हिन्दी
Now (after the attainment of the requisite spiritual qualities) therefore (as the results obtained by sacrifices etc., are ephemeral, whereas the result of the knowledge of Brahman is eternal), the inquiry (into the real nature) of Brahman (which is beset with doubts owing to the conflicting views of various schools of philosophy, should be taken up).
(Brahman is that omniscient, omnipotent cause) from which proceed the origin etc. (i.e., sustenance and dissolution) of this (universe/world).
(Brahman is omniscient) because of (Its) being the source of the scriptures. (Or) (Brahman is not known from any other source), since the scriptures are the valid means of its knowledge.
But that Brahman (is known from the Upanishads), (It) being the object of their fullest import.
On account of thinking (being attributed to the First Cause by the scriptures, the Pradhana) is not (the First Cause referred to by them); it (Pradhana) is not based on the scriptures.
If it be said (that ‘thinking’) is used in a secondary sense (with regard to Sat); (we say) not so, because of the word ‘Self’ (by which the First Cause is referred to in the scriptures).
(That Pradhana cannot be designated by the word ‘Self’ is established) because Liberation is declared to one who is devoted to that Sat (the First Cause).
(Pradhana has not been spoken of even indirectly), because there is no subsequent mention of its rejection, and (because that militates against the assertion at the beginning).
On account of (the individual soul) merging in its own Self (or the universal Self referred to as the Sat, in deep sleep, the Pradhana cannot be denoted by the word ‘Self’).
Because (all the Vedanta texts) uniformly refer to (an intelligent principle as the First Cause, Brahman is to be taken as that Cause).
(The all-knowing Brahman alone is the First Cause of this world) because (it is so known directly) from the Vedas also.
(In the passage) “The Self consisting of bliss” etc. (Brahman, which is spoken of as the tail, is put forward as an independent entity and not as something subordinate to Anandamaya, the Self consisting of bliss) on account of the repetition (of Brahman as the main topic in many passages of that chapter).
If it be said (that Brahman) is not (spoken of as an independent entity in the passage) on account of a word (‘tail’) denoting part, (we reply) not so, on account of abundance (of terms denoting parts).
And because (Brahman) is declared to be the cause of it (the self-consisting of bliss), Brahman cannot be taken as a part of it.
Moreover, that very Brahman which has been referred to in the Mantra portion is sung (in this Brahmana passage as the tail).
(Brahman and) not the other (the individual soul, is meant here) on account of the impossibility (of that assumption).
And on account of the declaration of difference (between the two, i.e., the one referred to in the passage, “The self-consisting of bliss” etc. and the individual soul, the latter cannot be the one referred to in the passage).
And on account of the word ‘bliss’, literally ‘desire’, (referring to Brahman), (you) cannot infer (Ananda-maya is also Brahman, since the suffix ‘mayat’ is used to denote modification).
(The Vedas) also teach of its (the Jiva’s) becoming (on the dawning of Knowledge) one with this (referred to in the passage under discussion).
(The one) within (the sun and the eye is Brahman), because Its characteristics are mentioned (therein).
Also, on account of a distinction being made (in another text between the two, i.e., the person in the sun and the individual soul animating the sun) (the Lord) is different (from the latter).
(The word) Akasa (ether) (is. Brahman) on account of the characteristic marks of That (i.e., Brahman) (being mentioned).
For the same reason (the word) "Prana" (also refers to Brahman).
(The word) ‘light’ (is Brahman) on account of the mention of feet (in a complimentary passage).
If it be said (that Brahman is) not (referred to) on account of the metre (Gayatri) being mentioned; (we reply) no, because in that way (i.e., by means of the metre), the application of the mind (on Brahman) has been inculcated; for so (i.e., through the help of the modifications of Brahman) it is seen (in other texts).
Thus also (we have to conclude, viz. that Brahman is the topic of the previous passage, where Gayatri occurs) because (thus only) the representation of the beings etc. as the feet (of Gayatri) is possible.
If it be said (that Brahman of the Gayatri passage cannot be recognized in the passage dealing with ‘light’), on account of difference in specification, (we reply) no, there being no contradiction in either (description to such a recognition).
Prana is Brahman, it being so comprehended (from the purport of the texts).
If it be argued that Prana is not Brahman, since the instruction is about the speaker’s own self, (then we say, no), for here is an abundance of reference to the inmost Self.
But (Indra’s) instruction (to Pratardana is justified) by his realization of the Truth confirmed by the scriptures (viz. that he is Brahman), as did (the sage) Vamadeva.
If it be said that (Brahman) is not referred to on account of the characteristics of the individual soul and the Prana (being mentioned), (we say) not so, because (such an interpretation) would enjoin threefold meditation (Upasana); because Prana has been accepted (elsewhere in the sense of Brahman); and because here also (words denoting Brahman) are mentioned with reference to Prana. (Hence it is to be understood to mean Brahman).
(That which consists of the mind, Manomaya, is Brahman) because there is taught (in this text) (that Brahman which is) well known (as the cause of the universe) throughout (the scriptures).
Moreover, the qualities desired to be expressed are befitting (only in the case of Brahman; and so, the passage refers to Brahman).
On the other hand, the individual soul is not (referred to by the text) because these qualities are not appropriate (to it).
And on account of the mention of the attainer and the object attained (“He who consists of the mind” refers to Brahman and not to the individual soul).
Owing to the difference in the (case-endings of the two) words.
From the Smriti also (we learn that the individual soul is different from the one referred to in the text under discussion).
If it be said that (the passage does) not (refer to Brahman) because of the smallness of the abode (referred to, viz. the heart) and also on account of its being designated as such (i.e., as minute); (we say,) not so, (because Brahman has been so characterized) for the sake of contemplation and because the case is similar to that of the ether.
If it be said that (being connected with the hearts of all individual souls on account of Its omnipresence, it would also) have experience (of pleasure and pain), (we say,) not so, because of the difference in the nature (of the two).
The eater (is Brahman), because both the movable and immovable (i.e., the entire universe) is taken (as his food).
And because (Brahman) is the subject of the discussion.
The two that have entered into the cavity (of the heart) are indeed the individual self and the Supreme Self, because it is so seen.
And from the (distinctive) qualities (of the two mentioned in subsequent texts).
(The person) inside (the eye is Brahman) on account of (the attributes mentioned therein) being appropriate (only to Brahman).
And because abode etc. (i.e., name and form) are attributed to it (Brahman) (by other scriptural texts also, for the sake of contemplation).
And verily on account of the reference (in the passage to Brahman) distinguished by bliss (mentioned at the beginning of the Prakarana).
Also, on account of the statement of the way (after death) of those who have known the Truth of the Upanishads (i.e., knowers of Brahman) (with reference to the knower of the person in the eye).
(The person in the eye is the Supreme Self) and not any other (i.e., individual soul etc.) as these do not exist always; and on account of the impossibility (of the qualities of the person in the eye being attributed to any of these).
The internal ruler in the divine and other contexts (is the supreme Self), since the characteristics of that (supreme Self) are spoken of.
And neither is (the Ruler within) that which is talked of in (Sankhya) Smriti (i.e., Pradhana), because attributes contrary to its nature are mentioned (here).
Also, the individual soul (is not the Ruler within), for this is read as different (from the Internal Ruler) by the followers of both (the recensions, viz. the Kanwa and Madhyandina Sakhas of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad).
The possessor of qualities like invisibility etc. (is Brahman) on account of (Its) characteristics being mentioned.
The other two (viz. the individual soul and the Pradhana) are not (referred to in the passage), because the characteristics of Brahman and the difference (of the Being which is the source of all beings from the individual soul and the Pradhana) are mentioned.
Also, because (its) form is mentioned (the passage under discussion refers to Brahman).
Vaisvanara (is Brahman), because of the qualifying adjuncts to the common words (‘Vaisvanara’ and ‘Self’).
Because that (cosmic form of the Supreme Self) which is described in the Smriti must be an indicatory mark (from which we arrive at the meaning of this Sruti text under discussion).
If it be said that (Vaishvanar) is not (Brahman) because of the word (‘Vaishvanar’, which has a definite meaning, viz. gastric fire) and other reasons, and on account of its existing inside (which is true of gastric fire), (we say) not so, because there is the instruction to conceive (Brahman) as such (as the gastric fire), because it is impossible (for the gastric fire to have the heaven etc. for its head and other limbs) and also because (the Vajasaneyins) describe him (Vaishvanar) as a person (which the gastric fire is not).
For the same reason (Vaishvanar) is not the deity (fire) or the element (fire).
Even (if by ‘Vaishvanar’ Brahman is) directly (taken as the object of worship), there is no contradiction in case of direct meditation; (so says) Jaimini.
On account of manifestation—so says Asmarathya.
For the purpose of constant remembrance—so says Badari.
Because of imaginary identity (the Supreme Lord may be called span long), so says Jaimini; for so (the Sruti) declares.
Moreover (the Jabalas) teach that this (Supreme Lord is to be meditated upon) in this (space between the head and the chin).
The resting-place of heaven, earth, etc. (is Brahman) on account of the word ‘Self’ (or on account of the actual words of the Sruti) (designating this resting-place).
Because there is the instruction about (Its) attainment by the liberation.
(The abode of heaven etc.) is not what is inferred (i.e., Pradhana), owing to want of any term indicating it.
(Nor) also the individual soul.
(Also) on account of difference being mentioned (between the individual soul and the abode of heaven etc.).
On account of the subject-matter.
Also, on account of (the mention of two conditions:) remaining unattached and eating (which are the characteristics of the Supreme Self and the individual self respectively).
The Bhuman (is Brahman) because it is taught after the state of deep sleep (i.e., after Prana or the vital force, which alone functions even in that state).
And because the qualities (mentioned in the texts) are appropriate (only in the case of Brahman).
The Akshara (the Imperishable) (is Brahman) because it supports (everything) up to Akasa (ether).
Because of the command (attributed to Akshara) this (supporting) (can be the work of the Highest Self only and not of the Pradhana).
And because the qualities of any other than Brahman have been negated (by the Sruti).
Because of his being mentioned as an object of (the act of) seeing, he (who is to be meditated upon is Brahman).
The small (Akasa) (is Brahman) because of subsequent texts (which give ample indication to that effect).
The small Akasa (is Brahman) on account of going (into Brahman) and of the word (Brahmaloka); it (i.e., the individual soul’s going into Brahman) is likewise seen (from other Sruti texts); and (the daily going) is an indicatory sign (by which we can interpret the word Brahmaloka).
Moreover, on account of the supporting (of the world by the small Akasa it is Brahman) for this greatness is seen in this (Brahman only from other scriptural texts).
Also because of the well-known meaning (of Akasa as Brahman the ‘small Akasa’ is Brahman).
Because of the reference to the other (i.e., the individual soul in a complementary passage) if it be said that he (the individual soul) (and not Brahman is meant by the ‘small Akasa’), (we say)' no, on account of the impossibility (of such an assumption).
If (it be said) that from subsequent texts (which contain references to the Jiva, ‘small Akasa’ means the Jiva) (we say) but (that reference to the Jiva is in so far as its) real nature (as non-different from Brahman) is made manifest.
And the reference (to the individual soul) is for a different purpose.
If it be said that because the Sruti declares the limitedness (of this Akasa, therefore it cannot refer to the all-pervading Brahman); (we say) that has already been explained (as having reference to devout meditation only. Vide 1.2.7).
Because of the acting after (i.e., shining after) (That which shining, everything else shines) and (because by) Its (light everything else is lighted).
Moreover, the Smriti states (It to be the universal light).
From the very word (‘Lord’ by which it is referred to in the text) (the being) measured (by the size of the thumb is Brahman).
But with reference to (the space in) the heart (the Highest Brahman is said to be of the size of a thumb); (and because) man alone is entitled (to the study of the Vedas).
(Beings) above them (men) also (are entitled to the study of the Vedas) because (it is) possible (for them also to attain Knowledge according to) Badarayana.
If it be said (that the corporeality of the gods would involve) a contradiction to sacrifices; (we say) no, because we find (in the scriptures) the assumption (by the, gods) of many (forms at one and the same time).
If it be said (that the corporeality of the gods would involve a contradiction) with regard to (Vedic) words, (we say) no, because of the creation (of the world together with the gods) from these (words), (as is known) from direct perception (Sruti) and inference (Smriti).
From this very reason also (results) the eternity (of the Vedas).
And because of the sameness of names and forms (in every fresh cycle) there is no contradiction (to the eternity of the Vedic words) even in the revolving of the world cycles, as is seen from the Sruti and the Smriti.
On account of the impossibility (of the gods) being qualified for Madhu Vidya etc. Jaimini (is of opinion that the gods) are not qualified (either for Upasanas or for the knowledge of Brahman).
Arid (the gods are not qualified for Vidyas) because (the words ‘sun’, ‘moon’, etc., spoken of as gods) are used in the sense of mere spheres of light.
But Badarayana (maintains) the existence (of qualification on the part of the gods for the knowledge of Brahman), because (all those causes like body, desires, etc., which qualify one for such knowledge) do exist (in the case of the gods).
His (King Janasruti’s) grief (arose) from hearing the contemptuous words (of the Rishi in the form of a swan); owing to his approaching (Raikva overwhelmed with) that (grief) (Raikva called him Sudra); because it (the grief) is referred to (by Raikva, who could read his mind).
And because the Kshatriyahood (of Janasruti) is known later on by the indicatory sign (of his being mentioned) along with a descendant of Chitraratha (a Kshatriya).
Because purificatory ceremonies are mentioned (in the case of the twice born) and their absence are declared (in the case of the Sudras).
And because the inclination (on the part of Gautama to impart Knowledge is seen only) on the ascertainment of the absence of Sudrahood (in Jabala Satyakama).
And because of the prohibition in the Smriti of hearing and studying (the Vedas) and knowing their meaning and performing Vedic rites (to Sudras, they are not entitled to the knowledge of Brahman).
(Prana is Brahman) on account of the vibration (spoken of the whole world).
Light (is Brahman) on account of (Brahman) being seen (as the subject of the texts).
Akasa (is Brahman) because it is declared to be something different etc. (from names and forms and yet their revealer).
Because of the Supreme Self being shown as different (from the individual soul) in the states of deep sleep and death.
On account of words like ‘Lord’ etc. (the Self in the text under discussion is the Supreme Self).
If it be said that in some (recensions of the Vedas) that which is inferred (i.e., the Pradhana) (is) also (mentioned), (we say) no, because (the word ‘Avyakta’ occurring in the Katha Upanishad) is mentioned in a simile referring to the body (and means the body itself and not the Pradhana of the Sankhya's); (the Sruti) too explains (it).
But the subtle (cause of the body is meant by the term ‘Avyakta’) because it can be properly so designated.
On account of its dependence (on the Lord), it fits in (with our theory).
And because it is not mentioned (that the Avyakta) is to be known (it cannot be the Pradhana of the Sankhyas).
If it be said (that the Sruti) does state (that the Avyakta has to be known and therefore it is the Pradhana); (we say) no, for (it is) the intelligent (Supreme) Self (which is meant), since that is the topic.
And thus, the question and elucidation with reference to three only (of which the Pradhana is not one) (is consistent).
And like Mahat (the word ‘Avyakta’ does not refer to any Sankhyan category).
(The word ‘Aja’ cannot be asserted to mean the Pradhana) for want of special characteristics, as in the case of the bowl.
But (the elements) beginning with light (are meant by the word Aja), because some read so.
And instruction having been given through the imagery (of a goat) (there is) no incongruity, (even) as in the case of ‘honey’ (standing for the sun in Madhuvidya for the purpose of devout meditation) and such other cases.
Even from the statement of the number (fivefold five, i.e., twenty-five categories, by the Sruti, it is) not (to be presumed that the Sruti refers to the Pradhana) on account of the differences (in the categories) and the excess (over the number of the Sankhyan categories).
(The five people referred to are) the vital force (prana) etc., because (we find it to be so) from the complementary passage.
(In the text) of some (the Kanva recension) food not being mentioned (in the complementary passage referred to in the previous Sutra) (the number is made up) by ‘light’ (mentioned in the previous verse).
(Although) as regards (things created, like) ether and so on (the Vedanta texts differ), (yet there is no such conflict with respect to Brahman) as the First Cause, (on account of Its) being represented (in other texts) as taught (in one text).
On account of the connection (with passage referring to Brahman, nonexistence does not mean absolute nonexistence).
(He of whom all this is the work is Brahman) because (the work) denotes the world.
If it be said that on account of the characteristics of the individual soul and the chief Prana (to be found in the text, Brahman is) not (referred to by the word ‘maker’ in the passage cited), (we reply) that has already been explained.
But (the sage) Jaimini (thinks that the reference to the individual soul in the text) has another purpose because of the question and answer; moreover, thus some (the Vajasaneyins) (read in their recension).
(The Self to be seen, to be heard, etc. is Brahman) on account of the connected meaning of the passages.
(The fact that the individual soul is taught as the object of realization is an) indicatory mark (which is) proof of the proposition, so Asmarathya thinks.
(The statement at the beginning identifies the individual soul with Brahman) because of this nature (viz. its identity with Brahman) of the one (i.e., the soul) which rises from the body (at the time of release), thus (thinks) Audulomi.
(The initial statement is made) because of, the existence (of Brahman as the individual soul), so holds (sage) Kasakritsna.
(Brahman is) the material cause also, (on account of this view alone) not being contradictory to the proposition and the illustrations (cited in the Sruti).
Also, on account of the statement of will (to create on the part of the Supreme Self, it is the material cause).
And because the Sruti states that both (the creation and the dissolution of the world) (have Brahman as) the direct (cause).
(Brahman is the material cause of the world) because (the Sruti says that) It created Itself by undergoing modifications.
And because (Brahman) is called the origin.
By this all (doctrines with reference to the origin of the world contrary to the Vedanta texts) are explained.
