Author Topic: CHAPTER 2 - SECTION 8  (Read 213 times)


  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 341
    • View Profile
« on: April 09, 2019, 11:06:22 PM »
2.8.1-4 Bhisa, through fear; asmat, of Him; vatah pavate, (the god of) Wind blows. Bhisa, through fear; udeti, rises; suryah, the Sun. Bhisa asmat, through fear of Him; dhavati, runs; agnih ca indrah ca, Fire as also Indra; (and) mrtyuh pancamah, Death, the fifth.

Since Wind etc., greatly adorable and lordly though they themselves are, engage regularly in such highly strenuous works as blowing, it is reasonable to conclude that this is possible on the supposition of a ruler different from them, because of whom they have their disciplined activity. Since they engage (in their duties) out of fear of this Brahman, just as servants do out of fear of a king, therefore, Brahman does exist as their ruler as a terrifying entity. And that Brahman, the source of fear, is Bliss. Esa bhavati, this is; mimamsa, an evaluation; anandasya, of Bliss, of the aforesaid Brahman. What is there to be assessed about Bliss? The answer is: Bliss can be studied thus from this point of view-whether It arises from the contact of subject and object, as is the case with worldly happiness, or whether It is natural.

As to that, the worldly bliss attains excellence owing to a concurrence of external and internal means. The bliss, thus attained, is being instanced here as an approach to the Bliss that is Brahman; for through this familiar bliss can be approached the Bliss that is comprehensible by an intellect free from objective thought. Even worldly bliss is particle of the Bliss that is Brahman, which becomes transmuted into impermanent worldly bliss, consequent on knowledge becoming covered up by ignorance, and ignorance becoming successively thicker accordingly as the individuals, starting with Hiranyagarbha, think diversely of this Bliss under the impulsion of the result of their past actions and in conformity with their past contemplations, and under the influence of contact with accessories like objects etc. That very Bliss which is visualized by one who is learned, versed in the Vedas and free from passion, appears diversely as increasing more and more-a hundredfold each time in the planes starting with that of man-Gandharvas till the bliss of Hiranyagarbha, Brahma, is reached-, in accordance with the attenuation of ignorance, desire and action. But when the division of subject and object, created by ignorance is eliminated by elightenment, there is only the intrinsic all pervading Bliss that is one without a second. In order to impart this idea, the text says: yuva syat, etc. Yuva, a youth-one in the prime of life. Sadhu-yuva is an adjective of the youth, and means one who is both young and good. Even a youth may be bad, and even a good man may bot be young. Hence the specification, 'Suppose there is a young man who is a good youth.' Adhyayakah is one who has studied the Vedas. Asisthah, the best ruler (or, 'the quickest in action'). [See S.] Drdhisthah, most hardy (i.e. having all the senses intact). Balisthah, strongest. (suppose the youth is) blessed with such physical accessories. (And let there be) tasya, for him; iyam sarva prthivi, this whole earth; purna, filled; vittasya, (should rather be vittena), with wealth meant for enjoyment, and with the means of karmas leading to seen and unseen results. The idea is that he is a king ruling over the earth. Sah, the joy that he has; is ekah manusah anandah, a single human bliss, one unit of the highest human bliss. Te Ye satam manusah anandah, that human bliss multiplied a hendredfold; is sah ekah manusya-gandharvanam anandah, one unit of the bliss of the man-Gandharvas. The happiness of man-Gandharvas becomes a hundred times better than that of man. Man-Gandharvas are those human beings who become Gandharvas through some special karmas and meditations. As they are possessed of the power of disappearance etc., being endowed with sublte bodies and senses, so obstacles in their way are few, and they are endowed with the power and means of resisting dualities (such as heat and cold, etc.). Therefore, a man-Gandharva will have mental tranquillity inasmuch as he remains unopposed and can withstand duality. From that excellence of tranquillity follows an abundant expression of Bliss. Thus it stands to reason that in proportion to the abundance of tranquillity on the succeeding planes as compared with that on the preceding ones, the excellence of bliss also progresses a hundredfold. However, the man free from desire has not been taken into consideration at the initial stage wiht a view to showing that the bliss of one, who observes Vedic duties and is untouched by desire and enjoyment of human objects, is a hundred times higher than the human bliss and is comparable to that of a man-Gandharva. Devotion to Vedic duties and sinlessness (Br. IV. iii. 33) are implied by the two terms 'learned' and 'young and good'.

These two qualities are, indeed, common to all (the planes). But desirelessness has been treated distinctively in order to point out that increase of bliss is independent of the superiority or inferiority of objects. Thus since happiness is seen to improve a hundredfold, proportionately with the advance of desirelessness, it is treated here with a view to enjoining dispassionateness as a means for the attainment of supreme Bliss. The rest has been already explained. Deva-Gandharvah, the divine-Gandharvas, are so from their very birth. The term ciralokalokanam, of those whose world lasts for ever, is an adjective of pitrnam, of the manes, the manes being so qualified since their world lasts (relatively) for ever. Ajana is the world of the gods; those who are born there-born in the regions of gods as a result of special rites prescribed by the Smrtis-are the Ajanaja gods. The karmadevah are those who reach the gods by mere Vedic Karma, such as Agnihotra etc. The devah, gods, are those who are thirtythree in number [Eight Vasus, eleven Rudras, twelve Adityas, Indra, and Prajapati.] and recieve oblations. Indra is their lord. His preceptor is Brhaspati. Prajapati is Virat who has the three worlds (earth, heaven, and intermediate space) as his body. [See Commentary on Br. III. iii. 2.] Brahma pervades the whole universe in the form of the cosmic and indvidual persons. This Brahma is Hiranyagarbha in whom all these varieties of bliss become unified, and in whom resides virtue which is the cause of that bliss, consciousness of that bliss, and dispassionateness of the highest order. This bliss of His is directly experienced everwhere by one who is versed in the Vedas, free from sin and unsullied by desire. Hence it is understood that these three qualities are the means (for the attainment of Bliss). Of these, Vedic learning and sinlessness are invariable (in all the planes), whereas desirelessness increases; and hence the last is known to be the best means. The bliss of Brahma, experienced on the perfection of desirelessness and also open to the direct vision of one who follows the Vedas, is a particle or bit of the supreme Bliss, in accordance with the Vedic text, 'On a particle of this very Bliss other beings live' (Br. IV. iii. 32). This bliss (of Brahma and others) is a particle of that Supreme Bliss that is natural, from which it has separated like spray from the sea and into which it merges again. In It (the supreme Bliss) there is no bifurcation of the joy and the enjoyer, since It is non-dual. The result of this evaluation is being concluded here:

2.8.5 He who, after projecting all the creation-beginning with space and ending with the body made of (the essence of) food entered into it and is lodged in the supreme space within the cavity of the heart, is here indicated by the words sah yah, He who. Who is He? Ayam puruse yah ca asau aditye, He who is in the human person, and He who resides in the sun. The supreme Bliss, that has been indicated as directly perceptible to the follower of the Vedas, and on a particle of which subsist all the beings worthy of joy-counting from Brahma-, that supreme Bliss is being described as 'He who resides in the sun'. He is one in the same sense that the space in a pot, standing separately, is one with space (as such).

Objection: In the matter of describing that Bliss, the corporeal soul should not be referred to in general terms by saying, 'He that is in the human person'; rather it is proper to indicate that soul by saying, 'And He that is in the right eye' (Br.II.iii.5,IV.ii.2,V.v.2), that being better known.
Answer: No, for the discussion is here about the supreme Self. [The other text quoted above refers to a meditation based on the indentity of the individual soul and Hiranyagarbha, and not to the identity, as such, of the individual Self and the supreme Self.] The supreme Self certainly forms the subject matter here in the texts, 'In the unperceivable, bodiless' (II.vii), 'Out of His fear the Wind blows' (II. viii. 1), 'This, then, is an evaluation of that Bliss'. It is not reasonable to refer suddenly to something out of context. And the subject sought to be taught is the knoweledge of the supreme Self. ['The same unsurpassing Bliss of the conscious Reality that is reflected on a superior medium, viz the sun, is also reflected on an inferior medium, viz a human being possessing head, hands, etc. Thus, from the standpoint of supreme Bliss, the two distinct entities are on a par, and intrinsically they are the same. This is what is taught.'-A.G.]

Therefore, it is verily the supreme Self that is referred to in the expression, sah, ekah, He is one.
Objection: Is not the topic started with an estimation of Bliss? The result of that estimation, too, has to be concluded by saying: 'The Bliss that is non-different and intrinsic, and not a product of the contact between the subject and the object, is the supreme Self.'
Counter-objection: Is not this indication (of the Self) by eliminating the distinctions pertaining to the different loci,-which we come across here in the sentence, 'He that is here in the human person, and He that is there is the sun, are one'-, quite in line with that?
Objection: Even so, is it not useless to single out the sun?
Answer: No, it is not useless, because it is meant for obviating (notions of) superiority and inferiority. In the sun is found the highest perfection of duality, consisting of the formed and the formless. If, from the standpoint of the supreme Bliss, that perfection can be placed on the same footing with the human personality, after eliminating the peculiarities of the latter, there will remain no superiority or inferiority for one who attains that goal; and hence it becomes reasonable to say that 'he reaches a state of fearlessness' (II. vii). The question as to whether Brahman exists or not, raised after the teacher's instruction, has been dealt with. One of these post-questions has been dismissed by saying that from the reasonings which justify the phenomena of creation, acquisition of joy, functioning of life, reaching a state of fearlessness, and experience of fear, it follows that Brahman does exist as the cause of those space etc. There are two other post-questions relating to the attainment or non-attainment of Brahman by the enlightened man and the unenlightened man. Of these, the last post-question is, 'Does the enlightened man attain or does he not?' In order to settle this, it is being said (as below).

The middle post question is settled by the answer to the last one; and hence no (separate) effort is made for solving it. Sah yah, anyone who; is evamvit, a knower of this kind; who, havig discarded all ideas of superiority and inferiority, knows Brahman, described earlier, evam, in this manner, 'I am the non-dual truth, knowledge, infinity';-for the word, 'evam, thus', is used for alluding to some topic already mooted-; what does he become?-he, pretya, (lit. after departing), desisting, without expecting anything; asmat lokat, from this world-the totality of things seen and unseen is verily indicated by the term 'this world'; without expecting anything from that world-; upasamkramati, attains; etam annamayam atmanam, this body built up by food, as explained already. The idea is that he does not perceive the totality of objects as different from the self, i.e. the body, built up by food; he sees all the gross elements as identical with the self built up by food. [He attains identity with Virat, the gross Consmic Person, whose body is constituted by the three worlds-earth, heaven, and intermediate space.] Then he attains etam pranamayam atmanam, this body constituted by the vital force, which is itself individed and is inside the (cosmic) body built up by all the food.

Then he attains this body made of mind, the body made of intelligence, [Hiranyagarbha, conceived of as possessing the powers of action, will, and knowledge, has a subtle body constituted by the totality of vital, mental, and intellectual energy.] the body made of bliss. Then he reaches the state of fearlessness in the unperceivable, bodiless, inexpressible, and unsupporting (Self) (II.vii). With regard to that, this has got to be considered: What is he who knows thus, and how does he attain? Is the attainer different from or the same as the supreme. Self? What follows from that? Should the attainer be different, the conclusion will run counter to such Vedic text as 'Having created that, He entered into that very thing' (, '(One who worships another god thinking), "He is one, I am another", he does not know' (Br. I. iv.10), 'One only, without a second' (Ch. VI.ii.1), and 'Thou art that' (Ch. VI.viii-xvi). On the contary, if the Self Itself attains the blissful self, we shall be faced with the unsoundness of the same entity being both subject and object; moreover, the supreme Self will either be reduced to a transmigratory soul or a nonentity.

Objection: This discussion is useless if the fault that arises on either assumption be unavoidable. On the other hand, if either of the assumptions is free from defect, or if a third flawless assumption is so, then that alone is the meaning of the scripture, and hence that the discussion is uncalled for.
Answer: No, for the discussion is meant for its ascertainment. True it is that the accruing defect cannot be avoided by accepting either of the two positions, and that the discussion becomes useless if a third flawless position is ascertained; but that third alternative has not been determined. Hence this consideration is fruitful as it is calculated to lead to that ascertainment.
Objection: True it is that an investigation is fruitful so far as it culminates in the fixing of the meaning of a scripture. But in your case, you will simply cogitate wihout ever hitting upon any meaning.
Answer: It it your view that there can occur any Vedic sentence whose meaning need not be determined?

Objection: No.
Counter-objection: How then (is the discussion useless)?
Objection: Because there are many opponents. You are a monist, since you follow the Vedic ideas, while the dualists are many who are outside the Vedic pale and who are opposed to you. Therefore I apprehend that you will not be able to determine.
Answer: This itself is a bliessing for me that you brand me as sworn to monism and faced by many who are wedded to plurality. Therefore I shall conquer all; and so I begin the discussion. The attainer must be the supreme Self alone, inasmuch as merger into that state is the idea implied. what is sought to be imparted here in the text, 'The knower of Brahman attains the highest' (II.i), is becoming the supreme Self through Its knowledge. Surely, it is not possible that one thing can become something else.

Objection: Is it not also unsound to say that the individual soul becomes the supreme Self?
Answer: No, for the idea conveyed is that of removal of the indentity (with the body etc.) created by ignorance. The attainment of one's onw Self through the knowledge of Brahman, that is taught, is meant for the elimination of the distinct selves-such as the foodself, the products of nescience-which are really non-Selves, superimposed as Selves.

Objection: How is such a meaning understood?
Answer: Because knowledge alone is prescribed. The effect of knowledge is seen to be the eradication of ignorance; and here that knowledge alone is prescribed as the means for the attainment of the Self.

Objection: May not that be like the communicating of information about a path? So the mere prescription of knowledge as a means does not amount to showing that the supreme Self is the Self of the attainer.
Counter-objection: Why?
Oppnonent: For it seen that, in the matter of reaching a different place, the information about the way is communicated. Not that the village itself can be the goer. [The traveller is not the village, though the knowledge of the path to the village is valuable to him. Similarly, the individual is not Brahman, though the instruction about knoweldge of Brahman is valuable; for by practising it he can reach Brahman.]
Answer: Not so, for the analogy is inept. [One does not say, 'You are the village', when talking about the path leading to it, whereas the identity of the two is taught here explicitly.] In the illustration cited, the information imparted is not of the village, but the knowledge imparted there is only of the path, leading to one's arrival there. But in this case, no information about any other means apart from the knowledge of Brahman is imparted.
Objection: The knowledge of Brahman, as depending on such means as rites etc. enjoined earlier, is taught as a means for the attainment of the highest.
Answer: No, for this was refuted earlier by saying, 'Since liberation is eternal,' etc. And the text, 'Having created that, He entered into that very thing' (II. vi), shows that the Self, immanent in creation, is identical with That (Supreme Brahman). And this follows also from the logic of attaining the state of fearlessness. For if the man of enlightenment sees nothing as different from his own Self, then the statement, 'He gets established in that state of fearlessness', becomes appropriate, since (for him) nothing exists as a separate entity which can cause fear. Moreover, if duality is a creation of nescience, then only is the realization of its insubstantiality through knowledge reasonable; for (the proof of) the non-existence of a second moon consists in its not being seen by one whose eyes are not affected by the disease called timira.

Objection: But non-perception of duality is not thus a matter of experience.
Answer: No, for duality is not perceived by a person who is deeply asleep or absorbed in the Self.
Objection: The non-perception of duality in deep sleep is comparable to the nonperception by one who is preoccupied with something else.
Answer: Not so, for then (i.e. in sleep and samadhi) there is non-perception of everything (so that there can be no preoccupation with anything).
Objection: Duality has existence because of its perception in the dream and waking states.
Answer: No, for the dream and waking states are creations of ignorance. The perception of duality that occurs in the dream and waking states is the result of ignorance, because it ceases on the cessation of ignorance.
Objection: The non-perception (of duality) in sleep is also a result of ignorance.
Answer: No, for it is intrinsic. The reality of a substance consists in its not being mutable, for it does not depend on anything else. Mutability is not a reality, since that depends on other factors. The reality of a substance surely cannot be dependent on external agencies. Any peculiarity that arises in an existing substance is a result of external agencies, and a peculiarity implies change. The perceptions occuring in the dream and waking states are but modal expressions, for the reality of a thing is that which exists in its own right, and the unreality is that which depends on others, inasmuch as it ceases with the cessation of others. Hence, unlike what happens in the dream and waking states, no modality occurs in deep sleep, for the nonperception in the latter state is natural. For those, however, for whom God is different from the self, and creation, too, is distinct, there is no elimination of fear, since fear is caused by something different. And, something different that is true, cannot have its reality annihilated, nor can a non-existent emerge into being.

Objection: Something external becomes the source of fear when it is supplemented by others. [God, in association with merits and demerits of creatures, causes fear. But the liberated man has no fear of God since he is independent of merit etc.]
Answer: No, for that, too, stands on an equal footing. Because, that permanent or impermanent agency [Adrsta, unseen future result, whose help God takes], in the form of demerit etc., depending on which that something else (i.e. God) becomes the cause of fear for others, cannot have self-effacement by the very fact of what that agency (adrsta) is assumed to be; [This above view cannot be advanced either by the samkhyas or the Naiyayikas; for the former do not believe that an existing demerit can be wholly annihilated; and the latter do not say that so long as demerit persists, its effect will be totally absent. Adrsta also creates the same difficulty.] or should that have self extinction, the rea and the unreal will become mutually convertible, so that nobody will have any faith in anything. From the standpoint of nonduality, however, that objection has no bearing, since the world along with its cause is a superimposition through ignorance. For second moon, seen by a man afflicted by the eye-disease called timira, does not attain any reality, nor is it annihilated.

Objection: Knowledge and ignorance are qualities of the Self.
Answer: No so, for they are perceived. Discrimination (i.e. knowledge) and nondiscrimination (i.e. ignorance) are directly perceived, like colour etc., as existing in the mind. Not that colour, perceived as an object, can be an attribute of the perceiver. And ignorance is ascertained by such forms of its perception as, 'I am ignorant', 'My knowledge is indistinct'. Similarly, the distinction of knoweldge (from the Self) is perceived, and the enlightened people communicate the knowledge of the Self to others; and so, too, do others grasp it. Accordingly, knowledge and ignorance are to be ranked with name and form; and name and form are not attributes of the Self, ['The beginningless and inscrutable nescience, dependent on pure Consciousness for its existence, gets transformed as the internal organ. That organ, again, gets modified in the form of real knowledge and error in accordance with the preponderance of its sattvika or tamasika qualities. The substance called Consciousness, when reflected on such as organ, is either called enlightened or deluded. In reality Consciousness is neither enlightened nor unelightened.' -A.G.] in accordance with another Vedic text, '(That which is indeed called Space) is the manifester of name and form. That in which they two exist is Brahman' (Ch. VIII.xiv.1). And those name and form are imagined to exist in Brahman like night and day in the sun, though in reality they are not there.

Objection: If (the Self and Brahman are) non-different, then there arises the absurdity of the same entity becoming the subject and object, as mentioned in the text, 'He attains this self made of Bliss' (II. viii 5).
Answer: Not so, for the attainment consists in mere enlightenment. The reaching taught here is no like that by a leech. How then? The text treating of attainment means merely realization. ['The blissful self is not the supreme Self, nor is there any samkramana in the sense of entry. But what is meant here is the transcendence or negation of the blissful self, accepted falsely as the Self, through the realization of Brahman-not as an object, but as identical with the Self.'-A.G.]
Objection: Attainment in the literal sense is meant here by the expression upasamkramati.
Answer: Not so, for this is not seen in the case of the body made of food; for in the case one reaching the (cosmic) food-body (i.e. Virat), one is not see to reach out from this external world like a leech or in any other manner.
Objection: (Attainment is possible in the sense that) the mental body or the intellectual body, when it has gone out (in dream etc.), can return to acquire its own natural state again.
Answer: No for there can be no action on one's own Self. (Moreover), the topic rasied (by you) was that somebody, different from the food-body reaches the food-body; to say now that either the mental body or the intellectual body reaches its own state involves a contradiction. Similarly, the reaching its own state by the blissful-self is not possible. [The opponent might say that the samkramana, in the case of the blissful self, means the attainment of its natural composure after a sorrowful experience. But this also is open to the objection that this runs counter to the opponent's line of argument, and the existence in one's own nature is not an attainment in the real sense.] Therefore, samkramana does not mean acquisition, nor does it mean 'reaching' by anyone of them beginning with the food-body. As a last resort, samkramana can reasonably consist only in the realization by some entity, other than the selves beginning with the foodself and ending with the blissful-self. If samkramana means realization alone, then through that samkramana, i.e. through the rise of knowledge about the difference of the Self (from the non-Self), is removed from that all-pervasive Self-which verily resides within the blissful-self and has entered into creation after projecting all things counting from space to food-the error of thinking of the non-Selves such as the foodbody as Itself, which (error) arises from Its association with the cavity of the heart. The word samkramana is used figuratively with regard to this eradication of error created by ignorance, for in no other way can the attainment of the all-pervading Self be justified. Moreover, there is no other thing (that can reach the Self). Besides, the attainment cannot be of oneself; for a leech does not reach itself. Hence, it is with a view to realizing the Self, which has been defined above in the text, 'Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinity' (II.i), that becoming many, entering into creation, acquisition of bliss, fearlessness, attainment, etc. have been attributed to Brahman conceived of as the basis of all empirical dealings; but with regard to the really transcendental Brahman, beyond all conditions, there can be no such ascription. Tat api, with regard to this also-with regard to the fact that by reaching, i.e. realizing, the unconditioned Self by stages in this way, one ceases to have any fear from anywhere, and one gets established in the state that is fearlessness-; esah slokah bhavati, there occurs this verse. This verse stands for expressing briefly the meaning of the whole topic, the gist of this Part called the Anandavalli, the Part On Bliss.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2019, 11:14:31 PM by Commentary »