Śaṅkaraon Brahma Sūtra 3.3.39

In the chapter of the /^Mndogya which begins with the passage, ‘ There is this city of Brahman and in it the palace, the small lotus, and in it that small ether’ (VIII, 1, 1), we read, ‘That is the Self free from sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, whose desires are true, whose imaginations are true.’ A similar passage is found in the text of the Va^^asancyins, ‘ He is that great unborn Self who consists of knowledge, is surrounded by the Pra;/as, the ether within the heart. In it there reposes the ruler of all’ {Bri. Up. IV, 4, 22). A doubt here arises whether these two passages con- stitute one vidya, and whether the particulars stated in one text are to be comprehended within the other text also. There is oneness of vidya b— Here (the Sutrakara) says, ‘ Wishes and so on,’ i. e. ‘ The quality of having true wishes and so on’ (the word k^ma standing for satyakama, just ' This clause must apparently be taken as staling the siddhanta- view, although later on it is said that the two vidyas are distinct (that, however, in spite of their distinctness, their details have to be com- bined). 248 VEDANTA-StjTRAS. as people occasionally say Datta for Devadatta and Bhamd for Satyabhfima). This quality and the other qualities, which the A"//andogya attributes to the ether within the heart, have to be combined with the Va^asaneyaka-passage, and vice versa the qualities stated in the Vd^asaneyaka, such as being the ruler of all, have also to be ascribed to the Self free from sin, proclaimed in the AV/andogya. The reason for this is that the two passages display a number of common features. Common to both is the heart viewed as abode, common again is the Lord as object of know- ledge, common also is the Lord being viewed as a bank — preventing these worlds from being confounded ; and several other points. But, an objection is raised, there are also differences. In the A"//andogya the qualities are attributed to the ether within the heart, while in the Va^nisaneyaka they are ascribed to Brahman abiding in that — ether. This objection, we reply, is unfounded, for we have shown under I, 3, 14 that the term ‘ether’ in the AV/andogya designates Brahman. There is, however, the following difference between the two passages. The A'//andogya-vidya has for its object the qualified Brahman, as we see from the passage VIII, i, 6, ‘ But those who depart from hence after having dis- covered the Self and those true desires,’ in which certain desires are represented as objects of knowledge equally as the Self. In the Vfu^^asaneyaka, on the other hand, the highest Brahman devoid of all qualities forms the object of instruction, as we conclude from the consideration of the request made by Ganaka, ‘ Speak on for the sake of eman- cipation,’ and the reply given by Ya^/7avalkya, ‘ For that person is not attached to anything’ (Bn. Up. IV, 3, J4; 15). Theit the text ascribes to the Self such qualities as being the Lord of all and the like is (not for the purpose of teaching that the Self really possesses those qualities, but is) merely meant to glorify the Self. Later on also (IV, 5, 13) the chapter winds up with a passage clearly referring to the Self devoid of all qualities, ‘ That Self is to be described by No, no ’ But as the qualified Brahman ! is (fundamentally) one (with the unqualified Brahman), we — must conclude that the Sfltra teaches the combination of the qualities to the end of setting forth the glory of Brahman, not for the purpose of devout meditation.