Descripción del hábitat

mentioned (the number five is made up) by ‘light’ (mentioned in the previous verse).

Jyotisha: by light; Ekesham: of some texts or recensions, i.e., of the

Kanvas; Asati: in the absence of; Anne: food.

The ar gu ment in sup port of Su tra 11 is con tin ued.

“The im mor tal light of lights the gods wor ship as lon gev ity” Bri. Up. IV-4-10. Al though food is not men tioned in the text cited in the last Su tra, ac cord ing to the Kanva recension of the Satapatha Brahmana, yet the four of that verse, to gether with ‘light’ men tioned in the text quoted above, would make the five peo ple.

We have proved here with that scrip tures of fer no ba sis for the doc trine of the Pradhana. It will be shown later on that this doc trine can not be proved ei ther by Smriti or by ra ti o ci na tion.

Karanatvadhikaranam: Topic 4 (Sutras 14-15) Brahman is the First cause

H$maUËdoZ MmH$mem{Xfw `Wmì`n{Xï>moºo$…&

Karanatvena chakasadishu yathavyapadishtokteh I.4.14 (120) Although there is a conflict of the Vedanta texts as regards the things created such as ether and so on, there is no such conflict with respect to Brahman as the First Cause, on account of His being represented in one text as described in other texts.

Karanatvena: as the (First) cause; Cha: and; Akasadishu: with

reference to Akasa and the rest; Yatha: as; Vyapadishta: taught in different Srutis; Ukteh: because of the statement.

The doubt that may arise from Su tra 13 that dif fer ent Srutis may draw dif fer ent con clu sions as to the cause of the uni verse is re moved by this Su tra.

In the pre ced ing part of the work the proper def i ni tion of Brah - man has been given. It has been shown that all the Vedanta texts have Brah man for their com mon topic. It has been proved also that there is no scrip tural au thor ity for the doc trine of the Pradhana. But now the Sankhya raises a new ob jec tion.

He says: It is not pos si ble to prove ei ther that Brah man is the cause of the or i gin etc., of the uni verse or that all the Vedanta texts re - fer to Brah man; be cause the Vedanta pas sages con tra dict one an - other. All the Vedanta texts speak of the suc ces sive steps of the cre ation in dif fer ent or der. In re al ity they speak of dif fer ent cre ations. Thus in Tait. Up. II-1-1 we find that cre ation pro ceeds from Self or Brah man “From the Self sprang Akasa, from Akasa air” etc. This pas - sage shows that the cause of cre ation is At man. In an other place it is said that the cre ation be gan with fire (Chh. Up. VI-2-3). In an other place, again, it is said “The per son cre ated breath and from breath faith” (Pras. Up. IV-4); in an other place, again, that the Self cre ated these worlds, the wa ter above the heaven, light, the mor tal (earth) and the wa ter be low the earth (Aitareya Aranyaka II-4-1-2, 3). There no or der is stated at all. Some where it is said that the cre ation orig i - nated from the non-ex is tent (Asat). “In the be gin ning there was the non-ex is tent (Asat); from it was born what ex ists” (Tait. Up. II-7). “In the be gin ning there was the non-ex is tent; it be came ex is tent; it grew” (Chh. Up. III-19-1). In an other place it is said “Oth ers say, in the be gin - ning there was that only which is not; but how could it be thus, my dear? How could that which is to be born of that which is not” (Chh. Up. VI-2-1, 2).

In an other place Sat is said to be the cause of the uni verse “Sat alone was in the be gin ning” Chh. Up. VI-2-1. In an other place, again, the cre ation of the world is spo ken of as hav ing taken place spon ta ne - ously. Again we find that Avyakta is said to be the cause of the world “Now all this was then Avyakrita (un de vel oped). It be came de vel oped by name and form” Bri. Up. 1-4-7. Thus the Upanishads are not con - sis tent, as re gards the cause of the uni verse. Thus it is not pos si ble to as cer tain that Brah man alone is taught in the Upanishads as the cause of the world. As many dis crep an cies are ob served, the Vedanta texts can not be ac cepted as au thor i ties for de ter min ing the cause of the uni verse. We must ac cept some other cause of the world rest ing on the au thor ity of Sruti and rea son ing.

It is pos si ble to say that Pradhana alone is taught to be the cause of the world as we find from the pas sage of the Bri. Up. al ready quoted above. Fur ther the words Sat, Asat, Prana, Akasa and Avyakrita can very well be ap plied to Pradhana, be cause some of them such as Akasa, Prana are the ef fects of Pradhana, while oth ers are the names of Pradhana it self. All these terms can not be ap plied to Brah man.

In some pas sages we find that At man and Brah man are also said to be the cause of the world; but these two terms can be ap plied to Pradhana also. The lit eral mean ing of the word ‘At man’ is all-per - vad ing. Pradhana is all-per vad ing. Brah man lit er ally means that which is pre-em i nently great (Brihat). Pradhana may be called Brah - man also. Pradhana is called Asat in its as pect of mod i fied things and it is called Sat or be ing in its causal or eter nal as pect. Pradhana is called Prana as it is an el e ment pro duced from it. Think ing etc., may also ap ply to Pradhana in a met a phor i cal sense, mean ing the com - mence ment of ac tion. So when the Upanishad says “It thought, let me be come many”, it means, that Pradhana started the ac tion of mul ti pli - ca tion. There fore all the Upanishad pas sages re lat ing to cre ation har - mo nise better with the the ory of Pradhana be ing the cre ator than of Brah man.

The Siddhantin gives the fol low ing re ply. Al though the Vedanta texts may be con flict ing with re gard to the or der of the things cre ated such as ether and so on, yet they uni formly de clare that Brah man is the First Cause. The Vedantic pas sages which are con cerned with set ting forth the cause of the world are in har mony through out. It can - not be said that the con flict of state ments re gard ing the uni verse af - fects the state ments re gard ing the cause i.e., Brah man. It is not the main ob ject of the Vedanta texts to teach about cre ation. There fore it would not even mat ter greatly. The chief pur pose of the Srutis is to teach that Brah man is the First Cause. There is no con flict re gard ing this.

The teacher will rec on cile later on these con flict ing pas sages also which re fer to the uni verse.

g_mH$fm©V² &

Samakarshat I.4.15 (121)

On account of the connection (with passages treating of Brahman, non-existence does not mean absolute Non-existence)

Samakarshat: from its connection with a distant expression.

Some texts from the Taittiriya, the Chhandogya and Brihadaranyaka Upanishads are taken up for dis cus sion.

The Sankhyas raise an other ob jec tion. They say: There is a con flict with ref er ence to the first cause, be cause some texts de clare

that the Self cre ated these worlds (Ait. Ar. II-4-1-2-3). Some Vedanta pas sages de clare that cre ation orig i nated from non-ex is tence (Tait. II-7). Again in some pas sages ex is tence is taught as the First Cause (Chh. Up. VI-1-2). Some Srutis speak of spon ta ne ous cre ation. It can - not be said that the Srutis re fer to Brah man uni formly as the First Cause ow ing to the con flict ing state ments of the Vedanta texts.

The Siddhantin gives the fol low ing re ply. We read in the Tait. Up. II-7 “This was in deed non-ex is tence in the be gin ning.” Non-ex is tence here does not mean ab so lute non-ex is tence. It means un dif fer en ti - ated ex is tence. In the be gin ning ex is tence was un dif fer en ti ated into name and form. Taittriya Upanishad says “He who knows Brah man as non-ex ist ing be comes him self non-ex ist ing. He who knows Brah - man as ex ist ing, him we know him self as ex ist ing” Tait. Up. II-6. It is fur ther elab o rated by means of the se ries of sheaths viz., the sheath of food etc. rep re sented as the in ner self of ev ery thing. This same Brah man is again re ferred to in the clause. He wished ‘May I be many’. This clearly in ti mates that Brah man cre ated the whole uni - verse.

The term ‘Be ing’ or di narily de notes that which is dif fer en ti ated by names and forms. The term ‘Non-be ing’ de notes the same sub - stance pre vi ous to its dif fer en ti a tion. Brah man is called ‘Non-be ing’ pre vi ously to the orig i na tion of the world in a sec ond ary sense.

We read in Chh. Up. VI-2-2 “How can that which is cre ated from non-ex is tence be?” This clearly de nies such a pos si bil ity.

“Now this was then un de vel oped” (Bri. Up. I-4-7) does not by any means as sert that the evo lu tion of the world took place with out a ruler, be cause it is con nected with an other pas sage where it is said, “He has en tered here to the very tips of the fin ger-nails” (Bri. Up. I-4-7). ‘He’ re fers to the Ruler. There fore we have to take that the Lord, the Ruler, de vel oped what was un de vel oped.

An other scrip tural text also de scribes that the evo lu tion of the world took place un der the su per in ten dence of a Ruler. “Let me now en ter these be ings with this lov ing Self, and let me then evolve names and forms” Chh. Up. VI-3-2.

Al though there is a reaper it is said “The corn-field reaps it self.” It is said also “The vil lage is be ing ap proached.” Here we have to sup - ply “by Devadatta or some body else.”

Brah man is de scribed in one place as ex is tence. In an other place it is de scribed as the Self of all. There fore it is a set tled con clu - sion that all Vedanta texts uni formly point to Brah man as the First Cause. Cer tainly there is no con flict on this point.

Even in the pas sage that de clares Asat i.e. non-be ing to be the cause there is a ref er ence to Sat i.e. Be ing. Even the text that de - scribes Asat as the Causal force ends by re fer ring to Sat.

The doubt about the mean ing of a word or pas sage can be re - moved by ref er ence to its con nec tion with a dis tant pas sage in the same text, for such con nec tion is found to ex ist in the dif fer ent pas - sages of Sruti. The ex act mean ing of such words as ‘Asat’ which means non-en tity, ap par ently, ‘Avyakrita’ which means ap par ently non-man i fest Pradhana of Sankhya, is thus as cer tained to be Brah - man. Com pare the Srutis: gmo@H$m_`V ~hþñ`m§àOm`o`o{V “He de sired, I will be many I will man i fest my self” Tait. Up. II-6-2. AgÛm BX_J« AmgrV² “This was at first Asat”—ap par ently a non-en tity. Tait. II-7-1. The mean ing of the word Asat of the sec ond pas sage is as cer tained to be Brah man by ref er ence to the first pas sage where the same ques tion namely the state of the uni verse be fore cre ation is an swered in a clearer way.

The mean ing of the word Avyakrita in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad I-4-7 in the pas sage VÛoX§ Vø©ì`mH¥$V_mgrV² & (thus there fore, that was the un dif fer en ti ated) is as cer tained to be the Brah man as still un - de vel oped by a ref er ence to the pas sage g Ef Bh à{dï> AmZImJ«oä`… (the same is per vad ing all through and through down to the tips of the nails of the fin gers and toes). Avyakta is re cog nised in the last pas sage more clearly by the words ‘Sa esha’ (the self-same one).

The Pradhana of the Sankhyas does not find a place any where in the pas sages which treat about the cause of the world. The words ‘Asat’ ‘Avyakrita’ also de note Brah man only.

The word ‘Asat’ re fers to Brah man which is the sub ject un der dis cus sion in the pre vi ous verse. Be fore the cre ation, the dis tinc tion of names and forms did not ex ist. Brah man also then did not ex ist in the sense that He was not con nected with names and forms. As he has then no name and form, he is said to be Asat or non-ex is tent.

The word ‘Asat’ can not mean mat ter or non-be ing, be cause in this very pas sage we find that the de scrip tion given of it can ap ply only to Brah man.

Brah man is not ‘Asat’ in the lit eral mean ing of that word. The seer of the Upanishad uses it in a sense to tally dis tinct from its or di - nary de no ta tion.

Balakyadhikaranam: Topic 5 (Sutras 16-18) He who is the maker of the Sun, Moon, etc. is Brahman

and not Prana or the individual soul

OJÛm{MËdmV²Ÿ&

Jagadvachitvat I.4.16 (122)

(He, whose work is this, is Brahman) because (the ‘work’) denotes the world.

A pas sage from the Kaushitaki Upanishad is now taken up for dis cus sion.

In the Kaushitaki Brahmana the sage Balaki prom ises to teach Brah man by say ing “I shall tell you Brah man”, and he goes on to de - scribe six teen things as Brah man, be gin ning with the Sun. All these are set aside by the King Ajatasatru who says, none of them is Brah - man. When Balaki is si lenced, Ajatasatru gives the teach ing about Brah man in these words: “O Balaki! He who is the maker of those per - sons whom you men tioned and whose work is the vis i ble uni - verse—is alone to be known.”

We read in the Kaushitaki Upanishad in the di a logue be tween Balaki and Ajatasatru “O Balaki, He who is the maker of those per - sons whom you men tioned, and whose work is this (vis i ble uni verse) is alone to be known” (Kau. Up. IV-19).

A doubt arises now whether what is here said as the ob ject of knowl edge is the in di vid ual soul or the Prana or Brah man, the Su - preme Self. The Purvapakshin holds that the vi tal force or Prana is meant, be cause he says the clause “of whom this is the work” points to the ac tiv ity of mo tion and that ac tiv ity rests on Prana. Sec ondly, we meet with the term ‘Prana’ in a com ple men tary pas sage. “Then he be - comes one with the Prana alone” Kau. Up. IV-20. The word ‘Prana’ de notes the vi tal force. This is well known. Thirdly, Prana is the maker of all the per sons, the per son in the Sun, the per son in the moon etc. We know from an other scrip tural text that the Sun and other de i ties are only dif fer en ti a tions of Prana, “Who is that one God in whom all other gods are con tained? Prana and he is Brah man, and they call him That” (Bri. Up. III-9-9).

Or the pas sage re fers to the in di vid ual soul as the ob ject of knowl edge. A sub se quent pas sage con tains an in fer en tial mark of the in di vid ual soul, “As the mas ter feeds with his peo ple, nay as his peo - ple feed on the mas ter, thus does this con scious Self feed with the other selfs” Kau. Up. IV-20. As the in di vid ual soul is the sup port of the Prana, it may it self be called Prana. We thus con clude that the pas - sage un der dis cus sion re fers ei ther to the in di vid ual soul or to the chief Prana but not to the Lord of whom it does not con tain any in fer - en tial marks what so ever.

The Su tra re futes all these and says it is Brah man that is re - ferred to the maker in the text; be cause Brah man is taught here “I shall teach you Brah man.” Again ‘this’ which means the world, is his