1. Critique Of Brahma Sutras Modi P.M. Part 1

The Asiatic Society 1, Park Street, Calcutta-700 016

Book is to be returned on the Date Last Stamped

Date Voucher No.

5 JAN 1989 669/

A CRITIQUE of THE BRAHMASŪTRA ( !II. 2. 11-IV ) ( With special reference to Sankaracarya's Commentary)

PART I

INTERPRETATION OF THE SUTRAS ( III. 2. 11-IV )

By P. M. Modi B. A. Hona. (Bom. Uni.), M. A. ( B. H. U. ), Ph. D. ( Kiel ), Zala Vedanta Prizeman ( Bom. Uni. ), Professor of Sanskrit, Samaldas College, BHAVNAGAR.

With A FOREWORD By Prof. Dr. S. N. Dasgupta C. I. E., I. E. S. ( Retd.), M. A., Ph. D.( Cal. et Cantab. ), D. Litt. ( Hony., Rome ), F. R. S. L. (Lond. ), King George V. Professor of Mental and Moral Science, Calcutta University, Late Principal, Govt. Sanskrit College, CALCUTTA.

हिरण्मयेन पात्रेण सत्यस्यापिहितं मुनम्। तत् स्वं पूषसपावृश सत्यधर्माय हहये।।

All Rights Reserved 181.48 13. 813. C.

इदमेव (ब्ह्मसूत्रशास्त्रम्) सर्वेशास्त्राणां मूर्धन्यं, शास्त्रान्तरं.सर्वमस्यैव शेषभूतमितीदमेव सुमुक्षुमिरादरणीयम्। Madhnsndana : Prasthanabhedt

By the same author 1. Translation of Siddhantabindu of Madhu- sūdana Sarasvati (being Zala Vedanta Prize Essay ). ... ... ... Rs. 3-0-0 2. Aksara: A Forgotten Chapter in the History of Indian Philosophy ... ... Rs. 5-0-0 3. The Bhagavadgita with Sankara's Com- mentary : A New Approach ... ... Rs. 15-0-C In the Press 4. A Critique of the Brahmasutras: Part II : System of the Sūtrakara. Under Preparation 5. Essays on the Bhagavadgita : Scripture of Disinterested Aetion.

7326>

Printed by Gulabohand Lallubhai Shah, at the Mahodaya P. Press, Bhavnagar, and Published by Dr. P. M. Modi, Bhavnagar.

PREFACE

HILE writing my thesis for Ph. D. and surveying the history and development of the conception of Aksara Brahman, I hit upon certain passages in the Brahmasutra which I tried to interpret independently of any commentator. I showed the interpretation to my Professor Dr. Schrader who, after comparing the same with those of Thibaut and Deussen, not only accepted it as a part of my thesis, but advised me to write a critical interpretation of the entire Brahmasūtra after my return to India. Accordingly I prepared an interpretation of Bra. Su. III. 2 and sent the typescript to Professors Dr. S. N. Dasgupta ( Calcutta ) and M. Hiriyanna ( Mysore ) and discussed it personally with Prof. R. D. Ranade ( Allahabad ) and the late Dr. A. B. Dhruva, who was then Pro-Vice- Chancellor of the Benares Hindu University. All these distinguished authorities encouraged me in my undertaking, remarking in general that my conclusions were ' reasonable ' and my interpretation was 'plausible'. This was their opinion about only a very small part of the work, which I could prepare during my leisure hours along with my college duties. But for writing down my views on a sufficiently large portion of the Brahmasutra, I thought I should work under the guidance of one of the above-mentioned scholars. I, therefore, applied to the Bombay University for a research grant, which was kindly sanctioned. For a similar encouragement and for leave on duty for six months, in 1935-36, I approached the late Sir P. D. Pattani, the President of the State Council, Bhavnagar State, on whose recommendation the Bhavnagar Darbar generously granted my request. Dr. Dasgupta whom I first approached for

[2]

guidance had to sail for Europe. The late Dr. Dhruva happened that very term to retire from Pro-Vice-Chancellorship of the Benares Hindu University and on my request he asked me to immediately go to Ahmedabad, promising to work with me two hours a day during my stay with him. The result of all this is the present book on the Brahmasutra.

During these six months of my stay with the late Dr. Dhruva we met almost every day and I can say that almost every line of the work, which I wrote out every day beforehand and which is being published herewith, was discussed with him. Those who have studied under him know that he had the great commentaries ( bhasyas ) and the sub-commentaries by heart. Thus, not only that he remembered the views of Sankaracarya and Ramanujacarya, but he could also immediately point out the interpretation of these views given in the Bhāmati, the Ratnaprabhā, etc., etc. Not only that he would make me refer to these to assure myself of my properly understanding Sankaracarya's bhāsya, but he would also ask me to see if the Sūtras can be interpreted as favourable to the Sankara System independently of the Sankara- bhasya. I always remember how he made me read works like the Jaiminisutras and their bhasya by Sabara, even when I discussed with him the meaning of the Brahmasutras which though explained by Sankaracarya by quoting or referring to the Jaminisutras, etc., cannot but in my opinion refer to the Upanisads. The fact that I happened to have discussed with him the major portion of this book in its original draft strengthens me in my belief that I have rarely misunderstood or misrepresented the views, on the Brahmasutra, of this greatest of the Acaryas. Apart from this scholarly contact with the late Dr. Dhruva, there was another, not less enjoyable, side of my experience of him during this short stay with him as his neighbour in the Parimal Society, Ahmedabad. It was for me something which I had never experienced during my three

[3]

years' studentship when I studied for B. A. and M. A. under his guruship ( in 1920-23 ) at Ahmedabad and at Benares. Those who have been merely students of the late Dr. Dhruva know that there was always a curtain, as it were, between them and their teacher. This curtain was, I believe, lifted when I stayed with him as his neighbour in Ahmedabad and when every day after about two hours' discussion of my subject, he was pleased to tell me or talk to me about his views on many other subjects or his experience of many great personalities of India, during the time that he prepared to go out for a walk. This side of my personal contact with the late Dr. Dhruva has left behind an indelible impression on my mind; it was unique in the sense that I got from the late Dr. Dhruva something at once more lovable and elevating than what I had done till then from any body else. I always love to remember it and I feel I would be ungrateful if I publish this book without a mention of it in this preface.

During recent years I showed this work to Prof. Ranade and to Dr. Dasgupta and at their suggestion I prepared another book on the same subject. Thus, I have divided the work into two Parts. The main work is entitled ' A Critique of the Brahmasutra ( III. 2. 11-IV ) and the first and the second Parts are respectively called ' Interpretation of the Sutras' and ' The System of the Sutrakara'. The first Part published herewith gives an interpretation of every word in every Sutra of Bra. Su. IlI. 2. 11-IV and the second Part which is ready for the press contains a summary, in twelve chapters, of the conclusions arrived at from the interpretation discussed fully in Part I. I am thankful to both these scholars for their kind interest in my work and for their useful suggestion to present the subject matter into two Parts. I have shown both the Parts to Principal R. D. Karmarkar, Poona, and he has also approved of the idea of publishing the work in two Parts.

[ 4]

I am greatly indebted to Dr. Dasgupta for his learned foreword to Part I of this book. He was kind enough to go through the typescript of the earliest portions of my work even before I made up my mind to write it in its present form. When the book was ready, he had a glance at the manuscript of the whole of Part I. He has been taking keen interest in my research work ever since I read a Paper on the Gaudapāda Karikas in the Lahore Session of the All-India Oriental Conference ( 1928) under his Presidentship. I have always derived inspiration in 'my studies from his answers to my queries whenever I wr te to him. His foreword has immensely added to the value of my work. Prof. M. Hiriyanna has kindly interested himself in my work since I published my thesis for Ph. D. He minutely goes through my letters and while he opined that my inferences were 'reasonable' he raised certain questions about the possibility of the loss of tradition, etc., implied in my interpretation offered in the present work and has thus made me discover and suggest a possible answer. In particular Sutras also ( e. g., Bru. Su. III. 3. 23 ) he convinced me that Sankarāc rya's visayavākya was correct. My correspondence with him has greatly profited me in the preparation of this book. I am very thankful to this revered senior colleague for his closely scrutinizing my views, which has always encouraged me in my studies. I cannot underrate my debt to the works of Thibaut, Deussen, Ghate, Teliwala and others in the same field of research. I have been also considerably benefited by the study of the learned works, on the Brahmasutras, of Dr. Belvalkar. It would be unfair on my part if I do not associate the names of two of my students, Messrs N. M. Mehta and J. M. Ashar, with the preparation of this book. Occasionally I come across students in teaching whom I also learn. They were such students. With them I read the book ready for the press and on one or two occasions I thought it better to

[5]

revise my interpretation. Mr. Ashar is also responsible for preparing the Indices to this volume. I regret to note that Mr. N. M. Mehta is no more when this book is published. I am greatly indebted to my revered Prof. V. M. Mehtat, M. A., LL. B., and to my friends who prefer to remain unnamed, for their kindness in reading considerable parts of the MS. and making valuable suggestions. The printing of the work involved, considerable difficulty and I acknowledge with tbanks the help I received from Messrs L. L. Mehta, Hormajshaw F. Co,chbuilder, Gulabchand L. Shah and J. D. Dhruva.

I also thank the oditors of the Journal of the University of Bombay, Indian Culture, Indian Historical Quarterly, Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Rescarch Institute, Prabuddha Bharata, Review of Philosophy and Religion, and the Proceedings of All India Oriental Conferences, who have during these years published my Papers and have helped me in making known to scholars several of the views worked out and presented in details in this book. Principal T. K. Shahani, M. A., has always taken keen interest in my work and has been very kind to me both in giving and getting me facilities for the preparation and publication of this book. I acknowledge my deep debt of gratitude to him here. I express my deepest obligations to H. H. the Maharaja Sir Krishnakumarsinbji of Bhavnagar who generously sanctioned & special grant for the publication of the present work, as His Highness did for my earlier publications also. The author thankfully acknowledges his indebtednegs to

• It is very painful to me to mention that Prof. V. M. Mehta passed away just when the Preface was finally being seen through the Press.

[6]

the University of Bombay for the substantial financial help it has granted towards the cost of the publication of this bookt. I also thank the trustees of Seth Gordhandas Soonderdas Charities, Bombay for the help they have kindly given me for bringing out this work. It now remains for me to crave the indulgence of sympathetic readers for errors of interpretation, exposition and expression, and of printing that might have escaped my attention. I am sorry that owing to the increase in the volume of this book when revised, I could not include in it some Appendices which were ready and which deal with my inter- pretation of Bra. Su. I and II#.

Parimala, Waghawadi Road, BHAVNAGAR, P. M. Modi.

7th May, 1943

t I gratefully acknowledge the fact that the Bombay University has already sanctioned another substantial grant for Part II of this book, which is now in the press. . My Paper on the Scheme of Bra. Su. I. 1-3: A Rapprochement, published in the Jowrnal of the University of Bombay ( Vol. IV, Part III, 1935 ) deals with my interpretation of Bra. Sū. I.

CONTENTS

.PAGE FOREWORD by Prof. S. N. Dasgupta ... 1-8 ... INTRODUCTION ... I-XXV ... ... ...

Two Parts ... ... iv-vii ... ... ... ...

Contents of Part II viii-ix ... ... ... ...

Important results of the author's inquiry ... ... ix

1. The Links in the Sutrakara's System ... ix-xiii

2. The Importance of Brahmasutra III. 3 ... xili-XV

3. The Reconstruction of the Text of the Brahmasūtra ... ... ... ... xv-xvi

4. The Method of Interpretation to be applied to the Brahmasūtra ... xvi-xix ... 5. The Sūtrakara's Interpretation of certain Śrutis ... ... xix-xxii

Merits of Badarayana ... ... xxii-xxv ... ... INTERPRETATION 1-457 ... ... ... ...

CHAPTER I

BRAHMASŪTRA III. 2. 11-41 ... ... ... 1-80 ...

SECTION SUTRAS

I. 11-19 Brahman unaffected by the Waking and other States. Two kinds of Srutis describe Brahman in all its (four ) States 1- 21

II. 20-22 Vrddhi ( increment ) and hrāsa ( decre- ment ) of Brahman, due not to the Influence of the States, but to the Con- cealment of Brahman in its Effects ... 22- 35

[8]

SECTION SUTRAS PAGE

III. 23-30 Brahman is the Unmanifest and the Purușa (Kațha Upa. III. 10). Illustrations of the Nirakara and Sakara aspects of Brahman : Serpent and its Coil or Light and its Resort ... ... ... 36- 45

IV. 31-86 A Pūrvapakșa that the Purusa is higher than the Unmanifest, refuted ... ... 46- 69 V. 37 The above refutation proves the Omni- presence of the Unmanifest ... ... 70- 73

VI. 38-39 The Reward ( of Moksa ) is to be had from this Unmanifest One ... ... 74-76

VII. 40-41 Jaimini holds the Reward to be Dharma: Badarayana holds the Unmanifest Itself to be the Reward ... ... ... 77- 80

CHAPTER II BRAHMASŪTRA III. 3. 81-240 ... ...

I. 1- 4 One Brahman taught in all Vedantas ... 81- 89 II. 5- 9 Collecting of Information regarding Attributes, Method of Meditation, As- pects, etc. ... ... ... 90-98

III. 10 Difference of Two Aspects (Namesonly). 99-101 IV. 11-15 Attributes of Pradhana Aspect of Brahman ... ... ... ... 102-110 V. 16-17 Identification of One's Own Self with Brahman as Method of Meditation on Brahman ... ... ... ... ... 111-115 VI. 18-24 Apurva as the Invisible Result of Meditation. The Principle of Apurva to be so understood in Similar Srutis, not in other Srutis ... ... 116-127 VII. 25-27 Meditation on the Pranava ... ... 128-138

[9]

SECTION SUTRAS PAGE

VIII. 28-80 Option regarding Choice of Aspects of Brahman ... 139-146

IX. 31-33 Attributes necessary for Meditation ... 147-157 X. 34-36 Practice of Meditation within One's Self. 158-164 XI. 37-42 Interchange of Attributes of Avyakta and Purusa in Sruti, and its Result : No Objection to the Meditating upon Either of the Two Separately ... ... ... 165-185 XII. 43-54 Self-identification as the Method of Meditation on Purusa. Predominance of Pradhana over Purusa; yet Meditation on Purusa is also Brahmavidya ... 186-214

XIII. 55-56 Meditation on Brahman based upon its Parts ... ... ... ... ... 215-224 XIV. 57 Number of Parts to be meditated upon ... 225-228 XV. 58 Meditations on Brahman as consisting of Parts are each distinct from one another. 229-230 XVI. 59 Option regarding these Meditations ... 231-233 XVII. 60 Meditations on Brahman performed for some Desired Object ... ... ... 234-236 XVIII. 61-66 The Method of Meditation on Brahman as consisting of Parts ... ... ... 237-240 CHAPTER III BRAHMASŪTRA III. 4 ... ... ... 241-307 I. 1-17 Aim 'of human life achieved from the Knowledge of Brahman; the latter not subsidiary to religious Actions ... ... 241-250 II. 18-26 Knowledge of Brahman, not a simple Reflection, but something to be Per- formed, or rather an Injunction. The Unanimity of Sense of the Knowledge of Brahman and Dharma ... 251-262

[ 10 ]

SECTION SUTRAS PAOE III. 29-39 Control of the Mind, the Senses etc., the very Basis. Saorifice, Donation, Austerity and the Duties of Orders of life must be compulsorily performed by Seekers. Their duties in Adversity. Optional Suppression of the Actions of an Order for a Seeker ... ... 263-280 IV. 40-42 No Reversion from Monkhood and no professional Duties for Monks except of a subordinate nature and that too in Adversity only ... ... ... 281-287 V. 43-46 Duties of a Seeker who is outside Monkhood ... ... ... 288-293 VI. 47-50 The Injunction of other helping Actions, Optional except in the case of a House- holder ... ... ... ... ... 294-300 VII. 51 A grhastha Seeker may perform worldly Duties also, though not as a help to his Knowledge of Brahman ... ... 301-303 VIII. 52 No Time-rule regarding the Achievement of the Moksa, even after the Praotice of its Means ... ... ... 304-307 CHAPTER IV BRAHMASŪTRA IV. 1 ... 308-345 ... ...

I. 1-2 Return of the Seeker of the Knowledge of Brahman ... ... ... ... 308-312

II. 3-6 Work of the Reborn Seeker: his Ap. proach to, and his Precept about, Brah- man, Symbols of Brahman, and Parts of Brahman ... ... ... ... 313-322 III. 7-10 State of the Reborn Seeker of the Knowledge of Brahman ... ... ... 323-326

[ 11 ]

SECTIGN SŪTRAS PAGE

IV. 11. Residence of the Reborn Seeker of the Knowledge of Brahman ... 327-328 V. 12 Same State to be kept till Departure ... 329-331 VI. 13-19 Disposal of the Actions of the Seeker ... 332-345

CHAPTER V BRAHMASUTRA IV. 2 ... ... 346-387 ... I. 1-11 The Union of the Senses with the Mind. The Union of the Mind with the Breath. The Union of the Breath with the Soul. The Union of the Soul with the Subtle Elements. The Same Departure before and also after the Attainment of Immortality ... ... ... 347-362 Continuation of Sec. I. 12-14 Departure of the senses, etc., even after the Attainment of Immortality, estab- lished ... 363-369 II. 15 The Union with the Supreme One in the Heart ... ... ... ... ... 370-374 III. 16 The Nature of the Union : Non-Separation. 375-377 IV. 17 Departure of the Soul from the Body through the hundred-and-first Artery ... 378-382 V. 18-21 He joins the Rays of the Sun immediately on his Departure ... ... ... ... 383-387 CHAPTER VI BRAHMASUTRA IV. 3 ... I. The well-known Devayana Path begins ... 388-423 1 with the Flame . ... ... , 388-390 II. 2 Wind, next to the Year 391-394 III. 3 Varuna, next to the Lightning ... 395-398 IV. 4-5 Rays ete., are Conductors ... 399-401 v. 6 Conductor of the Lightning leads the Jmanin onwards ... ... ... ... 402-408

[ 12 ]

SRCTION SUTRAS PAGE

VI. 7-16 How far can the Vaidyuta Conductor lead the Knower of Brahman? Badari's View : Only upto Prajapatiloka, which is an effect of Brahman ( Sūtras 7-11). Jaimini's View : Upto the Para ( Sūtras 12-14 ). Badarayana's View: There is no Fault in Both the Views but Praja- patiloka is not an Effect of Brahman ( Sūtras 15-16 ) ... ... ... ... 404-423 CHAPTER VII BRAHMASŪTRA IV. 4 ... ... 424-457 ...

I. 1-3 Manifestation of the Original Form of the Released Soul after Union with Brahman. 424-428 II. 4 Non-Separation of the Released Soul from the Supreme One ... ... ... 429-430 III. 5-7 Nature of the Released Form of the Soul: Three Views ... 431-436 IV. 8-9 Fulfilment of every Desire of the Re- leased Soul by mere Will : Self-lordship. 437-440 V. 10-14 Option of a Body in the case of the Released : consistent with Fulfilment of Desires ... ... 441-443 VI. 15-16 Pervading Nature of the Released Soul ... 444-447 VII. 17-21 Released Form of the Soul devoid of worldly Dealings, and Changeless ... 448-455 VIII. 22 Non-Return of the Released Soul ... 456-457 INDICES ... .. 459-469 ... ... ... I. General Index ... ... ... 459-460 II. Index of Sanskrit Words ... 461-463 III. Index of Works quoted A. Upanisads ... ... 464-469 ... B. Other Works ... 469 .... ...

FOREWORD

YEARS ago, in my Second Volume of the History of Indian Philosophy, published in 1932, I said in my review of the Gita as follows :- " God Himself is sometimes referred to as being avyakta ( probably because He cannot be grasped by any of our senses ), as an existence superior to the avyakta which is described as a part of His nature, and as a category from which all things have come into being. This avyakta which is identical with God is also called aksara or the Immortal ...... In IV. 24-25, where it is said that all sacrifices are to be made with the Brahman as the object and the sacrificial materials, sacrificial fire etc. are to be looked upon as being Brahman, the word " Brahman" is in all probability used in the sense of God. In Gita V. 6, 10, 19 also the word " Brahman " is used in the sense of God or Isvara; and in most other cases the word is used in the sense of God. But according to the Gita the personal God as Isvara is the supreme principle, and Brahman, in the sense of a qualityless, undifferentiated, ultimate principle as taught in the Upanisads, is a principle which, though great in itself and representing the ultimate essence of God, is never- theless upheld by the personal God or Isvara. Thus, though in Gīta VIII. 3 and X. 12 Brahman is referred to as the differenceless ultimate principle, yet in Gita XIV. 27 it is said that God is the support of even this ultimate principle, Brahman " ( pp. 473-474). Dr. Modi in his dissertation, called Aksara, for his Doctorate in the University of Kiel, published in 1932, developed a similar line of thought and tried to follow up the concept of Aksara with avyakta as its synonym, in the Upanisads, in the Gita, and also in other literatures. The point that he urges is not so much regarding a personal or impersonal Brahman but

2

the Brahman having a form and Brahman as without a form, that is, purusavidha and apurusavidha. We find also in Yaska the two concepts of the gods being purusavidha and apurusavidha. In the present work he tries to show that this problem existed also in the time when the Brahmasutra was written and some of the Brahmasutras appertain to this problem which has been wrongly interpreted by Sankara as that of saguna and nirguna Brahman. I had the privilege of pointing out both in my History and my Indian Idealism that the proper understanding and the interpretation of the mental situation that prevailed in the Upanisadic days is still an enigma to us. It had offered considerable difficulties probably at that time also and that the Gita and the Brahmasutras are two distinct attempts on different lines to explore it. The study of the Brahmasutras shows that many other attempts had preceded it but are now lost to us. There is also ample evidence to prove that the Brahmasūtras must have been explained by many other writers before Sankara. Sankara, the most masterful of all the commentators known to us, had so smothered them that apart from certain suggestions, very little can be deduced about the views of those commentators from Sankara's own commentary. The commentator's who followed Sankara mostly followed Sankara's line of interpretation and differed only at particular points, where their own views were affected. Thus, a study of the commentaries of the great Ācāryas, Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha and Nimbārka, does not throw much light on the real meaning and purport of the Sutras. It is also to be regretted that so far practically nothing has been done with regard to a critical study of the Brahma- sūtras. Dr. Modi has done an inestimable service in attempting a critical study of at least a part of the Brahmasūtras. By a careful study of the Brahmasutras he has practically succeeded in evolving a scheme, a sort of critical apparatus, which may be successfully applied to the Brahmasūtras, to make them yield their own meaning. It is, no doubt, true that without

3

Sankara's commentary it might have been impossible for him to evolve that scheme but taking Sankara's commentary into our consideration and applying Dr. Modi's scheme, it is easy to see how in many places Sankara has, really, consciously or unconsciously, twisted the meaning of the Brahmasūtras to his own advantage. Let us take for example Sūtra III. 2. 11 " nu sthānato'pi parasyobhuyalingam sarvatra hi ". Sankara in interpreting this Sutra says that this Adhikarana is devoted to the interpretation of the nature of Brahman where the conditioned individual passes with the release of the conditions, on the ground of the Upanisadic texts. There are two types of texts, those attributing to Brahman qualities as sarvakarmā etc. (Chã: Upa. III. 14. 2 ) and those which declare it to be qualityless such as asthulam ( Br. Upa. III. 8. 8 ). Sankara says that the opponent holds that since we have to be faithful to the Upanisads, Brahman must be qualified and unqualified. But this will be contradictory. The word sthanatah might mean as conditioned by earth etc .; but that is also impossible. For, the association of conditions cannot change the nature of a thing. A crystal by the mere shadow of a red object cannot lose its transparency. So, in whatever character Brahman may be described, it must be regarded as being nothing else than qualityless, nirvikalpa Brahman. Dr. Modi takes the word ' sthana ' to mean the three states, awaking, dream and dreamless. Dr. Modi here urges that the use of the word api suggests the opponent's view and the Upanisads teach two types of Brahman ( 1) one endowed with form: ( rupavat ) and ( 2) the other formless ( arupavat ). He also holds that the word ubhayalingam means two types of Brahman arupavat and rūpavat and not saguna and nirguna. According to him, therefore, the Sutrakara finds no conflict between the texts sarvakarma etc. and asthulam etc .; for the two texts refer to two types of Brahman rupavat

and arupavat. The sentence sthanatah parasya ubhayalingam means that according to the relation of different states Brahman is rupavat and arupavat. In the susupti we have the arupavat and in the svapna and jagrata we have the rupavat. In the fourth state or the turtya Brahman is neither rupavat nor arupavat. According to Dr. Modi, the Sutrakara denies the view that Brahman is rupavat and arupavat according to the states of waking and dream and dreamless sleep in which it appears. But the Sūtrakara says that Brahman is ubhayalingam i. e. rupavat and arupavat, in all the three states.

According to Sankara the discussion is about savisesa and nirviseşa Brahman and the reply is that Brahman is nirvisesa everywhere i. e. in all the Srutis. Sankara thinks that the expression ubhayalingasrutyanugrahat ubhayalingam eva is the opponent's view, whereas Dr. Modi takes it to be the conclusion ( siddhānta ) of the Sūtrakāra. According to Dr. Modi's interpretation the Sūtra runs as follows :- parasya ubhayalińgam na sthānatah api sarvatra hi i. e. the characteristic description of Brahman as rupavat and arupavat is not in accordance with the mental states of the Para but everywhere i. e. ( the description applies to the Para ) in all the states.

According to Sankara the Sutra runs as follows :- na sthanatopi parasya ubhayalingam sarvatra hi. Here the Sūtra cannot be interpreted without assuming the words " Brahma nirvikalpam ". He thus interprets the Sutra by adding two words after the Sutra from his own mind The Sutra would then mean " Brahman cannot have two kinds of characteristics savisesa and nirvisesa according to the limiting states ( the earth etc. sthana ). But in all Upanisadic texts ( sarvutra ) it is regarded as nirvisesa or nirvikalpa only".

We, thus, see that Dr. Modi's interpretation is more faithful to the Sutra. Many questions, however, can be raised here as

5

to whether Dr. Modi's interpretation is justifiable according to the context or not. To this, Dr. Modi gives in most cases very convincing proofs in support of his interpretation ( Vide his interpretation of Bra. Su. III. 3. 14 for his arguments in the case of the illustration cited above ). The value of these, however, can only be adjudged when a scholar carefully compares Dr. Modi's interpretation as it appears in the book with Sankara's interpretation and tries to come to an impartial and balanced judgement. It must be said that Dr. Modi has learnt from Germany how to weld the critical apparatus to one's best advantage. He appears at the same time to be sympathetic and fair to Sankara and does not seem to read his own philosophical creed into the Brahmasūtra. He proceeds by re-arranging the text of the Sutras and sometimes also the Sūtras of an Adhikarana into an order, which seems to yield a better meaning with the least assump- tion of other words. Sankara's main defect seems to be the introduction of new words for his own advantage. Dr. Modi, however, follows the context alone as his guide and has strenu- ously abstained from the introduction of any word or idea not guaranteed by the context. He has, however, in certain places suggested new readings and tried to support them often quite successfully on critical, philological and contextual grounds. The results of Dr. Modi's investigations may be classified in a twofold manner :- ( 1 ) doctrinal and ( 2 ) interpretational. He holds that the Sūtrakara describes the two aspects of Brahman as purusavidha and apurusavidha or rupavat and arupavat and believes that they are on an equal status. The purusavidha and the apurusavidha are both aspects of the Karana Brahman. The Sutrakara further discusses the three out of the six categories of Yaska, pariņāma, vrddhi and hrāsa of Brahman. The change of Brahman is such that the effect or krti is identical with Brahman and increment and decrement

6

of Brahman are due to his own relative self-concealment. He speaks of three kinds of meditations viz. (1) the meditation on the limits of the purusa or the parts of Brahman as in şodasakalavidya and ( 2) the meditation on Brahman without. thinking of his limits ( i. e. contrary to vaisvanara atman and sodasakalavidya ). These two meditations lead to Moksa. The third type ( 3 ) is kamya. Dr. Modi further discovers several śrauta and smarta Vedanta Schools which were the opponents of the writer of the Brahmasutras. He also discovers that the Sutrakara discusses the meditation on the Pranava as a symbol of Brahman. I would not guarantee the exactitude of these results but ¿would only say that they are quite plausible and thought-provoking. Dr. Modi holds that Bra. Su. III. 3 deals with the method of meditation on Brahman and not with the gunopasamhara nor with the reconciliation of the different vidyas and vijnanas. The most important feature of Dr. Modi's work is indeed the application of a critical method of study to the Sūtras. In this respect he has, undoubtedly, proceeded much further than previous interpreters of the Brahmasutras, like Thibaut or Ghate. The Brahmasutras do not offer the same readings always in the works of the different Acaryas. But Dr. Modi, though he has generally accepted the readings as they are found in Sankara's bhasya, has yet suggested modifications in accordance with the critical necessity of the context. He has also in many places differed from Sankara as regards the allusions to the different Upanisadic texts, on which the meaning of the Sutras depends. On many occasions he has successfully contested the claims of a Sutra for being treated as a hetu-Sutra and decided in favour of its being a pratijna-Sūtra and vice versa, and in doing this he either regrouped the Sūtras of a particular Adhikarana or ingeniously interpreted the particles hi, tu, ca, etc. and sometimes suggested different

7

readings in the Sutras. But he has seldom introduced new words for the interpretation of a Sūtra as Sankara so often does. Following the same line of enquiry he has also sug- gested exact visayavākyas of several Sūtras. Though we may not always agree with all that Dr. Modi has said, yet he seems to have proved to our satisfaction that at least in many places Sankara's interpretation is either doubtful or unacceptable. Sankara seems to have been often interested in reading his own philosophy in the Sūtras and loyalty to the Sūtras does not seem to be his strong point. Dr. Modi further holds that for his doctrine of a two- fold Brahman Badarayana is probably indebted to Yaska's conception of the purusuvidha and the apurusavidha aspects of the Vedic deities or to other previous Vedanta writers who had already adopted a view about Brahman consistent with Yaska's conception of deities. That the idea of a personal Brahman and an impersonal one should have revealed itself clearly at some early stage of the development of Indian thought seems to be a very rational hypothesis. By his careful and painstaking and thought-provoking researches Dr. Modi has done a great service to those who are engaged in tracing the development of Indian thought from the earliest times. It is precisely this period between the Brahmanas and the Brahmasutras the full history of which is now practically lost, that would require the most diligent application of critical study by which we may be able to weave a fairly correct picture of this obscure period. That Dr. Modi, instead of working in a stereotyped manner, in the beaten track, has showed his originality of approach to new types of thought that flourished before the Brahmasutras and has thus given us a new picture of the Brahmasutras is indeed a matter of great satisfaction. But the book has been so elaborate that, I fear, he would have but few readers, who would have the patience to

8

follow him carefully. He has not also applied his critical apparatus to the whole of the Brahmasutras but only to specific parts of it which he has selected for this purpose. I recommend this elaborate piece of research particularly to those who are interested in a critical appraisal of the meaning and significance of the Brahmasutras as they stand, unaffected by the opinions of any of the Acaryas. Dr. Modi, is, thus, to be complimented upon for contributing something substantial and original towards our unravelling one of the most obscure parts of the history of the Indian thought.

Sanskrit College, Calcutta. S. N. Dasgupta. 18th September, 1941.

INTRODUCTION.

H IREWITH a fresh interpretation of the Brahmasutra (III. 2. 11-IV ) is offered to the student of this so-called third Prasthana and to the student of the Indian Philosophy.

The reader must ever keep in mind the tentativeness of the interpretation proposed here. This is bound to be the characteristio of any modern interpretation of any text of the Scripture ( Sruti ). The author of the present work confesses that though the general and most important part of his interpretation of Bra. Su. III. 3 offered here is identical with the same offered in his doctorate thesis1, some important points of details of the same are quite fresh here. It was discovered in the course of his fresh study that the exact meaning of some Sūtras of Bra. Su. III. 3 was different from that proposed in his thesis. Similarly, while preparing the present work he had from time to time to make changes not only in the interpretation but also in the grouping of the Sutras into Adhikaranas, when having once arrived at a decision about the same he discovered on a subsequent occasion that a new construction of a Sūtra or Sūtras in question was the proper one. It may be that on a further inquiry some fresh points may arise, the solution of which may necessitate changes even in the portion of the Brahma- sutra treated here. Let us, therefore, keep an open mind", while we study further.

1. Aksara: A forgotton chapter in the History of Indian Philo- sophy, Baroda, 1932 2. It will be found that in the case of certain Sutras the present author has found no satisfactory interpretation till now and that he has admitted his inability to come to & conclusion in such cases. More-

11

The reader must bear in mind here that it is only an accident that I begin the work with Bra. Su. III. 2. 11. It must be made clear that I do not regard the portion of Bra. Su. I-III. 2. 10 as an interpolation or a later addition. In fact, I have discovered a very close connection between Bra. Sū. I. 1-3 and Bra. Su. III. 3. 11, 37-39. I have found no reason to doubt the genuineness3 of the remaining portion ( Bra. Sū. I. 4, II, III. 1 and 2. 1-10 ). As is very well known Bra. Sū. III. 2. 11 begins a crucial Adhikarana, as it and the subsequent Sūtras contain what is called ' the discussion of Brahman ' (tatpadarthavivecana). While writing my doctorate thesis ( in 1930 ) I happened to study particularly those Sutras and prepared a small work on them, only a part of which was used for my thesis. Later on, I continued my study upto the end of the Brahmasūtra. This is why the present work begins from Bra. Sū. III. 2. 11 and ends with Bra. Sū. IV. 4. I consulted some of my own professors as well as some others of established repute as to whether I should publish the portion of the interpretation of the Brahmasutra, which I had prepared. Though some of them insisted that I should first write down my interpretation of the whole work, a majority of them approved of my idea to publish as much as was ready. over, in spite of the great emphasis he has laid on certain tenets of the Sutras which he thinks are as good as finally settled, he would be ready to considor any new interpretation coming from any source, because it is, though not impossible, very difficult to think of an interpretation of Sutras as ultimate owing to the very aphoristic style of the Sutras. 3. In an article in the Indian Historical Quarterly ( 1936 ) I have shown that Bra. Su. II. 1 ( Samrtipada ) is very closely related to Bra. Su. I. 4. These Padas ( Bra. Su. I. 4 and II. 1 ) deal with the Opposition of what should be called the Smarta Vedanta and not with the Samkhaya. The Sutrakara's treatment of the Smarta Vedanta, however, applies to the Samkhya also and this is the implied sense of ca in Bra. Sū. II. 2. 1.

I have, now, got with me most of Bra. Sū. I. 1-III. 2. 10 interpreted according to the method I have suggested in the present volume. I do not personally find that any Sūtra out of Bra. Su. III. 3. 11-IV will have to be interpreted differently than in the way done here, in view of Bra. Sū. I. 1-3. Sūtras III. 3. 11, 37-39 give an indication to the interpretation of Bra. Su. I. 1-3. However, it is mainly due to the line of study I have followed that I publish the portion which I worked out and await another opportunity to publish other instalments of the interpretation of this great Prasthana. The task of interpreting the whole of the Brahmasutra at a single stretch is too big for a single person and perhaps there will be enough to be learnt from the criticism that the present work may stimulate. An important matter for which I have to apologise to the reader, is that from among the commentaries I have selected only Sankaracarya's commentary for particular study so far as the present work is concerned. I sincerely hope that no serious student will charge me with having an intention of insulting this great Acarya or of finding fault with his Bhasya. Nor do I underrate the worth of the commentaries of other Acaryas or refuse to receive any help they may give in interpreting this most difficult of the three or four Prasthanas. Here again, what has happened is that I have taken Sankaracarya, with whose commentary I happen to be more familiar, as a type of the traditional interpreters, so far as the method of traditional interpretation is concerned. While examining Sankaracarya's method of interpretation I have had innumerable occasions to criticise his Bhasya, but I thereby do not intend to offend him or his followers. All the same I beg to be pardoned if anybody feels offended with my criticism of Sankaracarya's Bhasyat. 4. " Any attempt at a more precise characterisation of the views of the Sutras is bound to contain many rocks of offence and sources of the spiritual disturbances" -Sir S. Radhakrishnan, 'Indian Philosophy', Vol. II., P. 444. I hope, I do not become a source of such a disturbance.

iv

My only justification for presenting this volume to the student of the Brahmasutra lies in the method that I have adopted in its interpretation. The method is the modern method described as historico-critical-cum-philological method, which I personally believe to be the most reliable method and the greatest gift that India has received from the study of our Scriptures by western scholars. I believe, neither Deussen, nor Thibaut, nor Teliwala nor even Ghate who alone discusses the question of correct method of interpretation, has applied this method in its proper perspective to the Brahmasūtra. No doubt I have received valuable help from their works. Here I may state that I have made an effort to carry further the inquiry undertaken by these pioneers into the original sense of the Brahmasutra, and I must leave it to those who are qualified to judge how far I have succeeded in it. I shall be satisfied if it is felt by the learned that the application of the modern method as is generally understood, and to the extent it was possible for me to follow, is a justification for writing a work likė this5. In one chapter of Part II, I have examined the traditional method of interpretation as illustrated by Sankaracarya and in another chapter I have shown what the modern critical method should be. Here I may mention one very important feature of this method. The Acaryas start with the belief that all the Prasthanas teach the same doctrine. They try to discover this one doctrine in the Prasthanas and write commentaries on them with that in mind. Sankarācarya seems to have got

5. Vide the Introduction to 'Studies in Vedantism ' by K. C. Bhat- tacharya, Calcutta, 1909. He rightly complains against those scholars who dispose of important problems, e. g., those of " Indian pessimism and fatalism by a sapient reference to the climatic and political condition of the country ". But his attack on Thibaut seems to me to be unjustifiable. Vide also my Introduction to Chap. I of Vol, II "The System of the Brahmasūtra ".

his doctrine originally from Buddhism, Gaudapada, and some portion of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad, and then interpreted all the Prasthanas in the light of that doctrine. Ramanujacarya, according to the tradition, got a glimpse of his doctrine partly at least from the works of the Tamil Saints ( Alwars ) and Tamil Acaryas and then discovered the same in the Prasthanas with the help of the commentary of the Vrttikara which he found in Kashmir. By an interpretation of the inspired works which the people at different times considered to be the canon of religion, each Acarya achieved a wonderful success in infusing a new life and spirit into the religion and philosophy of his age, suitable not only to the religious necessity of his followers, but also to the political, social and above all the intellectual environments of his time. The Acarya was not merely a critical interpretor; he was the religious guide too of his age; and be did his duty and achieved his goal thus. Unlike those Acaryas, the modern student does not start with the idea of a doctrinal uniformity of all the Prasthanas, though he does believe that underlying all the Prasthanus ( allotted to different periods ) there is a historical unity in the gradual development of thought." It is evident that he is no Mathadhipati, 'the Lord of a Sect ', nor does he aspire to be one though he should try to bring home to his own people the truth that he discovers, by presenting it in simple, non-technical language. Such a modern student should, in my opinion, attempt to discover the original sense of the Brahmasutra by proceeding in two different ways. The first way is that after a preliminary study of the commentaries on all the Prasthanas, which would enable him to understand the

6. Vide K. C. Bhattacarya's Introduction to his Studies in Vedantism, PF. VI-VIII for the distinction between the role of the philosophic systematiser and the critical or historical scholar. I fully agree with his idea of the latitude allowed to philosophic systematisation. However one may differ from the Acaryas, he can never charge him with " intellectual dishonesty ".

vi

traditional view", he should start with an intensive study of the Brahmasutra text itself and refer to the Upanisads and the Gita again and again to see whether the result of such an intensive study of the Brahmasutra agrees with the doctrines of these Prasthanas. The second way is that having equipped himself with the study of the commentaries he should olassify the Srutis of the ( twelve ) Upanisads under the four heads corresponding to the four Adhyayas of the Brahmasūtra, viz., the Samanvaya, Avirodha, Sadhana and Phala Adhyayas, and then see how these Srutis come into discussion under the various Sutras of each Adhyaya and try to find out how the Sūtrakāra interprets the corresponding Sruti, in the respective Adhyaya ( and also Pada, so far as possible ). I have tried to study the Brahmasūtra according to the first way only. It still remains to examine this Prasthana by the second method. Such an examination is bound to furnish us with invaluable evidence for the interpretation of the Sūtras8.

Owing to the incompleteness of the work in the above and in many other respects, it has been utterly impossible to discuss in this book such questions as " which of the Acaryas represents even approximately correctly the view of the Sūtrakara ". Without knowing definitely the view of the

7. This point has been amply emphasised by K. C. Bhattacarya in his ' Studies in Vedantism ', Introduction, P. V. He says: "The Philo- sophical study should come first in the order of time; the historical study of an ancient system of philosophy, to be of any use at all, must be preceded by an earnest study of the philosophy, in the expositions traditionally accepted as authoritative." Such a sympathetic study means the study of the commentaries of the Acaryas. 8. This second test will yield important results about such questions as the following :- (1) Whether by darsayatah and darsayanti the Sutrakara refers respectively to two and to several Srutis only or to two and more Srutis and Smrtis also; (2) whether by eke he means only one Sakha of one Veda or several Sakhas of the different Vedas, etc., etc.

vii

Sutrakara himself, how could we compare those of the Acaryas with the same ? The fact that several scholars have attempted to answer this question and have actually given various mutually contradictory answers shows that their very starting point is defective. The doctrine of the Sūtrakara cannot be derived from an examination of some scattered remarks in the Sūtras or from a few technical words in the Sutras. The comparison of the Sutrakara's view with the doctrine of Sankaracarya which I have given in Chapter 8 of Part II is thus only tentative and should be received with caution.

I may now introduce the book to the reader. As is natural, I have divided the book into two Parts. The first Part contains an interpretation of Bra. Su. III. 2. 11-IV. The second Part gives in twelve chapters an account of the System of the Sutrakara derived from this interpretation, and also gives some suggestions for the correction of the text and some rules for its correct interpretation.

In Part I, I have regrouped the Sūtras into Adhikaraņas and after giving my own translation of the Sutras of each Adhikarana I have given Notes. These Notes form the most important portion of the entire book. It is in these Notes that I give my reasons for not accepting Sankaracarya's grouping of the Sutras into Adhikaranas, for adopting a fresh one, for at times changing the reading in a Sūtra or Sūtras, for giving a certain sense to each word in a Sutra, for rejecting Sankarācārya's vişayavatya and at times suggesting that there should be no visayavākya or should be a new visayavākya, for almost all things that a reader would like to know about the interpretation of the Sutras given at the beginning of the Adhikarana. It is, again, in these Notes that I give full details of my explanation of certain Srutis, which I believe is in harmony with that of the Sūtrakara, of the loss of tradition as regards Bra. Sū. III. 3, of what I believe to be the origin of the Sutrakara's conception of Brahman, ete., etc.

It is by dropping some of these arguments and these details that I have prepared the account in the twelve chapters of Part II. The first chapter of Part II in which I have summarised the Sutrakara's conception of Brahman and his method of meditation on Brahman, is based on my inter- pretation of Brahmasutra III. 2 and III. 3, i. e., the first two chapters of Part I. Sutras III. 2. 11-41 discuss the Sūtrakara's conception of Brahman and it is in Bra. Su. III. 3 that the Sutrakara gives all pieces of information about the various meditations on Brahman which he collects from the various Upanisads. But for the sake of convenience I have not strictly observed the distinotion and division between the two Padas made by the author of the Sutras. Chapter 2 discusses the comparative position of action and knowledge ( karma and jñāna ) in the attainment of Moksa, and the varieties of actions which a seeker ( mumukşu ) may do as a help to knowledge directly or mediately; and thus it corresponds to Bra. Sū. III. 4, i. e., Chapter 3 of Part I. Chapters 3-6 of Part II are summaries of the conclusions established in Chapters 4-7 of Part I, which deal with the interpretation of Bra. Su. IV. 1-4.

From the visayavakyas of certain Sutras which I claim to have discovered, it appears that the Sūtrakara understood certain Srutis of the chief Upanisads differently than Sankaraoarya, and this difference I have stated in Chapter 7 of Part II, after collecting the scattered remarks of the Sutrakara about the same from all the chapters of Part I. Chapter 8 presents a tentative comparison between the views of the Sutrakara and those of Sankaracarya. In Chapter 9 of Part II I have explained how Bra. Sū. III. 3 is in my opinion the most important part of the Brahma- sūtra, as it contains certain critical Sutras holding the key to Bra. Sū. I. 1-3. Chapters 10 and 11 of Part II discuss the method of interpretation of the Brahmasutra. In Chapter 10 I have examined

ix

the traditional method as presented in Sankaracarya's Bhāsya, and pointed out how it is defective. I have also admitted that though some instances of defects given by me may be shown to be no defects at all, the general conclusion that the defects of the traditional method are to be classified under the particular heads stands. I may here add that the repeated reference to the same passage under different classes of defects was nacessary for me to illustrate what I think to be a mistaken way of interpretation. There is no intention, as there can be none, of disrespecting the Aoarya or his followers. In Chapter 11, I have made some practical sugges- tions which may be taken as rules for attempting an approximately correet interpretation of the Brahmasutra, and which I have put into practice in Part I. In Chapter 12, I have made an effort to reconstruct the readings of the Sutras, and to regroup the Sūtras into Adhikaranas so far as Bra. Su. III. 2. 11-IV is concerned. This reconstruction of the text is the most important part of the textual criticism, because without fixing the text no correct interpretation of the same is possible.

I may now briefly state the more important results which I have discovered for the first time in the course of my inquiry into the interpretation of the Brahmasutra, and about which I feel I have achieved very great degree of certainty. These results are in five different directions :- (1) The links in the Sūtrakara's Systein, ( 2 ) The importance of Bra. Su. III. 3, (3) The reconstruction of the text of the Brahmasūtra, (4) The method of interpretation to be applied to the Brahma- sūtra, and (5) the Sutrakara's interpretation of certain Srutis. 1. The Links in the Sütrakära'a System-(a) I have finally settled that the Sūtrakara believes in two aspects of Brahman, the purusavidha ( the sakara ) or the super-personal, and the a-purusavidha ( the nirakara ) or the impersonal, not the saguna and nirguna as in Sankara's System. Both these

have attributes and are of equal status, as regards the attainment of Moksa. The Sutrakara refutes the views that the purusa- vidha is only a mental projection on the apurusavidha ( the impersonal aspect, which is then the only aspect ), and that the purusavidha is a concession to those who cannot under- stand the formless one, and also that the purusavidha is higher than the apurusavidha. (b) The Sutrakara also discusses the parinama, vrddhi and hrasa of Brahman, the three out of the six states of an entity ( bhava ) mentioned by Yaska. The parinama of Brahman is such that the created world is also Brahman and consequently the vrddhi and hrasa of Brahman are due to the less or more self-concealment of Brahman in what are its effeots or parinamas. I have suggested that the Sutrakara adopts, or follows a Vedanta School which had already adopted a view about Brahman similar to Yaska's view about the two aspects of the deities of the Rgveda, which are both purusavidha and also apurusavidha. (c) One very important fact about the Sutrakara's discussion in favour of his System is that he refutes not only Samkhya Pūrvapaksas but also several other Pürvapaksas which can be classified under several Srauta and Smarta Vedanta Schools. In Bra. Su. III. 3, the Sūtrakara refutes a Vedanta view that beyond the Unmanifest Brahman there is a Principle called Purusa; another Vedanta view that it is only the Unmanifest Brahman which is meta- phorically to be thought of as Purusa; and a third Vedanta doctrine that the same principle is both the impersonal Unmanifest ( Brahman ) and also the Purusa at the same time. These Purvapaksas of the Sūtrakara throw a great deal of light on the Sutrakara's interpretation of the Katha and other Upanisads and the Bhagavadgita. Besides these, there are several other very important Pūrvapaksas, one of which, for example, is that the meditation on the Purusa is taught in the Sruti because it is easy to be performed by the individual soul who is encased in a body. Among the Sutrakara's doctrines of minor importance

xi

discovered in this book I may briefly state the following :- ( 1) The Prajapatiloka is an aspect ( the personal aspect ) of the Karana or Mukhya Brahman; it is not a Karya of Brahman. The Sutrakara refutes the lokapatti dosa on the Prajapatiloka. ( 2 ) The Sutrakara speaks of three kinds of meditations on Brahman. (a) Brahman thought of as not consisting of parts or limbs. (b) Brahman thought of as consisting of parts or limbs, e. ., Brahman conceived as Purusa or Vaisvanara. Both these meditations lead to Moksa. (c) Brahman thought of as the nama, etc. The meditations of this third class are Kamya or voluntary meditations on Brahman intended to achieve some aim of the meditator. (3 ) Not a few Sutras discuss the meditation on Brahman as symbolised in the Pranava, though none of the Acaryas says that this meditation is discussed in the Brahmasūtra. ( 4 ) The Sūtrakara explains Brahman and its meditations on the same lines as Jaimini explains Dharma and its performance. He says that because the line of explanation of the meditation on Brahman and of the performance of sacrifice is of the same nature, we have the ekavākyata-unanimity-of the two Kandas of the Veda. (5) The knowledge of Brahman is anustheya and is laid down by a Vidhi, the result of which knowledge is an Apurva, though unlike the performance of the Jyotistoma which guarantees the heaven in the very next birth, the practice of the means ( knowledge and actions) of Moksa cannot guarantee Moksa in the very next birth. (6 ) Regarding the actions which directly help the knowledge of Brahman in achieving Moksa, the householder-mumuksu has more duties to perform than mumuksus belonging to other orders of life-a view given by Sankara as a Pūrvapaksa in his commentary on the Bhagavadgīta. ( 7 ) In the time of adversity (i. e., danger of losing life ) an ascetio seeker may perform official ( priestly ) duties both of a primary and a secondary nature like those performed by Usasti Cākrāyaņa. (8) The Sūtrakāra also allows a mumuksu to perform his worldy duties in addition to those duties which directly help knowledge in achieving Moksa, in order

xii

that ' whatever he has begun be not obstructed '. (9) Several religious good deeds including even those which the Sruti calls kamya karmans are to be performed by a mumuksu even after the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman till the fall of the body of the sage, because they help the knowledge directly in achieving Moksa, if they are performed by a sage with the idea of using them as a help to the knowledge. (10) The knowledge ( of Brahman ) and actions co-operate with each other in the achievement of Moksa, though, of course, the former is the principal of the two. ( 11 ) The devayana is the Path of the Progressive Advance towards Moksa ( not the Path of the Svarga ). The sampatti (' union of the senses into the mind, that of that mind into the breath, that of that breath into the Light, and that of that Light into the Supreme Deity' ) takes place in the case of a seeker advancing on the Path. And that sampatti plus utkranti ( departure of these from the body ) are necessary before a knower of Brahman attains his goal ( non-separation with Brahman ). (12) The Sūtrakāra does not want to add Devaloka, Indraloka, and Prajapatiloka to the list of worlds in the Chandogya Upanisad. ( 13 ) The discussion of sa enān Brahma gamayati ( Cha. Upa. IV 15. 5 ) should proceed on the consideration of the conductor's ability or inability to go to Brahman himself, or on the consideration ' How far can the conductor himself go', and not on the question ' whether going to Brahman is logically possible or not '. ( 14 ) The meditators on the Pranava as the Symbol of Brahman are conducted by the Samans ( not by & Vaidyuta Ativāhika ) to Brahman (neu. ) according to the Prasna Upanisad. (15) The form of the liberated soul is free from the dealings of the world ( jagadvyaparavarjam ), it is not subject to any change ( vikārāvarti ), and it is a permanent form ( tathā hi sthitim āha ). ( 16) One important fact which I have discovered is that the Sutrakara takes as authority for ( the knowledge of) Brabman only the Vedantas, i. e., the Upanisads, and not the Samhita, the Brahmana, the Aranyaka and the Khila (.e. g.,

xiii

the Khilas of the Samaveda Raņayaniya Sakha ). He does not consider the attributes of Brahman mentioned in these non-Upanisadic Srutis as worthy of discussion in his Brahmasutra, though the attributes like sambhrti and dyuvyāpti ( mentioned in the Ranayaniya Khila of the Samaveda) are really the attributes of Brahman.

2. The Importance of Brahmasūtra III. 3 :- A fact of supreme importance discovered during my study of Bra. Su. III. 2. 11-IV is that the most important portion of the. entire Brahmasutra is Pada 3 of Adhyaya III. This Pada reveals the Sutrakara's scheme of the division into three Padas, viz., Bra. Sū. I. 1, 2 and 3, of the Srutis chosen by him for discussion in those Padas. The principle underlying this division is discovered in three crucial Sutras of Bra. Su. III. 3, viz., Bra. Sū. III. 3. 11, 38-39. From these Sūtras, we learn that (i) in Bra. Sū. I. 1 the Sūtrakara discusses those Vedanta Srutis which describe the formless ( arupavat ) aspect of Brahman and which the Sutrakara would also interpret as such, (ii) that in Bra. Su. I. 2 he discusses such Vedantas as profess to describe the formless aspect, but as apply such attributes to it as would be properly applicable to the aspect with the ( human ) form called the Purusa, and which, therefore, the Sūtrakara interprets ( in Bra. Sū. I. 2 ) as dealing with the Purusa aspect, and (iii) that Bra. Sū. I. 3 is devoted to the construction of those Vedanta Srutis which profess to describe the Purusa aspect and which the Sūtrakara also proposes to interpret ( in Bra. Sū. I. 3) as dealing with the same aspect. I have given my reasons why I believe that the above scheme of the division of the Srutis into three groups, each of which finds a place in one independont Pada, is revealed in certain Sūtras of Bra. Sū. III. 3. I have also discussed the views of the Acaryas on the basis of the division of the Srutis into these three Padas. Besides the revelation of this scheme, there is another stand-point which

xiv

makes Bra. Su. III. 3 the most important part of the entire work. As interpreted by me the Sutras of Bra. Su. III. 3 proceed from Adhikaraņa to Adhikarana to present in a regular series the information about the various items of primary concern to the meditation on the two aspects of Brahman, the purusavidha and the apurusavidha, of the Sūtrakara's System. Such a series of Sutras is not to be found in any other Pada of the Brahma- sutra. I have shown the importance of this Pada by comparing the aims of the Adhikaranas one by one as interpreted by me, with the aims of the same as outlined in the bhāsyas of Sankara and Ramanuja. I think, the sequence of links of thoughts I have discovered is remarkably regular and, therefore, of great importance for the study of the work itself. It seems that the Acaryas, even Sankaracarya, had no unbroken tradition regarding the interpretation of the Sūtras in Bra. Sū. III. 3. I am at present unable to account for the loss of tradition but the fact that the tradition was lost is revealed by my discovery of the meaning of each of its Sutras. It is this Pāda ( Bra. Sū. III. 3 ) in the interpretation of which Sankaracārya himself seems to realize that he is not quite sure about what he writes, as shown by me through his own statements in his bhasya on this Pada. I have collected fourteen such statements to which I have proposed to add nineteen others from his bhasya. Also this Pada contains six tad uktam Sutras in the interpretation of which the Acaryas seem to have erred. Not only was the tradition about the interpretation of this Pada lost long before Sankaracarya, but, as I have discovered, the very text of this Pada had under- gone mutilation even before him ( vide infra). There are other portions of the Brahmasutra which are also important, e. g., Bra. Su. III. 2. 11-41 and II. 1. The former contains the tatpadarthavivecana. The latter is called ' Smrti Pada ' which in my opinion uses the word 'smrti' not in the sense of Samkhya but in that of the Gita and which, as I understand it, gives the Sutrakara's views on the various doctrines of the

Gita which are not in harmony with those of the Upanisads honoured by the Sutrakara1 himself. But the importance of this Smrti Pada is partly at least due to the place which the Gita holds for us as a religious book. The Gita, perhaps had not so much importance for the Sutrakara who seems to us to be ready to give up the Smrti which contradicted the Sruti according to the rule laid down by Jaimini. In short, the value of Bra. Su. III. 3 is immense and is derived from the help which that Pada renders in understanding the Sutrakara's own System, his own work and, I must add, his views about several Srutis of the Upanisads ( Vide 5 infra ). 3. The Reconstruction of the Text of the Brahma- sutra: -We have referred above to the mutilation of the text of Bra. Su. III. 3. It should be noticed here that in the course of my study of Bra. Su. III. 2. 11-IV, 1 have been able to suggest certain text-readings which are not found in the possession of any of the Acaryas who wrote a bhasya on the Brahmasutra. I have ventured to suggest these because I think that an intensive internal study of these Sutras would justify these inferences. The number of these is eight in all, and I request the reader to go through my arguments in favour of them given fully in Part I. Besides these text corrections, I have regrouped the Sutras into Adhikaranas. It is very well known that each of the Acaryas has an Adhikarana Patha of his own. In the course of my study I discovered certain rules which would negatively govern the establishing of an Adhikarana, e. g., ( i ) a Sūtra with ca would never begin a new Adhikarana, (ii) so also a Sütra with the statement of an argument only ( hetu, either by the particle hi or by a form of the ablative ) will never stand at the beginning of an Adhikarana, and (iii) other

1. Vide for a fuller disoussion my article " Meaning of ' Smrti' in the Brahmasutra", Indian Historical Quartely, Vol. XII, No. 4, 1936.

xvi

rules which would possibly show the characterstics of the first and the last Sutras of an Adhikarana. All tbese I have given in Chapter XII. On the strength of these rules, I have offered a reconstructed Adbikaraņa Pațha. Thus, the correction of the readings of the text itself and the regrouping of the Sutras into Adhikaranas are two features of the inquiry I have made as regards the text of the Brahmasutra. 4. The Method of Interpretation to be applied to the Brahmasutra :- Also, in the province of the method of interpretation the present work has brought to light certain new lines of appoach which, I believe, will stand any critical scrutiny. My inquiry in this direction is two-fold: (1) a study of Sankara's method of Interpretation, Sankara being taken as a representative of the Acāryas, and his bhāsya as a type of the bhasyas of the Acaryas, and ( 2) a study of the Sūtras themselves ( without the help of any bhāsya as far as possible ). I must admit that an Acarya is more than a mere interpreter. It is in the capacity of an Acarya that Sankara sometimes, after having interpreted the Sūtrakara in the proper way, openly sets aside the latter's interpretation of a Sruti and proposes a new one suitable to his own School.

I must admit this right of an Acarya, because I would have accepted even the right of an Acarya to write altogether a new Brahmasütra, Badarāyana being only the first of such Acaryas. The duties of an Acarya require more rights than those accorded to an interpreter, and one more important privilege of that position is the right to formulate a System of Vedanta ( or Samkhya or any other) Philosophy to suit the time and circumstances and the temperament of the people whom he, as an Acarya, has to guide to the Path of Liberation. This privilege implies the right of interpreting the Scripture so as to enable him to base on it the System proposed by the Acarya. This interpretation requires the ability to

xvii

harmonize mutually contradictory texts of the Scripture, in which the Scripture abounds. All the Acaryas have wonder- fully succeeded in this task, and Sankara's success is perhaps the most brilliant one. I appreciate his explanation of the contradictions in the Sruti and the Smrti and his System based upon it. I am, however, in the present book concerned with Sankara's interpretation of only the Brahmasutra, one of his authorities for his System; so, I take him here as an interpreter only, not as an Acarya. When I examine the method of Sankara's interpretation, I must say, I find many difficulties in accepting his interpretation as correct. I have tried to study very minutely his bhasya and have for the first time ventured to offer a detailed criticism of his method, pointing out the defocts underlying his interpretation. I have tried to establish several conclusions about his method, of which the following seem to me to be very important :- ( 1) No scheme about the threefold classification of topics, viz., parā vidyā, aparā vidyā, and avidyā, is intended in the Sūtras by the Sūtrakāra. ( 2) Sankara sometimes gives two opposite interpretations of the same Sruti or Smrti. ( 3 ) Sankara's vişayavākyas in his bhāsya on Bra. Su. III. 2 and 3 are mostly not correct in the sense that either no visayavakya or a different one is intended by the Sūtrakāra. ( 4 ) Sankara's interpretation of each Sūtra in Bra. Sū. III. 2 and 3 involves too many unwarranted additions to each Sūtra. And (5 ) his bhāsya contains Pūrvapaksas which are wrong, or impossible if not altogether absurd when we look at the Sruti quoted or the sense of the Sutra itself. Studying the Sutras independently of any bhasya as far as possible, I have felt that the traditional method of seven indications for deciding the sense of a text ( lingam tātparya- nirnaye ) is defective so far as the Brahmasutra ( or any other similar Sutra work ) is concerned, because the Acaryas and even the modern scholars who have mostly followed the same

xviii

method have come to divergent conclusions. I have, there- fore, made ten practical suggestions which may be added to those made by Dr. Ghate. These suggestions, I believe, are made here for the first time on the grounds of a critical, comparative and philological study of the Sutras. Of these, the following may be simply enumerated here as being more important :- ( 1) The expression 'tad uktam' which occurs about eight times in the Brahmasutra ( six times in Bra. Su. III. 2. 11-IV ) refers only to some of the Sutras in the Brahmasutra, that precede the partioular Sutra with the expression ( tad uktam ), and not to other works like the Jaimini Sutra, the Upanisads, the Gautama Dharma Sutra, the Bhagavata and other Puranas, as supposed by Sankara and other Acaryas. ( 2) The bahuvrîhi compounds, ānandādayah, satyā- dayah, āyatanādayah ( Bra. Sū. III. 3. 11, 38-39 ) refer respectively to Bra. Su. I. 1, 2 and 3, and suggest the scheme of three divisions of the visayavakyas discussed in those three Padas. Similarly, all other bahuvrîhi compounds, e. g., sabdādayah ( Bra. Sū. III. 3. 58 ), etc., should be explained as referring to the Sūtras themselves and not to any other list of attributes or arguments mentioned either in the Upanisads or elsewhere ( except a compound like codunadi in Bra. Su. III. 3. 1 which refers to a well established rule in the Jai. Sū. ). ( 3) On critical grounds I have further suggested quite new visayavākyas in the case of several Sutras. Out of these, I am quite sure of the correctness of about twenty visayavākyas suggested by me for the first time. These striking cases I have enumerated in Chap. XI of Part II. If they are really correct, they would help a great deal in deciding the nature of the Sutrakara's System. ( 4 ) Three of my suggestions ( Nos. 4, 5 and 8) are based upon a philological inquiry, such as a study of the words, synonyms and mutually contrary terms. Thus, I suggest that words like pradhāna, purusa, sthāna, upasamhāra, etc., etc., must be studied from all the Sutras in which they occur. Studying synonyms, I find that arupavat and suksma,

xix

pradhana and mukhya, etc., are synonyms. Arupa in arupavat finds a contrary term in 'rupa' in 'rupopanyasa'. The study of these last two terms gives a very important piece of information about the exact nature of the two aspects of Brahman according to the Sutrakara. (5 ) Sutras being elliptical by the very nature of their style require to be completed in sense by the addition of some words. I have tried to explain in each case what additions can be made to each Sutra adhering strictly to the context at the same time. In several of these ( undoubtedly at least in eight ) cases a remarkably correct conclusion seems to me to have been arrived at. Attaching the same importance to the context, I have made a practical suggestion about the interpretation of the work, that words like atah, pūrva, tad, tadā, anyathā, etc., etc., must be interpreted in strict consonance with the context. I have proposed a fresh interpretation for several Sutras, adopting this suggestion as a rule of critical interpretation, and I believe that there are not a few cases in which my explanation, given for the first time, will be acceptable to the reader. (5) The Sūtrakära's Interpretation of certain Srutis :- One more direction in which my inquiry has led me to discover noteworthy results is the Sūtrakara's interpretation of several Srutis. The consideration of this question is more closely allied with the Sutrakara's System rather than with the interpretation of the Brahmasutra itself. But so far as the Brahmasutra deals with the Srutis, I have to discuss the latter from the standpoint of the Sutrakara, if their meaning can be made out from the several Sūtras. I have already noticed that by " Sruti " the Sūtrakara, for his purpose, understands only the Vodantas ( not the Mantra and the other Srutis ). ( a ) The most essential piece of information discovered on this point is that according to the Sutrakara the Udanisads describe the personal aspect of Brahman with the attributes

Xx

of the impersonal and vice versa ( Bra. Sū. III. 3. 37-42 ). It is on this fact that the Sutrakara bases his doctrine of two aspects of absolutely equal status and gives a complete option of choice to a mumuksu to select either of the two, the immediate goal being the same. The Sutrakara, according to his own statements, as discovered and interpreted by me for the first time, says that the Srutis discussed in Bra. Sū. I. 2 and explained by him as referring to the sākāra or purusavidha aspect may be optionally taken by a mumuksu as dealing with the nirākāra or apurusavidha aspect, because they profess to describe the nirākāra, but do so with attributes some of which qualify the sakara. Similarly, he holds that the Srutis he has explained in Bra. Su. I. 3 as dealing with the sākara may be optionally taken by a mumuksu as dealing with the nirākara because they profess to deal with the sākāra, but do so with attributes some of which properly belong to the nirākara. The Sūtrakara has refuted several important Purvapaksas raised against this theory of his interpretation of the Srutis and against his doctrinal views based on the same. These Purvapaksas and their refutations by the Sūtra- kara cannot be recounted here for want of space. (b ) I have shown that there are Sūtras in Bra. Sū. III. 3, which definitely mean that the aksara-Srutis which describe Brahman negatively ( neti neti Srutis ) are ' not useful for meditation ' ( ādhyānūya prayojanābhavāt ) on either aspect according to the Sūtrakara ( Bra. Su. III. 3. 14; also see III. 3. 33 ). (c) According to a Pūrvapaksa ( of a Srauta Vedanta System ? ) there are several Srutis, particularly Katha Upanisad III. 10-11, which describe the Purusa or personal aspect as higher than the Avyakta or the impersonal aspect of Brahman. (d-e) The Sūtrakara refutes an opponent's view which is, as I have shown, based upon the Mandukya Upanisad, that Brahman is really affected by the states of waking, dreaming and deep

xxi

sleep as also by the fourth state, and that because Brahman is thus affected, it is both rūpavat or sākara and arupavat or nirakara. This view is opposed by the Sutrakara on the strength of the Chandogya Upanisad which, in the opinion of the Sutrakara, says that Brahman is unaffected by all these states. Another Purvapaksa, raised on the strength of the Mandukya Upanisad, holds that Brahman undergoes vrddhi and hrasa because it is influenced by the three states and it is refuted by the Sutrakara by quoting the Chandogya Upanisad to show that the vrddhi and hrasa of Brahman are due to the self-concealment of Brahman in its effects which are also Brahman. (f-g ) The Brhadaranyaka Sruti wbich distinguishes the Prajapatiloka from Brahman itself is, according to the Sūtra- kara, to be interpreted in the light of the Chandogya Upanisad and the Prajapatiloka is the sākara aspect of the Kārana Brahman itself and not a Karya of Brahman. Similarly, the Brhadaranyaka Sruti, stating that the vital airs and the senses of the knower of Brahman do not depart when the latter attains to Brahman, is according to the Sūtrakāra to be interpreted in the light of the Chandogya Upanisad which, aguin, according to the Sūtrakāra, describes the depature ( utkrānti ) of the sage along with the senses, etc., when the latter leaves the gross body for his journey to the nirakara Brahman. There are several other very important Srutis or Vedantas on the interpretation of which my study of the Brahmasūtra has, for the first time, thrown & flood of light, even a brief summary of which cannot be given here. Those Srutis will be found in Parts I and II. In a few Sūtras I have not been able to discover the visayavakyas, though the sense of the Sūtras derived from the context assures me of very useful information regarding the interpretation of the Srutis referred to. If one approaches the Brahmasutra from the Srutis, after dividing the latter into the four subjects according to the four

xxii

Adhyayas of the Brahmasūtra, and if he tries to make out what interpretation the Sūtrakara gives to these Srutis, instead of going from the Sutras to the Srutis, I am sure, he would discover very valuable and fresh information. There are several Smrtis particularly from the Bhagavadgita, which the Sutrakara understands and explains in his own way, or rejects if they openly contradict a clear statement of the Sruti ( e. g., the time-restriction for a Yogin to get Moksa in Bha. Gi. VIII; Cf. Bra. Sū. IV. 2. 21 ), just as he clearly rejects several Srutis if the latter directly oppose such honoured Sruti-texts as the Chandogya Upanisad ( e. g., the priyasirast- vadi Sruti in Tai. Upa. II. 5), though generally he interprets the Srutis ( e. g., of the so-called Earlier Metrical Upanisads ) in the light of his interpretation of the Chandogya Upanisad. We have already seen above that very important texts like those of the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad about the non-departure ( absence of utkranti ) of the Brahmajnanin's subtle body, and about the Prajapatiloka, have been interpreted by the Sūtrakāra in the light of the Chandogya Upanisad. I may sum up the merits of Badarayana by repeating what I have said at the end of Chaptar I of Part II :- Badarayana's main work was that of constructing a Vedanta Darsana by presenting a system acceptable to the followers of all the Upanisads, i. e., of the Upanisads of all tho Sakhas of all the Vedas. His views seem to have been like those of a balanced thinker. He did not insist that the entire Veda taught only Dharma ( the Sacrifice ) or only Brahman. While Jaimini seems to have held that Dharma was the only Precept of the whole Veda, Badarayana believed that Brahman only was the Usufruction ( phalam ) because Brahman is declared to be the cause of Dharma, the Inspirer and the Master of Dharma *. This belief seems to have inspired * पूर्व तु बादरायणो हेतुव्यपदेशान् (Bra. Su. III. 2. 41). Vide my inter- pretation in Part I.

xxiii

Badarayana to offer a thesis about Brahman as the sole goal of the Upanisads only. He carefully avoided a confliot with Jaimini's School by insisting that Brahman was to be known only from the Upanisads, and by rejecting the view that the Purvakanda was to be interpreted in the light of the Upanisads. Thus, his view stands high above the two extremes, one of Jaimini himself and the other of a staunch Vedantin who is not less staunch than that staunch Karmakandin. Again, in interpreting the Upanisads he adopted the well established method of Jaimini and improved upon it where necessary, as when he says that even if in one Sakha of euch Veda the samyoga, rūpa, codanā and ākhya of Brahman are the same, he would conclude that Brahman is the topic of all the Vedantas. This shows that he was not a blind follower of the method of Jaimini. He used his own intelligence in applying that method to the Upanisads. The fact that Badarayana rejects a Pūrvapaksa, not accepting the Purusa as an aspect of Brahman, shows that in accepting the arupavat conception of Brahman and in so far siding with the Oldest Prose Upanisads he was not blind to the special contribution of the Earlier Metrical Upanisads and the Bhagavadgita, viz., the superpersonal conception of Brahman. In so far as he rejects the Purvapaksa, believing in the superiority of the Purusa over the Avyakta, and argues that the Upanișads 'deny a second reality', he gives a deuth blow to the dualistic tendency of the Earlier Metrical Upanisads and the Bhagavadgita, and saves the Vedanta Darsana once and for all from becoming another Samkhya ( or dualistic ) School with two conscious Principles, one nirakara and the other sakaru. Moreovor he has tried to be logical as fas as possible since an appeal to the word of the Sruti is generally a second argument with himt. Only in the case of an open conflict between rational argument and the revealed Scripture, he has to say that " For

t E. g. Bra. Sū. III. 2. 39, III 4. 46, etc.

XxİT

a believer in the Scripture, the express word of a text is the foundation of his belief and is more important than a rational argument "$ But when such circumstances do not arise, he is a free thinker and does not hesitate to reject such Sruti texts as appear inconsistent with his System, and accepts only such as are consistent with the same. Thus, he rejects the priyasirastvadi Sruti, because it implies a difference of degrees in the Bliss within Brahman itself and the Mandūkya Upanisad because the latter believes in the waking and other states as really affecting Brahman. Since he rejects even these Srutis, it would be no wonder if he is found to reject, or to interpret in his own way, a Smrti like the Gita, whenever the latter is in confliot with his System drawn from the Sruti. Thus, he rejects the view of the Bhagavadgita which holds that the knower of Brahman returns to this world if he dies during the southern course of the Sun ( daksinayana ). He says that this rule applies only to the Yogin and that it is only a Smarta rule, not a Srauta one. It is due to this boldness, on the part of the Sūtrakara, of accepting literally a Sruti though it may be inconsistent with pratyaksa and anumana, and of rejecting a Sruti if it be contradictory to his own System of Vedanta, that while reading his work we are spared the intellectual jugglery of words which we often find in the commentaries of the Acaryas who try to effect a compromise even when the three Prasthanas are in open conflict with one another. An example of this is supplied to us by Sankara's effort to interpret Bha. Gi. VIII. 24-25 as referring to the conductor-deities though the verses clearly speak of the time-deities as the Sutrakara distinctly states. On the whole, the Sutrakara's system is based upon a bold and straightforward interpretation of the Scripture and he seems to have been a great saviour of the Vedanta School, who saved it, on the one hand, from being divided into so many sects and, on the other, from being plunged into a dualistic philosophy. ¢ E. g. Bra. Sū. II. 1. 27.

XXV

While I differ from Sankaracarya and other Acaryas regard- ing the interpretation of Badarayana's work and his doctrines, I must admit, as I have already done above, that my interpretation, exposition and expression cannot always be free from errors inspite of my efforts to avoid them. Though the conclusions drawn here are faithful to the original text within my own capacities, I cannot promise to stick to them under all cir- cumstances, having myself arrived at them after revising them from time to time. Bearing in mind these facts I offer my inter- pretation of Badarayana's work, as a humble student and student only, and crave the indulgence of sympathetic readers ( ahetukasnehas) in the following words of Madhusudana Sarasvati, the great saint and seeker after truth, uttered with reference to his commentary on the Gita :- वचो यद्गीताख्यं परमपुरुषस्यागमगिरां रहस्यं तद्व्याख्यामनतिनिपुणः को वितनुताम्। अहं त्वेतद्वाव्यं यदिह कृतवानस्मि कथम- व्यहेतुस्नेहानां तदपि कुतुकायैव महताम्। (गूढार्थदीपिका on Bha. Gi. XVIII. 66).

A CRITIQUE OF THE BRAHMASŪTRA

PART I

Interpretation of the Brahmasūtra

CHAPTER I

SECTION I

Brahman unaffected by the Waking and other States. Two kinds of Srutis describe Brahman in all its ( four ) States.

Sutras III. 2. 11-19

(११) न स्थानतोऽपि परस्योभयलिङ्गं सर्वत्र हि। (१२) भेदान्नेति चेभ प्रत्येकमतद्वचनात् । (१३) अपि चैवमेके। (१४) अरूपवदेव हि तत्प्रधानत्वात्। (१५) प्रकाशवच्चावैय्यर्थ्यात्*। (१६ ) आह च तन्मात्रम् । (१७) दर्शयति चाथो अपि स्मर्यते। (१८) अत एव चोपमा सूर्यकादिवत्। (१९) अम्बुवदग्रहणात्तु न तथात्वम् ।

Sankara's predevossor begins a new Adhikarana here.

TRANSLATION

THE two kinds of sentences cannot refer to (the Highest One ) also from the stand-point of the states, because [ both the kinds of sentences refer to It J in all [ the states ]. 11

If it be argued, " [ The two kinds of sentences do ] not [ refer to the Highest One in all the states ] because of the difference [ of the states ], " we reply, " No. [ The difference of the states does not affect the Highest One ] because with reference to every [state] there is a statement contrary to that [i. e. the difference of states affecting the Highest One]." 12

Moreover, so say the followers of a certain Branch. 13

[ Both kinds of sentences refer to the Highest One ] because It is formless only ( arūpavad eva) in so far as that [ arūpavat aspect ] is the principal | aspect of Brahman ]. 14

[ Pürvapaksa ]-" [ Brahman is ] like 'light' as well, because it should not be meaningless. 15

And the Sruti declares It to be only that [ i. e. light ]. 16

And the Sruti shows it and the Smrti also mentions it. 17

And only on account of this [ we find ] the comparison [ of Brahman ] like the one with an aggregate of suns, etc." 18

[ Siddhānta ]-" But Brahman has not the characteristics of things like the above ( i. e. the sun, etc. ), because of Its impossibility of being caught ( i. e. reflected ) as [ the sun etc. are reflected ] in water." 19

NOTES

Sūtra 11

1. 7-This Pada ( Bra. Su. III. 2) seems to deal with the different states, जागरित, स्वप्न and सुुप्त, of the individual soul and of the Supreme Being. The first Sutra (irva सृष्टिराह हि।) refers to the Sruti "संध्यं तृतीय स्वप्नस्थानम् " (Br. Upa. IV. 3. 9 ). Therefore, ena in this Sutra means the states of जागरित, स्वप्न and सुषुप्. The word स्थान is similarly used in the Mandukya Upanisad ( जागरितस्थानः, स्वप्नस्थानः, Egate: Ma. Upa. 3-5 ), and, as will be shown below, it is very likely that this Sutra refers to that Upanisad. ( See ena in Sūtra III. 2. 34 also. ) If we interpret the word enr in this sense, we have not to suspect this discussion of the Supreme Self ( Bra. Su. III. 2. 11-41 ) to be an interpolation because we can then say that Pada II of Adhyaya III deals with the states of the individual soul and those of the Supreme Soul.1 2. arfq-The Sutrakara here implies the denial of the application of the two kinds of sentences to the Supreme Being from some other stand-point than that of the states of Brahman. afa, therefore, refers to a qaqa which tried to explain the Eufags of the Supreme Being, by some way other than that of referring them to the states of Brahman. What this other method of explaining the suufarrs was, can be guessed possibly from the expression उभयलिङ्गम् Some opponents seem to have argued that there were two types of sentences desoribing Brahman, and therefore these two types referred to two different Brahmans. The arsqaa Brahman was different from the रूपवत् Brahman, and the अरूपवत् Srutis and the रूपवत् Srutis described these two different Brahmans. There is a

2. Vide Belvelkar, Shree Gopal Basu Mallik Lectures on Vedanta Philosophy, Page 145.

4 INTERPRETATION

similar qaqer in Bra. Su. III. 3. 1-4, which seems to hold that the Vedantas teach not one, but two different Brahmans.2 See also the पूर्वपक्ष in Bra. Su. III. 2. 31-37 which holds that there is another Brahman beyond the अव्यक ब्रह्मन् and which the Sutrakara refutes by pointing to the अन्यप्रतिषेधश्रुतिs, i. e., the Srutis which deny the existence of a second Brahman ( Sutra III. 2. 36 ). So, अपि seems to imply the refutation of a पूर्वपक्ष believing that there were two Brahmans, one अरूपवत् and another रूपवत् and that the रूपवत् cnlled also पुरुष was higher than the अरूपयत् called अव्यक्त. See also the पूर्वपक्ष and its refutation in Bra. Su. III. 2. 26-27.

For the arguments of the पूर्वपक्ष believing पुरुष to be higher than अव्यक्त, see our notes on Sutra III. 2. 31.

3. उभयलिङ्गम्-Sutra 14 makes mention of the अरूपवत् aspect of Brahman implying at the same time its रूपवत् aspect. It signifies that अरूपवत् is the principal (प्रधान) and implies that रूपवत् is the suhordinate aspect. Also Sutra III. 2. 27 indicates that ब्रह्मन being designated by tuo names is like अहि and कुण्डल. We, therefore, suggest that उभयलिङ should mean sentences which describe Brahman as arsqaa and those which describe Brahman as रूपवल्.3 The Sutrakara seems to speak of अरूपवत् and रूपवत् rather than निर्गुण and सगुण Brahman. Thus we have to distinguish between Srutis which desoribe ब्रह्मन् as अरूपनत्, e. g., like अस्थूलमनण्वहस्वमदीर्घम् (Br. Upa. III. 8. 8) and Srutis which describe ब्रह्मन् as रूपवत् like अभ्निमूर्धा चक्षुषी चन्द्रसूर्यो दिश: श्रोत्रे वाग्विवृताश्च वेदाः। वायुः प्राणो हृदयं विश्वमस्य पद्भ्यां पृथिवी होष सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा ॥ (Mu. Upa. II. 1. 4. Cf. the प्रादेशमात्र वैश्वानर आत्मन् in Cha. Upa. V. 12-18).

4. Perhaps this qaga can be traced to the Mahabharata Aupanisada Schools. See P. M. Modi, Akgara: A forgotten chapter in the history of Indian Philosophy, Chapter III. 3. Vide "The scheme of Bra. Su. I. 1-3. A Rapprochement," by P. M. Modi, Bombay University Journal, Vol. IV, Part III. Nov. 1935,

BRA. So. III. 2. 11-19 5

Aocording to the Sutrakara अस्थूलमनण्वहस्वमदीर्घम् is not in conflict with सर्वकर्मा सर्वकाम: सर्वगन्धः सर्वरसः (Cha. Upa. III. 14. 2 ), because both these types of Srutis refer to both the aspects of Brahman the अरूपवत् and the रूपवत्. Neither of the two aspects is निर्गण " absolutely without attributes." 4. स्थानतः परस्य उभयलिङ्गम् -- This seems to be a reference to a view like the one expressed in Mandūkya Upanisad, according to which the अरूपवत् sentences would be applicable to the चतुर्थस्थान Brahman and the रूपवत् ones to the जागरितस्थान, स्वप्नस्थान and सुषुप्तस्थान Brahman (Ma. Upa.9-11). According to that Upanisad, the individual soul and the Supreme Soul have each of them three states जागरित, स्वप्न, and सुषुप्त, and corresponding to these three states the जीव is called विश्व, तैजस, and प्राज्ञ, while the Supreme Being is called विराट्, हिरण्यगर्भ and (अन्तर्यामी) ईश्वर. Beyond these three is a fourth state which is called तुरीय (but) which transends the above three states. In that state the sra and ब्रह्मन् become identified. The उभयलिङs of the Srutis are to be explained as referring to Brahman in different states. The rupavat Srutis will refer to Brahman in the waking, dreaming and deep sleep states described in Mandūkya Upa. 3-6 and the aripavat Srutis to Brahman in the fourth state described in Ma. Upa. 7. It will be in agreement with this P'arvapaksa that in Bra. Su. I. 2. 14 the Sntrakara points to the mention of the dreaming and deep sleep states in the visuyavakya as an argument to prove that the Sruti in question deals with the Purusa or the sākāra aspect.

5. -The Sutrakara refutes the above view of explaining the two' kinds of sentences as referring to Brahman in different states. As distinguished from this Purvapaksa the Sutrakara's Siddhanta will be that Brahman is both sakara and nirakara in all the four states.

6. Bra. Su. III. 3. 37-व्यतिहारो विशिषन्ति हीतरवत्।

6 INTERPRETATION

6. सर्वत्र हि-He gives an argument why he rejects the view of स्थानतः परस्य उभयलिङ्गम्. He says that the उभयलिङ्रम् is applicable to Brahman in all the ( four ) states. "सर्वत्र" will according to the context mean सर्वेषु स्थानेषु.

7. According to Sankara this Sutra discusses the question whether ब्रह्मान् is सविशेष or निर्विशेष, because there are both the सविशेष and निर्विशेष श्रुतिs. We have suggested above that the Sutrakara seems to distinguish between Srutis referring to रूपवत् and अरूपवत् aspects of Brahman, both of which possess विशोषs or गुणs. Moreover, the Sutrakara seems here to discuss how both the Srutis can refer to Brahman. He does not seem to favour Sankara's view that one type of Srutis is less important or less valid than the other. "उभयलिङ्ग श्रुत्यनु- प्रहादुभयलिङ्गमेव ब्रह्म " is not the पूर्वपक्ष as Saiikara says but it is the सिद्धान्त.

अपि indicates according to Sankara the inclusion of "स्वतः एव". We have shown that certain Sutras give a पूर्वपक्ष according to which there is another Brahman higher than the अव्यक्त (or अक्षर) ब्रह्मन्, e. g., Bra. Su. III 2. 31; so, it apperars to us that अपि refers to that पूर्वपक्ष in those Sutras. Sankara's पूर्वपक्ष is not supported by any पूर्वपक्ष Sutras. Rather Sanikara's argument "न ह्लोकं वस्तु स्वतः एव रूपादिविशेषोपेतं तद्विपरीतं चेत्यवधारयितुं शक्यं, विरोधात्।" is contradicted by the Sutras themselves, e. g., III. 2. 14, III. 2. 27 ( उभयव्यपदेशात्वहि कुण्डलवत्. See Sankara's own Bhasya on it ). The Sutrakara's arguments as to how Brahman itself is to be looked upon as अरूपवत् and रूपयत् are given in Bra. Su. III. 3. 37-52.

"स्थानतः" means according to Sankara "पृथिव्यादुपाधियो- गात्." This interpretation of the word स्थान is responsible for the suspicion of several scholars as to the genuineness of the discussion of Brahman in this Pada. We have shown above that "स्थानतः" means the जागरित, स्वप्न and सुषुप्त स्थानS, and that the Sutra seems to refer to a view like the one given

BRA. So. III. 2. 11-19 7

in the Ma. Upa. Dr. Belvelkar also takes ana in the sense of states but the quotation given by him (Basu Mallik Lectures, P. 165-166 ) does not seem to substantiate the view.

According to Sankara, the refutation of 'स्थानतोऽपि' leads to the necessity of "अन्यतरलिङ्गपरिग्रह" and to the inference "अतश्चान्यतरलिङ्ग परिग्रहेऽपि समस्त विशेषरहितं निर्विकल्पकमेव ब्रह्म प्रतिपत्तव्यं न तद्विपरीतम्." This inference is not even suggested in the Sūtra, because the Sūtrakara seems to explain Brahman in such a way that both the types of sentences bo applicable to Brahman at the same time, in the same state. 'सर्वत्र हिं' is an argument not for rojecting the सविशेष aa as Sankara understands it, but for proving that "न स्थानतोऽपि परस्य उभयलिङ्गम्," as we have shown. "सर्वत्र" is explained by Saikara as "ब्रह्मस्वरूपप्रतिपादनपरेपु वाक्येषु" but from the context it seoms to mean " सर्वेषु स्थानेपु " in all the four states.

And, lastly, in consistency with the context we should add " (सर्वेंषु स्थानेपु ) परस्य उभयलिङ्गम्" instead of " (ब्रह्मस्वरूप प्रतिपादन परेषु वाक्येषु 'अशव्दमस्पर्शमरूपमव्ययम्' इत्येषमादिषु) अपास्त- समस्तविशेषमेव व्रह्मोपदिश्यते, "as Sankara adds, whereby Sankara contradiets his own assertion ( सन्ति उभयलिङ्गा: श्रुतयः ब्रह्मविषयाः) at the begining of his commentary on this very Sūtra.

Sūtra 12

8. "न, भेदात्" should mean "परस्य उभयलिङ्गं सर्वेषु स्थानेषु न, स्थानानां भेदात् परस्य उभयलिङ्गम्." The स्थानs differ and, there- fore, the twofold sentences can be applicable to Brahman as referring to the different states of Brahman. Thus, the Srutis about the रूपवत् Brahman would be applicable to जागरितस्थान, स्वप्नस्थान and सुषुप्तस्थान Brabman, and those about the अरूपवत् Brahman to चतुर्थस्थान Brahman. 9. प्रत्येकम् would mean 'in each of these states' Cf. सर्वत्र in Sutra 11 with प्रत्येकम् here.

8 INTERPRETATION

अतदूचनाल् means because there is a statement in the Sruti to the contrary. Thus, प्रत्येकमतद्वचनात् means 'because there is a statement in the Srutis that Brahman does not differ in each of three or four states.' अतद्वचनात should mean अभेदवचनात्. The Sutrakara seems to refer to Cha. Upa. VIII. 7-12. This is the famous dialogue between प्रजापति and इन्द्र whom विरोचन accompanies in the first stage only. The Sutrakara has proved in Bra. Sū. I. 3. 14-21 that this passage deals with Brahman; Sūtra I. 3. 18 refers to Cha. Upa. VIII. 12. In this passage it is proved that ब्रह्मन् the पुरुष in the eye who is अपहृतपाष्मन्, सत्यसंकल्प etc. is the same in the waking, dream- ing and deep sleep states ( Cha. Upa. VIII. 9, 10 and 11 respectively ). In each of these states it is shown that the Supreme Being remains the same. Thus प्रत्येकम् (=प्रत्येकस्थानम्), अतछूचनात् (= अभेद्वचनात्) seems to refer to Cha. Upa. VIII. 7-11. Cf. also एष उ एवेषु सर्वेषु अन्तेषु परिह्वव्यायते (in all the states, अन्त = a state as in जागरितान्त, बुद्धान्त ... ). Also in Cha. Upa. VIII. 11. 3 Prajapati tells Indra that Brahman is the same (नो एवान्यत्रैतस्मात्) when not in any of the three states i. e. when in the fourth state. Indra stays for five years more to get this knowledge. The same becomes mainfest in its own form when without a body ( Cha. Upa. VIII. 12. 1-3).

10. Sankara takes 'a' to mean the denial of his conolusion in Sutra 11. i.c., "न निर्विकल्पकमेकलिङ्कमेव ब्रह्म." But on the strength of the context the Strakara is shown by us to have meant " परस्य उभयलिङ्गं सर्वेषु स्थानेषु." So, this seems to have been denied by the पूर्तपक्ष by " न, भेदात्."

'भेदात्' is interpreted by Saikara as "भिन्ना हि प्रतिषिदयं ब्रह्मण: आकारा: उपदिश्यन्ते।" and he refers भेदात् to the various विधाs of the Upnisads. भेदात्, according to the context, should refer to the difference in Brahman due to the difference of states, as shown above, and in that case the reference would be to the Maudukya Upanisad passage mentioned in Note 1 above.

BRA. So. III. 2. 11-19 9

प्रत्येकम् is interpreted by Saiikara to mean "प्रत्युपाधिभेदम्", this is cosistent with his explanation of FeTa in the preceding Sutra but inconsistent with the general sense of the Pada and the probable reference in this Sutra to the Chandogya Upanisad, according to which प्रत्येकम् should refer to प्रतिस्थानम् "in each state. " Sankara rightly explains अतद्वचनात् as अभेदवचनात् but it should be the arra of Brahman in all the four states taken singly.

11. It should be noted that if the above interpretation of Sutras 11 and 12 be correct, we have here an important piece of information as to how the Mandukya Upanisad and Cha. Upa. VIII. 7-12 were interpreted in the days of the Sūtrakara. It seems that the four states described in the Mandūkya and the Cha. Upa. were believed to be real, and not illusionary, but while the Mandūkya Upanisad was taken to mean that Brahman really differed according as It was in the three states or in the fourth and therefore it may be said to refer to the doctrine of difference in Brahman in these states; the Cha. Upa. was interpreted to understand the states to be not at all affecting Brahman or, in other words, as asserting Brahman to be the same in all its (real) states, thus demonstrating the doctrine of the sameness of Brahman in all the states. And this sameness means two-foldness. The भेद asserted by the पूर्वपक्ष in Sutra 12 was a reality ( not appearance) and therefore the Cha. Upa. passage really differed from the Mandukya Upanisad in the doctrine about the states of Brahman.5

Sutra 13

12. अपि चैवमेके-This seoms to be a reference to a Sruti supporting the statement of Sutra 11. The qaqa's argument " ara " in Sutra 12 was refuted by the Sūtrakara in प्रत्येकमतद्वचनात् in the same Sutra (12). Now, in Sutra 13 he

13. As a result of this conclusion, the Gaudapada Karikas on the Mandukya Upanisad do not seem to correctly represent the sense of the Upanisad.

10 INTERPRETATION

supports his own position by referring to a Sruti which says that उभयलक belongs to the Supreme Being, in all states at all times. Thus, the Sutrakara refers to a Sruti which says that that same Brahman which is अरूपवत् is also simultaneously रूपवत्. The reference is probably to Sve. Upa. III. 16-20 :- सर्वतः पाणिपादं तत्सर्वतोऽक्षिशिरोमुखम्। सर्वतः श्रुतिमल्लोके सर्वमावृत्य तिष्ठति ॥ १६ ॥ सर्वेन्द्रियगुणाभासं सर्वेन्द्रियविवर्जितम् । सर्वस्य प्रभुमीशानं सर्वस्य शरणं बृहत्॥ १७ ॥ + + + + अपाणिपादो जवनो ग्रहीता पशयत्यचक्षुः स शणोत्यकर्णः । स वेत्ति वेद्यं न च तस्यास्ति वेत्ता तमाहुरउयं पुरुषं महान्तम् ॥ १९ ।। अणोरणीयान्महतो महीयान् Thus, the same Brahman is both सर्वतः पाणिपाद and अपाणिपाद. In other words, Brahman is at the same time both अरूपवत् and रूपवस् without any reference to the different states. 13. Sankara understands this Sūtra also as an answer to the पूर्वपक्ष "न, भेदात्" in Sutra 12. But this seems to be impossible if we look to the method of the Sūtrakara. First of all he makes a proposition, next he gives a qaver and its refutation, and then he generally gives a reference to a Sruti in support of his proposition. Thus, we find, Bra. Sū. III. 3. 1 contains the proposition, Sutra III. 3. 2-3 give the qaqar and its refutation, and Sūtra III. 3.4 gives the reference to the Sruti supporting the Sutrakara's proposition. In the present case Sūtra III. 2. 13 corresponds to Sūtra III. 3. 4 so far as the method is concerned. For this reason Sutra 13 should be taken as referring to a text supporting the Sutrakara's statement in Sūtra 11.6 Sankara gives a quotation from the Katha Upanisad and then adds "तथाऽन्येऽपि " "and so say the followers of another

6. Refer to Chapter IX of Part II.

BRA. SO. IIL 2. 11-19 11

Branch also". Generally the word 'aa' in the Brahmasutra shows a reference to a Sruti the like of which is not found in any other Branch of the Veda ( See a in Sutras III. 4. 42, aar in IV. 1. 17, etc. ). If this is the convention adopted by the Sutrakara for proceeding with his argumentation, if this be correct, then both the Srutis quoted by Sankara are out of place here. Sūtra 14

14. As this Sūtra contains f and as it follows a reference ( to a Sruti ) made by the Sūtrakāra (in Sūtra 13 ), it would be likely that this Sūtra is intended to explain that Sruti. When a rational argument ( Sutra 14 refers to no Sruti but presents only an argument ) follows an assertive statement in a Sūtra, that argument seems to have been used to substantiate the Sutrakara's view expressed in that statement. But when an argument follows a reference to a Sruti, the former seems to have been intended to explain primarily the latter, though ultimately it would also explain the main pro- position of the Strakara also. 14a. The Sruti referred to under Sūtra 13 says that Brahman is simultaneously both अरूपवत् and रूपवत्. It is सर्वतः पाणिपादम् and अपाणिपाद: etc., etc. In Sutra 14 the Sutrakara says that this is possible because Brahman is chiefly asqaa and secondarily svaa. In other words, if Brahman were both avaa and arsgaa in the literal sense, there would be a self-con- tradiction and then the Sruti in question would not be rationally explained. But such is not the case. Brahman is only अरूपवत्, because it is chiefly अरूपवत्. And this is the inter- pretation of the Sruti ( Sve. Upa. III. 16-20 ). So on the strength of the Sruti one can say without being inconsistent that Brahman is simultaneously both अरूपवत् and रूपवत्, as the Sutrakara himself does in Sūtra 11. 14b. The Sruti ( Sev. Upa. III. 16-20 ) declares Brahman to be both सर्वतः पाणिपाद and अपाणिपाद; and the Sutrakara has

12 INTERPRETATION

stated that It is primarily अपाणिपाद. There was a Vedanta tradition in the days of the Sutrakara which was inclined to take this Sruti as declaring Brahman to be primarily suaa ( See Bra. Sū. III. 20. 31-36 ) and thereby probably asserting that Brahman is only "स्थानतः उभयलिङ्गम् " i. e., different states of Brahman explain the रूपवत् and अरूपवत् sentences about Brahman, viz., the रूपवत् sentences should describe Brahman in the जागरित, स्वप्न and सुबुप्तस्थानs, and the अरूपवत् ones in चतुर्थस्थान. This view is explained and refuted in Sūtras III. 2. 15-19. 15. अरूपघत्-This is a very important Sutra for under- standing the Sutrakara's conception of Brahman with the help of his own terminology. In Bra. Su. I. 2. 23. (रूपोपन्यासाच्), the Sūtrakara argues that the topie of Mu. Upa. I. 1. 6. is gaT because of the presentation of His form in Mu. Upa, II. 1. 4. In this Sutra (III. 2. 14) we are told that Brahman is अरूपवत् qa. Thus, a doubt would arise as to the Sutrakara's view regarding the रूपवत्ता or अरूपवत्ता of Brahman. That doubt is solved by the present Sutra. Brahman, according to the Sūtrakara, is both अरूपवत् and रूपवत्, but the अरूपवत् aspect is the principal aspect and therefore Brahman can be said to be asuaa only. By using the expression "उभयलिङ्ग " (Bra. St. III. 2. 11), the Sutrakara has aduitted that Brahman is both अरूपवत् and रूपवत्. 15a. $4-It is clear that according to the Sūtrakara the Supreme Being is both अरूपवत् (Sutra III. 3. 14) and रूपवत् (Stra 1. 2. 23-रूपोपन्यासाच्च।). The रूप of Brahman which is meant in these expressions (अरूपवत्, रूपोपन्यास, etc. ) is the रूप of पुरुष. We have shown elsewhere? that in Bra. Su. I. 3 the Sutrakara's chief argument in deciding the subject of a Sruti ( i. e., deciding whether the Sruti in question deals with the अरूपवत् or रूपवत् aspect of Brahman ) is that the Sruti mentions the word पुरुष. Thus, मुक्तोपसृप्यव्यपदेश (Sutra I. 3.2) means पुरुषव्यपदेश in तथा विद्वान्नामरूपाद्विमुक्त: परात्परं पुरुषमुपैति दिव्यम् (Mundaka Upa. III 2. 8. ), ईक्षतिकर्मव्यपदेश ( Sutra I. 3. 13) is 7. Vide Appendix on Bra. Su. I. 3.

BRA. SŪ. III. 2. 11-19 13

पुरुषव्यपदेश in स एतस्माजीवघनात्परात् परं पुरिशयं पुरुषमीक्षते (Pra. Upa. V. 5 ), शब्द (Sutra I. 3. 24 ) refers to पुरुष in अङूगुष्ठमात्र: पुरुष: ( Katha Upa. IV. 13-14). The रूपवस् aspect is referred to by पुरुषविद्या in पुरुषविद्यायामिव चतरेषामनास्ननानात् (Bra. Su. III. 3. 24; vide our interpretation ). Again in Bra. Sū. I. 2. 26 (शब्दादि्यः ......... पुरुषमपि चैनमधीयते।) the Sutrakara emphasizes the fact that the followers of one Branch of the Veda recite Brahman as gET and, according to Sankara, this very Sūtra was read by a predecessor of his as पुरुषविधमपि चैनमधीयते and it is explained by Sankara as referring to स यो हैतमेवमझनि वैश्वानरं पुरुषविधं पुरुषेऽन्तः प्रतिष्ठितं वेद (Sa. Bra. X. 6. 1.11) where the reading पुरुषविध occurs, which justifies the text of the Sutra known to Sankara's predecessor. It is thus the रूप of पुरुष stated in अग्निर्मूर्धा चक्षुषी चन्द्रसूर्यो दिशः श्रोत्रे वाग्विवृताक्ष वेदा:। वायुः प्राणो हृदयं विश्वमस्य पन्यां पृथिवी ह्वेष सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा ।। ( Mu. Upa. II. 1. 4), which is meant by the Sūtrakara ( Sūtra I. 2. 23 ).

15b. In taking Brahman as possessed of these two aspects, अरूपवत् or अपुरुषविध and रूपवत् or पुरुषविध, the Sutrakara seems to us to adopt or to follow a once prevalent Vedanta tradition which had already adopted the same attitude regarding the nature or aspects of Brahman as was done by Yaska in respect of the nature or aspects of the देवताs of the Rgveda. He clearly gives two पूर्वपक्षs, viz, one holding that the dietis are पुरुषविध and the other believing that they are अपुरुषविध; and then he gives his own view that they are possessed of both the traits (उभयविध).8

Our interpretation of the Sutras and the conlusion about the Sutrakara's view regarding the nature of Brahman arrived

8. Cf. अथाकारचिन्तनं देवतानाम्। Nirukta VII. 6. 1. पुरुषविधा: स्युरित्येकम् । VII. G. 2. " अपुरुषविधा: स्युरित्यपरम् । VII. 7. 1. " अपि वोभयविधा: स्युः । VII. 7. 7.

14 INTERPRETATION

at by us differ widely from the same propounded by Sankara, his predecessors and his followers. It is very likely that a doubt may be raised against our view on the ground that it is not corroborated by any Vedantic tradition. We in reply submit that Yaska's view about the nature of dieties supplies the source of the Sutrakara's view about Brahman. Yaska also believed that it is one Atman only who is praised in various ways ( in as many ways as there are dieties ). In any case the Sutrakara's view and that of Yaska are strikingly similar and therefore deserve to be compared with each other for the historical development of the former's doctrine of the two aspects of Brahman. The introduction of the very word grafas ( Bra. Su. I. 2. 26 ) suggests an inkling on the part of the Sutrakara from Yaska's view. Thus, this statement lends an authoritative support to the view expressed by us above.

16. तत्प्रधानत्वात्-The Sutrakara says that the अरूपवत् aspect is the principal aspect of Brahman so that we are justified in concluding that the avaa aspect is the subordinate aspect of Brahman.

The word gena in this expression throws light on the meaning of the same word (प्रधान) in Sutra III. 3. 11 (आनन्दायः प्रधानस्य). ana and the attributes which subsequently follow in series refer to the principal aspect of Brahman, i. e., to the aravaa aspect. By प्रधान the Sutrakara means the अरूपवत् aspect of Brahman9. See also the reading प्रधानवत् instead of प्रदानवत्, suggested by us in Bra. Su. III. 3. 43.

As regards the predominence of the asqaa aspect over the रूपवत् aspect ('तत्प्रधानत्वात्' ) Sutra III. 3.44 says that the प्रधान aspect of Brahman is "more powerful " (बलीयस्) because a majority of texts mentions that aspect ( लिङ्गभूयस्स्वात् तद्धि बलीय :- Si. III. 3. 44).

9. Vide Note on Bra. Sū. III. 3. 11

BRA. SO. III. 2. 11-19 15

17. Sanikara interprets अरूपवदेध in the sense that Brahman is not रूपवत् at all (रूपाद्याकाररहितमेव ब्रह्मावधारयितव्यं, न रूपादिमत्।). He does this by explaining तत्प्रधानत्वास् as "अस्थूल- मनण्वहस्वमद्ीर्घम्" (Br. Upa. III. 8. 8) ...... इत्येवमादीनि वाक्यानि निष्प्रपञ्चव्रह्मात्मतत्वप्रधानानि नार्थान्तरप्रधानानीत्येत्प्रतिष्ठापितं 'तत्तु समन्य- यात्' (Bra. Su. I. 1.4) इत्यत्र ।. Thus, he takes "अस्थूलमनणु ... ... इत्येवमादीनां वाक्यानाम्" (तत्प्रधानत्वात्) as understood. For this addition to the Sutra there is no word in the Sūtra itself nor is there any indication for the reference to Bra. Su. I. 1. 4. तत् in तत्प्रधानत्वात् should be taken as referring to अरूपवत् a word in the Sutra itself rather than to निष्प्रपञ्चव्रह्मात्मतश्व. Moreover, Sanikara does not take into consideration the word उभयलिङ्म in Sutra 11, which seems to us to suggest that the Sutrakara discusses the question of the application of the अरूपवत् and रूपवत् sentences to Brahman and that for that reason तत्प्रधानत्वात् would mean " because the अरूपवत् aspect is the principal one ( and the रूपवत् is the subordinate)." It need hardly be said that Sankara does not notice the question of the consistency of this Sutra with Bra. Su. I. 2. 23 (रूपोपन्यासाच्च) and III. 3. 11 ( आनन्दाद्यः प्रधानस्य). Sutra 15

18. To us it appears that Sūtras 15-18 form a qava which is refuted by the Sutrakara in Sutra 19. This is proved by a in Sutra III. 2. 19 and by the fact that in Sūtra II. 3. 46 Brahman is decided to be not like light. The expressions प्रकाशादिवत् and प्रकाशाश्रयवत् in Sutras III. 2. 25 and 28 and the Sutrakara's remarks there also prove our suggestion that Sutra III. 2. 25 is a पूर्वपक्षसूत्र. In Sutras 15-18 an attempt is made by a qavaz to establish that the Supreme Being is like light in addition to its being अरूपवत्. This पूर्वपक्षिन् seems to believe that Brahman is equally रूपवत् and अरूपचत् or that Brahman is primarily vaa and only in a secondary sense अरूपवत्, if the argumemt 'प्रकाशादिवत्' has the meaning we understand it to convey. Thus, the पूर्वपक्षिन would be one

16 INTERPRETATION

who regarded पुरुष to be higher than अध्यक्त (See infra Bra. Su. III. 2. 31 ). In Sutra II. 3. 46 ( प्रकाशादिवन्नवं परः ) it is said that ' the individual soul is like light etc., but the Supreme Soul is not like that.' This is the Siddhanta of the Sūtrakara and it is established in Sutra III. 2. 19 (अम्बुवद्भ्रहणान्तु न तथात्वम्।).

19. The यूवेपक्षिन् seems to us to argue that if the Supreme Being were like 'light, ' just as the individual soul, then the three states of waking, dreaming and deep-sleep would affect the Supreme Being, as they do the जीव. This is how the Sutras 15-19 belong to the same Adhikarana as Sūtras 11-14.

20. If Sutra 15 begins a पूर्वपक्ष under the उभयलिङ्गाधि- करण, what reading is better, प्रकाशवद्वावैय्यर्थ्यात् ( Bhaskara) or प्रकाशवच्ावैय्यर्थ्यात् ( Sanikara )? 21. अवैयर्थ्यात-If Brahman were declared to be principally formless ( asvaa ) and if at the same time it was denied to be like light ( i. e., of the nature of light ), It would be a meaningless principle. A principle which has no form can be understood to be an entity only when that principle is believed to be like light, otherwise it would be, to give a Sanskrit simile, like vandhyaputra. When Brahman is said to be अरूपवत् by the सिद्धान्तिन्, the पूर्वपक्षिन asserts that, in that case, Brahman can be an entity only if It is admitted to be like light. The intention of the qaqa in offering this argument is to nullify the conclusion drawn by the faara by asserting that Brahman is " only " formless, viz., that Brahman is un- affected by the states. When a principle is like light, its asqara would be only partial or secondary since, as the logicians ( arfas ) believe, light has a brilliant form ( Cf. भास्वरं शुक्कं च तेजसि। तर्क संग्रह 19.). Consequently the अरूपवत् Brahman would be भास्वरशुककरूपवत् and hence liable to change caused by states. अवैयर्थ्यात् is a rational argument to prove the प्रकाशवश्व of Brahman, while Sutras 16-17-18 give arguments based upon

BRA. SO. III. 2. 11-19 17

the Scripture to prove the same. The Sutrakara's reply is that Brahman is like 'light' but not of the nature of light (5 तथात्वम्-Sutra 19), so that it remains अरूपवत् in its nature and therefore unaffected by the states. 22. According to Sankara Sūtra 15 begins a question about the interpretation of Srutis which describe Brahman as possessed of आकार or रूप. "प्रकाशवत् " means according to him "यथा प्रकाशः सौरश्चान्द्रमसो वा वियद्वयाप्यावतिष्ठमानोऽङ्गुल्याद्युपाधि- संबन्धात्तेष्वृजुवकादिभावं प्रतिपद्यमानेषु तङ्भावमिव प्रतिपद्यते। एवं (ब्रह्मापि पृथिव्याद्युपाधिसंबन्धात्तदाकारमिव प्रतिपद्यते तदालम्बनो ब्रह्मण आकारविशषो- पदेश उपासनार्थो न विरोध्यते।" This is Sankara's explanation of the way in which the illustration of sarT is to be applied to Brahman. "अवैयर्थ्यात् " "is interpreted by Sankara as " एवमवैय्यरथ्यमाका- रवद्गह्मविषयाणामपि वाक्यानां भविष्यति."Thus, according to Sanikara, अवैयर्थ्यात् refers to आकारवद्गह्मवाक्यs, while the next Sutra (16) refers to निर्विशेषब्रह्मवाकयs. Sankara, thus, tries to draw from this Sutra the distinction between the उपास्य ब्रह्मन and the जेय ब्रह्मन् in his School. But we believe that the word ena is used in the sense of a state and that प्रकाशवस्व is a पूर्वपक्ष सूत्र intended to nullify the सिद्धान्तिन's argument of अरूपवत्व of Brahman (because प्रकाश has a भास्वर शुक्करूप). Moreover, in Bra. Su. II. 3. 46 (प्रकाशादिव- ननैवं परः) Brahman is clearly denied to be प्रकाशादिवत् while according to Sankara's interpretation Sutra III. 2. 15 asserts Brahman to be प्रकाशवत् since he takes it to be a सिद्धान्तसूत्र. The interdependence of these Sutras ( II. 3. 46 and III. 2. 15 ) does not strike Sankara because though he explains the simile in the same way in the same words in both the places, he makes a wide divergence regarding its application. In Sutra II. 3. 46 it is applied to the individual soul, while in Sutra III. 2. 15 to the Supreme Being. See also प्रकाशादिवत् and प्रकाशाश्रयवत् in Bra. Su. III. 2.25 and 28. Sūtra 16 23. तन्मात्रम्-" And the Sruti declares Brahman to be only that" i. e. only light. In the preceding Sutra it is stated by the

73262

18 INTERPRETATION

पूर्वपक्षिन that the Supreme Being is like light, so it is likely that amra in this Sutra refers to a Sruti in which Brahman is said to be only light, e. g., अथाऽयमशरीरोऽमृतः प्राणो ब्रह्मैव तेज एव ... । Br. Upa. IV. 4.7 ), " The released soul is Brahman only i. e. light." This Sruti can be quoted to prove that Brahman is only light. Or, the Sruti in question may be Cha. Upa. III. 14. 2 in which Brahman is declared to be 5q " of the form of brilliance." Cf. al8o परं ज्योतिरुपसंपद्य स्वेन रूपेणाभिनिष्पद्यते । in Cha. Upa. VIII. 12.2. 24. According to Sankara Sutra 14 deals with auren- काररहित ब्रह्मवाध्यs, Sutra 15 with आकारवद्गह्मविषयवाक्य, and again Sutra 16 refers to निर्विशेष ब्रह्मवाक्यs. Moreover, तद् in तन्मात्र, according to Sankara, stands for चतन्य, not for प्रकाश which is mentioned in the preceding Sutra. This is nothing but the violation of the context. Even Sankara's interpretation of तदु as चैतन्य also suggests that he ought to have taken all these three Sutras as dealing with the अरूपवत् ब्रह्मन्. Sūtra 17

25. In the preceding Sutra the पूर्वपक्षिन referred to a Sruti which described Brahman as only arT, now in this Sutra ( 17 ) he says that the Sruti shows ( by illustration ) and the Smrti states how Brahman is like light. ( प्रकाशवत् -- in Sutra 15 ). 26. दर्शयति-The use of दर्शयति as distinguished from "Hsa " in this Sutra may show that the Sutrakara uses "दर्शयति" in the sense of "श्रुतिः दर्शयति". 27. दर्शयति probably refers to such a Sruti as "न तत्र सूर्यो भाति न चन्द्रतारकं नेमा विद्युतो भान्ति कुतोऽयमगनि:॥ तमेव भान्तमनुभाति सर्व तस्य भासा सर्वमिदं विभाति।" ( Katha Upa. V. 15; Sve. Upa. VI. 14; Mu. Upa. II. 2. 10 ). स्मर्यते refers to यदादित्यगतं तेजो जगद्धासयतेऽखिलम् ॥ यश्बन्द्रमसि यध्चाऔ तत्तेजो विद्धि मामकम् ॥ ( Bha. Gi, XV. 12)

BRA. So. III. 2. 11-19 19

Both these texts show that Brahman is like light in the sense that it shares the nature of light.

28. Sankara does not associate दर्शयति and स्मर्यते with yiaa in Sutra 15, but he says that the Sruti and the Smrti show how Brahman is निर्विशेष by describing Brahman by the method of elimination ( नेति नेति).

Sūtra 18

29. 'अत एव' means " because Brahman is like light." The comparison of Brahman with the Sun, etc. is due to the fact that Brahman is like light. The Sun, the Fire, etc., are radiant objects, and Brahman being like light is compared with them.

30. सूर्यकादिवत्-The Srutis which compare Brahman with the Sun and other radiant objects are referred to by this expression.

(1) सूर्यो यथा सर्वलोकस्य वक्षुर्न लिप्यते चाक्षुषैर्बाह्यदोषैः । एकस्तथा सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा न लिप्यते लोकदुःखेन बाह्यः ॥। ( Katha Upa. V. 11) (2) अग्निर्यथैको भुवनं प्रविष्टो रूपं रूपं प्रतिरूपो बभूव । एकस्तथा सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा रूपं रूपं प्रतिरूपो बहिश्व ।। (Katha Upa. V. 10) (3) तदेतत्सत्यं यथा सुदीप्तात्पावकाद्विस्फुलिङ्गा: सहस्रशः प्रभवन्ते सरूपाः। तथाक्षराद्विविधाः सौम्य भावाः प्रजायन्ते तत्र चैवापियन्ति ।। (Mu. Upa. II. 1.1) (4) दिवि सूर्यसहस्रस्य भवेदयुगपदुत्थिता। यदि भा: सदशी सा स्यान्द्ासस्तस्य महात्मन: । ( Bha. Gi. XI. 12 ) These texts are referred to under this Sūtra not to demonstrate the निर्लेपत्व, व्यापकत्व, etc., of Brahman but ouly to show that Brahman is like light because it is compared with the Sun, the Fire, etc.

20 INTERPRETATION

If ' सूर्यक' in this Sutra means 'a number of Suns' (सूर्याणां HH .: ), probably some text like Bha. Gi. XI. 12 has been referred to in the Sutra. In this verse the light of Brahman is compared with that of a thousand Suns. This would also explain why 4 is added to q in the Sūtra, a point not considered by commentators. 31. Sankara explains 'अत एव' as ' यत एव चायमात्मा चैतन्यरूपो निर्विशेष: अत एव.'Thus, he connects "अत एव " in this Sutra with the Sruti he has quoted under Sutra 16. And he says that the 3UHr or comparison meant in the Sūtra is the one which aims at the peculiarity of Brahman due to zufa, ( i. e., not a real peculiarity ). This is how he brings in the question of the illusoriness of the enart of Brahman under this Sūtra.

32. The fact that Sutra 18 refers to the comparison of Brahman with a number of Suns ( a ) also shows that the पूर्वपक्षिन here tries to prove that Brahman is like प्रकाश ( Sūtra 15 ) and that aa in Sūtra 16 refers to SEIT.

Sūtra 19

33. J-This word shows that a qaqa has preceded and that in this Sutra ( 19 ) that qagg is refuted by the Sutrakara. To us it appears that this qagar is given in Sūtras 15-18, as we have already stated above. The opponent tries to establish that the Supreme Being is like light and argues that then only the अरूपवस्ता of Brahman will have a meaning. In support of this he quotes the Srutis and the Smrtis which describe Brahman as light or compare it with light. The Sūtrakara rejects this view in Sūtra 19.

34. न तथात्वम्-The Supreme Being has not " the characteristic of being so " i. e. It is not light by nature. 35 .. अम्बुवद्ग्रह्दणात्-This gives the reason why the Sutrakara does not accept the qaver view that Brahman is by nature

BRA. So. III. 2. 11-19 21

like light. He says, Brahman is not like light because It cannot be reflected like light in water. Radiant objects like the Sun, the Moon, etc., are reflected in water; but Brahman is not similarly reflected. Therefore, Brahman is not like light.10

This interpretation of Sutra 19 corresponds to what the Sutrakara says elsewhere in the Sutras regarding the nree of Brahman. Thus, it agrees with Sutra II. 3. 46 ( प्रकाशादिवन् नैवं पर: ) and Sitras III. 2. 28-30 which first say that Brahman has the nature of light ( asrra-III. 2.28 ) and then refer to a denial of that view ( III. 2. 30 ) which is probably a reference to the Sūtra under discussion ( Sūtra III. 2. 19 ).

( 36 ) For Sankara's view on this Stra see Note (7) on Bra. Su. III. 2. 20. According to him Sutra 19 is a yaugrea and Sutras 20-21 give the सिद्धान्त.

(10) Perhaps the Sutrakara bases his argument of अम्युवदप्रह्दण on the story of प्रजापति and इन्द्रविरोचनौ in Cha Upa. VIII. 7-9.

SECTION II

Sūtras III. 2. 20-22

(२१) दर्शनाथ ।

(२२) प्रकृतैतावत्वं हि प्रतिषेधति ततो त्रवीति च भूयः ।

TRANSLATION

[ The Supreme Being ] undergoes increment and decrement by becoming concealed. [ This ;is ] so, because of the propriety of [ explaining ] both [ increment and decrement of Brahman by Its concealing Itself ], 20

and because the Sruti shows it, 21

because [ the Sruti ] denies that the Supreme Being is " only so much as is referred to in the topic in hand (prakrta)", and then the Sruti says [ that It is something ] more. 22

NOTES

Sutra 20

1. Regarding the Adhikarana formed by Sūtras 20-22 see Note 12 under Sutra 21 and Note 16 under Sūtra 22.

2. After discussing whether the different states affect the Jiva or not, the Sutrakara discusses the same question with regard to the Para. The nature of the individual Soul so far as its inborn characteristies are concerned ( i. e. its ontology ) does not form part of the means of absolution (w797 ) and has been therefore relegated to that chapter in which the Srutis about the creation of the world, etc. are discussed ( Bra. Sü. II )11. That part of the knowledge of the Jiva, viz., its eschatology, which properly comes within the province of arga, is dealt with in Bra. Su. III. 1 and III. 2. 1-10. The knowledge of Brahman ( Bra. Sū. III. 2. 11-41 ) and the details about the process of meditation on Brahman ( Bra. Su. III. 3 ) are the most important part of the means of Moksa and therefore immediately follow the dicussion of the eschatology of the Jiva. In this connection it is worth noting that the statement of the knowledge of the Para begins with a discussion of the states of the Para because the discussion of the Jiva ends with that of his states. It is thus proper that after finishing the diseussion of the states of the Para, the discussion of several other topics also connected with the states of the Para is taken up. And the first of these topics is about two out of the six states, viz., afa and

3. The fact that the Sutrakara relegates the discussion of the ontology of the Jiva to the afadeena instead of giving it a place in the साधनाध्याय shows that he did not look upon तत्वमसि, अहं ब्रम्मास्मि, सर्व खल्विदं ब्रह्म as the महावाक्यs "cardinal aphorisms "-a fact which detracts much of the importance attached to thom by Sankara.

24 INTERPRETATION

अपक्षय ( Yaska I. 1.1.) so far as Brahman is subject to these ( Bra. Sü. III. 2. 20-23 ). The purpose is to prove that afg and zra of Brahman are not due to the three states. 3. वृद्धिहासभात््वम्-This expression would seem to mean परिणामवत्त्वम् and refer to the परिणाम of the Para, the Supreme Being. In Bra. Su. I. 4. 26 ( आत्मकृतेः परिणामात्) the Sutrakara says that the परिणाम of Brahman is such that the effect ( कृति or कार्य ) is also Atman. The cause (कारण) is Atman and the effect (कार्य) is also Atman (तदात्मानं स्वयमकुरुत-Tai. Upa.)

But, the Sūtrakara probably means two of the six states mentioned by Yaska, viz., जायतेऽस्ति विपरिणमते वर्धतेSपक्षीयते विनश्यति (निरुक्तनिघण्टु II. 2. 2). Sankara in his Comm. on Bra. Su. I. 1. 2 remarks अन्येषामपि भावविकाराणां त्रिष्वेवान्तर्भाव इति जन्मस्थितिनाशानामिह ग्रहणम्। यास्कपरिपठितानां तु जायते, अस्ति इत्यादीनां ग्रहणे तेषां जगतः स्थितिकाले संभाव्यमानत्वान्मूलकारणादुत्पत्तिस्थितिनाशा जगतो न गृहीता: स्युरित्याशङ्कयेत । तन्माशङ्गीति योत्पत्तिर्बह्मणः, तत्रैव स्थितिः प्रलयश्च, त एव गृह्यन्ते। Though Saiikara here says that these three states ( परिणाम, वृद्धि, अपक्षय ) are possible when the world has come into existence and continues to exist, it seems to us that the Sutrakara intends to consider them with respect to Brahman Itself. In the case of worldly objects, e. g., a jar, there is a production( जायते), then we talk of them as existing ( अस्ति ) then as "विपरिणमते " and subsequently in the case of worldly things we can explain how they increase and decrease ( वर्धते and अपक्षीयते) because in their case we also predicate a birth and death ( जायते and विनश्यति). But in the case of Brahman there is no birth and death and It is existence Itself so that we cannot demonstrate अस्ति as a state in Its case. The Sutrakara has said that the world is the परिणाम of Brahman and has explained that परिणाम by saying that the offect (i.e. the world ) of Brahman is also Brahman Itself.12 (आत्मकृतेः 12. .The Sutrakara soems to use yfunH in the sense in which it is used by Yaska.

BRA. SO. III. 2. 20-22 25

aftonaia-Bra. Su. I. 4. 26 ). So he now explains only two states viz., Its development and decay (वर्धते and अपक्षीयते) sub- sequent to Its changing Itself into the world ( Bra. Sū. I. 1. 2 ).

4. वृद्धिहासभाक्त्वमन्तर्भावात्-To take one example of वृद्धि and हास of Brahman, each of the series of नाम, वाकू, मन:, 4 ............ upto sor in Chā. Upa. VII is declared to be Brahman and each succeeding member of the series is stated to be a: or "more " (further developed ) than each preceding one. We may say that in this series the sor is " Brahman " (i. e., transformation or modification of Brahman ) in which Brahman is least concealed. ( See Sutra II. 1. 20 where we believe sor is given as an example which illustrates how Brahman and its effects are identical-er ). Similarly, we may say that arw in that series is a modification of Brahman in which Brahman is most concealed. Thus, Brahman undergoes वृद्धि (e. g. in Its transformation as प्राण) and हास (e. g. in Its transformation as w ) by becoming concealed ( i. e., latent, अन्तर्भाव).

The application of वृद्धिहासभायत्व of Brahman to the series of नाम, etc., is suggested to us by the विषयवाकय of Sutra 22. But we may also illustrate the same by considering aTraraT, वायु, etc., as effects of Brahman.

Accordingly, when आकाश, वायु, अग्नि, जल and पृथ्वी (Of. Tai. Up. II. 1 and Cha. Upa. VI. 2 ) are created, we must say that each of these elements is " Brahman " ( i. e., a transformation of Brahman ), and since each succeeding member in the series is grosser or more degenerate ( Brahman becomes reHs ) than each preceding one, we must say that in it Brahman becomes more and more concealed according to the Sūtrakara.

So, when there is a series in which Brahman is more developed ( वृद्धिभाक) e. g., in that of Cha. Upa. VII (नाम upto

26 INTERPRETATION

sTor ), Brahman is less and less concealed and when there is a series in which Brahman is more degenerate ( Frenm ) e. g .; in the series of Tai. Upa. II. 1 or Cha. Upa. VI. 2, we must say that Brahman is more and more concealed. Thus, वृद्धि and हास can be properly explained, says the Sutrakara, as due to Brahman becoming concealed ( araurfa ).

In the case of अणुकारणवाद, वृद्धि would be due to conglo- meration of aruJs and Fre to the division of the effect into its parts (C.f. कारणबहुत्वात्कारणमहत्त्वात्प्रचयविशेषाच्च महत्। Vaisesika Sūtra VII, 1-9. See Sa. Bhasya on Sūtra II. 2. 11 ). The Samkhyas say that when en develops into the world, there is growth ( afa ) and that growth is rather due to the senra revealing itself more and more, and that when the world dissolves itself, the gema conceals itself more and more and returns to the state of equipoise when none of its characteris- tics is manifest. The Sūtrakara looks upon the states ( of increment and decrement ) following the change of Brahman, from a different stand-point and says that both are due to Brahman becoming concealed.

. उभय in उभयसामज्जस्य-उभय should refer to वृद्धि and हास. The Sutrakara seems to mean that both the afe and ErH of Brahman can be explained properly by the point of view that they take place by reason of Brahman becoming concealed (aaufa). If some one says that Brahman becomes manifest or reveals some of its traits when It creates the world, the Sūtrakara would say that this self-manifestation ( erarfa) is nothing but a comparatively lesser degree of concealment ( anearfa ). This would be so particularly when we consider that Brahman by Itself is All ( aa-Cha. Upa. VII. 23-24 ). Whenever It becomes anything or undergoes a change and subsequently appears to be increasing or decreasing, it is nothing but ararfa. 5a. 3H7-To us the Sutrakara seems to use the word swy because it is likely that a Vedantin would take Fra of

BRA. So. III. 2. 20-22 27

Brahman as due to Its becoming concealed but Its afa as due to Its becoming revealed, just as the followers of Samkhya would do in the case of serra changing itself into the world and therefore the Sūtrakara sounds a note of warning to a Vedantin by asking him to interpret both वृद्धि and हास of Brahman as due to concealment, probably in the way in which we have explained these above, viz., afa is a lesser degree of concealment and Fra a greater degree of concealment. It is not one ( हास) but both of these two (वृद्धि and ह्रास) which can be, in the case of ब्रह्मन्, explained as due to अन्तर्भाव.

Brahman is possessed of गुणs (e. g., सत्, चित्, आनन्द ), which are manifest when Brahman is in its original state i. e., even before the creation 'takes place, unlike sena in which no गुus are manifest (except in the sense of सत्व, रजस् and तमस् being its constituents ). Thus, in the case of ब्रह्मकारणवाद it is the concealment ( of conciousness and bliss ) which would make Brahman transformed into Its effects, while in the case of प्रधानकारणवाद the प्रधान would be transformed into जगत् only when its various गुus not manifest in its अव्याकृतावस्था become manifest.

6. The word अन्तर्भावात् occurs also in Bra. Su. II. 3. 53 (प्रदेशादिति चेन्नान्तर्भावात्) where, it seems to us, we are told that the individual soul is only a likeness of the Supreme Being ( i. e., His likeness minus His powers ) not because of the Sruti teaching ( प्रदेश) him to be so (through the reflection of Brahman ), e. g., in the Katha Upanisad, but because of the concealment of Brahman.

Therefore, Brahman conceals Itself and thereby becomes both जीव and जगत्.

13. See Bra.Su.II. 1.30, सर्वोपेता need not be changed to सर्वशककियुक्त्ता ( See Sankara ) thus reducing the actual possession of powers to only latent powers; see II, 1. 37 also.

28 INTERPRETATION

6a. In Sutra III. 2. 5 ( पराभिध्यानासुतिरोहितं ततो हास्य बन्धविपर्ययौ) the Sutrakara has explained how the concealment [ of the real form ] is the cause of the bondage of the soul; therefore, it is likely that in this Sūtra ( III. 2. 20 ) he explains how " concealment " is the cause of वृद्धि and हास of Brahman.

7. It shonld be noted here that before Sankara there was already a commentory on the Brahmasutra which held thut the conscious Brahman became the cause of the inanimate world by concealing Its attribute of consciousness. Sankara mentions this view as the view of एकदेशिवेदान्तिन् in his commentory on Bra. Su. II. 1. 4 and he partly accepts that view as an interpretation of विज्ञानं चाविज्ञानं चाभवत् (Tai. Upa. II. 6. 1 ) under Sūtra II. 1. 6.

8. Sankara takes Stra 19 as a qaqg against the conclu- sion established in Sütra 18 as we have already stated under Note 36 of the preceding Adhikarana. He interprets Sūtras 20-21 as a reply to that पूर्वपक्ष.

According to Sankara's interpretation the opponent argues in Sutra 19 that the illustration of the reflection of the Sun in the water does not apply to Brahman, because Brahman cannot be understood " like that " and he points out the dissimilarities in the illustration and the illustrated. In the former the Sun, etc., have a material form and the water is perceived to be different from the Sun and is also possessed of a material form. But, Atman has no material form, nor are 3qfas different from Atman. Thus, Sankara overlooks the fact that in the Brahmasutra the word a is generally used for the purpose of the refutation of a पूर्वपक्ष, and that न तथात्वम् should mean न प्रकाशत्वम in accordance with the context of the preceding Sutras ( 15-18 ); he interprets अम्बु as जलसूर्य, while the Sutra mentions only जल. अम्बुवद्ग्रहणात् means, according to Sankara, an can be peroieved while the Atman cannot be "percieved "; but the non-perception of the Enifers as

BRA. SO. III. 2. 20-22 29

different from Atman is not stated in the Sutra itself. Moreover, Sankara has already explained Sutra II. 3. 50 ( आभास एव च) as stating how the individual soul should be understood to be a reflection of पर आत्मन् like the reflection of the Sun in water (आभास एव चैष जीवः परमात्मनो जलसूर्यकादिवत्प्रतिपत्तव्यः). Therefore, it is not possible that a qavar on the same subject and a सिद्धान्तिन's refutation of it would recur in Sutras III. 2. 19-20.

9. Saiikara finds a refutation of the above पूर्वपक्ष in Sutra 20. वृद्धिहासभाकत्वमन्तर्भावात्-Sankara says that the reflection of the Sun being inside the water, undergoes increment and decrement, but the Sun really undergoes no change. As we have shown, the पूर्वपक्ष of Sutras 15-18 is refuted by the Sutrakara in Sūtra 19. Sūtra 20 has nothing to do with Sūtra 19. There is no mention of either of जल or सूर्य in Sutra 20. The वृद्धिहासभाकत्व in Sutra 20 should refer to the वृद्धिहासभाक्त्व of Brahman, वृद्धि and हास being two out of the sit states mentioned by Yaska. अन्तर्भावात् should be explained here as in Sutra II. 3. 53 i. e. as ब्रह्मणोऽन्तर्भावात्. Sankara says, "न तु परमार्थतः सूर्यस्य तथात्वमस्ति "; but in fact the Sun does not seem to change illusorily even, and the पूर्वपक्ष also would not be so foolish as to say so, because it is the reflection of the Sun which really changes. Sankara takes उभय as referring to रष्टान्त and हार्ष्टान्तिक, but in the Sutra itself there is hardly any reference to any illustration; rather on the strength of strictly following the context, उभय should mean वृद्धि and हास (of Brahman ). The word अन्तर्भाव is explained by Sankara as देहाद्युपाध्यन्तर्भाव. There is no mention of देहादि even in any of the preceding Sutras. We have already given above the reasons for interpreting अन्तर्भाव as becoming concealed; see also infra.

Sūtra 21

10. This Sūtra gives a reference to a Sruti in whioh अन्तर्भाव of Brahman is mentioned in order to explain ब्रह्मण: वृद्धिहासभाक्त्वम्.

30 INTERPRETATION

Such a Sruti seems to us to be तस्य द वा एतस्यैवं पश्यत एवं मन्वानस्यैवं विजानतः आत्मतः प्राण आत्मत आशात्मतः स्मर आत्मतः आकाश आत्मतस्तेज आत्मत आप आत्मत आविर्भावतिरोभावात्मतोSन्रमात्मतो बलमात्मतो विज्ञानमात्मतो ध्यानमात्मतश्चित्तमात्मतः संकल्प आत्मतो मन आत्मतो वागात्मतो नामात्मतो मन्त्रा आत्मतः कर्माण्यात्मत एवेदं सर्वमिति। (Cha. Upa. VII. 26. 1 ).

The Sutrakara refers to "आत्मतः आविर्भावतिरोभावौ" from this passage. He considers only the तिरोभाव to be the cause of वृद्धि and हास undergone by Brahman. Not rarely does the Sutrakara accept only a part of a Sruti as valid while rejecting at the same time the other portion. Thus he rejects प्रियशिर- स्त्वादि while he accepts आनन्द as an attribute useful in the meditation on प्रधान or अरूपवत् ब्रह्मन् (Bra. Su. III. 3. 12). He also rejects the Katha Upanisad view that पुरुष is higher than अव्यक्त or अरूपवत् ब्रह्मन् (Bra. Su. III. 3. 31). He rejects the Mandukya Upanisad view of स्थानतः परस्योभयलिङ्गम् in favour of the Cha. Upa. view that Brahman is the same in all the states (III. 2. 11-18). So, the तिरोभाव mentioned in this Sruti is the self-concealment of Brahman which makes itself subject to development and decrease. "आत्मतः आविर्भावतिरोभावौ" is preceded by प्राण, आशा, स्मर, आकाश, तेजः, and आपः which are mentioned in Cha. Upa. VII. 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, and 10 respectively, and is followed by अन्न, बल, विज्ञान, ध्यान, चित्त, संकल्प, मनः, वाक्, नाम, (मन्त्र and कर्माणि) which are mentioned in Chã. Upa. VII. 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 respectively. Thus "आत्मतः आविर्भावतिरोभावी" seems to have been placed almost mid-way between these topics in order to explain the creation of these effects of Brahman. The word अन्तर्भाव of Bra. Su. III. 2. 20 and the sentence "ततो ब्रवीति च भूयः", ( which is an expression almost verbally indentioal with that in Cha. Upa. VII. 1-15 ) in Sūtra III. 2. 22 suggest that Sūtra III. 2. 21 refers to तिरोभाव in Cha. Upa. VII. 22. 1. That the Sutra contains the word अन्तर्भाव in place of the word तिरोभाव in the विषयवाक्य (Cha. Upa. VII. 22. 1) does

BRA. Su. III. 2. 20-22 31

not detract from the value of our interpretation, because the Sūtrakara not unfrequently uses in his Sūtras a synonym of the original word in the Sruti in question. Thus, he uses arrqr for आकाश (Sutra I. 3. 10) and चरण for पाद ( Bra. Su. I. 1. 24). In the preceding Sutra the afs of Brahman, (e. g., in the प्राण form of Brahman ) was also explained as अन्सर्भाव of Brahman. Thus, the Sutrakara has taken आविर्भाव (e. g. आविर्भाव of Brahman in प्राण) as the same as अन्तर्भाव in a different degree " because of the propriety of explaining both by Brahman becoming concealed. " Thus, this Sutra may be interpreted, as we do, as referring to a Sruti in which both आविर्भाव and तिरोभाव are mentioned. The next Sutra (22) is a clear evidence for the exactness of the विषयवाक्य of this Sutra (21) suggested by us. It is, therefore, in complete harmony with the interpretation of अन्तर्भाव (as explaining वृद्धि also ) in the preceding Sūtra ( 19 ) that this Sūtra ( 20 ) should refer to a Sruti with the expression "आविर्भावतिरोभाषौ."

11. According to Saikara 'दर्शनात्' refers to a Sruti in which the entrance (अन्तर्भाव) of परब्रह्मन् into the body, etc., is mentioned. But it is not clear how अन्तर्भाव can be taken as equivalent to ( देहादिषु उपाधिषु) अन्तरनुप्रवेश. 12. According to a predecessor of Sankara quoted by him, Sūtras 11-14 form one Adhikarana and Sūtras 15-21 from another. Sankara says that he himself is responsible for making only onc Adhikarana of these two Adhikaranas. As there is in Sutra 15, there is no doubt that that Sūtra does not begin a new Adhikarana. But Sūtra 20 seems to have no connection with Sutra 19, as we have already shown. Therefore Sutras 11-19 seem to have originally formed one Adhikaraņa. Sankara's predecessor understood Sutras 11-14 as discussing whether Brahman was एकाकार or अनेकाकारोपेत and Sutras 15-21 whether Brahman was सद्गूप or बोधरूप or both. Sanikara

32 INTERPRETATION

takes Sutras 11-14 as establishing that Brahman is rR and Sutras 15-21 as explaining the आकारश्रुतिगति. Saikara differs from his predecessor only so far as the interpretation of the सगुणब्रह्माकारश्ुतिs meant for उपासना is conoerned; but as to the निर्गुणश्रुतिs and the सृष्टिश्रुतिs they are at one. Thus, the predecessor of Sankara also seems to have neither a correct tradition about the interpretation of una in Sūtra 11 or of setar in Sūtra 15, nor a correct division of the Adhikaranas, if, as we suggest, Sutras 20-22 form an independent Adhikaraņa. Sūtra 22

13. fa shows that this Sutra gives as argument for the statement in the preceding Sūtra ( 21 ). Thus, Sūtra 22 is like Sutra 14 which also explains the Sruti referred to in Sūtra 13. 14. प्रतिषेधति and व्रवीति show that this Sutra refers to a Sruti; and "व्रवीति च भूय" at once reminds us of नाम्नो वाव भूयोऽस्तीति तन्मे भगवान् व्रवीत्विति । and exactly similar passages which occur in Cha. Upa. VII. 1-15. So it is very likely that this Sutra ( 22 ) refers to that Cha. Upa, text. 15. "प्रकृतैतावत्वं हि प्रतिषेधति" seems to refer to such sentences as अस्ति भगवो नाम्नो भूय इति नाम्नो वाव भूयोस्तीति in each of the sections of Cha. Upa. VII. 1-15. प्रकृतैतावत्वम् means "ब्रह्मण: प्रकृतैतावत्वम् " i. e., " the fact that Brahman is ( only) so much ( एतावत्) as is the topic in consideration (प्रकृत ) and nothing more." In each of these sections सनत्कुमार denies that Brahman is only FH, only ar, etc., in so far as his reply to arra's question regarding there being any form of Brahman " more " ( i. e. more developed ) than the topic in disoussion, is in the affirmative. Each of नाम, वाक, मन:, etc. is said to be Brahman and is to be meditated upon as such. 16. Each of नाम, वाकू, etc. is said to be Brahman; each succeeding one is more developed than each preceding one.

BRA SO. III. 2. 20-22 38

Brahman is all these ( which are effects of Brahman ), and each preceding effect of Brahman is less developed than each succeeding one. This shows that Brahman conceals itself to a certain extent to become each of these. When the conceal- ment is less, the form of Brahman is superior or higher, in other words, Brahman is aa more developed in it, and when more, the form resulting is inferior or lower, in other words, Brahman decreases in it. Thus, both afg and gre of Brahman are dependent respeotively upon less and more concealment of Brahman Itself. Therefore, this same series illustrates both the वृद्धि and हास of Brahman. तेज: is superior to आप: ( Cha. Upa. VII. 10-11 ), because in asr: Brahman is less concealed than in anrq :. According to the Sūtrakara arsr: and आप: and every कार्य of Brahman are Brahman, as is stated in this Sruti. ( Cha. Upa. VII ), and also in many other Srutis. Brahman in the form of water " decreases more " than Brahman in the form of light, because in the former Brahman is more concealed than in the latter. The same rule is to be applied to the other forms of Brahman such as arg, etc., which are not mentioned in Cha. Upa. VII.

The concealment expressed in Cha. Upa. VII. 26 by the word तिरोभाव with reference to प्राण, eto., upto नाम (मन्न्र and auffor ) is, according to the Sūtrakara, illustrated and explained in Cha. Upa. VII. 1-15. This is how Sūtra 22 seems to us to explain Sutra 21. The प्रतिषेध of " Brahman being only as much as IH, etc. " and the statement of there being another principle identical with Brahman, which is " more " than the preceding one proves that Brahman assumes all these superior and inferior forms owing to different degrees of concealment. This is how the Sūtrakara seems to interpret the Sruti. 15a. The Sūtrakara gives Sūtra 22 in order to explain the आषिर्भावतिरोभावशुति. Here the Sutrakara seems to interpret

INTERPRETATION

from his own stand-point the Cha. Upa. text in order to show how Brahman is all things in the world. 16. Thus, the ararfa of Sutra 20 is supplied by a Sruti referred to in Sutra 21 and that Sruti is explained by the statement of Sutra 22. This shows that Sutras 20-22 form an independent topic or Adhikarana. This would prove that Sūtra 20 begins an Adhikarana and is not related directly with Sutra 19. 'a' in Sutra 19 and absence of = in Sūtra 20 also go to prove the commencement of a new Adhikaraņa. The connection of the Sruti referred to in Sutra 22 with that in Sütra 21 shows that Sutra 22 is a part of the same Adhi- karaņa as Sūtra 21, and does not begin an Adhikarana as is understood by Sankara.

17. According to Sankara this Sūtra begins a new Adhi- karaņa, as noted above. He takes this Sutra as referring to Br. Upa. II. 6. 6, viz., "अथातः आदेशो नेति नेति, न ह्येतस्मादिति नेत्यन्यत्परमस्मत्यथ नामधेयसत्यस्य सत्यमिति प्राणा वै सत्यं तेषामेष सत्यम्".

The Sūtra, says Sankara, discusses the topic ( fara ) of negation in नेति नेति. He says that नेति नेति negatives प्रकृतैतावत् i. e. the two रूपs, मूर्त and अमूर्त, mentioned in Br. Upa. II. 6. 1-5 (प्रकृतं यदेतावदियत्तापरिच्छिन्नं मूर्तामूर्तलक्षणं ब्रह्मणो रूपं तदेव शब्दः प्रतिषेधति). Thus, Sankara does not take into consideration 'त्वम्' in प्रकृतैतावत्वम् in the Sutra. 'प्रकृतैतावत्वं हि प्रतिषेधति' would mean that the Sruti negatives the fact that [ Brahman ] is only this much as is the subject in hand ( and not more ); this would ultimately mean that [ Brahman ] is more than this. By dropping the sense of "ay " Sankara has brought out quite a different sense from what it would have been otherwise. It comes to this that by 'ag' the Sūtrakara simultaneously accepts both, viz., Brahman is the naa ( the topic in hand ) and also " more " than that; while Sankara by dropping the sense.of the termination 'aag' asserts only the existence of that which is " more. " Also "ततो म्रवीति च भूयः " shows

BRA. So. III. 2. 20-22 35

that, "प्रकृतैतावर्वप्रतिषेध" means the inclusion of " more " rather than the exclusion of the matter in hand (प्रकृत). There is no word in the Sutra which would suggest a reference to the विषयवाक्य of Sankara (Br. Upa.II. 6. 6). Moreover, no ques- tion as to the topic of negation is likely to arise regarding that Sruti, because नेति is explained as "'न हि पतस्मात्' इति = नेति (अन्यत्परमस्ति) "; i. e. not indeed (other higher) than this ( exists ), therefore ( इति), 'नेति'. Sankara's interpretation in which he adds 'व्यतिरिक्तम्' (न ह्ेतस्माङ्गह्मणो व्यतिरिक्तमस्तीत्यतो नेतिनेतीत्युच्यते) and explains अन्यत् परम् as अप्रतिषिद्धम् न पुनः स्वयमेव नास्तीत्यर्थः, can hardly be accepted as a literal explanation of the Sruti in question. 'ततः' in the Sutra, means 'तस्मात् प्रतिषेधात्' according to Sankara; ततः भूय: means " after that negation." And he refers 'ततो ब्रवीति च भूयः' to 'अन्यत्परमस्ति' in Br. Upa. II. 6. 6. Sankara explains the Sruti in a different way also, in which 'एतस्मात्' in the Sruti refers to आदेशात् instead of to ब्रह्मण :. In this case ततो व्रवीति व भूय: is to be taken as referring to नामधेय (अथनामधेयम्-सत्यस्य सत्यमिति प्राणा वे सत्यं तेषामेष सत्यम्). Sankara's conclusion from the argument in the Sūtra (viz., तस्माद्गह्मावसनोऽयं प्रतिषेधो नाभावावसान इत्यध्यवसाम:) would show that the Sutra ought to have been at the very beginning of the book, had it the meaning Sankara sees in it.

SECTION III

Sūtras III. 2. 23-30

(२३) तदव्यक्तमाह हि। (२४ ) अपि च संराधने प्रत्यक्षानुमानाभ्याम् । (२५) प्रकाशादिवच्चावैशेष्यं प्रकाशश्र कर्मण्यभ्यासात्। (२६ ) अतोऽनन्तेन तथा हि लिङ्गम् । (२७) उभयव्यपदेशात्त्वहिकुण्डलवत् । (२८) प्रकाशाश्रयवद्वा तेजस्त्वात्। (२९ ) पूर्ववद्दा । (३०) प्रतिषेधाच्च।

TRANSLATION

IT is the Unmanifest, because the Sruti says so; 23 and [ it remains the Unmanifest ] even when realized in ecstacy of the meditator according to Sruti and Smrti; 24 and there is no differentiation [ in Brahman ] as in the case of light, etc .; and light [ is realized ] by repeated practice of the act [ of seeing ]; 25 [ Pūrvapaksa ] -- From this [ Unmanifest ] [ the released soul goes to and unites ] with the Infinite [ i. e. Purusa ], because there is indicatory sentence to that effect; 26 [ Siddhänta ]-But Brahman is like the serpent and also like its coil, because of the mention of both [ the Unmanifest and the Infinite ]; 27 or, it is [ two-fold ] like light and its source, because of Its characteristic of being light; 28 or, rather as in the former [ illustration ]; 29 and because of the negation [ in Katha Upa. VI. 9 ]. 30

NOTES

Sutra 23

1. It seems to us that this Sūtra begins a new Adhi- karana. There is fe in Sutra 22, which shows that it is to be connected with the preceding Sutra. There is no or any other adjunctive in Sūtra 23 to connect it with Sūtra 22. On the contrary, there is a proposition in it, viz., aaanmH, followed by an argument ( aTr& fa); so it seems to begin a fresh Adhi- karaņa, like Sūtras III. 2. 1, III. 2. 31, III. 2. 38.

2. Brahman is the Unmanifest or Brahman is an unmanifest principle. Other principles in Vedanta are manifest; Brahman alone is unmanifest. The Smrti like Bha. Gi. VIII. 18-21 mentions two aras, but the Sutrakara admits only one अव्यक्त, viz., the पर अव्यक्त of Bha. Gi. VIII. 20, the lower अव्यक्त which is the principle called safa is identified by the Stra- kara with Brahman itself ( Vide Sūtra I. 4.23 ff. ) 3. आह हि-Sruti mentions only one अव्यक्त viz., the पर of the Bha. Gi. Thus, the Katha Upa. says :-

महतः परमव्यक्तमव्यक्तात्पुरुष: पर: । पुरुषान्न परं किश्चित्सा काष्ठा सा परा गति: ॥ ( Ka, Upa. III. 11 ) And further on, the same Upanisad mentions the aa as follows :-

अशबद्मस्पर्शमरूपमव्ययं तथाऽरसं नित्यमगन्धवच्च यत्। अनादनन्तं महतः परं ध्रुवं निचाय्य तन्मृत्युमुखात्प्रमुच्यते॥। ( Ka. Upa. III. 15) This verse shows that the principle called reuga and said to be higher than ara is Brahman. The Sūtrakāra seems to draw attention to the Katha text by particulary saying "ane fa ".

38 INTERPRETATION

4. Sankara quotes several Srutis, in none of which the word aaum occurs. The reason why he does not quote the Katha Sruti in which the very word ersza occurs seems to us to be his explanation of Bra. Sū. I, 4. 1-7.

Sūtra 24

5. afd -Brahman is the Unmanifest, but some one may think that it may become manifest ( aam ) in the meditation of a seeker. But the Sūtrakara says that even in the medita- tion when Brahman is realized, It is realised as the Unmanifest. It always remains the Unmanifest. So Brahman is the Un- manifest and remains the same also in the ecstacy or propitiation of a devotee.

6. संराधन-Instead of using the usual word आराधन the Sütrakara uses the word atrea. Why ? ( Also see infra Note 8.)

7. T&-The Sruti shows that even in meditation when Brahman is realised, it remains as the Unmanifest. The Sutrakara may be referring to a Sruti like Ka. Upa. IV. 1, which is quoted by Sankara. 'The wise one sees the inner Self with his eyes closed '. The fact that Brahman is seen ' with eyes olosed ' proves that Brahman remains aaa even in the meditation. Brahman can not be seen or realised like manifest things. 8. Ha-This seems to be a reference to such a Smrti text as follows :-

अव्यक्तं व्यक्तिमापननं मन्यन्ते मामबुद्धयः । परं भावमजानन्तो ममाव्ययमनुत्तमम् ॥ (Bha. Gi. VII. 24)

Verse 22 of Bha. Gi. VII which preceds this verse refers to propitiation ( ) of deities. So, verse 24 also should be taken as referring to Traa and as saying that even in आराधन (Of. संराधन of the Sutra ) the Lord remains अव्यक्त, but ignorant people take him to be m.

BRA. So. III. 2. 23-30 39

In the eleventh Adhyaya of the Bhagavadgita ( verse 8 ), asa was shown by the Lord His own celestial form but before that he was given celestial eyes and was told that it was not possible to see the Lord with his own eyes. This also shows that Brahman is ararm5 'not manifest' to the eye of the human being. Thus, Brahman is अव्यक्त (Sutra 23) and remains अध्यक्त even in propitiation or ecstacy when it is realised, according to Sruti and Smrti. 9. Sankara says that at the time of propitiation Brahman is seen by the devotee or the yogin. He takes " arfa " in the sense of " but " which is never the sense of arfa. The force of arfa seem to us to be that by nature Brahman is Unmani- fest ( Sutra 23 ) and also in meditation It remains the same.

The next Sutra also supports this view.

Sūtra 25

10. This Sutra makes two statements, and it seems to us that the first statement is intended to explain how Brahman can be the unmanifest principle and the second how Brahman can remain 545 even in propitiation or meditation.

11. प्रकाशादिवश्चावेशेष्यम्-Brahmian is without any difference in itself ( अवैशेष्य) or without any internal difference ( स्वगतभेद) just like light, etc. A thing which is aa has got some differentiation, i. c., internal difference, whereby its parts can be distinguished and the object can be said to be manifest. Brahinan is aroam ( and impartite ). This is the way in which the unmanifestness of Brahman is to be understood. In light there is no distinction; light is the same wherever it falls and it is not possible to distinguish parts or shape in light. Brahman is asam in the sense in which light, etc., are 31545. 11a. 'प्रकाशादिवच्चौयशेष्यम्'-is an explanation of Sutra 23 while प्रकाशन् कर्मण्यभ्यासात् explains Sutra 24.

INTERPRNTATION

12. प्रकाशश् कर्मण्यभ्यासात्-This explains how Brahman remains sroams even in meditation. SERT can be gazed at through repeated practice in the act of seeing it. Thus, when by Jong practice one is able to gaze at the Sun or Sun-light, it is visualised to.be also unmanifest or without any distinction ( वैशष्य) in itself. Similarly Brahman is realized in propitiation. Brahman is a reality and, therefore, it is realized, but the realization does not make Brahman aum or manifest ( visible to the physical eye ). 13. आदि in प्रकाशादि seems to refer to such things in which there is no distinction (अवैशष्य). Such things are .perhaps नीहार, धूम, अर्क, etc. Perhaps the following verse from the Sve. Upa, may be useful here :- नीहारधूमार्कािलानिलानां सद्योतविद्युत्स्फटिकशशिनाम्। पतानि रूपाणि पुरःसराणि ब्रह्मण्यभिव्यक्तिकराणि योगे।। ( Sve. Upa. II. 11 ) The word SEIT in the Sutra may be taken to correspond to the word aras in this verse. In Brahman there is no वैशेष्य, as there is none in नीहार, धूम, अर्क, अनल, अनिल, etc. Therefore, Brahman is अध्यक्त. 14. According to Sankara Sutra 25 discusses whether the individual soul and the Supreme Soul are different because in Sutra 24 they are referred to as the propitiator and the one to be propitiated in so far as propitiation or rea is mentioned in it. It would be very strange if such a question would be taken up here. The question of the identity of the soul with परमात्मन् is discussed in Bra. Su II. 3. 28-32 and should be discussed properly in Bra. Su. II. 3, because that Pada disousses such questions as the जीव being an अंश of God, a likeness of God, etc. But Sankara finds it discussed or hinted not in that Pada at all but in other places in the Brahmasutra, such as Sutra II. 1. 22, III. 2. 27. Sankara takes आकाश, सचितृ, etc. by आदि and adds (यथा प्रकाशकाशसवितृप्रमृतयः) ... ... सविशेषा इवावभासन्ते. There is no

BRA. So. III. 2. 23-30 41

justification in the Sutra for this addition. कर्मण is interpreted by hin as मङ्गलिकरकोदकप्रभृतिषु कर्मसु उपाधिभूतेषु. Thus he makes out a plural number out of the singular of ana and gives quite a novel sense to the word. To us it appears that कर्मन् means action corresponding to the action of errrera mentioned in the preceding Sutra. Instead of connecting कर्मणि and अभ्यासात्, Sankara completes the sentence by adding सविशेषा इवावभासन्ते after कर्मणणि; and he takes अभ्यासात् separately as meaning वेदान्तेष्व भ्यासेनासकृज्जीवप्राशयोरमेदः प्रतिपाद्यते.

Sūtra 26 15. 'अतः' seems to refer to अव्यक्त, the topic of this Adhikarana. And, as there is a in the following Sūtra, this Sutra seems to be a पूर्वपक्ष. 16. 'अतः अनन्तेन' seems to mean "from this अव्यक्त, one is united with the Infinite. " 17. तथा हि लिङ्गम्-This is a reference to a Sruti in which अव्यक्त (referred to by अतः ) and अनन्त are mentioned. The reference seems probably to have been mado to अव्यक्तान्ु पर: पुरुषो व्यापकोऽलिङ्ग एव च। यज्जात्वा मुच्यते जन्तुरमृतत्वं च गच्छति॥ Kațha Upa. VI. 8.

अनम्त in the Sutra stands for व्यापक in this verse. The Sutrakara often makes such changes ( Vide Note 10 on Sūtra 21, PP. 30-31). In this verse it is stated that पुरुष who is omni- present (व्यापक) is higher than अव्यक्त, and that by knowing him one gets immortality. So the opponent in Sutra 26 seems to argue that from the Unmanifest (ara:) one reaches or unites with the अनन्त or व्यापक पुरुष according to this Sruti. Sutra 26 uses अमन्त as a name and the word व्यपदेश in the next Sutra (27) also shows that by अनन्त some nane (पुरुष who is व्यापक) is meant in Sutra 26. As will be clear from our interpretation

42 INTERPRETATION

of Sutras 27-30, the qauar view of this Sutra seems to have a threefold implication: (1) that from asa there is a further progress to पुरुष, (2) that पुरुष has a form (a fact admitted by the Sutrakara ) and, therefore, he is ara, and ( 3) that अव्यक्त ब्रह्मन् is not अनन्त or व्यापक. The first and last implications are discussed by the Sūtrakara in Sutras III. 2. 31-36 and III. 2. 37, and the middle one in Sūtras III. 2. 27-30. 17a. For Sankara's view on Sutra 26 see infra Note 22.

Sutra 27

18. तु shows that this is a सिद्धान्तसूत्र and the preceding Sutra a पूर्वपक्ष. 19. उभयव्यपदेशात्-The Sutrakara seems to mean that Brahman itself its called अव्यक्त and also पुरुष ( lit. व्यापक); both are the names given to the Supreme Being. 20. अहिकुण्डलवत्-Brahman is like अहि, the serpent, and like कुण्डल, the coil of a serpent. When we use the word अहि, we do not refer to any form or figure or posture of the serpent in particular, but when we use the word FuEa we refer to the coiled form of a serpent. Thus, though the two different names are used, the individual is one and the same. The Sutrakara argues that as in the above example, 5 and gry are two names of the same Brahman. The difference between the exact significance of the two names is like that between अहि and कुण्डल. Thus, the attainment of पुरुष is not different from that of arua; either is the attainment of Brahman. 21. Sutra 27 seems to have been referred to by Sütra III. 3. 8. 22. 'अतः' in Sutra 26 does not refer to अव्यक्त according to Sankara who interprets it as "स्वाभाविकत्वादभेदस्य अविद्या- कृतत्वाच्च भदस्य." भेद and अभेद are not at all mentioned in the preceding Sutras and therefore ara: cannot refer to them. Sankara quotes a Sruti in which neither अव्यक्त (referred to

BRA. So. III. 2. 23-30 43

by अतः) nor अनन्त or its equivalent (e. g. व्यापक) is found. He also adds "जीवः एकतां गच्छति" after अनन्तेन, as we do owing to the instrumental singular form of अनन्तेन. Sankara does not take Sūtra 26 as a qaqu as is suggested by in Sūtra 27. 23. According to Sankara this Sutra gives another view regarding the relation of the worshipped and the worshipper (संराध्यसंराधकभाव). Inspite of तु in this Sutra Sankara does not interpret this Sutra as a refutation of any पूर्वपक्ष. 'उभय' according to him refers to (1) the statement of भेद between परमात्मन् and जीव and (2) the statement of अभेद between the same. We have already stated that this topic is discussed in Sutra III. 3. 28-32. Sankara explains the example of अहिकुण्डल very briefly in the words "यथाहिरित्यभेद: कुण्डलाभोगप्रांशुत्वादीनीति तु भेद पवमिहापीति" ( Vide Note 29 under Sutra 29). Sūtra 28 24. This Sutra refutes in another way the पूर्वपक्ष that from अव्यक्त a meditator unites with the अनन्त or व्यापक i. e. पुरुष expressed in Sūtra 26. 25. The Sutrakara seems to say that अव्यक्त is like light and gaa is like the resort of light; thus, for example, the two are like the light of the Sun and the solar orb in which the light is centred. In Sutra 25, the अव्यक्त is compared with light. 26. तेजस्त्वात्-"Because Brahman is of the nature of light ". The Cha. Upa. explains Brahman to be तेज: (Cha. Upa. VIII. 6. 3-ब्रह्म एव तेज एव ). There are other Srutis which also show that Brahman is of the nature of light. ( See the Srutis and Smrtis quoted under Sutras 16-18 ). Thus, because Brahman is of the nature of light, we may say that अव्यक्त is light and gE4 is a resort of light. Thus, the two are not different. 27. Sanikara explains प्रकाशाश्रयदष्टान्त as यथा प्रकाशः सावि- प्रस्तदाश्रयश्च सविता नात्यन्तभिन्नावुभयोरपि तेजस्त्वाविशेषात्। अथ च भेदव्यपदेशभाजौ भवत एवमिहापि। (See Note 29 on Sutra 29).

44 INTERPRETATION

Sūtra 29 28. In Sūtra 29 the Sutrakara shows his preference for the analogy mentioned in Sutra 27. The Supreme Being is like अहि and like कुण्डल because it is called अव्यक्त and पुरुष respec- tively, the one being अरूपवत् and the other रूपवत्. In Sutra 28 the analogy of प्रकाश and its आश्रय was given on the ground that Brahman is of the nature of asra; but the Sūtrakara has already said that Brahman is not of the nature of asra because it cannot be reflected like तेजस् in water (Sutra 19 above ). Brahman is described in Sruti and Smrti to be light ( Sūtra 16-17 ) and like light ( Sutra 18 ). For this reason the Sutrakara gives the illustration of प्रकाश and प्रकाशाश्रय, and, without rejecting it, preferes the illustration of अहि and कुण्डल. It would thus seem that Sutra 28 presents the view of एकदेशिवेदान्तिन्.

29. Sankara takes qaaa as a reference to Sūtra 25 ( as interpreted by him ). So, according to him, Sūtra 29 means that "the relation of संराध्य and संराधक is what it is stated to be in Sūtra 25. Sankara explains here the application of the two illustrations in Sutras 27-28. According to him, परमात्मन् corresponds to अदि and जीवात्मन् to कुण्डल which is a particular posture (संस्थानविशेष) of अहि; and in the second example परमात्मन् corresponds to प्रकाशाश्रय and जीव to एकदेश (of प्रकाश or of प्रकाशाश्रय ?). In either case the individual soul would be a really bound soul, and therefore his release by faur taught in the Scripture would be improper. All this is Sankara's own criticism of the illustration given in Sūtras 27-28; the Sütra (29 ) itself says nothing about them, nor does Sankara quote any other Sutra in favour of his criticism.

Sūtra 30

30. In Sutra 26 (अतोऽनन्तेन तथाहि लिङ्गम्।), the opponent tried to show that from the Unmanifest a liberated soul would unite with the Infinite i. e. with the g5q, on the strength of

BRA. Su. III. 2. 23-30 45

Katha Upa. VI. 8. In Sūtra 27, the Sūtrakāra says that Brahman is called both अव्यक्त and पुरुष and therefore it is like अहि and कुण्डल, so that अव्यक्त and पुरुष are not different and therefore a meditator does not go to and unite with the sare पुरुष from the अध्यक्त. In Sutra 28, he gave another example about the unity of Brahman whether it be called अव्यक्त or पुरुष. In Sutra 29 he showed his preference for the example in Sūtra 27. In Sutra 30, the Sutrakara gives his reason for preferring the analogy in Sutra 27 to that in Sutra 28. प्रतिषेध in Sutra 30 seems to us to be a reference to न तथात्वम् in Sutra 19 (अम्बुवद्भ्रहणात्तु न तथात्वम् ), which denies the तेजस्त्व (i. e. तेज :- स्वभावत्व ) of Brahman. Thus, the analogy based upon तेजस्त्व of Brahman ( Sutra 28 ) is not the view favoured by the Sutrakara. 31. The word 'अनन्त', used with reference to पुरुष and the distinction between the अव्यक्त and पुरुष which the पूर्वपक्षिन् tries to make out on the strength of that word in Katha Upa. VI. 9 seem to be the ground for inserting Sutra 37 because the omnipresence ( सर्वगतत्व), which is not explained here ( in Sūtras 27-30 ) has been explained in Sutra 37 by refuting a पूर्वपक्ष similar to that in Sutra 26. As अनेन in Sutra 37 indicates, for the Sutrakāra, it is more convenient to refute the supposed " limitedness " (असर्वगतत्व of अव्यक्त) after refuting the supposed परत्व of पुरुष as compared with अव्यक्त. 32. We have interpreted प्रतिषेध in the light of the context of Sutras 19 and 28. Sanikara explains प्रतिषेधात् as अन्यप्रतिषेधात् and refers it to Br. Upa. III. 7. 23, etc. To us it seems that here there is no question of अन्यप्रतिषेध which of course is mentioned in Bra.Su. III. 2. 36. Here a प्रतिषेध as an argument for favouring the illustration of Sutra 27 seems to have been meant by the Sutrakara and the reference seems to be to Sutra 19.

SECTION IV

Sūtras III. 2. 31-36

(३१) परमतः सेतून्मानसंबन्धभेदव्यपदेशेभ्यः। (३२) सामान्यात्तु । (३३) वुख्धर्थः पादवत्। (३४) स्थानविशेषात्। (३५) प्रकाशादिवदुपपत्तेश्र । (३६) तथान्यप्रतिषेधात्।

TRANSLATION

[ Pūrvapaksa ]-There is ( a higher ) Brahman [ or there is a higher aspect of Brahman ] which is higher than this ( Unmanifest ), because of the mention of [ the Unmanifest as ] a bridge, that of its measure, that of the connection [ of the individual soul with the Unmanifest ] and that of the difference [ between the Unmanifest and the higher one viz., the Purusa ]. 31 [ Siddhānta ]-But, because [ the designation of a bridge is ] common [ to the Unmanifest and the Purusa ]; 32 [ the mention of its measure ] is for the purpose of a notion [ under which Brahman is meditated upon ] like [ the mention of ] the quarters [ for example, in the Purusasūkta ]; 33 [ the mention of the connection of the individual soul with the Unmanifest is ] due to a particular state [ of the individual soul ]; 34 and [ the mention of the difference of the Unmanifest and the Purusa is ] due to the explicability [ of the Unmanifest as the light, etc., ( i. e. ahi ) [and that of the Purusa as the prakāśāśraya, i. e. kuņdala, ]; 35 also because of the denial [ by the Sruti ] of [a principle ] other [ than Brahman ]. 36

NOTES

Sūtra 31

1. An important Purvapaksa is stated and refuted here in as many as seven Sūtras ( Bra. Su. III. 2. 31-37 ). An opponent is here said to hold the view that the Supreme Being ( gE4 ) is higher than ( param ) the Unmanifest dealt with in the preceding Sutras. The arguments-four in number- of the opponent do not contain such arguments as 'the Unmanifest is the gafa'. It is not likely that any of these arguments could have been put forth by a Samkhya. The number of the arguments of the qavar and those of the faara shows that the qavar is not " an imaginary opposition presented by the Sutrakara to make his doctrine clear to the reader" (प्रतिपत्तिसौकर्यार्थम्). The argument of the Sutrakara that the Upanisads deny the existence of the second Brahman ( Bra. Su. III. 2. 36 ) shows that the opponent argues in favour of two final ( conscious ) principles, one of which is higher than the other ( qraa :- in Sutra 31 ). 2. aa :- refers to the araams described in Sutra 23-30. In our opinion this important point of context should not be overlooked ( See other Sutras where ara: occurs ). 3. qrH-" [ There'is another principle which is ] higher than this. " The qaufer does not argue that the other ultimate principle, the existence of which he is upholding is on an equal status with the Unmanifest, as could have been the argument of a Samkhya. On the contrary he says that this principle is higher than the Unmanifest. 'qT ' does not seem to mean only " a: " but it means another higher. Cf. अव्यक्तात्पुरुष: पर :. अव्यक्त is mentioned in Sutras 23-30; and subsequently qr is mentioned in Sutra 31. In Sutra 37, the

48 INTERPRETATION

Sutrakara gives an अतिदेश by which he applies the conclusion of Sutras 31-36 to prove that the arauaa in Bra. Su. III 2. 23 is aana or omnipresent. This fact also seems to us to indicate that in orna: ( Sutra 31 ), qi according to the Sutra- kara means higher than, because Sutra 37 implies that the अव्यक was thought of by the पूर्वपक्ष to be a limited principle. 3c. परम्-The पूर्वपक्ष means that " the Supreme Being is higher than this a. " We have shown above that this पूर्वपक्ष implies a belief in two Supreme Realities, viz., अव्यक्त and gow. The qauar has already agreed that the Supreme One is aaom in Bra. Su. III. 2. 23 and now he says that there is a Supreme One higher than this aroum. So, according to this पूर्षपक्ष, there are two Realities अव्यक्त and पुरुष, of which the latter is higher than the former. The qaqer may also mean that there is only one Reality which has two aspects अव्यक्त and पुरुष of which the latter is higher than the former. The former view is that of the Later Mahabharata; the latter view is held by the Earlier Metrical Upanisads and the Bhagavad Gita.14 The Sutrakara accepts neither of these views because according to him there is only one Reality which bas two aspects of equal status. Thus, according to the Brahmasutra अव्यक्त and पुरुष are two names or aspects of the same Brahman, neither being higher than the other. 4. सतून्मानसंबन्धभेदव्यपदेशेभ्य: ।-As the पूर्वपक्ष argues that the Supreme Being is higher than this Unmanifest ( a ), it seems to us that all these four reasons ( सेतुन्यपदेश, उन्मानव्यपदेश, संबन्धव्यपदेश and भेदव्यपदेश) are taken from a Sruti or Srutis which allude to them with reference to the anm. Such a text is only the Katha Upanisad as we have stated in the notes on Sūtra III. 2. 23. This latter Sutra ( III. 2. 23 ) which mentions sm5 seems to refer to that same text because we think that in all the Sutras which give the expression " ana fa " we have a reference to a text in which the very word as is

14. Vide the author's Aksara: A forgotten chapter

BRA. So. III. 2. 31-36 49

mentioned in the Sutra in question occurs.15 The following explanations of the four gas given in Sutra 31 would, we believe, be a further substantiative proof of the above suggestion of ours which we make only on the ground of the context of "अतः" in that Sutra.

5. सेतुव्यपदेश-There are several Srutis in which the word सेतु occurs with reference to Brahman (1) अथ य आत्मा स सेतुर्विधृतिरेषां लोकानामसंभेदाय नैतं सेतुमहोरात्रे तरतः । ... तस्मावना

6. This can be shown by a comparison of the Sutras having the expression "आह हि" with their respective विषयवाक्य s. We give below a table of the same :- सूत्राणि। विषयवाक्यश्रुतयः । (1) तेजोऽतस्तथा ब्ाह। II. 3. 10 'सदेव' इत्युपक्रम्य 'तत्तेजोऽसृजत' इत्युपदेशात्। (The preceding Sutra, असंभ- वस्तु सतोऽनुपपत्तेः, refers to सत्). (2) संध्ये सृष्टिशह हि। III. 2. 1. तस्य वा एतस्य ... संध्यं तृतीयं स्वप्नस्थानं ... । बृ. उ. IV. 3. 9, न तत्र रथा न रथयोगा न पन्थानो भवन्त्यथ रथात्रथयोगान्पथः सृजते ...... ll बृ. उ. IV.3. 10. (3) आह च तन्मात्रम्। III. 2. 16 (तत् ब्रह्म एव तेज एव। बृ. उ. IV. 4.7. See rofers to प्रकाश in tho prcceding our Notes on Sūtra III. 2. 16. Sutra-प्रकाशवच्चावैयर्थ्यात्।) Why तेज: for प्रकाश ? (4) तदव्यक्त्माह हि। III. 1. 2. 3. महतः परमव्यक्म्। कठ, उ. III, 11. (5) तानि परे तथा त्याह ॥। IV, 4. 15 तेज: परस्यां देवतायाम्। छा. उ. VI. 15. 2. (तानि refers to तेज आदीनि भूतानि See our Notes on Sūtra IV. 2. 15. in Sūtra IV. 2. 5 ). (6) अभावं बादरिराह हेवम्। IV. 4.10 (अभावम् rofers to the absence अथायमशरीरोऽमृत: प्राणो ब्रह्मैव तेज एव।

of body mentioned in Sūtra बृ. उ. IV. 4. 7.

IV. 4. 13 ). (7) विकारावर्ति च तथाहि स्थितिमाह। Some Sruti describing the yoeq IV. 4. 19. to be permanent is referred to.

50 INTERPRETATION

एतं सेतुं तीर्त्वाऽपि नक्तमहरेवामिनिष्पद्यते सकृद्विभातो लेवैष ब्रह्मलोक:।। ( Cha. Upa. VIII. 4. 1-2 ). With regard to this Sruti it has been decided in Bra. Su. I. 3. 14-21 that aar which is called आत्मन् and सेतुः विधृति: in this Sruti is the Supreme Being. The opponent did not raise an objection there on the ground of the दहर being called सेतु. So it is not likely that the दहर श्रुति could be the पूर्वपक्ष text in Bra.Su.III. 3.31.(2) यस्मिन्धौः पृथिवी चान्तरिक्षमोतं मनः सह प्राणैश्च सर्वैः ॥ तमेवैकं जानथ आत्मानमन्या वाचो विमुश्चथामृतस्यैष सेतु: ॥(Mu. Upa. II. 2. 5). This Sruti has been discussed in Bra. Su. I. 3. 1-7 and therefore would not be a पूर्वपक्ष in Bra. Su. III. 3. 31. (3) स वा एष महानज आत्मा योऽयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु य एपोऽन्सर्हृदय आकाशस्तस्मिच्छेते ...... एष भूतपाल एष सेतुर्विधरण एषां लोकानामसंभेदाय ... I( Br. Upa. IV. 4. 22). It is not possible that this text could supply the qaver in Bra. Su.III.3.31.(4) यः सतुरीजानानामक्षरं ब्रह्म यत्परम्। अभयं तितीर्षतां पारं नाचिकेत शकेमहि॥ ( Katha Upa. III. 2). Out of these Srutis it is particularly the Katha Sruti ( III, 2 ) to which the gagar in Sutra 31 seems to refer, because in Katha Upa. III. 11 the word अव्यक्त in the sense of ब्रह्मन् occurs and that अव्यक्त is here declared to be सेतु. अक्षर ब्रह्म ( Katha Upa. III. 2) is the same as अव्यक्त of the Sutrakara since अव्यक्त is the Supreme Being (See Note 3 on Bra. Su. III. 2. 23; also see infra Note 11 on भेदव्यपदेश). Therefore on the strength of Katha Upa. III. 2 one may argue that in the Katha Upa. the Unmanifest is declared to be a bridge ( सेतु). The idea सेतु (bridge) implies that those who cross the bridge reach a destination beyond the bridge. Similarly the पूर्वपक्ष argues that since अव्यक्त is declared to be a ua, the supreme principle must be beyond the अव्यक्त, i. e. the पुरुष is beyond अव्यक्त. As stated in Sutra III. 2. 26, it was a belief that from the annFa a seeker went to the gE4. This is also the purport of the argument that the Supreme Being is higher than the Unmanifest ( Sutra III. 2. 31). Thus, the qaqg of Su. III. 2. 31 supports our interpretation of Sutra III. 2. 26 which is a पूर्वपक्ष according to us. Now since a seeker was believed to progress from

BRA SO. III. 2. 31-36 51

अव्यक्त to पुरुष (that was higher than अव्यक्त), the पूर्वपक्ष used the text declaring अव्यक्त to be a सेतु to prove that the Supreme Being was higher than the अध्यक्त. This argument was met with by the सिद्धान्तिन् saying that पुरुष is also declared equally to be a सेतु. In other words, सेतुव्यपदेश is common to both अव्यक्त and पुरुष both of which are aspects of Brahman ( Cf. Bra. Su. III. 2. 32 ). 6. The way of arguing adopted by Sankara that the destination may be अनात्मन cannot even remotely be drawn out from the Sutra. Rather " qry " in the Sutra indicates that the one beyond this अव्यक्त Brahman (सेतु ) is also Brahman or at least a conscious principle because the पूर्वपक्षिन् here is one who has accepted aFa as Brahman and then argues that the Supreme One is higher than this ( Unmanifest ).

7. उन्मानव्यपदेश-This should mean that the अव्यक्त is declared to be limited or measured. There are several Srutis in which Brahman is declared to have a " measure " or to be limited .- (1) अथ यदिदमस्मिन् ब्रह्मपुरे दहरं पुण्डरीकं वेश्म दहरोऽस्मिन्नन्त- राकाशस्तस्मिन्यदन्तस्तदन्वेश्टव्यं तद्वाव विजिज्ञासितव्यमिति । (Cha. Upa. VIII. 1.1); (2 ) अङ्गुष्ठमात्र: पुरुषो मध्ये आत्मनि तिष्ठति। ईशानो भूतभव्यस्य न ततो विजुगुप्सते एतद्वैतत् ॥l (Katha. Upa. IV.12-13); (3) य एषोऽक्षिणि पुरुषो दृश्यते एष आत्मेति होवाचैतदमृतमेतदभयमेतब्गह्मेति ...... (Cha. Upa. IV. 14. 1); (4) एष मे आत्मान्तर्ृदयेऽणीयान् व्रीहेर्वा यवाद्वा सर्षेपाद्ा श्यामाकाद्वा श्यामाकतण्डुलाद्वा एष म आत्मान्तरर्हदये ज्यायान्पृथिव्या ज्यायानन्तरिक्षाज्ायान्दिवो ज्यायानेभ्यो लोकेभ्यः (Cha. Upa III. 14. 3). In these or other passages Brahman or Atman is deelared to be of the size or measure of the heart, of a thumb, of an eye, etc. But it seems to us that out of all these Srutis, it is the Katha Sruti ( IV. 12-13 ) only, to which the पूर्वपक्ष in Bra. Su. III. 3. 21 is likely to refer, because only that Sruti mentions Brahman as अव्यक्त. Thus, उन्मानव्यपदेश seems to us to be a reference to the description of this अव्यक्त as "अङ्कगुष्ठमात्रः

52 INTERPRETATION

gav: " ( Katha Upa. IV. 12 and 13 ). We have shown else- where ( Vide our notes on आयतन in Bra. Su. III. 3.39) that Bra. Sū. 1. 3 is devoted to the disoussion of such Srutis as contain the word gra and are therefore taken by the Sūtrakara as pertaining to the svaa aspect of Brahman in his discussion of those Srutis (in Bra. Su. I. 3) but may be taken as mentioning the अरूपवत् or अव्यक्त aspect of ब्रह्मन् ( as the Sutrakara says in Sutra III. 3. 39 ). In fact the Sūtrakara has discussed, in our opinion, in Bra. Su. 1. 3 such विषयवाक्यs as the पूर्वपक्ष sought to interpret as dealing with अव्यक्त and has established by arguments ( in Bra. Su. I. 3) that they deal with gou aspect, but has allowed ( in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 39 ) their use in the meditation on the अव्यकत aspect ( See our Notes on that Sutra ). Thus, it seems to us that the opponent took अङ्गुष्ठमात्र पुरुष to be different from व्यापक पुरुष ( Katha Upa. VI.8- Sutra III. 2. 26 ) and argued that अङ्कगुष्ठमात्र: पुरुष: was the अव्यक्त ब्रह्मन्. The Sutrakara took अव्यक्त to be an aspect viz., the अरूपवत् aspect of Brahman, but the opponent took अव्यक्त to be one Brahman and ow to be another Brahman because he believed अव्यक्त to be lower than पुरुष (Sutra III. 2. 31 ). In order to prove this belief the qega makes use of the fact that the अव्यक्त Sruti mentions अङगुष्ठमात्र पुरुष and also व्यापक पुरुष. The word उन्मान is etymologically connected with the word प्रमित in शव्दादेव प्रमित: ( Bra. Su. I. 3.24) which discusses this very Katha Sruti. This connection also may be taken as an indication in favour of our identification of the Sruti referred to by उन्मानव्यपदेश with Katha Upa. IV. 12 and 13. Because अव्यक्त ब्रह्मन is declared to be limited, the Supreme Being is higher than that अव्यक्त, i. e., पुरुष in Katha Upa. III. 11 (or व्यापक पुरुष as in Katha VI. 8) is higher than अव्यक्त as stated in Katha Upa. III. 11. The Sutrakara refutes this argument of the ydoe by saying that this उन्मानव्यपदेश is for the purpose of forming a notion about Brahman, just as the mention of uras or quarters of the पुरुष (the रूपवत् aspect of Brahman).

BRA. So. III. 2. 31-36 53

8. Sankara illustrates the qauar by quoting a single Sruti in which Brahman is said to be agmra. This does not seem to us to be a happy quotation in as much as that very Sruti (of चतुष्पादू ब्रह्मन्) is used by the Sutrakara in order to refute the objection of EFHTHT (See Sutra 33 ), by saying that the measure ( qre ) is merely meant for the formation of a notion in meditation. According to Sankara, the पूर्वपक्षिन argues that because Brahman is ' measured, ' there should be another principle than that Brahman, just as the measurement of a particular thing in the world implies the existence of several other things as well. This does not seem to us to bring out exactly the point of the पूर्वपक्षिन्. Rather the latter means that because अव्यक्त accepted by the Sutrakara as ब्रह्मन् is said to be 'measured' in the arara Sruti, there should be another Brahman which is without measure.

9. संबन्धव्यपदेश-There are a number of Srutis which say that the individual soul in bondage is associated with Brahman (1) सता सोम्य तदा संपन्नो भवति (Cha. Upa. VI. 8.1), (2) शारीर आत्मा प्राज्ञेनात्मना संपरिष्वकतः (Bra. Upa. IV. 3. 21), (3) एवमेवेमाः सर्वाः प्रजाः अहरहर्गच्छन्त्य एतं ब्रह्मलोकं न विन्दन्ति ... (Cha. Upa. VIII. 3. 2 ).

As the reply to this objection in Bra. Sū. III. 2. 34 (which we read as only स्थानविशेषात्) shows, this refers to the संबन्ध of the अव्यक्त and the individual soul. If so, it is likely that the Sruti to which this aa refers is the following :-

स्वप्नान्तं जागरितान्तं चोभौ येनानुपश्यति। महान्तं विभुमात्मानं मत्वा धीरो न शोचति॥ ( Kațha. Upa. IV. 4 ). As this Sruti is taken from the text of the aeaga, the पूर्वपक्षिन seems to argue that in this Sruti the अव्यक्त is declared to be that with which (a ) the individual soul sees or ex- periences both the state of dream and that of waking. Thus,

54 INTERPRETATION

the soul is declared to be connected with the anrFa ( in these two states ). Because there is already a connection between the wora and the individual soul, the Supreme Being with which the soul seeks to be united ( tafa in Sūtra IV. 4.1) in liberation is higher than this aana. As it is not stated in Katha Upa. IV. 4 that the connection between the Unmanifest and the individual soul to which it refers is that which takes place when the soul is in the deep sleep state and as the reply of tho Sutrakara is an argument explaining the connection to be such a one, we believe that Katha Upa. IV. 4 is just the proper Sruti to which ia aa in Sūtra III. 2. 31 refers. It is not likely, in any case, that a Sruti which clearly mentions the connection of Brahman and the individual soul in deep-sleep state would be referred to .by संबन्धव्यपदेश by the पूर्वपक्ष, because that pointed reference itself would go against him rather than favour his conclusion.

10. Sankara argues that as the soul is said to be connected with Branman in deep sleep, it follows that Brahman is ' limited' faa; and because Brahman is thus proved to be ' limited,' there must be another unlimited principle. Thus, Sankara practically reduces the two arguments, HIe and =e, to only one, viz., Brahman as taught by the Sūtrakara is limited or measured.

11. भेदव्यपदेश-T'he opponent points out that the Sruti mentions the auaa and the higher one to be different. Could it be proved that the two are one and the same, the opponent would have to conclude that the two are only two aspects or designations of the same principle; but he does not think that this can be proved. The भेदव्यपदेश meant by the पूर्वपक्ष would be very probably the भेद of पर and अपर, the अव्यक्त aaa mentioned by the Sutrakara ( III 2. 23 ) being the latter, since the opponent holds that there is a qr aerT " higher " than that taught by the Sūtrakāra ( Bra Sū. III. 2. 31 ).

BRA. Sū. III. 2. 31-36 55

The मेदव्यपदेश of the पूर्वपक्ष refers to the difference (भेद) between अव्यक्त and पुरुष mentioned in महतः परमव्यक्तमव्यक्तात्पुरुषः परः । पुरुषान्न पर किश्चित्सा काष्ठा सा परा गति:। ( Katha Upa III. 11 ). The Fa of this series of principles is declared by the Sutrakara to be Brahman which he has discussed ( Bra. Sū. III. 2. 23 ). The same is described in the Katha Upa. in a subsequent verse, viz, अशब्दमस्पर्शमरूपमव्ययं तथाऽरसं नित्यमगध्धवञ्च यत्। अनाद्यन्तं महतः परं ध्ुवं निचाय्य तन्मृत्युमुखात्प्रमुष्यते॥ ( Katha Upa. III. 15 ).

In this verse 'महृतः परम्' is described, so that this verse refers to the अव्यक्त of the above verse (Katha Upa.III. 11); and "अशब्दमस्पर्शमरूपम्. ..... " is applicable only to Brahman; therefore also अव्यक्त is Brahman. So, पुरुष in Ka. Upa. III. 11 is another Brahman higher than the अव्यक्त ब्रह्मन्. Similarly in Ka. Upa. VI. 8. In this Sruti TE4 is declared to be qr and therefore अव्यक्त is lower or अपर. If the अव्यक्त is the परमं पदम्, पुरुष is विष्णु ( Katha. Upa. III. 9), the master to whom that पद belongs (Cf. Bha. Gi, VIII. 20-22). This मेदव्यपदेश was already mentioned by the पूर्वपक्ष in Bra. Su. III. 2. 26. The Sutrakara's reply given there was that because there are two designations (अव्यक्त and पुरुष ), Brahman is like अहि and कुण्डल or प्रकाश and its आश्रय ( Bra. Su. IlI. 2. 27-28; see also Bra.Su.III. 2.25 in which अव्यक्त is declared to be like प्रकाश ). As the Sutrakara's reply ( in Sūtra III. 2, 35 which we propose to read as प्रकाशादिवदुपपत्तेश्च) refers to the simile of प्रकाश and the other ( e. g., अहि ), we infer that it is the difference between अध्यक््त and पुरुष, both being argued by the पूर्वपक्ष to be Brahmian, which is referred to by him in Sūtra III. 2. 31. 12. Sankara oxplains भेदव्यपदेश by quoting Cha. Upu. I. 6-7. He says that that Sruti mentions two different fsars,

56 INTERPRETATION

one who is आदित्याधार and another who is अक्ष्याधार. But the fact seems to be different, because by an अतिदेश which Salikara himself quotes the Sruti itself identifies the two. So, in our opinion, the passage does not support the ेदव्यपदेश at all.

13. There are several other Srutis in which the भेद between अव्यक्त and पुरुष which are respeotively the अपर ब्रह्मान् and पर ब्रह्मन्, is mentioned :-

(a) तदेतत्सत्यं यथा सुदीप्तात्पावकाद्विस्फुलिङ्ाः सहस्रशः प्रभवन्ते सरूपाः। तथाक्षराद्विविधाः सोम्य भावाः प्रजायन्ते तत्र वैवापियन्ति ॥ १॥ दिव्योः हयामूर्त पुरुषः सवाह्याभ्यन्तरो हाजः । अप्रमाणो ह्रमनाः शुभ्रो लक्षरात्परतः परः ॥ २ ॥ (Mu. Upa. II. 1. 1-2). If अक्षर is inter- preted in the first verse as Brahman, it cannot be taken in the second verse as अव्याकृत or माया without giving up the consistency of the context. So, पुरुष is here said to be higher than the अक्षर ब्रह्मन् which is the highest. अक्षर ब्रह्मन् is itself पर but पुरुष is परतः पर: So, there is a principle beyond the पर ब्रह्मन discussed by the Sutrakara (Bra. Su. III. 2. 11 and 31).

( b) यं यं लोकं मनसा संविभाति विशुद्धसत्वः कामयते यांश्र कामान्॥ तं तं लोकं जयते तांश्च कामांस्तस्मादत्मश्षं हर्चयेद्धतिकाम:॥ (Mu. Upa. III. 1. 10). स वेदैतत्परमं ब्रह्मं धाम यत्र विश्वं निहितं भाति शुभ्रम्॥ उपासते पुरुषं ये ह्मकामास्ते शुक्कमतदतिवर्तन्ति धीराः॥ ( Mu. Upa. III. 2. 1). In this Sruti "स वेद" is to be connected with आत्मक्ञ. And एतत् शुक्रम् should be taken as a reference to परमं ब्रहम. The word 'शुक्' is used for Brahman in many Srutis :- स पर्य- गाच्छुक्रम कायमव्रणमस्नाविरंशुद्धमपापविद्धम् । (Isa. Upa. 8); तदेव शुफं तङ्गह तदेवामृतमुच्यते॥ तस्मिरलोकाः थ्रिता: सर्वे तदु नात्येति कश्चन एतद्वैतस्।। ( Katha Upa.VI.1); तं विद्याच्छुक्रममृत तं विद्याच्छुक्रम- मृतमिति ॥ (Ka. Upa VI. 17). So, 'पतत् शुक्रम्' in Mu. Upa. III. 2. 1 cannot be interpreted as 'नृबीजं'. It should be explained as referring to परम ब्रह्मन in the first half of the verse. Thus, according to this verse, a meditator on goa goes beyond परम ब्रहान्, and पुरुष is therefore higher than Brahman.

BRA. So. III. 2. 31-36 57.

(c) स सामभिरुन्नीयते ब्रह्मलोकं स एतस्माजीवघनात् परात्परं पुरिशयं पुरुषमीक्षते।। (Pra. Upa. V. 5). The same ब्रह्मलोक is further described in स साममिर्यत्तत्कवयो वेद्यन्ते॥ तमोंकारेणैवायतनेनाम्वेति विद्वान्यत्तच्छान्तमजरममृतमभयं परं चेति॥ (Pra. Upa. V. 7). Thus, ब्रह्मलोक which is जीवघन is that " which the wise declare" ( of. दुर्गे पथस्तत्कवयो वदन्ति Ka. Upa. III. 14). According to this Sruti of Pra. Upa. it seems that जीवघन ब्रह्मलोक is ब्रह्मन् and पुरुष is a principle higher than that ब्रह्मन्. If जीवघन ब्रह्मलोक is the हिरण्यगर्भलोक ( as interpreted by Sankara ),16 how can it be called 'ब्रह्मन्' at all ? Much less can it be called "अपर ब्रह्मन्". "पुरुष" is परात्पर: as in अक्षरात्परतः पर: (Mu. Upa. II. 1.2). In Pra. Upa. V. 2, this Brahman is actually called अपर ब्रह्मन् and पुरुष is called पर ब्रह्मन्. In all these texts a principle higher than the highest Brahman is mentioned; and the two principles are distinguished as पर and परात्पर. The भेदव्यपदेश in these Srutis would have to be explained on the same lines as that in Katha Upa. III. 11.

14. If our suggestion ( in Sütra III. 2. 31) that it is the rouFa text, viz., the Katha Upa. passage, which is referred to by all the arguments of the qaqa in Bra. Su. III. 2. 31, be correct; we are here given to understand as to how that passage was generally understood in the days of the Sūtrakara and how the Sutrakara himself interpreted it. The Katha Upa. was believed to teach two Brahmans ( of. तथाऽन्यप्रतिषेधात्- Sūtra III. 2. 36 ) one of which was considered to be higher than the other ( the arguments of सेतुव्यपदेश etc.). Thus, अव्यक्त of Katha Upa. III. 11 and VI. 8 is Brahman itself, as is also go. They were taken to be different from each other; the the Sutrakara explained them to be two aspects of the same principle like अहि and कुण्डल or प्रकाश and प्रकाशाश्रय. Compare the पूर्वपक्ष here with the Aupanisada School of Mahabharata

15. Vide Sankara's commentary on the Pra. Upa,

58 INTERPRETATION

XII.17 The Bhagavadgita also makes the same distinction between अव्यक्त (or sTTT ) and goT, e. g., in Bha. Gi. VIII. 20-22.18

Sutra 32 15. 'a' indicates the Sutrakara's rejection of the ar in the preceding Sutra. There is no principle higher than the Brahman called aauva ( Bra. Su. III. 2. 23, Katha Upa. III. 11, 15 and VI. 8 ). 16. m-a-The Sūtrakara seems to us to mean that the सेतुव्यपदेश is common to both अव्यक्त and पुरुष and there- fore the fact that in the Katha Upanisad asuaa is called aa oannot prove that there is a higher ( aspect of ) Brahman than the aFa, viz., the gov. In Katha Upanisad III. 2 the Fa is called ag. We have already stated that the word सेतु is used for दहर in Cha. Upa. VIII. 4. 1-2 and for आत्मन् in Mu. Upa. II. 2. 5. In Bra. Sū. I. 3. 1-7 the subject of Mu. Upa. II. 2. 5 is explained to be gaq because it is called "atqcy " ( a word coined specially for the purpose of a comprehensive significance conveying the two-fold purpose of a reference to the Sruti and a suggestion of a designation of g5a ) or gE4 ( Bra. Sū. I. 3. 2 ); and in Bra. Sū. I. 3. 14-21 the दहर has been explained as परमेश्वर. Thus, सेतुव्यपदेश being common to both cannot prove that one aspect of Brahman is higher than the other or that the y54 is higher than the अव्यक्त. 17. Sankara gives a very simple explanation of the Sutra, viz., Atman is called aa not because after crossing the bridge of Atman we reach some other principle which is our destination, but because Atman is like a bridge inasmuch as like an ordinary bridge which determines the limitations of a particular place, Atman is the sustainer of the rules (boundaries)

17. Vidc the author's Aksara: A forgotten chapter, PP. 35-48. 18. Ibid, P. 17 and P. 148-149.

BRA. So. III. 2. 31-36 59

of the world. This explanation is, in our opinion, hardly possible because we think that no पूर्वपक्ष which accepted अध्यक्त as निरस्तसमस्तप्रपश्चं ब्रह्म as determined in Bra. Su.III. 2. 23-30, would be arguing that अव्यक्त is called सेतु in any other sense than that of "सेतुरिव से Besides explaining सामान्य as सेतुरिव सेतु: Sankara gives several other arguments none of which are even implied in the Sutra itself.

Sūtra 33

18. After "बुद्धयर्थ:" we have to take उन्मानव्यपदेश as understood.

19. बुद्धयर्थ :- The अव्यक्त is called अङ्गुष्ठमात्र: पुरुष: because in meditation the meditator has to form a notion ( बुद्धि:) of अव्यक्त, as a पुरुष of the size of a thumb. In Sutras I. 2. 7 and I. 3. 21 the Sutrakara says that the Supreme Being is said to be 'residing in the human heart' because It is to be meditated upon as such. Like "अर्भकीकस्त्व" the अङ्कगुष्ठमात्रत्व is meant for use in meditation only. It does not prove that the अव्यक्त is limited and that there is a higher Reality or a higher aspect of the Reality.

20. पादवत्-In Bra. Su. I. 1. 24 the impersonal aspect of Brahman called there ज्योति: (Cha. Upa. III. 1.37) is explained to be such because of the mention of its qras (or चरण) in which one पाद consists of all beings (Bra. Su. I. l. 26). The पूर्वपक्ष has raised no objection there that ज्योति: should be the lower Brahman because it is "measured" by four qrs.19 Elsewhere in Cha. Upa. IV. 4. 5-8, and III. 18 also the impersonal aspect of Brahman is said to be possessed of four quarters ( qras ). Just as this cannot imply that Brahman is a limited entity, अङ्कगुष्ठमात्रत्व does not mean that अव्यक्त is limited and that therefore पुरुष (who is above अध्यक्त ) is an

21. of. चेतोऽर्पणनिगदात in Bra. Su, I. 1. 25,

60 INTERPRETATION

unlimited or omnipresent principle higher than the arsam ( Cf. सर्वगतत्व in Sutra III. 2.37 for the implication that the पूर्वपक्ष takes अध्यक्त to be 'limited').

21. Sankara says that the उन्मानबुद्धि is meant for मन्द and HeH students, but the Sūtrakara does not seem to refer to such a view in the Sutra. Rather, according to the Sūtrakara all meditators have to meditate upon ब्रह्मान् as अङ््गुष्ठमात्र, etc. For explaining the उन्मान according to the पूर्वपक्ष Sankara had already selected one Sruti describing चतुष्पादू Brahman (पाद means a foot ), so, for interpreting the Sutrakara's reply to that पूर्वपक्ष, Sankara at first selects another Sruti about चसषुष्पाद् Brahman and gives an alternative interpretation of miana in which qr means " a quarter," not a foot. But with the latter inter- pretation he could not rightly construe the expression 'बुद्धयर्थ :,' so, he has to add "व्यवहार प्राचुर्याय" (and not for forming a notion).

Sūtras 34-35

22. To us it seems that only "स्थानविशषात्" forms Sutra 34; and प्राकाशादिवत् should be transferred to Sutra 35. We make this suggestion, because by adopting it, we get, as will be shown below, a better and easier interpretation of these two Sūtras ( 34-35 ). Sankara's statement that Sūtra 34 is a reply to both the remaining arguments of the पूर्वपक्ष (संबन्ध- व्यपदेश and भेदव्यपदेश), and his double explanation of that Sutra supports our suggestion regarding the change of reading. in Sutra 35, which indicates that it is the answer to the last argument, also goes to corroborate our suggestion. Again, Sankara takes Sutra 35 ( as read by him ) also as an answer to the last two arguments of the पूर्वपक्ष. This also favours our proposed detached readings of Sutras 34-35. Lastly, 'प्राकाशादिवदुपपत्तेश्च' seems to be connected with Sutra III. 2. 25-30 and therefore forms an answer to one argument only. 23. स्थानविशेषात्-In Katha Upa. IV. 4 which the पूर्वपक्ष has quoted to show that the individual soul is associated with

BRA. So. III. 2. 31-36 61

the asua, and therefore there should be a higher Reanty or a higher aspect of Reality, viz., TET, there is no explanation of the association between the arsum and the individual soul. It was because of this very absence of explanation of the association and the consequent vagueness about the cause of the associa- tion, that the Purvapaksa presented that verse as an argument.

The Sutrakara says that the association of the soul with the aara mentioned in Katha Upa. IV. 4 should be taken to be that which takes place when the soul is in the deep sleep state, in सुषुप्तस्थान. Because the soul unites with the अव्यक्त ( or Brahman ) in the state of dreamless sleep and does not undergo any other state ( change ), it is that he is able to go over once again to the states of dreaming and waking. This is the Sutrakara's explanation of Katha Upa. IV. 4. Therefore, the verse ( Katha Upa. IV. 4 ) cannot be quoted, as the qevar possibly did, to demonstrate the association or union of the soul with the anoum in dreaming and waking states. And because this cannot be proved, it cannot be argued that there is a higher ( aspect of ) Reality than the eraum with which the soul is already associated while in dreaming and waking states.

We have shown that in Bra. Su. III. 2. 11 the word u has the sense of states like the states of waking, etc.

We believe that only Katha Upa. IV. 4 could be the basis of the पूर्वपक्ष's argument in Sutra III. 2. 31. The पूर्वपक्ष could have quoted no other afa, not indeed a Srnti in which the connection of the individual soul with Brahman was clearly stated to be that taking place in dreamless sleep. If the latter were the case, the Sutrakara's explanation would be in vain, having been easily grasped by the qeivar. 24. प्रकाशादिवदुपपत्तेश् (which is our suggested reading for Sutra 35 )-The Sutrakara says that the cuaT can be explained ( उपपत्तेः) like प्रकाश, etc. "प्रकाशादिषदुपपत्तेः" seems to be the same as is mentioned in Sutras 27-29. There the

62 INTERPRETATION

difference (भेद) of अव्यक्त and पुरुष was first explained as that between अहि and कुण्डल and then as प्रकाशाश्रय and प्रकाश. By knowing कुण्डल and प्रकाश, we know अहि and सूर्य who is प्रकाशाश्रय, though अहि and सूर्य remain unmanifest during the process of knowledge, envisaging their forms (coil and radiance). This has been explained in Sūtras 27-29. So, the difference between अव्यक्त and पुरुष (भेदव्यपदेश) is like that between अहि and कुण्डल or प्रकाशाश्रय and प्रकाश. In short, it is not an essential difference. The अव्यक्त Brahman itself appears as gET. The two are one in essence, just as कुण्डल and प्रकाश are identical with अहि and प्रकाशाश्रय. By "आदि" we should take प्रकाशाश्रय, and also अहि and कुण्डल. The Sūtrakara did not expound the similes here, because he had already done so in his preceding Sūtras ( 27-29 ). 25. The presence of in Sutra 35 shows that Sūtra 35 is an answer to the last argument of the opponent, because the Sutrakara is replying to those arguments seriatim. 26. Saknara reads Sutra 34 as स्थानविशेषात्प्रकाशादिवत्.But we have shown that स्थानविशषात् is an explanation for संबन्धव्यपदेश and प्रकाशादिवत् (उपपत्तेश्च) for भेदव्यपदेश and therefore स्थानविशेषात् should be read as Sutra 34 and प्रकाशादिवदुपपत्तेश् as Sutra 35. Sankara says that in Sūtra 34 ( as read by him ), the Sutrakara gives a reply to the last two arguments of the qeqg in Sūtra 31. This is inconsistent with the fact that the Sutrakara gives a reply to one argument only in each of Sūtras 32-33. Further, Sankara interprets 'स्थानविशेषात्' in two different ways, one of which applies to the refutation of संबन्धव्यपदेश and the other to that of भेदव्यपदेश. (1) In the former case he explains स्थान as बुद्धयाययुपाधि and स्थानविशेषात् aS बुद्ध्याद्युपाधिस्थान- विशेषयोगात्. According to Sankara, the Sutrakara's reply to संबन्धव्यपदेश is that the संबन्ध is to be understood in a subordinate sense, viz., it is true only so far as the 3qIfg of the individual soul is concerned. The soul's connection ( संबन्ध) with the

BRA. So. III. 2. 31-36 63

Supreme Being is nothing but the cessation of particular cognitions which arise on account of the soul's association with particular limitations in the form of afa, etc., and this cessation results from the cessation of the limitation itself. Thus, the ana is not due to the fact that Brahman with which the soul comes into contact is 'limited' (परिमित ). (2) The other interpretation of स्थानविशेष by which Sankara refutes the opponent's argument of भेदव्यपदेश is that the भेदव्यपदेश (the Sruti teaching many ईश्वरs) is due only to the उपाधिभेद ( different limitations ), not due to different natures of fars. To us it seems that all the complexity underlying San kara's explanation of स्थानविशेषात् is due to the fact that the original sense of zura ( viz., one of the three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep ) was forgotten in his days. The illustration 'प्रकाशादिवत्' is explained by Sankara (1 ) in relation to 'स्थानविशेषात्' and (2) as answering both the last objections of the पूर्वपक्ष. According to him, SaRT or light ( of the Sun or the Moon ) is one and the same, but if we connect it with sqrfers or adjuncts, there will appear diversity of light, and when these adjuncts are removed, the light in the adjunct will be said to be connected with or will recede into the Sun (or the Moon as the case may be ); and, again, if the 3urfes are different, we may talk of different lights. By anfa, Sankara takes the ether of the eye of a noedle ( सूचीपाशाकाश).

In fact, 'स्थानविशेषात्' as interpreted by Sankara does not make clear his meaning of Haa, but rather according to his explanation स्थानविशेष leads to संबन्धाभाव, and the संबन्ध takes place when स्थानविशेष (i e., उपाधि ) ceases to function. 27. Sankara explains Sutra 35 (उपपत्तेश् as read by him) as a reply to the last two arguments of the qava. Thus, according to him, Sūtras 34-35 are each of them a reply to each of the last two arguments of the qaiqer. Sankara says

64 INTERPRETATION

that the connection of the individual soul with the Supreme Soul can be explained only as due to the removal (?) of बुद्धधादि उपाधि (adjuncts in the form of बुद्धि, etc.); and that the भेदव्यपदेश can be explained only as due to उपाधिभेद ( different adjuncts ). In each case he explains the उपपत्ति as referring to Srutis. In the case of संबन्धव्यपदेशपरिहार, he says that the Sruti teaching the merging of the soul into Brahman as the very self of the individual soul ( स्वमपीतो भवति-Cha. Upa. VI. 8. 1) proves that this " connection " takes place on the cessation of उपाधिकृतस्वरूप. In the case of भेदव्यपदेशपरिहार, he quotes three Srutis from Cha. Upa. III. 12 and says that the anarT in all of them is said to be different, because the स्थानs of these आकाशs are different.

To us it appears that प्रकाशादिव दुपपत्तेश्र was the reading of Sutra 35 and that it was the reply to भेदव्यपदेश only. 'प्रकाशादि' is the same argument as in Sutra III. 2. 27-28. Moreover, if at all the single word " sqqd:" was the reading of Sūtra 35, that squfar ought to have been explained only on the propriety of a more commonsense argument, and not with reference to what is said in Srutis. The Sūtrakara seems to make use of the argument 'उपपत्तेः' or 'उपपद्यते च' only when he does not refer to a Sruti, but when he gives an argument from our ordinary life. Compare 3qqaa in Bra. Su. II. 1. 36, and II. 3. 14, and sqqa: in III. 1. 22, and III. 2. 38. A study of अनुपपस्ते: (e.g. in रचनानुपपत्तेः Bra. Su. II. 2.) also adds strength to our interpretation of उपपत्ति.

Sūtra 36

28. After refuting the four arguments of the qeuar in the preceding four Sutras, the Sūtrakara adds one more argument of his own in his favour in this Sutra. There cannot be two Brahmans or even two aspects of Brahman in which one is higher than the other, because the Sruti denies that there is another principle. The Sūtrakara

BRA. SO. III. 2. 31-36 65

seems to have in his mind those Srutis in which Atman or Brahman is said to be only one and in which u second is denicd, viz., (a) आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाम्र आसीत्। (Ai. Upa. I. 1) (b) सदेवेद्मग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयम्। (Cha. Upa. VI.2. 1) (c) ब्रह्म वा इदमग्र आसीदेकमेव। (d) आत्मैवेदमत्र आसीदेक एव। ( Br. Upa, I. 4. 11 ) ( Br. Upa. I. 4. 17) (e) सलील पको द्रष्टा अद्वैतो भवति। ( Br. Upa. IV. 3. 32 ) ( f) अनेजदेकं मनसो जवीयः । ( Iśa. 4 ) (g) एकस्तथा सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा। ( Ka. Upa. V. 9, 10, 11 ) (h) एको वशी ... एकं रूपं बहुधा यः करोति। ( Ka. Upa. V. 12).

In some of these Srutis Atman or Brahman is said to be one, in others one only, and in some a second one is denied. There are some Srutis in which ' 3E ' another principle' is denied :-

(a) नान्योऽतोऽस्ति द्रष्टा नान्योऽतोऽस्ति श्रोता नान्योऽतीऽस्ति मन्ता नान्योऽतोऽस्ति विज्ञातैष ते आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतोऽतोऽन्यदार्तम् ... । ( Br. Upa. III. 7. 23 ) (6) नान्यदतोऽस्ति द्रष्ट नान्यदतोऽस्ति श्रोत नान्यवतोऽस्ति मन्तृ नान्यदतोऽस्ति विज्ञात ...... । (Br. Upa. III. 8. 11) (c) न तु तद् द्वितीयमस्ति ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यद्विजानीयात् ॥३० ॥

डन्यद्विजानीयात्। (Br. Upa. IV. 3. 30-31).

In all these Srutis a second principle is denied. The fundamental doctrine of Vedanta is that of oneness of Brahman. So, the Sutrakara argues that there can not be a principle higher than the aroum Brahman. Because there is none other than Brahman, there can be no other higher principle than Brahman. This seems to us to be the standpoint of the Sūtrakara. In Bra. Sū. I. 3. 12, while discussing Br. Upa. III. 8. 7-8, he uses Br. Upa. III. 8. 11 (See (b) above)

66 INTERPRETATION

and says that in this Sruti we have ' aeaonafa' exclusion of any other existence.' So, it is likely that the Srutis of the above type are in the Sutrakara's mind when he speaks of अन्यप्रतिषेध. 29. Sankara, however, quotes several Srutis which do not expressly deny the existence of a second principle. But the Srutis quoted by him under Sutra III. 2. 30 are those which deny the existence of a second principle. 30. We may now ask us once again : " Which particular School represented by the gagar is stated in Sutras III. 2. 31-36 ? To us it appears that the followers of the Earlier Metrical Upanisads as distinguished from those of the Oldest Prose Upanisads were the opponents to whom the Sutrakara replies in these Sutras. With these opponents the followers of the Bhagavadgita and the Vedantins of the Mahabharata Moksa- dharmaparvan might be associated. In these works the highest three principles in order are the unconscious Nature, the conscious Nature and the Purusa, as we have shown elsewhere.20 They regarded the Aksara Brahman of the Oldest Prose Upanișads in a two-fold capacity, ( 1) as an optional goal along with Purusa, and ( 2 ) as a power ( safa ) of the Purusa who was placed above Aksara Brahman as the one to whom that power belonged. The Sutrakara tried to uphold the other view of taking Aksara as the highest principle, making at the same time a compromise with the later view, which he did on the basis of Yaska's view or a Vedanta view which had already adopted Yaska's view about the अपुरुषविधस्व and पुरुषविधत्व of the qaars of the Rgveda. From the qaver in some Sutras of Bra. Su. I and in Sutra III. 2. 31 it appears that the followers of the Earlier Metrical Upanisads firmly took their stand on these Upanisads

20. Vide the author's Aksara : A Forgotten Chapter in the history of Indian philosophy, Chapter III.

BRA. So. III. 2. 31-36. 67

which the Sutrakara had accepted along with the Oldest Prose Upanisads as authoritative texts. The Sutrakara discusses in Bra. Su. I. 1-3 various passages from the Earlier Metrical Upanisads and seems to decide that the topic of those passages is Purusa. In Bra. Su. I. 3. 13 ( ईक्षतिकर्मव्यपदेशात्सः ) it seems that the Sutrakara proves ब्रह्मलोक called जीवधन (Pra. Upa. V)a1 to be पुरुष and thus he repudiates the dootrine about grq of that Branch of the Atharva- veda to which the Praśna Upanisad belonged, viz., that grq is above or higher than this जीवघन ब्रह्मलोक which is itself पर (एतस्मात् in the Sruti must refer to ब्रह्मलोक which is called जीवघन because it is a mass of life just as it is called प्रजानघन a mass of consciousness ). The Branch to which the Mundaka Upanisad belonged must have claimed that ararr aar was lower than पुरुष (अक्षरात्परतः पर :- Mu. Upa. II. 1. 2; उपासते पुरुर्ष ये हकामास्ते शुक्रमेतदतिवर्तन्ति धीरा :- Mu. Upa. III. 2.1). The Sutra- kara has replied to them in Bra. Su. I. 2. 21-23, and in Bra. Su. 1. 3. 1-7. The followers of the Kathaka Branch of the Yajurveda also held that पुरुष was higher than अव्यक्त which was the अरूपवत् ब्रह्मन् (or अरूपवत् aspect of Brahman). The Sutrakara admitted that the अव्यक्त is the अरूपवत् or सूक्ष्म aspect of Brahman ( Bra. Su. I. 4. 1-7 ) but did not agree that the पुरुष (or the पुरुष aspect of Brahman ) was higher than the अव्यक्त (Bra. Su. III. 2.31-36). The arguments of the followers of the Kathaka Branch were of course based upon the Katha Upanisad. When the Sutrakara made a statement that Brahman was predominantly अरूपयत् (Bra. Su. III. 2. 14) and that this अरूपवत् aspect was called अध्यक्त as in the Katha Upanisad ('आह' in Bra. Su. III. 2. 23 refers to a Sruti with the word 3T5755 ), the followers of the Kathaka Branch found an opportunity to argue out their view that पुरुष was higher than the अव्यक्त. They had to base their arguments upon their own text, viz., the Katha . . 21. Or rather aksara in Pra. Upa. IV. 10-11. Vide Appendix III.

68 INTERPRETATION

Upanisad. The Sutrakara who wanted to build up a System of the Vedanta philosophy on the foundation of all the accepted Scriptures explained away the arguments of the Kathaka Branch with the help of the other Upanisads also. Thus, when the Kathakas argued that अव्यक्त was called a सेतु the Sūtrakāra replied that the designation of aa was common to both अव्यक्त and पुरुष; when the forwer argued that the अव्यक्त was अङ्गुष्ठमात्र: पुरुष: and that पुरुष who was declared to be व्यापक was higher than the अव्यक्त, the Sutrakara replied that the measure of the arae was meant for helping the meditator to form a notion for the Unmanifest, just as the measure of four padus of the व्यापक पुरुष Himself given in the Chandogya Upanişad ( IV. 4., III. 8 ); when the Kathakas pointed to their text in which the individual soul was declared to be connected with the araam, the author of the Sutras said that this connection must be interpreted as the one taking place when the individual soul was in the deep sleep state. Lastly, when it was argued by the former that the Sruti mentioned the difference between the अव्यक्त and पुरुष (भेदव्यपदेश- the two were mantioned differently i. e., under different names. of. उभयव्यपदेश in Bra. Su. III. 2. 26), the latter said that the difference can be explained without taking g54 to be higher than अव्यक्त, viz., by taking them to be like कुण्डल and अहि or प्रकाशाश्रय and प्रकाश, which are illustrations of one and the same thing having two aspects which can be distinguished from each other without giving greater importance to either of the two and which prove that पुरुष is essentially अव्यक्त just as कुण्डल is essentially अहि, and प्रकाशाश्रय (e. g., the Sun i. e., the solar orb ) is essentially sarT. Also it should be noted here that when कुण्डल is perceived, the अहि as such is not perceived i. e., the अहि ( without a coil form) is अव्यक्त (invisible ) during the preception of कुण्डल. Similarly, प्रकाशाश्रय ( the disc ) can be seen only when प्रकाश is अव्यक्त (impreceptible, the lunar disc in the day or the solar disc in the twilight ). So, पुरुष when perceived, still remains अव्यक्त, i e., the अरूपवत्

BRA. So. III. 2. 31-36 69

aspeet on which the gan aspect is founded remains aro5 when the gew aspect is realised. But the gaq aspect is essentially the aspect and therefore the result of the realization of the gEw aspect is the same as the result of the realization of the अध्यक्त aspect (Bra. Su. III. 2. 26-28 ).

Moreover, if the followers of the Kathaka Branch argued that the was the Brahman, they could not assert that there was पुरुष higher than the अव्यक्त because such an assertion would in the opinion of the Sutrakara mean that there wero two Brahmans and would be contradictory to the Srutis which exolude the possibility of a second principle other than the One Brahman. Even to say that Brahman had two aspects one of which was higher than the other ( qry-Bra. Su. III. 2. 31 ) would amount to saying that there were two Brahmans.

By the above arguments the Sūtrakara tried to establish that there was only One Brahman which was predominantly 'अरूपवत्', meaning thereby that It had also a रूपवत् aspect which however was not to be understood as lower than the wavaa inasmuch as it was an aspect of the same Brahman and Brahman was Itself रूपवत् though principally अरूपवत्. Whatever gunas belonged to the arauaa, equally belonged to the sqaa, because both were aspects of the same Brahman and the meditation on either brought the same result, viz., gfr. This doctrine is explained in full details in Bra. Su. III. 3, as we shall see in the next Chapter.

SECTION V

Sūtras III. 2. 37

(३७) अनेन सर्वगतत्वमायामशब्दादिभ्यः ।

TRANSLATION

BY this (the conclusion of the preceding Adhikarana), the omnipresence of the Unmanifest [ is proved ] from the Sruti mentioning all-prevasion and other ( arguments ). 37

NOTES

Sūtra 37

1. Like other अतिदेश Sutras (Bra. Su. I. 4. 28, II. 1. 3, II. 1. 12, II. 3. 8 ), this Sūtra should form a separate Adhika- rana. The topic of this Adhikarana is to prove that Brahman is omnipresent or all-prevading, while the topic of the preceding Adhikarana was to prove that there was no other higher principle than Brahman called अव्यक्त. 2. araa-This is a reference to the conclusion of the preceding Adhikarana. It is conclusively shown there that there is no other higher principle than Brahman. From the series given in such texts as Ka. Upa. III. 10-11 we learn that each succeeding one from among इन्द्रियs, अर्थs, मनः, बुद्धि, महान् आत्मा, अव्यक्त and पुरुष is higher than each preceding one; but in Sūtras 31-36 the Sūtrakara has definitely determined that no other principle, not even पुरुष, is higher than अव्यक्त the Unmanifest Brahman. इन्द्रियS, अथs, etc., are limited (are not fa ) in so far as there is a higher principle than each of them; but since there is no higher principle than asaar, it can be concluded that अव्यक्त is स्वगत 'omnipresent'.

2. We may here remark that the Sutrakara's application of the conclusion established in Sūtras III. 2. 32-36 to prove that अध्यक्त is सर्वगत, also shows that 'पर' in Sutra 31 is to be interpreted as 'higher ' rather than as 'another '. 4. आयामराष्ट्र-As Sarikara explains, the word 'आयाम' 'means' 'व्याप्ति' omnipresence, all-prevading nature. This is consistent with the word सर्वगत also.

3. अनेन ... आयामशब्दादिभ्य :- Both these words are हेतुs. अनेन refers to the conclusion arrived at in Sūtras 31-36. As there is no च at the end of the Sutra, अनन and आयामशब्दादिभ्यः are not two different ags or groups of das; but they both refer to the same arguments.

72 INTERPRETATION

6. As आयाम means व्याप्ति, and as अनेन refers to the fact that पुरुष is not higher than अव्यक्त, we are inclined to think that the आयामशब्द "the word or Sruti for all-pervasiveness " is the word व्यापक in अव्यक्तानु पर: पुरुषो व्यापकोऽलिङ् एव च" ( Kațha Upa, VI. 8 ). As Purusa is not higher than अव्यक्त (अनेन ) and as पुरुष is called व्यापक (आयामशब्द), the conclusion is that अव्यक्त is व्यापक (अव्यक्तस्य सर्वगतत्वम्). This is the meaning of the Sutra. पुरुष would have been व्यापक and अव्यक्त, अव्यापक, if अव्यक्त were lower than पुरुष. But अव्यक्त is not lower than पुरुष. 7. आदि in आयामशब्दादिभ्यम :- As the expression is आयाम- शब्दादिभ्य: and not आयामादिशब्द्रेभ्य: we think that आदि does not refer to any other Sruti or Srutis, but it stands for some rational arguments resulting from the conclusion that geq is not higher than अव्यक्त ('अनेन ' of the Sutra ). These arguments may be of the following nature :- As aa is 'the bridge of those who are devoted to the Sacrifice' (य: सतुरीजानानाम्), the designation सेतु given to the अच्यक्त shows that अव्यक्त must be व्यापक or सर्वगत. If it were limited (असर्वगत) it cannot be a bridge or 'Supporter,' as it were, of the sacificers. As the "अङ्कगुष्ठमात्रपुरुष" which is an expression desoribing अव्यक्त, is said to be ईशान: भूतभव्यस्य, the अव्यक्त cannot be the ruler of all that has been and that is to be unless that अध्यक्त is सर्वगत. The relation of the individual soul with the अठ्यक्त is not possible if the अव्यक्त is not सर्वगत. As there is no essential difference (भेद) between पुरुष and अव्यक्त, the latter must be regarded as व्यापक if the former is व्यापक ( as said in Kațha Upa. VI. 8 ). Lastly, as the Sruti denies the existence of any other principle but Brahman and as that Brahman is called अव्यक्त, the latter must be omnipresent. 8. Later on the Sutrakara uses this conclusion about the omnipresence of Brahman (III. 2. 37) as an argument viz., that the Sruti (all Vedantas) teaches only one principle and not more than one because Brahman is सर्वगत or व्यापक (Vide Bra. Su. III. 3.9).

BRA SO. III. 2. 37 73

9. In Bra. Su. III. 2. 26 the opponent argued that from the Unmanifest a meditator would be united with the Endless One ( a-ar ). This shows that the Unmanifest was regarded by this opponent as having an end or limited. This point was left untouched in Sūtras 27-30. So, the refutation of that view seems to have been given in this Sūtra ( 37 ). 10. Sankara gives several arguments based upon his conclusions in Sutras 32-36. This he has done on the strength of अनेन. We have taken अनेन as referring not to the several conclusions which are in fact refutations of the four arguments of the पूर्वपक्ष; but we take अनेन as referring to the main conclusion that पुरुष is not higher than अव्यक्त. Besides, Sankara does not take अनेन and आयामशब्दादिभ्य: as referring to the same argument or arguments, but he takes आयामशब्दादिभ्य: as a different group of arguments than that of arad. Thus, he interprets the Sutra as if it were to be read as अनेन सर्व- गतत्वमायामशब्दादिभ्यक्ष. This addition of च is clearly expressed by him in "सर्वगतत्वं च अस्य आयामशव्दादिभ्यो विज्ञायते." This is not consistent with the fact that there is no in the Sūtra, His quotation of several Sruti and Smrti texts gives the impression that he interprets आयामशब्द्ादिभ्य: as if it were आयामादिशब्देभ्य: i. e., as if the Sutrakara referred to several texts by आयामशब्दादिभ्यः We believe that the Sutrakara refers to only one text and by आदि he means several other arguments. Lastly, it may here be noted that none of the commentators tries to explain why the question of सर्वगतत्व of Brahman is disoussed by the Sūtrakara at such a late stage as in Bra. Sū, III. 2. 37, when no qavar can be definitely ascertained to have advanced the arguments contained in Sūtra III. 3. 31. The omnipresence of Brahman is already taken as granted in Bra. Su. I. 1. 2 and on that assumption all the foregoing Sutras were worked out. So the occassion of its discussion here in this context remained a conundrum.

10

SECTION VI

Sūtras III. 2. 38-39

(३८) फलमत उपपत्तेः ।

(३९) श्रुतत्वाच्च।

TRANSLATION

THE fruit [ i. e .. óf Moksa is to be had ] from this [ Brahman ], because it is reasonable, 38

and because it is declared so in the Sruti. 39

NOTES

Sūtra 38

1. 'अतः', as in Sutras 26 and 31, refers to the अव्यक्त discussed in the preceding Sutras. As the (preceding ) Sūtras ( 31-37 ) show, It is the Highest Principle of Vedanta. 2. mary-Thus, this is a reference to the oe in the form of मुफ्ति मुक्ति is called फल in Bra. Su. III. 4. 52. It is out of place that the fruit of the actions of an individual soul be mentioned here, while the question whether he can do actions or not be discussed in Bra. Su. II. 3. 33-40. The fruit of his worldly actions is perhaps discussed in Bra. Sū. II. 3. 41.

The nature of the oe meant here is discussed in Bra. Su. III. 2. 40-41.

3. उपपरे :- This seems to be a reference to अतः in this very Sutra. अध्यक्त ब्रह्मन meant here is the highest principle, therefore it is quite proper that the same Brahman should be the giver of the fruit in the form of liberation. Only the highest principle can give this fruit and none else. If there were a principle higher than , the former can be the giver of the , but there is no such higher principle, as proved in Sutras IV. 2. 31-36. पुरुष is not higher than the अव्यक्त.

4. Sankara does not refer ara: to the transcendent Brahman mentioned in the preceding Sūtras, but to Isvara of his system (तस्येव ब्रह्मणो व्यावहारिक्यामीशित्रीशितव्यविभागावस्थायामयमन्यः स्वभावो वर्ण्यते।). Taking this Adhikarana in the light of this view, he interprets फल as इष्टानिष्टव्यामिश्रलक्षणं कर्मफलमू. As we have already stated above, this is not a proper place in the Sūtras to disouss this question. This problem forms a part of the discussion in Bra. Su. II. 3. The 'q' meant here is men-

76 INTERPRETATION

tioned in Sutras III 2. 40-41 ( See infra ). 'Eqgd' is explained by Sankara as refuting the theory of arga proved by अर्थापत्त, but in our opinion the 'उपपत्ति' should, from the evidence of the context, directly refer to the fact that the oya Brahman is the highest principle. Sutra 39 5. arena-This seems to be a reierence to a Sruti in which the fruit in the form of sitaT is said to be solely depen- dent upon Brahman itself. Such texts seem to be the following :- नायभात्मा प्रवचनेन लभ्यो न मेधया न बहुना श्ुतेन। यमेवैष वृणुते तेन लभ्यस्तस्यैष आत्मा विवृणुते तनुं स्वाम् ॥ ३ ॥ नायामात्मा बलहीनेन लभ्यो न च प्रमादात्तपसो वाप्यलिङ्गात्। पतैरुपायैर्यतते यस्तुविद्वांस्तस्यैष आत्मा विशते ब्रह्मधाम॥४ ॥ ( Mu. Upa. III. 2. 3-4, Kațha Upa. II. 22 )

In Bra. Su. IV. 2. 17 the Sutrakara mentions the grace of God ( aTigaa ) which a seeker gets through the power of faur and other means. That doctrine is consistent with Katha Upa. II. 22. The grace of God is also mentioned in Bra. Su. III. 4. 38. 6. Sankara quotes a Sruti in which Isvara, as he says, is said to be the giver of wealth ( agI: ). 7. These two Sūtras ( 38-39 ) discuss the question of the giver of the fruit in the form of absolution. The word in Sütra 39 as usual shows that it is the last Sūtra of the Adhikarana. Moreover, according to the scheme of the Sutrakara the reference to a text of the Sruti ( such as we have in Sutra 39 ) is the last argument in an Adhikarana except when a Sutra explaining the Sruti follows the one referring to the Sruti.

SECTION VII

Sūtras III. 2. 40-41

(४०) धर्म जैमिनिरत एव। (४१) पूर्व तु बादरायणो हेतुव्यपदेशात्।

इति तृतीयाध्याये द्वितीय: पाद:

TRANSLATION

J AIMINI [ says that the fruit is ] Dharma ( religious merit ), because of this very reason ( viz., the support of the Sruti ). 40

But, Bādarāyāna [ holds ] the former ( i. e., the Unma- nifest Brahman) [ to be the fruit ], because [ the former ] is said to be the cause [ of Dharma ]. 41

NOTES

Sūtra 40

1. These two Sutras seem to us to form an independent Adhikarana, and to disouss the topic of the nature of the fruit mentioned in Sutra 38. 2. 'aa qa' seems to be a reference to a Sruti in which the 'religious merit ' ( ) is mentioned as to be given by the Supreme Being. Such a Sruti seems to be the following :- एष सेन साधु कर्म कारयति त यमेभ्यो लोकेभ्य उन्निनीषते। एष उ पवासाधु कर्म कारयति तं यमधोनिनीषते ।। (Kau, Upa.) In this Sruti Brahman is said to give the fruit in the form of argsd 'religious merit.' Jaimini, according to this Sutra, held that it was the fruit in the form of religious merit, which would be given by Brahman. 3. Šankara takes Sūtras 40-41 as forming part of the same Adhikarana along with Sutras 38-39. He construes the Sutra (40) as जैमिनिस्त्वाचार्यो धर्म फलस्य दातारं मन्यते। To us the evident significance of the Sutra seems to be that Jaimini considered dharma to be the fruit ( ) given by Brahman. Sankara takes अत एव as थ्रुतेरुपपत्तेश्र. And as Sruti he quotes 'स्वर्गकामो यजेत'. But, as nothing is said in this Sruti about धर्म as फलस्य दातू, he gives arguments to interpret that Sruti. And he finds that his argument is forestalled in Sutra 38; he therefore gives additional arguments which are not given in the Sutra. In fact Sankara's interpretation of this Sutra becomes superfluous after the conclusion established in Sūtras 38-39.

Sūtra 41

4. ' ' indicates a refutation of the view of Jaimini in Sūtra 40.

BRA. Sū. III. 2. 40-41 79

5. qan refers to the Supreme Being disoussed in the preceding Sutras. Badarayana thinks that Brahman is the fruit ( फल) given by Brahman. This agrees with (1) यमेवैष पृणुते तेन लभ्यस्तस्यैष आत्मा विवृणुते तनुं स्वाम् (Mu. Upa.), in which verse the Atman is declared to be that which is to be reached (लभ्यः), and (2) सोऽध्वनः पारमाप्नोति तद्विष्णोः परमं पदम्। ( Katha Upa. III. 9 ), where the 375755 is said to be the Supreme Abode of faog and the end of the " Journey " which in this Sruti represents symbolically " all human efforts for release from transmigration " ( See Bra. Su. I. 4. 1-7 ).

6. हेतुव्यपदेशात्-Brahman is said to be the cause of religious merit in the Sruti quoted under the preceding Sutra; so, religious merit is a goal far inferior to Brahman; Brahman itself should be regarded as the fruit, rather than what Brahman is said to be the cause of. This seems to be the argument of Badarayana. Srutis like (1) यः सेतुरीजानानाम् (Katha Upa. III. 2), (2) एको बहूनां यो विद्धाति कामानू ( Katha Upa. V.13, for काम of. स्वर्गकाम: यजेत, etc., ) also show that the अव्यक्त Brahman is the cause of धर्म.

7. Sankara takes "qan" in the sense of Iśvara to be the giver of the fruit because he is the cause of religious merit according to the Sruti. It should be said that in the Sruti in question ( Kau. Upa. Vide supra ), there is no mention of फलस्य दातृ the giver of the fruit. This Sruti does not describe धर्म as a फल received from God by the individual soul for any action performed by him. It distinctly states that Brahman is the द्वेतु or cause of धर्म. ईश्वर is the cause of धर्म, therefore धर्म is a created thing. To argue that on a created thing rather than the creator would be the bestower of the fruit, would be lessening the cogency of the argument. Sankara saw this difficulty and explained फलहेतुत्व of Isvara as being the creator of creatures in harmony with their own individual actions (तदेव चेश्वरस्य फलदेतुतवं यत् स्वकर्मानुरूपा: प्रजा: सृजतीति।). The Sutrakara, most probably, did not mean

80 INTARPRETATION

this kind of a at all, but he meant by the summum bonum, the ultimate goal, the absolution. Sankara's interpreta- tion of these Sutras ( 40-41 ) makes Sutras II. 1. 34-36, supererogatory. Moreover, the subject of these Sutras as understood by Sankara is foreign to the whole Pada (III. 2) because he takes Sutras 11-37 as dealing with qrrfaer, while he takes Sutras 38-41 as dealing with व्यवहार (or अविद्या).

CHAPTER II

SECTION I

Sūtras III. 3. 1-4

(१) सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्यमं चोदनाद्यविशेषात्। (२) मेदान्ेति चेननैकस्यामपि । (३) स्वाध्यायस्य तथात्वेन हि समाचारेऽधिकाराच्च सववच्च तन्नियम:। (४ ) दर्शयति च ।

TRANSLATION

THE ( certain ) knowledge of Brahman [ can be obtained ] from all the Vedantas, because of the non-difference of the Injunction etc., [ in all the Vedantas ]. 1

If it be argued [ by the Opponent ], " No, because of the difference of the Injunction etc., [ of one Vedanta from the same of another Vedanta ]", we reply, " No, even [if they be the same ] in one Branch [ of each Veda, we hold, the same Brahman is to be known from all the Vedantas ], 2

and because svādhyaya being what it means ( i. e., nothing else but one's own text of religious study ) a person has religious fitness for [ the study of ] that [ text which is ] in vogue [ in his Branch ]. And that rule is 34 like the rule of the sava Sacrifices, and the Sruti shows it.

11

NOTES

Sūtra 1

(1) सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्ययम् -- The topic of all the Vedantas is Brahman; lit., ' Brahman is one the knowledge of which is to be had from all the Vedantas.' All the Vedantas teach Brahman, and not only some of them teach it, because all the Vedantas have identical ( lit., non-different ) Injunction, ctc. By the word 'Vedanta' the Sutrakara intends to exclude Samhita, Brahmana, Aranyaka and Khila. (See समाने in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 5 and see Sutras III. 3. 19-24.)

सर्ववेदान्त प्रत्ययम्' is to be distinguished from शाखासु हि प्रतिवेदम् (in Bra. Su. III. 3. 55). Brahman is taught in ( and may be studied from ) all the Vedantas i. e., from the Vedantas or Upanisads of all Branches of all Vedas ( Bra. Si.III.3.1), but the "अङ्गावबद्धाः (ब्रह्मोपासना:) " are taught in and are to be studied from all the Branches of only one particular Veda. (See Notes on qazng in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 2 and शाखासु हि प्रतिवेदम् in Bra. Su. III. 3. 55.) 2. चोदनादि-In Jai. Su. II. 4. 6 the sameness of an act (कर्मन् e. g. अग्निहोत्र ) is proved on the ground of non-distinction of संयोग, रूप, चोदना and आख्या (एक वा संयोगरूपचोदनाख्या- faaiara-Jai. Su. II. 4. 6). The same four proofs of identity of topic seem to have been meant here by चोदनादि. It is worth noting that in this Pada and also elsewhere in the Brahmasutra the method of argument regarding Brahman is the one established in the Jaiminisutra regarding Karman ( rites, see Note 4 below ). 3. The first Sūtra ( Bra. Su. III. 3. 1 ) seeks to establish the unity or identity of Brahman taught in all the Vedantas on the ground that संयोग, रूप, चोदना and आख्या about Brahman in all the Vedantas are indentical.

BRA. Sū. III. 3. 1-4 88

4. Sankara says that the preceding Pada deals with विश्षेय ब्रह्मन् ; and that this Pada deals with सगुण or उपास्य ब्रह्मन, the result of the meditation on which is at most maafr, and also with certain topics like the sor etc. But this distinetion does not seem to us to have been made by the Sūtrakara. In Bra. Su. III. 2 the अरूपवत् ब्रह्मन was discussed and it was also established that there is no other higher Brahman than that अरूपवत् which is the प्रधान aspect of Brahman. So, it is quite reasonable to think that Bra. Su. III. 3. 1 continues the same topic of अरूपवत् ब्रह्मन्.

In this Sutra and in fact in this Pada and in the Pada which follows this, the Sutrakara has tried to explain his doctrine by the help of the rules of the Porvamimamsa. Thus, we have here चोदनाद्विशेषात्. According to Sanikara's School, the निर्गुण ब्रह्मन cannot be a topic of Injunction (चोदना); s0, in order to get rid of the difficulty, he says, this Pada deals with the सगुण ब्रह्मन्, while the preceding Pada with the विज्ञेय aaa. To us it seems that the Sūtrakāra does not make distinction between the विज्ञेय ब्रह्मन् and the उपास्य ब्रह्मन् as is done by Sankara. According to the Sutrakara Brahman has two aspects the अरूपवत् and the रूपवत् and each of the two has certain yors and is also without certain other gors, as will be shown by us in the course of this Pada ( Bra. Sū. III. 3 ). So, the Sūtrakara, unlike Sankara, does not find any difficulty in taking aera to be a subject of Injunction. Sankara also feels that his interpretation of Bra. Su. I. 1. 4 is in conflict with Bra. Sū. III. 3. 1.

Moreover, Sankara does not take ' aa' as understood in "सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्ययम्" He says: "किं प्रतिवेदान्तं विज्ञानभेद आहोस्वि- न्नेति। ... तस्मात् सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्ययत्वं विज्ञानानाम्" And, from what follows, he does not appear to take ' a' literally, because according to him the several विद्याड or विज्ञानानि which are discussed in this Pada are each of them discussed not on the basis of all the Vedantas, but on that of only those Vedantas

84 INTERPRETATION

in which the same faunr is stated, the number of which is generally two, three or four only. To us, it appears that there is no reference to the several विद्याs like पञ्चाग्निविदया, प्राणविद्या, शिरोव्रत, वैश्वानरविद्या (as a विद्या), शाण्डित्यविद्या etc., here; but only aerT and its meditations are discussed here and that 'सर्ववदान्त' is to be understood literally, because the problems of this Pada are discussed on the basis of all the Upanișadic texts ( i. e. Vedantas ) of all the Branches of each Veda (See Note on एकस्याम in Bra. Su. III. 3.2, and शाखासु दि प्रतिवेदम् in Bra. St. III. 3. 55). Sutra 2

5. भेदात् in Sutra III. 3. 2-The opponent argues that one and the same Brahman is not taught in all the Vedantas, because चोदना and other proofs of identity of topic in all of them are 'not the same' (भेदात्). To us it seems that as in the preceding Sutra the Sutrakara asserted the identity (अविशेष) of चोदनादि as the argument, "भेदात् " in Sutra 2 asserts that these चोदना, etc., are different. 6. एकस्यामपि-The Sutrakara in Sutra 1 assered that चोदना and others were the same in all the Vedantas and therefore the knowledge (प्रत्यय) of Brahman was to be had from all the Vedantas. The opponent in Sutra 2 says that all the Vedantas do not teach Brahman ( but some teach g54 also ), because चोदना etc., are not identical in all the Vedantas (भेदात्). To this the Sutrakara replies in "एकस्यामपि ".

"एकस्याम्" seems to us to refer to "शाखायाम्" as understood. We make this suggestion because in Sūtra III. 3. 55 we have "शाखासु हि प्रतिवेदम्." It appears to us that Sutras 1-54 deal with the meditation on Brahman not thought of as consisting of " parts " ( aTFs ), while Sutras 55-59 deal with the meditation on Brahman thaught of as consisting of "parts " (अङ्गावबद्धाः ब्रह्मोपासना:). In Sutra 55 the Sutrakara seems to mention the difference between the meditation on

BRA. Sū. III. 3. 1-4 85

Brahman without parts and the same on Brahman with parts. He has proposed an sqriair in the case of the meditation on Brahman without parts in Sutra III. 3. 5, but in Sūtra 55 he says that the meditations of Brahman based upon the args of Brahman should not be collected, because they are taught in the Branches of each particular Veda (शाखासु हि प्रतिवेदम्).

From this it appears that the Sutrakara (in Sūtra III. 3. 55) argues that the अङ्गावबद्धा: ब्रह्मोपासना: may be .collected in the STRTs of each Veda, so that the followers of one Veda should not practise such meditations of the TeTS of another Veda.

To us it seems that Sutras 1-2 which deal with the main Eqram or the meditation on Brahman itself should be consi- dered from the standpoint of what is said in Sutra 55 and the following regarding the अङ्गावषद्धा: ब्रह्मोपासना :.

In the case of निरङ्गाः ब्रह्मोपासना: the Sutrakara says that Brahman is taught in all the Vedantas i. e., in all the Upani- sads of all the Vedas. Thus, he distinguishes the meditation on निरङ् Brahman from that on साङ्ग ब्रह्मन. The thoughts of the latter belong to Branches of only each Veda; so all Branches of only each Veda should collect the thoughts on the aTFs of Brahman for themselves from all the Branches of each Veda. But in the meditation of Brahman itself, all Vedas i. e., the followers of all the Branches of all the Vedas should collect the thoughts etc., on Brahman.

Thus, अङ्गरहिता: ब्रह्मोपासना: are taught in all the Vedas, while अङ्गावबद्धा: ब्रह्मोपासना: belong to or are taught in all the Branches of each Veda only. As a result of the above conclusion, the Sūtrakara ( in Sutra 2 ) seems to reply the opponent's argument by saying that if =ramr etc., are the same even in one Branch of each Veda, we shall conclude that all the Vedas teach the same Brahman.

86 INTERPRETATION

The opponent argued that चोदना etc., were not the same in all the Vedantas or Upanisads, so that Brahman only was not known from all the Vedantas; certain Vedantas taught पुरुष and not Brahman. In this case though चोदना and फलसंयोग (उपासीत and मोक्ष ) may be the same in all the Vedantas, the रूप and समाख्या of the पुरुषवेदान्तs would be different from those of the प्रधानवेदान्तs (See Note on Bra. Su. III. 2. 27). "एकस्यामपि "-The Sutrakara replies that if चोदना etc., were the same even in one Branch of each Veda, he would assert that the knowledge of Brahman was given in all the Vedantas ( because अरूपवत् or प्रधान and रूपवत् or पुरुष were only two aspects of the same Brahman ). Thus, the singular number ( एकस्याम्) is to be contrasted with the plural number ( शाखासु) in order to grasp the difference in the Sutrakara's view about the teaching of fargr ब्रह्मन् and that of Brahman with parts. प्रतिवेदम् should be taken as understood in Sūtra 2. According to the Sutrakara's reply ( एकस्यामपि) in Sutra 2, the difference of चोदना etc., between the various Vedantas does not matter, because even if they are the same in only one Branch of each of the Vedas, Brahman is known from all the Vedantas. So that the different चोदना, आख्या etc., differ only in expression, not in sense. Thus, Brahman may have different names in different Branches.

7. Gara in Sūtra III. 3. 2 appears to us to be a con- tradiction of अविशेषात् in चोदनाद्यविशेषात् (Sutra III. 3. 1) and should mean चोदनादिभेदात्. भेदात् would probably refer to the fact that in some Upanisads ' Brahman' is taught, in others 'Purusa' (आख्या भेद); in some the goal is said to be Brahman, in others Brahmaloka ( फलमेद). Sankara says that भेदात् means गुणभेदात्; but we find no reference to गुण in the Sutra itself. 'एकस्याम्' should mean 'एकस्यां शाखायाम्'as the expression 'शाखासु हि प्रतिवेदम्' in Bra. St. III. 3. 55 shows. Sankara

BRA. SŪ. III. 3. 1-4 87

explains एकस्याम् as एकस्यामपि विद्यायामेवंजातीयको गुणभेद उपपद्यते. This 'गुणभेदोपपत्ति' is neither stated nor implied in the Sutra, though it may be consistent with Sankara's illustration of पञ्चाग्निविद्या (Cha. Upa. V. 9). A serious diffioulty in accepting Sankara's interpretation of Bra. Su. III. 3. 2 is that he takes aontotrart as the topie of the Sutra, though in this Sutra the Sutrakara only discusses Brahman as the teaching of all Vedantas, and 3qdart is first introduced only in Su. III. 3. 5. Sūtra 3 8. An objection may be raised against Bra. Su. III. 3. 1 as follows :- " If all the Vedantas teach the same Brahman, one must learn all the Vedantas; but this is not so, because one learns only the text of his own Branch ( his own ' svādhyaya ). The Sutrakara answers this objection by pointing out that ' svadhyaya' is " what it means " ( aFa ), i. e., by its very name it is meant to be studied by only him whose svadhyaya it is, and that one is considered religiously fit ( afaza ) or one has the religious fitness viz., the discharge of obligation to the practice of his family. Thus, it is only a religious formality that one is to study his own svādhyāya; it does not go against the fact that all the Vedantas teach (the same ) Brahman. स्वाध्यायनियम does not conflict with taking the same Brahman as taught in all Vedantas, even if raa cte., be identical in one Branch of every Veda. Sva- dhyaya is meant to be studied in one's own Branch ( aga ) and also one is entitled to repeat the text in vogue (समाचार ) in one's Branch. So, svadhyaya has its purpose fulfilled, when one studies and repeats the text of his Sakha only. But so far as the knowledge of Brahman is considered, it may be gathered from all the Vedantas. 9. The नियम of svadhyayu is like that of सवs. The सवs are the only sacrifices restricted to the followers of only ono

88 INTERPRETATION

Veda (आथर्वणिकs), all other sacrifices being common to all the Vedas. Similarly svadhyaya is meant for only one Branch of a particular Veda. The knowledge of Brahman is meant for the followers of and may be gathered from all the Vedas.

10. V.L. सलिलवत् for सववत्. The idea seems to be similar to that in

यावानर्थ उदपाने सर्वतः संप्लुतोदके। तावान्सर्वेषु वेदेषु ब्राह्मणस्य विजानतः ।। (Bha, Gi. II. 46). When water is overflowing everywhere, it matters very little from what place one fetches water for himself. Similarly when Brahman is taught in all Vedantas, it matters little which Vedanta one adopts as his svadhyaya ' text of obligatory religious study. '

11. 'तथात्व' should mean 'स्वाध्यायत्व' and not "आथर्वणिके शिरोवतादीनां स्वाध्यायधर्मत्व " as Sankara puts it. Sankara separates स्वाध्यायस्य frou तथात्वेन unnecessarily; he explains it by "स्वाध्यायस्य एव धर्मो न विद्याया:" and thus makes one sentence out of one पद ('स्वाध्यायस्य') in the Sutra. After 'समाचारे' (interpreted as वेद्वतोपदेशपरे ग्रन्थे ) Saikara adds 'आथर्वणिका इद्मपि वेद्वतत्वेन व्याख्यातमिति समामनन्ति.' However, in his subsequent discussion it is clear that he also feels that this addition is not sufficient to serve his purpose. It is strange that "एतां ब्रह्मविद्याम्" in the Mundaka Upanisad (Mu. Upa. III. 2. 10 ) should be interpreted as referring to the particular text-book instead of to the Lore about Brahman taught in that Upanisad. Moreover, Sankara separates 'समाचारे' from 'अधिकारात्' and interprets 'अधिकारात्' as "अधिकृतविषयात्" and to it he adds "एतच्छव्दात् अध्ययनशब्दाञ्च स्वोपनिषदध्ययन- धर्म एवैष इति निर्धार्यते." Thus, according to Sankara each of the words 'स्वाध्यायस्य,' 'तथात्वेन' 'समाचार ' and 'अधिकारात्' is equivalent to an individual sentence, instead of the whole expression giving two हेतुs viz., स्वाध्यायस्य तथात्वेन and समाचारे अधिकारात्, as we have suggested. 'तन्नियम' in the Sutra should

BRA. So. III. 3. 1-4 89

mean 'स्वाध्यायनियम ' and not 'शिरोवतरूपधर्मनियम' as Sarikara interprets it. 'aa ' must refer to some word in the Sutra itself. In fact the Sūtra ( III. 3. 3 ) is an explanation of why there should be a rule about the svadhyaya, when all the Vedantas teach the same Brahman. The Sutrakara says that though all the Vedantas teach Brahman, one is not given the option of choosing any Vedanta text for svadhyaya, but everyone is obliged to study his own text ( as svadhyaya). There is no reference to the शिरोव्रत of the आथर्वणिकs in the Sutra at all.

Sutra 4

10. दर्शयति-This is a reference to such texts as सर्वे वेदा यत्पदमामनन्ति ( Katha Upa. II. 15). The Sruti shows that only one Brahman is known from all the Vedantas.

We may raise a question: Can दर्शयति refer also to such Srutis as " एकमेवाद्वितीयम् ? " "afufa " is used in the Brahmasutras as distinct from "sa, " because where the Sūtrakara wants to refer to both श्रुति and स्मृति he gives such a Sutra as "दर्शयति चाथो अपि स्मर्यते" (III. 2. 17). So, दर्शयति seems to be a reference to only Sruti. 13. Sankara's wry on Sutra III. 3. 4 is in two parts, one quoting certain texts and another giving cross references to the same faur as found in tio differont Vedanta texts. The latter part, of course, is not given as an explanation of the Sūtra. Sankara's quotation proves that all and not some Vedantas, in the opinion of the Sutrakara, teach the same Brahman. But from what follows (See Sankara's comm. on Bra. Su. III 3 ) we learn that Sankara takes " aa " as only those in which a particular विद्या or विज्ञान is given. Thus Sankara modifies the sense of ' Ha' in both the Sūtra ( III. 3. 1) and the Sruti referred to in Sū. III. 3. 4. 19

SECTION II Collecting of Information, Attributes, Method of Meditation, Aspects, etc.

Sūtra III. 3. 5-9

(५) उपसंहारोऽर्थाभेदाद्विधिशेषवत्समाने च । (६ ) अन्यथात्वं शद्धादिति चेन्नाविशेषात् । (७) न वा प्रकरणभेदात्परोवरीयस्त्वादिवत्। (८) संज्ञातश्चेत्तदुक्त्तमस्ति तु तदपि। (९) व्याप्तेश्र समञ्जसम् ।

TRANSLATION OWING to the identity of topic ( Brahman ) the Collecting together [ of the attributes and other information relating to Brahman should be done from all the Vedantas ], as in the case of those ( rites ) which are subsidiary to an Injunction; and [ this Collecting is to be done ] in the case of a similar [ text ]. If it be argued, " It is otherwise f than the proposed Collecting ], on the ground of the Sruti, " we reply, " No, because of non-difference" [ of the topic, as stated above ]. Nor [ is it otherwise ] on the ground of the diversity of Context, just as the parovariyastva [ of the Udgītha, etc., cannot be said to be different from the parovariyastva of other things J. If it be argued, " [ It is otherwise ] on the ground of the Designations [ of Brahman, being different ]," we reply that " We have already expressed [ our view about ] it; but, even then [ the Collecting ] remains." And [ our view about the Collecting is ] the proper one, because [ Brahman is spoken of as ] all-pervading.

NOTES

Sutra 5

1. In Sūtras III. 3. 1-4 the Sūtrakara has proved that all the Vedantas teach ( the same ) Brahman; that, in other words, the subject of all the Vedantas is the same ( afr5r ). Now, he argues further. Because the same ( Brahman ) is the topic of all the Vedantas, a Collection of the thoughts and other information on Brahman mentioned in the various Vedantas should be made. 2. विधिशेषवत्-In the Purvamimamsa, a rule is established that all the subsidiary rites pertaining to an Injunction should be collected from the various texts where they occur. The Sutrakara applies this rule in the case of the meditation on Brahman. 3. HHR-This word seems to state a condition under which the Collection should be made. It seems to us to be as follows :

The Sutrakara distinguishes between two types of texts viz., the Vedantas and the other parts of the Sruti. The information about Brahman is to be collected together from all Vedanta texts, not from the other Sruti texts such as the Sanihitas and Brahmanas. Thus, 'HHR' means in the case of a similar text i. e., 'a Vedanta text.' This meaning of 'समाने' is suggested to us by the word 'समाने' in Bra. Su. III. 3. 19. 4. Evirgr is a Collection and as Brahman is to be shown to be.सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्यय, the Collection is to be made from all the Vedantas, not merely from two or more Vedantas; further, the Collection is not to be made mutually by two or more Branches dealing with the same faunr, as Sankara and. other commenta- tors say; but it is to be made by the followers of all the Branches of all the Vedas, as is implied in 'सर्ववदान्तप्रत्ययम्'.

92 INTERPRETATION

(See Sankara's meaning of उपसंहार in Bra.Su.II.1.24. उपसंहार- दर्शनांन्निति चेन्न क्षीरवद्धि and III. 4. 48 कृत्स्नभावान्तु गृहिणोपसंहार.) 5. Sankara takes अर्थाभेदात् to mean "यः गुणानामेकत्रार्थो स एवान्यत्रापि ". It seems to us that अर्थाभेदात् is a reference to the conclusion established in the preceding Adhikarana consisting of Sutras III. 3. 1-4. The same are is taught in all the Vedantas (अर्थाेदात्), therefore a Collection of the ( meditational ) thoughts and other information on that re, vis., Brahman, should be made. ( See also the following Note. )

Sūtra 6

6. According to Sankara Sūtra 5 is to be directly connected with Sūtra 10, and Sūtras 6-8 form an independent Adhikarana ( See the last sentence of Sa. Bha. on Bra. Su. III. 3. 5-अस्यैव तु प्रयोजनसूत्रस्य प्रपञ्चः सर्वभेदादित्यारभ्य भविष्यति।). But, to us it seems that Sutra 6 and the following three Sutras are directly connected with Sutra 5, all of them forming the same Adhikarana. 7. अन्यथात्वम्-This is a पूर्वपक्ष view as regards the उपसंहार proposed by the Sūtrakara in the preceding Sūtra. The oppo- nent says that no Collection should be made ( lit. " the fact is otherwise than that stated in Sūtra 5" ), because of the explicit word of the Sruti ( ria ). There are Srutis which declare that one should know Brabman " thus " (एवम्) i. e., as it is taught in one particular Branch of a Veda, e. g., (1) एष उ एव वामनीरेष हि सर्वाणि वामानि नयति सर्वाणि वामानि नयति य एवं वेद-Cha. Upa. IV. 15. 3; (2) स वा एष आत्मा हृदि तस्यैतदेव निरुक्तं हृदयमिति तस्माद्धदयमहरहर्वा एवंवित् स्वर्ग लोकमेति ।-Cha. Upa. VIII. 3. 3 which refers to the दहरविद्या; (3) एवंविच्छान्तो दान्त उपरतस्तितिक्षुः समाहितो भूत्वाSSत्मन्येवात्मानं पश्यति-Br. Upa. IV. 4. 23. The opponent argues: "In all these passages the Sruti insists upon the knowledge of Brahman in the very way in which it is taught in the particular Branch of a Veda. Therefore, no Collection from all the Vedantas is required to

BRA. Sữ. III. 3. 5-9 93

be made for the knowledge of Brahman. " ( See Sa. Bha. on Bra. Sū. III. 3. 10. )

8. अविशेषात्-This seems to refer to the identity of the topic in the various Vedantas in which the knowledge of Brahman "in a particular way " ( qan ) is demanded from the aspirant. Brahman as taught in the Srutis in which expressions like एवं वेद, एवंविद्, एवं विद्वान्, etc., occur and in other Srutis is the same (अविशेषात्); therefore such an expression cannot debar us from making the Collection of thoughts on Brahman. The अर्थ ( topic ) being the same, the शब्द does not matter.

9. Sankara in his interpretation of this Sūtra takes it to be a discussion of the प्राणविद्या or उद्धीथविद्या passages from the Br. Upa. and the Cha. Upa. ( Br. Upa. I. 3, and Cha. Upa. I. 2 ). But the Sūtra itself contains no indication of such a reference. If we look to the context, 'अन्यथात्वम्' should mean " otherwise " than the उपसंहार mentioned in the preceding Sutra, as explained above. Again, Sankara does not take अन्यथात्वं शब्दादिति as the पूर्वपक्ष view, but according to him the whole Sutra ( III. 3. 6 ) is a पूर्वपक्ष. Moreover, in this case Sanikara's interpretation of the प्राणविद्या is quite different from that which he proposes as the aim of this Pada in his inter. pretation of Sūtras III. 3. 1-4; i. e., in this case the qavar insists that both the Vedanta texts teach the same faur while the सिद्धान्त establishes that the two विद्या are not identical. Lastly, Sankara interprets अन्यथात्वम् as "न युक्तं विद्यैकत्वम्" inspite of there being no mention of विद्यैकत्व in the immediately preceding Sutra and, again, he modifies the sense of अविशेष into बहुतर अविशेष. Sūtra 7

10. "at" here means " or ". We think, in this Sūtra it is not used in the sense of " a " as Sankara understands it. And 'न वा प्रकरणभेदात्' would mean' न वा प्रकरणभेदादन्यथात्वम्'.

94 INTERPRETATION

Thus, it is not necessary to take Sūtra 6 as a qaqar, ( because 'वा' does not mean "तु"). Instead of saying "प्रकरणभेदादिति चेनन", the Sutra simply says "न वा प्रकरणभेदात्".

11. प्रकरणभेदात्-This is one more argument of the पूर्वपक्ष for 'अन्यथात्वम्'. The पूर्वपक्ष argues that there can be no Collection ( of attributes etc., of Brahman ) from all the Vedantas (सर्ववेदान्त- प्रत्ययम्-Bra. Su. III. 3. 1.), because the प्रकरण or context of each of the Vedantas is different from that of the rest, though Brahman be taken as taught in all the Vedantas ( Bra. Sū. III. 3. 1 ).

12. परोवरीयस्त्वादिवत्-Here the Sutrakara seems to give an illustration in which the sense ( of a word ) remains the same though the context varies; so that प्रकरणभद does not cause विशेष.

परोवरीयस्त्व refers to Cha. Upa. I. 9 where परोवरीयस् is an adjective of उद्ीथ, लोकs, and of जीवन or life in this world; and it also refers to Cha. Upa. II. 7 where परोवरीयस् is an adjective of साम and of प्राण, वाक्, चक्षुः, श्रोत्र, मनस्, taken as a group. In all these different places of context, the word परोवरीवस् has the same sense, viz., " that ( series ) in which each succeeding member is superior to each preceding one ". By arf in the Sūtra, the Sutrakara refers to some other words like परोवरीयस् which have the same sense in different places. All that the Sūtrakara seems to say is that the variety of the STaTOT or context does not necessarily lead to the variety of sense. According to the Sutrakara आनन्द and other attributes ( or ' thoughts') of Brahman have the same sense even when they are collected from the various Vedantas, because they all are the attributes of Brahman which is the same in all the Vedantas. When परोवरीयस् which occurs in one context is also taken in another context, it has the same sense; similarly if we take aras and other attributes from the various Vedantas and collect them for the purpose of meditation on Brahman, they will not change their sense.

BRA. So. III. 2. 31-36 95

13. According to Sankara, this is a Siddhanta Sūtra and establishes that the विद्या or lore in Cha. Upa. I. 2 is not the same as that in Br. Upa. I. 3 ( विद्याभेद). But it must be pointed out that he explains प्रकरणभेदात् as प्रक्रमभेदात्. Several other reasons which Sankara gives, are not referred to in the Sutra. We have interpreted "वत्" in परोवरीयस्त्वादिवत् as showing an illustration; Sanikara takes it as परोवरीयस्त्वगुणविशिष्टमुद्गीथोपासनम् and supplies as understood यथा परमात्मदृश्टध्याससाम्येऽपि (परो- वरीयस्त्वगुणविशिष्टमुद्गीथोपासनम्) अक्ष्यादित्यादिगत हिरण्यश्मश्रुत्वादिगुण- विशिष्टोद्गीयोपासनादू भिन्नम् ।. Here if he takes "वत्" (in परो- वरीयस्त्वादिवत्) in the sense of यथा, he interprets परोवरीयस्त्व as परोवरीयस्त्वगुणविशिष्टमुद्गीथोपासनम्. There is no word in the Sūtra to suggest these additions. Thus, Sankara seems to interpret "वत्" in परोवरीयस्त्वादिवत् both as showing an illustration and as meaning fafar. He does not seem to interpret आदि in the Sutra. If the last line of Sa. Bhasya on Su. III. 3. 7 gives the explanation of परोवरीयसत्वादिवस्, it would appear that according to Sankara the Sūtrakara gives the example of two Vedanta texts of the same Upanisad in order to prove विद्याभेद in two Vedanta texts each of a different Upanisad.

Sūtra 8

14. संज्षातश्चेत्-This seems to us to be the third argument of the पूर्वपक्ष for अन्यथात्वम्, the first two arguments being respectively शब्दात् (in Bra. Su. III. 3.6) and प्रकरणभेदात् (in Bra. Su. III. 3. 7 ). The पूर्वपक्ष argues that उपसंहार should not be made because the names of Brahman ( which is taught in all the Vedantas ) differ. Owing to the various names of Brahman, we should not collect the thoughts on or attributes of Brahman from the Vedantas.

15. तदुक्तम् -- The Sutrakara here seems to refer to a foregoing Sutra in which he has mentioned the difference of the names of Brahman. Probably the reference is to be traced to Bra.Su.III. 2.27 which reads उभयव्यपदेशात्वहिकुण्डलवत्-"Brahman

96 INTERPRETATION

is like the serpent and the coil of serpent because it is called both (उभयव्यपदेशः). " According to the Sutrakara Brahman is both अरूपवत् and रूपवत् or अव्यक and पुरुष; so it can have both the types of names. 16. अस्ति तु तदपि-"But even then the उपसंहार remains a fact ". The Sūtrakara seems to say that the admission of various names of Brahman on his part, does not mean that thereby he admits the opponent's view that the difference of names bars the collection of the attributes of Brahman. In fact, the difference in names of Brahman is like that of the names अहि and कुण्डल the serpent and the coil; both are names of one and the sume object. Therefore, even though the names of Brahman differ while ( the same ) Brahman is taught in the various Vedantas, a collection of its attributes etc., should be made for the purpose of meditation on Brahman. 17. These three argumonts of शब्द, प्रकरण and संज्षा (in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 6-8 ) seem to have been referred to by 5Tozrfa in नाना शब्दादिभेदात् (Bra. Su. IIl. 3. 58); and that Sutra dealing with अङ्गावबद्धा: ब्रह्मोपासना: seems to us to support our interpretation of the present Sūtras ( III. 3. 5-9 ) dealing with ब्रह्मोपासना: not based upon the अङs of Brahman. 18. Sankara does not conneet संज्ञातः with अन्यथात्वम् as we do, but he interprets संज्ञातः a8 संज्ञैकत्वात्, and refers to the fact that उद्धीथविद्या is the one name of the lore in both the Upanisads in question. "तदुक्तम् " is, according to Sankara, a reference to the preceding Sutra; so that for the opponent's further argument of " ama: " the Sutrakara, in Sankara's opinion, gives no new reply, but refers him to what he has said in the preceding Sutra. Though he himself says that the same aar viz., 'उद्धीथ' occurs in both the Upanisads, he argues that संक्षकत्व is श्रुत्यक्षरबाह्य. "अस्ति तु तदपि" is explained by Sankara as "अस्ति चैतत्संक्षैकत्वं प्रसिद्धभदेष्वपि" Thus, he explains तदू in the Sutra as referring to 'संज्ञकत्व', which is his explanation of " ama: ". Elsewhere in the Sutras e. g., in Bra. Sū. III.

BRA. So. III. 3. 4-9 97

3. 44 'aafa' means " even then. " It is not clear how Sankara interpretes a in the Sutra, because once he takes with aidmra, and again he seems to interpret a as a.

Sūtra 9

19. shows the continuation of the same Adhikarana and thus it gives one more argument in favour of the Sūtra- kara's view ( about suHiar ). Sankara makes one independent Adhikarana out of this Sutra and takes in the sense of without giving any reason why the Sutrakara should prefer to use though he could have used a itself ( See infra ).

20. As said above, here the Sūtrakara seems to give one more argument for his view that a Collection of the attributes etc., of Brahman should be made. He appears to say that because of the omnipresence of Brahman, it is quite proper that a Collection of its attributes be made. When a principle is omnipresent, it means that it is the only one principle in the world. There can not reasonably be two omnipresent principles. Brahman is an omnipresent principle, hence it is only one and the same; so the same Brahman is taught in all the Vedantas under different names. There- fore, it is proper that its attributes be collected for the purpose of meditation. 21. According to Sankara the Sutra discusses ओमित्येतदक्षर- मुद्रीथमुपासीत (Cha. Upa. I. 1.1), particularly the meaning of the case in apposition of अक्षरम् and उद्गीथम् in this sentence. It is perhaps due to this supposed reference of this Sūtra to Cha. Upa. I. 1. 1 that Sankara is led to interpret " " of the Sūtra in the sense of a intended to exclude ' qarTa ' about Cha. Upa. I. 1. 1. " sure: " is explained by Sankara by saying that the Syllable Om is सर्ववेदव्यापिन् and that व्याप्त means सर्व- वेदसाधारण्य instead of taking व्यापि in the general sense of सर्वसाधारण्य or सर्वव्यापित्व 'omnipresence'. He says that the 13

98 INTERPRETATION

word 3aru is put in as an adjective of " aarr " in the Sruti in question; otherwise, in absence of " Edfrerg " one may under- stand the सर्वव्यापि अक्षर ब्रह्मन् from the simple word "अक्षर". This does not seem to be a very happy argument, because when the Sruti starts with ओमित्यतदक्षरम् whence is the possibility of forgetting that ararr here means a Syllable, particularly the Syllable Om? On a subsequent consideration Sankara himself sees the difficulty in accepting his explanation of the presence of the word "उद्धीथ". समअसम् in the Sutra means 'उद्दीथमित्येतद्विशेषणमिति समञ्ञसम्.'

Here it may be stated that to us there seems to be not the remotest suggestion in these Sūtras ( III. 3. 6-9 ) of a reference to the Cha. and Br. Upanisad passages, as Sankara and other commentators take it to be. The Sūtrakara was probably not interested in discussing these faurs since the TAUIT of attributes which he actually mentions is that of the attributes which he has collected in Bra. Su. I. 1-3, as will be seen from our interpretation of आनन्दादय: (in Bra. Si. III. 3. 11), सत्यादय: (in Bra. Su. III. 3. 38) and आयतनाद्यः (in Bra. Su. III. 3. 39 ). Moreover, these faurs do not really form an essential part of ब्रह्मविद्या.

SECTION III

Difference of Two Aspects ( Names ) only.

Sūtra IlI. 3. 10

(१०) सर्वामेदादन्यत्रेमे ।

TRANSLATION

THESE two [ designations or aspects of Brahman are to be understood as ] distinct from each other [ lit. elsewhere than the non-difference ( abheda ) established in all points sabda, prakaraņa etc. ]

NOTES

Sūtra 10

1. सर्वाभेदात्-This seems to refer to the identity or non- difference in respect of संयोग, फल चोदना, आख्या (Bra. Su. III. 3. 1), शब्द (Bra. Su. III. 3.6) and प्रकरण (Bra. Su. III. 3. 7 ). In both the preceding Adhikaranas ( Bra. Sū. III. 3. 1-4, III. 3. 5-9 ), an attempt is made to prove the identity of several points with respect to Brahman. (See अविशेष in Sutra 1, अभेद in Sutra 5, and the refutation of भेद in Sutra 2, अन्यथात्व in Sutra 6 and प्रकरणभेद in Sutra 7. )

There was only one point with regard to Brahman, in which the Sutrakara did not object to the difference proposed by the opponent, viz., the names, arars, of Brahman ( Sūtra 8 ); and even there he said that there were only two names of Brahman just as a serpent is called अदि and कुण्डल, which (names) were not identical though Brahman is one and the same, and though the only same Brahman is taught in all the Vedantas.

2. अन्यत्र seems to mean "भेदे" (lit. elsewhere than in अभेद ).

3. Tà seems to refer to the two aars or rather two types of names of Brahman admitted and mentioned by the Sutra- kara in Sūtra III, 3. 8 ( and in Su. III. 2. 27; see also Sūtra III. 3. 52 ).

4. Thus, looking to the context we are inclined to think that the Sutrakara ( in Sutra 10) says that there is identity in all respects regarding Brahman, except in the case of these two asrs. This would ultimately mean that the two aspects of Brahman, अरूपवत् and रूपवत्, should be understood as identical in so far as Brahman is one.

BRA. SU. III. 3. 10. 101

In the Sutras that follow ( i. e., in III. 3. 11-54), the Sutrakara explains how Brahman under these two different names is to be meditated upon. Sutras III. 3. 11-54 would appear to support the interpretation of Sūtras III. 2. 11-41 and III. 3. 1-10 proposed by us.

5. Sankara understands this Sutra to refer to the passages about प्राणसंवाद in the Br. Upa., the Cha. Upa., and the Katha Upa., though the Sūtra contains no word indicative of such a reference. "{A " in the Sutra which should refer to some word in the preceding Sūtra or Sutras is interpreted by Sanikara as referring to इमे वसिष्ठत्वादयो गुणा: in the प्राणसंवाद passages which he quotes. Thus, he takes "इमे" as mas. plu. instead of as fem. du. referring to the two zisns mentioned in Su. III. 3. 8 and thereby to the अरूपवत् and रूपवस् aspects of Brahman, as done by us. " " is construed by Sankara, not as भेदात् अन्यत् but as correlative of कचित् taken as under- stood by him. Lastly, सर्वभदात् as interpreted by us refers to all the ane or identity mentioned by the Sutrakara in the preceding two Adhikaranas, while according to Sanikara सर्वाभेदात् means "सर्वत्रैव हि तदेवैकं प्राणविज्ञानमभिन्नं प्रत्यभिज्ञप्यते" and the reason for this statement is given by Sankara himself, viz., प्राणसंवादादिसारूप्यात्. To us it seems that सवभदात् does not contain even the slightest reference to the राणसंवादs. The argument of the qaua on which it based its view about the प्राणसंवाद passages, and the reply of the सिद्धान्त to that argu- ment are neither of them mentioned in the Sutra; only Sankara is responsible for them.

SECTION IV

Attributes of the Pradhana Aspect of Brahman.

Sūtras III. 3. 11-15

(११) आनन्दादय: प्रधानस्य। (१२) प्रियशिरस्त्वाद्यप्राप्तिरुपचयापचयौ हि मेदे। (१३) इतरे त्वर्थसामान्यात्। (१४) आध्यानाय प्रयोजनाभावात्। (१५) आत्मशब्दाच्च ।

TRANSLATION

BLISS and the other ( attributes ) belong to the chief aspect [ i. e. the formless aspect ] of Brahman. 11 We cannot admit priyaśirastva and the other attributes, because increment and decrement of [ ananda as implied in the phrases priyaśirastva etc., can be supposed to take place in Brahman ] if there is a difference [ in the degree of bliss within Brahman, but the latter is not the case ]. 12 But we cannot admit [ lit. There is no admission of ] othere attributes [ than anandādayah and priyaśirastva- dayah ], because these have the sameness of sense, 13 because they have no utility for the purpose of meditation, 14 and because [ the use of ] the word " Atman " [as the subject of these attributes shows that they are common also to the Jīvātman ]. 15

NOTES

Sutra II

1. प्रधानस्य-This word is the same as in Bra. Su. III. 2. 14 (अरूपवदेव हि तत्प्रधानत्वात्). (See our Notes on that Sutras.) The Sutrakara believes that Brahman has two aspects, viz., the अरूपवत् which is the प्रधान or chief aspect and the रूपवत् which is the इतर (in Sutra III. 3. 16 ) or गौण aspect. The Sutra- kara also seems to believe that the अरूपवत् aspect has no form but it has ors or attributes. This is clear from several Sūtras (See Sūtras III. 3. 37-42 ). It is also clear from this Sūtra ( Bra. Sū. III. 3. 11 ). In using the word प्रधान for the अरूपवत् aspect which the Sutrakara understands to be the chief aspect of Brahman, he seems to follow the terminology of the Jaiminisutra. 2. आनन्दाद्य :- This must refer to a list of attributes, collected from various Vedantas, in which anae is the first (आादि). Sankara and other Acaryas mention several attributes, but give no such list as is required by the nature of a agairfa compound. Even in the Taitiriya Upanisad which is quoted in the commentary on this Sutra and to which this Sūtra undoubtedly refers, there is no such list. In our opinion "en= " in this Sutra is a reference to अन्माधस्य यत: (Bra. Su. I. 1. 2) which itself refers to आनन्दा द्धपेव खल्विमानि भूतानि जायन्ते। आनन्देन जातानि जीवन्ति। आनन्दं प्रयन्त्यभिसंविशन्ति। Tai. Upa. III. 6. "आदि" in आनन्दादि refers to आनन्दमय ( Bra. Su. I. 1.12), अन्तरादित्य (Bra. Su. I. 1. 20), आकाश ( Bra. Su. I. 1.22), प्राण (Bra. Su. I. 1. 23 ), ज्योति: (Bra. Su. I. 1. 24), and प्राण ( Bra. Sū. I. 1. 28 ). Thus, आनन्दादय: seems to us to be a reference to all the attributes in the Srutis discussed in Bra. Su. I. 1. This

104 INTERPRETATION

suggestion of ours would look more plausible if our interpreta- tion of सत्यादय: ( Bra. Su. III. 3. 38 and आयातनादयः ( Bra. Su. III. 3. 39 ) as referring to Bra. Sū. I. 2 and 1. 3 respectively be correct. 3. Thus, the Sutra means that the attributes of Brahman mentioned in Bra. Su. I. 1 beginning with ananda, are those of the chief aspect or " the formless " aspect of Brahman. 4. As shown above the Sūtrakara has collected in his book the attributes आनन्द eto., for the meditation on the अरूपवत् aspect of Brahman (Cf. also the argument आध्यानाय प्रयोजनाभावात् in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 14 ). But according to Sankara, the Sutra means आनन्दादयः प्रधानस्य ब्रह्मणो धर्माः सर्वे सर्वत्र प्रतिपत्तव्या: To.us it appears that the Sutrakara here makes no direct attempt to reconcile the various conflicting Srutis even so far as the waqaa aspect of Brahman is concerned. According to him one is to study his own svudhyaya; but while meditating on Brahman he may collect the attributes of Brahman ("as many of them as possible "-See Sutra III. 3. 31 ). Sankara or any other Acarya gives no explanation for the use of the word "ga " in the sense of Brahman. Sankara has used the word 'ब्रह्मन्' instead of 'ईश्वर' as an explanation of 'प्रधान.' From this it would appear that Sankara takes this Sutra to refer to the निर्गुण or पर ब्रह्मन् of his School. The same is indicated by his explanation of आदि in आनन्दादि as विज्ञानघनत्व, सर्वगतत्व, सर्वात्मत्व. If this inference regarding Sankara's inter- pretation be correct, the question arises: 'How can the fado ब्रह्मन् have धर्मs or गुणs ?' According to the Sutrakara, there is no inconsistency because प्रधान is not निर्गुण, though it is अरूपवत्. According to Sankara the reason for "आनन्दाद्यः प्रधानस्य ब्रह्मणो धर्माः सर्वे सर्वत्र प्रतिपत्तव्या :- is "सर्वाभेदादेव." The Sutra neither mentions this reason nor does it contain any other expression like अत एव (e. g., in Bra. Su. II. 3. 18 ) or पतेन ( e. g., in Bra. Su. I. 4. 28, II. 1. 3 ) which would justify such an "अतिदेश." In fact the Sutrakara in Sutra 11 only makes.

BRA. Sū. III. 3. 11-15 105

a statement of his scheme in selecting the Srutis for disoussion in Bra. Sū. I. 1. He makes no attempt to reconcile any Srutis here and therefore he is required to give no argument for आनन्दाद्य: प्रधानस्य.

Sūtra 12 5. प्रियशिरस्त्वादि-This is undoubtedly a reference to Tai. Upa. II. 5, as is pointed out by the commentators. By "आदि" we must understand मोददक्षिणपक्षत्व, प्रमोदोत्तरपक्षत्व, etc. 6. अप्रात्ति-means non-admission or non-acceptance, reje- ction. This is the use of अप्राप्ति in Bra. Su.II. 2. 18 (समुदाय उभयंहेतुकेऽपि तदप्राप्तिः), II. 2. 22 (प्रतिसंख्याSप्रतिसंख्यानिरोधा- प्राप्तिरविच्छेदात् ), etc. The Sutrakara has, according to this Sutra, rejected these attributes, though the Tai. Upa. mentions them as belonging to Brahman. This is consistent with the fact that he has not mentioned प्रियशिरस्त्वादि in Bra. Su. I, where he has discussed the attributes of Brahman.

7. उपचयापचयौ-This is a reference to the words प्रिय, मोद, प्रमोद, आनन्द (and perhaps to ब्रह्मन् also in 'ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा'). These words are such that each succeeding word indicates a greater degree of bliss than each preceding word. So, the increment and decrement ( उपचयापचयौ) which the Sütrakara has in his mind are only with reference to the quality of आनन्द in the अरूपवत् ब्रह्मन्, which ( quality ) is also mentioned in the preceding Sutra. This explains also why प्रियशिरस्त्व is placed after आनन्दादय :. On mentioning आनन्द the Sutrakara was naturally reminded of other attributes like प्रियशिरस्त्व, मोददक्षिणपक्षत्व, etc., which refer to the various degrees of the quality of bliss in Brahman. 8. उपचयापचयौ हि भेदे-This gives the reason why the Sutrakara rejected प्रियशिरस्त्वादि गुणs of Brahman. According to him आनन्द is an attribute of (the अरूपवत् or प्रधान ) Brabman but he admits no such difference of degree ( भेद) in the आनन्द 14

106 INTERPRETATION

attribute of Brahman, as is expressed by the attributes like प्रियशिरस्त्वादि. The attribute, आनन्द in Brahman is the same; it does not undergo change, we may say, like the same attribute आनन्द in men. Thus, because the आनन्द in Brahman always remains the same and does not undergo change (a ), the Sutrakara rejects such attributes as प्रियशिरस्त्वादि. 9. The fact that the Sūtrakara rejects these attributes by giving an argument of the sameness or changelessness of the anarT of Brahman, proves indirectly that according to the Sutrakara the Tai. Upa. taught these as attributes of Brahman. Thus, Sankara's doctrine that प्रियशिरस्त्वादय: are कोशधर्माः, not ब्रह्मधर्मा: and also his interpretation of Bra. Su. I. 1. 12 based on that doctrine, are both of them inconsistent with the view of the Sutrakara. In the light of Sutra III. 3. 11-12 in our view Bra. Su. I. 1. 12-19 teaches that आनन्द or आनन्दमय is an attri- bute of Brahman. 10. Saiikara interprets अप्राप्ति in the sense of (तैत्तिरीयकात्) अन्यत्र अप्राप्तिः But the Sutrakara totally rejects प्रियशिरस्त्वादिS without making any condition as to their appropriateness in the Tai. Upa. The Sutrakara, moreover, refers उपचयापचयौ to anaFT only, but Sankara explains it as referring to Brahman itself and quotes ' एकमेवाद्वितीयम्'. He also gives more reasons for अप्रात्ति than the one given by the Sutrakara. Again, Sankara says that the Sutrakara's अप्राप्ति ( " restriction " ) of प्रियशिरसत्वादि should also be applied to other attributes like सत्यकाम, etc. This is inconsistent with Bra. Su. I. 2. 1 and Bra. So. III. 3. 38 where, unlike the rejection and exclusion of प्रियशिरस्त्वादि from the lists of गुus, the Sutrakara clearly mentions सत्यकाम as an attribute of Brahman. Finally, Sankara's remarks regarding भेदे (उपचितापचितगुणत्वं हि सति मेदव्यवहारे सगुण ब्रह्मण्युपपद्यते न निर्गुणे परस्मिन् ब्रह्मणि) go against the Sutrakara's view that the अरूपवत् aspect of Brahman has also गुणs ( Bra. Su. III. 3. 11, 37-42), just as the रूपवत् aspect. There is no निर्गुण Brahman according to the Sutrakara, nor सगुण Brahman after the fashion of Sankara.

BRA. Sữ. III. 3. 11-15 107

Sūtra 13

11. इतरे-The Sutrakara has mentioned आनन्दादय: in Sutra 11 and प्रियशिरस्त्वादय: in Sutra 12. Now, by इतरे he must be referring to a third group of attributes. Again, as arsrrfa: occurs in Sūtra 12, this third group seems to us to be a group of attributes which the Sūtrakara has rejected i. e., which he has not mentioned in Bra. Su. I. 1-3. We mean that if we look to the contexts ( Sūtra 12), gat should be a group of rejected attributes. As we shall show below, अर्थसामान्यात्, आध्यानाय प्रयोजनाभावात् and आत्मशब्दाच्च are reasons for the rejection of certain attributes. If this interpretation of ours be true, our explanation of rat would be more plausible. The degree of this plausibility will further increase if Sūtra 33 refers to अर्थसामान्यात् in this Sutra, as we are going to suggest in our interpretation of Sūtra III. 3. 33. It seems to us that rat refers to such attributes as are mentioned in एतद्वै तदक्षरं गार्गि ब्राह्मणा अभिवदन्त्य स्थूलमनण्वहस्वमदीर्घ- मलोहितमस्ने हमच्छाय मतमो Sवाय्वनाकाशमसङ्गमर समगन्धमचक्षुष्कमश्रोत्रमवा- गमनोऽतेजस्कमप्राणममुखममात्रमनन्तरमवाहं न तदश्नाति किंचन न तदश्नाति कश्चन (Br. Upa. III. 8. 8.). 12. अर्थसामान्यात् -- According to the Sutrakara, these attributes have the same aim; therefore they have not been admitted (अप्राप्त) by him in his list of attributes of the प्रधान aspect of Brahman ( Bra. Su. I. 1 ). The Sūtrakāra does not feel the necessity of collecting them along with other attributes because they have the same sense; while the other attributes, anaF, etc., which he has collected, have each of them their own individual sense ( See Note 14 below for अर्थसामान्यात्). The word सामान्य in Sutra III. 3.33 seems to refer to अर्थसामान्य in this Sūtra. 13. तु shows the rejection of a पूर्वपक्ष which insisted on collecting these attributes. 14. Sankara does not take rat as referring to a group

108 INTERPRETATION

other than both आनन्दादय: and प्रियशिरस्त्वाद्य: but he refers it to 3na-araT :. To us the context appears to require that we should have a reference to three groups of attributes here, vis., आनन्दादयः, प्रियशिरस्त्वादय: and इतरे, and that "अप्राप्ति:" is to be construed with इतर also.

अर्थसामान्यात् seems to us to be a reference to the fact that all the negative attributes have the common meaning or purpose of denying any specific form of Brahman. Now, "प्रधान" being taken as अरूपवत् the Sutrakara did not feel it necessary to include these negative attributes in his list of attributes of Brahman. Sankara, however, understands arer- सामान्यात् to mean प्रतिपाद्यस्य ब्रह्मणो धर्मिणः एकत्वात्.

Sutra 14

15. The group of rar ror: is not admitted also because they are of no use for the purpose of meditation on Brahman, since the प्रधान or अरूपवत् aspect of Brahman is the object of meditation.

16. Sankara takes Katha Upa. III. 10-11 as the faia of this and the following Sutras, and makes one independent Adhikarana of these two Sutras. It should be said that Sūtra 14 contains no indication of a reference to the Katha Upanisad ( Ka. Upa. IlI. 10-11 ); and the aneAsTs which is used as an argument in Sutra 15 is found in the Katha Upa. passage, as well as in many other Upanisadic passages, so it cannot be taken as a sure indication of a reference to the Katha Upa. in these Sutras. Moreover, as Sankara notices in his bhasya on Sūtra 15, Katha Upa. III. 10-11 has been fully discussed by the Sūtrakara in seven Sūtras ( Bra. Sū. I. 4. 1-7 ). Again, the doubt which, according to Sankara, is meant to be solved by these two Sutras, is whether each member of this series or only the goy in the Katha Upa. is intended to be established as qr. As Sankara himself says ( See the last sentence in his bhasya on Sūtra III. 3. 15 ) this doubt is solved

BRA. So. III. 8. 10. 109

by Katha Upa. III. 9; so, it appears to us, that the doubt was not raised by the Sūtrakara at all. Thus, it seems that Sūtras 14 and 15 do not refer to the Katha Upanisad.

17. व in Sutra 15 shows that अर्थसामान्यात्, आध्यानाय प्रयोजनाभावात्, and आत्मशब्दात् are all of them arguments for the rejection of इतरे and that आत्मशब्दात् is the last argument, thereby bringing the Adhikarana to an end. Thus, this also goes against Sankara's interpretation of Sutras 14 and 15. 18. Sankara divides Sutra 14 into two parts by separating आध्यानाय and प्रयोजनाभावात्. We have seen that Sutra 14 is one whole Sutra and contains one argument for the exclusion of इतरे (गुणा: ) from the Sutrakara's list of the attributes of Brahman. According to Sankara आध्यानाय does not mean 'for meditation ' but it means " for the right understanding " (पूर्वापरप्रवाहोक्ति :... आध्यानपूर्वकाय सम्यग्दर्शनाय). And "प्रयोजनाभावात्" means "न हीतरेषु परत्वेन प्रतिपन्नेषु किंचित्प्रयोजनं दृश्यते श्रूयते वा।". Sūtra 15 19. आत्मशब्दात्-The aksara passage quoted under Sutra 13 runs further on as follows :- तद्वा पतदक्षरं गार्ग्यद्रष्ट द्रष्ट्रश्रुतं श्रोत्रममतं मन्त्रविज्ञातं विज्ञात नान्यदतोऽस्ति द्रष्ट नान्यदतोऽस्ति श्रोत नान्यदतोऽस्ति मन्तृ नान्यदतोऽस्ति विज्ञात ... । (Br. Upa. IIl. 8. 11). In the section which precedes this passage we read qg a आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतोऽदृष्टो द्रष्टाऽथ्रतः श्रोताऽमतो मन्ताऽविज्ञातो विज्ञाता नान्योऽतोऽस्ति द्रष्टा नान्योऽतोऽस्ति श्रोतानान्योऽतोऽस्ति मन्ता नान्योSतोऽस्ति विज्ञातैष ते आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतोऽतोऽन्यदार्तम् ... । (Br. Upa. III. 7. 23). To us it seems, the Sūtrakara points to the fact that the इतरे गुणा: are ulso the गुणs of the individuul soul (आत्मन्) in so far as the words "एष ते आत्मा" occur with the same opithets ( of "'the unseen seer ", " the unheard hearer ", etc.) as are used for &rr. The Sūtrakara seems to mean that he has not collected these attributes of aksaru because they are asserted with reference to the individual soul also. The soul also possesses these qualities. Therefore the soul has not to acquire them by meditation, as in the case of other gors which

110 INTERPRETATION

are solelv the गus of the Supreme Being ( See तन्राव in Sutra III. 3. 33 ) and which are yet to be acquired by the soul. In another place the Sūtrakara uses the same argument (आत्मशब्दात्) to show that "सत् " in Cha. Upa. VI. 2. 1 is not a material principle ( गौणश्चेननात्मशब्दात् ... Bra. Su. I. 1.6). 20. Sankara says that the पुरुष of Katha Upa. III. 11 is called आत्मन in Katha Upa. III. 12 and therefore the इन्द्रियs, अर्थs, मनः, बुद्धिः, etc., of Katha Upa.III. 10-11 are suggestively declared to be अनात्मन् and thereby the पुरुष alone is shown to be " difficult to be known " and " comprehensible only to the sharp-talented. " Thus, Sankara has to supply a great part of the argument in Sūtra 15 by additions foreign to the Sūtra. (Moreover, in Katha Upa. III. 10 the word आत्मन् is used along with "महत् ".)

SECTION V

Identification of One's Own Self with Brahman ( atmagrhiti ) as Method of Meditation on Brahman.

Sūtras III. 3. 16-17

(१६) आत्मगृहीतिरितरवदुत्तरात्। (१७) अन्त्रयादिति चेत्स्यादवधारणात् ।

TRANSLATION

[ THE method of meditation on the arūpavat or avyakta aspect of Brahman is that of ] conceiving it as one's own self-just as ( the method ) in the case of the other ( i. e., the rūpvat or Purusa aspect of Brahman )-because of the subsequent passage of the Sruti. 16

If the opponent says [ that the method of meditation is to conceive Brahman as one's ownself ] because of the grammatical meaning [ of the sentence ], we reply, " It should be so because of the emphatic declaration [ in the Sruti, describing the method of meditation ] ". 17

NOTES

Sūtra 16

1. आत्मगृहीति :- This seems to us to refer to the method of meditation on the arupavat or nirakara aspect of Brahman. Brahman is to be meditated upon as or understood to be the Self of the meditator. The method of meditation is that of अहंग्रह "self-identification with Brahman. " The Sutra refers to आत्मेत्येवोपासीत in Br. Upa. I. 4. 7. 2. उत्तरात्-This gives the reason for the आत्मग्ृहीति method. It refers to the sentences which follow Br. Upa. I. 4. 7, viz., ब्रह्म वा इदमग्र आसीत् तदात्मानमेवावेदहं ब्रह्मास्मीति तस्मात्तत् सर्वमभवत् तद्यो यो देवानां प्रत्यबुध्यत स एव तदभवत्तथर्षीणां तथा मनुष्याणं, तद्धैतत् पश्यन्नषिर्वामदेवः प्रतिपेदेऽहं मनुरभवं सूर्यश्चेति तदिदमप्येतर्हि य एवं वेदाऽहं ब्रह्मास्मीति स इदं सर्व भवति तस्य ह न देवाश्चनाभूत्या ईशते आत्मा ह्वेषां स भवत्यथ योऽन्यां देवतामुपास्तेऽ्न्योऽसावन्योSहमस्मीति न स वेद, यथा पशुरेवं स देवानां ... (Br. Upa. I. 4. 10). आत्मेत्येवोपासीत in Br. Upa. I. 4. 7 is explained in this passage by "य एवं वेदाहं ब्रह्मास्मीति" and the importance of आत्मगृहीति is proved by saying अथ योऽन्यां

2. zaraa-In Sūtra 11, the Sūtrakāra has begun the description of the technique of the meditation on the sena or अरूपवत् aspect of Brahman by saying that आनन्दादय: are the गुणs of the प्रधान (Sutra l1 and that other गus are not to be taken in that meditation ( Sutras 12-15 ). In Sutra 16 he states the method of that meditation with reference to the अरूपचत्. But at the same time he says that this method is like the method used in the other case, i. e., used for the meditation on the other aspect viz., the रूपवत् aspect of Brahman. इतर is प्रधानेतर " other than the pradhana aspect of Brahman. That this suggestion of ours regarding the meaning of fat is correct can readily be seen from our interpretation of

BRA. So. III. 3. 16-17 113

Sūtra III. 3. 43 where this Sūtra ( III. 3. 16 ) is very probably referred to. Also there are several other indications in this Pada, which support our interpretation of इतर as प्रधानेतर, e. g., इमे (in III. 3. 10), उभय (in III. 3.28 ), पूर्वधिकल्प (in III. 3. 45 ), etc.

4. According to Sankara the Sutra discusses whether आत्मा in Ai. Upa. I. 1 means परमात्मा or something else like प्रजापति. The reason, given by Sankara, for raising this question seems to us to be very weak. Again, arraHr 'in Ai. Upa. I. 1, according to Sankara, is explained by the Sūtrakara as qrHnHr and Sankara shows this by interpreting आत्मा in आत्मगृहीति ( in the Sutra ) as परमात्मा. If this were really the case, why should the Sutrakara himself not have worded the Sūtra as परमात्मगृहीति instead of the expression "आत्मगृद्दीति" which is vague, as the word arenT itself occurs in the so called doubtful passage ( Ai. Upa. I. 1 ) ? Moreover, " raraa " is interpreted by Sanikara as यथा इतरेषु सृष्टिश्रवणेषु ...... परमात्मनो ग्रहणम्. Sankara and other Acaryas seem to us to have missed the fact that Sutra III. 3. 43 refers to इतरवत् in this Sutra (III 3. 16). Lastly, उत्तरात in the Sutra, according to Sankara refers to (अत्र परमात्मग्रहणानुगुणमेव विशेषणमप्युत्तरमुपलभ्यते) " स पेक्षत लोकान्तु सृजै इति " ( Ai. Upa. I. 1) "स इमाँलोकानसृजत" ( Ai. Upa. I. 2). Here, according to Sankara, the &TOr which the qaua argued to be a characteristie of the Jivatman or any other aHT but Brahman, is easily shown by the Sutrakara to be a characteristic of परमात्मन्.

Sūtra 17

5. अन्वयादिति चेत्-Regarding the method of meditation on Brahman we are told above by the Sūtrakara that Brahman is to be meditated upon as the Self of the meditator ( आत्मगृहीति). His opponent seems to say that " We come to this conclusion ( regarding the method of meditation ) on the ground of the 15

114 INTERPRETATION

grammatical sense of the subsequent sentence. Thus, " Tu योऽन्यां देवतामुपास्तेऽन्योSसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद " and "य एवं वेदाऽहं ब्रह्मास्मीति स इदं सर्व भवति," taken together lead us to the conclusion that Brahman is to be meditated upon as the Self of the meditator. 6. स्यादवधारणवत्-The Sutrakara does not contradict the opponent, because instead of adding न after इति चेतू, as he usually does, he simply says " स्यादवधारणात्." By अवधारण, he seems to refer to एव in आत्मेत्येवोपासीत, " One should meditate on Brahman as nothing else but bis own Self " ( Br. Upa. I. 4.7 ). 7. Sanikara takes अन्वयादिति चेत् in the sense of "अन्वयान्नेति चेत् ". Thus, he adds "न" after अन्वयात्. He connects this न with परमात्मग्रहणम् taken as understood and thereby makes the Sutra refer to his विषयवाक्य viz., Ai. Upa. I. 1. We take "स्यात्" in the sense of आत्मगृह्ीति: स्यात् ; Sankara interprets it as भवेदुपपन्नं परमात्मनो ग्रहणम्, thus also changing आत्मगृह्ीति to पर्मात्मगृहीति, in the preceding Sutra. अवधारण he takes as प्रागुत्पत्ते रात्मैकत्वावधारणम्. Thus, he interprets अवधारण as referring to एव in his विषयवाक्य "आत्मा वा इदमेक पवाग्र आसीन्नान्यत्किश्चन मिषत् " (Ai. Upa. I. 1). In fact his explanation of अवधारण amounts to आत्मैकत्वावधारण instead of अवधारण pure and simple ( as we have shown in आत्मत्येवोपासीत). It should be added that the श्तिवाक्यs in which certain words are to be interpreted as referring to or denoting परमात्मन् have been already discussed by the Sutrakara in the first Adhyaya, particularly in the first three Padas of that Adhyaya. So, it soems to us improbable that the same point be discussed in this place in the Sūtras ( III. 3. 16-17) once again. Moreover, almost everywhere in the Sutras the word "STe " means the individual soul or the self. Lastly, the other argument that the Sruti in question teaches ब्रह्मात्मत्व of the world and not its उत्पत्ति and therefore in the Sutra(III.3.16) आत्मगृहीति means परमात्मगृहीति comes from Sankara himself and is not mentioned in the Sūtra at all.

BRA. ST. III. 2. 16-17 115

Sankara gives one more interpretation of these Sūtras ( III. 3. 16-17 ), according to which they discuss a question whether Br. Upa. IV. 3-4 and Cha. Upa. VI. 2-8 have the same sense or not. In other words, the question to be decided is whether each of these two passages refers to qrennq or not. Now, the Sūtrakara in Sūtra I. 3. 42 has already dis- cussed Br. Upa. IV. 3. 7; and it seems to us that the afaasr in Bra. Sū. I. 4. 28 applies to such Srutis as Cha. Upa. VI. Thus in a way there was little possibility of any such doubt being raised as, in the opinion of Sankara, is intended to be solved by these two Sūtras. Moreover, the Sūtras contain no direct reference to either of the two Srutis mentioned by Sankara. In the second interpretation also Sankara interprets अन्वयादिति चत् as अन्वयातन्नेतिचेत् and अन्वय in his opinion does not mean the अन्वय of उपक्रम and उपसंहार, but only the aTFaru of the two passages. This does not seem to us to be the exact sense of the word अन्य. The word " aaenTof " in the Sutra ( III. 3. 17 ) is here interpreted by Sankara in three different ways. It may be added that there is no similarity between Br. Upa. IV. 3-4 and Cha. Upa. VI, as there is, e. g., between the पञ्चाभनिविद्या passages, or the प्राणविद्या passages of the various Upanisads. For this reason also the doubt regarding the तुल्यार्थत्व of Br. Upa. IV. 3-4 and Cha. Upa. VI would not arise at all. 8. See our interpretations of Bra. Su. IV. 1. 3 ( amrafa तूपगच्छन्ति ग्राह्यन्ति च) and Bra. Su. III. 3. 18-19, which also support our interpretation of Sutras III. 3. 16-17.

SECTION VI Apuirva as the Invisible Result ( or Unique Merit ) of Meditation The Principle of Apūrva to be so understood in similar Srutis, not in other Srutis.

Sūtras III. 3. 18-24

(१८) कार्याख्यानादपूर्वम् । (१९) समान एवं चामेदात्। (२०) संबन्धादेवमन्यत्रापि । (२१ ) न वा विशेषात्। (२२ ) दर्शयति च । (२३ ) संभृतिद्युव्याप्यपि चातः । (२४) पुरुषविद्यायामिव चेतरेषामनाम्नानात् ।

TRANSLATION BECAUSE of the mention ( in Br. Upa. I. 4. 10 ) of the result (of atmagrhiti referred to in Sūtras III. 3. 16-17 ), there is the Apūrva or the Unique Merit ( in Vedanta ). 18 And so in every similar text ( i. e. Vedanta ), because of the identity [ of the topic ]. 19 [ Pūrvapaksa ]-" It is so even in other texts (i. e., in the dissimilar texts ) because of the connection [ beteween the similar and the dissimilar texts ] ". 20 [ Siddhānta ]-" Rather not, because of the difference [ between the two types of Sruti texts ], 21 and the Sruti shows [ that difference ], 22 and also because of this [ reason ] sambhrti and dyuvyapti [ are not to be included in the collection of attributes ], 23 and because of the absence of the mention [in the dissimilar texts ] of other [ attributes ] such as are mentioned in the Doctrine of the Purusa ( i. e. the Science of the Form-Aspect of Brahman ). 24

NOTES

Sūtra 18

1. The Sutrakara seems to discuss Brahman on the analogy of the explanation of Dharma given in the Jaimini- Sutras. Thus, the identity of Brahman in all the Vedanta texts was established in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 1 on the analogy of the proof of the identity of Karman offered in Jai. Sū. II. 4.6; the practice of eIwnT was explained on the analogy of the "ta" sacrifices; the Collection of attributes and other information pertaining to the meditation on Brahman was compared with the collection of ( rors or ) rites subsidiary to an Injunction. In the same way, it seems to us that the Sūtrakara in this Sūtra ( III. 3. 18 ) explains how there is an Apūrva also in the Vedanta School, just as there is an Apūrva in the Purvamīmamsa School. In both the Schools arqa is a unique merit resulting from an act. Svarga is the arga resulting from ज्योतिष्टोम; so the Upanisad mentions "सर्वभवन " (तद्धैतत्पश्यघ्ृषि- र्वामदेव: प्रतिपेदेऽहं मनुरभवर सूर्यश्चेति तदिदमप्येतहि य एवं वेदाऽहं ब्रह्मास्मीति स इदं सवे भवति तस्य हन देवाश्चनाभूत्या ईशाते आत्मा हेषाए स भवति ) as the result of the act of meditation on Brahman as one's own Self. Thus, कार्याख्यान refers to Br. Upa. I. 4.10 and the Sutrakara seems to understand सर्वभवन as the अपूर्व the " unseen " result of the act of the 3qraar of Brahman laid down in the Vedantas.

2. According to Sankara, this Sūtra has nothing to do with the preceding Sutra, because he understands this Sūtra as referring to आचमन and अपां वास: संकलपनम् mentioned in Br. Upa. VI. 1. 14 and Cha. Upa. V. 2. 2. It must be admitted that this has no direct or indirect bearing on Brahman or Brahmajijnasa the subject of the Brahmasutra. It was not at all necessary for the Sūtrakara to discuss the consistency of

118 INTERPRETATION

these two Upanisadic passages. According to Sankara कार्या- क्यानात् means "न आचमनस्य विधेयत्वमुपपद्यते कार्याख्यानात्। प्राप्तमेव हीद कार्यत्वेनाचमनं प्रायत्यार्थ स्मृतिप्रसिद्धमन्वाख्यायते" Thus, "कार्याख्यानात्" means in short "कार्यत्वेन प्राप्तस्य आचमनस्य अन्वाख्यानात् आचमनस्य विधेयत्वं न उपपद्यते". There is no negation in the Sutra, but Sankara is ready to take a negation also as understood. Again, अपूर्वम् is interpreted by Sarikara as "अपां वास: संकलपनमेवापूर्वे विधीयते or प्राणस्यानग्नताकरणसंकल्पोऽनेन वाक्येनाचमनीयास्वप्सु प्राण- विद्यासंबन्धित्वेनापूर्व उपदिश्यते". Thus, अपूर्व is to be interpreted as being अपां वास: संकलपनरूपम् and "विधीयते" is to be added as "understood. " Thus, Sankara does not take कार्याख्यानात् as the हेतु for the conclusion अपूर्वम्, as would be the natural procedure of interpreting the Sūtra; but he makes two indepen- dent sentences out of the two words in the Sūtra. This method of breaking up a Sūtra into two sentences does not seem to be satisfactory at least when it involves even the addition of a negation taken as understood. See also Notes below on in the next Sūtra ( III. 3. 19 ). According to Sankara, Brahman ( i. e., the nirguna Brahman of his School ) cannot be an object of चोदना "Injunction." But the Sutrakara seems to differ from him ( See Notes on Bra. Sū. III. 3. 1 ). Sankara makes use of his doctrine of saguna Brahman in order to explain the चोदना, etc., mentioned in Bra. Su. III. 3. 1. Similarly, he does not think that the Sutrakara would refer to arqa arising from the meditation of Brahman. So, it naturally occurs to him to explain this Sutra as referring to the अपूर् of अपां वास: संकलपनम्. Such seems to us to be the situation of Sankara. Sūtra 19

3. एवं च-Both these words seem to us to indicate that Sūtra 19 is closely connected with Sūtra 18. " qå " refers to कार्याखयानादपूर्व and "च" connects the Sruti of कार्याख्यान with aAa 'a similar text, ' as would seem probable from the following notes.

BRA. So. III. 3. 18-24 119

4. समान-In Sutra 5, the word समाने occurs and there it is said that 3qriar should be made in the case of a similar text. Here "एवम्" shows that an अपूर्व should be taken as understood if there be the mention of the act of sqraar on Brahman in a text similar to the text referred to in the preceding Sutra. This would mean that the Sūtrakara takes Br. Upa. I. 4. 10 as referring to the अरूपवत् or प्रधान aspect of Brahwan; while in Sutra 19 he extends the rule of कार्याख्या- नादपूर्वम् (mentioned in Sutra 18 ) to a similar text, i. e., a text about Brahman ( अरुपवत् as well as रूपवत्). Thus, the experi- ence of every one who knows Brahman should be like that of Vamadeva, when the goal is reached.

5. enaia-The Sutrakara gives here the reason why the rqa should be taken as understood in " a similar text. " He says that the erga should be taken as implied in a similar text because the subject of the two similar texts is identical, i. e., because the purpose or topic ( r ) of both the texts is the same ( whether it be अरूपवत् or रूपवत् aspect of Brahman). 6. In our opinion there is a significant similarity of words and thought in Sutra 5 and Sutras 18-19 and therefore the method of the interpretation of both these passages should be the same. In Sūtra 5, sqriart was taught; in Sūtras 18-19 अपूर्व is taught. The हेतु of उपसंहार was अर्थाभेदात्, the हेतु of arqa to be taken as implied in the " similar " text is also अभेदात् (i. e., अर्थाभेदात् ). The उपसंहार was to be made in the case of a समान text; the अपूर्व is to be taken as understood also in the case of a HH1a text. Thus, the phraseology of the two passages serves as a clear indication regarding their interpretation. 7. Sankara begins a new Adhiakarana with Sūtra 19. Thus, according to him Sutra 19 forms an independent Adhi- karana. This, as shown above, is inconsistent with the sense of gay and in the Sutra. Also, we have indicated that a comparison of Sutra 5 with Sutras 18-19 proves that the last two Sutras are closely connected.

120 ENTERPRETATION

8. According to Sankara Sutra 19 solves a doubt regarding the एकवाक्यता (harmony) of a passage in अग्निरहस्य ( Satapatha Brahmana X ) with another passage in Br. Upa. ( Br. Ups. V. 6. 1 ), which occurs at the end of the same Satapatha Brahmana. The Sutra, it must be stated, contains no indication about a reference to these texts. "gag " which should refer to some statement in the preceding Sūtra, means according to Sanikara "यथा भिन्नासु शाखासु विद्यैकत्वं गुणोपसंहारश्च भवत्येवम्." "समाने" is interpreted by him as "एकस्यामपि शाखायाम्". If समान is to refer to शाखा, we should have समानायाम् (fem.) instead of समाने (mas). Moreover, समान seems to be used in contrast with अभेदात् and therefore समान should mean "similar ", अभेद having the sense of "identical ". अभेदात् is explained by Sankara as "उपास्याभेदात्". He does not notice the similarity of phroseology between Sutra III. 3. 5 and this Sutra,

Sūtra 20

9. rag in this Sutra, shows that this Sutra is closely connected with the preceding Sutra. qaq in Sutra 19 referred to the statement about the अपूर्व in Sutra 18; so एवम् in Sutra 20 should also refer to the same. Again, अन्यत्रापि of Sutra 20 seems to be used in contrast with समाने in the preceding Sutra (III.3.19 ); so that अन्यत्रापि would mean "असमानेऽपि"'even in a dissimilar text'. Moreover, " a=na " in Sutra 20 seems to have been replied to by "विशेषात् " in Sutra 21 and this विशेषात् being equivalent to भेदात् seems to be contrasted with अभेदात् in Sutra 19. Thus, Sutra 20 seems to us to belong to the same Adhikarana as Sutra 19. This will be clear also from the explanation of Sutra 20 offered below. 10. This is a पूर्वपक्षसूत्र, as is implied by the presence of ar in the next Sutra. 11. अन्यत्रापि-The opponent argues that the अपूर्ष should be taken as implied " even in other texts " ( अन्यत्रापि) than a similar one. In the preceding Sutra the Siddhantin has said

BRA. Sữ. III. 3. 18-24 121

that the arge should be taken as implied in a text similar to the one referred to in Sutra 18, i. e., in a Vedanta text or, in other words, in an Upanisad. Therefore a in Sutra 20 would mean " in a non-Vedanta or non-Upanisadic text " i. e., in a Mantra, Brahmana or Aranyaka text ora Khila of any Veda. 12. संबन्धात्-The opponent gives a reason why even in a dissimilar text like a Brahmaņa, Araņyaka or a Khila an Apurva should be taken as implied. He says that this should be done because " of the connection " of that text with the Vedanta or Upanisad literature. The Brahmaņa, Aranyaka, and Khila are closely connected with the Upanisad literature; both belong to the same Veda; often an Upanisad forms the concluding part of a Brahmana or more properly Aranyaka; a Khila also belongs to the same Veda as an Upanisad, e. g., the Ranayaniya Khila is connected with the Samaveda to which the Chandogya Upanisad belongs. The opponent seems to argue that even in a text which is different from an Upanisad or Vedanta text, the same arqa should be taken as implied because the former type of text is closely connected with the latter.

13. Sankara does not take this Sūtra as connected with the preceding Sutra. According to him we have in the present Sutra a reference to Br. Upa. V. 5. 1-4. The Sutra, evidently, contains no suggestive word which would support Sankara's विषयवाक्य. "अन्यतरापि "is a very general statement of the विषयवाक्य. "एवम् " in Sutra 19, according to Sanikara, means यथा भिन्नासु शाखासु विद्यैकत्वं गुणोपसंहारश्च भवत्येवमेकस्यामपि शाखायां भवितुमर्हति ", while he interprets "एवम्" in the present Sutra as यथा शाण्डिल्यविद्यायां विभागेनापि अधीतायां गुणोपसंहार उक्त एवमन्य त्राप्येवंजातीयके विषये भवितुमहति ।. According to the interpretation suggested by us " qay " in Sütras 19-20 has reference to अपूर्वम् in Sutra 18. "संबन्धात् " according to Sankara does not mean simple connection of "अन्यत्र" with "समाने" in Sutra 19, but it is to be modified into " पकविद्याभिसंबन्धात्". 16

122 INTERPRETATION

Sutra 21 14. ar here implies the refutation of the opponent's view expressed in the preceding Sūtra. 15. " " -"The arqa cannot be taken as implied in a dissimilar passage, " though it is to be taken in a " similar passage ". 16. fasrra - According to the Sutrakara all Vedantas teach ( the same ) Brahman ( Bra. Sutra. III. 3. 1 ) but other Sruti texts like the Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Khilas, teach a different topic though they are closely connected with the Vedantas. The Sutrakara does not deny the "connection" () mentioned by the opponent in Sutra 20; but he says that while in a HH17 text or in a text like that of Br. Upa. I. 4. 10 referred to in Sutra 18, the topic is the same, there is a " difference of topic " in a dissimilar text. In other words, there is a difference between the topic of the Vedantas and that of the other Sruti texts. 17. Sankara takes "उभयोः उभयत्र प्राप्तिः " as understood in the Sutra, and explains विशेषात् as उपासनस्थानविशेषोपनिबन्धात् ( See Note 9 above ). According to Sankara's interpretation the qever argument ( of Sutra 20 ) is not refuted by the Sūtrakara ( in Sutra 21 ). It is rather Sankara who replies to it in his bhasya on Sutra 21. Sutra 22

18. दर्शयति च-"And the Sruti shows" the विषेश or difference between the Vedantas and the other Sruti texts. The Sūtra- kara has refused to take arqa like the one in Br. Upa. I. 4. 7, as understood in texts which are not Vedantas. Here he says that according to the Sruti itself, the topic of the dissimilar texts is different from that of the Vedanta texts. He seems to refer to Srutis like Mu. Upa. I. 1. 4-5, Cha. Upa. VII. 4, Sve. Upa. V. 6, also Mu. Upa. II. 2. 3 and Br. Upa. III. 9. 26. In Mu. Upa. I. 1. 4-5 we are told that " Vedas " teach

BRA. Sū. III. 3. 18-24 123

the अपराविद्या, but not the पराविद्या which is the अक्षरविद्या of the Upanișads. In Cha. Upa. VII. 1. 4 Narada was told by Sanatkumara that his knowledge of the Vedas was only " ara ". From the Sve. Upa. we learn that Brahman is " hidden in the Upanisads which are the secret of the Vedas. " Mu. Upa. II. 2. 3 asks a man to hit the Aksara Brahman by means of " the bow in the form of the great weapon tuught in the Upanişads. " In Br. Upa. III. 9. 26 Yajñavalkya asks Sakalya a question about the " Purusa taught in the Upanisad ". The Sutrakara seems to mean that these Srutis show that the Upanisads or the Vedantas form a part of the Vedas by them- selves, so that they teach a principle which is different from that taught by the other parts of the Veda. Therefore, he would not agree that the arga of Br. Upa. I. 4. 10 be taken as implied in any of the dissimilar texts of the Sruti. 19. By "दर्शयति" Sankara refers to Cha. Upa. I. 7. 5. In the Sutras "दर्शयति " generally means that the very point under discussion is illustrated by a Sruti. Here the point raised by Sankara regarding Br. Upa. V. 5.3 ( about the two upanisads अहर and अहम्) is not the thing mentioned in the Sruti quoted by Sankara under this Sutra; so, he says that the Sruti ( Cha. Upa. I. 7. 5 ) gives an indication ( fawasfa) as to how the point of doubt in Br. Upa. V. 5. 3-4 should be solved. Thus, दर्शयत is according to Sankara the same as "लिङ्ं दर्शयति". Again, the लिङ् is not clear in the Cha. Upa. Sruti; so Sankara seems to explain it away. To us it seems that the Cha. Upa. ( I. 7. 5 ) identifies the purusas in the eye and in the Sun with each other without making the distinction of the upanisads argy and aar and therefore it can not be quoted as an authority for explaining the Br. Upa. passage. Sankara himself seems to have felt this difficulty. Sūtra 23 20. or rather afd a in the Sutra shows that this Sutra is a part of the preceding Adhikarana.

124 INTERPRETAION

21. संभृतिघुव्याप्ती - Sankara is right in referring these two attributes to a quotation from the Khila of the Ranayaniya Recension of the Sama Veda.tt The Sutrakara seems to say that also for the same reason ( ara: ) for which he does not agree to taking an arga ( like the one in Br. Upa. I. 4. 10 ) as implied in a dissimilar text, he has not inoluded संभृति and द्युव्याप्ति in the lists of the attributes collected by him in Bra. Sū. I. 1-3., ( particularly in Bra. Su. I. 1, where the Sutrakara has collected the attributes of the Avyakta, as distinguished from the Purusa aspect of Brahman; see the next Note below ). संभृति and द्ुव्याप्ति are attributes of Brahman but as they are mentioned in the literature other than the Vedanta or the Upanisads, he has not collected them in his lists of the attributes of Brahman. We do not find संभृति and द्युव्यापि in Br. Su. I. 1-3; therefore we can see that he has not collected them, but has rejected them. The aga of the meditation on Brahman is given in Br. Upa. I. 4. 10 and is to be taken as implied in other Upanisads, but it is neither given expressly nor is it to be taken as understood in the other Sruti texts. This seems to us to be the sense of Sutra 23. This is also consistent with the fact that in Bra. Su. I only passages from Upanisads are considered ( Bra. Su. I. 4. 28 ) and in Bra. Su. III. 3. 1 the Sutrakara says that Brahman is to be known from all the Vedantas.

22. According to Sankara the Sutra forms an independent Adhikarana. Thus, he does not seem to take into considera- tion च or rather अपि व in this Sutra. Though संभृति and दुव्याप्ति clearly show that the Sutra refers to the quotation from the Khila of the Ranayaniya Recension of the Samaveda, the Sutra contains no suggestion for a reference to the other quotations from the Chandogya Upanisad given by Sankara. tt The present writer acknowledges with pleasure his indebtedness to Prof. M. Hiriyanna for drawing his attention to this undeniable fact.

BRA. So. III. 3. 18-24 125

"ara: " in the Sutra is connected by Sankara with his inter- pretation of faara in Sutra 21 and therefore he takes it to mean आयतनविशेषयोगात् and locates these आयतनविशेषs in Cha. Upa. III. 14. 3, VIII, I. 1, etc. He finds that an opponent may objeot to the argument of these आयतनविशेषs on the ground that all these quotations from the Cha. Upa. do contain आधिदैविकी विभूतिs. Therefore, he has to give another special reason for not collecting ayfa and other attributes. Sankara is, however, aware that this special reason is not given in the Sutra.

Sutra 24

23. shows that this Sutra is connected with the preceding Sutra and that it forms part of the same Adhikarana to which Sutra 23 belongs. Moreover, as there is no in the next Sutra, we conclude that this Sutra ( 24 ) is the last Sūtra of the Adhikaraņa.

24. The Sutrakara has said in the preceding Sūtra that he has not collected संभृति and दुव्यापि from the Khila of the Ranayaniyas, in his lists of the attributes because there is a difference between the Upanisad literature and the other Sruti literature. According to the Sruti in question and also according to the Sutrakara, these ( संभृति and द्युव्याप्ति ) are attributes of the अरूपवत् or प्रधान aspect of Brahman, though he does not collect them because they are mentioned in the non-Vedanta Sruti literature.

Now, in Sutra 24, he gives one more reason for his statement in Sutra 21. He says that other uttributes ( than संभृति and द्युव्याप्ति which belong to the अरूपवत्), such as are stated in the Purusa Vidya of the Vedantas, are not stated in the non-Vedanta Srauta literature, viz., the Samhita, Brahmana, Aranyaka and Khila. For this reason, he would not allow that the arga of Br. Upa. I. 4. 10 be taken as understood in a dissimilar ( i. e., non-Vedanta ) Sruti text also ( a ar in Sutra 21 ).

126 INTERPRETATION

25. Incidentally it may be noticed here that the Sutrakara admits two Vidyas, the Pradhana Vidya or a-rupavad (i. e., nirakara ) Brahma Vidya and the Purusa Vidya or rupavad ( i. e., sakara ) Brahma Vidya as taught in the Vedantas or Upanisads. He also admits that occasionally in the non-Upanisadic Srauta literature we come across passages in which the Pradhana or the chief aspect of Brahman and its attributes are mentioned, but, he holds that the attributes which are mentioned in the Purușa Vidya passages of the Upanisads are not found in the non-Upanisadic Srauta literature. For the distinction of these two Vidyas see Bra. Su. I. 2. 26 (पुरुषमपि चैनमधीयते ) and III. 3. 47 (विधैव तु निर्धारणात्). 26. Sankara takes Sutra 24 as forming an independent Adhikarana. According to him the Sutra is intended to solve a doubt as to whether the attributes in the पुरुषविद्या of the Tandyamahabrahmana and the Paingirahasyabrahmana are to be taken as implied in the purusayajña of the Narayanopanisad of the Taitiriyakas. Thus, Sankara understands purusa in the ex- pression Purusa Vidya to mean a man, because in the texts referred to by Sankara under this Sutra purusa means a man and his life is supposed to be a yajña. This is quite contrary to the meaning of the word Purusa when the Sūtrakara speaks of the Purușa Vidya. In Bra. Su. I. 2. 26 the Sutrakara says that "vaisvanara" is also called Purusa in a certain Branch of the Veda ( g5T- मपि चैनमधीयते Bra. Su. I. 2. 26). In that Sutra as well as in the present Sutra ( III. 3. 24 ) it can be proved that the word Purușa is used by the Sutrakara in the sense of the rupavad aspect of Brahman. The Upanisads ( e. g. Mu. Upa. II. 1. 3) also use the word purusa in the same sense; and the Sūtrakara undoubtedly refers to such Upanisadic passages by the word purusavidya. "rarary" in the Sūtra seems to us to refer to attributes "other " than the attributes संभृति and धुव्याप्ति mentioned in the preceding Sutra which belong to the arupavad Brahman, as we have explained above; but Sankara takes

BRA So. III. 3. 18-24 127

(aog " to mean " of the Taitiriyakas who are other than the Tandins and the Paiigins (यथकेषां शाखिनां ताण्डिनां पैज्ञिनां व पुरुषविद्यायामास्नानं, नैवमितरेषां तैतिरीयाणामाम्नानमस्ति). But these Tandins and Paingins are not mentioned in the preceding Sutra, and therefore, we believe, "raturq " cannot be explained as belonging to others than the Tandins and the Paingins. The main conclusion "गुणाः न उपसंहर्तव्या:" is according to Sankara to be taken as understood from the preceding Sutra i. e., from his interpretation of the preceding Sutra. But to us it appears that this Sutra is only a aa or an argument ( abl. sing. of 'अनाम्नानात् ') and no statement; so it should be taken along with the preceding Sutra. Moreover, "faur " cannot be applied to the purusa in the sense of man as Sankara explains the word. We think, vidya means bruhmuvidya, as in Sūtra III. 3. 47. Lastly, as the passages referred to by Sankara under this Sutra do not pertain to Brahman even remotely, there is little likelihood of the Sutrakara discussing them in his book. As Sankara himself, towards the end of his bhasya on the Sutra, shows, there is very little similarity of thought between the two other passages on the one hand and that of the Narayanopanisad on the other and consequently nobody is likely to have raised a qaue which, according to Sankara, is answered by the Sūtrakara in this Sutra.

SECTION VII

Meditation on the Pranava.

Sūtras III. 3. 25-27

(२५) वेधाद्यर्थभेदात् ।

(२७) सांपराये तर्तव्याभावात्तथाह्यन्ये।

TRANSLATION

[ PŪRVAPAKȘA ]-" Penetration, etc., [ are not to be ( collected ) because their topic is different. " 25

[ Siddhänta ]-" But, in the case of [ Penetration, etc., ] not being found [ stated in a text, they should be collected from another text, because the Penetration, etc., ] are subsidiary to the word for the reward " upayana" ( viz., Moksa ), just as kuśa grass, āchanda ( a seat ? ), a hymn, and an upagana [ a subsidiary song are subsidiary to a sacrifice ]. This has been said, 26

[ and ] bacause there is nothing [ else ] to be crossed ( i. e., achieved by the one who resorts to the Pranava ) during his journey ( to Brahman ); because the followers of another Branch [ than the Mundaka ] say so. 27

NOTES

Sutra 25

1. "वेधादि" seems to us to refer to Mu. Upa.II. 2. 2-4, which runs as follows :-

यदर्चिमद्यदणुभ्योऽणु व यस्मिललोका निहिता लोकिनश्र। तदेतदक्षरं ब्रह्म स प्राणस्तदु वाइमन: ॥ तदेतत्सत्यं तदमृतं तद्वेद्धव्यं सोम्य विद्धि॥ २ ॥ धनुर्गृह्ीत्वौपनिषदं महास्त्रं शरं घुपासानिशितं संधयीत। आयम्य तद्भागवतेन चेतसा लक्ष्यं तदेवाक्षरं सोम्य विद्धि॥ ३ ॥ प्रणवो धनुः शरो ह्यात्मा ब्रह्म तल्लक्ष्यमुच्यते। अप्रमत्तेन वेद्धव्यं शरवत्तन्मयो भवेत् ॥४ ॥

The Sutrakara has considered the method of meditation on Brahman in the preceding Sutras. It was stated that the meditation should be practised by the method of आत्मगृहदीति. But the Mu. Upa. (Il. 2 ) says "ओमित्येवं ध्यायथ आत्मानम्" ( Mu. Upa. II. 2. 6 ) and also mentions a method of penetrating (वेध) Brahman (which is desoribed as ) the aim, by means of the bow in the form of the Pranava and the arrow in the form of the individual soul ( the लक्ष्य, धनुः, and शर being metaphorically stated ). 2. As a in the next Sūtra shows, this Sūtra ( 25 ) is a पूर्वपक्षसूत्र. This is also clear from the देतु stated in this Sutra, viz., अ्थभदात्. The Sutrakara has always stated emphatically that the object in all the Vedantas is the same ( of अर्थाभेदात् in Sūtra III. 3. 5 which is also referred to in Sūtra 26 which is a reply to the present Sūtra ). 3. अर्थभेदात्-An opponent seems to argue that वेघादि mentioned in Mu. Upa. II. 2 should not be collected in the 17

130 INTERPRETATION

method of meditation on Brahman because they deal with another Brahman, a topic other than that with reference to which the Sutrakara has mentioned आत्मगृहीति as the method of meditation. The frequent statement of a qaver holding that the Sruti or Vedantas did not teach one and the same Brahman but two or more such principles, throws light on the inter- pretation of the Earlier Metrical Upanisads ( as Deussen calls them ) and the Bhagavadgita. It is not likely that the Opponent who opposed the views that all the Vedantas taught the same Brahman ( Bra. Su. III. 3. 1-4 ) and also that a collection of attributes etc., from all the Vedantas, should be made ( Bra. Su. III. 3. 5-9 ), was any other than a Vedantin. Thus, in this Pada we have evidence that in the days of the Sutrakara there was another school of Vedanta which believed that the Vedantas taught more than one final principle. Pro- bably two viz., aT&TT and gEq. The Sutrakara says that these are two names of the same principle ( Bra. Sū. III. 3. 9 and 10 ). 4. After वेघादि we have to take as understood अप्राप्तम् "not to be collected " or अनुपसंहर्तव्यम्. This is clear from the fact that the argument in this Sutra is अर्थमेदात् (of. अर्थाभेदात् in Sutra 5 ) and that the next Sutra which is Siddhanta Sūtra seems to argue that aufa is to be collected. 5. Sankara refers the Sutra to a discussion regarding Mantras and rites which are mentioned in the Brahmanas which precede certain Upnisads of several Branches of the Vedas. The question, according to him, is whether these Mantras and rites are to be included (उपसंहियेन) in the विदयाs of the Upnisads or not. It seems to us to be impossible that the Sūtrakära would discuss such a topic in his work or discuss texts other than the Upnisads. But apart from this, only one quotation of Sanikara refers to प्रवेध, rather हृदयप्रवेध instead of au as does Mu. Upa. II. 2. 2-4 which we propose to take is the विषयवाक्य of the Sutra. By आदि in the Sutra we should

BRA. So. III. 3. 25-27 131

rather have a reference to बाण, शर and लक्ष्य because आदि is preceded by वेध and वेध would suggest bow, arrow, aim, etc. But Sankara takes erfa to mean " other Mantras and rites ", because he interprets वेध to mean the वेध Mantra and the प्रवर्ग्य rite. अर्थभेदात् means, according to Sankara हृदयं प्रविध्येत्येवं- जातीयकानां हि मन्त्राणां थेऽर्था हृदयवेधादयो भिन्ना अनभिसंबद्धास्त उपनिषदुदि- ताभिर्विद्याभिः। (न तेषां ताभि: संगन्तुं सामर्थ्यमस्ति।). Thus, अर्थभेदात् is interpreted as " because the meanings of these Mantras are different or unconnected with the Lores of the Upnisads "; so the "अर्थभेद " of this Sutra has no association with the word अर्थ of the preceding Sutra (of., e. g., अर्थभमदात् in Sutra III. 3. 5 ). In fact Sankara makes the Opponent argue that on the ground of the proximity ( सन्निधि) of the Brahmana texts with the Upnisads the Mantra and the rites of the Brahmanas should be included in or connected with the Lores of the Upanisads. But, as Sankara himself admits, this is a very weak argument even for the qaver to start its own view about the Mantras and the Lores.

Sūtra 20

6. तु-The word तु shows that the view (पूर्वपक्ष) in the preceding Sutra is refuted by the Sūtrakara in this Sūtra. The Sutrakara does not agree with the Opponent's view that the वेधादि should not be collected. 7. हानौ-According to the Sutrakara the वेधादि should be collected for the purpose of meditation on the Pranava Brahman if they are missing ( arait ) in the text of one's own School. Thus, he admits प्रणवध्यान as an alternative way of meditation on Brahman along with आत्मगृहीति (Sutra 16). This will be clear from Note ( 8) below.

7. उपायनशब्दशेषत्वात्-This word seems to give the reason for "collecting in the case of missing (ह्दानी उपसंहारः)" aud also to contain a reply to अर्थभेदातू the argument in the preceding Sutra.

132 INTERPRETATION

The word '3qr' means a reward. And in the present Sutra उपायनशब्द may refer to the word लक्ष्य in Mu. Upa. II. 2. 4 or to the reward of the Jiva's absorption into Brahman stated in the fourth pada of the same mantra. At the same time it may also refer to the reward of the meditation on the Pranava in other Upanisads. In the former case, उपायन शब्दशेष means that the penetration, etc., should be collected for the purpose of meditation on the Pranava from all the Upanisads because the penetration, etc., ure subsidiary to Brahman the goal, the aim ( लक्ष्य), the result. '' may also be a reference to the word of the Reward i. e., the Reward of the meditation on the Pranava in Pra. Upa. V. 7. (तमों कारेणैवायतनेनान्वेति विद्वान् यत्तच्छान्तमजरममृतम- भयं परं चति) and Katha Upa. II. 17 (एतदालम्बनं श्रेष्ठमेतदालम्बनं परम्। एतदालम्बनं जात्वा ब्रह्मलोके महीयते ॥). In these Srutis the Reward is stated to be the attainment of Brahman Itself. ( Vide Bra. Su. IV. 3. 7-16, for 'brahmaloka' in the Srutis ).

उपायनशब्दशत्व means that the Penitration, etc., are sub- sidiary to the attainment of Brahman Itself which is the Reward; so all that is connected with the meditation on the Pranava must be collected from all the different Upnisads for the purpose of the meditation. Then only, Brahman will be attained.

Besides, उपायनशब्दशेषत्व is a reply to अर्थमेद in the preceding Sutra. aenfa is subsidiary to the reward viz., Brahman, and so it can not be regarded as dealing with a topic other than Brahman which is discussed in the preceding Sutras. The Sutrakara thus refutes the argument ' अर्थभेदात्' (Sutra 25). Because, वेधादि is a subsidiary part of the meditation on Brahman, it should also be inoluded in the process of medita- tion as an alternative way along with आत्मगृहीति. 9. कुशाछन्द्स्तुत्युपगानवत्-The collection of वेधादि for the purpose of meditation on Brahman from a Branch other than

BRA. So. III. 3. 25-27 133

one's own, is compared by the Sutrakara with the inclusion of the Kuśa grass, a seat ( achanda ? ), a hymn, and a by-song ( upagana ) from another text for the purpose of a sacrifice. It is because these latter are subsidiary to a fafer that they are collected from different texts; similarly because वध, लक्ष्य, धनुः and TT are subsidiary to ( the meditation on ) Brahman, they are to be collected, or, in other words, the method of meditation on Brahman by resorting to Om is to be taken for the practice of meditation from all the Upnisads. 10. तदुक्तम्-This seems to us to refer to Sutra III. 3. 5. In that Sutra the Sutrakara has given a general rule regarding sarial or the collection of attributes, method of meditation, etc. In this Sutra he states that a similar ' collection ' (3qat ) should be made in the case of वेधादि which is another method of meditation on Brahman. In Sutra 5 the reason for the collection is stated to be अर्थाभेदात; in the present Sutra also the Sutrakara establishes अर्थामेद in so far as he implicitly denies अर्थभेद (mentioned in the पूर्वपक्ष सूत्र ) by the word तु and by giving the हेतु 'उपायनशब्दशेषत्व.' In Sutra 5 he has given the example of विधिशेषs to which the example of कुशाउन्दस्तुत्युपगान in this Sūtra correspends. Thus, to us it appears that this Sūtra ( 26) refers to Sūtra 5 by the words 'It has been explained ' (तदुक्तम्). 11. Sankara takes this Sūtra as forming an independent Adhikarana and dealing with a question arising out of several Srutis which mention the abandonment ( हानि) of good and bad deeds of a knower of Brahman, or the assignment of these to those who are friendly or unfriendly to the knower of Brahman or which mention both of these options. Thus, according to Sankara "anft " in the Sūtra does not mean "on the वेधादि being not mentioned or found missing " as suggested by us on the strength of the preceding Sūtra; but he takes it to mean "ब्रह्मज्ञानिनः सुकृतदुष्कृतयोः ह्दानौ सत्याम्," thus changing the sense of हानौ, in a way not suggested by

134 INTERPRETATION

the context at all. Moreover, we may point out that हानि or even the root 't' 'to abondon ' does not occur in any one of the Srutis quoted by Sankara as referred to by that word. 'a' should mean the rejection of a पूर्वपक्ष, but Sanikara takes it in the sense of केवलायामपि (हानौ त्वेतस्यां केवलायामपि श्रूयमाणायाम् ... ). उपायनशब्दशेषत्वात् serves as a हेतु for हवानौ उपसहार, as shown by us. Sankara interprets that expression in such a way that 'उपायन ' has to be construed twice ( once as the assertion and again as the a ) though it is given only once in the Sūtra (हानौ तु ... उपायनं, उपायनशब्दशेषत्वात्). Saiikara refers 'उपायन' to 'उपयन्ति' in Kau. Upa. I. 4 and in one more Sruti. Thus, he explains उपायन as "ब्रह्मज्ञानिनः सुकृतदुष्कृतयोः विभागेन प्रियरप्रियैः उपायनम् and he takes उपायनशब्दशषत्व to mean "हानशब्दशेष: उपायनशब्दः समधिगतः कौषीतकिरहस्ये". And then he takes "तसमादन्यत्र केवलहानशब्दश्रवणेऽप्युपायनानुवृत्तिः।" as understood. Moreover, Sankara meets with another difficulty, because he refers 3m177 to Kau. Upa. I. 4. The difficulty is as follows :- That Sruti says that " The dear relatives of the knower of Brahman get his religious merit, and those who are not dear to him get his demerit " (तस्य प्रिया: ज्ञातयः सुकृतमुपयन्त्यप्निया दुष्कृतम्, and also another Sruti तस्य पुत्राः दायमुपयन्ति सुहदः साधुकृत्यां द्विषन्तः पापकृत्याम् ... ). This doctrine is not consistent with commonsense and so a question may arise, " How is it that the Sutrakara asks us to add this irrational '3ra view' to passages where it is not mentioned ? " Sankara feels it necessary to give a reply to it and says that the Kau. Upa. text states only what is in fact a विद्यास्तुति. Then, one may ask, " Why does the Sūtrakara include such a discussion in the गुणोपसंहार Pada?" To this Sankara says :-

उपायनशब्दशेषत्वादिति तु शब्दशब्दं समु्चारयन् स्तुत्यर्थामेव हानावुपा- यनानुवृति सूचयति। गुणोपसंहारविवक्षायां हुपायनार्थस्यैव हानानुवृत्ति ब्रयात्। तस्माद्गुणोपसंहारविचारप्रसङ्गेन स्तुत्युपंसहारप्रदर्शनार्थमिदं सूत्रम्।. Thus, the result of taking उपायन as referring to उपयन्ति in Kau. Upa. I. 4 is that Sankara is led to the position of making

BRA. So. III. 3. 25-27 135

this Sutra an exception to the very purpose to which this Pada is, acoording to him, devoted. The examples of FRT, आछन्द (कुशा and छन्दस् according to Sankara), स्तुति and उपगान are not explained by Sankara as those of materials to be taken from another text when any of them is missing in a partioular text. But he says यथैतेषु कुशादिषु श्रुत्यन्तरगतविशेषान्वय एवं हानावप्युपायनान्वय इत्यर्थः । श्रृत्यन्तरगतं हि विशेषं श्रुत्यन्तरेऽनभ्युपगच्छतः सर्वत्रैव विकल्पः स्यात्। स चान्याय्यः सत्यां गतौ। तदुक्तं द्वादशलक्षण्याम्- 'अपि तु वाक्यशेषत्वादितरपर्युदासः स्थात्प्रतिषेधे विकल्पः स्यात्' इति। This last is Sankara's explanation of तदुक्तम् in the Sutra (26). To us it seems that तदुक्तम् in the Sutra refers to Sutra III. 3. 5 and we have tried to explain the Sūtra similarly. Aocor- ding to our interpretation तदुक्तम् wherever it occurs in the Brahmasutra, seems to be a reference to what the Sutrakara himself has already said in the Sūtras which precede the particular Sutra where तदुक्तम् occurs.

In the second explanation of this Sutra which Sankara himself offers, he admits that 'हानि' cannot be explained as विधूनन mentioned in his विषयधाक्यs, though he has taken a different view on this point in his first interpretation. In this second interpretation the विषयवाकयs according to Sankara are the same as in his first interpretation. 'हानी' means हानौ एव एष विधूननशब्दो वर्तितुमहति। "उपायनशब्दशेषत्वात्" means नहि परपरि- ग्रहभूतयोः सुकृतदुष्कृतयोरप्रहीणयोः पररुपायनं संभवति". The expla- nation of the remaining parts of the Sutra is the same as in his first interpretation.

It should be pointed out that this Sūtra itself contains no reference to सुकृतदुष्कृत of the knower of Brahman, and that the explanation of this latter is given systematically by the Sūtrakara himself in Bra. Sū. IV. I. 13-19, where almost all the Srutis quoted by Sankara as referred to by this Sutra have been fully discussed by the Sutrakara. Particular notice should be taken of the fact that Sanikara takes सुहृदःसाधुकत्यां उपयन्ति

136 INTERPRETATION

etc., as the faqgara of Bra. Su. IV. 1. 17, though the fact does not seem to be the same ( See our interpretation of Bra. Su. IV. 1. 17 ). Sūtra 27

12. This Sutra gives a द्वेतु (सांपराये तर्तव्याभावात्) and and refers to an authority for the same (तथा हि अन्ये). To us it seems that this aa is one more argument for "grat उपसंहार:" in the preceding Sutra, so that this Sutra forms part of the same Adhikarana as does the previous Sutra. 13. तथा हन्ये-As the topic here is that of meditation on Brahman through the Syllable Om, "अन्ये " should refer to some Upanisad dealing with the same subject and particulary with the सांपराय ( departure from this world or going to the life hereafter ) of those who follow the path of प्रणवध्यान. Now, this method of meditation is mentioned in Katha, Mu., Prasna, Mandukya and other Upanisads. Out of these Upanisads, the Praśna Upanisad seems to discuss the question (Hi तर्तव्याभाव) referred to in the Sutra, viz., 'Whether the man practising the meditation of gora has anything to cross ( or to achieve, as Sankara says ) in his life hereafter or not. In Prasna Upanisad V. 7. we read ऋग्भिरेतं यजुर्भिरन्तरिक्षं स साम- भिर्यन्तत्कवयो वेदयन्ते॥ तमोंकारेणैवायतनेनान्वेति विद्वान्यत्तच्छान्तमजरम- मृतमभयं परं चेति ॥. By meditating on Brahman through the Syllable Om as one single Symbol without thinking of its constituent parts one reaches Brahman. Pra, Upa. V. 5. says that he who would meditate on the Para Purusa through this very Syllable viz., Om as consisting of three parts, unites [ on his leaving this world ] with the light viz., the Sun and, being free from sin just as a serpent is freed from its slough, he is carried on by the Samans to ब्रह्मलोक and he sees the पर पुरिशय पुरुष who is higher than this highest जीवघन ब्रह्मलोक (यः पुनरेतत्त्र- मात्रेणोमित्येतेनैवाक्षरेण परं पुरुषमभिध्यायीत स तेजसि सूर्ये संपन्नः॥ यथा पादोरस्त्वचा विनिर्मुच्यते एवं ह वै स पाप्मना विनिर्मुक्त: स सामभिरुन्नीयते ब्रह्मलोकं स एतस्माज्जीवघनात्परात् परं पुरिशयं पुरुषमीक्षते॥ Pra. Upa. V. 5)

BRA. So. III. 8. 25-27 137

The Sutrakara holds that the knower of Brahman who has meditated on Brahman through the syllable Om has not to achieve anything after his departure from this world, but goes direotly to Brahman ( Cf. Bra. Su. I. 3. 13-ईक्षतिकर्मव्यपदशात्सः।). 14. Thus, " the absence of anything to be achieved " is a reason why the Sutrakara teaches an ' 3qHiarT ' of the details of the meditation of Pranava. Meditation on Brahman ( as identical with one's Self-आत्मगृहीति) does not leave anything further to be achieved in life after death; similarly meditation on Brahman as symbolised by Pranava leaves nothing to be accomplished after the meditator's departure from the body (सांपराये) because he attains Brahman immediately. For this reason also it is that the Sūtrakāra asks us to collect ( or collects himself) वेधादि from other texts where it is given. In the above explanation of तर्तव्य in the Sutra we have followed Sanikara who explains तर्तव्याभावात् as न किश्चित्प्राप्तव्यमस्ति. (Can we explain तर्तव्य in its literal sense with reference to any other Sruti ? ) 15. In the above interpretation, तर्तव्याभावात् is connected with सांपराये, thus सांपराये तर्तव्याभावात् gives the हेतु. "तथाह्यन्ये" is interpreted to mean that there is nothing to be achieved in life after death by the meditator on gora according to one Branch of the Veda; so that 'तथा ह्न्ये' gives an authority for the हेतु. But Sahkara separates 'सांपराये' from 'तर्तव्याभावात्; 'सांपराये' means "सांपराये गमन एव देहादपसर्पणे इदं विद्यासामर्थ्या- त्सुकृतदुष्कृतहानं भवति इति प्रतिजानीते।" and then, Sankara takes तर्तव्याभावात् as a ह्ेतु for this प्रतिज्ञा. तर्तव्याभावात् means सुकृतदुष्कृताभ्यां प्राप्तव्यस्याभावात्. He gives no explanation why Kau. Upa. mentions सुकृतदुष्कृतहान later though it actually takes place earlier. Moreover, according to Sankara, सांपराय तर्तव्याभावात् is a reply to a question regarding Kau. Upa. I. 4; while ana-a is a reference to Cha. Upa. VIII. 13. 1; thus according to Sankara these two Srutis are referred to by this Sutra. 18

188 INTERPRETATION

It should be noted that both the Srutis which are under- stood by Sankara as referred to by this Sūtra have been discussed, according to him, in the immediately preceding Adhikaraņa, ( since Sankara begins a new Adhikaraņa with Sutra 27 ). However, Sankara disousses the question about the time of the destruction of सुकृत and दुष्कृत of a श्ानिन् in Bra. Sū. IV. I. 13-19 and therefore also it does not seem likely that he would discuss the same in this Sūtra ( 27 ). Moreover, Sankara's interpretation of Sūtra 27 runs contrary to his own view. The पूर्वदुष्कृतविनाश (in the case of अनारब्धकार्य- goras ) takes place on the very attainment of the knowledge of Brahman ( Bra. Su. IV. 1. 13 ) and not on his departure from the body, as he says under Sutra 27, and according to Sankara's interpretation of Bra. Su. IV. 1. 14, the अनारब्धकार्यपूर्व- सुकृतविनाश also takes place along with the दुष्कृत ( though we do not agree with this interpretation. Vide our interpretation of Bra. Sū. IV. 1. 13-19 ).

SECTION VIII

Option regarding Choice of Aspect of Brahman.

Sūtras III. 3. 28-30

(२८) छन्दत: उभयाविरोधात्। (२९) गतेरर्थवश्वमुभयथाऽन्यथा हि विरोध:। (३०) उपपत्नस्तल्लक्षणार्थो प लब्घेर्लोकवद् ।

TRANSLATION

ACCORDING to his wish [ the meditator may choose either of the two aspects of Brahman ] because both of them are not inconsistent [ with each other ]. 28

[ Because ] the liberation [ which is mentioned in the Scripture on the attainment of either of the two ] will have its meaning by both the ways [ being accepted ]; other- wise there will be an inconsistency [ between the two ]. 29

[ The agreement of both these aspects of Brahman with the Scripture is ] proper because we find ( in the Scripture itself ) a topic with such characteristics, just as it is seen in the world as well. 30

NOTES

Sūtra 28

1. In Sūtra 10, the Sūtrakāra says that the two names or aspects of Brahman are 'non-identical ( r ) while there is identity in all other respects'; and then he states that an- and those that follow it are attributes of gena the chief aspect of Brahman. After that he explained the method of meditation on Brahman ( Sutra 16-17 ). Now, the Sūtrakara seems to say that any one of the two aspects of Brahman ( sen and पुरुष, अरूपवत् and रूपवत्) may be choosen by a meditator at his liking ( a: ), because both the aspects are mutually not inconsistent ( उभयाविरोधात्).

2. 'उभय' refers to प्रधान and पुरुष, the two aspects of Brahman. The Sutrakara has throughout his work kept in view a difference between two aspects of Brahman. Compare Bra.Su.III. 3. 10. इतरवत् in Sutra III. 3. 16 refers to the पुरुष aspect, and thereby the meditation on both the aspects is dealt with in that Sūtra. In Sūtra III. 3. 23 the Sūtrakara has expressed his opinion about the sqHarr of the attributes of Brahman mentioned in the Srauta texts other than Upanisads while in Sūtra III. 3. 24 he refers to the absence, in those texts, of the mention of the attributes of the Purusa desoribed in the Upanisads. Also 3HT in the next Sūtra (29) supports our view. Moreover, पूर्वविकल्प: in Sutra III. 3. 45 as shown later on also refers to the विकल्प or option in this Sutra (28). 3. उभयाविरोधात्-The Sutrakara seems to hold that Brahman has two aspects one of which is रूपवत् or पुरुष and the other अरूपवत् or प्रधान. It would seem that both these aspects are inconsistent with each other, being diametrically opposite in so far as one is with form while the other is without form. That which has form can never be consistent

BRA. So. III. 3. 28-30 141

with that which has no form. But the Sūtrakara says that there is no inconsistency between the अरूपवत् and रूपवत् aspects of Brahman. . The reasons for this statement are given in Sūtra 29 and 30. 4. This Sutra seems to state a new प्रतिक्षा together with a a, as we have shown above. We, therefore, propose to take it as the first Sutra of a new Adhikarana. 5. According to Sankara, this Sutra gives one more argument for the प्रतिज्षा of Sutra 27, viz., सांपराये गमने एव देहाद- पसर्पण इदं विद्यासामर्थ्यात्सुकृतदुष्कृतहानं भवतीति प्रतिजानीते (सूत्रकारः)। In Sankara's opinion the Sutra answers a doubt that ' If the destruction of सुकृतदुष्कृत were admitted to take place after a portion of the journey on the देवयानमार्ग is finished, there would arise an impropriety of that destruction on account of the impossibility of making, according to one's desire, an effort (यमनियमविद्याभ्यासात्मकपुरुषप्रयत्न) for the attainment of that destruction due to the fall of the body before the journey is begun.' Thus, according to Sankara, छन्दत: means "तस्मात् ( i. e., because of the above impropriety) पूर्वमेव साधकावस्थायां उन्दतोऽनुष्ठानं तस्य (= यमनियमविद्याभ्यासात्मकस्य सुकृतदुष्कृतक्षयहेतोः पुरुषप्रयत्नस्य ) स्यात्।" and, in order to explain the connection of this Sutra with the preceding one, he adds तत्पूर्वकं च सुकृत- दुष्कृतहानमिति द्रष्टव्यम् । Thus, accoding to Sankara's interpretation, in fact there is no option stated in the Sūtra, because the seeker has got to make a यमनियमविद्याभ्यासात्मकपुरुषप्रयत्न during the time that he is a seeker, since otherwise he is doomed to bondage. Then, Sankara explains उभयाविरोधात् as एवं निमित्त- नैमित्तिकयोः (= उभयो: of the Sutra) उपपत्तिः (=अविरोध of the Sutra). And, again, not being satisfied with the explanation he adds ताण्डिशाट्यायनिश्युत्योश्च (= उभयोः of the Sutra) संगतिः (= अविरोध: of the Sutra) इति. To us it seems that "उभय refers neither to (पुरुषप्रयत्न) निमिन्तs and (सुकतदुष्कृतक्षय) नैमित्तिक nor to ताण्डिन् and शाट्यायनिन्

142 INTERPRETATION

श्रुतिs but to the रूपवत् and अरूपवत् aspeots of Brahman, which are distinguished throughout this Pada ( See Note 2 above ). Sutra 29

6. 'उभयथा' in this Sutra seems to us to refer to उभय in the preceding Sutra and to be an argument for उभयाविरोधात् in the same Sutra. We, therefore, take this Sutra and the preceding one as parts of the same Adhikarana. 7. गति-The Sutrakara seems to refer to the गति or मोक्ष (mentioned in the Scripture ) of those who follow the अरूपवत् and also of those who follow the रूपवत् aspect of Brahman. Several passages of the Upanisads say that one attains absolution by knowing the अरूपवत् e. g., अशब्दमस्पर्शमरूपमव्ययं तथाऽरसं नित्यमगन्धवश्न यत्। अनाद्यनन्तं महतः परं ध्रुवं निचाय्य तन्मृत्यु- मुखात्प्रमुच्यते ।। ( Katha Upa. III. 15), and अस्माच्छरीरात्समुत्थाय परं ज्योतिरुपसंपद्य स्वेन रूपेणाभिनिष्पद्यते। ( Cha. Upa .. VIII. 3. 4). There are other sentences which teach that पुरुष is the highest goal; e. g., पुरुषान्न परं किश्चित् सा काष्ठा सा परा गतिः (Katha Upa. III. II); तथा विद्वान्नामरूपाद्विमुक्त: परात्परं पुरुषमुपैति दिव्यम् (Mu. Upa. III. 2. 8 ). The word 'afd' is used by the Sutrakara in the sense of absolution or atar in other Sūtras also, e. g., in Bra. Sū. I. 2. 16, I. 3. 15 ( where Sankara also explains it in that sense ), etc.' 8. गतेरर्थवत्त्वमुभयथा-The Sutrakara seems to say that the afa or the liberation mentioned in these Srutis will " have a meaning" i. e., they will be reasonably explained, only if a seeker can attain liberation in either of the two ways, by pursuing the अरूपवत् or the रूपवत्. The liberation will be real liberation if it can be achieved in either way; and, therefore, we must say that there is no inconsistency between the two aspects of Brahman. If the way of liberation were the know- ledge of the अरूपवत् only, then a विरोध between the two aspects is sure to arise here.

BRA. ST. III. 2. 28-30 143

9. अन्यथा विरोध :- Because मोक्ष is really achieved in either of the two ways, there is no conflict between the two aspects of Brahman. We should not imagine that because one aspect is with form and the other is without form, there is a confliot between the two. Rather there is no conflict because arar or realization of Brahman through the pursuit of the अरूपवत् is as true or real in its sense as the same through the pursuit of रूपवत् or पुरुष. If मोक्ष in its true sense were achieved by pursuing the अरूपवत् aspect only and not by pursuing the other alternative aspect, or if it were vice versa, there sould be a conflict between the two. Meditation on Brahman results in real atar and that upon इन्द्रादिदेवs does not; therefore there is a conflict between the two. This conflict arises from the difference between the results of the two pursuits. The Sūtrakara says that such is not the case with meditation on प्रधान and that on पुरुष; and therefore there is no inconsistency at all between the two aspects. If two things or aspects of a thing of a principle really give the same result, an option of selection may be given between the two, irrespective of the individual nature of the two aspeots. 10. उभयथा-The particle उभयथा connects this Sutra with the preceding Sutra as shown in Note 6 above. Sankara does not conneet उभयथा in this Sutra with उभय in the preceding Sutra. He begins a new Adhikarana with this Sutra. fa-Sankara takes this word in the sense of a path, viz., "देवयान: पम्थाः". According to him the Sutra answers the question whether the देवयान path begins immediately on the destruction of good and bad deeds of a man or not ( whether there is an option ). As to why such a question should at all arise Sankara quotes no Sruti suggesting such a doubt; but he gives a simile viz., यथा तावद्धानावविशेषेणैवोपायनानुवृत्तिरुक्तेवं देवयानानुवृत्तिरपि भवितुमर्द्दतीत्यस्यां प्राप्तावाचक्ष्मेह। To us it appears that there is no real ground for such a auer, not only because there is no

144 INTERPRETATION

Sruti suggesting it, but also because the Sūtrakara makes a definite statement that on the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman sins and merits, as Sankara says, do not touch the knower ( Bra. Su. IV 1. 13-19 ). Moreover, Sankara's explanation of अर्थवत्वम् is hardly satisfactory because he interprets it by implication as also अनर्थवत्व by construing उभयथा in a very strange way ( गतेः देवयानस्य पथोरऽर्थवत्त्वमुभयथा विभागेन भवितुमहृति क्वचिदर्थवती गतिः कचिन्नेति; नाविशेषेण). If गति is some- times "न अर्थवती" how can we say that गति is अर्थवती both the ways " (उभयथा) "? In fact he interprets गति in this Sutra in two ways, viz., देवयान: पन्थाः and "attainment" ( as in साम्यमुपैति), and this seems to create a confusion. अन्यथा means according to him, 'If the गति be accepted without a specification '. And 'विरोध' in the Sutras is explained to be a विरोध between the देवयानमार्गप्रापणी गति and the attainment or गति mentioned in such a Sruti as पुण्यपापे विधूय निरअनः परमं साम्यमुपैति (Mu. Upa. III. 1.3). In fact, the question whether the use of the word ' aTfa' in such sentences as mention the attainment of Brahman is justifiable or not is discussed in Bra. Su. IV. 3. 7-14 ( T बादरिरस्य गत्युपपत्ते: Bra. Su. IV. 3. 7). So the answer that गति is अनर्थिका in such sentences as पुण्यपाप विधूय निरञ्नः परमं साम्यमुपैति is not likely to have been stated by the Sutrakara in this Sutra. Sutra 30

11. As Sutra 29 is connected with Sutra 28, in the way we have shown above, Sutra 30 is necessarily to be taken as connected with Sutra 28. '3qvEr' is a masculine form and it does not seem possible that it is used to qualify गतेरर्थवस्वम् which is a neuter form ( See Sankara who says ' उपपन्नश्वचाय- मुभयथाभावः क्चिदर्थवती गतिः कचिश्नेति). "उभयाविरोधः (उपपन्नः)" seems to us to be the context of 'उपपन्नः' in the Sutra. Perhaps we can construe also in another way, viz., अयं विकल्प: sqaw: I We make the suggestion because the expression

BRA. Sū. III. 3. 28-30 145

yafaacq: in Sūtra III. 3. 45 appears to us to be a reference to the option given in Sutra 28. However, we shall proceed by accepting the former construction ( उभयाविरोधः उपपन्नः). 12. qqer :- The mutual consistency of both the aspects of Brahman on the strength of which an option is given to the seeker is quite proper ( 3qqer: ). 13. तल्लक्षणार्थोपलब्धेः-The Sutrakara gives a reason why the arfarre mentioned in Sutra 28 is proper. He says that there is no mutual farre between the two aspects of Brahman, because " we find in the Scripture ( 3vaRa ) an object, viz., Brahman which has that characteristic ". According to the Sūtrakara the justification for the option he gives in Sūtra 28 is that we actually find that the Scriptures teach Brahman which has two aspects, by pursuing either of which we can realize it ( agaor - as described in Sūtra 29 ). The Sūtrakāra seems to grant that there is an apparent inconsistency between the two aspects of Brahman in so far as one has no form while the other has a form. But he says that since we find in the Scriptural statements Brahman which has two such apparently conflicting aspects each of which leads to liberation or its realization in its true sense, we have to admit that there is no real inconsistency between the two aspects and that therefore a seeker may be allowed to choose one of the two as he likes.

The Sutrakara's attitude here is similar to his attitude regarding the question whether Brahman which is impartite changes itself into the form of the world or not ( Bra. Su. II. 1. 26-27 ). There he asserts that Brahman is impartite and yet undergoes a change, remaining partly changeless and there is no inconsistency in this doctrine because the Sruti mentions it. 14. 3qfa-The Sutrakara seems to use this word in the sense of a statement found in the Sruti. It is explained similarly by Sankara in Bra. Su I. 3. 16, III. 1. 18 etc. Cf. also उपलभ्यते in Bra. Su. II. 1. 16. 19

146 INTERPRETATION

15. लोकवत्-The Sutrakara seems to have in his view an example like that of a village with two ways of approach to it, one from the east and the other from the west. Both of these roads, though opposite each other, are not really inconsistent, because a traveller may select any of the two at his desire and yet is sure to reach the village. Such is the case with the अरूपवत् and रूपवत् aspects of Brahman. 16. Sankara has made an independent Adhikaraņa out of Sutras 29-30. Therefore, in order to explain the masculine form of 3qqa: which cannot be grammatically construed with गतेः अर्थवतत्वमुभयथा, he says उपपन्नश्चायमुभयथा भावः क्वचिदर्थवती गतिः क्वचिन्नेति. To us it appears that उपपन्नः means उभयाविरोध: (or छन्दतः विकल्पः) उपपन्नः ( Sutra 28). As a rule the words in a Sutra should be construed with some words in that Sutra or in the preceding Sutras, rather than with a word taken as understood. तल्लक्षण अर्थ should according to Sankara mean an object having the characteristic of sometimes real afa and sometimes nfa: understood metaphorically; but Sankara could not construe it like that and therefore he says, " गतिकारण- भूतो ह्यर्थ: पर्यङ्कविद्यादिषु सगुणेषूपासनेषूपलयभ्ते।" ... and then regarding an objecet having no real गति, he says, न हि सम्यग्दर्शने तल्लक्षणार्थो- पलब्धिरस्ति. To us it seems that तल्लक्षणार्थोपलब्धि should mean the finding, in the Sruti, of an object having the two-fold characteristic mentioned in Sutras 28-29. Sankara explains लोकवच्च by taking two examples of ग्रामप्राप्ति and आरोग्यप्राप्ति. Sankara, however, realizes, that in fact, the question of the possibility or impossibility of going to Brahman is discussed in Bra. Su. IV. 3. 7-14 ( or rather 15 ), and therefore he adds भूयश्चैनं विभागं चतुर्थाध्याये निपुणतरमुपपादयिष्याम:। There are several cases wherein according to Sankara's commentary on the Brahmasutras, the treatment of his subject by the Sutrakara is shown to be overlapping But to us it does not seem to be so ( See Chapter X of Vol. II, ).

SECTION IX

Attributes necessary for Meditation.

Sūtras III. 3. 31-33

(३१ ) अनियम: सर्वासामविरोध: शब्दानुमानाभ्याम् । (३२) यावदधिकारमवस्थितिराधिकारिकाणाम् । (३३) अक्षरधियां त्ववरोध: सामान्यतद्भावाभ्यामौपसदवत्तदुक्त्तम्।

TRANSLATION

NOWHERE [ is ] the rule [ found for the employing ] of all [ the attributes belonging to either of the two aspects for the purpose of meditation ]; [ but ] there is no incon- sistency of them all with Sruti and Smrti. 31

[ The meditation on the attributes of Brahman ] connected with official duties [ at a sacrifice ] should be continued ( avasthiti) as long as the office lasts. 32

But the attributes of Aksara are to be confined [ to their respective Srutis 1 on account of the sameness [ of their purpose ] and on account of [ the soul ] being [ what] those [ attributes imply ], as in the case of aupasada; this has already been explained. 33

NOTES

Sūtra 31

1. The preceding Adhikarana gives an option to a seeker to choose either of the अरूपवत् and रूपवत् aspects of Brahman. This Adhikarana seems to us to discuss the question how many attributes (or 'thoughts') out of those mentioned by the Sruti and collected by the the Sūtrakara in Bra. Sū. I. 1-3 are to be used in the meditation on either of the two aspects. 2. सर्वासाम् seems to us to be connected with घियाम् taken as understood which is suggested by घियाम् in अक्षरघियाम् in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 33.

2. अनियम: सर्वासाम-There is no rule that all the attributes of अरूपवत् or रूपवत् aspect of Brahman should be used in the meditation on either. In other words, it is not necessary that a meditator should meditate on all the attributes of Brahman collected by the Sutrakara in Bra. Sū. I. 1-3 from the Sruti.

3. अविरोधः i. e. सर्वासां धियामविरोध :- If a meditator chooses to meditate on all ;the attributes of Brahman, there is no objection because all the attributes are consistent with Sruti and Smrti, being themselves collected on the strength of their being mentioned in either of the two or both. The attributes on which a meditator is to meditate are those sanctioned by Sruti and Smrti and therefore their use for meditation is also sanctioned by the Scripture; so they are collected in harmony with the Scripture. For this reason all the attributes or as many as one would choose to use, may be used in meditation. 5. शब्दानुमानाभ्याम-The words प्रत्यक्ष and अनुमान have been used in the. Sutras in the sense of Sruti and Smrti, e. g.,

BRA. Sū. III. 3. 31-33 149

Bra. Su. I. 3. 28, III. 2. 24 etc. So, the word ' शब्द' in this Sutra would mean प्रत्यक्ष or Sruti as the word अनुमान would mean Smrti. 5a. This Sutra gives an option about the number of attributes for meditation on Brahman itself while Sutra III. 3. 57 seems to give an option about attributes to be used in the meditation on Brahman imagined as consisting of parts ( argr- वबद्धा: ब्रह्मोपासनाः). 6. According to Sankara the topic of this Sūtra is a question whether the गति mentioned in the Sruti in the case of certain सगुणविद्याs should be extended to other सगुणविदा in which no गंति is mentioned. According to Sanikara सर्वासाम् in the Sutra is not connected with धियाम् as is done by us by a hint from Sutra 33, but he explains it as सर्वासामभ्युदय- प्राप्तिफलानां सगुणानां विद्यानाम्; he takes अनियम: (absence of rule) in the sense of 'अविशेषेण' and then adds 'एषा देवयानाख्या गतिर्भवितुमर्हति। Thus he explains अनियम: सर्वासाम् as 'सर्वासां सगुणानां विद्यानामविशेषेण एषा देवयानाख्या गतिर्भवितुमर्हति।

It seems to us that the question of गति is not at all discussed in this Pada; it occurs in Sutra IV. 3. 7-14. Sankara knows this ( Of. भूयश्चैनं विभागं चतुर्थाध्याये निपुणतरमुपपाद- यिष्याम :- Sa. Bhasya on Bra. Sutra III. 3. 30 ). गति is naturally a topic proper for discussion in the फलाध्याय. According to the context, सर्वासाम should be connected with धियाम् instead of सगुणानां विद्यानाम्. Moreover अनियम: (absence of a rule) cannot literally mean अविशेषण 'without any distinction !

The sense of विरोध in अविरोध is modified by Sankara by interpreting it as 'प्रकरणविरोध' and then he interprets "शब्दानुमानाभ्याम्" as हेतु for प्रकरणाविरोध. As शब्द or श्रुति he quotes Cha. Upa. V. 10. 1. and tries to interpret that Sruti as referring to all सगुणविद्याs instead of to पञ्चाग्निविद्या and भ्रद्ा and aq: to which only that Sruti really refers or instead of referring to all ( सगुण and निर्गुण) विदाs as distinguished from

150 INTERPRETATION

the religion of rurga and aa (See Bra. Su. III. 1. 7, IV. 2. 17 ). As Smrti or Anumana Sankara refers to Bhagavadgīta VIII. 26. But this Smrti does not at all state that it refers to all the aorfaens; not only so but the Sutrakara himself regards this verse as a Smarta rule about the fate of the Yogins who know Brahman and to be in disagreement with the Cha. Upa. Sruti in question; so, according to Sūtra IV. 2. 21 Sankara is not justified in holding that Cha. Upa. V. 10. 1 and Gita VIII. 26 teach the same doctrine. Thus, neither the Sruti nor the Smrti seems to justify Sankara's interpretation of सर्वासाम् aa सर्वासां सगुणविद्यानाम्. ( 6a ). It should also be noticed here that Sankara connects this Sutra with Bra. Su. IV. 3. 15 and says that the latter makes an exception to the general rule stated in this Sutra. This connection also makes his interpretation of Sutra III. 3. 31 doubtful.

Sūtra 32

7. As इतरेषाम् in Sutra 24 above means इतरेषां गुणानाम्, it seems to us that आधिकारिकाणाम in Sutra 32, means आधिका- रिकाणां गुणानाम्. Though the word घियाम् occurs in Sutra 33 and seems to be referred to by सर्वासाम् in Sutra 31, we may take गुणानाम् as understood with आधिकारिकाणाम् because गुण and f are more or less used here as synonyms. If we are not willing to make such a concession about the terminology of the Sutrakara, we may adopt Ramanuja's reading according to which Sutra 32 preceds Sutra 31. But it does not seem to us necessary to do so. Cf. sat in III. 3. 13 which is referred to not by a masculine word (e. g. गुणाः) but by धियाम् (Fem.) in Bra. Su. III. 3. 33.

8. It seems to us that in Sutras 31-33 the Sūtrakara discusses three types of attributes; Sutra 31 deals with attributes or thoughts which belong to Brahman and most of which have been collected by the Sutrakāra in Bra. Sū. I. 1-3.

BRA SŪ. III. 3.31-33 151

There are other attributes or thoughts which belong to 3rarr the Immutable; these are dealt with in Sūtra 33. There is a third type of attributes or thoughts of Brahman which belong to the official duties or which are useful to officiating priests (आधिकारिकाणाम्). These seem to have been dealt with in Sūtra 32.

9. This Sutra seems to tell us how long the attributes of Brahman which refer to aui# ' parts of the rites ' should be meditated upon.

10. अधिकार in this Sutra means the duties of the office. ( priestly or professional ). In Bra. Su. III. 4. 41 the Sutrakara tells us that one who has entered the stage of renunciation (संन्यास) should also not perform the official or professional duties (न च आधिकारिकमपि कर्म) because those duties do not concern him on account of the Smrti about the possibility of his moral fall (if he performs them). Sutra III. 4. 43 allows a man who is outside the stage of an ascetic, and who seeks Brahman and liberation, to do both his official and also " secondary " duties (बहिस्तूभयथाऽपि) on the strength of Smrti and practice (Bra. Su. III. 4. 43 ). In Bra. Su. III. 4. 44-46 we have a discussion as to what official duties are allowed to a seeker of liberation. Thus, आधिकारिक duties were allowed to a गृहस्थ मुमुशु, and not to an ascetic.

11. आधिकारिकाणाम्-With this word we should take as understood some word of a masculine or neuter gender having the sense of 'धी' which is implied by सर्वासाम् in III. 3. 31 and which is mentioned in Bra. Su. III. 3. 33. We believe we may take "either गुणानाम् or उपासनानाम्" as understood. The attributes of or the meditations on Brahman which pertain to the official duties are discussed here ( Cf. the use of the word आधिकारिक in Bra. Su. III. 4. 41). There are several meditations on Brahman, connected with the official duties of a Brahmana i. e. with the priestly

152 INTERPRETATION

duties, discusssd in Bra. Sū. III. 4. 44-46. Examples of this kind of meditations or attributes of Brahman are (a) अथ य एषोऽन्तरक्षिणि पुरुषो दृश्यते सैवर्कतत्साम तदुक्थं तद्यजुस्तद्गह्म तस्यैतस्य तदेव रूपं यदमुष्य रूपं यावमुष्य गेष्णी तौ गेष्णौ यन्नाम तन्नाम। (Cha. Upa. I. 7. 5-9). (b) अस्य लोकस्य का गतिरित्याकाश इति होवाच सर्वाणि ह वा इमानि भूतान्याकाशादेव समुत्पद्यन्त आकाशं प्रत्यस्तं यन्त्याकाशो ह्येवैभ्यो ज्यायानाकाशः परायणम् ॥१॥ स एष परोवरीयानुद्वीथः स एषोऽनन्तः परोवरीयो हास्य भवति परोवरीयसो ह लोकाञ्जयति य एतदेवं विद्वान्परो- वरीयाएसमुद्रीथमुपास्ते । २॥ (Cha. Upa. I. 9.1-2.); (०) अथ हैनं प्रस्तोतोपससाद प्रस्तोतर्या देवता प्रस्तावमन्वायत्ता तां चेदविद्वान्प्रस्तोष्यसि मूर्धा ते विपतिष्यतीति मा भगवानोवाच कतमा सा देवतेति ॥४। प्राण इति होवाच सर्वाणि ह वा इमानि भूतानि प्राणमेवाभिसंविशन्ति प्राणमभ्यु- जिहते सैषा देवता प्रस्तावमन्वायत्ता तां चेदविद्वान् प्रास्तोष्यो मूर्घा ते व्यपतिष्यत्तथोक्तस्य मयेति ॥५॥ (Cha. Upa. I. 11. 4-5) In Bra. Sū. 1. 2. 13, I. 1. 22, I. 1. 23, it has been decided that the above Srutis mention Brahman under the names of अन्तरक्षिणि पुरुष, आकाश, and प्राण. But these Srutis in their original place are connected with some rites or priestly duties, the official duties of a Brahman.

The present Sutra ( III. 3. 32 ) tells us how long these meditations on Brahman associated with priestly duties are to be kept on ( आधिकारिकाणामवस्थितिः).

12. यावद्धिकारम्-This gives us the limit of the period of continuing the ब्रह्मोपासनs or meditations on the attributes of Brahman connected with the priestly duties ( अधिकार). A seeker of Brahman can perform his official duties as long as he has not renounced the world and may perform them even after renunciation if he is in the danger of losing life ( See Bra. Sū. III. 4. 43, and 42 ). During this period of the parformance of official duties, the meditations on Brahman connected with them should be continued.

13. According to Sankara this Sūtra discusses the question "चिदुषो वर्तमानदेहपातानन्तरं देहान्तरमुत्पद्यते न वा".

BRA. So. III. 3. 31-33 153

It should be pointed out that this question has nothing to do with the so-called ofrotierr which Sankara believes to be the purpose of this Pada. Moreover, this is not a proper place in the Brahmasutras if at all the Sūtrakara wanted to discuss that question. According to Sankara, the daqra of the knower of Brahman is described in Bra. Su. IV. 1 and therefore the question of a further incarnation in the case of one who knows Brahman would at the earliest be discussed after Bra. Su. IV. 1.t

"आधिकारिक" according to Sankara means one who himself is ईश्वर (almost God-like ) but is appointed by परमेश्वर to various offices; अवस्थिति means "सत्यपि सम्यग्दर्शने कैवल्यहेतौ अक्षीणकर्माणोऽवतिष्ठन्ते " "continuing to live with one's deeds unexhausted though they have attained right knowledge which is the means of absolution." 'यावद्धिकारम्' means 'till the appointment lasts ' ( Cf. Bra. Sū. I. 3. 26-33 ). Sankara also quotes several Srutis and Smrtis showing that karmas come to an end on the achievement of the knowledge of Brahman and that TRGUEN comes to an end only after giving its fruit to the agent just as a discharged arrow stops only after its speed is exhausted. But the fact that the Sutrakara considers this same point in Bra. Su. IV. 1. 13-19 shows that the topic of this Sūtra (32) is not what Sankara thinks it to be. Sutra 33

14. J-This word rejects a gauer according to which

t Or rather the question of the invariable attainment of yfm (as a consequence of which would put a stop to further incarna- tions ) is discussed in Bra. Su. III. 4. 52 which seems to say that there is no rule about the attainment of the fruit in the form of liberation or the fruit of liberation ( vis., approach to Brahman and company of Brahman ), because the Scripture definitely mentions ( arayfa ) those who have reached the stage of the knowledge of Brahman. ( See also Bra. Su. IV. 1. 1-2.) 20

154 INTIRPRETATION

'the thoughts' on ararr are also required to be included in the meditation on either of the two aspects of Brahman. 15. अक्षरधियाम्-Sarikara is right in quoting Br. Upa. III. 8. 8. अक्षरधीs are the negative thoughts like अस्थूलमनण्व- इस्वमदीर्घम् etc., which describe the अक्षर and show that the Brahman is immutable. 16. 'ara' means restraint, confinement, fence, barrier etc. The Sutrakara seems to mean that the thoughts on 3rarr are to be confined to where they are in the Sruti literature; they are not to be collected for the purpose of meditation. अवरोध is thus the opposite of उपसंहार in Bra. Su.III. 3. 5.

17. सामान्य and तद्भाव are two reasons why 'the thoughts on 3T&7T' should not be collected or have not been collected by the Sutrakara in his work. The first reason is na, which seems to us to mean the common nature or common charac- teristic of the thoughts of the Immutable, viz., the fact that all of these thoughts serve the same purpose of denying any phenomenal attribute of Brahman and consequently proving that Brahman is formless (निराकार, अरुपवत्). All these attributes have a common meaning or a common purpose (अर्थसामान्य -in Sutra III. 3. 13). And, therefore, it is not necessary to collect them from the various texts. All the attributes that the Sūtrakara has collected in Bra. Sū. I. 1-3 have each of them a different meaning and therefore they are useful. But such is not the case with the attributes of 3rarr.

18. तन्द्राव-'Being that.' This seems to mean that the individual soul itself is ( immutable or ) the same as 3raTT is described to be. The individual soul is already अस्थूल, अनणु, HgTa etc. The purpose of meditation by the method of आत्मगृहीति is to transform the individual soul and make mani- fest in himself those Jors of Brahman on which he meditates. As the individual soul is already अस्थूल, अनणु, अहस्व, etc., (तन्द्राव), there is no need of meditating on those गुणs. Thus,

BRA. So. III. 3. 31-33 155

the fact of the soul's being अनणु, अहस्व, अस्थूल, etc., is the reason, why the Sutrakara does not favour sqaert or collection of the same attributes of srarrt 19. "औपसद" seems to be a minor sacrifice which includes some minor rites common to another major sacrifice ; and though औपसद is required to be included in the major sacrifice, yet no such inclusion is carried out on the ground that the major sacrifice already includes those minor features. This, however, is a mere conjecture. But the example of औपसद seems to be interpreted by the Sūtrakara as somewhat similar to that suggested by us. 20. तदुक्तम्-This phrase, wherever it occurs in the Brahmasutra, is an important one, because on it depends the right interpretation of some of these Sutras. To us it appears that agay in the present case is a reference to Bra. S. III. 3. 13-15. As we have already suggested above, सामान्यात् in Sutra 33 corresponds to अर्थसामान्यात् in Sutra III. 3. 13. तद्भाव "being the same " seems to be the summary of the arguments in Sūtra III. 3. 14-15 ( compare the explanation of aia given above with the explanation of Sūtras 14-15 already given under those Sutras ). अवरोध corresponds to 'अप्राप्ति' taken as understood in Sutra 13 on the strength of its ocourence in Sutra 12. gat in Sutra 13 is interpreted as thoughts on अक्षर because आनन्दाद्य: which would mean the attributes collected in Bra. Su. I. 1 and प्रियशिरहत्वादयः are mentioned respectively in Bra. Su. III. 3. 11 and 12, so

• The interpretation of aala offered above is however tentative. It is a conjecture drawn from the argument HT in Bra. Su. III. 3. 15. Perhaps 'aRla ' may refer to the fact that the meditator on the अरूपवत् aspect as well as the रूपवत् aspect of Brahman already understood the object of meditation as not having a physical $4 and therefore there is no necessity of meditating on either aspect as अस्थूल, अनणु, etc. This second suggestion is made in accordance with आध्यानाय प्रयोजनाभावात् (Bra. Su. III. 3.14.). In this case 'तद्भावात्' means तस्य (उपास्यस्य ) भावात् तद्भावात् (अस्थूलादिभावात्).

156 INTERPRETATION

that only अस्थूलत्वादय: seem to remain to be mentioned in Sutra III. 3. 13. Because of these identical and similar expressions and meanings in Sutra 33 on the one hand and in Sūtras 13-15 on the other hand, it seems to us to be very probable that agy in Sutra 33 refers to . Sutras 13-15. If this suggestion of ours be correot, we have in Sūtra 33 ample evidence for our interpretation of Sutras 13-15.

21 Sankara is right in saying that srerferg refers to such Srutis as Br. Upa. III. 8. 8. According to him, however, the question discussed in this Sutra is whether all the thoughts on aT&TT are to be collected and added to all the srrT Srutis or not. This does not seem to us to be the case; rather, the topic here is what attributes are to be collected for meditation on Brahman, and what are not.

This Sutra seems to mention these latter, the former having been stated in Sutras 31-32. aratre means obstruction, restraint, confinement, blockade, fence, blocking up where they occur. But Sankara explains the word in the Sūtra as follows :- अक्षरविषयास्तु विशेषप्रतिषेधबुद्धयः सर्वाः सर्वत्रावरोद्धव्याः। Thus, by adding सर्वत्र he altogether changes the sense of अवरोध; and instead of 'obstruction' or 'restraint' the word comes to mean acceptance and admission everywhere. This way of adding words to such an extent that the original sense is altogether changed seems to us to be very dangerous. HI which means a common characteristic is explained by Sankara as समानो हि सर्वत्र विशेषनिराकरणरूपो ब्रह्मप्रतिपादनप्रकार: ।. This is rather the very reason on account of which the Sūtrakara confines these attributes to where they ocour and thereby shows his unwillingness to collect them for meditation either on the arayaa aspect ( Sutra 13-15 ) or on Brahman in general (Sutra 33, i. e., the रूपवत् aspect as well). It is the सामान्य of one 'thought' (अस्थलम् ) with other 'thoughts' (अनणु, अह्स्व, etc.) which, it seems to us, is/meant here. (of. अर्थसामान्य in Sūtra III. 3. 13 ). aara is interpreted by Sankara as

BRA. So. III. 3. 31-33 157

"तदेव च सर्वत्र प्रतिपाद्यं ब्रह्माभन्नं प्रत्यभिश्ञायते।". We think, by agra the Sutrakara refers to the fact that the soul is already अस्थूल etc., like the Aksara.

There is a mention of attributes in Sūtras 11-15, and again a statement of attributes occurs in these Sūtras ( 31-33 ). The purpose of Sutras 11-15 is to state what attributes are to be taken in the meditation on the sar aspect of Brahman; while Sutras 31-33 aim at explaining how many attributes should be included in the meditation on both the aspects of Brahman ( See Sutras 28-30 ). But in so doing the Sūtrakara also mentions ( in Sutras 32-33 ) which attributes are to be taken temporarily and which should be confined where they are. Sutra 33 repeats briefly the statement of Sutras 13-15, because that latter statement was made only for the meditation on the sea; while it was not made for the qaa aspect also. This latter incompleteness of statement has been removed by Sutra 33. Thus, Sankara's remarks that this repetation of the consideration of attributes is for the purpose of giving details only, are not correct ( तथा च आनन्दादयः प्रधानस्य इत्यत्र व्याख्यातम्। ... प्रपश्चार्थश्च चिन्तभेदः। तत्र विधिरूपाणि विशेषणानि चिन्तितानि इह प्रतिषेध- रूपाणि इति विशेष: ।); because Sutra 33 rather briefly refers to Sūtra 13-15. His remarks, however, are based upon his inter- pretation of both these groups of Sūtras ( 11-15, 33 ). To us they seem to support the explanations that we have offered for these Sutras ( 31-33 ). Sankara takes agay as referring to Jai. Su. III. 3. 8. We have already stated above the reasons why agay in this Sutra seems to us to refer to Sutras 13-15 of this Pada.

SECTION X

Inward Method of Meditation.

Sūtras III. 3. 34-36

(३४-३५) इयदामननादन्तरा "भूतग्रामवत्स्वात्मनः"। (३६ ) अन्यथाऽभेदानुपपत्तिरिति चेन्नोपदेशान्तरवत् ।

TRANSLATION

ON account of the Sruti's mention [ of Brahman as being ] ' of this much size', [ Brahman should be meditated upon ] inwardly in one's own self, just as [ is done ] in the case of the group of elements. 34-35

If it be argued: « [ Meditation is to be practised inwardly in one's self, because ] otherwise there would be no explanation of the identity [ of the meditator with the meditated ], we reply " No ". [ The inward meditation ] is like [ the one suggested ] in another precept [ about inward realization ]. 36

NOTES

Sūtra 34-35

1. To us it seems that originally Sutras 34 and 35 formed one single Sutra, because, as we shall explain below, इयदामननात् ( Sutra 34 according to Sankara's Patha ) gives the reason for 'etT' in Sutra 35, and does not therefore seem to us to be an independent argument or an independent Adhikarana 2. इयदामननात्-This undoubtedly refers to a Sruti in which परमात्मन् is said to be 'of this much size' i.e., of a small size. So, probably, इयदामननात् refers to some Sruti like Katha Upa. IV. 12-13 viz., अङगष्ठमात्रः पुरुषो मध्य आत्मनि तिष्ठति। ईशानो भूतभव्यस्य न ततो विजगुप्सत एतद्वै तत् । १२ ॥ अङ्गष्ठमात्र: पुरुषो ज्योतिरिवाधूमकः ॥ ईशानो भूतभव्यस्य स पवाद्य स उ श्व पतद्वै तत् ॥१३ ॥ In Bra. Su. 1. 3. 24 ( शब्दादेव प्रमित:), the Sutrakara has discussed this Sruti and has come to the conclusion that goy mentioned here is परमात्मन्. Because परमात्मन् is said to be 'of a small size, ' and, as the same Sruti says, resides in the heart, He should be meditated upon in one's own self. " आत्मनि " of the Sruti corresponds to "अन्तरा स्वात्मनः " of the Sūtra. This seems to us to be the argument of the Sūtrakara in these Sutras ( 34-35 ) for meditating upon the Supreme Being as present in one's own self. In Bra. Su. I. 2. 7 and I. 3. 21 respectively पुरुष and प्रधान are said to be 'of the size of the heart ' because they are to be meditated upon as such, as being in the heart अर्भकौकस्त्वात्तदयपदेशाञ्च नेति चेन्न निचाय्यत्वादेवं ग्योमवच्च।-Bra. Si. I. 2.7; अल्पश्रुतेरिति वेत्तदुक्तम्-Bra. Su. I. 3.21). 3. भूतग्रामवत्-The भूतग्रामs reside in the body. This is made very clear from the following verse :-

160 INTERPRETATION

कर्षयन्तः शरीरस्थं भूतग्राममचतसः । मां चैवान्त: शरीरस्थं तान्विद्व्यासुरनिश्चयान्॥ Bha, Gi. XVII. 6. Thus, भूतग्राम means the number of small beings that reside in the human body. Similarly, the Supreme Being also resides in the body and is to be meditated upon in the body or within the self of the meditator. The point of comparison is not the meditation but only residence in the body. (Of. also भूतानि यान्ति भूतेज्याः, which shows that भूतs were also worshipped MBh. XII. 236. 14-24 where the meditation on the Elements is mentioned. 4. Sūtra 34 has been taken as an independent Adhikaraņa by Sankara, but this expression (इयदामननात्) is only the statement of a ag and nothing is said therein regarding the conclusion. So, it is not likely that by itself it could form an Adhikarana. As we have shown above, इयदामननात् can be well connected with Satra 35 as a ar, and, therefore, it seems to us that if इयदामननात् preceded अन्तराभूतग्रामवत्स्वात्मनः, इयदामननात् should not be an independent Sutra, but should form part of Sutra 35. If, however, इयदामननात् followed अन्तरा- भूतग्रामवत्स्वात्मनः, इयदामननात could be an independent Sutra; in this case "अन्तरा भूतग्रामवत्त्स्वात्मनः" would be Sutra 34 and इयदामननात् would be Sutra 35. According to Sanikara, 'इयदामननात्' discusses a question whether Mu. Upa. III. 1. 1 and Katha Upa. III. 1 teach the samie विद्या or twq different विद्याs. But, it should be pointed out that in Bra. Su. I. 2. 11 and I. 3.7 respectively the Sūtrakara has discussed both these Srutis ( Ka. Upa. III. 1 and Mu. Upa. III. 1. 1), and in each case it is concluded that each verse mentions the Supreme Being and the individual soul. So, really, there is no reason why these two Srutis be discussed once again. Sankara himself is aware of this unnecessary repetition involved in his interpretation of this Sūtra ( " Jai प्रविष्टावात्मानी हि"-ब्र. सू. १।२।२२-इत्यत्र चैतत्प्पञ्चितम्). So in- directly it had been proved in Bra. Su. I. 2. 11 and I. 3. 7 that the same विद्या is taught in these verses. इयदामननात् does not

BRA. ST. III. 3. 34-86 161

clearly refer to two Srutis or to two souls; all that it can imply is that in the Sruti the Supreme Being is said to be of a small size. But Sankara takes 'raa ' in the sense of ' two' and explains the Sutra as follows :- यत उभयोरप्यनयोर्मन्त्रयोरियत्ता- परिच्छिनं द्वित्वोपेतं वेद्यरूपमभिन्नमामनन्ति।" 5. According to Sankara, Sūtra 35 begins a new Adhika- rana and discusses the question whether Br. Upa. III. 4. 1 and III. 5. I teach the same विद्या or different विद्याs. The reason for this doubt is stated by Sankara to be " repetition " of the same statement. A glance at the two texts will show that both of them teach the same topic, which is repeated verbatim in both the passages; therefore there was no reason for such a doubt as is raised by Sankara. It should be stated here that in this Sūtra Sankara raises a qaqa because the same topic is repeated in the texts concerned, while in the preceding Sutra he raises a doubt because different things are mentioned in the texts concerned (विशेषदर्शनात्). Thus, it would seem as if a doubt may be raised on any account, or that mere reproduction of the same words in different texts or mere difference in some texts should be taken as a sufficient ground for raising a doubt. Moreover, not a single word in the Sutra suggests a reference to the विषयवाक्यs of Sanikara. The words स्वात्मन: 3r-atr mean inside one's self or inside one's body; it does not mean ' waf-ar: ' and therefore it cannot be taken as a reference to 'सर्वान्तरः' in Saikara's विषयवाक्य. Moreover, 'स्वात्मनः अन्तरा' should not be modified into "अन्तराम्नानविशेषात्स्वात्मनो विदयैकत्वम् ". There is no word in the Sutra for आम्नान and अविशेष added by Sankara. Sankara gives two explanations for भूतग्रामवत् in the Sutra (35). (1) एकस्य तु भूतग्रामवत् न एव सर्वान्तरत्वं स्यात्। यथा च पञ्चभूतसमूद्दे देहे पृथिव्या आपोऽन्तरा अद्भयस्तेजोऽन्तरमिति सत्यप्यापेक्षिके- उन्तरत्वे नैव मुख्यं सर्वान्तरत्वं भवति तथेहापीत्यर्थः । We believe, the $1

162 INTERPRETATION

additions to "भूतग्रामवत् " made in this explanation make Sankara's interpretation appear too week to be accepted. Sankara himself felt diffident about his first interpretation and therefore offered a second one. (2) In this second expla- nation Sankara takes भूतग्रामवत् as referring to Sve. Upa.VI. 11 in which the compound words 'सर्वभूतेषु' and 'सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा' occur. The original sense in the Sutra seems to be that aatH is inside one's own self; instead of this, Sankara's explanation is that the Lord is in समस्तभूतग्रामs Is भूतग्रामवत् a sufficient reference to Sve. Upa. VI. 11! And can we change भूतग्राम to समस्तभूतग्राम so easily?

Sūtra 36

6. "अभेद" in this Sutra refers to the आत्मगृहीति method of meditation ( Bra. Su. III. 3. 16, IV. 1. 3) in which the meditator identifies himself with Brahman on which he medi- tates. This interpretation is possible if ब्रह्मन् the object of meditation is inside the self as much as the soul of the meditator himself. If ब्रह्मन the object of meditation be supposed to be in the Supreme Heaven ( परमे व्योमन्) or in Nature any- where but in the body, the आत्मगृहीति (अहं ब्रह्मास्मि ) would not be possible because arg is surely residing in one's own body ( स्वात्मनः अन्तरा). Therefore, if Brahman also be in one's own body ( स्वात्मनः अन्तरा), then only is there any possibility of achieving the identification underlying the meditation ( ar ब्रह्मास्मि ). This seems to us to be sense of अभेद here. 7. अन्यथाऽभेदानुपपत्तिरिति चेत्-A पूर्वपक्ष supposes that Brahman is to be meditated upon within one's self because otherwise the identification expressed in the आत्मगृहीति cannot become possible. 8. न -The Sutrakara rejects the पूर्वपक्ष's argument for meditation of Brahman within one's self .. It is not for making possible the identification underlying अहंग्रहोपासना that Brahman is taught here to be meditated upon within one's self.

BRA. ST. III. 3. 33-36 163

9. उपदेशान्तरवत्-The Sutrakara seems to refer to a statement in the Sruti according to which Brahman and the soul are within an individual's body without being identical. (उपदेशान्तर=मेदोपदेश). There are Srutis like Mu. Upa. III. 1. 1, Kațha Upa. III. I, etc. द्वा सुपर्णा सयुजा सखाया समानं वृक्षं परिषस्वजाते। तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्यनश्नन्नन्यो अभिचाकशीति।। ( Mu. Upa. III. 1. 1 and Sve. Upa. IV. 6 ), and ऋतं पिबन्तौ सुकृतस्य लोके गुहां प्रविष्टौ परमे परार्धे। छायातपौ ब्रह्मविदो वदन्ति पञ्चाग्नयो ये च त्रिणाचिकेताः ॥ ( Kațha Upa. III. 1 ). Brahman is to be meditated upon within ono's self, not in order to achieve the identity of Brahman and the Jiva, but because the Sruti declares Brahman to be with the soul within the latter's body.

If we take उपदेशान्तर to mean another teaching like इयदाम्नान ( Sūtra III. 3. 34-35 ), it may be a reference to तिलेषु तैलं दधनीव सर्पिरापः स्रोत:स्वरणीषु चाग्निः । एवमात्मात्मनि ग्रृह्यतेऽसौ सत्येनैनं तपसायोऽनुपश्यति ॥ ( Sva. Upa. I. 15) or, to पराज्चि खानि व्यतृणत्स्वयंभूस्तस्मात्पराङ् पश््यति नान्तरात्मन्। कश्चिद्वीरः प्रत्यगात्मानमैक्षदावृत्तचक्षुरमृत्त्त्वमिच्छन्॥। ( Katha Upa. IV. 1 ). 'प्रत्यगात्मन्' the inner Atman is God residing in the heart. 10. If the above interpretation of Sutra 36 be correct, it supports indirectly the explanation of Sutra 16 suggested by us. The latter as well as Sutras 34-35 deal with the method of meditation and so does also Sūtra 36. 10 a. Moreover, the fact that the Sūtrakara rejects the argument leading to the identification of Brahman and the

164 INTERPRETATION

Jiva, shows that the Sūtrakara does not believe in the identity of the two. This is in complete agreement with the Sutras in which the Sutrakara says that the soul and Brahman are not identical e. g., Bra. Sū. I. 1. 17, I. 1. 21, I. 2. 22, I. 3. 5, etc. etc., II. 1. 22. 11. Sankara reads, 'मेदानुपपत्ति' in place of 'अभेदानुपपत्त' which we have followed. Sankara in accordance with his interpretation of Sutra 35 explains मेद as आम्नानमेद and refers that आम्नानभेद to the different or double statement of the same in Br. Upa. III. 4. 1 and III. 5. 1. 3TT&T should mean " if not within one's self " in accordance with the context of Sutra 35, but Sankara interprets it as "अनभ्युपगम्यमाने विद्याभेदे". उपदेशान्तर should mean उपदेश of अभेद because Sanikara reads 'भेदानुपपत्ति', or 'विद्याअमेद' if we adopt Sarikara's meaning of मेद. Sankara, however, explains उपदेशान्तर as referring to Cha. Upa. VI. 8. 7. We need not say that there is no similarity between the repetition of the teaching of Cha. Upa. VI and the double statement occuring in Br. Upa. III. 4 and 5. Inspite of this Sankara takes Cha. Upa. VI to be the model wherewith to explain the repetition in Br. Upa. III. 4-5.

SECTION XI

Interchange of Attributes of the two Aspects of Brahman in Sruti: No Objection to the Meditation on either of the two independently of the other.

Sūtras III. 3. 37-42

Note :- We propose to read Sūtras 37-42 as follows :-

(३७) व्यतिहारो विशिषन्ति हीतरवत्।

(३८) सैव हि।

(३९) सत्यादय: कामादितरत्र तत्र चायतनादिभ्यः ।

( ४० ) आदरादलोप: ।

( ४१ ) उपस्थितेऽतस्तद्वचनात्।

(४२) तन्निर्धारणानियमस्तद्ष्टेः पृथग्ध्यप्रतिबन्ध: फलम् ।

TRANSLATION

THERE is an interchange [ of attributes ] because [ the Srutis ] characterise in the same way [ one aspect of Brahman ] as they do the other [ aspect ], 37

because every one and the same [ Sruti ] does so. 38

Satya [ -sankalpa ] and other succeeding attributes [ can ] at the desire [ of the meditator be used ] in [ the meditation on the Avyakta which is ] the other [ aspect of Brahman than the one to which, in the opinion of the Sūtrakāra as expressed in Bra. Su. I. 2, they belong ], and in [ the meditation on ] it [ i. e., " that other aspect " viz., the Avyakta the meditator may at his desire use attributes ] from [ dyubhvādy ] ayatana and the succeeding ones. 39

[ Pūrvapaksa- ] " There should be no dropping [ of the attributes of an aspect other than the one which one chooses to meditate upon ] out of reverence [ for the interchange found in the Srutis ]."

[ Siddhānta- ] " When [ such an attribute ] presents itself [ in a Sruti, it should not be dropped ] on account of this (reverence) due to the statement of that (Sruti). 40-41

There is no rule for fixing those [ attributes ]. The result of this standpoint is that there is no objection [ on the part of the Sruti] to [the taking of the Avyakta and the Purusa to be each of them] a separate aspect of Brahman. 42

NOTES

Sutra 37

1. व्यतिह्ार :- The word means "interchange" and here it means the interchange of attributes (विशेषणs), as is suggested by the verb विशिषन्ति in the Sutra. The विशेष्यs are not to be interchanged but the विशेषणs can be interchanged because "the Srutis use such विशषणs for one aspect of Brahman as they do for the other. " "व्यतिहार" is the statement of a conclusion, and "विशिंषन्ति हीतरवत्" is a हेतु for it. The Sutrakara also gives an inter- change of attributes of Brahman in Sutras 38-39 etc. Therefore, व्यतिहार is an interchange of attributes. 2. विशिषन्ति-The subject of this verb is अतय:, just as the subject of दर्शयति which occurs so often in the Brahmasutras is always श्ुतिः. Moreover, the feminine form 'सा' in the next Sutra makes it clear that the subject of विशिषन्ति is श्रुतय: understood. 3. 'हि' shows that व्यतिहार: is the conclusion and विशिषन्ति इतरवत् is the premise. 4. इतरवत्-The Sutrakara holds that there are two forms of Brahman अरूपवत् and रूपवत् or प्रधान and पुरुष. Compare also इतरवत् in आत्मगृहीतिरितरवदुत्तरात् (Bra. Su. III. 3. 16). "विशिषन्ति इतरवत्" means "The Srutis distinguish प्रधान as they do पुरुष, and पुरुष as they do प्रधान." For this reason, the characteristics of each of the two can be interchanged with those of the other. The Sūtrakara gives an example of how the Srutis distinguish the one form of Brahman like the other, in the next Sutra ( सैव हि). 5. Sankara makes one Adhikarana of this Sutra only. व्यतिहार: is in his view not a statement of the conclusion, but

168 INTARPRETATION

he takes it as a reference to a text of the Aitareyins and another text of the Jabalas in both of which, he says, a व्यतिहार is given. We have already said that व्यतिहार here is the statement of a conolusion and therefore it does not refer to any Srutis. व्यतिहार is mentioned for the purpose of meditation and its illustrations in Sutras 38-39 also go against taking व्यतिहार as referring to any particular Srutis. Again, Sankara explains व्यतिहार as "जीवेशयोर्मिथो विशेषणतिशेष्यभावः". This is not the exact meaning which the word व्यतिहार has in any standard lexicon. व्यतिहार is an interchange of equal things, interchange of विशेषणs only or विशेष्यs only. In the Sutra, it is the interchange of faarqors, as is shown by us above. Lastly, it is not at all likely that the Sutrakara would try to discuss any revealed text other than an Upanisad or an Upanisad not accepted by him in the first Adhyaya of his work.

Instead of taking व्यतिहार as a simple statement (व्यतिहार: arfea ) Sankara completes " the gaps " in the Sutra by saying "व्यतिहारोऽयमाध्यानायास्नायते ". "इतरवत्" is explained by Saiikara as यथेतर गुणाः सर्वात्मत्वप्रभृतयः आध्यानाय आस्नायन्ते तद्वत्. Thus, Sankara interprets इतरवत् as इतरे गुणा: इव. He adds "गुणाः". If इतरवत् is to be taken with व्यतिहार: instead of with विशिषन्ति, व्यतिहार should be a गुण like सर्वात्मत्वप्रभृतयः; but it seems to us that it is not a guna. विशिषन्ति is interpreted by Sankara as "तथा हि विशिषन्ति समाम्नातारः उभयोश्चारणेन 'त्वमहमस्म्यहं च त्वमसि' इति." We think that शुतयः is the subject of विशिषन्ति. Moreover, how would Sankura explain the view established in his bhäsya on this Sūtra in consistency with his interpreta- tion of Sutra IV. 1. 5 (ब्रह्मडष्टिरुत्कर्षात्) and his bhasya on the same? Sutra 38

6. This Sūtra seems to us to be closely connected with the preceding Sutra. 'fa' in this Sutra supports our view. In Sutra 37 a general statement is given, viz., "शुतयः विशिषन्ति

BRA. So. III. 3. 37-42 169

rareg "; in this Sutra a particular example of that statement is given, viz., "सैव हि विशिनष्टि इतरवत्." So this Sūtra is a continuation of the preceding Sūtra. 7. सैव हि-"विशिनष्टि इतरवत् " is to be taken as understood from the preceding Sutra. The Sutrakara seems to mean that one and the same Sruti characterises one aspect of Brahman like the other. He means that we may take any Sruti and we shall find the correctness of this assertion. Let us take the example of Cha. Upa. III. 14. 1-2. This Sruti begins with सर्वे खल्विदं ब्रह्म तज्जलानिति शान्त उपासीत ...... and then the attributes of this Brahman are given as मनोमयः प्राणशरीरो भारूपः सत्यसंकल्पः आकाशात्मा सर्वकर्मा सर्वकाम: सर्वगन्ध: सर्वरसः सर्वमिद्मभ्यात्तोऽवाक्यनादर:।। The Sutrakara seems to think that in this Sruti the eraqaa auT which is mentioned in the beginning is qualiued as if it were the रूपवत् ब्रह्मन्, because मनोमय, सर्वकाम, etc., are the विशेषणs of the पुरुष. Looking to the विषयवाक्यs of the first Pada of the first Adhyaya, which mention aarr as the cause of the creation, continuation and dissolution of the world, ar is also a proof that this Sruti is intended to desoribe the अरूपवत् ब्रह्मन् t. Here the अरूपवत् ब्रह्मन् is qualified with adjeotives which properly belong to the रूपवत् Brahman. This is true not only of one single Sruti, but many Srutis do the same and therefore the Sutrakara says in Sūtra 37, " gau: विशिषन्ति इतरवत्." 8. 'सत्यादयः' which is a part of this Sutra according to the commentators seems to us to be originally a part of the next Sūtra ( See Note 9 below ). Sutra 39

9. "aenau:" of the preceding Sutra should in our opinion be taken in this Sūtra. Thus, the original Sūtra ( 39 ) should have been "सत्यादयः कामादितरत्र तत्र चायतनादिभ्यः". Here we have

• See also Note ( 10 ) on Sūtra III. 3. 39. 29

170 INTERPRATATION

introduced one more change also in the reading of Sankara, viz., कामादीतरत्र is changed to कामादितरत्र, thus substituting the long ई by a short one. Our reasons for detaching सत्याद्य: from the preceding Sutra and attaching it to this Sutra are the meaning of सत्यादय: and the sense of Sutra 39 as a whole. But, for the change of कामादीतरत्र to कामादितरत्र we are support- ed also by Madhva's reading according to which we have a short g instead of a long one in this expression (कामादितरत्र).

10. सत्याद्य: and आयतनादिभ्यः-In Sutra 11 we have a group of attributes viz., आनन्दाद्य: Thus, we have here in Sūtras 11 and 39 three groups of attributes viz., (1) one beginning with आनन्द, (2) a second beginning with सत्य and (3) a third group of attributes of which आयतन is the first. Accord- ing to the requirement of the बहुवीहि compound, we want three lists of attributes in which आनन्द्र, सत्य and आयतन are respectively the first. None of the commentators gives any such lists.

To us it seems that here the Sutrakara refers to the lists of attributes in the first three Padas of the first Adhyaya of his work. araF is an attribute referred to in Bra. Su. I. 1. 2; that Sūtra undoubtedly refers to Tai. Upa. III. 6, viz., TaT ब्रह्मति व्यजानात्।। आनन्दाद्धयेव खल्विमानि भूतानि जायन्ते॥ आनन्देन जातानि जीवन्ति॥ आनन्दं प्रयन्त्यभिसंविशन्ति। Similarly सत्य is the first attribute in Bra. Su. I. 2. But in this case HeT stands for सत्यसंकल्प which is given in the Sruti referred to in Bra. Su. I.2.1, viz., सर्व खल्विदं ब्रह्म तजलानिति शान्त उपासीत ...... ।१। मनोमयः प्राणशरीरो भारूप: सत्यसंकल्पः आकशात्मा सर्वकर्मा सर्वकाम: सर्वगन्धः सर्वरसः सर्वमिद्मभ्यात्तोऽवाक्यनादर:॥ (Cha. Upa. III. 14. 1-2). In the same way आयतनादिभ्य: refers to a list in which आयतन is the first attribute of Brahman. This seems to be a reference to छुभ्वाद्यायतन in the first Sutra of the third Pada of the first Adhyaya of the Brahmasutra. The word " na= " itself occurs in the Sruti referred to in Bra. Su. I. 1. 2; so the word arrasa in Sūtra III. 3, 11 can

BRA. SO. III. 3. 37-42 171

be easily identified with the same in the Sruti referred to in Bra. Su. I. 1. 2. But the identification of सत्य with सत्यसंकल्प and that of आयतन with छभ्वाद्यायतन may afford some scope for raising a difference of opinions. But, if we study how the Sūtrakara refers to Srutis or to the Sūtras, we come to a conclusion that he does make changes, even greater changes, than the change of सत्यसंकल्प to सत्य and दुभ्वाद्यायतन to आयतन. Thus, चरण in Bra. Su.I. 1. 24 (ज्योतिश्चरणाभिधानात्) refers to a Sruti in which the word " ma " occurs, viz, Cha. Upa. III. 12. 6; सर्वत्र in Bra. Su. I. 2. 1 refers to सर्वमिद्मभ्यास्ः in Cha. Upa. III. 14. 2; अर्भकौकस्त्व in Bra. Su. I. 2. 7 refers to एष मे आत्मान्तर्हदये in Cha. Upa. III. 14. 3; व्योमवत् in Bra. Su. I. 2.7 refers to a Sruti in which the word " aaTT " occurs viz., Cha. Upa. VIII. 1. 1. All these examples of प्रतीकs used by the Sutrakara for making references to Srutis show that he makes changes in the words occuring in the original passages. We believe the above examples of the way in which the Sutrakara makes references to other text are a sufficient ground to guarantee our suggestion to take सत्य and आयतन as abbreviations of सत्यसंकल्प and द्युम्वाद्यायतन and therefore as references to the Sruti which is fangary in Bra. Sū. I. 2. 1 and to Sūtra I. 3. 1 respectively. Since the purpose of the Sutrakara was to refer to the three lists of attributes in the three Padas of the first Adhyaya, it is of minor importance that आनन्द and सत्य refer to the Srutis which are the विषयवाक्यs of Bra. Su. I. 1. and I. 2, while आयतन refers to the Sutra (I.3.1) itself, or that सत्य or सत्यकाम is not the first in the attributes of Cha. Upa. III. 14. 2 ( मनोमय being mentioned first in that Sruti). आनन्द is an attribute, and सत्य or सत्यकाम is also an attribute; but आयतन is by itself no attribute; this inconsistency is removed by taking आयतन as दभ्वाद्यायतन which is an attribute. This is a more cogent reason also why आयतन should be understood to refer to दुभ्वाद्यायतन. If we accept the above suggestion regarding the inter-

172 INTERPRETATION

pretation of the three groups of attributes, (1) आनन्दादय:, (2) सत्याद्य:, and (3) आयतनादयः, we can easily make out the reference expressed by आदि in each compound. Thus, the first list consists of (1 ) आनन्द (Bra. Su. I. 1. 2),(2) आनन्दमय (Bra. Su. I.1.12), (3) अन्तर् ... पुरुष: ( Bra. Su. I. 1. 20 ), (4 ) आकाश ( Bra. Su. I. 1. 22), (5) प्राण (Bra. Su. I. 1. 23 ), (6) ज्योति: (Bra. Su. I. 1. 24) and (7) प्राण (Bra. Su. I. 1. 28 ). The second list is made up of (1) मनोमयः (सत्यसंकल्प:) etc., ( Bra. Su. I. 2. 1), (2) अस्ता (Bra. Su. I. 2. 9), (3 ) गुहां प्रविष्टः ( Bra. Su. I. 2.11), (4) अन्तरः (Bra. Su. I. 2. 13 ), (5) अन्तर्यामिन (Bra. Su. I. 2. 18), (6) अदृश्यत्वादि- गुणक ( Bra. Su.I. 2. 21) and (7) वैश्वानरः (Bra. Su. I. 2.24). The third list consists of (1) दुभ्वाद्यायतन (Bra. Su. I.3.1), (2) भूमन् (Bra. Su. I. 3. 8), (3) अम्बरान्तधृति (Bra. Su. I. 3. 10 ), (4 ) ईक्षतिकर्म ( Bra. Su. I. 3. 13), (5 ) दहर (Bra. Su. I. 3.14), (6) अङ्गष्ठमात्र (Bra. Su. I. 3. 24 ), (7) कम्पन (Bra. Su. I. 3. 39 ), ( 8) ज्योति: (Bra. St. I. 3. 40), (9) आकाशः (Bra. Su. I. 3. 41 ), ( 10) विज्ञानमय (Bra. Su. I. 3. 42), and पतिः (Bra. Su. I. 3. 43).

11. सत्याद्यः कामादितरत्र-"सत्यसंकल्प and those attributes that follow it may be, at the desire of the meditator, used for meditation on an aspect other than that aspect of Brahman for which they have been mentioned by the Sutrakara." कामात् is उन्दतः (Bra. Su. III. 3. 28). On account of the व्यतिहार or interchange of attributes ( Bra. Su. III. 3. 37 ) the Sūtrakara gives an option to the meditator. The Sutrakara has argued in Bra. Su. I. 2 that the विषयवाकयs collected in that Pada describe the पुरुष aspect of Brahman. Now he says that सत्याद्य: may be optionally used in the meditation on the other, i. e., on the प्रधान aspect of Brahman. This option is quite consistent with the nature of the विषयवाकयs of that Pada. All the विषयवाक्यs contain words which express the अरूपवत् Brahman, but on account of certain विशेषणs of that विषय the Sutrakara argues that the subject of those वाक्यs is पुरुष. Let us take

BRA. SO. III. 3. 87-42 178

an example in addition to that of सत्यसंकल्प given above under Sutra 38. Thus, Mu. Upa. I. 1. 5-6 mentions the अरूपवत्, but the Sruti characterises that aspect as it does the रपवत् or पुरुष and therefore the Sutrakara gives arguments from that Sruti to show that that passage teaches the avaa aspect of Brahman. This is true also about other Srutis disoussed in that Pada ( See our Notes on Bra. Sū. I. 2 in the Appendix).

The above option (सत्यादयः कामाद् 'इतरत्र ) lends support to Sankara's view because it explains why it is that Sankara takes Srutis like Mu. Upa. I. 1. 5-6 as referring to निर्गुण ब्रह्मन् in his commentary on that Upanisad, while he interprets the same as dealing with पुरुष or सगुण ब्रह्मन is his commentary on the Brahmasutra,

11. तत्र च आयतनादिभ्यः-"And in the meditation on it (i. e., on the अरूपवत्) may be used at the desire of the meditator attributes from आयतन, etc." This means the विषयवाक्यs of Bra. Su. I. 3 deal with the avaa according to the Sūtrakara, but here he gives an option to use those attributes in the meditation on the अरूपवत्. This shows that the Srutis discuss- ed in Bra. Su. I. 3 characterise gEr as they do auna.

If we study the fagaras of Bra. Su. I. 3, we find that they expressly mention grw and describe Him with words applicable to the अरूपवत्. The Sutrakara who lays emphasis on the express word in these Srutis makes a two-fold attempt at explaining the topic of these Srutis; in Bra. Sū. I. 3 he says that these Srutis describe the gor because actually the word grq is mentioned in them, while in Bra. Sū. III. 3 39 he makes it clear that since these Srutis describe the grq with adjectives and terms applicable to the अरूपवत्, he allows an option to use these attributes in the meditation on the अरूपवत् To give an example from Bra. Sū. I. 3, Mu. Upa. II. 2. 5 is the विषयवाक्य of the first Adhikarana. That विषयवाक्य uses the word anana which the Sūtrakara seems to take as a

174 INTERPRETATION

word belonging to gow; moreover, as the Sutrakara himself says, the घुभ्वाद्यायतन is called पुरुष or मुक्तोपसृप्य (Bra. Su. I. 3. 2). Now, this पुरुष or आत्मन् is said to be ुभ्वाद्यायतन 'that which is the abode of the sky, the earth, etc.' This धुभ्वादायतन is according to the Sutrakara an attribute of the sena. Again, this पुरुष is said to be आनन्दरूप (Mu. Upa. II. 2.7) which is in the opinion of the Sutrakara an attribute of the senia. Mu. Upa. II. 2. 8 also desoribes this goq in the terms of प्रधान. Thus, Mu. Upa. II. 2 describes पुरुष in the terms of sena. The same seems to be true also of other Srutis discussed in Bra. Sū. I. 3. 12. Why does the Sutrakara use आयतनादिभ्य: instead of आयतनाद्य: ? Is it for a metrical reason ? Or, does it mean that only some of the Srutis discussed in Bra. Sū. I 3 describe पुरुष in the terms of प्रधान and therefore only some of those Srutis should be taken in the meditation on the eravaa, while other Srutis describe पुरुष in the terms of पुरुष (only) and these should not, therefore, be taken in the meditation on the अरूपवस्, but they should be used only on the meditation on पुरुष? 13. If the above interpretation of Bra. Sū. III. 3. 11 and III. 3. 37-39 be correct, we have here the key to the interpre- tation of Bra. Sū. I. 1-3. According to Bra. Sū. III. 3. 11 the Sutrakara has devoted the first Pada of Bra. Su. I to the collction of the attributes of only the अरूपवत् (निराकार) or प्रधान aspect of Brahman. In Bra. Su. I. 2 he has dealt with those Srutis which describe the प्रधान or अरूपवत् with the adjectives applicable to only the रूपवत्, and which he has himself taken as teaching the रूपवत् aspect. This is the implied sense of व्यतिहारो विशिषन्ति हीतरवत् and सत्यादय: कामाद इतरत्र ( Bra. Su. III. 3. 37-39). And lastly, Bra. Sū. I. 3 discusses those Srutis which describe the पुरुष with the terms applicable to the se, and about which the Sutrakara himself argues there that they deal with पुरुष (तत्र चायतनादिभ्यः-Bra. Su. III. 3. 39). 14. According to Sankara's reading there is one indepenment

BRA. So. III. 8. 37-42 175

Adhikarana of Sutra 38 ( सै हि सत्यादयः). He takes this Sutra as referring to a question arising out of Br. Upa. V. 4-5, viz., whether the सत्यविद्या of Br. Upa. V. 4 and that of Br. Upa. V. 5 are one and the same. As can be seen by reading the text of Br. Upa. V. 4-5 there is no reason to raise such a doubt at all, because it is clearly stated that He in Br. Upa. V. 5. 2 is the same as the सत्य in Br. Upa. V.4 and V. 1, viz., तद्यत्तत्सत्यमसौ स आित्यः। Therefore, it appears to us that Br. Upa. V. 4-5 does not require any discussion and is not, therefore, likley to have been discussed in the Brahma- sutra. Sankara seems to take सत्य in सत्यादय: as referring to Br. Upa. V. 4-5. सत्याद्य: refers to a list of attributes in which H is the first attribute, but there is no such list in this passage from the Br. Upa. In Br. Upa. V. 4 there are three attributes ( मह्दयक्षं, प्रथमजं वेद सत्यम्) of which सत्य is the last one. Thus, it is not likely that सत्यादय: refers to Br. Upa. V. 4-5.

Sankara takes सैव as एका एव and adds 'इय विद्या'. To us it appears that सैव means "सैव श्रुतिः विशिनष्टि इतरवत्" as we have explained above. "विशिनष्टि," which is here implied, joins this Sutra with the preceding Sūtra. There is no evidence in the Sutra to take इयं विद्या as understood. Having taken सैव in the sense of एकैवेयं सत्यविद्या, Sankara finds that the हेतु for this conclusion is not given in the Sūtra, so he takes "परकृताकर्षणात् " as understood. In our opinion it was very easy to see the प्रकृताकर्षण and therefore the Sutrakara does not discuss the Br. Upa. passage at all.

"सत्याद्यः " in the Sutra is explained by Sankara as "सत्यादयो गुणा एकस्मिन्नेव प्रयोगे उपसंहर्तव्याः". As we have shown above, there is no list of सत्यादयो गुणा: in this Br. Upa. Sruti. Sankara quotes an interpretation of this Sūtra given by some of his predecessors. That interpretation also shows that the correct tradition was lost long before Sankara.

176 INTIRPRETATION

As regards Sankara's own interpretation of Bra. Su. III. 3. 38 it may be added that in Bra. Su. III. 3. 20-22 the same Br. Upa. Sruti (V.5) is also discussed by the Sūtrakāra according to Sankara's interpretation of those Sutras. Now, there in the very beginning he tatkes it for granted that the aa in V. 2 is none else but the सत्य ब्रह्मन् mentioned in V. 1. Looking to this position of Sankara regarding Br. Upa. V. 5, it would also seem impossible that any doubt about Br. Upa. V. 5 be raised or discussed at all in the Brahmasūtra. 15. Sankara interprets Sūtra 39 as intended to solve a question whether Cha. Upa. VIII. 1 and Br. Upa. IV. 4 teach the same faet. Out of these two Srutis Cha. Upa. VIII. 1 is already discussed by the Sūtrakāra in Bra. Sū. I. 3. 14-17, and the other Sruti ( Br. Upa. IV. 4 ) along with Br. Upa. IV. 3 is discussed under Sūtra I. 3. 42 in accordance with the interpretation of Sankara. Thus, as both the Srutis were already discussed and proved as dealing with qrHnna, it does not seem necessary to us that any doubt regarding the identity of their teaching required to be solved later on in this Sūtra. Sankara takes कामादीतरत् to be the reading, which, as we have shown above, should have been originally कामाद् इतरत्र. But Sankara takes कामादि ( separated from कामादीतरत्र) to refer to सत्यकाम in Cha. Upa. VIII. 1. 5. His argument for interpreting कामादि as सत्यकामादि is as follows :- "कामादीति। सत्यकामादीत्यर्थः । यथा देवदत्तो दत्त: सत्यभामा भामिति।" This argument seems to us to have no parallel in the Brahmasūtra. Moreover, as Sankara himself further on notices, he requires here सत्यकामत्वादि and not सत्यकामादि. In our opinion, we rather require सत्यकामत्वाद्य:, not कामादि, because सत्यकामत्वाद्य: would be a symmetrical expression along with सत्यादय: and आयतनादिभ्य: But even सत्यकामत्वाद्य: cannot refer to Cha. Upa. VIII. 1. 5 because the list of attributes in that Sruti begins with "अपहृतपाप्मा"" and therefore "अपहृतपाप्मत्वाद्यः" (a list of

BRA. SO. III. 3. 37-42 177

attributes in which avgaqrara is the first ) should have been the compound-word, if a reference to Cha. Upa. VIII. 1. 5 were intended by the Sutrakara. But as no such expression is given in the Sūtra, we believe it is not possible to take the Sūtra as referring to Cha. Upa. VIII. 1. 5 at all. Sankara takes rara as referring to the Br. Upa. passage. But to us this इतरत् seems to signify the way in which इतरवत् is used by the Sūtrakāra in Sūtra 37 ( and also in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 16 ). 'तत्र' means, according to Sankara, यञ्च वाजसनेयके (=तत्र) वशित्वाछुपलभ्यते तदपीतरत्र छान्दोग्ये "एष आत्माऽपहतपाप्मा" (छा. उ. ८।१।५) इत्यत्र संबध्यते।" We must say that one cannot add so many words before and after aa in order to make out the sense of तत्र, and one cannot take इतरत्र twice as Sankara, has done.

Lastly, Sankara's interpretation of आयतनादिभ्य: is hardly satisfactory. We have interpreted "तत्र च आयतनादिभ्यः" as "and to It should be applied attributes from those begin- ning with आयतन i. e., सुभ्वाद्यायतन ". Sarikara takes तत्र and आयतनादिभ्य: separately, thus making one sentence out of तत्र and making "आयतनादिभ्य:" the statement of द्वेतुs. Again, आयतनादिभ्य: is, according to him, to be taken as आयतनादि- AmHI-na. How can one make additions so easily ? The word 'anaa' occurs in neither of the two Srutis. So, Sankara says that the statement of हृदय as the आयंतन is the same in both the Srutis. As to what other attributes are common Sankara says "समानश्च वेद्य: ईश्वरः"; but even this ईश्वर is not mentioned in any of the two Upanisadic passages. Finally, after taking all this trouble to establish विद्यैकत्व between Cha. Upa. VIII. 1 and Br. Upa IV. 4. 22 Sankara lands bimself into a quandary because he realizes that according to his own interpretation the Cha. Upa. passage ( VIII. 1 ) teaches सगुण ब्रह्मन while the Br. Upa. passage ( IV. 4. 22 ) teaches the निर्गुण ब्रह्मन. So he 23

178 INTERPRETATION.

has to explain why the Sūtrakära, as interpreted by him, teachos that the faur is the same in the two passages. Sankara's reply is :- गुणवतस्तु ब्रह्मण एकत्वाद् विभूतिप्रदर्शनायायं गुणो- पसंहारः सूत्रितो, नोपासनायेति द्रष्टव्यम् ।. This can hardly be accepted as a satisfactory explanation for the labour which Sankara supposes the Sūtrakara to have taken in this Sutra. Such an explanation only shows that there is no gonrvearr in this Sutra in the sense in which Sankara understands it.

It may be added that in his bhasya on Bra. Sū. I. 3. 42 Sankara quotes Br. Upa. IV. 4. 22 ( discussed above ) in support of his argument and comes to the conclusion that Br. Upa. IV. 3. 7 teaches परमेश्वर or सगुण ब्रह्मन्. Sūtra 40 16. This is a पूर्वपक्ष सूत्र according to Sankara and others and it seems to be so. But while these Acaryas begin a new Adhikarana with this Sutra, to us it appears that this and the next two Sutras are closely connected with Sūtras 37-39, and therefore they should be taken as part of the Adhikarana begun with Sūtra 37. 17. In Sūtra 37 the Sūtrakara states that there is a sufaer 'interchange' of the विशेषणs of प्रधान and पुरुष and supports the same by giving arguments and illustrations in Bra. Su. 38-39. Now, what is to be done for the practical purpose of meditation in view of the fact that there is an 'interchange ' in the Srutis ? The qavg seems to say that out of respect for the Sruti, the uttributes of an aspect other than the one on which a man meditates should not be dropped, ( i. e., these attributes variously scattered in different Srutis should be also gathered and should be made the subject of meditation as one has to do in the case of those attributes which belong to that aspect on which he meditates ). This would be tanta- mount to gathering and meditating upon the attributes of senra as much as the attributes of g5a when one meditates on gow.

BRA. So. III. 3. 37-42 179

Similarly, though one may be meditating on sena, he should not drop gathering and meditating upon the attributes of gEr, because he respects the Sruti and the Sruti teaches arfaart of the faaraus of the two aspects of Brahman. In other words, the distinction between the Srutis discussed in Bra. Sū. I. 2 and I. 3 which the Sūtrakara has kept up, should bo given up, because there is the interchange of the attributes of gena and पुरुष in the Sruti.

Sūtra 41

18. The above procedure would involve the gathering of the attributes of both aspects in the meditation on either of the two aspects of Brahman. The Sūtrakara seems to mean in Sutra 41 that this kind of proccdure of meditation is not the one to be followed as a result of the sufaart found in the Srutis. All that one should do is not to drop only those attributes which present themselves in the Sruti or Srutis of the aspect on which he meditates. Thus, if one wishes to meditate on पुरुष, he should resort to the पुरुषश्रुति ( vis., those discussed in Bra. Su. I. 3 ) and select as many of them as he would like ( Bra. Su. III. 3. 31) and from them he should collect the attributes of gEr, and if in doing so he finds an attribute or uttributes of sena, he should not drop them from his meditation on gET. Thus, one should not drop an attri- bute ( of the other aspect ) when that attribute ( of the other aspect ) presents itself in the Sruti of that aspect on which he wishes to meditate. One should not drop attributes of other aspect than the one on which he has chosen to meditate, only if those attributes occur in the Srutis he is using for the purpose of meditation. 19. अतस्तदवचनात् -This is done "out of this " ( i.e., out of respect) " due to the word of that ( Sruti )." ' ra: ' refers to आदरात् in the preceding Sutra and तद्वचनात् seems to give reason for the respect. The respect is due to the fact that

180 INTERPRETATION

the Sruti mentions those attributes expressly. The Sruti which professes to teach gEa mentions some attributes of sera also; so, one who meditates on gra honours those few attributes of srena also and does not drop them though they do not belong to gea the object of his meditation. As a result, there shall aways be in meditation a majority of those attributes which belong to the object of one's meditation. Sutra 40 argues that the attributes of other aspeot than the one on which a man meditates should not be dropped, but should be gathered and meditated upon along with those belonging to the aspect of one's meditation. Sūtra 41 states that only those attributes which present themselves in the Srutis of one's aspect of meditation should not be dropped. 20. In place of Sanikara's reading of Sutra 41 ( उपस्थितेऽत- स्तद्वचनात्), Madhva has उपस्थितेस्तद्वचनात्. This seems to us to be a better reading than that of Sankara, firstly because 'उपस्थिते' of Sanikara would mean 'उपस्थिते सति तस्य गुणस्य rrq: '; thus, the locative absolute construction is not correct because the noun in the construction is again referred to by a in the sentence;t and secondly because ara: meaning आदशत् (or व्यतिहारात्) in Sutra 41 seems to be redundant because its purpose is served by agaara unless we can assign any other meaning to अतः or तद्वचनात्. So, on the whole Madhva's Patha is here also more correct than Sankara's, as it is in the case of Sūtra III. 3. 39. 21. Sankara takes Sūtras 40-41 as making an independent Adhikarana. According to him Sutra 40 gives the qaver and Sutra 41 gives the ferara. We have also follwed him in accepting this division of पूर्वपक्ष and सिद्धान्त (though there is no clear indication about पूर्वपक्ष or सिद्धान्त in the Sutras). According to Sankara Sūtra 40 refers to Cha. Upa. V. 19. 1-V. 24. 5 and discusses whether one should drop sonfera t Cf. Pānini's Šiksa.

BRA. SO.III. 3. 37-42 181

when one drops his dinner. There is no word in this Sutra or the following, which would justify a reference to Cha. Upa. V. 19-24. And, moreover, the topic falls outside the scope of ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा and, therefore, it is not likely that the Sutrakara would at all discuss it in his work. Just as he would not care for considering the question of आचमनीयासु अप्सु परिधानदृष्टिः ( Sankara's bhāsya on Bra. Sū. III. 3. 18 ), so he would care very little for discussing प्राणाग्निहोत्र in his inquiry for Brahman. अलोप :- Sankara says, 'प्राणाग्निहोत्र should not be dropped, even if one drops his dinner.' anaa-Sankara refers this आदर to a जाबालश्रुति in which respect is shown indirectly for प्राणाग्निहोत्र. Thus, आदरात् would mean, " Because the जाबालश्षति indirectly shows respect for प्राणाग्निहोत्र." So, the sense of the entire Sutra is that even if one drops his dinner, he should perform प्राणाग्निहोत्र even by means of water or any other materials suitable to his intention to drop a dinner of rice etc., (भक्त). This is the पूर्वपक्ष view on प्राणाग्निहोत्र. 22. Sutra 41 gives the सिद्धान्त. According to Sankara, उपस्थिते means उपस्थिते भोजने; अतः means तस्मादेव भोजनद्रव्यात् प्रथमोपनिपतितात्; and we have to take as understood प्राणाग्निद्दोत्रं निर्वर्तयितव्यम्". 'तद्वचनात्' refers to Cha. Upa. V. 19. 1 viz., तद्न्भ्रक्तं प्रथममागच्छेत्तद् धोमीयम् ", Thus, अतः in Sutra 41 does not refer to any word in Sutra 4o; and we have to take उपस्थिते as referring to आगच्छेत् in the Sruti in question. And अलोप: and उपस्थित do not refer to the one and the same thing as shown in the interpretation offered by us ( उपस्थिते गुणे तस्य गुणस्य अलोपः ), but we have "उपस्थिते भोजने प्राणाग्निहोत्रस्य अलोपः". The refutation of the main argument of the पूर्वपक्ष viz., आदरात् referring to a जाबालश्चति is not given by the Sutrakara in the सिद्धान्तसूत्र but it is inserted by Sankara in his com- mentary on that Sūtra ( 41 ). Sūtra 42

23. This Sutra seems to us to be connected with the

182 INTERPRETATION

Adhikarana formed by the five preceding Sutras. a in तन्निर्धारणानियम: refers to what is said in the preceding Sutras. 24. The Sūtrakara seems to say that 'there is no rule for fixing it ' i. e., there is no rule by which we can decide which attributes belong to प्रधान and which to पुरुष. It is impossible to decide the attributes of प्रधान and पुरुष. The Srutis distinguish sena as if it were gEy and vice versa; now, the Sutrakara seems to say, there is no rule by which we can with certainty make out the attributes of senra and those of पुरुष. 'तद्' means 'that' about which अलोप was taught in the preceding two Sūtras ( 40 and 41 ).

It is certain that the Srutis teach प्रधान and पुरुष two aspects of Brahman. The Sruti itself uses two " names" ( Bra. Su. III. 3. 10) and, therefore, there is no doubt regarding this part of the Sruti's teaching ( Cf. Bra. Sūtra III. 2. 27, III. 3. 8 ). But, then, the Srutis characterise प्रधान and पुरुष with the attributes of पुरुष and प्रधान respectively; so, it is not possible to decide exactly which are the attributes of senra and पुरुष.

25. In place of Sankara's reading "पृथग्ध्यप्रतिबन्धः " we suggest पृथग्ध्यप्रतिबन्ध: It is very likely that Sutra 50 refers to a Sutra which preceds it and mentions प्रज्ञान्तरपृथक्त्व; this is possible, if we have पृथग्धी instead of पृथग्घि, as the tradi- tional Patha reads. Mistakes of q having been written in place of q or q for a and vice verse are not uncommon in the various recensions of works like the Buddhacarita of Asvaghosa. So, we venture to suggest that the original reading in Sūtra 42 was पृथग्धी instead of पृथग्घि as preserved by the tradition. The word ' ft' is used in this sence by the Sūtrakara also, e. g., in Bra. Su. III. 3. (अक्षरघियां तु अवरोधः).

26. The Sutrakara has taken the standpoint that there is no rule to fix the attributes of प्रधान and पुरुष, though we know with certainty that the Sruti teaches प्रधान and पुरुष as

BRA SO. III. 3. 37-42 183

two distinct aspects of Brahman. Now, he declares the result of this standpoint ( तदृष्टे: फलम्). 27. The result of this standpoint is that there is no objection (अप्रतिबन्धः ) from the side of the Sruti to taking प्रधान and पुरुष as two separate " thoughts" on Brahman. As the attributes, of प्रधान and पुरुष can be interchanged, because there is a similar interchange of these attributes in the Srutis themselves, some doctrinaires may conclude that प्रधान and पुरुष are identical and not two separate aspects of Brahman ( See Bra. Su. III. 3. 45-50 ). The Sutrakara says that these two are not identical because the two are taught to be separate by the Sruti which mentions two separate names of Brahman ( Bra. Su. III. 2. 27; III. 3. 8 ). And, it has been shown that प्रधानश्चुतिs distinguish प्रधान like पुरुष and पुरुषश्चुतिs dis- tinguish पुरुष like प्रधान. As a result we have to admit that प्रधान and पुरुष are two separate thoughts of the same Brahman, though in a प्रधानश्रुति there may be somue attributes of पुरुष characterising soa, and vice versa. Thus, the absence of any rule to fix exactly the attributes of प्रघान and पुरुष does not imply that the two should be taken as identical or as only one and the same aspeet of Brahman, but rather the व्यतिहार itself shows that प्रधान and पुरुष are two separate thoughts on Brahman. व्यतिहार itself is possible if there are two aspects; in case there were only one aspect of Brahman, there would have been no possibility at all of any व्यतिहार. Each of the whole series of whatever attributes are there would have been equally the attribute of the same aspect of the same Brahman. But the व्यतिहार proves that पुरुष and प्रधान are separate thoughts or aspects of Brahman. So, the result of तन्निर्धारणा- नियम: is that the Seripture has no objection against taking the अरूपवत् and the रूपवत् to be separate aspects or thoughts of the same Brahman. This seems to us to be the sense of "तद्दष्टे: पृथग्ध्यप्रतिबन्धः फलम्." 28. Sarkara takes this Sutra as an independent Adhi-

184 INTERPRETATION

karana dealing with the question whether कर्माङ्व्यपाश्रयणानि विज्ञानानि like the one in Cha. Upa. I. 1. 1 are नित्य or whether they are अनित्य. 'तभनिर्धारणानियमः' means according to Sankara " यान्ये- तान्युद्वीथाट्िकर्मगुणयाथात्म्यनिर्धारणानि (रसतम आप्तिः समृर्द्धिमुख्यप्राण आदित्य इत्येवमादीनि) नैतानि नित्यवत् कर्मसु,नियम्येरन्. Thus, Sarikara does not take तद as connected with the preceding Sutra; निर्धारण which has the simple sense of 'fixing' or 'deciding' is interpreted by him as 'उद्धीथादिकर्मगुणयाथात्म्यनिर्धारणानि' and अनियम: is explained as न (पतानि नित्यवत्) कर्मसु नियम्येरन्. How can we take निर्धारण in the plural number and modify its sense so as to make it mean कर्मगुणयाथात्म्यनिर्धारणानि, without any contextual reference in the Sutras to रसतमः, आप्तिः, समृद्धि:, eto., etc. ? 'अनियम:' is also vastly changed in its sense by the additions of नित्यवत् and कर्मसु.

We have correlated " फलम् " with "तद्दष्टेः" Sarikara takes तदष्टे: as a हेतु for तन्निर्धारणानियम: and explains it as तथाह्य- नियतत्वमेवंजातीयकानां दर्शयति श्रुतिः, and quotes 'तेनोभौ कुरुतो यश्चैतदेवं वेद यश्च न वेद ' (Cha. Upa. I. 1.10) It should be noted here that in fact the above question is discussed by the Sūtrakara in Bra. Su. IV. 1. 18. So, the same cannot be the topic in Bra. Su. III. 3. 42. As Sankara reads पृथग् हि अप्रतिबन्धः फलम् and as he has taken तदष्टे: separate from फलम्, he explains पृथग् हि अप्रतिबन्धः फलम् as follows :- "अप्रतिबन्धः फलम् " is explained by Sarikara as अपि चैवं- जातीयकस्य कर्मव्यपाश्रयस्य विज्ञानस्य पृथगेव कर्मणः फलमुपलभ्यते कर्मफल- सिद्धयप्रतिबन्धः तत्समृद्धि: अतिशयविशषः कश्चित् and quotes यदेवविद्यया करोति श्रद्धयोपनिषद्ा तदेव वीर्यवत्तरं भवति। (Cha. Upa. I. 1. 10). Here Sanikara interprets फलं as विज्ञानस्य फलम् and पृथक् as कर्मण: पृथक्. "The fruit of विज्वान is separate from the कर्म" ('पृथग् द्ि फलम्' in the Sutra ). And what is that फल ?

BRA. Su. III. 3. 37-42 185 Sankara says, अप्रतिबम्ध is the फल and explains अप्रतिबन्ध: as कर्मासिद्धयप्रतिबन्धः. By सिद्धि Sankara seems to mean समृद्धि because he has explained कर्मफलसिद्धयप्रतिबन्धः as तत्समृद्धि: and अतिशयविशेष: Thus, Sankara has to make several additions and modifications in the simple meanings of पृथक्, अप्रतिबन्ध and 5, because in his days the tradition about the reference to the preceding Sūtras by aa in the Sūtra ( III. 3. 42 ) was lost and also because he had here a wrong reading " पृथक् हि" instead of पृथग्धी. पृथक of the Sutra is taken by Sankara as referring to नाना in "नाना तु विद्या चाविद्या च यदेव विद्यया करोति ... वीर्यवत्तरं भवति। (Cha. Upa. I. 1. 10). He says, तत्र नाना त्विति विद्वदविद्वत्प्रयोगयोः पृथकरणात् वीर्यवत्तरमिति च तरत्प्रत्ययप्रयोगाद्विद्या- विहीनमपि कर्म वीर्यवदिति गम्यते. Here Saiikara seems to give a slightly different sense to the word qaas than the one given by him already. According to this explanation पृथकू is to be interpreted as विद्धदविद्वत्प्रयोगयो: पृथक्वरणात्.

24

SECTION XII

Sūtras III. 3. 43-54

(४३) प्रधानवदेव तदुक्तम् ।

(४४) लिङ्गभूयस्त्वात्तद्वि बलीयस्तदपि पूर्वविकल्पः ।

(४५) प्रकरणात्स्याक्क्रिया मानसवत्।

(४६ ) अतिदेशाच्च ।

(४७) विद्यैव तु निर्धारणात्।

(४८) दर्शनाच्च।

(४९) श्रुत्यादिबलीयस्त्वाच्च न बाध: ।

(५०) अनुबन्धादिभ्यः प्रज्ञान्तरपृथक्त्ववद्ृष्टश्च तदुक्तम् ।

(५१) न सामान्यादप्युपलब्धेर्मृत्युवन्नहि लोकापत्तिः ।

(५२ ) परेण च. शब्दस्य ताद्विध्यं भूयस्त्वाच्चनुबन्धः ।

(५३) एक आत्मनः शरीरे भावात्।

(५४) व्यतिरेकस्तद्द्ावभावित्वान् तूपलब्धिवत्।

TRANSLATION

[ THE Purusa is to be meditated upon as the Self of the meditator, ] exactly as is done, in the case of the Pradhāna. This has been already referred to. 43

That [ pradhāna aspect of Brahman ] is indeed more predominant [ than the purusa aspect ] because it is mentioned in a majority of texts. Even then, the option already stated [ in Sūtras IlI. 3. 28-30, stands ]. 44

[ Pürvapaksa ]-On account of the context, the meditation on the Purusa may be considered as an activity of projection on the Pradhana, of the Purusa idea, like a mentation, 45

and on account of the atidesa | i. e. saying that the Purusa is the same as the Aksara ]. 46

[ Siddhänta ]-But [ the meditation on the Purusa is ] nothing else but prescience ( Vidya ), because of the definite statement, 47

and because the Sruti shows it. 48

And there is no irreconciliability because of the greater authenticity of Sruti etc. [ than that of Perception and Inference. J. 49

And [ the Purusa ] is seen [ in Sruti ] to possess the separateness of a different aspect [ than the pradhāna aspect ] on the ground of anubandha ( peculiar usage of words ), etc. This has been already referred to. 50

Despite the common characteristic [ of enjoyment of desired objects both in the world of the Purusa and in the worlds of the deities ], [ the meditation on the Purusa can ]

188 INTERPRETATION

not [ be regarded as a Kriyā an act like a mental pro- jection], because we find in the Sruti [ that the Purusa is Vidyā, not a Kriya ]; [ and for the same reason ] there cannot arise the contingency of the Purusa being consi- dered a loka' a world ' [ like the worlds of the gods ], as in the case of the Mrtyu [ -loka ]. 51

And [ the Purusa has got ] a common terminology with the Supreme One; but the peculiar use of words [ for either aspect ] should be based upon the frequency [ of usage ]. 52

Some [ hold that the meditation on the Purusa is taught ] because the individual soul is in the body [ and as such he can better comprehend the purusa aspect than the avyakta aspect. 53

[ Siddhānta ]-[ The soul is ] separate [ from the body ] because of [ the soul ] being absent when that [ body ] is present [i. e., the existence of a soul does not depend upon its encasement in a body; it has independent separate existence of its own ]. But, it is not as it is found stated in the Scripture ( i. e., the existence of the soul dose not depend upon its embodiment ). 54

NOTES

Sūtra 43

1. The traditional reading naraaa should have been originally प्रधानवत्, because it seems to us that तदुक्तमू in this Sutra refers to इतरवत् in आत्मगृहीतिरितरवदुत्तरात् (Bra. Su. III. 3. 16 ), and because no satisfactory interpretation has been put forth for the word gara by any commentator.

2. In Sūtra 42, the Sūtrakara has established that the Scripture has no objection to taking the gay as a thought or aspect of Brahman separate from प्रधान the अरूपवत् aspect of Brahman. In this Sūtra, he proceeds to explain to us how the gEq aspect should be meditated upon. According to him the g54 aspect should be meditated upon exactly in the way in which the प्रधान aspect is meditated upon ( प्रधानवदेव).

3. तदुक्तम् -In Sutra III. 3. 16, (आत्मगृहीतिरितरवदुत्तरात्।) the Sutrakara has stated that " the Pradhana aspect of Brahman is to be meditated upon as being taken to be the self of the meditator just as the other aspect ( i. e., the gEs aspect ), on account of the subsequent sentence. " Thus, by putting taraa ( "just as the other " or the grq aspect ), the Sūtrakara has already said that the g5q is also to be meditated upon as the self of the meditator. तदुक्तम् in this Sutra (43) seems to us to be a roference to इतरवत् in that Satra (16).

4. According to Sankara the Sutra discusses whether ar and mror in Br. Upa. I. 5. 21 and in Cha. Upa. IV. 3. 1 are to be approached ( i. e., meditated upon ) as separate or identical.

It must be said that not one of the words of the Sūtra gives any indication for referring to Br. Upa. I. 5. 21 or Cha. Upa, IV. 3. 1.

190 INTERPRETATION

Sankara takes the whole conclusion or the rejoinder to the doubt of the पूर्वपक्ष as implied, viz., पृथगेव वायुप्राणावुपगन्त- व्याविति। कस्मात्। पृथगुपदेशात्। The Sutra contains no word to justify this conclusion. 'प्रदानवत्' which is Sankara's reading is explained by him to mean यथा ...... देवतापृथत्तवात्प्रदानपृथत्तयं भवति। एवम् .... Saiikara then refers प्रदान to a ritual in त्रिपुरोडाशिनी इष्ि, but there also the word sat itself is not mentioned in any Sruti. 'तदुक्तम्' is taken by Sankara as referring to संकर्षकाण्ड of Jai. Su. viz., to the Sutra "नाना वा देवता पृथग्ज्ञानात्" इति ।. Thus, according to Saiikara, तदुक्तम् does not refer to प्रदान or any thing about प्रदान ; but it refers to पृथततव which Sankara takes as understood in the Sutra ..

Sutra 44

1. 'aa' in this Sutra refers to gena in the preceding Sutra (43). Therefore, 'तद्' means the अरूपवत् Brahman. 2. तद्धि बलीय :- The अरूपवत् aspect is "more powerful" or more authentic than the रूपवत् aspect, or प्रधान is more authentic than the पुरुष. 3. लिङ्गभूयस्त्वात्-This gives the हेतु why the अरूपवत् aspect is "more powerful ". It is more authentic because it has a majority of the Sruti texts in its favour. The Srutis dealing with the अरूपवत् Brahman are far more in number than those dealing with the $vaa. To any reader of the Upanisads used by the Sütrakara this is self-evident and need not be borne out by counting the number of Srutis dealing with the प्रधान and the पुरुष aspects. 4. तदपि पूर्वविकल्पः-We suggest the transference of " पूर्व- विकरपः " from Sutra 45 to Sutra 44. In our opinion the last word aafa in Sutra 44 keeps it inconclusive, and this incompletion is removed if we can transfer पूर्वविकल्प: from the following Sutra to this Sutra (44). The transference of पूर्वविकल्प to

BRA. Sū. III. 3. 43-54 191

Sutra 44 does not create a break in the sense of Sutra 45. but rather facilitates the interpretation of that Sutra, thus showing that the word ( पूर्वविकल्पः) originally belonged to the preceding Sutra ( 44 ). This will be evident from the following interpretation of these Sutras. 5. 'पूर्वविकल्पः' seems to us to refer to the option given in "छन्दतः उभयाविरोधात्" in Sutra 28. There an option is given by the Sūtrakāra to a seeker to choose for meditation any one of the two aspects of Brahman according to his desire. 6. तद्पि पूर्वविकल्प :- In Sutra 44 the Sutrakara says that the प्रधान is more authentie than the पुरुष because the प्रधान is dealt with in a majority of Vedantas. This would raise a question whether the gaa who is less authentie can bo at all an object of suraar in the sane sense and with the same result as the उपासना of the प्रधान. If not, the option given in Sutra 28 falls to the ground, and should be now withdrawn by the Sūtrakara, That which is less powerful should give a result of less value than that which is more powerful.

In reply to such a doubt the Sutrakara says " aafa पूर्वचिकल्प: ". " Even then, tho option already stated in Sutra 28 holds good. " In Sutra 45 and those which follow it the Sutrakara gives the reasons why he stieks to the faaeq he has already given. One of the main reasons is that though fewer Srutis deal with the पुरुष than those dealing with the प्रधान, the fact that the Sruri teaches the gaa is itself sufficient for the Sūtrakara to stick to the पूर्वविकस्प. The greater authenticity or बलीयस्त्व of प्रधान lies in its being mentioned in more Srutis than those men- tioning the g5w. This would not mar the authenticity of the meditation on the g54, beeause as being part of the Seripture all Srutis are equally important, and so the gergfas are as important as the प्रधानश्रुतिs. 7. According to Sankara the Sutra deals with a question

192 INTERPRETATION

arising out of the सांपादिक अग्निs् mentioned in the अग्निरहस्य ब्राह्मण of the वाजसनेयिन्s belonging to the Yajurveda, viz., whether these मनश्चित: and other fires are subsidiary to the rite or are independent thereof being of the nature of pure विद्या. It is apparent that not a single word in the Sūtra suggests a reference to the long quotation from अग्निरहस्य ब्राह्मण given by Salikara. Moreover, the word मनोमयान् in the quotation (अग्नीनर्कान्मनोमयान्) seems to us to be a clear evidence that these fires are not क्रियानुप्रवेशिन :; but they are केवलविद्यात्मका: There is no valid reason for any doubt arising out of that text. Moreover, the topie has nothing to do with ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा, the inquiry of the Sutrakara. Sanikara takes 'लिङ्गभूयस्त्वात्' as "स्व्रातन्त्रयं तावत् [पतेषां मनश्विदादीनामग्नीनाम्] लिङ्गभूयस्त्वात्. Thus, he takes 'लिङ्गभयस्त्वात्' as giving one sentence and तद्धि वलीय: as another sentence. But we have shown above that लिङ्गभयस्त्वात् is the हेतु why प्रधान is " more powerful " (तद्धि बलीयः). Having separated "लिङ्ग- भूयस्त्वात्" from तद्धि बलीयः, Saiikara has to take स्वातन्त्रयं [तावद् एतेषां अग्नीनाम् ] as understood.

Sankara interprets लिङ्गभूयस्तव as the fact that there are many indicatory words in the अग्निरहस्य ब्राह्मण showing that the fires in question are चिद्यात्मक and not क्रियात्मक. This kind of लिङ्भयस्तव would rather prove that there is no reason for a doubt regarding the nature of the fires. In our opinion लिङ्गभूयस्त्व means that a majority of texts describes the प्रधान while fewer texts deal with the gv. Sankara does not quote any sentence from अग्निरहस्य, stating that the fires are क्रियात्मक; his reason for their being doubted to be क्रियात्मक is that they are in a context dealing with rites ( प्रकरणात् क्रियानुप्रवेश प्रप्त). लिङ्गभयस्त्व requires that there are at least a few sentences describing the fires as क्रियात्मक; but such is not the case at all. We have already noticed above that Sankara separates "तद्धि बलीयः, from "लिङ्गभूयस्तवात् ". So, he interprets "तद्धि

BRA SU. III. 3.43-54 193

बलीय:" independently, by saying "तद्धि लिङ्गं प्रकरणाद् बलीयः". Thus, Sankara does not take ' तद्' as referring to प्रधान in the preceding Sutra, but he explains it as referring to लिङ्ग in लिङ्गभूय- स्त्वात्, and बलीय: does not mean "more powerful than [that which is other than senra vic., ] the ges," but according to Sarikara, it is प्रकरणाद् बलीय :; 80, Sanikara interprets तद्धि बलीय: as meaning, " That लिङ्ग is more powerful than प्रकरण ". This word प्रकरण is suggested to Sanikara by the word लिङ् which itself seems to us to have been misunderstood by Sankara. 'तद्पि' in the Sutra is interpreted by Sanikara as "तदपि उक्तं पूर्वस्मिन् काण्डे". He seems to take उक्तम् as understood from the preceding Sutra. But to us it appears that aaf does not mean "even that ", but it means " even then ", as it does in Bra. Su. III. 3. 8. Moreover, how can we take Eng as understood in Sutra 44? In the preceding Sūtra we have तदुक्तम which refers to the Brahmasutra itself, as we have shown; so, even तदुक्तम in that Sutra does not help us to take उक्तम् understood in this Sutra. Sūtra 45

8. We have transferred पूर्वविकल्प: from this Sutra to the preceding Sutra. So, according to our opinion Sutra 45 reads as follows :- प्रकरणात्स्याक्क्रिया मानसवत्.

9. As a in Sūtra 47 shows, Sūtras 45 and 46 give two objections to the statement in Sūtra 44. Sankara also understands these two Sutras ( 45, 46 ) similarly. Thus, in our view Sutras 45-46 contain objections against the पूर्वविकल्प upheld in Sutra 44.

10. In Stra 44 the Sütrakara says that genra is men- tioned in more texts than gaa and is, therefore, " more powerful. " This may be interpreted by an opponent to mean that gr4 is no independent aspect of Brahman. Expecting this objection, the Sutrakara further says that "Even then,

194 INTERPRETATION

the option he has already stated in Bra. Su. III. 3. 28 stands as it is. To this the objector says that on account of the context (प्रकरणात्) the meditation on अव्यक्त as पुरुष would be an act like a mental projection. 11. प्रकरणात् - To us it appears that प्रकरणात् in this Sutra, अतिदेशात् in Sutra 46, निर्धारणात् in Sutra 47 and दर्शनात् in Sutra 48 all of them refer to various sentences of the Muņdaka Upanișad.

"प्रकरणात्" refers to the fact that Mu. Upa. I. 1 starts to teach 3TTT. So, Mu. Upa. as a whole should be taken as a dissertation on 3T&TT. The context shows that the mention of gaq in the Upanisad (e. g., Mu. Upa. II. 1. 2, III. 1. 2, III. 3. 1 ) is not the chief teaching of the Upanisad, it being a dissertation on अक्षर. The mention of अक्षर in Mu. Upa. II. 1. 1 and in Mu. Upa. II. 2. 2 would be a proof to show that gET mentioned in a passage ( Mu. Upa. Il. 1. 2) intervening these two passages is meant to be a क्रिया an act like the mental acts in sacrifices. In other words, ererr is to be thought of mentally as gET, this being one of the ways of meditating on अक्षर. This would mean that पुरुष is not an independent aspect of Brahman, but it is an aspect of अक्षर or the अरूपवत् Brahman. The अरूपवत् Brahman should be taken as the only aspect of Brahman because a majority of texts mention it.

Thus, the पूर्वपक्ष says that the meditation on पुरुषं is an act (क्रिया, but not विद्या ) like a mental act, on account of the context.

Sūtra 46

12. अतिदेशात् -This is another ह्ेतु for the पूर्वपक्ष, viz., "स्यात्क्रिया मानसवत् ". The first हेतु was प्रकरणात्. अतिदेशात् is the second हेतु. The पूर्वपक्ष wishes to prove that the meditation on पुरुष is a क्रिया, not ब्रह्मविद्या; and this is proved by अतिदेश. To us it appears that this Sutra ( 46) refers to " येनाक्षरं पुरुषं वेद सत्यं प्रोवाच तां तत्वतो ब्रह्मविद्याम्" (Mu. Upa. I. 2. 13).

BRA. Su. III. 3. 43-54 195

This is an अतिदेश of the अक्षर mentioned in Mu. Upa. I. 1. 5-6. By अतिदेश, the पुरुष is said to be अक्षर itself, in "अक्षरं पुरुषं वेद", "he knew अक्षर to be पुरुष." So, पुरुष is not different from अक्षर. Therefore, the meditation on पुरुष is only a क्रिया, a mental act performed on अक्षर. Therefore, the पूर्वविकल्प of the Sutrakara does not stand because it is against the context (प्रकरण) and against the अतिदेश. 13. Sankara reads पूर्वविकल्प: as a part of Sutra 45 and takes "पूर्वविकल्पः प्रकरणात्" as one sentence and explains it as "पूर्वस्य क्रियामयस्याग्ने: प्रकरणात्तद्विषय एवायं विकल्पविशषोपदेशः स्यान्न स्वतन्त्रः". Thus, he explains प्रकरणात् as पूर्वस्य प्रकरणात् and पूर्वविकल्प: as पूर्वविषयः अयं विकल्प: He explains पूर्व as करियामय अग्नि. How can we explain पूर्वविकल्पः aS पूर्वविषयः अयं विकल्प: ? In fact, there is no विकल्प in the text quoted by Sankara. In that अगनिर हस्यब्राह्मण, there is no mention of क्रियामय अग्नि preceding this मनोमय अग्नि; Sankara does not quote any such passage. Can there be a precedence of क्रियामय अगनि over मनोमय अगनि as suggested by Sankara's interpretation of पूर्व as क्रियामय अग्नि ? Moreover, we do not see any way by which the विकल्प or विकल्पविशेषोपदेश of a thing be interpreted to mean that the thing about which a विकल्प is given is not an independent thing. Rather the विकलप proves that the things about which an option is mentioned are independent of each other. Sanikara takes प्रकरणात् with पूर्वविकल्पः, not with स्यात्क्रिया. As already stated, Sankara makes a vast difference in the sense of प्रकरणात् by adding to it 'क्रियामयस्य अग्रे: प्रकरणात्'. Moreover, this interpretation of प्रकरणात् is in confliot with Sankara's explanation of बलीयः (= प्रकरणात् लिङ्गं बलीयः); and in order to solve the inconsistency, Sankara himself gives some arguments. None of these, however, are given by the Sūtrakara in the Sutra ( 45 ). This shows that Sankara's explanations of बलीय: and प्रकरणात् are neither of them in accordance with the Sutrakara's own view. Sanikara takes प्रकरणात् with पूर्वविकल्प: and again with

196 INTERPRETATION

स्यात्क्रिया. So, he explains स्यात्क्रिया as "तस्मात्सांपादिका अप्येतेSग्रयः प्रकरणात् क्रियानुप्रवेशिन: एव स्युः Thus, he explains स्यात् as स्यु:

मानसवत् is explained as the mental acts of ग्रहण, आसादन, हवन, आहरण, उपह्वान and भक्षण. 14 Saikara explains अतिदेश by quoting a text in which " each of 36000 fires is said to be as big as the actual ritual fire ".

It should be stated that the अतिदेश mentioned here is as regards the size of each सांपादिक fire and the ritual fire; and, therefore, it seems to us that the पूर्वपक्ष would not quote this sentence to prove that the सांपादिक fires are also the ritual fires. सामान्य is there between the two, as Sankara says; but it is the सामान्य of size, and not of क्रिया. It is rather likely that the पूर्वपक्ष quotes such a text as mentioned two things or principles in which there is a real सामान्य of essence and which are by an अतिदेश really identified wholly with each other. We believe, it is so because the Sūtrakara does not deny the अतिदेश stated by the opponent. It is Sankara who seeks to find out in the Sutras u refutution of the अतिदेश; so he says that आदि in अनुबन्घादिभ्यः ( Sutra 50) is meant to refute the अतिदेश argument of the पूर्वपक्ष. But it seems to us that the. Sūtrakara does not leave it to his commentators to give the refutation of the valid arguments of his opponents. The same should be said regarding Sankara's attempt to find a refutation of पूर्वविकल्पः प्रकरणात् in Sutra 45, (which he thinks to be a पूर्वपक्ष argument) also included in आदि of Sutra 50. Sutra 47

15. "a" in the Stra (47) shows that the Sūtrakāra rejects the पूर्वपक्ष given in Sutras 45-46. 16. विदयैव-The पूर्वपक्ष argued that on account of प्रकरण (Sutra 45 ) and अतिदेश (Sutra 46), the meditation on पुरुष was an act like the mental acts in sacrifices; thus, the yava

BRA. SU. III. 3. 43-54 197

denied that the meditation on पुरुष was विद्या or ब्रह्मविद्या at all. As already explained above, according to the पूर्वपक्ष the meditation on पुरुष was an act of meditation on अक्षर as पुरुष on account of अक्षर or प्रधान being " more powerful " than पुरुष. To this the Sutrakara replies in Sutras 47 and 48. To 'स्यात् क्रिया' he replies "विदैव ". The meditation on पुरुष is not a mental act performed on प्रधान, but it is विद्या itself (विद्या एव). It is ब्रह्मविद्या itself. 17. निर्धारणात् -This is one reason why the meditation on पुरुष as identical with one's Self is really विद्या. The Sutrakara refers to a Sruti in which the meditation on q5w is definitely said to be विद्या. To us it seems that the Sutrakara without rejecting the प्रकरण and अतिदेश arguments of the पूर्वपक्षिन points out to the latter that the very Sruti which mentions the अतिदेश also determines that the meditation on पुरुष is ब्रह्मविद्या. In Mu. Upa. I. 2. 13 we read येनाक्षरं पुरुषं वेद सत्यं प्रोवाच तां तत्वतो ब्रह्मविद्याम्. Here the knowledge of the पुरुष or अक्षर as पुरुष is said to be ब्रह्मविद्या. The meditation on अक्षर or the अरूपवत् aspect as आनन्द, आनन्दमय, आकाश, प्राण, ज्योतिः is a क्रिया. By performing that क्रिया one knows ब्रह्मविद्या, But the meditation on अरूपवत् or अक्षर as पुरुष as the पूर्वपक्षिन thinks the teaching of Mu. Upa. 1. 2. 13 to be, is not here said to (only) a क्रिया, but it is definitely said to be विद्या. The अतिदेशवाक्य itself says that the knowledge of अक्षर or ब्रह्मन् as पुरुष is ब्रह्मविद्या. "That is ब्रह्मविद्या, by which one knows अक्षर to be पुरुष, or अक्षर as पुरुष ". अक्षर here means ब्रह्मन् and therefore the knowledge of अक्षर as पुरुष is ब्रह्मविद्या. It is the real ब्रह्मविद्या (तत्वतो ब्रह्मविद्या). 18. Sankara interprets this Sūtra ( 47 ) to mean that the मनश्चिदादयोऽग्नयः are विद्यात्मका: he wanted a plural number and as विद्या in the Sutra is singular, he changes it to विद्यात्मकाः By निर्धारणात् he refers to "ते हैते विद्याचित एव" and "विद्यया हैवैत एवंविद्श्चिता भवन्ति." Both of these passages occur in the अग्निरद्दस्य ब्राह्मण.

198 INTERPRETATION

Sütra 48

19. This Sutra gives one more reason why the meditation on the पुरुष aspect of Brahman is विद्या or ब्रह्मविद्या. दर्शनात् always implies a reference to a Sruti and here it refers most probably to a Sruti in which the meditation on पुरुष or पुरुषप्राप्ति is said to be विद्या, such as Mu. Upa. III. 2. 10 in which the teaching of पुरुष mentioned in Mu. Upa. III. 2. S is said to be ब्रह्मविद्या. hara is an argument to prove that the knowledge or realization of पुरुष is ब्रह्मविद्या.

20. According to Sankara, दर्शनात् proves that the मनश्चि- दादयोऽग्नय: are स्वतन्त्र, not a part of क्रिया; and by दर्शनात् no new argument is intended by the Sūtrakara, but he simply refers once again to what he himself has said under Sūtra III. 3. 44 in this very connection. To us it seems that just as the a in Sutra 46 sums up the two arguments of पूर्वपक्ष (प्रकरणात् and अतिदेशात्), similarly the च in Sutra 48 sums up the two arguments of the Siddhantin ( निर्धारणात् and दर्शनात्) to prove that the knowledge of पुरुष is also विद्या. The fact that Sankara refers by aaraia to the Sutrakara's own words in Bra. Su. III. 3. 44 shows the weakness of his interpretation. दर्शनात् in the Sutras always refers to a Sruti statement. Sūtra 49

21. In Sūtras 47-48 the Sūtrakara has established that the meditation on पुरुष is also ब्रह्मविद्या. He seems to give some more reasons leading to the same conclusion in Sūtra 49 and those that follow it.

It is claimed by the Sutrakara that both aena and goq are ब्रह्मविद्या. Now, प्रधान is अरूपवत् and पुरुष is रूपवत्. How can such mutually contradictory forms belong to one and the same principle viz., Brahman ? And, since प्रधान or अरूपचत् is proved to be " more powerful " ( Sutra 43 ), the रूपवत् aspect though taught by the Sruti to be ब्रह्मविद्या as proved by the Sūtrakara in Sūtras 47-48, should be regarded as contradicted

BRA. SO. III. 3. 43-54 199

by the अरूपवत् aspect. The रूपवत् is in disagreement with the अरुपवत् which is " more powerful ". Therefore, the अरूपवत् should be kept up and the रूपवत् being contradictory with the अरूपवत् should be rejected ( बाधः). 22. To this the Sutrakara replies that though fewer Srutis and Smrtis describe पुरुष, पुरुष is valid and is not con- tradicted by प्रधान, because the few texts which describe पुरुष are the texts of श्रृति and स्मृति which are more cogent proofs than प्रत्यक्ष and अनुमान. It is according to प्रत्यक्ष and अनुमान that the अरूपवत् and the रूपवत् aspects seem to be mutually contradictory and therefore the रूपवत् would be inconsistent with Brahman. But श्रुति and स्मृति are far more authentic as revelatory than प्रत्यक्ष and अनुमान of the world. So, there is no contradiction in taking पुरुष or रूपवत् aspect to be an aspect of Brahman which is itself अरूपवत्. 23. By आदि we take स्मृति because श्रति is mentioned expressly. If we take शृति and स्मृति to be the grounds of the Sütrakara on which he asserts that there is no con- tradiction in holding रूपवत् पुरुष to be an aspect of Brahman, just as प्रधान the अरूपवत् one, we find that the Sutrakara justifies his position here exactly in the way in which he does so often in the Sutras. Thus, he also elsewhere in the Bra. Su, meets an opponent's argument based upon Perception and Inference by having recourse to the word of Sruti ( कृत्स्नप्रसक्ति रनिरवयत्वशब्दकोपो वा-II. 1. 26 is refuted by श्रृतस्तु शब्दमूलत्वात्- II. 1. 27). 24; Salikara takes श्रुति to refer to क्षति in श्रुतिलिङ्गवाक्यप्रकरण- स्थानसमाख्यानां समवाये पारदौर्बल्यमर्थविप्रकर्षात् (जै. सू. ३/३।१३) and by श्रुत्यादि he refers to only श्रुति, लिङ्ग and वाक्य and not to all the six topics mentioned in the Sutra of Jaimini. He could not refer to प्रकरण etc., because he had stated under Sutras 44-45, that प्रकरणात् लिङ़गं बलीय :. Otherwise, if श्रुत्यादि were to refer to Jai. Su. III. 3. 13, it should refer to all the six topies of proof mentioned in that Sutra. In this latter case श्रृत्यादि would be

200 INTERPRETATION

"more powerful " than प्रत्यक्ष and अनुमान as we have above proposed to interpret these words. Sankara interprets श्ुत्यादिवलीयस्त्वात् as "श्रुतिलिङ्गवाक्यानि प्रकरणात् बलीयांसि " and adds that in the श्रृति under discussion श्रुतिलिङ्गवाक्यानि prove that मनश्चिदादयः अगरय: are स्वतन्त्र, not connected with क्रिया. Then, he explains श्रुति, लिङ्ग and वाक्य from the Sruti passage. These texts pressed into service are the same as have been quoted as the सिद्धान्तिन's arguments under Sutra 47. And the argument that लिङ् is "stronger " than प्रकरण was Sarikara's interpretation of तद्धि बलीय: in Sutra 44. So, we are justified in saying that at least partly Sankara repeats the same interpretation in the ease of Sutras 44, 47 and 49 ( and also Sūtra 48, see above Note 20 ). The Sütra style does not justify the attribution of the reiteration of the same arguments in different expressions to the Sūtrakara. न बाध: means according to Sanikara, स्वातन्त्रयपक्षो न बाधितव्य:

Sutra 50

25. दृछ: implies पुरुष :. Therefore, the Sutra refers to पुरुष. "पुरुषः प्रज्ञान्तरपृथत्तववद्दृष्टः ". "पुरुष has been found to possess ( aa to be interpreted as a possessive termination ) the sepa rateness or differentiation ( from sera ) of being another thought ( on Brahman ) than the sena which is the predominant thought on Brahman ". प्रधान or अरूपवत् is the salient feature of Brahman ( Bra. Su. III. 2. 14 ). As पुरुष is रूपवत्, He is another (subsidiary) thought on Brahman. पुरुष differs from प्रधान because both of them are different gaIs or thoughts on Brahman.

पुरुष is not a thought on प्रधान, but both of them are ditterent thoughts on Brahman itself. Therefore, both of them are विद्याश 26. The Sütrakara says that the gaa is seen ( in the preceding portion of the Brahmasutras ) to be प्रक्ञान्तरपृथत्तचवान् on

BRA. SO. III. 3. 43-54 201

account of अनुबन्ध and other grounds (अनुबन्धादिभ्यः). The well-known अनुबन्धचतुष्टय of वेदान्त are विषय, प्रयोजन, अधिकारिन् and संबन्ध. But this idea of अनुबन्धचतुष्रय is later than the Sūtrakara. The Sutrakara seems to mean by araaar the application of names or words as names to either of the two aspects of Brahman ( See Bra. Su. III. 3. 52 ).

"u: " in the Sutra probably refers to what has been noticed in the following statements in Bra. Su. III. 3 :-

( a ) The difference of asns of Brahman was emphasised in Sūtra 8, where it was accepted by the Sūtrakara that there were different wiars of Brahman, but that the difference did not bar the sqtiarr proposed by the Sūtrakāra in Sūtra 5. The difference between the two names of Brahman was like that between the two names of a serpent viz., अहि and कुण्डल ( Bra. Su. III. 2. 27 ). This shows that grq is a different thought on Brahman, just as sera. (b) In Sutra 10, the Sutrakara admitted that everything was identical, but the two names ( इमे द्वे संज्ञे ) were different. So, they were two aspects or thoughts of the same Brahman, which could not be identified in any case. (c) In Sūtra 16 and in Sütra 43, it is stated that the meditation on saa and TET is to be performed by conceiving both of them as the Self of the meditator. Thus, the method of meditation on both is the same. This shows that g5r is a different aspect of Brahman like ena.

( d. ) In Sütra 18 the Sūtrakara states that the result of the meditation on aer is mentioned in the Sruti laying down the process of meditation ( Br. Upa. I. 4. 10 ) and, therefore, it is the erqa resulting from the act of meditation. In Sūtra 19 he says that the same ara is to be taken as under- stood in a similar text i. e., in the Vedantas of gEa, because both ena and gET being the aspects of the same Brahman 26

202 INTERPRETATION

were not different. This shows that the result of the पुरुषविद्या was the same as that of the प्रधानविद्या. ( e ) In Sūtras 28-30, the Sūtrakara says that a seeker may meditate on any of the two aspects of Brahman, ser and gET, because both are not opposed to each other and that गति or मोक्ष would be achieved by following either of the two ( Sūtra 29 ). This also shows that the Purusa is a different though not contradictory aspect of Brahman, the other aspeot being the अरूपवत् or अध्यक्त aspect. (f) Sutras 34, 35, 36 state that the meditation on era and gEq is to be carried out in the human heart. This also places पुरुष on an equal status as प्रधान. ( g ) In Sūtras 37-42, the Sūtrakara said that there was an interchange of the attributes or the thoughts of प्रधान and पुरुष because the Srutis themselves characterised प्रधान like पुरुष and vice versa; thus, an option of attributes was also given ( Sutras 38-39 ). Such an option would only mean that grq is narat " another aspect " and so far different from the अव्यक्त aspect of Brahman. Thus, on the grounds of ( अनुबन्ध ) the application of words ( a and b ), the method of meditation (c), the result of meditation (d), the attainment of liberation (e) and the inter- change of attributes occuring in the Sruti ( g ), the Sūtrakāra has shown that पुरुष is different from प्रधान just as one aspect of a principle is different from another aspect of the same. The two are different thoughts on the same principle viz., Brahman ( प्रज्ञान्तरपृथकत्व). 27. तदुक्तम-This refers to a statement in which पुरुष is said to be a different thought on Brahman from प्रधान (प्रज्ञान्तर- ga= "one having the difference of another thought" ). It seems to us, as we have already suggested, that the reference is to पृथग्ध्यप्रतिबन्ध: which must have been the original reading in place of पृथग्ध्यप्रतिबन्ध: in Sutra 42. In that Sutra we have

BRA. So. III. 3. 43-54. 203

been told that it is not possible to state definitely what the attiributes of each of प्रधान and पुरुष are; and that the result of this standpoint is that there is no objection from the Sruti to taking पुरुष as a different thought (घी in place of हि) from प्रधान. This amounts to the acceptance of पुरुष as an aspect of Brahman separate frou प्रधान. Therefore, तदुक्तम् in Sūtra 50 is a reference to what is stated in Sūtra 42.

The identity of the statement in Sūtras 42 and 50, if correct, also justifies our suggestion to change पृथग्ध्यप्रतिबन्धः in Sutra 42 to पृथग्ध्यप्रतिबन्धः 28. According to Sankara this Sūtra gives one more argument for the independence of मनश्विदाद्यः अग्रय: by rejecting the प्रकरण. "अनुबन्ध " means according to Sankara the fact that tho Sruti connects ( अनुबध्नाति ) various parts of activity (क्रियावयवान् ) with the functions of the mind ete., and this connection (अनुबन्ध ) results in संपत् ; therefore, the क्रियावयवऽ are not physical but only mental. By आदि in अनुबन्धादि Sankara refers to what the Sutrakura would have said against the पूर्वपक्ष's arguments of प्रकरण and अतिदेश ( Sutras III. 3. 45-46 ). To us it appears that without saying that these two arguments of the पूर्चपक्ष are wrong, the Sutrakara gives independent arguments to prove that his case is correct. ( See Sutras 47, 48 which serve in a way as refutations of Sutras 45-46. See Note 14 supra ). Sankara takes प्रज्ञा as विद्या or विज्ञान, and प्रज्ञान्तराणि as the शाण्डिल्य and other विद्याs, which are प्रज्ञाs or विद्याs other than मनश्विदादय: अस्रयः. "पृथक् " means independent of कर्मनूs and of other विद्याs. He takes वत् in the sense of यथा. Thus प्रज्ञान्तरपृथकृत्ववत् means, according to Saiikara, "just as शाण्डिल्य and other विद्याs are different from कर्मनूs and other विद्याप" [s0 मनश्चिदाद्यः अग्नयः are different from क्रिया i. e., they are विज्ञानs ]. So, according to Sankara प्रज्ञान्तरपृथक्त्ववत् would mean " like the independence of शाण्डित्य and other चिद्या."

204 INTERPRETATION

Sankara could not construe gorara satisfactorily with his explanation of प्रज्ञा and प्रज्ञान्तर, so, he seems to take पृथक्त्व as "पृथक भवन्ति". Having taken वत् in the sense of यथा (and not as a possessive termination as we have done ) Sankara separates प्रज्ञान्तरपृथततववत् and दष :. He could not connect ष: ( sing., form ) with मनिश्चदादयः अग्नयः (plu. form ), so, he takes "अवेष्ट: उत्कर्ष: " as the विशेष्य of gष: in the Sutra. In our opinion दृg: by its singular number and masculine gender refers to g5T who is another thought on Brahman in the Sutras. And we have to conneet प्रज्ञान्तरपृथत्तववत् with दृषः Lastly, तदुक्तम् is, according to Sankara, a reference to Jai. Sū. XI. 4. 7. Sūtra 51

29. This Sūtra like Sūtras 47-50 appears to us to be an argument to prove that पुरुष is विद्या, not a क्रिया. The पूर्वपक्ष (in Sutras 45-46 ) tries to establish that the meditation on पुरुष is a क्रिया an act like a mental act and gives two हेतुs for this viz., (1) प्रकरणात् and (2) अतिदेशात् The Sutrakara seems to think that the पूर्वपक्ष might also give one more हेतु viz., (1) सामान्यात्, to prove its conclusion, and, therefore, he says "न सामान्यादप्युपलब्धेः". From the word "लोकापत्ति" in this Sutra, we can get an idea of the सामान्य meant by the Sutrakara. The Srutis say that one who knows Brahman enjoys all objects of desires in company of Brahman. सोऽश्रते सर्वान् कामान् सह ब्रह्मणा विपश्चिता। (Tai, Upa. II. 1). तं तं लोकं जयते तांश्च कामांस्तस्मादात्मश्नं ह्यर्चयेद् भूतिकामः (Mu. Upa. III. 10). स तत्र पर्येति जक्षन् क्रीडन् रममाणः स्त्रीभिर्वा यानैरवा ज्ञातिभिर्वा eto. etc. (Cha. Upa. VIII. 12. 3). The Sutrakara himself mentions this सामान्य or साम्य in Bra. Su. IV. 4. 21 ( भोगमात्रसाम्यलिङ्गात्). A similar enjoyment of desired objects in the worlds of मनुष्यगन्धर्वs, देवगन्धर्वड, पितृs, आजानजदेवs, कर्मदेवs, देवs, इन्द्र, बृहस्पति, प्रजापति or other worlds is also taught in the Scriptures ( e. g. Tai. Upa. II. 8. See also

BRA. SU. III. 3. 43-54 205

Cha. Upa. VII. 4-12 ) as a result of action, physical or mental, as in Cha. Upa. VII. 4-12. The opponent may argue that on account of this सामान्य 'common characteristic of enjoyment of desired objects', the meditation on पुरुष is a क्रिया like a mental projection, on the अरूपवत् Brahman (स्यात् क्रिया मानसवत् ।-Sutra 45). 30. अपि-The पूर्वपक्ष has already given two arguments प्रकरणात् and अतिदेशात्. The Sutrakara now says that the पूर्वपक्ष may give a third argument also viz., that of सामान्य. 31. a-The Sutrakara says that even on the ground of the common characteristic the meditation on पुरुष cannot be a क्रिया, a mental act. 32. उपलब्धे: - The Sutrakara gives the reason why the meditation on पुरुष is विद्या (विद्ैव तु Sutra 47). "Because re find in the Sruti that पुरुष is विद्या". He has already shown that in the Sruti the knowledge of goa is definitely said to be विद्या (Sutras 47-48). Just as he does not dony the other two हेतुऽ (प्रकरणात्, अतिदेशात्) of the पूर्वपक्ष, so also he does not deny the third हेतु viz., the सामान्य. The सामान्य or the commnon characteristic is a fact; yet पुरुष is विद्या i. e. ब्रह्मविद्या because we find that the Sruti says so. उपलब्धि in the Sutra seems to mean " what we find in the Sruti " ( Cf. उपलभ्यते in Bra. Su. II. 1. 36, also उपलब्धि in Bra. Su. III. 3. 54). 33. मृत्युवन्न हि लोकापत्ति :- The Sutrakara has above denied that the meditation on पुरुष was a क्रिया; now he denies that पुरुष is a लोक like the various लोकs or worlds of gods, पितृs, गन्धर्वS. The पूर्वपक्ष's argument and the reply of the Siddhantin are the same in लोकापत्तिदोपनिवारण as in क्रियापत्तिदोपनिवारण and therefore we get a Sūtra like Sūtra 51. It may be argued by the पूर्वपक्ष that पुरुष or the attainment of gry is like that of a world because in both the cases, there is a common characteristic viz., enjoyment of desired objects. Thus, the पुरुष is liable to the fault of being a world (लोकापत्ति) on account of the सामान्य.

206 INTERPRETATION

The Sutrakara's reply is that the g5 is not a loka because the knowledge of gra is found in the Sruti to be the knowledge of Brahman ( ब्रह्मविद्या - Sutra 47, Mu. Upa. I.2.13); so gaw is Brahman, not a world. The Sūtrakara does not deny the सामान्य, but he denies that पुरुष is a लोक.

34. मृत्युवत् - The interpretation of this word is somewhat difficult. But this much is certain that the Sutrakara here asserts that Brahman or rather Purusa is not a loka, just as it is not Death though there is HIT=Y between Purusa and a लोक and also between पुरुष and मृत्यु. The fact that Purusa is not gar inspite of a common characteristic between the two is given as an illustration to prove that पुरुष is not a लोक though there is rHre4 between the two. If this be the way in which the example of Death (मृत्युवत्) should be explained, then it is likely that the Sutrakara here refers to Katha Upa. I. 2. vis. यस्य ब्रह्म च क्षत्रं चोभे भवत ओदनः। मृत्युर्यस्योपसचनं क इत्था वेद यत्र सः । In Br. Su. 1. 2.9 (अत्ता चराचरग्रहणात्) it is proved that this great Eater is the Supreme Being. Brahman is an Eater like Death, both of them devour the world, arza is the common characteristie of the two; but even on account of this TH-4, Brahman does not become Mrtyu (Death ). Similarly, though those who attain gau enjoy objeets of desire just as those who attain certain worlds, gET does not in the least become a ate on the ground of a common characteristic with a लोक. 35. Sankara has refuted the two arguments of प्रकरणात् and अतिदेशात् (Sutras 45-46) by interpreting आदि in अनुबन्धादि ( Sutra 50) in his own way. It is very strange that the Sutrakara would not refute the arguments of the qavar stated in Sutras 45-46 immediately after they have been given e. g., in Sutras 47-49; and even in Sutra 50 there is no distinct refutation of the arguments of the opponent. The पूर्वपक्ष's illustration of मानसवत् (the fact that ग्रहण, आसादन, हवन, आहरण, उपह्वान and भक्षण of सोम are mental acts and are

BRA. So. III. 3. 43-54 207

yet क्रियाशेष ) which occurs in Sutra 45 is according to Sankara refuted in Sutra 51.

"सामान्य " is thus, according to Sanikara, मानसयहसामान्य "the fact that मनश्चिदाद्यः अग्रयः and the action of ग्रहण, आसादन etc., of सोम are both mental ", मानसग्रह is common to both; so, "न सामान्यात् अपि " means " Even on account of the common characteristic of being mental (and not physical), मनश्विदादयः अग्नयः cannot be क्रियाशेष." "उपलब्धेः" means, according to Sanikara, "पूर्वोक्तेभ्यः श्रृत्यादि- हेतुभ्यः केवलपुरुषार्थत्वोपलब्धेः". Sankara thus refers by उपलब्धि to the arguments given in Sutra 44, 47-50. The important argument of the Siddhantin against the gaver's argument of सामान्य is according to Sanikara that there is वैषम्य also, and

by Sankara. this is not given in Sutra 51 but it is given in his bhasya

मृत्युवत् -- Sarikara takes this as a reference to Br. Upa. III. 2. 10 where अग्नि is said to be मृत्यु and to another passage where आदित्यपुरुष is said tobe मृत्यु; and he says that though the word मृत्यु is commonly applied to अग्नि and आदित्यपुरुष, the two are not the same. It should be said that this illustration does not form an exact illustration for explaining even Sankara's दार्श्ान्तिक (the point to be illustrated). Aceording to Sankara, the पूर्वपक्ष argued that मनश्चिदाद्य: अग्नय: aro मानस and are yet क्रियाशष, just as ग्रहण, आसादन, हवन, आहरण ele., of सोम on the tenth day of the दशरात्र Sacrifice which are मानस are yet क्रियाशेष. मनश्चिदादय: अग्नय: and ग्रहणादि क्रियाs are मानस and are yet क्रियाशेष. They are not called "मानस ", Only the मनश्चितः अग्नय: are called मनोमय, but the पूर्वपक्ष has not argued its case (in Sutra 45 ) on the ground of their being called मानस. The सामान्य is a common characteristic, not a common designation, even ax explained by Sankara in the beginning of Sutra 51. Thus it seems to us that the illustration of uaraa is not correctly explained even so far as Sankara's own explaination of Sutras 45 and 51 are concerned.

208 INTERPRETATION

Moreover, from the expression "मृत्युवन्न हि लोकापप्तिः" it would appear that only one illustration is meant here by the Sutrakara. But Sanikara separates मृत्युवत् and लोकापत्ति and makes out two illustrations. For this reason also Sankara's interpretation of मृत्युवत् is not correct. To us it seems that मृत्युवन्न हि लोकापत्ति: should be interpreted either as यथा सामान्यात् पुरुषस्य न मृत्यवापत्तिः तथा सामान्यात् पुरुषस्य न लोकापत्तिः। or यथा सामान्यात् मृत्योः न लोकापत्तिः तथा सामान्यात् पुरुषस्य न लोकापत्तिः। The former seems to be meant in the Sūtra ( 51 ). लोकापत्ति :- Sankara, as said above, does not construe 'मृत्युवन्न हि लोकापत्तिः' as one expression, but he takes लोकापत्ति as a different illustration from मृत्युवत् which is also an illustration, both illustrations having been meant to contradiet the qaqer's illustration of ग्रहणादिमानसक्रियाऽ. So. Saiikara takes लोकापत्ति as referring to Cha. Upa. V. 4. 1 and interprets लोकापत्ति as यथा न न ...... लोकस्य अग्निभावापत्तिः तद्वन्. TolS लोकापत्ति seclus to be the ata of some principle or topie in question which would be liable to be interpreted as a af 'a world. And in the Sūtra it seems to us that gET was liable to be interpreted as a लोक on account of भोगसामान्य, but the Sutrakara denies this लोकापत्ति and thereby proves that पुरुष is ब्रह्मविद्या, not a क्रिया like a mental act. Sutra 52

36. ताद्विध्ये-Two types of similarity. ताद्विध्ये is the reading in the Nirnayasagar Edition of Sankara's Brahmasutra bhasya ( 1915 ), and if we read the bhasya we find that Sanikara mentions two ताद्विध्यs (one which precedes and the other which follows ). For this reason we propose to adopt the reading ताद्विध्य. Other editions of Sankara's bhasya and other bhasyas mention the reading ताद्विध्यम्. 37. परेण च (पुरुषस्य ) शब्दस्य ताद्विध्ये-The Purusa has two types of words common with the sera or qr the chief aspect of Brahman. Thus, Brahman, Purusa, Atman, Aksara, Avyakta, etc., are all of them terms the Purusa has in common with

BRA. SU. III. 3. 43-54 209

the Pradhana. These words are of two types, those applicable to the अरूपवत् aspect, vis., Aksara, Avyakta, Brahman, etc., and those applicable to the रूपवत् aspect, viz., Atman, Purusa, etc. This seems to us to be the sense of परेण च शब्दस्य ताद्विध्ये. If the reading ताद्विध्यम is followed, the sentence would have the following sense: "पुरुष has a commion terminology with qma or the principal aspect." 38. भूयस्त्वात्चनुबन्ध :- The same terms are applied to both प्रधान and पुरुष, but the particular association (अनुबन्ध) of a term with either प्रधान or पुरुष depends upon the frequency (भूयस्त्व ) of the use of that term for either in the Upanisads. 39. By the above argument the Sutrakara seems to support his view that the meditation on the पुरुष is a ब्रह्मविद्या, not a क्रिया and therefore the option of choice given in Sutra 28 stands as before ( Sutra 44-45 तदपि पूर्वविकल्पः). 40. Sankara interprets this Sutra as an argument for proving that मनश्चिदादय: अग्नय: are not connected with क्रिया but are विद्या. "परेण " means, according to Sankara what follows the text in which मनश्चिदाद्यः अम्रय: are mentioned; and he also quotes the text which preeedes the text of मनश्चितः अग्नयः (परस्तात् ). 'परेण' is thus interpreted as परस्तात् roferring to a subsequent text. To us it seems that " परेण " means परण ब्रह्मणा, i. e., प्रधानेन. The Sutrakara often uses the word पर in this sense, c. g., Bra. Su. III. 2. 5, 11, 31; IV. 3.10,12; ete., etc.

'ताद्विघ्य' means केवलविद्याविधित्वम्; and शब्दस्य is not connected by Sankara with ताद्विध्यम् but with 'प्रयोजनं लक्ष्यते,' taken as understood. Thus, ताद्विध्य meaning केवलविद्याविधित्व is indicated by the subsequent sentence to be the aim of the word or the text ; and, therefore, says Sankara, मनश्विदादयःअग्नयः ar० विद्या and not शुद्धकर्माङ्गविधि. He gives a quotation for परस्तात् 'a subsequent text'. In our opinion 'शब्दस्य ताद्विध्यम्' should be taken as a

210 INTERPRETATION

single expression having the sense of "the sameness of terminology or words " i. e., a common terminology. So, according to Sankara, the Sutrakara argues that sentences which precede and also those which follow the text of मनश्चिदादय: अग्नयः associate these fires with विद्या or विद्याफल and therefore these fires which are mentioned between these texts should be also associated with विद्या, and not with कर्मन्. भूयस्त्वात् mueans, according to Sankara,"Because a majority of the parts of the fire are of the nature of संपादयितव्य 'to be effected by meditation'"; and अनुबन्ध is interpreted as "अग्निना अनुबध्यते विद्या (न कर्माङ्गत्वात्)." " Because a majority of the parts of these मनश्चिदादयः अग्रयः are संपादयितव्य in the विद्या, the विद्या is associated with अग्नि, but not because these fires are Faigs". Is a commentator reliable in his work when he adds so many words to a Sūtra in order to draw out from it a sense consistent with what he thinks to be the purpose of the Sūtra ?

Sutra 53 41. Sutras 53-54 are very important. Sankara says that these have been used by Sabarasvamin and Upavarsa ( ra qa चाकृष्याचार्येण शबरस्वामिना प्रमाणलक्षणे वर्णितम्। अत एव च भगवतोपवर्षेण प्रथमे तन्त्रे आत्मास्तित्वाभिधानप्रसक्तौ शारीरके वक्ष्याम इत्युद्धारः कृतः।). 42. According to Sankara, in the preceding Adhikarana the मनश्चित् and other fires have been described as meant for man (gare ), so, now the Sutrakara tells us who that man is. And, the discussion about the existence of the soul as distinguished from the body taken up during the consideration of the meditations of the nature of injunction aims at showing that the entire Scripture is " subsidiary " to that soul. Again, the existence of the soul distinct from the body is supported by arguments in order to prove his ' fitness' (अधिकार ) for bondage and liberation. Lastly, in the begining of the first Pada of the first Adhyaya the Commentator ( i. e., Sankara )

BRA. ST. III. 3. 43-54 211

has stated that the soul is distinct from the body ( See the आध्यासभाष्य), but there was no Sutra given by the Sutrakara there, so, here he gives an express Sūtra.

Such are the arguments given by Sankara to explain the relevancy of these two Sutras in the context in which they oecur ( III. 3. 53-54 ).

To us it does not appear that Sūtra 53 gives such a view as the Lokayatikas or Materialists are said to have held. Rather, it seems to us that the qaua itself does admit that the soul is spiritual and can exist and did exist once as dis- tinct from the body. This sense is evident from the very wording of the Sutra ( आत्मनः शरीरे भावात्।). So, we do not think that Sutra 54 refutes any materialistic view of Atman. Moreover, the topie of the individual soul is dealt with in Bra. Su. II. 3. 17-53, and the eternal nature ( नित्यत्व) of the soul is stated in the very first Sutra of that group, since without establishing the fagra of the soul at the very start no discus- sion of the soul can serve any useful purpose. Again, the soul is said to be in the heart ( II. 3. 24 ). Moreover, it has been already stated twice that the soul has come into contact with the body (अनुज्ञापरिहारी देहसंबन्धाज्ज्योतिरादिवत्-Bra. Su.II. 3.48 and देहयोगाद्वा सोपि-III. 2. 6). So, it does not seem to us to be necessary that the Sūtrakara would be required to refute the materialistic view of the soul here in the present context.

43. To us it seems that these two Sūtras form part of the preceding Adhikarana and that they discuss a view about the "पूर्वविकल्पः " "the option of meditating on gुरुन or the agaq aspect of Brahman," mentioned in Sutras 44-45 and 46-52.

44. Some hold that the option of meditation on gET is given in the Sruti because the individual soul is in the body. Who these 'some ' are, the present author must admit, he is not able to point out from the Upanisads ; but this qava seems

212 INTERPRETATION

to be a view like the one mentioned in the following verses of the Bhagavadgīta :- ये त्वक्षरमनिर्देश्यमव्यक्तमुपासते। सर्वत्रगमचिन्त्यं च कूटस्थमचलं ध्रुवम् सनियम्येन्द्रियग्रामं सर्वत्र समबुद्धयः। ते प्राप्नुवन्ति मामेव सर्वभूतहित रताः क्लेशोऽधिक तरस्तेषामव्यक्तासक्तचेत सा म् । अव्यक्ता हि गतिर्दुःखं देहवद्धि रवाप्यते ।!५।। Bha. Gi, XII. 3-5.

In these verses the meditation on the gEa as distinguished from that on the T&TT is supported by saying that the soul having a body can attain the goal of the Unmanifest with great difficulty. A contrast between देहवद्ध्ि: and अव्यक्ता गतिः is suggested in the verse. It seems that some Vedantins ( FHra Vedantins ? ) defended the meditation on Brahman as पुरुष by saying that the soul is in the body and, therefore, he can more easily understand and realize the अरूपचत् form of Brahman through the रूपवत्. With this view about the option of meditation on g5q the Sutrakara does not agree, as will be clear from the nest Sutra.

45. It should be marked that in this Sūtra the body and the soul are not at all said to be ' identical, so that there is no soul but the body', but rather admitting that the two are distinct from each other, it is only emphasized that the soul is in the body.

Sūtra 54

46. व्यतिरेक means that the soul exists without a body or in separation from a body. He is not ulways in the body.

47. तद्भावाभावित्वात्-The soul exists distinct or separate from the body (व्यतिरेक: ) because it does not exist (अभावित्व ) when the body exists ( तद्भाव). It is not possible to argue

BRA. SO. III. 3. 43-54 213

that the soul exists ( always ) when the body exists, because that is not a matter of our experience. For this reason, the Sutrakara gives the other argument in order to show that the soul exists separate from the body. 48. By establishing that the soul does exist independently of the body, the Sutrakara refutes the gavar that the gaq aspect of Brahman is taught in the Scripture because the soul beiny in the body cannot easily realize the unmanifest goal.

49. न तूपलब्धिवत् - The Srutis describe the soul as देहिन, RTOfTa etc., which means that the soul always exists in a body. Thus, we find in the Scripture ( qfae ) that the individual soul is never without a body till he gets liberation ( Cha. Upa. VIII. 12. 2 ). The Sutrakara says that the soul is not always in a body ( till he gets liberation ) as is found stated in the Sruti. There are many occasions during transmigration when the soul is free from the body, though he is permanently free from the gross body only when he gets liberation.

'3yf' in other Sutras means what we find stated in the Sruti. So, it must have the same sense here also. Sankara takes zqafeg in the sense of perception, i. e., the perception of the elements and the objeets made of elements and he explains न तूपलब्धिवत् aS यथैवास्या भूतभौतिकचिषयाया उपलब्धे- र्भावोऽभयुपगम्यते एवं व्यतिरेकोप्यस्यास्तेभ्योऽभयुपगन्तव्यः। उपलब्धिस्वरूप एव चन आत्मेत्यात्मनो देहव्यतिरिक्तत्वम्. Thus, he seems to make out two more arguments for the distinction of the Atman from the body from न तूपलब्धिवत्. We think, 'उपलब्धि' means what we find stated in the Sruti.

50. Sankara takes this and the preceding Sutra to prove that the soul is not identical with the body. We believe that the very words of Sūtra 53 are sufticient to show that the Tarmara is not the topic here. "The Atman is in the body " already means that the soul is not identical with the body, though it is in the body. Sūtra 54 gives the argument

214 INTERPRETATION

that the soul is absent when the body is present, so, this Sūtra also tries to show that the soul is not invariably in the body (व्यतिरेक:). We find that in Bra. Su. II. 3. 48 (अनुज्ञापरिहारी देहसंबंधाज्ज्योतिरादिवत्) and III. 2. 6 ( देहयोगाद्वा सोपि) the soul is already admitted to be not identical with the body. To these two Sutras we may add Bra. Su. III. 1. 1. ( aasar- प्रतिपसी रंहति संपरिष्वक्तः प्रश्ननिरूपणाभ्याम्।). These Sutras make the topic of Sutra III. 3. 53-54 rather superfluous if we have to adopt the interpretation of Sankara. Moreover, 'आत्मनः शरीरे भावात्' is only a हेतु or an argument and the purpose of the argument is, it seems to us, to show why the पूर्वविकल्प about the meditation on पुरुष ( Sutras III. 3. 28, 44, 45 ) is given in the Sruti.

SECTION XIII

Meditation on Brahman, based upon its Parts.

Sūtras III. 3.55-56

(५५) अङ्गावबद्धास्तु न शाखासु हि प्रतिवेदम् ।

(५६) मन्त्रादिवद्वाSविरोध: ।

TRANSLATION

[ PŪRVAPAKSA-] But the meditation fixed on the limbs [ or parts of the Supreme One ] are not [ to be collected for the purpose of meditation ] because [ they should, properly speaking, be collected ] in all Branches of each particular Veda [ only ]. 55

[ Siddhānta ]-Rather, there would be no objection [ on the part of the Sruti, to collecting them ] as in the case of the Mantras, etc., [ of one Veda taken into another Veda 1. 56

NOTES

Sūtra 55

1. The meditation or meditations on the arfga i. e., the principal one viz., the Para, have been the topic of the preceding Sutras ( Bra. Su. III. 3. 11-54 ). Now the Sutrakara discusses the meditations on the args or limbs or parts of Brahman. After 'अङ्गावबद्धः' we may add 'धियः' from such Sutras as Bra. Su. III. 3. 31 in which it is implied and Bra. Su. III. 3. 33 in which it is expressed. The meditations on the arfaa or the Supreme One form one type of meditations; those on the parts or args of Brahman form a second group of meditations.

2. After 'न' we may add 'उपसंहर्तव्याः' from Sutra 5. The latter taught that a collection of thoughts or meditations on the afga or Brahman should be made from all the Branches of all the Vedas ( i. e., from all the accepted Upanisads ). Here ( in Sutra 55 ) we are told that no collection is to be made in the case of the meditations on the parts of Brahman .. We can also take समुच्चीयेरन as understood (in Sutra 55 ) from Sūtra 60.

3. The meditation on Brahman is taught in all the Branches of all the Vedas; so the meditations or thoughts on Brahman proper are to be collected from all the Upanisads as has been done in Bra. Su. I. 1-3. But the meditations on parts of Brahman are meant for ( all ) the Branches of each particular Veda only, and so the thoughts on the parts of Brahman are not to be collected from all the Branches of all the Vedas, but they should, properly speaking, be collected by the followers of the Branches of one particular Veda only. To explain the same, the meditation on Brahman as Vaisvanara is a meditation on Brahman; and the meditation

BRA. SO. III. 3. 55-56 217

on Brahman ( under some thought or other ) is taught in all the Branches of all the Vedas; therefore, the meditation on Brahman as Vaisvanara is to be collected by the followers of all the Vedas. But the meditations on the parts of Vaisvanara are taught only in the Cha. Upa. i.c., only in one Sakha of the Samaveda. So, these are not to be collected by the followers of the other Vedas. They should, however, be collected by the followers of the other Branches of the Samaveda. This seems to be the sense of "शाखासु हि प्रतिवेदम् ". The काण्व and माध्यन्दिन Branches of the Yajurveda should mutually collect the meditations on the aras of Brahman from each other, but the followers of the other Vedas need not collect the tores from them.

The following is a list of all the Eleven Upanisads referred to in the Brahmasutra together with the names of the Sakhas and the Veda :-

1. Iśopanisad Vajasaneyiśākha Sukla Yajurveda (4) 2. Kenopanisad Talavakarasakha Samaveda (2) 3. Kațhopanișad Krsna Yajurveda 4. Prasnopanisad Atharvaveda (3) 5. Muņdakopanisad Atharvaveda 6. Māņdūkyopanisad Atharvaveda 7. Taittiriyopanisad Krsņa Yajurveda 8. Aitareyopanisad Rgveda (2 ) 9. Chandogyopanisad Samaveda 10. Brhadaranyakopanigad Sukla Yajurveda. 11. Kausītakibrahmaņopanisad Rgveda.

( See Winternitz; Vol. I, PP. 235-237. ) Winternitz adds Sve. Upa. ( Yajurveda ), Maha Narāyaņa Upa. ( Yajurveda ) and Maitrayani Upa. ( Yajurveda ) to these eleven and says that at any rate only these fourteen may be regarded as useful for the history of the ancient Indian Philosophy ( preceding the Buddhistic Period ). 28

218 INTERPRETATION

4. Should we interpret 'शाख्रासु हि प्रतिवेदम्' to mean 'because the अङ्गावबद्धाः उपासना: differ even in the Sakhas of each Veda'? If so, what about those in the काण्व and माध्यन्दिन Sakhas of the Yajurveda ? When the अङ्गोपासनाs are regarded as fhar: even in all the Sakhas of a Veda, there is very little propriety in collecting them from one Veda into another Veda. 5. A note on the meditations on Brahman in the Upani- sads would not be out of place here. It appears to us that the meditations on Brahman taught in the Upanisads can be in a general way divided into four classes :- ( a ) Meditations on some parts of the Samhita as Brahman.

Such meditations are like those given in (1) Cha. Upa.I. 7. 5-9, अथ य एषोऽन्तरक्षिणि पुरुषो दृश्यते सवकृतत्साम तदुकूथं तद्यजुस्तङ्गह्म तस्येतस्य तदेवरूपं यदमुष्य रूपम् ...... "; ( II ) Chã. Upa. I. 9. 1-2; and ( III ) Cha. Upa. I. 11. 5. In these Upanisads Brahman is identified with any or all of the Vedas, with the saty ( Cha. Upa. I. 9. 1-2 ), the deity of the geara ( Cha. Upa. I. 11. 5 ). From Bra. Su. I. 1. 22-23, we learn that Brahman is mentioned in these Srutis. But it is here associated with the priestly duties. For the seeker of Brahman, It is to be meditated upon as associated with the priestly functions only so long as the seeker does not give up his priestly duties ( See Bra. Su. III. 3. 32, III. 4. 41-46 ). At a later stage when the seeker renounces the world, he is to give up meditating on Brahman as connected with priestly duties. These meditations are called आधिकारिक meditations in Br. Sū. III. 3. 32. (b ) There are several meditations in which several objects are to be meditated upon as Brahman and the result is only

BRA. So. III. 3. 55-56 219

the achieyement of some object of desire. These are called काम्य उपासनाS (Bra. Su. III. 3. 60). Such उपासनाS are like those given in :- (I) Cha. Upa. III. 12, where the meditation of' अन्तहृदये आकाशः' as Brahman is said to give पूर्णमप्रवर्तिनीश्रियम्। (II) Cha. Upa. III. 18, where मनस् and आकाश are said to be meditated upon as Brahman and the result is the attainment of fame, reputation and Brahmanical lustre. ( III ) Cha. Upa. III. 19, where the Sun is declared to be meditated upon as Brahman and the result is that the meditator would hear " good sounds " (स य एतमेवं विद्वानादित्यं ब्रह्मेत्युपास्ते- डभ्याशो ह यदेनं साधवो घोषा आ च गच्छेयुरुप च निम्रेडेरन्निम्रेडेरन्।). ( IV ) Cha. Upa. IV. 5-8 may be called a ar meditation so far as the meditation on each qr alone is concerned. ( V ) Cha. Upa. VII. 1-14. Here a series of fourteen items, नाम्, वाकू, etc., etc., is given and in each case a parti- cular ' fruit' is said to be achieved by meditating on each of नामन्, वाकू, etc., as Brahman. Only the meditation on the highest item viz., Ha brings absolution ( Bra. Sū. I. 3. 8 ), because that भूमन् is Brahman itself. (VI) Br. Upa. IV. 1. 2-7, in which वाक्रू, प्राण, चक्षुः, श्रोत्र, मनः, हृदय are taught to be meditated upon as Brahman and the result is that the particular object of meditation would never leave the meditator, all elements would run to him, he would become a god and go unto the gods. All these are कास्य उपासनs of Brahman and those who seek the respective ' fruits ' may perform them taking either each singly or some of them combined, according to his desires , ( Bra. Sū. III. 3. 60 ). (c ) There is a third type of meditations in which Brahman is said to be identical not with one particular object, but with a number of objects, so that all of them together make up

220 INTERPRETATION

the knowledge of Brahman, while each of them by itself is only a part of Brahman. ( I) The best examplo of this perhaps is the meditation on Brahman as Vaisvanara Atman ( Cha. Upa. V. 12-18 ). The sky ( ), the Sun, the Wind, the Ether, the Water, the Earth, are said to be all of them jointly making Atma Vaivsanara or Brahman, but singly each of them makes only one part of Brahman, viz., the head, the eye, the breath, the body ( संदेह), the bladder (बस्ती), the feet respectively. Thus, here we have an exmaple of the 3UHaT or meditation on Brahman based upon its parts. To think of Brahman as Vaiśvanara Atman is a meditation on Brahman itself; but to think of Brahman as consisting of so many parts is an अङ्गाचबद्धा ब्रह्मोपासना.

( II ) Similarly, Cha. Upa. IV. 5-8 teaches that Brahman has four पादs and each पाद has four कलाs; thus, Brahman consists of sixteen parts viz., 1-4 the four quarters; 5-8 qeaft, अन्तरिक्ष, द्यौः, समुद्रः 9-12 अग्नि, सूर्य, चन्द्र, विद्युत्: 13-16 प्राण, चक्षुः, श्रोत्र, मन :. The meditation on Brahman as consisting of these sixteen parts makes a man know or realize Brahman ( Cf. ब्रह्मविदिव वै सोम्य भासि ।-Cha. Upa. IV. 9. 2). In this meditation, the पादs are given names (प्रकाशवान्, अनन्तवान्, ज्योतिष्मान्, आयतनवान्), but they or the कलाs are not said to be particular parts in the Supreme Being, as is the case with the parts of the Vaisvanara Atman. This seems to be the difference between the two 3qreaTs; but each of them is undoubtedly an अङ्गावबद्धा ब्रह्मोपासना. (III) The उपकोशलविद्या is also an उपासना of Brahman as consisting of so many parts ( Cha. Upa. IV. 10-14 ).

(IV ) Similarly, Br. Upa. IV. 1. 2-7 gives another अङ्गाचबद्धा व्रह्मोपासना. The Sutrakara seems to say that these अङ्गाघबद्धाः उपासनाः should not be collected by the followers of all the Vedas,

BRA. Sữ. III. 3.55-56 221

because they are meant for all the Sakhas of each Veda ( Bra. Sū. III. 3. 55); or rather, there would be no violation of the Sruti even if thoy be collected in the other Veda than the one in which they are found, because several a=s are found common in several Vedas. They must have originally been the property of onc Veda, but later on have been taken by the followers of the other Vedas. It is not necessary that all the parts should be taken in an अङ्गावबद्धा ब्रह्मोपासना, but the more the better ( Bra. Sn. III. 3. 57 ). These meditations are each of them independent of the other; so the parts of Atman Vaisvanara should not be mixed with the parts of बोडशकला ब्रह्मविद्या or उपकोशलविद्या or any other similar विद्या (Bra. Sü. III. 3. 58 ). An option is given regarding the selection from these 3qrHas on the ground that the fruit of each of them is the same ( Bra. Sū. III. 3. 59 ).

( d) The last and the most important type of ब्रह्मोपासनाड is that meditation on Brahman, in which Brahman is associated with some idea, quality or qualities, attributes. Examples of this type are those collected by the Sūtrakara in Bra. Sū. I. 1-3. Thus, Brahman is to be meditated upon as that from which this world appears, in which it continues, and into which it returns ( all Adhikaraņas of Bra. Sū. I. 1). Or, Brahman may be meditated upon as described in Cha. Upa. III. 14 ( सर्व खल्विदं ब्रह्म ...... ), Cha. Upa. IV. 15 (अक्षिणि पुरुषः ...... ), Cha. Upa. VII. 23. 1 ( ar ), Cha. Upa, VIII. 1-4 ( ?aT), Chã. Upa. VIII. 12. 3 (परं ज्योतिः ), Cha. Upa. VIII. 14 (आकाश), Br. Upa. III. 7 (अन्तर्यामिन), Br. Upa. III. S (अक्षर upholding all the objects ending with the Ether). All these upasanas are direct 3Tra7s of Brahman. Brahman meditated upon as वैश्वानर आत्मन् will also belong to such a form of meditation.

The fruit of these and the meditations on Brahman as consisting of parts (अङ्गावबद्धा उपासना:) is the realization of Brahman or liberation. Brahman may be thought of as posse- ssing as many of these attributes as possible ( Bra. Sū. III. 3.

222 INTERPRETATION

31). Similarly goy may be meditated upon ( Bra. Sū. III. 3. 28, 44-54 ). This is the main or principal form of meditation and seems to us to be the topic of Bra. Su. III. 3. 11-54. There are serveral meditations mentioned in the Upanisads, which are concerned only with rites and not at all with Brahman, e. g., the meditation of arer as the Syllable Om ( Cha. Upa. I. 1. 7, I. 1. 8, I. 2. 14 ), the meditation of 319T as the Sun ( Cha. Upa. I. 3. 1, etc., ); so also the meditations mentioned in Cha. Upa. II. 1-22, Cha. Upa. IV. 17. These are in no way meditations on Brahman and, therefore, they do not seem to have been considered by the Sūtrakara in Bra. Su. III. 3, which is devoted to the meditations on Brahman. 6. According to Sankara Sūtras 53-54 make an incidental topic (प्रासङ्गिकी कथा), but to ns it appears to be a पूर्वपक्ष against the gE4 aspect of the Para and a reply to it, taught in Sūtras III. 3. 44-54.

Sūtra 55, he says, is a continuation of ' the topic in hand.' To us it appears that the preceding Sutras 11-54 dealt with the meditations on the arfaa or Brahman itself, while Sutra 55 begins the treatment of the meditations on the ergrs of Brahman. Sankara takes arg in the sense of safs and explains कर्माङ्गावबद्धाः उपासना: aS उपासनाS like those in Cha. Upa. I. 1. 1, II. 1. 1 ete. We have proposed to take the expression अङ्गावबद्धाः (प्रत्यया:) as referring to the अङ्s or parts of Brahman. The Eqraars on Brahman referring to Faigs are probably dealt with in Bra.Su. III. 3. 32 (यावदधिकारमवस्थितिराधिकारि- ETOTTH | See also Bra. Sū. III. 4. 41, 43 ). So, according to Sankara the doubt to be solved by this Adhikarana is whether the thoughts referring to uias like 3AtT mentioned in the various Sakhas of each Veda are to be kept where they occur or are to be collected in the aafgs of all the Sakhas of all the Vedas. This doubt arises from the fact that owing to the difference of accents ( af ), etc.

BRA. So. III. 3. 55-56 223

the कर्माङs viz., उद्धीथ cto., may be considered to be different in each Branch. According to Sankara, 'तु न' rejects a पूर्वपक्ष that these अङ्गावबद्धाः प्रत्यया: should be restricted only to the Sakha in which they occur. Sankara takes 'प्रतिवेदम्' with 'तु न' and says नैते प्रतिवेदं स्वशाखास्वेव व्यवतिष्ठेरन्। अपि तु सर्वशाखासु अनुवर्तेरन्. Thus, he makes a sentence out of 'प्रतिवेदम्' and another out of 'शाखासु'. He leaves out 'हि' and then himself supplies an argument for the conclusion drawn from his inter- pretation of the Sutra, viz., उद्धीथादिश्रुत्यविशेषात्. To us it seems that 'अङ्गवबद्धास्तु न' is a statement rejecting a conclusion likely to be drawn from the method of the meditations on अङ्गिन or Brahman, as taught in Bra. Su. III. 3. 5-9 and 11-54 vis., that of उपसंहार from all the Branches of all the Vedas. And the reason for this rejection seems to be given in 'शाखासु हि प्रतिवेदम्''because they are taught differently in all the Sakhas of each Veda.' It does not seem to us to be the correct method to separate शाखासु and प्रतिवेदम् So as to make two sentences, to drop 'f', and then to add an argument viz., उद्धीथादिश्रुत्यविशेषात्.

Sūtra 56

7. 'at' seems to give an option regarding the statement in the preceding Sutra. The meditations on the args of Brahman muy be collected or may not be collected even from the Branch of another Veda; and yet there would be no violation of the Sruti, just as there is no such violation when the nes or hymns of one Veda are collected into the Samhita of another Veda. The Sutrakara here refers to the AF5s which occur in more than one Veda. On the ground of such मनतs, he says that the अङ्गोपासनाs of Brahman though found only in one Branch or more Branches of one particular Veda only, may be colleeted in another Veda, i. c., in a Branch or Branches of another Veda.

224 INTERPRATATION

8. 'ar' shows that the position of the Sütrakara here is different from the one he has taken up in the preceding Sutra. But Sankara seems to give it a different significance when he interprets it in a way which would amount to saying that Sutra 56 gives one additional argument for the conclusion established in Sūtra 55. To us it seems that in Sutra 55 the standpoint of the Sutrakara was that there would be a facre an objection from the Sruti or a violation of the Sruti, if svaarr is resorted to in the अङ्गोपासनाs of Brahman, and, therefore, he said 'अङ्गाव- aang a'. Now, in this Sutra he tells us that there would be no violation of the Sruti, just as there is no violation in taking a hymn from one Veda into another.

By आदि Sanikara refers to कर्मन्s and गुणs.

SECTION XIV

Sūtra III. 3. 57

(५७) भूम्रः क्रतुवज््यायस्त्वं तथा हि दर्शयति।

TRANSLATION

THE meditation on a greater number of parts of Brahman is better [ than that on a smaller number ] as in the case of a Kratu; so shows the Sruti. 57

NOTES

Sutra 57

1. This Sutra seems to us to answer a question as to how many parts of an अङ्गावबद्धा ब्रह्मोपासना should be taken in that meditation. Thus, the meditation on Vaisvanara Atman or Brahman is based upon six or eleven parts ( See Cha. Upa. V. 18. 2). If a question be asked as to how many of them should be taken in the meditation, the Sūtrakara says, " As many as possible because the meditation on a greater number of parts is better like a Kratu ".

2. क्रतुवत् :- क्रतु seoms to be a bigger saerifice than यज, consisting of more rites than the latter ( Vide Note 3 infra ).

3. तथाहि दर्शयति :- This seems to be a reference to such texts as Cha, Upa. V. 18. 2.

In Cha. Upa. V. 12, the meditation on द्यौः as आत्मा aat: is censured and declared to be dangerous, and it is said that द्ौः is the head of आत्मा वैश्वानर: From this it would follow that the meditation of दौः as आत्मा वैश्वानर: is wrong, but the same as the head of आत्मा वैश्वानर: is the proper one, so that one may meditate on आत्मा वैश्वानर: as one whose head is or: and the result of the meditation would be liberation. Similarly, the meditation on आदित्य as आत्मा वैश्वानर: is wrong, but the meditation on Brahman as one whose eye is the Sun is correct and gives liberation ( Cha. Upa. V. 12-13 ). This would mean that each meditation as corrected by enaqfa would be the proper meditation of आत्मा वैश्वानर: As a result, each correct meditation would give the fruit of the meditation on आत्मा वैश्वानरः, so, the meditation on a number of parts would only be 'better' in the sense in which a ag is better than a

BRA. So. III. 3. 57 227

aW (!). The chief result is the same whether one meditates on one part or on many parts as forming parts of 3TeHT asarr :. Thus, it is not necessary to include in the meditation all the arFs mentioned in the chapter; a few or even one would do. This seems to be the sense of the errors and corrections in Cha. Upa. V. 12-17.

Now 'तथाहि दर्शयति' seems to us to be a reference to Cha. Upa. V. 18. In Cha. Upa. V. 18. 1 we are told that at aaT is to be meditated upon as consisting of the parts mentioned above (एवं प्रादेशमात्रं अभिविमानमात्मानं वैश्वानरमुपास्ते ... ); this would mean that वैश्वानर आत्मा is to be meditated upon as consisting of six parts. But in Cha. Upa. V. 18. 2 eleven parts are mentioned. From this the Sūtrakara seems to us to draw a conclusion that the Sruti here shows that a greater number of parts when taken into the meditation make the medi- tation better than or superior to the meditation in which a fewer number of parts are included in the sense in which a ma is superior to a ag, or a aa with a greater number of potsherds is superior to a aa with a fewer number of potsherds ( See Ramanuja's explanation of aa). The result is the same, and therefore a choice regarding the number of args is given. This choice is shown by the difference in the number of args of वैश्वानर आत्मा in Cha. Upa. V. 18. 1 and V. 18. 2.

4. According to Saikara the Sutra refers to the asar- नरात्मोपासन only. We hold that it refers to uny ब्रह्मोपासना based upon parts of Brahman like that of वैश्वानर आत्मा, and answers a doubt regarding it like a similar doubt about the meditation of Brahman without parts, solved in Bra. Su. III. 3. 31.

According te Sankara the Sutra says that one cannot meditate on one part of asatar, but only on all parts of it, i. e., on Vaisvanara Atman consisting of all the parts mentioned in the Sruti. Thus, he takes ana in the sense of 'all ' or ' the whole' (anta). But this is not the proper sense of the word.

228 INTERPRETATION

H is "a large number, " " many ", and so, here it should mean 'a large number of args', because ars are mentioned in Sutra 55. Moreover, he takes ज्यायस्त्व as प्राधान्य which he interprets as the only possible or proper way of meditation. But this is also incorrect. ज्यायस् means better or superior; so that a meditation on आत्मा वैश्वानर: as consisting of a fewer parts is good and does give the fruit in question, viz., liberation, but a meditation on a greater number of args is better. The example of क्रतु can be interpreted only in our favour, because in a करतु an option of potsherds is given as the option of parts in the present case. As to तथाहि दर्शयति, Sankara says that the व्यस्तोपासन is censured in मूर्धा ते व्यपतिष्यद्यन्मां नागमिष्यः । (Cha. Upa. V. 12. 2 ); to us it seems that the Sruti censures the meditation of घौः, ete. as the whole of वैश्वानर आत्मा, and it does not censure, but rather lays down, the meditation of ar:, etc., as the head, etc., of वैश्वानर आत्मा as we have already explained. Sankara states the view of a predecessor of his and that view seems to support us. To us also the Sūtrakara seems to sanction व्यस्तोपासन as corrected by अश्वपति.

SECTION XV

Sūtra III. 3. 58

(५४ ) नाना शब्दादिभेदात्

TRANSLATION

[ THE meditations on Brahman as consisting of several parts are each of them] different [from one another], because of the difference of the word and others [ i. e., the context and the name ]. 58

NOTES

Sutra 58

1. With 'नाना' we have to connect "अङ्गावबद्धा: ब्रह्मोपासना:" so, 'rar' means that the meditations on Brahman resting upon the parts or args of Brahman are each of them different or independent of the others. The Sūtrakara has told us ( in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 5) that the same Brahman is taught to be meditated upon in all the ब्रह्मोपासनाs of the Upanisads and thus the aim of all these is the same ( अर्थाभेद) and, therefore, a collection of the thoughts on Brahman from all the recognised Upanisads should be made ( उपसंहार:). In the present Sutra(III.3.58), he seems to reject this view so far as the अङ्गाबबद्धा ब्रह्मोपासनाs are concern- ed. This is clear from the meaning of शब्दादिभदात् ( See below). 2. शब्दादिभदात् -In the case of the meditations on Brahman itself ( i. e., not consisting of several ags ), the Sutrakara had rejected the view that those meditations differed from each other on account of शब्द ( Bra. Su. III. 3. 6 ), प्रकरण ( Bra. Sü. III. 3. 7 ) and ris ( Bra. Sū. III. 3. 8). But in the case of अङ्गावबद्धाः व्रह्मोपासना: he seems to argue that these meditations are different from one another because the 5Tx, प्रकरण and संज्ञा of each are different from those of others. Thus, the prohlem of the अङ्गावबद्धाः ब्रह्मोपासना: is here discussed from the same stand point from which the fatar: व्रह्मोपासना: were discussed in Bra. Sa. III. 3. 5-8. शब्द, प्रकरण and asr in this case should be taken to be referring to those of the अgs, beeause here the ब्रह्मोपासनs basod upon अङ्s are the topic. 3. Sankara connects this Sutra with Bra. Su. III. 3. 1-2 (See his closing remarks: स्थिते चैतस्मिन्नधिकरणे सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्यय- मित्यादि द्रष्टव्यम्। See Thibaut, Volume 2, P. 279).

SECTION XVI

Sūtra III. 3.59

(५९) विकल्पोऽविशिष्टफल त्वा त् ।

TRANSLATION

[ IN meditations on Brahman consisting of parts, ] an option of choice is given, because the fruit of each of these meditations is the same. 59

NOTES

Sutra 59

(1 ) In the case of the meditation on Brahman not regarded as consisting of parts an option was given in the form of a selection from either of the two forms of the Supreme One, viz., the अरूपवत् and the रूपवत् (Bra. Si. III. 3. 28-30, 44-54). Here in the case of the अङ्गावबद्धा: ब्रह्मोपासनाः, the Sutrakara gives an option of choice of any one out of all such meditations because the fruit of all such 3qraas is the same, viz., liberation. In the षोडशकलब्रह्मविद्या, Satyakama Jabala is said to be a knower of Brahman ( Cha. Upa. IV. 9. 2 ), so, also उपकोसल in what is called उपकोसलविद्या (Cha. Upa. IV. 14. 2). The same fruit, we may say, accrues from the knowledge Vaiśva- nara Atman ( Cha. Upa. V. 18. 1 ).

( 2 ) Sankara does not take this Sūtra as dealing with अङ्गावबद्धाः ब्रह्मोपासनाः; he understands the विकल्प 'option' in the Sutra as given by the Sutrakara with reference to all the ब्रह्मविद्याs in the various Upanisads. To us it appears that the question of the collection (समुच्चय) of the अङ्गावबद्धाः ब्रह्मोपासनाः is discussed in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 55-56 so far as the collection of those faurs from one Veda into another is concerned and in Bra. Su. III. 3. 58 as regards the question of the collection of the ers of different अङ्गावबद्धाः ब्रह्मोपासना: while the problem of the number of the अws of one अङ्गावबद्धा ब्रह्मोपासना to be collected in a meditation is dealt with in Sutra III. 3. 57. Further we think that Sūtra 59 is meant to reject an inference that since the अङ्गावबद्धा: ब्रह्मोपासना: are different or independent ( Sutra 58 ), they may be giving different fruits and therefore they should be resorted to only by those who seek the respective fruits or results. The Sūtrakara says that the result of all अभ्गावबद्धा: ब्रह्मोपासना: is the same, vis., the knowledge of Brahman or liberation and, therefore, an option of

BRA. SO. III. 3. 59 233

choice of one from among the various meditations is given by the Sūtrakara in this Sūtra. The option also, which the Sutrakara allows in the case of ब्रह्मोपासनाs not based upon the parts of Brahman seems to us to have been given in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 28, 44-54 and this option is as regards the रूपवत् and अरूपवत् aspects of the Para, and the collection (समुच्चय ) in all such ब्रह्मोपासनाS is also discussed in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 5-9. We think that Sankara's interpretation of this Sūtra (एकेन चोपासनेन साक्षात्कृत उपास्ये विषय ईश्वरादौ द्वितीयमनर्थकम् । अपि चासम्भवः साक्षात्करणस्य समुच्चयपक्षे चित्तविक्षेपहेतुत्वात्।) is direotly contradictory to the conclusion drawn from Bra. Su. III. 3. 5.

30

SECTION XVII

Sutras III. 3. 60

(६०) काम्यास्तु यथाकामं समुच्चीयेरन्न वा पूर्वहेत्वभावात्।

TRANSLATION

BUT the meditations on Brahman performed for some desired object may or may not be collected according to the desire of the meditator, because of the absence of the foregoing reason.

NOTES

Sūtra 60 1. In the case of the meditations on Brahman not based upon the parts of Brahman, a collection ( उपसंहार ) was pre- scribed by the Sutrakara because all of them though occurring in different Vedas had a common topic, viz., Brahman, and because the objections based upon शब्द, प्रकरण and संक्ञा did not hold good. In the case of अङ्गावबद्धाः ब्रह्मोपासना:, such a collection was denied because those objections held good in their case, but an option was given because the fruit of all such meditations was in fact not different. Now, in the case of काम्या उपासनाs on Brahman, the Sutrakara seems to believe that शब्द, प्रकरण and संज्ञा make their topics different but their fruits also are different; so he allows an option regarding collection. One may collect only those काम्या ब्रह्मोपासनाs, the fruits of which he desires to gain. 2. काम्याः (ब्रह्मोपासना:)-We have already explained which ब्रह्मोपासनाs are कास्या or performed for a particular object (See Note 5 on Bra. Su. III. 3. 55 ). It will be noticed that the so-called प्रतीकोपासनाs are included in these काम्या उपासनाड on Brahman, because here Sankara explains Cha. Upa. VII. 1. 5 as a काम्या उपासना on Brahman. 3. "पूर्वह्वेत्वभावात् " seems to be a reference to अर्थाभेद in Bra. Su. III. 3. 5 and to अविशिष्टफल in Bra. Su. III. 3. 59. In ब्रह्मोपासनाs not founded on parts of Brahman a समुच्चय was compulsory because they all taught the same Brahman ( Bra. Sū. III. 3.5); while in ब्रह्मोपासनाs based on parts of Brahman the fruit was the same but the शब्द, प्रकरण and संक्ञा were different in each case, so only a विकल्प and no समुच्चय was possible. But in काम्या उपासनाs on Brahman, the teaching of the topics are different and the fruits also are different. Therefore, an

236 INTERPRETATION

option regarding both is given. To explain the point further, the topics of meditation in "नाम ब्रह्मत्युपासीत," "वाचं ब्रह्मेत्युपासीत" etc., ( Cha. Upa. VII. 1. 5, 2. 2 ). "आदित्यं ब्रह्मेत्युपास्ते" (Cha. Upa. III. 19. 4 ) are different in each case, though all of them are meditated upon as the same. Thus, the are is not the same because शब्द, प्रकरण and संक्षा are different. The fruits also of all these meditations ( यावन्नाम्नो गत तत्रास्य यथाकामचारो भवति। Cha. Upa. VII. 1.5; यावद्वाचो गतं तत्रास्य यथाकामचारो भवति। Cha. Upa. VII. 2. 2; एनं साधवो घोषा आ च गच्छेयुरुप च निस्रेडेरन्निम्रेडेरन् ।-Cha. Upa. III. 19. 4) are different in each case. And these meditations are काम्या as distinguished from those on Brahman without parts or with parts, which are all meant for achieving liberation through meditation on Brahman itself. Therefore, an option of choice in the selection of topics of meditation is given in the काम्या उपासनाs on Brahman.

4. Regarding the काम्या उपासनाs on Brahman it may be added that the meditation on the heaven ( घौ: ), the Sun, the Wind, the Ether, the Water, the Earth as Brahman are all of theu कास्या उपासनाs, but the meditations on the same as the head, the eye, the breath, the body (संदेह), the bladder (बस्ति) and the feet of Brahman are not FIET, but they would all lead to the same fruit, viz., liberation.

5. The word 'काम्य' used here shows that the उपासनाS. अङ्गावबद्धा or not, mentioned in the foregoing Sutras (Bra. Su. III. 3. 1-54 ) are not काम्य, but aimed at achieving liberation.

. Sanikara takes काम्या: as काम्या: विद्या: and gives the same illustrations as we have given, viz., स यो नाम ब्रह्मत्युपास्ते ......... ।. पूर्वहत्वभावात् is explained by him as referring only to अविशिष्ट- फलत्वात् in Bra. Su. III. 3. 59, but we think, it refers also to अर्थाभेदात् in Bra. Su. III. 3. 5.

SECTION XVIII

Sūtras III. 3. 61-66

(६१ ) अङ्गेषु यथाश्रयभाव: । (६२) शिष्टेश्र । (६३ ) समाहारात्। (६४) गुणसाधारण्यश्रुतेश्र। (६५ ) न वा तत्सहभावाश्रुतेः । (६६ ) दर्शनाच्च।

इति तृतीयाध्यायस्य तृतीय: पादः।

TRANSLATION

THE conceiving of the parts of Brahman in meditation should be in accordance with the respective objects seeking substratum, .61 because of the teaching, 62 [ and ] because of the collection, 63 and because of the Sruti stating the commonness of qualities ( between parts and objects seeking substratum ). 64 Rather not, because of the absence of a Sruti about the co-existence [ of the two, viz., the part and the object seeking substratum ], 65 and because the Sruti shows it. 66

NOTES Sūtra 61 1. In Bra. Sū. III. 3. 55-60 the Sūtrakara has discussed the question of the समुच्चय and विकल्प of the अङ्गावबद्धाः ब्रह्मो- पासना: and of the काम्या ब्रह्मोपासना: Now, he seems to state the method of the meditations of the former type. In the case of the ब्रह्मोपासनाS without the parts of Brahman, the Sutrakara stated the method to be that of आत्मगृहीति (Bra. Sü. III. 3. 16 ). The ags in this Sūtra are the same as the अङs in Bra. Su. III. 3. 55. The अङs are the अङs of Brahman in अङ्गावबद्धा ब्रह्मोपासना; e. g., the heaven (दौः), the Sun, the Wind, the Ether, the Water and the Earth, are the args of the अङ्गावबद्धा ब्रह्मोपासना, viz., that of आत्मा वैश्वानर :. 2. The aTers or items seeking substratum are in the case of the same अङ्गाचबद्धा वैश्वनरब्रह्मोपासना the following; the head, the eye, the breath, the body (संदेह), the bladder (बस्ति), and the feet. 3. a means the conception, imagination, fancy or supposition used in meditation. Thus, in the chief ब्रह्मोपासना not based upon parts of Brahman, Brahman is conceived to be or imagined to be the Self of the meditator. Similarly, in the अङ्गावबद्धा वैश्वानररूप्रह्मोपासना the heaven, the Sun, etc., are conceived to be the head, the eye, etc., of Brahman in the process of meditation. The former make the series of args or आशितs and the latter that of आथ्रयs. The अङ्s are to be conceived as the आश्रयs. 4. Sankara does not take ergs to be those of Brahman, but he interprets अङ्गs as कर्माङs, e. g., the उद्गीथ, etc. Sutra 62 5. fTd: - This seems to be a reference to such Srutis as "भूर्धा त्वेष आत्मन इति होवाच, मूर्धा ते व्यपतिष्यद्यन्मां नागमिष्य इति।" (Cha. Upa. V. 12. 2 ), वक्षुष्टेतदात्मनः ......... (Cha. Upa. V.13.2),

BRA. So. III. 3. 61-66 239

प्राणस्त्वेष आत्मनः .. ... (Cha. Upa. V. 14. 2); संदेहस्त्वेष आत्मनः ... ...... ( Cha. Upa. V. 15. 2), बस्तिस्त्वेष आत्मनः ......... ( Cha. Upa. V. 16. 2 ), पादौ त्वेतावात्मनः ......... (Cha. Upa. V.17.2). In these and similar passages of other अङ्गावबद्धा: ब्रह्मोपासना: the respective pupils are told by their respective teachers that they were mistaken in imagining the object of meditation to be Brahman itself while really it was a part of Brahman. This teaching requires that in the ergs the meditator should have the thought of the आश्रय and not of the entire Brahman. Sūtra 63 6. 'समाहार' seems to refer to Cha. Upa. V. 18. 2 (तस्य ह वा एतस्यात्मनो वैश्वानरस्य मूर्धैव सुतेजाश्चक्षुर्षिश्वरूपः, प्राणः पृथग्वर्त्मात्मा, संदेहो बहुलो, बस्तिरेव रयिः, पृथिव्येव पादावुर एव वेदिर्लोमानि बर्हिर्हदयं गार्हपत्यो, मनोऽन्वाहार्यपचन आस्यमाहवनीयः ) in which all the अङ्गs (named सुतेजाः, विश्वरूप:, etc.,) along with the आश्रयs (मूर्धा, चक्षुः, etc., ) have been collected together. This collective statement is according to the Sūtrakara intended to mean that in the respective parts the respective आथरयs are to be imagined at the time of meditation. Sūtra 64 7. गुणसाधारण्यश्रुति -This seems to be a reference to such अङ्गावबद्धाः ब्रह्मोपासना: as are mentioned in Br. Upa. IV. 1. 2-7 where वाकू, प्राण, चक्षुः, श्रोत्र, मनः and हृदय which are declared to be only one part ( एकपाद) of Brahman and are taught to be meditated upon as प्रज्ञा, प्रिय, सत्य, अनन्त, आनन्द and स्थिति which are thus the corresponding आश्रयs to be imagined in वाक्, प्राण, चक्षुः, श्रोत्र, मनः and हृदय. Moreover, in each case, we have an explanation as to how both the अङ्ग and आश्रय possess a common attribute, viz., प्रज्ञता, प्रियता, सत्यता, अनन्तता, आनन्दता and स्थितता. 'गुणसाधारण्य' means the attribute common to the अङ् and आश्रय. This गुणसाधारण्यश्रुति also proves that the अङ्गs should be imagined to be the आश्रयs in the respective order. Sūtra 65 8. -This Sutra seems to show a disapproval of the

240 INTERPRETATION

conclusion in the preceding Sutras; so that the preceding Sutras should be regarded as पूर्वपक्षसूत्रs. 'न वा' means that the ags should not be imagined as the आश्रयs. 9. तत्सहभावाश्रुते :- Thore is no Sruti about the coexistence of the अङ् and आश्रय. In the case of निरङ्गा: ब्रह्मोपासना: Brahman was taught to be looked upon as the Self of the meditator and the Para was taught the residing in the heart and to be meditated upon as present there ( Bra. Sū. III. 3. 34-35 ). Such Srutis as गुहां प्रविष्टौ परमे परार्धे (Katha Upa. III. 3.1) clearly show that the Para who is to be object to be medi- tated upon and the individual soul who is the sery according to the method of आत्मगृहीति (Bra. Su. III. 3.16) reside together. This kind of Sruti in the case of the heaven and the head, the Sun and the eye, etc., etc., does not exist at all. Therefore, the Sutrakara rejects the view "अङ्गेषु यथाश्रयभावः" (Bra. Su. III. 3.61). Sutra 66 10. दर्शनात् -The Sutrakara seems to refer to a Sruti in which in the अङ्गावबद्धाः ब्रह्मोपासना: the parts of Brahman are not said to be meditated upon as the respective errerrs. Such Srutis would be Cha. Upa. IV. 5-9 (the बोडशकलब्रह्मविद्या), Cha. Upa. IV. 10-14 ( the उपकोसलविद्या). In these विद्या which are अङ्गावबद्धाः ब्रह्मविद्या:, there is no attribution of the आश्रयs to the parts of Brahman and so all the reasons ( Bra. Su. III. 3. 62-64 ) do not hold good regarding such अङ्गावबद्धाः ब्रह्मविद्याः Thus, according to the Sūtrakara ( Sūtras 65-66 ) in tho case of अङ्गावबद्धाः ब्रह्मविद्या: the various अङ्s or parts are to be meditated upon as parts of aarq without attributing to them the आश्रयभाव. Perhaps this is the sense of यस्त्वेतमेवं प्रादेशमात्र- मभिविमान आत्मानं वैश्वानरमुपास्ते स सर्वेषु लोकेधु सर्वेषु भूतेषु सर्वेष्वात्म- स्वन्नमत्ति। (Cha. Upa. V. 18. 1). The omnipresent वैश्वानर आत्मन् is to be meditated upon as measured by parts or consisting of parts. Similarly, in other अङ्गावबद्धाः ब्हमोपासना: Brahman is to be meditated upon as consisting of so many parts.

CHAPTER III

SECTION I

Achievement of Moksa through the knowledge of Brahman. Superiority of that Knowledge to Karman.

Sūtras III. 4. 1-17

(१) पुरुषार्थोतः शब्दादिति बादरायणः ! (२) शेषत्वात्पुरुषार्थवादो यथाऽन्येग्विति जैमिनिः । (३ ) आचारदर्शनात् । ( ४ ) तच्छ्रतेः । (५) समन्वारम्भणात् । ( ६ ) तद्वतो विधानात्। (७) नियमाच्च। (८) अधिकोपदेशात्तु बादरायणस्यैवं तद्दर्शनात्। (९) तुल्यं तु दर्शनम् । (१०) असार्वत्रिकी । (११) विभाग: शतवत् । (१२) अध्ययनमात्रवतः । (१३) नाविशेषात् । (१४) स्तुतयेऽनुमतिर्वा । (१५ ) कामकारेण चैके। (१६ ) उपमदे च । (१७) ऊर्ध्वरेतःसु च शब्दे हि।

TRANSLATION " FROM this [ knowledge of Brahman ] the aim of human life [ is achieved ] because of the Word ", so holds Bādarāyaņa. 1 " The name of 'the aim of human life' is applied [ to the goal of the Lore of the Upanisads ] because that knowledge is subsidiary [ to the sacrifice ] as is the case with other knowledges or other gawrers ", so says Jaimini, 2 " because we find the practice [ of rites among the knowers of Brahman ], 3 "because of a Sruti about it [ i. e., subordination of the knowledge to action ], 4 "because of [a new body ] being begun [ by the Lore and the Action ], 5 " because of the Injunction of actions in the case of him who possesses that [ Lore ], 6 "and because of the rule." 7 But, because of the teaching [ about the Knowledge ] as superior [ to the Action ] Bādarāyana has such a view [ as expressed in Sūtra 1 above ], because we find it in the Sruti, 8 but [the practice] is found equally [in favour of the Lore], 9 [ the Sruti ] does not apply to all [ Lores ], 10 there is a separate function [ of Action from that of Knowledge ] as in the case of a hundred [ arteries in Chā. Upa. VIII. 6. 6 ], 11 [ the Injunction is ] in the case of him who has merely committed the Scripture to memory, 12 [ there is ] no [ rule ] because of the absence of defi- niteness [ about the nature of the agent or actions ], 13 [the Sruti in question is] cither for praise of actions or is an approval of attions, 14 and some hold that [ all actions may be done ] voluntarily [ by a knower of Brahman ], 15 and [ they mention ] the destruction [ of actions ], 16 and because in the case of celebates fitness is ] for the Word. [ the religious 17

NOTES Sutra 1 1. अतः - As Sutras 4 and 5 clearly show, 'अतः' means 'from the Lore of the Upanisads'. The knowledge of Atman is called faur in the last Sutras of the preceding Pada also ( Vide Sütra III. 1. 47 ), the whole of which discusses the nature of the knowledge of Brahman. 2. T1a-This is a reference to such texts as the following :- (1) विद्ययाऽमृतमश्नुते। (Isa. Upa. 11). (2) आत्माना विन्दते वीर्य विद्यया विन्दृतेऽमृतम्। ( Kena Upa. 12 ). (3) तमेव विदित्वाऽतिमृत्युमेति नान्यः पन्थाः विद्यतेऽनाय। Sve. Upa. III. 8 and VI. 15). (4) निचाय्य तं मृत्युमुखात्प्रमुच्यते। (Katha Upa. III. 15). 3. 'पुरुषार्थ' means 'release' मोक्ष "freedom from death," the last of the four aims of human life. 4. According to Sankara the discussion in this Sūtra is as regards the question whether the knowledge of Brahman achieves its aim by itself or is subsidiary to action. Badarayana's view is the former. But the Sutrakara though not admitting that आत्मज्ञान is subsidiary to कर्मन्, does not say that आत्मज्ञान alone achieves Moksa; rather he seems to be inclined to make certain types of actions subsidiary to आत्मज्ञान (See Sutras III. 4. 32-33 ) but co-operating with it in the achievement of Moksa. It is strange that Sanikara does not quote तमेव विदि- त्वाऽतिमृत्युमेति ..... .. , on which he lays great emphasis elsewhere.

Sutra 2 5. erara-Jaimini holds that the knowledge of Brahman is subsidiary to Action (or karman) and, therefore, the name of gawre is given to the Lore of Upanisads, i. e. the application of this name is not to be understood in its literal sense.

244 INTERPRETATION

6. यथाऽन्येषु - This should be a reference to the case of such other knowledges or means like तपस्, ब्रह्मचर्य, सत्य, etc., than the knowledge of Brahman, in which the fruit is declared to be ater and which are subsidiary to actions. Saikara explains अन्येषु as referring to द्रव्य, संस्कार and कर्मन्. Or this may refer to the other three पुरुषार्थs also, which are subsidiary to मोक्ष and are therefore called पुरुषार्थs. 7. Sankara takes aroa as the dependence of the individual soul upon action as being the agent ( कर्तृत्वेनात्मनः कर्मशेषत्वात्।). As ' knowledge of Brahman ' or विद्या seems to have been referred to by ara: in Sutra 1 and as Sūtras 4, 5 and 6 mention the combination of विद्या and कर्म, it seems to us that शेषत्व means here the dependence of the knowledge of Brahman on karman or the dependence of the otherthree पुरुषार्थs on the fourth पुरुषार्थ viz., मोक्ष. Sankara himself says under Sutra 4 that the विद्या is dependent on FA. Regarding the Srutis quoted by Sankara see Note (5) above. Sutra 3 8. आचारदर्शनात्-This refers to such Sruti texts as mention the practice, to do sacrifices, of those who possessed the knowledge of Brahman. Sankara rightly refers to the story of Janaka who, though a knower of Brahman, performed sacrifices and all other actions.

Sutra 4

9. 'श्तेः' is evidently a reference to the word विद्या in यदेव विद्यया करोति श्रद्धयोपनिषदा तदेव विर्यवत्तरं भवति। (Cha. Upa. I. 1.10). Sutra 5

10. The word समन्वारम्मण at once suggests the reference to तं विद्याकर्मणी समन्वारेभेते। (Br. Upa. IV. 4. 2) as Sanikara points out. Sūtra 6 11. तद्वतो विधानात्-This refers to a Sruti in which one

BRA. SO. III. 4. 1-17 245

who has studied the Scripture is asked to perform the sacrifices, e. g., the one quoted by Sankara. See Sūtra III. 4. 47.

Sutra 7 12. नियम-A Sruti like Isa. Upa. 2 which makes it a rule that actions must be performed, is referred to by this Sutra.

Sutra 8

13. 'a' refutes the view of Jaimini in Sūtras 2-7 and gay reasserts the view of Badarayana stated in Sutra 1.

14. अधिकोपदेशात् - Badarayana holds that the aim of human life is achieved from the knowledge of Brahman, because that knowledge is taught to be superior to the knowledge of action. This may refer to Cha. Upa. VII. 4. 1, Mu. Upa. I. 2. 2, etc., and also to Bha. Gi. IV. 33. In Mu. Upa. I. 1, the four Vedas and their auxiliary sciences are said to be अपरा विद्या and that by which अक्षर ब्रह्मन् is obtained is called परा विद्या. In Mu. Upa. I. 2. 7-10 we read :- प्लवा होते अदृढा यज्ञरूपा अष्टादशोक्तमवरं येषु कर्म। एतच्छेयो येऽभिनन्दन्ति मूढा जरामृत्युं ते पुनरेवापियन्ति॥ I. 2. 7 अविद्यायां बहुधा वर्तमाना वयं कृतार्था इत्यभिमन्यन्ति बालाः। यत्कर्मिणो न प्रवेदयन्ति रागात्तेनातुरा: क्षीणलोकाञ्यवन्ते ॥ I. 2.8

इष्टापूर्त मन्यमाना वरिष्ठं नान्यच्छेयो वेदयन्ते प्रमूढाः। नाकस्य पृष्ठे ते सुकृतेऽनुभूत्वेमं लोकं हीनतरं वा विशन्ति ॥ I. 2.9

तपःश्रद्धे ये ह्युपवसन्त्यरण्ये शान्ता विद्वांसो भैक्षचर्या चरन्तः । सूर्यद्वारेण ते विरजाः प्रयान्ति यत्रामृतः स पुरुषो ह्यव्ययात्मा।। I. 2. 10 परीक्ष्य लोकान् कर्मचितान् ब्राह्मणो निर्वेदमायान्नास्त्यकृतः कृतेन। तद्विज्ञानार्थ स गुरुमेवाभिगच्छेत्समित्पाणि: थ्रोत्रियं ब्रह्मनिष्टम् । I. 2.11

In the Bhagavadgita also we find similar statements :- (1) न हि ज्ञानेन सदशं पवित्रमिद्द विद्यते। (Bha. Gi. IV. 38) (2) सर्व कर्माखिलं पार्थ ज्ञाने परिसमाप्यते। (Bha. Gi. IV. 33)

246 INTERPRETATION

15. तहर्शनात्-This refers to those Srutis in which मोक्ष is said to be had from a, some of which have been quoted under Sūtra 1. 16. अधिकोपदेशात् and तद्दर्शनात् jointly form one argument. Because मोक्ष is said to be had from ज्ञान of Brahman and be- cause that ज्ान is said to be superior to कर्मन्, Badarayana concludes that मोक्ष can be had from the ज्ञान of Brahman which is not dependent on कर्मन्; the ज्ञान is not subsidiary to कर्मन् but it is superior to कर्मन्. It should be noticed that Badarayana does not give those various reasons against कर्मन् as a means to Moksa, which Sankara so often gives in his works. 17. Sankara interprets अधिकोपदेश as the fact that परमात्मन् who is superior to the individual soul is taught in the Scripture as the one to be known. And to this interpretation of अधिकोपदेश, he adds that the knowledge of that परमात्मन् is not the inspirer of actions, but it is the destroyer of actions. According to Sankara 'तद्दर्शनात्' refers to such Srutis as teach qTHRH7 who is superior to the individual soul. Thus, according to him, अधिकोपदेशात् and तद्दर्शनात् refer to the same texts,

Sutra 9

18. a shows that the refutation of the aa given in Sūtras 3-7 is begun here. 19. तुल्यं दर्शनम्-Just as wefind in the Sruti the knowers of Brahman performing actions, so also we find the knowers of Brahman renouncing actions. See above "विद्वांसो भक्ष्यचर्या arra: " in Mu. Upa. I. 2. 10, also Br. Upa. III. 5. 1 which is quoted by Sankara. Thus, practice ( आचार) does not help in deciding the dependence of knowledge on action. Sutra 10

19. असार्वत्रिकी - This is a refutation of Sutra 4. The Sruti referred to in Sūtra 4 does not apply to all faurs; it does not apply to ब्रह्मविद्या. It applies only to विद्याs concerned

BRA SO. III. 4. 1-17 247

with various rites. See Bra. Su. IV. I. 18 and Sa. Bha. on Bra. Sū. III. 3. 42.

Sūtra 11

21. faum :- This is an answer to Sūtra 5. The Sūtra- kara says that विद्या and कर्मन् begin the bodies of different persons; विद्या helps the knower of Brahman (See विद्यासामर्थ्यात् in Bra. Su. IV. 2. 17 ), and ana helps those who perform the rites and sacrifices. Thus, there should be a separation of कर्म from विद्या. According to Bra.Su.IV.2. 17, विद्यागति is separated from कर्मगति in the interpretation of तं विद्याकर्मणी समन्वारेभेते पूर्वप्रशञा ₹ ( Br. Upa. IV. 4. 2 ), the Sruti which is quoted as an argu- ment of Jaimini in Sūtra 5. 22. शतवत् seems to us to be the separation of 100 arteries from the one artery mentioned together in " there are one hundred and one arteries in the heart " etc., in Cha. Upa. VIII. 6. 6. The faurT of these arteries is made in that Sruti itself. It is said there that of these hundred and one arteries the one goes upwards towards the head, he who goes up there- by attains immortality; the other arteries are meant for various transmigrations in all directions ( Cha. Upa. VIII. 6.6). Just as the hundred arteries are here separated from the hundred and one mentioned together in the first quarter of the verse, similarly Fa is separated frow विद्याकर्मणी in Br. Upa. IV. 4. 2. This is the view of the Sūtrakara in Sūtra 11. According to him faerr is dealt with in Br. Upa. IV. 4. 2 and aua in Br. Upa. IV. 3-5. Though 'शतवत्' dues not contain a reference to शतनाडीs, we make this suggestion because in the case of शतनाडीs कर्मन् is separated from विद्या, as in the case of विद्याकर्मणी समन्वातरेमेते. Both the Srutis ( Cha. Upa. VIII. 6. 6 and Br. Upa. IV. 4. 2) in question make a joint statement ( the one regarding the number of नाडीs, the other regarding विद्याकर्मणी) and then make a division or separate statement regarding the same. The one

248 INTERPRETATION

separates hundred areTs out of one hundred and one (Sūtra 11), the other separates कर्म from विद्याकर्मणी.

23. Sankara first explains the word faur in the Sūtra as if the word विद्या in the Sruti meant ब्रह्मविद्या, as was done above. But afterwards he adds that न चेदं समन्वारम्भवचनं मुमुक्षुविषयम्।. Thereby he means that the विद्या in the Sruti (तं विद्याकर्मणी समन्वारेभेते।) is not ब्रह्मविद्या. But this conclusion is against the Sutrakara's own. Not only does it contradict the Sūtrakāra so far as this Sūtra ( 11 ) is concerned, but also as regards other Sūtras, e. g., Bra. Su. IV. 2. 17, which, as shown above, is consistent with the Sūtra in question. According to the Sutrakara " the brightening of the top of the heart " mentioned in Br. Upa. IV. 4. 2 (हृदयस्याय्रं प्रद्योतते) is a sure mark of faurr and the man being a knower of Brahman, as he says in Bra. Su. IV. 2. 17. "इति तु कामयमानः", according to the Sutrakara, refers to Br. Upa. IV. 4. 3-6, while Sankara applies it to Br. Upa. IV. 4. 1-6. Sankara's con- clusion (एवं सत्यविभागनापीद समन्वारम्भवचनमवकल्पते।) actually makes the Sutrakara's position in Sutra 11 totally weak. Sarikara takes शतवत् to mean "यथा शतमाभ्यां दीयतामित्युक्ते विभज्य दीयते पञचाशदेकस्मै पञ्चाशदपरस्में तद्वत्।". Sutra 12

24. The Sūtrakara replies to the argument in Sutra 6. He says that such Srutis refer to those who have only committed the text to memory. This Sutra is referred to in Sutra III. 4. 47.

Sūtra 13

25. The Sutrakara says that the Sruti in question does not make a rule that the knower of Brahman should invariably perform all actions, because the Sruti does not mention defi- nitely who is asked to do actions invariably, and what actions are to be done by him. The Sruti defines neither the agent nor the actions.

BRA. SO. III. 4. 1-17 249

Sūtra 14 26. स्तुतये and अनुमति seem to be two different conclusions. The Isa. Sruti (2) is for praise of actions so that it shows that actions are more praiseworthy than renunciations of actions; therefore, one ( even a knower of Brahman ) should do them rather than renounce them. This is the position of the Bhagavadgita also. This does not prove that the knowledge of Brahman is subsidiary to actions. 27. अनुमति-Or, the Sruti is an approval of actions if a knower of Brahman performs them. The Scripture has no objection to his doing the actions. 28 Sarikara interprets स्तुति as विद्यास्तुति. As the Sruti does not mention faenr but emphasises actions, it is likely that it praises actions as compared with renunciation of actions. Moreover, Sankara takes 'स्तुतयेऽनुमति:' i. e., the Sruti is an approval of actions in order to praise the faenr. Is this praise real or not ? The approval can be real only if the praise of the विद्या be real. Sutra 15 29. This is also a reply to the opponent's argument in Sūtra 2. 30. v seems to be a reference to a Sruti according to which actions for a knower of Brahman are not compulsory, but voluntary. Cf. Mu. Upa. III. 1. 4 which mentions the knower of Brahman as क्रियावान् and again III. 2. 6 in which the knowers of Brahman are described as aeurferrs or those who have renounced all actions. To give an option of choice between a life of actions and that of renunciation of actions and to prefer the former ( as said in Sutra 14 -स्तुतये 'praise of actions') is the view of the Bhagavadgīta also. So, qa may refer to Bh. Gi. See mer in Bra. Su. III. 3. 53, which also seems to refer to the Gita. If the above-mentioned Sruti ( Mu. Upa. III. 1. 4) which 39

250 INTERPRETATION

does not deny the Path of Renunciation and yet prefers that of Action ( आत्मक्रीड आत्मरतिः क्रियावानेष ब्रह्मविदां वरिष्ठः।), as is the case with the Bhagvadgīgta ( III. 1-8, V. 1-2), is referred to by this Stra, we must note that this Sruti in so far as it implies an option of choice between संन्यास and कर्मयोग shows that ब्रह्मज्ञान or ब्रह्मविद्या cannot be subsidiary to actions; otherwise the option of renunciation of actions cannot be given to the knower of Brahman. Sūtra 16 31. उपमर्दे च-This refers to a Sruti in which the destruc- tion of actions is said to result on the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman. Mu. Upa. II. 2. 8 says "क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि तस्मिन् दृष्टे परावरे। " So on the realization of the Supreme Principle [ all ] actions are destroyed. For this reason also the knowledge of Brahman cannot be subsidiary to actions. 32. Sankara takes उपमर्द as स्वरूपोपमर्द and instead of taking कर्मणामुपमर्द: he takes कर्माधिकारहेतोः क्रियाकारकफललक्षणस्य समस्तस्य प्रपऽवस्य स्वरूपोपमर्द: and he also adds that this प्रपञच is अविद्याकृत. But, as the context shows, the destruction of only the actions is meant in the Sutra. And from that it seems to be argued that the knowledge of Brahman cannot be subsi- diary to the actions which it destroys. Sutra 17 33. ऊध्वरंतस: - This means the students, the hermits and the ascetics. In the case of these three orders of life, the duty lies in reciting the text, but not in doing the actions or rites. The celibates are entitled to the text, not to the act. So, when they gain the realization of Brahman, the latter cannot be subsiduary to action. 34. Sankara does not take शब्दे in the sense of शब्दे न तु कर्मणि; he rather explains शब्दे in the sense of श्रंयते and adds "faur". By this way, perhaps, he intends to bring out the sense that only the ascetics are entitled to the knowledge of Brahman. But, ऊर्ध्वरेतस् would include also students; and for the meaning of शब्दे as न तु कर्मणि seo Bra. Su. I. 3. 27-28.

SECTION II

Knowledge of Bralman, not a simple reflection, but something to be performed, or rather an Injunction. The unanimity of sense of the knowledge of Brahman and Dharma.

Sūtras III. 4. 18-26

(१८) परामर्श जैमिनिरचोदना चापवदति हि।

(१९) अनुष्ठेयं बादरायण: साम्यश्रुतेः ।

(२० ) विधिर्वा धारणवत्।

(२१ ) स्तुतिमात्रमुपादानादिति चेन्न्नापूर्वत्वात् ।

(२२) भावशब्दाच्च ।

(२३) पारिप्लवार्था इति चेन्न विशेषितत्वात्।

(२४) तथा चैकवाक्यतोपबन्धात्।

(२५ ) अत एव चाग्ीन्धनाद्यनपेक्षा।

(२६) सर्वापेक्षा च यज्ञादिश्रुतेश्श्ववत् ।

TRANSLATION

J AIMINI holds the knowledge of Brahman to be a thought; and [he says ] ' It is not of the form of an Injunction, because the Scripture denies all, actions [ as a help to the realization of Brahman ]. 18

Bādarāyana holds that [ the knowledge of or meditation on Brahman is something ] to be performed because of the Sruti mentioning the likeness [ of nature of the knowledge of Brahman and nature of the action ], 19

or, rather, that there is an Injunction [ for the knowledge of Brahman ], like that of committing the text to memory. 20

If the opponent argues that, " It is only the giorification due to its being received [in the sacrifice ]", we reply, " No, because of its having been not stated in what has preceded | or because of its characteristic of being quite new ], 21

and because of the Word of the existence | of Brahman such as is described in the Sruti ]." 22

If it be argued, " They are meant for the qrfrcaa rite ", we reply, " No, because | the Upnisadic stories ] have been distinguished [ in such Srutis as Katha Upa. III. 16-17 from the पारिप्लव stories ]; 23

and because we construe the unanimity in meaning [ of the two parts of Scripture ] in that way; 24

and for this very reason there is no need of fire, fuel, etc., [in the knowledge of Brahman ]; 25

and. all requirements [ for the knowledge of Brahman] due to the Sruti mentioning the Sacrifice, etc., are like that of the horse. 26

NOTES

Sūtra 18

1. Having established in the preceding Adhikarana that the knowledge of Brahman is not subsidiary to actions or rites, the Sutrakara now seems to proceed to prove that the knowledge of Brahman is not a simple ' reflection ' or ' thought' but it is an object to be performed. 2. Jaimini who believed that the knowledge of Brahman was subsidiary to rites held that it was only a reflection but no action, and, therefore, it was not araga ' to be performed,' like a sacrifice. He held that there can be no Injunction which would make the knowledge of Brahman an action just as Jyotistoma is made an action by an Injunction ( ज्योतिष्टोमेन स्वर्गकामो यजेत : ) 3. अपवदति हि-This is the reason why Jaimini believed that the knowledge of Brahman cannot be an Injunction or an aotion to be performed. The Sruti rejects actions as a means to the knowledge of Brahman. (1) परीक्ष्य लोकान्कर्मचितान् ब्राह्मणो निर्वेदमायान्नास्त्यकृत: कृतेन । (Mu. Upa. I. 2.12). 'अपवदति' may be a reference to the whole of Mu. Upa. I. 2. 1-10, Cha. Upa. V. 10, and similar passages. Also, न चक्षुषा गृह्ते नापि वाचा नान्यैदेवैस्तपसा कर्मणा वा। ज्ञानप्रसादेन विशुद्धसत्वस्ततस्तु तं पश्यते निष्कलं व्यायमान: । ( Mu. Upa. III. 1. 8 ). In this Sruti ana is denied to be a means to the realiza- tion of Brahman, though jnana and dhyana are said to be means to it. From this, Jaimini concluded that the knowledge of Brahman is no action to be pefrormed ( अनुष्ठेय). 4. According to Sankara this Sutra mentions Jaimini's view that Cha, Upa. II. 23. 1 and other texts do not establish

254 INTERPRETATION

the existence of the celibate orders of life. But the Sutrakara has already mentioned these आश्रमs under the word "ऊर्ध्वरेतस:" in Sūtra 17, as if nobody doubted their existence. It is Sankara who raises a doubt about them in his bhasya on Sutra 17, perhaps in order to introduce thereby his interpretation of Sutra 18. It was not the business of the Brahmasutras to plead for the injunction of the orders of life. The Smrtis, like that of Manu, were ment for it and do it. But here Sankara holds that the Sutrakara argues that the Sruti lays down the 3ers. According to Sankara Jaimini held that in these Srutis there is a reference ( qTrH ) to other orders of life, but no Injunction for them, because in these texts ( i. e. Cha. Upa. II. 23. 1, etc., ) there is no word laying down the arerHs. As to the Sruti "ब्रह्मचर्यादेव प्रव्जेत्" (Ja. 4 ) Sarikara says that this discussion of Jaimini proceeds without considering that Sruti. As to the question, how can there be a reference to the eTTeTAS if they do not exist, Sankara says, their existence is well known from the Smrti and practice, but not from the Sruti. As to the other question, how is the rer known, Sankara makes Jaimini opine that it is known from the Sruti in sc far as it lays down अग्निहोत्रादि for the householder.

It is apparent that here Sankara ascribes to Jaimini a view which probably he never held. The Brahamasūtrakara was not bound to discuss whether the anaHs were based upon Sruti or Smrti and, owing to the Jabala Sruti, there was no possibility of the doubt put in the mouth of Jaimini. Sanikara's defence of what he supposes Jaimini to have held is very lame. How can there be even a reference to the arreras in a Sruti if another Sruti did not already establish them. Moreover in Sūtra 18, there is no suggestion about the Srutis and TTeHS, rather the context shows that a question about the nuture of the knowledge of Bruhman is discussed in this Adhikarann, arargs having been taken as granted in Sūtra 17, and being again mentioned in Sutras 32-34. What is the purpose

BRA SO. III. 4. 18-26 255

of mere reference to the eneras if they do not exist ? Sankara says, "स्तुत्यर्थ एवायं परामर्शः न चोदनार्थः " How can there be स्तुति of things non-existent? Moreover, see Sutras 35, 36, 39 below. These Srutis quoted by Sankara in support of his interpretation of 'अपवद्ति हि' do not deny the orders other than that of a householder; they simply sanction the latter.

Sutra 19 5. Badarayana holds that the knowledge of Brahman is something to be performed. He tries to prove this without saying that आत्मज्ञान is a कर्म (a rite). आत्मज्ञान is nt a कर्म, but also it is not a mere reflection ( qriHat); it is something to be performed. This seems to be the view of Badarayana. He does not say it is कर्मन्, but he clearly says, it is अनुष्ठेय. See also Sūtra 34.

6. साम्यश्रुतेः-"Because of the Sruti about the likeness of Brahmavidya to the knowledge of Karman." The reference seems to be to Mu. Upa. I. 1. 4-5, "द्वे विद्ये वेदितव्ये", in which both Brahman and Karman are said to be 'Vidyas to be known.' The Sutrakara seems to emphasize this similarity between the two topies, Brahman and Karman. On this similarity he argues that if Karman is अनुष्ठेय, Brahman ( or its knowledge) is also अनुष्ठेय. 7. After अनुष्ठेयम् Sarikara adds आश्रमान्तरम् and ho gives the reason वेदे श्रवणात्. Both these additions are not even suggested in Sutras 18-19 and are not favoured by the context. After giving that ga, he gives the aa mentioned in the Sūtra viz. साम्यश्रुते: Sankara says, 'त्रयो धर्मस्कन्धाः' cto., is a Sruti referring to आश्रमान्तर as to गार्हस्थ्य.

Sutra 20

8. Jaimini has said that the knowledge of Brahman is not of the form of a fafa. Now Badarayana says that it is a विधि i C., चोदना. In Sutra 19 he depended upon साम्यश्रुति, in

256 INTERPRETATION

this Sutra he depends upon a विधि about आत्मक्ञान. He refers to sentences like आत्मा वाडरे दृष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यः। (Br. Upa. II. 4. 5), स करतुं कुर्वीत (Cha. Upa. III. 14. 1). This is a विधि just as the विधि of remembering the text ( viz. स्वाध्यायोऽध्येतव्य:). The next Sutra gives the reason why आत्मज्ञान is a विधि and not a स्तुति or अर्थवाद. 9. Saiikara explains the Sutra as विधिर्वायमाश्रमान्तरस्य न परामर्श- ITH | But there are very strong objections to interpreting in this way the Sruti ( Cha. Upa. II. 23. 1) to which Sankara refers this Sutra. The greatest fault underlying this interpretation of Sankara of Sūtras 18-20, is that he has to say that Bada- rayana like Jaimini undertook this discussion without taking into consideration the जाबालश्रुति (अनपेक्ष्यैव जाबालश्रुतिमाश्रमान्तर- विधायिनीमयमाचार्येण विचार: प्रवर्तित :- Sa. Bha. on Bra.Su.III. 4. 20). See also the last sentence of his ars on Bra. Su. III. 4. 18. Another fact to be noted is that Sankara in his bhasya on this Sutra (20) adds the हेतु "अपूर्वत्वात्" for proving the विधि. In fact this aa is given in the next Sutra. This shows that the next Sütra is closely connected with this Sutra. Regarding the Sutrakara's meaning of Cha. Upa. II. 23. 1 see Sūtra 32.

Sutra 21

10. Some opponent like Jaimini may argue that the aana is only a glorification of the individual soul since it is received in the performance of sacrifices. 11. Badarayana replies that आत्मज्ञान mentioned in the Upanisads is aga " not known in the earlier texts, " so, it fulfils the condition of being a विधि mentioned in the पूर्वमीमांसा. Hence it is not a स्तुति or अर्थवाद. 'अपूर्वत्वात्' is meant to answer the objection of स्तुतिमात्रत्व (Sutra 21) and also thereby to prove that, like धारण, "आत्मा वा अरे दृष्टव्यः" is a विधि because that fafe is not to be found elsewhere. It was for this double purpose that 'अपूर्वत्व' is mentioned in Sutra 21 instead of in Sūtra 20.

BRA. ST. III. 4. 18-26 257

12. The fact that Sankara takes 'अपूर्वत्वात्' as understood in Sūtra 20 proves that Sūtra 20 and Sūtra 21 belong to the same Adhikaraņa. 13. Sankara begins a new Adhikarana with Sūtra 21. This does not seem to us to be correct for the reasons given above. According to him Sutras 21-22 discuss whether Srutis like Cha. Upa. I. 1. 3, I. 6. 1, etc., are meant for the glori- fication of उद्गीथ or for उपासनाविधि. Though the question here is undoubtedly whether a particular item is स्तुति or विधि, the Sutra itself does not contain any suggestion for the reference to उद्धीथादि. Rather, according to the context the question seems to refer to ब्रह्मज्ञान. 'उपादानात्' means " because these Srutis are stated with reference to the subsidiary rites of उद्धीथ etc." 'उपादान' should mean mere ' receiving ' or ' being taken ' or ' acceptance.' Here it would be the acceptance of आत्मज्ञान in sacrifices. The fact that Sanikara takes 'विध्यर्थता' as understood proves that this Sutra is connected with the preceding one where विध्यर्थता is to be proved. Sutra 22

13. "भावशब्द" also proves that आत्मज्ञान is not स्तुतिमात्र but a विधि. If 'भावशब्द' means 'विधिशब्द' as Sarikara holds, the Sutra refers to such Srutis as ( आत्मेत्येव) उपासीत (Br. Upa. I. 4. 7); स क्रतुं कुर्वीत (Cha. Upa. III. 14. 1 ), etc. If, however, waTE means the word of the existence of Brahman or the Supreme Being, which would prove that the Srutis about it are not glorification of the individual soul, but really express a really existing principle, then the word refers to such texts as सदव सोम्येदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयम् (Cha. Upa. VI. 2.1); अस्तीत्येवोपलब्धव्यः । (Ka. Upa. VI. 13); असन्नेव स भवति असद्रह्मेति वेद चेत् (Tai. Upa. II 6). If Brahman really exists, the texts about ब्रह्मन् are not स्तुति or glorification, but they describe the really existing Brahman. 'स्तुति' in the sense of the Mimamsa belongs to what a thing really is not.

258 INTERPRETATION

ma shows that Brahman is really as is described. Generally the Sutra uses the word wra in the sense of " existence " and भाव does not mean 'विधि' 15. Sankara takes भावशब्द in the sense of 'विघिशव्द' and quotes such texts as सामोपासीत (Cha. Upa. II. 2. 1), उद्गीथमुपासीत (Cha. Upa. I. 1. 1).

Sutra 23

16. Sankara is quite correct in his interpretation of this Sutra, if his explanation of 'विशेषितत्वात्' is correct. The fact that this Sutra aims at showing that the episodes of the Upanisads are not meant to be used in the पारिप्लव rite, proves that the topic of Sutra 18 is continued in all these Sūtras. In this Adhikarana the Sutrakara tries to prove that ब्रह्मज्ञान is अनुष्ठेय or rather a विधि. To this an opponent may object by saying that the episodes of the Upanisads are like those of the पारिप्लव rite and, therefore, are meant for the same purpose in the sacrifices. The Sutrakara answers this objection by pointing out the fact that in Srutis like नाचिकेतमुपाख्यानं मृत्युप्रोक्तरसनातनम्। उत्तवा श्रुत्वा च मेधावी ब्रह्मलोके महीयते ॥ १६ ॥ य इमं परमं गुह्यं श्रावयेद्गह्मसंसदि। प्रयतः श्राद्धकाले वा तदानन्त्याय कल्पते ॥।१७॥। (Katha Upa. III. 16-17 ) distinguish these उपाख्यानs from those to be recited at the पारिप्लव ceremony.

Sanikara explains विशेषितत्वात् to mean that only certain episodes are useful for the पारिप्लव rite and not all, and that those have been mentioned in the पूर्वकाण्ड. Thus, Sankara also supports the statement which, we believe, the Sūtrakāra makes in Sūtra 19. Sutra 24

17. This seems to be the conclusion drawn from the arguments in Sutras 19-23. आत्मज्ञान is अनुष्ठय or rather a विधि and only in this way आत्मज्ञान and कर्मज्ञान bave, unanimity of sense; both are similar, ( see साम्यश्रुति in Sutra 19) both teach

BRA. Sū. III. 4. 18-26 259

something to be performed and both lay down Injunctions, both are अपूर्व in their own way. It is thus that both are parts of the same Scripture. The Sutrakara has tried to explain Brahman or meditation on it on the lines of the Purvamimauisa; see चोदनादविशेष in Sutra III. 3. 1, विधिशेषवत् in Sutra III. 3. 5, अपूर्वम् in Sutra III. 3. 18. Both are laid down by independent fafas, so both are meant for different persons; and, thus, the sense of आत्मज्ान does not conflict with that of कर्मज्ञान. There would be no एकवाक्यता if कर्मश्ञान were अनुष्ठेय, while आत्मज्ञान were परामर्श, says the Sūtrakara.

Compare with the above view :- अथ यो ह वा अस्मालोकात्स्वं लोकमदष्या प्रैति स एनमविदितो न भुनक्ति यथा वेदो वाननूक्तोऽन्यद्वा कर्माकृतम्। (Br. Upa. I. 4. 15). The ununimity of पूर्वकाण्ड and उत्तरकाण्ड is not by subjecting one to the other, but by explaining both by means of independent विधिs und अपूर्वs. The method of taking आत्मज्ञान as परामर्श would subjugate it to कर्मन्, like that of taking आत्मज्ञान as कर्मशेष, and hence there will be a conflict between the two. There would be a conflict also if कर्मकाण्ड is made subordinate to आत्मज्ञान The best way is to take both as established by different fafgs. This seems to be the view of the Sūtrakara. This conclusion is supported by Sūtras III. 3. 20-24. 18. The question of एकवाक्यता, as shown by us, refers to the एकवाक्यता of the two Sciences being parts of the same Scripture viz. Sruti or Veda. And generally, 'एकयाक्यता' should refer to the unanimity of the two parts of the same literature. But Sanikara explains एकवाक्यता in Sutra 24 as the एकवाक्यता of the various episodes with the various विद्याs taught in them individually. In fact, this cannot be called एकवाक्यता because a passage is bound to be consistent with its teaching or Lore. According to Sankara, an episode of the Upanisads is consistent in sense with its विद्या because that episode

260 INTERPRETATION

serves the purpose of प्ररोचन 'alluring the student to study it' or that of प्रतिपत्तिसौकर्य " ease of understanding". This somewhat strange interpretation of Sutra 24 is due to Sankara's taking Sutra 23 as beginning a separate Adhikarana.

Sutra 25

19. अत एव च shows that the same Adhikarana is continued.

20. Because the एकवाक्यता of कर्मकाण्ड and आत्मकाण्ड is based on independent विधिs for each of them, the आत्मज्ञान does not stand in need of fire or the sacred fires, fuel, etc., though it is अनुष्ठेय like कर्मज्ञान. If आत्मज्ञान were स्तुतिमात्र or पारिप्लवार्थ, then the fire, the fuel, etc., would have been required in attaining its aim. But it is not so, and the onarauar (unanimity ) of the two sections of the Scripture is established by taking each of them independently, by independent fafers; therefore कर्मज्ञान requires fire, fuel, etc., but आत्मज्ञान does not need those things. 21. Sankara takes this Sūtra as an independent Adhi- karana. This is inconsistent with 'अत एव च' which shows that this is a corrolary of the conclusion arrived at in the preceding Sūtra. 22. Šankara connects this Sūtra with Bra. Sū. III. 4. 1 and remarks, "पुरुषार्थोऽतः शब्दात् " (ब्र० सू० ३ । ४। १।) इत्येतद् व्यवहितमपि संभवादतः इति परामृश्यते। And Sankara says that "Because the ब्रह्मविद्या is meant for the achievement of the aim of human life, the faerr does not need in fulfilling its aim the duties of the order [ of a householder ] viz. the fire, the fuel, etc. ". He says that this Sutra gives briefly the result or conclusion of the first Adhikarana of this Pada with the intention of saying something further. It seems to us that the sense of this Sūtra can be well explained in consistency with that of the preceding Sūtra, ( and also the succeeding Sutra, see below ), and, therefore,

BRA. SO. III. 4. 18-26 261

it is not necessary to connect it with Bra. Su. III. 4. 1. Moreover, अग्नि, इन्धन, etc., are not the duties of the order of a householder; they are means to those duties. The next Sūtra emphasizes this point. Sutra 26

23. It was said in Sutra 25 that आत्मज्ञान does not require fire, fuel, etc. But there is a Sruti in which यज्ञ, दान, तप: are said to be the means to the knowledge of Brahman. So, the opponent may ask, "How is this sacrifice which is a help to the knowledge of Atman to be performed ?" The answer to this question seems to have been given by the Sūtrakara in this Sūtra ( 26). 24. यज्ञादिश्रुतेः-This is undoubtedly a reference to a text like the one quoted by Sankara, viz. तमेतं वेदानुवचनेन ब्राह्मणा विविदिषन्ति यज्षेन दानेन तपसानाशकेन। ( Br. Upa. IV. 4. 22). This very Sruti is referred to here as is shown by aqrg in the next Sutra ( तेषामवश्यानुष्ठेयत्वम्।).

24. अश्ववत्-This seems to be a reference to the descrip- tion of the horse given in Br. Upa. I. I, vis., उषा वा अश्वस्य मेध्यस्य शिरः ॥ सूर्यश्चक्षुर्वातः प्राणो व्यात्तमग्निरवेश्वानरः संवत्सर आत्माश्वस्य मेध्यस्य । ...... ... ( Br. Upa. I. 1. 1-2). The horse of an allegorical sacrifice is described here.

25. सर्वापेक्षा च यज्ञादिश्रुतेरश्ववत्। The Sutrakara says that all need of the Sruti mentioning यज्, दान, etc., as means of the knowledge of Atman is like that of the horse described in Br. Upa. I. 1. 1-2. The Sruti mentioning the sacrifice as a means does not require the sacred fire, fuel, etc., as said in Sūtra 25, but it requires to be performed allegorically, not physically. In short, a man seeking to know Brahman need not perform the material sacrifice, but he should know the allegorical or spiritual sense of a sacrifice. Cf. ब्रह्मापर्ण ब्रह्म हविर्व्रह्माऔ ब्रह्मणा हुतम्। ब्रह्मैव तेन गन्तव्यं ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिना॥(Bha. Gi.IV. 24)

262 INTERPRETATION

In the case of the zer seeker of Brahman, the Sutrakara makes a special mention, see Sutra 48 below. 27. Sankara also says that the requirements of the आत्मविद्या are discussed here. That shows that this Sutra is a part of the Adhikarana to which the preceding Sūtra belongs. According to him, Sutra 25 lays down that no duties of the TreTHS are required for the science of Brahman, while Sutra 26 says that this non-requirement is partial, not absolute. There is an inconsistency in this statement and Sankara tries to solve it by saying उत्पन्ना हि विद्या फलसिद्धिं प्रति न किंचिदन्यदपेक्षत उत्पत्ति प्रति त्वपेक्षते ।* To us it appears that there is no such inconsistency, because Sutra 25 says that ब्रह्मविद्या does not require fire, fuel, etc., while Sutra 26 explains that its needs arising from यज्ञाद्िश्ति are like the horse. According to Sankara, 'सर्वापेक्षा' means 'the need of all आश्रमकर्मs' In fact, the utility of आश्रमकर्मs in ब्रह्मविद्या is discussed in Sutra 32. So, in Sutra 26, the Sutrakara discusses the nature of यज्ञादि: needed in ब्रह्मविद्या as a means to it. The Sruti in question (Br. Upa. IV. 4. 22 ) lays down वेदानुवचन, यज्ञ, दान, तपस् without a reference to errarHs. Sankara makes a distinction between विविदिषन्ति and, let us say, विदन्ति. The Sutrakara does not seem to mention this. 'अश्ववत्' is explained by Sankara in such a way as to get a Scriptural sanction for his distinction between विविदिषन्ति and विदन्ति i. e., to show that आश्रमकर्मs are meant for the rise of the विद्या, but not for the achievement of the fruit of the विद्या, the विद्या by itself produces the fruit. Sankara says that a horse is not used for the cultivation of land, but for driving a chariot only, similarly आश्रमकर्मनs are needed for not the फलोत्पत्ति, but for विद्योत्पत्ति only. From this it would appear as if विद्याफलोत्पत्ति is lower than विद्योत्पत्ति; but we are not to carry the simile so far. The simile itself, however, seems to us to be explained by referring the horse to the allegorical horse in Br. Upa. I. 1. The Sutrakara refers to it as if it were well known. * The Sutrakara does not seem to make this subtle distinction.

SECTION III

Control of the mind, the senses, etc., the very basis. Sacrifice, donation, austerity and the duties of the orders of life must be compulsorily performed by seekers. Their duties in adversity. Optional supperssion of the actions of an order allowed to a Seeker.

Sūtras III. 4. 27-39

(२७) शमदमाद्युपेत: स्यात्तथापि तु तद्विधेस्तदङ्गतया तेषामवश्या- नुष्ठेयत्वम् ।

(२८) सर्वान्नानुमतिश्र प्राणायत्ये तद्दर्शनात्।

(२९ ) अबाधाच्च ।

(३०) अपि च स्मर्यते ।

(३१ ) शब्दश्वातोऽकामकारे।

(३२ ) विहितत्वाच्चाश्रमकर्मापि ।

(३३) सहकारित्वेन च ।

(३४) सर्वथापि त एवोभयलिङ्गात्। (३५) अनभिभवं च दर्शयति ।

(३६ ) अन्तरा चापि तु तद्दृष्टेः ।

(३७ ) अपि च स्मर्यते।

(३८ ) विशेषानुग्रहश्च ।

(३९ ) अतस्त्वितरजजायो लिङ्गाच्च ।

TRANSLATION

seeker of 'release ' ] should be possessed of control over mind, control over senses, etc., but even then, because the Injunction for those [ virtues ] is subsidiary to those [ means viz., sacrifice, donation, penance, referred to in the preceding Sutra ], the latter must invariably be performed. 27

-And the sanction about the food of all [ men ] is given on the occasion of danger to life, because the Sruti shows it (28), because there is no objection ( from the Sruti ) (29), and also the Sruti mentions it (30), and for this reason the Word applies to what is done with reluctance ( in order to save life ) (31) .-- 28-31

And the duties of the orders of life should also be performed because they are laid down, 32

and as a help [ to the achievement of Moksa ]. 33

In any case a seeker of absolution should perform only those two because of the twofold indicatory texts. 34 And the Sruti shows the non-suppression Į of the duties of the orders of life ], 35

and, however, also without [ those duties ], because it is shown in the Sruti, 36

and also it is mentioned in the Smrti, 37

and [ in that case ] special favour [ of the Lord on the seeker, is mentioned in the Smrti ], 38

but the other one is superior to this, [ on account of Smrti ] and indicatory Sruti. 39

NOTES

Sūtra 27

1. शमदमादि refers to तस्मादेवंविच्छान्तो दान्त उपरतस्तितिक्षुः समाहितो भूत्वात्मन्येवात्मानं पश्यति। (Br. Upa. IV. 4. 23), as Sankara points out. 2. asnsfa a-The Sutrakara says that even though one may be possessed of शमदमादि, as he shall be ( because Br. Upa. IV. 4. 23 is a विधि), he shall invariably perform यक्ष, 1, aqH. In the case of orders other than that of a house- holder ( see Sutra 48 ), the sacrifice etc., are allegorical, as said in Sutra 26. These, sacrifice and other means, are to be performed even by those who possess control over mind, senses, and other virtues. A householder who possesses these virtues should perform the real sacrifices etc., if he seeks the knowledge of Brahman. This seems to us to be the significance of aufa. The difference between the performance of यक्षादि by a seeker of the knowledge of Brahman and that by another man is that the former is accompanied by शमदमादि, while the latter is not. The difference in the mental attitude behind the performance of sacrifice ctc., is the test of the thirst for the knowledge of Brahman. In this way, the sacrifice which is ज्ञानमय in the case of आश्रम other than गृहस्थ, and द्रव्यमय in the case of गृहस्थाश्रम, becomes a means to the knowledge of Brahman. 3. तद्विधस्तदक्गतया-The injunction of शमदमादि is subsidiary to that of the sacrifice, donation, penance eic. शमदमादिs are acquired by the knowledge that Brahman, which one seeks, is beyond afa and Frer caused by action and is such that after knowing it, the knower is not stained by sinful actions ( Br. Upa. IV. 4. 23 ). Sacrifices performed without शमदमादि

266 INTERPRETATION

lead to the increase of desires, but when performed with शमदमादि they become means to the knowledge of Brahman. एतमेव प्रव्राजिनो लोकमिच्छन्तः प्रवजन्ति. This renunciation is also the result of शमदमादि and itself results in the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman. Thus, the विधि of शमदमादि is 'a part of' or is subsidiary to the sacrifice, donation etc.

4. तेषामवश्यानुष्ठेयत्वम्-'अनुष्ठेयत्व' primarily applies to the sacrifice, donation etc., rather than to शमदमादि. And 'तेषाम्' seems to be a reference to the ( allegorical ) sacrifice etc., mentioned in the preceding Sūtra ( 26 ).

5. The Adhikarana consisting of Sūtras 18-26 aims at proving that आत्मज्ञान is not a कर्मन्, but yet it is अनुष्ठेय, it is not merely a reflection ( qrref ). To prove this, the Sutrakara goes even so far as to assert that आत्मज्ञान is a विधि (20 ), not स्तुति ( Sutras 21-22), nor are the texts about आत्मज्ञान meant for पारिप्लवकर्म. Because it is अनुष्ठेय without being a कर्मन् or a rite, आत्मज्ञान does not require अग्नि, इन्धन etc., the sacrifices which are means to आत्मज्ञान are allegorical like the horse in Br. Upa. I. 1 ( Sūtras 25-26 ). Thus, the Adhikarana of Sutras 18-26 was meant to explain the nature of आत्मज्ञान; it is not a reflection but it is something to be performed without being a rite or कर्मन्. The example is that of the allegorical horse. The presence of in Sūtra 26 is indicative of the end of the Adhikarana. In the new Adhikarana beginning with Sūtra 27, the Sutrakara tells us what actions are to be performed (अनुष्ठेय) by a seeker of release as a means to the knowledge of Brahman. Thus the topics of the two Adhikaranas are also different. For this reason Sūtra III. 4. 27 in our opinion begins a new Adhikarana.

6. Sankara connects तथापि तु with what he takes as understood viz., an objection against sacrifice ctc., being a means to the knowledge of Brahman. Thereby he brings out the conclusion that the sacrifice etc., are not really the means, but

BRA. So. III. 4. 27-39 267

the real help is control over mind, senses etc. But this removal of तथापि तु from its position in the Sutra is not legitimate; it cannot be connected with something not mentioned or implied in the Sūtras. तद्विघे: तद्ङ्गतया-The विधि of शमदमादि is a means to विद्या; तत् in 'तद्ङ्गतया' means विद्या, according to Sanikara. 'तेषाम्' refers to शमदमादि in his opinion. So, control over mind etc., is to be invariably performed, not the sacrifice, donation, ete. All this interpretation is based upon the supposed context of तथापि तु. तत् in तद्ङ्गतया and तेषाम should refer to what the Sutrakara has said in the preceding Adhikarana. अनुष्ठेयत्वम् can be construed only with यज्ञादिs. Salikara does not tell us how शम, दम, etc., can be performed. As to the association of यज्ादि and शमदमादि with the आश्रमs, see Sutra 32, where the Sutrakara for the first time discusses the utility of the anera duties. Sankara interprets एवंविद् (in तस्मादेवंविच्छान्तो दान्तः etc.,) differently from "विधिदिषन्ति" (in ब्राह्मणा विविदिषन्ति यशेन दानेन तपसाSनाशकन ।), but we cannot say that एवंविद् refers to anybody else but one who desires to know Brahman, as possessd of the characteristics described there; it cannot, indeed mean one who has realized Brahman. One should become शान्त, दान्त etc., because he knows that Brahman to be realized is such as neither' increases' nor' decreases' through action, etc., ( न वर्धते कर्मणा नो कनीयान्). He gives up कर्मन् and tries to see Atman. 'आत्मानं पश्यति' of the Kanva recension is to be interpreted as आत्मानं पशयेत् as is given in the माध्यंदिन recension, as Sankara himself says. Sutra 28

7. The preceding Sutra mentioned control over mind and senses and other virtues. Connected with this, we find the rules of food eatable and uneatable in the Scripture. So, in connection with Sūtra 27, the Sūtrakara discusses that rule about food in Sutras 28-31, and then continues the topic of what ( actions ) are to be performed by a seeker of absolution

268 INTERPRETATION

in Sutras 32-33. Thus, Sutra 82 being a continuation of Sūtra 27, the intervening Sūtras form a parenthetical topic.

8. It may be argued that if a seeker of Absolution is possessed of control over mind, control over senses, cessation of all activities (sqtfa ) etc., he need not perform the sacrifice and other means laid down for knowing Brahman in Br. Upa. IV. 4. 22. To this a reply was given in Sūtra 27 that the शमदमादिविधि was subsidiary to यज्ादिविधि. Now on the same ground of शमदमादि being subsidiary to यक्षादिविधि, it may be argued that he need not observe the rules of legitimate and illegitimate food, the rules of purification, etc. To this a reply is given in this Sūtra ( 28 ). 9. The sanction of all food or food from all persons does not follow from the fact that शमदमादिविधि is a subsidiary विधि for a seeker of absolution. The eating of all food is allowed in his case only on the occasion of danger of losing life (प्राणात्यये), not otherwise. 10. तद्दर्शनात्-As Salikara shows this is a reference to the story of उषस्ति चाक्रायण (Cha. Upa. I. 10) who ate the pulse (Enies ) 'from what the rich man was himself eating ' because he (3afra) would have otherwise died, but who did not take water from what the rich man was drinking because he could live without it. प्राणात्यये in the Sutra refers to 'न वा अजीविष्यमिमा- नखादन्' in Cha. Upa. I. 10. 4. 11. According to Sarkara Sūtra 28 begins a new Adhi- karana. To us it seems to answer a point arising from the fact that the शमद्मादिविधि for a seeker is secondary to यज्ञादिविधि as explained above, and therefore it is a part of the same Adhikarana as Sutra 27, though a secondary part only as we have explained above ( Note 8). According to Sankara the qaua is based upon Srutis like Cha. Upa. V. 2. 1 and Br. Upa. VI. 1. 14. To us it appears that these texts are referred to by Sutra 29, which therefore shows the

BRA. So. III. 4. 27-39 269

way of interpreting them. If we take Sutra 28 as शमदमाधुपत: स्यात्तथापि तु सर्वान्रानुमतिः प्राणात्यये तद्दर्शनात्, we can well explain why the topic of food is discussed in this context. '=' shows that the topic of Sutra 28 is connected with that of Sūtra 27. According to Sankara the question is whether the sanction for all food is laid down as a विद्याङ्गविधि a means for the knowledge of Prana " or it is only स्तुति, just as शमदमादि, and he decides in favour of the latter alterative. As Sankara himself shows such an argument would be prima facie impossible because शमदमादिs are laid down by all Scriptures, while सर्वात्रभक्षण is opposed by them. Moreover, there is no fafa in the Srutis concerned on the ground of which the opponent may base his conclusion. So, Sūtra 28 should be connected with Sūtra 27 rather than with Cha. Upa. V. 2. 1 and Br. Upa. VI. 1. 14. Though the शमद्मादिविधि is subsidiary to यज्ञादिविधि, it does not allow all food as legitimate for a seeker of the knowledge of Brahman. Sutra 29

12. अबाधात-As Surti is mentioned in the next Sutra, this अबाध 'absence of inconsistency' refers to the अबाध from the Sruti. So, अबाध seems to be a reference to न ह वा पवंविदि किंचनानन्नं भवति। (Cha. Upa. V.2.1), न ह वा अस्यानन्नं जग्धं भवति नानन्नं प्रतिगृहीतम्। (Br. Upa. VI. 1. 14). These Srutis show that in order to save siors, one may eat all food. The important point is that these Srutis mention SOT; the Sūtrakara, therefore, says that only on the occasion of danger to life ( STTOT ) all food is allowed by the Scripture. 13. Sankara seems to have missed the above point altogether. He refers the srarer neither to a Sruti nor to a Smrti. He could not refer it to a Sruti because the possible Srutis have been used by him as an argument in Sutra 28, and to a Smrti because it is referred to in Sūtra 30. If by uer- भक्ष्यविभागशास्त्र (in his explanation of Sutra 29 ) he refers to the Smrti, Sūtra 30 becomes unnecessary.

270 INTARPRETATION

Sūtra 30 14. The Sutrakara refers to a Surti like Manu X. 104, quoted by Sankara in order to support his view that even to a seeker of absolution the Scripture allows all food only when there is a danger to life. "यतस्ततः" in the Smrti and the fact that उषस्ति ute कुल्माषs from what the rich man was eating would rather suggest that 'wafa' in Sutra 28 means food from all; but in fact it is food of all kinds, which would also include the food eaten by Usasti. For this reason, the Sūtrakara seems to refer to प्राणस्थान्नमिदं सर्वे प्रजाप्रतिरकल्पयत्। स्थावरं जङ्गमं चैव सर्वे प्राणस्य भोजनम् ॥(Manu. V.28) This would also better agree with the Srutis in question. 15. None of these Sūtras ( 29-31, see below ) refer to Sankara's conclusion under Sūtra 28, viz., Cha. Upa. V. 2. 1 is अर्थवाद, not a विधि. This also proves our view about the पूर्वपक्ष in Sutra 28. 16. Regarding Sankara's explanation of Sūtra 30, see Note 13, 14 above. Sūtra 31

17. ara :- The Sutrakara seems to draw a general conclu- sion from the discussion in Sutras 28-30.

18. Owing to the fact that all food is allowed when life is in danger, we may apply this Word to what actions are done ' without desire' or per force i. e. in order to save life.

19. STE7: may be a reference to the text mentioned in Sutra 28 viz., Cha. Upa. I. 10. In that text when Usasti does not drink water from that from which the rich man has drunk, be says, "कामो मे उदपानम्" (Cha. Upa. I. 10.4). So, we may say that eating the कुल्माष was against his wish (अकामकारे). Or, perhaps the शब्द refers to a text like "एवंविद्यदयपि बद्विव पापं कुरुते सर्वमेव तत्संप्साय शुद्ध: पूतोऽजरोऽमृतः संभवति॥" (Br.

BRA. SG. III. 4. 27-39 271

Upa. V. 14. 8); नैनं पाप्मा तरति सर्वे पाप्मानं तरति नैनं पाप्मा तपति सर्व पाप्मानं तपति। (Br. Upa. IV. 4.23), तरति शोकं तरति पाप्मानम् (Mu. Upa. III. 2. 9), एवमेवंविदि पापं कर्म न ल्िष्यते (Cha. Upa. IV. 14. 3), एतं ह वाव न तपति किमहं साधु नाकरवम्। किमहं पापम- करवमिति। स य एवं विद्वानेते आत्मानं स्पृणुते। उभे ह्वोवैष पते आत्मानं स्पृणुते (Tai. Upa. II. 9), etc. etc.

The Sutrakara means that all these Srutis refer to sins or violations done by a seeker of absolution against his wish. 20. It seems that in Sūtra 31 the Sūtrakara arrives at a general conclusion; and that to this conclusion he refers under Sūtra 42 ( Vide Sūtra 42 ). 21. Sankara takes ara: as referring to his conclusion in Sutra 28 viz., Cha. Upa. V. 2. 1 is an अर्थवाद, not a विधि. See Note 15 above. ara: should refer to the conclusion in all the Sutras. 'शब्द' according to Sankara refers to तस्माद्राह्मणः सुरां न पिबेत् a quotation from the Kathaka Samhita as Sankara says. This text is, according to him, अनन्नस्य प्रतिषेधक: i e., कामकारनिवृत्तिप्रयोजन: " meant to prevent him from wanton deeds." To us it appears that 'अकामकार' means " all things done against one's wish, " as shown above. This is supported by कामो मे उदपानम् in the story of Usasti (Cha.Upa.I.10.4) and by the use of ' कामकार' in Sutra III. 4. 15.

Sutra 32 22. Having finished the subtopic of " duties in adversity " (आपद्धर्म) for a seeker of absolution, the Sutrakara now resumes the main topic of what actions he should perform. Sacrifice, etc., were declared to be अनुष्ठेय in Sutra 27. Now, in Sutras 32-33 the Sutrakara says that आश्रमकर्मन्s also should be performed by him.

23. अपि-This word shows that in addition to यक्, दान and तपस् mentioned in Sutra 27 as अनुष्ठेय, आश्रमकर्मन the duties of the various orders of life are also to bo performed

272 INTERPRETATION

(u ) by the seekers of absolution. The Sutrakara holds that only these two types of duties are necessary for the seeker of Brahmajñana ( See Sūtra 34 ). 24. TTOTH-As no particular order is mentioned it follows that persons in all the four orders of life can pursue the search after the knowledge of Brahman. The professional duties in the case of a seeker are discussed in Sūtras 41-46.

25. विहितत्वात-The duties of the orders of life are laid down in the Upanisads for a seeker of Brahman. The Sruti in question seems to us to be the following :- त्रयो धर्मस्कन्धाः यज्ञोऽध्ययनं दानमिति प्रथम: तप एव द्वितीयो ब्रहमचार्याचार्यकुलवासी तृतीयोऽत्य- न्तमात्मानमाचार्यकुलेऽवसादयन्सर्व पते पुण्यलोका भवन्ति ब्रह्मसंस्थोSमृतत्वमेति॥ In this Sruti aqa, according to a commentary older than that of Sankara, means both the वानप्रस्थ and संन्यास orders (See Sa. bha. on Bra. Sū. III. 4. 20 ). The Sūtrakara seems to us to mean that this Sruti lays down the aremandas for a seeker of Brahman, just as Br. Upa. IV. 4. 22, lays down a, 17, av: for all seekers of Brahman irrespective of the stages of life. ( See Sutra 27 above. ) In any case 'fafaa' means 'laid down in the Upanisads for a seeker of Brahman'. The Sutrakara does not accept any Aa for a seeker of Brahman only because it is laid down in the Smrti. If he does, he mentions the word Smrti, c. g., in Sutra 43. In the case of the professional duties, the Sutrakara mentions two opinions according to one of which the professional duties of direct concern with the seeker were not allowed in the case of a seeker of Brahman though they are laid down by the Smrti (See Sutras 44-45 ). For these reasons, we believe 'विहितत्वात्' refers to an Injunction in an Upanisad regarding the eTATs as those to be performed by the seeker of Brahman. 26. According to Sankara, Br. Upa. IV. 4. 22 and Sūtra 26 lay down the anradTs for a seeker. As no word meaning arrarH ocours either in that Sruti or in that Sutra, as the Sūtrakāra ( in Sūtra 26) seems to us to lay down a etc., in

BRA. ST. III. 4. 28-39 273

an allegorical form ( inconsistent with the Smarta order of a householder ), as the same are laid down ( in Sūtra 27 ) for all the orders seeking absolution, and lastly as the express word meaning an order ( arrera ) is found in Sutra 32 and Cha. Upa. II. 23. 1 ( ) respectively, we suggest that Sūtra 32 discusses the question of the performance of the duties of the various orders in the case of a seeker of Brahman ( See also Sūtra 34 ). According to Sankara this Sutra discusses whether one who does not seek absolution should perform the duties of the stages or not. The आश्रममात्रनिष्ठ अमुमुकु is neither known from the context, nor from the Sutra and does not come within the province of the knowledge of Atman directly or indirectly. So, the question is not discussed here at all. 'विहित' in the Sutra does not seem to refer to " यावजीवमग्निहोमरें जुहोति" but it refers to an Upanisadic text laying down the आश्रमकर्मनs for a seeker of Brahman. Moreover, the next two Sūtras go against Sankara's interpretation of this Sūtra.

Sūtra 33

27. In the यज्ञादिविधि ( Br. Upa. IV. 4. 22 ) it is clearly stated that J5 etc., are to be performed as a help to the knowledge of Brahman (तमतं ...... ब्राह्मणा विविदिषन्ति।) but in the आश्रमकर्मविधि (Cha Upa. II. 23. 1) it is not stated that the duties of the orders are to be performed by a secker as a means to avoid प्रत्यवाय or as a सहकारिन to the knowledge of Atman, because that Sruti only lays down the आश्रमकर्मनूS as consistent with ब्रह्मविद्या. For this reason, the Sutrakara, in Sutra 33 makes it clear that आश्रमकर्मन्s are to be performed by a seeker as a help to the knowledge of Brahman, not for avoiding प्रत्यवाय as is the case when they are performed by by the one who does not seek absolution. सहकारित्व is given by the Sutrakara independently of any Sruti, but consistently 35

274 INTERPRETATION

with Cha. Upa. II. 23. 1. He does not refer to any Sruti in Sūtra 33.

28. According to Sankara Sutra 33 answers a doubt raised in Sankara's commentary on Sutra 32. In itself this is a wrong procedure; and Sutra 33 can be well connected with Sutra 32 as we have shown. The fact that सहकारित्वेन refers to the आश्रमकर्मन्s performed by a seeker of Brahman proves that Sutra 32 deals with the same topic. According to Sankara, the आश्रमकर्मन्s for a seeker are laid down in Bra. Su. III. 4. 26 and a doubt raised regarding the same is replied in Sutra 33. This is indeed very strange. Sankara is at great pains to prove that the विद्यासहकारित्व of आश्रमकर्मन्s is not stated with reference to विद्याफल but only as regards विद्योत्पत्ति. The Sutra (33) itself, however, does not seem even to distinguish विद्याफलोत्पत्ति from विद्योत्पत्ति. See also तत्कार्यायेव in Bra. Su. IV. 1. 16.

Sutra 34

29. This Sutra seems to be a summary of Sutras 27-33.

30. त एव means ते एव कर्मणी अनुष्ठेये. In any case only those two types of actions, vis, यज्ञादि as established in Sutra 27 and आश्रमकर्म as proved in Sutra 32 are to be performed by a seeker of Brahman as help to the knowledge of Brahman.

There is a third ( तृतीयम्) type of सहकारिकर्मनs mentioned in Sutra 47. This is excluded by एव in ते एव and is made optional by सर्वथाऽपि. In any case, under any circumstances, the two types of कर्मनs mentioned above should be compulsorily (सर्वथाऽपि) performed, while the third type of सहकारिकर्मनूS is optional (See पक्षेण in Sutra 47). 31. उभयलिङ्गात्-This refers to त एव i. e. the two types of सहकारिकर्मनs meant by त एव. So, the expression 'उभर्यलिम' is a reference to Br. Upa. IV. 4. 22 ( Sutra 27 ) and Cha. Upa. II. 23. 1 ( Sütra 32 ).

BRA. Sū. III. 4. 27-39 275

32. Sankara takes ते एव as a plural form and adds धर्मा: as understood. But as we have shown त एव should be construed with कर्मणी as understood because the word कर्म in the sense of type of actions ocours in Sutra 32, because तृतीयं a third type of optional helping actions is mentioned in Sūtra 47, and because "उभय" in उभयलिङ्गात् shows that only two types of actions are meant by त एव. So, we cannot take 'धर्माः' as understood and interpret a qa in the plural number. According to Sanikara, the question in this Sutra is whether the अग्निद्दो- प्रादिधर्मs performed as आश्रमकर्म by a non-seeker and as help to the knowledge of Atman differ or not; and ' सर्वथाऽपि' means in both the forms i. e., both as आश्रमकर्म and विद्यासहकारिकर्म. But, 'सर्वथाऽपि' means 'compulsion' in the case of the two types of actions, as shown by 'qaror' which refers to the option in the case of the third type of helping actions. Sankara holds that qa excludes the doubt regarding the difference in the nature of आथ्रमकर्मन्s, but it should, according to the context, exclude some actions and as shown above it exoludes a third type of सहकारि actions; nor do the उभयलिङ्S as interpreted by Sankara expressly mention the sameness of आश्रमकर्मनूs. Sanikara explains उभयलिङ्ग as श्रुतिलिङ्ग and स्मृतिलिङ and refers them to texts which do not seem to help him. Rather उभयलिङ refers to two Sruti texts about यजादि- कर्मन् and आश्रमकर्मन्. Sutra 33 itself shows that the same आश्रमकर्मन्s as are laid down in the Upanisads are to be performed as सहकारिकर्मन्s; and Sutra IV. 1. 16 shows that अग्निह्दोत्रादि done by a seeker of absolution is meant for producing that same effect.

Sutra 35

33. 'अनभिभव' should refer to the non-suppression of the आश्रमकर्मनs and यज्ञादिकर्मन्s mentioned in Sutras 32-33 and 27 respectively. So, Sūtra 35 gives one more reason as to why these two types of कर्मनs should be done. But the Sutrakara does not accept that ea for his conclusion, which

276 INTERPRETATION

he, therefore, draws in the preceding Sūtra (34). 'a' in Sūtra 36 also shows that Sutra 35 is to be treated as a पूर्वपक्ष. 34. दर्शयति-Here we have got the exact distinction between the two हेतुs viz., लिङ् and दर्शन or दृष्ट or दृष्टि, लिङ् is a sentence directly making a required statement. It is of the nature of a rule as it were. दर्शन or दृष्टि, दर्शयति, व्ष्टं means an illustration or a description which corroborates the particular conclusion. Both लिङ् and दर्शन refer to Sruti only. Thus, उभयलिङ should mean both the types of (indicatory) Srutis; see Bra. Su.III. 2. 11 ( उभयव्यपदेशात् has the same sense in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 27 ); III. 4. 34 ( the present Sūtra ). This shows that Saikara's explanation of उभयलिङ्गात् in the present Sūtra is not correct. For the distinction of लिङ् and दर्शन or दष्ट, दृष्टि, दर्शयति, see Sūtras I. 3. 15, III. 4. 34-35 (the present Sūtras), IV. I. 1-2 ( where उपदेशात् seems to correspond to दर्शनात्), IV. 4. 20-21. 35. अनभिभवं च दर्शयति।-This refers to Sruti texts in which seekers of Brahman do not give up performing the duties of each आश्रम and यज्ञादि-कर्मनs, particularly those of गृहस्थाश्रम. याज्ञवल्क्य who taught जनक observed both गृहस्थाश्रम and वानप्रस्था- थ्रम (Br. Upa. IV. 5). शौनक who learned ब्रह्मविद्या from अद्विरस् was a great householder (महाशाल :- Mu. Upa. I. 1.3) "क्रियावन्तः थोत्रिया: ब्रह्मनिष्ठाः" are mentioned also in Mu. Upa. III. 2. 10. 36. Sankara takes this Sūtra as an argument for the fact that the आश्रमकर्मन्s are to be performed by a seeker us a help to the knowledge of Brahman. Thus, for him this Sutra supports सहकारित्व, not the आश्रमकर्मन्s themselves. Moreover, he uses the word 'लिङ्गदर्शन' for दर्शयति, which shows that he does not distinguish between लिङ्ग and दर्शन or दर्शयति. अनभिभव, according to him, is not the अनभिभव of आश्रमकर्मन्s, but the non-suppression of the Atman acquired by means of celibacy, through vices like passion etc. (ब्रह्मचर्यादिसाधनसंपन्नस्य (आत्मनः) रागादिभि: कलेशैः अनभिभव:). He quotes Cha. Upa, VIII. 5. 3.

BRA. Sū. III. 4. 27-39 277

Sutra 36

37. 'a' shows that this Sutra does not begin a new Adhikarana. त shows that the preceding Sutra is a पूर्वपक्ष, and this Sutra the सिद्धान्त. अपि gives an option between the view of Sūtra 35 and that of Sūtra 36.

38. Sutra 35 refers to a Sruti showing the non-suppression or continuance of the आथ्रमकर्मनूs and यज्ञादिकर्मनs. Sutra 36 seems to refer to the suppressin of the same by the word अन्तरा which means 'without'or'except'(e.g., न प्रयोजनमन्तरा वाणक्य: स्वप्नेऽपि चेष्टते). Here अन्तरा would mean "without the आश्रमकर्मन् " because in Sutra 35, the non-suppression of these actions is mentioned.

'अनभिभव' means that a seeker does not give up the actions of any आश्रम; अन्तरा would show that he would give up the actions of some आश्रमs and also यज्षादिकर्मन्s. If he gives up those कर्मनs, he belongs to another order of life. अन्तरा means अनभिभवं अन्तरा i. e., without non-suppression i. e., with suppression.

39. aaed :- This seems to be a reference to a Sruti in which the suppression of the duties of some of the orders of life is mentioned. एतद्ध स्म वै तत्पूर्वे विद्वारसः प्रजां न कामयन्ते किं प्रजया करिष्यामो येषां नोऽयमात्माऽयं लोक इति, ते ह स्म पुत्रेषणायाश्च वित्तैषणायाश्च लोकैषणायाश्च व्युत्थायाथ भिक्षाचर्य चरन्ति .. I ( Br. Upa. IV. 4. 22). One may not observe a particular 3Trera and proceed e. g., from the order of a student to that of an ascetic.

40. 'अपि तु' means " but also " without non-suppression of आश्रमकर्मन्. So, Sutra 36 gives an option with Sutra 35 without overruling the decision given in Sutra 34. This means, आश्रमकर्मनूs and यज्ञादिकर्मनs must be performed, but one may go from the order of a student directly to that of an ascetic, just as he may go gradually from one to another order and ultimately reach that of an ascetic, In any case a seeker

278 INTERPRETATION

never remains without आश्रमकर्मन्s as said in Sutra 34, and does not necessarily do the actions of all arreras by stages.

41. Sankara interprets this Sutra to show that आश्रमकर्मनूS for a seeker are not compulsory; but this interpretation is against Sutra 34 which makes आश्रमकर्मन्s quite compulsory. अन्तरा he does not interpret as 'अनभिभवं अन्तरा' but he takes it in the sense of अन्तरालवर्तिन one who stands midway in an आश्रम; Sankara explains it as referring to ( widows, ) widowers, and 'those who being very poor cannot take to the duties of any order of life'. According to him, the Sutra discusses whether such persons are entitled . to ब्रह्मविद्या or not. 'तदूदृष्टेः' refers, according to Sankara, to such examples as those of faa and वाचक्नवी, but it is highly doubtful whether they avoided आश्रमकर्मन्S at all. The texts in which their names occur ( Cha. Upa. IV. 1-2; Br. Upa. III. 8. 12 ) do not seem to mean so. a and araer had already realized Brahman ; and, therefore, we cannot say from the texts that they dropped आश्रमकर्मन which are to be done as a help to the knowledge of Brahman. Moreover, as arfa a shows, Sutra 36 is a modification of Sutra 35. See also Sūtra 40 which contains a converse of Sūtra 36 and thereby helps in deciding the sense of Sūtra 36.

Sutra 37

42. अपि च स्मर्यते-A Smrti text stating the अभिभव or suppression of the duties of some order or orders of life is referred to. Such a text is e.g., the following :- सर्वधर्मान्परित्यज्य मामेकं शरणं व्रज । ( Bha. Gi. XVIII. 66). This Smrti verse allows a seeker ( one who wants to " submit himself to the Lord alone ") to give up " all duties " except, of course, that of seeking Brahman.

43. Sankara refers to the examples in the Epic of iaa and others who wandered about naked and did not do the duties of the orders of life, and yet were great Yogins.

BRA. SO. III. 4. 27-39 279

Sutra 38

44. विशेषानुग्रहश्च-We may take 'स्मर्यते' as understood from Sutra 37. 'विशेषानुग्रहः' means "special favour ". This seems to be a reference to a text like the latter half of the verse quoted above, viz., "अहं त्वां सर्वपापेभ्यो मोक्षयिष्यामि मा शुचः" ( Bha. Gi. XVIII 66). The seeker who gives up the duties of an order of life, e. g., that of a householder, and takes to the higher order for submitting himself to the Lord, receives special favour of the Lord. But this is a Smarta view and the Sūtrakara does not seem to favour it ( See below Sūtra 39). 45. Sankara separates विशेष and अनुग्रह which is rather a strange procedure. faae is interpreted by him in the sense of धर्मविशेष "special religious duties" and 'अनुग्रह' as 'विद्यायाः aua:' "the favour of the Lore ". The special religious duties are those of Tq, repetition of a Mantra or the name of the Lord, उपवास 'fasting', देवताराधन 'propitiation of the deity ', etc., duties which, being connected solely with & man, can be performed by a widower and others. If a widower and such other persons carry out these duties, the Lore favours them. Sankara also quotes a verse from the Manu Smrti ( II. 87 ) which is really meant to emphasize the repetition (जप) of the गायत्री the sacred prayer to the Sun. Sankara gives a second interpretation of विशेष, via, the आश्रमकर्मन्S performed even in a previous birth or births.

Sutra 39

46. This Sutra shows what is to be preferred between अनभिभव and अभिभव of the duties of an order of life, between the view of Sutra 35 and that of Sūtras 36-38. a shows that the view of Sutra 36-38 is not fully accepted by the Sutrakara, just as he did not fully agree with the view in Sūtra 35. Or rather a shows that the Strakara rejects a view that regarded the view in Sutras 36-38 as better than that in Sūtra 35.

280 INTERPRETATION

47, अत :- 'than the अभिभवः or suppression of आश्रम or आश्रमकर्मन्'

48. इतरत् is a reference to a practice in which no आश्रम is dropped. 49. ज्याय :- The view that the duties of all आश्रमs must be performed is superior to that of the suppression of any H. Thus, the Sutrakara finally upholds the view that the arrerHs are to be performed by turn without dropping any of them for ब्रह्मविद्या.

The Sutrakara seems to have in his mind the famous verse of the Bhagavadgita "कर्म ज्यायो ह्यकर्मणः". Arjuna wanted to give up the duties of a house-holder and take to संन्यास or the order of a monk. He was told by the Lord that "the action was better than the non-action ". The Sutrakara interprets this as meaning that if after performing the duties of a house-holder fully, one takes to the next order of life, it is a better procedure. He does not, of course, mean that it is better always to do the duties of a house- holder rather than become a monk at all. 50. लिङ्गात् -This is a reference to the लिङ or the Sruti in favour of the performance of the duties of anraras mentioned in Sūtra 34.

51. Sankara says that आश्रमवर्तित्व is a better means to विद्या than अन्तरालवर्तित्व. He quotes a श्रुति vis., एष पन्था ब्रह्मणा हानुवित्तस्तेनैति ब्रह्मवित्पुण्यकृत्तैजसश्च। (Br. Upa. IV. 4.9). In this Sruti nothing is said about the अन्तरालवर्तिन् or आश्रमवर्तिन. He also quotes a Sruti in which a fasr is asked to perform an atonement if he remains without an order for a year, but which says nothing about आश्रमित्व being a better means for the विद्या than अन्तरालवर्तित्व. Perhaps the Upanisads were not at all concerned with अन्तरालवर्तिनs, because the Smrtis had condemned them even from the society.

SECTION IV

No reversion from monkhood and no professional duties for Monks except of a subordinate nature and that too in Adversity only.

Sūtras III. 4. 40-42

(४०) तन्ूतस्य तु नातद्धावो जमिनेरपि नियमातद्रपाभावेभ्यः ।

(४१) न चाधिकारिकमपि पतनानुमानात्तदयोगात्। . (४२) उपपूर्वमपि त्वेके भावमशनवत्तदुक्तम् ।

TRANSLATION

BUT one who has become that [ ascetic ] should not become other than that ( ara i. e., should not revert to the original order ), [ in the opinion ] of Jaimini also, because of the rule, difference in the nature of those orders, and non-existence or absence, 40

and [ he, who has become the ascetic, should ] not [ perform ] even official [ or professional ] duties because of their disconnection ( from him ) due to the Smrti about the spiritual fall. 41

However, the followers of a certain Branch of the Veda mention the subordinate or side existence ( upapārvam bhavam ) [ of professional duties in the case of a monk ] as they mention ' eating ( beans )'; this has been explained. 42

36

NOTES

Sūtra 40 1. In Sūtras 36-38, it was said that one who seeks Brahman may become a monk from the stage of a student without having lived the life of a house-holder. It may be argued that in the same way one who becomes a monk for the sake of getting the knowledge of Brahman may cease to belong to that order and become a house-holder. This view is refuted by the word 'a' in Sūtra 40. 2. तद्भूतस्य न अतद्भाव :- One who has become that ( i. e. a monk.) should not become not-that i. e., other than that, i. e., he should not become a householder again. 3. Jaimini also holds this view as does the Sūtrakara. 4. नियमातदूपाभावेभ्य :- These are the reasons why having belonged to the order of monkhood one cannot revert to an original stage. faua is the rule that from a preceding stage one can go to a succeeding stage of life. sragq seems to refer to the difference of nature between the various orders viz. that a student is unmarried, that a house-holder is married, that a hermit has given up residence in tho city and taken to the forest, that a monk has no wife with him. 'ena' seems to be the absence of a rule allowing a reversion ; thus, अभाव means नियमाभाव. On account of these reasons, one who becomes a monk is not allowed to revert. 5. According to Sankara, this Sūtra discusses the question whether the celibate orders of life are likely ' to fall' under any circumstances or. not. Thus, he takes तद्भूत: a8 प्रतिपन्नो- धर्वरेतोभाव:, but अतद्भावः as "न ततः प्रच्युतिः". To explain नियम Sankara quotes several sentences like अत्यन्तमात्मानमाचार्यकुलेS- वसादयन (Cha. Upa. II. 23. 1), ......... ब्रह्मचर्य समाप्य गृही भवेत् ्रह्मचर्यादव प्रव्रजेत् ( Ja. Upa. 4.), and remarks that these Srutis

BRA. SŪ. III. 4. 40-42 283

refer to the rise of the seeker, but there are no Srutis about his fall. 'अतदूप' he seems to explain by saying "न चैवमाचाराः शिष्टाः विद्यन्ते". "That there are no Srutis about his fall ", seems to be Sankara's meaning of "enrra ". Thus, Sankara says that for one who has become an ऊर्ध्चरेतस् (either a life- long student, or a monk, or, we should add, a hermit ) there is no possibility of his प्रच्युति (अतदूप) through passion (रागादिवशात्) or through a desire to perform religious rites of a previous stage ( पूर्वकर्मस्वनुष्ठानचिकीर्षया). To us it seems that in Sūtra 40, the Sūtrakāra makes a rule that having assumed a succeeding order one should not revert or rather having become a monk one should not go over to another order than that, because he ( the Sūtrakara ) wants to guard against a seeker's spiritual fall. Simply by the fact that a seeker assumes the order of monkhood nobody can guarantee that his fall would never occur or that he would always progress well. Rather, in order that this latter aim be achieved, the Sūtrakara advises in this Sūtra that the monk should never revert to another order than that. He does the same in the next Sūtra also ( see below ). Sutra 41

6. '' shows that this Sutra is connected with the preceding Sütra. So, the sentence is to be construed as तद्भूतस्य आधिकारिकमपि कर्म न. Therefore, this Sutra (41) does not begin a new Adhikaraņa. 7. आधिकारिकम् -With this word we should take "कर्म arguy " as understood because in this Pada the topic is that of the adas to be done by a seeker of Brahman and sa was the topic in the preceding Adhikarana. Sūtra 34 means सर्वथापि ते एव कर्मणी अनुष्ठेये।. 8. As it is the same Adhikarana along with Sutra 41, we have the sense: तद्भूतस्य आधिकारिकमपि कर्म न अनुष्ठेयम्। One who has become a monk cannot perform even the official

284 INTERPRETATION

duties. 'आधिकारिक' means "official" or "professional", that which refers to arfearT or office. The word is similarly explained by Šankara in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 32 and IV. 4. 18. See also Sutra 43 where "उभयथा" refers to आधिकारिक in this Sutra and उपपूर्वे भावम् in Sutra 42. 9. arfq -- 'also '. This word shows that a monk can neither revert to his original order of life nor can he perform the duties of that order i. e., the order of a house-holder. Both these are not allowed to a monk.

10. तदयोगात्-'तद्' should refer to आधिकारिक कर्म "the official duties ". The monk seeking absolution is to be disso- ciated from official duties also, as from a reversion to his original order. A seeker of Brahman may be in the order of a householder ( See Sutra 32 ), but if he becomes a monk, he cannot return to the original order (तद्भूतस्य तु नातद्भावः), because in that reversion lies the danger of his spiritual fall. Similarly he should not perform the official duties because these have been dissociated from him on account of the Smrti about the spiritual fall. 11. पतनानुमानात्-Some Smrti text mentioning the 'fall' of an ascetic is referred to by this. Manu Smrti VI. 58 may serve as such a verse :-

अभिपूजितलाभात्तु जुगुप्सेतव सर्वशः। अभिपूजितलाभेश्च यतिर्मुक्तोऽपि बध्यते।। On account of such Smrtis, the Sutrakara dissociates ' official duties ' from the ascetic.

12. According to Sankara, Sutra 41 begins a new Adhi- karaņa, but as '' shows this Sutra is, we suggest, to be taken along with the preceding Sutra, and 'aavaz' from that Sutra is to be connected with न चाधिकारिकमपि. He takes Sutra 41 as referring to the Section of Adhikaralaksana in Jaiminisūtra VI, 8. 21. Sankara was led to this belief only

BRA. So. III. 4. 40-42 285

because the word 'adhikarika' occurs in this Stra ( III. 4: 41); but, as shown above, it should mean 'official ' or ' professional', and should be connected with the same word elsewhere in the Sutras, where Sankara explains it in the sense of ' official '. Moreover, it looks very improbable that the author of the Brahmasūtras would criticise the Jaiminisūtras on a point which does not at all form a part of the Vedanta doctrine. Sankara connects "आधिकारिक" with the word 'प्रायश्चित्त' taken, as understood, but the context shows that the word 'a' should be taken as understood. This 'adhyahara' is supported by all these Sūtras viz., III. 4., particularly III. 4. 42, 43. Sankara changes पतन into अप्रतिसमाधेयपतन. 'अनुमान' may mean " a Law Book " like that of Manu, or a text like the Mahabharata. According to Salikara's interpretation तदयोगात् in Sūtra III. 4. 41 becomes almost redundant. Sankara's explanation of this and the following Sutras shows that acoor- ding to his interpretation no topic of the Vedanta doctrine proper is discussed here. Sutra 42

13. 'arfag' as in Sutra 36, shows that this Sūtra is a modification of the view in the preceding Sūtra.

14. 'ag' means the existence of professional or official duties and is used in opposition to 'a' in the preceding Sūtra. 15. उपपूर्वम्-The word उप as well as the word अशन seem to us to be a clear suggestion for the Sruti referred to by a in this Sutra. It is very likely that here the Sūtrakara refers to Cha. Upa. I. 10-11, particularly asaras आस्तापे स्तोष्यमाणान उपोपविवेश स ह प्रस्तोतारमुवाच (Cha. Upa. I. 10.8). To this passage ( particularly to 'उपोपविवेश') we propose to take उप in उपपूर्वम् as referring (For अशन see below). 16. 'उपपूर्व भावम्' means उपपूर्वमाधिकारिकस्य कर्मण: भावम्. By this expression the Sūtrakara not only gives a clue to

286 INTERPRETATION

the Sruti he has in mind, but he also gives, it seems to us, his own interpretation of that Sruti. He seems to mean that " if a seeker of absolution has to do professional or official duties, they should be suqa i. e. of a subordinate or subsidiary nature. " '3q ' has this sense of subordination e. g. in the famous illustration "उप हरिं सुरा:" (Sk. on Panini I. 4. 87). The preposition 34 may also mean " superiority " e. g., in "उप निष्के कार्षापणम् ". And this sense may have been as well intended by the Sutrakara in "उपपूर्व भावम् ". Thus, the Sutrakara interprets 'उपोपविवेश' to mean that उषस्ति चाक्रायण did not actually act as a priest in the sacrifice of the rich lord, but he only supervised over the other priests that were actually officiating there; so, this kind of secondary performance of professional duty may be allowed in the case of a monk (तद्भूत) under the conditions implied by अशनवत्. 17. aa-This has a reference to the fact that in case of dire necessity उषस्ति चाक्रायण had to eat beans out of what remained after the owner of the elephant (₹) had partaken of the same. This उषस्ति did only because otherwise he would have died. He, however, refused to drink ' impure ' water, because it was not necessary to save his life. 18. तदुक्तम्-This is undoubtedly a reference to Sutra III. 4.28, viz., सर्वान्नानुमतिश्च प्राणात्यये तद्दर्शनात्। There Sankara rightly explains तद्दर्शनात् (in Sutra 28 ) as referring to the story of उषस्ति चाक्रायण (Cha. Upa. I. 10). But, somehow or other, perhaps due to the loss of tradition, he fails to realize that araqaa in Sutra 42 is a reference to the eating of beans by उषस्ति and that तदुक्तम् in Sutra 42, therefore, refers to the explanation of the eating of the beans by उषस्ति given in Sutra 28 and to the rule laid down by the Sūtrakara in Sūtra 31 (शष्द्शातोSकामकारे।). Thus, the Sutrakara says that some hold that a monk may perform official duties of a subordinate nature only when otherwise he would die. उषस्ति चाक्रायण was a seeker of absolution and perhaps he was not a monk

BRA. So. III. 3. 40-42 287

but a hermit with his wife, like Yajnavalkya with Maitreyi, but yet, owing to dire necessity performed official duties of a secondary nature ( उपोपविवेश). The Sutrakara applies this illustration to the case of a monk or even a hermit, because 'aa' can be interpreted as referring to both without any difficulty. 19. Sankara interprets उपपूर्व in the sense of उपपातक and here, too, the topic of the Sutra as given by him, though important for the discipline of students, has nothing to do with the Vedanta doctrine. The discussion of the relative sinfulness of a confirmed celibate co-habitting with any other woman but his teacher's wife is quite out of place in the Brahmasutras. He explains भावम् as प्रायश्वित्तस्य भावम् and अशनवत् as the case in which a student who eats honey and meat (मघुमांसाशन) breaks his vow and is made to undergo a second initiation ceremony. He explains तदुक्तम् as a reference to Jai. Sū. I. 3. 8-9.

SECTION v

Duties of a Seeker who is outside monkhood.

Sutras III. 4. 43-46

(४३) वहिस्तूभयथाऽपि स्मृतेराचाराच।

(४४) स्वामिन: फलश्रुतेरित्यात्रेयः ।

(४५) आर्त्विज्यमित्यौडलोमिस्तस्मै हि परिक्रियते।

(४६) श्रुतेश्च।

TRANSLATION

BUT outside [ the order of hermit and that of monk a seeker of the knowledge of Brahman may live ] even in both the ways, because of the Smrti text and because of the practice. 43

" [ He should do the work ] on behalf of a master, because of the Sruti which says that the fruit [of whatever a servant does, belongs ] to the master ", so says Atreya. 44

" [ He should do only ] priestly duties [ at a sacri- fice ]", so says Audulomi, " because those duties are fully bought over ( qft ) for him, " 45

" and because of a Sruti." 46

NOTES

Sūtra 43

1. 'बहिः' is opposite of 'तद्भूत' in Sutra 40. The previous Adhikarana stated what the seeker of Brahman who has become a hermit or a monk should do; this Adhikarana seems to us to say what a seeker who is outside those orders should do.

2. 'a' shows that the rule in the preceding Adhikarana is not accepted in the case of one who is outside the order of a monk.

3. 3fq-This has a reference to the two forms of duties, primary and secondary, official or professional duties, mentioned in Sutras 41 and 42. A house-holder who seeks the knowledge of Brahman may do even both these types of duties.

4. स्मृतेराचाराज्च-The Smrtis like that of Manu lay down certain duties for the householders of all the three castes. These professional duties may be done by a householder seeking Brahman. Smrti may refer to the illustrations of जाजलि and तुलाधार in the Mahabharata. 'आचारात्' may be a reference to the practice of persons like Yajñavalkya who taught Janaka and accepted rich gifts from him when he was a householder and a seeker of absolution.

5. Sutra 43 seems to be the view of Badarayana himself, while the views of other famous teachers on the same topic are mentioned in Sitras 44-46. 6. Sankara says that if members of the celibate orders commit either महापातक or उपपातक, they should be excommunicated by the good. Thus, he takes बहिः as बहिष्कर्तव्या :; he does not

290 INTERPRETATION

make it refer to तद्भूत in Sutra 40. He takes उभयथा as referring to महापातक and उपपातक though only उपपातक is mentioned in Sutra 42 according to his interpretation. He quotes Smti verses and refers to the practice of the good regarding the celibates who commit the great and small sins.

Sūtra 44 7. This Sutra seems to us to give the opinion of Atreya as to what actions a seeker of Brahman outside the order of monk should do. 8. स्वामिन :- Atreya thinks that one who seeks Brahman but has not become a monk should not do any official or professional, primary or secondary duties on his own account, but he may do such duties on behalf of a master. Thus, any twice-born of the three castes, seeker of Brahman, would be allowed to do any duty of his own caste, e. g., a Brahmana householder who seeks absolution may do याजन, अध्यापन and प्रतिग्रह on behalf of a master; similarly a क्षत्रिय and a वैश्य may do their own professional duties under a master when they are householders seeking absolution. 9. qaua :- Atreya refers to a Sruti stating the fruit of the labour of a servant as going to the master in support of his view. Atreya seems to have in his mind some Sruti which was like the following verse from the Manusmrti or which he interpreted like it ;- भार्या पुत्रश्च दासश्च त्रय एवाधना: स्मृताः । यत्ते समधिगच्छन्ति यस्य ते तस्य तद्धनम् ॥ (Manu VIII. 416). तेन तं ह बको दाल्भ्यो विदांचकार॥। स ह नैमिषीयानामुद्गाता बभूव सह स्मैय्यः कामानागायति । १३।। आगाता ह वै कामानां भवति य एतदेवं विद्वानक्षरमुद्गीथमुपास्ते इत्यध्यात्मम् ॥१४॥ (Cha. Upa. I. 2. 13-14). तस्मादु हवैवंधिदुद्वाता ब्रयात् ॥८॥ कं ते काममागायानीत्येष ह्वेव कामगानस्थेष्ट य एवं विद्वान्साम गायति साम गायति ॥९॥ (Cha. Upa. I. 7. 8-9).

BRA. So. III. 4. 43-46 291

These are फलश्रुतिs. They state that the फल belongs to the master and not to the employed. From these, Atreya seems to have argued that because q3 belongs to the master, a house-holder seeking absolution should do all professional duties on behalf of a master. But he should not do any duties on his own behalf, because that would lead to spirituąl fall.

10. According to Sankara Sūtra 44 begins a new Adhi- karana and has nothing to do with the topie of the preceding Adhikarana. The subject of the Sutra he holds to be whether the minor meditations are the actions of the Sacrificer or those of the priest. The conclusion according to Atreya, interpreted by Sanikara, is that the अङ्गोपासनs are the duties of the Sacrificer, not of the priest. By फलश्रुति he quotes a line from the Cha. Upa. which does not state that the अङ्गोपासनs are the actions of the Sacrificer, but which rather says that the fruit goes to the priest who performs the minor meditation or to the Sacrificer if the priest would so wish. Therefore, Sankara finds it necessary to give an argument (तञ्च स्वामिगामि न्याय्यम्। तस्य साङ्गे प्रयोगेऽधिकृतत्वात्। अधिकृताधिकारत्वाच्चवंजातीयकस्य। फलं च कर्तर्युपासनानां श्रूयते वर्षत्यस्मै य उपास्ते।) to prove that the अङ्गोपासनS are done by the Sacrificer. The Sruti itself does not serve his purpose. अङ्गोपासनs of the ब्रह्मविद्या are mentioned in Sutras III. 3. 55 ff; the Sūtrakara was not likely to discuss the अङ्गोपासनs of the secrificial rites for their own sake.

Sūtra 45

11. Audulomi held that the Brahmana householder seeking absolution should do only priestly duties ( आर्त्विज्यम्) on behalf of a master, but not those of teaching and receiving religious gifts (अध्यापन and प्रतिग्रह). 12. तस्मै हि परिक्रियते-It is only for the priestly duties that a Brahmana is bought and employed by a Sacrificer. He is not bought for the purpose of teaching or any other purpose. The Brahmanas never taught for fixed fees. Audulomi held that

292 INTERPRETATION

the only professional duty for a Brahmana householder (who being a householder was outside the order of monkhood and) who was seeking absolution, was that of a priest, because only for that duty a Brahmana was employed on service. 13. According to Sankara Audulomi held that the अङ्गोपासनS of ritualism were not the duties of a Sacrificer, but of a priest, because a priest was employed to do them. " ata " he takes as साङ्गाय कर्मणे the entire rite together with its subsidiary parts. Sankara does not think that arrfasa mentioned here is one of the आधिकारिक or official duties mentioned in Sutra 41 and declared to be done by one who is outside the order of Monkhood in Sutra 43. There is no negation in Sntra 45 but Sankara takes one as understood.

14. Atraya gave a wider option, in as much as he allowed a householder-seeker of absolution to do all duties on behalf of a master. Audulomi made the range of official duties limited, because he allowed only the priestly duties to be done. His argu- ment is that only for priestly duties can a Brahmana be bought. Sūtra 46

15. raar-In Sutra 45 Audulomi reffered to the practice that a Brahmana was employed to do priestly duties. In this Sutra he quotes a Sruti in favour of his argument. The Sruti in question is that about a priest being employed and paid fixed salary for doing priestly duties at a sacrfice. tara भगवन्तं वा अहमेभिः सर्वेः आत्विज्यैः पर्यैशिषं भवतो वा अहमवित्त्यान्यानवृषि ॥२। भगवास्त्येव मे सर्वैरार्त्विज्यैरिति तथेत्यथ तर्श्वेत एव समतिसृष्टाः स्तुवतां यावस्वेभ्यो धनं दद्यास्तावन्मम दद्या इति तथेति ह यजमान उवाच ॥। ३॥ (Cha. Upa. I. 11. 2-3 ). Also तस्मादार्तज्वियं करिष्यन् वाचि स्वरमिच्छेत तया वाचा स्वरसम्पन्नया्त्विज्यं कुर्यात्तस्मादयक्षे स्वरवन्तं दिद्क्षन्ते ( Br. Upa. I. 3. 25 ). These Srutis show that a priest is employed for the priestly duties. Does Sutra 46 refer to a Sruti in which a Brahmana householder seeking absolution does priestly duties only !

BRA. ST. III. 4. 43-46 293

16. It may be noticed here that Sūtras 43-46 ask a house- holder seeker of liberation to do those duties which he can without earning a religious reward ( e. g., heaven, or wordly property in the next life or even in this life ) for himself. He is to do them only for his master. We may compare this view with that of the Bhagavadgita which asks a seeker to do all his duties distinterestedly i. e., without the expectation of a reward or by dedicating the actions to the Lord. Cf. तस्मादसक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर। असक्ो ह्याचरन् कर्म परमाप्नोति पूरुष: ll Bha. Gi. III. 19. and ब्रह्मण्याधाय कर्माणि सङ्गं त्यत्तवा करोति यः। लिप्यते न स पापेन पद्मपत्रमिवाम्भसा। Bha. Gi. V. 10. 17. Sankara quotes Cha. Upa. I. 7. 8-9 and says that according to that Sruti the fruit of a meditation (विज्ञान=अङ्गोपासन) in a rite performed by a priest belongs to a sacrificer.

SECTION VI

The Injunction of other helping actions is optional except in the case of a householder.

Sūtras III. 4. 47-50.

(४७) सहकार्यन्तरविधि: पक्षेण तृतीयं तद्वतो विध्यादिवत्। (४८) कृत्स्नभावात्तु गृहिणोपसंहारः । (४९) मौनवदितरेषामध्युपदेशात्। (५० ) अनाविष्कुर्वन्नन्वयात् ।

TRANSLATION

[ PŪRVAPAKSA ]-The Injunction of other helping means is to be regarded as optional and is a third type of duties, like the Injuction, etc., [ for action ] in the case of one who has [ committed ] that [ text to memory ]. 47

[ Siddhānta ]-But a collection [ of those optional means ] should be made by the householder because of his completeness, 48

because of the teaching about other helping means, like that of silence. 49

['Silence' means ] " without making a show [ of his learning ]" because of the connection [ of words ]. 50

NOTES

Sūtra 47

1. तृतीयम्-Two helping means have been mentioned in Sutras 27, 32 and particularly in Sutra 34 viz., the sacrifice etc., and the duties of the orders of life. A third type of helping action is mentioned in this Sūtra.

2. पक्षेण -This third type of helping act or acts is not compulsory (सर्वथा ) like the other two (Sutra 34) but it is optional or is only partly helpful ( पक्षेण). 3. सहकार्यन्तर-It seems to us that the पूर्वपक्ष understands only one सहकारि कर्म by this word viz., वेदानुवचन. This is suggested by तद्वतो विध्यादिवत् in which तद्वत: refers to अध्ययन- मात्रवत: in Sutra 12 (See also Sutra 6), and also by the fact that the Siddhantin points out that other helps also are taught in the Scripture ( Sutra 49). In तमेतं वेदानुवचनेन ब्राह्मणा विविदिषन्ति यज्ेन दानेन तपसाऽनाशकेन। (Br. Upa. IV. 4. 22). वेदानुवचन is mentioned as a सहकारि कर्म for knowing Brahman. Out of these, यज्ञादिs have been already considered; among other acts the duties of the orders have also been discussed. The पूर्वपक्ष says that this other सहकारिकर्म viz., वेदानुवचन, is a secondary one ( पक्षेण). 4. तद्तो विध्यादिवत्-This is an illustration of a secondary सहकारिकर्म. One who has committed the text to memory is asked to perform sacrifices; the performance of sacrifices depends mainly upon his life as a nawT and other circumstances; S0 वेदाध्ययन is itself a secondary help to the performance of sacrifices. 'तद्वतः विधिः' is undoubtedly a reference to Sutras 6 (तद्वतो विधानात्।) and 12 (अध्ययनमात्रवतः।). By तद् in तद्वतः in this Sūtra, the Sūtrakara seems to us to suggest what सहकार्यन्तर is meant here. It is, of course, वेदाध्ययन or वेदानुवचन as said in the Sruti ( Br. Upa. IV. 4. 22 ).

296 INTERPRETATION

By आदि in विध्यादिवत्, Sutra 7 and Sutras 13-15 seem to have been referred to. Doing of actions according to Isa. 4 is a स्तुति or अनुमति; so practicising or performing other सहकारि actions than the two mentioned in Sutra 14 is also स्तुति or अनुमति. Sutra 15 points out that the performance of actions is optional; so the Pūrvapaksa argues that the performance of other सहकारिनs is also optional.

5. According to Sankara this Sūtra discusses whether silence (मौन in Br. Upa. III. 5.1) is laid down as an Injunction or not. बाल्य and पाण्डित्य are सहकारिन and मौन is सहकार्यन्तर. And by "सह्कार्यन्तरविधि" the Sutra lays down मौन as a सहकारिन्. But this seems to be impossible because मौन and other सहकारिन्S are mentioned for the first time in Sutras 49-50. Moreover, '' in Sutra 48 shows that Sūtra 47 is to be treated as a "पूर्वपक्षसूत्र". Again, 'तद्वतः' implies that सहकार्यन्तर meant here is वेदाध्ययन. 'पक्षेण' is explained by Saikara as तस्माद्बाल्य पाण्डित्यापेक्षया तृतीयमिदं मौनं ज्ञानातिशयरूपं विधीयते ।. Thus, Saikara connects पक्षेण with तृतीयम्, but it seems to us that 'सहकार्यन्तर- विघि: पक्षेण' should be taken as the construction, so that the Sutra makes this Injunction only partly or optionally applicable; this view is supported by सर्वथा in Sutra 34, and by the illustrations in तद्वतो विध्यादिवत् ; and by the next Sutra (48) which makes this सहकार्यन्तर compulsory for a householder. 'तृतीयम्' is taken by Saiikara as meaning that मौन is the third as compared with बाल्य and पाण्डित्य; but 'तृतीयम्' is connected with the two actions ( यज्ञादि and आथ्रमकर्म) mentioned in Sutra 34. He separates तद्त: and विध्यादिवत्; but this is inconsistent with Sutras 6, 12, 13-15 which are undoubtedly referred to by तद्तो विध्यादिवत्. Saiikara connects तद्दतः with his explanation of सहकार्यन्तरविधि: i. e., the मौनविधि is for तद्वत् i. e., a संन्यासिन्. This is the sense he makes out from his construction of aga: with सहकार्यन्तरविधि :. Moreover, how can we explain तद्दत: as विद्यावतः and the latter as संन्यासिन: ? 'तद्' in तद्वत: should

BRA. So. III. 4. 47-50 297

refer to something in the Sutra (viz., अध्ययन which is meant by सहकार्यन्तर) and 'विद्या' is not mentioned in the Sutra. Otherwise, "तद्वतः विध्यादिवत् " should be taken as a known illustration, in the light of whioh सहकार्यन्तरविधि is to be explained, as we have proposed above. Moreover, all those who have got the knowledge need not be only monks according to the Sūtrakara ( See Sūtras 32, 42 ). Sankara seems to explain 'पक्षेण' in a different way also, if बाल्यपाण्डित्यापक्षय। तृतीयम् is his first interpretation of पक्षेण. Thus, पक्षेण is to be connected with सहकार्यन्तरविधि: And for this last explanation he takes 'विध्यादिवत्' as an illustration. He refers this विधि to "दर्शपूर्णमासाभ्यां स्वर्गकामो यजेत" which is not विधिप्रधान, yet which should be taken as a fafu. Similarly, he says, the Sruti (Br. Upa. III. 5. 1 ) is not principally a विधि, but yet it has to be construed as मौनविधि.

Sūtra 48

6. 'a' shows that the view in Sutra 47 is not accepted by the Sutrakara. In that Sutra, the opponent argued that the Injunction of the other helping act viz., वेदाध्ययन, was optional. The Sūtrakara does not agree with him so far as the order of a householder is concerned.

7. गृहिणोपसंहार: -The Sutrakara says that a householder must collect the other सहकारिन् कर्मन् ; in his case it is not optional. To those in the other orders of life the Sutrakara agrees to give an option in the case of सहकार्यन्तरविधि. 8. कृत्स्नभावात् - This is one reason why the householder is not given an option regarding सहकार्यन्तर विधि. He is 'complete' (कृत्स्न) in all things; and, therefore, he should completely carry out the सहकारिनs for the knowledge of Brahman. Thus, bis completeness is the reason why he is not allowed any concession regarding the helps to the knowledge of Brahman. 9. According to Sankara, this Sūtra answers a question

298 INTERPRETATION

why the Cha. Upanisad is brought to an end by the mention of a householder (in Cha. Upa. VIII. 15. 1). This question arises, says Sankara, because if the sqdaR of the Cha. Upa. is meant to show the importance of the householder, the monk loses his importance. It seems to us that Sankara has totally missed the meaning of the word 'sqdar' in this Sutra. It has here very probably the same meaning as in उपसंहारदर्शनान्नेति चेन्न क्षीरवद्धि। (Bra. Su. II. 1.24) and उपसंहारोऽर्थामेदाद्विधिशेषवत्स- माने च । (Bra. Su. III. 3. 5). उपसंहार means "collecting all the helps for one particular purpose," here the purpose being the knowledge of Brahman. 'a' means a ' qualification' or ' distinction' of the householder, viz., that the householder is particularly 'aa' while members of the other orders are not कृत्स्न or complete. But कृत्स्नभाव or completeness of the house- holder, in the opinion of Saikara, consists in the great burden laid upon the householder, viz., that he is asked to do sacrifices and other duties which are many and which involve much trouble and hardship and also he is asked to observe non-injury to living beings, control over senses, etc., which are in fact the duties of the other orders of life. It is because of this great burden (कृत्स्नभावात्) that the Cha. Upa. is concluded ( svaarr ) with the mention of a householder. This does not mean that he is superior to a monk, says Sankara. To us कृत्स्नभाव scems to mean the facilities, rather than the hardships of a houscholdor, as compared with the wants and scarcity of a aragz4 or an ascetic. The householder has a family, he carries out his own professional duties, he enjoys so many other privileges. All these are wanting in the case of a monk. Because of this "Completoness" he is not given the concession shown to others.

Sūtra 49

10. This Sutra gives another reason why a householder should carry out all the aazifras to the knowledge of (Brahman (उपसंहारः). There are some सहकारिनs which can be performed only by a houscholder, who is a seeker of absolution. Theso

BRA. Sa. III. 4. 47-50 299

were not noticed by the opponent in Sutra 47; so the Sūtrakara seems to draw his attention to them, in this Sutra, and to arguo on that ground that a houscholder should collect them. 11. मौनवत्-This is a reference to Br. Upa. III. 5. 1 viz., "एतं वै तमात्मानं विदित्वा ब्राह्मणाः पुत्रेषणायाश्च वित्तेषणायाश्च लोकैषणायाश्च व्युत्थायाथ भिक्षाचर्य चरन्ति या ह्ोव पुत्रैषणा सा वित्ैषणा या वितैषण सालौकै- षणोभे होते पषणे एव भवतस्तस्मादू ब्राह्मणः पाण्डित्यं निर्विद्य बाल्येन तिष्ठासेद्वाल्यं च पाण्डित्यं च निर्विद्याथ मुनिरमौनं च मौनं च निर्विद्याथ ब्राह्मणः।" In this Sruti several helps to the knowledge of Brahman are taught. 12. 'इतरेषाम्' seems to mean 'others' than that referred to by the opponent in Sūtra 47. " ta " is an example of " these others, " and it serves to help us in identifying the Sruti in question. The opponent had not taken these into consideration and the Sutrakara points to them as an argument why a householder who seeks absolution should collect all the helps to it. If a seeker gives up the desire for a son, the desire for wealth and the desire for heaven, he becomes a hermit or a monk. When a householder becomes disgusted with scholarship, with arer (show of his strength of conviction) and even with the conscious- ness of the fact that he keeps quiet inspite of his learning, as did Yajñavalkya, he becomes a monk. ( For the meaning of बाल्य see Cha. Upa. VII. 7-8 where बल is said to be a higher manifestation of Brahman than famra. ) One is asked to be disgusted with mita also; and this applies chiefly to the order of the householder who living in the people would keep quiet about his knowledge ( Sūtra 50 ) but would think too much of his quietness and is therefore advised to be disgusted with this self-consciousness of quietness. In fact Sutra 50 is meant to show how sita also applies to a householder. 13. 'अपि' shows that not only वेदानुवचन is a सहकार्यन्तर (a help in addition to यशादि and आथ्रमकर्म) but also पाण्डित्य, बाल्य and मौन are to be taken in the list of सददकार्यन्तरs which form a third type of helps.

SECTION VII

A grhastha seeker may perform worldly duties also, though not as help to his knowledge of Brahman.

Sūtra III. 4. 51

(५१) ऐहिकमप्यप्रस्तुतप्रतिबन्धे तद्दर्शनात्।

TRANSLATION

[ ONE who is outside the order of asceticism and who seeks Moksa, may do ] the worldly duties also in order that there be no obstruction in what he has already begun; because we find such examples ( in the Upanisads ). 51

300 INTERPRETATION

14. इतरेषामप्युपदेशात् -Because पाण्डित्य, बाल्य and मौन are laid down in the Sruti, the householder should collect all these सहकारिनs to the knowledge of Brahman. The Sutrakara seems to mean that पाण्डित्य, बाल्य and मौन are helps useful chiefly to the householder and therefore he should collect them. This is a second reason for his collecting the सहकारिनs whioh are optional to other orders of life. 15. According to Sankara Sūtra 49 is intended to establish that all the four orders are taught in the Scripture without distinction. Thus, according to him Sūtra 49 is only a repetition of Sūtra 26 as interpreted by him. From his inter- pretation of Sutra 49, he draws a conclusion viz., the four orders may be accepted all of them or some of them, but this conclusion is not mentioned in the Sutra itself. 'sna' is explained by him as the order of monk, but this is inconsistent with Sutra 50, which shows that ata is 'keeping quiet about one's knowledge' and with the fact that according to the Sūtrakāra a householder is to eollect ata as a help to the knowledge of Brahman. मौनवत् means 'यथा मौनं गार्हस्थ्यं घ,' thus he adds गार्हस्थ्य though it is not mentioned in the Sutra. The word 'श्नतिमत् " stated in the Sruti' is also not found in the Sutra, though मौनवत् can be interpreted as "यथा मौनस्य उपदेशः तथा". 'इतरेषाम्' is taken by Sanikara as referring to वानप्रस्थ and गुरुकुलवास inspite of the plural number, which he tries to explain by saying "इतरेषामिति द्वयोराश्रमयोर्बहुवचनं वृत्तिभेदापेक्षयानुष्ठातभेदापेक्षया वेति दृष्टव्यम्।". This is hardly satisfactory. Moreover, इतरेषाम् should mean " others than " what is stated in the preceding Sutras of the Adhikarana, i. e., other सहकारिनs or helps than the one meant in Sutra 47. And lastly the ablative case of उपदेशात् should serve to establish गृहिणोपसंहार like the same of कृत्स्नभावात् in Sutra 48. Sūtra 50 16. This Sutra is intended to explain मौन and thereby,

householder, it seems to us, to show how मौनविधि is applicable chiefly to a

NOTES

Sutra 51

1. In this Section we should take बहिस्तु as understood from Sutra 42. Also, the गृहिन् is mentioned in Sutra 48. 2. पेहिकम्-What is the विशेष्य ? We suggest that कर्म is implied. The context throughout this Pada is that of aotions or duties to be done by a Mumuksu. In Sutra 47, सहकार्यन्तर means सहकार्यन्तर कर्म; in Sutra 49 इतरेषाम् means इतरेषां कर्मणाम्; in Sutra 41 आधिकारिकम् and in Sutra 42 उपपूर्वम् have been shown by us to refer to 4ù to be taken as implied. Vide also our Notes on Bra. Sū. III. 4. 32.

2. afd-This word shows that in addition to the two types of actions viz., the professional and subsidiary duties which a grhastha seeker is allowed to do ( 3ur in Sūtra 43 ) and also in addition to the सहकार्यन्तर कर्मनs which he is asked to perform compulsorily ( Sūtra 48 ), he should do also the worldy duties, like the marriages of his own children, the investiture of his sons with the saored thread, etc.

3. अप्रस्तुतप्रतिबन्धे-The grhastha Mumuksu is here allowed to do himself these kinds of really worldly duties in order that there be no obstacle ( प्रतिबन्ध ) in the worldly life which he has begun (प्रस्तुत). The other duties viz., यज्जादि (Sutra III. 4. 26 ), आश्रमकर्म (Sutra. III. 4. 32), the third type of सहकारि कर्मन्s ( Sutra III. 4. 47) are to be done by the grhastha Mumuksu in order that they be useful to him in the attainment of Moksa; but the worldly duties like the sons' investiture with the sacred thread, etc., are to be done by him in order to avoid any hindrance in his wordly life.

4. तद्दशनात्-This refers to the examples of Yajnavalkya and others who sought Moksa but who when grhasthas

BRA. SU. III. 4. 51 303

continued doing their worldly duties. Thus, Yajnavalkya was going to divide his property between his two wives before he thought of renouncing the world. The example of उषस्ति EFITUT who maintained his wife can also be given. 6. Saiikara takes पहिकम् as पहिक विद्याफलम् and in faot the single word पहिकम् means to him 'इह जन्मनि विद्याफलं सिद्धयति' i. e., ' The reward of the Lore of Brahman is achieved in this very life.' We find no justification for his changing the sense of पेहिक ("in this world " to " in this life " ) and for his addition of विद्याजन्म which is not even suggested by the context of the Adhikarana or the Sutra. Moreover, Sankara explains अप्रस्तुतप्रतिबन्धे aS असति प्रस्तुतप्रतिबन्धे. He takes प्रस्तुत as विद्यासाधन which is the topic in hand in Bra. Su. III. We must also say that if aga refers to the book of Brahmasūtra then it can refer to विद्यासाधन; but how can we be sure that प्रस्तुत refers to the book of Brahmasutra? Rather, प्रस्तुत should refer to what is begun in the life of the seeker who is out- side the order of monkhood, Again, if we take neaa as विद्यासाधन, then the सूत्र means " विद्यासाधनप्रतिबन्धे असति विद्याफलस्य जन्म पहिकमेव भवति;"; thus अपि will have to be interpreted as एव, which is not the sense of अपि at all. अपि means also and will include the possiblity of the other (life, according to Saikara ), but his interpretation of अप्रस्तुत- प्रतिबन्धे excludes all such possibilities. Lastly, he takes दर्शयति as क्रुति: दुर्बोधत्वमात्मनो दर्शयति, which is in accordance with his own interpretation of ेहिक and अप्रस्तुनप्रतिबन्ध and his own addition of विद्याफलजन्म. Really speaking, he ought to have given the oxample of one who attained the विद्याफल in this life after performing the means of विद्याफल; but he gives no such example. We cannot add to the सूत्र "आत्मनो दुर्बोधत्वम् " also.

SECTION VIII

No Time-rule regarding the Achievement of the Moksa, even after the praetise of its Means.

Sūtra III. 4. 52.

इति तृतीयाध्यायस्य चतुर्थ: पाद:।

TRANSLATION

THERE is no ( time-) rule regarding the fruit in the form of release ( to be achieved ) thus, because of the definite statement about those who are in the seeker's state ( for a long, long period ). 52

NOTES

Sutra 52 1. 'gaq' seems to refer to the fact that the seeker of Brahman has to do the severai duties enumerated in Bra. Su. III. 4 as help to the knowledge of Brahman, viz., (1) the sacrifice, donation, and penance, (2 ) the duties of his order of life, and (3) other helping duties if he belongs to the householder's order. 2. afrns-The fruit in the form of liberation is mentioned in Bra. Su. III. 2. 38-39 ( फलमत उपपत्तेः। श्रुतत्वाच्च।). It is stated there that this fruit is to be obtained from Brahman itself because this is quite proper and because this is stated in the Sruti.

3. अनियम :- The Sutrakara here asserts that there is no rule regarding the attainment of the fruit in the form of release after a seeker has begun his effort to get the knowledge of Brahman and to perform the actions intended to be a help to that knowledge in the achievement of liberation. We believe, this absence of rule refers to the absence of a rule regarding the time of release after a seeker begins his course on the Path to emancipation. The Sūtrakara here seems to us to contrast the मुक्तिफल with the स्वर्गफल; the latter which is achieved solely by performing the Jyotistoma Sacrifice is obtained immediately in the next birth after the sacrificer has performed that sacrifice; but the gfs the attainment of which depends upon the knowledge of Brahman helped by the performance of certain duties cannot be assured to the seeker even after one or any number of years. Here we may quote a line from the Bhagavadgīta :- अनेकजन्मसंसिद्धस्ततो याति परां गतिम्। (Bha. GI. VI. 45) 39

S06 INTERPRETATION

There is no rule that gferos can be achieved immediately after the particular life in which a seeker who makes an effort comes to an end. Innumerable lives of such efforts may still follow before the emancipation is realized.

We make the above suggestion about the interpretation of अनियम: on the following grounds :- (i) The yfane is dependent upon the knowledge and also certain actions. We think, this fact is referred to in the Sutra by the word 'qay ' " thus ", which, as we stated above, should be taken as a reference to the subject-matter of this whole Pada or even to that of this entire Adhyaya. (ii) We believe that the next Sutra ( आवृत्तिरसकृदुपदेशात्। Bra. Sū. IV. 1. 1) refers to the return of the seeker to this world many timcs before he obtains the knowledge of Brahman (Bra. Su. IV. 1. 13 ) and conveys a sense similar to अनेकजन्मसंसिद्धस्ततो याति परांगतिम्। ( Bha. Gĩ. VI. 45 ) (iii) The third reason is तद्वस्थावधृतेः which we shall explain below. 4. तदवस्थावधृतेः-There is a definite statement (अवधृति) about those seekers who are in the state or stage of that i. e. in the state of ( carrying out ) the argas mentioned in the third Adhyaya ( called साधनाध्याय). As this Adhyaya finishes the statement of the साधनs and as Sutra IV. 1. 13 (तदधिगमे) refers to the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman, we may conclude that तदवस्थ means those who are in the seeker's stage not for one life, but for many lives. The Sūtrakara may be referring to texts like the following verse :- वेदान्तविज्ञानसुनिश्चितार्थाः संन्यासयोगाद्यतयः शुद्धसत्त्वाः। ते ब्रह्मलोकेषु परान्तकाले परामृता: परिमुच्यन्ति सर्वे॥। ( Mu. Upa. III, 2. 6 ). "qaare " would mean that these seekers are freed at the time of the end of the Para; so that they are not released for

BRA. So. III. 4. 52 307

& long, long period. They continue to be seekers only till then. This shows that a seeker may . be born and reborn on this earth many a time before he attains the realization of Brahman which entitles him to Moksa after exhausting his prārabdha karmans in his last birth on this earth.

5. तत् in तदवस्थावधृतेः should refer to ब्रह्मज्ञान which is said to be the means to मुक्ति in Sutra III. 4. 1 (पुरुषार्थोऽतः, शब्दात् ...... ) and to which some कर्मनूs are said to be सहकारिन in this Pada. 'तदस्वथ ' would be ज्ञानावस्थ, one who is in the state of the knowledge of Brahman, but not as yet at, in the state of liberation. 6. Sankara takes qan as a reference to the preceding Sūtra (51) as interpreted by him. But his interpretation does not seem to be that of the Sūtrakara, as we have tried to show. Moreover, एवम् would go with मुक्तिफल and would refer to the means to that goal discussed in this and other Padas of the Brahmasutras. Saikara explains 'अनियम:' as पवंभूतः अनियम: i. e., as एवंभूतः विशेषप्रतिनियमः न आशक्कितव्यः। Thus, he interprets अनियम as the absence of a rule about the difference of degrees in मुक्ति. नियम cannot be legitimately changed to विशेषप्रतिनियम: Moreover, the point of discussion in this chapter is the Means to liberation, and not the itself. The मुक्तिफले विशेषप्रतिनियम: would be a proper topic for the fourth Pada of the fourth chapter. He takes तद्वस्था (separated from तद्वस्थावधृतेः) as मुत्त्यवस्था and 'अवधृति' he explains by एकरूपैव अवधार्यते. Thus, he adds 'पकरूपैव' to the Sutra in order to deny the विशेष which he has added to नियम. From the mention of एवं मुक्तिफल and from the context it would appear that तत् refers to ज्ञान, the knowledge of Brahman. Sankara does not quote a Sruti in which gfr is definitely stated to be one and uniform (एकरूपा), but he gives an argument viz., ब्रह्मैव मुक्त्यावस्था, न च ब्रह्मणोऽनेकाकारयोगोऽस्ति; and then he mentions Srutis about the nature of Brahman ( Br. Upa. III. 8. 8, Ch". Upa, VII, 24. 1 ).

CHAPTER IV

SECTION I

Return of the Seeker of the knowledge of Brahman

Sūtras IV. 1. 1-2

(१) आवृत्तिरसक्र दुपदेशात् ।

(२) लिङ्गाच।

TRANSLATION

[ THE seeker of the knowledge of Brahman ] returns to this world frequently, because of the teaching,

and because of an indicatory text. 2

NOTES

Sūtra 1

1. In the third Adhyaya the Sūtrakara has stated all the means to the knowledge of Brahman and at the end ( Bra. Sü. III. 4. 52) we are told that there is no fixity regarding the time for the attainment of the fruit of Liberation. This last Sutra makes it clear that now no more means to the knowledge of Brahman remain to be stated in the Brahmasutras. The uncertaintity about the fruit in the form of Liberation is, of course, not due to any defect in the means of Liberation viz., knowledge of Brahman, but is due to the fact that it cannot be told definitely when a man who carries out all the means to the knowledge of Brahman stated in Bra. Su. III., would attain that knowledge. It is in this respect that the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman and the performance of a sacrifice differ, and consequently their results, liberation and attainment of heaven, also differ. In the case of a sacrificer we know that at a particular time he finishes the sacrifice and that now in the next birth he is entitled to, and will surely, obtain heaven. In the case of seeker of Moksa, which is to be obtained through the knowledge of Brahman, we do not know when he would realize Brahman or get the right knowledge of Brahman and therefore we cannot say when he would get Libration. He may be required to carry out the means to the knowledge of Brahman ( mentioned in Bra. Su. III ) through a series of births before he finally knows it. Thus, in his various births he has to learn nothing new, but he has to practise the same means till he gets the knowledge of a Brahman. In other words, we may distinguish between persons of three stages viz., one who has to know and carry out the

310 INTERPRETATION

means to Ea, (2) one who has known and who has to repeat the means to ब्रह्मज्ञान (अनेकजन्मसंसिद्धस्ततो याति परं पदम्- Bha. Gi. VI. 45 ), (3) ond one who has known Brahman and "has to wait till he is released from the body " (तस्य तावदेव चिरं यावत्र विमोक्ष्येऽथ संपत्स्ये। Cha. Upa. VI. 14.2). The first is the stage of pure or mere जिज्ञासा, the second that of परोक्षज्ञान, and the third that of अपरोक्षज्ञान. We shall see that the last stage is followed by उत्क्रान्ति (Bra. Su. IV. 2), the journey on the Path of gods (Bra. Su. IV. 3), परसंपत्ति 'union with the Para' and आविर्भाव 'the manifestation of the liberated from the Supreme One after union ' ( Bra. Su. IV. 4. 1-2 ).

The first stage is finished with Bra. Su. III, the second stage seems to be described in Bra. Su. IV. I. 1-12 and the third in Bra. Su. IV. 1. 13-19.

The fourth Adhyaya of the Brahmasutra is the chapter of the Fruit ( फलाध्याय). For this reason also we have to conclude that the third Adhyaya has finished the description of the means to Liberation and that the fourth is concerned only with the result of those means.

The first Sūtra ( Bra. Su. IV. 4. 1) if referring to the rebirths of the seeker of ब्रह्मज्ञान shows that the साधनs have been completely mentioned in Bra. Su. III and that now the condition of a seeker who has carried out those areas is described in Bra. Su. IV. 4. 1.

2. आवृत्ति :- This word ordinarily means ' return' i. e. return to this world. In Bra. Su. IV. 4. 22 ( अनावृत्तिः शब्दादनावृत्तिः शब्दांतूं।) the word 'अनावृत्तिः' is used in the sense of non- return to this world and that Sutra refers to such Srutis as Br. Upa. VI. 2. 15 and Cha. Upa. VIII, 15. 1. In the case of gods who attain the knowldge of Brahman, the Sūtrakara says that there is no inconsistency even if gods return to their place after they know Brahman ( समाननामरूपत्वाच्ावृत्तावप्य- विरोधो दर्शनात्स्मृतेश्व -Bra. Su. 1. 3. 30)

BRA. Sů. IV. 1. 1-2 311

In the Arunika Upanisad we read "सर्वेषु वेदष्वारण्यक- मावर्तयेदुपनिषद्मावर्तयेत्। (Aru. Upa. 2). This is a very late Upanisad and it is not likely that the Sutrakara would refer to it. Morover, in Sutra IV. 1. 3 we are told that these seekers of aama understand Brahman as their Atman and make others understand it as such; so, we cannot say that the Sūtrakara here ( in Bra. Sū. IV. 1. 1) asks the seeker "to revise " his texts. For the same reasons also, we cannot agree with Sankara who explains आवृत्ति as प्रत्ययावृत्ति 'repetition of the cognition of Brahman.' It is the फलाध्याय and the फल or fruit of the means mentioned in Bra. Sū. III seems to be discussed here. Moreover, this kind of repetition is already implied in the act of meditation taught in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 16, 35-36, etc., 3. 'असकृत्' should be taken with आवृत्ति: rather than with उपदेशात् as Saukare does, because along with 'आवृत्ति' the question arises ' how many times the return is to take place ( or the repetition of the cognition is to be carried out ). ' The expression 'असकृदावर्तीनि' in Cha. Upa. V. 10. 8 also supports this view of 'असकृत्'. 4. उपदेशात्-This is a reference to a text teaching that the means to ब्रह्मज्षान are to be carried out in a series of births, or that त्रह्मज्ञान 'the right understanding of Brahman' is obtained not always in a single birth but after a series of births, or a seeker of absolution is said to return to this world frequently before the gets it. 5. According to Sankara, the Sutrakara here uses ' arrafa' in the sense of repetition or revision and he explains arrafa as प्रत्ययावृत्ति 'the repetition of the cognition of Brahman.' He takes असकृत् with उपदेशात् and says that the precept of hearing, pondering over, and realizing is given frequently ( arEa ) in the Upanisad; and, thorefore, that precept suggests प्रत्ययावृत्ति 'the revision of the cognition'. Even in the texts where precept is given only once, the

312 INTERPRETATION

cognition should be frequently repeated, says Sankara ( See our notes on आवृति and असकृत् above ). We think, उपदेश, should be a reference to a text in which the return of a seeker of absolution is mentioned. Even if wo take anra with उपदेश, there should be many texts mentioning आवृति, which should be pointed out as referred to by the Sūtra. Sankara says that Bra. Su. IV. 1. 1-12 is rTT.

Sūtra 2

6. frra - This is a roference to a text in which the return of a seeker of the knowledge of Brahman is mentioned e. g., अनेकजन्मसंसिद्धस्ततो याति परं पदम्। ( Bha. Gi. VI. 45), बडूनां जन्मनामन्ते ज्ञानवान्मां प्रपद्यते। ( Bha. Gi. VII. 19). 7. Sankara says that also linga, by which he quotes a Sruti, shows the repetition of the cognition of Brahman. His Sruti is Cha. Upa. I. 5. 1-2 in which the knowledge of the Sun is said to give only one son, while the knowledge of the rays of the Sun is taught as a means to getting many sons. Sankara says that this teaching of Cha. Upa. I. 5. 1-2 proves the repetition of the cognition; and, therefore, all cognitions require to be repeated. This seems to be his application of Cha. Upa. I. 5. 1-2 to the knowledge of Brahman. After explaining the two Sūtras, Sankara enters into a discussion as to whether प्रत्ययावृत्ति is necessary or not for knowing Brahman. The result of the discussion is that San kara admits that प्रत्ययात्ृत्त is not useful to the best type of student (उत्तमाधिकारिन्), which is, of course, rare; it is useful to the dull-minded or mediocre student only. As regards Sankara's contention that ब्रह्मन् and ब्रह्मज्ञान are not subject to विधि, 8e Bra. Sū. III 4. 18-26.

SECTION II

Work of the reborn Seeker: His approach to and His Precept about Brahman. The Symbol of .Brahman, and Parts of Brahman.

Sūtras IV. 1. 3-6

(३) आत्मेति तूपगच्छन्ति ग्राह्यन्ति च । ( ४ ) न प्रतीके न हि सः। (५) ब्रह्मदृष्टिरुत्कर्षात्। (६) आदित्यादिमतयश्चाङ उपपत्तेः ।

TRANSLATION

BUT they approach and make others understand [ Brahman ] as their very Self ( Atman ). 3

Not in the case of the Symbol, because it is not That. 4

[ They ] view [ the Symbol ] as Brahman, because of the excellence [ of the Symbol ]. 5

And [ they have ] the notions of the Sun, etc., in the parts of Brahman. 6

40

NOTES

Sūtra 3

1. This Adhikarana seems to describe what the aefung, the seeker of the knowledge of Brahman, who has been carrying out the means to that knowledge, does when he returns to this world frequently.

2. आत्मेति-In Bra.Su.III.3.16 (आत्मगृहीतिरितरवदुत्तरात्), we are told that Brahman or Purusa is to be meditated upon as identical with the soul of the meditator. In consistency with this, the Sutrakara says that seekers of the knowledge of Brahman returning to this world approach Brahman as their Atman and make others understand It as such.

3. Eumoafra-The Sutrakara seems to use this verb significantly. The seeker of the knowledge of Brahman who has been carrying out the means to Brahmajñana, the medita- tion on Brahman as Atman ( the Self of the meditator-Bra. Su. III. 3. 16) and the other helping actions, when reborn, approaches Brahman as his very Self and also makes others understand it as such. This shows that in his case no new meansf or the knowledge of Brahman remains to be practised. On his return he accepts Brahman and approaches It as Atman; this he does till he himself realizes It as such. We may reasonably suppose that on the realization of Brahman he ceases also to teach It to others. The Sutrakara mentions only the disposal of the actions ufter the attainment of the knowledge ( aaferra Bra. Sū. IV. 1. 13 ), and nothing else. 4. ग्राह्यन्ति-As shown above, it is only the seeker of the knowledge of Brahman who has been for a long time carrying out the means to it and is constantly reborn in this world, who teaches and makes others understand Brahman as Atman. The man who has understood It as such, gives up

BRA. Sữ. IV. 1. 3-6 315

teaching It to others. of. आत्मगृहीतिरितरवदुत्तरात्। Bra. Su. III. 3. 16. With 'आत्मेति ग्राह्यन्ति' we should compare Bra. Su. I. 1. 29-30 viz., न वक्तुरात्मोपदेशादिति वेदध्यात्मसंबन्धभूमा ह्ास्मिन्। and शास्त्रदृथ्ा तूपदेशो वामदेववत्. Both these Sutras refer to Srutis according to which those who know Brahman ( theoretically ? ) taught it to others as Atman. The former Sūtra refers to what Indra told Pratardana Daivodasi, viz., स होवाच प्राणोऽस्मि प्रज्ञात्मा तं मामायुरमृतमित्युपास्स्व । ( Kau. Upa. III. 2). He meant that Brahman is to be meditated upon as the Self of the meditator. It was in this sense that he said ' मामेव विजानीहि।' ( Kau. Upa. III. 1). The second Sūtra refers to the illustration of Vamadeva who actually realized Brahman and the whole world as identical with his own Self ( Br. Upa. 1. 4. 10). 5. 'a' shows that because the seeker of the knowledge of Brahman returns to this world, we should not suppose that he does worldly actions, or that he has to go through the primary steps preceding the approach to Brahman ( or acceptance of Brahman ) as Atman. The only thing that he does is to approach Brabman as Atman and to teach It as such. Cf. Bha. Gi. VI. 42-44 अथवा योगिनामेव कुले भवति धीमताम्। + + + तत्र तं बुद्धिसंयोगं लभते पौर्वेदेहिकम्। यतते च ततो भूयः संसिद्धौ कुरुनन्दन ।। ४३॥ पूर्वाभ्यासेन तेनैव हियते ह्यवशोऽपि सः । जिज्ञासुरपि योगस्य शब्दब्रह्मातिवर्तते॥४४॥ 6. According to Sankara this Adhikarana discusses the question whether the Supreme Lord is to be understood as identical with the self of the seeker or as different from one's own self. But, as we have already shown, this question seems to have been discussed in the Chapter of the Means viz., Bra. Sū. III. 3. 16-17. According to Sankara the subject of उपगच्छन्ति is जाबाला: and others and that of ग्राहयन्ति is वेदान्त-

316 INTERPRETATION

वाक्यानि. Thus, really, "उपगच्छस्ति" and "ग्राह्यन्ति" have the same sense according to Sankara. Sankara in his commentary on this Sutra raises several objections against his view about the complete identity of the individual soul with Brahman and answers them; but, in fact, this is the topic of Bra. Sū. II. 3. 28-32. Sūtra 4

7. This Sutra is closely connected with the preceding Sutra, as will be seen from the interpretation given below; and, therefore, we propose that it should be joined to the preceding Sutra and should not be taken as forming a new Adhikaraņa. 8. 'gars' should mean a symbol and here it means the symbol of Brahman which is the object of उपगच्छन्ति and ग्राह्यन्ति in the preceding Sutra. Under Sutras III. 3. 25-26 we have already suggested that the Sūtrakara in those Sūtras seems to us to discuss the question of the meditation on the syllable 'Om'. In those two Sutras the Sutrakara has stated nothing about the procedure of the meditation on the Pranava, though he does say that the Pradhana ( i. e., the arūpvat aspect ) and the Purusa (i. e. the rupvat aspect of Brahman ) are each of them to be meditated upon as the very Self of the Seeker ( Vide Bra. Su. III 3. 16 and 43 ). However, from Mu. Upa. I. 2. 2-3 which is the visayavakya of the Sutra dealing with the meditation on the Pranava ( Bra. Sū. III. 3. 35 ) we learn that the Pranava is the bow, the individual soul is the arrow and Brahman is the aim to be hit ( Mu. Upa. I. 2. 4 ). In the present Sūtra ( Bra. Sū. IV. 1. 4-5 ) the Sūtrakāra seems to tell us how the Seeker when reborn on this earth in an advanced stage looks upon the syllable Om which is the symbol of Brahman. We may add here that the word aars in this Sūtra cannot mean the symbols (1) of Brahman like manas, Aditya, etc. If by manas, Aditya, etc., are meant those which are meditated

BRA. So. IV. 1. 3-6 317

upon in 'the voluntary meditations on Brahman ( Brahmanah- kāmya-upasanah-Bra. Sū. III. 3. 60), we suggest that no kamya meditation on Brahman is likely to be discussed in the present context (Bra. Su. IV. 1). We even doubt whether in the kamya meditation on Brahman, the mind, the Sun, etc., stand at all as a symbol of Brahman properly so called. What is done in those meditations is that the Seeker of a particular fruit meditates on नाम, आदित्य, etc., as Brahman, but he does know that the Brahman is much more than an etc. In the meditation on the syllable Om, on the other hand, the Seeker of emancipation does know that 'Om' is the representation of the entire Brahman and, therefore, in that case 'Om' is rightly the symbol of Brahman. Again, the word adfta cannot mean the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, etc., which are the angas t ( parts or limbs ) of Brahman and the meditation regarding which is discussed in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 55, because these also cannot be properly called the symbols of Brahman and because the Sūtrakara discusses them separately in Bra. Sū. IV. 1. 6. For these reasons the word aars seems to us to mean the only symbol of Brahman, viz., the syllable Om. 9. a adta - In the preceding Sūtra it is said that the seekers of the knowledge of Brahman approach Brahman and make others understand Brahman as their Atman. In this Sutra we are told that the seekers do not look upon Om the Symbol of Brahman as their Atman. We have to add enrufa उपगच्छन्ति ग्राह्यन्ति व from the preceding Sutra to this Sutra. 10. न हि सः-'सः' means आत्मा mentioned in the preceding Sūtra. a fe a :- This gives the reason why the seekers of the knowledge do not look upon the Symbol of Brahman as Atman.

t Anga means a part or a limb and, therefore, also the अभि, चन्द्र, दिशः, वायुः, पृथ्वी, etc., cannot be symbols of Brahman.

318 INTERPRETATION

"afe a" means " because the Symbol is not Atman ". Brahman is the Atman of the meditator, but not so the Symbol of Brahman, viz., Om. 11. Sankara interprets प्रतीक as referring to the various meditations of the mind, the Sun, etc., as Brahman. And according to him, the question discussed here is whether anewne should be made in those meditations or not. To us it appears that the process of the meditations on मनस्, आदित्य, etc. which are to be meditated upon in the अङ्गावबद्धाः ब्रह्मोपासना: has been already explained in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 61-66. Moreover, it would be rather very improbable, if not ridiculous, that a seeker of Brahman would be at all thinking of meditation on नाम, आदित्य as his own Self ( anam ). We have suggested that the Sūtra discusses the possibility of 'Om' being looked upon by the meditator as his own Self. With न प्रतीक Sarikara takes 'आत्ममति बध्चीयात्' as under stood; but the context requires us to take as understood 'आत्मेति तूपगच्छन्ति प्राह्यन्ति च' from the preceding Sutra. 'सः', in the Sutra, means, according to Sankara, 'उपासकः' and to " न हि सः" Saiikara adds "प्रतीकानि व्यस्तानि आत्मत्वेनाकलयेत्." Thus, 'न प्रतीके' means " न प्रतीकेष्वात्ममति बध्नीयात्," and न हि सः means "न दि सः उपासकः प्रतीकानि व्यस्तानि आत्मत्वेनाकलयेत्"; thus 'न हि सः' is not explained by Sankara as a reason for "न प्रतीके"; but in fact, according to him, both the sentonces have almost the same sense. 'न हि सः' should mean, 'The प्रतीक is not that ( i.e., Atman )', 'H:' being a reference to Atman in the preceding Sutra. According to Sankara, the व्यस्तोपासन in the case of आत्मा वैश्वानर is already denied in Bra. Su. III. 3. 57. The other reasons against identifying प्रतीक with the Self of the meditator are not given in the Sūtra. To us this Sūtra does not appear to discuss the question of the procedure of what Sankara calls प्रतीकोपांसनाS, but it tells how the seeker of the knowledge of Brahman when ' frequently reborn ' on this earth before getting the knowledge

BRA. SO. IV. 1. 3-6 $19

looks upon Om, the symbol of Brahman. He looks upon the Pranave not as Atman because It is not Atman. He regards it as Brahman ( See the next Sūtra ). Sutra 5

12. In the preceding Sutra we were told that the seekers of the knowledge of Brahman do not look upon the Symbol of Brahman as Atman. This Sutra seems to state that they look upon the Symbol as Brahman. Thus, this Sūtra is connected closely with the preceding Sutra and should not be taken as a new Adhikaraņa, as Sankara does. 13. ब्रह्मदृष्टिः :- 'ब्रह्मदृष्टिः' meane ब्रह्म इति उपगच्छन्ति प्राह्यन्ति च and the object of these verbs is the aats. The seekers of the knowledge of Brahman look upon the adft as Brahman. 'adra' should be taken as understood from the preceding Sutra; so, the Sutra would be प्रतीके ब्रह्मदृष्टिः 14. उत्कर्षात्-This gives the reason why the scckers look upon the aat of Brahman as Brahman. They do so on account of the excollence of the aata. Thus, the excellence (उत्कर्ष ) here means the excellence of the प्रतीक or the Symbal of Brahman, viz., Om, Cf. the statement of Mu. Upa. I. 2. 3 in which the Syllable Om is said to be the great Weapon of the Upanisads (औपनिषद महास्त्र). 15. Sankara says that this Sūtra discusses the question whother in the प्रतीकोपासन (?) like (मनोव्रह्मेत्युपासीत, आदित्यो ब्रह्मेत्यादेश:, etc. ) the mind, the Sun, etc. are to be meditated upon as Brahman or whether Brahman is to be meditated upon as the mind, the Sun, etc. To us it seems that this point is already decided by the conclusion in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 65-66. Sankara connects ब्रह्मदृष्टिः with आदित्यादिषु taken as understood. He explains 'उत्कर्षात्' as एवमुत्कर्षेण आदित्यादयो दष्टाः भवन्ति। उत्कृष्टदष्टेस्तेष्वध्यासात् ।. The arguments for the identification of the mind, the Sun, etc. with the parts or limbs of Brahman seem to have been given by the Sūtrakāra in Bra. Sū. III. 3.

$20 INTERPRETATION

65-66. To us this Sutra seems to state how a seeker of Brahman, asked not to look upon 'Om' as his Self, would regard the Pranava when reborn on this earth in an advanced stage. He approaches Om as Brahman because of Its excellence as a meens of liberation ( औपनिषद् महास्त्र -Mu. Upa. I. 2. 3). Sutra 6

16. In the preceding Adhikarana we were told how an advanced seeker of the knowledge of Brahman looks upon 'Om' the aats of Brahman. In this Sutra, the Sūtrakāra seems to tell us how he looks upon the Sun, the Fire, etc. which are the limbs of Brahman. This context as well as ' =' in this Sutra shows that this Sutra is part of the same Adhikarana, as the preceding Sutra. This ' ' also shows that Sutra 6 is the last Sūtra in the Adhikaraņa. 17. 'अङ्गे' in this Sutra should be contrasted with प्रतीके in Sutra 4 and in Sūtra 5 in which it is implied. Just as प्रतीक meant ब्रह्मण: प्रतीके, S0 अङ्े in this Sutra would mean घ्रह्मण: अङ्गे. 18. आदित्यादिमतयश्चासे-The advanced seeker has the notions of the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, the Fire, the Wind, etc., in the limbs or parts of Brabman, in the body of Brahman. Cf. अग्निर्मूर्धा, चक्षुषी चन्द्रसूर्यो दिशः श्रोत्रे वाग्विवृताश्च वेदाः। वायुः प्राणो हृदयं विश्वमस्य पद्भ्यां पृथिवी ह्येष सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा।। (Mu. Upa. II. 1. 4). He looks upon the Sun, etc., as the ars or body of Brahman and teaches them to others as such ( उपगच्छन्ति ग्राह्यन्ति च in Sutra IV. 1. 3). In Bra. Su. III. 3. 61-64 the aws or parts of Brahman like the aft:, the Sun, the Wind, the Ether, the Water, the Earth, etc., in the अङ्गावबद्धा: ब्रह्मोपासनाः were taught to be meditated upon as the arreras, viz., the head, the eye, the breath, the body (संदेहः), the bladder (बस्ति), the feet, etc., ( Cha. Upa. V. 12-18 ), and in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 65-66 another view about this process of meditation was established. In this Sūtra ( IV. 1. 6 ) the Sūtrakara tells us that the advanced seeker looks upon the Sun, etc., as forming

BRA. Sů. III. 1. 3-6 321

( the parts of ) the body of Brahman. Thus, Sutras III. 3. 61-66 give the earlier stage, while Sutra IV. 1. 6 gives the later, more advanced stage. The former stage is that of naa, the latter describes a period after the araas have been carried out but before the knowledge of Brahman is acquired.

19. उपपत्तेः - This gives the arguments for आदित्यादिमत- anR. It is quite reasonable that the advanced seeker has the notions of the Sun, etc., in the parts of Brahman. On Brahman itself he look upon as his own Atman, and on 'Om' the Symbol of Brahman he looks upon as Brahman; so, it is quite proper, that in the limbs of Brahman he has the notions of the Sun and othors. Whether he has adopted the procedure of meditating on the parts of Brahman as their respective arraras or whether he has meditated upon Brahman as consisting of so many parts ( Bra. Sū. III. 3. 61-64; III. 3. 65-66 ); in an advanced stage he comes to believe that the Sun, etc. are parts or args ( of the body ) of Brahman ( Bra. Su. IV. 1. 6 ). 20. ars-It seems that era should be understood as अबमेषु. Sankara also takes it similarly. The plural of मति (in आदित्यादिमतयः ) and the form अङ्गेषु in Bra. Su. III. 3. 61 with which this Sutra is connected support our view.

20. Sankara says that this Sutra deals with the question whether in such texts as Cha. Upa. I. 3. 1, Cha. Upa. II. 2. 1, etc., the Sun, ctc., are prescribed to be looked upon as the उद्दोथ, etc. or vice versa. He takes अङ in the sense of कर्माङ; उद्गीथ, etc., are कर्माङ्s; the Sun eto., are not कर्माङs. So, according to Sankara, the Sutra means that आदित्यादिमतिऽ are to be superimposed on उद्गीथादि the अङs of कर्मन्. He explains "उपपत्तेः" as उपपद्यते होवमपूर्वसंनिकर्षादादित्यादिमतिभिः संस्क्रियमाणेषूद्वीथादिषु कर्मसमृद्धिः।

In fact, the Sutrakara is not bound to disouss the कर्मसमृद्धि; and, therefore, there is little likelihood of its being found in 41

322 INTERPRETATION

the Brahmasutras .. In Bra. Su. III. 3. 32, he mentions the meditations on the attributes of Brahman connected with the priestly duties performed by a sceker and allows him to meditate on them as long as he continues doing those duties. The args mentioned in Bra. Su. III. 3. 55 and 61 are the aFs of Brahman, and those Sutras discuss the अङ्गावबद्ाः ब्रहमोपासना: According to Sankara, the topic of कर्माडोपासनाड is discussed in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 55-66. So, if Sūtra 6 refers to aaf#, it would have been better explained there.

SECTION III

State of the reborn Seeker of the knowledge of Brahman.

Sutras IV. 1. 7-10

(७) आसीन: सम्भवाद्। (८ ) ध्यानाथ। (९) अचलत्वं चापेक्ष्य। (१०) स्मरन्ति च ।

TRANSLATION

THE advanced seeker of Brahman when reborn here 78 keeps sitting, because it is the only possibility, 7

because of his meditation on Brahman, 8

and with regard to the steadiness, 9

and the Smrti also mentions it. 10

NOTES Sūtra 7 1. This Section describes further the state of a seeker of aea in an advanced stage. 2. He will be always in a sitting posture, because that is the only posture possible in his case. The Sūtrakara has said that the advanced seeker of Brahman teaches others how to understand Brahman as identical with their own Self ( Bra. Sū. IV. 1. 3). This teaching work is possible only if the knower keeps sitting. As he has not to do any other work, he will be always found sitting in meditation. 3. Sankara says that the question of ' sitting' does not arise in the meditations which are conneated with ritualism nor in the right knowledge, i. e., aEIT. After saying this, he further says that the question of ' sitting' does arise in' other meditations' i. e., he means that in the meditation on the zror ब्रह्मन of his school'sitting' is required. Thus, he adds ' उपासीत' to the Sutra ( "आसीन:उपासीत"). This addition does not seem to us to be supported by the context. The Sūtra does not seem to us to prescribe ' sitting ' for the purpose of ' meditation,' but rather it infers ' sitting ' on account of the teaching work that an advanced seeker of Brahman does. avara is interpreted by Saiikara as 'उपासनस्य संभवात्'. This addition of 'उपासन' makes redundant the next Sutra in which is snra mentioned. Sūtra 8 4. This gives another reason as to why the advanced seeker of Brahman keeps always sitting. He is always occupied with meditation and therefore he will be keeping sitting. The Sutra is not ध्यानाय or ध्यानार्थम्, but ध्यानात् ; s0, maditation is the reason of ' sitting', not the aim of ' sitting '. Meditation has become a habit, so the advanced seeker is found sitting.

BRA. SŪ. IV. 1. 7-11 325

5. Salikara explains ध्यान to be समानप्रत्ययप्रवाहकरण, just as he explained suraa in his commentary on the preceding Sutra. Thus, संभवात् means ध्यानसंभवात् and 'ध्यानात्' also means according to Saiikara ध्यानसंभवात्. As already said Saikara's interpretation makes one of Sutras 7 and 8 redundant. The Sutrakara gives wna as the cause, rather than the aim of 'sitting'. Sūtra 9

6. अचलत्वं चापेक्ष्य-The advanced seeker of Brahman has to guard himself against all temptations, so he has to keep himself and his senses steady and should not allow himself to waver. He must control his mind and senses. This steadi- ness and control requires that he always keeps sitting. It is in this Sutra that the aim of 'sitting ' is mentioned. The purpose of his keeping sitting is the steadiness that he must preserve, till he leaves the body. It is stated in the Bhagavadgita and some times in the Upanisadas that the knower of Brahman must keep up his steadiness till the last moment of his departure from the body ( Sūtra IV. 1. 12 ). 7. Sankara unnecessarily connects this Sutra with Srutis like Cha. Upa. VII. 6. 1; he says that such texts use the verb ' srafa ' with reference to the sense of steadiness, and he adds that such a use of 'sarafa' is an indication that meditation can be practised only by sitting. Thus, he unneccssarily refers this Sutra to a text like Cha. Upa. VII. 6. 1 and then adds "ध्यायतिवादो भवति" to the Sutra, and then connects आसीन with that enlarged Sutra. Sutra 10 8. स्मरन्ति च-The Upanisads do not mention the seeker in an advanced stage as keeping sitting or do not generally mention his behaviour; therefore, the Sūtrakara does not refer to a Sruti, but he refers to a Smrti because the Smrti, particularly the Bhagavadgita, mentions the behaviour of an advanced student. The Sutrakara seems to refer to Bha. Gi. II. 6. 1 :-

326 INTERPRETATION

तानि सर्वाणि संयम्य युक्त आसीत मस्पर:। वशे हि यस्येन्द्रियाणि तस्य प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठिता। In this verse the स्थितप्रश who is युक्त 'well disciplined' is asked to keep sitting with his mind devoted to the Lord. This is the ब्राह्मी स्थिति (Bha. Gi. II. 72). Also Bha. Gi. XIV. 23 may have been referred to :- उदासीनवदासीनो गुणैर्यो न विचाल्यते। गुणा वर्तन्त इत्येष योऽवतिष्ठति नेंगते।। This verse describes the गुणातीत who like स्थितप्रज् is an advanced seeker of Brahman. He keeps sitting ( arefta: ) like one who is unaffected by any environment and he is not agitated by the three constituents of the Prakrti. 9. The fact that there are some Srutis particularly in the Katha and the Svetasvatara Upanisads which refer to the Yogic posture ( आसन) for the practice of meditation, but none of these are referred to by the Sutrakara while a Smrti text is quoted by him in support of his view, proves that the Sūtrakara does not here lay down the sitting posture for the purpose of meditation for a seeker, but rather he describes the possible position and behaviour of one who has advanced a great deal but has not yet attained the knowledge of Brahman. 10. Sankara refers the Sūtra to Bha. Gi. VI. 11. He does not say why the Sūtrakara does not quote a Sruti about the same topic. Moreover, if the Sutrakara wanted to prescribe आसन for उपासन or ध्यान why did he drop the other योगाङs and if at all these e7s were to be mentioned in the Brahmasutras, their proper place was in the third chapter. Even in the Yogasūtras the arguments of संभव, ध्यान and अचलत्वापेक्षा are not given for explaining the necessity of ध्यान (See साधनपाद of the Yogasutras).

SECTION IV

Residence of the reborn Seeker of the knowledge of Brahman.

Sutra IV. 1. 11

(११) यत्रैकाग्रता तत्राविशेषात्

TRANSLATION

THE advanced seeker of the knowledge of Brahman resides in a place where concentration of the mind [ is possible ], because of the equality [ of all such places to him. ] 11

NOTES Sūtra 11 1. In fact the advanced seeker of Brahman, who is waiting for knowledge to shine upon him, is a man without any home of his own ; he has no home, no possessions. Heis अनिकेतन, homeless. So, he resides in that place where he can concerntrate his mind. . अविशेषात्-To him all places are the same. He himself makes no distinction between one place and another. He would make no distinctions between places which make meditation possible; all such places are equally good to him, well-come to him, his aim being only stcadiness of senses. 3. Sankara says that this Sutra rejects any restriction caused by direction, placc and time in the case of a seeker of the knowledge of Brahman. So, refers to a direction, place and also time. He adds " surfta " and thereby brings out the sense that in this Sutra absence of restriction regarding f, ar and ara is prescribed. Thus, instead of being forced to meditate at day time, a ब्रह्मजिश्ञासु may meditate at night, if he finds concentration then. अविशेषात् is explained by Sankara as एकाग्रताया: इषाया: सर्वत्र अविशेषात्. To us it seems that अविशेषात् means "सर्वेषां स्थानानामविशेषात्". In fact Salikara knows that his oxplanation of अविशेषात् conflicts with the Srutis which particularise the places for meditation in various ways; so, he says that Badarayana makes a concession by way of friendship, if the concentration were the same in a place with शर्करा, वहि, etc., as the concentration in a place without them. It scems to us that if the Sutrakara were here to mention the proper place of meditation for a seeker of ब्रह्मज्षान, he would stick to विशेष or the difference in the place of meditation for a beginner, such as is mentioned in the Srutis quoted by Sankara ( Sve. Upa. II. 10 ), because in his case some worldly bonds still exist. But in the case of an advanced seeker reborn on this carth no such bonds appear to exist, and, therefore, the place does not matter much to him, if he can keep up his concontration there. So ho may be found staying anywherc.

SECTION V

The Same State to be kept till Departure.

Sūtra IV. 1. 12

(१२ ) आप्रायणात्तत्रापि हि दृष्टम् ।

TRANSLATION

[ THE advanced seeker of the knowledge of Brahman remains so ] upto the departure from the body, because that is shown in the Sruti even in that [ state ]. 12

49

NOTES

Sutra 12 1. The seeker of Brahman keeps up his partioular attitude towards Brahman, Its aara, and Its parts the Sun, etc., his state of sitting and meditating as described in the preceding Sūtras ( 3-11 ) till he finally leaves the body. 2. तत्रापि हि दष्टम्-This is a reference to a Sruti which mentions the practice of meditation even at the time of his departure from the body. Most probably the Sruti in the Sutrakara's view is Pra. Upa. viz., स यो ह वैतद्भगवन्मनुष्येधु प्रायणान्तमोङ्कारमभिध्यायीत॥ कतमं वाव स तेन लोकं जयतीति॥ (Pra. Upa. V. 1 ). This Sruti asks a meditator to meditate on Om upto the end of the departure from the body. So, the seeker of Brahman keeps sitting and meditating even during his departure from the body, and, of course, till the departure. For the explanation of the fact that the Prasna Upa. Sruti referred to in the Sutra mentions the attainment of Brahman the Supreme One, vide Sūtra I. 3. 13, and IV. 3. 15. The occurence of the word sror in Pra. Upa. V. 1 is a further proof that the same Sruti is roferred to by the Sūtra. The same idea as in the above Sruti and the Sutra is also found in the Bhagavadgita, e. g., पषा ब्राह्मी स्थिति: पार्थ नैनां प्राष्य विमुह्यति। स्थित्वास्यामन्तकालेऽपि ब्रह्मनिर्वाणमृच्छति ।(Bha. Gi. II. 72).

It is very necessary that the meditation continues even during the last moments of departure from the body. See Bra. Sū. IV. 2. 17, Bha. Gi. VII. 30 and VIII. 5-10. 3. There is a difference between gug and fargy as can be seen by comparing the various Sutras in which these words

BRA. So. IV. 1. 12 331

occur. re is more like an example from which we are to infer the rule, while farr is a direct statement ( of the Sruti ). Thus, in Pra. Upa. V. 1 the meditation on Om, the symbol of Brahman, is mentioned, and from that :we are to infer the Sruti required for the meditation on Brahman to be practised upto the end of the departure from the body. 4. Sankara takes the first Sūtra of this Pada ( Bra. Su, IV. 1. 1) as referring to the meditation on faufor Brahman, and also to aor meditations; and in Sūtra 7 he refers to ' Enror medita- tions'. He seems to explain Sutra 11 as dealing with all the meditations. But again he takes Sutra 12 as referring only to अभ्युट्यफलानि उपासनानि " meditations the aim of which is prosperity ". Thus, according to him this Sutra lays down the meditation ( for prosperity in the next birth ) as to be practisod till the departure from the body. He takes " asrfa fa" as "कर्माण्यपि हि ...... भावनाविज्ञानं प्रायणकाले (तत्रापि?) आक्षिपन्ति ". By 'avg' Sankara quotes both Sruti and Smrti which, in his opinion, mention a meditation for prosperity in the next birth to be practised even at the time of leaving the body. To us it seems that in all these Sūtras ( IV. 1. 3-12 ) the state of an advanced seeker of the knowledge of Brahman is mentioned because the next Sutra tells what happens immediately on the attainment of the knowledge.

SECTION VI

Disposal of the actions of the Seeker.

Sūtras IV. 1. 13-19

(१३) तदधिगम उत्तरपूर्वायोर श्रेष विनाशौ तद्व्यपदेशात्।

(१४) इतरस्याप्येवमसंश्लेष: पाते तु।

(१५) अनारब्धकार्ये एव तु पूर्वे तदवधेः ।

(१६ ) अग्निहोत्रादि तु तत्कार्यायैव तद्दर्शनात् ।

(१७ ) अतोऽन्यापि ह्येकेषाम् ।

(१८) उभयोर्यदेव विद्ययेति हि।

(१९) भोगेन त्वितरे क्षपयित्वा सम्पद्यते ।

इति चतुर्थाध्यायस्य प्रथम: पाद:।

TRANSLATION

ON the attainment of that knowledge of Brahman the succeeding and the preceding sins do not touch him and perish respectively; because of a statement about them. 13

Similarly the other [ i. e., religious merit ] also does not touch him, but on the fall [ of the body ]. 14

But the preceding sin [ which perishes ] and the pre- ceding merit [ which does not touch him ] are only those the effect of which has not begun, because of the limit about them. 15

But the obligatory rites [ of the orders of life ] like the offering of the fire-oblations, etc., [ which are ' good deeds' preceding the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman and the result of which is not begun as yet become useful ] for the very effect of that [ knowledge of Brahman ], because it is shown in the Sruti; 16

also " other good deeds " than these, [ which are of a different type than agnihotradi ] become useful for the same purpose because it is so stated in the text of a certain Branch; 17

because the Sruti ( Cha. Upa. I. 1. 10 ): " whatever rite is performed with the allegorical knowledge ... ... " belongs to both [ the types of good deeds which are anarabdha- kārya and pūrva ]. 18

But, having exhausted other [ good and bad ] deeds [ than the anarabdhakārya deeds, the seeker ] gets union [ with Brahman ]. 19

NOTES Sūtra 13 1. तद्घिगमे-This word is to be contrasted with पाते in the next Sutra. The advanced seeker of the knowledge of Brahman is the topic in the preceding Sutra; so, 'aa' should mean the knowledge of Brahman. 'तद्धिगम' means the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman. 'qra' is the fall of the body, agvra. The sins are affected as soon as the knowledge of Brahman is attained; the merits remain till the fall of the body. See Note 5 below on 'एवंविदि'. 2. अश्लेषविनाशी-'अश्ेष' refers to the succeeding sins, and विनाश to the preceding sins. 3. तद्व्यपदेशात्-A statement about the उत्तराघाल्लेष is यथा पुष्करपलाश आपो न श्िष्यन्त एवमेवंविदि पापं कर्म न श्िष्यते। ( Cha. Upa. IV. 14. 3). A Sruti about the destruction of the 'preceding sins' is तद्यथेषीकातूलमग्नौ प्रोतं प्रदूयेतैवं हास्य सर्वे पाप्मानः प्रदूयन्ते। ( Cha. Upa. V. 24. 3). 4. पूर्वाधविनाश-As 'तु' in Sutra 15 shows this Sutra ( 13 ) is not the final statement of the Sūtrakara on this point. All the preceding sins are not destroyed by the knowledge of Brahman, but only those which have not begun to produce their effect, i. e., the संचित sins, and those sins which he did before getting the knowledge of Brahman and which have not given their result to him. 5. 'एवंविदि' in the Sruti clearly shows that 'तदधिगमे' in the Sutra means 'on the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman '. 6. Sankara takes तद्धिगमे in the sense of'on the attain- ment of Brahman.' But the contrast of तदधिगमे with पाते तु in the next Sutra and the word ' qafaf' in the Sruti and also the context of the preceding Sutras show that ' तद्घिगमे'

BRA. ST. IV. 1. 13-19 335

means " on the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman. " The question discussed here is not whether the sins and the good deeds ( See Sankara's qaua in the next Sutra ) are destroyed or not; because there are Srutis mentioning the destruction of both and all kinds of actions in general. The Sūtrakara wants to explain which actions are destroyed and when, because on these two points the Srutis are not clear. While answering objections to the statement in the Sūtra, which he has himself raised, Saikara says that though the sins and the good deeds of a knower of Brahman are discussed here, the individual soul really is no agent at all, and that, therefore, the word arasa is used for the future bad deeds, and the word 'faT' also means "disappearance caused by right knowledge". The Sutrakara does not seem to make any suggestion about these meanings of these two words. ' aa ' cannot mean that the knower of Brahman cannot do any ( sinfnl ) deeds at all, because the Sruti ( Cha. Upa. IV. 14. 3) shows that qr F does not affect the knower and also because there are Srutis like तं विदित्वा न लिप्यते कर्मणा पापकेन। (Br. Upa. IV.4.23); एतं ह वाव न तपति किमहं साधु नाकरवम्। किमहं पापमकरयमिति॥ (Tai. Upa.II. 9); न स ह तैराचरन् पाप्मना लिप्यते ( Cha. Upa. V. 10. 10). As to the word 'faaT', the fact that the Sutra restricts this faGrar of the past sins only to those sins which have not begun to give their fruit ( Sutra 15 ), proves that the effect of these sins is a reality and therefore the sins also are really committed by the scekor in the past births. It is the knowledge of Brahman which destroys the sins; not the knowledgo of the actionless Atman. Sūtra 14

7. इतरस्य means 'पुण्यस्य' and it consists of all the good deeds preceding and succeeding the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman. Out of these two types of good deeds, the preced- ing good deeds are only those preceding good deeds which have not begun to produce their effect ( See Sutra 15 ).

336 INTARPRETATION

8. qa - The sins either do not touch the knower of Brahman or are destroyed on the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman, because even the succeeding sins do not, rather cannot, form an obstacle to the attainment of liberation. The good deeds, however, cease to touch him not on the attain- ment of knowledge, but only on the fall of the body. This is consis- tent with what the Sūtrakara has said in Bra. Su. III. 4. 33-34 viz., यज्ञ, दान and तपस् anid आश्रमकर्मन्s which all should bo included in good deeds, work as help ( सहकारिन्) to the knowledge of Brahman for the purpose of getting liberation, which is to be had on the fall of the body. This seems to be the difference between तद्धिगमे and पाते. 9. sy: - In the case of sins, there is a destruction of sins which precede the attainment of knowledge. But in the case of good deeds, there is no such destruction of preceding good deeds. The preceding t अग्निहोत्रादि आश्रमकर्मन् and also the preceding यज्ञ, दान and तपस् are not destroyed but they work as help to the knowledge of Brahman for the purpose of achieving liberation ( See Bra. Sūtras IV. 1. 16-18 ). 10. 'gay' shows the similarity between sins and merits only so far as aTtinT is concerned, because there is the dissimila- rity between the two in points of (1) the time ( तदधिगमे and पाते) and (2) the विनाश which though taking place in the case of the sins, does not take place in the case of the merits.

9. In the preceding Sutra, the word arary was used, while we find the word ertinga here. Why ? Matri causa ? 12. On the strength of एवम् Sankara takes 'असंश्लेष' to mean both असंश्लेष and विनाश. But this is rather going directly against the singular number of aransa and also against the fact that the Strakara seems to take good deeds both preced- ing and succeeding the knowledge of Brahman as a help to that knowledge in getting liberation. Sankara's argument for this

t i. e., preceding the attainment of knowledge.

BRA. St. IV. 1. 13-19 837

addition (viz., तस्यापि स्वफलहेतुत्वेन ज्ञानफलप्रतिबन्धित्वप्रसङ्गात्) is directly inconsistent with the fact that the Sutrakara lays down यश, दान and तपस् and आश्रमकर्मनूS as सहकारिन or help to the knowledge of Brahman in the aim of achieving liberation in Bra. Su. III. 4 and also with what the Sutrakara says in Sutras IV. 1. 16-18. The Srutis which Sankara quotes are not referred to in the Sūtra, because either the Sūtrakara does not agree with those Srutis, or what is more possible, he does not interpret them in the way of Sankara. Sankara gives several other arguments, e. g., the fruit of good deeds is inferior to that of knowledge; but this is not the Sūtrakara's argument. Sankara does not take a as emphasizing the difference between तदधिगमे and पाते but he takes it in the sense of 'qa' or 'determination.' He explains qra as "अवश्यंभाविनी विदुषः शरीरपाते मुक्तिः।". Thus, he adds मुकि and makes an independent sentence of 'mia a'. This addition is hardly legitimate looking to the context. a rejects the suggestion of तद्धिगमे in the preceding Sutra. Moreover, the Sutrakara himself has said that there is no fixity regarding the fruit in the form of liberation ( See Bra. Sū. III. 4. 52) and the time of aafa or union ( with Brahman ? ) is sugge- sted by the Sūtrakara in Sūtra 19, not in this Sutra. Sutra 15

13. qa-This means the sins and the merits which precede the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman.

14. In Sūtras 13-14 it was stated that all the preceding sins are destroyed and all the preceding merits do not touch the knower of Brahman. Now, the Sūtrakāra makes a modification in the statement by the words "अनारब्धकार्ये पूर्वे". The preceding good and bad deeds could consist of what are called संचितकर्मन्s and प्रारब्धकर्मनs and also the good and the bad deeds which the seeker did in this life before the attainment of the knowledge. All these deeds are qa or those done before

888 INTXRPRETATION

the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman. Out of these only the अनारब्धकार्य पूर्वकर्मनs i , all पूर्वकर्मन्s except the प्रारब्धकर्मन्s are those which come within the scope of Sutras 13-14. The अनारब्धकार्य पूर्व sins are destroyed on the attainment of ब्रह्मज्ञान, and the अनारब्धकार्थपूर्व good deeds do not touch the knower of Brahman on the fall of the body. The rule about the preceding sins and merits stated in Sūtras 13-14 does not apply to प्रारब्धकार्य पूर्वकर्मनS. 15. 'एव' excludes प्रारब्धकार्यपूर्वकर्मन्s from the list of पूर्व- कर्मनs mentioned in Sutra 13-14. 16. 'a' is used to reject the application of the rule about पूर्वकर्मन्s in Sutras 13-14 so far as the प्रारब्धकार्य पूर्वकर्मनूs are concerned. 17. तदवधे :- "Because of that limit ". 'तद्' refers to पात in the preceding Sutra. 'तदवधेः' refers to तस्य तावदेव चिरं यावन्न विमोक्ष्येऽथ संपत्स्ये। (Cha. Upa. VI. 14. 2), as Sankara points out. In this Sruti the release from the body or in other words the fall of the body is made the limit for aufa " union with Brahman ". The fall of the body takes place after the प्रारब्धकर्मनs are exhausted, because that is the very function of प्रारब्धकर्मनS. 18. Sankara raiscs a question that though all कर्मन्s were explained by him as being destroyed by the right knowledge of Atman, how it is that the knowledge is not able to destroy some कर्मनs viz, the प्रारब्धकर्मनs and that these latter are destroyed only after finishing their effect. He also gives an answer to this. Both this doubt and answer are not mentioned in the Sutra. Moreover, according to the Sūtrakara the good deeds which precede the knowledge of Brahman are not destroyed at all by that knowledge. As already shown ( Sūtra 14 ) Sankara's addition of faarar to Sūtra 14 is not implied by the Sutra itself. By raising this doubt and giving its answer, Sankara anticipates Sutra 19 in his commentary on Sūtra 15.

BRA. So. IV. 1. 13-19 339

Sutra 16 19. The succeeding sins do not touch him on the attainment of ब्रह्मज्ञान; and the succeeding merits do not touch him on the fall of the body. This means that the succeeding sins become impossible from the time of the attainment of ब्रह्मज्ञान and the succeeding good deeds are impossible from the time of the departure from the body. Thus, after the attainment of ब्रह्मज्ञान, the knower never does any sin, but he continues doing good deeds till the end of the body. Even after getting ब्रह्मज्ञान, the gay goes on doing the good deeds as help to the knowledge of Brahman for the attainment of liberation, just as he did before getting it also. मुमुश्रुत्व preceds and follows ब्रह्मज्ञान, it continues till Hfr becomes a fact. For this reason the doing of good deeds precedes and follows ब्रह्मज्ञान; it begins with मुमुक्षुत्व, which indeed precedes ब्रह्मज्ञान and ends with मुक्ति in the achievement of which good deeds serve as सहकारिन to the ज्ान of Brahman. 20. In Sūtras 16-18 the. Sūtrakara seems to tell us what happens of the ज्ञानपूर्वकृतअनारब्ध (or संचित)पुण्यकर्मन्s which are not destroyed but which do not touch him on the fall of the body, as said in Sutra 14. These are the अनारब्धपूर्वकृत- पुण्यकर्मन्s which were not done with the intention of making them a help to ब्रह्मज्षान in the achievement of liberation. This point remains unexplained by Sutras 14-15. The पूर्वअनारब्धकार्य- पुण्यकर्मन्s which preceded मुमुक्षा the rise of the desire to achieve liberation consist of अग्निहोत्रादि आश्रमकर्मनs and other कर्मन्s like यक्ञ, दान and तपस्. The former are discussed in Sutra 16 and the latter in Sutra 17, and both in Sūtra 18. 21. The संचित or अनारब्धकार्य पुण्यकर्मन् in the form of अगिह्ोत्रादिआश्रमकर्मन is not destroyed like the sins of the same type. This is the significance of J. 22. तत्कार्यायैव-The अग्निहोत्रादिकर्मनs described above are useful only for producing the effect of that knowledge of Brahman viz., liberation. By ' एव ' the possibility of the संचित

340 INTERPRETATION

or अनारण्घअभनिहोत्रादिआश्रमकर्मन् producing any other effect is denied. It may be argued that as the संचितअग्निहोत्रादिs were not per- formed with the intention of helping ब्रह्मज्ञान in the achievement of मोक्ष, they should give their usual fruit to the performer in a new birth or they should go to the well-wishers of the seeker in accordance with a Sruti to that effect ( Kau. Upa. ) if they are not to be taken as destroyed by the arna. To this the Sutrakara replies that they do no other function but that of helping the ब्रह्मज्ञान in its aim. 23. तद्दर्शनास्-This refers to Cha. Upa. II. 23. 1. In Bra. Sū. III. 4. 32-33 this same Sruti was used to ask the seeker to perform the duties of the orders. Here it is used to show that the duties of the orders done by a seeker, which are not आरब्धकार्य, become also a help to ब्रह्मज्षान in achieving liberation. This is possible because these are not आरब्धकार्यकर्मनूS, and because अग्निहोत्रादि can help the seeker. 24. Sankara takes this Sutra as referring to the gors both preceding and succeeding ब्रह्मज्ञान because he takes the same पुण्य about which अश्लेष and विनाश were taught in Sutra 14, to be the subject of this Sutra. तत्कार्यायैव is also interpreted by Sankara as referring to the effect of the knowtedge, viz., the release. But ' तद्दर्शनात्' refers to Br. Upa.IV.4.22 according to Sankara. To us it seems that by अग्निहोत्रादि the Sutrakara refers to आश्रमकर्मनs and that therefore Cha. Upa. II. 23. 1 which lays down आश्रमकर्मनs for a seeker is refcrred to here by the Sutra. Here also Sankara proves that अग्निहोत्रादि only produces the ब्रह्मज्ञान, but not मोक्ष which is the effect of Brabmajnana. But in doing so he goes beyond the meaning of तत्कार्यायैव given by himself. These remarks and also the assertion that the आश्रमकर्मन् is helpful only in the सगुणा विद्या the Lore of the limited Brahman are not supported by the word of the Sūtra. Sūtra 17 '25. In this Sutra we should take ' तत्कार्यायैव' as under- stood from the preceding Sutra on the ground of the context.

BRA. Su. IV. 1. 13-19 341

The Sutrakara says that the good deeds other than the AS also help the a of Brahman in achieving its aim viz., release. 26. 'अतः अन्या'=Religious duties other than the आश्रम कर्मनू8. 'अतः' refers to अग्निहोत्रादि mentioned in the preceding Sutra. 27. अपि shows that in addition to अग्निहोत्रादि the Sutrakara considers other religious merits as doing the same work as the knowledge of Brahman. 28. aury - This gives the authority for the conclusion that यज्ञ, दान, तप:, etc., which are अनारब्धकार्य पूर्वपुण्यकर्मनूs be- come useful to the seeker as a help to the knowledge of Brahman in the attainment of liberation. As the Cha. Upa. Šruti ( II. 23. 1) is referred to in Sūtra 16, ury refers to Br. Upa. IV. 4. 22 which mentions यज्ञ, दान and तपसू which are not the duties of the orders as in the case of Cha. Upu. II. 23. 1, as help to the knowledge of Brahman. 29. 'ENUr: '-This word seems to us to form part of the next Sutra. Sutra 16 explains that the आश्रमकर्मन्s which are अनार- maru become help to the achievement of Brahman. Sūtra:17 does the same as regards अनारब्धकार्य पूर्वपुण्यकर्मन्s "which are other than the आश्रमकर्मन्".In each case a Sruti supporting each conolu- sion was referred to in the Sutra. Now, in Sutra 18 the Sūtrakara seems to us to quote a Sruti in support of both these kinds of guraaas. For this reason we propose to transfer उभयो: to Sutra 18. Sankara takes उभयो: to mean " the approval of both the Acaryas viz., Jaimini and Badarayana ". But this seems to be rather unnecessary because "एकेषाम्" is itself the proof of the approval of the Sruti and' there is no reason why the approval of the two Acaryas be necessary when there is already the approval of the Sruti. In the whole work there is hardly any Sutra which quotes the anthority of Srati and Acaryas in the same Sūtra. 30. Sankara takes Sūtra 16 as referring to the gursnas useful for the attainment of liberation ; but according to him Sutra

342 INTERPRETATION

17 discusses the Sruti about the assignment of the good deeds to the friends of the liberated one ( See Sa. bha, on Br. Sū. III. 3. 26). The Sutra itself contains no word expressing a reference to that Sruti. The force of erfa seems to be to assert that the good deeds other than अग्निहोत्रादि are also useful for the effect of that knowledge. 'arfa' shows the addition of some more good deeds to the list of those useful for liberation mentioned in the preceding Sutra. Simply the feminine gender of 'aTFUTT' cannot be a reference to सुदृद: साधुकृत्याम् ... .. Sanikara has to add तस्या एष विनियोग उक्त: to the Sutra to make out a reply to the पूर्वपक्ष he has given for this Sutra. He does not seem to give any inter- pretation of 'हि' which makes the Sruti referred to by पकेषाम् the argument for the statement "अतोऽन्यापि (तत्कार्यायैव)". Sanikara also adds "तस्या एव चेदमघवद्श्ेषविनाशनिरूपणमितरस्याप्ये- वमश्लेष इति।". Out of the word "उभयोः" also he makes out a complete sentence. See Note 29 above.

Sutra 18

31. We have proposed to take awar: as a part of this Sūtra. See above Note 29.

32. यदेव विद्यया इति -This is undoubtedly a reference to Cha. Upa. I. 1. 10 as Sankara rightly points out. 33. 'fa' shows that this Sutra is given as an argument to prove & conclusion which should ordinarily be the same conclusion as in the preceding Sūtras unless a new conclusion is stated by the Sūtrakara. There is here no such conclusion, according to Sankara's reading; yet Sankara makes out a new Adhikarana of this Sūtra. To us it seems that 'ET: ' ( in the preceding Sutra according to Sankara ) belongs to this Sutra; and that this "उभयोः" refers to both अग्निहोत्रादि (Sutra 16) and अतोऽन्यापि (Sutra 17) and therefore this Sutra should be a part of the same Adhikarana to which the preceding two Sutras belong. 'fa ' also shows the same.

BRA. So. IV. 1. 13-19 348

The conclusion of the preceding two Sutras is supported further by this Sūtra. 34. The Sruti ( Cha. Upa. I. 1. 10 ) in question refers to any kind of good deeds, so that it would be understood as covering both the अग्निहोत्रादि and other ritos. "यदेव" in the Sruti is a general reference to all good deeds. All good deeds performed with the knowledge ( faur ), with faith, etc., produce a result superior to that of a deed performed without the knowledge ( faenr). This superior result is 'acra ' ( Sutra 16 ) the effect of the knowledge of Brahman, viz., liberation. In Sūtras III. 4. 4 and 10 the Sūtrakāra has shown that the faur in this Sruti ( Cha. Upa. I. 1. 10) is not particularly the ब्रह्मविद्या. The Sutrakara here quotes this Sruti to prove that actions done with some faur ( the inner, allegorical sense of the rite, not particularly ब्रह्मविद्या ) also give a result other and better than their usual result ( 53). In Sutras 16 and 13 the Sutrakara quoted a Sruti which dealt with the actions done definitely with the aim of achieving the knowledge of Brahman and liberation; in this Sūtra ( 18) he quotes a Sruti which does not mention acts done definitely with such an aim, but yot which produce a result better than their usual one because they are done with a particular kind of knowledge ( faur ). From these texts he concludes that all the अनारब्धकार्य पूर्वपुण्यकर्मन्s become useful to the seeker in the attainment of liberation the effect of the knowledge. The वीर्यवत्तरकार्य in Cha. Upa. I. 1. 10 can be तत्कार्य or ज्ञानकार्य according to the Sūtrakāra. 35. Sankara takes Sūtra 18 as connected with the question discussed in Sutra 16, viz., whether अग्निहोत्रादि which is useful in the attainment of liberation is the one performed with the कर्माङ्गविद्या 'the knowledge related to the rites' or not or whether there is an option. This question does not seem to us to be even suggested by the context. It has been already stated in Bra. Su. III. 4. 33 that the dutios of tho orders

844 INTERPRETATION

should be performed by the seeker with the idea of making them a help to the knowledge of Brahman in its aim. He interprets the Sutra to mean that अग्निहोत्रादि which become useful in the achievement of liberation is that done with the allegorical knowledge of the rite and also that done without it. It is strange that he makes no special case of the rite done with the knowledge, though the Sruti uses the word वीर्यवत्तर as distinguished from वीर्यवत्. The Sutrakara seems to us to take वीर्यवत्तर as referring to ज्ञानकार्य the effect of knowledge. Sūtra 19

36. The topic of this Sutra is the disposal of the आरब्घकार्य पूर्वकर्मन्s both good and bad. The word "इतरे" means 'other than those discussed in the preceding Sūtras' i. e., other than the आरब्धकार्य पूर्वकर्मन्S. This also shows that Sutras 16-18 were intended to explain what happened of the अनारब्धकार्य पुण्यकर्मन्s which preceded the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman. The topic of Sutra 15 is अनारब्धकार्य gasdas good and bad deeds ' which have not begun to give their result' and which preceded the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman, but that Sutra does not say what happens of the अनारब्धकार्य पूर्वपुण्यकर्मन्; this latter is the topic of Sūtras 16-18.

The यज्ञादिकर्मनs and the आश्रमकर्मनूS (Sutra III. 4. 27, III. 4. 32-34 ) as well as the knowledge of Brahman ( Sū. III. 4. 1) are laid down by the Sutrakara as means to the attainment of liberation; so, it is not necessary for the Sūtrakara to say anything as to how these are disposed of when liberation is attained.

The Sutrakara does not seem to believe in the theory that some of the good and the bad deeds of the seeker are transferred to those who love and those who hate him.

37. The आरब्धकार्य कर्मन्s-both good and bad-are आरब्ध- FATs i. e. their result is already being worked out; in other

BRA. So. IV. 1. 13-19 345

words, they are the foundation of this present birth of the seeker. Their result ( r ) is already decided and has been already begun before the seeker attains the knowledge of Brahman. For this reason, they cannot be made a help to the knowledge of Brahman in the latter's goal of liberation, as were the अनारब्घकार्य पूर्वपुण्यकर्मन्s. The आरब्धकार्य evil deeds must also give the result which has already been fixed. Thus, the आरब्घकार्य कर्मनs are destroyed only after their result is experienced ( भोग) by the seeker. 38. संपद्ते -After these actions are exhausted the seeker gets liberation in the form of union with Brahman ( siofar ). The reference in this Sūtra is clearly made to Cha. Upa. VI. 14. 2 viz., तस्य तावदेव चिरं यावन्र विमोक्ष्येऽथ संपत्स्ये. 39. Sankara's remarks in the beginning of his commentary on this Sutra ( अनारब्धकार्ययोः पुण्यपापयोः विद्यासामर्थ्यात् क्षय उक्तः) are to be understood only in a general way because he himself has explained that the अनारब्धकार्य अग्निहोत्रादिरूप पूर्वपुण्यकर्मन becomes a help to the knowledge of Brahman for the achieve- ment of liberation ( Sutra 16). We have shown that Sūtra 17 explains the अनारब्धकार्य अग्निद्ोत्रादीतर पूर्वपुण्यकर्मन् as becoming similarly useful.

44

CHAPTER V

SECTION 1

The Union of the Senses with the Mind.

Sūtras IV. 2. 1-11

(१) वाङ्मनसि दर्शनाच्छव्दाच्च।

(२ ) अत एव च सर्वाण्यनु ।

(३ ) तन्मनः प्राण उत्तरात्।

(४) सोऽध्यक्षे तदुपगमादिभ्यः ।

(५) भूतेषु तच्छृतेः ।

(६) नैकस्मिन्दर्शयतो हि।

(७) समाना चासृत्युपक्रमादमृतत्वं चानुपोष्य।

(८) तदापीतेः संसारव्यपदेशात्।

(९) सूक्ष्मं प्रमाणतश्च तथोपलब्घेः।

(१०) नोपमर्देनातः ।

(११) अस्यैव चोपपत्तेरेष उष्मा।

TRANSLATION

THE Speech [ of the seeker who is departing from the body to join Brahman unites ] with his mind because it is shown in the Sruti and because of the Word. 1

And on the same grounds [ the Speech unites with the mind ] after all other senses [have united with the Speech ]. 2

That mind unites with the breath, because of the subsequent sentence. 3

That breath unites with the governor [ of the body ] on account of the approach [of the senses and the breath] to him, and other reasons. 4 He unites with the elements because of the Sruti about them; 5

Not with one element because both the Sruti and Smrti show it. 6

[ This departure ] is the same both from the beginning of the Path [ of gods ] and after having attained immor- tality, 7

because the union [of the senses, the mind, the breath, the soul, and the elements ] during that time is called " transmigration "; 8

and [ that is ] the subtle body, because it is found to be so on the strength of the evidence, 9

hence it is not destroyed by the destruction of the gross body, 10

and this warmth belongs to this [ subtle body ] only because of its reasonableness. 11

NOTES

Sūtra 1 1. The Sutras forming this Adhikarana deal with such Šrutis as :- (a) अस्य सोम्य पुरुषस्य प्रयतो वाङमनसि संपधते मनःप्राणे प्राणस्ते- जसि तेजःपरस्यां देवतायाम्। (Cha. Upa. VI. 8. 6). (b) एवमेवेममात्मानमन्तकाले सर्वे प्राणा अभिसमायन्ति ...... ( Br. Upa. IV. 3. 38 ). स यत्रायमात्माऽबल्यं नेत्यसंमोह्मिवन्येत्यथैनमेते प्राणा अभिसमायन्ति स पतास्तेजोमात्राः समभ्याददानो हृदयमेवान्ववक्रामति स

IV. 4. 1). यत्रैष चाक्षुसः पुरुषः पराङ् पर्यावर्ततेऽथारूपज्षो भवति ॥ १॥ (Br. Upa.

(c) स परेऽक्षरे आत्मनि संप्रतिष्ठत ॥९॥ ......... । विज्ञानात्मा सह दैवैश्च सर्वैः प्राणा भूतानि संप्रतिष्ठन्ति यत्र॥ तदक्षरं वेद्यते यस्तु सोम्य स सर्वक्षः सर्वमेवाविशन्ति ॥ ११॥ (Pra. Upa. IV. 9, 11). (d) पुरुषं सोम्योपतापिनं ज्ञातयः पर्युपासते जानासि मां जानासि मामिति तस्य यावन्न वाङ्मनसि संपद्यते मनः प्राणे प्राणस्तेजसि तेजः परस्यां देवतायां तावज्जानाति ॥ १।। अथ यदास्य वाङूमनसि संपद्यते मनः प्राणे प्राणस्तेजसि तेजः परस्यां देवतायामथ न जानाति॥(Cha. Upa. VI. 15. 1-2). 2. In the last Adhikarana of the preceding Pada, the union [ with Brahman ] was stated to take place after all the प्रारब्धकार्याणि कर्माणि were exhausted through the individual soul experiencing their fruit. Now the Sutrakara shows how the soul leaves the body and unites with Brahman. The topic introduced in the last Adhikarana of the preceding Pada by the word 'संपद्यते' is continued in this Pada, as is shown by the विषयवाक्य of Bra. Su. IV. 2. 1. 3. दर्शनात्-This argument of 'दर्शन' refers always in Brahmasutras to what is shown in the Upanisads and not to what we find in the world. And the Sruti referred to by दर्शनात् is

BRA. SU. IV. 2. 1-11 349

mostly of the kind of an cxample, rather than a direct rule. So, the present argument of aar seems to refer to Cha. Upa. VI. 15. 1.

4. 'saia' may be a reference to a Sruti like Cha. Upa. VI. 15. 2 or VI. 8. 6. Since ' ivua ' in Bra. Sū. IV. 1. 19 is & reference to Cha. Upa. VI 14. 2, and " aaara " refers to Cha. Upa. VI. 15. 1, it is very likely that ' z1a' refers to. Cha. Upa. VI. 15. 2.

5. The reference to Cha. Upa. VI. 14. 2 in Bra. Su. IV. 1. 19 and to Cha. Upa. VI. 15. 1-2 in Bra. Sū. IV. 2. 1 is also a written proof for the fact that Bra. Su. IV. 2 deals with the knower of the Supreme Brahman.

6. According to Sankara's system there is no departure (from the body ) of the knower of Brahman, so he says that the order of the senses departing from the body mentioned here refers to the lower lores for which also the ra: qeen: is described in Bra. Su. IV. 3. Thus, he does not see any connection between Bra. Su. IV. 2-3 and Bra. Su. IV. 1. We have already given above two arguments to show that all these Padas, at least the last Adhikarana of Bra. Su. IV. 1 and the first Adhikarana of Bra. Sū. IV. 2, are closely conne- cted ( See above Notes 2, 5 ). For Sankara's argument based upon Sūtra 7, see our Notes there. Sankara tries to show that are5 ' Speech ' in the Sutra means the function of the sense of Speech, not the sense itself. His argument based upon Sutra IV. 2. 16 does not stand because the word ' afaur' in that Sutra does not mean, 'dissolution'; but only telescopie ' union ' (See our Notes there ), and the 'afam ' does not refer only to the last item, but it refers to all the items. His other argument (srara- कृतित्व ) is not given by the Sutrakara directly or indirectly. 'दर्शन' should refer to a text rather than only to what we see taking place when a man leaves the body. And as we have already shown, aata probably refers to Cha. Upa. VI. 15. 1. The Sūtrakāra seems

350 INTERPRETATION

to understand the Sruti to mean that the sense of Speech 'unites with the mind in a telescopic manner. He takes aiqfa not in the sense of dissolution, but in the sense of " union ". Sankara may be understood as taking r to refer to Cha. Upa. VI. 15. 2 instead of Cha. Upa. VI. 8. 6. He interprets the word वाकू as वागिन्द्रिय and argues that the Sruti uses वाकू for वागिन्ट्रिय through the वृत्तिवृत्तिमतोः अभेदोपचार:

Sūtra 2

7. "aa qa " can mean a reference to the arguments given in the preceding Sutras viz., दर्शनात् and शष्द्रात् But there seem to be no Srutis to which दर्शन and शब्द supporting the sense of सर्वाणि अनु (See below) can be traced. Therefore, we should here interpret "अत एव" in another way in which it is used and interpreted elsewhere in the Sūtras, e. g., III. 4. 25 (अत एव चाग्नीन्धनादयनपेक्षा), and I. 3. 29 (अत एव च नित्यत्वम्). If we compare the sense of अत एव in all the Sutras where the expression occurs, we shall find that in all the placos it means a reference to the statement in the preceding Sūtra, rather than to the source of argumeut therein.

8. सर्वाणि is undoubtedly a reference to सर्वाणि इन्द्रियाणि as Sankara points out.

9. 'अनु' is to be taken as a preposition governing 'सर्वाणि'. We cannot add to it वर्तन्ते and make it a part of अनुवर्तन्ते, because not only it involves a clear addition to the Sūtra, but it also makes सर्वाणि a subject i. e. a nominative form which it does not seem to be. Moreover, in that case we have to take 'मनः' as an implied object of 'अनुवर्तन्ते'.

10. सर्वाणि अनु - The Speech unites with the mind after all the senses. This can mean either that all the senses first unite with the sense of Speech and then the Speech unites with the mind or that all the senses unite with the mind and then the sense of Speech unites with the mind. Out of these two possibi-

BRA. St. IV. 2. 1-11 351

lities the former interpretation seems to us to be the better because it agrees better with the meaning of अत एव ( " because the Speech unites with the mind" ). Because the Speech unites with the mind, we shall conclude that it does so after all the senses unite with the Speech. The Cha. Upa. Sruti ( VI. 15. 2 ) says that the Speech unites with the mind. From this we should infer that the Speech does so after all the senses unite with the Speech. We make this suggestion on the ground of the Srutis in which ras or the sense of Speech stands for all the senses c. g. (1) यतो वाचो निवर्तम्तेSप्राप्य मनसा सह। ( Tai. Upa. II. 4.1), (2) यच्छेद्वाङ्मनसी प्राश्ः (Ka. Upa. III. 13 ) where Sankara remarks "वागत्रोपलक्षणार्था सर्वेषामिन्द्रियाणाम् ".+ (3) Of. also अस्तमिते आदित्ये याज्वल्क्य चन्द्रमस्य- स्तमिते शान्तेऽग्रौ किंज्योतिरेवायं पुरुष इति वागेवास्य ज्योतिर्भवतीति वाचैवायं ज्योतिषास्ते पल्ययते कर्म कुरुते विपल्येतीति तस्माद्व सम्राडपि यत्र स्वः पाणिर्न विनिर्शायतेऽथ यत्र वागुश्चरयत्युपैव तत्र न्येतीत्येवमेवैतद्याक्षवल्क्य।। (Cha. Upa. IV. 3. 5). The Sutrakara who follows the Chandogya Upanișad Sruti seems to us to reconcile it with Pra. Upa. III. 9 which Sankara quotes, by saying that the Speech unites with the mind after all the senses have united with it ( with the Speech ). Thus, he sticks to the Chandogya Upanisad state- ment that it is the Speech which unites with the mind. 11. This interpretation of सर्वाणि as सर्वाणि इन्द्रियाणि, given by Sankara also, shows that here the Sūtrakara and the Srutis speak of the union of all the senses, not of the dissolu- tion of their functions. 12. Sankara takes 'अत एव' to mean a reference to the very arguments viz., दर्शन and शब्द (and तत्वप्रलयासंभव for which see below ), given in Sutra 1. He takes अनु as अनुवर्तन्ते and takes मनः as understood, thus interpreting 'मनोऽनुवर्तन्ते' as " मनसि संपत्तिः", and making सर्वाणि a nom. plural. Thoreby in the Pra. Upa. Sruti he brings out the sense that all the

t See Anandgiri on Sankara's bhasya ननूपसंहारेऽगि वाच इतरेन्द्रियाणां सव्यापाराणामनुपसंहारे तन्मात्रं न ज्ञानसाधनमित्याशङ्कयाह।।

352 INTERPRETATION

functions of the senses merge into the mind, but not the senses themselves. It may be asked, " If the Sūtrakara follows the Praśna Upa. Sruti ( as Sankara's interpretation of Sūtra 2 explains ), why does he mention the Cha. Upa. Sruti, in which only Speech is mentioned, in Sūtra 1 ?" To this he replies that the separate mention of the merging of the Speech into the mind in Sūtra 1 is out of regard for the Cha. Upa. Sruti. This explanation of Sankara is hardly consistent with the method of the Sutrakara as revealed in his work. Generally, in the case of slightly differing Srutis, the Sutrakara never collects them all in several Sūtras, as is the case here according to Sankara. Rather he sticks to the old tradition i. e., to the Cha. and the Br. Upanisads, and explains the difference in other Upanisads by making the latter secondary as compared with the Cha. and Br. Upanisads. Here also the fact seems to be that the Sūtrakara sticks to the Cha. Upanisad and explains the state- ment in the Pra. Upa. by saying that all the senses (except the Speech) unite with the Speech and then the Speech unites with the mind; in the opinion of the Strakara this is the reason why the Cha. Upa. speaks of only the Speech as uniting with the mind. Sutra 3 13. 'asga:' means the mind with which the Speech unites. 14. उत्तरांत्-This is a reference to 'मनः प्राणे' which follows 'वाङ्मनसि संपद्यते' in Cha. Upa. VI. 15. 2. 15. It seems that the Strakara in these Sūtras makes clear the order of the senses at the time of the departure from the body. This order is not mentioned in such Srutis about the departure, as ( a ) Pra. Upa. IV. 9. 10 ( See Notes on Sūtra 1), and (b) गताः कला: पञ्चदश प्रतिष्ठा देवाश्च सर्वे प्रतिदेवतासु। कर्माणि विज्ञानमयश्च आत्मा परे अव्यये सर्व एकीभवन्ति॥ ( Mu. Upa. III. 2. 7 ).

BRA. So. IV. 2. 1-11 353

The purpose of the Sūtrakāra in Sūtras IV. 2. 1-15 is to tell us the order of this union of all these in the Supreme One in the case of the knower of Brahman. The order also is not the same in all the Srutis where it is given. So, he reconciles these Srutis also. In none of these Srutis we find the mention of the afa or function of the senses or the mind. And the अविभाग in Sutra 16 is a union, not dissolution, as explained in Sutra 16. For these reasons Sankara's view that the वृत्तिप्रलय is established here by rejecting the Purvapaksa of the dissolution of the sense or the mind does not seem to us to respresent the Sūtrakara's view ( See Note on Sūtra 5 ).

16. For Sankara's exlpanation that the function of tho mind is dissolved into the Prana, see Note on the preceding Sūtra. The उत्तर (वाक्य) also does not refer to the function of the mind. The argumonts of दर्शन and अतत्प्रकृतित्व are not given in the Sūtra.

17. Sankara gives the argumont of अतत्प्रकृतित्व in Sutras 1-3 and the words "नेत्याह। अतत्प्रकृतित्वात् " in his bhasyu on Bra. Su. IV. 2. 1 sound as if he is quoting an argument from the Sutra itself. But it is not found in any Patha of the Sutras. The Ratnaprabha explains 'नेत्याह' as नेत्याह श्रुतिः. There is no Sruti with the required negation.

Sutra 4

18. ': ' refers to the Prana with which the mind has united.

19. अध्यक्षे- With अध्यक्षे we have to take संपद्ते as understood. This word 'अध्यक्ष' meaus the जीव as Saiikara points out. The Sutrakara uses the word arezar in the sense of the lord; here it means the lord of the body, just as it means the lord of the ar ( an effect-world ) in Bra. Su. IV. 3.10 (कार्यात्यये तदध्यक्षेण सह).

354 INTERPRETATION

20. तदुपगमादिभ्यः-'तदुपगम' means the approach of प्राण to the जीव. This is a reference to such a text as qवमिममात्मान- मन्तकाले सर्वे प्राणा अभिसमायन्ति यत्रैतदूर्ध्वोच्छासी भवति (Br. Upa. IV. 3. 38, IV. 4. 1). In Pra. Upa. IV. 9, 11, it is stated that the individual soul approaches the Supreme Immutable One; but it is not stated there (or even in Mu. Upa. III. 2. 7) at what stage the individual soul joins the process of departure. Moreover, in Cha. Upa. VI 15, the individual soul is not mentioned though it is mentioned in other Srutis. So, the Sūtrakara makes these doubts clear by this Sūtra. 21. " arfa " in the Sutra may be taken as referring to Br. Upa. IV. 4. 2 (तमुत्क्रामन्तं प्राणोऽनूत्क्रामति प्राणमनूत्कामन्तसर्वे प्राणा अनूत्कामन्ति ।) as Sanikara points out. 22. As in other Sutras, here we find no reference in the Sutra to the function of the sror being dissolved into the individual soul. Sūtra 5

21. The individual soul unites with the elements. "assa:" refers to a Sruti about the elements ( as ). Such a Sruti would be Pra. Upa. IV. 11, viz., विज्ञानात्मा सह देवैश्च सर्वैः प्राणा भूतानि संप्रतिष्ठन्ति यत्र। तदक्षरं वेदयते यस्तु सोग्य स सर्वक्षः सर्वमेवाविवेशेति॥ The Sutrakara refers to a Sruti mentioning all the elements; he does not say that the Sruti he refers to states that " the individual soul resorts to the element "; so, aa in 'asga: ' refers only to the elements and not to a statement about the individual soul resorting to the elements. This require- ment is fulfilled by the above Sruti, and perhaps in all the (ten) Upanisads recognised by the Sutrakara, that is the only Sruti mentioning ( all ) the elements with regard to the departure. 24. Sankara who takes " moreaarfer " ( Cha. Upa. VI. 8. 6 ) as the Sruti referred to by the Sutra has to explain yag

BRA. SO. IV. 2. 1-11 355

as तेज:सहचरितेषु भूतेषु. This modification of the word भूतेषु in the Sutra as well as the objection which Sankara answers by giving the example of a journey to Pataliputra from Srughna via Mathura, also shows that Pra. Upa. IV. 11 is a better विषयधाक्य of this Sutra than Cha. Upa. VI. 8. 6. 25. In the case of Speech, mind and breath, Sankara argued that the functions only of these are dissolved into the succeeding ones, and not they themselves. It was not possible to give a similar explanation regarding the contact of the individual soul with the elements; so, Sankara says that the ruler of the body stays in the elements ( अध्यक्षस्य भूतेषु अवस्थानम् ). To us it appears that this alone (अवस्थान ) was meant by the Sruti and the Sutras rather than any kind of dissolution of the function.

Sutra 6

26. 'एकस्मिन्' means 'एकस्मिन् भूते'. This expression is cleverly used by the Sutrakara to refer to asrq and also the Water.

27. न एकस्मिन्-एकस्मिन् refers first to तेजस् in the Sruti "प्राणस्तेजसि" (Cha. Upa. VI. 15. 2). The resort of the individual soul is not only one element viz., the light which is mentioned in the Cha. Upa. Sruti ( VI. 15. 2) about the departure. 28. दर्शयत :- The fact that the soul does not reside only in one element has been proved in Bra. Sū. III. 1. 1-2 on the ground of a question and an answer. The Sruti disoussed there was Cha. Upa. V. 3. 3 and " the one element " was the Water. It was to bring out this reference that the Sūtrakara used the expression 'एकस्मिन्' instead of the words 'तेजसि पव' as required by the Cha. Upa, text. 29. Sankara gives also another explanation of दर्शयत: as 'दर्शयतः अ्रतिस्मृती'; but as the Smrti reference can not be traced to the Bhagavadgita or the Mahabharata and as '(ofeaz'

356 INTERPRETATION

may be taken also as referring to the Water, because each of Chã. Upa. VI. 15. 2 and Cha. Upa. V. 3. 3 mentions only one element and gives rise to a similar discussion. Sankara mentions a purvapaksa on the ground of the fact that in Br. Upa. III. 2. 13 the individual soul is described as resorting to his actions at the time of the departure instead of to the elements. The answer to this doubt can be had from Sutras 7-8. But it is not quite correct to hold that " the receiving of the elements " is mentioned here because a new gross body is to be assumed by the departing soul. Also in the last departure when the knower of Brahman is to attain immortality ( arara-Sutra 7 ) and is no more going to be reborn with a new mundane body, the soul does resort to the elements which unite with the Supreme Being in the heart ( Sūtras 12, 15, 17 ). Sūtra 7 30. 'समाना '-This process of departure ( उत्क्रान्ति) is the same; it remains unchanged between the two points mentioned in the Sūtra.

'समाना' mneans unchanged because the last उत्क्रान्ति is slightly different from this उत्क्रान्ति. In the last उत्क्रान्ति the elements in their turn resort to qr aar ( Sutra 15) by the relation of union ( Sutra 16 ) and there are other noticeable features mentioned in Sutra 17. These are not present in all the 3afas which precede the last one and, therefore, all those 3ifeas are similar while the last one is dissimilar. 31. आसृत्युपक्रमात्-"From the begining of the Path " viz., "the Path of the gods ( देवयान)." सृति means a path e. g., नैते सृती पार्थ जानन्योगी मुह्यति कश्चन (Bha. Gi. VIII 26). Though both the path of the Pitrs and that of the gods can be called ' ufa '; here the Sūtrakara means the Path leading to immortality, so the gfa in this Sutra should be taken as the Path of the gods ( agmla ). The various worlds to which one can go when

BRA. Su. IV. 2. 1-11 357

he is on this Path are described in the next Pada ( Bra. Sū. IV. 3). The Sutrakara seems to say that after one begins this Path or takes to this Path the method of departure described in the preceding Sūtras takes place. 32. अमृतत्वं चानुपोष्य-'उपोष्य' should be derived from उप+वस to fast. उपोष्य would mean " having fasted; " so aursy would mean "having tasted " i. e., having reached, having got. 'अमृतत्वम्' should be taken as the objeot of अनुपोष्य. "अमृतत्वं चानुपोष्य " means " and having attained immortality." The Sutrakara says that the departure described in the preeeding Sutras is the same from the begining of the Path of gods, and [ it is also the same ] after one has attained immortality. Thus, this departure is here said to be the same also after one has attained immortality. 33, Sankara does not interpret the Sūtra to mean that the departure is the same from the beginning of the Path in the sense that it is the same for all the stations or the worlds on the Path of gods. But he raises a question whether this departure is the same for the knower and for the non-knower or whether it is different. In fact, the question about the departure of the subtle body ( together with the senses )+ in the case of those who do not know the Atman§ has already been discussed in Bra. Su. III. 1. The going of the elements ( Bra. Su. III. 1. 2 ) and that of the senses ( Bra. Sū. III. 1. 3 ) is a clear referenco to the departre or sarfa of these subtle constituents from the body in the case of those who do not know the Atman. Moreover, the context of Bra. Su. IV. 2. 7 suggests that here the question of the sanrfea of only the knower of Atman is considered. In the first Pada

• तदन्तरप्रतिपत्तौ रंहृति सं परिष्वक्तः प्रश्ननिरूपणभ्याम्। त्र्यात्मकत्वात्तु भूयस्त्वात्। प्राणगतेश्ष ॥ ( Bra. Sū. III. 1. 1-2.). $ भाक वानात्मवित्त्वात्तथाहि दर्शयति। ( Bra. Sū. III. 1. 7 ).

358 INTERPRETATION

the disposal of his actions is mentioned ( Bra. Su. IV. 1. 12-19 ), and in the third the various worlds situated on the Path of the gods are mentioned in due order ( Bra. Su. IV. 3. 1 ). Moreover, the attainment of immortality mentioned in this Sutra (7) also suggests that afa here is the Path of gods. It is on that Path that we read " न स पुनरावर्तते", "he returns not ". So, the sarfra of the senses etc., takes place in the case of both the knower and the non-knower ( or the ritualist ); but in the former case there is an order regarding how the senses, the mind, the breath, the soul and the elements join with each succeeding one, while in the case of the ritualist the subtle body together with the soul leaves the body without any such conscious procedure regarding their union. For these reasons, there is no likelihood of the question of the non-knower being discussed here. As Sankara himself notices, the regularly developing sartfa i. e., the 3afa in which each preceding item joins each succeeding one, is mentioned in the Upanisads only where the context is about the knowledge of the Atman; while such a regular development and preparation for the departure on the part of the members of the subtle body is never mentioned in the Upanisads in the case of the ritualists. This also suggests that the Sutrakara would do the same.

Again, the पूर्वपक्ष based upon न तस्य प्राणा उत्क्रामन्ति (Br. Upa. IV. 4. 6) is discussed in Sūtra 12, and it actually arises from the statement (अमृतत्वं चानुपोष्प) in Sutra 7. So, that gauer is out of point here.

Sankara's reply (अविशेषश्रवणात्) is his own, it is not given in the Sūtra itself, though he tries to bring out this meaning out of आसृत्युपक्रमात्. Sankara does not make अमृतत्वम् an object of "अनुपोष्य," but he separates the two words and he interprets agorey as अदृश्ववा and construes it with अविद्यादीन केशान taken as under-

BRA. So. IV. 2. 1-11 $59

stood; and, thereby, he changes the entire sense of अमृतत्वम्, in so far as he concludes अपरविद्यासामर्थ्यात् आपेक्षिक अमृतत्वं प्रेप्सते ।. There is no suggestion in the Sutra, which would justify us in explaining अमृतत्वम् as आपेक्षिकममृतत्वम्. If a Sruti mentions गति and अमृतत्वम् in the same context, one is hardly justified in explaining that अमृतत्वम् as आपेक्षिक, unless one resorts to independent arguments not mentioned in the Sruti.

Sūtra 8

34. This Sutra gives only an argument and from the context it seems to be an argument for the statement in Sūtra 7. 35. 'aar' would ' mean during the time from the beginning of the Path of the gods till after the attainment of immortality.' 36. 'अपीति' is the mixing, uniting, i.c.the union of the senses with the mind, upto the union of the soul with the elements described in Sutras 1-6. 37. अपीतेः संसारव्यपदेशात् -This union of the items of the subtle body during the time already stated is called the trans- migration 'संसार '. The Sutra tells us that the union (अपीति ) is called संसार. In the case of the अपीति taking place after the attainment of immortality, the अपीति so far described is a part of the TnT. So, it will be even then a part of the transmigration of the soul ( संसार). The further part of the union ( Sutra 15 ) is not callod Gar. This seems to be the point of differenco between tho union described in Sūtras 1-6 and that in Sütra 15.

Because the union during the time from the beginning of the Path of gods till after the attainment of immortality is called Har, the union during that period is the same or is of the same kind. The srrauna ends there, i. e., it ends on the union of the soul with the elements. The union boyond that time, during the उत्क्रान्ति is not callod संसार, and, therefore, it differs from the one described in Sutras 1-6.

360 INTERPRETATION

38. We have taken 'तदापीतेः' as तदा and अपीते :; Sankara takes it as तदु and आपीतेः (आ अपीतेः), and adds अवतिष्ठते and makes संसारव्यंपदेशात् an argument for "तदापीतेः अवतिष्ठते". It is in this manner that he makes out a new Adhikarana begin- ning with Sutra 8. To us it seems that the addition of 'अवतिष्ठत' is unnecessary and therefore, not legitimate and that ' ardra: ' should be directly connected with संसारव्यपदेशात्. Moreover, according to Sankara, this Sūtra discusses the nature of the union of the तेजसू with the Supreme Deity mentioned in Cha. Upa. VI. 8. 6 (तेजः परस्यां देवतायाम्); whether it is absolute or relative. But to us it seems that this point is considered in Bra. Su. IV. 2. 15-16 and, therefore, it is not the topic here. Again, तद् (in तद् + आपीते: according to Sankara) does not mean only तेजः, but it has to be explained as तजःआदिभूतसूक्षमं श्रोत्रादिकरणाश्रयभूतम्. This is rather not very harmonious with the fact that the Sutrakara has rejected the singular form asr., and has established the view about the plural number of the elements ( forming the subtle body of the knower of Atman. See Sutras 5-6) and he follows that view again in Sūtra 15.

'arrsora:'-Even if we follow this reading of separating तदापीते: as तदू and आपीतेः, the word अपीति cannot mean संसार- aiter because here the liberation itself is not the topic; rather the ardtfa mentioned in these Sutras ( 1-6) is the one taking place as a part of the उत्क्रान्ति. Saikara explains संसारव्यपदेश as the statement about transmigration, not as " being called (व्यपदिश to give a name to something ) transmigration". The तेज आदिभूतसूक्ष्म continues till liberation is achieved chiefly because the अविद्या of the soul continues; not because संसार is mentioned in the Srutis like Katha Upa. V.7. The continua- tion of भूतसूक्ष्म is itsolf the संसार. The fact that the भूतसूक्ष्म accompanies the soul during transmigration has been already established in Bra. Sū. III. 1. 1-4, which was the proper place in the Sutras for the discussion of that question, rather than Bra. Su. IV. 2 which is chietly meant to describe the procedure

BRA. So. IV. 2. 1-11 361

of the scrifa of the knower of Brahman. Lastly, the union of the aa: ( or the elements ) with the Supreme Deity never takes place as a part of (in) the departure (scnifea ) occurring during the transmigration ( tert ) of the soul. If that union takes place, the immediately next stop is liberation ( Vide Sūtras 15-17 ). Even in Sankara's system after that union takes plaee, the soul goes to faroamf and never returns to this world. It is the union of the soul with the Supreme One during deep- sleep state which is not final ( See Sutras IV. 2. 15-16 below ).

Sūtra 9

39. Sūtras 9-11 seem to give one more argument why the departure ( 3arfea ) of the senses, the mind, the breath and the elements takes place in the case of one on the Path of the gods and also after the attainment of immortality. These sonses, etc., form the subtle body and hence when the gross body is destroyed that subtle body is not destroyed. Thus, the only possibility is that it accompanies the soul on the Path of the gods and even after he attains immortality.

40. The body made of the senses, etc., is a subtle one because it is found to be so on the strength of the evidence ( of the Sruti and the Smrti ). Cf. Bhagavadgita XV. 7-9, and also Bra. Su. III. 1. 7. As regards the proof of the Sruti see Br. Upa. IV. 4. 6.

41. Saikara takes सूक्ष्मम with इतरभूतसहितं तेज :. We may as well take सूक्ष्मम् with शरीरम् understood (Sou Sankara on tho next Sutra ). = should mean an additional argument besides that in Sūtra 8; but Sankara takes it in the sense of aaaa, and interprets it as स्वरूपतश्. Saikara interprets तथोपलब्धे: as an 0x- planation of sarora:, and takes 'the finding ' as a reference to the Sruti of the departure of the soul with the subtle body from the hundred-and-first artery ( viz., Cha. Upa. VIII. 6. 6 ). This is quite consistent with the fact that sqafeu in the Sūtras

362 INTERPRATATION

always refers to what we find in the Scripture particularly the the Sruti. For this reason, THTOT or ' proof' can only mean the proof of the Scripture. Sutra 10

42. ara :- ' Because the body is subtle '.

43. 'qH ' (destruction) refers to that of the gross body, as Sankara rightly explains it. By the destruction of the gross body the subtle body being subtle is not destroyed. This has been stated in Sūtra III. 1. 4. It is mentioned here again in order to show that the subtle body must accompany even one who has attained immortality, because only then it will be destroyed.

Sūtra 11

44. This warmth which we feel when we touch the gross body and which is not felt when even a knower of Brahman departs, must reasonably belong to this subtle body ( See Br. Upa. IV. 4. 1). The Sūtrakara here gives another proof why the subtle body must accompany one who has attained immortality. Even when after death the gross body is not burnt, we find it cold. This means the subtle body to which the warmth belongs is not destroyed but has accompanied the departing soul. Thus, the nature of the subtle body is itself a proof that the senses, the mind, the breath and tho cloments accompany those on the Path of the gods and those who have attained immortality. 45. In the case of Stras 9-11 Sakara does not tell us why the description of the subtle body is given in this place in the Sutras. Probably he only thinks that here the Sutras describe only the nature of the subtle body, which, according to him, is referred to by तदू in तद् +आऽपीते: in Sutra 8. To us it appears that Sutra 8 gives an argument for the statement in Sutra 7 and that Sutras 9-11 give another argument for the same. '' in Sutra 9 shows this.

CONTINUATION OF SECTION I

Departure of the senses, etc., even after the Attainment of Immortality.

Sutras IV. 2. 12-14

(१२) प्रतिषेधादिति चेभ शारीराद्।

(१३) स्पष्टो ह्ये केषाम् ।

(१४) स्मर्यते च ।

TRANSLATION

[ IF it be argued that there is no departure of the senses, etc., after the attainment of immortality ] because there is a negation in the Sruti, we reply, " No ". [ The negation is about the departure of these ] from the individual soul, 12

because [ the negation from him ] is clear in the text of the followers of one of the Branches of the Veda, 13

and it is stated in the Smrti. 14

NOTES

Sutra 12

1. Sūtra 12 gives a qaqar against the Proposition made by the Sutrakara in Sutras 7-11. In Sutra 7 it was said that the departure ( 3afa ) is the same even after the attainment of immortality, and Sutras 8-11 give arguments for the same conclusion. Now, Sutra 12 raises an objection against it and Sūtras 13-14 give an answer to it. 2. प्रतिषेधात्-This. is clearly a reference to Br. Upa. IV. 4.6, viz., न तस्य प्राणा उत्क्रामन्ति. In this Sruti it is clearly stated that the senses together with the vital airs do not depart from the body in the case of the seeker who desirelessly seeks only the Atman. This is a contradiction of the assertion that the departure of the senses, etc., is the same cven after the attainment of immortality, made in Sūtra 7 and supported by arguments in Sūtras 8-11.

2. -The Sutrakara does not accept the opponent's view that Br. Upa. IV.4. 6 negatives the departure of the senses, ete., from the gross body in the case of one who seeks Atman.

3. mua - In this word the Sūtrakara gives his inter- pretation .of तस्य in Br. Upa. IV. 4. 6. तस्य means शारीरस्य, but the Sūtrakara takes it in the sense of amdrra. It is not that the senses, etc., of the soul seeking Atman do not depart; but the Sruti means that the senses, etc., do not depart from the soul seeking Atman. According to Sutras 1-7, the senses unite with the mind, the mind then unites with the breath, that breath with the soul and the soul with the subtle elements. Thus, if the SoTS at all depart, they must depart only from the soul. Having this procedure in his mind, the Sūtrakara says that the senses do not depart from the soul-in-the-body. Thus, ay in the Sruti means 'atara' according to Sutra 12.

BRA. Su. IV. 2. 12-14 365

5. As shown above the topic in Sutras 7-11 is continued in Sūtra 12. So this Sūtra ( 12) forms part of the same Adhikaraņa as Sutras 7-11. Therefore, Sutra 12 cannot be taken as beginning a new Adhikarana. Similarly Sūtras 13-14 belong to the same Adhikarana as Sutras 7-11. 6. Sankara takes the whole of Sutra 12 as a qaosres; so that 'प्रतिषेधात्' is an argument of the सिद्धान्तिन presupposed by the पूर्वपक्ष; and 'न शारीरात्' is a view of the पूर्वपक्ष. The सिद्धान्तिन here holds the view that the srus of those who get absolute immortality do not depart from the body; the qauferr says that the negation in the Sruti tells us that his srors do not depart from him, but that they do depart from his body. We have shown that Sutras 7-11 discuss the problem of the departure of the STIOTS ( the senses and the breath ) of one who has attained absolute immortality; they are the Siddhanta Sutras and they assert that the erifa in his case is the same as described in Sutras 1-6. Now, afaru, as we have shown, should mean an objection to the Siddhantin's view that the SToTs of a seeker of Atman depart after he attains immortality. Thus, प्रतिषेधात् is a real पूर्वपक्ष against the view expressed in the Siddhanta Sutras and 'a snorra' is the Siddhantin's own view, which is established in Sutras 7-11. There is no indication in Sutra 12 that the whole of that Sutra is a पूर्वपक्षसूत्र, nor is such an indication ( e. g., a word like तु ) found in Sutra 13. Rather ' fa' in Sutra 13 expressly shows that 'न शारीरात् ' in Sutra 12 is the Siddhantin's view. 'हि' is never used in the Sutras to show that the preceding Sūtra is a qavarus; it always shows that the Sutra in which it occurs is an additional argument supporting the conclusion arrived at in the preceding Sūtra. Sanikara says that the अमृतत्व in Sutra 7 is आपेक्षिक and that from that fact an inference may be made ( by the qaufer ) that the Sutrakara holds the view that in the case of the attain- ment of absolute immortality, there is no sarfa and ufa. This

366 INTERPRETATION

very argument of Sankara rather shows that agara in Sūtra 7 is absolute immortality and that 'प्रतिषेधात्' is a पूर्वपक्ष against it. So, the argument itself argues against Sankara. Moreover, the very fact that Sūtra 12 is required to be explained as a continuation of Sutra 7 shows that Sutras 9-11 do not form an independent Adhikarana, but should be interpreted as we have done. Sankara's explanation of 'न शारीरात्' (which is a पूर्वपक्ष view according to him ), as the negation of the departure of the sense, etc., from the soul, but no negation from the body is rather a strange one, because in the procedure of sanfa which requires that the sors unite with the soul and that the soul then unites with the elements, there is no possibility of the srors leaving the body unless they do so by accompanying the soul. Moreover, as we have shown, ' nfrua' is an expla- nation of the Sūtrakara for ' aTT' in the Sruti and the Sūtra- kara seems to have no intention of suggesting that the senses depart from the body. The sors do not depart from the soul, not because the Sruti says so, but because they cannot. Of course, Sanikara makes it a qaug argument, but even then it cannot be so absurd; it must have an apparently possible meaning. The aary which Sankara quotes in order to support his interpretation of amfroa is in fact not considered by the Sutrakara in Sutra 12, but it is referred to in Sūtra 13.

Sūtra 13.

7. स्पष्टो होकेषाम्-The Sutrakara supports his explanation of तस्य in 'न तस्य प्राणा उत्क्रामन्ति '. He has explained तस्य as afra. He holds that ae being a genetive form is not a clear form, because it can be interpreted as implying various relations. So, he refers to the ablative form in the School of the माध्यन्दिनS viz, न तस्मात्प्राणा ध्ुत्क्रामन्ति. This ablative form makes it clear that agr in the aioa recension is to be under- stood as तस्मात्.

BRA. ST. IV. 2. 12-14 367

8. 'awry' shows that the Sūtrakara refers to the text of other Branch of the Veda than the one referred to in Sūtra 12.

9. Saikara unnecessarily quotes the माध्यन्दिन text under Sutra 12. The result of that attitude is that raurq in Sūtra 13 is also taken by him to refer to the same Branch as in Sūtra 12, because in the latter the विषयवाक्य is Br. Upa. IV. 4. 6 and in Sutra 13 it is Br. Upa. III. 2. 11, thus the fangaras in both the Sutras are from the same Branch of the Veda. This is inconsistent with the sense of gamrq in the Sūtras.

Moreover, Sankara does not interpret Sūtra 13 as support- ing Sütra 12, as is required by ' fe ' in Sūtra 13; but according to him Sutra 13 is meant to be the faaraee and to deny the view established in Sutra 12. We have already shown above ( See Note on Sūtra 12 ) that Sūtra 13 gives one more argument for the conclusion 'a smrerrra' in Sutra 12. There is no 'a' in Sutra 13, though Sankara mentions it in his com- mentary. To take 'a' as understood is undoubtedly very dangerous to a correct interpretation of the Sūtra.

Sankara supports his position in Sūtras 12-13 by inter- preting अस्मात् and सः in Br. Upa. III. 2. 11 as referring to the body and not to the soul, though ( 1 ) according to the question (यत्रायं पुरुषो म्रियते उद्स्मात्प्राणाः क्रामन्त्याहो नेति), the पुरुष is distinctly the topic of discussion, and is referrod to by aEHIa, and (2) though 'a:' should be taken as a refer- ence to the same पुरुष, उच्छास and आध्मान which primarily belong to the body being secondarily attributed to him. The argument that "देहादुत्क्रान्तिः प्राप्ता न देहिनः" is not correct because when the srors depart from the body, thoy have to depart from the soul inasmuch as at the time of the soul's उत्क्रान्ति the rus lie united with (or having restored to ) the soul through the mind and the vital airs, so that if the srors at all depart, they can do so only from the soul, otherwise the soul keeps them within himsclf when he comes out through the

868 INTERPRETATION

hundred-and-first artery ( Sūtra 17 ). The Sruti also expressly mentions the पुरुष who is referred to by 'अस्मात्'. Also in Br. Upa. IV.4.2 'ag' is a clear reference to the soul. As regards Sankara's argument that Br. Upa. IV. 4. 2 refors to the अविद्वान्, see Sutra III. 4. 11, and Sankara's commentary on it. The Sūtra- kara takes that Sruti as referring to the विद्वान् and the 'कर्मन्' only as referring to the अविद्वान्. This is the विभाग of विद्या and कर्मन mentioned in Br. Upa. IV.4. 2. So, it is not correct to say or at least to hold the Sūtrakara to have believed that Br. Upa. IV. 4. 2 refers only to the अविद्वान्. The question of उपपत्ति i. e., the reasonableness of the उत्क्रान्ति and गति of one who knows Brahman is not always identical with that of the interpretation of the text itself because squfa may differ according to the argumentator. Sūtra 14

9. The Sutrakara quoted a Sruti in his favour in the preceding Sutra. Here he quotes a Smrti which says that at the time of the departure of one who knows Brahman the STOTs remain with the soul. Such a Smrti would be the following :-

सर्वद्धाराणि संयम्य मनो हृदि निरुध्य च। मूर्ध््याधायात्मन: प्राणमास्थितो योगधारणाम्॥। ओमित्येकाक्षरं ब्रह्म व्याहरन्मामनुस्मरन्। यः प्रयाति त्यजन्देहं स याति परमां गतिम्॥(Bha, Gi. VIII. 12-13).

In this Smrti the senses and the breath are said to be with the individual soul in the body at the time of the departure of the knower of Brahman. Thus, this Smrti is referred to in Sütra 14 to show that the srors do not depart from the knower of Brahman at the time of 3anifa.

10. According to Sankara a Smrti from the Mahabharata stating the absence of गति and उत्क्रान्ति in the case of a knower of Brahman is referred to by the Sutrakara in this Sūtra. This interpretation regarding the nature of the Smrti meant by the

BRA. So. IV. 2. 12-14 869

Sutrakara depends upon the interpretation of Sutra 13 and therefore what we have said on the subject in Sūtra 13 applies to Sutra 14 also. In fact, a Smrti supporting the absence of the departure of the srors from the soul seeking absolute immortality is referred to by the Sutrakara. There is no disoussion of the afa of the knower of Brahman here. As Sankara himself says, the गतिश्रुतिs are discussed later on ( Bra. Sū. IV. 3. 7 ).

47

SECTION II

The Union with the Supreme One in the heart.

Sūtra IV. 2. 15

(१५) तानि परे तथा ह्याह।

TRANSLATION

THOSE elements [ with which the soul has united, mix ] with the Supreme One [ present in the heart of the knower ], because so says the Sruti. 15

NOTES

Sūtra 15

1. In the preceding Adhikarana ( Sūtras 7-14 ), it was stated that the Frifra described in Sūtras 1-6 is the same also after the attainment of absolute immortality. In this Sūtra ( 15 ) the Sutrakara describes what happens after the common उत्क्रान्ति upto that of the भूतs has taken place. 2. 'तानि' refers to भूतानि in Sutras 5-6. After the individual soul resorts to or unites with the elements (Sūtras 4, 5 ), those elements unite with the Supreme Being ( qt ). 3. तथा द्याह-(1) तेजः परस्यां देवतायाम्। (Cha. Upa. VI. 15.2); (2) कर्माणि विज्ञानमयश्च आत्मा परेऽव्यये सर्व पकीभवन्ति। ( Mu. Upa. III, 2. 7 ).

2. पर -The Para is the Supreme One called परा देवता in Cha. Upa. VI. 15.2, and 'पर अव्यय' in Mu. Upa. III. 2.7. This Para is the Supreme Being presnt in the human heart. It is the process of sanifea which is described here and it takes place in the body. ' qr ' meant by the Sutrakara is the Supreme Being residing in the heart. Sutra 17 is a proof of this. aa in 'aars: ' refers to qr and that Sūtra ( 17) describes what happens further after the union of the elements ( in which the individual soul is sheltering itself ) with the Supreme Being in the heart takes place. Thus, the context of the Sutras makes it quite clear that qx in Sūtra 15 means the Supreme One in the heart of the seeker of absolution. The Br. Upa. Sruti ( Br. Upa. IV. 4. 1) which is referred to in Sūtra 17 also helps us in this respect. The soul, it says, together with the elements ( in which that of the Light predomi- nates ) proceeds to the heart itself and then we are told that it unites (एकीभवति), i. e., it unites with the Supreme Being

372 INTERPRETATION

in the heart, and finally the soul comes out from the body through the hundred-and-first artery and joins with the rays of the Sun. All this shows that qr in Sutra 15 is the Supreme One in the heart.

Also the Srutis seem to us to be clear on this point. Thus, Cha. Upa. VI. 15. 1 (तस्य यावन्न वाङूमनसि संपद्यते मनः प्राणे प्राणस्तेजसि तेजः परस्यां देवतायां तावज्जानाति।) says that the departing soul is able to know and recognise his relatives as long as the elements ( Sūtras 5-6 ) do not unite with the Supreme Deity called q in Sūtra ( 15); this shows that the Deity is the Deity present in the heart. As distinguished from this Sruti we have another Cha. Upa. Sruti viz., nanag संप्रसादोऽस्माच्छरीरात्समुत्थाय परं ज्योतिरुपसंपद्य स्वेन रूपेणाभिनिष्पद्यते। ( Cha. Upa. VIII. 12. 3). This Sruti does not deal with the problem of sonifra, but it tells us what happens after the soul having been carried to the Supreme Light by the Carrier (आतिवाहिक) on the end of the Path of gods unites with that qr satfa: and reappears in its own form. The Sutras also are clear. Sutras IV. 2. 15 and 17 deal with the union of the elements ( with which the soul has united ) with the Para in the heart, while Sutras IV. 4. 1-4 discuss the union of only the soul with the Supreme One at the end of the journey on the Path of gods. One more point is that when during the senrfea the elements with the soul unite. with the Para in the heart, the Para helps the soul in coming out of the body and the subtle elements do not leave the body [ but are burnt therein (3)]; while when after the saifra the soul unites with the Para, the former resumes its own form and reappears with that form. 5. Sankara does not seem to notice the fact that arfa refers to the elements with which the individual soul has united ( Sūtras 5-6 ). His interpretation of Sūtras 7-14 seems to have led him to give up the link between Sūtras 5-6 and Sūtra 15. Thus, indirectly his explanation of Sūtra 15 supports the interpretation of Sūtras 7-14 suggested by us.

BRA. Sữ. IV. 2. 15 373

Sankara takes arfa as the senses and the elements of the soul who has attained absolute immortality according to his view of Sutras 12-14. Thus, in his view 'arfa' does not mean the elements to which the soul has resorted or with which the soul has united, but only the parts of the body of the knower of Brahman. Thus, arfa means, according to him, even the gross elements of the body. By aur Vit Sankara does not refer to those Srutis which mention the soifa-process and in which it is stated that the soul with the subtle elements unites with the Supreme One in the heart at the time of the departure from the body. Mu. Upa. III. 2.7 a-b quoted by Sankara mentions the disposal of the yross body of the knower of Brahman. But according to the Sūtrakara the destruction of the gross body does not lead to the destruction of the subtle body ( Sūtra 10); so, even when the gross body of the knower of Brahman is destroyed by the dissolution of the gross elements, the disposal of his subtle elements and senses yet remains to be explained. Another point is that even in the case of the knower of Brahman the gross elements of the gross body do not unite with or do not return to the Supreme One, but, as in the case of those of the ignorant, they return to the gross elements of Nature from which they were derived. This is clear from the Srutis dealing with that problem, e. g., Mu. Upa. III. 2. 7 a-b and also from the fact that an objection is raised on this very point in Sankara's commentary itself. The latter half of Mu. Upa. III. 2. 7 c-d (कर्माणि विज्ञानमयश्च आत्मा परेऽव्यये सर्व एकीभवन्ति।) which is not considered by Sankara along with Mu. Upa. III. 2. 7 a-b which he quotes, solves the problem, because thut latter half states that the senses and the soul unite with the Supreme Unchanging One. As to the Prasna Upa. Sruti ( VI. 5. ) quoted by Sankara, the sixteen partst ( $TS ) would

t of. also Cha. Upa. VI. 7 where पोटश कला: means the sixteen subtle parts, not the gross parts.

374 INTERPRETATION

mean the five senses of knowledge, the mind, the five vital airs and the five subtle elements; and so, that Sruti describes the union of the subtle elements ( with which the individual soul is already united ) with the Para in the heart; also the first part of Pra. Upa. VI. 5 which corresponds to Mu, Upa. III. 2. 8 proves that the latter part of Pra. Upa. VI. 5. corresponds to Mu. Upa. III. 7 c-d. Thus, the Srutis distinguish between the subtle parts of the body which accompany the soul even after the attainment of ( absolute ) immortality and mix with the Para in the heart and the gross parts of the body which the knower as well as the ignorant leave behind them and which return to the corresponding parts in Nature. Therefore, it is not correct that Mu. Upa. III. 2. 7 a-b refers to araart ' comparative reality', while Pra. Upa. VI. 5 refers to the absolutely real and is meant for the right knowledge of the knower of Brahman. It is not that both the gross and subtle parts of the body of the knower of Brahman become united with Brahman in the heart. Sankara has also not noticed the important point that the Para in the Sutra is the Para in the heart. The fact that the Para in the heart is meant in Sutra 15 is also another proof that aifa means only the subtle elements with which the soul has united.

SECTION III

The Nature of the Union: Non-Separation.

Sūtra IV. 2. 16

(१६ ) अविभागो वचनात् ।

TRANSLATION

[ THE union of the senses, the mind, the breath, the soul, the elements is of the nature of ] non-separation, because of the express statement. 16

NOTES

Sutra 16

1. अविभाग :- This word explains the meaning of (a) संपत्ति "the union" expressed in such Srutis as वाङ्मनसि संपद्यते मनः प्राणे प्राणस्तेजसि तेजः परस्या देवतायाम्, (b) एकीभाव 'unification' e. g., in कर्माणि विज्ञानमयश्च आत्मा परेऽव्यये सर्व एकीभवन्ति। (Mu. Upa. III. 2.7 c-d); also एकीभवति न पश्यति ...... (Br. Upa. IV.4.2), and (c) अस्तंगमन e. g., एवमेवास्य परिद्रष्टुरिमा: षोडश कलाः पुरुषायणा: पुरुषं प्राप्यास्तं गच्छन्ति।( Pra. Upa. VI. 5). Thus, अविभाग explains all these different expressions used to donote the union of the subtle parts and the soul of the knower of Brahman with one another and with the Supreme One ultimately.

2. वचनात्-This word gives us an idea regarding the Sruti to which 'अविभाग' refers. 'वचनात्' means that the Sutrakara refers to a Sruti in which अविभाग is expressly mentioned. Such a Sruti is Br. Upa. IV. 3. 23-30 viz., यद्वै तन्न पश्यति पश्यन्वै तन्न पश्यति न हि द्रष्टर्द्दष्टरेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविना- शित्वान् तु तद्वितीयमस्ति ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यत्पश्येत्। etc., ctc. Sanikara does not quote this Sruti under Sūtra IV. 2. 16, but he does so under Sutra IV. 4. 4 (अविभागेन दष्टत्वात्।), though in that. Sutra the argument is "दष्टत्वात्". Thus, 'विभाग' means the distinction of being a second entity (द्वितीयम् ...... ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तम्); S0 अविभाग or 'non-sepa- ration' means that there is no numerical duality. अविभाग is therefore numerical unity. Thus, एकीभाव, संपत्ति, and all such words mean ' union' as distinguished from absolute dissolution or complete fusion (प्रलय) and disunion or duality ( विभाग).

BRA. SU. IV. 2. 16 877

This is the meaning of aqfa in all its references. Thus, the union of ara with the mind is also a union or combination, and not a fusion or dissolution or dualism. This also proves that the senses themselves unite with the mind, and not their functions. Similarly we have to explain the union of the mind with the breath, that of the breath with the soul, that of the soul with the elements and that of these elements with the Para.

3. Sankara takes this Sutra ( 16 ) as explaining only the union ( tufa ) of the gross and subtle parts of the knower of Brahman with Brahman outside the body. But to us it seems to explain all the unions, as explained above, which take place during the departure of the subtle body and the soul of the knower of Brahman and also that of the subtle elements with the Para in the heart. The Sutrakara wanted to explain all the various terms like संपत्ति, एकीभाव, अस्तंगमन, ete., by the word अविभाग, not to remove the fault of विभागापत्ति and establish absolute dissolution. The word ' वचनात्' suggests a reference to Br. Upa. IV. 3. 23-30 rather than to Pra. Upa. VI. 5, as already noticed. For aTfaurT the Sūtrakara depends upon the word expressive of it, rather than on the argument given by Sankara in addition to a quotation.

48

SECTION IV

Departure of the Soul from the Body through the hundred- gnd-first Artery.

Sūtra IV. 2. 17

(१७) तदोकोऽग्रज्वलनं तत्प्रकाशितद्वारो विद्यासामर्थ्यात्तच्छेषगत्य नुस्मृतियोगाच्च हार्दानुगृहीतः शताधिक्या।

TRANSLATION

[ THEN there is ] the burning of the top of the residence of that [ Supreme Being ]. The gate [ of the soul for his departure ] is brightened by that [ burning ]. Being graced by the One residing in the heart due to the power of his knowledge of Brahman and due to his remembering [ Brahman which is ] the goal to which that knowledge is subordinate, [ the soul comes out from the body ] through the hundred-and-first artery. 17

NOTES Sūtra 17 1. As already said, Sutra 15 explained how the elements, with which the Soul has already united, uuites with the Para. How this final union ( aiofa ) takes place is to be explained now. First of all the Sutrakara tells us how the उत्क्रान्ति begun in Sutras 1-6 completes itself, i. e., what happens after the soul is united with the elements. 2. It is clear that 'तदोकोग्रज्वलनम्' refers to Br. Upa. IV. 4.2, viz., तस्य हैतस्य हृदयस्याग्रं प्रद्योतते तेन प्रद्योतनैष आत्मा निष्क्ामति चक्षुष्टो वा मूर्ध्नो वाऽन्येभ्यो वा शरीरदेशेभ्यस्तमुत्क्ामन्तं प्राणोऽनूत्कामति प्राणमनूत्क्रामन्तं सर्वे प्राणा अनूत्कामन्ति। In Br. Upa. IV. 4. 1 we are told that the soul taking with him the subtle elements (तेजोमात्राः) approaches the heart, and we have already shown on the strength of Cha. Upa. VI. 15. 1 (तेजः परस्यां देवतायाम्) and other Sruti texts and the Brahma- sutras and also on other grounds that the subtle elements with which the soul has united, unite further with the Supreme One in the heart. तत् in तदोक: refers to the Para with which the elements unite ( Sutra 15 ), and तदोक: 'the residence of the Para ' means the heart. This also shows that the Para in Sutra 15 is the Para in the heart. The shining of the top of the heart is described in the Sruti roferred to by the Sūtra (तस्य हैतस्य हृदयस्याग्रं प्रद्योतते।). 3. तत्प्रकाशितद्वार :- The word द्वार refers to the gates from which the soul ultimately leaves the body. In the Sruti, the eye, the head, or any other part of the body is said to be the gate through which the soul of the knower leaves the body. As the soul departs through the hundred-and-first artery and as this artery proceeds from the heart to the head, only those gates to which that artery would lead are meant by the word

380 INTERPRITATION

art in the Sutra and by the word rfrraer in the Sruti. The Sutrakara says that when the soul departs, the door of its departure is brightened by the burning of the top of the heart. Of. तेन प्रद्योतेनैष आत्मा निष्कामति।. The Sutrakara follows the Br. Upa. Sruti in not insisting that the soul leaves the body only through the head. 4. विद्यासामर्थ्य-The Sruti in question mentions both विद्या and कर्मन् (तं विद्याकर्मणी समन्वारभेते पूर्वप्रज्ा च।). The Sutrakara has already said that this विद्या is the मुक्तिविद्या and that the विद्या refers to the knower of Brahman and the कर्म refers to one who does not know Brahman and thus, there is a separate scope and funotion of each of the two ( Bra. Sū. III. 4. 11 ). Sankara in his bhasya on Bra. Su. III. 4. 11 differs from the Sūtrakara on this point. 5. तच्छेषगत्यनुस्मृतियोगात्-'तच्छेष'-means विद्याशेषand तच्छेषगति is the Path of gods which depends upon the knowledge of Brahman. तच्छेषगति may also mean the goal in the form of Brahman to whom the knowledge is subsidiary. The knower of Brahman remembers even at the time of his departure Brahman to which his knowledge is subordinate. The Sūtrakāra has said that the fruit in the form of release is obtained by the seeker from the Supreme One ( फलमतः उपपत्तेः।; ्रुतत्वाच्च। Bra. Su. III. 2. 38, 39 ). So, the faer depends upon the Supreme One in order that its fruit be realized by the knower of the faer. The seeker has to remember the Supreme One even during his last moments of departure from the body, ( see Bra. Su. IV. 1. 12). There are hardly any Srutis asking the seeker to remember the Path of gods to which the knowledge leads; but there are many texts asking him to remember the Supreme One also during his departure from the body. 6. हार्दानुगृहीत :-: The विद्ा and the remembrance of the Supreme One to whom the faur is subordinate get for the knower of Brahman the favour of the Para in the heart,

BRA. SF. IV. 2. 17 381

The Sutrakara refers to the favour or the grace of Brahman also in Bra. Su. III. 4. 38 ( विशेषानुग्रहश्च ।). 7. शताधिकया-This is a reference to Cha. Upa. VIII. 6. 6 quoted by Sankara in his commentary. The one-hundred-and- first artery starts from the heart and goes up to the head. The knower of Brahman leaves the body through that artery, because going upwards through that alone does a knower of Brahman attain (absolute) immortality ( तयोर्ध्वमायन्नमृतत्वमेति।). This also shows that अमृतत्वं चानुपोष्य in Sutra 7 also refers to absolute immortality. 8. Sankara remarks at the beginning of his commentary on this Sutra as follows :- समाप्ता प्रासङ्गिकी परविद्यागता चिन्ता। संप्रति त्वपरविद्याविषयामेव चिन्तामनुवर्तयति। .. Thus, he connects Sutra 17 with Sutras 1-11. According to him Sūtras 12-16 deal with the absolute reality. As we have shown there is no justification for this interpretation of Bra. Su. IV. 2. 12-16 as it involves an interpolation or rather an interruption of the topic begun in Bra. Su. IV. 2. 1. The direct connection of Sūtra 17 is, according to Sankara, with Sūtra 7, because, he explains Sutras 8-11 as teaching that the subtle body of a man lasts till liberation is achieved and that its dissolution before that achievement is only partial, not complete.

Sankara takes तत् in तदोक: as referring to the individual soul ( विज्ञानात्मा) ; but, as we have shown, तत् should refer to पर in Sutra 15, who resides in the heart. The word हार्द supports this interpretation of तदोक: There are many Sutras in which this doctrine is taught in the Brahmasūtras.

Saukara adds: समानेऽपि विद्वदविदुषोर्हृदयाग्रप्रद्योतने तत्प्रकाशित द्वारत्वे च मूर्धस्थानादेव विद्वान् निष्कामति स्थानान्तरेभ्यस्त्वितरे। कुतः, विद्यासा- म्थ्यात् ......... तच्छेषगत्यनुस्मृतियोगाञ्। It seems to us that विद्या- सामर्थ्यात् and तच्छेषगत्यनुस्मृतियोगात् are two arguments for the grace of the Para in the heart, and not for the knower of Brahman leaving the body through the head only. The word

382 INTERPRITATION

'arT' is a general term for the gate of departure and the Srutis in question ( Br. Upa. IV. 4. 2, Cha. Upa. VIII. 6. 6) do not lay down a rule as expressed by Sankara. The only rule is that the knower leaves the body through the hundred- and-first artery only. Sankara explains 'अनुगृहीतः' as तन्ट्रावं समापन्न: "who has reached that state ", i. e., who has reached the state of Brahman in the heart. As we have shown, the Sūtrakara believes in the doctrine of the grace of God.

SECTION V

He jotns the Rays of the Sun immediately on his Departure.

Sūtras IV. 2. 18-21

(१८) रश्म्यनुसारी । (१९) निशि नेति चेन्न सम्बन्धस्य यावदेहभावित्वाद् दर्शयति च। (२०) अतश्रायनेऽपि दक्षिणे। (२१ ) योगिन: प्रति च स्मर्यते स्मार्ते चैते।

इति चतुर्थाध्यायस्य द्वितीय: पाद:।

TRANSLATION

[ HE comes out from the body ] following the rays of the Sun. 18

[ If it be argued ], " Not, [ if he dies ] at night," we reply, " No, because the connection [ of the rays with the artery ] lasts as long as [ the soul is in ] the body, [ or, because the connection ( of the Brahmajñanin with the rays ) is possible when ( the soul is in ) the body ]," and the Sruti shows it. 19

And hence [he comes out from the body following the rays of the sun ] also in the Southern gait of the sun. 20 And there is a Smrti text with regard to Yogins and those two [ Paths mentioned there ] are sanctioned by the Smrti [ only ]. 21

NOTES

Sutra 18

1. रश््यनुसारी-This is undoubtedly a reference to Cha. Upa.VIII. 6.5, viz., अथ यत्रैतदस्माच्छरीरादुत्क्ामत्यथेतैरेव रश्मिभिरु- धर्वमाक्रमते स ओमिति वा होद्रामीयते स यावत्क्षिप्येन्मनस्तावदादित्यं गच्छ त्येतद्वै खलु लोकद्वारं विदुषां प्रपदनं निरोधोऽविदुषाम् ॥Of. Br. Upa. V. 5. 2. स यदोत्क्रमिष्यन् भवति शुद्धमेवैतन्मण्डलं पश्यति नैनमेते रश्मयः प्रश्यायन्ति । It is clearly stated in the Cha. Upa. Sruti that the knower of Brahman goes upwards through the rays of the Sun when he departs from the body. Sätr Sūtra 19

2. निशि नेति चेसू -This scoms to be a Purvapaksa of the स्मार्तवेदान्तिनs, the followers of the Gita. They seem to have argued that at night there are no rays of the Sun and there- fore if the knower of Brahman died at night, he cannot depart following the rays. 3. संबन्धस्य यावद्देहभावित्वात्-The Sutrakara says that the connection of the rays with the hundred-and-first artery exists till the body exists, i. e., as long as tho soul is in the body, not only till the Sun is on the horizon. So, the knower of Brahman comes into contact with the rays of the Sun through the artery even at night because the body exists even at night.

3. दर्शयति च -Sarikara quotes Cha. Upa. VIII. 6. 2 viz., अमुष्मादादित्यात्प्रतायन्ते ता आसु नाडीषु सृप्ता आभ्यो नाडीभ्यः प्रतायन्ते तेऽ्मुष्मिन्नादित्ये सप्ताः। But this verse does not seem to refer to the body at all, though the arets which are connected with the body as a part of the body are mentioned. Perhaps, Br. Upa. V. 5. 2 is the Sruti intended by the Sūtrakara viz.,

BRA. So. IV. 2. 17-21 385

य एष एतस्मिम्मण्डले पुरुषो यश्चायं दक्षिणेSक्षन्पुरुषस्तावेतावन्योन्यस्मिन् प्रतिष्ठितौ रश्मिभिरषोऽस्मिन् प्रतिष्ठितः प्राणैरयममुष्मिन् स यदोत्क्मिष्यन् भवति शुद्धमेवै- तन्मण्डलं पश्यति नैनमेते रश्मयः प्रत्यायन्ति॥ In this Sruti it is stated that the individual soul is connected with the Solar orb through the vital airs. From this we may conclude that the connection between the rays and the artery lasts till the soul is in the body, and it never ends even during the night.

Sūtra 20

5. अत (एव )- Because the connection of the rays with the artery exists as long as the soul is in the body. aa qa= संबन्धस्य यावद्देहभावित्वात्. 6. अयनेऽपि दक्षिणे-Just as it was argued that at night there was no Sun and therefore the knower cannot unite with the rays at night, similarly it may be argued that during the दक्षिणायन the knower cannot come into contact with the Sun, not because there is no Sun during the days of that period, but because the Smrti says so. To explain the source of the Pūrvapaksa here, Sankara gives three alternatives: (1) उत्तरायणमरणप्राशस्त्यप्रसिद्धे: (2) भीष्मस्य प्रतीक्षादर्शनात् (3) आपूर्यमाण- पक्षाद्यान्षडुदङडेतिमासांस्तान् (छा. उ. ४।१५।५) इति च भ्रुतेः. As Sankara himself says, the last argument is a very weak argument, because the Sruti has altogether a different meaning, as explained in Bra. Su. IV. 3. 4. So, it seems to us that it is not the follower of the Sruti who is the opponent here. The opponent is a स्मार्त वेदान्तिन, a follower of the Gita, as is made clear by the Sutrakara himself in the following Sutra. Sūtra 21

6. स्मर्यते-It is the Bhagavadgita which says that a knower of Brahman who leaves the body at day during the Fetreor goes to non-return ( i. e., attains Moksa ), but if he leaves it during the night, or the dark half of the month or the दक्षिणायन he returns to the world inspite of his knowledge of Brahman Cf.

386 INTERPRETATION

यत्र काले त्वनावृत्तिमावृत्ि चैव योगिन:। प्रयाता यान्ति तं कालं वक्ष्यामि भरतर्षभ ॥२३॥ अग्निर्ज्योतिरहः शुक्क: षण्मासा उत्तरायणम्। तत्र प्रयाता गच्छन्ति ब्रह्म ब्रह्मविदो जनाः ॥। २४॥ धूमो रात्रिस्तथा कृष्णः षण्मासा दक्षिणायनम्। तत्र चान्द्रमसं ज्योति र्योगी प्राप्य निवर्तते ॥२५॥ शुक्ककृष्णे गती होते जगतः शाश्वते मते। एकया यात्यनावृत्तिमन्यया वर्तते पुनः ॥२६॥ नैते सृति पार्थ जानन्योगी मुह्यति कश्चन। तस्मात्सवेषु कालेषु योगयुक्तो भवार्जुन ।। २७।। . ( Bha. Gi. VIII. 23-27 ) 8. योगिन :- The followers of the ध्यानयोग are meant here by the Sutrakara. The Bhagavadgita itself gives an indication to it e. g., सर्वद्वाराणि संयम्य मनो हृदि निरुध्य च। मूर्ध््याधायात्मनः प्राणमास्थितो योगधारणाम्॥(Bha.Gi. VIII.12). See also Bha. Gi. VIII. 10 and 8. So, योगिन: in Bha. Gi. VIII. 23 are the ध्यानयोगिन्S. 9. एते-'These two Paths'. Cf., नैते सृती पार्थ जानन्योगी मुह्यति कश्चन । ( Bha. Gi. VIII. 27). In the Srutis which describe these two Paths, only the knowers of Brahman are meant, and nothing is said about योग. 10. The Sūtrakāra seems to be of the opinion that if a ध्यानयोगिन् knows Brahman, he is, according to the Sruti, entitled to अनावृत्ति even if he dies at night or in the दक्षिणायन. Therefore, he makes a double statement that the Smrti is for the Yogin and that these two Paths are mentioned only in the Smrti and have no sanction of the Sruti. 11. Sankara seems to take योगिन: in the sense of all. योगिनs or follower of any Yoga, because he explains एते as 'योगसांख्ये'. As there is the question of Paths and as the Gita itself refers to the दक्षिणायन and उत्तरायण as Paths, it is,

BRA. Su. IV. 2. 17-21 387

perhaps, better to explain aa in the Sutra as the two Paths of the Bhagavadgita. The Sutrakara seems to understand these two Paths as referring to time only, as said in Bha. Gi. VIII. 23, and on that ground he distinctly calls them Smarta. Sankara, however, tries to give them sanction of the Sruti by asserting that alternately अग्नि, ज्योति:, अहः, etc., may be interpreted as the carriers mentioned in the Sruti instead of as the deities presiding over different periods of time.

CHAPTER VI

SECTION I

The Well-known Devayana Path begins with the Flame.

Sūtra IV. 3. 1

( १) आर्रिरादिना तत्प्रथितेः ।

TRANSLATION

[ THE knower of Brahman leaving the body proceeds on his journey ] by the Path beginning with the flame ( arcih ) because of its being well-known. 1

NOTES Sutra 1

1. In the previous Pada the process of the departure of the soul from the body in the case of one who has attained immortality has been described. In Sūtra 18 of that Pada we were told that he leaves the body and proceeds following the rays of the Sun. In this Pada the Path beginning with the rays is first described and then the nature of the goal of the Path is discussed.

2. The 'ray ' ( fxa ) of Sutra IV. 2. 18 is the same as the flame ( arfa: ) of this Sutra. Both the words mean 'a ray ' and here it means the rays of the Sun. The word 'अर्चिः' occurs in the विषयवाक्य. 3. 'It is well-known' that the knower of Brahman reaches Brahman by the Path the first station on which is the rays of the Sun, as distinguished from the Path which begins with the 'smoke' and which takes the performer of sacrifices to his heaven. (अर्चिरादि is देवयान, धूमादि is पितृयाण). This is the sense of arfaa :. The Upanisads very frequently mention these, Cha. Upa. IV. 15. 5-6, Cha. Upa. V. 10. 1-2, Br. Upa. V. 10, Br. Upa. VI. 2. 15, Kau. Upa. 1. 3. Out of all these passages, Cha. Upa. IV. 15. 5-6, V. 10. 1-2, and Br. Upa. VI. 2. 15 begin the Path with the rays of the Sun ( arfer:) while Br. Upa. V. 10, VI. 2. 15 and Kau. Upa. I. 3 differ in the description of the Path of gods from the other two passages. 4. If we make a list of the stations from the two identical passages ( Cha. Upa. IV. 15. 5-6, V. 10. 1-2 ) we get the following order :- (1) अर्चि:, (2) अहः, (3 ) आपूर्यमाण पक्ष, (4) यान्षडुदक्ृति- मासाएस्तान्, (5) संवत्सर, (6) आदित्य, (7) चन्द्रमस्र, (8) विघ्युत्, and (9) ब्रह्मलोक.

390 INTERPRETATION

Br. Upa. VI. 2. 15 begins the Path with अर्चिः, but adds 'देवलोक' between मासा and आदित्य. Br. Upa. V.10 mentions वायु (लोक), आदित्य, चन्द्रमस् and the लोक which is अशोक and अहिम. Kau. Upa. I. 3 begins the Path with अग्निलोक which is followed by वायुलोक, वरुणलोक, आदित्यलोक, इन्द्रलोक, प्रजापतिलोक and ब्रह्मलोक. The Sūtrakara seems to accept Cha. Upa. IV. 15. 5-6, V. 10. 1-2 and Br. Upa. VI. 2. 15 as the most well-known passages and in Sutras 2-3 he locates the worlds mentioned in the other passages than these.

SECTION II

Wind, next to the Year.

Sūtra IV. 3.2

(२) वायुमब्दादविशेषविशेषाभ्याम्

TRANSLATION

HE goes to [ the world of ] the Wind from [ the world of ] the Year, on account of the difference and identity [between the Cha. Upa. Sruti with the Samvatsara and the Br. Upa. Sruti with the Vāyu. 2

NOTES Sūtra 2 1. The word वायु ocours in Br. Upa. V. 10, viz., यदा वै पुरुषोऽस्माल्लोकात्प्रैति स वायुमागच्छति, तस्मै स तत्र विजिहीते यथा रथचक्रस्य खं, तेन स ऊर्ध्व आक्रमते स आदित्यमागच्छति वस्मै स तत्र विजिहीते यथा लम्बरस्य सं, तेन स ऊर्ध्व आक्रमते, स चन्द्रमसमागच्छति तस्मै स तत्र विजिहीते ...... । The word वायुलोक is found in Kau. Upa. I.3, where the order stands as अग्निलोक, वायुलोक, and वरुणलोक. 2. अविशेषविशेषाभ्याम्-This हेतु seems to us to be appli- cable only to Br. Upa. V. 10; therefore, that श्ृति only seems to be the विषयवाक्य, and not Kau. Upa. I. 3. The विषयवाक्य (Br. Upa. V. 10) is such that it has something in common and in difference with the Cha. Upa. Srutis referred to in Sutra 1, viz., Cha. Upa. IV. 15. 5-6 and V. 10. 1-2. The अविशेष or that in common between Br. Upa. V. 10 and Cha. Upa. V. 10 is the mention of आदित्य in both the passages; so, we must place वायु before आदित्य in any case. The विशेष between the same passages is that the Cha. Upa. Sruti mentions संवत्सर which is not mentioned in Br. Upa. V. 10; therefore, we must place वायु after संवत्सर. Thus, we locate वायु above संवत्सर (and before आदित्य). The Kau. Upa. Sruti has 'अग्निलोक' which, as Saikara says, can be identical with अर्चि: in the Cha. Upa. Sruti, but that identification does not help us in locating वायुलोक after the Year. If we take the Kau. Upa. as the विषयवाक्य, it is not possible to point out its identity and difference with any other Sruti dealing with the same point, particularly with the Cha. Upa. Sruti referred to in Sūtra 1. Sankara's explanation is "स वायुलोक" (कौ० १।३) इत्यत्राविशेषोपदिष्टस्य वायोः श्रुत्यन्तरे विशेषोपदेशो दृशयते 'यदा वै पुरुषोऽस्मालोकात्प्रैति स वायुमागच्छति स आदित्यमागच्छति' (बृ. उ. ५१०।१) इति.

BRA. Su. IV. 3. 2 393

According to this explanation, the mention of वायु in the Kau. Upa. is without any particulars, but as वायुलोक in that Upanisad is preceded by अग्निलोक and followed by वरुणलोक and undoubtedly an order is implied in the list of the worlds because ब्रह्मलोक is mentioned as the last world, how can we say that वायुलोक in Kau. Upa. is not particularized ? Sankara's reply that the Kau. Upa. Sruti gives only पदार्थोपदर्शनमात्र does not seem to be satisfactory. The Br. Upa. Sruti says that he goes to the आदित्यलोक from वायुलोक. Thus, even if we grant that Kau. Upa. text does not aim at giving the names in order, while the Br. Upa. does, we can at most place वायुलोक before आदित्यलोक; in no case can we place वायुलोक after संवत्सर as is done in the Sūtra. The requirements of the Sūtra would be fulfilled only if we take अविशेष and विशेष as those between the Cha. Upa. Sruti ( or any other Sruti ) with संवत्सर and another Sruti with वायु. Moreover, "अविशेषविशेषाभ्याम्" would mean that the Sutrakara gives two arguments, while Sankara's way of interpretation reduces the expression to only one argument. 'अविशेष' cannot mean 'अविशेषोपदिष्ट', and विशेष cannot mean अत्यन्तरे विशेषोपदेश. Moreover, if we take the Kau. Upa. Sruti as the विषयवाकय, we may be asked, "Why do you not locate ' वायु' immediately after अग्नि or अर्चिः?" We have shown that there is an implication of order in the Kau. Upa. Śruti.

One of the fargaisas suggested by the Sutra must in any case contain the word for the year ( संवत्सर). Otherwise, वायु cannot be located after the year.

3. Why does the Sutrakara use the word araz instead of संवत्सर which is found in the विषयवाक्यश्रुति?

4. We have already shown that Br. Upa. V. 10 is the विषयवाक्य roferred to by वायु in the Sutra rather than Kau. Upa. I. 3.

394 INTERPRETATION

Sankara tries to show the consistency of Sutra 2 according to which we have to place वायु (immediately?) after संवत्सर (and before आदित्य ) with Br. Upa. VI. 2. 15 in which the knower of Brahman is said to go to आदित्य ( directly ?) from देवलोक. Sankara says that after संवत्सर and before वायुलोक followed by आदित्य, we should add देवलोक from Br. Upa. VI. 2. 15, thus making the series as मासाः, संवत्सर, देवलोक, वायुलोक, आदित्यलोक. But it seems to us that the Sutrakara does not consider the location of देवलोक, because, perhaps, he does not distinguish देवलोक from some. one of the worlds preceding आदित्यलोक. It is likely that the Sutrakara drops देवलोक, because he has worded Sutra 2 as if he meant that immediately from संवत्सर one goes to वायुलोक. देवलोक is a very general term and all these worlds are देवलोक "worlds of gods "; even संवत्सर may be interpreted as a देवलोक. According to Br. Upa. 1II. 6, the order of the लोकs is as follows :- ( आप: and वायु: are elements), अन्तरिक्षलोक, गन्धर्वलोक, आदित्यलोक, चन्द्रलोक, नक्षत्रलोक, देवलोक, इन्द्रलोक, प्रजापतिलोक, ब्रह्मलोक (The last is अनतिप्रश्न्या देवता). Elsewhere the worlds are said to be three, मनुष्यलोक, पितृलोक, and देवलोक (Br. Upa. 1. 5. 16). Perhaps all the worlds which the Sutrakara does not consider, e. g., अन्तरिक्षलोक, गन्धर्वलोक, नक्षत्रलोक and देवलोक are to be identified with one or the other of the worlds which he considers, viz., those in Cha. Upa. Sruti plus वायु and वरुण ( Sutras 1, 2, 3). According to Tai. Upa. II. 8 the देवलोक seems to be above पितृलोक and इन्द्र seems to be the lord of देवलोक. It is also likely that according to the Sutrakara the knower of Brahman does not go to देवलोक at all, just as he does not go to इन्द्रलोक and to प्रजापतिलोक (See note on प्रजापतिलोक on Page 396).

SECTION III

Varuna, next to the Lightning.

Sutra IV. 3. 3

(३ ) तडिकोऽधि वरुण: सम्बन्धात् ।

TRANSLATION

VARUNA is above the Lightning, because of the connection of the two. 3

NOTES

Sutra 3

1. 'तडित्' is used for the word विद्युत् in the Cha. Upa. Srutis IV. 15. 5-6 and V. 10. 1-2. Why is the synonym substituted for विद्युत्? 2. वरुण is clearly a referonce to Kau. Upa.I. 3. वरुणलोक is not mentioned in the well-known Sruti about the ama viz., the Cha. Upa. Sruti. So, the Sūtrakara adds asor to the list in the Chā. Upa.

2. संबन्धात्-His reason for placing वरुण above विद्युत् is the connection between the two, both being associated with waters and asr being the Lord of waters (!). 4. The Kau. Upa. Sruti ( 1. 3. ) places वरुणलोक between वायुलोक aud आदित्यलोक, but according to this Sutra, we should place it after विधुल्लोक in the Cha. Upa. Sruti. 5. Sankara suggests that above Varuna there are Indra and Prajapati, because ( 1 ) there is no other place for them, ( 2 ) because Indra and Prajapati are mentioned in several Upanisads e. g., Br. Upa. III. 6. 1, Kau. Upa. I. 3, (3) because Varuna, Indra and Prajapati being strangers to the Cha. Upa. text should be placed only at the end as there is no special place for them, and ( 4) because the Lightning is the last station, according to the Cha. Upa. on the Path of gods which begins with the Rays. We do not think that this suggestion of Sankara is in agreement with the Sutrakara's doctrine. From Bra. Su. IV. 3. 7-16 ( See below ) it seems that Badari distinguished between Prajapati and Brahman as two ares ( Bra. Su. IV. 3. 8 ), but Badarayana, though not absolutely identifying the

BRA. So. IV. 3. 3 397

two, does not agree with Badari. We, therefore, suggest that the Sutrakara purposely drops इन्द्रलोक and प्रआपतिलोक. He may be identifying प्रजापतिलोक with Brahman and ex- plaining his view about the ga aspect of the Para as the Prajapatiloka of the Upanisads and, therefore, he may have dropped the mention of Prajapatiloka in the list of the stations on the देवयान. Similarly, इन्द्रलोक would be not different from the सोमलोक where not the ब्रह्मज्ञानिन but only the अनात्मविद् goes (Bra. Su.III. 1. 7). It seems to be also for this same reason that the Sutrakara does not mention देवलोक as a station on the देवयान, on which (Path ) only the ब्रह्मज्ञानिन proceeds. Thus, we may conclude that देवलोक, इन्द्रलोक and प्रजापतिलोक have been dropped by the Sūtrakara because he would identify the former two with चन्द्रमस् or सोमलोक and the last one with ब्रह्मलोक or ब्रह्मन्. The world of the Moon is the goal of those who do not know Atman; the world of Brahman, which is not different from Brahman itself, is according to the Sutrakara, the goal of those who know Atman. However, he locates वायु and वरुण because he does not think that these two can be identified with any station mentioned in the अर्चिरादिशुति. 6. We do not agree with the view that there was originally a Sutra like "वरुणाद्धीन्द्रप्रजापती स्थानान्तराभावात् AI I" (See Ramanuja and Vallabha ). Sankara has ( in his bhasya on Bra. Sū. IV. 3. 2) explained where to locate देवलोक which he thought was not located by the Sutra- kara; similarly, he seems to locate इन्द्र and प्रजापति in his Commentary on the present Sutra. Also the language of स्थानान्तराभावात् and पाठक्रमातू is foreign to the Sutrakara. Moreover, आगन्तुकत्वादपि etc., is not a Commentary on वरुणादधीन्द्र- AsTIVaT ......... , but in all we have here four arguments. In Bra. Sū. IV. 3. 8 and 16, we believe, we have the view of Badari who distinguished between प्रजापतिलोक and ब्रह्मन् and that of Badarayana who did not accept that distinction. On account

398 INTERPRETATION

of these reasons we do not believe that इन्द्र and प्रजापति should be located by any commentator (About ea see above ). 7. The Sutrakara does not mention ब्रह्मलोक, because though it is attained by ufa, it is not an ordinary ' world ' but it is the Para. In the case of the gou aspect of Brahman he clearly says that " though there is something common between grr and a world, the former is not subject to the fault of लोकापत्ि" (Bra. Su. III. 3. 51).

SECTION IV

Rays etc, are Conductors.

Sutras IV. 3. 4-5

(५) उभयव्यामोहात्तत्सिद्धेः ।

TRANSLATION

[ THE Rays, and others, are ] conductors, because of a Sruti expressly stating it. 4

Because of the bewilderment of both [ the Rays, etc., and the knower of Brahman ], the.fact [ of the Rays, etc., being conductors ] is proved. 5

NOTES

Sūtra 4

1. The Sutrakara here describes the nature of arfer:, अहः, शुक्कः पक्ष:, षण्मासाः, संवत्सर, etc. He says that these mentioned in the Srutis of the aura are conductors conducting the knower of Brahman on his journey on the Path of gods. 2. ' afema' refers to a definite Sruti in which the rays, etc., are distinctly said to be doing the work of a conductor. Very probably the following Sruti is referred to :- तं नयन्त्येताः सूर्यस्य रश्मयो यत्र देवानां पतिरेकोऽधिवास:। (Mu. Upa. 1. 2. 5). This Sruti is a proof that the rays are conductors, though it may not prove that the performer of sacrifices is conducted by the rays. 'faw' is generally used in the Sutras in the sense of a direct definite statement in the Sruti, and not in that of an indirect inference.

2. As it is the question of a knower of Brahman, there is no possibility of रशमयः, अहः, etc., being भोगभूमयः. By तल्लिङ्ग Salikara refers to Cha. Upa. IV. 15. 5 (चन्द्रमसो विद्युतं तत्पुरुषोSमानवः स एनान्व्रह्म गमयति ), and says that from that Sruti we are to infer that in the previous case ( rays, day, the bright half ) there are human conductors, because in the faga there is said to be a superhuman conductor. This does not seem to us to be the sense of ' fas'; nor, even according to Sankara, does the Sutrakara mean that there are conductors in these worlds of rays, ete., but he only says that these rays, etc., are themselves conductors. Sutra 5 4. If any more proof were wanted, the Sūtrakara gives us the evidence here. If rfaws, az:, etc., were not conductors, both the fars, ata:, etc., and the knower of Brahman would

BRA. So. IV. 3. 4-5 401

be in bewilderment. Perhaps the bewilderment is due to the absence of any third agency acting as a conductor. The deity of the rays, the day, etc., would not know how to guide the knower of Brahman and the latter, though indeed conscious, would not be at all in possession of the knowledge required for the onward journey. This seems to be the nature of the bewilderment. The fact that the Sutrakara speaks of the bewilderment of the rays, the day, etc., shows that he does not at all understand them to be without consciousness. 5. तत्सिद्धे :- Because there is the possibility of both being bewildered in the absence of any conductor, the rays, the day, etc., are proved to be the conductors.

s1

SECTION V

Conductor of the Lightening leads the Jnanin onwards.

Sūtra. IV. 3. 6

(६) वैद्युतेनैत्र ततस्तच्छ्रूतेः ।

TRANSLATION

FROM the world of the Lightning [ the knower of Brahman is conducted to his destination ] by only the conductor belonging to that world, because of a Sruti about it. 6

NOTES Sutra 6 1. This Sutra tells us what conductor takes the knower of Brahman to his destination. The Sutrakara says that the conductor belonging to the world of the Lightning takes the knower of Brahman to his destination. This also explains the meaning of ' amaa' in Cha. Upa. IV. 15. 5, Cha. Upa. V. 10. 2, Br. Upa. VI. 2. 15 and clears a doubt that perhaps a conductor in the वरुणलोक (इन्द्रलोक and प्रजापतिलोक not being accepted as being separate atas ) leads the knower in his journey beyond the world of the Lightning. 2. aa: asga: -A conductor who finally conducts the knower of Brahman to Brahman is mentioned in the Sruti from the world of the Lightning, and, therefore, the conductor of that world only takes him to Brahman. The Sruti referred to is "चन्द्रमसो विद्युतं तत्पुरुषोऽमानवः सपनान् ब्रह्म गमयति" (Cha. Upa. IV. 15. 5-6; V. 10. 2 ).

SECTION VI

How far can the Vaidyuta Conductor lead the Knower of Brahman ?

Sūtras IV. 3. 7-16

(७) कार्य बादरिरस्य गत्युपपत्तेः।

(८) विशेषितत्वाच्च।

(९) सामीप्याततु तद्व्यपदेशः ।

(१०) कार्यात्यये तदध्यक्षेण सहातः परममिधानाद्।

(११) स्मृतेश्र।

(१२) परं जैमिनिर्सुख्यत्वाद्।

(१३) दर्शनाच।

(१४) न च कार्ये प्रतिपच्यभिसन्धिः।

(१५) अप्रतीकालम्बनान्नयतीति बादरायण उभयथा दोषात्तत्क्रतुश्च।

(१६) विशेषश्च दर्शयति ।

इति चतुर्थाध्याये तृतीय: पाद:।

TRANSLATION

BADARI [holds that the conductor carries the knower of Brahman to a world which is ] an effect [ of Brahman ] because the going of this conductor [ to that world only ] is appropriate, 7

and because [ the world which is an effect of Brahman is ] distinguished [ from that of Brahman ]. 8

But, the designation of ' Brahman' [ is given in some Srutis to the destination where the conductor takes him ] on account of its vicinity. 9

On the destruction of the effect f the knower of Brahman goes ] further than this effect along with its governor, because it is said so in the Sruti, 10

and because of the Smrti. 11

Jaimini holds that the conductor carries [ the knower of Brahman ] to the Supreme One, because of its being the chief aspect, 12

and because it is shown in the Sruti [ that the knower is bound for the chief aspect ], 13

and there is no intention for the knowledge of the effect. 14

Bādarāyana holds that [ the conductor ] carries those who do not resort to the Symbol [ Om ] because there is no fault in either case; and the knower of Brahman has made a specific thought for It, * 15

and the Sruti shows the difference between the ' effect ' and the Supreme One. 16

NOTES Sutra 7

1. It seems that Sutras 7-16 form one Adhikaraņa. Badarayana's view is given in Sutra 15, and generally in the Sutras his view is given when also those of others from whom he differs are given. Moreover, ETe in Sūtra 15 seems to be a reference to the two views expressed in Sūtras 7-11 and 12-14 respectively. The view to take Sūtras 7-14 as one Adhikarana and Sūtras 15-16 as another Adhikaraņa is a view older even than Sankara's, as we learn from a discussion about it given by Sankara in his commentary. But Ramanuja takes all these Stras ( 7-16 ) as forming one Adhikarana. 2. The discussion in Sutras 7-9 seems to be on ' स पनान् ब्रह्म गमयति' (Cha. Upa. IV. 15. 5 ) as Sankara rightly points out. Badari holds that the conductor from the world of the Lightning carries the people to a world which is an effect of Brahman, created by Brahman, viz., प्रजापतिलोक. 3. 'अस्य' in the Sutra seems to us to refer to the वैद्युत आतिवाहिक mentioned in the preceding Sutra (IV.3.6). This conductor is not a knower of Brahman and, therefore, argues Badari, he can go upto कार्य or प्रजापतिलोक only, he cannot go to पर ब्रहान. 4. अस्य गत्युपपस्ते :- Because the conductor can only go upto कार्य, 'ब्रह्मन्' in "स एनान् ब्रह्म गमयति" (Cha. Upa. IV. 15.5) and 'ब्रह्मलोकान्' in "ब्रह्मलोकान् गमयति" (Br. Upa. VI. 2. 15 ) mean प्रजापतिलोक or कार्य of Brahman. The conductor cannot go to arror or qx and therefore he cannot carry the knower of Brahman to qr. 5. As वैद्युत आतिवाहिक is said to be the carrier or conductor of the knower of Brahman in the preceding Sutra and as the nature of the destination of the journey with him is not

BRA. So. IV. 3. 7-16 407

mentioned as yet, we believe that Sūtra 7 begins the discussion of the qucstion: " Where does the conductor carry the knower of Brahman ? " This is a different question from that of " What is the nature of Mukti or where does the Brahmajnanin go in the state of emancipation?" The आतिवाहिक being himself not entitled to go to the ब्रह्मलोक or ब्रह्मन् cannot take the knower of Brahman there, while the Srutis say that he takes the jnanin to Brahman; thus, a discussion arose on this question. But as regards the conception of Mukti, all the three thinkers, Badari, Jaimini and Badarayana seem to have held the same view, viz., that the knower of Brahman goes to the Para which is higher than the कार्य or प्रजापतिलोक, in the state of liberation and that having gone there the original form of the soul becomes manifest. All of them agreed to call this manifestation of the original form of the soul ' Mukti' ( Bra. Su. IV. 4. 1-2 ). The अर्चिरादिका श्रुति does not say that the emancipation is attained when the soul knowing Brahman reaches the place where the आतिवाहिक can take him. From these Sutras ( 7-16 ) it seems clear that all these three thinkers agreed that reaching the Para was the goal, ( see qt in Sutras 10, 12 ) and that reaching the कार्य or प्रजापतिलोक was not the goal. None of theso Sutras shows that any doubt about this was ever raised. They differed only as to where or how far the conductor could carry the knower of Brahman. That this is the topic in Sutra IV. 3. 7-16 is clear from ag being a roferenco to the वैद्युत आतिवाहिक montioned in Sutra 6 and also नयति in Sutra 15 being a reference to the same आतिवाहिक. Beyond the प्रजापतिलोक the आतिवाहिक could not carry the ब्रह्मज्ञानिन्, but प्रजापति or ब्रह्मन (m.) himself accom- panied him to पर at the end (प्रलय) of the प्रजापतिलोक, according to Badari ( Sūtra IV. 3. 10 ).

8. But Sankara takes अस्य in Sutra 7 as referring to कार्य (instead of to the वैद्युत आतिवाहिक) and, therefore he has to explain गति as गन्तव्यता. Why गन्तव्यता of कार्य only is possible ? To

408 INTERPRETATION

answer this question Sankara gives two reasons :- (1) सर्वगतत्वात् and (2) प्रत्यगात्मत्वात् We think that the question of the nature of Mukti or, in other words, the question about the impossibility of the Para being an object or place to be reached by journey, is not at all disoussed here. That question is based upon the two arguments of सर्वेगतत्व and प्रत्यगात्मत्व which are not mentioned by Badari and these arguments are answered by neither Jaimini nor Badarayana; but Sankara himself gives the supposed replies to these objections of Badari in his commentary on Bra. Su. IV. 3. 14 (लोके गतस्यापि गन्तव्यता देशान्तरविशिष्टा ष्टा ......... ). This leads us to conclude that in the Sutras we have no discussion of परब्रह्मण: गन्तव्यता or अगन्तव्यता. The only question is whether the conductor can go to परव्रह्मन् or to कार्य. गति is the act of going, not गन्तव्यता. Sutra 8

7. In the अर्चिरादिश्रुतिs (Cha. Upa. IV. 15. 5, Br. Upa. VI. 2. 15 ) the कार्य and परम् are not distinguished. The Sütrakara has taken those Srutis as the authentic text of देवयान (Bra.Su. IV. 3.1). But in other Srutis like Br. Upa. III. 6. 1, IV. 3. 31 and Kau. Upa. I. 3 the प्रजापतिलोक is distinguished from the Brahmaloka. The Sūtrakara did not mention प्रजापतिलोक in the list of the stations on the देवयान given in Sūtras IV. 3. 1-3, because it was to be indirectly discussed here ( Sūtras IV. 3. 7-16 ). Badari seems to refer to the Srutis where प्रजापतिलोक and ब्रह्मलोक are distinguished and most probably to Br. Upa. III. 6. 1 ( कस्मिन्नु खलु प्रजापति- लोका ओताश् प्रोताश्चेति ब्रह्मलोकेषु गार्गीति कस्मिन्नु खलु ब्रह्मलोका ओताश्च प्रोताश्च इति स होवाच गार्गि मातिप्राक्षीर्मा ते मूर्धा व्यप्तदनतिप्रश्न्यां वै देवतामति- पृच्छसि गार्गि मातिप्राक्षीरिति ततो ह गार्गी वाचकनव्युपरराम।). The कार्य and पर are distinguished in this Sruti; ब्रह्मलोक is the पर, प्रजापतिलोक is the कार्य. Beyond प्रजापतिलोक, there is ब्रह्मलोक, but beyond this latter there is no loka. So, Badari seems to mean that the conductor can go to and, therefore, can lead the knower

BRA. Sa. IV. 3. 7-16 409

of Brahman to only the Prajapatiloka, though this loka is not mentioned in the अर्चिरादिका श्रुति 8. Sarikara refers विशेषितत्व to the plural number of ब्रह्मलोक in 'ब्रह्मलोकान् गमयति' (Br. Upa. VI. 2.15). But, rather he ought to have taken it as referring to the word are in that Sruti, which is absent in Cha. Upa. IV. 15. 5. In fact the plural number is also used in the case of अन्तरिक्षलोक, गन्धर्वलोक, आदित्यलोक, चन्द्रलोक, नक्षत्रलोक, देवलोक, इन्द्रलोक, प्रजापतिलोक and ब्रह्मलोक in Br. Upa. III. 6. The विशेषितत्व cannot also be explained as referring to the word लोक in ब्रह्मलोकानू bocause to Badari, Jaimini and Badarayana there was no difference between ब्रह्मन् and ब्रह्मलोक so long as 'गमयति' was used along with them. Sutra 8 rather refers to a distinction betwoon कार्य and पर or कारण and that suggests a referonce to Br. Upa. III. 6. 1 where ब्रह्मलोक is said to be 'अनतिप्रश्न्या देवता' and the प्रजापतिलोक is traced to it. Sūtra 9

9. Since Badari believes that the conductor can take the knower of Brahman only to the प्रजापतिलोक, he has got to explain why the अर्चिरादि श्रुति says that he takes the ब्रह्मज्ञानिन् to ब्रहमन् or ब्रह्मलोक tho पर. So, in this Sutra he says that ब्रह्मन् or ब्रह्मलोक is very neur प्रजापतिलोक and, therefore, though really the conductor takes ब्रह्मज्ञानिन् to प्रजापतिलोक, tho Sruti says that he takes him to ब्रह्मलोक the पर. 10. a is intended to refute tho view that the conductor can take or takes the knower of Brahman to the Para. 11. Sankara seems to take सामीप्य in a metaphorical sense. We think, it really refers to the view of Badari and others that ब्रह्मलोक or पर is near प्रजापतिलोक. In the next Sutra, Badari says that on the dissolution of the कार्य the knower of Brahman goes to ब्रह्मलोक which is higher than this. In Bra. Su. IV. 4. 17, the Sutrakara says that the form of the 59

410 INTARPRATATION

liberated is devoid of the dealings of the world because it is remote from the world ( जगद्वयापारवर्जे प्रकरणादसंनिदितत्वाच्च।). According to Sankara, the सगुणब्रह्मन् ( of his School ) is very near the निर्गुणब्रह्मन् and therefore the expression ब्रह्मन् is used in स पनान् ब्रह्म गमयति (Cha. Upa. IV. 15. 5), instead of ब्रह्मलोक or प्रजापतिलोक. (For Sanikara's explanation of this Sutra, see Sa. Bha. on Bra. Su. I. 2. 1 whore Cha. Upa, III. 14. 1-2 is discussed. )

Sūtra 10

12. This Sutra tolls us how those who are carried by the conduotor to कार्य or प्रजापतिलोक would be carried further to the पर.

13. Instead of any conductor, the governor of the are or प्रजापतिलोक accompanies the knower of Brahman to the Para. The knower of Brahman goes to the Para from the Prajapatiloka on the dissolution of the lattor. This is Badari's reply to the question who will take the knower of Brahman to the Para if not the conductor.

14. अभिधानात्-This argument is also given by the Sūtrakara in other Sutras, It means that there is a Sruti expressing the statement, here a Sruti expressively stating that the knowers of Brahman ( who are in a world produced by Brahman ) are released on the destruction of that world. Such a Sruti is possibly the following :-

वेदान्तविज्ञानसुनिश्चितार्थाः सन्न्यासयोगाद्यतयः शुद्धसराः। ते ब्रह्मलोकेषु परान्तकाले परामृता: परिमुच्यन्ति सर्वें। ( Mu. Upa. III. 2. 7)

The word "परस्यान्ते" occurs also in the Smrti quoted by Sankara in his commentary on Sutra 11. Perhaps from this verse Badari infers that the knowers of Brahman go to a world which is an effect of Brahman and gain liberation at the time of its destruction.

BRA. So. IV. 3. 7-16 411

15. Sankara argues that Sūtra 10 is Bādari's reply to a doubt based upon the अनावृत्तिशुतिs. We believe, it is Badari's reply to a probable question, viz., who will carry the knower of Brahman to the Para, if not the conductor, and when. Going to the प्रजापतिलोक is no Mukti, not even क्ममुक्ति; because for Mukti it is necessary to go to the auats. In faot, अनावृत्तिश्चुति has another meaning and it is not in conflict with Badari's view that the conductor can take the knower only to the ar. There is no reply to this so-called argument (in Sutra 10 ) of Badari based on अनावृत्तिश्रुति, in Jaimini's arguments; and the अनावृत्तिश्रुतिs are in fact discussed by the Sūtrakāra in Bra. Sū. IV. 4. 22. Sankara takes अभिधानात् as referring to the अनावृत्तिधुतिs, but in those Srutis there is no mention of कार्यात्यय, तदध्यक्ष or अतः परम्. Besides, the अनावृत्तिशुति, as discussed in Bra. Su. IV. 4. 22, have a different meaning according to the Sūtrakara. Sankara adds that in the कार्यलोक the individual soul . carried there by the conductor gets right knowledge ( तत्रैवोत्पन्न- aaar: ). But in fact, there is no such suggestion in the Sūtra. Badari believes and Jaimini and Badarayana agree with him that it is the knower of Brahman whom the conductor carries to a place where the latter can carry him.

Sankara connects Sūtra IV. 3. 10 with Sūtra IV. 4. 22. We think, the Sutrakara does not intend any such connection ( See our notes on IV. 4. 22 ). Thus, Sutra IV. 3. 10 does not prove Sankara's conclusion that it is impossible to go to the Para.

Sūtra 11 16. A Smrti like the one quoted by Sankara is meant by the Sutra. But Badari refers to it to show that it is in company of Brahman or Prajapati the Governor of the ar that the conductor takes them to the Para.

412 INTARPRATATION

17. Sanikara says, "तस्मात्कार्यअ्रझयविषया गतिः भ्रूयते". This is correct only so far as Badari's view about the ufa of the आतिवाहिक is concerned. But Badari's view about the गति of ब्रह्मझ्ञानिन्s is that they go to the Para along with Prajapati. He does not say that the Para is not an objeot of nfa. He only says that the आतिवाहिक cannot go to the Para. Sūtra 12

18. Jaimini believes that the conductor takes the knower of Brahman to the Para, according to "स पनान् ब्रह्म गमयति" ( Cha. Upa. IV. 15. 6 ). We should connect "qrq" in the Sutra with गमयति in the विषयवाक्य. 19. मुख्यत्वात्-We think, this word मुख्य corresponds to the word प्रधान in Bra.Su. III. 2.14 (अरूपवदेव हि तत्प्रधानत्वात्) and in Bra.Su. III. 3. 11 ( आनन्दादयः प्रधानस्य) as also in Bra.Su.III. 3. 43 (प्रधानवदेव तदुक्तम्-v.l.). Jaimini says that ब्रह्मन् in स एनान् व्रह्म गमयति is the chief aspect of the Supreme One and therefore the conductor takes the knower of Brahman to the Para and not to कार्य. Badari also agrees that ब्रह्न् in this Sruti is the Para ( See Sūtra IV. 3. 9 ). 20. Sankara takes yra in the sense of 'primary sense' (ब्रह्मशब्दस्य मुख्यमालम्बनम्). We think, 'मुख्य' is here used for 'sna', because the two are synonyms. The Sūtra is not worded as मुख्यार्थत्वात् or मुख्यालम्बनत्वात्. Moreover, according to Sankara, Jaimini's view is a Pūrvapaksa and Badari's is the Siddhanta. We have already said that Badarayana's view mentioned in Sūtras 15-16 is the Siddhanta, and consequently. the views of both Badari and Jaimini are in a sense Pūrvapaksas. Sutra 13 21. A Sruti in which the knower of Brahman is described as going to or attaining the Para the Supreme One is here meant. Such a Sruti is "ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम्"। (Tai. Upa. II.1),

BRA. So. IV. 3. 7-16 413

and also 'परं ज्योतिरुपसंपद्य स्वेन रूपेण अभिनिष्पद्यते'(Cha. Upa. VIII. 12.2), पुरुषान्न परं किश्चित्सा काष्ठा सा परा गतिः (Ka. Upa. III. 11), परात्परं पुरुषमुपैति दिव्यम् (Mu. Upa. III. 2.8), परमेवाक्षरं प्रतिपद्यते (Pra. Upa. IV. 10 ), तमोंकारेणवायतनेनान्वेति विद्वान् यत्तच्छान्तमजर- ममुतमभयं परं चेति ( Pra. Upa. V. 7). On the strength of these Srutis Jaimini argues that the conductor takes the knower of Brahman to the Para. In these Srutis it is clearly stated that the aumfaa goes to or attains the Para and in Cha. Upa. IV. 15. 6 it is stated that he is led by an anfarefe; so Jaimini concludes that the carrier takes the knower of Brahman to the Para. 22. Sankara does not quote any Sruti in which the Para is said to be the goal reached by the knower of Brahman, and, as usual, does not notice the context that here the question is as to where the conductor can take the knower of Brahman. Sūtra 14

23. Jaimini argues that the knower of Brahman does not aim (अभिसंधि) at knowing कार्य (प्रतिपत्ति). So, the conductor must be supposed to take him to the Para and not to the ar. Jaimini draws attention to the fact that Srutis like Tai. Upa. II. 1, Cha. Upa. VI. 2, ask or advise a man to know the Para, and not the कार्य or प्रजापतिलोक. 24. Saiikara takes 'प्रतिपत्ति' in the sense of'entering,' but the Sutrakara uses the word in the sense of 'knowledge ' ( Bra. Sū. I. 3. 27 ). And in the preceding Sūtra the Sūtrakūra already refers to such Srutis as state that the goal of the seeker of liberation is the Para. So, we think, in this Sutra the object of the knowledge of the seeker is used as an argument to prove that the conductor takes the man to the Para. 25. Sankara's arguments that Jaimini's view, though mentioned second should be taken as a Pūrvapaksa and that Badari's view, though stated first should be regarded as the Siddhanta do not seemto us to be convincing, because

414 INTERPRETATION

Badarāyana's view given in Sūtras 15-16 seems to us to be the Siddhanta. 26. Sankara mentions an interpretation of these Sūtras by a predecessor of his, who took Sūtras 7-11 as the Sūtras of the Purvapaksa and Sutras 12-14 as those of the Siddhanta. We think, this predecessor had no correct reading of the Adhikarana, which, we believe, consists of Sūtras 7-16. Moreover, the predecessor also thinks that गति means गन्तव्यता and अस्य means कार्यस्य in Sutra 7, just as Sankara believes. For this reason we are led to think that this predecessor had no correct account of the traditional interpretation of these Sutras. Sarikara's other arguments like (1) प्रतिषिद्ध सर्वविशेषत्वाङ्गह्मणः, (2) विशेषनिराकरणश्चुतीनामनन्यार्थत्वात्, (3) उत्पन्यादिश्रुतीनामेकत्वप्रतिपादन- परत्वात्, (4) उत्पत्यादिश्चुतीनां शेषत्वं न पुनरितरशेषत्वमितरासाम्, etc., etc., are neither expressly nor implicitly meant in these Sutras. One can hardly agree with Sankara's view about the introduction of Jaimini's opinion in the Brahmasutras, viz., "सस्मात्कार्य बादरि: (ब्र. सू. ४।३।७) इत्येष एव स्थितः पक्षः। 'परं जैमिनि:' (ब्र. सू. ४।३।१२) इति तु पक्षान्तरप्रतिभानमात्रप्रदर्शनं प्रज्ञावि- कासनायेति द्वष्टव्यम्।". Sūtra 15

27. As we have already stated, Sūtras 15-16 form a part of the same Adhikarana as Sūtras 7-14. Sutras 7-11 and 12-14 gave respectively the views of Badari and Jaimini; now Sutras 15-16 give that of Badarayana. 28. We have said that the topic of this Adhikarana is, where the conductor can take the knower of Brahman, because अस्य in Sutra 7 seems to us to refer to the वैद्युत आतिवादिक in Sutra 6. Also नयति in Sutra 15 shows the same.

28. प्रतीकालम्बन-प्रतीकs of Brahman are the symbols under .which Brahman is meditated upon, e. g., the Syllable Om,

BRA. S6. IV. 3. 7-16 415

the Sun, the Name, etc., etc. The result of the meditation on the Pratikas is either some worldly enrichment ( Cf. Cha. Upa. VII. 1-14 ) and the result of the meditation on the Syllable Om is the attainment of Brahman ( Pra. Upa., Mu. Upa., Kațha Upa., and Bra. Su. III, 3. 25-26 ). 30. We do not think that in this Adhyaya there is any possibility of a direct discussion about meditations not leading to the attainment of Brahman. Therefore, we believe, it is not likely that the meditations on the Sun, the Name, the Speech, etc., as Brahman can be possibly referred to by the Sutrakara here. Only such meditations as result in the attainment of Brahman are likely to be mentioned here. The meditation on Brahman through the enaraa of the Symbol Om is the only प्रतीकोपासना that leads to the achievement of liberation. The Syllable Om is called ' anaraa ' in the Katha Upa. Thus, the possibility of the Om being the topic here on account of the roference to प्रतीकालम्बन, and the word नयति suggest that the Sutrakara has in his view the Pra. Upa. Sruti which discusses the meditation on Om leading to Brahman ( Pra. Upa. V ). The next Sutra refers to the faarr between the two aspects of Brahman ( which Badari would distinguish as arr and qr ) and, as the Praśna Upanisad refers to two aspects of Brahman, we believe, Sutra 16 also supports our view that Pra. Upa. V is referred to by Sūtra 15. 31. If we take Praśna Upanisad V as referred to in these two Sutras, the view of Badarayana would seem to be as follows :- He says that " The conductor carries ( upto the place where he can go ) those meditators of Brahman who meditate on Brahman without the resort or help of the Syllable Om" (अप्रतीकालम्बनान्नयति इति बादरायण:). This is consistent with the Pra. Upa. Sruti. According to it he who meditates on Om as consisting of three matras ( parts ) is carried upwards by the Samans to the ब्रह्मलोक जीवघन and sees the Purusa who is

416 INTERPRETATION

higher than " this highest जीवधन" (एतस्माजीवघनास्परात्परं पुरुषम्)- Pra. Upa. V. 5. Now, as the meditator who resorts to this Pratika is carried upwards by the Samans, Badarayana says that those meditators on Brahman who do not resort to the Symbol Om are carried by the conductors.

32. Badrayana held the above view because both Badari and Jaimini were correct ( उभयथाSदोषात्). Both of them were correct according to Badarayana and, therefore, he gave his own view that the conductor carried only those knowers of Brahman who did not resort to the Syllable Om. These अप्रतीकालम्बनs may meditate on प्रधान or पुरुष as stated in Bra. Su. III. 3. 11-54. Therefore, जैमिनि and बादरि are both of them respectively correct.

33. तत्क्तुश् - Badari has not considered and Jaimini has not pointed out in favour of his own view, that the meditator on Brahman ( without resorting to the Syllable Om ) makes a determinate thought about reaching Brahman, and, therefore, we must suppose that in either case he reaches Brahman immediately after leaving this world. The argument of ' aang:' seems to be a reference to सर्व खल्विदं ब्रह्म तज्जलानिति शान्त उपांसीताथ खलु क्रतुमयः पुरुषो यथा कतुरस्मि ल्लोके पुरुषो भवति तथेतः प्रेत्य भवति स क्रतुं कुर्वीत। ......... सर्वकर्मा सर्वकामः सर्वगन्धः सर्वरसः सर्वमिदमभ्यासोऽवाक्यनादर: एष म आत्मान्तर्हृदय एतद् ब्रह्मतमितः प्रेत्याभि- संभवितास्मीति ...... (Cha. Upa. III. 14). In this Sruti we find a definite determination or resolve on the part of the meditator that he would be born unto this Atman, this Brahman after leaving this world. This is one more argument according to Badarayana as to why both Badari and Jaimini are right in their views ( See Sūtra 16 ). Badarayana and Jaimini do not consider the point whether the conductor can go upto the कार्य or upto the पर; they emphasize the fact that the speoific thought of the meditator about his goal and his object of knowledge shows that he must be conducted to his goal.

BRA. SO. IV. 3. 7-16 417

34. Sankara takes Sutras 15-16 as forming an independent Adhikarana. According to him "अप्रतीकालम्बनान्" means "अप्रतीकालम्बनान् विकारालम्बनान् " " those who resort to an effect of Brahman [ as Brahman ] but who are other than those resorting to प्रतीकs . e., "those meditators of Brahman who meditate on some विकारs of Brahman other than the प्रतीकविकारड, as Brahman. " Sankara seems to divide meditation on Brahman into two classes, ( 1 ) those who meditate on the pure Brahman, i. e., those who realize Brahman itself, and (2) those who meditate on an offect of Brahman; this second would consist of (a) the so called सगुणोपासकs and (b) the प्रतीकोपासकड 'meditators on नामन्, वाकू, etc., as in Cha. Upa. VII. In Sutra III. 3. 31 as interpreted by Sankara, it was statod that the देवयानगति is the गति of (a) and (b). Now, says Sankara, in Sutra IV. 3. 16, the Sutrakara asserts that the देवयानगति is the गति of only (a); thus, according to Sankara, the Sutrakara in this Sutra modifies what he has said in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 31, because here ( in Sutra 15 ) he excludes the प्रतीकालम्बनान् सगुणोपासकान् (= विकारोपासकान) from those mentioned in Sutra III. 3. 31. Thus, according to Sankara's interpretation, Sūtra III. 3. 31 which was a Siddhanta Sutra in Adhyaya III becomes as it were a Purvapaksa Sutra in Adhyaya IV. This kind of context itself makes Saikara's explanation of Sūtra IV. 3. 15 and of Sutra III. 3. 31 doubtful. It is very rarely that the Sutrakara ever withdraws or modifies in a later Adhyaya what he has established as a Siddhanta in a preceding Adhyaya. It seems to us that the Sutrakara never distinguishes between the meditators ( or rather the knowers ) of Brahman in the pure form and those in its " effect " form. He does distinguish between the meditators on Brahman itself and on Symbols of Brahman. In the Sutra ( 15) there is no word to suggest the modification of the sense of अप्नतीकालम्बनान् by the addition of विकारालम्बनान् instead of by adding ब्रह्मोपासकान

418 INTERPRETATION

taken as understood. Moreover, because of the fact that here the question is about being guided or carried by the conductor, we think that all the aars are not considered here but only the Symbol Om is the point of reference here (See the above Note ).

'उभयथा' according to Sankara means the fact (1) that the Sutrakara holds that all the सगुणोपासकs, whether depending on प्रतीकs or not, go by the देवयान, as in Sutra III. 3. 31,and again, (2) now he says that only those सगुणोपासकs who do not resort to प्रतीकs, go by the देवयान, in Sutra IV. 3. 15. But to us it seems that ETeTr should be a reference to two exactly opposite views about one and the same point and that in this particular case it refers to Badari's view that the conductor takes ( the knower of Brahman ) to a world which is an effect of Brahman and the view of Jaimini that he takes ( the same person ) to the Supreme One itself. We have proposed to connect अप्रतीकालम्बनान्नयतीति with उभयथा अदोषात् as Proposition and Argument; Sankara takes them separately and, then, gives his own reason for अदोषात् viz., "अनियमन्यायस्य प्रतीकव्यतिरिक्तेषु अपि उपासनेषूपपत्तेः ". This reason is not suggested by any word in the Sutra itself, but it results, according to Sankara, from the relation which he understands between this Sutra ( 15 ) and Sūtra III. 3. 31. Sankara says that "arna:" is an argument for उभयथाभाव and then he says that in सगुणोपासना without प्रतीक there is तत्क्रतुन्याय and in सगुणोपासनाS with प्रतीक there is no तत्क्रतु. 'तत्क्रतु' is, according to him, not a ma mentioned definitely in any Sruti, e. g., in Cha. Upa. III.14.4, but only ' ब्रह्मकरतु'.

It seems to us that the topic here is about 'नयति' as distinguished from प्राप्नोति or गच्छति. In the case of नामादि- रूपप्रतीकोपासना, there is possibility for neither of the two, unless one meditates on Brahman as y7 which is the last stage in that series and which ( aar ) is explained by the Sūtrakāra ( Sūtra I. 3. 8 ) as Brahman itself. For this reason,

BRA. So. IV. 3. 7-16 419

it is not possible that the Sutrakara would at all discuss नामादिप्रतीकोपासनाs bere. Sutra 16 35. विशेषं च दर्शयति-From the context we think that the faara or difference meant here is that between the two aspects of Brahman regarding which there is a differerence between Badari and Jaimini as to where the conductor takes the knower of Brahman and, which the Sūtrakara seeks to reconcile in Sūtra 15.

36. Moreover, as Badarayana particularly refers to a Sruti about the difference between the aspects of Brahman, we think that he does not entirely accept the view of Badari and Jaimini regarding the same; but rather he partly differs from both and partly agrees with them. 37. As the faara here is the difference between the two aspects of Brahman, we think, the Sutra refers to Pra. Upa. V. 2-7, where the difference between पर and अपर ब्रह्मन् is mentioned. This is more likely because the same Sruti is indirectly referred to in Sūtra 15. 38. If Pra. Upa. V. 2-7 is the विषयवाक्य in Sutra 16, we cannot interpret either the Sruti or the Sūtra independently of Sutra I. 3. 13 ( ईक्षतिकर्मव्यपदेशात्सः), where the Sutrakara's interpretation of the gow in Pra. Upa. V. 5 is given, and of Sutra III.3.39 ( तत्र च आयतनादिभ्यः) where he again refers to his own view about the Srutis discussed in Bra. Su. I. 3., one of which is the present Sruti. 39. Now, we think, in Bra. Sū. I. 3. 13 the Sūtrakara says that जीवघन ब्रह्मलोक of Pra. Upa. V. 5 is the पुरुष, who is the object of the act of seeing ( farfan& ). In Bra. Su. I. 1-3, the Sutrakara takes up one word in a Sruti and says that the particular term means Paramatman ( or Purusa ). Thus, घुम्वाद्यायतन is Paramatman because of स्वशब्द (Bra. Su. I. 3.1), भूमन् is Paramatman because of संप्रसादादन्युपदेश (Bra. Su. I.

420 INTERPRETATION

3.8 ), अक्षर is Paramatman because of अम्बरान्तधृति (Bra. Su. I. 3. 10), ag is Paramatman because of the succeeding sen- tences (Bra. Su. I. 3.14), प्रमित: is Paramatman because of the Sabda itself ( Bra. Su. I. 3. 24 ), ( we may say that ) Sor is Paramatman because of कम्पन (Bra. Su. I. 3.39), ज्योति: is Paramatman because of दर्शन, and आकाश is Paramatman because of अर्थान्तरादिव्यपदेश (Bra. Su. I. 3. 41). On the analogy of all these cases, we suggest that ':' in Sūtra I. 3. 13 means 'जीवघन:' and the Sutra would be 'जीवघनः ईक्षतिकर्मव्यपदेशाव्' meaning " The Principle called जीवघन (or ब्रह्मलोक) is Prama- tman because he is called g54 ( lit. ' the object of the act of seeing' viz., पुरुष)". जीवघन is a torm of doubtful meaning and the Sutrakara clears it by this Sutra. In the first Sūtra of each Adhikarana there is a term of doubtful meaning, which it is the purpose of the Adhikarana to explain. So, in this particular Sruti the Sutrakara explains जीवघन as पुरुष or परमात्मन्.1 In Bra. Sū. III. 3. 39 ( Vide our interpretation of that Sūtra ), the Sūtrakara says that the Srutis or thoughts dis- cussed in Bra. Su. I. 3. 1 and the succeeding Sūtras may be optionally applied to the अरूपवत् or निराकार aspect of Brahman, though the Sutrakara has explained them as those belonging to or dealing with the साकार or पुरुष aspect. So, on the strength of Bra. Su, III. 3. 39 we are given the option of interpreting जीवघन as निराकार or अव्यक्त aspect of Brahman though it may also be taken as the साकार or पुरुष aspect, as the Sūtrakāra has done in Bra. Sū. I. 3. 13. 40. In the light of the above consideration, it seems to us that the Sutrakara takes the निराकार or जीवघन and साकार or gEq aspect as two aspects taught in Pra. Upa. V. 5 and referred to as पर and अपर ब्रह्मन in Pra. Upa. V. 2 (पतद्वै सत्यकाम परं चापरं च ब्रह्म यदोंकारस्तस्माद्विद्वान् पतेनैवायतनेनैकतरमन्वेति). According to the Sutrakara निराकार and साकार are two aspects of Brahman and similarly it is called अव्यक्त and पुरुष I We have used 'परमात्मन्' in the sense of the साकार aspect here.

BRA. Su. IV. 3. 7-16 421

and the distinction between these two is like that between arfk and कुण्डल (Bra. Su. III. 2. 27 ). We have shown that the Sūtrakāra mentions these two aspects in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 8 which refers to Bra. Sū. III. 2. 27, and in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 10, and that in Bra. Su. III. 3. 11-54 he deals with the meditation on these two aspects of Brahman. On the strength of Bra. Su. I. 3. 13 and III. 3. 39 जीवधन is the निराकार or अव्यक्त aspect and पुरुष is the साकार aspect, as shown above. The Sutrakara seems to think that hasa is a term like रसघन and प्रज्ञानघन. Now, according to him, Brahman is mainly निराकार or, अरूपवत् is the chief aspect of Brahman ( Bra. Su. III. 2. 14 ) and पुरुष is the साकार aspect. Thus, जीवघन in Pra. Upa. V. 5 would be the Para Brahman (परं ब्रह्म ) and पुरुष would be the अपर ब्रह्म mentioned in Pra. Upa. V. 2. 41. The above being the difference between the two aspects of Brahman, the Sutrakara would take the जीवघन or निराकार to be the पर ब्रह्मन् of Jaimini and पुरुष to be the कार्य of Badari. The distinction between the two aspects mentioned by Badari in Bra. Sū. IV. 3. 8 is to be similarly undetrstood, according to the Sutrakara. प्रजापतिलोक in Br. Upa. III. 6. 1 is the अपर ब्रह्म, and ब्रह्मलोक which is the अनतिप्रश्न्या देवता is the पर ब्रम्म. According to the Sutrakara these two are not two लोकड in the ordinary sense; in the case of g5q, the Sūtrakāra clearly says that there is no लोकापत्ति and this is further proved by the fact that he drops the mention of प्रजापतिलोक after Sutra IV.3.3; प्रजापतिलोक is not a कार्य of Brahman, but it is another aspect of Brahman, viz., the Hatt aspect of Brahman, which stands on an equal level with the निराकार as being ब्रह्मविद्या and as giving absolute final emancipation ( Bra. Su. III. 3. 44-54 ). The same Brahman is at the same time,

t It is in accordance with the Cha. Upa that the Sūtrakara drops प्रजापतिलोक.

422 INTERPRETATION

in all the different states, both अरूपवत् and रूपवत् (Bra. Su. III. 2. 11 ). Thus, the Sūtrakara does not agree with Badari that the साकार or पुरुष aspect is a कार्य of the निराकार or अव्यक aspect, and he also does not agree with Jaimini that निराकार or पर ब्रह्मान् is higher than or different from what Badari called ars. Both Badari and Jaimini thought that the प्रजापतिलोक is a कार्य, but Badarayana thinks that the प्रजापतिलोक is no लोक (in the ordinary sense ), no कार्य, but another aspect of the कारण itself. In short, the difference between the two aspects is not that between कार्य and पर, but it is the difference between two names given to the same object from different standpoints, like the names अहि and कुण्डल given to a serpent. Taken in this sense, Badarayana says, that the आतिवाहिक carries the अप्रतीकालम्बन ब्रह्मोपासक to his goal viz., Brahman, whether he meditates on Brahman as अव्यक्त (= निराकार) or पुरुष (=साकार). In this sense, both Badari and Jaimini are correct and there- fore acceptable to Badarayana, when we understand the faare or difference between these two aspects in the above way. We believe, this is the interpretation of Bra. Su. IV. 3. 16. Badarayana thinks that the question as to where the conductor can take the knower of Brahman is decided (1) by the question as to whom he takes (अप्रतीकालम्बनान् and तत्क्रतु) and ( 2 ) by the question what is the difference between arf of Badari and पर of Jaimini. अप्रतीकालम्बन ब्रह्मोपासक may be a meditator on either of the two aspects of Brahman and he has made a specific thought that he is to go to Brahman after .leaving this world. Therefore, he must be carried by the conductor to his goal. And again, there is no fundamental difference between what Badari calls कार्य (प्रजापतिलोक or पुरुष or ararr aspect ) and what Jaimini regards to be the qr (ब्रह्मलोक, अव्यक्त or निराकार aspect). One who meditates on Brahman through the Syllable Om is carried by the Samans, but who one meditates on it otherwise must necessarily be carried by a conductor, because the conductor is mentioned with

BRA. So. IV. 3. 7-16 423

reference to this latter, while his function is performed by Samans with reference to the former. 42. According to Sankara, Sutra 16 discusses the nature of the fruit of नामादिप्तीकोपासनाS. In his opinion, as in Sutra15 it was said that the प्रतीकोपासकs do not go to ब्रह्मलोक the कार्य; it remained still to explain what is the result of प्रतीकोपासनाड. 'विशेष' is not the विशेष between कार्य and पर, but between the various प्रतीकोपासनफल; thus, विशेष is 'प्रतीकोपासनफलविशेष' according to Sankara 'दर्शयति' refers to Cha. Upa. VII. But, it seems to us that the काम्य ब्रह्मोपासनाs such as are described in Cha. Upa. VII have been discussed by the Sūtrakāra in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 60.

CHAPTER VII

SECTION I

Manifestation of the Original Form of the Released Soul after Union with Brahman.

Sutras IV. 4. 1-3

(१) सम्पद्याविर्भावः स्वेनशब्दात्।

(२) मुक्त: प्रतिज्ञानात्।

(३ ) आत्मा प्रकरणात् ।

TRANSLATION

[ THE individual soul ] having been united [ with the Supreme One , there is the manifestation | of the real nature of the individual soul ] because of the Sruti with the words " with his own " ( i. e., Cha. Upa. VIII. 12. 3 ). 1

It is the liberated one [ who becomes manifest ], because of the main Proposition. 2

It is the soul | of the liberated one, who becomes manifest ], because of the context. 3

NOTES Sūtra 1 1. 'aiva ' is undoubtedly a reference to Cha. Upa. VIII. 12. 3, as Sankara points out, In the last Adhikarana of the preceding Pada it was decided that if the released soul has not resorted to the Symbol Om, he is led by the conductor to the Supreme One; and that if he has ressorted to it the Samans lead him to the same. Now the Sūtrakara tells us what happens after he unites with the Supreme One. 2. आविर्भाव :- The Sutrakara does not hold that the संपत्ति or union at the end of the देवयान is absolute merging of the individual soul into Brahman, bccause he says that after union there is the manifestation of the real form of the soul. Sankara does not seem to emphasize this point sufficiently. 3. स्वेनशब्दात्-Some Srutis like the following are not clear on the point of manifestation, e. g., यथा नदः स्यन्दमाना: समुद्रेऽस्तंगच्छन्ति नामरूपे विहाय। तथा विद्वान्नामरूपाद्विमुक्तः परात्परं पुरुषमुपैति दिव्यम्॥ ( Mu. Upa. III. 2. 8 ). The Sutrakara gives a proof for the fact that after union with the Supreme One, there is a manifestation of the individual soul. The verb "अभिनिष्पद्यते " in the Sruti (Cha. Upa. VIII. 12. 3 ) may be interpreted in the sense of production ( 3rufa ), as Sankara says. But "स्वेनरूपेण अभिनिष्पद्यते" can only mean that the individual soul becomes manifest in his own real nature. 4. With this Sutra ( IV. 4. 1 ) we should compare (a) पुंस्त्वादिवत्त्वस्य सतोऽभिव्यक्तियोगात् (Bra. Su. II. 3.31). This Sutra says that the गुणs of परमारमन which are substantially present in the soul become manifest in liberation ( See Bra. Sū. II. 3. 29 ), and 84

426 INTARPRNTATION

(b) उत्तराजेदाविर्भूतस्वरूपस्तु (Bra. Su. I.S. 19), where the Sūtrakara refers to the same Sruti as is referred to in the present Sutra and says that the Sruti desoribes an individual soul whose real nature has become manifest.

5. According to Sunkara the very first Sūtra discusses whether the soul becomes manifest with any new accidental (ammas ) attributes or without them. According to us this question is considered in Bra. Sū. IV. 4. 5-7. Bra. Sū. IV. 4. 1 asserts that there is a manifestation after union, i. e., manifestion of the liberated soul after union with the Supreme One attained at the end of देवयान. The argument 'स्वेनशब्दात्' seems to us to have been used by the Sutrakara to explain 'अभिनिष्पत्ति' as 'आविर्भाव' Sankara argues that स्वेनशब्द proves that only the Atman becomes manifest, not with any new attributes. But, this does not seem to be the point discussed here at all. The fact that only the Atman of the liberated becomes mani- fest is in our opinion mentioned in Sūtra IV. 4.3 ( See below ). The Sūtras quoted above ( I. 3. 19, II. 3.31 ) show that acco- rding to the Sutrakara the real form of the soul is concealed during bondage and that he becomes manifest in his own natural form in liberation. Sankara himself also knows that 'स्व' has the sense of आत्मीय " the soul's own ( real form)", but he tries to show that ' स्त्र' means आत्मा, not आत्मीय.

Sutra 2 6. In this Sütra the author tells us that the one who becomes manifest after union is the liberated one (g55). Cf. उत्तराश्चेदाविर्भूतस्वरूपस्तु (Bra. Su. I. 3. 19), where also it was said that the Surti described a liberated soul. It is the liberated one who becomes manifest after union with the Supreme One. It should be here noted that the Sutrakara here gives us his own idea about "मुक्ति" or liberation. मुक्ति is not the

BRA. So. IV. 4. 1-3 427

complete merging or fusion of the individual soul into the Supreme One, but it is the manifestation of the soul in its own form, after having been united with the Para. 7. प्रतिज्ञानात्-'प्रतिज्ञान' here seems to have been used for sfasr the main proposition. Generally the Sutrakara uses the word ' afasn' itself in this sense, e. g., I. 4. 20 and 23, II. 2. 21, II. 3.6. So, why does he use प्रतिज्ञान here instead of the usual word प्रतिक्षा ? The main Proposition in the present case is what Sankara points out in his commentary, viz., य आत्मापहतपाप्मा विजरो विमृत्युर्विशोकोSविजिधत्सोऽपिपास: सत्यकामः सत्यसंकल्पः सोऽन्वेष्टव्य: स विजिज्ञासितव्य: ॥ (Cha. Upa. VIII. 7. 1). The words अपहृतपाप्मा विजरो विमृत्यु: etc., show that the passage describes the liberated soul. The fact that the Sūtra- kara takes Cha. Upa. VIII. 12. 3 as doaling with the liberated one is also known from उत्तराच्चेत्तदाविर्भूतस्वरूपस्तु (Bra. Si. I. 3. 19). The word 'saua' in this Sūtra is a reference to Cha. Upa. VIII. 12. 3 which is the विषयवाक्य of this Adhikarana. 8. Saikara explains 'मुक्तः' as योऽत्राभिनिष्पद्यत इत्युक्त: स सर्वबन्धविनिर्मुक्त: शुद्धेनैवात्मनाऽवतिष्ठते. Does he mcan that the Sutrakara here tells us that the liberated one is no longer ' bound ' again ? If so, we should point out that it is the last Sūtra ( IV. 4. 22 ) which tells us that the liberated never return to this world, or are never reborn in this world. Here the topic is not that of the liberated being born again in this world, but the Sutrakara seems to tell us that it is the liberated soul who becomes manifest after union with the Supreme One. Sutra 3 9. It is the individual soul who becomes manifest. The Sutrakara uses the word ' anaAr' in the sense of the individuddl soul. The body does not become manifest. The subtle body in the company of which the individual soul united with the Supreme One in the heart at the time of the departure did not come out with

428 INTERPRETATION

the soul when he left the body through the hundred-and-first artery. It seems to have been burnt by the flame of the top of the heart ( Bra. Sū. IV. 2. 17 ). This point does not seem to us to have been clearly stated in the Sūtra; so it is doubtful as to what happened of the subtle body. It may be that the subtle body accompanies the soul also when he is led by the conductor to the Supreme One ( qx) and when he becomes manifest in his real form after union with the Para, only the soul becomes manifest. This latter seems to be the point emphasized in Sūtra 3. 10. garuna seems to be a reference to the faot that in all these sections ( Cha. Upa. VIII. 7-12 ) the individual soul is the topic of discussion, as Sankara explains in his commentary on Sūtra IV. 4. 2. Thus, the context shows that it is the individual soul that becomes manifest in its real form after union with the Para. 11. Sankara holds that this Sutra explains the परंज्योति: in Cha. Upa. VIII, 12. 3 as qrarana the Supreme One. But as he himself remarks, this is the topic of Bra. Sū. I. 3. 40 (न्योतिर्दर्शनात्). And, that the destination of the knowner of Brahman desoribed variously as ब्रह्मन्, ब्रह्मलोक, परंज्योति:, etc., etc., is qr and not are, has been decided in Bra. Su. IV. 3. 7-16. So, we do not think that either of these questions is touched here once again. The question here is " Who becomes mani- fest after having been united with the Supreme One ?" And the Sutrakara tells us that it is the individual soul in liberation, that becomes manifest in that way. Sankara takes in Cha. Upa. VIII 7. 1 as the liberated soul, in his commentary on Sutra IV. 4. 2 and as qranna in his commentary on Sūtra IV. 4. 3.

SECTION II

Non-separation of the Revealed Soul from the Supreme One.

Sūtra IV. 4. 4

(४ ) अविभागेन दृष्टत्वात्।

TRANSLATION

[ THE liberated soul who becomes manifest after being united with the Supreme One becomes manifest ] in non-separation with the Supreme One, because it has been shown in the Sruti.

NOTES Sutra 4

1. It has been said in the preceding Adhikarana that the individual soul in liberation becomes manifest after union with the Supreme One. Now the Sutrakara tells us that he becomes manifest and he remains in non-separation from the Supreme One from whom he becomes manifest. In the 'bondage ' he lives in separation, but not so in liberation. 2. zerara seems to be a reference to Srutis like a a तद्द्वितीयमस्ति ततोऽन्यद् विभक्तं यत्पश्येत् (Br. Upa. IV.3. 23-32). See Note on Sutra IV. 2. 16 where the अविभाग meant by the Sutrakara is explained with referonce to the union of the subtle elements with the Suprome One in the heart. In the विषयवाक्यश्ुति, Br. Upa. IV. 3. 20-31 is intended to explain the identity or union of the soul with the Supreme Being in deep sleep and Br. Upa. IV. 3. 32 says that the same is also the case in the state of liberation ( पषाऽस्य परमा गतिरेषास्य परमा संपद्।) Thus, the Sūtrakara describes the state of liberation or absolution as that of non-separation of the soul from the Supreme One. The word अविभाग is based upon the Sruti न तु तद् द्वितीयमस्ति ततोऽन्यद् विभक्तम् and should be contrasted with the word विभाग in Sutras like यावद्विकारं तु विभागो लोकवद् (Bra. Su. II. 3. 7). Also of. न कर्माविभागादिति चेन्नानादित्वात् (Bra. Su. II. 1. 35), and भोष्त्रापत्तेरविभागश्चेत् स्याक्कोकवत् (Bra. Sū. II. 1. 13 ). The exact nature of अविभाग in Sutra IV. 4.4 would be clear from the Sutras which follow it. 3. Sankara quotes many other Srutis besides the above one as referred to by egrara. But it seems to us from Sūtras IV. 2. 16 and IV. 4. 4 that the Sūtrakara attaches importance to Br. Upa. IV. 3. 23-31 and would explain the other Srutis describing liberation in the light of that Sruti. Sankara oxplains अविभाग as absolute identity of the soul with Brahman and makes use of other Srutis besides Br. Upa. IV. 3. 23-31 to support his conclusions.

SECTION III

Nature of the Revealed Form of the Soul: Three views.

Sūtras IV. 4. 5-7

(५) ब्राह्मेण जैमिनिरुपन्यासादिभ्यः ।

(६ ) चितितन्मात्रेण तदात्मकत्वादित्यौडलोमि: ।

(७) एवमप्युपन्यासात्पूर्वभावादविरोधं बादरायण: ।

TRANSLATION

( JAIMINI holds that the liberated soul becomes manifest in his own original form i. e., ) in a Brahma form, on account of the mention of that form ( in the list of the forms which the soul assumes ) in the Sruti, and other reason. 5

" In the subtle form of consciousness, because the individual soul consists of it ", holds Audulomi. 6

Bādarāyana holds that ' Also thus, there is no incon- sistency (with the Sruti, viz., स्वेन रूपेण अभिनिष्पद्यते) because of the mention ( and ) becausc of the original existence.' 7

NOTES

Sūtra 5 1. In this Adhikarana the Sūtrakāra seems to explain the nature of the libterated soul's own form in which the liberated soul becomes manifest, as said in Sutra 1 ( स्वेन रूपेण अभिनिष्पद्यते Cha. Upa. VIII. 12. 3). It has been said in Sutra 3 that only the soul of the liberated becomes manifest. Now, we are told what is the nature of the soul's own form.

2. उपन्यास-This is a reference to the word ब्राह्म in such a Sruti as तधथा पेशस्कारी पेशसो मात्रामुपादायान्यन्नवतर कल्याणतरं रूपं तनुते एवमेवायमात्मेद५शरीरं निहृत्याविद्यां गमयित्वाऽन्यन्नवतरं कल्याणतरं रूपं कुरुते पित्यं वा गान्धर्वे वा दैवं वा प्राजापत्यं वा ब्राह्मं वाऽन्येषां वा भूतानाम्॥ ( Br. Upa. IV. 4. 4). Out of the various forms mentioned here it is the aa form in which, according to Jaimini, the liberated soul becomes manifest. By 'arrfa' we may take such arguments as the fact that the soul is in non-separation with the पर ब्रह्मन; s0, his form also is ब्राह्म. 3. Saiikara explains ब्राह्म as roferring to य आत्माऽपहत- पाप्मा विजरोविमृत्युर्विशोकोऽविजिघत्सोSपिपास: सत्यकाम: सत्यसंकल्प: सोऽन्येष्टव्यः स विजिश्ासितव्यः । (Cha. Upa. VIII. 7. 1). But to us it appears that ' ria' refers to Br. Upa. IV. 4. 4 where the very word amna is given ; and arrer would mean " possessed of all the attributes of Brahman ". In Bra. Su. II. 3. 29 the Sutrakara says that the soul has all the attributes of the Supreme One in substance and in Bra. Su. II. 3. 31 he says that they become manifest in liberation. By 'आदि' Sankara understands several other Srutis to have been referred to. Sūtra 6 4. Audulomi believes that the individual soul consists of ' consciousness ' and thorefore the liberated soul becomes mani-

BRA. S. IV. 4. 5-7 433

fest in a form of mere consciousness. In the opinion of Jaimini the soul in liberation would be possessed of all the attributes of Brahman, and all would mean not only consciousness (चिति), but आनन्द and all other attributes of Brahman menti- oned in Bra. Su. I. 1-3. Audulomi seems to hold that the individual soul does not consist of arrara, etc., but only of consciousness, and that therefore he becomes manifest only as mere consciousness ( चिति) or thought. 5. Sankara seems to find Audulomi's view very agreeable to him and thinks that it is better than that of Jaimini. He had taken 'q=rH' in the preceding Sutra as referring to Cha. Upa. VIII. 7. 1; so, he says that Jaimini's view gave only a negative description, while Audulomi's view gives a positive one. He goes further and says that EIHFa, etc., belong to Brahman on account of its surfes, so they cannot really belong to the individual soul in liberation. They do not form the स्वरूप of the liberated as does चैतन्य; s0, the जक्षण, आत्मक्रीडा, etc., demonstrated in the Sruti as the attributes of the liberated are only meant to convey the idea of mere absence of misery. The Sutrakara does not seem to understand चितितम्मात्रेण as not admitting of any kind of positive enjoyment. The question of positive enjoyment in the state of liberation is discussed by the Sutrakara in Sutras IV. 4. 13-14, and 17-21. Sutra 7 6. Badarayana seems to think that both the views of Jaimini and Audulomi are consistent with the Sruti. aETT is more than mere consciousness, because it is also Bliss, etc. So, we cannot say that Badarayana regarded the views of Jaimini and Audulomi as consistent with each other. Therefore we must conclude that afatra here means " consistency with the Sruti. " As both the views are said to be consistent with the Sruti, we should also conclude that Badarayana held that Srutis gave an option to the liborated soul on this point.

434 INTERPRETATION

7. एवमपि 'also so'or'even so' means 'also according to the view of Audulomi ' there is no contradiction of the Sruti, becuase of उपन्यास (and पूर्वभाव). The Sutrakara says that just as Jaimini's view is supported by उपन्यास (and पूर्वभाव), so also Audulomi's view is supported by the same arguments Thus, एवमपि supports the conclusion stated in the above note. एवमपि अविरोधम्-There is no contradiction with the Sruti in both the ways, according to the view of Jaimini and also according to that of Audulomi. 8. उपन्यासात्-The Sutrakara refers to the mention of the nature of the individual soul as mere consciousness, in the Sruti. There are many such texts :- (a) न हि विज्ञातुर्विज्ञातेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वात् (Br. Upa. IV. 3.30 ). This Sruti says that in the state of liberation the consciousness of the soul ( विज्ञाति ) does not disappear. (b) यो विज्ञाने तिष्ठन् विज्ञानादन्तरो यं विज्ञानं न वेद यस्य विज्ञानं शरीरम् (Br. Upa. III. 7. 22). This Sruti according to the Sūtrakāra ( I. 2. 20) describes the individual soul as consciousness.

(c) योऽयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु (Br. Upa. IV. 4.22). (d) कर्माणि विज्ञानमयश्च आत्मा (Mu. Upa. III. 2.7). (e) विज्ञानात्मा सह देवैश्च सर्वेः (Pra. Upa. IV. 11). Cf. तदात्मकत्वात् in Sutra IV. 4. 6. In all these passages the individual soul is stated to be consciousness or consisting of consciousness. The Sūtrakāra says that just as there is the mention of the marsq of the soul, similarly there is also the mention of the विजञान or चिति रूप of the soul. 9. पूर्वभावात् 'By his original existence' i. e., before he was 'bound, ' he was only consciousness; thus his original form was that of consciousness. The Sruti ( स्वेन रूपेण अभिनिष्पद्यते।)

BRA. Sữ. IV. 4. 5-7 435

says that in liberation the soul becomes manifest in his own form; thus it teaches that he becomes manifest in his original form i. e., in the form of consciousness. Thus, Badarayana holds that even according to the view of Audulomi there is no inconsistency between the form of the liberated soul and the Sruti viz., Cha. Upa. VIII. 12. 3, &s there is no such inconsistency according to that of Jaimini. Both the views are mentioned in the Sruti.

10. Sankara says that Audulomi's view is to be accepted as the absolute truth and Jaimini's as the practical truth. Perhaps this sense he brings out from qeafa and his interprotation of Sūtra 6. To us gaafa seems to mean that even the view of Audulomi is supported by the Sruti, thus both the views, of Jaimini and of Audulomi; being proved to be supported by the Śruti ( qH). The Sūtrakara seems to us to support both the views equally on the ground of suamH, so that there is no distinction of one being the absolute, the other the relative viow. Sanikara understands उपन्यास as tho उपन्यास of the ब्राह्मरूप, instead of the उपन्यास of the चितिमात्ररूप as we have proposed to take it. 'पूर्वभाव' means according to Sankara "पूर्वस्य= उपन्यासादिभ्योऽवगतस्य ब्राह्मस्य ऐश्वर्यरूपस्य (भावात्=) अप्रत्याख्यानात् ". Thus, ' qd' is interpreted by him as referring to the Sūtra preceding Sutra 6, and भावात् as अप्रत्याख्यानात्. To us 'पूर्वभाव' seems to mean ' former or original existence ' and to refer to 'स्वेन रूपेण' in the Sruti. Sankara interprets "अविरोध " as "अविरोध" between the views of Jaimini and Audulomi. But, if there was real अविरोध, why should the two teachers have differed at all ? Moreover, taking one view as absolutely real and another as practically or relatively real shows that a kind of faira is admitted, which is tried to be solved by resorting to the scheme of पारमार्थिक and व्यावहारिक truth. The Sutrakara,. however, seems to admit both the views as consistent with the Sruti; this conclusion is supported by ' एवमपि' ' also so', in the Sutra. We think, 'एवमप्युपन्यासात्' would be more

436 INTERPRETATION

naturally interpreted as we have done it; and 'अविरोधम्' is like 'अविरोधम्' in Sutra IV. 4. 12. And though पूर्व in other as, refers to what is said in a preceding Sūtra, the compound- word पूर्वभाव is never found in the Brahmasutrasin the sense of पूर्वस्य (= पूर्वोक्तस्य) भावात्. Besides, 'स्वन रूपेण ' in the Sruti and आविर्भाव in the Sutra, makes it clear that according to the context there is here the mention of an original existence. So, we believe that Badarayana here supports both the views, of Jaimini and of Audulomi, equally. Moreover, sa should be interpreted as existence rather than अप्रत्याख्यान. पूर्वभावात् cannot mean व्यवहारापेक्षया पूर्वस्य अप्रत्याख्यानात्. Saikara takes उपन्यासात् = उपन्यासादिभ्यः अवगतस्य.

SECTION IV

Fulfilment of every Desire of the Released Soul by mere Will: Self-lordship.

Sutras IV. 4. 8-9

(८) संकल्पादेव तु तच्छुतेः ।

(९) अत एव चानन्याधिपति:।

TRANSLATION

BUT, the released soul gets every object of desire only by will, because of the Sruti about it. 8

And for this very reason he is without a lord other than himself. 9

NOTES

Sutra 8 1. As the विषयवाक्य श्षृति shows, this Adhikarana tells us how the released soul attains the fulfilment of his desires. In the आविर्भावधुति (Cha. Upa. VIII. 12) we read about the enjoyment of desired objects by the released soul, viz., aa पर्येति जक्षन् क्रीडन रममाण: स्त्रीमिर्वा यानैर्वा ज्ञातिभिर्वा। (Cha. Upa. VIII. 12. 3 ). The Sutrakara says that this enjoyment on the part of the released soul takes place merely by his will. He has to make a desire, and the desired object is present before him. Cf. also मनसैतान् कामान् पश्यन् रमते ॥५॥ य एते ब्रह्मलोके (Cha. Upa. VIII. 13. 5-6 ). 2. From the Cha. Upa. Sruti ( VIII. 12. 3 ), it may be supposed that women, vehicles, and relatives of the released soul are present in the world of Brahman ( neu. ) for the enjoyment of the released one. This supposition is rejected by a in the Sūtra. 3. तच्छते :- This is undoubtedly a reference to Cha. Upa. VIII. 2, as Sankara points out. There it is stated that if the released soul wishes to see his father or ancestors, his mother, his brother, his sister; these persons arise before him from his pure will ( संकल्पादेव ) and he enjoys in their company. Thus, the relatives (झ्ातिभि: in Cha. Upa. VIII. 12. 3) become present in ब्रह्मलोक only through the will of the released one (संकल्पादेव Cha. Upa. VIII. 2). Similarly, all other objects of enjoyment like friends, garlands and perfumes, food and drinks ( Cf. srer in Cha. Upa. VIII. 12. 3 ), songs and music and ladies ( Cf. ftfr: in Cha. Upa. VIII. 12. 3) arise out of the will of the liberated one. It seems that this topic is taken up for discussion immediately after the various topies arising out of the आविर्भाव- श्रुति in order to show that this part of the आविर्भावश्रुति (the

BRA. SF. IV. 4. 8-9 439

meeting of the released soul with his relatives and others ) is to be interpreted in the light of Cha. Upa. VIII. 2.

4. According to Sankara the qauar of this Sutra arises from Cha. Upa. VIII. 2 itself because, though in that Sruti it is clearly stated that the objects of desire arise out of only desire, it may be supposed by a qaua that as in the world, the संकल्प of the released also requires some other निमिस्, like a human effort, in order to produce the things required. We think that because the very words ' संकल्पादेव' ocur in the विषयवाक्य as in the Sutra, and because the topic in Cha. Upa. VIII. 2 is that of the liberated, there is no room for such a doubt arising out of Cha. Upa. VIII. 2. The Sutra, therefore, seems to us to remove doubts arising out of other Srutis like Cha. Upa. VIII. 12. 3, Tai. Upa. II. 1, etc., which may lead to the supposition that those objects are present in adats as in the heaven ( zaf ) of Gods. It is in Sūtra IV. 4. 21 that कर्तृत्व is denied and भोक्तृत्व alone is established in the state of release. In Sutra 8, the purpose seems to be to tell us that the a is not dependent upon others for his aro ( see the word अनन्याधिपति in the next Sutra).

Sūtra 9

5. 'aa qa', as in other Sutras, means 'on account of the very reason mentioned in Sutra 8.'

6. Because all the objects of enjoyment arise in the case of the liberated from his will only and he has not to depend upon others, he is master of himself, he has no lord over him. 'अनन्याधिपति' may be a referenco to Srutis like स स्वराड्भवति तस्य सर्वेषु लोकेषु कामचारो भवति। अथ येऽन्यथाऽतो विदुरन्यराजानस्ते क्षम्यलोका भवन्ति तेषां सर्वेषु लोकेष्वकामचारो भवति। (Cha. Upa. VII. 25). Compare also Cha. Upa. VIII. 1. 6 quoted by Sankara.

7. In the case of the soul in bondage, he does the actions, but the fruit of his actions is given by God ( Bra.

440 INTERPRETATION

Sū. II. 3. 41 and Sa. Bhasya on Bra. Sū. III. 2. 38-41). But in the case of liberation as soon as the soul makes a wish he gets the thing. 8. Sutra 9 explains the Srutis in which the individual soul is said to be foat or identical with far. Cf. Sa. Bhasya on Bra. Sū. IV. 4. 17-21.

SECTION V

Option of a Body in the case of the Released: consistent with Fulfilment of Desires.

Sūtras IV. 4. 10-14

(१०) अभावं बादरिराह ह्येवम्। (११) भावं जैमिनिर्विकल्पामननात् । (१२) द्वादशाहवदुभयविधं बादरायणोऽतः । (१३) तन्वभावे सन्ध्यवदुपपत्ते: । (१४) भावे जाग्रद्वत् ।

TRANSLATION

BADARI holds that there is non-existence of a body in the case of a liberated soul, because the Sruti says so. 10 Jaimini holds that there is existence of a body in his case, because of the mention in the Sruti of an option regarding the number of bodies of a liberated soul. 11

Bādarāyana holds that the revealed form of the released soul is of both the kinds, as in the case of the Dvādasāha sacrifice, on the ground of these ( Srutis ), 12

because of the explicability of enjoyments as in dream, in the case of the non-existence of a body, 13

[ and ] as in the waking state, in the case of the existence of a body. 14

56

NOTES Sutra 10 1. As Sutra 13 indicates, the topic of this Adhikarana is whether the released soul, who becomes manifest in its real nature, has a body or not. The question of the body must follow that of the nature of the soul. 2. Badari holds that there is no body in the case of a released soul. 3. आह होवम्-This seems to be a reference to such a Sruti as (a) मघवन्मर्त्ये वा इदर शरीरमासं मृत्युना तदस्यामृतस्याशरीरस्यात्मनोऽधि- ष्ठानमात्तो वे सशरीर: प्रियाप्रियाभ्यां, न वै सशरीरस्य सतः प्रियामिययोरपह- तिरस्त्यशरीरं वाव सन्तं न प्रियाप्रिये स्पृशतः।(Cha. Upa. VIII. 12.1), (b) तद्यथाऽहिर्निल्वयनी वल्मीके मृता प्रत्यस्ता शयीतैवमेवेद५ शरीर शेतेSथायमशरीरोऽमृतः प्राणो ब्रह्मैव तेज एव । (Br. Upa. IV. 4. 7). These Srutis state that the soul in liberation has no body. 4. According to Sankara the released soul has a mind as is proved by the fact that he gets every object of enjoyment by mere thought of it ( संकल्प-Sutra 8). He does not take आह हावम् as referring to a Sruti stating that the released soul has no body, but he takes it as a reference to Cha. Upa. VIII. 12. 5 ( naa- तान्कामान् पशयन् रमते ) and says that that Sruti proves that the released soul has no body. To us it appears that some Sruti stating that the released soul has no body is referred to by the Sutra, as shown by us. Sūtra 11 5. Jaimini holds that the released one has a body. 6. चिकल्पामननात्-This refers to Cha. Upa. VII. 26.2 where the released soul is stated to have as many bodies as he likes, as Sankara rightly points out. स पकधा भवति त्रिधा भवति। (Cha. Upa. VII. 26. 2 ). 7. Sankara remarks that this option of the number of bodies to be assumed is mentioned in the भूमविद्या and that though this भूमविद्या is निर्गुणब्रह्मविद्या, this power of assuming

BRA. So. IV. 3. 10-14 443

many bodies belongs to सगुणविद्या and is mentioned in भूमविद्या for " the praise " of भूमविद्या. This should be understood to be Sankara's own view. Jaimini seems to believe that the power to assume many bodies is the result of the knowledge of the Supreme One ( see Sutras IV. 3. 12-14 ). Sutra 12 8. 'aa: ' means 'on account of the twofold Srutis,' viz., those which say that the liberated soul has no body e. g., Cha. Upa. VIII. 12. 1, Br. Upa. IV. 4. 7, and those which state that the liberated soul can assume as many bodies as he likes ( Cha. Upa. VII. 26. 2 ). 9. Badarayana holds that the subject admits of both the possibilities on account of the twofold Srutis. 10. alaan7g is a sacrifice and as Sankara says, it is both सत्र (a sacrifice with many sacrificers) and अहीन ( a sacrifice with one sacrificer ); similarly, the knower of Brahman gone to the Para may have & body or may have no body. Sutra 13 11. In Sutras 13-14 Badarayana gives arguments showing that a released soul may have a body or may not have any body at all, and yet the enjoyment of objects of desire taking place in the state of liberation is possible. 12. If he has no body the enjoyment of objects would be possible as in the state of dream ( see. Bra. Sū. III. 2. 1-3 ). Sutra 14 13. Sankara rightly says that the liberated even may reasonably have enjoyments as we in our waking state, when the liberated has a body. But his word '' cannot have been written here in its literal sense, because thereby he would contradict himself on Bra. Su. IV. 4. 11. But see Sa. bhāsya on Bra. Sū. IV. 4. 16. 14. This Adhikarana proves that the liberated soul may or may not have a body.

SECTION VI

Pervading Nature of the Released Soul.

Sūtras IV. 4. 15-16

(१५) प्रदीपवदावेशस्तथाहि दर्शयति ।

TRANSLATION

THE entering [ into all, of a released soul ] is like that of a lamp, because the Sruti shows it. 15

Because [ the original form of the liberated soul is ] made manifest with regard to [either of the two states of ] deep-sleep and union ( with the Para ) or liberation. 16

NOTES

Sutra 15 1. In the case of the liberated soul the Srutis say that 'he enters all ' or he pervades all. His all-pervasion is often mentioned in the Upanisads. So, in this Sūtra, the Sūtrakara seems to us to mention that all-pervasion and also to explain the same.

2. He says that in the case of the released soul there is a pervasion ( anaar ) like that of a lamp. By giving this simile the Sūtrakara seems to intend to convey his view that the liberated soul does not merge into Brahman or does not lose his individuality when he becomes all-pervading. The आवेश or rather सर्वावेश of the liberated soul is like that of a lamp. The lamp keeps up its individual existence and yet pervades all things around it. 3. तथाहि दर्शयपति -There are Srutis about the आवेश of the liberated soul, e. g., (4) संप्राप्यैतमृषयो ज्ञानतृप्ताः कृतात्मानो वीतरागा: प्रशाग्ताः। ते सर्वगं सर्वतः प्राप्य धीरा युक्तात्मान: सर्वमेवाविशन्ति॥ . ( Mu. Upa. III. 2. 5 ) (b) तदक्षरं वेदयते यस्तु सौग्य स सर्वक्ञः सर्वमेवाविवेशेति॥ ( Pra. Upa. IV. 11 ). Strictly speaking we require a Sruti in which the all-per- vasion of the released soul is compared with that of a lamp. 4. According to Sankara this Sutra discusses the question how the released soul occupies many bodies at a time. In the preceding Adhikarana the released soul is given the option of having a body; and there is mention of his assuming many bodies in Bra. Su. IV. 4. 11. However, the following points need be considered :- ( 1) Only arar is mentioned in this

446 INTERPRETATIOM

Sutra, but not the entrance into many bodies. (2) "तथाहि दर्शयति" is a vague reference for our purpose. ( 3) Moreover neither प्रदीप nor आवेश is mentioned in the विषयवाक्य given by Sankara and, really, that was the favgarea in Bra. Su. IV. 4. 11; so we believe that his विषयवाकय (Cha. Upa. VII. 26. 2) is not the correct one. (4) The next Sutra which should be taken as an argument of arasr does not support the entrance into many bodies, but rather it supports our view of the pervasion of the released soul as the topic of this Sutra. For these reasons we do not think that Sankara's view about the topic of this Adhikarana is correot. See Note ( 7 ) below. Sutra 16

5. This Sutra gives an argument in support of the arrasr mentioned in the preceding Sūtra. And as it ( this Sūtra ) clearly supports आवेश in the sense of "pervasion ", व्यापकत्व, we believe that Sutra 15 also discusses only the anqara of the released soul, without referring to any particular question of pervading many bodies at a time. The word ' fa ' clearly shows that Sutra 16 gives an argument for the statement in Sūtra 15. 6. The lamp-like pervasion of the individual soul in the released state is possible, because his original form is made manifest with reference to the two states of deep sleep and union with Brahman. This Sutra has reference to many Sutras. The soul is said to be possessed of the substance of the attributes of Brahman ( Bra. Su. II. 3. 29 ), and it is said that this form of the soul becomes manifest in the state of liberation, just as manliness which is latently existing in childhood becomes manifest in youth ( Bra. Su. II. 3.31). व्यापकत्वगुण सारत्व is one of these attributes. Similarly, Sutra III. 2. 7 (तदभावो नाडीपु तछूतेरात्मनि च ।) and IV. 4. 1 (संपद्याविर्भावः स्वेनशब्दात्) also corroborate the sense of this Sūtra.

BRA. So. IV. 3. 15-16 447

Another important point to be noticed is that the perva- sion of the liberated soul is like that of a lamp and is similar to his pervasion in the deep-sleep state. So the manifestation of his substance of व्यापकत्व does not conflict with his अणुत्व mentioned in Bra. Su. II. 3. 21-27. And also the view that the soul has the substance of the murs of God is corrobo- rated in as much as the soul is not arqa like God but he has व्यापकत्वगुणसार. 7 As already said, Sankara found that Sūtra 16 does not support his interpretation of Sutra 15, but rather contradicts it. It was this feeling, on account of which Sankara could not connect Sūtra 16 with Sutra 15, as an argument ( &a ) and proposition respectively. For his interpretation of Sutra 16, he found it necessary to give an introduction about the विशेषविज्ञानाभाववचनम of the soul in liberation, mentioned in several Srutis. So, to Sutra 16 we are to add विशेषविज्ञानाभाववचनम् (स्वाप्ययसंपतत्योरन्यतरापेक्षम्); and then we are to interpret 'आविष्कृतं हि' as an argument of that sentence. He takes 'आविष्कृतं' as तत्रैव (उपनिषत्सु अधिकारवशात् यद्विशेषविज्ञानाभाववचनं स्वाप्यय- संपत्योरन्यतरापेक्षमित्येतद् ) आषिष्कृतम्-We believe, it is not proper to divide Sūtra 16 ( which is a gana) into two sentences, and to add 'विशेषविज्ञानाभावचनम्' to the Sutra. आविष्कृतम् is the जीवात्मन: स्वं स्वरूपम् as in Cha. Upa. VIII. 12. 3 and Bra. Su. IV. 4. 1. Sankara takes आविष्कृतम् in the sense of ' expounded '. As a result of his wrong interpretation of erasr in Sutra 15, Sanikara has to say that Sutra 15 deals with सगुणविधा while Sutra 16 deals with निर्गुणविद्या. However, if Sutras 15-16 are to be taken as explaining how the released soul occupies many bodies at a time, we believe that the Sutras do not support Sankara's view that it is through उपाधि. Rather Sutra 16 speaks of the pervasion of the released soul in general and it shows that the soul pervades the bodies and remains also outside the bodies like a lamp ( from which other lamps are lighted, or which pervades the place where it is lighted ).

SECTION VII

Revealed Form of the Soul devoid of Worldly Dealings and Changeless.

Sutras IV. 4. 17-21

(१७) जगद्व्यापारवर्ज प्रकरणादसंनिहितत्वाच्च। (१८) प्रत्यक्षोपदेशादिति चेभ्नाधिकारिकमण्डलस्थोक्तते: । (१९) विकारावर्ति च तथा हि स्थितिमाह । (२०) दर्शयतश्चैवं प्रत्यक्षानुमाने। (२१) भोगमात्रसाम्यलिङ्गाच्च।

TRANSLATION

[ THE revealed ( or re-manifested ) form of the released one is ] devoid of the worldly operations ( influ- ence, workings ), because of the context and because of its being remote [ from the world ]. 17

If it be argued that " [ It is not so ] because of a Sruti or direct statement ", we reply, " No, because it is a statement about those who belong to the group of officers; 18

and [ that revealed form ] is not subject to change, because the Sruti mentions its continuation or permanence. 19 And the Sruti and Smrti show it similarly, 20

and because of the text about the similarity [ between the soul in this world and the revealed state of the released soul ] in the point of enjoyment of desires only. 21

NOTES

Sutra 17

1. In the preceding Sutra the revealed or remanifested form of the released soul is mentioned. So, we beliove we have here to take that form to be qualified by जगद्व्यापारवर्जम्. This section, therefore, seems to us to deal with the state or form of the released soul. 2. The form of the released soul is not subject to the workings or dealings of the world, i. e., it is not subject to birth and death, and also other operations of the world. 3. प्रकरणात् as the preceding Sutra अविष्कृतम् and Sutra 1 of this Pada refer to Cha. Upa. VIII. 12. 3, we may take 'the context' as a reference to Cha. Upa. VIII. 7. 1, viz., ₹ आत्मापहृतपाप्मा विजरो विमृत्युर्विशोकोऽविजिघत्सोऽपिपास: सत्यकाम: सत्य- संकल्प: सोऽन्वेष्टव्य: स विजिज्ञासितव्य :...... । Here the soul which becomes manifest when released is said to be अपहृतपाप्मा 'free from sins,' विजर 'without old age,' विमृत्यु 'without death,' विशोक 'free from sorrow,' etc., etc. The Sutrakara seems to think that the dealings or workings of the world, like old age, death, sorrow, etc., are absent in the remanifested form of the liberated soul, because the context shows that it is so. The word ' स्वाप्यय' in the preceding Sutra also suggests that जगद्व्य।पारवर्जम् may be explained by quoting Br. Upa. IV. 3. 22, अत्र पिताऽपिता भवति माताSमाता लोका अलोका देवा अदेवा वेदा अवेदा, अत्र स्तेनोऽस्तेनो भवति भूणहाऽभूणहा चाण्डालोऽचाण्डाल: पौल्कसोऽपौल्कसः श्रमणोSश्रमणस्तापसोSतापसोऽनन्वागत पुण्येनानन्यागतं पापेन तीर्णो हि तदा सर्वाञ्छोकान्हृदयस्य भवति। All dealings of the world are here denied of the remanifested form of the soul. The description applies both to the deep-sleep state and to the state of liberation ( Cf. Bra. Sū. III. 2. 7 ). 57

450 INTERPRRTATION

4. असन्निहितत्वात्। In the discussion of the problem of ब्रह्मकार्य or परब्रह्म being the goal, it was argued by बादरि that ब्रह्मकार्य was called ब्रह्म because the two were near each other (सामीप्या्तु तद्व्यपदेशः । Bra. Su. IV. 3. 9). In contrast to this, the Sūtrakāra says in Sū. IV. 4. 17 that the revealed form of the released soul is so remote from the world that the former is not influenced by the latter at all. 5. According to Sankara this Sutra discusses the question whether the meditators of सगुण ब्रह्मन who get the state of equality (सायुज्य ) with Hiranyagarbha gain absolute or limited Lordship. The reply is that their lordship is limited because they get अणिमाधैश्वर्य but not the lordship of creating and destroying the world which belongs only to the नित्यईश्वर, the permanent Lord. To us it appears that according to the context of the Pada and also of the immediately preceding Sutra, 'जगद्व्यापारवर्जम्' refers to आविष्कृतं मुक्तस्वरूपम् which is referred to in the preceding Sutra and which becomes manifest in liberation (Bra.Su. IV. 4. 16); and जगद्व्यापार means birth, death, the relationship of father and son, etc., etc., castes, etc. By प्रकरणात् Sankara does not refer to any particular text where the आविष्कृत- मुक्तस्वरूप is mentioned, but he takes it as नित्येश्वरस्य जगद्व्यापारे (= तत्र?) प्रकृतत्वात् "because in the matter of creation and destruction of the world the permanent Lord is the topie". And असन्निहितत्व does not mean the (spiritual ) distance between जगत् and the मुक्तस्वरूप, but it means that "the सगुण meditators are 'remote' in the matter of जगदुव्यापार". Thus, according to Sanikara प्रकृतत्वात् has the same sense as असन्निहितत्वात्. ईश्वर is प्रकृत while मुक्तs are असन्निहित in the matter of जगद्व्यापार. But we think, प्रकृतत्व and असन्निहितत्व are spoken of as the sume entity here, viz., मुक्तस्वरूप. In fact no "ऐश्वर्य" is referred to or implied in the preceding Sūtra or this Sūtra. Sutra 18 6. प्रत्यक्षोपदेशास्-This Sutra gives ano bjection to जगदयापार- वर्जम्. The opponent arguos that the Sruti itself says that

BRA. SŪ. IV. 3. 17-21 451

"the मुकs or the liberated experience death in the ब्रह्मलोक at the time of the end of the Para". 'TT' means the Sruti. And प्रत्यक्षोपदेश may refer to such a text as " वेदान्तविज्ञानसुनिश्ितार्थाः संन्यासयोगाद्यतयः शुद्धसत्वाः। ते ब्रह्मलोकेषु परान्तकाले परामृताः परिमुच्यन्ति सर्वे। ( Mu. Upa, III. 2. 6 ). The first half of this verse may be taken as a direct or express mention (प्रत्यक्षोपदेश) of the released. In Sutras IV. 3. 7-15 it has been decided that ब्रह्मलोकानू in such texts as ब्रह्मलोकान् गमयति ते तेषु ब्रह्मलोकेषु पराः परावतो वसन्ति (Br. Upa. VI. 2. 15), means the Supreme Brahman. 'परिमुच्यन्ति' would mean 'are released' i. e., 'become free from body' as in तस्य तावदेव चिरं याषन् विमोक्ष्येऽथ संपत्स्ये (Cha. Upa. VI. 14. 2). Moreover, 'qraaa ' would be a direct statement about the destruction of the Para or the Supreme One. So, this Sruti may be referred to as mentioning 'the operations of the world' in the case of the released.

7. आधिकारिकमण्डलस्थोफ्ते :- The Sutrakara does not grant the opponent's interpretation of the above Sruti. He says that the statement of that Sruti refers to those who belong to the group of officers, Indra, Prajapati and others. They also are entitled to the study of the Vedanta and they romain in their office even after the rise of the knowledge of Brahman ( Bra. Sn. I. 3. 30 ) and are released when those worlds over which they rule are destroyed. Thus, the Sruti pointed out by the opponent refers to those who have got aarna and who are in the group of officers, and not to the released who have attained the Para.

8. According to Sankara 'प्रत्यक्षोपदेश' refers to such texts as Tai. Upa. I. 6. 2, 'आप्नोति स्वाराज्यम्', 'The released one gets sovereignty.' He says that in this Sruti the released one is said to get ' unlimited lordship.' He solves the compound आधिकारिकमंडलस्थोक्ते: as आधिकारिको यः सवितुमण्डलादिषु विशेषायतने-

452 INTERPRETATION

व्ववस्थित: परः ईश्वरस्तदायत्तैवेयं स्वाराज्यप्राप्तिरुच्यते। Can we say that पर ईश्वर is an (appointed) officer (आधिकारिक) ? And why should it be सवितृमण्डल ? The sun is not at all referred to in the Sutra. आधिकारिकमण्डल would mean " the group of offioers" and would mean the Sun, the Varuna, Indra, Prajapati and other officers. We cannot say that like the disc or orb of the Sun, there are similar orbs in other worlds of वरुण,, वायु, etc., etc. So the interpretation of मण्डल as सवितृमण्डालादिषु आयतनेषु is also foreign to the Sutra. The various आयतनs are not at all referred to in the Sutra. Moreover, the 'स्वाराज्यप्राप्ति' (उक्ति) is not mentioned in either of these two Sūtras ( 17-18 ) but is derived from the word ' ऐश्चर्य' which Sanikara takes as implied in Sūtra 17. In fact the explanation of those Srutis in which the liberated soul is said to be foat or Lord seems to have been given by the Sutrakara in Bra. Su. IV. 4. 9 (अतएव चानन्याधि- पतिः।) and II. 3. 29 (तद्गुणसारवत्वात्त तद्व्यपदेशः), etc .; and Cha. Upa. VII. 25. 2 and VIII. 1. 6 (स स्वराड्भवति तस्य सर्वेषु लोकेषु कामचारो भवति।) which Sankara quotes under Sutras 27-28 is also quoted by him as the विषयवाक्य of Sutra IV. 4. 9. Such Srutis, according to Sutra IV. 4. 9, do not mean that स्वाराज्यप्राप्ति mentioned therein depends upon ' पर ईश्वर ; but rather the Sutrakara interprets them as showing the power of the liberated to gain any desired object from mere wish (संकल्पादेव तु तच्छतेः। Sutra IV. 4. 8 ) without depending upon anybody else but themselves.

Sūtra 19 9. This Sūtra seems to us to give one more argument for the statement in Sutra 17. Thus, with विकारावर्ति we should take as understood "मुक्तस्वरूपम् ". The revealed form of the liberated one is not subject to change and that shows that it is devoid of the dealings of the world, like birth, death, sorrow, etc. 10. तथाहि स्थितिमाह। The abiding nature or the permanence

BRA. ST. IV. 4. 17-21 453

or, we may say, the continuance of the revealed form of the liberated is mentioned in Srutis like (1) स लोकमागच्छति अशोकमद्िमं तस्मिन् वसति शाश्वतीः समा: (Br. Upa. V.10.1); (2) तेषु ब्रह्मलोकेषु पराः परावतो वसन्ति (Br. Upa. VI. 2. 15). In these Srutis the liberated are said to continue staying in Brahman for eternal ages. The released is said to live in the " world of Brahman " for eternal ages, for unlimited years. So, the form of the liberated is eternal or permanent. 11. 'स्थिति' shows that by जगद्व्यापार we are to understand जन्म and मरण. Out of these three conditions, only स्थिति is the condition of the form of the liberated. 12. Sankara takes '=' in the sense of in addition to 'विकार (मात्र)गोचरं सवितृमण्डलाद्यघिष्ठानं पारमेश्वरं रूपम् As the latter or विकारवर्ति रूप is not mentioned in the preceding Sutras, we do not think this uddition can be justified on the ground of the context. Moreover 'a' can have the sense of समुच्य proper only if it occurs in the first Sutra of an Adhikarana e. g., II. 2. 1, but when it occurs in a Sūtra in the middle of an Adhikarana, it has the sense of the समुच्चय of the preceding arguments only. We propose to take it ( विकारवर्ति) as an additional argument for जगद्व्यापारवजम्; so that जगद्व्यापारवर्जम् and विकारावर्ति are both of them adjectives to the same thing viz., आविष्कृतं मुक्तस्वरूपम्. If we wish to distinguish between these two adjectives, we may say that जगद्व्यापारवर्जम् refers to birth, death etc., and also to the relation of father and son, etc., while 'विकारावर्ति' refers to only 'the impossibility of change ' or ' changelessness '. This changelessness is proved by the स्थिति mentioned in Srutis. Sanikara explains स्थिति as existence instead of as continuation and having taken 'च' in the above sense, he explains 'स्थितिम्' as 'द्विरुपां स्थितिम्'. We think 'स्थितिम्' means continuance or abiding state and therefore it is an argument against विकार or change. According to Sanikara, Sutra 18 explained the विकारगोचररूप of Brahman and Sutra 19 explains the विकारवर्तिरुप of Brahman;

454 INTARPRETATION

thus he seeks to prove his doctrine of सगुण and निर्गुण forms of Brahman from these Sutras. And the purpose of the reference to निर्विकाररूप in Sutra 19 is given by Sankara in the following words "न च तन्निर्विकारं रूपमितरालम्बना: प्राप्नुषन्तीति शक्यं वक्तुमतत्कतुत्वास्तेषाम्। अतश्च यथैव द्विरूपे परमेश्वरे निर्गुणं रूपमनवाप्य सगुण एवावतिष्ठन्ते एवं सगुणेSपि निरवग्रह्ममैश्वर्यमनवाप्य सावग्रह एवावतिष्ठन्त इति रष्टव्यम्। " We think, we cannot interpret the Sutra in such a way as it would be necessary to add all these sentences to make its meaning and purpose clear. Sutra 20 13. The Sruti shows that the form of the released soul is changeless and devoid of the dealings of the world. In the latter case the Br. Upa. Sruti ( Br. Upa. IV. 3. 22 ) quoted by us under Sutra 17 may be meant by the Sūtrakara. 14. अनुमान-The Smrti also shows that the form of the released soul is changeless and abiding. A Smrti text like the following may be referred to by this Sūtra :- (i) इदं ज्ानमुपाश्रित्य मम साधर्म्यमागताः। सर्गेऽपि नोपजायन्ते प्रलये न व्यथन्ति च ॥। Bha. Gi. XIV. 2. (2) मामुपेत्य तु कौन्तेय पुनर्जन्म न विद्यते ( Bha. Gi, VIII. 16).

15. Sankara quotes Sruti and Smrti texts which, he says, show that the Supreme Light is not subject to change. But his quotations state that no विकारs like सूर्य, चन्द्र are present in ब्रह्मन्, rather than that, ब्रह्म is without विकार. The latter type of Sruti is quoted by Sankara under Sutra 19. Sūtra 21

16. As shows, this Sutra is the last argument for विकारावर्ति and जगद्यापारवर्जम्. It is the last Sutra in the Adhikaraņa. 17. The form of the released soul is not subject to change and is devoid of the worldly dealings, because the only point

BRA. So. IV. 4. 17-21 455

of similarity between that form and his form in this world is that of enjoyment of desired objects. There is a Sruti text about this. This may be a reference to such a Sruti as सो 5शनुते सर्वान् कामान् सह ब्रह्मणा विपश्िता। (Tai. Upa. II. 1). These Srutis show that the soul in liberation is an onjoyer just as he is in this world. There are no Srutis showing that the मुक्त does any actions in ब्रह्मलोक except those of enjoyment. भोकतृत्व without कर्तृत्व is the nature of मुक्त. 18. ra-This word is used to exclude the soul in liberation being an agent ( ) or a sufferer of sins etc., as he is in this world. He is only a भोकृ without being a कर्ह in the state of liberation. As he is not a maf he does not undergo birth and death. 19. In Bra. Su. III. 3. 51 (न सामान्यादप्युपलब्धेर्मृत्युवन्नहि लोकापन्तिः ) it is proved that सामान्य is the भोगसामान्य. 20. According to Sanikara Sutra 20 shows परस्य ज्योतिष: विकारावर्तित्व but Sutra 21 is meant to prove that the meditators on सगुण ब्रह्मन् do not gain unlimited lordship by giving a reference to a Sruti about the similarity of those who attain to सगुण ब्रह्मन् with ईश्वर in the point of भोग only. But he does not quote any such Sruti. He draws his conclusion on the strength of a Sruti which, he says, distinguishes between the सगुणोपासक's goal and ईश्वर. We think, there is no mention of ईश्बर in this Adhikarana and the भोगमात्रसाम्य between the soul in this world and in the state of liberation is meant hero. There is no mention also of विकारालम्बनs in this Adhikarana, as also of पश्वर्य.

SECTION VIII

Non-Return of the Released Soul.

Sutra IV. 4. 22

(२२) अनावृत्ति: शब्दादनावृत्ति : शब्दात् ।

इति चतुर्थाध्यायस्य चतुर्थः पाद:।

TRANSLATION

NON-RETURN, from the Word; Non-return, from the Word. 22

NOTES

Sütra 22

1. We think, this Sutra is not connected with the preceding Sutra, because there is a in the preceding Sutra and there is no in this Sutra. So this Sutra forms a new Adhikarana.

2. As in other Sutras, ST is used here in the sense of Sruti. It is clearly a reference to such Srutis as ( 1 ) ब्रह्मलोक- मभिसंपद्यते न च पुनरावर्तते (Cha. Upa. VIII. 15. 1), (2) पतेन प्रतिपद्यमाना इमं मानवमावर्त नावर्तन्ते नावर्तन्ते (Cha. Upa. V. 15.6), and (3) तेषां न पुनरावृत्ति: (Br. Upa. VI. 2.15). These Srutis show that those who reach the Para do not return to this world. 3. Sankara does not make a new Adhikarana of this Sutra. He realizes that the topic of the preceding Sūtras, as interpreted by him is inconsistent with this Sūtra. So he reconciles that topic by saying अन्तवच्वेऽपित्वैश्वर्यस्य यथाऽनावृत्तिस्तथा वर्णितम् "कार्यात्यये तदध्यक्षण सहातः परम्" ( Bra. Su. IV. 3. 10).

We think it is impossible that this Sūtra ( IV. 4. 22 ) is meant to be connected with Bra. Su. IV. 3. 10. Moreover, we have already shown that the latter Sutra is a पूर्वपक्षसूत्र. The Sutra seems to mention the non-return of those who reach the highest goal possible. To us, it seems that though the goal is अरूपवत् Brahman, the Sutrakara takes उत्क्रान्ति and गति as consistent with that goal, and consequently he mentions अनावृत्ति.

58

I

General Index.

Subject. Page. Subject. Page. Anubandhacatusțaya-Idea of-201 Brahman-Niranga and Arciradi path-Stations on-389, Sanga- ... 85, 86 390, 397 Nirguņa & Saguna-83, Arūpavat Srutis ... 4, 5, 10 106, 173, 177, 410 Application of -... 7 Oneness of -... 65, 66, Ātmajñana-Nature of- ... 266 72,97 Attributes-Three groups प्रकाशवत्व of ... 16,18,21

Avyaktas-Two- ot -... 171, 172 प्रतीक of-414, 415, 418

... ... 37 Purusa aspect of- 397, Belvalkar-Dr .- ... 7 Rūpa of- ... 12, 13 398 Brahman-Aspects (two) of-3-6, 10-16, 52, 69, 100, Types (four) of me-

101, 103, 141-143 ditations on -... 218, 223

156,157, 169, 173,189, Departure of senses etc .... 356,

198, 199, 232, 233 358, 361, 364-368,372

Arūpavat- ... 83, 96, Dialogue between प्रजापति and

174, 190, 194, 457 इन्द्र ... 8, 21n

Collection of the Difference between दर्शयति

attributes of -... 91-98, and स्मर्यते 18

113, 117, 148, 153 , दष्टम् and Exampla of वृद्धि लिंगम् ... 330,331

and gra of- ... 24, 29 Eleven Upanisads-List of -... 217 31; 33 Gaudapāda's Kārikās ... 9 n Meditation on the Illustration of अहि and कुण्डल ... 42, ars of- ... 216, 217 45, 55, 57, 62, 68, Method of argu- 96, 100, 421, 422 ment regarding -... 82 जाजलि and तुलाधार ... 289 Method of medita- प्रकाश ... 17-19, 21, 43, tion on -.. 112, 113, 153 44,55, 57, 62, 63, 68

460 General Inder.

Subject. Page. Subject. Page.

Illustration of याज्वल्क्य ... 302,303 Srutis comparing Brahman Importance of शमदमादि ... 265,269 with सूर्यकादि ... 19 Interpretation of इतरे ... 107 having word 23 ... 49,50 उपपत्त: ... 64, 75, 76 ,, mentioning मेद between च ... 453 454 अव्यक्त and पुरुष ... 68 Chã. Upa. VIII.7-12.9 Method of referring to- 171 Key to the interpretation of Subtle body-Nature of-361, 374 Bra. Su. I. 1-3 ... 174 Sūtrakara-his conception of Location of देवलोक .. ... 397 ब्रह्मन् ... 12 Lokas-Order of- ... 394 his indebtedness to -Variety of- ... ... 396 गास्क ... 14 Meaning of अत एव ... ... 350 his method ... 10, 11, आत्मन् ... ... 114 64, 68 उप ... ... 286 his method of using एक ... 11 Srutis ... 30, 31, 41 दर्शनात् ... ... 349 लिंग his use of दर्शयति ... 89, ... 276, 400 83, 86 122, 123 वेदान्स ... ,9 Sūtra style ... ... 200 सामान्य. 204,205,207 Moksa-Uncertainty of -.. 305, 306 Syllable OM ... 414-416, 418, 425 Thibaut Muktifala vs. Svargafala. 305, 306 ... ... ... 230 Three States ... Performance of यक्ष etc .... 265, 266 ... 3, 5, 16 Tu in III. 2. 19. Persons of three stages ... 309 ... 15, 20

Pradhānakāraņavada Unanimity of पूर्व and उत्तर ... 27 Rūpavat Srutis ... 4, 5, 10, 17 259, 260

Application of- ... Union of वाचू with mind ... 377

Šankara's predecessors ... 28, 30, 7 Vedanta-Schools of- ... 130

32, 175, 414 Teaching of -... 83,86-

Seeker of ब्रह्मज्ञान-State of -... 324, 89,91 ... 126 Simile of the lamp ... 445-447 326 Vidyas-Two- Yajñavalkya and Janaka ... 289 ...

Soul-Existence of-without a Yaska-his Reference to the body ... 212, 214 Nature of Deities ... 13, 14

II

Index of Sanskrit Words.

अक्षर ... 66, 109, 154, 156, 194, 420 / अव्यक्त and पुरुष ... 47, 48, 51, 52, अक्षर and पुरुष ... 194, 195, 197, 212 55, 56, 58, 62, 65, 68, अग्निर हस्यब्राह्मण ... 192,195 71, 72,75, 420,421 अंगावबद्धा ब्रह्मोपासना 220, 221, 226, 230, 232, 235, 238, 239, 240, 322 अशनवत् .. .. ... 285 अश्ववत् 261, 262 अंगोपासना ... 217, 223, 291, 322 आत्मव्ञान .. 243, 256-261, 266 अतः ... 47, 75, 78, 179, 243, 271 आत्रय 290, 292 अनावृत्ति श्रृति ... 411, 457 आधिकारिक ... 284, 285 अनुपोष्य ... 357,358 आधिकारिकोपासना ... 218 अनुबन्घ ... 201, 202, 209, 210 आनन्दगिरि 351 n. ... अनुमान ... 285, 454 आनन्दादय :... 103, 104, 155, 170,172 अन्तर्भाव ... 26, 27, 29, 30, 34 आयाम 71,72 अपर ब्रह्मन् ... 419, 421 आविर्भाव ... 425 अपि ... 271, 272, 277, 284, 299, आविर्भावश्रुति ... ... 438 302, 342 आवृत्ति: 310-312 अपीति 359,360 आथ्रमकर्मन् ... 272-278, 280.336, ... अपूर्व ... ... 117-123, 201, 259 337, 339-341 अरूपवत् ब्रह्मन् ... 3,4, 10, 11, 12, 15, आह हि ... ... 48, 49, 67 16, 17, 420, 422, 457 इश्वर ... ... 455 अर्चिरादिका श्रुति 407-409 उत्क्रान्ति ... 356, 358, 361, 371 अर्चिरादिमार्ग ... 389-397 उत्तरायण 385, 386 अजुन ... ... ... 280 उद्धीथ ... ... 257 अविद्या S60 उद्गीथ विद्या 93,98,222,223 ... ... अविभाग 376, 377, 430 उन्मान ... 52-54, 60 अविरोध ... 435, 436 उपकोशलविद्या 220, 221, 240 ... अवैयर्थ्य .. 16, 17 उपन्यास ... 433, 435 अव्यक ... 37, 38, 39, 41, 43, 47, उपपसः ... .. ... 64 53, 54, 58-61 उपपातकड 289, 290

462 Index of Sankrit Words.

उपमर्द ... 250 तिरोभाव .... 30, 31, 33 उपलब्धि ... 145, 205, 207, 213 तु ... 34, 41-43, 58, 78, 97, 107, उपसहार ... 91-96, 118, 119, 153- 131, 134, 193, 196, 246, 265, 155, 178, 201, 223, 224, 276, 279, 282, 289, 296-298 235, 297, 298 315, 334, 388, 409 उपायन ... 132,134 दक्षिणायन ... ... 385, 386 उभय ... 26, 27 दर्शनात् ... 198, 240, 246, 268, 340, ... उभयलिंग ... 3,4,5, 12, 15, 274-276 348,349 उषस्ति चाक्ायण .. 268, 270, 271, दशयति ... 167, 276, 384, 445, 446 286, 303 देवयानमार्ग ... 349, 356, 357, 361, एके 11, 249 380, 389, 396, 397, 400, 408, औडुलोमि ... 140, 291,292,432-435 417, 418, 425, 426 औपसद ... 155 देहात्मवाद 213 काठक Branch of यजुर्वेद ... 67-69 द्वादशाह 443 काण्व Branch of यजुर्वेद ... 217, 218, धूमादिमार्ग 389

267,366 ध्यानयोग 386 काम्योपासना .219, 235, 236, 317 नियम ... .. 282

ऋतु निराकार ब्रह्मन् 420-422 ... ... 226, 227 क्ममुक्ति 411 निर्गुण ब्रह्म ... 324, 331, 410, 454 ... ... गति ... 142-144, 149 निर्गुण विद्या ... ... 447,455 गतिश्तति ... 369 परव्रह्मन् ... 356, 371,372, 374,376, ... च ... 34, 60, 62, 76, 97, 109, 118, 406, 413-416, 419, 421, 432 123, 125, 198. 266, 268, 277, परिणाम ... 24

283, 284, 320, 361, 453, 454, 457 पितृयाणमार्ग 356, 389

चतुर्धस्थान ... ... ... 5, 7 पुरुष ... 67, 419, 420

जनक ... ... 289 पुरुषविद्या 126, 127 जैमिनि ... 78, 140, 243, 253-256 पूर्वकर्मन् ... 837, 338,341,343, 345 282, 341, 407, 408, 412-414, 416, पूर्वभाव .435,436 419, 421, 432-485, 442, 443 प्रकाश ... ... 39,40

तत्क्तु ... 418 प्रकाशादिवत् ... 15, 16, 17 ... तथापि 265-267 प्रजापतिलोक ... 396, 397, 407-411, तदुक्तम् ... 135, 155 157, 189, 190, 413,421,422 202, 285 प्रतिषेध ... ... 45 तन्मात्रम् 17,18 प्रतीक ... 316-319, 330, 414, 415 तर्तव्य प्रतीकोपासना 415-423 ... ... 137 ... ...

Index of Sankrit Words. 463

प्रत्यक्ष .. .. 450, 451 लिंग ... ... 280, 312, 400 प्रत्येकम् ... 7, 9 लोकायतिक ... ... 211 प्रदानवत् 189, 190 ... वल्लभ ... ... ... 397 प्राणविद्या ... ... 93, 115 वा ... ... 223, 224 प्रारब्ध कर्मनू ... 337, 338, 359 विद्याड .. 83, 84, 160, 161 फल ... 75, 78-80, 184, 185 विध्यादिवत् 295, 296, 297 फलश्षति ... 290, 291 वृद्धिहास ... 24-27, 265 बादरायण ... 79, 243, 245, 246, 255, वैश्वानर आत्मा 226-228, 240, 818 256, 289, 341, 396, 397, 406- व्यक्त ... ... 38 408, 412, 414-416, 433, 435, 443 व्यतिहार ... 167, 168, 172, 179,183 बादरि ... 396, 397, 406-414, 416, शताधिकी नाडी ... 379,381 419, 412, 442, 450 शब्द ... ... 457 ब्रह्मज्षान ... ... 339, 340 सगुणब्रह्मन् ... 324,331,410,450,454 ब्रह्मलोक ... 408, 409, 411 सगुणविद्या ... 447, 455 ब्रह्मविद्या ... 194,197,198, 278,280, सबेत्र ... ... 6, 7 291, 343, 421 सवs ... 87, 88 ... भूमविद्या 442, 443 संसार ... ... 360 भूतग्राम ... 159, 160, 161 साकारब्रह्मन् 420, 421, 422 भदात् ... 7, 8, 9 सुपुप्तस्थान ... 61 मध्व ... ... 180 सूर्यक ... 20 महापातकड 289, 290 सेतु 68,72 ... ... माध्यन्दिन branch of यजुर्वेद ... 217, सोमलोक ... ... 397 218, 267, 367 स्थान ... .. 3, 6, 61, 62, 63 मुक्ति ... ... 69, 75 स्थिति ... ... ... . 453 मृत्युवत् 206, 207, 208 स्मर्यते 278, 279, 385 ... याज्जवल्क्य ... ... 289 स्मार्तवेदान्तिन्S ... 384, 385 यास्क ... 13, 14, 24, 66 ... स्वाध्याय ... 87, 88, 89, 104 रामानुज ... 150, 227, 397, 406 हि ... 37, 168, 352, 367, 446 रूप ... ... ... 12, 13 हिरण्यगर्भ ... ... 361 रूपवत् ब्रह्मन् ... 8, 4, 10, 11, 12, 422

III

Index of Works Quoted.

A. Upanisads. आरुणिक. कठ (Conted.). 2. ... ... 311 V. 9-11 ... 65

ईशावास्य. V. 10 19

245, 249 V. 11 19 2. ... V. 12 4. 65, 296 65

8. 56 V. 13 ... ... 79

9. V. 15 243 18 ... VI. 1 56 ... एतरेय. VI. 8 ... 41, 52, 55, 57, 72 I. .1 65, 113, 114 VI. 8-9 44

I. 2 ... 113 VI. 13 ... 257 केन

I. 2 206 12 243

II. 15 89 कौषीतकी. II, 17 132 I. 3 389, 390, 392, 393, 396, II. 22 76 408 III. 1 160, 163 I. 4 134, 137 III. 2 50,79 III. 1 ... 315 III. 3 240 III. 2 . 315 III. 9 .. 55, 79, 109 छान्दोग्य. III. 10-11 71, 108 III. 10-12 ... 110 1. 1 97, 184, 258 III. 11 ... 37, 49, 52, 55, 57, 142 1. 3 ... . 257 III. 13 ... 351 1. 7-8 ... 222 III. 15 37, 55, 142, 243 1. 10 ... 184, 185, 244, 342, 343 III. 16-17 ... 258 2. 99,95 IV. 1 ... 38, 163 2. 13-14 290 IV. 4 53, 54, 60, 61 2. 14 222 IV. 12-13 ... 51, 52, 159 3. 1 222, 321 IV. 13-14 ... 13 5. 1-2 ... 312 V. 7 . 360 6. 1 ... ... 257

Index of Works Quoted. 465

छान्दोग्य (Contd.) IV. (Contd.) I. (Contd.) 4 ... ... 68 ... 6. 7 ... 55 5-8 219, 220 ... 7. 5 123 5-9 ... 240 7. 5-9 152, 218 9. 2 220, 232 ... 7. 8-9 290, 293 10-14 ... 220, 240 9 94 14. 1 ... ... 51 9. 1-2 152, 218 14. 2 232 ... ... 10 268, 270, 286 14. 3 271, 335 ... ... 10. 4 268, 270 15 221 .. 10. 11 ... 285 15. 3 92 11. 2-3 292 15. 5 ... 385, 403, 406, 408, 409, 410 11. 4-5 152 15. 5-6 ... 389, 390, 392-396 11. 5 218 15. 1 412, 413 II 17 ... 222 1. 22 222 V. 2 321

2. 258 2. 1 ... 268, 270, 271 .... 23. 1 ... 253, 254, 256, 273, 274, 2. 2 ... ... 117

282, 340, 341 3. 3 ... 355, 356

III 4. 1 ... ... ... 208

2. 11-8 ... 30 10 ... ... 393

8 68 10. 1 ... ... 150

12 ... 219 10. 1-2 ... 389, 390, 392, 396

12. 6 ... 171 10. 2 ... 403 ... 14 221, 416 10. 8 ... 311 ... ...

13. 1 256, 257 10.10 ... .. 335 ... 14. 1-2 ... 169, 170, 171, 410 12-13 226

14. 2 5,18 12-17 ... ... 227

15. 3 51, 125 12-18 4, 220, 320 ...

18 ... 219 12. 2 ... 228, 238

19 219 13. 2 ... ... 338

19 4 236 14. 2 ... ... 239 ... 22. 1 30 15. ... 2 239 ...

IV. 15. 5 400 1. 2 ... 278 15. ... 6 457 ... ... ... 3. 1 189 16. 2 ... ... ... 239 ... ... ... 3. 5 ... ... 351 17. ... 2 ... ... ... 2 39 3.22 449 18. 1 232, 240 ... ... ... ...

466 Index of Works Quoted.

V. (Contd.) VIII. (Contd.)

18. 2 ... 226, 227, 239 1.5 176, 177 ... ... 123 19. 1 ... 180 1. 6 439, 452 ... ... 12-24 ... 181 2 ... 438 439 24. 5 ... 180 2 ... ... 53

VI. 3. 3 ... 92

2 ... 25, 26, 413 3. 4 ... ... . 142

2. 1 4 122, 123 ... 65,257 ... 8. 1 53, 64 4. 1-2 50 ... ... 8. 6 ... 348, 349, 350, 354, 355, 360 5. 3 ... 276 ...

3. 7 6. 2 ... ... ... 164 ... ... , 384

4. 2 ... 310, 338, 349, 451 6. 3 ... 43

15 ... 354 6. 5 284 .. ... 15. 1 372, 379 6. 6 ... 247, 361, 381, 382 ..: 15. 1-2 348, 350 7-12 ... 8, 428 15. 2 .. 49,351, 352, 355, 356, 371 7. 1 .... 140,427, 428, 432, 433, 449

VII. 11. 3 ... 8, 9

1. 5 235, 236 12 ... 438

1.14 219, 415 12. 1 442, 443

1.15 8 ... 30, 32, 33 12. 1-3 ... ... ...

2. 2 12. 2 ... ... 236 ... 18, 213, 413

3. 1 245 12. 3 ... 204, 221, 372, 425, 427, ... 4-12 205 432, 435, 438, 447, 449 ... 6. 1 325 12. 5 ... 442

4. 8 299 13. ... 137

10-11 33 13. 5-6 . 438 ... 23-4 26 14 ... 221 ... ... 24. 1 . 307 15. 1 ... 298, 310, 457

25 जाबाल. ... ... 439 ... 25. 2 ... 452 4. ... 282 ... 26 तैतिरीय ... 33 26. 1 30 II. 1 ... 25, 26, 204, 412, 413, ... 26. 9 439, 455 ... 442, 443, 445 II. 4 ... 351 ... ... 33 ... ... ... 25 II. 5 105 VIII. II. 6 28, 257 ... 1 ... ... 176 II. 8 ... 204, 394 1. 1 51, 125 II. 9 ... ... ... 271, 335 1-4 ... ... 221 III. 6 ... 103, 176

Index of Works Quoted. 467

III. (Contd.) III. 9 351 6 ... ... 394 IV. 9. 10 352 6. 1 396, 408, 409, 421 IV. 9. 11 ... 354 7. 221 ... IV. 9-11 ... 348 7.22 ... 434 IV.10 . 413 7.23 ... 45, 65, 109 IV.10-11 ... ... 67 n. 8 ... 221 1V.11 8 ... 4, 15, 107, 307 ... 354, 355, 434 8. V. 67, 415 8. 11. ... 65, 109 ... V. 1 ... ... 330 8.12 ... ... 278 V. 2 420 421 9 ... ... 122 V. 2-7 ... 419 9.26 ... 123 V. 5 .. 13, 57, 136, 416, 419, 421 V. 7 132, 136, 413 IV. ... VI. 5 373, 374, 376 1. 2-7 219, 220, 239 3. 4 बृहदारण्यक. ... ... . 115 3. ! ... 247 I. 3. 7 178 1 262, 266 3. 3 1. 1-2 26 3. 10 49 ... 3 93,95 3.20-31 ... 429 3.25 ... 292 3.21 53 4. 7 112, 114, 257 3. 22 65, 454 4. 10 .. 112, 117,124,125, 201, 315 3. 23-30 376, 377 4. 11 65 3. 23-32 ... 429 4.15 259 3. 30-31 65 4.17 65 3.30 ... 434 5.16 ... 394 ... 3.31 408, 409 5.21 ... 189 3.32 ... . 429 II. 3.58 ... ... 354 4. 5 ... 256 ... ... 176 6. 1-5 ... 4

... ... 34 4. 1-6 ... ... 248 6. 6 34,35 ... 4. 1 ... 348, 354, 361, 371, 379 III 4. 2 ... 244, 247, 354, 362, 368, 2. 10 , 207 376, 379 2. 11 , 367 4. 4 ... 140, 432 4. ... . 161 4. 6 ... 356, 361, 364, 367 4. 5 ... . 164 4. 7 18, 49, 442, 443 ... 5. 1 ... 246, 296, 297, 299 9 ... ... 280

468 Inden of Works Quoted.

IV. (Contd.) I. (Contd.) 4. 22 ... 50, 177, 261, 262, 268, 2. 4 316 ... 272, 274, 277, 295, 340, 2. 5 400 ... .. 341, 434 2. 7-10 ... ... 245

4.23 ... 92, 265, 271, 335 2.10 246 ... ... 5 2.12 253 ... ... 276 ... 14. 3 334 2. 13 194 ... ... V. II.

4. 5 ... 175 1. 1 19 ... ... 5. ... 176 1. 1-2 56

5. 1-4 ... 121 1. 2 67, 194 5. 2 384 1. 3 ... ... ... 120 5. 3 ... 123 1. 4 4, 12, 13, 320 6. 1 120 2. 2 ... 194

10 389, 390, 392 2. 2-4 129, 130, 132 10. 1 ... 453 2. 3 122, 123 14. 8 ... 271 2. 5 50, 173 24. 3 ... ... 334 2. 6 129 ... VI. 2. 7 . 174 1. 14 .... 117, 268, 269 2. 8 250

2. 15 ... 310, 389, 390, 394, 403, 2. 10 18 ... 406, 408, 409, 451. 453, 457 III

माण्डक्य. 1. 1 160, 163 ... ...

1. 2 ... ... 194 ... 7, 9 3 3-5 1. ... ... 144 ... ... 3 1. 4 ... . 249 ... 7 ... ... ... 5 1. 8 9-11 ... ... 253 ... 5 ... 2. 1 56,67 मुंडक. 2. 3-4 76, 79 ... I. 2. 5 ... ... 445 1 2. 6 249, 306, 451 ... 194 ... ... 1. 3 276 2. 7 ... 352, 353, 354, 371, 373,

4-5 122 123, 255 374, 376, 410, 434 1. 5-6 ... 173 2 8 ... 12, 142, 198, 374, 412, 425 ... 1. 6 ... 12 2. 9 ... 271 ...

2. 1-10 ... 253 2.10 88, 198, 276 ... 2. 2 ... 245 श्वेताश्वतर. 2. 2-3 ... 316 I. 15 ... ... .. 163 2. 3 ... ... 319, 320 II. 10 ... ... 328

Index of Works Quoted. 469

श्वेताश्वतर. (Contd.) II, 11 ... ... 40 v. 6 ... ... ... 122 III. 8 ... 243 VI. 11 ... ... ... ... 162 III. 16-20 VI. 14 ... 10, 11 18 ... ... ... IV. 6 ... 163 VI. 15 . 243 ... ...

B. Other Works.

काठक संहिता. भगवद्गीता (Contd.). - ... ... 271 VII. 24 38 ... ... जैमिनिसूत्र. VII 30 ... ... . 330

I. 3. 8-9 ... 287 VIII, 5-10 . 330 ... ... ... ...

II. 4. 6 17, 82 VIII. 8 ... ... ... 386 ... ... III. 3. 8 VIII 10 157 ... .. 386

III. 3. 13 VIII. 12 ... 199 ... ... ... 386

VI. 8. 21 284 VIII. 12-13 ... ... .. 368 ... XI. 4. 7 VIII. 20-37 204 ... 7 VIII. 20-22 58,55 ... तर्कसंग्रह. VIII. 23 386, 387 ... 19 16 VIII. 23-27 386 ... ... ... ...

निरुक्त. VIII. 26 ... 150, 356 ... II. 2. 2 ... 24 XI. 2 ... ... ... ... ... 454

पाणिनि. XI. 12 19,20 ...

I. 4.87 286 XII. 3-5 212 ... ... XIV. 2 ... 454 ... ...

II. 46 भगवद्गीता. 88 XIV. 23 ... .. 330 ... II. 61 326, 330 XV. 7-9 361 ... ... ... ... II. 72 XV. 12 ... 326, 330 ... ... ... 18 ... III. 1-8 . 250 XVII. 6 ... 160 ... ... ... ... III. 19 XVIII. 66 278, 279 ... 293 ... ...

IV. 24 मनुस्मृति. ... 26 IV. 33 245 II. 87 279 ... ... ... ...

IV. 38 270 ... 245 V. 24 ... ...

V. 1-2 250 VI. 58 284 ... ... ... ... ...

V. 10 293 VIII. 416 ... ... 290 ... VI. 11 X. 104 ... ... ... 326 270 ... ...

VI. 42-44 ... ... 315 महाभारत VI. 45 ... 305, 306, 310, 312 XII. 236. 14-24 ... ... ... 160

VII. 19 ... ... 312 शतपथ ब्राह्ण VII. 22 X. 6, 1, 11 ... ... ... ... 38 13

By the. Same Author. I. Aksara: A Forgotten Chapter in the History of Indian Philosophy. 1932. Rs. 5/-

Contents-This is the thesis presented by Dr. Modi for the Ph. D. Degree in the University of Kiel.

This is a thought-provoking work. Dr. Modi has traced the theory of ' Aksara' from the earliest Upanisads upto the times of the Vedantasutras. IIe starts with a comparative table setting forth the meanings attributed by Indian acaryas and Western translators to ' aksara ' in the eleven passages of the Bhagavadgita where it occurs in a philosophical sense. He shows how the Chandogya and Brhada- ranyaks, the early prose Upanisads, speak of both aksara (impersonal Absolute) and purusa (personal absolute) and how they are not con- cerned to decide whether the final reality is personal or impersonal. He then proceeds to the earlier metrical Upanisads (like the Katha and Mundaka) and holds that they placed prusa higher than aksara, that both were regarded as the goals and both were styled vidyas. The next stage is reached in the Bhagavadgita which accepts the distinction between aksara and purusa taught by the earlier metrical Upanisads and also says that purusa is beyond ( para ) aksara. The Gíta develops the theory that meditation on purusa is preferable to that on aksara, because the former is casier than the latter; and the Gita says that purusa presidos over aksara which is the abode (dha- man). Gita identifies Krsna with purusa and is always careful not to identify purusa with brahman which is identified with aksara. The Gita teaches three paths of absolution, the Sankhya, Yoga and Upa- sana or bhakti and that aksara or purusa can bo reached by anyone of these paths. Sankhya and Yoga in the Gita mean respectively 'renunciation' (with knowledge) and 'path of actions' (with knowledge). They are not two steps on the same path (as Sankaracarya says) but two paths to either of the two goals, viz. aksara and purusa The learned author. then examines the twelfth purvan of the Mahabharata and finds that therein the tenets of four different schools are set out, viz. the Aupanisadas (chap. 182-253), the Sankhya (chap. 302-317), Yoga (chap. 308) and Pancaratra (chap. 334-352). Dr. Modi takes great

2

pains to point out how the Sankhya in the Mahabharata differs from the classical Sankhya, how both Hopkins and Deussen are wrong in their interpretation of chap. 308, how the Mahabharata mentions two schools of Yoga, one founded by Iliranyagarbha and the other by Rudra. He states that the Pancaratra school in the Mahabharata completely identifies aksara and purusa uuder the name of Narayana, that according to that school the supreme Reality is possessed of contradictory attributes. Dr. Modi then comes to the treatment of ak sara in the Brahmasutras. He believes (p. 92) that he has discovered the key to the elucidation of that somewhat abstruse and recondite work. According to Dr. Modi, the Sutrakara discriminates between aksara and purusa and the most striking feature in the sūtrakara's view of the Highest Being (para ) is the systematic and rational interpretation which he gives for the first timc in the history of Indian Philosophy to the twofold contradictory statements regarding the attributes of the supreme one.

The author of the Brahmasutras, according to Dr. Modi, does not regard aksara as lower than purusa but rather treats the two as identical and holds that the distinction made between the two in some texts is for the purpose of meditation only and that the same Sup- reme Being called para is to be meditated upon as aksara or purusa. Thus though aksara taught in the ancient Upanisads and the Gita is still recognisable even in Badarayana's sūtras, even the traces of aksara disappear in the work of Sankaracarya, the renowned successor of Badarayana. It is hence that Dr. Modi describes the history of aksara as a forgotten chapter.

( From a review of the work in the Journal of the B. B. R. A. S. by Mahamahopadhsya P. V. Kane ).

SOME OPINIONS.

Sir S. Radhakrishnan, Vice-Chancellor, Benares Hindu'University, Benares :-- It is a piece of sound and careful scholarship. I believe there is a great need for such intensive scholarship 'on such topics in Indian Philosophy, and trust that you will continue your work in this subject.

3

Prof. Dr. W. Schubring, Altona-Klein Flottbek, Germany :- Let me heartily congratulate you for having thrown light, in a most scientific manner, on an untrodden path in the field of Indian thought ... Certainly German ecientific method has influenced the inter- nal and technical side of your working out your thesis. But I am sure that few places only are fit to presetve that spirit equally well as Bhavnagar is, renowned as it is for its religious and literary atmos- phere. A few days' stay in your place early in 1928 belongs to my finest Indian recollections.

Prof. M. Hiriyanna, Mysore University, Mysore: -I have read the thesis and I find that though it modestly claims to treat only of the history of a single conception, it deals with practically all the important problems raised in early Indian philosophy. I think that several of your conclusions will be acceptable to many. ... But even those that disagree will readily admit the value of your discussions of the details bearing upon these topics. In this respect, the chapter on the Mahabharata is very useful; and I can easily understand the trouble it must have cost you to put into shape the teaching of the Moksa-dharma with its vague and elusive terminology.

A. Berridale Keith, University of Edinburgh :- I have read it with the interest which attaches to any serious effort to reconstruct the evolution of Indian philosophy. I recognise the care which you have devoted to the topic.

Prof F. W. Thomas, Oxford University, :Oxford :- I think that you have discovered a new topie in early Indian philosophy and have shed light upon some of the most difficult points in its history.

Dr. H. Ui, Seminary of Indian Philosophy, The Tokyo Imperial University, Japan :- You have done much to puzzle out one of the metaphysical terms of the Gita and give us many valuable informa- tions in the ficld of Indian Philosophy; your view and interpretations concerning the passages quoted through the work are on the whole interesting and acceptable. I would recommend your work to my fellow students in this country.

K. P. Jayaswal, Patna :- Your treatment is remarkable. You have successfully given the exact connotation of aksara. I hope, you

will similarly intrepret other terms which are taken by the tikakaras as loose expressions.

Prof. R. D, Karmarkar, Poonal :-- I think, it is a valuable piece of research. '

Dr. Laxman Sarup, Punjab University, Lahore :-- I am very much impressed with the maturity of the spirit in the work of so young a scholar.

Prof. Dr. M. Winternits, Prague, Czechoslovakia :-- I can see that it is a highly valuable contribution to the history of Indian Philosophy. The method of your investigation seems to me very recommendable. There is certainly no other way to get at the bottom of Indian Philosophical terminology. If you can destroy the impression of vagueness which we so often have of the Sanskrit terms, not only in Bhagvadgits but also else-where, you will havo done great service indeed to Indological Research.

Prof. Kokileshwar Shastri, Calcutta -- I have been struck with the admirable learning and the thorough grasp. ... You possess a deep penetrating insight and a devotedness to independence of thought ...... Mahamahopadhyaya P. V. Kane, M. A., L. L. M., writes in the Journal of the Bombay Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 9, 1933 :-- This is a thought-provoking work. Dr. Modi ... displays learning, industry and acuteness. He is not afraid of differing from such great Savants as Prof. Hopkins, Dr. Deussen and very often crosses swords with them.

Bharatan Kumarappa, Nasik Road Central Prison :- I am greatly impressed by the critical method that he brings to bear on his subject. I am convinced that such efforts as that of Dr. Modi to throw light on the terminology of the ancient texts are most necessary, and yet upto now altogether neglected. I do hope Dr. Modi will continue to do more such work.

I am surprised that within the two years ho spent in Germany, he has been able to obtain full hold of the German method in the study of ancient texts, and has applied it so efficiently. I congratulate him on this.

5

Prof. A. K. Trivedi, Senior Professor of Philosophy, Baroda College :- Dr. Modi, has, with a freshness of outlook and impartiality and intellectual courage, tried to throw new light and offered his synthesis in the matter of the history of the aksara-purusa concep- tion. His documentation is exact and his investigation as thorough as original. His thesis is a most valuable contribution to Indian dars'anic investigations.

Principal Gopinath Kaviraj, Government Sanekrit College, Bena- res :- I have been highly impressed with the scholarly and critical nature of the treatment you have accorded to an almost neglected problem in the history of Indian philosophy.

Prof. Dr. Sten Konow, Oslo :- I- have read it with great interest and admiration of your earnest and penetrating exposition of the problem. You have chosen a very important subjeet for your dieser- tation, and I hope that you will, as you indicate, return to it in greater breadth.

2. Translation of the Siddhāntabindu. Rs. 5/-

Contents-This work is an interpretation and translation of the Siddhantabindu, the well-known commentary on Sankaracarya's Das'as'loki, by Madhusudana Sarasvati, for which the author. was given the Sujna Gokulji Jhala Vedanta Prize (1921) in a competition among graduates of any Indian University of any years' standing.

The translation itself contains ( 1) marginal summarics, (2) analy tical headings, ( 3 ) statements of Query ( purvapaksa ) and De- termination ( siddhanta ), (4) explanatory foot-notes. The arguments and conclusions are properly numbered and divided. The Introduction of 54 pages deals with the life, literary activity, and doctrinal attitude of Madhusudana. The appendices give critical and historical details connected with the text and discuss Madhusudana's conception of bhakti or devotion as a means to salvation and the important differ- ences between him and Sankara on this point. In fact they present an analysis of Madhusūdana's Bhaktirasayana

6

Rev. Fr. R. Zimmermann, Bombay :-- Prof. Modi's translation and interpretation shows a happy entente cordiale between East and West ... The monograph is a fine specimen of work done and promise for the future.

Prof. A. B. Keith, University of Edinburgh :-- 1 cordially agree with Prof. Zimmermann's appreciation of its merits.

Prof. Franklin Edgerton, Yale University, America :-- ... I found Madhusudana very difficult and am sure your translation of his work will be useful.

Prcf. Hermann Jacobi, Bonn :- I admire your thorough know- ledge and masterly treating of so intricate a subject, and am sure that you are the most competent interpreter of Madhusūdana Sara- swati's Philosophical writings and ideas.

3. A Critique of the Brahmasutra: Part I.

Interpretation of the Sutras (III. 2. 11-IV ). Rs. 12/-

Prof M. Hiriyanna, Mysore University, Mysore :-- It is a care- ful and minute study of the Vedantsutra that we have here. The numerous discussions in it as well as the conclusions reached through them will be of immonse value in reconstructing the carly history of Indian Philosophy, and I hope that the book will receive from the scholars the close attention which it deserves.

Sir S. Radhakrishnan, Vice-Chancellor, Benares Hindu Univer- sity, Benares :-- I have now read through parts of the proofs you were good enough to send me, and I congratulate you on the courage, con- viction and ability with which you have carried out a great task.

Prof. S. N. Dasgupta, King George V. Professor of Mental and Moral Science, Calcutta University, Calcutta :- Dr Modi has done an inestimable service in attempting a critical study of at least a part of the Brahmsutras ... He has practically succceded in evolving a scheme, a sort of critical apparatus, which may be successfully applied to the Brahmasutras to make them yield their own meaning.

7

सलिभायो.

42 0.

दिन्दु धर्म ने तत्वज्ञानना भूण तत्वोनी श्रुति-स्भृति-गीता- पुराशाहिना सपतरणो साथे

दशतो क रहु भेबु मन थाय छे.

३५ संपूर्ण ज्ञान भणा रहे मेयु छे .... यावडा नाना पुस्तउमा बिन्दु धर्मना समत्र सार

5. Bhagavadgita with Sankara's Commentary. A New Approach. In Two Parts. ( In the Press ).

Contents-The texts of the original work and the commentary are properly analysod and their contents classified. Summaries in English of the topies diseussed at longth by Sankara are given in the foot-notes. The Notes include an exhaustive criticism of the interpretati- ons of the Gita by Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhusudana, Deussen, Garbe, Rudolph Otto, Edgerton, Hill, Barnett, Sir R. Bhandarkar, Prof. Belvalkar,

8

C. V. Vaidya, Sir S. Radhakrishnan, Prof. S. N. Dasgupta, Tilak, Aurobindo Ghosh, Jnaneshwara, and many others.

The author's own interpretation and contribution to the Gita studies are that each Adhyaya of the Gita is an independent unit and presents one particular process of achieving Yoga "Equality of Mind in the Success or Failure of One's Undertakings. " He further holds that the philosophical thoughts in each Adhyaya are peculiar to it only and that no single so called System was intended to be given by the author of the Gita.

Prof. M. Hiriyanna, Mysore University, Mysore-I have now read the Note; and it seems to me that your conclusion, viz., that though the Gita is generally heterogeneous in its character, it uniform- ly commends disinterested action, is well warranted.