Adhik. II (4) determines that the relation in which the released soul stands to Brahman is that of avibhaga, non- separation. This, on vSarikara's view, means absolute non- separation, identity. — According to Ramanu^-a the question to be considered is whether the released soul views itself as separate (przthagbhuta) from Brahman, or as non-separate because being a mode of Brahman. The former view is favoured by those Sruti and Smriti passages which speak of the soul as being with, or equal to, Brahman ; the latter by such passages as tat tvam asi and the like1.
Adhik, III (5-7) discusses the characteristics of the re- leased soul (i.e. of the truly released soul, according to vSankara). According to Gaimini the released soul, when manifesting itself in its true nature, possesses all those quali- ties which in;0. Up. VIII, 7, 1 and other places are ascribed to Brahman, such as apahatapapmatva, satyasa^/kalpatva, &c, auvarya. — According to Audfalomi the only character- istic of the released soul is ^aitanya. — According to Badara- yana the two views can be combined (5afikara remarking that satyasa;/zkalpatva, &c. are ascribed to the released soul vyavaharapekshaya).
Adhik. IV (8-9) returns, according to Sankara, to the apara vidya, and discusses the question whether the soul of
1 Kim ayam param ^yotir upasampanna/fc sarvabandhavinirmukta^ pratya- gatm& svatmanaw paramatmana^ przthagbhutam anubhavati uta tatprakarataya tadavibhaktam iti vkaye so* .mute sarvan kaman saha brahma^a vipa^ita pajya^ pajyate ivkmavarnam kartaram ham purushaw brahmayoniw tada vidvan purcyapape vidhilya mra.nga.nak paramaw samyam upaiti idam ^/zanam upamtya mama sadharmyam agata^ sarve* pi nopa^ayante pralayena vyathanti y&etyadijrutismrztibhyo muktasya parena sahityasamyasadharmyavagamat przthagbhutam anubhavatiti prapte u^yate. Avibhageneti. Parasmad brahma- nah svatmanam avibhagenanubhavati mukta^. Kuta^. Drzsh/atvat. Vavam brahmopasampadya nivrz'ttavidyatirodhanasya yathatathyena svatmano drzsh/a- tvat. Svatmana^ svarupaw hi tat tvam asy ayam atma brahma aitadatmyam idam sarvaw sarvaw khalv l&am brahmetyadisamanadhikara^yanirdej-ai^ ya atmani tish^an atmano * ntaro yam atma na veda yasyatma .rariraw ya atmanam antaro yamayati atmantaryamy amritah antah pravish/a/* jasta ^ananam ityadibhu ka paramatmatmakaw ta^Marirataya tatprakarabhutam iti pratipaditam avasthiter iti k&rakrztsnety atrato a vibhagenahaw brahmasmity evanubhavati.
INTRODUCTION. lxxXV
the pious effects its desires by its mere determination, or uses some other means. The former alternative is ac- cepted.— According to Ramanu^a the adhikara/za simply continues the consideration of the state of the released, begun in the preceding adhikara/za. Of the released soul it is said in Kk. Up. VIII, 12, 3 that after it has manifested itself in its true nature it moves about playing and rejoicing with women, carriages, and so on. The question then arises whether it effects all this by its mere sa^kalpa (it having been shown in the preceding adhikara^a that the released soul is, like the Lord, satyasawkalpa), or not. The answer is in favour of the former alternative, on account of the explicit declaration made in Kk. Up. VIII, 2, 'By his mere will the fathers come to receive him.'
Adhik. V (10-14) decides that the released are embodied of disembodied according to their wish and will.
Adhik. VI (11, 12) explains how the soul of the released can animate several bodies at the same time. — Sutra 12 gives, according to Sankara, the additional explanation that those passages which declare the absence of all specific cognition on the part of the released soul do not refer to the partly released soul of the devotee, but either to the soul in the state of deep sleep (svapyaya = sushupti), or to the fully released soul of the sage (sampatti = kaivalya).— Ramanu^a explains that the passages speaking of absence of conscious- ness refer either to the state of deep sleep, or to the time of dying (sampatti = mara;zam according to ' van manasi sampadyate/ &c).
Adhik. VII (17-21). — The released ^ivas participate in all the perfections and powers of the Lord, with the exception of the power of creating and sustaining the world. They do not return to new forms of embodied existence.
After having, in this way, rendered ourselves acquainted
with the contents of the Brahma-sutras according to the
views of Sankara as well as Ramanu^a, we have now
to consider the question which of the two modes of
interpretation represents— or at any rate more closely
approximates to— the true meaning of the Sutras. That
Ixxxvi vedanta-sOtras.
few of the Sutras are intelligible if taken by themselves, we have already remarked above; but this does not exclude the possibility of our deciding with a fair degree of cer- tainty which of the two interpretations proposed agrees better with the text, at least in a certain number of cases.
We have to note in the first place that, in spite of very numerous discrepancies, — of which only the more important ones have been singled out in the conspectus of contents, — the two commentators are at one as to the general drift of the Sutras and the arrangement of topics. As a rule, the adhikara/zas discuss one or several Vedic passages bearing upon a certain point of the system, and in the vast majority of cases the two commentators agree as to which are the special texts referred to. And, moreover, in a very large number of cases the agreement extends to the interpreta- tion to be put on those passages and on the Sutras. This far-reaching agreement certainly tends to inspire us with a certain confidence as to the existence of an old tradition concerning the meaning of the Sutras on which the bulk of the interpretations of 5ankara as well as of Ramanu^a are based.
But at the same time we have seen that, in a not incon- siderable number of cases, the interpretations of vSankara and Ramanu^a diverge more or less widely, and that the Sutras affected thereby are, most of them, especially important because bearing on fundamental points of the Vedanta system. The question then remains which of the two interpretations is entitled to preference.
Regarding a small number of Sutras I have already (in the conspectus of contents) given it as my opinion that Ramanu^a's explanation appears to be more worthy of consideration. We meet, in the first place, with a number of cases in which the two commentators agree as to the literal meaning of a Sutra, but where Sankara sees him- self reduced to the necessity of supplementing his inter- pretation by certain additions and reservations of his own for which the text gives no occasion, while Ramanu^-a is able to take the Sutra as it stands. To exemplify this remark, I again direct attention to all those Sutras which in
INTRODUCTION. lxXXvil
clear terms represent the individual soul as something dif- ferent from the highest soul, and concerning which vSankara is each time obliged to have recourse to the plea of the Sutra referring, not to what is true in the strict sense of the word, but only to what is conventionally looked upon as true. It is, I admit, not altogether impossible that vSan- kara's interpretation should represent the real meaning of the Sutras ; that the latter, indeed, to use the terms em- ployed by Dr. Deussen, should for the nonce set forth an exoteric doctrine adapted to the common notions of man- kind, which, however, can be rightly understood by him only to whose mind the esoteric doctrine is all the while present. This is not impossible, I say; but it is a point which requires convincing proofs before it can be allowed. — We have had, in the second place, to note a certain number of adhikara^as and Sutras concerning whose interpretation vSankara and Ramanu^a disagree altogether; and we have seen that not unfrequently the explanations given by the latter commentator appear to be preferable because falling in more easily with the words of the text. The most striking instance of this is afforded by the 1 3th adhikara^a of II, 3, which treats of the size of the ^iva, and where Ramanu^a's explanation seems to be decidedly superior to 6ahkara's, both if we look to the arrangement of the whole adhikara^a and to the wording of the single Sutras. The adhikara/za is, moreover, a specially important one, be- cause the nature of the view held as to the size of the indi- vidual soul goes far to settle the question what kind of Vedanta is embodied in Badaraya^a's work.
But it will be requisite not only to dwell on the interpre- tations of a few detached Sutras, but to make the attempt at least of forming some opinion as to the relation of the Vedanta-sutras as a whole to the chief distinguishing doctrines of vSankara as well as Ramanu^a. Such an attempt may possibly lead to very slender positive results ; but in the present state of the enquiry even a merely negative result, viz. the conclusion that the Sutras do not teach particular doctrines found in them by certain com- mentators, will not be without its value.
lxxxvill VEDANTA-SlJTRAS.
The first question we wish to consider in some detail is whether the Sutras in any way favour .Sankara's doctrine that we have to distinguish a twofold knowledge of Brah- man, a higher knowledge which leads to the immediate absorption, on death, of the individual soul in Brahman, and a lower knowledge which raises its owner merely to an exalted form of individual existence. The adhyaya first to be considered in this connexion is the fourth one. According to 5ankara the three latter padas of that adhyaya are chiefly engaged in describing the fate of him who dies in the possession of the lower knowledge, while two sections (IV, 2, 12-14; IV, 4, 1-7) tell us what happens to him who, before his death, had risen to the knowledge of the highest Brahman. According to Ramanu^-a, on the other hand, the three padas, referring throughout to one subject only, give an uninterrupted account of the succes- sive steps by which the soul of him who knows the Lord through the Upanishads passes, at the time of death, out of the gross body which it had tenanted, ascends to the world of Brahman, and lives there for ever without returning into the sa#zsara.
On an a priori view of the matter it certainly appears somewhat strange that the concluding section of the Sutras should be almost entirely taken up with describing the fate of him who has after all acquired an altogether inferior knowledge only, and has remained shut out from the true sanctuary of Vedantic knowledge, while the fate of the fully initiated is disposed of in a few occasional Sutras. It is, I think, not too much to say that no unbiassed student of the Sutras would — before having allowed himself to be influenced by Sankara's interpretations — imagine for a moment that the solemn words, ' From thence is no return, from thence is no return/ with which the Sutras conclude, are meant to describe, not the lasting condition of him who has reached final release, the highest aim of man, but merely a stage on the way of that soul which is engaged in the slow progress of gradual release, a stage which is indeed greatly superior to any earthly form of existence, but yet itself belongs to the essentially fictitious sa/^sara,