The Tattva-Muktavali | Page 6

Oneness.

57. It must not be said that by continued meditation with intent thought
a man becomes Brahman; there will only enter into him a little merit;
as we see indeed in the case of worms, bees, and the like [Footnote: Cf.
Hitopadeša, Introd. šl. 45.];
58. By devotedly worshipping Brâhmans without ceasing, a Šûdra will
never become a Brâhman; there may enter into him a little merit, but
one of the Šûdra caste will never become a Brâhman.
59. The venerable author of the Aphorisms himself established a
duality when he spoke of the application of the terms "object" and
"agent" [Footnote: In Vedânta S. i. 2. 4, it is shown that certain
passages in the Upanishads refer to Brahman and not the embodied
soul, "because of the application therein of the terms object and agent;"
as __e.g.__ in the passage of the Chhândogya Upan. iii. 14, "I shall
attain it when I have departed from hence." These words imply an
agent who attains and also an object which is attained, __i.e.__
Brahman. Ša"nkara in his comment on i. 2. 11 illustrates this by the
passage in the Katha Upanishad iii. 1, "The two, drinking the due
reward from their works, in this world entered the cave, in the highest
place of the supreme soul" (sc. the heart)]; and thus has it been
explained by the author of the commentary by quoting passages of the
Veda which imply duality, as that which says "the two entered the
cave."
60. The soul is also shown to be different [from Brahman] by the
evidence of Šm.riti [Footnote: Cf. Vedânta Sûtras i. 2. 6, where
Ša"nkara quotes the passage from the Bhagavad Gîtâ (xviii. 61), "The
Lord of all beings abides in the region of the heart,--causing all beings
to revolve by his illusion as though mounted on a machine."]; thus their
difference is proved to be essential. If it were not so, how could the
Commentator have used such an expression as "the worshipper" and
"the worshipped" [Footnote: He uses this very expression
__upâsyopâsakabhâva__ in his Comment. on i. 2. 4.]?
61. I am sometimes happy, sometimes miserable; He, the supreme Soul,
is always essentially happy. Such is the difference,--then how can there
be identity between these two different substances?
62. He is eternally self-luminous and unobscured,-- intensely pure, the
one witness of the world; not so is the individual soul,--thus a
thunderbolt falls on the tree of the theory of Identity.

63. For those who maintain the identity of the individual and supreme
soul, the hypothesis of a __dvandva compound__ [Footnote: __I.e.__ in
the word __jîvâtmânau__] is precluded; or they bring forward such
words as __d.rishadupala__ as parallel cases [Footnote: I suppose that
this means that the __dvandva__ compound __d.rishadupala__ has
some analogy to one like __jîvâtmânau__, which involves identity, as
the upper and lower millstone form one instrument; but there (in
accordance with Pâ.n. 2. 2. 34, __vârtt.__) the less important word
meaning the upper and smaller stone (__upalâ__) is placed last (cf. 2. 2.
31)]; the __dvandva__ is only consistent with "difference," but in no
way with "identity."
64. Where identity is the meaning, there arises the __karmadhâraya__
compound,--for [such a __karmadhâraya__ as] __nîlotpala__ "the
blue-lotus" is used as implying that the two members of the compound
refer to the same subject [Footnote: But __jîvâtmânau__ is a
__dvandva__, not a __karmadhâraya__ compound.]
65. As there are many passages in Šruti such as that which says "food is
Brahman," [Footnote: Brihad Âra.nyaka Upan. v. 12. 1.] so too this
passage "I am Brahman" is to be understood as meaning worship
[Footnote: __I.e.__ this is one of the modes of worshipping Brahman
by meditating on him in some lower visible form, not as really
expressing his real nature.]
66. The doctrine of Identity is not true; wherever it appears to be
declared in Šruti, all those passages are to be taken as only meaning
worship.
67. There are many sentences in the ancient Veda which speak for
non-identity as also for identity; having expelled envy and discussed
the truth, let the wise declare that which each thinks wholesome.
68. O soul, bewildered by a deceived opinion, drive far from thy mouth
these words "I am Brahman"; how canst thou be That, O thou who art
utterly at the mercy of fate, plunged as thou art in the great ocean of
mundane existence hard to be crossed!
69. He who is the beloved of Lakshmi, the ambrosia-ocean, full of
manifest supreme joy; the water of whose feet is Gangâ, worthy to be
worshipped by Rudra and the other gods; who before creation created
all instantaneously by a movement of his brow,--how canst thou say, O
soul, "I am He,"--thou who art a poor beggar, not a king.

70. O slow of mind, how canst