Reading section 5

Adhik. XII (18) defines the nature of the individual soul. The Sûtra declares that the soul is 'j/ñ/a.' This means, according to /S/a@nkara, that intelligence or knowledge does not, as the Vai/s/eshikas teach, constitute a mere attribute of the soul which in itself is essentially non-intelligent, but is the very essence of the soul. The soul is not a knower, but knowledge; not intelligent, but intelligence.--Râmânuja, on the other hand, explains 'j/ñ/a' by 'j/ñ/at/ri/,' i.e. knower, knowing agent, and considers the Sûtra to be directed not only against the Vai/s/eshikas, but also against those philosophers who--like the Sâ@nkhyas and the Vedântins of /S/a@nkara's school--maintain that the soul is not a knowing agent, but pure /k/aitanya.--The wording of the Sûtra certainly seems to favour Râmânuja's interpretation; we can hardly imagine that an author definitely holding the views of /S/a@nkara should, when propounding the important dogma of the soul's nature, use the term j/ñ/a of which the most obvious interpretation j/ñ/ât/ri/, not j/ñ/ânam.

Adhik. XIII (19-32) treats the question whether the individual soul is a/n/u, i.e. of very minute size, or omnipresent, all-pervading (sarvagata, vyâpin). Here, again, we meet with diametrically opposite views.--In /S/a@nkara's opinion the Sûtras 19-38 represent the pûrvapaksha view, according to which the jîva is a/n/u, while Sûtra 29 formulates the siddhânta, viz. that the jîva, which in reality is all-pervading, is spoken of as a/n/u in some scriptural passages, because the qualities of the internal organ--which itself is a/n/u--constitute the essence of the individual soul as long as the latter is implicated in the sa/m/sâra.--According to Râmânuja, on the other hand, the first Sûtra of the adhikara/n/a gives utterance to the siddhânta view, according to which the soul is of minute size; the Sûtras 20-25 confirm this view and refute objections raised against it; while the Sûtras 26-29 resume the question already mooted under Sûtra 18, viz. in what relation the soul as knowing agent (j/ñ/ât/ri/) stands to knowledge (j/ñ/âna).--In order to decide between the conflicting claims of these two interpretations we must enter into some details.--/S/a@nkara maintains that Sûtras 19-28 state and enforce a pûrvapaksha view, which is finally refuted in 29. What here strikes us at the outset, is the unusual length to which the defence of a mere primâ facie view is carried; in no other place the Sûtras take so much trouble to render plausible what is meant to be rejected in the end, and an unbiassed reader will certainly feel inclined to think that in 19-28 we have to do, not with the preliminary statement of a view finally to be abandoned, but with an elaborate bonâ fide attempt to establish and vindicate an essential dogma of the system. Still it is not altogether impossible that the pûrvapaksha should here be treated at greater length than usual, and the decisive point is therefore whether we can, with /S/a@nkara, look upon Sûtra 29 as embodying a refutation of the pûrvapaksha and thus implicitly acknowledging the doctrine that the individual soul is all-pervading. Now I think there can be no doubt that /S/a@nkara's interpretation of the Sûtra is exceedingly forced. Literally translated (and leaving out the non-essential word 'prâj/ñ/avat') the Sûtra runs as follows: 'But on account of that quality (or "those qualities;" or else "on account of the quality--or qualities--of that") being the essence, (there is) that designation (or "the designation of that").' This /S/a@nkara maintains to mean, 'Because the qualities of the buddhi are the essence of the soul in the sa/m/sâra state, therefore the soul itself is sometimes spoken of as a/n/u.' Now, in the first place, nothing in the context warrants the explanation of the first 'tat' by buddhi. And--which is more important--in the second place, it is more than doubtful whether on /S/a@nkara's own system the qualities of the buddhi--such as pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, &c.--can with any propriety be said to constitute the essence of the soul even in the sa/m/sâra state. The essence of the soul in whatever state, according to /S/a@nkara's system, is knowledge or intelligence; whatever is due to its association with the buddhi is non-essential or, more strictly, unreal, false.

There are no similar difficulties in the way of Râmânuja's interpretation of the adhikara/n/a. He agrees with /S/a@nkara in the explanation of Sûtras 19-35, with this difference that he views them as setting forth, not the pûrvapaksha, but the siddhânta. Sûtras 26-28 also are interpreted in a manner not very different from /S/a@nkara's, special stress being laid on the distinction made by Scripture between knowledge as a mere quality and the soul as a knowing agent, the substratum of knowledge. This discussion naturally gives rise to the question how it is that Scripture in some places makes use of the term vij/ñ/âna when meaning the individual soul. The answer is given in Sûtra 29, 'The soul is designated as knowledge because it has that quality for its essence,' i.e. because knowledge is the essential characteristic quality of the soul, therefore the term 'knowledge' is employed here and there to denote the soul itself. This latter interpretation gives rise to no doubt whatever. It closely follows the wording of the text and does not necessitate any forced supplementation. The 'tu' of the Sûtra which, according to /S/a@nkara, is meant to discard the pûrvapaksha, serves on Râmânuja's view to set aside a previously-raised objection; an altogether legitimate assumption.

Of the three remaining Sûtras of the adhikara/n/a (30-32), 30 explains, according to /S/a@nkara, that the soul may be called a/n/u, since, as long as it exists in the sa/m/sâra condition, it is connected with the buddhi. According to Râmânuja the Sûtra teaches that the soul may be called vij/ñ/âna because the latter constitutes its essential quality as long as it exists.--Sûtra 31 intimates, according to /S/a@nkara, that in the states of deep sleep, and so on, the soul is potentially connected with the buddhi, while in the waking state that connexion becomes actually manifest. The same Sûtra, according to Râmânuja, teaches that j/ñ/ât/ri/tva is properly said to constitute the soul's essential nature, although it is actually manifested in some states of the soul only.--In Sûtra 32, finally, /S/a@nkara sees a statement of the doctrine that, unless the soul had the buddhi for its limiting adjunct, it would either be permanently cognizing or permanently non-cognizing; while, according to Râmânuja, the Sûtra means that the soul would either be permanently cognizing or permanently non-cognizing, if it were pure knowledge and all-pervading (instead of being /jñ/ât/ri/ and a/n/u, as it is in reality).--The three Sûtras can be made to fit in with either interpretation, although it must be noted that none of them explicitly refers to the soul's connexion with the buddhi.

Adhik. XIV and XV (33-39; 40) refer to the kart/ri/tva of the jîva, i.e. the question whether the soul is an agent. Sûtras 33-39 clearly say that it is such. But as, according to /S/a@nkara's system, this cannot be the final view,--the soul being essentially non-active, and all action belonging to the world of upâdhis,--he looks upon the next following Sûtra (40) as constituting an adhikara/n/a by itself, and teaching that the soul is an agent when connected with the instruments of action, buddhi, &c., while it ceases to be so when dissociated from them, 'just as the carpenter acts in both ways,' i.e. just as the carpenter works as long as he wields his instruments, and rests after having laid them aside.--Râmânuja, perhaps more naturally, does not separate Sûtra 40 from the preceding Sûtras, but interprets it as follows: Activity is indeed an essential attribute of the soul; but therefrom it does not follow that the soul is always actually active, just as the carpenter, even when furnished with the requisite instruments, may either work or not work, just as he pleases.

Adhik. XVI (41, 42) teaches that the soul in its activity is dependent on the Lord who impels it with a view to its former actions.

Adhik. XVII (43-53) treats of the relation of the individual soul to Brahman. Sûtra 43 declares that the individual soul is a part (a/ms/a) of Brahman, and the following Sûtras show how that relation does not involve either that Brahman is affected by the imperfections, sufferings, &c. of the souls, or that one soul has to participate in the experiences of other souls. The two commentators of course take entirely different views of the doctrine that the soul is a part of Brahman. According to Râmânuja the souls are in reality parts of Brahman[14]; according to Sa@nkara the 'a/ms/a' of the Sûtra must be understood to mean 'a/ms/a iva,' 'a part as it were;' the one universal indivisible Brahman having no real parts, but appearing to be divided owing to its limiting adjuncts.--One Sûtra (50) in this adhikara/n/a calls for special notice. According to Sa@nkara the words 'âbhâsa eva /k/a' mean '(the soul is) a mere reflection,' which, as the commentators remark, is a statement of the so-called pratibimbavâda, i.e. the doctrine that the so-called individual soul is nothing but the reflection of the Self in the buddhi; while Sûtra 43 had propounded the so-called ava/kkh/edavâda, i.e. the doctrine that the soul is the highest Self in so far as limited by its adjuncts.--According to Râmânuja the âbhâsa of the Sûtra has to be taken in the sense of hetvâbhâsa, a fallacious argument, and the Sûtra is explained as being directed against the reasoning of those Vedântins according to whom the soul is Brahman in so far as limited by non-real adjuncts[15].

PÂDA IV.

Adhik. I, II, III (1-4; 5-6; 7) teach that the prâ/n/as (by which generic name are denoted the buddhîndriyas, karmen-driyas, and the manas) spring from Brahman; are eleven in number; and are of minute size (a/n/u).

Adhik. IV, V, VI (8; 9-12; 13) inform us also that the mukhya prâ/n/a, i.e. the vital air, is produced from Brahman; that it is a principle distinct from air in general and from the prâ/n/as discussed above; and that it is minute (a/n/u).

Adhik. VII and VIII (14-16; 17-19) teach that the prâ/n/as are superintended and guided in their activity by special divinities, and that they are independent principles, not mere modifications of the mukhya prâ/n/a.

Adhik. IX (20-22) declares that the evolution of names and forms (the nâmarûpavyâkara/n/a) is the work, not of the individual soul, but of the Lord.

Notes:

[Footnote 13: Lokavat, Yathâ loke râja/s/âsanânuvartinâ/m/ /k/a râjânugrahanigrahak/ri/takhadukhayoges'pi na sa/s/arîraîvamâtre/n/a sâsake râjany api /s/âsanânuv/ri/ttyauv/ri/ttinimittasukhadukhayor bhokt/ri/vaprasa@nga/h/. Yathâha Drami/d/abhâshyakâra/h/ yathâ loke râjâ pra/k/uradanda/s/ûke ghores'narthasa/m/ka/t/es'pi prade/s/e vartamânoszpi vyajanâdyavadhûtadeho doshair na sprisyate abhipretâ/ms/ /k/a lokân paripipâlayishati bhogâ/ms/ /k/a gandhâdîn avi/s/vajanopabhogyân dhârayati tathâsau loke/s/varo bhramatsvasâmait/h/ya/k/amato doshair na sp/ris/yate rakshati /k/a lokân brahmalokâdi/ms/ /k/âvi/s/vajanopabhogyân dhârayatîti.]

[Footnote 14: Gîvasya kart/ri/tva/m/ paramapurushâyattam ity uktam. Idânîm kim aya/m/ gîva/h/ parasmâd atyantabhinna/h/ uta param eva brahma bhrântam uta brahmaivopâdhyava/kkh/innam atha brahmâ/ms/a iti sa/m/sayyate /s/rutivipraticpatte/h/ sa/m/saya/h/. Nanu tadananyam ârambha/n/a/s/abdâdibhya/h/ adhika/m/ tu bhedanirdesâd ity atraivâyam aitho nir/n/îta/h/ Satya/m/ sa eva nânâtvaikatva/s/rutivipratipattyâ skshipya jîvasya brahmâ/ms/atvopapâdanena vi/s/eshato nir/n/îyate. Yâvad dhi jîvasya brahmâ/m/satva/m/ na nir/n/îtam tâvaj jîvasya brahmanosnanyatva/m/ brahma/n/as tasmâd adhikatvâ/m/ /k/a na pratitish/th/ati. Ki/m/ tâvat prâptam. Atyanta/m/ bhinna iti. Kuta/h/. J/ñ/âj/ñ/nau dvâv ityâdibhedanirde/s/ât. J/ñ/âj/ñ/ayor abheda/s/rutayas tv agninâ si/ñk/ed itivad viruddhârthapratipâdanâd aupa/k/ârikya/h/, Brahma/n/os/ms/o jîva ity api na sâdhîya/h/, ekavastvekade/s/avâ/k/î hy a/ms/a/s/sabda/h/, jîvasya brahmaikade/s/atve tadgatâ doshâ brahma/n/i bhaveyu/h/. Na /k/a brahmakha/nd/o jîva ity a/ms/atvopapatti/h/ kha/nd/anânarhatvâd brahma/n/a/h/ prâguktadoshaprasa@ngâ/k/ /k/a, tasmâd atyantabhinnasya tada/ms/atva/m/ durupapâdam. Yadvâ bhrânta/m/ brahmaiva jîva/h/. Kuta/h/. Tat tvam asi ayam âtmâ brahmetyâdibrahmâtmabhâvopade/s/ât, nânâtmatvavâdinyas tu pratyakshâdisiddhârthânuvâditvâd ananyathâsiddhâdvaitopade/s/aparâbhi/h/ /s/rutibhi/h/ pratyakshâdaya/s/ /k/a avidyântargata/h/ khyâpyante.--Athavâ brahmaivânâdyupâdhyava/kkh/inna/m/ jîva/h/. Kuta/h/. Tata eva brahmâtmabhâvopade/s/at. Na /k/âyam upâdhir bhrântiparikalpita ita vaktu/m/ sakya/m/ bandhamokshâdivyavasthânupapatter. Ity eva/m/ prâtptesbhidhîyate. Brahmâ/ms/a iti. Kuta/h/. Nânâvyapade/s/âd anyathâ /k/aikatvena vyapade/s/âd ubhayathâ hi vyapade/s/o d/ris/yate. Nâvâvyapade/s/as tâvat srash/tri/tva/rig/yatva--niyant/ri/tvaniyâmyatva--sarvaj/ñ/atvâj/ñ/atva-- svâdhînatvaparâdhînatva--/s/uddhatvâ/s/uddhatva-- kalyâ/n/agu/n/âkaratvaviparîtatva--patitva/s/eshatvâdibhir d/ris/yate. Anyathâ /k/âbhedena vyapade/s/os pi tat tvam asi ayam âtmâ brahmetyâdibhir d/ris/yate. Api dâ/s/akitavâditvam apy adhîyate eke, brahma dâsâ brahma dâsâ brahmeme kitavâ ity âtharva/n/ikâ brahma/n/o dâ/s/akitavâditvam apy adhîyate, tata/s/ /k/a sarvajîvavyâpitvena abhedo vyapadi/s/yata it artha/h/. Evam ubhayavyapade/s/amukhyatvasiddhaye jîvosya/m/ brahma/n/os/ms/a ity abhyupagantavya/h/.]

[Footnote 15: Nanu bhrântabrahmajîvavâdeszpy avidyâk/ri/topâdhibhedâd bhogavyavasthâdaya upapadyanta ata âha, âbhâsa eva /k/a. Akha/nd/aikarasaprakâ/s/amâtratvarûpasya svarûpatirodhânapûrvakopâdhibhedopapâdanahetur âbhâsa eva. Prakâ/s/aikasvarûpasya prakâ/s/atirodhâna/m/ prakâ/s/anâ/s/a eveti prâg evopapâditam. Âbhâsâ eveti vâ pâ/th/a/h/, tathâ sati hetava âbhâsâ/h/.]

THIRD ADHYÂYA. PÂDA I.

Adhik. I (1-7) teaches that the soul, when passing out of the body at the time of death, remains invested with the subtle material elements (bhûtasûkshma) which serve as an abode to the prâ/n/as attached to the soul.

Adhik. II (8-11) shows that, when the souls of those who had enjoyed the reward of their good works in the moon descend to the earth in order to undergo a new embodiment, there cleaves to them a remainder (anu/s/aya) of their former deeds which determines the nature of the new embodiment.

Adhik. III (12-21) discusses the fate after death of those whom their good works do not entitle to pass up to the moon.

Adhik. IV, V, VI (22; 23; 24-27) teach that the subtle bodies of the souls descending from the moon through the ether, air, &c., do not become identical with ether, air, &c., but only like them; that the entire descent occupies a short time only; and that, when the souls finally enter into plants and so on, they do not participate in the life of the latter, but are merely in external contact with them.

PÂDA II.

Adhik. I (1-6) treats of the soul in the dreaming state. According to /S/a@nkara the three first Sûtras discuss the question whether the creative activity ascribed to the soul in some scriptural passages produces things as real as those by which the waking soul is surrounded, or not; Sûtra 3 settles the point by declaring that the creations of the dreaming soul are mere 'Mâyâ,' since they do not fully manifest the character of real objects. Sûtra 4 adds that dreams, although mere Mâyâ, yet have a prophetic quality. Sûtras 5 and 6 finally reply to the question why the soul, which after all is a part of the Lord and as such participates in his excellencies, should not be able to produce in its dreams a real creation, by the remark that the soul's knowledge and power are obscured by its connexion with the gross body.

The considerably diverging interpretation given of this adhikara/n/a by Râmânuja has the advantage of more closely connecting the Sûtras with each other. According to him the question is not whether the creations of a dream are real or not, but whether they are the work of the individual soul or of the Lord acting within the soul. Sûtras 1 and 2 set forth the pûrvapaksha. The creations of dreams (are the work of the individual soul); for thus Scripture declares: 'And the followers of some /s/âkâs declare (the soul to be) a creator,' &c. The third Sûtra states the siddhânta view: 'But the creations of dreams are Mâyâ, i.e. are of a wonderful nature (and as such cannot be effected by the individual soul), since (in this life) the nature (of the soul) is not fully manifested.' Concerning the word 'mâyâ,' Râmânuja remarks, 'mâyâ/s/abdo hy â/sk/aryavâ/k/î janaka/s/ya kule jâtâ devamâyeva nirmitâ ityâdishu tathâ dar/s/anât.' The three remaining Sûtras are exhibited in the /S/rî-bhâshya in a different order, the fourth Sûtra, according to /S/a@nkara, being the sixth according to Râmânuja. Sûtras 4 and 5 (according to Râmânuja's numeration) are explained by Râmânuja very much in the same way as by /S/a@nkara; but owing to the former's statement of the subject-matter of the whole adhikara/n/a they connect themselves more intimately with the preceding Sûtras than is possible on /S/a@nkara's interpretation. In Sûtra 6 (sû/k/aka/s/ /k/â hi) Râmânuja sees a deduction from the siddhânta of the adhikara/n/a, 'Because the images of a dream are produced by the highest Lord himself, therefore they have prophetic significance.'

Adhik. II teaches that in the state of deep dreamless sleep the soul abides within Brahman in the heart.

Adhik. III (9) expounds the reasons entitling us to assume that the soul awakening from sleep is the same that went to sleep.--Adhik. IV (9) explains the nature of a swoon.

Adhik. V (11-21) is, according to /S/a@nkara, taken up with the question as to the nature of the highest Brahman in which the individual soul is merged in the state of deep sleep. Sûtra 11 declares that twofold characteristics (viz. absence and presence of distinctive attributes, nirvi/s/eshatva and savi/s/eshatva) cannot belong to the highest Brahman even through its stations, i.e. its limiting adjuncts; since all passages which aim at setting forth Brahman's nature declare it to be destitute of all distinctive attributes.--The fact, Sûtra 12 continues, that in many passages Brahman is spoken of as possessing distinctive attributes is of no relevancy, since wherever there are mentioned limiting adjuncts, on which all distinction depends, it is specially stated that Brahman in itself is free from all diversity; and--Sûtra 13 adds--in some places the assumption of diversity is specially objected to.--That Brahman is devoid of all form (Sûtra 14), is the pre-eminent meaning of all Vedânta-texts setting forth Brahman's nature.--That Brahman is represented as having different forms, as it were, is due to its connexion with its (unreal) limiting adjuncts; just as the light of the sun appears straight or crooked, as it were, according to the nature of the things he illuminates (15).--The B/ri/hadâra/n/yaka expressly declares that Brahman is one uniform mass of intelligence (16); and the same is taught in other scriptural passages and in Sm/ri/ti (l7).--At the unreality of the apparent manifoldness of the Self, caused by the limiting adjuncts, aim those scriptural passages in which the Self is compared to the sun, which remains one although his reflections on the surface of the water are many (18).--Nor must the objection be raised that that comparison is unsuitable, because the Self is not material like the sun, and there are no real upâdhis separate from it as the water is from the sun; for the comparison merely means to indicate that, as the reflected image of the sun participates in the changes, increase, decrease, &c., which the water undergoes while the sun himself remains unaffected thereby, so the true Self is not affected by the attributes of the upâdhis, while, in so far as it is limited by the latter, it is affected by them as it were (19, 20).--That the Self is within the upâdhis, Scripture declares (21).

From the above explanation of this important adhikara/n/a the one given in the Srî-bhâshya differs totally. According to Râmânuja the adhikara/n/a raises the question whether the imperfections clinging to the individual soul (the discussion of which has now come to an end) affect also the highest Lord who, according to Scripture, abides within the soul as antaryâmin. 'Notwithstanding the abode (of the highest Self within the soul) (it is) not (affected by the soul's imperfections) because everywhere (the highest Self is represented) as having twofold characteristics (viz. being, on one hand, free from all evil, apahatapâpman, vijara, vim/ri/tyu, &c., and, on the other hand, endowed with all auspicious qualities, satyakâma, satyasa/m/kalpa, &c.) (11).--Should it be objected that, just as the soul although essentially free from evil--according to the Prajâpativâkya in the Chândogya--yet is liable to imperfections owing to its connexion with a variety of bodies, so the antaryâmin also is affected by abiding within bodies; we deny this because in every section of the chapter referring to the antaryâmin (in the B/ri/hadâra/n/yaka) he is expressly called the Immortal, the ruler within; which shows him to be free from the shortcomings of the jiva (12).--Some, moreover, expressly assert that, although the Lord and the soul are within one body, the soul only is imperfect, not the Lord (dvâ supar/n/â sayujâ sakhâyâ) (13).--Should it be said that, according to the Chândogya, Brahman entered together with the souls into the elements previously to the evolution of names and forms, and hence participates in the latter, thus becoming implicated in the sa/m/sára; we reply that Brahman, although connected with such and such forms, is in itself devoid of form, since it is the principal element (agent; pradhâna) in the bringing about of names and forms (according to 'âkâ/s/o ha vai nâmarûpayor nirvahitâ') (14).--But does not the passage 'satya/m/ j/ñ/ânam anantam brahma' teach that Brahman is nothing but light (intelligence) without any difference, and does not the passage 'neti neti' deny of it all qualities?--As in order, we reply, not to deprive passages as the one quoted from the Taittirîya of their purport, we admit that Brahman's nature is light, so we must also admit that Brahman is satyasa/m/kalpa, and so on; for if not, the passages in which those qualities are asserted would become purportless (15).--Moreover the Taittirîya passage only asserts so much, viz. the prakâ/s/arûpatâ of Brahman, and does not deny other qualities (l6).--And the passage 'neti neti' will be discussed later on.--The ubhayali@ngatva of Brahman in the sense assigned above is asserted in many places /S/ruti and Sm/ri/ti (17).--Because Brahman although abiding in many places is not touched by their imperfections, the similes of the reflected sun, of the ether limited by jars, &c., are applicable to it (18).--Should it be said that the illustration is not an appropriate one, because the sun is apprehended in the water erroneously only while the antaryâmin really abides within all things, and therefore must be viewed as sharing their defects (19); we reply that what the simile means to negative is merely that Brahman should, owing to its inherence in many places, participate in the increase, decrease, and so on, of its abodes. On this view both similes are appropriate (20).--Analogous similes we observe to be employed in ordinary life, as when we compare a man to a lion (21).

Sûtras 22-30 constitute, according to /S/a@nkara, a new adhikara/n/a (VI), whose object it is to show that the clause 'not so, not so' (neti neti; B/ri/hadâr) negatives, not Brahman itself, but only the two forms of Brahman described in the preceding part of the chapter. Sûtras 23-26 further dwell on Brahman being in reality devoid of all distinctive attributes which are altogether due to the upâdhis. The last four Sûtras return to the question how, Brahman being one only, the souls are in so many places spoken of as different from it, and, two explanatory hypotheses having been rejected, the conclusion is arrived at that all difference is unreal, due to fictitious limiting adjuncts.