1. Aphorisms of the Vedánta Philosophy Part 1 James Ballantyne R. 1851

BSB Bayerische Münchener DigitalisierungsZentrum StaatsBibliothek Digitale Bibliothek

Bādarāyana

The aphorisms of the Vedanta philosophy with illustrative extracts from the commentary

Mirzapore 1851

Signatur: A.or. 5018

Nutzungsbedingungen Usage Guidelines

Bitte beachten Sie folgende Nutzungs- Please observe the following usage guide- bedingungen: lines:

1. Die Dateien werden Ihnen nur für persönliche, 1. The files are provided for personal, non- nichtkommerzielle Zwecke zur Verfügung commercial purposes only. gestellt. 2. Nehmen Sie keine automatisierten Abfragen 2. Refrain from automated querying. vor. 3. Nennen Sie die Bayerische Staatsbibliothek als 3. Attribute ownership of the original to the Eigentümerin der Vorlage. Bavarian State Library. 4. Bei der Weiterverwendung sind Sie selbst 4. In using the files, it is your own responsibility für die Einhaltung von Rechten Dritter, z. B. to observe the rights of third parties, e. g. Urheberrechten, verantwortlich. copyright regulations.

A. or. 5018

ł.or. 5018

1920121Q

Or. 18 A. Or. 5018 Badarayana

THE APHORISMS 0 F THE VEDANTA.

SANSKRIT AND ENGLISH.

PART. I.

N A

THE APHORISMS

OF THE

VEDA'NTA PHILOSOPHY;

BY

BA'DARA'YANA.

WITH

ILLUSTRATIVE EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY.

IN SANSKRIT AND ENGLISH.

Printro for the use of the Benares College by order of Cobt. N. a. P.

MIRZAPORE:

ORPHAN SCHOOL PRESS: R. C MATHER, SUPERINTENDENT.

HIBLICT TEUA

REGIA

OAOCENSIS.

PREFACE.

The great body of Hindu Philosophy is based upon six sets of very concise Aphorisms. Without a commentary the Aphorisms are scarcely intelligible, they being designed not so much to communicate the doc- trine of the particular school, as to aid, by the briefest possible sugges- tions, the memory of him to whom the doctrine shall have been already communicated. To this end they are admirably adapted ; and, this being their end, the obscurity, which must needs attach to them in the eyes of the uninstructed, is not chargeable upon them as a fault. For various reasons it is desirable that there should be an accurate translation of the Aphorisms, with so much of gloss as may be required to render them intelligible. A class of pandits, in the Benares Sanskrit College, having been induced to learn English, it is contemplated that a version of the Aphorisms, brought out in successive portions, shall be sub- mitted to the criticism of these men, and, through them, of other learn- ed Brahmans, so that any errors in the version may have the best chance of being discovered and rectified. The employment of such a version as a class-book is designed to subserve further the attempt to determine accurately the aspect of the philosophical terminology of the East as regards that of the West. J. R. B. Benares College, 5th January, 1851.

THE APHORISMS KNOWN AS THE BRAHMA-SU'-

TRAS, THE S'ARIRAKA SUTRAS, OR THE

VEDANTA-SU'TRAS.

BOOK I. CHAPTER I.

Salutation to the venerable Ganes'a ! I reverence the pair of feet of the venerable Rama, the instru- ment [in the attainment] of undivided joy,-from the touch of the dust whereof even a stone [-in the shape of the petrified Ahalya, the wife of Gautama, whose story may be found in the Rámáyana-Book I. sect. 38-] attained felicity .*

SECTION I.

OF THE FIRST CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE.

d. Finding one, in this world, who had The reader to whom the work is addressed. perused the Vedas in conformity with the injunction of their constant perusal, and

• श्री गणेशाय नमः । श्ीरामचरणद्ृन्दमद्दन्दानन्दसाधनं । नमामि यद्जोयोगात्याषाणो Sपि सखङ्गतः ।

A

2 THE VEDANTA APHORISMS.

[hence] possessing a rough knowledge [of the sense of what he had thus perseveringly perused], desiring to attain the chief end of [the soul of] man [-the " summum bonum"-], not hanker- ing after the fruits of this world or of any one beyond it[-finding such a one-], the pre-eminently benevolent BÁDARÁYANA apho- rised *- as follows.

अथातेो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा । १॥

APH. 1. Next, therefore, [O student that

The subject proposed. hast attained thus far] a desire to know God [is to be entertained by thee].

a. Here the word 'next' means immediately on the [enqui- rer's] attainment of the quaternion of requisitest-[which, as explained in the Vedánta-sára, § 9, are] a perception of the dis- tinction of the eternal reality from the transient, a disregard of the enjoyment of the fruits of both here and hereafter, the pos- session of tranquillity and self-restraint, and the desire of libe- ration.ț] b. The word ' therefore' refers to the reason [why a desire to know the nature of God ought to be experienced by the student

• दूछ खल नित्याध्ययनविधिना उधीतखाध्यायमापातज्ञानवन्त परमपरुषार्थकाममैहिकामुभिकफलेष विरत्तमुपलभमानः परम- कारुणिको बादरायणस्सन्रयामास ।भा०।

++

BOOK I. CH. I. SECT. I. 3

properly qualified to enter upon the enquiry ;- and this reason is] because the Veda itself shows us that the fruits of keeping up the sacred fire and of the like expedients [for the attainment ]of blessedness, are not eternal .* For example [the Veda declares]- " As, here, the world obtained by works perishes, just so, yonder, the world obtained by virtue perishes."t So too it shows us that the chief end of [the soul of] man is [to be attained] through the knowledge of God-[for the Veda tells us] " He who knows God obtains the highest" &c.t Therefore what is awanting [to supply the ellipsis in the aphorism] is this, that " after the attain- ment of the requisites, as declared, a desire to know God is to be formed."§ c. The expression brahma-jijnasa means ' desire to know God' -[being made up of the two words brahma and jijnásá.] The word jijnasa [according to its etymology as a desiderative deriva- tive from the root jna ' to know'] means ' the desire to know;'- and the word brahma ' God' means what is next to be told.||

• अतशशब्दो हेत्वर्थः। यस्माद्वेद एवाग्निहचादीनां स्रेयसा- धनानामनित्यफलतां दर्शयति ॥ + तद्यथेह कर्म्मचिता लोकः नीयत एवमेवामुच पुष्यचिता लोक:

कषोयत इत्यादि॥ + तथा ब्रह्मन्ञानादपि परमपुरुषार्थ' दर्शयति। ब्रह्मविदान्नो- ति परमित्यादि।। 8 तस्माद्यथो कसाधनसम्पत्चनन्तरं व हजिन्ञासा कर्त्तव्येति शेषः। ॥ ब्रह्मणे जिन्नासा ब्रह्मजिन्नासा। जातुमिच्छा जिन्नासा।

व्र ह्माच वच्यमाणलक्षणम ।।

4 THE VEDANTA APHORISMS.

d. In the preceding aphorism it was stated that God ought to be desired to be known. How then, [it will of course be asked,] is this ' God' defined [-or, in other words, what is the character- istic mark-lakshana-by which we may be able to recognise the object of our search-] ? Therefore the venerable maker of the aphorisms declares as follows .*

जन्माद्यस्य यतः ॥२ ॥

What is meant by the APH. 2. [God is that one] Whence the name ' God.' birth &c. of this [universe results.] a. The compound [janmadi-rendered ' birth &c.' and mean- ing literally] 'that of which the first is birth or production,' is a Bahuvríhi compound of the kind [mentioned in the Laghu Kaumudi, under No. 541, as] " denoting that of which the mat- ters implied in the name are perceived along with the thing it- self." [For] the meaning of the compound is 'birth, continu- ance, and dissolution :t' [-so that ' birth,' which is a part of the compound word, is also a part of the thing meant by the com- pound]. b. And [as some one may ask why, in the compound word denoting 'birth continuance and dissolution', we speak of 'birth,' rather than of either of the others, as the first,-we may mention that] the treatment of 'birth' as the first has a regard both to the teachings of the Veda and to the nature of things. The teaching

• पूर्व्वसूचे ब्रह्म जिन्नासित व्यमित्युकं। किंलचण पुनस्तदब्रह्मे- त्यत ्ाह भगवान सूचकार:।। + जन्मोत्पत्तिरादिर्यस्येति तद्गुषरंवित्नानी बजब्रोदिः। जन्म- स्थि तिभङ्कं समासार्थः ।

BOOK L. CH. I. SECT. I. 5

of the Veda, on the one hand, [authorises the form of expression in question] by exhibiting the consecutive order, of birth continu- ance and dissolution, in the sentence beginning with " or whence these elements are produced" &c. The nature of things also [au- thorises the form of expression in question] because the continu- ance or the dissolution is possible of that concrete thing alone which, through production, has obtained an existence .* c. 'Of this'-i. e. of whatever concrete The created universe thing is presented to those [our instruments as far as we are con- of cognition] among which the senses stand cerned. first.+ By the 'this,' then, is denoted the things concreted with those properties whereof the being produced is the first in order. By the 'whence' is denoted the [Grand First] Cause.t d. The meaning, then, of the aphorism

The conception of is this, that, That One is God, from Whom, God according to the Omniscient, Almighty, First Cause, there Aphorism when explica- ted. is the production the continuance and the dissolution of this world, adjusted as it is

• जन्मनस्चादित्वं स्ृतिनिदेशपेक्ष वस्तुटत्तापेकञ्च। श्ररतिनि- द्रिंटसावत । यतो वा दूमानि भूतानि जायन्त इत्यस्मिन वाक्ये जन्मस्थितिप्रलयानां क्रमप्रदर्शनात। वस्तुवटत्तमपि जन्मना लब्धा- त्मकस्य धर्मिषः स्थितिप्रलयसन्भवात.।। + अस्येति। प्रत्यच्ादिसन्निधापितस्य धम्मिषः । ददमा निहथः । जन्मादिधर्म्मसम्बद्धा तथाः। यत दति कारणनिइशः॥

19201249

6 THE VEDANTA APHORISMS.

with its names and natures -[for language, as well as the things about which language is conversant, is regarded as the work of God-], furnished with its various agents & experiencers, the locality where are [experienced] those [fruits] of action which [fruits] are determined by established places and times- [for the character of a bare act, such as the extending of one's arm, is determined by the fact whether there and then that action was appropriate]-, and the nature of the construction of which [world] even the mind cannot conceive .* And thus, then, the characteristic of God-or that by which we are to re- cognise what is meant when the word ' God' is employed-is this, that He is the cause of the production &c. of the world.t e. Here [-i. e. in speaking of the modes of mundane things-] we take in [or specify] production continuance and dissolution [and no others], because the other modifications of state are included under those three.t f. By saying that God is the Cause of the world, the maker of the aphorisms has, by the sense of the sentence, laid down the proposition that He is Omniscient ; because creation, by one in- telligent, presupposes knowledge. And thus God knows all be- cause He made all. It is an admitted principle that he who

• अस्य जगता नामरूपाभ्यां व्याऊ्कतस्य। अनेककटमोत्तृसंयुत्त- स्य । प्रतिनियत देशकालनिमित्तकक्रियाफलात्रयस्य। मनसाष्यचि- न्यरचनारूपस्य । जन्मस्थितिभङ्ग' यतस्सर्वन्ञात्मर्वशकेः कारण- द्रवति तदेव ब्रह्मेति सूचार्थः । + तथाच जगज्जन्मादिकारणत्वं ब्रह्मणे लक्षणम ।। + अन्येषां भावविकाराणं ननिष्वेवान्तर्भाव दूति जन्मस्थिति- लयानामिह्ट ग्रहणम-।।

BOOK I, CH. I. SECT. I. 7

makes anything knows it,-as a potter* [knows a water-jar-so far forth as it is a water-jar-else how could he make one ? and God made everything so far forth as it is anything].

g. By being represented as the Cause of the world, God was implied to be omniscient and almighty. It is merely to impress this that he sayst [as follows].

शास्त्रयोनित्वात, ।३।

APH. 3. [That God is omniscient fol- How we are certain lows] from the fact of [His] being the source that God is omniscient. of the Scriptures, [-or-on an alternative rendering-from the fact that the Scriptures, which declare this omniscience, are the source-scilicet of our knowledge-of Him.]

a. God is the source, i. e. the [only possible ] cause, of a great Scripture such as the Rig-veda, augmented by its various repertories of learning [-meaning those appendages of the Veda, grammar &c.]- illuminating, as a lamp, everything, and [itself] the next thing to something omniscient. For-of such a Scripture as the Rig-veda and the like, which [by containing

• बह्मणो जगत्कारणत्वोत्त्या सर्वत्त्वमर्थातसूचक्वता प्रतिज्ञातं चेतनसृष्टेज्जानपूर्वकत्वात.। तथाच बह्म सर्वनं सर्वकारणत्वात। यो यत्कर्त्ता स तज्ज्ो यथा कुलाल दति सिङ्म।। जगत्कारयत्वप्रदशनेन सवननं सर्वभतिबह्मत्वपचित्र। तदेव

टढयन्नाइ।

8 THE VEDANTA APHORISMS.

information in regard to everything] is associated with the qualities of one omniscient, the origin could not have been from one otherwise than omniscient .* b. [In illustration of this, it may be Illustration of the induction by means of observed that] it is an admitted fact that which this certainty is whatever treatise, embracing a wide range arrived at. of topics, emanates from any particular man-as the grammar, for example, from Panini-, although its. topics be but a part of what is capable of being known [-or of the omne scibile-],-that man, even in consideration of that is inferred to be exceedingly knowingt [-and the author of a work that explains everything must, by parity of reasoning, be inferred to be omniscient.]

c. [And the omniscience of God may be learned] from such texts of the Veda as this, viz., " The Rig-veda, and the Yajur-veda is [-notwithstanding its excellence-not the product of labor- ious effort, but] the mere out-breathing of this Great Being." The drift of this text is this, viz.,-what need is there to declare

पवत्सर्वार्थद्योतिनस्वर्वन्नकत्पस्य योनिः कारणं ब्रृह्म। नहीदशस्य शास्त्रस्य ऋग्वेदादिलक्षणस्य सर्वत्रगुणान्वितस्य सर्वत्रादन्यतस्स- नवो डसि।। + यद्यद्वित्तरार्यं शखतं यस्मात्युरुषविश्ेषाळ्मव्भवति यथा व्या- करषादि पाधिन्यादेरम्नें यैकदेशर्थमपि स तताऽप्यधिकतर विज्ञान दूति प्रसिङ्कम ।।

BOOK I. CH. I. SECT. I. 9

the omniscience and the omnipotence of that Great Being, the Absolute, when he is [proved to be omniscient &c. by his being recognised as] the source of such works as the Rig-veda &c .*?

d. [But there is another interpretation of The alternative ren- the aphorism, for, according to the commen- dering of the third Aphorism. tator,] otherwise-the Scripture, i. e. the Rig-veda and the rest, as above described,- is the source or cause or proof of Him,-of God-as far as re- gards our comprehension of His nature :- that is to say-it is from the Scriptures, as our evidence for the fact, that we come to comprehend that He is the cause of the production &c. of the world.t Such a text [-from which the fact may be learned that God is the cause of the production &c. of the world-] is that one already cited under the preceding aphorism-viz., " Or

• अस्य महत भूतस्य निश्चसितमेवैतद्यदग्वेदो यजुर्वेद द- त्यादिश्रुते: ॥ यम्य मद्दतो भूतस्यापरिच्किन्नस्य ताहश दादियोनित्वं तस्य सर्वत्ञत्वं सर्वशत्तित्वम्न्न किं वक्रव्यमि-

त्याशय: ।।

• वर्षकान्तरं। तथवा। यथोक्त्टम्वेदादिशखत्रं योनिः कारय

प्रमाएमस्य ब्ुह्मणो यथावत्खरूपाधिगमे शास्त्रादेव प्रमायाज्जगते।

जन्मादिकारणमधिगम्यत दृत्यभिप्रायः ।।

B

10 THE VEDANTA APHORISMS.

whence these elements are produced" &c .* [see § 2. c.]

Objections, of the e. [In the foregoing Aphorism, according

Mimánsá, to the allega- to its second interpretation, it is asserted

tion that the Veda aims that the Institutes are what make us to know

directly at revealing God ;- but the followers of the Mimansa

God. object to this, declaring that the direct de- sign of the Scriptures is to reveal what we ought to do-and not to reveal God apart from any consideration of a line of conduct to be followed in respect of Him. In or- der to obviate these objections, the ortbodox tenet is laid down in the aphorism here following.]

तन्तु समन्वयात ॥। ४ ॥

APH. 4. But That One [-viz. God- That it aims direetly is what the Scriptures declare, not with a at rewealing God-the only consistent theory view to anything ulterior, but simply in or-

of the Veda. der that what is so declared may be known; and we make this assertion] because there is consistency [in this view, whilst the opposite view would land us in inconsistencies.] a. The word "but" is intended to rebut the first view of the caset [stated in §. 3. e.]

• शास्तरमुदाहृत पर्वसूचे यतो वा दूमानि भूतानि जायन्त इू-

त्यादि।। + तुशब्द: पूर्व्वपक्षव्या वर्थः ॥

BOOK I. CH. I. SECT. I. 11

b. "That One," i. e. God, is declared in the Vedantas [-i. e. in those theological sections of the Vedas usually termed upani- shads-] as the direct object of declaration [-and not merely, see §. 3. e.,-as a mediate step to the injunction of works :]- why ?- "because there is consistency." Consistency means the suiting of expressions well together among themselves-and that is our reason*[-in as much as we find this consistency among the expressions of Scripture when we hold the pronoun "That" to re- fer to God, but not otherwise].

c. [We make the assertions made in § 46. Consistency the test because it is a maxim that] consistency is of correct interpreta- tion. that in virtue of which any one [out of se- veral offered interpretations] is [to be re- cognised as] that which conveys the real import.t

d. Now, in order to demolish the opinion of those who wish [it to be believed] that God is set forth, in the theological part of the Vedas, [incidentally] through the injunction of devotions, and who do not wish [it to be believed] that the direct design [of the scriptures] is to declare God as He is,-another comment [on § 4] is undertaken.į

• तद्ब्रह्म वेदान्तेष तात्प्य्येष प्रतिपादते। कुतः । समन्व- यात। सम्यगन्वयस्समन्वयः । तस्मात ॥

• अन्वयस्य सम्यत्क तात्पर्य्यवच्वम्।

सम्प्रति सिद्धे व्यत्पत्तिमनिच्तां उपास्तिविधिद्वारा वेदान्ते-

भ्यो ब्ुह्मसिङ्िमिच्छ्तां मतनिरासाय वर्णकान्तरमारभ्यते।।

12 THE VEDANTA APHORISMS.

e. In the opinion of these [followers of the Mimansa § 4 d., the theological parts of the Vedas announce God] not as what is to be declared for itself, but with a view to something ulterior [-viz., as the object of the devotions which are enjoined]. They are not concerned [say these objectors] about God sim- ply as he is-because [if you assert that they are so, then] there is an absence of the characteristic [by which an Institute or S'astra is recognized-viz. injunctions respecting] conduct. Since an Institute has in view [as its direct object] the doing and forbearing [which it enjoins in respect of acts to be done or forborne], it is not possible that the name of Institute [S'astra -- derived as it is from the root s'as ' to enact'] should belong [-as both parties agree it does belong-] to it [i. e. to the Upa- nishad if the obj ect in view were merely God as he is* [and not as He is to be acted towards].

f. Further [the objector goes on to say], it would present no end to be gained [if the Upanishad were intended merely to declare God as he is-which declaration according to the Ve- dánta, be it remembered, involves, the de- Remark, of the Mi- claration, addressed to every one that, mánsá, that if man, on "Thou art That One"-], for we do not knowing God, is God, he does not seem to be see that any end is gained even on the much the better for it. knowledge taking place that " I am Brah- ma." If the end were gained through such

• तच। वेदान्ता विधेयोपासनाविषयत्वेन ब्रह्म समर्पयन्ति ।

स्ेब शास्त्रत्वेन सिङ्धब झपरत्वे शास्त्रत्वव्ध न सन्भवति।।

BOOK I. CH. I. SECT. I. 13

knowledge [which knowledge, you assert, it is the direct pur- pose of the Scriptures to communicate], then there would not be [as, however, there is,] the enjoining of such things as Meditation* [on the great fact-which to know at all is to know as completely as it can he known after any amount of medita- tion-for you either know it or you do not, the case not being one that admits of degrees.]

g. Therefore [the objector concludes], since, on meeting with such injunctions as "Only towards Soul should he direct his devotions"-" He who knows Brahma, becomes Brahma" -"He who is desirous of becoming Brahma should effect an understanding of Brahma-or of Soul,"-[since, on meeting with these] the question arises who is this 'Soul' ?- all the Upanishads are serviceable [-for we do not dispute their uti- lity-] in as much as they declare Him [-and, by answering the question, and so rendering the injunctions intelligible, sub- serve the direct aim of the Veda-viz. the conveying of injunc- tions ;]-and Emancipation is to be accomplished [not by a mere knowledge of God, but] by devotions. Well-this objec- tion having presented itself, it is stated [by the author of the Aphorisms in reply] " But That One, because there is consist- ency"t[-§ 4.] The meaning is this, that, " That One,"i. e.

• नापि प्रयोजनवत्वं। अद बह्मास्मोति ज्ञाने सत्यपि प्रयोज-

स्यात ॥ + तस्मादात्मेत्ये वोपासीत। ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति। ब्रह्मभवन- कामो ब्रह्मवेदनं कुर्य्यादित्येवमादि घुविधिषु कोडसावात्मेत्याकांक्षा-

19401249

14 THE VEDANTA APHORISMS.

God, is declared, in the theological parts of the Vedas, simpliciter; -why ?- because this leads to no inconsistency* - and the Mímansa supposition does]. h. And it is not true, for the matter of Emancipation cannot be the fruit of works. that, that Emancipation is to be accom- plished by [such works as] devotional exer- cises [§ 4. b.], for, since devotional exercise admits of degrees, there would be in the Emancipation thereby accomplished also differences of degree, and thus it would not be absolutet [-which is what we do not allow to be Emancipation at all].

The emancipated ne- i. [And devotional exercises, subserved

cessarily disembodied. by a knowledge of God-see § 4. g .- cannot lead directly to absolute emancipation-see § 4. h .- ] because, since a body is indispensable during the con- dition of enjoying the fruit of enjoined acts, there would be a body even in Emancipation [from the body and all that belongs to it-which is absurd]. Moreover [if the emancipated had a body] Absolute emancipa- there would not be [-as, however, there tion implies the absence is-] the denial that the emancipated is of things pleasing as well as of things dis- touched by what is pleasing or displeasing

pleasing. -[which denial we find in the following text] viz., " Him that abideth bodiless nei-

यां तत्समपकत्वेन सर्वे वेदान्ता उपयुज्यन्त। उपासनासाध्यख मोक्ष इति प्रातते। उच्यते। तन्तु समन्वयात.। * तङ्ह्म साचाद्वेदान्तप्रतिपादं। कुतः । समन्वयादित्यर्थः ॥ + न तावदुपासनासाध्यो मोनः। उपासनायास्ारतम्यैन तत्सा- ध्यमोक्षस्यापि तारतम्यमनित्यत्वच्च खात.।

BOOK I. CH. I. SECT. II. 15

"ther what is pleasing nor what is displeasing doth touch;"- for, if Emancipation were the fruit of meritorious acts then it would be something pleasing* [-all the fruits of meritorious acts, according to Scripture, being something pleasant.] j. Therefore the theological parts of the Vedas are conversant about God directly, and not [indirectly] through injunctions [which give occasion for the mention of him-see § 4.g .-; ] and thus it is established that God is revealed by the Institutes independentlyt [-i.e. simply to the end that He may be known]. k. Thus has it been stated, in four Summary, recapitu- lative, of the first four Aphorisms, that God is the Omniscient,

Aphorisms. the omnipotent, the cause of the world, the object of revelation in the theological parts of the Vedas.t SECTION II.

CONFUTATION OF THE ATHEISTICAL DOCTRINE OF THE SANKHYAS. l. [ The following question has been mooted ]-Is "That

• विधेयकममफलभोगदशयां शरीरस्यावश्यकत्वेन मोक्षे Sपि श. रीरं स्यात । किच्ाशरीर वावसन्त न प्रियाप्रिये स्ष्शत दूति मुत्तस्य प्रियाप्रियस्परशनिषेधो न स्यात। मेक्षस्यधर्मा फलत्वेन त- स्यैव प्रियस्य विद्यमानत्वात।। + तस्माद्वेदान्तासाचादेव ब्रह्मषि समनुगता न विधिद्वारेति सिद्धूं ब्रह्म खतन्त्रमेव शास्त्रप्रमाणकमिति। + एवं चतुर्भिस्सचैस्स्वंदं सर्वशक्ति जगत्कारण वेदान्तप्रतिपांद्य ब्रह्मे त्युक्म ।।

19401249

16 THE VEDANTA APHORISMS.

The question whether One" [spoken of in § 4] something

the Cause of the world thinking or something unthinking ? The

is intelligent or unintelli- Sankhyas, in regard to this, [ -admit- gent. ting the authority, but taking liberties in regard to the interpretation, "of the Vedas,] say -" The cause of the world cannot be a God "who is fixed [in one perpetual and universal monotony of state], " because there is neither the possibility of knowledge nor of " action [in such a being]; but Nature [-see the Tattwa Samása "§ 7 .- ] is the cause of the world, because there is [in nature] "that [viz. the possibility of knowledge and of action]. Taking "into account its [constituent] quality of purity [Tattwa Samása " § 96-] its capability of knowing follows of course, and, by "means of all its three qualities, it is capable of acting. [On the "other hand] Brahma, from being but one thing [along with " nothing else] cannot act :- therefore the Upanishads, by the "expression 'That One,' speak of omniscient and omnipotent "Nature."* In the design to demolish the opinion of those "who hold this opinion], the following Aphorism originates."

रदक्षतेनाशब्दम्॥५ ।

APH. 5. [ "Nature"-as declared by the Sankhyas to be the

• वस्तुतस्तच्चेतनमचेतनं वा। तघ सांख्याः कूटस्थब्रह्मणे ज्ञान- क्रियाशत्तयाभावान्न जगत्कारणत्वं। प्रधानस्यतु तत्सन्वाज्जगत्कारण त्वं । सत्वगुणमादाय ज्ञानशक्तिमत्वं । चिगुणत्वाक्रियाशक्तिमत्वं। ब्रह्मण एकत्वान्नक्रियाशकिः। तस्मात्सवन्ं सर्वशकति प्रधानमेव तद- नुवादका वेदान्ता इति वदन्ति।

BOOK I. CH. I. SECT. I. 17

cause of the world-is] not so :- it is un- Brute Nature not the scriptural, because of the " reflecting" [or Cause of the world, for the Cause is an intelli- " seeing", which Scripture speaks of as be-

gent one. longing to That which is the cause of the world.] a. The "Nature" imagined [or postulated] by the Sankhyas, is not the cause of the world. The reason [assigned in the Apho- rism, for saying so,] is this, that "it is un-scriptural." This [expression-viz. " un-scriptural"-] is an epithet pregnant with a reason. He means to say, [Nature is not the cause of the world], because it is not this [viz. Nature] that the Scripture- that is to say the Veda -- furnishes the evidence of. The reason [for asserting] that Scripture does not furnish the evidence of what the Sankhyas call "Nature," is [the word cited in the Aphorism-viz.] "reflecting" [-or, literally, "seeing"-] which term [as it stands in the Aphorism] denoting the verbal root itself [-the employment of the word being that which the schoolmen term the suppositio materialis, and which the Sanskrit gram- marians term anukarana-] is intended to indicate [though it does not here denote] the sense of the verb "to see:" t [-conf. the Sáhitya Darpana § 13. a.].

• तन्मतनिरासार्थमिद मूचमारभ्यते॥ + सांख्यपरिकल्पितं प्रधानं जगत्कारणं न भवति। तत्र हेतुर- शव्दमिति। हेतुगभविशेषणमेनत। अ्रशब्दत्वादवेदप्रमाणक- त्वादित्यर्थः । वेदाप्रमाणकत्वे हेतुः । ईक्षतेरिति धातुवाचकेच- तिशब्दो लक्षणया धात्वथक्षणपर: ॥ t. Mr. Colebrooke [-Essays Vol. 1. p. 338 .- ], when rendering the 5th Aphorism, makes BADARAYANA say " It is not so ;- for 'wish' (consequently volition) is attributed to that cause." The verb, however, is not ish 'to wish, but fksh 'to see.' C

19201249

18 THE VEDANTA APHORISMS.

b. But then [the Sankhyas rejoin]-it is certain that the eause of the world is not [proved to be] God by the mere [men- tion of] "reflecting" [or "seeing"]-for we hear of senseless things seeing-e. g. Water and Light-in such texts as "The Light saw," " The Waters saw;"-and so likewise in regard to Nature the "seeing" is used in a secondary or transferred meaning* [-i. e. tropically]. This [argument of the Sankhyas] having presented it- self, it is declaredt [by the author of the Aphorisms as follows.] ॥ गै।णसनात्मशब्दात् ।६।

The scriptural ex- APH. 6. If [you say that the expres- pressions, implying that sion "seeing" is] employed tropically [the the cause of the world reference being to Nature, which does not is intelligent, not to be "see"-then I say] No,-because of the explained away figura- tively. word ' Soul' [which is not applicable to Na-

in question ]. ture, and which is applied to That which is

• Mr. Colebrooke (-Essays Vol. 1. p. 338-) views differently the scholas- tic term gauna which we have rendered by the expression " used in a second- ary or transferred meaning." Whately (-in his Logic, B. III. § 10.)- says with reference to this employment of words, " Thus we speak of Homer, for ' the works of Homer '; and this is a secondary or transferred meaning." So, in the Sahitya Darpana-(see the translation thereof, § 13 a)-the expression ' a herd-station on the Ganges' is cited as an instance where a word, the primary (mukhya) sense of which is ' the stream of water named the Ganges', is emploved in the secondary (gaunah or lakshanika) sense of ' the bank' there- of. Mr. Colebrooke, applying these technical terms mukhya and gauna not to the emplovment of language, in a sense original or transferred, but to the dignity of character of the world's cause, writes as follows. " In the sequel "of the first chapter questions are raised upon divers passages of the Vedas, al- "luded to in the text. and quoted in the scholia, where minor attributes [gauna?] "are seemingly assigned to the world's cause ; or in which subordinate desig- "nations occur, such as might be supnosed to indicate an inferior being, but are "shown to intend the supreme one."'-See § 8. a. * नन्वीकषणमानेष न ब्रह्म जगत्क्रारणमिति निश्चयः । तन्तेज

ने 5पि ईक्षतिर्गोपेति प्राप्ते । उच्यते।।

BOOK t. CH. I. SECT. II. 19

a. If you say that the word " seeing" is used in a secondary sense [i. e. tropically] with reference to Nature, just as it is with reference to Water and Light [§ 5. b.], it is not as you say. Why ? -"because of the word Soul" :- that is to say because we hear the word Soul* [applied to the Cause of the world, while it is not in any kind of way applicable to Nature]. b. But then [the Sankhyas may yet rejoin-dont say that,] but let the term ' Soul' also [as well as the term referred to in § 5,] be used tropically with reference to Nature ;- or even say that it denotes it literally, for the term [as may be learned from the dictionary] has a variety of meanings. Because of this [sugges- tion of the Sankhyas] he sayst [as follows].

। तत्निष्टस्य मोचोपदेशत. ॥७।

Man-called upon to APH. 7. [That " That One" is not

identify himself with the "Nature," may be inferred] from the decla- cause of the world-can- ration that the Emancipation takes place of not be called upon to him who is intent upon "That"-[which identify himself with " That," if unintelligent,-as Nature is-it what is unintelligent. is absurd that a thinking being should in- tently strive to identify himself with]. a. 'Nature' is not denoted by the word 'Soul,'-because, in such texts as the one beginning "The man that has a preceptor

• अप्नेजसोरिव प्रधाने ऽपि र्डचतिर्गोणेति चेन्न। कुतः ।

• नन्वात्मशब्दो उपि प्रधाने गौणो इसु। नानार्थकतया मुख्यों वेत्यत चाह।

20 THE VEDANTA APHORISMS.

knows," and so on,-the Emancipation is declared [of whom ?- ] of S'WETAKETU mentioned in this text "That art thou, O S'weta- ketu !"-[but of S'wetaketu how circumstanced ?- why-of S'we- taketu] who is going to be emancipated after having been instruc- ted to fix his mind intently upon 'That One.' Now if unthinking ' Nature' were here denoted by the word 'That,' then the precept "That art thou" would cause the intelligent S'wetaketu, desirous of Emancipation, to understand as follows-"O thinking S'weta- ketu !- thou art something unthinking." Then he, on the au- thority of that precept, pondering [as we are directed to ponder the precept, but pondering it under the erroneous impression that it means him to understand] "I am something unthinking," would miss his Emancipation and go to ruin :- and thus the pre- cept would be [no better than] the babble of an idiot :- and this is not what we should like :- and therefore it is a settled point that the word "That" [§ 4] refers to an intelligent Being .* b. But then [the Sankhyas may still contend]-let it be sup- posed [-for the sake of argument-] that "Soul" is declared,

• न प्रधानमात्मशब्दवाच्यं । तत्वमसि खवेतकेता दति श्वेत- केतेख्खेतनस्य माच्षयितव्यस्य तन्निष्ठतामुपदिश्य आचार्य्यवान्पुरुषो वेदेत्यदिना मीच्षोपदेशत। यदि ह्यचेतनं प्रधानं तच्छव्दवा- थ मुमुनुं श्वेतकेतु चेतनं तत्त्वमसीति शास्त्र ग्राधयेत। हे वतकेतो चेतनाचेतनो Sसीति। तदा शारतरप्रामाएयादचेतनो इस्मोति व्यायमानो मोचाद् व्याइन्येत। अनर्थच्चेयात। तथाच शास्त्रमुन्मत्तप्रलापो भवेत। तच्चानिष्टं । तस्माचात्मशब्द्ेत- नपर दूति सिद्धूम- ॥।

19231249

BOOK I. CH. I. SECT. II. 21

[-but at all events admit that, in the first instance, it is declared not directly by the word "That," in Aphorism § 4, but indirectly] through the declaration of " Nature" [which we still contend is denoted directly by the "That"], in the same way as in [the di- rections for finding the small star Arundhati, beginning with] "The large Arundhati" &c .- With reference to this [wilily offered compromise of the Sankhyas] he sayst-

॥ हेयत्वावचनाच ॥ ८ ॥

What the Veda means APH. 8 .- And [you must not say that the

directly by the Cause "That"-§ 4-denotes "Nature," and that of the world is no rude the conception of "Nature" is afterwards to type of God but God be quitted for that of " Soul,"] because Himself. there is no direction that it [-whatever the primary denotation of the "That" may be-] is to be quitted [for any other].

a. If Nature,-meaning thereby something that is not Soul,- were denoted [in § 4] by the word "That," then, on that occasion [when the declaration was made which runs thus-"That art thou"-] the declaration [-for we cannot suppose the declaration designed to mislead-]would have been "That-meaning That Soul-art thou:"- or, [if the ellipsis in the passage itself were still left unsupplied,-then assuredly] some precept, designed to declare the Supreme Soul, would tell us that that [first rude con- ception of God under the form of Nature] is to be quitted,-so that [we should understand, from that warning percept, that] he

• ननु स्थूलारुन्द्तीति न्यायेन प्रधानोपदेशद्वारा आत्मोपदे- शो डयमस्त्वत श्रह।

22 THE VEDANTA APHORISMS.

[meaning S'wetaketu-see § 7. a .- ] is not, is consequence of the [elliptically expressed] declaration of "That" [-which, on the hypothesis under consideration, denotes "Nature" and nothing else-] to become-through ignorance of the fact that Soul is meant-intent [in his meditations] upon that [which is not really meant through mentioned-viz. Nature. And this direction, to abandon the first rude conception after it had served its purpose of suggesting a better one, would resemble a familiar method of pointing out an object not itself readily discernible ;- for the process would be] like as when a person wishing to point out [the small star, in the consellation of the Pleiades, called] Arun- dhatí, [first directs attention to the large star near it, and then] tells that the [large] star standing near it is [not the one wanted, but is] to be quitted, [and the small star, which that large one stands near, is the one to be observed] :- such is the meaning :* -[and this wily suggestion, of the Sankhyas, we Vedantins repel,-because if we were to admit that the primary (mukhya) sense of the word 'That,' in Aph. 4., is 'Nature,' and that it means 'God' (-if at all-) only in a secondary (gauna) sense; then you Sankhyas would go on to argue that your 'Nature'- for which you had secured the right of preoccupancy-suffices to account for the phenomena, and that the additional postulate of a Deity is an unphilosophical superfluity].t

• यद्यनात्मव प्रधानं सच्छव्दवाच्यं स आत्मा तत्त्वमसीति इू- होपदिष्ट स्यात। स तदुपदेशनादनात्मन्नतया तव्निष्टो मा भूदिति मुख्यमात्मानमुपदिदर्शविषु शस्तं तस्य हेयत्वं ब्रूयात. । यथा अरुन्धतीं दिदर्शयिषुसतत्तमीपस्थताराया: हेयत्वं ब्रूते तद्ददित्यथः ॥ t Here compare the note on § 5. b.

BOOK I. CH. I. SECT. 1I. 23

b. The word " And" [-in the Aph. 8. The knowledge of God -is intended not to connect the reason involves all knowledge. there assigned with any reason expressly assigned before, but] is intended to attach it in addition to [the unexpressed reason] that this [theory of the Sánkhyas] is oppos- ed to the arriving at all knowledge by means of a single case of knowing *; [and what we here assert-viz-] that all knowledge is arrived at [not by the successive steps of the Sankhyas, but,] by one single knowing, is declared in Scripturet. c. That it is not Nature that is denoted by the term ' The Existent' in [the passage of Scripture beginning with] 'The Exis- tent alone, O Saumya!'-is inferrible also from the reason which he states $ [in the following Aphorism].

। खाप्ययात् ।८॥

APH. 9. Because into Himself is the return [of all souls].

It cannot be admitted a. The meaning of the aphorism is this,

that the thinking Soul is [that it cannot be Nature that is spoken of

to be resolved into un- -see §. 8. c .- as the 'Existent'-i. e., the thinking Nature. 'Self-existent']-because of Absorption- i. e., because we hear [in Scripture] of the melting away [of pre- viously embodied souls] into Himself, who is in question,-the Soul that is denoted by the term ' the Existent.' If Nature were what is there denoted by the term 'the Existent,' then there

• सदेव सम्येति सच्कब्दवाच्यं प्रधानमितो 5पि न भवती

त्याह ।

24 THE VEDANTA APHORISMS.

would be this [absurd] contradiction that the intelligent melts away into the unintelligent. Therefore the Cause of the World is that intelligent One, denoted by the term 'the Existent,' into whom is the return of all intelligences .*

b. Moreovert, [the assertion that not Nature but God is meant by ' the Existent,' or the Cause of the world, is proved by the reason stated in the Aphorism here following]. गतिसामान्यात =

APH. 10. From the sameness of the understanding [of the term 'the Existent' through out the scriptures]. a. The meaning is-[that God is meant by the term, and not Nature-to which it might be plausibly referred only in some passages-] because of the sameness of the understanding-i. e. of the recognising an intelligent Cause [ as spoken of ] throughout the whole of the theological parts of the Vedas; for we no-

That the Cause of the where find the contradictory assertion in one world is an intelligent sentence of an intelligent Cause and in ano- God-the only consis- tent interpretation of ther one of an unintelligent one-but every- Scripture. where an intelligent Cause alone is under- stood. The texts [for example] about the order of creation, in the Taitiriya Upanishad, exhibit Soul alone as the Cause. There-

• खस्मिन्प्रकते सच्छब्दवाच्यात्मनि अप्ययाल्लयत्रवणादिति सू- चार्थः। तच यदि प्रधानमेव सच्चब्दवाच्यं तदा चेतने 5चेत- नमप्य तोति विरुद्धं स्यात। अतो यस्मिव्नप्ययस्सर्वेषां चेतनानां तच्चेतनं सच्छ्दवाच्यं जगत्कारणमिति ।

• किश्व॥

BOOK I. CH. I. SEC. II. 25

fore the net result [of the Aphorisms 5-10] is this that, which- ever way you view the matter, Nature is not what is meant by the term ' The Existent,' nor is it the Cause of the World *. b. Moreovert [that the Cause of the World is not the unin- telligent but the intelligent, may be proved by the reason next to be stated-viz .- ]

। स्रुतत्वाच्॥ ११॥

ApH. 11. And because it is so revealed [in Scripture].

a. The meaning is as follows :- That, by the term " Himself" [-see §9-], is meant an Omniscient Ruler, the Cause of the World, [is proved] by the fact of its being so declared [in the scripture,-to take an instance-] in the S'wetas watara section of the Mantra Upanishad, where we are told " And of Him no one is the parent nor is any one the overruler" &c. Therefore it is a settled point that the Cause of the World is the Omniscient God, not unintelligent Nature or anything else; and here the topic is concluded. t

• गतेस्सर्वत्र वेदान्तवु चेतनकारणवगतेस्समत्वादित्यर्थः । न- ह्ि क्वचिदपि विरुद्ध मुपलभ्यते कुत्चिद्दाक् चेतनं कारणं कुचचि- दचेतनमिति किन्तु सर्वच चेतनमेव कारणसुपलभ्यते। तैति- रोये मृष्टिक्रमे अ्तय आत्मान एव कारणत्वन्दर्पयन्ति। अ्रतस्स- वथा प्रधान सच्छब्दवाच्य जगत्कारणञ्च न भवतीति परमाथेः ।

सशन्देनैव सर्वचेश्वरो जगतकारगमिति। नचास्य क श्विञ्जनिता D

26 THE VEDANTA APHORISMS.

CHAPTER II. SECTION I. OF THE VARIOUS NAMES UNDER WHICH GOD IS SPOKEN OF.

A deity without qua- b. But then, if thus [-see § 11 a-] it

lities can be made the be proved, by the Aphorisms § 1-11, that

subject of reflection only all the theological portions of the Vedas by being first spoken of refer to God the Omniscient and Omnipo- as if possessing quali- tent,-then what further remains, for the ties. sake of which another Aphorism need be added ? If you ask this-it is replied :- since a deity without qualities cannot have his nature described [-for the description of anything is just the enumeration of the qualities of the thing-], you must consent to his being described as qualified by some characteristic* [ which does not in reality belong to him ;- just as, in seeking to determine the specific gravity, as compared with water, of a substance that is lighter than water, you must at- tach to it some other substance heavy enough to sink it, and then eliminate the superfluity from the joint result].

A canon of interpre- c. Some passages therein [i. e. in Scrip-

tation in respect of ture] are [intended to enjoin] devotions

passages where the dei- with a view to gradual emancipation ; and ty is spoken of as having some are intended to convey a knowledge of qualities. the truth ;- and so wherever, in a passage

नचाधिप दूत्यादि श्वताञ्वतराणं मन्त्रोपनिषदि त्रृतत्वादित्यथः । तसमात्सर्वनंब्रह्म जगत्कारण नाचेतनं प्रधानमन्यद्वेतिसिड्म । * नन्ववमथात दत्यारभ्य अ्तत्वाच्चतदन्तैः स्रनैः सर्वेषां वेदा- न्तानां सर्वज्ञसर्वभतिव्रह्मपरत्वं समथितं किमपरमवशिष्ट यदर्थमु- त्तरमूचसन्दर्भ दूति चेदुव्यते। निर्विशेषब्रह्मणः खरूपेणोपदे- पायागात. किश्चिदुपाध्युप्ितत्वेनापदेश दूति वक्तव्यम।

BOOK I. CH. II. SEC. I. 27

where qualities are spoken of, it is really intended to speak of the qualities, there the case in one of some religious observance [which it is intended to enjoin] ; but wherever the quality- though mentioned-is not intended to be spoken of, [but is em- ployed as a mere vehicle of the real meaning], there the passage is concerned about God as He is to be known [-not as He is to be acted towards]. It is with the view of determining this [i. e. of determining what are the passages in which the deity is spo- ken of as He is, or as He is to be acted towards, respectively,] that [-notwithstanding the suggestion, in § 11, b., that no more need be said-] the following aphorism is presented .*

। आ्रनन्दमयो ऽभ्यासात ॥ १२॥

What is spoken of as APH. 12. He [-the deity without qua-

consisting of joy, is lities-] is "the One that consists of joy"- God. because it is the practice [of the Veda to speak of Him by that name]. a. But then [some one may object], the term " the one that consists of joy" cannot refer to a deity who is without qualities- for such a one is not made up of portions of delight, [-which the term would seem to imply-],-but it refers to the embodied soul, for that is spoken of in scripture as being made up of joy :- Well, if any one says this, I reply, it is not thus. The Supreme Soul may properly [ be said to ] consist of joy-why ?- because [as sta-

तच कानिचित क्रममुत्त्यथा न्यपासनानि कानिचिदभ्यदया- *

थानि। एवच्च यत्र सगुणवाक्य गुपविवता तचोपासना भवति यचतु श्रुयमाणो डपि गुणो न विवनितस्तच तद्दाक्ं जेयब्रह्मपर-

28 THE VEDANTA APHORISMS.

ted in the aphorism] " it is the practice;" -that is to say, be- cause it is the practice [ of the Veda ] very often to apply to God the term " consisting of joy."*

When the deity is as- b. [ The next aphorism has reference serted to consist of so particularly to the objection that the term and so. it is not asser- ted that He was formed discussed in the preceding paragraph must, out of so and so. in accordance with its grammatical form, mean some modification of something else, in which case, of course, it could not signify the Supreme Soul ]. ॥ विकारशब्दान्नेति चेन्न प्राचुयात, ॥१३॥ APH. 13. If you say that it is not so [-i. e. that the term ánandamaya- § 12-does not refer to God- ] because it is a word expressing what has undergone a change ;- it is not as you say, -for it expresses the quantity [that constitutes, without any reference to there having been any change ]. a. But then [-we remark in explanation-some one may still object], that which is " made up of joy" cannot be God [who is not made up of anything antecedently existent]-why ? -because [-the objector supposes-] the affix mayot [with which the word ananda-maya " consisting of joy" is formed] im- plies a change [from one state or form to another-such as is undergone when curd is made out of milk, or a jar is made out of clay], and it is absurd to suppcse that God is in such a way made up of joy :- well, if any one says this, I reply, it is not

• नन्वानन्दमयशब्दा न निगुषव्रह्मपरः तस् प्रियाद्यनवयव- त्वात. किल्ु शरीरस्वात्मन आ्रनन्दमयत्वखवणज्जीवपर दूति घन्न। आनन्दमयः परमात्मा भवितुमहति। कुतः। अ्भ्या- सात. । यानन्दमयशब्दस्य बहुळत्वो ब्रह्मण्येवाभ्यास्तादित्यर्थः ।

BOOK I. CH. II. SEC. I. 29

thus. Why ?- " because it is quantity" [that is spoken of, and not change from one state to another],-that is to say, because here the affix mayat is employed with an eye to the quantity of joy* [-according to Panini V. 4. 21 .- that is God; and not, as you suppose-according to Panini IV. 3. 143 .- that joy out of which something was at any time first made up]. b. He next states another reason why the affix mayat [§. 13. a.] is employed in the sense of quantity and not of change.t

=

God must have joy in APH. 14. And [God must consist of joy Himself if He be the -§ 12-] because He is called [in scrip- Cause of joy. ture] the cause thereof. a. That is to say-because, in scripture, God is named as the cause in respect thereof-i. e. of joy. t b. God is spoken of as the cause of joy in such texts as this -viz. " For He alone it is that causeth to rejoice." As those that enrich others must themselves be rich, so it is clear that there must be abundant joy with Him who causeth others to rejoice.§

• ननु नानन्दमय ब्रह्म। कुतः । विकारार्थमयट्प्रत्ययाद.। ब्रह्मगख्खानन्दविकारत्वानुपपत्तिरिति चेन्न। कुतः । प्राचु

• मयटः प्राचुयीर्थकत्वे हेत्वन्तरमाच। श्ुतौ तमानन्द प्रति ब्रह्मणो हेतुत्वव्यपदेशदित्यर्यः । 5 एष ह्येवानन्दयातीति ब्रह्मण आनन्दहेतुत्व व्यपदिश्यते। ये Sन्यान, धनीकुर्वन्ति त एव धनिन इनिवद्यो S न्यानानन्दयति स प्रचुरानन्द इति प्रसिङ्धम, ।

30 THE VEDANTA APHORISMS.

c. And he mentions that, for the following reason also, it must be the Supreme Soul that " consists of joy" * [-as asserted in § 12-] viz :- । मान्त्रवर्णिकमेवच गोयते ।।१५।

The lyrical and the APH. 15. And to the same effect [-that doctrinal parts of the the Supreme Soul,§ 12, consists of joy-] Veda agree in represen- is sung the comment on the hymn. joy. ting God as made up of a. "Is sung"-that is to say, [by being sung] declares. [The drift of this argument is this]-because both the hymns (mantra) and the doctrinal portions of the scrip- ture (brahmana) are unanimoust [in representing the Supreme Soul as consisting of joy]. b. And he states that it must be the Supreme Soul and not any embodied soul that is meant by the term " consisting of joy" [$. 12], for the following reason. ॥ नेतरो ऽनुपपत्तेः ॥१६ ॥

Absurdity of suppo- APH. 16. It is none other [than God, sing that any other than that is spoken of-see §. 12 .- as " consisting God is here meant. of joy,"] because there is an absurdity [in any other supposition]. a. That is to say-it is not any embodied soul-from the Lord downwards [ see Vedanta Lecture No. 25]-that is meant by the term "consisting of joy :"-Why ? " Because there is an absurdity."

• दूतख्चानन्दमयः परमात्मेत्याह। गीयते प्रदर्शयतोत्यर्थः । मन्त्रब्राह्मणयेरेकार्थत्वात,। 1 दूतखानन्दमयः परमात्मान जीव दत्याह॥

BOOK I. CH. II. SEC. 1. . 31

The meaning of the aphorism is this, that, antecedently to the creation [ of the body ] of "the Lord," we are told that He [ of whom the term " consisting of joy" is correctly predicable] was one that reflected [ see § 5], One that was Himself His creation, and One that was the cause of the creation [see § 2. and Vedanta Lecture, No. 40]; and all this would be absurd [ if predicated of any other than the Supreme Soul ] :- that is to say-since knowledge belonging to any inferior soul is dependent on there being a body-there could have been no reflection* [by any such soul antecedently to the creation ]. b. Moreovert [any inferior soul is not what is meant by "that which consists of joy"-§ 12-for the following reason ]. 11 भेदव्यपदेशाच ॥१७ ॥

It is no inferior soul APH. 17. And [ the inferior soul is not that is spoken of as con- what consists of joy ] because they are spo- sisting of joy. ken of [ in Scripture ] as distinct. a. The inferior soul is not what consists of joy ;- why? because the inferior soul and that which consists of joy are spoken of as being distinct ;- such is the meaning. What is here referred to is this, that, in the passage [for example] of the Taitiríya [section of the Veda] beginning " Truly that joy &c." the One "that consists of joy" and the inferior soul are spoken of under the respectively different characters of " what is to be obtained" and "the obtainer ;"-for the obtainer is not the same as that

• ईश्वरादितरो जीवो नानन्दमयः । कुतः । अनुपपत्तः । ईश्वरम्य सृष्टे: पूर्वमीचितत्वं सष्यात्मकत्व सष्टिहेतुत्वन्च त्यते तत्सवस्यानुपपत्तेरिति सूचाथः। जीवज्ञानस्य शरीरसाध्यत्वादाक्ष- पानुपपत्तिरिति तात्पर्यम. ॥ किन्।

19401240

32 THE VEDANTA APHORISMS.

which he is to obtain * [-and the inferior soul is here directed to aspire after "the One that consists of joy"]. b. But then [the followers of the Sankhya will probably here suggest]-let it be Nature that is denoted by the term " con- sisting of joy" [§ 12]. With reference to this he says as followst. । कामाच् नानुमानापेक्षा ॥१८॥ APH. 18. And by reason of desire [which Neither is it unintelli- gent Nature that is spo- is attributed to that "which consists of ken of as consisting of joy"] no regard [is to be shown] to the joy. argument [of the Sankhyas, who attempt to prove that it is their unintelligent Nature that is spoken of in scripture as "consisting of joy"]. a. That is to say-we do not regard-i. e. we do not admit that Nature is " what consists of joy", or that it is the cause [of joy-see § 14 -- ]. Why ?- " by reason of desire ;"-i. e. because we find in Scripture, where the topic is " what consists of joy", that this denotes one that desires; and it is impossible that desire should belong to that which is unintelligent $ [ as Nature is held by the Sankhyas themselves to be].

• नानन्दमयो जीवः । कुतः । जोवानन्दमययोभेदेन व्यपदि- श्यमानत्वादित्यथः । तैनिरोयके रसा वै स दूत्यारभ्य श्र्ानन्दमयस्य लग्धव्यत्वेन जीवस्यच लब्धृत्वेन भेदव्यपदेशः। नहि लब्धैव लब्घव्यो भवतीत्याशयः ॥ + नन्वानन्दमयशब्देन प्रधानसुच्यता।तन्राढ । आनन्दमयत्वेन कारणत्वेन वा प्रधानस्य नापेक्षा न खीकारः। कुतः । कामात.। आनन्दमयाधिकारे कामयितत्वश्रवत्रादि- त्यथंः । नह्यचेतने कामस्सभ्भवति ।

BOOK- I. OH. II. SEO. I. 33

: b. [He supports the orthodox view by another argument as follows].

॥ अस्मिन्नस्यच तद्योगं शास्ति ॥१९॥

For, neither of these APH. 19. And [the one " consisting of

is what we are directed joy" cannot be an inferior soul, or Nature, to aspire after, as we because] the scripture teaches that in this are directed to aspire [-which can therefore mean nothing else after what consists of than the Supreme-] there is the beatifica- joy. union therewith]. tion of that [inferior soul which obtains

a. That is to say,-for the following reason also the term "consisting of joy" cannot mean either any inferior soul or [unintelligent] Nature, because the scripture teaches that in this-"the one consisting of joy" that we are concerned about- the [Supreme] Soul-there is to take place, in the case of him- i. e. of the enlightened inferior soul, union therewith-i. e. union with that [Supreme] Soul-[for such is the meaning of] "union therewith"-the attaining to the state of Him-[in short] eman- cipation .* b. Thus has it been settled definitively that [what is spoken of in scripture as] " what consists of joy" is the Supreme Soul t [and nothing else].

• दूतञ्च न जीवे प्रधाने वा आ्रनन्दमयशब्दा यस्मादस्मिन्ना- नन्दमये प्रक्वते। आत्मनि। अस्य। प्रबुद्धस्य जीवस्य। तद्यागं तदात्मना योगसद्योगसद्वावापततिमक्तिरित्यर्थः । तै शस्त्रि शासतं। तस्मादित्यर्थः ॥ तस्मादानन्दमयः परमात्मेति सिङ्गन॥

E

34 THE VEDANTA APHORISMS.

c. [The next point to be established is this, that it is the Supreme Soul that is spoken of in scripture as " the man in the sun" and "the man in the eye"].

It is God that is spo- APH. 20. [God alone is meant when

ken of as the man with- mention is made, in scripture, of that which in the sun and within is] within [the sun and the eye], because the eye. there is mention of His characteristics [which can belong to none other.] a. That is to say-He who is mentioned in scripture as "He that is within the sun" and "He that is within the eye," is the Supreme alone and no one worldly. Why ?- "because there is mention of His characteristics"-i. e. because, in these passages, there is mention of characteristics [such as absolute sinlessness] that belong only to Him who is the Supreme .*

b. [At this, as at other points, the commentators enter into de- tails which the fear of prolixity constrains us to pretermit].

c. Moreover + [He that is spoken of as "the man in the sun" is some one else than the sun's soul-as is proved by the argument here following]. ॥ भेदव्यपदेशाचान्य: ।२१॥

APH. 21. And [ it is not the personal soul of the sun-the

• य एषा उन्तरादित्ये य एणेउन्तरक्षिणीतिच कुयमाष: परमेश्वर एव न संसारी। कुतः। तङ्व्मौपदेशत. । तस्य पर- मेशरस्य ये धर्मास्तषामस्मिन्वाको उपदेशादित्यर्थः ॥ किश्व।

BOOK I. CH. I. SEC. I. 35

solar congener of the anima mundi-that is spoken of as "the man in the sun"-] because mention is made of a distinction [bet- ween these two]. a. That is to say-The "man" that is spoken of in scripture as being within the sun and within the eye, is some one other than any inferior soul which has the faney [-erroneous in the case of any soul that fancies it has a body at all-] that its body is the sun. Why ?- "because mention is made of a distinction." [One of the passages cited in regard to this, is the one beginning] "He who, standing in the sun, yet other than the sun" &c.t [conf. § 20. b].

b. [The next point to be established is this that it is the Sup- reme Soul that is spoken of as the Ether in such a passage of scripture, as the one beginning] "Of this world what is the re- fuge ?' To this he replied-'The Ether' &c".

। आकाशसन्निङ्गात. ॥२२॥

APH. 22. The Ether, [in certain passa- It is God that is in eer- tain passages spoken of ges, must be understood to mean God,] by

as the Ether. reason of His characteristics [which are, in such passages, attributed to that which is there spoken of as the Ether].

*आदित्यान्णरन्तः त्रुयमाणः पुरुष आदित्यशरीराभिमानिनो जीवादन्यः । कुतः । भेदव्यपदेशत. । य आदित्ये तिष्टव्नादित्यान्तरो जयमित्यादि ॥ अस्य लोकस्य का गतिरित्याकाश दूति होवाच।

19401240

36 THE VEDANTA APHORISMS.

a. That is to say- It is proper to understand, by the word Ether, God, Why ?- " by reason of his characteristic" :- that is to say, because, in this passage [ § 21 b.], we find mentioned such a fact as that of being the creator of the great elements, which character belongs [only] to Him-i. e. to God .*

b. [The " breath of life," in like manner, is held to stand for God, in such a passage as] " 'Who is that deity' ?- To this he replied-' The breath of life.' "t

। त एव प्राण इूति ॥ २३॥

It is God that is in APH. 23. For just the same reason,

certain passayes spoken " the breath of life" [is to be understood

of as the Breath of life. to mean God.] a. "For just the same reason :"-that is to say, for the reason stated in the preceding aphorism [ § 22] viz, " by reason of His characteristics," [which could not be predicated of the mere " breath of life,"] it is God alone that is meant by the breath of life," [in the passage cited under § 22. b.]

b. But then [-some objector may go on to say-] let that pass-that in the passage about the breath of life [ § 22 b.]

आ्रकाशशब्दन ब्रह्मणो ग्रहणयुत्त। कुतः । तब्विङ्गात्। तस्य ब्रह्मणे यक्निङ्ग मच्ाभूतसष्टृत्वादिक तस्यास्मिन वाक्ये दृष्ठत्वादित्यर्थः ॥ + कतमा सा देवतेति प्राण इति होवाच। + अत एव। पू्वचाक्ततस्निङ्गादिति देतारेव । प्रापः । प्रा. पशव्दवाचं ब्रह्मैवेत्यघंः ।

BOOK I. CH. II. SEC. 1. 37

the [disputed] term does mean God, since the characteristics of God [-we are willing to admit-] are present [in that instance]; -but [the same argument will not avail you in the following passage, where we object to your assuming that the term " the light" means God] :- "Now the light that shines from beyond that the abode of the celestials &c." The word "light," here can mean only the sun or some other created splendour, for this the word notoriously is employed to denote; but it cannot mean God, who is without limits, because it is here spoken of as having a limit, when it is styled " the light beyond the abode of the celestials" &c. [well-rejoins the commentator-] this [objection] having presented itself, it is declared* [as follows.]

It is God that is in certain passages spoken APH. 24. The "light" [in certain pas-

of as the the Light. sages means God], because there is men- tion of feet [which no ordinary light can be said to possess.] a. That is to say-here [i. e. in the passage cited under § 23. b.] it is God alone that is meant by the word " light." Why ?- " because of the mention of feet" :- that is to say, be- cause the Elements are spoken of as the feet [of this light,- and light, in the ordinary sense of the word, does not mean anything that has feet,-and these feet are spoken of] in such

• नतु प्रापवा के ब्रह्मलिङ्गसत्वाङ्गवतु तङ्रह्मपरं ॥ तथ यदतः परो दिवो ज्यतिर्दीप्यते द्रत्यज्र न्योतिः पद सूयादिभौतिकतेजः परमेब प्रसिडत्वात.। परो दिवो ज्योतिरित्यादिना मर्यादाश्त्रव- पाच न निर्मर्यादब्रह्मपरमिति प्रात्ते उच्यते ॥

38 THE VEDANTA APHORISMS.

phrases as "The feet thereof are the pervading elements" [-which phrase is employed] in respect of God when regarded as residing in that text [-the most revered of all the texts of Scrip. ture] called the Gayatri, which is declared to have four feet by the text beginning with " the Gayatri, indeed, is all this" &c .*

b. Moreover [-the commentator remarks-] although-by the expression " from beyond that" &c. [ § 23. b.] the mention is [apparently at least] of what has limits &c., yet this is not opposed to its being God ; for, [in accordance with the canon of interpretation laid down in § 11 c.] the passage in question is intended to enjoin certain religious observances [in regard to the "light"]. Besides-the word " light" is notoriously employed in the theological portions of the Veda to denote God; therefore it is a settled point that here [§ 23. b.] the word " light" means God.t

c. [The next aphorism opposes the suggestion that the feet spoken of § 24. a., are the feet of the verse called the Gayatri,

• अच ज्योतिशब्दवाचं ब्रह्मैव। कुतः । चरणाभिधानात। गायची वा दूद सर्वमित्यादिना प्रतिपादितचतुष्पाद्वाय ञ्याख्यक्वन्दो- पाधिकब्रह्मणः पादो डम्य विश्वाभूतानि इत्यादिना भृतपादाभि- धानादित्यथः ॥ + यदतः पर द्रत्यादिना श्ुतं मर्यादादिकमपि न ब्रह्मण विर- डूं तस्योपासनार्थत्वात.। ज्योतिशब्दो बअ्मय्यपि वेदान्तेषु प्रषि- इस्तस्माळज्यातिशब्दो 5ब ब्रह्मपर एवेति सिड्डम. ॥ t The discordance in gender here is a Vaidik licence.

BOOK I. OH, H. SEC. I. 39

-such verse having four hemistichs, the name for which is the same as that for a foot.] ॥। इन्दो S्भिधानान्नेति चेन्न तथा चेतेा 5पपनिगदात्तथा- चि दर्शनम् ॥ २५ ।

Why it cannot be the Guyatri that is referred APH. 25. If you say that it is the verse [-see § 24. c .- of which it is intended to to in such a passage. speak, and not the Deity-see § 24,-] it is not so ; because there is the direction to fix one's mind [on God] thus [i. e. through the medium of the Gayatri] ; for of such a way [of directing the mind to the contemplation of the deity] there is a view [of more than one example in scripture.]

a. "Thus :"-that is to say, because there is the direction or mention, of fixing one's mind or concentrating one's thoughts, by means of the verse [the Gayatri], on the Deity [regarded as] resident therein* [-§ 24. a.]

b. "For of such a way there is a view:"-that is to say,-in other passages also, by means of some modification [of God- such as the sun, the ether, &c.,] the worshipping of God [re- garded as] resident therein, is seen [to be enjoined]. N. B., "there is a view of" means " there is seen." t

• तथा। कन्दोद्वारेण तङ्गते ब्रह्मपि चेतोऽपणस्य । चित्त- समाधानस्य । निगदादभिधानादित्यर्यः । + तथाहि द्शनम। अन्यचापि विकारद्वारेय तङ्गतज्रझमोण- सनं। दृश्यन दति दर्यनें। दुष्टनित्वर्यः ।

40 THE VEDANTA APHORISMS.

c. Therefore it is a settled point that in the preceding passage [-see § 23. b.] it is God alone that is referred to, and not the verse * [called the Gáyatri-see § 25.] d. [He subjoins a further reason.]

A further reason why APH. 26. And [the fact is] thus [i. e.

it cannot be the Gaya- that the deity and not the verse called the

tri that is referred to. Gayatrí is referred to in the passage under discussion] because we meet with the men- tion of the elements &c., as the feet [-see § 24-of that which is referred to in the passage in question.] a. [That is to say] :- for the following reason also, it is to be understood that, in the passage respecting the Gayatri [§ 21. a.], it is God alone that is referred to :- such is the meaning of the word " thus" [in the aphorism § 26]. Why ?:- " because the mention of the elements &c., as the feet can apply, [only to God]" :- that is to say, because the designation "The Gayatri " with its four feet, [which] are the elements, the earth, the " body, and the heart," can apply to God alone ; for the men- tion of feet in the shape of the elements &c., can have no reference to the [verse called the] Gayatri-a thing consisting of a con- glomeration of alphabetical characters.t b. [The objector next proceeds to argue that what is spoken

• तस्मात्पूर्ववाक्ये ब्रह्मैव निर्दिष्ट न कन्द दति सिङ्धम् ॥ + दूतश्च गायाचीवाके ब्रह्मैव प्रतिपाद्यमित्यभ्यपगन्तव्यमित्टेवंश- व्दार्थः । कुतः । भूतादिपादव्यपदेशेपपत्तेः। भृतपुथिवीशरीर- हृदयसतुष्पड्ायचीति व्यपदेशस्य ब्रह्मण्येवोपपत्तेरित्यथः। नह्यव- रसन्निवेश रूपगायच्या भूतादिपाद्व्यपदेशसन्भवति।

BOOK I. CH. II. SEC. 1. 41

of in one passage as being " in the sky," cannot be that which is, in another passage, spoken of as the Light shining " from beyond the sky." To this the author, who holds that it is God who is referred to in both passages, replies as follows.]

• उपदेशभेदान्नेति चेन्नोभयस्मिन्नथ्यविरोधात.॥२७॥

God may be referred APH. 27. If [you say that it is] not to under different as- [God that is spoken of in a certain passage pects as regards loca- lity. whilst He is spoken of in another] because there is a difference of declaration [in res- pect of what is spoken of in the one passage and in the other], it is not [as you say], because there is no incompatibility [in His being referred to] even in both.

a. ' If you say that it is not so, because there is a difference of declaration' :- [to explain this ;- suppose an objector says] but then, as regards the preceding passage [see § 23], the sky, in the passage " In the sky the immortal triad of feet thereof," is mentioned in the 7th [or locative] case as the locus in quo there- of [i. e., as the place in which is that which is spoken of-be that what it may :- and, on the other hand,] in the passage " Now the Light that shines thence from beyond the sky" [§ 23], the sky is mentioned in the 5th [or ablative] case as the limit [from beyond which shines whatever Light that may be that is spoken of] :- and so, since this difference of cases involves a difference of declaration [in respect of what is thus declared to be in, and what is declared to be beyond the sky], it is impossible to recog- nise, in the passage that speaks of the Light, [that which is spo- ken of in the other passage ;- so that, granting that the one passage speaks of God, it is clear the other does not] :- well, if any one says all this, it is replied No :- why ?- "because there

F

42 THE VEDANTA APHORISMS.

is no incompatibility [in His being referred to] even in both;"- that is to say, because there is nothing to prevent His being recognised even in two descriptions involving different declen- sional terminations* [-for what is to prevent our regarding God as existing at once within this " visible diurnal sphere" and beyond it] ? b. Therefore it is a settled point that it is the Supreme Soul alone that is spoken as the Light [in the passage cited under § 23] and not any other created light.t

c. But then [some objector will say,] in the Upanishad called the Kaushitaki Brahmana, in the narrative of Indra and [king] Pra. tardana, we hear [in reply to Pratardana's question respecting the 'summum bonum'], "He [Indra] said-' I am the life, in the " shape of perfect knowledge ;- do thou [that seekest to obtain "the summum bonum] worship me, that life immortal.'" In this passage [the objector will say ] the word " life" means Indra's vital

• ननु पूर्वस्मिन वाके चिपादस्यामृतन्दिवीति सप्म्या धाराधार- त्वेन निर्दिश्यते। अथ यदतः परो दिवा ज्योतिरित्यच पश्चम्याव धित्वेन दयौनिदियते। तथाच विभतिभेदेनेपदेशभेदात, ज्यो- तिवाक्ो प्रत्यभिन्ञा न सस्वतीति चेत ।न ।कुतः । उभय-

अ्रविरोधादित्यरथः ॥

तस्मात्परं ब्रह्मव ज्योतिशब्दवाय्य नान्यद्वौतिकं तेज

दूति सिड्डम ॥

BOOK I. CH. II. SEC. I. 43

spirit, for such is notoriously the sense of the term,-and it does not mean the Supreme Soul. This [objection] having presented itself, it is declared as follows .*-

।। प्राणस्तथानुगमात- ॥२८॥

That the term Life, APH. 28. The Life [-$27. c .- means in a certain passage, God alone] because of the conclusion that it means God, shown from the context. does so, [which conclusion is forced upon us by an examination of the context]. a. That is to say,-there [i. e. in the passage cited under § 27. c.] the word 'life' means God alone :- why ?- "because of the conclusion that it does so"-i. e. because we must conclude, or admit, that it does so-i. e. that it does mean God.t b. To explain,-Pratardana, verily, [when he received the re- ply of Indra, § 27. c.,] was enquiring what was the thing most desirable for man. To him, thus desirous of the summum bonum, the injunction to worship the Life is given in the passage begin- ning " I am the Life" &c. And [-since God alone is the sum- mum bonum and the sole proper object of worship-] how can that which is thus indicated as the chief end of man be the vital spirit [of Indra]? Therefore, by looking forwards and backwards [and

• ननु क।षीतकीब्रा ह्मणोपनिषदि द्न्द्रप्रतर्दनास्ायिकायां श्रू- यते। सहे।वाच प्राणो उस्मि प्रज्ञात्मा तं मामायुरमृतमुपाखेति। तब प्राणशब्द इन्द्रप्राणवायुपर: प्रसिद्त्वात न परमात्मपर दूति प्राप्त उच्यते ॥ + तत् प्राण ब्रह्मैव। कुतः। तथानुगमात।तथा । ब्रह्मपरत्वेन । अनुगमात । त्रवगमादित्वर्थः ॥

44 THE VEDANTA APHORISMS.

thus bringing the light of the context to bear upon the question] it is settled for certain that the term ' Life' [in § 27. c.] means God alone .* [c .- The objector being understood still to contend that Indra cannot mean God by the term ' Life,' when he is speaking of him- self as the ' Life,' the following aphorism is enunciated].

॥। न व कुरात्मापदेशादिति चेदध्यात्मसम्बन्ध भूमाह्यस्मिन. ॥२९।

A change of topie is APH. 29 .- If [you say that it is] not

not to be supposed in the [God that it meant by the term ' Life' in the

absence of evidence that passage under § 27 c.,] because the speaker any change is intended. is mentioning himself-[it is replied that it is God]-for in this [section of the Veda where the passage occurs] there is abundance of reference to the Super- intending Spirit [-and a change of reference is not to be supposed without some evidence that a change is intended].

a .- [That is to say-we may suppose the objector to con- tinue:] but then what you say-viz., that the term ' Life' [ § 27 c.] means God-is not right ;- such is the meaning of the ' not' [the first word in Aph, 29]. Why [is it not right]? ' Because the

• तथाहि। प्रतर्दनः खल हिततमं पुरुषार्थ पृष्टवान। तस्य परमपुरुषार्थकामस्य प्राप्त उपास्यत्वेनापदिश्यते प्राण Sसमीत्या- दिना । एवच् परमपुरुषार्थत्वेनेापदिश्यमानः कथं प्राप्पवायुः स्ात्। तस्मात पूर्वापरपर्यालेोचनया ब्रह्मपरमेव प्राण्तपद्मि- ति सिङ्डम- ।

BOOK I. CH. I. SEC. II. 45

speaker is mentioning himself'-i.e. because it is of himself that the speaker, viz., Indra, is making mention .*

b .- To explain ;- [the objector says that God is not meant ] because the speaker, viz. Indra, a certain embodied kind of deity, indicates himself to Pratardana in that egotistic speech beginning with " Come-do thou know me"-and then going on " Iam the Life, in the shape of perfect knowledge" &c. Therefore this is a mention of the deity [Indra] himself, [and not of the Supreme Soul]. This [objection] having presented itself, it is declared [§ 29-that it is not so-] "for in this there is abundance of reference to the Superintending Spirit ;"-that is to say-for, or because, in this, viz., section [of the Kaushitaki Brahmana-§ 27. c.], there is found abundance, or a great deal, of reference to the Superintending Spirit, or of relation to the Supreme Soul. There- fore-i. e. from the abundance of reference to the Supreme Soul [in the section in question, which is almost entirely concerned therewith,]-it is a settled point that it is God, under the aspect of the Life, and not any [embodied] deity, that is here spoken of.t

• ननु यदुतां प्राण्ण ब्रह्मेति तदयुक्तमिति नञ्नर्थः । कुतः । व-

करात्मापदेशत। वत्तुरिन्द्रस्यात्मत्वेनापदेशदित्यर्थः ॥

• तथाचि वक्ा हीन्द्रो नाम कश्विद्विग्रदवान देवताविशेषः खात्मानं प्रतर्दनायपदिशति मामेहि विजानाष्ीत्युपक्रम्य प्राणण डस्मि प्रज्ञात्मेत्येवं चहङ्कारवादेन। तस्मादयं देवतात्मापदेश इति प्राप्त उच्चते अध्यात्मसम्बन्धभमा हयस्मिम्चिति। ह्ि यस्मात. । अस्मिन । अध्याये। अ्ध्यात्मसम्बन्धस्य । परमात्मसम्बन्घस्य ।

46 THE VEDANTA APHORISMS.

c .- Why then does the speaker talk of himself [ if it be God that is meant in the passage in which Indra-see § 27. c .- says " I am the life" &c.]? This having become a matter of dubi- tation, he declares as follows .*

शार्त्रदृश्यातूपदेशो वामदेववन. ॥३०॥ =

The identification of APH. 30. But the mention, [by Indra,

one's self with another of himself as the Supreme Spirit], was with

accordant with scripture. an eye to the Scripture, [which authorises such a form of expression], as VAMADEVA [identifies himself, in another place, with Manu and with Surya].

a .- That is to say-the mention of the speaker, Indra, in the passage " Do thou know me" &c." [§ 29. b.] is to be understood with an eye to the scripture :- that is to say, he [Indra] was speaking whilst looking upon the matter under that scriptural view which is conveyed in the text " I myself [-whoever may " be the speaker-] am the Supreme Soul."t

b. Of this [way of regarding one's self as identified with an- other] there is an example [cited in the aphorism-in the words] 'as VÁMADEVA' ;- that is to say-as VAMADEVA, in accordance with the scriptural view, said " I was Manu, and I was Surya."

भृमा। बाजल्यमुपलभ्यत इत्यर्थः । तस्मादध्यात्मसम्बन्धबाऊ- ल्यात्प्राथात्मकब्रह्मोपदेश एवायं न देवतात्मोपदेश दूति सिद्म।। * कथन्तर्ाि व तुरात्मपदेश इरत्याशंक्ाइ।

• दन्द्रस्य वत्तुरमामेव विजानीचीत्युपदेशः शाखत्रदृश्या नात- व्यः । चहमेव परं व्रह्मेति शाखत्रदृश्या पश्यन्नेवमुक्तवानित्यर्थः ।

BOOK I. CH. II. SEC. I. 47

Therefore it is a settled point that this passage [see § 27. c.] re- fers to God under the aspect of ' the Life.'*

c. [In the next aphorism a compromise in regard to the pas- sage cited under § 27. c. is rejected.]

द्यागात् । ३१ ।

APH. 31. If [you say that it is] not [God alone that is meant by the term ' Life' in the passage under § 27 c.] because there is here the mark by which the [embodied] soul and that by which the breath of life is recognised ;- [then we reply] Nay,-be- cause [if the case were as you pretend, then] there would be three sorts of worshippings [enjoined], and because those [cha- racteristics] are here annexed by reason of which the term must [ be seen to ] refer [to God alone.]

a. But then [the objector-aiming at a compromise-may say ], what you remark [in APH. 29 ], that the 'Life' does not mean the [embodied] deity [Indra], because there is such abun- dant reference [in the section where the term occurs] to the Su- preme Soul ;- this is quite true. Still the passage does not re- fer solely to God, but it refers also to the [embodied] soul, and to the chief spirit [the breath of life]. Why ?- 'because there is here the mark by which the [embodied] soul and that by which the breath of life is recognised ;'-that is to say, there is the

• तत्र दष्टान्तः । वामदेववदिति । यथा वामदेवः शास्त्र- दृश्या अहं मनुरभवं सुर्यञ्चेत्याड्क तद्ददित्यर्थः । तस्मात्यमाणात्मकब्रह्मा परमेतड्वाक्मिति सिड्डम ॥

48 THE VEDANTA APHORISMS.

mark by which the [embodied] soul is recognised, and the mark . by which the breath of life is recognised .* b. [To pass over the arguments by which the objector at- tempts to show that three things, and not merely one, are refer- red to in the passage under discussion,-the commentator, ex- plaining the rejection of any compromise, says]-if you say that it is not God [alone that is meant,-then we say] No ;- that is to say-it is not proper [to say as you do]. Why ?- ' be- ' cause there would be a threefold case of devotion, ;- that is to say,-because, if the case were such [as you attempt to make it out to be], we should have [enjoined upon us ] a worshipping of three descriptions, viz. (1) a worshipping of the [embodied] soul, (2) a worshipping of the breath of life, and (3) a wor- shipping of God;t [for Indra, in the disputed passage, enjoins the worshipping of ' the Life', whilst, of course, none but God can be the proper object of worship.] c. Since, on the supposition that God is meant, the whole, from first to last, is one consistent discourse ; it is improper to suppose that there are different discourses. Therefore, since the word ' Life' is employed elsewhere-viz. in [the passage referred

• नन यदुत्तमध्यात्मसम्बन्धबाङल्यान्न देवतात्मा प्राप दृति तत्सत्वं। तथापि न ब्रह्मपरमेवेद वाक् किन्तु जीवमुख्प्राषवा- युपरमपि। कुतः। जीवमुख्यप्राएलिङ्गात। जीवलिङ्गात।

• न ब्रह्मेति चेतु। न। न युक्तमित्यर्थः । कुतः । उपासाचवि - ध्यात्। एवं सति चिविधमुषासनं प्रसज्येत जीवोपासन मुख्यप्रा- घोपासनं ब्रह्मोपासनव्तेति।

19401249

BOOK I. CH. II. SEC. I. 49

to in APH. 23-viz.] the text "For the same reason the Life [means God,"-since-we repeat-the word ' life' is there employed] as referring to God, in virtue of the characteristic of God [ there recognised-see § 22]; so it is a settled point that here also the mention is solely of God, because of there being annexed [see -§ 28. b .- ] the mention of characteristics that belong to God alone-such as that of being the summum bonum .* d. So much for the first quarter of the first lecture, entitled ' The Distinct Definition of the Supreme Soul.'t

e. [Let us here take a restrospective Retrospective glance. glance at the ground gone over. In the first place it is to be remarked that the aim of this division of the Aphorisms is to determine distinctly what is meant by the term God, and by what other terms in Scripture God is meant. The former of these questions is de- termined in the first four aphorisms, the latter in the remaining twenty-seven.

f. As the enquiry is conducted with the view of ascertaining the sense of Scripture, it will be observed that all the reasonings proceed on the hypothesis (-see the Nyaya Aphorisms, Book I No. 30, -- ) that the authority of Scripture is not disputed.

उपक्रमोपसंहाराभ्यां ब्रह्मपरत्वेन एकवाक्यत्वे सन्भवति *

वाक्यभेदो न युक्तः । चत एव प्राप् दत्यचान्यच ब्रह्मलिङ्गवभा- त्णभब्दस्य व्रह्मषि प्रटृत्तेरास्वितत्वात, इद्ापि हिततमोपन्या- सादि ब्रह्मलिङ्गयोगाद्वह्वप एवायमुपदेश इति सिड्ूम । + दूति प्रथमाध्यायस्य प्रथम: स्पष्टब्रह्मलिङ्गपादः ।

G

50 THE VEDANTA APHORISMS.

. Of the twenty-seven aphorisms in which it is sought to determine what are the terms by which, in Scripture, it is God that is really meant, Mr. Colebrooke, in his essays Vol. 1. p. 338, gives the following summary :-

" The omnipotent, omniscient, sentient cause of the universe, is " (anandamaya) essentially happy. He is the brilliant golden per- " son, seen within (antar) the solar orb and the human eye. He "is the etherial element (akas'a), from which all things proceed "and to which all return. He is the breath (prana) in which all " beings merge, into which they all rise. He is the light (jyotish) " which shines in heaven, and in all places high and low, everywhere "throughout the world, and within the human person. Heis the " breath (prana) and intelligent self, immortal, undecaying "and happy, with which Indra, (in a dialogue with Pratardana, ) " identifies himself."

The reader of this summary must not understand it as contain- ing the Vedantin's description of God. The risk of its being so understood might perhaps have been best avoided by converting each of the propositions, and making the predicate take the place of the subject. No doubt the Vedantin holds that God is everything, and therefore all these things ; but BADARAYANA, in his twenty-seven aphorisms, is not concerned about establishing this, or anything like it. He is bent on declaring, not that God is this that or the other thing, but on determining that this that and the other term, which might seem, in certain passages of scripture, to mean something else than God simply, really is employed in the sense of nothing else than God simply.

h. Since a reader not conversant with the topics handled by BÁDARAYANA may be apt to think that needless difficulties are

BOOK I. CH. II. SEC. I. 51

occasionally started, and needless trouble taken to remove them, we would here refer the reader to our remarks at the conclusion of the first Book of the Nyaya Aphorisms. BADARAYANA did not make the difficulties, but he found them. The objections were extant ; and those that had any show of plausibility-whilst the objector conceded the authority of the Vedas-BADARAYANA, bent on demonstrating the consistency of the Vedas, did not con- sider himself at liberty to ignore].

। मिरज़ापुर॥

। यतोमों के छापाखाने में छापी गई।

॥ सन १८५१ ईस्वी॥

Bud:binderei Theo Storfinger 826 Altmühldorf