VEDANTA-SUTRAS WITH RAMANUJA'S SRÎBHASHYA 44 страница

29. And on account of denial.

Texts such as 'This is that great unborn Self, undecaying, undying' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 25), 'By the old age of the body that does not age' (Ch. Up. VIII, 1, 5), deny of Brahman the properties of non-sentient matter. From this it follows that the relation of the two can only be that of distinguishing attribute and thing distinguished, and hence of part and whole. Brahman distinguished by sentient and non-sentient beings in their subtle state is the cause; distinguished by the same beings in their gross state is the effect: the effect thus is non-different from the cause, and by the knowledge of the causal Brahman the effect is likewise known. All these tenets are in full mutual agreement. Brahman's freedom from defects also is preserved; and this and Brahman's being the abode of all blessed qualities prove that Brahman possesses the 'twofold characteristics.' -- Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the coils of the snake.'

30. (There is something) higher than that; on account of the designations of bridge, measure, connexion, and difference.

The Sutras now proceed to refute an erroneous view based on some fallacious arguments, viz. that there is a being higher even than the highest Brahman, the supreme cause, material as well as operative, of the entire world -- a refutation which will confirm the view of Brahman being free from all imperfections and a treasure as it were of countless transcendentally exalted qualities. -- There is some entity higher than the Brahman described so far as being the cause of the world and possessing the twofold characteristics. For the text 'That Self is a bank (or bridge), a boundary' (Ch. Up. VIII, 4, 1) designates the Self as a bank or bridge (setu). And the term 'setu' means in ordinary language that which enables one to reach the other bank of a river; and from this we conclude that in the Vedic text also there must be meant something to be reached. The text further says that that bridge is to be crossed: 'He who has crossed that bridge, if blind,' &c.; this also indicates that there must be something to be reached by crossing. Other texts, again, speak of the highest Brahman as something measured, i.e. limited. 'Brahman has four feet (quarters), sixteen parts.' Such declarations of Brahman being something limited suggest the existence of something unlimited to be reached by that bridge. Further there are texts which declare a connexion of the bridge as that which is a means towards reaching, and a thing connected with the bridge as that to be reached: 'the highest bridge of the Immortal' (Svet. Up. VI, 19); 'he is the bridge of the Immortal' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 5). For this reason also there is something higher than the Highest. -- And other texts again expressly state that being beyond the Highest to be something different: 'he goes to the divine Person who is higher than the Highest' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 8); 'by this Person this whole universe is filled; what is higher than that is without form and without suffering' (Svet. Up. III, 9-10). All this combined shows that there is something higher than the highest Brahman. -- The next Sutra disposes of this view.

31. But on account of resemblance.

The 'but' sets aside the purvapaksha. There is no truth in the assertion that from the designation of the Highest as a bridge (or bank) it follows that there is something beyond the Highest. For Brahman in that text is not called a bank with regard to something to be reached thereby; since the additional clause 'for the non-confounding of these worlds' declares that it is compared to a bridge or bank in so far as it binds to itself (setu being derived from _si_, to bind) the whole aggregate of sentient and non-sentient things without any confusion. And in the clause 'having passed beyond that bridge' the _passing beyond_ means _reaching_; as we say, 'he passes beyond the Vedanta,' meaning 'he has fully mastered it.'

32. It subserves the purpose of thought; as in the case of the feet.

Where the texts speak of Brahman as having four quarters, and sixteen parts, or say that 'one quarter of him are all these beings' (Ch. Up. III, 12, 6), they do so for the purpose of thought, i.e. meditation, only. For as texts such as 'the Truth, knowledge, infinite is Brahman' teach Brahman, the cause of the world, to be unlimited, it cannot in itself be subject to measure. The texts referring to measure therefore aim at meditation only, in the same way as texts such as 'Speech is one foot (quarter) of him, breath another, the eye another, the mind another' (Ch. Up. III, 18, 2). -- But how can something that in itself is beyond all measure, for the purpose of meditation, be spoken of as measured? To this the next Sutra replies.

33. Owing to difference of place, as in the case of light, and so on.

Owing to the difference of limiting adjuncts constituted by special places, such as speech, and so on, Brahman in so far as connected with these adjuncts may be viewed as having measure; just as light and the like although spread everywhere may be viewed as limited, owing to its connexion with different places -- windows, jars, and so on.

34. And on account of possibility.

Nor is there any truth in the assertion that, because texts such as 'he is the bridge of the Immortal' intimate a distinction between that which causes to reach and the object reached, there must be something to be reached different from that which causes to reach; for the highest Self may be viewed as being itself a means towards itself being reached; cp. 'The Self cannot be reached by the Veda, and so on; he whom the Self chooses by him the Self can be gained' (Ch. Up. I, 2, 23).

35. Thus, from the denial of anything else.

Nor can we allow the assertion that there is something higher than the highest because certain texts ('the Person which is higher than the highest'; 'beyond the Imperishable there is the highest,' &c.) refer to such a difference. For the same texts expressly deny that there is anything else higher than the highest -- 'than whom there is nothing else higher, than whom there is nothing smaller or larger' (Svet. Up. III, 9). So also other texts: 'For there is nothing else higher than this "not so"' (i.e. than this Brahman designated by the phrase 'not so'; Bri. Up.

II, 3, 6); 'Of him none is the Lord, his name is great glory' (Mahanar. Up. I, 10).

But what then is the entity referred to in the text 'tato yad uttarataram '? (Svet. Up. III, 10)? -- The passage immediately preceding (8), 'I know that great person, &c.; a man who knows him passes over death,' had declared that the knowledge of Brahman is the only way to immortality; and the clause (9), 'Higher than whom there is nothing else,' had confirmed this by declaring that Brahman is the Highest and that there is no other thing higher. In agreement herewith we must explain stanza 10 as giving a reason for what had been said, 'Because that which is the highest (uttarataram), viz. the Supreme Person is without form and without suffering, therefore (tatah) those who know him become immortal,' &c. On any other explanation stanza 10 would not be in harmony with stanza 8 where the subject is introduced, and with what is declared in stanza 9. -- Analogously in the text 'He goes to the divine Person who is higher than the highest' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 8) 'the highest' means the aggregate soul (samasha-purusha), which in a previous passage had been said to be 'higher than the high Imperishable' (II, 1, 2); and the 'higher' refers to the Supreme Person, with all his transcendent qualities, who is superior to the aggregate soul.

36. The omnipresence (possessed) by that, (understood) from the declaration of extent.

That omnipresence which is possessed 'by that,' i.e. by Brahman, and which is known 'from declarations of extent,' and so on, i.e. from texts which declare Brahman to be all-pervading, is also known from texts such as 'higher than that there is nothing.' Declarations of extent are e.g. the following: 'By this Person this whole Universe is filled' (Svet. Up. III. 9); 'whatever is seen or heard in this world, is pervaded inside and outside by Narayana' (Mahanar. Up.); 'The eternal, pervading, omnipresent, which the Wise consider as the source of all beings' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 6). The 'and the rest' in the Satra comprises passages such as 'Brahman indeed is all this,' 'The Self indeed is all this,' and the like. The conclusion is that the highest Brahman is absolutely supreme. -- Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the Highest.'

37. From thence the reward; on account of possibility.

It has been shown, for the purpose of giving rise to a desire for devout meditation, that the soul in all its states is imperfect, while the Supreme Person to be reached by it is free from imperfections, the owner of blessed qualities and higher than everything else. Being about to investigate the nature of meditation, the Sutrakara now declares that the meditating devotee receives the reward of meditation, i.e. Release, which consists in attaining to the highest Person, from that highest Person only: and that analogously the rewards for all works prescribed by the Veda -- whether to be enjoyed in this or the next world -- come from the highest Person only. The Sutra therefore says generally, 'from thence the reward.' -- 'Why so?' -- 'Because that only is possible.'

For it is he only -- the all-knowing, all-powerful, supremely generous one -- who being pleased by sacrifices, gifts, offerings, and the like, as well as by pious meditation, is in a position to bestow the different forms of enjoyment in this and the heavenly world, and Release which consists in attaining to a nature like his own. For action which is non- intelligent and transitory is incapable of bringing about a result connected with a future time.

38. And on account of scriptural declaration.

That he bestows all rewards -- whether in the form of enjoyment or Release -- Scripture also declares 'This indeed is the great, the unborn Self, the eater of food, the giver of wealth' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 24); and 'For he alone causes delight' (Taitt. Up. II, 7). -- Next a prima facie view is stated.

39. For the same reasons Jaimini (thinks it to be) religious action.

For the same reasons, viz. possibility and scriptural declaration, the teacher Jaimini thinks that religious works, viz. sacrifices, gifts, offerings, and meditation, of themselves bring about their rewards. For we observe that in ordinary life actions such as ploughing and the like, and charitable gifts and so on, bring about their own reward, directly or indirectly. And although Vedic works do not bring about their rewards immediately, they may do so mediately, viz. by means of the so-called _apurva_. This follows also from the form of the Vedic injunctions, such as 'He who is desirous of the heavenly world is to sacrifice.' As such injunctions enjoin sacrifices as the means of bringing about the object desired to be realised, viz. the heavenly world and the like, there is no other way left than to assume that the result (which is seen not to spring directly from the sacrifice) is accomplished by the mediation of the apurva.

40. But the former, Badarayana (thinks), on account of the designation (of deities) as the cause.

The reverend Badarayana maintains the previously declared awarding of rewards by the Supreme Person since the scriptural texts referring to the different sacrifices declare that the deities only, Agni, Vayu, and so on, who are propitiated by the sacrifices -- which are nothing else but means to propitiate deities -- are the cause of the rewards attached to the sacrifices. Compare texts such as 'Let him who is desirous of prosperity offer a white animal to Vayu. For Vayu is the swiftest god. The man thus approaches Vayu with his proper share, and Vayu leads him to prosperity.' And the whole instruction which the texts give, as to the means by which men desirous of certain results are to effect those results, is required on account of the injunctions only, and hence it cannot be doubted that it has reference to the injunctions. The apparatus of means to bring about the results thus being learnt from the text only, no person acquainted with the force of the means of proof will assent to that apparatus, as stated by the text, being set aside and an apurva about which the text says nothing being fancifully assumed. And that the imperative verbal forms of the injunctions denote as the thing to be effected by the effort of the sacrificer, only that which on the basis of the usage of language and grammatical science is recognised as the meaning of the root-element of such words as 'yajeta,' viz. the sacrifice (yaga), which consists in the propitiation of a divine being, and not some additional supersensuous thing such as the apurva, we have already proved above (p. 153 ff.). Texts such as 'Vayu is the swiftest god' teach that Vayu and other deities are the bestowers of rewards. And that it is fundamentally the highest Self -- as constituting the inner Self of Vayu and other deities -- which is pleased by offerings, and bestows rewards for them is declared by texts such as 'Offerings and pious works, all this he bears who is the nave of the Universe. He is Agni and Vayu, he is Sun and Moon' (Mahanar. Up. I, 6, 7). Similarly in the antaryamin-brahmana, 'He who dwells in Vayu, of whom Vayu is the body'; 'He who dwells in Agni,' &c. Smriti expresses itself similarly, 'Whatsoever devotee wishes to worship with faith whatsoever divine form, of him do I make that faith unshakable. Endued with such faith he endeavours to propitiate him and obtains from him his desires -- those indeed being ordained by me' (Bha. Gî. VII, 21-22); 'For I am the enjoyer and the Lord of all sacrifices' (IX, 24) -- where Lord means him who bestows the reward for the sacrifices. 'To the gods go the worshippers of the gods, and those devoted to me go to me' (VII, 23). In ordinary life men, by agriculture and the like, acquire wealth in various forms, and by means of this propitiate their king, either directly or through his officials and servants; and the king thereupon is seen to reward them in a manner corresponding to the measure of their services and presents. The Vedanta-texts, on the other hand, give instruction on a subject which transcends the sphere of all the other means of knowledge, viz. the highest Person who is free from all shadow even of imperfection, and a treasure-house as it were of all exalted qualities in their highest state of perfection; on sacrifices, gifts, oblations, which are helpful towards the propitiation of that Person; on praise, worship, and meditation, which directly propitiate him; and on the rewards which he, thus propitiated, bestows, viz. temporal happiness and final Release. -- Here terminates the adhikarana of 'reward.'

THIRD PADA.

1. What is understood from all the Vedanta-texts (is one), on account of the non-difference of injunction and the rest.

The Sutras have stated whatever has to be stated to the end of rousing the desire of meditation-concluding with the fact that Brahman bestows rewards. Next the question is introduced whether the vidyas (i.e. the different forms of meditation on Brahman which the Vedanta-texts enjoin) are different or non-different, on the decision of which question it will depend whether the qualities attributed to Brahman in those vidyas are to be comprised in one act of meditation or not. -- The first subordinate question arising here is whether one and the same meditation -- as e.g. the vidya of Vaisvanara -- which is met with in the text of several sakhas, constitutes one vidya or several. -- The vidyas are separate, the Purvapakshin maintains; for the fact that the same matter is, without difference, imparted for a second time, and moreover stands under a different heading -- both which circumstances necessarily attend the text's being met with in different sakhas -- proves the difference of the two meditations. It is for this reason only that a restrictive injunction, such as the one conveyed in the text, 'Let a man tell this science of Brahman to those only who have performed the rite of carrying fire on their head' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 10) -- which restricts the impaiting of knowledge to the Atharvanikas, to whom that rite is peculiar -- has any sense; for if the vidyas were one, then the rite mentioned, which is a part of the vidya, would be valid for the members of other sakhas also, and then the restriction enjoined by the text would have no meaning. -- This view is set aside by the Sutra, 'What is understood from all the Vedanta-texts' is one and the same meditation, 'because there is non- difference of injunction and the rest.' By injunction is meant the injunction of special activities denoted by different verbal roots -- such as upasîta 'he should meditate,' vidyat 'he should know.' The and the rest' of the Sutra is meant to comprise as additional reasons the circumstances mentioned in the Purva Mîmamsa-sutras (II, 4, 9). Owing to all these circumstances, non-difference of injunction and the rest, the same vidya is recognised in other sakhas also. In the Chaandogya (V, 12, 2) as well as in the Vajasaneyaka we meet with one and the same injunction (viz. 'He should meditate on Vaisvanara'). The form (character, rupa) of the meditations also is the same, for the form of a cognition solely depends on its object; and the object is in both cases the same, viz. Vaisvanara. The name of the two vidyas also is the same, viz. the knowledge of Vaisvanara. And both vidyas are declared to have the same result, viz. attaining to Brahman. All these reasons establish the identity of vidyas even in different sakhas. -- The next Sutra refers to the reasons set forth for his view by the Purvapakshin and refutes them.

2. If it be said (that the vidyas are not one) on account of difference, we deny this, since even in one (vidya there may be repetition).

If it be said that there is no oneness of vidya, because the fact of the same matter being stated again without difference, and being met with in a different chapter, proves the object of injunction to be different; we reply that even in one and the same vidya some matter may be repeated without any change, and under a new heading (in a different chapter); if, namely, there is difference of cognising subjects. Where the cognising person is one only, repetition of the same matter under a new heading can only be explained as meaning difference of object enjoined, and hence separation of the two vidyas. But where the cognising persons are different (and this of course is eminently so in the case of different sakhas), the double statement of one and the same matter explains itself as subserving the cognition of those different persons, and hence does not imply difference of matter enjoined. -- The next Sutra refutes the argument founded on a rite enjoined in the Mundaka.

3. For (the sirovrata) concerns the mode of the study of the Veda; also on account of (that rite) being a heading in the samakara; and the restriction is like that of the libations.

What the text says as to a restriction connected with the 'vow of the head,' does not intimate a difference of vidyas. For that vow does not form part of the vidya. The restriction refers only to a peculiarity of the _study_ of the Veda on the part of the Atharvanikas, being meant to establish that they should possess that special qualification which the rite produces; but it does not affect the vidya itself. This is proved by the subsequent clause, 'a man who has not performed that rite may not _read_ the text,' which directly connects the rite with the studying of the text. And it is further proved by the fact that in the book of the Atharvanikas, called 'samakara,' that rite is referred to as a rite connected with the Veda (not with the special vidya set forth in the Mundaka), viz. in the passage, 'this is explained already by the Veda- observance' (which extends the details of the sirovrata, there called veda-vrata, to other observances). By the _knowledge of Brahman_ (referred to in the Mundaka-text 'let a man tell this science of Brahman to those only,' &c.), we have therefore to understand knowledge of the Veda in general. And that restriction is 'like that of the libations' -- i. e. it is analogous to the restriction under which the sava-libations, beginning with the Saptasurya-libation, and terminating with the Sataudana-libation, are offered in the one fire which is used by the followers of the Atharvan, and not in the ordinary three fires.

4. Scripture also declares this.

Scripture also shows that (identical) meditation is what all the Vedanta- texts intimate. The Chandogya (VIII, 1, 1 ff.) declares that that which is within the small space in the heart is to be enquired into, and then in reply to the question what the thing to be enquired into is, says that it is the highest Self possessing the eight attributes, freedom from all evil and the rest, which is to be meditated upon within the heart. And then the Taittiriya-text, referring to this declaration in the Chandogya, says, 'Therein is a small space, free from all grief; what is within that is to be meditated upon' (Mahanar. Up. X, 23), and thus likewise enjoins meditation on the highest Self possessing the eight qualities. And this is possible only if, owing to unity of vidya, the qualities mentioned in the first text are included also in the meditation enjoined in the second text. -- Having thus established the unity of meditations, the Sutras proceed to state the practical effect of such unity.

5. (Meditation) thus being equal, there is combination (of gunas); on account of non-difference of purport in the case of what subserves injunction.

The meditation in all Vedanta-texts thus being the same, the qualities mentioned in one text are to be combined with those mentioned in another; 'on account of non-difference of purport in the case of what subserves injunction.' We find that in connexion with certain injunctions of meditation -- such as the meditation on Vaisvanara, or the small ether within the heart -- the text of some individual Vedanta-book mentions certain secondary matters (qualities, guna) which subserve that meditation; and as these gunas are connected with the meditation they are to be comprised in it, so that they may accomplish their aim, i.e. of subserving the meditation. For the same reason therefore we have to enclose in the meditation gunas mentioned in other Vedanta-texts; for being also connected with the meditation they subserve it in the same way. -- Here terminates the adhikarana of 'what is intimated by all Vedanta-texts.

6. If it be said that there is difference on account of the text; we say no; on account of non-difference.

So far it has been shown that the non-difference of injunction, and so on, establishes the unity of meditations, and that owing to the latter the special features of meditation enjoined in different texts have to be combined. Next, an enquiry is entered upon whether in the case of certain particular meditations there actually exists, or not, that non- difference of injunction which is the cause of meditations being recognised as identical. A meditation on the Udgîtha is enjoined in the text of the Chandogas, as well as in that of the Vajasaneyins (Ch. Up. I, 2; Bri. Up. I, 3); and the question arises whether the two are to be viewed as one meditation or not. The Purvapakshin maintains the former alternative. For, he says, there is no difference of injunction, and so on, since both texts enjoin as the object of meditation the Udgîtha viewed under the form of Prana; since there is the same reward promised in both places, viz. mastering of one's enemies; since the form of meditation is the same, the Udgîtha being in both cases viewed under the form of Prana; since the injunction is the same, being conveyed in both cases by the same verbal root (vid, to know); and since both meditations have the same technical name, viz. udgîtha-vidya. The Sutra states this view in the form of the refutation of an objection raised by the advocate of the final view. We do not admit, the objector says, the unity maintained by you, since the texts clearly show a difference of form. The text of the Vajasaneyins represents as the object of meditation that which is the agent in the act of singing out the Udgîtha; while the text of the Chandogas enjoins meditation on what is the object of the action of singing out (i. e. the Udgîtha itself). This discrepancy establishes difference in the character of the meditation, and as this implies difference of the object enjoined, the mere non- difference of injunction, and so on, is of no force, and hence the two meditations are separate ones. -- This objection the Purvapakshin impugns, 'on account of non-difference.' For both texts, at the outset, declare that the Udgîtha is the means to bring about the conquest of enemies (Let us overcome the Asuras at the sacrifices by means of the Udgîtha' (Bri. Up.); 'The gods took the Udgîtha, thinking they would with that overcome the Asuras' -- Ch. Up.). In order therefore not to stultify this common beginning, we must assume that in the clause 'For them that breath sang out' (Bri. Up.), the Udgîtha, which really is the object of the action of singing, is spoken of as the agent. Otherwise the term udgîtha in the introductory passage ('by means of the Udgîtha') would have to be taken as by implication denoting the agent (while directly it indicates the instrument). -- Hence there is oneness of the two vidyas. -- Of this view the next Sutra disposes.

7. Or not, on account of difference of subject-matter; as in the case of the attribute of being higher than the high, and so on.

There is no unity of the two vidyas, since the subject-matter of the two differs. For the tale in the Chandogya-text, which begins 'when the Devas and the Asuras struggled together,' connects itself with the pranava (the syllable Om) which is introduced as the object of meditation in Chánd. I, 1, 1, 'Let a man meditate on the syllable Om as the Udgîtha'; and the clause forming part of the tale,'they meditated on that chief breath as Udgîtha.' therefore refers to a meditation on the pranava which is a part only of the Udgîtha. In the text of the Vaja- saneyins; on the other hand, there is nothing to correspond to the introductory passage which in the Chandogya-text determines the subject- matter, and the text clearly states that the meditation refers to the whole Udgîtha (not only the pranava). And this difference of leading subject-matter implies difference of matter enjoined, and this again difference of the character of meditation, and hence there is no unity of vidyas. Thus the object of meditation for the Chandogas is the pranava viewed under the form of Prana; while for the Vajasaneyins it is

the Udgatri (who sings the Udgîtha), imaginatively identified with Prana. Nor does there arise, on this latter account, a contradiction between the later and the earlier part of the story of the Vajasaneyins. For as a meditation on the Udgatri necessarily extends to the Udgîtha, which is the object of the activity of singing, the latter also helps to bring about the result, viz. the mastering of enemies. -- There is thus no unity of vidya, although there may be non-difference of injunction, and so on. -- 'As in the case of the attribute of being higher than the high,' &c. In one and the same sakha there are two meditations, in each of which the highest Self is enjoined to be viewed under the form of the pranava (Ch. Up. I, 6; I, 9), and in so far the two vidyas are alike. But while the former text enjoins that the pranava has to be viewed under the form of a golden man, in the latter he has to be viewed as possessing the attributes of being higher than the high, and owing to this difference of attributes the two meditations must be held separate (a_ fortiori_, then, those meditations are separate which have different objects of meditation).

8. If that be declared on account of name; (we object, since) that is also (where the objects of injunction differ).

If the oneness of the vidyas be maintained on the ground that both have the same name, viz. udgîtha-vidya, we point out that oneness is found also where the objects enjoined are different. The term agnihotra is applied equally to the permanent agnihotra and to that agnihotra which forms part of the sacrifice called 'Kundapayinam ayanam'; and the term udgîtha is applied equally to the many different meditations described in the first prapathaka of the Chandogya.

9. And (this is) appropriate, on account of the extension.

Since the pranava, which is a part of the udgîtha, is introduced as the subject of meditation in the first prapathaka of the Chandogya, and extends over the later vidyas also, it is appropriate to assume that also in the clause 'the gods took the udgîtha' -- which stands in the middle -- the term udgîtha denotes the pranava. Expressions such as 'the cloth is burned' show that frequently the whole denotes the part. -- The conclusion from all this is that in the Chandogya the object of meditation is constituted by the pranava -- there termed udgîtha -- viewed under the form of prana; while in the Vajasaneyaka the term udgîtha denotes the whole udgîtha, and the object of meditation is he who produces the udgîtha, i.e. the udgatri, viewed under the form of prana. And this proves that the two vidyas are separate. -- Here terminates the adhikarana of 'difference.'

⇐ Предыдущая 45 46 47 48 495051 52 53 54 Следующая ⇒