The first section of the vidya tells us that Janasruti bestowed much wealth and food; later on he is represented as sending his door-keeper on an errand; and in the end, as bestowing on Raikva many villages-- which shows him to be a territorial lord. All these circ.u.mstances suggest Janasruti's being a Kshattriya, and hence not a member of the lowest caste.--The above Sutra having declared that the kshattriya-hood of Janasruti is indicated in the introductory legend, the next Sutra shows that the same circ.u.mstance is indicated in the concluding legend.

35. On account of the inferential sign further on, together with Kaitraratha.

The kshattriya-hood of Janasruti is further to be accepted on account of the Kshattriya Abhipratarin Kaitraratha, who is mentioned further on in this very same Samvargavidya which Raikva imparts to Janasruti.--But why?-- As follows. The section beginning 'Once a Brahmakarin begged of Saunaka Kapeya and Abhipratarin Kakshaseni while being waited on at their meal,'

and ending 'thus do we, O Brahmakarin, meditate on that being,' shows Kapeya, Abhipratarin, and the Brahmakarin to be connected with the Samvarga-vidya. Now Abhipratarin is a Kshattriya, the other two are Brahmanas. This shows that there are connected with the vidya, Brahmanas, and from among non-Brahmanas, a Kshattriya only, but not a Sudra. It therefore appears appropriate to infer that the person, other than the Brahmana Raikva, who is likewise connected with this vidya, viz.

Janasruti, is likewise a Kshattriya, not a Sudra.--But how do we know that Abhipratarin is a Kaitraratha and a Kshattriya? Neither of these circ.u.mstances is stated in the legend in the Samvarga-vidya! To this question the Sutra replies, 'on account of the inferential mark.' From the inferential mark that Saunaka Kapeya and Abhipratarin Kakshaseni are said to have been sitting together at a meal we understand that there is some connexion between Abhipratarin and the Kapeyas. Now another scriptural pa.s.sage runs as follows: 'The Kapeyas made Kaitraratha perform that sacrifice' (Tand Bra. XX, 12, 5), and this shows that one connected with the Kapeyas was a Kaitraratha; and a further text shows that a Kaitraratha is a Kshattriya. 'from him there was descended a Kaitraratha who was a prince.' All this favours the inference that Abhipratarin was a Kaitraratha and a Kshattriya.

So far the Sutras have shown that there is no inferential mark to prove what is contradicted by reasoning, viz. the qualification of the Sudras.

The next Sutra declares that the non-qualification of the Sudra proved by reasoning is confirmed by Scripture and Smriti.

36. On account of the reference to ceremonial purifications, and on account of the declaration of their absence.

In sections the purport of which is to give instruction about Brahman the ceremony of initiation is referred to, 'I will initiate you; he initiated him' (Ch. Up. IV, 4). And at the same time the absence of such ceremonies in the case of Sudras is stated: 'In the Sudra there is not any sin, and he is not fit for any ceremony' (Manu X, 126); and 'The fourth caste is once born, and not fit for any ceremony' (Manu X, 4).

37. And on account of the procedure, on the ascertainment of the non- being of that.

That a Sudra is not qualified for knowledge of Brahman appears from that fact also that as soon as Gautama has convinced himself that Jabala, who wishes to become his pupil, is not a Sudra, he proceeds to teach him the knowledge of Brahman.

38. And on account of the prohibition of hearing, studying, and performance of (Vedic) matter.

The Sudra is specially forbidden to hear and study the Veda and to perform the things enjoined in it. 'For a Sudra is like a cemetery, therefore the Veda must not be read in the vicinity of a Sudra;'

'Therefore the Sudra is like a beast, unfit for sacrifices.' And he who does not hear the Veda recited cannot learn it so as to understand and perform what the Veda enjoins. The prohibition of hearing thus implies the prohibition of understanding and whatever depends on it.

39. And on account of Smriti.

Smriti also declares this prohibition of hearing, and so on. 'The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with molten lead and lac; if he p.r.o.nounces it his tongue is to be slit; if he preserves it his body is to be cut through.' And 'He is not to teach him sacred duties or vows.

'--It is thus a settled matter that the Sudras are not qualified for meditations on Brahman.

We must here point out that the non-qualification of Sudras for the cognition of Brahman can in no way be a.s.serted by those who hold that a Brahman consisting of pure non-differenced intelligence const.i.tutes the sole reality; that everything else is false; that all bondage is unreal; that such bondage may be put an end to by the mere cognition of the true nature of Reality--such cognition resulting from the hearing of certain texts; and that the cessation of bondage thus effected const.i.tutes final Release. For knowledge of the true nature of Reality, in the sense indicated, and the release resulting from it, may be secured by any one who learns from another person that Brahman alone is real and that everything else is falsely superimposed on Brahman. That the cognition of such truth can be arrived at only on the basis of certain Vedic texts, such as 'Thou art that,' is a restriction which does not admit of proof; for knowledge of the truth does not depend on man's choice, and at once springs up in the mind even of an unwilling man as soon as the conditions for such origination are present. Nor can it be proved in any way that bondage can be put an end to only through such knowledge of the truth as springs from Vedic texts; for error comes to an end through the knowledge of the true nature of things, whatever agency may give rise to such knowledge. True knowledge, of the kind described, will spring up in the mind of a man as soon as he hears the non-scriptural declaration, 'Brahman, consisting of non-differenced intelligence, is the sole Reality; everything else is false,' and this will suffice to free him from error. When a competent and trustworthy person a.s.serts that what was mistaken for silver is merely a sparkling sh.e.l.l, the error of a Sudra no less than of a Brahmana comes to an end; in the same way a Sudra also will free himself from the great cosmic error as soon as the knowledge of the true nature of things has arisen in his mind through a statement resting on the traditional lore of men knowing the Veda. Nor must you object to this on the ground that men knowing the Veda do not instruct Sudras, and so on, because the text, 'he is not to teach him sacred things,' forbids them to do so; for men who have once learned-- from texts such as 'Thou art that'--that Brahman is their Self, and thus are standing on the very top of the Veda as it were, move no longer in the sphere of those to whom injunctions and prohibitions apply, and the prohibition quoted does not therefore touch them. Knowledge of Brahman may thus spring up in the mind of Sudras and the like, owing to instruction received from one of those men who have pa.s.sed beyond all prohibition. Nor must it be said that the instance of the sh.e.l.l and the silver is not a.n.a.logous, in so far, namely, as the error with regard to silver in the sh.e.l.l comes to an end as soon as the true state of things is declared; while the great cosmic error that clouds the Sudra's mind does not come to an end as soon as, from the teaching of another man, he learns the truth about Reality. For the case of the Sudra does not herein differ from that of the Brahmana; the latter also does not at once free himself from the cosmic error. Nor again will it avail to plead that the sacred texts originate the demanded final cognition in the mind of the Brahmana as soon as meditation has dispelled the obstructive imagination of plurality; for in the same way, i.e. helped by meditation, the non-Vedic instruction given by another person produces the required cognition in the mind of the Sudra. For meditation means nothing but a steady consideration of the sense which sentences declaratory of the unity of Brahman and the Self may convey, and the effect of such meditation is to destroy all impressions opposed to such unity; you yourself thus admit that the injunction of meditation aims at something visible (i.e. an effect that can be definitely a.s.signed, whence it follows that the Sudra also is qualified for it, while he would not be qualified for an activity having an 'adrishta,' i.e.

supersensuous, transcendental effect). The recital of the text of the Veda also and the like (are not indispensable means for bringing about cognition of Brahman, but) merely subserve the origination of the _desire_ of knowledge. The desire of knowledge may arise in a Sudra also (viz. in some other way), and thereupon real knowledge may result from non-Vedic instruction, obstructive imaginations having previously been destroyed by meditation. And thus in his case also non-real bondage will come to an end.--The same conclusion may also be arrived at by a different road.

The mere ordinary instruments of knowledge, viz. perception and inference a.s.sisted by reasoning, may suggest to the Sudra the theory that there is an inward Reality const.i.tuted by non-differenced self- luminous intelligence, that this inward principle witnesses Nescience, and that owing to Nescience the entire apparent world, with its manifold distinctions of knowing subjects and objects of knowledge, is superimposed upon the inner Reality. He may thereupon, by uninterrupted meditation on this inner Reality, free himself from all imaginations opposed to it, arrive at the intuitive knowledge of the inner principle, and thus obtain final release. And this way being open to release, there is really no use to be discerned in the Vedanta-texts, suggesting as they clearly do the entirely false view that the real being (is not absolutely h.o.m.ogeneous intelligence, but) possesses infinite transcendent attributes, being endowed with manifold powers, connected with manifold creations, and so on. In this way the qualification of Sudras for the knowledge of Brahman is perfectly clear. And as the knowledge of Brahman may be reached in this way not only by Sudras but also by Brahmanas and members of the other higher castes, the poor Upanishad is practically defunct.--To this the following objection will possibly be raised. Man being implicated in and confused by the beginningless course of mundane existence, requires to receive from somewhere a suggestion as to this empirical world being a mere error and the Reality being something quite different, and thus only there arises in him a desire to enter on an enquiry, proceeding by means of perception, and so on. Now that which gives the required suggestion is the Veda, and hence we cannot do without it.--But this objection is not valid. For in the minds of those who are awed by all the dangers and troubles of existence, the desire to enter on a philosophical investigation of Reality, proceeding by means of Perception and Inference, springs up quite apart from the Veda, owing to the observation that there are various sects of philosophers. Sankhyas, and so on, who make it their business to carry on such investigations. And when such desire is once roused, Perception and Inference alone (in the way allowed by the Sankaras themselves) lead on to the theory that the only Reality is intelligence eternal, pure, self-luminous, non-dual, non- changing, and that everything else is fict.i.tiously superimposed thereon.

That this self-luminous Reality possesses no other attribute to be learned from scripture is admitted; for according to your opinion also scripture sublates everything that is not Brahman and merely superimposed on it. Nor should it be said that we must have recourse to the Upanishads for the purpose of establishing that the Real found in the way of perception and inference is at the same time of the nature of bliss; for the merely and absolutely Intelligent is seen of itself to be of that nature, since it is different from everything that is not of that nature.--There are, on the other hand, those who hold that the knowledge which the Vedanta-texts enjoin as the means of Release is of the nature of devout meditation; that such meditation has the effect of winning the love of the supreme Spirit and is to be learned from scripture only; that the injunctions of meditation refer to such knowledge only as springs from the legitimate study of the Veda on the part of a man duly purified by initiation and other ceremonies, and is a.s.sisted by the seven means (see above, p. 17); and that the supreme Person pleased by such meditation bestows on the devotee knowledge of his own true nature, dissolves thereby the Nescience springing from works, and thus releases him from bondage. And on this view the proof of the non-qualification of the Sudra, as given in the preceding Sutras, holds good.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the exclusion of the Sudras.'

Having thus completed the investigation of qualification which had suggested itself in connexion with the matter in hand, the Sutras return to the being measured by a thumb, and state another reason for its being explained as Brahman--as already understood on the basis of its being declared the ruler of what is and what will be.

40. On account of the trembling.

In the part of the Katha-Upanishad which intervenes between the pa.s.sage 'The Person of the size of a thumb stands in the middle of the Self (II, 4, 12), and the pa.s.sage 'The Person of the size of a thumb, the inner Self' (II, 6, 17), we meet with the text 'whatever there is, the whole world, when gone forth, trembles in its breath. A great terror, a raised thunderbolt; those who knew it became immortal. From fear of it fire burns, from fear the sun shines, from fear Indra and Vayu, and Death as the fifth run away' (II, 6, 2; 3). This text declares that the whole world and Agni, Surya, and so on, abiding within that Person of the size of a thumb, who is here designated by the term 'breath,' and going forth from him, tremble from their great fear of him. 'What will happen to us if we transgress his commandments?'--thinking thus the whole world trembles on account of great fear, as if it were a raised thunderbolt.

In this explanation we take the clause 'A great fear, a raised thunderbolt,' in the sense of '(the world trembles) from great fear,' &c., as it is clearly connected in meaning with the following clause: 'from fear the fire burns,' &c.--Now what is described here is the nature of the highest Brahman; for that such power belongs to Brahman only we know from other texts, viz.: 'By the command of that Imperishable, O Gargi, sun and moon stand apart' (Bri. Up. III, 8, 9); and 'From fear of it the wind blows, from fear the sun rises; from fear of it Agni and Indra, yea Death runs as the fifth' (Taitt. Up. II, 8, 1).--The next Sutra supplies a further reason.

41. On account of light being seen (declared in the text).

Between the two texts referring to the Person of the size of a thumb, there is a text declaring that to that Person there belongs light that obscures all other light, and is the cause and a.s.sistance of all other light; and such light is characteristic of Brahman only. 'The sun does not shine there, nor the moon and the stars, nor these lightnings, and much less this fire. After him, the shining one, everything shines; by his light all this is lighted' (Ka. Up. II, 5, 15)--This very same sloka is read in the Atharvana (i.e. Mundaka) with reference to Brahman.

Everywhere, in fact, the texts attribute supreme luminousness to Brahman only. Compare: 'Having approached the highest light he manifests himself in his own shape' (Ch. Up. VIII, 12, 3); 'Him the G.o.ds meditate on as the light of lights, as immortal time' (Bri. Up. IV, 4,16); 'Now that light which shines above this heaven' (Ch. Up. III, 13, 7).--It is thus a settled conclusion that the Person measured by a thumb is the highest Brahman.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'him who is measured' (by a thumb).

42. The ether, on account of the designation of something different, and so on.

We read in the Chandogya. 'The ether is the evolver of forms and names.

That within which these forms and names are (or "that which is within-- or without--these forms and names") is Brahman, the Immortal, the Self'

(VIII, 14). A doubt here arises whether the being here called ether be the released individual soul, or the highest Self.--The Purvapakshin adopts the former view. For, he says, the released soul is introduced as subject-matter in an immediately preceding clause,'Shaking off all as a horse shakes his hair, and as the moon frees himself from the mouth of Rahu; having shaken off the body I obtain, satisfied, the uncreated world of Brahman' Moreover, the clause 'That which is without forms and names' clearly designates the released soul freed from name and form.

And 'the evolver of names and forms' is again that same soul characterised with a view to its previous condition; for the individual soul in its non-released state supported the shapes of G.o.ds, and so on, and their names. With a view, finally, to its present state in which it is free from name and form, the last clause declares 'that is Brahman, the Immortal'. The term 'ether' may very well be applied to the released soul which is characterised by the possession of non-limited splendour.-- But, as the text under discussion is supplementary to the section dealing with the small ether within the heart (VIII, 1, 1 ff.), we understand that that small ether is referred to here also; and it has been proved above that that small ether is Brahman!--Not so, we reply.

The text under discussion is separated from the section treating of the small ether within the heart, by the teaching of Praj.a.pati. and that teaching is concerned with the characteristics of the individual soul in its different conditions up to Release; and moreover the earlier part of the section under discussion speaks of the being which shakes off evil, and this undoubtedly is the released individual soul introduced in the teaching of Praj.a.pati. All this shows that the ether in our pa.s.sage denotes the released individual soul.

This view is set aside by the Sutra. The ether in our pa.s.sage is the highest Brahman, because the clause 'Ether is the evolver of forms and names' designates something other than the individual soul. The ether which evolves names and forms cannot be the individual soul either in the state of bondage or that of release. In the state of bondage the soul is under the influence of karman, itself partic.i.p.ates in name and form, and hence cannot bring about names and forms. And in its released state it is expressly said not to take part in the world-business (Ve.

Su. IV, 4, 17), and therefore is all the less qualified to evolve names and forms. The Lord, on the other hand, who is the ruling principle in the construction of the Universe is expressly declared by scripture to be the evolver of names and forms; cp. 'Entering into them with this living Self, let me evolve names and forms' (Ch. Up. VI, 3, 2); 'Who is all-knowing, whose brooding consists of knowledge, from him is born this Brahman, name, form, and matter' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 9), &c. Hence the ether which brings about names and forms is something different from the soul for which name and form are brought about; it is in fact the highest Brahman. This the next clause of the text confirms, 'That which is within those forms and names'; the purport of which is: because that ether is within names and forms, not being touched by them but being something apart, therefore it is the evolver of them; this also following from his being free from evil and endowed with the power of realising his purposes. The 'and so on' in the Sutra refers to the Brahma-hood, Self-hood, and immortality mentioned in the text ('That is the Brahman, the Immortal, the Self'). For Brahma-hood, i.e. greatness, and so on, in their unconditioned sense, belong to the highest Self only.

It is thus clear that the ether is the highest Brahman.--Nor is the Purvapakshin right in maintaining that a clause immediately preceding ('shaking off all evil') introduces the individual soul as the general topic of the section. For what the part of the text immediately preceding the pa.s.sage under discussion does introduce as general topic, is the highest Brahman, as shown by the clause 'I obtain the Brahma- world.' Brahman is, it is true, represented there as the object to be obtained by the released soul; but as the released soul cannot be the evolver of names and forms, &c., we must conclude that it is Brahman (and not the released soul), which const.i.tutes the topic of the whole section. Moreover (to take a wider view of the context of our pa.s.sage) the term 'ether' prompts us to recognise here the small ether (mentioned in the first section of the eighth book) as the general topic of the book; and as the teaching of Praj.a.pati is meant to set forth (not the individual soul by itself but) the nature of the soul of the meditating devotee, it is proper to conclude that the text under discussion is meant finally to represent, as the object to be obtained, the small ether previously inculcated as object of meditation. In conclusion we remark that the term 'ether' is nowhere seen to denote the individual Self.--The ether that evolves names and forms, therefore, is the highest Brahman.

But, an objection is raised, there is no other Self different from the individual Self; for scripture teaches the unity of all Selfs and denies duality. Terms such as 'the highest Self,' 'the highest Brahman,' 'the highest Lord,' are merely designations of the individual soul in the state of Release. The Brahma-world to be attained, therefore, is nothing different from the attaining individual soul; and hence the ether also that evolves names and forms can be that soul only.--To this objection the next Sutra replies.

43. On account of difference in deep sleep and departing.

We have to supply 'on account of designation' from the preceding Sutra.

Because the text designates the highest Self as something different from the individual Self in the state of deep sleep as well as at the time of departure, the highest Self is thus different. For the Vajasaneyaka, after having introduced the individual Self in the pa.s.sage 'Who is that Self?--He who consisting of knowledge is among the pranas,' &c. (_Bri_.

Up. IV, 3, 7), describes how, in the state of deep sleep, being not conscious of anything it is held embraced by the all-knowing highest Self, embraced by the intelligent Self it knows nothing that is without, nothing that is within' (IV, 3, 21). So also with reference to the time of departure, i.e. dying 'Mounted by the intelligent Self it moves along groaning' (IV, 3, 35). Now it is impossible that the unconscious individual Self, either lying in deep sleep or departing from the body, should at the same time be embraced or mounted by itself, being all- knowing. Nor can the embracing and mounting Self be some other individual Self; for no such Self can be all-knowing.--The next Sutra supplies a further reason.

44. And on account of such words as Lord.

That embracing highest Self is further on designated by terms such as Lord, and so on. 'He is the Lord of all, the master of all, the ruler of all. He does not become greater by good works, nor smaller by evil works.