Vedanta-Sutras Part I · 6 of 103

Introduction (Part 6)

The introduction, on the other hand, of the passage from the Prasna Upanishad treating of the akshara Omkâra is clearly due to the circumstance that an akshara, of a different nature, had been discussed in the preceding adhikarana.—The fifth and sixth adhikaranas investigate Khândogya passages.—The two next Sûtras (22, 23) are, as remarked above, considered by Sankara to constitute a new adhikarana treating of the ‘being after which everything shines’ (Mund. Up. II, 2, 10); while Râmânuga looks on them as continuing the sixth adhikarana. There is one circumstance which renders it at any rate probable that Râmânuga, and not Sankara, here hits the intention of the author of the Sûtras.

The general rule in the first three pâdas is that, wherever a new Vedic passage is meant to be introduced, the subject of the discussion, i.e. that being which in the end is declared to be Brahman is referred to by means of a special word, in most cases a nominative form 2. From this rule there is in the preceding part of the adhyâya only one real exception, viz. in I, 2, 1, which possibly may be due to the fact that there a new pâda begins, and it therefore was considered superfluous to indicate the introduction of a new topic by a special word. The exception supplied by I, 3, 19 is only an apparent one; for, as remarked above, Sûtra 19 does not in reality begin a new adhikarana. A few exceptions occurring later on will be noticed in their places.—Now neither Sutra 22 nor Sutra 23 contains any word intimating that a new Vedic passage is being taken into consideration, and hence it appears preferable to look upon them, with Râmânuga, as continuing the topic of the preceding adhikarana.—This conclusion receives an additional confirmation from the position of the next adhikarana, which treats of the being ‘a span long’ mentioned in Katha Up.

II, 4, 12; for the reason of this latter passage being considered here is almost certainly the reference to the alpasruti in Sûtra 21, and, if so, the angushthamâtra properly constitutes the subject of the adhikarana immediately following on Adhik. V, VI; which, in its turn, implies that Sutras 22, 23 do not form an independent adhikarana.—The two next adhikaranas are digressions, and do not refer to special Vedic passages.—Sutra 39 forms anew adhikarana, according to Sankara, but not according to Râmânuga, whose opinion seems again to be countenanced by the fact that the Sûtra does not exhibit any word indicative of a new topic.

The same difference of opinion prevails with regard to Sûtra 40, and it appears from the translation of the Sûtra given above, according to Râmânuga’s view, that ‘gyotih’ need not be taken as a nominative.—The last two adhikaranas finally refer, according to Râmânuga, to one Khandogya passage only, and here also we have to notice that Sûtra 42 does not comprise any word intimating that a new passage is about to be discussed.

From all this we seem entitled to draw the following conclusions. The Vedic passages discussed in the three first pâdas of the Vedânta-sûtras comprise all the doubtful—or at any rate all the more important doubtful—passages from the Khandogya Upanishad. These passages are arranged in the order in which the text of the Upanishad exhibits them. Passages from other Upanishads are discussed as opportunities offer, there being always a special reason why a certain Khandogya passage is followed by a certain passage from some other Upanishad. Those reasons can be assigned with sufficient certainty in a number of cases although not in all, and from among those passages whose introduction cannot be satisfactorily accounted for some are eliminated by our following the subdivision of the Sûtras into adhikaranas adopted by Râmânuga, a subdivision countenanced by the external form of the Sûtras.

The fourth pâda of the first adhyâya has to be taken by itself. It is directed specially and avowedly against Sânkhya-interpretations of Scripture, not only in its earlier part which discusses isolated passages, but also—as is brought out much more clearly in the Srî-bhâshya than by Sankara—in its latter part which takes a general survey of the entire scriptural evidence for Brahman being the material as well as the operative cause of the world.

Deussen thinks that the selection made by the Sûtrakâra of Vedic passages setting forth the nature of Brahman is not in all cases an altogether happy one. But this reproach rests on the assumption that the passages referred to in the first adhyâya were chosen for the purpose of throwing light on what Brahman is, and this assumption can hardly be upheld. The Vedânta-sûtras as well as the Pûrvâ Mîmâmsâ-sûtras are throughout Mîmâmsâ i.e. critical discussions of such scriptural passages as on a primâ facie view admit of different interpretations and therefore necessitate a careful enquiry into their meaning. Here and there we meet with Sutrâs which do not directly involve a discussion of the sense of some particular Vedic passage, but rather make a mere statement on some important point. But those cases are rare, and it would be altogether contrary to the general spirit of the Sutrâs to assume that a whole adhyâya should be devoted to the task of showing what Brahman is. The latter point is sufficiently determined in the first five (or six) adhikaranas; but after we once know what Brahman is we are at once confronted by a number of Upanishad passages concerning which it is doubtful whether they refer to Brahman or not. With their discussion all the remaining adhikaranas of the first adhyâya are occupied. That the Vedânta-sûtras view it as a particularly important task to controvert the doctrine of the Sânkhyas is patent (and has also been fully pointed out by Deussen, p. 23). The fifth adhikarana already declares itself against the doctrine that the world has sprung from a non-intelligent principle, the pradhâna, and the fourth pâda of the first adhyâya returns to an express polemic against Sânkhya interpretations of certain Vedic statements. It is therefore perhaps not saying too much if we maintain that the entire first adhyâya is due to the wish, on the part of the Sûtrakâra, to guard his own doctrine against Sânkhya attacks.

Whatever the attitude of the other so-called orthodox systems may be towards the Veda, the Sânkhya system is the only one whose adherents were anxious—and actually attempted—to prove that their views are warranted by scriptural passages. The Sânkhya tendency thus would be to show that all those Vedic texts which the Vedântin claims as teaching the existence of Brahman, the intelligent and sole cause of the world, refer either to the pradhâna or some product of the pradhâna, or else to the purusha in the Sânkhya sense, i.e. the individual soul.

It consequently became the task of the Vedântin to guard the Upanishads against misinterpretations of the kind, and this he did in the first adhyâya of the Vedânta-sûtras, selecting those passages about whose interpretation doubts were, for some reason or other, likely to arise. Some of the passages singled out are certainly obscure, and hence liable to various interpretations; of others it is less apparent why it was thought requisite to discuss them at length.

But this is hardly a matter in which we are entitled to find fault with the Sûtrakâra; for no modern scholar, either European or Hindu, is—or can possibly be—sufficiently at home, on the one hand, in the religious and philosophical views which prevailed at the time when the Sûtras may have been composed, and, on the other hand, in the intricacies of the Mîmâmsâ, to judge with confidence which Vedic passages may give rise to discussions and which not.

Footnotes xxxii:1 The Roman numerals indicate the number of the adhikarana; the figures in parentheses state the Sûtras comprised in each adhikarana.

xxxiii:1 Deussen’s supposition (pp. 30, 150) that the passage conveying the second interpretation is an interpolation is liable to two objections. In the first place, the passage is accepted and explained by all commentators; in the second place, Sankara in the passage immediately preceding Sûtra 12 quotes the adhikarana ‘ânandamayo # bhyâsât’ as giving rise to a discussion whether the param or the aparam brahman is meant. Now this latter point is not touched upon at all in that part of the bhâshya which sets forth the former explanation, but only in the subsequent passage, which refutes the former and advocates the latter interpretation.

xxxiv:1 Evam gigñasitasya brahmanas ketanabhogyabhûtagadarûpasattvaragastamomayapradhânâd vyâvrittir uktâ idânîm karmavasvât trigunâtmakaprakritisamsarganimittanânâvidhântadukhasâgaranimagganenâsuddhâk ka pratyagâtmano # nyan nikhilaheyapratayanîkam niratisayânandam brahmeti pratipâdyate, ânandamayo # bhyâsât.

xxxiv:2 There is no reason to consider the passage ‘atra kekit’ in Sankara’s bhashya on Sutra 23 an interpolation as Deussen does. It simply contains a criticism passed by Sankara on other commentators.

xxxiv:3 To the passages on pp. 150 and 153 of the Sanskrit text, which Deussen thinks to be interpolations, there likewise applies the remark made in the preceding note.

xxxv:1 Gîvaysa iva parasyâpi brahmanah sarîrantarvaititvam abbyupagatam ket tadvad eva sarîrasambandhaprayuktasukhadukhopabhogaprâptir iti ken na, hetuvaiseshyât, na hi sarîrântarvartitvam eva sukhadukhopabhogahetuh api tu punyapâparûpakarmaparavasatvam tak kâpahatapâpmanah paramâtmano na sambhavati.

xxxv:2 The second interpretation given on pp. 184-5 of the Sanskrit text (beginning with apara âha) Deussen considers to be an interpolation, caused by the reference to the Paingi-upanishad in Sankara’s comment on I, 3, 7 p. 232). But there is no reason whatsoever or such an assumption. The passage on shows that Sankara considered the explanation of the mantra given in the Paingi-upanishad worth quoting, and is in fact fully intelligible only in case of its having been quoted before by Sankara himself.—That the ‘apara’ quote the Brihadâranyaka not according to the Kânva text—to quote from which is Sankara’s habit—but from the Mâdhyandina text, is due just to the circumstance of his being an ‘apara,’ i.e. not Sankara.

xxxvi:1 Sutras 14-21 are divided into two adhikaranas by the Adhikaranaratnamâlâ, but really constitute a simple adhikarana only.

xxxvi:2 Itas kaitad evam. Anukrites tasya ka. Tasya daharâkâsasya parabrahmano # nukârâd ayam apahatapâpmatvâdigunako vimuktabandhah pratyagâtmâ na daharâkâsah tadanukâras tatsâmyam tathâ hi pratyagâtmano # pi vimuktasya parabrahmânukârah srûyate yadâ pasyah pasyate rukmavarnam kartâram îsam purusham brahmayonim tadâ vidvân punyapâpe vidhûya nirañganah paramam sâmyam upaitîty ato # nukartâ pragâpativâkyanirdishtah anukâryam param brahma na daharâkâsah. Api ka smaryate. Samsârino # pi muktâvasthâyâm paramasâmyâpattilakshanah parabrahmânukârah smaryate idam gñânam upâsritya, &c.—Kekid anukrites tasya kâpi smaryate iti ka sûtradvayam adhikaranântaram tam eva bhântam anubhâti sarvam tasya bhâsâ sarvam idam vibhâtîty asyâh sruteh parabrahmaparatvanirnayâya pravrittam vadanti. Tat tv adrisyatvâdigunako dharmokteh dyubhvâdyâyatanam svasabdâd ity adhi karanadvayena tasya prakaranasya brahmavishayatvapratipâdanât gyotiskaranâbhidhânât ity âdishu parasya brahmano bhârûpatvâvagates ka pûrvapakshânutthânâd ayuktam sûtrâksharavairûpyâk ka.

xlii:1 Yadi paramâtmâ na bhoktâ evam tarhi bhoktritayâ pratîyamâno gîva eva syâd ity âsankyâha attâ.

xliii:1 Sthânâdivyapadesâk ka ity atra yah kakshushi tishthann ity âdinâ pratipâdyamânam kakshushi sthitiniyamanâdikam paramâtmana eveti siddham kritvâ akshipurushasya paramâtmatvam sâdhitam idânim tad eva samarthayate antaryâ °.

xliii:2 Ânandamayah I, 1, 12; antah I, 1, 20; âkâsah I, 1, 22; prânah I, 1, 23; gyotih I, 1, 24; prânah I, 1, 28; attâ I, 2, 9; guhâm pravishtau I, 2, 11; antara I, 2,13; antaryâmî I, 2, 18; adrisyatvâdigunakah I, 2, 21; vaisvânarah I, 2, 24; dyubhvâdyâyatanam I, 3, 1; bhûmâ I, 3, 8; aksheram I, 3, 10; sah I, 3, 13; daharah I, 3, 14; pramitah I, 3, 24; (gyotih I, 3, 40;) âkâsah I, 3, 41.

SECOND ADHYÂYA. The first adhyâya has proved that all the Vedânta-texts unanimously teach that there is only one cause of the world, viz. Brahman, whose nature is intelligence, and that there exists no scriptural passage which can be used to establish systems opposed to the Vedânta, more especially the Sânkhya system. The task of the two first pâdas of the second adhyâya is to rebut any objections which may be raised against the Vedânta doctrine on purely speculative grounds, apart from scriptural authority, and to show, again on purely speculative grounds, that none of the systems irreconcilable with the Vedânta can be satisfactorily established.

PÂDA I. Adhikarana I refutes the Sânkhya objection that the acceptation of the Vedânta system involves the rejection of the Sânkhya doctrine which after all constitutes a part of Smriti, and as such has claims on consideration.—To accept the Sânkhya-smriti, the Vedântin replies, would compel us to reject other Smritis, such as the Manu-smriti, which are opposed to the Sânkhya doctrine. The conflicting claims of Smritis can be settled only on the ground of the Veda, and there can be no doubt that the Veda does not confirm the Sânkhya-smriti, but rather those Smritis which teach the origination of the world from an intelligent primary cause.

Adhik. II (3) extends the same line of argumentation to the Yoga-smriti.

Adhik. III (4-11) shows that Brahman, although of the nature of intelligence, yet may be the cause of the non-intelligent material world, and that it is not contaminated by the qualities of the world when the latter is refunded into Brahman. For ordinary experience teaches us that like does not always spring from like, and that the qualities of effected things when the latter are refunded into their causes—as when golden ornaments, for instance, are melted and thereby become simple gold again—do not continue to exist in those causes.—Here also the argumentation is specially directed against the Sânkhyas, who, in order to account for the materiality and the various imperfections of the world, think it necessary to assume a causal substance participating in the same characteristics.

Adhik. IV (12) points out that the line of reasoning followed in the preceding adhikarana is valid also against other theories, such as the atomistic doctrine.