Chapter III - Sadhanadhyaya Section-1

INTRODUCTION

Now in the Third Chapter are being determined those Sadhanas or practices which are the means of attaining the highest Brahman or the Infinite. In the First and Second Padas of this Chapter are being taught two things, viz., a strong yearning or burning desire (Mumukshutva) to realise Brahman or the final emancipation and an equally strong disgust (Vairagya) towards all objects other than Brahman; because these are the two fundamental things among all Sadhanas.

In order to induce Vairagya or dispassion, the Sutras show in the first Pada the imperfections of all mundane existences and this they base on the Panchagnividya or the doctrine of five fires of the Chhandogya Upanishad in which is taught how the soul passes after death from one condition to another.

The first Pada teaches the great doctrine of reincarnation, the departure of the soul from the physical body, its journey to the Chandraloka on the third plane and its coming back to the earth. This is done in order to create Vairagya or indiffe rence to sensual enjoyments herein and hereafter. In the Second Pada are described all the glorious attributes of the Supreme Brahman, His Omniscience, Omnipotence, Loveli ness, etc., in order to attract the soul towards Him, so that He may be the sole object of quest.

SYNOPSIS

Adhikarana I: (Sutras 1-7) teaches that the soul, at the dissolution of the body, departs, accompanied by the subtle material elements (Bhuta Sukshma), as well as by the Indriyas and Pranas. The subtle elements serve as an abode to the Pranas attached to the soul.

Sutra 7: Those who do sacrifice become in Chandraloka the food of the gods which means that they contribute to the enjoyment of the gods by their presence and service to them.

Adhikarana II: (Sutras 8-11) shows that the souls after enjoying the fruits of their meritorious deeds in the Chandraloka descend to the earth with a remainder (Anusaya) of their works which determines the nature of the new body or the character of the new life.

Adhikarana III: (Sutras 12-21) discusses the fate after death of those evil doers whom their evil deeds do not entitle to pass to the Chandraloka.

Adhikaranas IV, V, and VI: (Sutras 22; 23; and 24 to 27) teach that the subtle bodies of the souls descending from the Chandraloka through the ether, air, etc., do not become identical with ether, air, etc., but only live there; that they descend in a short time. On entering into a corn or a plant the soul remains merely in contact with it which is already animat ed by another soul. The soul after having entered into a corn or a plant, gets connected with him who eats the corn or fruit of the plant and performs the act of copulation. The soul remains with him till he enters into the mother's womb with the seminal fluid injected. The soul ultimately enters the mother's womb and is brought forth as a child.

TADANTARAPRATIPATTYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 1 (SUTRAS 17)

THE SOUL AT THE TIME OF TRANSMIGRATION DOES TAKE

with it subtle parts of the elements

Tadantarapratipattau ramhati samparishvaktah

prasnanirupanabhya - III.1.1 (292)

In order to obtain another body (the soul) goes enveloped (by subtle elements) (as appears from) the question and explanation (in the scripture, Chhandogya).

Tadantarapratipattau: for the purpose of obtaining a fresh body (Tat: that, i.e. a body; Antara: different, another; Prati- pattau: in obtaining); Ramhati: goes, departs, Samparishvaktah: enveloped (by subtle elements); Prasna: from question; Nirupanabhyam: aid for explanations.

In the Second Chapter all objections raised against the Vedantic view of Brahman on the ground of Sruti and reasoning have been refuted. It has been shown also that all other views are incorrect and devoid of foundation and the alleged mutual contradictions of Vedic texts do not exist. Further it has been shown that all the entities different from the indivi dual soul such as Prana, etc., spring from Brahman for the enjoyment of the soul.

In this Chapter the manner in which the soul travels after death to the different regions with its adjuncts, the different states of the soul and the nature of Brahman, the separateness or non-separateness of the Vidyas (kinds of Upasana); the question whether the qualities of Brahman have to be cumu lated or not, the attainment of the goal by right knowledge (Samyagdarsana), the diversities of the means of right know ledge and the absence of certain rules as to Moksha which is the fruit of perfect knowledge are discussed to create dispassion.

The Jiva (individual soul) along with the Pranas, the mind and the senses leaves his former body and obtains a new body. He takes with himself, Avidya, virtues and vicious actions and the impressions left by his previous births.

Here the question arises whether the soul is enveloped or not by subtle parts of the elements as the seed for the future body in his transmigration. The Purvapakshin or the opponent saysIt is not so enveloped, because the subtle parts of the elements are easily available everywhere. This Sutra refutes this view and says that the soul does take with it subtle parts of the elements which are the seeds of the new body. How do we know this? From the question and answer that occurs in the scriptures. The question is Do you know why in the fifth oblation water is called man? (Chh. Up. V.3.3). The answer is given in the whole passage which, after explaining how the five oblations in the form of Sraddha, Soma, rain, food and seed are offered in the five fires, viz., the heavenly world, Parjanya (rain God), the earth, man and woman, concludes For this reason is water, in the fifth oblation, called man. Go through the section Panchagnividya in Chh. Up. V. parts 3-10. Hence we understand that the soul goes enveloped by water. Though the elements are available everywhere, yet the seeds for a future body cannot be easily procured anywhere. The organs, etc., which go with the soul cannot accompany it without a material body.

Just as a caterpillar takes hold of another object before it leaves its hold of an object, so also the soul has the vision of the body to come before it leaves the present body. Hence the view of the Sankhyas that the Self and the organs are both all-pervading and when obtaining a new body only begin to function in it on account of Karma; the view of the Bauddhas that the soul alone without the organs begins to function in a new body, new senses being formed like the new body; the view of the Vaiseshikas that the mind alone goes to the new body; and the view of the Digambara Jains that the soul only flies away from the old body and alights in the new one just as a parrot flies from one tree to another are not correct and are opposing to the Vedas. The soul goes from the body accompanied by the mind, Prana, the senses and the Sukshmabhutas or subtle elements.

An objection can be raised that water only accompanies the soul and not any other element. How can it be said then that the soul goes enveloped by the subtle parts of all ele ments. To this objection the next Sutra gives the reply.

Tryatmakatvattu bhuyastvat III.1.2 (293)

On account of water consisting of three (elements) (the soul is enveloped by all these elements and not merely water); but (water alone is mentioned in the text) on account of its preponderance (in the human body).

Tryatmakatvattu: on account of (water) consisting of three elements; Tu: but; Bhuyastvat: on account of the preponderance (of water).

The water which envelops the soul is threefold. It denotes all the other elements by implication. The text specifies water, because it preponderates in the human body. In all animated bodies liquid substances such as juices, blood and the like preponderate.

The word `tu' (but), removes the objection raised above. Water stands for all the elements because it is really a combination of water, fire and earth according to the tripartite creation of the gross elements. Therefore all the three elements accompany the soul. No body can be formed by water alone. Further liquid matter is predominant in the causal state of the body, i.e., semen and menstrual blood. Moreover fluid portion is predominant in Soma, milk, butter and the like which are necessary for Karma, which is an efficient cause for the building of the future body.

Pranagatescha III.1.3 (294)

And because of the going out of the Pranas (the sense organs) with the soul, the elements also accompany the soul.

Prana: of the Pranas (the sense organs); Gateh: because of the going out; Cha: and.

A further reason is given to show that the subtle essences of the elements accompany the soul at the dissolution of the body. The Sruti has stated that the Pranas and senses depart along with the individual soul at the dissolution of the body. When he thus departs the chief Prana departs after him, and when the chief Prana thus departs all the other Pranas depart after it (Bri. Up. IV.4.2). They cannot stay without the basis or substratum or support of the elements. Therefore it follows that the individual soul departs attended by the subtle essences of the elements at the dissolution of the body. The subtle elements form the base for the moving of Pranas. The going of the Pranas is not possible without a base. The Pranas cannot either move or abide anywhere without such a base. This is observed in living beings.

There can be enjoyment only when the Prana goes to an other body. When the soul departs the chief Prana also follows. When the chief Prana departs all the other Pranas and organs also follow. The essences of elements are the vehicle of Pranas. Where the elements are, there the organs and Pranas are. They are never separated.

Agnyadigatisruteriti chet na bhaktatvat III.1.4 (295)

If it be said (that the Pranas or the organs do not follow the soul) on account of the scriptural statements as to entering into Agni, etc., (we say) not so, on account of its being so said in a secondary sense (or metaphorical nature of these statements).

Agnyadi: Agni and others; Gati: entering; Sruteh: on account of the scriptures; Iti: as thus; Chet: if; Na: not so (it cannot be accepted); Bhaktatvat: on account of its being said in a secondary sense.

The Purvapakshin or the objector denies that at the time when a new body is obtained the Pranas go with the soul, because the scripture speaks of their going to Agni, etc. This Sutra refutes this view.

The text which says that Pranas on death go to Agni and other gods says so in a figurative and secondary sense just as when it says that the hair goes to the trees. The text means only that the Pranas obtain the grace of Agni and other gods.

The entering of speech, etc., into Agni is metaphorical. Although the text says that the hairs of the body enter into the shrubs and the hairs of the head into the trees. It does not mean that the hairs actually fly away from the body and enter into trees and shrubs.

The scriptural texts clearly say When the soul departs, the Prana follows. When the Prana departs, all the organs follow (Bri. Up. IV.4.2.)

Further the soul could not go at all if the Prana could not follow it. The soul could not enter into the new body without Prana. There could be no enjoyment in the new body without the Pranas going to this body.

The passage metaphorically expresses that Agni and other deities who act as guides of the Pranas and the senses and cooperate with them, stop their cooperation at the time of death. The Pranas and the senses consequently lose their respective functions and are supposed to be immersed in the guiding deities. The Pranas and the senses remain at that time quite inoperative, waiting for accompanying the depart ing soul.

The entering of speech into fire, etc., means only that at the time of death, these senses and Pranas cease to perform their functions and not that they are absolutely lost to the soul. The conclusion, therefore, is that the Pranas and the senses do accompany the soul at the time of death.

Prathame'sravanaditi chet na ta eva hi upapatteh III.1.5 (296)

If it be objected on the ground of water not being mention ed in the first of the oblations, we say not so, because that (water) only is verily meant by the word Sraddha because that is the most appropriate meaning of the word in that passage.

Prathame: in the first of the five oblations described in the Chhandogya Sruti; Asravanat: on account of not being mentioned; Iti: thus; Chet: if; Na: not; Ta eva: that only, i.e., water; Hi: because; Upapatteh: because of fitness.

The Purvapakshin raises an objection: How can it be ascertained that `in the fifth oblation water is called man' as there is no meaning of water in the first oblation? On that altar the gods offer Sraddha as oblation (Chh. Up. V.4.2).

The Siddhantin gives his answer: In the case of the first fire the word Sraddha is to be taken in the sense of `water'. Why? Because of appropriateness. Then only there is har mony in the beginning, middle and end of the passage and the synthetical unity of the whole passage is not disturbed. Otherwise the question and answer would not agree and so the unity of the whole passage would be destroyed.

Faith by itself cannot be physically taken out and offered as an oblation. Therefore the word Sraddha must be taken to mean `water'. Water is called Sraddha in the Sruti texts. Sraddha va apahaSraddha indeed is water (Tait. Sam. I.6.8.1). Further it is the Sraddha (faith) which leads to sacrifice which leads to rain.

It is the other four offerings Soma, rain, food and seed that are described to be the effects of Sraddha. It is Sraddha which modifies itself into these four. Therefore it must be a substance belonging to the same category as these four, because the cause cannot be different from its effect. An effect is only a modification of the cause. Therefore it is reasonable to interpret Sraddha to mean water here.

Asrutatvaditi chet na ishtadikarinam pratiteh III.1.6 (297)

If it be said that on account of (the soul) not being stated in the Sruti (the soul does not depart enveloped by water, etc.) (we say) not so, because it is understood (from the scriptures) that the Jivas who perform sacrifices and other good works (alone go to heaven).

Asrutatvat: on account of this not being stated in the Sruti; Iti: this; Chet: if; Na: not; Ishtadikarinam: in reference to those who perform sacrifices; Pratiteh: on account of being understood.

An objection is raised that in the Chhandogya Upanishad (V.3.3) there is mention of water only but no reference to the soul (Jiva). This objection cannot stand. The passage refers to the persons performing sacrifices, i.e., the performers of Ishta (sacrifice) and Purta (digging tanks, building temples, etc.) and Dana (charity), going by the path of smoke (Dhuma marga or Dakshinayana Path to the world of moon) Chh. Up. V.10.3.

To those persons who have performed Ishtis, etc., water is supplied in the form of materials used in the Agnihotra, the Darsapurnamasa and other sacrifices, viz., sour milk, milk, curd, etc. The materials like milk, curds, etc., that are offered as oblations in sacrifices assume a subtle form called Apurva and attach themselves to the sacrificer. The Jivas thus go enveloped by water which is supplied by the materials that are offered as oblations in sacrifices. The water forming the oblations assumes the subtle form of Apurva, envelops the souls and leads them to the heaven to receive their reward.

Another objection is raised now by the Purvapakshin. He says that is the food of the gods. The gods do eat it (Chh. Up. V.10.4.) Having reached the moon they become food and then the Devas feed on them there (Bri. Up. VI.2.16). If they are eaten by gods as by tigers, how could they enjoy the fruit of their actions? The following Sutra gives a suitable answer. The performers of sacrifices obtain the name of `Somaraja' when they reach Chandraloka. This technical name `Somaraja' is applied here to the soul.

Bhaktam vanatmavittvat tatha hi darsayati III.1.7 (298)

But (the souls' being the food of the gods in heaven is used) in a secondary or metaphorical sense, on account of their not knowing the Self because the Sruti declares like that.

Bhaktam: Metaphorical; Va: but, or; Anatmavittvat: on account of their not knowing the Self; Tatha: so; Hi: because; Darsayati: (Sruti) declares, shows.

The soul becomes the food of gods has to be understood in a metaphorical or secondary sense and not literally. Otherwise the statement of scriptures such as He who is desirous of heaven must perform sacrifice is meaningless. If the Devas were to eat the souls why should men then exert themselves to go there and why should they perform sacrifices like Jyotistoma and the rest? Food is the cause of enjoyment. `Eating' is the rejoicing of the gods with the performers of sacrifices. The sacrifices are objects of enjoyment to the gods just as wives, children and cattle are to men. It is not actual eating like the chewing and swallowing of sweetmeats. The gods do not eat in the ordinary way. The scripture says The gods do not eat or drink. They are satisfied by seeing the nectar.

Those who perform sacrifices rejoice like servants of a king, although they are subordinate to the gods. They give enjoyment to the gods and rejoice with them. Those who do not know the Self are objects of enjoyment for the gods. This is known from texts like Now, if a man worships another deity, thinking the deity is one and he is another, he does not know. He is like a beast for the Devas (Bri. Up. I.4.10). That means he in this life propitiates the gods by means of oblations and other works, serves them like a beast and does so in the other world also, depending on them like a beast and enjoys the fruits of his works as assigned by them. They (the performers of such sacrifices) become serviceable companions to the gods. They enjoy the companionship of the gods. So they are said to be the food of the gods in the figurative or metaphorical sense. They contribute to the enjoyment of the gods by their presence and service in that world. Therefore it is quite clear that the soul goes enveloped with the subtle essence of elements when it goes to other spheres for enjoying the fruits of his good deeds. He enjoys in the Chandraloka and returns to the earth at the end of his store of merit.

KRITATYAYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 2 (SUTRAS 8-11)

THE SOULS DESCENDING FROM HEAVEN HAVE A REMNANT OF KARMA

which determines their birth

Kritatyaye'nusayavan drishtasmritibhyam

yathetamanevam cha III.1.8 (299)

On the exhaustion of good work the soul returns to the earth with a remainder of the Karmas, as can be understood from direct statement in Sruti and Smriti, by the same route through which he ascended after death and differently too.

Krita: of what is done, of the Karma; Atyaye: at the end, at the exhaustion; Anusayavan: with a remainder of the Karma; Drishtasmritibhyam: as can be understood from direct statement in Sruti and Smriti; Yatha itam: by the way he went; Anevam: differently; Cha: and.

A fresh topic is discussed here. This Adhikarana teaches the mode of return from heaven. The question is raised whether the souls, after having enjoyed the fruits of all their works, return to the earth with any remnant of Karma (Karmasesha) or not. The Purvapakshin or the opponent says that there is no remnant of Karma. Why? On account of the specification Yavat sampatam. The Sruti says Having dwelt there till their work is exhausted, they return again the way they went by (Chh. Up. V.10.5). This indicates that all their karma is completely exhausted there and there is nothing left.

This view is wrong. The right view is that the souls return to the earth by the force of some unenjoyed remnant or Anusaya of Karma. When the totality of works which helped the souls to go to the Chandraloka for enjoyment of the fruits of good deeds is exhausted, then the body made up of water which had originated there for the sake of enjoyment is dissolv ed by the fire of sorrow springing from the thought that the enjoyment comes to an end, just as hailstones melt by contact with the rays of the sun, just as ghee melts by contact with the fire. Then the souls come down with a remainder yet left.

This is proved by Sruti and Smriti as well. The Sruti says Those whose conduct, during the previous life, has been good, presently obtain good birth, such as the birth of a Brahmin, a Kshatriya or a Vaisya; those whose conduct has been bad presently obtain some evil birth such as that of a dog or a pig (Chh. Up. V.10.7).

The Smriti says The members of the different castes and of the different orders of life who are engaged in the works prescrib ed for them, after leaving this world and enjoying the fruits of their works in the other world, are born again owing to the unenjoyed portion of their rewards, in distinguished castes and families, with special beauty, longevity, knowledge, conduct, property, comfort and intelligence. Hence the soul is born with residual Karma.

What is such Anusaya (residual work) of Karma which leads to higher or lower birth? Of what kind is that remainder? Some say that thereby we have to understand a remainder of the works which had been performed in the previous birth to obtain heaven and whose fruits have for the greater part been enjoyed. That residue might be compared to the remainder of oil which sticks to the inside of a vessel previously filled with oil even after it has been emptied or to a courtier of a king who loses his Durbar robe and therefore comes out with his shoes and umbrella alone. These analogies are obviously wrong, because when a virtuous deed leads the soul to heaven, we cannot assume that a portion of it brings him down to the earth. This would contradict the text which declares clearly that heaven alone is the fruit of meritorious acts and no residue continues to exist.

Moreover the scriptural passage distinguishes remainders of a different kind, viz., `those whose conduct has been good; those whose conduct has been bad'. The latter cannot be a portion of the virtuous deed which leads the soul to the heaven. Therefore the Anusaya is the residue or remnant of some other store of Karmas bearing fruit. After the fruits of the merito rious acts have completely been enjoyed in heaven, the remain ing other set of works (good and bad) whose fruits are to be enjoyed in this world forms the Anusaya with which the souls come to the earth.

Another view is that after death the entire store of Karmas about to bear fruit fructifies. Therefore the souls come to the earth without any Anusaya or residue of Karma. This is wrong. This is untenable. Some of those Karmas can be enjoyed only in one kind of birth and some in another. They cannot com bine in one birth. It cannot be said that one portion ceases to bear fruit. There is no such cessation save by Prayaschitta or expiation. If all Karmas bear fruit after death, there will be no cause for rebirth after life in heaven or hell or in animal bodies, because in these there is no means of virtue or vice. Moreover some capital sins like the killing of a Brahmin involve many births.

How then can the totality of Karmas lead to one birth alone? The scripture is the sole source of virtue and vice. Similarly the Kariri Ishti, a sacrifice offered by those who are desirous of rain, causes rain. Therefore you cannot ascribe it to the fructification of past acts after death. Therefore the view that death manifests all actions, that all events are due to the fructification of complete store of Karmas after death is entirely incorrect and baseless.

The Purvapakshin or the objector argues that just as a lamp shows all objects, so also death exhausts all Karmas. This analogy is not correct. Because a lamp, although equally distant from a big and a very small object, may manifest only the big one and not the small object. So death excites the operation of the stronger actions only, not the weaker ones, although there is equal opportunity for both sets of works for fructification. Therefore the view that all actions are mani fested by death cannot be upheld, because it is contradicted by Sruti, Smriti and reason.

You need not be afraid that if any Karmas are left in store there will be no salvation, because knowledge of Self will annihilate all Karmas. Therefore it is an established conclusion that the souls descend to the earth from heaven with a remainder of works (Anusaya).

By what way does it descend? They return by the same way that they went by, but with some difference. From the expression as they came and from the fact of `ether and smoke' it is concluded that they descend by the way they went to the heaven (Chh. Up. V.10.5). That there is some difference too is known from night, etc., not being mentioned and from the cloud, etc., being added (Chh. Up. V.10.6). He des cends by the route by which he went to a certain stage and then by a different route. The word `Ramaniyacharana' means works which are Ramaniya or good. `Kapuyacharana' means evil acts. The word `Yavat sampatam' does not mean the exhaustion of all Karmas, but the exhaustion of the works that took the soul to heaven and which is exhausted in heaven by enjoyment.

Charanaditi chet na upalakshanartheti karshnajinih III.1.9(300)

If it be objected that on account of conduct (the assumption of the remnant of Karma, Anusaya is not necessary for rebirth on earth), (we say) not so (because the word `conduct' is used) to signify indirectly (the remainder). So Karshnajini thinks.

Charanat: on account of conduct; Iti: thus, so; Chet: if; Na: not so; Upalakshanartha: to signify secondarily, indirectly, meant to imply or connote; Iti: thus; Karshnajinih: Karshnajini thinks, holds, says.

An objection is raised with reference to the residual Karma, Anusaya, stated in the preceding Sutra and is refuted.

The Purvapakshin or the objector says in the text cited (Chh. Up. V.10.7.) those whose conduct has been good etc., get a good birth.

The quality of the new birth depends on `Charana' or con duct, not on Anusaya or remainder of work. `Charana' and `Anusaya' are different things because `Charana' is the same as Charitra, Achara, Silaall of which mean conduct, while Anusaya means remainder of work.

Scripture also says that action and conduct are different things According as he acts and according as he conducts himself so will he be (Bri. Up. IV.4.5).

The objection is without force. This Sutra refutes this and says that the term `conduct' is meant to denote the remainder of the works (good Karmas) after enjoyment in the other world. Conduct stands for Karma which depends on good conduct. This is the opinion of the sage Karshnajini. This is secondary implication of the term.

Anarthakyamiti chet na tadapekshatvat III.1.10 (301)

If it be said (by such interpretation of the word `conduct' good conduct would become) purposeless, (we say) not so, on account of (Karma) being dependent on that (good conduct).

Anarthakyam: purposeless, useless, irrelevancy; Iti: thus, as; Chet: if; Na: not so; Tat: that (conduct); Apekshatvat: on account of dependence on that.

A further objection with reference to the word `Charanaconduct' is raised and refuted in this Sutra.

The Purvapakshin or the objector says that may be, but why should we give up that meaning which the word `Charana' directly conveys viz., `conduct' and take up the merely connotative meaning `residue of Karma'. Then good conduct would be purposeless in man's life, as it has no result of its own, not being a cause of the quality of new birth. Conduct which is the direct meaning of the word may have for its fruit either a good or an evil birth according as it is good or bad. Some fruit will have to be allowed to it in any case for otherwise it would be purposeless.

This Sutra refutes this. The Sutra denies this view on the ground that only those who are of good conduct are entitled to perform Vedic sacrifices. This objection is without force on account of the dependence on it. It cannot stand. The Smriti says, Him who is devoid of good conduct the Vedas do not purify. He, whose conduct is not good, does not attain religious merit by mere performance of sacrifices. Conduct enhances the fruit of Karma (Atisaya). Good conduct is an aid or auxiliary to Karma. Therefore it has a purpose. When the sacrifice begins to produce its fruit, the conduct which has reference to the sacrifice will originate in the fruit some addition. It is, therefore, the view of Karshnajini that the residue of works only which is the indirect meaning of the term `Charana' or conduct and not just conduct is the cause of the new birth. If a man is able to run by means of his feet he will certainly not creep on his knees. If a man cannot run on his legs, can he run on his knees?

Sukritadushkrite eveti tu baadarih III.1.11 (302)

But conduct (Charana) means merely good and evil works; thus the sage Baadari thinks.

Sukrita: good or righteous deeds; Dushkrite: (and) bad or unrighteous deeds; Eva: only, merely; Iti: thus; Tu: but; Baadarih: (Sage) Baadari.

Further discussion on the meaning of the word `Charana' is made here. The Sutra says that there is no difference between conduct and Karma. According to the sage Baadari the phrases `Ramaniyacharana' and `Kapuyacharana' mean good and evil works.

Charana means the same as Anusthana or Karma (work). The root `Char' (to walk, to conduct oneself) is used in the general sense of acting. People say in common parlance of a man who does sacrifices. That man walks in righteousness. The term Achara also denotes only a kind of religious duty. A sacrifice is a meritorious act (Dharma). Achara is also Dharma. When Karma and Charana are separately described it is as when you speak of Brahmanas and Parivrajakas, i.e., Sannyasis. Though Charana and Karma are one, yet they are spoken of sometimes as different on the maxim of Kuru-Pandavas. Though the Pandavas were also Kurus, yet in the phrase Kurus and Pandavas the word Kuru is used in a narrower sense. Thus `men of good conduct or character' means those whose actions are praiseworthy: `men of evil conduct or evil Charana' are those whose actions are to be censured. Conduct is used in the general sense of action. As Charana is Karma only, it is esta blished, therefore, that those who go to heaven have remain der of Karma (Anusaya) as the cause of a new birth on earth.

Evaonly: The force of this word in this Sutra is to indicate that this is the opinion of the author of the Sutras.

Tu`but' is used to indicate speciality, one's own conclusion and to add emphasis.

ANISHTADIKARYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 3 (SUTRAS 12-21)

THE FATE AFTER DEATH OF THOSE SOULS WHOSE DEEDS DO NOT

entitle them to pass up to Chandraloka

Anishtadikarinamapi cha srutam III.1.12 (303)

The Sruti declares that the non-performers of sacrifices, etc., also (go to the world of moon).

Anishtadikarinam: of those who do not perform sacrifices etc.; Api: even; Cha: also; Srutam: is declared by the Sruti.

The movement of persons doing evil deeds is now described. This Sutra is that of Purvapakshin.

It has been said that those who do sacrifices, etc., go to the Chandraloka. The question now arises whether those persons also who do not perform sacrifices go to the sphere of moon or not.

The Purvapakshin or the opponent maintains that even they go to heaven though they do not enjoy anything there like those who perform sacrifices, because they too are in need of the fifth oblation for a new birth. Moreover the Sruti declares: All who depart from this world go to the sphere of moon (Kau. Up. I.2). The word `all' shows that it is a universal proposition without any qualifications. Since all who perish must go to the world of moon, it follows that the sinners also go there.

Siddhantin: The sinners do not go to the sphere of moon. They go to Yamaloka or the world of punishment. This is said in the following Sutra.

Samyamane tvanubhuyetareshamarohavarohau

tadgatidarsanat III.1.13 (304)

But of others, (i.e., those who have not performed sacrifices, etc.) the ascent is to the abode of Yama and after having experienced (the results of their evil deeds) they come down to the earth; as such a course is declared by the Sruti.

Samyamane: in the abode of Yama; Tu: but; Anubhuya: having experienced; Itaresham: of others (of those who do not perform sacrifices); Arohava rohau: the ascent and descent; Tat: of them; Gati: (about their) courses; Darsanat: as can be understood from the Sruti.

Description of the movement of persons who have done evil deeds is continued. This Sutra refutes the view of the previous Sutra. This is the Siddhanta Sutra.

Sinners suffer in Yamaloka and return to this earth. Yama says to Nachiketas: `The way to the hereafter never rises before an ignorant person who is deluded by wealth. This is the worldhe thinksthere is no other; thus he falls again and again under my sway' (Katha Up. I.2.6).

Tu (but), discards the Purvapaksha. It is not true that all persons go to Chandraloka. The ascent to the sphere of moon or Chandraloka is only for the enjoyment of the fruits of good works. It is neither without a special purpose nor for the mere purpose of subsequent descent. Hence those who have done evil actions do not go there. Those who perform sacrifices rise to the Chandraloka not any other persons.

Aroha-Avarohau: Ascent and descent, i.e., coming to worldly existence (ascent) and going to still nether regions (descent). This is the interpretation of Sri Madhvacharya.

Smaranti cha III.1.14 (305)

The Smritis also declare thus.

Smaranti: the Srutis declare; Cha: also.

Description of the journey of persons doing evil deeds is continued in the Sutra.

The Smritis also declare the same fate of the sinners. The Smritis also declare that the evil doers come within the clutches of Yama. Manu, Vyasa and others say that those who do evil deeds go to hell and suffer there. In the Bhagavata it is said The sinners are quickly carried to the abode of Yama by the path of sinners, on which they travel with great pains, cons tantly rising and falling, tired and swooning. Manu and Vyasa declare that in the Chitisamyamana evil deeds are requited under the rule of Yama.

Api cha sapta III.1.15 (306)

Moreover there are seven (hells).

Api cha: also, moreover; Sapta: the seven (hells).

Particulars of the abode of Yama are given. Smriti mentions seven hells which serve as places of torture for the evil doers. The temporary hells are Raurava, Maharaurava, Vahni, Vaitarani and Kumbhika. The two eternal hells are Tamisra (darkness) and Andhatamisra (blinding darkness).

Tatrapi cha tadvyaparat avirodhah III.1.16 (307)

And on account of his (Yama's) control even there (in those hells) is no contradiction.

Tatra: there (in those hells); Api: also, even; Cha: and; Tadvyaparat: on account of his (Yama's) control; Avirodhah: no contradiction.

The same topic continues in this Sutra. The Purvapakshin or the objector says: According to the Sruti the evildoers undergo punishment from the hands of Yama. How is this possible in the seven hells called Raurava, etc., which are superintended by Chitragupta and others? This Sutra refutes the objection.

There is no contradiction as the same Yama is the chief ruler in those seven hells also. Chitragupta and others are only superintendents and lieutenants employed by Yama. They are all under Yama's government or suzerainty. Chitragupta and others are directed by Yama.

Vidyakarmanoriti tu prakritatvat III.1.17 (308)

But (the reference is to the two roads) of knowledge and work, those two being under discussion.

Vidyakarmanoh: of knowledge and work; Iti: thus; Tu: but, only; Prakritatvat: on account of these being the subject under discussion.

But the sinners never go to heaven because the topic relating to the two paths in the Chhandogya Upanishad is confined to men of knowledge and men of work. It has no reference to evil-doers. The different journeys of the departed souls to the other world through the two roads or paths described in the Panchagnividya of Chhandogya Upanishad are the results of knowledge (meditation) and religious sacrifices according as they were practised in life; because these two are the subjects under discussion.

The Sruti says that those who do not go by means of Vidya along the path of Devayana to Brahmaloka or by means of Karma along the path of Pitriyana to Chandraloka are born often in low bodies and die often. If you say that evil-doers also go to Chandraloka that world will get overfull. But you may reply that there will be souls going out from there to the earth. But then the Sruti text clearly says that the evil-doers do not go there.

The evildoers go to the third place and not to heaven. The Sruti passage says Now those who go along neither of these ways become those small creatures continually returning of whom it may be said `Live and die'. Theirs is a third place. Therefore the world never becomes full (Chh. Up. V.10.8).

The word `but' in the Sutra refutes a doubt that arises from a text from Kaushitaki Upanishad, `That all departed go to the Chandraloka'. The word `all' has to be taken as referring only to those who are qualified, who have performed good deeds. All eligible souls only go to Chandraloka. It does not include evil doers or sinners.

The word `but' sets aside the view propounded by the objector. If the sinners do not go to the world of moon or Chandraloka, then no new body can be produced in their case: because there is no fifth oblation possible in their case and the fifth oblation depends on one's going to the sphere of moon. Therefore all must go to the Chandraloka in order to get a new body. This objection is answered by the next Sutra.

Na tritiye tathopalabdheh III.1.18 (309)

Not in (the case of) a third place, as it is thus declared in the scriptures.

Na: not; Tritiye: in the third; Tatha: so thus; Upalabdheh: it being perceived or seen to be.

The fifth oblation is not necessary in the case of those who go to the third place, because it is thus declared in the scriptures.

The rule about the five oblations does not apply in the case of evildoers or sinners because they are born without the oblations. The Sruti says, Live and die. That is the third place. That is to say these small creatures (flies, worms, etc.,) are continually being born and are dying. The sinners are called small creatures because they assume the bodies of insects, gnats etc. Their place is called the third place, because it is neither the Brahmaloka nor the Chandraloka. Hence the heaven world never becomes full, because these sinners never go there. Moreover, in the passage, In the fifth oblation water is called man the water becomes the body of a man only, not of an insect or moth etc. The word `man' applies to the human species only.

Smaryate'pi cha loke III.1.19 (310)

And (moreover the) Smritis have recorded also (that) in this world (there had been cases of birth without the course of five oblations).

Smaryate: is stated in Smritis; Api: also; Cha: and; Loke: in the world.

The argument commenced in Sutra 17 to refute the objec tions raised in Sutra 12, is continued.

There are, moreover, traditions, apart from the Vedas that certain persons like Drona, Dhrishtadyumna, Sita, Draupadi and others were not born in the ordinary way from mother's womb. In their cases there was wanting the fifth oblation which is made to the woman. In the case of Dhrishtadyumna and others, even two of the oblations, viz., the one offered into woman and the one offered into man, were absent. Drona had no mother. Dhrishtadyumna had neither father nor mother. Hence in many other cases also, procreation or birth may be supposed to take place independently of oblations. The female crane conceives without a male.

The five oblations are not absolutely necessary for a future birth. The rule about the five oblations is not universal. It applies only to those who do sacrifices. Therefore the sinners need not go to heaven.

The five oblations have nothing to do with the third way, i.e., die and be born in low bodies. They refer only to human births in the case of souls who ascend and then descend. In the case of others embodiment may take place in a manner other than through wombs.

By the particle `Cha' (and) the Sutrakara shows that the observation of the world is also one corroborated by Smriti.

Darsanaccha III.1.20 (311)

Also on account of observation.

Darsanat: on account of observation; Cha: also, and.

The argument commenced in Sutra 17 is continued.

It is also observed that of the four classes of organic beings, namely viviparous animals, oviparous animals, animals spring ing from heat and moisture and beings springing from germs (plants)the last two classes are produced without sexual in tercourse, so that in their case the number of oblations is of no consequence.

The Purvapakshin or the objector says, The Sruti passage speaks only of three classes of beings: That which springs from an egg (Andaja), that which springs from a living being (Jivaja) and that which springs from a germ (Udbhija) (Chh. Up. VI.3.1). How then can it be maintained that there are four classes? The following Sutra gives a reply to his objection.

Tritiyasabdavarodhah samsokajasya III.1.21 (312)

The third term (i.e. plant life) includes that which springs from heat and moisture.

Tritiya sabda: the third term; Avarodhah: inclusion; Samsokajasya: of that which springs from heat and moisture.

The two classes spring from earth or water, from something stable. They both germinate: one from the earth and the other from water. It makes no difference because that which springs from moisture is included in the place of plant life (Udbhijja). There is similarity between Svedaja and Udbhijja. Hence there is no contradiction. Those which are born of sweat are called Svedaja. Svedaja and Udbhijja are not born of wombs. The word Udbhijja literally means born by bursting through. The plants burst through the earth. The sweatborn burst through the water. Thus the origin of both is similar, for both are born by bursting through.

Thus the evil-doers do not go to heaven. Only those who perform sacrifices go to heaven. This is the settled conclusion.

SABHAVYAPATTYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 4

The soul on its descent from the Chandraloka does not become identi fied with ether, etc., but attains a similarity of nature

Tatsabhavyapattirupapatteh III.1.22 (313)

(The soul when coming down from the sphere of moon) attains similarity of nature with them, (i.e., with ether, air, etc.,) as this only is possible.

Tatsabhavyapattih: attainment of a similarity of nature with them; Upapatteh: being reasonable.

The way of descent of the individual soul from the sphere of the moon is now discussed. The Sruti declares, They return again the way they went, to the ether, from the ether to the air. Then the sacrificer having become air becomes smoke, having become smoke he becomes mist, having become mist, he becomes a cloud, having become a cloud he rains down (Chh. Up. V.10.5 & 6).

Now a question arises whether the soul actually becomes identical with ether, etc., or simply resembles them.

This Sutra says that the souls do not attain identity with them, because it is impossible. It is not possible that one thing should become another in the literal sense of the word. One substance cannot become another. If the souls become identical with ether, they could no longer descend through air. The souls become only like ether, air, etc. They assume a subtle form like ether, come under the influence or power of air and get mixed with or connected with smoke etc. The attaining to the state of being smoke, etc., is but moving along with them when they are in motion, stopping while they stop, entering into them and becoming as light as they are. Therefore the passage means that the souls become similar to Akasa, air, etc., but not identical.

NATICHIRADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 5

IT TAKES ONLY A SHORT TIME FOR THE DESCENT OF THE SOUL

Natichirena viseshat III.1.23 (314)

(The soul passes through the stages of its descent) in a not very long time; on account of the special statement.

Na: not; Atichirena: in a very long time; Viseshat: because of special statement of Sruti.

The discussion on the soul's way of descent is continued. Next arises the question, does the soul in its descent through ether down to rain, stay at each stage for a very long time, or passes through it quickly? The Purvapakshin or the opponent says: `There being nothing to define the time of his stay, it remains indefinitely long at each stage.' This view is set aside by this Sutra. This Sutra says that the soul passes through them quickly. This is inferred from the circumstance of the text making a special statement.

The Sruti says, `Having become a cloud he rains down. Then he is born as rice and corn, herbs and trees, sesamum and beans. From thence the escape is beset with many difficulties. For whoever the persons may be that eat the food, and beget offspring, he henceforth becomes like unto them' (Chh. Up. V.10.5).

The soul's journey, through the stages of the ether, the air, the vapour or smoke, the mist, the cloud and the rain, takes a shorter time than his passing through the stages of corn, semen, foetus, which takes a much longer time or hard suffering, as there is the special statement in Sruti, that after its entrance into a corn the escape is beset with much greater difficulty and pain.

The Sruti says The souls enter into rice and adds from thence the escape is beset with more difficulty and pain. There is a hint here that the escape from the previous states or earlier stages is easy and pleasant and attained quickly.

He who has begun to descend will enter the mother's body (womb) before a year passes since starting, though wandering through different places (Naradiya Purana).

ANYADHISTHITADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 6 (SUTRAS 24-27)

WHEN THE SOULS ENTER INTO PLANTS, ETC., THEY ONLY CLING TO THEM

and do not themselves become those species

Anyadhishthiteshu purvavadabhilpat III.1.24 (315)

(The descending soul enters) into (plants) animated other (souls), as in the previous cases, on account of scriptural declaration.

Anyadhishthiteshu: into what is possessed or occupied by another; Purvavat: like the previous cases; Abhilapat: on account of the scriptural statement.

The discussion on the way of descent of the individual soul is continued.

In the description of the soul's descent, it is said then they are born as rice and corn, herbs and beans. Now a doubt arises, are these souls descending with a remnant of their Karmas, themselves born as rice, corn, etc., or do they merely cling to those plants, etc.

The Purvapakshin holds that they are born as rice, corn, etc., and enjoy their pleasures and pains on account of the remainder of works still attaching to them and do not merely cling to them. The condition of a plant may be a place of enjoyment of the fruits of actions. Sacrifices which entail killing of animals may lead to unpleasant results. Hence the word `born' is to be taken literally.

This Sutra refutes this view. The souls are merely connect ed with rice and plants which are already animated by other souls and do not enjoy there pleasures and pains as in previous cases. As the souls becoming air, smoke, was decided to mean only that they become connected with them, so here also their becoming rice, etc., merely means that they become connected with those plants. Because in these stages there is no reference to their Karma, just as in the earlier stages of ether etc. They enter these plants independently of their Karma. They do not enjoy pleasure and pain while they abide there. The souls use the rice and plants as their halting station without being identified with it, as it is expressly stated in Sruti to be a passing stage, like the previous stages of ether, air etc. They do not lose their identity. The souls are not born there for the purpose of retributive enjoyment. Where real birth takes place and experience of pleasure and pain commences, the fruits of actions begin, the text refers to the operation of Karma as in Those whose conduct has been good will quickly attain a good birth (Chh. Up. V.10.7).

Further if the word `born' is taken in its literal sense, then the souls which have descended into the rice plants and are animating them would have to leave them when they are reaped, husked, cooked and eaten. When a body is destroyed the soul that animates it abandons it.

Therefore the descending souls are merely outwardly connected with the plants animated by other souls. They abide till they attain the opportunity for a new birth.

Asuddhamiti chet na sabdat III.1.25 (316)

If it be said that (sacrificial work is) unholy, (we say) not so, on account of scriptural authority.

Asuddham: unholy; Iti: so, thus; Chet: if; Na: no, not so, (the objection cannot stand); Sabdat: on account of the word, on account of the script ural authority.

An objection to Sutra 24 is raised and refuted.

An objection may be raised that the sacrificial work, such as the Jyotistoma sacrifice and the like where animals are killed is unholy. Therefore its result may cause the sacrificer to be actually born as a corn or a plant as penalty for his cruel action. Such objection is groundless, because the killing of animals in sacrifices causes no demerit as it is sanctioned by the scriptures.

The sacrifices are not impure or sinful because the scriptures declare them to be meritorious. The scriptures alone can tell us what is Dharma and what is Adharma, what is holy and what is unholy. Our knowledge of what is duty and the contrary of duty depends entirely on Sastras, because these are Atindriya, i.e., beyond sense perception and there is in the case of right and wrong an entire want of binding rules as to place, time and occasion. What in one place, at one time on one occasion is performed as a right action, is a wrong action in another place, at another time, on another occasion. Therefore no one can know without a scripture, what is either right or wrong. No doubt the scripture says that one must not cause injury (Ma himsyat sarva bhutanilet not any animal be injured (killed). That is the general rule. `Let him offer an animal sacred to Agnistoma' is an exception. General rule and exception have different spheres of application. They have different scopes settled by usage, and so there is no conflict between them.

Therefore we conclude that the souls become enclosed in plants when scripture says that the descending souls from the Chandraloka become plants. They are perfectly unconscious in these stages.

Retah sigyogo'tha III.1.26 (317)

Then (the soul gets) connected with him who performs the act of generation.

Retah: one who ejects the seminal fluid; Yoga: connection with; Atha: then afterwards.

The discussion on the way of descent of the soul is continu ed. What becomes of the soul after its clinging to the plants is now mentioned.

Chhandogya text (V.10.6.) declares For whoever eats the food and performs the act of generation, that again he (the soul) becomes. Here again the soul's `becoming', i.e., he who performs the act of generation cannot be taken in its literal sense, because a man is able to procreate when he attains puberty. We have to understand that the soul gets connected with one who performs the act of generation. We again infer from this that the soul's becoming a plant merely means its entering into connection with the plant and not actual birth as such.

The soul after having entered into a corn or a plant becomes connected to him who eats the corn or the fruit and performs the act of copulation. In every stage of its passage it retains its distinctive identity from the bodies with which it may be connected.

Whenever one eats the food, whenever one performs the act of coition, the descending soul becomes again that food and that semen. The soul remains in him in copulation only till he enters into the mother's womb, with the semen injected. He has a touch with the seminal fluid created by eating such grain and ultimately attains a body in wombs. The soul does not really take the form of and become identical with its procreator, because one thing cannot take the form of another thing. If it were to become literally the procreator, then there would be no possibility of the soul's getting another body.

Yoneh sariram III.1.27 (318)

From the womb a (new) body (springs).

Yoneh: from the womb; Sariram: the body.

The discussion on the nature of the descent of the soul is concluded here.

After having passed through the various preceding stages, the soul at last enters into the womb of the mother. He at tains a fully developed human body in the womb of the mother which is fit for experiencing the fruits of the remain der of works. The family in which it is to be born is regulat ed by the nature of this remainder as mentioned in Chh. Up. V.10.7. Of these, those whose conduct here has been good will quickly attain some good birth, the birth of a Brahmana, or a Kshatriya or a Vaisya. But those whose conduct here has been bad will quickly attain an evil birth, the birth of a dog, or a Chandala.

Thus it has been clearly shown that the soul becomes plant, etc., in the same sense as it becomes ether, etc.

The whole object of teaching this law of incarnation is that you should realise that the Atman or the Absolute alone is the Highest Bliss. This Atman alone must be your sole object of quest. You should get disgusted with this world of pain and sorrow and develop dispassion and discrimination and try earnestly to attain the Eternal Bliss of the Absolute.

O ignorant man! O foolish man! O miserable man! O deluded soul! Wake up from your long slumber of ignorance. Open your eyes. Develop the four means of salvation and attain the goal of life, the summum bonum, right now in this very birth. Come out of this cage of flesh. You have been long imprisoned in this prisonhouse of body for time immemorial. You have been dwelling in the womb again and again. Cut the knot of Avidya and soar high in the realms of Eternal Bliss.

Thus ends the First Pada (Section 1) of the Third Adhyaya (Chapter III) of the Brahma Sutras or the Vedanta Philosophy.

What's New

Spiritual Life...

a perspective...

Chapter III, Section 2

INTRODUCTION

In the preceding Pada or Section the passage of the soul to different spheres and its return has been explained in order to create dispassion or disgust in people who perform sacrifices to obtain heaven. If they have a clear understanding of the fate of the soul they will naturally develop Vairagya and will strive to attain Moksha or the final emancipation.

This section starts with the explanation of the soul's different states, viz., waking, dream, deep sleep. The three states of the soul will be shown to be merely illusory and the identity of the individual soul and the Supreme Soul will be established.

A knowledge of the three states, viz., waking, dreaming and deep sleep, is very necessary for the students of Vedanta. It will help them to understand the nature of the fourth state, viz., Turiya or the state of superconsciousness. For a student of Vedanta, the waking state is as much unreal as the dream state. The state of deep sleep intimates that the nature of the Supreme Soul is Bliss and that Brahman is one without a second, and that the world is unreal. Vedantins make a study of the four states very carefully. They do not ignore dream and deep sleep states whereas the scientists draw their conclusions from the experiences of the waking state only. Hence, their knowledge is limited, partial and incorrect.

In the last section the waking state of the soul has been fully dealt with. Now its dream state is taken up for discussion.

In order to make the students understand the true significance of the Maha-Vakya or the great sentence of the Upanishad Tat Tvam AsiThou art That, this section explains the true nature of That and Thou.

SYNOPSIS

This Section starts with the explanation of the states of dream, deep sleep and so on. Then it discusses the twofold nature of Brahman, one immanent and the other transcendent. Lastly it deals with the relation of Brahman to the individual soul as well as to the world.

Adhikarana I: (Sutras 1-6) treats of the soul in the dreaming state. The vision in dreams is of a wonderful character. According to Sri Sankara the three first Sutras discuss the question whether the creative activity, attributed to the Jiva or the individual soul in some Sruti texts produces objects as real as those by which the soul in the waking state is surrounded or not.

Sutra 3 says that the creations of the dreaming soul are mere Maya or illusion as they do not fully exhibit the nature or character of real objects, as they are wanting in the reality of the waking state.

Sutra 4 intimates that dreams, although mere Maya, yet have a prophetic quality. Some dreams are indicative of future good or bad.

Sutras 5 and 6 say that the soul, although it is identical with the Lord, is not able to produce in dreams a real creation, because its knowledge and power are obscured by its connection with the gross body. The rulership is hidden by ignorance in the Jiva state. It is not possible for the individual soul to dream a good or a bad dream according to his own choice as he in his present state of bondage is ignorant of the future.

Adhikarana II: (Sutras 7-8) teaches that the soul abides within Brahman in the heart in the state of deep sleep.

Adhikarana III: (Sutra 9) gives reasons to assume that the soul awakening from sleep is the same that went to sleep. What has been partly done by a person before going to sleep is finished after he wakes up. He has also a sense of self-identity. He has memory of past events. He has memory in the shape of `I am the person who had gone to sleep and who have now awakened.'

Adhikarana IV: (Sutra 10) explains the nature of a swoon. It intimates that swoon is half death and half deep sleep, a mixture of these two states.

Adhikarana V: (Sutras 11-21) intimate the nature of Sup reme Brahman in which the individual soul is merged in the state of deep sleep.

Sutra 11 declares that Brahman is devoid of distinctive attributes (Nirvisesha). Brahman with attributes is only for the sake of Upasana or pious worship of devotees. It is not its real nature.

Sutra 12 declares that every form due to limiting adjunct is denied of Brahman. In every passage of Sruti identity is affirmed. The Supreme Truth is Oneness. Separateness is for devotion. There is only one Infinite formless essence or Principle in reality.

Sutra 13 says that the whole universe characterised by enjoyers, things to be enjoyed and a ruler has Brahman for its true nature.

Sutra 14 says that the assumption of diversity or plurality is objectionable. Brahman is destitute of all forms.

Sutra 15 says Brahman appears to have forms, as it were. This is due to its connection with its unreal limiting adjuncts, just as the light of the sun appears straight or crooked, as it were, according to the nature of the thing it illumines.

Sutra 16 says that the Sruti (Brihadaranyaka) expressly declares that Brahman is one uniform mass of consciousness or intelligence and has neither inside nor outside.

Sutra 17 says the other scriptural passages and the Smriti also teach that Brahman is without attributes.

Sutra 18 declares that just as the one luminous sun when entering into relation to many different waters is himself rendered multiform by his limiting adjuncts, so also the one Unborn Brahman.

Sutra 19: Here the Purvapakshin objects. There is no similarity of the two things compared as in the case of Brahman any second thing is not apprehended or experienced like water. Brahman is formless and all-pervading. It is not a material thing. Sun has a form. It is a material thing. Water is different from the sun and is at a distance from the sun. Hence the sun may be reflected in the water.

Sutra 20: The objection raised in Sutra 19 is refuted. The similarity is only in point of the participation in the distor tion and contortion, in increase and decrease of the image reflected. Brahman participates as it were in the attributes and states of the body and other limiting adjuncts with which it abides. Two things are compared with reference to some particular points or features only.

Sutra 21 says the scriptures declare that the Atman is within the Upadhis or limiting adjuncts.

Adhikarana VI: (Sutras 22-30) teaches that the clause neti, netinot this, not this in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad II.3.6 denies the gross and subtle forms of Brahman given in Bri. Up. II.3.1 and not Brahman itself.

Sutras 23-26 further dwell on Brahman being in reality devoid of all distinctive attributes which are entirely due to the limiting adjuncts or Upadhis.

Sutras 27-28: express the views of the Bhedabhedavadins. They say there is difference as well as non-difference between the individual soul and Brahman. The separateness and oneness is like a serpent in quiescence and motion.

Sutra 29: This Sutra refutes the view of the Bhedabhedavadins and establishes the final truth which has been declared in Sutra 25 viz., that the difference is merely illusory due to fictitious limiting adjuncts and identity or non-difference is the reality.

Sutra 30: Sutra 29 is confirmed. The Sruti in fact expressly denies separateness.

Adhikarana VII: (Sutras 31-37) explains that Brahman is one without a second and expressions which apparently imply something else as existing are only metaphorical.

Brahman is compared to a bridge or a bank or causeway not to indicate that He connects the world with something else beyond Him but to show that He is the protector of the worlds and is also like a causeway, the support of the indivi duals while crossing over this ocean of life.

He is conceived to be symbolised and located in a limited space for facility of meditation on the part of those who are not very intelligent.

Adhikarana VIII: (Sutras 38-41) intimates that the fruit of actions is not as Jaimini thinks, the independent result of actions acting through Apurva, but is dispensed by the Lord. The Lord who is all-pervading is the bestower of fruits of actions, according to merits and demerits.

SANDHYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 1 (SUTRAS 1-6)

The soul in the dream state

Sandhye srishtiraha hi III.2.1 (319)

In the intermediate stage (between waking and deep sleep) there is (a real) creation; because (the Sruti) says so.

Sandhye: in the intermediate stage (between waking and deep sleep, i.e., in the dream state); Srishtih: (there is real) creation; Aha: (Sruti) says so; Hi: because.

The state of dream is now considered.

Sutras 1 and 2 are Purvapaksha Sutras and set out the view that what we see in dreams are true creations because of the word `Srijate' (creates).

The word `Sandhya' means dream. It is called `Sandhya' or the intermediate state because it is midway between waking (Jagrat) and the deep sleep state (Sushupti). That place is called the intermediate state or place because it lies there where the two worlds or else the place of waking and the place of deep sleep join.

Scripture declares, when he falls asleep, there are no chariots, in that state, no horses, no roads, but he himself creates chariots, horses and roads, etc. (Bri. Up. IV.3.9-10). Here a doubt arises whether the creation which takes place in dreams is a real one (Paramarthika) like the creation seen in the waking state or whether it is illusory (Maya).

The Purvapakshin holds that in the dreaming state there is a real creation.

In that intermediate state or dream the creation must be real, because scripture which is authoritative declares it to be so, He (the individual soul) creates chariots, horses, roads, etc. We, moreover, infer this from the concluding clause, He indeed is the creator (Bri. Up. IV.3.10).

Further there is no difference between the experience of the waking state and that of the dream state. Atman in dream gets pleasure by going in a car, hearing music, seeing pleasure-sights and eating sumptuous food even as in the waking state.

Hence the creation of the dream state is real and originates from the Lord Himself, just as ether, etc., sprang from Him.

Nirmataram chaike putradayascha III.2.2 (320)

And some (the followers of one Sakha, namely, the Kathakas) (state that the Supreme Lord is the) Creator; sons, etc., (being the lovely things which He creates).

Nirmataram: Creator, the shaper, the builder, the maker; Cha: and, more over; Eke: some (followers of the particular Sakhas of the Vedas); Putradayah: sons, etc.; Cha: and, also.

The Purvapakshin or the opponent gives a further argument to show that the creation even in dreams is by the Lord Him self. He who is awake in us while we are asleep, shaping one lovely thing after another, that is Brahman (Katha Up. II.2. 8).

`Kama' (lovely things) in this passage means sons, etc., that are so called because they are beloved. The term `Kama' does not denote mere desires. It is used in this sense in the previous passage also, such as Ask for all Kamas according to thy wish (Katha Up. I.1.25). That the word Kama there means sons, etc., we infer from Katha Up. I.1.23, where we find these Kamas described as sons and grandsons, etc.

Even in dreams the Lord Himself creates just as in the case of the waking state. Therefore the world of dreams is also real.

The scripture declares This is the same as the place of waking, for what he sees while awake the same he sees while asleep (Bri. Up. IV.3.14). Hence the world of dreams is real.

To this we reply as follows.

Mayamatram tu kartsnyenanabhivyaktasvarupatvat III.2.3 (321)

But it (viz., the dream world) is mere illusion on account of its nature not manifesting itself with the totality (of the attributes of reality).

Mayamatram: mere illusion; Tu: but; Kartsnyena: entirely, fully; Anabhivyaktasvarupatvat: on account of its nature being unmanifested.

The thesis adduced in Sutras 1 and 2 is now criticised.

The word `tu' (but), discards the view expressed by the two previous Sutras. The world of dreams is not real. It is mere illusion. There is not a particle of reality in it. The nature of the dreamworld does not agree entirely with that of the waking world with respect to time, place, cause and the circumstance of non-refutation. Hence the dream world is not real like the waking world.

In the first place there is in a dream no space for chariots and the like, because those objects cannot possibly find room in the limited confines of the body. If you say that the soul goes out and enjoys objects, how can it go hundreds of miles and return within a few minutes?

In a dream the soul does not leave the body; because if it did, then one who dreams of having gone to London would find himself there on waking, while he went to sleep in Bombay. But as a matter of fact, he awakes in Bombay only.

Further while a man imagines himself in his dream going in his body to another place, the by-standers see the very same body lying on the cot.

Moreover a dreaming person does not see in his dream other places such as they really are. But if he in seeing them did actually go about, they would appear to him like the things he sees in his waking state.

Sruti declares that the dream is within the body, But when he moves about in dream, he moves about according to his pleasure within his own body (Bri. Up. II.1.18).

In the second place we notice that dreams are in conflict with the conditions of time. One man who is sleeping at night dreams that it is day. Another man lives during a dream which lasts for ten minutes only, through fifty years. One man sees at night an eclipse of the sun in his dream.

In the third place, the senses which alone can bring the sensation of sight etc., are not functioning in dream. The organs are drawn inward and the dreaming person has no eyes to see chariots and other things. How can he get in the twinkling of an eye materials for making chariots and the like?

In the fourth place the chariots etc., disappear on waking. The chariots etc., disappear even in the course of the dream. The dream itself refutes what it creates, as its end contradicts its beginning. The chariot is suddenly transferred into a man, and a man into a tree.

Scripture itself clearly says that the chariots, etc., of a dream have no real existence. There are no chariots in that state, no horses, no roads, etc.

Hence the visions in a dream are mere illusion.

The argument that the dream world is real, because it is also a creation of the Supreme Lord like this waking world is not true, because the dream world is not the creation of the Lord, but of the individual soul. The Sruti declares When he dreams he himself puts the physical body aside and himself creates a dream body in its place (Bri. Up. IV.3.9.) This passage of the Sruti clearly proves that it is the individual soul who creates the dream world and not the Lord.

Suchakascha hi sruterachakshate cha tadvidah III.2.4 (322)

But (though the dream world is an illusion), yet it is indi cative (of the future), for (so we find) in the Sruti, the dream experts also declare this.

Suchaka: Indicative, suggestive; Cha: moreover, and; Hi: because, as for; Sruteh: from the Sruti; Achakshate: say, affirm; Cha: also; Tadvidah: dreamexperts, those who know the secrets of dream.

An argument in support of Sutra 3 is given.

The word `Tadvid' or expert means those who know how to interpret dreams such as Vyasa, Brihaspati, and the rest.

Well then, as dreams are mere illusion, they do not contain a particle of reality? Not so we reply: because dreams are prophetic of future good and bad fortune. For scripture says When a man engaged in some sacrifice undertaken for a special wish sees in his dreams a woman, he may infer success from that dream-vision (Chh. Up. V.2.8). Other scriptural passages declare that certain dreams indicate speedy death, e.g., If he sees a black man with black teeth, that man will kill him.

Those who understand the science of dreams maintain that to dream of riding on an elephant and the like is lucky while it is unlucky to dream of riding on a donkey. Whatever a Brahmin or a god, a bull or a king may tell a person in dream, will doubtless prove true.

Sometimes one gets Mantras in dream. Lord Siva taught Visvamitra in dream the Mantra called Ramaraksha. Visvamitra exactly wrote it out in the morning, when he awoke from sleep.

In all these cases the thing indicated may be real. The indicating dream however, remains unreal as it is refuted by the waking state. The doctrine that the dream itself is mere illusion thus remains uncontradicted.

The word `creation' in dream in the first Sutra is used in a secondary and figurative sense. The soul's good and bad deeds bring about pleasure and pain enjoyed during dream, by means of dream-experiences. In the waking state the light of the soul operates along with the light of the sun to bring about experiences. The dream state is referred to, to show the self-activity of the soul even after the senses are shut off and there is no operation of external light. It is this fact that is the primary teaching. The reference to creation in dreams is secondary.

The world of dreams is not real in the same sense as the world consisting of ether is real. We must remember that the so-called real creation with its ether, air, etc., is not absolutely real. The world of ether, etc., vanishes into nothing when the individual soul realises its identity with the Supreme Soul.

The dream-creation, however, is stultified every day. That the dream is mere illusion has therefore to be understood very clearly and decisively.

Parabhidhyanattu tirohitam tato hyasya

bandhaviparyayau III.2.5 (323)

But by the meditation on the Supreme Lord, that which is hidden (by ignorance, viz., the equality of the Lord and the soul becomes manifest), because from him (the Lord) are its (the soul's) bondage and freedom.

Parabhidhyanat: by meditation on the Supreme Lord; Tu: but; Tirohitam: that which is hidden; Tatah: from Him(the Lord); Hi: for; Asya: his, of the individual soul. Bandhaviparyayau: bondage and its opposite, i.e., freedom.

The Purvapakshin or the opponent says: The individual soul is a part (Amsa) of the Supreme Soul, just as a spark is a part of the fire. Just as fire and spark have in common the powers of burning and giving light, so also the individual soul and the Lord have in common the powers of knowledge and rulership. Therefore the individual soul may by means of his lordship create in the dreaming state chariots and the like at will (Sankalpa) like the Lord.

This Sutra refutes it and says that the soul now is different from the Lord on account of Avidya or ignorance. The rulership is hidden by ignorance in the Jiva state. It becomes manifest only when in the state of meditation on the Lord. This ignorance is dispelled by the knowledge, I am Brahman, just as through the action of a strong medicine the power of sight of the blind man becomes manifest.

The Sruti declares when that God is known all fetters fall off; sufferings are destroyed and birth and death cease. From meditating on Him there arises on the dissolution of the body, a third state, that of universal Lordship; he who is alone is satisfied (Svet. Up. I.11). Till the knowledge dawns the individual soul cannot create at will anything real.

Lordship does not come to man spontaneously. It does not on its own accord reveal itself to all men, as the bondage and freedom of the individual soul come from the Lord. That means: from knowledge of Lord's true nature, i.e., from realisation of God freedom comes; from ignorance of His true nature comes bondage. Till such realisation comes, where is then any power of creation?

Dehayogadva so'pi III.2.6 (324)

And that (viz., the concealment of the soul's rulership) also (results) from its connection with the body.

Dehayogat: from its connection with the body; Va: and, or; Sah: that (the concealment of the soul's rulership); Api: also.

Sutra 5 is amplified here.

Such hiding of power is due to embodiment of the soul. The state of concealment of the soul's knowledge and Lordship is due to its being joined to a body, i.e., to a body, sense-organs, mind, intellect, sense-objects, sensations, etc., on account of ignorance. Just as fire is hidden in wood or ashes, the knowledge and power of the soul are hidden, though the Jiva is really the Supreme Lord. Hence the soul does not itself create. If it can, it will never create unpleasant dreams. No one ever wishes for something unpleasant to himself.

The soul's knowledge and Lordship remain hidden as long as he erroneously thinks himself as the body, etc., as long as he is under the wrong notion of not being distinct from those limiting adjuncts.

Sruti declares that the soul is non-different from the Lord. It is True, it is the Self, Thou art That, O Svetaketu! But its knowledge and power are obscured by its connection with the body.

Though the dream-phenomena are like waking phenomena in their having relative reality. The Sruti itself declares that they do not really exist. As the dreams are due to Vasanas acquired during the waking state, the similarity between the dream state and the waking state is declared.

From all this it follows that dreams are mere illusion. They are false.

TADABHAVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 2 (SUTRAS 7-8)

THE SOUL IN DREAMLESS SLEEP

Tadabhavo nadishu tat sruteh atmani cha III.2.7 (325)

The absence of that (i.e., of dreams, i.e., dreamless sleep) takes place in the nerves (Nadis or psychic currents) and in the self, as it is known from the Sruti or scriptural statement.

Tadabhavah: absence of that (dreaming) i.e., deep sleep; Nadishu: in the nerves (psychic currents); Tat sruteh: as it is known from the Srutis; Atmani: in the self; Cha: and, also. (Tat: about it.)

The state of dreamless deep sleep is now discussed.

The state of dream has been discussed. We are now going to enquire into the state of deep sleep (Sushupti).

Various Sruti texts describe the soul as resting in deep sleep in nerves (Nadis), in Prana, in the heart, in itself, in Brahman or the Absolute.

In different Sruti passages deep sleep is said to take place under different conditions.

When a man is asleep reposing and at perfect rest so that he sees no dreams, then he has entered into these Nadis (nerves) (Chh. Up. VIII.6.3). In another place it is said with reference to the Nadis, Through them he moves forth and rests in the region of the heart (Bri. Up. II.1.19). In another place it is said In these the person is when sleeping, he sees no dream. Then he becomes one with the Prana alone (Kau. Up. IV.19). In another place it is said That ether which is within the heart in that he reposes (Bri. Up. IV.4.22). In Chhandogya Upanishad it is said, Then he becomes united with that which is, he is gone to his self (Chh. Up. VI.8.1). In Brihadaranyaka Upanishad it is said Embraced by the highest Self he knows nothing that is without, nothing that is within (Bri. Up. IV.3.21). When this being full of consciousness is asleep... lies in the ether, i.e., the real self which is in the heart (Bri. Up. II.1.17).

Here the doubt arises whether the Nadis, etc., mentioned in the above passages are independent from each other and constitute various places for the soul in the state of deep sleep or if they stand in mutual relation so as to refer to one place only.

The Purvapakshin or the opponent holds the former views on account of the various places mentioned serving one and the same purpose. Things which serve the same purpose, e.g., rice and barley do not depend on each other. As all the words which stand for the places enumerated are in the same case, viz., the locative case in the texts, they are coordinate and therefore alternatives. If mutual relation was meant then different case-endings would be used by the Sruti. Hence we conclude that in the state of deep sleep the soul optionally goes to any one of those places, either the Nadis, or that which is, the Prana, the heart, etc.

The Sutra refutes the view of the Purvapakshin and says that they are to be taken as standing in mutual relation indicating the same place. The view that the soul goes to one or another of these is not correct. The truth is that the soul goes through the nerves to the region of the heart and there rests in Brahman.

There is no alternative here. The assertion made above that we are compelled to allow option because the Nadis, etc., serve one and the same purpose is without foundation. The authority of the Srutis is weakened if we allow option between two statements of the Sruti. If you recognise one alternative, the authority of the other alternative is denied.

Further the same case is used where things serve different purposes and have to be combined. We say, e.g., he sleeps in the palace, he sleeps on a cot. We have to combine the two locatives into one as He sleeps on a cot in the palace. Even so the different statements have to be combined into one. The soul goes through the Nadis to the region of the heart and then rests in Brahman. Just as a man goes along the Ganga to the sea so also the soul goes through the Nadis to Brahman. So he attains Svarupa.

Scripture mentions only three places of deep sleep, viz., the Nadis, the pericardium and Brahman. Among these three again Brahman alone is the lasting place of deep sleep. The Nadis and the pericardium, are mere roads leading to it. The `Puritat' or pericardium is the covering which surrounds the lotus of the heart.

In deep sleep the individual soul rests in Brahman, but there is a thin veil of ignorance between him and the Supreme Soul. Hence he has no direct knowledge of his identity with the Supreme Soul, as in Nirvikalpa Samadhi or superconscious state. The Sruti declares He becomes united with the True, he is gone to his own (Self) (Chh. Up. VI.8).

In the Kaushitaki Upanishad (IV.19) the three places are mentioned together: In these the person is when sleeping he sees no dreams. Then he becomes one with the Prana (Brahman) alone.

Therefore Brahman is the resting place of the soul in deep sleep.

Atah prabodho'smat III.2.8 (326)

Hence the waking from that (viz., Brahman).

Atah: hence; Prabodhah: waking; Asmat: from this (i.e., Brahman).

The mode of waking from deep sleep is now described.

Therefore waking is coming from that state of union with Brahman or Atman.

Brahman is the place of repose of deep sleep. That is the reason why the Sruti texts which treat of deep sleep invariably teach that in the waking state the individual soul returns to waking consciousness from Brahman. The Sruti declares In the same manner, my child, all these creatures when they have come back from the True do not know that they have come back from the True (Chh. Up. VI.10.2). This Sruti passage clearly intimates that the Jiva or the individual soul returns from the True or Brahman to the waking state and that the Jiva rests or merges himself in Brahman and not in the Nadis, Hita, etc., during deep sleep. But he does not realise his identity with Brahman in deep sleep as he is enveloped by the evil of ignorance.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad also declares When the time comes for the answer to the question `whence did he come back'? (II.1.16); the text says, As small sparks come forth from fire, thus all Pranas come forth from that Self (II.1.20).

If there were optional places, to which the soul may resort, in deep sleep, the Sruti would teach us that it awakes some times from the Nadis, sometimes from the pericardium (Puritat), sometimes from the Self (Brahman).

For this reason also Brahman is the place of deep sleep. The Nadis are only the gateway to Brahman.

KARMANUSMRITISABDAVIDHYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 3

THE SAME SOUL RETURNS FROM DEEP SLEEP

Sa eva tu karmanusmritisabdavidhibhyah III.2.9 (327)

But the same (soul returns from Brahman after deep sleep) on account of work, remembrance, scriptural text and precept.

Sah eva: the selfsame soul (which went to sleep); Tu: but; Karmanusmritisabdavidhibhyah: on account of Karma or work, memory, scriptural authority and precept; (Sah: he; Eva: only, and no other); Karma: activity, on account of his finishing the action left unfinished; Anusmriti: remembrance, on account of memory of identity; Sabda: from the Sruti; Vidhibhyah: from the commandments.

Here we have to enquire whether the soul when awaking from deep sleep is the same which entered into union with Brahman or another one.

The word `tu' (but) removes the doubt.

If another self arose from sleep, the consciousness of personal identity (Atmanusmarana) expressed in the words I am the same as I was before would not be possible.

The Purvapakshin or the opponent holds that there is no fixed rule on this point. There can be no rule that the same soul arises from Brahman. When a drop of water is poured into a big basin of water, it becomes one with the latter. When we again take out a drop it will be difficult to manage that it should be the very same drop. It is hard to pick it out again. Even so when the individual soul has merged in Brahman in deep sleep it is difficult to say that the self-same Jiva arises from Brahman after deep sleep. Hence some other soul arises after deep sleep from Brahman.

This Sutra refutes this and says that the same soul which in the state of deep sleep entered Brahman again arises from Brahman, after deep sleep, not any other for the following reasons.

The person who wakes from sleep must be the same because what has been partly done by a person before going to sleep is finished after he wakes up. Men finish in the morning what they had left incomplete on the day before. It is not possible that one man should proceed to complete a work half done by another man. If it were not the same soul, then the latter would find no interest in completing the work which has been partly done by another. In the case of sacrifices occupying more than one day, there would be several sacrifices. Hence it would be doubtful to whom the fruit of the sacrifice as promised by the Veda belongs. This would bring stultification of the sacred text. Therefore it is quite clear that it is one and the same man who finishes on the latter day the work begun on the former.

He has also a sense of self-identity. He experiences identity of personality before and after sleep, for if sleep leads to libera tion by union with Brahman, sleep will become the means of liberation. Then scriptural instructions would be useless to attain salvation. If the person who goes to sleep is different from the person who rises after sleep, then the commandments of the scriptures with reference to work or knowledge would be meaningless or useless.

The person rising from sleep is the same who went to sleep. If it is not so he could not remember what he had seen, etc., on the day before, because what one man sees another cannot remember. He has memory of past events. One cannot remember what another felt. He has memory or recollection in the shape of I am the person who had gone to sleep and who have now awakened.

The Sruti texts declare that the same person rises again. He hastens back again as he came to the place from which he started, to be awake (Bri. Up. IV.3.16). All these creatures go day after day into Brahman and yet do not discover Him (Chh. Up. VIII.3.2). Whatever these creatures are here whether a tiger, or a lion, or a wolf, or a boar, or a worm, or a midge or a gnat, or a mosquito, that they become again (Chh. Up. VI.10.2). These and similar texts which appear in the chapters which deal with sleeping and waking have a proper sense only if the self-same soul rises again.

Moreover, if it is not the same soul, Karma and Avidya will have no purpose.

Therefore from all this it follows that the person rising from sleep is the same that went to sleep.

The case of the drop of water is not quite analogous, because a drop of water merges in the basin of water without any adjuncts. Therefore it is lost for ever but the individual soul merges in Brahman with its adjuncts (viz., body, mind, intellect, Prana, sense). So the same Jiva rises again from Brahman on account of the force of Karma and desire.

When the individual soul enters Brahman in deep sleep, he enters like a pot full of salt water with covered mouth plunged into the Ganga. When he awakens from sleep it is the same pot taken out of the river with the same water in it. Similarly the individual soul enveloped by his desires goes to sleep and for the time being puts off all sense-activities and goes to the rest ing place namely, the Supreme Brahman and again comes out of it in order to get further experiences. He does not become identical with Brahman like the person who has obtained libera tion. Thus we hear that the same soul which had gone to sleep awakes again into the same body.

Hence it is an established fact that the same soul awakes from deep sleep.

MUGDHE'RDHASAMPATTYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 4

THE NATURE OF SWOON

Mugdhe'rddhasampattih pariseshat III.2.10 (328)

In a swoon (in him who is senseless) there is half union on account of this remaining (as the only alternative left, as the only possible hypothesis).

Mugdhe: in a swoon; Ardhasampattih: partial attainment of the state of deep sleep or death; Pariseshat: on account of the remaining, because of excess, as it is a state in addition to all others.

The state of a swoon is now discussed.

The Purvapakshin says, There are only three states of a soul while living in the body, viz., waking, dreaming and deep sleep. The soul's passing out of the body is the fourth state or death. The state of swoon cannot be taken as a fifth state. A fifth state is known neither from Sruti nor Smriti.

What is swoon then? Is it a separate state of the soul or is it only one of these states?

It cannot be waking, because he does not perceive external objects, by the senses.

May this case be similar to that of the arrow-maker? Just as the man working in the preparation of an arrow, although awake, is so absorbed in his work that he perceives nothing else, so also the man who is stunned by a blow may be awake but may not perceive anything else as his mind is concentrated on the sensation of pain caused by the blow of a stick.

No, we reply. The case is different owing to the absence of consciousness. The arrow maker says, I was not conscious of anything but the arrow for such a length of time. The man who returns to consciousness from a swoon says, I was conscious of nothing. I was shut up in blind darkness for such a length of time. A man who is waking keeps his body straight or upright but the body of a swooning person falls prostrate on the ground. Therefore a man in a swoon is not awake.

He is not dreaming, because he is totally unconscious.

It is not deep sleep because there is happiness in deep sleep whereas there is no happiness in the state of swoon.

He is not dead also, because he continues to breathe and his body is warm. When a man has become senseless and when people are in doubt whether he is alive or dead, they touch the region of his heart in order to find out whether there is warmth in his body or not. They place their hands to his nostrils to find out whether there is breathing or not. If they do not perceive warmth or breath they come to the conclusion that he is dead and take his body to the crematorium to burn it. If there are warmth and breathing they conclude that he is not dead. They sprinkle cold water on his face so that he may come back to consciousness.

The man who has swooned away is not dead, because he comes back to consciousness after some time.

Let us then say that a man who has swooned lies in deep sleep as he is unconscious and at the same time not dead. No, we reply. This is also not possible owing to the different characteristics of the two states.

A man who has swooned does sometimes not breathe for a long time. His body shakes or trembles. His face is dreadful. His eyes are staring wide open. But a sleeping man looks calm, peaceful and happy.

He draws his breath at regular intervals. His eyes are closed. His body does not tremble. A sleeping man may be waked by a gentle stroking with the hand. He who is lying in a state of swoon cannot be wakened even by a blow with a stick. Swoon is due to external causes such as blow on the head with a stick, etc., while sleep is due to fatigue or weariness.

Swoon is only half-union. The man in the state of swoon belongs with one half to the side of deep sleep, with the other half to the side of the other state, i.e., death. It is only half sleep. We do not mean by this that he half enjoys Brahman. We mean that it partly resembles sleep. It is half death, a state almost bordering upon death. In fact it is the door to death. If there is a remnant of Karma he returns to consciousness. Else, he dies.

The man in the state of swoon belongs with one half to the side of deep sleep, with the other half to the side of the other state, i.e., death.

Those who know Brahman say that swoon is half-union. In a swoon the person partially attains the state of deep sleep as there is no consciousness in that state and he returns to consciousness and partially the state of death as he experiences pain and misery which are expressed through distortion of face and limbs.

The objection that no fifth state is commonly acknowledged is without much weight, because as that state occurs occasionally only it may not be generally known. All the same it is known from ordinary experience as well as from the science of Ayurveda. It is a separate state, though it happens occasionally. As it is a mixture of the two states, viz., deep sleep and death it is not considered as a fifth state.

UBHAYALINGADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 5 (SUTRAS 11-21)

THE NATURE OF BRAHMAN

Na sthanato'pi parasyobhayalingam sarvatra hi III.2.11 (329)

Not on account of (difference of) place also two-fold characteristics can belong to the Highest; for everywhere (scripture teaches It to be without any difference).

Na: not; Sthanatah: on account of (difference of) place; Api: even; Parasya: of the Highest (i.e., Brahman); Ubhayalingam: two-fold characteristics; Sarvatra: everywhere; Hi: because.

The Sutrakara now proceeds to deal with the nature of Brahman.

In the scriptures we find two kinds of description about Brahman. Some texts describe it as qualified, i.e., with attributes and some as unqualified (without attributes). From whom all activities, all desires, all odours and all tastes proceed (Chh. Up. III.14.2). This text speaks of attributes. Again, It is neither coarse nor fine, neither short nor long, neither redness nor moisture etc. (Bri. Up. III.8.8). This text speaks of Brahman without attributes.

Are we to assume that both are true of Brahman according as it is or is not connected with limiting adjuncts or Upadhis or have we to assume only one of them as true and the other false? and if so, which is true? and why it is true?

This Sutra says that the Highest Brahman cannot by itself possess double characteristics. In the case of Brahman you cannot say that it has two aspects, viz., with form and attributes, and without form and attributes, i.e., with Upadhis (limiting adjuncts) and without Upadhis, because It is described everywhere as being Nirguna (without attributes).

Both cannot be predicated of one and the same Brahman because it is against experience. One and the same thing cannot have two contradictory natures at the same time. Brahman cannot at the same time have form and be formless.

The redness of a flower reflected in a crystal does not change the nature of the crystal which is colourless. Even so the mere connection of a thing with another does not change its nature. It is an altogether erroneous notion to impute redness to the crystal. The redness of the crystal is unreal. A thing cannot change its real nature. Changes of its real nature means annihilation. Similarly in the case of Brahman, its connection with the limiting adjuncts like earth, etc., is due to ignorance. An Upadhi cannot affect the nature of Brahman, such Upadhi being merely due to Avidya or nescience. The essential character of a thing must always remain the same whatever may be the conditions imposed on it. If however it appears to be altered it is surely due to ignorance.

Therefore we have to accept that Brahman is without attributes, because all Sruti texts whose aim is to represent the nature of Brahman such as It is without sound, without touch, without form, without decay (Katha Up. I.3.15) teach that It is free from all attributes.

Brahman with attributes is only for the sake of Upasana or pious worship of devotees; it is not Its real nature.

Na bhedaditi chenna pratyekamatadvachanat III.2.12 (330)

If it be said that it is not so on account of difference (being taught in the scriptures), we reply that it is not so, because with reference to each (such form), the Sruti declares the opposite of that.

Na: not so; Bhedat: on account of difference (being taught in the scrip tures); Iti: thus, as, so, this; Chet: if; Na: not so; Pratyekam: with refe rence to each; Atadvachanat: because of the declaration of opposite of that. (Atad: absence of that; Vachanat: on account of the statement.)

An objection to the preceding Sutra is raised and refuted.

This Sutra consists of two parts namely an objection and its reply. The objection portion is Bhedat iti chet and the reply portion is Na pratyekamatadvachanat.

The Purvapakshin says, The various Vidyas teach different forms of Brahman. It is said to have four feet (Chh. Up. III.18.2); to consist of sixteen parts or Kalas (Pras. Up. VI.1); to be characterised by dwarfishness (Katha Up. V.3); to have the three worlds for its body (Bri. Up. I.3.22); to be named Vaisvanara (Chh. Up. V.11.2), etc. Hence we must admit that Brahman is also qualified.

This Sutra refutes it and declares that every such form due to limiting adjunct is denied of Brahman in texts like This bright, immortal being who is in this earth and that bright immortal corporeal being in the body are but the self (Bri. Up. II.5.1). Such texts clearly indicate that the same self is present in all limiting adjuncts like earth, etc. Therefore there is only oneness. It, therefore cannot be maintained that the conception of Brahman with various forms is taught by the Vedas.

In every passage identity is also affirmed. The Supreme Truth is oneness. Separateness is for devotion. The Sruti de clares that the form is not true and that there is only one form less essence or principle in reality.

Api chaivameke III.2.13 (331)

Moreover some (teach) thus.

Api: also; Cha: moreover, and; Evam: thus; Eke: some.

A further argument is given in support of Sutra 11.

Some Sakhas or recensions of the Vedas directly teach that the manifoldness is not true. They pass a critical remark on those who see difference, He goes from death to death who sees difference, as it were, in it (Katha Up. I.4.11). By the mind alone it is to be perceived. There is no diversity in It. He who perceives therein any diversity goes from death to death (Bri. Up. IV.4.19).

Others also By knowing the enjoyer, the enjoyed, and the ruler, everything has been declared to be three-fold and this is Brahman (Svet. Up. I.12), say that the entire world characterised by enjoyers, things to be enjoyed and a ruler has Brahman for its true nature.

Arupavadeva hi tatpradhanatvat III.2.14 (332)

Verily Brahman is only formless on account of that being the main purport (of all texts about Brahman).

Arupavat: without form, formless; Eva: only, indeed, decidedly; Hi: verily, certainly, because; Tatpradhanatvat: on account of that being the main purport of scripture. (Tat: of that; Pradhanatvat: on account of being the chief thing.)

A further argument is given in support of Sutra 11.

We must definitely assert that Brahman is formless and so on. Why? On account of this being the main purport of scriptures. The scriptures declare,It is neither coarse nor fine, neither short nor long (Bri. Up. III.8.8). That which is without sound, without form, without decay (Katha Up. I.3.15). He who is called ether is the revealer of all names and forms. That within which names and forms are, that is Brahman (Chh. Up. VIII.14.1). That heavenly Person is without body, He is both within and without, not produced (Mun. Up. II.1.2). That Brahman is without cause, and without anything inside or outside, this self is Brahman, Omnipresent and Omniscient (Bri. Up. II.5.19).

These texts aim at teaching Brahman, describe It as formless. If Brahman be understood to have a form then the scriptural passages which describe it as formless would become meaning less. The scriptures have a purport all throughout. On the contrary, the other passages which refer to a Brahman qualified by form do not aim at setting forth the nature of Brahman but rather at enjoying the worship of Brahman.

Therefore Brahman is formless.

As long as those latter texts do not contradict those of the former class they are to be accepted as they stand; where, how ever, contradictions occur, the texts whose main purport is Brahman must be viewed as having greater force than those of the other kind. This is the reason for our deciding that, although there are two different classes of scriptural texts, Brahman must be held to be altogether formless, not at the same time of an opposite nature. The main Sruti texts declare Brahman to be formless.

The colour and forms are the products of the elements and Brahman is far above the influence of and different from the elements. Hence He is called the colourless or formless. Material colour and form cannot be found in Him when He is far above the subtle material cause as well as above its presiding deity.

Prakasavacchavaiyarthyat III.2.15 (333)

And as light (assumes forms as it were by its contact with things possessing form, so does Brahman take form in connec tion with Upadhis or limiting adjuncts), because (texts which ascribe form to Brahman) are not meaningless.

Prakasavat: like the light; Cha: and, moreover; Avaiyarthyat: because of not being meaningless.

A further argument is given in support of Sutra 11.

The word `Cha' (and) is employed to remove the doubt raised above.

If Brahman is formless then all the scriptural texts which treat of Brahman with form would be meaningless, and superfluous. Then all Upasanas of Brahman with form would be useless. How can the worship of such a false Brahman lead to Brahmaloka?

This Sutra explains that they also have a purpose. The light of the sun has no form but it appears to be great or small according to the hole through which it enters a room and yet has the force of dispelling the darkness in the room. Similarly Brahman which is without a form appears to have a form due to limiting adjuncts like earth, body, etc. Just as the light of the sun comes in contact with a finger or some other limiting adjunct and according as the latter is straight or bent, itself becomes straight or bent as it were, so also Brahman assumes, as it were, the form of the earth, and the limiting adjuncts with which it comes into contact. The wor ship of such an illusory Brahman can help one to attain Brahmaloka which is also illusory from the view-point of the Absolute.

Therefore these texts are not meaningless. They have certainly a purport. All parts of the Veda are equally authoritative and therefore must all be assumed to have a meaning or purpose.

This, however, does not contradict the tenet maintained above, viz., that Brahman though connected with limiting adjuncts does not possess double characteristics, because what is merely due to a limiting adjunct cannot constitute an attri bute of a substance. Further the limiting adjuncts are all due to ignorance.

Aha cha tanmatram III.2.16 (334)

And (the Sruti) declares (that Brahman is) that (i.e., intelligence) only.

Aha: (the Sruti) declares; Cha: and, moreover; Tanmatram: that (i.e., intelligent) only.

The force of the word `Matra' in Tanmatra is to denote exclusiveness.

Scripture declares that Brahman consists of intelligence. As a lump of salt has neither inside nor outside, but is altoge ther a mass of saltish taste, thus indeed has that Self neither inside nor outside but is altogether a mass of knowledge (Bri. Up. IV.3.13). Pure intelligence constitutes its nature. Just as a lump of salt has neither inside nor outside but one and the same saltish taste, not any other taste, so also Brahman has neither inside nor outside any characteristic form but intelligence.

Darsayati chatho api smaryate III.2.17 (335)

(The scripture) also shows (this and) it is likewise stated in Smriti.

Darsayati: (the scripture or Sruti) shows; Cha: and, also; Atho: thus, moreover; Api: also; Smaryate: the Smritis declare or state.

The argument in support of Sutra 11 is continued.

That Brahman is without any attributes is also proved by those scriptural texts also which expressly deny that It possesses any other characteristics, e.g., Now, therefore, the description of Brahman; not this, not this (neti, neti) (Bri. Up. II.3.6). There is no other and more appropriate description than this not this, not this.

Kenopanishad (I.4) declares It is different from the known, It is also above the unknown. Taittiriya Upanishad (II.9) says From whence all speech, with the mind, turns away unable to reach it.

The Sruti text which treats of the conversation between Bahva and Vashkali has a similar purport. Vashkali questioned Bahva about the nature of Brahman. Bahva explained it to Vashkali by silence. Bahva said to Vashkali Learn Brahman, O friend and became silent. Then on a second and third question he replied I am teaching you indeed, but you do not understand. That Brahman is Silence.

If Brahman has form, there is no necessity to deny everything and say Not this, not this.

The same teaching is conveyed by those Smriti texts which deny of Brahman all other characteristics, e.g., I will proclaim that which is the object of knowledge, knowing which one attains immortality; the Highest Brahman without either begin ning or end, which cannot be said either to be or not to be (Gita XIII.12). It is unmanifest, unthinkable, and without modification, thus It is spoken of (Gita II. 25).

Of a similar purpose is another Smriti text. Lord Hari instructed Narada The cause, O Narada, of your seeing Me endowed with the qualities of all beings is the Maya thrown out by Me; do not cognise Me as being such in reality.

Ata eva chopama suryakadivat III.2.18 (336)

For this very reason (we have with respect to Brahman) comparisons like the images of the sun and the like.

Ata eva: for this very reason; therefore; Cha: also, and; Upama: compa rison; Suryakadivat: like the images of the sun and the like.

The argument in support of Sutra 11 is continued.

That Brahman is formless is further established from the similes used with respect to It. As Brahman is of the nature of intelligence, devoid of all difference, transcending speech and mind, as He is formless, homogeneous and as He is described only by denying of Him all other characteristics, the scriptures compare His forms to the images of the sun reflected in the water and the like, meaning thereby that these forms are unreal being due only to limiting adjuncts. As the one luminous sun enters into relation to many different waters is himself rendered multiform by his limiting adjuncts; so also the one unborn Brahman appears different in different bodies.

Ambuvadagrahanattu na tathatvam III.2.19 (337)

But there is no similarity (of the two things compared since) (in the case of Brahman any second thing) is not apprehended or experienced like water.

Ambuvat: like water; Agrahanat: in the absence of perception, because of non-acceptance, because it cannot be accepted, not being experienced; Tu: but; Na: not, no; Tathatvam: that nature, similarity.

An objection to the preceding Sutra is raised by the Purvapakshin.

An objection is raised by the Purvapakshin that the similarity spoken of in the preceding Sutra is not appropriate or correct. In the above illustration the sun is seen to be separate from the water. Sun has a form. It is a material thing. Water is different from the sun and is at a distance from the sun. Hence the sun may be reflected in the water. But Brahman is formless and all-pervading.

It is not a material thing. All are identical with it. There are no limiting adjuncts different from it and occupying a different place, that can catch its reflection. It is not seen to be separate from the Upadhis or limiting adjuncts.

Brahman is all-pervading. So no object can be at a distance from Him. The sun is reflected in water because of its distance from water. But there can be no such distance between Brahman and any object. Hence reflection in this connection is a meaningless term.

Therefore the instances are not parallel. The comparison is defective.

The next Sutra removes the objection.

Vriddhihrasabhaktvamantarbhavadubhaya-

samanjasyadevam III.2.20 (338)

As (the highest Brahman) is inside (its limiting adjuncts) It participates in their increase and decrease; owing to the appropriateness (thus resulting) of the two (things compared), it is thus, (i.e., the comparison holds good).

Vriddhihrasabhaktvam: participating in the increase and decrease; Antarbhavat: on account of its being inside; Ubhaya- samanjasyat: on account of the appropriateness in the two cases; Evam: thus. (Vriddhi: increase; Hrasa: decrease; Ubhaya: towards both; Samanjasyat: because of the justness, appropriateness.)

The objection raised in the preceding Sutra is refuted.

The comparison with the reflection of the sun should not be taken on all fours. Whenever two things are compared they are so only with reference to some particular point or feature they have in common. Entire equality of the two can never be demonstrated. If it could be shown, there would be an end of that particular relation which gives rise to the comparison. Exact similitude in all points would mean absolute identity.

The similarity is only in point of the participation in the distortion and contortion in increase and decrease of the image or reflection. The reflected image of the sun dilates when the surface of the water expands; it contracts when the water shrinks; it trembles when the water is agitated; it divides itself when the water is divided. It thus participates in all the attributes and conditions of the water; while the real sun remains all the time the same.

Even so Brahman although in reality uniform and never changing, participates as it were in the attributes and states of the body and the other limiting adjuncts within which It abides. It grows with them as it were, decreases with them as it were and so on. As the two things compared possess certain common features, no objection can be made to the comparison. The comparison is certainly not defective on account of the above similarity in the two cases.

Darsanaccha III.2.21 (339)

And on account of the declaration of scripture.

Darsanat: as it is found to be so, because it is seen, on account of scrip tural declaration; Cha: and, also.

A further reason is given to refute the objection raised in Sutra 19.

The scripture moreover declares that the Supreme Brahman enters into the body and other limiting adjuncts. He made bodies with two feet, He made bodies with four feet. That Highest Brahman first entered the bodies as a bird. He is called the Purusha on account of His dwelling in all bodies (Bri. Up. II.5.18). Having entered into them with this luring individual self (Chh. Up. VI.3.2). For all these reasons the comparison set forth in Sutra 18 is not defective.

Therefore it is established that Brahman is formless, homogeneous, of the nature of intelligence, and without any difference.

Scripture declares that devout meditations on Brahman with form have results of their own viz., either the warding off of calamities, or the gaining of power, or else release by successive steps (Krama Mukti or progressive emancipation).

PRAKRITAITAVATTVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 6 (SUTRAS 22-30)

THE NETI-NETI TEXT EXPLAINED

Prakrtaitavattvam hi pratishedhati

tato braviti cha bhuyah III.2.22 (340)

What has been mentioned up to this is denied (by the words not this, not this and the Sruti) says something more than that (afterwards).

Prakritaitavattvam: what bas been mentioned up to this; Hi: because, for; Pratishedhati: denies; Tatah: then that, over and above that; Braviti: declares; Cha: and; Bhuyah: something more. (Prakrita: mentioned first, previously stated; Etavattvam: this much.)

In this group of Sutras also the Sutrakara expounds the Nirvisesha (formless) Brahman.

The Sruti declares There are two forms of Brahman, gross and subtle, the material and the immaterial, the mortal and the immortal, the limited and the unlimited, Sat and Tyat (Bri. Up. II.3.1).

After describing the two forms of Brahman, the gross consisting of earth, water and fire, and the subtle, consisting of air and ether, the Sruti declares finally Now, therefore, the description of Brahman; not this, not this (Bri. Up. II.3. 6).

There arises a doubt whether the double denial in not this, not this negates both the world and Brahman, or only one of them.

The Purvapakshin or the opponent maintains that both are denied and consequently Brahman which is false, cannot be the substratum for a universe which is also false. It leads us to Sunyavada. If one only is denied it is proper that Brahman is denied, because It is not seen and therefore Its existence is doubtful and not the universe because we experience it.

This Sutra refutes this view of the Purvapakshin. It is impossible that the phrase Not so, not so should negative both, as that would imply the doctrine of a general void. The words Neti, Neti cannot be said to deny Brahman as well as its having form, because that would be Sunyavada.

The Sruti affirms Brahman. What is the good of teaching Brahman and saying that it is non-existent? Why smear yourself with mud and then wash it? So Brahman is beyond speech and mind and is eternal, pure and free. It is a mass of consciousness. Therefore the Sruti denies that Brahman has form but not Brahman itself.

What has been described till now, viz., the two forms of Brahman: gross and subtle, is denied by the words, not this, not this.

Brahman cannot be denied, because that would contradict the introductory phrase of the Chapter. Shall I tell you Brahman? (Bri. Up. II.1.1), would show disregard of the threat conveyed in Tait. Up. II.6. He who knows the Brahman as non-existing becomes himself non-existing, would be opposed to definite assertions such as He is He is to be apprehended (Katha Up. II.6.13); and would certainly involve a stultification of the whole Vedanta.

The phrase that Brahman transcends all speech and thought does certainly not mean to say that Brahman does not exist, because after the Sruti has established the existence of Brahman in such texts as He who knows Brahman obtains the Highest, Truth, Knowledge, Infinity is Brahman. It cannot be supposed all at once to teach its non-existence. Because the common saying is Better than bathing it is not to touch dirt at all. The Sruti text From whence all speech with the mind turns away unable to reach it (Tait. Up. II.4), must therefore be viewed as intimating Brahman.

Not so, not so negatives the entire aggregate of effects superimposed on Brahman, but not Brahman which is the basis for all fictitious superimpositions. It denies of Brahman the limited form, material as well as immaterial which in the preceding part of the chapter is described with reference to the gods as well as the body, and also the second form which is produced by the first, is characterised by mental impressions, forms the essence of that which is immaterial, is denoted by the term Purusha.

The double repetition of the negation may either serve the purpose of furnishing special denial of the material as well as the immaterial form of Brahman; or the first `not so' may negative the aggregate of material elements, while the second denies the aggregate of mental impressions. Or else the repetition may be an emphatic one, intimating that whatever can be thought is not Brahman.

The Sruti denies that Brahman has form but not Brahman itself. It interdicts by two negations the gross and the subtle bodies. Or it interdicts Bhutas (elements) and Vasanas. Or the repetition is for stating the denial of all similar assumptions. So the denial denies the world as superimposed on Brahman and does not deny Brahman itself.

After the negation of Neti Neti, the Sruti goes on to describe in positive terms the further attributes of this BrahmanHis name being the True of the true (Satyasya Satyam). Moreover after making such a denial, it affirms the existence of something higherAnyat Paramasti; Satyasya SatyamThe Truth of Truth. This intimates that Brahman alone is the one reality that exists and is the substratum of the world which is illusory.

`Neti Neti' denies the so-muchness of Brahman, as was described in the preceding Sutras. It says that the material and immaterial is not the whole of Brahman. It is something more than that. The word `Iti' refers to what has been mentioned immediately before, i.e., the two forms of Brahman, the subject matter of the discussion. Hence it cannot refer to Brahman itself which is not the chief topic of the preceding texts.

The objection viz., Brahman is not experienced and therefore it is Brahman that is denied, has no force. It cannot stand, because the object of the Sruti is to teach about something which is not ordinarily experienced by us. Otherwise its teaching would be superfluous.

We, therefore, decide that the clause not so, not so, negatives not absolutely everything, but only everything but Brahman.

Tadavyaktamaha hi III.2.23 (341)

That (Brahman) is not manifest, for (so the scripture) says.

Tat: that (i.e., Brahman); Avyaktam: is not manifest; Aha: (so the scripture) says; Hi: for, because.

The character of Brahman is discussed.

This is a Purvapaksha Sutra.

Brahman is beyond the senses, so the Sruti declares. If Brahman exists, then why is It not apprehended by the senses or the mind? Because It is extremely subtle and is the witness of whatever is apprehended i.e., subject in the apprehension. The individual souls are enveloped by ignorance. Hence they are not able to perceive Brahman. The Sruti declares Brahman is not apprehended by the eye, nor by the speech, nor by the other senses, nor by penance, nor by good works (Mun. Up. III.1). That Self is to be described by no, no! He is incomprehensible, for He cannot be comprehended (Bri. Up. III.9.26). That which cannot be seen nor apprehended (Mun. Up. I.1.6).

When in that which is invisible, incorporeal, undefined, unsupported (Tait. Up. II.7). Similar statements are made in Smriti passages, e.g., He is called unevolved, not to be fathomed by thought, unchangeable.

Api cha samradhane pratyakshanumanabhyam III.2.24 (342)

And moreover (Brahman is experienced) in devout medita tion (as we know) from the Sruti and Smriti.

Api cha: and moreover; Samradhane: in devout meditation; Pratyakshanumanabhyam: from the Sruti and the Smriti.

The discussion on the characteristic of Brahman is continued.

The word `Api' sets aside the Purvapaksha. It is used in a deprecative sense. The above Purvapaksha is not even worthy of consideration.

Brahman is exceedingly subtle. Hence He cannot be seen by the physical eyes. He is beyond the senses. But Yogis behold Him in their purified minds. If Brahman is not mani fest, then we can never know Him and therefore there will be no freedom.

This Sutra declares that Brahman is not known only to those whose heart is not purified, but those who are endowed with a pure heart realise Brahman in the state of Samadhi when ignorance is annihilated.

This is vouched for by Srutis as well as Smritis. The Self-existent created the senses with out-going tendencies. Therefore man beholds the external universe but not the internal Self. Some wise man, however, with his eyes closed and wishing for immortality beholds the Self within (Katha Up. IV.1). When a man's mind has become purified by the serene light of knowledge, then he sees Him, meditating on Him as without parts (Mun. Up. III.1.8).

The Smriti also says the same thing He who is seen as light by the Yogins meditating on Him sleeplessly, with suspended breath, with contented minds and subdued senses, etc., reverence be to Him and the Yogins see Him, the august, eternal one!

Prakasadivacchavaiseshyam prakasascha

karmanyabhyasat III.2.25 (343)

And as in the case of (physical) light and the like, there is no difference, so also between Brahman and Its manifestation in activity; on account of the repeated instruction (of the Sruti to that effect).

Prakasadivat: like light and the like; Cha: also, and; Avaiseshyam: simi larity, non-difference, non-distinction; Prakasah: Brahman; Cha: and; Karmani: in work; Abhyasat: on account of repeated mention (in the Sruti).

The discussion on the character of Brahman is continued.

The identity of Jiva and Brahman is explained. Just as light, ether, the sun, etc., appear differentiated as it were, through their objects such as fingers, vessels, water, etc., which form the limiting adjuncts while in reality they preserve their essential non-difference, so also the distinction of diffe rent selves is due to limiting adjuncts only, while the unity of all selves is natural and original. Through ignorance the indivi dual soul thinks he is different from Brahman, but in reality he is identical with Brahman.

As in the case of light, etc., the self-luminous Brahman appears diverse in meditation and other acts. This is clear from the Sruti saying Tat Tvam Asi nine times.

The Vedanta texts insist again and again on the doctrine of the non-difference of the individual soul and the Supreme Soul. The identity of the individual soul with the Supreme Soul is known from repeated instruction of the Sruti in texts like That Thou artTat Tvam Asi, I am BrahmanAham Brahma Asmi which deny difference.

Ato'nantena tatha hi lingam III.2.26 (344)

Therefore (the individual soul becomes one) with the Infinite; for thus the (scripture) indicates.

Atah: hence, therefore; Anantena: with the Infinite; Tatha: thus; Hi: because, for; Lingam: the indication (of the scriptures).

The result of realisation of Brahman is stated here.

By the realisation of Brahman the meditator becomes iden tical with the Infinite. Ignorance with all its limiting adjuncts vanishes when one attains Brahma Jnana. There is indication to that effect in Sruti, He who knows the highest Brahman becomes Brahman Himself (Mun. Up. III.2.9). Being Brahman he goes to Brahman (Bri. Up. IV.4.6). If the difference were real, then one could not become Brahman Himself. Difference is only illusory or unreal. Jiva is only a mere shadow or reflection. He is mere appearance. Just as the reflection of the sun in the water gets absorbed in the sun itself when the water dries up, so also the reflected Jiva gets absorbed in Brahman when ignorance is destroyed by the dawn of Knowledge of Brahman.

Ubhayavyapadesattvahikundalavat III.2.27 (345)

But on account of both (i.e., difference and non-difference) being taught (by the Sruti), (the relation of the highest Brahman to the individual soul has to be viewed) like that of the snake to its coils.

Ubhayavyapadesat: on account of both being taught; Tu: but; Ahikundalavat: like that between a serpent and its coils. (Ubhaya: both; Vyapadesat: on account of the declaration of the scrip ture; Ahi: serpent; Kundalavat: like the coils.)

The discussion on the characteristic of Brahman is resumed.

Sutras 27 and 28 express the views of the Bhedabhedavadins. Sutra 29 gives the real view.

Having established the identity of the individual soul and Brahman the Sutrakara or the author mentions a different view of the same matter. He now proceeds to enquire into the doctrine of difference and non-difference.

Some scriptural texts refer to the Supreme Soul and the individual soul as distinct entities: Two birds of beautiful plumage, etc. (Mun. Up. III.1.1). This text speaks of difference between the Jiva and Brahman.

In some other texts the Supreme Soul is represented as the object of approach and as the ruler of the individual soul. Then he sees him meditating on him as without parts (Mun. Up. III.1.8). He goes to the Divine Person who is greater than the great (Mun. Up. III.2.8). Who rules all beings within.

In other texts again the two are spoken of as non-different. Thou art That (Chh. Up. VI.8.7). I am Brahman (Bri. Up. I.4.10). This is thy Self who is within all (Bri. Up. III.4.1). He is thy Self, the ruler within, the immor tal (Bri. Up. III.7.15).

As thus difference and non-difference are equally vouched for by the Sruti texts, the acceptation of absolute non-diffe rence would render futile all those texts which speak of difference. Therefore we have to take that their relation is one of difference and non-difference, as between a serpent and its coils. As a serpent it is one non-different, but if we look at the coils, hood, erect posture, and so on, there is difference.

Even so there is difference as well as non-difference between the individual soul and Brahman. The difference between them prior to emancipation is real. The Jiva becomes identical with Brahman only when his ignorance is destroyed by the dawn of knowledge of Brahman.

Their separateness and oneness is like a serpent in quiescence and motion.

Prakasasrayavadva tejastvat III.2.28 (346)

Or like (the relation of) light and its substratum, on account of both being luminous.

Prakasasrayavat: like light and its substratum; Va: or; Tejastvat: on account of both being luminous.

The relation between Brahman and the individual soul also is discussed.

Or else the relation of the two may be viewed as follows. Another illustration is given to establish the theory of difference and non-difference. Just as the light of the sun and its substratum, i.e., the sun itself, are not absolutely different, because they both consist of fire and yet are spoken of as diffe rent, so also the individual soul and the Supreme Soul (Brahman).

The light and the sun are both luminous. Hence they are non-different. They are different owing to their varying ex tensity. Similarly is the relation between the individual soul and the Supreme Soul one of difference and non-difference. The former is limited and the latter is all-pervading.

Purvavadva III.2.29 (347)

Or (the relation between the two, i.e., Jiva and Brahman is) as (given) before.

Purvavat: as before; Va: or.

Or it may be as stated in Sutra 25. This last is the real view, because if the individual soul is another state of Brah man or a ray of Brahman, such inherent limitation will never disappear. The Sruti affirms identity and states the feature of diversity which is due to Avidya.

The two previous Sutras express the view of Bhedabhedavadins who maintain the doctrine of difference and non-difference.

This Sutra refutes the view of Bhedabhedavadins and establishes the final truth which has been declared in Sutra 25, viz., that the difference is merely illusory, and identity or non-difference is the reality.

If the bondage of the soul is due to Avidya or ignorance only, final liberation is possible. But if the soul is really bound, whether the soul be regarded as a certain condition or state of the Supreme Soul or Brahman, as stated in Sutra 27, or as a part of the Supreme Soul, as expressed in Sutra 28its real bondage cannot be destroyed. Thus the scriptural doctrine of final liberation becomes purposeless and absurd.

If the difference is real it can never come to an end. All the scriptural instructions with regard to the final emancipation will be meaningless. Bondage is only the idea of separateness. If separateness is real there can be no final release at all. But if the difference is due to nescience or ignorance, then knowledge of Brahman or Brahma-Jnana can annihilate it. Then the Supreme Reality or Brahman, the non-difference may be realised.

It cannot be said that the Sruti equally teaches difference and non-difference. The Sruti aims at establishing non-difference only. It merely refers to difference as something known from other sources of knowledge, viz., perception, etc.

Hence the views expressed in Sutras 27 and 28 are not certainly correct. The view given in Sutra 25 alone is correct.

The conclusion is that the soul is not different from the Supreme Soul or Brahman as explained in Sutra 25.

Pratishedhaccha III.2.30 (348)

And on account of the denial.

Pratishedhat: on account of denial; Cha: and, moreover.

Sutra 29 is confirmed.

The Sruti in fact expressly denies separateness.

The conclusion arrived at above is confirmed by the fact of scripture expressly denying that there exists any intelligent being apart from Brahman or the Supreme Soul. There is no other Seer but HeNanyato'sti Drashta (Bri. Up. III.7.23).

The same conclusion follows from those passages which deny the existence of a world apart from Brahman, and thus leave Brahman alone remaining, viz., Now then the teachingnot this, not this (Bri. Up. II.3.6). That Brahman is without cause and without effect, without anything inside or outside (Bri. Up. II.5.19).

It is now an established fact that there is no other entity but Brahman. Therefore there is only one Brahman without any difference at all.

PARADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 7 (SUTRAS 31-37)

BRAHMAN IS ONE WITHOUT A SECOND

Paramatah setunmanasambandha-

bhedavyapadesebhyah III.2.31 (349)

(There is something) Superior to this (Brahman) on account of terms denoting a bank, measure, connection and difference (used with respect to It).

Param: greater; Atah: for this, than this (Brahman); Setunmanasambandhabhedavyapadesebhyah: on account of terms denoting a bridge, measure, connection and difference. (Setu: a bridge; Unmana: dimensions; Sambandha: relation; Bheda: difference; Vyapadesebhyah: from the declarations.)

It may be said that there must be something higher than Brahman because Brahman is described as a bridge, or as limit ed or as attained by man or as different from man.

There arises now the doubt on account of the conflicting nature of various scriptural statements whether something exists beyond Brahman or not.

The Purvapakshin holds that some entity must be admitted apart from Brahman, because Brahman is spoken of as being a bank, as having size, as being connected, as being separated. As a bank it is spoken of in the passage The Self is a bank, a boundary (Chh. Up. VIII.4.1). The term bank intimates that there exists something apart from Brahman, just as there exists something different from an ordinary bank. The same conclusion is confirmed by the words Having passed the bank (Chh. Up. VIII.4.2). In ordinary life a man after having crossed a bank, reaches some place which is not a bank, let us say a forest. So we must understand that a man after having crossed, i.e., passed beyond Brahman, reaches something which is not Brahman.

As having size Brahman is spoken of in the following pass ages This Brahman has four feet (quarters), eight hoofs, sixteen parts (Chh. Up. III.18.2). Now it is well known from ordinary experience that wherever an object, e.g., a coin has a definite limited size, there exists something different from that object. Therefore we must assume that there also exists some thing different from Brahman.

Brahman is declared to be connected in the following passages. Then he is united with the True (Chh. Up. VI.8.1). The embodied self is embraced by the Supreme Self (Bri. Up. IV.3.21). We observe that non-measured things are connected with the things measured, e.g., men with a town. Scripture declares that the individual souls are in the state of deep sleep connected with Brahman. Therefore we conclude that beyond Brahman there is something unmeasured.

The same conclusion is confirmed by those texts which state difference. Now that golden person who is seen within the sun. The text refers to a Lord residing in the sun and then mentions a Lord residing in the eye distinct from the former: Now the person who is seen within the eye.

The Sruti declares The Atman is to be seen etc. There is a seer and there is the seen. There is difference.

All these indicate that Brahman is not one without a second, and that there exists something different from Brahman.

Samanyattu III.2.32 (350)

But (Brahman is called a bank etc.) on account of similarity.

Samanyat: on account of similarity; Tu: but.

The objection raised in the preceding Sutra is refuted here.

The word `tu' (but) removes the doubt. It sets aside the previously established conclusion.

There can exist nothing different from Brahman. Brahman is called the bank, etc., because He resembles it in a certain respect. He is the support of all while crossing over this ocean of the world, just as a bank is a great protection or help in crossing a canal.

There can exist nothing different from Brahman as we are not able to observe a proof for such existence. All things pro ceed from Brahman. The Sruti says that by knowing Brahman everything will be known. How then can there be any other entity? Bridge or bank means like a bridge or bank.

Brahman is called a bank on account of similarity, not because there exists something beyond Him. If the mere fact of Brahman being called a bank implied the existence of something beyond Him as in the case of an ordinary bank, we should also be forced to conclude that Brahman is made of earth and stones. This would go against the scriptural doctrine that Brahman is not something produced.

Brahman is called a bank because it resembles a bank in certain respects. Just as a bank dams back the water and makes the boundary of adjacent fields, so also Brahman sup ports the world and its boundaries.

In the clause quoted above Having passed that bank the verb `to pass' cannot be taken in the sense of `going beyond' but must rather mean `to reach fully'. Having passed the bank means having attained Brahman fully and not having crossed it just as we say of a student he has passed in the grammar meaning thereby that he has fully mastered it.

Buddhyarthah padavat III.2.33 (351)

(The statement as to Brahman having size) is for the sake of easy comprehension (i.e., Upasana or devout meditation); just like (four) feet.

Buddhyarthah: for the sake of easy comprehension; Padavat: just like (four) feet.

The statements as to the size of Brahman Brahman has four feet, It has sixteen digits, etc., are meant for the sake of Upasana or devout meditation, because it is difficult to understand the Infinite, most subtle, all-pervading Brahman. In order to facilitate pious meditation on the part of less intelligent people four feet etc., are ascribed to Brahman.

The description of Brahman as having a limited form (Shodasakala, 16 parts) is for the sake of meditation just as Padas, i.e., speech etc., are described in respect of mind.

Just as mind conceived as the personal manifestation of Brahman is imagined to have the organ of speech, nose, eyes and ears as its four feet, so also Brahman is imagined as having size, etc., for facility of meditation but not in reality.

Practise meditation, taking the mind as Brahman,this is the form of worship with the aid of the constituents of the in dividual soulThis Brahman is of four feet, namely, the speech as a foot, the chief vital energy as a foot, the eyes as a foot, and the ears as a foot (Chh. Up. III.18.1-2).

Sthanaviseshat prakasadivat III.2.34 (352)

(The statements concerning connection and difference with respect to Brahman) are due to special places: as in the case of light and the like.

Sthanaviseshat: on account of special places; Prakasavat: like light and the like.

Sutra 33 is further confirmed.

The statements regarding connection and difference are made with a view to difference of place. The statements regarding difference are made with reference to limiting adjuncts (Buddhi, etc.) only and not to any difference in the nature of Brahman.

When the cognition of difference which is produced by Brahman's connection with different places i.e., with the Buddhi and the other limiting adjuncts, ceases owing to the cessation of those limiting adjuncts themselves, connection with the Sup reme Self is metaphorically said to take place; but that is done with a view to the limiting adjuncts only, not with a view to any limitation on the part of Brahman.

This is similar to the case of light and the like. The light of the sun also is differentiated by its connection with limiting adjuncts. The light is said to be divided on account of these adjuncts. It is said to enter into connection or union when the adjuncts are removed.

We see two moons on account of an eye-disease. We see only one when the disease is removed.

Light is really one but we speak of light inside a room and light outside it. The distinction is due to limiting adjuncts. The light inside the room may be said to be united with the light in general when the room is destroyed.

Other examples of the effect of limiting adjuncts are furnish ed by the ether entering into connection with the eyes of needles and the like.

Upapattescha III.2.35 (353)

And it is reasonable.

Upapatteh: as it becomes reasonable; Cha: also, and.

Further only such a connection as described above is possible. Because scriptural passages such as He is gone to his self (Chh. Up. VI.8.1) declare that the connection of the soul with the Supreme Soul is one of essential nature. The essen tial nature of a thing is imperishable. Hence the connection cannot be like that of the inhabitants with the town.

The connection can only be explained with reference to an observation owing to ignorance of the true nature of the soul.

Similarly the difference referred to by scripture cannot be real but due to ignorance, because many texts declare that there exists only one Brahman.

Scripture teaches that the one ether is made manifold as it were by its connection with different places. The ether which is outside man is the ether which is inside man, and the ether within the heart (Chh. Up. III.12.7).

Hence connection and difference are not to be taken as real, but only metaphorically.

Tathanyapratishedhat III.2.36 (354)

Similarly on account of the express denial of all other things (there is nothing but Brahman).

Tatha: similarly; Anyapratishedhat: on account of the express denial of all other things. (Anya: any other, of the other; Pratishedhat: owing to the denial, or prohibition or negation.)

Further the Sruti denies expressly that there is any other entity besides Brahman. (Brahmaivedam Sarvam; Atmaivedam Sarvam). Brahman is described as the innermost of all.

Having thus refuted the arguments of the Purvapakshin, the author or Sutrakara in conclusion strengthens his view by a further reason.

A great number of Vedic passages distinctly deny the existence of anything else besides Brahman. He indeed is below; I am below; the Self is below etc. (Chh. Up. VII.25.1.2). Whosoever looks for anything elsewhere than in the Self was abandoned by everything (Bri. Up. II.4.6). Brahman alone is all this (Mun. Up. II.2.11). The Self is all this (Chh. Up. VII.25.2). In it there is no diversity (Bri. Up. IV.4.19). He to whom there is nothing superior, from whom there is nothing different (Svet. Up. III.9). This is the Brahman without cause and without effect, with out anything inside or outside (Bri. Up. II.5.19). That there is no other self within the Highest Self follows from that scriptural passage which teaches Brahman to be within every thing (Bri. Up. II.5.19).

Therefore Brahman is one without a second.

Anena sarvagatatvamayamasabdadibhyah III.2.37 (355)

By this the Omnipresence (of Brahman is established) in accordance with the scriptural statements regarding (Brah man's) extent.

Anena: by this; Sarvagatatvam: all-pervadingness; Ayama: (regarding Brahman's) extent; Sabdadibhyah: from scriptural statements.

By the rejecting of the taking of the description as bridge or bank etc., in their actual sense, it is clear that Brahman has all-pervadingness. Such Omnipresence is clear also from such words as Ayama. If you take the description as bridge etc., in their actual sense but not in the figurative sense, Brahman will become limited, and consequently not eternal. But the Sruti and Smriti describe Brahman as unlimited and all-pervasive. The word Ayama means pervasive. The all-pervadingness of Brahman follows from the very fact that it is one without a second.

That Brahman is Omnipresent follows from the texts proclaiming its extent. As large as this ether is, so large is that ether within the heart (Chh. Up. VIII.1.3). Like the ether, he is Omnipresent and eternal. He is greater than the sky, greater than the ether (Sat. Br. X.6.3.2). He is eternal, Omnipresent, firm, immovable (Gita. II.24).

PHALADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 8 (SUTRAS 38-41)

THE LORD IS THE GIVER OF THE FRUITS OF ACTIONS

Phalamata upapatteh III.2.38 (356)

From Him (the Lord) are the fruits of actions, for that is reasonable.

Phalam: the fruit; Atah: from Him only; Upapatteh: for that is reasonable.

Another characteristic of Brahman is established.

The Mimamsakas hold that the Karma (work) and not the Lord gives the fruits of one's actions.

The Sutra refutes it and declares that the fruits of one's work viz., pain, pleasure and a mixture of the two, come only from the Lord.

The Lord of all who knows all the differences of place and time alone is capable of bestowing fruits in accordance with the merit of the agents. Karma is insentient and short-lived. It ceases to exist as soon as it is done. It cannot therefore bestow the fruits of actions at a future date according to one's merit.

How can fruit which is positive result from such non-existence?

You cannot say that Karma died after generating the fruit which attaches itself to the doer in due time, because it is called fruit only when it is enjoyed.

You cannot say also that Karma generates Apurva which gives fruit. Apurva is Achetana (non-sentient). It cannot act unless moved by some intelligent being. It cannot, therefore, bestow rewards and punishments. Further there is no proof whatever for the existence of such an Apurva.

Therefore the fruits of actions come to men from Isvara or the Lord only, who is Eternal, Omnipotent, Omniscient, All-compassionate.

Srutatvaccha III.2.39 (357)

And because the Sruti so teaches.

Srutatvat: because the Sruti so teaches, from the declaration of the Sruti to that effect; Cha: also, and.

The preceding Sutra is strengthened on the support of Sruti.

The Sruti also declares that the fruits of actions come from the Lord. This indeed is the great, unborn Self, the giver of food, and the giver of wealth (the fruit of one's work) (Bri. Up. IV.4.24).

Dharmam Jaiminirata eva III.2.40 (358)

Jaimini thinks for the same reasons (viz., scriptural autho rity and reasoning, on the same ground as stated in Sutras 38 and 39) that religious merit (is what brings about the fruits of actions).

Dharmam: practice of religious duties, religious merits; Jaiminih: the sage Jaimini; Ata eva: for the same reasons.

An objection is raised to Sutras 38 and 39.

The view of the Sutras 38 and 39 is being criticised.

Jaimini says that Dharma gives fruits of actions as Sruti and reason support such a view.

Scripture, Jaimini argues, proclaims injunctions such as the following one He who is desirous of the heavenly world is to sacrifice. It is admitted that every scriptural injunction has an object. Therefore it is reasonable to think that the scrip ture itself brings about the fruit or the result, i.e., the attain ment of the heavenly world. If this were not so, nobody would perform sacrifices and thereby scriptural injunctions would be rendered purposeless.

But it may be objected that an action cannot produce a result at a future time as it is destroyed.

Jaimini says: A deed cannot produce result at some future time, unless before passing away, it gives birth to some unseen result. We, therefore, assume that there exists some extra ordinary principle called Apurva which is produced by the Karma before it is destroyed. The result is produced at some future time on account of this Apurva.

This hypothesis removes all difficulties. But on the contrary it is impossible that the Lord should effect the fruits of Karmas. Because one uniform cause (Isvara) cannot cause variety of effects. He will have partiality and cruelty; and Karma will become purposeless, i.e., if the deed itself cannot bring about its own fruit, it would be useless to perform it at all.

For all these reasons the result springs from the action only, whether meritorious or non-meritorious. (This is the view of Jaimini).

Purvam Baadarayano hetuvyapadesat III.2.41 (359)

But Baadarayana thinks the former (i.e., the Lord to be the cause of the fruits of action) on account of His being declared to be the cause (of the actions themselves).

Purvam: the former, i. e., the Lord as the giver of the fruits of actions; Tu: but; Baadarayanah: Baadarayana, the framer of the Sutras (holds); Hetuvyapadesat: on account of His being declared the cause (of the actions themselves).

The view of Jaimini expressed in Sutra 40 is refuted by citing a contrary one.

The word `Tu' (but) refutes the view of Sutra 40. It sets aside the view of the fruit being produced either by the mere action or the mere Apurva.

The sage Baadarayana holds the former, i.e., the Lord is the Dispenser of the fruit of actions. The Sruti clearly states that all rewards whether heaven or union with the Lord come from Him, He takes one to a purer world by virtue of one's pietyPunyena punyam lokam nayati. Also Katha Upanishad (I.2.23) declares He gives Himself away to whomsoever He choosesYamevaisha vrinute tena labhyah.

Baadarayana says that the Lord bestows the fruits of deeds because Sruti says that the Lord induces the doing of actions and gives the fruits thereof. As the Lord acts according to the variety of Karmas, he can produce and give a variety of results and has no partiality and cruelty, and Karma will not become purposeless.

The Lord is the causal agent with reference to all actions whether good or evil. Kaushitaki Upanishad (III.8) declares He makes him whom He wishes to lead up from these worlds do a good deed and the same makes him whom He wishes to lead down from these worlds do a bad deed.

The same is said in Bhagavad Gita (VII.21-22), Whichever divine form a devotee wishes to worship with faith, to that form I render his faith steady. Holding that faith he strives to propitiate the deity and obtains from it the benefits he desires, as ordained by Me.

Moreover all Vedanta texts declare that the Lord is the only cause of all creations. The Lord creates all beings in forms and conditions corresponding to and retributive of their former Karmas. Hence the Lord is the cause of all fruits of actions. As the Lord has regard for the merit and demerit of the souls, the objections raised above that a uniform cause is incapable of producing various effects, etc., are without any foundation.

To sum up, the nature of the Supreme Brahman has been described. Brahman has been shown to be formless, self-luminous and without difference. It has been established through Neti-Neti not this, not this doctrine that Brahman is one without a second. It has been conclusively proved that the Lord is the Dispenser of the fruits of Karmas of the people.

Thus ends the Second Pada (Section II) of the Third Adhyaya (Chapter III) of the Brahma Sutras or the Vedanta Philosophy.

Font Size

Chapter III, Section 3

INTRODUCTION

In the previous Section (Pada 2) it has been shown that the Jiva (Tvam Pada of the Tat-Tvam-Asi Mahavakya) is identical with Brahman (Tat Pada of Tat-Tvam-Asi Mahavakya). Brahman has been shown to be Ekarasa (of homogeneous or unchanging nature). We have explained the nature of the object of cognition, i.e., Brahman.

The author of the Brahma Sutras now sets himself to ascertain the end and aim of the Vidyas (meditations of Upasanas) as prescribed in the Srutis.

The Srutis prescribe various kinds of Vidyas or meditations to enable the aspirant to attain the knowledge of identity. It is extremely difficult or rather impossible for the ordinary man to have a comprehensive understanding of the Infinite, which is transcendent, extremely subtle and beyond the reach of the senses and gross undisciplined intellect. Therefore the Srutis or the sacred scriptures prescribe easy methods of Saguna meditation for approaching the Infinite or the Absolute. They present various symbols of Brahman (Pratikas) such as Vaisvanara or Virat, Sun, Akasa, Food, Prana and mind for the neophyte or the beginner to contemplate on. These symbols are props for the mind to lean upon in the beginning. The gross mind is rendered subtle, sharp and one-pointed by such Saguna forms of meditation.

These different methods of approaching the Impersonal Absolute are known as Vidyas or Upasanas.

This Section discusses these various Vidyas by means of which the Jiva or the individual soul attains Brahman or the Supreme Soul. Similar Vidyas are described differently in different recensions of the Vedas. Now the question arises naturally whether these similar Vidyas are one and the same or different, whether similar Vidyas have to be combined into a single Upasana or meditation or to be taken separately. It is decided here which Vidyas are the same and have to be combined into one and which Vidyas are different despite certain similar features.

The aim and object of all Vidyas is the attainment of Brah man or the Imperishable. Brahman alone is the only living Reality. Brahman alone is Truth. Brahman is Sat or Existence Absolute. Hence it may be advantageous and helpful to combine the particulars of the same Vidya mentioned in different recensions or Sakhas as they have been found highly efficacious and immensely beneficial by the followers of those Sakhas.

He who meditates on Brahman as mind as is taught in the Taittiriya Upanishad, Bhrigu Valli, must collate all the attributes of the mind not only from his own particular Vedic Sakha, but from other Sakhas also where meditation on Brahman in the form of mind is taught. In meditating on Brahman as mind, he must not bring together attributes not belonging to mind such as those of food, though Brahman is taught to be meditat ed upon as food also. In fact only those attributes are to be supplied from other Sakhas which are taught about the parti cular object of meditation, and not any attribute in general.

In this Section Sri Vyasa the framer of the Brahma Sutras concludes that most of the Vidyas prescribed in the Srutis have for their object the knowledge of Brahman or Brahma-Jnana. They differ only in form but not in substance. Their final goal is the attainment of everlasting peace, eternal bliss and immor tality. One meditation or Upasana or Vidya is as good as another for attaining the final emancipation.

Sruti teaches us to meditate on Brahman either directly or through the medium of some Pratikas or symbols, such as the sun, Akasa, food, mind, Prana, the Purusha residing in the eye, the empty space (Daharakasa) within the heart, Om or Pranava and the like.

You will have to search Brahman and adore Him in and through the symbols, but these symbols must not usurp His place. You must concentrate and fix the mind on these symbols and think of His attributes such as Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence, Sat-Chit-Ananda, purity, perfection, freedom, etc.

The Vidyas appear to be different only from the view-point of difference in the symbols but the goal everywhere is the same. Remember this point always. Bear this in mind constantly.

Some attributes of Brahman are found common in some of the Vidyas. You should not consider yourself as a distinct entity from Brahman. This is a fundamental or vital point.

In all the Vidyas three things are common. The final goal is the attainment of eternal bliss and immortality, through the realisation of Brahman with or without the aid of the symbols or Pratikas. The attributes which are found in common in all the Vidyas such as blissfulness, purity, perfection, knowledge, immortality, Absolute Freedom or Kaivalya, Absolute Independence, eternal satisfaction and the like must be invariably asso ciated with the conception of Brahman. The meditator must think himself identical with Brahman and must worship Brahman as his Immortal Atman.

SYNOPSIS

Adhikaranas I and II: (Sutras 1-4; 5) are concerned with the question whether those Vidyas which are met with in identical or similar form in more than one sacred text, are to be considered as constituting several Vidyas or one Vidya only. The Vidyas with identical or similar form met with in the scriptures or in different recensions of the scriptures, are one Vidya. Particulars of identical Vidyas mentioned in different places or Sakhas are to be combined with one meditation.

Adhikarana III: (Sutras 6-8) discusses the case of Vidyas which are separate on account of different subject-matter, al though in other respects there are similarities. The examples selected are the Udgitha Vidyas of the Chhandogya Upanishad (I.1.3) and the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (I.3.1). Although they indicate certain similarities such as bearing the same name and the Udgitha being in both identified with Pranayet they are to be held apart, because the subject of the Chhandogya Vidya is not the whole Udgitha but only the sacred syllable OM while Brihadaranyaka Upanishad represents the whole Udgitha as the object of meditation.

Adhikarana IV: (Sutra 9). In the passage, Let one meditate on the syllable `OM' (of) the Udgitha (Chh. Up. I.1.1), the Omkara and the Udgitha stand in the relation of one specifying the other. The meaning is Let one meditate on that Omkara which etc.

Adhikarana V: (Sutra 10) intimates that there should be no mistake in the identity of the Prana Vidya as taught in Chhandogya, Brihadaranyaka and Kaushitaki. It determines the unity of the Prana-Vidyas and the consequent comprehension of the different qualities of the Prana, which are mentioned in the different texts within one meditation.

Adhikarana VI: (Sutras 11-13) intimates that the essential and unalterable attributes of Brahman such as Bliss and knowledge are to be taken into account everywhere while those which admit of increase and decrease as for instance the attribute of having joy for its head, mentioned in the Taittiriya Upanishad are confined to special meditations.

Adhikarana VII: (Sutras 14-15) teaches that the object of Katha Upanishad (III.10, 11) is one only, viz., to indicate that the Supreme Self is higher than everything, so that the passage forms one Vidya only.

Adhikarana VIII: (Sutras 16-17) intimates that the Self refer red to in Aitareya Aranyaka (II.4.1.1) is not a lower form of the self (Sutratman or Hiranyagarbha), but the Supreme Self.

Adhikarana IX: (Sutra 18) discusses a minor point connected with the Prana-samvada. Rinsing the mouth is not enjoined in the Prana-Vidya, but only thinking the water as the dress of Prana.

Adhikarana X: (Sutra 19) declares that the Vidyas in the same Sakha which are identical or similar have to be combined, for they are one.

Adhikarana XI: (Sutras 20-22). In Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (V.5), Brahman is represented first as abiding in the sphere of the sun and then as abiding within the right eye. The names Ahar and Aham of the Supreme Brahman abiding in the sun and in the right eye respectively cannot be combined, as these are two separate Vidyas.

Adhikarana XII: (Sutra 23). Attributes of Brahman mention ed in Ranayaniya-Khila are not to be taken into consideration in other Brahma-Vidyas, e.g., the Sandilya Vidya, as the former is an independent Vidya owing to the difference of Brahman's abode.

Adhikarana XIII: (Sutra 24) points out that the Purusha-Vidya of Chhandogya is quite different from the Purusha-Vidya of Tait tiriya though they pass by the same name.

Adhikarana XIV: (Sutra 25) decides that certain detached Mantras like Pierce the whole body of the enemy etc., and sacrifices mentioned at the beginning of certain Upanishadsas for instance, a Brahmana about the Mahavrata ceremony at the beginning of the Aitareya-Aranyaka, do, notwithstanding their position which seems to connect them with the Brahma-Vidya, not belong to the latter, as they show unmistakable signs of being connected with sacrificial acts.

Adhikarana XV: (Sutra 26) treats of the passage stating that the man dying in the possession of true knowledge shakes off all his good and evil deeds and affirms that a statement made in some of those passages, only to the effect that the good and evil deeds pass over to the friends and enemies of the deceased, is valid for all the passages.

Adhikarana XVI: (Sutras 27-28) decides that the shaking of the good and evil deeds takes place not as the Kaushitaki Upanishad states on the road to Brahmaloka or the world of Brah man but at the moment of the soul's departure from the body.

Adhikarana XVII: (Sutras 29-30) intimates that the knower of the Saguna Brahman alone goes by the path of the gods after death and not the knower of the Nirguna Brahman. The soul of him who knows the Nirguna Brahman becomes one with it without moving to any other place.

Adhikarana XVIII: (Sutra 31) decides that the road of the gods is followed not only by those who know the Vidyas which specially mention the going on that road but all who are acquainted with the Saguna Vidyas of Brahman.

Adhikarana XIX: (Sutra 32) decides that, although the gene ral effect of true knowledge is release from all forms of body, yet even perfected souls may be reborn for the fulfilment of some divine mission.

Adhikarana XX: (Sutra 33) teaches that the negative attri butes of Brahman mentioned in some Vidyas such as its being not gross, not subtle, etc., are to be combined in all medi tations on Brahman.

Adhikarana XXI: (Sutra 34) determines that Kathopanishad (III.1), and Mundaka (III.1), constitute one Vidya only, because both passages refer to the highest Brahman.

Adhikarana XXII: (Sutras 35-36) maintains that the two passages (Bri. Up. III.4 and III.5), constitute one Vidya only, the object of knowledge being in both cases Brahman viewed as the Inner Self of all.

Adhikarana XXIII: (Sutra 37) decides that the passage in Aitareya Aranyaka (II.2.4.6) constitutes not one but two meditations. The Sruti enjoins reciprocal meditation and not merely one way.

Adhikarana XXIV: (Sutra 38) determines that the Vidyas of the True (Satya Brahman) contained in Bri. Up. (V.4.1 and V.5.2) is one only.

Adhikarana XXV: (Sutra 39) decides that the attributes mentioned in Chh. Up. (VIII.1.1) and Bri. Up. (IV.4.32) are to be combined on account of a number of common features in both the texts.

Adhikarana XXVI: (Sutras 40-41) maintains that Pranagnihotra need not be observed on days of fast.

Adhikarana XXVII: (Sutra 42) decides that those meditations which are connected with certain sacrifices are not parts of them and therefore not inseparably connected with them.

Adhikarana XXVIII: (Sutra 43) teaches that in a Bri. Up. passage and a similar Chh. Up. passage, meditations on Vayu and Prana are to be kept separate in spite of the essential oneness of these two.

Adhikarana XXIX: (Sutras 44-52) decides that the fire-altars made of mind etc., which are mentioned in the Agnirahasya of the Brihadaranyaka are not part of the sacrificial act, but constitute a separate Vidya.

Adhikarana XXX: (Sutras 53-54) determines that the self is a separate entity distinct from the body.

Adhikarana XXXI: (Sutras 55-56) decides that Upasanas or meditations connected with sacrificial acts, e.g., the Udgitha Upasana, are valid for all Sakhas.

Adhikarana XXXII: (Sutra 57) decides that the Vaisvanara Upasana of Chh. Up. (V.11) is one entire Upasana. Vaisvanara Agni is to be meditated upon as a whole, not in his single parts.

Adhikarana XXXIII: (Sutra 58) decides that various Vidyas like the Sandilya-Vidya, Dahara-Vidya and so on, are to be kept separate and not combined into one entire Upasana.

Adhikarana XXXIV: (Sutra 59) teaches that those medita tions on Brahman for which the texts assign one and the same fruit, are optional, there being no reason for their being cumulated.

Any one Vidya should be selected according to one's choice.

Adhikarana XXXV: (Sutra 60) decides that those meditations on the other hand which refer to special desires may or may not be combined according to choice or liking.

Adhikarana XXXVI: (Sutras 61-66) decides that meditations connected with members of sacrificial acts, such as the Udgitha may or may not be combined according to liking.

SARVAVEDANTAPRATYAYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 1 (SUTRAS 1-4)

The Vidyas having identical or the same form

found in scriptures constitute one Vidya

Sarvavedantapratyayam chodanadyaviseshat III.3.1 (360)

(The Vidyas or the Upasanas) described in the various Vedanta texts (are not different, are identical) on account of the non-difference of injunction, etc., (i.e., connection, form and name).

Sarvavedantapratyayam: exposition of Brahman in all the Vedanta texts; Chodanadyaviseshat: as there is no difference in the injunctions, etc., (i.e., con nection, form and name). (Sarva: all; Veda: the Vedas; Anta: the settled conclusion; Pratyayam: the knowledge, realisation; Chodanadi: or the injunction and others; Aviseshat: as there is no difference.)

Can Srutis declare different Upasanas in respect of one entity? If we say that one Sruti is correct and others are incorrect, disbelief in Srutis as a whole will follow. The Srutis which declare the nature of Brahman are not commands. They only state solid facts.

The author of the Sutras now proceeds to discuss whether the Upasana (devotional) Srutis are divergent and separate or not. Scriptures teach that like Karma, Upasanas have various results. Some of them have visible results, others unseen results. Some Upasanas create true knowledge and lead to Krama mukti or gradual liberation or release by successive steps. With a view to those meditations, therefore, we may raise the question whether the individual Vedanta-texts teach different Upasanas of Brahman or not.

There are many expositions of Brahman in Sruti. In some Sruti He is described as Vaisvanara, in another He is described as Prana and so forth. Now a doubt may arise as to whether these expositions are different or they all aim at one and the same thing.

This Sutra removes the doubt. The expositions in all the Srutis are the same. They all point to one and the same purpose of worship of Brahman, though in different forms fitted to the capacity of the meditator, because there is no difference in the injunctions about meditation. All the injunctions inti mate that Brahman is to be meditated upon. Hence the object of those expositions and of meditation is one and the same.

The Upasanas of Prana are described in one way in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and in a different way in the Chhandogya Upanishad. Now a doubt arises whether such Upasanas described differently in different Sakhas of the Vedas are different or the same.

The Purvapakshin or the opponent maintains that they are different owing to the difference in form. This Sutra refutes it and declares that such meditations are one and the same owing to the non-difference as regards injunctions, connection, name and form of these in different Sakhas.

Thus, as the Agnihotra though described in different Sakhas is yet one, the same kind of human activity being enjoined in all by means of the words He is to offer, so the injunction met with in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (VI.1.1.). He who knows the oldest and the best, etc., is the same as that which occurs in the text of Chhandogya He who knows the first and the best (Chh. Up. V.1.1). The Prana-Vidya in all the Sakhas is one and the same. There is non-difference as regards the fruit of the Upasana in both texts. He who knows it to be such becomes the first and best among his people (Bri. Up. VI.1.1). Prana is the object of meditation in both texts. The name of the meditation in both texts is Prana-Vidya. Prana is described in both texts as the oldest and the greatest. Therefore the two Vidyas are not different, as there is no difference in all respects. The two Vidyas are one and the same. The same is true of Dahara-Vidya, Panchagni-Vidya or the knowledge of the five fires, Vaisvanara-Vidya or the knowledge of the Vaisvanara, Sandilya-Vidya, etc., described in various Sakhas.

Bhedanneti chennaikasyamapi III.3.2 (361)

If it be said that the Vidyas are separate on account of difference (in minor points), we deny that, since even in the same Vidyas (there may be such minor differences).

Bhedat: on account of difference; Na: not; Iti: as, so, this; Chet: if; Na: no, not; Ekasyam: in the one and the same (Vidya); Api: also, even.

An objection to the preceding Sutra is raised and refuted.

The Sutra consists of two parts namely an objection and its reply. The objection is Bhedanneti chet. The reply is Naikasyamapi.

If you say that difference exists, we say that it is not so, because such differences can exist even in the same Upasana or Vidya.

Doubtless the Vajasaneyins refer to a sixth Agni when referring to Panchagni Vidya or the doctrine of five fires The fire becomes his fire (Bri. Up. VI.2.24), but the Chhandogyas do not. But he who knows these five fires (Chh. Up. V.10.10). But this will not make them separate. The Chhandogyas also can add it if they like. Thus the Vidya as stated in the two Srutis Brihadaranyaka and Chhandogya, is identical.

The presence or absence of a sixth fire cannot make a difference as regards form, because the Shodasi vessel may or may not be taken in the same Atiratra sacrifice. The name five fires is no objection against this increase of number, because the number five is not a fundamental part of the injunction. Differences like this are found in different chapters even in the same Sakha and in the same Vidya, and yet the Vidya described in these different chapters is recognised by all as one.

The Chhandogya Upanishad also actually mentions a sixth fire, viz., in the passage V.9.2 When he has departed his friends carry him, as appointed, to the fire.

Therefore it is quite clear that the Vidyas of the same class are one and not different notwithstanding these differences in different Sakhas.

The Purvapakshin says: Then again in the conversation between the Pranas, the Chhandogyas mention in addition to the most important Prana four other Pranas viz., speech, the eye, the ear and the mind, while the Vajasaneyins mention a fifth one also. Seed indeed is generation. He who knows that becomes rich in offspring and cattle (Bri. Up. VI.1.6).

We reply: nothing stands in the way of some additional qualification being included in the Vidya concerning the colloquy of the Pranas. The addition or omission of some particular qualification is not able to create difference in the object of knowledge and thereby in the knowledge itself, because the objects of knowledge may differ partly, yet their greater part and at the same time the knowing person are understood to be the same.

Therefore the Vidya also remains the same.

Svadhyayasya tathatvena hi samachare'dhikaraccha

savavaccha tanniyamah III.3.3 (362)

(The rite of carrying fire on the head is connected) with the study of the Veda (of the Atharvanikas), because in the Samachara (it is mentioned) as being such. And (this also follows) from its being a qualification (for the students of the Atharva Veda) as in the case with the (seven) oblations (viz., Saurya etc.).

Svadhyayasya: of the study of the Vedas; Tathatvena: on account of being such; Hi: because; Samachare: in the book named Samachara containing the rules for the performance of Vedic rites; Adhikarat: on account of the qualification; Cha: and; Savavat: as in the case of the seven oblations (viz., Saurya, etc.); Cha: and, also; Tanniyamah: that rule.

An objection based on a statement of the Mundaka Upanishad is explained and refuted.

A further objection is raised. In the Mundaka Upanishad which deals with the knowledge of Brahman, the carrying of fire on the head by the student (Sirovrata) is mentioned. The Purvapakshin or the opponent maintains that the Vidyas of the Atharvanikas are different from all other Vidyas on account of this particular ceremony which is practised by the followers of the Atharva Veda.

This Sutra refutes this and says that the rite of carrying fire on the head is an attribute not of the Vidya, but merely of the study of the Veda on the part of the Atharvanikas. So it is described in the book Samachara which treats of Vedic observances.

At the close of the Upanishad moreover we have the following sentence, A man who has not performed the rite (carrying fire on the head) does not read this (Mun. Up. III.2.11). This clearly intimates that it is connected with the study of the Upanishad and not with the Vidya.

The Sutra adds another illustrative instance in the words as in the case of the libations there is limitation of that. The rite of carrying the fire is associated only with the study of that particular Veda and not others, like the seven oblations from the Saurya libation up to the Sataudana libation, which are not connected with the fires taught in the other Vedas, but only with those of Atharva Veda. The command is to those studying the Mundaka Upanishad just as the command to per form the seven Savas is to them. The carrying of a fire-pot on their head will not make the Vidya different.

Therefore there is unity of Vidya in all cases. The doctrine of the unity of the Vidyas thus remains unshaken.

Darsayati cha III.3.4 (363)

(The scripture) also instructs (thus).

Darsayati: (Sruti) shows, instructs; Cha: also.

An argument in support of Sutra 1 is given.

The Veda also declares the identity of the Vidyas, because all Vedanta texts represent the object of knowledge, as one, e.g., Katha Upanishad (I.2.15), That word which all the Vedas declare; Aitareya Aranyaka (III.2.3.12) Him only the Bahvrichas consider in the great hymn, the Adhvaryus in the sacrificial fire, the Chhandogyas in the Mahavrata ceremony.

To prove the unity of the Vidyas some other instances may be quoted. Kathopanishad (I.6.2) mentions as one of the Lord's qualities that He causes fear. Now this very same quality is referred to in the Tait. Up. II.7: For if he makes but the smallest distinction in the Self, there is fear for him. But that fear is only for him who knows a difference and does not know oneness.

The Impersonal Absolute is the one purport of all the Vedanta texts. Hence all Vidyas which pertain to It must also be one. The meditation on the Saguna Brahman as Vaisvanara, who is represented as extending from heaven to the earth in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is referred to in the Chhandogya Upanishad, But he who adores that Vaisvanara Self as extend ing from heaven to the earth (Chh. Up. V.18.1). This clearly indicates that all Vaisvanara Vidyas are one.

Nirguna Brahman is one and not many. Saguna Brahman also is one and not many. Hence particular Vidyas which pertain to either Saguna Brahman or Nirguna Brahman are also one and not many. This also follows from the same hymns and the like enjoined in the one place being employed in other places for the purpose of devout meditation or Upasana.

The same rule applies to other Vidyas also besides the Vaisvanara Vidya. Therefore, Vidyas are not many, though they are differently described in different Sakhas. All Vedantic texts intimate identical devout meditations. Thus the unity of Vidyas is established.

UPASAMHARADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 2

Particulars of identical Vidyas mentioned in different Sakhas or places are to be combined into one meditation

Upasamharo'rthabhedadvidhiseshavatsamane cha III.3.5 (364)

And in the Upasanas of the same class (mentioned in differ ent Sakhas) a combination (of all the particulars mentioned in all Sakhas is to be made) as there is no difference in the object of meditation, just as (a combination of) all subsidiary rites of a main sacrifice (mentioned in different Sakhas is made).

Upasamharah: combination; Arthabhedat: as there is no difference in the object of meditation; Vidhiseshavat: like the subsidiary rites of a main sacrifice; Samane: in the Upasanas of the same class, in the case of equality, the forms of meditation being the same in effect; Cha: also, and. (Artha: purpose; Abheda: non-difference; Vidhi: injunctions, of the duties enjoined by the scriptures.)

A deduction is made from the four preceding Sutras. This Sutra states the practical outcome of the discussion carried on in the first four Sutras.

The Vidyas described in different Sakhas will have to be combined in the Upasana, because their object is one and the fruit also is the same, just as in the case of Vidhiseshas.

The particulars that are mentioned in other Sakhas than one's own are also efficacious. Therefore one will have to combine all these, just as one does in the case of subsidiary rites like Agnihotra connected with a main sacrifice, mentioned in several Sakhas.

ANYATHATVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 3 (SUTRAS 6-8)

Those Vidyas with different subject-matter are separate,

even if there may be some similarities

Anyathatvam sabdaditi chennaviseshat III.3.6 (365)

If it be said (that the Udgitha Vidya of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and that of the Chhandogya Upanishad) are different on account of (difference in) texts; we deny this on the ground of their non-difference (as regards essentials).

Anyathatvam: there is difference; Sabdat: on account of (difference in) texts; Iti: so; Chet: if; Na: not; Aviseshat: on account of non-difference (as regards essentials).

This Sutra represents the view of the Purvapakshin or the opponent. The opponent tries to establish that the two Vidyas are one.

The Sutra consists of two parts namely, a supposed objection to the objector's view and its refutation by the objector to strengthen his case. The supposed objection is Anyathatvam sabdaditi chet and the reply is Naviseshat.

It is said in the Vajasaneyaka (I.3.1), The Devas said, `Well, let us defeat the Asuras at the sacrifices by means of the Udgitha!' They said to speech: `sing for us.' The speech said `yes'.

The speech and the other Pranas were pierced by the Asuras with evil. They were not able to do what was expected from them. Thereupon the Devas appointed the Chief Prana, and said to the breath in the mouth `sing for us'. The breath said `yes' and sang.

There is a similar story in Chhandogya Upanishad I.2. The Devas took the Udgitha. They thought they would overcome the Asuras with it. The other Pranas were pierced with evil and thus vanquished by the Asuras. Thereupon the Devas went to the Chief Prana. Then comes the Chief Prana. On that they meditated as Udgitha.

Both these passages glorify the chief Prana. Hence it foll ows that they both are injunctions of a meditation on the Prana. A doubt arises now whether the two Vidyas are separate Vidyas or one Vidya only.

The Purvapakshin holds that the two Vidyas have to be considered as one. It may be objected that they cannot be one on account of the difference in texts. The Vajasaneyins represent the chief vital air as the producer of the Udgitha, Do thou sing out for us; while the Chhandogyas speak of it as itself being the Udgitha, On that they meditated as Udgitha. How can this divergence be reconciled with the assumption of the unity of the Vidyas?

But this is not acceptable because there is unity as regards a great many points. Both texts relate that the Devas and the Asuras were fighting; both at first glorify speech and the other Pranas in their relation to the Udgitha and thereupon finding fault with them pass on to the chief Prana; both tell how through the strength of the latter, the Asuras were vanquished.

The difference pointed out, is not important enough to bring about a separation of the two Vidyas.

The text of the Vajasaneyaka also coordinates the chief Prana and the Udgitha in the clause, He is Udgitha (Bri. Up. I.3.23). We therefore have to assume that in the Chhandogya also the chief Prana has secondarily to be looked upon as the producer of the Udgitha.

The two texts thus constitute one Vidya only. There is unity of Vidyas on the grounds given in Sutra III.3.1.

Na va prakaranabhedatparovariyastvadivat III.3.7 (366)

Or rather there is no (unity of the Vidyas) owing to the difference of subject matter even as (the meditation on the Udgitha) as the highest and greatest (i.e., Brahman) (is different from the meditation on the Udgitha as abiding in the eye etc.).

Na: not; Va: certainly; Prakaranabhedat: on account of difference in subject matter; Parovariyastvadivat: even as (the meditation on the Udgitha) as the highest and great (Brahman) (is different).

The objection raised in the preceding Sutra is refuted.

The Sutra refutes the former view and establishes that the two Vidyas, in spite of similarity in many points, are different owing to difference in subject matter.

In the Chhandogya, Omkara is said to be a limit of Udgitha and so such Omkara has to be regarded as Prana. In the other the singer of Udgitha, the Udgatri is called Prana. Therefore the two Vidyas are different just as the Upasana of Udgitha as the Infinite and Supreme (Parovariya) (Chh. Up. I.9.2). This is indeed the highest and greatest is different from the Upasana of Udgitha as golden in form and as being in the eye and in the sun (Chh. Up. I.6).

In the Chhandogya only a part of the Udgitha (hymn), the syllable OM is meditated upon as Prana Let one meditate on the syllable OM of the Udgitha (Chh. Up. I.1.1). But in the Brihadaranyaka the whole Udgitha hymn is meditated upon as Prana (I.3.2). Hence the two Vidyas cannot be one owing to this difference in the object of meditation.

The special features of different Vidyas are not to be combined even when the Vidyas belong to one and the same Sakha; much less then when they belong to different Sakhas.

Samjnataschet taduktamasti tu tadapi III.3.8 (367)

If it be said (that the Vidyas are one) on account of (the identity of) name; (we reply that) that is explained (already); moreover that (identity of name) is (found in the case of admittedly separate Vidyas).

Samjnatah: on account of the name (being same); Chet: if; Tat: that; Uktam: has already been answered; Asti: is, exists; Tu: but; Tat: that; Api: even, also.

An argument against the preceding Sutra is refuted.

The word `tu' (but), removes the doubt raised above.

You cannot call them identical merely because they have the same name. The subject matter differs. This has already been established in the last Sutra. For instance Agnihotra and Darsapurnamasa are separate and yet have the same name, viz., Kathaka as they are described in the book called Kathaka. Even the Udgitha Vidya of Chh. Up. I.6 and Chh. Up. I.9.2 are different Vidyas.

VYAPTYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 4

It is appropriate to specialise OM by the term `Udgitha'

Vyaptescha samanjasam III.3.9 (368)

And because (OM) extends (over the whole of the Vedas), (to specialise it by the term 'Udgitha') is appropriate.

Vyapteh: because (OM) extends (over the whole of the Vedas); Cha: and; Samanjasam: is appropriate, consistent, justifiable.

Sutra 7 is elaborated here.

In the Sruti `Omityetadaksharamudgithamupasita', the use of the word Udgitha as Viseshana, i.e., adjective of OM is appropriate, because OM by itself is pervasive in all Srutis and should not be understood here in its general sense.

In the passage Let a man meditate on the syllable OM as the Udgitha, the two words `Omkara' and `Udgitha', are placed in coordination. The question then arises whether the relation in which the ideas conveyed by these two words stand to each other is the relation of superimposition (Adhyasa) or sublation (Apavada) or unity (Ekatva) or speci fication (Viseshana) .

The word `and' stands here in place of `but' and is meant to discard the three other alternatives. The fourth is to be adopted. The fourth and correct view is that the one is Viseshana (an adjective) to the other as in the words Nila-Utpala (blue lotus). The passage means that Udgitha is the Viseshana of Omkara. The appropriate view of the Chhandogya passage is to take the word Udgitha as specialising the term `Omkara'.

SARVABHEDADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 5

Unity of the Prana-Vidya

Sarvabhedadanyatreme III.3.10 (369)

On account of the non-difference (of the Vidya) everywhere (i.e., in all the texts of the different Sakhas where the Prana-Vidya occurs) these qualities (mentioned in two of them are to be inserted) in the other places (e.g., the Kaushitaki Upanishad).

Sarvabhedat: on account of non-difference everywhere; Anyatra: in the other places; Ime: these (qualities are to be inserted).

A concrete instance on the general principle of Sutra 5 is cited.

In the colloquy of the Pranas recorded by the Vajasaneyins and the Chhandogyas, the Prana which is endowed with various qualities such as being the best and so on, is represented as the object of meditation. Various qualities such as being the richest and the like are ascribed to speech and the other organs. These latter qualities are in the end attributed to the Prana also. If I am the richest thou art the richest.

Now in other Sakhas also, as e.g., that of the Kaushitakins the set of qualities such as being the best and so on is attributed to the Prana (Katha Up. II.14). But the set of attributes, viz., being the richest and so on is not mentioned.

The question is whether they are to be inserted in the Kaushitaki also, where they are not mentioned.

This Sutra declares that they have to be inserted, as the Vidya is the same in all the three Upanishads. Attributes belonging to one and the same Vidya or subject have to be combined wherever that Vidya occurs although they may not be expressly stated.

ANANDADYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 6 (SUTRAS 11-13)

Attributes like Bliss, etc., of Brahman have to be

combined into one meditation

Anandadayah pradhanasya III.3.11 (370)

Bliss and other attributes (which depict the true nature) of the Principal or the Supreme Self, i.e., Brahman (have to be combined from all places in the meditation on Brahman).

Anandadayah: Bliss and other attributes; Pradhanasya: of the Principal i.e., the Supreme Self or Brahman.

Brahman is described as Bliss, Knowledge, all-pervading, the Self of all, true, etc., in different texts of different Sakhas. All the attributes are not mentioned in all places.

Now the question arises whether they have to be combined in the meditation on Brahman or not. This Sutra says that they have to be combined, as the object of meditation (Brahman) is one and the same in all Sakhas and therefore the Vidya is one. The reason for this conclusion is the one given in Sutra 10.

The qualities attributed to Brahman in any one place have to be combined whenever Brahman is spoken of.

Priyasirastvadyapraptirupachayapachayau

hi bhede III.3.12 (371)

(Qualities like) joy being His head, etc., are not to be taken everywhere, (being subject to) increase and decrease (are possible only) if there is difference (and not in Brahman in which there is non-difference).

Priyasirastvadi: qualities like joy being His head, etc.; Apraptih: are not to be taken everywhere; Upachayapachayau: increase and decrease; Hi: be cause; Bhede: (are possible) in difference. (Upachaya: increase; Apachaya: decrease.)

The discussion commenced in Sutra 11 is continued, stating here as to which of the attributes are not to be culled and combined together in every form of meditation.

More and less will apply only if there is differentia tion. Hence the descriptions of Priyasiras, etc., will not apply to Brahman. The description of Priyasiras (attributes like joy being His head, etc.) in the Taittiriya Upanishad are not Dharmas of Brahman but the Dharmas of the Ananda maya-kosa or the blissful sheath. The descriptions are given to turn the mind towards Brahman. Differences of higher and lower in Gunas can come in Upasanas of Saguna Brahman but have no application to Nirguna Brahman.

The attributes of having joy for His head and such other attributes are not acceptable in every form of meditation on Brahman because attributing limbs to Brahman would render Him liable to fluctuation.

Attributes like joy being His head and so on mentioned in the Taittiriya Upanishad are not to be taken and combined in other places where the Upasana of Brahman is enjoined because the successive terms, Joy is Its head, satisfaction is its right arm, great satisfaction is its left arm, bliss is His trunk, Brahman is His tail, His support (II.5), indicate qualities which have increase and decrease with regard to each other and to other enjoyers (individual souls or Jivas) and therefore can exist where there is difference.

Now for higher and lower degrees there is room only where there is plurality or difference but Brahman is without all plurality or difference, as we know from many scriptu ral passages. (One only, without a second). Therefore these attributes cannot constitute the nature of Brahman. They are to be confined to the texts which prescribe them and not taken to other places.

Moreover, these qualities are attributed to the Supreme Brahman merely as means of fixing one's mind, not as themselves being objects of meditation. From this it follows that they are not valid everywhere. The attributes mentioned in any one are not valid for others.

The case is similar to that of two wives ministering to one king; one with a fan, the other with an umbrella. Here also the object of their ministrations is one, but the acts of ministration themselves are distinct. They have each their own particular attributes. Similar is the case under discussion also.

Qualities in which lower and higher degrees can be distinguished belong to the qualified Brahman only in which there is plurality, not to the Supreme Nirguna Brahman which is above all qualifications. Such attributes as having true desires (Sat-Kama) and the like which are mentioned in some parti cular place have no validity for other meditations on Brahman.

Itare tvarthasamanyat III.3.13 (372)

But other attributes (like Bliss, etc., are to be combined) on account of identity of purport.

Itare: other attributes; Tu: but; Arthasamanyat: because of common purport, on account of identity of purport. (Artha: result, object, purport; Samanyat: on account of the equality or sameness.)

The previous discussion is continued.

But attributes like Bliss, knowledge, all-pervadingness, etc., which describe the nature of Brahman, are to be combined as the object of such descriptions is the same, as they directly relate to Brahman and as they are inherent attributes of Brahman, as their purport is the one indivisible, unconditioned Brahman.

These attributes which scripture sets for the purpose of teaching the true nature of Brahman are to be viewed as valid for all passages which refer to Brahman, because their purport, i.e., the Brahman whose nature is to be taught is one. These attributes are mentioned with a view to knowledge of Brahman only, and not for Upasana.

ADHYANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 7 (SUTRAS 14-15)

Katha Up. I.3.10-11 teaches merely that the Self is

higher than everything else

Adhyanaya prayojanabhavat III.3.14 (373)

(The passage in Katha Upanishad I.3.10 tells about the Self only as the highest) for the sake of pious meditation, as there is no use (of the knowledge of the objects being higher than the senses and so on).

Adhyanaya: for the sake of meditation; Prayojanabhavat: as there is no use, as there is no other necessity. (Prayojana: of any other purpose; Abhavat: on account of the absence.)

The previous discussion is continued.

We read in the Kathaka (I.3.10-11), Higher than the senses are the objects, higher than the objects there is the mind, etc., higher than the Atman there is nothing, this is the goal, the highest road.

Here the doubt arises whether the purport of the passage is to intimate that each of the things successively enumerated is higher than the preceding one, or only that the Atman is higher than all of them.

The Purvapakshin or the opponent holds the former alternative because the text expressly declares the objects to be higher than the senses, the mind higher than the objects and so on. He maintains that these sentences are separate and not one as referring to the Atman alone. Therefore the purpose of the text is to teach that the objects are superior to the senses and so on.

This Sutra refutes it and declares that it is one sentence and means that the Atman is superior to all these.

The object of the Sruti is not to say that each later category is higher than the former, because there is no spiritual gain or any useful purpose in such a declaration. The aim is to declare that Brahman is higher than all, as such knowledge leads to Moksha.

The Atman alone is to be known, because the Knowledge gives freedom or the final release. The scripture also says He who has perceived that, is freed from the jaws of death (Katha Up. I.3.15).

Further, the text intimates highest reverence for the Atman by declaring that nothing is higher than the Atman and that He is the highest goal and thereby shows that the whole series of objects is enumerated only for the purpose of giving information about the Atman. This information is given for the sake of meditation on the Atman which results in the knowledge of it.

Atmasabdaccha III.3.15 (374)

And on account of the word Atman.

Atmasabdat: on account of the word `Atma'; Cha: and.

An argument in support of Sutra 14 is given.

The above conclusion is confirmed by the fact that the subject of discussion is called the Self or Atman. That Self is hidden in all beings and does not shine forth, but it is seen by subtle seers through their sharp and subtle intellect (Katha Up. I.3.2). From this we conclude that the text wishes to represent the other things enumerated as the non-Self.

A wise man should keep down speech and mind (Katha Up. I.3.13). This passage enjoins pious meditation as a means of the Knowledge of the Supreme Self. It thus follows that the Sruti indicates various excellences in the case of the Atman only and not in that of the other things enumerated.

The text He reaches the end of his journey and that is the highest place of Vishnu suggests the question as to who is the end of the journey and we therefore conclude that the enumeration of the senses, objects, etc., has merely the purpose of teaching the highest place of Vishnu and not of teaching anything about the relation of the senses, objects and so on.

But the enumeration of the senses is not altogether useless. It enables the aspirant to turn the outgoing mind towards the Inner Self or the Atman. This subtle Atman cannot be attained without abstraction, introspection and profound meditation.

ATMAGRIHITYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 8 (SUTRAS 16-17)

The Self mentioned in Ait. Up. I.1. is the Supreme Self

and the attributes of the Self given elsewhere

should be combined with this meditation

Atmagrihitiritaravaduttarat III.3.16 (375)

(In the Aitareya Upanishad I.1.) the Supreme Self is meant, as in other texts (dealing with creation) because of the subsequent qualification.

Atmagrihitih: the Supreme Self is meant; Itaravat: as in other texts (dealing with creation); Uttarat: because of the subsequent qualification.

We read in the Aitareya Upanishad Verily in the begin ning all this was the Self, one only; there was nothing else whatsoever (I.1). Here the doubt arises whether the term Self denotes the Supreme Self or some other being such as Hiranyagarbha.

It refers to the Supreme Self, even as the word Self in other texts which treat of creation refers to It, and not to Hiranyagarbha. From the Self ether was produced (Tait. Up. II.1). Why? Because in the subsequent text of the Aitareya we have It thought shall I send forth worlds? It sent forth these worlds (Ait. Up. I.1.2). This qualification, viz., that It thought before creation is applied to Brahman in the primary sense in other Sruti passages. Hence we con clude from this that the Self refers to the Supreme Self or Para Brahman and not to Hiranyagarbha, or any other Being.

Anvayaditi chet syadavadharanat III.3.17 (376)

If it be said that because of the context (the Supreme Self is not meant) (we reply that) it is so (i.e., the Supreme Self is meant) on account of the definite statement (that the Atman alone existed in the beginning).

Anvayat: because of connection, because of the context; Iti: this, so; Chet: if; Syat: it might be so; Avadharanat: on account of the definite state ment.

An objection to Sutra 16 is raised and refuted.

The Sutra consists of two parts namely an objection and its reply. The objection is `Anvayaditi chet' the reply is `Syad-avadharanat'.

The reference is to Para Brahman or the Highest Self. The word Asit shows that the reference is to Para Brahman alone, because He alone existed before all creation. The Lokasrishti or creation of the world is only after the Mahabhutasrishti or creation of the five great elements.

The Purvapakshin says: In the Aitareya Upanishad (I.1), it is stated that Brahman created the four worlds. But it is said in the Taittiriya and other texts that Brahman created ether, air, fire, water and earth, the five elements. It is only Hiranyagarbha that creates the world with the aid of the elements created by the Highest Self. Hence the Self in the Aitareya Upanishad cannot mean the Supreme Self but only Hiranyagarbha or the Karya-Brahman.

This Sutra refutes it and declares that on account of the statement Verily, in the beginning all this was the Self, one only (Ait. Up. I.1.) which intimates that there was one only without a second, it can only refer to the Highest Self or Para Brahman and not to Hiranyagarbha, the Karya-Brahman. The Highest Self created the four worlds after creating the elements as described in other Sakhas. The attributes of Para Brahman or the Highest Self which are mentioned in other places are to be combined in the Aitareyaka meditation.

KARYAKHYANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 9

Only thinking water to be the dress of Prana is

enjoined in the Prana-Vidya

Karyakhyanadapurvam III.3.18 (377)

On account of (the rinsing of the mouth with water refer red to in the Prana Vidya) being a reiteration of an act (already ordained by the Smriti), what has not been so ordained elsewhere (is here enjoined by the Sruti).

Karyakhyanat: on account of being a statement of an act (already enjoined by the Smriti); Apurvam: which has not been so enjoined elsewhere.

In regard to Prana Upasana, Achamana is ordained only as reiteration of what is stated elsewhere. What is ordained is only meditation on water as covering food. What is enjoined in Prana Vidya Upasana of Chhandogya Upanishad is not the Achamana, as such. Achamana is enjoined by the Smritis and is common to all. What is ordained is Anagnatatchintana i.e., meditating that the food is covered by water.

In the Chhandogya Upanishad (V.2.2) and the Brihadaranyaka (VI.1.14) there is a reference to the rinsing of the mouth with water before and after meal, thinking that thereby that Prana is dressed.

These texts intimate two things, rinsing of the mouth and meditation on the breath as dressed. A doubt arises whether the texts enjoin both these matters or only the rinsing of the mouth, or only the meditation on breath as dressed.

This Sutra states that the act of rinsing the mouth is already ordained on every one by the Smriti and the act of thinking the water as the dress of Prana is alone enjoined by the Sruti. The act of rinsing the mouth is not a new one and there for requires no Vedic injunction.

SAMANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 10

Vidyas of the same Sakha which are identical

should be combined, in meditation

Samana evam chabhedat III.3.19 (378)

In the same (Sakha also) it is thus (i.e., there is unity of Vidya,) owing to non-difference (of the object of meditation).

Samana: in the same Sakha; Evam: every, (it is) like this; Cha: and, also; Abhedat: owing to non-difference.

A corollary to Sutra 5 is proved.

In the Agnirahasya in the Vajasaneyi Sakha there is a Vidya called Sandilya Vidya, in which occurs the passage Let him meditate on the Self which consists of mind, which has the Prana for its body, and light for its form (Sat. Br. Madhy. 10.6.3.2). Again, in the Brihadaranyaka (V.10.6) which belongs to the same Sakha we have That person consist ing of mind, whose being is light, is within the heart, small like a grain of rice or barley. He is the ruler of all, the Lord of allHe rules all this whatsoever exists.

A doubt here presents itself whether these two passages are to be taken as one Vidya in which the particulars mentioned in either text are to be combined or not. Are they one Vidya or different Vidyas?

This Sutra declares that, they are one Vidya, as the object of meditation (Upasya) is the same in both. The object of meditation in both is the Self consisting of mind. The combining of the particulars of a similar Vidya in the same Sakha is the same as in the case of such Vidyas which occur in different Sakhas. Although the two passages belong to one and the same Sakha, they yet constitute the Vidya only and their particulars have to be combined into one whole. The former directs worship, by means of such Vidya. The latter gives its Gunas (features).

Though there is some difference in minor details, the two descriptions of the Sandilya Vidya in the two Srutis are practically the same. So, a particular point mentioned in one Sruti in connection with the Sandilya Vidya has to be incorporated with the other, if it be not mentioned in the latter.

Therefore the Sandilya Vidya is one.

SAMBANDHADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 11 (SUTRAS 20-22)

The names `Ahar' and `Aham' of Brahman occurring in

Bri. Up. V.5.1-2 cannot be combined

Sambandhadevamanyatrapi III.3.20 (379)

Thus in other cases also, on account of the connection (of particulars with one and the same Vidya).

Sambandhat: on account of the connection; Evam: thus, like this; Anyatra: in other cases; Api: also.

An inference on the analogy of the preceding Sutra is drawn by way of objection.

This Sutra is a Purvapaksha Sutra. It sets forth the view of the opponent.

We read in the Brihadaranyaka (V.5.1-2), Satya (the truth) is Brahman. That which is Satya is that Sunthe being who is in that orb and the being who is in the right eye. This gives the abode of the Satya Brahman with respect to the gods and the body. The text teaches the two secret names of the Satya Brahman in connection with these abodes. Its secret name is `Ahar' with reference to the gods, and its secret name is `Aham' with reference to the body.

A doubt here arises whether these two secret names are both to be applied to the Deva-abode of Brahman as well as to its bodily abode, or only one name to each.

Now on the analogy of the Sandilya Vidya, the particulars must be combined as the object of meditation, viz., the Satya Brahman is one. Therefore both the names `Ahar' and `Aham' have to be combined with respect to Satya Brahman.

Both the secret names equally belong to the Aditya as well as to the person within the eye.

Na va viseshat III.3.21 (380)

Rather not (so) on account of the difference (of place).

Na: not, not so; Va: or, but; Viseshat: because of difference. (Na va: rather not.)

The conclusion arrived at in the preceding Sutra is set aside. This is the Siddhanta Sutra.

This Sutra refutes the view of the previous Sutra. As the solar orb and the eye-ball are too distant and distant abodes for the worship of Brahman, the two significant names `Ahar' and `Aham' referred to in the previous Sutra, should not both be employed in the same form of meditation. Each name refers to a different locus of Upasana.

Though the Vidya is one, still on account of difference in places the object of meditation becomes different. Therefore there are different names. Hence these cannot be exchanged or combined.

The Purvapakshin or the opponent raises an objection. He says: The person within the orb of the sun and the person within the eye are one only, because the text teaches that both are abodes of the one true Brahman.

True, we reply, but as each secret name is taught only with reference to the one Brahman and conditioned by a particular state, the name applies to Brahman only in so far as it is in that state. Here is an analogy. The teacher always remains the teacher; yet those kinds of services which the pupil has to do to the teacher when sitting have not to be done when he stands and vice versa.

The comparison given by the opponent is not well chosen as the duties of the disciple towards his teacher depend on the latter's character as teacher and that is not changed by his being either in the village or in the forest.

Therefore, the two secret names `Ahar' and `Aham' have to be held apart. They cannot be combined.

Darsayati cha III.3.22 (381)

(The scripture) also declares (that).

Darsayati: (Sruti) shows, indicates, declares; Cha: also, and.

An additional argument is given to refute Sutra 20.

The scripture distinctly states that the attributes are not to be combined, but kept apart; because it compares the two persons, the person in the sun and the person within the eye. If it wanted the particulars to be combined, it would not make such a comparison.

The conclusion, therefore, is that the two secret names are to be kept apart.

SAMBHRITYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 12

Attributes of Brahman occurring in the Ranayaniya Khila

constitute an independent Vidya

Sambhritidyuvyaptyapi chatah III.3.23 (382)

For the same reason (as in the previous Sutra) the support ing (of the world) and pervading the sky (attributed to Brahman in the Ranayaniya Khila) also (are not to be included in other Vidyas or Upasanas of Brahman).

Sambhriti: supporting the world; Dyuvyapti: pervading the sky; Api: also; Cha: and; Atah: for the same reason (as in the previous Sutra). (Dyu: the sky, all the space, heaven).

A restriction to Sutra 5 is made.

In a supplementary text of the Ranayaniyas we meet with a passage, The powers, which were collected together, were preceded by Brahman; the pre-existent Brahman in the beginning pervaded the whole sky.

Now these two qualities `Sambhriti' and `Dyuvyapti' are not to be inserted or included in the Sandilya Vidya and other Vidyas for the same reason as is given in the last Sutra, viz., difference of abode. In the Sandilya Vidya, Brahman is said to have its abode in the heart He is the Self within the heart (Chh. Up. III.14.3). The same statement is made in the Dahara-Vidya There is the palace, the small lotus of the heart, and in it that small ether (VIII.1.1). In the Upakosala-Vidya, again, Brahman is said to abide within the eye That person that is seen in the eye (IV.15.1).

Further these qualities and those mentioned in other Vidyas like the Sandilya Vidya are of such a nature as to exclude each other and are not suggestive of each other. The mere fact of certain Vidyas being connected with Brahman does not constitute their unity. It is an established fact that Brahman, although one only, is owing to the plurality of its powers meditated upon in many ways, as shown under Sutra 7.

The conclusion, therefore, is that the attributes of holding together its powers (Sambhriti and Dyuvyapti) are not to be inserted in the Sandilya and similar Vidyas, and that the Upasana referred to in this Sutra is an independent Vidya by itself. The Sandilya Vidya refers to the worship of Atman in the heart and the Upakosala-Vidya refers to the worship of the Atman in the eye, whereas the above attributes relate to the macrocosm.

PURUSHAVIDYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 13

The Purusha Vidya in the Chhandogya and the Taittiriya

are not to be combined

Purushavidyayamiva chetareshamanamnanat III.3.24 (383)

And (as the qualities) as (mentioned) in the Purusha-Vidya (of the Chhandogya) are not mentioned (in that) of the others (i.e., in the Taittiriya) (the two Purusha-Vidyas are not one; are not to be combined).

Parushavidyayamiva: as in the Purusha-Vidya (of the Chhandogya); Cha: and; Itaresham: of the others; Anamnanat: because of not being mentioned (in the Taittiriya).

The Purusha Vidya of the Chhandogya Upanishad and that of the Taittiriya Upanishad are now examined.

In the Rahasya-Brahmana of the Tandins and the Paingins (the Chhandogya) there is a Vidya treating of man in which man is identified with the sacrifice, the three periods of his life with the three libations Man is the sacrifice.

In the Taittiriya Aranyaka (X.64) also occurs a similar Vidya For him who knows thus the self of the sacrifice is the sacrificer, faith (Sraddha) is the wife of the sacrificer, etc.

The doubt here arises whether the two Vidyas are one, whether the particulars of the man-sacrifice given in the Chhandogya are to be inserted in the Taittiriya or not.

The fundamental attribute referred to is that man is identi fied with sacrifice in both. This Sutra declares that in spite of this, the two Vidyas are not one, because the details differ. The characteristics of the Purusha-Yajna of the Chhandogyas are not recognised in the Taittiriya text. The Taittiriya exhibits an identification of man with the sacrifice in which the wife, the sacrificer, the Veda, the Vedi, the sacrificial grass, the post, the butter, the sacrificial animal, the priest etc., are mentioned in succession. These particulars are not mention ed in the Chhandogya.

The two texts agree in identification of the Avabhritha ceremony with death. There are greater number of dissimilarities. The Taittiriya does not represent man as the sacrifice as the Chhandogya does.

Moreover the result of the Vidya in the Taittiriya is the attainment of the greatness of Brahman: He obtains the greatness of Brahman. The result of the Vidya in Chhandogya is long life, He who knows this lives on to a hundred and sixteen years.

Therefore, the two Vidyas are separate. The particulars cannot be combined in the two places. The particulars mentioned in the Purusha-Vidya of Chhandogya, such as formulas of prayer, Mantras and so on are not to be combined with the Taittiriya text of the Vidya.

VEDHADYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 14

Unconnected Mantras and sacrifices mentioned in certain Upanishads do not belong to Brahma-Vidya

Vedhadyarthabhedat III.3.25 (384)

Because the matter (of certain Mantras) such as piercing and so on is different (from the matter of the approximate Vidyas), (the former are not to be combined with the latter).

Vedhadi: piercing etc.; Arthabhedat: because they have a different meaning.

Certain expressions occurring at the beginning of an Upanishad of the Atharva-Veda are taken up for discussion.

At the beginning of the Upanishad of the Atharvanikas we have Pierce the whole (body of the enemy), pierce his heart, crush his veins, crush his head etc. At the beginning of the Upanishad of the Tandins we have the Mantra O God Savita! produce the sacrifice. At the beginning of Kathas and the Taittiriyaka we have May Mitra be propitious to us and Varuna etc. At the beginning of that of the Kaushitakins we have Brahman indeed is the Agnistoma, Brahman is that day; through Brahman they pass into Brahman, Immortality, those reach who observe that day.

The question is whether these Mantras and the sacrifices referred to in the Brahmanas in close proximity to the Upanishads are to be combined with the Vidyas prescribed by these Upanishads.

The opponent holds that they are to be combined, because the text exhibits them in proximity to the Upanishad-portions of the Brahmanas whose chief contents are formed by the Vidyas. In the case of Mantras we can always imagine some meaning which connects them with the Vidyas. The first Mantra quoted glorifies the heart, because the heart is often represented in the Vidyas as abode of meditation. Therefore Mantras which glorify the heart may constitute subordinate members of those Vidyas.

This Sutra declares that they are not to be combined because their meaning is different, as they indicate acts of a sacrifice and so have no association or relationship with the Vidyas.

The Mantras might be so employed if their whole contents were glorification of the heart, but this is not the case. The Mantra first quoted clearly expresses enmity to somebody and is therefore not to be connected with the Vidyas of the Upanishads, but with some ceremony meant to destroy one's enemy.

Other Mantras are subordinate to certain sacrificial actions. They cannot, because they occur in the Upanishads, be connect ed with the Vidyas on the ground of mere proximity.

For this reason the mentioned Mantras and acts are not on the ground of mere textual collocation to be viewed as supplementary to the Vidyas of the Upanishads.

HANYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 15

The statement that the good and evil deeds of a person go respectively to his friends and enemies is true for texts

that mention discarding of such actions by him

Hanau tupayanasabdaseshatvat

kusacchandastutyupaganavattaduktam III.3.26 (385)

But where only the getting rid (of the good and evil) is mentioned (the obtaining of this good and evil by others has to be added) because the statement about acceptance is supplementary (to the statement about the getting rid of) as in the case of the Kusas, metres, praise and hymns or recitations. This (i.e., the reason for this) has been stated (by Jaimini in Purvamimamsa).

Hanau: where only the getting rid (of good and evil) is mentioned; Tu: but; Upayanasabdaseshatvat: on account of the word `acceptance' being supplementary to the word `getting rid'; Kusacchandastutyupaganavat: like Kusa-sticks, metres, praises and hymns; Tat: that; Uktam: has been stated (by Jaimini). (Upayana: acceptance; Sabda: on account of the statement of the word; Seshatvat: on account of being supplementary to.)

Here is a discussion on the shaking off of virtues and vices by the released soul at death and their acceptance by his friends and enemies.

Jaimini has said that statements with respect to Kusas, metres, praises and hymns have to be completed from other texts. It is said in the Kaushitaki Sruti that Kusa sticks are to be collected from trees without any specification as to what sort of tree; but in the Satyayana branch it is said that the Kusas are of the Udumbara tree. This latter expression is to be accepted as complementary to the former expression of the Kaushitaki Sruti. The first Sruti will have to be com pleted in the light of the other.

There is in a Sruti an injunction to say a prayer composed in metre without any specification of the kind of metre, but in another place there is mention of the Deva-metre to be employed in such a case. Therefore the Deva-metre is to be understood in the previous case also.

There is instruction in one Sruti to utter praises for the sacrificial vessel `Shodasi' without specifying the time as to when it should be performed; but in another Sruti it is taught to be performed when the sun has risen. Here the latter instruction is to be accepted as supplementary to the former.

As regards the hymn it is not definitely stated which of the four priests is to join in the singing of the prayer in a sacrifice; but this doubt has been cleared up by a particular text which says that the Adhvaryu will not join in the singing. Putting the two statements together, the conclusion is that all the priests except the Adhvaryu will join.

This principle is here applied to the effects of the actions of a liberated sage in connection with the Vidyas mentioned in the Upanishads. In the text of the Tandins we find shakes off all evil as a horse shakes his hair, and shaking off the body as the moon frees herself from the mouth of Rahu, I obtain the uncreated world of Brahman (Chh. Up. VIII.13). Again in Mundaka Upanishad (III.1.3) we read Then knowing shaking off good and evil, he reaches the highest oneness, free from passion. These Srutis are silent on the point as to who accepts his good and evil deeds.

In the Satyayana branch of Sruti it is said His sons obtain his inheritance, his friends the good, his enemies the evil he has done. In the Kaushitaki Upanishad (I.4) we find He shakes off his good and his bad deeds. His beloved relations obtain the good, his unbeloved relatives the evil he has done.

This Sutra declares that the obtaining of the good and evil by his friends and enemies has to be inserted or necessarily added in the Chhandogya text and Mundaka text according to Jaimini's principle explained above.

The Purvapakshin raises another objection. He argues that the verb `Dhu' in the text of the Chhandogya and Kaushitaki may be interpreted as `trembling' and not as `getting rid of'. It would mean therefore that good and evil still cling to a person who attains Knowledge, although their effects are retarded on account of the Knowledge.

This Sutra declares that such a meaning is incorrect, because the subsequent portion of the text indicates that others obtain the good and evil. This is certainly not possible unless the person who attains Knowledge abandons them.

Good and evil deeds cannot be said to `tremble' in the literal sense of the word like flags in the wind, as they are not of a substantial nature. Though `Dhu' in `Vidhuya' may be said to signify `shaking' and not `casting off', yet as others are described as taking the liberated sage's merits and sins, it means `casting off'.

SAMPARAYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 16 (SUTRAS 27-28)

The shaking off of good and evil by the man of Knowledge

occurs only at the time of his death

Samparaye tarttavyabhavattathahyanye III.3.27 (386)

(He who attains knowledge gets rid of his good and evil deeds) at the time of death, there being nothing to be attained (by him on the way to Brahmaloka through those works); for thus others (declare in their sacred texts).

Samparaye: at the time of death; Tarttavyabhavat: there being nothing to be attained; Tatha: in this way, so; Hi: because, for; Anye: others.

This Sutra decides when the individual soul shakes off his good and evil deeds.

The question now arises as to when the individual soul gets rid of his good and evil deeds. In the Kaushitaki Upanishad (I.4) we find He comes to the river Viraja and crosses it by the mind alone, and there he shakes off good and evil. On the strength of this text the Purvapakshin or the opponent maintains that the good and evil deeds are discarded on his way to Brahmaloka and not at the time of departing from the body.

This Sutra refutes it and declares that the liberated sage frees himself from the effects of good and evil works at the time of death through the strength of his knowledge.

Though the Kaushitaki Sruti refers to the discarding of good and evil on the Devayana way or the way to Brahmaloka, after crossing the Viraja river, the good and evil deeds are cast off at death, because there is nothing to be attained through them after death, there remaining nothing to be enjoyed by him through his good and evil works. The good and evil works are no longer of any use to him and not fit to be retained by him thereafter.

The Sanchita Karma or accumulated works are destroyed as soon as one attains knowledge of Brahman. Prarabdha is destroyed at death. So he is freed from the effects of all his merits and sins at the time of death.

As the results of his good and evil deeds are contrary to the result of knowledge, they are destroyed by the power of the latter. The moment of their destruction is that moment in which he sets out towards the fruit of his knowledge, i.e., the world of Brahman.

Moreover it is not possible to cast off the effects of good and evil deeds on the way to Brahmaloka because the soul has no gross body and so it cannot take recourse to any practice that can destroy them.

Further one cannot cross the river Viraja unless he is freed from all good and evil.

The Sruti declares shaking off all evil as a horse shakes off his hairs (Chh. Up. VIII.13.1).

Therefore the settled conclusion is that all good and evil works are cast off at the time of death.

Chhandata ubhayavirodhat III.3.28 (387)

(The interpretation that the individual soul practising Yama-Niyama) according to his liking (discards good and evil works while living is reasonable) on account of there being harmony in that case between the two (viz., cause and effect, as well as between the Chhandogya and another Sruti).

Chhandatah: according to his liking; Ubhayanirodhat: on account of there being harmony between the two. (Ubhaya: of either; there being no contradiction.)

The view is correct because voluntary performance of Yama, Niyma, etc., to get rid of Karma is possible only before death, and because it is opposed to all texts. The above view is in agreement or unison with all Srutis.

If the soul frees himself from his good and evil deeds on the way after having departed from the body and having entered on the way of the gods (Devayana), we land ourselves in impossibilities, because after the body has been left behind, he cannot practise according to his liking self-restraint and pur suit of knowledge which can effect destruction of his good and evil deeds. Therefore there cannot be annihilation of his good and evil works.

It does not certainly stand to reason that the effect is delayed till some time after death when the cause is there already. When there is a body it is not possible to attain Brahmaloka. There is no difficulty in discarding good and evil.

GATERARTHAVATTVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 17 (SUTRAS 29-30)

The knower of Saguna Brahman alone goes along Devayana,

and not the knower of Nirguna Brahman

Gaterarthavattvamubhayathanyatha hi virodhah III.3.29 (388)

(The soul's) journey (along the path of the gods, Devayana) is applicable in a two-fold manner, otherwise there would be contradiction (of scripture).

Gateh: of the journey of the soul (after death), along the path of the gods; Arthavatvam: utility; Ubhayatha: in two ways; Anyatha: otherwise; Hi: for, certainly; Virodhah: contradiction.

Here is a side issue of Sutra 27.

In some scriptural texts the dead man's going on the path of the gods is mentioned in connection with his freeing himself from good and evil. In other texts it is not mentioned. The doubt now arises whether the two things go together in all cases or only in certain cases.

The Purvapakshin holds that the two are to be connected in all cases, just as the man's freeing himself from his good and evil works is always followed by their passing over to his friends and enemies.

This Sutra declares that the worshipper of Saguna Brahman only takes journey after death along the Devayana. The going on that path has a sense in the case of Saguna Upasana only and not in worshippers of Nirguna Brahman. Brahmaloka is located elsewhere in space. The Saguna Upasaka has to move and attain that abode. There is actual going through which another place is reached. Therefore, the journey has a meaning in his case only. The Prana of Nirguna Upasaka is absorbed in Brahman. He is one with the Infinite or the Absolute. Where will he move? The liberated sage who is free from all desires and egoism does not go to another place. He does not move. The Supreme Brahman is not to be reached by the liberated sage. He need not transport himself to another locality. There is no meaning at all in journey for such a sage who is absorbed in Nirguna Brahman. His ignorance is destroyed by the dawn of knowledge of Brahman. He becomes identical with the Supreme Self. If there is journey for him also, then it would contradict Sruti texts like Shaking off good and evil, free from passions, he reaches the Highest Self, or Para-Brahman (Mun. Up. III.1.3).

How can the liberated sage who has become one with the Supreme Brahman who is secondless, who is all-pervading, who is Infinite, who is without motion, go to another place by Devayana? He has already attained his goal or union with Brahman. The journey along the Devayana is meaningless for him.

Therefore, he who has realised the Saguna Brahman, he who worships Saguna Brahman alone goes by the Devayana.

Upapannastallakshanarthopalabdherlokavat III.3.30 (389)

(The two-fold view taken above) is justified because we observe a purpose characterised thereby (i.e., a purpose of the going) as in ordinary life.

Upapannah: is reasonable; Tallakshanarthopalabdheh: for the characteristics which render such journey possible are seen; Lokavat: as is seen in the world, as is the ordinary experience. (Tat: that; Lakshana: mark, characteristic features; Artha: object; Upalabdheh: being known, on account of the obtaining.)

The previous discussion is continued.

The meditations on Saguna or qualified Brahman, such as the Paryankavidya of the Kaushitaki Upanishad, there is a reason for the man's proceeding on the path of the gods (Devayana); because the text mentions certain results which can be attained only by the man going to different places, such as his mounting a couch, his holding conversation with Brahman seated on a couch, his experiencing various odours and so on.

On the contrary going on the path of the gods has nothing to do with perfect knowledge. No purpose is served by such a journey in the case of a liberated sage or Nirguna Upasaka in whom ignorance has been destroyed by the dawn of knowledge of Brahman or the Imperishable. He has attained oneness or unity with the Supreme Self. All his desires have been fulfilled. All his Karmas have been destroyed. He is only waiting for the dissolution of the body.

The destruction is similar to what is observed in ordinary life. If we wish to reach some village we have to proceed on a path leading there, but no moving on a path is needed when we want to attain freedom from a disease.

ANIYAMADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 18

The passage of the soul by Devayana applies equally

to all Vidyas of Saguna Brahman

Aniyamah sarvasamavirodhah sabdanumanabhyam III.3.31 (390)

There is no restriction (as to the going on the path of the gods for any Vidya). There is no contradiction as is seen from the Sruti and Smriti.

Aniyamah: (there is) no restriction; Sarvasam: of all; Avirodhah: there is no contradiction; Sabdanumanabhyam: as is seen from Sruti and Smriti. (Sabdah: the word, i.e., the revealed scripture or Sruti; Anumana: inference or Smriti.)

The journey of the soul who knows Brahman is continued.

We have shown that the going on the path of the gods is valid only for the Vidyas of Saguna Brahman, not for the knowledge of Nirguna Brahman which is devoid of all qualities.

Now we observe that the going on the path of the gods to Brahmaloka is mentioned only in some of the qualified Vidyas such as the Paryanka Vidya, the Panchagni Vidya, the Upakosala Vidya, the Dahara Vidya, but it is not mentioned or expressly stated in others such as the Madhu Vidya, the Sandilya Vidya, the Shodasakala Vidya, the Vaisvanara Vidya.

The doubt now arises whether the going on the path of the gods is to be connected with those Vidyas in which it is actually mentioned or generally with all Vidyas of that kind.

This Sutra declares that all worshippers of the Saguna Brahman, whatever their Vidyas may be, go after death by this path. This is seen from the Sruti and Smriti. Those who meditate thus through Panchagni Vidya and also those who understand other Vidyas and also those who meditate in the forest with faith and austerities, on Saguna Brahman through any other Vidya proceed on the path of the gods (Chh. Up. V.10.1.); (Bri. Up. VI.2.15).

Bhagavad Gita also declares, Light and darkness, these are thought to be the world's everlasting paths; by the one he goes who does not return, by the other he returns again (VIII.26).

The term The True in the passage Those who in the forest, with faith, worship the True, i.e., Brahman, is often employed to denote Brahman.

Thus it is quite clear that the going on the path of gods is not confined to those Vidyas in which it is actually mentioned or expressly stated.

YAVADADHIKARADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 19

Perfected souls may take a corporeal existence for divine mission

Yavadadhikaramavasthitiradhikarikanam III.3.32 (391)

Of those who have a mission to fulfil (there is corporeal) existence, so long as the mission is not fulfilled.

Yavadadhikaram: so long as the mission is not fulfilled; Avasthitih: (there is corporeal) existence; Adhikarikanam: of those who have a mission in life to fulfil. (Yavad: as long as; Adhikaram: mission, purpose to be fulfilled.)

A plausible objection to Sutra 31 is refuted.

The Purvapakshin says Rishi Apantaratamas, a teacher of the Vedas was by the order of Vishnu, born on this earth as Vyasa or Krishna Dvaipayana. Similarly Vasishtha, the son of Brahma's mind having parted from former body in consequence of the curse of Nimi, was on the order of Brahma, again procreated by Mitra and Varuna. Bhrigu and other sons of Brahma's mind were again born at the sacrifice of Varuna. Sanatkumara also, who likewise was a son of Brahma's mind, was in consequence of a boon being granted to Rudra, born again as Skanda. Daksha, Narada and other Rishis were born again. It is stated that some assumed a new body after the old body had perished, some assumed through their supernatural powers various new bodies while the old body remained intact all the while.

Now these Rishis had knowledge of Brahman or the Absolute and yet they had to be reborn. If this is the case what is the use of such knowledge of Brahman? The knowledge of Brahman may either be or not be the cause of final emancipation or freedom.

The Sutra refutes it and declares that ordinarily a person is not reborn after attaining knowledge of the Absolute. But the case of those who have a divine mission to fulfil is different. They may have one or more births till their mission is fulfilled, after which they are not born again. They are entrusted with the offices conducive to the subsistence of the world such as the promulgation of the Vedas and the like. They assume new bodies of their own free will and not as the result of Karma. They pass from one body to another, as if from one house into another in order to accomplish the duties of their offices. They preserve all the true memory of their identity. They create for themselves, through their power over the material of the body and the sense organs, new bodies and occupy them either all at once or in succession.

Smriti tells us that Sulabha, a woman who had knowledge of Brahman, wanted to enter into discussion with Janaka. She left her own body, entered into that of Janaka, carried on a discussion with him and again returned into her own body.

Tat Tvam Asi (That thou art) does not mean Tat Tvam Mrito Bhavishyasi (they will become That after death). It can not be interpreted to mean Thou wilt be that after thou hast dead. Another text declares that the fruit of Knowledge viz., union with Brahman springs up at the moment when the com plete knowledge of Brahman is attained. The Rishi Vamadeva saw and understood it singing, I was Manu, I was the sun.

But they never come under the sway of Avidya or nescience even though they may be born. The case is similar to that of a liberated sage. A Jivanmukta continues his physical existence even after attaining Brahma Jnana or Knowledge of the Absolute as long as the Prarabdha Karma lasts. The divine mission of these Rishis like Sri Vyasa, Vasishtha, Apantaratamas, can be compared to the Prarabdha Karma of Jivanmuktas.

For all these reasons it is established that those who are endowed with true and perfect knowledge attain in all cases final emancipation.

AKSHARADHYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 20

The negative attributes of Brahman mentioned in various texts

are to be combined in all meditations on Brahman

Aksharadhiyam tvavarodhah

samanyatadbhavabhyamaupasadavattaduktam III.3.33 (392)

But the conceptions of the (negative) attributes of the Imperishable (Brahman) are to be combined (from different texts where the Imperishable Brahman is dealt with, as they form one Vidya), because of the similarity (of defining the Imperishable Brahman through denials) and the object (the Imperishable Brahman) being the same, as in the case of the Upasad (offerings). This has been explained (by Jaimini in the Purvamimamsa).

Aksharadhiyam: of the meditation of negative attributes belonging to the Imperishable; Tu: but, indeed; Avarodhah: combination; Samanyatadbhavabhyam: because of the similarity (of denying Brahman through denials) and the object (viz., Imperishable Brahman) being the same; Aupasadavat: as in the case of the Upasad (offering) like the hymn or the Mantra in connection with the Upasada rite; Tat: that; Uktam: has been explained (by Jaimini in the Purvamimamsa).

The negative attributes of the Imperishable are now examin ed, as the positive attributes were examined in Sutra 11 of this section.

We read in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, O Gargi! The Brahmanas or the knowers of Brahman call this Akshara or the Imperishable. It is neither gross nor subtle, neither short nor long (Bri. Up. III.8.8). Again the Mundaka says, The Supreme Knowledge is that by which the Imperishable (Akshara) is attained. That which is imperceivable, ungraspable, which has no family and no caste etc. (Mun. Up. I.1.5-6). In other places also the highest Brahman, under the name of Akshara is described as that of which all qualities are to be denied.

A doubt arises now as to whether the negative qualities in the above two texts are to be combined so as to form one Vidya or they are to be treated as two separate Vidyas.

The Purvapakshin maintains that each denial is valid only for that passage in which the text actually exhibits it, and not for other places. These negative attributes do not directly indicate or specify the nature of Brahman like the positive attributes, Bliss, Peace, Knowledge, Truth, Purity, Perfection, Eternity, etc. Hence the principle stated in Sutra III.3.11 does not apply here, because no purpose is really served or gained by such a combination.

This Sutra refutes this and declares that such denials are to be combined because the method of teaching Brahman through denial is the same and the object of instruction is also the same, viz., the Imperishable Brahman (Akshara). The rule of Sutra III.3.11 applies here also. In Sutra III.3.11 positive attributes of Brahman were discussed. Here we are concerned with negative attributes which teach Brahman by an indirect method. The case is similar to the Upasad offerings. The Mantras for giving these offerings are found only in the Sama Veda. But the priests of the Yajur Veda use this Mantra given in the other Veda. The hymns which occur in the Sama Veda are recited by the Adhvaryu after the time of the Yajur Veda. This prin ciple has been established by Jaimini in Purvamimamsa (III.3. 9).

Similarly the negative attributes have to be combined here also in the meditation on the Imperishable Brahman (Akshara).

The conception of the negative attributes of the Indestruc tible (Akshara) as stated in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is to be retained in the meditations on the Indestructible everywhere (i.e., in every Akshara Vidya) because the same Akshara is recog nised in every Akshara Vidya and also because those negative attributes are presupposed to be included among His essential attributes.

IYADADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 21

Mundaka III.1.1 and Katha I.3.1 constitute one Vidya

Iyadamananat III.3 34 (393)

Because (the same thing) is described as such and such.

Iyat: so much only, this much; Amananat: on account of being men tioned in the scripture.

We read in the Mundaka Upanishad Two birds of beautiful plumage, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet and bitter fruits there of, the other looks on without eating (Mun. Up. III.1.1). The same Mantra is found in the text of Svetasvatara Upanishad (IV.6).

Again we have, There are the two enjoying the fruits of their good deeds, entered into the cave, dwelling on the highest summit. Those who know Brahman call them shade and light, likewise those householders who perform the Trinachiketa sacri fice (Katha Up. I.3.1).

The doubt here arises, do we have in these two texts two different Vidyas or one only?

The Purvapakshin or the opponent maintains that these are two Vidyas, because there are different objects of meditation. The Mundaka text declares that only one eats the fruit, while the other does not. Katha text says that both of them enjoy the fruits of their good actions. So the object of meditation is not the same. As the objects of knowledge differ in character, the Vidyas themselves must be looked upon as separate.

This Sutra refutes it and declares that they form one Vidya, because both describe the same Lord as existing thus and thus, i.e. in the form of the individual soul. The purpose or aim of the two Sruti passages is to teach about the Highest Self or Para Brahman and show the identity of the Jiva and Para Brahman.

As the word Dvau, i.e., two is used in the two Srutis we must realise that they refer to the same Vidya. Though the Mundaka text says that one bird (the individual soul) eats the fruits of actions and the other bird looks on without eating and though the latter passage refers to the two as eating fruits, the Vidyas are the same as they refer to the same entity. Just as when in a group one carries an umbrella we say umbrella-holders go, even so the Para Brahman also is described as eating fruits. The context refers clearly to the eternal and Supreme Brahman (Aksharam brahma yat param).

The Katha Upanishad text intimates the same highest Brahman which is above all desires. As it is mentioned together with the enjoying individual soul, it is itself metaphorically spoken of as enjoying, just as we speak of the `men with the umbrella' although only one out of several carries an umbrella. All this has been explained at length under I.2.11.

Therefore, the Vidyas are one only, as the object of medita tion or Knowledge is one.

ANTARATVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 22 (SUTRAS 35-36)

Brihadaranyaka III.4.1 and III.5.1 constitute one Vidya

Antara bhutagramavatsvatmanah III.3.35 (394)

As the Self is within all, as in the case of the aggregate of the elements, (there is oneness of Vidya).

Antara: as being innermost of all, inside, the status of being the inmost; Bhutagramavat: as in the case of the aggregate of the elements; Svatmanah: of one's own self.

Two passages from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad are taken up for discussion to show that they relate to the same Vidya.

In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Ushasta questions Yajnavalkya, Explain to me the Brahman which is present to intui tion, not hiddenthis Atman or Self which is within all (Bri. Up. III.4.1). Yajnavalkya replies, That which breathes through Prana is your self, that is within all.

In the same Upanishad Yajnavalkya gives an answer to the same question put by Kahola, That which transcends hunger and thirst, grief and delusion, decay and death, knowing this very self etc. (Bri. Up. III.5.1).

The Purvapakshin maintains that these two are separate Vidyas, because the replies given being different, the objects referred to must also be different.

This Sutra refutes this and declares that the object is one, the Highest Self or Para Brahman, because it is impossible to conceive two selves being simultaneously innermost of all in the same body.

Atman alone is taught in the two texts as being ultimately immanent just as Atman is also taught as being immanent in the elements. The two passages refer only to one Vidya, because there could be only one Atman, who is Sarvantara, i.e., ultimately immanent. Among the elements water is immanent in earth, fire in water and so on. But none has ultimate imma nency. Even so there is only one ultimate immanent entity.

Relatively one element can be inside the other. But none of the five elements which constitute this physical body can be truly the innermost of all. Similarly two selves cannot be simultaneously the innermost of all in the same body. Even so one self alone can be the innermost of all.

Therefore, the same self is taught in both the replies of Yajnavalkya.

In both the cases the subject-matter of the question and the answer is Brahman. This is emphasised by the sage Yajnavalkya himself, when he repeats That soul of thine is the innermost soul of individuals. The different expositions of Yajnavalkya refer to the one and the same object of worship, viz., Brahman.

As both texts equally declare the self to be within all, they must be taken as constituting one Vidya only. In both passages question and answer equally refer to a Self which is within everything. For in one body, there cannot be two selves, each of which is inside everything else. One Self only may be within everything. We read in the Svetasvatara Upanishad He is the one God, hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the Self within all beings. As this Mantra records that one Self lives within the aggregate of all beings, the same holds good with regard to the two passages of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

As the object of Knowledge or the object of worship is one, the Vidya also is one only.

Anyatha bhedanupapattiriti chennopadesantaravat III.3.36 (395)

If it be said (that the two Vidyas are separate, for) other wise the repetition cannot be accounted for, we reply not so; (it is) like (the repetition) in another instruction (in the Chhandogya).

Anyatha: otherwise; Bhedanupapattih: the repetition cannot be account ed for, no justification for the variety in the wording of the two replies; Iti: so, this; Chet: if; Na: no, not so; Upadesantaravat: as will be seen from other teachings, as in the teaching of another Vidya, mode of meditation, namely the Satya Vidya in the Chhandogya. (Bheda: difference; Anupapattih: not obtaining.)

The opponent says that unless the separateness of the two Vidyas be admitted, the separation of the two statements cannot be accounted for. He remarks that unless the two texts refer to two different selves the repetition of the same subject would be meaningless.

This Sutra says that it is not so. The repetition has a definite purpose or aim. It helps the aspirant to comprehend the subjects more clearly and deeply from different view points. The repetition does not justify us to take that two different selves are taught here. In Chhandogya Upanishad the instruction con veyed in the words That is the Self, Thou art That (Tat Tvam Asi), O Svetaketu, is repeated nine times, and yet the one Vidya is not thereby split into many. Similarly is this case also.

The introductory and concluding clauses indicate that all those passages have the same sense. There also the Upakrama (beginning) is the same. So is the conclusion (Upasamhara). It says, Everything else is perishable, Everything else is of evil.

In the earlier Brahmana, Atman is taught as being sepa rate from the body and the senses. In the later Brahmana, Atman is taught as not having hunger, etc. But the Vidya is the same.

The former section declares the existence of the Supreme Self which is neither cause nor effect, while the latter qualifies it as that which transcends all the relative attributes of the Samsara state, such as hunger, thirst and so on. The second answer tells something special about the Self.

The two sections, therefore, form one Vidya only.

VYATIHARADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 23

The Sruti prescribes reciprocal meditation in Ait. Ar. II.2.4.6

Vyatiharo vishimsanti hitaravat III.3.37 (396)

There is exchange (of meditation), because the texts distin guish (two meditations); as in other cases.

Vyatiharah: exchange; reciprocity (of meditation); Visimshanti: (the scriptures) explain clearly, distinguish; Hi: because, for; Itaravat: as in other cases.

The Aitareya Aranyaka says with reference to the person in the sun, What I am, that He is; what He is, that am I (Ait. Ar. II.2.4.6).

A doubt arises here whether the meditation is to be of a reciprocal nature, a double one by means of exchange, i.e., identifying the worshipper with the being in the sun, and then inversely, identifying the being in the sun with the worshipper; or only in the former manner.

The Purvapakshin maintains that the meditation is to be practised in the former manner only and not in the reverse way also. He argues that the soul would be exalted by the former meditation and the Lord be lowered by the latter one! There is a meaning in the first kind of meditation but the second kind of meditation is meaningless.

The present Sutra refutes this view and declares that the meditation is to be practised in both ways because such a state ment would be purportless. Exchange, or reverse meditation is expressly recorded in the Sruti for the purpose of meditation, just as other qualities of the Self such as its being the self of all, Satyasankalpa, etc., are recorded for the same purpose. For both texts make the distinctive double enunciation I am Thou and Thou art I. Now the double enunciation has a sense only if a twofold meditation is to be based upon it; other wise it would be devoid of meaning; since one statement would be all that is needed.

This will not in any way lower Brahman. Even in that way, only the unity of the Self is meditated upon. Brahman who is bodiless can be adored or meditated even as having a form. The double statement is merely meant to confirm the oneness of the Self. It gives force or emphasis to the identity.

Therefore, a twofold meditation has to be admitted, not a single one. This confirms the unity of the Self. The double relation enounced in the Sruti text has to be meditated upon, and is to be transformed to other Vidyas also which treat of the same subject.

SATYADYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 24

Brihadaranyaka V.4.1 and V.5.3 treat of one Vidya

about Satya Brahman

Saiva hi satyadayah III.3.38 (397)

The same (Satya Vidya is taught in both places), because (attributes like) Satya etc., (are seen in both places).

Sa eva: the same (Satya Vidya); Hi: because; Satyadayah: (attributes like) Satya etc.

We read in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad He who knows this great, glorious, first born (Being) as the Satya Brahman, conquers these worlds (V.4.1). Again we read That which is Satya is that Sun the being who is in that orb and the being who is in the right eye... he destroys evils (V.5.3).

Now a doubt arises whether these two Satya Vidyas are one or different.

The Purvapakshin holds that the Vidyas are two; because the text declares two different results, one in the earlier passage He conquers these worlds(V.4.1), the other one later on He destroys evil and leaves it (V.5.3).

The Sutra declares that they are one, because the second text refers to the Satya of the earlier text, That which is Satya, etc.

In reality there is only one result in both cases. The state ment of a second result merely has the purpose of glorifying the new instruction given about Satya or the True, viz., that its secret names are `Ahar' and `Aham'.

Therefore, the conclusion is that the text records only one Vidya of the True (Satyam), distinguished by such and such details and that hence all the qualities mentioned such as Truth and so on are to be comprehended in one act of meditation.

Some commentators think that the above Sutra refers not to the question whether Bri. Up. V.4,1 and V.5.3 form one Vidya or one meditation but to the question whether the Brihadaranyaka text about the persons in the sun and in the eye and the similar Chhandogya text (I.6.6), Now that golden person who is seen within the sun etc. constitute one Vidya or not.

They come to the conclusion that they constitute one Vidya and that hence truth and the other qualities mentioned in the Brihadaranyaka are to be combined with the Chhandogya text also.

But this interpretation of the Sutra is objectionable, because the Chhandogya Vidya refers to the Udgitha and is thus connected with sacrificial rites. The marks of this association are seen in the beginning, the middle and the end of the Vidya. We read at the beginning, The Rik is the earth, the Saman is fire, in the middle, Rik and Saman are his joints, and there fore he is the Udgitha, and in the end, He who knows this sings as a Saman (Chh. Up. I.6.1).

In the Brihadaranyaka, on the contrary, there is verily, nothing to connect the Vidya with the sacrificial rites. As the subject matter is different, the Vidyas are separate and the details of the two Vidyas are to be held separate.

KAMADYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 25

Attributes mentioned in Chh. Up. VIII.1.1 and

Bri. Up. IV.4.22 are to be combined on account of

several common features in both texts

Kamaditaratra tatra chayatanadibhyah III.3.39 (398)

(Qualities like true) desire etc., (mentioned in the Chhandogya Upanishad are to be inserted) in the other (i.e., in the Brihadaranyaka) and (those mentioned) in the other (i.e., in the Brihadaranyaka are also to be inserted in the Chhandogya) on account of the abode, etc., (being the same in both).

Kamadi: (Satyasankalpadi) (True) desire etc.; Itaratra: in the other, elsewhere, in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad; Tatra: there, in the Chhandogya Upanishad; Cha: also; Ayatanadibhyah: on account of the abode etc.

Dahara Vidya of the Chhandogya and the Brihadaranyaka Upanishads is now discussed.

In the Chhandogya Upanishad (VIII.1.1) we read, There is this city of Brahman and in it the palace, the small lotus and in it the small ether; that is the Self. We read in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (IV.4.22) That great unborn self who con sists of Knowledge, who is surrounded by the Pranas lies in the ether that is within the heart.

A doubt here arises whether the two constitute one Vidya and therefore the particulars are to be combined or not.

The present Sutra declares that they form one Vidya and the qualities mentioned in each are to be combined in the other, because many points are common in both.

Wishes and so on, i.e., The quality of having true wishes and so on. The word `Kama' stands for `Satyakama' just as people occasionally say Datta for Devadatta and Bhama for Satyabhama. This quality and the other qualities which the Chhandogya attributes to the ether within the heart, have to be combined with the Brihadaranyaka passage, and vice versa, i.e., the qualities mentioned in the Brihadaranyaka such as being the ruler of all, have also to be ascribed to the Self free from sin, described in the Chhandogya.

The reason for this is that the two passages exhibit a number of common features. Common to both is the heart regarded as abode. Common again is the Lord as object of knowledge or meditation. Common also is the Lord being regarded as a bank preventing these worlds from being confounded. And there are several other points also.

But an objection is raised. There are also differences. In the Chhandogya the attributes are ascribed to the ether within the heart, while in the Brihadaranyaka they are attributed to Brah man abiding in the ether. This objection has no force. It can not certainly stand. We have shown under I.3.14 that the term ether in the Chhandogya designates Brahman.

There is, however, one difference between the two texts. The Chhandogya treats of Saguna Brahman while the Brihadaranyaka treats of Nirguna Brahman or the Supreme Brahman destitute of all qualities. Yajnavalkya says to Janaka For that person is not attached to anything. That Self is to be described by No, No,neti, neti (Bri. Up. IV.3.14).

But as the qualified Brahman is fundamentally one with the unqualified Brahman we must conclude that the Sutra teaches the combination of the qualities for glorifying Brahman and not for the purpose of devout meditation or Upasana.

ADARADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 26 (SUTRAS 40-41)

Pranagnihotra need not be observed on days of fast

Adaradalopah III.3.40 (399)

On account of the respect shown (to the Pranagnihotra by the Sruti) there can be no omission (of this act) (even when the eating of food is omitted).

Adarat: on account of the respect shown; Alopah: there can be no omission.

This Sutra gives the view of the Purvapakshin or the opponent.

Because there is loving emphasis on Pranagnihotra in Jabala Sruti, such Pranagnihotra should not be omitted.

In the Vaisvanara Vidya of the Chhandogya Upanishad, the worshipper is asked first before he takes his meals to offer food to each of the Pranas, saying To Prana I offer this. The Sruti attaches much importance to this Pranagnihotra. The Sruti enjoins that food must be offered to the Pranas even before entertaining guests.

Now the question is whether the Pranagnihotra is to be observed even on days of fasting.

The Sutra declares that there should be no omission of it even on days of fasting, as the Sruti attaches much importance to it. The Jabala Sruti says it must be observed even on days of fasting by sipping at least a few drops of water.

To this Purvapaksha the next Sutra gives a reply.

Upasthite'tastadvachanat III.3.41 (400)

When eating is taking place (the Pranagnihotra has to be performed) from that (i.e., the food first eaten), for so (the Sruti) declares.

Upasthite: being present, being near, when food is served; Atah: from that, on that account; Tadvachanat: for so (the Sruti) declares.

This Sutra refutes the view expressed in the last Sutra, and declares that Pranagnihotra, need not be performed on fasting days, because the Sruti expressly declares, Therefore the first food which comes is meant for Homa. And he who offers that first oblation should offer it to Prana, saying Svaha (Chh. Up. 19.1).

The first portion of the food should be offered to the Pranas on those days when it is taken. The Sruti gives importance to this only and not that it should be observed even on days of fasting.

TANNIRDHARANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 27

Upasanas mentioned in connection with sacrifices

are not their parts, but separate

Tannirdharananiyamastaddrishteh

prithagghyapratibandhah phalam III.3.42 (401)

There is no rule about the inviolability of that (i.e., Upasa nas connected with certain sacrifices) that is seen (from the Sruti itself); for a separate fruit (belongs to the Upasanas), viz., non-obstruction (of the results of the sacrifice).

Tannirdharananiyamah: no rule, about the inviolability of that; Taddrishtih: that being seen (from the Sruti); Prithak: separate; Hi: because; Apratibandhah: non-obstruction; Phalam: fruit, reward, result.

This Sutra states that a meditation or Upasana prescribed in connection with a ceremonial rite is not compulsory.

We have the direction to make a certain Upasana as an Anga (element or limit) of Karma (Karmangavabaddhopasti). Is it an indispensable element? No. If it is performed there will be greater fruit. Even if it is not done the Karma will be complete. This is clear from the Chhandogya Upanishad.

We now enter into an enquiry whether certain Upasanas mentioned with some sacrifices are part of those sacrifices and therefore inseparable and permanently connected with them.

The present Sutra declares that Upasanas do not constitute a part of the sacrifice, because there is no rule as to their inseparability. The Sruti expressly declares that the sacrifice can be done with or without the Upasanas. The ignorant man, as well as the wise man may both engage in the Udgitha worship; both perform the sacrifice (Chh. Up. I.1.10). This shows that the Udgitha worship may be performed, the meditation or Upasana part being left out. That which is performed with meditation, faith and knowledge becomes all the more effective.

There is no fixed rule for compulsory performance of Udgitha meditation and the like in ceremonials, because performance of the meditation on `OM' is left optional to the performer and also because the fruit in each case is quite distinct, if the performance of the rite is not in any way obstructed, because it is clear that the meditation is sure to produce its own effect independently of the rite but the rite is liable to interruption and obstruction. If, however, the meditation and the rite be conjoined, fruit becomes doubly effective.

The Chhandogya Sruti (I.1.10) indicates that the rite can be done even without meditation or Upasana and that to perform the rite with meditation is to make it more effective. Hence the Udgitha meditation and all others performed in connec tion with ceremonial rite (Karmanga Upasana), are not com pulsory and are to be done by those only who wish to attain greater fruits.

The original sacrifice brings its own rewards but the Upasana increases its results. Therefore, the Upasana does not constitute a part of the sacrifice. Therefore, it may or may not be done according to the sweet will of the sacrificer.

The Upasana prevents any obstruction to the results of the sacrifice. This does not make it a part of the ceremonial rite. The rewards of the sacrifice may be delayed on account of the intervention of an evil Karma of the sacrificer. The Upasana annihilates the effect of this evil deed and hastens the attainment of the fruits of the sacrifice. That is all. The sacrifice does not rely upon the Upasana for its rewards.

Therefore, the Upasana does not form a part of the sacrifice and is, therefore, optional.

PRADANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 28

Meditations on Vayu and Prana are to be kept separate

notwithstanding the essential oneness of these two

Pradanavadeva taduktam III.3.43 (402)

As in the case of the offerings (Vayu and Prana must be held apart). This has been explained (in the Purvamimamsa Sutra).

Pradanavat: as in the case of the offerings of the `Pradana, oblation'; Eva: exactly; Tat: that; Uktam: has been stated.

The section of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad which begins Voice held, I shall speak (Bri. Up. I.5.21) determines Prana to be the best amomg the organs of the body and Vayu to be the best among the Devas.

In the Chhandogya Upanishad Vayu is said to be the general absorber of the Devas, Vayu indeed is the absorber (IV.3.1); Prana is said to be the general absorber of the organs of the body, Breath indeed is the absorber (IV.3.3).

In the Samvarga Vidya of the Chhandogya Upanishad, meditation on Prana with reference to the body and on Vayu with reference to the gods is prescribed.

Many Sruti texts say that Prana and Vavu are one in essence. Therefore, the Purvapakshin main tains that the two meditations can be combined and that Vayu and Prana are non-separate because in their true nature they do not differ. And as their true nature does not differ they must not be meditated upon separately. In some places we have even a direct identification of the two, What Prana is that is VayuYah pranah sa vayuh.

The present Sutra refutes the above view and declares that they are to be kept apart despite the non-difference in nature of Prana and Vayu, because their functions on account of their different abodes are different. Although there may be non-difference of true nature, yet there may be difference of condition giving rise to difference of instruction, and through the latter to difference of meditation.

The Sutra compares the case under discussion to a parallel one from the Karmakanda by means of the clause as in the case of the offerings.

As an illustration we may take Pradhana where Purodasa (oblations) is given separately to Raja Indra (the Ruler), Adhiraja Indra (the monarch or the over-ruler), and Svaraja Indra (the sovereign or the self-ruler) according to his different capacities, though Indra is essentially one, though he is one god.

Hence, though the Vidya is one from the Adhyatmic point of view, there is separateness from the Adhidaivata point of view. So the meditations on Prana and Vayu have to be kept apart. This principle is established by Jaimini, in Purva mimamsa (Sankarsha alias Devata Kanda).

LINGABHUYASTVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 29 (SUTRAS 44-52)

The fires in Agnirahasya of the Brihadaranyaka are not part

of the sacrificial act, but form an independent Vidya

Lingabhuyastvat taddhi baliyastadapi III.3.44 (403)

On account of the majority of indicatory marks (the fires of the mind, speech, etc., in the Agnirahasya of the Vajasaneyins do not form part of the sacrifice), for it (the indicatory mark) is stronger (than the context or the general subject matter). This also (has been explained in the Purvamimamsa Sutras by Jaimini).

Lingabhuyastvat: because of an abundance of distinguishing marks; Tat: that, the distinguishing mark; Hi: because; Baliyah: is stronger; Tat: that; Api: also.

In the Agnirahasya of the Vajasaneyins (Satapatha Brahmana) certain fires named after mind, speech, eyes, etc., are mentioned.

A doubt arises whether these form part of the sacrifice mentioned therein or form an independent Vidya.

The present Sutra declares that in spite of the prima facie view which arises from the context, these form a separate Vidya because there are many indicatory marks to show that these fires form an independent Vidya.

The indicatory marks are of greater force than the context or the leading subject matter (Prakarana). This has been explained in the Purvamimamsa (III.3.14).

The reference in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad takes a man's age to be one hundred years, i.e., 36,000 days and describes each day's mentality as an Agnichayana or fire sacrifice. The passage occurs in a portion relating to Karma or ceremonial action. If you say that such a meditation is an Anga or element in the ceremonial because it occurs in a passage relating to Karma, we say that the majority of indicatory marks is otherwise, e.g., the Sruti says that such Chayana goes on even in sleep. A specific reason given in a passage has a greater weight or force than mere context.

Purvavikalpah prakaranat syat kriyamanasavat III.3.45 (404)

(The fires spoken of in the previous Sutra are) alternative forms of the one mentioned first, (i.e., the actual sacrificial fire) on account of the context; (they) ought to be part of the sacrifice like the imaginary drink or the Manasa-cup.

Purvavikalpah: an alternative form of the already mentioned first; Prakaranat: on account of the context, as can be understood from the subject matter of the chapter; Syat: there may be, ought to be; Kriyamana savat: ceremonial act, like the act of meditation, like the imaginary drink, as in the case of mental operation in the soma-sacrifice.

An objection is raised to the preceding Sutra.

The Purvapakshin raises a fresh objection. On the tenth day of the Soma sacrifice a Soma drink is offered to Prajapati wherein the earth is regarded as the cup and the sea as the Soma. This is a mental act only, and yet it forms a part of the sacrifice.

The same then holds good with regard to the quasi-agnis made of mind and so on though these fires are mental, i.e., imaginary, yet they form part of the sacrifice and not an independent Vidya, because of the context. They are an alternate form of the actual fire mentioned first.

You may say that it is only Arthavada and that a mere Arthavada cannot override the context and that such meditation is part of the Karma as is the case in the Dasaratra Karma.

Atidesascha III.3.46 (405)

And on account of the extension (of the attributes of the actual fire to these imaginary fires).

Atidesat: on account of the extension (of the attributes of' the first to these fires); Cha: and.

Objection to Sutra 44 is continued by presenting another argument in support of Sutra 45.

The Purvapakshin gives another reason to support his view. The Sruti in that passage ascribes all the attributes of the actual fire to these imaginary fires. Therefore, they are part of the sacrifice.

Vidyaiva tu nirdharanat III.3.47 (406)

But (the fires) rather constitute the Vidya, because (the Sruti) asserts it.

Vidya: Vidya, form of meditation or worship, Knowledge; Eva: alone, indeed; Tu: verily, undoubtedly, but; Nirdharanat: because the Sruti asserts it.

Objections raised in Sutras 45 and 46 are now refuted.

The word `Tu' (but) sets aside the Purvapaksha. It refutes the opponent.

The present Sutra declares that the fires form an indepen dent Vidya, because the text asserts that They are built of knowledge (Vidya) only, and that By knowledge they are built for him who thus knows.

Darsanaccha III.3 48 (407)

And because (in the text indicatory marks of that are) seen.

Darsanat: it being seen in the scriptures, because it is clearly stated in Sruti, because (of the indicatory marks) seen; Cha: and.

The indicatory marks are those referred to in Sutra 44. In fact the internal indications show that it is a Vidya and not a Karmanga.

Srutyadibaliyastvaccha na badhah III.3.49 (408)

(The view that the Agnis or fires constitute an independent Vidya) cannot be refuted, owing to the greater force of the Sruti etc.

Srutyadibaliyastvat: on account of the greater force of the Sruti etc.; Cha: and; Na: no, cannot; Badhah: refutation.

Objections raised in Sutras 45 and 46 are further refuted.

There is no negation of this view on the basis of the context, because of the greater strength of Sruti, etc.

Our opponent has no right to determine on the ground of Prakarana that the Agnis are subordinate to the sacrificial action and so to set aside our view according to which they are independent. For we know from the Purvamimamsa that direct enunciation (Sruti), indicatory mark (Linga) and syntactical connection (Vakya) are of greater force than leading subject matter (Prakarana) and all those three means of proof are seen to confirm our view of the Agnis being independent.

Mere context is of no force against express Sruti, Linga, etc. The Sruti used the word `Eva' where there is an imperative tense, etc., used, a mere Upadesa can be treated as an Arthavada, because there is also an express command. Where there is no such indication, an Upadesa must be treated as a Vidhi. Therefore what we have here is an independent Vidya and not a Karmanga.

The Sruti directly says, All these fires are kindled with knowledge alone. The indicatory mark is this. All beings kindle these fires for him, even when he is asleep. This continuity of the fire shows that they are mental ones. An actual sacrifice is not continued during sleep. The syntactical connections Through meditation alone these fires of the worshipper are kindled. These three are more forcible than mere context.

Anubandhadibhyah prajnantaraprithaktvavat

drishtascha taduktam III.3.50 (409)

On account of the connection and so on (the fires built of mind, etc., form an independent Vidya), in the same way as other Vidyas (like Sandilya Vidya) are separate; and it is seen (that in spite of the context a sacrifice is treated as independent). This has been explained (in the Purvamimamsa Sutras by Jaimini).

Anubandhadibhyah: from the connection and so on; Prajnantaraprithaktvavat: even as the other Vidyas are separate; Drishtah: (it is) seen; Cha: and; Tat: that; Uktam: is stated (in the Purvamimamsa by Jaimini).

The argument in refutation of Sutras 45 and 46 is continued.

This Sutra gives additional reasons in support of the view set forth in Sutra 47.

Independence has, against the general subject matter, to be assumed for the fire-altars built of mind and so on, because the text connects the constituent members of the sacrificial action with activities of the mind. The text connects for the purpose of Sampad Upasana (meditations based on resemblance) parts of a sacrifice with mental activities, e.g., These fires are started mentally, the altars are set up mentally, the cups are taken mentally, the Udgatris are praised men tally, the Hotris are recited mentally, everything connected with this sacrifice is done mentally. This is possible only if there is a sharp difference between things which resemble each other.

The Sruti mentions in regard to such mental worship all the greatness of a Karmanga. Therefore Atidesa (similarity) applies even on the footing of the context referring to an inde pendent Vidya which is separate from a Karmanga.

The fires constitute an independent Vidya, just as the Sandilya Vidya, Dahara Vidya, form separate Vidyas, although mentioned along with sacrificial acts.

A similar thing is seen in Aveshti being done as an independent ceremony in the Rajasuya sacrifice. It is observed in the sacrificial portion of the Vedas, that though the sacrifice Aveshti is mentioned along with the Rajasuya sacrifice, it is yet considered as an independent sacrifice by Jaimini in the Purva mimamsa Sutras.

Na samanyadapyupalabdhermrityuvanna hi

lokapattih III.3.51 (410)

In spite of the resemblance (of the fires to the imaginary drink, they do) not (constitute part of the sacrificial act) because it is seen (from the reasons given, and on the ground of Sruti that they form an independent Vidya) as in the case of death; for the world does not become (fire, because it resembles fire in some points).

Na: not; Samanyadapi: in spite of the resemblance, because of common ness, on the ground of their resemblance to sacrificial fire; Upalabdheh: for it is seen; Mrityuvat: just as in the case of death; Na hi lokapattih: for the world does not become (fire on account of certain resemblances).

The argument in refutation of Sutras 45 and 46 is continued.

Though being a mental act, there is an element of similarity, it is not a Karmanga because it is stated to have a separate fruit. This is clear from the illustrations relating to Mrityu and describing the earth as fire.

The resemblance cited by the Purvapakshin has no force. It cannot certainly stand because on account of the reasons already given, viz., the Sruti, indicatory mark, etc., the fires in question subserve the purpose of man only, and not the purpose of some sacrificial action.

Mere resemblance can hardly justify the contrary view. Anything indeed may resemble anything in some point or other; but in spite of that there remains the individual dissimilarity of each thing from all other things.

The case is analogous to that of `death'. The resemblance cited is like the common epithet `death' applied to fire and the being in the sun. The being in that orb is death indeed (Sat. Br. X.5.2.3). Fire indeed is death (Tait. Samh. V.1.10.3). This resemblance cannot make fire and the being in the same one.

Again we have This world is a fire indeed, O Gautama, the sun is its fuel etc., (Chh. Up. V.4.1). Here it does not follow from the similarity of fuel and so on that the world does not actually become fire.

Thus also in our case. Hence from the fact that the Manaschita Agni (fire) is a mental act like the Manasagraha which is a Karmanga, you cannot on that ground of such similarity alone argue that it also is a Karmanga.

Parena cha sabdasya tadvidhyam

bhuyastvattvanubandhah III.3.52 (411)

And from the subsequent (Brahmana) the fact of the text (under discussion) being such (i.e., enjoining an independent Vidya) (is known). But the connection (of the fanciful Agnis or imaginary fires with the actual fire is) on account of the abundance (of the attributes of the latter that are imagined in these fires).

Parena: from the subsequent (Brahmana), by the subsequent expression, by the statements immediately following; Cha: and; Sabdasya: of Sruti, of the text, of the word; Tadvidhyam: the fact of being such; Bhuyastvat: because of abundance; Tu: but; Anubandhah: connection.

In a subsequent Brahmana we have By knowledge they ascend there where all wishes are attained. Those skilled in words do not go there, nor those who destitute of knowledge do penance. This verse depreciates mere works and praises Vidya or knowledge. A former Brahmana also viz., the one beginning Where that orb leads (Sat. Br. X.5.2.23) concludes with a state ment of the fruit of knowledge Immortal becomes he whose self is death and thereby shows that works are not the chief thing. Hence we conclude that the injunction of the Sruti is that the fires constitute an independent Vidya.

The connection of the fires with the actual fire is not because they constitute part of the sacrifice but because many of the attributes of the real fire are imagined in the fires of the Vidya, in the Agnis built of mind. The statement of the fires built of mind along with the ordinary sacrificial fire is due to an abundance of common matters with the latter.

All this establishes the conclusion that the fire-altars built of mind and so on constitute an independent Vidya.

AIKATMYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 30 (SUTRAS 53-54)

Atman is an entity distinct from the body

Eka atmanah sarire bhavat III.3.53 (412)

Some (maintain the non-existence) of a separate self (besi des the body) on account of the existence (of the self) where a body is (only).

Eka: some (maintain the non-existence); Atmanah: of a separate self (besides the body); Sarire: in the body; Bhavat: because of existence.

In this topic the existence of an Atman apart from the body is taken up for discussion. Unless there is a soul apart from the body there is no use of the scripture teaching liberation. Nor can there be any scope for ethical commands which are the means of attainment of heaven or for the teaching that the soul is Brahman.

There must be a soul apart from the body who can enjoy the fruits of the Upasana or Vidyas, otherwise of what avail is Upasana? If there is no soul all Upasanas become useless.

At present we will prove the existence of a soul different from the body in order to establish thereby the qualification of the self for bondage and release. For if there were no selves different from the body, there would be no room for injunction that have the other world for their result, nor could it be taught of anybody that Brahman is his Self.

This Sutra gives the view of the Charvakas or Lokayatikas (materialists) who deny the existence of an Atman different from the body. They say that consciousness is a mere material product and that the body is the soul. They declare that consciousness is seen to exist only when there is a body and that it is nowhere experienced independent of the body. Therefore consciousness is only an attribute or quality of the body. There is no separate self or soul in this body.

They say man is only a body. Consciousness is the quality of the body. Consciousness is like the intoxicating quality which arises when certain materials are mixed in certain proportions. No single material has the intoxicating effect.

Although consciousness is not observed in earth, and the other external elements, either single or combined, yet it may appear in them when transformed into the shape of a body. Consciousness springs from them. No soul is found after the body dies and that hence as both are present or absent together, consciousness is only an attribute of the body just as light and heat are attributes of fire.

As life, movements, consciousness, remembrances and so on, which are regarded as qualities of the Atman by those who maintain that there is an independent Atman apart from the body, are observed only within the bodies and not outside the bodies, and as an abode of those attributes different from the body cannot be proved, it follows that they must be attributes of the body only.

Therefore, the Self is not different from the body.

The next Sutra gives a reply to this conclusion of the Charvakas or Lokayatikas (materialists).

Vyatirekastadbhavabhavitvanna tupalabdhivat III.3.54 (413)

But not (so); a self or soul separate (from the body does exist), because (Consciousness) does not exist even when there is the body (after death), as in the case of cognition or per ceptive consciousness.

Vyatirekah: separation; Tadbhavabhavitvat: for (consciousness) does not exist even when there is the body; Na: not (so); Tu: but; Upalabdhivat: as in the case of knowledge or cognition.

The statement in the preceding Sutra is refuted.

The soul is separate because even when the body exists the soul goes away. They are separate just as subject and object are separate.

The view expressed by the opponent in the previous Sutra is certainly wrong, because the Atma-Dharma such as Chaitanya (consciousness), etc., are not found after death, though the body exists. Consciousness cannot be an attribute of the body, because we do not find consciousness in a body after a person dies.

This consciousness is an attribute of something which is different from the body and which abides in the body.

The subject and the object cannot possibly be identical. Fire cannot burn itself. The acrobat cannot stand upon his own shoulder. Can form sense form? Can sound hear sound? No. Consciousness is eternal, as it is of the same identical quality always. Can you say that consciousness is a quality of the light, because light is necessary to see forms? Even so consciousness is not a quality of the body. Moreover consciousness functions in dreams even without the aid of the body.

The Charvakas accept that the cogniser is different from the thing cognised. So the experiencer of this body, he who cognises this body must be different from the body. He who cognises this body is the Self.

Therefore, consciousness is an attribute of this Self, rather its very essence of nature.

As consciousness constitutes the character of the Self, the Self must be distinct from the body. That consciousness is permanent follows from the uniformity of its character and we, therefore, may conclude that the conscious Self is permanent also. That consciousness is the nature of the Self, that it is permanent, follows from the fact that the Self, although connected with a different state, recognises itself as the conscious agent a recognition expressed in judgments such as I saw this and from the fact of remembrance and so on being possible.

Therefore, the view that the Self is something separate from the body is free from all objections.

ANGAVABADDHADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 31 (SUTRAS 55-56)

Upasanas connected with sacrificial acts, i.e., Udgitha Upasana

are valid for all schools

Angavabaddhastu na sakhasu hi prativedam III.3.55 (414)

But (the Upasanas or meditations connected with parts) (of sacrificial acts are) not (restricted) to (particular) Sakhas, according to the Veda (to which they belong), (but to all its Sakhas because the same Upasana is described in all).

Angavabaddhah: (Upasanas) connected parts (of sacrificial acts); Tu: but; Na: not; Sakhasu: to (particular) Sakhas; Hi: because; Prativedam: in each Veda, according to the Veda.

There is no rule that the Angavabaddha (Karmanga) Upa sana in each Sruti Sakha is separate and should be confined to it alone.

The above said intervening or occasional discussion is over. Now we pursue the main theme. In Udgitha, etc., various Karmanga Upasanas are taught. From this you could not say that each Upasana in each Sruti Sakha is different, on account of the proximity of text and the difference in Svaras or sounds. All such Upasanas may be taken together, because the Udgitha Sruti is more powerful than mere proximity of context or diversity of Svara.

There are certain Upasanas mentioned in connection with sacrificial acts, as for example the meditation on `OM' which is connected with the Udgitha as Prana, or the meditation on the Udgitha as the earth and so on. Let a man meditate on the syllable `OM' as the Udgitha (Chh. Up. I.1.1). Let a man meditate on the five-fold Saman as the five worlds (Chh. Up. II.2.1).

A doubt here arises whether the meditations or Vidyas are enjoined with reference to the Udgitha and so on as belonging to a certain Sakha only or as belonging to all Sakhas. The doubt arises because the Udgitha and so on are chanted differently in different Sakhas, because the accents, etc., differ. Therefore, they may be considered different.

Here the Purvapakshin holds that the Vidyas are enjoined only with reference to the Udgitha and so on which belong to the particular Sakha to which the Vidya belongs. Why? Because of proximity.

The present Sutra refutes the view that they are so restricted, because the text speaks of these Upasanas in general and so they are all one in all the branches.

The word `tu' (but) discards the prima facie view or the view of the Purvapakshin. The Upasanas are not restricted to their own Sakhas according to the Veda to which they belong but are valid for all Sakhas, because the direct statements of the text about the Udgitha and so on enounce no specification. Direct statement has greater force or weight than proximity.

There is no reason why the Vidya should not be of general reference. We, therefore, conclude that, although the Sakhas differ as to accents and the like, the Vidyas mentioned refer to the Udgitha and so on belonging to all Sakhas, because the text speaks only of the Udgitha and so on in general.

Mantradivadvavirodhah III.3.56 (415)

Or else, there is no contradiction (here), as in the case of Mantras and the like.

Mantradivat: like Mantras, etc.; Va: or else; Avirodhah: there is no contradiction.

The discussion commenced in Sutra 33 is continued.

Just as Mantras, etc., mentioned in only one Sakha, are used in another Sakha, with respect to that particular rite, so also the Upasanas connected with particular rites in one Sakha of the Veda can be applied to the other Sakhas.

As for example the Mantra Kutarurasi (thou art the grinding stone), prescribed in one Branch of the Vedas for taking stone to grind rice, is acceptable in that rite every where; even so the Upasana (meditation) prescribed in one Branch of the Vedas may be transferred or applied to other Sakhas or Branches without apprehending any impropriety.

We find that Mantra and Guna and Karma in one Sakha are taken into another Sakha, just as the members of sacrificial actions on which certain Vidyas rest are valid everywhere, so the Vidyas themselves also which rest on those members are valid for all Sakhas and Vedas.

BHUMAJYAYASTVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 32

Vaisvanara Upasana is one entire Upasana

Bhumnah kratuvajjyayastvam tatha hi darsayati III.3.57 (416)

Importance (is given to the meditation) on the entire form (of Vaisvanara) as in the case of sacrifice; for thus (the Sruti) shows.

Bhumnah: on the entire form; Kratuvat: as in the case of sacrifice; Jyayastvam: prominence, pre-eminence, importance; Tatha: so; Hi: be cause, for, as; Darsayati: (the Sruti) shows.

The Vaisvanara Vidya is discussed here.

In the Chhandogya Upanishad (V.11. 8) there is the Vaisvanara Vidya, the meditation on the cosmic form of the Lord. The meditator should think that His head is the heaven, His eye the sun and so on. Different fruits are mentioned for each part of the Upasana. For example, the fruit of meditat ing on His head as the heaven is He eats food, beholds his beloved ones and has Vedic glory in his house (Chh. Up. V.12.2).

Now a doubt arises whether the Sruti here speaks of one Upasana on the entire cosmic form or Upasana of each part of Vaisvanara.

The present Sutra says that the Sruti speaks of one Upasana on the whole form of Vaisvanara or the cosmic form of the Lord.

The Sruti gives superiority to the meditation on Vaisvanara as a whole, as in the case of Kratu or sacrifice. Though the Sruti declares fruits for Upasana or worship of each part of Vaisvanara, yet it emphasises the worship of the entire Vaisvanara with the universe as His body, just as in sacri fices like Darsa-Purnamasa all the Angas have to be combined.

The separate fruits mentioned for meditation on parts of Vaisvanara must be combined into one whole with meditation.

The text informs us that six Rishis, Prakinasala, Uddalaka, etc., being unable to reach a firm foundation in the Knowledge of Vaisvanara, went to the King Asvapati Kaikeya; goes on to mention the object of each Rishi's meditation, viz., the sky and so on; determines that the sky and so on are only the head and so on of Vaisvanara. Asvapati said That is but the head of the self, and rejects all meditations on Vaisva nara in his partial form. He said Your head would have fallen if you had not come to me (Chh. Up. V.12.2). As this text discourages partial worship of Vaisvanara, it is quite clear that it recommends the entire Upasana on the whole Vaisvanara.

Moreover the section begins thus: which is our own self, which is Brahman (Chh. Up. V.11.1). This indi cates that the entire Brahman is the object of meditation. It ends thus of that Vaisvanara Self Sutejas is the head etc. (Chh. Up. V.18.2). This clearly intimates that only the entire Upasana is intended.

For all these reasons, the view according to which the text enjoins a meditation on the entire Vaisvanara only is correct.

Sabdadibhedadhikaranam: Topic 33

Various Vidyas like the Sandilya Vidya, Dahara Vidya and so on are to be kept separate and not combined into one entire Upasana

Nana sabdadibhedat III.3.58 (417)

(The Vidyas are) separate, on account of the difference of words and the like.

Nana: different, various; Sabdadibhedat: on account of difference of names of words, etc. (Bhedat: due to variety.)

In the previous Sutra we have arrived at the conclusion that a meditation on Vaisvanara as a whole is the pre-eminent meaning of the text, although special fruits are stated for meditations on parts such as Sutejas and so on.

The Purvapakshin follows this line of argument and says that we must combine all the different Vidyas like Sandilya Vidya, Dahara Vidya, Satya Vidya, and so on into one composite meditation or more general meditation on the Lord, as the object of meditation is the one Lord.

The present Sutra refutes this and declares that the Vidyas are separate, although the object of meditation is on the one Lord, on account of the difference of words and the like. For the text exhibits a difference of words such as He knows.

Let him meditate, Let him form the idea (Chh. Up. III.14.1). This difference of terms is acknowledged as a reason or test of difference of acts, according to Purva mimamsa Sutras, II.2.1.

And the like or etc. refers to other reasons like the difference in qualities.

The Lord indeed is the only object of meditation, but according to its general purport each passage teaches different qualities of the Lord. Although one and the same Prana is the object of meditation in the other series of passages, yet one of his qualities has to be meditated upon in one place and another in another place. From difference of connection there thus follows difference of injunction and from the latter we apprehend the separateness of the Vidyas.

Though the object of meditation is the one Lord, yet He is different on account of the difference in qualities that are imagined in different Upasanas. Further it is not possible at all to combine all the various Vidyas into one.

Therefore, the different Vidyas are to be kept separate and not combined into one composite or general meditation.

Though the Vidya (what is to be known) is one, each Upasana which is described by such words as Upasita, etc., is different. In each Upasana certain special attributes of the Lord and certain special results are stated.

The forms of meditation such as the Sandilya Vidya, the Satya Vidya, the Dahara Vidya, the Vaisvanara Vidya, are different owing to difference of names and processes, the directory words and the attributes, yet, each of them teaches the worship of the same Lord; but under a particular aspect meditations have been prescribed in various names and forms so as to suit different meditators.

The Sutra, therefore, rightly declares the separateness of the Vidyas.

VIKALPADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 34

Any one of the Vidyas should be selected

according to one's own option or choice

Vikalpo'visishtaphalatvat III.3.59 (418)

There is option (with respect to the several Vidyas), because the result (of all the Vidyas) is the same.

Vikalpah: option; Visishtaphalatvat: on account of (all Vidyas) having the same result.

The most important Vidyas are: Sandilya Vidya, Bhuma Vidya, Sat Vidya, Dahara Vidya, Upakosala Vidya, Vaisva nara Vidya, Udgitha Vidya, Anandamaya Vidya, Akshara Vidya.

One may follow any Vidya according to his option, and stick to it till he reaches the goal, as the result of all Vidyas or the goal is the same, namely the realisation of Self or Brahman. If we adopt many, the mind will get distracted and the spiritual progress will be retarded. When the Brahman is realised through one meditation, a second meditation would be purposeless.

Therefore, one must select one particular Vidya and stick to it and remain intent on it till the fruit of the Vidya is attained through the intuition of the object of meditation.

KAMYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 35

Vidyas yielding particular desires may or may not be

combined according to one's liking

Kamyastu yathakamam samucchiyeranna va

purvahetvabhavat III.3.60 (419)

But Vidyas for particular desires may be combined or not according to one's desires on account of the absence of the previous reason (mentioned in the previous Sutra).

Kamyah: Vidyas adopted for some sensuous desires; Tu: but; Yatha kamam: according to one's desire or liking; Samucchiyeran: may be combin ed; Na: not; Va: or; Purva: the former; Hetu: reason; Abhavat: on account of the absence of.

This Sutra shows an exception to the previous Sutra that more Vidyas than one may be combined where the object is other than the realisation of Brahman.

In the previous Sutra it was stated that any one of the Vidyas about Brahman should be taken up, and that more than one at a time should not be taken up, because each Vidya was quite sufficient to take to the goal or Self-realisation and more than one Vidya would produce distraction of the mind.

We have on the other hand, Vidyas connected with parti cular desires, e.g., He who knows that the wind is the child of the regions never weeps for his sons (Chh. Up. III.15.2). He who meditates on name as Brahman, walks at will as far as name reaches (Chh. Up. VII.1.5).

The question arises whether one is to restrict oneself to only one of these Vidyas or can take up more than one at a time.

The present Sutra declares that one can practise more than one Vidya or not according to one's liking, as the results are different unlike that of the Brahma-Vidyas. He may practise more than one Vidya or not, on account of the absence of the former reason, i.e., because there is not the reason for option which was stated in the preceding Sutra.

YATHASRAYABHAVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 36 (SUTRAS 61-66)

Meditations connected with members of sacrificial acts

may or may not be combined according to one's liking

Angeshu yathasrayabhavah III.3.61 (420)

With regard (to meditations) connected with members (of sacrificial acts) it is as with (the members) with which they are connected.

Angeshu: with regard (to meditations) connected with members (of sacrificial acts); Yathasrayabhavah: it is as with (members) with which they are connected.

Of the six Sutras which are contained in this Adhikarana, the first four Sutras are Purvapaksha Sutras and the last two Sutras are Siddhanta Sutras.

Different instructions connected with a sacrifice are stated in the different Vedas. The scriptures say that all these members mentioned in the different Vedas are to be combined for the due performance of the principal one.

The question now is, which is the rule to be followed with regard to the meditations or Upasanas connected with these members.

The present Sutra declares that the same rule which applies to the members applies also to the Upasanas connected with them. It is according to the abodes. As the abiding places of those meditations, viz., the Stotra and so on are combined for the performance of the sacrifice, so those meditations or Upasanas also; for a meditation is subject to what it rests on. All these Upasanas are to be combined.

Just as the Stotras, etc., are combined when performing Karmas, so also the Upasanas which are Angas of Karma (Angavabaddha Upasana) should be combined.

Sishtescha III.3.62 (421)

And from the injunction of the Sruti.

Sishteh: from the injunction of the Sruti; Cha: and.

An argument in support of the objection raised in Sutra 61 is adduced.

That is because the Upasanas depend on the Stotras.

As the Stotra and the other members of the sacrifice on which the meditations under discussion rest are taught in the three Vedas, so also are the meditations resting on them. Just as the members are scattered in the different Vedas, so also are the meditations connected with them. There is no difference as regards the injunction of the Sruti with reference to these meditations.

There is no difference between the members of a sacrificial act and the meditations referring to them.

Samaharat III.3.63 (422)

On account of the rectification.

Samaharat: on account of the rectification.

A further reason is given by the opponent. Another argu ment in support of Sutra 61 is adduced.

There is also indication in the Sruti about such combination. Such combination is seen when the Udgatri performs the Hautra Karma described in another Veda for removing the effects of error in the discharge of his function.

Chhandogya Upanishad declares What is Udgitha is OM or Pranava and what is OM is Udgitha. This meditation on the oneness of the Udgitha and OM mends the Udgitha defiled by any mistake committed even on the part of the Hotri, the hymn-reciting priest in recitation of the Udgitha (Chh. Up. I.5.5).

Here it is said that the mistakes committed by the Udgatri or chanting priest of the Sama Veda are rectified by the recitation of the Hotri or invoking priest of the Rigveda. This indicates that though the meditations are given in the different Vedas they are yet interlinked. Hence all of them have to be observed.

The passage From the seat of the Hotri, he sets right any mistake committed in the Udgitha (Chh. Up. I.5.5), declares that owing to the force of the meditation on the unity of Pranava and Udgitha, the Hotri rectifies any mistake he may commit in his work, by means of the work of the Hotri.

Now, as a meditation mentioned in one Veda is connected with what is mentioned in another Veda, in the same manner as a thing mentioned in another Veda, the above passage suggests the conclusion that all meditations on members of sacrificial acts, in whatever Veda they may be mentionedhave to be combined.

A thing belonging to the Rigveda, viz., Pranava is, accord ing to the Chhandogya text, connected with the Sama Veda meditation on the Udgitha. Hence meditations also which belong to different Vedas may be combined; because there is no difference between them and things as far as connection is concerned.

Gunasadharanyasrutescha III.3.64 (423)

And from the Sruti declaring `OM' which is a common feature (of the Udgitha Vidya) to be common to all the Vedas.

Gunasadharanyasruteh: from the Sruti declaring the feature of `OM' as being common to all the Vedas; Cha: and.

Another argument in support of Sutra 61 is adduced.

Further Pranava (Omkara) is common to all the Upasanas and links them up.

It is found in Sruti that OM is the common property of all the Vedas. Therefore, it is an inseparable concomitant of the sacrificial rites, prescribed in the Vedas. Hence the Vidyas also, being dependent on OM, are concomitants of the sacrificial rites. Chhandogya Upanishad declares Through this (`OM') the Vedic Vidya proceeds. With OM the Adhvaryu gives orders, with OM the Hotri recites, with OM the Udgatri sings (Chh. Up. I.1.9). This is stated with re ference to OM, which is common to all the Vedas and all the Upasanas in them. This indicates that as the abode of all Vidyas, viz., OM, is common, so the Vidyas that rest in it are common also. Therefore, all of them are to be observed.

Na va tatsahabhavasruteh III.3.65 (424)

(The meditations connected with members of the sacrificial acts are) rather not (to be combined) as the Sruti does not state their going together.

Na: not; Va: rather; Tatsahabhavasruteh: their correlation not being mentioned by the Sruti. (Tat: their; Sahabhava: about being together; Asruteh: because there is no such injunction in Sruti).

The words `Na va' `rather not' discard the Purvapaksha. This Sutra refutes the contention raised in Sutras 61-64.

This and the following Sutra give the conclusion.

There is no Sruti commanding such combination of the Karmanga Upasanas. No Sruti refers to such compulsory combination of the Upasanas. So they can be done singly or in combination as we like.

There is no binding rule that the Vidyas, depending on the Pranava or on any part of a sacrificial rite, is a necessary concomitant of the sacrifice. It may be dispensed with or retained at the option of the performer. But there is this difference. If Vidyas be associated with the rites greater good will accrue.

Though the utterance of the Pranava or the Udgitha hymn has been enjoined by the Sruti to be necessary for the sacrificial performance, yet Sruti does not insist that the Vidya (meditation) portion of the performance is a necessary adjunct to the mind. It is not absolutely necessary for the fulfilment of external sacrifices. A sacrifice may be per formed even without the Vidya (meditation) merely by utterance of Mantras, singing of the Udgitha hymns, pouring of the clarified butter into the sacred fire and the like external rites, in order to attain particular desired objects, but the Vidya or meditation on Brahman leads to realisation of Brahman.

The rule for combining the instructions regarding sacrifices that are scattered in all the Vedas cannot be applied with regard to the meditations (Upasanas) connected with them. If the instructions regarding the sacrifices are not combined, the sacrifice will itself fail. But it is not the case if the Upasanas are not practised, because Upasanas only increase the fruits of the sacrifice (Vide III.3.42). Upasanas are not inseparable from the sacrifice.

Therefore, Upasanas (Vidyas, meditations) may or may not be practised.

Darsanaccha III.3.66 (425)

And because the Sruti (scripture) says so (shows it).

Darsanat: because the Sruti says so, shows it from Sruti; Cha: and, also.

This Sutra is adduced in support of Sutra 65.

This may also be inferred from Sruti.

Chhandogya Upanishad declares The Brahmana (superintending chief priest) who possesses such knowledge saves the sacrifice, the sacrificer and all the priests, just as the horse saves the horseman (Chh. Up. IV.17.10).

This shows that the scriptures do not intend that all the meditations should go together. For, if all meditations were to be combined, all priests would know them all and the text could not specially announce that the Brahmana, chief superintending priest, possessing a certain knowledge thereby saves the others.

The meditations, therefore, according to one's liking may or may not be combined.

Thus ends the Third Pada (Section 3) of the Third Adhyaya (Chapter III) of the Brahma Sutras or the Vedanta Philosophy.

Font Size

Chapter III, Section 4

INTRODUCTION

In the last Section the Vidyas or Upasanas (meditations) which are the means to the knowledge of Brahman were discussed.

In this Section the Sutrakara enters into an enquiry whether the knowledge of Brahman is connected with ritualistic work through one who is entitled to perform the works or is an independent means to accomplish the purpose of man.

Sri Baadarayana, the Sutrakara, begins by stating the final view in the first Sutra, Thence etc. He is of opinion that through the independent Knowledge of Brahman enjoined in the Vedanta-texts the purpose of man is effected.

In the present Section it will be shown that Knowledge of Brahman is independent of Karma and that is not subordinate to sacrificial acts.

Baadarayana establishes that the attainment of the final emancipation is the direct result of Brahma Vidya of knowledge of Brahman, that works or sacrifices are only indirect aids to contemplating by purifying the heart, that Karma does not directly lead to the final beatitude, that the seeker of Brahman may even do away with Karma and may attain freedom solely by contemplation on Brahman and that even in that case he should not abandon the duties enjoined by the scriptures.

SYNOPSIS

Adhikarana I: (Sutras 1-17) proves that the knowledge of Brahman is not Kratvartha, i.e., subordinate to action (sacrificial acts) but independent.

Adhikarana II: (Sutras 18-20) confirms this conclusion that Sannyasa is prescribed by the scriptures, that the state of the Pravrajins is enjoined by the sacred law and that for them Brahma Vidya only is prescribed, and not action.

Adhikarana III: (Sutras 21-22) determines that certain clauses forming part of Vidyas are not mere glorificatory passages (Srutis or Arthavadas) but themselves enjoin the meditation.

Adhikarana IV: (Sutras 23-24) The stories recorded in the Upanishads are not to be used as subordinate members of acts. They do not serve the purpose of Pariplavas and do not form part of the ritualistic acts. They are meant to glorify the Vidya taught in them. They have the purpose of glorifying as Arthavadas the injunctions with which they are connected.

Adhikarana V: (Sutra 25) For all these reasons the Sannya sin need not observe ritualistic acts as knowledge serves their purpose. They require no actions but only knowledge.

Adhikarana VI: (Sutras 26-27) Nevertheless the actions enjoined by scripture such as sacrifices, conduct of certain kinds, etc., are useful as they are indirect means of knowledge.

Adhikarana VII: (Sutras 28-31) Certain relaxations allowed by scripture of the laws regarding food, are meant only for cases of extreme need. Restrictions as regards food may be abandoned only when life is in danger.

Adhikarana VIII: (Sutras 32-35) The duties of the Asramas are to be performed by even one who does not strive after liberation or who is not desirous of knowledge.

Adhikarana IX: (Sutras 36-39) Those who stand midway between two Asramas are also entitled to knowledge. Those also who owing to poverty and so on, are Anasramins, have claims to Vidya.

Adhikarana X: (Sutra 40) A Sannyasi who has taken the vow of life-long celibacy cannot revoke his vow. He cannot revert back to his former stages of life.

Adhikarana XI: (Sutras 41-42) Expiation of the fall of an Urdhvareta, of one who transgresses the vow of life-long celibacy.

Adhikarana XII: (Sutra 43) Exclusion of the fallen Urdhva retas or life-long celibate. He must be shunned by Society.

Adhikarana XIII: (Sutras 44-46) Those meditations which are connected with subordinate members of the sacrifice are the business of the priest, not of the Yajamana or sacrificer.

Adhikarana XlV: (Sutras 47-49) Bri. Up. III.5.1 enjoins Mauna or meditation as a third in addition to Balya (child-like state) and Panditya (scholarship or erudition).

Adhikarana XV: (Sutra 50) By Balya or child-like state is to be understood a child-like innocent state of mind, being free from passion, anger, etc.

Adhikarana XVI: (Sutra 51) intimates that the fruition of knowledge may take place even in this life if there be no obstruction to it (the means adopted).

Adhikarana XVII: (Sutra 52) declares that there is no diffe rence in liberation, i.e., in the realisation of Brahman. It is of one kind in all cases.

PURUSHARTHADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 1 (SUTRA 1-17)

Knowledge of Brahman is independent of sacrificial acts

Purushartho'tah sabdaditi baadarayanah III.4.1 (426)

From this (Brahma Vidya or Brahma Jnana results) the purpose or the chief object of pursuit of man, because the scriptures state so; thus (holds) the sage Baadarayana.

Purusharthah: purpose of man, object of human pursuit, here the chief object, i.e., salvation; Atah: from this, from Brahma Vidya; Sabdat: from the scriptures, because the scriptures state so, from Sruti; Iti: so thus (says), this is the opinion of; Baadarayanah: the sage Baadarayana, (holds).

The result or fruit of Brahma Vidya is stated.

The Sutrakara Sri Vyasa now proceeds to show that Brahma Jnana leads not to Karma, but to the attainment of the highest Purushartha, i.e., Moksha or the final emancipation. That is Baadarayana's teaching.

The four Purusharthas are: Dharma (discharge of religious duty), Artha (acquisition of wealth, worldly prosperity), Kama (enjoyment), and Moksha (salvation). Knowledge of Brahman is not merely connected with sacrificial acts by affording to the agent a certain qualification. It definitely paves the way for the attainment of the final release or freedom from births and deaths.

Whence is this known? From the scripture.

Baadarayana bases his arguments on the Sruti texts, such as The knower of Atman goes beyond griefTarati sokamatmavit (Chh. Up. III.4.1). He who knows the highest Brah man becomes even BrahmanBrahmavitbrahmaivabhavati (Mun.Up.III.2.9). He who knows Brahman attains the HighestBrahmavidapnoti Param (Tait. Up. II.1).

For him who has a teacher there is delay only so long as he is not delivered; then he will be perfect (Chh. Up. VI.14.2). He who has searched out and understood the Self which is free from sin, etc., obtains all worlds and all desires (Chh. Up. VIII.7.1). The Atman is to be seen etc., up to Thus far goes immortality (Bri. Up. IV.5.6-15).

These and similar texts emphatically declare that Knowledge of Brahman effects the highest purpose of man or Supreme Purushartha.

Against this the Purvapakshin raises his objection as follows. Here Jaimini comes forward with his following objections.

Seshatvatpurusharthavado yathanyeshviti jaiminih III.4.2 (427)

Because (the self) is supplementary (to sacrificial acts), (the fruits of the Knowledge of the Self) are mere praise of the agent, as in other cases; thus Jaimini opines.

Seshatvat: because of being supplementary (to sacrificial acts); Pusushar thavadah: are mere praise or the agent; Yatha: as; Anyeshu: in other cases; Iti: thus (says); Jaiminih: Jaimini (holds).

Sutras 2 to 7 are Purvapaksha Sutras and Sutras 8 to 17 are Siddhanta Sutras.

Jaimini thinks that the Sruti texts merely praise the doer of Karma and that Brahmajnana is only an accessory of Karma (Karmanga).

He is of the opinion that the Vedas merely prescribe works to attain certain purposes including emancipation. He holds that the knowledge of Brahman has no independent fruit of its own because it stands in a subordinate relation to sacrificial action. This relation is meditated by the Self, the object of knowledge, which is the agent in all works and, therefore, itself stands in a subordinate relation to action. The agent becomes qualified for actions, the fruit of which will only appear after death by knowing that his self will survive the body.

A man undertakes a sacrificial act only when he is conscious that he is different from the body and that after death he will go to heaven when he will enjoy the fruits of his sacrifice.

The qualification the self thus acquires is similar to that which the rice-grains acquire by being sprinkled with water; because they become fit to be used in the sacrifice, only through this latter act of ceremonial purification.

As the knowledge of the Self has no independent position, it cannot have an independent fruit of its own. Therefore the passages which state such fruits cannot be taken as injunctions of fruits, but merely as Arthavadas (or glorificatory passages), like other Arthavadas relating to the substance (Dravya) or to the purification of the substance (Samskara) or to subordi nate acts themselves (Karma), making some additional state ment about the fruits of the sacrificial actions to which the knowledge of the Self is auxiliary.

Jaimini maintains that the statement that the reward of Brahma Jnana is the highest good does not mean that such knowledge of the Self by itself yields any real fruit but the statement is only an exhortation to the performance of the sacrifices. He says that the knowledge of the self is useful only so far as it produces in the performer a belief in his extramundane existence to enable him to enjoy the rewards of his sacrifices. The statement that it yields any fruit by itself is only an exhortation to purification of the sacrificer. The purification of the sacrificer is a necessary concomitant factor like other material requisites of a sacrifice; because without this purifica tion he would not be assured of his surviving the body and enjoying the fruit of his sacrifices in a higher world after death.

Acharadarsanat III.4.3 (428)

Because we find (from the scriptures such) conduct (of men of realisation).

Acharadarsanat: because of the conduct found (from the scriptures).

The objection raised in Sutra 2 is strengthened.

Janaka the king of the Videhas performed a sacrifice in which gifts were freely distributed (Bri. Up. III.1.1). Sirs, I am going to perform a sacrifice (Chh. Up. V.11.5). These and similar passages indicate that those who know Brahman are connected with sacrificial action.

Janaka and Asvapati were knowers of Brahman. If they had attained the final emancipation by knowledge of Brahman there was no necessity for them to perform sacrifices. If mere knowledge could effect the purpose of man, why should they perform sacrifices troublesome in many respects? If a man would find honey in the Arka tree why should he go to the forest? But the two texts intimate that they did perform sacrifices.

This proves that one attains the final emancipation through sacrifices or works alone and not through the knowledge of Brahman, as the Vedantins maintain.

Tacchruteh III.4.4 (429)

Because scripture directly declares that (viz., that knowledge of Brahman stands in a subordinate relation to sacrificial acts.)

Tat: that, that knowledge is subsidiary and supplementary to sacrifice; Sruteh: from Sruti, because the scriptures directly declare.

The Sruti also says that Vidya is an Anga of Karma.

If one does Karma with knowledge there will be greater efficiency. What a man does with knowledge, faith and meditation is more powerful (Chh. Up. I.1.10). This text clearly indicates that knowledge is a part of the sacrificial act. This passage directly states that knowledge is subordinate to work and from this it follows that mere knowledge cannot effect the purpose of man.

Samanvarambhanat III.4.5 (430)

Because the two (knowledge and work) go together (with the departing soul to give fruits of actions).

Samanvarambhanat: because of the accompanying together, as they jointly follow the sacrificer to produce their effects on account of their taking hold together or being together.

The objection begun in Sutra 2 is continued.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says The departing soul is followed by knowledge and work (Bri. Up. IV.4.2). This passage indicates that knowledge and work go together with the soul and begin together to manifest their fruits. Therefore, it follows that knowledge is not independent. It is not able to produce any such effect independently. It is concluded that knowledge is not independent of works or sacrificial acts.

Tadvato vidhanat III.4.6 (431)

Because (the scriptures) enjoin (works) for such (only who understand the purport of the Vedas).

Tadvatah: for such (as know the purport of the Vedas); Vidhanat: be cause (the scriptures) enjoin (work).

The objection, begun in the Sutra 2, is continued.

Further Karma is enjoined for one who recites and studies the Vedas. He who has learnt i.e., read the Vedas from a family of teachers, according to the sacred injunction in the leisure time left from the duties to be performed for the Guru; who after having received his discharge has settled in his own house, studying his sacred texts in some sacred spot (Chh. Up. VIII.15.7). Such passages also indicate that those who know the purport of the whole Veda are qualified for sacrificial acts and that hence knowledge does not independently produce any result.

Niyamaccha III.4.7 (432)

And on account of prescribed rules.

Niyamat: on account of prescribed rules, because of compulsory injunction; Cha: also, and.

The argument begun in Sutra 2 is concluded here.

Doing Karma is a Niyama or life-long commandment. Performing works here (i.e., in this life), let a man wish to live a hundred years (Isa. Up. 2). Agnihotra is a sacrifice lasting up to old age and death; for through old age one is freed from it or through death (Sat. Br. XII.4.1.1). From such definite rules also it follows that Knowledge is merely supple mentary to works, or stands in a subordinate relation to work .

The Sutrakara (Sri Vyasa) upholds his view in the following Sutra against all those objections.

Adhikopadesaattu baadarayanasyaivam taddarsanat III.4.8 (433)

But because (the scriptures) teach (the Supreme Self to be) other (than the agent), Baadarayana's view is correct (or valid) for that is seen thus (in scriptural passages).

Adhikopadesat: because (the sriptures) teach (the Supreme Self to be) something over and above; Tu: but; Baadarayanasya: of Baadarayana; Evam: thus, such (is the opinion); Taddarsanat: for that is seen (from the scrip tures). (Adhika: Supreme Being, more different; Upadesat: from the statement in Sruti, owing to the teaching about.)

Objections raised in Sutras 2 to 7 are now being refuted one by one. This Sutra refutes Sutra 2.

Sutras 2-7 give the view of the Mimamsakas which is refuted in Sutras 8-17.

The Sruti declares Isvara as higher than the individual soul. So Baadarayana's doctrine as stated in Sutra 1 is correct. The Sruti shows this. The real nature of the soul is divinity.

The word `tu' (but) discards the Purvapaksha. The Vedanta texts do not teach the limited self which is the agent. What the Vedanta texts really teach as the object of Knowledge is something different from the embodied self, viz., the non-transmigrating Lord who is free from all attributes of transmigrating existence such as agency and the like and distinguished by freedom from sin and so on, the Supreme Self.

The knowledge of such a self does not only not promote action but rather puts an end to all actions. Hence the view of the revered Baadarayana which was stated in Sutra 1 remains valid and cannot be shaken by fallacious reasoning about the subordination of knowledge to action and the like.

That the Vedanta texts teach the Supreme Self is clear from such texts as the following: He who perceives all and knows all (Mun. Up. I.1.9). From terror of it the wind blows, from terror the sun rises (Tait. Up. II.8). It is a great terror, a raised thunderbolt (Katha Up. II.6.2). By the command of that Imperishable one, O Gargi (Bri. Up. III.8.9). It thought, may I be many, may I grow forth. It sent forth fire (Chh. VI.2.3).

Tulyam tu darsanam III.4.9 (434)

But the declarations of the Sruti equally support both views.

Tulyam: the same, similar, equal; Tu: but; Darsanam: declaration of the Sruti.

This Sutra refutes the view expressed in Sutra 3. It is a reply to the third Sutra.

There are equal Srutis which show that Vidya is not Karmanga. The Sruti shows that Vidya is not Karmanga.

The word `tu' (but) is used in order to remove the idea that Vidya is subordinate to Karma. There is equal authority in the scriptures from the proposition that Vidya is not subordi nate to Karma, that for one who has attained knowledge there is no work. Thus there are scriptural passages such as: knowing this the Rishis descended from Kavasa said: For what purpose should we study the Vedas, for what purpose should we sacri fice? Knowing this indeed the ancient ones did not offer the Agnihotra, and when Brahmanas know that self and have risen above the desire for sons, wealth and worlds, they wander about as mendicants (Bri. Up. III.5).

Thus the sages called Kavaseyas did not care for Karma, nor did Yajnavalkya, who abandoning all Karmas went to forest. This much indeed is the means of Immortality, my dear, saying this Yajnavalkya left home (Bri. Up. IV.5.15). Thus we find examples of eminent men devoted to Vidya, renouncing all ceremonial actions. Therefore, scriptural texts are not all one-sided, in favour of Karmas, but there are passages to the contrary also. The examples of persons like Janaka and others indicate that these men followed Karma as an example to mankind, so that the social order may be pre served. Their work was characterised by non-attachment and therefore it was practically no work at all. Hence the argument of the Mimamsakas is weak.

There are indeed found in Srutis instances of sacrifices being performed by enlightened souls like Janaka, but there are also declarations of equal weight to the effect that performance of sacrifices is quite useless and redundant for the enlightened, i.e., those who have known Brahman.

So it cannot be asserted on the strength of the instances of Janaka and others like him, that knowledge is to be considered as secondary to the sacrifice.

With reference to the indicatory sign as to the dependence of knowledge to work, which is implied in the passage Sirs, I am going to perform a sacrifice we say, that it belongs to a section which treats of Vaisvanara.

Now the texts may declare that a Vidya of Brahman as limit ed by adjuncts is accompanied by works; but all the same the Vidya does not stand in a subordinate relation to works as the leading subject matter and the other means of proof are absent.

The author or Sutrakara (Baadarayana) next answers the objection raised in the Sutra 4.

Asarvatriki III.4.10 (435)

(The scriptural declaration referred to in Sutra 4) is not of universal application.

Asarvatriki: not universal, not applicable everywhere.

The refutation of the objections is continued. This Sutra specially refutes Sutra 4.

The statement of the Sruti referred to in Sutra 4 to the effect that the combination of meditation and sacrifice makes the sacrifice effective is not applicable everywhere. The above-mentioned statement of the Sruti does not refer to meditations in general, but only to the Udgitha Vidya which forms the subject matter of the discourse concerned.

The declaration of the Sruti that Knowledge increases the fruit of the sacrifice does not refer to all knowledge (all Vidyas), as it is connected only with the Udgitha (Udgitha Vidya) which is the topic of the section Let a man meditate on the syllable OM as the Udgitha.

The text says that if this Udgitha Vidya is recited by a person with knowledge, then it is more fruitful than if it is recited without such Vidya.

Therefore, Vidya is not an auxiliary to work in every instance.

The author next answers the objection raised in III.4.5.

Vibhagah satavat III.4.11 (436)

There is division of knowledge and work as in the case of a hundred (divided between two persons).

Vibhagah: (there is) division of knowledge and work; Satavat: as in the case of a hundred (divided between two persons).

This Sutra specially refutes Sutra 5.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad declares The departing soul is followed by Vidya (Knowledge) and Karma (work) and past experiences (IV.4.2). Here we have to take knowledge and work in a distributive sense. It means the knowledge follows one and work another. Just as when we say, Give Rs. 100 to Rama and Krishna it means Give Rs. 50 to Rama and Rs. 50 to Krishna, the above passage means that the Vidya relates to the souls seeking emancipation and Karma to other souls. There is no combination of the two.

The text quoted refers only to knowledge and work which concern the soul that transmigrates but not the soul which is about to obtain final release. Because the passage, Thus does the man who desires to transmigrate (Bri. Up. IV.4.6) indicates that the previous text refers to the soul that transmigrates. The Sruti declares of the soul who is about to be released, But the man who never desires never transmigrates (Bri. Up. IV.4.6).

The next Sutra refutes the Sutra 6.

Adhyayanamatravatah III.4.12 (437)

(The scriptures enjoin work) on those who have merely read the Vedas.

Adhyayanamatravatah: of one who has merely read the Vedas.

This Sutra specially refutes Sutra 6.

He who has read the Vedas and known about the sacrifices is entitled to do sacrifice. But no work is prescribed for one who has knowledge of Brahman (Brahma Jnana).

Naviseshat III.4.13 (438)

There being no specification (the rule does) not (specially apply to him who knows, i. e., a Jnani).

Na: not, compulsion does not apply; Aviseshat: on account of the absence of any specification, because there is no special mention.

This Sutra specially refutes Sutra 7.

The Sruti Kurvanneveha performing works here let a man live etc., of the Isavasya Upanishad does not specially apply to a Brahma Jnani. It is general in its terms. There is no special mention in it that it is applicable to a Jnani also. It is not binding on a Jnani when there is no specification.

The Sruti of the Isavasya does not lay down any such restrictive rule that even the illumined sage must perform Karma throughout his life. Why so? Aviseshat. Because there is no specification. All that it says is Let one perform Karmas throughout his life. There is nothing to show to which class of people, that particular rule is addressed. On the other hand there are express texts of the Srutis which show that immortality is not to be obtained by Karmas, but by knowledge alone.

Mahanarayana Upanishad of the Tait. Ar. X.5 declares Not by Karmas (sacrifices), not by progeny, nor by wealth can one obtain immortality. It is by renunciation alone that some great souled beings have obtained immortality.

The apparent conflict in the two Sruti texts is to be recon ciled by giving them different scopes. One is addressed to Karma-nishtha-devotees, the other to the Jnana-nishtha- devotees.

Stutaye'numatirva III.4.14 (439)

Or rather the permission (to do work) is for the glorification (of knowledge).

Stutaye: for the purpose of glorification (of knowledge); Anumatih: permission; Va: or, rather.

This Sutra also refutes Sutra 7.

The passage performing works here may be treated in another way also. The injunction to do work for the knowers of Brahman or the illumined sages is for eulogising this knowledge. A Brahma Jnani or knower of the Self may work all his life but he will not be bound by its effects, on account of the power of knowledge. Knowledge nullifies the effect of Karma. No work clings to the man. This clearly glorifies Knowledge.

Kamakarena chaike III.4.15 (440)

And some according to their own liking (have abandoned all works).

Kamakarena: according to their own liking; Cha: and; Eke: some.

The argument in refutation of Jaimini's views is continued.

In Sutra 3 it was stated that Janaka and others performed sacrifices even after attaining knowledge of Brahman. This Sutra says that some have abandoned all works according to their own liking. Some may like to work to set an example to others after attaining knowledge, while others may abandon all works. There is no compulsion on the knowers of Brahman or liberated sages as regards work.

A scripfural text of the Vajasaneyins runs as follows: Know ing this the people of old did not wish for offspring. What shall we do with offspring, they said, we who have this self and this world (Bri. Up. IV.4.22). From this it follows that know ledge is not subordinate to action and that the scriptural state ments as to the fruit of knowledge cannot be taken in any but their true sense.

Upamardam cha III.4.16 (441)

And (scripture teaches that the) destruction (of all qualifi cations for work results from knowledge).

Upamardam: complete destruction, putting an end to all actions; Cha: and.

The previous argument is continued.

Further, such knowledge brings the realisation that every thing is Atman or Brahman. How then can the knower act?

Again, far from being a part of work, knowledge puts an end to all works, all obligatory duties. Mundaka Upanishad declares, Brahman in both His superior and inferior aspects being realised, the knot of the heart (egoism, etc.) is cut down, all doubts are dispelled and works are destroyed (Mun. Up. II.2.9).

Knowledge of Brahman annihilates all ignorance and its effects like agent, deed and fruit, But when to the Knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what? (Bri. Up. IV.5.15). The know ledge of Brahman is antagonistic to all actions. Hence it cannot be subsidiary to work. It is independent.

Urdhvaretassu cha sabde hi III.4.17 (442)

And (knowledge belongs) to those who observe perpetual celibacy, because in scripture (that stage of life is mentioned).

Urdhvaretassu: to those who observe perpetual celibacy, in those stages of life where the sexual energy has an upward flow; Cha: and; Sabde: in the Sruti; Hi: because.

The previous argument is continued.

Further the Sruti declares Jnana in relation to Sannyasins. Knowledge is said to be in Sannyasins. They have not to do any Karmas. Such Sannyasa can be taken even without going through the householder's life.

Scripture shows that knowledge is valid also for the stages of life for which perpetual celibacy is prescribed. Now in their case knowledge cannot be subordinate to work, because work is absent, because the works prescribed by Vedas such as the Agnihotra are not performed by men who have reached those stages. To a Sannyasin there is no work prescribed except enquiry of Brahman and meditation on the Supreme Self. So how can knowledge be subordinate to work?

We find from the Sruti texts that there is a stage of life called Sannyasa. There are three branches of duty (Chh. Up. II.23.1). Those who in the forest practise faith and austerity (Chh. Up. V.10.1). Those who practise penance and faith in the forest (Mun. Up. I.10.11). Wishing for that world only, mendicants renounce their homes and wander forth (Bri. Up. IV.4.22). Let him wander forth at once from the state of studentship. All these attain to the worlds of the virtuous; but only one who is finally established in Brahman, attains immortality. (Chh. Up. II.23. 1-2).

Everyone can take to this life, without being a householder etc. This indicates the independence of knowledge.

Thus, the theory of Jaimini that Knowledge is subordinate to Karma has no legs to stand upon, and has been refuted.

PARAMARSADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 2 (SUTRAS 18-20)

Sannyasa is prescribed by the scriptures

Paramarsam jaiminirachodana chapavadati hi III.4.18 (443)

Jaimini (considers that scriptural texts mentioning those stages of life in which celibacy is obligatory, contain) a reference (only to those stages; they are not injunctions; because other (scriptural texts) condemn (those stages).

Paramarsam: a passing allusion, mere reference; Jaiminih: Jaimini; Achodana: there is no clear injunction; Cha: and; Apavadati: condemns; Hi: because, clearly, certainly.

An objection to Sutra 17 is raised.

Jaimini says that in the text quoted in the last Sutra (Chh. Up. II.23.1), there is no word indicating that Sannyasa is enjoined on man. It is a mere reference only but not an injunction.

The Brihadaranyaka text quoted in the last Sutra declares that some persons do like Sannyasa. Sruti here makes a statement of fact. It does not enjoin Sannyasa.

Thus there is no direct Sruti for Sannyasa though there are Smritis and Achara (usage). But if we say that there is no Sruti for the householder's life, he (Jaimini) would reply that Karmas like Agnihotra are enjoined by Sruti.

Further, the text here glorifies steadfastness in Brahman. But only one who is firmly established in Brahman attains Immortality. Sacrifice, study, charity, austerity, studentship and life-long continence bestow the fruit of obtaining heaven. But Immortality is attained only by one who is firmly established in Brahman.

Moreover, there are other Sruti passages which condemn Sannyasa. Having brought to your teacher his proper reward, do not cut off the line of children (Tait. Up. I.11.1). To him who is without a son this world does not belong; all beasts even know that (Tait. Br. VII.13.12).

Anushtheyam baadarayanah samyasruteh III.4.19 (444)

Baadarayana (holds that Sannyasa) also must be gone through, because the scriptural text (quoted) refers equally to all the four Asramas or stages of life.

Anushtheyam: should be practised; Baadarayanah: Baadarayana, the author of the Sutras; Samyasruteh: for the scriptural text refers equally to all the four Asramas.

The objection raised in Sutra 18 is refuted.

In the text quoted sacrifice refers to the householder's life, austerity to Vanaprastha, studentship to Brahmacharya, and one who is firmly established in Brahman to Sannyasa. So the text refers equally to all the four stages of life. The text that relates to the first three stages refers to what is enjoined elsewhere. So also does the text that relates to Sannyasa.

Therefore, Sannyasa also is enjoined and must be gone through by all.

Baadarayana holds that Sannyasa is an appropriate Asrama like Grihastha Asrama (householder's life), because both are referred to in Sruti. The word Tapas refers to a different Asrama in which the predominant factor is Tapas.

Vidhirva dharanavat III.4.20 (445)

Or rather (there is an) injunction (in this text) as in the case of carrying (of the sacrificial wood).

Vidhih: injunction; Va: or rather; Dharanavat: as in the case of carry ing (of the sacrificial wood).

The argument commenced in Sutra 19 to refute the objection raised in Sutra 18 is continued.

This Sutra now tries to establish that there is an injunction about Sannyasa in the Chhandogya text quoted. The passage is rather to be understood as containing an injunction, not a mere reference.

The case is analogous to that of `carrying'. There is a scriptural text relating to the Agnihotra which forms part of the Mahapitriyajna which is performed for the manes. Let him approach carrying the sacrificial wood below the ladle holding the offering; for above he carries it to the gods. Jaimini inter prets the last clause as an injunction although there is no word in it to that effect, for such an injunction is nowhere else to be found in the scriptures. Following this argument, this Sutra declares that there is an injunction as regards Sannyasa and not a mere reference in Chh. Up. II.23.1, as it is not enjoined anywhere else.

Even if in the Sruti there is only Anuvada (declaration) of other Asramas, the Purvamimamsika rules show that we must infer a Vidhi (injunction) of Sannyasa from the portion: Brahmasamstho'mritatvameti, because there is no other sepa rate injunction just as there is no command that the Samit should be kept on the upper portion of the Sruk and yet the Purvamimamsa says that such command should be inferred.

In the present case also the same rule of construction should be applied. Further, even if there is only a declaration and not an injunction as regards the other Asramas, we must infer an injunction about Sannyasa as it has been specially glorified.

Further there are Sruti passages which directly enjoin Sannyasa, Or else he may wander forth from the student's life, or from the house, or from the forest (Jabala Upanishad 4). Hence the existence of Sannyasa Asrama is undeniable.

The word Tapas in the Sruti refers to Vanaprastha whereas the speciality of Sannyasa is control of the senses (Indriya Samyama). The Sruti differentiates Sannyasa and says that those belonging to the other three Asramas go to the Punya Lokas whereas the Sannyasin attains Amritatva (Immortality).

Jaimini himself says that even glorification must be in a complimentary relation to an injunction. In the text, steadfast devotion to Brahma is employed. Hence it has an injunctive value. Brahma Samstha means meditating always on Brahman. It is a state of being grounded in Brahman to the exclusion of all other activities. In the case of other Asramas: that is not possible as they have their own Karmas. But it is possible to Sannyasins as they have abandoned Karmas. Their Sama (serenity) and Dama (self-restraint) help them towards it and are not obstacles.

Sannyasa is not prescribed only for those who are blind, lame, etc., and who are, therefore, not fit for performing rituals. Sannyasa is a means for the realisation of Brahman. It must be taken in a regular prescribed manner. The Sruti declares, The wandering mendicant, with orange-coloured robe, shaven, wifeless, pure, guileless, living on alms, accepting no gifts, qualifies himself for the realisation of Brahman (Jabali Sruti).

Therefore, Sannyasa is prescribed by the scriptures. As knowledge is enjoined on Sannyasins, it is independent of works.

STUTIMATRADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 3 (SUTRAS 21-22)

Scriptural texts as in Chh. Up. I.1.3. which refer to Vidyas are not mere praises but themselves enjoin the meditations

Stutimatramupadanaditi chennapurvatvat III.4.21 (446)

If it be said that (texts such as the one about the Udgitha are) mere glorifications on account of their reference (to parts of sacrifices), (we say) not so, on account of the newness (of what they teach, if viewed as injunctions).

Stutimatram: mere praise; Upadanat: on account of their reference (to parts of sacrificial acts); Iti: thus, so; Chet: if; Na: not so; Apurvatvat: on account of its newness. (Iti chet: if it be said).

This Sutra consists ot two parts, namely an objection and its reply. The objection portion is: `Stutimatramupadanaditi chet', and the reply portion is: `Na apurvatvat'.

That Udgitha (OM) is the best of all essences, the highest, holding the highest place, the eighth (Chh. Up. I.1.3). This earth is the Rik, the fire is Saman (Chh. Up. I.6.1). This world in truth is that piled up fire-altar (Sat. Br. X.1.2.2). That hymn is truly that earth (Ait. Ar. II.1.2.1).

A doubt arises whether these passages are meant to glorify the Udgitha or to enjoin devout meditations.

The Purvapakshin maintains that these are mere praise and no injunction to meditate on `OM' and so on. These passages are analogous to passages such as This earth is the ladle. The sun is the tortoise. The heavenly world is the Ahavaniya which simply glorify the ladle and so on.

The latter half of the present Sutra refutes the view of the opponent.

In the Sruti passage That Udgitha (OM) is the best essence of the essences etc., the description is not mere praise but is a Vidhi, and it tells us something which is new.

The analogy is incorrect. Glorificatory passages are of use in so far as entering into a complimentary relation to injunctive passages, but the passages under discussion are not capable of entering into such a relation to the Udgitha and so on which are enjoined in altogether different places of the Vedas and would be purposeless as far as the glorification is concerned. Passages such as This earth is the ladle are not analogous because they stand in proximity to injunctive passages, and so they can be taken as praise.

Therefore, the texts such as those under discussion have an injunctive purpose. On account of the newness, these are not mere praise but an injunction.

Bhavasabdaccha III.4.22 (447)

And there being words expressive of injunction.

Bhavasabaat: from words indicative of existence of injunction in Sruti; Cha: and, also, moreover.

The argument commenced in Sutra 21 is concluded.

Let one meditate on OM or the Udgitha (Chh. Up. I.1.1). We have a very clear injunction to meditate on OM in this passage. On the face of this we cannot interpret the text quoted in the last Sutra as mere praise of OM. The expression This is the best of all the essences in the passage cited under the preceding Sutra is not a mere glorificatory expression, but it amounts to an injunction for the Udgitha meditation.

PARIPLAVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 4 (SUTRAS 23-24)

The stories mentioned in the Upanishads do not serve the purpose of Pariplavas and so do not form part of the ritualistic acts.

They are meant to euloisge the Vidya taught in them

Pariplavartha iti chenna viseshitatvat III.4.23 (448)

If it be said (that the stories told in the Upanishads) are for the purpose of Pariplava (only, we say) not so, because (certain stories above) are specified (by the Sruti for this purpose).

Pariplavarthah: for the purpose of Pariplavas; Iti: so; Chet: if; Na: not so; Viseshitatvat: because of specification, on account of (certain stories alone) being specified. (Iti chet: if it be said.)

The purpose of narration of stories in the Upanishads is stated in this Sutra and in the next one.

This Sutra consists of two parts namely, an objection and its reply. The objection portion is `Pariplavartha iti chet'. And the reply is: `Na viseshitatvat'.

In the Asvamedha sacrifice the priest recites stories to the king who performs the Asvamedha sacrifice, and his relatives at intervals during the performance of the sacrifice. These are known as Pariplavas and form part of the ritualistic acts.

The question is whether the stories of the Upanishads such as those relating to Yajnavalkya and Maitreyi (Bri. Up. IV.5.1), Pratardana (Kau. Up. III.1), Janasruti (Chh. Up. IV.1.1), and so on also serve this purpose in which case they become part of the rites, and the whole of Jnana Kanda becomes subordinate to Karma Kanda.

The Purvapakshin holds that those stories of the Upanishads serve the purpose of Pariplava, because they are stories like others and because the telling of stories is enjoined for the Pariplava. From this it follows that the Upanishadic stories and Vedanta texts do not chiefly aim at knowledge, because like Mantras they stand in a complimentary relation to sacrificial acts.

Tatha chaikavakyatopabandhat III.4.24 (449)

And so (they are meant to illustrate the nearest Vidyas), being connected as one coherent whole.

Tatha: so, similarly; Cha: and; Ekavakyatopabandhat: being connected as one whole. (Ekavakya: unity cf construction or of statements or that of sense; Upabandhat: because of connection.)

The discussion commenced in Sutra 23 is concluded here.

Therefore, it is for the purpose of praise of Vidya because only then there would be unity of idea in the context. Only such a view will lead to harmony of the context.

The stories of the Upanishads are to be regarded as essential parts of Brahma Vidya. They are introduced only to facilitate an intelligent grouping of the subject. The stories are intended to introduce the Vidyas. The story form creates more attention and interest on the part of the aspirant. Their object is to make it clear to our understanding in a concrete form, the Vidyas taught in other portions of the Upanishads in the abstract.

Why do we say so? Ekavakyatopabandhat. Because of their syntactical connection with the Vidyas taught in the succeeding passages.

Thus in the story beginning with Yajnavalkya had two wives, etc., we find immediately following in that very section, the Vidya taught about the Atman in these words The Atman is verily to be seen, to be heard of, to be meditated upon. As these stories are immediately preceded or succeeded by instructions about Brahman, we infer that they are meant to glorify the Vidyas and are not Pariplava stories. The stories are told in order to facilitate the understanding of these abstruse subjects and they are eminently fitted to subserve that purpose.

AGNINDHANADYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 5

Sannyasins need not observe ritualistic acts,

as Brahma Vidya or knowledge serves their purpose

Ata eva chagnindhanadyanapeksha III.4.25 (450)

And, therefore, there is no necessity of the lighting of the fire and so on.

Ata eva: therefore, only, for this reason only; Cha: and, also; Agni: fire; Indhanadi: fire-wood, and so on, kindling fire and performing sacrifices, etc.; Anapeksha: no need, has not to be depended upon. (Agni-indhanadi-anapeksha: no necessity of lighting fires, etc.)

This Sutra states that the seeker of Brahman may dispense with sacrificial rites.

Brahma Vidya has no need for fire, fire-wood, etc. It is by itself the cause of emancipation.

In Sutra III.4.1 it was stated that the knowledge of Brah man results in the attainment of the highest Purushartha or goal of life. The expression Ata Eva (for this reason alone) must be viewed as taking up Sutra III.4.1 because thus a satisfa ctory sense is established. For this very same reason, i.e., because knowledge serves the purpose of Sannyasins, the lighting of the sacrificial fire and similar works which are enjoined on the householders, etc., need not be observed by them.

Thus the Sutrakara sums up the result of this first Adhikarana, intending to make some further remarks.

As a Sannyasin, devoted to the meditation on Brahman is stated in Sruti to attain immortality and not any of the rewards arising from sacrificial rites, he is not required to have recourse to sacrificial works to be performed with fire, fire-wood and so on. Chhandogya Upanishad declares, Brahmasamstho'amrita tvameti One devoted to Brahman attains Immortality (Chh. Up. II.23.1).

The theory or doctrine that knowledge and work must be combined in order to produce Mukti or salvation is hereby set aside. Brahma Vidya or Knowledge of Brahman is sufficient for that purpose.

SARVAPEKSHADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 6 (SUTRAS 26-27)

Works prescribed by the scriptures are means

to the attainment of knowledge

Sarvapeksha cha yajnadi sruterasvavat III.4.26 (451)

And there is the necessity of all works because the scriptures prescribe sacrifices, etc., (as means to the attainment of knowledge) even as the horse (is used to draw a chariot, and not for ploughing).

Sarvapeksha: there is the necessity of all works; Cha: and; Yajnadisruteh: for the scriptures prescribe sacrifices, etc., (as means to knowledge); Asvavat: like a horse, as in the case of the horse.

The Sutra says that sacrificial works and the like are necessary for origination of knowledge of Brahman.

We may conclude from the previous Sutra that works are altogether useless.

This Sutra says that all these works are useful for origination of knowledge. Even the scriptures prescribe them as they serve an indirect means to the attainment of knowledge. Brihad aranyaka Upanishad declares, Brahmanas seek to know Brahman by the study of the Vedas, by scriptures, gifts, penance and renunciation (Bri. Up. IV.4.22). Similarly the passage, what people call sacrifice that is really Brahmacharya (Chh. Up. VIII.5.1), by connecting sacrifices and so on with Bra hmacharya which is a means of knowledge, intimates that sacri fices, etc., also are means of knowledge. Again the passage That word which all the Vedas record, which all penances proclaim, desiring which men live as religious students, that word I tell thee briefly, it is OM (Katha Up. I.2.15), likewise intimates that the works enjoined on the Asramas are means of knowledge.

When knowledge once is attained requires no help from external works for the production of this result namely, Liberation. The case is analogous to a horse, whose help is required until the place of destination is reached but it may be dispensed with after the journey has been accomplished.

When Atma-Jnana is attained it does not need any other accessory to bring about salvation, but Karma is needed for Atma-Jnana. Just as a horse is not used to drag a plough but is used to drag a car, so the Asrama Karmas are not needed for the fruition of Jnana but are needed for Jnana.

The final emancipation results only from knowledge of Brahman and not from work. Work purifies the mind and knowledge dawns in a pure mind.

Hence works are useful as they are an indirect means to knowledge.

If knowledge be originated by sacrifices, gifts, penance and fasting, what is the necessity of other qualifications like Sama (serenity) and Dama (self-restraint)? To this the author replies in the next Sutra.

Samadamadyupetah syat tathapi tu tadvidhestadangataya

teshamavasyanushtheyatvat III.4.27 (452)

But all the same (even though there is no injunction to do sacrificial acts to attain knowledge in the Brihadaranyaka text) one must possess serenity, self-control and the like, as these are enjoined as auxiliaries to knowledge and therefore have necessarily to be practised.

Samadamadyupetah syat: one must possess serenity, self-control and the like; Tathapi: still, all the same, even if it be so; Tu: verily; Tadvidheh: as they are enjoined; Tadangataya: on account of their being a part, as helps to knowledge; Tesham: their; Avasyanushtheyatvat: because it being necessary to be practised. (Avasya: necessarily; Anushtheyatvat: because they must be practised.)

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad declares, The Brahmanas seek to know Brahman through the study of the Vedas, sacrifices, charity, etc. (Bri. Up. IV.4.22). In this passage there is no word to indicate that sacrifice is enjoined on one who wants to know Brahman.

So the Purvapakshin maintains that there is no necessity at all for work for one who aspires after knowledge.

This present Sutra says that even should this be so. The seeker for knowledge must possess calmness of mind, must subdue his senses and so on; because all this is enjoined as a means of knowledge in the following scriptural passage, There he who knows this, having become calm, subdued, satisfied, patient and collected sees Self in Self (Bri. Up. IV.4.23).

What is enjoined must necessarily be carried out. The introductory word `therefore' (Tasmat) which expresses the praise of the subject under discussion makes us un derstand that the passage has an injunctive character, because if there were no injunction, the praise would be meaningless.

Further the Madhyandina Sruti uses the word pasyet let him see and not `he sees'. Hence calmness of mind, etc., are required even if sacrifices, etc., should not be required.

As these qualities are enjoined, they are necessarily to be practised. Sama, Dama etc., are proximate or direct means of knowledge (Antaranga-Sadhana). Yajnas or sacrifices, etc., are remote or indirect means of knowledge (Bahiranga-Sadhana).

The word `Adi' (and the rest) mentioned in the Sutra, indi cates that the aspirant after Brahma Vidya must possess all these qualifications of truthfulness, generosity, asceticism, celibacy, indifference to worldly objects, tolerance, endurance, faith, equilibrium, compassion etc.

SARVANNANUMATYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 7 (SUTRAS 28-31)

Food-restrictions may be given up only when life is in danger

Sarvannanumatischa pranatyaye taddarsanat III.4.28 (453)

Only when life is in danger (there is) permission to take all food (i.e., take food indiscriminately) because the Sruti declares that.

Sarvannanumatih: permission to take all sorts of food; Cha: only; Prana tyaye: when life is in danger; Taddarsanat: because the Sruti declares that.

This and the subsequent three Sutras indicate what kind of food is to be taken.

Chhandogya Upanishad declares, For one who knows this, there is nothing that is not food (Chh. Up. V.2.1). The question is if such Sarvannanumati (description of all as his food) is a Vidhi or Vidhyanga or a Sruti (praise).

The Purvapakshin maintains that it is enjoined on one who meditates on Prana on account of the newness of the statement. It has an injunctive value, as such statement is not found anywhere else.

The Sutra refutes it and declares that it is not an injun ction, but only a statement of fact. We are not justified in assuming an injunction, where the idea of an injunction does not arise. It is not Vidhi or injunction as no mandatory words are found. Can a man eat and digest all things? No. Prohi bited food may be eaten only when life is in danger, when one is dying of hunger as was done by the sage Chakrayana (Ushasti) when he was dying for want of food. Sruti declares this.

Sage Ushasti was dying of hunger on account of famine. He ate the beans half-eaten by a keeper of elephants but refused to drink what had been offered by the latter on the ground of its being a mere leaving. The sage justified his conduct by saying, I would not have lived, if I had not eaten the beans, but water I can do without at present. I can drink water wherever I like.

From this it follows, that the passage For one who knows this etc., is an Arthavada.

Abadhatccha III.4.29 (454)

And because (thus) (the scriptural statements with respect to food) are not contradicted.

Abadhat: becausc of a non-contradiction, as there is no contrary state ment anywhere in Sruti; Cha: and, also, moreover, on account of non-sublation.

The topic commenced in Sutra 28 is continued.

And thus those scriptural passages which distinguish lawful and unlawful food such as When the food is pure the whole nature becomes pure (Chh. Up. VII.26.2) are non-sublated. The statement of the Chhandogya Upanishad will not be contradicted only if the explanation given is taken, and not otherwise.

Only then other Srutis will have unhindered applications. Only in this view will the Sruti When the food is pure the mind becomes pure have application.

Clean food should generally be taken as there is no contrary statement anywhere in Sruti to the purifying effect of clean food. There is nowhere any passage in Sruti, contradicting the passage of the Chhandogya Sruti which declares that clean food makes our nature pure.

Unlawful food as a general rule clogs the understanding and obstructs the clear works of the intellect. But in the case of the sage, whose heart is always pure and intellect keen, the taking of such food does not obstruct the working of his brain, and his knowledge remains as pure as ever.

Api cha smaryate III.4.30 (455)

And moreover the Smritis say so.

Api: also; Cha: moreover; Smaryate: the Smriti says so, it is seen in the Smritis, it is prescribed by Smriti.

The previous topic is continued.

Smriti also states that when life is in danger both he who has knowledge and he who has not can take any food. He who eats food procured from anywhere when life is in danger, is not tainted by sin, as a lotus leaf is not wetted by water.

On the contrary many passages teach that unlawful food is to be avoided. The Brahmana must permanently forego intoxicating liquor. Let them pour boiling spirits down the throat of a Brahmana who drinks spirits. Spirit-drinking worms grow in the mouth of the spirit-drinking man, because he enjoys what is unlawful.

From this it is inferred that generally clean food is to be taken except in the case of extreme starvation or in times of distress only.

When the Upanishad says that the sage may eat all kinds of food, it must be interpreted as meaning that he may eat all kinds of food, in times of distress only. The text of the Upanishad should not be construed as an injunction in favour of eating unlawful food.

Sabdaschato'kamakare III.4.31 (456)

And hence the scripture prohibiting license.

Sabdah: the scriptural passage; Cha: and; Atah: hence; Akamakare: to prevent undue license, prohibiting license, as to non-proceeding according to liking.

The previous topic is discussed and concluded here.

There are scriptural passages which prohibit one from doing everything just as he pleases, which forbid man to take undue liberty in the matter of food and drink. Therefore a Brahmana must not drink liquor (Kathaka Sam.). Perfect spiritual discipline is absolutely necessary for controlling the mind and the senses and attaining knowledge or Self-realisation. Such Sruti texts are meant for this discipline.

Therefore, it is established that the Sruti does not enjoin on one who meditates on Prana to take all kinds of food indiscriminately.

As there is Sruti which forbids license in food and drink, the Sruti referred to above in Sutra 28 is an Arthavada.

The permission to take all kinds of food is confined to times of distress only when one's life is in danger. One must strictly observe the injunctions of the scriptures in ordinary times.

ASRAMAKARMADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 8 (SUTRAS 32-35)

The duties of Asrama are to be performed by even one

who is not desirous of salvation

Vihitatvacchasramakarmapi III.4.32 (457)

And the duties of the Asramas (are to be performed also by him who does not desire emancipation) because they are enjoined (on him by the scriptures).

Vihitatvat: because they are enjoined; Cha: and; Asrama- karma: duties of the Asrama, or order of life; Api: also.

This and the subsequent three Sutras show who are required to perform sacrifices and do other prescribed duties.

Under Sutra 26 it has been proved that the works enjoined on the Asramas are means to knowledge. The question arises now, why should one who does not desire knowledge or final release do these works?

The present Sutra declares that since these duties are enjoined on all who are in these Aramas or orders of life, viz., student-life, householder's life, and hermit life, one should observe them.

In the case of a man who keeps to the Asramas but does not seek liberation, the Nityakarmas or the permanent obligatory duties are indispensable. The Sruti says Yavajjivam agnihotram juhotias long as his life lasts, one is to offer the Agnihotra.

Sahakaritvena cha III.4.33 (458)

And (the duties are to be performed also) as a means to knowledge.

Sahakaritvena: as, an auxiliary, on account of cooperativeness, as means to knowledge; Cha: and.

The topic commenced in Sutra 32 is continued.

The duties or works are helpful in producing knowledge but not its fruit, viz., emancipation. In the former case the connection between Karma and fruit is inseparable (Nitya-Samyoga), but in the latter case it is separable (Anitya-Samyoga). Salva tion or Moksha is attainable only through knowledge of Brahman or Brahma-Jnana.

Works (Karmas) are an aid to Vidya or knowledge of Self. Those who are desirous of emancipation should also perform religious rites as a help to enlightenment. Brahma Vidya is independent in producing its results. Karma is merely the handmaid and cooperator of Vidya. Works are means for the origination of knowledge.

Sarvathapi ta evobhayalingat III.4.34 (459)

In all cases the same duties (have to be performed), because of the twofold indicatory marks.

Sarvatha: in all cases, in every respect, under any circumstance; Api: also; Ta eva: the same duties (have to be performed); Ubhayalingat: because of the twofold inferential signs. (Ta: they, the sacrificial works; Eva: certainly.)

The previous topic is continued.

The word `Api' in the Sutra has the force of `indeed', `even'. The words `Sarvatha Api' are equal to `Sarvatha Eva'.

The question arises whether the works performed as enjoined on the Asramas, and those done as auxiliaries to knowledge are of two different kinds.

The present Sutra declares that in either case, whether viewed as duties incumbent on the Asramas or as cooperating with knowledge, the very same Agnihotra and other duties have to be performed, as is seen from the Sruti and the Smriti texts.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad declares, Him the Brahmanas seek to know through the study of the Vedas, sacrifices etc. (Bri. Up. IV.4.22). This text indicates that sacrifices etc., enjoined in Karmakanda for different purposes are to be performed as means to knowledge also.

The Smriti also says the same thing, He who performs obligatory works without aiming at the fruit of work etc. (Gita VI.1). Those very obligatory duties subserve the origi nation of knowledge also.

Moreover the Smriti passage He who is qualified by that forty-eighty purifications etc., refers to the purifications required for Vedic works, with a view to the origination of knowledge in him who has undergone these purifications.

In every respect, whether viewed as duties incumbent on a householder or as practices auxiliary to knowledge or illumination, the sacrificial works, prescribed to be performed, are recognised to be the same and not different, because they are indispensable requisites for both orders of life, as permanent duties for a householder and as auxiliary aids to meditation for a Sannyasi.

The Sutrakara, therefore, rightly emphasises the non-difference of the works.

Anabhibhavam cha darsayati III.4.35 (460)

And the scripture also declares (that he who is endowed with Brahmacharya) is not overpowered (by passion, anger, etc.).

Anabhibhavam: not being overpowered; Cha: and; Darsayati: the scrip ture shows, the Srutis declare.

The previous topic is concluded here.

This Sutra points out a further indicatory mark strengthening the conclusion that works cooperate towards knowledge. Scripture also declares that he who is endowed with such means as Brahmacharya, etc.. is not overpowered by such afflictions as passion, anger and the like. For that Self does not perish which one attains by Brahmacharya (Chh. Up. VIII.5.3). This passage indicates that like work, Brahmacharya, etc., are also means to knowledge. He who is endowed with celibacy is not overcome by anger, passion, jealousy, hatred. His mind is ever peaceful. As his mind is not agitated, he is able to practise deep and constant meditation which leads to the attainment of knowledge.

It is thus a settled conclusion that works are obligatory on the Asramas and are also means to knowledge.

VIDHURADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 9 (SUTRAS 36-39)

Those who stand midway between two Asramas

also are qualified for knowledge

Antara chapi tu taddrishteh III.4.36 (461)

And (persons standing) in between (two Asramas) are also (qualified for knowledge), for that is seen (in scripture).

Antara: (persons standing) in between (two Asramas); Cha: and; Api tu: also; Taddrishteh: such cases being seen, (as it is seen in Sruti, because it is so seen).

Widowers who have not married again, persons who are too poor to marry and those who are forced by circumstances not to enter into wedlock and have not renounced the world come under the purview of Sutras 36-39.

The word `tu' is employed in order to refute the Purvapaksha that Karma is necessary for the origination of knowledge of Brahman. The force of the word `cha' is to show certainty.

A doubt arises whether persons in want who do not possess means, etc., and, therefore, are not able to enter into one or the other of the Asramas, or who stand midway between two Asramas as for example, a widower, are qualified for knowledge or not.

The Purvapakshin maintains that they are not qualified, as they cannot perform the works of any Asrama which are means to knowledge.

The present Sutra declares that they are entitled, because such cases are seen from the scriptures. Scriptural passages declare that persons of that class such as Raikva and Gargi, the daughter of Vachaknavi had the knowledge of Brahman (Chh. Up. IV.1 and Bri. Up. III.6.8).

Vidura, a man who had no wife, did not adopt the Vanaprastha Asrama, and who had no Asrama, was expert in Brahma Vidya. He had knowledge of Brahman.

Antara (who stand outside) are those persons who do not belong to any order or Asrama and consequently do not perform the duties of any Asrama. They are born in this life with discrimination and dispassion owing to the performance of such duties in their previous birth. Their minds have been purified by truth, penance, prayers, etc., performed in their past lives. If a man has duly discharged the duties of his Asrama in previous birth, but owing to some obstacles or Pratibandhas Brahma-Jnana did not arise in him in that life, and he dies before the dawn of knowledge, then he is born in the present life ripe for knowledge. Brahma-Jnana manifests in him in all its glory by mere contact with a sage. Therefore such a man does not perform any Karmas or rather does not stand in any need of performing any duties of Asramas.

Api cha smaryate III.4.37 (462)

This is stated in Smriti also.

Api: also, too; Cha: moreover, and; Smaryate: is stated in Smriti, the Smriti records such cases.

The previous topic is continued.

Moreover, it is stated also in Smriti that persons, not belonging to any one of the four prescribed orders of life, acquire Brahma-Jnana.

It is recorded in the Itihasas (Mahabharata) also how Samvarta and others who paid no regard to the duties incumbent on the Asramas went naked and afterwards became great Yogins or saints. The great Bhishma is also an instance in point.

Manu Samhita declares There is no doubt that a Brahmana attains final success only by practice of continuously repeating the Japa. It matters little whether he performs other prescribed duties or not. One who is friendly to all, is really a Brahmana (II.87).

But the instances quoted from scripture and Smriti furnish merely indicatory marks. What then is the final conclusion? That conclusion is stated in the next Sutra.

Viseshanugrahascha III.4.38 (463)

And the promotion (of knowledge is bestowed on them) through special acts.

Visesha: special; Anugrahah: favour; Cha: and. (Viseshanu- grahah: special advantage, advantage or favour accruing from extraordinary good works done in the previous life.)

The previous topic is continued.

Moreover knowledge of Brahman may be attained by the special grace of the gods due to Japa, fasting and worship of gods. Or it may be that Asrama Karmas might have been done in previous births.

A widower who is not a householder in the proper sense of the term, can attain knowledge of Brahman through special acts like Japa, fasting, prayer, which are not opposed to the condition of those who do not belong to any Asrama.

The Smriti says By mere prayer no doubt the Brahmana perfects himself. May he perform other works or not, the kind-hearted one is called Brahmana (Manu Samhita II.87).

This passage indicates that where the works of the Asramas are not possible, prayer qualifies for knowledge.

Smriti also declares Perfected by many births he finally goes to the highest state (Bhagavad Gita VI.45). This passage intimates that the aggregate of the different meritorious works performed in previous births promotes knowledge.

Therefore, there is no contradiction in admitting qualifica tion for knowledge on the part of widowers and the like.

Atastvitarajjyayo lingaccha III.4.39 (464)

Better than this is the other (state of belonging to an Asrama) on account of the indicatory marks (in the Sruti and the Smriti).

Atah: from this, than this, than the intermediate state mentioned above; Tu: but; Itarat: the other, the state belonging to a prescribed order of life; Jyayah: better, superior; Lingat: because of the indicatory marks, from such indications in the scripture, from indication, signs, in ferences; Cha: and.

The previous topic is concluded here.

The word `tu' (but) is employed in order to remove the doubt. The word `cha' (and) is used in the sense of exclusion.

Though it is possible for one who stands between two Asramas to attain knowledge, yet it is a better means to know ledge to belong to some Asrama. He who belongs to an Asrama has better means of attaining knowledge of the Self or Brahman, because the facilities are greater in the latter condition.

This is confirmed by the Sruti and Smriti The Brahmanas seek to know Brahman through sacrifices etc. (Bri. Up. IV.4.22). On that path goes whoever knows Brahman and who has done holy works as prescribed for the Asramas and obtained splendour (Bri. Up. IV.4.9). Smriti declares, Let not a Brahmana stay for a day outside the Asrama; having stayed outside for a year he goes to utter ruin.

Tadbhutadhikaranam: Topic 10

He who has taken Sannyasa cannot revert back

to his former stages of life

Tadbhutasya tu natadbhavo jaiminerapi

niyamatadrupabhavebhyah III.4.40 (465)

But for one who has become that (i.e. entered the highest Asrama, i.e., Sannyasa) there is no reverting (to the preced ing ones) on account of restrictions prohibiting such reversion or descending to a lower order. Jaimini also (is of this opinion).

Tadbhutasya: of one who has become that, for one who has attained that (highest Asrama); Tu: but; Na: no; Atadbhavah: lapse from that stage, falling away from that; Jaimineh: according to Jaimini, of Jaimini (is this opinion); Api: also, even; Niyamatadrupabhavebhyah: on account of the restrictions prohibiting such reversion. (Niyamat: because of the strict rule; Atadrupdbhavebhyah: because there is no statement permitting it, and because it is against custom; Abhavebhyah: because of the absence of that.)

The question whether one who has taken Sannyasa can go back to the previous Asrama is now considered.

The present Sutra declares that he cannot go back to the previous Asrama. This is the opinion of Jaimini also.

There are no words in the Sruti allowing such a descent. The Sruti expressly forbids it, He is to go to the forest, he is not to return from there.

It is also against approved custom or usage.

The Upanishad declares Having been dismissed by the teacher he is to follow one of the four Asramas according to rule, up to release from the body (Chh. Up. II.23.1). There are texts which teach of the ascent to higher Asramas. Having completed the Brahmacharya state he is to become a householder. He may wander forth from the Brahmacharya state, but there are no texts which treat of the descent to lower Asramas.

Dharma is what is enjoined for each and not what each is capable of doing.

Scripture declares, Once returning to the forest, one should never return to household life. A Sannyasi should not stir up the household fire again after having once renounced it.

Therefore, one cannot go back from Sannyasa.

ADHIKARADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 11 (SUTRAS 41-42)

Expiation for one who has broken the vow of Sannyasa

Na chadhikarikamapi patananumanattadayogat III.4.41 (466)

And there is no fitness for expiation in the case of a Naishthika Brahmacharin (who is immoral), because a fall (in his case) is inferred from the Smriti and because of the inefficacy (in his case) of the expiatory ceremony.

Na: not; Cha: and; Adhikarikam: (expiation) mentioned in the chapter that deals with the qualification; Api: also, even; Patananumanat: because of a fall (in his case) is inferred from the Smriti; Tadayogat: because of its (of the expiatory ceremony) inefficiency in his case.

The previous discussion is continued.

The present Sutra expresses the view of the Purvapakshin.

The opponent maintains that there is no expiation for such transgression in the case of a Naishthika Brahmacharin who has taken the vow of life-long celibacy, because no such expiatory ceremony is mentioned with respect to him. The expiatory ceremony which is mentioned in Purvamimamsa VI.8.22, refers to ordinary Brahmacharins and not to Naishthika Brahmacharins.

Smriti declares that such sins cannot be expiated by him any more than a head once cut off can again be fixed to the body, He who having once entered on the duties of a Naishthika again lapses from them, for him a slayer of the Self, I see no expiation which might make him clean again (Agneya XVI.5.23).

Further the expiatory ceremony referred to in Purvamimamsa is not efficacious in his case, because he will have to light sacrificial fire and therefore have to marry. In that case he will cease to be a Naishthika Brahmacharin thereafter.

But the Upakurvana (i.e., who is a Brahmacharin for a certain period only, not for life, one who is a Brahmacharin till marriage) about whose sin Smriti makes no similar declaration, may purify himself by the ceremony mentioned. If he is immoral there is expiation.

Upapurvamapi tveke bhavamasanavattaduktam III.4.42 (467)

But some (consider the sin) a minor one (and therefore claim) the existence (of expiation for the Naishthika Brahmacharin also); as in the case of eating (of unlawful food). This has been explained (in the Purvamimamsa).

Upapurvam: (Upapurvaka-patakam, Upapatakam) a minor sin; Api tu: but, however; Eke: some (say); Bhavam: possibility of expiation; Asanavat: as in the eating (prohibited food); Tat: this; Uktam: is explained (in Purvamimamsa).

The previous discussion is continued.

Some teachers, however, are of opinion that the transgres sion of the vow of chastity, even on the part of a Naishthika is a minor sin, not a major one excepting cases where the wife of the teacher is concerned and so can be expiated by proper ceremonies just as ordinary Brahmacharins who take prohibited food such as honey, wine, flesh, are again purified by expiatory ceremonies. They plead that that sin is not anywhere enumerated among the deadly ones (Mahapataka) such as violating a teacher's bed and so on. They claim the expia tory ceremony to be valid for the Naishthika as well as the Upakurvana. Both are Brahmacharins and have committed the same offence.

It is only sexual intercourse with the wife of the Guru or spiritual preceptor that is a Mahapataka (major sin). That Upapataka, a minor sin is an expiable sin has been explained in the Purvamimamsa of Jaimini in Chap. I.3.8.

The Smriti passage which declares that there is no expiation for the Naishthika must be explained as aiming at the origination of serious effort on the part of Naishthika Brahmacharins. It puts him in mind of the serious responsibility on his part so that he may be ever alert and vigilant and struggle hard in maintaining strict unbroken Brahmacharya and thus achieving the goal or summum bonum of life, i.e., Self-realisation.

Similarly in the case of the hermit and the Sannyasin. The Smriti does prescribe the purificatory ceremony for both the hermit (Vanaprastha) and the mendicant (Sannyasi). When the hermit has broken his vows, undergoes the Kricchra-penance for twelve nights and then cultivates a place which is full of trees and grass. The Sannyasi also proceeds like the hermit, with the exception of cultivating the Soma plant, and undergoes the purifications prescribed for his state.

BAHIRADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 12

The life-long celibate who fails to keep up his vow

must be excluded by society

Bahistubhayathapi smriteracharaccha III.4.43 (468)

But (they are to be kept) outside the society in either case, on account of the Smriti and custom.

Bahih: outside; Tu: but; Ubhayatha: in either case, whether it be a grave sin or a minor sin; Api: also, even; Smriteh: on account of the state ment of the Smriti, from the Smriti; Acharat: from custom; Cha: and.

The previous discussion is concluded here.

Whether the lapses be regarded as major sins or minor sins, in either case good people (Sishtas) must shun such transgres sors, because the Smriti and good custom both condemn them.

Smriti declares, he who touches a Brahmana who has broken his vow and fallen from his order, must undergo the Chandrayana penance. Approved custom also condemns them, because good men do not sacrifice, study, or attend weddings with such persons.

SVAMYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 13 (SUTRAS 44-46)

The meditations connected with the subordinate members of sacrificial acts (Yajnangas) should be observed by the priest

and not by the sacrificer

Svaminah phalasruterityatreyah III.4.44 (469)

To the sacrificer (belongs the agentship in meditations) because the Sruti declares a fruit (for it): thus Atreya (holds).

Svaminah: of the master, of the sacrificer or Yajamana; Phalasruteh: from the declaration in Sruti of the results; Iti: so, thus; Atreyah: the sage Atreya (holds).

This is the view of the Purvapakshin or the opponent.

A doubt arises as to who is to observe the meditations connected with the subordinate members of sacrificial acts (Yajnangas), whether it is the sacrificer (Yajamana) or the priest (Ritvik).

The opponent, represented by the Sage Atreya, maintains that it is to be observed by the sacrificer, as the Sruti declares a special fruit for these meditations.

There is rain for him and he brings rain for others who thus knowing meditates on the five-fold Saman as rain (Chh. Up. II.3.2).

Hence the sacrificer only is the agent in those meditations which have a fruit. This is the opinion of the teacher Atreya.

Artvijyamityaudulomistasmai hi parikriyate III.4.45 (470)

(They are) the duty of the Ritvik (priest), this is the view of Audulomi, because he is paid for that (i.e., the performance of the entire sacrifice).

Artvijyam: the duty of the Ritvik (priest); Iti: thus; Audulomih: the sage Audulomi (thinks); Tasmai: for that; Hi: because; Parikriyate: he is paid.

The previous topic is continued.

The assertion that the meditations on subordinate members of the sacrifice are the work of the sacrificer (Yajamana) is unfounded.

But Audulomi says that they are to be done by the priest (Ritvik), because he is engaged (literally bought) for the sake of the Karma. As the priest is paid for all his acts, the fruit of all his acts, is as it were, purchased by the Yajamana (sacri ficer). Therefore the meditations also fall within the perfor mance of the work, as they belong to the sphere of that to which the sacrificer is entitled. They have to be observed by the priest and not the sacrificer.

This is the view of the sage Audulomi.

Srutescha III.4.46 (471)

And because the Sruti (so) declares.

Sruteh: from the Sruti; Cha: and.

The previous topic is concluded here.

The Ritvik is to make the Anga Upasana. But the fruit goes to the Yajamana.

Whatever blessing the priests pray for at the sacrifice, they pray for the good of the sacrificer (Sat. Br. I.3., I.26). Therefore an Udgatri who knows this may say: what wish shall I obtain for you by my singing (Chh. Up. I.7.8). The scriptural passages also declare that the fruit of meditations in which the priest is the agent, goes to the sacrificer.

All this establishes the conclusion that the meditations on subordinate parts of the sacrifice are the work of the priest.

Therefore, Audulomi's view is correct, being supported by the Sruti texts.

SAHAKARYANTARAVIDHYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 14 (SUTRAS 47-49)

In Bri. Up. III.5.1 meditation is enjoined besides the

child-like state and scholarship

Sahakaryantaravidhih pakshena tritiyam

tadvato vidhyadivat III.4.47 (472)

There is the injunction of something else, i.e., meditation, cooperation (towards knowledge) (which is) a third thing (with regard to Balya or state of a child and Panditya or scholarship), (which injunction is given) for the case (of per fect knowledge not yet having arisen) to him who is such (i.e., the Sannyasin possessing knowledge); as in the case of injunctions, and the like.

Sahakaryantaravidhih: a separate auxiliary injunction; Pakshena: as an alternative; Tritiyam: the third; Tadvatah: for one who possesses it, (i.e., knowledge); Vidhyadivat: just as in the case of injunctions and the like.

This Sutra examines a passage of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and concludes that continuous meditation is also to be considered as enjoined by Sruti for the realisation of Brahman. This and the following two Sutras show that the scripture enjoins the four orders of life.

Mauna (Nididhyasa or meditation) is enjoined as an aid. The third, i.e., Mauna is enjoined for a Sannyasi in case his sense of cosmic diversity is persistent, just as Yajnas are enjoined for one desirous of heaven.

Therefore, a knower of Brahman, having done with scholar ship, should remain like a child (free from passion, anger, etc.); and after having finished with this state and with erudition he becomes meditative (Muni) (Bri. Up. III.5.1).

A doubt arises now whether the meditative state is enjoined or not.

The Purvapakshin maintains that it is not enjoined, as there is no word indicating an injunction. Though the imperative mood occurs in regard to Balya or child-like state, there is no such indication in regard to the Muni. The text merely says that he becomes a Muni or meditative whereas it expressly enjoins One should remain etc., with respect to the state of child and scholarship.

Further scholarship refers to knowledge. Therefore, it includes Muniship which also refers to knowledge. As there is no newness (Apurva) with respect to Muniship in the text it has no injunctive value.

This Sutra refutes this view and declares that Muniship or meditativeness is enjoined in the text as a third requisite besides child-like state and scholarship.

Muni means a person who constantly meditates on Brahman. So constant meditation is the third auxiliary observance for one who is already possessed of Panditya (erudition) and Balya (child-like state); and as such constant meditation is enjoined to be observed like the injunctions about sacrifice and control of the senses and so on.

This Sutra refers to a passage of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, where in reply to a question by one Kahola, the sage Yajnavalkya enjoins first, scholarly attainments, the child-like simplicity, and then thirdly, continuous meditation cooperating with the two previous conditions, with a view to realisation of Brahman. Though there is no verb of imperative or injunctive force in the case of this third state, there is to be inferred an injunction to be understood like the injunctions in the other cases.

Muniship is continuous contemplation on Brahman. Therefore, it is different from scholarship. It is a new thing (Apurva). It has not been referred to before. Hence the text has injun ctive value. Incessant meditation is highly beneficial for a Sannyasin who has not yet attained oneness or unity of Self and who experiences plurality on account of past expressions or the prevailing force of the erroneous idea of multiplicity.

Munihood is enjoined as something helpful to knowledge.

Kritsnabhavattu grihinopasamharah III.4.48 (473)

On account of his being all, however, there is winding up with the householder.

Kritsnabhavat: on account of the householder's life including all; Tu: verily; Grihina: by a householder, with the householder; Upasamharah: the conclusion, the goal, salvation, (the Chapter) ends. (Kritsna: of all (duties); Bhavat: owing to the existence; Grihinopasamharah: conclusion with the case of the householder.)

The Sruti winds up with the householder as he has all the duties. He has to do difficult sacrifices and has also to observe Ahimsa, self-control, etc. As the householder's life includes duties of all the other stages of life, the Chapter ends with the enumeration of the duties of the householder.

The Chhandogya Upanishad concludes with the householder's stage, because of the fact that this stage includes all the others. He, the householder, conducting his life in this way, concent rating all his senses upon the self, and abstaining from injury to any living being throughout his life, attains the world of Brahma and has not to return again to this world (Chh. Up. VIII.15.1).

The word `tu' is meant to lay stress on the householder being everything. He has to do many duties belonging to his own Asrama which involve a great trouble. At the same time the duties of the other Asramas such as tenderness for all living creatures, restraint of the senses and study of scriptures, and so on are incumbent on him also as far as circumstances allow. Therefore, there is nothing contradictory in the Chhandogya winding up with the householder.

The householder's life is very important. Grihasthasrama includes more or less the duties of all Asramas. The Sruti enumerates the duties of the Brahmacharin and then those of the householder and there it ends without referring to Sannyasa in order to lay stress on the life of the householder, to show its importance, and not because it is not one of the prescribed Asramas.

Maunavaditareshamapyupadesat III.4.49 (474)

Because the scripture enjoins the other (stages of life, viz., Brahmacharya and Vanaprastha), just as it enjoins the state of a Muni (Sannyasi).

Maunavat: just as silence, like constant meditation, like the state of a Muni (Sannyasi); Itaresham: of the others, of the other orders of life; Api: even, also; Upadesat: because of scriptural injunction.

This Sutra states that the scripture enjoins the observance of the duties of all the orders of life.

Just as the Sruti enjoins Sannyasa and householder's life, so also it enjoins the life of a Vanaprastha (hermit) and that of a student (Brahmacharin). For we have already pointed above to passages such as Austerity is the second, and to dwell as a student in the house of a teacher is the third. As thus the four Asramas are equally taught by the scripture, they are to be gone through in sequence or alternately.

That the Sutra uses a plural form (of the `others') when speaking of two orders only, is due to its having regard either to the different sub-classes of those two or to their difficult duties.

ANAVISHKARADHIKARNAM: TOPIC 15

Child-like state means the state of innocence,

being free from egoism, lust, anger, etc.

Anavishkurvannanvayat III.4.50 (475)

(The child-like state means) without manifesting himself, according to the context.

Anavishkurvan: without manifesting himself; Ananvayat: according to the context.

This Sutra says that the perversity of a child is not meant by the word `Balyena' (by the child-like state), in the passage of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad quoted under Sutra 47.

In the passage of the Brihadaranyaka quoted in the Sutra 47, the child-like state is enjoined on an aspirant after knowledge. Therefore, a Brahmana after he has done with learning should remain like a child. What is exactly meant by this?

Does it mean to be like a child without any idea of purity and impurity, freely attending to the calls of nature without any respect of place, etc., behaving, talking and eating, accord ing to one's liking and doing whatever one likes, or does it mean inward purity, i.e., absence of cunningness, arrogance, sense of egoism, force of the sensual passions and so on as in the case of a child?

The present Sutra says it is the latter and not the former, because that is detrimental to knowledge. It means that one should be free from guile, pride, egoism, etc. He should not manifest the undesirable evil traits. He should not manifest by a display of knowledge, learning and virtuousness. Just as a child whose sensual powers have not yet developed themselves does not attempt to make a display of himself before others, he must not publish and proclaim his learning, wisdom and goodness. Such meaning only is appropriate to the context, purity and innocence being helpful to knowledge.

Then only the passage has a connection with the entire chapter on the ground of cooperating towards the principal matter, namely, the realisation of Brahman. Being free from ostentation is necessary, because only then there will be Anvaya or concordance of doctrine.

The Smriti writers have said, He whom nobody knows either as noble or ignoble, as ignorant or learned, as well as well-conducted or ill-conducted, he is a Brahmana. Quietly devoted to his duty, let the wise man pass through life unknown, let him step on this earth as if he were blind, unconscious, deaf. Another Smriti passage is With hidden nature, hidden conduct, and so on.

AIHIKADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 16

The time of the origination of knowledge

when Brahma Vidya is practised

Aihikamapyaprastutapratibandhe taddarsanat III.4.51 (476)

In this life (the origination of knowledge takes place) if there be no obstruction to it (the means adopted), because it is so seen from the scriptures.

Aihikam: in this life; Api: even; Aprastutapratibandhe: in the absence of an obstruction to it (the means adopted); Taddarsanat: as it is seen in Sruti. (Aprastuta: not being present; Pratibandhe: obstruction; Tat: that; Darsanat: being declared by the scriptures.)

This Sutra states whether the consequence of Brahma Vidya, which is the realisation of Brahman, is possible in this life or will wait till death.

Beginning from Sutra 26 of the present Pada (Section) we have discussed the various means of knowledge.

The question now is whether knowledge that results from these means comes in this life or in the life to come.

The present Sutra declares that knowledge may come in this life only if there is no obstruction to its manifestation from extraneous causes. When the fruition of knowledge is about to take place, it is hindered by the fruit of some other powerful work (Karma), which is also about to mature. When such an obstruction takes place, then knowledge comes in the next life.

That is the reason why the scripture also declares that it is difficult to know the Self, He of whom many are not even able to hear, whom many even when they hear of him do not comprehend; wonderful is a man when found who is able to teach him; wonderful is he who comprehends him when taught by an able teacher (Katha Up. I.27).

The Gita also says, There he recovers the characteristics belonging to his former body, and with that he again strives for perfection, O Joy of the Kurus (Chap. VI.43). The Yogin striving with assiduity, purified from sin, gradually gaining perfection, through manifold births, then reaches the Supreme Goal (Chap. VI.45).

Further scripture relates that Vamadeva already became Brahman in his mother's womb and thus shows that knowledge may spring up in a later form of existence through means pro cured in a former one; because a child in a womb cannot possibly procure such means in its present state.

It, therefore, is an established conclusion that knowledge originates either in the present or in a future life, in dependence on the evanescence of obstacles.

MUKTIPHALADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 17

Liberation is a state without difference. It is only one

Evam muktiphalaniyamastadavasthavadhrites-

tadavasthavadhriteh III.4.52 (477)

No such definite rule exists with respect to emancipation, the fruit (of knowledge), because the Sruti asserts that state (to be immutable).

Evam: thus, like this; Muktiphalaniyamah: there is no rule with respect to the final emancipation, the fruit (of knowledge); Tadavasthavadhriteh: on account of the assertions by the Sruti as to that condition. (Mukti: salvation; Phala: fruit; Aniyamah: there is no rule; Tat: that; Avastha: condition; Avadhriteh: because the Sruti has ascertained so.)

In the previous Sutra it was seen that knowledge may result in this life or the next according to the absence or presence of obstructions and the intensity of the means adopted.

Similarly a doubt may arise that there may be some rule with respect to the final emancipation also, which is the fruit of knowledge. A doubt may arise whether salvation can be delayed after knowledge, and whether there are degrees of knowledge according to the qualification of the aspirant, whether there exists a similar definite difference with regard to the fruit characterised as final release, owing to the superior or inferior qualification of the persons knowing.

This Sutra declares that no such rule exists with regard to release. Because all Vedanta texts assert the state of final release to be of one kind only. The state of final release is nothing but Brahman and Brahman cannot be connected with different forms since many scriptural passages assert it to have one nature only.

The knower of Brahman becomes Brahman. There can be no variety in it, as Brahman is without qualities.

There is no such divergence in the fruit of Mukti, because of the affirmation of its identical nature. There may be differences in the potency of the Sadhana leading to knowledge or Brahma Vidya. Brahma Vidya itself is of the same nature, though it may come early or late owing to the power of the Sadhana. There is no difference in the nature of Mukti (liberation) which is attained by Brahma Vidya. There would be difference of results in Karmas and Upasanas (Saguna Vidyas) but Nirguna Vidya is but one and its result viz., Mukti is identical in all cases.

Difference is possible only when there are qualities as in the case of the Saguna Brahman. There may be difference in the experiences according to difference in Vidyas but with regard to Nirguna Brahman it can be one only and not many.

The means of knowledge may, perhaps, according to their individual strength, impart a higher or lower degree to their result, viz., knowledge, but not to the result of knowledge, viz., Liberation. Because liberation is not something which is to be brought about, but something whose nature is permanently established, and is reached through knowledge.

Knowledge cannot admit of lower or higher degree because it is in its own nature high only and would not be knowledge at all if it were low. Although knowledge may differ in so far as it originates after a long or short time, it is impossible that liberation should be distinguished by a higher or lower degree. From the absence of difference of knowledge also there follows absence of definite distinction on the part of the result of knowledge, viz., Liberation.

There cannot be any delay in the attainment of emancipation after knowledge has dawned, because knowledge of Brahman itself is emancipation.

The repetition of the clause, Tadavasthavadhriteh because the Sruti asserts that state indicates that the Chapter ends here.

Thus ends the Fourth Pada (Section 4) of the Third Adhyaya (Chapter III) of the Brahma Sutras or the Vedanta Philosophy.

Font Size

Chapter IV, Phala-Adhyaya Section 1

In the Third Chapter, the Sadhanas or the means of knowledge relating to Para Vidya (higher knowledge) and Apara Vidya (lower knowledge) were discussed. The Fourth Chapter treats of Phala or the Supreme Bliss of attainment of Brahman. Other topics also are dealt with in it. In the beginning, however, a separate discussion concerned with the means of knowledge is dealt with in a few Adhikaranas. The remainder of the previous discussion about Sadhanas is continued in the beginning. As the main topic of this Chapter is that of the results or fruits of Brahma Vidya, it is called Phala Adhyaya.

SYNOPSIS

Adhikarana I: (Sutras 1-2) The meditation on the Atman enjoined by scripture is not an act to be accomplished once only, but is to be repeated again and again till knowledge is attained.

Adhikarana II: (Sutra 3) The meditator engaged in meditation on Brahman is to view or comprehend It as identical with his own self.

Adhikarana III: (Sutra 4) In Pratikopasanas where symbols of Brahman are used for meditation as for instance Mano Brahmetyupasita, the meditator is not to consider the Pratika or symbol as identical with him.

Adhikarana IV: (Sutra 5) In the Pratikopasanas, the Pratikas or symbols are to be viewed as Brahman and not in the reverse way.

Adhikarana V: (Sutra 6) In meditations on the members of sacrificial acts, the idea of divinity is to be superimposed on the members and not vice versa. In the example quoted for instance the Udgitha is to be viewed as Aditya, not Aditya as the Udgitha.

Adhikarana VI: (Sutras 7-10) One is to carry on his meditations in a sitting posture. Sri Sankara maintains that the rule does not apply to those meditations whose result is Samyag-darsana but the Sutra gives no hint to that effect.

Adhikarana VII: (Sutra 11) The meditations may be carried on at any time, and in any place, if favourable to concentration of mind.

Adhikarana VIII: (Sutra 12) The meditations are to be continued until death. Sri Sankara again holds that those meditations which lead to Samyag-darsana are excepted.

Adhikarana IX: (Sutra 13) Knowledge of Brahman frees one from the effects of all past and future evil deeds.

Adhikarana X: (Sutra 14) Good deeds likewise cease to affect the knower of Brahman.

Adhikarana XI: (Sutra 15) Works which have not begun to yield results (Anarabdhakarya) are alone destroyed by knowledge and not those which have already begun to yield fruits (Arabdhakarya).

Adhikarana XII: (Sutras 16-17) From the rule enunciated in Adhikarana X are excepted such sacrificial performances as are enjoined permanently (Nitya, obligatory works), as for instance the Agnihotra, because they promote the origination of knowledge.

Adhikarana XIII: (Sutra 18) Sacrificial works not combined with knowledge or meditations also help in the origination of knowledge.

Adhikarana XIV: (Sutra 19) On the exhaustion of Prarabdha work through enjoyment, the knower of Brahman attains oneness with It. The Bhoga or enjoyment of the Sutra is, according to Sankara, restricted to the present existence of the seeker, since the complete knowledge obtained by him destroys the ignorance which otherwise would lead to future embodiments.

AVRITTYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 1 (SUTRAS 1-2)

Meditation on Brahman should be continued

till knowledge is attained

Avrittirasakridupadesat IV.1.1 (478)

The repetition (of hearing, reflection and meditation on Brahman is necessary) on account of the repeated instruction by the scriptures.

Avrittih: repetition, practice of meditation on Brahman (is necessary); Asakrit: not only once, many times, repeatedly; Upadesat: because of instruction by the scriptures.

This Sutra states that constant practice of meditation is necessary.

Frequent practice of meditation on Brahman is necessary as there is instruction to that effect in the Sruti.

Verily, the Self is to be seen, to be reflected upon, and meditated upon (Bri. Up. II.4.5). The intelligent aspirant knowing about Brahman should attain Brahma-Sakshatkara or direct Self-realisation (Bri. Up. IV.4.21). That is what we must search out, that is what we must try to understand (Chh. Up. VIII.7.1).

A doubt arises whether the mental action (reflection and meditation) referred to in them is to be preformed once only or repeatedly.

The Purvapakshin maintains that it is to be observed once only as in the case of Prayaja offerings and the like.

Let us then repeat exactly as the scripture says, i.e., let us hear the self once, let us reflect on it once, let us meditate on it once and nothing more.

The present Sutra refutes this view and says that hearing, etc., must be repeated till one attains knowledge of Brahman or direct Self-realisation, just as paddy is husked till we get rice. There is the necessity of repetition till there is dawn of knowledge of Brahman. The repetition of mental acts of reflection and meditation eventually leads to direct Self-realisation. Repetition is to be performed because scripture gives repeated instruction.

Thus in the Chh. Up. VI.8.7 the teacher repeats nine times the saying, Tat Satyam Sa Atma Tat-Tvam-Asi SvetaketoThat Truth, That Atman, That thou art, O Svetaketu! Here Svetaketu is taught the mystery about Brahman nine times before he understood it.

The analogy of the Prayaja is faulty. It is not to the point at all because there is the Adrishta which is the result gives fruit at some particular future time in the next world. But here the result is directly realised. Direct intution of the Self is a visible result to be gained in this very life. Therefore, if the result is not there, the process must be repeated, till the result is realised. Such acts must be repeated, because they subserve a seen purpose.

When we speak of the Upasana of the Guru or the king or of the wife thinking about her absent husband, we do not mean a single act of service or thought but a continuous series of acts and thoughts. We say in ordinary life that a person is devoted to a teacher or a king if he follows him with a mind steadily set on him, and of a wife whose husband has gone on a journey we say that she thinks of him only if she steadily remembers him with longing.

In Vedanta, Vid (knowing) and Upasati (meditating) are used as identical. That 'knowing' implies repetition follows from the fact that in the Vedanta texts the terms 'knowing' and 'meditating' are seen to be used one in the place of the other. In some passages the term 'knowing' is used in the beginning and the term 'meditating' in the end: thus, e.g., He who knows what he knows is thus spoken of by me and teach me sir, the deity which you meditate on (Chh. Up. IV.1.4; 2.2). In other places the text at first speaks of 'meditating' and later on of 'knowing'; thus e.g., Let a man meditate on mind as Brahman and He who knows this shines and warms through his celebrity, fame and glory of countenance (Chh. Up. III.18.1, 6).

Meditation and reflection imply a repetition of the mental act. When we say He meditates on it the continuity of the act of remembrance of the object is implied. Similar is the case with reflection also.

From this it follows that repetition has to be practised there also, where the text gives instruction once only. Where, again, the text gives repeated instruction, repeated performance of the mental acts is directly intimated.

When the scripture speaking about the rice for the sacrifice says, The rice should be beaten the sacrificer understands that the injunction means The rice should be beaten over and over again, till it is free from husk for no sacrifice can be performed with the rice with its husk on. So when the scripture says, The Self must be seen through hearing, reflection and meditation it means the repetition of these mental processes, so long as the Self is not seen or realised.

Lingaccha IV.1.2 (479)

And on account of the indicatory mark.

Lingat: because of the indicatory mark or sign; Cha: and.

The same topic is continued.

An indicatory mark also shows that repetition is required. In the Sruti there is a teaching of repeated meditation. It says that one son will be born if there is a single act of meditation whereas many sons will be born if there are many and repeated acts of meditation. Reflect upon the rays and you will have many sons (Chh. Up. I.5.2). In the Section treating of meditation on the Udgitha the text repeats the meditation on the Udgitha viewed as the sun, because its result is one son only and the clause Reflect upon his rays enjoins a meditation on his manifold rays as leading to the possession of many sons. This indicates that the repetition of meditation is something well known. What holds good in this case holds good for other meditations also.

In the case of first class type of aspirant with intense purity, dispassion, discrimination and extremely subtle and sharp intellect, a single hearing of that great sentence Tat-Tvam-Asi Mahavakya will be quite sufficient. Repetition would indeed be useless for him who is able to realise the true nature of Brahman even if the Mahavakya Tat-Tvam-Asi is enounced once only. But such advanced souls are very rare. Ordinary people who are deeply attached to the body and objects cannot attain realisation of Truth by a single enunciation of it. For such persons repetition is of use. The erroneous notion I am the body can be destroyed only through constant meditation or repeated practice. Knowledge can dawn only when there is incessant and frequent meditation.

Repetition has the power of annihilating this erroneous idea gradually. Meditation should be continued till the last trace of body idea is destroyed. When the body consciousness is totally annihilated, Brahman shines Itself in all Its pristine glory and purity. The meditator and the meditated become one. Individuality vanishes in toto.

If repetition is not necessary the Chhandogya Upanishad would not have taught the truth of the great sentence Thou art That repeatedly.

In the Taittiriya Upanishad III.2 we find that Bhrigu goes several times to his father Varuna and asks him again and again, to be taught the nature of Brahman.

Bhrigu Varuni went to his father Varuna saying, Sir, teach me Brahman. He told him this, viz., food, breath, the eye, the ear, mind and speech. Then he said again to him That from whence 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.

This injunction about repetition is meant for those only who lack in purity and subtle understanding and in whom a single enunciation is not sufficient to give them the direct cognition of Brahman.

The individual soul is taught step by step to be subtler than the body, etc., till it is realised as pure Chaitanya. When we have the knowledge of the object only, we can have full knowledge of the affirmation about it. In the case of those who have ignorance or doubt or wrong knowledge, the affirmation (Tat-Tvam-Asi) cannot bring on immediate realisation but to those who have no such obstruction there will be realisation. Hence reiteration with reasoning is only for leading us to full Vachyartha Jnana.

We observe that men by repeating again and again a sentence which they, on the first hearing, had understood imperfectly only, gradually rid themselves of all misconceptions and arrive at a full understanding of the true sense.

All this establishes the conclusion that, in the case of cognition of the Supreme Brahman, the instruction leading to such realisation may be repeated.

ATMATVOPASANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 2

He who meditates on the Supreme Brahman

must comprehend It as identical with himself

Atmeti tupagacchanti grahayanti cha IV.1.3 (480)

But (the Sruti texts) acknowledge (Brahman) as the Self (of the meditator) and also teach other (to realise It as such).

Atmeti: as the Self; Tu: but; Upagacchanti: acknowledge, approach, realise; Grahayanti: teach, make others comprehend, instruct; Cha: also.

This Sutra prescribes the process of meditation.

A doubt arises whether Brahman is to be comprehended by the Jiva or the individual soul as identical with it or separate from it.

The opponent maintains that Brahman is to be comprehended as different from the individual soul owing to their essential difference, because the individual soul is subject to pain, sorrow and misery, while the other is not.

The present Sutra refutes the view that Brahman is to be comprehended as identical with one's self. The individual is essentially Brahman only. The Jivahood is due to the limiting adjunct, the internal organ or Antahkarana. The Jivahood is illusory. The Jiva is in reality an embodiment of bliss. It experiences pain and misery on account of the limiting adjunct, Antahkarana.

The Jabalas acknowledge it I am indeed Thou, O Lord, and Thou art indeed myself. Other scriptural texts also say the same thing, I am Brahman: Aham Brahma Asmi (Bri. Up. I.4.10). Thy self is this which is within all (Bri. Up. III.4.1). He is thy self, the ruler within, the immortal (Bri. Up. III.7.3). That is the True, that is the Self, That thou art (Chh. Up. VI.8.7). The texts are to be taken in their primary and not secondary sense as in The mind is Brahman (Chh. Up. III.18.1), where the text presents the mind as a symbol for meditation.

Therefore we have to meditate on Brahman as the Self.

You cannot say that these mean only a feeling or emotion of oneness, just as we regard an idol as Vishnu.

In the latter case we have only a single statement. But in the Jabala Sruti we have a double affirmation, i.e., the identity of Brahman with the individual soul with Brahman. The seeming difference between Jiva and Brahman is unreal. There is Jivahood or Samsaritva for the individual soul till realisation is attained.

Hence we must fix our minds on Brahman as being the Self.

PRATIKADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 3

The symbols of Brahman should not be meditated upon

as identical with the meditator

Na pratike na hi sah IV.1.4 (481)

(The meditator is) not (to see the Self) in the symbol, because he is not (that).

Na: not; Pratike: in the symbol (such as Akasa, the sun, the mind, etc.); Na: not; Hi: because; Sah: he.

This and the following two Sutras examine the value of a Pratika or symbol in worship.

Pratikas, symbols, would not be regarded as one with us. The meditator cannot regard them as being one with him, as they are separate from him.

Chhandogya Upanishad III.18.1 declares The mind is Brahman.

A doubt arises whether in such meditations where the mind is taken as a symbol of Brahman, the meditator is to identify himself with the mind, as in the case of the meditation: I am Brahman Aham Brahma Asmi.

The Purvapakshin maintains that he should, because the mind is a product of Brahman and as such it is one with It. So the meditator, the individual soul, is one with Brahman. Therefore, it follows that the meditator also is one with the mind, and hence he should see his Self in the mind in this meditation also.

The present Sutra refutes this. We must not attach to symbols the idea of Brahman. Because the meditator cannot comprehend the heterogeneous symbols as being of the nature of the Self.

We must not regard Pratikas (symbols or images) as being ourselves. They are different from ourselves and cannot be regarded as being identical with ourselves. Nor can we say that they being derivatives of Brahman and Brahman being one with Atman, they are also to be treated as one with the Atman. They can be one with Brahman only if they go above name and form and when they go above name and form, they will not be Pratikas.

Atman is Brahman only when freed from Kartritva (doership). Two gold jewels cannot be identical but both can be one with gold.

If the symbol mind is realised as identical with Brahman, then it is no longer a symbol, just as when we realise an ornament as gold, it ceases to be an ornament. If the meditating person realises his identity with Brahman, then he is no longer the Jiva or the individual soul, the meditator. The distinctions of meditator, meditation and the meditated exist in the beginning when oneness has not been realised. Whenever there is the distinction between the meditator and the meditated there is the process of meditation. Where there is consciousness of difference, diversity or plurality, the meditator is quite distinct from the symbol.

For these reasons the self is not meditated in symbols. The meditator is not to see his self in the symbol.

BRAHMADRISHTYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 4

When meditating on a symbol, the symbol should be considered

as Brahman and not Brahman as the symbol

Brahmadrishtirutkarshat IV.1.5 (482)

(The symbol) is to be viewed as Brahman (and not in the reverse way), on account of the exaltation (of the symbol thereby).

Brahmadrishtih: the view of Brahman, the view in the light of Brahman; Utkarshat: on account of superiority, because of super-eminence.

The same discussion is continued.

In meditations on symbols as in The mind is Brahman, The sun is Brahman, the question is whether the symbol is to be considered as Brahman, or Brahman as the symbol.

This Sutra declares that the symbols, the mind, the sun, etc., are to be regarded as Brahman and not in the reverse way. Because you can attain elevation or progress by looking upon an inferior thing as a superior thing and not in the reverse way. As you have to behold Brahman in everything and free yourself from the idea of differentiation and diversity, you have to contemplate on these symbols as Brahman.

To view the symbol as Brahman is quite proper, but by reversing the order to view Brahman in the light of the symbol is not justifiable, because of super-eminence of Brahman over the symbol.

It would not serve any purpose to think of Brahman in the light of a limited thing; because it would be only to degrade the Infinite Lord to the status of a finite thing. The symbol should be raised higher in thought to the level of Brahman but Brahman should not be brought down to the level of the symbol.

ADITYADIMATYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 5

In meditation on the members of sacrificial actsthe idea of divinity is to be superimposed on the members and not in the reverse way

Adityadimatayaschanga upapatteh IV.1.6 (483)

And the ideas of the sun, etc., are to be superimposed) on the subordinate members (of sacrificial acts), because (in that way alone the statement of the scriptures would be) consistent.

Adityadimatayah: the idea of the sun, etc.; Cha: and; Anga: in a subordinate member (of the sacrificial acts); Upapatteh: because of consistency, because of its reasonableness.

A particular instance is cited to confirm the preceding Sutra.

He who burns up these (sun), let a man meditate upon that which shines yonder as the Udgitha (Chh. Up. I.3.1). One ought to meditate upon the Saman as fivefold (Chh. Up. II.2.1). Let a man meditate on the sevenfold Saman in speech (Chh. Up. II.8.1). This earth is the Rik, fire is Saman (Chh. Up. I.6.1).

In meditations connected with sacrificial acts as given in the texts quoted, how is the meditation to be performed? Is the sun to be viewed as the Udgitha or the Udgitha as the sun? Between the Udgitha and the sun there is nothing to indicate which is superior, as in the previous Sutra, where Brahman being pre-eminent, the symbol was viewed as Brahman.

The present Sutra declares that the members of sacrificial acts as the Udgitha are to be viewed as the sun and so on, for the fruit of the sacrificial act is increased by so doing. The sacrificial work becomes successful. A scriptural passage, viz., Chh. Up. I.1.10 Whatever one performs with knowledge, faith and Upanishad is more powerful expressly declares that knowledge causes the success of sacrificial work.

If we view the Udgitha as the sun, it undergoes a certain ceremonial purification and thereby contributes to the Apurva or Adrishta, the invisible fruit of the whole sacrifice, which leads to Karma Samriddhi (the fulness of the Karma). If the sun is viewed as Udgitha in the reverse way the purification of the sun by this meditation will not contribute to the Apurva, as the sun is not a member of the sacrificial act.

The members of the sacrificial acts are to be viewed as the sun, etc., if the declaration of the scriptures that the meditations increase the result of the sacrifice is to come true.

The sun, etc., are higher (Utkarsha) than Udgitha because the sun, etc., are the fruits attained by Karma. Therefore, the rule of Utkarsha-buddhi referred to above needs that we must regard and worship Udgitha, etc., as the sun, etc.

If you say that if we regard the sun, etc., as the Udgitha, the former being of the nature of Karma will give the fruit, that would be wrong because Upasana itself is a Karma and will give the fruit.

The Udgitha should be raised higher in thought to the level of the sun, but not the sun brought down to that of the Udgitha.

In this way a meditator should raise himself to the level of Brahman by thinking himself as Brahman, but should not bring Brahman down to the level of the individual soul.

ASINADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 6 (SUTRAS 7-10)

One is to meditate sitting

Asinah sambhavat IV.1.7 (484)

Sitting (a man is to meditate) on account of the possibility.

Asinah: sitting; Sambhavat: on account of the possibility.

The posture of the meditator while engaged in meditation is now discussed.

In Karmanga Upasanas there is no question as to whether they should be done sitting or standing as they depend on the particular Karma. In pure realisation or perfect intuition there could be no such question as it depends on the object of realisation. In other Upasanas sitting is necessary for meditation.

The Purvapakshin here maintains that as the meditation is something mental there can be no restriction as to the attitude of the body.

This Sutra says that one has to meditate sitting, because it is not possible to meditate while standing or lying down. Sitting is necessary for meditation because Upasana is the continuity of mental state and such continuity will not exist when one walks or runs because then the mind will attend to the body and cannot concentrate, or when one lies down because then he will be soon overpowered by sleep.

In Upasana one has to concentrate one's mind on a single object. This is not possible if one is standing or lying. The mind of a standing man is directed on maintaining the body in an erect position and therefore incapable of reflection on any subtle matter.

A sitting person may easily avoid these several occurrences and is, therefore, in a position to carry on his meditation. The sitting posture contributes that composure of mind which is the sine qua non of meditation. Meditation is to be practised in a sitting posture, as in that case only meditation is practicable.

Dhyanaccha IV.1.8 (485)

And on account of meditation.

Dhyanat: on account of meditation; Cha: and.

An argument in support of Sutra 7 is adduced.

Further, such continuity of thought is Dhyana or meditation. It can come only when the limbs are not active and the mind is calm.

Upasana (worship) being mainly of the nature of concentration, should be practised in a sitting posture, which is conducive to concentration. Concentration being an uninterrupted and unintermittent current of thought sent towards a particular object, the sitting posture becomes indispensable.

The word `Upasana' also denotes exactly what meditation means, that is concentrating on a single object with a fixed look, and without any movement of the limbs. This is possible only in a sitting posture.

Meditation denotes a lengthened carrying of the same train of ideas. We ascribe thoughtfulness to those whose mind is concentrated on one and the same object while their look is fixed and their limbs do not move. We say that Sri Ramakrishna is thoughtful. Now such thoughtfulness is easy for those who sit. The wife sits and thinks deeply over her husband gone in a distant journey.

Dhyana or meditation is thinking on one subject continuously, without the inrush of ideas incongruous with the subject of thought. Such meditation is possible in a sitting posture only and not while lying down or standing etc. Therefore, a sitting posture should be adopted both for prayers as well as for meditation.

The distraction of mind is minimised when one meditates in a sitting posture.

We, therefore, conclude herefrom also that meditation is the occupation of a sitting person.

Achlatvam chapekshya IV1.9 (486)

And with reference to immobility (the scriptures ascribe meditativeness to the earth).

Achalatvam: immobility, stability, steadiness; Cha: and, indeed; Apekshya: referring to, aiming at, pointing to.

The argument in support of Sutra 7 is continued.

The word 'cha' has the force of 'indeed'. In the Chhandogya Upanishad the root 'Dhyana' or meditation is employed in the sense of motionlessness.

With reference to the immobility of the earth in ordinary eye, the scripture fancies the earth as being engaged in concentration, as if it remains fixed in space in the act of pious meditation. It suggests that such a steady application of the mind can be attained by meditating only in a sitting posture.

If the body is at rest, there is rest for the mind also; if the body is in motion, i.e., restless, the mind too becomes restless.

In the passage, The earth meditates as it were, meditativeness is attributed to earth on account of its immobility or steadiness. This also helps us to infer that meditation is possible in one when he is sitting and not while standing or walking.

Steadiness accompanies meditation. Steadiness of body and mind is possible only while sitting and not while standing or walking.

Smaranti cha IV.1.10 (487)

The Smriti passages also say (the same thing).

Smaranti: the Smriti texts say, it is mentioned in the Smritis; Cha: also.

The argument in support of Sutra 7 is concluded.

Authoritative authors also teach in their Smritis that a sitting posture subserve the act of meditation, e.g., Having made a firm seat for one's self on a pure spot (Bhagavad Gita VI.11).

For the same reason the Yoga-Sastra teaches different postures, viz., Padmasana, Siddhasana, etc.

EKAGRATADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 7

There is no restriction of place with regard to meditation

Yatraikagrata tatraviseshat IV.4.11 (488)

Wherever concentration of mind (is attained), there (it is to be practised), there being no specification (as to place).

Yatra: where, wherever; Ekagrata: concentration of mind; Tatra: there; Aviseshat: for want of any specification, it not being specifically mentioned, as there is no special direction in Sruti.

There are no specific rules about the time or place of meditation. Whenever and wherever the mind attains concentration, we should meditate. The Sruti says Mano'nukule where the mind feels favourable.

Any place is good if concentration is attained in that place. The scriptures say, Let a man meditate at whatever time, in whatever place and facing whatever region, he may with ease manage to concentrate his mind.

But places that are clean, free from pebbles, fire, dust, noises, standing water, and the like are desirable, as such places are congenial to meditation.

But there are no fixed rules to place, time and direction.

APRAYANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 8

Meditations should be continued till death

Aa prayanat tatrapi hi drishtam IV.1.12 (489)

Till death (till one attains Moksha) (meditations have to be repeated); for then also it is thus seen in scripture.

Aa prayanat: till death, till Mukti; Tatra: there, then; Api: also, even; Hi: because; Drishtam: is seen (in the Sruti).

This Sutra says Upasana (meditation, worship) is to be observed till death.

Worship is to be continued till death, till one gets Mukti, because it is found in Sruti, that the worshipper, continuing so till death, attains the world of Brahman after death.

The first topic of the present Chapter has established that the meditation on the Atman or Brahman enjoined by the scriptures is to be repeated till knowledge dawns.

The question is now taken up about other meditations which are practised for attaining certain results.

The Purvapakshin maintains that such meditations can be stopped after a certain time. They should still give fruits like sacrifices performed only once.

The present Sutra declares that they are to be continued up to death, because the Sruti and Smriti say so. With whatever thought he passes away from this world (Sat. Br. X.6.3.1). Remembering whatever form of being he in the end leaves this body, into that same form he even passes, assimilated its being (Bhagavad Gita VIII.6). At the time of death with unmoved mind (Bhagavad Gita VIII.10). Let a man at the time of death, take refuge with this triad (Chh. Up. III.17.6). Whatever his thought at the time of death with that he goes into Prana and the Prana united with light, together with the individual self, leads on to the world as conceived at the moment of death (Pras. Up. IV.2.10). This also follows from the comparison to the caterpillar (Bri. Up. IV.4.3) or leech. The leech takes hold of another object before it leaves an object.

One cannot entertain such a thought at the time of departure of Prana from this body without practice for the whole life.

Therefore, meditations must be practised up to death.

TADADHIGAMADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 9

Knowledge of Brahman frees one from all past and future sins

Tadadhigama uttarapurvaghayorasleshavinasau

tadvyapadesat IV.1.13 (490)

On the attainment of this (viz., Brahman) (there takes place) the non-clinging and the destruction of later and earlier sins; because it is so declared by the scriptures.

Tadadhigama: when that is realised; Uttarapurvaghayoh: of the subsequent and the previous sins; Asleshavinasau: non-clinging and destruction; Tadvyapadesat: because Sruti has declared so.

The result of knowledge of Brahman or the state of Jivanmukti is now discussed.

The supplement to the Third Chapter is finished herewith. With the last Adhikarana the topics connected with the Third Chapter have come to an end. From this Adhikarana the Fourth Chapter proper begins. The Fourth Chapter is the Phaladhyaya, i.e., the Chapter relating to the fruits of Brahma Vidya.

The Purvapakshin maintains that emancipation is attained in spite of knowledge, only after one has experienced effects of one's sins committed before enlightenment because the Smritis declare Karma is not destroyed before it has yielded its effects. The law of Karma is unrelenting.

This Sutra says that when a person attains knowledge all his past sins are destroyed and future sins do not cling to him.

Karma has doubtless its power of bringing its effects but that power can be nullified and overcome by knowledge of Brahman. Prayaschittas (expiatory acts) have the power of cleansing sin. Saguna-Brahma-Vidya cleanses all sins. Nirguna-Brahma-Vidya puts an end to agency or doership and destroys all sins. Hence no future doership can come to him and the effects of the entire past doership vanish when knowledge dawns. Otherwise there will be no liberation as Karma is Anadi (beginningless). If it is said that emancipation is caused like the fruits of Karma, it will be transient and not eternal.

Further, the results of Jnana must be direct and immediate. So all sins vanish when one attains knowledge of Brahman or Self-realisation.

The scripture declares that future sins which might be presumed to cling to the agent do not cling to him who knows. As water does not cling to lotus leaf, so no evil deed clings to him who knows this (Chh. Up. IV.14.3). Similarly scripture declares the destruction of previous accumulated evil deeds. As the fibres of the Ishika reed when thrown into the fire are burnt, thus all sins are burnt (Chh. Up. V.24.3). The extinction of works the following passage also declares: The fetter of the heart is broken, all doubts are solved, all his works are destroyed when He who is high and low is seen (Mun. Up. II.2.8).

As regards the verses which say that no Karma is destroyed, but by producing its effects, that holds good in the case of ordinary men who are in ignorance and who have no knowledge of Brahman. It does not hold good in the case of those enlightened sages who have knowledge of Brahman.

The knower of Brahman feels and realises thus: That Brahman whose nature it is to be at all times neither agent not enjoyer, and which is thus opposed in being to the soul's previously established state of agency and enjoyment that Brahman am I; hence I neither was an agent, nor an enjoyer at any previous time, nor am I such at the present time, nor shall I be such at any future time.

In this way only the final emancipation is possible; for otherwise, i.e., if the chain of works which has been running on from eternity could not be cut short, liberation could never take place. Emancipation cannot depend on locality, time and special causes, as the fruit of works is; because therefrom it would follow that the fruit of knowledge is non-permanent.

Therefore, it is an established conclusion that there results the extinction of all sins on attaining Brahman.

ITARASAMSLESHADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 10

Similarly good work do not affect the knower of Brahman

Itarasyapyevamasamsleshah pate tu IV.1.14 (491)

Thus in the same way, there is non-clinging of the other (i.e., Punya or virtue, good works) also; but at death (liberation, i.e., Videha-Mukti is certain).

Itarasya: of the other; Tu: also; Evam: thus, in the same way; Asamsleshah: non-clinging; Pate: at death; Tu: but, indeed.

Discussion on the consequence of Brahma Jnana (the knowledge of Brahman) is continued.

As in the case of sin, so merit or virtue cannot attach to the knower of Brahman. Otherwise such merit will be an obstruction to liberation. When doership goes, merit must go like sin. The result of merit is below that of Jnana. Merit and sin have to be left behind. When both are transcended, liberation is sure at death.

A knower of Brahman has no idea of agency. He is not touched by good works also. He goes beyond virtue and vice. He overcomes both (Bri. Up. IV.4.22).

Even there where the text mentions evil deeds only, we must consider good deeds also to be implied therein, because the results of the latter also are inferior to the results of knowledge.

Merit also is a cause of bondage and stands in the way of liberation. For a knower of Brahman all his accumulated merits and demerits are destroyed. Thus his merits and sins being totally inoperative, his salvation necessarily follows at death.

ANARABDHADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 11

Works which have not begun to yield results are alone destroyed by knowledge and not those which have already begun to bear fruits

Anarabdhakarye eva tu purve tadavadheh IV.1.15 (492)

But only those former (works) whose effects have not yet begun (are destroyed by knowledge; because the scripture states) that (i.e., the death of the body) to be the term.

Anarabdhakarye: in the case of those works, the effects of which have not begun to operate, i.e. to yield fruits or results; Eva: only; Tu: but; Purve: former works; Tadavadheh: that (death) being the limit, because of waiting till death.

Discussion on the consequence of Brahma Jnana is continued.

In the last two Adhikaranas (topics) it has been stated that all the past works of a knower of Brahman are destroyed. Past works are of two kinds, viz., Sanchita (accumulated works) those which have not yet begun to yield results and Prarabdha, i.e., those works whose effects have already begun to operate and have produced the body through which the aspirant has attained Brahma Jnana or knowledge of Brahman.

The Purvapakshin maintains that both these are destroyed, because the Mundaka Upanishad says that all his works are destroyed. He thereby overcomes both. This refers to all works without any distinction, all works whatever must be regarded to undergo destruction.

Further the sage who has attained Self-realisation is a non-doer. He has no idea or feeling of agency. His idea of non-doership is the same with reference to Sanchita or Prarabdha. Hence both these works are destroyed when one attains knowledge of Brahman or the Supreme Self.

This Sutra refutes this view and declares that only Sanchita Karmas or accumulated works whose fruits have not yet begun to operate are destroyed by knowledge but not the Prarabdha. Prarabdha Karmas are destroyed only by being worked out. Those works whose effects have begun and whose results have been half enjoyed, i.e., those very works to which there is due the present state of existence in which the knowledge of Brahman arises and not destroyed by that knowledge. This view is founded on the scriptural passage For him there is delay only as long as he is not delivered from this body, and then he is one with Brahman (Chh. Up. VI.14.2), which fixes the death of the body as the term of the statement of the attainment of final release.

If it were not so, then there would be no teachers of knowledge.

Therefore, the Prarabdha Karmas are not destroyed by knowledge.

If it is said that fire must destroy all seeds, the reply is that what has begun to operate, like a potter's wheel, must have its operation. Mithya Jnana (the erroneous knowledge of multiplicity) though negated by Jnana, will persist for a while (Badhitanuvritti).

Each man's inner realisation cannot be denied or disputed by another. This truth is declared by the description of the Sthitaprajna in the Bhagavad Gita.

The Knowledge of Brahman in a knower or a sage cannot check the Prarabdha Karma, just as an archer has no control over the arrows already discharged, which comes to rest only when its momentum is exhausted. The liberated sage must keep up this body as long as the momentum of Prarabdha Karmas lasts. When the Prarabdha Karmas are worked out or exhausted the body falls off and he attains Videha-Mukti or disembodied salvation.

The final discussion, therefore, is that knowledge effects the destruction of those works only whether good or evil, whose effects have not yet begun to operate.

AGNIHOTRADYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 12 (SUTRAS 16-17)

Permanent obligatory works enjoined by the Vedas

for different Asramas are not to be given up

Agnihotradi tu tatkaryayaiva taddarsanat IV.1.16 (493)

But the Agnihotra and the like (tend) towards the same effect, knowledge (liberation), because that is seen from the scriptures.

Agnihotradi: daily Agnihotra, etc., daily offering of oblations to the perpetually maintained fire; Tu: but; Tatkarya: tend towards the same result as that (knowledge); Eva: only; Taddarsanat: that being seen from the scriptures.

Works of permanent obligation (Nitya Karmas) enjoined by the Vedas such as Agnihotra tend towards the same effect, i.e., have the same effect as knowledge. Because this is declared by the texts such as the following, Brahmanas seek to know him by the study of the Vedas, by sacrifices, by gifts (Bri. Up. IV.4.22).

But an objection is raised as knowledge and works have different effects, it is not possible that they should have one and the same effect.

It is observed, we reply, that curd and poison whose ordinary effects are fever and death have for their effects satisfaction and a flourishing state of the body, if the curd is mixed with sugar and the poison taken while certain Mantras are recited. Even so works if joined with knowledge may effect final emancipation.

The Purvapakshin maintains that even obligatory works (Nitya Karmas) such as Agnihotra which do not give any fruits but which are enjoined by the scriptures as a sort of discipline are destroyed by the dawn of knowledge, just as other works done with desires, because the idea of non-agency of the knower of Brahman is the same with respect to both.

This Sutra refutes this view and declares that the regular obligatory works are not destroyed.

Obligatory duties exercise a purifying influence on the heart and are helpful to the origination of knowledge. They contribute indirectly to knowledge i.e., liberation. They subserve final emancipation immediately. Therefore, their results persist till death.

Ato'nyapi hi ekeshamubhayoh IV.1.17 (494)

For (there is) also (a class of good works) other than this, according to some. (There is agreement) of both (teachers, Jaimini and Baadarayana) (as to the fate of those works).

Atah: from this; Anya: different; Api: also; Hi: because, indeed; Ekesham: of some (Sakhas); Ubhayoh: of both.

There is also a class of good works different from works of permanent obligation (Nitya Karmas like the daily Agnihotra and the like) which are performed with a view to a fruit. The following statement of some Sakhas is made with reference to these: His friends get his good works and enemies his evil actions.

Both teachers, Jaimini and Baadarayana, are of the opinion that works performed for the fulfilment of some special desire do not contribute towards the origination of true knowledge.

VIDYAJNANASADHANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 13

Sacrificial works not combined with knowledge or meditation

also help in the origination of knowledge

Yadeva vidyayeti hi IV.4.18 (495)

Because the text whatever he does with knowledge intimates this.

Yadeva: whatever; Vidyaya: with knowledge; Iti: thus, this, so; Hi: because.

Nitya Karmas (regular obligatory works) which help the origination of knowledge are of two kinds, viz., those combined with meditations and those unaccompanied by knowledge or meditations.

The Purvapakshin maintains that work combined with meditations helps the origination of knowledge as it is superior to work done without meditation.

The present Sutra refutes it and says that in the statement That alone which is performed with knowledge becomes more powerful (Chh. Up. I.1.10) the comparative degree indicates that works done without knowledge, not combined with meditations are not altogether useless, though the other class is more powerful.

Even ordinary Agnihotra has Virya (power) but Agnihotra confirmed by Vidya (Upasana) is more potent (Viryavattara). Agnihotra if accompanied by knowledge possesses a greater capability of originating knowledge and, therefore, is of superior causal efficiency with regard to the realisation of the self, while the same works if devoid of knowledge possess no such superiority.

ITARAKSHAPANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 14

After enjoying the fruits of Prarabdha Karma

the knower becomes one with Brahman

Bhogenatvitare kshapayitva sampadyate IV.1.19 (496)

But having exhausted by enjoyment the other two works (viz., good and evil works, that have begun to yield fruits), he becomes one with Brahman.

Bhogena: by enjoyment; Tu: but; Itare: of the other two works (merit and demerit); Kshapayitva: having exhausted; Sampadyate: becomes united with Brahman, becomes one with Brahman, obtains, joins.

This Sutra concludes with the answer to the question What becomes of the Prarabdha portion of the illumined soul's work, which has brought his present life into existence.

It has been shown that all good and evil deeds whose effects have not yet begun are destroyed by the power of knowledge of Brahman. The two others on the other hand, i.e., those good and evil works whose effects have begun, a man has at first to exhaust by the fruition of their consequences, and then he becomes one with Brahman. This appears from scriptural passages such as for him there is delay so long as he is not delivered from the body, then he will become one with Brahman (Chh. Up. VI.14.2), and Being Brahman he goes to Brahman (Bri. Up. IV.4.6).

The Purvapakshin argues that the knower of Brahman will continue to see diversity even after death, just as he sees plurality while living: analogously to the visual appearance of a double moon which may continue even after it has been cognised as false. He does not attain oneness with Brahman even after death.

This Sutra refutes it and declares that the Prarabdha works are destroyed through enjoyment. Though the knower of Brahman has to remain in this world as a liberated sage or Jivanmukta, yet he attains oneness with Brahman at death.

When the Prarabdha Karmas are exhausted by being worked out, he no longer beholds any plurality on account of the absence of any cause like the Prarabdha. He certainly becomes one with Brahman as all works including Prarabdha are destroyed at death.

Thus Brahma Jnana destroys Karmas (Sanchita) which have not begun to bear fruit. Those which have begun to bear fruit (Prarabdha) must be worked out by enjoyment. There is no escape even on the part of the enlightened soul from the operation of the law of Prarabdha.

The Purvapakshin again argues that a new aggregate of works will originate a new fruition. Not so, we reply; the seed of all such fruition is destroyed. What on the death of the body, could originate a new period of fruition, is only a new set of works and works depend on false knowledge. But such false knowledge is totally destroyed by perfect knowledge of Brahman.

When, therefore, the works whose effects have begun are destroyed, the liberated sage who knows Brahman necessarily enters into the state of perfected isolation or Absolute Kaivalya.

Thus ends the First Pada (Section 1) of the Fourth Chapter (Adhyaya IV) of the Brahma Sutras or the Vedanta Philosophy.

Font Size

Chapter IV, Section 2

INTRODUCTION

In the previous Section it was shown that one attains Jivanmukti when the Sanchita Karmas or the accumulated works which have not as yet begun to bear fruits are destroyed, and Videhamukti at death when the Prarabdha Karma is destroyed.

This Section is devoted to the mode of departure of the enlightened and the unenlightened souls at the time of leaving the body. The path of the gods, the Devayana, by which the knower of the Saguna Brahman travels after death, is described. The Sutrakara begins by explaining on the basis of scriptural statements the successive steps by which the soul passes out of the body at death. The departure of the soul is the same in the case of him who possesses the lower knowledge and of him who is destitute of all knowledge.

SYNOPSIS

Adhikarana I: (Sutras 1-2) At the time of death of the knower of Saguna Brahman, the functions of the organs get merged in mind.

Adhikarana II: (Sutra 3) At the time of death of the knower of Saguna Brahman, the function of the mind is merged in the Prana.

Adhikarana III: (Sutras 4-6) At the time of death of the knower of Saguna Brahman, the function of Prana is merged in the individual soul or Jiva.

Adhikarana IV: (Sutra 7) The mode of departure from the body up to the way is common to both a knower of Saguna Brahman and an ordinary man. Both pass through the same stages up to the entrance of the soul together with the subtle elements and so on into the Nadis.

Adhikarana V: (Sutras 8-11) The merging of fire, etc., of death in the Highest Deity is not absolute merging. A complete absorption of the elements takes place only when final emancipation is attained.

Adhikarana VI: (Sutras 12-14) The Pranas of a knower of the Nirguna Brahman do not depart from the body at death.

Adhikarana VII: (Sutra 15) The organs of the knower of the Nirguna Brahman get merged in It at death.

Adhikarana VIII: (Sutra 16) The Kalas of the knower of the Nirguna Brahman attain absolute non-distinction with Brahman at death.

Adhikarana IX: (Sutra 17) The soul of the knower of the Saguna Brahman comes to the heart at the time of death and thence goes out through the Sushumna. The soul of the ignorant man goes out by means of some other Nadi.

Adhikarana X: (Sutras 18-19) The departing soul of a knower of the Saguna Brahman follows the rays of the sun after death which exist at night as well as during day, and goes to Brahmaloka.

Adhikarana XI: (Sutras 20-21) The soul of the knower of the Saguna Brahman goes to Brahmaloka even if he dies during the southern course of the sun (Dakshinayana).

VAGADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 1 (SUTRAS 1-2)

At the time of death the functions of the organs

are merged in the mind

Vangmanasi darsanacchabdacca IV.2.1 (497)

Speech is merged in mind, because it is so seen, and there are scriptural statements (to that effect).

Vak: speech; Manasi: in the mind; Darsanat: because it is so seen or observed, because of the scriptural declaration; Sabdat: because of the word of the Vedas, because of the statement of the Smriti; Cha: also, and.

This Sutra says that speech merges in the mind at death.

Till now Jivanmukti or liberation while living is described. Now the attainment of Brahmaloka by going along the path of gods (Devayana) after death is going to be described.

About the process of dying we have the following passage, When a man departs from here his speech merges in his mind, his mind in Prana, Prana in fire and fire in the Highest Deity (Chh. Up. VI.6.1).

Now a doubt here arises whether the organ of speech as such gets merged in the mind or only its function.

The Purvapakshin maintains that the organ itself is merged in the mind as there is no mention in the text about the function of speech getting merged.

The present Sutra refutes this view and decides that only the function of the organ of speech is merged in the mind.

The merging is always of the effect in the cause. Speech is not an effect of the mind. Therefore, the organ of speech cannot merge in the mind. But Vrittis (functional manifestations) can merge in something which is not its cause. For instance, heat which is the function of fire originates from fuel and extinguished in water.

We see the manifestation of speech ceasing in a dying man, though his mind is still functioning. None sees the organ of speech being merged in the mind.

So experience also teaches that the function of speech and not the organ itself gets merged in mind.

Ata eva cha sarvanyanu IV.2.2 (498)

And for the same reason all (sense-organs) follow (mind, i.e., get their functions merged in it).

Ata eva: hence; Cha: and, also; Sarvani: all (organs); Anu (Anugacchanti): after (follow).

This Sutra intimates that the functions of all the organs merge in the mind at the time of death.

For the same reasons (general experience and corroborative statement of Sruti) as stated in Sutra 1, the functions of all the other sense-organs follow, i.e., get merged in the mind. The fire is verily the Udana, for he whose light has gone out comes to a new birth with his senses merged in the mind (Pras. Up. III.9).

Like the speech it is observed that the eye and other senses discontinue their functions, while the mind continues to act. Because the organs themselves cannot be absorbed, and because the text admits of that interpretation we conclude that the different organs follow after, i.e., are merged in the mind only as far as their functions are concerned.

MANO'DHIKARANAM: TOPIC 2

The function of mind is merged in Prana

Tanmanah prana uttarat IV.2.3 (499)

That mind (is merged) in Prana (as is seen) from the subsequent clause (of the Sruti cited).

Tat: that; Manah: mind; Prana: in the Prana; Uttarat: from the subsequent clause (of the Sruti).

It has been shown that the passage speech is merged in mind means a merging of the function only. A doubt here arises whether the subsequent clause mind is breath also means to intimate a merging of the function only or of that to which the function belongs.

The Purvapakshin maintains that here it is mind itself and not its function that gets merged in Prana, as Prana can be said to be the material cause of mind. In support of his statement he quotes the following text: Mind consists of food, Prana of water (Chh. Up. VI.6.5); Water sent forth earth (VI.2.4). When mind, therefore, is merged in Prana, it is the same thing as earth being merged in water, for mind is food or earth, and Prana is water, causal substance and effect being non-different. Hence the Sruti here speaks not of the function of the mind, but of mind itself getting merged in Prana.

This Sutra refutes this view. For the same reason it is the mental Vrittis (functions) that get merged in Prana, because in deep sleep and in approaching death, we see the mental functions stopping while the Prana (breath) is active. The mind is not derived from Prana, and hence cannot merge in it. Breath or Prana is not the causal substance of mind. The relation of causality by an indirect process does not suffice to show that mind is really merged in Prana. Were it so, then mind would also be merged in earth, earth in water, breath in water. Nor is there on the alternative contemplated any proof of mind having originated from that water which has passed over into breath.

Therefore, mind cannot itself be merged in Prana. The function of the mind only is merged in Prana.

ADHYAKSHADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 3 (SUTRAS 4-6)

The function of Prana is merged in the Jiva

So'dhyakshe tadupagamadibhyah IV.2.4 (500)

That (Prana) is merged in the ruler (individual soul or Jiva) on account of the (statements as to the Pranas) coming to it and so on.

Sah: that (Prana); Adhyakshe: in the ruler (the Jiva); Tadupagamadibhyah: on account of the (statements as to the Pranas) coming to it and so on.

Prana is merged in fire (Chh. Up. VI.8.6). A doubt arises now whether according to the word of the scripture, the function of Prana is merged in fire or in the individual soul which is the ruler of the body and senses.

According to the Purvapakshin we must conclude that Prana is merged in fire only.

The present Sutra justifies its view because statements about Pranas coming to the Jiva, etc., are found in scriptural passages.

All the Pranas approach the departing man at the time of death (Bri. Up. IV.3.38). Another passage again specially declares that the Prana with its five functions follows the individual soul. After him thus departing the Prana departs, and that the other Pranas follow that Prana. And after the Prana thus departing all the other Pranas depart (Bri. Up. IV.4.2).

The text cited in Sutra 1, When the man departs from here, his speech merges in mind, mind in Prana, Prana in fire and fire in the Highest Deity (Chh. Up. VI.8.6), does not, however, contradict this view, as the following Sutra indicates.

Bhuteshu tacchruteh IV.2.5 (501)

In the (subtle) elements (is merged) (the Jiva with the Pranas) as it is seen from the Sruti.

Bhuteshu: in the elements; Tat sruteh: as that can be understood from Sruti, from the Sruti texts to that effect, there being a Vedic statement about that.

This Sutra amplifies the previous one.

The soul among with Prana rests in the subtle elements (Bhuta-sukshma). This is clear from the Sruti Pranastejasi.

The soul united with the Prana takes up its abode within the subtle elements which accompany fire and forms the seed of the future gross body. This we conclude from the clause, Prana in heat. But this passage intimates that the Prana takes up its abode and not that the soul together with the Prana takes up its abode.

We reply, it does not matter. The preceding Sutra intercalates the soul in the interval between Prana and fire. We may say shortly of a man who first travels from Haridwar to Ayodhya and then from Ayodhya to Benares that he travels from Haridwar to Benares. The passage under discussion, therefore, means that the soul together with the Prana abides in the elements associated with fire. The Prana is first merged in the individual soul and then the soul with the Prana takes its abode in the fine essence of the gross elements, fire etc., the seed of the future body.

But how are you entitled to draw in the other elements also, while the text only speaks of that? To this question the next Sutra gives an answer.

The Prana joining the soul, merged not only in Tejas but at the same time in other elements too. This can be understood from Sruti. It is said to merge only in Tejas, because Tejas (fire), is the predominating factor there. That soul is united with the essence of the earth, of the water, of the air, of the Akasa, of the fire (Bri. Up. IV.4.5).

Naikasmin darsayato hi IV.2.6 (502)

(The soul with Prana is merged) not in one element only, for both (the Sruti and Smriti) declare this (or declare so).

Na: not; Ekasmin: in one; Darsayatah: (both the Sruti and Smriti) declare so, both the Sruti and Smriti show; Hi: as, for, because.

When the soul leaves one body at the time of death and goes in from another, it together with the subtle body abides in the subtle essence of all the gross elements and not in fire only, because all the elements are needed for a future body. The new body consists of various elements. This matter is declared in the question and answer about the waters called man (Chh. Up. V.3.3). Vide III.1.2.

When the soul attains another body he does not rest in Prana alone, but goes with the subtle portions of all the elements. The question and answer in the Sruti show his.

A passage in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad declares that the soul's embodiment is due to Karma, for the abode consisting of Graha (Indriyas or senses) and Atigraha (Vishayas or objects) is the effect of Karma. Here the subtle elements are called the abode because they are the stuff of which the new body is made. These two views or passages do not contradict each other.

ASRITYUPAKRAMADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 4

The mode of departure from the body up to the way is common to both the knower of the Saguna Brahman and an ordinary man

Samana chasrityupakramadamritatvam chanuposhya IV.2.7 (503)

And common (is the mode of departure at the time of death for both the knower of the Saguna Brahman and the ignorant) up to the beginning of their ways; and the immortality (of the knower of the Saguna Brahman is only relative) without having burnt (ignorance).

Samana: common; Cha: and; Asrityupakramat: up to the beginning of their ways; Amritatvam: immortality; Cha: and; Anuposhya: without burning, without dissolution.

There is no departure for the knower of Nirguna Brahman. His Pranas are absorbed in Brahman.

The Purvapakshin maintains that the mode of departure from the body for the knower of Saguna Brahman and the ignorant or the ordinary man ought to be different, because they attain different abodes after death. The knower of Saguna Brahman goes to Brahmaloka while the ordinary man is reborn in this world.

The present Sutra says that the knower of the Saguna Brahman enters the Sushumna Nadi at death and then goes out of the body and then enters the Devayana or the path of the gods while the ordinary ignorant man enters some other Nadi and goes by another way to have rebirth.

But the mode of departure at death is common to both till they enter on their respective ways.

Chhandogya Upanishad VIII.6.6 and Kathopanishad II.3.16 declare There are a hundred and more Nadis in the interior of the heart, of which only one leads from the heart to the head; by that, progressing upwards, the departing soul attains immortality, i.e., emancipation; all the other Nadis are for the egress of the ordinary people for undergoing bondage of frequent births and deaths.

SAMSARAVYAPADESADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 5 (SUTRAS 8-11)

The dissolution of fire etc., at the time of death

in the Supreme Deity is only relative

Tadapiteh samsaravyapadesat IV.2.8 (504)

That (fine body lasts) up to the attainment of Brahman (through knowledge), because (the scriptures) declare the state of relative existence (till then).

Tat: that, aggregate of the elements, the sum total of the subtle elements; Apiteh: till the attainment of Brahman (through knowledge); Samsaravyapadesat: because (scriptures) declare the state of relative existence.

In the text cited in Sutra 1, we have And fire is merged in the Highest Deity. The meaning is that the fire of the dying man together with the individual soul, the Prana, the aggregate of the organs and the other elements is merged in Brahman.

We now have to consider of what kind that merging is.

The Purvapakshin holds that it is an absolute absorption of things merged, as it is proved that those things have the Highest Deity for their causal mater. For it has been established that the Deity is the causal substance of all things, that have an origin. Therefore that passing into the state of non-separation is an absolute one. This is the final dissolution. Everyone attains the final emancipation at death.

This Sutra says that this merging is not absolute merging. Although Brahman is the causal substance of those elements, they are at the time of death, as in the case of deep sleep and a Pralaya of the world, merged in it only in such a way as to continue to exist in a seminal condition or seed state. Only the functions of these elements are merged and not the elements themselves.

Those subtle elements, fire and so on, which form the abode of hearing and the other organs persist up to final release from the Samsara, which is caused by perfect knowledge, because the scriptures declare that till then the Jiva or the individual soul is subject to relative existence. Some souls enter the womb for embodied existence as organic beings; others go into inorganic matter, according to their work and according to their knowledge (Katha Up. II.5.7).

Otherwise the limiting adjuncts of every soul would at the time of death be absorbed and the soul would enter into absolute union with Brahman. Every dying person will reach Brahman. This would render all scriptural injunction and scriptural doctrine equally useless.

Bondage which is due to wrong knowledge, cannot be dissolved but through perfect knowledge (Samyag Jnana). If the merging at death were absolute, then there could be no rebirth.

Sukshmam pramanatascha tathopalabdheh IV.2.9 (505)

(This fine body) is subtle (by nature) and size, because it is so observed.

Sukshmam: subtle; Pramanatah: as regards size; Cha: and; Tatha: thus, so; Upalabdheh: because it is experienced, it being observed.

The elementary matter of fire and the other elements which form the substratum of the soul, when passing out of this body, must be subtle in its nature and extent. This follows from the scriptural passages, which declare that it passes out by the Nadis and so on.

Its thinness renders it capable of passing out through the thin and subtle Nadi and its transparency is the cause of its not being stopped or obstructed by any gross substance, and not being seen by the by-standers when it passes out at death.

Nopamardenatah IV.2.10 (506)

Therefore, (this subtle body is) not (destroyed) by the destruction (of the gross body).

Na: not; Upamardena: by the destruction; Atah: therefore, because of this reason.

On account of this great subtlety the subtle body is not destroyed by what destroys the gross body, viz., burning and the like.

Asyaiva chopapatteresha ushma IV.2.11 (507)

And to this (subtle body) alone does this (bodily) heat belong, because this (only) is possible.

Asya: of the subtle body; Eva: verily, certainly, alone; Cha: and, also; Upapatteh: it being possible, because of possibility; Esha: this; Ushma: (bodily) heat.

To that same subtle body belongs the warmth which we perceive in the living body, by means of touch. That bodily heat is not felt in the body after death, while such qualities as form, colour and so on, continue to be perceived. The bodily heat is felt as long as there is life. It follows from this that the heat resides in something different from the body, as ordinarily known. The subtle body imparts its own heat to the gross body and keeps it warm as long as it remains alive. Scripture also says, He is warm if going to live; cold if going to die.

PRATISHEDHADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 6 (SUTRAS 12-14)

The Pranas of the knower of Brahman

do not depart at the time of death

Pratishedhaditi chenna sarirat IV.2.12 (508)

If it be said (that the Pranas of one who knows Brahman do not depart) on account of the denial made by the Sruti, (we say) not so, (because the scripture denies the departure of the Pranas) from the individual soul (and not from the body).

Pratishedhat: on account of the denial; Iti: so; Chet: if (if it be argued); Na: not so, you cannot say so; Sarirat: from the individual soul.

This Sutra consists of two parts, viz., an objection and its reply. The objection portion is 'Pratishedhaditi chet'. The reply portion is `Na sarirat; Spashto hyekesham'.

This Sutra gives the view of the Purvapakshin while the thirteenth and fourteenth Sutras state the Siddhanta or correct doctrine.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad declares, But as to the man who does not desire, who not desiring, freed from desires, is satisfied in his desires, or desires the Self only, of him, the vital airs (Pranas) do not depart (Bri. Up. IV.4.6). From this express denial, forming part of the higher knowledge, it follows that the Pranas do not pass out of the body of him who knows Brahman. This Sruti passage refers to one who knows the Nirguna Brahman. It declares that his Pranas do not depart at death.

The Purvapakshin maintains that the passage quoted does not deny the departure of the Pranas from the body but from the individual soul. If the Pranas do not depart from the body there will be no death at all. This is made clear from the Madhyandina recension which says From him the vital spirits do not depart.

Therefore, the soul of a knower of Brahman passes out of the body with the Pranas.

The next Sutra refutes this view.

Spashto hyekesham IV.2.13 (509)

For (the denial of the soul's departure) is clear (in the texts) of some schools.

Spashtah: clear; Hi: for; Ekesham: of some Sakhas or schools; the statement of some Srutis.

The Pranas do not depart from the body in the case of a liberated sage. This is made clear from the Sruti texts like: Yajnavalkya said Artabhaga, when the liberated man dies, do his Pranas go up from him or do they not? No replied Yajnavalkya, they merge in him only (Bri. Up. III.2.11).

If the Pranas depart with the soul from the body, then the soul will surely take a rebirth. Hence there will be no emancipation.

Therefore, the Pranas do not depart from the body in the case of one who knows Brahman.

Smaryate cha IV.2.14 (510)

And Smriti also says that.

Smaryate: the Smriti says, it is mentioned in the Smritis; Cha: and.

In the Mahabharata also it is said that those who know Brahman do not go or depart. He who has become the Self of all beings and has a complete intuition of all, at his way the gods themselves are perplexed, seeking for the path of him who has no path (Mahabharata: XII.270.22).

VAGADILAYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 7

The Pranas (organs) and elements of the knower of the Nirguna Brahman get merged in It at death

Tani pare tatha hyaha IV.2.15 (511)

Those (Pranas, elements) (are merged) in the Supreme Brahman, for thus the (scripture) says.

Tani: those; Pare: in the Supreme Brahman; Tatha: thus, so; Hi: because; Aha: (the Sruti) says.

Those, i.e., sense-organs denoted by the term 'Prana' and the elements of him who knows the Supreme Brahman are merged when he dies in the same Supreme Brahman. Why? Because scripture declares that Thus these sixteen parts of this witness, the Purusha, having their goal in Him are dissolved on reaching Him in Him (Pras. Up. VI.5).

But another text which refers to him who knows teaches that the parts also are merged in something different from the Highest Self. The fifteen parts enter into their elements (Mun. Up. III.2.7). No, we reply. This latter passage is concerned with the ordinary view of the matter. It intimates the end from a relative stand-point, according to which the whole aggregate of the parts of him who knows the Supreme Brahman is merged in Brahman only, just as the illusory snake is merged in the rope.

There is thus no contradiction.

Though ordinarily the senses and the elements merge in their causal substances, yet in the case of the Jnani they merge in Brahman.

AVIBHAGADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 8

The Kalas of the knower of the Nirguna Brahman attain

absolute non-distinction with Brahman at death

Avibhago vachanat IV.2.16 (512)

(Absolute) non-distinction (with Brahman of the parts merged takes place) according to the statement (of the scriptures).

Avibhagah: non-distinction; Vachanat: on account of the statement (of the scriptures).

Thus these sixteen constituents or Kalas, viz., eleven senses and five subtle elements, belonging to the seer, i.e., the liberated sage who attains the Supreme Brahman loses his distinction and disappears in Him. There names and forms are destroyed; and people speak of the Purusha only. Then he becomes partless and deathless (Pras. Up. VI.5).

The Kalas in the case of the knower of Brahman get absolutely merged in the Highest Brahman. In the case of an ordinary person it is not so. They exist in a fine potential state, the cause of future birth.

When parts or Kalas that are the effects of ignorance are dissolved through knowledge it is not possible that a remainder be left. The parts, therefore, get merged absolutely in Brahman. There is no chance for them for cropping up again.

TADOKO'DHIKARANAM: TOPIC 9

The soul of the knower of the Saguna Brahman comes to the heart at the time of death and then goes out through the Sushumna Nadi

Tadoko'grajvalanam tatprakasitadvaro

vidyasamarthyattaccheshagatyanusmritiyogaccha

hardanugrihitah satadhikaya IV.2.17 (513)

When the soul of a knower of the Saguna Brahman is about to depart from the body, there takes place) a lighting up of the front of its (soul's) abode (viz., the heart); the door (of its egress) being illumined thereby; owing to the power of knowledge and the application of meditation to the way which is part of that (knowledge); the soul favoured by Him in the heart (viz., Brahman) (passes upward) by the one that exceeds a hundred (i.e., the hundred and first Nadi).

Tadoko agrajvalanam: the illumining of the top of its (soul's) abode (the heart); Tatprakasitadvarah: with the passage illumined by this light; Vidyasamarthyat: by the power of his knowledge; Tat seshagatyanusmritiyogat: because of the application of meditation to the way which is part of that knowledge; Cha: and; Hardanugrihitah: being favoured by Him who dwells in the heart; Satadhikaya: by one that exceeds a hundred. (Tat: of that; Okah: abode, the heart; Agrajvalanam: the forepart or the end of the heart being illumined; Tat: by the Lord dwelling in the heart; Prakasita: illumined; Dvarah: door, the root from which the hundred and first Nadi has its origin; Sesha: remainder; Gati: path, the way; Anusmritiyogat: because of the application of the remembrance or constant thought; Harda: the Lord who dwells in the heart; Anugrihitah: being favoured by.)

The discussion about the Para Vidya (Higher Knowledge) is over. The Sutrakara now pursues the discussion of the Apara Vidya, i.e., Upasana (lower knowledge).

It has been already stated in Sutra 7 that up to the beginning of the way the departure of a knower of the Saguna Brahman and an ignorant man is the same. The present Sutra now describes the soul's entering on the way. The Brihadaranyaka text describes the death of a person He taking with him those elements of light descends into the heart (Bri. Up. IV.4.1). Then again it says, The point of his heart becomes lighted up, and by that light the self departs, either through the eye or through the skull or through other places of the body (Bri. Up. IV.4.2). The soul together with the organs comes to the heart at the time of death.

The question arises whether the departure is the same for a knower of Saguna Brahman and an ordinary man.

The exit of the ordinary man is different from that of the knower of Saguna Brahman. The former goes out from any part of the body at death (eye, ear, nose, anus, etc.). But the latter goes out only through the Sushumna Nadi and out of the Brahmarandhra in the head. If he goes out by any other way he cannot attain the Supreme Abode.

By virtue of knowledge and owing to the application of constant thought of Brahman the point of the heart which is the abode of the departing soul is illumined and through the grace of the supreme soul resident therein, the door of egress, the mouth of the Nadi leading from the heart to the head as stated in Sutra 7 is thrown open. The soul passes into the Nadi numbered one hundred and one. This Nadi is the gateway of the release. The other one hundred Nadis lead to bondage.

The scripture says in a chapter treating of the knower of Brahman dwelling in the heart: There are a hundred and one Nadis of the heart; one of them penetrates the crown of the head; going up along that one attains Immortality; the others serve for departure in different directions) (Chh. Up. VIII.6.5).

Although equality for him who does know and him who does not know, the point of the heart becomes shining and the door of egress thereby is lighted up, yet he who knows departs through the skull only, while the others depart from other places. Why so? On account of the power of knowledge. If also he who knows departs like all others, from any place of the body, he would be unable to reach an exalted sphere and then all knowledge would be meaningless.

And on account of the application of meditation on the way forming a part of that. In different Vidyas there is enjoined meditation on the soul's travelling on the way connected with the Nadi that passes through the skull, which way forms part of those Vidyas. Now it is proper to conclude that he who meditates on that way should after death proceed on it.

Therefore, he who knows being favoured by Brahman dwelling in the heart, on which he had meditated and thus becoming like it in nature departs by the Nadi which passes through the skull which is the hundred and first. The souls of other men pass out by other Nadis.

RASMYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 10 (SUTRAS 18-19)

The soul of one who knows Saguna Brahman follows

the rays of the sun after death and goes to Brahmaloka

Rasmyanusari IV.2.18 (514)

(The soul of a knower of the Saguna Brahman when he dies) follows the rays (of the sun).

Rasmi: the rays; Anusari: following.

The description of the progress of the released soul is continued.

Chhandogya Upanishad declares When he thus departs from this body, then he departs upwards by those very rays. By that moving upwards he reaches immortality (Chh. Up. VIII.6.5).

From this we understand that the soul passing out by the hundred and first Nadi (Sushumna) follows the rays of the sun.

A doubt here arises as to whether the soul of one who dies by night as well as of him who dies by day follows the rays, or the soul of the latter only.

As scripture mentions no difference, the Sutra teaches that the souls follow the rays in both cases.

Nisi neti chenna sambandhasya

yavaddehabhavitvaddarsayati cha IV.2.19 (515)

If it be said (that the soul does) not (follow the rays) in the night, we say (not so) because the connection (of Nadis and rays) continues as long as the body lasts; the Sruti also declares (this).

Nisi: at night, in the night; Na: not; Iti: so; Chet: if (if it be objected); Na: not (the objection is not valid); Sambandhasya: of the relation; Yavaddehabhavitvat: as long as the body lasts; Darsayati: the Sruti shows or declares (this); Cha: and, also. (Yavad: as long as; Bhavitvat: because of the existence.)

An objection to Sutra 17 is raised and refuted.

This Sutra consists of two parts, namely an objection and its reply. The objection portion is 'Nisi neti chet' and the reply portion is 'Na sambandhasya yavaddehabhavitvad darsayati cha'.

It might perhaps be said that the Nadis and rays are connected during the day, and so the soul of a person who dies during the day may follow those rays but not the soul of one who dies by night, when the connection of the Nadis and the rays broken.

But this is an erroneous notion, for the connection of rays and Nadis lasts as long as the body exists. Hence it is immaterial whether the soul passes out by day or by night.

Further we observe that the rays of the sun continue to exist in the nights of the summer season, because we feel their warmth and other effects. During the nights of the other seasons they are difficult to perceive, because then few only continue to exist, just as during the cloudy days of the cold season. The Sruti also declares, Even by night the sun sheds his rays.

We cannot predetermine the movement of death. If such departure to the supreme abode is denied to the person dying in the night, no one will take to Upasana. The result of knowledge cannot be made to depend on the accident of death by day or night.

If again a man dying at night should wait for the dawn to mount upwards, it might happen that, owing to the action of the funeral fire etc., his body would at the time of day-break, not be capable of entering into connection with the rays. The scripture moreover expressly declares that he does not wait. As quickly as he sends off the mind he goes to the sun (Chh. Up. VIII.6.5).

For all these reasons the soul follows the rays by night as well as by day.

DAKSHINAYANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 11 (SUTRAS 20-21)

Even if the knower of the Saguna Brahman dies in Dakshinayana,

he still goes to Brahmaloka

Ataschayane'pi dakshine IV.2.20 (516)

And for the same reason (the departed soul follows the rays) also during the sun's southern course.

Atah: for this very reason, therefore, for the same reason; Cha: and; Ayane: during the sun's course; Api: also, even; Dakshine: in the southern.

This Sutra is a corollary drawn from the preceding Sutra.

The Purvapakshin raises an objection and maintains that the soul of the knower of Brahman who passes away during Dakshinayana or the southern course of the sun does not follow the rays to Brahmaloka. The Sruti and the Smriti declare that only one who dies during Uttarayana or the northern course of the sun goes to Brahmaloka.

Further it is also written that Bhishma waited for the northern course of the sun to leave the body.

This Sutra says that for the same reason as mentioned in the previous Sutra, i.e., the unreasonableness of making the result of knowledge depend on the accident of death happening at a particular time, the knower of Saguna Brahman goes to Brahmaloka even if he dies during the southern course of the sun.

For the same reason, viz., because waiting is impossible, and because the fruit of knowledge is not merely eventual one, and because the time of death is not fixed, also he who has true knowledge, and who dies during the southern course of the sun obtains the fruit of his knowledge.

In the text Those who know thus go by light, from light to day, from day to the bright half of the month, and from that to the six months of the northern course of the sun (Chh. Up. V.10.1), the points in the northern course of the sun do not refer to any division of time but to deities as will be shown under IV.3.4.

The Devayana path can be trodden by those who die in the Dakshinayana.

Bhishma waited for the Uttarayana, because he wanted to uphold an approved custom and to show that he could die at will owing to his father's boon.

Yoginah prati cha smaryate smarte chaite IV.2.21 (517)

And (these times or details) are recorded by Smriti with reference to the Yogins and these two (Yoga and Sankhya) and classed as Smritis (only).

Yoginah prati: with respect to the Yogi; Cha: and; Smaryate: the Smriti declares; Smarte: belonging to the class of Smritis; Cha: and; Ete: these two.

The argument in the two preceding Sutras is strengthened here by further exposition.

The Purvapakshin says: We have the following Smriti text, That time wherein going Yogins return not, and also that wherein going forth they return, that time shall I declare to thee, O Prince of the Bharatas (Bhagavad Gita VIII. 23-24). This determines specially that to die by day and so on causes the soul not to return. How then can he who dies by night or during the sun's southern course depart not to return? The decision of the previous Sutra cannot be correct.

This Sutra refutes the objection and says that these details as to time mentioned in the Gita apply only to Yogis who practise Sadhana according to Yoga and Sankhya systems. These two are Smritis, not Srutis. Therefore, the limitations as to the time mentioned in them do not apply to those who meditate on the Saguna Brahman according to the Sruti texts.

Yoga and Sankhya are mere Smritis. They are not of spiritual character. As it has a different sphere of application, and is based on a special kind of authority, the Smriti rule as to the time of dying has no influence on knowledge based on scripture.

But an objection is raised. We have such passages as Fire, light, the day, the bright half of the month, the six months of the northern path, smoke, night, the dark half of the month, the six months of the southern path (Bhagavad Gita VIII. 24-25), in which though belonging to Smriti we recognise the path of the fathers as determined by scripture.

Our refutation, we reply, of the claims of Smriti applies only to the contradiction which may arise from the teaching of Smriti regarding the legitimate time of dying, I will tell you the time, etc. In so far as Smriti also mentions Agni and the other divinities which lead on the departed soul, there is no contradiction whatsoever.

What appears to refer to time in the above passage refers only to the deities presiding over the day-time and the bright half of the month and the Uttarayana and over the night time, and the dark half of the month and the Dakshinayana.

Thus ends the Second Pada (Section 2) of the Fourth Chapter (Adhyaya IV) of the Brahma Sutras or the Vedanta Philosophy.

Font Size

Chapter IV, Section 3

INTRODUCTION

In the previous Section the departure of a knower of the Saguna Brahman by the path of the gods (Devayana) has been described. Now the present Section treats of the path itself. It describes the journey of the released soul on the way to Brahman and takes up the thread of the story at the point where it was left in the preceding Section.

SYNOPSIS

Adhikarana I: (Sutra 1) The path connected with deities beginning with that of light is the only path to Brahmaloka.

Adhikarana II: (Sutra 2) The departing soul reaches the deity of the year and then the deity of the air.

Adhikarana III: (Sutra 3) After reaching the deity identified with lightning the soul reaches the world of Varuna.

Adhikaranas I, II, III (Sutras 1-3) reconcile the different accounts given in the Upanishads as to the stations on the way which leads the Upasaka to Saguna Brahman.

Adhikarana IV: (Sutras 4-6) Light, etc., referred to in the text describing the path of the gods mean deities identified with the light, etc., which lead the soul stage after stage till Brahmaloka is reached.

Adhikarana V: (Sutras 7-14) The Brahman to which the departed souls go by the path of the gods is the Saguna Brahman. This is the opinion propounded in Sutras 7-11 by Baadarayana. In Sutras 12-14 Jaimini defends the opposite view according to which the soul of the Upasaka goes to the Highest Brahman, not to the Karya Brahman (Saguna Brahman). Jaimini's view is a mere Purvapaksha, while Baadari's opinion represents the Siddhanta.

Adhikarana VI: (Sutras 15-16) Only those who have worshipped the Saguna Brahman without a symbol attain Brahmaloka.

ARCHIRADYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 1

The path connected with the deities beginning with that of light

is the only path that leads to Brahmaloka

Archiradina tatprathiteh IV.3.1 (518)

On the path connected with light (the departed soul of the knower of Saguna Brahman travels to Brahmaloka after death), that being well-known (from the Sruti).

Archiradina: by the path of the rays, etc., by the rays of light and so on, on the path connected with deities, beginning with that of light; Tatprathiteh: that being well-known (from the Sruti).

It has been explained that up to the beginning of the way the departure is the same. In the last section it was stated that the knower of the Saguna Brahman travels to Devayana or the path of the gods to Brahmaloka. But different texts make different declarations about the way itself.

One passage describes it as constituted by the junction of the Nadis and rays: Then he mounts upwards by just those rays (Chh. Up. VIII.6.5). Another passage describes it as beginning with light. They go to the light, from light to day (Chh. Up. V.10.1). Another way is described in Kaushitaki Upanishad I.3: Having reached the path of the gods, he comes to the world of Agni. Another way is described in Bri. Up. V.10.1: When the person goes away from this world he comes to the wind. Another way is described in Mun. Up. I.2.11: Free from passion they depart through the gate of the sun.

A doubt here arises whether these ways are different from each other or whether there is only one path, the path of the gods of which the different texts mention different particulars, or give different descriptions.

The Purvapakshin maintains that these texts refer to different paths to Brahmaloka.

The present Sutra refutes this view and declares that all the texts refer to one path only and give only different particulars of the same path, the path connected with deities beginning with that identified with light. Why so? On account of its being widely known, from the Sruti texts that this is the path for all knowers of Brahman.

The text Those who know this (Panchagni Vidya) and those who in the forest meditate with faith and austerity reach the deity identified with light (Chh. Up. V.10.1), expressly states that the path connected with deities beginning with that of the flame belongs to all knowers of Brahman whatever be the Vidya by which they have attained that knowledge.

The goal, viz., Brahmaloka, is the same in all cases. Some part of the path is recognised in all texts. All the following passages declare one and the same result, viz., the attainment of the world of Brahman. In these worlds of Brahman they dwell for ever and ever (Bri. Up. VI.2.15). There he dwells eternal years (Bri. Up. V.10.1). Whatever victory, whatever greatness belongs to Brahman, that victory he gains, that greatness he reaches (Kau. Up. I.2). There is no justification to regard the path as different on account of its being dealt with in different chapters.

Hence we have to conclude that all the texts refer to the same path but give different particulars which have all to be combined for a full description of the path.

Though various Srutis refer to the path by such words as Archis (light), Surya (sun), Vayu (wind), etc., yet they all refer only to different portions of one and the same way, viz., Archiradi-marga or Devayana which leads to Brahmaloka. Each Sruti gives us something indicatory of the path and we have to combine the diverse particulars.

VAYVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 2

The departing soul reaches the deity of the year

and then the deity of the air

Vayumabdadaviseshaviseshabhyam IV.3.2 (519)

(The departed soul) (of a knower of the Saguna Brahman goes) from the deity of the year to the deity of the air on account of the absence and presence of specification.

Vayum: the deity of the air; Abdat: from the deity of the year; Aviseshaviseshabhyam: because of non-specification and specification, because it is stated in general in one Sruti and in detail in another.

The description of the path of the gods is continued.

The Sutra fixes the order of the stages. The Kaushitaki Upanishad describes the path as follows: The Upasaka or the worshipper, having reached the path of the gods comes to the world of Agni (fire), to the world of Vayu (air), to the world of Varuna, to the world of Indra, to the world of Prajapati, and then to the world of Brahma (Kau. Up. I.3).

Now the world of Agni means the same as light, as both terms denote burning, and we, therefore, need not with regard to them search for the order in which they are to be combined.

Again the Chhandogya Upanishad (V.10.1) describes the path as follows: They reach the deity identified with the light, from him to the deity of the day, from him to the deity of the bright half of the month, from him to the deities identified with six months of the northern path of the sun, from them to the deity of the year, from him to the deity of the sun, from him to the deity of the moon, from him to the deity of the lightning. Here Vayu is not mentioned in the path beginning with light. There is absence of specification.

In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Vayu is mentioned before Aditya. When the person goes away from this world he comes to Vayu. Then Vayu makes room for him like the hole of a wheel, and through it he mounts higher, he comes to Aditya. On account of this specification which shows Vayu to come before Aditya, Vayu must be inserted between the year and Aditya. We should conclude that the soul goes to Vayuloka before going to the sun.

The Brihadaranyaka text (V.10.1) fixes that air comes immediately before the sun, because there is regular order of succession. But as regards air coming after the deity of fire there is no specification but simply a statement Having reached the path of the gods he comes to the world of Agni, to the world of Vayu.

The Vajasaneyins in their text record From the deities identified with the six months in which the sun travels northwards he reaches the deity identified with the world of the gods (Bri. Up. VI.2.15). Here in order to maintain the immediate succession of the deity identified with Vayu (air) and that identified with the sun (Aditya) we must understand that the soul passes from the deity of the world of the gods to the deity of air.

Again in the texts of the Chhandogya and the Brihadaranyaka the deity of the world of the gods is not mentioned in the former and the deity of the year in the latter. Both texts are authoritative. Both have to be included in the full description of the path. As the year is connected with the months, the deity of the year precedes the deity of the world of the gods.

Hence the sequence is Archis (rays), Ahas (day), Suklapaksha (bright half of the month), six months when the sun travels to the north, year, the world of the gods, the world of Vayu, the sun, the moon, the lightning, the world of Varuna, the world of Indra, the world of Prajapati and the world of Brahma.

TADIDADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 3

After reaching the deity identified with lightning,

the soul reaches the world of Varuna

Tadito'dhi varunah sambandhat IV.3.3 (520)

After (reaching) the deity of lightning (the soul reaches) Varuna, on account of the connection (between the two).

Taditah adhi: after the deity of lightning; Varunah: (comes) Varuna (rain god); Sambandhat: on account of connection.

The enumeration of the stations of the journey is continued.

In the Chhandogya text we find, From the sun to the moon, from moon to lightning. In the Kaushitaki Upanishad we find, From Vayu (wind) to Varuna. Combining the two texts we have to place Varuna after lightning, on account of the connection between the two (lightning and Varuna). The broad lightnings dance forth from the womb of the clouds with the sound of deep thunder and then water falls down. It lightens, it thunders, it will rain (Chh. Up. VII.11.1). Varuna is the god of rain and lightning precedes rain. So after lightning comes Varuna.

After Varuna come Indra and Prajapati for there is no other place for them. The Kaushitaki text also puts them there.

The complete enumeration of the stages of the path of the gods is as follows: first the deity of fire, then the deity of the day, the deity of the bright half of the month, the deities of the six months when the sun travels to the north, the deity of the year, the deity of the world of gods, the deity of the air, the sun, the moon, the deity of lightning, the world of Varuna, the world of Indra, the world of Prajapati, and finally Brahmaloka.

Ativahikadhikaranam: Topic 4 (Sutras 4-6)

Light, etc., referred to in the text describing the path of the gods mean deities identified with light, etc., who conduct the soul

stage after stage till Brahmaloka is reached

Ativahikastallingat IV.3.4 (521)

(These are) deities conducting the soul (on the path of the gods), on account of indicatory marks to that effect.

Ativahikah: conductors, deities conducting the departed soul; Tad-lingat: on account of indicatory marks to that effect.

The description of the path of the gods is continued.

With regard to those beginning with light a doubt arises whether they are marks of the road, or places of enjoyment, or conductors of the travelling souls.

The Purvapakshin says: Light and so on are marks of the road, because the instruction has that character. In ordinary life a man who wishes to go to a village or a town is told Go from here to that hill, from there to a banyan tree, from that tree to a river, from that to a village, after that you will reach the town. So here also the text says, From light to day, from day to the waxing half of the month, etc.

Or else light and so on may be viewed as places of enjoyment. Because the text connects Agni and so on with the world He comes to the world of Agni. Now the term world denotes places of enjoyment of living beings, as when we say the world of men, the world of fathers, the world of gods.

Therefore, light and the rest are not conductors. Further they cannot be conductors as they are without intelligence. In ordinary life, intelligent men only are appointed by the king to conduct travellers over difficult roads.

The present Sutra refutes this. They must be the conductors. They receive the departed souls and conduct them on their way to Brahmaloka. That conductors are meant here and not marks or places of enjoyment is indicated by the text of the Chhandogya which ends thus, From the moon to the lightning. Then a being who is not a man leads them to Brahman (Chh. Up. IV.15.5; V.10.1). This text shows that unlike the previous guides or conductors who were more or less human, this particular guide or conductor is not a human in natureAmanava.

Ubhayavyamohat tatsiddheh IV.3.5 (522)

(That deities or divine guides are meant in these texts, they are personal conductors) is established, because both (i.e., the path and the traveller) become unconscious.

Ubhaya: both (the path and the traveller); Vyamohat: because of unconsciousness; Tat-siddheh: that is established.

This Sutra is an argument in support of Sutra 4.

The departed souls are not capable of guiding themselves as their organs are withdrawn in the mind. The light, etc., are without intelligence. Hence they are equally incapable and cannot guide the souls. Hence it follows that the particular intelligent deities identified with the light, etc., guide the souls to Brahmaloka. In ordinary life also drunken or senseless people follow a road as commanded by others.

Again light and the rest cannot be taken for marks of the path or road, because they are not always present.

Further the departed souls cannot enjoy as their organs are withdrawn into the mind. Hence light and the rest cannot be worlds where they enjoy.

Although the wanderers or the departed souls do not enjoy anything, the word world may be explained on the ground that those worlds are places of enjoyment for other beings dwelling there.

The conclusion, therefore, is that he who has reached the world of Agni is led on by Agni and he who has reached the world ruled by Vayu is led by Vayu.

Vaidyutenaiva tatastacchruteh IV.3.6 (523)

From thence (the souls are led or guided) by the very same (superhuman) person who comes to lightning, that being known from the Sruti.

Vaidyutena: by the (superhuman) guide connected with lightning, by the superhuman being who takes his charge from the god of lightning; Eva: alone, only, indeed; Tatah: from thence; Tat sruteh: that being known from the Sruti, as Sruti states so, because of the Vedic text.

The discussion on the journey is continued.

From thence, i.e., after they have come to the lightning they go to the world of Brahman, being led through the worlds of Varuna and the rest by the person, not a man (Amanava-purusha) who follows immediately after the lightning. When they have reached the place of lightning, a person, not a man, leads them to the world of Brahman (Bri. Up. VI.2.15).

Varuna and the rest only favour the souls either by not obstructing or helping them in some way.

Therefore, it is well established that light and so on are the gods who act as conductors or guards.

KARYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 5 (SUTRAS 7-14)

The departed souls go by the path of gods to Saguna Brahman

Karyam baadarirasya gatyupapatteh IV.3.7 (524)

To the Karya Brahman or Hiranyagarbha or Saguna Brahman (the departed souls are led); (thus opines) the sage Baadari on account of the possibility of its being the goal (of their journey).

Karyam: the relative Brahman or Hiranyagarbha; Baadarih: the sage Baadari (holds); Asya: his; Gati-upapatteh: on account of the possibility of being the goal.

A discussion is now taken up whether the soul is conducted to the Nirguna Brahman or the Saguna Brahman.

In the previous Sutra the way was discussed.

Now from this Sutra onwards the discussion is about the goal reached.

The Chhandogya text declares, Then a being who is not a man (Amanava Purusha) leads them to Brahman (Chh. Up. V.10.1).

A doubt arises whether the Brahman is the Saguna Brahman or the Supreme Nirguna Brahman. The opinion of the teacher Baadari is that the person, who is not a man, leads them to the lower qualified, effected Brahman (Saguna or Karya Brahman); because it is possible to go to that. Because Saguna Brahman which occupies a definite place, which has a special abode and which is finite can be the goal of a journey. But it is not possible with respect to the Nirguna Brahman which is Infinite and all-pervading. With the Highest Nirguna Brahman on the other hand, we cannot connect the ideas of one who goes, or object of going or act of going; because that Brahman is present everywhere and is the inner Self of all.

Viseshitatvaccha IV.3.8 (525)

And on account of the qualification (with respect to this Brahman in another text).

Viseshitatvat: because of being specified in Sruti, on account of the qualification; Cha: and.

An argument in support of Sutra 7 is adduced.

Because the word Brahman is qualified by the word 'lokam'.

He leads them to the worlds of Brahman; in these worlds of Brahman they live for ever and ever (Bri. Up. VI.2.15). The plural number is not possible with respect to the Supreme Infinite Brahman which may abide in different conditions.

Samipyattu tadvyapadesah IV.3.9 (526)

But on account of the nearness (of the Saguna Brahman to the Supreme Brahman it is) designated as that (Supreme Brahman).

Samipyat: because of the nearness or proximity; Tu: but; Tad: that; Vyapadesah: designation.

The argument in support of Sutra 7 is continued.

The word 'tu' (but) sets aside any doubt that may arise on account of the word 'Brahma' being used for the Saguna Brahman in the Chhandogya text.

This Sutra says that this designation is on account of the proximity of the Saguna Brahman to the supreme Brahman or the Absolute.

The manifested Brahman also can be called Brahman as it is in the closest proximity to the Unmanifested Para Brahman. The Para Brahman assumes absolutely pure limiting adjuncts such as mind, etc., to become an object of devotion and meditation, i.e., the lower Brahman or Karya Brahman or Saguna Brahman.

Karyatyaye tadadhyakshena sahatah

paramabhidhanat IV.3.10 (527)

On the dissolution of the Brahmaloka (the souls attain) along with the ruler of that world what is higher than that (i.e., the Supreme Brahman) on account of the declaration of the Sruti.

Karyatyaye: on the dissolution of the Brahmaloka (Karya: of the effect, i.e., the universe, the relative Saguna Brahman); Tad: of that; Adhyakshena: with the ruler-president, i.e., Hiranyagarbha or the four-faced Brahma; Saha: with; Atahparam: higher than that, i.e., the Supreme Brahman; Abhidhanat: on account of the declaration of the Sruti.

The individual soul's final absorption in the Para Brahman or the Absolute is now stated.

The Purvapakshin says: If the souls who go by the path of the gods reach the Saguna Brahman, then how can statements like, They who proceed on that path do not return to the life of man (Chh. Up. IV.15.6); For them there is no return here (Bri. Up. VI.2.15); Moving upwards by that a man reaches immortality (Chh. Up. VIII.6.5), be made with respect to them, as there is no permanency anywhere apart from the Highest Brahman?

The Sutra declares that at the dissolution of Brahmaloka the souls, which by that time have attained knowledge, along with the Saguna Brahman attain what is higher than the Saguna Brahman, i.e., Para Brahman or the pure highest place of Vishnu. This is called Kramamukti or successive (progressive) liberation or release by successive steps. So the Sruti texts declare.

Smritescha IV.3.11 (528)

And on account of the Smriti (texts supporting this view).

Smriteh: on account of the statement of the Smriti, as Smriti agrees with the view, according to the Smriti; Cha: and.

An argument in support of Sutra 10 is adduced.

The view expressed in the preceding Sutra is corroborated by Smriti also, When the Pralaya has come and when the first person (Hiranyagarbha) comes to His end, then they all, together with Brahman, with purified minds enter the highest place.

The above are the Siddhanta Sutras. The final conclusion (Siddhanta), therefore is that the going of the souls of which scripture speaks, has for its goal the Karya Brahman or Saguna Brahman.

The Purvapaksha is stated in Sutras 12-14.

Param jaiminirmukhyatvat IV.3.12 (529)

To the highest (Brahman) (the souls are led); Jaimini opines, on account of that being the primary meaning (of the word `Brahman').

Param: the Supreme (Brahman); Jaiminih: the sage Jaimini (opines or holds); Mukhyatvat: on account of that being the primary meaning (of the word `Brahman').

Sutras 12-14 give a prima facie view of the matter. An objection to Sutra 7 is adduced by presenting an opposite view.

Jaimini is of opinion that the word 'Brahman' in the Chhandogya text He leads them to Brahman refers to the Highest Brahman, as that is the primary meaning of the word.

Darsanaccha IV.3.13 (530)

And because the Sruti declares that.

Darsanat: on account of the Sruti texts; Cha: and, also.

An argument in support of Jaimini is adduced.

The text Going upwards by that he reaches immortality (Chh. Up. VIII.6.6) (Katha Up. II.6.16) declares that immortality is attained by going. But immortality is possible only in the Supreme Brahman, not in the Saguna Brahman, because the latter is transitory. So scripture says, Where one sees something else, that is little, that is mortal (Chh. Up. VIII.24.1).

According to the text of the Kathopanishad also the going of the soul is towards the supreme Brahman. The soul which passes out of the body by the Sushumna Nadi reaches immortality. This can be attained only in the Supreme Brahman.

Na cha karye pratipattyabhisandhih IV.3.14 (531)

And the desire to attain Brahman cannot be with respect to the Saguna Brahman.

Na: not; Cha: and; Karye: in the Saguna Brahman; Pratipatti: realisation of Brahman; Abhisandhih: desire. (Pratipatti- abhisandhih: the desire to attain or realise Brahman.)

The argument in support of Sutra 12 is continued.

I enter the hall of Prajapati, the house (Chh. Up. VIII.14.1), cannot have the lower or Saguna Brahman for its object. This desire to enter the 'hall' or the 'house' cannot be with respect to the Saguna Brahman. It is appropriate with regard to the Highest Brahman (Para Brahman). Because the immediately preceding passage intimates And that within which these (names and forms) are contained is Brahman. The passage I am the glory of the Brahmanas represents the soul as the self of all. 'Glory' is the name of the supreme Brahman. There is no likeness of him whose name is great glory (Vajasaneya Samhita: XXXII.3). Here the Supreme Brahman is referred to.

Sutras 12-14 give the view of the Purvapakshin against what has been said in Sutras 7-11. The arguments of Sutras 12-14 are refuted thus:

The Brahman attained by those who go by the path of the gods (Devayana) cannot be the Supreme Brahman (Nirguna Brahman). They attain only the Saguna Brahman. Para Brahman is all-pervading. He is the Inner Self of all. He cannot be attained as He is the Innermost Self of everyone.

We do not go to what is already reached. Ordinary experience rather tells us that a person goes to something different from him. Journey or attainment is possible only where there is difference, where the attainer is different from the attained.

The Supreme Brahman cannot be assumed to possess any differences depending on time, or space or anything else and cannot, therefore, become the object of going.

In the realisation of the Supreme Brahman the veil of ignorance is removed and the seeker knows his essential divine nature. He realises his identity with the Supreme Brahman. When the ignorance is removed Brahman manifests itself. That is all. There is no going or attaining in such a realisation.

But the attainment of Brahman spoken of in the texts connected with the path of the gods is not merely the removal of ignorance but actual.

The passage I enter the hall of Prajapati, the house, can be separated from what precedes and be connected with the Saguna Brahman.

The fact that Chh. Up. VIII.14.1 says I am the glory of the Brahmanas, of the kings cannot make it refer to the Nirguna Brahman, because the Saguna Brahman can also be said to be the self of all, as we find in texts like He, to whom all works, all desires belong (Chh. Up. III.14.2).

The reference to the journey to Brahman which belongs to the realm of relative or qualified knowledge in a chapter which deals with the Highest Knowledge is only by way of glorification of the latter.

For all these reasons the view of Baadari as set forth in Sutras 7-11 is the correct one.

APRATIKALAMBANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 6 (SUTRAS 15-16)

Only those who have taken recourse to the worship of Brahman

without a symbol attain Brahmaloka

Apratikalambanannayatiti baadarayana

ubhayathadoshattatkratuscha IV.3.15 (532)

Baadarayana holds that (the superhuman being) leads (to Brahmaloka only) those who do not take recourse to a symbol of Brahman in their meditation; there being no fault in the twofold relation (resulting from this opinion) and (it being construed on the doctrine) as is the meditation on that (i.e., Brahman) so does one become.

Apratikalambanat: those who do not have recourse to the symbols for the meditation of Brahman; Nayati: (the superhuman being) leads or takes; Iti Baadarayanah: so says Baadarayana; Ubhayatha: both ways; Adoshat: there being no defects; Tat-kratuh: as is the meditation on that, (so does one become); Cha: and.

The discussion commenced is Sutra 6, whether the soul is taken to the Supreme Brahman or the Saguna Brahman is concluded in this and the following Sutra.

A doubt here arises whether all worshippers of the Saguna Brahman go to Brahmaloka being led by the superhuman being mentioned in Chh. Up. IV.15.5 or only some of them?

The Purvapakshin maintains that all go to Brahmaloka whatever may be their Upasana.

This Sutra declares that only those worshippers of the Saguna Brahman who do not take recourse to any symbol in their meditation on Brahman go there. This is the opinion of the teacher Baadarayana. This, however, does not contradict what is said in III.3.31 if we understand that by 'all' is meant all those worshippers who do not take recourse to any symbol in their meditation on Brahman.

Only Brahma Upasakas are taken by the Amanava Purusha to the Brahmaloka. The form of meditation governs the result. In the case of symbols like the Salagrama stone, there is no feeling that it itself is Brahman. No doubt in the case of Panchagni-Vidya, the Sruti says that the worshipper is led to Brahmaloka. But we cannot extend the result to the worshippers of external symbols where there is no direct scriptural statement, we have to understand that only those who meditate on Brahman go to Brahmaloka, not others.

He whose meditation is fixed on Brahman reaches Brahmaloka. This view is supported by Sruti and Smriti. In whatever form they meditate on Him, that they become themselves. In the case of symbols on the other hand, the meditation is not fixed on Brahman, the symbol being the chief element in the meditation. Hence the worshipper does not attain Brahmaloka.

Visesham cha darsayati IV.3.16 (533)

And the scripture declares a difference (in the case of meditation on symbols).

Visesham: difference; Cha: and; Darsayati: the scripture declares.

An argument in support of the conclusion arrived at by Baadarayana, is adduced here.

With reference to meditations on symbols such as name and so on, that occur in Chhandogya Upanishadic texts, the Sruti speaks of different results according to difference in the symbols. One who meditates upon name as Brahman becomes independent so far as name reaches (Chh. Up. VII.1.5). One who meditates upon speech as Brahman becomes independent so far as speech reaches (Chh. Up. VII.2.2).

Now the distinction of rewards is possible because the meditations depend on symbols, while there could be no such difference in results, if they depend on the one non-different Brahman.

Hence it is quite clear that those who use symbols for their meditation cannot have the same reward as others. They cannot go to Brahmaloka like those who meditate on the Saguna Brahman.

Thus ends the Third Pada (Section 3) of the Fourth Chapter (Adhyaya IV) of the Brahma Sutras or the Vedanta Philosophy.

Font Size

Chapter IV, Section 4

INTRODUCTION

The attainment of Brahmaloka by the worshippers of the Saguna Brahman has been treated in the last Section. This Section deals with the realisation of the Highest Brahman by its worshippers.

SYNOPSIS

Adhikarana I: (Sutras 1-3) the released soul does not acquire anything new but merely manifests itself in its true nature.

Adhikarana II: (Sutra 4) determines that relation in which the released soul stands to Brahman is that of Avibhaga, non-separation.

Adhikarana III: (Sutras 5-7) discuss the characteristics of the soul that has attained the Nirguna Brahman. According to Jaimini the released soul, when manifesting itself in its true nature, possesses the attributes which in Chh. Up. VIII.7.1 and other places are ascribed to Brahman, such as Apahatapapmatva (freedom from sin), Satyasankalpatva (true volition) and Aisvarya (Omniscience) etc.

According to Audulomi the only characteristics of the released soul is Chaitanya or pure intelligence.

According to Baadarayana the two views can be combined. The two views describe the released soul from two different standpoints, viz., relative and transcendental and so there is no contradiction between the two.

Adhikarana IV: (Sutras 8-9) The soul which has attained the Saguna Brahman effects its desires be mere will.

Adhikarana V: (Sutras 10-14) A released soul which has attained Brahmaloka can exist with or without a body according to its liking.

Adhikarana VI: (Sutras 15-16) The released soul which has attained the Saguna Brahman can animate several bodies at the same time.

Adhikarana VII: (Sutras 17-22) The released soul which has attained Brahmaloka has all the lordly powers except the power of creation, etc. There is no return to this world for these released souls.

SAMPADYAVIRBHAVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 1 (SUTRAS 1-3)

The liberated soul does not acquire anything new

but only manifests its essential or true nature

Sampadyavirbhavah svena sabdat IV.4.1 (534)

(When the Jiva or the individual soul) has attained (the highest light) there is manifestation (of its own real nature) as we infer from the word 'own'.

Sampadya: having attained; Avirbhavah: there is manifestation; Svena sabdat: from the word 'own'. (Svena: by one's own; Sabdat: inferred from the word.)

The Chhandogya text says Now this serene and happy being, after having risen out of this body and having attained the highest light, manifests itself by its own nature (Chh. Up. VII.12.3).

The Purvapakshin holds that the Jiva or the individual soul which has freed itself from identification with the three bodies attains emancipation after realising Brahman. Release also is a fruit like other fruits, e.g., Svarga or heaven. Manifestation means as much as origination. Liberation was not a pre-existent thing. It is something that is newly acquired like heaven, as the word 'reaches' in the text clearly indicates. Therefore emancipation is something new that is acquired by the individual soul. If the manifestation took place only through the self's own nature, it would already appear in the self's former states, because a thing's own nature is never absent in it.

The present Sutra refutes this view and says that the word 'own' indicates that emancipation was a pre-existent thing. The individual soul manifests its own, essential divine nature which was so long covered by ignorance (Avidya). This is his attainment of the final beatitude or release. It is certainly nothing that is newly acquired.

Muktah pratijnanat IV.4.2 (535)

(The self whose true nature has manifested itself is) released; according to the promise (made by scripture).

Muktah: the liberated one, released, freed; Pratijnanat: according to the promise.

The previous Sutra is further elucidated.

Emancipation is a cessation of all bondage and not the accession of something new, just as health is merely the removal of illness and not a new acquisition.

If release is nothing new that is acquired by the individual soul, then what is its difference from bondage? The Jiva was stained in the state of bondage by the three states, i.e., the state of waking, dreaming and dreamless sleep. According to Chhandogya Upanishad VIII. 9-11, It is blind It weeps as it were It goes to utter annihilation. It imagines itself to be finite. It identifies itself with the illusory vehicles or Upadhis and experiences pleasure, pain, joy and sorrow. After Self-realisation it realises its true nature which is absolute bliss. It is freed from all erroneous notions and misconceptions. It is freed from Avidya or ignorance and its effects. It is perfect, free, independent. This is the difference.

Annihilation of ignorance is salvation. Eradication of all erroneous notions or misconceptions is liberation. Destruction of the veil of ignorance, that separates the individual soul from the Supreme Soul is emancipation or the final beatitude.

But how is it known that in its present condition the soul is released? On account of the promise made in the scriptures, says the Sutra.

The Chhandogya Upanishad says, I will explain It to you further (Chh. Up. VIII.9.3; VIII.10.4; VIII.11.3). Here the Sruti proposes to expound that Self which is free from all imperfections. It begins thus, The Self which is free from sin (Chh. Up. VIII.7.1). It being without the body, is not touched by pleasure and pain (Chh. Up. VIII.12.1), and concludes By his own nature he manifests himself. That is the highest person. The serene being rises above its body, reaches the highest light and appears in its own true nature (Chh. Up. VIII.12.3).

Atma prakaranat IV.4.3 (536)

(The light into which the individual soul enters is) the Supreme Self; owing to the subject matter of the chapter.

Atma: the Supreme Self; Prakaranat: on account of the subject matter of the discourse or context.

This Sutra says that the individual soul recovers his own Self (the Supreme Self) as stated in Sutra 1.

The Purvapakshin holds: How can the soul be called liberated considering that the clause (having entered into) the highest light speaks of it as within the sphere of what is a mere effect? Because the word 'light' in common parlance denotes physical light. No one who has not transcended beyond the sphere of effects can be liberated, as whatever is an effect is tainted with evil.

We reply: this objection is without force. It cannot stand; for in the passage referred to in the Chh. Up. VIII.3.4 the word 'light' denotes the Self Supreme, in accordance with the subject matter of the Chapter and not any physical light.

The word 'Jyotih' (light) in the passage refers to the Atma which is described as sinless, undecaying and deathless (Ya Atma apahatapapma vijaro vimrityuhChh. Up. VIII.7.1).

We, therefore, may not all at once pass over to physical light incurring thereby the fault of abandoning the topic under discussion and introducing a new one.

The word 'light' is also used to denote the Self in the texts like The gods meditate on the immortal Light of all lights as longevity (Bri. Up. IV.4.16). We have discussed this in detail under I.3.40.

AVIBHAGENA DRISHTATVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 2

The released soul remains inseparable from the Supreme Soul

Avibhagena drishtatvat IV.4.4 (537)

(The Jiva in the state of release exists) as inseparable (from Brahman), because it is so seen from the scriptures.

Avibhagena: as inseparable; Drishtatvat: for it is so seen from the scriptures.

A doubt arises whether the individual soul in the state of emancipation exists as different from Brahman or as one with and inseparable from It.

The present Sutra declares that it exists as inseparable from Brahman, because the Sruti texts declare so. Thou art That, Tat Tvam Asi (Chh. Up. VI.8.7). Aham Brahma Asmi, I am Brahman (Bri. Up. I.4.10). Where he sees nothing else (Chh. Up. VII.24.1). Being but Brahman, he is merged in Brahman (Bri. Up. IV.4.6). All these Sruti passages declare that the emancipated soul is identical with Brahman.

Such passages as Just as pure water poured into pure water remains the same, thus O Gautama, is the self of a thinker who knows (Katha Up. II.4.15), whose object is to describe the nature of the released soul, declare that there is non-separation only. The same follows from the comparison of the soul entering Brahman to rivers falling into the sea.

Passages which speak of difference have to be explained in a secondary sense, expressing non-separation or unity.

Brahmadhikaranam: Topic 3 (Sutras 5-7)

Characteristics of the soul that has attained the Nirguna Brahman

Brahmena jaiminirupanyasadibhyah IV.4.5 (538)

(The released soul exists) as possessed of (the attributes of) Brahman; (thus) Jaimini (opines) on account of the reference etc.

Brahmena: as possessed of the attributes of Brahman; Jaiminih: Jaimini (holds); Upanyasadibhyah: on account of the reference etc.

The view of the sage Jaimini is stated in this connection.

It has been stated that the released soul attains Brahman. Brahman has two aspects, viz., one the unconditioned aspect as pure consciousness and the other as described in the Chhandogya Upanishad VIII.7.1: The Atman which is free from evil, undecaying, undying, free from sorrow, hunger and thirst, with true desires (Satyakama) and true volitions (Satyasankalpa).

A doubt arises now, which aspect does the released soul attain? Jaimini maintains that the liberated soul attains the conditioned aspect. Why? Because this is known from reference to the nature of the self as being such in the text cited. The qualities of Omniscience and Omnipotence are mentioned. Hence Jaimini opines that the released soul attains the conditioned aspect of Brahman.

Chititanmatrena tadatmakatvadityaudulomih IV.4.6 (539)

(The released soul exists) solely as pure consciousness or Intelligence, that being its true nature or essence; thus Audulomi (thinks).

Chititanmatrena: solely as pure consciousness (Tanmatrena: solely); Tadatmakatvat: that being its true nature or essence; Iti: thus, so; Audulomih: Audulomi (thinks).

The view of sage Audulomi is stated in this connection.

This Sutra gives another view about the state of emancipation. This is the view of the sage Audulomi. Audulomi says that it is the realisation of the soul's essential nature as pure Chaitanya (knowledge, consciousness or intelligence). The soul is solely of the nature of Pure Consciousness. It exists as such in the state of release.

This conclusion will also agree with other scriptural texts such as Bri. Up. IV.5.13: Thus this Self has neither inside nor outside, but is altogether a mass of knowledge.

Although the text enumerates different qualities such as freedom from sin, etc., these qualities rest only on fanciful conceptions due to difference of words; because what the text intimates is only absence in general of all qualities such as sin and the rest.

Evamapyupanyasat purvabhavadavirodham

baadarayanah IV.4.7 (540)

Thus also, on account of the existence of the former qualities admitted owing to reference and so on, there is no contradiction (between the two); (so thinks) Baadarayana.

Evam: thus; Api: even; Upanyasat: on account of reference; Purvabhavat: owing to attribution of properties mentioned before; Avirodham: there is no contradiction; Baadarayanah: Baadarayana (thinks).

The author's own view is now stated.

Baadarayana reconciles both and says that the affirmation of the divine attributes of Omniscience and Omnipotence is from the point of view of God's nature when the soul is bound, while the affirmation of the soul's nature as pure knowledge is from the point of view of its released state.

Although it is admitted that intelligence constitutes the true nature of the Self, also the former nature, i.e., lordly power like that of Brahman, which is intimated by reference and the rest is with a view to the world of appearances not rejected. Hence there is no contradiction. This is the opinion of the teacher Baadarayana.

SANKALPADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 4 (SUTRAS 8-9)

The soul which has attained the Saguna Brahman

effects its desire by mere will

Sankalpadeva tu tacchruteh IV.4.8 (541)

But by mere will (the liberated souls attain their purpose), because scriptures say so.

Sankalpat: by the exercise of will; Eva: only; Tu: but; Tat-sruteh: because Sruti says so.

The powers and privileges which a liberated soul acquires are stated here.

In the meditation on Brahman within the heart we read as follows: If he desires the world of the fathers (Pitriloka) by his mere will they come to him (Chh. Up. VIII.2.1).

A doubt here arises whether the will alone is the cause to get the result, or the will combined with some other operative cause.

The Purvapakshin holds that although scripture says by his mere will some other cause must be supposed to cooperate as in ordinary life. Because, as in ordinary experience the meeting with one's father is caused by one's will, and in addition by the act of going and so on, so it will be with the case of the liberated soul also.

This Sutra says that by mere will the result comes, because the Sruti so declares. If any other cause were required, the direct scriptural statements by his will only would thereby be contradicted.

The will of the liberated soul is different from the will of ordinary men. It has the power of producing results without any operative cause.

Ata eva chananyadhipatih IV.4.9 (542)

And for this very same reason (the released soul is) without another Lord.

Ata eva: for the very reason, therefore, so; Cha: and; Ananyadhipatih: without any other Lord.

The previous topic is continued.

For the very same reason, i.e., owing to the fact of the will of the released person being all-powerful, he who knows has no other Lord over himself. Because not even an ordinary person when forming wishes, will, if he can help it, wish himself to be subject to another master. Even in this world no one could willingly have master to lord over him. Scripture also declares that a released soul is master of himself. For them there is freedom from all worlds (Chh. Up. VIII.1.6).

ABHAVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 5 (SUTRAS 10-14)

A liberated soul who has attained Brahmaloka can exist

with or without a body according to his liking

Abhavam baadariraha hyevam IV.4.10 (543)

There is absence (of body and organs, in the case of the liberated souls) (asserts) Baadari, for thus scripture says.

Abhavam: absence (of body and organs); Baadarih: the sage Baadari (asserts); Aha: (the Sruti) says; Hi: because; Evam: thus.

There follows a discussion whether the liberated soul possesses a body or not.

The passage By his mere will the fathers rise shows that the liberated soul possesses a mind, whereby he wills. A doubt arises whether he possesses a body and the organs.

The teacher Baadari says that he does not, because the scripture declares so, And it is by means of the mind that he sees the desires and rejoices (Chh. Up. VIII.12.5). This clearly indicates that he possesses only the mind and not the organs, etc. There are neither body nor sense-organs in the state of emancipation.

Bhavam jaiminirvikalpamananat IV.4.11 (544)

Jaimini (asserts that the liberated soul) possesses (a body and the organs) because the scriptures declare (the capacity on the part of such a soul to assume) various forms.

Bhavam: existence; Jaiminih: Jaimini (holds); Vikalpa- mananat: because the scripture declares (the capacity to assume) divine forms. (Vikalpa: option, diversity in manifestation; Amananat: from statement in Sruti.)

A contrary view to Sutra 10 is adduced.

The teacher Jaimini is of the opinion that the liberated soul possesses a body and organs as well as a mind. the Chhandogya Upanishad declares He being one becomes three, five, seven, nine (Chh. Up. VII.26.2). This text says that a liberated soul can assume more than one form. This indicates that the released soul possesses besides the mind, a body and the organs.

Dvadasahavadubhayavidham baadarayano'tah IV.4.12 (545)

For this reason Baadarayana opines that the released person is of both kinds as in the case of the twelve days' sacrifice.

Dvadasahavat: like the twelve days' sacrifice; Ubhayavidham: (is) of both kinds; Baadarayanah: Baadarayana (thinks); Atah: so, therefore, from this, from this very reason.

A decision is given on the conflicting views noted above.

Baadarayana affirms from the twofold declarations of the two scriptures that a liberated soul who has attained Brahmaloka can exist both ways, with or without a body, according to his liking. It is like the twelve days' sacrifice, which is called a Satra as well as an Ahina sacrifice.

Tanvabhave sandhyavadupapatteh IV.4.13 (546)

In the absence of a body (the fulfilment of desires is possible) as in dreams, as this is reasonable.

Tanvabhave: in the absence of a body; Sandhyavad: just as in dreams (which stand midway between waking and deep sleep); Upapatteh: this being reasonable.

An inference is drawn from the conclusion arrived at in Sutra 12.

When there is no body or sense-organs, the wished for objects are experienced by the liberated souls just as embodied persons experience joy in dreams.

Bhave jagradvat IV.4.14 (547)

When the body exists (the fulfilment of desires is) as in the waking state.

Bhave: when the body exists; Jagradvat: just as in the waking state.

When there are the body and sense-organs, the wished for objects are experienced by the liberated souls, just as embodied persons experience joys in the waking state.

PRADIPADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 6 (SUTRAS 15-16)

The liberated soul which has attained the Saguna Brahman

can animate several bodies at the same time

Pradipavadavesastatha hi darsayati IV.4.15 (548)

The entering (of the released soul into several bodies) like (the multiplication of) the flame of a lamp because thus the scripture declares.

Pradipavat: like the flame of a lamp; Avesah: entering, animating; Tatha: thus, so; Hi: because; Darsayati: the scripture shows (or declares).

This Sutra shows the possibility of the liberated soul of simultaneously possessing several bodies other than his own.

In Sutra 11 it has been shown that a released soul can assume many bodies at the same time for enjoyment.

A doubt arises whether the bodies which the released create for themselves when rendering themselves threefold and so on are soulless like wooden figures or animated by souls like the bodies of men.

The Purvapakshin maintains that as neither the soul nor the mind can be divided, they are joined with one body only, while other bodies are soulless. Other bodies are lifeless puppets. Enjoyment is possible only in that body in which the soul and mind exist.

This Sutra refutes this view and says, Like the flame of a lamp in their entering i.e., just as the one flame of a lamp can enter into different wicks lighted from it, the released soul, although one only, multiplies itself through its lordly power and enters into all these bodies. It creates bodies with internal organs corresponding to the original internal organs and being limited by these divides itself as many. Therefore, all the created bodies have a soul which renders enjoyment through all of these bodies possible. Scripture declares that in this way one may become many. He is onefold, he is threefold, fivefold, sevenfold (Chh. Up. VII.6.2).

The Yoga Sastras also make the same affirmation.

Svapyayasampattyoranyatara-

pekshamavishkritam hi IV.4.16 (549)

(The declaration of absence of all cognition is made) having in view either of the two states, viz., deep sleep and absolute union (with Brahman), for this is made clear (by the scriptures).

Svapyayasampattyoh: of deep sleep and absolute union (with Brahman); Anyatarapeksham: having in view either of these two; Avishkritam: this is made clear (by the Sruti); Hi: because. (Svapyaya: deep sleep; Anyatara: either, any of the two; Apeksham: with reference to, with regard to.)

The range of knowledge of the liberated soul is now discussed.

The Purvapakshin holds: How can lordly power, enabling the released soul to enter into several bodies and enjoy be admitted if we consider the different scriptural texts which declare that the soul in that state has not any specific cognition? e.g., What should one know and through what? (Bri. Up. II.4.14). But there is not the second thing separate from it which it can know (Bri. Up. IV.3.30). It becomes like water, one, witness and without a second (Bri. Up. IV.3.32).

This Sutra says that these texts refer either to the state of deep sleep or to that of final release in which the soul attains absolute union with the Nirguna Brahman.

Those passages on the other hand, which describe lordly power refer to an altogether different condition which like the heavenly world, is an abode where knowledge of Saguna Brahman produces its results.

We have been discussing in the previous Sutras about one who has not attained absolute union with Nirguna Brahman but only Brahmaloka. There is cognition in Brahmaloka. There is enjoyment also in heaven. The difference between heaven and Brahmaloka is that one does not return to this world from Brahmaloka whereas one returns to this universe from heaven when the results of his virtuous deeds have been exhausted.

JAGADVYAPARADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 7 (SUTRAS 17-22)

The liberated soul which has attained Brahmaloka

has all the lordly powers except the power of creation

Jagadvyaparavarjam prakaranadasannihitattvaccha IV.4.17 (550)

(The liberated soul attains all lordly powers) except the power of creation, etc., on account of (the Lord being) the subject matter (of all texts where creation, etc., are referred to) and (the liberated souls) not being mentioned (in that connection).

Jagadvyaparavarjam: except the power of creation, etc., Prakaranat: (on account of the Lord being) the subject matter, because of the general topic of the chapter; Asannihitattvat: on account of (liberated souls) not being mentioned on account of non-proximity; Cha: and. (Jagat: world; Vyapara: creation etc.; Varjam: excepted.)

The limitations of the released souls' power are stated here.

A doubt here presents itself whether those who through meditation on the Saguna Brahman enter Brahmaloka possess unlimited lordly power or power limited to some extent.

The Purvapakshin maintains that their powers must be unlimited, because we meet with texts such as They can roam at will in all the worlds (Chh. Up. VII.25.2; VIII.1.6). He obtains self-lordship (Tait. Sam. I.6.2). To him all the gods offer worship (Tait. Sam. I.5.3). For him there is freedom in all worlds (Chh. Up. VIII.1.6).

This Sutra says that the liberated souls attain all lordly powers such as Anima, rendering oneself to atomic size, etc., except the power of creation, etc. Creation, preservation and destruction, on the other hand can belong to the everlastingly perfect Lord only. Why so? Because the Lord is the subject matter of all the texts dealing with creation, etc., while the released souls are not mentioned at all in this connection.

Further, this would lead to many Isvaras. If they have the power of creation of the universe they may not be of one mind. There may be conflict of wills with respect to creation, etc. One may desire to create, and another to destroy. Such conflicts can only be avoided by assuming that the wishes of one should conform to those of another and from this it follows that all other souls depend on the Highest Lord.

Hence the powers of the released souls are not absolute but limited and are dependent on the will of the Lord.

Pratyakshopadesaditi

chennadhikarikamandalasthokteh IV.4.18 (551)

If it be said that the liberated soul attains absolute powers on account of direct teaching of the scriptures, we say no; because the scriptures declare that the liberated soul attains Him who entrusts the sun, etc., with their offices and abides in those spheres.

Pratyakshopadesat: on account of direct teaching; Iti: so, thus; Chet: if; (Iti chet: if it be said); Na: not; Adhikarikamandala- sthokteh: because the scripture declares that the soul attains Him who entrusts the sun, etc., with their offices and abodes in those spheres. (Adhikarika: the master of a world, a world-ruler; Mandalastha: existing in spheres, i.e., those abiding in the spheres, of those entrusted with the special functions; Ukteh: as it is clearly stated in Sruti.)

An objection to Sutra 17 is raised and refuted.

This Sutra consists of two parts, namely an objection and its reply. The objection portion is, Pratyakshopadesat; the reply portion is Nadhikarikamandalasthokteh.

He becomes the Lord of himselfApnoti svarajyam (Tait. Up. I.6). From the direct teaching of the Sruti the Purvapakshin maintains that the limited soul attains absolute powers.

This present Sutra refutes this and says that his powers depend on the Lord, because the text cited further on says, He attains the Lord of the mind, the Lord who dwells in spheres like the sun, etc., and entrusts the sun, etc., with offices.

Therefore, it is quite clear from this latter part of the text that the liberated soul obtains its powers from the Lord and depends on Him. Hence its powers are not unlimited. He attains powers as the gift of the Supreme Lord who is in the sun, etc., and who bestows the function of controlling the orb of the sun, on the sun-god.

Vikaravarti cha tatha hi sthitimaha IV.4.19 (552)

And (there is a form of the Supreme Lord) which is beyond all created things (because, so the scripture declares) (His) existence (in a two-fold form unmanifest and manifest).

Vikaravarti: which is beyond all effected things, becomes incapable of transformation by birth, decay, death, etc.; Cha: and; Tatha: so; Hi: because; Sthitim: status, condition, existence; Aha: (Sruti) declares.

The description of the status of the liberated soul is continued.

According to scripture, there is also an internal form of the Supreme Lord, which does not abide in effects. He is not only the ruling soul of the spheres of the sun and so on which lie within the sphere of what is effected.

The text declares this abiding in a two-fold form as follows: Such is the greatness of it; greater than that is the Purusha; one foot of Him is all beings; His other three feet are what is immortal in heaven (Chh. Up. III.12.6).

This text intimates that the Highest Lord abides in two forms, the transcendental and the relative.

He who meditates on the Lord in His relative aspect does not attain the transcendental aspect. He who worships the Lord as having form cannot attain the formless Brahman, because of the law of proportion of fruit to desire. The Sruti declares As one meditates upon That, so he becomes.

As the meditator on the relative aspects of the Lord is unable to comprehend it fully, he attains only limited powers and not unlimited powers like the Lord Himself.

Darsayataschaivam pratyakshanumane IV.4.20 (553)

And thus perception and inference show.

Darsayatah: they both show; Cha: and; Evam: thus; Pratyaksha-anumane: Pratyaksha and Anumana, perception and inference.

This Sutra declares that the transcendental aspect of the Lord is established by both the Sruti and Smriti. Sruti and Smriti both declare that the highest light does not abide within effected thing, The sun does not shine there, nor the moon and the stars, nor these lightnings and much less this fire (Mun. Up. II.2.10). The sun does not illumine it, nor the moon, nor fire (Bhagavad Gita, XV.6).

Bhogamatrasamyalingaccha IV.4.21 (554)

And because of the indications (in the scriptures) of equality (of the liberated soul with the Lord) only with respect to enjoyment.

Bhogamatra: with respect to enjoyment only; Samya: equality; Lingat: from the indication of Sruti; Cha: also, and.

That the powers of the liberated soul are not unlimited is also known from the indication in the Sruti that the equality of these souls with the Lord is only with regard to enjoyment and not with respect to creation, etc.

As all beings honour that Deity, so do all beings honour him who knows that (Bri. Up. I.5.20). Through it he attains identity with the Deity, or lives in the same world with it (Bri. Up. I.5.23).

All these texts describe equality only with regard to enjoyment. They do not mention anything with reference to creation, etc.

Anavrittih sabdadanavrittih sabdat IV.4.22 (555)

(There is) no return (for these liberated souls), on account of the scriptural statement (to that effect).

Anavrittih: no return; Sabdat: on account of the scriptural statement.

The discussion on the privileges of the liberated soul is concluded here.

The Purvapakshin maintains: If the powers of the liberated souls are limited, then they too will come to an end like all limited mortal beings. Therefore, the liberated souls will have to return to this world from Brahmaloka.

This Sutra refutes this and says that those who go to Brahmaloka by the path of the gods do not return from there. Because scriptural passages teach that they do not so return. Going up by that way, one reaches immortality (Chh. Up. VIII.6.6). Those who proceed on that path do not return to the life of man (Chh. Up. IV.15.6). He reaches the world of Brahman and does not return (Chh. Up. VII.15.1). They no more return to this world (Bri. Up. VI.2.15).

The repetition of the words No return, etc., indicates that the book is finished.

Thus ends the Fourth Pada (Section 4) of the Fourth Chapter (Adhyaya IV) of the Brahma Sutras or the Vedanta Philosophy of Sri Baadarayana or Sri Veda-Vyasa or Sri Krishna-Dvaipayana, the Avatara of Lord Sri Hari. May His blessings be upon you all.

Guruji

வெள்ளி, 2 செப்டம்பர், 2016

BRAHMA SUTRAS PART - 2 (அத்தியாயம் 3 & 4 )

Chapter III - Sadhanadhyaya Section-1

Chapter III, Section 2

Chapter III, Section 3

Chapter III, Section 4

Chapter IV, Phala-Adhyaya Section 1

Chapter IV, Section 2

Chapter IV, Section 3

Chapter IV, Section 4