, general,
element in the thing, and that the non-persistent, individual, element.'
Just as an effect and an individual give rise to the idea of one thing,
so the effect plus cause, and the individual _plus_ generic character,
also give rise to the idea of one thing only. This very circumstance
makes it possible for us to recognise each individual thing, placed as
it is among a multitude of things differing in place, time, and
character.--Each thing thus being cognised as endowed with a twofold
aspect, the theory of cause and effect, and generic character and
individual, being absolutely different, is clearly refuted by perception.

But, an objection is raised, if on account of grammatical co-ordination
and the resulting idea of oneness, the judgment 'this pot is clay' is
taken to express the relation of difference, _plus_ non-difference, we
shall have analogously to infer from judgments such as 'I am a man', 'I
am a divine being' that the Self and the body also stand in the
bhedâbheda-relation; the theory of the co-existence of difference and
non-difference will thus act like a fire which a man has lit on his
hearth, and which in the end consumes the entire house!--This, we reply,
is the baseless idea of a person who has not duly considered the true
nature of co-ordination as establishing the bhedâbheda-relation. The
correct principle is that all reality is determined by states of
consciousness not sublated by valid means of proof. The imagination,
however, of the identity of the Self and the body is sublated by all the
means of proof which apply to the Self: it is in fact no more valid than
the imagination of the snake in the rope, and does not therefore prove
the non-difference of the two. The co-ordination, on the other hand,
which is expressed in the judgment 'the cow is short-horned' is never
observed to be refuted in any way, and hence establishes the bhedâbheda-
relation.

For the same reasons the individual soul (jîva) is not absolutely
different from Brahman, but stands to it in the bhedâbheda-relation in
so far as it is a part (amsa) of Brahman. Its non-difference from
Brahman is essential (svâbhâvika); its difference is due to limiting
adjuncts (aupâdhika). This we know, in the first place, from those
scriptural texts which declare non-difference--such as 'Thou art that'
(Ch. Up. VI); 'There is no other seer but he' (Bri. Up. III, 7, 23);
'This Self is Brahman' (Bri. Up. II, 5, 19); and the passage from the
Brahmasûkta in the Samhitopanishad of the Âtharvanas which, after having
said that Brahman is Heaven and Earth, continues, 'The fishermen are
Brahman, the slaves are Brahman, Brahman are these gamblers; man and
woman are born from Brahman; women are Brahman and so are men.' And, in
the second place, from those texts which declare difference: 'He who,
one, eternal, intelligent, fulfils the desires of many non-eternal
intelligent beings' (Ka. Up. II, 5, 13); 'There are two unborn, one
knowing, the other not-knowing; one strong, the other weak' (Svet. Up. I,
9); 'Being the cause of their connexion with him, through the qualities
of action and the qualities of the Self, he is seen as another' (Svet.
Up. V, 12); 'The Lord of nature and the souls, the ruler of the
qualities, the cause of the bondage, the existence and the release of
the samsâra' (Svet. Up. VI, 16); 'He is the cause, the lord of the lords
of the organs' (Svet. Up. VI, 9); 'One of the two eats the sweet fruit,
without eating the other looks on' (Svet. Up. IV, 6); 'He who dwelling
in the Self (Bri. Up. III, 7, 22); 'Embraced by the intelligent Self he
knows nothing that is without, nothing that is within' (Bri. Up. IV, 3,
21); 'Mounted by the intelligent Self he goes groaning' (Bri. Up. IV, 3,
35); 'Having known him he passes beyond death' (Svet. Up. III, 8).--On
the ground of these two sets of passages the individual and the highest
Self must needs be assumed to stand in the bhedâbheda-relation. And
texts such as 'He knows Brahman, he becomes Brahman' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 9),
which teach that in the state of Release the individual soul enters into
Brahman itself; and again texts such as 'But when the Self has become
all for him, whereby should he see another' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 13), which
forbid us to view, in the state of Release, the Lord as something
different (from the individual soul), show that non-difference is
essential (while difference is merely aupâdhika).

But, an objection is raised, the text 'He reaches all desires together
in the wise Brahman,' in using the word 'together' shows that even in
the state of Release the soul is different from Brahman, and the same
view is expressed in two of the Sûtras, viz. IV, 4, 17; 21.--This is not
so, we reply; for the text, 'There is no other seer but he' (Bri. Up.
III, 7, 23), and many similar texts distinctly negative all plurality in
the Self. The Taittirîya-text quoted by you means that man reaches
Brahman with all desires, i.e. Brahman comprising within itself all
objects of desire; if it were understood differently, it would follow
that Brahman holds a subordinate position only. And if the Sûtra IV, 4,
17 meant that the released soul is separate from Brahman it would follow
that it is deficient in lordly power; and if this were so the Sûtra
would be in conflict with other Sûtras such as IV, 4, 1.--For these
reasons, non-difference is the essential condition; while the
distinction of the souls from Brahman and from each other is due to
their limiting adjuncts, i.e. the internal organ, the sense-organs, and
the body. Brahman indeed is without parts and omnipresent; but through
its adjuncts it becomes capable of division just as ether is divided by
jars and the like. Nor must it be said that this leads to a
reprehensible mutual dependence--Brahman in so far as divided entering
into conjunction with its adjuncts, and again the division in Brahman
being caused by its conjunction with its adjuncts; for these adjuncts
and Brahman's connexion with them are due to action (karman), and the
stream of action is without a beginning. The limiting adjuncts to which
a soul is joined spring from the soul as connected with previous works,
and work again springs from the soul as joined to its adjuncts: and as
this connexion with works and adjuncts is without a beginning in time,
no fault can be found with our theory.--The non-difference of the souls
from each other and Brahman is thus essential, while their difference is
due to the Upâdhis. These Upâdhis, on the other hand, are at the same
time essentially non-distinct and essentially distinct from each other
and Brahman; for there are no other Upâdhis (to account for their
distinction if non-essential), and if we admitted such, we should again
have to assume further Upâdhis, and so on _in infinitum_. We therefore
hold that the Upâdhis are produced, in accordance with the actions of
the individual souls, as essentially non-different and different from
Brahman.

To this bhedâbheda view the Pûrvapakshin now objects on the following
grounds:--The whole aggregate of Vedânta-texts aims at enjoining
meditation on a non-dual Brahman whose essence is reality, intelligence,
and bliss, and thus sets forth the view of non-difference; while on the
other hand the karma-section of the Veda, and likewise perception and
the other means of knowledge, intimate the view of the difference of
things. Now, as difference and non-difference are contradictory, and as
the view of difference may be accounted for as resting on beginningless
Nescience, we conclude that universal non-difference is what is real.--
The tenet that difference and non-difference are not contradictory
because both are proved by our consciousness, cannot be upheld. If one
thing has different characteristics from another there is distinction
(bheda) of the two; the contrary condition of things constitutes non-
distinction (abheda); who in his senses then would maintain that these
two-suchness and non-suchness--can be found together? You have
maintained that non-difference belongs to a thing viewed as cause and
genus, and difference to the same viewed as effect and individual; and
that, owing to this twofold aspect of things, non-difference and
difference are not irreconcileable. But that this view also is untenable,
a presentation of the question in definite alternatives will show. Do
you mean to say that the difference lies in one aspect of the thing and
the non-difference in the other? or that difference _and_ non-difference
belong to the thing possessing two aspects?--On the former alternative
the difference belongs to the individual and the non-difference to the
genus; and this implies that there is no one thing with a double aspect.
And should you say that the genus and individual together constitute one
thing only, you abandon the view that it is difference of aspect which
takes away the contradictoriness of difference and non-difference. We
have moreover remarked already that difference in characteristics and
its opposite are absolutely contradictory.--On the second alternative we
have two aspects of different kind and an unknown thing supposed to be
the substrate of those aspects; but this assumption of a triad of
entities proves only their mutual difference of character, not their non-
difference. Should you say that the non-contradictoriness of two aspects
constitutes simultaneous difference and non-difference in the thing
which is their substrate, we ask in return--How can two aspects which
have a thing for their substrate, and thus are different from the thing,
introduce into that thing a combination of two contradictory attributes
(viz. difference and non-difference)? And much less even are they able
to do so if they are viewed as non-different from the thing which is
their substrate. If, moreover, the two aspects on the one hand, and the
thing in which they inhere on the other, be admitted to be distinct
entities, there will be required a further factor to bring about their
difference and non-difference, and we shall thus be led into a _regressus
in infinitum._--Nor is it a fact that the idea of a thing inclusive of
its generic character bears the character of unity, in the same way as
the admittedly uniform idea of an individual; for wherever a state of
consciousness expresses itself in the form 'this is such and such' it
implies the distinction of an attribute or mode, and that to which the
attribute or mode belongs. In the case under discussion the genus
constitutes the mode, and the individual that to which the mode belongs:
the idea does not therefore possess the character of unity.

For these very reasons the individual soul cannot stand to Brahman in
the bhedâbheda-relation. And as the view of non-difference is founded on
Scripture, we assume that the view of difference rests on beginningless
Nescience.--But on this view want of knowledge and all the imperfections
springing therefrom, such as birth, death, &c., would cling to Brahman
itself, and this would contradict scriptural texts such as 'He who is
all-knowing' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 9); 'That Self free from all evil' (Ch. Up.
VIII, 1, 5). Not so, we reply. For all those imperfections we consider
to be unreal. On your view on the other hand, which admits nothing but
Brahman and its limiting adjuncts, all the imperfections which spring
from contact with those adjuncts must really belong to Brahman. For as
Brahman is without parts, indivisible, the upâdhis cannot divide or
split it so as to connect themselves with a part only; but necessarily
connect themselves with Brahman itself and produce their effects on it.--
Here the following explanation may possibly be attempted. Brahman
determined by an upâdhi constitutes the individual soul. This soul is of
atomic size since what determines it, viz. the internal organ, is itself
of atomic size; and the limitation itself is without beginning. All the
imperfections therefore connect themselves only with that special place
that is determined by the upâdhi, and do not affect the highest Brahman
which is not limited by the upâdhi.--In reply to this we ask--Do you
mean to say that what constitutes the atomic individual soul is a part
of Brahman which is limited and cut off by the limiting adjunct; or some
particular part of Brahman which, without being thereby divided off, is
connected with an atomic upâdhi; or Brahman in its totality as connected
with an upâdhi; or some other intelligent being connected with an upâdhi,
or finally the upâdhi itself?--The first alternative is not possible,
because Brahman cannot be divided; it would moreover imply that the
individual soul has a beginning, for division means the making of one
thing into two.--On the second alternative it would follow that, as a
part of Brahman would be connected with the upâdhi, all the
imperfections due to the upâdhis would adhere to that part. And further,
if the upâdhi would not possess the power of attracting to itself the
particular part of Brahman with which it is connected, it would follow
that when the upâdhi moves the part with, which it is connected would
constantly change; in other words, bondage and release would take place
at every moment. If, on the contrary, the upâdhi possessed the power of
attraction, the whole Brahman--as not being capable of division--would
be attracted and move with the upâdhi. And should it be said that what
is all-pervading and without parts cannot be attracted and move, well
then the upâdhi only moves, and we are again met by the difficulties
stated above. Moreover, if all the upâdhis were connected with the parts
of Brahman viewed as one and undivided, all individual souls, being
nothing but parts of Brahman, would be considered as non-distinct. And
should it be said that they are not thus cognised as one because they
are constituted by different parts of Brahman, it would follow that as
soon as the upâdhi of one individual soul is moving, the identity of
that soul would be lost (for it would, in successive moments, be
constituted by different parts of Brahman).--On the third alternative
(the whole of) Brahman itself being connected with the upâdhi enters
into the condition of individual soul, and there remains no non-
conditioned Brahman. And, moreover, the soul in all bodies will then be
one only.--On the fourth alternative the individual soul is something
altogether different from Brahman, and the difference of the soul from
Brahman thus ceases to depend on the upâdhis of Brahman.--And the fifth
alternative means the embracing of the view of the Kârvâka (who makes no
distinction between soul and matter).--The conclusion from all this is
that on the strength of the texts declaring non-difference we must admit
that all difference is based on Nescience only. Hence, Scripture being
an authoritative instrument of knowledge in so far only as it has for
its end action and the cessation of action, the Vedânta-texts must be
allowed to be a valid means of knowledge with regard to Brahman's nature,
in so far as they stand in a supplementary relation to the injunctions
of meditation.

This view is finally combated by the Mîmâmsaka. Even if, he says, we
allow the Vedânta-texts to have a purport in so far as they are
supplementary to injunctions of meditation, they cannot be viewed as
valid means of knowledge with regard to Brahman. Do the texts referring
to Brahman, we ask, occupy the position of valid means of knowledge in
so far as they form a syntactic whole with the injunctions of meditation,
or as independent sentences? In the former case the purport of the
syntactic whole is simply to enjoin meditation, and it cannot therefore
aim at giving instruction about Brahman. If, on the other hand, the
texts about Brahman are separate independent sentences, they cannot have
the purport of prompting to action and are therefore devoid of
instructive power. Nor must it be said that meditation is a kind of
continued remembrance, and as such requires to be defined by the object
remembered; and that the demand of the injunction of meditation for
something to be remembered is satisfied by texts such as 'All this is
that Self', 'the True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman,' &c., which set
forth the nature and attributes of Brahman and--forming a syntactic
whole with the injunctions--are a valid means of knowledge with regard
to the existence of the matter they convey. For the fact is that the
demand on the part of an injunction of meditation for an object to be
remembered may be satisfied even by something unreal (not true), as in
the case of injunctions such as 'Let him meditate upon mind as Brahman'
(Ch. Up. III, 18, 1): the real existence of the object of meditation is
therefore not demanded.--The final conclusion arrived at in this
pûrvapaksha is therefore as follows. As the Vedânta-texts do not aim at
prompting to action or the cessation of action; as, even on the
supposition of their being supplementary to injunctions of meditation,
the only thing they effect is to set forth the nature of the object of
meditation; and as, even if they are viewed as independent sentences,
they accomplish the end of man (i.e. please, gratify) by knowledge
merely--being thus comparable to tales with which we soothe children or
sick persons; it does not lie within their province to establish the
reality of an accomplished thing, and hence Scripture cannot be viewed
as a valid means for the cognition of Brahman.

To this primâ facie view the Sûtrakâra replies, 'But this on account of
connexion.' 'Connexion' is here to be taken in an eminent sense, as
'connexion with the end of man.' That Brahman, which is measureless
bliss and therefore constitutes the highest end of man, is connected
with the texts as the topic set forth by them, proves Scripture to be a
valid means for the cognition of Brahman. To maintain that the whole
body of Vedânta-texts-which teach us that Brahman is the highest object
to be attained, since it consists of supreme bliss free of all blemish
whatsoever--is devoid of all use and purpose merely because it does not
aim at action or the cessation of action; is no better than to say that
a youth of royal descent is of no use because he does not belong to a
community of low wretches living on the flesh of dogs!

The relation of the different texts is as follows. There are individual
souls of numberless kinds-gods, Asuras, Gandharvas, Siddhas, Vidyâdharas,
Kinnaras, Kimpurushas, Yakshas, Râkshasas, Pisâkas, men, beasts, birds,
creeping animals, trees, bushes, creepers, grasses and so on--
distinguished as male, female, or sexless, and having different sources
of nourishment and support and different objects of enjoyment. Now all
these souls are deficient in insight into the true nature of the highest
reality, their understandings being obscured by Nescience operating in
the form of beginningless karman; and hence those texts only are fully
useful to them which teach that there exists a highest Brahman--which
the souls in the state of release may cognise as non-different from
themselves, and which then, through its own essential nature, qualities,
power and energies, imparts to those souls bliss infinite and
unsurpassable. When now the question arises--as it must arise--, as to
how this Brahman is to be attained, there step in certain other Vedânta-
texts--such as He who knows Brahman reaches the highest' (Bri. Up. II, 1,
1), and 'Let a man meditate on the Self as his world' (Bri. Up. 1, 4,
15)--and, by means of terms denoting 'knowing' and so on, enjoin
meditation as the means of attaining Brahman. (We may illustrate this
relation existing between the texts setting forth the nature of Brahman
and those enjoining meditation by two comparisons.) The case is like
that of a man who has been told 'There is a treasure hidden in your
house'. He learns through this sentence the existence of the treasure,
is satisfied, and then takes active steps to find it and make it his own.--
Or take the case of a young prince who, intent on some boyish play,
leaves his father's palace and, losing his way, does not return. The
king thinks his son is lost; the boy himself is received by some good
Brahman who brings him up and teaches him without knowing who the boy's
father is. When the boy has reached his sixteenth year and is
accomplished in every way, some fully trustworthy person tells him,
'Your father is the ruler of all these lands, famous for the possession
of all noble qualities, wisdom, generosity, kindness, courage, valour
and so on, and he stays in his capital, longing to see you, his lost
child. Hearing that his father is alive and a man so high and noble, the
boy's heart is filled with supreme joy; and the king also, understanding
that his son is alive, in good health, handsome and well instructed,
considers himself to have attained all a man can wish for. He then takes
steps to recover his son, and finally the two are reunited.

The assertion again that a statement referring to some accomplished
thing gratifies men merely by imparting a knowledge of the thing,
without being a means of knowledge with regard to its real existence--so
that it would be comparable to the tales we tell to children and sick
people--, can in no way be upheld. When it is ascertained that a thing
has no real existence, the mere knowledge or idea of the thing does not
gratify. The pleasure which stories give to children and sick people is
due to the fact that they erroneously believe them to be true; if they
were to find out that the matter present to their thought is untrue
their pleasure would come to an end that very moment. And thus in the
case of the texts of the Upanishads also. If we thought that these texts
do not mean to intimate the real existence of Brahman, the mere idea of
Brahman to which they give rise would not satisfy us in any way.

The conclusion therefore is that texts such as 'That from whence these
beings are born' &c. do convey valid instruction as to the existence of
Brahman, i.e. that being which is the sole cause of the world, is free
from all shadow of imperfection, comprises within itself all auspicious
qualities, such as omniscience and so on, and is of the nature of
supreme bliss.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'connexion'.




5. On account of seeing (i.e. thinking) that which is not founded on
Scripture (i.e. the Pradhâna) is not (what is taught by the texts
referring to the origination of the world).

We have maintained that what is taught by the texts relative to the
origination of the world is Brahman, omniscient, and so on. The present
Sûtra and the following Sûtras now add that those texts can in no way
refer to the Pradhâna and similar entities which rest on Inference only.

We read in the Chândogya, 'Being only was this in the beginning, one
only, without a second.--It thought, may I be many, may I grow forth.--
It sent forth fire' (VI, 2, 1 ff.)--Here a doubt arises whether the
cause of the world denoted by the term 'Being' is the Pradhâna. assumed
by others, which rests on Inference, or Brahman as defined by us.

The Pûrvapakshin maintains that the Pradhâna is meant. For he says, the
Chândogya text quoted expresses the causal state of what is denoted by
the word 'this', viz. the aggregate of things comprising manifold
effects, such as ether, &c., consisting of the three elements of
Goodness, Passion and Darkness, and forming the sphere of fruition of
intelligent beings. By the 'effected' state we understand the assuming,
on the part of the causal substance, of a different condition; whatever
therefore constitutes the essential nature of a thing in its effected
state the same constitutes its essential nature in the causal state also.
Now the effect, in our case, is made up of the three elements Goodness,
Passion and Darkness; hence the cause is the Pradhâna which consists in
an equipoise of those three elements. And as in this Pradhâna all
distinctions are merged, so that it is pure Being, the Chândogya text
refers to it as 'Being, one only, without a second.' This establishes
the non-difference of effect and cause, and in this way the promise that
through the knowledge of one thing all things are to be known admits of
being fulfilled. Otherwise, moreover, there would be no analogy between
the instance of the lump of clay and the things made of it, and the
matter to be illustrated thereby. The texts speaking of the origination
of the world therefore intimate the Pradhâna taught by the great Sage
Kapila. And as the Chândogya passage has, owing to the presence of an
initial statement (pratijñâ) and a proving instance, the form of an
inference, the term 'Being' means just that which rests on inference,
viz. the Pradhâna.

This primâ facie view is set aside by the words of the Sûtra. That which
does not rest on Scripture, i.e. the Pradhâna, which rests on Inference
only, is not what is intimated by the texts referring to the origination
of the world; for the text exhibits the root 'îksh'--which means 'to
think'--as denoting a special activity on the part of what is termed
'Being.' 'It thought, may I be many, may I grow forth.' 'Thinking'
cannot possibly belong to the non-sentient Pradhâna: the term 'Being'
can therefore denote only the all-knowing highest Person who is capable
of thought. In agreement with this we find that, in all sections which
refer to creation, the act of creation is stated to be preceded by
thought. 'He thought, shall I send forth worlds. He sent forth these
worlds' (Ait. Âr. II, 4, 1, 2); 'He thought he sent forth Prâna' (Pr. Up.
VI, 3); and others.--But it is a rule that as a cause we must assume
only what corresponds to the effect!--Just so; and what corresponds to
the total aggregate of effects is the highest Person, all-knowing, all-
powerful, whose purposes realise themselves, who has minds and matter in
their subtle state for his body. Compare the texts 'His high power is
revealed as manifold, as inherent, acting as force and knowledge' (Svet.
Up. VI, 8); 'He who is all-knowing, all-perceiving' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 9);
'He of whom the Unevolved is the body, of whom the Imperishable is the
body, of whom Death is the body, he is the inner Self of all things'
(Subâl. Up. VII).--This point (viz. as to the body of the highest
Person) will be established under Sû. II, 1, 4. The present Sûtra
declares that the texts treating of creation cannot refer to the
Pradhâna; the Sûtra just mentioned will dispose of objections. Nor is
the Pûrvapakshin right in maintaining that the Chândogya passage is of
the nature of an Inference; for it does not state a reason (hetu--which
is the essential thing in an Inference). The illustrative instance (of
the lump of clay) is introduced merely in order to convince him who
considers it impossible that all things should be known through one
thing--as maintained in the passage 'through which that is heard which
was not heard,' &c.,--that this _is_ possible after all. And the mention
made in the text of 'seeing' clearly shows that there is absolutely no
intention of setting forth an Inference.

Let us assume, then, the Pûrvapakshin resumes, that the 'seeing' of the
text denotes not 'seeing' in its primary, direct sense--such as belongs
to intelligent beings only; but 'seeing' in a secondary, figurative
sense which there is ascribed to the Pradhâna in the same way as in
passages immediately following it is ascribed to fire and water--'the
fire saw'; 'the water saw' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 3). The transference, to non-
existent things, of attributes properly belonging to sentient beings is
quite common; as when we say 'the rice-fields look out for rain'; 'the
rain delighted the seeds.'--This view is set aside by the next Sûtra.




6. If it be said that (the word 'seeing') has a secondary (figurative)
meaning; we deny this, on account of the word 'Self' (being applied to
the cause of the world).

The contention that, because, in passages standing close by, the word
'seeing' is used in a secondary sense, the 'seeing' predicated of the
Sat ('Being') is also to be taken in a secondary sense, viz. as denoting
(not real thought but) a certain condition previous to creation, cannot
be upheld; for in other texts met with in the same section (viz. 'All
this has that for its Self; that is the True, that is the Self', Ch. Up.
VI, 8, 7), that which first had been spoken of as Sat is called the
'Self'. The designation 'Self' which in this passage is applied to the
Sat in its relation to the entire world, sentient or non-sentient, is in
no way appropriate to the Pradhâna. We therefore conclude that, as the
highest Self is the Self of fire, water, and earth also, the words fire,
&c. (in the passages stating that fire, &c. thought) denote the highest
Self only. This conclusion agrees with the text 'Let me enter into these
three beings with this living Self, and evolve names and forms', for
this text implies that fire, water, &c. possess substantial being and
definite names only through the highest Self having entered into them.
The thought ascribed in the text to fire, water, &c. hence is thought in
the proper sense, and the hypothesis that, owing to its connexion with
these latter texts, the thought predicated of 'Being' ('it thought,' &c.
) should be thought in a figurative sense only thus lapses altogether.




The next following Sûtra confirms the same view.

7. Because release is taught of him who takes his stand on it.

Svetaketu, who is desirous of final release, is at first--by means of
the clause 'Thou art that'--instructed to meditate on himself as having
his Self in that which truly is; and thereupon the passage 'for him
there is delay' only as long as 'I shall not be released, then I shall
be united' teaches that for a man taking his stand upon that teaching
there will be Release, i.e. union with Brahman--which is delayed only
until this mortal body falls away. If, on the other hand, the text would
teach that the non-intelligent Pradhâna is the general cause, it could
not possibly teach that meditation on this Pradhâna being a man's Self
is the means towards his Release. A man taking his stand on such
meditation rather would on death be united with a non-sentient principle,
according to the scriptural saying, 'According as his thought is in this
world, so will he be when he has departed this life' (Ch. Up. III, 14,
1). And Scripture, which is more loving than even a thousand parents,
cannot possibly teach such union with the Non-sentient, which is
acknowledged to be the cause of all the assaults of suffering in its
threefold form. Moreover, those who hold the theory of the Pradhâna
being the cause of the world do not themselves maintain that he who
takes his stand upon the Pradhâna attains final release.




The Pradhâna is not the cause of the world for the following reason also:

8. And because there is no statement of its having to be set aside.

If the word 'Sat' denoted the Pradhâna as the cause of the world, we
should expect the text to teach that the idea of having his Self in that
'Sat' should be set aside by Svetaketu as desirous of Release; for that
idea would be contrary to Release. So far from teaching this, the text,
however, directly inculcates that notion in the words 'Thou art that.'--
The next Sûtra adds a further reason.




9. And on account of the contradiction of the initial statement.

The Pradhâna's being the cause of the world would imply a contradiction
of the initial statement, viz. that through the knowledge of one thing
all things are to be known. Now, on the principle of the non-difference
of cause and effect, this initial statement can only be fulfilled in
that way that through the knowledge of the 'Sat', which is the cause,
there is known the entire world, whether sentient or non-sentient, which
constitutes the effect. But if the Pradhâna were the cause, the
aggregate of sentient beings could not be known through it--for sentient
beings are not the effect of a non-sentient principle, and there would
thus arise a contradiction.--The next Sûtra supplies a further reason.




10. On account of (the individual soul) going to the Self.

With reference to the 'Sat' the text says, 'Learn from me the true
nature of sleep. When a man sleeps here, he becomes united with the Sat,
he is gone to his own (Self). Therefore they say he sleeps (svapiti),
because he is gone to his own (sva-apîta)' (Ch. Up. VI, 8, 1). This text
designates the soul in the state of deep sleep as having entered into,
or being merged or reabsorbed in, the Self. By reabsorption we
understand something being merged in its cause. Now the non-intelligent
Pradhâna cannot be the cause of the intelligent soul; hence the soul's
going to its Self can only mean its going to _the_, i.e. the universal,
Self. The term 'individual soul' (jîva) denotes Brahman in so far as
having an intelligent substance for its body, Brahman itself
constituting the Self; as we learn from the text referring to the
distinction of names and forms. This Brahman, thus called jîva., is in
the state of deep sleep, no less than in that of a general pralaya, free
from the investment of names and forms, and is then designated as mere
'Being' (sat); as the text says, 'he is then united with the Sat'. As
the soul is in the state of deep sleep free from the investment of name
and form, and invested by the intelligent Self only, another text says
with reference to the same state,' Embraced by the intelligent Self he
knows nothing that is without, nothing that is within' (Bri. Up. IV, 3,
21). Up to the time of final release there arise in the soul invested by
name and form the cognitions of objects different from itself. During
deep sleep the souls divest themselves of names and forms, and are
embraced by the 'Sat' only; but in the waking state they again invest
themselves with names and forms, and thus bear corresponding distinctive
names and forms. This, other scriptural texts also distinctly declare,
'When a man lying in deep sleep sees no dream whatever, he becomes one
with that prâna alone;--from that Self the prânas proceed, each towards
its place' (Kau. Up. 111,3); 'Whatever these creatures are here, whether
a lion or a wolf or a boar or a gnat or a mosquito, that they become
again' (Ch. Up. VI, 9, 3).--Hence the term 'Sat' denotes the highest
Brahman, the all-knowing highest Lord, the highest Person. Thus the
Vrittikâra also says, 'Then he becomes united with the Sat--this is
proved by (all creatures) entering into it and coming back out of it.'
And Scripture also says, 'Embraced by the intelligent Self.'--The next
Sûtra gives an additional reason.




11. On account of the uniformity of view.

'In the beginning the Self was all this; there was nothing else
whatsoever thinking. He thought, shall I send forth worlds? He sent
forth these worlds' (Ait. Âr. II, 4, 1, 1); 'From that Self sprang ether,
from ether air, from air fire, from fire water, from water earth' (Taitt.
Up. II, 1); 'From this great Being were breathed forth the Rig-veda,' &c.--
These and similar texts referring to the creation have all the same
purport: they all teach us that the Supreme Lord is the cause of the
world. We therefore conclude that in the Ch. passage also the Sat,
which is said to be the cause of the world, is the Supreme Lord.




12. And because it is directly stated in Scripture.

The text of the same Upanishad directly declares that the being denoted
by the word 'Sat' evolves, as the universal Self, names and forms; is
all-knowing, all-powerful, all-embracing; is free from all evil, &c.;
realises all its wishes and purposes. 'Let me, entering those beings
with this living; Self, evolve names and forms' (Ch. Up. VI, 3, 2); 'All
these creatures have their root in the Sat, they dwell in the Sat, they
rest in the Sat' (VI, 8, 4); 'All this has that for its Self; it is the
True, it is the Self (VI, 8, 7); 'Whatever there is of him here in the
world, and whatever is not, all that is contained within it' (VIII, 1,
3); 'In it all desires are contained. It is the Self free from sin, free
from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, whose wishes
come true, whose purposes come true' (VIII, 1, 5).--And analogously
other scriptural texts, 'Of him there is no master in the world, no
ruler; not even a sign of him. He is the cause, the lord of the lords of
the organs, and there is of him neither parent nor lord' (Svet. Up. VI,
9). 'The wise one who, having created all forms and having given them
names, is calling them by those names' (Taitt. Ar. III, 12, 7); 'He who
entered within is the ruler of all beings, the Self of all' (Taitt. Ar.
III, 24); 'The Self of all, the refuge, the ruler of all, the Lord of
the souls' (Mahânâr. Up. XI); 'Whatsoever is seen or heard in this world,
inside or outside, pervading that all Nârâyana abides' (Mahânâr. Up. XI);
'He is the inner Self of all beings, free from all evil, the divine, the
only god Nârâyana.'--These and other texts which declare the world to
have sprung from the highest Lord, can in no way be taken as
establishing the Pradhâna. Hence it remains a settled conclusion that
the highest Person, Nârâyana, free from all shadow of imperfection, &c.,
is the single cause of the whole Universe, and is that Brahman which
these Sûtras point out as the object of enquiry.

For the same reasons the theory of a Brahman, which is nothing but non-
differenced intelligence, must also be considered as refuted by the
Sûtrakâra, with the help of the scriptural texts quoted; for those texts
prove that the Brahman, which forms the object of enquiry, possesses
attributes such as thinking, and so on, in their real literal sense. On
the theory, on the other hand, of a Brahman that is nothing but
distinctionless intelligence even the witnessing function of
consciousness would be unreal. The Sûtras propose as the object of
enquiry Brahman as known from the Vedânta-texts, and thereupon teach
that Brahman is intelligent (Sû. I, 1, 5 ff.) To be intelligent means to
possess the quality of intelligence: a being devoid of the quality of
thought would not differ in nature from the Pradhâna. Further, on the
theory of Brahman being mere non-differenced light it would be difficult
to prove that Brahman is self-luminous. For by light we understand that
particular thing which renders itself, as well as other things, capable
of becoming the object of ordinary thought and speech; but as a thing
devoid of all difference does not, of course, possess these two
characteristics it follows that it is as devoid of intelligence as a pot
may be.--Let it then be assumed that although a thing devoid of all
distinction does not actually possess these characteristics, yet it has
the potentiality of possessing them!--But if it possesses the attribute
of potentiality, it is clear that you abandon your entire theory of a
substance devoid of all distinction!--Let us then admit, on the
authority of Scripture, that the universal substance possesses this one
distinguishing attribute of self-luminousness.--Well, in that case you
must of course admit, on the same authority, all those other qualities
also which Scripture vouches for, such as all-knowingness, the
possession of all powers, and so on.--Moreover, potentiality means
capability to produce certain special effects, and hence can be
determined on the ground of those special effects only. But if there are
no means of knowing these particular effects, there are also no means of
cognising potentiality.--And those who hold the theory of a substance
devoid of all difference, have not even means of proof for their
substance; for as we have shown before, Perception, Inference, Scripture,
and one's own consciousness, are all alike in so far as having for their
objects things marked by difference.--It therefore remains a settled
conclusion that the Brahman to be known is nothing else but the highest
Person capable of the thought 'of becoming many' by manifesting himself
in a world comprising manifold sentient and non-sentient creatures.--
Here terminates the adhikarana of 'seeing'.

So far the Sûtras have declared that the Brahman which forms the object
of enquiry is different from the non-intelligent Pradhâna, which is
merely an object of fruition for intelligent beings. They now proceed to
show that Brahman--which is antagonistic to all evil and constituted by
supreme bliss--is different from the individual soul, which is subject
to karman, whether that soul be in its purified state or in the impure
state that is due to its immersion in the ocean of manifold and endless
sufferings, springing from the soul's contact with Prakriti (Pradhâna).




13. The Self consisting of Bliss (is the highest Self) on account of
multiplication.

We read in the text of the Taittirîyas, 'Different from this Self, which
consists of Understanding, is the other inner Self which consists of
bliss' (Taitt. Up. II, 5).--Here the doubt arises whether the Self
consisting of bliss be the highest Self, which is different from the
inner Self subject to bondage and release, and termed 'jîva.' (i.e.
living self or individual soul), or whether it be that very inner Self,
i.e. the jîva.--It _is_ that inner Self, the Pûrvapakshin contends. For
the text says 'of that this, i.e. the Self consisting of bliss, is the
sârîra Self'; and sârîra means that which is joined to a body, in other
words, the so-called jîva.--But, an objection is raised, the text
enumerates the different Selfs, beginning with the Self consisting of
bliss, to the end that man may obtain the bliss of Brahman, which was,
at the outset, stated to be the cause of the world (II, 1), and in the
end teaches that the Self consisting of bliss is the cause of the world
(II, 6). And that the cause of the world is the all-knowing Lord, since
Scripture says of him that 'he thought,' we have already explained.--
That cause of the world, the Pûrvapakshin rejoins, is not different from
the jîva; for in the text of the Chândogyas that Being which first is
described as the creator of the world is exhibited, in two passages, in
co-ordination with the jîva ('having entered into them with that living
Self' and 'Thou art that, O Svetaketu'). And the purport of co-
ordination is to express oneness of being, as when we say, 'This person
here is that Devadatta we knew before.' And creation preceded by thought
can very well be ascribed to an intelligent jîva. The connexion of the
whole Taittirîya-text then is as follows. In the introductory clause,
'He who knows Brahman attains the Highest,' the true nature of the jîva,
free from all connexion with matter, is referred to as something to be
attained; and of this nature a definition is given in the words, 'The
True, knowledge, the Infinite is Brahman.' The attainment of the jîva in
this form is what constitutes Release, in agreement with the text, 'So
long as he is in the body he cannot get free from pleasure and pain; but
when he is free from the body then neither pleasure nor pain touches
him' (Ch. Up. VIII, 12, 1). This true nature of the Self, free from all
avidyâ, which the text begins by presenting as an object to be attained,
is thereupon declared to be the Self consisting of bliss. In order to
lead up to this--just as a man points out to another the moon by first
pointing out the branch of a tree near which the moon is to be seen--the
text at first refers to the body ('Man consists of food'); next to the
vital breath with its five modifications which is within the body and
supports it; then to the manas within the vital breath; then to the
buddhi within the manas--'the Self consisting of breath'; 'the Self
consisting of mind' (manas); 'the Self consisting of understanding'
(vijñâna). Having thus gradually led up to the jîva, the text finally
points out the latter, which is the innermost of all ('Different from
that is the inner Self which consists of bliss'), and thus completes the
series of Selfs one inside the other. We hence conclude that the Self
consisting of bliss is that same jîva-self which was at the outset
pointed out as the Brahman to be attained.--But the clause immediately
following, 'Brahman is the tail, the support (of the Self of bliss'),
indicates that Brahman is something different from the Self of bliss!--
By no means (the Pûrvapakshin rejoins). Brahman is, owing to its
different characteristics, there compared to an animal body, and head,
wings, and tail are ascribed to it, just as in a preceding clause the
body consisting of food had also been imagined as having head, wings,
and tail--these members not being something different from the body, but
the body itself. Joy, satisfaction, great satisfaction, bliss, are
imagined as the members, non-different from it, of Brahman consisting of
bliss, and of them all the unmixed bliss-constituted Brahman is said to
be the tail or support. If Brahman were something different from the
Self consisting of bliss, the text would have continued, 'Different from
this Self consisting of bliss is the other inner Self--Brahman.' But
there is no such continuation. The connexion of the different clauses
stands as follows: After Brahman has been introduced as the topic of the
section ('He who knows Brahman attains the Highest'), and defined as
different in nature from everything else ('The True, knowledge'), the
text designates it by the term 'Self,' &c. ('From that Self sprang
ether'), and then, in order to make it clear that Brahman is the
innermost Self of all, enumerates the pranamaya and so on--designating
them in succession as more and more inward Selfs--, and finally leads up
to the ânandamaya as the innermost Self('Different from this, &c., is the
Self consisting of bliss'). From all which it appears that the term
'Self' up to the end denotes the Brahman mentioned at the beginning.--
But, in immediate continuation of the clause, 'Brahman is the tail, the
support,' the text exhibits the following sloka: 'Non-existing becomes
he who views Brahman as non-existing; who knows Brahman as existing, him
we know as himself existing.' Here the existence and non-existence of
the Self are declared to depend on the knowledge and non-knowledge of
Brahman, not of the Self consisting of bliss. Now no doubt can possibly
arise as to the existence or non-existence of this latter Self, which,
in the form of joy, satisfaction, &c., is known to every one. Hence the
sloka cannot refer to that Self, and hence Brahman is different from
that Self.--This objection, the Pûrvapakshin rejoins, is unfounded. In
the earlier parts of the chapter we have corresponding slokas, each of
them following on a preceding clause that refers to the tail or support
of a particular Self: in the case, e.g. of the Self consisting of food,
we read, 'This is the tail, the support,' and then comes the sloka,
'From food are produced all creatures,' &c. Now it is evident that all
these slokas are meant to set forth not only what had been called 'tail,'
but the entire Self concerned (Self of food, Self of breath, &c.); and
from this it follows that also the sloka, 'Non-existing becomes he,'
does not refer to the 'tail' only as something other than the Self of
bliss, but to the entire Self of bliss. And there may very well be a
doubt with regard to the knowledge or non-knowledge of the existence of
that Self consisting of unlimited bliss. On your view also the
circumstance of Brahman which forms the tail not being known is due to
its being of the nature of limitless bliss. And should it be said that
the Self of bliss cannot be Brahman because Brahman does not possess a
head and other members; the answer is that Brahman also does not possess
the quality of being a tail or support, and that hence Brahman cannot be
a tail.--Let it then be said that the expression, 'Brahman is the tail,'
is merely figurative, in so far as Brahman is the substrate of all
things imagined through avidyâ!--But, the Pûrvapakshin rejoins, we may
as well assume that the ascription to Brahman of joy, as its head and so
on, is also merely figurative, meant to illustrate the nature of Brahman,
i.e. the Self of bliss as free from all pain. To speak of Brahman or the
Self as consisting of bliss has thus the purpose of separating from all
pain and grief that which in a preceding clause ('The True, knowledge,
the Infinite is Brahman') had already been separated from all changeful
material things. As applied to Brahman (or the Self), whose nature is
nothing but absolute bliss, the term 'ânandamaya' therefore has to be
interpreted as meaning nothing more than 'ânanda'; just as prânamaya
means prâna.

The outcome of all this is that the term 'ânandamaya' denotes the true
essential nature--which is nothing but absolute uniform bliss--of the
jiva that appears as distinguished by all the manifold individualising
forms which are the figments of Nescience. The Self of bliss is the jîva
or pratyag-âtman, i.e. the individual soul.

Against this primâ facie view the Sûtrakâra contends that the Self
consisting of bliss is the highest Self 'on account of multiplication.'--
The section which begins with the words,'This is an examination of bliss,'
and terminates with the sloka, 'from whence all speech turns back'
(Taitt. Up. II, 8), arrives at bliss, supreme and not to be surpassed,
by successively multiplying inferior stages of bliss by a hundred; now
such supreme bliss cannot possibly belong to the individual soul which
enjoys only a small share of very limited happiness, mixed with endless
pain and grief; and therefore clearly indicates, as its abode, the
highest Self, which differs from all other Selfs in so far as being
radically opposed to all evil and of an unmixed blessed nature. The text
says, 'Different from this Self consisting of understanding (vijñâna)
there is the inner Self consisting of bliss'. Now that which consists of
understanding (vijñâna) is the individual soul (jîva), not the internal
organ (buddhi) only; for the formative element, 'maya,' ('consisting of';
in vijñânamaya) indicates a difference (between vijñâna and vijñânamaya).
The term 'prâna-maya' ('consisting of breath') we explain to mean
'prâna' only, because no other explanation is possible; but as
vijñânamaya may be explained as,--jîva, we have no right to neglect
'maya' as unmeaning. And this interpretation is quite suitable, as the
soul in the states of bondage and release alike is a 'knowing' subject.
That moreover even in 'prânamaya', and so on, the affix 'maya' may be
taken as having a meaning will be shown further on.--But how is it then
that in the sloka which refers to the vijñânamaya, 'Understanding
(vijñâna) performs the sacrifice', the term 'vijñâna' only is used?--The
essential nature, we reply, of the knowing subject is suitably called
'knowledge', and this term is transferred to the knowing subject itself
which is defined as possessing that nature. For we generally see that
words which denote attributes defining the essential nature of a thing
also convey the notion of the essential nature of the thing itself. This
also accounts for the fact that the sloka ('Vijñâna performs the
sacrifice, it performs all sacred acts') speaks of vijñâna as being the
agent in sacrifices and so on; the buddhi alone could not be called an
agent. For this reason the text does not ascribe agency to the other
Selfs (the prânamaya and so on) which are mentioned before the
vijñânamaya; for they are non-intelligent instruments of intelligence,
and the latter only can be an agent. With the same view the text further
on (II, 6), distinguishing the intelligent and the non-intelligent by
means of their different characteristic attributes, says in the end
'knowledge and non-knowledge,' meaning thereby that which possesses the
attribute of knowledge and that which does not. An analogous case is met
with in the so-called antaryâmi-brâhmana (Bri. Up. III. 7). There the
Kânvas read, 'He who dwells in knowledge' (vijñâna; III, 7, 16), but
instead of this the Mâdhyandinas read 'he who dwells in the Self,' and
so make clear that what the Kânvas designate as 'knowledge' really is
the knowing Self.--That the word vijñâna, although denoting the knowing
Self, yet has a neuter termination, is meant to denote it as something
substantial. We hence conclude that he who is different from the Self
consisting of knowledge, i.e. the individual Self, is the highest Self
which consists of bliss.

It is true indeed that the sloka, 'Knowledge performs the sacrifice,
'directly mentions knowledge only, not the knowing Self; all the same we
have to understand that what is meant is the latter, who is referred to
in the clause, 'different from this is the inner Self which consists of
knowledge.' This conclusion is supported by the sloka referring to the
Self which consists of food (II, 2); for that sloka refers to food only,
'From food are produced all creatures,' &c., all the same the preceding
clause 'this man consists of the essence of food' does not refer to food,
but to an effect of it which consists of food. Considering all this the
Sûtrakâra himself in a subsequent Sûtra (I, 1, 18) bases his view on the
declaration, in the scriptural text, of difference.--We now turn to the
assertion, made by the Pûrvapakshin, that the cause of the world is not
different from the individual soul because in two Chândogya passages it
is exhibited in co-ordination with the latter ('having entered into them
with this living Self,' 'Thou art that'); and that hence the
introductory clause of the Taitt. passage ('He who knows Brahman reaches
the Highest') refers to the individual soul--which further on is called
'consisting of bliss,' because it is free from all that is not pleasure.--
This view cannot be upheld; for although the individual soul is
intelligent, it is incapable of producing through its volition this
infinite and wonderful Universe--a process described in texts such as
'It thought, may I be many, may I grow forth.--It sent forth fire,' &c.
That even the released soul is unequal to such 'world business' as
creation, two later Sûtras will expressly declare. But, if you deny that
Brahman, the cause of the world, is identical with the individual soul,
how then do you account for the co-ordination in which the two appear in
the Chândogya texts?--How, we ask in return, can Brahman, the cause of
all, free from all shadow of imperfection, omniscient, omnipotent, &c.
&c., be one with the individual soul, all whose activities--whether it be
thinking, or winking of an eye, or anything else--depend on karman,
which implies endless suffering of various kind?--If you reply that this
is possible if one of two things is unreal, we ask--which then do you
mean to be unreal? Brahman's connexion with what is evil?--or its
essential nature, owing to which it is absolutely good and antagonistic
to all evil?--You will perhaps reply that, owing to the fact of Brahman,
which is absolutely good and antagonistic to all evil, being the
substrate of beginningless Nescience, there presents itself the false
appearance of its being connected with evil. But there you maintain what
is contradictory. On the one side there is Brahman's absolute perfection
and antagonism to all evil; on the other it is the substrate of
Nescience, and thereby the substrate of a false appearance which is
involved in endless pain; for to be connected with evil means to be the
substrate of Nescience and the appearance of suffering which is produced
thereby. Now it is a contradiction to say that Brahman is connected with
all this and at the same time antagonistic to it!--Nor can we allow you
to say that there is no real contradiction because that appearance is
something false. For whatever is false belongs to that group of things
contrary to man's true interest, for the destruction of which the
Vedânta-texts are studied. To be connected with what is hurtful to man,
and to be absolutely perfect and antagonistic to all evil is self-
contradictory.--But, our adversary now rejoins, what after all are we to
do? The holy text at first clearly promises that through the cognition
of one thing everything will be known ('by which that which is not heard
_is_ heard,' &c., Ch. Up. VI, 1, 3); thereupon declares that Brahman is
the sole cause of the world ('Being only this was in the beginning'),
and possesses exalted qualities such as the power of realising its
intentions ('it thought, may I be many'); and then finally, by means of
the co-ordination, 'Thou art that' intimates that Brahman is one with
the individual soul, which we know to be subject to endless suffering!
Nothing therefore is left to us but the hypothesis that Brahman is the
substrate of Nescience and all that springs from it!--Not even for the
purpose, we reply, of making sense of Scripture may we assume what in
itself is senseless and contradictory!--Let us then say that Brahman's
connexion with evil is real, and its absolute perfection unreal!--
Scripture, we reply, aims at comforting the soul afflicted by the
assaults of threefold pain, and now, according to you, it teaches that
the assaults of suffering are real, while its essential perfection and
happiness are unreal figments, due to error! This is excellent comfort
indeed!--To avoid these difficulties let us then assume that both
aspects of Brahman--viz. on the one hand its entering into the
distressful condition of individual souls other than non-differenced
intelligence, and on the other its being the cause of the world, endowed
with all perfections, &c.--are alike unreal!--Well, we reply, we do not
exactly admire the depth of your insight into the connected meaning of
texts. The promise that through the knowledge of one thing everything
will be known can certainly not be fulfilled if everything is false, for
in that case there exists nothing that could be known. In so far as the
cognition of one thing has something real for its object, and the
cognition of all things is of the same kind, and moreover is comprised
in the cognition of one thing; in so far it can be said that everything
is known through one thing being known. Through the cognition of th