Chapter III - Brahman’s Existence as Jīva

Brahman entering the Universe.

The śruti now presents another argument to prove Brahman’s Existence. Brahman, as the Being who entered the creation, is existent, like a person who enters the house or the like.

तत् सृष्ट्वा । तदेवानुप्राविशत् ॥ ७ ॥

tat sṛṣṭvā | tadevānuprāviśat || 7 ||

7. This having sent foith, into that very thing He then entered'

Having emanated the universe, what did He do? In answer the śruti says: Into that very universe which was created, He then entered.

He, the Lord of Lords, the Māyāvin, the Wonder-worker, having created the universe, then entered that very universe by the same māyā or mysterious power, in the same way that a garland is said to enter the serpent, &c., for which it is mistaken.—(S).

Having emanated all forms (śarīras) in existence, from the Hiraṇyagarbha down to unmoving objects, the Para-mātman entered those very forms which He brought into being.

 

No literal interpretation of entering is possible.

Now we have to enquire^[1] how He entered into the creation. Did He who emanated the universe enter into it in the self-same form (as the Emanator) or in a different form?

(Question):—Which of the two appears to be reasonable?

(Answer):—The participial form, ‘having sent forth’, indicates that the Emanator Himself entered into the universe.

(The opponent):—This does not stand to reason if Brahman is the Cause (of the universe) as clay (is of pots &c.), inasmuch as the effect is one with the cause. (To explain): Since the cause itself is transformed into the effect, it does not stand to reason to say that the cause enters once more, separately, (into the effect), subsequent to the production of the effect, like one that had not already entered it. Indeed, over and above the transformation of clay in the form of a jar, there is no entering of clay into the jar. So we explain as follows: Just as clay may enter into the jar in the form of dust, so also, the Ātman may enter in a different form into the universe composed of names and forms. And the śruti also says elsewhere “Having entered in this form, in the form of jīva.”^[2]

(Answer):—This does not stand to reason, for Brahman is one. No doubt a cause like clay may, in the form of dust, enter the jar, because clay is multiple in its constitution and is made up of parts, and there is a place not already filled in by dust. On the contrary, Ātman is one, and is, moreover, partless; and there is no place not already filled in by Him. Wherefore the entering of Brahman cannot be explained (in the way suggested above'.

(The opponent):—Then, how is the entering to be explained? And the entering must be a thing not opposed to reason, as it is taught in the śruti, in the words “into that very thing He then entered.” So, let us explain it by supposing that Brahman is made up of parts. As having parts, it is quite possible that fie entered into the names and forms in the creation in the form of jīva, like the hand entering the mouth.

As to the śruti speaking of Brahman’s entrance, let us suppose that Brahman is finite. Then, like the hand entering the mouth, the entering of Brahman is possible.—(S).

(Answer):—This explanation will not do; for there is no void. (To explain): When the Ātman transformed Himself into the effect (universe', there can exist no place for Him to enter in the form of jīva,—no place which is devoid of Ātman, over and above the place of the effect (universe) consisting of names and forms.

Whether finite or infinite in space, the cause does pervade the effect and so there is no place—devoid of Ātman— which the Supreme may enter in the form of jīva.—(S).

(The opponent):—He enters the cause itself.

That is to say, the Lord (as jīva) so enters the universe which He created that it finally assumes the form of the cause.—(S).

(Answer):—Then he would no longer be the jīvātman, just as a jar ceases to be a jar when it enters into clay (i.e. when it becomes clay).

The opponent’s suggestion is tantamount to saying that this passage teaches that the effect is not an effect, that it is one with the cause, just as the passage “I am Brahman” teaches that the Ego is one with Brahman. Then where is the effect, the universe, for Īśvara to enter?—(S. & A.)

Besides, as the śruti itself says “Into that very thing (the universe, the effect) He then entered”, it will not do to hold that He (as jīva) entered into the cause.

(The opponent):—It may be that Brahman becomes another kind of effect. (To explain): By the words “Into that very thing He then entered”, the śruti means that Brahman first becomes an effect in the form of jīva and then becomes transformed into another kind of effect consisting of names and forms.

The Brahman’s entering may be explained to mean that jīva, an effect of Paramātman, becomes transformed into ahankāra and other effects.—(S. & A.).

(Answer): —No, because it is opposed to reason. A pot, for instance, cannot become another pot. Moreover, it is opposed to the śruti which speaks of distinction: it is opposed to the texts wnich presuppose a distinction between jīva and the universe consisting of names and forms. And also because of the impossibility of mokṣa if jīva becomes (the universe of names and forms). Certainly no one becomes that very thing from which he is to be released; no person, such as a robber, who is bound (with a chain), becomes that chain itself.

(Āṇ opponent):—Let us explain the passage to mean that Brahman transformed Himself as the external and the internal; that is to say, that Brahman Himself, the Cause, became at once transformed in the form of the receptacles such as the bodies (śarīra) and also in the form of the jīvas who are to be contained within those bodies.

(Answer):—This will not do; for entrance is possible only in the case of one who stands outside. We cannot indeed conceive that, when one thing lies within another, the same thing enters into that other. One can enter a thing only when he is outside that thing; for, in that sense alone is the word ‘enter’ understood in common parlance, as when we say, ‘he built the house and entered it.’

(An opponent):—The entering may be likened to reflection, as in the case of water and sun’s reflection in it.

(Answer): —No; for Brahman is infinite and incorporeal. We can only conceive a finite and corporeal object being reflected in another object which is transparent, as the sun is reflected in water. On the contrary, we cannot understand how the entrance of Ātman may be likened to reflection, seeing that He is incorporeal, that He is the Cause of ākāśa &c., that He is infinite, and that there can exist no object removed from Him in space, which may serve as the reflecting medium.

 

The true import of the passage.

(The opponent):—If so, then there is no entering at all. Neither do we find any other way (of explaining the passage). But the śruti says, “into that very thing He then entered;” and for us the śruti is the source of knowledge as regards supersensuous matters. However much we try, we cannot make anything out of this passage.

(Another opponent): —Ah! then, as conveying no meaning, we have to ignore^[3] altogether the passage, “This having sent forth, into that very thing He then entered.”

(Answer):—No; for the passage is intended to treat of quite a different thing altogether.—Why all this discussion beside the point? For, this passage is intended to treat of quite a different thing with which the śruti is at present concerned. We should call that to our mind. The śruti (Ānandavallī) started with the following words:

“The knower of Brahman reaches the Supreme.”

“Real, Consciousness, Infinite is Brahman. Whoso knoweth the one hid in the cave......”

This last passage is intended to teach that Brahman is no other than the Ātman, the Self. And to show that Atman is no other than Brahman, Ātman is qualified “This Self is Brahman.”^[4] Thus, when these two negative aspects of their identity have been recognised, then liberation is attained. Because the knowledge productive of this result is intended to be taught here, therefore the non-dual Brahman is said to be hidden in the ‘cave,’ is said (in the mantra and brāhmaṇa) to have entered the mind (antaḥ-karaṇa).—(S).

It is knowledge concerning Brahman that is to be imparted here; and it is the subject with which the śruti is concerned. And with a view to impart knowledge of Brahman, the śruti treated of the emanation from Him of the effects, from the ākāśa down to the physical body; then the knowledge of Brahman was begun (in the section which treats of the five kośas or sheaths). There the śruti taught that within the Annamaya self there is another self formed of Prāṇa, that within the latter there is the Manomaya self, and that within this latter there is the Vijñānamaya self, and thus the śruti taught that Brahman dwells in the cave of intelligence (Vijñāna). Again the śruti taught that therein lies the Ānandamaya self, the Self in a specific form. Further on, seeing that it is only through cognising His manifestation as the Ānandamaya that the Ātman—the finality of ever-increasing bliss, “Brahman, the tail, the support”, the basis of all differentiated manifestation, (in Himself) devoid of all differentiation—can be recognised in that very cave, He is represented^[5] to have entered into it.^[6]

It is the Undifferentiated One who is to be cognised in this cave of intelligence (buddhi) which is the source of all differentiation; the entrance is therefore an imaginary representation, not an actual fact.—(S).

Not elsewhere, indeed, is Brahman cognised, because He is in Himself devoid of all special manifestation. Our experience shews that it is only association with a specific condition that enables us to cognise Him. Just as Rāhu (the eclipsing shadow) is cognised only when in association with a specific object such as the sun or the moon, so also it is association of the Ātman with the cave of intelligence (antaḥ-karaṇa) that causes the cognition of Brahman, because of the proximity and luminous nature of the intelligence (antaḥ-karaṇa). And just as the cognition of jars and other objects is associated with light, so also the cognition of Ātman is associated with the light of a buddhi-pratyaya or intellectual state.

Because in the luminous intelligence (antaḥ-karaṇa), we perceive Brahman by illusion as the seer, hearer &c., therefore the Upaniṣad represents Him as having entered the intelligence, with a view to teach the indentity of the Self and Brahman.—(S & A).

So the theme with which the.Upaniṣad started in the passage “the one hid in the cave”, in the cave which causes cognition of Brahman, is again treated of in the words “this having emanated, into that very thing He then entered,”—this latter passage forming a sort of commentary on the former. He who emanated ākāśa etc., emanated this universe around us and then entered into it. He is cognised within, in the cave of intellect (buddhi), in such specific forms of manifestation as seer, hearer, thinker, knower, and so on. It is this which constitutes His entrance.

Moreover, in the words “Thereof, this one is the Self embodied,” the śruti teaches that He who has entered the heart and He who has not entered the heart are identical, for the Supreme Brahman Himself has assumed the form of jīva by entering into the five kośas. This explains why the śruti, in the sequel of this Anuvāka, teaches the absence in the Supreme Self of all conditions ascribed to Him such as agency connected with the act of entering. Therefore, with a view to teach the oneness of Kṣetrajña and Īśvara by discarding all distinction between the two, He who has not actually entered the universe is represented to have entered it.-(S).

Therefore, Brahman, the Cause, exists. So we should know Him as existing only.

 

A clear summary of the discussion.

[The foregoing discussion is put in a simpler and clearer form by Sāyaṇa as follows: ]

Let us now enquire: Did the Paramātman, who was the Creator, enter the universe in the same form as Creator or in a different form?

(One answer):—The participial form “having emanated” shews that creation and entrance are the acts of one and the same agent and that therefore Brahman entered as Creator Himself.

(Objection):—This view cannot be maintained; for, in the case of a material cause (upādāna), like a clod of clay, the entering is impossible. The same clod of clay which has been transformed into a pot cannot itself enter the pot. Similarly, how is it possible for the Creator, who transformed Himself as bodies, to enter into those very bodies?

(Another answer):—Then, let us suppose that Brahman entered in a different form. Just as clay, in the form of dust, may enter a pot produced out of a clod of clay, so also, if Brahman’s entrance as īśvara is not possible, let Him enter in the form of the jīva.

(Objection):—Not so. The non-dual cannot have two forms. Even granting this possible, there can be no place for Brahman to enter. As the material cause, He is already present in all the bodies; and therefore, as there is no place devoid of the Paramātman, where can He enter?

(Another answer):—It may be that He as jīva enters the Paramātman (the cause) Himself who is present in those bodies (as their material cause).

(Objection) No; for, in the words “into that very thing He then entered,” the śruti teaches that He entered the bodies that were created.

(Another answer):—The effect, namely, the body that was created, is again transformed into another effect in the form of jīva, and this transformation is spoken of as entrance.

(Objection):—No; for, we do not find one transformation such as pot being itself transformed into another transformation such as a dish.

(Answer):—Brahman’s entering may be likened to reflection, like the sun’s reflection in water.

(Objection):—No; for Brahman is infinite and incorporeal, and there is no medium of reflection removed from Him in space. The orb of the sun, which is limited in space and corporeal, becomes reflected in a medium such as water removed from it in space. On the contrary, Brahman is not limited in space, nor corporeal; neither is there any medium (upādhi) whatever which is removed from Brahman in space. Therefore in no way can Brahman’s entering be explained.

(Conclusion):—This entering should be explained like the creation of the universe. Just as the Supreme Lord (Para-meśvara) created by the power of PI is māyā this universe of inconceivable design, so also by the same power of māyā He may have entered it.

Here one may say: The śruti does not mean that this mysterious (māyāmaya) creation of ākāśa, etc., should be regarded as real. The śruti only means that the effect does not exist apart from the cause any more than a jar exists apart from clay, and merely refers to the universe as set up by illusion (bhrānti), with a view to establish the infiniteness of Brahman already stated.—Similarly, then, we argue that the śruti, having first explained the proposition that Brahman is ‘hid in the cave’ by teaching at the end, in the exposition of the five sheaths, that ‘Brahman is the tail,’ refers to the entering of Brahman, which is a mere illusion, only with a view to explain more clearly the same thing over again. Just as a person who builds a house and enters it is found to remain within it, so also, Brahman is perceived, in the intellect (buddhi) situated in the heart-lotus, in specific aspects as seer, hearer, knower, and so on, as though He created ākāśa and other things in the universe and then entered within it. This truth is figuratively represented as Brahman entering the universe.

 

Another passage of the same import.

This entering is taught by the Vājasaneyins in the following words:—

“He, this one, here entered, up to the very tips of the finger-nails, as a razor ina razor-case, or as fire in a fire-place (fire-wood)”^[7]

The meaning of this passage is explained very clearly in the Vārtika-sāra as follows:

 

The One Life and Its aspects.

‘He’ refers to the Witness (Sākṣin), the illuminator (Witness) of the Unmanifested; ‘this one’ refers to him who dwells in (or limited by the upādhi of) the body immediately perceived by all.

(Objection):—The Adhiṣṭhāna, the Supreme or Basic Consciousness, being non-dual, whereas the dweller in the body is associated with duality (body), it is impossible to speak of them as one, in the words “He, this one.”

(Answer):—No; for, in the case of one who (by illusion) does not know the true nature of the Real, nothing is impossible,^[8] as witness the ether (ākāśa) perceived by the eye as blue like a cloth of blue colour. The question of possibility or impossibility arises in the case of things known through proper evidence, not as regards things set up by illusion.

By the word ‘here’ are denoted the bodies, from the Sūtra (Hiraṇyagarbha) down to unmoving objects. In these bodies, this one, the jīva, is very clearly perceived; and this perception of Chit (Life, Spirit, Consciousness) as jīva,—made up of a semblance of Consciousness (chidābhāsa) and nescience (tamas)—is denoted by the word ‘ entered/ Life (chit) in its semblance enters into—becomes directly associated with—the Pratyak-moha, the ignorance of the True Self; and this semblance is present in all transformations or effects of that ignorance and constitutes the upādhi or condition in which Life (Chit) enters the universe. Just as the scarlet colour of the japā flower is falsely ascribed to the white crystal (sphatika) stone, so also this entering of the semblance of Life is falsely ascribed to Life. Thus, the Supreme One, having created by His own māyā the universe from the Sūtra down to unmoving objects, entered it in a form which is a mere semblance of Himself. How far He entered is taught in the words “to the very tips of the finger-nails,” the presence of Life in the body up to the very tips of the finger-nails being indicated by the body being felt warm up to that limit.

Life exists in the body, pervading it both in a general aspect and in particular aspects: and this twofold existence is referred to in this passage by the two illustrations. Just as fire exists in the firewood, pervading the whole of it, so also the Ātman exists in the body pervading the whole of it; and just as a razor lies in a razor-case without pervading the whole of it, so also, dwelling within the auditory and other specific nāḍīs (nervous tubes), the Ātman lies without pervading the body in those specific aspects. Just as different razors occupy different places in the razor-case, so also Consciousness in different aspects occupy different nāḍīs. In thejāgrat (waking) and svapna (dream) states, jīva presents both forms; and in suṣupti (dreamless sleep) jīva exhibits Life in its general aspect alone. Life in its general aspect serves the purpose of keeping the body alive here, and Life in its particular aspects functioning in the body is concerned in thinking of objects such as sound.

Thus the passage speaking of Brahman’s entrance has been clearly explained word by word and in its main purport.

 

Brahman does not literally enter the Universe.

Now, let us enquire into the rationale of the teaching.

Does Brahman enter (the universe) (1) as Devadatta enters a house, or (2) as a serpent enters a stone, or (3) as the sun’s orb enters water, or (4) as qualities enter a substance, or (5) as seeds enter the fruit.

The first illustration does not apply, for Devadatta is limited in space and has parts, whereas the Ātman is not so. As the Ātman, in His very nature, is absent nowhere and pervades all, any limitation of Ātman is inconceivable, the śruti denying it in the words “not thus, not thus.”^[9] Accordingly in the case of the Ātman who is infinite and devoid of parts, there can be no such thing as entering a new and different place by leaving the former one.

Neither is the second illustration applicable, because of the Ātman’s not being subject to transformation. The bhūtas or elements of matter are transformed into the serpent lying within the stone. But the Ātman is not subject to transformation (pariṇāma).

Nor is the third illustration appropriate. Unlike the water and the sun, the body and the Conscious Ātman cannot unite and disunite, and cannot therefore enter (the body in the way suggested).

The fourth illustration, too, does not apply, because of the Ātman’s being not dependent on another. Attributes (guṇas) and the like are dependent on substances; but the Ātman is not dependent on the body, the śruti speaking of Him as “the Lord of all.”

The fifth illustration is not more apt, because of the Ātman’s immutability. The seed is associated with change; but the Ātman is declared conclusively in the scriptures to be devoid of the six changes to which all things in the universe are subject.

No tautology is involved in the second and fifth illustrations being separately given; for, there is a difference between the two. The serpent and the stone are related as container and contained, whereas the fruit and the seed within are related as whole and part.

Then, one may say, it is the limited jīva or individual self who enters the bodies. So there can be no objection.

You cannot say so, because it is the Creator that entered. As the śruti says “this having sent forth, into that very thing He then entered,” the Creator and the enterer must be one, as when one says “Having eaten he goes.”

Thus it would at first sight appear that Brahman’s entrance is in no way explicable.

 

Entering means manifestation.

As against the foregoing, we will now shew how Brahman’s entrance is explicable. Devoid as He is of space, direction and the like, it is not in His essential nature to actually enter into another. In His case, the entering is a mere imaginary representation, as in the case of the solar orb reflected in a vessel of water. Though the two cases differ in so far as the latter, unlike the former, admits of separation &c., yet they are analogous in those points wherein analogy is intended. Who can deny the analogy between the two in so far as both alike are capable of perception only when associated with an upādhi? The two—the illustration and the illustrated—agree in the following respects: they are both capable of perception only in association with an upādhi, i. e., only when they are limited or conditioned; they then appear otherwise than what they really are; and they are then manifested as many. Firstly: the solar orb is too bright in itself for us to see, but the same orb is clearly seen when reflected in water; similarly, the self-luminous Ātman cannot be perceived when unassociated with an upādhi; but when conditioned by the insentient physical body, &c., He is clearly perceived. Secondly: when a man’s vision, obstructed in its course by a mirror and turning its way back towards his own face, comprehends the face, an inverted image of the face is presented to view. Similarly, when the intellect influenced by the body comprehends the Self, it makes out the Immutable One as subject to change. Thirdly: the sun, though one, appears as many, because of the multiplicity of the vessels of water; so, too, owing to the multiplicity of the bodies, the Self, though one, appears as many. Though He is devoid of all multiplicity and its cause^[10], though He is not divisible, though there is no witness other than Himself, yet, in virtue of the illusion of entering, He seems to be endued with such attributes. Prior to it, the true Inner Self (Pratyagātman) was devoid of all form,—was not a seer, or a hearer, or the like. On the birth of Name andd Form^[11], He was endued with form, became a seer, a hearer, and so on. He who is endued with form—he who is the seer, hearer, and so on,—and He who has no form, conditioned respectively by mind (buddhi) and its cause (māyā) are respectively designated as Kṣetrajña andīśvara, the individual soul and the Supreme Lord. Through these indirectly is to be comprehended the One who, immutable, knows “I smell this odor,” the One who is the mere Witness of all. Just as the sun in the heavens is comprehended through the sun reflected in the vessel of water, so is the All-Witness to be comprehended through him who dwells in the intellect as the doer and the enjoyer. And just as the luminary, the moon, is comprehended through the extremity of a tree’s branch which is not luminous, so is the Ātman, the Conscious One, to be comprehended through the upādhi of the Cause, which is not conscious.

It is this very illusion of separate individuality (jīvātman) which, because of its use in the comprehension of the True Inner Self, is here represented as the entering (of Brahman), analogously with the sun’s image reflected in the water in a vessel. Certainly, the Supreme One, devoid as He is of time, space, or direction, cannot be said to enter, in the literal sense of the word, like a serpent entering a hole; this entering must therefore be a mere imaginary representation from the standpoint of avidyā or ignorance. Though a mere witness, uncontaminated by any, He is, owing to avidyā, for want of discrimination, perceived with the attributes of mind (buddhi) and other creatures of ignorance (avidyā), as though He were reflected in them. In illustration of this, the scripture has cited the analogy of fire, the sun and air,^[12] thereby showing that the Ātman is said to have entered the universe, though by nature He cannot have entered it. As fire, (the śruti says), though one, entering the world—composed of firewood, stomach and the like—became in form like them, (so does the Inner Self of all creation, though one, became in form like the various forms He entered); but as a matter of fact fire does not enter them. As the air, (the śruti says again), though one, entering the world composed of different sorts of fans, assumed various forms, (so did the Self); but in point of fact the air has not entered them. Again the śruti speaks of the sun as entering water in different vessels though it remains quite outside them all. Similarly, the Ātman, too, though He has not entered the universe, looks as though He has entered it. As creation and the like are imaginary representations, so should the entering be regarded as a mere fiction. Creation does not admit of a reasonable explanation and is therefore a fiction. What is non-existent cannot take birth; and what is existent cannot take birth either, because it already exists. In the Immutable One there can be no change. Therefore birth is due to ignorance. As for the verse of the śruti just quoted it decidedly speaks of creation &c., with the mere view of giving an insight into the true nature of the Pratyagātman, the Inner Self. The entering of the Self in the particular parts of the body, as illustrated in the śruti by razors and the razor-case, points to His clear perceptibility even in the senses, while the entering into the body as a whole, as illustrated by fire and firewood, points to His pervading of the whole creation as the substratum thereof. Nowhere do we find one thing altogether co-extensive with another except when one of them is the substratum of which the other is a false appearance. Two things which are quite distinct, such as the cow and the horse, cannot be altogether co-extensive with each other. Neither can two things which are altogether identical be said to be co-extensive with each other, inasmuch as we cannot conceive one of the two as co-extensive with the other. And it is impossible to find two things which are distinct as well as identical. We are therefore driven to the conclusion that a thorough-going co-extensiveness can exist only between a substratum and its false appearances. Just as a garland enters— i.e., is mistaken for—a serpent only on account of darkness, but not in reality, so also, it is by the power of māyā that our Self has entered the things set up by the ignorance of the Inner Self. Thus the Self has entered the universe in two ways, (i) by way of pervading the whole universe and (2) by way of revealing Himself (as jīva or the individual soul).

 

Brahman in manifestation is unaffected by multiplicity.

Now we shall answer the objections that are levelled against this doctrine of entering.

Firstly, it has been said: If the Supreme One Himself entered the universe, then, because of the multiplicity of the things wherein He has entered, and with which He has become identical, it would follow that the Supreme Lord becomes manifold.

Our doctrine is not open to this objection; for, we may turn the table by asking: As the many things in the universe have become identical with the One, why do you not say that there must be a unity? In this case, where both the alternatives are possible, the scripture is the determining authority, and it denies all multiplicity. A rope does not become manifold in virtue of the multiplicity of the objects for which it is mistaken, such as a serpent, etc. and the śruti^[13] says that the One Deva has entered the universe in the various forms. We have therefore to regard the Īśvara, the Supreme Lord, as One alone, like the ākāśa.

 

Brahman as the Ego is unaffected by pleasure and pain.

Secondly, it has been also said: Since those into whom He has entered are worldly beings (saṃsārins), and since the Supreme has become one with them, it would follow that He also is a being of the world (saṃsārin) and is subject to its sorrows.

We answer: The sruti^[14] says that He has risen above hunger, etc.

(Objection):—It cannot be so; for we see in Him pleasure pain, extreme delusion, and the like.

(Answer): —No; the śruti^[15] says, He is not tainted by the world’s sorrows, He is quite outside the world. The experience of sorrows and the like can find room in thai one who is created by the upādhi, it pertains to that semblance of Consciousness (chidābhāsa) which manifests itself in the upādhi. If Ātman were to experience pain, who is the witness of that sufferer? The sufferer cannot be a witness; and so also the witness cannot be a sufferer. Without undergoing change, one cannot suffer pain; and how can one be a witness when one undergoes change? Wherefore I, who am the witness of the thousands of changing mental states, am subject to no change. Pleasure and pain affect the mind which has the semblance of Consciousness (chidābhāsa) in it and regards the aggregate of the body and the senses as the self. Like a spectator regarding the man who is ready to fight with a club in hand, so does the witness regard the mind, which is subject to pleasure and pain, standing apart away from the aggregate. Accordingly, the pain that is felt through the senses pertains only to the not-Self. The Veda declares that senses do not comprehend the Inner Self: the śruti says, “whereby can one know the Knower?”^[16] Further, it says, “It is quite distinct from the known and quite distinct from the unknown.”^[17] The knowledge “I feel pain,” which affects only the semblance of the Self, is ascribed to the Self by the deluded; and with the wise it has only a secondary sense. Moreover, how can pain pertain to the Self, since it is felt in particular parts of the body, thus: ‘I feel great pain in the tip of the nose, in the tip of the foot-thumb’ and so on? If pain pertained to the Inner Self, it would pervade the whole body like consciousness, and would not—as pertaining, like consciousness, to the very nature of the Seer—be repulsive to us.

Against this it may be said as follows: Since the śruti says that all things are dear only as causing pleasure to the Self, pleasure pertains to the Self.

We answer: this is not right; for, in the words “when there is a creation of other things, then one sees another,”^[18] the śruti teaches that all duality including pleasure pertains to the illusory self; and in the words “when to him all has become the Self, then, whereby has one to see and what?”^[19] all duality including pleasure and pain is denied when the Self has been known. If this is not convincing to you, it is on account of your sin; but to me, it is a matter of direct experience. To the vision turned solely towards the Inner One, there is no evil of any kind in the Self.

It is true that the Tārkikas lay down the dogma that qualities such as desire and hatred pertain to the Self; but it cannot stand the test of reason. If the Self be always a matter of mere inference, then his suffering cannot be perceived through mind. If the Self be perceived, then there can be no perceiver. Being devoid of parts, He cannot be both the perceiver and the perceived. If made of parts, He would be impermanent. Wherefore, the Ātman is not the sufferer of pain.

(Objection):—If the Supreme Self be not subject to pain, and as no other being really exists, where is the sufferer of pain? It is for the cessation of pain that you study the Upaniṣads.

(Answer):—We study the Upaniṣad for the mere annihilation of the illusion that I am the sufferer of pain, an illusion caused by ignorance of the True Self. Just as that one among ten persons who, seeing only the nine others, does not, on account of illusion, see himself as the tenth, though all the while he is the tenth man seeing the nine others, so also, while seeing all that is not-self, he who does not know the real nature of the Self does not know of the oneness of the Self, though as the one Self he sees all that is outside the Self. When the ignorance of the fact that he is the tenth man is burnt up in the fire of the true knowledge which arises when another man tells him ‘you are the tenth,’ then the tenth man sees that he is the tenth. Similarly, having burnt up the Self-ignorance in the fire of the knowledge which arises from the teaching of the śruti “That thou art,”^[20] one attains the oneness of the Self, as the result of that knowledge. By means of the scripture and the teacher, set up by the ignorance of the Inner Self, one attains to the unity of the Self, a unity which is opposed to the very means by which it is attained; and all this is due to Māyā.

Thus, it is not possible for schoolmen to level against our system any objection whatsoever based on the doctrine of entrance. Hence the soundness of our doctrine of entrance.

Other passages, too, speaking of the entrance of Brahman should be explained in the same way. The Nṛsiṃha-Uttara-Tāpanīya, for instance, says:

“Having created and entered the Virāj, the Devatās, and the sheaths, tbe Undeluded acts as if He were deluded, only by Māyā.”^[21]

 

Liṅga-deha is the upādhi of Jīva.

The upādhi of the vital breath (prāṇa-vāyu) is the means whereby the All-pervading enters the physical body. And accordingly the Maitreya-Upaniṣad says:

“He, having made Himself like the air, entered within.”^[22]

The entrance and the departure of that vital air are ascribed to the Ātman. The Ātharvaṇikas say:

“He thought, on what going out, shall I go out, or on what staying, shall I stay? Thus thinking, He life evolved.”^[23]

No doubt, the whole of the Liṅga-deha constitutes the upādhi by which the Ātman effects His entrance into the gross physical body (sthūla-śarīra); still, we must bear in mind that prāṇa or the vital principle is the most prominent factor in it. This upādhi of the Liṅga-deha enters the body at the tips of the feet; and, ascending upwards, it establishes itself in the two thighs lying above, in the abdomen, in the chest, and in the head. This has been declared by the Aitareyins as follows:

“Brahman entered into that man by the tips of his feet.”^[24]

(Objection):—Elsewhere in the words “He had the thought: By which (end) should I enter it,” the same

Aitareyins start with an enquiry into the gate by which the Supreme Self entered the body, and then read as follows:

“Having cleft apart this end, He entered by this door.”^[25]

Here they teach that He forced open the gate in the head, i. e. the tip of the suṣumnā, and entered within the body by that door. There is thus a contradiction between these two passages.

(Answer):—They are not mutually contradictory; for the two passages are intended to convey two distinct ideas, according to two distinct standpoints. The Liṅga-deha subserving us in perceiving the ordinary world is said to have entered the body through the tips of the feet; whereas, the one-pointed mental state termed ‘samādhi,’ which reveals the True Being, being attainable in the suṣumnā, the Liṅga-deha in that condition is said to have entered the body at that end. Bearing this in view, the śruti says:

“Suṣumnā, forsooth, merged in the Supreme, taintless, and one in form with Brahman.”^[26]

Now there is a passage in the Aitareya Upaniṣad which reads:

“Fire, becoming speech, entered in the mouth.
Air, becoming life, entered into the nostrils.”^[27]

This means simply that speech and other constituent parts of the Liṅga-deha, which entered the body through the tips of the feet, sustained by their respective Devatās or presiding deities, are situated in the respective regions of the body such as the cavity of the mouth. And the Chhandogas also read:

“Let Me now enter those three beings in the form of this jīva, in the form of this self, and let me then reveal names and forms.”^[28]

‘Jīva’ means the sustainer of life; and the passage means that Brahman enters the body in the form of jīva.

Thus, then, after a consideration of the meaning of this and such other passages, we conclude that the Supreme Self enters the body as jīva.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

This enquiry is put in a simpler and clearer form by Sāyaṇa in the sequel. Vide. p. 532, ff.

[2]:

Chhā. Up. 6-3-2.

[3]:

like a child’y babble.—(S).

[4]:

Māṇḍ. 2.

[5]:

in the passage under consideration—(Y).

[6]:

The cave of Vijñānamaya.—(V).

[7]:

Bṛ. Up. 1-4-7.

[8]:

i. e., it is not impossible that he should regard his Self as limited by the upādhi.

[9]:

Bṛ. Up. 2-3-6.

[10]:

Objective perception.

[11]:

tbe subjective and the objective universe.

[12]:

Kaṭha. Up, 5-9, 10,(?)11.

[13]:

Śve, Up. 6-11.

[14]:

Bṛ. Up. 3-5-1.

[15]:

Kaṭha-Up, 5-11.

[16]:

Bṛ, 2-4-14.

[17]:

Kena. Up. 1-3.

[18]:

Bṛ. 4-3-31.

[19]:

Ibid. 2-4-14.

[20]:

Chhā. 6-9-4.

[21]:

Op. cit. 9.

[22]:

Op. cit. 2-6.

[23]:

Praśna. Up. 6-3.

[24]:

Aita. Āraṇya. 2-1-4-1.

[25]:

Ait. Up. 3-12.

[26]:

Kṣura. Up. 15.

[27]:

Op. cit. 2-4.

[28]:

Op. cit. 6-3-2.