{"collection":"Hinduism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/hin/sbe34/sbe34112.htm","path":"hin/sbe34/sbe34112.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/sbe34112.htm","text":"The Vedanta Sutras, commentary by Sankaracharya (SBE34), tr. by George Thibaut [1890]\nREVERENCE TO THE HIGHEST SELF!\n1. If it be said that some (mention) that which is based on inference (i.e. the pradh\u00e2na); we deny this, because (the term alluded to) refers to what is contained in the simile of the body (i.e. the body itself); and (that the text) shows.\nIn the preceding part of this work--as whose topic there has been set forth an enquiry into Brahman--we have at first defined Brahman (I, 1, 2); we have thereupon refuted the objection that that definition applies to the pradh\u00e2na also, by showing that there is no scriptural authority for the latter (I, 1, 5), and we have shown in detail that the common purport of all Ved\u00e2nta-texts is to set forth the doctrine that Brahman, and not the pradh\u00e2na, is the cause of the world. Here, however, the S\u00e2nkhya again raises an objection which he considers not to have been finally disposed of.\nIt has not, he says, been satisfactorily proved that there is no scriptural authority for the pradh\u00e2na; for some s\u00e2kh\u00e2s contain expressions which seem to convey the idea of the pradh\u00e2na. From this it follows that Kapila and other supreme rishis maintain the doctrine of the pradh\u00e2na being the general cause only because it is based on the Veda.--As long therefore as it has not been proved that those passages to which the S\u00e2nkhyas refer have a different meaning (i.e. do not allude to the pradh\u00e2na), all our previous argumentation as to the omniscient Brahman being the cause of the world must be considered as unsettled. We therefore now begin a new chapter which aims at proving that those passages actually have a different meaning.\nThe S\u00e2nkhyas maintain that that also which is based on inference, i.e. the pradh\u00e2na, is perceived in the text of some s\u00e2kh\u00e2s. We read, for instance, they say, in the K\u00e2thaka (I, 3, 11), 'Beyond the Great there is the Undeveloped,\nbeyond the Undeveloped there is the Person.' There we recognise, named by the same names and enumerated in the same order, the three entities with which we are acquainted from the S\u00e2nkhya-smriti, viz. the great principle, the Undeveloped (the pradh\u00e2na), and the soul 1. That by the Undeveloped is meant the pradh\u00e2na is to be concluded from the common use of Smriti and from the etymological interpretation of which the word admits, the pradh\u00e2na being called undeveloped because it is devoid of sound and other qualities. It cannot therefore be asserted that there is no scriptural authority for the pradh\u00e2na. And this pradh\u00e2na vouched for by Scripture we declare to be the cause of the world, on the ground of Scripture, Smriti, and ratiocination.\nYour reasoning, we reply, is not valid. The passage from the K\u00e2thaka quoted by you intimates by no means the existence of that great principle and that Undeveloped which are known from the S\u00e2nkhya-smriti. We do not recognise there the pradh\u00e2na of the S\u00e2nkhyas, i.e. an independent general cause consisting of three constituting elements; we merely recognise the word 'Undeveloped,' which does not denote any particular determined thing, but may--owing to its etymological meaning, 'that which is not developed, not manifest'--denote anything subtle and difficult to distinguish. The S\u00e2nkhyas indeed give to the word a settled meaning, as they apply it to the pradh\u00e2na; but then that meaning is valid for their system only, and has no force in the determination of the sense of the Veda. Nor does mere equality of position prove equality of being, unless the latter be recognised independently. None but a fool would think a cow to be a horse because he sees it tied in the usual place of a horse. We, moreover, conclude, on the strength of the general subject-matter, that the passage does not refer to the pradh\u00e2na the fiction of the S\u00e2nkhyas, 'on account of there being referred\nto that which is contained in the simile of the body.' This means that the body which is mentioned in the simile of the chariot is here referred to as the Undeveloped. We infer this from the general subject-matter of the passage and from the circumstance of nothing else remaining.--The immediately preceding part of the chapter exhibits the simile in which the Self, the body, and so on, are compared to the lord of a chariot, a chariot, &c., 'Know the Self to be the lord of the chariot, the body to be the chariot, the intellect the charioteer, and the mind the reins. The senses they call the horses, the objects of the senses their roads. When he (the Self) is in union with the body, the senses and the mind, then wise people call him the enjoyer.' The text then goes on to say that he whose senses, &c. are not well controlled enters into sams\u00e2ra, while he who has them under control reaches the end of the journey, the highest place of Vishnu. The question then arises: What is the end of the journey, the highest place of Vishnu? Whereupon the text explains that the highest Self which is higher than the senses, &c., spoken of is the end of the journey, the highest place of Vishnu. 'Beyond the senses there are the objects, beyond the objects there is the mind, beyond the mind there is the intellect, the great Self is beyond the intellect. Beyond the great there is the Undeveloped, beyond the Undeveloped there is the Person. Beyond the Person there is nothing--this is the goal, the highest Road.' In this passage we recognise the senses, &c. which in the preceding simile had been compared to horses and so on, and we thus avoid the mistake of abandoning the matter in hand and taking up a new subject. The senses, the intellect, and the mind are referred to in both passages under the same names. The objects (in the second passage) are the objects which are (in the former passage) designated as the roads of the senses; that the objects are beyond (higher than) the senses is known from the scriptural passage representing the senses as grahas, i.e. graspers, and the objects as atigrahas, i. e. superior to the grahas (Bri Up. III, 2). The mind (manas) again is superior to the objects, because the relation of the senses and their objects is based on the mind. The intellect\n(buddhi) is higher than the mind, since the objects of enjoyment are conveyed to the soul by means of the intellect. Higher than the intellect is the great Self which was represented as the lord of the chariot in the passage, 'Know the Self to be the lord of the chariot.' That the same Self is referred to in both passages is manifest from the repeated use of the word 'Self;' that the Self is superior to intelligence is owing to the circumstance that the enjoyer is naturally superior to the instrument of enjoyment. The Self is appropriately called great as it is the master.--Or else the phrase 'the great Self' may here denote the intellect of the first-born Hiranyagarbha which is the basis of all intellects; in accordance with the following Smriti-passage' it is called mind, the great one; reflection, Brahman; the stronghold, intellect; enunciation, the Lord; highest knowledge, consciousness; thought, remembrance 1,' and likewise with the following scriptural passage, 'He (Hiranyagarbha) who first creates Brahman and delivers the Vedas to him' (Svet. Up. VI, 18). The intellect, which in the former passage had been referred to under its common name buddhi, is here mentioned separately, since it may be represented as superior to our human intellects. On this latter explanation of the term 'the great Self,' we must assume that the personal Self which in the simile had been compared to the charioteer is, in the latter passage, included in the highest person (mentioned last); to which there is no objection, since in reality the personal Self and the highest Self are identical.--Thus there remains now the body only which had before been compared to a chariot. We therefore conclude\nthat the text after having enumerated the senses and all the other things mentioned before, in order to point out the highest place, points out by means of the one remaining word, viz. avyakta, the only thing remaining out of those which had been mentioned before, viz. the body. The entire passage aims at conveying the knowledge of the unity of the inward Self and Brahman, by describing the soul's passing through sams\u00e2ra and release under the form of a simile in which the body, &c. of the soul--which is affected by Nescience and therefore joined to a body, senses, mind, intellect, objects, sensations, &c.--are compared to a chariot, and so on.--In accordance with this the subsequent verse states the difficulty of knowing the highest place of Vishnu ('the Self is hidden in all beings and does not shine forth, but it is seen by subtle seers through their sharp and subtle intellect'), and after that the next verse declares Yoga to be the means of attaining that cognition. 'A wise man should keep down speech in the mind, he should keep down the mind in intelligence, intelligence he should keep down within the great Self, and he should keep that within the quiet Self.'--That means: The wise man should restrain the activity of the outer organs such as speech, &c., and abide within the mind only; he should further restrain the mind which is intent on doubtful external objects within intelligence, whose characteristic mark is decision, recognising that indecision is evil; he should further restrain intelligence within the great Self, i.e. the individual soul or else the fundamental intellect; he should finally fix the great Self on the calm Self, i.e. the highest Self, the highest goal, of which the whole chapter treats.--If we in this manner review the general context, we perceive that there is no room for the pradh\u00e2na imagined by the S\u00e2nkhyas.\n238:1 The Great one is the technical S\u00e2nkhya-term for buddhi, avyakta is a common designation of pradh\u00e2na or prakriti, and purusha is the technical name of the soul. Compare, for instance, S\u00e2nkhya K\u00e2r. 2, 3.\n240:1 Samkalpavikalpar\u00fbpamananasakty\u00e2 hairanyagarbh\u00ee buddhir manas tasy\u00e2h vyashtimanahsu samashtitay\u00e2 vy\u00e2ptim \u00e2ha mah\u00e2n iti, Samkalp\u00e2disktitay\u00e2 tarhi samdeh\u00e2tmatvam tatr\u00e2ha matir iti. Mahatvam upap\u00e2dayati brahmeti. Bhogyag\u00e2t\u00e2dh\u00e2ratvam \u00e2ha p\u00fbr iti. Niskay\u00e2tmakatvam \u00e2ha buddhir iti. K\u00eertisaktimattvam \u00e2ha khy\u00e2tir iti. Niyamanasaktimatvam aha \u00eesvara iti. Loke yat prakrishtam g\u00f1\u00e2nam tato#natirekam \u00e2ha prag\u00f1eti. Tatphalam api tato n\u00e2rth\u00e2ntaravishayam ity \u00e2ha samvid iti. Kitpradh\u00e2natvam \u00e2ha kitir iti. G\u00f1atasarv\u00e2rtb\u00e2nusamdh\u00e2nasaktim \u00e2ha smritis keti. \u00c2nanda Giri.","title":"The Vedanta Sutras, Sankaracharya, comm.: First Adhy\u00e2ya, Fourth P\u00e2da: I, 4, 1","type":"page"}