The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary by Ramanuja Part 17

7. The bhuman (is the highest Self), as the instruction about it is additional to that about serenity.

The Chandogas read as follows: 'Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, knows nothing else, that is fulness (bhuman). Where one sees something else, hears something else, knows something else, that is the Little' (Ch. Up. VII, 23, 24).

The term 'bhuman' is derived from _bahu_ (much, many), and primarily signifies 'muchness.' By 'much' in this connexion, we have however to understand, not what is numerous, but what is large, for the text uses the term in contrast with the 'Little' (alpa), i.e. the 'Small.' And the being qualified as 'large,' we conclude from the context to be the Self; for this section of the Upanishad at the outset states that he who knows the Self overcomes grief (VII, 1, 3), then teaches the knowledge of the bhuman, and concludes by saying that 'the Self is all this' (VII, 25, 2).

The question now arises whether the Self called bhuman is the individual Self or the highest Self.--The Purvapaks.h.i.+n maintains the former view.

For, he says, to Narada who had approached Sanatk.u.mara with the desire to be instructed about the Self, a series of beings, beginning with 'name' and ending with 'breath,' are enumerated as objects of devout meditation; Narada asks each time whether there be anything greater than name, and so on, and each time receives an affirmative reply ('speech is greater than name,' &c.); when, however, the series has advanced as far as Breath, there is no such question and reply. This shows that the instruction about the Self terminates with Breath, and hence we conclude that breath in this place means the individual soul which is a.s.sociated with breath, not a mere modification of air. Also the clauses 'Breath is father, breath is mother,' &c. (VII, 15, 1), show that breath here is something intelligent. And this is further proved by the clause 'Slayer of thy father, slayer of thy mother,' &c. (VII, 15, 2; 3), which declares that he who offends a father, a mother, &c., as long as there is breath in them, really hurts them, and therefore deserves reproach; while no blame attaches to him who offers even the grossest violence to them after their breath has departed. For a conscious being only is capable of being hurt, and hence the word 'breath' here denotes such a being only. Moreover, as it is observed that also in the case of such living beings as have no vital breath (viz. plants), suffering results, or does not result, according as injury is inflicted or not, we must for this reason also decide that the breath spoken of in the text as something susceptible of injury is the individual soul. It consequently would be an error to suppose, on the ground of the comparison of Prana to the nave of a wheel in which the spokes are set, that Prana here denotes the highest Self; for the highest Self is incapable of being injured. That comparison, on the other hand, is quite in its place, if we understand by Prana the individual soul, for the whole aggregate of non-sentient matter which stands to the individual soul in the relation of object or instrument of enjoyment, has an existence dependent on the individual soul. And this soul, there called Prana, is what the text later on calls Bhuman; for as there is no question and reply as to something greater than Prana, Prana continues, without break, to be the subject-matter up to the mention of bhuman. The paragraphs intervening between the section on Prana (VII, 15) and the section on the bhuman (VII, 23 ff.) are to be understood as follows. The Prana section closes with the remark that he who fully knows Prana is an ativadin, i.e. one who makes a final supreme declaration. In the next sentence then, 'But this one in truth is an ativadin who makes a supreme statement by means of the True,' the clause 'But this one is an ativadin' refers back to the previously mentioned person who knows the Prana, and the relative clause 'who makes,' &c., enjoins on him the speaking of the truth as an auxiliary element in the meditation on Prana. The next paragraph, 'When one understands the truth then one declares the truth,' intimates that speaking the truth stands in a supplementary relation towards the cognition of the true nature of the Prana as described before. For the accomplishment of such cognition the subsequent four paragraphs enjoin reflection, faith, attendance on a spiritual guide, and the due performance of sacred duties. In order that such duties may be undertaken, the next paragraphs then teach that bliss const.i.tutes the nature of the individual soul, previously called Prana, and finally that the Bhuman, i.e. the supreme fulness of such bliss, is the proper object of inquiry. The final purport of the teaching, therefore, is that the true nature of the individual soul, freed from Nescience, is abundant bliss--a conclusion which perfectly agrees with the initial statement that he who knows the Self pa.s.ses beyond sorrow. That being, therefore, which has the attribute of being 'bhuman,' is the individual Self. This being so, it is also intelligible why, further on, when the text describes the glory and power of the individual Self, it uses the term 'I'; for 'I' denotes just the individual Self: 'I am below, I am above, &c., I am all this' (VII, 25, 1). This conclusion having been settled, all remaining clauses must be explained so as to agree with it.

This prima facie view is set aside by the Sutra. The being characterised in the text as 'bhuman' is not the individual Self, but the highest Self, since instruction is given about the bhuman in addition to 'serenity'

(samprasada). 'Samprasada' denotes the individual soul, as we know from the following text, 'Now that "serenity", having risen from out this body, and having reached the highest light, appears in its true form'

(Ch. Up. VIII, 3, 4). Now in the text under discussion instruction is given about a being called 'the True,' and possessing the attribute of 'bhuman,' as being something additional to the individual soul; and this being called 'the True' is none other than the highest Brahman. Just as in the series of beings beginning with name and ending with breath, each successive being is mentioned in addition to the preceding one-- wherefrom we conclude that it is something really different from what precedes; so that being also which is called 'the True,' and which is mentioned in addition to the individual Self called Prana, is something different from the individual Self, and this being called 'the True' is the same as the Bhuman; in other words, the text teaches that the Bhuman is the highest Brahman called 'the True.' This the Vrittikara also declares: 'But the Bhuman only. The Bhuman is Brahman, because in the series beginning with name instruction is given about it subsequently to the individual Self.'

But how do we know that the instruction as to 'the True' is in addition to, and refers to something different from, the being called Prana?--The text, after having declared that he who knows the Prana is an ativadin, goes on, 'But really that one is an ativadin who makes a supreme declaration by means of the True.' The 'but' here clearly separates him who is an ativadin by means of the True from the previous ativadin, and the clause thus does not cause us to recognise him who is ativadin by means of Prana; hence 'the True' which is the cause of the latter ativadin being what he is must be something different from the Prana which is the cause of the former ativadin's quality.--But we have maintained above that the text enjoins the speaking of 'the True' merely as an auxiliary duty for him who knows Prana; and that hence the Prana continues to be the general subject-matter!--This contention is untenable, we reply. The conjunction 'but' shows that the section gives instruction about a new ativadin, and does not merely declare that the ativadin previously mentioned has to speak the truth. It is different with texts such as 'But that one indeed is an Agnihotrin who speaks the truth'; there we have no knowledge of any further Agnihotrin, and therefore must interpret the text as enjoining truthfulness as an obligation inc.u.mbent on the ordinary Agnihotrin. In the text under discussion, on the other hand, we have the term 'the True', which makes us apprehend that there is a further ativadin different from the preceding one; and we know that that term is used to denote the highest Brahman, as e.g. in the text, 'The True, knowledge, the Infinite is Brahman.' The ativadin who takes his stand on this Brahman, therefore, must be viewed as different from the preceding ativadin; and a difference thus established on the basis of the meaning and connexion of the different sentences cannot be set aside. An ativadin ('one who in his declaration goes beyond') is one who maintains, as object of his devotion, something which, as being more beneficial to man, surpa.s.ses other objects of devotion. The text at first declares that he who knows Prana, i.e. the individual soul, is an ativadin, in so far as the object of his devout meditation surpa.s.ses the objects from name up to hope; and then goes on to say that, as that object also is not of _supreme_ benefit to man, an ativadin in the full sense of the term is he only who proclaims as the object of his devotion the highest Brahman, which alone is of supreme unsurpa.s.sable benefit to man. 'He who is an ativadin by the True,' i.e. he who is an ativadin characterised by the highest Brahman as the object of his meditation. For the same reason the pupil entreats, 'Sir, may I be an ativadin with the True!' and the teacher replies, 'But we must desire to know the True!'--Moreover, the text, VII, 26, I, 'Prana springs from the Self,' declares the origination from the Self of the being called Prana; and from this we infer that the Self which is introduced as the general subject-matter of the section, in the clause 'He who knows the Self pa.s.ses beyond death,' is different from the being called Prana.--The contention that, because there is no question and answer as to something greater than Prana, the instruction about the Self must be supposed to come to an end with the instruction about Prana, is by no means legitimate. For that a new subject is introduced is proved, not only by those questions and answers; it may be proved by other means also, and we have already explained such means.

The following is the reason why the pupil does not ask the question whether there is anything greater than Prana. With regard to the non- sentient objects extending from name to hope--each of which surpa.s.ses the preceding one in so far as it is more beneficial to man--the teacher does not declare that he who knows them is an ativadin; when, however, he comes to the individual soul, there called Prana, the knowledge of whose true nature he considers highly beneficial, he expressly says that 'he who sees this, notes this, understands this is an ativadin' (VII, 15, 4). The pupil therefore imagines that the instruction about the Self is now completed, and hence asks no further question. The teacher on the other hand, holding that even that knowledge is not the highest, spontaneously continues his teaching, and tells the pupil that truly he only is an ativadin who proclaims the supremely and absolutely beneficial being which is called 'the True,' i.e. the highest Brahman.

On this suggestion of the highest Brahman the pupil, desirous to learn its true nature and true wors.h.i.+p, entreats the teacher, 'Sir, may I become an ativadin by the True!' Thereupon the teacher--in order to help the pupil to become an ativadin,--a position which requires previous intuition of Brahman--enjoins on him meditation on Brahman which is the means to attain intuition ('You must desire to know the True!'); next recommends to him reflection (manana) which is the means towards meditation ('You must desire to understand reflection'); then--taking it for granted that the injunction of reflection implies the injunction of 'hearing' the sacred texts which is the preliminary for reflecting-- advises him to cherish faith in Brahman which is the preliminary means towards hearing ('You must desire to understand faith'); after that tells him to practise, as a preliminary towards faith, reliance on Brahman ('You must desire to understand reliance'); next admonishes him, to apply himself to 'action,' i.e. to make the effort which is a preliminary requisite for all the activities enumerated ('You must desire to understand action'). Finally, in order to encourage the pupil to enter on all this, the teacher tells him to recognise that bliss const.i.tutes the nature of that Brahman which is the aim of all his effort ('You must desire to understand bliss'); and bids him to realise that the bliss which const.i.tutes Brahman's nature is supremely large and full ('You must endeavour to understand the "bhuman," i.e. the supreme fulness of bliss'). And of this Brahman, whose nature is absolute bliss, a definition is then given as follows,' Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, knows nothing else, that is bhuman.' This means-- when the meditating devotee realises the intuition of this Brahman, which consists of absolute bliss, he does not see anything apart from it, since the whole aggregate of things is contained within the essence and outward manifestation (vibhuti) of Brahman. He, therefore, who has an intuitive knowledge of Brahman as qualified by its attributes and its vibhuti--which also is called aisvarya, i.e. lordly power--and consisting of supreme bliss, sees nothing else since there _is_ nothing apart from Brahman; and sees, i.e. feels no pain since all possible objects of perception and feeling are of the nature of bliss or pleasure; for pleasure is just that which, being experienced, is agreeable to man's nature.--But an objection is raised, it is an actual fact that this very world is perceived as something different from Brahman, and as being of the nature of pain, or at the best, limited pleasure; how then can it be perceived as being a manifestation of Brahman, as having Brahman for its Self, and hence consisting of bliss?--The individual souls, we reply, which are under the influence of karman, are conscious of this world as different from Brahman, and, according to their individual karman, as either made up of pain or limited pleasure. But as this view depends altogether on karman, to him who has freed himself from Nescience in the form of karman, this same world presents itself as lying within the intuition of Brahman, together with its qualities and vibhuti, and hence as essentially blissful. To a man troubled with excess of bile the water he drinks has a taste either downright unpleasant or moderately pleasant, according to the degree to which his health is affected; while the same water has an unmixedly pleasant taste for a man in good health. As long as a boy is not aware that some plaything is meant to amuse him, he does not care for it; when on the other hand he apprehends it as meant to give him delight, the thing becomes very dear to him. In the same way the world becomes an object of supreme love to him who recognises it as having Brahman for its Self, and being a mere plaything of Brahman--of Brahman, whose essential nature is supreme bliss, and which is a treasure-house, as it were, of numberless auspicious qualities of supreme excellence. He who has reached such intuition of Brahman, sees nothing apart from it and feels no pain. This the concluding pa.s.sages of the text set forth in detail, 'He who sees, perceives and understands this, loves the Self, delights in the Self, revels in the Self, rejoices in the Self; he becomes a Self ruler, he moves and rules in all worlds according to his pleasure. But those who have a different knowledge from this, they are ruled by others, they live in perishable worlds, they do not move in all the worlds according to their liking.' 'They are ruled by others,' means 'they are in the power of karman.' And further on, 'He who sees this does not see death, nor illness, nor pain; he who sees this sees everything and obtains everything everywhere.'

That Brahman is of the nature of supreme bliss has been shown in detail under I, 1, 12 ff.--The conclusion from all this is that, as the text applies the term 'bhuman' to what was previously called the Real or True, and which is different from the individual soul there called Prana, the bhuman is the highest Brahman.

8. And on account of the suitability of the attributes.

The attributes also which the text ascribes to the bhuman suit the highest Self only. So immortality ('The Bhuman is immortal,' VII, 24, 1); not being based on something else ('it rests in its own greatness'); being the Self of all ('the bhuman is below,' &c., 'it is all this'); being that which produces all ('from the Self there springs breath,' &c.

). All these attributes can be reconciled with the highest Self only.-- The Purvapaks.h.i.+n has pointed to the text which declares the 'I' to be the Self of all (VII, 25, 1); but what that text really teaches is meditation on Brahman under the aspect of the 'I.' This appears from the introductory clause 'Now follows the instruction with regard to the I.'

That of the 'I,' i.e. the individual Self, also the highest Self is the true Self, scripture declares in several places, so e.g. in the text about the inward Ruler (Bri. Up. III, 7). As therefore the individual soul finds its completion in the highest Self only, the word 'I' also extends in its connotation up to the highest Self; and the instruction about the 'I' which is given in the text has thus for its object meditation on the highest Self in so far as having the individual Self for its body. As the highest Self has all beings for its body and thus is the Self of all, it is the Self of the individual soul also; and this the text declares in the pa.s.sage beginning 'Now follows the instruction about the Self,' and ending 'Self is all this.' In order to prove this the text declares that everything originates from the highest Self which forms the Self of the individual soul also, viz. in the pa.s.sage 'From the Self of him who sees this, perceives this, knows this, there springs breath,' &c.--that means: breath and all other beings spring from the highest Self which abides within the Self of the meditating devotee as its inner ruler. Hence, the text means to intimate, meditation should be performed on the 'I,' in order thus firmly to establish the cognition that the highest Self has the 'I,' i.e. the individual soul for its body.

It is thus an established conclusion that the bhuman is the highest Self.

Here terminates the adhikarana of 'fulness.'

9. The Imperishable (is Brahman), on account of its supporting that which is the end of ether.

The Vajasaneyins, in the chapter recording the questions asked by Gargi, read as follows: 'He said, O Gargi, the Brahmanas call that the Imperishable. It is neither coa.r.s.e nor fine, neither short nor long, it is not red, not fluid, it is without a shadow,' &c. (Bri. Up. III, 8, 8).

A doubt here arises whether that Imperishable be the Pradhana, or the individual soul, or the highest Self.--The Pradhana, it may be maintained in the first place. For we see that in pa.s.sages such as 'higher than that which is higher than the Imperishable' the term 'Imperishable' actually denotes the Pradhana; and moreover the qualities enumerated, viz. not being either coa.r.s.e or fine, &c., are characteristic of the Pradhana.--But, an objection is raised, in texts such as 'That knowledge by which the Imperishable is apprehended' (Mu.

Up. I, 1, 5), the word 'Imperishable' is seen to denote the highest Brahman!--In cases, we reply, where the meaning of a word may be determined on the basis either of some other means of proof or of Scripture, the former meaning presents itself to the mind first, and hence there is no reason why such meaning should not be accepted.--But how do you know that the ether of the text is not ether in the ordinary sense?--From the description, we reply, given of it in the text, 'That above the heavens,' &c. There it is said that all created things past, present and future rest on ether as their basis; ether cannot therefore be taken as that elementary substance which itself is comprised in the sphere of things created. We therefore must understand by 'ether' matter in its subtle state, i.e. the Pradhana; and the Imperishable which thereupon is declared to be the support of that Pradhana, hence cannot itself be the Pradhana.--Nor is there any force in the argument that a sense established by some other means of proof presents itself to the mind more immediately than a sense established by Scripture; for as the word 'akshara' (i.e. the non-perishable) intimates its sense directly through the meaning of its const.i.tuent elements other means of proof need not be regarded at all.

Moreover Yajnavalkya had said previously that the ether is the cause and abode of all things past, present and future, and when Gargi thereupon asks him in what that ether 'is woven,' i.e. what is the causal substance and abode of ether, he replies 'the Imperishable.' Now this also proves that by the 'Imperishable' we have to understand the Pradhana which from other sources is known to be the causal substance, and hence the abode, of all effected things whatsoever.

This prima facie view is set aside by the Sutra. The 'Imperishable' is the highest Brahman, because the text declares it to support that which is the end, i. e. that which lies beyond ether, viz. unevolved matter (avyakritam). The ether referred to in Gargi's question is not ether in the ordinary sense, but what lies beyond ether, viz. unevolved matter, and hence the 'Imperishable' which is said to be the support of that 'unevolved' cannot itself be the 'unevolved,' i.e. cannot be the Pradhana. Let us, then, the Purvapaks.h.i.+n resumes, understand by the 'Imperishable,' the individual soul; for this may be viewed as the support of the entire aggregate of non-sentient matter, inclusive of the elements in their subtle condition; and the qualities of non-coa.r.s.eness, &c., are characteristic of that soul also. Moreover there are several texts in which the term 'Imperishable' is actually seen to denote the individual soul; so e.g. 'the non-evolved' is merged in the 'Imperishable'; 'That of which the non-evolved is the body; that of which the Imperishable is the body'; 'All the creatures are the Perishable, the non-changing Self is called the Imperishable' (Bha. Gi.

XV, 16).

To this alternative prima facie view the next Sutra replies.

10. And this (supporting) (springs) from command.

The text declares that this supporting of ether and all other things proceeds from command. 'In the command of that Imperishable sun and moon stand, held apart; in the command of that Imperishable heaven and earth stand, held apart,' &c. Now such supreme command, through which all things in the universe are held apart, cannot possibly belong to the individual soul in the state either of bondage or of release. The commanding 'Imperishable' therefore is none other than the supreme Person.

11. And on account of the exclusion of (what is of) another nature (than Brahman).

Another nature, i. e. the nature of the Pradhana, and so on. A supplementary pa.s.sage excludes difference on the part of the Imperishable from the supreme Person. 'That Imperishable, O Gargi, is unseen but seeing; unheard but hearing; unthought but thinking; unknown but knowing. There is nothing that sees but it, nothing that hears but it, nothing that thinks but it, nothing that knows but it. In that Imperishable, O Gargi, the ether is woven, warp and woof.' Here the declaration as to the Imperishable being what sees, hears, &c. excludes the non-intelligent Pradhana; and the declaration as to its being all- seeing, &c. while not seen by any one excludes the individual soul. This exclusion of what has a nature other than that of the highest Self thus confirms the view of that Self being meant.--Or else the Sutra may be explained in a different way, viz. 'On account of the exclusion of the existence of another.' On this alternative the text 'There is nothing that sees but it,' &c., is to be understood as follows: 'while this Imperishable, not seen by others but seeing all others, forms the basis of all things different from itself; there is no other principle which, unseen by the Imperishable but seeing it, could form _its_ basis,' i.e.

the text would exclude the existence of any other thing but the Imperishable, and thus implicitly deny that the Imperishable is either the Pradhana or the individual Self.--Moreover the text 'By the command of that Imperishable men praise those who give, the G.o.ds follow the Sacrficer, the fathers the Darvi-offering,' declares the Imperishable to be that on the command of which there proceed all works enjoined by Scripture and Smriti. such as sacrificing, giving, &c., and this again shows that the Imperishable must be Brahman, the supreme Person. Again, the subsequent _pa.s.sus_, 'Whosoever without knowing that Imperishable,'

&c., declares that ignorance of the Imperishable leads to the Samsara, while knowledge of it helps to reach Immortality: this also proves that the Imperishable is the highest Brahman.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the Imperishable.'

12. On account of his being designated as the object of seeing, he (i.e.

the highest Self) (is that object).

The followers of the Atharva-veda, in the section containing the question asked by Satyakama, read as follows: 'He again who meditates with this syllable Aum of three Matras on the highest Person, he comes to light and to the sun. As a snake frees itself from its skin, so he frees himself from evil. He is led up by the Saman verses to the Brahma- world; he sees the person dwelling in the castle who is higher than the individual souls concreted with bodies and higher (than those)' (Pra. Up.

V, 2). Here the terms 'he meditates' and 'he sees' have the same sense, 'seeing' being the result of devout meditation; for according to the principle expressed in the text (Ch. Up. III, 14) 'According as man's thought is in this world,' what is reached by the devotee is the object of meditation; and moreover the text exhibits the same object, viz. 'the highest Person' in connexion with both verbs.

The doubt here presents itself whether the highest Person in this text be the so-called four-faced Brahma, the Lord of the mundane egg who represents the individual souls in their collective aspect, or the supreme Person who is the Lord of all.--The Purvapaks.h.i.+n maintains the former view. For, he argues, on the introductory question, 'He who here among men should meditate until death on the syllable Om, what would he obtain by it?' The text first declares that he who meditates on that syllable as having one Matra, obtains the world of men; and next, that he who meditates on it as having two Matras obtains the world of the atmosphere. Hence the Brahma-world, which the text after that represents as the object reached by him who meditates on Om as having three syllables, must be the world of Brahma Katurmukha who is const.i.tuted by the aggregate of the individual souls. What the soul having reached that world sees, therefore is the same Brahma Katurmukha; and thus only the attribute 'etasmaj' jivaghanat parat param' is suitable; for the collective soul, i. e. Brahma Katurmukha, residing in the Brahma-world is higher (para) than the distributive or discrete soul (jiva) which is concreted (ghani-bhuta) with the body and sense-organs, and at the same time is higher (para) than these. The highest Person mentioned in the text, therefore, is Brahmaa Katurmukha; and the qualities mentioned further on, such as absence of decay, &c., must be taken in such a way as to agree with that Brahma.

To this prima facie view the Sutra replies that the object of seeing is He, i.e. the highest Self, on account of designation. The text clearly designates the object of seeing as the highest Self. For the concluding sloka, which refers to that object of seeing, declares that 'by means of the Omkara he who knows reaches that which is tranquil, free from decay, immortal, fearless, the highest'--all which attributes properly belong to the highest Self only, as we know from texts such as 'that is the Immortal, that is the fearless, that is Brahman' (Ch. Up. IV, 15, i).

The qualification expressed in the clause 'etasmaj_ _jiva.--ghanat,' &c.

may also refer to the highest Self only, not to Brahma Katurmukha; for the latter is himself comprehended by the term 'jivaghana.' For that term denotes all souls which are embodied owing to karman; and that Katurmukha is one of those we know from texts such as 'He who first creates Brahma' (Svet. Up. VI, 18). Nor is there any strength in the argument that, since the Brahma-world mentioned in the text is known to be the world of Katurmukha, as it follows next on the world of the atmosphere, the being abiding there must needs be Katurmukha. We rather argue as follows--as from the concluding clause 'that which is tranquil, free from decay,' &c., we ascertain that the object of intuition is the highest Brahman, the Brahma-world spoken of as the abode of the seeing devotee cannot be the perishable world of Brahma Katurmukha. A further reason for this conclusion is supplied by what the text says about 'him who is freed from all evil being led up by the Saman verses to the world of Brahman'; for the place reached by him who is freed from all evil cannot be the mere abode of Katurmukha. Hence also the concluding sloka says with reference to that Brahma-world 'that which the wise teach': what the wise see and teach is the abode of the highest, of Vishnu; cp.

the text 'the wise ever see that highest abode of Vishnu.' Nor is it even strictly true that the world of Brahma follows on the atmosphere, for the svarga-world and several others lie between the two.

We therefore shortly explain the drift of the whole chapter as follows.

At the outset of the reply given to Satyakama there is mentioned, in addition to the highest (para) Brahman, a lower (apara) Brahman. This lower or effected (karya) Brahman is distinguished as twofold, being connected either with this terrestrial world or yonder, non-terrestrial, world. Him who meditates on the Pranava as having one syllable, the text declares to obtain a reward in this world--he reaches the world of men.

He, on the other hand, who meditates on the Pranava as having two syllables is said to obtain his reward in a super-terrestrial sphere--he reaches the world of the atmosphere. And he finally who, by means of the trisyllabic Pranava which denotes the highest Brahman, meditates on this very highest Brahman, is said to reach that Brahman, i. e. the supreme Person.--The object of seeing is thus none other than the highest Self.-- Here terminates the adhikarana of the 'object of seeing.'

13. The small (ether) (is Brahman), on account of the subsequent (arguments).

The Chandogas have the following text, 'Now in that city of Brahman there is the palace, the small lotus, and in it that small ether. Now what is within that small ether that is to be sought for, that is to be understood' (Ch. Up. VIII, 1, 1).--The question here arises whether that small ether (s.p.a.ce) within the lotus of the heart be the material clement called ether, or the individual Self, or the highest Self.--The first view presenting itself is that the element is meant, for the reason that the word 'ether' is generally used in that sense; and because the clause 'what is within that small ether' shows that the ether mentioned const.i.tutes the abode of something else that is to be enquired into.--This view is set aside by the Sutra. The small ether within the heart is the highest Brahman, on account of the subsequent reasons, contained in clauses of the same section. The pa.s.sage 'That Self which is free from evil, free from old age, free from death, free from grief, free from hunger and thirst, whose wishes and purposes come true' (VIII, 7, 1) ascribes to that small ether qualities--such as unconditioned Selfhood, freedom from evil, &c.--which clearly show that ether to be the highest Brahman. And this conclusion is confirmed by what other texts say about him who knows the small ether attaining the power of realising his own wishes,'Those who depart from hence having come to know the Self and those real wishes, for them there is freedom in all worlds'; and 'whatever object he desires, by his mere will it comes to him; having obtained it he is happy' (Ch, Up. VIII, 1, 6; 2, 9).

If moreover the ether within the heart were the elemental ether, the comparison inst.i.tuted in the pa.s.sage 'As large as that (elemental) ether is, so large is this ether within the heart' would be wholly inappropriate. Nor must it be said that that comparison rests on the limitation of the ether within the heart (so that the two terms compared would be the limited elemental ether within the heart, and the universal elemental ether); for there still would remain the inappropriate a.s.sertion that the ether within the heart is the abode of heaven, earth and all other things.--But, an objection is raised, also on the alternative of the small ether being the highest Brahman, the comparison to the universal elemental ether is unsuitable; for scripture explicitly states that the highest Self is (not as large but) larger than everything else, 'larger than the earth, larger than the sky,' &c. (Ch.

Up. III, 14, 3). Not so, we reply; what the text says as to the ether within the heart being as large as the universal ether is meant (not to make a conclusive statement as to its extent but only) to negative that smallness of the ether which is established by its abiding within the heart. Similarly we say 'the sun moves with the speed of an arrow'; the sun indeed moves much faster than an arrow, but what our a.s.sertion means is merely that he does not move slowly.--But, a further doubt is started, the pa.s.sage 'That Self which is free from sin,' &c. does not appear to refer back to the small ether within the heart. For the text makes a distinction between that ether and that within that ether which it declares to be the due object of search and enquiry. This latter object therefore is the topic of discussion, and when the text says later on 'That Self, free from sin, &c. is to be searched out' we must understand it to refer to the same object of search.--This would be so, we reply, if the text did not distinguish the small ether and that which abides within it; but as a matter of fact it does distinguish the two. The connexion is as follows. The text at first refers to the body of the devotee as the city of Brahman, the idea being that Brahman is present therein as object of meditation; and then designates an organ of that body, viz. the small lotus-shaped heart as the palace of Brahman. It then further refers to Brahman--the all knowing, all powerful, whose love towards his devotees is boundless like the ocean--as the small ether within the heart, meaning thereby that Brahman who for the benefit of his devotees is present within that palace should be meditated upon as of minute size, and finally--in the clause 'that is to be searched out'--enjoins as the object of meditation that which abides in that Brahman, i.e. on the one hand, its essential freedom from all evil qualities, and on the other the whole treasure of its auspicious qualities, its power of realising its wishes and so on. The 'that' (in 'that is to be searched out') enjoins as objects of search the small ether, i.e. Brahman itself as well as the qualities abiding within it.-- But how, it may be asked, do you know that the word 'that' really refers to both, viz. the highest Brahman, there called 'small ether,' and the qualities abiding in it, and that hence the clause enjoins an enquiry into both these ent.i.ties?--Listen, attentively, we reply, to our explanation! The clause 'As large as this ether is, so large is this ether within the heart' declares the exceeding greatness of the small ether; the clause 'Both heaven and earth are contained within it' up to 'lightning and stars' declares that same small ether to be the abode of the entire world; and the clause 'And whatever there is for him in this world, and whatever there is not, all that is contained within it'

declares that whatever objects of enjoyment there are for the devotee in this world, and whatever other objects there are not for him, i.e. are merely wishes but not obtained by him, all those objects are contained within that same small ether. The text next declares that that small ether, although dwelling within the heart which is a part of the body, is not affected by the body's old age and decay, for being extremely minute it is not capable of change; and adds 'that true being is the Brahman-city,' i.e. that Reality which is the cause of all is the city called Brahman, i.e. the abode of the entire Universe. The following clause 'in it all desires are contained' again referring to the small ether ('in it') declares that in it all desires, i.e. all desirable qualities are contained. The text next proceeds to set forth that the small ether possesses Selfhood and certain desirable auspicious qualities-this is done in the pa.s.sage 'It is the Self free from sin' &c.

up to 'whose purposes realise themselves.' The following section--'And as here on earth' down to 'for them there is freedom in all the worlds'-- declares that those who do not know those eight qualities and the Self, called 'small ether,' which is characterised by them, and who perform actions aiming at objects of enjoyment different from that Self, obtain perishable results only, and do not attain the power of realising their wishes; while those on the other hand who know the Self called 'small ether' and the qualities abiding within it, through the grace of that very same highest Self, obtain all their wishes and the power of realising their purposes. On the ground of this connected consideration of the whole chapter we are able to decide that the text enjoins as the object of search and enquiry both the highest Brahman and the whole body of auspicious qualities abiding within it. This the Vakyakara also renders clear in the pa.s.sage beginning 'In the text "what is within that" there is designation of wishes (i.e. desirable qualities).'--For all these reasons the small ether is the highest Brahman.

14. On account of the going and of the word; for thus it is seen; and (there is) an inferential sign.