11. It is designated as having five functions like mind.

As desire, and so on, are not principles different from mind, although they are different functions and produce different effects--according to the text, 'Desire, purpose, doubt, faith, want of faith, firmness, absence of firmness, shame, reflection, fear--all this is mind' (Bri. Up.

I, 5, 3); so, on the ground of the text, 'prana, apana, vyana, udana, samana--all this is prana' (ibid.), apana and the rest must be held to be different functions of prana only, not independent principles.--Here terminates the adhikarana of what is 'a modification of air.'

12. And (it is) minute.

This prana also is minute, since as before (i.e. as in the case of the organs) the text declares it to pa.s.s out of the body, to move, and so on, 'him when he pa.s.ses out the prana follows after' (Bri. Up. V, 4, 2). A further doubt arises, in the case of prana, owing to the fact that in other texts it is spoken of as of large extent, 'It is equal to these three worlds, equal to this Universe' (Bri. Up. I, 3, 22); 'On prana everything is founded'; 'For all this is shut up in prana.' But as the texts declaring the pa.s.sing out, and so on, of the prana, prove it to be of limited size, the all-embracingness ascribed to prana in those other texts must be interpreted to mean only that the life of all living and breathing creatures depends on breath.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the minuteness of the best.'

13. But the rule (over the pranas) on the part of Fire and the rest, together with him to whom the prana belong (i.e. the soul), is owing to the thinking of that (viz. the highest Self); on account of scriptural statement.

It has been shown that the pranas, together with the main prana, originate from Brahman, and have a limited size. That the pranas are guided by Agni and other divine beings has also been explained on a previous occasion, viz. under Su. II, 1, 5. And it is known from ordinary experience that the organs are ruled by the individual soul, which uses them as means of experience and fruition. And this is also established by scriptural texts, such as 'Having taken these pranas he (i.e. the soul) moves about in his own body, according to his pleasure'(Bri. Up. II, 1, 18). The question now arises whether the rule of the soul and of the presiding divine beings over the pranas depends on them (i.e. the soul and the divinities) only, or on some other being.-- On them only, since they depend on no one else!--Not so, the Sutra declares. The rule which light, and so on, i.e. Agni and the other divinities, together with him to whom the pranas belong i.e. the soul, exercise over the pranas, proceeds from the thinking of that, i.e. from the will of the highest Self.--How is this known?--'From scriptural statement.' For Scripture teaches that the organs, together with their guiding divinities and the individual soul, depend in all their doings on the thought of the highest Person. 'He, who abiding within Fire, rules Fire from within.--He, who abiding within the air--within the Self-- within the eye, and so on' (Bri. Up III, 7); 'From fear of it the wind blows, from fear of it the sun rises, from fear of it Agni and Indra, yea Death runs as the fifth' (Taitt. Up. II, 8, 1); 'By the command of that Imperishable one, sun and moon stand, held apart'(Bri Up III, 8, 9).

14. And on account of the eternity of this.

As the quality, inhering in all things, of being ruled by the highest Self, is eternal and definitely fixed by being connected with his essential nature, it is an unavoidable conclusion that the rule of the soul and of the divinities over the organs depends on the will of the highest Self. The text, 'Having sent forth this he entered into it, having entered into it he became sat and tyat' (Taitt. Up. II, 6), shows that the entering on the part of the highest Person into all things, so as to be their ruler, is connected with his essential nature. Similarly Smriti says, 'Pervading this entire Universe by a portion of mine I do abide' (Bha. Gi. X, 42).--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the rule of Fire and the rest.'

15. They, with the exception of the best, are organs, on account of being so designated.

Are all principles called pranas to be considered as 'organs'

(indriyani), or is the 'best,' i.e. the chief prana, to be excepted?-- All of them, without exception, are organs; for they all are called pranas equally, and they all are instruments of the soul.--Not so, the Sutra replies. The 'best' one is to be excepted, since only the prawas other than the best are designated as organs. Texts such as 'the organs are ten and one' (Bha. Gi. XIII, 5) apply the term 'organ' only to the senses of sight and the rest, and the internal organ.

16. On account of scriptural statement of difference, and on account of difference of characteristics.

Texts such as 'from him is born prana, and the internal organ, and all organs' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 3) mention the vital breath separately from the organs, and this shows that the breath is not one of the organs. The pa.s.sage indeed mentions the internal organ (manas) also as something separate; but in other pa.s.sages the manas is formally included in the organs, 'the (five) organs with mind as the sixth' (Bha. Gi. XV, 7).

That the vital breath differs in nature from the organ of sight and the rest, is a matter of observation. For in the state of deep sleep the function of breath is seen to continue, while those of the eye, and so on, are not perceived. The work of the organs, inclusive of the manas, is to act as instruments of cognition and action, while the work of breath is to maintain the body and the organs. It is for the reason that the subsistence of the organs depends on breath, that the organs themselves are called pranas. Thus Scripture says, 'they all became the form of that (breath), and therefore they are called after him pranas'

(Bri. Up. I, 5, 21). 'They became its form' means--they became its body, their activity depended on it.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the _organs_.'

17. But the making of names and forms (belongs) to him who renders tripart.i.te, on account of scriptural teaching.

The Sutras have shown that the creation of the elements and organs in their collective aspect (samashti) and the activity of the individual souls proceed from the highest Self; and they have also further confirmed the view that the rule which the souls exercise over their organs depends on the highest Self. A question now arises with regard to the creation of the world in its discrete aspect (vyashti), which consists in the differentiation of names and forms (i.e. of individual beings). Is this latter creation the work of Hiranyagarbha only, who represents the collective aggregate of all individual souls; or, fundamentally, the work of the highest Brahman having Hiranyagarbha for its body--just as the creation of water e.g. is the work of the highest Brahman having sire for its body?--The Purvapakshin maintains the former alternative. For, he says, the text 'Having entered with this living- soul-self (anena jivenat-mana), let me differentiate names and forms'

(Ch. Up. VI, 3, 2), declares the jiva-soul to be the agent in differentiation. For the resolve of the highest deity is expressed, not in the form 'let me differentiate names and forms by myself (svena rupena), but 'by this soul-self,' i.e. by a part of the highest Self, in the form of the individual soul.--But on this interpretation the first person in 'vyakaravani' (let me enter), and the grammatical form of 'having entered,' which indicates the agent, could not be taken in their literal, but only in an implied, sense--as is the case in a sentence such as 'Having entered the hostile army by means of a spy, I will estimate its strength' (where the real agent is not the king, who is the speaker, but the spy).--The cases are not a.n.a.logous, the Purvapakshin replies. For the king and the spy are fundamentally separate, and hence the king is agent by implication only. But in the case under discussion the soul is a part, and hence contributes to const.i.tute the essential nature of, the highest Self; hence that highest Self itself enters and differentiates in the form of the soul. Nor can it be said that the instrumental case ('with this soul-self') has the implied meaning of a.s.sociation ('together with this soul-self'); for if a case can be taken in its primary sense, it is not proper to understand it in a sense which has to be expressed by means of a preposition. But the third case, jivena, cannot here be understood even in its primary sense, i.e. that of the instrument of the action; for if Brahman is the agent in the acts of entering and differentiating, the soul is not that which is most suitable to accomplish the end of action (while yet grammar defines the _instrumental_ case--karana--on this basis). Nor can it be said that the activity of the soul comes to an end with the entering, while the differentiation of names and forms is Brahman's work, for the past participle (pravisya) indicates (according to the rules of grammar) that the two actions--of entering and differentiating--belong to the same agent. And although the soul as being a part of the highest Self shares in its nature, yet in order to distinguish it from the highest Self, the text by means of the clause 'with _that_ living Self refers to it as something outward (not of the nature of the Self). The agent in the action of differentiation of names and forms therefore is Hiranyagarbha.

Smriti texts also ascribe to him this activity; cp.'he in the beginning made, from the words of the Veda, the names and forms of beings, of the G.o.ds and the rest, and of actions.'

Against this view the Sutra declares itself. The differentiation of names and forms belongs to him who renders tripart.i.te, i.e. the highest Brahman; since it is a.s.signed by Scripture to the latter only. For the text 'That divinity thought, let me, having entered these three beings with this living-soul-self, differentiate names and forms--let me make each of these three tripart.i.te,' shows that all the activities mentioned have one and the same agent. But the rendering tripart.i.te cannot belong to Brahma (Hiranyagarbha), who abides within the Brahma-egg, for that egg itself is produced from fire, water, and earth, only after these elements have been rendered tripart.i.te; and Smriti says that Brahma himself originated in that egg, 'in that egg there originated Brahma, the grandfather of all the worlds.' As thus the action of rendering tripart.i.te can belong to the highest Brahman only, the differentiation of names and forms, which belongs to the same agent, also is Brahman's only.--But how then does the clause 'with that living-soul-self' fit in?-- The co-ordination 'with that soul, with the Self,' shows that the term 'soul' here denotes the highest Brahman as having the soul for its body; just as in the clauses 'that fire thought'; 'it sent forth water'; 'water thought,' and so on, what is meant each time is Brahman having fire, water, and so on, for its body. The work of differentiating names and forms thus belongs to the highest Brahman which has for its body Hiranyagarbha, who represents the soul in its aggregate form. On this view the first person (in 'let me differentiate') and the agency (conveyed by the form of 'pravisya') may, without any difficulty, be taken in their primary literal senses; and the common agency, implied in the connexion of pravisya and vyakaravani, is accounted for. The view here set forth as to the relation of Brahman and Hiranyagarbha also explains how the accounts of Hiranyagarbha's (Brahma's) creative activity can say that he differentiated names and forms.

The whole pa.s.sus beginning 'that divinity thought,' therefore has the following meaning--'Having entered into those three beings, viz. Fire, Water, and Earth, with my Self which is qualified by the collective soul (as const.i.tuting its body), let me differentiate names and forms, i.e.

let me produce G.o.ds and all the other kinds of individual beings, and give them names; and to that end, since fire, water, and earth have not yet mutually combined, and hence are incapable of giving rise to particular things, let me make each of them tripart.i.te, and thus fit them for creation.'--The settled conclusion then is, that the differentiation of names and forms is the work of the highest Brahman only.

But, an objection is raised, the fact that the differentiation of names and forms must be due to the same agent as the rendering tripart.i.te, does not after all prove that the former is due to the highest Self. For the rendering tripart.i.te may itself belong to the individual soul. For the text relates how, after the creation of the cosmic egg, a process of tripart.i.tion was going on among the individual living beings created by Brahma. 'Learn from me, my friend, how those three beings having reached man become tripart.i.te, each of them. The earth when eaten is disposed of in three ways; its grossest portion becomes feces, its middle portion flesh, its subtlest portion mind,' and so on. Similarly, in the preceding section, it is described how the process of tripart.i.tion goes on in the case of fire, sun, moon, and lightning, which all belong to the world created by Brahma, 'the red colour of burning fire is the colour of fire,' &c. And the text moreover states the original tripart.i.tion to have taken place after the differentiation of names and forms: 'That divinity having entered into these three beings differentiated names and forms. Each of these (beings) it rendered tripart.i.te.'--To this objection the next Sutra replies.

18. Flesh is of earthy nature; in the case of the two others also according to the text.

The view that the description of tripart.i.tion, given in the pa.s.sage 'each of these he made tripart.i.te,' refers to a time subsequent to the creation of the mundane egg and to the G.o.ds created by Brahma, cannot be upheld. For from it there would follow that, as in the pa.s.sage 'earth when eaten is disposed of in three ways,' &c., flesh is declared to be more subtle than feces, and mind yet subtler, it would have to be a.s.sumed--in agreement with the nature of the causal substance--that flesh is made of water and manas of fire [FOOTNOTE 581:1]. And similarly we should have to a.s.sume that urine--which is the grossest part of water drunk (cp. VI, 5, 2)--is of the nature of earth, and breath, which is its subtlest part, of the nature of fire. But this is not admissible; for as the text explicitly states that earth when eaten is disposed of in three ways, flesh and mind also must be a.s.sumed to be of an earthy nature. In the same way we must frame our view concerning 'the two others,' i.e. water and fire, 'according to the text.' That means--the three parts into which water divides itself when drunk, must be taken to be all of them modifications of water, and the three parts of fire when consumed must be held to be all of them modifications of fire. Thus feces, flesh and mind are alike transformations of earth; urine, blood and breath transformations of water; bones, marrow and speech transformations of fire.

This moreover agrees with the subsequent statement (VI, 5, 4), 'For, truly, mind consists of earth, breath of water, speech of fire.' The process of tripart.i.tion referred to in VI, 3, 4, is not therefore the same as the one described in the section that tells us what becomes of food when eaten, water when drunk, &c. Were this (erroneous) a.s.sumption made, and were it thence concluded that mind, breath and speech--as being the subtlest created things--are made of fire, this would flatly contradict the complementary text quoted above ('mind consists of earth,'

&c.). When the text describes how earth, water and fire, when eaten, are transformed in a threefold way, it refers to elements which had already been rendered tripart.i.te; the process of tripart.i.tion must therefore have taken place before the creation of the cosmic egg.

Without such tripart.i.tion the elements would be incapable of giving rise to any effects; such capability they acquire only by being mutually conjoined, and that is just the process of tripart.i.tion. In agreement herewith Smriti says, 'Separate from each other, without connexion, those elements with their various powers were incapable of producing creatures. Bul having combined completely, entered into mutual conjunction, abiding one within the other, the principles--from the highest Mahat down to individual things--produced the mundane egg.'-- When the text therefore says (VI, 3, 3) 'The divinity having entered into those three beings with that soul-self differentiated names and forms; he made each of these tripart.i.te,' the order in which the text mentions the activities of differentiation and tripart.i.tion is refuted by the order demanded by the sense [FOOTNOTE 583:1].--The text then proceeds to exemplify the process of tripart.i.tion, by means of burning fire, the sun and lightning, which indeed are things contained within the mundane egg (while yet the tripart.i.tion of elements took place before the egg, with all its contents, was created); but this is done for the information of Svetaketu, who himself is a being within the mundane egg, and has to be taught with reference to things he knows.

But, a final objection is raised, as on this view of the matter the elements--earth, water and fire--which are eaten and drunk, are already tripart.i.te, each of them containing portions of all, and thus are of a threefold nature, how can they be designated each of them by a simple term--_earth_, _water_, _fire_?--To this the next Sutra replies.

[FOOTNOTE 581:1. I.e. if the tripart.i.tion of earth (i. e. solid food) when eaten, which is described in VI, 5, 1, were the same tripart.i.tion which is described in VI, 3, 3-4, we should have to conclude that the former tripart.i.tion consists, like the latter, in an admixture to earth of water and fire.]

[FOOTNOTE 583:1. That means--in reality the tripart.i.tion of the elements came first, and after that the creation of individual beings.]

19. But on account of their distinctive nature there is that designation, that designation.

Each element indeed is of a threefold nature, owing to the primary tripart.i.tion; but as in each mixed element one definite element prevails-- so that each element has a distinctive character of its own--a definite designation is given to each.--The repet.i.tion (of 'that designation') in the Sutra indicates the completion of the adhyaya.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the fashioning of names and forms.'

THIRD ADHYAYA.

FIRST PADA.

1. In obtaining another of that, it goes enveloped, (as appears) from question and explanation.

That the Vedanta-texts establish as the proper object of meditation, on the part of all men desirous of Release, the highest Brahman, which is the only cause of the entire world, which is not touched by even a shadow of imperfection, which is an ocean, as it were, of supremely exalted qualities, and which totally differs in nature from all other beings--this is the point proved in the two previous adhyayas; there being given at the same time arguments to disprove the objections raised against the Vedanta doctrine on the basis of Smriti and reasoning, to refute the views held by other schools, to show that the different Vedanta-texts do not contradict each other, and to prove that the Self is the object of activities (enjoined in injunctions of meditation, and so on). In short, those two adhyayas have set forth the essential nature of Brahman. The subsequent part of the work now makes it its task to enquire into the mode of attaining to Brahman, together with the means of attainment. The third adhyaya is concerned with an enquiry into meditation--which is the means of attaining to Brahman; and as the motive for entering on such meditation is supplied by the absence of all desire for what is other than the thing to be obtained, and by the desire for that thing, the points first to be enquired into are the imperfections of the individual soul--moving about in the different worlds, whether waking or dreaming or merged in dreamless sleep, or in the state of swoon; and those blessed characteristics by which Brahman is raised above all these imperfections. These are the topics of the first and second padas of the adhyaya.

The first question to be considered is whether the soul, when moving from one body into another, is enveloped by those subtle rudiments of the elements from which the new body is produced, or not. The Purvapakshin maintains the latter alternative; for, he says, wherever the soul goes it can easily provide itself there with those rudiments.

Other reasons supporting this prima facie view will be mentioned and refuted further on.--The Sutra states the view finally accepted, 'In obtaining another "of that" it goes enveloped.' The 'of that' refers back to the form, i.e. body, mentioned in II, 4, 17. The soul when moving towards another embodiment goes enveloped by the rudiments of the elements. This is known 'from question and explanation,' i.e. answer.

Question and answer are recorded in the 'Knowledge of the five fires'

(Ch. Up. V, 3-10), where Pravahana, after having addressed to Svetaketu several other questions, finally asks 'Do you know why in the fifth libation water is called man?' In answer to this last question the text then explains how the Devas, i.e. the pranas attached to the soul, offer into the heavenly world, imagined as a sacrificial fire, the oblation called sraddha; how this sraddha changes itself into a body con sisting of amrita, which body is called moon; how the same pranas offer this body of amrita in Parjanya, imagined as a fire, whereupon the body so offered becomes rain; how the same pranas throw that rain on to the earth, also imagined as a sacrificial fire, whereupon it becomes food; how this food is then offered into man, also compared to fire, where it becomes seed; and how, finally, this seed is offered into woman, also compared to a fire, and there becomes an embryo. The text then goes on, 'Thus in the fifth oblation water becomes purushavakas,' i.e. to be designated by the term _man_. And this means that the water which, in a subtle form, was throughout present in the previous oblations also, now, in that fifth oblation, a.s.sumes the form of a man.--From this question and answer it thus appears that the soul moves towards a new embodiment, together with the subtle rudiments from which the new body springs.--But the words, 'water becomes purushavakas,' only intimate that water a.s.sumes the form of a man, whence we conclude that water only invests the soul during its wanderings; how then can it be held that the soul moves invested by the rudiments of all elements?--To this question the next Sutra replies.