Brahm Sutra -Part 3

Chapter IV, Phala-Adhyaya Section 1

In the Third Chapter, the Sadhanas or the means of knowledge relating to Para Vidya (higher knowledge) and Apara Vidya (lower knowledge) were discussed. The Fourth Chapter treats of Phala or the Supreme Bliss of attainment of Brahman. Other topics also are dealt with in it. In the beginning, however, a separate discussion concerned with the means of knowledge is dealt with in a few Adhikaranas. The remainder of the previous discussion about Sadhanas is continued in the beginning. As the main topic of this Chapter is that of the results or fruits of Brahma Vidya, it is called Phala Adhyaya.

SYNOPSIS

Adhikarana I: (Sutras 1-2) The meditation on the Atman enjoined by scripture is not an act to be accomplished once only, but is to be repeated again and again till knowledge is attained.

Adhikarana II: (Sutra 3) The meditator engaged in meditation on Brahman is to view or comprehend It as identical with his own self.

Adhikarana III: (Sutra 4) In Pratikopasanas where symbols of Brahman are used for meditation as for instance Mano Brahmetyupasita, the meditator is not to consider the Pratika or symbol as identical with him.

Adhikarana IV: (Sutra 5) In the Pratikopasanas, the Pratikas or symbols are to be viewed as Brahman and not in the reverse way.

Adhikarana V: (Sutra 6) In meditations on the members of sacrificial acts, the idea of divinity is to be superimposed on the members and not vice versa. In the example quoted for instance the Udgitha is to be viewed as Aditya, not Aditya as the Udgitha.

Adhikarana VI: (Sutras 7-10) One is to carry on his meditations in a sitting posture. Sri Sankara maintains that the rule does not apply to those meditations whose result is Samyag-darsana but the Sutra gives no hint to that effect.

Adhikarana VII: (Sutra 11) The meditations may be carried on at any time, and in any place, if favourable to concentration of mind.

Adhikarana VIII: (Sutra 12) The meditations are to be continued until death. Sri Sankara again holds that those meditations which lead to Samyag-darsana are excepted.

Adhikarana IX: (Sutra 13) Knowledge of Brahman frees one from the effects of all past and future evil deeds.

Adhikarana X: (Sutra 14) Good deeds likewise cease to affect the knower of Brahman.

Adhikarana XI: (Sutra 15) Works which have not begun to yield results (Anarabdhakarya) are alone destroyed by knowledge and not those which have already begun to yield fruits (Arabdhakarya).

Adhikarana XII: (Sutras 16-17) From the rule enunciated in Adhikarana X are excepted such sacrificial performances as are enjoined permanently (Nitya, obligatory works), as for instance the Agnihotra, because they promote the origination of knowledge.

Adhikarana XIII: (Sutra 18) Sacrificial works not combined with knowledge or meditations also help in the origination of knowledge.

Adhikarana XIV: (Sutra 19) On the exhaustion of Prarabdha work through enjoyment, the knower of Brahman attains oneness with It. The Bhoga or enjoyment of the Sutra is, according to Sankara, restricted to the present existence of the seeker, since the complete knowledge obtained by him destroys the ignorance which otherwise would lead to future embodiments.

AVRITTYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 1 (SUTRAS 1-2)

Meditation on Brahman should be continued

till knowledge is attained

Avrittirasakridupadesat IV.1.1 (478)

The repetition (of hearing, reflection and meditation on Brahman is necessary) on account of the repeated instruction by the scriptures.

Avrittih: repetition, practice of meditation on Brahman (is necessary); Asakrit: not only once, many times, repeatedly; Upadesat: because of instruction by the scriptures.

This Sutra states that constant practice of meditation is necessary.

Frequent practice of meditation on Brahman is necessary as there is instruction to that effect in the Sruti.

Verily, the Self is to be seen, to be reflected upon, and meditated upon (Bri. Up. II.4.5). The intelligent aspirant knowing about Brahman should attain Brahma-Sakshatkara or direct Self-realisation (Bri. Up. IV.4.21). That is what we must search out, that is what we must try to understand (Chh. Up. VIII.7.1).

A doubt arises whether the mental action (reflection and meditation) referred to in them is to be preformed once only or repeatedly.

The Purvapakshin maintains that it is to be observed once only as in the case of Prayaja offerings and the like.

Let us then repeat exactly as the scripture says, i.e., let us hear the self once, let us reflect on it once, let us meditate on it once and nothing more.

The present Sutra refutes this view and says that hearing, etc., must be repeated till one attains knowledge of Brahman or direct Self-realisation, just as paddy is husked till we get rice. There is the necessity of repetition till there is dawn of knowledge of Brahman. The repetition of mental acts of reflection and meditation eventually leads to direct Self-realisation. Repetition is to be performed because scripture gives repeated instruction.

Thus in the Chh. Up. VI.8.7 the teacher repeats nine times the saying, Tat Satyam Sa Atma Tat-Tvam-Asi SvetaketoThat Truth, That Atman, That thou art, O Svetaketu! Here Svetaketu is taught the mystery about Brahman nine times before he understood it.

The analogy of the Prayaja is faulty. It is not to the point at all because there is the Adrishta which is the result gives fruit at some particular future time in the next world. But here the result is directly realised. Direct intution of the Self is a visible result to be gained in this very life. Therefore, if the result is not there, the process must be repeated, till the result is realised. Such acts must be repeated, because they subserve a seen purpose.

When we speak of the Upasana of the Guru or the king or of the wife thinking about her absent husband, we do not mean a single act of service or thought but a continuous series of acts and thoughts. We say in ordinary life that a person is devoted to a teacher or a king if he follows him with a mind steadily set on him, and of a wife whose husband has gone on a journey we say that she thinks of him only if she steadily remembers him with longing.

In Vedanta, Vid (knowing) and Upasati (meditating) are used as identical. That ‘knowing’ implies repetition follows from the fact that in the Vedanta texts the terms ‘knowing’ and ‘meditating’ are seen to be used one in the place of the other. In some passages the term ‘knowing’ is used in the beginning and the term ‘meditating’ in the end: thus, e.g., He who knows what he knows is thus spoken of by me and teach me sir, the deity which you meditate on (Chh. Up. IV.1.4; 2.2). In other places the text at first speaks of ‘meditating’ and later on of ‘knowing’; thus e.g., Let a man meditate on mind as Brahman and He who knows this shines and warms through his celebrity, fame and glory of countenance (Chh. Up. III.18.1, 6).

Meditation and reflection imply a repetition of the mental act. When we say He meditates on it the continuity of the act of remembrance of the object is implied. Similar is the case with reflection also.

From this it follows that repetition has to be practised there also, where the text gives instruction once only. Where, again, the text gives repeated instruction, repeated performance of the mental acts is directly intimated.

When the scripture speaking about the rice for the sacrifice says, The rice should be beaten the sacrificer understands that the injunction means The rice should be beaten over and over again, till it is free from husk for no sacrifice can be performed with the rice with its husk on. So when the scripture says, The Self must be seen through hearing, reflection and meditation it means the repetition of these mental processes, so long as the Self is not seen or realised.

Lingaccha IV.1.2 (479)

And on account of the indicatory mark.

Lingat: because of the indicatory mark or sign; Cha: and.

The same topic is continued.

An indicatory mark also shows that repetition is required. In the Sruti there is a teaching of repeated meditation. It says that one son will be born if there is a single act of meditation whereas many sons will be born if there are many and repeated acts of meditation. Reflect upon the rays and you will have many sons (Chh. Up. I.5.2). In the Section treating of meditation on the Udgitha the text repeats the meditation on the Udgitha viewed as the sun, because its result is one son only and the clause Reflect upon his rays enjoins a meditation on his manifold rays as leading to the possession of many sons. This indicates that the repetition of meditation is something well known. What holds good in this case holds good for other meditations also.

In the case of first class type of aspirant with intense purity, dispassion, discrimination and extremely subtle and sharp intellect, a single hearing of that great sentence Tat-Tvam-Asi Mahavakya will be quite sufficient. Repetition would indeed be useless for him who is able to realise the true nature of Brahman even if the Mahavakya Tat-Tvam-Asi is enounced once only. But such advanced souls are very rare. Ordinary people who are deeply attached to the body and objects cannot attain realisation of Truth by a single enunciation of it. For such persons repetition is of use. The erroneous notion I am the body can be destroyed only through constant meditation or repeated practice. Knowledge can dawn only when there is incessant and frequent meditation.

Repetition has the power of annihilating this erroneous idea gradually. Meditation should be continued till the last trace of body idea is destroyed. When the body consciousness is totally annihilated, Brahman shines Itself in all Its pristine glory and purity. The meditator and the meditated become one. Individuality vanishes in toto.

If repetition is not necessary the Chhandogya Upanishad would not have taught the truth of the great sentence Thou art That repeatedly.

In the Taittiriya Upanishad III.2 we find that Bhrigu goes several times to his father Varuna and asks him again and again, to be taught the nature of Brahman.

Bhrigu Varuni went to his father Varuna saying, Sir, teach me Brahman. He told him this, viz., food, breath, the eye, the ear, mind and speech. Then he said again to him That from whence these beings are born, that by which when born they live, that into which they enter at their death, try to know that. That is Brahman.

This injunction about repetition is meant for those only who lack in purity and subtle understanding and in whom a single enunciation is not sufficient to give them the direct cognition of Brahman.

The individual soul is taught step by step to be subtler than the body, etc., till it is realised as pure Chaitanya. When we have the knowledge of the object only, we can have full knowledge of the affirmation about it. In the case of those who have ignorance or doubt or wrong knowledge, the affirmation (Tat-Tvam-Asi) cannot bring on immediate realisation but to those who have no such obstruction there will be realisation. Hence reiteration with reasoning is only for leading us to full Vachyartha Jnana.

We observe that men by repeating again and again a sentence which they, on the first hearing, had understood imperfectly only, gradually rid themselves of all misconceptions and arrive at a full understanding of the true sense.

All this establishes the conclusion that, in the case of cognition of the Supreme Brahman, the instruction leading to such realisation may be repeated.

ATMATVOPASANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 2

He who meditates on the Supreme Brahman

must comprehend It as identical with himself

Atmeti tupagacchanti grahayanti cha IV.1.3 (480)

But (the Sruti texts) acknowledge (Brahman) as the Self (of the meditator) and also teach other (to realise It as such).

Atmeti: as the Self; Tu: but; Upagacchanti: acknowledge, approach, realise; Grahayanti: teach, make others comprehend, instruct; Cha: also.

This Sutra prescribes the process of meditation.

A doubt arises whether Brahman is to be comprehended by the Jiva or the individual soul as identical with it or separate from it.

The opponent maintains that Brahman is to be comprehended as different from the individual soul owing to their essential difference, because the individual soul is subject to pain, sorrow and misery, while the other is not.

The present Sutra refutes the view that Brahman is to be comprehended as identical with one’s self. The individual is essentially Brahman only. The Jivahood is due to the limiting adjunct, the internal organ or Antahkarana. The Jivahood is illusory. The Jiva is in reality an embodiment of bliss. It experiences pain and misery on account of the limiting adjunct, Antahkarana.

The Jabalas acknowledge it I am indeed Thou, O Lord, and Thou art indeed myself. Other scriptural texts also say the same thing, I am Brahman: Aham Brahma Asmi (Bri. Up. I.4.10). Thy self is this which is within all (Bri. Up. III.4.1). He is thy self, the ruler within, the immortal (Bri. Up. III.7.3). That is the True, that is the Self, That thou art (Chh. Up. VI.8.7). The texts are to be taken in their primary and not secondary sense as in The mind is Brahman (Chh. Up. III.18.1), where the text presents the mind as a symbol for meditation.

Therefore we have to meditate on Brahman as the Self.

You cannot say that these mean only a feeling or emotion of oneness, just as we regard an idol as Vishnu.

In the latter case we have only a single statement. But in the Jabala Sruti we have a double affirmation, i.e., the identity of Brahman with the individual soul with Brahman. The seeming difference between Jiva and Brahman is unreal. There is Jivahood or Samsaritva for the individual soul till realisation is attained.

Hence we must fix our minds on Brahman as being the Self.

PRATIKADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 3

The symbols of Brahman should not be meditated upon

as identical with the meditator

Na pratike na hi sah IV.1.4 (481)

(The meditator is) not (to see the Self) in the symbol, because he is not (that).

Na: not; Pratike: in the symbol (such as Akasa, the sun, the mind, etc.); Na: not; Hi: because; Sah: he.

This and the following two Sutras examine the value of a Pratika or symbol in worship.

Pratikas, symbols, would not be regarded as one with us. The meditator cannot regard them as being one with him, as they are separate from him.

Chhandogya Upanishad III.18.1 declares The mind is Brahman.

A doubt arises whether in such meditations where the mind is taken as a symbol of Brahman, the meditator is to identify himself with the mind, as in the case of the meditation: I am Brahman Aham Brahma Asmi.

The Purvapakshin maintains that he should, because the mind is a product of Brahman and as such it is one with It. So the meditator, the individual soul, is one with Brahman. Therefore, it follows that the meditator also is one with the mind, and hence he should see his Self in the mind in this meditation also.

The present Sutra refutes this. We must not attach to symbols the idea of Brahman. Because the meditator cannot comprehend the heterogeneous symbols as being of the nature of the Self.

We must not regard Pratikas (symbols or images) as being ourselves. They are different from ourselves and cannot be regarded as being identical with ourselves. Nor can we say that they being derivatives of Brahman and Brahman being one with Atman, they are also to be treated as one with the Atman. They can be one with Brahman only if they go above name and form and when they go above name and form, they will not be Pratikas.

Atman is Brahman only when freed from Kartritva (doership). Two gold jewels cannot be identical but both can be one with gold.

If the symbol mind is realised as identical with Brahman, then it is no longer a symbol, just as when we realise an ornament as gold, it ceases to be an ornament. If the meditating person realises his identity with Brahman, then he is no longer the Jiva or the individual soul, the meditator. The distinctions of meditator, meditation and the meditated exist in the beginning when oneness has not been realised. Whenever there is the distinction between the meditator and the meditated there is the process of meditation. Where there is consciousness of difference, diversity or plurality, the meditator is quite distinct from the symbol.

For these reasons the self is not meditated in symbols. The meditator is not to see his self in the symbol.

BRAHMADRISHTYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 4

When meditating on a symbol, the symbol should be considered

as Brahman and not Brahman as the symbol

Brahmadrishtirutkarshat IV.1.5 (482)

(The symbol) is to be viewed as Brahman (and not in the reverse way), on account of the exaltation (of the symbol thereby).

Brahmadrishtih: the view of Brahman, the view in the light of Brahman; Utkarshat: on account of superiority, because of super-eminence.

The same discussion is continued.

In meditations on symbols as in The mind is Brahman, The sun is Brahman, the question is whether the symbol is to be considered as Brahman, or Brahman as the symbol.

This Sutra declares that the symbols, the mind, the sun, etc., are to be regarded as Brahman and not in the reverse way. Because you can attain elevation or progress by looking upon an inferior thing as a superior thing and not in the reverse way. As you have to behold Brahman in everything and free yourself from the idea of differentiation and diversity, you have to contemplate on these symbols as Brahman.

To view the symbol as Brahman is quite proper, but by reversing the order to view Brahman in the light of the symbol is not justifiable, because of super-eminence of Brahman over the symbol.

It would not serve any purpose to think of Brahman in the light of a limited thing; because it would be only to degrade the Infinite Lord to the status of a finite thing. The symbol should be raised higher in thought to the level of Brahman but Brahman should not be brought down to the level of the symbol.

ADITYADIMATYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 5

In meditation on the members of sacrificial actsthe idea of divinity is to be superimposed on the members and not in the reverse way

Adityadimatayaschanga upapatteh IV.1.6 (483)

And the ideas of the sun, etc., are to be superimposed) on the subordinate members (of sacrificial acts), because (in that way alone the statement of the scriptures would be) consistent.

Adityadimatayah: the idea of the sun, etc.; Cha: and; Anga: in a subordinate member (of the sacrificial acts); Upapatteh: because of consistency, because of its reasonableness.

A particular instance is cited to confirm the preceding Sutra.

He who burns up these (sun), let a man meditate upon that which shines yonder as the Udgitha (Chh. Up. I.3.1). One ought to meditate upon the Saman as fivefold (Chh. Up. II.2.1). Let a man meditate on the sevenfold Saman in speech (Chh. Up. II.8.1). This earth is the Rik, fire is Saman (Chh. Up. I.6.1).

In meditations connected with sacrificial acts as given in the texts quoted, how is the meditation to be performed? Is the sun to be viewed as the Udgitha or the Udgitha as the sun? Between the Udgitha and the sun there is nothing to indicate which is superior, as in the previous Sutra, where Brahman being pre-eminent, the symbol was viewed as Brahman.

The present Sutra declares that the members of sacrificial acts as the Udgitha are to be viewed as the sun and so on, for the fruit of the sacrificial act is increased by so doing. The sacrificial work becomes successful. A scriptural passage, viz., Chh. Up. I.1.10 Whatever one performs with knowledge, faith and Upanishad is more powerful expressly declares that knowledge causes the success of sacrificial work.

If we view the Udgitha as the sun, it undergoes a certain ceremonial purification and thereby contributes to the Apurva or Adrishta, the invisible fruit of the whole sacrifice, which leads to Karma Samriddhi (the fulness of the Karma). If the sun is viewed as Udgitha in the reverse way the purification of the sun by this meditation will not contribute to the Apurva, as the sun is not a member of the sacrificial act.

The members of the sacrificial acts are to be viewed as the sun, etc., if the declaration of the scriptures that the meditations increase the result of the sacrifice is to come true.

The sun, etc., are higher (Utkarsha) than Udgitha because the sun, etc., are the fruits attained by Karma. Therefore, the rule of Utkarsha-buddhi referred to above needs that we must regard and worship Udgitha, etc., as the sun, etc.

If you say that if we regard the sun, etc., as the Udgitha, the former being of the nature of Karma will give the fruit, that would be wrong because Upasana itself is a Karma and will give the fruit.

The Udgitha should be raised higher in thought to the level of the sun, but not the sun brought down to that of the Udgitha.

In this way a meditator should raise himself to the level of Brahman by thinking himself as Brahman, but should not bring Brahman down to the level of the individual soul.

ASINADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 6 (SUTRAS 7-10)

One is to meditate sitting

Asinah sambhavat IV.1.7 (484)

Sitting (a man is to meditate) on account of the possibility.

Asinah: sitting; Sambhavat: on account of the possibility.

The posture of the meditator while engaged in meditation is now discussed.

In Karmanga Upasanas there is no question as to whether they should be done sitting or standing as they depend on the particular Karma. In pure realisation or perfect intuition there could be no such question as it depends on the object of realisation. In other Upasanas sitting is necessary for meditation.

The Purvapakshin here maintains that as the meditation is something mental there can be no restriction as to the attitude of the body.

This Sutra says that one has to meditate sitting, because it is not possible to meditate while standing or lying down. Sitting is necessary for meditation because Upasana is the continuity of mental state and such continuity will not exist when one walks or runs because then the mind will attend to the body and cannot concentrate, or when one lies down because then he will be soon overpowered by sleep.

In Upasana one has to concentrate one’s mind on a single object. This is not possible if one is standing or lying. The mind of a standing man is directed on maintaining the body in an erect position and therefore incapable of reflection on any subtle matter.

A sitting person may easily avoid these several occurrences and is, therefore, in a position to carry on his meditation. The sitting posture contributes that composure of mind which is the sine qua non of meditation. Meditation is to be practised in a sitting posture, as in that case only meditation is practicable.

Dhyanaccha IV.1.8 (485)

And on account of meditation.

Dhyanat: on account of meditation; Cha: and.

An argument in support of Sutra 7 is adduced.

Further, such continuity of thought is Dhyana or meditation. It can come only when the limbs are not active and the mind is calm.

Upasana (worship) being mainly of the nature of concentration, should be practised in a sitting posture, which is conducive to concentration. Concentration being an uninterrupted and unintermittent current of thought sent towards a particular object, the sitting posture becomes indispensable.

The word `Upasana’ also denotes exactly what meditation means, that is concentrating on a single object with a fixed look, and without any movement of the limbs. This is possible only in a sitting posture.

Meditation denotes a lengthened carrying of the same train of ideas. We ascribe thoughtfulness to those whose mind is concentrated on one and the same object while their look is fixed and their limbs do not move. We say that Sri Ramakrishna is thoughtful. Now such thoughtfulness is easy for those who sit. The wife sits and thinks deeply over her husband gone in a distant journey.

Dhyana or meditation is thinking on one subject continuously, without the inrush of ideas incongruous with the subject of thought. Such meditation is possible in a sitting posture only and not while lying down or standing etc. Therefore, a sitting posture should be adopted both for prayers as well as for meditation.

The distraction of mind is minimised when one meditates in a sitting posture.

We, therefore, conclude herefrom also that meditation is the occupation of a sitting person.

Achlatvam chapekshya IV1.9 (486)

And with reference to immobility (the scriptures ascribe meditativeness to the earth).

Achalatvam: immobility, stability, steadiness; Cha: and, indeed; Apekshya: referring to, aiming at, pointing to.

The argument in support of Sutra 7 is continued.

The word ‘cha’ has the force of ‘indeed’. In the Chhandogya Upanishad the root ‘Dhyana’ or meditation is employed in the sense of motionlessness.

With reference to the immobility of the earth in ordinary eye, the scripture fancies the earth as being engaged in concentration, as if it remains fixed in space in the act of pious meditation. It suggests that such a steady application of the mind can be attained by meditating only in a sitting posture.

If the body is at rest, there is rest for the mind also; if the body is in motion, i.e., restless, the mind too becomes restless.

In the passage, The earth meditates as it were, meditativeness is attributed to earth on account of its immobility or steadiness. This also helps us to infer that meditation is possible in one when he is sitting and not while standing or walking.

Steadiness accompanies meditation. Steadiness of body and mind is possible only while sitting and not while standing or walking.

Smaranti cha IV.1.10 (487)

The Smriti passages also say (the same thing).

Smaranti: the Smriti texts say, it is mentioned in the Smritis; Cha: also.

The argument in support of Sutra 7 is concluded.

Authoritative authors also teach in their Smritis that a sitting posture subserve the act of meditation, e.g., Having made a firm seat for one’s self on a pure spot (Bhagavad Gita VI.11).

For the same reason the Yoga-Sastra teaches different postures, viz., Padmasana, Siddhasana, etc.

EKAGRATADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 7

There is no restriction of place with regard to meditation

Yatraikagrata tatraviseshat IV.4.11 (488)

Wherever concentration of mind (is attained), there (it is to be practised), there being no specification (as to place).

Yatra: where, wherever; Ekagrata: concentration of mind; Tatra: there; Aviseshat: for want of any specification, it not being specifically mentioned, as there is no special direction in Sruti.

There are no specific rules about the time or place of meditation. Whenever and wherever the mind attains concentration, we should meditate. The Sruti says Mano’nukule where the mind feels favourable.

Any place is good if concentration is attained in that place. The scriptures say, Let a man meditate at whatever time, in whatever place and facing whatever region, he may with ease manage to concentrate his mind.

But places that are clean, free from pebbles, fire, dust, noises, standing water, and the like are desirable, as such places are congenial to meditation.

But there are no fixed rules to place, time and direction.

APRAYANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 8

Meditations should be continued till death

Aa prayanat tatrapi hi drishtam IV.1.12 (489)

Till death (till one attains Moksha) (meditations have to be repeated); for then also it is thus seen in scripture.

Aa prayanat: till death, till Mukti; Tatra: there, then; Api: also, even; Hi: because; Drishtam: is seen (in the Sruti).

This Sutra says Upasana (meditation, worship) is to be observed till death.

Worship is to be continued till death, till one gets Mukti, because it is found in Sruti, that the worshipper, continuing so till death, attains the world of Brahman after death.

The first topic of the present Chapter has established that the meditation on the Atman or Brahman enjoined by the scriptures is to be repeated till knowledge dawns.

The question is now taken up about other meditations which are practised for attaining certain results.

The Purvapakshin maintains that such meditations can be stopped after a certain time. They should still give fruits like sacrifices performed only once.

The present Sutra declares that they are to be continued up to death, because the Sruti and Smriti say so. With whatever thought he passes away from this world (Sat. Br. X.6.3.1). Remembering whatever form of being he in the end leaves this body, into that same form he even passes, assimilated its being (Bhagavad Gita VIII.6). At the time of death with unmoved mind (Bhagavad Gita VIII.10). Let a man at the time of death, take refuge with this triad (Chh. Up. III.17.6). Whatever his thought at the time of death with that he goes into Prana and the Prana united with light, together with the individual self, leads on to the world as conceived at the moment of death (Pras. Up. IV.2.10). This also follows from the comparison to the caterpillar (Bri. Up. IV.4.3) or leech. The leech takes hold of another object before it leaves an object.

One cannot entertain such a thought at the time of departure of Prana from this body without practice for the whole life.

Therefore, meditations must be practised up to death.

TADADHIGAMADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 9

Knowledge of Brahman frees one from all past and future sins

Tadadhigama uttarapurvaghayorasleshavinasau

tadvyapadesat IV.1.13 (490)

On the attainment of this (viz., Brahman) (there takes place) the non-clinging and the destruction of later and earlier sins; because it is so declared by the scriptures.

Tadadhigama: when that is realised; Uttarapurvaghayoh: of the subsequent and the previous sins; Asleshavinasau: non-clinging and destruction; Tadvyapadesat: because Sruti has declared so.

The result of knowledge of Brahman or the state of Jivanmukti is now discussed.

The supplement to the Third Chapter is finished herewith. With the last Adhikarana the topics connected with the Third Chapter have come to an end. From this Adhikarana the Fourth Chapter proper begins. The Fourth Chapter is the Phaladhyaya, i.e., the Chapter relating to the fruits of Brahma Vidya.

The Purvapakshin maintains that emancipation is attained in spite of knowledge, only after one has experienced effects of one’s sins committed before enlightenment because the Smritis declare Karma is not destroyed before it has yielded its effects. The law of Karma is unrelenting.

This Sutra says that when a person attains knowledge all his past sins are destroyed and future sins do not cling to him.

Karma has doubtless its power of bringing its effects but that power can be nullified and overcome by knowledge of Brahman. Prayaschittas (expiatory acts) have the power of cleansing sin. Saguna-Brahma-Vidya cleanses all sins. Nirguna-Brahma-Vidya puts an end to agency or doership and destroys all sins. Hence no future doership can come to him and the effects of the entire past doership vanish when knowledge dawns. Otherwise there will be no liberation as Karma is Anadi (beginningless). If it is said that emancipation is caused like the fruits of Karma, it will be transient and not eternal.

Further, the results of Jnana must be direct and immediate. So all sins vanish when one attains knowledge of Brahman or Self-realisation.

The scripture declares that future sins which might be presumed to cling to the agent do not cling to him who knows. As water does not cling to lotus leaf, so no evil deed clings to him who knows this (Chh. Up. IV.14.3). Similarly scripture declares the destruction of previous accumulated evil deeds. As the fibres of the Ishika reed when thrown into the fire are burnt, thus all sins are burnt (Chh. Up. V.24.3). The extinction of works the following passage also declares: The fetter of the heart is broken, all doubts are solved, all his works are destroyed when He who is high and low is seen (Mun. Up. II.2.8).

As regards the verses which say that no Karma is destroyed, but by producing its effects, that holds good in the case of ordinary men who are in ignorance and who have no knowledge of Brahman. It does not hold good in the case of those enlightened sages who have knowledge of Brahman.

The knower of Brahman feels and realises thus: That Brahman whose nature it is to be at all times neither agent not enjoyer, and which is thus opposed in being to the soul’s previously established state of agency and enjoyment that Brahman am I; hence I neither was an agent, nor an enjoyer at any previous time, nor am I such at the present time, nor shall I be such at any future time.

In this way only the final emancipation is possible; for otherwise, i.e., if the chain of works which has been running on from eternity could not be cut short, liberation could never take place. Emancipation cannot depend on locality, time and special causes, as the fruit of works is; because therefrom it would follow that the fruit of knowledge is non-permanent.

Therefore, it is an established conclusion that there results the extinction of all sins on attaining Brahman.

ITARASAMSLESHADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 10

Similarly good work do not affect the knower of Brahman

Itarasyapyevamasamsleshah pate tu IV.1.14 (491)

Thus in the same way, there is non-clinging of the other (i.e., Punya or virtue, good works) also; but at death (liberation, i.e., Videha-Mukti is certain).

Itarasya: of the other; Tu: also; Evam: thus, in the same way; Asamsleshah: non-clinging; Pate: at death; Tu: but, indeed.

Discussion on the consequence of Brahma Jnana (the knowledge of Brahman) is continued.

As in the case of sin, so merit or virtue cannot attach to the knower of Brahman. Otherwise such merit will be an obstruction to liberation. When doership goes, merit must go like sin. The result of merit is below that of Jnana. Merit and sin have to be left behind. When both are transcended, liberation is sure at death.

A knower of Brahman has no idea of agency. He is not touched by good works also. He goes beyond virtue and vice. He overcomes both (Bri. Up. IV.4.22).

Even there where the text mentions evil deeds only, we must consider good deeds also to be implied therein, because the results of the latter also are inferior to the results of knowledge.

Merit also is a cause of bondage and stands in the way of liberation. For a knower of Brahman all his accumulated merits and demerits are destroyed. Thus his merits and sins being totally inoperative, his salvation necessarily follows at death.

ANARABDHADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 11

Works which have not begun to yield results are alone destroyed by knowledge and not those which have already begun to bear fruits

Anarabdhakarye eva tu purve tadavadheh IV.1.15 (492)

But only those former (works) whose effects have not yet begun (are destroyed by knowledge; because the scripture states) that (i.e., the death of the body) to be the term.

Anarabdhakarye: in the case of those works, the effects of which have not begun to operate, i.e. to yield fruits or results; Eva: only; Tu: but; Purve: former works; Tadavadheh: that (death) being the limit, because of waiting till death.

Discussion on the consequence of Brahma Jnana is continued.

In the last two Adhikaranas (topics) it has been stated that all the past works of a knower of Brahman are destroyed. Past works are of two kinds, viz., Sanchita (accumulated works) those which have not yet begun to yield results and Prarabdha, i.e., those works whose effects have already begun to operate and have produced the body through which the aspirant has attained Brahma Jnana or knowledge of Brahman.

The Purvapakshin maintains that both these are destroyed, because the Mundaka Upanishad says that all his works are destroyed. He thereby overcomes both. This refers to all works without any distinction, all works whatever must be regarded to undergo destruction.

Further the sage who has attained Self-realisation is a non-doer. He has no idea or feeling of agency. His idea of non-doership is the same with reference to Sanchita or Prarabdha. Hence both these works are destroyed when one attains knowledge of Brahman or the Supreme Self.

This Sutra refutes this view and declares that only Sanchita Karmas or accumulated works whose fruits have not yet begun to operate are destroyed by knowledge but not the Prarabdha. Prarabdha Karmas are destroyed only by being worked out. Those works whose effects have begun and whose results have been half enjoyed, i.e., those very works to which there is due the present state of existence in which the knowledge of Brahman arises and not destroyed by that knowledge. This view is founded on the scriptural passage For him there is delay only as long as he is not delivered from this body, and then he is one with Brahman (Chh. Up. VI.14.2), which fixes the death of the body as the term of the statement of the attainment of final release.

If it were not so, then there would be no teachers of knowledge.

Therefore, the Prarabdha Karmas are not destroyed by knowledge.

If it is said that fire must destroy all seeds, the reply is that what has begun to operate, like a potter’s wheel, must have its operation. Mithya Jnana (the erroneous knowledge of multiplicity) though negated by Jnana, will persist for a while (Badhitanuvritti).

Each man’s inner realisation cannot be denied or disputed by another. This truth is declared by the description of the Sthitaprajna in the Bhagavad Gita.

The Knowledge of Brahman in a knower or a sage cannot check the Prarabdha Karma, just as an archer has no control over the arrows already discharged, which comes to rest only when its momentum is exhausted. The liberated sage must keep up this body as long as the momentum of Prarabdha Karmas lasts. When the Prarabdha Karmas are worked out or exhausted the body falls off and he attains Videha-Mukti or disembodied salvation.

The final discussion, therefore, is that knowledge effects the destruction of those works only whether good or evil, whose effects have not yet begun to operate.

AGNIHOTRADYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 12 (SUTRAS 16-17)

Permanent obligatory works enjoined by the Vedas

for different Asramas are not to be given up

Agnihotradi tu tatkaryayaiva taddarsanat IV.1.16 (493)

But the Agnihotra and the like (tend) towards the same effect, knowledge (liberation), because that is seen from the scriptures.

Agnihotradi: daily Agnihotra, etc., daily offering of oblations to the perpetually maintained fire; Tu: but; Tatkarya: tend towards the same result as that (knowledge); Eva: only; Taddarsanat: that being seen from the scriptures.

Works of permanent obligation (Nitya Karmas) enjoined by the Vedas such as Agnihotra tend towards the same effect, i.e., have the same effect as knowledge. Because this is declared by the texts such as the following, Brahmanas seek to know him by the study of the Vedas, by sacrifices, by gifts (Bri. Up. IV.4.22).

But an objection is raised as knowledge and works have different effects, it is not possible that they should have one and the same effect.

It is observed, we reply, that curd and poison whose ordinary effects are fever and death have for their effects satisfaction and a flourishing state of the body, if the curd is mixed with sugar and the poison taken while certain Mantras are recited. Even so works if joined with knowledge may effect final emancipation.

The Purvapakshin maintains that even obligatory works (Nitya Karmas) such as Agnihotra which do not give any fruits but which are enjoined by the scriptures as a sort of discipline are destroyed by the dawn of knowledge, just as other works done with desires, because the idea of non-agency of the knower of Brahman is the same with respect to both.

This Sutra refutes this view and declares that the regular obligatory works are not destroyed.

Obligatory duties exercise a purifying influence on the heart and are helpful to the origination of knowledge. They contribute indirectly to knowledge i.e., liberation. They subserve final emancipation immediately. Therefore, their results persist till death.

Ato’nyapi hi ekeshamubhayoh IV.1.17 (494)

For (there is) also (a class of good works) other than this, according to some. (There is agreement) of both (teachers, Jaimini and Baadarayana) (as to the fate of those works).

Atah: from this; Anya: different; Api: also; Hi: because, indeed; Ekesham: of some (Sakhas); Ubhayoh: of both.

There is also a class of good works different from works of permanent obligation (Nitya Karmas like the daily Agnihotra and the like) which are performed with a view to a fruit. The following statement of some Sakhas is made with reference to these: His friends get his good works and enemies his evil actions.

Both teachers, Jaimini and Baadarayana, are of the opinion that works performed for the fulfilment of some special desire do not contribute towards the origination of true knowledge.

VIDYAJNANASADHANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 13

Sacrificial works not combined with knowledge or meditation

also help in the origination of knowledge

Yadeva vidyayeti hi IV.4.18 (495)

Because the text whatever he does with knowledge intimates this.

Yadeva: whatever; Vidyaya: with knowledge; Iti: thus, this, so; Hi: because.

Nitya Karmas (regular obligatory works) which help the origination of knowledge are of two kinds, viz., those combined with meditations and those unaccompanied by knowledge or meditations.

The Purvapakshin maintains that work combined with meditations helps the origination of knowledge as it is superior to work done without meditation.

The present Sutra refutes it and says that in the statement That alone which is performed with knowledge becomes more powerful (Chh. Up. I.1.10) the comparative degree indicates that works done without knowledge, not combined with meditations are not altogether useless, though the other class is more powerful.

Even ordinary Agnihotra has Virya (power) but Agnihotra confirmed by Vidya (Upasana) is more potent (Viryavattara). Agnihotra if accompanied by knowledge possesses a greater capability of originating knowledge and, therefore, is of superior causal efficiency with regard to the realisation of the self, while the same works if devoid of knowledge possess no such superiority.

ITARAKSHAPANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 14

After enjoying the fruits of Prarabdha Karma

the knower becomes one with Brahman

Bhogenatvitare kshapayitva sampadyate IV.1.19 (496)

But having exhausted by enjoyment the other two works (viz., good and evil works, that have begun to yield fruits), he becomes one with Brahman.

Bhogena: by enjoyment; Tu: but; Itare: of the other two works (merit and demerit); Kshapayitva: having exhausted; Sampadyate: becomes united with Brahman, becomes one with Brahman, obtains, joins.

This Sutra concludes with the answer to the question What becomes of the Prarabdha portion of the illumined soul’s work, which has brought his present life into existence.

It has been shown that all good and evil deeds whose effects have not yet begun are destroyed by the power of knowledge of Brahman. The two others on the other hand, i.e., those good and evil works whose effects have begun, a man has at first to exhaust by the fruition of their consequences, and then he becomes one with Brahman. This appears from scriptural passages such as for him there is delay so long as he is not delivered from the body, then he will become one with Brahman (Chh. Up. VI.14.2), and Being Brahman he goes to Brahman (Bri. Up. IV.4.6).

The Purvapakshin argues that the knower of Brahman will continue to see diversity even after death, just as he sees plurality while living: analogously to the visual appearance of a double moon which may continue even after it has been cognised as false. He does not attain oneness with Brahman even after death.

This Sutra refutes it and declares that the Prarabdha works are destroyed through enjoyment. Though the knower of Brahman has to remain in this world as a liberated sage or Jivanmukta, yet he attains oneness with Brahman at death.

When the Prarabdha Karmas are exhausted by being worked out, he no longer beholds any plurality on account of the absence of any cause like the Prarabdha. He certainly becomes one with Brahman as all works including Prarabdha are destroyed at death.

Thus Brahma Jnana destroys Karmas (Sanchita) which have not begun to bear fruit. Those which have begun to bear fruit (Prarabdha) must be worked out by enjoyment. There is no escape even on the part of the enlightened soul from the operation of the law of Prarabdha.

The Purvapakshin again argues that a new aggregate of works will originate a new fruition. Not so, we reply; the seed of all such fruition is destroyed. What on the death of the body, could originate a new period of fruition, is only a new set of works and works depend on false knowledge. But such false knowledge is totally destroyed by perfect knowledge of Brahman.

When, therefore, the works whose effects have begun are destroyed, the liberated sage who knows Brahman necessarily enters into the state of perfected isolation or Absolute Kaivalya.

Thus ends the First Pada (Section 1) of the Fourth Chapter (Adhyaya IV) of the Brahma Sutras or the Vedanta Philosophy.

Chapter IV, Section 2

INTRODUCTION

In the previous Section it was shown that one attains Jivanmukti when the Sanchita Karmas or the accumulated works which have not as yet begun to bear fruits are destroyed, and Videhamukti at death when the Prarabdha Karma is destroyed.

This Section is devoted to the mode of departure of the enlightened and the unenlightened souls at the time of leaving the body. The path of the gods, the Devayana, by which the knower of the Saguna Brahman travels after death, is described. The Sutrakara begins by explaining on the basis of scriptural statements the successive steps by which the soul passes out of the body at death. The departure of the soul is the same in the case of him who possesses the lower knowledge and of him who is destitute of all knowledge.

SYNOPSIS

Adhikarana I: (Sutras 1-2) At the time of death of the knower of Saguna Brahman, the functions of the organs get merged in mind.

Adhikarana II: (Sutra 3) At the time of death of the knower of Saguna Brahman, the function of the mind is merged in the Prana.

Adhikarana III: (Sutras 4-6) At the time of death of the knower of Saguna Brahman, the function of Prana is merged in the individual soul or Jiva.

Adhikarana IV: (Sutra 7) The mode of departure from the body up to the way is common to both a knower of Saguna Brahman and an ordinary man. Both pass through the same stages up to the entrance of the soul together with the subtle elements and so on into the Nadis.

Adhikarana V: (Sutras 8-11) The merging of fire, etc., of death in the Highest Deity is not absolute merging. A complete absorption of the elements takes place only when final emancipation is attained.

Adhikarana VI: (Sutras 12-14) The Pranas of a knower of the Nirguna Brahman do not depart from the body at death.

Adhikarana VII: (Sutra 15) The organs of the knower of the Nirguna Brahman get merged in It at death.

Adhikarana VIII: (Sutra 16) The Kalas of the knower of the Nirguna Brahman attain absolute non-distinction with Brahman at death.

Adhikarana IX: (Sutra 17) The soul of the knower of the Saguna Brahman comes to the heart at the time of death and thence goes out through the Sushumna. The soul of the ignorant man goes out by means of some other Nadi.

Adhikarana X: (Sutras 18-19) The departing soul of a knower of the Saguna Brahman follows the rays of the sun after death which exist at night as well as during day, and goes to Brahmaloka.

Adhikarana XI: (Sutras 20-21) The soul of the knower of the Saguna Brahman goes to Brahmaloka even if he dies during the southern course of the sun (Dakshinayana).

VAGADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 1 (SUTRAS 1-2)

At the time of death the functions of the organs

are merged in the mind

Vangmanasi darsanacchabdacca IV.2.1 (497)

Speech is merged in mind, because it is so seen, and there are scriptural statements (to that effect).

Vak: speech; Manasi: in the mind; Darsanat: because it is so seen or observed, because of the scriptural declaration; Sabdat: because of the word of the Vedas, because of the statement of the Smriti; Cha: also, and.

This Sutra says that speech merges in the mind at death.

Till now Jivanmukti or liberation while living is described. Now the attainment of Brahmaloka by going along the path of gods (Devayana) after death is going to be described.

About the process of dying we have the following passage, When a man departs from here his speech merges in his mind, his mind in Prana, Prana in fire and fire in the Highest Deity (Chh. Up. VI.6.1).

Now a doubt here arises whether the organ of speech as such gets merged in the mind or only its function.

The Purvapakshin maintains that the organ itself is merged in the mind as there is no mention in the text about the function of speech getting merged.

The present Sutra refutes this view and decides that only the function of the organ of speech is merged in the mind.

The merging is always of the effect in the cause. Speech is not an effect of the mind. Therefore, the organ of speech cannot merge in the mind. But Vrittis (functional manifestations) can merge in something which is not its cause. For instance, heat which is the function of fire originates from fuel and extinguished in water.

We see the manifestation of speech ceasing in a dying man, though his mind is still functioning. None sees the organ of speech being merged in the mind.

So experience also teaches that the function of speech and not the organ itself gets merged in mind.

Ata eva cha sarvanyanu IV.2.2 (498)

And for the same reason all (sense-organs) follow (mind, i.e., get their functions merged in it).

Ata eva: hence; Cha: and, also; Sarvani: all (organs); Anu (Anugacchanti): after (follow).

This Sutra intimates that the functions of all the organs merge in the mind at the time of death.

For the same reasons (general experience and corroborative statement of Sruti) as stated in Sutra 1, the functions of all the other sense-organs follow, i.e., get merged in the mind. The fire is verily the Udana, for he whose light has gone out comes to a new birth with his senses merged in the mind (Pras. Up. III.9).

Like the speech it is observed that the eye and other senses discontinue their functions, while the mind continues to act. Because the organs themselves cannot be absorbed, and because the text admits of that interpretation we conclude that the different organs follow after, i.e., are merged in the mind only as far as their functions are concerned.

MANO’DHIKARANAM: TOPIC 2

The function of mind is merged in Prana

Tanmanah prana uttarat IV.2.3 (499)

That mind (is merged) in Prana (as is seen) from the subsequent clause (of the Sruti cited).

Tat: that; Manah: mind; Prana: in the Prana; Uttarat: from the subsequent clause (of the Sruti).

It has been shown that the passage speech is merged in mind means a merging of the function only. A doubt here arises whether the subsequent clause mind is breath also means to intimate a merging of the function only or of that to which the function belongs.

The Purvapakshin maintains that here it is mind itself and not its function that gets merged in Prana, as Prana can be said to be the material cause of mind. In support of his statement he quotes the following text: Mind consists of food, Prana of water (Chh. Up. VI.6.5); Water sent forth earth (VI.2.4). When mind, therefore, is merged in Prana, it is the same thing as earth being merged in water, for mind is food or earth, and Prana is water, causal substance and effect being non-different. Hence the Sruti here speaks not of the function of the mind, but of mind itself getting merged in Prana.

This Sutra refutes this view. For the same reason it is the mental Vrittis (functions) that get merged in Prana, because in deep sleep and in approaching death, we see the mental functions stopping while the Prana (breath) is active. The mind is not derived from Prana, and hence cannot merge in it. Breath or Prana is not the causal substance of mind. The relation of causality by an indirect process does not suffice to show that mind is really merged in Prana. Were it so, then mind would also be merged in earth, earth in water, breath in water. Nor is there on the alternative contemplated any proof of mind having originated from that water which has passed over into breath.

Therefore, mind cannot itself be merged in Prana. The function of the mind only is merged in Prana.

ADHYAKSHADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 3 (SUTRAS 4-6)

The function of Prana is merged in the Jiva

So’dhyakshe tadupagamadibhyah IV.2.4 (500)

That (Prana) is merged in the ruler (individual soul or Jiva) on account of the (statements as to the Pranas) coming to it and so on.

Sah: that (Prana); Adhyakshe: in the ruler (the Jiva); Tadupagamadibhyah: on account of the (statements as to the Pranas) coming to it and so on.

Prana is merged in fire (Chh. Up. VI.8.6). A doubt arises now whether according to the word of the scripture, the function of Prana is merged in fire or in the individual soul which is the ruler of the body and senses.

According to the Purvapakshin we must conclude that Prana is merged in fire only.

The present Sutra justifies its view because statements about Pranas coming to the Jiva, etc., are found in scriptural passages.

All the Pranas approach the departing man at the time of death (Bri. Up. IV.3.38). Another passage again specially declares that the Prana with its five functions follows the individual soul. After him thus departing the Prana departs, and that the other Pranas follow that Prana. And after the Prana thus departing all the other Pranas depart (Bri. Up. IV.4.2).

The text cited in Sutra 1, When the man departs from here, his speech merges in mind, mind in Prana, Prana in fire and fire in the Highest Deity (Chh. Up. VI.8.6), does not, however, contradict this view, as the following Sutra indicates.

Bhuteshu tacchruteh IV.2.5 (501)

In the (subtle) elements (is merged) (the Jiva with the Pranas) as it is seen from the Sruti.

Bhuteshu: in the elements; Tat sruteh: as that can be understood from Sruti, from the Sruti texts to that effect, there being a Vedic statement about that.

This Sutra amplifies the previous one.

The soul among with Prana rests in the subtle elements (Bhuta-sukshma). This is clear from the Sruti Pranastejasi.

The soul united with the Prana takes up its abode within the subtle elements which accompany fire and forms the seed of the future gross body. This we conclude from the clause, Prana in heat. But this passage intimates that the Prana takes up its abode and not that the soul together with the Prana takes up its abode.

We reply, it does not matter. The preceding Sutra intercalates the soul in the interval between Prana and fire. We may say shortly of a man who first travels from Haridwar to Ayodhya and then from Ayodhya to Benares that he travels from Haridwar to Benares. The passage under discussion, therefore, means that the soul together with the Prana abides in the elements associated with fire. The Prana is first merged in the individual soul and then the soul with the Prana takes its abode in the fine essence of the gross elements, fire etc., the seed of the future body.

But how are you entitled to draw in the other elements also, while the text only speaks of that? To this question the next Sutra gives an answer.

The Prana joining the soul, merged not only in Tejas but at the same time in other elements too. This can be understood from Sruti. It is said to merge only in Tejas, because Tejas (fire), is the predominating factor there. That soul is united with the essence of the earth, of the water, of the air, of the Akasa, of the fire (Bri. Up. IV.4.5).

Naikasmin darsayato hi IV.2.6 (502)

(The soul with Prana is merged) not in one element only, for both (the Sruti and Smriti) declare this (or declare so).

Na: not; Ekasmin: in one; Darsayatah: (both the Sruti and Smriti) declare so, both the Sruti and Smriti show; Hi: as, for, because.

When the soul leaves one body at the time of death and goes in from another, it together with the subtle body abides in the subtle essence of all the gross elements and not in fire only, because all the elements are needed for a future body. The new body consists of various elements. This matter is declared in the question and answer about the waters called man (Chh. Up. V.3.3). Vide III.1.2.

When the soul attains another body he does not rest in Prana alone, but goes with the subtle portions of all the elements. The question and answer in the Sruti show his.

A passage in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad declares that the soul’s embodiment is due to Karma, for the abode consisting of Graha (Indriyas or senses) and Atigraha (Vishayas or objects) is the effect of Karma. Here the subtle elements are called the abode because they are the stuff of which the new body is made. These two views or passages do not contradict each other.

ASRITYUPAKRAMADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 4

The mode of departure from the body up to the way is common to both the knower of the Saguna Brahman and an ordinary man

Samana chasrityupakramadamritatvam chanuposhya IV.2.7 (503)

And common (is the mode of departure at the time of death for both the knower of the Saguna Brahman and the ignorant) up to the beginning of their ways; and the immortality (of the knower of the Saguna Brahman is only relative) without having burnt (ignorance).

Samana: common; Cha: and; Asrityupakramat: up to the beginning of their ways; Amritatvam: immortality; Cha: and; Anuposhya: without burning, without dissolution.

There is no departure for the knower of Nirguna Brahman. His Pranas are absorbed in Brahman.

The Purvapakshin maintains that the mode of departure from the body for the knower of Saguna Brahman and the ignorant or the ordinary man ought to be different, because they attain different abodes after death. The knower of Saguna Brahman goes to Brahmaloka while the ordinary man is reborn in this world.

The present Sutra says that the knower of the Saguna Brahman enters the Sushumna Nadi at death and then goes out of the body and then enters the Devayana or the path of the gods while the ordinary ignorant man enters some other Nadi and goes by another way to have rebirth.

But the mode of departure at death is common to both till they enter on their respective ways.

Chhandogya Upanishad VIII.6.6 and Kathopanishad II.3.16 declare There are a hundred and more Nadis in the interior of the heart, of which only one leads from the heart to the head; by that, progressing upwards, the departing soul attains immortality, i.e., emancipation; all the other Nadis are for the egress of the ordinary people for undergoing bondage of frequent births and deaths.

SAMSARAVYAPADESADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 5 (SUTRAS 8-11)

The dissolution of fire etc., at the time of death

in the Supreme Deity is only relative

Tadapiteh samsaravyapadesat IV.2.8 (504)

That (fine body lasts) up to the attainment of Brahman (through knowledge), because (the scriptures) declare the state of relative existence (till then).

Tat: that, aggregate of the elements, the sum total of the subtle elements; Apiteh: till the attainment of Brahman (through knowledge); Samsaravyapadesat: because (scriptures) declare the state of relative existence.

In the text cited in Sutra 1, we have And fire is merged in the Highest Deity. The meaning is that the fire of the dying man together with the individual soul, the Prana, the aggregate of the organs and the other elements is merged in Brahman.

We now have to consider of what kind that merging is.

The Purvapakshin holds that it is an absolute absorption of things merged, as it is proved that those things have the Highest Deity for their causal mater. For it has been established that the Deity is the causal substance of all things, that have an origin. Therefore that passing into the state of non-separation is an absolute one. This is the final dissolution. Everyone attains the final emancipation at death.

This Sutra says that this merging is not absolute merging. Although Brahman is the causal substance of those elements, they are at the time of death, as in the case of deep sleep and a Pralaya of the world, merged in it only in such a way as to continue to exist in a seminal condition or seed state. Only the functions of these elements are merged and not the elements themselves.

Those subtle elements, fire and so on, which form the abode of hearing and the other organs persist up to final release from the Samsara, which is caused by perfect knowledge, because the scriptures declare that till then the Jiva or the individual soul is subject to relative existence. Some souls enter the womb for embodied existence as organic beings; others go into inorganic matter, according to their work and according to their knowledge (Katha Up. II.5.7).

Otherwise the limiting adjuncts of every soul would at the time of death be absorbed and the soul would enter into absolute union with Brahman. Every dying person will reach Brahman. This would render all scriptural injunction and scriptural doctrine equally useless.

Bondage which is due to wrong knowledge, cannot be dissolved but through perfect knowledge (Samyag Jnana). If the merging at death were absolute, then there could be no rebirth.

Sukshmam pramanatascha tathopalabdheh IV.2.9 (505)

(This fine body) is subtle (by nature) and size, because it is so observed.

Sukshmam: subtle; Pramanatah: as regards size; Cha: and; Tatha: thus, so; Upalabdheh: because it is experienced, it being observed.

The elementary matter of fire and the other elements which form the substratum of the soul, when passing out of this body, must be subtle in its nature and extent. This follows from the scriptural passages, which declare that it passes out by the Nadis and so on.

Its thinness renders it capable of passing out through the thin and subtle Nadi and its transparency is the cause of its not being stopped or obstructed by any gross substance, and not being seen by the by-standers when it passes out at death.

Nopamardenatah IV.2.10 (506)

Therefore, (this subtle body is) not (destroyed) by the destruction (of the gross body).

Na: not; Upamardena: by the destruction; Atah: therefore, because of this reason.

On account of this great subtlety the subtle body is not destroyed by what destroys the gross body, viz., burning and the like.

Asyaiva chopapatteresha ushma IV.2.11 (507)

And to this (subtle body) alone does this (bodily) heat belong, because this (only) is possible.

Asya: of the subtle body; Eva: verily, certainly, alone; Cha: and, also; Upapatteh: it being possible, because of possibility; Esha: this; Ushma: (bodily) heat.

To that same subtle body belongs the warmth which we perceive in the living body, by means of touch. That bodily heat is not felt in the body after death, while such qualities as form, colour and so on, continue to be perceived. The bodily heat is felt as long as there is life. It follows from this that the heat resides in something different from the body, as ordinarily known. The subtle body imparts its own heat to the gross body and keeps it warm as long as it remains alive. Scripture also says, He is warm if going to live; cold if going to die.

PRATISHEDHADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 6 (SUTRAS 12-14)

The Pranas of the knower of Brahman

do not depart at the time of death

Pratishedhaditi chenna sarirat IV.2.12 (508)

If it be said (that the Pranas of one who knows Brahman do not depart) on account of the denial made by the Sruti, (we say) not so, (because the scripture denies the departure of the Pranas) from the individual soul (and not from the body).

Pratishedhat: on account of the denial; Iti: so; Chet: if (if it be argued); Na: not so, you cannot say so; Sarirat: from the individual soul.

This Sutra consists of two parts, viz., an objection and its reply. The objection portion is ‘Pratishedhaditi chet’. The reply portion is `Na sarirat; Spashto hyekesham’.

This Sutra gives the view of the Purvapakshin while the thirteenth and fourteenth Sutras state the Siddhanta or correct doctrine.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad declares, But as to the man who does not desire, who not desiring, freed from desires, is satisfied in his desires, or desires the Self only, of him, the vital airs (Pranas) do not depart (Bri. Up. IV.4.6). From this express denial, forming part of the higher knowledge, it follows that the Pranas do not pass out of the body of him who knows Brahman. This Sruti passage refers to one who knows the Nirguna Brahman. It declares that his Pranas do not depart at death.

The Purvapakshin maintains that the passage quoted does not deny the departure of the Pranas from the body but from the individual soul. If the Pranas do not depart from the body there will be no death at all. This is made clear from the Madhyandina recension which says From him the vital spirits do not depart.

Therefore, the soul of a knower of Brahman passes out of the body with the Pranas.

The next Sutra refutes this view.

Spashto hyekesham IV.2.13 (509)

For (the denial of the soul’s departure) is clear (in the texts) of some schools.

Spashtah: clear; Hi: for; Ekesham: of some Sakhas or schools; the statement of some Srutis.

The Pranas do not depart from the body in the case of a liberated sage. This is made clear from the Sruti texts like: Yajnavalkya said Artabhaga, when the liberated man dies, do his Pranas go up from him or do they not? No replied Yajnavalkya, they merge in him only (Bri. Up. III.2.11).

If the Pranas depart with the soul from the body, then the soul will surely take a rebirth. Hence there will be no emancipation.

Therefore, the Pranas do not depart from the body in the case of one who knows Brahman.

Smaryate cha IV.2.14 (510)

And Smriti also says that.

Smaryate: the Smriti says, it is mentioned in the Smritis; Cha: and.

In the Mahabharata also it is said that those who know Brahman do not go or depart. He who has become the Self of all beings and has a complete intuition of all, at his way the gods themselves are perplexed, seeking for the path of him who has no path (Mahabharata: XII.270.22).

VAGADILAYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 7

The Pranas (organs) and elements of the knower of the Nirguna Brahman get merged in It at death

Tani pare tatha hyaha IV.2.15 (511)

Those (Pranas, elements) (are merged) in the Supreme Brahman, for thus the (scripture) says.

Tani: those; Pare: in the Supreme Brahman; Tatha: thus, so; Hi: because; Aha: (the Sruti) says.

Those, i.e., sense-organs denoted by the term ‘Prana’ and the elements of him who knows the Supreme Brahman are merged when he dies in the same Supreme Brahman. Why? Because scripture declares that Thus these sixteen parts of this witness, the Purusha, having their goal in Him are dissolved on reaching Him in Him (Pras. Up. VI.5).

But another text which refers to him who knows teaches that the parts also are merged in something different from the Highest Self. The fifteen parts enter into their elements (Mun. Up. III.2.7). No, we reply. This latter passage is concerned with the ordinary view of the matter. It intimates the end from a relative stand-point, according to which the whole aggregate of the parts of him who knows the Supreme Brahman is merged in Brahman only, just as the illusory snake is merged in the rope.

There is thus no contradiction.

Though ordinarily the senses and the elements merge in their causal substances, yet in the case of the Jnani they merge in Brahman.

AVIBHAGADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 8

The Kalas of the knower of the Nirguna Brahman attain

absolute non-distinction with Brahman at death

Avibhago vachanat IV.2.16 (512)

(Absolute) non-distinction (with Brahman of the parts merged takes place) according to the statement (of the scriptures).

Avibhagah: non-distinction; Vachanat: on account of the statement (of the scriptures).

Thus these sixteen constituents or Kalas, viz., eleven senses and five subtle elements, belonging to the seer, i.e., the liberated sage who attains the Supreme Brahman loses his distinction and disappears in Him. There names and forms are destroyed; and people speak of the Purusha only. Then he becomes partless and deathless (Pras. Up. VI.5).

The Kalas in the case of the knower of Brahman get absolutely merged in the Highest Brahman. In the case of an ordinary person it is not so. They exist in a fine potential state, the cause of future birth.

When parts or Kalas that are the effects of ignorance are dissolved through knowledge it is not possible that a remainder be left. The parts, therefore, get merged absolutely in Brahman. There is no chance for them for cropping up again.

TADOKO’DHIKARANAM: TOPIC 9

The soul of the knower of the Saguna Brahman comes to the heart at the time of death and then goes out through the Sushumna Nadi

Tadoko’grajvalanam tatprakasitadvaro

vidyasamarthyattaccheshagatyanusmritiyogaccha

hardanugrihitah satadhikaya IV.2.17 (513)

When the soul of a knower of the Saguna Brahman is about to depart from the body, there takes place) a lighting up of the front of its (soul’s) abode (viz., the heart); the door (of its egress) being illumined thereby; owing to the power of knowledge and the application of meditation to the way which is part of that (knowledge); the soul favoured by Him in the heart (viz., Brahman) (passes upward) by the one that exceeds a hundred (i.e., the hundred and first Nadi).

Tadoko agrajvalanam: the illumining of the top of its (soul’s) abode (the heart); Tatprakasitadvarah: with the passage illumined by this light; Vidyasamarthyat: by the power of his knowledge; Tat seshagatyanusmritiyogat: because of the application of meditation to the way which is part of that knowledge; Cha: and; Hardanugrihitah: being favoured by Him who dwells in the heart; Satadhikaya: by one that exceeds a hundred. (Tat: of that; Okah: abode, the heart; Agrajvalanam: the forepart or the end of the heart being illumined; Tat: by the Lord dwelling in the heart; Prakasita: illumined; Dvarah: door, the root from which the hundred and first Nadi has its origin; Sesha: remainder; Gati: path, the way; Anusmritiyogat: because of the application of the remembrance or constant thought; Harda: the Lord who dwells in the heart; Anugrihitah: being favoured by.)

The discussion about the Para Vidya (Higher Knowledge) is over. The Sutrakara now pursues the discussion of the Apara Vidya, i.e., Upasana (lower knowledge).

It has been already stated in Sutra 7 that up to the beginning of the way the departure of a knower of the Saguna Brahman and an ignorant man is the same. The present Sutra now describes the soul’s entering on the way. The Brihadaranyaka text describes the death of a person He taking with him those elements of light descends into the heart (Bri. Up. IV.4.1). Then again it says, The point of his heart becomes lighted up, and by that light the self departs, either through the eye or through the skull or through other places of the body (Bri. Up. IV.4.2). The soul together with the organs comes to the heart at the time of death.

The question arises whether the departure is the same for a knower of Saguna Brahman and an ordinary man.

The exit of the ordinary man is different from that of the knower of Saguna Brahman. The former goes out from any part of the body at death (eye, ear, nose, anus, etc.). But the latter goes out only through the Sushumna Nadi and out of the Brahmarandhra in the head. If he goes out by any other way he cannot attain the Supreme Abode.

By virtue of knowledge and owing to the application of constant thought of Brahman the point of the heart which is the abode of the departing soul is illumined and through the grace of the supreme soul resident therein, the door of egress, the mouth of the Nadi leading from the heart to the head as stated in Sutra 7 is thrown open. The soul passes into the Nadi numbered one hundred and one. This Nadi is the gateway of the release. The other one hundred Nadis lead to bondage.

The scripture says in a chapter treating of the knower of Brahman dwelling in the heart: There are a hundred and one Nadis of the heart; one of them penetrates the crown of the head; going up along that one attains Immortality; the others serve for departure in different directions) (Chh. Up. VIII.6.5).

Although equality for him who does know and him who does not know, the point of the heart becomes shining and the door of egress thereby is lighted up, yet he who knows departs through the skull only, while the others depart from other places. Why so? On account of the power of knowledge. If also he who knows departs like all others, from any place of the body, he would be unable to reach an exalted sphere and then all knowledge would be meaningless.

And on account of the application of meditation on the way forming a part of that. In different Vidyas there is enjoined meditation on the soul’s travelling on the way connected with the Nadi that passes through the skull, which way forms part of those Vidyas. Now it is proper to conclude that he who meditates on that way should after death proceed on it.

Therefore, he who knows being favoured by Brahman dwelling in the heart, on which he had meditated and thus becoming like it in nature departs by the Nadi which passes through the skull which is the hundred and first. The souls of other men pass out by other Nadis.

RASMYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 10 (SUTRAS 18-19)

The soul of one who knows Saguna Brahman follows

the rays of the sun after death and goes to Brahmaloka

Rasmyanusari IV.2.18 (514)

(The soul of a knower of the Saguna Brahman when he dies) follows the rays (of the sun).

Rasmi: the rays; Anusari: following.

The description of the progress of the released soul is continued.

Chhandogya Upanishad declares When he thus departs from this body, then he departs upwards by those very rays. By that moving upwards he reaches immortality (Chh. Up. VIII.6.5).

From this we understand that the soul passing out by the hundred and first Nadi (Sushumna) follows the rays of the sun.

A doubt here arises as to whether the soul of one who dies by night as well as of him who dies by day follows the rays, or the soul of the latter only.

As scripture mentions no difference, the Sutra teaches that the souls follow the rays in both cases.

Nisi neti chenna sambandhasya

yavaddehabhavitvaddarsayati cha IV.2.19 (515)

If it be said (that the soul does) not (follow the rays) in the night, we say (not so) because the connection (of Nadis and rays) continues as long as the body lasts; the Sruti also declares (this).

Nisi: at night, in the night; Na: not; Iti: so; Chet: if (if it be objected); Na: not (the objection is not valid); Sambandhasya: of the relation; Yavaddehabhavitvat: as long as the body lasts; Darsayati: the Sruti shows or declares (this); Cha: and, also. (Yavad: as long as; Bhavitvat: because of the existence.)

An objection to Sutra 17 is raised and refuted.

This Sutra consists of two parts, namely an objection and its reply. The objection portion is ‘Nisi neti chet’ and the reply portion is ‘Na sambandhasya yavaddehabhavitvad darsayati cha’.

It might perhaps be said that the Nadis and rays are connected during the day, and so the soul of a person who dies during the day may follow those rays but not the soul of one who dies by night, when the connection of the Nadis and the rays broken.

But this is an erroneous notion, for the connection of rays and Nadis lasts as long as the body exists. Hence it is immaterial whether the soul passes out by day or by night.

Further we observe that the rays of the sun continue to exist in the nights of the summer season, because we feel their warmth and other effects. During the nights of the other seasons they are difficult to perceive, because then few only continue to exist, just as during the cloudy days of the cold season. The Sruti also declares, Even by night the sun sheds his rays.

We cannot predetermine the movement of death. If such departure to the supreme abode is denied to the person dying in the night, no one will take to Upasana. The result of knowledge cannot be made to depend on the accident of death by day or night.

If again a man dying at night should wait for the dawn to mount upwards, it might happen that, owing to the action of the funeral fire etc., his body would at the time of day-break, not be capable of entering into connection with the rays. The scripture moreover expressly declares that he does not wait. As quickly as he sends off the mind he goes to the sun (Chh. Up. VIII.6.5).

For all these reasons the soul follows the rays by night as well as by day.

DAKSHINAYANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 11 (SUTRAS 20-21)

Even if the knower of the Saguna Brahman dies in Dakshinayana,

he still goes to Brahmaloka

Ataschayane’pi dakshine IV.2.20 (516)

And for the same reason (the departed soul follows the rays) also during the sun’s southern course.

Atah: for this very reason, therefore, for the same reason; Cha: and; Ayane: during the sun’s course; Api: also, even; Dakshine: in the southern.

This Sutra is a corollary drawn from the preceding Sutra.

The Purvapakshin raises an objection and maintains that the soul of the knower of Brahman who passes away during Dakshinayana or the southern course of the sun does not follow the rays to Brahmaloka. The Sruti and the Smriti declare that only one who dies during Uttarayana or the northern course of the sun goes to Brahmaloka.

Further it is also written that Bhishma waited for the northern course of the sun to leave the body.

This Sutra says that for the same reason as mentioned in the previous Sutra, i.e., the unreasonableness of making the result of knowledge depend on the accident of death happening at a particular time, the knower of Saguna Brahman goes to Brahmaloka even if he dies during the southern course of the sun.

For the same reason, viz., because waiting is impossible, and because the fruit of knowledge is not merely eventual one, and because the time of death is not fixed, also he who has true knowledge, and who dies during the southern course of the sun obtains the fruit of his knowledge.

In the text Those who know thus go by light, from light to day, from day to the bright half of the month, and from that to the six months of the northern course of the sun (Chh. Up. V.10.1), the points in the northern course of the sun do not refer to any division of time but to deities as will be shown under IV.3.4.

The Devayana path can be trodden by those who die in the Dakshinayana.

Bhishma waited for the Uttarayana, because he wanted to uphold an approved custom and to show that he could die at will owing to his father’s boon.

Yoginah prati cha smaryate smarte chaite IV.2.21 (517)

And (these times or details) are recorded by Smriti with reference to the Yogins and these two (Yoga and Sankhya) and classed as Smritis (only).

Yoginah prati: with respect to the Yogi; Cha: and; Smaryate: the Smriti declares; Smarte: belonging to the class of Smritis; Cha: and; Ete: these two.

The argument in the two preceding Sutras is strengthened here by further exposition.

The Purvapakshin says: We have the following Smriti text, That time wherein going Yogins return not, and also that wherein going forth they return, that time shall I declare to thee, O Prince of the Bharatas (Bhagavad Gita VIII. 23-24). This determines specially that to die by day and so on causes the soul not to return. How then can he who dies by night or during the sun’s southern course depart not to return? The decision of the previous Sutra cannot be correct.

This Sutra refutes the objection and says that these details as to time mentioned in the Gita apply only to Yogis who practise Sadhana according to Yoga and Sankhya systems. These two are Smritis, not Srutis. Therefore, the limitations as to the time mentioned in them do not apply to those who meditate on the Saguna Brahman according to the Sruti texts.

Yoga and Sankhya are mere Smritis. They are not of spiritual character. As it has a different sphere of application, and is based on a special kind of authority, the Smriti rule as to the time of dying has no influence on knowledge based on scripture.

But an objection is raised. We have such passages as Fire, light, the day, the bright half of the month, the six months of the northern path, smoke, night, the dark half of the month, the six months of the southern path (Bhagavad Gita VIII. 24-25), in which though belonging to Smriti we recognise the path of the fathers as determined by scripture.

Our refutation, we reply, of the claims of Smriti applies only to the contradiction which may arise from the teaching of Smriti regarding the legitimate time of dying, I will tell you the time, etc. In so far as Smriti also mentions Agni and the other divinities which lead on the departed soul, there is no contradiction whatsoever.

What appears to refer to time in the above passage refers only to the deities presiding over the day-time and the bright half of the month and the Uttarayana and over the night time, and the dark half of the month and the Dakshinayana.

Thus ends the Second Pada (Section 2) of the Fourth Chapter (Adhyaya IV) of the Brahma Sutras or the Vedanta Philosophy.

Chapter IV, Section 3

INTRODUCTION

In the previous Section the departure of a knower of the Saguna Brahman by the path of the gods (Devayana) has been described. Now the present Section treats of the path itself. It describes the journey of the released soul on the way to Brahman and takes up the thread of the story at the point where it was left in the preceding Section.

SYNOPSIS

Adhikarana I: (Sutra 1) The path connected with deities beginning with that of light is the only path to Brahmaloka.

Adhikarana II: (Sutra 2) The departing soul reaches the deity of the year and then the deity of the air.

Adhikarana III: (Sutra 3) After reaching the deity identified with lightning the soul reaches the world of Varuna.

Adhikaranas I, II, III (Sutras 1-3) reconcile the different accounts given in the Upanishads as to the stations on the way which leads the Upasaka to Saguna Brahman.

Adhikarana IV: (Sutras 4-6) Light, etc., referred to in the text describing the path of the gods mean deities identified with the light, etc., which lead the soul stage after stage till Brahmaloka is reached.

Adhikarana V: (Sutras 7-14) The Brahman to which the departed souls go by the path of the gods is the Saguna Brahman. This is the opinion propounded in Sutras 7-11 by Baadarayana. In Sutras 12-14 Jaimini defends the opposite view according to which the soul of the Upasaka goes to the Highest Brahman, not to the Karya Brahman (Saguna Brahman). Jaimini’s view is a mere Purvapaksha, while Baadari’s opinion represents the Siddhanta.

Adhikarana VI: (Sutras 15-16) Only those who have worshipped the Saguna Brahman without a symbol attain Brahmaloka.

ARCHIRADYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 1

The path connected with the deities beginning with that of light

is the only path that leads to Brahmaloka

Archiradina tatprathiteh IV.3.1 (518)

On the path connected with light (the departed soul of the knower of Saguna Brahman travels to Brahmaloka after death), that being well-known (from the Sruti).

Archiradina: by the path of the rays, etc., by the rays of light and so on, on the path connected with deities, beginning with that of light; Tatprathiteh: that being well-known (from the Sruti).

It has been explained that up to the beginning of the way the departure is the same. In the last section it was stated that the knower of the Saguna Brahman travels to Devayana or the path of the gods to Brahmaloka. But different texts make different declarations about the way itself.

One passage describes it as constituted by the junction of the Nadis and rays: Then he mounts upwards by just those rays (Chh. Up. VIII.6.5). Another passage describes it as beginning with light. They go to the light, from light to day (Chh. Up. V.10.1). Another way is described in Kaushitaki Upanishad I.3: Having reached the path of the gods, he comes to the world of Agni. Another way is described in Bri. Up. V.10.1: When the person goes away from this world he comes to the wind. Another way is described in Mun. Up. I.2.11: Free from passion they depart through the gate of the sun.

A doubt here arises whether these ways are different from each other or whether there is only one path, the path of the gods of which the different texts mention different particulars, or give different descriptions.

The Purvapakshin maintains that these texts refer to different paths to Brahmaloka.

The present Sutra refutes this view and declares that all the texts refer to one path only and give only different particulars of the same path, the path connected with deities beginning with that identified with light. Why so? On account of its being widely known, from the Sruti texts that this is the path for all knowers of Brahman.

The text Those who know this (Panchagni Vidya) and those who in the forest meditate with faith and austerity reach the deity identified with light (Chh. Up. V.10.1), expressly states that the path connected with deities beginning with that of the flame belongs to all knowers of Brahman whatever be the Vidya by which they have attained that knowledge.

The goal, viz., Brahmaloka, is the same in all cases. Some part of the path is recognised in all texts. All the following passages declare one and the same result, viz., the attainment of the world of Brahman. In these worlds of Brahman they dwell for ever and ever (Bri. Up. VI.2.15). There he dwells eternal years (Bri. Up. V.10.1). Whatever victory, whatever greatness belongs to Brahman, that victory he gains, that greatness he reaches (Kau. Up. I.2). There is no justification to regard the path as different on account of its being dealt with in different chapters.

Hence we have to conclude that all the texts refer to the same path but give different particulars which have all to be combined for a full description of the path.

Though various Srutis refer to the path by such words as Archis (light), Surya (sun), Vayu (wind), etc., yet they all refer only to different portions of one and the same way, viz., Archiradi-marga or Devayana which leads to Brahmaloka. Each Sruti gives us something indicatory of the path and we have to combine the diverse particulars.

VAYVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 2

The departing soul reaches the deity of the year

and then the deity of the air

Vayumabdadaviseshaviseshabhyam IV.3.2 (519)

(The departed soul) (of a knower of the Saguna Brahman goes) from the deity of the year to the deity of the air on account of the absence and presence of specification.

Vayum: the deity of the air; Abdat: from the deity of the year; Aviseshaviseshabhyam: because of non-specification and specification, because it is stated in general in one Sruti and in detail in another.

The description of the path of the gods is continued.

The Sutra fixes the order of the stages. The Kaushitaki Upanishad describes the path as follows: The Upasaka or the worshipper, having reached the path of the gods comes to the world of Agni (fire), to the world of Vayu (air), to the world of Varuna, to the world of Indra, to the world of Prajapati, and then to the world of Brahma (Kau. Up. I.3).

Now the world of Agni means the same as light, as both terms denote burning, and we, therefore, need not with regard to them search for the order in which they are to be combined.

Again the Chhandogya Upanishad (V.10.1) describes the path as follows: They reach the deity identified with the light, from him to the deity of the day, from him to the deity of the bright half of the month, from him to the deities identified with six months of the northern path of the sun, from them to the deity of the year, from him to the deity of the sun, from him to the deity of the moon, from him to the deity of the lightning. Here Vayu is not mentioned in the path beginning with light. There is absence of specification.

In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Vayu is mentioned before Aditya. When the person goes away from this world he comes to Vayu. Then Vayu makes room for him like the hole of a wheel, and through it he mounts higher, he comes to Aditya. On account of this specification which shows Vayu to come before Aditya, Vayu must be inserted between the year and Aditya. We should conclude that the soul goes to Vayuloka before going to the sun.

The Brihadaranyaka text (V.10.1) fixes that air comes immediately before the sun, because there is regular order of succession. But as regards air coming after the deity of fire there is no specification but simply a statement Having reached the path of the gods he comes to the world of Agni, to the world of Vayu.

The Vajasaneyins in their text record From the deities identified with the six months in which the sun travels northwards he reaches the deity identified with the world of the gods (Bri. Up. VI.2.15). Here in order to maintain the immediate succession of the deity identified with Vayu (air) and that identified with the sun (Aditya) we must understand that the soul passes from the deity of the world of the gods to the deity of air.

Again in the texts of the Chhandogya and the Brihadaranyaka the deity of the world of the gods is not mentioned in the former and the deity of the year in the latter. Both texts are authoritative. Both have to be included in the full description of the path. As the year is connected with the months, the deity of the year precedes the deity of the world of the gods.

Hence the sequence is Archis (rays), Ahas (day), Suklapaksha (bright half of the month), six months when the sun travels to the north, year, the world of the gods, the world of Vayu, the sun, the moon, the lightning, the world of Varuna, the world of Indra, the world of Prajapati and the world of Brahma.

TADIDADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 3

After reaching the deity identified with lightning,

the soul reaches the world of Varuna

Tadito’dhi varunah sambandhat IV.3.3 (520)

After (reaching) the deity of lightning (the soul reaches) Varuna, on account of the connection (between the two).

Taditah adhi: after the deity of lightning; Varunah: (comes) Varuna (rain god); Sambandhat: on account of connection.

The enumeration of the stations of the journey is continued.

In the Chhandogya text we find, From the sun to the moon, from moon to lightning. In the Kaushitaki Upanishad we find, From Vayu (wind) to Varuna. Combining the two texts we have to place Varuna after lightning, on account of the connection between the two (lightning and Varuna). The broad lightnings dance forth from the womb of the clouds with the sound of deep thunder and then water falls down. It lightens, it thunders, it will rain (Chh. Up. VII.11.1). Varuna is the god of rain and lightning precedes rain. So after lightning comes Varuna.

After Varuna come Indra and Prajapati for there is no other place for them. The Kaushitaki text also puts them there.

The complete enumeration of the stages of the path of the gods is as follows: first the deity of fire, then the deity of the day, the deity of the bright half of the month, the deities of the six months when the sun travels to the north, the deity of the year, the deity of the world of gods, the deity of the air, the sun, the moon, the deity of lightning, the world of Varuna, the world of Indra, the world of Prajapati, and finally Brahmaloka.

Ativahikadhikaranam: Topic 4 (Sutras 4-6)

Light, etc., referred to in the text describing the path of the gods mean deities identified with light, etc., who conduct the soul

stage after stage till Brahmaloka is reached

Ativahikastallingat IV.3.4 (521)

(These are) deities conducting the soul (on the path of the gods), on account of indicatory marks to that effect.

Ativahikah: conductors, deities conducting the departed soul; Tad-lingat: on account of indicatory marks to that effect.

The description of the path of the gods is continued.

With regard to those beginning with light a doubt arises whether they are marks of the road, or places of enjoyment, or conductors of the travelling souls.

The Purvapakshin says: Light and so on are marks of the road, because the instruction has that character. In ordinary life a man who wishes to go to a village or a town is told Go from here to that hill, from there to a banyan tree, from that tree to a river, from that to a village, after that you will reach the town. So here also the text says, From light to day, from day to the waxing half of the month, etc.

Or else light and so on may be viewed as places of enjoyment. Because the text connects Agni and so on with the world He comes to the world of Agni. Now the term world denotes places of enjoyment of living beings, as when we say the world of men, the world of fathers, the world of gods.

Therefore, light and the rest are not conductors. Further they cannot be conductors as they are without intelligence. In ordinary life, intelligent men only are appointed by the king to conduct travellers over difficult roads.

The present Sutra refutes this. They must be the conductors. They receive the departed souls and conduct them on their way to Brahmaloka. That conductors are meant here and not marks or places of enjoyment is indicated by the text of the Chhandogya which ends thus, From the moon to the lightning. Then a being who is not a man leads them to Brahman (Chh. Up. IV.15.5; V.10.1). This text shows that unlike the previous guides or conductors who were more or less human, this particular guide or conductor is not a human in natureAmanava.

Ubhayavyamohat tatsiddheh IV.3.5 (522)

(That deities or divine guides are meant in these texts, they are personal conductors) is established, because both (i.e., the path and the traveller) become unconscious.

Ubhaya: both (the path and the traveller); Vyamohat: because of unconsciousness; Tat-siddheh: that is established.

This Sutra is an argument in support of Sutra 4.

The departed souls are not capable of guiding themselves as their organs are withdrawn in the mind. The light, etc., are without intelligence. Hence they are equally incapable and cannot guide the souls. Hence it follows that the particular intelligent deities identified with the light, etc., guide the souls to Brahmaloka. In ordinary life also drunken or senseless people follow a road as commanded by others.

Again light and the rest cannot be taken for marks of the path or road, because they are not always present.

Further the departed souls cannot enjoy as their organs are withdrawn into the mind. Hence light and the rest cannot be worlds where they enjoy.

Although the wanderers or the departed souls do not enjoy anything, the word world may be explained on the ground that those worlds are places of enjoyment for other beings dwelling there.

The conclusion, therefore, is that he who has reached the world of Agni is led on by Agni and he who has reached the world ruled by Vayu is led by Vayu.

Vaidyutenaiva tatastacchruteh IV.3.6 (523)

From thence (the souls are led or guided) by the very same (superhuman) person who comes to lightning, that being known from the Sruti.

Vaidyutena: by the (superhuman) guide connected with lightning, by the superhuman being who takes his charge from the god of lightning; Eva: alone, only, indeed; Tatah: from thence; Tat sruteh: that being known from the Sruti, as Sruti states so, because of the Vedic text.

The discussion on the journey is continued.

From thence, i.e., after they have come to the lightning they go to the world of Brahman, being led through the worlds of Varuna and the rest by the person, not a man (Amanava-purusha) who follows immediately after the lightning. When they have reached the place of lightning, a person, not a man, leads them to the world of Brahman (Bri. Up. VI.2.15).

Varuna and the rest only favour the souls either by not obstructing or helping them in some way.

Therefore, it is well established that light and so on are the gods who act as conductors or guards.

KARYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 5 (SUTRAS 7-14)

The departed souls go by the path of gods to Saguna Brahman

Karyam baadarirasya gatyupapatteh IV.3.7 (524)

To the Karya Brahman or Hiranyagarbha or Saguna Brahman (the departed souls are led); (thus opines) the sage Baadari on account of the possibility of its being the goal (of their journey).

Karyam: the relative Brahman or Hiranyagarbha; Baadarih: the sage Baadari (holds); Asya: his; Gati-upapatteh: on account of the possibility of being the goal.

A discussion is now taken up whether the soul is conducted to the Nirguna Brahman or the Saguna Brahman.

In the previous Sutra the way was discussed.

Now from this Sutra onwards the discussion is about the goal reached.

The Chhandogya text declares, Then a being who is not a man (Amanava Purusha) leads them to Brahman (Chh. Up. V.10.1).

A doubt arises whether the Brahman is the Saguna Brahman or the Supreme Nirguna Brahman. The opinion of the teacher Baadari is that the person, who is not a man, leads them to the lower qualified, effected Brahman (Saguna or Karya Brahman); because it is possible to go to that. Because Saguna Brahman which occupies a definite place, which has a special abode and which is finite can be the goal of a journey. But it is not possible with respect to the Nirguna Brahman which is Infinite and all-pervading. With the Highest Nirguna Brahman on the other hand, we cannot connect the ideas of one who goes, or object of going or act of going; because that Brahman is present everywhere and is the inner Self of all.

Viseshitatvaccha IV.3.8 (525)

And on account of the qualification (with respect to this Brahman in another text).

Viseshitatvat: because of being specified in Sruti, on account of the qualification; Cha: and.

An argument in support of Sutra 7 is adduced.

Because the word Brahman is qualified by the word ‘lokam’.

He leads them to the worlds of Brahman; in these worlds of Brahman they live for ever and ever (Bri. Up. VI.2.15). The plural number is not possible with respect to the Supreme Infinite Brahman which may abide in different conditions.

Samipyattu tadvyapadesah IV.3.9 (526)

But on account of the nearness (of the Saguna Brahman to the Supreme Brahman it is) designated as that (Supreme Brahman).

Samipyat: because of the nearness or proximity; Tu: but; Tad: that; Vyapadesah: designation.

The argument in support of Sutra 7 is continued.

The word ‘tu’ (but) sets aside any doubt that may arise on account of the word ‘Brahma’ being used for the Saguna Brahman in the Chhandogya text.

This Sutra says that this designation is on account of the proximity of the Saguna Brahman to the supreme Brahman or the Absolute.

The manifested Brahman also can be called Brahman as it is in the closest proximity to the Unmanifested Para Brahman. The Para Brahman assumes absolutely pure limiting adjuncts such as mind, etc., to become an object of devotion and meditation, i.e., the lower Brahman or Karya Brahman or Saguna Brahman.

Karyatyaye tadadhyakshena sahatah

paramabhidhanat IV.3.10 (527)

On the dissolution of the Brahmaloka (the souls attain) along with the ruler of that world what is higher than that (i.e., the Supreme Brahman) on account of the declaration of the Sruti.

Karyatyaye: on the dissolution of the Brahmaloka (Karya: of the effect, i.e., the universe, the relative Saguna Brahman); Tad: of that; Adhyakshena: with the ruler-president, i.e., Hiranyagarbha or the four-faced Brahma; Saha: with; Atahparam: higher than that, i.e., the Supreme Brahman; Abhidhanat: on account of the declaration of the Sruti.

The individual soul’s final absorption in the Para Brahman or the Absolute is now stated.

The Purvapakshin says: If the souls who go by the path of the gods reach the Saguna Brahman, then how can statements like, They who proceed on that path do not return to the life of man (Chh. Up. IV.15.6); For them there is no return here (Bri. Up. VI.2.15); Moving upwards by that a man reaches immortality (Chh. Up. VIII.6.5), be made with respect to them, as there is no permanency anywhere apart from the Highest Brahman?

The Sutra declares that at the dissolution of Brahmaloka the souls, which by that time have attained knowledge, along with the Saguna Brahman attain what is higher than the Saguna Brahman, i.e., Para Brahman or the pure highest place of Vishnu. This is called Kramamukti or successive (progressive) liberation or release by successive steps. So the Sruti texts declare.

Smritescha IV.3.11 (528)

And on account of the Smriti (texts supporting this view).

Smriteh: on account of the statement of the Smriti, as Smriti agrees with the view, according to the Smriti; Cha: and.

An argument in support of Sutra 10 is adduced.

The view expressed in the preceding Sutra is corroborated by Smriti also, When the Pralaya has come and when the first person (Hiranyagarbha) comes to His end, then they all, together with Brahman, with purified minds enter the highest place.

The above are the Siddhanta Sutras. The final conclusion (Siddhanta), therefore is that the going of the souls of which scripture speaks, has for its goal the Karya Brahman or Saguna Brahman.

The Purvapaksha is stated in Sutras 12-14.

Param jaiminirmukhyatvat IV.3.12 (529)

To the highest (Brahman) (the souls are led); Jaimini opines, on account of that being the primary meaning (of the word `Brahman’).

Param: the Supreme (Brahman); Jaiminih: the sage Jaimini (opines or holds); Mukhyatvat: on account of that being the primary meaning (of the word `Brahman’).

Sutras 12-14 give a prima facie view of the matter. An objection to Sutra 7 is adduced by presenting an opposite view.

Jaimini is of opinion that the word ‘Brahman’ in the Chhandogya text He leads them to Brahman refers to the Highest Brahman, as that is the primary meaning of the word.

Darsanaccha IV.3.13 (530)

And because the Sruti declares that.

Darsanat: on account of the Sruti texts; Cha: and, also.

An argument in support of Jaimini is adduced.

The text Going upwards by that he reaches immortality (Chh. Up. VIII.6.6) (Katha Up. II.6.16) declares that immortality is attained by going. But immortality is possible only in the Supreme Brahman, not in the Saguna Brahman, because the latter is transitory. So scripture says, Where one sees something else, that is little, that is mortal (Chh. Up. VIII.24.1).

According to the text of the Kathopanishad also the going of the soul is towards the supreme Brahman. The soul which passes out of the body by the Sushumna Nadi reaches immortality. This can be attained only in the Supreme Brahman.

Na cha karye pratipattyabhisandhih IV.3.14 (531)

And the desire to attain Brahman cannot be with respect to the Saguna Brahman.

Na: not; Cha: and; Karye: in the Saguna Brahman; Pratipatti: realisation of Brahman; Abhisandhih: desire. (Pratipatti- abhisandhih: the desire to attain or realise Brahman.)

The argument in support of Sutra 12 is continued.

I enter the hall of Prajapati, the house (Chh. Up. VIII.14.1), cannot have the lower or Saguna Brahman for its object. This desire to enter the ‘hall’ or the ‘house’ cannot be with respect to the Saguna Brahman. It is appropriate with regard to the Highest Brahman (Para Brahman). Because the immediately preceding passage intimates And that within which these (names and forms) are contained is Brahman. The passage I am the glory of the Brahmanas represents the soul as the self of all. ‘Glory’ is the name of the supreme Brahman. There is no likeness of him whose name is great glory (Vajasaneya Samhita: XXXII.3). Here the Supreme Brahman is referred to.

Sutras 12-14 give the view of the Purvapakshin against what has been said in Sutras 7-11. The arguments of Sutras 12-14 are refuted thus:

The Brahman attained by those who go by the path of the gods (Devayana) cannot be the Supreme Brahman (Nirguna Brahman). They attain only the Saguna Brahman. Para Brahman is all-pervading. He is the Inner Self of all. He cannot be attained as He is the Innermost Self of everyone.

We do not go to what is already reached. Ordinary experience rather tells us that a person goes to something different from him. Journey or attainment is possible only where there is difference, where the attainer is different from the attained.

The Supreme Brahman cannot be assumed to possess any differences depending on time, or space or anything else and cannot, therefore, become the object of going.

In the realisation of the Supreme Brahman the veil of ignorance is removed and the seeker knows his essential divine nature. He realises his identity with the Supreme Brahman. When the ignorance is removed Brahman manifests itself. That is all. There is no going or attaining in such a realisation.

But the attainment of Brahman spoken of in the texts connected with the path of the gods is not merely the removal of ignorance but actual.

The passage I enter the hall of Prajapati, the house, can be separated from what precedes and be connected with the Saguna Brahman.

The fact that Chh. Up. VIII.14.1 says I am the glory of the Brahmanas, of the kings cannot make it refer to the Nirguna Brahman, because the Saguna Brahman can also be said to be the self of all, as we find in texts like He, to whom all works, all desires belong (Chh. Up. III.14.2).

The reference to the journey to Brahman which belongs to the realm of relative or qualified knowledge in a chapter which deals with the Highest Knowledge is only by way of glorification of the latter.

For all these reasons the view of Baadari as set forth in Sutras 7-11 is the correct one.

APRATIKALAMBANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 6 (SUTRAS 15-16)

Only those who have taken recourse to the worship of Brahman

without a symbol attain Brahmaloka

Apratikalambanannayatiti baadarayana

ubhayathadoshattatkratuscha IV.3.15 (532)

Baadarayana holds that (the superhuman being) leads (to Brahmaloka only) those who do not take recourse to a symbol of Brahman in their meditation; there being no fault in the twofold relation (resulting from this opinion) and (it being construed on the doctrine) as is the meditation on that (i.e., Brahman) so does one become.

Apratikalambanat: those who do not have recourse to the symbols for the meditation of Brahman; Nayati: (the superhuman being) leads or takes; Iti Baadarayanah: so says Baadarayana; Ubhayatha: both ways; Adoshat: there being no defects; Tat-kratuh: as is the meditation on that, (so does one become); Cha: and.

The discussion commenced is Sutra 6, whether the soul is taken to the Supreme Brahman or the Saguna Brahman is concluded in this and the following Sutra.

A doubt here arises whether all worshippers of the Saguna Brahman go to Brahmaloka being led by the superhuman being mentioned in Chh. Up. IV.15.5 or only some of them?

The Purvapakshin maintains that all go to Brahmaloka whatever may be their Upasana.

This Sutra declares that only those worshippers of the Saguna Brahman who do not take recourse to any symbol in their meditation on Brahman go there. This is the opinion of the teacher Baadarayana. This, however, does not contradict what is said in III.3.31 if we understand that by ‘all’ is meant all those worshippers who do not take recourse to any symbol in their meditation on Brahman.

Only Brahma Upasakas are taken by the Amanava Purusha to the Brahmaloka. The form of meditation governs the result. In the case of symbols like the Salagrama stone, there is no feeling that it itself is Brahman. No doubt in the case of Panchagni-Vidya, the Sruti says that the worshipper is led to Brahmaloka. But we cannot extend the result to the worshippers of external symbols where there is no direct scriptural statement, we have to understand that only those who meditate on Brahman go to Brahmaloka, not others.

He whose meditation is fixed on Brahman reaches Brahmaloka. This view is supported by Sruti and Smriti. In whatever form they meditate on Him, that they become themselves. In the case of symbols on the other hand, the meditation is not fixed on Brahman, the symbol being the chief element in the meditation. Hence the worshipper does not attain Brahmaloka.

Visesham cha darsayati IV.3.16 (533)

And the scripture declares a difference (in the case of meditation on symbols).

Visesham: difference; Cha: and; Darsayati: the scripture declares.

An argument in support of the conclusion arrived at by Baadarayana, is adduced here.

With reference to meditations on symbols such as name and so on, that occur in Chhandogya Upanishadic texts, the Sruti speaks of different results according to difference in the symbols. One who meditates upon name as Brahman becomes independent so far as name reaches (Chh. Up. VII.1.5). One who meditates upon speech as Brahman becomes independent so far as speech reaches (Chh. Up. VII.2.2).

Now the distinction of rewards is possible because the meditations depend on symbols, while there could be no such difference in results, if they depend on the one non-different Brahman.

Hence it is quite clear that those who use symbols for their meditation cannot have the same reward as others. They cannot go to Brahmaloka like those who meditate on the Saguna Brahman.

Thus ends the Third Pada (Section 3) of the Fourth Chapter (Adhyaya IV) of the Brahma Sutras or the Vedanta Philosophy.

Chapter IV, Section 4

INTRODUCTION

The attainment of Brahmaloka by the worshippers of the Saguna Brahman has been treated in the last Section. This Section deals with the realisation of the Highest Brahman by its worshippers.

SYNOPSIS

Adhikarana I: (Sutras 1-3) the released soul does not acquire anything new but merely manifests itself in its true nature.

Adhikarana II: (Sutra 4) determines that relation in which the released soul stands to Brahman is that of Avibhaga, non-separation.

Adhikarana III: (Sutras 5-7) discuss the characteristics of the soul that has attained the Nirguna Brahman. According to Jaimini the released soul, when manifesting itself in its true nature, possesses the attributes which in Chh. Up. VIII.7.1 and other places are ascribed to Brahman, such as Apahatapapmatva (freedom from sin), Satyasankalpatva (true volition) and Aisvarya (Omniscience) etc.

According to Audulomi the only characteristics of the released soul is Chaitanya or pure intelligence.

According to Baadarayana the two views can be combined. The two views describe the released soul from two different standpoints, viz., relative and transcendental and so there is no contradiction between the two.

Adhikarana IV: (Sutras 8-9) The soul which has attained the Saguna Brahman effects its desires be mere will.

Adhikarana V: (Sutras 10-14) A released soul which has attained Brahmaloka can exist with or without a body according to its liking.

Adhikarana VI: (Sutras 15-16) The released soul which has attained the Saguna Brahman can animate several bodies at the same time.

Adhikarana VII: (Sutras 17-22) The released soul which has attained Brahmaloka has all the lordly powers except the power of creation, etc. There is no return to this world for these released souls.

SAMPADYAVIRBHAVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 1 (SUTRAS 1-3)

The liberated soul does not acquire anything new

but only manifests its essential or true nature

Sampadyavirbhavah svena sabdat IV.4.1 (534)

(When the Jiva or the individual soul) has attained (the highest light) there is manifestation (of its own real nature) as we infer from the word ‘own’.

Sampadya: having attained; Avirbhavah: there is manifestation; Svena sabdat: from the word ‘own’. (Svena: by one’s own; Sabdat: inferred from the word.)

The Chhandogya text says Now this serene and happy being, after having risen out of this body and having attained the highest light, manifests itself by its own nature (Chh. Up. VII.12.3).

The Purvapakshin holds that the Jiva or the individual soul which has freed itself from identification with the three bodies attains emancipation after realising Brahman. Release also is a fruit like other fruits, e.g., Svarga or heaven. Manifestation means as much as origination. Liberation was not a pre-existent thing. It is something that is newly acquired like heaven, as the word ‘reaches’ in the text clearly indicates. Therefore emancipation is something new that is acquired by the individual soul. If the manifestation took place only through the self’s own nature, it would already appear in the self’s former states, because a thing’s own nature is never absent in it.

The present Sutra refutes this view and says that the word ‘own’ indicates that emancipation was a pre-existent thing. The individual soul manifests its own, essential divine nature which was so long covered by ignorance (Avidya). This is his attainment of the final beatitude or release. It is certainly nothing that is newly acquired.

Muktah pratijnanat IV.4.2 (535)

(The self whose true nature has manifested itself is) released; according to the promise (made by scripture).

Muktah: the liberated one, released, freed; Pratijnanat: according to the promise.

The previous Sutra is further elucidated.

Emancipation is a cessation of all bondage and not the accession of something new, just as health is merely the removal of illness and not a new acquisition.

If release is nothing new that is acquired by the individual soul, then what is its difference from bondage? The Jiva was stained in the state of bondage by the three states, i.e., the state of waking, dreaming and dreamless sleep. According to Chhandogya Upanishad VIII. 9-11, It is blind It weeps as it were It goes to utter annihilation. It imagines itself to be finite. It identifies itself with the illusory vehicles or Upadhis and experiences pleasure, pain, joy and sorrow. After Self-realisation it realises its true nature which is absolute bliss. It is freed from all erroneous notions and misconceptions. It is freed from Avidya or ignorance and its effects. It is perfect, free, independent. This is the difference.

Annihilation of ignorance is salvation. Eradication of all erroneous notions or misconceptions is liberation. Destruction of the veil of ignorance, that separates the individual soul from the Supreme Soul is emancipation or the final beatitude.

But how is it known that in its present condition the soul is released? On account of the promise made in the scriptures, says the Sutra.

The Chhandogya Upanishad says, I will explain It to you further (Chh. Up. VIII.9.3; VIII.10.4; VIII.11.3). Here the Sruti proposes to expound that Self which is free from all imperfections. It begins thus, The Self which is free from sin (Chh. Up. VIII.7.1). It being without the body, is not touched by pleasure and pain (Chh. Up. VIII.12.1), and concludes By his own nature he manifests himself. That is the highest person. The serene being rises above its body, reaches the highest light and appears in its own true nature (Chh. Up. VIII.12.3).

Atma prakaranat IV.4.3 (536)

(The light into which the individual soul enters is) the Supreme Self; owing to the subject matter of the chapter.

Atma: the Supreme Self; Prakaranat: on account of the subject matter of the discourse or context.

This Sutra says that the individual soul recovers his own Self (the Supreme Self) as stated in Sutra 1.

The Purvapakshin holds: How can the soul be called liberated considering that the clause (having entered into) the highest light speaks of it as within the sphere of what is a mere effect? Because the word ‘light’ in common parlance denotes physical light. No one who has not transcended beyond the sphere of effects can be liberated, as whatever is an effect is tainted with evil.

We reply: this objection is without force. It cannot stand; for in the passage referred to in the Chh. Up. VIII.3.4 the word ‘light’ denotes the Self Supreme, in accordance with the subject matter of the Chapter and not any physical light.

The word ‘Jyotih’ (light) in the passage refers to the Atma which is described as sinless, undecaying and deathless (Ya Atma apahatapapma vijaro vimrityuhChh. Up. VIII.7.1).

We, therefore, may not all at once pass over to physical light incurring thereby the fault of abandoning the topic under discussion and introducing a new one.

The word ‘light’ is also used to denote the Self in the texts like The gods meditate on the immortal Light of all lights as longevity (Bri. Up. IV.4.16). We have discussed this in detail under I.3.40.

AVIBHAGENA DRISHTATVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 2

The released soul remains inseparable from the Supreme Soul

Avibhagena drishtatvat IV.4.4 (537)

(The Jiva in the state of release exists) as inseparable (from Brahman), because it is so seen from the scriptures.

Avibhagena: as inseparable; Drishtatvat: for it is so seen from the scriptures.

A doubt arises whether the individual soul in the state of emancipation exists as different from Brahman or as one with and inseparable from It.

The present Sutra declares that it exists as inseparable from Brahman, because the Sruti texts declare so. Thou art That, Tat Tvam Asi (Chh. Up. VI.8.7). Aham Brahma Asmi, I am Brahman (Bri. Up. I.4.10). Where he sees nothing else (Chh. Up. VII.24.1). Being but Brahman, he is merged in Brahman (Bri. Up. IV.4.6). All these Sruti passages declare that the emancipated soul is identical with Brahman.

Such passages as Just as pure water poured into pure water remains the same, thus O Gautama, is the self of a thinker who knows (Katha Up. II.4.15), whose object is to describe the nature of the released soul, declare that there is non-separation only. The same follows from the comparison of the soul entering Brahman to rivers falling into the sea.

Passages which speak of difference have to be explained in a secondary sense, expressing non-separation or unity.

Brahmadhikaranam: Topic 3 (Sutras 5-7)

Characteristics of the soul that has attained the Nirguna Brahman

Brahmena jaiminirupanyasadibhyah IV.4.5 (538)

(The released soul exists) as possessed of (the attributes of) Brahman; (thus) Jaimini (opines) on account of the reference etc.

Brahmena: as possessed of the attributes of Brahman; Jaiminih: Jaimini (holds); Upanyasadibhyah: on account of the reference etc.

The view of the sage Jaimini is stated in this connection.

It has been stated that the released soul attains Brahman. Brahman has two aspects, viz., one the unconditioned aspect as pure consciousness and the other as described in the Chhandogya Upanishad VIII.7.1: The Atman which is free from evil, undecaying, undying, free from sorrow, hunger and thirst, with true desires (Satyakama) and true volitions (Satyasankalpa).

A doubt arises now, which aspect does the released soul attain? Jaimini maintains that the liberated soul attains the conditioned aspect. Why? Because this is known from reference to the nature of the self as being such in the text cited. The qualities of Omniscience and Omnipotence are mentioned. Hence Jaimini opines that the released soul attains the conditioned aspect of Brahman.

Chititanmatrena tadatmakatvadityaudulomih IV.4.6 (539)

(The released soul exists) solely as pure consciousness or Intelligence, that being its true nature or essence; thus Audulomi (thinks).

Chititanmatrena: solely as pure consciousness (Tanmatrena: solely); Tadatmakatvat: that being its true nature or essence; Iti: thus, so; Audulomih: Audulomi (thinks).

The view of sage Audulomi is stated in this connection.

This Sutra gives another view about the state of emancipation. This is the view of the sage Audulomi. Audulomi says that it is the realisation of the soul’s essential nature as pure Chaitanya (knowledge, consciousness or intelligence). The soul is solely of the nature of Pure Consciousness. It exists as such in the state of release.

This conclusion will also agree with other scriptural texts such as Bri. Up. IV.5.13: Thus this Self has neither inside nor outside, but is altogether a mass of knowledge.

Although the text enumerates different qualities such as freedom from sin, etc., these qualities rest only on fanciful conceptions due to difference of words; because what the text intimates is only absence in general of all qualities such as sin and the rest.

Evamapyupanyasat purvabhavadavirodham

baadarayanah IV.4.7 (540)

Thus also, on account of the existence of the former qualities admitted owing to reference and so on, there is no contradiction (between the two); (so thinks) Baadarayana.

Evam: thus; Api: even; Upanyasat: on account of reference; Purvabhavat: owing to attribution of properties mentioned before; Avirodham: there is no contradiction; Baadarayanah: Baadarayana (thinks).

The author’s own view is now stated.

Baadarayana reconciles both and says that the affirmation of the divine attributes of Omniscience and Omnipotence is from the point of view of God’s nature when the soul is bound, while the affirmation of the soul’s nature as pure knowledge is from the point of view of its released state.

Although it is admitted that intelligence constitutes the true nature of the Self, also the former nature, i.e., lordly power like that of Brahman, which is intimated by reference and the rest is with a view to the world of appearances not rejected. Hence there is no contradiction. This is the opinion of the teacher Baadarayana.

SANKALPADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 4 (SUTRAS 8-9)

The soul which has attained the Saguna Brahman

effects its desire by mere will

Sankalpadeva tu tacchruteh IV.4.8 (541)

But by mere will (the liberated souls attain their purpose), because scriptures say so.

Sankalpat: by the exercise of will; Eva: only; Tu: but; Tat-sruteh: because Sruti says so.

The powers and privileges which a liberated soul acquires are stated here.

In the meditation on Brahman within the heart we read as follows: If he desires the world of the fathers (Pitriloka) by his mere will they come to him (Chh. Up. VIII.2.1).

A doubt here arises whether the will alone is the cause to get the result, or the will combined with some other operative cause.

The Purvapakshin holds that although scripture says by his mere will some other cause must be supposed to cooperate as in ordinary life. Because, as in ordinary experience the meeting with one’s father is caused by one’s will, and in addition by the act of going and so on, so it will be with the case of the liberated soul also.

This Sutra says that by mere will the result comes, because the Sruti so declares. If any other cause were required, the direct scriptural statements by his will only would thereby be contradicted.

The will of the liberated soul is different from the will of ordinary men. It has the power of producing results without any operative cause.

Ata eva chananyadhipatih IV.4.9 (542)

And for this very same reason (the released soul is) without another Lord.

Ata eva: for the very reason, therefore, so; Cha: and; Ananyadhipatih: without any other Lord.

The previous topic is continued.

For the very same reason, i.e., owing to the fact of the will of the released person being all-powerful, he who knows has no other Lord over himself. Because not even an ordinary person when forming wishes, will, if he can help it, wish himself to be subject to another master. Even in this world no one could willingly have master to lord over him. Scripture also declares that a released soul is master of himself. For them there is freedom from all worlds (Chh. Up. VIII.1.6).

ABHAVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 5 (SUTRAS 10-14)

A liberated soul who has attained Brahmaloka can exist

with or without a body according to his liking

Abhavam baadariraha hyevam IV.4.10 (543)

There is absence (of body and organs, in the case of the liberated souls) (asserts) Baadari, for thus scripture says.

Abhavam: absence (of body and organs); Baadarih: the sage Baadari (asserts); Aha: (the Sruti) says; Hi: because; Evam: thus.

There follows a discussion whether the liberated soul possesses a body or not.

The passage By his mere will the fathers rise shows that the liberated soul possesses a mind, whereby he wills. A doubt arises whether he possesses a body and the organs.

The teacher Baadari says that he does not, because the scripture declares so, And it is by means of the mind that he sees the desires and rejoices (Chh. Up. VIII.12.5). This clearly indicates that he possesses only the mind and not the organs, etc. There are neither body nor sense-organs in the state of emancipation.

Bhavam jaiminirvikalpamananat IV.4.11 (544)

Jaimini (asserts that the liberated soul) possesses (a body and the organs) because the scriptures declare (the capacity on the part of such a soul to assume) various forms.

Bhavam: existence; Jaiminih: Jaimini (holds); Vikalpa- mananat: because the scripture declares (the capacity to assume) divine forms. (Vikalpa: option, diversity in manifestation; Amananat: from statement in Sruti.)

A contrary view to Sutra 10 is adduced.

The teacher Jaimini is of the opinion that the liberated soul possesses a body and organs as well as a mind. the Chhandogya Upanishad declares He being one becomes three, five, seven, nine (Chh. Up. VII.26.2). This text says that a liberated soul can assume more than one form. This indicates that the released soul possesses besides the mind, a body and the organs.

Dvadasahavadubhayavidham baadarayano’tah IV.4.12 (545)

For this reason Baadarayana opines that the released person is of both kinds as in the case of the twelve days’ sacrifice.

Dvadasahavat: like the twelve days’ sacrifice; Ubhayavidham: (is) of both kinds; Baadarayanah: Baadarayana (thinks); Atah: so, therefore, from this, from this very reason.

A decision is given on the conflicting views noted above.

Baadarayana affirms from the twofold declarations of the two scriptures that a liberated soul who has attained Brahmaloka can exist both ways, with or without a body, according to his liking. It is like the twelve days’ sacrifice, which is called a Satra as well as an Ahina sacrifice.

Tanvabhave sandhyavadupapatteh IV.4.13 (546)

In the absence of a body (the fulfilment of desires is possible) as in dreams, as this is reasonable.

Tanvabhave: in the absence of a body; Sandhyavad: just as in dreams (which stand midway between waking and deep sleep); Upapatteh: this being reasonable.

An inference is drawn from the conclusion arrived at in Sutra 12.

When there is no body or sense-organs, the wished for objects are experienced by the liberated souls just as embodied persons experience joy in dreams.

Bhave jagradvat IV.4.14 (547)

When the body exists (the fulfilment of desires is) as in the waking state.

Bhave: when the body exists; Jagradvat: just as in the waking state.

When there are the body and sense-organs, the wished for objects are experienced by the liberated souls, just as embodied persons experience joys in the waking state.

PRADIPADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 6 (SUTRAS 15-16)

The liberated soul which has attained the Saguna Brahman

can animate several bodies at the same time

Pradipavadavesastatha hi darsayati IV.4.15 (548)

The entering (of the released soul into several bodies) like (the multiplication of) the flame of a lamp because thus the scripture declares.

Pradipavat: like the flame of a lamp; Avesah: entering, animating; Tatha: thus, so; Hi: because; Darsayati: the scripture shows (or declares).

This Sutra shows the possibility of the liberated soul of simultaneously possessing several bodies other than his own.

In Sutra 11 it has been shown that a released soul can assume many bodies at the same time for enjoyment.

A doubt arises whether the bodies which the released create for themselves when rendering themselves threefold and so on are soulless like wooden figures or animated by souls like the bodies of men.

The Purvapakshin maintains that as neither the soul nor the mind can be divided, they are joined with one body only, while other bodies are soulless. Other bodies are lifeless puppets. Enjoyment is possible only in that body in which the soul and mind exist.

This Sutra refutes this view and says, Like the flame of a lamp in their entering i.e., just as the one flame of a lamp can enter into different wicks lighted from it, the released soul, although one only, multiplies itself through its lordly power and enters into all these bodies. It creates bodies with internal organs corresponding to the original internal organs and being limited by these divides itself as many. Therefore, all the created bodies have a soul which renders enjoyment through all of these bodies possible. Scripture declares that in this way one may become many. He is onefold, he is threefold, fivefold, sevenfold (Chh. Up. VII.6.2).

The Yoga Sastras also make the same affirmation.

Svapyayasampattyoranyatara-

pekshamavishkritam hi IV.4.16 (549)

(The declaration of absence of all cognition is made) having in view either of the two states, viz., deep sleep and absolute union (with Brahman), for this is made clear (by the scriptures).

Svapyayasampattyoh: of deep sleep and absolute union (with Brahman); Anyatarapeksham: having in view either of these two; Avishkritam: this is made clear (by the Sruti); Hi: because. (Svapyaya: deep sleep; Anyatara: either, any of the two; Apeksham: with reference to, with regard to.)

The range of knowledge of the liberated soul is now discussed.

The Purvapakshin holds: How can lordly power, enabling the released soul to enter into several bodies and enjoy be admitted if we consider the different scriptural texts which declare that the soul in that state has not any specific cognition? e.g., What should one know and through what? (Bri. Up. II.4.14). But there is not the second thing separate from it which it can know (Bri. Up. IV.3.30). It becomes like water, one, witness and without a second (Bri. Up. IV.3.32).

This Sutra says that these texts refer either to the state of deep sleep or to that of final release in which the soul attains absolute union with the Nirguna Brahman.

Those passages on the other hand, which describe lordly power refer to an altogether different condition which like the heavenly world, is an abode where knowledge of Saguna Brahman produces its results.

We have been discussing in the previous Sutras about one who has not attained absolute union with Nirguna Brahman but only Brahmaloka. There is cognition in Brahmaloka. There is enjoyment also in heaven. The difference between heaven and Brahmaloka is that one does not return to this world from Brahmaloka whereas one returns to this universe from heaven when the results of his virtuous deeds have been exhausted.

JAGADVYAPARADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 7 (SUTRAS 17-22)

The liberated soul which has attained Brahmaloka

has all the lordly powers except the power of creation

Jagadvyaparavarjam prakaranadasannihitattvaccha IV.4.17 (550)

(The liberated soul attains all lordly powers) except the power of creation, etc., on account of (the Lord being) the subject matter (of all texts where creation, etc., are referred to) and (the liberated souls) not being mentioned (in that connection).

Jagadvyaparavarjam: except the power of creation, etc., Prakaranat: (on account of the Lord being) the subject matter, because of the general topic of the chapter; Asannihitattvat: on account of (liberated souls) not being mentioned on account of non-proximity; Cha: and. (Jagat: world; Vyapara: creation etc.; Varjam: excepted.)

The limitations of the released souls’ power are stated here.

A doubt here presents itself whether those who through meditation on the Saguna Brahman enter Brahmaloka possess unlimited lordly power or power limited to some extent.

The Purvapakshin maintains that their powers must be unlimited, because we meet with texts such as They can roam at will in all the worlds (Chh. Up. VII.25.2; VIII.1.6). He obtains self-lordship (Tait. Sam. I.6.2). To him all the gods offer worship (Tait. Sam. I.5.3). For him there is freedom in all worlds (Chh. Up. VIII.1.6).

This Sutra says that the liberated souls attain all lordly powers such as Anima, rendering oneself to atomic size, etc., except the power of creation, etc. Creation, preservation and destruction, on the other hand can belong to the everlastingly perfect Lord only. Why so? Because the Lord is the subject matter of all the texts dealing with creation, etc., while the released souls are not mentioned at all in this connection.

Further, this would lead to many Isvaras. If they have the power of creation of the universe they may not be of one mind. There may be conflict of wills with respect to creation, etc. One may desire to create, and another to destroy. Such conflicts can only be avoided by assuming that the wishes of one should conform to those of another and from this it follows that all other souls depend on the Highest Lord.

Hence the powers of the released souls are not absolute but limited and are dependent on the will of the Lord.

Pratyakshopadesaditi

chennadhikarikamandalasthokteh IV.4.18 (551)

If it be said that the liberated soul attains absolute powers on account of direct teaching of the scriptures, we say no; because the scriptures declare that the liberated soul attains Him who entrusts the sun, etc., with their offices and abides in those spheres.

Pratyakshopadesat: on account of direct teaching; Iti: so, thus; Chet: if; (Iti chet: if it be said); Na: not; Adhikarikamandala- sthokteh: because the scripture declares that the soul attains Him who entrusts the sun, etc., with their offices and abodes in those spheres. (Adhikarika: the master of a world, a world-ruler; Mandalastha: existing in spheres, i.e., those abiding in the spheres, of those entrusted with the special functions; Ukteh: as it is clearly stated in Sruti.)

An objection to Sutra 17 is raised and refuted.

This Sutra consists of two parts, namely an objection and its reply. The objection portion is, Pratyakshopadesat; the reply portion is Nadhikarikamandalasthokteh.

He becomes the Lord of himselfApnoti svarajyam (Tait. Up. I.6). From the direct teaching of the Sruti the Purvapakshin maintains that the limited soul attains absolute powers.

This present Sutra refutes this and says that his powers depend on the Lord, because the text cited further on says, He attains the Lord of the mind, the Lord who dwells in spheres like the sun, etc., and entrusts the sun, etc., with offices.

Therefore, it is quite clear from this latter part of the text that the liberated soul obtains its powers from the Lord and depends on Him. Hence its powers are not unlimited. He attains powers as the gift of the Supreme Lord who is in the sun, etc., and who bestows the function of controlling the orb of the sun, on the sun-god.

Vikaravarti cha tatha hi sthitimaha IV.4.19 (552)

And (there is a form of the Supreme Lord) which is beyond all created things (because, so the scripture declares) (His) existence (in a two-fold form unmanifest and manifest).

Vikaravarti: which is beyond all effected things, becomes incapable of transformation by birth, decay, death, etc.; Cha: and; Tatha: so; Hi: because; Sthitim: status, condition, existence; Aha: (Sruti) declares.

The description of the status of the liberated soul is continued.

According to scripture, there is also an internal form of the Supreme Lord, which does not abide in effects. He is not only the ruling soul of the spheres of the sun and so on which lie within the sphere of what is effected.

The text declares this abiding in a two-fold form as follows: Such is the greatness of it; greater than that is the Purusha; one foot of Him is all beings; His other three feet are what is immortal in heaven (Chh. Up. III.12.6).

This text intimates that the Highest Lord abides in two forms, the transcendental and the relative.

He who meditates on the Lord in His relative aspect does not attain the transcendental aspect. He who worships the Lord as having form cannot attain the formless Brahman, because of the law of proportion of fruit to desire. The Sruti declares As one meditates upon That, so he becomes.

As the meditator on the relative aspects of the Lord is unable to comprehend it fully, he attains only limited powers and not unlimited powers like the Lord Himself.

Darsayataschaivam pratyakshanumane IV.4.20 (553)

And thus perception and inference show.

Darsayatah: they both show; Cha: and; Evam: thus; Pratyaksha-anumane: Pratyaksha and Anumana, perception and inference.

This Sutra declares that the transcendental aspect of the Lord is established by both the Sruti and Smriti. Sruti and Smriti both declare that the highest light does not abide within effected thing, The sun does not shine there, nor the moon and the stars, nor these lightnings and much less this fire (Mun. Up. II.2.10). The sun does not illumine it, nor the moon, nor fire (Bhagavad Gita, XV.6).

Bhogamatrasamyalingaccha IV.4.21 (554)

And because of the indications (in the scriptures) of equality (of the liberated soul with the Lord) only with respect to enjoyment.

Bhogamatra: with respect to enjoyment only; Samya: equality; Lingat: from the indication of Sruti; Cha: also, and.

That the powers of the liberated soul are not unlimited is also known from the indication in the Sruti that the equality of these souls with the Lord is only with regard to enjoyment and not with respect to creation, etc.

As all beings honour that Deity, so do all beings honour him who knows that (Bri. Up. I.5.20). Through it he attains identity with the Deity, or lives in the same world with it (Bri. Up. I.5.23).

All these texts describe equality only with regard to enjoyment. They do not mention anything with reference to creation, etc.

Anavrittih sabdadanavrittih sabdat IV.4.22 (555)

(There is) no return (for these liberated souls), on account of the scriptural statement (to that effect).

Anavrittih: no return; Sabdat: on account of the scriptural statement.

The discussion on the privileges of the liberated soul is concluded here.

The Purvapakshin maintains: If the powers of the liberated souls are limited, then they too will come to an end like all limited mortal beings. Therefore, the liberated souls will have to return to this world from Brahmaloka.

This Sutra refutes this and says that those who go to Brahmaloka by the path of the gods do not return from there. Because scriptural passages teach that they do not so return. Going up by that way, one reaches immortality (Chh. Up. VIII.6.6). Those who proceed on that path do not return to the life of man (Chh. Up. IV.15.6). He reaches the world of Brahman and does not return (Chh. Up. VII.15.1). They no more return to this world (Bri. Up. VI.2.15).

The repetition of the words No return, etc., indicates that the book is finished.

Thus ends the Fourth Pada (Section 4) of the Fourth Chapter (Adhyaya IV) of the Brahma Sutras or the Vedanta Philosophy of Sri Baadarayana or Sri Veda-Vyasa or Sri Krishna-Dvaipayana, the Avatara of Lord Sri Hari. May His blessings be upon you all.

This is a copy from

https://www.sivanandaonline.org/