Part 26

To this we make the following reply.--The word Vai/s/vânara denotes the highest Self, on account of the distinction qualifying the two general terms.--Although the term 'Self,' as well as the term 'Vai/s/vânara,' has various meanings--the latter term denoting three beings while the former denotes two--yet we observe a distinction from which we conclude that both terms can here denote the highest Lord only; viz. in the passage, 'Of that Vai/s/vânara Self the head is Sutejas,' &c. For it is clear that that passage refers to the highest Lord in so far as he is distinguished by having heaven, and so on, for his head and limbs, and in so far as he has entered into a different state (viz. into the state of being the Self of the threefold world); represents him, in fact, for the purpose of meditation, as the internal Self of everything. As such the absolute Self may be represented, because it is the cause of everything; for as the cause virtually contains all the states belonging to its effects, the heavenly world, and so on, may be spoken of as the members of the highest Self.--Moreover, the result which Scripture declares to abide in all worlds--viz. in the passage, 'He eats food in all worlds, in all beings, in all Selfs'--is possible only if we take the term Vai/s/vânara to denote the highest Self.--The same remark applies to the declaration that all the sins are burned of him who has that knowledge, 'Thus all his sins are burned,' &c. (Ch. Up. V, 24, 3).--Moreover, we meet at the beginning of the chapter with the words 'Self' and 'Brahman;' viz. in the passage, 'What is our Self, what is Brahman?' Now these are marks of Brahman, and indicate the highest Lord only. Hence he only can be meant by the term Vai/s/vânara.

25. (And) because that which is stated by Sm/ri/ti (i.e. the shape of the highest Lord as described by Sm/ri/ti) is an inference (i.e. an indicatory mark from which we infer the meaning of /S/ruti).

The highest Lord only is Vai/s/vânara, for that reason also that Sm/ri/ti ascribes to the highest Lord only a shape consisting of the threefold world, the fire constituting his mouth, the heavenly world his head, &c. So, for instance, in the following passage, 'He whose mouth is fire, whose head the heavenly world, whose navel the ether, whose feet the earth, whose eye the sun, whose ears the regions, reverence to him the Self of the world.' The shape described here in Sm/ri/ti allows us to infer a /S/ruti passage on which the Sm/ri/ti rests, and thus constitutes an inference, i.e. a sign indicatory of the word 'Vai/s/vânara' denoting the highest Lord. For, although the quoted Sm/ri/ti passage contains a glorification[155], still even a glorification in the form in which it there appears is not possible, unless it has a Vedic passage to rest on.--Other Sm/ri/ti passages also may be quoted in connexion with this Sûtra, so, for instance, the following one, 'He whose head the wise declare to be the heavenly world, whose navel the ether, whose eyes sun and moon, whose ears the regions, and whose feet the earth, he is the inscrutable leader of all beings.'

26. If it be maintained that (Vai/s/vânara is) not (the highest Lord) on account of the term (viz. Vai/s/vânara, having a settled different meaning), &c., and on account of his abiding within (which is a characteristic of the gastric fire); (we say) no, on account of the perception (of the highest Lord), being taught thus (viz. in the gastric fire), and on account of the impossibility (of the heavenly world, &c. being the head, &c. of the gastric fire), and because they (the Vâjasaneyins) read of him (viz. the Vai/s/vânara) as man (which term cannot apply to the gastric fire).

Here the following objection is raised.--Vai/s/vânara cannot be the highest Lord, on account of the term, &c., and on account of the abiding within. The term, viz. the term Vai/s/vânara, cannot be applied to the highest Lord, because the settled use of language assigns to it a different sense. Thus, also, with regard to the term Agni (fire) in the passage (/S/at. Brâ. X, 6, 1, 11), 'He is the Agni Vai/s/vânara.' The word '&c.' (in the Sûtra) hints at the fiction concerning the three sacred fires, the gârhapatya being represented as the heart, and so on, of the Vai/s/vânara Self (Ch. Up. V, 18, 2[156]).--Moreover, the passage, 'Therefore the first food which a man may take is in the place of homa' (Ch. Up. V, 19, 1), contains a glorification of (Vai/s/vânara) being the abode of the oblation to Prâ/n/a[157]. For these reasons we have to understand by Vai/s/vânara the gastric fire.--Moreover, Scripture speaks of the Vai/s/vânara as abiding within. 'He knows him abiding within man;' which again applies to the gastric fire only.--With reference to the averment that on account of the specifications contained in the passage, 'His head is Sutejas,' &c., Vai/s/vânara is to be explained as the highest Self, we (the pûrvapakshin) ask: How do you reach the decision that those specifications, although agreeing with both interpretations, must be assumed to refer to the highest Lord only, and not to the gastric fire?--Or else we may assume that the passage speaks of the elemental fire which abides within and without; for that that fire is also connected with the heavenly world, and so on, we understand from the mantra, 'He who with his light has extended himself over earth and heaven, the two halves of the world, and the atmosphere' (/Ri/g-veda Sa/m/h. X, 88, 3).--Or else the attribute of having the heavenly world, and so on, for its members may, on account of its power, be attributed to that divinity which has the elemental fire for its body.--Therefore Vai/s/vânara is not the highest Lord.

To all this we reply as follows.--Your assertions are unfounded, 'because there is taught the perception in this manner.' The reasons (adduced in the former part of the Sûtra), viz. the term, and so on, are not sufficient to make us abandon the interpretation according to which Vai/s/vânara is the highest Lord.--Why?--On account of perception being taught in this manner, i.e. without the gastric fire being set aside. For the passages quoted teach the perception of the highest Lord in the gastric fire, analogously to such passages as 'Let a man meditate on the mind as Brahman' (Ch. Up. III, 18, 1).--Or else they teach that the object of perception is the highest Lord, in so far as he has the gastric fire called Vai/s/vânara for his limiting condition; analogously to such passages as 'He who consists of mind, whose body is breath, whose form is light' (Ch. Up. III, 14, 2[158]). If it were the aim of the passages about the Vai/s/vânara to make statements not concerning the highest Lord, but merely concerning the gastric fire, there would be no possibility of specifications such as contained in the passage 'His head is Sutejas,' &c. That also on the assumption of Vai/s/vânara being either the divinity of fire or the elemental fire no room is to be found for the said specifications, we shall show under the following Sûtra.--Moreover, if the mere gastric fire were meant, there would be room only for a declaration that it abides within man, not that it is man. But, as a matter of fact, the Vâjasaneyins speak of him--in their sacred text--as man, 'This Agni Vai/s/vânara is man; he who knows this Agni Vai/s/vânara as man-like, as abiding within man,' &c. (/S/at. Brâ. X, 6, 1, 11). The highest Lord, on the other hand, who is the Self of everything, may be spoken of as well as man, as abiding within man.--Those who, in the latter part of the Sûtra, read 'man-like' (puru-shavidham) instead of 'man' (purusham), wish to express the following meaning: If Vai/s/vânara were assumed to be the gastric fire only, he might be spoken of as abiding within man indeed, but not as man-like. But the Vâjasaneyins do speak of him as man-like, 'He who knows him as man-like, as abiding within man.'--The meaning of the term man-like is to be concluded from the context, whence it will be seen that, with reference to nature, it means that the highest Lord has the heaven for his head, &c., and is based on the earth; and with reference to man, that he forms the head, &c., and is based on the chin (of the devout worshipper[159]).

27. For the same reasons (the Vai/s/vânara) cannot be the divinity (of fire), or the element (of fire).

The averment that the fanciful attribution of members contained in the passage 'His head is Sutejas,' &c. may apply to the elemental fire also which from the mantras is seen to be connected with the heavenly world, &c., or else to the divinity whose body is fire, on account of its power, is refuted by the following remark: For the reasons already stated Vai/s/vânara is neither the divinity nor the element. For to the elemental fire which is mere heat and light the heavenly world and so on cannot properly be ascribed as head and so on, because an effect cannot be the Self of another effect.--Again, the heavenly world cannot be ascribed as head, &c. to the divinity of fire, in spite of the power of the latter; for, on the one hand, it is not a cause (but a mere effect), and on the other hand its power depends on the highest Lord. Against all these interpretations there lies moreover the objection founded on the inapplicability of the term 'Self.'

28. Jaimini (declares that there is) no contradiction even on the assumption of a direct (worship of the highest Lord as Vai/s/vânara).

Above (Sûtra 26) it has been said that Vai/s/vânara is the highest Lord, to be meditated upon as having the gastric fire either for his outward manifestation or for his limiting condition; which interpretation was accepted in deference to the circumstance that he is spoken of as abiding within--and so on.--The teacher Jaimini however is of opinion that it is not necessary to have recourse to the assumption of an outward manifestation or limiting condition, and that there is no objection to refer the passage about Vai/s/vânara to the direct worship of the highest Lord.--But, if you reject the interpretation based on the gastric fire, you place yourself in opposition to the statement that Vai/s/vânara abides within, and to the reasons founded on the term, &c. (Sû. 26).--To this we reply that we in no way place ourselves in opposition to the statement that Vai/s/vânara abides within. For the passage, 'He knows him as man-like, as abiding within man,' does not by any means refer to the gastric fire, the latter being neither the general topic of discussion nor having been mentioned by name before.--What then does it refer to?--It refers to that which forms the subject of discussion, viz. that similarity to man (of the highest Self) which is fancifully found in the members of man from the upper part of the head down to the chin; the text therefore says, 'He knows him as man-like, as abiding within man,' just as we say of a branch that it abides within the tree[160].--Or else we may adopt another interpretation and say that after the highest Self has been represented as having the likeness to man as a limiting condition, with regard to nature as well as to man, the passage last quoted ('He knows him as abiding within man') speaks of the same highest Self as the mere witness (sâkshin; i.e. as the pure Self, non-related to the limiting conditions).--The consideration of the context having thus shown that the highest Self has to be resorted to for the interpretation of the passage, the term 'Vai/s/vânara' must denote the highest Self in some way or other. The word 'Vi/s/vânara' is to be explained either as 'he who is all and man (i.e. the individual soul),' or 'he to whom souls belong' (in so far as he is their maker or ruler), and thus denotes the highest Self which is the Self of all. And the form 'Vai/s/vânara' has the same meaning as 'Vi/s/vânara,' the taddhita-suffix, by which the former word is derived from the latter, not changing the meaning; just as in the case of râkshasa (derived from rakshas), and vâyasa (derived from vayas).--The word 'Agni' also may denote the highest Self if we adopt the etymology agni=agra/n/î, i.e. he who leads in front.--As the Gârhapatya-fire finally, and as the abode of the oblation to breath the highest Self may be represented because it is the Self of all.

But, if it is assumed that Vai/s/vânara denotes the highest Self, how can Scripture declare that he is measured by a span?--On the explanation of this difficulty we now enter.

29. On account of the manifestation, so Â/s/marathya opines.

The circumstance of the highest Lord who transcends all measure being spoken of as measured by a span has for its reason 'manifestation.' The highest Lord manifests himself as measured by a span, i.e. he specially manifests himself for the benefit of his worshippers in some special places, such as the heart and the like, where he may be perceived. Hence, according to the opinion of the teacher Â/s/marathya, the scriptural passage which speaks of him who is measured by a span may refer to the highest Lord.

30. On account of remembrance; so Bâdari opines.

Or else the highest Lord may be called 'measured by a span' because he is remembered by means of the mind which is seated in the heart which is measured by a span. Similarly, barley-corns which are measured by means of prasthas are themselves called prasthas. It must be admitted that barley-grains themselves have a certain size which is merely rendered manifest through their being connected with a prastha measure; while the highest Lord himself does not possess a size to be rendered manifest by his connexion with the heart. Still the remembrance (of the Lord by means of the mind) may be accepted as offering a certain foundation for the /S/ruti passage concerning him who is measured by a span.--Or else[161] the Sûtra may be interpreted to mean that the Lord, although not really measured by a span, is to be remembered (meditated upon) as being of the measure of a span; whereby the passage is furnished with an appropriate sense.--Thus the passage about him who is measured by a span may, according to the opinion of the teacher Bâdari, be referred to the highest Lord, on account of remembrance.

31. On the ground of imaginative identification (the highest Lord may be called prâde/s/amâtra), Jaimini thinks; for thus (Scripture) declares.

Or else the passage about him who is measured by a span may be considered to rest on imaginative combination.--Why?--Because the passage of the Vâjasaneyibrâhma/n/a which treats of the same topic identifies heaven, earth, and so on--which are the members of Vai/s/vânara viewed as the Self of the threefold world--with certain parts of the human frame, viz. the parts comprised between the upper part of the head and the chin, and thus declares the imaginative identity of Vai/s/vânara with something whose measure is a span. There we read, 'The Gods indeed reached him, knowing him as measured by a span as it were. Now I will declare them (his members) to you so as to identify him (the Vai/s/vânara) with that whose measure is a span; thus he said. Pointing to the upper part of the head he said: This is what stands above (i.e. the heavenly world) as Vai/s/vânara (i.e. the head of Vai/s/vânara[162]). Pointing to the eyes he said: This is he with good light (i.e. the sun) as Vai/s/vânara (i.e. the eye of V.). Pointing to the nose he said: This is he who moves on manifold paths (i.e. the air) as Vai/s/vânara (i.e. the breath of V.). Pointing to the space (ether) within his mouth he said: This is the full one (i.e. the ether) as Vai/s/vânara. Pointing to the saliva within his mouth he said: This is wealth as Vai/s/vânara (i.e. the water in the bladder of V.). Pointing to the chin he said: This is the base as Vai/s/vânara (i.e. the feet of V.).'--Although in the Vâjasaneyi-brâhma/n/a the heaven is denoted as that which has the attribute of standing above and the sun as that which has the attribute of good light, while in the Chândogya the heaven is spoken of as having good light and the sun as being multiform; still this difference does not interfere (with the unity of the vidyâ)[163], because both texts equally use the term 'measured by a span,' and because all /s/âkhâs intimate the same.--The above explanation of the term 'measured by a span,' which rests on imaginative identification, the teacher Jaimini considers the most appropriate one.

32. Moreover they (the Jâbâlas) speak of him (the highest Lord) in that (i.e. the interstice between the top of the head and the chin which is measured by a span).

Moreover the Jâbâlas speak in their text of the highest Lord as being in the interstice between the top of the head and the chin. 'The unevolved infinite Self abides in the avimukta (i.e. the non-released soul). Where does that avimukta abide? It abides in the Vara/n/â and the Nâsî, in the middle. What is that Vara/n/â, what is that Nâsî?' The text thereupon etymologises the term Vara/n/â as that which wards off (vârayati) all evil done by the senses, and the term Nâsî as that which destroys (nâ/s/ayati) all evil done by the senses; and then continues, 'And what is its place?--The place where the eyebrows and the nose join. That is the joining place of the heavenly world (represented by the upper part of the head) and of the other (i.e. the earthly world represented by the chin).' (Jâbâla Up. I.)--Thus it appears that the scriptural statement which ascribes to the highest Lord the measure of a span is appropriate. That the highest Lord is called abhivimâna refers to his being the inward Self of all. As such he is directly measured, i.e. known by all animate beings. Or else the word may be explained as 'he who is near everywhere--as the inward Self--and who at the same time is measureless' (as being infinite). Or else it may denote the highest Lord as him who, as the cause of the world, measures it out, i.e. creates it. By all this it is proved that Vai/s/vânara is the highest Lord.

Notes:

[Footnote 136: The clause 'he is to meditate with a calm mind' if taken as a gu/n/avidhi, i.e. as enjoining some secondary matter, viz. calmness of mind of the meditating person, cannot at the same time enjoin meditation; for that would involve a so-called split of the sentence (vâkyabheda).]

[Footnote 137: Jîvezpi dehâdib/rim/hanâj jyâstvanyâyâd vâ brahmatety artha/h/. Ân. Gi.]

[Footnote 138: The discussion is brought on by the term 'vivakshita' in the Sûtra whose meaning is 'expressed, aimed at,' but more literally 'desired to be expressed.']

[Footnote 139: Because he is vyâpin.]

[Footnote 140: Another interpretation of the later part of Sûtra.]

[Footnote 141: Cp. Ka/th/a Up, I, 1, 13; 20; I, 2, 14.]

[Footnote 142: Freedom from impurity can result only from the knowledge that the individual soul is in reality Brahman. The commentators explain rajas by avidyâ.]

[Footnote 143: Tadartham iti, jîvasya brahmasiddhyartham iti yâvat, /k/aitanya/kh/âyâpannâ dhî/h/sukhâdinâ pari/n/amata iti, tatra purushozpi bhakt/ri/tvam ivânubhavati na tattvata iti vaktum adhyâropayati. Ânanda Giri.]

[Footnote 144: Who, somebody might say, is to be understood here, because immortality and similar qualities belong to him not somehow only, but in their true sense.]

[Footnote 145: The /t/îkâs say that the contents of this last sentence are hinted at by the word 'and' in the Sûtra.]

[Footnote 146: I.e. at the beginning of the instruction which the sacred fires give to Upako/s/ala, Ch. Up. IV, 10 ff.]

[Footnote 147: Which words conclude the instruction given by the fires, and introduce the instruction given by the teacher, of which the passage 'the person that is seen in the eye,' &c. forms a part.]

[Footnote 148: Â/s/rayântarapratyayasyâ/s/rayântare kshepa/h/ pratîka/h/, yathâ brahma/s/abda/h/ paramâtmavishayo nâmâdishu kshipyate. Bhâ.]

[Footnote 149: The following sentences give the reason why, although there is only one Brahman, the word Brahman is repeated.]

[Footnote 150: According to Scripture, Nira@nku/s/a/m/ sarvaniyantritva/m/ /s/rauta/m/ na /k/a tâdri/s/e sarvaniyantari bhedo na /k/ânumâna/m/ /s/rutibhâditam uttish/th/ati. Ânanda Giri. Or else, as Go. Ân. remarks, we may explain: as the highest Self is not really different from the individual soul. So also Bhâmatî: Na /h/ânavasthâ, na hi niyantrantara/m/ tena niyamyate ki/m/ tu yo jîvo niyantâ lokasiddha/h/ sa paramâtmevopâdhyava/kkh/edakalpitabheda/h/.]

[Footnote 151: V/ri/ttik/ri/dvyâkhyâm dûshayati, Go. Ân.; ekade/s/ina/m/ dûshayati, Ânanda Giri; tad etat paramatenâkshepasamâdhânâbhyâ/m/ vyâkhyâya svamatena vyâ/k/ash/t/e, puna/h/ /s/abdozpi pûrvasmâd vi/s/esha/m/ dyotayann asyesh/t/atâ/m/ sû/k/ayati, Bhâmatî.--The statement of the two former commentators must be understood to mean--in agreement with the Bhâmatî--that /S/a@nkara is now going to refute the preceding explanation by the statement of his own view. Thus Go. Ân. later on explains 'asmin pakshe' by 'svapakshe.']

[Footnote 152: The question is to what passage the 'rûpopanyâsât' of the Sûtra refers.--According to the opinion set forth first it refers to Mu. Up. II, 1, 4 ff.--But, according to the second view, II, 1, 4 to II, 1, 9, cannot refer to the source of all beings, i.e. the highest Self, because that entire passage describes the creation, the inner Self of which is not the highest Self but Prajâpati, i.e. the Hira/n/yagarbha or Sûtrâtman of the later Vedânta, who is himself an 'effect,' and who is called the inner Self, because he is the breath of life (prâ/n/a) in everything.--Hence the Sûtra must be connected with another passage, and that passage is found in II, 1, 10, where it is said that the Person (i.e. the highest Self) is all this, &c.]

[Footnote 153: About which term see later on.]

[Footnote 154: Sârîre laksha/n/ayâ vai/s/vânara/s/abdopapattim âha tasyeti. Ân. Gi.]

[Footnote 155: And as such might be said not to require a basis for its statements.]

[Footnote 156: Na /k/a gârhapatyâdih/ri/dayâditâ brahma/n/a/h/ sambhavinî. Bhâmatî.]

[Footnote 157: Na /k/a prâ/n/âhutyadhikara/n/atâ z nyatra ja/th/arâgner yujyate. Bhâmatî.]

[Footnote 158: According to the former explanation the gastric fire is to be looked on as the outward manifestation (pratîka) of the highest Lord; according to the latter as his limiting condition.]

[Footnote 159: I.e. that he may be fancifully identified with the head and so on of the devout worshipper.]

[Footnote 160: Whereby we mean not that it is inside the tree, but that it forms a part of the tree.--The Vai/s/vânara Self is identified with the different members of the body, and these members abide within, i.e. form parts of the body.]

[Footnote 161: Parimâ/n/asya h/ri/da/y/advârâropitasya smaryamâ/n/e katham âropo vishayavishayitvena bhedâd ity â/s/a@nkya vyâkhyântaram âha prâde/s/eti. Ânanda Giri.]

[Footnote 162: Atra sarvatra vai/s/vânara/s/abdas tada@ngapara/h/. Go. Ân.]

[Footnote 163: Which unity entitles us to use the passage from the /S/at. Brâ. for the explanation of the passage from the Ch. Up.]

THIRD PÂDA.

REVERENCE TO THE HIGHEST SELF!

1. The abode of heaven, earth, and so on (is Brahman), on account of the term 'own,' i.e. Self.

We read (Mu. Up. II, 2, 5), 'He in whom the heaven, the earth, and the sky are woven, the mind also with all the vital airs, know him alone as the Self, and leave off other words! He is the bridge of the Immortal.'--Here the doubt arises whether the abode which is intimated by the statement of the heaven and so on being woven in it is the highest Brahman or something else.