Philosophy and Religion / Vedânta-Sûtras (Brahma Sutras)

Vedânta-Sûtras

Fourth Adhyâya

Second Pâda

Reverence to the Highest Self!

1. Speech (is merged) in mind, on account of this being seen, and of the scriptural statement.

Being about to describe the path of the gods which leads those who possess the lower kind of knowledge towards the attainment of their reward, the Sûtrakâra begins by explaining, on the basis of scriptural statements, the successive steps by which the soul passes out of the body; for, as will be stated later on, the departure of the soul is the same in the case of him who possesses the (lower) knowledge and of him who is devoid of all knowledge.

About the process of dying we have the following passage, 'When a man departs from hence his speech merges in his mind, his mind in his breath, his breath in fire, fire in the highest deity' (Kh. Up. VI, 6, 1). A doubt here arises whether the passage means to say that speech itself, together with its function, is merged in the mind, or only the function of speech.

The pûrvapakshin maintains that speech itself is merged in the mind. For this explanation only is in agreement with the direct statement of the sacred text, while the other alternative compels us to have recourse to an implied meaning; now wherever direct enunciation and implied meaning are in conflict the preference has to be given to the former, and we therefore maintain that speech itself is merged in the mind.

To this we reply that only the function of speech is merged in the mind.--But how can this interpretation be maintained, considering that the teacher (in the Sûtra) expressly says 'Speech in the mind?'--True we reply; but later on he says 'There is non-division, according to scriptural statement' (Sûtra 16), and we therefrom conclude that what is meant in the present Sûtra is merely cessation of the function of speech. For if the intention were to express absorption of the thing (i.e. the organ of speech) itself, there would be 'non-division' in all cases, and for what reason then should 'non-division' be specially stated in another case (i.e. in the case of which Sûtra 16 treats)? The meaning therefore is that the different functions are retracted, and that while the function of the mind continues to go on the function of speech is retracted first.--Why so?--'Because this is seen.' It is a matter of observation that while the mind continues to act the function of speech comes to an end; nobody, on the other hand, is able to see that the organ of speech itself, together with its function, is merged in the mind.--But are we not justified in assuming such a merging of speech in the mind, on the ground of scriptural statement?--This is impossible, we reply, since mind is not the causal substance of speech. We are entitled to assume only that a thing is merged in what is its causal substance; a pot e.g. (when destroyed) is merged in clay. But there is no proof whatever for speech originating from mind. On the other hand we observe that functions originate and are retracted even where they do not inhere in causal substances. The function of fire, e.g. which is of the nature of heat, springs from fuel which is of the nature of earth, and it is extinguished in water.--But how do you, on this interpretation, account for the scriptural statement that 'speech is merged in the mind?'--'And on account of the scriptural statement,' the Sûtrakâra replies. The scriptural statement also may be reconciled with our interpretation, in so far as the function and the thing to which the function belongs are viewed as non-different.

2. And for the same reason all (sense-organs) (follow) after (mind).

'Therefore he whose light has gone out comes to a new birth with his senses merged in the mind' (Pr. Up. III, 9); this passage states that all senses without difference are merged in the mind. 'For the same reason,' i.e. because there also as in the case of speech, it is observed that the eye and so on discontinue their functions, while the mind together with its functions persists, and 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 arc concerned.--As all organs ¹ without difference are merged in the mind, the special mention made of speech (in Sûtra 1) must be viewed as made in agreement with the special example referred to by scripture, 'Speech is merged in mind.'

3. That mind (is merged) in breath, owing to the subsequent clause.

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 in breath,' also means to intimate a merging of the function only or of that to which the function belongs.--The pûrvapakshin maintains the latter alternative. For that, he says, agrees with scripture, and moreover breath may be viewed as the causal substance of mind. For scripture--'Mind is made of earth, breath of water' (Kh. Up. VI, 6, 5)--states that mind comes from earth and breath from water, and scripture further states that 'Water sent forth earth' (Kh. Up. VI, 2, 4). When mind therefore is merged in breath, it is the same as earth being merged in water; for mind is earth and breath is water, causal substance and effect being non-different.

To this we reply as follows. 'The subsequent clause' intimates that the mind, after having absorbed within itself the functions of the outer senses, is merged in breath only in the way of its function being so merged. For we observe in the case of persons lying in deep sleep or about to die that, while the function of breath persists, the functions of the mind are stopped. Nor is the mind capable of being itself merged in breath, since breath does not constitute its causal substance.--But it has been shown above that breath is the causal substance of mind!--This is not valid, we reply. For the relation of causality, made out in such an indirect way, does not suffice to show that mind is really merged in breath. 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 had passed over into breath.--Mind cannot therefore, in itself, be merged in breath. And that the scriptural statement is satisfied by a mere merging of the function--the function and that to which the function belongs being viewed as identical--has been shown already under the preceding Sûtra.

4. That (viz. breath) (is merged) in the ruler (i.e. the individual soul), on account of the (statements as to the prânas) coming to it and so on.

We have ascertained that a thing which has not originated from another is not itself merged in the latter, but only through its functions. A doubt now arises whether, according to the word of scripture, the function of breath is merged in heat, or in the individual soul which is the ruler of the body and senses.--According to the pûrvapakshin we must conclude that the breath is merged in heat only, since the scriptural statement allows no room for doubt and we are not entitled to assume something not declared by scripture. The breath under discussion persists 'in the ruler,' i.e. the intelligent Self (the individual soul) which possesses nescience, work, and former knowledge as limiting adjuncts; i.e. the function of breath has that soul for its substratum.--Why so?--'On account of (the prânas) going towards him,' &c.--Another scriptural passage declares that all prânas without any difference go to the soul, 'All the prânas go to the Self at the time of death when a man is thus going to expire' (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 38). Another passage again specially declares that the prâna with its five functions follows the individual soul, 'After him thus departing the prâna departs, 'and that the other prânas follow that prâna, 'And after the prâna thus departing all the other prânas depart' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 2). And the text, 'He is furnished with intelligence' (ibid.), by declaring the individual soul to be of intimately intelligent nature, suggests that in it, viz. the soul, the prâna--into which the different organs of knowledge have been merged--has taken its abode.--But scripture also says, 'The prâna (is merged) in heat;' why then make the addition implied in the doctrine--that breath is merged in the individual soul?--We must make that addition, we reply, because in the process of departure &c. the soul is the chief agent, and because we must pay regard to specifications contained in other scriptural passages also.--How then do you explain the statement, 'Breath is merged in heat?'--To this question the next Sûtra replies.

5. To the elements (the soul, with prâna, goes), on account of the subsequent scriptural clause.

The soul joined by the prâna takes up its abode within the subtle elements which accompany heat and form the seed of the (gross) body. This we conclude from the clause, 'Breath in heat.'--But this passage declares, not that the soul together with the prâna takes up its abode in heat, but only that the prâna takes up its abode!--No matter, we reply; since the preceding Sûtra intercalates the soul in the interval (between prâna and tegas). Of a man who first travels from--Srughna to Mathurâ and then from Mathurâ to Pâtaliputra, we may say shortly that he travels from--Srughna to Pâtaliputra. The passage under discussion therefore means that the soul together with the prâna abides in the elements associated with heat.--But how are you entitled to draw in the other elements also, while the text only speaks of heat?--To this question the next Sûtra replies.

6. Not to one (element) (the soul goes); for both (i.e. scripture and Smriti) declare this.

At the time of passing over into another body the individual soul does not abide in the one element of heat only; for we see that the new body consists of various elements. This matter is declared in the question and answer about the waters called man (Kh. Up. V, 3, 3); as explained by us in III, 1, 2.--Scripture and Smriti alike teach this doctrine; compare e.g. 'Consisting of earth, water, wind, ether, heat' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 5); and 'The subtle perishable parts of the five (elements) from them all this is produced in due succession' (Manu I, 27).--But is there not another scriptural text--beginning--'Where then is that person?'--which teaches that at the time of the soul attaining a new body, after speech and the other organs have been withdrawn within the soul, work constitutes the soul's abode, 'What those two said, as work they said it; what they praised, as work they praised it' (Bri. Up. III, 2. 13)?--That passage, we reply, describes the operation of bondage consisting of the senses and their objects--there called grahas and atigrahas--and therefore work is spoken of as the abode; here on the other hand the elements are said to be the abode because we have to do with the origination of a new body out of the matter of the elements. The expression 'they prayed' moreover intimates only that work occupies the chief place in the process, and does not exclude another abode. The two passages therefore do not contradict each other.

7. And common (to him who knows and him who does not know) (is the departure) up to the beginning of the way; and the immortality (of him who knows) (is relative only) without having burned (nescience and so on).

The question here arises whether the departure of the soul, as described hitherto, is the same in the case of him who knows and him who is destitute of knowledge; or whether there is any difference.--There is a difference, the pûrvapakshin maintains. For the departure as described has for its abode the elements, and this abiding in the elements is for the purpose of a new birth. But he who possesses true knowledge cannot be born again, since scripture declares that 'He who knows reaches immortality.' Hence only he who is devoid of knowledge departs in the way described.--But as that departure is described in chapters treating of knowledge it can belong only to him who knows!--Not so, the pûrvapakshin replies. In the same way as sleep and the like, the departure of the soul is only referred to in the texts as something established elsewhere (not as something to be taught as part of true knowledge). Passages such as 'When a man sleeps,--is hungry,--is thirsty' (Kh. Up. VI, 8), although forming part of chapters concerned with true knowledge, mention sleep and so on which are common to all living beings, because they assist the comprehension of the matter to be taught, but do not aim at enjoining them specially for those who know. Analogously the texts about the soul's departure refer to that departure only in order to teach that 'that highest deity in which the heat of the dying man is merged, that is the Self, that art thou.' Now that departure is (in other scriptural passages) specially denied of him who knows; it therefore belongs to him only who does not know.

To this we make the following reply. That departure which is described in the passage, 'speech is merged in mind,' &c., must be 'common' to him who knows and him who does not know 'up to the beginning of the way;' because scripture records no distinction. The soul destitute of true knowledge having taken its abode in the subtle elements which constitute the seed of the body and being impelled by its works, migrates into a new body; while the soul of him who knows passes into the vein, revealed by true knowledge, which is the door of release. In this sense the Sûtra says 'up to the beginning of the way.'--But he who knows reaches immortality, and immortality does not depend on a change of place; why then should the soul take its abode in the elements or set out on a journey?--That immortality, we reply, is 'without having burned.' i.e. for him who, without having altogether burned nescience and the other afflictions, is about to obtain, through the power of the lower knowledge, a relative immortality only, there take place the entering on the way and the abiding in the elements. For without a substratum the prânas could not move. There is thus no difficulty.

8. This (aggregate of the elements) (continues to exist) up to the (final absolute) union (with Brahman); on account of the declarations of the samsâra state (made by scripture).

With regard to the final clause, 'Heat in the highest deity,' the force of its connexion with what precedes shows that the meaning is 'the heat of the dying man is--together with the individual soul, the prâna, the aggregate of the organs and the other elements--merged in Brahman.'--We now have to consider of what kind that merging is.--The pûrvapakshin maintains that it is an absolute absorption of the things merged, since it is proved that those things have the highest deity for their causal matter. For it has been established that the deity is the causal substance of all things that have an origin. Hence that passing into the state of non-separation is an absolute one.

To this we reply as follows. Those subtle elements--heat and so on--which constitute the abode of hearing and the other organs persist up to the 'union,' i.e. up to final release from the samsâra, which is caused by perfect knowledge. 'On account of the declarations of the samsâra state' made in passages such as 'Some enter the womb, for embodied existence as organic beings; others go into inorganic matter, according to their work and according to their knowledge' (Ka. 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; which would render all scriptural injunction and scriptural doctrine equally purportless. Moreover bondage, which is due to wrong knowledge, cannot be dissolved but through, perfect knowledge. Hence, 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.

9. And (heat is) subtle in measure; as this is thus observed.

The elementary matter of heat and the other elements which form the substratum for 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 veins and so on. Their thinness renders them capable of passing out, and their transparency (permeability) is the cause of their not being stopped by any gross substance. For these reasons they, when passing out of the body, are not perceived by bystanders.

10. For this reason (it is) not (destroyed) by the destruction (of the gross body).

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

11. And to that same (subtle body) that warmth (belongs), on account of the proof (which observation furnishes).

To that same subtle body belongs the warmth which we perceive in the living body by means of touch. That warmth is not felt in the body after death, while such qualities as form, colour and so on continue to be perceived; it is on the other hand, observed as long as there is life. From this it follows that the warmth resides in something different from the body as ordinarily known. Scripture also says, 'He is warm if going to live, cold if going to die.'

12. Should you say that on account of the denial (made by scripture) (the soul of him who knows Brahman does not depart); we deny this, (because scripture means to say that the prânas do not depart) from the embodied soul.

From the distinction conveyed by the clause, 'and (relative) immortality without having burned' (Sûtra 7), it follows that in the case of absolute immortality being reached there is no going and no departure of the soul from the body.--The idea that for some reason or other a departure of the soul might take place in this latter case also, is precluded by the following scriptural passage, '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 spirits do not depart,--being Brahman, he goes to Brahman' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 6). From this express denial--forming part of the higher knowledge--it follows that the prânas do not pass out of the body of him who knows Brahman.

This conclusion the pûrvapakshin denies. For, he says, the passage quoted does not deny the departure of the prânas from the body, but from the embodied (individual) soul.--How is this known?--From the fact that in another Sâkhâ we have (not the sixth, genitive, case 'of him,' but) the fifth, ablative, case 'from him'--'From him the vital spirits do not depart' (Mâdhyandina Sâkhâ). For the sixth case which expresses only relation in general is determined towards some special relation by the fifth case met with in another Sâkhâ. And as the embodied soul which has a claim on exaltation and bliss is the chief topic of the chapter, we construe the words 'from him' to mean not the body but the embodied soul. The sense therefore is 'from that soul when about to depart the prânas do not depart, but remain with it.' The soul of him who dies therefore passes out of the body, together with the prânas. This view the next Sûtra refutes.

13. For (in the text) of some (the denial of the soul's departure) is clear.

The assertion that also the soul of him who knows Brahman departs from the body, because the denial states the soul (not the body) to be the point of departure, cannot be upheld. For we observe that in the sacred text of some there is a clear denial of a departure, the starting-point of which is the body.--The text meant at first records the question asked by Ârtabhâga, 'When this man dies, do the vital spirits depart from him or not?' then embraces the alternative of non-departure, in the words, No, replied Yâgñavalkya; thereupon--anticipating the objection that a man cannot be dead as long as his vital spirits have not departed--teaches the resolution of the prânas in the body 'in that very same place they are merged;' and finally, in confirmation thereof, remarks, 'he swells, he is inflated, inflated the dead man lies.' This last clause states that swelling, &c., affect the subject under discussion, viz. that from which the departure takes place (the 'tasmât' of the former clause), which subject is, in this last clause, referred to by means of the word 'He.' Now swelling and so on can belong to the body only, not to the embodied soul. And owing to its equality thereto ² also the passages, 'from him the vital spirits do not depart;' 'in that very same place they are resolved,' have to be taken as denying a departure starting from the body, although the chief subject of the passage is the embodied soul. This may be done by the embodied soul and the body being viewed as non-different ³. In this way we have to explain the passage if read with the fifth case.--If again the passage is read with the sixth case ('of him the vital spirits do not depart'), it must be understood as denying the departure of him who knows, as its purport manifestly is to deny a departure established elsewhere. But what it denies can only be a departure from the body; for what is established (viz. for ordinary men not possessing the highest knowledge) is only the departure (of the soul, &c.) from the body, not the departure (of the prânas, &c.) from the embodied soul.--Moreover, after the passage, 'Either through the eye or through the skull or through other places of the body, him thus departing the prâna departs after, and after the departing prâna all prânas depart,' &c., has at length described the departure and transmigration of the soul as belonging to him who does not know, and after the account of him who does not know has been concluded with the words. 'So much for the man who has desires,' the text designates him who knows as 'he who has no desires;' a designation which, would be altogether inappropriate if the text wanted to establish departure, &c., for that person also. The passage therefore has to be explained as denying of him who knows the going and departing which are established for him who does not know. For thus only the designation employed by the text has a sense.--And for him who knowing Brahman has become the Self of that omnipresent Brahman, and in whom all desires and works have become extinct, departing and going are not even possible, as there is not any occasion for them. And such texts as 'there he reaches Brahman' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 7) indicate the absence of all going and departing.

14. And Smriti also says that.

In the Mahâbhârata also it is said that those who know 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.'--But, an objection is raised, other passages speak of men knowing Brahman as going, so e.g. 'Suka the son of Vyâsa being desirous of release travelled to the sphere of the sun; being called by his father who had followed him, he gave an answering shout.'--That passage, we reply, describes (not the effects of the highest knowledge but only) how an embodied person, through the power of Yoga (which is of the nature of the lower knowledge), reached some special place and freed himself from the body. This appears from it being mentioned that he was seen by all beings; for the beings could not see a person moving without a body. The conclusion of the story makes all this clear, 'Suka having moved through the air more rapidly than wind, and having shown his power, was known by all beings.'--It thus follows that he who knows Brahman neither moves nor departs. To what sphere the scriptural texts about going and so on refer we shall explain later on.

15. Those (elements, &c.) (are merged) in the highest Brahman; for thus (scripture) says.

Those, i.e. the sense organs--denoted by the term 'prâna'--and the elements of him who knows the highest Brahman, are merged in that same highest Brahman.--Why?--Because scripture declares that 'Thus these sixteen parts of the spectator that go towards the person, when they have reached the person, sink into him' (Pr. 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' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 7).--No, we reply. This latter passage is concerned with the ordinary view of the matter, according to which the parts of the body which consist of earth and so on are merged in their causal substances, earth and so on. The former passage, on the other hand, expresses the view of him who knows; according to which the whole aggregate of the parts of him who knows the highest Brahman is merged in Brahman only.--There is thus no contradiction.

16. (There is absolute) non-division (from Brahman, of the parts merged in it); according to scriptural declaration.

When the parts of him who knows are merged in Brahman, is there a remainder (which is not so merged), as in the case of other men; or is there no such remainder? As the merging of him also who knows falls under the general heading of merging, it might be assumed that of him also there remains a potential body, and the Sûtrakâra therefore teaches expressly that the elements, &c., of him who knows enter into the relation of (absolute) non-division from Brahman.--On what ground?--Because scripture declares this. For after having taught the dissolution of the parts, the text continues, 'Their name and form are broken, and people speak of the person only; and he becomes without parts and immortal' (Pr. Up. VI, 5). And when parts that are due to nescience are dissolved through knowledge it is not possible that a remainder should be left. The parts therefore enter into absolute non-division from Brahman.

17. (There takes place) a lighting up of the point of its (the soul's) abode (viz. the heart); the door (of its egress) being illuminated 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 upwards) by the one that exceeds a hundred (i.e. by the hundred and first vein).

Having absolved the inquiry into a point of the higher knowledge into which we were led by a special occasion, we now continue the discussion connected with the lower knowledge.--It has been stated that up to the beginning of the way the departure of him who knows and him who does not know is the same. The present Sûtra now describes the soul's entering on the way. The abode of the soul, when--having taken within itself speech and the other powers--it is about to depart, is the heart, according to the text, 'He taking with him those elements of light descends into the heart' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 1). Of the heart the point becomes lighted up, 'and subsequent to that is the departure of the soul, starting from the eye or some other place, according to the passage, '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 question here arises whether that departure is the same for him who knows and him who does not know, or if there is a special limitation in the case of the former; and the prima facie view might be upheld that there is no such limitation since scripture records no difference. Against this the teacher states that although, equally 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 departed, like all others, from any place of the body, he would be unable to reach an exalted sphere; and then all knowledge would be purportless. 'And on account of the application of meditation on the way forming a part of that.' That means: in different vidyâs there is enjoined meditation on the soul's travelling on the way connected with the vein that passes through the skull;--which way forms a part of those vidyâs. Now it is proper to conclude that he who meditates on that way should after death proceed on it ⁴. Hence he who knows, being favoured by Brahman abiding in the heart on which he had meditated, and thus becoming like it in nature departs by the vein which passes through the skull and 'exceeds the hundred,' i.e. is the hundred and first. The souls of other men pass out by other veins. For thus scripture says, in a chapter treating of the knowledge of Brahman dwelling in the heart, 'There are a hundred and one veins of the heart; one of them penetrates the crown of the head; by that moving upwards a man reaches immortality; the others serve for departing in different directions' (Kh, Up. VIII, 6, 5).

18. (The soul after having passed forth from the body) follows the rays.

There is the vidyâ of him within the heart, which begins, 'There is this city of Brahman and in it the palace, the small lotus, and in it that small ether' (Kh. Up. VIII, 1, 1). A subsequent section of that chapter--beginning with the words, 'Now these veins of the heart'--describes at length the connexion of the veins and the rays, and the text then continues, 'When he departs from this body, he departs upwards by those very rays,' and further on, 'By that moving upwards he reaches immortality.' From this we understand that the soul passing out by the hundred and first vein follows the rays.--A doubt here arises as to whether the soul of him who dies by night as well as of him who dies by day follows the rays, or the soul of the latter only.--Since scripture mentions no difference, the Sûtra teaches that the souls follow the rays in both cases.

19. (Should it be said that the soul does) not (follow the rays) by night; (we reply) not so, because the connexion (of veins and rays) exists as long as the body; and (scripture) also declares this.

It might perhaps be said that the veins and rays are connected during the day, so that 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 connexion of the veins and rays is broken.--But this is a mistaken assumption, because the connexion of rays and veins lasts as long as the body exists. This scripture also declares, 'They (the rays) stretch out from yonder sun and slip into these veins; they stretch from these veins and slip into yonder sun' (Kh. Up. VIII, 6, 2). We moreover observe that the rays of the sun continue to exist in the nights of the summer season; for 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.--This the following scriptural passage also shows,' Day he makes in the night.'--If, moreover, he who dies at night mounted upwards without following the rays, the following of the rays would be generally meaningless. For the text gives no special direction to the effect that he who dies by day mounts upwards by means of the rays, while he who dies by night mounts without them.--Should, on the other hand, even he who knows be prevented from mounting upwards, by the mere mischance of dying by night, knowledge would in that case produce its fruit eventually only, and the consequence would be that--as the time of death is not fixed--nobody would apply himself to knowledge.--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, &c., his body would, at the time of daybreak, not be capable of entering into connexion with the rays. Scripture moreover expressly says that he does not wait, 'As quickly as he sends off the mind he goes to the sun' (Kh. Up. VIII, 6, 5).--For all these reasons the soul follows the rays by night as well as by day.

20. And for the same reason (the departed soul follows the rays) also during the southern progress of the sun.

For the same reason, viz. because waiting is impossible, and because the fruit of knowledge is not a merely eventual one, and because the time of death is not fixed, also that possessor of true knowledge who dies during the southern progress of the sun obtains the fruit of his knowledge. Because dying during the northern progress of the sun is more excellent, and because Bhîshma is known to have waited for that period, and because scripture says, 'From the light half of the month (they go) to the six months when the sun goes to the north,' it might be thought that the northern progress of the sun is needful for dying. This notion the Sûtra refutes. The greater excellence of the sun's northern progress applies to those only who do not possess the highest knowledge.--Bhîshma's waiting for the sun's northern progress was due to his wish of upholding good customs and of showing that by the favour of his father he could choose the time of his death.--And the sense of the scriptural passage quoted will be explained under IV, 3, 4.--But we have the following Smriti-text, 'At what times the Yogins depart either not to return or to return, those times I will declare to thee' (Bha. Gîtâ VIII, 23), which 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 progress depart not to return? Concerning this point the next Sûtra remarks:

21. (These details) are recorded by Smriti with reference to the Yogins; and both (Sâṅkhya and Yoga) are Smriti (only).

The rules as to dying by day and so on in order not to return are given by Smriti for the Yogins only. And those two, viz. Yoga and Sâṅkhya are mere Smriti, not of scriptural character. As thus 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 the following one, 'Fire, light, the day, the light half of the month, the six months of the northern progress; smoke, night, the dark half of the month, the six months of the southern progress' (Bha. Gîtâ VIII, 24; 25); in which though belonging to Smriti we recognise the path of the gods and the path of the fathers just 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,' &c. In so far as Smriti also mentions Agni and the other divinities which lead on the departed soul, there is no contradiction whatever.

Footnotes

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE