'He is the Self of thee' exhibit the individual Self in the genitive form ('of thee'), and thus distinguish it from the Ruler within, who is declared to be their Self.

20. And not that which Smriti a.s.sumes, on account of the declaration of qualities not belonging to that; nor the embodied one.

'That which Smriti a.s.sumes' is the Pradhana; the 'embodied one' is the individual soul. Neither of these can be the Ruler within, since the text states attributes which cannot possibly belong to either. For there is not even the shadow of a possibility that essential capability of seeing and ruling all things, and being the Self of all, and immortality should belong either to the non-sentient Pradhana or to the individual soul.--The last two Sutras have declared that the mentioned qualities belong to the highest Self, while they do not belong to the individual soul. The next Sutra supplies a new, independent argument.

21. For both also speak of it as something different.

Both, i.e. the Madhyandinas as well as the Kanvas, distinguish in their texts the embodied soul, together with speech and other non-intelligent things, from the Ruler within, representing it as an object of his rule.

The Madhyandinas read, 'He who dwells in the Self, whom the Self does not know,' &c.; the Kanvas, 'He who dwells within understanding', &c.

The declaration of the individual Self being ruled by the Ruler within implies of course the declaration of the former being different from the latter.

The conclusion from all this is that the Ruler within is a being different from the individual soul, viz. the highest Self free from all evil, Narayana.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the internal Ruler'.

22. That which possesses the qualities of invisibility, &c., on account of the declaration of attributes.

The Atharvanikas read in their text, 'The higher knowledge is that by which that Indestructible is apprehended. That which is invisible, unseizable, without origin and qualities, &c., that it is which the wise regard as the source of all beings'; and further on, 'That which is higher than the high Imperishable' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 5, 6; II, 1, 2). The doubt here arises whether the Indestructible, possessing the qualities of imperceptibility, &c., and that which is higher than the Indestructible, should be taken to denote the Pradhana and the soul of the Sankhyas, or whether both denote the highest Self.--The Purvapakshin maintains the former alternative. For, he says, while in the text last discussed there is mentioned a special attribute of an intelligent being, viz. in the clause 'unseen but a seer', no similar attribute is stated in the former of the two texts under discussion, and the latter text clearly describes the collective individual soul, which is higher than the imperishable Pradhana, which itself is higher than all its effects.

The reasons for this decision are as follows:--Colour and so on reside in the gross forms of non-intelligent matter, viz. the elements, earth, and so on. When, therefore, visibility and so on are expressly negatived, such negation suggests a non-sentient thing cognate to earth, &c., but of a subtle kind, and such a thing is no other than the Pradhana. And as something higher than this Pradhana there are known the collective souls only, under whose guidance the Pradhana gives birth to all its effects, from the so-called Mahat downwards to individual things. This interpretation is confirmed by the comparisons set forth in the next sloka, 'As the spider sends forth and draws in its threads, as plants spring from the earth, as hair grows on the head and body of the living man, thus does everything arise here from the Indestructible.' The section therefore is concerned only with the Pradhana and the individual soul.

This prima facie view is set aside by the Sutra. That which possesses invisibility and the other qualities stated in the text, and that which is higher than the high Indestructible, is no other than the highest Self. For the text declares attributes which belong to the highest Self only, viz. in I, 1, 9, 'He who knows all, cognises all,' &c. Let us shortly consider the connexion of the text. The pa.s.sage beginning 'the higher knowledge is that by which the Indestructible is apprehended'

declares an indestructible being possessing the attributes of invisibility and so on. The clause 'everything arises here from the Indestructible' next declares that from that being all things originate.

Next the sloka, 'He who knows all and cognises all,' predicates of that Indestructible which is the source of all beings, omniscience, and similar qualities. And finally the text, 'That which is higher than the high Indestructible,' characterises that same being--which previously had been called invisible, the source of beings, indestructible, all- knowing, &c.--as the highest of all. Hence it is evident that in the text 'higher than the high Indestructible' the term 'Indestructible'

does not denote the invisible, &c. Indestructible, which is the chief topic of the entire section; for there can of course be nothing higher than that which, as being all-knowing, the source of all, &c., is itself higher than anything else. The 'Indestructible' in that text therefore denotes the elements in their subtle condition.

23. Not the two others, on account of distinction and statement of difference.

The section distinguishes the indestructible being, which is the source of all, &c., from the Pradhana as well as the individual soul, in so far, namely, as it undertakes to prove that by the cognition of one thing everything is known; and it moreover, in pa.s.sages such as 'higher than the high Indestructible,' explicitly states the difference of the indestructible being from those other two.--The text first relates that Brahma told the knowledge of Brahman, which is the foundation of the knowledge of all, to his eldest son Atharvan: this introduces the knowledge of Brahman as the topic of the section. Then, the text proceeds, in order to obtain this knowledge of Brahman, which had been handed down through a succession of teachers to Angiras, Saunaka approached Angiras respectfully and asked him: 'What is that through which, if known, all this is known?' i.e. since all knowledge is founded on the knowledge of Brahman, he enquires after the nature of Brahman.

Angiras replies that he who wishes to attain Brahman must acquire two kinds of knowledge, both of them having Brahman for their object: an indirect one which springs from the study of the sastras, viz. the Veda, Siksha, Kalpa, and so on, and a direct one which springs from concentrated meditation (yoga). The latter kind of knowledge is the means of obtaining Brahman, and it is of the nature of devout meditation (bhakti), as characterised in the text 'He whom the Self chooses, by him the Self can be gained' (III, 2, 3). The means again towards this kind of knowledge is such knowledge as is gained from sacred tradition, a.s.sisted by abstention and the other six auxiliary means (sec above, p.

17); in agreement with the text, 'Him the Brahmattas seek to know by the study of the Veda, by sacrifice, by gifts, by penance, by fasting' (Bri.

Up. IV, 4, 22).--Thus the Reverend Parasara also says, 'The cause of attaining him is knowledge and work, and knowledge is twofold, according as it is based on sacred tradition or springs from discrimination.' The Mundaka-text refers to the inferior kind of knowledge in the pa.s.sage 'the lower knowledge is the Rig-veda,' &c., up to 'and the dharma- sastras'; this knowledge is the means towards the intuition of Brahman; while the higher kind of knowledge, which is called 'upasana,' has the character of devout meditation (bhakti), and consists in direct intuition of Brahman, is referred to in the clause 'the higher knowledge is that by which the Indestructible is apprehended.' The text next following, 'That which is invisible, &c., then sets forth the nature of the highest Brahman, which is the object of the two kinds of knowledge previously described. After this the pa.s.sage 'As the spider sends forth and draws in its thread' declares that from that indestructible highest Brahman, as characterised before, there originates the whole universe of things, sentient and non-sentient. The next soka (tapasa kiyate, &c.) states particulars about this origination of the universe from Brahman.

'Brahman swells through brooding'; through brooding, i.e. thought--in agreement with a later text, 'brooding consists of thought'--Brahman swells, i.e. through thought in the form of an intention, viz. 'may I become many,' Brahman becomes ready for creation. From it there springs first 'anna,' i.e. that which is the object of fruition on the part of all enjoying agents, viz. the non-evolved subtle principles of all elements. From this 'anna' there spring successively breath, mind, and all other effected things up to work, which is the means of producing reward in the form of the heavenly world, and Release. The last sloka of the first chapter thereupon first states the qualities, such as omniscience and so on, which capacitate the highest Brahman for creation, and then declares that from the indestructible highest Brahman there springs the effected (karya) Brahman, distinguished by name and form, and comprising all enjoying subjects and objects of enjoyment.--The first sloka of the second chapter declares first that the highest Brahman is absolutely real ('That is true'), and then admonishes those who desire to reach the indestructible highest Self, which possesses all the blessed qualities stated before and exists through itself, to turn away from other rewards and to perform all those sacrificial works depending on the three sacred fires which were seen and revealed by poets in the four Vedas and are inc.u.mbent on men according to caste and asrama. The section 'this is your path' (I, 2, 1) up to 'this is the holy Brahma-world gained by your good works' (I, 2, 6) next states the particular mode of performing those works, and declares that an omission of one of the successive works enjoined in Druti and Smriti involves fruitlessness of the works actually performed, and that something not performed in the proper way is as good as not performed at all. Stanzas 7 and ff. ('But frail in truth are those boats') declare that those who perform this lower cla.s.s of works have to return again and again into the Samsara, because they aim at worldly results and are deficient in true knowledge. Stanza 8 ('but those who practise penance and faith') then proclaims that works performed by a man possessing true knowledge, and hence not aiming at worldly rewards, result in the attainment of Brahman; and stanzas 12 a, 13 ('having examined all these worlds') enjoin knowledge, strengthened by due works, on the part of a man who has turned away from _mere_ works, as the means of reaching Brahman; and due recourse to a teacher on the part of him who is desirous of such knowledge.--The first chapter of the second section of the Upanishad (II, 1)then clearly teaches how the imperishable highest Brahman, i.e. the highest Self--as const.i.tuting the Self of all things and having all things for its body--has all things for its outward form and emits all things from itself. The remainder of the Upanishad ('Manifest, near,' &c.

) teaches how this highest Brahman, which is imperishable and higher than the soul, which itself is higher than the Unevolved; which dwells in the highest Heaven; and which is of the nature of supreme bliss, is to be meditated upon as within the hollow of the heart; how this meditation has the character of devout faith (bhakti); and how the devotee, freeing himself from Nescience, obtains for his reward intuition of Brahman, which renders him like Brahman.

It thus clearly appears that 'on account of distinction and statement of difference' the Upanishad does not treat of the Pradhana and the soul.

For that the highest Brahman is different from those two is declared in pa.s.sages such as 'That heavenly Person is without body; he is both without and within, not produced, without breath and without mind, pure, higher than what is higher than the Imperishable' (II, 1, 2); for the last words mean 'that imperishable highest Self possessing invisibility and similar qualities, which is higher than the aggregate of individual souls, which itself is higher than the non-evolved subtle elements.' The term 'akshara' (imperishable) is to be etymologically explained either as that which pervades (asnute) or that which does not pa.s.s away (a- ksharati), and is on either of these explanations applicable to the highest Self, either because that Self pervades all its effects or because it is like the so-called Mahat (which is also called akshara), free from all pa.s.sing away or decaying.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'invisibility and so on.'

24. And on account of the description of its form.

'Fire is his head, his eyes the sun and the moon, the regions his ears, his speech the Vedas disclosed, the wind his breath, his heart the universe; from his feet came the earth; he is indeed the inner Self of all things' (II, 1, 4)--the outward form here described can belong to none but the highest Self; that is, the inner Self of all beings. The section therefore treats of the highest Self.

25. Vaisvanara (is the highest Self), on account of the distinctions qualifying the common term.

The Chandogas read in their text, 'You know at present that Vaisvanara Self, tell us that,' &c., and further on, 'But he who meditates on the Vaisvanara Self as a span long,' &c. (Ch. Up. V, 11, 6; 18, 1). The doubt here arises whether that Vaisvanara Self can be made out to be the highest Self or not. The Purvapakshin maintains the latter alternative.

For, he says, the word Vaisvanara is used in the sacred texts in four different senses. It denotes in the first place the intestinal fire, so in Bri. Up, V, 9, 'That is the Vaisvanara fire by which the food that is eaten is cooked, i.e. digested. Its noise is that which one hears when one covers one's ears. When man is on the point of departing this life he does not hear that noise.'--It next denotes the third of the elements, so in Ri_. Samh. X, 88, 12, 'For the whole world the G.o.ds have made the Agni Vaisvanara a sign of the days.'--It also denotes a divinity, so Ri_.

Samh. I, 98, 1, 'May we be in the favour of Vaisvanara, for he is the king of the kings,' &c. And finally it denotes the highest Self, as in the pa.s.sage, 'He offered it in the Self, in the heart, in Agni Vaisvanara'; and in Pra. Up. I, 7, 'Thus he rises as Vaisvanara, a.s.suming all forms, as breath of life, as fire.'--And the characteristic marks mentioned in the introductory clauses of the Chandogya-text under discussion admit of interpretations agreeing with every one of these meanings of the word Vaisvanara.

Against this prima facie view the Sutra declares itself. The term 'Vaisvanara' in the Chandogya-text denotes the highest Self, because the 'common' term is there qualified by attributes specially belonging to the highest Self. For the pa.s.sage tells us how Aupamanyava and four other great Rhshis, having met and discussed the question as to what was their Self and Brahman, come to the conclusion to go to Uddalaka because he is reputed to know the Vaisvanara Self. Uddalaka, recognising their anxiety to know the Vaisvanara Self, and deeming himself not to be fully informed on this point, refers them to Asvapati Kaikeya as thoroughly knowing the Vaisvanara Self; and they thereupon, together with Uddalaka, approach Asvapati. The king duly honours them with presents, and as they appear unwilling to receive them, explains that they may suitably do so, he himself being engaged in the performance of a religious vow; and at the same time instructs them that even men knowing Brahman must avoid what is forbidden and do what is prescribed. When thereupon he adds that he will give them as much wealth as to the priests engaged in his sacrifice, they, desirous of Release and of knowing the Vaisanara Self, request him to explain that Self to them. Now it clearly appears that as the Rishis are said to be desirous of knowing--that Brahman which is the Self of the individual souls ('what is our Self, what is Brahman'), and therefore search for some one to instruct them on that point, the Vaisvanara Self--to a person acquainted with which they address themselves--can be the highest Self only. In the earlier clauses the terms used are 'Self' and 'Brahman,' in the later 'Self' and 'Vaisvanara'; from this it appears also that the term 'Vaisvanara,' which takes the place of 'Brahman,' denotes none other but the highest Self. The results, moreover, of the knowledge of the Vaisvanara Self, which are stated in subsequent pa.s.sages, show that the Vaisvanara Self is the highest Brahman. 'He eats food in all worlds, in all beings, in all Selfs'; 'as the fibres of the Ishika reed when thrown into the fire are burnt, thus all his sins are burned' (V, 18, I; 24, 3).

The next Sutra supplies a further reason for the same conclusion.

26. That which the text refers to is an inferential mark--thus.

The text describes the shape of Vaisvanara, of whom heaven, &c., down to earth const.i.tute the several limbs; and it is known from Scripture and Smriti that such is the shape of the highest Self. When, therefore, we recognise that shape as referred to in the text, this supplies an inferential mark of Vaisvanara being the highest Self.--The 'thus' (iti) in the Sutra denotes a certain mode, that is to say, 'a shape of such a kind being recognised in the text enables us to infer that Vaisvanara is the highest Self.' For in Scripture and Smriti alike the highest Person is declared to have such a shape. Cp. e.g. the text of the atharvanas.

'Agni is his head, the sun and moon his eyes, the regions his cars, his speech the Vedas disclosed, the wind his breath, his heart the Universe; from his feet came the earth; he is indeed the inner Self of all things'

(Mu. Up. II, I, 4). 'Agni' in this pa.s.sage denotes the heavenly world, in agreement with the text 'that world indeed is Agni.' And the following Smrriti texts: 'He of whom the wise declare the heavenly world to be the head, the ether the navel, sun and moon the eyes, the regions the ears, the earth the feet; he whose Self is unfathomable is the leader of all beings'; and 'of whom Agni is the mouth, heaven the head, the ether the navel, the earth the feet, the sun the eye, the regions the ear; worship to him, the Self of the Universe!'--Now our text declares the heavenly world and so on to const.i.tute the head and the other limbs of Vaisvanara. For Kaikeya on being asked by the Rishis to instruct them as to the Vasvanara Self recognises that they all know something about the Vaisvanara Self while something they do not know (for thus only we can explain his special questions), and then in order to ascertain what each knows and what not, questions them separately.

When thereupon Aupamanyava replies that he meditates on heaven only as the Self, Kaikeya, in order to disabuse him from the notion that heaven is the whole Vaisvanara Self, teaches him that heaven is the head of Vaisvanara, and that of heaven which thus is a part only of Vaisvanara, Sutejas is the special name. Similarly he is thereupon told by the other Rishis that they meditate only on sun, air, ether, and earth, and informs them in return that the special names of these beings are 'the omniform,' 'he who moves in various ways,' 'the full one,''wealth and 'firm rest,' and that these all are mere members of the Vaisvanara Self, viz. its eyes, breath, trunk, bladder, and feet. The shape thus described in detail can belong to the highest Self only, and hence Vaisvanara is none other but the highest Self.

The next Sutra meets a further doubt as to this decision not yet being well established.

27. Should it be said that it is not so, on account of the word, &c., and on account of the abiding within; we say, no; on account of meditation being taught thus, on account of impossibility; and because they read of him as person.

An objection is raised. Vaisvanara cannot be ascertained to be the highest Self, because, on the account of the text and of the abiding within, we can understand by the Vaisvanara in our text the intestinal fire also. The text to which we refer occurs in the Vaisvanara-vidya of the Vajasaneyins, 'This one is the Agni Vaisvanara,' where the two words 'Agni' and 'Vaisvanara' are exhibited in co-ordination. And in the section under discussion the pa.s.sage, 'the heart is the Garhapatya fire, the mind the Anvaharya-pakana fire, the mouth the Ahavaniya fire' (Ch.

Up. V, 18, 2), represents the Vaisvanara in so far as abiding within the heart and so on as const.i.tuting the triad of sacred fires. Moreover the text, 'The first food which a man may take is in the place of Soma. And he who offers that first oblation should offer it to Prana' (V, 19, 1), intimates that Vaisvanara is the abode of the offering to Prana. In the same way the Vajasaneyins declare that Vaisvanara abides within man, viz.

in the pa.s.sage 'He who knows this Agni Vaisvanara shaped like a man abiding within man.' As thus Vaisvanara appears in co-ordination with the word 'Agni,' is represented as the triad of sacred fires, is said to be the abode of the oblation to Breath, and to abide within man, he must be viewed as the intestinal fire, and it is therefore not true that he can be identified with the highest Self only.

This objection is set aside by the Sutra. It is not so 'on account of meditation (on the highest Self) being taught thus,' i.e. as the text means to teach that the highest Brahman which, in the manner described before, has the three worlds for its body should be meditated upon as qualified by the intestinal fire which (like other beings) const.i.tutes Brahman's body. For the word 'Agni' denotes not only the intestinal fire, but also the highest Self in so far as qualified by the intestinal fire.-- But how is this to be known?--'On account of impossibility;' i.e.

because it is impossible that the mere intestinal fire should have the three worlds for its body. The true state of the case therefore is that the word Agni, which is understood to denote the intestinal fire, when appearing in co-ordination with the term Vaisvanara represented as having the three worlds for his body, denotes (not the intestinal fire, but) the highest Self as qualified by that fire viewed as forming the body of the Self. Thus the Lord also says, 'As Vaisvanara fire I abide in the body of living creatures and, being a.s.sisted by breath inspired and expired, digest the fourfold food' (Bha Gi. XIV, 15). 'As Vaisvanara fire' here means 'embodied in the intestinal fire.'--The Chandogya text under discussion enjoins meditation on the highest Self embodied in the Vaisvanara fire.--Moreover the Vajasaneyins read of him, viz. the Vaisvanara, as man or person, viz. in the pa.s.sage 'That Agni Vaisvanara is the person' (Sa. Bra. X, 6, 1, 11). The intestinal fire by itself cannot be called a person; unconditioned personality belongs to the highest Self only. Compare 'the thousand-headed person' (Ri. Samh.), and 'the Person is all this' (Sve. Up. III, 15).

28. For the same reasons not the divinity and the element.

For the reasons stated Vaisvanara can be neither the deity Fire, nor the elemental fire which holds the third place among the gross elements.