________________
192
VEDÂNTA-SOTRAS.
• Embraced by the intelligent Self he knows nothing that is without, nothing that is within (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 21);
Mounted by the intelligent Self he goes groaning' (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 35); 'Having known him he passes beyond death' (Svet. Up. III, 8).—On the ground of these two sets of passages the individual and the highest Self must needs be assumed to stand in the bhedabheda-relation. And texts such as 'He knows Brahman, he becomes Brahman' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 9), which teach that in the state of Release the individual soul enters into Brahman itself; and again texts such as "But when the Self has become all for him, whereby should he see another' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 13), which forbid us to view, in the state of Release, the Lord as something different (from the individual soul), show that non-difference is essential (while difference is merely aupadhika).
But, an objection is raised, the text 'He reaches all desires together in the wise Brahman,' in using the word 'together' shows that even in the state of Release the soul is different from Brahman, and the same view is expressed in two of the Satras, viz. IV, 4, 17; 21.- This is not so, we reply; for the text, 'There is no other seer but he' (Bri. Up. III, 7, 23), and many similar texts distinctly negative all plurality in the Self. The Taittiriyatext quoted by you means that man reaches Brahman with all desires, i.e. Brahman comprising within itself all objects of desire ; if it were understood differently, it would follow that Brahman holds a subordinate position only. And if the Satra IV, 4, 17 meant that the released soul is separate from Brahman it would follow that it is deficient in lordly power; and if this were so the Satra would be in conflict with other Satras such as IV, 4, 1.--For these reasons, non-difference is the essential condition; while the distinction of the souls from Brahman and from each other is due to their limiting adjuncts, i.e. the internal organ, the senseorgans, and the body. Brahman indeed is without parts and omnipresent; but through its adjuncts it becomes capable of division just as ether is divided by jars and the like. Nor must it be said that this leads to a reprehensible
Digitized by
Digitized by Google