The next Sutra (40) gives rise to a similar difference of opinion. According to Sankara it constitutes by itself a new adhikara/za (XII), proving that the ' light ' (,£*yotis) mentioned in Kh. Up. VIII, 12, 3 is the highest Brahman. - — According to Ramanu£*a the Sutra continues the pre- ceding adhikara^a, and strengthens the conclusion arrived at by a further argument, referring to Ka^a Up. II, 5, 15 — a passage intermediate between the two passages about the angush/^amatra — which speaks of a primary light that cannot mean anything but Brahman. The Sutra has in that case to be translated as follows : ' (The angush/^a- matra is Brahman) because (in a passage intervening be- tween the two) a light is seen to be mentioned (which can be Brahman only).'
The three last Sutras of the pada are, according to »Sankara,to be divided into two adhikara^as (XIII and XIV), Sutra 41 deciding that the ether which reveals names and forms [Kh. Up. VIII, 14) is not the elemental ether but Brahman ; and 42, 43 teaching that the vi£7?anamaya, ' he who consists of knowledge,' of Brz. Up. IV, 3, 7 is not the individual soul but Brahman. — According to Ramanu^a the three Sutras make up one single adhikara/za discussing whether the Khandogya. Upanishad passage about the ether refers to Brahman or to the individual soul in the state of release ; the latter of these two alternatives being suggested by the circumstance that the released soul is the subject of the passage immediately preceding (' Shaking off
Introduction. Xxxix
all evil as a horse shakes off his hair,' Sec). Sutra 41 decides that ' the ether (is Brahman) because the passage designates the nature of something else/ &c. (i.e. of some- thing other than the individual soul ; other because to the soul the revealing of names and forms cannot be ascribed, &c.) — But, an objection is raised, does not more than one scriptural passage show that the released soul and Brahman are identical, and is not therefore the ether which reveals names and forms the soul as well as Brahman ? — (The two, Sutra 43 replies, are different) ' because in the states of deep sleep and departing (the highest Self) is designated as different ' (from the soul) — which point is proved by the same scriptural passages which *Sankara adduces ; — and ' because such terms as Lord and the like ' cannot be applied to the individual soul (43). Reference is made to IV, 4, 14, where all ^agadvyapara is said to belong to the Lord only, not to the soul even when in the state of release.
Pada IV.
The last pada of the first adhyaya is specially directed against the S&nkhyas.
The first adhikara^a (1-7) discusses the passage Ka/^a Up. I, 3, 10 ; 11, where mention is made of the Great and the Undeveloped —both of them terms used with a special technical sense in the Sankhya-^astra, avyakta being a synonym for pradhana. — Sankara shows by an exhaustive review of the topics of the Ka//za Upanishad that the term avyakta has not the special meaning which the Sankhyas attribute to it, but denotes the body, more strictly the subtle body (sukshma jarira), but at the same time the gross body also, in so far as it is viewed as an effect of the subtle one.
Adhik. II (8-10) demonstrates, according to Sankara, that the tricoloured agk spoken of in Sve. Up. IV, 5 is not the pradhana of the Sankhyas, but either that power of the Lord from which the world springs, or else the primary causal matter first produced by that power. — What Rama-
xl VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
nu^a in contradistinction from >Sankara understands by the primary causal matter, follows from the short sketch given above of the two systems.
Adhik. Ill (11-13) shows that the panks. pankagana/i mentioned in Bri. Up. IV, 4, 17 are not the twenty-five principles of the Sankhyas. — Adhik. IV (14, 15) proves that Scripture does not contradict itself on the all-important point of Brahman, i. e. a being whose essence is intelligence, being the cause of the world.
Adhik. V (16-18) is, according to vSankara, meant to prove that ' he who is the maker of those persons, of whom this is the work,' mentioned in Kau. Up. IV, 19, is not either the vital air or the individual soul, but Brahman. — The subject of the adhikara/za is essentially the same in Ramanu£*a's view ; greater stress is, however, laid on the adhikara/za being polemical against the Sankhyas, who wish to turn the passage into an argument for the pradhana doctrine.
The same partial difference of view is observable with regard to the next adhikara;za (VI ; Sutras 19-22) which decides that the 'Self to be seen, to be heard,' &c. (Bri. Up. II, 4, 5) is the highest Self, not the individual soul. This latter passage also is, according to Ramanu^-a, made the subject of discussion in order to rebut the Sankhya who is anxious to prove that what is there inculcated as the object of knowledge is not a universal Self but merely the Sankhya purusha.
Adhik. VII (23-27) teaches that Brahman is not only the efficient or operative cause (nimitta) of the world, but its material cause as well. The world springs from Brahman by way of modification (pari/zama ; Sutra 26). — Ramanu^a views this adhikara^a as specially directed against the Se^vara-sankhyas who indeed admit the existence of a highest Lord, but postulate in addition an independent pradhana on which the Lord acts as an operative cause merely.
Adhik. VIII (28) remarks that the refutation of the
Sankhya views is applicable to other theories also, such as
the doctrine of the world having originated from atoms.
INTRODUCTION. xli
After this rapid survey of the contents of the first adhyaya and the succinct indication of the most important points in which the views of 5ankara and Ramanu^a diverge, we turn to a short consideration of two questions which here naturally present themselves, viz., firstly, which is the prin- ciple on which the Vedic passages referred to in the Sutras have been selected and arranged ; and, secondly, if, where vSankara and Rimanu^a disagree as to the subdivision of the Sutras into Adhikara^as, and the determination of the Vedic passages discussed in the Sutras, there are to be met with any indications enabling us to determine which of the two commentators is right. (The more general question as to how far the Sutras favour either vSankara's or Rama- nu^a's general views cannot be considered at present.)
The Hindu commentators here and there attempt to point out the reason why the discussion of a certain Vedic passage is immediately followed by the consideration of a certain other one. Their explanations— which have occa- sionally been referred to in the notes to the translation — rest on the assumption that the Sutrakara in arranging the texts to be commented upon was guided by technicalities of the Mima^sa-system, especially by a regard for the various so-called means of proof which the Mima/^saka employs for the purpose of determining the proper meaning and position of scriptural passages. But that this was the guiding principle, is rendered altogether improbable by a simple tabular statement of the Vedic passages referred to in the first adhyaya, such as given by Deussen on page 130; for from the latter it appears that the order in which the Sutras exhibit the scriptural passages follows the order in which those passages themselves occur in the Upanishads, and it would certainly be a most strange coincidence if that order enabled us at the same time to exemplify the various prama/zas of the Mima;/zsa in their due systematic suc- cession.
As Deussen's statement shows, most of the passages dis- cussed are taken from the KMndogya. Upanishad, so many indeed that the whole first adhyaya may be said to consist of a discussion of all those ATMndogya passages of which it
xlii VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
is doubtful whether they are concerned with Brahman or not, passages from the other Upanishads being brought in wherever an opportunity offers. Considering the prominent position assigned to the Upanishad mentioned, I think it likely that the Sutrak&ra meant to begin the series of doubtful texts with the first doubtful passage from the .Oandogya, and that hence the sixth adhikara/za which treats of the anandamaya mentioned in the Taittiriya Upanishad has, in agreement with Ramanu^a's views, to be separated from the subsequent adhikara^as, and to be com- bined with the preceding ones whose task it is to lay down the fundamental propositions regarding Brahman's nature. — The remaining adhikara^as of the first pada follow the order of passages in the ATMndogya Upanishad, and there- fore call for no remark ; with the exception of the last adhikara^a, which refers to a Kaushitaki passage, for whose being introduced in this place I am not able to account. — The first adhikara^a of the second pada returns to the A"Mndogya Upanishad. The second one treats of a passage in the Ka/^a Upanishad where a being is referred to which eats everything. The reason why that passage is introduced in this place seems to be correctly assigned in the 5ri-bhashya, which remarks that, as in the preceding Sutra it had been argued that the highest Self is not an enjoyer, a doubt arises whether by that being which eats everything the highest Self can be meant \ — The third adhikara^a again, whose topic is the ' two entered into the cave ' (Ka^a Up. I, 3, i), appears, as Ramanu^a remarks, to come in at this place owing to the preceding adhikara^a ; for if it could not be proved that one of the two is the highest Self, a doubt would attach to the explanation given above of the * eater,' since the 'two entered into the cave,' and the 'eater' stand under the same prakara/m, and must therefore be held to refer to the same matter.— The fourth adhikara^a is again occupied with a jOandogya passage.— The fifth adhikara/za, whose topic is the Ruler within (antaryamin), manifestly owes its place, as remarked by Ramanu^a also,
1 Yadi paramatma na bhokta evaw tarhi bhoktrz'taya pratiyamano ^iva eva syad ity asankyaha atta.
INTRODUCTION. xllll
to the fact that the Vedic passage treated had been employed in the preceding adhikara^a (I, 2, 14) for the purpose of strengthening the argument 1. — The sixth adhikara^a, again, which discusses ' that which is not seen' (adrcsya ; Mund. Up. 1, 1 , 6), is clearly introduced in this place because in the pre- ceding adhikara/za it had been said that adrzsh/a, &c. denote the highest Self. — The reasons to which the last adhikara^a of the second pada and the first and third adhikara^as of the third pada owe their places are not apparent (the second adhikara^a of the third pada treats of a ATMndogya passage). The introduction, on the other hand, of the passage from the Pragma Upanishad treating of the akshara Owkara is clearly due to the circumstance that an akshara, of a different nature, had been discussed in the preceding adhikara^a. — The fifth and sixth adhikara/zas investigate KMndogya. passages. — The two next Sutras (22, 23) are, as remarked above, con- sidered by Sankara to constitute a new adhikara^a treating of the ' being after which everything shines \M\xnd. Up. II, 2, 10); while Ramanu^a looks on them as continuing the sixth adhikara/za. There is one circumstance which renders it at any rate probable that Ramanu^a, and not *Sankara, here hits the intention of the author of the Sutras. The general rule in the first three padas is that, wherever a new Vedic passage is meant to be introduced, the subject of the dis- cussion, i. e. that being which in the end is declared to be Brahman is referred to by means of a special word, in most cases a nominative form 2. From this rule there is in the preceding part of the adhyaya only one real exception, viz. in I, 2, 1, which possibly may be due to the fact that there a new pada begins, and it therefore was considered super-
1 Sthanadivyapadeja^ ka. ity atra ya.h ^akshushi tish/^ann ity adina prati- padyamanaw ^akshushi sthitiniyamanadikaw paramatmana eveti siddhaw krztv& akshipurushasya paramatmatvaw sadhitam idani//* tad eva samarthayate antary&°.
2 Anandamaya^ I, 1, 12 ; anta^ I, 1, 20 ; akasak I, 1, 22 ; prana^ I, 1, 23 ; gyotih I, 1, 24; prana^ I, 1, 28; atta I, 2, 9 ; guham pravish^au I, 2, 11; antara I, 2, 13 ; antaryaml I, 2, 18 ; adrwyatvadiguTzaka/fc 1^ 2, 21 ; valrvanara^ I, 2, 24 ; dyubhvadyayatanam I, 3, 1 ; bhuma I, 3, 8 ; aksharam I, 3, 10 ; sak I, 3, 13 ; dahara^ I, 3, 14; pramita^ I, 3, 24; (^-yotlfc I, 3, 40;) aka^a^ I, 3, 4i-
xliv vedAnta-s^tras.