Sruto: heard; Upanishatka: Upanishads; Gati: way; Abhidhanat:
because of the statement; Cha: and.
The ar gu ment in sup port of Su tra 13 is con tin ued.
The per son in the eye is the Su preme Self for the fol low ing rea - son also. From Sruti we know of the way of the knower of Brah man. He trav els af ter death through the Devayana path or the path of the Gods. That way is de scribed in Prasna Up. 1-10. “Those who have sought the Self by pen ance, ab sti nence, faith and knowl edge at tain the Sun by the North ern Path or the path of Devayana. From thence they do not re turn. This is the im mor tal abode, free from fear, and the high est.”
The knower of the “per son in the eye” also goes by this path af - ter death. From this de scrip tion of the way which is known to be the way of him who knows Brah man it is quite clear that the per son within the eye is Brah man.
The fol low ing Su tra shows that it is not pos si ble for the above text to mean ei ther the re flected Self or the Jiva or the de ity in the Sun.
AZdpñWVoagå^dmƒ ZoVa…Ÿ&
Anavasthiterasambhavaccha 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 ar gu ment in sup port of Su tra 13 is con tin ued.
The re flected self does not per ma nently abide in the eye. When some per son co mes near the eye the re flec tion of that per son is seen in the eye. When he moves away the re flec tion dis ap pears.
Surely you do not pro pose to have some one near the eye at the time of med i ta tion so that you may med i tate on the im age in the eye. Such a fleet ing im age can not be the ob ject of med i ta tion. The in di vid - ual soul is not meant by the pas sage, be cause he is sub ject to ig no - rance, de sire and ac tion, he has no per fec tion. Hence he can not be the ob ject of med i ta tion. The qual i ties like im mor tal ity, fear less ness, im ma nence, eter nity, per fec tion etc., can not be ap pro pri ately at trib - uted to the re flected self or the in di vid ual soul or the de ity in the sun. There fore no other self save the Su preme Self is here spo ken of as the per son in the eye. The per son in the eye (Akshi Purusha) must be viewed as the Su preme Self only.
Antaryamyadhikaranam: Topic 5 (Sutras 18-20) The internal ruler is Brahman.
AÝV`m©å`{YX¡dm{Xfw VÕ_©ì`nXoemV² &
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 pas sage from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is now taken up for dis cus sion. In Bri. Up. III-7-1 we read “He who within rules this world and the other world and all be ings” 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 im mor tal” etc., III-7-3.
Here a doubt arises whether the In ner Ruler (Antaryamin) de - notes the in di vid ual soul or some Yogin en dowed with ex traor di nary pow ers such as for in stance, the power of mak ing his body sub tle or the pre sid ing de ity or Pradhana or Brah man (the High est Self).
The Purvapakshin or the op po nent says: Some god pre sid ing over the earth and so on must be the Antaryamin. He only is ca pa ble of rul ing the earth as he is en dowed with the or gans of ac tion. Rul er - ship can rightly be as cribed to him only. Or else the ruler may be some Yogin who is able to en ter within all things on ac count of his ex traor di - nary Yogic pow ers. Cer tainly the Su preme Self can not be meant as He does not pos sess the or gans of ac tions which are needed for rul - ing.
We give the fol low ing re ply. The in ter nal Ruler must be Brah man or the Su preme Self. Why so? Be cause His qual i ties are men tioned in the pas sage un der dis cus sion. Brah man is the cause of all cre ated things. The uni ver sal rul er ship is an ap pro pri ate at trib ute of the Su - preme Self only. Om nip o tence, Self hood, Im mor tal ity, etc., can be as - cribed to Brah man only.
The pas sage “He whom the earth does not know,” shows that the In ner Ruler is not known by the earth-de ity. There fore it is ob vi ous that the In ner Ruler is dif fer ent from that de ity. The at trib utes ‘un seen’, ‘un heard’, also re fer to the Su preme Self only Which is de void of shape and other sen si ble qual i ties.
He is also de scribed in the sec tion as be ing all-per vad ing, as He is in side and the Ruler within of ev ery thing viz., the earth, the sun, wa - ter, fire, sky, the ether, the senses, etc. This also can be true only of the High est Self or Brah man. For all these rea sons, the In ner Ruler is no other but the Su preme Self or Brah man.