Brahma Sutras
by Swami Sivananda

Chapter One: Samanvaya Adhyaya – Section 2 (Sutras 32-63)


In the First Pada or Section Brahman has been shown to be the cause of the origin, sustenance and dissolution of the whole universe. It has been taught that the Supreme Brahman should be enquired into. Certain attributes such as Eternity, Omniscience, All-pervadingness, the Self of all and so on have been declared of the Brahman.

In the latter part of Section I certain terms in the Sruti such as Anandamaya, Jyoti, Prana, Akasa, etc., used in a different sense have been shown through reasoning to refer to Brahman. Certain passages of the scriptures about whose sense doubts are entertained and which contain clear characteristics of Brahman (Spashta-Brahmalinga) have been shown to refer to Brahman.

Now in this and the next Section some more passages of doubtful import wherein the characteristic marks of Brahman are not so apparent (Aspashta-Brahmalinga) are taken up for discussion. Doubts may arise as to the exact meaning of certain expressions of Sruti, whether they indicate Brahman or something else. Those expressions are taken up for discussion in this and the next Sections.

In the Second and Third Padas will be shown that certain other words and sentences in which there is only obscure or indistinct indication of Brahman apply also to Brahman as in those of the First Pada.


Doubts may arise as to the exact meaning of certain expressions of Sruti, whether they indicate Brahman or something else. These expressions are taken up for discussion in this and the next sections.

It is proved in this section that the different expressions used in different Srutis for Divine contemplation indicate the same Infinite Brahman.

In the Sandilya Vidya of the Chhandogya Upanishad it is said that as the form and the character of a person in his next life are determined by his desires and thoughts of the present one, he should constantly desire for and meditate upon Brahman who is perfect, who is Sat-Chit-Ananda, who is immortal, who is Self-luminous, who is eternal, pure, birthless, deathless, Infinite etc., so that he may become identical with Him.

Adhikarana I:

(Sutras 1 to 8) shows that the being which consists of mind, whose body is breath etc., mentioned in Chhandogya Upanishad III-14 is not the individual soul, but Brahman.

Adhikarana II:

(Sutras 9 and 10) decides that he to whom the Brahmanas and Kshatriyas are but food (Katha Up. I-2-25) is the Supreme Self or Brahman.

Adhikarana III:

(Sutras 11 and 12) shows that the two which entered into the cave (Katha Up. I-3-1) are Brahman and the individual soul.

Adhikarana IV:

(Sutras 13 to 17) states that the person within the eye mentioned in Chh. Up. IV-15-1 indicates neither a reflected image nor any individual soul, but Brahman.

Adhikarana V:

(Sutras 18 to 20) shows that the Inner Ruler within (Antaryamin) described in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad III-7-3 as pervading and guiding the five elements (earth, water, fire, air, ether) and also heaven, sun, moon, stars etc., is no other than Brahman.

Adhikarana VI:

(Sutras 21 to 23) proves that which cannot be seen, etc., mentioned in Mundaka Upanishad I-1-6 is Brahman.

Adhikarana VII:

(Sutras 24 to 32) shows that the Atman, the Vaisvanara of Chhandogya Upanishad V-11-6 is Brahman.

The opinions of different sages namely Jaimini, Asmarathya and Badari have also been given here to show that the Infinite Brahman is sometimes conceived as finite and as possessing head, trunk, feet and other limbs and organs in order to facilitate divine contemplation according to the capacity of the meditator.

Sarvatra Prasiddhyadhikaranam: Topic 1 (Sutras 1-8)

The Manomaya is Brahman.

Sarvatra prasiddhopadesat I.2.1 (32)

(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 world) in the Upanishads.

Sarvatra: everywhere, in every Vedantic passage i.e., in all Upanishads; Prasiddha: the well-known; Upadesat: because of the teaching.

Sruti declares, "All this indeed is Brahman, emanating from Him, living and moving in Him, and ultimately dissolving in Him; thus knowing let a man meditate with a calm mind." A man in his present life is the outcome of his previous thoughts and desires. He becomes that in after-life what he now resolves to be. Therefore he should meditate on Brahman who is ideally perfect, who functions through his very life-energy and who is all-light. "He who consists of the mind, whose body is Prana (the subtle body) etc." Chh. Up. III-14.

Now a doubt arises whether what is pointed out as the object of meditation by means of attributes such as consisting of mind, etc., is the individual soul or the Supreme Brahman.

The Purvapakshin or the opponent says: the passage refers to the individual soul only. Why? Because the embodied self only is connected with the mind. This is a well-known fact, while the Supreme Brahman is not. It is said in the Mundaka Upanishad II-1-2 'He is without breath, without mind, pure.'

The passage does not aim at enjoining meditation on Brahman. It aims only at enjoining calmness of mind. The other attributes also subsequently stated in the text "He to whom all works, all desires belong" refer to the individual soul.

The Srutis declare "He is my Self within the heart, smaller than a corn of rice, smaller than a corn of barley." This refers to the individual soul which has the size of the point of a goad, but not to the infinite or unlimited Brahman.

We reply: The Supreme Brahman only is what is to be meditated upon as distinguished by the attributes of consisting of mind and so on. Because the text begins with "All this indeed is Brahman." That Brahman which is considered as the cause of the world in all scriptural passages is taught here also in the formula "Tajjalan". As the beginning refers to Brahman, the latter passage where "He who consists of the mind" (Manomaya) occurs, should also refer to Brahman as distinguished by certain qualities. Thus we avoid the fault of dropping the subject-matter under discussion and unnecessarily introducing a fresh topic. Further the text speaks of Upasana, meditation. Therefore it is but proper that Brahman which is described in all other passages as an object of meditation is also taught here and not the individual soul. The individual soul is not spoken of anywhere as an object of meditation or Upasana.

Moreover you can attain serenity by meditating on Brahman which is an embodiment of peace. Manomaya refers to Brahman in Mun. Up. II-2-7, Tait. Up. I-6-1 and Katha Up. VII-9. The well-known Manomaya, applied in all the above passages to Brahman, is referred to here in the Chhandogya also. Therefore Manomaya refers to the Supreme Brahman only.

Vivakshitagunopapattescha I.2.2 (33)

Moreover the qualities desired to be expressed are possible (in Brahman; therefore the passage refers to Brahman).

Vivakshita: desired to be expressed; Guna: qualities; Upapatteh: because of the reasonableness, for the justification; Cha: and, moreover.

An argument in support of Sutra 1 is adduced. And because the attributes, sought to be applied by the Sruti quoted above, justly belong to Brahman, it must be admitted that the passage refers to Brahman.

"He who consists of the mind, whose body is Prana (the subtle body), whose form is light, resolve is true, whose nature is like that of ether (Omnipresent and invisible), from whom proceed all actions, all desires, all scents, all tastes; who is All-embracing, who is voiceless and unattached" Chh. Up. III-14-2. These attributes mentioned in this text as topics of meditation are possible in Brahman only.

The qualities of having true desires (Sat Kama) and true purposes (Sat Sankalpa) are attributed to the Supreme Self in another passage viz., 'The Self which is free from sin etc.' Chh. Up. VIII-7-1, "He whose Self is the ether"; this is possible as Brahman which as the cause of the entire universe is the Self of everything and is also the Self of the ether. Thus the qualities here intimated as topics of meditation agree with the nature of Brahman.

Hence, as the qualities mentioned are possible in Brahman, we conclude that the Supreme Brahman alone is represented as the object of meditation.

Anupapattestu na saarirah I.2.3 (34)

On the other hand, as (those qualities) are not possible (in it) the embodied (soul is) not (denoted by Manomaya etc.).

Anupapatteh: not being justifiable, because of the impossibility, because of the unreasonableness, because they are not appropriate; Tu: but on the other hand; Na: not; Saarirah: the embodied, the Jiva or the individual soul.

Such qualities cannot apply to the individual soul. The argument in support of the Sutra is continued. The preceding Sutra has stated that the qualities mentioned are possible in Brahman. The present Sutra declares that they are not possible in the Jiva or the embodied Soul. Brahman only is endowed with the qualities of 'consisting of mind or Manomaya, and so on' but not the embodied Self.

Because the qualities such as 'He whose purposes are true, whose Self is the ether, who is speechless, who is not disturbed, who is greater than the earth' cannot be ascribed to the individual soul. The term 'Saarira' or embodied means 'dwelling in a body.'

If the opponent says 'The Lord also dwells in the body', we reply: true, He does abide in the body, but not in the body alone; because Sruti declares 'The Lord is greater than the earth, greater than the heaven, Omnipresent like the ether, eternal.' On the contrary the individual soul resides in the body only.

The Jiva is like a glow-worm before the effulgence of the Brahman who is like a Sun when compared with it. The superior qualities described in the text are not certainly possible in Jiva.

The All-pervading is not the embodied self or the individual soul, as it is quite impossible to predicate Omnipresence of Him. It is impossible and against fact and reason also that one and the same individual could be in all the bodies at the same time.

Karmakartrivyapadesaccha I.2.4 (35)

Because of the declaration of the attainer and the object attained. He who consists of the mind (Manomaya) refers to Brahman and not to the individual soul.

Karma: object; Kartri: agent; Vyapadesat: because of the declaration or mention; Cha: and.

An argument in support of Sutra 3 is adduced.

A separate distinction is drawn between the object of activity and of the agent. Therefore the attributes of 'consisting of mind' (Manomaya) cannot belong to the embodied self. The text says "When I shall have departed from hence I shall obtain him" Chh. Up. III-14-4. Here the word 'Him' refers to that which is the topic of discussion. "Who consists of the mind, the object of meditation" viz., as something to be obtained; while the words 'I shall obtain' represent the meditating individual soul as the agent i.e., the obtainer.

We must not assume that one and the same thing is spoken of as the attainer (agent) and the object attained at the same time. The attainer and the attained cannot be the same. The object meditated upon is different from the person who meditates, the individual soul referred to in the above text by the pronoun 'I'.

Thus for the above reason also, that which is characterised by the attributes consisting of mind 'Manomaya' and so on, cannot be the individual soul.

Sabdaviseshat I.2.5 (36)

Because of the difference of words.

Sabda: word; Viseshat: because of difference.

The argument in favour of Sutra 1 is continued. That which possesses the attributes of "consisting of mind" and so on cannot be the individual soul, because there is a difference of words.

In the Satapatha Brahmana the same idea is expressed in similar words "As is a grain of rice, or a grain of barley, or a canary seed or the kernel of a canary seed", so is that golden person in the Self (X. 6-3-2). Here one word i.e. the locative "in the Self" denotes the individual soul or the embodied self, and a different word, viz. the nominative 'person' denotes the self distinguished by the attributes of consisting of mind etc.

We, therefore, conclude that the two are different and that the individual self is not referred to in the text under discussion.

Smritescha I.2.6 (37)

From the Smriti also (we know the embodied self or the individual soul is different from the one referred to in the text under discussion).

Smriteh: from the Smriti; Cha: and, also.

The argument in support of Sutra 1 is continued.

It is so declared also in the Smriti (Bhagavad Gita). From the Smriti also it is evident that the individual soul is markedly different from the subject matter of the text under discussion.

Smriti also declares the difference of the individual soul and the Supreme Soul "The Lord dwelleth in the hearts of all beings, O Arjuna, by His illusive power, causing all beings to revolve, as though mounted on a potter's wheel" (Gita: XVIII-61).

The difference is only imaginary and not real. The difference exists only so long as Avidya or ignorance lasts and the significance of the Mahavakya or Great Sentence of the Upanishads 'Tat Tvam Asi' (Thou art That) has not been realised. As soon as you grasp the truth that there is only one universal Self, there is an end to Samsara or phenomenal life with its distinction of bondage, final emancipation and the like.

Arbhakaukastvattadvyapadesaccha neti chet na
nichayyatvadevam vyomavaccha I.2.7 (38)

If it be said that (the passage does) not (refer to Brahman) on account of the smallness of the abode (mentioned i.e. the heart) and also on account of the denotation of that (i.e. of minuteness) we say, No; because (Brahman) has thus to be meditated and because the case is similar to that of ether.

Arbhakaukastvat: because of the smallness of the abode; Tadvyapadesat: because of the description or denotation as such i.e. minuteness; Cha: and also; Na: not; Iti: not so; Chet: if; Na: not; Nichayyatvat: because of meditation (in the heart); Evam: thus, so; Vyomavat: like the ether; Cha: and.

An objection to Sutra 1 is raised and refuted.

Now an objection is raised, that the Manomaya of the Chhandogya Upanishad cannot be Brahman, but is Jiva, because the description there is more applicable to an individual soul than to Brahman. The text says "He is my self within the heart, smaller than a corn of rice, smaller than a mustard seed" Chh. Up. III-14-3. This shows that the Manomaya occupies very little space, in fact it is atomic and so cannot be Brahman.

This Sutra refutes it. Though a man is the king of the whole earth, he could at the same time be called the king of Ayodhya as well. The Infinite is called the atomic because He can be realised in the minute space of the chamber of the heart, just as Lord Vishnu can be realised in the sacred stone called Saligrama.

Although present everywhere, the Lord is pleased when meditated upon as abiding in the heart. The case is similar to that of the eye of the needle. The ether, though all-pervading, is spoken of as limited and minute, with reference to its connection with the eye of the needle. So it is said of Brahman also.

The attributes of limitation of abode and of minuteness are ascribed to Brahman only for the convenience of conception and meditation, because it is difficult to meditate on the all-pervading, infinite Brahman. This will certainly not go against His Omnipresence. These limitations are simply imagined in Brahman. They are not at all real.

In the very passage Brahman is declared to be infinite like space, and all pervading like ether, 'Greater than the earth, greater than the sky, greater than heaven, greater than all these worlds.' Though Brahman is all-pervading, yet He becomes atomic through His mysterious inconceivable power to please His devotees. He appears simultaneously everywhere, wherever His devotees are. This simultaneous appearance of the atomic Brahman everywhere establishes His all-pervadingness even in His manifested form. Gopis saw Lord Krishna everywhere.

The opponent says: If Brahman has His abode in the heart, which heart-abode is a different one in each body, it would follow, that He is attended by all the imperfections which attach to beings having different abodes, such as parrots shut up in different cages viz., want of unity being made up of parts, non-permanency, etc. He would be subject to experiences originating from connection with bodies. To this the author gives a suitable reply in the following Sutra.

Sambhogapraptiriti chet na vaiseshyat I.2.8 (39)

If it be said that (being connected with the hearts of all individual souls to) Its (Brahman's) Omnipresence, it would also have experience (of pleasure and pain) (we say) not so, on account of the difference in the nature (of the two).

Sambhogaprapti: that it has experience of pleasure and pain; Iti: thus; Chet: if; Na: not; Vaiseshyat: because of the difference in nature.

Another objection is raised and refuted here.

The word 'Sambhoga' denotes mutual experience or common experience. The force of 'Sam' in 'Sambhoga' is that of 'Saha'. The mere dwelling within a body is not a cause always of experiencing the pleasures or pains connected with that body. The experience is subject to the influence of the good and evil actions. Brahman has no such Karma. He is actionless (Nishkriya, Akarta). In the Gita the Lord says, "The Karmas do not touch Me and I have no attachment to the fruit of Karmas – Na mam karmani limpanti na me karmaphale spriha".

There is no equality in experience between Brahman and the individual soul, because Brahman is all-pervading, of absolute power; the individual soul is of little power and absolutely dependent.

Though Brahman is all-pervading and connected with hearts of all individual souls and is also intelligent like them, He is not subject to pleasure and pain. Because the individual soul is an agent, he is the doer of good and bad actions. Therefore he experiences pleasure and pain. Brahman is not the doer. He is the eternal Satchidananda. He is free from all evil.

The opponent says: The individual soul is in essence identical with Brahman. Therefore Brahman is also subject to the pleasure and pain experienced by the Jiva or the individual soul. This is a foolish argument. This is a fallacy. In reality there is neither the individual soul nor pleasure and pain. Pleasure and pain are mental creations only. When the individual soul is under the influence of ignorance or Avidya, he foolishly thinks that he is subject to pleasure and pain.

Proximity will not cause the clinging of pain and pleasure to Brahman. When something in space is affected by fire, the space itself cannot be affected by fire. Is ether blue because boys call it so? Not even the slightest trace of experience of pleasure and pain can be attributed to Brahman.

Sruti declares "Two birds are living together as friends on the same tree i.e. body. One of them, i.e. the individual soul, eats the tasteful fruit i.e. enjoys the fruit of his actions: and the other i.e. the Supreme Soul witnesses without eating anything, i.e. without partaking of fruit" Mun. Up. III-1-1.

Sutras 1 to 8 have established that the subject of discussion in the quoted portion of the Chhandogya Upanishad Chapter III-14 is Brahman and not the individual soul.

Attradhikaranam: Topic 2 (Sutras 9-10)

The Eater is Brahman.

Atta characharagrahanat I.2.9 (40)

The Eater (is Brahman), because both the movable and immovable (i.e. the whole world) is taken (as His food).

Atta: the Eater; Characharagrahanat: because the movable and immovable (i.e. the whole universe) is taken (as His food).

A passage from the Kathopanishad is now taken up for discussion. We read in Kathopanishad I.2.25 "Who then knows where He is, to Whom the Brahmanas and Kshatriyas are (as it were) but food, and death itself a condiment?" This text shows by means of the words 'food' and 'condiment' that there is some eater.

Who is this eater? Is it the fire referred to in as eater: "Soma indeed is food, and fire eater" Bri. Up. I-4-6, or is it individual soul referred to as eater "One of them eats the sweet fruit" Mun. Up. III-I-I, or the Supreme Self?

We reply that the eater must be the Supreme Self because it is mentioned what is movable and what is immovable. The entire universe is re-absorbed in Brahman. All things movable and immovable are here to be taken as constituting the food of Brahman while Death itself is the condiment. The eater of the whole world, the consumer of all these things in their totality can be Brahman alone and none else.

The Brahmanas and the Kshatriyas are mentioned as mere examples as they are foremost of created beings and as they hold a pre-eminent position. The words are merely illustrative.

The whole universe sprinkled over by Death is referred to here as the food. Condiment is a thing which renders other things more palatable and causes other things to be eaten with great relish. Therefore the Death itself is consumed, being a condiment as it were, it makes other things palatable. Therefore the Eater of the entire world made palatable by Death, can mean only Brahman in His aspect of Destroyer. He withdraws the whole universe within Himself at the time of Pralaya or dissolution. Therefore the Supreme Self must be taken here as the Eater.

The opponent says: Brahman cannot be an eater. The Sruti declares "The other looks on without eating". We say that this has no validity. The passage aims at denying the fruition of the results of works. It is not meant to deny the re-absorption of the world into Brahman; because it is well-established by all the Vedanta-texts that Brahman is the cause of the creation, sustenance and re-absorption of the world. Therefore the Eater can here be Brahman only.

Prakaranaccha I.2.10 (41)

And on account of the context also the (eater is Brahman).

Prakaranat: from the context; Cha: also, and.

An argument in support of Sutra 9 is given.

Brahman is the subject of the discussion. In the beginning Nachiketas asks Yama, "Tell me of that which is above good and evil, which is beyond cause and effect and which is other than the past and future" Katha Up. I-2-14. Yama replies, "I will tell you in brief. It is OM" Katha Up. I-2-15. This Atman is neither born nor does it die" Katha Up. I-2-18. He finally includes "of whom the Brahmana and the Kshatriya classes are, as it were, food and Death itself a condiment or pickle, how can one thus know where that Atman is?"

All this obviously shows that Brahman is the general topic. To adhere to the general topic is the proper proceeding. Hence the Eater is Brahman. Further the clause "Who then knows where he is", shows that realisation is very difficult. This again points to the Supreme Self.

The force of the word 'Cha' (and) in the Sutra is to indicate that the Smriti is also to the same effect, as says the Gita.

"Thou art the Eater of the worlds, of all that moves and stands; worthier of reverence than the Guru's self, there is none like Thee".

Guhapravishtadhikaranam: Topic 3 (Sutras 11-12)

The dwellers in the cave of the heart are the individual soul and Brahman.

Guham pravistavatmanau hi taddarsanat I.2.11 (42)

The two who have entered into the cavity (of the heart) are indeed the individual soul and the Supreme Soul, because it is so seen.

Guham: in the cavity (of the heart) Pravishtau: the two who have entered; Atmanau: are the two selfs (individual soul and the Supreme Soul); Hi: indeed, because; Taddarsanat: because it is so seen.

Another passage of the Kathopanishad is taken up for discussion. In the same Kathopanishad I-3-1 we read, "Having entered the cavity of the heart, the two enjoy the reward of their works in the body. Those who know Brahman call them shade and light: likewise those householders who perform the Trinachiketa sacrifice".

The doubt arises here whether the couple referred to are the individual soul and Buddhi (intellect).

In the passage under discussion, the couple referred to are the individual soul and the Supreme Self, for these two, being both intelligent selfs, are of the same nature. We see that in ordinary life also whenever a number is mentioned, beings of the same class are understood to be meant. When a bull is brought to us, we say 'bring another, look out for a second'. It means another bull, not a horse or a man. So, if with an intelligent self, the individual soul, another is said to enter the cavity of the heart, it must refer to another of the same class i.e. to another intelligent being and not to the intellect (Buddhi) which is insentient.

Sruti and Smriti speak of the Supreme Self as placed in the cave. We read in Kathopanishad I-2-12 "The ancient who is hidden in the cave, who dwells in the abyss". We also find in Taittiriya Upanishad II-1 "He who knows him hidden in the cave, in the highest ether" and "search for the self who entered into the cave". A special abode for the all-pervading Brahman is given for the purpose of conception and meditation. This is not contrary to reason.

Sometimes the characteristics of one in a group are indirectly applied to the whole group as when we say "The men with an umbrella" where only one has an umbrella and not the whole group. Similarly here also, though it is only one who is enjoying the fruits of actions both are spoken of as eating the fruits.

The word 'pibantau' is in the dual number meaning 'the two drink while as a matter of fact, the Jiva only drinks the fruit of his works and not the Supreme Self. We may explain the passage by saying that while the individual soul drinks, the Supreme Self also is said to drink because he makes the soul to drink. The individual soul is the direct agent, the Supreme Self is the causal agent that is to say the individual self directly drinks while the Supreme Self causes the individual soul to drink.

The phrases 'shade' and 'light' show the difference between the Infinite Knowledge of the Supreme Self and the finite knowledge of the Jiva, or that the Jiva is bound down to the chain of Samsara, while the Supreme Self is above Samsara.

We, therefore, understand by the 'two entered into the cave', the individual soul and the Supreme Self.
Another reason for this interpretation is given in the following Sutra.

Viseshanaccha I.2.12 (43)

And on account of the distinctive qualities (of the two mentioned in subsequent texts).

Viseshanat: on account of distinctive qualities; Cha: and.

An argument in support of Sutra 11 is given.

This is clear also from the description in other portions of the same scripture viz. Kathopanishad.

Further the distinctive qualities mentioned in the text agree only with the individual soul and the Supreme Soul. Because in a subsequent passage (I-3-3) the characteristics of the two that have entered the cavity of the heart are given. They indicate that the two are the individual soul and Brahman. "Know that the Self to be the charioteer, the body to be the chariot." The individual soul is represented as a charioteer driving on through the transmigratory existence and final emancipation. Further it is said "He attains the end of his journey, that highest place of Vishnu" Katha Up. I-3-9. Here it is represented that the Supreme Self is the goal of the driver's course. The two are mentioned here as the attainer and the goal attained i.e. the individual soul or Jiva and the Supreme Soul or Brahman.

In the preceding passage (I-2-12) also it is said "The wise, who by means of meditation on his Self, recognises the Ancient who is difficult to be seen, who has entered into the dark, who is hidden in the cave of the heart, who abides in the abyss as God, he indeed leaves joy and sorrow far behind". Here the two are spoken of as the meditator and the object of meditation.

Moreover the Supreme Self is the general topic. It is therefore obvious that the passage under discussion refers to the individual soul and the Supreme Self.

Antaradhikaranam: Topic 4 (Sutras 13-17)

The person within the eye is Brahman.

Antara upapatteh I.2.13 (44)

The person within (the eye) (is Brahman) on account of (the attributes mentioned therein) being appropriate (only to Brahman).

Antara: inside (the eye), the being within the eye; Upapatteh: on account of the appropriateness of (attributes).

The being within the eye is Brahman, because it is reasonable to construe the passage as applying to the Supreme Self than to anything else.

The form of worship in another part of Chhandogya Upanishad (IV-15-1), taking the being within the eyes as the Supreme Self, is taken up as the subject for discussion.

In Chhandogya Upanishad IV-15-1 we read, "This person that is seen in the eye is the Self. This is Immortal and fearless, this is Brahman". The doubt here arises whether this passage refers to the reflected self which resides in the eye, or to the individual soul or to the self of some deity which presides over the organ of sight or to the Supreme Self.

The Sutra says that the person in the eye is Brahman only, because the attributes 'Immortal', 'fearless', etc., mentioned here accord with the nature of the Supreme Self only.

The attributes 'being untouched by sin', being 'Samyadvama' etc., are applicable to the Supreme Self only. The attributes of being 'Vamani' or the leader of all and 'Bhamani', the All-effulgent, applied to the person in the eye are appropriate in the case of Brahman also.

Therefore, on account of agreement, the person within the eye is the Supreme Self or Brahman only.

Sthanadivyapadesaccha I.2.14 (46)

And on account of the statement of place and so on.

Sthanadi: the place and the rest; Vyapadesat: on account of the statement; Cha: and.

An argument in support of Sutra 13 is given.

In other Srutis location etc., i.e., abode, name and form are attributed to Brahman Himself to facilitate meditation. But how can the all-pervading Brahman be in a limited space like the eye? Definite abode like the cavity of the heart, the eye, the earth, disc of the sun etc., is given to the all-pervading Brahman for the purpose of meditation (Upasana), just as Saligrama is prescribed for meditation on Vishnu. This is not contrary to reason.

The phrase 'and so on' which forms part of the Sutra shows that not only abode is assigned to Brahman but also such things as name and form not appropriate to Brahman which is devoid of name and form, are ascribed to It for the sake of meditation, as Brahman without qualities cannot be an object of meditation. Vide Chh. Up. 1.6.6-7. "His name is 'Ut'. He with the golden beard."

Sukhavisishtabhidhanadeva cha I.2.15 (46)

And on account of the passage referring to that which is distinguished by bliss (i.e. Brahman).

Sukha: bliss; Visishta: qualified by; Abhidhanat: because of the description; Eva: alone; Cha: and.

The argument in support of Sutra 13 is continued.

Because the text refers to the Supreme Self only and not to Jiva who is miserable.

The same Brahman which is spoken of as characterised by bliss in the beginning of the chapter in the clauses "Breath is Brahman," "Ka is Brahman" "Kha is Brahman" we must suppose It to be referred to in the present passage also, as it is proper to stick to the subject matter under discussion.

The fires taught to Upakosala about Brahman "Breath is Brahman, bliss is Brahman, the ether is Brahman" Chh. Up. IV-10-5. This same Brahman is further elucidated by his teacher as "the being in the eye".

On hearing the speech of the fires viz., "Breath is Brahman, Ka is Brahman, Kha is Brahman", Upakosala says "I understand that breath is Brahman, but I do not understand that Ka or Kha is Brahman". Therefore the fires reply "What is Ka is Kha. What is Kha is Ka".

The word Ka in ordinary language denotes sensual pleasure. If the word Kha were not used to qualify the sense of Ka one would think that ordinary worldly pleasure was meant. But as the two words Ka and Kha occur together and qualify each other, they indicate Brahman whose Self is Bliss. Therefore the reference is to Supreme Bliss and such a description can apply only to Brahman.

If the word Brahman in the clause "Ka is Brahman" were not added and if the sentence would run "Ka, Kha is Brahman", the word Ka would be only an adjective and thus pleasure being a mere quality cannot be a subject of meditation. To prevent this, both words Ka as well as Kha are joined with the word Brahman. "Ka is Brahman. Kha is Brahman". Qualities as well as persons having those qualities could be objects of meditation.

Srutopanishatkagatyabhidhanaccha I.2.16 (47)

And on account of the statement of the way of him who has known the Truth of the Upanishads.

Sruto: heard; Upanishatka: Upanishads; Gati: way; Abhidhanat: because of the statement; Cha: and.

The argument in support of Sutra 13 is continued.

The person in the eye is the Supreme Self for the following reason also. From Sruti we know of the way of the knower of Brahman. He travels after death through the Devayana path or the path of the Gods. That way is described in Prasna Up. 1-10. "Those who have sought the Self by penance, abstinence, faith and knowledge attain the Sun by the Northern Path or the path of Devayana. From thence they do not return. This is the immortal abode, free from fear, and the highest."

The knower of the "person in the eye" also goes by this path after death. From this description of the way which is known to be the way of him who knows Brahman it is quite clear that the person within the eye is Brahman.

The following Sutra shows that it is not possible for the above text to mean either the reflected Self or the Jiva or the deity in the Sun.

Anavasthiterasamhhavaccha netarah I.2.17 (48)

(The person within the eye is the Supreme Self) and not any other (i.e. the individual soul etc.) as these do not exist always; and on account of the impossibility (of the qualities of the person in the being ascribed to any of these).

Anavasthiteh: not existing always; Asambhavat: on account of the impossibility; Cha: and; Na: not; Itarah: any other.

The argument in support of Sutra 13 is continued.

The reflected self does not permanently abide in the eye. When some person comes near the eye the reflection of that person is seen in the eye. When he moves away the reflection disappears.

Surely you do not propose to have some one near the eye at the time of meditation so that you may meditate on the image in the eye. Such a fleeting image cannot be the object of meditation. The individual soul is not meant by the passage, because he is subject to ignorance, desire and action, he has no perfection. Hence he cannot be the object of meditation. The qualities like immortality, fearlessness, immanence, eternity, perfection etc., cannot be appropriately attributed to the reflected self or the individual soul or the deity in the sun. Therefore no other self save the Supreme Self is here spoken of as the person in the eye. The person in the eye (Akshi Purusha) must be viewed as the Supreme Self only.

Antaryamyadhikaranam: Topic 5 (Sutras 18-20)

The internal ruler is Brahman.

Antaryamyadhidaivadishu taddharmavyapadesat I.2.18 (49)

The internal ruler over the gods and so on (is Brahman) because the attributes of that (Brahman) are mentioned.

Antaryami: the ruler within; Adhidaivadishu: in the gods, etc.; Tat: His; Dharma: attributes; Vyapadesat: because of the statement.

A passage from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is now taken up for discussion. In Bri. Up. III-7-1 we read "He who within rules this world and the other world and all beings" and later on "He who dwells in the earth and within the earth, whom the earth does not know, whose body the earth is, who rules the earth from within, he is thy Self, the ruler within, the immortal" etc., III-7-3.

Here a doubt arises whether the Inner Ruler (Antaryamin) denotes the individual soul or some Yogin endowed with extraordinary powers such as for instance, the power of making his body subtle or the presiding deity or Pradhana or Brahman (the Highest Self).

The Purvapakshin or the opponent says: Some god presiding over the earth and so on must be the Antaryamin. He only is capable of ruling the earth as he is endowed with the organs of action. Rulership can rightly be ascribed to him only. Or else the ruler may be some Yogin who is able to enter within all things on account of his extraordinary Yogic powers. Certainly the supreme Self cannot be meant as He doesnot possess the organs of actions which are needed for ruling.

We give the following reply. The internal Ruler must be Brahman or the Supreme Self. Why so? Because His qualities are mentioned in the passage under discussion. Brahman is the cause of all created things. The universal rulership is an appropriate attribute of the Supreme Self only. Omnipotence, Selfhood, Immortality, etc., can be ascribed to Brahman only.

The passage "He whom the earth does not know," shows that the Inner Ruler is not known by the earth-deity. Therefore it is obvious that the Inner Ruler is different from that deity. The attributes 'unseen', 'unheard', also refer to the Supreme Self only Which is devoid of shape and other sensible qualities.

He is also described in the section as being all-pervading, as He is inside and the Ruler within of everything viz., the earth, the sun, water, fire, sky, the ether, the senses, etc. This also can be true only of the Highest Self or Brahman. For all these reasons, the Inner Ruler is no other but the Supreme Self or Brahman.

Na cha smartamataddharmabhilapat I.2.19 (50)

And (the Internal Ruler is) not that which is taught in the Sankhya Smriti (viz., Pradhana) because qualities contrary to its nature are mentioned (here).

Na: neither; Cha: also, and; Smartam: that which is taught in (Sankhya) Smriti; Ataddharmabhilapat: because qualities contrary to its nature are mentioned.

An argument in support of Sutra 18 is given.

The word Antaryamin (Inner Ruler) cannot relate to Pradhana as it has not got Chaitanya (sentiency) and cannot be called Atman.

The Pradhana is not this 'Internal Ruler' as the attributes "He is the immortal, unseen Seer, unheard Hearer" etc., "There is no other seer but He, there is no other thinker but He, there is no other Knower but He. This is the Self, the Ruler within, the Immortal. Everything else is of evil" (Bri. Up. III-7-23), cannot be ascribed to the non-intelligent blind Pradhana.

The Purvapakshin or the opponent says: Well then, if the term 'Internal Ruler' cannot denote the Pradhana as it is neither a Self nor seer it can certainly denote the individual soul or Jiva who is intelligent and therefore sees, hears, thinks and knows, who is internal and therefore of the nature of Self. Further the individual soul is capable of ruling over the organs, as he is the enjoyer. Therefore the internal ruler is the individual soul or Jiva.

The following Sutra gives a suitable answer to this.

Sariraschobhaye'pi hi bhedenainamadhiyate I.2.20 (51)

And the individual soul (is not the Internal Ruler) for both also (i.e. both recensions viz., the Kanva and Madhyandina Sakhas of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad) speak of it as different (from the Internal Ruler.)

Sarirah: the embodied, the individual soul; Cha: also, and; (Na: not); Ubhaye: the both namely the recentions Kanva and Madhyandinas; Api: even, also; Hi: because; Bhedena: by way of difference; Enam: this, the Jiva; Adhiyate: read, speak of, indicate.

The argument in support of Sutra 18 is continued. The word 'not' is to be supplied from the preceding Sutra.

The followers of both Sakhas speak in their texts of the individual soul as different from the internal ruler. The Kanvas read "He who dwells in Knowledge – Yo vijnane tishthan" Bri. Up. III-7-22. Here 'knowledge' stands for the individual soul. The Madhyandinas read "He who dwells in the Self – ya atmani tishthan". Here 'Self' stands for the individual soul. In either reading the individual soul is spoken of as different from the 'Internal Ruler', for the Internal Ruler is the Ruler of the individual soul also.

The difference between the Jiva and Brahman is one of Upadhi (limitation). The difference between the Internal Ruler and the individual soul is merely the product of ignorance or Avidya. It has its reason in the limiting adjunct, consisting of the organs of action, presented by ignorance. The difference is not absolutely true. Because the Self within is one only; two internal Selfs are not possible. But on account of limiting adjuncts the one Self is practically treated as if it were two, just as we make a distinction between the ether of the jar and the universal ether.

The scriptural text "where there is duality, as it were, there one sees another" intimates that the world exists only in the sphere of ignorance, while the subsequent text "But when the Self only is all this how should one see another" declares that the world disappears in the sphere of true knowledge.

Adrisyatvadhikaranam: Topic 6 (Sutras 21-23)

That which cannot be seen is Brahman.

Adrisyatvadigunako dharmokteh I.2.21 (52)

The possessor of qualities like indivisibility etc., (is Brahman) on account of the declaration of Its attributes.

Adrisyatva: invisibility; Adi: and the rest, beginning with; Gunakah: one who possesses the quality (Adrisyatvadigunakah: possessor of qualities like invisibility); Dharmokteh: because of the mention of qualities.

Some expressions from the Mundaka Upanishad are now taken up as the subject for discussion.

We read in the Mundaka Upanishad (I-1-5 & 6) "The higher knowledge is this by which the indestructible is known or realised. That which cannot be seen nor seized, which is without origin and qualities, without hands and feet, the eternal, all-pervading, omnipresent, infinitesimal, that which is imperishable, that it is which the wise consider as the source of all beings."

Here the doubt arises whether the source of all beings which is spoken of as characterised by invisibility etc., is Pradhana, or the individual soul, or the Supreme Self or the Highest Lord.

That which here is spoken of as the source of all beings (Bhutayoni) characterised by such attributes as invisibility and so on, can be the Supreme Self or Brahman only, nothing else, because qualities like "He is all-knowing (Sarvajna), all-perceiving (Sarvavit) Mun. Up. I-1-9 are true only of Brahman and not of the Pradhana which is non-intelligent. Certainly it cannot refer to the Jiva or the embodied soul as he is narrowed by his limiting conditions. The section also, in which these passages occur relates to the Highest Knowledge or Para Vidya. Therefore it must refer to Brahman and not to Pradhana or Jiva.

Viseshanabhedavyapadesabhyam cha netarau I.2.22 (53)

The other two (viz. the individual soul and the Pradhana) are not (the source of all beings) for distinctive attributes and differences are stated.

Viseshanabhedavyapadesabhyam: on account of the mention of distinctive attributes and differences; Cha: and; Na: not; Itarau: the other two.

An argument in support of Sutra 21 is given.

The source of all beings is Brahman or the Supreme Self but not either of the two others viz., the individual soul for the following reason also.

We read in the Mundaka Upanishad II.1, 2 "That the heavenly person is without a body. He is both without and within, is birthless, without breath, and without mind, pure, higher than the high, Imperishable." The distinctive attributes mentioned here such as "being of a heavenly nature" (Divya), 'Birthless', 'Pure', etc., can in no way belong to the individual soul who erroneously regards himself to be limited by name and form as presented by Avidya or ignorance and erroneously considers himself limited, impure, corporeal, etc. Therefore the passage obviously refers to the Supreme Self or Brahman who is the subject of all the Upanishads.

"Higher than the high, Imperishable (Pradhana)" intimates that the source of all beings spoken of in the last Sutra is not the Pradhana but something different from it. Here the term imperishable means the Avyaktam or Avyakrita (the unmanifested or the undifferentiated) which represents the potentiality or the seed of all names and forms, contains the subtle parts of the material elements and abides in the Lord. As it is no effect of anything, it is high when compared to all effects. Intellect, mind, egoism, the Tanmatras, the organs are all born from it. "Aksharat paratah parah – Higher than the high Imperishable", which expresses a difference clearly indicates that the Supreme Self or Brahman is meant here. Beyond Pradhana or Avyaktam is Para Brahman. It is a settled conclusion therefore that the source of all beings must mean the highest Self or Brahman only.

A further argument in favour of the same conclusion is given in the following Sutra.

Rupopanyasaccha I-2-23 (54)

And on account of its form being mentioned (the passage under discussion refers to Brahman).

Rupa: form; Upanyasat: because of the mention; Cha: and.

The argument in support of Sutra 21 is continued.

Further His form is described in the Mundaka Upanishad II-1-4 "Fire is His head, His eyes the sun and the moon, the quarters His ears, His speech the Vedas, the wind His breath, His heart the universe; from His feet came the earth, He is indeed the inner Self of all beings."

This statement of form can refer only to the Supreme Lord or Brahman. Such a description is appropriate only in the case of Brahman, because the Jiva is of limited power and because Pradhana (matter) cannot be the Soul or inner Self of living beings.

As the "source of all beings" forms the general topic, the whole passage from "From Him is born breath" upto "He is the inner Self of all beings" refers to that same source.

"The Person indeed is all this, sacrifice, knowledge etc." Mun. Up. II-1-10, intimates that the source of all beings referred to in the passage under discussion is none other than the Supreme Self or Brahman, for He is the inner Self of all beings.

Vaisvanaradhikaranam: Topic 7 (Sutras 24-32)

Vaisvanara is Brahman.

Vaisvanarah sadharanasabdaviseshat I.2.24 (55)

Vaisvanara (is Brahman) on account of the distinction qualifying the common terms ("Vaisvanara" and "Self").

Vaisvanarah: Vaisvanara; Sadharana sabda: common word; Viseshat: because of the distinction.

This Sutra proves that the word "Vaisvanara" used in Sruti for worship indicates Brahman.

We read in Chh. Up. V.18.1-2 "He who meditates on the Vaisvanara Self, extending from heaven to earth as identical with his own Self, eats food in all beings, in all selfs. Of that Vaisvanara Self Sutejas (heaven) is the head, the sun the eye, the feet the earth, the mouth the Ahavaniya fire."

Here the doubt arises whether by the term "Vaisvanara" we have to understand the gastric fire or the elemental fire, or the god presiding over the elemental fire, or the individual soul or the Supreme Self (Brahman).

The Purvapakshin or the opponent says that Vaisvanara is the gastric fire because it is said in Bri. Up. V-9 "Agni Vaisvanara is the fire within man by which the food that is eaten is digested. Or it may denote fire in general or the deity which presides over the elemental fire or the individual soul who being an enjoyer is in close vicinity to Vaisvanara fire.

The Siddhantin says here that the Supreme Self or Brahman only is referred to on account of the qualifying adjuncts to these words. The adjuncts are "Heaven is the head of this Vaisvanara Self, the Sun its eyes, etc." This is possible only in the case of the Supreme Self.

Further in the passage "He eats food in all worlds, in all beings, in all selfs." This is possible only if we take the term Vaisvanara to denote the Highest Self.

The fruit of meditation on this Vaisvanara Self is the attainment of all desires and destruction of all sins (Chh. Up. V.24.3). This can only be true if the Supreme Self is meant. Moreover the chapter begins with the enquiry "What is our Self? What is Brahman?" The words 'Self' and 'Brahman' are marks of Brahman and indicate the Supreme Self only. The word 'Brahman' is used in its primary sense. Therefore it is proper to think that the whole chapter treats of Brahman only. Moreover, etymologically also the word Vaisvanara means Brahman; because it is composed of two words "Visva" meaning "all" and "Nara" meaning 'men' namely "He who contains all men within himself." Such a being is Brahman only.

It is a settled conclusion, therefore, that only Brahman can be meant by the term "Vaisvanara".

Smaryamanamanumanam syaditi I.2.25 (56)

Because that (cosmic form of the Supreme Lord) which is described in the Smriti is an indicatory mark or inference (from which we infer the meaning of this Sruti text under discussion).

Smaryamanam: mentioned in the Smriti; Anumanam: indicatory mark, inference; Syat: may be; Iti: because thus.

An argument in support of Sutra 24 is given. The word 'Iti' denotes a reason. It points to a corroborative statement which expresses the same thing as the Sruti. The Smritis interpret the passages of the Sruti. Therefore where a doubt arises as to the significance of a passage in the Sruti, the Smriti may be consulted in order to get more light on the subject matter. The Smriti gives a description of the cosmic form of the Highest Lord as "He whose mouth is fire, whose head is heaven, whose navel the ether, whose eyes the sun, whose ears the regions, reverence to Him, whose body is the world." This is in agreement with the description in the text under discussion. The same Lord who is spoken of in the Sruti is described in the Smriti also.

In the Bhagavad Gita XV-14 the word Vaisvanara is expressly applied to the Lord – "I having become the fire of life, take possession of the bodies of breathing beings and united with the life-breaths, I digest the four kinds of food." Here a truth about the Lord is declared in a Smriti passage and from it we may infer that the Vaisvanara Vidya taught in the Chhandogya Upanishad also refers to this mystery of the Lord. Hence Vaisvanara is the Highest Lord. Therefore it is a settled conclusion that the Supreme Lord is referred to in the text.

In the following Sutra the author removes the doubt that the Vaisvanara may denote the gastric fire.

Sabdadibhyo'ntahpratisthanaccha neti chet na tatha drishtyupadesat asambhavat purushamapi chainamadhiyate I.2.26 (57)

If it be said that (Vaisvanara is) not (Brahman) or the Highest Lord on account of the term (viz., Vaisvanara which has a different settled meaning viz., gastric fire) etc., and on account of his abiding within (which is a characteristic of the gastric fire) (we say) no, 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 they (the Vajasaneyins) describe him (viz. the Vaisvanara) as man (which term cannot apply to the gastric fire).

Sabdadibhyah: on account of the word; Antah: within; Pratishthanat: because of abiding; Cha: and; Na: not; Iti chet: if it be said; Na: not so; Tatha: thus, as such; Drishtyupadesat: on account of the instructions to conceive it; Asambhavat: because of impossibility; Purusham: as person; Api: also; Cha: and; Evam: him; Adhyate: (they) describe.

The argument in support of Sutra 24 is continued.

The Purvapakshin raises the following objection. The ordinary meaning of "Vaisvanara" is fire. Moreover scripture speaks of the Vaisvanara as abiding within. "He knows him abiding within man" Sat. Br. 10-6-1-11 which applies to the gastric fire only. Therefore the gastric fire alone and not Brahman is referred to in the text under discussion.

This Sutra refutes this objection. The Siddhantin gives the following reply. The Sruti here teaches the worship of Brahman in the gastric fire by way of meditation (Upasana) analogously to such passages as "Let a man meditate on the mind as Brahman" Chh. Up. III-18-1.

Moreover the gastric fire cannot have heaven for its head, and so on. Further the Vajasaneyins consider Vaisvanara as a man (Purusha). "This Agni Vaisvanara is a man" Sat. Br. 10.6.1-11.

Therefore "Vaisvanara" here refers to Brahman only. In the following Sutra the author sets aside the view that Vaisvanara of this passage means the Devata called Agni or the elemental fire.

Ata eva na devata bhutam cha I.2.27 (58)

For the same reasons (the Vaisvanara) cannot be the deity (fire) or the element (fire).

Ata eva: for the same reasons; Na: (is) not; Devata: the presiding deity of fire; Bhutam: the element of fire; Cha: and.

The argument in support of Sutra 24 is continued.

The Purvapakshin says: the presiding deity of fire is a mighty being. He is endowed with great lordliness and power. Therefore heaven, etc., may very appropriately be its head and other members. Therefore the passage may very well apply to him.

For the same reasons stated in Sutra 26 Vaisvanara is neither the divinity of fire nor the element of fire. The elemental fire is mere heat and light. The heaven and so on cannot properly be ascribed as its head and so on, because an effect cannot be the Self of another effect. Again the heavenly world cannot be ascribed as head, etc., to the god of fire, because it is not the Supreme Cause but a mere effect and its power or glory depends on the Supreme Lord. To them the word "Atman" could not appropriately be applicable at all.

Sakshadapyavirodham Jaiminih I.2.28 (59)

Jaimini (declares that there is) no contradiction even (if by Vaisvanara) (Brahman is) directly (taken as the object of worship).

Sakshat: directly; Api: also, even; Avirodham: no objection, no contradiction; Jaiminih: (so says) Jaimini.

The argument in support of Sutra 24 is continued.

Jaimini says that it is not necessary to state that what is meant by Vaisvanara is fire as a symbol of God and that the view that it means Brahman directly and in a primary sense is quite consistent and appropriate. The very word 'Vaisvanara' means the totality of life and applies to Brahman as he is the Soul of all (Sarvatmatvat).

This Sutra declares that 'Vaisvanara' can be taken directly to mean Brahman as an object of meditation, because Vaisvanara also means the universal man i.e., the all-pervading Brahman Himself. As the word Vaisvanara literally means "He to whom belong all men" or "who is the leader (Nara) of all (Visva)" so the word Vaisvanara denotes etymologically the Supreme Brahman.

Abhivyakterityasmarathyah I.2.29 (60)

On account of the manifestation, so says Aasmarathya.

Abhivyakteh: because of manifestation; Iti: thus, so; Aasmarathyah: (says) Asmarathya.

The argument in support of Sutra 24 is continued.

In the Chhandogya Upanishad under discussion Vaisvanara is described as having the size of a span. How can the Infinite Brahman be limited by the measure of a Pradesa or a span? To this objection the author gives his answer in the following Sutra.

The sage Aasmarathya says that for the benefit of the worshipper the Infinite Brahman manifests Himself in the finite individually being localised in limited places such as the body or the heart of the human being. Therefore there is no incongruity in using the word "Vaisvanara" (even standing for the gastric fire) to signify Brahman. Even though Brahman is all-pervading, yet He specially manifests Himself as extending from heaven to earth or in the heart for the sake of His devotees.

Asmarathya says that the Infinite is realised through His grace in the limited space of mental image in the mind or a physical image without. The devotees who meditate on Brahman in their heart as having the size of a span, see Him of that size, because He manifests Himself to them in that form.

This is the opinion of Aasmarathya.

Hence, according to the opinion of the teacher Aasmarathya the scriptural text which speaks of Him who is measured by a span may refer to the Supreme Self or the Highest Lord.

Anusmriterbadarih I.2.30 (61)

For the sake of meditation or constant remembrance – so says the sage Badari.

Anusmriteh: for the sake of meditation or constant remembrance; Baadarih: (so says) the sage Baadari.

The argument in support of Sutra 24 is continued.

The sage Baadari is of opinion that this measure of a span is a mental device to facilitate meditation.

He says that the size of the thumb refers to a mental image and not to the actual size.

The Supreme Lord may be called 'measured by a span' because He is remembered or meditated, by means of the mind, which is seated in the heart which is measured by a span. The size of the heart is that of a span. As Brahman is meditated as abiding in the lotus of the heart, the aspirant involuntarily associates him with the size of a span. This mental association or Anusmriti is the cause why Brahman is called Pradesamatra, the measure of a span.

Therefore Vaisvanara may well stand for Brahman.

Sampatteriti jaiministatha hi darsayati I.2.31 (62)

Because of imaginary identity the Supreme Lord may be called Pradesamatra (span long). So says Jaimini because so (the Sruti) declares.

Sampatteh: because of imaginary identity; Iti: thus, so; Jaimini: (says) Jaimini; Tatha: in this way; Hi: because; Darsayati: (the Sruti) declares.

The argument in support of Sutra 24 is continued.

Jaimini says that the description refers to a state of realisation of form between the crown of the head and the chin in your body. The cosmic being is worshipped through the identification of different parts of His with the different parts of the worshipper's body from the top of head to the chin. The head of the meditator or worshipper is heaven, the eyes the sun and the moon, and so on. In this meditation the cosmic being is limited to the size of a span, the distance from the crown of the head to the chin. Hence Jaimini says that the Highest Lord in the passage under discussion is considered as of the size of a span.

The Sruti also declares "The teacher said, pointing to his own head. 'This is the Highest Vaisvanara' i.e. the head of the Vaisvanara" – Vajasaneyi Brahmana.

Amananti chainamasmin I.2.32 (63)

Moreover they (the Jabalas) teach that this (Supreme Lord is to be meditated upon) in this (the space between the head and the chin).

Amananti: (they) speak, teach, recite, declare; Cha: moreover, also, and; Enam: this; Asmin: in this.

The argument in support of Sutra 24 is concluded.

Moreover the Jabalas speak in their text of the Supreme Lord in the intermediate space between the top of the head and the chin.

Jabala Sruti also says so. It says that He is to be realised Avimukta (full liberation) between Varana (sin preventor) and Nasi (sin destroyer).

Jabala Upanishad says "What is the place? The place where the eye-brows and the nose join. That is the joining place of the heavenly world represented by the upper part of the head and of the other i.e. the earthly world represented by the chin."

Sutras 27 to 32 declare that the reference to the Supreme Lord by the term "Pradesamatra as extending from heaven to the earth or as measured by a span" is quite appropriate.

By all this it is proved that Vaisvanara is the Supreme Lord.

See Jabala Upanishad-1.

Thus ends the Second Pada (Section 2) of the First Adhyaya (Chapter I) of the Brahma-Sutras of the Vedanta Philosophy.