Śaṅkaraon Brahma Sūtra 4.1.5

With regard to the texts quoted above there arises another doubt, viz. whether the contemplation of Aditya and so on is to be superimposed on Brahman, or the contemplation of Brahman on Aditya and so on —But whence does this doubt arise?— From the absence of a decisive reason, owing to the grammatical co-ordination. For we observe in the sentences quoted a co-ordination of the term ‘ Brahman ’ with the terms ‘Aditya,’ &c. ‘Aditya is Brahman,’ * Pra;/a is Brahman,’ ‘ Lightning is * Brahman ; the text exhibiting the two members of each clause in the same case. And here there is no obvious occasion for co-ordination because the words ‘ Brahman ’ on the one hand, and ‘Aditya’ and so on on the other hand, denote different things ; not any more than there exists a relation of co-ordination which could be expressed by the sentence ‘The ox is a horse.’—But cannot Brahman and Aditya and so on be viewed as co-ordinated on the basis of the relation connecting a causal substance and its effects, analogously to the case of clay and earthen vessels ?—By no means, we reply. For in that case dissolution of the effect would result from its co-ordination with the causal substance, and that— as we have already explained —would imply non-existence of the symbol. Moreover, the scriptural passages would then be statements about the highest Self, and thereby the qualification for meditations would be sublated ^ ; and further the mention of a limited effect would be purposeless It follows herefrom that we have to do here with the superimposition of the contemplation of one thing on another thing—just as in the case of the text, ‘ The Brahmawa is Agni — Vaijvanara,* and the doubt therefore arises the contemplation of which of the two things is to be superimposed on the other. The purvapakshin maintains that there exists no fixed rule for this case, because we have no scriptural text establishing such a rule.— Or else, he says, contemplations on Aditya and so on are exclusively to be superimposed on Brahman. For in this way Brahman is meditated upon by means of contemplations on Aditya, and scripture decides that meditations on Brahman arc what is productive of fruits. Hence contemplations on Brahman are not to be superimposed on Aditya and so on. To this we make the following reply. The contemplation on Brahman is exclusively to be superimposed on Aditya and so on. Why? * On account of exaltation.^ For thus Aditya and so on are viewed in an exalted way, the contemplation of something higher than they being superimposed on them. Thereby we also comply with a secular rule, viz. the one enjoining that the idea of something higher is to be superimposed upon something lower, as when we view— and speak of—the kings charioteer as a king. This rule must be observed in worldly matters, because to act contrary to it would be disadvantageous ; for should we view a king as a charioteer, we should thereby lower him, and that would be no ways beneficial. But, an objection is raised, as the whole matter rests on scriptural authority, the suspicion of any disadvantage cannot arise and it is, further, not appropriate to define contemplations based on scripture by secular rules ! —That might be so, we reply, if the sense of scripture were fully ascertained ; but as it is liable to doubt, there is no objection to our having recourse to a secular rule whereby to ascertain it. And as by means of that rule we decide that what scripture means is the supcriinposition of a higher contemplation on something lower, we should incur loss by superimposing a lower contemplation upon something higher.—As moreover in the passages under discussion the worcis ‘ Aditya’ and so on stand first, they must, this being not contradictory, be taken in their primary sense. But, as our thought is thus defined by these words taken in their true literal sense, the word " Brahman,’ which supervenes later on, cannot be co-ordinated with them if it also bo taken in its true literal sense, and from this it follows that the purport of the passages can only be to enjoin contemplations on Brahman (superinduced on Aditya and so on).—The same sense follows from the circumstance that the word ‘ Brahman * is, in all the passages under discussion, followed by the word ‘ iti,’ ‘'thush’ 4Ie is to meditate (on Aditya, -Sc.) as Brahman.’ The words ‘Aditya’ and so on, on the other hand, the tc^ct exhibits without any such addition. The passages therefore are clearly analogous to such sentences , as ‘He views the mother o’ pearl as silver,’ in which the word ‘ mother o’ pearl ’ denotes mother o’ pearl pure and simple, while the word ‘silver’ denotes, by implication, the idea of silver ; for the person in question merely thinks ‘this is silver*’ while there is no real silver. I'hus our passages also mean, ‘ He is to view Aditya and so on as Brahman.’—The complementary clauses, moreover, which belong to the passages under discussion (‘He who knowing this meditates (upon) Aditya as Brahman ‘ Who meditates (on) speech as ’ ‘ Who meditates (on) will as Brahman ; Brahman'), exhibit the words ‘Aditya’ and so on in the accusative case, and thereby show them to be the direct objects of the action of meditation^. Against the remark that in all the mentioned cases Brahman only has to be meditated upon in order that a fruit may result from the • meditation, we point out that from the mode of proof used above we infer that (not Brahmait but) only Aditya and so on have to be meditated upon. But as in the case of hospitality shown to guests, Brahman, that is the supreme ruler of all, will give the fruit of meditations on Aditya and so on as well. This we have already shown under III, 2 , 28. And, after all, Brahman also is meditated upon (in the cases under discussion) in so far as a contemplation on Brahman is superinduced on its symbols, analogously as a contemplation on Vishwu is superinduced on his images.