14. If, on account of its being a word denoting an effect, (anandamaya be said) not (to denote the highest Self); (we say) no, on account of abundance.

We deny the conclusion of the Purvapakshin, on the ground of there being abundance of bliss in the highest Brahman, and 'abundance' being one of the possible meanings of -maya.--Since bliss such as described in the Taitt. Up.--bliss which is reached by successively multiplying by hundred all inferior kinds of bliss--cannot belong to the individual soul, we conclude that it belongs to Brahman; and as Brahman cannot be an effect, and as -maya, may have the sense of 'abounding in,' we conclude that the anandamaya is Brahman itself; inner contradiction obliging us to set aside that sense of -maya which is recommended by regard to 'consequence' and frequency of usage. The regard for consistency, moreover, already has to be set aside in the case of the 'pranamaya'; for in that term -maya cannot denote 'made of.' The 'pranamaya' Self can only be called by that name in so far as air with its five modifications has (among others) the modification called prana, i.e. breathing out, or because among the five modifications or functions of air prana is the 'abounding,' i.e. prevailing one.--Nor can it be truly said that -maya is but rarely used in the sense of 'abounding in': expressions such as 'a sacrifice abounding in food' (annamaya), 'a procession with many carriages' (sakatamayi), are by no means uncommon.-- Nor can we admit that to call something 'abounding in bliss' implies the presence of _some_ pain. For 'abundance' precludes paucity on the part of that which is said to abound, but does not imply the presence of what is contrary. The presence or absence of what is contrary has to be ascertained by other means of proof; and in our case we do ascertain the absence of what is contrary to bliss by such means, viz. the clause 'free from evil,' &c. Abundance of bliss on the part of Brahman certainly implies a relation to paucity on the part of some other bliss; and in accordance with this demand the text says 'That is one measure of human bliss,' &c. (II, 8, 1). The bliss of Brahman is of measureless abundance, compared to the bliss of the individual soul.--Nor can it be maintained that the individual soul may be viewed as being an effect of bliss. For that a soul whose essential nature is knowledge and bliss should in any way be changed into something else, as a lump of clay is made into a pot, is an a.s.sumption contradicted by all scripture, sacred tradition, and reasoning. That in the Samsara state the soul's bliss and knowledge are contracted owing to karman will be shown later on.--The Self of bliss therefore is other than the individual soul; it is Brahman itself.

A further reason for this conclusion is supplied by the next Sutra.

15. And because he is declared to be the cause of thatra.

'For who could breathe, who could breathe forth, if that bliss existed not in the ether? He alone causes bliss' (Taitt. Up. II, 7). This means-- He alone is the cause of bliss on the part of the individual souls.-- Some one is here designated as the cause of bliss enjoyed by the souls; and we thus conclude that the causer of bliss, who must be other than the souls to which bliss is imparted, is the highest Self abounding in bliss.

In the pa.s.sage quoted the term 'bliss' denotes him who abounds in bliss, as will be shown later on.--A further reason is given in the next Sutra.

16. And because that (Brahman) which is referred to in the mantra is declared (to be the anandamaya).

That Brahman which is described in the mantra, 'True Being, knowledge, infinite is Biahman,' is proclaimed as the Self abounding in bliss. And that Brahman is the highest Brahman, other than the individual soul; for the pa.s.sage 'He who knows Brahman attains the Highest' refers to Brahman as something to be obtained by the individual soul, and the words 'On this the following verse is recorded' show that the verse is related to that same Brahman. The mantra thus is meant to render clear the meaning of the Brahmana pa.s.sage. Now the Brahman to be reached by the meditating Devotee must be something different from him. The same point is rendered clear by all the following Brahmana pa.s.sages and mantras: 'from that same Self sprang ether,' and so on. The Self abounding in bliss therefore is other than the individual soul.

Here an opponent argues as follows:--We indeed must acknowledge that the object to be reached is something different from the meditating Devotee; but the fact is that the Brahman described in the mantra does not substantially differ from the individual soul; that Brahman is nothing but the soul of the Devotee in its pure state, consisting of mere non- differenced intelligence, free from all shade of Nescience. To this pure condition it is reduced in the mantra describing it as true Being, knowledge, infinite. A subsequent pa.s.sage, 'that from which all speech, with the mind, turns away, unable to reach it' (II. 9), expresses this same state of non-differentiation, describing it as lying beyond mind and speech. It is this therefore to which the mantra refers, and the Self of bliss is identical with it.--To this view the next Sutra replies.

17. Not the other, on account of impossibility.

The other than the highest Self, i.e. the one called jiva, even in the state of release, is not that Self which the mantra describes; for this is not possible. For to a Self of that kind unconditioned intelligence (such as is, in the mantra, ascribed to Brahman; cp. the term 'vipaskita') cannot belong. Unconditioned intelligence is ill.u.s.trated by the power of all one's purposes realising themselves; as expressed in the text 'He desired, may I be many, may I grow forth.' Intelligence (vipaskittvam, i.e. power of insight into various things) does indeed belong to the soul in the state of release; but as in the Samsara state the same soul is devoid of such insight, we cannot ascribe to it non- conditioned intelligence. And if the released soul is viewed as being mere non-differenced intelligence, it does not possess the capacity of seeing different things, and hence cannot of course possess vipaskittva in the sense stated above. That, however, the existence of a substance devoid of all difference cannot be proved by any means of knowledge, we have already shown before. Again, if the clause 'from whence speech returns,' &c., were meant to express that speech and mind return from Brahman, this could not mean that the Real is devoid of all difference, but only that mind and speech are not means for the knowledge of Brahman.

And from this it would follow that Brahman is something altogether empty, futile. Let us examine the context. The whole section, beginning with 'He who knows Brahman reaches Brahman,' declares that Brahman is all- knowing, the cause of the world, consisting of pure bliss, the cause of bliss in others; that through its mere wish it creates the whole universe comprising matter and souls; that entering into the universe of created things it const.i.tutes their Self; that it is the cause of fear and fearlessness; that it rules Vayu Aditya and other divine beings; that its bliss is ever so much superior to all other bliss; and many other points. Now, all at once, the clause 'from whence speech returns'

is said to mean that neither speech nor mind applies to Brahman, and that thus there are no means whatever of knowing Brahman! This is idle talk indeed! In the clause '(that) from which speech returns,' the relative p.r.o.noun 'from which' denotes bliss; this bliss is again explicitly referred to in the clause 'knowing the bliss of Brahman'--the genitive 'of Brahman' intimating that the bliss belongs to Brahman; what then could be the meaning of this clause which distinctly speaks of a knowledge of Brahman, if Brahman had at the same time to be conceived as transcending all thought and speech? What the clause really means rather is that if one undertakes to state the definite amount of the bliss of Brahman--the superabundance of which is ill.u.s.trated by the successive multiplications with hundred--mind and speech have to turn back powerless, since no such definite amount can be a.s.signed. He who knows the bliss of Brahman as not to be defined by any definite amount, does not fear anything.--That, moreover, the all-wise being referred to in the mantra is other than the individual soul in the state of release, is rendered perfectly clear by what--in pa.s.sages such as 'it desired,' &c.-- is said about its effecting, through its mere volition, the origination and subsistence of the world, its being the inner Self of the world, and so on.

18. And on account of the declaration of difference.

The part of the chapter--beginning with the words 'From that same Self there sprang ether'--which sets forth the nature of the Brahman referred to in the mantra, declares its difference from the individual soul, no less than from the Selfs consisting of food, breath, and mind, viz. in the clause 'different from this which consists of knowledge, is the other inner Self which consists of bliss.'--Through this declaration of difference from the individual soul we know that the Self of bliss referred to in the mantra is other than the individual soul.

19. And on account of desire, there is no regard to what is inferred (i.

e. matter).

In order that the individual soul which is enthralled by Nescience may operate as the cause of the world, it must needs be connected with non- sentient matter, called by such names as pradhana, or anumanika (that which is inferred). For such is the condition for the creative energy of Brahma and similar beings. Our text, on the other hand, teaches that the creation of the aggregate of sentient and non-sentient things results from the mere wish of a being free from all connexion with non-sentient matter, 'He desired, may I be many, may I grow forth;' 'He sent forth all, whatever there is' (Taitt. Up. II, 6). We thus understand that that Self of bliss which sends forth the world does not require connexion with non-sentient matter called anumanika, and hence conclude that it is other than the individual soul.--A further reason is stated in the next Sutra.

20. And Scripture teaches the joining of this (i.e. the individual soul) with that (i.e. bliss) in that (i.e. the anandamaya).

'A flavour he is indeed; having obtained a flavour this one enjoys bliss' (Taitt. Up. II, 7). This text declares that this one, i.e. the so- called individual soul, enjoys bliss through obtaining the anandamaya, here called 'flavour.' Now to say that any one is identical with that by obtaining which he enjoys bliss, would be madness indeed.--It being thus ascertained that the Self of bliss is the highest Brahman, we conclude that in pa.s.sages such as 'if that bliss were not in the ether' (Taitt.

Up. II, 7). and 'knowledge, bliss is Brahman' (Bri. Up. III, 9, 28), the word 'ananda' denotes the 'anandamaya'; just as vijnana means the vijnanamaya. It is for the same reason (viz. of ananda meaning the same as anandamaya) that the clause 'he who knows the bliss of Brahman'

exhibits Brahman as being connected with ananda, and that the further clause 'he who knows this reaches the Self of bliss,' declares the reaching of the Self of bliss to be the fruit of the knowledge of bliss.

In the subsequent anuvaka also, in the clauses 'he perceived that food is Brahman,' 'he perceived that breath is Brahman,' &c. (III, i; 2, &c.), the words 'food,' 'breath,' and so on, are meant to suggest the Self made of food, the Self made of breath, &c., mentioned in the preceding anuvaka; and hence also in the clause 'he perceived that bliss is Brahman,' the word 'bliss' must be understood to denote the Self of bliss. Hence, in the same anuvaka, the account of the fate after death of the man who knows concludes with the words 'having reached the Self of bliss' (III, 10,5). It is thus finally proved that the highest Brahman--which in the previous adhikarana had to be shown to be other than the so-called Pradhana--is also other than the being called individual soul.--This concludes the topic of the anandamaya.

A new doubt here presents itself.--It must indeed be admitted that such individual souls as possess only a moderate degree of merit are unable to accomplish the creation of the world by their mere wish, to enjoy supreme bliss, to be the cause of fearlessness, and so on; but why should not beings like Aditya and Praj.a.pati, whose merit is extraordinarily great, be capable of all this?--Of this suggestion the next Sutra disposes.

21. The one within (the sun and the eye); on account of his qualities being declared.

It is said in the Chandogya: 'Now that person bright as gold, who is seen within the sun, with beard bright as gold and hair bright as gold, golden altogether to the very tips of his nails, whose eyes are like blue lotus; his name is Ut, for he has risen (udita) above all evil. He also who knows this rises above all evil. Rik and Saman are his joints.- So much with reference to the devas.--Now with reference to the body.-- Now that person who is seen within the eye, he is Rik, he is Saman, Uktha, Yajus, Brahman. The form of this person (in the eye) is the same as of that person yonder (in the sun), the joints of the one are the joints of the other, the name of the one is the--name of the other' (Ch.

Up. I, 7).--Here there arises the doubt whether that person dwelling within the eye and the sun be the individual soul called Aditya, who through acc.u.mulation of religious merit possesses lordly power, or the highest Self other than that soul.

That individual soul of high merit, the Purvapakshin maintains. For the text states that that person has a body, and connexion with a body belongs to individual souls only, for it is meant to bring the soul into contact with pleasure and pain, according to its deserts. It is for this reason that Scripture describes final Release where there is no connexion with works as a state of disembodiedness. 'So long as he is in the body he cannot get free from pleasure and pain. But when he is free from the body, then neither pleasure nor pain touches him' (Ch. Up. VIII, 12, 1). And a soul of transcendent merit may possess surpa.s.sing wisdom and power, and thus be capable of being lord of the worlds and the wishes (I, 6, 8). For the same reason such a soul may be the object of devout meditation, bestow rewards, and by being instrumental in destroying evil, be helpful towards final release. Even among men some are seen to be of superior knowledge and power, owing to superior religious merit; and this holds good with regard to the Siddhas and Gandharvas also; then with regard to the devas; then with regard to the divine beings, beginning with Indra. Hence, also, one among the divine beings, beginning with Brahma, may in each kalpa reach, through a particularly high degree of merit, vast lordly power and thus effect the creation of the world, and so on. On this supposition the texts about that which const.i.tutes the cause of the world and the inward Self of the world must also be understood to refer to some such soul which, owing to superiority of merit, has become all-knowing and all-powerful. A so- called highest Self, different from the individual souls, does not therefore exist. Where the texts speak of that which is neither coa.r.s.e nor fine nor short, &c., they only mean to characterise the individual soul; and those texts also which refer to final Release aim only at setting forth the essential nature of the individual soul and the means of attaining that essential nature.

This prima facie view is set aside by the Sutra. The person who is perceived within the sun and within the eye, is something different from the individual soul, viz. the highest Self; because there are declared qualities belonging to that. The text ascribes to him the quality of having risen above, i.e. being free from all evil, and this can belong to the highest Self only, not to the individual soul. For to be free from all evil means to be free from all influence of karman, and this quality can belong to the highest Self only, differing from all individual souls which, as is shown by their experience of pleasure and pain, are in the bonds of karman. Those essential qualities also which presuppose freedom from all evil (and which are mentioned in other Vedic pa.s.sages), such as mastery over all worlds and wishes, capability of realising one's purposes, being the inner Self of all, &c., belong to the highest Self alone. Compare pa.s.sages such as 'It is the Self free from evil, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, whose wishes come true, whose purposes come true' (Ch. Up. VIII, 1, 5); and 'He is the inner Self of all, free from evil, the divine one, the one G.o.d Narayana' (Suba. Up.). Attributes such as the attribute of being the creator of the whole universe--which presupposes the power of realising one's wishes--(cp. the pa.s.sage 'it desired, may I be many'); the attribute of being the cause of fear and fearlessness; the attribute of enjoying transcending bliss not limited by the capabilities of thought and speech and the like, are essential characteristics of that only which is not touched by karman, and they cannot therefore belong to the individual soul.--Nor is there any truth in the contention that the person within the sun, &c., cannot be a being different from individual souls because it possesses a body. For since a being which possesses the power of realising all its desires can a.s.sume a body through its mere wish, it is not generally true that embodiedness proves dependence on karman.--But, it may be said, by a body we understand a certain combination of matter which springs from the primal substance (prakriti) with its three const.i.tuents. Now connexion with such a body cannot possibly be brought about by the wish of such souls even as are free from all evil and capable of realising their desires; for such connexion would not be to the soul's benefit. In the case, on the other hand, of a soul subject to karman and not knowing its own essential nature, such connexion with a body necessarily takes place in order that the soul may enjoy the fruit of its actions--quite apart from the soul's desire.-- Your objection would be well founded, we reply, if the body of the highest Self were an effect of Prakriti with its three const.i.tuents; but it is not so, it rather is a body suitable to the nature and intentions of that Self. The highest Brahman, whose nature is fundamentally antagonistic to all evil and essentially composed of infinite knowledge and bliss--whereby it differs from all other souls--possesses an infinite number of qualities of unimaginable excellence, and, a.n.a.logously, a divine form suitable to its nature and intentions, i.e.

adorned with infinite, supremely excellent and wonderful qualities-- splendour, beauty, fragrance, tenderness, loveliness, youthfulness, and so on. And in order to gratify his devotees he individualises that form so as to render it suitable to their apprehension--he who is a boundless ocean as it were of compa.s.sion, kindness and lordly power, whom no shadow of evil may touch---he who is the highest Self, the highest Brahman, the supreme soul, Narayana!--Certain texts tell us that the highest Brahman is the sole cause of the entire world: 'From which these beings originate' (Taitt. Up.); 'Being only was this in the beginning'

(Kh. Up. VI, 2, 1); 'The Self only was this in the beginning' (Ai. Up. I, 1); 'Narayana alone existed, not Brahma nor Siva.' Other texts define his nature: 'The True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1); 'Knowledge, bliss is Brahman' (Bri. Up. III. 9. 28); and others again deny of Brahman all connexion with evil qualities and inferior bodies sprung from Prakriti, and all dependence on karman, and proclaim his glorious qualities and glorious forms: 'Free from qualities' (?); 'Free from taint' (Svet. Up. VI, 19); 'Free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, realising his wishes and purposes' (Ch.

Up. VIII, 1, 5); 'There is no effect and no cause known of him, no one is seen like to him or superior: his high power is revealed as manifold, as inherent action of force and knowledge' (Svet. Up. VI, 8); 'That highest great lord of lords, the highest deity of deities' (Svet. Up. VI, 7); 'He is the cause, the lord of the lords of the organs, and there is of him neither parent nor lord' (Svet. Up. VI, 9); 'Having created all forms and given names to them the wise one goes on calling them by those names' (Taitt. Ar. III, 12, 7); 'I know that great Person of sunlike l.u.s.tre beyond the darkness' (Svet. Up. III, 8); 'All moments originated from the Person shining like lightning' (Mahanar. Up. I, 6).--This essential form of his the most compa.s.sionate Lord by his mere will individualises as a shape human or divine or otherwise, so as to render it suitable to the apprehension of the devotee and thus satisfy him.

This the following scriptural pa.s.sage declares, 'Unborn he is born in many ways' (Gau. Ka. III, 24); and likewise Smriti. 'Though unborn I, the imperishable Self, the Lord of the beings, presiding over my Nature, manifest myself by my Maya for the protection of the Good and the destruction of the evil doers '(Bha. Gi. IV, 6. 8). The 'Good' here are the Devotees; and by 'Maya' is meant the purpose, the knowledge of the Divine Being--; in agreement with the Naighantukas who register 'Maya'

as a synonym of jnana (knowledge). In the Mahabharata also the form a.s.sumed by the highest Person in his avataras is said not to consist of Prakriti, 'the body of the highest Self does not consist of a combination of material elements.'--For these reasons the Person within the Sun and the eye is the highest Self which is different from the individual soul of the Sun, &c.

22. And on account of the declaration of difference (the highest Self is) other (than the individual souls of the sun, &c.).

There are texts which clearly state that the highest Self is different from Aditya and the other individual souls: 'He who, dwelling within Aditya (the sun), is different from Aditya, whom Aditya does not know, of whom Aditya is the body, who rules Aditya from within; who dwelling within the Self is different from the Self,' &c. (Bri. Up. III, 7, 9 ff.

); 'Of whom the Imperishable is the body, whom the Imperishable does not know; who moves within Death, of whom Death is the body, whom Death does not know; he is the inner self of all beings, free from evil, divine, the one G.o.d Narayana' (Sub. Up. VII). These texts declare all individual souls to be the body of the sinless highest Self which is said to be the inward principle of all of them.--It is thereby completely proved that the highest Self is something different from all individual souls such as Aditya, and so on.--Here terminates the adhikarana of the 'one within.'

The text, 'That from which these beings are born,' teaches that Brahman is the cause of the world; to the question thence arising of what nature that cause of the world is, certain other texts give a reply in general terms (' Being only this was in the beginning'; 'It sent forth fire'; 'The Self only this was in the beginning,' &c.); and thereupon it is shown on the basis of the special nature of that cause as proved by the attributes of 'thought' and 'bliss,' that Brahman is different from the pradhana and the individual souls. The remaining part of this Pada now is devoted to the task of proving that where such special terms as Ether and the like are used in sections setting forth the creation and government of the world, they designate not the thing-sentient or non- sentient--which is known from ordinary experience, but Brahman as proved so far.

23. Ether (is Brahman), on account of the characteristic marks.

We read in the Chandogya (I, 9), 'What is the origin of this world?'

'Ether,' he replied. 'For all these beings spring from the ether only, and return into the ether. Ether is greater than these; ether is their rest.' Here there arises the doubt whether the word 'ether' denotes the well-known element or Brahman.--The Purvapakshin maintains the former alternative. For, he says, in the case of things to be apprehended through words we must accept that sense of the word which, proved by etymology, is immediately suggested by the word. We therefore conclude from the pa.s.sage that the well-known Ether is the cause of the entire aggregate of things, moving or non-moving, and that hence Brahman is the same as Ether.--But has it not been shown that Brahman is something different from non-sentient things because its creative activity is preceded by thought?--This has been a.s.serted indeed, but by no means proved. For the proper way to combine the different texts is as follows.

Having been told that 'that from which these beings are born is Brahman', we desire to know more especially what that source of all beings is, and this desire is satisfied by the special information given by the text, 'All these things spring from the ether.' It thus being ascertained that the ether only is the cause of the origin, and so on, of the world, we conclude that also such general terms as 'Being' ('Being only was this in the beginning') denote the particular substance called 'ether.' And we further conclude that in pa.s.sages such as 'the Self only was all this in the beginning', the word 'Self (atman) also denotes the ether; for that word is by no means limited to non-sentient things--cp., e.g., the phrase, 'Clay const.i.tutes the Self of the jar'--, and its etymology also (atman from ap, to reach) shows that it may very well be applied to the ether. It having thus been ascertained that the ether is the general cause or Brahman, we must interpret such words as 'thinking' (which we meet with in connexion with the creative activity of the general cause) in a suitable, i.e. secondary, or metaphorical sense. If the texts denoted the general cause by general terms only, such as 'Being', we should, in agreement with the primary sense of 'thinking', and similar terms, decide that that cause is an intelligent being; but since, as a matter of fact, we ascertain a particular cause on the basis of the word 'ether', our decision cannot be formed on general considerations of what would suit the sense.--But what then about the pa.s.sage, 'From the Self there sprang the ether' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1), from which it appears that the ether itself is something created?--All elementary substances, we reply, such as ether, air, and so on, have two different states, a gross material one, and a subtle one. The ether, in its subtle state, is the universal cause; in its gross state it is an effect of the primal cause; in its gross state it thus springs from itself, i.e. ether in the subtle state. The text, 'All these beings spring from ether only' (Ch.

Up. I, 9, 1), declares that the whole world originates from ether only, and from this it follows that ether is none other than the general cause of the world, i.e. Brahman. This non-difference of Brahman from the empirically known ether also gives a satisfactory sense to texts such as the following: 'If this ether were not bliss' (Taitt. Up. II, 7, 1); 'Ether, indeed, is the evolver of names and forms' (Ch. Up. VIII, 14, 1, and so on).--It thus appears that Brahman is none other than the well- known elemental ether.