The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary by Sankaracarya Part 4

[Footnote 17: Ramanuja has here some strong remarks on the improbability of qualities emphatically attributed to Brahman, in more than one pa.s.sage, having to be set aside in any meditation: 'Na /k/a matapit/ri/sahasrebhyo-pi vatsalatara/m/ sastra/m/ pratarakavad aparamarthikau nirasaniyau gu/n/au prama/n/antarapratipannau adare/n/opadi/s/ya sa/m/sara/k/akraparivartanena purvam eva bambhramyamanan mumukshun bhuyo-pi bhramayitum alam.']

[Footnote 18: The /S/ri-bhashya as well as several other commentaries reads tadbhavabhavitvat for /S/[email protected]'s tadbhavabhavitvat.]

FOURTH ADHYaYA.

PaDA I.

Adhikara/n/a I (1, 2).--The meditation on the atman enjoined by Scripture is not an act to be accomplished once only, but is to be repeated again and again.

Adhik. II (3).--The devotee engaged in meditation on Brahman is to view it as const.i.tuting his own Self.

Adhik. III (4).--To the rule laid down in the preceding adhikara/n/a the so-called pratikopasanas, i.e. those meditations in which Brahman is viewed under a symbol or outward manifestation (as, for instance, mano brahmety upasita) const.i.tute an exception, i.e. the devotee is not to consider the pratika as const.i.tuting his own Self.

Adhik. IV (5).--In the pratikopasanas the pratika is to be meditatively viewed as being one with Brahman, not Brahman as being one with the pratika.--Ramanuja takes Sutra 5 as simply giving a reason for the decision arrived at under Sutra 4, and therefore as not const.i.tuting a new adhikara/n/a.

Adhik. V (6).--In meditations connected with const.i.tutives of sacrificial works (as, for instance, ya evasau tapati tam udgitham upasita) the idea of the divinity, &c. is to be transferred to the sacrificial item, not vice versa. In the example quoted, for instance, the udgitha is to be viewed as aditya, not aditya as the udgitha.

Adhik. VI (7-10).--The devotee is to carry on his meditations in a sitting posture.--/S/[email protected] maintains that this rule does not apply to those meditations whose result is sa/m/yagdar/s/ana; but the Sutra gives no hint to that effect.

Adhik. VII (11).--The meditations may be carried on at any time, and in any place, favourable to concentration of mind.

Adhik. VIII (12).--The meditations are to be continued until death.--/S/[email protected] again maintains that those meditations which lead to sa/m/yagdar/s/ana are excepted.

Adhik. IX (13).--When through those meditations the knowledge of Brahman has been reached, the vidvan is no longer affected by the consequences of either past or future evil deeds.

Adhik. X (14).--Good deeds likewise lose their efficiency.--The literal translation of the Sutra is, 'There is likewise non-attachment (to the vidvan) of the other (i.e. of the deeds other than the evil ones, i.e.

of good deeds), but on the fall (of the body, i.e. when death takes place).' The last words of the Sutra, 'but on the fall,' are separated by /S/[email protected] from the preceding part of the Sutra and interpreted to mean, 'when death takes place (there results mukti of the vidvan, who through his knowledge has freed himself from the bonds of works).'--According to Ramanuja the whole Sutra simply means, 'There is likewise non-attachment of good deeds (not at once when knowledge is reached), but on the death of the vidvan[19].'

Adhik. XI (15).--The non-operation of works stated in the two preceding adhikara/n/as holds good only in the case of anarabdhakarya works, i.e.

those works which have not yet begun to produce their effects, while it does not extend to the arabdhakarya works on which the present existence of the devotee depends.

Adhik. XII (16, 17).--From the rule enunciated in Adhik. X are excepted such sacrificial performances as are enjoined permanently (nitya): so, for instance, the agnihotra, for they promote the origination of knowledge.

Adhik. XIII (18).--The origination of knowledge is promoted also by such sacrificial works as are not accompanied with the knowledge of the upasanas referring to the different members of those works.

Adhik. XIV (19).--The arabdhakarya works have to be worked out fully by the fruition of their effects; whereupon the vidvan becomes united with Brahman.--The 'bhoga' of the Sutra is, according to /S/[email protected], restricted to the present existence of the devotee, since the complete knowledge obtained by him destroys the nescience which otherwise would lead to future embodiments. According to Ramanuja a number of embodied existences may have to be gone through before the effects of the arabdhakarya works are exhausted.

PaDA II.

This and the two remaining padas of the fourth adhyaya describe the fate of the vidvan after death. According to /S/[email protected] we have to distinguish the vidvan who possesses the highest knowledge, viz. that he is one with the highest Brahman, and the vidvan who knows only the lower Brahman, and have to refer certain Sutras to the former and others to the latter. According to Ramanuja the vidvan is one only.

Adhik. I, II, III (1-6).--On the death of the vidvan (i.e. of him who possesses the lower knowledge, according to /S/[email protected]) his senses are merged in the manas, the manas in the chief vital air (pra/n/a), the vital air in the individual soul (jiva), the soul in the subtle elements.--According to Ramanuja the combination (sampatti) of the senses with the manas, &c. is a mere conjunction (sa/m/yoga), not a merging (laya).

Adhik. IV (7).--The vidvan (i.e. according to /S/[email protected], he who possesses the lower knowledge) and the avidvan, i.e. he who does not possess any knowledge of Brahman, pa.s.s through the same stages (i.e.

those described hitherto) up to the entrance of the soul, together with the subtle elements, and so on into the na/d/is.--The vidvan also remains connected with the subtle elements because he has not yet completely destroyed avidya, so that the immortality which Scripture ascribes to him (am/ri/tatva/m/ hi vidvan abhya/s/nute) is only a relative one.--Ramanuja quotes the following text regarding the immortality of the vidvan:

'Yada sarve pramu/k/yante kama yessya h/ri/di sthita/h/ atha martyosm/ri/to bhavaty atra brahma sama/s/nute,'

and explains that the immortality which is here ascribed to the vidvan as soon as he abandons all desires can only mean the destruction--mentioned in the preceding pada--of all the effects of good and evil works, while the 'reaching of Brahman' can only refer to the intuition of Brahman vouchsafed to the meditating devotee.

Adhik. V (8-11) raises; according to /S/[email protected], the question whether the subtle elements of which Scripture says that they are combined with the highest deity (teja/h/ parasya/m/ devatayam) are completely merged in the latter or not. The answer is that a complete absorption of the elements takes place only when final emanc.i.p.ation is reached; that, on the other hand, as long as the sa/m/sara state lasts, the elements, although somehow combined with Brahman, remain distinct so as to be able to form new bodies for the soul.

According to Ramanuja the Sutras 8-11 do not const.i.tute a new adhikara/n/a, but continue the discussion of the point mooted in 7. The immortality there spoken of does not imply the separation of the soul from the body, 'because Scripture declares sa/m/sara, i.e. embodiedness up to the reaching of Brahman' (tasya tavad eva /k/ira/m/ yavan na vimokshye atha sampatsye) (8).--That the soul after having departed from the gross body is not disconnected from the subtle elements, is also proved hereby, that the subtle body accompanies it, as is observed from authority[20] (9).--Hence the immortality referred to in the scriptural pa.s.sage quoted is not effected by means of the total destruction of the body (10).

Adhik. VI (12-14) is of special importance.--According to /S/[email protected] the Sutras now turn from the discussion of the departure of him who possesses the lower knowledge only to the consideration of what becomes of him who has reached the higher knowledge. So far it has been taught that in the case of relative immortality (ensuing on the apara vidya) the subtle elements, together with the senses and so on, depart from the body of the dying devotee; this implies at the same time that they do not depart from the body of the dying sage who knows himself to be one with Brahman.--Against this latter implied doctrine Sutra 12 is supposed to formulate an objection. 'If it be said that the departure of the pra/n/as from the body of the dying sage is denied (viz. in B/ri/. Up.

IV, 4, 5, na tasya pra/n/a utkramanti, of him the pra/n/as do not pa.s.s out); we reply that in that pa.s.sage the genitive "tasya" has the sense of the ablative "tasmat," so that the sense of the pa.s.sage is, "from him, i.e. from the jiva of the dying sage, the pra/n/as do not depart, but remain with it."'--This objection /S/[email protected] supposes to be disposed of in Sutra 13. 'By some there is given a clear denial of the departure of the pra/n/as in the case of the dying sage,' viz. in the pa.s.sage B/ri/. Up. III, 2, 11, where Yaj/n/avalkya instructs artabhaga that, when this man dies, the pra/n/as do not depart from it (asmat; the context showing that asmat means 'from it,' viz. from the body, and not 'from him,' viz. the jiva).--The same view is, moreover, confirmed by Sm/ri/ti pa.s.sages.

According to Ramanuja the three Sutras forming /S/[email protected]'s sixth adhikara/n/a do not const.i.tute a new adhikara/n/a at all, and, moreover, have to be combined into two Sutras. The topic continuing to be discussed is the utkranti of the vidvan. If, Sutra 12 says, the utkranti of the pra/n/as is not admitted, on the ground of the denial supposed to be contained in B/ri/. Up. IV, 4, 5; the reply is that the sense of the tasya there is '/s/arirat' (so that the pa.s.sage means, 'from him, i.e.

the jiva, the pra/n/as do not depart'); for this is clearly shown by the reading of some, viz. the Madhyandinas, who, in their text of the pa.s.sage, do not read 'tasya' but 'tasmat.'--With reference to the instruction given by Yaj/n/avalkya to artabhaga, it is to be remarked that nothing there shows the 'ayam purusha' to be the sage who knows Brahman.--And, finally, there are Sm/ri/ti pa.s.sages declaring that the sage also when dying departs from the body.

Adhik. VII and VIII (15, 16) teach, according to /S/[email protected], that, on the death of him who possesses the higher knowledge, his pra/n/as, elements, &c. are merged in Brahman, so as to be no longer distinct from it in any way.

According to Ramanuja the two Sutras continue the teaching about the pra/n/as, bhutas, &c. of the vidvan in general, and declare that they are finally merged in Brahman, not merely in the way of conjunction (sa/m/yoga), but completely.[21]

Adhik. IX (17).--/S/[email protected] here returns to the owner of the apara vidya, while Ramanuja continues the description of the utkranti of his vidvan.--The jiva of the dying man pa.s.ses into the heart, and thence departs out of the body by means of the na/d/is; the vidvan by means of the na/d/i called sushum/n/a, the avidvan by means of some other na/d/i.

Adhik. X (18, 19).--The departing soul pa.s.ses up to the sun by means of a ray of light which exists at night as well as during day.

Adhik. XI (20, 21).--Also that vidvan who dies during the daks.h.i.+/n/ayana reaches Brahman.

PaDA III.

Adhik. I, II, III (1-3) reconcile the different accounts given in the Upanishads as to the stations of the way which leads the vidvan up to Brahman.

Adhik. IV (4-6)--By the 'stations' we have, however, to understand not only the subdivisions of the way but also the divine beings which lead the soul on.

The remaining part of the pada is by /S/[email protected] divided into two adhikara/n/as. Of these the former one (7-14) teaches that the Brahman to which the departed soul is led by the guardians of the path of the G.o.ds is not the highest Brahman, but the effected (karya) or qualified (/s/agu/n/a) Brahman. This is the opinion propounded in Sutras 7-11 by Badari, and, finally, accepted by /S/[email protected] in his commentary on Sutra 14. In Sutras 12-14 Jaimini defends the opposite view, according to which the soul of the vidvan goes to the highest Brahman, not to the karyam brahma. But Jaimini's view, although set forth in the latter part of the adhikara/n/a, is, according to /S/[email protected], a mere purvapaksha, while Badari's opinion represents the siddhanta.--The latter of the two adhikara/n/as (VI of the whole pada; 15, 16) records the opinion of Badaraya/n/a on a collateral question, viz. whether, or not, all those who wors.h.i.+p the effected Brahman are led to it. The decision is that those only are guided to Brahman who have not wors.h.i.+pped it under a pratika form.

According to Ramanuja, Sutras 7-16 form one adhikara/n/a only, in which the views of Badari and of Jaimini represent two purvapakshas, while Badaraya/n/a's opinion is adopted as the siddhanta. The question is whether the guardians of the path lead to Brahman only those who wors.h.i.+p the effected Brahman, i.e. Hira/n/yagarbha, or those who wors.h.i.+p the highest Brahman, or those who wors.h.i.+p the individual soul as free from Prak/ri/ti, and having Brahman for its Self (ye pratyagatmana/m/ prak/ri/tiviyukta/m/ brahmatmakam upasate).--The first view is maintained by Badari in Sutra 7, 'The guardians lead to Brahman those who wors.h.i.+p the effected Brahman, because going is possible towards the latter only;' for no movement can take place towards the highest and as such omnipresent Brahman.--The explanation of Sutra 9 is similar to that of /S/[email protected]; but more clearly replies to the objection (that, if Hira/n/yagarbha were meant in the pa.s.sage, 'purusho /s/a manava/h/ sa etan brahma gamayati,' the text would read 'sa etan brahma/n/am gamayati') that Hira/n/yagarbha is called Brahman on account of his nearness to Brahman, i.e. on account of his prathamajatva.--The explanation of 10, 11 is essentially the same as in /S/[email protected]; so also of l2-l4.--The siddhanta view is established in Sutra 13, 'It is the opinion of Badaraya/n/a that it, i.e. the ga/n/a of the guardians, leads to Brahman those who do not take their stand on what is pratika, i.e.

those who wors.h.i.+p the highest Brahman, and those who meditate on the individual Self as dissociated from prak/ri/ti, and having Brahman for its Self, but not those who wors.h.i.+p Brahman under pratikas. For both views--that of Jaimini as well as that of Badari--are faulty.' The karya view contradicts such pa.s.sages as 'asma/k/ charirat samutthaya para/m/ jyotir upasampadya,' &c.; the para view, such pa.s.sages as that in the pa/nk/agni-vidya, which declares that ya ittha/m/ vidu/h/, i.e. those who know the pa/nk/agni-vidya, are also led up to Brahman.

PaDA IV.

Adhik. I (1-3) returns, according to /S/[email protected], to the owner of the para vidya, and teaches that, when on his death his soul obtains final release, it does not acquire any new characteristics, but merely manifests itself in its true nature.--The explanation given by Ramanuja is essentially the same, but of course refers to that vidvan whose going to Brahman had been described in the preceding pada.

Adhik. II (4) determines that the relation in which the released soul stands to Brahman is that of avibhaga, non-separation. This, on /S/[email protected]'s view, means absolute non-separation, ident.i.ty.--According to Ramanuja the question to be considered is whether the released soul views itself as separate (p/ri/thagbhuta) from Brahman, or as non-separate because being a mode of Brahman. The former view is favoured by those /S/ruti and Sm/ri/ti pa.s.sages which speak of the soul as being with, or equal to, Brahman; the latter by, such pa.s.sages as tat tvam asi and the like.[22]

Adhik. III (5-7) discusses the characteristics of the released soul (i.e. of the truly released soul, according to /S/[email protected]). According to Jaimini the released soul, when manifesting itself in its true nature, possesses all those qualities which in Ch. Up. VIII, 7, 1 and other places are ascribed to Brahman, such as apahatapapmatva, satyasa/m/kalpatva, &c., ai/s/varya.--According to Au/d/ulomi the only characteristic of the released soul is /k/aitanya.--According to Badarayana the two views can be combined (/S/[email protected] remarking that satyasa/m/kalpatva, &c. are ascribed to the released soul vyavaharapekshaya).

Adhik. IV (8-9) returns, according to /S/, to the apara vidya, and discusses the question whether the soul of the pious effects its desires by its mere determination, or uses some other means. The former alternative is accepted--According to Ramanuja the adhikara/n/a simply continues the consideration of the state of the released, begun in the preceding adhikara/n/a. Of the released soul it is said in Ch. 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/m/kalpa (it having been shown in the preceding adhikara/n/a that the released soul is, like the Lord, satyasa/m/kalpa), or not. The answer is in favour of the former alternative, on account of the explicit declaration made in Ch. Up. VIII, 2, 'By his mere will the fathers come to receive him.'

Adhik. V (10-14) decides that the released are embodied or disembodied according to their wish and will.