This prima facie view is set aside by the Sutra. The word 'ether' in the text under discussion denotes the highest Self with its previously established characteristics--which is something quite different from the non-sentient elemental ether. For the qualities which the pa.s.sage attributes to ether, viz. its being the one cause of the entire world, its being greater than all, and the rest of all, clearly indicate the highest Self. The non-intelligent elemental ether cannot be called the cause of all, since intelligent beings clearly cannot be its effects; nor can it be called the 'rest' of intelligent beings, for non-sentient things are evil and antagonistic to the true aim of man; nor can it be called 'greater' than all, for it is impossible that a non-sentient element should possess all excellent qualities whatever and thus be absolutely superior to everything else.--Nor is the Purvapakshin right when maintaining that, as the word 'ether' satisfies the demand for a special cause of the world, all other texts are to be interpreted in accordance herewith. The words, 'All these beings indeed spring from the ether only,' merely give expression to something generally known, and statements of this nature presuppose other means of knowledge to prove them. Now these other means required are, in our case, supplied by such texts as 'Being only was this in the beginning,' and these, as we have shown, establish the existence of Brahman. To Brahman thus established, the text mentioning the ether merely refers as to something well known.

Brahman may suitably be called 'ether' (akasa), because being of the nature of light it shines (akasate) itself, and makes other things shine forth (akasayati). Moreover, the word 'ether' is indeed capable of conveying the idea of a special being (as cause), but as it denotes a special non-intelligent thing which cannot be admitted as the cause of the intelligent part of the world we must deny all authoritativeness to the attempt to tamper, in the interest of that one word, with the sense of other texts which have the power of giving instruction as to an entirely new thing (viz. Brahman), distinguished by the possession of omniscience, the power of realising its purposes and similar attributes, which we ascertain from certain complementary texts-such as 'it thought, may I be many, may I grow forth,' and 'it desired, may I be many, may I grow forth.' We also point out that the agreement in purport of a number of texts capable of establishing the existence of a wonderful being possessing infinite wonderful attributes is not lightly to be disregarded in favour of one single text vhich moreover (has not the power of intimating something not known before, but) only makes a reference to what is already established by other texts.--As to the averment that the word 'Self' is not exclusively limited to sentient beings, we remark that that word is indeed applied occasionally to non- sentient things, but prevailingly to that which is the correlative of a body, i.e. the soul or spirit; in texts such as 'the Self only was this in the beginning,' and 'from the Self there sprang the ether,' we must therefore understand by the 'Self,' the universal spirit. The denotative power of the term 'atman,' which is thus proved by itself, is moreover confirmed by the complementary pa.s.sages 'it desired, may I send forth the worlds', 'it desired, may I be many, may I grow forth.'--We thus arrive at the following conclusion: Brahman, which--by the pa.s.sage 'Being only this was in the beginning'--is established as the sole cause of the world, possessing all those manifold wonderful attributes which are ascertained from the complementary pa.s.sages, is, in the text under discussion, referred to as something already known, by means of the term 'ether.'--Here terminates the adhikarana of' ether.'

24. For the same reason breath (is Brahman).

We read in the Chandogya (I, 10; ii), 'Prastotri, that deity which belongs to the Prastava,' &c.; and further on, 'which then is that deity?

He said--Breath. For all these beings merge into breath alone, and from breath they arise. This is the deity belonging to the Prastava. If without knowing that deity you had sung forth, your head would have fallen off.' Here the word 'breath,' a.n.a.logously to the word 'ether'

denotes the highest Brahman, which is different from what is commonly called breath; we infer this from the fact that special characteristics of Brahman, viz. the whole world's entering into and rising from it, are in that text referred to as well-known things. There indeed here arises a further doubt; for as it is a matter of observation that the existence, activity, &c., of the whole aggregate of creatures depend on breath, breath--in its ordinary acceptation--may be called the cause of the world. This doubt is, however, disposed of by the consideration that breath is not present in things such as stones and wood, nor in intelligence itself, and that hence of breath in the ordinary sense it cannot be said that 'all beings enter into it,' &c. We therefore conclude that Brahman is here called 'breath' in so far as he bestows the breath of life on all beings. And the general result of the discussion carried on in connexion with the last two Sutras thus is that the words 'ether' and 'breath' denote something other than what is ordinarily denoted by those terms, viz. the highest Brahman, the sole cause of this entire world, free from all evil, &c. &c.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'breath.'

The subsequent Sutras up to the end of the Pada demonstrate that the being which the texts refer to as 'Light' or 'Indra'--terms which in ordinary language are applied to certain other well-known beings--, and which is represented as possessing some one or other supremely exalted quality that is invariably connected with world-creative power, is no other than the highest Brahman.

25. The light (is Brahman), on account of the mention of feet.

We read in the Chandogya. (III, 13, 7), 'Now that light which shines above this heaven, higher than everything, in the highest worlds beyond which there are no other worlds, that is the same light which is within man.'--Here a doubt arises, viz. whether the brightly shining thing here called 'light' is the well-known light of the sun and so on, viewed as a causal universal principle (Brahman); or the all-knowing, &c., highest Person of infinite splendour, who is different in nature from all sentient and non-sentient beings, and is the highest cause.--The Purvapakshin maintains that the reference is to ordinary light. For, he says, the pa.s.sage does not mention a particular characteristic attribute which can belong to the highest Self only--while such attributes _were_ met with in the texts referring to Ether and Breath--, and as thus there is no opening for a recognition of the highest Self, and as at the same time the text identifies 'light' with the intestinal heat of living beings, we conclude that the text represents the well-known ordinary light as Brahman, the cause of the world--which is possible as causal agency is connected with extreme light and heat.--This prima facie view the Sutra sets aside. The light which the text states to be connected with heaven and possessing supreme splendour can be the highest Person only, since a preceding pa.s.sage in the same section--' All the beings are one foot of it, three feet are the Immortal in heaven'--refers to all beings as being a foot of that same being which is connected with heaven. Although the pa.s.sage, 'That light which shines above,' &c., does not mention a special attribute of the highest Person, yet the pa.s.sage previously quoted refers to the highest Person as connected with heaven, and we therefore recognise that Person as the light connected with heaven, mentioned in the subsequent pa.s.sage.

Nor does the identification, made in a clause of the text, of light with the intestinal heat give rise to any difficulty; for that clause is meant to enjoin meditation on the highest Brahman in the form of intestinal heat, such meditation having a special result of its own.

Moreover, the Lord himself declares that he const.i.tutes the Self of the intestinal fire, 'Becoming the Vaisvanara-fire I abide in the body of living creatures' (Bha. Gi. XV, 14).

26. If it be objected that (Brahman is) not (denoted) on account of the metre being denoted; (we reply) not so, because thus the direction of the mind (on Brahman) is declared; for thus it is seen.

The previous section at first refers to the metre called Gayatri, 'The Gayatri indeed is everything' (III, 12, 1), and then introduces--with the words 'this is also declared by a Rik_ verse'--the verse, 'Such is the greatness of it (viz. the Gayatri),' &c. Now, as this verse also refers to the metre, there is not any reference to the highest Person.-- To this objection the second part of the Sutra replies. The word 'Gayatri' does not here denote the metre only, since this cannot possibly be the Self of all; but the text declares the application of the idea of Gayatri to Brahman, i.e. teaches, to the end of a certain result being obtained, meditation on Brahman in so far as similar to Gayatri. For Brahman having four feet, in the sense indicated by the rik_, may be compared to the Gayatri with its four (metrical) feet. The Gayatri (indeed has as a rule three feet, but) occasionally a Gayatri with four feet is met with; so, e.g., 'Indras sakipatih | valena piditah | duskyavano vrisha | samitsu sasahih.' We see that in other pa.s.sages also words primarily denoting metres are employed in other senses; thus, e.g., in the samvargavidya (Ch. Up. IV, 3, 8), where Viraj (the name of a metre of ten syllables) denotes a group of ten divine beings.

For this conclusion the next Sutra supplies a further argument.

27. And thus also, because (thus only) the designation of the beings, and so on, being the (four) feet is possible.

The text, moreover, designates the Gayatri as having four feet, after having referred to the beings, the earth, the body, and the heart; now this has a sense only if it is Brahman, which here is called Gayatri.

28. If it be said that (Brahman is) not (recognised) on account of the difference of designation; (we say) not so, on account of there being no contradiction in either (designation).

In the former pa.s.sage, 'three feet of it are what is immortal in heaven,'

heaven is referred to as the abode of the being under discussion; while in the latter pa.s.sage, 'that light which shines above this heaven,'

heaven is mentioned as marking its boundary. Owing to this discrepancy, the Brahman referred to in the former text is not recognised in the latter.--This objection the Sutra disposes of by pointing out that owing to the essential agreement of the two statements, nothing stands in the way of the required recognition. When we say, 'The hawk is on the top of the tree,' and 'the hawk is above the top of the tree,' we mean one and the same thing.--The 'light,' therefore, is nothing else but the most glorious and luminous highest Person. Him who in the former pa.s.sage is called four-footed, we know to have an extraordinarily beautiful shape and colour--(cp., e.g., 'I know that great Person of sunlike colour beyond the darkness' (Svet. Up. III, 9))--, and as hence his brilliancy also must be extraordinary, he is, in the text under discussion, quite appropriately called 'light.'--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'light.'

It has been shown that the being endowed with supreme brilliance, called 'Light,' which the text mentions as something well known, is the highest Person. The Sutrakara will now show that the being designated as Indra and Prana, which the text enjoins as an object of meditation, for the reason that it is the means for attaining immortality--a power which is inseparable from causal power--, is likewise the highest Person.

29. Prana is Brahman, on account of connexion.

We read in the Pratardana-vidya in the Kaus.h.i.taki-brahmana that 'Pratardana, the son of Divodasa, came, by fighting and strength, to the beloved abode of Indra.' Being asked by Indra to choose a boon he requests the G.o.d to bestow on him that boon which he himself considers most beneficial to man; whereupon Indra says, 'I am prana (breath), the intelligent Self, meditate on me as Life, as Immortality.' Here the doubt arises whether the being called Prana and Indra, and designating itself as the object of a meditation most beneficial to man, is an individual soul, or the highest Self.--An individual soul, the Purvapakshin maintains. For, he says, the word 'Indra' is known to denote an individual G.o.d, and the word 'Prana,' which stands in grammatical co-ordination with Indra, also applies to individual souls.

This individual being, called Indra, instructs Pratardana that meditation on himself is most beneficial to man. But what is most beneficial to man is only the means to attain immortality, and such a means is found in meditation on the causal principle of the world, as we know from the text, 'For him there is delay only so long as he is not delivered; then he will be perfect' (Ch. Up. VI, 14, 2). We hence conclude that Indra, who is known as an individual soul, is the causal principle, Brahman.

This view is rejected by the Sutra. The being called Indra and Prana is not a mere individual soul, but the highest Brahman, which is other than all individual souls. For on this supposition only it is appropriate that the being introduced as Indra and Prana should, in the way of grammatical co-ordination, be connected with such terms as 'blessed,'

'non-ageing,' 'immortal.' ('That Prana indeed is the intelligent Self, blessed, non-ageing, immortal,' Kau. Up. III, 9.)

30. If it be said that (Brahman is) not (denoted) on account of the speaker denoting himself; (we say, not so), because the mult.i.tude of connexions with the inner Self (is possible only) in that (speaker if viewed as Brahman).

An objection is raised.--That the being introduced as Indra and Prana should be the highest Brahman, for the reason that it is identical with him who, later on, is called 'blessed,' 'non-ageing,' 'immortal'--this we cannot admit. 'Know me only, I am prana, meditate on me as the intelligent Self, as life, as immortality'--the speaker of these words is Indra, and this Indra enjoins on Pratardana meditation on his own person only, the individual character of which is brought out by reference to certain deeds of strength such as the slaying of the son of Tvashtri ('I slew the three-headed son of Tvashtri,' &c.). As thus the initial part of the section clearly refers to an individual being, the terms occurring in the concluding part ('blessed,' 'non-ageing,'

'immortal') must be interpreted so as to make them agree with what precedes.--This objection the Sutra disposes of. 'For the mult.i.tude of connexions with the Self'--i.e. the mult.i.tude of things connected with the Self as its attributes--is possible only 'in that,' i.e. in that speaker viewed as the highest Brahman. 'For, as in a car, the circ.u.mference of the wheel is placed on the spokes, and the spokes on the nave, thus are these objects placed on the subjects, and the subjects on the prana. That prana indeed is the intelligent Self, blessed, non-ageing, immortal.' The 'objects' (bhutamatrah) here are the aggregate of non-sentient things; the 'subjects' (prajnamatrah) are the sentient beings in which the objects are said to abide; when thereupon the texts says that of these subjects the being called Indra and Prana is the abode, and that he is blessed, non-ageing, immortal; this qualification of being the abode of this Universe, with all its non- sentient and sentient beings, can belong to the highest Self only, which is other than all individual souls.

The Sutra may also be explained in a somewhat different way, viz. 'there is a mult.i.tude of connexions belonging to the highest Self, i.e. of attributes special to the highest Self, in that, viz. section.' The text at first says, 'Choose thou that boon for me which thou deemest most beneficial to man'--to which the reply is, 'Meditate on me.' Here Indra- prana is represented as the object of a meditation which is to bring about Release; the object of such meditation can be none but the highest Self.--'He makes him whom he wishes to lead up from these worlds do a good deed; and him whom he wishes to lead down from these worlds he makes do a bad deed.' The causality with regard to all actions which is here described is again a special attribute of the highest Self.--The same has to be said with regard to the attribute of being the abode of all, in the pa.s.sage about the wheel and spokes, quoted above; and with regard to the attributes of bliss, absence of old age and immortality, referred to in another pa.s.sage quoted before. Also the attributes of being 'the ruler of the worlds, the lord of all,' can belong to the highest Self only.--The conclusion therefore is that the being called Indra and Prana is none other but the highest Self.--But how then can Indra, who is known to be an individual person only, enjoin meditation on himself?--To this question the next Sutra replies.

31. The instruction (given by Indra about himself) (is possible) through insight based on Scripture, as in the case of Vamadeva.

The instruction which, in the pa.s.sages quoted, Indra gives as to the object of meditation, i.e. Brahman const.i.tuting his Self, is not based on such an insight into his own nature as is established by other means of proof, but on an intuition of his own Self, mediated by Scripture.

'Having entered into them with this living Self let me evolve names and forms' (Ch. Up. VI, 3, 2); 'In it all that exists has its Self (Ch. Up.

VI, 8, 7); Entered within, the ruler of creatures, the Self of all'

(Taitt. Ar. III, 21); 'He who dwelling in the Self is different from the Self,' &c. (Bri. Up. III, 7, 22)--from these and similar texts Indra has learned that the highest Self has the indiviual souls for its body, and that hence words such as 'I' and 'thou,' which denote individual beings, extend in their connotation up to the highest Self; when, therefore, he says, 'Know me only', and 'Meditate on me', he really means to teach that the highest Self, of which his own individual person is the body, is the proper object of meditation. 'As in the case of Vamadeva.' As the Rishi Vamadeva perceiving that Brahman is the inner Self of all, that all things const.i.tute its body, and that the meaning of words denoting a body extends up to the principle embodied, denotes with the word 'I' the highest Brahman to which he himself stands in the relation of a body, and then predicates of this 'I' Manu Surya and other beings--'Seeing this the Rishi. Vamadeva understood, I am Manu, I am Surya' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 10). Similarly Prahlada says, 'As the Infinite one abides within all, he const.i.tutes my "I" also; all is from me, I am all, within me is all.'

(Vi. Pu. I, 19, 85.) The next Sutra states, in reply to an objection, the reason why, in the section under discussion, terms denoting the individual soul, and others denoting non-sentient things are applied to Brahman.

32. If it be said (that Brahman is not meant) on account of characteristic marks of the individual soul and the chief vital air; we say no, on account of the threefoldness of meditation; on account of (such threefold meditation) being met (in other texts also); and on account of (such threefold meditation) being appropriate here (also).

An objection is raised. 'Let none try to find out what speech is, let him know the speaker'; 'I slew the three-headed son of Tvashtri; I delivered the Arunmukhas, the devotees, to the wolves'; these pa.s.sages state characteristic marks of an individual soul (viz. the G.o.d Indra).-- 'As long as Prana dwells in this body, so long there is life'; 'Prana alone is the conscious Self, and having laid hold of this body, it makes it rise up.'--These pa.s.sages again mention characteristic attributes of the chief vital air. Hence there is here no 'mult.i.tude of attributes belonging to the Self.'--The latter part of the Sutra refutes this objection. The highest Self is called by these different terms in order to teach threefoldness of devout meditation; viz. meditation on Brahman in itself as the cause of the entire world; on Brahman as having for its body the totality of enjoying (individual) souls; and on Brahman as having for its body the objects and means of enjoyment.--This threefold meditation on Brahman, moreover, is met with also in other chapters of the sacred text. Pa.s.sages such as 'The True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman,' 'Bliss is Brahman,' dwell on Brahman in itself. Pa.s.sages again such as 'Having created that he entered into it. Having entered it he became _sat_ and _tyat_, defined and undefined,' &c. (Taitt. Up. II, 6), represent Brahman as having for its body the individual souls and inanimate nature. Hence, in the chapter under discussion also, this threefold view of Brahman is quite appropriate. Where to particular individual beings such as Hiranyagarbha, and so on, or to particular inanimate things such as prakriti, and so on, there are attributed qualities especially belonging--to the highest Self; or where with words denoting such persons and things there are co-ordinated terms denoting the highest Self, the intention of the texts is to convey the idea of the highest Self being the inner Self of all such persons and things.-- The settled conclusion, therefore, is that the being designated as Indra and Prana is other than an individual soul, viz. the highest Self.

SECOND PADA.

THE contents of the first Pada may be summed up as follows:--It has been shown that a person who has read the text of the Veda; who further, through the study of the Karma-Mimamsa, has acquired a full knowledge of the nature of (sacrificial and similar) works, and has recognised that the fruits of such works are limited and non-permanent; in whom there has arisen the desire for the highest aim of man, i.e. Release, which, as he has come to know in the course of reading the Vedanta portions of scripture, is effected by meditation on the nature of Brahman--such meditation having an infinite and permanent result; who has convinced himself that words are capable of conveying information about accomplished things (not only about things to be done), and has arrived at the conclusion that the Vedanta-texts are an authoritative means of knowledge with regard to the highest Brahman;--that such a person, we say, should begin the study of the Sariraka-Mimamsa which indicates the method how Brahman is to be known through the Vedanta-texts.

We next have shown that the text 'That from which these creatures are born,' &c., conveys the idea of the highest Brahman as that being which in sport, as it were, creates, sustains, and finally reabsorbs this entire universe, comprising within itself infinite numbers of variously const.i.tuted animated beings--moving and non-moving--, of objects of enjoyment for those beings, of means of enjoyment, and of abodes of enjoyment; and which is the sole cause of all bliss. We have established that this highest Brahman, which is the sole cause of the world, cannot be the object of the other means of knowledge, and hence is to be known through scripture only. We have pointed out that the position of scripture as an authoritative means of knowledge is established by the fact that all the Vedanta-texts connectedly refer to the highest Brahman, which, although not related to any injunctions of action or abstention from action, by its own essential nature const.i.tutes the highest end of man. We have proved that Brahman, which the Vedanta-texts teach to be the sole cause of the world, must be an intelligent principle other than the non-sentient pradhana, since Brahman is said to think. We have declared that this intelligent principle is other than the so-called individual soul, whether in the state of bondage or that of release; since the texts describe it as in the enjoyment of supreme bliss, all- wise, the cause of fear or fearlessness on the part of intelligent beings, the inner Self of all created things, whether intelligent or non- intelligent, possessing the power of realising all its purposes, and so on.--We have maintained that this highest Being has a divine form, peculiar to itself, not made of the stuff of Prakriti, and not due to karman.--We have explained that the being which some texts refer to as a well-known cause of the world--designating it by terms such as ether or breath, which generally denote a special non-sentient being--is that same highest Self which is different from all beings, sentient or non- sentient.--We have declared that, owing to its connexion with heaven, this same highest Self is to be recognised in what the text calls a 'light,' said to possess supreme splendour, such as forms a special characteristic of the highest Being. We have stated that, as we recognise through insight derived from scripture, that same highest Person is denoted by terms such as Indra, and so on; as the text ascribes to that 'Indra' qualities exclusively belonging to the highest Self, such, e.g., as being the cause of the attainment of immortality.-- And the general result arrived at was that the Vedanta-texts help us to the knowledge of one being only, viz. Brahman, or the highest Person, or Narayana--of whom it is shown that he cannot possibly be the object of the other means of knowledge, and whom the possession of an unlimited number of glorious qualities proves to differ totally from all other beings whatsoever.

Now, although Brahman is the only object of the teaching of the Vedanta- texts, yet some of these texts might give rise to the notion that they aim at setting forth (not Brahman), but some particular being comprised within either the pradhana or the aggregate of individual souls. The remaining Padas of the first Adhyaya therefore apply themselves to the task of dispelling this notion and proving that what the texts in question aim at is to set forth certain glorious qualities of Brahman.