18. If it be said 'not, on account of the designation of the (effect as the) non-existent; we reply, not so, on account (of such designation being due to) another attribute, (as appears) from the complementary pa.s.sage, from Reasoning, and from another Vedic text.

The a.s.sertion that ordinary speech as well as the Veda acknowledges the existence of the effect in the cause cannot be upheld 'on account of the designation of (the effect as) the non-existent.' For the Veda says, 'Non-being only was this in the beginning' (Ch. Up. III, 19, 1); 'Non- being indeed was this in the beginning' (Taitt. Up. II, 6. 1); 'In the beginning truly this was not anything whatever.' And in ordinary language we say 'In the morning all this--jars, platters, and so on,-- was not.'--This objection the Sutra proceeds to refute. 'Not so, on account of such designation being due to another attribute.' The designation of the effected substance as the non-existent is due to the effect having at an earlier time a different quality, i.e. a different const.i.tution; not to its being, as you think, absolutely non-existing.

The quality different from the quality of existence is non-existence; that is to say, of the world designated as _this_, the quality of existence is const.i.tuted by name and form, while the quality of non- existence consists in the subtle state opposed to name and form.--But how is this known?--'From the complementary pa.s.sage, from Reasoning, and from another text.' The complementary pa.s.sage is the one following on the last text quoted above, viz. 'that Non-existent formed the resolve "may I be". The resolve referred to in this complementary text serving as an inferential sign to determine that the Non-existence spoken of is other than absolute Non-existence, we, on the basis of the observation that all the three texts quoted treat of the same matter, conclude that in the other two texts also the Non-existent has to be understood in the same sense. 'From Reasoning.' Reasoning shows Being and Non-being to be attributes of things. The possession, on the part of clay, of a certain shape, a broad base, a belly-shaped body, and so on, is the cause of our thinking and saying 'the jar exists,' while the connexion, on the part of the clay, with a condition opposed to that of a jar is the cause of our thinking and saying 'the jar does not exist.' A condition of the latter kind is e. g.--the clay's existing in the form of two separate halves of a jar, and it is just this and similar conditions of the clay which account for our saying that the jar does not exist. We do not perceive any non-existence of the jar different from the kind of non- existence described; and as the latter sufficiently accounts for all current ideas and expressions as to non-existence, there is no occasion to a.s.sume an additional kind of non-existence.--And also 'from another text.' The text meant is that often quoted, 'Being only was this in the beginning.' For there the view of the absolute non-being of the effect is objected to, 'But how could it be thus?' &c., and then the decision is given that from the beginning the world was 'being.' This matter is clearly set forth in the text 'This was then undistinguished; it became distinguished by name and form' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 7).

The next two Sutras confirm the doctrine of the non-difference of the effect from the cause by two ill.u.s.trative instances.

19. And like a piece of cloth.

As threads when joined in a peculiar cross-arrangement are called a piece of cloth, thus acquiring a new name, a new form, and new functions, so it is with Brahman also.

20. And as the different vital airs.

As the one air, according as it undergoes in the body different modifications, acquires a new name, new characteristics, and new functions, being then called prana, apana, and so on; thus the one Brahman becomes the world, with its manifold moving and non-moving beings.--The non-difference of the world from Brahman, the highest cause, is thus fully established.

Here terminates the 'arambhana' adhikarana.

21. From the designation of the 'other' (as non-different from Brahman) there result (Brahman's) not creating what is beneficial, and other imperfections.

'Thou art that'; 'this Self is Brahman'--these and similar texts which declare the non-difference of the world from Brahman, teach, as has been said before, at the same time the non-difference from Brahman of the individual soul also. But an objection here presents itself. If these texts really imply that the 'other one,' i.e. the soul, is Brahman, there will follow certain imperfections on Brahman's part, viz. that Brahman, endowed as it is with omniscience, the power of realising its purposes, and so on, does not create a world of a nature beneficial to itself, but rather creates a world non-beneficial to itself; and the like. This world no doubt is a storehouse of numberless pains, either originating in living beings themselves or due to the action of other natural beings, or caused by supernatural agencies. No rational independent person endeavours to produce what is clearly non-beneficial to himself. And as you hold the view of the non-difference of the world from Brahman, you yourself set aside all those texts which declare Brahman to be different from the soul; for were there such difference, the doctrine of general non-difference could not be established. Should it be maintained that the texts declaring difference refer to difference due to limiting adjuncts, while the texts declaring non-difference mean essential non-difference, we must ask the following question--does the non-conditioned Brahman know, or does it not know, the soul which is essentially non-different from it? If it does not know it, Brahman's omniscience has to be abandoned. If, on the other hand, it knows it, then Brahman is conscious of the pains of the soul--which is non- different from Brahman--as its own pains; and from this there necessarily follows an imperfection, viz. that Brahman does not create what is beneficial and does create what is non-beneficial to itself. If, again, it be said that the difference of the soul and Brahman is due to Nescience on the part of both, and that the texts declaring difference refer to difference of this kind, the a.s.sumption of Nescience belonging to the soul leads us to the very alternatives just stated and to their respective results. Should the ajnana, on the other hand, belong to Brahman, we point out that Brahman, whose essential nature is self- illuminedness, cannot possibly be conscious of ajnana and the creation of the world effected by it. And if it be said that the light of Brahman is obscured by ajnana, we point to all the difficulties, previously set forth, which follow from this hypothesis--to obscure light means to make it cease, and to make cease the light of Brahman, of whom light is the essential nature, means no less than to destroy Brahman itself. The view of Brahman being the cause of the world thus shows itself to be untenable.--This prima facie view the next Sutra refutes.

22. But (Brahman is) additional, on account of the declaration of difference.

The word 'but' sets aside the prima facie view. To the individual soul capable of connexion with the various kinds of pain there is additional, i.e. from it there is different, Brahman.--On what ground?--'Owing to the declaration of difference.' For Brahman is spoken of as different from the soul in the following texts:--'He who dwells in the Self and within the Self, whom the Self does not know, of whom the Self is the body, who rules the Self within, he is thy Self, the ruler within, the immortal' (Bri. Up. III, 7, 22); 'Knowing as separate the Self and the Mover, blessed by him he gains Immortality' (Svet. Up. I, 6); 'He is the cause, the Lord of the lords of the organs' (i.e. the individual souls) (Svet Up. VI, 9); 'One of them eats the sweet fruit; without eating the other looks on' (Svet. Up. IV, 6); 'There are two, the one knowing, the other not knowing, both unborn, the one a ruler, the other not a ruler'

(Svet. Up. I, 9); 'Embraced by the prajna. Self (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 21); 'Mounted by the prajna. Self' (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 35); 'From that the ruler of maya sends forth all this, in that the other is bound up through maya (Svet. Up. IV, 9); 'the Master of the Pradhana and the souls, the lord of the gunas' (Svet. Up. VI, 16);'the eternal among eternals, the intelligent among the intelligent, who, one, fulfils the desires of many' (Svet. Up. VI, 13); 'who moves within the Unevolved, of whom the Unevolved is the body, whom the Unevolved does not know; who moves within the Imperishable, 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, the divine one, the one G.o.d, Narayana'; and other similar texts.

23. And as in the a.n.a.logous case of stones and the like, there is impossibility of that.

In the same way as it is impossible that the different non-sentient things such as stones, iron, wood, herbs, &c., which are of an extremely low const.i.tution and subject to constant change, should be one in nature with Brahman, which is faultless, changeless, fundamentally antagonistic to all that is evil, &c. &c.; so it is also impossible that the individual soul, which is liable to endless suffering, and a mere wretched glowworm as it were, should be one with Brahman who, as we know from the texts, comprises within himself the treasure of all auspicious qualities, &c. &c. Those texts, which exhibit Brahman and the soul in coordination, must be understood as conveying the doctrine, founded on pa.s.sages such as 'of whom the Self is the body,' that as the jiva const.i.tutes Brahman's body and Brahman abides within the jiva as its Self, Brahman has the jiva for its mode; and with this doctrine the co- ordination referred to is not only not in conflict but even confirms it-- as we have shown repeatedly, e.g. under Su. I, 4, 22. Brahman in all its states has the souls and matter for its body; when the souls and matter are in their subtle state Brahman is in its causal condition; when, on the other hand, Brahman has for its body souls and matter in their gross state, it is 'effected' and then called world. In this way the co- ordination above referred to fully explains itself. The world is non- different from Brahman in so far as it is its effect. There is no confusion of the different characteristic qualities; for liability to change belongs to non-sentient matter, liability to pain to sentient souls, and the possession of all excellent qualities to Brahman: hence the doctrine is not in conflict with any scriptural text. That even in the state of non-separation-described in texts such as, 'Being only this was in the beginning'--the souls joined to non-sentient matter persist in a subtle condition and thus const.i.tute Brahman's body must necessarily be admitted; for that the souls at that time also persist in a subtle form is shown under Sutras II, I, 34; 35. Non-division, at that time, is possible in so far as there is no distinction of names and forms. It follows from all this that Brahman's causality is not contrary to reason.

Those, on the other hand, who explain the difference, referred to in Sutra 22, as the difference between the jiva in its state of bondage and the jiva in so far as free from avidya, i.e. the unconditioned Brahman, implicate themselves in contradictions. For the jiva., in so far as free from avidya, is neither all-knowing, nor the Lord of all, nor the cause of all, nor the Self of all, nor the ruler of all--it in fact possesses none of those characteristics on which the scriptural texts found the difference of the released soul; for according to the view in question all those attributes are the mere figment of Nescience. Nor again can the Sutra under discussion be said to refer to the distinction, from the individual soul, of a Lord fict.i.tiously created by avidya--a distinction a.n.a.logous to that which a man in the state of avidya makes between the sh.e.l.l and the silver; for it is the task of the Vedanta to convey a knowledge of that true Brahman which is introduced as the object of enquiry in the first Sutra ('Now then the enquiry into Brahman') and which is the cause of the origination and so on of the world, and what they at this point are engaged in is to refute the objections raised against the doctrine of that Brahman on the basis of Smriti and Reasoning.--The two Sutras II, 1, 8; 9 really form a complementary statement to what is proved in the present adhikarana; for their purport is to show also that things of different nature can stand to each other in the relation of cause and effect. And the Sutra II, 1, 7 has reference to what is contained in the previous adhikarana.

Here terminates the adhikarana of 'designation of the other.'

24. Should it be said that (it is) not, on account of the observation of employment; we say, not so; for as in the case of milk.

We have so far determined that it is in no way unreasonable to hold that the highest Brahman, which is all-knowing, capable of realising its purposes, &c., has all beings, sentient and non-sentient, for its body, and hence const.i.tutes the Self of all and differs in nature from everything else. We now proceed to show that it is not unreasonable to hold that, possessing all those attributes, it is able to effect by its mere will and wish the creation of this entire manifold Universe.--But, it may here be said, it is certainly a matter of observation that agents of limited power are obliged to employ a number of instrumental agencies in order to effect their purposes; but how should it follow therefrom that the view of the all-powerful Brahman producing the world without such instrumental agencies is in any way irrational?--As, we reply, it is observed in ordinary life that even such agents as possess the capability of producing certain effects stand in need of certain instruments, some slow-witted person may possibly imagine that Brahman, being dest.i.tute of all such instruments, is incapable of creating the world. It is this doubt which we have to dispel. It is seen that potters, weavers, &c., who produce jars, cloth, and the like, are incapable of actually producing unless they make use of certain implements, although they may fully possess the specially required skill. Men dest.i.tute of such skill are not capable of production, even with the help of implements; those having the capacity produce by means of the instruments only. This leads to the conclusion that Brahman also, although possessing all imaginable powers, is not capable of creating the world without employing the required instrumental agencies. But before creation there existed nothing that could have a.s.sisted him, as we know from texts such as 'Being only this was in the beginning'; 'there was Narayana alone.' Brahman's creative agency thus cannot be rendered plausible; and hence the prima facie view set forth in the earlier part of the Sutra, 'Should it be said that (it is) not; on account of the observation of employment (of instruments).'

This view is set aside by the latter part of the Sutra, 'not so; for as in the case of milk.' It is by no means a fact that every agent capable of producing a certain effect stands in need of instruments. Milk, e.g.

and water, which have the power of producing certain effects, viz. sour milk and ice respectively, produce these effects unaided. a.n.a.logously Brahman also, which possesses the capacity of producing everything, may actually do so without using instrumental aids. The 'for' in the Sutra is meant to point out the fact that the proving instances are generally known, and thus to indicate the silliness of the objection. Whey and similar ingredients are indeed sometimes mixed with milk, but not to the end of making the milk turn sour, but merely in order to accelerate the process and give to the sour milk a certain flavour.

25. And as in the case of the G.o.ds and so on, in (their) world.

As the G.o.ds and similar exalted beings create, each in his own world, whatever they require by their mere volition, so the Supreme Person creates by his mere volition the entire world. That the G.o.ds about whose powers we know from the Veda only (not through perception) are here quoted as supplying a proving instance, is done in order to facilitate the comprehension of the creative power of Brahman, which is also known through the Veda.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the observation of employment.'

26. Or the consequence of the entire (Brahman entering into the effect), and stultification of (Brahman's) being devoid of parts.

'Being only was this in the beginning'; 'This indeed was in the beginning not anything'; 'The Self alone indeed was this in the beginning'--these and other texts state that in the beginning Brahman was one only, i.e. without parts--that means: Brahman, in its causal state, was without parts because then all distinction of matter and souls had disappeared. This one, non-divided, Brahman thereupon having formed the resolution of being many divided itself into the aggregate of material things--ether, air, and so on--and the aggregate of souls from Brahma down to blades of gra.s.s. This being so, it must be held that the entire highest Brahman entered into the effected state; that its intelligent part divided itself into the individual souls, and its non- intelligent part into ether, air, and so on. This however stultifies all those often-quoted texts which declare Brahman in its causal state to be devoid of parts. For although the cause is const.i.tuted by Brahman in so far as having for its body matter and souls in their subtle state, and the effect by Brahman invested with matter and souls in their gross state; the difficulty stated above cannot be avoided, since also that element in Brahman which is embodied is held to enter into the effect.

If, on the other hand, Brahman is without parts, it cannot become many, and it is not possible that there should persist a part not entering into the effected state. On the ground of these unacceptable results we conclude that Brahman cannot be the cause.--This objection the next Sutra disposes of.

27. But on account of Scripture; (Brahman's possession of various powers) being founded upon the word.

The 'but' sets aside the difficulty raised. There is no inappropriateness; 'on account of Scripture.' Scripture declares on the one hand that Brahman is not made up of parts, and on the other that from it a multiform creation proceeds. And in matters vouched for by Scripture we must conform our ideas to what Scripture actually says.-- But then Scripture might be capable of conveying to us ideas of things altogether self-contradictory; like as if somebody were to tell us 'Water with fire'!--The Sutra therefore adds 'on account of its being founded on the word.' As the possession, on Brahman's part, of various powers (enabling it to emit the world) rests exclusively on the authority of the word of the Veda and thus differs altogether from other matters (which fall within the sphere of the other means of knowledge also), the admission of such powers is not contrary to reason. Brahman cannot be either proved or disproved by means of generalisations from experience.

28. And thus in the Self; for (there are) manifold (powers).

If attributes belonging to one thing were on that account to be ascribed to other things also, it would follow that attributes observed in non- sentient things, such as jars and the like, belong also to the intelligent eternal Self, which is of an altogether different kind. But that such attributes do not extend to the Self is due to the variety of the essential nature of things. This the Sutra expresses in 'for (there are) manifold (powers).' We perceive that fire, water, and so on, which are of different kind, possess different powers, viz. heat, and so on: there is therefore nothing unreasonable in the view that the highest Brahman which differs in kind from all things observed in ordinary life should possess innumerous powers not perceived in ordinary things. Thus Parasara also--in reply to a question founded on ordinary observation-- viz. 'How can creative energy be attributed to Brahman, devoid of qualities, pure, &c.?'--declares 'Numberless powers, lying beyond the sphere of all ordinary thought, belong to Brahman, and qualify it for creation, and so on; just as heat belongs to fire.' Similarly, Scripture says, 'what was that wood, what was that tree from which they built heaven and earth?' &c. (Ri. Samh. X, 81); and 'Brahman was that wood, Brahman was that tree', and so on.--Objections founded on ordinary generalisations have no force against Brahman which differs in nature from all other things.

29. And on account of the defects of his view also.

On his view, i.e. on the view of him who holds the theory of the Pradhana or something similar, the imperfections observed in ordinary things would attach themselves to the Pradhana also, since it does not differ in nature from those things. The legitimate conclusion therefore is that Brahman only which differs in nature from all other things can be held to be the general cause.

The Pradhana, moreover, is without parts; how then is it possible that it should give rise to a manifold world, comprising the 'great principle,'

and so on?--But there _are_ parts of the Pradhana, viz. Goodness, Pa.s.sion, and Darkness!--This we reply necessitates the following distinction. Does the aggregate of Goodness, Pa.s.sion, and Darkness const.i.tute the Pradhana? or is the Pradhana the effect of those three?

The latter alternative is in conflict with your own doctrine according to which the Pradhana is cause only. It moreover contradicts the number of tattvas (viz. 24) admitted by you; and as those three gunas also have no parts one does not see how they can produce an effect. On the former alternative, the gunas not being composed of parts must be held to aggregate or join themselves without any reference to difference of s.p.a.ce, and from such conjunction the production of gross effects cannot result.--The same objection applies to the doctrine of atoms being the general cause. For atoms, being without parts and spatial distinction of parts, can join only without any reference to such spatial distinction, and hence do not possess the power of originating effects.