VEDANTA-SUTRAS WITH RAMANUJA'S SRÎBHASHYA 40 страница

In order to be able to account for the twofold designations of the soul, we must therefore admit that the soul is a _part_ of Brahman.

43. And on account of the mantra.

'One part (quarter) of it are all beings, three feet (quarters) of it are the Immortal in heaven' (Ch. Up. III, 12, 6) -- on account of this mantra also the soul must be held to be a part of Brahman. For the word 'foot' denotes a part. As the individual souls are many the mantra uses the plural form 'all beings.' In the Sutra (42) the word 'part' is in the singular, with a view to denote the whole class. For the same reason in II, 3, 18 also the word 'atman' is in the singular. For that the individual Selfs are different from the Lord, and are many and eternal, is declared by texts such as 'He who, eternal and intelligent, fulfils the desires of many who likewise are eternal and intelligent' (Ka. Up. II, 5, 13). Since thus the plurality of the eternal individual Selfs rests on good authority, those who have an insight into the true nature of Selfs will discern without difficulty different characteristics distinguishing the individual Selfs, although all Selfs are alike in so far as having intelligence for their essential nature. Moreover the Sutra II, 3, 48 directly states the plurality of the individual Selfs.

44. Moreover it is so stated in Smriti.

Smriti moreover declares the individual soul to be a part of the highest Person, 'An eternal part of myself becomes the individual soul (jîva) in the world of life' (Bha. Gî. XV, 7). For this reason also the soul must be held to be a part of Brahman.

But if the soul is a part of Brahman, all the imperfections of the soul are Brahman's also! To this objection the next Sutra replies.

45. But as in the case of light and so on. Not so is the highest.

The 'but' discards the objection. 'Like light and so on.' The individual soul is a part of the highest Self; as the light issuing from a luminous thing such as fire or the sun is a part of that body; or as the generic characteristics of a cow or horse, and the white or black colour of things so coloured, are attributes and hence parts of the things in which those attributes inhere; or as the body is a part of an embodied being. For by a part we understand that which constitutes one place (desa) of some thing, and hence a distinguishing attribute (viseshna) is a part of the thing distinguished by that attribute. Hence those analysing a thing of that kind discriminate between the _distinguishing_ clement or part of it, and the _distinguished_ element or part. Now although the distinguishing attribute and the thing distinguished thereby stand to each other in the relation of part and whole, yet we observe them to differ in essential character. Hence there is no contradiction between the individual and the highest Self -- the former of which is a viseshana of the latter -- standing to each other in the relation of part and whole, and their being at the same time of essentially different nature. This the Sutra declares 'not so is the highest,' i.e. the highest Self is not of the same nature as the individual soul. For as the luminous body is of a nature different from that of its light, thus the highest Self differs from the individual soul which is a part of it. It is this difference of character -- due to the individual soul being the distinguishing clement and the highest Self being the substance distinguished thereby -- to which all those texts refer which declare difference. Those texts, on the other hand, which declare non-difference are based on the circumstance that attributes which are incapable of separate existence are ultimately bound to the substance which they distinguish, and hence are fundamentally valid. That in declarations such as 'Thou art that' and 'this Self is Brahman,' the words _thou_ and _Self_, no less than the words _that_ and _Brahman_, denote Brahman in so far as having the individual souls for its body, and that thus the two sets of words denote fundamentally one and the same thing, has been explained previously.

46. And Smriti texts declare this.

That the world and Brahman stand to each other in the relation of part and whole, the former being like the light and the latter like the luminous body, or the former being like the power and the latter like that in which the power inheres, or the former being like the body and the latter like the soul; this Parasara also and other Smriti writers declare, 'As the light of a fire which abides in one place only spreads all around, thus this whole world is the power (sakti) of the highest Brahman.' The 'and' in the Sutra implies that scriptural texts also ('of whom the Self is the body' and others) declare that the individual Self is a part of Brahman in so far as it is its body.

But if all individual souls are equal in so far as being alike parts of Brahman, alike actuated by Brahman, and alike knowing subjects, what is the reason that, as Scripture teaches, some of them are allowed to read the Veda and act according to its injunctions, while others are excluded therefrom; and again that some are to see, feel, and so on, while others are excluded from these privileges? -- This question is answered by the next Sutra.

47. Permission and exclusion (result) from connexion with a body; as in the case of light and so on.

Although all souls are essentially of the same nature in so far as they are parts of Brahman, knowing subjects and so on, the permissions and exclusions referred to are possible for the reason that each individual soul is joined to some particular body, pure or impure, whether of a Brahmana or Kshattriya or Vaisya or Sudra, and so on. 'As in the case of fire and so on.' All fire is of the same kind, and yet one willingly fetches fire from the house of a Brahmana, while one shuns fire from a place where dead bodies are burnt. And from a Brahmana one accepts food without any objection, while one refuses food from a low person.

48. And on account of non-connectedness there is no confusion.

Although the souls, as being parts of Brahman and so on, are of essentially the same character, they are actually separate, for each of them is of atomic size and resides in a separate body. For this reason there is no confusion or mixing up of the individual spheres of enjoyment and experience. The Sutrakara introduces this reference to an advantage of his own view of things, in order to intimate that the views of the soul being Brahman deluded or else Brahman affected by a limiting adjunct are on their part incapable of explaining how it is that the experiences of the individual Self and the highest Self, and of the several individual Selfs, are not mixed up.

But may not, on the view of the soul being Brahman deluded, the distinction of the several spheres of experience be explained by means of the difference of the limiting adjuncts presented by Nescience? -- This the next Sutra negatives.

49. And it is a mere apparent argument.

The argumentation by which it is sought to prove that that being whose nature is constituted by absolutely uniform light, i.e. intelligence, is differentiated by limiting adjuncts which presuppose an obscuration of that essential nature, is a mere apparent (fallacious) one. For, as we have shown before, obscuration of the light of that which is nothing but light means destruction of that light. -- If we accept as the reading of the Sutra 'abhasah' (in plural) the meaning is that the various reasons set forth by the adherents of that doctrine are all of them fallacious. The 'and' of the Sutra is meant to point out that that doctrine, moreover, is in conflict with texts such as 'thinking himself to be different from the Mover'(Svet. Up. I, 6); 'there are two unborn ones, one a ruler, the other not a ruler' (I, 9); 'of those two one eats the sweet fruit' (V, 6); and others. For even if difference is due to upadhis which are the figment of Nescience, there is no escaping the conclusion that the spheres of experience must be mixed up, since the theory admits that the thing itself with which all the limiting adjuncts connect themselves is one only.

But this cannot be urged against the theory of the individual soul being Brahman in so far as determined by real limiting adjuncts; for on that view we may explain the difference of spheres of experience as due to the beginningless adrishtas which are the cause of the difference of the limiting adjuncts! -- To this the next Sutra replies.

50. On account of the non-determination of the adrishtas.

As the adrishtas also which are the causes of the series of upadhis have for their substrate Brahman itself, there is no reason for their definite allotment (to definite individual souls), and hence again there is no definite separation of the spheres of experience. For the limiting adjuncts as well as the adrishtas cannot by their connexion with Brahman split up Brahman itself which is essentially one.

51. And it is thus also in the case of purposes and so on.

For the same reason there can be no definite restriction in the case of purposes and so on which are the causes of the, different adrishtas. (For they also cannot introduce plurality into Brahman that is fundamentally one.)

52. Should it be said (that that is possible) owing to the difference of place; we deny this, on account of (all upadhis) being within (all places).

Although Brahman is one only and not to be split by the several limiting adjuncts with which it is connected, yet the separation of the spheres of enjoyment is not impossible since the places of Brahman which are connected with the upadhis are distinct. -- This the Sutra negatives on the ground that, as the upadhis move here and there and hence all places enter into connexion with all upadhis, the mixing up of spheres of enjoyment cannot be avoided. And even if the upadhis were connected with different places, the pain connected with some particular place would affect the whole of Brahman which is one only. -- The two Sutras II, 3, 32 and 37 have stated an objection against those who, without taking their stand on the Veda, held the view of an all-pervading soul. The Sutras II, 3, 50 and ff., on the other hand, combat the view of those who, while basing their doctrine on the Veda, teach the absolute unity of the Self. -- Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the part.'

FOURTH PADA.

1. Thus the pranas.

After having taught that Ether and all the other elements are effects, and hence have originated, the Sutras had shown that the individual soul, although likewise an effect, does not originate in the sense of undergoing a change of essential nature; and had in connexion therewith clearly set forth wherein the essential nature of the soul consists. They now proceed to elucidate the question as to the origination of the instruments of the individual soul, viz. the organs and the vital breath.

The point here to be decided is whether the organs are effects as the individual soul is an effect, or as ether and the other elements are. As the soul is, thus the pranas are, the Purvapakshin maintains. That means -- as the soul is not produced, thus the organs also are not produced -- For the latter point no less than the former is directly stated in Scripture; the wording of the Sutra 'thus the pranas' being meant to extend to the case of the pranas also, the authority of Scripture to which recourse was had in the case of the soul. -- But what is the scriptural text you mean?

'Non-being, truly this was in the beginning. Here they say, what was that? Those Rishis indeed were that Non-being, thus they say. And who were those Rishis? The pranas indeed were those Rishis.' This is the passage which declares that before the origination of the world the Rishis existed. As 'pranah' is in the plural, we conclude that what is meant is the organs and the vital air. Nor can this text be interpreted to mean only that the pranas exist for a very long time (but are not uncreated); as we may interpret the texts declaring Vayu and the atmosphere (antariksha) to be immortal: 'Vayu and the atmosphere are immortal'; 'Vayu is the deity that never sets' (Bri. Up. II, 3, 3; I, 5, 22). For the clause 'Non-being indeed was this in the beginning' declares that the pranas existed even at the time when the entire world was in the pralaya state. Those texts, then, which speak of an origination of the pranas must be explained somehow, just as we did with the texts referring to the origination of the individual soul.

To this the Siddhantin replies, 'the pranas also originate in the same way as ether, and so on.' -- Why? -- Because we have scriptural texts directly stating that before creation everything was one, 'Being only this was in the beginning,' 'The Self only was this in the beginning.' And moreover, the text 'from that there is produced the prana and the mind and all organs'(Mu. Up. II, 3, 1) declares that the organs originated; they therefore cannot have existed before creation. Nor is it permissible to ascribe a different meaning to the texts which declare the origination of the sense-organs -- as we may do in the case of the texts declaring the origination of the soul. For we have no texts directly denying the origination of the sense-organs, or affirming their eternity, while we _have_ such texts in the case of the individual soul. In the text quoted by the Purvapakshin, 'Non-being indeed was this in the beginning,' &c., the word prana can denote the highest Self only; for from texts such as 'All these beings indeed enter into breath alone, and from breath they arise'(Ch. Up. I, 11, 5), the word prana is known to be one of the designations of the highest Self. And as to the clause 'the pranas indeed are those Rishis,' we remark that the term Rishi may properly be applied to the all-seeing highest Self, but not to the non- intelligent organs.

But how then is the plural form 'the Rishis are the pranas' to be accounted for? This the next Sutra explains.

2. (The scriptural statement of the plural) is secondary, on account of impossibility; and since (the highest Self) is declared before that.

The plural form exhibited by the text must be taken (not in its literal, but) in a secondary figurative sense, since there is no room there for a plurality of things. For Scripture declares that previous to creation the highest Self only exists.

3. On account of speech having for its antecedent that.

For the following reason also the word 'prana,' in the text quoted, can denote Brahman only. Speech, i.e. the names which have for their object all things apart from Brahman, presupposes the existence of the entire universe of things -- ether, and so on -- which is the object of speech. But, as according to the text 'this was then non-differentiated; it was thereupon differentiated by names and forms,' then (i.e. before the differentiation of individual things), no things having name and form existed, there existed also no effects of speech and the other organs of action and sensation, and hence it cannot be inferred that those organs themselves existed. -- Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the origination of the pranas.'

4. (They are seven) on account of the going of the seven and of specification.

The question here arises whether those organs are seven only, or eleven -- the doubt on this point being due to the conflicting nature of scriptural texts. -- The Purvapakshin maintains the former alternative. -- On what grounds? -- 'On account of going, and of specification.' For the text refers to the 'going,' i.e. to the moving about in the different worlds, together with the soul when being born or dying, of seven pranas only, 'seven are these worlds in which the pranas move which rest in the cave, being placed there as seven and seven' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 8) -- where the repetition 'seven and seven' intimates the plurality of souls to which the pranas are attached. Moreover those moving pranas are distinctly specified in the following text, 'when the five instruments of knowledge stand still, together with the mind (manas), and when the buddhi does not move, that they call the highest "going"' (gati -- Ka. Up. II, 6, 10). The 'highest going' here means the moving towards Release, all movement within the body having come to an end. As thus the text declares that at the time of birth and death seven pranas only accompany the soul, and as, with regard to the condition of final concentration, those pranas are distinctly specified as forms of knowledge (jñanani), we conclude that the pranas are the seven following instruments of the soul -- the organs of hearing, feeling, seeing, tasting and smelling, the buddhi and the manas. In various other passages indeed, which refer to the pranas, higher numbers are mentioned, viz. up to fourteen, speech, the hands, the feet, the anus, the organ of generation, the ahankara and the kitta being added to those mentioned above; cp. e.g. 'there are eight grahas' (Bri. Up. III, 2, i); 'Seven are the pranas of the head, two the lower ones '(Taitt. Samh. V, 3, 2, 5). But as the text says nothing about those additional organs accompanying the soul, we assume that they are called pranas in a metaphorical sense only, since they all, more or less, assist the soul. -- This view the next Sutra sets aside.

5. But the hands and so on also; (since they assist the soul) abiding (in the body). Hence (it is) not so.

The organs are not seven only, but eleven, since the hands and the rest also contribute towards the experience and fruition of that which abides in the body, i.e. the soul, and have their separate offices, such as seizing, and so on. Hence it is not so, i.e. it must not be thought that the hands and the rest are not organs. Buddhi, ahankara and kitta, on the other hand, are (not independent organs but) mere designations of the manas, according as the latter is engaged in the functions of deciding (adhyavasaya), or misconception (abhimana), or thinking (kinta). The organs therefore are eleven. From this it follows that in the passage 'Ten are these pranas in man, and Atman is the eleventh' (Bri. Up. II, 4, ii), the word Atman denotes the manas. The number _eleven_ is confirmed by scriptural and Smriti passages, cp. 'the ten organs and the one' (Bha. Gî. XIII, 5); 'ten are the vaikarika beings, the manas is the eleventh,' and others. Where more organs are mentioned, the different functions of the manas are meant; and references to smaller numbers are connected with special effects of the organs, such as accompanying the soul, and the like. -- Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the going of the seven.'

6. And (they are) minute.

As the text 'these are all alike, all infinite' (Bri. Up. I, 5, 13), declares speech, mind, and breath to be infinite, we conclude that the pranas are all-pervading. -- To this the Sutra replies, that they are minute; for the text 'when the vital breath passes out of the body, all the pranas pass out after it' (Bri. Up. V, 4, 2), proves those pranas to be of limited size, and as when passing out they are not perceived by bystanders, they must be of minute size -- The text which speaks of them as infinite is a text enjoining meditation ('he who meditates on them as infinite'), and infinity there means only that abundance of activities which is an attribute of the prana to be meditated on.

7. And the best.

By 'the best' we have to understand the chief vital air (mukhya prana), which, in the colloquy of the pranas, is determined to be the best because it is the cause of the preservation of the body. This chief vital air the Purvapakshin maintains to be something non-created, since Scripture (Ri. Samh. V, 129, 2), 'By its own law the One was breathing without wind,' shows that an effect of it, viz. the act of breathing, existed even previously to creation, at the time of a great pralaya; and because texts declaring it to have been created -- such as 'from him is born breath' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 3) -- may be interpreted in the same way as the texts declaring that the soul is something created (sec p. 540 ff.). -- To this the reply is that, since this view contradicts scriptural statements as to the oneness of all, previous to creation; and since the Mundaka-text declares the prana to have been created in the same way as earth and the other elements; and since there are no texts plainly denying its createdness, the chief vital air also must be held to have been created. The words 'the One was breathing without wind' by no means refer to the vital breath of living creatures, but intimate the existence of the highest Brahman, alone by itself; as indeed appears from the qualification 'without wind.' -- That the vital breath, although really disposed of in the preceding Sutras, is specially mentioned in the present Sutra, is with a view to the question next raised for consideration. -- Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the minuteness of the pranas.'

8. Neither air nor function, on account of its being stated separately.

Is this main vital breath nothing else but air, the second of the elements? Or is it a certain motion of the air? Or is it air that has assumed some special condition? -- The first alternative may be adopted, on account of the text 'prana is air.' -- Or, since mere air is not called breath, while this term is generally applied to that motion of air which consists in inhalation and exhalation, we may hold that breath is a motion of air. -- Of both these views the Sutra disposes by declaring 'not so, on account of separate statement.' For in the passage 'From him there is produced breath, mind, and all sense-organs, ether and air,' &c, breath and air are mentioned as two separate things. For the same reason breath also cannot be a mere motion or function of air; for the text does not mention any functions of fire and the other elements, side by side with these elements, as separate things (and this shows that breath also cannot, in that text, be interpreted to denote a function of air). The text 'prana is air,' on the other hand, intimates (not that breath is identical with air, but) that breath is air having assumed a special form, not a thing altogether different from it, like fire. In ordinary language, moreover, the word _breath_ does not mean a mere motion but a substance to which motion belongs; we say,'the breath moves to and fro in inhalation and exhalation.'

Is breath, which we thus know to be a modification of air, to be considered as a kind of elementary substance, like fire, earth, and so on? Not so, the next Sutra replies.

9. But like the eye and the rest, on account of being taught with them, and for other reasons.

Breath is not an element, but like sight and the rest, a special instrument of the soul. This appears from the fact that the texts mention it together with the recognised organs of the soul, the eye, and so on; so e.g. in the colloquy of the pranas. And such common mention is suitable in the case of such things only as belong to one class. -- The 'and for other reasons' of the Sutra refers to the circumstance of the principal breath being specially mentioned among the organs comprised under the term 'prana'; cp. 'that principal breath' (Ch. Up. I, 2, 7); 'that central breath' (Bri. Up. I, 5, 21). -- But if the chief breath is, like the eye and the other organs, an instrument of the soul, there must be some special form of activity through which it assists the soul, as the eye e.g. assists the soul by seeing. But no such activity is perceived, and the breath cannot therefore be put in the same category as the organs of sensation and action! -- To this objection the next Sutra replies.

10. And there is no objection on account of its not having an activity (karana); for (Scripture) thus declares.

The karana of the Sutra means kriya, action. The objection raised on the ground that the principal breath does not exercise any form of activity helpful to the soul, is without force, since as a matter of fact Scripture declares that there is such an activity, in so far as the vital breath supports the body with all its organs. For the text (Ch. Up. V, 1, 7 ff.) relates how on the successive departure of speech, and so on, the body and the other organs maintained their strength, while on the departure of the vital breath the body and all the organs at once became weak and powerless. -- The conclusion therefore is that the breath, in its fivefold form of prana, apana, and so on, subserves the purposes of the individual soul, and thus occupies the position of an instrument, no less than the eye and the other organs.

But as those five forms of breath, viz. prana, udana, &c., have different names and functions they must be separate principles (and hence there is not _one_ principal breath)! To this the next Sutra replies.

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 pass out of the body, to move, and so on, 'him when he passes 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 passing 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. Gî. X, 42). -- Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the rule of Fire and the rest.'

⇐ Предыдущая 41 42 43 44 454647 48 49 50 Следующая ⇒