The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary by Ramanuja Part 56

It thus appears that the text 'when all desires which once entered his heart are undone, then does the mortal become immortal, then he obtains Brahman' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 7), does not mean such immortality as would imply complete destruction of the state of bondage.

11. And to that very (subtle body) (there belongs) the warmth, this only being reasonable.

It is observed that when a man is about to die there is some warmth left in some part or parts of the gross body. Now this warmth cannot really belong to the gross body, for it is not observed in other parts of that body (while yet there is no reason why it should be limited to some part); but it may reasonably be attributed to the subtle body which may abide in some part of the gross body (and into which the warmth of the entire gross body has withdrawn itself). We therefore conclude that this partial perception of warmth is due to the departing subtle body. This confirms the view laid down in Sutra 7.--The next Sutra disposes of a further doubt raised as to the departure of the soul of him who knows.

12. If it be said that on account of the denial (it is not so); we deny this. From the embodied soul; for (that one is) clear, according to some.

The contention that the soul of him who knows departs from the body in the same way as other souls do cannot be upheld, since Scripture expressly negatives such departure. For Bri. Up. IV, 4, at first describes the mode of departure on the part of him who does not possess true knowledge ('He taking to himself those elements of light descends into the heart' up to 'after him thus departing the Prana departs'); then refers to his a.s.suming another body ('he makes to himself another, newer and more beautiful shape'); then concludes the account of him who does not possess true knowledge ('having attained the end of these works whatever he does here, he again returns from that world to this world of action. So much for the man who desires'); and thereupon proceeds explicitly to deny the departure from the body of him who possesses true knowledge, 'But he who does not desire, who is without desire, free from desire, who has obtained his desire, who desires the Self only, of him (tasya) the pranas do not pa.s.s forth,--being Brahman only he goes into Brahman.' Similarly a previous section also, viz. the one containing the questions put by rtabhaga, directly negatives the view of the soul of him who knows pa.s.sing out of the body. There the clause 'he again conquers death' introduces him who knows as the subject-matter, and after that the text continues: 'Yajnavalkya, he said, when that person dies, do the pranas pa.s.s out of him (asmat) or not?--No, said Yajnavalkya, they are gathered up in him (atraiva), he swells, inflated the dead lies' (Bri. Up. III, 2, 10-11). From these texts it follows that he who knows attains to immortality _here_ (without his soul pa.s.sing out of the body and moving to another place).--This view the Sutra rejects. 'Not so; from the embodied soul.' What those texts deny is the moving away of the pranas from the embodied individual soul, not from the body. 'Of him (tasya) the pranas do not pa.s.s forth'--here the 'of him' refers to the subject under discussion, i.e. the embodied soul which is introduced by the clause 'he who does not desire,' not to the body which the text had not previously mentioned. The sixth case (tasya) here denotes the embodied soul as that which is connected with the pranas ('the pranas belonging to that, i.e. the soul, do not pa.s.s out'), not as that from which the pa.s.sing out takes its start.--But why should the 'tasya' not denote the body as the point of starting ('the pranas do not pa.s.s forth from that (tasya), viz. the body')?--Because, we reply, the soul which is actually mentioned in its relation of connexion with the pranas (as indicated by tasya) suggests itself to the mind more immediately than the body which is not mentioned at all; if therefore the question arises as to the starting-point of the pa.s.sing forth of the pranas the soul is (on the basis of the text) apprehended as that starting-point also (i.e. the clause 'the pranas of him do not pa.s.s forth' implies at the same time 'the pranas do not pa.s.s forth from him, i.e. from the soul'). Moreover, as the pranas are well known to be connected with the soul and as hence it would serve no purpose to state that connexion, we conclude that the sixth case which expresses connexion in general is here meant to denote the starting-point in particular. And no dispute on this point is really possible; since 'according to some' it is 'clear' that what the text means to express is the embodied soul as the starting-point of the pranas. The _some_ are the Madhyandinas, who in their text of the Brihad-aranyaka read 'na tasmat prana utkramanti'--'the pranas do not pa.s.s forth _from _him' (the 'tasya' thus being the reading of the Kanva Sakha only).--But, an objection is raised, there is no motive for explicitly negativing the pa.s.sing away of the pranas from the soul; for there is no reason to a.s.sume that there should be such a pa.s.sing away (and the general rule is that a denial is made of that only for which there is a presumption).-- Not so, we reply. The Chandogya-text 'For him there is delay only as long as he is not delivered (from the body); then he will be united'

declares that the soul becomes united with Brahman at the time of its separation from the body, and this suggests the idea of the soul of him who knows separating itself at that very time (i.e. the time of death) from the pranas also. But this would mean that the soul cannot reach union with Brahman by means of proceeding on the path of the G.o.ds, and for this reason the Brihad-aranyaka ('of him the pranas do not pa.s.s forth') explicitly declares that the pranas do not depart from the soul of him who knows, before that soul proceeding on the path of the G.o.ds attains to union with Brahman.

The same line of refutation would have to be applied to the arguments founded by our opponent on the question of Artabhaga, if that question be viewed as referring to him who possesses true knowledge. The fact however is that that pa.s.sage refers to him who does _not_ possess that knowledge; for none of the questions and answers of which the section consists favours the presumption of the knowledge of Brahman being under discussion. The matters touched upon in those questions and answers are the nature of the senses and sense objects viewed as graha and atigraha; water being the food of fire; the non-separation of the pranas from the soul at the time of death; the continuance of the fame--there called _name_--of the dead man; and the attainment, on the part of the soul of the departed, to conditions of existence corresponding to his good or evil deeds. The pa.s.sage immediately preceding the one referring to the non-departure of the pranas merely means that death is conquered in so far as it is a fire and fire is the food of water; this has nothing to do with the owner of true knowledge. The statement that the pranas of the ordinary man who does not possess true knowledge do not depart means that at the time of death the pranas do not, like the gross body, abandon the jiva, but cling to it like the subtle body and accompany it.

13. Smriti also declares this.

Smriti also declares that the soul of him who knows departs by means of an artery of the head. 'Of those, one is situated above which pierces the disc of the sun and pa.s.ses beyond the world of Brahman; by way of that the soul reaches the highest goal' (Yajn. Smri. III, 167).--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'up to the beginning of the road.'

14. With the Highest; for thus it says.

It has been shown that at the time of departure from the body the soul together with the organs and pranas unites itself with the subtle elements, fire and the rest; and the notion that the soul of him who knows forms an exception has been disposed of. The further question now arises whether those subtle elements move on towards producing their appropriate effects, in accordance with the works or the nature of meditation (of some other soul with which those elements join themselves), or unite themselves with the highest Self.--The Purvapaks.h.i.+n holds that, as in the case of union with the highest Self, they could not give rise to their peculiar effects, i.e. the experience of pleasure and pain, they move towards some place where they can give rise to their appropriate effects.--Of this view the Sutra disposes.

They unite themselves with the highest Self; for Scripture declares 'warmth in the highest Being' (Ch. Up. VI, 8, 6). And the doings of those elements must be viewed in such a way as to agree with Scripture.

As in the states of deep sleep and a pralaya, there is, owing to union with the highest Self, a cessation of all experience of pain and pleasure; so it is in the case under question also.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'union with the Highest.'

15. Non-division, according to statement.

Is this union with the highest Self to be understood as ordinary 'merging,' i.e. a return on the part of the effected thing into the condition of the cause (as when the jar is reduced to the condition of a lump of clay), or as absolute non-division from the highest Self, such as is meant in the clauses preceding the text last quoted, 'Speech is merged in mind'? &c.--The former view is to be adopted; for as the highest Self is the causal substance of all, union with it means the return on the part of individual beings into the condition of that causal substance.--This view the Sutra rejects. Union here means non- division, i.e. connexion of such kind that those subtle elements are altogether incapable of being thought and spoken of as separate from Brahman. This the text itself declares, since the clause 'warmth in the highest Being' is connected with and governed by the preceding clause 'Speech is merged in mind.' This preceding clause intimates a special kind of connexion, viz. absolute non-separation, and there is nothing to prove that the dependent clause means to express something different; nor is there any reason why at the time of the soul's departure those elements should enter into the causal condition; nor is there anything said about their again proceeding from the causal substance in a new creation.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'non-separation.'

16. A lighting up of the point of the abode of that; having the door illuminated by that (the soul), owing to the power of its knowledge and the application of remembrance of the way which is an element of that (viz. of knowledge), being a.s.sisted by him who abides within the heart, (pa.s.ses out) by way of the hundred and first artery.

So far it has been shown that, up to the beginning of the journey, the souls of them as well who possess true knowledge as of those who do not, pa.s.s out of the body in the same way. Now a difference is stated in the case of those who have true knowledge. We have on this point the following text: 'There are a hundred and one arteries of the heart; one of them penetrates the crown of the head; moving upwards by that a man reaches immortality; the others serve for departing in different directions' (Ch. Up. VIII, 6, 5). The doubt here arises whether he who knows departs by this hundred and first artery in the top of the head, while those who do not know depart by way of the other arteries; or whether there is no definite rule on this point.--There is no definite rule, the Purvapaks.h.i.+n holds. For as the arteries are many and exceedingly minute, they are difficult to distinguish, and the soul therefore is not able to follow any particular one. The text therefore (is not meant to make an original authoritative statement as to different arteries being followed by different souls, but) merely refers in an informal way to what is already settled (viz. by the reason of the thing), i.e. the casual departure of any soul by any artery.--This view the Sutra rejects 'By way of the hundred and first.' The soul of him who possesses true knowledge departs only by way of the hundred and first artery in the crown of the head. Nor is that soul unable to distinguish that particular artcry. For, through the power of his supremely clear knowledge which has the effect of pleasing the Supreme Person, and through the application of remembrance of the way--which remembrance is a part of that knowledge--the soul of him who knows wins the favour of the Supreme Person who abides within the heart, and is a.s.sisted by him.

Owing to this the abode of that, i.e. the heart which is the abode of the soul, is illuminated, lit up at its tip, and thus, through the grace of the Supreme Soul, the individual soul has the door (of egress from the body) lit up and is able to recognise that artery. There is thus no objection to the view that the soul of him who knows pa.s.ses out by way of that particular artery only.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the abode of that.'

17. Following the rays.

Scripture teaches that the soul of him who knows, after having pa.s.sed forth from the heart by way of the hundred and first artery, follows the rays of the sun and thus reaches the disc of the sun: 'when he departs from this body he goes upwards by these rays only' (eva) (Ch. Up. VIII, 6, 5). The idea here suggests itself that the going of the soul cannot be exclusively bound' to those rays, since when a man dies during the night it _cannot_ follow tae rays of the sun. Hence the text quoted above can refer only to a part of the actual cases.--This view the Sutra rejects. The soul moves upwards, following the rays only; the text expressly a.s.serting this by means of the 'eva'--which would be out of place were there any alternative. Nor is there any strength in the argument that the soul of him who dies at night cannot follow the rays as there are none. For in summer the experience of heat at night-time shows that there are present rays then also; while in winter, as generally in bad weather, that heat is overpowered by cold and hence is not perceived (although actually present). Scripture moreover states that the arteries and rays are at all times mutually connected: 'As a very long highway goes to two villages, so the rays of the sun go to both worlds, to this one and to the other. They stretch themselves forth from the sun and enter into these arteries'; they stretch themselves forth from these arteries and enter into yonder sun' (Ch. Up. VIII, 6, 2).--As thus there are rays at night also, the souls of those who know reach Brahman by way of the rays only.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the following up the rays.'

18. Should it be said, not in the night; we say, no; because the connexion persists as long as the body does. Scripture also declares this.

It is now enquired into whether the soul of him who, while having true knowledge, dies at night reaches Brahman or not. Although, as solar rays exist at night, the soul may move on at night also following those rays; yet, since dying at night is spoken of in the Sutras as highly objectionable, we conclude that he who dies at night cannot accomplish the highest end of man, viz. attainment to Brahman. The Sutras eulogize death occurring in daytime and object to death at night-time: 'Day-time, the bright half of the month and the northern progress of the sun are excellent for those about to die; the contrary times are unfavourable.'

According to this, their different nature, dying in day-time may be a.s.sumed to lead to a superior state of existence, and dying at night to an inferior state. He who dies at night cannot therefore ascend to Brahman.--This view the Sutra refutes: 'Because, in the case of him who knows, the connexion with works exists as long as the body does.' This is to say--since those works which have not yet begun to produce their results and which are the cause of future inferior states of existence are destroyed by the contact with knowledge, while at the same time later works do not 'cling' (also owing to the presence of true knowledge), and those works which have begun to act come to an end with the existence of the last body; there is no reason why he who knows should remain in bondage, and hence he reaches Brahman even if dying at night-time. Scripture also declares this, 'for him there is delay only as long as he is not freed from the body, then he will be united.' The text which praises the advantages of night-time, the light half of the month, &c., therefore must be understood as referring to those who do not possess true knowledge.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'night.'

19. For the same reason also during the southern progress of the sun.

The reasoning stated above also proves that the owner of true knowledge who may happen to die during the southern progress of the sun reaches Brahman. A further doubt, however, arises here. The text 'He who dies during the sun's southern progress reaches the greatness of the Fathers and union with the moon' (Mahanar. Up. 25) declares that he who dies during the southern progress reaches the moon; and the other text 'when this ceases they return again the same way' (Bri. Up. VI, 2, 16) states that he returns again to the earth. We further know that Bhishma and others, although fully possessing the knowledge of Brahman, put off their death until the beginning of the northern progress. All this seems to prove that he who dies during the southern progress does not reach Brahman.--This doubt we dispose of as follows. Those only who do not possess true knowledge return from the moon; while he who has such knowledge does not return even after he has gone to the moon. For a complementary clause in the Mahanarayana Up., 'from there he reaches the greatness of Brahman,' shows that the abode in the moon forms for him, who having died during the southern progress wishes to reach Brahman, a mere stage of rest. And even if there were no such complementary pa.s.sage, it would follow from the previously stated absence of any reason for bondage that the going of the wise man's soul to the moon in no way precludes his reaching Brahman. Bhishma and others who through the power of Yoga were able to choose the time of their death put it off until the beginning of the northern progress in order to proclaim before the world the excellence of that season and thus to promote pious faith and practice.--But we also meet with an authoritative statement made with reference to wise men about to die, as to difference of time of death being the cause of a man either returning or not returning to this world, 'I will declare at which time the Yogins departing return not, and also the time at which they return. The sire, the light, the day, the bright fortnight, the six months of the sun's northern progress--the knowers of Brahman departing there go to Brahman. The smoke, the night, the dark fortnight, the six months of the southern progress--the Yogin departing there having reached the light of the moon returns again. These are held to be the perpetual paths of the world--the white and the black; by the one man goes not to return, by the other he returns again' (Bha. Gi.

VIII, 23-26).--To this point the next Sutra refers.

20. And those two (paths) are, with a view to the Yogins, mentioned as to be remembered.

The text quoted does not state an injunction for those about to die, of a special time of death; but there are rather mentioned in it those two matters belonging to Smriti and therefore to be remembered, viz. the two paths--the path of the G.o.ds and the path of the Fathers--with a view to those who know and practise Yoga; the text intimating that Yogins should daily think of those paths which are included in Yoga meditation. In agreement herewith the text concludes, 'Knowing these two paths no Yogin is ever deluded. Hence in all times, O Arjuna, be engaged in Yoga' (Bha.

Gi. VIII, 27). Through the terms 'the fire, the light,' 'the smoke, the night,' &c. the path of the G.o.ds and the path of the Fathers are recognised. Where, in the beginning, the text refers to 'the time when,'

the word 'time' must be understood to denote the divine beings ruling time, since Fire and the rest cannot be time. What the Bha. Gi. aims at therefore is to enjoin on men possessing true knowledge the remembrance of that path of the G.o.ds originally enjoined in the text, 'they go to light' (Ch. Up. IV, 15, 10); not to determine the proper time of dying for those about to die.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the southern progress.'

THIRD PADA.

1. On the path beginning with light, that being known.

The Sutras now go on to determine the road which the soul of the wise man follows, after having--a.s.sisted by the Person within the heart-- pa.s.sed out of the body by way of one particular artery. Now of that road various accounts are given in Scripture. There is a detailed account in the Chandogya. (IV, 15), 'now whether people perform obsequies for him or not,' &c. Another account is given in the eighth book of the same Upanishad, 'then he moves upwards by those very rays' (VIII, 6, 5).

The Kaus.h.i.+takins again give a different account: 'He having reached the path of the G.o.ds comes to the world of Agni,' &c. (Kau. Up. I, 3).

Different again in the Brihad-aranyaka: 'Those who thus know this and those who in the forest meditate on faith and the True,' &c. (Bri. Up.

VI, 2, 15). The same Upanishad, in another place (V, 10), gives a different account: 'When the person goes away from this world he comes to the wind,' &c.--A doubt here arises whether all these texts mean to give instruction as to one and the same road--the first stage of which is light--having to be followed by the soul of the wise man; or whether they describe different roads on any of which the soul may proceed.--The Purvapaks.h.i.+n holds the latter view; for he says the roads described differ in nature and are independent one of the other.--This view the Sutra disposes of. All texts mean one and the same road only, viz. the one beginning with light, and the souls proceed on that road only. For that road is known, i.e. is recognised in all the various descriptions, although it is, in different texts, described with more or less fulness.

We therefore have to proceed here as in the case of the details (guna) which are mentioned in different meditations referring to one and the same object, i.e. we have to combine the details mentioned in different places into one whole. The two Chaandogya-texts--the one in the Upakosalavidya and the one in the Vidya of the five fires--describe exactly the same road. And in the Vidya of the five fires as given in the Brihad-aranyaka the same road, beginning with light, is also described, although there are differences in minor points; we therefore recognise the road described in the Chandogya. And in the other texts also we everywhere recognise the divinities of certain stages of the road, Agni, Aditya, and so on.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'that which begins with light.'