he non-intelligent
pradhana, and that thought is ascribed to it in a figurative sense only,
as it is to fire and water, is untenable. Why so? On account of the term
'Self.' For the passage Ch. Up. VI, 2, which begins 'Being only, my
dear, this was in the beginning,' after having related the creation of
fire, water, and earth ('it thought,' &c.; 'it sent forth fire,' &c.),
goes on--denoting the thinking principle of which the whole chapter
treats, and likewise fire, water, and earth, by the
term--'divinities'--as follows, 'That divinity thought: Let me now enter
those three divinities with this living Self (jiva. atman) and evolve
names and forms.' If we assumed that in this passage the non-intelligent
pradhana is figuratively spoken of as thinking, we should also have to
assume that the same pradhana--as once constituting the subject-matter
of the chapter--is referred to by the term 'that divinity.' But in that
case the divinity would not speak of the jiva as 'Self.' For by the term
'Jiva' we must understand, according to the received meaning and the
etymology of the word, the intelligent (principle) which rules over the
body and sustains the vital airs. How could such a principle be the Self
of the non-intelligent pradhana? By 'Self' we understand (a being's) own
nature, and it is clear that the intelligent Jiva cannot constitute the
nature of the non-intelligent pradhana. If, on the other hand, we refer
the whole chapter to the intelligent Brahman, to which thought in its
primary sense belongs, the use of the word 'Self' with reference to the
Jiva is quite adequate. Then again there is the other passage, 'That
which is that subtle essence, in it all that exists has its self. It is
the true. It is the Self. That art thou, O /S/vetaketu' (Ch. Up. VI, 8,
7, &c.). Here the clause 'It is the Self' designates the Being of which
the entire chapter treats, viz. the subtle Self, by the word 'Self,' and
the concluding clause, 'that art thou, O /S/vetaketu,' declares the
intelligent /S/vetaketu to be of the nature of the Self. Fire and water,
on the other hand, are non-intelligent, since they are objects (of the
mind), and since they are declared to be implicated in the evolution of
names and forms. And as at the same time there is no reason for
ascribing to them thought in its primary sense--while the employment of
the word 'Self' furnishes such a reason with reference to the Sat--the
thought attributed to them must be explained