7. But the division (origination) extends over all effects; as in ordinary life.

The 'but' has the sense of 'and.' As the clause 'In that all this has its Self' and similar ones directly state that Ether also is a creation of Brahman, the division, i.e. the origination of Ether from Brahman, is implicitly declared thereby. As in ordinary life. When in ordinary life somebody has said 'all these men are the sons of Devadatta,' it is known that any particulars which may afterwards be given about the descent of some of them are meant to apply to all.--In accordance with this our conclusion we interpret the text 'Air and Ether, this is the Immortal,'

as a.s.serting only that air and Ether continue to exist for a long time, as the Devas do.

8. Hereby air is explained.

The same argumentation explains the origination of air also. That a special Sutra is devoted to the origination of air--instead of disposing in one Sutra of Ether and air--is for the sake of Sutra 10, which states that 'hence (i.e. from air) there originated fire.'

9. But there is non-origination of that which is (only); on account of impossibility.

The 'but' has an affirmative sense. There is non-origination of that which is, i.e. of Brahman only; of whatever is different from Brahman non-origination cannot possibly be established. This means--the origination of Ether and air has been proved only in order to ill.u.s.trate a general truth. Only that which _is_, i.e. Brahman, which is the general cause, cannot originate. Whatever is other than Brahman, i. e.

the entire world comprising the Unevolved, the great principle (mahat), ahankara, the tanmatras, the sense-organs, the Ether, the air, and so on, cannot possibly be shown to be non-originated, since its being an effect is proved by the text declaring that everything is known through one thing, and in other ways.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the Ether.'

10. Fire (is produced) thence, for thus Scripture declares.

It has been stated that everything different from Brahman is the effect of Brahman. The doubt now arises whether the more remote effects of Brahman originate, each of them, only from that substance which is their immediately antecedent cause or from Brahman in the form of that substance.--The decision is that they originate from those substances only; for the text 'from air fire' directly states the origination of fire from air.

11. Water (from fire).

Water also originates 'thence,' i. e from fire; for so the texts declare 'From fire water' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1); 'that sent forth water' (Ch. Up.

VI, 2, 3).

12. Earth (from water).

Earth originates from water; for so the texts declare 'From water earth'

(Taitt Up. II. 1, 1). 'It (water) sent forth food' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 3).

But how can the word 'food' denote earth?--To this the next Sutra replies.

13. Earth on account of the subject-matter, the colour, and other texts.

That the word 'food' denotes the earth is to be inferred from the fact that the section in which the word occurs has for its subject-matter the creation of the elements; as everything eatable is a product of the earth, the term denoting the effect is there applied to denote the cause.

In the same chapter, where the colour of the elements is mentioned ('The red colour of a flame is the colour of fire, the white one that of water, the black one that of food '), the collocation of words clearly shows that 'food' means something of the same kind as fire and water, viz. the elements of earth. And there are other texts also which treat of the same topic and declare the origination of earth from water, cp. Taitt.

Up. II, 1, 'from fire sprang water, from water earth.' All this proves that the term 'food' denotes earth, and that hence earth originates from water.

Fire and the other substances, the origination of which has been detailed, are mentioned merely as instances, and it must be understood that also other ent.i.ties, such as the 'Mahat,' and so on, originate only from the immediately preceding cause, in agreement with scriptural statements. And texts such as 'From him is born breath, mind, and all organs of sense, ether, air, light, water, and the earth, the support of all' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 3); 'From him is born that Brahman, name, form, and food' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 9); 'From that Self there sprang ether' (Taitt. Up.

II, 1, 1); 'It (i.e. that which is) sent forth fire' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 3)-- (which seems to teach the direct origination from Brahman of the different elements, and so on)--may be interpreted on the understanding of Brahman being their mediate cause also.--This prima facie view the next Sutra disposes of.

14. But he; from the inferential mark supplied by their reflection.

The 'but' indicates the setting aside of the prima facie view raised. Of all effected things, the _Mahat_, and so on, the highest Person himself, in so far as embodied in the immediately preceding substance, is the direct cause.--How is this known?--'From the inferential mark supplied by the reflection of them.' By 'reflection' the Sutra means the resolve expressed in the recurring phrase, 'May I be many'; 'That fire thought, may I be many'; 'That water thought, may I be many' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 3; 4). As these texts declare that there was thought in the form of a resolve of self-multiplication--which thought can belong to a Self only, we conclude that also the Mahat, the ahankara, the Ether, and so on, accomplish the sending forth of their respective effects only after similar thought, and such thought can belong only to the highest Brahman embodied in the Mahat, ahankara, and so on. That the highest Brahman is embodied in all beings and const.i.tutes their Self, is directly stated in the antaryamin-brahmana, 'He who abiding in the earth; abiding in water; abiding in fire,' &c. &c. (Bri. Up. III, 7, 3 ff.); and likewise in the Subala-Up, 'Whose body is the earth,' &c. &c., up to 'Whose body is the Unevolved.' The Purvapakshin had maintained that the creation, from Brahman, of breath, and so on, which is declared in texts such as 'From him are born breath, mind,' &c., may be understood as a mediate creation.

This point is taken up by the next Sutra.

15. But the order of succession (which is stated) in reverse order (of the true one) is possible, (only if the origination of all effects is) thence (i.e. from Brahman).

The 'but' has an a.s.severative sense. The direct origination from Brahman of all effects--which in pa.s.sages such as the one quoted by the Purvapakshin is stated in a form the reverse of the (true) order of origination according to which the Unevolved, the Mahat, the ahankara, Ether, and so on, succeed each other--is possible only on the supposition of the origination of each effect being really from Brahman itself in the form of a special causal substance. To understand the causality of Brahman as a merely mediate one would be to contradict all those statements of immediate origination. Texts such as the one quoted thus confirm the conclusion that everything originates from Brahman directly.

16. If it be said that knowledge and mind (which are mentioned) between (breath and the elements) (are stated) in order of succession, owing to an inferential mark of this; we say, not so, on account of non- difference.

'Knowledge' in the Sutra denotes the means of knowledge, i.e. the sense- organs.--An objection is raised against the conclusion arrived at under the preceding Sutra. We cannot, the opponent says, admit the conclusion that the pa.s.sage from the Mundka Up. 'from him is born breath, mind,' &c., declares the immediate origination from Brahman of all things, and that hence the pa.s.sage confirms the view, first suggested by the inferential mark of 'thought' (see above, Su. 14), that everything springs from Brahman direct. For the purport of the text is to state a certain order of succession, and we hence conclude that all the beings mentioned were successively created. In the second half of the text we recognise the series of ether, air, fire, &c., which is known to us from other texts, and from the fact of their being exhibited in one and the same text we conclude that knowledge and mind--which are mentioned between breath on the one side and the elements on the other--must be viewed as created in that order. The text therefore in no way confirms the direct origination of everything from Brahman. To this the Sutra replies, 'Not so, on account of non-difference.' The first words of the text 'from him is born' connect themselves equally with breath, and knowledge, and mind, and the scries of elements beginning with ether; and the meaning of the whole therefore is to declare that all the ent.i.ties spring directly from Brahman, not to teach the order of succession in which they are produced.

It moreover cannot have the purport of teaching a certain order of succession, because the order stated contradicts the order established by other scriptural pa.s.sages; such as the one beginning 'the earth is merged in water,' and ending 'darkness becomes one.' We hence hold to the conclusion that all effects originate from Brahman only, in so far as embodied in the Unevolved, and so on, and that the terms 'fire' and so on denote Brahman, which is the Self of all those substances.--But to interpret all these words as denoting Brahman is to set aside their special denotative power as established by etymology!--To this objection the next Sutra replies.

17. But that which abides in the things movable and immovable, i.e. the terms denoting those things, are non-secondary (i.e. of primary denotative power, viz. with regard to Brahman); since (their denotative power) is effected by the being of that (i.e. Brahman).

The 'but' sets aside the objection raised. (The prima facie view here is as follows.) As Brahman, which has all things for its modes, is not the object of Perception and the other means of knowledge which give rise to the apprehension of the things only which are Brahman's modes, and as hence, previously to the study of the Vedanta-texts, the idea of that to which the modes belong (i.e. of Brahman) does not arise, and as the knowledge of all words finally denoting Brahman depends on the existence of the idea of that to which the modes belong (i. e. Brahman); all the individual words are used in worldly language only separately to denote special things. In other words, as the terms 'fire' and so on have denotative power with regard to particular things only, their denotative power with regard to Brahman is secondary, indirect only.--Of this view the Sutra disposes by saying 'that which abides in the moving and the non-moving,' &c. The meaning is--the terms which abide in, i.e. are connected with, the different moving and non-moving things, and hence denote those things, possess with regard to Brahman a denotative power which is not 'bhakta,' i.e. secondary or figurative, but primary and direct. 'Why so?' Because the denotative power of all words is dependent on the being of Brahman. For this we know from the scriptural pa.s.sage which tells how names and forms were evolved by Brahman.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'fire.'

18. Not the Self, on account of scriptural statement, and on account of the eternity (which results) from them.

The Sutras so far have stated that this entire world, from Ether downwards, originates from the highest Brahman. It now becomes a matter for discussion whether the individual soul also originates in the same way or not.--It does so originate, the Purvapakshin maintains. For on this a.s.sumption only the scriptural statement as to the cognition of all things through the cognition of one thing holds good, and moreover Scripture declares that before creation everything was one. Moreover, there are texts directly stating that the soul also was produced in the same way as Ether and other created things.

'Praj.a.pati sent forth all creatures'; 'All these creatures have their root in the True, they abide in the True, they rest on the True' (Ch. Up.

VI, 8, 6); 'From whence these beings are produced' (Taitt. Up. III, 1, 1). As these pa.s.sages declare the origination of the world inclusive of sentient beings, we conclude that the souls also originate. Nor must this be objected to on the ground than from the fact that Brahman is eternal, and the other fact that texts such as 'That art them' teach the soul to be of the nature of Brahman, it follows that the soul also is eternal. For if we reasoned in this style we should have to admit also that the Ether and the other elements are eternal, since texts such as 'in that all this has its Self' and 'all this indeed is Brahman 'intimate them also to be of the nature of Brahman. Hence the individual soul also originates no less than Ether and the rest.--To this the Sutra replies, 'Not the Self, on account of scriptural statement.' The Self is not produced, since certain texts directly deny its origination; cp.

'the intelligent one is not born nor does he die' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 18); 'There are two unborn ones, one intelligent and strong, the other non- intelligent and weak' (Svet. Up. I, 9). And the eternity of the soul is learned from the same texts, cp. 'There is one eternal thinker,' &c. (Ka.

Up. II,5, 13); 'Unborn, eternal, everlasting is that ancient one; he is not killed though the body is killed' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 18).--For these reasons the soul is not produced.

But how then about the declaration that through the cognition of one thing everything is known?-There is no difficulty here, since the soul also is an effect, and since effect and cause are non-different.--But this implies that the soul is an originated thing just like Ether and so on!--Not so, we reply. By a thing being an effect we mean its being due to a substance pa.s.sing over into some other state; and from this point of view the soul also is an effect. There is, however, the difference, that the 'other condition' which is represented by the soul is of a different kind from that which const.i.tutes non-sentient things, such as Ether and so on. The 'otherness' on which the soul depends consists in the contraction and expansion of intelligence; while the change on which the origination of Ether and so on depends is a change of essential nature. And change of the latter kind is what we deny of the soul. We have shown that there are three ent.i.ties of distinct nature, viz.