The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary by Ramanuja Part 37

52. Should it be said (that that is possible) owing to the difference of place; we deny this, on account of (all upadhis) being within (all places).

Although Brahman is one only and not to be split by the several limiting adjuncts with which it is connected, yet the separation of the spheres of enjoyment is not impossible since the places of Brahman which are connected with the upadhis are distinct.--This the Sutra negatives on the ground that, as the upadhis move here and there and hence all places enter into connexion with all upadhis, the mixing up of spheres of enjoyment cannot be avoided. And even if the upadhis were connected with different places, the pain connected with some particular place would affect the whole of Brahman which is one only.--The two Sutras II, 3, 32 and 37 have stated an objection against those who, without taking their stand on the Veda, held the view of an all-pervading soul. The Sutras II, 3, 50 and ff., on the other hand, combat the view of those who, while basing their doctrine on the Veda, teach the absolute unity of the Self.-- Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the part.'

FOURTH PADA.

1. Thus the pranas.

After having taught that Ether and all the other elements are effects, and hence have originated, the Sutras had shown that the individual soul, although likewise an effect, does not originate in the sense of undergoing a change of essential nature; and had in connexion therewith clearly set forth wherein the essential nature of the soul consists.

They now proceed to elucidate the question as to the origination of the instruments of the individual soul, viz. the organs and the vital breath.

The point here to be decided is whether the organs are effects as the individual soul is an effect, or as ether and the other elements are. As the soul is, thus the pranas are, the Purvapaks.h.i.+n maintains. That means-- as the soul is not produced, thus the organs also are not produced--For the latter point no less than the former is directly stated in Scripture; the wording of the Sutra 'thus the pranas' being meant to extend to the case of the pranas also, the authority of Scripture to which recourse was had in the case of the soul.--But what is the scriptural text you mean?

'Non-being, truly this was in the beginning. Here they say, what was that? Those Ris.h.i.+s indeed were that Non-being, thus they say. And who were those Ris.h.i.+s? The pranas indeed were those Ris.h.i.+s.' This is the pa.s.sage which declares that before the origination of the world the Ris.h.i.+s existed. As 'pranah' is in the plural, we conclude that what is meant is the organs and the vital air. Nor can this text be interpreted to mean only that the pranas exist for a very long time (but are not uncreated); as we may interpret the texts declaring Vayu and the atmosphere (antariksha) to be immortal: 'Vayu and the atmosphere are immortal'; 'Vayu is the deity that never sets' (Bri. Up. II, 3, 3; I, 5, 22). For the clause 'Non-being indeed was this in the beginning'

declares that the pranas existed even at the time when the entire world was in the pralaya state. Those texts, then, which speak of an origination of the pranas must be explained somehow, just as we did with the texts referring to the origination of the individual soul.

To this the Siddhantin replies, 'the pranas also originate in the same way as ether, and so on.'--Why?--Because we have scriptural texts directly stating that before creation everything was one, 'Being only this was in the beginning,' 'The Self only was this in the beginning.'

And moreover, the text 'from that there is produced the prana and the mind and all organs'(Mu. Up. II, 3, 1) declares that the organs originated; they therefore cannot have existed before creation. Nor is it permissible to ascribe a different meaning to the texts which declare the origination of the sense-organs--as we may do in the case of the texts declaring the origination of the soul. For we have no texts directly denying the origination of the sense-organs, or affirming their eternity, while we _have_ such texts in the case of the individual soul.

In the text quoted by the Purvapaks.h.i.+n, 'Non-being indeed was this in the beginning,' &c., the word prana can denote the highest Self only; for from texts such as 'All these beings indeed enter into breath alone, and from breath they arise'(Ch. Up. I, 11, 5), the word prana is known to be one of the designations of the highest Self. And as to the clause 'the pranas indeed are those Ris.h.i.+s,' we remark that the term Ris.h.i.+ may properly be applied to the all-seeing highest Self, but not to the non- intelligent organs.

But how then is the plural form 'the Ris.h.i.+s are the pranas' to be accounted for? This the next Sutra explains.

2. (The scriptural statement of the plural) is secondary, on account of impossibility; and since (the highest Self) is declared before that.

The plural form exhibited by the text must be taken (not in its literal, but) in a secondary figurative sense, since there is no room there for a plurality of things. For Scripture declares that previous to creation the highest Self only exists.

3. On account of speech having for its antecedent that.

For the following reason also the word 'prana,' in the text quoted, can denote Brahman only. Speech, i.e. the names which have for their object all things apart from Brahman, presupposes the existence of the entire universe of things--ether, and so on--which is the object of speech. But, as according to the text 'this was then non-differentiated; it was thereupon differentiated by names and forms,' then (i.e. before the differentiation of individual things), no things having name and form existed, there existed also no effects of speech and the other organs of action and sensation, and hence it cannot be inferred that those organs themselves existed.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the origination of the pranas.'

4. (They are seven) on account of the going of the seven and of specification.

The question here arises whether those organs are seven only, or eleven-- the doubt on this point being due to the conflicting nature of scriptural texts.--The Purvapaks.h.i.+n maintains the former alternative.-- On what grounds?--'On account of going, and of specification.' For the text refers to the 'going,' i.e. to the moving about in the different worlds, together with the soul when being born or dying, of seven pranas only, 'seven are these worlds in which the pranas move which rest in the cave, being placed there as seven and seven' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 8)--where the repet.i.tion 'seven and seven' intimates the plurality of souls to which the pranas are attached. Moreover those moving pranas are distinctly specified in the following text, 'when the five instruments of knowledge stand still, together with the mind (manas), and when the buddhi does not move, that they call the highest "going"' (gati--Ka. Up.

II, 6, 10). The 'highest going' here means the moving towards Release, all movement within the body having come to an end. As thus the text declares that at the time of birth and death seven pranas only accompany the soul, and as, with regard to the condition of final concentration, those pranas are distinctly specified as forms of knowledge (jnanani), we conclude that the pranas are the seven following instruments of the soul--the organs of hearing, feeling, seeing, tasting and smelling, the buddhi and the manas. In various other pa.s.sages indeed, which refer to the pranas, higher numbers are mentioned, viz. up to fourteen, speech, the hands, the feet, the a.n.u.s, the organ of generation, the ahankara and the kitta being added to those mentioned above; cp. e.g. 'there are eight grahas' (Bri. Up. III, 2, i); 'Seven are the pranas of the head, two the lower ones '(Taitt. Samh. V, 3, 2, 5). But as the text says nothing about those additional organs accompanying the soul, we a.s.sume that they are called pranas in a metaphorical sense only, since they all, more or less, a.s.sist the soul.--This view the next Sutra sets aside.

5. But the hands and so on also; (since they a.s.sist the soul) abiding (in the body). Hence (it is) not so.

The organs are not seven only, but eleven, since the hands and the rest also contribute towards the experience and fruition of that which abides in the body, i.e. the soul, and have their separate offices, such as seizing, and so on. Hence it is not so, i.e. it must not be thought that the hands and the rest are not organs. Buddhi, ahankara and kitta, on the other hand, are (not independent organs but) mere designations of the manas, according as the latter is engaged in the functions of deciding (adhyavasaya), or misconception (abhimana), or thinking (kinta). The organs therefore are eleven. From this it follows that in the pa.s.sage 'Ten are these pranas in man, and Atman is the eleventh' (Bri. Up. II, 4, ii), the word Atman denotes the manas. The number _eleven_ is confirmed by scriptural and Smriti pa.s.sages, cp. 'the ten organs and the one' (Bha.

Gi. XIII, 5); 'ten are the vaikarika beings, the manas is the eleventh,'

and others. Where more organs are mentioned, the different functions of the manas are meant; and references to smaller numbers are connected with special effects of the organs, such as accompanying the soul, and the like.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the going of the seven.'

6. And (they are) minute.

As the text 'these are all alike, all infinite' (Bri. Up. I, 5, 13), declares speech, mind, and breath to be infinite, we conclude that the pranas are all-pervading.--To this the Sutra replies, that they are minute; for the text 'when the vital breath pa.s.ses out of the body, all the pranas pa.s.s out after it' (Bri. Up. V, 4, 2), proves those pranas to be of limited size, and as when pa.s.sing out they are not perceived by bystanders, they must be of minute size--The text which speaks of them as infinite is a text enjoining meditation ('he who meditates on them as infinite'), and infinity there means only that abundance of activities which is an attribute of the prana to be meditated on.

7. And the best.

By 'the best' we have to understand the chief vital air (mukhya prana), which, in the colloquy of the pranas, is determined to be the best because it is the cause of the preservation of the body. This chief vital air the Purvapaks.h.i.+n maintains to be something non-created, since Scripture (Ri. Samh. V, 129, 2), 'By its own law the One was breathing without wind,' shows that an effect of it, viz. the act of breathing, existed even previously to creation, at the time of a great pralaya; and because texts declaring it to have been created--such as 'from him is born breath' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 3)--may be interpreted in the same way as the texts declaring that the soul is something created (sec p. 540 ff.).-- To this the reply is that, since this view contradicts scriptural statements as to the oneness of all, previous to creation; and since the Mundaka-text declares the prana to have been created in the same way as earth and the other elements; and since there are no texts plainly denying its createdness, the chief vital air also must be held to have been created. The words 'the One was breathing without wind' by no means refer to the vital breath of living creatures, but intimate the existence of the highest Brahman, alone by itself; as indeed appears from the qualification 'without wind.'--That the vital breath, although really disposed of in the preceding Sutras, is specially mentioned in the present Sutra, is with a view to the question next raised for consideration.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the minuteness of the pranas.'

8. Neither air nor function, on account of its being stated separately.

Is this main vital breath nothing else but air, the second of the elements? Or is it a certain motion of the air? Or is it air that has a.s.sumed some special condition?--The first alternative may be adopted, on account of the text 'prana is air.'--Or, since mere air is not called breath, while this term is generally applied to that motion of air which consists in inhalation and exhalation, we may hold that breath is a motion of air.--Of both these views the Sutra disposes by declaring 'not so, on account of separate statement.' For in the pa.s.sage 'From him there is produced breath, mind, and all sense-organs, ether and air,' &c, breath and air are mentioned as two separate things. For the same reason breath also cannot be a mere motion or function of air; for the text does not mention any functions of fire and the other elements, side by side with these elements, as separate things (and this shows that breath also cannot, in that text, be interpreted to denote a function of air).

The text 'prana is air,' on the other hand, intimates (not that breath is identical with air, but) that breath is air having a.s.sumed a special form, not a thing altogether different from it, like fire. In ordinary language, moreover, the word _breath_ does not mean a mere motion but a substance to which motion belongs; we say,'the breath moves to and fro in inhalation and exhalation.'

Is breath, which we thus know to be a modification of air, to be considered as a kind of elementary substance, like fire, earth, and so on? Not so, the next Sutra replies.

9. But like the eye and the rest, on account of being taught with them, and for other reasons.

Breath is not an element, but like sight and the rest, a special instrument of the soul. This appears from the fact that the texts mention it together with the recognised organs of the soul, the eye, and so on; so e.g. in the colloquy of the pranas. And such common mention is suitable in the case of such things only as belong to one cla.s.s.--The 'and for other reasons' of the Sutra refers to the circ.u.mstance of the princ.i.p.al breath being specially mentioned among the organs comprised under the term 'prana'; cp. 'that princ.i.p.al breath' (Ch. Up. I, 2, 7); 'that central breath' (Bri. Up. I, 5, 21).--But if the chief breath is, like the eye and the other organs, an instrument of the soul, there must be some special form of activity through which it a.s.sists the soul, as the eye e.g. a.s.sists the soul by seeing. But no such activity is perceived, and the breath cannot therefore be put in the same category as the organs of sensation and action!--To this objection the next Sutra replies.

10. And there is no objection on account of its not having an activity (karana); for (Scripture) thus declares.

The karana of the Sutra means kriya, action. The objection raised on the ground that the princ.i.p.al breath does not exercise any form of activity helpful to the soul, is without force, since as a matter of fact Scripture declares that there is such an activity, in so far as the vital breath supports the body with all its organs. For the text (Ch. Up.

V, 1, 7 ff.) relates how on the successive departure of speech, and so on, the body and the other organs maintained their strength, while on the departure of the vital breath the body and all the organs at once became weak and powerless.--The conclusion therefore is that the breath, in its fivefold form of prana, apana, and so on, subserves the purposes of the individual soul, and thus occupies the position of an instrument, no less than the eye and the other organs.

But as those five forms of breath, viz. prana, udana, &c., have different names and functions they must be separate principles (and hence there is not _one_ princ.i.p.al breath)! To this the next Sutra replies.